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 (Wikimedia Commons, 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.

Published by Geoffrey Liu

A software engineer by trade and a classical musician at heart. Currently a software engineer at Groupon getting into iOS mobile development. Recently graduated from the University of Washington, with a degree in Computer Science and a minor in Music. Web development has been my passion for many years. I am also greatly interested in UI/UX design, teaching, cooking, biking, and collecting posters.

309 thoughts on “Why I really hate Wikipedia administrators

Comments are closed.

  1. @Conner

    Your right about Drmies too, not only did he warned Homechallange55. He’s still one of the worst admins off all time too. He’s not very helpful too, all I did i report Homechallange55 to him and he ignores me and goes on, I asked him why he keeps ignoring my messages and all he did was just making excuses after excuses after excuses, laying to me by saying there’s no such user named Homechallange55, after that, he kept on making fun of my spelling, which really angered me. That’s how he is on Wikipedia, he throws out lie after lie of everyone; take a look:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Homechallange55, also, Sro23 once again stick his little stalking nose in my business again… I admit it, I did actually write angry comments at him, but still, I know that violence is not the answer to the problem and I’m not that kind of person that would threaten people in real life, but I couldn’t help myself for saying that to him. He really is an jerk in real life, he even has a history in the past on Wikipedia according here:http://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot.com/2016/02/guest-post-dark-knight-takes-on-drmies.html. If you look at the photo of him in the blog, you can tell he’s bad by the look of that smirk on his face in the photo. You can tell from that smirk that he’s proud for what he does and enjoys getting away with everything he does, with all his lies.

  2. Other users to watch out for are Zzuuzz and KrakatoaKatie. They’re both admins, who are always blocking constructive editors just for their “gain”. For instance, awhile back I make a vandalism report to WP:AIV and KrakatoaKatie blocks my IP for 1 week for “Vandalism”
    See this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KrakatoaKatie&diff=756103996&oldid=756095900

    How F’ed up is that???

    Also, just recently, Zzuuzz made this snide comment on one of my IP’s talkpages: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172.58.46.169&diff=791104198&oldid=791104126

    So Zzuuzz asks me, “What happened to you? You used to be fairly constructive, now you’re just trolling.” Seriously..? Zzuuzz clearly knows “what happened”, and he’ll probably never acknowledge that he is in the wrong here. Zzuuzz is wrong for assuming that all constructive editors are “trolls” just because they’re evading a block on their main account.

    Sro23’s sole purpose on Wikipedia is to stalk other user’s edits, hence why everyone f-ing trolls him (and ironically, Sro23 accused me of stalking his edits, which I explained in my earlier post a few weeks back).

    But was I trolling on that IP? Okay fine, yes. I was. But if Zzuuzz claims that I (User:Taokaka) used to make “constructive edits” than why would he even need to question this in the first place… ? Why would he constantly block my IP addresses if I make “constructive edits”.

    It’s obvious that he is sucking up to Sro23 like everybody else is…

    • Oh, and now Zzuuzz is spreading lies about me. Now, he’s claiming that I’m currently blocked for “threatening to kill an editor and their family”: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172.58.46.169&diff=791110852&oldid=791108678

      What kind of unfounded accusation is that??? I’ll correct you Zzuuzz, I’m actually blocked for using multiple accounts in an edit war at the Los Angeles International Airport article. Maybe some of my edit summaries were a bit profane during that edit war (they were deleted from public view) but in no way did I ever do what Zzuuzz is claiming that I did.

      • My god… I remember Zzuuzz. He gave me problems before in the past, I can’t remember. But I did step in and defend you against Zzuuzz on your ip talk page. I even looked at your edit history and you wrote no threats of killing anyone at all, Zzuuzz is just st s liar. 🤥 Which makes me stick to
        My stomach and angry, because I hate it when people write lies about someone and for stuff they didn’t do. Ebyabe accused me of being racist one time, it’s because another ip user was impersonating me and he accused that ip user of being me. Besides, I’m not racist in real life.

        • Of course they removed it, because they have nothing else better to do… and now they’ve even semi-protected the IPs talkpage… :-/

        • Even Homechallenge55 write lies of me too, he blamed me for having mental illness in real life, here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:1000:B03B:30F9:D9C5:51AC:1BF2:2543, it was just because I was upset and mad at him when I told him on his talk page to stop vandalizing the articles and for removing important information. He then stated that I’m the one angering him. Basic he’s the one that shows his mental illness issues when he writes in the edit summaries “Pay Attention to my Edit Summaries!!!!”, instead, he just blames me over the edit issues, taking out his anger problems on me. I even tried to report him to user Drmies, but ever since I posted about it in Drmies talk page, all he did was just ignoring my message about the report, he never replied. Shows you how helpful them admins can not be sometimes, not very helpful… 🙁

  3. @Anthony Nichols

    My God, that sucks with what you’ve been dealing with. Of course Ebyabe and Sro23 are tag teaming together… what pricks they are…

    My encounters with Sro23 have been just as bad, though I’ve never had any interaction with Homechallange55 before… Sro23 actually accused me of stalking him, when I was using one of my IPs, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:1C0:4401:F360:4057:B87:4A96:758B&diff=prev&oldid=746243774

    I wasn’t “stalking” him, I merely filed an SPI case for a different user (I can’t remember who they were now…) and since Sro23 posted there before in the past, he thought that I was “stalking” him… And his little snide comment of “I should post SPI’s on good-faith editors and see what your reaction is…” is very messed up. And it doesn’t help that everyone else sucks up to him, either…

    But here’s the ironic part, A little while later after I registered an account (User:Yinf), HE STALKS MY EDITS, HERE: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yinf&diff=prev&oldid=747935168

    I swear, Sro23 probably told (emailed?) Widr about the account that I registered and then proceeded to block it because he’s a suck-up to Sro23, just like every other admin. On a different note, Widr has been vigorously stalking my edits ever since my main account was blocked back in December 2015 and has virtually been the only admin to actually block my socks, and the worst part is that he isn’t even a checkuser.

    • Thanks man! I knew you would agree, I also saw how hard he was on u too. The truth is Sro23 probably has mental illnesses and that’s the reason why he treats everyone so bad. He even won’t take any criticism from other users when they tell him to stop.

      • @Anthony Nichols

        Whoops! I just realized that I had already posted something similar a little while ago and that you had already replied to it. (I swear I didn’t see it down below so I rewrote it, but whatever).

        Anyway, I just looked into Homechallenge55 and saw the whole incident where Sro23 gave them a barnstar: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Homechallenge55&action=history

        This is yet, just another example of the BS tag-teaming that these “high up” Wikipedia users do. They “reward” and acknowledge others for doing things that new users and IP editors will definitely not get away with…

        Also, I’m not sure if you saw this, but Drmies said this to Homechallenge55 awhile back after reverting you:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Homechallenge55&diff=781372596&oldid=781371342
        https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Homechallenge55&diff=781372596&oldid=781371342

        It kinda reminds my of when Drmies told Sro23 to slow down with the rollback script/function (which is how he’s able to revert edits so quickly) and he wouldn’t listen to him…

      • @Anthony Nichols

        Also, I’m a bit confused here. So it looks like you were making edits on the Lisa Ortiz article, and you had sourced your information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Ortiz&diff=784031470&oldid=784031393

        So if it is indeed sourced, then why does Ebyabe keep reverting it? On a separate note, I saw the link that you posted earlier about Ebyabe admitting to “being evil”…

        Anyway, Ebyabe states that the sources are not reliable, and for example, you used “Anime Herald” as a source for the most part (referring to this link: http://www.animeherald.com/interview/lina-deedlit-walk-room-interview-lisa-ortiz/), but I don’t see anything within Wikipedia:RS, that states that a source such as “Anime Herald” cannot be used. It’s neutral, from a third party organization, and is clearly not promotional in nature. I don’t see why they keep reverting you…

        Do you have any idea as to why Ebyabe doesn’t accept sources like this…? Ebyabe always replies to you by saying “READ THE EDIT SUMMARIES”, but all of Ebyabe’s edit summaries don’t even explain anything, they just say “No reliable source found for ___________”, etc. Ebyabe doesn’t explain why the sources aren’t reliable or even try to engage/collaborate here at all…

        Sorry that you’ve had to deal with all of this crap (and so have I), The mental illness within Ebyabe definitely shows up here…

        • Thanks Conner, I just don’t know why he doesn’t accept those kind of sources, It just makes no sense. He just accept any source he wants when he wants. Even when I talked to him on his talk page about what he said about himself on his user page for “Being evil”, all he did when he was replying to me was just making some BS excuses, complaining that he did nothing wrong to me. Saying “I was outside visiting some of my neighbors and that’s why I didn’t reply sooner.” Hmm… ya right.

          Also, even thought I tried to stop Homechallenge55 for vandalizing the articles, he still blames me for it and complained that I have mental issues in real life, which is a complete lie for what he said. That’s all he does, when ever edits doesn’t go his way, he just blames people over it, and blamed them over his mental problems and anger issues. Seriously, he has a loooooooot of anger issues.

          Here the link of threatening messages he left me and blaming me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:1000:B03B:30F9:D9C5:51AC:1BF2:2543

        • Besides, I’ve tried reporting Sro23 several times on there for harassment. But still the admins don’t give two ****’s about it. Also, Ebyabe also gave Vincent D’Onofrio’s wife a hard time with sources, arguing against her of his spouses. She was trying to prove to him that he was never married twice in his life, just only to her is what she was trying to prove. I found a link on a blog that someone wrote about it.

          Take a look for yourself if u want: https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/3lnt6j/vincent_donofrios_wife_has_tried_to_correct/

        • Wow, no surprise there… I wonder why I’m not on his list? He probably doesn’t even care for what I do and just tattles on me anyways.

