Replies

Tznkai - the guy who joined up and posted above - is also apparently trying to pick out freepers who edit wikipedia and is posting their names on Wikipedia's administrator noticeboard so all the leftist admins can undo every edit they make.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:Namr.

This is very common administrator behavior on wikipedia. If they find an editor who doesn't support the liberal point of view the circulate that person's name to all the other administrators and begin following all of their edits and undoing anything that doesn't conform to the liberal viewpoint.

Here's another "alert" that Arbitration committee member Mindspillage posted about us on the George W. Bush article (she's the self described atheist that Fennec claims is a "libertarian" and thus implies is friendly to our views)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_W._Bush#Free_Republic_.22Action_Alert.22

There are quite a few nasty and condescending comments about us by the usual wikipedia administrator hive. And yes - notice that they're all administrators.

Android79 - administrator.
Katefan0 - administrator (note: she's also one of the administrators who actively guards the NAMBLA article - likely a far left winger)

"This is very common administrator behavior on wikipedia. If they find an editor who doesn't support the liberal point of view the circulate that person's name to all the other administrators and begin following all of their edits and undoing anything that doesn't conform to the liberal viewpoint."
As I mentioned earlier. I welcome constructive positive edits, no matter what your persuasion. I don't like people vandalizing articles, reverting without discussion, or resorting to broad personal attacks. My list of problem users includes people of every stripe. The only thing they all share in common is they are:
1. Human
2. Troublemakers.

Oh, and for the record. Lets take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Namr.

As far as I'm concerned, Namr. here isn't liberal, conservative, or a chimpanzee. He's a problem, who managed to take a suggestion to join wikipedia and act polite, and manage to bungle it rather nicley. This includes vandalizing the Mexico article, incivility to other editors, and reversion without careful study. He evidently doesn't enjoy our politeness: "I made th wrong edit the first time, stop being polite to me, it makes me sick", and he's destroyed comments. Perhaps my favorite showing that it isn't political bias at work is this edit here, which was reverted by myself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=prev&oldid=33356751
You'll notice he added this rather pro-choicy flavored paragraph back:
" Moreover, a meaningful evaluation of risk must compare abortion with carrying the pregnancy to term, as opposed to against never having gotten pregnant in the first place. In the United Kingdom, about 1 out of 100,000 women who have early abortions die, as compared about 9 out of 100,000 women who carry their pregnancies to term. [http://www.womenshealthlondon.org.uk/leaflets/pregab/pregab.html] Figures for other countries are similar."

The defense rests.