Leader ID: ff8ccb May 16, 2017, 9:46 p.m. No.330595   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0599

Redditors, including the SPAs and various shitbags that fought over the Gamergate article, are currently duking it out over whether /r/ShitRedditSays should be on an article about controversial reddit communities.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Controversial_Reddit_communities&action=history

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Controversial_Reddit_communities#RfC_Including_SRS_as_a_Controversial_Reddit_Community

Leader ID: ff8ccb May 26, 2017, 6:27 p.m. No.330624   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>330622

Interesting, he made his account 4 months ago to welcome back Vigilant, who had gone on a hiatus after the presidential election or something like that.

 

Not sure what evidence Lord saw to make him believe that account was Tarc ban evading, but Tarc for sure has been socking. He has repeatedly admitted to doing so on the Wikipediocracy forums, which he had gone back to posting on shortly after getting indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. From what I recall he was trying to make multiple accounts and only edit certain things on them in an attempt to evade detection, but said he got "bored" and stopped (this was in 2015). He also stopped posting at WO until after the 2016 election, and has been active there ever since so it is likely he is also back to socking on Wikipedia, if he ever really stopped.

Leader ID: ff8ccb June 11, 2017, 4:36 p.m. No.330727   🗄️.is 🔗kun

People wanted to add a section about the Kurt Eichenwald hentai story that blew up recently, others including "Horseman of Wikibias" NorthBySouthBaranof are setting up camp to keep it from being mentioned.

 

>I'm not seeing any actual reliable source question "the veracity of his statements" — no reliable source that I can find asserts that Eichenwald isn't telling the truth, and no, anonymous Twitter users don't count for Wikipedia purposes. Moreover, describing the situation as a "controversy" appears to be entirely unsupported, because a "controversy" requires, y'know, some actual debate about something, and there isn't any here. "Person forgets he has a weird tab title open" is not "controversial." I suggest that we wait to see if this disappears from the public eye like a million other flash-in-the-pan things someone on the Internet latched onto for a few minutes; if this actually somehow becomes a significant event in his life and career, we can add it at that future point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

 

>I agree with Trivialist; this doesn't have any place in a brief biography for any number of reasons, notably undue weight; it doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. If we were writing a comprehensive book-length biography, some mention might be possible to give due weight to; however, that's not what we're doing, and any mention of this trivial nonsense here is unnecessary. i would remind new editors that we are not sensationalistic tabloid purveyors and Wikipedia is not a platform for disseminating such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

 

Someone linked to Travis' ED page and was indefinitely blocked. http://archive.is/EBvkd#selection-2155.0-2167.27 http://archive.is/qKa6Q

 

>Note: NorthBySouthBaranof's comments should be ignored per WP:MENTAL Shalpley (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)