Wikipedia Sperglord Tantrums

[HG 400]

I figure Wikipedia houses enough distilled autism to merit a thread. There are thousands of cripplingly autistic manbabies who live for editing wikipedia, and throw the most massive, earth-shattering tantrums when something doesn't go their way. This is the thread for those people.

I don't speak wiki-lawyer so if anyone wants to throw out a quick sperg-to-english glossary I'll edit it into the OP (or a mod can do it for me if they're feeling particularly useful).

Anyways, here's a pretty amazing tantrum. Backstory is apparently two groups of politically-motivated spastics are fighting over the 'Cultural Marxism' entry. I don't know shit about it but apparently the ones against it are characterised as SJW authoritarian feminazis and the ones in favour of it are characterised as Rethuglican MRA misogynists, or something. It's all wank to me, I don't understand a word of it and it's probably not important except to know that spastic shitflinging chimps care so very deeply about it. Anyways, it apparently got deleted for being poor quality under a massive campaign from the "SJW" spastics, and now the "MRA" spastics are drafting a new version. This does not sit well with RGloucester, and he's latched onto some spurious wikilawyering point that I don't understand, and he's furious as shit.

Here's the highlight of his meltdown but you can view the full descent into frothing assmadness here.

I really hope next time one of the staff here tell somebody what to do, they remember to remind them "YOU SIR, ARE NOTHING BUT A DUSTMAN WITH A MOP!"

Because when he's taken to task by the authorities, does he calm down? No, he will not be calmed down, for he cannot allow the farce to pass!

Welp, that's what I got. Post some good Wikipedo spergouts and meltdowns if you see them.

 

[Roger Rabbit]

I dunno, Wikipedia in general is a sperglord.

Specifically, they raged hard when people tried to copy the Weird Al music video for White and Nerdy by posting YOU SUCK! on the Atlantic Records page on Wikipedia. In fact, even to this day, on the talk page for Atlantic Records they have a thing saying "don't you fucking dare do that".

 

[Flowers For Sonichu]

I recall that Mr. Navarro used to throw tantrums over random cartoon characters not having their own pages dedicated to them.

 

[Saney]

As I recall, the Loveshies had a huge bitchfit when the incel page was shutdown. One of their more vocal members, maybe Advanced or Marjan, personally started to whine on the deletion talk page.

 

[Treblinkachu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ABDL

I went to this page once specifically because I wanted to see what kinds of autism people had spewed onto it, and I found a gold mine. I'm going to check the furry one too. But holy shit, let me show you some magnificent classic sperging from the good old days: Administrator brenneman vs. a fanatical autistic diaperfag named DaveyBlue who just won't give up.

Now, Wikipedia is known for some high-level autism. This is par for the course. What you are about to see is no different from its usual faggotry, but is in fact quite a bit funnier because it involves diapers and persecution complexes, which are both inherently hilarious.

First, let's examine the obvious: the content from the discussion page for the now defunct ABDL (Adult Baby/Diaper Lover) article. Apparently, it was a big shit heap to begin with, and people like brenneman (who was actually a pretty okay admin some of the time) said it was total crap written by autistic fetishists. Some people took it as a kind of persecutory behavior that the article on their lifestyle was being downsized, but fortunately most of them had the sense not to get diaper rash over it.

But one brave man had something to say about the repression, and his name was Davy Blue!

Spoiler: "I assure you the ABDL community is not mythological."

Spoiler: "Incidentally, are you on some sort of crusade?"

As you read through the lines after lines and slowly process them, you gradually begin to realize that Davy Blue has combined his wikipedophilia with a sense of persecution and an intense fascination with dirty soiled diapers. Moreover, he is not just proud of his fixation on diapers; he feels himself to be a martyr for the great cause of giving grown men the freedom to wear dirty filthy diapers in public places, and sees brenneman as the dastardly Nazi foe trying to oppress his diaperkin into concentration camps forever.

Spoiler: "Being burned is painful."

