Categories
government

Reblog: Why I really hate Wikipedia administrators

Reblogged by deathgleaner.
. here

Wikipedia administrators have turned Wikipedia into an online totalitarian regime, and no one is doing a darn thing about it.


(Note: This does not apply to all administrators on Wikipedia.)

On a Wiki such as Wikipedia, there are 3 tiers of users: Regular users, Bureaucrats, and Administrators. Out of those 3 tiers, it’s the administrators that are the worst. If you are a regular user on Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons or any Wikimedia Project (Wikinews, Wikisoure, Wikibooks, etc), you’ll know what I’m talking about.

Administrators are supposed to be “helpers” and people who “clean up and perform maintenance” on the wiki. Apparently, the administrators who are on the Wikimedia Project’s wikis have abused this power so much that they can’t even be classified by the two phrases above. Instead, their function now is to bash users for making accidental edits and to find excuses to block users. On Wikipedia, I got blocked for “spamming” the Wikipedia Sandbox with a survey. Well, the sandbox is an area where people test wikicode and no one really cares what goes on it. Now, apparently, administrators spare no pages in their around-the-clock hunt for “vandalizers“. Some administrators have been so sucked in and addicted to this task that they literally stalk the people that make even the slightest trouble. One example of such a user is Either Way. I made an edit on the Simple English Wikipedia and he said something about that on my user talk page. Then, I uploaded an image on Wikimedia Commons, which the user followed up with a comment. I make another edit on the English Wikipedia and still, Either Way is following me. I swear that these admins have developed secret admin-only tools to stalk and hunt down users.

Because of administrators, Wikipedia has turned into an online totalitarian regime, with administrators at the throne. Whether you know it or not, every time you log on to a wiki, there’s always one administrator who has his or her eye on you. It takes just one mistake, one wrong edit, and that administrator will be on your case before you even press the “save changes” button. How do they do this? Administrators use heinous “automatic users” called bots to accomplish the task of stalking down users (although the admins are barely human, they can’t possibly watch over millions of Wikipedia users). These bots are the administrators’ assistants, and thousands of them are crawling all over Wikipedia, and at the slightest bit of a mishap, they’ll leave a horrific message on your talk page and notify all the admins. Then all hell breaks loose.

Another notable conflict I’ve had with administrators was on Wikimedia Commons. I nominated one of my pictures, a panorama of Mount Rainier, for Featured Picture. I believed that it was such a good image that I used a few other user accounts under the same name to vote for it. Unfortunately, this kind of activity sticks out like a sour apple to Commons administrators, and I was promptly blocked. I would have been fine if the block was less than 3 days, but of course, those administrators have mental problems. They blocked all of my other accounts, blocked my main account (Deathgleaner), blocked indefinitely, and without any prior warning. Usually, users are given at least one warning if the offense hasn’t been committed before, and I have never committed any offense like this and I get blocked indefinitely by one administrator. Then, another administrator follows me just to rub it in my face, followed by another, then another, like an online pileup of football players. The administrators also put a notice on the voting page of my panorama saying what happened. This screwed people’s perception while voting and caused them to focus on the incident rather than the image. Yes, some of the comments did regard the image itself but I still believe there would be less opposing votes if the administrators hadn’t screwed up the voting page with numerous comments.

After my primary account, Deathgleaner, got blocked, I created another account so I could keep contributing, in a good manner, to the wiki. Yet, the administrators are so one-sided that they only see the bad stuff, and that was that the user account I was using to keep contributing was connected to my main account. The administrator wasted no time in blocking that account. It took me another three months to finally convince those biased admins to unblock my main account.

One of the most recent and ongoing conflicts happened on Wikisource. I was looking at the text for a book called Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe. When I found out the first chapter was formatted as prose, I promptly disagreed and changed it so that it was not formatted as prose. Of course, a nosy admin walks by my user talk page and leaves a note that basically said “prove it”. I gave him three very trusty sources and he still didn’t believe it, which got another administrator on the case. The debate escalated from there and resulted in me being blocked, for the millionth time. One of the admins said that I needed “special guidance” on editing and that my changes are “erratic”. The only person who needs special guidance and is erratic is that doofus who wrote the comment on my talk page! Now there’s a huge pileup of administrators’ dumb comments on my talk page, including one comment that said “I am going to block you for 14 hours so you don’t prevent us from carrying on with our lives”. Well, I doubt these admins have any “life” other than gluing their eyes to a computer monitor and trying to hold records for the most number of users blocked.

All this administrator activity on Wikipedia and other sites has pissed me off. I have almost stopped editing on Wikipedia because I can’t do so peacefully. The administrators only exist for the purpose of framing users and causing more trouble rather than settling it. They have framed so many users that their reputation has changed from people who help other users to people who block users. In fact, these administrators have turned Wikipedia into a Neo-Nazi regime, and they treat the rest of the Wikipedians like Jews in World War II. The only way to stop such horrendous injustice towards non-admins is to dethrone the administrator position. Talking to admins is useless, they’ll only call in other administrators to help take down the talk. Sure, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it’s only free if we don’t have any nagging administrators patrolling Wikipedia every second of every day.

Perhaps you’re a user on Wikipedia who’s had a similar story. Please share it with me so I can back up my claim (or maybe it’s just me). If you hate Wikipedia’s administrators, feel free to leave a comment saying “I HATE WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS”. Feel even more free to list off the usernames of such admins and I will happily post them on my blog.

UPDATE: Great news. I have found out that Wikipedia and other similar wikis don’t allow freedom of speech, even for people in the United States. First of all, that’s an infringement on the Constitution, and second of all, I guess that’s the reason why I get block threats from Either way and other such dirtbags. I swear that it was administrators who took away this right in order to promote a more uptight community. And now I’m blocked on Wikisource for saying that I hate administrators. Those administrators have no sense.

66 replies on “Reblog: Why I really hate Wikipedia administrators”

I am fully aware of these tools. They were purposely created by admins to stalk people, as well as follow up on vandals. Apparently these tools can be used to stalk people, as long as you follow the user fourteen hours a day, which I’ve seen some admins do. They literally watch every single edit you make, which makes up a large bit of their life.

yes,wikipedia administartors and their stooges suck.theres is this user on wikipedia english by the main of C21K.he basically edits articles related to karnataka and ,a state in india and about kannada people.he is blatant chauvanist and repeatledly vandalises pages related to non kannada minorities of the indian state of karnataka and questions sources even from third party observers .he is a stooge of a administrator named moonriddengirl,who bans users on the simplest excuse that they have put unsourced material.Wikipedia is full of false information especially pages like kannadiga lingayatism etc.Wikipedia administrators spend all thier time stalking people.Please do not trust information on wikipedia.it is largely manipulated and untrue.though there are a few good contributors.

hey,this statement about wikipedia user C21K is so true.he seems to have lot of connection with Administrators and works as their stooge.He got me banned for uploading a single image which happened to be copyrighted.i was new to wikipedia then,i did not read the copyright laws.i apologised but no avail.There were three admins who use names like moonriddengirl,Abedcare and falcon something who sent me abusive messages and then blocked me.C21K user page on wikipedia states he is a lingayat from indian city of mysore.he has blanked that page now probably lot of people abuse him nowadays for his neo nazi behaviour.Most of these people write mainly crap on wikipedia.Can’t anything be done about these Autocrats on wikipedia english

Absolutely agree with everything that has been said. My news magazine is being attacked right this very minute by 3 admins (one in Canada, one in Mexico, and one in Australia). I have had links on many wikis and the one in Canada called Ckatz just decided earlier today that he would take all of them off just as a hobby, I guess. We are the media outlet in my city and he even too my name off of the media portion of the city wiki that my editor wrote! I do a lot of celebrity interviews and the publicists or the celebrities themselves post the links to their interviews and my site on their own wikis… well these fools have removed all of them. They have listed my site as a “spammer” and they keep calling my host to get us taken down. They are ruining my business – a business we have been working hard on for the past two years.

I have written complaint emails and called until I’m blue in the face and no one will do anything about it. They all take up for each other.

I have had so much experience with dealing with admins, but never like yours (melissa). You seem to be dealing with Hitler himself if not double Hitler. The best you can do to get those mentally insane admins off your back is to block them from accessing your other wikis and website. The admins are fools and have no right to ruin your bisness.

I fully agree with Melissa. I think administrators like Ckatz only exist to harass editors. I have a feeling that lots of administrators need professional psychiatric help. Thus the best thing is to not edit anymore on the Wiki and let it die its natural death since who needs enemies when wiki has administrator like Ckatz.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps you suck at editing? perhaps your edits are wrong or are detracting from the quality of the articles?

“I have almost stopped editing on Wikipedia because I can’t do so peacefully.”

I think that’s what their whole point was… it sounds like you were fucking up Wikipedia and some good admins were able to stop you.

MY IP IS 70.160.112.229

No, just no, there are many people here who haven’t been banned for that reason, take your fanboy glasses off and see the truth, there are always gonna be a few rotten apples in the basket, even if a lot of the administrators are good, get over it, and secondly I’m not interested in what your IP is

I totally agree about the fascist administrators on Wikipedia. My first experience was about a year ago. Shortly after getting my user name, I had created an article about a fairly well-known midwestern rock band of the 1970s. One day, last September I found it simply “deleted”, by some jerk of an administrator, named “Brianyoumans”, hailing from the U.K. of all things!

I then realized that he had also changed an addition I had made to the “THX1138” article, as well as posted a criticism of my Talk page. When I questioned why he would delete an article about which he could have no practical knowledge, he deleted my name from the list of announcers at the article about the radio station I work at, with the notation, that he did not believe I was a real person! When I called him on that, he promptly had me blocked indefinitely.

OK, I let that go, although I have to tell you, it pissed me off mightily; but, as some folks have said, what can you do?

So, earlier this year, in accordance with their own “clean start” policy, I started a new screen name, and, trying to be really careful about NOT violating any policies, went about my merry way. A couple of weeks ago however, I had a “page watch” notice, that an article I had originally authored about another band, and to which I had uploaded an old promo photo of the band, had been changed. When I looked, I noted that the promo photo had been deleted, not just from the website, but from the entire Wiki as well. No prior notification, no chance to fix whatever perceived errors this particular editor had problems with; just gone.

After I determined that the photo DID comply with the “fair use” policies, I re-loaded it, and provided a “non-free usage” box, which I actually copied and modified, from another band’s article. All Ok? Not quite. After a couple of weeks, I get a notification that this same clown has proposed deleting the photo again, this time, because I had identified it as a photo from a 45rpm sleeve, instead of specifically as a “promotion photograph” – although, as with many groups of the 1960s, it actually served both functions. I have two separate posters with this same photo on it, I just choose to scan the 45 sleeve, because it was easier. I explained that to him, and modified the usage box – still not good enough. He went ahead and deleted it, this time with the added notation, that “it was originally identified as a record cover”. Then, he began harassing me, by reverting other edits that I had made for other articles, and posting a note on my talk page, that said he was insulted by the fact that I had checked the “revert vandalism” button, when I re-loaded the photo. I responded to his talk page, and told him, politely, that I did, in fact, consider that sort of abrupt deletion to be vandalism.

In response, he blocked my editing access, “indefinitely”, which I guess means forever. Although I attempted to appeal, since he had somehow gone and edited and deleted the history log of the comments which I had actually made on his talk page, I had no proof that I hadn’t. I didn’t know that the page history could be altered and deleted like that, but apparently administrators have all sorts of powers.

I was going to let it go, but then, he decided to escalate the situation, by removing my ability to send emails or even edit my own talk page, and finally. His final step was to change the block rationale on my page to being that my current user name, was a “sock puppet” of my former one, even though I had been very careful to completely abandon the old user name, and only use the new one.

