Thread by @PalmerReport

Dear @molly0xFFF – you've publicly identified yourself as one of the editors who hijacked Palmer Report's Wikipedia page. You've also inserted yourself into our Twitter replies. Accordingly, perhaps you'd like to answer some questions about the con game you've been playing:

1) Why have you allowed a rogue editor named "Dr. Swag Lord PhD" to continue editing Palmer Report's Wikipedia page, after he was caught removing all positive/neutral sourcing from the page, and after he used threats to chase another established editor off the Talk page?

2) Why have you failed to reinstate the positive/neutral references that USA Today, Washington Post, the Palm Beach Post, and other major newspapers have made to Palmer Report? How do you justify your policy of only allowing negative sourcing about Palmer Report?

3) Why do you continue to insist on including so many sources that all tie back to a certain former Snopes editor, even after Snopes disciplined her for making inappropriate remarks about the news outlets she was fact checking, and then fired her?

4) Why are you insisting on including quote from former Intercept writer Glenn Greenwald, even after the Intercept ousted him for attempting to publish stories that were untrue?

5) Why are you insisting on including a quote about Palmer Report from Dana Milbank, in spite of his documented history of publishing untrue stories and losing gigs as a result?

6) Why are you falsely and libelously referring to Palmer Report as "conspiratorial" when you know this is false? Why have you doubled down on this false claim, no matter how many people have factually explained to you that it's untrue?

7) Why have you retained the additions and edits to Palmer Report's Wikipedia page that were made an editor named JohnPaos, even after you blocked him from the page for making inappropriate, biased, and deranged remarks about Palmer Report?

8) Why are you still insisting that the Trump-Russia scandal is a mere conspiracy theory? The Senate Intelligence Committee issued a bipartisan report confirming that the scandal was real. An today the Guardian published Kremlin documents confirming the same.

9) Why are you comparing Palmer Report to the National Enquirer, a publication whose business model is based on making up false stories about celebrities, when you know for a fact that this is a false comparison?

10) Why are you accusing Palmer Report of having "Trump Derangement Syndrome" when that's well documented as being a propaganda term only used by far right extremists?

11) Why are you pretending that Palmer Report is the only publication to predict that Susan Collins would lose reelection in 2020, when in fact this was the consensus among most political publications?

12) Why have you on multiple occasions made a point of equating Palmer Report to InfoWars, a largely fictional publication that denies school shootings happened, accuses politicians of being lizard people, and incited an insurrection? This is both libelous and disgusting.

13) Why have you used tricky wording to create the false appearance that Columbia Journalism Review classified Palmer Report as being one of its "fake-news, clickbait, and hate sites" when in fact it only concluded we were "biased"? This is egregiously libelous on your part.

14) Why are you falsely claiming that the German Marshall Fund categorized Palmer Report as a "false content producers" when the published study does NOT say this? These things are all easily verifiable – yet you conveniently get them all incorrect in line with your slant.

15) Why are you quoting an article from The Nation that accuses Palmer Report of publishing "Russia-related fake news" when in reality the Trump-Russia scandal has been overwhelmingly proven to be true?

16) Why are you falsely characterizing a Simmons Research study as if it were about brand trust, when it's in fact clearly about brand name recognition?

17) Why are you quoting a supposed fact checking site called "Lead Stories" when no one has ever heard of it and it has no bona fides?

Doesn't this merely expose that you're willing to quote any random internet site that has ever said something negative about Palmer Report?

18) After rogue editor Dr. Swag Lord violated Wikipedia rules by making threats against an established editor named EraserHead1, why did you side with Dr. Swag Lord, instead of banning him and inviting EraserHead1 back to continue contributing to the page?

19)You have decided that any publication that has written something negative about Palmer Report is automatically a valid source, and that any publication that makes a positive or neutral reference to Palmer Report is automatically an invalid source. Why?

20) You have rejected every bit of overwhelming evidence that has been placed in front of you this month that has proven that Palmer Report's Wikipedia page is a carefully crafted hit job that that bears zero resemblance to the truth. What is your personal motivation for this?

21) You have gone to great lengths to pretend that the Binkowski-era Snopes attacks on Palmer Report were legitimate, even though Snopes ended up firing Binkowski, and Snopes has never said a negative word about Palmer Report in the three years since. Why?

22) You have gone to great lengths to pretend that Palmer Report fares poorly with fact checkers in general, even though Politifact and FactCheck org have never negatively fact checked Palmer Report. How do you justify this severe mischaracterization?

23) You have characterized Palmer Report is a fake news conspiracy theory site that's defined by false content. Yet in reality, no major fact checking outlet has said a negative word about Palmer Report in the past three years. Why are you playing these games?

24) You have repeatedly cited Wikipedia guidelines as an excuse to justify your inclusion of biased and illegitimate negative sourcing about Palmer Report, and as an excuse to ignore every counter argument to your actions. Don't you find this suspiciously convenient?

25) You claim to be open to alternative viewpoints and sourcing when it comes to Palmer Report. Yet whenever anyone (established editor or otherwise) has done so, you've made up an excuse to ignore them. Do you really think no one sees what you're doing?

26) You and a small band of editors have turned Palmer Report's Wikipedia page into a dumping ground for your personal vendetta against Palmer Report. You've locked everyone else out of the page. You've embarrassed Wikipedia. Do you really think you'll get away with it?

27) Have you examined the obsessive and stalker-like familiarity that some of your fellow rogue editors seem to have with Palmer Report? They either are stalkers, or they were hired to obsessively study Palmer Report so they could smear it. Why does this not matter to you?

28) You've claimed on your personal website that you have a policy of not answering questions on Twitter about your Wikipedia editing. Yet you made a point of invading Palmer Report's Twitter replies and interacting with our audience. Do you not see how out of control you are?

29) You're now responding to this thread by insisting that you're not responsible for most of the edits to Palmer Report's Wikipedia page. In such case, why are you bending over backward to defend them, lock in their edits, and lock out everyone else? You can't have it both ways.

30) You're now accusing us of "siccing" our followers on you by posting this thread. Yet we only posted this thread in response to the fact that YOU invaded our Twitter replies several hours ago. Why are you now trying to play victim?

31) You helped morph Palmer Report's Wikipedia page into nothing but fictional propaganda. Now that we've factually laid out just some of the numerous dishonest things you've done, your response to us is "Please at least get your facts straight." Do you not see the irony in this?

32) As a result of the libelous, deranged, and arguably criminal actions on the part of you and your band of rogue editors, Wikipedia is facing the prospect of being hit with a lawsuit that will crush it out of existence. Is this really worth it to you?

33) Given that you and your band of editors haven't been able to come up with a single legitimate source upon which to base Palmer Report's Wikipedia page, it's clear that the page has no basis for existing. It should therefore be deleted. When are you going to acknowledge this?

34) You've accused us of "siccing" our followers on you. Are you seriously trying to play the victim, and pretend we started this? If so, please explain why two days ago, you quote-tweeted us in order to mock us:

https://twitter.com/molly0xFFF/status/1415516431261868039

35) Now that you're trying to play the victim, you may find yourself tempted to go back and delete the numerous replies you've posted to our Twitter threads over the past few days. Are you aware that we already have screen captures of all of them?

36) You have publicly identified yourself as working for a company that offers a service called "Website Grader" and seeks to sell services to those websites. Isn't it therefore a conflict of interest for you to use Wikipedia to conduct ratings of websites like Palmer Report?

37) Some of your fellow rogue editors who have hijacked Palmer Report's Wikipedia page have justified locking it down by (falsely) claiming that we've tried to "dox" them. Yet you entered our Twitter replies and flaunted your real name in the process. Do you see the irony here?

38) In your only reply to THIS thread thus far, you've tried to play victim, and then tried to skirt responsibility by saying "Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else." Do you not get that we caught you interacting with our followers in our replies?

39) Unlike the other editors you've banded together with to fictionalize and lock down Palmer Report's Wikipedia page, you're open about your real identity. The editors you've allied with are anonymous; some of them aren't even in the US. Why protect these bots and cowards?

40) As the only member of your gang of rogue Wikipedia editors to publicly identify yourself, you've ensured you'll be the only one initially named in any legal action we take. Are you sure you want to go down this road? Or you could just delete the page and go on with your life.