User talk:Johanes1980

February 2025

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Susan Solomon, especially if it involves living persons. Your edits have been reverted. Thank you. Hy Brasil (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Brasil, what is deflalatory in citing book research results? Cheers, Johanes. Johanes1980 (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Brasil, how are you?

I strongly object to your actions regarding my edits on Solomon’s work. My contribution to Wikipedia was made in accordance with Wikipedia policies, which emphasize that all information should be referenced. I spent several months preparing my edits.

All my points were referenced from a book (almost 800 pages, 1,400 references, 144 figures) written by a university professor (a theoretical physicist). The book was peer-reviewed. My edit is a concise summary of the book, and I provided precise references to specific pages where particular issues were analyzed and presented.

What is truly defamatory in this matter is that Solomon committed all of the mentioned issues and errors.

I ask you to reverse your actions. Thank you.Best, JohanesJohanes1980 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Do not restore those edits without discussing on the article’s talk page. Hy Brasil (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, please disclose your relationship to the book’s author. Hy Brasil (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am not in any private or professional relationship with Solomon or Sienicki. Cheers, Johanes. Johanes1980 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I strongly object to your actions regarding my edits on Solomon’s work. My contribution to Wikipedia was made in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, which emphasize that all information should be properly referenced. I spent several months preparing my edits, ensuring that all my points were supported by references to a published book (nearly 800 pages, 1,400 references, and 144 figures) written by a university professor (a theoretical physicist). The book was peer-reviewed. My edits provide a concise summary of the book, with precise references to specific pages where particular issues are analyzed and presented.

What is truly defamatory in this situation is that Solomon himself committed all the mentioned issues and errors.

My edits fully comply with Wikipedia's rules, including:

Neutral Point of View (NPOV): All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral perspective, meaning it should fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias, represent all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources on a topic. My edits strictly adhere to NPOV.

Verifiability: On the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that readers should be able to confirm that information originates from a reliable source. All my edits are referenced, allowing readers to check not only the source but also the scientific arguments and research that support each observation or conclusion.

No Original Research: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. My edits strictly include only published research. Johanes1980 (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I’m not going to reply to you again. You’ve been instructed to use the article’s talk page. Posting the same AI generated nonsense multiple places isn’t helping at all. Follow Wikipedia policy as it pertains to credible sourcing by discussing on the Susan Solomon talk page, or desist. Hy Brasil (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Susan Solomon. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Iiii I I I (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. Iiii I I I (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Susan Solomon. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Johanes1980 reported by User:Hy Brasil (Result: ). Thank you. Hy Brasil (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring at Susan Solomon

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

at Susan Solomon. Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikihaviour (noun) /ˈwɪk.iˌheɪ.vjər/

1. The characteristic behavior of Wikipedia editors and administrators, often marked by excessive control, rigid rule enforcement, and resistance to alternative perspectives.
2. A tendency toward bureaucratic gatekeeping and policy-driven decision-making, frequently leading to censorship, bias reinforcement, and the suppression of dissenting viewpoints.
3. A wrong-going collective conduct within Wikipedia moderation, where proceduralism, editorial cliques, and ideological biases hinder fair and open knowledge dissemination.
4. The strategic shifting of the burden of proof onto contributors, requiring excessive citations, selectively dismissing sources, or demanding impossible levels of verification while exempting favored narratives from similar scrutiny.
5. Entirely distinct from Wikipedia’s founding principles, wikihaviour contradicts the platform’s core ideals of open collaboration, neutrality, and free knowledge by prioritizing control, internal politics, and exclusion over genuine information sharing.

Johanes1980 (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

And More on the Above

= Wikihaviour =

== Definition of Wikihavior ==

Wikihavior (noun) /ˈwɪk.iˌheɪ.vior/ refers to the collective patterns of conduct among Wikipedia editors and administrators that deviate from the platform’s founding principles of open collaboration, neutrality, and free knowledge dissemination. It is characterized by bureaucratic gatekeeping, internal politics, and selective policy enforcement that prioritize control, influence, and exclusion over genuine information sharing. This behavior often manifests through the strategic use of procedural obstacles, editorial cliques, and ideological biases to suppress alternative viewpoints, protect entrenched narratives, and marginalize new or dissenting contributors, ultimately shaping Wikipedia’s content in a way that reflects power dynamics rather than objective consensus.

