Section III_3 of Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance

To AKRONOS Main Page
To the top of Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance

To Anti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines

3. RAMPANT ADMINISTRATOR ABUSES

In the course of the wranglings concerning the Aetherometry entry, members of the Wikipedia Science Purification cabal abused their power in various ways. Some of the more egregious were:

3.1 Altering, in a manner reminiscent of stalino-maoist or nazi censors, other people's actual posts - on the Talk pages or on the Votes for Deletion page - often by deleting entire sections of the text. The cabal freely, and without regard to rhyme or reason, deletes from other people's posts fragments that they find offensive - as in these two examples, both the work of William M. Connolley:

* [...] And why is it, by the way, that in this here forum it is considered a high insult to call somebody a [insult removed - WMC] - and such "insults" get removed and the targets of the "insult" are given group therapy - but it is considered perfectly acceptable to call people hoaxters, repeatedly question their credentials, edit their articles without understanding the subject matter, and form a contemptuous mob against them simply because they submitted an article whose notions challenge yours? How does this work? FrankZappo, 06:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

* How do you know why, or even if, the theory "gets dismissed"? Have you asked the Correas for the history of the theory? Have you ever done any unconventional science? [deleted - WMC] FrankZappo, 14:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

or in this one, where the selfsame Connolley actually changes FrankZappo's vote for deletion, to read

* Keep and work on it; otherwise , Delete. FrankZappo, 21:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

when FrankZappo's actual vote was

* Keep the original article and work on it; otherwise , Delete.

Another user complained on June 26:

Just wondered why someone seems to have taken it upon themselves to delete my earlier reference to the Reich-Einstein experiment link, catalogued at the Wilhelm Reich Museum. The protocol for the experiment did not involve orgone accumulators (as Karada's previous google reference asserts) but Faraday cages - nor does the rest of the Wilcox text do any justice whatsoever to the historical record. The references to the correspondence are now up, so I won't repeat them. I would add however, that since Mr.s Jacobi and Karada seem so eager to expose facts, it would help if they bothered, to not only locate a few - but then actually read them. Let the factual and historical references speak for themselves. 4.231.175.111

Whenever necessary, the cabal adds another, hitherto unseen, Administrator to the fray, and has him or her execute some particularly offensive deletion - like this one made to the Aetherometry article by CesarB, another supposed minor (this time a Brasilian one) by the name Cesario Eduardo Barros, who first appears on June 26 at 23:39, performs some piece of indifferent bureacratic cosmetics, and then a mere ten minutes later relieves Connolley from the necessity of performing the following suppression:

There could be no clearer record of the abusive fascistic tactics of Wikipedia's administrators than the fact that the mere mention of Wikipedian fascism is itself subject to censorship. But if you think that this is game is played just by Connolley and his minion minors, then check Appendices 5, 6 and 7 for examples of wanton deletions carried out by other Administrators. Here is a bit of administrative tête-à-tête about these deletions, from Theresa Knott's User Talk:

Your opinion requested

With regards to the aetherometry article - I see no point in tolerating the anon's behaviour. He can say what he needs to say without resorting to that kind of language. I think we should just revert him until such time as he adjusts his language - set the "personal attacks" threshold low enough... But I will need help if I am to avoid 3RR violations (though I am willing to argue my case there too, if need be). Anyway, I just wanted to know what you think of that idea. Thanks. Guettarda, 16:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Anything is worth a try I suppose. It might work. You need to be very careful though. Only remove personal attacks, not criticism. Also you need Gang of One on board as he is arguing that you've set the bar too low. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke), 18:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yet, as the abovementioned Appendices show, the bar was lowered well below that. The whole thing is all the more cynical as Theresa Knott, elsewhere on her User Talk page, passes herself off as someone who (believe it or not) has the integrity of an arbitrator:

Deleting people's comments from Arbcom pages

I'm here because of this edit [link]. As an arbitrator it is important that I see all evidence. For this reason I am instructing you never to remove anything from any page that is arbitration related. If you change your mind about one of you own comments strike it through rather than delete it and under no circumstance remove anyone elses comments or replies to your comments. Even if it is a personal attack - leave it there. OK? Also from your edit comment I urge you to continue to defend yourself in this accusation. I am an unbiased arbitrator and I am notifying you Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke), 08:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Parody hour.

