User talk:Sennalen

Ask me what I think

Here's your chance. Sennalen (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some obvious ones to get the ball rolling:

What do I think is the origin of Covid-19?

I've changed my mind several times as evidence has emerged. In the process of writing [Covid-19 zoonosis theories], I convinced myself that the most likely scenario is a bat with a BANAL-cluster virus was eaten by someone in Wuhan. They then experienced a persistent enteric infection slowly adapting to a human host, until the random gain of a furin cleavage site allowed it to go airborne from sewage below Huanan market. The fact that EcoHealth planned to synthesize a virus with a furin cleavage site however means there's a suspicion there that will never go away. Premature efforts to label things as conspiracy theories only hardened everyone's distrust. Sennalen (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the attention of Bon courage to this - I have changed my mind a number of times. Immediately after learning some revelations about EcoHealth, those seemed like a smoking gun. I still think they are suspicious, but I have tempered my views. I think this is the right fundamental attitude to have about scientific questions. Sennalen (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do I think of Falun Gong?

I don't think anything of Falun Gong. It's something like Tai Chi but with a cult of personality. They have a touring song and dance troupe. It's sad that they get persecuted in China. Epoch Times is a useless propaganda rag. Sennalen (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do I think of the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory?

It's stupid. No one in the Frankfurt school had a plan to take over the country, or do radio mind control, or anything of the sort. They had useful observations on prejudice and new forms of mass media which were ahead of their time. The conspiracy theorists however did not invent the phrase "cultural Marxism" and there's not any evidence they borrowed it from nazis. The phrase was all over the place in late 80's academe. We shouldn't have to pretend Rudi Dutschke or Trent Schroyer aren't real just because some conspiracy theorists were stupid. Sennalen (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's good of you to invite questions Sennalen! You're a most interesting person, and I was wondering why someone of your oustanding ability would make the editorial choices you have. Even a simple yes/no answer would be much appreaciated, and if you chose to use the question as a springboard for any discursion, that would be even more interesting. The question is, Do you think Elliot meant it literally when he said "humankind can not bear very much reality" ? FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FeydHuxtable: A delightful question outside the scope of anything I expected here. I'll confess I am not so familiar with T.S. Eliot, knowing his works mainly vicariously through a friend who wrote a term paper on J. Alfred Prufrock, in the course of which he came to loathe it. I can say I enjoy Burnt Norton quite a lot. The prosody brings to mind e.e. cummings, only there is capitalization. My favorite bit is "for the roses; Had the look of flowers that are looked at". Anyway, the bird whose views Eliot reports on is clearly explicating Eternalism (philosophy of time), with "humankind can not bear very much reality" explaining why humans don't see it that way. Sennalen (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Too perfect! Un million merci. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin said that you are "pushing racist pseudoscience." Are you?

XMcan (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but it would be better if questions came from editors with their own concerns rather than lobbing softballs, but since it's been asked, no - I am not pushing racist pseudoscience. The reason for this thread of course is people are taking the fact that I have edited various CTOPs to insinuate I have the worst possible views on all of them. The evidence doesn't support a link between race and intelligence. My involvement in that CTOP is just one RfC in which my position was only that Wikipedia should use WP:BESTSOURCES. Here's my conclusion at the time:

If any RfC or interpretation of an RfC leads to removals of sources like [1] [2] [3] it is time to pause and reflect on whether something has gone wrong. These are the kinds of sources that should be used in the first place to determine what is or isn't fringe. The fact that WP:FRINGE guidelines are being used to remove them points to deep dysfunction in the policy.

Sennalen (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "lobbing softballs"; it's a serious allegation that needed to be addressed, especially considering you are facing a site ban. XMcan (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant only that when it's asked by you it's not coming from someone genuinely airing their own suspicions. Sennalen (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely felt concerned about the allegations. While I've only gotten to know you a little bit, Sennalen, and I can't claim to know you that well, I'm committed to refraining from assuming any bad faith on your part until you've had a proper and fair hearing. Let's refrain from quibbling further on this subject.

I don't want to take up too much space with my comments, but I want to express that having this section is a good idea. Hopefully, more people will participate. XMcan (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is another sort of dimension to it that I don't want to seem like I'm burying. I arrived at the topic purely through this RfC, not any particular plan to edit about intelligence. The RfC went on to a dispute about whether it was closed properly, and then some ANI threads on top of that. One of the main participants seemed good faith on a cursory look, but it became clearer over time that they really overtly wanted articles to support a link between race and intelligence. They ended up banned, naturally, and then there were more threads about whether the ban was proper. It was a big mess. I was one of the few who to the end continued to say it was not a good block. There were some procedural irregularities, and the guy never really did anything disruptive on Wikipedia regardless of his views. People are welcome to think I got it wrong, but that's entirely different from thinking I myself have an agenda to push with race and intelligence. Sennalen (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sennalen,

Thanks for inviting questions in this way.

You wrote to me,

The cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is based on lies and distortions about the Frankfurt School. There are some who have chosen to counter this with lies and distortions in the opposite direction, rather than simply the truth. Ultimately, that plays into the hands of the greater proto-fascist threat, MAGA. Nothing helps the apparent credibility of right-wing disinformation more than easily debunked disinformation from the left. That includes the continual insistence, against evidence, that the phrase "cultural Marxism" is a special shibboleth only of the right. I know that that alone has helped radicalized some people.

It sounds like you are here speaking from anecdotal personal observations, which, if the case, is 100% okay. There was no need or expectation of sourcing in the context of this remark.

If, however, you can point to sources supporting this, that would be most welcome information. If they are further up to Wikipedia standards of reliability, their addition to our coverage of the conspiracy theory could help to improve the article.

Regards, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few different but related things.

The first is in media - there's the "deplorables" framing and an occassional "15 minutes of hate" in media towards targets like the Covington kids or "Bicycle Karen". These kinds of things feed Infowars-style persecution complexes that facilitate the authoritarian mindset, and it only gets worse when media doubles down before correcting. I don't know what the best sourcing about this dynamic would be, but Martin Jay touched on it in the postscript to the phyiscal book form of "Splinters in Your Eye".

Second is a pattern of gaslighting that follows when conservatives call a progressive political project by name. Freddie deBoer wrote the definitive statement of this problem, although he hates when people link it.[4]. (Definitely not RS). If anyone thinks they occupy a defensible point of view, they should be willing to articulate it and defend it, rather than pretend it never happened.

Finally there's on Wikipedia. There are articles where WP:IMPARTIAL is a dead letter, and I've seen plenty of people cite particular instances that made them lose faith in the encyclopedia as a whole because of it. (Though no one I particularly knew or specifically recall.) The older cultural Marxsim RfCs have even been mentioned as a breaking point by randos I've seen on Twitter. In the words of the great Dr. Doofenshmirtz, "That's not a lot, but it's funny that it happened twice." Sennalen (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PatrickJWelsh: also, This sums it all up Sennalen (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that characterizing objections to conservative caricatures and conspiracy theories - in which Conservatives essentially make up nonexistent political projects and engage freely in smear tactics as they do so - as "gaslighting" is itself pretty much the purest form of gaslighting I can imagine. The crypto-Nietzschean imperative to say, essentially, that "your words mean whatever I say they mean" doesn't belong exclusively to the Right, but that is certainly the place it currently finds itself most at home. Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are conservative caricatures and conspiracy theories that are just plain made up. The whole grooming thing for instance is just made up. I think what Freddie deBoer observes with "woke" and "CRT" starts as a kind of citogenesis - some conservative cranks use "woke" in invalid ways, then that becomes the archetypal pattern of "conservative saying woke". They are lumped in with the bad actors regardless of what any individual one actually meant. The endpoint is "woke" means something real as long as you think that thing is a good thing. Sennalen (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But "woke", like "politically correct", originated as a term of self-mockery on the left that is presented on the right as though it had been an actual political project. I am unaware of any naîve uses of either term by progressives as though either were a good thing.

CRT of course is different - it is a university-based offshoot of Critical Theory turned by Conservatives into an equivalent to the "Cultural Marxism" canard, with the educated elite now conspiring to undermine the self-esteem of young white folks by exposing them to the concept of "privilege". The caricature differs from actual CRT in every way that matters, from scope of application to key ideas to intended outcomes. Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was probably a self-deprecating ironic phase to it's trajectory. I'm pretty sure it started as a very sincere word in AAVE, and a lot of people were non-ironically identifying with it around 2010 maybe? Just going by personal recollection. Not that it meant something specific at the point conservatives started to say it vituperatively. Sennalen (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was only referring to usage of "woke" outside AAVE. And in that context, I'm pretty sure the people in wider speech communities identifying with it around 2010 were using the term with an element of self-deprecation, though probably not irony. At least that is the way I remember how those intersectional speech communities were functioning at the time. Newimpartial (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a definition for the academic usage of "cultural Marxism" - "the application of historical materialism to cultural analysis". Unfortunately for you, these aren't Schroyer or Dutschke's words, but my own. I of course wouldn't try to squeeze my own WP:OR opinion on this matter into the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, or into any other page. So I have to use reliable sources, which are relevant and WP:DUE (and hopefully where possible agree with my petty opinions).

