RE; WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS AND EDITORS:
The tragic thing that is going on with Wikipedia is that Catholic censors and apologists (mostly Irish, of course) have gotten adminiships and have taken over, deleting anything they don't like, without even any explanation or justification. They have already gotten away with removing any reference to Adolf Hitler's Roman Catholicism, but bringing out the tired old bromides about how he wasn't "really" a Catholic. He was never excommunicated, so I venture a guess that he was a Catholic, as was his wife, Eva Braun. The Third Reich was the most Catholic government in German history. Needless to say that can no longer be mentioned. Most Wikipedian have no idea what is going on, but many are to be blamed because they mindlessly follow directives from the abusers without question or even reviewing what they are reverting or deleting or censoring or blocking. They respond with Pavlovian instincts to any perceived breach of any wikietiquette without even reviewing what they are helping to censor.
A caveat - I am a banned user from Wikipedia, a rare honour, given the logistics of Wikipedia, because of injudicious, shall we say, language towards fellow editors. I admit that, but the entire thing was cooked up by one person - an editor who calls himself "Demiurge" (it has a religious meaning, but I don't care). He requested a RfC (Request for Comment) against me (which has no teeth), and later a RfA (Request for Arbitration), which does have teeth. Several members of the Arbitration Committee are Catholics, and should have recused themselves. One, Sean Barrett, has an anti-Protestant (anti-Presbyterian to be exact) doggerel on his homepage (at least the last time I checked), and he is a high-ranking Wiki bureaucrat!!!
Even when they block me, almost always abusively, a few hours later, I am good to go, but even I have to admit that I usually can't get my way without the "kindness of strangers" (i.e. the help of third party Wikipedians, most of whom have no idea of the Catholic coup d'etat).
The worst-known (to date) Catholic censors/apologists/revisionists include:
1) Musical Linguist (aka Ann H.) , an extremely abusive Irish administrator, whose homepage is a shrine to Catholic apologetics, and in case you aren't aware, she lets you know that she is a Catholic wikipedian, a Roman Catholic wikipedian, and an Irish wikipedian, amongst other things. She deleted a quote from an 80 plus year old native of Traunstein, Bavaria, Elizabeth Lohner, who disputed the Ratzinger brothers' claims that they had no choice but to follow the Nazi regime. The quote was from the Times of London, and her explanation/justification - nada. She (and others on this list) will go and delete not only your edits, but messages you leave on other Wikipedians' discussion pages, citing, when she bothers, alleged "incivility".
2) Demiurge - Irishman - the one who got me banned to silence me forever, although, of course, that is not the case, as I still edit, but am forced to do so without signing in. He is not an administrator yet, to my knowledge, but it may happen soon. I forced my will regarding some wikipages that he tried to take over, with the help of good third party Wikipedians who have no idea what is happening. I don't want to mention the specific pages lest they be revisited. I'm tired of being Sisyphus. Tends to delete anything he thinks I wrote using boilerplate nonsense excuses like "POV" or "sockpuppet" or "banned user" as justification.
3) Jtdirl, another abusive Irish administrator, who is the one pushing the Hitler line re Catholicism, although, of course, he can provide not a scintilla of cited or sourced backup for his POV. Claims on his homepage that he is "a lapsed Roman Catholic".
4) Ali-oops - native of Ireland, living in Cork, now I believe, but claims not to be a Catholic. Always throws his lot in with the above-mentioned (and others), and tries to pretend it is b/c I am not willing to discuss things with other editors. Tends to delete anything he thinks I wrote using boilerplate nonsense like "POV" or "sockpuppet" as justification. Even when he claims I am not all wrong he deleted the entire edit, rather than just whatever he found objectionable, knowing that I would have to resubmit and then be censored or revised by one of his buddies. Not an administrator - yet.
5) Camillus - Camillus Patrick McElhinney, one of the few (besides myself) Wikipedians to use his real name. Glasgow-area computer scientist. Claims he is not a "theologist" and does "not attend church". You can Google his name it if you want.
NOT ALL BAD, but insisted on creating a sectarian, divisive site called "Irish-Scots", but fudges the real reasons for sectarianism in Scotland, and sanitizes the history and even the list of names of prominent "Irish-Scots". Abbetted, mindlessly, by his non-Catholic lackeys (Graeme L., an administrator, and Angus McLellan, another person to, apparently, use his real name).
6) Sceptre - no idea of nationality. Real name may be "Will". 15-year old administrator who talks tough on his website about how he supports "the one-revert rule" (blocking anyone who tries to revert anything after one try), as opposed to the three-revert rule now, technically, in place. However, on one occasion (of many), Demiurge and I engaged in a long revert battle, much longer than most, way beyond three reverts. Of course, only I was blocked in the end by young Will. 15-years old!!! (Look up the movie "Wild in the Streets".)
Very, very sad, and Mr. Wales is not particularly interested. I know - I emailed him. Maybe he has made the mistake of believing his own staffers.
Robert Sieger
[email protected]
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace