Wikipedia
Click here to read a message from our sponsor.Template:Collapseobject Template:Clear Template:Morphquote
World of Wikipœdia, or Wikipedia, is a blog justified by news pages from corrupt media, which they refer to as "references". It is considered an "encyclopedia" and the best of humanity, proof for to how the mental retardation has contaminated the entire world population. Also is a massive multiplayer online role-playing game in which some geek braggarts compete to paraphrase TL;DR information into a shorter, reader-friendlier format. However, unlike any other MMORPG, the major rewards and upgrades are to players' perceived expertise on their own edits, which players can trade in for sparse IRL recognition or can add to their sparse lists of personal accomplishments.
During gameplay, Wikipedia players can gain more authority as they progress, with "Administrator" and "Double-O Licensed" rankings granting them access to GOD MODE. While the rules for winning the game are a tightly-kept secret, it is believed that the winner is treated to a night of accolades and praise from Wikipedia overlord Jimbo Wales.
(There's also pieces of an "encyclopedia" buried in there, among the articles about anime fanboy crap and football.)
What is a Wiki? An Example of Supreme Idiocy
- Edit war dispute. A full out tribunal complete with e-court and e-arbitration and extra special e-punishment. The users are serving their e-sentences with 1 month bans and Wikipedia-style "house arrests" in which they cannot edit certain articles and must behave in a certain way. The entire argument stems from the fact that Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln share a birthday. This resulted in huge lulz for everyone else but none for them, while Wikipedophiles got all emo.
- Talk page about USS Liberty in which Jayjg attempts to argue with the vice president of the USS Liberty Veterans Association about the Liberty incident. Yes, an Israeli agent involved in the cover-up is allowed to always have the last word on the article, not someone who was actually there and involved in the events in question.
- People who think that Wikipedia can love them back are always easy to troll. Case in point: Vanboto, who discovered that a few people guarded the article on the song "Rock Lobster" with a passion, reverting all edits which tried to insert the fact that it was once played on Family Guy. His response: a brave and bold display of insanity, petty reverts, harassment, personal attacks, irrelevant responses, and trolling. In short, clearly admin material if not for the fact that he was obviously there to have fun and not contribute in any meaningful way, as evidenced by his constant references to The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Dungeons & Dragons, and Pokemon. End result: a permaban and much drama. That'll do, troll, that'll do... on the other hand, trolling wikipedos who think they're the "keymaster and gatekeeper" of articles is most necessary.
- The courageous protectors of Katie Couric have decided that citing South Park makes their butthurt and so it's OK to call people useless dicks and tell them to go fuck themselves. To those who suffer from amnesia, here is the clip that angered these faggots and made them call the Waaaambulance.
- The discussion page for the article on Hot dogs. It's about
1038 pages long and filled with drama. About HOT DOGS. - Certain searches mysteriously "failing"
- William Shatner's musical career
- John Seigenthaler Sr. - Exposing the Kennedy assassin.
- Their pants-wetting terror of poop.
- A bitchfest about an image of semen.
- Talk page about Child pornography, their favorite subject. Wikipedos argue that the CP article needs moar CP plox. For further lulz, check out the archives.
- Wikipedia is somehow controlled by both the far right and the far left wing political parties at the same time, creating a paradox, without any lulz.
- A place to argue about discrimination against Mudkips, while providing images showing how one can keep Mudkip's fin erect.
- WP:LAME contains a full list of Wikipedia's dumbest content disputes - including full-out edit wars over everything from the height and weight of Street Fighter characters, whether the title of Avril Lavigne's hit single "I'm with You" should have a capitalized "W", the cup size of a female Final Fantasy character, to whether or not Daffy Duck fathered any children, and more - yes these were all real edit wars, srsly.
- A collection of fan-written songs about Wikipedia, most of which are stolen from well known popular songs (ex. "Doncha' wish your Pedia was Free like Me?" - ripped off from a Pussycat Dolls single).
- What could possibly be more useful than a nine-trillion page category comprising an alphabetical list of all Wikipedia biographies with subjects who are currently still alive? Because obviously you can't trust the individual articles themselves and so this list is bound to be more up-to-date and reliable, not to mention convenient.
Please donate to pay for Wikipedia's bandwidth, wikipedo activities and hosting fees, paying off Grawp to not vandalize Wikipedia.
History
Do not be tempted into the "encyclopedia" for the poor.
The Wikipedia game originally began as a plot to streamline the plagiarism of college essays.
Said plot was evil, so naturally, a Jew was involved. Once the Jew realized that tricking narcissists into self-indentured servitude was an easy way to profit, he immediately began a campaign to turn all Google users into "contributors" to the full-blown cut and paste orgy of his design.
The encyclopedic aspect of Wikipedia began as a butthurt reaction to its more popular predecessor, Encyclopedia Dramatica. Over time, Wikipedia began to feature more and more interesting topics like the lives of 17th century rabbis, characteristics of the 57th termite chromosome, and Hollywood films including one or more of the Sesame Street Muppets - in other words, content with no real relevance to internet culture. It now also functions as a limited medical journal (which is useless to its contributor base) and criminal resource for retards.
TOW players, however, got a bit headstrong about the actual value of their contributions, and even the Jew conjurer himself began to think of it as the 21st Century's Library of Alexandria. Indeed, this sustains the standard modus operandi of Wikipedoes, Jews, Liberals and all who believe that re-writing pre-written facts garners respect from people who can't tell the difference and don't give a damn. Template:Clear
Progression through the Game
How the Game Typically Progresses
- You make edits to articles
- Your edits get reverted by aspie fucktards
- You revert them back and they in turn revert again
- You bicker on the talk page of the article
- You whine about the aspies on the administrator noticeboards accusing them of being uncivil, they in turn accuse you of assuming bad faith
- You open a Request for Comment on their behavior
- You take them to arbitration
- Someone gets banned forever, normally the most sane person
- Jimbo profits
Grinding
You grind by writing articles in a concise, yet obtuse way. This is achieved by ignoring copyediting rules and flavor your material with unwarranted sesquipedalianism (If you did not have to look up this word you are probably... See! The insulting remark appeared in your head! No one even had to spell it out for you!) It is rumored that by 2020 Wikipedia:s user base will be replaced with Google Paraphrase, a software in development.
Leveling up
Each time someone complains to you on your user page, you have gained a level. This is easily achieved, since everything you do will yield complaint: both constructive work and vandalism.
Player versus player
How to go player versus player in Wikipedia.
- Remove a raw addition to an article which you easily could have fixed or replaced yourself, and which really does not do any harm. In the very least, it could be used as a pedagogical example for newcomers how an article not should be written.
- Write an essay on the talk page explaining why the addition was removed citing a lot of so called policies, guidelines and essays. Ignoring the fact that said rules, guidelines and essays was not created to stop newcomers, but to help them understand how Wikipedia works, and also was created to stop dickheads like yourself.
- Get your reversion contested.
- Initiate a voting game for how the issue should be handed.
- An administrator who is the judge in the voting games, rules in your favour despite the outcome, because he will never thwart the effort of a fellow avocation aficionado bureaucrat, despite how stupid you are.
- Run amok removing things over the whole site, citing said voting game as if Wikipedia was a court room.
- PROFIT!
Gaining Experience Points
- 1 vandal reversion = 1 exp (a vandal is defined as an editor with a different point of view than yours)
- 1 legitimate edit to a page = 2 exp
- 1 article created (assuming it stays) = 20 exp
- 1 Good Article = 100 exp
- 1 Featured Article = 200 exp
- 1 report to AIV or UAA = 5 exp
- 1 page deleted via AfD = 20 exp
- 1 page deleted via PROD or CSD = 10 exp
- 1 support for an Rfa = 20 exp
- 1 article with POV or misinformation inserted into = 100 exp
- 1 user blocked as a result of drama created = 50 exp
- 1 instance of getting a page blocked = Over 9000 exp
TOW Ranks
- Rollback > 10,000 exp
- Pending changes reviewer > 15,000 exp
- Template editor > 20,000 exp
- Administrator > 100,000 exp
- Bureaucrat > 500,000 exp
- Checkuser or Oversight > 500,000 exp
Why it's Generally a Huge Bucket of Pelican Shit
Template:QuoteTemplate:Quote Currently Wikipedia contains 4.8 million English articles, 4.8 million of which are plagiarized from ED, Encyclopedia Britannica, or Futa sites. After edits from various admins, editors, trolls and vandals, only 343 articles remain at least 50% factually accurate. This leaves Wikipedia on an academic par with "Star Wars: Incredible Cross-Sections: The Ultimate Guide to Star Wars Vehicles and Spacecraft" and "My First Book of Animals from A to Z". All reputable universities and high schools have permabanned the use of Wikipedia in academic citations.
Wikipedia has a policy that all articles in it needs a neutral point of view, but in reality it is a doublespeak that basically means "Write in a pro-communist, pro-Israel, pro-Liberalism view", which is the exact reverse of neutrality. No wonder all the SJWs, Jewish Activists and Narcissist power maniacs are attracted to it.
