Wikipedia: a jungle of bullying and group hatefulness

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia project that invites the public to write and edit its pages, is a scam and a sham. It has got to be exposed as a HATE WEBSITE, a place of the worst forms of group bullying and acceptance of aggressive stalking, with openly emotionally abusive administrators who gloat online of having the choice to be as unfair as they like and can’t be challenged.

Penalties actually get worsened if you challenge their correctness, though nothing in Wikipedia’s rules tells you that before it happens, and there is no mechanism for ensuring you can give a defence. These are demonstrated facts you can explore online.

ON 27 NOV 2005 Wikipedia’s founder Jimmy Wales

openly wrote: “The HardAsses give credibility to the notion that going along with the
mentorship of a NiceGuy is a Good Idea if you want to stay around.”
Is that how you like being treated in everyday life? Is that the type of society that deserves trust? Then keep away from Wikipedia and tell everyone about this!!

All responsible people must keep away from Wikipedia, anyone who takes part in it knowing what is happening there is tainted.

Jun 28: Here, a Wikipedia admin simply says “piss off”, to an ill-treated member who described the alternatives’ corruption when it was proposed to exclude objections to blocks from being made on the en-l email list any more!

Admins in Wikipedia

act alone and can block a user temporarily or permanently by personal judgment, the only check on which is their group popularity. There is no defence process to go through, against personal bullying decisions remaining in effect, that is judged by more than just the first other passing admin who wants to act. They are willing to put blocks on an indivdual whose view an ugly mob has already been stirred up against, at key moments when opponents are threatening you with lurid accusations – and without punishing the opponents for that, knowing inter-user threats are in name against the rules! The block’s technical effects then gag you from taking part in the enquiry or dispute resolution or “request for comment” pages, or from starting a vote process against an article page that is entirely self-promotional for your threateners. So you see, there are no rules and no ethics in Wikipedia, because petty office-holders are entirely free to abuse their office by disabling your use of exactly the means to seek to uphold the rules at exactly the time when you need to – and appealing for another admin’s intervention does not help. Besides, the nature of the dispute resolution system for those few issues that for appearance’s sake ever reached it, was described by a user here as deliberately being full of discretionary catch-alls that ensure the admin will always win.

They will not back a user against whom other users bring in feuds from outside Wikipedia and make character attacks upon out of nowhere – which is stalking, isn’t it? Hence that gets done, exactly because organised intimidatory interests know how corrupt the system is.

Some people who care deeply

about independent media and circulating ideas, think Wikipedia should be supported while it’s there, in the interests of spreading neutral facts against business agendas and helping to oppose Western wars in the Middle East, before the site eventually gets pulled under big business control. These voices are misguided because – it has already passed that point! It is already an unscrupulously controlled business game rotten with hateful personal backstabbing and bullying. The whole subtle nature of the scam is that there is a pull of wishful hope against admitting the point is already passed, but this is exactly the same as with mainstream TV news. As long as you are only interested in the article pages that matter less, you are less likely to experience the admin system and find out what is really going on. A source who these things were shared with, has noticed just in reading Wikipedia, “there do seem to be some nasty characters on there”, and to illustrate the non-neutral political bias, some of them in the dispute pages “think mentioning anything negative but factual about Reagan or Bush constitutes bias.” Whether you are against or for Reagan (remember Wikipedia does history!) and Bush, you can see how that is a misuse of peer group status to control factuality, and would be on behalf of any political side. So the neutrality is subverted by group bullying, while the lying claim to neutrality is kept as good PR.

