Wikipedia has purged Yaniv's article. -
- Thread starter Null
- Start date
U
UY 690
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Wow! That guys so bad even the tranny Wikipedia gang don’t want nothing to do with him. Given he destroyed his entire career in a weeks timing. I’m not shocked everyone betrayed him. I wonder if Jasmine is amazing will get the chomping block once Congress bans underage trannies soon.
The talk page has been archived as well and it's fascinating, whoever had the foresight to archive it, deserves enormous credit.
One editor consistently points out that because no 'reputable' source has reported on Yaniv, all the accusations of pedophilia can't be included. Then they settle on trying to make Oger the hero, and then then at some point the activists just seem to have given up and had the article deleted.
How the fuck can Wikipedia justify deleting a Talk page with that much content?
That's the problem; they don't have to justify it. Some sperg who spends 12 hours a day staring at edits gets the final say in everything because they managed to kiss the right asses.
I was about to post that there is still an archive of the article and talks via archive.org but I see it's already been mentioned. They've been compromised for a while now and considering that the people who make most of the pages there are supreme autists like this guy, who is said to have created or edited over 1/3 of Wikipedia on his own, it seems not too surprising to me that they are trying to scrub anything related to Yaniv off their platform.
Afterthought: Reading the talk section of the Yaniv Waxing Case archive essentially confirms that Wikipedia is a failed project.
Afterthought: Reading the talk section of the Yaniv Waxing Case archive essentially confirms that Wikipedia is a failed project.
Last edited:
Save the Loli
kiwifarms.net
"Reputable source", or in Wikisperg "WP:RS" is the absolute bane of Wikipedia for it ever being a reliable source, since the policy essentially means that whoever shouts the loudest and longest and is friends with the most admins gets to decide which sources are reliable for the article. This is mostly a problem in the articles concerning social sciences and anything to do with current year media, politics, etc. In the former you have cliques of editors who push their PoV everywhere on certain topics, be it Polish nationalism, feminism, etc., and in the latter you have cases like this where Vox and Buzzfeed are considered reliable sources and going against them is considered a fringe point of view which according to Wikipedia policy is like arguing for putting creationism on the evolution article.
Wiki can be a valuable source when it doesn't come to anything that doesn't trigger them. If you want to learn about toll-receptors and the debate about how they mediate adaptive immunity, or binary/hex code, or ipv4 v. ipv6, or even oughts porn stars, the editing is pretty much done as Jimmy Wales said he envisioned it should be around 2005. But when it comes to topics critical of race, of trans, pro-Trump, whatever they deem "conservative" they either lock it or shut it down.
They're sort of like Google News in that way.
They're sort of like Google News in that way.
I'm pretty sure this has everything that was on Wikipedia, since Everipedia has a long tradition of just copying and pasting everything: https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/jessica-yaniv-
it can't be archived by normal means so here's a snapshot for posterity.
it can't be archived by normal means so here's a snapshot for posterity.
yeah I'm doing this right now. I’m sorry I didn’t think to check the Yaniv page history while it was up. it’s always interesting to see who’s running the show on a given article. but we can still read the deliberation whether to delete.
despite the vote being split even between keep/delete, Randykitty chose to go through with the deletion.
Randykitty is a superuser admin who puts an astonishing amount of time into editing, statistics here. giving the benefit of the doubt, his edit history reflects primarily a wide academic interest/his career as a phd. he cleans up a lot of stuff related to notability, not focused on any political vector. edit- apparently Randykitty pissed someone off hard enough that they made a blog dedicated to talking shit on them, take with a grain of salt. also his user profile leads with a joke about being “Cabal Approved.”
"TINC" is apparently joke lingo that “there is no cabal.” looking up the phrase, I guess these people run a blog about themselves/wikipedia editing or something?
the former director of Wikimedia UK and former admin, user Fæ, put in the most work lobbying for delete. this person falls in line with the activist stereotype you’d expect to shield someone like Yaniv. their edit history is a mix of their pet topics (gay stuff) and some actual cool encyclopedic stuff like Hoxne Hoard, but he's pretty unambiguous about his activist motivation for being on the site.
he is also apparently a "cabal" member too, as that blog previously mentioned has a bio of him with his full name and country of residence.
his argument to delete is mostly made in wikipedia technicality language you're probably familiar with, POV, no notability, and biography of living person guideline violations.
however, lest we think there is no justice in the wikiverse, I have breaking news. right now, as in just moments ago, the user known as Fæ has been topic banned from talking about sex and gender on wikipedia.
it seems like even on wikipedia, there's an institutional limit to how insufferable you can be.
one final point, Ashley has some advice for you:
Last edited:
Yaniv is the greatest cow in history and should be remembered forever.
