Creation index

Dr. Kent Hovind versus Wikipedia or Fighting against injustices in the Wikipedia establishment — Dr. Kent Hovind versus Judge Margaret Catharine Rodgers

A closer look at Wikipedia in regards to Dr. Kent Hovind. For various reasons one should not take Wikipedia too serious. The main arguments are being folded out here. In essence calling Wikipedia for a serious encyclopaedia would simply be a sham and a joke. Why do people figure that you can build a reputable encyclopaedia with an army of mostly anonymous users and administrators? Wikipedia is a tool for hobbyists and should be limited to primarily non-sensitive topics. Articles about recently died or living persons rather obviously should be prohibited. Read along ...

 
Index:

		Response from Dr. Kent Hovind on this page
	Dr. Kent Hovind versus Judge Margaret Catharine Rodgers (Wikipedia angle)
		The situation in brief
		Judge Margaret Catharine “Casey” Rodgers
		When ‘Mr. Lankford’ was editing Wikipedia article “Margaret Catharine Rodgers” ... (May 2015)
			- 1) About user ‘BiologicalMe’ that reverted the edit of ‘Mr. Lankford’ 6½ hours later ... - 2) About administrator ‘HJ Mitchell’ that indefinitely banned ‘Mr. Lankford’ 30½ hours after he had made the edit ...
		User ‘LoneStar1776’ and ‘Wickedpedia’
			(Includes comments on multiple accounts/sock puppetry)
		Things to consider ...
			- 1) Wikipedia protecting (covering up for) official or federal government figures and supporting (promoting) a particular worldview? - 2) Is selectively making previous edits inaccessible for consultation an indication of premeditated cover-ups?
		Aftermath
	Wikipedia article ‘Kent Hovind’
		Action taken by Dr. Hovind against Wikipedia and RationalWiki (March-Apr 2015)
		A “proposed deletion of the article”
			- A voting contest or a discussion? - Misinterpretations and signs of a flawed system - Indefinitely banned for giving an opinion? (administrator ‘JzG’)
				(Includes: Reason: “Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia”; Reason: “Abusing multiple accounts” (“Legal threat”; “Meatpuppetry”; General nature of people encountered on Wikipedia))
			- Suspicious behaviour by (anonymous) administrator ‘JzG’
		Aftermath
	An overview and introduction to the phenomena of Wikipedia
		A critical overview of ‘Wikipedia’  (on separate page)
		- The phenomena known as ‘Wikipedia’ - How are controversial subjects dealt with on Wikipedia? - The Swedish episode (my experiences editing on the Swedish Wiki)

“Thank you for exposing the truth about my case and wikedpedia's slanderous coverage of me. This is, of course, Satan's plan to hinder my ministry outreach and keep ppl from coming to Christ.
Plz share this! Also, plz check with Rudy lonestar1776 about ways to help overturn the case still.”          Dr. Kent Hovind
(from his Facebook page regarding shared article, 30 Nov 2016, posted here (external link) (last checked: 1 Dec 2016))

The situation in brief

This Margaret Catharine Rodgers had been the presiding judge in amongst other the case of Dr. Hovind. As we know it did not go very well for Dr. Hovind. As we know he ended up serving a time in jail for some 10 years for something that is called structuring.

The charges usually are brought forward by an, as it seems, more than greedy tax collecting entity called the IRS (International Revenue Service). They then claim that taxes had not been paid, when in fact they had been paid for.

Scientology vs. IRS angle

In Scientology we find this thing referred to as the “four conditions of exchange” (from 1982). It amongst other says: “First consider a group which takes in money but does not deliver anything in exchange. This is called rip-off. It is the ‘exchange’ condition of robbers, tax men, governments and other criminal elements.”. Mind that it names “tax men”.

Next in 1993 this same Church of Scientology announces: “The war is won!”. Meaning that they were now tax exempt approved by that IRS. Considering what the IRS does till this day it does make you wonder about some things, doesn't it. For example who owns and cashes in from Scientology really?

“Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida Nominated by George W. Bush on July 14, 2003”

“Private practice, Pensacola, Florida, 1994-1998, 1999-2002 General counsel, West Florida Medical Center, Pensacola, Florida, 1998-1999”

Most readers here will know that Dr. Hovind also coincidentally had his residence in Pensacola from 1989 to very recent. A city with a population of some 52,000 citizens, which is not so very many.