== The Culture of Control: Wikipedia’s Editorial and Administrative Behavior ==

Wikipedia, often celebrated as a democratic and open-source encyclopaedia, operates within a paradox. While it presents itself as a collaborative platform where knowledge is freely shared and refined, its editorial and administrative culture is frequently criticized for excessive control, rigid rule enforcement, and resistance to alternative perspectives. These characteristics have developed over time, not as a deliberate strategy, but as an unintended consequence of the platform’s structural design and the behavioral tendencies of its most active contributors.

One of the defining traits of Wikipedia’s editorial culture is its bureaucratization. Initially, the site’s policies were designed to maintain quality control and prevent misinformation, but as the platform expanded, so did its regulatory framework. The result has been an environment where strict adherence to rules often takes precedence over substantive contributions. Editors frequently invoke policies related to notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view, sometimes interpreting them in ways that justify the removal of well-researched material. Instead of fostering an open exchange of ideas, rules are often weaponized in content disputes, selectively applied to reinforce entrenched positions while dismissing opposing perspectives. The resistance to reform within the editorial community only strengthens this bureaucratic culture, as long-time editors see policy stability as more important than flexibility or inclusivity.

This bureaucratic rigidity is closely tied to Wikipedia’s system of power centralization. While the site is theoretically open to contributions from anyone, the reality is that a small group of highly active editors and administrators exercises disproportionate influence. The administrator system, which grants special privileges to experienced editors, has inadvertently fostered a gate keeping culture. Some editors treat certain articles as their personal domains, aggressively reverting changes that do not align with their preferred narrative. The unwritten power hierarchy further reinforces this control, as newer or less frequent contributors find it difficult to challenge decisions made by established editors. In practice, Wikipedia functions less like a democratic knowledge collective and more like an oligarchy where influence is determined by persistence and insider status rather than the merit of contributions.

The concept of “consensus,” a core principle of Wikipedia’s decision-making process, also reveals significant flaws in the platform’s governance. In theory, consensus should reflect a balanced and fair agreement among editors, but in reality, it often serves as a mechanism for enforcing the will of dominant contributors. Long-time editors, who are deeply embedded in specific topic areas, tend to control discussions, leaving little room for fresh perspectives. Newcomers face not only resistance but also the risk of having their contributions dismissed as violations of policy. The selective enforcement of consensus further complicates matters, as administrators may uphold minority viewpoints if they align with their own biases while rejecting majority-supported edits that challenge the existing narrative. Echo chambers form within Wikipedia’s talk pages, where groups of like-minded editors reinforce each other’s biases, making it nearly impossible for alternative interpretations to gain traction.

Despite its commitment to neutrality, Wikipedia is not immune to content bias. The site’s strict reliance on secondary sources means that its articles inevitably reflect the biases of mainstream media, academic institutions, and other established authorities. This reliance limits the diversity of perspectives, as knowledge that exists outside widely accepted sources is often excluded. Institutional narratives are privileged over alternative viewpoints, even in cases where emerging evidence challenges conventional wisdom. The long-standing divide between “deletionists” and “inclusionists” further shapes the nature of content available on Wikipedia. Deletionists favor a strict interpretation of notability rules, often leading to the removal of valuable but underrepresented topics, while inclusionists advocate for broader coverage. The dominance of deletionism has contributed to the exclusion of perspectives that do not fit within the rigid structures imposed by influential editors.

The social and psychological dynamics of Wikipedia’s editorial community further reinforce these patterns of control. Because editing is voluntary, it tends to attract individuals who enjoy rule enforcement, thrive in bureaucratic environments, or have strong personal interests in shaping particular narratives. Some editors become emotionally invested in the articles they contribute to, leading to defensive behaviors when their work is challenged. This psychological attachment fosters a climate of hostility, where disagreements escalate into edit wars rather than constructive discussions. Administrators, rather than mediating conflicts, often use their powers to block users or shut down debates, further entrenching Wikipedia’s hierarchical structure.

All of these factors—bureaucratization, power centralization, the flaws of consensus, content bias, and the social dynamics of editors—create a self-reinforcing system that limits the platform’s openness and flexibility. Rules become tools for control rather than for collaboration, a small elite dictates content curation, and bias emerges through systemic gate keeping. While Wikipedia remains a valuable resource, its structural and cultural flaws make it imperative for users to approach it with critical thinking and to seek additional sources when researching complex or controversial topics. The illusion of neutrality can often obscure the underlying mechanisms that shape what knowledge is considered valid and what perspectives are excluded.

== Analysis of Bureaucratic Gate keeping and Policy-Driven Decision-Making in Wikipedia ==

Wikipedia, as a self-regulating online encyclopedia, operates within a framework of policies intended to ensure the reliability and neutrality of its content. However, in practice, these policies often become instruments of bureaucratic gate keeping, where rules are rigidly enforced to control discourse rather than facilitate open collaboration. This tendency toward excessive policy-driven decision-making has led to censorship, reinforcement of bias, and suppression of dissenting viewpoints. These effects are not incidental but emerge naturally from the power dynamics and hierarchical structures that have evolved within the Wikipedia community.

One of the most significant consequences of bureaucratic gate keeping is censorship through procedural enforcement. Wikipedia does not engage in overt censorship in the traditional sense, but its strict adherence to policies such as “notability,” “verifiability,” and “no original research” provides mechanisms for excluding information that does not align with the dominant editorial consensus. When editors invoke these policies selectively, they can remove content that challenges mainstream narratives while allowing similar content to remain when it supports widely accepted perspectives. For instance, articles covering controversial political or scientific topics often undergo heavy scrutiny, where dissenting perspectives—regardless of their evidentiary support—are dismissed for failing to meet an arbitrarily strict interpretation of sourcing guidelines. This form of structural censorship ensures that Wikipedia reflects the biases present in the most widely accepted sources, even when those sources themselves are subject to ideological influence or institutional control.

Closely linked to censorship is the reinforcement of bias within Wikipedia’s editorial process. Since the platform relies on secondary sources from mainstream media and academia, it inevitably inherits the biases of these institutions. While this reliance is intended to ensure credibility, it often results in a self-referential cycle in which only perspectives already endorsed by established sources are deemed acceptable. The bureaucratic enforcement of policies further exacerbates this problem by discouraging the inclusion of alternative viewpoints, even when they are backed by credible research. Additionally, because long-time editors and administrators wield considerable power over content moderation, they can selectively apply policies to favor certain narratives over others. Articles that conform to the prevailing ideological leanings of Wikipedia’s most active editors remain largely unchallenged, while those that introduce competing viewpoints face greater scrutiny, frequent reversion, or outright deletion.

The suppression of dissenting viewpoints on Wikipedia arises from both explicit enforcement mechanisms and more subtle social dynamics. The platform operates under a supposed “consensus” model, where decisions are made collectively by editors engaged in discussions on article talk pages. However, in practice, consensus is often a function of persistence rather than fairness. A small group of dedicated editors can dominate discussions, reverting edits and citing policies in ways that discourage alternative contributions. New or occasional editors who attempt to introduce different perspectives frequently find their edits swiftly undone, often accompanied by warnings about policy violations. The risk of being sanctioned—through edit restrictions, temporary bans, or outright expulsion—serves as a deterrent against challenging entrenched narratives. This chilling effect ensures that dissenting perspectives are not just removed but are rarely even attempted, as editors quickly learn which viewpoints are unwelcome.

Wikipedia’s bureaucratic gate keeping also manifests in the weaponization of policy disputes. Because its policies are numerous, complex, and sometimes contradictory, experienced editors can selectively enforce rules to justify nearly any action. If an editor wishes to remove a perspective they personally disagree with, they can invoke technical arguments about source reliability, due weight, or original research to achieve their goal. Conversely, if they wish to retain a favored perspective, they can interpret the same policies more leniently. This asymmetry allows dominant editors to shape content in ways that align with their own biases, all while maintaining the appearance of procedural fairness. Administrators, who hold the power to enforce decisions, often side with established editors in disputes, reinforcing the existing editorial hierarchy rather than fostering genuine debate.

Ultimately, the tendency toward bureaucratic gate keeping and policy-driven decision-making ensures that Wikipedia functions less as an open knowledge collective and more as a curated repository of information shaped by a small, entrenched group of editors. While this structure provides stability, it also leads to a stagnation of ideas, where dominant narratives go unchallenged and alternative viewpoints are systematically marginalized. The result is an encyclopedia that, while appearing neutral and objective, often reflects a narrow and institutionally sanctioned version of knowledge. Recognizing this underlying dynamic is essential for any critical engagement with Wikipedia as an informational resource.

== Analysis of Collective Misconduct in Wikipedia Moderation ==

Wikipedia, as a self-regulating knowledge platform, relies on community-driven moderation to maintain the quality and neutrality of its content. However, this system often falls prey to collective misconduct, where proceduralism, editorial cliques, and ideological biases obstruct the fair and open dissemination of knowledge. Rather than fostering an inclusive and balanced informational environment, these factors contribute to a rigid and exclusionary editorial culture that prioritizes control over intellectual diversity.