        • Also, watch out for Dpm12 as well. He’s kinda of a tough guy on there too, and rude as well just like Sro23. He called me guilty on the Mickey Mouse article when I was adding a source of a voice actor in the “Voices” section in the article, and he also accused me of vandalizing it, which is not true, I was only adding some information and updating the article with some more into on the voice actors, you can find it in the page history of the articles and look through the edit summeries. He also threatened me for changing “voice artist” to “voice actor” on the Joe Alaskey article, he threatened a few times about it ” OK, that’s enough!” and “You really NEED TO STOP THIS!” and then he said to me in the edit summeries “STOP THIS! If you aren’t going to improve the article, don’t bother editing!”, with that right there for what he said too me, is a plan harassment comment. My question for him is, how is changing “voice artist” too “voice actor” a big deal?!?!? It’s not a big deal for me and for anyone else too.

        • See, no matter what you change in any article he edits, he will just threaten about it, over edits that he thinks are pointless.

  4. Sro23 is himself a sockmaster, right? I see the same cluster of users running to his aid every time, and his “I-hate-socking” gimmick seems just a little too earnest.

    • I will laugh if he really “IS” a sockpuppet, that would make my day! I also hate how he gets involved in arguments that’s none of his business, he just keeps sticks his nose were it doesn’t belong.

      Also, Ebyabe is actually using this blog on his user page, he didn’t even ask Geoffrey Lui’s permission to use it. He just stole it and copied and pasted it on his user pag/talk page. Read the part where it says “Too show you guys how horrible and evil I am, head [this way]” It will show that he copied this blog to his page.

      Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ebyabe

  5. I discovered something that really pissed me off. On the GoAnimate talk page, an IP address requested the article to be indefinitely protected due to all the vandalism on it. One of the admins named NeilN automatically declined his request and said in these exact words: “please stop making pointless protection requests all over the place”. That really pissed me off, because it was NOT a pointless protection request, if there is a page that deserves to be locked, go ahead and lock it. But if you don’t to lock it, that’s fine. But you don’t EVER be rude to someone when they make a protection request. That alienates them from making further protection requests when and where they feel fit to do so. Just goes to show that not only do the admins try to get rid of legitimate and sourced information, they’re also too lazy to lock articles that are being pelted with vandalism. That really pisses me off.

    Here’s the link to that section of the talk page.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GoAnimate#GoAnimate_article_need_full_protection

  6. Matt ventura’s right. Useless mutterings by trolls who disrupt the ‘pedia. Remember WP:CIR.

  7. Also you guys, watch out for user homechallenge55. He’s one of the most annoying users on there that annoys everyone. If you try and restore sourced edits he removes, he will threaten you and accuse you of having mental illness just like what he did to me, watch out for him, he’s a crazy user and he has a looooooot of mental illness and issues, he won’t take any criticism when every user tells him to stop. He has anger issues most of all, and threatens us to pay attention to his edits. He accuses all edits of being unsourced, including the ones he edits the most, voice actors. He accuses all of there info of their work on Pokémon anime, unsourced. It clearly shows in the articles that they are already sourced in the article, but he doesn’t even care abd removed them anyways. Watch out for him!

  8. Also you guys, watch out for user homechallenge55. He’s one of the most annoying users in there. If you try and restore sourced edits he removes, he will threaten you and accuse you of having mental illness just like what he did to me, watch out for him, he’s a crazy user and he has a looooooot of mental illness and issues, he won’t take any criticism when every user tells him to stop. He has anger issues most of all, and threatens us to pay attention to his edits. He accuses all edits of being unsourced, including the ones he edits the most, voice actors. He accuses all of there info of their work on Pokémon anime, unsourced. It clearly shows in the articles that they are already sourced in the article, but he doesn’t even care abd removed them anyways. Watch out for him!

  9. Here’s my rant explaining my Wikipedia experience, and just how horrible the Wikipedia bureaucracy/hierarchy is…

    Well obviously, I’m a banned user on en.wiki. I’m User:Taokaka to be more specific… I was indefinitely blocked in December 2015 for “abusing multiple accounts”… To be fair, I was unintentionally using another account in an edit war on the Los Angeles International Airport article because I was editing from a different computer and I didn’t know that I was logged on to my alternate account on the other computer, which was User:EnRouteAviation.

    Shortly before I was blocked, I had started to get into anti-vandalism patrolling, so now whenever admins see a new anti-vandalism/recent changes patroller account, they immediately block it, which is absolute bullshit because they know very well that I’m actually trying to help improve the encyclopedia by reverting vandalism.

    Though, nowadays, most people know me as “The AIV Spammer”, “The AIV Troll”, “The Admin Noticeboard Troll”, etc. At any rate, If anyone reading this has seen the long-term spamming at WP:AIV of tons of reports being placed there all at once… that would be the work of me. Yes, this is my way of “trolling” Wikipedia; by trying to “protect” the encyclopedia from vandalism, but I guess being dishonest and deceitful is WAY more important to Wikipedians, and punishing those users takes high priority over protecting and positively contributing to the encyclopedia. I’m not saying that being dishonest and deceitful is a good thing; because it’s not, but here’s the thing though. It’s not like I know any of these people in real life, so what’s the importance of being honest with people…? I’ll probably never meet any of them in real life, either… Oh, and one more thing. Welcome to the internet. People are going to be dishonest and deceitful to others because it doesn’t (shouldn’t) matter at all. Get over it.

    • Holy cow! Sorry for what happened to you. So23 is not the only worst user online, there is also Homechallange55. This user seriously has a lot of mental issues, he removed sourced edits and accused all those edits of being unsourced. He was blaming me for causing all the mental issues on them and blamed me of having mental issues in real life, what he said is not true, I don’t have mental issues in real life. I was only trying to keep the articles corrected with sourced edits and info. He also won’t take criticism from anyone. He even threatened me that I will pay him he consequences. I will post links here and you can check them for your self if u want. But seriously. Watch out for him. He really has a lot of mental illness issues.

      • You won’t believe this now. Sro23 just now accused me of stalking Homechallange and he supported Homechallange for “DOING THE RIGHT THING, OF VANDALIZING THE ARTICLES!” Your right, he’s just supporting him just to mock me and anger me. He’s just an all town idiot.

    • That’s another thing, watch out for homechallenge55. He’s one of the most annoying users on the internet. If you try and restore sourced edits he removes, he will threaten you and accuse you of having mental illness just like what he did to me, watch out for him, he’s a crazy user and he has a looooooot of mental illness and issues, he won’t take any criticism when every user tells him to stop. He has anger issues most of all, and threatens us to pay attention to his edits.

    • How ever, I actually did manage to stand up for myself against him on his talk page. But all he did when he replied to me was just making some stupid excuses, say he went out visiting some neighbors in his neighborhood and being busy and other stuff, he’s just trying to act all innocent. I’m still not surprised for what he wrote, because I knew he wouldn’t listen. Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ebyabe#Comment.

      There was also one time he gave trouble to another person. He gave Vincent D’Onfrio’s wife a hard time with sources, she was trying to prove in his spouse(s) section that he was never married twice and he was only married once, only to her since 1997. Link:https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/3lnt6j/vincent_donofrios_wife_has_tried_to_correct/

    • I also had a few encounters with 1337gamer too. Over the Charles Martinet article of his filmography, and he left me a personal threatening message on the talk page discussion, Stating: “You are obviously not interested in listening to what anyone else has to say, yet you expect everyone else to take take your word as fact when you’re just flat out wrong. Unfortunately for you, nobody here is stupid enough to side with you on your childish crusade. If you want to improve the article, then edit constructively, as I and other editors have already explained.” Referring to me as an idiot, I got so mad at him for saying that I wanted to say “F*** you!” to him, but then I reconsidered for saying that, because I know it’s wrong and violence is not the answer to the situation. I eventually replied and told him too stop treating us like idiots, later, an admin took my comment as a personal attack and protect the talk page. Because I said “idiot” in my comments, saying “idiot” is not a personal attack, a personal attack is when you post and say death threats to someone and threaten to kill them, I said none of that too 1337gamer at all. Because I know it’s wrong and violence is not the answer to the problem, it would only makes things worse. So yaaa…. 1337gamer is pretty bad user too, he’s also been warned too just recently today by an admin for edit warring, I don’t why they didn’t warn him in the past for edit warring on the Charles martinet article.

  10. Just now, Ebyabe accused me of saying racist comments, thinking that I’m being this ip user “38.135.32.22”. The ip user was actually impersonating me. I’ve tried to tell him that this IP user is “NOT” me, but as usual, he doesn’t believe me and keeps going on about it. I even told him to stop accusing me of being that ip user. I will show you the links of the reports and you guys read them for yourself’s if you want.
    *https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:38.135.32.22&action=history
    *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:38.135.32.22
    *https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=779596801&oldid=779594926

  11. Just now, Ebyabe accused me of saying racist comments, thinking that I’m being this ip user “38.135.32.22”. The ip user was actually impersonating me. I’ve tried to tell him that this IP user is “NOT” me, but as usual, he doesn’t believe me and keeps going on about it. I even told him tons top accusing me of being that ip user. I will show you the links of the reports and you guys read them for yourself’s if you want.
    *https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:38.135.32.22&action=history
    *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:38.135.32.22
    *https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=779596801&oldid=779594926

  12. Another thing about Sro23, he probably also has mental illness too, because he won’t take criticism from users that he keeps picking on. Every time when they tell him to knock it off with his harassment, he just ignores them and keeps on doing it. Plus, his talk page has been protected indefinite, so that’s means no more ip users won’t be able to post on his talk page to tell hims stuff. Just like that, he won’t take any criticism from anyone on there. He just picks on users because he has no friends and no life but to just bully people.

    • I’ve actually seen several admins (mainly Drmies) tell Sro23 that he needs to slow down with the rollback function, but he won’t listen to them and often ignores and/or refutes them entirely. Also, I’m almost positive that [at least] more than half of Wikipedia’s active sockmasters have came across Sro23 sometime. He also makes very sketchy subpages and places the accounts that he’s keeping an eye on, which likely explains how he is able (willing) to revert any banned editor that he comes across onsight…

      • Wow, I’m not surprised about that. He keeps ignoring them and more stuff, wow…. just…. wow. Also, you won’t believe this. Sro23 has now found about about “THIS” blog too, Ebyabe (Who is also another bad user) has told him about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sro23#I_don.27t_think_you.27re_an_admin.2C_are_you.3F, on his talk page. Calling us winers and complainers and other stuff. Ebyabe stated “Because they sure like to complain about you here like you are one. I just think the whole thing is amusing. If they spent half the effort they do griping by doing something productive, like creating their own version of Wikipedia… Oh, that would require work. Those who can, do. Those who can’t, whine and complain. Continue the good work you do. Most of us appreciate it.” So23 then stated “Oh, that. The thing is, I know that most of the people there are banned users, but I can’t help but worry there is some truth to their complaints. If you catch me doing something wrong, feel free to drop me a line, so that I can learn. Clearly I’m not perfect. And for the record, no I am not an admin. I’m not going to even try so long as that RFA process remains as grueling as it currently is.” So yay, I’m also not surprise about his reaction over this blog. People who talk like that on wikipedia are so immature as a user like them two.

        • The statement that you mentioned: “If they spent half the effort they do griping by doing something productive, like creating their own version of Wikipedia” is so on-point with just how hypocritical these users are, because most of the time when innocent legitimate users get indefinitely blocked by dumb admins who don’t even know what they’re doing at all, they’re ACTUALLY TRYING to improve the encyclopedia, and all attempts will likely fail to get said user unblocked because the admins who patrol unblock requests (Huron, Yalma, PhilKnight, etc. – others too) are too lazy to actually look into the case and just trust the judgment of the dumb initial blocking admin…

        • I’m actually about to post a huge rant on here about my Wikipedia experience (and yes, I’m obviously a banned user, too), so stay tuned for that…

        • Just for clarification, I’m User:Taokaka, and please refer to the other post that I made before reading this one in order to understand the type of editing that I do. In essence, I’m gonna rant on about Sro23, because it seems as though many different people on here have mentioned him in a negative light, so I guess it’s time for me to throw in my two cents…

          About 8 months ago, I had created another account, which was User:Yinf. This account had lasted for THREE WHOLE MONTHS, until yet again, the same admin who ALWAYS stalks my edits, Widr, blocked the account even without a CheckUser approval/SPI Investigation. On that account, I had been doing a lot of anti-vandalism work and CSD/PROD nominations, and I even managed to get both pending changes and rollback permissions registered on to my account. At that point, I thought it would be ridiculous for Widr, Zzuuzz, or even a CU to block me at this point, since I was a very well respected/trusted user.

          So here’s when Sro23 comes to dick around and completely ruin everything…

          First off, Sro23 sees me editing logged off under an IP address, and accuses me of stalking their edits as well as block evading:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:1C0:4401:F360:4057:B87:4A96:758B&diff=prev&oldid=746243774

          It’s also obvious that within Sro23’s message that he was clearly trying to taunt me here, as they hinted at the fact that I was an indefinitely blocked editor, but not what specific editor that I was…

          Then, not too far after that, Sro23 came across this account and left this ridiculous message on my talkpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yinf&diff=prev&oldid=747935577

          I guess Sro23 had analyzed every last edit that I made with that account to determine that I was indeed socking. It’s ridiculous because Sro23 first accuses ME of stalking THEIR edits, then Sro23 comes and does the same exact thing to my registered account. And no, I was not ever stalking Sro23, but I had merely commented on an SPI investigation that they had filed. I said that Sro23’s evidence for that particular user was socking was insufficient (I don’t even remember who that user was now). I guess Sro23 just doesn’t like other people telling him that he is wrong, ’cause all hell broke loose after that…

          Next, Sro23 drags me over to WP:ANI, where a couple of other admins/non-admins strongly disagreed with Sro23’s assertion that I was a sockpuppet. Then out of nowhere, Widr blocks my account indefinitely, completely disregarding the consensus at the WP:ANI discussion.

          To be honest, I bet that when Sro23 saw that the ANI discussion wasn’t going his way, I bet that he emailed Widr about my account and that’s how he found User:Yinf and blocked the account.

      • Holy cow! Sorry for what happened to you. He’s also not the worst user online, there is also Homechallange55. This user seriously has a lot of mental issues, he removed sourced edits and accused all those edits of being unsourced. He was blaming me for causing all the mental issues on them and blamed me of having mental issues in real life, what he said is not true, I don’t have mental issues in real life. I was only trying to keep the articles corrected with sourced edits and info. He also won’t take criticism from anyone. He even threatened me that I will pay him he consequences. I will post links here and you can check them for your self if u want. But seriously. Watch out for him. He really has a lot of mental illness issues.

    • Widr is basically trigger happy with the block button, performing ridiculously long blocks on IP addresses. I’ve seen him block a school IP address for 10 YEARS!! He also hounds WP:AIV like it’s practically his own talkpage…

      • Oh, and don’t even get me started with Materialscientist’s ridiculous blocks, whom is probably worse than Widr…

        • Elockid dies the same thing. He blocked my home IP address for a total of four years, he blocked it back in October 2014 and it is set to expire until 2018.

        • Elockid does the same thing. He blocked my home IP address for a total of four years, he blocked it back in October 2014 and it is set to expire until 2018.

  13. I’ve been doing some thinking about it and what if Wikipedia finally saw what the admins really do and decide to get rid of them and replace them with a source filter? Meaning, when you try to add something major to an article, the filter won’t let you until you provide it until you site reliable sources. Now it dosen’t apply to smaller edits.

    • They already have “edit filter logs” in place that prevent users from performing vandalism, as well as ClueBot which automatically reverts some vandalism…

  14. Also, they need to stop being Wiki Nazi’s! Also, Here’s Another Thing: I Hate when they Stalk us and Basically undo edits that we just did. Plus most Admins follow a bunch of random pages for no apparent reason. And Like I said Most of these guys probably have no life and probably have never been laid.

    • Sro23 is one of the worst out of all of them on there. He’s been after me for a looooooooooong time….

  15. Sro23 is still around and still reverting any change I make with an IP even if they are improvements. It is clear Wikipedia cares more about controlling who edits than improving articles.

    • Yeah Guys I would watch out for Drmies and Bilorv! Those 2 are the Worst Admins Ever! They keep on Blocking and Reporting for no apparent reason and overreact. Plus How Did both get Admin rights and I don’t think these 2 are Male, Female or a Human at all, for All I know they could be Robots or their Own Computer is somehow editing for them.

    • Don’t even get me started with Sro23. He’s been on my case for a long time already and he been stalking me to different articles I go too and reverts all of them. He even lies to everyone on there telling them I’m horrible and bad. When he is basically the one who started it in the first place. Also, when ever a user is giving me a hard time, he gets involved in the conversation like it’s his problem. He does it all the time. He’s always sticks his nose in people’s business we’re it doesn’t belong!, but still, even tough I’ve been standing up for myself against him. I’ve been ignoring him now. I just hate how the admins refuse to ban him from the site.

    • Sor23 probably has mental illness too, he won’t take criticism from users that he keeps picking on. Every time when they tell him to knock it off with his harassment, he just ignores them and keeps on doing it. Plus, his talk page has been protected indefinite, so that’s means no more ip users won’t be able to post on his talk page to tell hims stuff. Just like that, he won’t take any take criticism from anyone on there. He just picks on users because he has no friends and no life but to just bully people.

  16. Just recent now, I’ve tried to add Charles Martinet’s filmography back because The1337gamer keeps deleting it over and over. Saying it all “unsourced” after all these years. I took to the talk page of the article and all what he said when he replied is a threatning message and called me “childish” and accused me for bad things over the article, other users tried to add it back before and restore it, and he threatens them too. After he replayed, I told him in my reply that it’s a site we’re anyone can add stuff and put in sources, not just to revert them and anger everyone, and told him to stop treating us like we’re idiots. But once again, Mr. stocker Sro23 once again sticks his nose in our business, and told 1337gamer “Don’t pay attention to him.” And he told him about and blame the edit war issues on me again. I told Sro to mind his own business and stop getting involved in everyone’s conversations, and admin Bonadea took that comment as a personal attack I said to him. First off, telling someone to “Mind there own Business!” Is “NOT” a personal attack, a personal attack is when you say a death threat to someone, that’s one for example. I didn’t even make one death threat to him on the talk page at all, never. Because I’m not that kind a person that would say that stuff in real life, never. So after that, they sided with 1337gamer witch doesn’t surprise me at all for them siding with bullies, and they made it private on the Charles Martinet talk page. Shows you how much they take everyone’s reply comments so seriously!, and they never do there job for blocking the right person, they always sided with the bullies, the person that hassled people. Guess that also shows how much they don’t care for helping inocent users. They sided with the jerks that hassles them and say “FU, we blame you for doing it first, so it’s your fault!” And that’s how it is with them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Martinet; here’s the link to the page, go to it and click on page history, you’ll see the whole thing.

  17. Just recent now, I’ve tried to add Charles Martinet’s filmography back because The1337gamer keeps deleting it over and over. Saying it all “unsourced” after all these years. I took to the talk page of the article and all what he said when he replied is a threatning message and called me “childish” and accused me for bad things over the article, other users tried to add it back before and restore it, and he threatens them too. After he replayed, I told him in my reply that it’s a site we’re anyone can add stuff and put in sources, not just to revert them and anger everyone, and told him to stop treating us like we’re idiots. But once again, Mr. stocker Sro23 once again sticks his nose in our business, and told 1337gamer “Don’t pay attention to him.” And he told him about and blame the edit war issues on me again. I told Sro to mind his own business and stop getting involved in everyone’s conversations, and admin Bonadea took that comment as a personal attack I said to him. First off, telling someone to “Mind there own Business!” Is “NOT” a personal attack, a personal attack is when you say a death threat to someone, that’s one for example. I didn’t even make one death threat to him on the talk page at all, never. Because I’m not that kind a person that would say that stuff in real life, never. So after that, they sided with 1337gamer witch doesn’t surprise me at all for them siding with bullies, and they made it private on the Charles Martinet talk page. Shows you how much they comments so seriously and they never do there job for blocking the right person, they always sided with the bullies, the person that hassled people. Guess that also shows how much they don’t care for helping inocent users. They sided with the jerks that hassles them and say “FU, we blame you for doing it first, so it’s your fault!” And that’s how it is with them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Martinet; here’s the link to the page, go to it and click on page history, you’ll see the whole thing.

  18. I’m prepared to do a complete tell-all about my godawful experience with Wikipedia and an admin there named Mrschimpf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mrschimpf. There was a programming block on Nickelodeon called Nick Studio 10 that had received numerous amounts of controversy and backlash. I had an account on named VintageVHSTreasures. I attempted to add a criticism and controversy. But since those a**holes clearly dictate that all information provided must be “sourced”. They deleted it and they (continue) go after anyone who adds it. So I kept reverting back, but they just kept deleting it. In October, I created a section on the Nick Studio 10 Talk Page asking why not add a criticism and controversy section. Mrschimpf replied saying that “it was unsourced by anything reliable”. See the full discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_Studio_10#Criticism_and_Controversy_section

    Then in November, I added it again. Not suprisingly, Mrchimpf struck back again. This time he threatened to block me if I continued to add it. I let out a heartfelt rant telling him how I feel about him which can be read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VintageVHSTreasures&oldid=750497512#Final_warning

    It lead to me being blocked from editing for three days for “personally attacking the other users”. I then started another section on my talk page where I let off some more anger which lead from other bullshit remarks from two more admins: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VintageVHSTreasures&oldid=750502081. This lead to me getting my talk page privileges revoked. Now as soon as my block expired, I logged out of my account and it’s remained like that since. I have no further desire to contribute to Wikipedia when all the admins do is treat most contributions and users like s**t. I encourage everyone to boycott Wikipedia!

    Here’s some links which maybe helpful:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VintageVHSTreasures&oldid=750497512
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Studio_10&action=history
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_Studio_10

    • I did try to add it back for you, but they removed it again. I also tried to defend you too on there as well.

      • Thank you for trying to help me. That a**hole who replied back to me told me if I attempted it again, that it would result in a sockpuppet case. Because I previously reverted my edits under my IP address. I’m now officially done with Wikipedia. The admins and bigger editors and users are a**holes for disrespecting other contributors and their contributions. They need to change and they need to change, NOW! We should directly report these a**holes to Wikipedia and have them permanently blocked.

        • No problem bro, also watch out for Sro23 too, he’s one of the most “BAD” users on there of all time. He causes the most edit wars in every article with an ip user who he gives trouble against, especially me. He does a great job for angering people out there! He even gets involved in situations with users that’s not of his business in the first place!

        • I already know about Sro23. He was also one of the admins along with Mrschimpf and SummerPhDv2.0 that kept reverting my edits on the Nick Studio 10 page. So far that’s the only time I’ve encountered Sro23.

        • There was one time I told him on the Charles Martinet talk page to mind his own business and stop getting involved in everyone’s situations, and an admin took that as a harassment threat for what I said to him. But telling someone to “Mind there own Business” is “NOT” a harassment threat. I’ve tried to explain that to him “The admin” but he/she refused to listen as usual…. Just now Mlpeare Home and Sro23 are “NOW” giving me trouble on the Christopher Lloyd article. Making a “BIG” “HUGE” deal of his occupations I was removing from the article, I’ve explain it to them four to five freaking times that it doesn’t need “voice actor” in his occupation section, and told them that” Actor” already covers his voice over work. But as usual… not even listening and continue to edit war. Mlpeare Home is another of one of the worst users I’ve ever seen on there for years, he gave me trouble before in the past and I refuse to let him give me trouble again. The one time he gave me trouble was on the Florence Henderson article. I just hate how the admins refuse to ban them for all the trouble they been causing to me and the others. It just makes me sick to my stomach….

        • Mlpeare Home even lied about me hassling on the Christopher Lloyd talk page, because I removed Sro23’s harassment comment that he replied to my message on there about his occupations., and it was because I told Sro23 in my edit summery to stop getting involved in my situations.

        • Sorry, I ment to say “Mlpearc Phone” not “Mlpearce Home”. My computer keeps fixing my mistakes for some reason. I But I think you knew what I meant.

        • I just saw that you’re now blocked. If I were you, I would just leave it at that like I did. The admins are just a**holes for having no respect or tolerance for no one but themselves. Unfortunately, that’s the reality of Wikipedia. Like I said, why contribute to a site when all the admins do is treat all the smaller contributors like crap? This is something that should be given more attention to the public.

        • Another thing about Sro23, is I think he also has mental illness too. Because he won’t take any criticism from anyone that he picks on and bullies. No how many times he reverts peoples edits and when they tell him to stop and knock it off with his harassment, he just ignores them and keeps on going. Plus, his talk page had been protected indefinite, so now it means no ip user won’t be able to so on there and tell him things anymore. Just like that, he just won’t take any criticism…

        • SRo23 is quite the internet tough guy and I agree probably has a mental illness. He picked a fight with me over some minor edits on Gregg Doyels page, stalked me to other pages, then lied to admins about me being involved in sock puppetry. It was really creepy. I half expected to find him lurking in the bushes outside my house, but then I realized he’s probably a basement dwelling shut in who isnt capable of leaving his parent”s house.

  19. There was one more abusive user I forgot to mention on here in my past comments. Don’t forgot to watch out for user Dpm12 too. When u make an edit he doesn’t like on articles, for example “Joe Alaskey” and “Jeff Bergman”. He will revert you edit numerous times and he will threaten you on your talk page that you will be block if u don’t stop putting back the edit he doesn’t like. He will also blame you for hassling just like he did to me, blamed me for hassling too. So watch out for him too folks, he threaten me too what the same message!

  20. Right there with you buddy, why just today I got blocked from editing the Wikipedia page for ‘God’s Own Country’ (2017 film), for simply adding the awards and nominations received by the film at Sundance yesterday. Lucky thing I had the presence of mind to re-do it off my account with a source added in, plus the bonus of a little taunt to the admins that reads as follows:

    “You really thought blocking from editing me would change anything admins? Well I guess the joke’s on you.”

    It’s not the only problem, I even get it when the info comes before a source is properly available.

    • The joke “IS” on them, you are absolutely right about that my man. They just care about no one but themselves.

  21. Homechallenge55 is also another rude user out there on the Wiki. He keeps leaving harassing messages in my ip talk page over and over again. He then whines and complains to Sro23 of me hassling him in my edit summaries every time I keep removing his harassing messages when he’s the one that started it. I did admit in my edit summaries when I was removing his messages, in my edit summaries I did call him a (You know what) and I told him if he has better things to do than just leave harassing massages on talk pages, but he just ignored it and listens to Sto23’s lies were he called me “Still being horrible.” as usual…. ?

    I will post the links at the bottom.

  22. Homechallange, Sjones23 and Sro23 keep continuing to vandalize the articles of Jimmy Zoppi, Kayzie Rogers, Amy Birnbaum, Darren Dunstan, Marc Thompson (voice actor), Sean Schemmel. Dan Green, Ted Lewis (voice actor), Amy Palant, Lisa Ortiz, Scott Rayow, and Fighting Foodons. Homechallange55 was claiming that the edits on there of their work on “Sonic and Pokémon” is unsourced after all these years. I constantly tried to report homechallange55 and Sr23 on the “report user for vandalism” page for vandalizing them but Sro23 keeps removing my report to prevent him for getting blocked. I couldn’t tell him to stop because his talk page was protected from vandalism, overtime I try to put the articles back they way they were, Sro23 and Sjones23 agree with Homechallange55 and they continue to vandalize them over and over, I was so angry with them I even told them to “knock it off!, this information is right and sourced!” But still they refuse to listen and continue to do it. Sjones23 keeps saying lies about me saying that I have been giving him problems and issues, but the truth is he’s one that’s giving me problems and issues, and that’s is what I also told him on his talk page. That’s why i keep getting angry at them because they have been giving me problems ever since. They are reverting them on purpose just to angry me, and just to say lies that they are unsourced, but they are not unsourced. I just wanted to keep the articles the way they are so when people research them online, they won’t get confused to see them removed from there filmography section.

  23. I also read up somewhere that sometimes they will also post death threats to users after they are blocked. But even after that, after the inocent user gets block, they lie about making those threats to users and they would say “We did no such thing!”. They say lies just to get away with it.

    • Here’s me for example, I would never posted any deaths threats to any of them at all. Because I’m not that kind of person in real life that would write death posts to people, never. Because I know it’s wrong and it’s not the right thing to say when you get angry at a bully that’s harassing you online. I just ignore them and move on, just like what I’m doing from Ebyabe and Sro23.

  24. i certainly understand what you’re talking about. I would say is abuse of power behind the screens. Just like in real world, the pack is there and who knows what goes behind the scenes.

    Is pretty sad that Wiki so called appointed volunteer ADMINS seem autocratic. Just left the place.

    • Agreed, I’ve had the same issues from them too. Even when u try to tell them the truth about another user harassing you and edit warring against you. They won’t block that user that’s harassing you. They just sit there on there butts and call you a liar. That’s what they did to me, user: Honechallange55 was vandalizing articles they were sourced, I’ve been trying to stop him but he kept going, I told an admin about it and as usual they didn’t believe me and they called me a liar…. ?

  25. Watch out for admin user Buckimion on American Dad and Family Guy wiki. He is also one if the most abusive admins out there on the internet. He blocks anyone that gets in his way and he does not accept any changes in any of the articles on both wikis. For example, he reverted my edit on an “actor” article I was editing on the American Dad wiki changing “voice artist” to “voice actor”. He reverted it back because he doesn’t like it, I mean come on! What’s the big deal of that? “actor” and “artist”? His rules are completely stupid as well. He gets angry at inocent users when things don’t go his way!