(Also, go here to see what they talk about in between the above two pictures, because it's pretty funny in its own right)

At this point, a white knight fellow diaper masturbator appears. And he is very angry.

Spoiler: "Your attitude though has been a bit out of line."

Then OrbitOne, in his anger, makes this immediately after brenneman's reply:

Spoiler: "How to offend an Adult Baby."

And then immediately after that section, this densely packed field of autism is created:

Spoiler: Men who wear diapers demand respect

We can now gather that brenneman edits infantilism articles too much to be innocent of being a diaperfag, but we will forgive him somewhat because he is the only remotely relateable character in this retarded tale.

OrbitOne vanishes into the tubes, but meanwhile, brenneman has been hard at work crafting a masterpiece of spergwin on Davy Blue's talk page.

Spoiler: That moment when you notice that Davy is a legitimate fudgepacker

Spoiler: A shiny finished product

Davy, however, does not take it so well.

Spoiler: "I don't fully understand Wikipedia."

Can you feel the sexual tension? They're probably dying to get into each others' diapers by this point.

Spoiler: "Keep it up and you'll earn yourself one deleted profile."

And now Dave removes his veneer of civility and accuses brenneman of being the kind of person who burns niggers alive for fun. I think that it is his way of denying his obvious sexual feelings for brenneman. I wish this was a soap opera.

Spoiler: Have some cake.jpg

brenneman is what makes this whole thing work so well. It wouldn't be nearly as funny if it was just two hysterical spergs having a catfight. But no, it's this idiot repeatedly threatening and insulting what amounts to an emotionless, overly rational brick wall that spams him with rules every time he posts.

Oh yeah, I forgot, Davy has some past history with brenneman too. He's obsessed with remaking that ABDL article, which I think gives his character a lot of depth and mystique that it otherwise wouldn't have had. For example, he tried to remake it under different names, and brenneman just redirected them to the infantilism article every time. Example:

Spoiler: "If in doubt, don't delete!"

Spoiler: "You can read, can't you?"

Spoiler: Conspiracy theories

And let's not forget the revelation of Davy's traumatic beginnings with the deletion of the ABDL article all the way back in July, when he compared its deletion to ethnic repression.

Spoiler: "Now, why would you want to delete something like that?"

But now it's all coming to a close. The loose ends are being tied up! The series finale is drawing near! Davy is so mad at brenneman that he starts spamming the arbitration request page with demands for them to delete brenneman, who, just to remind you, is one of the wikipedia brass, whereas Davy has made like 30 edits total at that point and most of them have been autistic as fuck. To make it even better, he doesn't even make his own title for it, he just co-opts someone else's discussion and inserts his own demand:

Spoiler: DELETE BRENNEMAN

Spoiler: The answer to his question

No.

But like all good things, the lulz must end eventually.

Spoiler: You're tearing me apart, Davy!

Spoiler: Everybody dies at the end

And I guess he got banned or something because there are no more posts after August 12th.

 

[Jaimas]

I don't remember her name, but I remember there was an Admin on wikipedia who repeatedly tried to get all webcomics except her boyfriend's removed from the Wiki. She wound up eating a banhammer eventually.

 

[Picklechu]

I edit Wikipedia pretty regularly--mostly political articles and spelling/grammar stuff that I catch while browsing. I end up undoing a lot of this garbage that I see. It can be pretty funny to watch the drama sometimes.

 

[c-no]

I never really knew much about the tantrums of Wikipedia aside from Moleman but I do remember this bit when there was drama among the fan patches for Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.

Spoiler: Links to the drama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vampire:_The_Masquerade_–_Bloodlines#Tessmage_links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:V...ines#Consensus_count_for_the_Unofficial_Patch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vampire:_The_Masquerade_–_Bloodlines#Page_protected

Spoiler: Archive of said drama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vampire:_The_Masquerade_–_Bloodlines/Archive_3
*There are two other archives that have some mention of this edit drama

To sum it up, a buggy pc game about vampires gotten two fan patches which brings drama (it can be described as autistic when one of them has a fan that photo-shops the head of the other onto a Nazi *Said photo-shopped head is a German guy.)

Said drama included editing the Wikipedia page of the game over fan-patches, wanting reliable sources and saying why one gets mentioned but the other doesn't. Honestly, it's just nothing but an autistic fight over two fan-patches, one of which tries to claim to not be a mod (Even though it modifies the game by fixing bugs and possibly balancing anything) and this fight had to spill over to some Wikipedia article to the game (in which mods and editors would have to get involved because fanboys of these patches had to fight each other. I also remember the creator the "true patch" complaining about Wikipedia being an evil corporate website because they didn't mention his patch or something like that).

 

[Foulmouth]

I think people who link/quote Wikipedia articles to justify their arguments qualify as low grade lolcows in their own right.

 

[AP 297]

One of the people in this post RGloucester identifies as Androgynous.

https://archive.today/QtEwN

His/Hers/Its posts were extra exceptional.

Also the updated page. Apparently there are some gamergate aspects to this, too. I swear that thing is everywhere.

https://archive.today/IQwUu

 

[blackie toy]

Wow. I hadn't thought RGloucester was that autistic. I've been pretty quiet on the project over the last several months, but I definitely didn't expect that kind of meltdown.

There are some really fucking scary people involved in Wikipedia though. The amount of backstabbing that goes on behind the scenes, like at the Foundation "Chapters", actually soured me on editing for awhile. And I wasn't even a target... I just happened to witness a planning session of several people involved in a certain organization plotting how they were going to out another editor as a pedophile (they had no hard evidence, just indications that the guy was doing some creepy as fuck shit at the previous Wikimania).

If you want to see autism, though, check out Wikimedia Commons and the amount of stupidity that goes into file deletion discussions. Everyone's an armchair IP attorney.

 

[HG 400]

Wow. I hadn't thought RGloucester was that autistic. I've been pretty quiet on the project over the last several months, but I definitely didn't expect that kind of meltdown.

Could you give some kind of background summary on the Cultural Marxism article and why it's such an autism-magnet? I clearly don't know what the deal is except "some kind of stupid issue that SJWs and MRAs are fighting over, or something", and I'm not even convinced that's anywhere close to accurate anyway.

 

[Jaimas]

Could you give some kind of background summary on the Cultural Marxism article and why it's such an autism-magnet? I clearly don't know what the deal is except "some kind of stupid issue that SJWs and MRAs are fighting over, or something", and I'm not even convinced that's anywhere close to accurate anyway.

Basically, it works like this:

An offshoot of Marxism that gave birth to political correctness, multiculturalism and "anti-racism." Unlike traditional Marxism that focuses on economics, Cultural Marxism focuses on culture and maintains that all human behavior is a result of culture (not heredity / race) and thus malleable. Cultural Marxists absurdly deny the biological reality of gender and race and argue that gender and race are “social constructs”. Nonetheless, Cultural Marxists support the race-based identity politics of non-whites. Cultural Marxists typically support race-based affirmative action, the proposition state (as opposed to a nation rooted in common ancestry), elevating non-Western religions above Western religions, speech codes and censorship, multiculturalism, diversity training, anti-Western education curricula, maladaptive sexual norms and anti-male feminism, the dispossession of white people, and mass Third World immigration into Western countries. Cultural Marxists have promoted idea that white people, instead of birthing white babies, should interracially marry or adopt non-white children. Samuel P. Huntington maintained that Cultural Marxism is an anti-white ideology.

Someone vastly smarter than the rabble (read: Sargon or the like) brings it up and how many of the so-called SJWs' talking points involve Cultural Marxism, a viewpoint wherein equality must be enforced at gunpoint and things like race, gender, religion, and so on are dismantled for being social constructs, and those that do not conform are considered enemies. This is actually quite correct, given that the average Tumblrista is all about killing whitey and nounself pronouns. Please note at this point that these people are very small minority, but they're very loud and skilled at making their numbers and presence seem far greater than it really is.

So someone like Sargon brings this up, and bam, anyone who dislikes SJWs has a brand new talking point. This leads to the inevitable as well-meaning but stupid people who dislike the SJWs for reasons obvious begin echoing this sentiment whilst doing no research whatsoever on it. The so-called MRAs then quickly harp on it, because they hate the SJWs as much as everyone else. At this point, they're all about putting up an article about it, since it accurately portrays the "endgame" of the SJW mindset for many, and, being MRAs, these are liberally peppered with for-realz misogyny (as opposed to the type tumblr screams about), and generally are as austistic as possible.

Finally, the clusterfuck begins when so-called SJWs then look into the term, find it adequately describes their mindset, and promptly go pants-on-head trying to deny it because Marxism itself carries specific connotations of failure (Communism nowadays is associated with bread lines and similar bullshittery, for better or worse). Now they're entrenched because the kryptonite of the SJW is exposure. And thus, we get to the point where we have what is obstenibly a good idea (an article on a rather questionable and potentially-dangerous philosophical ethos) is now a battleground between three distinct groups: People who want the article up to let facts speak for themselves (since, as has been established, reality has a well-known anti-SJW bias), people who want the article to be used to punch SJWs in the groin (the MRAs), and those who want to castrate how effective the article can be at describing their mindset (the SJWs). It's an all-out war, and whoever wins, there's Autism (except for the first party, really).

 

[AnOminous]

Could you give some kind of background summary on the Cultural Marxism article and why it's such an autism-magnet? I clearly don't know what the deal is except "some kind of stupid issue that SJWs and MRAs are fighting over, or something", and I'm not even convinced that's anywhere close to accurate anyway.

It's basically a fringe theory that literally everything right wingers don't like is secretly Marxist. I'm not certain it's a "conspiracy theory," as at least in part, it's more an idea that some sort of miasma of Marxism pervades all modern culture. A conspiracy theory would involve a secret cabal of Marxists deliberately infecting everything with Marxism because, why, because they're just evil, that's why. And some proponents take it there, but it's not necessarily a "conspiracy theory."

The problem with the theory is it literally explains everything. I am at a loss to think of anything from gay rights to SJW bullshit to shitty fashions to international banking that isn't all Marxist top to bottom under this theory.

However, this term crops up again and again both online and in public debate, and fringier, weirder things have their own Wikipedia articles. For instance, even crazy birther theories have literally dozens of articles related to them and their proponents. That stuff is more worthy? Really?

Currently, they're redirecting the "Cultural Marxism" phrase to a subsection of an article on the Frankfurt School, blamed as the origin of the alleged pestilence. This is ridiculous, as most of the people casually currently throwing around the phrase probably have no fucking idea what that even is.

So why would SJWs want to delete this article, which people might actually want to look at if baffled by hearing the phrase "cultural Marxism" being thrown around a lot these days in mass media as well as on the net, while leaving the birther articles alone? It could be because the birther shit makes right wingers look fucking nuts, while the cultural Marxism article has contents they simply don't like.

The article, as it was when I saw it a couple months ago, adequately explained what the theory meant to those who endorse it as well as detailing the criticisms of those who think it's basically goofy.

Deleting it was a mistake and motivated more by its contents than by its relevance. Also, I think there may be some merit to the idea that the article was degraded by shitty edits as part of the scheme to make it deletion-worthy.

Finally, the clusterfuck begins when so-called SJWs then look into the term, find it adequately describes their mindset, and promptly go pants-on-head trying to deny it because Marxism itself carries specific connotations of failure (Communism nowadays is associated with bread lines and similar bullshittery, for better or worse).

The few people silly enough to be actual Marxists also detest the term, because Marxism and identity politics are antithetical. They emphasize individual identity over collective good and, in the eyes of Marxists, serve as a distraction from the central tenet of Marxism, which is class struggle.

This is frankly why the phrase "cultural Marxism" is utterly misplaced being directed at basically anything the person using the phrase doesn't like.

It's essentially a substitute for "degenerates."

I've heard it claimed (among lots of other claims) that it was a self-declared Marxist who is responsible for the deletion, but the push in the Articles for Deletion debate sure included a lot of flat-out SJWs angry about the term basically because they don't like how it describes them.

There just aren't enough Marxists to rig an AfD, even in the autistic netherworld of Wikipedia wars.

 

[AP 297]

From the article dated January 18th, 2015:

Content deleted by consensus at recent AfD. Restored with no consensus to do so, as no deletion review was filed to modify the result to "userfy" or "convert to draft". The result of the AfD was "delete", not "userfy" or "convert to draft". This flies in the face of the AfD. If someone wants to challenge the AfD, I suggest they file a move review. Delete. RGloucester — ☎ 19:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Delete I am confident the proposer is acting in good faith. Moreover, I did vote to delete or redirect Cultural Marxismin its latest AFD. However, it is my understanding that nothing in that AFD nor in policy prevents the content from being further edited to (hopefully) result in a properly-sourced, policy-compliant article. Given the amazing amount of controversy (not due to incorrect or bad faith actions by User:RGloucester, in my opinion - rather, somehow, this article has been caught up in the Gamergate controversy), I'm not confident that a proper article will result, but, again, nothing in policy prevents editors from trying. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Carefully reading WPEL, Wikipediaeletion_policy#Undeletion and Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages leads me to conclude:

• The restoral was out of policy. Given the controversy surrounding this, perhaps further actions in response to misuse of tools should be taken - if nothing else, some trouts should be applied.
• Deletion is of that restoral is not mandated by the policy (in fact, it is not even addressed), but if the action was unallowed, then undoing that action seems to be the correct action.
• I am worried that this MFD is about to become a repetition of the prior controversies. If it were not for that, I'd prefer the non-bureaucratic solution I originally espoused.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

From the looks of it and the rest of the archived page, there was a motion to delete the page after someone radically worked to include the Gamergate contraversy into the topic of Social Marxism. I think they wanted to rebuild it, after this whole thing happened.

https://archive.today/IQwUu

Apparently, there have been attempts by congress staffers to link Gamergate and Cultural Marxism:

https://archive.today/Jq8Ao

Edit:Also a reddit article explaining it plainly:

https://archive.today/iy8qw

 

[blackie toy]

Could you give some kind of background summary on the Cultural Marxism article and why it's such an autism-magnet? I clearly don't know what the deal is except "some kind of stupid issue that SJWs and MRAs are fighting over, or something", and I'm not even convinced that's anywhere close to accurate anyway.

I haven't been following the dispute, but it looks like a pretty minor one to be perfectly honest. The stuff you show in the OP looks like the dispute hovers around exactly which policy applies for determining what to do with the article/redirect.

My experience with disputes on Wikipedia is that where the people involved actually give a shit about the topic itself, the debate will almost inevitably degenerate into accusations of "article ownership", failure to maintain a neutral point of view, and holding some insidious conflict of interest. 99+% of the disputes and edit wars you hear about in outside media boil down to that. Only very rarely is it the case where there are neutral, experienced eyes on a particular issue, that it results in an intractable dispute.

This actually leads to one of the big problems on Wikipedia: its ruleset is growing towards requiring formalized means of settling disagreements about content issues, and having someone be the ultimate arbiter of what goes and what doesn't. At present there's nothing other than "consensus", which few Wikipedia editors can accurately define themselves. The current system lends itself far too much to legalistic flailing about, and what I'd characterize as use of legal fictions in order to find a formal, binding resolution for a problem. The folks who do articles on medical topics have gotten really close to fixing the problem of quacks through rigorous sourcing requirements for medical articles, to the point that it's bleeding over into loosely related areas (e-cigarettes was a recent one, where someone was banned for pushing research about e-cigs and health).

Anyway, my short answer is that it's nothing about the concept of Cultural Marxism itself that's attracting people to dispute it.

 

[AP 297]

I haven't been following the dispute, but it looks like a pretty minor one to be perfectly honest. The stuff you show in the OP looks like the dispute hovers around exactly which policy applies for determining what to do with the article/redirect.

My experience with disputes on Wikipedia is that where the people involved actually give a shit about the topic itself, the debate will almost inevitably degenerate into accusations of "article ownership", failure to maintain a neutral point of view, and holding some insidious conflict of interest. 99+% of the disputes and edit wars you hear about in outside media boil down to that. Only very rarely is it the case where there are neutral, experienced eyes on a particular issue, that it results in an intractable dispute.

This actually leads to one of the big problems on Wikipedia: its ruleset is growing towards requiring formalized means of settling disagreements about content issues, and having someone be the ultimate arbiter of what goes and what doesn't. At present there's nothing other than "consensus", which few Wikipedia editors can accurately define themselves. The current system lends itself far too much to legalistic flailing about, and what I'd characterize as use of legal fictions in order to find a formal, binding resolution for a problem. The folks who do articles on medical topics have gotten really close to fixing the problem of quacks through rigorous sourcing requirements for medical articles, to the point that it's bleeding over into loosely related areas (e-cigarettes was a recent one, where someone was banned for pushing research about e-cigs and health).

Anyway, my short answer is that it's nothing about the concept of Cultural Marxism itself that's attracting people to dispute it.

So, it only takes a minor flaw or contention in an article to spark a fire. Wow. This is why you don't use wikipedia as a reference!

 

[blackie toy]

So, it only takes a minor flaw or contention in an article to spark a fire. Wow. This is why you don't use wikipedia as a reference!

Not necessarily. I'd say the less-trafficked and less-debated articles are far worse. In those articles where a fire has raged, more often than not, what is built in the end is going to be something that the mainstream sources support. It's going to be imperfect, but you can rarely say it doesn't provide a good entry-level overview to that contentious topic.

On the other hand, stuff that doesn't receive much attention really does get twisted by people with insidious conflicts of interest. Articles about businesses and products are often very bad.

Stuff that's been featured, though, especially featured articles that have appeared on the main page in the last few years, tends to be excellently written.

 

[HG 400]

Okay, I'm getting a grasp on who's involved but not the concept itself. Is it just the tenets of Marxism with all the economic principles stripped out? If so, why do tumblristas care? Identity politics doesn't sound like "forced equality" to me. Is it solely a pejorative term for stuff the right-wing doesn't like or are there self-identifying cultural Marxists? Is the "gamergate involvement" just an overlap in the same shitty people from both sides screaming at each other? And what do the actual Marxists think of this? Have they picked a side or do they even not care?

Actually, this might all be derailing. I'm inclined to believe blackie toy, that it's just generic wikipedian autism more than anything to do with the actual topic and the types of people who care about it. But I could be wrong.

 

[AP 297]

Okay, I'm getting a grasp on who's involved but not the concept itself. Is it just the tenets of Marxism with all the economic principles stripped out? If so, why do tumblristas care? Identity politics doesn't sound like "forced equality" to me. Is it solely a pejorative term for stuff the right-wing doesn't like or are there self-identifying cultural Marxists? Is the "gamergate involvement" just an overlap in the same shitty people from both sides screaming at each other? And what do the actual Marxists think of this? Have they picked a side or do they even not care?

Actually, this might all be derailing. I'm inclined to believe blackie toy, that it's just generic wikipedian autism more than anything to do with the actual topic and the types of people who care about it. But I could be wrong.

Apparently, a self-admitted Marxist, RGloucester, wanted the article redirected, because I guess he felt it gave his cause a bad name.

This Reddit article gives a better description:
https://archive.today/iy8qw