User talk:Pinkerite

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Pinkerite!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Bongolian (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you the actual Pinkerite?

Cuz if so you do the lord's work. Amen. Carthage (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

wow thanks - but no more than the gang at RationalWiki, which is far more influential - which is why the Manhattan Institute is so mad at you all. Pinkerite (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Sysop

Carthage (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks? Pinkerite (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Everyone here that's not a troll or vandal gets sysop at some point. Sysops don't have real community authority. Carthage (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinker

Could you help improve the Steven Pinker article, cuz so far our article glosses over his connections to the racialist movement. Carthage (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help - I'll get on that soon. Pinkerite (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Bit of advice for responding. You don't need to create new sections to respond. Just format with :. Carthage (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


Thanks for your formatting assistance here and elsewhere, much appreciated. Pinkerite (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh, it's cumulative, and you don't need to create space between responses. So, your response to me would in this context be formatted as <nowiki:::</nowiki> because it's the third response in the thread. Carthage (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

E. O. Wilson

Just a heads up if you create an E. O. Wilson page. There was a previous version of such a page that was deleted. The consensus reason seemed to be that page was highly-skewed towards his racialism to the point of hyperbole, and was unlikely to be improved by the creator of the page (Draft talk:E. O. Wilson). A new page on him should have some sort of summary of his scientific work to start with. Bongolian (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take a shot at making an improved version. Pinkerite (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne

Our article on Coyne is hot garbage. Can you update it when you have the time? Carthage (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for asking. Pinkerite (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposition

I take it you are Generalrelative on Wikipedia who has recently been going after Richard Lynn, Is there any chance we can debate you on Ed Dutton's discord? LuteCurrie (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

No I am not Generalrelative on Wikipedia, and when I want to go after Richard Lynn, I do it on Pinkerite. Pinkerite (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Question: why are racialist misogynist ghouls such chickenshit cowards? Pinkerite (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

LuteCurrie is a real person, he writes for racist Mankind Quarterly, he has sock-puppets on Wikipedia. He wrote a flattering biography of Emil Kirkegaard at imdb [1]. However, Mikemikev is known to impersonate others on here, including Currie. My talk-page is locked to new users, that is the best way to get rid of trolls. Johns (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I still haven't received a response from Dutton after trying to contact him via the college email address listed on his website. I will report when he responds, or in a week or so, whichever comes first. The last items posted (before it was removed - thanks moderators) on the topic was from someone referring to me as Catlady, so it was either Kirkegaard or one of his pathetic goons.Pinkerite (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
UPDATE: well it's been over a month now, and I tried two different email addresses to contact Dutton and ask him what this "debate you on Ed Dutton's discord" is all about - but dead silence.

Image uploads

Images from recent commercial films are not likely to be public domain. In such cases, you should use the Fair Use licensing. I have updated the File:DICAPRIO.jpg licensing, accordingly. Bongolian (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Pinkerite (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Tireless worker

HardWork.jpg Tireless Worker Award
For outstanding work on the E. O. Wilson page.

A couple of minor points:

  • I put in a couple of "citation needed" tags where I could not find the citations, and where it would be appropriate.
  • You've frequently relied on Internet Archive links for copyrighted books. These may not be stable links due to the lawsuit against Internet Archive, which had an unfavorable initial ruling for the Archive regarding copyright infringement. The lawsuit is currently on appeal.[2]

Bongolian (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the kudos and info. I'll keep watching for what happens with the Internet Archive lawsuit, ready to change the links if necessary. And thank YOU for the improvements you've made to the E. O. Wilson article! Pinkerite (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"Manhattan Institute Death Star"

Isn't it the other way around, given that the Manhattan Institute is the one funding City Journal? Carthage (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, it's not a good analogy. I'll remove it. Pinkerite (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Nina Paley

For a long time I only knew of her because of her galaxy-brained centrist "both sides bad" video on the Israel-Palestine conflict. She'd prolly make for a good article. Carthage (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah... I might start out with adding a section to Kiwi Farms about people who have defended or supported that org. She is definitely an example of an especially noxious form of self-righteous and feckless TERF Pinkerite (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
She hasn't kept much of a following. I put her in the ignore bin, myself. Chillpilled (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
She's very friendly with the wingnut sociobiology network, as I documented, as well as being a Kiwi Farms apologist, and she's notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. She deserves some mention, although possibly just as part of the KF article, not her own article. Pinkerite (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Wpl

When using {{wpl}}, the first parameter is for the Wikipedia page you want to link to, the second is for what the link displays as on RW, and the third is for punctuation directly after the link so that the logo will go after the punctuation, which looks better and is proper formatting. E.g. {{wpl|Example|This is an example|.}} becomes This is an example. I notice you are often adding ||.}} to the end of the template for no apparent reason; only do that if you want a period to show after the link, as otherwise it makes the formatting/punctuation confusing. You can see the documentation for more details. Plutocow (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

thanks Pinkerite (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

A modest critique

I find myself disagreeing with a few points of your latest blogpost. The first one I'll mention is this:

Capitalism was not created by a bunch of heartless monsters out to destroy the world. It evolved in response to the problems of daily human existence.

I don't find many socialists, at least no one who actually knows their shit, disagreeing with this. Many of the "evils" of capitalism are conducted out in the open as the result of banal, heartless economics. People becoming homeless because they became priced out of the housing market. Indigenous peoples being kicked off their land and brutalized in order for an oil pipeline to be built or for more monocultural plantations and ranches to be set up. No one is seriously invoking conspiracy here, because there's no need to.

And the claim that capitalism led to "the spread of slavery" is easily disputed by the many and varied forms of slavery that have existed outside of the age of capitalism.

This is a truthism. American slavery absolutely was perpetuated through the profit motive. A big reason why the Founding Fathers decided to preserve slavery was because the slave system was the foundation of their livelihoods. If slavery was abolished they'd lose their privileged economic status. I think the argument that slavery predates capitalism is both an irrelevant truism and an example of whataboutism, because it ignores local conditions.

Capitalism is just a collection of human-value exchange mechanisms, basically an accounting system, which is being mistaken for the actual root causes of human error and weaknesses and bad judgment.

I think you're mistaking markets with capitalism itself. Capitalism requires a community of displaced laborers with no other option but to sell their labor or starve. This problem wasn't found in feudalism, which required a community of landed laborers. You note this in your article too:

The death of feudalism — a hierarchical system often seen as oppressive that kept poor people bonded to their masters’ land, which they farmed in exchange for a place to live and military protection — also left rural British peasants with no homes and no work, which eventually funneled them away from the countryside and into urban centers. These former farm workers then had to sell their labor in a newly competitive work environment in order to survive, while the state worked in concert with the new capitalists to establish a maximum wage and “clamp down on beggars.”

Capitalism is a socioeconomic system that is distinguished by its reliance on a class system of landless laborers who don't own the means of production.

As for Watson's claim that capitalism is responsible for "runaway climate change" I think that's a case of "correlation is not causation." While climate change may have happened during the age of capitalism, humans destroying their environment and the phenomenon of unintended consequences also exist outside of capitalism.

I think this is also an irrelevant truism. Capitalism incentivizes environmental degradation through the profit motive today. Just because this isn't a phenomenon unique to capitalism doesn't mean the relevant social conditions that cause eco-catastrophe today are the same as ones prior. Different times, different systems, different conditions, although there are undoubtedly similarities. All the negative externalities of ecological degradation are shunted onto the ones not responsible, or less responsible, for the damage. For example, the global south will overwhelmingly bear the brunt of climate change despite wealthy nations overwhelmingly contributing the most to global emission rates ([3]).

Feel free to correct me if I got anything wrong or misinterpreted your article in any way. Best regards, Carthage (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

First, thanks for reading the blog. Second you've given me a lot to consider, but just to start with one item: "This is a truthism. American slavery absolutely was perpetuated through the profit motive." - depending on how narrow your definition of "profit" is - is there any other reason for slavery? Pinkerite (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
There could be many, certainly. But I find a lot of those reasons to be justifications, if we decide to include wider global contexts for the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade then a lot of the slave trade, on the African side, was fueled through a need to fund wars between and within the powers of West and Central Africa at the time. Historically the slave system in the New World was set up because of the mass deaths of the indigenous population previously used as a source of unfree labor, but by the time of 1776 slavery was definitely perpetuated through the wealth-generation it provided. A lot of the anti-black and white supremacist propaganda and policies being promoted at the time was pushed from the top-down because of economic, social, and political interests as Prof. Ibraham X. Kendi notes:

[Kendi] demonstrates that self-interested discrimination gives birth to racist ideas, not the other way around.