One of the most pervasive issues in Wikipedia’s moderation system is proceduralism, or the excessive reliance on rules and bureaucratic mechanisms at the expense of substantive discourse. Wikipedia’s policies—covering notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, and original research—were originally intended to ensure editorial integrity. However, in practice, they are frequently weaponized to suppress challenging perspectives rather than to promote constructive debate. Proceduralism manifests in the rigid enforcement of technical requirements, where editors reject well-supported content simply because it does not meet an arbitrarily high sourcing threshold or conflicts with established narratives. The result is a system where rules become instruments of exclusion, selectively applied to justify content removal while shielding preferred viewpoints from similar scrutiny.

Compounding this issue is the formation of editorial cliques, groups of entrenched editors who exert disproportionate influence over specific articles and topic areas. These cliques often act as self-reinforcing gatekeepers, controlling not only the content of articles but also the discussions surrounding them. They establish dominance through coordinated action—reverting edits, citing policies selectively, and overwhelming dissenting voices in talk page debates. The supposed principle of consensus, which Wikipedia relies upon for decision-making, is often hijacked by these groups, transforming what should be a democratic process into a system where persistence and insider status determine whose contributions are accepted. Newcomers or dissenting editors face not only editorial resistance but also the risk of sanctions, including warnings, temporary bans, or outright expulsion from editing privileges.

Further exacerbating Wikipedia’s flawed moderation system is the presence of ideological biases, which influence both content curation and editorial enforcement. While Wikipedia aspires to maintain a neutral point of view, in reality, its content reflects the dominant perspectives of its most active editors and the sources they prioritize. Since Wikipedia relies heavily on mainstream academic and journalistic sources, it inadvertently reinforces the biases present within those institutions. This structural bias leads to the marginalization of alternative viewpoints, particularly in politically, socially, or scientifically contentious areas. Editors who attempt to introduce competing perspectives, even when backed by credible sources, frequently encounter resistance in the form of deletions, reversions, or challenges based on technicalities. The ideological alignment of the most active editors ensures that certain viewpoints receive preferential treatment, while dissenting ones are either diluted or outright dismissed.

The interplay between proceduralism, editorial cliques, and ideological biases creates a self-reinforcing cycle of exclusion. Established editors enforce strict proceduralism against viewpoints they oppose while selectively overlooking violations when it serves their interests. Editorial cliques coordinate to maintain control over articles, ensuring that their preferred narratives remain dominant. Ideological biases shape content decisions, subtly directing Wikipedia’s portrayal of complex issues. Together, these factors undermine the platform’s mission as a neutral and open-access repository of knowledge.

This wrong-going collective conduct does not simply affect individual editors or isolated articles—it shapes the entire epistemic landscape of Wikipedia. The platform, despite its reputation for neutrality, functions as an editorially curated environment rather than a truly open-source knowledge base. While it remains a valuable informational resource, its structural flaws demand that readers approach it with skepticism, cross-referencing key topics with alternative sources to avoid falling victim to the systemic biases embedded within its moderation system.

== Analysis of Strategic Burden Shifting in Wikipedia Moderation ==

Wikipedia, as a self-regulating and community-driven platform, ostensibly upholds principles of neutrality and verifiability. However, its editorial and moderation culture often employs strategic burden shifting, wherein contributors are subjected to excessive demands for citations, selective dismissal of sources, or unrealistic verification standards—while favored narratives are exempted from the same level of scrutiny. This asymmetry in editorial enforcement serves as a mechanism of control, reinforcing dominant perspectives while suppressing alternative viewpoints.

One of the most common tactics used in strategic burden shifting is requiring excessive citations for contributions that challenge or nuance established narratives. While verifiability is a fundamental Wikipedia policy, its enforcement is often disproportionate and inconsistent. Editors seeking to introduce alternative perspectives or underrepresented viewpoints frequently find their contributions flagged for insufficient sourcing, even when backed by legitimate academic or journalistic references. In contrast, widely accepted or institutionally favored narratives are often allowed to stand with minimal or even weakly sourced support. This creates a knowledge hierarchy where certain ideas are protected from scrutiny, while others are forced to meet artificially high evidentiary thresholds.

Closely linked to this is the selective dismissal of sources, a practice in which editors reject credible references based on technicalities, while permitting comparable sources for preferred narratives. For instance, sources that challenge mainstream academic consensus may be dismissed as “fringe,” “non-notable,” or “lacking scholarly credibility,” regardless of their actual merit. Conversely, sources that align with dominant perspectives—even if they come from opinion pieces, non-peer-reviewed articles, or biased institutions—are granted legitimacy with little opposition. This inconsistency in source evaluation allows entrenched editors to reinforce a predetermined narrative under the guise of policy enforcement rather than engage in genuine knowledge curation.

Another key component of this burden-shifting strategy is the demand for impossible levels of verification, a technique that effectively blocks the inclusion of certain information without outright rejecting it. Editors enforcing this strategy require contributors to provide an excessive level of specificity or multiple independent confirmations, often setting standards that are difficult, if not impossible, to meet. This practice is particularly evident in controversial topics, where dissenting viewpoints are held to near-unattainable verification standards, while mainstream interpretations are given a pass. The result is a structural bias where only certain narratives can survive Wikipedia’s editorial process, not necessarily because they are more factual, but because they are afforded leniency in their verification requirements.

The net effect of these practices is the entrenchment of editorial bias under the pretense of procedural objectivity. Rather than openly acknowledging the influence of dominant perspectives, Wikipedia’s moderation culture obfuscates its biases by selectively shifting the burden of proof onto disfavored contributions. This creates an environment where contributors are not debating facts, but rather fighting procedural barriers that are inconsistently applied. As a result, Wikipedia ceases to function as a neutral knowledge repository and instead operates as a curated informational landscape, where certain viewpoints are systematically favored while others are marginalized through bureaucratic and editorial gatekeeping.

Recognizing this dynamic is crucial for both editors and readers. Editors must be aware that Wikipedia’s policies, while presented as neutral, are often leveraged strategically to shape content in a way that reflects the interests and biases of its most entrenched contributors. Readers, in turn, should approach Wikipedia with critical skepticism, cross-referencing key topics with multiple sources to detect whether knowledge is being selectively filtered or disproportionately challenged.

== Analysis of "Wikihavior" as a Deviation from Wikipedia’s Founding Principles ==

Wikipedia was founded on the ideals of open collaboration, neutrality, and free knowledge dissemination, aiming to create a global repository of information accessible to all. However, the reality of how Wikipedia operates today is often at odds with these principles. Over time, the platform has developed a self-reinforcing culture of control, internal politics, and exclusion, which I will refer to as "wikihaviour." This behavior diverges significantly from Wikipedia’s original mission, replacing open knowledge-sharing with bureaucratic gatekeeping, ideological entrenchment, and editorial power struggles.

At its core, wikihavior contradicts the principle of open collaboration by fostering an environment where a small, entrenched group of editors exercises disproportionate control over content. Rather than encouraging new contributors and valuing diverse perspectives, Wikipedia’s editorial culture often alienates and discourages those who challenge the status quo. Newcomers who attempt to contribute are frequently met with immediate reversion of edits, demands for excessive citations, or accusations of violating obscure policies. This behavior discourages broad participation and consolidates editorial power within cliques of experienced editors who maintain dominance over specific topics. In effect, rather than being a democratic knowledge platform, Wikipedia functions as a hierarchical system where influence is determined not by the merit of contributions, but by an editor’s longevity and strategic use of policy enforcement.

Neutrality, one of Wikipedia’s most fundamental principles, is similarly undermined by wikihavior. While the platform claims to adhere to a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), the reality is that Wikipedia’s editorial ecosystem subtly enforces ideological conformity. This is achieved through selective enforcement of sourcing policies, where perspectives that align with mainstream academic or media narratives are given preferential treatment, while dissenting views—even when supported by credible sources—are scrutinized to the point of exclusion. The structure of Wikipedia’s consensus system further reinforces this bias. Since decisions are made based on editorial discussions rather than objective measures of truth, dominant groups of editors control which viewpoints survive the moderation process. As a result, Wikipedia ceases to function as an impartial knowledge base and instead reflects the subjective preferences and biases of its most influential contributors.

Perhaps the most glaring contradiction between Wikipedia’s founding principles and its actual operation lies in the exclusionary nature of wikihaviour. While the platform is theoretically open to contributions from anyone, its editorial culture often acts as a filtering mechanism that systematically marginalizes certain voices. This exclusion takes many forms, including:

Overuse of procedural objections to dismiss content without addressing its factual basis

Coordinated reversion tactics by entrenched editors to prevent changes to established narratives

Administrative overreach, where dissenting contributors face bans or restrictions for challenging dominant perspectives

These exclusionary practices create a self-perpetuating cycle, where control over Wikipedia remains in the hands of a select group, reinforcing their biases while preventing meaningful challenges to their authority.