This is not just your burden alone. You are not fighting tirelessly against the they/them, those others who "pretend Schroyer and Dutschke don't exist" or ignore the term cultural Marxism in academic texts prior to the conspiracy theory. No in actuality - we ALL work tirelessly against each other, and in that work, the burden of feeling persecuted is shared.

The point is, we all seek resolution, and policy based consensus. I've seen you do this, I've seen others do this, on occasion I've even done it. That's just called being a Wikipedian. So we fight, and we bitch, and we quibble, and we argue... and somehow the library of sand continues to grow. Welcome to our shared persecution complex. If only we could make those who disagree with us understand just how right we are! We all need to stop pretending that I, in particular, am wrong. 14.202.188.111 (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was starting to think you wouldn't show up to the party. You're my favorite frenemy. Sennalen (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that you seem to have matured in your views since you first arrived full of WP:OUTRAGE. You actually seem to care about Marxism and cultural analysis, which is sadly not so universal in Wikipedians as your lyrical allocution here suggests. Sennalen (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trump

Hello. I had to revert your additions to the Donald Trump page, as I didn't think there was a consensus for it. At the moment, an editor is planning an RFC for the topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Thanks for the note. My proposal to add it seems to have been ignored on the talk page, while everyone is more interested in discussing the 2023 "vermin" comments. The RfC is also planned to be about the latter. If anything, putting something on the real page for a moment should get more people to take a focused position. Sennalen (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has re-added your addition, though (IMHO) without a consensus to do so. Oh well, each editor (I believe) is resticted to 1-revert/24hrs, so we'll see how it all turns out. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you at ANI, sorry

This is just to let you know that you are mentioned in the ANI report here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#XMcan_stirring_up_trouble. I apologise if this creates any additional unwanted drama for you but I think this might be the only way to put a stop to the disruption. Please feel free to comment, or not, as you see fit. DanielRigal (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Muppet Theory

Hello! Your submission of Muppet Theory at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Valereee (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for disruption across multiple CTOP areas, per Special:PermaLink/1189167307#ජපස_and_Bon_courage, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Galobtter (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Troppo ultraterreno

Sorry to see how the AE played out. You're the most graceful person I've ever noticed in all my 15 years on Wikipedia, I doubt you'd have learnt or grown much from being on here, so it may be for the best. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article

Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Awesome Aasim 19:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the thesis of that one has not been understandable to most readers, I don't take issue with user draftification. Sennalen (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Prefer truth

Wikipedia:Prefer truth, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Prefer truth and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Prefer truth during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many people would agree with the claim that the virtue of honesty is incompatible with Wikipedia policy, but that is too cynical for my tastes.

WP:YESTRUTH is even more compatible with policy than similar established essays like WP:VAT or WP:NOTFALSE. Of these three, YESTRUTH is the only one that makes detailed wikilinks to back up everything it says with references to core policies. As a collation of thematically related but widely dispersed policy clauses, its existence is a useful community resource.

Editors who are concerned about single-author essays in general are invited to contribute to improving YESTRUTH in the spirit in which it was written. There is no basis on which to consider the essay "problematic" in a way that would justify draftification. Sennalen (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if someone would copy the above comment to Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Prefer_truth Sennalen (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's allowed per WP:PROXYING. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Implementing a requested edit is not proxying, as long as the implementing editor with independent judgement considers it to be an improvement in good faith. Sennalen (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sennalen, if you ever need comments copied over to an unblock discussion at either AN or AE, I'd be happy to help, and you should feel free to ping me. I think that's the totality of what editors should be copying for you. Your participation by proxy is not permitted at deletion discussions, and I would not suggest that anybody take you up on your request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, someone went for it. Offer stands on appeal comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it as a one-off statement making it clear where it came from. I won't be copying any additional messages. DanielRigal (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big of you Sennalen (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]