Talk:ProleWiki

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)

This article is slander as part of a targetted campaign against Prolewiki by a single user

Hello everyone, apologies for the somewhat clickbait title but I didn't know what else to put.

I'm an administrator on Prolewiki and I was made aware of this article. I have read the page entirely as well as the discussions, and I would like to offer our side to show that this article is soapboxing, and Wisconcom is highly untrustworthy (and was banned from prolewiki on this basis).

For a brief background, Wisconcom joined prolewiki as an editor (we have a vetting process over there like many discord servers do) and was allowed to edit for a few months. He was eventually banned from the project however for being overly combative with his comrades during debates, especially on the topic of China. He was given a few warnings but kept doing it and eventually started showing concerning signs that he wanted Prolewiki to be something it was not, even pretending he had support from other users (that never materialised), and essentially vying for an administrator position within our project while working from the shadows, it seems. This made him very untrustworthy and he would get combative when called out, and thus he was banned as people were starting to feel demoralised having him around. He recently admitted to wanting to be made admin by "couping" prolewiki and removing the current administrators (how he will achieve this I have no idea).

I have some screenshots of his past behaviour but I wouldn't even know where to start compiling them into something coherent. This has been going on nonstop since november of last year. He is clearly obsessed about prolewiki as even after he told us two or three times that he would stop bothering or contacting us, he consistently comes back within a week to harass us more.

As you can see from the sheer size of this article, wisconcom has an obsession against us after we banned him and thinks it is his god-given right to keep editing on prolewiki (even "demanding" we let him back in).

Going into the article itself, please note the following inconsistencies or lies that Wisconcom has written into the page. I hope these sufficiently show that Wisconcom is using Leftypedia as a soapbox to spread silly lies on Prolewiki -- he has done this on twitter (before deleting it after I called him out), on his substack, on Rational Wiki, and even created his own fandom wiki to that end (one of the only few pages there is a very detailed one on Prolewiki). I am using the latest revision at this time (january 27, "founding and early development") for this list.

1. "ProleWiki is infamous among most socialist circles" -> this has obviously no citation because there is none. We have more than 2000 subscribers on Twitter, which includes non-Marxist-leninists such as anarchists or hoxhaists (like what wisconcom claims to be). I have no idea where he pulled the "most" from.

2. "with most of its editors being militant Dengists and those who are not often getting banned" -> Prolewiki does say in our principles that we support China as AES. However, we have accepted users that had nuanced opinions on China and definitely would not fall into the category of "Dengists".

2a. Add to this, Wisconcom has talked about the "many" banned users in the discussion page too. Prolewiki uses Mediawiki too and so you will quickly know that the block list is public on this software. We have banned four users in total for various reasons, with most of them being spambots (not counted in the users).

3. "Depite claiming to maintain nearly 90 fully active editors as of January 2023" -> we do not claim this anywhere (focusing on the "fully active editors" part). There is a widget on our front page that shows the number of created accounts, which is at 90 currently, but we have never said anywhere that they were all active. We readily admit around a dozen editors are active, and "active" editors can be seen on its special page (although it shows accounts that have taken at least one action, no matter what it is, in the past 30 days) will confirm this.

3a. I am also unsure why he chose to represent this in such an aggressive manner ("Despite" and then "in reality") as if it was something to be ashamed of?

4. "The site is greatly connected to other ideologically-aligned communities on the online left, such as Lemmygrad and GenZedong" -> I have no idea where he gets this from. While Prolewiki was started by a Lemmygrad user and we moderate our own community there, we have no more ties with Lemmygrad than that between the two projects. Likewise, we do not interact with GenZedong. This is not new however, and wisconcom has this deeply strong idea that we work with Genzedong but has never been able to prove it.

4a. (continued) "and is dependent on these external sites for their recruitment of editors and preservation of the ideological line of the site" -> again, no idea where he pulls this from. As we make all editors go through vetting, their answers appear on their user page when their account is created. The very first question asks how they discovered prolewiki. Thus it is absolutely possible for wisconcom to look at every editor and the initial revision of their user page. Most users I would say come to prolewiki after they discovered us on twitter. One or two come from Lemmygrad, and none come from Genzedong (how would they even?).

5. "ProleWiki often serves as a "gateway" for Communists to be indoctrinated into chauvinistic and revisionary ideology, with the site actively promoting "Patriotic Socialist" and other social-chauvinist points of view and allowing users of those persuasions into the project" -> this is a very strange thing to say because first, accusing people of chauvinism is a very serious accusation. Secondly, we have a page on patriotic socialism and it is absolutely not kind towards this movement. Thirdly, I have personally talked to wisconcom about patriotic socialism and we fully agreed with each other on this topic (on the discord, during the time he was still an editor). His only proof for this is two essays which we decided to leave up because our essays section is more free-form and open. If we deleted them, wisconcom would accuse us of censorship probably.

6. I'm going to finish up here with the "founding and early development" section so that this topic doesn't become too long (I fear it already is):

6a. "Forte would also create a number of fake accounts and spambots on the site to boost SEO engagement to make the site more visible to unknowing newcomers" -> Well, you have mediawiki too, you know just how much spambots love it and you probably faced similar attacks in the early days of Leftypedia. This is actually why we started the vetting process originally, just to stop the spambots.

6b. "but in truth existed as part of Forte's plot to slowly turn ProleWiki into a pro-CPC propaganda outlet via preventing non-revisionist Marxists from joining.[6]" -> This is a strange thing to claim because Prolewiki is all in Forte's name, as he pays for the hosting and registered it. He could do anything he want to prolewiki if he wanted to, he doesn't need a "plot" to "slowly" (covertly) turn Prolewiki into something else.

6c. "claiming that the previous democratized administration was suffering from "absenteeism". However, these adminstrators were greatly commited to their positions," -> I was there when we had a very large administrative circle, open to anyone who wanted in (I was recruited as an admin during that time in fact), and I can assure you this is completely wrong. I don't even know how Wisconcom would know this, because this group lived only on a Telegram channel which he was never a part of. The administrators were absent and lost interest in the project pretty quickly after an initial hype phase.

6d. "as the other adminstrators were begining to question the pro-China ideological line of ProleWiki.[9]" The source shows just one editor making a hasty edit on the page about China. This is certainly not "administrators" plural and the user in question was in fact never an administrator (his account was created in december 2021, long after we reformed the administration circle).

The rest of the article is just as soapboxy and agenda-posting as the first parts of it. Wisconcom makes lots of claims that he would have no way of knowing about (as he was not on prolewiki at the time these things supposedly happened) and if you ask him to prove it, he will say he "talked to people" but never elaborate.

I am not too sure about what Leftypedia considers objectionable content or not, so I will leave the administrators here to take a decision about this page or this user. I hope I was able to shed some light on this page though, and on the motivations of this particular user.

Sorry if this was long, and thanks for reading. --CriticalResist (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry to make this even longer, but I finished reading the article and I have to react to the "The "great purge" on ProleWiki (23 October 2022)" subheading. Wisconcom is making himself look more important than he is in that section, and completely lies to make himself look like a blameless victim. He never had popular support for an administrator position (we never knew about his wishes to become an admin before the petition, he never talked about it). He never had support for the petition either: he posted it and it went into oblivion, with just Forte and me reacting to it. This is easily proven because he is unable to cite any actual source for his claims here: he only cites a statement Forte made on the blocking of Wisconcom which, as you can see, did not generate any response from this "anti-revisionist faction" nor did Forte mention other users in that statement.

I can assure you that within the discord server, most editors dislike Wisconcom because they understand his unhealthy obsession with the wiki (of which they are tired) and his attempts to infiltrate us (he keeps trying to make alt accounts on prolewiki). Likewise, the part just above about "repeatedly losing debates within the community to the anti-revisionist faction"... Wisconcom was the only member of this "faction" and he never "lost" a debate because he would keep shrinking into a deeper and deeper hole with more and more nonsensical arguments (he even quoted the Economist to discredit China, a journal that Lenin said "speaks for the British millionaires") and even personal insults if it got too far and he had no way out. He never listened to any argument made against his position and remained steadfast.

Wisconcom claims to hate the current state of prolewiki, a project which he never helped start, never helped promote or strengthen (he only ever edited and he was not the most prolific editor), yet he wants to become an administrator so he can turn a project that was never his to reflect his personal bias of "anti-revisionist marxism". --CriticalResist (talk) 16:02, 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).

Ope! CriticalResist is attempting to incite attacks against just now as well! See this post he just concocted. Wisconcom (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, before I forget, he is a screenshot which proves CriticalResist (and his Lemmygrad/ProleWiki gangsters) mass false-reported my blog (screenshot) Wisconcom (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea who these people are and where these comments were made. This is solely about the ProleWiki page on the wiki. --CriticalResist (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You directly said or posted most of this. Anybody can see that you are little more than a cyberbully who cannot accept criticism. Go forinicate yourself, scumbag! Wisconcom (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This was added to a revision I undid:

• From December to January 2022-2023, the ProleWiki administration would maintain close ties to an online organization known as the "Revolutionary Technical Committee", with its head becoming an editor on the site, and other RTC members also becoming editors.(ProleWiki - Revolutionary Technical Committee) However, this relationship would dissipate by January of 2023, largely due to ProleWiki's stance against anti-revisionism (of which many RTC members followed) and its lack of consistent growth. After briefly attempting to collaborate with Wisconcom and his followers to aid in reconstituting ProleWiki along anti-revisionist lines in late January through early February, the Revolutionary Technical Committee would detach itself from both the ProleWiki anti-revisionist faction and administration, along with Marxism-Leninism itself, instead fully adopting Left-communist ideology.(Onwards, Barbarians! CENTRAL ORGAN OF THE REVOLUTIONARY TECHNICAL COMMITTEE)

