Why I really hate Wikipedia administrators

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

No admins

This post is part of a three-part series on the grievous deficiencies of Wikipedia administrators.

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.

And here’s another thing to think about… it seems that blocking should be used as a last resort, not a first option. Apparently admins only respect that when they want to. Another example of how Wikipedia’s “government” has gone to the dogs.

85 thoughts on “Why I really hate Wikipedia administrators”

  1. OK…. I have been involved with Wikipedia for over 8 years now.

    Let me just say that up until about 5 year ago (or so) Wikipedia was such an amazing place full of amazing information (freely flowing) and amazing people. All those people have since left. What has happened is a well coordinated takeover of the site by the Christian Right. Also just right wingers and just Christian types in general. They band together and roam on their witch hunts. They rarely contribute anything useful to the community themselves but instead spend all their time judging other peoples actions, obsessing, stalking, etc… Honestly, I don’t feel like typing up much anymore. But trust me, this isn’t some coincidence that happened over night, this is a long process and what you are seeing in wiki these days is a result of a WELL COORDINATED AND PLANNED EFFORT… These people had an agenda all along and they are only there to push that agenda. It’s crazy to say this, but most of en.wiki (because all the languages are different and have their own unique issues) is literally a hotbed of right wing propaganda these days… yes you heard right, Wikipedia has right slant in 2012. Welcome to reality.

    I have been banned for editing my own user page. All my other edits were constructive. I made edits to MY OWN page that a bunch of Christians didn’t like.. so they banded together, ganged up on and attack me as a group. They came to MY page and reverted it.. they took control of my page and if I changed it to my liking (nothing offensive even) … I Was eventually banned for “disruptive editing”

    Now tell me, how can editing my own page be disruptive to anyone? Want proof, I’d be more than happy to post links documenting the whole ordeal, although the one admin actually took the time to go in and delete the record of my revisions (to cover up the fact that I did nothing wrong)

    1. Permanently blocked for an edit to my own use page that someone didn’t like… no warning, no talk. They just came and started vandalizing my page, claiming the way I liked it was the vandalism.. I was banned for reverting their edits to my own page. I put in one appeal which was immediate denied. The group of people who ganged up on my were still talking about me several days later on their pages and IRC.

  2. The real question is why would anyone give a fuck. A mature person knows wikipedia is good for some things and completely biased and run by the admins on other things. A mature person also does not waste a second of his life giving a fuck about this. The stupid fools who admin this site are nothing but lifeless geeks and neckbearded basement dwellers.

  3. Completely 100%. I’ve made legitimate edits (tried to do one right now) but because I use a VPN I’m blocked.

  4. Enlightening article and comments. I have been a naive admirer of Wikipedia, based on my not having the unfortunate experiences of deathgleaner. The dozen or so articles I edited over the years have not been arbitrarily removed, but some have been superseded by makeovers that included a higher standard. An example was the early Fingerprinting article that was dominated by non scientific experts that must have sent a slew of innocent people up the river. I fought them, brought in new real experts and eventually prevailed.

    While I never had an adverse reaction by an administrator, I did have running issues on the article on Presidential Oath of Office, where my observations of the words of the prompting of Obama, even though describing what is on the record, was not from a publication, and my conclusions were a breach of NPV.

    This has been shocking, as my avowed belief that Wikipedia was pristine, that it had avoided the type of power abuse that exists in any comparable institution is now burst. This monumental achievement is flawed in a way that targeted individuals can feel justifiably angry. There are authorities that abuse their power. Wikipedia is just like every other highly complex structured organization.

    And there probably isn’t an Easter Bunny either.


  5. Wikipedai sucks. Wikipedia states that it has entries from people, group and companies but those groups or employees of those companies cannot post or edit entries relating to them.
    I noticed Shaadi dot com entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaadi.com
    Looking at the revision history even a high schooler can figure out it is being constantly edited by company employees and its SEO agents. When I tried to add an external link to it, I was banned. Is it not discrimination or a nonsense from Wiipedia admins who have no clue what they are doing???? Here is the revision history from Wikipedia

    (cur | prev) 10:53, 4 July 2012‎ Seoamitverma14(talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,755 bytes) (-61)‎ . . (→‎External links) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 10:52, 4 July 2012‎ Seoamitverma14(talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,816 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎External links) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 10:51, 4 July 2012‎ Seoamitverma14(talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,816 bytes) (+128)‎ . . (→‎External links) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 09:28, 4 July 2012‎ Seoamitverma14(talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,688 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (→‎External links) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 09:28, 4 July 2012‎ Seoamitverma14(talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,692 bytes) (+58)‎ . . (→‎External links) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 06:26, 7 June 2012‎‎ . . (7,634 bytes) (+4,830)‎ . . (undo)
    (cur | prev) 08:52, 7 April 2012‎ Mean as custard(talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,804 bytes) (-1,462)‎ . . (revert to less blatantly promotional version) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 07:02, 3 April 2012‎ People Interactive(talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,266 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (undo)
    (cur | prev) 07:01, 3 April 2012‎ People Interactive(talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,263 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (undo)
    (cur | prev) 06:59, 3 April 2012‎ People Interactive(talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,207 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (undo)
    (cur | prev) 06:58, 3 April 2012‎ People Interactive(talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,206 bytes) (+393)‎ . . (undo)
    (cur | prev) 06:56, 3 April 2012‎ People Interactive(talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,813 bytes) (+99)‎ . . (undo)
    (cur | prev) 06:48, 3 April 2012‎ People Interactive(talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,714 bytes) (-26)‎ . . (undo)
    (cur | prev) 06:47, 3 April 2012‎ People Interactive(talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,740 bytes) (+835)‎ . . (undo)
    (cur | prev) 06:44, 3 April 2012‎‎ . . (2,905 bytes) (+101)‎ . . (→‎External links) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 06:45, 9 March 2012‎ Rahulmothiya(talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,804 bytes) (0)‎ . . (link update) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 07:51, 19 January 2012‎ Ankit Maity(talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,804 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (undo)

  6. Hi there. We’ve made a video about Wikipedia Administrators and although we’re sure it’s highly inaccurate – we hope it puts a smile on your face. Take a look if you’re not too busy! http://youtu.be/hrDxT2XGDRo

    -Thanks, and sorry to bother you.

  7. Being an admin on the English Wikipedia, and knowing first hand what goes on around the site, I couldn’t agree more with you.

  8. I just tried to create a page. It was deleted in less than a minute. So I used the formatting of a very similar page and replaced the text with the text for my content. It got deleted in less than a minute along with a crack about no notability. So I pointed out that my content had as many third-party links that all worked as did the page I used as a format and THAT page’s third-party links were all broken and they allowed that page to stay up so why not mine?

    I was blocked for 24 hours. Protested the block and got the block extended to a full week and can’t even post on my talk page.

    Gotta love the iron fist way of doing business.

  9. The question is really “What are we going to do about this out-of-control Wikipedia?”

    How do we hurt it and get it’s billions of dollar enterprise?

    One way is to stop google or other search engines from finding it’s articles by inserting this simple phrase at the end of your searches:


    e.g. “terrorism on wikipedia -wikipedia”

    People remember when evey search turned up dead ebay pages? This worked for that and eventually google took the ebay paes out of the results. It was ruining google’s results.

    Experiences I have with wikipedia show that articles, I have subject knowledge of, contain bad misinformation in them, If you cannot trust it why buy their product?

    Keep up the good work. Anti-wikipedia websites are spinging up everywhere!

    The people can speak loudly with their voices! (did you know that wikipedia bans the links to these websites?)

  10. I’ve started a wiki dedicated to exposing the corruption of Wikipedia administrators. Would it be OK if I copy your statements onto the wiki as evidence of administrative abuse?

    1. You are more than welcome to! However, please be sure to link back to this page and mention my username in the copied statements.

  11. To all those picking on deathgleaner, how do you explain all the other comments on this thread denouncing WP admins as abusive? Add me to te list.

    After believing in the WP ideal for five years and scrupulously adhering to all policies, I accomplished quite a lot. I am most proud of having kept neutral an article on The politics of Israel and Palestine. The POV flag was inserted countless times but I patiently discussed and made modifications to satisfy everyone. Then two of a new breed of editors ganged up on me. Wthin two months, I was dragged five times through notice boards and arbcoms. Admin EdJohnston suspended me for two months. I appealed. Jen of the Leaves upheld my suspension. That day, i stopped being a Wikipedian.

    Wikipedia started as a beautiful experiment in freedom but is now a totalitarian bureaucracy. Like many on this thread, i agree that “anyone can edit” as long as you are an admin.

    WP admins have turned

  12. Wikipedia is getting out of control. With its structure, or lack of structure, control and leadership, it becomes an entity which is “managed” despotically by some “administrators”, whom god knows what personal agendas have, but in my opinion it is disturbing; double-standard all the time, they always enforce their point of view, based on one of many Wikipedia principles, but on the next page/article they brake exactly the same principle, because…they find a reason, or if not they just don’t give any reason to enforce their way, or if you are too loud, they label you vandal, abuser, etc and they block you. It is like in communism or other extreme dictatorship. I am wondering if there is a way to put together more voices and close this project, which started nicely but which is spiraling down to something very ugly.

    My personal experience with them is related to http://www.softpedia.com. They keep the article up even if 3 years ago they proposed it for deletion (lack of verificable, third party sources). After I got (and not just me) a virus from a program taken from softpedia, I got involved with wikipedia, trying to persuade them or to take out the passage in which softpedia was saying that they verify for viruses all their programs, or to leave a section where some other people and I were warning users that they can get infected with viruses/malware from softedia downloads. After more than a month, wiki put for 2nd time the page out for deletion, but in the meantime, when I gave them other verifiable sourses they still don’t accept them and they blocked me in the end. I am so tired and fed up with them.

  13. They were recently three articles on Wikipedia about me and my radio station, and within the space of a week, they were all proposed for deletion.

    As I thought the articles were being vandalised, I immediately reverted them, and restored them. Within two minutes, I already got the admin AussieLegend banning me, I had to create another account to explain the situation, I was banned again, because he had a disagreement on the Sydney talk page. At this point I had to create a third account, in which a sockpuppet investigation was opened on me, and because I was repairing the articles about my self, there was also a Conflict of Interest ban thrown at me.

    An ANI case was opened against me, I was now getting concerned about getting harassed. I then informed Wikipedia abuse center about the users AussieLegend and Bidgee. As I’ve got asperger syndrome, I had to sort assistance on the wrong planet website for getting help. Then one of these drunk morans wrote this about me.

    “I wouldn’t characterise the original post at wrongplanet by xxxxxxxxx as whining. In the circumstances, I would characterise it as a particularly nasty form of off-wiki stealth canvassing – asking if anyone is a Wikipedia admin so that they can ban another editor with whom he had a dispute. –Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)”

    So now Demiurge1000, AussieLegend, and Bidgee all ganging up on me like a sick pack of rats, I was now faced with one of them calling me a drunk driver.

    “I’m with AussieLegend, your behaviour has nothing to do with Aspergers or the visual impairment. I have seen those with Aspergers live a normal life and not use “it wasn’t my fault, my finger did it” excuses. It is almost as bad as someone drink driving and blaming someone else because they had a drink too many. You and only you, is responsible for your own actions. No this discussion isn’t turning in to a “flame war” (personal attacking) it is about your behaviour on Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)”

    ……and hows this for the ultimate in cyberbullying, this AussieLegend is a total nutcase that needs his head sorted out.

