This user's account has been disabled and the user page deleted because in over two years as a member, this editor has done nothing but edit eir own user page. Wikipedia is not a blog host. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i wish to communicate with kelly martin but i do not know how, or to communicate with an adminstrator, so i can correct my user page, and work with the wiki quidelines, and i wish to edit, i am confused as to how to unblocke my page, i am confused as to how to communicate with someone so i can correct this situation, my e mail address is; davidhughes.david@gmail.com, i apologize for using my user page incorrectly, and i value wiki to the highest degree, the person that started wiki lives in st pete, florida, and i also live in pinellas county, i would appreciate a response as to how to correct my user page and once again edit, as i am a sociologist, am disabled, and have a great deal of information to contribute,i just dont know all the rules, and i thanks ms kelly martin for bringing all this to my attention.

how wikipedia really works

Anyone who belongs to the dominant block of opinion on any subject can get anyone else blocked. Wikipedia has no policies, applied consistently.

All the admins who talk on En-l openly admit counting any shred of personal fairness as mattering less than developing Wikipedia as they wish. Blocking of only 1 side when 2 sides have done exactly the same thing that the block is supposed to have been for, is routine. It's what happened to me, and claiming to have any rights against a biased 2-day block actually was the offence that got me permablocked, after only 5 weeks' membership. Look at all these:

a voice from within Wikipedia's own system describes how the ArbCom and dispute resolution systems are rigged with discretionary catch-alls that always enable admin to win http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/024230.html on how force of group numbers dictates Wikipedia pages's content http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025936.html this is actually called "don't bother reporting abusive admins" http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025921.html

I was wary of how the umpiring of pages the whole world can fight over could possibly work well, but I was drawn into Wikipedia by a friend who was briefly (and no longer is, already!) having good experiences with sharing his medical concerns on a couple of pages on medical subjects. My Wiki name was Tern, and here are 2 administrators saying to me http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027816.html http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027817.html saying "You are not entitled to anything" and "Wikipedia is not a democracy."

On the nature of Wikipedia: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025583.html http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/322087.html http://spectrum-fairness.blog.co.uk/ tag "Wikipedia"

and a former admin, leaving Wikipedia just recently, on 6 Oct 06: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054949.html " Too many admins whose first course is to insult a new user in order to see if they get a "reaction" so that they can spank the new user for talking back to an admin. I've seen too many admins block accounts for infinite duration on flimsy evidence or mere whim.

I've seen more accusations thrown around of someone being a "sockpuppet" of another user. Time and again, I looked through the edits, and I didn't see it. Instead, what I saw were users who were systematically hounded until they finally broke down and broke the civility rules, and then as an afterthought someone came up and said "oh, it doesn't matter, they were a sockpuppet of X anyways", thereby removing all culpability on the part of the abusive users who had spent time hounding and abusing the newbie...

The Wiki is broken. ... We, the admins of wikipedia, broke it. We broke it by being stuck-up jerks. We broke it by thinking we are better than normal editors, by getting full of ourselves. "

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054951.html http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054957.html We're actually developing a reputation as a place of arrogance and nastiness, a place of heavy-handed thugishness, a place where people treat each other quite badly. That's bad for the project.

Messages of support: "some of the people on there do seem pretty sarcastic and bullying .... some of the right-wingers on there seem to think mentioning anything negative but factual about Reagan or Bush constitutes bias and there do seem to be some nasty characters on there." - from Aspievision, http://s13.invisionfree.com/aspievision/index.php "You are not the only one who has had problems with Wikipedia taking sides in a dispute, and being blatantly unfair to the other side without even giving them a chance to defend themselves." from FAMSecretSociety, a Yahoo group "Yes ... this is my opinion of Wikipedia. It suppresses anything that may be considered 'more than marginally controversial'. It's definitely in the same boat as the mainstream media without any shadow of a doubt. " - the forum of the British anti-ID cards site http://www.1984brigade.com/

" of late I've noticed that some independent contributions have been either radically edited or censored. I've not had time to check articles on 9/11, the London Bombings, the assault on Falluja etc, but judging from the way content was edited promptly out of articles on SSRIs, schizophrenia and Asperger's, there definitely seem to be operatives in place ready to clamp down on anything that may cast doubt on establishment canards." from Medialens, http://www.medialens.org/board/