>>12736894They don't need to do that.
Most of the shills are openly admins and moderators. There are specific Wikipedos policing their pet articles. Most controversial articles (ie. Middle East stuff) will have several shills watching over them but even the most innocent article will have some autistic fuck policing it.
I remember correcting a specific science article (won't say which in order to not reveal my IP) where I removed an image that was inaccurate and was openly contradicted by the sourced text of the very same article.
I ended up in an edit war as an anonymous user against a well-established wikipedo, won the argument in the talk page, people agreed with me, but the image was allowed to remain anyway because "there was nothing better".
Then another user made a new, accurate image, and replaced the old one with his accurate one. Wikipedo reverted the article for no reason and blocked it.
Another attempt by me to remove the inaccurate image as per the talk page consensus was reverted again by the same faggot, who promptly blocked me for "engaging in an edit war".
Throughout the years numerous users have tried to remove that pic because it's simply wrong. The issue comes up over and over again, yet the image remains there thanks to this autist mod.
It's baffling.
Fuck Wikipedia.
