User talk:Wisconcom

Notice concerning edits

Please remember to be civil on this wiki. When making claims, especially serious ones regarding groups or individuals, back them up with specific sources. In general, before making questionable/controversial edits (as was also on the Albania and Leftist content creators pages), use the talk page or go to our Matrix server to discuss and hash out your ideas for improvement. --Capuch1n (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2023‎ (UTC)

Do not use the collapse template to hide discussions. That template is for non-contentious discussion cleanup and clearly that is not the case on the ProleWiki discussion page. Do refrain from making edits without citations, especially on contentious topics — when making a point about the criticisms of ProleWiki for example, write more than just "some people say" if the presence of such criticism is not widely known. On a similar note, it's okay for ProleWiki's leadership to write their own page so long as they have sufficient sources. If you don't have proper evidence for a page, consider researching more or contributing to a different page that you have better sourcing on. (updated 16:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC))

My apologies. Wisconcom (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to step over the moderators but I just finished fixing the edits you made to the Prolewiki page (see comparison here: https://wiki.leftypol.org/index.php?title=ProleWiki&type=revision&diff=9837&oldid=9812). You were notified right here about adding in "some people say" and having proper evidence for a page, which you acquiesced to. So I'm just wondering, if I may, why your edits as seen in the comparison above brought back unsubstantiated claims (the aforementioned "many critics claim") as well as non-supportive sources (such as an old revision of the Psychiatry page, a Lemmygrad comment by Forte which you amplified to be ProleWiki's official stance on Enver Hoxha, and a reference that does not resolve to anything). I remember cleaning these claims up before which means they were brought back, and I frankly don't feel having to do that all the time. edit: additionally, because it's going to come up, I removed the claim that the website functions in a top down leadership manner as the document used as a reference is old and doesn't actually represent where we are at today. I updated the relevant section to explain our current model. --CriticalResist (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I have attempted to be fact-based on my recent edits today. Nearly everything including in there is supported by sources. I believe that it could be said that the tone of my edits where more polemical of my own personal views, however, I am basing my edits on what I have seen from people of other socialist trends reacting to your content. However, I do not possess a large amount of secondary sources on this topic, and I likewise do not have extensive criticism from anti-revisionists on your project that is actually published (excluding my own). Many of your project's positions are worth noting as they are important for people to better understand the nature of ProleWiki and reach their own conclusions about it. Many of your project's stances are controversial. and I do not require published sources for that. I think you are right on my source which was simply a comment the founder of ProleWiki had made on an external site, however. I also think you may be right with your reverts of my edits which claim you are run in a "top-down manner", as they may be untrue, but I am not aware of that fully, as your fuctioning appears to happen solely in a closed-off Discord server. If anything, I generally think this page on ProleWiki should be deleted now; it was only created in the first place to promote certain views, both with you and me. Thank you and good day. Wisconcom (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete the page since it is relevant to Leftypedia. As for the criticism, that's because it barely exists outside of your own, which you have been publishing since we banned you for exactly this sort of behaviour in November. The only other people that have criticised ProleWiki were a couple people on Twitter who wanted to stir drama and barely got any traction -- one of them you (re)included in your last edits to claim that ProleWiki "attacked and demonised followers of Irish Republicanism", just because this one user had an Irish flag in their name, and when their account was clearly refused for their insufficient criticism of China which was very liberal in nature (i.e. nothing to do with their Irish identity). This just seems like more bad faith to me and you haven't answered the question of why you brought back unsubstantiated claims; using our own pages as references is fine, but using an outdated revision of an article to make a point is bad faith. If you don't want to edit the page any more then just don't edit it, Forte and I are perfectly fine building this page with our primary sources and we can make announcements on the editorial happenings to create datable references. --CriticalResist (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you for this discussion, it was very didactic. I wish you well here. Have a nice day. Wisconcom (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I will leave this site forever

I am no longer going to edit this site as of today. I apologize if anyone found my edits to not be productive. Good day, everyone. Wisconcom (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Alt accounts

User:Neostalinistprop is an alt account of Wisconcom. He used the same username when he (correctly) tried to remove patsoc content from InfraWiki. Antifa1917 (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Claiming somebody has an alternative account which is used for unproductive contributions is a very serious claim. Do you have any definitive proof Neostalinistprop is a surrogate account controlled by Wisconcom? Did Neostalinistprop admit it was an alternative account of Wisconcom on InfraWiki? Comradeleninist (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

On ProleWiki, Wisconcom alts have been uncovered because they either used the same email or IP address as Wisconcom. Here are reasons why I think Neostalinistprop is an alt:

1. Wisconcom is known to use many alt accounts to infiltrate websites such as Lemmygrad and ProleWiki. The modlog on Lemmygrad contains many examples. He created a Discord server called the Committee to Reconstitute ProleWiki to attempt to infiltrate ProleWiki.
2. His edits regarding ProleWiki and Lemmygrad are very similar to Wisconcom's on RationalWiki, Communpedia, and this site. He misrepresents their users as Trotskyists or Third-Worldists. On RationalWiki, he also claimed he would leave the site without actually doing so and was eventually banned.
3. His edits praise Wisconcom, calling him an "actual communist" while calling others "pseudo-Marxist fascists." He says Wisconcom was "hurling correct criticism with total Leninist-Stalinist gallantry."
4. He strongly supports Hoxha and even changed the main page from Leftypedia to Hoxhapedia. He calls Hoxhaism "Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism" like Wisconcom's user page on RationalWiki said and says Albania post-1956 was the only socialist state in the world. Antifa1917 (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I see. Could you please show "Neostalinistprop's" involvment on InfraWiki? Comradeleninist (talk)

I have no dog in this fight but here's NeoStalinistProp's edits on infrawiki, defacing their main page: https://infrawiki.us/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=history (at the bottom). More importantly ComradeLeninist, your account was created the day after NeoStalinistProp on leftypedia. Are you an admin or anything like that? --CriticalResist (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure how this proves that Neostalinistprop is an alt account of this person. This is likely just some random Hoxhaist vandal you get every now and then. I see them all the time. I don't think this is an account of Wisconcom. There is not conclusive proof for that other than rumor and speculation. Comradeleninist (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

So are you or are you not an admin or other moderator type on leftypedia though? You talk like you have some authority but your account was created today and your only edits were on the main page (which NSP also edited) and on this very page. Please make that clear as both Antifa1917 and myself should be aware of that if this discussion is going to continue. --CriticalResist (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I was very active on the old version of Leftypedia. I've read it semi-regularly when the new version was created, but when I saw what appeared to be unproductive edits yesterday by Neostalinistprop, especially the ones on the main page. I decided to (re-)create my account to fix that mainpage edit. I've also been reading ProleWiki for some time too. Comradeleninist (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe Comradeleninist is also a Wisconcom alt as his behavior is the same as Neostalinistprop and the username is very similar to his alt on Lemmygrad called Cosmisleninist1976. Edits on both accounts focus on promotion of Hoxhaism while calling all other tendencies revisionist and specifically attacking Lemmygrad and ProleWiki. Notice how Neostalinistprop never responded to accusations of being an alt but Comradeleninist defended him. Both accounts were created around the same time after Wisconcom announced he would leave. Antifa1917 (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not Wisconcom. I know nothing about Wisconcom. I stumbled across this conflict randomly and wanted the view of everyone to be fairly represented. I was making these article more neutral. It is entirely coincidental. You are being excessively paranoid. Comradeleninist (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Lemmygrad for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lemmygrad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Leftypedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Leftypedia:Articles for deletion/Lemmygrad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Friendlyleninist1917 (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)