UK arrested Tommy Robinson for reporting child-rape gangs that the government caters to. The UK banned reporting of his arrest, denied him a lawyer, and is trying to have him assassinated in prison. Regardless of how you feel about his views, this is a totalitarian government.

Tommy Robinson isn't the first to that the UK has jailed after a secret trial. Melanie Shaw tried to expose child abuse in a Nottinghamshire kids home -- it wasn't foreigners doing the molesting, but many members of the UK's parliament. The government kidnapped her child and permanently took it away. Police from 3 forces have treated her like a terrorist and themselves broken the law. Police even constantly come by to rob her phone and money. She was tried in a case so secret the court staff had no knowledge of it. Her lawyer, like Tommy's, wasn't present. She has been held for over 2 years in Peterborough Prison. read, read


From en-Rightpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Commie Wikipedia.png
Motto The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit
Founder Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger
Type wiki project
Headquarters Tampa, Florida, USA (servers)
San Francisco, California, USA (main)

Wikipedia is a Communist-controlled website.

Wikipedia is not controlled by supporters of a gift economy, Wikipedia is controlled by supporters of Communism. Each article is ruled by a cabal of people who fight to get their point of view in the article, which is similar to what has historically happened in Communist nations.


Some facts:[1]

  1. Before launching Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales ran a porn site network called "Bomis".
  2. Jimmy Wales once thought he was going to create a "Google killing" search engine, buy a corporate jet and have sex on it with his girlfriend.
  3. Jimmy Wales broke up with his girlfriend by posting a message on Wikipedia. She responded by saying "You are the sleazebag I always suspected you were... You are an absolute creep." Wales' girlfriend auctioned off the clothes he left behind in her New York apartment, selling them on eBay
  4. Jimmy Wales is a key operator of the "Hillary Clinton protection network" that cleanses the Clinton entry of all facts about Hillary's crimes and acts of treason against America
  5. Jimmy Wales openly despises natural medicine and the healing arts, deliberately allowing corporate-funded Wikipedia editors to disparage authors, naturopaths, doctors and practitioners who help people heal

Blackmail racket

Wikipedia is a blackmail racket that extorts small businesses while publishing corporate propaganda. The Wikipedia mafioso have threatened small businesses to either pay up with donations to the Mediawiki Foundation or have their reputations smeared on Wikipedia. Hundreds of small businesses and minor celebrities have been targeted by a high-level blackmail scam that was orchestrated by administrators at Wikipedia.[2]

Despotic red admins

For difference of other serious wiki-cyclopedias out of Wikipedia, the main Wikipedian writers are inexpert amateurs, ambitious dilettantes, failed students and eternal 'undergraduates'; the true academic experts there became rare and mostly blocked and eliminated by jealous incompetent administrators of liberal-leftist orientation. Instead of a serious education in collegial and constructive democracy of professional schools lead by excellent intellectuals and academic experts, these new fanaticized 'Wikipedians' are mostly formed by instant training of a passionate street demagogy in discussion forums lead by half-trained amateurs and controversial mediocrities. Their most aggressive administrators are some arrogant dilettantes violently imposing in Wikipedias their false leftist dogmas and primitive popcult prejudices. Of course, such incompetence of some dominating 'Wikipedians' and chiefly of leftist admins, resulted in a suspect quality and low verifiability in many Wikipedian texts. The average naive readers of Wikipedia accept them as the largest free database on internet (as it was in start), but now it is converted to a true leftist 'Bible' for brainwashing the public views toward the imposed left-liberalist dogmas.

Hasbara Fellowships is an Israeli organization that recruited Zionists as paid Wikipedia editors.

Wikipedia claims to be run by "volunteers" but is actually edited by corporate-paid trolls on many topics such as GMOs, vaccines, chemotherapy and pharmaceuticals.[1] It also has many government-paid trolls (mainly Israel). Jewish editors for Israel who live outside of Israel who use the wiki for Zionist propaganda are known as Sayanim, a topic which wikipedia deletes from its wiki.

There was a person Jayjg who was this Zionist paid editor in Canada and he had an employee also using named SlimVirgin (a middle aged woman who used to work for British intelligence services). They had other Israel-paid editors with them. Jayjg and SlimVirgin were terrors of the wiki. Jayjg had every adminstrative power possible while SlimVirgin was just an administrator. They controlled everything. Jayjg also would go and use the Checkuser (it looks up records of IP addresses, HTTP headers, etc. of accounts and crossreferences to IP addresses) that few had. He used it for fishing, which was against the rules. Whenever he or his Zionist paid editors got into an edit war with someone, he went fishing for any related account to them to claim they're someone else to get an excuse to ban them. Eventually he was demoted to just administrator and SlimVirgin lost her admin powers, but I think this was temporary. Encyclopedia Dramatica or Wikipedia Review will have more accounts on them. There are many other paid editors too. One known as Isarig actually blatant he actually was exposed publically.

Of the 17 Wikimedia senior staff and trustees, 5 are Jews.[3]

Wikipedia explains different forms of pride and says all are good except white pride is awful and shameful!! When this image was uploaded to Wikipedia they called it "racist" and people who spread it "racist" and they speedily deleted it.

Maximal three "reverts" in 24 hours rule

The general editor who stays on Wikipedia (and most Wikia wikis) day in and day out making edits, is not someone adding content. People who stay there adding content always end up banned, and the ones who deeply care about Wikipedia end up banned with a public shaming, often with their real name associated with the shaming since they had once believed in the project so much they divulged it. Most of the people who still do add content then are anonymous editors and people who rarely edit.

Nearly every single editor on Wikipedia (and most Wikia wikis) is a person whose joy in life is sadistically destroying other people's hard work. They mostly just go around reverting people. If they are unsure of what to revert, they simply find someone who has been reverted before and is returning to re-edit the same article. They also try to get pages deleted so later when a reader wants to read something on Wikipedia, the content is gone. There is term called "admin farming" where a person who does nothing but revert all day and after thousands of those edits is guaranteed to be made into an administrator despite having added no content to the website. This is the main way how people become administrators there--they don't even correct spelling mistakes, they simply revert. People who actually add content will run into issues because how people tend to have different ideas on content, which is then compounded by the sadism of nearly all the active editors there who just want to destroy other people's hard work.

Wikipedia administrators work with a primitive, but very effective rule. An editor is allowed to edit an article maximal 3 times in 24 hours consecutively. Leftist administrators work typically in groups, while nationally minded editors work as individuals. The rule is based on that. How does this work?

  • Editor edits an article
  • Leftist editor #1 reverses (with either brazen commentary or more commonly no commentary and simply reverts)
  • Editor re-edits the above article to comply with the above criticism
  • Leftist editor #1 reverses (with either brazen commentary or more commonly no commentary and simply reverts)
  • Editor re-edits the above article to comply with the above criticism
  • Leftist editor #2 reverses (with either brazen commentary or more commonly no commentary and simply reverts)
  • If Editor now tries to re-edit, he will be blocked for at least 24 hours as a "punishment"

With the above method articles, typically handling Jews, Holocau$t, Communist and similar subjects are unchangeable for normal editors; leftist editors make them unmodifiable.

A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.

Juristic part

If an editor feels, he is handled incorrectly, he can start a kind of juristic process. That sounds very correct and "democratic". How does that look in reality?

  • To enter a new process is a horror. They modify the procedure to enter a new process frequently enough to discourage normal editors to do that.
  • Judges are for example 16-year-old editors from Singapore, or similarly experienced persons.
  • Judges typically convict non-leftist persons, and do not convict leftist editors, no matter what they did.
  • Process writings are deleted as leftist admins please. Only processes, that they liked, remain filed, others are immediately deleted without a chance to recreate them.

For example, in the English Wikipedia they convicted editors because they wrote the German names of German villages annexed by the Polish state onto maps and into articles: [1]

Quotes from Experts on Wikipedia

Below are the informative professional critics of some top-notch experts who have recently left en.Wikipedia (notes from their User sites):

  • User:Bertrand_Meyer - "Please do not believe anything you see on Wikipedia articles. If you are tempted to, please try the following experiment for a few weeks: write on an important subject that you know and care about; write your best, making sure to apply the strictest standards of scholarship and objectivity. Don't spend too much time on it, but just do it right. Then wait a little. You'll understand". See also User_talk:Bertrand_Meyer, he said the core of the problem was the fear of self-promotion: " (...) Such is the fear of bias and self-promotion that people will shoot you down not for what you write but for who you are. While understandable, this fear leads to a gut-level anti-elitist attitude which I find regrettable."
  • User:LPFR - "I stop any further collaboration with WP. It is worthless to write anything if any low-level knowledge and high-ego person will "correct" your writings. I think that WP is doomed to represent the "mean-street-knowledge" level. I was puzzled reading the scientific level of serious Wikipedians (as project members). You seldom or never found University teachers or retired academic members. The best you found are engineers or thesis students. Of course, you do not need to be old or have academic titles to know things, but it helps. I now understand why there are so few university teachers and experienced people. Last edits in this article washed out my last wishes to be useful."
  • User:Ste. Anne - "This is not (and likely never will be) an encyclopedia. It is more like the large filing cabinet stuffed with clippings, half finished projects, notes, the travel pamphlet collection, manuals for obsolete software and long discarded small appliances, and odd photos etc. that sits in my den and that I will sort through someday". Concludes with reference to (article|Discourse on holiness#Appreciation of the teachings|casting pearls before swine).

Jimmy Wales on anti-Nazi pro-Jewish policy

JAY JG (Mossad terrorist who ran Wikipedia for 10 years) wrote:

> Furthermore, he has said some pretty vile things about Wikipedians,
> admittedly on other boards; but if he had posted a list of Wikipedians
> who he thought were "niggers", I wonder if the consensus for banning him
> would be stronger. Perhaps the word "kike" doesn't have quite the same
> taboo quality.

For me it does.

> Personally I don't think that Nazis should be banned from Wikipedia
> simply for being Nazis/White supremacists. In fact, there are at least
> a couple that I know of who do edit, albeit generally unsuccessfully. As
> for the rest, in my experience, the complete inability of most of them
> to abide by policy, or even think rationally and present logical
> arguments, combined with their typical belligerence, gets them quickly
> banned anyway.

I think that's right, and I re-iterate my promise to the community that I'm more than happy to engage in the single largest mass banning without any sort of due process at all of an entire group of Neo-Nazi users if we determine that they actually are disrupting our work in any serious way and that this action seems to be the only or best way of dealing with the problem.

Wikipedia is not a democracy.

Let me explain this a bit more. I do not believe in the "benevolent dictator" model for Wikipedia. Our project is of major historical significance, and it is not appropriate for any one person to be the benevolent dictator of all human knowledge. Obviously.

But we have retained a 'constitutional monarchy' in our system and the main reason for it is too _support_ and _make possible_ a very open system in which policy is set organically by the community and democratic processes and institutions emerge over a long period of experimentation and consensus-building. No one needs to be afraid that VfD will be hijacked, and our rules turned against us.

It is not possible for 10,000 NeoNazis (if such numbers exist) to storm into Wikipedia and take it over by subverting our organic democratic processes because I will not allow it. Period. So we don't have to overdesign those processes out of a paranoia of a hostile takeover.

But this also means that we don't need to over-react right now. We can wait and see. They'll talk a big game but just review those message boards and then look around here. A battle of wits between Wikipedians and Nazis? I know who I'm betting on.

> That said, I think that banning *this particular* user was justified,
> based on the issues listed above.

I very much agree with that. I think posting hate speech about Wikipedia users on another site is sufficient grounds for banning, whether our current rules say so or not.



Israel is paying internet workers to manipulate online content

See also


External links