  26. Watch out for admin user Buckimion on American Dad and Family Guy wiki. He is also one if the most abusive admins out there on the internet. He blocks anyone that gets in his way and he does knit accept any changes in the articles on both wikis, his rules are stupid as well. He gets angry at inocent users when things don’t go his way!

  27. Cant bealeve someone actually wrote about this! Thank you man!!! Oh, I’m so glad that I’m not alone…so they are really as I though…cccc

  28. The so called “Administrators” of Wikipedia are the most horrible losers in real life who show their authority over others in virtual world……it’s like they say “Even a mouse is pledged with some power, it can act like a cunning Wolf” in some cases like Wikipedia they become “certified pigs”….#shame

  29. Tgey are annoying, I Agree. They reverts our edits just to anger us! And just too blame us for there mental problems.

  30. They are annoying but, they’ve been slowly, but steadily, declining for a long time now (even better, they are still declining after having taken measures to solve the problem). They’ve lost like 25% of their editors (and admins) conpared to their peak years ago.
    Almost every article of theirs in important topics is terribly biased, as you’d expect when they depend on the whims of a small gang of zealots, and the average article has terrible quality.
    They may seem untouchable but in the end wikipedia will fall, and the pathetic admins too. Think that there is an ever growing number of articles watched by an ever diminishing number of admins. That makes vandalism easier with the passing of time (even now it’s not that difficult done right, if you want to try), which makes wikipedia more unreliable, maybe to the point that someday people will stop trusting it. I contribute to this, as I can’t stand such a biased source being taken as the principal source for truthful knowledge of our time

    • Hear Hear! The only options left for humanity in the face of the criminal operation known as wikipedia is to find and implement ways to destroy it over time. In the meantime people should contribute to alternatives to that cesspool and hopefully those will be the ones that come up more often on google searches for various topics.

  31. Watch out for admin Drmies too. He will leave you harassing messages after your blocked, he wrote cursing and swears messages on my talk page, he even called me an idiot and an ass on Woodstop’s talk page.

  32. Sro23 is one of the most abusive people out there to this day. He will revert all your edits and accuse you for vandalizing them. He won’t even stop stalking you either, also, every time when you make an edit on an article, he will request all of them too be protected. He doesn’t even explain to you why he reverts the edit, he just does it anyway! Without explaining. He’s the one that causes the most edit wars of all time and Wikipedia refuses too ban him from the site. Which is BS.

    • I’ve experienced the wrath of Sro23. He puts a lot of effort into reverting pages and blanking talk pages. I mean, I am a permanently banned member as of March 2015 pretty much but he really puts way too much effort into this.

      Materialscientist is pretty bad too. I wouldn’t say he’s (as) malicious but he is very heavy-handed and blocks way too many members.

      The most annoying thing is “good faith” reversions. That means they think you meant to edit the wiki in a productive manner, but because you didn’t follow their cumbersome BS rules, they will revert the edit entirely, as though you had vandalized.

      :

    • Sro23 is a piece of garbage! Whenever you are having an issue with another admin he will just jump in their defense like it is his problem. Recently an admin posted a message on my page, I then responded to the admin on my page (not saying anything wrong) and he deletes my message. Seriously? Who the hell does he think he is? Watch out for Mlpearce too.

      • I’m glad you both agree with me. Here’s what happened to me against him. I’ve told him numerous times that the edits I’ve been correcting are not vandalism, and still. He refuses too listen too me. Because that’s what I’ve been doing, fixing mistakes of actors, in there filmography sections, of the characters they voiced and didn’t voiced. For example with me, I like to edit voice actor articles and other actors. On one article, voice actor Pat Fraley I was editing. There was a mistake that I found in the video games section in his filmography that it said he voiced Shy Guy in Mario Superstar Baseball. I learned that it was wrong the whole times, shy guy was voiced by Nate Bihldoff. So I removed that and then I added some extra video games information in there such as the Toy Story games that he voiced Buzz Lightyear in. That was it, it was done in July of this year that I did it. Then this month, I noticed another mistake, and it was in his personal life information about his marriage information, it was in there twice. So I removed it the second time it was in there and guess what happens. Sro23 sticks his nose in my business and reverts it all back to incorrect information, putting Mario Superstar Baseball back in there and removing the toy story games too. I’ve reported him so many times that they still wouldn’t listen, and now the article is protected again….. agreeing with his wrong information he added back in. I requested an edit request on the talk page of Pat Fraley to have the edits back the way they were because they were wrong. But then a stupid user named “DatGuy” replied and refuses too put it all back, telling me too please provided BS reliable sources that support the change I want to be made…., Now user DatGuy is now getting on my case as well now. So that’s it with my story. Also, this is not his first time Sro23 did this too me, he also reverted my edits on “Christopher Collins”, “Carroll Spinney”, “Scott Innes”, “Francis Matthews” you name it, he follows me were ever I go. So ya….. He’s a pain in the butt. I would love too give him a Tomestone Piledriver!

        • I also hate Sro23!! That POS is routinely involved in blatant abuse of the ‘wiki admin’ tools along with a whole gang of f-ing criminals, including a certain Paul Erik and Dane2007 among several other mentally ill filth ridden retards on the cesspool known as wikipedia. Please find a way to bury these internet cockroaches who are infesting parts of the wiki cesspool with even more disease than usual. They even remove posts made on the dispute resolution board…in other words, if they decide to delete your edit or prevent you from contributing to an article, you can’t even use the supposedly available wikipedia dispute process…how’s that for filthy? they are beyond repair corrupt and diseased…will someone in the hacking community please terminate their collective pathology with extreme prejudice asap!?!

      • Also, watch out for admin Drmies too. He called me an idiot and a ass on MarnetteD’s and Woodstop’s talk pages!

        • Yes, Woodstop is a prick too. I asked him why he reverted one of my edits and he gave me a rather cold remark. I don’t understand where these admins get off talking to people like this. The templates they use to respond are very rude and unprofessional. Saying things like “please stop your disruptive editing” or “please do not make bad pages” are very rude and impolite. And a majority of the times if you try to call out an admin the other admins will jump right in their defense. They are not admins, they are bullies who can’t find a job.

        • @Vincent Gaspar; Agreed, Woodstop had been doing the same thing too me as well. Siding with Sro23 against me. He also shouldn’t have stuck his nose were I didn’t belong, in the first place.

        • And also, Ponyo has also been abusing my edits as well on the Mike MacRae article. He set the protection on that article so many times when I edited it, and now he set it until August of next year to expire after he reverted my edits. It’s BS.

        • Just recent this week. I asked user SNUGGUMS to fix a mistake on the Bill Farmer article because the page was protected because of stupid vandalism crap they accused me days before it got protected. Anyways, after he fixed it Sro once again stick his nose in our business and told him about me and my ban. After I saw that, I was like, “sigh…,” now’s he’s trying to get SNUGGUMS to turn his back on IP’s now. I have a whole lot of respect for SNUGGUMS, he never does anyting bad on wiki?, he does good stuff. I just feel sorry that Sro is now putting him in this situation now… I just wish Sro would get the hell off the wiki and leave everyone alone.

    • @Abe Wikadminkiller Yes, and they keep defending him and they are not doing there job for banning him from the site, and no matter what I post on a talk page, he removes them. Sjones23 also gave me problems too, he blamed me for giving him problems in the past and now, he’s the one that’s been giving me problems. He even told me I’m no longer welcome on Wikipedia anymore and all of my edits will be reverted no matter witch ones I make. But I told him he can’t tell me what to do on the internet, he’s not the boss of me. That’s why I keep losing my temper on the edit summaries after I post my edits, I keep writing angry posts because they refuse to stop and just ignore the rules, and that’s why I keep losing my temper with them. But still Sjones23 stinks anyways, he just lies.

    • Just recent this week. I asked user SNUGGUMS to fix a mistake on the Bill Farmer article because the page was protected because of stupid vandalism crap they accused me days before it got protected. Anyways, after he fixed it Sro once again stick his nose in our business and told him about me and my ban. After I saw that, I was like, “sigh…,” now’s he’s trying to get SNUGGUMS to turn his back on IP’s now. I have a whole lot of respect for SNUGGUMS, he never does anyting bad on wiki?, he does good stuff. I just feel sorry that Sro is now putting him in this situation now… I just wish Sro would get the hell off the wiki and leave everyone alone.

  33. Sro23 is now accusing to file a complaint against me. He’s the one causing the problems, and blaming user for them. Well good luck Sro23 for trying too file a complaint. I’m obviously going too win because of your bad behavior. ?

    • Also, I doubt that this file complaint thing from him will never happen. He probably just said that because he was angry. But who cares, I don’t care what his problem is.

  34. Another thing I really hate the most is when you tell an admin or a regular user too knock it off with there harassment. They all blame the whole cyber bulling stuff on you, what ever you say too them, they take it as cyber bulling.

    • There’s a serious need for Wikipedia to be made genuinely accountable for its content and the actions of its administrators and writers. At the moment they have the power to judge who and what gets written about, and how it gets written about. They can even choose to write about any of us, in any way they see fit, and yet they refuse to take full and proper responsibility for it. They have appointed themselves the judges of what is right for you, and me, and what is and is not proof, truth or justice. They hide their identities behind pseudonyms whilst invading the privacy of others, and, if anyone challenges their behaviour, they are likely to respond with threats, personal abuse and bans. This is an organisation – quite scandalously – that polices itself, judges itself, and, in every instance, legitimates itself. It is always right because it decides what is right. You are always wrong because it decides what is wrong. You can choose to bow to its authority and become a loyal subject, or be ostracised as an unbeliever. This would merely be sad and even quite comical if it was just a small and insignificant enterprise, but Wikipedia is huge and hugely influential, and hugely powerful. And it’s power without responsibility, power without accountability. This is simply unacceptable. It is high time that this arrogant, self-admiring, self-regulating and often bullying organisation be placed under the formal supervision of a genuinely independent watchdog. A worldwide campaign needs to start to make this happen.

