This is a following on the threads: "Wikipediocracy
"Wikipedia is a conspiracy!
As you've already known, the Wikipedia community is notorious for a set of rules that are so extreme, heavy-handed, and unevenly enforced; so this is
why lesser people who have the courage to edit the wiki encyclopedia any more.
They not just create these rules for site novices and veterans to follow, but also worship them, even to the point of eliminating the very producers
of the encyclopedia as to preserve those who never do well in that, especially vandals and trolls. This is what happened with two of Wikipedia's
" policy: Suppose some clown named Pinto
Colvig joins Wikipedia under the user name "Bozo Rules". Pinto never publishes on Wikipedia his real name; on Wikipedia he always goes by Bozo
Rules. Later, at some point during his career, Pinto writes a letter to the editor of The New York Times, documenting his experiences as "Bozo
Rules" on Wikipedia. The letter is "signed, Pinto Colvig", and it is published in the newspaper and subsequently read by millions of readers. The
next day, several Wikipedians who are fans of Pinto Colvig might be found chatting with each other on their Talk pages on Wikipedia -- "Hey, did you
know that User:Bozo Rules is actually Pinto Colvig? I read his letter to The New York Times!" Those editors would be in violation of Wikipedia's
policy, and they would be subject to an immediate block. Wikipedia could not be more clear that "Posting such information about another editor is an
unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. ...attempted
outing is grounds for an immediate block."
originally posted by: violenttorrent
During the traumatic, lengthy, soul-destroying AfD (Articles for Deletion)
process, "Newbies" are tortured, lambasted, attacked, accused of "sock-puppetry"
and bullied into giving up their attempt to create a new Wikipedia page for a given subject. The deeply disturbing behaviour exhibited by long-time
Wikipedia editors is usually explained away as that of middle-aged British and American male fuddy-duddies and failed scholars seeking revenge against
society for their not being recognised as the literary luminaries or genius software programmers that they think they are.
More importantly, one of the policies of Wikipedia is that blocking is only used to prevent disruptive edits, so once the threat of disruption was
removed, the block became unnecessary. Two years ago, I was blocked from responding on my own talk page because of the personal attacks by Dennis
Brown and Boing! said Zebedee, on behalf of BatteryIncluded
. All the while, uncivil
remarks raged on that page about the accusations based on the long Phobos-Grunt obsession and what should be done with me except for allowing
BatteryIncluded to send me veiled death threats directed at me (thereby mocking me, baiting me and abusing me with personal attacks to the point of my
death), of course I was unable to respond. I, and Kevin later on, find this situation offends my sense of natural justice, and is one of the more
obnoxious aspects of Wikipedia.
As for de-sysopping of any administrator willing to unblock me, it is interesting to note that the Arbitration Committee rules state that the removal
of administrative tools is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place and that advanced permissions will
normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is provided. However, in this case, many Arbitrators have indicated that the removal of tools
used by the mythical rogue administrators is permanent, and regaining adminship is not possible without the approval from them. The unblocking
administrator will then be banned without having an official "ban listing", and received death threats, killed or beaten.
Wikipedia's culture of punishment has achieved the exact opposite, and my ban from Wikipedia by Boing! said Zebedee seems to go way beyond what's
reasonable. They've sent a clear signal that they do not wish my interaction with this project to continue, thereby having an ever-lasting ripple
effect throughout every place of the Internet and their communities (including Wikipedia's own linked projects, review sites and affiliates), causing
them or their management to take a more robust approach to whatever action I took therein that are aimed at "those responsible", particularly
BatteryIncluded. The tendency for taking a more robust approach to any actions against them is demonstrated on the
"The Move" and "The Maroon" sections on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on "Starkiller88"
documenting the conspiracy on Wikipedia
(images included in the latter about my time on OhInternet before its shutdown in October 2013). The
sites I've been banned because of this robust approach is Wikipediocracy and Bleeping Computer. Nowadays, community bans are ineffective and do no
good to what they want, and no administrator will do it, as with unblocks.
The truth is that the administrators and its Arbitration Committee, as with the entire Wikipedia community, are actually a genocidal cabal and are
comparable to a malware (nothing that it means software designed to function in ways that mistreat or harm the user; this does not include accidental
errors). They are nothing but undergrads, especially Scottish arbitrator AGK
(who speedily declined
many appeals filed to BASC without any further reason in less than a day, and make credibly misleading statements), which opens the door to the
community being empowered to do anything — for instance, taking advantage of whatever fact that Microsoft software is malware, including blocking
users from accessing their computers. It is the tyrants who run Wikipedia, not NSA or any government agency, and is wanting to gamble about the fate
of humanity who participates in Wikipedia. Example tyrants is BatteryIncluded, Dennis Brown, AGK, and Boing! said Zebedee.
So what do you think about this truth? Have you anything to say about these tyrants, the conspiracy and the cabal on Wikipedia? If so, then why the
mainstream media won't bother reporting about unfair treatment and other things happen at Wikipedia, such as airing programs like those featuring the
late-night jokesters such as Jimmy Fallon? If they did act, then why Wikipedia is gonig to silence all things on the Internet and on mainstream media?
Through censorship, takedowns or some other conspiratorial actions involving an increase in their medication intake?