?

Log in

entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Hiding the truth - Part Deux... - Parker Peters
parkerpeters
Hiding the truth - Part Deux...
When I pulled up my email this morning, I found a delightful "comment" to this journal waiting:


If only it was your arms in casts instead. That way you wouldn't be able to send so much drivel to the mailing list. Oh wait! You've been banned. So it doesn't matter, then. Ta ta, loser.

The IP address trace indicates it's someone who is in England. I suspect one David Gerard. Why do I suspect him?

The IP address on the post is 81.149.176.190.
Geobytes shows it being in London.

RIPE Whois shows it as being an ADSL British Telecom line, which is what David uses.

However, the "you've been banned" is accurate. They have banned my email account from contributing any emails to the list.

David Gerard also made a false accusation - something the power-mad jerk commonly does - about me being someone else. How they go about piling on to people is quite something.

What do they consider "not making any positive contributions"?

How about this?

Or this?

Or this?

Here, however, is why David and his patsies wanted me banned: I actually exposed, step by step, the behavior of some of his flunkies.

And this is why Wikipedia will fail. Because power-mad, insane people like David Gerard are in charge, and have no intention of building an encyclopedia, just trying to consolidate what power they can.

I had earlier been posting with no problem - REALLY interacting with people to show how the system is broken, and "experienced wikipedians" make enemies of newbies all the time, enemies that either don't contribute - and verbally slag Wikipedia whenever they can - or worse, turn into vandals who do bad to wikipedia just for the fun of it.

Why did they decide now was the time to enact a "ban"? The only thing I can think of is that my analysis of admin malfeasance - and my exposure of the CheckUser results that cabal member JPGordon lied about - came too close to home, and they're running scared. Trying to shut me up was their first step.

Don't worry. I can still see everything they do. They're running around trying to figure out my sources right now, conducting their own internal Kristallnacht.
8 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
bamapachyderm From: bamapachyderm Date: February 24th, 2007 07:28 am (UTC) (Link)

Wikipedia sucks

UGH. I'm glad I found your blog. I tried to get into Wikipedia several months ago, and just like you've said here, I was basically outshouted by the ridiculously agenda-driven editors and admins. I gave up because there's not enough time in the world to fight all those battles--and I had only begun with about five articles. I had to quit looking at anything that related to politics/history/religion/war because there isn't ONE single neutral article there. I even had one jackass track down my blog and QUOTE posts in the talk pages to accuse me of having bias. Hell, we ALL have bias, but we don't all put it in Wikipedia! That's one thing they don't understand at all (projection, I assume). They're a bunch of dishonest, narrow-minded fascists over there.

It's no accident that the George W. Bush page is the most heavily vandalized and edited page there, nor is it an accident that the 9/11 conspiracy page is longer than the actual 9/11 page. WP is a conspiracy theorists' dream come true. And look at the pages for liberal public figures--they're all gushing with praise, but conservatives are routinely trashed and ALL have the obnoxious "controversy" or "critics" section. Some even have blatantly libelous accusations in the articles, and there's NO winning the argument against false/unproven/opinion-based statements. It's a joke.

Ever notice that the only people who quote Wikipedia as a "source" when they write on blogs are left-wingers and Muslims? They write Wikipedia, and then they quote it. Alex Jones, Indymedia, Common Dreams, Kos--they're all considered "reliable sources," but DARE to use the National Review as a source and it's immediately edited out.

Wikipedia SUCKS. It's the lazy man's talking-points cheat sheet. And it's a damn shame, because there are good things in WP--just NOT anything that could possibly be the subject of argument. I learned quickly not to read any article there without checking the talk pages to get the REAL story.
From: (Anonymous) Date: February 24th, 2007 03:57 pm (UTC) (Link)

Glad to see this getting some press!

Parker, I'm glad to see that these issues aren't simply being swept under the rug. The Digg coverage should certainly help to get the word out, about this unacceptable situation that many of us have known about, but have been powerless to rectify.

(Insert witty quote here about power and corrupting)
commanderd From: commanderd Date: February 24th, 2007 07:57 pm (UTC) (Link)
I have been reading through your stuff and I am really shocked about what goes on over at wikipedia.

I think the next time someone cites Wiki as a 'reliable source' on my debate forums I will laugh and laugh.
sumdumfu From: sumdumfu Date: February 24th, 2007 10:44 pm (UTC) (Link)
wow. 'tis a sad, sad tail you weave. i came here from a link on BluesNews.com, not knowing wikipedia was all that. i used to obsessively read wikipedia for anything interesting i wanted to know more about. now, knowing how the truth is among the least of their concerns, i don't think i will anymore. it has less to do with their behavior and more with said truth. if all that you allege does go on, it makes it far far too likely that i've read something that probably wasn't true that was allowed to stay because of some ulterior motive.

so what's the link to the site that the other founder of wikipedia started?

all i can say about people like this is that the nerd/geek set (and lets be honest, thats probably what most wikipedia admins are) are a seriously vindictive, hyper-reactive bunch. i experienced this myself when i tried to join an LJ community called the Hot Nerds. I made a joke for my first post that a bunch of them misconstrued as an attitude, and from there on i faced an uphill battle to join. i even got one of them to admit that strictly speaking, i did fit their definition of 'nerd', but that she just didn't like me from my first post, and so grasped at straws to kick me out. she said she'd been kicked out of communities before for not judging based on set criteria, after which i'd had enough and never came back.

in highsight i think i should have left one final message saying, "well then your opinions are completely invalid because it can never be certain they're based on criteria at hand." turns out i made it in, but i was so burned out by the process i never looked at nerds and geeks the same way again. i was proud to be one after i learned to accept it was who i was, but after that i'm generally leary around them. i think it comes from their experiences growing up; never accepted socially, ostracized and ridiculed for who they are, so they defend to the death the place they finally can feel they belong, truth be damned.
From: (Anonymous) Date: February 24th, 2007 11:10 pm (UTC) (Link)

You're not the only one who thinks that

You're not the only one who thinks Wikipedia has been overrun by power-tripping megalomaniacs who are more interested in expanding their empire than getting actual work done.

Fortunately, there's an alternative.

For several months, I and a few other individuals have been working on Opencycle, an encyclopedia that aims to fix the problems that have plagued Wikipedia's community. How do we do that?

Easy.

First, on Opencycle, administrators serve at the sufferance of, and are directly accountable to, the community at large. If an administrator does something that pisses everyone off, then within a week he can be removed from power.

Second, we promote a culture that encourages people to "only worry about what matters." This is done by abandoning the pretentiousness that pervades Wikipedia--because pretentiousness gives power-trippers an excuse to run amok, by allowing them to say that they are just acting to protect the "high ideals".

We have other ways, too. Come to http://opencycle.vacommunity.net and check out what we have. Maybe you'll like it.
From: (Anonymous) Date: February 26th, 2007 07:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
Although somewhat unrelated, I find it amusing that the Wikipedia policies and it's administration is coming under a great deal of public scrutiny lately.

http://www.slate.com/id/2160222

From: useyourmachine Date: February 26th, 2007 07:39 pm (UTC) (Link)
From: Luna <lunasantin@gmail.com>
Subject: Important notice -- please confirm your unblock-en-l subscription
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:52:37 -0800
--------
Dear unblock-en-l subscriber,

We've recently decided to establish some membership criteria for this
mailing list, and are in the process of removing subscriptions which do not
meet those criteria. In particular, we need to associate your email address
with a particular Wikipedia account or identity. In order to do that,
please click on this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Prodego

PLEASE use "unblock-en-l identification" as your subject heading, to allow
faster processing of your email.

Do not email the user directly -- you MUST use the Special:Emailuser
feature, or your identity will not be confirmed.

If you have not replied to this message within one week, your subscription
will be cancelled. You can request to re-join the list at any time. We
apologize for this inconvenience, but hope that you understand the need for
privacy and security, given the sensitive personal information that is
sometimes discussed on this mailing list.

Thank you,
-Luna
--------
I don't believe it.
Luna, Prodego, Mindspillage( Kat Walsh ) and/or essjay are abusing
sockpuppets ?
From: parkerpeters Date: February 28th, 2007 06:45 pm (UTC) (Link)

The more likely option

I revealed to them a while ago that I was monitoring that list.

They don't want to be monitored. This "purge" is to hide any analysis of their rubber-stamping conduct.
8 comments or Leave a comment