And so, the reports that we get from the Internet and the media is that this judge certainly has not been lenient or understanding, rather the contrary. She has since gained the repute to be ruthless and inconsiderate in her rulings. I have found various rulings that do not do just to the crime (too harsh a punishment). You can read for yourself on that, just search for her name on the Internet. She has indeed attracted media attention for a variety of matters.

“Judge Margaret Casey Rodgers is quite an interesting character, who has a reputation of issuing heavy-handed justice towards Christians. She received national attention in September of 2009, when she tried to send two Christian school teachers to prison for several years simply for…guess what…praying over their own food at school! This is such a conflict of interest, now we finally see the possible reasons behind her heavy-handedness in Kent Hovind’s case. It did not take long for this clear breach of First Amendment rights to get the attention of Congress, prompting over 60 congressmen to help overturn Margaret Casey Rodgers’ outrageous decision. The U.S. Congressman for Florida at that time, Jeff Miller, had this to say on this blatant abuse of power in an interview with the Washington Times:

Interesting also are the listed responses on The Washington Times website at this article here (external link). Just scroll down at the page. (last checked: 27 Aug 2015)

There is an obvious irony found in the whole story. At one time back in history you were instead at risk if you didn't pray for your daily food! And now things are the other way around. The times they're a-changin’ indeed.

Now, if you have a proven unreasonable person sitting on such a position and doing these things, then why are these individuals being maintained there? Isn't this reason enough to demote them? That is most probable the question that one should ask oneself. Instead, whad'ya know, she was promoted to since 2011 serve as a “chief judge”. Now, what does that tell us?

All above listed entries taken from the Federal Judicial Center are found at www.fjc.gov (external link) (last checked: 27 Aug 2015)

• 1) About user ‘BiologicalMe’ that reverted the edit of ‘Mr. Lankford’ 6½ hours later ...
• 2) About administrator ‘HJ Mitchell’ that indefinitely banned ‘Mr. Lankford’ 30½ hours after he had made the edit ...

The question to ask here is what justification for their actions can ‘BiologicalMe’ and ‘HJ Mitchell’ bring forth that will actually stick? (and I don't mean bring forth sticky fruits falling from trees or bushes)

So this Margaret Catharine Rodgers has a page of her own on Wikipedia (here, external link). There is no picture of her there (probably they are no not copyrighted photographs around, something), but you can find them elsewhere on the Internet with fair ease.

It doesn't say so very much either on that page. Just a few paragraphs of text all replicated taken from that Federal Judicial Center. Now, if there is various recorded data about her as published in newspapers and other media, then why are they not listed on Wikipedia?

“In 2008, Judge Rodger's professional conduct and objectivity was called into question during a case involving IRS structuring charges against pastor Kent Hovind and his tax-deductible ministry on January 19, 2007. She commented that Kent Hovind's actions were worse than that of a rapist, according to several filed affidavits.[1] However, the court transcripts do not include this statement. In a separate case over which she presided on January 28, 2009, two Santa Rosa County school employees were convicted of exposing others to prayer at private functions and events that they had arranged.[2] At one online rating site owned by North Law Publishers, in New York, contributors from the general public have rated her performance at 2.8 out of 10 (current as of 15 May 2015).[3]”

With provided for sources:

	1.	"Kent Affidavits" (PDF). Free Kent Hovind. Retrieved 15 May 2015.
	2.	Duin, Julia. "Lawmakers back officials facing jail for prayer" . The Washington Times. Retrieved 15 May 2015.
	3.	Hon. Margaret C. Rodgers" . The Robing Room. Retrieved 15 May 2015.

It was added by a ‘Mr. Lankford’ on May 15, 2015 at 6:09. We can see this on the editing history listed on Wikipedia, “View History” (external link) (last checked: 27 Aug 2015). We also learn here that this addition took 6½ hours to get reverted and removed by another user calling himself ‘BiologicalMe’. At that time one was still able to actually consult these removed additions via this View History facility. More things however were about to happen.

At this time one is not able to consult anymore the addition of ‘Mr. Lankford’.