This claim is entirely unsubstantiated and what's more, Wisconcom admits to wanting to infiltrate prolewiki with the help of "his followers" but this is not the focus of this topic. The ProleWiki administration, of which I am one half, doesn't have special ties to the RTC; only one member of theirs is an editor on PW and we never spoke to the RTC directly but only to this editor. There is no "relationship" to speak of with the RTC and the person in question is still an editor on ProleWiki, with several edits made in January (contradicting the claim that our nonexistent relationship with the RTC "dissipated" by January). We have not received any news from them that they would leave ProleWiki or retire from the project, nor does the reference attached prove this claim in any way as no reference to ProleWiki is made in it. Once again I have no idea where Wisconcom pulled these claims from. I should note user was notified before not to make unsubstantiated claims to the wiki. --CriticalResist (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course you would lack proof of this claim as it took place in largely secretive, private discussions. However, this is still acceptable according to your "standards" of proof. For instance, your edits to the "administration" section (which were clearly biased and self-promotional in tone, and totally omitted the fact that ProleWiki is essentially a vanity project of, and entirely controlled by, Forte) do not have any proof behind them, as your supposedly democratic and egalitarian "system" only appears to exist on your resticted Discord server (of which, you conveniently ban all of your critics from entiring). Further, you did have notable ties with the RTC, from the fact that you have multiple editors beyond its founder from the RTC (see category:Comrades from the RTC on your site, although none of them have been active by Febuary, and the last edit by the founder was one in which she noted that the RTC had shifted towards Left-communism), to the fact that the RTC leader has promoted ProleWiki multiple times, and how you assisted eachother in a raid on InfraWiki around New Year's of 2022-2023 (see here), and so on. While you never had "formal" ties with the RTC, you undenibly had warm relations. Lastly, the source which I used proved one of my claims, that the RTC had reembarced Left-communist ideology, as they openly proclaim themselves as such in their website. Wisconcom (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if the source took place in a "largely secretive, private discussion", it wouldn't matter. That's not how references work. If you can't reference something then you can reference people that have actually done research and can allege it (the wording is important) with some evidence of their own. And if there was such a source, what point would there be for us not to divulge it? I have only ever talked to Leah from the RTC because she's on our discord, the other two people you found have never made any edits beyond their own user page. As for proof, if you have some, then include it in the page? That's literally what references are for. We shouldn't have to "request" it. Regardless, you agree that we never had formal ties with the RTC which means your edit was entirely conjecture on your part, pulled out of thin air. Please stop arguing with me, it's frankly tiring to deal with your bad faith and you know your edits are going to be reverted anyway (see notifications on your talk page -- that's a proper reference by the way) --CriticalResist (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You completely ignored my arguments. You are clearly using this site as a means of self-promotion. Hence why I removed your "book club" promotion in the "administration" section. Why do you not have to present sources yet I do? I challenge you to present at least a single source for any of your "democratic reforms" (which supposedly exist on your Discord). Also, you completely ignored my arguments relating to your ties with the RTC. You have collaborated with eachother extensively. The paragrapth I added is entirely correct. Also, I left you a message on your talk page, you should perhaps see it. Wisconcom (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This page should be reviewed, and likely rewritten, by editors unassociated with ProleWiki and its history

I do not believe I am alone when I express my concern of the nature of this article. It has, so far, been entirely written by people who are deeply associated with ProleWiki, or have been in the past. While I believe you could argue I may have been biased against ProleWiki in my editing, this page has been furter edited extensively by two ProleWiki administrators (Forte and CriticalResist) and an editor. This article, in its current state after the effective "whitewashing" the ProleWiki administrators subjected it to, seems to ignore many of this site's faults, and the many critics of ProleWiki and their views about it. For the sake of this article, I think it would be best to have it be reviewed, possibly rewritten if needed, by editors here who have nothing to do with ProleWiki, and can document this site from the viewpoint of an outside observer with little personal bias. Thank you. Wisconcom (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