Wikipedia has a concept called WikiLove and has a policy of "ass-u-me good faith" amongst its contributors. This is a vital policy because there is no good faith among any of Wikipedos, so it is necessary to at least pretend that the other guy isn't out there to be an asshole.
Wikipedia's new March 2007 rules demand that an administrator proves he has a higher (PhD) degree if he claims he has one. So far that bullshit lie to the public has not been enforced.
Wikipedia has very weak armor and only a level 3 shield. Thus, they are open to a flanking attack from pretty much anybody. And since they have about eighty updates per second, it's easy for a small but fatally incorrect change to slip through unnoticed. Also, Wikipedia is quite prone to hivemind, since everybody wants to be an admin, and disagreeing with Wikipedia admins is an easy way to not become one.
The administrators of Wikipedia are generally open-source advocates and therefore tend to have no knowledge of how to run a successful website. They are constantly arguing with each other over how often the GNAA Wikipedia article should be nominated for Articles for Deletion section, disregarding the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines which prevent multiple attempts. They delete the important sites, but keep the bullshit. Like: Fart lighting.
Actually, the only thing in which Wikipedia beats ED in is a higher percentage of vandal users. For a prime example, see: Sceptre.
Contributors to Wikipedia are not valued. Bimbo Wales has said that editing is a privilege, so you are not really donating your time by editing articles. Most contributions (images, text, etc.) are actually deleted, and the users with the most power (Administrators, Bureaucrats, etc.) contribute the least content to the site. The site is so shitty that it is pointless to try to improve it. The best way to fix it would be to just delete it and start over.
The Never-Ending Story
A common misconception is that "Wikipedia is never finished." Remember, each Wikipedia article you come across was forged from the blood of thousands of angsty teenagers edit warring over really important facts about the world.
The real problem with Wikipedia is the Wikipedians. From players to sysops, every member of its community is the scum of the internets - worse than spammers, worse than script kiddies and Nigerian scammers, and worse than IRCers. The average Wikipedia user has the intelligence of a seal, and bathes or showers once a month.
Wikipedia is full of people with no desire to improve what it is intended for, information. Instead, they want to grow their e-penis and one day become a mod.
The only way to save the Wikipedia MMORPG is to delete all usernames and only allow two players to be its administrators: Grawp and Willy on Wheels. All other accounts will be reduced to powerless IP addresses. Its' users will then continuing their bitching and pedantic arguing. Tosh had the right idea: get over there and post some fucked up shit. Template:Clear
Reliability
Michael Scott On Wikipedia
In 2007, a variety of scandals began to surface from within Wikipedia. Mainstream news organizations began to openly discuss the common public perception that Wikipedia is "unreliable." In a sophisticated experiment, it was demonstrated googling "Wikipedia" and "unreliable" generated more than 502,000 "hits". In contrast, a similar search using "Encyclopedia Dramatica" and "unreliable" generated barely more than 300 "hits", with most of these being self-deprecating jokes of humility from Encyclopedia Dramatica editors. Thus, it was scientifically proven that Wikipedia is much, much more unreliable (see graphic). Anyone in the world can edit Wikipedia, which means you know you are getting information from the best source possible.
Template:Clear
Acceptable Sources
Wikipedia has very strict standards regarding the sources you can use when editing. The following is a list of some of the most common ones.
- The Guardian
- Daily Kos
- Huffington Post
- Junge Welt
- KCNA
- PinkPaper UK
- Michael Moore documentaries
- Countdown, with Keith Olbermann
- Anything by Noam Chomsky
- Some stupid nigger's asshole
- Anything licked or stolen by Jews
Additionally, many editors simply cite obscure books that no one owns. That way, no one will ever be able to prove they're totally bullshitting. Template:Clear
Pornography
So great is the amount of porn on Wikipedia it (almost) rivals ED - a fact made all the more pathetic by the fact ED is made by and for basement-dwellers and those with a disgusting sense of humour whereas Wikipedia is genuinely trying to educate people.[citation needed] Here is a list of the very full articles dedicating to proving that sad fact:
- Wikipedia Porn
- Wikipedia's Greatest Hits Sex
- Virgin Killer For all you Loli-lovers.
