Quite a bit has happened since Fat Head was tagged for deletion yesterday. Let me start with the most important development: Sceptic from Britain (later known as MatthewManchester1994 and then as Vanisheduser3334743743i43i434), the editor who was obviously targeting low-carb advocates — and pretty much anyone who disputes the lipid hypothesis – is apparently gone now.
Let’s review some examples of what made this editor so … uh … special. In addition to targeting Dr. Uffe Ravnskov and Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt for deletion (which hasn’t yet happened and may not) he targeted Dr. Richard Feinman for deletion:
The same week, he targeted Dana Carpender for deletion – which happened:
She was deleted because … uh … why, exactly? Unreliable information? As if it’s difficult to determine whether or not she is indeed a real person who has written several popular books.
The same week, our weenie wiki editor also targeted Jimmy Moore for deletion – which happened:
Not notable. Yes, a guy with several best-selling books – a fact easily confirmed, and which someone else in the thread did confirm. Ah, but he’s a “fringe proponent of low-carb dieting.” This editor of course decided anyone associated with low-carb dieting is “fringe.”
For another example, I pulled some text from a discussion on Tim Noakes. Sceptic from Britain kept arguing that any article critical of Noakes was relevant, while any article supportive was not relevant. Another editor suggested removing an article that recounted the accusations against Noakes but didn’t mention he was acquitted twice of all charges. Here’s our buddy Sceptic from Britain replying:
Based on your editing history you are here on Wikipedia to peddle LCHF quackery. There is no reason to remove that source from the article. The medical community does not agree with Noakes’ crazy dieting ideas. [[User:Skeptic from Britain|Skeptic from Britain]] ([[User talk:Skeptic from Britain|talk]]) 00:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
LCHF quackery … yes, this is the kind of objective editor who should be deciding what goes and what stays in Wikipedia.
A few days after I wrote a post about how the weenie wiki editor had targeted Kendrick, he tagged Fat Head for deletion – after changing his handle to MatthewManchester1994. We could hardly ask for clearer evidence that his editorial decisions were based on his personal bias.
Then he changed his handle again. Then he apparently quit altogether. I pulled this directly from a Wikipedia page:
Unfortunately regarding the Malcolm Kendrick thing I was doxxed by some of his associates such as Tom Naughton, Jimmy Moore etc and these people including Kendrick have posted my real life name etc on various social media platforms and low-carb websites. Jimmy Wales spoke to some of these people via twitter but they ended up insulting him. They are not to be reasoned with! I will leave them to their irrational conspiracy theories. I will be leaving Wikipedia. I have requested a courtesy blanking of my username. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
He’s not only biased, he has a problem with the truth. Go check my posts. I never mentioned his name. Malcolm Kendrick also never called him by name, only by initials. Yes, someone in comments linked to an Instagram profile and claimed the profile was for Sceptic From Britain, but I replied by asking how he knew (never got an answer) and never mentioned the name myself.
Posting his real name on various social media platforms? I did no such thing. Neither did Kendrick.
EDIT: I received an email from the person identified in the comment. He’s actually a fan of Fat Head and of low-carb diets. He is not Sceptic From Britain and was apparently targeted himself as some form of cyber revenge. The comment has been removed. I also heard from someone claiming to be the actual Sceptic From Britain, who also said the name in the comments was incorrect.
I then heard from yet another person naming still someone else as Sceptic From Britain. There’s clearly some cyber-wars stuff going on here, with one or more people trying to use blogs like this one as weapons. Based on that, I’m removing other sections of this post. Whatever real-person names may have seen in comments earlier, kindly forget them.
I’ve been tweeting about this whole issue for a couple of days, which drew the attention of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. His first several replies were long explanations of Wikipedia policies, the apparent message being that nothing was wrong, no violations of policy, no biases in tagging for deletion, move along, folks, nothing here to see. That ticked me off, because the editor’s bias could hardly be more obvious. That’s why in my previous post, I said Wales was making a fool of himself on Twitter defending this nonsense.
I need to take back the insult now, apologize to Wales, and give credit where credit is due. In a couple of Twitter exchanges, I pointed that Fat Head was targeted for deletion right after I wrote about Kendrick. I asked if he truly believed this editor was making objective decisions, which seemed highly unlikely.
He replied that he didn’t know what Fat Head is and was unaware of it being targeted for deletion. He then sent me a private message asking for more information. I sent links demonstrating who the editor had targeted, how he’d changed his handle twice in a matter of days while continuing the targeting, etc.
Wales responded that such behavior was against policy and could lead to an editor being banned. He said he’d look into the matter.
So while it took some time for him to be convinced there was an actual problem, he apparently did look into it and take action. In the discussion page for the proposed deletion of Fat Head, a user with the handle Jimbo Wales wrote this [bold emphasis mine]:
Strong keep – As others have noted, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. It is worth noting that the proposer is a serial name changer and POV pusher who has now apparently left the project. A quick research of the film reveals that in addition to the sources that User:Strikerforce rightly says are enough to ‘barely’ pass notability, I found an article at Motley Fool and this one at Vulture. It is not a major film to be sure, but there seems to be no reason for deletion other than the POV pushing of the proposer.
Problem recognized, identified and solved. Apparently, anyway. I haven’t seen a final decision on deletion, but I suspect Jimbo Wales has some influence.
So if I was wrong about the guy, I’m happy to be wrong.