ODLRN: ‘#AP4Wiki: Internet Troll Blames Conspiracy for Wikipedia Policy’

Austin's campaign manager issuing marching orders

Pic: Austin’s campaign manager issues marching orders

by Andy Craig at olddominionlibertarian.wordpress.com:

The Internet Troll Running for President, a/k/a Austin Petersen, has decided to follow up on his campaign manager’s threat to “publicly shame” me by blasting out to his troll army that I was responsible for deleting his Wikipedia page. (And also pointing out that I volunteer with the Johnson campaign, so this must mean it was a nefarious plot orchestrated by the former Governor himself to censor Austin and his glorious brigade of “lightbringers.”)

What actually happened, is that his page had been deleted weeks ago for being written like an advertisement and for not meeting Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. (Just being a declared candidate for office is not enough). I had nothing to do with that.

This morning, the same promotional-style article written by Austin’s own campaign was recreated under the title “Austin Wade Petersen”. Under Wikipedia policy, it went back up for speedy deletion, since it already had been deleted once. I commented in favor of deletion on the talk page, because it seemed like a pretty obvious abuse of Wikipedia’s consensus-based process. That’s it: I left a comment.

So: No , I didn’t delete Petersen’s precious Wikipedia page. No, the Johnson campaign (which I don’t speak for) didn’t delete his Wikipedia page. The admins and regulator editors of Wikipedia did, for violating pretty basic Wikipedia policy.

Meanwhile, Tony’s troll army is going against our ODLRN co-host with what they tried against Nick Sarwark: dox a phone number and then fill up the voicemail with people calling and hanging up. In Joe’s case, it was the landline phone number for his band that got one angry voicemail followed by somebody calling over and over again and hanging up.

Tony, Austin, just so you know: my phone number is 870-329-7217. Knock yourself out.
-Andy Craig

Related from the ODLRN podcast:

13 thoughts on “ODLRN: ‘#AP4Wiki: Internet Troll Blames Conspiracy for Wikipedia Policy’

  1. Ken Moellman

    IPR loses credibility when used as a propaganda machine for a particular campaign by one of its editors.

  2. Caryn Ann Harlos

    It is an editorial article posted by someone else other than the writer. But there is some interesting tidbits here. I have the screen shots on another computer, will post them soon…. this is an outright fabrication by the AP campaign… worse than normal.

  3. Caryn Ann Harlos

    First fabrication…. it was public knowledge that the page was auto-deleted by Wikipedia. In no possible universe did Andy or anyone else have anything to do with it.

    After this notice, Wikipedia was spammed by AP trolls.

    And one of them deleted Wikipedia’s notice against the rules and what the notice said.

    But of course, this is a conspiracy against AWP. Of course it was. When someone complains about a new conspiracy and persecution every day, sooner or later, reasonable people call bull.

  4. Wang Tang-Fu Post author

    Mr. Moellman,

    A thousand apologies, but no propaganda is intended here. Mr. Craig did not ask me to post this, and I am posting other opinion pieces with other prospectives from other campaigns. It is my understanding that active IPR editors include supporters of Gov. Johnson, Mr. Perry, and perhaps Mr. McAfee, as well as some who are uncommitted. I don’t know whether we have any supporters of Mr. Petersen actively contributing articles, but it is my understanding that we are open to having them do so if they are interested and that the offer has been extended, and remains open. Speaking for myself, I am currently leaning towards Vermin Supreme, and have been criticized in the past for attacking Gov. Johnson. My intent is not to either attack him or attack others on his behalf, only to stimulate discussion by presenting various different opinions for examination, including but in no way limited to Mr. Craig’s perspective.

  5. Andy Craig


    I am no longer an editor, and IPR did not post this at my request (or, for that matter, with my knowledge).

    Petersen slandered me today with a very nasty, and very untrue, accusation, following up on his campaign manager’s threat to “publicly shame” me for my other post critical of Petersen quoting his own words and citing his own behavior.

    I posted about it over on my own blog, just to set the record straight for all the people blaming for something I did not do. It would be like if this article was deleted, and I blamed you because you had commented on it. I agree this is a big bunch of nonsense, but don’t blame me for responding when I’m accused of fictional wrongdoing by a person supposedly running for President of the United States.

  6. Jill Pyeatt

    Ken, I posted Andy’s first article. I’ll post anything else noteworthy about the 2016 campaign (as time allows, of course).

    Can you tell me why we should give Austin a pass for his bad behavior?

  7. Andy

    Funny that a guy who poo poos conspiracy theories writes an article slamming a candidates for nomination who also poo poos conspiracy theories, where the candidate for nomination is claiming that there is a conspiracy against him.

  8. Ken Moellman

    Wang Tang-Fu –

    I owe you an apology. I exchanged text messages with Paulie a little while ago, and he explained that you are not a Johnson partisan. I’m just so very frustrated over the nasty back-and-forth between the supporters of the Johnson and Petersen campaigns. Combined with previous articles posted here by those with a political goal, I made the faulty assumption that this was just another one.

    Focusing on the bigger picture, all of this garbage is not helping grow the LP. I’m in for the long-run. I don’t like seeing people do things that harm the party in the long-run for the purpose of trying to gain something for the short-run. While I certainly understand that campaigns have to look more at the short-run, I hope those campaigns know that, as a delegate to the national convention, I personally will be making my decisions based on the long-term effects, and I hope that other delegates do the same.

  9. mARS

    The deletion and hissy fits actually started with Feldman’s page being deleted, also because he didn’t meet the notability guidelines. At that point, legitimate editors actually bothered to look at other third party candidates’ pages. All in all, at least half a dozen have been deleted since January.

  10. William Saturn

    I added the speedy deletion notice to the page since the matter had already been resolved in an earlier discussion. Petersen supporters began to abuse the “contest deletion” function and so I took matters into my own hands. I redirected the page to the primaries article, enforcing the consensus established at the earlier deletion discussion.

  11. Erick Tsiknopoulos

    Too much of a blood feud. You shouldn’t have tried to contribute to the deleting of his page. Accept that you were being an asshole, and the asshole behavior of Petersen becomes more clear.

  12. Erick Tsiknopoulos

    Honestly, it just makes both of you look bad. In the future, trying to influence Wikipedia to delete the pages of anyone is probably not a great idea. It’s obvious that you have a chip on your shoulder, and so expect repercussions. I would recommend you sincerely question how ‘libertarian’ your own actions toward Petersen are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *