?

Log in

entries friends calendar profile Next Next
Parker Peters
In keeping with Lesson #2, one of the first lessons that someone who wants to tilt a wikipedia article should learn is to organize with like-minded editors.

Wikipedia has a love affair with the word "consensus." In the mind of Jimbo Wales, or other wikipedians too blind to see the flaws of the system, "consensus" is a wonderful thing, involving a group of editors getting together, deciding mutually what the facts are, and then writing an article around them.

What Wales and his cohorts fail to realize is the twofold nature of this problem.

First of all, the idea of "consensus" is thrown under the bus as soon as an organized group shows up trying to push their own point of view. Wikipedia's seen this countless times; we have Arab/Muslim groups ("The Muslim Guild", "The Sunni Guild", "The Shi'a Guild", etc). For a time there were groups opposing these Muslim POV-pushing groups, but they became outnumbered and were destroyed using the time-honored techniques mentioned in Lessons 1 and 2.

Likewise, we have groups who have "ownership" issues on articles regarding Scientology, though they are a tad more secretive about their personal connections. We have groups involving conflicts on such mundane items as Pokemon and kitsch '80s toys, groups that push POV regarding religion in general, groups that push POV regarding terminology for transvestites and "transsexuals", and just about any other possible conflict you can think of.

Second of all, once a "consensus" has resulted, the group who formed "consensus" have just formed the ties of an organized group dedicated to "owning" that page. Anyone who comes in and corrects the information, or adds something new that contradicts the "consensus" - even if sourced - is going to be attacked for "violating consensus." Thus, even for articles that aren't targets of deliberate POV-pushing by groups like the Muslim Guild or pro-Pedophilia groups or the Scientologists or one of a hundred other organized groups that try to own whole article categories, chances are an article of any size has an organized group ready to beat down anyone who disagrees with their groupthink.

The methodology of these groups falls into a definable and easy to observe pattern:

#1 - Organize. It's fairly easy for these groups to set up an off-wiki email list or meeting place "just for themselves", in which marching orders can be given. Not wanting to believe that people would behave in this manner, Wales & Co. remain blissfully, deliberately clueless to this. The best term for it is "deliberate ignorance." They don't know, because they don't want to know.

#2 - Destroy your enemies. There are four main tactics used here.

First tactic: The dreaded 3RR. Ostensibly, this was created as a rule to stop "edit wars" - people continually changing something back and forth. Wikipedia's own blocking policy, meanwhile, says that "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited." 3RR is simply a method by which large, organized POV-pushing groups can sidestep this arrangement, having their pocketed administrators wait until a "3RR violation" has occurred and then blocking the "offender" for an absurdly long time in order to gain an advantage on the page.

Second tactic: They'll violate the rules (See Lesson 2). Certain members of the group will be delegated to "attack" the individual, while others are delegated to claim to be "neutral" and "fair." In reality, they're working together; the goal is to have the attackers rile up and insult the person they are attacking, and then have the "neutral" ones report them for "disruption" or "personal attacks", while conveniently not reporting their own friend's violations of same, and then again their pocketed admin has "cause" to use the blocking tool and gain an advantage in the content dispute.

Third tactic: Accuse the other side of Sock Puppetry. As in most cases, it's the claim that's important, and not the end result; Wikipedia also has prohibitions on Meat Puppetry (asking friends to register and join in), and this IS precisely what the POV groups on wikipedia do, but they are given a "pass" again because they have pocketed administrators among their number. The presence of the "CheckUser" tool, some admins will claim, is able to "detect" or "clear" someone from sockpuppetry accusations. It's supposed to give back an unambiguous result: Yes or No.

To this tool, however, administrators friendly with POV-pushing groups have added a new response: "Possible." This means that CheckUser came back negative, the edits were made with completely different IP addresses and the tool should have cleared the user, but the admin wants the user(s) in question destroyed anyways, and sees nothing wrong with lying about the result. You'll undoubtedly see this response a lot more in the time coming ahead, now that the POV-pushing groups and their pocketed admins have figured out that they can get away with it.

And since CheckUser results are "secret evidence" that will never be given out, indeed they can lie quite freely about it, as only a few people have CheckUser access and they are all Administrators, part of the Cult of Adminship and quite chummy with each other.

Fourth tactic: Lie, lie, and lie some more.

One instance of this happened in the case of a user by the name of RunedChozo, who had a run-in with the Muslim Guild, over a page on Mohammed.

The first salvos were as expected - attempts to trick RC into 3RR violations, verbal attacks, etc.

Then came the lies. Muslim Guild member Itaqallah started leaving falsified edit summaries:
Claiming the edit had no source, which was a clear lie.
Claiming the subject had been discussed, which was clearly false.
Wikipedia's administrator response? RunedChozo's edit summary, pointing out the blatant lie, was a "blockable personal attack" upon Itaqallah.

When RunedChozo reported the behavior to the Administrators' Noticeboard, the response was... attack RunedChozo. What happened next, maintained in posterity for all to see (though certain items were deleted by "friendly" admins from the history, and the rest is now flushed in "archiving" to destroy the evidence of its happening) was disgusting.

FayssalF/Svest claimed RunedChozo had "5 blocks w/in 1 month." This was entirely false, not to mention misleading, and I'll take you through it:

Block #1 - a good faith effort to move a page to neutral wording, blocked by administrator Aecis.
Block #2 - Blocked by William M. Connelly, for "indefinite" time, for a 3RR violation.
Block #2A - William rightly reduces this to 24 hours, fixing his own mistake. This is what Svest calls "Block #3."
Actual Block #3 - "Future Perfect at Sunrise" - a friend of Itaqallah - blocks RunedChozo on behalf of the Muslim Guild again. No 3RR or violation has actually occurred, but Future Perfect feels he is justified in placing a 72-hour long block, well outside Wikipedia blocking policy.
Actual Block #4 - Connelly blocks yet again, after another 3RR violation is provoked.

The rest of the page is just Tariqajbotu and friends playing games, "lengthening" the block based upon unproven statements made while RC was blocked. The sort of piling-on abuse all too common for Wikipedia administrators, but that's no surprise.

Emails to the wikipedia en-l list? Just as disgusting. RunedChozo was accused of "trolling" and personally attacked time and again.

Later on in an email exchange, I caught Tariqajbotu lying some more; first he tried to claim that he was really in disagreement with the sources (which makes it a content dispute), then he tried to attack the sources even when confronted with corroborating sources, including public statements by modern Muslim leaders. Finally, he lied and claimed that RunedChozo was the only person supporting such additions (he wasn't) and he lied and claimed that two other people opposed to the Muslim Guild behavior didn't ever revert to put RunedChozo's edit back up (they did). The full text of the exchange can be found Archived at Nabble, and the most interesting thing about it? After the exchange, after Tariqajbotu and Itaqallah and FayssalF/Svest were caught, all three, lying, the response of Wikipedia's administrators and the Arbitration Committee was... dead silence.

You see, they'd managed to put RunedChozo on "moderation", and blocked him permanently it seems from Wikipedia, and instead of addressing a real problem of base, untrue behavior by the Muslim Guild, they instead slapped each other on the back for "driving off a troll." This despite the fact that RunedChozo was in fact not a troll at all, but just another example of well-meaning people coming and trying to rectify severe bias problems in an article, only to be attacked by a POV-pushing group that insists they "own" the article in contradiction of Wikipedia's stated policies.

What was RunedChozo's mistake? That's right - he wasn't organized. He was one person, and even though other people supported his edits, they were perhaps more familiar with wikipedia, they knew how the system works, and even if they didn't, they know now: cross the Muslim Guild, or any of Wikipedia's organized POV-pushing groups, and they will abuse, attack, lie, cheat, and use every underhanded trick in the book to destroy you while the administrators look on and do absolutely nothing about it.

But even if he had been organized, the Muslim Guild has destroyed groups opposing their POV-pushing and gotten away with it before, and they'll no doubt do so again any time one comes up to oppose them.
2 comments or Leave a comment
The second technique with which a Wikipedia administrator or someone trying to push a certain point of view (or yes, even mere propaganda) is to find a wikipedia "policy" and use it as a bludgeon. I'm going to list a few here, I'll copy in what Wikipedia's "policy" page has to say in italics, and I'll go into the problems a little later, because for a new reader, understanding what the policies say will be important when I go over what they actually mean and how they work in practice, as opposed to the way hardcore wikipedians will claim they work.

The first is "Civility." Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia from working well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if need."

The second is "No Personal Attacks. Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse.

The third is "Don't Own Articles." You agreed to allow others to modify your work. So let them.

The fourth is Vandalism. Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. It is, and needs to be, removed from the encyclopedia.

Now, each of these sounds very nice on the outside. But here's how it works in practice:

Step #1: a new, or even semi-new, wikipedian arrives at a page which certain individuals want to maintain personal control of (in violation of "Ownership"). They make changes.
Step #2: the changes are changed back.
Step #3: the new user on the scene changes it back, because it's wrong, or inaccurate, or violates the Neutral Point of View policy, or any other reason.

Step 4: things escalate. Those who want to own the article will continue edit warring, and will likely start calling the new editor names. Terms like "Troll" will be flung around, and those who think they own the article will start complaining to Their Friend the Admin and leaving threats to have the new editor blocked.

Many times, they will also describe the new editor's changes as "vandalism", even though the extended Vandalism policy describes this as a "content dispute."

Throughout this, Wikipedia's administrators will pay no heed to Wikipedia's own policies. No attempt to deal fairly with the situation will result. No attempt to examine the content of the edits made by the newcomer will happen. Attempts to point out that those trying to "own" the article will be met with accusations of "wikilawyering", more accusations that the newcomer is a "troll" or other personal attacks (against the policy requiring No Personal Attacks, but administrators aren't subject to policy anyways, and their friends aren't either).

Eventually, the newcomer will be blocked (likely in violation of the blocking policy: again, the rules don't apply to admins or their friends) and "peace" will be restored as the "owners" of the article take control once more.

The behaviors I mentioned in Lesson #1 will, of course, be excecuted to the fullest by the "owners" and their administrator friends.

Eventually, an email to the wikipedia english-language mailing list may result. Without fail, such an email will be responded to not with an examination of the case at hand, but with out-of-hand platitudes about various "rules" and "procedures" that the newcomer didn't follow. The underlying phrase, left unsaid but paraphrased a dozen ways, is "you didn't genuflect deep enough for an admin to help you."

If a wikipedia administrator's conduct is questioned? "You don't get anywhere by attacking an admin." Not even if they were in the wrong. The dirty secret of Wikipedia adminship is that it's a cult, a good old boy's network, a masonic society of sorts.

Administrators will stand up for administrators, no matter what, because they want the others to stand up for them when they decide to protect their "owned" article(s) from some newcomer trying to improve or change them.

Likewise, if there is a factual inaccuracy or something that the "owner" keeps inserting? Don't you dare call them a liar. In fact, any statement that they are trying to push something unfactual, even with proof, trips over the "civility" and "no personal attacks" clause - again, nevermind that the "owner" has probably called the newcomer a "troll" or accused them falsely of "vandalism" or a hundred other "personal attacks", it's just one more tool for the cult of adminship to beat up on a newcomer.

And so the status quo will be preserved. A bad article will not be improved, a newcomer will be driven away, and likely not contribute to Wikipedia in any other way. And the attacker and admin who are in the wrong, no matter what wikipedia policies they have broken, will never face the slightest censure for breaking the rules.
3 comments or Leave a comment
The first technique by which Wikipedia administrators abuse others and justify their actions is simple, and time-honored by corrupt regimes around the globe: they change the past.

Oh, they don't really change the past. But they certainly misrepresent it, deliberately misinterpret and lie about it. And the worst of all is that a wikipedia administrator has the power to actually delete things from wikipedia, despite founder Jimbo Wales' claims that one reason administrators can be kept under control because "all edits are logged."

Yes, they are logged, but once something is deleted, the content is un-seeable to all but a handful of people. This means that a normal user trying to defend themselves against an administrator who's abusing them has no chance in hell of using "deleted" content in their defense.

The content can even be edited, and the old version deleted, to make it appear that someone has said something inflammatory, disruptive, or just the complete opposite of what they actually said.

Wikipedia maintains a number of pages meant to justify behavior like this, as well.

For example, there's this hit list. The "List of Banned Users", or so it states.

The justifications given for the bans of some of these users are correct, but for others users, they are complete bullshit, which were imagined "after the fact" in order to justify previous abuse of the users.

This doesn't extend to just talk pages, though.

If you've ever looked a the edit history of the talk page for a blocked user or IP, chances are there are "holes" in the edits; changes made that have no record, or two sequential edits by the blocking administrator or one of his friends that have zero difference. Ordinarily, the wikipedia software is designed to "throw out" identical changes; if you don't actually edit, but just hit the edit button and then the save changes button, the software detects "no change" and throws it out.

However, there's one exception to this rule: when the intervening edit was deleted later. In these cases, you can be guaranteed that the admin or friend in question was abusing the user, and that they've deleted a complaint the user tried to file about their conduct.

Don't trust the history of Wikipedia, ever. Even founder Jimbo Wales has been rewriting history; when the project was founded, he had no problem with one Larry Sanger being regarded as a "co-founder" of the project, but now that Mr. Sanger has left to try to found a version of Wikipedia that he thinks will work better than the corrupt Wikipedia administration way, Jimbo's trying to have him written out of Wikipedia's history books.
9 comments or Leave a comment
Greetings to any and all who come to this blog.

What is the purpose of this blog? Simple. The purpose of this blog is to expose and explain why it is that wikipedia is a failed system. Anyone coming here likely has tried to make a correction to wikipedia, only to see a legion of inept but too-powerful Keystone Kops (also known as "administrators") turn them back, harass them, and then ban then from trying to contribute. Wikipedia's obsessive-compulsive fan base will claim this situation is far from normal, but it is in fact the norm for interactions within Wikipedia.

"Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Wikipedia's administrators wield near-absolute power to abuse other users, and they will make use of this in the most corrupt ways possible.

Posts after this one will focus on the various techniques with which administrators can harass and abuse users, and the cliques, cabal behavior, and other ways in which wikipedia's administrators justify their corruption to themselves. The goal is to leave a record of how wikipedia is corrupt outside of the boundaries within which Wikipedia administrators themselves have control.

Why does it need to be completely outside of wikipedia's control? By necessity; the first post will follow momentarily.
Leave a comment