I decided to quit the site too. Was nice to meet you though. After the last few weeks, I have made the decision to change my default search page to duckduckgo.com and to never use this "encyclopedia" as a source of information again. I can't believe how much shit we put up with.

I read an article that mentioned how wikipedia, has over time, led to a decrease in involvement of editors, and that the editors that are left over are deranged. Those aren't the exact words, but that was the message more or less. It was an article about the racism, sexism, and etc. on the site. Kswikiaccount (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise; sorry it worked out that way for you too. Me, more or less the same. Maybe we'll meet at whatever phoenixes Wikipedia in the end...

I read a similar article and I believe it. I think it's pretty clear we were both casualties of an attempt to squelch a minority viewpoint. But archive or not, the full transcript will remain on my talk page and on a Wikia I'll post the link to now. Michael Sheflin (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have this tiny feeling that the people fighting us and cheating the system were working for some government agency. One of them edits nothing but pornography and politics. And the weirdest thing ever was some dude that claimed to be a libertarian socialist that kept pushing to keep the page favorable for clinton.

I found this article from the Observer.com proving that the DNC was against Bernie and a lot of the stories (like the Bernie Bros thing) were fake. I couldn't belive people would buy into the ridiculous idea that People of Color and Women didn't support Bernie Sanders...

Anyways I just realized why the both of us were the only ones on that page trying to talk sense.

1. People were being driven away by extreme hostility and incivility, and we were the only ones that stuck through all the cheating and hostility.
2. We both live outside of the united states.

I checked out your blog and you haven't posted anything in a while. Kswikiaccount (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://2016-dem-primary-fraud.wikia.com/wiki/User_Page_Vandalism_and_Lockout . I no longer have control of my User Page. This is clearly a lawless, thuggish environment. Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC) My blog is a vestige of another time. I live in New Jersey; my editing started (I think) when I lived in Cairo though. Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[inappropriate statement removed]

Fine. I struck this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a defamatory comment. I never alleged a constitutional issue. Saying that I did so in an attempt to cast shade on my legal knowledge is totally inappropriate. My concern all along was with Wikipedia editors' unwillingness or inability to follow their own rules. I will send this to the defamation email along with the previous issue. Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed what happened. And now I can see they banned you.... Wow it's so sad. I've been explaining to people how bad this site got, but this is so bad. I actually stopped reading wiki content (I havent come to wiki until this moment for the sole reason of responding to you) and got some of my family members to also stop using it since wikipedia has gone from being something good to something bureaucratic and very evil (lying, propaganda, etc, filled with angry lonely miserable people). Anyways I posted a comment on your blogspot thing. Kswikiaccount (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have one chance to remove the legal attacks or I'm reblocking you and removing talk page access. Being the equivalent of a sovereign citizen screaming that you know what the "rules" here are and ignoring everyone else is not helping your cause. I have no idea what "the defamation email" you're sending this to but you don't own your userpage regardless of how much you want to make up your own interpretation of our policies here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Defamation - "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." I have sent these to the email noted in that section. Please don't threaten me as a means to achieving your content-goals. I have made no legal threats of any kind. Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Maybe your issue is with the use of "defamatory," but as I am explaining - I have made no legal threats of any kind. I am merely concerned about the false and potentially damaging statements that have been consistently made about me - not just by you. Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck that comment. I suggest you move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).

I've blocked you to put a stop to this. Just drop it. I don't see any indication that you are here to actually work on the encyclopedia or more importantly care to actually listen to anyone else. If you want to return, show us that you've moved on and won't keep up this pointless drama. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, and to the best of my recollection, I am the one who advised Ricky to strike his statement re: Michael's legal education. Ricky was using hyperbole; however, in the process, he made a statement which could be parsed as defamatory. Since this was not his intention, he considered whether it would be wisest to remove it entirely; instead, for the sake of transparency, I suggested he strike it through, thereby rendering it semantically null. This — the functional equivalent of formally retracting his statement — is what he did. The statement will not be removed from the record because it happened and, short of a time machine, it cannot be made to have not happened. The statement's presence in the record is not considered defamatory because it was clearly an opinion, and because — as stated by the edit notice on every noncurrent version of every damn page — "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by <name> (talk | contribs | block) at <date>. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision." Lastly, I emphasize that it is well past midnight here and my consciousness is flickering in and out and on and off, so any non-optimal choices in terms of vocabulary are just the result of ieng voaunea semiconscious wake lin sdf DS (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Msheflin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]