Wikipedia Slander Machine

The takeover of Wikipedia appears to be total at this point. We noticed some activity today on a patriot group’s Wikipedia page that was a perfect example of how Wikipedia has lost all credibility by allowing activist Administrators to use the platform for outright slander. The American Guard had already  been slandered by the SPLC as a “white supremacist” group, despite kicking out members for being to cozy with the Alt-right, and having a diverse membership and a platform openly stating that they are open to all races and faiths, and having relatively well known gay members.

Up until recently this was the group’s Wikipedia page:


Openly Communist ANTIFA Administrators launched a full scale slander on the group recently, and now it looks like this:


A Wikipedia editor had tried to correct the page, and issued vandalism warnings to the activist editors, who are also Admins. From the talk page:



The vandal Admins retaliated by blocking the editor. Rather than explain the appeal, we will just post it here for the reader to see how badly corrupted Wikipedia has become:

Here is the edit history, clearly showing the malicious edits:


The responses to the appeal of the editor’s block are insane:


This blocked user‘s unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request reason:

I noticed some vandalism to the American_Guard page and fixed the malicious edits and warned the offender per policy. Soon after, another person did it. I also warned them. Next I was blocked by another malicious editor. These edits involve slandering a group as “white supremacist” and removing the citation to the groups platform that clearly states they are open to all races and religious faiths. This is a politically motivated vandalism attempt. The groups Florida SAA is Philipino, and the NC state pres is a gay black man. It even includes the link to when they ejected Augustus Invictus for associating with white nationalists. Request removal of admin status for all the vandal admins and unblocking, and reversion to the accurate info and citations.

Decline reason:

Attacking other editors and not addressing your own behavior will not help you be unblocked. It also seems that you are here to promote your own point of view instead of working collaboratively with others to improve this encyclopedia. As such, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Sorry, I cannot unblock you at this time. I will leave the unblock request open for another admin to review. Well, clearly you’ve been Wikipedia:Edit warring. That alone qualifies you for a block. Calling those who disagree with you vandals isn’t going to get you anywhere. Calling admins “malicious editors” likewise. Use of legal mumbo-jumbo like “slander” cuts too close to WP:NLT. You might want to retract that. My overall impression is that you are here to push your own point of view and are not capable of editing in a collaborative environment. Please review WP:Civil and WP:BRD. After doing so and taking on board my other comments, you might wish to review and rewrite your unblock request. cheers, and happy editing.–Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Orologio blu.svg

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:Ryantheviking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • filter log • creation log • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not the ne warring. I made an edit to the page weeks ago that stood fine until people who are pushing their own point of view began edit warring. Just because they are Admins does not mean they are not pushing a view. Look at the edit history, they keep calling a group a white supremacist group after removing the groups platform citation clearly showing they are open to all races and faiths. What is slander? Google says “the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.” The group has people of all races and faiths who clearly state they do in their Platform. Is it collaborative editing to remove the groups own platform and call them white supremacists? That is vandalism. I did not remove the SPLC links, I showed what the groups own platform says, and left the negative statements people say about them. The SPLC even reported on them throwing out Invictus for associating with racists.How on earth am I “pushing my own view”? I am leaving accurate information with credible citations that are being removed and replaced with obvious falsehood. It is an obvious attack on the group by people who want to make them look bad, and the fact they are Admisn doesn’t make it OK, in fact it threatens the credibility of this entire project. I challenge you to view the edit history and the groups actual platform and the statement made by them when they threw Invictus out, and then make the case that they should be called a white supremacist group and their own Platform removed in an edit.The fair and collaborative thing to do is to post accurate history about the group, which was not founded in Indiana, but in multiple states at the same time, and to post the group’s ideology, citing their platform. Then post that critics have accused them of ties to this or that and cite those as well. I followed warning procedure for those who were pushing their agenda on the Wiki, and do not deserve a block. If the block is not removed I will seek moderation or some other recourse because you can’t read the edit history and removed citations and think I am the one pushing anything. I am preserving the integrity of the project and attempting to preserve accurate information from vandals pushing an agenda


