Well if I'm wrong about how that list worked then I apologize but Rimu also supposedly took code from the fork and failed to attribute it until he was called out about that too. It wasn't only the blocking thing that upset me, it was also the code misappropriation and the childish ban spree.

Tankie was made by leftists to describe authcoms support for the Soviets after they used tanks on a student protest in Hungary.

this is literal misinformation

The sources for the blog post in point number 3 are pretty spotty. They quote Western media like the Washington Post or a former Australian official without giving the proper links or citations. The citations to some “Western” sources like Amnesty International are there but these sources are only brought in so the authors can get nitpicky about their word choices. The only solid source I could find was the WikiLeaks source from the US embassy, but that doesn’t contradict the massacre narrative because the wire could have been sent before the violence peaked. The more substantive claims rely on YouTube videos or other blog posts for their sources.

I’m not trying to be hostile by saying this; I’m willing to hear you out. But I will need a far higher standard of rigour before I’m willing to take any of these ideas seriously.

Sweet, fresh name for the blocklist.

False:

1. "Tankie" was coined by orthodox communists to describe and criticize party members who supported the Soviet Union's use of military tanks to brutally crush the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. And, since you really love sources,

The term "tankie" was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defence of the Soviet use of tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie 2. The Tiannamen Square protests are led by a vast majority of students. Reading the article you cited, it states: "...and are clear that the "protesters" (rioters) initiated the deadly violence in Beijing (none of which occurred in Tiananmen Square itself)." You can see that this mofo denies the massacre happening because it literally didn't happen in the Square (true, but a non-sequitur). Secondly, that the protestors initiated the violence. The protests were peaceful, until the Chinese government declared martial law and ordered thousands of People's Liberation Army (PLA) troops into Beijing. 3. Sure. The article is fucking misleading. Let's assume it is right, and even then, your (3) is yet again a non-sequitur: because the protestors initiated the violence does not make the massacre justified.