Używasz przestarzałej przeglądarki. Może ona nieprawidłowo wyświetlać tę lub inne strony. Powinieneś zaktualizować przeglądarkę lub użyć alternatywnej przeglądarki.
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia / Wikimedia Contributor General
Half of them are feminist activists with two only being significant for being lateral achievers known only for being the "first [insert oppressed group] here". Gerty Cori shared her discovery with two men, including her husband. Neither of them appear (just like how no one remembers Pierre Curie). Fleming's discovery of penicillin makes him far and away the most important, yet he's shoved in the middle. No Joseph Edward Murray, the first man to perform a kidney transplant, or Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, creator of the fucking X-ray, or anyone else, just a bunch of stunning women and the token scrote.
Here's a gallery of the most important people of the 21st century:
Not Walter Reed. One of the most prominent medical doctors of the 20th century, or John Hopkins. Founder of one of the most prestigious hospitals.
Hell, not even the father of modern surgery and anesthesiology. So people start to use the Zhang. Ether and killing people.
There's a massive RfC on the talk page about this assertion, and it looks like it's going to be kept. It's absurd of course. An agreement was reached more favorable to Iran than many would like, but Iran also took a huge beating and lost much of its leadership and ships. Neither side can claim victory. Underlying disputes still exist, so fighting may resume at a later date.
Reading the intro is a reminder of how Wikipedia spins everything. Sentence after sentence drips with bias. Here is one example which goes beyond spin:
Trump later admitted to manipulating the stock markets to go higher by continuously emphasizing the possibility of a peace deal, citing his fear of "economic catastrophe" as to why he eventually agreed to one.
He admitted to "market manipulation" (the linked article)? Here is what the cited WaPo article quotes Trump as saying:
I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe. If you kept this going, that could have happened, but all I know is every time we talked about the possibility of peace, the stock market shot up like a rocket ship.
That is not admitting to market manipulation. He was making an observation, and explaining why he accepted a deal.
The infobox also has information about number of casualties, which are quite lopsided. It's not often that the "victor" took many times more losses, and the defeated side suffered a total of... 15 soldiers killed.
Supposedly it got so bad that Rule34 started labeling images based on the franchise as “Porkyman” so it would stop getting pulled near the top of SFW searches.
Holy shit I remember that, that must've been like a decade+ ago now.
I think they've switched back to just calling it pokemon now (I'm not going to check), but I distinctly remember seeing it get labeled as "Porkyman" back when I was a horny little teenager. That's hilarious.
ETA: The first source for “Iran won” was the Jeet media. Second was a Jew York Times bit about how “Israel was stunned” by the deal. Third was “Iran being intact” after the war.
Japan was intact after WW2 despite getting nuked twice. Germany was stunned by the Treaty of Versailles. No one debates that both of them lost their respective war.
Calling it an Iran victory is so retarded it’s unbelievable. And you wonder why they constantly have to e-beg to stay alive.
The internet is going to be ruined if we don't put up a wall. They degrade everything they touch. AIfags should be afraid too. There's going to be a critical mass of jeet-created nonsense. Eventually Grok will be spitting out Hindi and autodialing American grandmothers.
Boldly restoring "Result" param as Iranian victory per reliable sources. Current RfC is discussing this very issue, and it is premature to unilaterally render an RfC moot before it is resolved
The RFC ended with the decision that if a "Result" should be included, then it should say Iranian victory. But it left open the possibility of not including a result at all.
Here's what the first cited source says (the Yet sentence is quoted in the citation):
According to a PBS NewsHour fact-check, while the US and Israel achieved real battlefield successes, Pentagon officials told Congress that more than 80 per cent of Iran’s missile, drone and naval defence industrial base had been destroyed or damaged. Yet calling the outcome a total victory overlooks a significant shift in Iran’s favour.
I was reading about the guys who developed Doom and found out one of them has a mom who married a tranny. Hovered over the link to the article for all generic "trans women" and was greeted with this incredibly disingenuous picture lol.
I love how this is the best picture of a tranny they could possibly find and you can still see the manly shovel jaw.
