Talk:ProleWiki/archive1

Patriotic socialism and banning of anti-revisionists

ProleWiki does not "actively promote" patriotic socialism, and patsocs are specifically prohibited on its Principles. You also claim that they banned over 25 anti-revisionists, but the ban logs only show Wisconcom and one other user from 2020. The other banned users were mostly either spam bots who never edited or patsocs. Also, do you have any evidence that the majority of editors supported you? Antifa1917 (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I sourced my claim in that instance. Your site has promoted Patriotic Socialism for most of its existance (or at least allowing clearly Patsocs in the project), including letting them promote the "degrowth" conspiracy theory. Your site only banned them once they became a threat to the personal power of the administration, and the admins on ProleWiki merely framed it as an ideological purge simply to gain popularity. They don't care about ideological content, merely defending so-called "AES". Lastly, I see you have shared this article with the Lemmygrad community. Wisconcom (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The other administrators did not know Jucheguevara was a patsoc until just before he was banned. You also have no source showing that 25 anti-revisionists were banned because most of the entries on the banned list were bot IPs that had never edited. Antifa1917 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I invite you to read the message history on the Discord server. Jucheguevara expressed Patsoc views many times, and the de-facto leader of ProleWiki, Forte, even defended his views (such as when Jucheguevara claimed that the economic mode of communism represented a petite-bourgeois utopia with billionaires and private ownership). Regarding ProleWiki's great purge of anti-revisionists, I am operating on what my sources indicate. I am using relible sources, and these reliable sources assert that, therefore it is true that ProleWiki mass-banned anti-revisionists. Wisconcom (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have that 25 anti-revisionists were banned? The banned log only has two banned Hoxhaist accounts: H. Vilaverde and Wisconcom.Antifa1917 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Antifa1917, as an admin of prolewiki I would very much like to weigh in. While we were somewhat aware Jucheguevara was a patsoc (we didn't know the extent of it), we believed we could bring him out of this reactionary movement. Additionally, this manifested after he became an administrator and at that point he had access to our funds and other accounts. Forte half-heartedly agreed with Jucheguevara on some things exactly because he was an admin and it was difficult for us to argue about this head-on, we believed it would be more effective to take it slowly. Obviously we were wrong, as Jucheguevara conspired with the Infrared community to infiltrate Prolewiki, after which he was finally banned.

Regarding the banned accounts, like you pointed out, bans are public and show that we have only ever banned around 4 people on the wiki (the two you mentioned, jucheguevara, and another patsoc). The first you mention, Vilaverde, was banned very early on in Prolewiki's life (2 months after it was created) and while I did not necessarily agree with the ban at the time, it's over 2 years old at that point. --CriticalResist (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

So you were aware Jucheguevara was a Fascist and reactionary the whole time but did not care because you could "convince" him into correct Marxism? This is a clear lie. You only care about defending "AES", not advancing the goals of revolution and Marxism. Wisconcom (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

would you care to explain why you deleted my topic in the talk page? --CriticalResist (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you also explain why you tried to move the page somewhere else? --CriticalResist (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

And now would you like to explain why you tried to "spoiler" my thread so that people could not read it, or are you going to remain silent? --CriticalResist (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry

I don't think it's fair to say ProleWiki is in support of anti-science movements even generally. The top of the Psychiatry page says "This article is currently undergoing an ideological dispute over its content; be critical of the information presented, and make sure to establish a consensus with comrades before making edits.", and there is a lot of pushback to anti-science in the talk page. You should also clarify that they are endorsing a particular big pharma conspiracy theory because there are many. Another part that needs rewording is "and that most professionals working in those fields are members of the bourgeoisie and "bribed" by this "big-pharma" plot", because there really are hidden deals and gift-giving campaigns that big pharma carries out to influence physicians. Also from my understanding, Autism is more established as having a material cause than ADHD, whose origins are more controversial and said to be more culture-bound; some researchers contend it is based on a genetic malfunction with neurotransmitters, whereas some others pretty much root it in being a result of living in modern capitalist society. So perhaps leave out ADHD from the last sentence. Capuch1n (talk)

As an administrator of prolewiki, I can weigh in a bit on this topic. The psychiatry/anti-psychiatry page was created by a single user that clearly was biased against the field when they made that page. Ultimately, through discussion, we managed to come to a compromise and make the page much more neutral and not as one-sided. The idea that "many editors push anti-scientism" is also wrong -- like I've explained, the anti-psychiatry "movement" on prolewiki is the work of just one editor.

Secondly, wisconcom makes two claims here: "The leading ProleWiki administrator and founder, Forte, himself is a self-declared supporter of the anti-psychiatry movement, and has even "invited" editors from anti-psychiatry communities on Reddit and Lemmygrad to promote their denialist views" and none of them are true. I work a lot alongside Forte and at most he said some of the criticisms were not necessarily wrong, and that we should keep an open mind as communists and be ready to critically examine things we hold as true (in the context of determining whether the psychiatry page deserved a page on prolewiki or not). He also did not invite editors from anti-psychiatry communities simply because we do not know any. The anti-psychiatry community on lemmygrad had two users, one of them being the editor wisconcom references here. The source added at the end of these two arguments simply links to the psychiatry page on prolewiki and is therefore out of topic. --CriticalResist (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Many of the references are taken out of their context and do not defend the arguments the sole editor of this page makes

Reference 25, for example, says "RationalWiki made an article about us by @Leninistkommus [ProleWiki editor] (23 December 2022) Lemmygrad" and accompagnies the following sentence in the article: "The ProleWiki administration would, at around new year's eve in 2022-2023, organize several raids against external sites which criticized ProleWiki, although similarly claiming it was part of a greater ideological struggle, despite being purely careerist in motive.[24][25]" Reference 25 leads to this topic: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/468504. It should be noted that the user "Lenkommus" was banned for being an obvious alt account of wisconcom, and he was trying to stir drama between Prolewiki and RationalWiki. He was also the one who made those edits to RationalWiki. Therefore, in reference 25, he is literally citing himself! As such, Lenkommus is not a "Prolewiki editor" (a title he put in the reference itself to give it more credit) because at the time he made this post, Wisconcom was already banned from prolewiki. Furthermore, this reference does not support the argument made on the page because it is clear that 0 users on lemmygrad went to Rationalwiki to "fix" the page as he expected them to do. The page was later deleted by RationalWiki for agendaposting. Again this user, Wisconcom, is using Leftypedia as a soapbox in his ideological crusade against Prolewiki. To do this, he has resorted to lying, fabrications, and other tactics which should be unwelcome on good faith wikis such as Leftypedia. Most sources do not say what wisconcom claims they say, this is highly dishonest and laughable as far as integrity is concerned. It is clear he has an agenda when editing Leftypedia. I can go through more references if needed one by one. --CriticalResist (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The Lemmygrad user "Lenkommus" is not me. From what I have seen of this, he seeming was a random person (who also happened to be an editor on ProleWiki) who found RationalWiki's article on Lemmygrad by coincidence and created a post about it, requesting it be raided by other ProleWiki editors. It is simply the case that the moderators on Lemmygrad (which includes CriticalResist) are extremely paranoid about me "making alt accounts" or some other lie. This reference is valid. Wisconcom (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Lenkommus just happens to follow your naming format (Fiscornus on Rationalwiki), happens to talk exactly like you, and happened to make his first post about the page you made on RationalWiki (confirmed by this page: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Lemmygrad). How would this random person even have found the obscure Lemmygrad page on RationalWiki? Lenkommus was never an editor on Prolewiki though and so the reference presents a contradiction that you should fix if you are actually acting in good faith. --CriticalResist (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw the account page of this "Lenkommus", and he made merely 2 posts and a single comment. You would not be able to detect elements of my writing format in such a meager amount of text. It is all a coincidence that that particular user found that article. Why would I even do such an action? Creating an entire page all just to suggest it be raided and destroyed? Wisconcom (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

So you could post use it as a reference on RationalWiki and now Leftypedia to further lie about prolewiki or lemmygrad? It seems pretty coherent to me. And yes, we can sniff you out in minutes. You have a very distinct way of speaking. --CriticalResist (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You are extremely paranoid, your mind corrupted by your own propaganda against me. This page I made is largely correct. You are using this site as a soapbox. Wisconcom (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It's silly to get into a wiki flame war and pollute another leftist wiki with a personal spat; my goal here is to prove Wisconcom is a bad faith actor and a wrecker and I leave the Leftypedia administration to deal with this case as they wish. Nonetheless, I have to respond to this gaslighting attempt which was very weird, I'm not gonna lie. You can also see he never replied to my other points because he knows he has no leg to stand on. --CriticalResist (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Another reference was added by Wisconcom which does not support his argument at all. in the "Defense of Russian imperialism and propagation of pro-Russian war propaganda" subheading which he added just earlier, he makes various claims about our article on the conflict, such as that "the Ukrainian government was developing facilities to produce chemical and biological weapons" (this is nowhere to be seen on the page), that "the majority of Ukrainian nationals were adherents of Neonazism and sought the extermination of ethic Russians in Ukraine" (we said that there was a coup which gave rise to neo-nazism in Ukraine, the most prominent of these groups is the Azov Battalion, and the coup government was maintaining hostilities towards the Donbass. Nowhere does the article say that "the majority" of Ukrainians were neo-nazis) and, finally, that "[we] even denied Russian war crimes in Ukraine such as the Bucha massacre as "bourgeois imperialist propaganda against the anti-imperialist Russian Federation"", which again none of that appears on the page, we don't even mention Bucha or "bourgeois imperialist propaganda". This is the current revision of our article which he used as a source: https://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=2022_Russo-Ukrainian_conflict&oldid=42700, dated January 22. --CriticalResist (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Reference 13 is Wisconcom's own substack article (which is just as untruthful, as again Wisconcom had no access to most of the historical information as he was not there to witness it) and that is used a whopping 7 times on the article here. --CriticalResist (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Reference 28, which is used 3 times on the article, is Wisconcom's own wiki project, again citing himself as a source. This is circular reasoning: he says something ludicrous (and not true) somewhere, then uses that as a source to say the exact same ludicrous and make it seem like it has validation from various people, but it's always just himself all the way down. --CriticalResist (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Reference 45 is an old revision of the Psychiatry article, dated from August of last year (more than 6 months ago). Since then, there have been various revisions to the page to make it less one-sided. Wisconcom doesn't clarify this anywhere in the text. --CriticalResist (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Reference 30 is just one of our user's own Sandbox page, which Wisconcom used to claim that "[Prolewiki claims] that billionaires are a critical part of a socialist state and must retain a large degree of state power". A sandbox page, for those who might now know, is a page used to test templates and other techy stuff. --CriticalResist (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Reference 3, which Wisconcom added to somehow paint us as pro-patriotic socialism (which he knows we are not as both me and Forte, as well as other editors, heavily discussed this topic with him in the discord and were all in agreement), is an archive page because the essay is not on Prolewiki anymore. Reference 4, another of Jucheguevara's essay, is a draft that is around 2 paragraphs long and by itself does not indicate any proclivity towards patriotic socialism. --CriticalResist (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Reference 28, which Wisconcom just added, again does not support his point and I don't know where he pulls this information from. He claims that "The ProleWiki administration also later organize [sic] efforts ... to orchestrate mass false-reporting attacks against Wisconcom's blog and YouTube channel in order to deplatform him", but the thread just showed something funny he allegedly said (he denies that it was him), and was sent to our "Shit Ultras Say" community, which is our equivalent of SLS on reddit, but for ultras. At no point in the thread do we advocate for a targetted attack on wisconcom's youtube or blog. --CriticalResist (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You liar! You, at about your 5th fake account which you made to spam and harass me on my blog, have openly said that following:

"We got commiepedia shut down too, nice job overtaking an abandoned wiki and running it like you owned it. That's all you do, hoxhaist worm. You're a fed. But we got this online and broadcast to the world before it was taken down: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1058191305890594866/1069224315486224504/image.png?width=658&height=468 We're coming for you. Everything you own online will be taken down. Next is your youtube, after we get you banned from leftypedia. Didn't even need our help to get banned from Rationalwiki, you did that yourself by being a liberal bitch. You have no principles." You also directly suggested to users of Lemmygrad that they false report the contents of my blog. In fact, I have already recieved 4 false reports from fake accounts the Lemmygrad users and administrators made against me. CriticalResist is here as a targeted effort to deplatform me. Wisconcom (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about and I don't care much for your personal insults. My goal here is to provide facts and show that your article is agendaposting and soapboxing on your part. --CriticalResist (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

How dishonest. Here is a screenshot of this, or is this perhaps just one of the Lemmygrad users you sent to harass me? Wisconcom (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is another instance of you attempting to get your community to false report me. Please view the contents of this post, note that already its contents are a private message which was not intended to be made public, but of course, here you can see CriticalResist attempting to incite Lemmygrad users to attack me in my comment section within my blog (screenshot), or in this post by him (where he, similarly reveals private messages from me).