      • You sure know your stuff, all I can say is. I agree. For everything you said. I know, it’s just crazy. They keep blaming me over and over for harassing people online, which I never did. But yes, I admit it. I did write angry posts too some admin users that were harassing me. I wasn’t doing it to harass them back, I wrote those because I was angry for the way they were threating me, and they refuse too listen. But still, I agree with you. I’m still trying really hard too stay off the site.

      • And the truth is, I actually don’t put up with that kind of behavior online, I don’t put up with jerks online. People who act like that online and harasses people are losers, cyber bullies are losers. They care about no one but them self’s. Just like the way MarnetteD and Ebyabe threatened me. They blame the cyber bulling stuff on me, but they were the ones causing the problems against me.

      • Hear Hear, very well said Cal! Please find a way of creating such a campaign, please! they need to be held accountable for their crimes, which in some cases seem to even include *cyber attacks*, yes that’s right cyber attacks…which is a crime in just about every jurisdiction now. It’s on the books, in the Criminal Code. These garbage heads and their abusive pathologies need to be punished and then sanitized from the face of the earth! Especially Sro23, Paul Erik, Dane2007 and others in their gone-bad cult network of diseased flies trying to find poo they can create and thrive on. Someone with the cyber skills to do it, please put them in their place. And yes, let’s go with that campaign, I definitely will support it! Down with the cesspool that is wikipedia!

  35. User Sro23 is now starting too gan up on me as well along with Sjones23, Ebyabe, and MarnetteD.I’ve now had enough of Sro23’s BS as well! Messing up information on Eric Stuart removing his band information and crap, and his other occupation. It’s BS. We have every right too add back information when ever we want when we want! No matter how many times they remove them too annoy us. I also learned that Sro23 might a sock puppet of admin Widr according too my research, but I could be wrong. Anyway’s not only they do this too everyone online. They are just doing this to themself’s just too make themself’s popular and annoying!

    • I have had problems with that admin too! I have a strong suspicion that it created a sockpuppet to impersonate me, then went to another admin with rights to check account IPs, to block my IP range and cover him up (because if it’s true it will show Sro23’s ip for the impersonator and not me) just because it couldn’t find a reason to block me.
      I feel harassed and threatened , I really fear for my privacy and security. What can I do, knowing that if I appeal Sro23 will turn everyone against me?

      • I can see what your going through from him. I wish I can do something to help u, But I don’t know how. It’s not his first time he’s done this in his Wikipedia career. He’s done this to other users too like me for example. One time, he threatened to file a complaint against me!, complaining that I’m the one causing the trouble on there and not him. Blaming users for stuff they didn’t do is BS too. Ever since he said that, now I’m wishing to file a complaint against him and his threats.

        • There’s no point in filing a complaint. Someone (usually Materialscientist) will give the complaint filing member a “boomerang block” which means instead of investigating the situation they will ignore it and punish the person who brings up the issue. Very corrupt but expected with Wikipedia.

        • Your right, I probably should say stuff like that, “Filing a complaint”. I don’t mean it. It’s just that those kind of user just piss me off a lot. And that’s what came in my mind

    • Anthony it’s funny you all should mention SR023 possibly being involved in sock puppetry as I have the same suspicions. In fact i think he created a dummy account, vandalized his own page and tried to link it to me. After he picked a fight with me earlier this year he filed a BS sock puppet complaint against me. He tried to link me with another account that – by an amazing coincidence – had just been created and had starting vandalizing pages the same day he filed he complaint. the other account had a ridiculous name too, like “wikihatesamerica” or something. Anyways I filed a sock puppet complaint right back at him. Sadly it didnt go anywhere but the silver lining is it REALLY pissed him off: you could almost feel him angrily mashing his keyboard and breathing heavily when responding. He’s a real tough guy when he’s in his parent’s basement needlessly berating people with his keyboard, it’s very amusing.

  36. User:Sjones23 just likes to keep stalking me like a creep and keep undoing my edits, saying their vandalisum but they are really not at all. His/her profile says he’s/she’s “annoying”, well… this answers my question about him. This is not his first time he’s done this too me.

    • Elockid- one of the most abusive and vindictive admins on Wikipedia- this arrogant bastard needs to be banned from Wikipedia permanently.

  37. User:Sjones23 just likes to keep stalking me like a creep and keep undoing my edits, saying their vandalisum but they are really now. His profile says he’s “annoying”, well… this answers my question about him. This is not his first time he’s done this too me.

  38. Ebyabe also caused the same problem against Vincent D’ Onfrio’s wife as well on their, messing with his spouse and making them all incorrect. She was trying to prove that he was never marrived three times in his career and he was only married twice. If you look here in this link someone wrote it’s reviled he’s too suborn to listen too users and he doesn’t accept anyone’s thoughts and other stuff. https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/3lnt6j/vincent_donofrios_wife_has_tried_to_correct/

  39. I also hate how they don’t deal with their cyberbullying problems like what Ebyabe has been doing to me lately.

  40. They just protected an “actor” article over my edits because of one small edit I made. I was adding “years_active” in the inbox and they called vandalism and protected it. How is “years_active” vandalism to them!?!?!?!? How!?!?!? Show’s you how stupid they are and they take everything seriously.

    • The same thing happened to me too man. All I did was edit The Warriors film by adding a little extra info, and this guy said “please stop your disruptive editing, if you continue to do so you may be blocked.” How rude and unproffessional! How is adding to a film “it received critical acclaim” disruptive? Watch out for CaptainRaju. He is a real scumbag. So I totally feel your pain.

      • Thanks man, here’s an example of it. I was only putting it in below the info box of how long he’s been acting, since “1978” I was adding. Just like every other “actor” article has a “years_active” section in them of how they they have been acting through there career’s. I asked them how is that unsourced and vandalism in there minds? Especially an annoying user named “Ebyabe” who thinks everything is unsourced in all the articles he edits. He has no block history on hisaccount through his career on Wikipedia. I’ve tried to report em to the adims so many times, but they don’t believe me. He even keeps on making troll comments about me with his friends like “MarnetteD” on there talk pages on wikipedia and saying bad stuff. MarnetteD is just like him when he stalks me as well.

      • See what I mean Vincent Gaspar. it makes me so mad they wikipedia does not deal with their cyber bulling issues like this one.

  41. Thank you so much for posting this. I just had my ip address blocked today by an admin for editing two articles. His name is ninjarobotpirate. He is a real piece of crap. He didn’t like my edits for the cartoon network show We Bare Bears. My favorite cartoon show. He told me, “please do not add or edit articles without sources such as you did with We Bare Bears. Do not write things such as “it received critical acclaim.” WTF? It DID receive critcal acclaim! And now there is false information on the article. I did not say anything bad, swear or anything innappropriate in my edit. I even provided sources.

    He also got pissy with me on my edit for The Warriors film 1979. The initial information on the article is false. It said it received negative reception which is entirely false considering so many people love that movie. So I edited it by saying it received critically acclaim and has a strong cult following to this day, and that little prick threaten to ban me claiming that I had no sources. I know I had sources to support my edits. So who the hell do these a holes think they are??? We all know that The Warriors is a great movie and that We Bare Bears is a great cartoon, so I am not going to let that a hole discourage me from watching The Warriors or We Bare Bears. Go ahead and block me. I could care less. Here is a link to his profile by the way. I doubt these admins are even real. They are probably robots.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NinjaRobotPirate

  42. I think when an Administrator bands someones unfairly and blocks their account it basically like them saying “HA-HA YOU CAN’T GET ME!!”
    * blows raspberry* at innocent victims. :‑þ

  43. I once got blocked from editing just one page on a cartoon character because I was apparently “making too many edits”; and I could not comment DIRECTLY to the Administrator who did it to mean and tell them how TICKED OFF I was about it because they was no ‘reply’ button for their, I say as long as your not putting FALSE information with no facts to back it up then you should be allowed to edit as MUCH as you WANT!

    • Don’t worry, your not the only one. I went through the same situation you did with MarnetteD. Were he kept on reverting my edits as well. It freaking pissed me off too!

  44. Still agree that the site sucks, Sorry that I keep on posting here a lot lately. I’m trying really hard to stay off of the site. But the site keeps dragging me back so some strange reason.

    • Actually I’m in a pack full of admins. I’m friends with every single one of them. However I know admins have a bad rap. I can’t stand wiki, but I do like the content just not the community.

      Also I’m the Alpha, a pack of 5 members plus myself makes 5 individuals….So I’m not going to have no problem. The problem I’m afraid of is their disloyalty and betrayal. Once they betray you, it’s over.

  45. Cyphoidbomb has now threatened to hurt me and smack my head in the 21st century over and edit I made on April Winchell. I was changing “Actor” to “Actress” because that’s what a female actor is called, “Actress”. So he’s treating to hurt me over that edit, it’s no big deal. Pretty stupid of him, idiot.

  46. MarnetteD also keeps messing up actor Martin Sherman’s birthdate and birthplace. Another user or IP user made it incorrect and made it as March 9, 1971 as his birth date. His correct and real birthdate is actually November 28, 1966 according to IMDB, Thomas the Tank Engine wiki and other sites, also they also made his birth place says Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA, instead of his correct and real birthplace Evanston, Illinois, USA. So I trie to change all that back to normal they way it’s suppose too be before. And once again for the 100th time, he changing it all back too incorrect information and agrees with the incorrect user that made it. I’ve tried to explain too him once again that it’s wrong and that another user made it like that and I was changing it back to normal, but once again he didn’t listen too me and framed me once again with another admin, and the admins locked the page to prevent me for going back to it again. I’ve keep telling the admins that he’s bulling me, but they don’t believe me!, also, on his user page, they made him “Editor of the Week” for all of his hard work and stuff. When i first saw it, I said, THST’S BULL****. Because they don’t see that he’s a bully on the internet against me. He keep sweat talking his way out of it and keeps getting away with it. So, I call him the “WORST” editor of the week because of his harassment!, the admins are idiots for making him editor of the week. They love having bullies as friends. How ever, I told them all that no matter how many times they keep doing it and messing up the articles with vandalism incorrect information, I will keep changing it back too correct information no matter what, no matter how many times they keep removing it!. I’m going to keep going until they give up. Because they have so much wrong information on there and the admins don’t do nothing about it.

