154.5.84.161

October 2020 - The "86 Incident"

Background: An edit was made to the 86_(term) page which removed a critical element under the guise of 'fixing a typo'. This page was edit-restricted while in this less-useful state - post what can be called vandalism. The timing of this was suspicious and by the and editor's own admission, they were politically motivated to not let this page be useful for their political opponents following a story in the news earlier that day.

It is important that Wikipedia not only be unbiased but that it appears this way to non-editing regular users merely trying to research the news. This sort of partisan censorship, in anyone's favour, is to everyone's detriment.

The Malicious Edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=86_(term)&diff=984191562&oldid=982807163

Primary Discussion

Primary Discussion / Edit War

Discussion of Malicious Edits

Discussion of Drmies COI in performing these edits

My UserPage Discussions with the editors involved

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:86 (term). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It feels like your post would be a more-honest correction if you weren't exaggerating so much. All the unrelated WP:HOT-OR-NOT, etc.

If you can't comment on a contributor (NF) *admitting* to basing their timing and actions on politics then you can't show people why they're obviously being duplicitous in their discussion of sources, etc. Without pointing to people's actions *with their handle* you can't organize to audit their other edits and edit-wars for such vandalism.

You say I called people out by name, as if you think someone's legal name is Drmies, and their boss will recognize this post. Doxing and Callout culture only exist with real names. If your pseudonym were shamed you can simply learn a valuable lesson and walk away - this is why your 'personal attack' implication is wrong. I was calling out the obviously anti-WP, anti-truth, actions being taken and defended by the edit warriors and explaining the impact to people who seemed *by their own admission* too caught up in on-the-ground politics to see the damage they were causing.

As for 'Staying Cool', that was the least rude and name-calling thing those editors have or ever will be called. It was tame enough for the schoolyard or classroom. You're throwing around a lot of implications in your WP links.

If comparing deleting an encyclopedic reference the day it gets political to book burning is too spicy, how does one go about pointing out *actual admitted political manipulation* behind a not-notable deletion request? Without naming names, how do others verify the quotes I'm referring to? Without speaking boldly, how will the offenders be shocked out of their political blinders to look at the role (knowledge curator) they should be filling here.

I'm bothered by your solution. You deleted the entirety of my post rather than editing out the names, or whatever you deemed necessary. You leave the lie, and the liar, and remove the person calling it out.

Thanks! 154.5.84.161 (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

As fas as I can see, the killing content was correctly removed as unsourced or poorly sourced. I working on better sources to restore it. Glee^anon 22:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, Snopes is a respected source everywhere else on WP and their article directly refers to 'to kill'. The bad faith part is that the article is dated 2009 and this is being questioned, as if Snopes can be accurate about content but mistaken about when they posted it. This is also the claim used to refute Urban Dictionary, which in this usage (an earlier reference to a term) is indisputable - it's merely showing the existence of this usage at an earlier date. There's also a seemingly properly sourced book reference from 1933.

But to drive home the political bias - the editors in question are specifically enraged that the trump team is making these connections and referring to WP to support a claim. They're engaged in partisan debate (Newsweek this, WaPo that) about the validity of this assumption, not about the facts around the slang term. They haven't provided one valid fact or compelling argument to support that 86 does *not* ever mean "to kill" despite near obscene numbers of links showing that it does. 154.5.84.161 (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Snopes is often a good source but not for the killing aspect.

Urban dictionary should never be added. Glee^anon 22:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

How could Snopes discussing etymology not be proof of that usage? They weren't claiming anything about it (popularity, etc), they were referencing it's usage. In the past. Before this discussion. Before trump. How can that *not* be proof of this usage?

And yeah, there's the little UD drama all WP editors seemingly have to do to virtue signal. But again it's not an editorial reference, it's an example of historical usage.

The activist editors in this case are complaining that there's no source for this meaning being used and here they are specifically saying "Oh, not those sources." And then a book from 1933 is proposed but because the article is already locked that addition is sneered at - despite the fact that having it referenced in the first place would have made the initial edit obviously wrong. Their seeming lack of desire for factual resolution and their partisan posts should indicate someone whose goal isn't WP. 154.5.84.161 (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Deleted posts

One of mine and a few others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:86_(term)&diff=984288703&oldid=984279720

@NedFausa - Your behavior here is absolutely abhorent, acting as if burning documents can ever result in more truth. As workers on a project of enlightenment you should be absolutely ashamed of your disingenious explanations. Regardless of your view of the politician in question, the Snopes articles discussing the etymology of 86 - a term it says can mean 'to kill' from 2009 is proof, save the existense of a time-machine that this meaning predated its use in the numerical display in question in today's ideological signalling game.

@Drmies - You as well bend credulity beyond the limit in pretending to fail to understand how Urban Dictionary's article - reliable or not - is proof of the term's usage as far back as 2007. Your position would only be excusable if you were claiming you believed the publication date to be a forgery.

Both of your actions here should taint everyone's view of you and your work going forward. And into the past. Possibly, perhaps probably, you've performed similarly ideologically driven vandalism before. I see no indication from you that you understand the value of Wikipedia or your role in harming it.

You're an anathema to librarians and knowledge-workers everywhere. Please stop. 154.5.84.161

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:86_(term)&diff=984528108&oldid=984523252

This is absolutely ridiculous. This is Orwellian. Trump's use of the term shouldn't be a factor when it comes to changing the meaning of the term.

I have heard the usage of this expression countless times where it was used to mean "kill someone". Do not be a censoring hack. 1si12me017 (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Editor NedFausa has a habit of deleting negative comments on their user page, calling them Vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NedFausa&diff=984263768&oldid=984263559

The only thing that damages this sites rep are people like you editing wiki pages for political, not principled, reasons. Like deleting one of the definitions for American slang term "86" which has been WELL established for the better part of a century, which is "to kill or eliminate." contribs) 04:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Videos Referencing This Deceptive Edit

David_Freiheit (fellow Canadian)

Did Michigan Gov. Whitmer Threaten Donald Trump? 8645 EXPLAINED - Viva Frei Vlawg

Tim_Pool

Trump Camp Claims Dem Governor Called For Assassination Saying "86 45" Wikipedia SCRUBS Definition

---