People who benefited from slavery spread the idea that black people were inherently inferior and better off under the hand of a white Christian master. People today explain deficits in education by talking about deficits they see in black children rather than deficits in educational systems or tax, hiring, housing and other policies and practices that disadvantage black families. ([4])

Washington actually devised a fairly ingenious method to keep his slaves while the national capitol was in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania law dictated that any slave present in the state for six months or more would be declared free. Washington got around this by sending his slaves with his wife back to Mt. Vernon every six months so he could keep his slaves, and therefore his wealth. Incredibly ghoulish. Carthage (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
The issue at hand is not the methodologies of the American slave system, but rather my wondering what other motives exist for slavery outside of "profit." The American system is only one variation on slavery. There are many other examples of slave systems, from the ancient Egyptians, ancient Hebrews, Amerindians, Greeks, Romans, Africans, etc. etc. which occurred outside of the capitalist system we are talking about (said to have begun in 16th century Europe.) And slavery was rarely based on enslaving people based on ethnicity - so slavery does not always have to do with "racist ideas" per the Kendi quote. Pinkerite (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
(EC) True, but Kendi is specifically talking about the American system. One can also ascertain that the usage of forced prison labor as a source of cheaper labor than free labor is born out of the profit incentive. This specifically can also serve the dual purpose of slavery as a legal punishment, which itself also has a storied history. Another reason for slavery is to escape debt. Carthage (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I know Kendi is talking about the American slave system - that's my point - it's not relevant to the issue at hand - at least the issue I thought was at hand: whether any form of slavery has ever existed without the profit motive. Slavery as a punishment is a possible alternative to profit, but does it exist outside of the capitalist system? As far as I'm aware, slavery as punishment is exclusively the result of the peculiar phraseology of the 13th Amendment. I'd be interested in other examples if you have them. Slavery as a source of cheap labor means somebody's profiting, even if it's the state.
It could depend on how you define "profit" - I maintain that slaves were always some form of "profit" if you define profit as some benefit to the slave owner. The point being that it isn't only Capitalism that has provided a motive for slavery, as Watson seems to suggest.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

In the Roman world there were many different ways someone could be forced into slavery. These included children born into slavery, people captured in war, individuals who were sold or self-sold into slavery and infants abandoned at birth. Less common were children sold by their parents, people being enslaved for debts or as punishment for crimes and people who were victims of kidnapping and piracy. We know of two slavery markets in the city of Rome. One was by the Temple of Castor in the Forum, the other near the Saepta Julia in the Campus Martius.

- Slavery in Ancient Rome - British Museum.

In the case of the Romans slavery as punishment for a crime wasn't common but it wasn't unheard of. Of course there could still be a profit motive at play, since the definition of slavery is unfree labor. Carthage (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd bet there was a profit, in that slaves who were enslaved as punishment were probably put to work for the state or perhaps the aggrieved party. Pinkerite (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. Typically slavery only benefits one party, and that isn't the slave. Carthage (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I can't argue with that. :-) Pinkerite (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Nooceleration

[Redacted] was recently attacking you on Wikipedia on about 10 pages before being ban-hammered. He now claims to be a far-leftist [5] but this reads as a hoax. It looks like satire to me, do you know anything about this? 157.245.35.63 (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the update - I'm glad to hear [redacted] was banned from Wikipedia. Do you have more information about what he was saying about me and where on Wikipedia he said it? Pinkerite (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
[redacted] has had about 50 blocked accounts on Wikipedia. The comments I saw were left on general relative's talk-page and several others but have been deleted by admins. He was asking you and another user to have his Rational Wiki article updated claiming that he and [redacted] have been unfairly libelled as far-right when they are apparently now far-left. I find it hard to believe he is now pro-LGBT and far-left. I believe his manifesto is a hoax, he still claims to support eugenics and race realism so he hasn't really changed, if you click on his Tweet he has copied a line from [redacted]. He seems to be copying [redacted] "Why I Used to Suck, and (Hopefully) No Longer Do" essay. 109.123.74.178 (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Wow is [redacted] really that delusional? Anybody who looks at his recommended blogroll can see it's chockablock full of right-wingers and racist ghouls. And wow is he mad at Rational Wiki - keep up the good work, Rational Wiki! Pinkerite (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Andreessen

Who, or what, is Andreessen? Carthage (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Marc Andreessen, techno-fascist

Moved

I moved your Richard Haier‎ work over to the draftspace. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Pinkerite (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm

For some reason I can't reach your website. Is it down? Carthage (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be working OK for me just now. Pinkerite (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Award

HardWork.jpg Tireless Worker Award
For your work on reviving the Richard Haier article

--Goatspeed. Stalk me🎃CircularREmail2.gifasoning🎃Steal my ideas 01:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Pinkerite (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Twitter links

Because of the ephemerality of links from Shitter, can you please use archived versions of tweets as citation material? Carthage (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I will fix that soon. Pinkerite (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I already replaced the Shitter links on Steven Pinker's page with archived versions, so you don't need to worry about that. Carthage (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
OK - great! Thanks a lot. :-) Pinkerite (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Coop

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.

Oldman4 (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Please comment as soon as possible before some moderator gets to frame this the wrong way. Cromptonite (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

All things in moderation

A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

about Biological determinism

Hello, I would like to suggest a change to the "Biological determinism" page. The sentence, "Biological determinism (often shortened to "bio-determinism" and used synonymously with biologism or genetic determinism) is a common fallacy that implies that biology does and should completely dictate human behavior or the behavior of a certain subset of humans, such as black people or males," inappropriately makes an arbitrary judgment about the correctness or incorrectness of biological determinism. I need to know if you would reject this change so I can decide on my next steps.

--Justthinksd (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Might be better to take it up on the article's talkpage, rather than the talk page of some random RW user. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
While I don't think of myself as "some random RW user," I do agree that a discussion on the Talk page of the article is the best way to go. Pinkerite (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
So what's your answer?--Justthinksd (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
My answer is - talk to people who are interested in the article, which I didn't contribute to and don't have time to get involved in. There are likely some people who are interested, so take your concerns to the article's Talk page. What part of that don't you understand? Pinkerite (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Remember what you said. If you are going to reject my changes, please discuss it on the talk page first.--Justthinksd (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
If you keep pestering me I will block you. Pinkerite (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
I meant "random user" in the informal sense that you, personally, don't own the article in question; as such, whatever you tell them won't necessarily be what the community at large wants for that article. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Justthiksd If you think you have just been given carte blanche to say something racist (or sexist), you are very much mistaken. Spud (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Deletion of Bell Curve

I noticed Pinkerite has complained of article deletions by behind the scenes/sneaky legal actions; the Bell Curve article was today deleted for unexplained legal reasons - can the RMF make a statement to clarify if this is the end of the article deletions? Or is there more to come? If so what ones? I mean are articles like and London Conference on Intelligence and remaining? Pinging a bunch of people from old convo @Spud @Bongolian, @DuceMoosolini, @Christopher, @Plutocow, @Tetrapteryx. It seems very odd some "HBD" stuff is being removed but others left up. There is no logic to it. 67.205.153.253 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

A reason was given in the deletion log ("this needs a complete rewrite to be compliant with the legal settlement").[6] I am not privy to further information, and I doubt there will be any further information until all the litigation is finalized. Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Which will be when? And I assume the problem is that the name of the author of TBC is now censored everywhere on RW and that's why it's not compliant. What an insane deal with the devil. Does anybody know when the move to Oregon is happening? 10K has been collected for it. Pinkerite (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Many innocent people donated over $10,000 to RationalWiki to fight those lawsuits. Instead of fighting, RationalWiki deleted the articles, never apologized, never gave any detailed explanation, never gave any updates, never hired legal aid and stole the money and have refused to pay anyone back. RW is an utterly fraudulent organization. Theft. 128.1.171.83 (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The BoN's allegations are completely untrue. We did hire legal aid. We have followed legal advice. The site notice always stated that the money was being raised to move the Foundation to Oregon, not to fight lawsuits. We are in the process of moving to Oregon, thanks to those donations. None of the money raised was paid to anyone who tried to sue us or was pocketed under false pretenses. We have not refused to give anyone a refund. If anyone wants their money back, they can have it. There has, however, been no theft or fraud. Spud (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