WP:Admins control universal truth
Template:Main
Wikipedia mods come trolling the world from the heyday of the page between retards and the search results of Google. Mankind has been trolled in its entirety by no more than a bunch of anal-raped Aspies, who just log in for World Domination. Unsurprisingly, among those interested in world domination are psychological warfare experts from Mossad and the JIDF, who relentlessly insert Israeli propaganda into every article that they can find, and ruthlessly suppress anything critical of ZOG's schemes. The magic of the Electronic Dictatorial Totalitarian Democracy, all in the name of volunteering for the best idea of the world for an encyclopedia. Long Live Wikipedia!.
Template:Clear
Hivemind
Wikipedophiles, especially sysops and recent patrollers, share a hivemind. They all think alike, act alike, and no matter how abusive a member of the hivemind is, they always support it. Those of the hivemind look like they are sock puppets, but they actually communicate telepathically.
In 2005, like a colony of bees, the hivemind recognized that those outside the collective had their own individuality. Now they are a complete collective consciousness like the Borg and no longer believe identity exists outside the collective. To them, everyone is fake, an illusion; an actor who has no thoughts, emotions, viewpoints, etc. and must be eliminated/assimilated and until then they do it is viewed as trolling. Any expression of individuality is banned as trolling or, to use a common wikipodadminism, "disruption." See: Don't feed the trolls and Don't Feed the Divas, especially the last sentence, which crushes what little self-esteem you may have:
The hivemind extends outside Wikipedia as well, on those rare occasions that an admin strays onto another forum. A good way to start a flamewar with them is to hint, suggest, joke, outright state or otherwise insinuate that Wikipedia is anything less than the greatest academic achievement since the library of Alexandria.
Thus, because of the Hivemind, Wikipedia has immunized itself against any criticism. Of course, the corollary to this immunity, according to themselves, is because so many people are part of it, it can't be controlled. Due to the amount of participants, real criticism will come from inside. Yeah, that'll happen. Criticize the Hivemind at your own peril, because the Hivemind controls the power to delete your edits, to ban you, and to railroad you from social advancement (as SlimVirgin did to Gracenotes).
- When ED criticized Wikipedia, ED was site-banned in their "spam" blacklist.
- When Wikipedia Review criticized Wikipedia, the Monkey-Fucker Cabal removed all links under some kind of definition of "no personal attacks".
- Wikipediocracy published a blog entry about how fucked-up Wikipedia is, and was stuck on the "spam blacklist".
- "Real newspapers" like The Register criticize them, and the chant goes out "Ban them, ban them, ban them..."
- Watch out New York Times, you're next.
Recent Changes Patrolling (RC Patrolling)
Why the fuck would anyone want to patrol for recent changes? The articles are usually dull. Patrolling edits on Wikipedia is boring as hell. The only reason is to troll. Cuckolded administrators delete everything believing they are cyber judges (though IRL judges at least pretend to follow a set of rules) after their wives have refused to touch their cocks. (Just kidding, 80% of the fat little bastards aren't married and never will be. Lol.) If you actually attempt to post facts on Wikipedia and an RC patroller doesn't like it, they will use any sort of retarded excuses to revert or just call it vandalism. Failing this, they will attempt to make your argument invalid through the power of some argue.
RC Patrollers usually use scripts to search for specific things. They're actually very bad at catching vandalism in articles (this one went unnoticed for 17 days and this went unnoticed for two years!), but very effective at finding anyone criticizing admins in talk pages where such criticism is reverted and the person banned forever. Real vandalism lingers and festers until years later, that account pisses an admin off - and it is only through wikistalking that Wikipedophiles are able to find vandalism at all.
Some RC Patrollers are also huge hypocrites because they are also vandals. These fake editors include Konstable and Blu Aardvark. Template:Clear
The Asperger Cancer
Any observant new user to Wikipedia will soon ask themselves "What's with all the running 'lists' of inane bullshit? I don't need to see a list of Russian deep fat fryer models built in 1963. Why are the administrators social misfits with little sense of wisdom or good judgement? Does Jimbo know of this faggotry?" The answer to both questions is that Wikipedia attracts Asperger zombies like flies to shit.
These basement dwelling virgins have alienated millions of normal people from Wikipedia. They take out their asperger rage for their hundreds of school yard beatdowns and permanent sexual isolation on the rest of us. It is believed that many of these faggots cannot even talk in real life. Jimbo can't stand these robots, but their problems are harnessed by Wikipedia as unpaid labor, which makes the profit for his hookers and blow.
Asperger zombies are relatively easy to spot. They will be:
- White, and male.
- Have their photo on their user page. Asptards have little sense of what is socially appropriate, and don't realize how they come across. They mainly have blank, asperger stares. This perma-virgin actually has a picture of himself with Jimbo.
- Their user page will be covered in checklists, "to do" tables, programming code, personal details, and generally look like a spreadsheet. Look at this fucknut's older page version, before he knew ED was looking and had found the "I fuck on the first date kid" all grown up (scroll down).
- Sometimes, those on the asperger/autism spectrum will openly declare their problem. "Rainbowofpeace", who obsessively edits articles about discrimination, helpfully tells us how he is an autistic gay Jew with ADHD. That's a high score on the Oppression olympics!
- Favorite subjects include men's rights, which were fought over constantly on TOW from its early days, and GamerGate. Because real human females won't talk to Cheeto-gobbling pimply 300-pound fans of Tolkien and My Little Pony.
Template:Userbox Template:Clear
Notable Wikipedos
- Ironholds, former WP:IRC rockstar, now desysopped for vandalism and for bringing the project into disrepute with such quotes as:
- GorillaWarfare, one of his galpals
- Fluffernutter, famous for her sexchats with Ironholds:
- Tyciol
- AmericanDad86, known for fighting everyone and being flamboyant.
TOW & ED
Template:Main See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica, ED vs TOW, and Encyclopedia Dramatica:ED vs. Wikipedia
It all started one day when Jameth, typing with only his penis, attempted to enter the mediacrat drama as a Wikipedia entry. It was discussed and denied. This act alone sparked the creation of the wiki you are reading right now. Far as you know, you chronic masturbator.
Every year, Wikipedians pretend that they are going to delete the Encyclopedia Dramatica article. Occasionally they do for brief intervals, mostly on the grounds of hosting the previously-deleted Mediacrat entry, but usually they wuss out of it. The fucks tried it six times that are still visible; there were others, vanished by that pathetic anime dork Avery "Ashibaka" Morrow. He hates ED. (And it's extra-lulzy because he was also a major protector of the 4chan article, which was also subjected to endless editwars. But then he was a moderator on 4chan for a long time.....)
Have a look at the first archive of the ED article talkpage. There were earlier ones bu the Wiki-faggots deleted them. Yes kids, Ashibaka, Sceptre and Mbisanz are whining little pussies hells yeah.
Wikipedia's steadfast refusal to host an Encyclopedia Dramatica article has been the source of a great deal of hilarious drama on the site. Yet TOW continues to cover up any controversy associated with the topic and deny the creation of the article, even one that is unoffensive, informative, and well written. Wikipedia has articles on Bukkake, Goatse, 2 Girls 1 Cup, an extensive disambiguation page on dongs (including a page on a male porn star named "Long Dong Silver"), and God knows what else. However, they have refused to allow a page on ED simply out of spite.
Update: Last closing argument (aside from Sceptre's faggotry): Template:Squote
DISREGARD THIS SECTION, TOW SUCKS COCKS
An Encyclopedia Dramatica article has been up on Wikipedia, in all its lulztastic, properly sourced and cited glory since at least May 2010.
As expected, it took only a few hours for many Wikipedos to go into childlike tantrums, thus forcing yet another deletion review, deletion review number 57 to be exact. The topic of this deletion review is to determine the validity of sources. When the article was created, the source list was actually larger than the article itself, but this has since been trimmed down for a number of arbitrary reasons, the most prevalent being that TOW's editors are unable to live up to their own retarded rules. However, the overall consensus is that the article should stay and that anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite who is simply butthurt over ED's treatment of TOW and its editors and fails to realize that this immature behavior will only further the problem. Template:Clear
Wikipedia's Content Vs. Encyclopedia Dramatica's Content
- Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not truth. ED relies on the lulz, and baseless jokes don't make good satire.
- Wikipedia does not rely on primary sources, and hates academic sources. ED would post a photo from your high school yearbook if it's lulzy enough.
- Activists use Wikipedia to skew articles to try to get NORP sympathy. ED shits on everyone for the sake of cheap jokes.
- Wikipedos will argue by throwing around abbreviations. EDiots will laugh at you and mock your argument.
- Wikipedia lets shitposters like Ryulong run rampant. ED has no problem telling its own founder to fuck off.
- Wikipedia is almost always online. ED goes down every other day or some shit.
This section needs no witty dick jokes. Wikipedia is a giant punchline. Template:Clear
Tips On Vandalizing Wikpedia
- Subtly insert false info, such as changing a person's birth date from 1970 to 1990, or insert info that is not obviously false, like: "x was a distant cousin of Bill Gates."