You are officially entitled to challenge blocks, but in practice their effect includes blocking your access to the pages for raising issues of dispute, where you could do that!!! Work that out. Challenges made in private are not passed on either, all a private email to the same admin as blocked you gets is a swaggering laugh in your face written openly on your “user talk page”. Wikipedia’s forum section “Wikien-l” is separate from the Wikipedia page system, so you remain able to post there, but it is a side-alley only read by a few users. So what happens if you post there pointing out the standards of fair play that have been broken by 1 admin acting in a biased way, who penalised only the victimised side and not both sides for exactly identical actions, and evidencing group bullying? Officially, any user is entitled to make a challenge like this. In reality, it gets punished very quickly, within 2 hours, with the gag of permanent blocking. Actually for challenging the rightness of a temporary penalty already imposed at 1 person’s discretion without the community hearing a defence case, you get punished more heavily. If in exercising the officially admitted right to challenge a block, you claim any actual right to fair play, other admins count this as the offence of “making legal threats”! and it is a reason for getting rid of you straight away. That is a mediaeval level of totalitarianism..

Just contemplate what it means that the figures who run Wikipedia deliberately invented a rule against “legal threats” to give themselves that power. The power to reject on principle any duty of fair play in operating in practice the policy of neutral page content, and to behave by any bullying group psychology that may take the fancy of a group’s mood. No legal threats between users while editing pages is fair enough, but to use the same policy to gag the claiming of any rights to access the dispute-solving processes when 1 person has blocked your access to them, is CORRUPTION DECEIVING THE PUBLIC. To have dispute-sharing pages that exist in name alongside blocks imposable by 1 tyrant at any moment that prevent you using them, is a deceit, an abuse of public trust, and a deliberate arrangement for corrupt exercise of tyranny throughout the Wikipedia and for emotional abuse. But this makes its ENTIRE content an illegal public deception and scam.

The entire tone of the Wikien-l forum section is power-bragging and taunting and gloating and macho. Anyone can read it and see. In the archive for August (2005) lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/thread.html the very first topic is called “abuse of power by admins as usual”. What they openly say in public at Wikien-l includes “You are not entitled to anything” and “Wikipedia is not a democracy.” These public statements are Wikipedia admin admitting Wikipedia has no rules and LIES to the public in claiming it has. Wikipedia quite openly says, as a “private organisation” if we don’t want to uphold any ethics in your case we won’t. If you get into any disagreement with a hot-headed group of bullies who are determined to control an article page, you kept getting thrown back in your face, swaggering bullying assertions that whatever the group chooses to say shall rule as the consensus, and this matters more than the publicly claimed policy of neutral page content. This happens because they know the corruption. Admins encourage it, while it is not threatening (as they suggest) to state the serious wrongs that would be committed if Wikipedia as a community claimed to have a discretionary choice not to find in the victim’s favour in such a situation. Any organisation that decides to take offence at being told it does not have a discretionary choice to bully, is corrupt.

Look here lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-September/028139.html where they openly tell a user in Australia who had been contributing to articles on democracy and constitutions: “We don’t want your respect; we want you to go away.”

The only way for the claimed policy of NPOV (neutral point of view) to genuinely exist and not be a lie to the public, is if unconditionally anyone who falls victim to crowd psychology can lay claim to by right, not have to beg for by favour, any measure that prevents a force of group numbers keeping a bullying bias in place. Now, “laying claim to” anything, inherently means being entitled to anything.

This is actually a case-study in how society emerged from the Middle Ages.

To have any credible claim to work by any principles, a society must show they operate reliably fairly, and to do that means the people are entitled to it. No way out of that. Hence, as soon as any group tries to follow any policy code like “NPOV”, immediately people are entitled to things and all things are not dependent on favour. So, it stands absolutely logically proved:
either * it’s wrong to say to any user ever “you’re not entitled to anything”,
or * it’s wrong to say to the public that Wikipedia has a neutrality policy that works.

They can’t both be right because anyone can see they contradict each other head-on. At least one must be wrong. Which is it? What this means is perfectly clear – by not having an answer to this, Wikipedia showed for itself why it is illegal. Here we uncover the point where its system breaks down and makes it so.

Wikipedia admin is actually laying children open to maltreatment of health – and ignores the fact – by allowing the content of its article on AS to be directed utterly by the worst type of group bullying seen in the human animal. It is easily recognised orchestrated by the forces who want to control the public portrayal of AS and force it to fit with the greed interest of large business agendas. Is that what you trust: self-serving groups with no fairness standards who ingratiate with top whitecoats in the pocket of the pharmaceutical interests pushing to get aspies addicted to harmful antidepressants? That’s who should force what gets written about AS on a page that claims to be written by the public? The page is under flagrantly vicious control by group force that breaks every claimed rule about Wikipedia’s content, this group is biased entirely towards itself, and uses exactly the type of social victimising campaigns that aspies can least cope with, to keep the page’s content uncontested by force – and not at all impartial. Consequently the page and all other AS-related ones are a sham abusing the public. It is a demonstrated example of Wikipedia content already being under business forces’ control, and this self-inflicted through its abusive disinterest in user fairness.

Here’s a link to a reform proposal

that Wikipedia ignored, back on July 6, by a user who had seen how unequal numbers of users could pool their editing rights under the “3 reverts” rule to use group numbers to force what an article page shall say. That is a totally corrupt situation in which Wikipedia’s entire content carries no credence whatever and so would be illegal for any office to use as an information source on any health issue. Remember, a proposal to reform this anomaly was ignored, that’s what changes it into a deliberate injustice.

Often enough admins take part in this stuff at the same time as acting as judges on it.

The spectrumite scene has a duty

of care to its own to cooperate in forming a global alert against Wikipedia’s blatant criminality. All organisations and health offices of all kinds have a testable responsibility to help with this, because then the scene on a widespread scale can push for police alerts against Wikipedia for taking part in crimes of stalking. The objective should be internationally a strong enough lobby that the police could be exposed such that they automatically have to choose in favour of doing anything or else be seen as accessory, and Wikipedia’s closure is achieved.

You realise too that by retaining page content that comes from abused and purged users Wikipedia effectively uses stolen writing. Any notion that it received their writing under a license for free use, is voided by Wikipedia not honouring its own terms towards users for solving problems. Hence, to retain any such content in Wikipedia’s articles is a copyright breach and an ideas theft.


But despite all the anger in speaking out, just knowing that the public are seeing through Wikipedia is also a cause for calmly feeling the peace of the just. It was always an implausible project given human nature, that would have to be run with unusually careful devotion to personal fairness to make it work. Any savvy observer would expect a scheme of chaotically editable web-pages to turn out as it has, and as the nature of the fighting leaks out step by step it reduces the site to a point where only the same minds thick enough to trust the gutter press will give it any credence – and they don’t read encyclopedias anyway. It is important to expose what’s going on and avert people getting hurt, and hope to speed up the end, but Wikipedia’s own unviable instability towards facts dooms it.

28 Aug 2005


This is dynamite!

Oct 6 : the words, when leaving Wikipedia just recently, of a former admin + high-level enthusiast who had met Jimmy Wales + other enthusiasts. He accuses them of creating an atmosphere of gagging by fear, just like in communism, that he experienced when watching purges of members.

lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054949.html

” Too many admins whose first course is to insult a new
user in order to see if they get a “reaction” so that they can spank the new user for talking back to an admin.

I’ve seen too many admins block accounts for infinite duration on flimsy evidence or mere whim.

I’ve seen more accusations thrown around of someone being a “sockpuppet” of another user. Time and again, I looked through the edits, and I didn’t see it. Instead, what I saw were users who were systematically hounded until they finally broke down and broke the civility rules, and then as an afterthought someone came up and said “oh, it doesn’t matter, they were a sockpuppet of X anyways”, thereby removing all culpability on the part of the abusive users who had spent time hounding and abusing the newbie…

The Wiki is broken. … We, the admins of wikipedia, broke it. We broke it by being stuck-up jerks. We broke it by thinking we are better than normal editors, by getting full of ourselves. ”

A reply to him: lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054957.html “We’re actually developing a reputation as a place of arrogance and nastiness, a place of heavy-handed thugishness, a place where people treat each other quite badly. That’s bad for the project.”

Feb 23: Check out Parker Peters’s entry here for Feb 23 on how he had “exposed step by step” the behaviour of administrator cabals, in the Wiki-en-l forum before getting banned from it for it.

Advertisements