Holy shit and I thought absolutely all hope was lost for Wikipedia. Maybe this means the Yaniv article
He'll just set up an eighth account (he's had at least seven.. that he admits to). Or sub someone else on from team insanity.
Color me shocked that someone who considers their tendentious editing to the 'Gay Bathhouse' article to keep it free of negative opinions around how they foster epidemic levels of sexually transmitted diseases within the homosexual population a great achievement, would also back Yaniv.
http://web.archive.org/web/20190812182123/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_review/Ash
('Ash' is a previous account of the same user)
Nblund, one of the more active wikipedos trying to block anything mean about poor lil Jonny, of course has to blame a movement from 5 years ago as the reason why people are being so gosh darn mean!
Disgusting. Wikipedia will never be taken seriously as the supreme archive of 'community knowlege' that it claims to want to become as long as bias in ANY form is taken in their editorial decisions. Denying a source of valid information because of perceived left or right wing bias makes you instantly a joke and a biased source of data.
I have for years now only used Wikipedia as a source of general information in the manner one would use an encyclopaedia for. For current events or 'hot button' topics, I learned long ago to stay away. And that's just little old me. I just wonder by how many millions I am multiplied, while the Wikimedia foundation plays SJW and political games of steeplechace in their ivory tower.
Make sure to donate to Wikipedia so they don't have to become biased due to advertiser influence.
so I missed this in my post bc I'm new to wikipedia shit, but Ashley van Haeften (Fæ) isn't some wiki anon, he's the former director of Wikimedia UK with a long history of making an ass of himself. helping get Yaniv article scrubbed is a drop in the bucket for this dude. relevant funny part of article:
Van Haeften was well known for his work in looking after the Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM) program at Wikimedia UK before being appointed to the Chair[5]. His resignation was described by “Real Business UK” as one of the 10 most controversial resignations of 2012-13 – not including the Pope’s[6].
Controversies
Wikimedia Resignation/Banning controversy
See also: Wikimedia_UK § Chairman_resigns
Van Haeften was banned from editing the English Wikipedia “for ‘numerous violations of Wikipedia’s norms and policies,’ including ad hominen attacks directed at other users and posting explicit content to the Wikipedia page of a living person”.[15][16]
An IT manager with a mathematics degree in 1986 from Imperial College London[1], van Haeften stepped down as Chair of Wikimedia UK after falling out with Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales after an “unnecessarily hostile” discussion between them about the inclusion of explicit material on Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s ban on van Haeften, who claimed he was the target of a campaign of homophobic harassment, was more for his reactions to criticism for uploading the explicit content, since uploading such content is completely OK by Wiki-rules[17]. The Wikimedia UK board, however, solidly backed van Haeften in his dispute with Wikipedia, and said
“The board is united in the view that this decision does not affect his role as a trustee of the charity .. his work at Wikimedia UK has always been enthusiastic and diligent. In particular, his knowledge of charity governance, and his ability to bring about consensus at Wikimedia UK’s board meetings, have been particularly valuable.”
Commenting on the resignation, Jon Davies, chief executive of Wikimedia UK, said
Ashley is keen that there should be no division in the WMUK community over his role as chair, especially at a time when so many great things are being achieved. He has therefore resigned as chair.[18]
Though van Haeften remained a Board member of Wikimedia UK, he was then quickly targeted for his controversial election as inaugural Chair of the Wikimedia Chapter’s Association which later imploded.[19]
Larry Sanger, the co-founder of the Wikipedia database, who has regularly highlighted the presence of pornography on the Wikimedia USA’s sites, while noting that van Haeften received an upvote of support from the charity’s board on July 26 2013, which unanimously voted to allow him to continue on as its head.[20] also wondered
“how can the Wikimedia UK Board pretend that Van Haeften can continue to be a credible chair of a well-funded Wikipedia charity if the judicial body of Wikipedia has deliberately excluded him from the website for violating Wikipedia’s own policies?”[20][21]Arnnon Geshuri controversy
See also: Arnnon_Geshuri § Wikimedia_Foundation_.28January_2016.29
In Jan 2016, Ashley Van Haeften, commenced a non-binding “vote of no confidence”, whereby Wikipedia’s cohort of international volunteer editors asked to remove Arnnon Geshuri, of Google, from Wikimedia Foundation USA’s Board of Trustees. The vote was ultimately 290-22 in favor of Geshuri’s removal and generated wide international media attention.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Knowledge Engine controversy and Lila Tretikov’s resignation
See also: Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)
The controversy ignited by van Haeften’s non-confidence vote then spread and ultimately caused Wikimedia Foundation’s Executive Director Lila Tretikov to resign after uproar over secretive “Knowledge Engine” type Wikimedia Foundation projects which Ashley van Haeften claimed were pursued for some non-Wikimedian board Silicon Valley name members and WMF Executive staff to have on their CVs[29].
Van Haeften was well known for his work in looking after the Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM) program at Wikimedia UK before being appointed to the Chair[5]. His resignation was described by “Real Business UK” as one of the 10 most controversial resignations of 2012-13 – not including the Pope’s[6].
Controversies
Wikimedia Resignation/Banning controversy
See also: Wikimedia_UK § Chairman_resigns
Van Haeften was banned from editing the English Wikipedia “for ‘numerous violations of Wikipedia’s norms and policies,’ including ad hominen attacks directed at other users and posting explicit content to the Wikipedia page of a living person”.[15][16]
An IT manager with a mathematics degree in 1986 from Imperial College London[1], van Haeften stepped down as Chair of Wikimedia UK after falling out with Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales after an “unnecessarily hostile” discussion between them about the inclusion of explicit material on Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s ban on van Haeften, who claimed he was the target of a campaign of homophobic harassment, was more for his reactions to criticism for uploading the explicit content, since uploading such content is completely OK by Wiki-rules[17]. The Wikimedia UK board, however, solidly backed van Haeften in his dispute with Wikipedia, and said
“The board is united in the view that this decision does not affect his role as a trustee of the charity .. his work at Wikimedia UK has always been enthusiastic and diligent. In particular, his knowledge of charity governance, and his ability to bring about consensus at Wikimedia UK’s board meetings, have been particularly valuable.”
Commenting on the resignation, Jon Davies, chief executive of Wikimedia UK, said
Ashley is keen that there should be no division in the WMUK community over his role as chair, especially at a time when so many great things are being achieved. He has therefore resigned as chair.[18]
Though van Haeften remained a Board member of Wikimedia UK, he was then quickly targeted for his controversial election as inaugural Chair of the Wikimedia Chapter’s Association which later imploded.[19]
Larry Sanger, the co-founder of the Wikipedia database, who has regularly highlighted the presence of pornography on the Wikimedia USA’s sites, while noting that van Haeften received an upvote of support from the charity’s board on July 26 2013, which unanimously voted to allow him to continue on as its head.[20] also wondered
“how can the Wikimedia UK Board pretend that Van Haeften can continue to be a credible chair of a well-funded Wikipedia charity if the judicial body of Wikipedia has deliberately excluded him from the website for violating Wikipedia’s own policies?”[20][21]Arnnon Geshuri controversy
See also: Arnnon_Geshuri § Wikimedia_Foundation_.28January_2016.29
In Jan 2016, Ashley Van Haeften, commenced a non-binding “vote of no confidence”, whereby Wikipedia’s cohort of international volunteer editors asked to remove Arnnon Geshuri, of Google, from Wikimedia Foundation USA’s Board of Trustees. The vote was ultimately 290-22 in favor of Geshuri’s removal and generated wide international media attention.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Knowledge Engine controversy and Lila Tretikov’s resignation
See also: Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)
The controversy ignited by van Haeften’s non-confidence vote then spread and ultimately caused Wikimedia Foundation’s Executive Director Lila Tretikov to resign after uproar over secretive “Knowledge Engine” type Wikimedia Foundation projects which Ashley van Haeften claimed were pursued for some non-Wikimedian board Silicon Valley name members and WMF Executive staff to have on their CVs[29].
I was really hoping that you weren't referring to GamerGate. I hope that one day, I'll be able to see an era where GamerGate is completely irrelevant, because it honestly should be. My favorite part of this statement is this sentence below.
Dude, just say Kiwi Farms, because everyone knows that's who you're referring to. There is no other "social media community" that's talking about Yaniv to that extent, mainly because he has gone out of his way to deplatform anyone that negatively talks about him. It's only us. This Voldemort bullshit is the gayest thing I've ever seen.Nblund said:
Poopstain
kiwifarms.net
Good-Lord the comments on that screen-shot just ratchet the level of gayness up to a level that gayness was not designed to handle....
Took a look at the closing admin's user page and can't imagine why they might have a glaring bias...
Similar threads
Father of the Sexual Revolution [Historical Perspective]
Like have you really seen this?
Long Term Abuse and Arbitration Committee pages, Major Gamergate Battleground
