Why I really hate Wikipedia administrators, Part II

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

Last week’s post generated a lot of controversy. Here are some more events that have happened to me since I posted my previous post:

  1. I posted this announcement on my user pages at Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons etc.:
    Those who read English will appreciate Why I really hate Wikipedia administrators, which appeared to me at a search on the keyword Wikipedia on Twitter. Some rare gems in this post. Dereckson | ( d) August 27, 2009 at 07:05 (EST)

    What happened next was that people obviously noticed, and it generated a few clicks to my blog. I also had a comment in the Wikitext code that said:

    “No, either way, don’t touch. This was on the Fr.Wikipedia Bistro at Wikipédia:Bistro and since all the content here is CC and GFDL licensed, I have the right to reproduce it here.

    “You have better things to do with your life than patrol Wikipedia 14 hours a day. I suggest you leave this page alone and quit stalking me.”

    Someone noticed this on Wikispecies and decided to delete my user page, delete my talk page, block me indefinitely; without contacting me about it. Their reason: “personal attack.” To this day, that evil administrator still hasn’t contacted me about why he blocked me indefinitely. I had to email him since I couldn’t even edit my talk page, and I still don’t understand how telling someone not to edit (touch) my user page gets me blocked indefinitely for a personal attack. As if you get thrown into jail for life for telling a police officer to “leave me alone.”

  2. I find out that Wikipedia’s rules are stricter than I ever imagined. The admins have created all these little inconspicuous rules so that they can frame innocent users and block them. One user said to me: I believe that there is a policy[!!!] allowing a link to copyrighted works. Who really cares? All you’re doing is linking and you can get in trouble for that? (And I quote: “Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else’s copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page.”) WTF, Wikisource.
  3. It seems like everything on Wikipedia, etc. is a privilege. That includes editing your own user page, as if someone suddenly comes up to you and says “it’s a privilege to decorate your own house.” You and your stupid ass rules, administrators.

I also received many comments from Wikipedia, etc. administrators, all claiming that I was wrong and that I did the wrong thing. Here are some of their comments:

“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.” –Matt Ventura

“About your ‘freedom of speech’, you’re using it in your blog. Nobody avoids you to write this…But when users leave comments to your blog, you’ve the right to delete spam, hateful comments or any comment you don’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.” –Dereckson

“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.” –Mathieu P.

“Voting multiple times in the FP in Commons is one of the biggest sins you can commit on Commons.” –senate

Everyone seems to be touching on the point that I cheated in the Featured Picture voting at Wikimedia Commons, and that my block was completely justified by my “big sin” that I committed.

First of all, how is voting multiple times necessarily a big sin? Voting in Commons is done online, and all the nosy admins are watching. It’s much easier to remove a sock-puppet vote online than it is to remove one in, say, a presidential election.

Yes, I screwed up the vote, but I still don’t believe in an indefinite block for such a vote. You can’t prove it’s a big sin. It is my belief that “little” infringements like minor vandalism can be justified by short blocks and “big” or repeated infringements can be justified by longer and/or indefinite blocks.

Administrators only exist for one purpose: framing, then blocking users. Then, when someone writes about them, they start throwing stupid ass arguments trying to defend themselves and promote their Nazist ways. They also love to jump to whatever conclusion is on their stubborn mind, like “No, either way, don’t touch” = personal attack = indefinite block. Administrators are crazy, rampant, mentally incompetent “leaders” that have framed hundreds if not thousands of innocent users like me. Unless they learn to accept their mistake, it will always be my belief that these administrators are evil, satanic beings that have no life other than spending fourteen hours a day in their dark rooms stalking users.

36 thoughts on “Why I really hate Wikipedia administrators, Part II”

  1. Can somebody report this fucking bitch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User/Bagumba
    That bitch banned me for saying idiot and claiming it’s offensive. and helping some idiot to revert my edits because it doesn’t match his views and saying it’s violation of Neutral point of view cause his views are too biased that bitch sees what he don’t agree with as neutral point of view and deleting posts as if it were vandalism, Wikipedia is a complete propaganda network spread by their propagandist admins. Wikipedia is completely hypocrite place run by propagandists to force their views on others.

  2. 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!

  3. There’s always an idiot that is editing YOUR articles and when you revert the vandalism you are the fucked one that is banned!

  4. Guess what they freakin closed my wiki just because I added stuff from other websites! No joke man this really happened.

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

  6. Yeah wikipedia admins are all dumb trailer trash n_ggers. Barek and Favonian are just dumbass little n_glets that need to be put down.