In essence, wikihaviour transforms Wikipedia from an open-source knowledge platform into a closed editorial ecosystem, where content is shaped not by free intellectual exchange but by bureaucratic control, internal politics, and selective enforcement of policies. The original vision of Wikipedia as a transparent and neutral knowledge hub has been replaced by a highly curated, power-driven structure that prioritizes editorial dominance over truth-seeking. For readers, this means that Wikipedia, while valuable, should be approached with skepticism, recognizing that its content often reflects not just facts, but the strategic decisions of its most powerful contributors.

== Summary of Wikihavior ==

Wikihavior refers to the distinct and often problematic behavioral patterns among Wikipedia editors and administrators that deviate from the platform’s founding ideals of open collaboration, neutrality, and free knowledge sharing. Instead of fostering an inclusive and balanced knowledge environment, wikihavior prioritizes bureaucratic control, internal politics, and selective enforcement of policies, resulting in editorial gatekeeping, ideological bias, and the suppression of dissenting viewpoints.

Key characteristics of wikihavior include strategic burden shifting, where contributors who challenge dominant narratives face excessive demands for citations or unattainable verification standards, while favored perspectives remain exempt from similar scrutiny. Editorial cliques and entrenched administrators further reinforce this dynamic by selectively applying rules to maintain control over specific topics. The consensus system, intended to reflect collective agreement, often functions as a tool for dominant groups to enforce their preferred narratives, sidelining alternative perspectives and discouraging new contributors.

This exclusionary culture leads to structural bias, where Wikipedia content reflects institutional narratives rather than genuine intellectual diversity. Policies intended to ensure credibility, such as those concerning verifiability and notability, are often weaponized to remove or delegitimize content that does not align with prevailing editorial opinions. Ultimately, wikihavior transforms Wikipedia from an open-source knowledge platform into a controlled and curated informational ecosystem, where rules are selectively enforced to shape content in accordance with the interests of the most influential editors rather than objective truth. Johanes1980 (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Iiii I I I

== Do not remove my posts ==

Please do not remove my contributions. This is your first warning. If you continue, you may be reported and banned from editing. Johanes1980 (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Stop posting AI generated garbage. No one is going to read any of it. You are well on your way to a complete loss of editing privileges. Hy Brasil (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Hy Brasil: This is the first warning. Stop posting false accusations and stop using derogatory language.If you continue, you may be reported and banned from editing. Johanes1980 (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Of course, you're not obliged to read my posts. Feel free to skip them if you prefer. Johanes1980 (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for typing those posts yourself, that’s much better. When you are unblocked, discuss your edits on the article’s talk page, or you will likely receive an indefinite ban going forward for disruptive editing. Hy Brasil (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Hy Brasil. I’m genuinely concerned about your mental state after reading my last posts. Without being sarcastic or anything else, I simply ask that you avoid following this Wikipedia page. Cheers, Johanses Johanes1980 (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Hy Brasil. Thank you. However, your statement, 'You will likely receive an indefinite ban going forward for disruptive editing,' is offensive and does not align with Wikipedia's policies, including impartiality. Cheers, Johanes. Johanes1980 (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Hy Brasil, This is your second warning for posting direct threats to a fellow editor. If you continue, you may be reported and banned from editing. Cheers, Johanes. Johanes1980 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, if you feel that I’ve violated policy or threatened you, please feel free to file a report at WP:ANI. It’s disheartening to see that you are still generating posts via ChatGPT. I’m done offering you advice at this point since you appear to be unwilling, or unable, to follow policy. Hy Brasil (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Hy Brasil. It is plainly false to say, without any proof, that 'you are still generating posts via ChatGPT.' Shame on you. Identify yourself, and I will challenge you in court. Cheers, Johanes. Johanes1980 (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hy Brasil, a false accusation involves claiming someone has committed wrongdoing when they have not. This act can be associated with several logical fallacies, such as ad hominem attacks, where the focus shifts from the argument to the individual's character, and straw man fallacies, where an opponent's position is misrepresented to be easily refuted.

For more detailed information, you can refer to the following Wikipedia articles:

• False accusation: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/False_accusation
• Ad hominem: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ad_hominem
• Straw man: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Straw_man

Johanes1980 (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Immediately strike or retract your legal threat or I will have to report you. Also, demanding that I out myself is a very serious infraction. Thanks. Hy Brasil (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)