  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Another admin will review this request. However, Wikipedia has no interest in what any person or group wishes to say about itself. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about a subject. That’s why the group’s own platform is not acceptable as a source for its views. This group is free to describe itself as it wishes on its own website. If you have independent sources that describe this group differently than the current ones, let us know. You will not be unblocked unless in your request you stop attacking others and address the aspects of your own behavior which led to your being blocked, indicate how you will not do those things again and work collaboratively with others to improve Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I am working collaboratively. I am noting obvious vandalism. I said the prudent thing was to list the group asthey are, and link their site, and post criticism and link that too. I cannot believe the flat out lie here, that Wikipedia has no interest in what groups say about themselves, you link the SPLC website on their wiki [1] You cite the “Nation of Islam” webpage and their views as they describe them: [2] Wikipedia describes it as a religious and political movement, it is also on the SPLC hatewatch list. Lets look at other similar group wikis. “The John Birch Society (JBS) is a self-described conservative advocacy group supporting anti-communism and limited government.[2][3][4] It has been described as a radical right and far-right organization.” [3] I used the exact template. Even the “self described”. The group says it believes this, others have called it that. Cite the group website, then cite the critics. Look at the edit I made March 9, which stood for a month, its exactly like similar groups and cites both sides. I am being fair and accurate. [4] Why are you lying 331dot? Why are these people attacking a group for no reason. Non-white members are talking about the vandalism on social media now. [5] [6] This is the group’s Sgt. At Arms in Florida, Filipino [7] Its absolutely slander, and you are straight up lying about how wiki pages are written and applying a different standard to this page than others. I can work collaboratively with anyone interested in the truth and not pushing an agenda through Wikipedia. This “Neutrality” Admin is a member of an opposing group. [8] So I am 100% right, it is vandalism by a person with a vendetta against the group and using Wikipedia Admin status to further that. They need their Admin status revoked and the edits reverted. I will find the other pnes and I 100% bet they are working in concert. I am the only one with integrity editing this page and want this block lifted and the vandals sanctioned. Ryantheviking (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the combative attitude isn’t helping. You were edit warring, because you kept re-adding material instead of taking it to the talk page. I’m not overly convinced based on your tone here that you won’t just start right back up again. Primefac (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you look at the talk page? I did take it to the talk page. The people edit warring are the ones who changed it back over and over without discussing on the talk page. I am combative because I was blocked by someone abusing authority to further an agenda. And am being accused of doing the things they were doing. I noted each action in the talk page and none discussed it or wanted to collaborate. [1] By “start it up again” do you mean restore my March edit that was there for weeks that was fair and kept both sides of the issues citations? [2] My edits were legitimate and well explained. [3] I am sorry if I developed a tone of irritation but snarky comments like…wiki doesnt care what groups say, in lght of the above refs, and the obvious bias I noted initially —–>In the talk page<—- that was ignored, my edits reverted…kind of irritating. I looked up the policy to report vandalism, read I was to warn them, and I did so. Then I got blocked by the vandals. Pardon f I am a bit peeeved here.Ryantheviking (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


This has caused prominent member and podcaster, Hussein Hill, who happens to be gay and mixed race, to rebuke WikiPedia in public:

hussein post

Upon investigation, this Admin is indeed a member of the leftist terror group known as ANTIFA, which the American Guard vehemently opposes. His Twitter displays open Communist propaganda and he is obviously an adversary of the group, yet allowed to ban people for correcting his slanderous edits.





Even a cursory search of links still on the page make it obvious that the group is not white supremacist. For example the official statement on the removal of Augustus Invictus cites his promotion of tyranny base on ethnicity and features an image that pretty well illustrates they aren’t Nazis:


Wikipedia is becoming as big  disgrace as the SPLC that also criticized the American Guard. We are watching this and will find and identify the rest of the Wikipedia Admins working for Communist terror groups like ANTIFA and take countermeasures on behalf of brave patriots like the American Guard who fight the deep state along side us.

We Are Watching

We are Legion


Continuing Investigation

We did some more research, first item of note was we gained entry to a private Facebook group of the organization where prospective members come to be introduced to the group.

One individual name Brien James is accused of being a white supremacist in various articles about the group. Apparenty a potential member posted something anti-Semetic and was removed and blocked from the group. We were able to find the post.

We also confirmed the WikiPedia editor’s assertion of the Filipino officer, we see the post “liked” by the same Todd Gomez mentioned in the Talk page of the editor protesting his ban.

The response from the Admins there and a subsequent post from Brien James makes it pretty clear he has left racism and other bigotry behind:

Brien James shared a link.
I know many of us come from the racialist movement. Some came in when they were very young and rebellious. Some, like myself, were in real world circumstances where they were minorities in their communities and being treated like shit. We came to that movement because our institutions were lying to us. We were greeted with more lies. Or at the very least… intentionally incomplete truths.
You are now an American Constitutional Nationalist because you decided that movement was wrong. That it was a failure. Not every single problem they recognize and identify is wrong, but the solutions are wrong. The framing and scope of the problems identified are wrong. You may see things that draw you back sometimes. Things may happen that make you question whether American Constitutional Nationalism is a half measure. It is not.
Racialism is in fact the half measure. An incomplete solution.Most non-whites may be democrats, but not all. Most gays might be progressive, but not all. Most women may be more open to liberalism and progressivism than men, but not all.In contrast ALL globalists are the enemy. Even the millions of lily white, straight, christian ones. All progressives want to tear down your culture and your country and replace it with absolutely anything because they simply hate the world and themselves. The creators of critical theory and the current far left movement at the Frankfurt School admitted as much.
ALL American Constitutional Nationalists are an ally. No matter what they look like. No matter what consenting adult they choose to sleep with. Nationalists of all types have physically fought shoulder to shoulder with us in the streets. They have been ostracized in their communities. The price they pay is even greater than ours. They deserve loyalty based on their merit.This makes us the ones who are uncompromising. In our commitment to ideology. We are the ones who take no half measures and speak no partial truths.
Someone sent me this video via PM on Instagram and it think it provides tremendous insight into the current state of the white nationalist movement. They are at best… monumentally stupid. At worst.. intentional plants. If you find yourself romanticizing that old cause sit down and watch this. Im always up for discussion if you have concerns or questions.

This was the group’s response to a person who posted an anti-Semetic meme, which we were able to screenshot, before it was removed. Unlike WikiPedia, we seek the truth. If we allow groups opposing the enemies of freedom to be tarnished, we all lose.

  The Removed Post


We also noticed prominent members of organization speaking out against possible war the in Syria and other human rights abuses by the U.S. government, including imprisonment of African-Americans due to CIA cocaine smuggling, while we were  researching this private Facebook group.

Note the “Libertarian Heathen”, this individual’s website was cited in WikiPedia and is the American Guard’s National Spokesman and Vice-President of the Florida Chapter.






Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s