User talk:Bongolian

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>

, (new)

Attention trolls: Don't bother me here. I am busy impersonating Rob Smith on Gab.

*facepalm*

So, we just got a new user by the name of "SenõrChismeOléOléOlé". Isn't "Ole Ole Ole" how Ken ends a lot of his weird rants? Who does he think he's kidding?!? --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. It used to be on the list of block reasons, but it was a mystery to me as to why. Bongolian (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

What the flying fuck…

Some BoN is building some sort of word salad thing called "Smass". I don't know what to make of it, except it's clearly wandalism. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up, @Luigifan18. I've deleted the page and given a block to the BoN. Bongolian (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. You have no idea how hard it was for me to resist yelling at the BoN to make a sandbox for… whatever the fuck they were doing. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Request

Am I allowed to appeal my topic ban for the categories and have my mod powers back? I didn’t abuse them and I won’t abuse them. Rational Dude (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to appeal topic bans. Generally, one should wait a reasonable length of time since the ban (it's been several months in your case, so I would say you qualify on this point), and then make a reasoned request in RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation. Generally, one should also truthfully claim that one hasn't violated the ban. In your case, though I would have to wonder about the Enrique Peña Nieto page where it seems that you added categories, some of which seemed to me to be unsupported by the existing text. Bongolian (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I admit I was rushing on that one, but I was not attempting to spread misinformation. Sometimes I forget to edit my mistakes on pages because of my dyslexia, which is why I sometimes have spelling errors or improper links on some pages. Plus, I currently only add categories on drafts, which I believe doesn’t count on my topic ban as it relates to mainspace pages. Rational Dude (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't follow the whole timeline for Enrique Peña Nieto, but if you only put the categories in the draft and @Natsuki Marx caused them to appear in mainspace, to me that would seem to be a reasonable excuse. Bongolian (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s the truth, I didn’t touch the categories once they entered mainspace. Rational Dude (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, you're welcome to make an appeal. Bongolian (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Will I have a chance at my appeal being granted though? Rational Dude (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. It would depend on a vote, which I can't predict. It's best to be truthful and explain anything that might appear suspicious such as the Peña article. Bongolian (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course. I guess I have nothing to worry about. Rational Dude (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Christians category

I do think we have a problem on the wiki with articles that have categories for Christians. You said catholic already covers it, but most of the pages have the category Christianity and the branch of Christianity (Catholicism, Protestantism), so it might be a problem to sort out. I think it’s better to just have both instead of removing the other, it’s much easier that way. Rational Dude (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it defeats the purpose of having subcategories to put everyone in Category:Catholics also into Category:Christians. There are 3 other subcategories of Christians currently: Baptists, Mormons and Protestants. If you want to take it up as an issue, you can do so on Category talk:Christians. Bongolian (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with it, I’m just saying it might be an issue for the wiki because a lot of articles have both of these categories. Rational Dude (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It could be cleaned up systematically if someone cared enough. Bongolian (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Should I do it? Rational Dude (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Techpriest might have a way to do this easily with Inferno Bot. Bongolian (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bongolian and Rational Dude I can run Inferno Bot to wipe the Christians category of mainspace pages if you want me to? -- Techpriest (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not about wiping it out, but removing the redundancy of for example people being in both the Christians and Catholics categories, when we all know that all Catholics are Christians. It might be more work than it's worth programmatically. Bongolian (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Don’t worry about it, I think it’s best to leave it until we can find a good solution. Rational Dude (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Dealing with ban evasion

Hi Bongolian, I've got a question. I was recently asked for advice about the fact that Smith's ban apparently isn't being enforced, probably because I'm the only semi-active user here who's known for caring about that issue. This and this are the most recent examples of him evading it. The IP user making those edits is obviously Smith - the IP's geolocation matches, and Smith linked to the same article on Twitter just a few hours before those edits.

I have no opinion about whether that source should be cited in the article or not; my question is only about how to address the ban evasion issue. At RationalWiki, what is the correct venue to report ban evasion and have it addressed? Tetrapteryx (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The best venue to discuss ban evasion is RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation. It can also be brought up in RationalWiki:Saloon_bar. I think you're right that that's plausibly Smith. Bongolian (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, it seems very cumbersome to have to make a new thread at one of those noticeboards for each one of Smith's ipsocks. If I did that, I'd have to start a new thread there every month or two, and I don't have that kind of time to devote to editing here. I think it would be valuable if sometime in the future, RationalWiki could set up a dedicated process for reporting ban evasion, along the lines of what exists at Wikipedia. Tetrapteryx (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You can also contact one of the moderators, including myself. Bongolian (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That IP address was not Smith. I have used some VPNs to edit controversial race content regarding Kirkegaard. Smith is involved in 4 lawsuits, he doesn't edit this website. I have received death threats and email abuse from the usual suspects for editing this topic area. I generally now want to use my account to edit mostly diet-related content. My account is being stalked off-site by these far-right extremists, so it's just easier for privacy concerns to use an IP to edit anything related to Dutton, Kirkegaard and their associates on occasion. Johns (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

So, I see you've now reverted Bongolian's block of that IP.

I found the evidence convincing enough that it was Smith: 1) The only 2 edits from that IP were on the Kirkegaard page 2) It was on a topic known to be contentious between Smith and Kirkegaard, 3) It was from London where Smith is known to live in or near (due to his lawsuit). Bongolian (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

138.68.180.65 is a VPN that comes with Norton 360 Software and McAfee (I have multiple systems and use both). Basically you click on the "fastest location" option. It doesn't matter where you live in the UK, it will always give you the quickest VPN in the London region. You can easily look up this IP range [1] [2]. Over the last year, I have made dozens of edits on the 138 range. If you check the Mankind Quarterly article, you will see I heavily edited it in February and March 2024. Emil Kirkegaard is in frequent email and discord communication with Jonathan Kane. This entire drama that Kane has drummed up here is not really about Smith, it's because Emil Kirkgaard doesn't want that new newspaper article put on RationalWiki. I don't think we should give in to these far-right extremists. I do not believe in censoring sources, especially when they are accurate and reliable. Johns (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I left the article link on the main page, but deleted the unnecessary talk page edit. I'm not about to allow whitewashing. Bongolian (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's probably just best if I use just this account and no IPs for the future. The only reason I have been using IPs on and off this year is because of various stalkers off-site watching every edit I make. I will just edit from this account from now on. Johns (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll mention another example of something that looks like obvious ban evasion by Smith. An IP user has been updating the Manhattan Institute article with details about Smith's various lawsuits: [3] [4] [5] The only sources for those edits are Smith's posts at Twitter (the archived page cited in the first diff), and obscure court documents about his lawsuits that haven't been discussed anywhere outside of RationalWiki. Smith's lawsuits against Kirkegaard and against Substack do not involve the Manhattan Institute, so they also seem off-topic in an article about that organization.

I have two questions. First @Bongolian Do you agree that these look like further examples of ban evasion by Smith?

Second @Johns Do you argue that those edits actually are from you? Tetrapteryx (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said, this is not ban evasion. All of those edits were mine. The lawsuits are not obscure, they are public documents on CourtListener. I have been following all of the lawsuits. I wrote most of the Cancel Watch section at the Manhattan Institute article last year and linked to public documents. I also spent years uploading Abd Lomax's updates about his lawsuit. I have covered other failed lawsuits including Bryan Pesta's, Malcolm Kendrick's, Zoe Harcombe's and about 10 others. It is all public knowledge. Off-site I have a lot of stalkers so I am not always going to use an account to update these articles. There is no rule that says we cannot use IPs, most users do it.

I am generally curious, are you the owner of CancelWatch? Is that why you are obsessed with Smith and spend your time stalking him everyday. I am not sure what you are doing with your life but it isn't productive. I am active here creating articles. Your MO is just to stir shit and spread misinformation. The users over at Wikipediocracy describe you as an attention seeker. I think you need to come off here and find something better to do. We don't need anymore drama. We have already had to put with with Kirkegaard/Karlin/Abd Lomax's, now you are the next one. Just let us RationalWiki editors edit in peace please! Stop being petty and emailing RationalWiki users, stop leaving messages on user's pages complaining about your article or Smith. Nobody is interested in your drama. Let's be productive! Johns (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I brought up the ban evasion issue with Bongolian because one of the users commenting in this discussion contacted me privately, complaining about how nobody was enforcing Smith's ban and asking me if I knew of a way to do anything about it. It has nothing to do with Cancel Watch. I also don't particularly care about the issue being discussed there (regarding the Anomaly article), but that user's complaint about ban evasion seemed reasonable to me.

I still don't know how one is supposed to report potential ban evasion without it causing a drama. RationalWiki needs a way for that to be possible, and I had hoped posting unobtrusively in a moderator's user talk would be the way to accomplish it, but trying to do it this way evidently caused a drama also.

I'm becoming more skeptical of your argument that all of these accounts and IPs were yours rather than Smith's, and that you weren't proxy-editing for Smith while using them, but ultimately that isn't my decision to make. It's up to the moderators to determine whether anything improper has been happening, and I've said what I have to say about this. Tetrapteryx (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan Anomaly/Matthew Archer/Emil Kirkegaard/Edward Dutton/George Francis/Jordan Lasker/Woodley Menie/Anatoly Karlin/Bronze Age Pervert are all racist pricks who will do anything to try and get their articles deleted including sending all kinds of email threats, blackmail or fake money agreements to take their articles down. I am not sure why you side with many of these extremists behind the scenes, they have back-chatted you on discord. You are on the wrong side, wasting your time defending these individuals. Why not use your account to debunk these guys pseudoscience and racist shite? Jordan Lasker for example needs an article as does Jonatan Pallesen. You can get a nice article created for these racist individuals and within a few weeks and it is the top Google search for their name. That puts a nice little smile on my face :)

Emil Kirkegaard wants to legalize cp and enjoys eating dog meat, I am not sure why you go out of your way to defend that guy. A very unethical individual. He doesn't have nice things to say about you. The best thing to do is to keep editing here and debunk these guys. They are not pleasant individuals! Anyone can use an IP here and edit. Let's not get in the way of progress. I feel good about editing here as do many other editors. Kirkegaard and his cult lose! Their pages will never come down. They will probably still be online in 2035. Johns (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

If you want to know the underlying reason for my involvement, you made me and Emily Willoughby care about this set of issues by creating RationalWiki articles about us. (You seem to be saying "Boar" was you, and that account was the creator of the Willoughby article.) It isn't really about defending any of the other people you mentioned. If you were to find a way to get both of our articles deleted, I could make a deal in return to stop participating in RationalWiki, except possibly making anti-creationism edits from time to time. But it would need to be both her article and mine, not just one or the other. And I predict deleting them won't be possible, because RationalWiki's other users won't agree to it. Too bad, but you have to live with the consequences of your decision to create them. Tetrapteryx (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry!

I apologise for reverting some of your edits in the UK general election page, wasn't intentional in the slightest and I apologise --Unfunnyman

No problem. Bongolian (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)