He made one mistake tho… unlike most of these cases, where the jerk is half a continent or world away, this putz is a student at a public college, located right down the road from the station I work at. I even know his first name, his major and his hobbies. I have a feeling, that “Tedder”, may someday soon be going to discover another meaning to the term “sock puppet”!

I can tell about this administrator Ckatz. She is a complete mental case, very vindictive and has her own agenda to hoist. She trolls the wiki and removes links and materials which has been there for ages just because she does not like you. It has nothing to do with the matter of the subject – just a hate removal. I think we should all get together to remove such administrators. It is not good for the health of Wiki or theirs! It seems she spends 14-18 hours on the wiki!

I just got my wiki banishment today. Basically one user icewoman didn’t like my edits and told on me to an admin named animate. Well animate wasted no time giving me my “final warning”, which was my only warning. I had a little fun on my talk page with it, I figured “who reads the talk pages of other users anyway”, and then another admin shows up today telling me that not only could they ban me from posting on articles, but my talk page “privileges” could be taken away as well. I was like seriously? These people have no lives at all. I responded, and basically I got a ban from yet another admin because I wouldn’t agree that they were right and I was wrong. Well screw that! and screw them too! I, unlike them, have life outside wikipedia.

This is outrageous… Wikipedia admins banned access to media files stored on 4shared.com and enacted a little thing called OVERSIGHT (which is just a fancy word for ‘The removal of information and its PERMANENT deletion from Wikipedia and its page history for NO REASON). Wikipedia admins hate that good site because it allows people to download great media (music, games, etc.) for free without worry of hassle because it’s owned by the user who uploads it. My friend actually circumvented the blacklisting of 4shared.com by inserting tags into the url, but that pissed off admins and they blocked that because he was smart enough to get around the bugs on Wikipedia and prove Wiki admins are stupid.

Hey, just to rile the admins up, add tags to other blacklisted urls on wikipedia and insert those into Wikipedia articles. It’ll blow admins’ minds. Especially that nutjob admin Gogo Dodo. Another admin (the aptly-named ‘Stifle’, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stifle) is the bane of many good Wikipedians’ Wiki-presence.

yes! let’s have a petition to get the ckatz bitchz off the administrators list! she (i assume it’s a she becoz someone used ‘she’ earlier on) put malicious warnings and threatens to have my innocent and neutral-point-of-view article deleted!

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

* It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since April 2010. [plenty of references in there!]

* The notability of this article’s subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since April 2010. [everything is true and is notable. why delete?!?]

* It is written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Tagged since April 2010. [UNTRUE!]

* It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards. Tagged since April 2010.

* It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter. Tagged since April 2010.

I don’t know what to say about the reasons she wants to get my page deleted. when i tried to delete her comments she adds them back and says ‘Please stop removing unaddressed templates’. what?! i wrote her emails, twice, but never got a respond. i’m at my wits ends.

can anyone help me?

i hate administrators!

Ckatz is a mental case. She vandalizes other people’s talk page. For an administrator this is highway robbery. The only way to tackle her is to open a complain at ANI and all the people troubled by her should report their troubles on it.

Ckatz, Gogododo and Materialscientist are some of THE most despised admins on Wikipedia. They’re so power-hungry and angry because they don’t actually get paid any money.

When you track down real names, science-trained wikipedia admins tend to be late-30ish to 40ish PhD’s on their third or forth post-doc. E.g., Beetstra. Others teach a course or two at the local community college. Might make 1200-1500 euro’s a month until the grant runs out and they have to move on. Once in this career rut, it is hard to move up. The real underside of academia. Unfortunately, such circumstances can generate a certain proletarian resentment and a lot of displaced anger.

I HATE WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS

yeah!!
Inspite of contributing for 6 years; some sucking administrator reverts my article if it does not fit their requirements. And even when there are no copyright infringements they ask and say about copyright….they suck… i hate wikipedia now..

Ban Wikipedia

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ban-wikipedia/

I have witnessed the conversation on IRC covering this topic and this is what they have to say:

[19:08] Hahaha oh man, have you guys seen this? http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ban-wikipedia/
[19:08] Ah okay.
[19:09] Pilif12p: I only ask because when I made my account back in the day, I don’t think any eyes went into it O.o
[19:09] oh
[19:09] BarkingFish, well, I doubt that’ll be the end result.
[19:09] BarkingFish: so, option 1 won?
[19:09] == Dragonfly6-7 [~test@bas1-montreal48-1176342060.dsl.be… has joined #wikipedia-en
[19:09] Says my secret-pro-PC opinion.
[19:09] A Nobody is signing a petition to “ban Wikipedia” ?
[19:09] [[Stereotypes of groups within the United States]]
[19:09] I have low # of edits, but my account has been around since I think 2007 or 2006 Pilif12p
[19:09] Which is not-so-secret now.
[19:09] {Soap} – lnk me?
[19:09] GorillaWarfare: I like the goal number of sigs.
[19:10] * Sky2042 chuckles.
[19:10] (having 3 options for keep and 1 for trash is totally unfair)
[19:10] Obvious fake petition is obvious fake.
[19:10] Sky2042: My favorite is “it is almost 100% entirely inaccurate”
[19:10] http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ban-wikipedia/ A Nobody’s name is not on there, but his talk page was recently host to something related
[19:10] PeterSymonds, you think it’ll be manipulated so WMF again gets its own way?
[19:10] I wouldn’t put it quite like that.
[19:10] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_Nobody&oldid=382948514#Sign_the_Petition
[19:11] It’s clear that the majority want PC to continue in some form.
[19:11] that could just be someone posing as him though now that I think of it
[19:11] I call bullshit
[19:11] I saw the petition on another person’s talk page

Yes, we have heard of “sources” and “references”, unfortunately, the only “sources” and “references” Wiki will allow are the FAT CAT billionaire companies like The New York Times and USA Today. I have a wonderful news website that reports stories in the exact same manner as those fat cat news groups, but your admins PROMPTLY delete our news posts and they even replace them with THE SAME WORDING as we use, but redirect the reference to one of the big news groups. Wiki admins are terrible, horrible people with obvious personal vendettas and they take it out on the little guy. You guys should be ashamed, don’t you know that crushing the middle class is how our economy got where it is in the US? Keep feeding the fat companies and denying the small businesses like mine and see where it get you. Hopefully GONE. F$%ck You and F^*k Jimmy Wales. Quit begging for money you hose bags.

The only thing Wikipedia is good for is a laugh. Even in the What Wikipedia is Not section of the site, for liability purposes, some of Jimbo’s minions state the obvious and mention how Wikipedia is not a legitimate encyclopedia and cannot be trusted, and yet, there are still Wikipedia users who insist the opposite.

At its very best, Wikipedia is 100% unstable due to its ever-changing content and revolving door of editors/admins. At its core (which is fucking rotten), the problem with Wikipedia is its inherent wiki-model; nothing is truly regulated; there’s no legitimate hierarchy which promotes an I-Can-Trust-This-Site platform; the only “hierarchy” on Wikipedia you see is a loose dictatorship of admins/editors who vie to see who can be the biggest asshole and abuse power accordingly. The wiki-model promotes chaos, and that’s no way to learn or gather reliable information. As such, my friends and I take great interest in posting free music libraries, video games, audio books, and anything else free that people would enjoy finding on Wikipedia. Considering the instability and chaos Wikipedia perpetuates with its flawed wiki-model, it is absolutely impossible for Wikipedia to provide reliable information, therefore, I choose to provide entertainment instead, though the above means, as well as through amusing surliness. Motherfuckers.

Oh, yeah, and the Bws2cool (the Oversight bitch who doesn’t know how to Oversight properly) can suck it; to spite him, please download the Japanese rom of Pokemon Black (check the Revision History of Pokemon Diamond and Pearl: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Diamond_and_Pearl&action=history)

Andrew, you know Wallflowers98? That guy is a legend on Wikipedia. Admins love sparring with him, and, until now, originally thought it was just him providing the links to mp3s and the like. I didn’t know it was a team of him and many others posting links to free music and such on Wikipedia. Links to 4shared.com are impossible to post because of Wallflowers98 (due to the blacklist implemented), but as somebody else said, it’s easy to circumvent thru affiliates of Tinyurl. Wallflowers98’s theme song should be “I Get Around” by Tupac. Here, dude, let’s pour a ‘lil liquor 4 ya with your theme:

http://www.4shared.com/audio/nwjoX_Z6/2_pac_Tupac_-_I_Get_Around.htm

I DEFY WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS, ESPECIALLY:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise

I WOULD HAVE HIM BANANIZED ONCE AND FOR ALL

———-

About http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise
We should overthrow/desysop/bananize Future Perfect at Sunrise in Wikipedia, because he is most tyrannic administrator ever encountered by us there. I give you evidence of this:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24326
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html#304
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akradecki/vivasocktrack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive575#Harassment_of_good_faith_editors_by_Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise
He harasses/bananizes anyone who tries genuinely improve Greece-related articles, including Greek alphabet, especially archaic letters. Thankfully to him, certain errors are still present in Greek alphabet articles.

Is possible to eliminate Future Perfect at Sunrise from Wikipedia once and for all by you, blog owner, for example by initiating desysopping and banning procedure? He maliciously thwarts every effort of me and other newbies upon improving of Greek letters especially and mainly in English Wikipedia by reverts/bananas as they would be always the same banned user, and in much lesser degree in other Wikipedias. Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hriber (Future Perfect at Sunrise banned him personally)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hribers (Future Perfect at Sunrise banned him personally)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Justified_Wikipedian (Future Perfect at Sunrise bullied Brandon to ban him)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TAIntedCHInese (Future Perfect at Sunrise banned him personally)

Future Perfect at Sunrise in reality is Lukas Pietsch. Evidence:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24326
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html#304
He is permitted to violate WP:SOCK while others ends bananized especially by FPAS for identical socking behavior. As you see, in Wikipedia there are EQUAL&EQUALER.
Future Perfect at Sunrise contradicts himself, so he is unreliable and should be permanently desysopped and permanently banned. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LaGrandefr , related to IP 211.115.80.146
“Please do not evade your block through logged-out editing, as you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=347063583&oldid=347048562. If you want to appeal your block, you may post an {{unblock}} request here, but don’t use IPs to edit anywhere else.”
contradicts
revert of the same IP 211.115.80.146 , logged at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_language&action=historysubmit&diff=350866523&oldid=350864604 with “rv banned user Wikinger” reason.
Of course Wikinger and LaGrandefr are not the same person, so Future Perfect at Sunrise obviously faulters, and cannot be believed by anyone anymore.
Whole evidence is in this edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/211.115.80.146

Future Perfect at Sunrise is an expert to wiki-lawering and from the amount of support he’s receiving from a lot of admins at Wikipedia it’s quite evident that’s he holds a special place. He has violated every single rule in Wikipedia and all he has ever received from the arbitrators was a 2-day ban and revocation of his admin rights for a few days. Some people speculate that he’s supported by Mr wikipedia himself (Jimmy Wales). He seems to be at the very core of the monstrosity called Wikipedia. I tried many times to inform people about his wrong-doings, even started a revert war against him (with the aid of some friends) and I’m the reason he protected his “talk” page from users without wikipedia accounts. He’s not a particularly smart person though, and he loses his temper easily. With a little of organised effort he (and most of the other admins) can be driven off the site.

I would completely agree from my unpleasant experiences with Wikipedia that it operates like an online totalitarian regime. The Administrators are obviously losers in real life who could never get a real job as an Editor. I have come across countless situations of Administrators on “power trips” who are arbitrary, lack knowledge, judgmental and just plain rude.

The whole site is overrated. Can’t believe how popular the site is with Google. I believe it is just a matter of time before Wikipedia self destructs.

I agree. There is no NPOV on Wikipedia. Just a majority that rules and kicks out people and opinions they don’t like. It’s absolutely worst on the German Wikipedia. Those people running the shop should be tried and executed.

Isn’t it obvious why voting multiple times using different log-in names would be against the rules? That’s not a vote. That’s an exercise in how many times you can log-in and click the edit button. Wikipedia is not American Idol. Also, the “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” article you linked to was not the WP article. It was an excerpt from the book on WikiSource. As in you were trying to change the actual text of the book as written by Harriet Beecher Stowe. I wonder if all these people agreeing with you bothered to look at any of this. Probably not, which is why they had their own problems with WP in the past. Please get a clue.

Wikipedia admins have been blocking Mikie Da Poet since 2006, seems very personal if you read the old deletion reviews, 1 even says you need a magazine, radio show or news segment to mention you, to make you notable, well Mikie performed live on fox News and they reported he was the next Eminem at 4:30 of this video, they said it was no good, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6fID8VcHGs, he released four full albums, acted in movies, and worked with many greats, blah blah blah, admins just block this guy over and over. This is a no brain article that admins gang up on new writers trying to open this article and run them out of Wikipedia. Any help would be great.

I did an article on Wikipedia years ago on this website, Toobis.com, which is no longer online but got just as much heavy traffic as The Best Page In The Universe did, and Wikipedia has an article on that. Within 2 days it was deleted and I wrote out this article carefully and sourced my statements well.

As an alternative to Wikipedia, use the Google and Yahoo directories to find info you want on any sujbect:

http://www.google.com/dirhp
http://dir.yahoo.com

On another note, related to duties of admins and mods on a forum, I came across a person who told me it is alright if they slack their duties if they are not paid, because nothing motivates them. But I have always known that the work of those responsibilities was always volunteered. By that person’s logic everyone who joins a volunteer organization should not try their best because they are not paid.

I HATE WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS
and that they really suck ass! =)

Wikipedia is extremely one sided, and whenever they remove some good information from a page, you can’t argue against them yet they do whatever they want without even talking or warning.

at least the wikias are not like that at all, and they talk about the problems, they are removing content in an uneven way (e.g. when they removed the brotherhood of Nod, they forgot the GDI), soi only work in the wikias now

as long as those admins stay the more stuffed up wikipedia would be, hopefully it they can be dethroned before it is too late

I COMPLETELY agree with you. I made a page for a Native American actress named Sheila Tousey and they kept deleting the stuff I put on there; although it was correct. I pasted an article on their that featured her biography; and made sure to site my source, but they still hounded me for it. They actually blocked me and called me a sock puppet. So, I made another account to start a clean slate and get away from the drama, but they still harassed me and said I was not to be trusted. I don’t understand, we cannot delete and be rid of the website but we still cannot post “actual” information about an actor, author, musician, etc.

I just left Wikipedia today after experiences very much like those described above. Many of them involved Talk page discussions which turned into escalations when either admins or “more respected” users were make edits that were controversial and that were supposedly being discussed. I also tried using reliable sources but those were always challenged because of some obscure relationship with the subject being discussed. Every time I attempted to revert them I got blocked. I was often able to go through a long process of apologizing the world off, begging for mercy and saying all kinds of wonderful stuff about everyone else on Wiki, while bashing myself. I got tired of this routine and so I’m out. Back to the USA where I have more freedom of speech!

I got blocked a and I’ve never even edited the wiki! What BS! My IP is part of a range that was blocked. This is discrimination! Oh, and whoever mentioned the user called Stifle, it says Stifle has helped users, been friendly, etc etc. That’s the exact admin who blocked me!

I was on my third month on Wikipedia when this administrator HelloAnnyong blocked me indefinately because he thought I was a sockpuppet of this Wikipedian known as creepy crawler. I tried everything to get unblocked. I even sent a help sign but an adminstrator saw it and declined it and said “You are blocked directly and it looks like it is working perfectly.” I became obsessed with clearing my name. Now I feel like an idiot for making an account and thinking that Administrators want to have people edit. Wikipedia says its the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It should have said anyone who is an “administrator” can edit.

Amen, thank you, I have been banned, because my account was hacked by my mates, when admitting that I’d made a mistake leaving my computer open and promised that it would never happen again, all they did was decline it, send me a page link, and then told me to prove it, then the time after, I was told that my page would be blocked until I had proved my innocence, I can’t prove my innocence if my paged is locked, it’s the only thing I can openly edit, and once that’s locked what can I do? This is just ridiculous, I have sent a formal email to Jimmy Wales himself, the person who banned me was some idiot called bwilkins, it’s just ridiculous, if there was a phone number for wikipedia complaints I’d be giving them a right bollocking right now

Boy, when they come after you, they come after you. I have a small local news website that I have worked very hard on for over 3 years. I have posted news information on Wiki for about 2 years after I saw that other news websites were getting a “leg up” on my news site by posting to Wiki and adding their reference links.

Well, as soon as Wiki Admin Eagles24/7 got a hold of me, I was dead in a matter of minutes. EVERY article that I had posted up on Wiki was immediately DELETED and I was blocked for 24 hours. He basically went in and looked at all of my edits to Wiki and deleted ALL of them, regardless of content. I was very upset, because they allow the big news websites to post and put link references but they squashed my poor little news site to death without hesitation. Make no mistake about it, Wiki is looking out for Big Brother and the big companies. That is a shame because I worked very hard making sure that my edits were perfect and had the sources listed to back them up.

Out of anger, I went in from a friends computer and replaced one of my edits and added the quote “quit being a jerk Eagles24/7” and then he had me blocked “indefinitely”. Sooooooo, so much for Wikipedia, that’s too bad, I didn’t know how vengeful and downright stalker-esque they were….scary indeed. I wonder if they will seek further action against me and my poor little news site? How far does their power reach? I guess I’ll find out soon enough…

Ok, here is the REST OF THE STORY as our old friend Paul Harvey would say.

To recap, a Wiki Admin was “cyber-stalking” me and going through all of my websites (I’m a web designer and have several hundred), SOooooo, what I did was I tracked his movements, got his name and address, and then posted a message on my talk page that I had this information and that this was to be considered an official “Cease and Desist” for that Admin to stop snooping around all of my websites. THIS COMPLETELY FREAKED HIM OUT and he appealed to his supervisor who had the following conversation with him:

{From Eagles24/7 Admin to his supervisor after I told him that I had all of his personal information} – Can someone please talk to this user? He was blocked for spamming his website and he is now tracking my information. I believe this user is threatening legal action (and has been indeffed already), but for the most part I believe he is confused. I need immediate assistance. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I love that last part “I need immediate assistance” – haha – he was FREAKED. Here is the reply from his supervisor. This guy sounds like a MAJOR tool, no wonder the Admins are so terrible, look at how their supervisors talk:

{Supervisor to Admin} – Per WP:RBI, I recommend summarily disabling the blocked user’s talk page access and moving on. If the user is indeffed, we’re beyond the point of educating them. Indeed, they’ve responded to attempted education with legal threats and outing. We’re not going to make progress here. –NYKevin @115, i.e. 01:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I love that they have their own stupid language, NYKevin, you’re a complete dork TOOL as well. Who are these people? Do we see them in QuikTrip? Or do they live on another planet? Anyway, here was the response from the Admin:

{Admin to Supervisor} – I’m concerned about my own safety though due to the outing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

For those of you who don’t know, “outing” is the term that the sneaky f*%ks at Wikipedia use to describe a situation where someone has exposed the identity of one of their Admins. They didn’t know who they were dealing with, I’m a SERIOUSLY advanced web designer and if you’ve visited any of my websites, I can find not only your house, but any personal information that I want. As you can see by the Admin’s above response to his supervisor, HE IS FREAKED OUT.

Ok, back to my personal talk page, here is what went down:

{Admin to me} – Please stop trying to track my information, don’t shoot the messenger. Wikipedia has policies for spamming websites, which you’ve violated. I have started an WP:ANI discussion, so hopefully you can talk to someone to gain an understanding of what is wrong with your edits. It’s probably best for you to e-mail The Wikimedia Foundation with your concerns. For the most part, besides the spamming, your edits have been very useful, and I’m very sorry it has come to this. If you promise not to promote your websites (which I have stayed off per your request), you may be unblocked in the future. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, a little bargaining going on – maybe they aren’t completely untouchable….

{Me to the Admin who doesn’t feel as high and mighty as he once did…} – I just thought that it was very terrible for you to RIP through my contributions and delete ALL of them. Surely all of them are not spam. I was very careful to report the news just like any other news company does. Why does USA today get to post all of their articles? How, exactly, does my news site differ from their’s? Specifically? Is it only because my news site isn’t backed by a million dollar corporation that you felt it was “unreliable”? All of my posts can be easily verified to be unbiased and true. Every one. You even went in and put in the same information that I put in and gave other websites the credit on the reference. I just feel really violated and it is the classic story of keeping the small business man down. My site is NOT spam, and all of my contributions to Wiki were absolute facts and I kept them short and to the point and tried my best to follow the rules very strictly. No Admin has ever had a problem with me up until now and I’ve been contributing for years. I just think that you should admit that you got a little carried away and that some of my edits should be allowed. ESPECIALLY the page that I actually built from the group up – Kansas City blues. Basically all you did was go in and swap out my news stories for the same news story you found on another site and gave them credit. I just don’t understand how that is any different than what I was doing. They are reporting news, I am reporting news. They list their website (with ads on them) as references, I list my news website as references. There just isn’t any difference, except, of course you’re not going to go deleting all of USA Today’s contributions because you know they can defend themselves, whereas I, the small guy trying to get by, gets smashed out without a moment’s thought. Is this what Wiki is about? And then to see you spend over 4 hours on my websites (some of them not even linked from Wiki) just didn’t seem ethical. I do not like conflict and want to resolve this in the following manner:
You choose at least a couple of my news contributions and restore them. I deserve at least that. And I will be more prudent in the future in my posting, although USA Today and other news websites post the same thing to Wiki by the minute, adding nice little links to their fat cat websites. Give the little guy a break. I wasn’t SPAMMING, that’s just ridiculous. If I’m spamming, then The New York Times is spamming as well. They’ve posted a news contribution and they’ve added a link to their site under the references. Please explain how what I’m doing is any different. I want to resolve this extremely peacefully as I think this is just a case where you and I BOTH let our emotions carry us over the edge. Please put back some of my contributions, you basically just went in to all of my contributions, WROTE almost LITERALLY the same thing that I already wrote, and just found some other website to list as a reference. C’mon Man! That’s just crazy. Let’s work it out – thanks, Adambluekc (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

{Admin to Me} – I completely understand where you’re coming from and you have reason to be upset. If I wrote for a news agency of any sort, I would feel slighted as well. However, we need to take a step back here. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote the references cited at the end of most articles. The purpose is to create an encyclopedia. There are some users on here whose sole purpose of editing is to promote their websites. This is simply not allowed. My intent as an editor here is not to take money away from small businesses.
When a reader comes to a Wikipedia article and see a statement they don’t believe, they will go to the references section to confirm. But we can’t just allow any website to be used as a reference. It would lose readers that way. Therefore, Wikipedia has adopted this policy to identify what can be considered a reliable source. I know this is frustrating to you, and maybe not fair for your businesses. If you can prove your website meets WP:RS, I will add your website back to articles, but I do not believe this will be the case. In fact, while looking through your contributions, I found scores of other editors remove your references as unreliable sources. As I said above, however, if you would like to contribute as an editor with an interest in building the world’s largest encyclopedia, we’d be happy to have you. If you want to contribute with a profit in mind, on the other hand, I’m afraid this is not the correct venue. I truly apologize if I came off as wanting to ruin your business endeavors. The “reliability” standard of your website is not permanent, keep in mind. Profootballtalk.com (before it was bought by NBC) would never have been acceptable to cite in Wikipedia articles due to its unreliability, but it has grown over the years into one of the most respected sports news websites (IMO). (By the way, if it makes you feel any better, I was not actively searching for your websites. I happened upon a couple by mistake, and I left your news site open in a tab on my browser for a bit.) Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This arrogant Admin simply went in to ALL of my Wiki contributions, changed 1 or 2 words and then gave the credit to a large news company like USA Today. Working for Big Brother, yes, Wikipedia is definitely not out to help the small business man who is the backbone of our economy. Wiki is absolutely part of the PROBLEM, not the solution. Anyway, back to the conversation:

{Me to Admin} – Ok, I did some more reading in the WP:RS and I found the section on “blogs”. It says that they can be used as a source but must be reviewed on a case by case basis. Can’t you at least go in and look at some of the contributions that you removed (replaced)? I mean just the fact that you “re-reported”, sometimes in the exact same wording, my contributions proves that you must have thought them valid. All you did was swap the reference over to another website. I won’t bother you any more – I just ask that you please consider restoring at least 1 or 2 of my contributions. Thank you, Adambluekc (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a little note here, by this time I had been stressing about this for about 5 hours straight, I have high blood pressure, and I was ready to try and just make a deal and put this thing to bed. Here’s the grand finale:

{Admin to Me} – Thank you for the calm reply. That’s one other thing that you’ve confused. Wikipedia is not a news agency itself, so by referencing something, it is not “reporting” on it. I will consider your request for the articles I could not find replacement references for. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

{Me to Admin} – Awesome, thank you! I love a happy ending. It just seemed crazy that I could be on Wiki for years without incident and then all of the sudden be in the top 10 most wanted 🙂 Thanks!

So, we will see if Wiki puts any of my articles back up, but I doubt it. They are some serious a%%holes over there and I was amazed to find out the depth to which they would sink. This guy literally went in to my contributions, changed around 1 or 2 words and then gave the credit RANDOMLY to other giant news websites. He did this in about 45 minutes (over 50 articles) and he did it because he wanted to show me who was boss. They need to get a muzzle on those Admin nerds over there, they are DRUNK on POWER and they hate you, make no doubt about it, they HATE everyone.

This blog is on the money. Wikipedia needs to be recognized for what it is: a megablog produced by crowdsourcing.

Asshole admins like Kuru and Duffbeerforme et al. attack the integrity of solid references and delete them, then delete the articles for not being vetted by third party sources….and follow you around to delete anything you edit or comment on or support. They permit Romanian sockpuppets to attempt to bribe the subjects of articles, then block the victim for disturbing the peace when he puts this outrage onto the talk pages. The admins have no common sense and go around cutting articles to pieces, articles on topics they know nothing about. They reject Oxford University and the Library of Congress as acceptable references and poo-poo scholarship.

It appears that any piece of trash writing can have a wiki article about it and passes the “notable” test as long as as any celebrity, e.g. Paris Hilton, thinks it is good.

Wikipedia is not a serious source of information for scholars. The “editors” reject bona fide academidistinction and have zero common sense. What is popular is often not correct and is no standard for worthiness. The “editors” are a bunch of clowns with too much time ontheir hands. I have lost all respect for wikipedia, which is really a hyped up supercrowd sourced mega blog that passes itself off as an “encyclopedia.”

Another asshole is Tedder. Who the hell do these people think they are to go around telling family members of the deceased subject of articles that they ( family members) are “not-notable”? This jerk Tedder tells the grandson of the subject of the article to prove he is really the president of his grnadfather’s foundation. Then he rejects the sources as spam. Enough to make your blood boil!!

Wikipedia needs to be exposed for what it is.

I couldn’t agree more with many of the comments here. There’s been a marked decline in the quality of Wikipedia editorship over the last six months. So much so that it threatens the growth and integrity of the project.

Articles that you know are better, clearer and more meticulously referenced than about 90% of the articles and stubs already on there get refused for really spurious reasons. I wrote one recently and was told the subject wasn’t notable even though it was more notable and had more references than most of the articles I’ve ever read on Wikipedia.

I added references to newspaper articles (from daily newspapers with a combined circulation of almost a million people) which mentioned the subject and gently pointed out that the matter touched on the behaviours of millions of people each day. Still not notable I’m told.

Just bizarre. Basically, these nazis and their current policies are slowly killing the whole Wikipedia thing off. Suddenly the standard that was perfectly fine was suddenly no longer acceptable

The person I dealt with was someone called Huon who blithely dismisses hours and hours of work spent writing, formatting, adding links etc with a few arrogant and poorly constructed lines which offer little or no help at all and simply provide him or her with ample power to set you up for a further rejection.

Interesting way to get your kicks. Huon “graciously” invited me to submit the article yet again but I thought “after the high handed way you’re treating me and others, why would I do that?” and replied as follows –

“Thanks, I won’t take up the offer. You clearly don’t want the article. You asked for secondary sources which I provided. Those secondary sources are from the two daily newspapers here with circulations of over 500,000. Not sure how much more public you can get than that. You seem to think this is hicksville down here. It’s actually a State of 5 million people with a major city (Melbourne) of nearly 4 million, larger of course than most US cities. The city itself has been voted as the world’s most liveable on many occasions. I could spend more hours gathering other material (if you do a google search, there are thousands of references to this document) about something that affects millions of people each day and under which thousands of people are fined. But, frankly, why would I waste my time any further actually trying to inform people about this subject when the editors here are as they are. You have to hope that somebody sets up an online encyclopaedia project someday. One that actually believes in people giving their time freely with an encouraging editorial staff to contribute to the sum of human knowledge…”

WikiPedia Admins as far as im concerned the ones i’ve dealt with are idiots that likes to take it up the Rear End with a Carrot
2 articles i posted edited those Dickheads decided to delete it
I literally spent 2 hours of my time creating a decent wiki page and within very short time those Faggots goes and deletes it

as far as i’m concerned they can go fuckthemselves. especially people like orangemike

Oh yeah, Editing on Wikipedia is a frustrating, fruitless endeavor now that the blue-blooded administrators have set their feet in concrete. The WP:COI, WP:Notoriaty and WP:SPAM arguments follow no logical decorum or viable system or standard, and this suggests that some administrators are financially compensated to permit the inclusion of brands and to vigoriously exclude others. I imagine they are paid by large PR firms to include and protect client brand entries while excluding and deleting competing brand entries aggressively. That’s how they can spend so much time “cruising” wikipedia articles. THEY ARE PAID HACKS.

