User talk:Splainer/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 30 April 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Welcome

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Splainer! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

— Oxyaena ^Harass 14:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

• Google Scholar Button ^{(Chrome, Firefox)} searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
• web.archive.org and archive.today, among other tools, can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Splainer (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Nice work on Susan G. Komen!

I saw your edits and they are impressive. Luna Rose ^{Say hi} 17:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Thanks for your great work on Health at every size. I undid the troll edit and added some more to the article. Splainer (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wizard

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound POWER course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Haha, thanks! :) Splainer (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Someone just de-sysoped me out of spite (I've yet to perform a single sysop action) and restored the problematic version of the article. Splainer (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Oxyaena is a problematic user with a history of toxicity (just a month ago they received a three week ban for their misbehavior. I advocated for only a 2 week ban but the community is fond of multiples of pi) and poor choices granting user rights. I merely corrected their mistake-Hastur! (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been here for two years. Anyone who reliably shows themselves not to be a troll seemingly gets granted sysop rights here. But I'm a somewhat infrequent contributor, so I'm not upset that I slipped through the cracks. But de-sysoping me (and @Scientology is bullshit too, I just noticed) because you have some kind of beef against Oxyaena is a blatant abuse of power. Splainer (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) As an observer who generally finds these sysop vs. sysop battles a bit silly, and doesn't really care to pick a side regarding how things should end up in this case, I'll note what seems a mistake. I saw on recent changes a change from "Autopatrolled and Sysop to (none)" for Splainer, when presumably the correct change would have been to Autopatrolled. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I was a sysop for all of an hour. I didn't get a chance to perform a single admin action. I didn't even get a chance to read the sysop guide. So I object to the characterization of this as a "sysop vs. sysop battle." Splainer (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I meant Oxyaena vs. Hastur. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for one sysop to take it out on random users because they're unhappy with another sysop? Splainer (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd find that bad, but I think it's meant to be better. I see Christopher restored your "Autopatrolled". I'm new here and not a sysop. From what I've seen so far, sysops here sometimes get into silly disputes, but after a little while the drama dissipates and actions are taken to make things basically sensible. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Restoring autopatrolled rights doesn't restore the sysop rights Hastur stripped solely on the basis of their beef against the user who granted them. Splainer (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘There’s no rush, I’m sure someone will demote you again in a day or two. Oxy has recently demoted a few people who’ve barely edited because she agrees with them ideologically, and although you’re a bit more active it seems like that was still her motivation. Christopher (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"Agreeing with a user ideologically shouldn't be basis for granting sysop rights." *conspicuously declines to restore sysop rights to two users he's currently involved in unrelated edit wars with* Splainer (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Because they were both promoted for ideological reasons, there’s no contradiction there. The other user you’re talking about definitely shouldn’t be a sysop, but I’m sure someone will demote you again at some point; it’s really not the end of the world. Christopher (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Splainer, I am willing to grant you your sysop bit, provided you can promise me that in the future, when you propose large changes to an article that significantly change an article's POV (in this case, the article that you are in an edit war over being Health at every size) you will talk them over on the talkpage first.

I recommend you work these changes out in your userspace (a dedicated user sandbox for example) to then propose them on the talkpage. I recognize that this is not solely on you, with QuietLuna being another major reason the article shifted in POV. This way, you can talk over relevant perspectives you might have missed. As the CS says, it's fine to do major changes to a page, but it's usually best to talk them over first. In addition, should the edit be reverted, please refrain from edit warring (which is a bit fast and loose as a definition, but in this case, it was indirectly ran afoul of, although you didn't break edit war rules yourself, it was an edit war due to multiple editors doing it). Can you promise me that you will do these things? If so, I will be glad to restore your sysop rights, since you seem to pretty much meet all the other loose sysop criteria that people arbitrarily apply. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 13:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The changes that QuietLuna and I made to the HAES article weren't recent or controversial. They were made in late 2019 in response to years of concerns raised about the previous version, which was poorly-sourced, out-of-date, and contained numerous cruel and unnecessary fatphobic statements. Please compare that version to the current one. I'm not saying that "our" version is perfect, but it's a vast improvement over what it replaced. In addition, ClickerClock made some substantial revisions to what QL and me wrote (not all of which I agreed with, FWIW, but overall the revision was fine). That version stood unchallenged for over a year. Christopher is the one who came along and unilaterally restored the old version without seeking input or consensus on the talk page.

