But it does make one wonder at the power of these people to be able to put a cap on it this quickly. I have never seen allegations never been looked at and denounced as "fake" so quickly- this case must have the potential to deal some real damage to the status quo.

Yes. You nailed it.

OOOH Drama!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timothyjosephwood

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Antinoos69, one edit is not an edit war. You were already warned that the addition of original research would be reverted. TimothyJosephWood 12:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There was no original research, but you are free to gather consensus on that particular matter of interpretation. You have also clearly revealed your intent to edit war this matter to death, no matter what. I can't begin to fathom what you could possibly be objecting to, and certainly not the entirety of my edit. So stop it now. Gather consensus on the talk page before touching your keyboard any further. We can RfC each and every step of this, if you like, but being reasonable and rational will get you much further. Give it a try. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I would advise you pay a visit to WP:BRD. The WP:ONUS is on you to gather consensus for you preferred changes, not the other way around. If you do not know what I am objecting to, I would advise you read through the last dozen or so pages of the talk. TimothyJosephWood 12:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I reject your mischaracterization. If you have specific problems with specific aspects of my edit, then address those, and only those, on the talk page and await feedback from other editors. You may not hijack the discussion or my edit to your personal pet peeves and personal conflicts. Get consensus or move on. Period. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:ONUS: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. TimothyJosephWood 12:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

As of now, there is no disputed content. I provided very detailed explanations for my edits on the talk page. You haven't addressed any of it. It would be impossible for you to disagree with the vast majority of those edits, so reverting the whole thing was absurd, indicates an edit warring mindset, and proves you have no intention of collaborating, being reasonable/rational, or doing anything but reverting anything I do, even if I merely state the sky is blue. So, for the last time, take detailed and specific objections to the talk page. I was very detailed and specific in explaining my edit. I will expect you to be just as detailed and specific, and to get someone to agree with you. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I dispute it; therefore it is disputed. I disagree; therefore it is either not impossible for me to disagree, or I have managed to do the impossible. TimothyJosephWood 12:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Until you provide detailed objections to every aspect of my edit on the talk page, I will not give you the time of day. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I have only one objection, and I have provided it. I would template you for edit warring, but you can just as well see the template above you improperly posted on my talk. Consider yourself warned. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You are about to violate the 3rr. Engage in a serious discussion, and only of what you actually object to, or drop it. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If you will notice: I have reverted twice, you have reverted three times and have been reverted by two users. TimothyJosephWood 12:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

They're fighting back hard to get the average individual from not learning about this. YouTube videos taken down, Twitter posts removed, the Reddit category, etc. Any honest (and potentially conservative) news outlet that talks about Pizzagate is fake news and alt-right according to them. There's no free speech anymore.

My interest in patriotism has never been high, but the Founding Fathers are turning in their graves right now at how far down the shithole we've gone.

Checkout the edit history for David Seaman on Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Seaman_(journalist) - They completely wiped him a few days ago, same time he got warnings from YT, wiki saying that he was no longer relevant enough to have a page after promoting pizzagate. Also note the pizzagate debunked piece on the page. Blood literally Boiling.

(((Sabbatean-Frankists))) infecting our world with their cultural marxist pedophilic practices. Discordianism at it's finest. Try to invoke as much chaos into the world to tip the cosmic scales in Jewcifer's direction. You're right, Pizzagate is not going away; just makes me fight harder.

It's like a deadly train wreck where nobody really wants to look, but as the carnage grows, they have no choice.

K I will vent with you for a moment. It's just ballooning and spreading like wildfire, too. Maybe if the MSM had done an honest, thorough review of the evidence causing suspicion in the beginning, they could have maybe even nipped it in the bud, who knows. But they refuse to do that, so the pile of suspicious evidence just keeps growing. And they keep setting off of the Streisand effect by bringing it up to make fun of it and call it "fake". So the Streisand effect is just growing ever-outward at a rapid pace, while the suspicious evidence keeps growing and growing. It keeps getting fkin weirder and weirder, even getting the Pope involved to talk about it and then that house with the review from 2 months ago, like why give it a random 5 star review??? If not to just be used as some sort of signal "this is the right property" sort of thing. I don't know, sometimes this whole thing feels like a bad trip.