We see here clearly that it's option to view it has been phased/greyed out. You can't click the button, and the “cur” and “prev” (current and previous) are not clickable/blue. It has also literally been stricken from the record with a strike. Why?

We see here that user ‘Mr. Lankford’ has been banned indefinitely just 30½ hours after making that addition to the judge's Wikipedia page. Reason giving is as stated “Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy”. We find that page here (external link). Some citations from the article:  (underlining is mine)

	“We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source ...
	Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
	Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.”

See, the only reason why I can replicate ‘Mr. Lankford’'s addition to the article is solely because it was saved off-line before it was removed from the Wikipedia archives!

 
1) About user ‘BiologicalMe’ that reverted the edit of ‘Mr. Lankford’ 6½ hours later ...

‘BiologicalMe’:  Now, the user however that reverted the addition from ‘Mr. Lankford’ appears to be anonymous, hiding behind the pseudonym/username ‘BiologicalMe’ and an IP number, which for all we know may lead to some public library. This is individual is thus anonymous as said, and also fails to introduce him/herself on the “User page” (external link). It is not even there as “this page should be created and edited by User:BiologicalMe.”

When we then check the “User contributions” (external link) of this anonymous individual we find that he extensively has been editing the article “Kent Hovind”.

We don't know when he registered with Wikipedia, but the first edit occurs on July 1, 2014. Up to March we only find some sporadic edits in various articles. On March 2, 2015 we find his first encounter with the article “Kent Hovind”. Then during April 2 and August 24 2015 he went on a spell editing that article, and pretty much only that article, this on almost a daily basis. Of his total of 518 edits we find that 431 are ‘Kent Hovind’ related.

From his edits it does not appear that he would be in favour either of the person whose Wikipedia page he is editing with apparent élan and motivation. One could ask the question: “Why is that?”. You can dig into this yourself on this person's User contributions page.

	“Your recent editing history at Kent Hovind shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. ...
	Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. ... Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.”     signed: Jess· 21:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Now, this annotation actually comes from a real person, ‘Mann jess’ (external link)

Then his chosen username ‘BiologicalMe’ may point a finger at how he views himself (or herself) as well. Which may not directly identify a spiritual being. As far as I can determine his/her revert on this judge's page should be perceived as incorrect. The 3 points that ‘Mr. Lankford’ added are factually officially published and/or witnessed and can thus be verified for correctness in regards to publishing it on Wikipedia. Mind however that Wikipedia's outset is not particularly truth, it even openly announces: “whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia”.

#1 was about signed and sworn documents of 6 actual witnesses (so-called affidavits); #2 was about a publication in The Washington Times (Wikipedia does regard “Mainstream newspapers” as one of “the most reliable sources”; #3 with The Robing Room, “where judges are judged” seems serious and official enough (if it was not allowed (illegal) or carries incorrect information it would no doubt have been taken down long ago). Anyway the addition of ‘Mr. Lankford’ was done in good faith and was rightfully so.

“Hello, I'm BiologicalMe. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on article, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BiologicalMe (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)”

Well, excuse me!!! Unfortunately ‘Mr. Lankford’ chose not to follow up on the above given hint, or did not have the time to do so as he got indefinitely banned by ‘HJ Mitchell’ 30½ hours later! Now, what does the pattern that we see here tell us?

 
2) About administrator ‘HJ Mitchell’ that indefinitely banned ‘Mr. Lankford’ 30½ hours after he had made the edit ...

‘HJ Mitchell’:  Now what reason or justification can this administrator ‘HJ Mitchell’ bring forward that will defend his action to ban ‘Mr. Lankford’ indefinitely? We simply can not learn about that! The indefinitely banning Wikipedia administrator ‘HJ Mitchell’ appears to be a real person. A Harry Mitchell, see his “User page” (external link). He invites to get responses, so contact him about this. Be assured that I will direct him to my article here.

If you scroll down a bit on that ‘User page’ of his you will see some statistics. Here on the right I replicated a selection of these. Do note the balance of actual recorded ‘Edits’ and ‘Users blocked’. That would make an average of 6 ‘Edits’ for 1 ‘User blocked’. It would seem that really a lot of valuable time is spend on blocking users.
I would figure that just these statistics actually fold out how fallible the Wikipedia system appears to be. A very high percentage thus of the users appear not particularly behaving themselves. But what can you expect of people that can be entirely anonymous? They will have no boundaries and no fear getting caught. Harry Mitchell joined editing in March 2009 and a vignette on his User page tells how long he has been an administrator (see vignette, as of Aug 31, 2015). It would amount to that he thus, at an average, would have blocked (or reblocked) in excess of 7 users a day during 5⅓ years! (as of 31 Aug 2015) Now, just figure that for a moment!! You can even consult his ‘Block log’ (external link), the log shows that the blocking was primary because of so-called ‘Vandalism’ (external link).
And so immense much time that is spend on removing vandalization (clutter) from the pages. That some people still would figure that this Wikipedia thing would be viable to any extend is beyond me. You end up spending much more time on correcting behavioural issues of people than that you add valuables to the articles. Harry Mitchell here even has to un-vandalize (removing clutter) his own User page (see vignette here on the left found on his User page). Not to mention all these persistent edit wars, battling with your opponents, and attempted propaganda. A true burden of Sisyphus. Ah, well.

There is this channel on YouTube that also documented this matter capturing it all on video, and gives some additional information. It also confirms my factual findings.

My comments:  Back in the days (2006) when I edited on Wikipedia I as well was accused of having multiple accounts (may also be referred to as having sock puppets), which I can say was false. I confronted the accusers and they just had to drop it. Another person that I personally knew was accused for having some 50 or so multiple accounts (no kidding), when in fact she only had just one. A page was created especially on Wikipedia this by the accusers to list all the supposed multiple accounts (I remember the list) Then a ‘trial’ held at Wikipedia (some 20 people involved) was unable to establish proof for that accusation, and it was dropped.

But, do mind here that the Wikipedia rules do not forbid you to have multiple accounts, it's just that you are not permitted to misuse them. See “Sock puppetry” (external link). For this reason it says on that ‘LoneStar1776’ account “(Abusing multiple accounts)”. But if the accusation is being made, what is the evidence, where do we find it, where is it posted on Wikipedia? Well, it's not there, which is of course convenient for an accuser in case it was out of malice.

During my time there I have found that rather many users were accused for this sock puppetry. It's often/usually just a phrase used that bears no ground of truth. Several times it has come forward that those individuals that made the accusation so very lightheartedly, that they themselves were guilty of misusing their multiple accounts (sock puppetring).

Faulty accusations could also be seen as a means to get rid of some user(s) in order to improve the majority vote factor into their favour. One person less they have to outvote in order to get their own edit to stick. See, Wikipedia has this “three-revert rule”.

This seems to be a general rule of thumb that can be applied. Those users that so very lightly and so very quickly accuse others of something will often be guilty of the act themselves. These individuals usually will resort to doing that when; the person that they are targeting; has made them wrong, disproved their claims, opposed them or disagreed with them on something. And now they are in for revenge, one way or the other. They are unable to do it through proper arguments (they lack them or the skills to present them convincingly, or both) and so other ways have to be found. I even had people that made false accusations to my Internet provider trying to get my Internet access terminated by that provider. It failed though. My provider contacted me and I cleared it all up. These have been my experiences on Wikipedia, forums, news groups, blogs and so on. I myself was quite active on these for some 4-5 or so years, but not anymore today.

• 1) Wikipedia protecting (covering up for) official or federal government figures and supporting (promoting) a particular worldview?
• 2) Is selectively making previous edits inaccessible for consultation an indication of premeditated cover-ups?

 
1) Wikipedia protecting (covering up for) official or federal government figures and supporting (promoting) a particular worldview?

We do have uncovered here some exact observations and facts, and we do see efforts being made here to sweep matters under the carpet.

You see, that judge is not the real problem. The problem consists of those people that allow her to stay on, and allow her to do the things that she does. This includes people like these Wikipedia administrators and users that basically cover up for them, reverting valid entries on incorrect grounds and/or are banning people. It is not for not abiding to Wikipedia rules, but for forwarding published information that criticizes for example authoritative official figures like federal judges or promote a particular view or explanation on matters. You see, some creational view, on the coming about of this planet and universe, is not directly the one that is in favour. It would appear that various entities have found a call in to counteract particular views on matters. Their motivation is not based on fact, but on belief. Probably this judge is being protected here because she send Dr. Kent Hovind to jail. It doesn't matter if an error is being made or if unjust, all that matters to these various entities is that it did occur!

One has however to understand that individuals that have the moral outset of this said judge, and those that support them for selfish motives, they are factually outnumbered. Then why are such persons allowed to stay on? In part because the masses look at the title of that person, and likely shake (their whole body or just the head) when they find out it is a federal judge. And they justify, if there was something wrong with the person, he or she will be removed or corrected. These individuals however, that make up these masses, as a rule want someone else to take the rap. “Nono, not me, not me,” they say to themselves, “I am invisible, see, I am not here!”. And so, the persons that actually can do something about it, instead will help these people to stay on or will cover up for them, in fear of repercussions, out of illiteracy, or publicly losing face (they think), they just don't dare to do make a sound decision or any decision at all. And if you confront them, they look into the air, or on the floor (never at you) and are blowing in the wind. Well, I guess I would say here ecce homo.

My observations of such happening and various similar reasons is why I years ago already permanently chose to ban editing on Wikipedia. The Internet facility pretending to be an encyclopaedia in where any anonymous, unqualified fool can have his or her say. Their three-revert rule also factually promotes majority vote. See their article “Edit Warring” (external link).

I even have had a spell of editing on the Swedish Wikipedia. My experiences were quite amazing there. In the end I was all by myself battling with literally all 60 administrators that they had back in 2006, add to this various users. I wrote a long factual and effective report and was circulating that to all of them and finally published it also on the Internet. I didn't get rehabilitated or acknowledged particularly on the Swedish Wikipedia itself (other than a few responses from isolated users), but from then on they let me and my edits be. That administrator there that had put this 30 days ban on me chose to not ever to respond to any of my messages to him! And there was reason for that, as he put this ban on me at a time I was not editing on articles in Wikipedia, I was only gently making my case on these Talk pages. But alas, he and all the rest of these administrators were just blowing in the wind, you know. Anyway, they knew now I was not going to be silenced by intimidation, in particular not if based on unmerited or unjust grounds. (see my write up about that here, separate window).

 
2) Is selectively making previous edits inaccessible for consultation an indication of premeditated cover-ups?

You see, having limited access to information will hinder you in coming to a (conclusive or reliable) evaluation. This also means that you can make no corrections if previous actions enforced were incorrect or handlings unjust.

At a time when Wikipedia and similar such facilities made their first entry, I applauded it for the grand advantage that everything was recorded in its archives and made available to the users for consultation if they wanted to. So, if anyone had been wronged it could be found out and get corrected. But alas, the present Wikipedia has turned to be selective to access of that information.

Referred is here to making particular edits inaccessible for consultation. A question to ask here is exactly what criteria are being used and who sets them! Is there a consensus? Where is the directive for that posted on Wikipedia?

A thought that comes to mind is that some information may be considered sensitive for some reason or damaging the repute of something or some person.

Of course an excellent example of this sort of inaccessible edits is that particular edit from ‘Mr. Lankford’ on May 15, 2015. All addressed in previous chapter “When ‘Mr. Lankford’ was editing Wikipedia article “Margaret Catharine Rodgers” ... (May 2015)”.

So, who did that and for what reason? Wikipedia doesn't appear to reveal this information!

 
Aftermath

planned

Action taken by Dr. Hovind against Wikipedia and RationalWiki  (March-Apr 2015)

Now, if you go to that earlier mentioned “Kent Hovind” Wikipedia page (external link), we find that it still carries that in jail taken photograph. Well Dr. Kent Hovind has been out for 2 months now (as of Sept 7, 2015), and it still appears virtually impossible to get that jail picture exchanged. Why is that? We find the efforts of a user on the respective “Talk page” (external link) (last checked: 27 Aug 2015).

So, this is what Wikipedia has turned to be. Ain't that all interesting!

This is Dr. Hovind recorded on audio and distributed by YouTube channel LoneStar1776 (external link). The 3 main recordings have been shared here below with accompanying text (if present) taken from the YouTube channel.

	“Anti-Christian Website ‘Rational Wiki’ served with court papers - Kent Hovind Libel Lawsuit”  (March 30, 2015 3:52:13 PM)

	“Kent Hovind spends an hour discussing all of the falsehoods, errors, and libel on his Wikipedia page”  (Published on 1 Apr 2015)

“Kent Hovind spends an hour going over not even half of the 45 cases of libel, falsehoods, errors, and personal attacks on his Wikipedia page. We had reached out to Wikipedia and asked them to take the page down until the corrections could be made but they refused and doubled down by blocking all Christians from correcting the errors even one by one. Certified legal papers have been mailed to Wikipedia with time stamps and Kent is considering adding them to the libel lawsuit he currently has against anti-Christian website ‘Rational Wiki.’ Most of the reason Kent's story has not received national attention and why pastors from across the nation have not rallied to his cause is because when you search his name on the internet the first thing that appears is Wikipedia which, as previously mentioned, has around 45 examples of libel, lies, and errors on it in regards to Kent Hovind. For those who do not know, Wikipedia is run by atheists with ties to the ‘Freedom From Religion’ foundation. Also, the man who runs it was in porn before starting Wikipedia.”

	“Pastor Kent Hovind Responds to Email from Wikipedia about Correcting the 45 Errors on His Page”  (April 2, 2015 9:14:58 AM)

• A voting contest or a discussion?
• Misinterpretations and signs of a flawed system
• Indefinitely banned for giving an opinion? (administrator ‘JzG’)
          (Includes:  Reason: “Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia”; Reason: “Abusing multiple accounts” (“Legal threat”; “Meatpuppetry”; General nature of people encountered on Wikipedia))
• Suspicious behaviour by (anonymous) administrator ‘JzG’
  

I was figuring that Wikipedia should not carry these articles about recently died or living persons. And shortly afterwards I stumbled over some efforts of people that proposed to have the article “Kent Hovind” physically removed from Wikipedia. See “Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Hovind” (external link) (last checked: 4 Sept 2015).

 
A voting contest or a discussion?

Now, it does note near the top of the page that “this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors”. Although it nonetheless still does make the impression of being a voting contest. Just scan through that page, this is not a discussion taking place. And 5 of the 6 ‘voters’ that supported the request were “indefinitely blocked” just some 22 hours later. (not all 6, because they just ‘forgot’ to block one, read along)

 
Misinterpretations and signs of a flawed system

User ‘DMacks’ is however in error about his hypothesis and assumption. This is not about needing to have some “46-edits” something from Dr. Hovind blindly applied to the article. This is a proposal to look at what he (the person himself carrying the article its name!) has to say about matters, and accordingly remove/correct anything that can be seen as libelous. This would be fair, would it not? Then verify it for correctness, apply Wikipedia guidelines and then implement or not implement.

The problem is that this page is and has been monitored rather scrutinously by users that are not in favour of the ideas of Dr. Hovind. Valid constructive additions made to the article, already at the time that I myself edited on Wikipedia (lastly in 2006), are getting reverted oft almost in an instant for no or false (not proved supported by Wikipedia guidelines) reasons. You can revert it back if you want (but only 3 times in a 24-hour period), then you will face another user undoing it again. And then you find yourself being outvoted after your third revert. You can then continue repeating that in your next 24-hour period. And in this way you can go on battling in eternity. Now, which person in his right mind would like to continue playing these silly games for a simple little edit? You can of course report the repeated reverting of your valid and sourced edits to Wikipedia administrators, but they will only randomly interfere if approached. Usually you don't get anywhere, you need to get administrators involved, and they can decline/ignore that so easily (they have no obligations to get involved!). And if you do succeed with some administrators, then 3 weeks later you may find that your edit has been reverted/removed again. The administrators that you contacted and interfered previously may or may not have lost interest (they have no obligations). Now you can start all over again.Then 3 months later, we are at it again. So, you have to literally fight a war to get a simple (sourced and valid) edit to actually stick in the article. I speak here from personal experiences. You see, THAT is what is the problem here! Here is your burden of Sisyphus. Well, you as the reader, still having thoughts about calling this Wikipedia for something that has actual merits being an encyclopaedia?

 
Indefinitely banned for giving an opinion? (administrator ‘JzG’)

• Reason: “Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia”
• Reason: “Abusing multiple accounts”
          (Includes:  “Legal threat”;  “Meatpuppetry”;  General nature of people encountered on Wikipedia)

All the 6 users in favour of proper editing/deletion have printed following their username (on this ‘voting contest’ page) that this user “has made few or no other edits outside this topic.”. Pertinent information for each of these users displayed in a table gives us the following:

User* Status Reason supplied Voted* Blocked By ‘DonnaCAGLE1972’ indefinitely blocked (Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia) 01:03, 3 Apr 2015 23:31, 3 Apr 2015 ‘JzG’ ‘BAvarado’ indefinitely blocked (Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia) 01:13, 3 Apr 2015 23:31, 3 Apr 2015 ‘JzG’ ‘CBombWorthy41’ indefinitely blocked (Abusing multiple accounts) 01:22, 3 Apr 2015 23:14, 3 Apr 2015 ‘JzG’ ‘LoneStar1776’ indefinitely blocked (Abusing multiple accounts) 01:24, 3 Apr 2015 23:15, 3 Apr 2015 ‘JzG’ ‘Margeforsythe’ not blocked n/a 01:33, 3 Apr 2015 n/a n/a ‘WikiUser2k15’ indefinitely blocked (Abusing multiple accounts) 01:43, 3 Apr 2015 23:15, 3 Apr 2015 ‘JzG’

	* Each of these users listed in this column are clickable and will lead you to the page where this information in the table is gathered from (external links) (last checked 9 Sept 2015). * This is also for 5 of the users the only entry found in the Users contributions log for each of these users. ‘WikiUser2k15’ made 4 edits in the course of a couple minutes. Either way it is not that the 5 listed indefinitely blocked users that they had much time to do so much more either, due to receiving their block just some 22 hours later!

I guess that anonymous administrator ‘JzG’ forgot then to indefinitely block the fifth listed user here!

Now, can we assume that each of these users just signed up for Wikipedia to be able to give their opinion here? Likely so, yes. The question is if that would be wrong, or if that would be violating Wikipedia rules. Well, Wikipedia IS about making this supposed encyclopaedia.

	Reason: “Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia”

So, 2 of these indefinitely blocked users have it indicated that they were “Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia”. What however determines if one is not “Here to build an encyclopedia”. Is it when you possibly sign up for Wikipedia to give an opinion or bring out a vote? I don't see why actually, certainly these can give support to sound decisions made for that supposed encyclopaedia. It doesn't imply that you need to be an editor even. See the information found on the “Here to build an encyclopedia” page, it doesn't even imply that it would be (external link).

But then according to this SPA rule (“Single-purpose account”, external link), we see that it refers to “Wikipedia guidelines about conflicts of interest” and further states:

The thing what is so very interesting here is the simple fact that 2 of these blocked accounts/users do indicate: “(Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia)”. According to Wikipedia rules, here above pointed out, it is not a valid reason to block a user. So, why is that listed as a reason??

	Reason: “Abusing multiple accounts”

Now we get to the 3 indefinitely blocked users that have it indicated that they were “Abusing multiple accounts”. Now how exactly do you establish that after just some 22 hours? Just by giving your opinion and bringing out a vote?

According to the Talk page of one of these users ‘LoneStar1776’ (held by one Rudy Davis) all these 3 listed users that were accused for “abusing multiple accounts” would be one and the same person. the question remains: “What would be the forwarded evidence!”.

Rudy Davis ‘LoneStar1776’ recorded this on his YouTube channel and comments to this:

Keep in mind here that one is supposed to be innocent until proven that one would be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So where is the evidence for this Rudy Davis carrying multiple accounts?

Further interesting here is that we meet up once again with ‘BiologicalMe’ (posting this on this User page), that avid and motivated anonymous editor of the “Kent Hovind” article. You see, these media like this Wikipedia, newsgroups and such, you always meet up with the same few individuals.

That ‘LoneStar1776’ User page does link to this “discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents”. Since however this has been archived and you have to dig a little to find it. At present it is listed here (external link) (last checked 6 Sept 2015).

“Legal threat”

Now, here we suddenly get into something else. We get into that each of these 3 users would have: “Implied legal threat” (proposed by user ‘Flat Out’). Which implication for at least 2 of the users would be a bit well strained, something that even user ‘BMK’ confirms. However ‘BMK’ deemed that a legal threat was made by the third user. ‘LoneStar1776’ had written: “A man's reputation should not be subject to a popularity contest by his enemies. Wiki will be held accountable for false and libel comments.”. Strictly taken and from a legal point of view this is really not enough to deem it being a legal threat. See, you have the right to share your opinion about an observation, as you have the right to point out a possible consequence that may follow from that what you have observed. You may express this in words. If what is said or written can be interpreted like that, it just does not classify being a legal threat!

Wikipedia itself says on its own page “Legal threat”: “A legal threat is a statement by a party that it intends to take legal action on another party, generally accompanied by a demand that the other party take an action demanded by the first party or refrain from taking or continuing actions objected to by the demanding party.”. The Wikipedia guidelines that are listed ont page “Wikipedia:No legal threats” actually tend to stretch that. (external link)  This in itself is interesting actually! Well, let this all speak for itself.

We find however that nothing is exercised here on either of these users for said reason.

“Meatpuppetry”

	“Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. ...
	... recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited.

Still the 3 users involved may not have been aware of this, and most likely weren't. It could be considered here being a bit overhastily to immediately “indefinitely block” each of these users. A warning or a temporary block would have sufficed. But no, we have administrator ‘JzG’ posting a notice signed with ‘Guy’ at the top of this “discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents” saying: “obvious puppet accounts blocked”. He only forgot to mention here that it was “indefinitely”.

And this can be deemed to be a bit overhastily and too harsh a gradient to make it indefinite!  The Wikipedia Sock puppet rules do not guide that! In whatever way you look at this all, it would seem that a lot of effort is put into this to get rid of opponents. A strange accusation of legal threats that are not getting anywhere, and permanently blocking 3 newly registered users without use of any gradient scale.

Well, this is exactly how I remember things while editing on Wikipedia, it is a harsh and very inconsiderate place to be! There is, as a general rule, no good faith assumed by the bulk of these (mostly anonymous) individuals to put people in place. Usually the littlest misstep (imagined or real) of a green Wikipedia editor is pounded on ruthlessly. I personally have seen it many times. I guess this is their chance to rule! It might be interesting to learn how things are in their real day to day life (outside of Wikipedia), are they equally unsuccessful in life or are they just naturally unpleasant antagonistic individuals? I hope the readers understand what concept I paint here! About the sort of people you oft are faced with on Wikipedia.

 
Suspicious behaviour by (anonymous) administrator ‘JzG’

It would appear that our anonymous administrator ‘JzG’ allowed himself some liberties! His Wikipedia profile is found here (external link).

This profile page does reveal “I am in my early fifties, British, have been married for over quarter of a century ..., and have two adult children”, this is pretty much all the technical personal information we get, however no name is provided for! He is thus simply anonymous, and can claim that what he wishes. No one can check it out anyway. He appears to sign his responses and messages with ‘Guy’, not sure why this is. I think this only confuses matters. He has been editing since 6 Jan 2006. A vignette on that Talk page tells us how long he has been an administrator (see vignette on the right here, as of 4 Sept 2015).
It may be found a bit odd that his individual (that has been there 9+ years) does not use his User page (it is empty), the page that is commonly used to introduce oneself. He puts it all on his Talk page.

“There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Notification of suspicious behavior by administrator regarding suspicious behavior. The thread is Notification of suspicious behavior by administrator. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechnoTalk (talk•contribs) 20:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)”

“Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Academy of Achievement. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC) (suitable for intentional nonsense or disruption)”

Now, why is no one also knocking on the door of ‘BiologialMe’? (a total of 518 edits of which 83% are on articles that relate to or are about Dr. Kent Hovind) More seriously though, who in addition has been reverting that edit of ‘Mr. Lankford’ for an apparent invalid reason? Doesn't all that show that one is running a propaganda of sorts? Ah, ah ... (see earlier article “Dr. Kent Hovind versus Judge Margaret Catharine Rodgers (Wikipedia angle)” on this page)

(planned)