Wikipedia is all about horrific bullying and ruthless

[Guest guest]

This is online recorded demonstrated truth, hence no legal problems

whatever attend to saying it.

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia project that invites the public to

write and edit its pages, has got to be exposed as a place of the

worst forms of bullying and hate, no ethics whatever even against

stalking, a savage macho jungle, and with openly tyrannical bullying

administration that is emotionally abusive and openly gloats online (I

give links) of having the choice to be as unfair as it likes and can't

be challenged. Penalties actually get worsened if you challenge their

correctness,and there is no mechanism for ensuring you can give a

defence. How many of you had taken part in Wikipedia beyond just

reading it, and already seen any of this before? It is a very

dangerous scam and everyone must keep away from it. Anyone who takes

part in Wikipedia knowing what is happening there, is tainted. And

this is actually based on the ruthless political fighting there has

been on its Asperger Syndrome article page.

The page had been entirely stable for a month, everyone happy with it,

when on Aug 18 another user came there and suddenly started a crisis

by making abusive personal attacks on me out of nowhere, an act of

stalking because its content was visibly drawn on the lies AFF

circulates. How predictable. I had to defend against them, to every

user who refused to ignore them. Every time my defences stated that

the other person was being unfair and unjustifiably personal, this got

interpreted as me making a personal attack on them - and the group

consensus of several users flagrantly acted like school bullies by

taking this position, by citing the original attacks on me as

justification for it and for marking me as a user to discriminate

against, and saying that any attempt by me to fight back proved the

attacks right. Communist-style justice. It can all be read at

" talk:Asperger's Syndrome " , archive 2 as well as the present page. I

kept getting thrown back in my face, swaggering bullying assertions

that whatever the group chooses to say shall rule as the consensus,

and this matters more than the publicly claimed policy of neutral page

content. It was not threatening (as has been suggested) for me to

state the serious wrongs that would be committed if Wikipedia as a

community claimed to have a discretionary choice not to find in the

victim's favour in such a situation.

Any organisation that decides to take offence at being told it does

not have a discretionary choice to bully, is corrupt. But admins in

Wikipedia act alone and take personal bullying decisions without

there being any defence process to go through, that is judged by more

than just the first other passing admin who wants to act. I got a

2-day block put on me at the same moment as the AFF crew were starting

to announce adminstrative threats against me that I needed a free hand

to respond to, and the block was on grounds that it constituted " spam "

for me to keep re-adding a link to the page that was needed to balance

against AFF's link, but that some users had said they didn't want -

while it wasn't spam for the AFF link to be re-added by its

supporters. This decision was taken by 1 person, slapped on without

any formal defence process for me, and you are officially entitled to

challenge blocks but in practice they block your access to the pages

for raising issues of dispute where you could do that! Wikipedia's

forum section " Wikien-l " is separate from the Wikipedia page system,so

you remain able to post there, so I did so pointing out the standards

of fair play that were being broken and evidencing how I was being

bullied by a group and the block's biased one-sided nature. Within

hours I was just given a permanent block for that. Actually for

challenging the rightness of the 2-day block. Other admins intepreted

this as the offence of " making legal threats " , and what they openly

said in public at Wikien-l includes " You are not entitled to anything "

and " Wikipedia is not a democracy. "

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027816.html

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027817.html

and while you are looking, look at how openly bullying and taunting

and gloating and macho the entire tone of this forum is - in a forum

about running an encyclopaedia project - and how if you call up the

archive for August

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/thread.html

the very first topic, unrelated to me, is called " abuse of power by

admins as usual " . Think about this - actually for claiming any rights

to fair play when you defend yourself against a penalty imposed on you

at one biased low-level officer's discretion, you are given a worse

penalty. To argue that you are entitled to any fair play, they

actually count as " making legal threats " ! and it is a reason for

getting rid of you straight away, That is a mediaeval level of corruption.

Just contemplate what it means that the figures who run Wikipedia

invented a rule against " legal threats " to give themselves that power.

The power to reject on principle any duty of fair play in operating in

practice the policy of neutral page content, and to behave as a group

like school bullies.

The only way the NPOV (neutral point of view) policy genuinely exists

and is not a public lie, is if unconditionally anyone who falls victim

to crowd psychology can lay claim to by right, not have to beg for by

favour, any measure that prevents a force of group numbers keeping a

bullying bias in place. Now, " laying claim to " anything, inherently

means being entitled to anything. This is actually a case-study in how

society emerged from the Middle Ages. To have any credible claim to

work by any principles, a society must show they operate reliably

fairly, and to do that means that people are entitled to it. No way

out of that. Hence, as soon as any group tries to follow any policy

code like neutral POV, immediately people are entitled to things and

all things are not dependent on favour. So, it stands absolutely

logically proved:

either * it's wrong to say to any user ever " you're not entitled to

anything " ,

or * it's wrong to say to the public that Wikipedia has a neutrality

policy that works.

They can't both be right because anyone can see they contradict each

other head-on. At least one must be wrong. Which is it? - I asked

them. What this means is perfectly clear. Unless Wikipedia can answer

that, then Wikipedia is illegal and I have uncovered the point where

its present structure makes it so.

Everyone with any links to any autism group, local or national,

offline, must tell them to join in forming a global alert throughout

the scene, against Wikipedia's blatant criminality. All organisations

have a testable duty to help with this, because then the scene on a

widespread scale can push for police alerts against Wikipedia for

victimisation associated with clear stalking, and deceiving the

public. A strong enough lobby that the police could be exposed such

that they automatically have to choose in favour of doing anything or

else be seen as accessory to the crime. This applies internationally.

Also to keep tabs on whether health offices of all kinds, throughout

the democratic world, do their duty to mark Wikipedia as a corrupt

scam that it would be illegal for them to use as a source in any way

or have anything to do with. Thence the online source of the Wikipedia

domain gets traced and it gets shut down.