I definitely don't think the US military accomplished all of its initial objectives, and the US suffered plenty of economic damage, but calling this an "Iranian victory" is completely delusional. It looks like most of the sources cited have a left-wing bias (though most of the sources Wikipedia considers "reliable" do). For a site that's supposed to be a "neutral and objective encyclopedia," they sure love their left-wing sources. They also call the Republican Party a "right wing to far right nationalist party," not sure if anyone's mentioned that in this thread yet.
You're both right. In the original days of Wikipedia, perhaps the first 10-15 years, it was very common for people to use their real names or identify themselves, even going to real life meetups organized by Wikipedia, etc.
In the past 10 years, the meta has become to obfuscate your identity as much as possible. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is for sockpuppeting reasons. Most if not all users sockpuppet and it makes it easier if they don't have a real life identity mucking up that aspect. It is extremely easy to sockpuppet and not get caught, so there's no reason not to when the incentives all align with it.
Wyróżniono dnia 23 Cze 2026 przez Null: Wikipedia co-founder has been permanently blocked, unblocked, and re-blocked from editing Wikipedia. No reason given.
This is a bit of a crazy situation.
Larry Sanger is the co-founder of Wikipedia. Sanger coined the name Wikipedia and provided initial drafts for many of its early guidelines, including the "Neutral point of view" and "Ignore all rules" policies. He's also a philosopher and over the years has been slightly critical of Wikipedia due to Wikipedia not being trustworthy and that it's contributors have a left leaning bias in a 2021 interview. He is also a critic of Wikipedia since leaving Wikipedia calling it "broken beyond repair" and that it lacks credibility and accuracy due to left-wing ideological bias.
In a July 2021 interview with Freddie Sayers of LockdownTV, Sanger opined that Wikipedia is not trustworthy and that its contributors have a left-leaning bias. According to Sanger, Wikipedia's coverage of U.S. President Joe Biden contained "very little by way of the concerns that Republicans have had about him" or the Ukraine allegations.
He further adds that since Wikipedia encourages the use of secondary sources instead of primary sources, Wikipedia's content is heavily influenced by coverage from center-left-wing media outlets, saying that "You can't cite the Daily Mail at all. You can't cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It's banned. So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream center-Left media, then it's not going to appear on Wikipedia."
Despite having a neutrality policy, he says that the viewpoint of Wikipedia articles represent the consensus viewpoints and that users are prohibited from adding counter-arguments to established views, which would help create more neutral articles. He argued that Wikipedia can give a "reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything" and that "if only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power. And they do that."
Larry Sanger has had his account blocked indefinitely (permabanned) on Wikipedia by people who politically disagreed with him:
(link / archive)
Just a few hours after he tweeted about this, the block was overturned. Larry Sanger states that Wikipedia is now a faceless mob and not an aggregation of independent, responsible individuals [who are] guided by rational rules and a well thought-out procedure that equally applies to all". He continues adding that he told Wikipedia users back in 2004 that Wikipedia desperately needed a proper community charter and rule of law.
Jimmy Wales, the other co-founder of Wikipedia, despite blocking Larry Sanger on Twitter actually defended Sanger on Wikipedia.
This is my formal defense, written fairly quickly, because a decision might be handed down at any time. I note that not everyone is given time and opportunity to write and have considered this sort of formal defense. I am not asking for any treatment that I would not ask for everyone else.
Since there is no designated prosecutor who has indicted me, I must reconstruct the charges against me. I will begin by doing that.
Moreover, since there is no one person making the case against me, but many self-selected "prosecutors," I must consider the words of everyone testifying. Indeed, I must reconstruct their case against me. I will do that as well, or enough of it to make clear what I am responding to.
Since anyone I might call on to testify on my behalf will naturally be intimidated (and are threatened with punishment simply by being associated with WPID), I must respond to the case myself. I am not sure whether admins will think of a full-throated, detailed defense as violating WP:BLUDGEON, but I will risk it by giving everything due consideration, as justice obviously requires. Again, I do not ask for myself anything that I would not ask for everyone else facing a case on ANI. Especially when a user (like me!) has spent many, many hours on the site, they should be given a fair, dispassionate hearing according to commonsense rules of due process.
While there have been many charges, many seemed to be of lesser importance. So I will limit myself to the three main ones: off-wiki canvassing, not being here to build an encyclopedia, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground.
Note that "WPID" means "WikiProject Intellectual Diversity," the proposed WikiProject that I am accused of inappropriately promoting.
CHARGE 1: OFF-WIKI CANVASSING
I see three main counts.
Count 1. By posting a link to an active WikiProject Council discussion on X/Twitter to 91,000 followers, and by appearing on CNN-News18's Plain Speak podcast urging viewers to "join Wikipedia and join the WikiProject Intellectual Diversity" and to "learn how to play the game," I am accused of engaging in "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" (WPANVASS), specifically by "contacting users off-wiki to persuade them to join in discussions" (WP:STEALTH).
This is the most important count in the most important charge, and I have several responses to it.
First, I had been promoting WPID on X for several weeks before this. This was an attempt to increase members of the WikiProject, which is a thing that the WikiProject guidelines instruct applicants to do: "You must recruit multiple participants before writing a proposal." The WikiProject Guide also says, "The first stop should be to look for projects with similar interests... check the talk pages of related articles for projects with interests that overlap with yours." I did this. I saw no language prohibiting off-wiki recruitment for WikiProjects. I reasoned that, surely, Wikipedia wants more editors.
Insofar as my goal was to recruit new members of WPID, I would like someone to explain to me what specific rule I broke, and why.
But what about CNN-News18 and other instances where I spoke to a perhaps larger audience about WPID? I do not understand how these are offenses. If they are, I would like the rule cited. I have given no interviews since the discussion of WPID began; I was simply trying to get people to join. If there is a rule against that, I am not seeing it.
What about the idea that we should "learn how to play the game"? This is just realism and not any sort of offense. Wikipedia is very much like a game with rules—where, if you break the rules, you are out. I want people to be effective Wikipedians. That means not falling afoul of the rules. What's wrong with that?
You might ask: "What about the fact that you announced on X that you had made the WPID application?" This was an update to my X followers who had already heard from me on the topic several times before; I thought it was interesting news. While I mentioned that some were opposed and others in favor, I neither asked people to support the application nor did it even occur to me that my tweeting about it would result in more support for the application. I deny any mens rea on that score; after all, it is extremely unlikely that anyone new would show up to support the application at the last minute. It was just an update.
I did not invite anyone to vote on the application, much less to support it. I deny that updating my followers about the progress of a project they had been hearing about for weeks constitutes canvassing. If it were any other person than me and any other WikiProject application, nobody would raise an eyebrow.
Count 2. These acts constituted "actively recruiting people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia," which "is prohibited" (WP:MEAT).
I do not believe what I did is what WP:MEAT prohibits, and I would like to see the argument that it is. If I want to go offline or off-wiki on the internet to recruit a bunch of skeptics or feminists—just for example—to make accounts and teach them how to edit Wikipedia, this is not forbidden by WP:MEAT. But that has happened not infrequently over the years. Why then would it be forbidden to recruit a deliberately broad tent of people who want to make Wikipedia more intellectually diverse? As I read WP:MEAT, it prohibits recruiting allies to edit particular articles or particular policy pages. What recruiting people for the WPID does is to recruit people who favor a certain policy direction for Wikipedia; this does not involve recruiting for any particular articles.
"But," you might challenge me, "surely you know that people who favor the goals of WPID will in the future support stances in line with the goals. Why isn't this just an indirect form of meatpuppetry?" If this counts as meatpuppetry, then so does every WikiProject that has ever recruited editors who share a topical interest. I would like to understand why this case is different. Wikipedians are, of course, allowed to recruit people who favor their national causes, or their religions, or their political parties. That is not against the rules or even, it seems to me, wrong. So similarly, I have done nothing to transgress WP:MEAT in recruiting for WPID.
Count 3. I was warned about off-wiki canvassing in April 2026 and continued the behavior, constituting WP:IDHT.
I rejected this advice because it was not presented as an official warning. It was not labeled as such, it did not come from someone announcing themselves as an admin, and it was not clarified that it might be cited in a later ANI case against me. If such talk page comments can serve as official warnings, that should be made a definite rule. As it was, I was not made to understand that there really is a rule against linking to and describing talk page controversies. I still do not think there is such a rule, but if I am instructed by whoever informs me of the outcome that there is such a rule, I will follow it just like everybody else.
If this set of charges is wrong or incomplete, I am asking for the person designated to close to specify them.
CHARGE 2: NOT HERE TO BUILD AN ENCYCLOPEDIA
Here, I see two counts.
Count 1. My editing history demonstrates that I am not here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). 4% of my edits in 2026 have been to mainspace. I have made 19 article-space edits in the past four months; the 20th prior article-space edit was in 2012. My total mainspace contributions between 2003 and March 2026 number fewer than 50. Any other editor with this record would have been indefinitely blocked long ago; my clean block log reflects co-founder status, not good conduct.
First, let's talk about the main claim. It's true that I have made few article space edits recently; but then, plenty of editors work primarily in talk space, project space, or policy space without being blocked. The reason I have avoided making many article space edits, even when I am discussing matters on talk pages, is that it would cause unnecessary controversy if I did. Believe it or not, I do take care about such matters.
More importantly, I categorically assert that I am here to build an encyclopedia. There are various ways to do that. Indeed, advancing the representation of unpopular views on the website would help build the encyclopedia. It would ensure far more information is found in Wikipedia, and in ways that would help it get an even broader audience. In any event, the fact that I have not worked so much in the main article space recently is obviously not an offense of any sort.
Count 2. The totality of my activity since returning—the Nine Theses, WPID, the PolicyScanner, the FAQ in support of WPID, the media appearances, and the "Welcome to Wikipedia (with warnings)" page instructing WPID members how to avoid getting blocked, and other essays—demonstrates that my sole purpose is to change how Wikipedia works, not to improve it. "Ultimately if someone is only here to try and change how Wikipedia works they're NOTHERE, as they're not here to improve the encyclopedia itself," especially insofar as my presence is to build a conservative pressure group within Wikipedia.
There is one thing that is true in this count. It is true that my purpose since last October has mostly been to foster some changes to how Wikipedia works. The ways in which it would be changed, however, would be a decided improvement; therefore, I am here to improve the encyclopedia. It is not a part of my goal to build a "conservative pressure group within Wikipedia." First, WPID would not properly be called a "pressure group," nor would it be specifically allied with conservatives. Indeed, it is a strongly liberal value to support the full representation of unpopular views; this is not particularly conservative, insofar as conservatives favor only a particular culture, and historically have been opposed to the representation of other views.
In any event, none of this establishes that I am not here to improve Wikipedia. I certainly am. And if an admin disagrees with the more tolerant direction in which WPID would attempt to push, that is certainly no reason to block me—at best it is a reason to argue against making WPID an official WikiProject.
Again, if this set of charges is wrong or incomplete, I am asking for the person designated to close to specify them.
CHARGE 3: TREATING WIKIPEDIA AS A BATTLEGROUND
I see three main counts.
Count 1. By organizing WPID, I have organized "a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus" (WP:BATTLEGROUND). The PolicyScanner is cited as the mechanism by which this faction would be directed to specific discussions. My X post—"The left marched through this institution. There's no reason we can't march right back"—is cited as proof that I view Wikipedia as ideological territory to be conquered rather than an encyclopedia to be built.
First, even if true, this is not a reason to block or otherwise to discipline me; it is a reason to block WPID from being made official. If so, then this supposed, feared "faction" does not come into being. Problem solved.
Second, it is incorrect—and, arguably, a violation of AGF—to say that WPID aims to disrupt any policy decision-making processes. Indeed, our proposal makes it clear that we are encouraging participation in, not co-opting or otherwise disrupting, established Wikipedia processes.
Third, I concede that the cited X post about the long march through the institutions contains indefensible rhetoric, and I do regret it. Still, it comes from a place any group that is unfairly treated in Wikipedia can sympathize with. It is easily arguable that Wikipedia is largely "ideologically captured," and what I propose to do is to suggest that conservatives (sure), Hindus, Israelis, and Christians (among others) quite simply not concede defeat, but to get involved in the same way that the left wing Establishment has done.
Count 2. WPID's stated goals amount to an attempt to undermine core policies, specifically WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WPUE. The WPID page states that "attention to 'due weight' and 'fringe theories,' and the close connection between these determinations and tendentious policies about 'reliable sources,' tends to undermine robust neutrality." I am quoted from the Teahouse as saying "WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE need to be greatly weakened if not abolished." My defense of OpIndia—blacklisted for doxxing a Wikipedia editor—is cited as further evidence.
Our goals are not to undermine any core policies—even sections about WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE would remain if I could personally rewrite them. But I am not asking to rewrite them; the WPID would not be empowered to do so (obviously); and it is above all not a bannable offense to want these policies to be improved and brought in line with true intellectual tolerance. As to WP:NPOV, I am personally responsible for introducing the policy to Nupedia and Wikipedia and for drafting the longer version of the policy, which was left largely intact for many years after I left. My tolerance and advocacy for the fair representation of ideas that I disagree with—such as homeopathy, communism, and Hinduism—is arguably the single most important reason why Wikipedia has a neutrality policy.
Again, this is no reason to give me special treatment here. I say it only to refute the idea that I hope to "undermine...WP:NPOV."
Count 3. My conduct in the WikiProject Council discussion and on ANI constitutes bludgeoning (WP:BLUDGEON)—"the continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal" that "is considered disruptive" (WPON). Specifically: posting the 11-question FAQ in the middle of an active discussion, and responding at length to multiple critics while the proposal was being overwhelmingly rejected.
I do not see how this can be maintained to be improper, as the following should explain. First, I spent literally months carefully developing this proposal and supporting software, and while it had plenty of supporters, it was mostly my work. The sudden pile-on in the WikiProject Council discussion would obviously intimidate any of WPID's supporters. And no surprise: as I said above, and as I repeat, they were threatened with punishment simply by being associated with WPID. So I had a choice: either (a) speak for the group that had been largely intimidated into silence, responding to it all myself, or (b) allow many substantive points to go unanswered. I do not regret choosing (a). There was no other way for the proposal to receive a fair shake.
Once again, if this set of charges is wrong or incomplete, I am asking that someone—such as the person designated to close—specify them.
In conclusion, outside of ancient Greece, persons in the dock are not supposed to suggest what punishment would be fair. I will say, however, that a block of any length for any of these charges would be inappropriate. I did not invite anyone to vote in any particular way. I deny that any of these charges justifies a block of any length. Moreover, contrary to what some have said, I do not want to be blocked!
Finally, if this discussion proceeds any farther, I would like to ask that an authoritative person (I should hope the person chosen, or who volunteers, to report the final decision on my user talk page) clarify exactly what the charges are against me. This might be too much to ask, though; I am not to expect special treatment, and typically, no specific charges are listed against a blocked person until after sentence has been passed.
Even reading all the various "rules" he allegedly broke made me nauseous. You can't encourage people to join Wikipedia in order to affect change at Wikipedia? You can't try to change Wikipedia if your desired changes run contrary to the current zeitgeist's ideals (thus making all changes inherently considered hostile)? You can't argue against their current ideals because it turns the website into a battleground?
This just sounds like an Ouroboros of "rules" designed to prevent anyone from changing anything. The website is already a battleground of narrative building troglodytes who don't want to make an encyclopedia, they want their own Ministry of Truth.
(link / archive)
ANVASS), specifically by "contacting users off-wiki to persuade them to join in discussions" (WP:STEALTH).
UE. The WPID page states that "attention to 'due weight' and 'fringe theories,' and the close connection between these determinations and tendentious policies about 'reliable sources,' tends to undermine robust neutrality." I am quoted from the Teahouse as saying "WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE need to be greatly weakened if not abolished." My defense of OpIndia—blacklisted for doxxing a Wikipedia editor—is cited as further evidence.