  47. Sometimes they just have nothing to do in there lives, they just take there trouble some problem edits out on innocent users such as me. Even Ponyo, I gotta say about him, I don’t want to talk about him at all. After all my hard work on my edits I made on the articles I edited with correct information, he vandalizes them and make them incorrect all over again for example like wrestler “Dusty Rhodes” I tried to fix his death date back to the way it was, because some one made an edit that he died at age 70. But that’s not true, he actually died at the age of 69, some other user messed it all up. All of a sudden as soon I got banned again for another stupid reason, he vandalizes it back to incorrect information. This another reason why aims are horrible. They don’t take there time to fix there mistakes in there articles, they never fix them right away. It’s bad, horrible and they are lazy. Besides they are the ones causing vandalism in there articles, not us. Anyway’s, admins suck and they alway’s will be!, that’s all I can say about them.

  48. Rest assured, you are not alone. Those bastards have literally twisted Wikipedia. Administrators will usually not go against one another because they fear that if they make a mistake in the future, the admin they previously reported will be there to catch it and report it in retaliation. This is the same culture of police in North America. They will not report one another because they fear they will not survive their careers.

    • I had a similar experience today with an admin. I got blocked because I edited something they didn’t like. I been knowing the admin a few months and I thought we were cool with each other.

      And you are right. The admin will back up another admin, cover them…etc

  49. MarnetteD acts like he owns all the articles on the site, he won’t let anyone edit them but him, whenever someone makes an edit on an article in 5 seconds, he changes it back 5 seconds again later making it all wrong annoying a lot of users out there. When ever I try to edit the Bill Farmer article when an IP user makes a vandalism edit on it, and when I put it back the way it is, he sticks his nose in my business and changes it back to incorrect information. He claims he owns the Bill Farmer article and he can only edit but not me, it’s suppose to be a site were everyone around the world can edit it, but not him. he won’t let anyone edit that article, even when I go to “Don Messick”, “Frank Welker” and others claiming he owns all of them!, the stupid admins are not doing there job of protecting the articles from him. I hate this user so much!!!!!, I wish he would leave me alone in peace.

  50. I’d like to share my experience of trying to put some what I thought would be helpful information on wikipaedia and what I conclude from my experience. I am an ex pat Brit and now live in an interesting village in Spain. On Wikipaedia it features as a stub with incorrect and inadequate information – one line about the population and incorrectly described as a city (!) – oh and the crest and flag which I’m dubious about plus some dodgy latitude/longitude figures. I have never contributed to Wikipaedia before but thought I’d give it a go. Living here I know and can research the history and so started writing about it and in fact made a substantial and factually correct contribution in the form of several paragraphs – it was work in progress and I waas sourcing names and references – it was however a very substantial improvement on the very inadequate stub, There was in fact the standard Wikipaedia invitation to add to the stub to improve the information and I thought I had been helpful both to the village and Wikipaedia. I logged off looking forward to adding to my work. Next day I log back on to receive a message from an administrator telling me that he has restored the original non article stub as I didn’t appear to have left a note about my edit – I did. I sent a message to him via his talk page explaining this and my utter frustration and disbelief that and later labour had been in vain. Later that day I received an e mail to something rather quaintly called the tea-house – a forum for new editors. No real explanation from the administrator who took down my work. At this point I lost the will to live almost and posted a rude message on one of the forums. Almost certainly the stub will remain as it is highly unlikely anyone else will add anything. Needless to say I won’t be going back or bothering contributing to Wikipaedia ever again – there are other options. My conclusion from my experience is that firstly Wikipaedia is too big and unwieldy and like a lot of oversized entitites the ability to operate in a meaningful way on an individual level has been lost. Secondly the corollary to this is that Wikipaedia editing appears to have become the domain of those technically savvy to use it and by definition is therefore not open to everyone. I conclude from my experience that Wikipaedia is a form of fascisitic control over knowledge by a bunch of anally retentive pedants – effectively a dictatorship over knowledge and like all dictatorships it will be overthrown as it would appear to be no longer in touch with its constituents – may that day arrive soon – feel free to share on absolutely any forum. Jack.

  51. I’ve had nothing but trouble from administrators. One administrator, “Arthur Rubin”, even went so far as to vandalize my user page. It took me a while to figure out how to repair the damage. More recently, I caught another administrator, “Future Perfect at Sunrise”, cussing out an established editor, telling him to “f**k off” and “go f**k yourself”. I told him to watch his language, and that I expected better behavior from an administrator. He began his usual childish threats and name-calling. When I reported him at WP:ANI, the other administrators put ME on trial, as if I were the problem for reporting Future Perfect’s abuse. Several administrators there immediately began searching through my edit history, looking for anything they could threaten me with. In the end, I quit Wikipedia. I’m not interested in putting up with the abuse. See my short writeup “The Case Against Wikipedia” here:
    http://nanopedia.davidgsimpson.com/

  52. I’ve had some dreadful experiences on Wikipedia; the single biggest reason why people leave, I would say, is not because it’s hard work, people haven’t got time for it or people start finding it boring, it’s because so many of the current admins are a complete nightmare. They’re clueless, unprofessional, highly incompetent, often extremely rude, and very, very unpredictable. Even worse are some of the users who are too crap to even become admins, who still try to make as many people’s lives miserable as possible.

  53. My life on there just got worse, also I remember Jaredgk2008. I remember him trying to help me out on other articles I was editing before I got banned, like Wayne Knight, Bill Fagerbakke, Pluto (The disney character), Ludwig Von Drake, and various others. Yes, I am FF2 by the way. I’m glad he tried to stand up for me against those horrible users and admins. It’s because it’s all MarnetteD fault for getting me banned and blaming me to the admins which is also unfair that I agree. All I’ve been trying to do Is fix mistakes in articles and adding sources which I have been doing, following the rules, and I was updating them too. Don’t ever trust that evil shit MarnetteD, he’s been stalking me for the past months and weeks on there and it’s getting really annoying, and his buddy Ebaybe was also gaining up on me too. First of all, if he saw my edits when I first started editing wiki in the past this year, he should have never stocked me and cause all this trouble against me in the first place when I started :angry:, and he shouldn’t have stuck his stupid nose were I didn’t belong. And most of all, when he posted on an Sockpuppet/investigation page of me, he even gave out some personal information of the state of were I was editing from and my IP address editing information too of were I was editing from, It’s against the law to do that!!!!!! he should know by now!!!!!! :angry:, giving out other people information they don’t know and never met in there life’s. You can’t do that. I am not very happy about that now! I’m really pissed for what he did, showing my information there and other mean stuff!, I’m not going to post the link here of were he posted it, because I want to keep my information privet on here. I’m done with wikipedia. I’m not going to put up with his stupid crap against me. I would have been just fine on the site if he had never sticked his nose were it didn’t belong!, jerk MarnetteD I hope they ban him! :angry: Besides, he’s an idiot!

    P.S. Also, thanks for standing up for me Jaredgk2008.

  54. Look at the original sin. How could we accept something that is so disgusting. Libraries are so beautiful. Humanity don’t need a knowledge for the people… truth, nothing more nothing less. Wikipdia is a dictatorship, memebers electing each others for a full power mandate…. how sad,, google is with them….

  55. Wikipedia… if only Hitler was smart enough to give the textbooks to his disciples and let THEM alter history for the sake of all human kind.

    It is interesting that Wikipedia’s accuracy and NPOV starts dropping like a rock the instant they leave the firm grounds of established encyclopaedic content with things like “proof” going from “what I plagiarized from Britannica” to “oh look, an abstract that sounds like it agrees with my biased point of view (but the article actually firmly disagrees, too bad you have to pay to read it an nobody will bother).”

    It goes deeper, far deeper than just administrators. Any user who “defends” an article against “truth” has friends and they’ll pounce upon you should you dare fix it. Wikipedia isn’t about being encyclopaedic, Wikipedia is a soapbox and that is what it will always be.

  56. The administrators claim to investigate an issue before they block a user. It is not so in my case. When I think of investigating, I think of a court of law. If an admin is going to investigate a user, they ought to question the user first. As it was said towards the end of the post, blocking needs to be a last resort not first.

  57. I don’t understand why the admins won’t do the right thing for me, they won’t block users MarnetteD and Ebyabe. I’ve been trying to tell them that they were vandalizing my edits ever time I put the normal information back the way it is, because the information is already sourced out in the article already is what I keep trying to tell them, but those bastards won’t listen and keep vandalizing. The admins just won’t do the right thing at all. They won’t block MarnetteD and Ebyabe, because they are friends with them. The admins just let’s them vandalize articles all they want, they don’t even stop them for vandalizing articles, and those two do that just to get the innocent users blamed and ban from the wiki!, those ass holes!, that’s how they are.

  58. I hate MarnetteD and Ebybe. They keep saying I’m not following wikipedia source rules which I “AM” following in the first place, those two are a bunch of stockers, and they won’t stop undoing my edits!

  59. I want to sue there stupid butts, MarnetteD and stupid Ebyabe non admin users. They harassed me for the last time and no matter what article I go too they stock me and undo my sourced edits I provided, there butts need to be sued, why can’t the admins do the right thing and ban there asses from the wiki forever. That’s what I would do if I was admin, screw them!

      • I wish I can try that, but I don’t think it won’t work. The admins won’t do the right thing at all. They won’t block them, they are friends with them. The admins let them vandalize articles, they don’t even stop them for vandalizing articles, and those two do that just to get the innocent users blamed and ban from the wiki!, those ass holes!, that’s how they are.