- Make a new account every time you vandalize, so that even if you are caught, the admin can't revert all your past vandalisms.
- Vandalize articles that are not actively watched by a lot of editors, such as biography of obscure living persons.
- Always create an informative edit summary for your edits. For extra points, make up a spiffy character set with nonbreaking spaces...
- Examples: ▲ ʙ ɮ Ⅽ Ⅾ ∈ Ⅎ Ғ Ɠ ╠╣ℍ █ ▄█ K █▄ █▀█▀█ █▀█ ● ℙ ☭ Ⓡℙℝ ▄█▀ ▀█▀ █▄█ ▀▄▀ █▄█▄█ ✖ 匕 ▀█▄ ● ❛❜ This will help your edits look super respectable!
Power Words
Employ the following words to increase your wiki credibility:
- CamelCase - Sticking two words together to form the silhouette of a vagoo.
- Canard - some sort of Jew bird that eats fetuses and desecrates churches.
- Good faith - A codeword for the 13 year old boys for which wikipedians are on the prowl.
- Portmanteau - A sexual device used by wikipedians to have buttsecks regardless of gender or disability.
- Schism - A euphemism for a catfight.
- Shoa - a mythical tale of an effeminate mustachioed hero who defeats a horde of greedy beasts.
- Admonish - To tie up and make gay manlove with the one that doesn't have complete faith in the Church of Jimbo.
- Redact - To run circles around a pole until exhaustion
- Coatrack - A maniacal stick use by wikipedians to hang their coats on.
- Disambiguation - A process whereby someone who is unsure about their sexuality undergoes painful gender reassignment surgery.
{{Unblock}}??
This is template you use to ask to be unblocked. After you've been blocked for no reason, you swallow your pride and ask that someone undo it. You then wait for an hour until some 15-year-old denies your request without even looking at it. Sometimes, if you insist arguing, they will block you as well from editing your user talk page, without banning you, for their own private wikipedo "lulz". At that point you can only appeal the block by email (which they will probably ignore as the jerks full of themselves they are) which can/will eventually be blocked as well.
If you get banned by an admin don't even bother using this because no matter how well-reasoned the {{unblock}} request, it always gets declined. Like this one: "HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A TROLL M0RESCHI YOU STUPID BASTARD! AFTER WHAT YOU FUCKING DID YOU DESERVE TO BE SHOT!" Clearly the person has proven their point, but the bureaucratic fucks are immune to reason or logic. If your request is declined, you may get a lame reason.
Whenever you edit on Tor and the node is blocked, always put an unblock message on that IP claiming it's no longer Tor. Sometimes they even get fooled. Admin said, "First time I've seen such a request where the user was telling the truth."
Zaiger's {{Unblock}} Request
For absolutely no good reason, ED's own Zaiger was given life with no parole in Ban L& by the ban-happy cockz at Wikipedia. Template:Quote In one last fighting breath, Zaiger submitted an appeal using the {{Unblock}} template to try and parole out, but to no avail. Template:Quote Thankfully, no one cares about Zaiger. Template:Clear
Easy eBay Profits: Admin Farms
While shouting "op me" is an easy way to become an op on IRC, in Wikipedia it takes a little more work (but only a little more). The purpose of becoming an admin is to sell your account on eBay. (2006)
- Make a new account using dial-up or AOL, not proxies. These are the easiest ways to sock puppet and still use your other accounts for things like removing inaccuracies from Wikipedia.
- Create a user page so you look legit. The easy way is to fill it with userboxes until it looks like ribbons on a third-world military dictator. If you just copy somebody else's userpage, you will get caught. Then write up a fake bio that says, "Hi I'm only 12 and want to be an admin some day." Most admins on Wikipedia are too young to grow pubes, so you have to be in their age group. They never vote for anyone old enough to date.
- Don't question anything. Behave like a robot. Get one of those anti-vandal scripts and have it auto-revert while you sleep. Always revert: (1) Someone who reverts an admin—if you're lucky you'll occasionally beat somebody else to this (2) IP address users—because these are all vandals and sockpuppets (3) New contributors—because they don't understand Wikipedia (4) Anyone who has ever been banned before, even for an hour, because they're permanently shitlisted. Now don't worry about wrongly reverting any of these people, it happens all the time. Just say it was a mistake. No one in charge likes these people anyway. Learn the abbreviations for policy pages like WP:NPOV and WP:NOT and use them in your edit summaries. Nobody will care whether your usage makes sense. On talk pages, if someone asks a question, tell them that their statement is original research, speculation, and that Wikipedia is not a forum. Act like it is serious business.
