"Liberal media has distorted my record since the beginning of my judicial career, and I refuse to let false accusations go unchecked," Bradley told the Journal Sentinel in an email. "On my wikipedia page, I added excerpts from actual opinions and removed dishonest information about my background."

What, then, was getting under her skin?

It's clear Bradley really, really disliked the section in her Wikipedia page dealing with a Republican challenge to the stay-at-home order issued by the administration of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers in response the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to her Wikipedia page, in May 2020, Bradley "compared the state's stay-at-home orders to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II," a case known as Korematsu v. the United States.

Also, not sure if she knows how to use the internet:

"Conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justice @JudgeBradleyWI is currently engaging in an edit war on her Wikipedia page under an anonymous username that she also uses in her personal email."

The username? "rlgbjd," which could very well refer to Rebecca Lynn Grassl Bradley, J.D. She received her law degree from the University of Wisconsin in 1996.

It turns out the Tampa tweeter had guessed correctly.

So this is what my teachers meant when they said "don't trust Wikipedia".

I've seen this happen so many times and it's always so embarrassing. There's a lovely template that you can slap onto an article that says something along the lines of "this article appears to have been edited by someone with a close association with the subject." It's truly a marvel in how close it skates towards saying, "the subject of this bio didn't like parts of what people were saying, so they edited it to suit themselves" without saying exactly that. It's subtly brutal.

Fortunately for the feelings of people who edit their own wiki bios, I suspect that they probably don't feel the sense of shame that I would if I were in that position.

Which iirc is against Wikipedia rules

It's uncanny how much "conservative" and "can't take responsibility of their documented actions" overlap.

That’s silly - judges are supposed to have clerks to do that for them.

I'll have to go post this to the Wikipedia admin noticeboards to be dealt with, though it's likely someone else has already beat me to the punch if this is hitting the news itself.

The REAL way to fix this is:

1. Host a personal blog arguing about details
2. Use a pseudonym like "SpaghettiSaiyan69" and add start sprinkling those links as reference.
3. Wait a few more weeks as those links become source of truth

It's a shitty thing to do. But not illegal. I'm sure there's something worse to accuse her of doing, than breaking the terms of services of Wikipedia.