{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreid6malzsjhdd6xqn7kl4p6rdsnv5mdlvu4kzwj5foursed4mr3cxa",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mp2xlxnk5vm2"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33524&p=275943#p275943",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-24T20:30:33.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "tags": [
    "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering"
  ],
  "textContent": "I do have to admit I wonder who this OmegaAOL guy is, though... is he just a normal Wikipedia editor, or someone with an axe to grind against our project who also contributes to Wikipedia? He kind of has us at a disadvantage here, because he knows exactly who we are and where we stand, but we have no idea who he is or why he's so motivated to push for this outcome and raise a fuss using every rule in Wikipedia's policy book if we say anything back.\n\nI get the feeling at this point more people will get involved from higher-up and make a call, and I just hope they see that he's pushing a little too hard and start wondering why he's trying to invoke every policy he can think of to get his way. In other words, I hope that they see it as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering (their version of rules lawyering) rather than a legitimate interpretation of their policies. At this point, I'd consider them deleting the article but leaving Job's account intact because they see the canvassing thing as BS as a good enough outcome. They think it's not notable? Fair, that's their website and their call. Just don't like the feeling that Job is getting intimidated by this guy citing policy to get people to \"hold him accountable\" or something as if he made some huge mistake.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "General Discussion • Re: Goanna article in EN Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion",
  "updatedAt": "2026-06-24T20:30:33.000Z"
}