Homophobic, right-wing editors on Wikipedia !

[jenny12]

Over at Wikipedia, there is a self-confessed right-wing individual who contributes to the supposed "neutral" information portal, but edits according to his right-wing leanings, and has openly, and publicl said that "immigrants should be locked up, gays cannot adopt or get married because his christian bible forbids it and it must be law, and any page that posts unflattering iformation about his right-wing governement or his leader, he edits it to protect his conservative views!!

The user is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xtra and his contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xtra

Now he's editing a gay rights page! A man who openly said he didn't approve of gay rights is editing according to his propaganda, and has already rmoved nflattering contributions on a gay rights page that made his leader look bad! So much for being neutral! Please, there is a campaign to pay him back, by vandalizing any page he edits! This is the only way to get him back, because no one will prevent him from editing according to his religon or his politics!


Any help is appreciated!

[Hegemonicretribution]

Why not start a page directly related to this user? I can see that any battle would be time consuming, as they obviously have quite a bit of time on their hands.

Oh I moved this here, hope you don't mind, just thought it would get more responses.

[Black Dagger]

If he's fucking up the articles surely some kind of action can be taken by the wikipedia staff?

[jenny12]

Hi, thanks for the replies guys,

"Why not start a page directly related to this user?"

That's be great, but Wikipedia are strict about creating pages, and it would be called a "personal attack page" anyway :(

"If he's fucking up the articles surely some kind of action can be taken by the wikipedia staff?"

He's not "vandalizing" technically, he's just skewing them severly toward the politically right, and people don't seem to care. He's been taken to every form of disciplne you can think of, but most of his friends are admins, and the only people who stand up gainst him don't have that much edit history (credibility), so people don't take them seriously, or just see others complaiining as pests.

That's why I figured a vandlizm campaign might do the trick, get a few people telling other people to help (anyone can edit wikipedia) the more users that complain and cause a fuss, then the more his behavior is brought to people's attention... and maybe people'll wake up!

An example of his "beliefs" from his own mouth:



Crime

* SUPPORT sentencing based on punnishment, not rehabilitation. Thus, support longer jail terms.
* SUPPORT mandatory life imprisonment for multiple offenders of serious crimes like rape.
* SUPPORT summarily killing terrorists, as they don’t respect life themselves.

Social Issues

* SUPPORT freedom of and from religion.
* OPPOSE homosexual marriages.
* SUPPORT unmarried couples, then singles, then gays adopting if no appropriate maried couples can be found.
* OPPOSE people who are not married, within the Biblical meaning, recieving IVF.
* OPPOSE abortion where the mother’s life is not threatened except where the mother was raped.
* OPPOSE laws, which prevent freedom to say bona fide beliefs about people and religions.
* SUPPORT the banning of smoking. With the caveat that all present smokers receive government provided help to give up.

Immigration

* SUPPORT mandatory detention of people who enter the country without following the proper proceedures (e.g. sneeking in on a boat).
* SUPPORT speedy processing of claims for refugee status.
* SUPPORT limited government assistance to newly repatriated refugees.
* SUPPORT the immediate deportation of any person arriving without following proper proceedures and having been found not to be a refugee.






http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=13830408 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Xtra/Beliefs&oldid=13830408)

Thanks guys.

[TC]

How can you both support 'freedom from religion' and use 'biblical standards' to decide on who can get IVF (which, i gather is a topic that the bible discusses extensively :-p).

[jenny12]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:30 PM
How can you both support 'freedom from religion' and use 'biblical standards' to decide on who can get IVF (which, i gather is a topic that the bible discusses extensively :-p).
It's not logical you're right!


If anyone can help vandalize his page, the more people that vandalize his "work" the more exposure it gets and the less likely he'll be able to edit!


Please, it'd only take a second, just blank the pages he touches with "Xtra is a homophobe" and people will have no chice but to do something about him.
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o



Thanks! :(

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 12:49 PM
and any page that posts unflattering iformation about his right-wing governement or his leader, he edits it to protect his conservative views!!
Is he a U.S. Congressman? :lol:

Anyway, I don't think Wiki'ing is worth much.

[jenny12]

Originally posted by Matthijs+Apr 9 2006, 06:11 AM--> (Matthijs @ Apr 9 2006, 06:11 AM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 12:49 PM
and any page that posts unflattering iformation about his right-wing governement or his leader, he edits it to protect his conservative views!!
Is he a U.S. Congressman? :lol:

Anyway, I don't think Wiki'ing is worth much. [/b]
Hehe, no, but he is a member of the current right-wing government of australia. Ugh.

Wiki really isn't worth much, but if people count on it for information and it's skewed to the far right, that has to warp people's views. So vandalize at your heart's content!!

[Felicia]

that's fucked

[Ian]

probably a collingwood fan too

[Astronomer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 12:49 PM
So vandalize at your heart's content!!
I disagree 100% with jenny's message. As a long time user of Wikipedia, and a long time supporter of gay rights, I believe it is beneficial for Wikipedia articles to be edited by both sides of an argument. If the goal is non-partison and unbiased.