- After a few hundred fake edits, go to the articles for deletion every day.
- Next, go to votes for adminship; always vote to support, so those people will vote to support you. This should be obvious. Admins like people who support admins and hate those who are critical of admins.
- When you reach 4,000 edits, go to requests for adminship and nominate yourself: Poof! you're an admin!!!
- Then go to eBay and auction it. Make sure the reserve price is over $1,000 so you don't sell it cheap.
- Until the auction ends, don't just do nothing or they'll know it's an eBay sale. Use the account for things like POV-pushing, banning any of the four shitlisted types you used to only revert (by any, I mean every user you can find). But if you're too busy, just find someone complaining about admins and ban them forever and lock their talk page; actually you have to do this at least once every day, or else somebody will think the admin account was hacked.
If you want to keep your account and not sell it:
- Get a life.
- If that fails, do the most respected admin activity, encourage vandalism. Vandalism is the only way you can justify your job. If there weren't so many vandals, there would be 4 admins. So get your script out and just ban randomly. Be sure to lock the user's talk page. If you see the user come back on, hide what they write and explain that they are a "sockpuppeting troll", ban them forever, and lock their talk page.
- Don't bother fighting vandals now. You've got the equivalent of a government job: you can't get fired, only transferred. Become a copycat of Willy on Wheels and you'll only get a new account.
Fun activities to do as admin:
- Mess with the MediaWiki namespace.
- Ban other admins for lulz.
- Replace Wikipedia articles with ED ones. It improves accuracy.
- Unban all the Willy on Wheels accounts. Or just clear the entire ban list.
- Goatse the Main Page.
Heroes
All over teh internets, people complain about the bad things of Wikipedia; that they're all child molesters, Homeland Security agents, Zionist propagandists, furries, Jimbo Wales' alter ego is GreenRaeper (founder of WikiFur), how official policy permits admin abuse "is not a bug, it's a feature", and that there are news articles constantly on how they make snuff films with young boys. But nobody notices the heroes of the site:
- Stephen Colbert.
- Don Murphy
- Willy on Wheels
- Señor Pelican Shit - /b/rave soldier who researched and documented Pelican Shit to a new level, a serious concern still affecting Wikipedia.
- Autofellatio Professor - Helped many people Autofellatio_2.jpg.
- Publicgirluk uploaded some pictures of herself to illustrate relevant articles and got called a troll by the master wikipedo wealthy pornographer for her trouble.
- THE MOTHERFUCKING JUGGERNAUT BITCH!! reputed for massive AOL autoblocks.
- Jew Aardvark Wikipedia Jews masturbate to his photos.
- Squidward, the fastest vandal west of the Mississippi, known for harvesting more open proxies, creatin more sockpuppets than Bomis has porn. He is king gypsy who lives in Chicago by the lake. He hates Antandrus, Avraham & others as proved by his crappy website (lol down). The Wikipedia Jews are always on the lookout to raep him. Slap that foreskin, homes.
- Mike Garcia - high class of vandalism since 2003 (get a life!)
"He is currently one of Wikipedia's most promising vandals. He appears to be persistent, creative, and knows to vandalize pages that will be seen by many people. One day, he may even be considered in a class along with the great Willy on Wheels, but he will need to "diversify" his vandalism before this can happen. Almost all of his vandalism has been to the English Wikipedia; a good piece of advice to him would be to start attacking admins' user pages on some of the foreign language Wikis. His recent vandalism of the Wookieepedia shows that he has begun this diversification process already. Mike, you possess a great deal of talent; the sky's the limit for you!"
- Cplot--500 sockpuppets and counting, clowns!
- Professor Tim Pierce teaches his students how to make the most of a wiki.
- Wikipedia Is Communism.
- That guy who wrote Hyldenism.
- Grawp
- Avril Troll
- Anybody who has earned a spot on Wikipedia:Wikipedia:List of banned users. (Note that the top list expose the wrath actions from the King himself, to spread fear among vassals)
- Undercover users from here, allied sites.
- Encyclopedia Dramatica
- Hagger
- ByAppointmentTo
- hipcrime
- Anonymous member of ArbCom who whipped Wikipediocracy into a fury when he "tried to hack into the site" by means of following a redirect from his control panel to the site's host where he asked for the domain password to be reset. They were thinking about calling the FBI!