"Could argue"? I have consistently showed in the other threads (which you tried to delete) how your version of events was biased and completely fabricated by yourself. Is there an inherent problem with editors of Prolewiki writring on this page? You seem to think so, as you said we "whitewashed" the page. If you have a problem with the current version of the page then point out sources and inconsistencies please, don't make passive-aggressive statements. There also aren't "many critics" of prolewiki, just you. Please show sources for those "many" if you want this claim to be included in the article. A review of the page will only show that we were truthful in our edits, and to make it entirely impartial neither you nor I should be allowed to participate in the review. --CriticalResist (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not see what the issue is in this instance. Having this page edited solely by a major critic of ProleWiki, and then completelyrewritten by two of its founders (mostly by Forte, who is totally biased in favor of this project's ideological line) is not an indication of being neutral. So much is this the case, that I would argue that after Forte's massive edits to this page (he essentially rewrote every single section), this article has actually adopted a promotional tone, of which, I do not believe that is permitted in this context. I do not believe ProleWiki is as respected as you claim it is, I personally have shown the contents of your project to many people, and they are almost always disgusted by your revisionist and anti-Marxist propaganda (such as, for instance, claiming that under socialism, private property is only "partially abolished", which is completely against Marxism and was only put there so as to defend so-called "actually existing socialism"). You may have yet to see these many detractors, but that is due to the fact that you purposefully isolate your project to a small assortment of pro-China propaganda and discussional sites (such as Lemmygrad). I maintain my stance, people who are not related to ProleWiki should review this article and rewrite it if need be. Wisconcom (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Can a moderator please tell Wisconcom to stop collapsing my threads? I shouldn't have to undo it every time.

Wisconcom, you have been notified before not to make large changes to pages without discussing them in the talk page. Here you attempted once again to put a collapse tag on my threads in this discussion so that people would not read them. You have also outright deleted my threads before, including one I left on the admin's talk page(!) and moved this page to another place for no reason. As of yet you have not explained any of these actions. You have also outright insulted me in the talk page as well as the changelog. Can a moderator please step in and actually take care of this? I shouldn't have to be harassed like this and I shouldn't have to undo this user's changes in their attempt to silence my arguments. --CriticalResist (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

"tl;dr" Wisconcom (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Rationale for Removing Reference 7

I would like to elaborate on my reasoning for removing a reference. I do not believe that one of the references, number 7, is an adequate source for the claims made. The source is merely a post on an obscure message board which was posted by an administrator of the website in question. The forum post does not provide any proof for the claims made (e.g. no screenshots) and is largely an incoherent diatribe against me. Likewise, the single screenshot linked does not prove anything in the sense that it is entirely miscontextualized (it is clearly satire, a private direct message, and was sent months before I supposedly performed any of the things the paragraph claims I did). I find the abysmal level of sourcing that the ProleWiki administrators who wrote this page can get away with to be insulting, particularly considering that these are claims being made directly against me. I did not remove that source out of self-interest, I merely believe that the people who wrote this article should be held to the same standards as anyone else when citing sources. Thank you. SociusVenger (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi SociusVenger aka Wisconcom. Editing your own page is highly discouraged on Wikipedia in favor of Talk page discussions or suggestions, and this policy seems like a valid shorthand for the purpose of preventing edit wars and other conflicts. In addition, your attempts to use underhanded methods on this site alone, such as fake deletion procedures, archiving discussions etc., do not altogether help your claim that you are interested in proper sourcing. Your "clearly satirical" private message in question seems hardly incongruous with the language you have used on Leftypedia itself towards the ProleWiki administrators who have tried to use the site to edit the page that you created and wrote, so I think I can be forgiven for the mistake. To replace it, I would be happy to include quotes from old revisions of the page as I read them now for the first time, such as "they throw sand into the eyes of the masses just like the Nazis did". I would be interested to see what a third party would make of the situation given quotes such as these.

I understand that contentious claims about oneself can be frustrating or unfair. However, I cannot remember you disputing any concrete claims and successfully convincing me that they are out of character for you, or that the leadership of that site has made false claims. You have damaged your own reputation on this site. My view is that the ProleWiki administrators have little reason to be interested in waging endless war on a Leftypedia page against a user that, from the perspective of this site, has been behaving in a way that is well described by the passage.

This page seems to me to have all of the content it needs. It summarizes your issues with their ideological line and contains wikilinks to the main articles for these topics. It has been substantially revised since your creation of it to make it far more neutral while also taking into account different perspectives. If you have any issues with the page as it stands, provide a specific example on this Talk page. If you have content to contribute that you think would not be controversial or inflammatory, then you will be able to do so when you are not blocked. And as for the personal claims about you, I have added two sources which seem to me to be closer to the mark, as well as hedged the "fabrications" part with a citation-needed tag. Harrystein (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was not aware of any policies regarding the subjects of articles editing their own page on Leftypedia, although I nonetheless agree with it and will abide by it from now on. While my earlier actions on this site may be controversial, in this context, I am questioning the validity of a particular source. I would have preferred if you had addressed the forum post and argued why, from your point of view, it's valid as a reference, but I frankly find this conflict to be very exhausting and will refrain from editing this page for now. Once again, thank you for your clarification. SociusVenger (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)