Wikipedia abuse cases; 위키피디아와 좆무위키 관리자들의 역겨운 행태를 통해 생각해보는 '민주주의'와 '집단지성'이라는 환상

 

1. Can Wikipedia admins falsely charge users with having multiple accounts ("sockpuppetry") and block them?

Yes, it is possible, though not common in well-reviewed cases. Here’s what you should know:

• Sockpuppetry accusations (using multiple accounts deceptively) are taken seriously on Wikipedia.

• Admins or checkusers can investigate such cases using behavioral evidence or IP analysis (CheckUser tool).

• False accusations may occur if the evidence is misinterpreted, if two users happen to edit from the same IP (e.g. at a university or shared network), or if an admin is biased.

• Appeals process: Blocks can be appealed on the user talk page or via Wikipedia:Unblock, and more serious cases can go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee.

2. Can admins or editor groups form a cartel to dominate editing ("edit warring") and push their version?

Yes, there have been documented cases where groups of editors, including administrators, have coordinated editing in a way that could be described as "undemocratic" or "biased." This includes:

• Tag teaming to revert or outvote other editors.

• Canvassing: Coordinating off-wiki (e.g. in chat groups, mailing lists, or Discord) to influence votes or discussions.

• WP:CABAL (a humorous but real concern): The idea that certain editors form informal groups to control content.

• Sometimes, admins themselves get involved in disputes and may act with partiality, especially on controversial or politicized topics.

However:

• Wikipedia has policies like WP:3RR (three-revert rule), WP:NPOV (neutral point of view), and WP:CONSENSUS to combat this.

• Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) can and has stripped administrators of their rights for abuse or biased behavior.

• Editors can report abuse at WP:ANI (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents).

---

TL;DR

• Yes, Wikipedia admins can make false accusations or act in biased ways, whether intentionally or by mistake.

• There are real concerns about groupthink, cartel-like behavior, and biased editing, especially in contentious areas.

• However, Wikipedia has oversight, policies, and appeal mechanisms to counter abuse — though they may not always work perfectly.

If you're facing such an issue or suspect abuse, I can help guide you on how to appeal or document it properly.

 

 

 

Absolutely — here’s a focused list of well-documented cases of abuse, bias, or questionable conduct by administrators or editor groups specifically on the English (American-dominated) Wikipedia. These cases involve allegations of admin overreach, cartel-like behavior, ideological enforcement, or manipulation of consensus.

---

🔎 Abuse Cases Involving English Wikipedia Admins

---

✅ 1. The Fram Case (2019)

Topic: Admin overreach, community vs WMF conflict

• What happened: Fram, a veteran administrator, was banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for alleged harassment of another user, without following normal Wikipedia community processes.

• Admin Community Reaction: Many admins protested what they called “unilateral authoritarian action”, and some reinstated Fram's privileges in defiance.

• Abuse Allegations:

  • Fram was previously accused by users of bullying, WP:BITE behavior, and gatekeeping.

  • The defenders of Fram included a clique of admins seen as unwilling to tolerate criticism or policy enforcement against their own.

• Outcome: Massive public drama, resignations, and exposure of cliques protecting their own within admin circles.

---

✅ 2. Gamergate Arbitration Case (2015)

Topic: Politicization, biased sanctioning

• What happened: During the volatile Gamergate controversy, disputes over the neutrality of Wikipedia articles led to a high-profile arbitration case.

• Key Abuses:

  • Admins and editors aligned with feminist viewpoints were sanctioned heavily, even though the opposing group (pro-Gamergate) had also violated policies.

  • Accusations that some admins favored one ideological group, refused to address harassment complaints properly, and targeted editors for political reasons.

• Community Backlash: Major media coverage (e.g., The Guardian, Ars Technica), with claims of “Wikipedia punishing feminists” and failure to uphold NPOV.

• Result: Long-term mistrust in ArbCom's impartiality and exposure of ideological bias in enforcement.

---

✅ 3. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax vs. Wikipedia (2009–2018)

Topic: Fringe topic editing, retaliation, banning

• Background: Lomax edited on controversial fringe science topics like cold fusion, trying to challenge mainstream scientific consensus.

• Admin Abuse Allegation:

  • He was banned indefinitely for alleged "disruption", but there were questions about whether this was just a way to suppress dissenting views.

  • Claims surfaced that admins and long-time editors of specific science articles acted as gatekeepers, dismissing anything outside their editorial control.

• Relevance: Demonstrates how administrators and elite editors can enforce a narrow editorial regime over complex topics.

• Outcome: Lomax became a well-known critic of Wikipedia's editorial process.

---

✅ 4. Gender Gap Task Force Conflicts (2015–2016)

Topic: Feminist editors vs traditionalist editors, ideological bias

• What happened: A push to close the gender gap in content and contributors on Wikipedia led to the formation of the Gender Gap Task Force.

• Abuse Claims:

  • Members reported being harassed, discredited, or blocked by editors and some admins who resisted changes to traditional editorial norms.

  • Accusations of "manosphere-style" editors using bureaucratic rules to stifle feminist content or pushback against changes.

• Admin Role: Some admins were seen as enabling this by failing to sanction disruptive users or even silencing task force members themselves.

• Outcome: Several prominent female editors left Wikipedia, citing a toxic editing environment reinforced by admin passivity or bias.

---

✅ 5. Scientology Editing Scandal (2009)

Topic: COI (Conflict of Interest), whitewashing, admin inaction

• What happened: The Church of Scientology and its members edited Wikipedia to promote positive views and erase criticism.

• Admin Reaction:

  • Admins were slow to act, allowing hundreds of biased edits.

  • Once discovered, a broad IP block was enacted — but only after years of bias.

• Allegation: Admins were either complicit, unaware, or too passive — leading to a systemic failure to uphold neutrality.

---

✅ 6. Wikipedia's Political BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) Wars

Topic: Political bias, left/right disputes, stealth editing

• Ongoing battles exist over pages like:

  • George Soros

  • Ron DeSantis

  • Hunter Biden

  • Jordan Peterson

• Pattern:

  • One side inserts controversial info, the other deletes it.

  • Admins get involved and often protect the page or ban one side, usually based on technicalities like edit warring or civility — while ignoring editorial bias.

• Abuse Type: Selective application of rules (like WP:3RR, WP:NPOV) to tip the scale.

• Result: Editors who challenge prevailing narratives are often outnumbered or blocked, and the "winning" side retains control of article tone.

---

⚠️ Summary of Admin Abuses Seen on English Wikipedia

Abuse Type	Description
Gatekeeping	Admins protect a narrow group of editors who control topic areas (e.g. politics, medicine, fringe science).
Selective Sanctioning	Editors are blocked or banned not for breaking rules, but for opposing admin-aligned ideologies.
Protectionism	Admins avoid disciplining friends or like-minded users.
Collusion	Informal coordination (even off-wiki) to dominate articles or influence discussions.
COI Tolerance	Known bias from editors or PR interests ignored or inadequately handled by admins.