Wikipedia IRC
Template:Main The Wikipedia IRC chat is a fun place to watch Wikipedophiles discuss criticism of the project while banning the critics, although a more likely discussion will involve eating Christian babies, banning other users to get their rocks off. A fun way to troll Wikipedia IRC channels is to announce that you are logging the channel. For some reason, Wikimediots raise strong objections to the publication of chat logs, so be sure to do it often. Just like Daniel Brandt.
And whatever you do, DO NOT LAUGH AT ENCYCLOPEDIA DRAMATICA.
Lulzy IRC
One:
<Slowking_Man> DCC SEND exploit = kline <-- Slowking_Man has quit (Killed by Rez (This connection has violated network policy.)) <-- WikiTeke has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) <-- CXI has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) <-- CakeProphet has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) <-- Poore5 has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
The only thing remotely funny ever from #wikipedia
<VegaDark> what's that one disorder called when a person looks like a kid all their life <mavhk> VegaDark: infant death
Summation
Generally speaking, Wikipedia is the compendium of all human knowledge, both true and false. Except of course where groups (i.e. Furluminati, The Wikipedia Jews) go around turning arrays of articles into propaganda and bullshit.
Contrast:
- "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." - Wikipedia front page.
- "[Wikipedia] is not a place where people have the inherent right to edit" - Jimbo Wales, October 29, 2007. (Source)
Gallery
Videos
DONATION TIME!
- Wikidonationsfuckyou.PNG
2015
- Wikipedia 2017 donation.png
2016
See also
- ED vs TOW
- Edit war
- Justification (Irrelevance of)
- Metapedia
- Poop.mov
- Racism
- Rulesfag
- Shit
- System (Global)
- Warfare (Inter-wiki)
- Wikis (Other)
- Wikipedia
Villains
- Breitbart - officially an unreliable source, as of October 2018
- Daily Mail, the - due to Jewbo spooning The Guardian
- MONGO
- Scientology
Supreme Assholes
- Science Apologist - sworn enemy of Davkal. Occasionally masturbates to physics textbooks.
- Davkal - sworn enemy of Science Apologist. Believes aliens and ghosts control the Government.
- Antandrus David The King of Wikihomopedoidiots, Registered Child Sex Offender, Supreme Pedophile, the Official Satan Of Wikipedoia[1]
- Brian Sadowski Official Loser of Wikipedoia & Wikimedia, Has No Life, High School Drop-Out
Don't see also
External links
- History of homopedos on wikipedoia, wikipedia has serious issues from child porn to validity...
- The CIA is among Wikipedia's most prolific editors (Archived: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- The Faces of Wikipedia users (98 percent men (all wikipedos), 2 percent squirrels) (Archived: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- TOW Admin Noticeboard: Your front-row seat at the freak show
- WIKIPEDIA IS THE #1 SOURCE FOR ALL THE PEDOS, PEDO ACTIVITIES CHILD REARIN PHD COURSES!!! (Archived: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- Jimbo relinquishes control after CP scandal is exposed! (Archived: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- jimbo wales gives up administratorship, BECOMES SLAVE TO HIS SLAVES!!! (Archived: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- How the Jew Wikipedia describes its own CP scandal (Archived: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- POOR King Jewbo gets no JET!!! (Archived: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- ALL Universities, colleges, schools must ban wikipedia (Archived: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- The Wikipedia Review - Anti-Wikipedia message board, nearly died in 2012
- Wikipediocracy – The primary Wikipedia criticism website at present. Like it or suck it.
- Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance
- Another “flattering” review for Wikipedia (Archived: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence" (Archived: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- Stranger than Fiction: A Wikipedia Conspiracy (the true story of SlimVirgin) (Archived: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- Send a wiki pedo-smile
- One of the many unspeakable things that wikipedos fap to (Archived: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- Meet the 'pedo who has made 47,000 minor corrections of the same grammatical error. - He insists he has 'a life' (Archived: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- Template:Archive - Daniel Brandt's true criticisms!!!
- "12 surprisingly controversial Wikipedia pages" - not surprising, if you know how Wikipedos think (Archived: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- A Criticism of the Wikipedia - a critical examination of Wikipedia by a former user Lir (Archives only: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- Len Osanic vs. Wikipedia a case study of the edit wars surrounding JFK assassination conspiracy figure L. Fletcher Prouty (Archived: Template:Archive Template:Wayback)
- complaints on wikipedoia outside of wikipedoia & wikimedia, don't sponsor wikipedia, tons of lols!
- please block me, you better or I ll fuk u up!
- wikipedoia's rants on wikipedoia's imaginery observations
Template:Takedown Template:Mmoseries Template:Cults Template:Wikis Template:WP Template:Timeline