  60. I have always wondered what the command structure of Wikipedia really is.

    They apparently talk of a “community” which is not a community at all, but a totally non-transparent group of folks who see their task as being “to protect Wikipedia for ‘vandalism'”, which in reality means “anything that could be interpreted as having a bias we do not like at all, and even the sources we do not like at all”. Not to talk of the fact that they can 1984 all the past away at one click!

    Even Roman Catholic Church or the past Kremlin is a more transparent bunch than the Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is really an experiment on what will be the result of many too many inbred people forming their own inbred church with all the Cardinals and Fathers ever so gently guiding their disobedient Herd.

  61. I have had many horrible experiences with them over the years. But for some reason keep coming back. Trying to sue for defamation because they will not hide my personal information from public view!

  62. Other wiki websites that are based around a series of a TV show, a trilogy of films or video games and so on are even worse. Administrator AlexShepherd on the silenthill wikia has pretty much turned it onto their own personal blog. Only Administrator AlexShepherd is allowed to put their personal opinion and speculation on pages with no reliable source links [1] to back it up and will ban others for doing the same thing… and heaven forbid… question there editing authority…

  63. Yeah Wikipedia moderators are the worst kind of person there is .. i had really bad experience with admin named Lectonar. Never logged in to Wikipedia since. The only things they don’t delete is the articles they wrote themselves. They are probably old people who have hatred for new generation 😛

  64. I don’t get it, I don’t understand why MarnetteD hates me so much!!!!!!, keeps saying I’m not getting the point, “You are, as ever, missing the point. With a source it goes in the body of the article not the infobox” is what he replied to me. What a worst admin user I have ever freaking seen in my life, why does he hate me so much!!!!!!, Here’s my reason why. Because he’s an A**HOLE!!!!!

  65. Admin “AcidSnow is another really really really bad admin user on the wiki too, he was really mean to me!

  66. Admin “AcidSnow” is a really really really bad user on the wiki, and a bully. After my last account got blocked, he said a harasive thing about me, he said I had no desire to change. Show’s you how much of a bad user he is!

  67. All we need to do then is fork Wikipedia with objective dispute resolution vice the subjective I-Decided-I-Dont-Like-You ones the current admins at Wikipedia are using. There have been many mirrors of wikipedia, but no true forks. Lots of room for improvement, especially in the voice of readers versus editors. Let readers rank editors and articles, etc. Advertising revenue can fund after initial kickstarter donations.

  68. It is clear, the power has gone to their head. Much like those students, in that experiment, who played out prisoners and guards, in a prison like setting. Almost immediately, those who were the guards, began to engender fascist tendencies. It is human nature. That Wiki is constantly pleading with me, for donations, makes me feel, that they are not long for the world. This business model, is a true house of cards. It will fall, once some billionaire, decides to take them out, with a real internet encyclopedia, that is accurate. Of course, Google is well on its way, as are some others, who understand the power, of true knowledge. Fascism, stems from complete and total control, at the very top, with no checks, to balance out those who have agendas, My limited experience, with 3 of these administrators, is that they attempt to bully, intimidate, and belittle anyone, who openly complains, about problems, experiences, etc. Surely, they must know, that there are some bad apples, amongst them. However, just like policemen sometimes do; they refuse to police their own. So, they become outsiders, in society. These administrators seem to have become a fraternity/sorority of the site. They disseminate info about trouble makers to each other, much like the USSR did, in the past. It cannot last, long term, under these conditions. It may morph, or it may always be around, in the back ground. However, the USA despises fascism. Good riddance, is what I say.

  69. They also will never believe a single word you say to them, Like when they blamed me for edit warring, that I never did at all. I’ve been trying to explain to them about what happened when I was editing. The admins don’t believe a single word I said when I tell them. They probably don’t listen to anyone at all and just like to ban users when ever they want!

  70. Some Wikipedia users like mrschimpf edit war and put in hoaxes about articles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speed_limits_in_the_United_States_by_jurisdiction&diff=prev&oldid=634015352

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midcontinent_Communications&diff=prev&oldid=633886753

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cable_theft&diff=633896477&oldid=633892997

    Wikipedia is giving hackers modems, routers and mobile ip addresses to target for hacking. see alt.just.trolling Trolling 8 – 2 – 2014.

  71. This reply is for Spamhater who replied to one of my comments on here, It’s not for death gleaner who wrote “Why I really Hate Wikipedia administrators” article here. This message is not for him, this reply was for Spamhater who replied to me in one of my comments. Just letting you know.

  72. Gosh I also hate wikipedia admins too. Here’s a story about what happen to me on Wikipedia, I got blamed for something I didn’t do at all. When I’m on Wikipedia, I alway’s want to make sure all the articles are right and not unscourced with bad info.

    Some freaking stupid admins blamed me for edit warring on one of my favorite articles, I wasn’t edit warring at all. I was trying to keep the article the way it is, because everything was all sourced out in the article with the right info.

    JamesBWatson who was suppose to help me, just didn’t freaking understand and blocked my main account indifenitly, My main account was Bigshowandkane64, I created it back in 2012. I went to his talk page and some users and admins were talking about me and he said “I have restored his blocked because he just doesn’t understand about edit war means.”

    But I already know what it means, he just won’t listen. I really wanted to write a message on his talk page and explain to him about what happened, but I couldn’t because my account was blocked indifenitly. I created a couple more accounts so I can edit and fix all the mistakes on my favorite articles of Actors, WWE Wrestlers, TV Shows, Trains, Characters and everything else so I can make them a lot better for everyone to see.

    But like always, stupid JamesBWatson and all the others admin guys blocked all my accounts and all my talk pages on them and including my latest one I created this year “MickeyMouseTheCoolGuy46” I wrote another apology on my talk page and told them not to block my talk page access. I wrote all that that because I wanted to see if they care or feel sorry for me at all and give me another chance.

    All I remember is seeing JamesBWatson’s comments (I can’t remember what he wrote.) and another user admin named AcidSnow wrote this “After reading his edit summaries, it looks like he has no desire to change. He cussed at you but then apologized and stated he won’t do it again but he keeps doing it anyways.”

    All I can say is, I am very well behaved all the way! The reason why I keep coming back is because I want to edit Wikipedia and fix the mistakes on the articles. A stupid noise admin like him comes over and accuses me of being a misbehaved person. I’m not like that at all!!!! He said that because they saw me posting angry stuff on my talk page, The reason why I was posting angry comments on my talk page, not in a mean way, it’s because the admins were pissing me off and stressing me out.

    That’s why I was posting angry comments on my talk page, they were making me angry and all pissed off, they are the ones causing the trouble, not me! And they just won’t leave me alone, I just want to edit peace and quiet. They just like enjoy to harass innocent users.

    So now, I eventually quit Wikipedia. I learned that the admin just don’t give a crap about anyone and just enjoy hurting and blocking innocent users. The admins and the ones that need to be banned and blocked from Wikipedia!!!!! I freaking hate them!

    I hope you all agree with me. Because they gave me such a freaking hard time!

  73. Some administrator blocked my comments when I added a link to a list of world war i video games. I got my account deleted and he reverted all of the links i added to other articles and called them “spam.” His user name is Ishdarian. I tried making new accounts but he deleted those and blocked my ip. Wikipedia is supposed to be a wiki, not a website where you waste your time editing an article just to have an admin revert it 3 hours later. I spent an entire day converting that list into a table and I asked for approval. One guy approved and added. Then, that annoying Ishdarian guy comes and then deletes it, just because I made the table! Everyone on the talk page was commenting that it should be made into a table and then that nerdy admin deletes it. Wikipedia doesn’t have much time left before it loses all of its support.

  74. 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)

    • 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.

  75. The real question is why would anyone care. 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 caring about this. The stupid fools who admin this site are nothing but lifeless geeks and neckbearded basement dwellers.

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

  77. 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.

    AlRodbell.com

  78. 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 203.197.78.162(talk)‎ . . (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 125.99.112.110(talk)‎ . . (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)

  79. 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.

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

  81. 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.

  82. 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:

    “-wikipedia”

    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?)

  83. 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?

  84. 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

  85. 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.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Softpedia_%282nd_nomination%29
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KeepInternetSafe%26Clean

  86. 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.

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

    User:DragonflySixtyseven

    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.

    • 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.

  88. I DEFY WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS, ESPECIALLY:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise

    I WOULD HAVE HIM BANANIZED ONCE AND FOR ALL

    ———-

    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:

    http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24326
    http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html#304
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akradecki/vivasocktrack
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators‘_noticeboard/IncidentArchive575#Harassment_of_good_faith_editors_by_Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise
    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:
    http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24326
    http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html#304
    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 211.115.80.146
    “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.”
    contradicts
    revert of the same IP 211.115.80.146 , 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/211.115.80.146

  89. 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.

  90. 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.

  91. 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!

  92. 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…

  93. 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.

  94. 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.

    • 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

    • 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…

    • I know how you feel, Wikipedia just love to hurt and harass innocent users just like me. That’s why I finally quit wikipedia now, because I just can’t take the pressure from those stupid admins for blaming me. I actually never trusted them in the first place when I started editing wikipedia. I knew they were problems the whole time! I wish the admins were ban from wikipedia.

  95. 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.

  96. 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!

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

  97. 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.

  98. 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.

  99. 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”.

    • 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?

      • 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.

  100. 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.

  101. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

  102. 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.

    • 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.

  103. 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.

    • 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.

  104. “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

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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 government is totalitarian, meaning the administrators control pretty much everything, including every word that every user says.

      • Good for you, suriamarsuli, that’s what I want to hear. I They have been treating me like crap on there for the past 3 months as well. Such as users MarnetteD and Ebyabe are the worst!

      • Yes, Suriamrsuli. That’s what i want to hear from you, even the non admins are ass holes too! such as MarnetteD and Ebybe. They have been treating me like crap on there for the past 3 months, so I just quit because of them. Those pricks! >=(