The talkpage is a lovely display of Wiki-cringe.Eastman was able to move quickly because he already had a Wikipedia account and was familiar with its ways; over the years he had edited his own article, a violation of the rules that was noticed but incompletely acted upon. This time, however, Eastman’s editing drew immediate attention. In barely two hours, all of his changes were made to disappear — “reverted,” in the parlance of Wikipedia — and he was asked to make his case on the Talk page assigned to the article, where editors can debate proposals for improving an entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_C._Eastman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeastman
Also unnoticed, but squabbling on the talkpage with Drmies in August of last year: a sockpuppet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anigbrowl
plus a long list of IPV6 addresses messing around. Fighting with the usual WP angry leftists (Activist, InedibleHulk etc.)
Fave part of the Washington Post article:
Lulzy!The closest approximation to a Wikipedia power player would be Jimmy Wales, the chairman emeritus of the foundation that supports Wikipedias in more than 250 languages and the face of the project for its 20 years of existence. But Wales is not actually in control of anything. When he gets personally involved in helping a petitioner, a crowd of editors track his movements to ensure that he not hold special influence. This tradition began way back in Wikipedia’s history, when Wales insisted that the birth date on his own article, and his birth certificate, was wrong. The editors did not take his word for it. More recently, in 2019, Wales highlighted the complaints of a YouTube conspiracy theorist, Mark Dice, who believed his achievements were being underplayed by Wikipedia. The editors explained that they didn’t care about Wales’s opinion, and the Dice article today is even less flattering than it was before.