I don't think it's fair to make granting sysop rights to me contingent on a promise never to make "large changes that significantly change an article" when Christopher and other users evidently aren't being held to that standard. What I will promise not to do is to retributively remove sysop rights or preferentially freeze a version of an article. Splainer (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

How would you know what is fair according to the customs to this wiki? You are sound like a sock of one of the usual suspects.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

> recent or controversial

Good, because nothing what I said had anything to do with that. This was about any edit that heavily shifts the POV of an article's subject. I did the same thing with Stallmans' article which used to be extremely positive about him until I introduced a large crank section. You ask about major POV shifts on the talkpage so that people can see where it originates from and can see what discussion, if any, took place there. Neither you or QuietLuna really did this and as a result most of your changes are being regarded as woo pushing.

> a promise never to make "large changes that significantly change an article"

Not what I said, I said you should work on them in a sandbox before proposing them on the talkpage and to talk them over with other people.

> other users evidently aren't being held to that standard

Christopher from what I can tell merely restored the page after a year or so of people questioning on the talkpage who and why the POV got shifted and never really receiving an answer. This is why you discuss things with people: so they can be aware of why they happen. We can't read your brain. I'm not making it contingent on a promise, I'm asking you if you can properly collaborate with other users and can affirm that you can do that instead of engaging in edit wars. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 19:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Concerns were raised about the old version on the talk page for years. QuietLuna and I were simply the first contributors who stepped up to the plate and worked to improve the article. (To be clear: I'm not finding fault with other contributors' inaction. Pointing out a problem doesn't necessitate one personally resolve it.) I don't appreciate being accused of "woo pushing" or attempting to "heavily shift the POV of an article" when I was constructively and collaboratively working to address years-old concerns. I don't appreciate such accusations in light of the fact that the old version of the article is objectively awful. 15 sources, three "citations needed," and utterly indefensible fatphobic mockery.

The last post on the HAES article's talk page before Christopher decided to unilaterally restore the old version was in 2019. It hasn't been subject to a year of sustained objections as you suggest. Christopher didn't seek input or consensus before unilaterally reverting the old version. I don't understand how you can criticize me for not using the talk page enough to seek approval for edits two years ago when other users aren't abiding by that standard right now. It very much looks like there are double standards in operation. Splainer (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Personally, I don't think we have any reasons so far to believe that Splainer is a troll or a sock. In my opinion they've acted so far in good faith and are trying to discuss the subject, even if I think they're downright wrong in the HAES case. That being said, I'd ask you to watch your tone. You're being unnecessarily acerbic. GeeJayK (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

RationalWiki:CS: "However, users are permitted to delete posts from their own talk pages at their discretion, being responsible for any abuse of this permission." I'm within my rights to remove harassment from my own talk page to de-escalate. But I'm done here. I've seen too much bullying and double standards. This project isn't worth any more of my time or energy. Splainer (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

About HAES (again)

I understand that's not what you meant, I made another contribution that I believe is more correct. If you disagree, take it to the talkpage before reverting it. I've already asked you to do more than once. GeeJayK (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

ClickerClock wrote the current lede. I may have edited it a bit, but it isn't my work. Your edit changes the meaning of the sentence. That part was meant to refer to co-morbidities because this is a thing that comes up in the article (although it could probably do with some expansion). If you want to shift that meaning to something else, you ought to explain why that change is warranted. Do HAES supporters actually deny the WHO definition of obesity? Because if if they don't, this is a strawman. You also don't appear to have discussed this change on talk, either before or after you made it. Maybe try following your own advice before you wag your finger. Splainer (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That was my point, I know I've changed the meaning of the sentence. I didn't talk about it on Talk because we don't need to talk about it every time we make a change, but a feedback on why you're reverting an edit is important, especially considering that we've clashed on the subject before. According to this video by Lindo Bacon obesity there's no evidence that fat kills. GeeJayK (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll also edit the line on the image. I think it will be a more neutral edit. Please, tell me what you think on the talk page of the article. GeeJayK (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not able to watch the linked video at the moment to assess its contents. But arguing that "there's no evidence obesity kills" isn't the same as arguing that the WHO definition is wrong. It's well established that diabetes, heart disease, etc. pose an increased mortality risk, but it's not 100% scientifically established that these things are caused by obesity rather than correlated with it. Which is to say that obesity may not directly cause diabetes. It may instead be the case that people who are predisposed to obesity are also more likely to be predisposed to diabetes. That's a tricky distinction, yes, and one the article could definitely do a better job explaining. But acknowledging there's scientific disagreement or conflicting evidence isn't tantamount to denialism. This comment was overboard. Splainer (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding change to the image caption: Looks good. I think your version makes the intent of the image more clear. Could perhaps be a bit more concise. Splainer (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)