Wikipedia and internet censorship (II)

On May 30, referring to the e-G8 (internet G8) and G8 of last week, Leadership writes : « Consensus on regulation remains elusive » and evokes « very different views of how the internet should be run ». But what about the rights of citizens, when private internet is in the hands of (often anonymous) webmasters and administrators ? It does not seem that this question is really dealt with by Deutsche Welle's article « The Great Barrier Reef, Machu Picchu, the Acropolis ... Wikipedia ? ». But the hard fact is that Wikipedia declares to have no editorial board to which users and net surfers can complain, and that its administrators are mainly anonymous. Who can control the neutrality and possible conflicts of interests of these administrators ? Raising again this question seems necessary, in view of the way the discussion on the suppression of the Superbradyon page was recently held, and the same seems to happen with the proposed deletion of the biography of Luis Gonzalez-Mestres, a member of our collective, just after the edits from net surfers on the article concerning the so-called « Bodganoff affair » had also been blocked. It clearly appears that no government control of internet is necessary to have hard censorship.


No public police is needed in Wikipedia to block users on the grounds of IP similarities, and even several sets of IP adresses starting by the same 5 digits which actually correspond to heavily populated zones near Paris or inside this town. Precisely, public police would never be allowed to use such procedures explicitly based on suspicion and targeted by the expression of dissident opinions. Furthermore, public policemen are not anonymous.


In the discussion on the deletion of the biography of Luis Gonzalez-Mestres :

all unwanted arguments are being hidden, or just removed like the last one by Negun in this version :

See also the history :

The Negun comment was :

  • Keep You can find a new version of the biography at the address :ález-Mestres&oldid=431611709

with more complete sources, emphasizing the well-kown role of Gonzalez-Mestres in the field of cryogenic detectors, as well as the relevance of his original ideas on relativity and high-energy cosmic-ray phenomenology. His acknowledged role as a "dissident" is also explained with more detail. The fact that he has not been promoted to "Directeur de recherche" seems to have nothing to do with scientific standards.

Please notice that, concerning the situation at Collège de France, the expression "liste noire" (black list) was used by a media like Politis in 1997 :

There was even an attempt to question his mental health :

Previously, the director of the Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire at Collège de France had suggested to CNRS to launch psychiatric procedures against several members of his laboratory staff :

Negun (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Negun (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(end of quote)

The comment was immediately removed, and the "dissident" Negun, blocked with this mention :

This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

(end of quote)

and without any answer to the arguments he had brought.

Similarly, the new version of the Gonzalez-Mestres biography posted by Negun was reverted. See the history :


Here follows a recent discussion, closed in a similar way by the Wikipedia administrators, on a request for unprotection of the discussion on the deletion of the biography of Luis Gonzalez-Mestres

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis_González-Mestres (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Indefinite Unprotection No answer has yet been given to arguments. There cannot be any real discussion if everybody is blocked except the club asking to delete the article. And everybody now refers to Crusio, who is a real grand champion of self-citing biography and does not seem to be able to provide anything else.

The previous discussion follows :

Sorry but, as previoulsy claimed, the so-called "protection" is used to censor relevant arguments and information, and there has been no answer to the arguments given. Furthermore, there are new informations after the three administrators rejected the request (see the end of the discussion reminded below).

Somebody should notice the obvious difference between the attacks against the Gonzalez-Mestres biography that produces citations by a Field Medal (Edward Witten) and a Nobel Price (Sheldon Glashow), as well as by Lee Smolin, to his original work and ideas, and the Wim Crusio biography :

that is just a collection of citations of this researcher.

And a club of three users (Crusio, Drmies and Xxanthippe) is jointly attacking the Gonzalez-Mestres biography whereas the user pages of Crusio and the anonymous Drmies present similarities, and Xxanthippe seems to be totally anonymous after having removed information. Drmies has even removed a lot of important information contained in the Gonzalez-Mestres biography. See the history :

It seems necessary that somebody can answer to all that, but you have blocked all registered users that could have done it.

Here follows the previous discussion :

Indefinite Unprotection The so-called "protection" is used to censor relevant arguments and information. (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

20px-Pictogram_voting_oppose.svg.pngDeclined Please ask the protecting admin. GedUK 20:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The "protecting admin" is clearly partial. The history does not even clearly show who did the protection. All that can be found is this link where there is no protection :

Obviously, one is trying to "protect" the discussion from real scientific and professional arguments. How can Wikipedia have a link with UNESCO with such a running ? (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

20px-Pictogram_voting_oppose.svg.pngDeclined, The protecting admin was DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), please contact the user at their talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This administrator has hidden as "disruptive" comments from net surfers giving votes against deletion and very detailed scientific and professional explanations. Actually, all detailed arguments on scientific work and references are systematically hidden. Furthermore, all users that had expressed points of view against the deletion of the superbradyon article have been blocked. Can one call this a discussion ? The discussion itself must be stopped, and the deletion proposal, withdrawn. (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • All users and net surfers expressing "dissident" points of view with "too many" arguments are systematically accused of being "sockpuppets", "ducks" and so on... so that such "procedures" actually become an opinion police.

And how can you know that people with similar IPs are the same person, when the IPs actually correspond to geographic zones ? Even the same computer can be used by several different individuals.

Furthermore, there were more than five different IP families in the discussion on the superbradyon article, and they have all been called "socks". This is just a very dangerous suppression of dissent weapon. It is also very worrying that the Wikipedia article on the "Duck test" :

explicitly refers to communist hunt arguments. (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

20px-Pictogram_voting_question.svg.pngQuestion: Have you even tried yet to contact the protecting admin? -- Cirt (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What for ? Hiding all comments that bring clear professional and scientific arguments against deletion, and calling "socks" all IPs, is obviously an a priori, partial attitude.


  • You can also find a few comments on this incident here :

and more here : (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

20px-Pictogram_voting_oppose.svg.pngDeclined and protection endorsed. An AfD is not a forum for harassing editors or soap-boxing on wikipedia. --rgpk (comment) 14:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Who has been harassing editors ? Three users defending the superbradyon article have been blocked and prevented from posting comments to this discussion ont the biography deletion.

And, as no IP-identified surfer can post comments, nobody can answer the demagogical "arguments" of the supporter of the French government Wim E. Crusio whose biography, by the way, is based on so-called "primary sources". But the same people who complain about this for Gonzalez-Mestres do not seem to complain for Crusio :

except that the Gonzalez-Mestres biography also contains important references to his work from other authors, including a Field Medal and a Nobel Prize. (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Walk away from the horse carcass, please. Three different admins have declined your request. The matter's done. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No, the matter is not done. There has been no answer to the real arguments. And why the Wikipedia administrators and influential editors do not apply Checkuser, Duck tests and so on... to themselves ????? (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • By looking at their user pages, it is also unclear what the relation between users :




can be. (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(end of the previous discussion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Drmies violently attacks papers that are not published in "refereed" reviews and Crusio declares to be the editor of one of these reviews (not necessaily very well-known, by the way, and in a research field - Biology, Medicine, Pharmacology - that is full of incidents and conflicts of interests, look for instance at the National Institutes of Health information on medical reviews, and to other official US sites). Should one copy the "model" Crusio and Drmies are praising ? But the Gonzalez-Mestres biography is based on much more solid references from other well-known authors. Somebody should be authorized to write this evidence in the deletion discussion. (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Another interesting site where one can find information on incidents in research on biological and medical subjects is The Scientist :

By the way, scandals in affairs like that of Hwang Woo-Suk happened in the biomedical field. And in France, you have the question of the conflicts of interests of "experts" in affairs like Mediator, virus A(H1N1) vaccine and so on... All this was happened at the "top level" with people well-considered by the so-called "refereed reviews" including Nature, Science... Precisely, Indépendance des Chercheurs is known to analyze these questions and reject "refereed" reviews because of their opacity, lobbying of influential people and possible conflicts of interests. (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Obviously, being himself a review editor, Crusio has a personal interest in opposing to the biography of a "dissident" scientist like Gonzalez-Mestres who rejects "refereed" reviews and belongs to a collective like Indépendance des Chercheurs that criticizes "refereed" reviews on ethical grounds. But now, all "dissident" voices are blocked in the deletion "discussion (?)". And who are Drmies and other people attacking the Gonzalez-Mestres biography ? (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(end of the discussion, no answer was given to the net surfers arguments)

The Wikipedia mentions are :

(end of quote)


See also our articles :

Wikipedia and internet censorship (I)

How Wikipedia administrators "investigate" and punish "dissident" editors

Wikipedia and internet police (I)

Wikipédia et police de l'internet (I)

Wikipédia et censure de l'internet (I)

Wikipédia et censure de l'internet (II)

Superbradyons and Wikipedia

Wikipedia and the so-called "Bogdanov affair" (I)

Wikipédia anglophone et "affaire Bogdanoff"

Wikipédia français et conflits d'intérêts (I)

Wikipédia français et conflits d'intérêts (II)

CNRS, frères Bogdanoff, médias... (I)

CNRS, frères Bogdanoff, médias... (II)

CNRS, frères Bogdanoff, médias... (III)

Wikipédia français et chasse aux "faux-nez"

Luis Gonzalez-Mestres et Wikipédia français (I)

Luis Gonzalez-Mestres et Wikipédia français (II)

e-G8 et problèmes réels de l'internet

Faut-il "excommunier" Stephen Hawking ? (I)

Morts des blogs ou annonce d’une censure ?

CNRS et concours DR1 : notre recours

CNRS, concours DR1 et transparence

CNRS, concours DR1 et comportement des élus

Conflits d'intérêts et institutions françaises (I)

Conflits d'intérêts et institutions françaises (II)

Conflits d'intérêts et institutions françaises (III)

Conflits d'intérêts et institutions françaises (IV)


Indépendance des Chercheurs


Groupes de discussion :

Le Club est l'espace de libre expression des abonnés de Mediapart. Ses contenus n'engagent pas la rédaction.

L'auteur a choisi de fermer cet article aux commentaires.