Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Hating Autism Blacklisted by Wikipedia or How to Torture Children

This blog entry involves the fact that Amanda Baggs is a fraud and Wikipedia will not allow that fact to be presented on their encyclopedia. They are blocking every effort to present the facts of this fraud. In effect, Wikipedia is now a party to the fraud. Wikipedia is abusing autistic children by allowing Amanda Baggs to lie to the world with her misinformation about autism.

Below is an exchange on the Administrators' Noticeboard at Wikipedia. Not only does Wikipedia delete comments that are critical of frauds like Amanda Baggs. Now we see that they slink behind your back and, without allowing you any say in the matter, decide to "blacklist" the truth about the frauds they promote in their third rate encyclopedia.

Mention is made to my being blocked for what they call "linkspamming" last August when I added my blog as a reference to counter some of the insanity by the cult of lunatics who try to prevent people from curing autism. In this discussion, they don't mention the fact that it was a neurodiverse nitwit known as Elmindreda who originally deleted my links to counter this insanity. So we can see clearly that Wikipedia allows themselves to be managed by mentally challenged individuals who are in favor of torturing children by preventing them from being cured. Thank you, Wikipedia, for showing the world that you are a corrupt bunch of child abusers. Allowing Amanda Baggs to lie to the world about autism on your encyclopedia, unopposed by sanity, makes you a party to child abuse.

UPDATE:[edit] February 2008
Since you were previously blocked for linkspamming that blog, I assume you know not to do it again.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding the truth to a fraudulent article is far from link spamming. You are abusing autistic children by allowing this article to exist without opposition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bettwice33 (talk • contribs) 10 March 2008.

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Your edits fail WP:NPOV and it would seem clear that you are unable to do so due to being too close to the issue. As you have been previously warned and blocked this amounts to vandalism. GetDumb 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the comment they deleted that they try to write off as vandalism
The standard for diagnosing autism is that it is diagnosed by age 3. Amanda was diagnosed with PDD/NOS at age 20. Her lengthy diatribe aside, how did every doctor she saw as a child miss all of the hand flapping, eye contact avoidance, inability to toilet herself properly and other behaviors consistent with autism? That behavior in a child can not possibly be missed by anyone and that is the autism standard that Baggs is trying to sidestep here. When does common sense come into play for Wikipedia? ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettwice33 (talk • contribs) 18:21, March 11, 2008 UTC

Call someone else a bastard, disingenuous or perverted and I will block you. Simple. If you cannot maintain any degree of civility on Wikipedia, you can go elsewhere. I don't give a damn about whether you think Amanda Baggs is a fraud; don't do it again. Last warning. —Dark (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC
Here we can clearly see that the editors at Wikipedia, in their own words, don't give a damn about whether Amanda Baggs is a fraud.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

SECOND UPDATE:[edit] User:Bettwice33
Dark Falls, I note that you were the admin who blocked this account for 31 hours in August 2007. The user has not learned a thing and I have slapped a test4 template on his page.

As a background, this person has a long history of psychotic behaviour off Wiki, demonstrated on the blog he persists in trying to link. He has a son with Autism and is convinced beyond reason that Autism is caused by vaccines. He is also convinced that Amanda Baggs is a fraud - due to the lies of a couple of other people.


I realise that off Wiki behaviour is not really relevant to the blocking and banning policies of Wikipedia, but I'm just pointing out that this person may be extremely dangerous and needs to be dealt with in the strongest possible terms. If you are interested - he has just placed a posting on his blog taking Wikipedia to pieces.

FYI and action, maybe through some senior admins who are familiar with the area concerned?

Oh - and it may be an idea to do a check user on User:Appto to see if the two are the same person, given the similarlities in argument. GetDumb 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bettwice's answer doesn't even answer the actual question, considering he was asked about a specific person and has answered with a strawman statement about curing autistic children, something that is not possible. Given this particular person's online history, I sincerely doubt there will be anything constructive from this account. Natalie (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bettwice33"

We can see that Natalie is a 24 year old history major who is ignorant enough to state that autism can not be cured.

Let the edit warring begin [66] *sigh* Tiptoety talk 00:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Baggs
I need help at Amanda Baggs; I'm not an admin it's moving faster than I can keep up with. It appears that an off-Wiki blog dispute has spilled over to Wiki, there are COI issues, and I'm removing personal attacks, attempted outings of Wiki editors,[67] and BLP violations from the talk page at a rate I can't keep up with.[68][69] I'll come back and add some diffs in a minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More, this editor was previously blocked for linkspamming this blog.[70] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
More, the COI spills over into the Mark Geier, Seidel controversy; Dave Seidel is apparently an involved, COI editor. I'm unwatching. URL REMOVED SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Given Baggs editors aren't autoconfirmed, I've semi'd that for a week. Moving to look at Geier. MBisanz talk 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No recent activity at Geier, so no admin actions taken. MBisanz talk 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to direct you to all the pieces, Mbisanz. I became aware months ago of the issues at Mark Geier, and when I waded into Amanda Baggs, I didn't realize there was a connection. Apparently, according to that blog, there is. Ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It gets better: apparently (according to someone posting on the talk page there) there's also a link to the Wiki chiropractic mess.[71] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be most parsimonious to note that these articles (Geier, chiropractic, etc) have significant problems with off-wiki recruiting and importation of outside disputes, and to take a fairly stern line with editors who fit this profile. MastCell Talk 22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it make sense to blacklist the blog links people are trying to add? There's basically no way they're going to be allowed, nor will they be particularly appropriate anywhere else, so the blacklist seems like a neat solution. Natalie (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, since no one has objected, I'm going to add the blogs to the spam blacklist. They can always be de-blacklisted if a good reason for including them surfaces. I will also remove those links from the talk page so there is no confusion. Natalie (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I have no idea how the blacklist works, but endorse adding things such as this. MBisanz talk 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I apparently failed, so I've asked an administrator who knows how to help with this. Sigh. Natalie (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hu12 has added these to the spam blacklist. Natalie (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the resolved tag; Natalie Erin has made a lot of progress at Amanda Baggs, but the situation continues at Donna Williams (author) and doesn't show any signs of letting up. BLP, COI, NPA, Civil, AGF; you name it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Anonymous said...

It's pretty clear that the ND crew are camped out there, and since the internet is essentially the aspie/bipolar playground, it will be tough to fight them on their own terms. Racketeering, fraud, and conspiracy charges should do nicely and wake them out of their fantasy world.

It's always amusing when computer geeks are draged out of their hole into the light by the cops. They are always such big shots on the web but are just pathetic in the real world.

Foresam said...

Who ever heard of an encyclopedia that could be edited by anyone who feels like throwing in their two cents anyhow? It's obvious that Wikipedia will never be a decent reference for anything when they allow frauds like Amanda Baggs to advertise there.

Natalie Erin said...

Then provide reliable mainstream sources backing up your claims. And do so in a civil manner and without the hostility you have been displaying. We will listen if you prove what you say is true, and without heresay or rumour. For example, are there any news stories consistent with your claims? Are there reports from established websites (not blogs or similar) that fulfill this? This is what you need. We can not just take your word for it no matter what you say.

Foresam said...

The same rules should apply to Baggs.
She calls herself autistic but her BS diagnosis only says PDD/NOS. She should not be allowed to call herself autistic.

Anonymous said...


Does anyone at Wikipedia even look into fraud or misinformation on the listings? It appears that nobody does, since you seem to expect someone else to do the work for you. If that is the case, your "encyclopedia" is not worth very much as a real resource.

How about this.

"There is debate about the veracity of Amanda's claims to autism, and whether it started at birth or was caused by drug use while attending a university in her teens."

Nice, simple, and sums up the whole issue, while not "vandalizing" the entry. The debate is really the only thing interesting about Amanda anyways.

Anonymous said...

If a story on wikipedia is being continually disputed by many people as the Baggs story is then a note should be added to the article stating that the veracity of the story is contentious. That would not be hard to do.

No one is expecting wikipedia to write that Baggs is a psychotic malingering even if there is much evidence that she is.

Anonymous said...

Exactly. if you have a problem with the content, you join wikipedia and you cange it yourself. It's that simple.

Foresam said...

That's good in theory.

When neurodiverse knuckleheads are the editors, it's not practical.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I don't even know what to say...

I have thousands of edits on wikipedia, and witnessed what SandyGeorgia has done with autism-related articles over a period of about a year, and while I was extremely unimpressed with what she did, her biases are in NO WAY supportive of neurodiversity. In fact, she and one other editor (Eubulides) very forcefully drove away virtually every pro-neurodiversity editor who ever touched an article on autism or Asperger's, several months ago. Most either gave up on wikipedia, or (in at least one case) were banned as a result of disagreements with SandyGeorgia.

SandyGeorgia is not autistic, or the relative of any autistic, and diligently removed almost all references to pro-neurodiversity perspectives in autism-related articles. She does have Tourette's, and is responsible for the articles touching on that subject having a positive bias towards it, but she does not view anything but TS in that way. She is quite pro-pharmaceutical and views every aspect of autism as pathological.

In short, while I happen to think that she is, in many ways, a crappy editor, she is far closer to your own point of view than she is to the neurodiversity camp, who must absolutely hate her.