Even more drastic and appalling was a wholesale deletion, by an administrator with the username Mel Etitis, of the backbone and draft texts created by User TTLightningRod in a constructive attempt to replace the original 'offending' Aetherometry article with a collaborative effort that could be accepted by all parties:

I've just removed a lot of rather messy material, made up of section-headers without sections, sections with just a few notes [...] Mel Etitis, 10:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was a collabrative work by a number of people. A begining. An attempt to build something in a constructive way, ballanced, and NPOV. A way for any number of people to add a word here, change the order of something there. YOU DELETE ALL. TTLightningRod, 14:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many articles begin as a simple layout of headings, ideas and notes for what should be placed where, and an option for people to re-order the TOC before discussion moves on. In a way, what you seem to have suggested, is that some-kind of complete, fully formed article should have appeared all at once, (impossible). A collaboration was taking place..... your total deletion of the entire TOC, was not necessary. Please consider commenting in the talk page about what you thought of as worthy of such action. Or return the calm work of other people. Thank you. TTLightningRod

I can only repeat that it was a mess, not suitable for public display to Wikipedia readers. This article is part of an on-line encyclopædia, publicly readable; it shouldn't be treated as if it were the sandbox. Mel Etitis, 15:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No effort is spared to torpedo and sabotage any positive work on the article. Taken in isolation, each act of sabotage can always be excused or smoothed over with this or that technical reason. Taken together, these acts stand as an indictment of a fascist cabal determined to impose its own hard line of falsification on anything having to do with 'Science' at Wikipedia. In Wikispeak, this is called 'cleaning up'. Search, destroy and mop up.

The rampant power to delete, suppress, censor easily rises to the head of these Administrators, as witnessed by this exchange on the Aetherometry Talk page:

Not to mention, it is entirely possible to any admin to delete any edit from the page history as well. Quite a simple task. Guettarda, 04:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Not true. Only developers can do that. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke), 16:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

3.2. By working in tandem, the cabal can bypass the Three-Revert Rule. Watch this sequence, also noteworthy for the fact that administrator PJacobi, as he alters the article, has the idiotic gall to claim that Dr. Eugene Mallove's interests were unrelated to alternative energy (!):

The next one, coming in on cue, not only reverts once again the plain, factual statement of who Mallove was, but also takes this opportunity to add his own voice to the cabal's party-line which purports to speak in the name of mainstream science:

That's work in tandem, and allows the next reversion by PJacobi to not technically count as a 3rd reversion:

And this is precisely how the Administrators in the Wikipedia cabal always win. That's how they fabricate this Wikipedia. And again, Mel Etitis comes in to perform that day's fourth reversion, without technical infraction (what a circus!):

Next: A SYSTEMATIC POLITICS OF HARASSMENT, GRATUITOUS AND MOTIVATED
Previous: RAMPANT ADMINISTRATOR BIAS

Revision as of 23:46, 26 June 2005 69.17.136.204 ← Older edit		Revision as of 23:49, 26 June 2005 CesarB Reverted edits by 69.17.136.204 to last version by CesarB Newer edit →
	-->		-->
-
-	Full article available at: "[http://www.driftline.org/wikipediafascism/Aetherometry.html]"

Revision as of 15:13, 29 June 2005 DrHyde WP link ← Older edit		Revision as of 15:41, 29 June 2005 Pjacobi Article alternative energy is unrelated to Malloves interests, better leave out this half-sentence completely Newer edit →


-	[[Eugene Mallove]], who was a pioneering researcher and champion of [[alternative energy]], was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.	+	[[Eugene Mallove]] was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.

Revision as of 15:55, 29 June 2005 DrHyde PJacobi, I don't understand where you're coming from. Mallove's whole life was spent working in the field of alternative energy and promoting it. ← Older edit		Revision as of 16:11, 29 June 2005 Mel Etitis rm unnecessary & misleading puff, made final sentence more accurate Newer edit →


-	[[Eugene Mallove]], who was a pioneering researcher and champion of [[alternative energy]], was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.	+	[[Eugene Mallove]] was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.

-	Aetherometry is largely ignored by mainstream science.	+	Aetherometry is rejected, and therefore largely ignored, by mainstream science.

Revision as of 16:19, 29 June 2005 DrHyde ← Older edit		Revision as of 16:22, 29 June 2005 Pjacobi unlinked alternative energy, see talk Newer edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:


-	[[Eugene Mallove]], who was a pioneering researcher and champion of [[alternative energy]], was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.	+	[[Eugene Mallove]] was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.

Revision as of 21:45, 29 June 2005 GangofOne ← Older edit		Revision as of 22:40, 29 June 2005 Mel Etitis rv to last NPoV version Newer edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:


-	[[Eugene Mallove]], a pioneer in alternative energy, was a public supporter of aetherometry, and one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.	+	[[Eugene Mallove]] was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.

-	Aetherometry is largely ignored by mainstream science.	+	Aetherometry is rejected, and therefore largely ignored