Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia project that invites the public to write and edit its pages, is a scam and a sham. It has got to be exposed as a HATE WEBSITE, a place of the worst forms of group bullying and aggressive stalking, with openly emotionally abusive administrators who gloat online of having the choice to be as unfair as they like and can't be challenged. Penalties actually get worsened if you challenge their correctness, though nothing in Wikipedia's rules tells you that before it happens, and there is no mechanism for ensuring you can give a defence. These are demonstrated facts you can explore online. All responsible people must keep away from Wikipedia and untainted by it.
Admins in Wikipedia act alone and can block a user temporarily or permanently by personal judgment, the only check on which is their group popularity. There being any defence process to go through, against personal bullying decisions remaining in effect, that is judged by more than just the first other passing admin who wants to act. They are willing to put blocks on an indivdual whose view an ugly mob has already been stirred up against, at key moments when opponents are threatening you with lurid accusations - and without punishing the opponents for that, knowing inter-user threats are in name against the rules! The block's technical effects then gag you from taking part in the enquiry or dispute resolution or "request for comment" pages, or from starting a vote process against an article page that is entirely self-promotional for your threateners. So you see, there are no rules and no ethics in Wikipedia, because petty office-holders are entirely free to abuse their office by disabling your use of exactly the means to seek to uphold the rules at exactly the time when you need to - and appealing for another admin's intervention does not help. They will not back a user against whom other users bring in feuds from outside Wikipedia and make character attacks upon out of nowhere - which is stalking, isn't it? Hence that gets done, exactly because organised intimidatory interests know how corrupt the system is.
Some people who care deeply about independent media and circulating ideas, think Wikipedia should be supported while it's there, in the interests of spreading neutral facts against business agendas and helping to oppose Western wars in the Middle East, before the site eventually gets pulled under big business control. These voices are now misguided because - it has already passed that point! It is already a controlled business game rotten with hateful personal backstabbing and bullying. The whole subtle nature of the scam is that there is a pull of wishful hope against admitting the point is already passed, but this is exactly the same as with mainstream TV news. As long as you are only interested in the article pages that matter less, you are less likely to experience the admin system and find out what is really going on. A source who these things were shared with, has noticed just in reading Wikipedia, "there do seem to be some nasty characters on there", and to illustrate the non-neutral political bias, some of them in the dispute pages "think mentioning anything negative but factual about Reagan or Bush constitutes bias." Whether you are against or for Reagan (remember Wikipedia does history!) and Bush, you can see how that is a misuse of peer group status to control factuality, and would be on behalf of any political side. So the neutrality is subverted by group bullying, while the lying claim to neutrality is kept as good PR.
You are officially entitled to challenge blocks, but in practice their effect includes blocking your access to the pages for raising issues of dispute, where you could do that!!! Work that out. Challenges made in private are not passed on either, all a private email to the same admin as blocked you gets is a swaggering laugh in your face written openly on your "user talk page". Wikipedia's forum section "Wikien-l" is separate from the Wikipedia page system, so you remain able to post there, but it is a side-alley only read by a few users. So what happens if you post there pointing out the standards of fair play that have been broken by 1 admin acting in a biased way, who penalised only the victimised side and not both sides for exactly identical actions, and evidencing group bullying? Officially, any user is entitled to make a challenge like this. In reality, it gets punished very quickly, within 2 hours, with the gag of permanent blocking. Actually for challenging the rightness of a temporary penalty already imposed at 1 person's discretion without the community hearing a defence case, you get punished more heavily. If in exercising the officially admitted right to challenge a block, you claim any actual right to fair play, other admins count this as the offence of "making legal threats"! and it is a reason for getting rid of you straight away. That is a mediaeval level of totalitarianism.
Just contemplate what it means that the figures who run Wikipedia deliberately 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 by any bullying group psychology that may take the fancy of a group's mood. No legal threats between users while editing pages is fair enough, but to use the same policy to gag the claiming of any rights to access the dispute-solving processes when 1 person has blocked your access to them, is a corruption deceiving the public. To have dispute-sharing pages that exist in name alongside blocks imposable by 1 tyrant at any moment that prevent you using them, is a deceit, an abuse of public trust, and a deliberate arrangement for corrupt exercise of tyranny throughout the Wikipedia and for emotional abuse. But this makes its entire content a public scam.
The entire tone of the Wikien-l forum section is power-bragging and taunting and gloating and macho. Anyone can read it and see. In the archive for August http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/thread.html the very first topic is called "abuse of power by admins as usual". What they openly say in public at Wikien-l includes "You are not entitled to anything" and "Wikipedia is not a democracy."
These public statements are Wikipedia admin admitting Wikipedia has no rules and so lies to the public in claiming it has. Wikipedia quite openly says, as a "private organisation" if we don't want to uphold any ethics in your case we won't. If you get into any disagreement with a hot-headed group of bullies who are determined to control an article page, you kept getting thrown back in your 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. This happens because they know the corruption. Admins encourage it, while it is not threatening (as they suggest) 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 in the use of power.
The only way for the claimed policy of NPOV (neutral point of view) to genuinely exist 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 the people are entitled to it. No way out of that. Hence, as soon as any group tries to follow any policy code like "NPOV", 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? What this means is perfectly clear - by not having an answer to this, Wikipedia showed for itself why it is illegal. Here we uncover the point where its system breaks down and makes it so.
For an example potent with pharmaceutical agendas for pushing addictive antidepressants - the content of its article on Asperger Syndrome, and all related to the subject, are being allowed to be directed utterly by the worst type of group bullying seen in the human animal. Flagrantly vicious control by group force that breaks every claimed rule about Wikipedia's content, it is easily recognised who's orchestrating it, this group keeps the page's content uncontested by force and not at all impartial. It is one demonstrated example of Wikipedia content already being under business-linked forces' control.