This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.
The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.
See block log • confirmed accounts • suspected socks • Checkuser request

Categories: Wikipedia sockpuppeteers

I edited this story [Wikipedia Idiots] and I can assure you that Mary did not get fired for this story or any other. Mary decided to leave the paper to take a job with a local documentary filmmaker. She gave her notice before the Wikipedia story was published. She disclosed to me early in the reporting process her sister’s fights with Griot and her sister’s role is mentioned high up in our story. Bottom line: We stand by the story.
Comment by Will Harper, Managing Editor, SF Weekly

As he was becoming increasingly vociferous and officious, I told him if he crossed the line and actually libelled me I would not hesitate to sue.

He removed the friendly warning I posted, and referred to it as “boring”.
I was warned not to make threats of legal action as it “was against the rules” – so it’s okay for the ruling clique to insult and annoy you, but warn them not to do it, and you are in the smelly stuff!

After this he contacted the admins who descended upon me like a pack of ravenous wolves.

I suggested they did not persist with this behaviour, or that I would contact the lawyers and have them start proceedings against wikipedia to remove the main page I edited. At this they banned me (indefinitely) in seconds, and proeceeded to decimate the article in question.

Nice, huh?!

Interestingly, if you can find it, there is discussion for admins, where you can find ordinary users complaining about admins from time to time, giving clear indication, proof, if you will, that admins are “sockpuppeting”, “meat puppeting” (their risible phrases), spamming, and writing articles for companies for commercial gain – wholly illegal as they are supposed to be of charitable status! Yet no action is ever taken against the admins.

I have personally witnessed admins editing out links to existing pages, links to legitimate fan sites for actors, etc, and generally editing out anything they don’t like personally, and adding content that is unverifed as though it were gospel! This is rife throughout the whole site.

The orgaization in general, and the admins in particular are corrupt through and through.

If anyone ever gets the notion to edit a page or pages at wiki expect your stay to be short lived and full of setbacks and misery, not just from the admins and over-zealous fifteen year-old editors, but the malicious vandals as well; that is unless you are quiet and obedient, and can stand to see the work you lavish hours in creating decimated because you put the words in the wrong order, or a title is too small, large, et al. Or you constantly have to revert due to vandalism, but don’t dare to actually call most of it vandalism – because they insist you should “assume good faith” – not that the admins ever assume good faith when they get their knives into you!

These people make the Nazi party look like a mischievous boy scout troop, or Bin Laden like Santa!

My advice is to stay well away, and wipe wikipedia from you memory. Pretty soon the real authorities will catch up with them and they will be history.

Conflicts are inevitable in any enterprise with as many participants (and as much public visibility) as Wikipedia. How a system handles conflicts determines its long-term social health.

There have been a number of well-publicized misadventures on Wikipedia, the outcome of which has left Wikipedia with a tarnished reputation for neutrality, integrity, reliability, and dignity.

The evolving policies and practices, while well-intentioned, have left Wikipedia much too vulnerable to gaming the system. As a result, participation in Wikipedia often feels less like a scholarly enterprise in crafting an encyclopedia, and more like a cross between a chess game and a multi-player online role-playing game.

Thanks for the post. We at Wikipedia Review (http://www.wikipediareview.com/) work hard to try to expose the corruption of Wikipedia. You should also look at Wikitruth (http://www.wikitruth.info/) as another prominent site (with slightly different aims) that is trying to demonstrate the truth of Wikipedia. If you studied further, you would see much more evidence of much more serious issues. We haven’t really discussed Durova much as yet, but your article may lead to more discussion. We have, however, discussed SlimVirgin to a considerable degree. It really is an eye-opener once you realise that Wikipedia is less than perfect.

By Blissyu2, at 12:22 PM

“If you and other cabal-like administrators keep banning your opponents, one by one, from the community, it is no wonder that these lopsided “votes” appear to show consensus support.”