Toddst1 can bite me, I’ll never grovel and agree that his judgments were correct, so the indefinite block will remain that way FOREVER. Good luck getting me to donate another penny to the project. – Dicks every last one of them.

Okay, so I found some webpages on wikipedia about, well, sex, and I made the foolish mistake that I could add one image to each of these articles, as I believed they did not contain reasonable imagery. Adding a photo featuring sexual innuendos to articles that already have images that contain sexual innuendos is apparently a big no-no.

They basically assumed that it was vandalism. Now those images were not mine, but they were posted on websites that willingly give permission to use them anywhere (they were only innuendos, so the websites didn’t care). Wikipedia took this as copywrite infringement. Nobody waited to hear what I had to say, because I got no warning, and now I’m blocked indefinitely.

You bet! Those admins are so dumb! I deleted wrong information from a page entitled “Lusitanic” (you can read my answers on the talk page under the name ThePortuguese) and because some delusional guy named LuzoGraal can’t handle the truth and started to come up with a theory that I was a Sockpuppet (I hadn’t even heard about that name until then), they initiated a case against me and then I was blocked. I appealed the blocking decision and the dumbs said I couldn’t because I had already made an appeal on that decision from another account. I let them have access to things like my e-mail and they still treat me like this… Wow. Ignorance and stupidity are abundant in Wikipedia. And I had provided proof for what I was saying, any reasonable person that can read understands I was telling the truth!

Thank you for all your efforts on this blog. Ellie delights in working on research and it’s simple to grasp why. Many of us hear all about the lively mode you provide insightful strategies by means of the web blog and in addition boost contribution from other individuals on this concept while our own child is undoubtedly studying a great deal. Enjoy the remaining portion of the new year. You have been conducting a wonderful job.

I enjoy you because of all your valuable effort on this web site. My niece loves going through research and it’s easy to see why. We all notice all about the powerful medium you create sensible techniques by means of the web blog and therefore increase response from people on the area so our favorite simple princess is in fact becoming educated a lot. Take pleasure in the remaining portion of the year. You’re the one doing a stunning job.

I came across some guy who was basically trawling the Wikipedia for images and removing them citing WP:NFG or something like that. I used to use the Wikipedia heaps about 5 – 6 years ago contributing to various pages most NZ radio related pages and in some cases added in the past company logos scanned from some old car bumper stickers. These images remained there until about 2 weeks ago when a user removed the images. I logged in to see a notice that the images had been removed so I just put them back, big mistake I made was to do an undo as he must of got some notification that I had undone his edit and minutes later I had a warning from this non admin user.
I looked through this user contribution history and could see he was removing 50+ images a day from articles around the Wikipedia he basically was just trawling for articles with such images and removing them citing whatever standard. There were a lot of people getting upset from this user and a few even asking what can be done to get this guy banned.
The user did get banned for a short period of time but for violating the 3RR, but all he did was get an admin mate to un-ban him and hours later he was back to trawling the Wikipedia for images to remove.
Shortly after the a discussion came up on the admins noticeboard about the users actions and reverting images etc.
After a user asked what can be done to get him banned I posted on the admins board reporting this user in good faith. I advising that while this user may be right by removing some images my concern was at the rate he is doing so and also whether he is actually consider whether the images complies or not, it seemed this user was really on a warpath. Posting about this user was a big mistake as straight away an admin slapped a warning on my page for posting comments about other users, fair enough if I called the user a wanker or something like that but I certainly didn’t. I did make the mistake of using the word troll instead of trawl and wore that too. Days later I was banned because an anonymous user reverted the images that had been removed. It seems there are some real assholes of admins on Wikipedia and I totally agree with your comments here about the admins and how they often bully non-admin users.

How to be an untouchable Wiki Admin

1. Go on the warpath when someone makes a misguided comment about one of your edits.

2. Request an RFD on someone who doesn’t lack notability – in spite of the above, get some other friendly admins involved to ensure it gets deleted.

3. Plaster boxes all over the user page, that remain in perpetuity even if someone has moved on several years ago from that identity. Revert them to their old username without checking the reasons why the username change request was accepted e.g. if it would damage their career in ‘Real Life’. Accuse the editor of being a coward after quoting the editor the ‘No Personal Attacks’ policy

4. Monitor that person using some kind of bot so that you can stalk the editor the minute they put up a fight

5. When your character is called in to question, get your friends to advise the editor not to assume bad faith and that the admin must be trusted otherwise they would not have achieved admin status.

6. Better still, claim on the administrators noticeboard that very few of your actions have been overturned on appeal so that the admin must be obeyed.

7. Claim that all admins can have ‘occasional’ lapses of judgement, but the same cannot be afforded to a mere editor.

The problem is most of the admins have been admins since they were little boys given their first Pentium 4 processor with supercharged 3D graphics and a 19in flatscreen monitor and flashing cables and lights and things. There doesn’t seem to be a way to stop such admins because there doesn’t seem to be a way to keep check on their behaviour without them pulling rank on you.

Points 1-5 actually happened to me. Points 6 and 7 are just from observing some of the offending admins recent behaviour on there. Some of the admins have already been named above in other comments above, yet seem to have failed to recognise the effect that their own behaviour will have on the goal of wikipedia.

If people can’t be bothered to A. edit any more due to the behaviour of a flock of admins who seem to have waaaay too much free time or B. make any financial contributions to the project then they will find the plug being pulled and they will need to find another outlet for their outdated “network SysOp from the 90’s” behaviour, you know, the types that think they ‘controlled’ the entire business from their terminal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *