A tale of wokerati and a Bakery

 So obvious at this moment, but experience has shown the obvious is impossible for the woke to understand.

Liz continues the carnage

Liz made over  4,500 edits in the last week

This is 643 edits a day (which is not even her record)

If you spent 12 hours each and every day editing, for 7 days, that is 53 edits each hour

Which is why you know it's not a human doing the edits

Pink disease and arsenic poisoning

 This could be an example of where a simple scientific point will result in a woke mob trying to kill me. 

Hahaha

The carnage continues

 My latest observations have confirmed the editing has continued without end.  Over 1000 edits in 3 days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Liz&limit=500&target=Liz

It starts to become clear ...

 ... that far more time, energy, effort and software goes into trying to stop edits, stop users, and restrict information on Wokapedia, than goes into helping good faith editors and contributors expand the knowledge of the world.

Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, oh my!

 If you never heard of these "things", I understand.  A normal person would never hear about them, much less care.

Huggle also uses a number of self-learning mechanisms, including a global white-list (users that are considered trusted) and user-badness scores that are stored locally on the client's computer.

Isn't that the most woke thing ever?!!

Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith.

If a change is merely "unsatisfactory" in some way, undoing/reverting should not be the first response. Editors should either make a reasonable attempt to improve the change, or should simply leave it in place for future editors to improve. Undo/revert is appropriate in cases where the contribution is arguably "wrong" (consider moving it to the Talk page), or is unreasonably difficult to fix (e.g. incomprehensible, and the author is unresponsive), or is actually harmful to the article (such as vandalism). A plain language edit summary (not merely tags) should be used when reverting changes that appear to have been made in good faith because many contributors will not recognize minimalistic tags and will not learn what the problem was and are likely to repeat it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Twinkle#Abuse

The principal idea of Huggle as an anti-vandalism tool is to make it possible for Wikipedia to stay as open and free as possible (allowing everyone to edit without any restrictions), while also keeping it clean of any vandalism.

While Huggle can load and review edits made to Wikipedia in real time, it also helps users identify unconstructive edits and allows them to be reverted quickly. Various mechanisms are used to draw conclusions as to whether an edit is constructive or not. It uses a semi-distributed model where edits are retrieved using a "provider" (this can be anything that is capable of distributing a stream of edit information, such as the Wikipedia API or IRC recent changes feed), pre-parsed and analyzed. This information is then shared with other anti-vandalism tools, such as ClueBot NG. Huggle also uses a number of self-learning mechanisms, including a global white-list (users that are considered trusted) and user-badness scores that are stored locally on the client's computer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Huggle

The rabbit hole goes much much deeper.  On wokapedia, nothing seems too strange or odd to not be used, to protect the great cause.

On Wokapedia a human editor can make thousands of edits in a day

Link to contributions

Almost all of the edits are about deleting articles

This is the wokapedian at work. Hard at work.  Making the world safe for Woke people

For example, she just deleted the article for The Haifa Center for Law and Technology 

https://law.haifa.ac.il/2022/01/18/lawntechnology_eng/

Making it something not found on Wikipedia