    ” Where exactly did you get this “official” callsign from? As I explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XXX FM,[86] in Australia callsigns are allocated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and a check of the publicly accessible registers don’t show you as a client, or a registration for XXX. The “FM” component of the callsign is grossly misleading as “FM” is reserved for radio stations that transmit in the FM broadcast band using frequency modulation, which is certainly not the case with XXX FM, which web-casts over the internet using digitised audio. You would never be issued XXX FM by the ACMA.
    I think you should read the discussion at Talk:Sydney again. You immediately went on the defensiveoffensive when I suggested that the reason Bidgee reverted your edit was that XXX FM is not notable, suggesting that he was from an opposing media group and complaining about “stroppy deletionists that want to assert their authority” In response to your claim that newspaper articles established notability I said “It’s not hard to get newspaper article coverage, significant coverage is a different issue. AM/FM radio stations are real radio stations; anyone can start an internet radio station. It’s really no different to setting up a webcam. We don’t call people using webcams TV stations.” You did not receive harrassing messages on your talk page, as you claimed at the sockpuppet investigation. The messages were as a result of you failing to assume good faith and for the personal attacks that you made, calling other editors ignorant and fools. And then there was deleting the entire discussion. After you created xxxxxxxx you started making some WP:POINTy edits to 101.7 WSFM, including copying and pasting the AfD notice from XXX FM into that article, not once, but three times, despite edit summaries making it clear that the notice was not applicable to that article and a post on your talk page. (Should I mention that your response to that request was to make a false AIV complaint? ) Eventually I had to bring the matter here. After disappearing for a few days your first and only edit before today was to delete the AfD notice from XXX FM. So, we have an SPA editor making COI edits, failing to assume good faith, making personal attacks, WP:POINTy edits, edit warring, false AIV reports, vandalism and sockpuppetry, and recreating a deleted article. If you weren’t visually impaired with Asperger’s syndrome, I suspect you wouldn’t even be able to contribute to this discussion. –AussieLegend (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)”

    In the end, these admins should have their hands and legs cut off at the ghettos, and hung to the death for being such a disgrace. They should be an FBI investigation into Wikipedia for serious CYBERBULLYING offences, and even public mischief.

  14. Here’s an administrator who spends his entire life blocking people:


    I created Wikipedia articles and then a few minutes later he deleted my articles, deleted everything I ever created on Wikipedia, and then blocked me indefinitely.

    He is definitely a Wikipedia dictator.

    1. Ditto to Ztfo’s comment. I was relatively unwary of the recent changes that’d happened in the past years, so when I finally thought to join up and contribute something myself, and after making a few to-the-point edits and two articles, it didn’t take long till DragonflySixtyseven flew about like the Stasi and laid waste to everything. I decided then and there that I won’t waste another minute in that dystopian setting. Heh. And I thought Dramatica was bad.





    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:

    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:
    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
    “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.”
    revert of the same IP , 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/

  16. What’s with admin spam? Some wikipedia fuc*tard found this page and immediately mobilised only friends he ever had and always will (of course he never met them in real life because he never goes out from his mother’s basement).

    deathgleaner, trust me, most of the world agrees with you. As you can see, only people who disagree with you are the ONLY so-called ”wikipedia respected contributiors” aka administrators.
    Comments of wikipedia administrators above are just proving everything that is written in your posts.

    Wikipedia-everyone can edit it-as long as you:
    1.are an administrator
    2. have no life and spend at least 12 hours on wikipedia
    3. are brainwashed, have one-sided view on everything and will not change it for anything, no matter how many contrary evidences are represented
    4. are hypocrite
    5. have double standarts

    Matt Ventura probably came out of George Bush ass-another perfect example of a totalitarian neo-nazi administrator who never heard anything about socialism outside of his beloved wikipedia and StormFront.
    Can’t you people realise that nobody:
    1. cares about your emo feeling
    2. asks for your opinion. you already have your neo-nazi control in your beloved wikipedia. So go troll yourself to death over there.

  17. Just remember that many of these admins have NO LIFE at all other than wikipedia and are usually without a spouse- just like the school bully becomes the cop. The school geek becomes the admin. Both insecure and immature idiots who think so much of themselves for devoting their lives to this (often) non-sense.

  18. I just hate Wikipedia because the research is so shoddy. They removed my page on the back of poor research, claiming I am not the associate editor of the HQ literary magazine – something I’ve been for 15 years! (The Editor, Kevin Bailey was best man at my wedding!); and they also claimed I’ve never judged the Poetry on the Lake competition – something I’ve done twice, in fact, as research on the web will clearly reveal! I sent them contact details so they could check this points. Did they bother? Did they buggery!

  19. Well english wiki is still kinda OK…kinda… You’re lucky dudes you never had anything to do with a lithuanian one. There admins are mostly teens or at the best ppl in their 20-ies… And they still think they’re absolutely right in any action they take…

    1. it would be polite to write english in an english blog… but then who can expect that from the wikipedia admin 😀

  20. 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’m pretty sure the internet is it’s own country. No rights here.

  21. After I was banded form Wikipedia, I wanted to tell every one not to use Wikipedia. The admin get a kick out of banning people. The adman’s who banded me for something I did not even due. When you try to add something you get a warning and if you due it agene or if you are in my case got an IP from some one else and due one thing they just ban you and make things up and just only listen to other admin’s and not the guest who is trying to appeal the ban. The only resion why people go to Wikipedia is because it shows up in Google or yahoo search results.

    1. you can write to some other admin that you have been banned wrongly, I guess there a special page in en wikipedia where you are allowed to edit, and can write a complaint. they are gonna review your case

    2. Ya Google needs to cut back on Wikipedia and put more reputable sites there. Wikipedia is a huge joke. It’s a game, not an encyclopedia. It’s not a good source of information, only entertainment for some people…

  22. There are many reasons why Wikipedia Sucks. Here are a few of them:

    First the thought of a website that everyone can contribute is a good thing, but when you have admins who make the site a communist site like Nazis that is when it is a bad thing.

    The majority of the admin(s) tag on what other admins say.

    Block people for a unreasonable length of time.
    Use only problems and/or issues from one or more years ago.

  23. they auck wikipedia administrators stink they just want to block because we did something wrong who cares? wikipedia adminstrators should be blocked from editing wikipedia!

    1. there are mistakes sometimes, if you do nothing about your block, it will not deal by itself, write a complaint to another admin.

  24. You are quite correct about administrator abuse. i was blocked by an admin with no discussion.

    After appealing I communicated with an admin who was courteous and after several emails he put me back on.

    Within 48 hours the original admin blocked me again in direct violation of another Wikipolicy of not reversing an appeal decision.

    If I am let back on this admin will be facing no sactions his abuse.

  25. Wikipedia is full of Nazis, nobody can edit anything except them.

    “The Encylodpedia that anyone can edit”

    Ya right, add “as long as you are an admin” at the end.

    1. Or say “…that anyone can edit, as long as it’s approved by administrators (which it probably won’t be)” or “..that anyone can edit (just kidding)” or just tell them the truth: “…that only ‘elite’ people can edit”.

  26. Voting multiple times in the FP in Commons is one of the biggest sins you can commit on Commons. It’s like sockpuppet voting in your own RfA. You don’t even need to read any policy page to know that isn’t acceptable.

    You have a tendency to be a little spammy, like the way you spammed this blog everywhere on Wikimedia..

    P.S. Your comment thing asks for “E-E-mail”.

    1. How is it a big sin? Is there any justification for that? Can’t those admins who watch Wikimedia Commons so vigilantly remove the votes quickly and simply? (Votes aren’t submitted by hand, they’re submitted online and thus can be removed as quickly as snap). And why is everyone making such a big deal of that?

      1. Despite your comments, I imagine admins would like to have a life outside watching for edits by vandals and rule-breakers.
        You not only broke the rules, you obviously did so knowingly, and you express no contrition over having done so (other than moaning over having gotten caught). It’s no surprise that a ton of bricks fell on you. You’re the one who tipped them over.

  27. This is a highly controversial post. Everyone so far is against me mostly because of the Wikimedia Commons issue, but what about Wikipedia? Wikisource? Clearly it’s the admins’ fault. Administrators only capitalized on me voting multiple times in the FP in Commons to ruin my reputation. I came to Wikipedia to make good edits after I found the site useful. Now these admins have turned against me. What do you think?

    ADDENDUM: Because of this post, my blog views have skyrockted (about 115+ views yesterday, and 80+ already today). I appreciate that people are reading this, even if all the comments are negative. I welcome your input as well, whatever you have to say, since this issue has nagged me for a while now.

  28. Let me get things straight:
    – you cheated (one man, one vote is an obvious enough rule)
    – you got caught
    – you are pissed about that
    What do admins have to do with that?

    You apparently also missed that Wikipedia is a private project. Thus the notion of freedom of speech is irrelevant. You have no more right to edit Wikipedia than you have to get printed in the New York Times.

    A piece of advice : next time, read the rules.

    1. Wikipedia is NOT a private project. It is very much open to the public and has nothing to do with the New York times. I’m pissed that I get blocked indefinitely for screwing up the vote. One month max should have been appropriate but no… those admins have to be so nosy as to get in your way. And four of them did in that case.

      1. Wikipedia is privately-funded and has no tie to any State. By definition it is a private project. Every bit as the NYT is. The fact that you have the *opportunity* to contribute does not entail the *right* to do so.

        Understatement will not help you either: you did not screw up a vote, you cheated. Deliberately and in full knowledge of doing so. Barring threats, it is as low as you can get on such a project. An account with such a past is for any practical purpose, burnt: each vote will have to be checked since the individual behind that has proven basically untruthworthy. Admins have other things to do than to play hide-and-seek with such people. Hence the decision to block.

        If you really want to contribute in earnest, you probably can do so by lying down a few month, and than ask for unblocking. Of course, this blog post and you failure at understanding that what you did was fundamentally wrong, not only according to the rules of the project by on any reasonable moral ground, is not helping your cause.

        1. You’re just saying this because you’re an admin. I have been unblocked from Commons, but it was an uphill struggle against those biased admins like you. Wikipedia is not a private project. It runs on generous donations from people (supposedly), and anyone can edit it. All the admins are for on Wikipedia are to take people down. That’s the only life they have.

          And of course, this example just goes to show how admins love to capitalize on one event to ruin a user’s reputation. If I “cheated” knowingly and mercilessly, than I would be a vandal, a page-blanker (as you said, cheaters are the lowest of the low), but I’m not. Just ONE incident and the admins are on you like magnets to a steel refrigerator.

          1. It should have occurred to you that I am admin only on the French-speaking Wikipedia, not on en: or Commons, where I am a lay contributor. So may we please have a civilized conversation without personnal attacks ? It would surprise you that most admins on fr: have fairly well-paid, full-time jobs. That’s precisely because they have other things to do that they deal bluntly with cheaters and vandals. As you experienced.

            As to the private status, you are still in the confusion I underlined between the idea that you *can* edit Wikipedia and that you have a *right* to do so. The rest of your argument is a common straw man that I will not even dignify with an answer.

  29. Seriously, what did you expect?

    Taking several accounts for voting on the FP you nominated?
    And now complaining to be blocked for that?

    For the rest of your actions on Wikipedia, I don’t know and won’t comment, but for the commons part, it’s clearly your own fault.

    1. Regarding Matt Ventura’s comment, Matt compares Wikipedia to the united states. I realized my voting actions were wrong, but no one gets arrested (blocked) for life just for screwing up five votes. And don’t try to trick me, your another one of those evil admins on Wikipedia, I know.

  30. Thank you for this post.

    As a French Wikipédia and Wikimedia Commons administrator, I found it very funny

    Your disclaimer makes your post like a personnal attack against the only administrators who blocked you, as for any other “f you don’t know me on Wikipedia or you’ve been nice, this does not apply to you.”.

    Note from Deathgleaner- Disclaimer changed; sorry for being too specific

    So much powers in few sysops!

    – – –

    More seriously:

    There is no secret tools but two set of public ones:
    * tools to allow a team of volunteer (sysop or nope) to review in real time contributions ;
    * tools to check contributions on all wiki, like http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Dereckson (or the check usage tab on a picture?).

    Now when I read your problems, the administrators reaction and what you expose on your post, I’m aware Wikipedia is a very complicated world to apprehend.

    Maybe should you open your own site to publish what you want without any external interference?

    – – –

    About your “freedom of speech”, you’re using it in your blog. Nobody avoids you to write this. No censor forbids you to publish what you want on your own media, to create a blog, a newspaper.

    But when users leave comments to your blog, you’ve the right to delete spam, hateful comments or any comment you don’t want. That’s not an infringement to the freedom of speech of your contributors. Any media have the freedom to publish what he wants and to not publish what he doesn’t want.

    The real freedom of speech is the right to seek, to receive and to impart information and ideas. Not to publish what you want everywhere.

    1. I get a lot of people saying that I’m putting “why i hate administrators” all over the place. Absolutely not. I’m only putting it on my userpages, and this blog. It’s like decorating a house. I can decorate my house however I want, and no one can tell me how to decorate it. And thank god for my friend’s wiki, because there’s no Nazi admins on there.

  31. “I swear that these admins have developed secret admin-only tools to stalk and hunt down users.”

    It’s called checkuser. They it will show all edits from a certain IP or recent IPs of a certain account. Of course it’s going to stick out like a sore thumb. You shouldn’t have registered multiple accounts to nominate your image. That’s easy to track and extremely stupid. I don’t agree with that new proposed policy on making all edits on living people pages need to be approved, but there is some need for regulation, otherwise you get people replacing pages with “_____ SUCKS MY PENIS”. If you don’t support some kind of structure, you’re socialist. And socialists suck. You have to find a balance. Socialism is bad (except for poor people) but facism isn’t good (except for the ruling party).

    “They blocked all of my other accounts, blocked my main account (Deathgleaner), blocked indefinitely, and without any prior warning. ”

    You broke the rules and expected to not get caught. That’s like complaining that you robbed a bank and the police caught you. Then complaining that they give you too harsh a sentence. It works just like the US. Felons can’t vote. If a law-abiding citizen thinks sentencing is too harsh, they can vote on it. If someone gets caught, then of course they’re going to think that it’s too harsh. Besides, this is worse than just stealing votes. You registered multiple accounts too.

    If you got blocked and want to contribute, then at least do it smartly. Learn how to change your router’s hardware address so you can get a new IP and not get caught if you want to contribute. If you edit under the same IP, that’s like robbing a bank, going to jail, breaking out, and visiting the bank to make a deposit. Kind of a stupid idea. Just because you’re trying to be positive does not cover up past problems. Stop complaining since you broke the rules.

    Another point:
    “…they can’t possibly watch over millions of Wikipedia users”
    That’s because most people don’t try to cheat the rules.

    In short:
    You’re being hypocritical
    You’re overreacting
    You’re just plain being dumb

    1. I can tell that you just love to side with the administrators. You call me a socialist, but I prefer regulation over no structure any day. When did I ever say I hate structure? It’s just that the administrators have screwed around on Wikipedia so badly that the “structure” has been deformed. And I’m not trying to break any laws, I’m not a criminal, I’m not a cheater, it’s the administrators that have ruined mine and thousands of other users’ reputations.

      1. In case you haven’t noticed, America is the exact same way. People on top who actually control things and/or have lots of money, and people that go about their daily business, making enough money to live their lives, but just that. You have people making ten thousand a year and you have people getting hundred million dollar bonuses and people scamming fifty billion. Average people don’t even compare to the top few.

        As for you not being a criminal or cheater, you already admitted to:
        A. Making sockpuppet accounts
        B. Using them to vote on your own image

        This is like criminals commiting crimes then wondering why they get caught, convicted, thrown in jail, etc. It’s fair for the people that don’t abuse the system. I don’t have that many edits, and I know I’ve been angry sometimes (like when one of my edits got reverted) but blaming it on the administrators is just plain wrong. They worked to get their massive number of edits, so they kind of deserve more power. Disagreeing with that is agreeing with socialism.

        1. You have been comparing Wikipedia to America quite a bit. In my opinion, Wikipedia’s “goverment” is totally the opposite of America’s. They don’t believe in the same ideals and their goverment is totalitarian, meaning the administrators control pretty much everything, including every word that every user says.

Comments are closed.