I don't understand why this one user is being targeted here. There are tons of right-wingers who edit gay articles. There are also tons of Atheists who edit Christian articles. Everyone has a right in Wikipedia to edit an article and we can't set up rules against every person who edits an article whose subject they disagree with.

Also, vandalizing his user page, and especially vandalizing any page he edits, is an extreme. He isn't vandalising the articles themselves - as you can see his changes aren't reverted by other users. This means that, eventhough they may disagree with him and argue him on the talk pages, no one feels he is vandalizing - therefore, vandalizing his page doesn't correct what he does.

On a final note, there are plenty of organizations on Wikipedia that article watch gay and lesbian articles, the LGBT being the largest and most significant, so there is a check and balance system in place.

[RedAnarchist]

He's been warned by this user about this thread -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jelligraze

[Janus]

Well, it seems that there isn't much to do except clean up after him. Even the least controversial articles are disputed so Wikipedians just have to get used to it. From what has been said, there doesn't seem to be any real action that can be taken against this huy. After all, Wikipedia is open to everyone despite their ideologies and users can be kicked out for biased editing.

[Wanted Man]

I just replaced things like "Monarchist" or "Liberal" with "Fascist". Probably won't help much, but ah well.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:47 AM

Please, it'd only take a second, just blank the pages he touches with "Xtra is a homophobe" and people will have no chice but to do something about him.

I tried it, and the page was reverted by a bot within seconds. :( so much for the protest.

[Wanted Man]

Yeah, Wikipedia sucks ass. My edit got rv'd within a minute, and I got an angry message. :lol:

[Astronomer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 11:43 AM
Yeah, Wikipedia sucks ass. My edit got rv'd within a minute, and I got an angry message. :lol:
According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Con...oblem/Vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Vandalism)

It says over 94% of vandalism gets reverted within 10 minutes.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 11:47 PM
It says over 94% of vandalism gets reverted within 10 minutes.
That's why ya keep it small

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:35 PM
Hehe, no, but he is a member of the current right-wing government of australia. Ugh.

Wiki really isn't worth much, but if people count on it for information and it's skewed to the far right, that has to warp people's views. So vandalize at your heart's content!!
is he an mp/senator??

or just a member of the liberals?

[jenny12]

Thanks for helping guys, pages get reverted quickly, but the more vandalism done, the more people will notice....and for the record he's a "somewhat inactive memeber of the liberal party", regardless, he edits according to his policies, and on the gay rights page won't even justify his edits (edits which made the governement look better off, check it out for youself), check the gay rights in Australia talk page.

No one will do, this is what it's come to to get rif of right-wing editors.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Xtra's profile
This user page has been vandalized 66 times.
Will be 67 soon


This user is a native speaker of dumbass.
:lol:

[Mika :: FUERUDEI No Chi]

Somebody should just erase his articles he edited so somebody can rebuild from scratch, anybody got a link to the articles he hatefully edited so I can do this?

[jenny12]

Originally posted by Mika :: FUERUDEI No [email protected] 20 2006, 02:18 AM
Somebody should just erase his articles he edited so somebody can rebuild from scratch, anybody got a link to the articles he hatefully edited so I can do this?
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xtra) is the link, this guy needs to be stopped.

[Lord Voltara]

Why are your opinions any more valid than his? You don't have to agree with what he says.

[Janus]

Well, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and objective as much as possible.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

LOL, hes a monarchist. Wow. Anyway, just challenge him on his edits, you should get some support.

[pnatt]

he keeps being mean to me on wikipedia

[Red Axis]

A lot of people on Wiki are mean.

[pnatt]

Yeah I know. People on Wikipedia seem to be too arrogant and intolerant. I don't think I'll wan to edit wikipedia much longer especially as they've threatened me with permanent blocks.

[Black Dagger]

Forget wikipedia, there's unfortunately an abundance of idiots who seem to make lives of reverting edits on basically any serious historical-political-social topic. I tried for a few months, but no matter the edits i made, it all got deleted or edited beyond recognition.

[Wanted Man]

"Wikipedians" are total assholes. Indeed, don't bother.

[jenny12]

I never said my opinions are better than his, only that he should not impose his views anymore than anyone else should. People on Wiki should be NEUTRAL, spinning an article towards any agenda is wrong, so that's what I, and many people have a problem with.

[Wanted Man]

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

[FinnMacCool]

I don't understand whats with all these right wing editors. Theres another named RJ11 who puts a anarcho capitalist spin on every single anarchist page he finds. He's fucking everywhere.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Wikipedia is generally, with a few exceptions, a rightwing propaganda machinery. And the admins are often the worst ones. The biggest vandalizers at Wikipedia, are often the moderators.

[Revulero]

No wonder when i was looking at the type of communist one of the categories were Christian Communists

[Wanted Man]

Wikipedia is shit, don't bother with it. Whatever you contribute is just deleted again by the Wikistapo.

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedians

[Ander]

What??? Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of the people! If you're sick of what you're reading, add to it yourself.

[Wanted Man]

And have it edited back within a split second by the Wikistapo. Unless you're prepared to spend hours debating a small word change with other Wikipedophiles, and even then you still might not get your way.