They need to remove all names on this list [7], until that happens this website cannot not move on. It makes no sense why they deleted some but not the rest. Just delete the racialist stuff and go back to missional content, debunking creationism and anti-vax nonsense. 2A0B:F4C2:4:0:0:0:0:110 (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
(ec) For the eight millionth time, Racialism is pseudoscience and it is therefore missional to be "analyzing and refuting" it. And there's no reason to remove content we're not getting sued over just because it falls under the same category as lawsuit-related content. Should we also blank the other categories SLAPPed articles fell into (which, for the record, does include the Anti-vax movement)? No. This cry to return to a false sense of missionality hasn't swayed anyone before, and it's not going to.
Regards, Avarice This is the third time I've had to explain this to a random IP 01:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Well said, @Avarice, thanks. Looks like one of the "delete all racialism articles" trolls is here. I wonder who they're working for? Pinkerite (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

List of rules

Would anybody who is privy to the terms of the deal that resulted in the removal of the article for TBC send me a list of rules to meet compliancy before I take a crack at rewriting the article? I assume rule #1 is that the name of one of the authors must not be mentioned. Pinkerite (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It's probably best for you to wait 'til the Oregon move is complete before publishing a second version of the article, though you can work on it offline of course. Plutocow (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
is still mentioned multiple times in mainspace, , and hasn't been deleted. He's much more famous than any of the other people whose articles were deleted. If mentioning his name at all was forbidden, surely a rewritten article on his book would have been off the cards. Christopher (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
~ "is still mentioned..." Oops! Redacted! Pinkerite (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
And yet the deletion statement mentions that the article can be rewritten, it just has to comply with the settlement. Antares (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
There is no way to discover the terms of the settlement, AFAIK, which makes compliance difficult. But if the name can be yanked from a user's talk page it doesn't seem likely it will be permitted on an article. But maybe things will be different after the Oregon move is complete. Pinkerite (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Good to know that the (physical? legal? both?) move to Oregon is not complete. When I was revising Pro-natalism, I googled a name I did not know and the first hit was that person being interviewed by the RH whom I think we are not allowed to talk about any more. So not knowing the rules makes it difficult to write and edit articles. And since the TESCREAL space is densely networked with eugenics and racialism, its not practical to leave those topics out (even Larry Page has been talking about how maybe humans need to make way for our posthuman successors, which sounds a lot like how Untermenschen have to make way for Herrschervolk or the Indians are all vanishing and all that can be done is to describe them and collect some trinkets and bones for museums).Polydamas (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
If it were up to me I'd shut down the wiki entirely until the move was finished. But that's the Board's call, not mine. In the meantime it's probably smart practice to watch what you write until further notice. Antares (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I think I am done making edits and especially new articles except for copyediting and adding links and such. May resume after the move is announced and policies are clearly stated given that a citation to an academic publication in my local university library got removed for having the wrong author. I hope that mirroring some articles (anti-natalism needs pro-natalism) and adding some weird Internet jargon has been helpful.Polydamas (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
As of a couple of weeks ago, the move to Oregon has begun, per this documentation so I assume there will be an announcement on RW soon. Pinkerite (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Murderbot

OK this is off-topic, but it's my talk page so... if anybody here is not watching Murderbot, you need to do that now. It's up to episode four, a new one is posted each Friday - or sometimes like today, Thursday. Whether you've read the books or not, you will like it. Well, except the people here representing neo-Nazis - because it is gloriously woke. Pinkerite (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm watching it. Loved the books, enjoying the series. It's a pity it's on Apple TV which reduces its availability.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
GREAT! I'm planning to do an article here on Murderbot, although right now I'm waiting for the Oregon dust to settle. Pinkerite (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
While I am a MB big fan - I'm not sure how you would write an article which focuses on the RW mission.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Well seeing as there's an article here about My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, I think an article about a science fiction book/TV show with a main character who resonates with transgendered people; and those on the autism spectrum; set in a world with multiple genders, group marriages, no racial hierarchies; and where the bad guys are corporations might be sufficiently missional. Pinkerite (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
OK, but we are not an encyclopedia and every article must stand on its own merits. If you felt that those other articles were not mission-worthy then you could start and AFD. But the current question is why would a potential MB article fall squarely under the mission statements.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
I think my previous comment makes it pretty clear why it would fall under the mission. And I have no problem with a page for My Little Pony, it's completely valid - I am a fan of MLP FIM and considered adding to that article, since the phenomenon of Russian censorship of MLP FIM is missing. And BTW, the Contents of RW does not align perfectly with the official Mission Statement. I'm in favor of expanding the mission statement to reflect the contents, rather than deleting a bunch of articles to align perfectly with the mission statement. In terms of the influence of RW - which is why I'm here - the more articles the better. Pinkerite (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
The thing you need to explain is why MB would fall under the current mission statements. You might have a way to do it and that that is the issue you face.
Talking about other articles and changing the mission statements smacks of whataboutism and deflection.
If you have not read it, you might also want to read RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?. I am really not trying to pick a fight here, just responding to you comment about creating an article about a SF character you happen to like.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
You certainly seem to be deliberately obtuse for someone who does not want to pick a fight. In relation to Murderbot, I mentioned Autism, Transgender, Racialism and Polyamory - all topics covered in Rational Wiki. And your response is make multiple inane comments about the mission while ignoring what I've already written. Why don't you stop it now. Pinkerite (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

...The wiki's mainspace welcomes many articles that do not relate to the primary missions of RationalWiki providing that they are factually accurate and of interest to the community at large.

Courtesy of this little page here. Whether or not an article on Murderbot would be missional is another matter entirely. Antares (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It would be. Thanks for the info. Pinkerite (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

In case anybody else here likes Murderbot

Clip from upcoming episode five. Pinkerite (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Oregon

