It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The truth behind the blocking, unblocking and de-sysoping on Wikipedia revealed?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 17 2014 @ 01:13 PM
This is a following on the threads: "Wikipediocracy" and "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 policies:

The "WP:OUTING" 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."

The "WP:SOCK" policy:

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?

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 02:15 PM
Im just curious. Where do you keep coming up with these ideas of "being killed or beaten" ?

And dont give me your coded words crap. Thats quite a substantial claim bearing no proof.

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:40 PM
a reply to: Chickensalad

I came up with these ideas of "being killed or beaten" from "death", the true meaning of "be well" or "get well" from BatteryIncluded, Stanistani and the Wikipedia community, given their use of misleading, fabricated, deceptive and distorted statements that are aimed at me and others such as Russavia (see the Wikipedia page where I had an interaction with the user, an obvious shape of things to come, especially my "sealed" fate and where Russavia's indefinite block was validated by overwhelming community consensus).

Also, these ideas were came up from comments by Heimstern Läufer and Count Iblis on Wikipedia's "Administrator's Noticeboard", pointing to the "WP:OMGNUDEHUMANBODIES" issue, which means that people on Wikipedia are comparable to a regime that killed countless civilians, treated women as subhumans and mutilated people for transgressing religious laws, in addition to being comparable to malware that rapidly spreading like wildfire throughout the Internet, which in turn makes all kinds of sense.

I know why many administrators did not put my name on the "WP:BANNED" list or even propose a community ban by starting a discussion on it. One is Dennis Brown unilaterally reverted the ban himself in favour of "process for a reason", "allow a few days to pass before starting ban proceedings" (noting "a few days" means "six months to one year" or probably infinite amount of time, a weighted unilateral decision by any means inspired or influenced by BatteryIncluded himself), and to "treat everyone the same" (meaning the use of personal attacks, incivility, and threats). Two is community bans are now ineffective, doing no one any good (the evidence is on the proposed community ban on JoshuSasori). And three, the administrators and its Arbitration Committee consist of undergrads, thus opening the door to them being empowered to do anything, for instance, act unilaterally, make personal attacks, and ban users from not only Wikipedia, but also the Internet and computers to seal their fate. Thus, I think they are gambling the fate of humanity.

People who participated on Wikipedia are "being killed or beaten" is probably going to be part of Wikipedia's insane culture and policy later on, this is what we are concerned of. Two (or three if I'm counting Oliver Keyes) Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) employees have came under fire from Wikipedia over the last year.

You may want to monitor the noticeboards for further proof:

Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee noticeboard
BatteryIncluded's talk page

Full disclosure: I, over the past two years, had a grudge against WMF and the Wikipedia community because of my interaction with BatteryIncluded culminating in him sending veiled death threats directed at me once I'm banned by personal attacks from Dennis Brown and Boing! said Zebedee. So this is why I keep coming up with these ideas of "being killed or beaten", and I wanted to let the mainstream media to listen to the other side of the story that began with the failure of the Russian Phobos-Grunt space mission in 2011. Ask yourself, what's the point of you and your management taking a more robust approach to any actions I take herein that are aimed at the people who built Wikipedia? What's the point of ignoring the conspiratorial events that happen in Wikipedia, including the possible fact there's one administrator out there is going to suffer the same fate, Sandstein?

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:52 PM
a reply to: bryansee

Wikipedia is only semi-reliable on such non-sense things as song lyrics, movie themes, and movie stars.....

Otherwise, especially in the science and history realms - it's basically someone's opinion - or someone's propaganda......

Just like "snoopes".....
edit on 17-5-2014 by Happy1 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:40 PM
As with any one-sided story, it is hard to make an accurate judgement. We cannot really know how much of this is personal and related to your opinions as to what is occurring, or what is truly occurring, because we may only go on what you present to form an opinion. Now I can completely buy the idea that there are individuals within the highest ranks of Wikipedia who are completely and utterly vindictive, misusing their authority in various ways. This occurs just about anywhere there are people lording over other people. Unfortunately.

So I do not doubt that some of what you say is true. But as for an actual conspiracy, such as multiple individuals conspiring to some greater end, I have no idea. It is theoretically possible, but I cannot form an accurate opinion with the data presented. Now I have heard lots of things about Wikipedia and their policies, but I've never investigated these claims. I'm sure I could find many people who would defend each and every faction in play here, whatever those groups might be.

The only thing I've ever noticed about Wikipedia that I found odd has to do with certain conspiracy topics. For instance, say there is a piece of evidence suggesting something, and this evidence comes from say a government source, or a source accepted as being factually accurate. This piece of evidence aligns to some conspiracy topic, and even if the evidence can be proven to be authentic, no mention of it will be found on Wikipedia. I am not suggesting that there is some conspiracy in that regard, but I just feel that some entries offer a biased rendering of certain events and topics. And I also get the sense occasionally that certain topics are brushed aside or swept under the rug, as it were, instead of having the evidence from each side presented.

Maybe it is not a big deal, but that is the only thing I can recall that bothered me about Wikipedia. I have heard some suggest that there are entries that are inaccurate, and I suppose that this could be true, seeing as how an individual had to write that content, a person with their own style and personal biases on a given topic, but I thought that the rules were instituted to ensure only certain well documented information was included. So I don't really know one way or the other. That is just what I've noticed when I've used the site for certain topics.

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 12:56 AM
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Good thinking. This is why lesser and lesser people who have the courage to edit Wikipedia and even their user pages and their talkpages any more who don't want to be killed or beaten. Administrators do not record indefinitely blocked users to the bans page, but rather make personal attacks, threats and incivility against them. Editors can mock, bait and abuse them if they want to. They also don't even join Wikipedia's review and criticism sites such as Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review. In my case, the Wikipedia community want me dead, so if I don't "be well", surely they're going to kill me and beat me to death (BatteryIncluded's still after me though).

Perhaps they probably block people from accessing the Internet and the computers. Through only one backdoor: Microsoft Windows. To further their agenda of killing the very producers of the encyclopedia.

top topics

log in