  7. I agreed with all the posters here. I glad i found this site because i was pissed at those assholes that blocked me because i was adding a right information that that are considered offensive. Wikipedia started out as beautiful and great and now all the sudden it’s nothing more than a fascist website ever.
    It was a friendly fire article. I was editing and add some informations(later due to false info) then all those sudden these guys come up to me and stopped it. Then they decided to block me for no reason at all. Those three assholes from the UK name GraemeLeggett, Wee Curry Monster, Nick Cooper even today removed an source that British FAC is not charged. Even they wanted to add in that infor and all the sudden they don’t All there so far up their asses or something? Do they take as offensive because it’s embarrassing to their country? Maybe because they are bigots that’s plain and simple. Here what they even said. “There are a number of errors and false interpretations here. Firstly, the inquest would not have gone ahead and reached the verdict it did, had the manslaughter charge against the FAC proceeded. This source confirms that the charge is no longer pending, and even if it was, there would be no grounds – in the absence of an actual verdict – to claim, “the US were not to blame.” Secondly, it is false to state the incident was, “due to incorrect coordinates given to the pilot by a British Forward Air Controller.” The cited sources sated that the FAC, “misheard the grid reference repeated back to him by the US aircrew” (my emphasis). It is not stated whether he gave them the wrong co-ordinates in the first place, or that he gave the right co-ordinates, but they mis-heard or mis-understood them. Thirdly, there is no source that the FAC was, “Deafened by enemy mortars falling on his position,” only that the parol he was with was under fire; it was the Royal Anglian position that was under mortar fire. Lastly, the error was 1,000 metres – i.e. one kilometre – which is not “a mile.” I have therefore changed the text accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    Seems reasonsble – though the entry could probably be simplifed further to – “as a result of miscommunication between the aircraft and FAC characterised at an inquest as ‘flawed application of procedures’ a USAF F-15 dropped weapons on a Royal Anglian position 1,000 m from the enemy killing two soldier and injuring two more”. There isn’t much more to be said except if anything changed as a result of the incident. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    Without exaggerating, this is about the 5th time he has added the same flawed informaiton based on an outdated newspaper report if you count this and another article. He has thus far refused to engage in any meaningful way in talk and is continuing to add erroneous information or to use very flawed sources. One of the sources he re-added is a WP:SPS and was removed yesterday. I am beginning to think the time has come for an RFC/U. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC) I may have gone TOO Far to edit some erroneousness informations but they are not any better when they chose to remove source that are too relevant to the information. They were supposed to help us not to go and remove it just for their sake of their own bigotry. As long they are administration, i already proved they are dicks and always will be. They need to read more carefully before they speak out of their asses. Are they fucking stupid? The British FAC called in the bad grids to a U.S pilot, but wasn’t supplied with the headset.The pilot said the coordinates were wrong but the British FAC said it was right which killed 3 Brits. IT was his fault but since they are from the UK, they just don’t see the damn fucking thing. It was his fault. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267559/Senior-officer-relieves-grim-moment-U-S-bomb-hit-British-platoon-Afghanistan.html

    1. Yeah, those son of pigs deleted my edits for telling the truth by a false claim saying it’s unconstructive and vandalism. somebody needs kill them slowly and painfully.

  8. I’m so glad I found this because I’m pissed because of wikia right now. Every wiki seems to have a bunch of ridiculous unwritten rules. I edited on a wiki where it was NOT permitted to start a summary with “the chapter/book/movie/episode” begins. Because apparently that is an insult to their intelligence. Seriously? They turned their pet peeves into rules.

    They put me on a two week “cooling off” period for starting my opinion AND- get this, for thanking someone for fixing a typo in one of my articles on their talk page. Because apparently talk pages may not be used in that manner. What the heck are they there for, then? Everyone on the wiki in question seems to kiss the two admins asses by constantly apologizing for having unintentionally made a mistake.

    One of them wrote “Do you realise that wiki admins have LIVES?” on my talk page. LOL. Really? Didn’t seem like you did because it no matter if I edited something early in the morning on in the middle of the night, it hardly ever took them more than a few minutes to respond, delete or criticize.

    When one of the admins told me that my writing is substandard, I changed my ip and went ahead and deleted all my submissions. Because, hey, if it’s substandard why do they keep it on their wiki?
    I don’t want a bunch of anal people using what took me hours to create. I was banned permantely for deleting MY OWN contributions…which they by the way just put back in their wiki. HELLO? Just because I contributed to your wiki doesn’t mean that you own my contributions now. The pictures maybe, but things I wrote? Since when do you not have the right to take down your own writing? Bitches! Maybe I should report their wiki for using copyright illustrations on articles.

  9. I really hate those assholes. They all make me siiiiiiiiiiiick! Especially the wikia admins. Shit, I mean those people have no friggin lives. So I was pissed because some “Dantman” motherfucker blocked me because I was joking with him. I wasn’t even insulting him. But since he must have dick shoved up his ass, he didn’t take it that way.
    SO he banned me for a full fucking year!! So I said okay fuck it. So to get my revenge i changed my IP address and it was a full flame war from then on. 🙂 Of course they banned me again. But I can still change my address. 😀

    1. Lady Bana, good indea with an IP addy 😀 Actually I have an accesss to several hundred of university compys, maybe I should try a war as well 😀

  10. nata :wikipedia is a good website but the administrators are retarted. they should be banned from editing wikipedia and blocking regular users.

  11. wikipedia is a good website but the administrators are retarted. they should banned from editing wikipedia and blocking regular users.

  12. On nickelodeon wikia a administrator called agent blocked me becaused i turned nicktoons 2009 logo to Nicktoons tv logo who cares? he said you are blocked And Nawlinwiki blocked me for making hey arnold i said hey arnold is a real show the he blocked me.

  13. There’s good info here. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog. Keep up the good work mate! 🙂

Comments are closed.