The RMF when moving to Oregon should implement a rule where sysop/mod status is only given to people who can verify their identity. I can't be bothered to present the evidence here (and it would be ignored anyway) but User:Avarice almost certainly infiltrated this wiki and is from the HDF. No one checked their edits but they were promoted to sysop status. Given the sheer lack of moderation here recently and RMF Trustees quitting over the legal drama, it's now incredibly easy to infiltrate this wiki. 67.205.182.204 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Making claims like this then refusing to present evidence gets you marked as a troll. If you continue to troll this wiki exhibiting behavior like this, you will be blocked on sight. On second thought, I think you deserve a block right now. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I do find it odd that a BoN account is chiding RW over the issue of verifying identities. And I don't see how it's any easier now to "infiltrate" this wiki - whatever that means - than it was when Avarice first began to contribute here under that name in February. Pinkerite (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately Pinkerite you don't know the history. The Richard Haier article you re-created was originally written by a "parody" sockpuppet; more specifically, a far-right troll who was imitating an anti-racist and leftist to mock/discredit this wiki through Poe's Law. Multiple of these "parody" accounts were banned but the same individual or small group of people have recently returned on a few bad faith accounts but slipped under the radar. At least one of them has been made a sysop. I have been passed emails where this person/group admits doing this (under yet more pseudonyms), gloats about their "admin privileges" and is totally smug; this person/small group has many fake names and will never openly admit their true identity (despite those "in the know" have strong evidence.) This wiki was facing serious legal trouble over the past several months so this person/group returned; I tracked them again around December 2024 and again from March to June 2025. Their agenda this time was to vote to keep articles up on certain HBD figures despite litigation to remove those articles. Their goal basically was to get this wiki taken offline since if the RMF did not comply there would have not been a settlement agreement and so likely default judgments which would end in closure of this wiki. This explains why a handful of brand new accounts suddenly showed up on the AfDs to vote and these same accounts remain preoccupied with what little HBD content still remains. More maliciously, some of these accounts also inserted libellous statements to get the RMF in more trouble (although most of those edits were undone). None of these troll accounts (likely all the same person, if not, a few being meatpuppets) of course can verify their real life identity and they remain anons with no authentic digital footprint. None will even link to a social media account of themself (it is too much trouble for them to fake an online persona on Twitter). People have asked to present evidence but as I said that would take too long, and it is unlikely to be read; only a small number of persons "in the know" release what is actually going on. Virtually no one else cares. However, I expect one day there will be a big expose somewhere. That said, ask yourself why the account I named above has refused to verify their real identity. 98.98.79.35 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I know you mean well, @Cosmikdebris but as this is my talk page, and as long as there is nothing posted that violates any legal or legal-ish agreements made by RMF, I'd rather be the one to decide what gets to stay and what gets removed. Pinkerite (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I hope you realize that this is all bullshit by a VPN-abusing troll. I'll leave this comment up for now at your request, but I will not be so kind in the future when dealing with this crap. I am really tired of all this backstage gossip and bullshit by someone who obviously has no intention of furthering the mission of this wiki. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Pinkerite (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
And BoN, I am glad that you are concerned about the fate of this Wiki. I agree that better oversight is needed and I will do what I can towards that goal. And as you are concerned about this Wiki, please consider creating an account with a user name, rather than being a fly-by rando. If you want to be taken seriously as a member in good standing, you need to at least step up that much. All people of good will can make this a better wiki and you can be a part of that. That being said, I would not be surprised if there is a nefarious scheme to get this wiki, knowing as I do the awfulness of certain promoters of race pseudoscience. But I don't think posting unsubstantiated claims is helpful. If you have evidence please feel free to share it with me at info@pinkerite.com - and thank you for your efforts to support this wiki. Pinkerite (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for showing who you really are

RE:

If you guys had any sense, you'd stop publically discussing your plans for wriggling out of a legal settlement. I hope none of you plan to replace the members of the board yourself. Christopher (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Good post! —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

So @Christopher and @Cosmikdebris - you apparently don't understand what it means to start a whole new organization in another jurisdiction, but worse, you are publicly hostile to RW's mission and promoting talking points of racist assholes who used legal blackmail SLAPP suits to crush the First Amendment. Thank you for showing who you really are. Pinkerite (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

You are illiterate. Christopher (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
LOL - it was already clear what you are, but thanks for the confirmation. Pinkerite (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I am going to defend Cosmik on this; they were named personally and so are still bound by it. I in fact read their response more as a kind of boilerplate 'statement of disassociation' of the discussion so no legal ghoul can argue they are trying to evade the settlement's T/Cs [but they naturally cannot confirm nor deny this, so there is no point asking them that]. Speaking as a person who once did a stint on a charity board, you also have to be more circumspect on your comments etc because of the hat you're wearing - for example, our org had dealings with another org I didn't like, so I had to bite my tongue on that. Luckily, the others realised this and worked to make sure I wasn't put in a position I had to outright lie. We should show similar respect to RMF members. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Wow, turns out the guy who deleted a bunch of autism rights articles for being too "SJW" a few years back is a chud! Skeleton Key (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Are you referring to Christopher? Pinkerite (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes. His history on this site is public. Skeleton Key (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

And where are you getting your estimates from?

RE:

However, I do agree that 'outside RW plans' should cease and go elsewhere, like where Board members or active mods can't see it - there must be zero chance of it being able to be argued that RW is attempting to find a work-around. I can also say with fair certainty that a) the chance for RW to legally resume coverage of The Verboten is going to be perhaps five years off [so don't bother taking about it now] and b) RW is no way strong enough to survive another round of lawfare right now. So I'm gonna simply collapse this all. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

WHERE are you getting this "perhaps five years off" estimate from @KarmaPolice ? Pinkerite (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

In lieu of actual information from the other two members of the Board [and Spud hasn't given definite dates yet], coupled with an acute realisation how just how rickety RW's situation in general is. The 'Mass-SLAPPing' almost became an extinction-event for us, and I stand by what I wrote earlier this year. We survived that, but we are just at the start of the 'road to recovery', not the end. 'Five years' is [I think] sufficient time to regroup/rebuild/recruit and as such perhaps should be our goal date - sure, if we can complete earlier all well and good but I don't think we should rush this - esp as our enemies can legally outspend us 1000/1 via their sugar daddy's spare change. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Well according to what you wrote earlier, it would take divine intervention to save Rational Wiki, but as an atheist, I don't think we are here today thanks to supernatural means.
    I think we need:
  1. a war-chest fund to prepare to fight any potential SLAPP litigation and
  2. responsible board members who were not involved in the litigation of the prior Rational Wiki organization
I think both are do-able within a year. Pinkerite (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
a) I believed the circle of suers collectively wanted RW dead. This is one of those times I'm glad I was wrong. Plus, at that point nobody seemed to be doing anything to avert the crunch.
b) Yes, that's what RW needs as a minimum. But like level-grinding in RPG games, I feel RW has a greater chance of success taking on the Big Bad if we do all the side-missions first so we go back into the fray well-kitted out etc. You do want all the Normandy's crew to survive the point of no return, don't you? KarmaPolice (talk)
If "Normandy" is an allusion to Operation Overlord, I like the analogy in that our adversaries are neo-Nazis with a well-documented heritage of actual Nazis. Although it kind of breaks down, because I don't think anybody expected that all of the crew would survive the mission. But what side-missions are you referring to? Pinkerite (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
And this is why pop-culture refs don't work.... https://masseffect.fandom.com/wiki/Suicide_Mission. If you don't do enough side-missions beforehand, it really is a suicide mission. In RWs case, if we work in increasing our visibility it means a new bout of lawfare is more likely to be noticed by others, if we deepen our membership it will make us more capable of raising funds to do stuff [for example, uprated DDoS protection we'll need later on] and if we kick enough arse to motivate a spurt of content creation we may be able to get some more enthusiastic new blood to join us. My strategy is also a bit more circumspect - that instead of making it clear our goal is to be able to 'violate the agreement' [as our rando 'helpful' BoNs shall put it] we merely focus on making RW more solid and to 'end dependence on our founders'... which coincidentally, also leads to the same goal as a side-effect. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Well ultimately I wasn't far off in assuming you were referring to the real-life invasion of Normandy, since, according to Wikipedia's article on Normandy (Mass Effect): "The Normandy derives her name from the Normandy landings of World War II." But we are agreed that we need a war-chest and non-New Mexico era board members. But I'm not sure how your suggestions would be implemented in the case of "deepen our membership" and "kick enough arse." In any case, nobody but trollbots, most likely working for our neo-Nazi adversaries, would claim RW is attempting to "violate" any agreements. Clearly we are attempting to do things in a perfectly legal manner. Our neo-Nazi adversaries just don't like the fact that it will be possible one day to legally post the evidence of their dirty deeds and stupid beliefs on RW again. Pinkerite (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Apart from the stuff I already mentioned in my essay, I shall say two words - whitehat SEO. RW is blessed with a high trust rating from search engines, so if we find out what are our most popular topics via searches and giving 'more of the same'. Perhaps even finding out what are the top searches in RW which don't end with a mainspace page. The opposite way; working out 'gaps in the market' - for example, I feel our dead person biog pages would be improved if we gave 'further reading' suggestions at the bottom. On the last bit; new folks generally don't want to join moribund projects; if we can give outsiders the impression of being a revitalised project [inc decent leadership] we might be able to get enough new blood in which we genuinely become said revitalised project. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree about access to RW statistics - either made public or at the very least a subset of confirmed RW contributors given access. But the most important articles are clearly the ones about race pseudoscience since the race pseudoscience gang went to such trouble to have them removed via SLAPP suits. During the controversy about the NYTimes and Zoran Mamdani, people on Bluesky were Googling the name of one of the individuals involved and were disappointed to find that his RW article had been yanked. Serving up detailed information about right-wing political operatives, especially those involved in the overlapping neo-Nazi and race pseudoscience networks, is something that RW has done better than any other media resource. It should continue to do that. Pinkerite (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
a) Don't think said stats really exist. Suspect we will need to pay to get them. We occasionally got the 'top 10' but that was about it. b) I agree that eugenics crap is important for RW to cover, though I don't think it is the important one [however I fully see my bias in this; my own interest in this topic isn't huge. Though I think you're also biased on this too, but inverted to me]. Though a quick look tells me that RW doesn't have a page on Lebensborn or compulsory sterilisations [Native Americans, the mentally ill, hated minorities etc - v important because it is apparently still happening in Greenland!], our biog of Galton [the grandaddy] is a semi-stub and 'eugenics in Nazi Germany' really could do with an entire page in itself. Okay, we might have to wait awhile before we can name/shame folks on the Verboten List but we can still tear to shreds the shit they peddle now. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, those stats exist. I've seen them mentioned on RW when someone, I believe it was Duce, floated the idea of giving people access, some months ago. All modern websites have stats, available to those who have access to the site's server/platform. And a public customized stats page could be created via APIs or other methods. Pinkerite (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
If you go by which articles get the most attention, clearly the race pseudoscience articles got the most attention. It's not bias to say so. It's certainly possible that the race pseudoscience articles don't get the most visits, but we can't know that until we get to see the stats. Pinkerite (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, there are certainly some racist and neo-Nazi individuals and organizations not covered by the old New Mexico agreement that could be added or edited, I've been thinking about that lately. But I'd like to see some rules in place for how articles are handled for living people, before I start. There has to be an extra layer of oversight on such articles since they are the articles most likely to be the subject of lawsuits. Pinkerite (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
If I recall the convo right, it was an offer to grant access to get at what appeared to be the raw data. I decided to not push this because a) I am not technically savvy and b) while I think I could handle raw I simply didn't have the bandwidth to commit to doing so.— Unsigned, by: KarmaPolice / talk / contribs
There should be no barrier to viewing statistics based on technical savvy - we can and should create something that everybody, or at least selected individuals can see. Pinkerite (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
This is what I am going to suggest to you. That instead of fixating on the Verboten List, to work to make our non-verboten eugenics coverage the damned best it can be. Expand the mainpage, widen our historical coverage. Our Verbotens, like anti-vaxxers and creationists are generally speaking are not pushing anything much actually new, are they? This means you can refute their arguments without actually mentioning their names. Help to put RW in the position that our coverage of their topic is actually better than it was before they decided to pick a fight with us. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't see why it isn't possible to do both. And it is important to write about specific individuals since they are at the center of the neo-Nazi network and receive money from well-known plutocrats. As well as the fact that articles about people like Steven Pinker are much less informative if you can't mention his connection to and encouragement of the Verboten. No, it should be priority number one to get these ghouls back on RW. Besides the fact that the Verboten, some of whom are not American, used SLAPP threats to shit on the First Amendment. Fuck those racist fascist fucks. Pinkerite (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Please stop

Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

For legal reasons, I am asking you to please stop talking about recreating articles that we were compelled to delete. You are putting the future of this site in jeopardy. You are putting me and other current and former Board members at personal risk. If you continue to talk about recreating those articles, I will temporarily block you. And to show that I'm serious, I will also temporarily take away your admin powers so that you can't unblock yourself. I am not enjoying writing this message, but it has become necessary. I strongly advise that you follow KarmaPolice's advice and concentrate on improving eugenics coverage without mentioning certain names. Spud (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

STOP WITH THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS

I never expressed any intention to recreate articles that would result in legal jeopardy. It has been distinctly stated by people who are in the loop - both on RW and to me directly, that once the New Mexico era board members are gone, it will be possible to write about the Verboten again. Of course people are going to talk about the ramifications of that - it is a publicly known fact. Unless those people lied. Are you saying they lied? Because I will definitely be asking them to explain why they were lying so that you had to clean up their mess. Pinkerite (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

But don't worry about me - if it turns out that you are right and those others are wrong, and those censored topics can never ever be discussed again on Rational Wiki no matter who the board members are and no matter whether or not it's a brand new organization in a brand new anti-SLAPP state, you won't have to worry about how bad it makes you feel to threaten me again - if it turns out that RationalWiki is permanently censored by monstrous assholes from now until the end of time, RationalWiki is pointless. I pray to dear little 8 pounds 6 ounces newborn lord baby Jesus that you are wrong. Pinkerite (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

And if the others are not wrong, and one day Rational Wiki can be free of censorship, I hearby offer my services as a board member. If allowed to serve, I promise that fundraising will be my main priority. Pinkerite (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)


FROM RATIONAL WIKI FOUNDATION ARCHIVE #7

  • Because this is a new organization, every Board member but Spud and Cosmik will no longer be members of any Board. This means the RMF WILL NEED BOARD MEMBERS. Once again, there will be different processes to protect these new Board members.
    • First, Spud and Cosmik are getting nonprofit Board insurance set up for the new Foundation to protect individual Board members from legal attacks and fees.
    • Second, the Board's attorney has specified that there is no legal requirement for a Board member's name to be linked to their RW account. In fact, it's preferable that their name not be linked to their RW account. In fact, Board members do not need to be RW editors at all.
    • Third, Board members can no longer operate under pseudonyms. Their real names need to go on paperwork. That's one of the big issues the old Foundation had.
    • Fourth, the new bylaws will formalize the Board's Discord-based decisionmaking. This reduces the burden of quarterly meetings by simply allowing Board members to talk things out in a groupchat. All Board members should need to do is voice their opinions every now and then and indicate their votes in the Discord chat.
    • WE NEED PEOPLE TO STEP UP TO THE FUCKING PLATE HERE. NO PLANS FOR THE FUTURE OF RATIONALWIKI WORK WITHOUT YOU, AND THEN THE RWF MIGHT HAVE TO SHUT THE WHOLE FUCKING WIKI DOWN. If you are willing to volunteer for this vitally important role, please please reach out to Cosmikdebris by email or Discord DM (you could also reach out to me on Discord too). We seriously fucking need you.
  • The nonprofit attorney has confirmed that the Oregon Plan will work. Killing the RationalWiki Foundation will make it impossible to go after it, and its old Board members would not be able to be sued as individuals in New Mexico based on the Foundation's collective past activities. As the attorney put it, it would be like trying to sue a dead person. The RWF's intellectual property assets (the wiki and social media stuff) will be transferred to the new Oregon-based organization and will be handled under the jurisdiction and laws of Oregon, which will give the new Board the ability to fight back against further legal threats.

I am looking forward to learning the real identities of the censorship brigade. I guess we won't get that info until the paperwork is finally filed and online. Pinkerite (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

You can find out my real name just by looking at my user page. Your enemies know it already. Spud (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
I was just informed what happened behind the scenes to change attitudes on the subject currently off the table. I'm told further legal clarification will be sought. Good to know. Pinkerite (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
You didn't hear that from me. Now, please, I beg you. Don't say any more about it. Spud (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Not a problem, now that I know the issue is pending. A little communication goes a long way. Pinkerite (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Question.

Answer: Yes, that was me. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

You've done it again!

I asked you back in July not to talk about recreating the articles that we had to delete for legal reasons. Then on September 8, you did it again. Again, you are putting the future of the wiki at risk. You are also putting me and other current and former Board members at risk. If you were not involved in an ongoing Coop case, I would have made good on my threat to temporarily desysop you and temporarily block you. If you repeat this behaviour a third time, I will carry out that threat regardless of the consequences. Spud (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

If you had a problem with anything I said on September 8, why did you not say so at that time. More and more I wonder where your loyalties lie in this ongoing issue. You seem very tolerant of someone claiming to represent plaintiffs in settled cases.Pinkerite (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Because I wasn't aware of those edits until today. They got hidden in the many recent changes. I want to keep this wiki alive. I also don't want to get sued personally. I do not share the beliefs of the people who threatened legal action against us. I voted to settle, as well all did, because we had no choice. $10,000 would cover one court case, but not 28. And personally, I wish Tetrapetryx would fuck off. I don't like him. I don't trust him. I don't want him here. Spud (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
If you are so afraid of legal jeopardy, why don't you resign from the Board? You and the other Board member from the dead New Mexico organization are being used as hostages by Jonathan Kane, his friend on the [redacted] Board and at least one notorious racist in order to continue a campaign of intimidation and censorship against RationalWiki. It seems to me that it would be best for all if you both resigned. Unless you agreed to remain hostages, as part of the secret deal. Pinkerite (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Notice that above I said, "You are also putting me and other current and former Board members at risk." Resigning from the Board would not make any difference, I would still be bound by the conditions of the out of court settlement I agreed to. Continuing to talk about recreating deleted articles continues to risk financially ruining me. Spud (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
First of all, since you know the ghouls are watching, I wonder why you don't email me directly instead of putting your response here. Second, what you seem to be saying is that the out of court settlement puts you and New Mexico Board members at risk for anything posted on the Oregon Rational Wiki - part of a completely separate organization - for the rest of your lives whether or not you have anything to do with the organization. And therefore all this talk about consulting with lawyers has been bullshit, you and the others agreed to kill the New Mexico Rational Media Foundation and create the Oregon RationalMedia Foundation to make it appear as though a new, free organization was being born, but in reality would be controlled forever by racist, neo-Nazi freaks. Pinkerite (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
While I can't find the canonical description of the state of things, I believe that board members have said that future articles on the removed parties will have to be written from scratch. IIRC they were creative-commons licensed so people who were not party to the settlement can host them.Polydamas (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
The accounts of myself and others have been threatened with banning for discussing this "written from scratch" issue. But the key to this whole thing is Spud saying (just above on this very page) "Resigning from the Board would not make any difference, I would still be bound by the conditions of the out of court settlement I agreed to." How can that be interpreted in any way other than "no matter where I go or what I do, as long as RationalMedia Foundation exists, I could be subjected to legal action if anything is published on RationalWiki that the Masters do not like"? RationalWiki is effectively owned by a pack of neo-Nazi scum, who will yank the chains of poor suckers like Spud, who then turn around and threaten RationalWiki editors with censorship. This has already played out at least twice in a big way. There appears to be no remedy for it than to shut down RationalMedia Foundation - and since that appears unlikely, I will make it my business to document what has happened on my Pinkerite site and warn off anybody considering taking a Nazi-owned entity seriously. Pinkerite (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I've already hosted one of the banned subjects on my Pinkerite site. The value of RationalWiki was not its unique content, it was its articles placing high on Google search results on the now-banned subjects. Pinkerite (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Ban proposal

@Spud, @KarmaPolice, @Bongolian, @Pinkerite, can you create a new vote to ban Tetrapteryx? I mean a total ban from this wiki not just another interaction ban. 148.135.200.19 (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Per rules of this overlord-controlled wiki, I'm not even allowed to mention that person, so I can't help you out, although if I am permitted to vote about a person I can't mention, I would certainly vote to ban. Pinkerite (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
You're not yet topic banned mentioning Tetrapteryx; it will come in effect when the voting ends and a message is put on your talk page (probably 24--48 hours away), you still have time to create the vote to permanently ban Tetrapteryx. 148.135.200.5 (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Frankly I don't think the rest will go for it, especially coming from me. I think it's likely they are too in thrall to whomever Tetrapteryx is working for. The Adversary's counsel would probably start yanking their chains over it. I think you are too optimistic BoN account. Pinkerite (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I proposed it before and it got zero support. There's no point re-proposing it unless circumstances have clearly changed. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
And also, I am far more likely to be banned than Tetrapteryx - he has far more leverage than I, since he clearly represents the individual(s) (most likely his old friend(s), the neo-Nazi scum) who made secret deals with, and who are not shy about yanking the chains of, the hapless, possibly corrupt, individuals who now control the RationalMedia Foundation. Pinkerite (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I really don't like being called a "hapless, possibly corrupt" individual, but voicing that slur doesn't mean I'd support banning you for using it here. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Maybe people wouldn't wanna ban you if you didn't constantly kept calling them "Nazi's", like all the moonbats did that ended up chasing away Duce. Not that any of you had better ideas besides "DO NOT GIVE IN!1!1!".. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Because they are Nazis, genius. Pinkerite (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
"Hapless" simply means unfortunate. Are you claiming that the outcome of the SLAPP lawsuits and secret deal was somehow not unfortunate? As to the corruption, why would anybody agree to run a wiki controlled by a secret group of others unless they were being paid for it? Bongalian made it clear that "the mob" was no longer controlling RationalWiki - which implies that it is now controlled by a select group. And Tetrapteryx made it clear that RationalWiki content - even on discussion boards - is monitored and controlled, through litigation threats, by his associates, and he is known for his association with neo-Nazis and race pseudoscience freaks. I can't believe you people running the show here have a positive desire to be gimps, for the rest of your lives, to Maynard and Zed. So what else could it be, except a payoff - either lump-sum or in installments? Pinkerite (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Which is exactly why I proposed the temp topic ban. Give them some space to get firm legal advice so they can come back and be a lot clearer in what they can and cannot do/say etc. Do I personally think they're being overcautious? Yes. But I cannot say exactly where that line is and nor can you - and it's not our arses on the line either so said caution is understandable. Repeatedly asking the same questions that you know full well they won't answer will only cause your martyrdom, which will be kinda pointless/stupid if your insistence that 'going for legal counsel is just a lie' is proven wrong and RW finds a path away from this barrel 'o shit.
I am convinced they have no intention to make anything temp, and if there was legitimate legal advice in the offing, it would have come by now, two months after the intitial discussion. Pinkerite (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
And if that is true, I have helped provide the rope which will hang them. I am willing to entertain the argument that it's taking longer 'than it should do' because a) they only got their arses into gear in early Sept and/or b) this is waaay outside of RW's lawyer's area of expertise. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
As for the insinuations that the Troika are somehow 'on the payroll', I find that ridiculous. If I'd been 'them', I would have refused to settle, seize RW's assets and either shut down or exploit it for my own gain. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Again. Spud wrote, right above: "I said, "You are also putting me and other current and former Board members at risk." Resigning from the Board would not make any difference, I would still be bound by the conditions of the out of court settlement I agreed to." Clearly Spud and others made an agreement with secret individual(s) that former RationalMedia Foundation Board members would be at risk as long as RationalWiki exists - even if they are no longer on the Board. Either they agree with the goals and values of the secret individual(s) and so don't mind continuing a wiki under their control - and Spud claims he is not in agreement with them - or they are getting paid. Otherwise they would have voted to shut down RationalMedia Foundation to free themselves from being hostages to [redacted] the rest of their lives. And that would have been the right thing to do. Pinkerite (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Which is why we must get the legal advice. I agree, the various statements as a collective are ambiguous as hell. However, I am willing to grant good faith in this, assuming that the opaque/confusing statements is more ignorance of what the agreement allows/does not allow and playing safe because nobody desires to be sued into eternal penury than due to sinister motives. Why granting the faith? Because I've seen Cosmik and Spud in-action for 3 1/2 years now and they've done nothing to make me doubt it so far. It does seem unfair to immediately leap to the conclusion 'they must be in the pay of the [redacted] fuckers' simply because they aren't willing to play chicken with folks who can and do use lawfare. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
So what could make someone agree to such bizarre terms as explained by Spud: you will be on the hook, legally, for anything on RationalWiki even if you are no longer a Board member? Who would agree to such an insane thing unless they were getting something in return? As it exists now, the RationalMedia Foundation is a pathetic joke, controlled by ghouls - most likely neo-Nazis - who use Board members as hostages in order to achieve absurd levels of censorship. What kind of clowns could accept such an idiotic, humiliating situation - and for free? Pinkerite (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
What I get out of it is not getting sued into oblivion. Yes, I'm hapless. No, I'm not corrupt. I have never made a single penny from RationalWiki and neither has anybody else. And I wouldn't take money from people who'd probably consider me a genetically inferior non-Aryan if they offered it to me. I agreed to the terms of the out of court settlement because I didn't have any fucking choice, as I've said dozens of times already. Besides which, are you seriously suggesting that the people who first threatened to sue us then decided to pay us to keep us quiet? When in legal history has that ever happened? You also really can't compare RationalWiki to your Pinkerite website. That's a one-person show. RationalWiki is not. At the time the legal threats started, the Board were just 10% of the regular RationalWiki contributors. We felt we had an obligation to keep the wiki alive for everybody else. And if you don't like RationalWiki, nobody's forcing you to stay here. Write about all this on your Pinkerite website if you like. But don't spread misinformation by speculating wildly on things you weren't party to and making shit up, like you have done on this page. Spud (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
So when you say: "We felt we had an obligation to keep the wiki alive for everybody else" you seem to be indicating that you could have shut down the RationalMedia Foundation, but you decided that it would be better to keep it going - wait, no - it wasn't even a situation in which you had to keep RMF going - you actually created a new organization, based in Oregon, knowing it would be forever controlled by the ghouls. How exactly do you all think your Potemkin village of a "rational wiki" serves others? You fully censor important information that the public should know, and threaten long-time editors who ask questions about the situation in good faith. And your first sentence is incorrect - you keep it going not because the alternative is getting sued, you keep it going because you somehow think a hostage-situation wiki is worth keeping alive. That strikes me is completely bonkers, and that is why I suspect you must have other incentives. And I'm sure, in the history of the American legal system, agreements - especially the secret kind - have included payments. And since these are secret agreements, how do you know that others didn't get paid, even if you did not? In any case I have not "made shit up." Speculating is not making shit up. I am trying to get to the bottom of this situation. And based on your statement, the situation appears to be this: a bunch of guys decided that their wiki was so important to the world that they created a new organization for it, knowing that the new organization would be controlled by individual(s) hostile to RationalWiki's original mission, for as long as the new organization existed. Pinkerite (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Which is why I am pressing the Troika to investigate this further. We need to know exactly where the ground lies so we can then plan to move forward. Not just run ahead without looking. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I think it's touching that you have faith in these people, but they've made it clear we are never going to know exactly where the ground lies. They apparently agreed to be in a hostage situation, controlled by people who are, by all indications, racists and neo-Nazis. And they are, apparently, perfectly content, as long as they get to be big men on their crippled little wiki. Pinkerite (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't think they've made much clear at the moment. That is partly why I'm pressing it; because their is insufficient information to allow mods etc to help ensure compliance. More generally, I'm not going to make any mainspaces on things that can sue me until I know I'm safe. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

We were already planning to move to Oregon before the legal threats started. And our enemies knew that because we'd openly discussed it here and were raising money to finance the move before the legal threats started. In fact, that's why the legal threats started while we were planning to leave New Mexico. We didn't create the new organization because of the legal threats. The plan was to create the new organization in a state with strong anti-SLAPP laws to stop the legal threats from happening in the first place. And no, fighting 28 cases in court wasn't an option because we didn't have the $280,000 we were told we'd need. And I certainly wasn't sure how starting a new organization would or wouldn't change the agreement we'd made with those who'd threatened to sue us. There were no other fucking incentives. How many fucking times do I have to fucking tell you that? And there is no effective difference between the wild speculation in which you are engaging and just making shit up. What if you go posting on your website, based on no evidence at all, that I and other Board members took money from racialists? What would you call that? And again, if you don't like RationalWiki, you're under no obligation to stay here. Spud (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

So - "The plan was to create the new organization in a state with strong anti-SLAPP laws to stop the legal threats from happening in the first place." And clearly your plan has completely failed. And now former Board members of the New Mexico RationalMedia Foundation are held hostage by the enemies - for as long as RationalWiki exists - and these enemies control all aspects of RationalWiki. That is the situation. It appears to me that you have two choices: continue with this hostage situation, whining and complaining anytime someone crosses one of the innumerable lines that now exist, or end the hostage situation by shutting down the RationalMedia Foundation. You all apparently prefer the hostage situation. Pinkerite (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I have no intention to post anything on Pinkerite "with no evidence at all." Now it's you who is making wild speculations. I suggested the possibility of payments because I find it astounding that you all would agree to exist in a hostage situation for the rest of your lives without any incentive other than because you like being big men on a little, corrupted wiki. Pinkerite (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Interaction ban is now in effect

The vote passed unanimously, and the interaction ban between you and Tetrapteryx is now in effect. You should not interact with or mention him in future. Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I will be writing about this saga on Pinkerite, where I am free of control by secret censors and their puppets. Pinkerite (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
You are certainly free to do that. For your own sake, I hope you live in a state with strong anti-SLAPP laws. Bongolian (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I've been writing about race pseudoscience ghouls on Pinkerite for almost seven years now without a peep from any of them about lawsuits. But since you're so concerned, I do in fact live in a state with strong anti-SLAPP laws. But if my choice was to censor Pinkerite per their dictates or shut Pinkerite down completely I would shut it down. And that's what you should do to this poor hostage wiki. Pinkerite (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
You are also an individual. Chances are, in extremis you would be able to defend yourself. RW didn't have that luxury. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Irrelevant. The point is, should I find myself in a situation where people hostile to the Pinkerite mission controlled what I got to say on Pinkerite, I would shut it down. And I think RMF should shut down, rather than continue to exist, controlled by people who are not only hostile to RW's mission, but, all evidence indicates, are racists and neo-Nazis. If the RW gang's incentive is not financial, then it appears to be ego. They don't care, really, if RationalWiki serves the greater good, they apparently just like having a wiki no matter what, content to forever police discussion boards looking to delete anything that might displease their masters - they voluntarily agreed to exist in a hostage situation. I think that's pathetic but worse, anybody coming to this wiki who doesn't know the story of the lawsuits and secret agreements might think it is still a free and rational wiki. It is operating under false pretenses. Pinkerite (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
(EC)If you would rather commit technological hara-kiri than be able to grind your particular quite specific axe then all power to you.
But insisting that a much broader-based wiki such as this joins you in embracing oblivion simply because you personally feel that you have lost your ability to pontificate on a particular topic isn't going to fly.
Your mission is yours - don't expect RW to die on your behalf.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
It's not a question of me pontificating - it's a question of aiding and abetting neo-fucking-Nazis. Something that apparently does not bother you at all. Pinkerite (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
It's a question of you preferring to see the site die than you losing your platform. The site evidently does not agree.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Wrong. I have a platform, I don't need RationalWiki. But I do know RW is being controlled by, all evidence shows, racists and neo-Nazis. And furthermore RW is not upfront about this situation. The RW home page should mention that there are forbidden topics - and mention that in fact the site is so censored you can't even say what the forbidden topics are. But of course the people now running RW are NOT going to do that because they are attempting to carry on as if nothing has changed since before the lawsuits and secret agreements. That's why I call RW a Potemkin village. It's now a facade of a free and rational wiki. But not only that - according to Spud, he and all current and former Board members are to be held in legal jeopardy for as long as this wiki exists. Now, I know you'd all like to imagine that if you got rid of me, everything would be fine. But inevitably someone will forget about a topic ban, or someone won't know that certain topics are forbidden and write about them. And then Spud and the others will have their chains yanked again. And then they'll start deleting and threatening to ban etc. Their (probably neo-Nazi) masters will never let them forget who is in control. If this is how they want to live, that's their decision, but the world should know that this is the situation and I plan to write about it on Pinkerite. Which does not have a huge circulation, but that's OK - every now and then a journalist from a larger platform takes an interest in the information I have gathered on Pinkerite, and uses that for their own story. And if it can be shown that a racist/neo-Nazi individual or organization has made RationalWiki its Gimp, I think that would be a very interesting story. Which is why the enemies of RationalWiki made sure to insist on confidentiality. They know how bad this would make them look - as if being racists and neo-Nazis isn't enough. Pinkerite (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I know you have a platform. You keep spamming it. Constantly. Over and again. And you have expressed your "death before dishonor" ethic various times. Great! Go there. Do that!
Indeed I really suggest that you, and the horse you rode in, on do that. Because if you have such a low opinion of RW I'm not sure why you are still here apart from trying to use it as a platform to showcase your political purity.
Get TF off my talk page, creep. Pinkerite (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
[ Buh-bye asshole ] Pinkerite (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
[ Stop harassing me, asshole ] Pinkerite (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
You have twice deleted reasonable talk page comments and replaced them with insults. I will now open a case against you.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
You are only here to insult me, and I think a case should be opened in which you are not allowed to communicate with me. Now go away you contemptible troll. Pinkerite (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Insults do not help you case. Take it up in the coop.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
My free speech right to express my opinion about you and your insults and harassment is worth a thousand coops. Now stop harassing me, shameless free speech hypocrite. Pinkerite (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Why are you raving about free speech when you started this by trying to delete Bob's comments?-Flandres (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Bob's comments were insults, on top of his previous insults towards me for having opinions and expressing them here and on Pinkerite. That's why. Pinkerite (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
You completely mischaracterized his comments. He explained why a lot of people here don't like what you are doing. He critizced your mindset. Then, he called you out for insulting him, and said he would start a coop case over what was, to be fair, a pretty obvious violation of the community standards. There were no insults...except for you insulting him.-Flandres (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
No, he did insult me, and mischaracterized me claiming I keep "spamming my platform" and claiming I was showing "political purity." Those are obvious insults, and have nothing to do with the actual issues at hand. He could simply ignore this entire discussion - it's on my talk page after all, not a public area. But I don't expect you to agree, you are clearly biased and I have nothing more to say to either of you. You are a waste of my time. Pinkerite (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
No, those were accurate descriptions of your actions. An insult would be if he called you an asshole or a creep or something like that. Also, when you say things like "You are a waste of my time" you don't sound smart. You just made it obvious I destroyed your point and you have no factual retort.-Flandres (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
LOL - I enjoyed that "fight me bro" provocation. OK moderators, what do you do when it appears that a couple of other editors have decided to team up to attack you? Do you ask for an individual no-contact vote, or is there another thing you can do? Pinkerite (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
We aren't attacking you. We are criticizing your actions, which is fair given that you have violated the community standards. As for moderators...well, what a coincidence! I am a moderator!-19:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
You're a shit moderator. But pretty appropriate considering what RationalWiki has become. Pinkerite (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
"Bob was insulting me" proceeds to respond with a bunch of lies and insults
Try to respond to these things more constructively, please. It would really help get the community on your side.-Flandres (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
LOL - fight me bro! I said FIGHT ME!!! Pinkerite (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
...??? I'm sure that sounded a lot funnier in your head.-Flandres (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Why do you think I suggested ending all 'non-historical' coverage on the subject? Because it's quite possible that in the end of the day RW simply cannot cover it to any level of accuracy due to all the demands/agreement etc. I know I'm currently a minority of one on this at the moment, but the Troika very well may come back and tell us basically that's the only real option for now. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you keep referring to the Troika - Spud has made it clear that the current hostage situation exists not only because of current Board members: all former Board members are held hostage. All are in legal jeopardy and any decisions made about RationalWiki or RationalMedia Foundation would have to take that into consideration. Pinkerite (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
They are the conduit between lawyers and RW. Ideally, I want them to come back in Jan with those legal questions answered, share the findings [as much as possible] with the mods and they together can make the calls and decide on the plan going forward. Alas [as Spud exampled above] I think it's got to the stage where the 'leadership' can no longer have candid public discussions on certain things [due to enemies being alerted] and as such, mods are going to be a kind of substitute for the RW userbase [which will actually give mods a formal role]. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Chicken Coop

A case involving you in the Chicken Coop has been started (RationalWiki:Chicken coop). Bongolian (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The best part of Bob insulting me on my Talk page, for having opinions about the current RationalWiki legal situation, is that he has this on his personal page: "Freedom of speech can be dangerous, but must be upheld by every one of us." Pinkerite (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I fully expected an effort to drive me off RationalWiki. I am questioning the integrity of this wiki and that will not be permitted for long. Pinkerite (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I am not, in fact, complaining about the insults you used. RW has always had a robust way of communicating and they say far more about the insulter than the person insulted.
The problem is that you took comments which disagreed with you or criticized you - and deleted them. You then tried to excuse this blatant disregard of site standards by calling the comments "insults" - while replacing them with real insults.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Pinkerite, if you're just learning that RW is not what it appears to be, you haven't really been paying attention for a long time. The wiki doesn't really matter anymore and hasn't for quite some time. This is just an obscure social media site where a very small insular group socializes with each other. The reason the only 'rule' is to not be 'disruptive' is because it can be applied to anyone for any reason. "Writing stuff we don't like" is disruptive. The only people this doesn't apply to is mods and board members. In a non-authoritarian microcosm, the rules that the people who hold power over others in the group must abide by are the rules that matter the most. Holding those who lack power to rules that those who have power are not held to is the cornerstone of authoritarianism. And so is making up rules on the spot, that have already been said to be broken. That's what the grand rule of 'disruption' allows for.
And unlike what we're used to seeing in small, insular groups, cohesion is not developed via positive reinforcement such as sucking up to those in charge, it is developed via negative reinforcement, which entails explicit displays of support for disciplinary campaigns such as the 'coop'. Members of RW signal that they are upstanding members of the group by scolding whoever is being pilloried by those in charge. Coop cases have to be initiated relatively frequently in order to maintain social cohesion, via this form of negative reinforcement. 2A0F:DF00:0:255:0:0:0:204 (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. My experience of RW for the last couple of years has been that it's pretty much the same as any longtime online group, with all the insider-outsider drama that entails. The difference now is the increased censorship to avoid chain-yanking from hostile parties. I felt it was necessary to challenge the current situation in order to gather as much information as possible - I plan to write about this on my blog, since my blog is focused on critiquing race pseudoscience and by every indication those behind the chain-yanking are representatives of race pseudoscience devotees. My fact-finding has definitely been unpleasant, including personal insults such as the claim I am here to display political purity, but I went in assuming there would be hostility. You can't be blunt as I have been about sensitive issues and not get push-back, especially from those who have deep emotional ties to the wiki itself, and who would accept permanent censorship from some of the worst people in the world, just to keep the wiki going, and can't imagine why anybody else would feel differently. But it has been well worth it - thanks to the last week or so of conflict here, I have gotten solid evidence to confirm my suspicions about who is behind the chain-yanking and secret agreements. Pinkerite (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
RationalWiki's Community Standards quite explicitly allow users to delete comments from their own user talk page "at their discretion." Maybe the appeasers running this site should read their own rule book if they're going to toss it at you. Anyways (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for that Anyways. I guess they can change the rules anytime they wish, now that a select few individuals are running the show. Pinkerite (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
They are not 'rules', the second line of the Community Standards page says: "These are not site rules but rather a list of standards we as a community try to live up to. " The 'User Pages' section also contains a blatant contradiction, it says: "users are permitted to delete posts from their own talk pages at their discretion" but then, eight words later it says: "Users who believe their comments have been removed unjustifiably can take their case to the Chicken Coop or All Things in Moderation" So how can comments be removed unjustifiably if users have permission to delete posts from their own talk pages at their discretion? I'll tell you how, it's called a lie. All RW 'rules' work this way, for good reason. The last thing anyone in charge wants is to be hamstrung by their own rules. To have trolls run amok because they found some kind of 'loophole' nobody at RW had thought of when the rules were conceived. So the rules, or the 'guidelines' only apply when they apply, and when they don't apply, they don't apply. The rules are allowed to be overridden for the purpose of protecting the wiki from being held hostage by it's own regulations, but historically, if you investigate the coop archives, like I sometimes do, you'll see that more often the rules are negated at the whim of people in power who felt insulted by someone's unflattering characterization of them. 2A0B:F4C2:1:0:0:0:0:1 (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Topic ban is now in effect

I have closed the vote on the topic ban regarding the most recent lawsuit, and it is now in effect. There is a 3-month ban for anyone violating it henceforth. Any doubt about whether a topic falls under the umbrella of the topic ban should be directed by email to one of the Board members before posting. Bongolian (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

My upcoming article

It will be entitled "[redacted], [redacted], [redacted] and RationalWiki." But of course, on my blog Pinkerite, the names will be gloriously uncensored by the international racist and neo-Nazi network.
Land of the free and the home of the brave, baby. 🦅 Pinkerite (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Obviously I'm going to add a section to my article about how you censored my link and changed my user status, Bongolian. 🦅 Pinkerite (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Your link had one of the named parties in it. Bongolian (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)