Wikipedia Vandalism

The information on the Attendances; Ewood Park and Crowd Trouble pages of this web site were originally the Wikipedia article for Ewood Park.


The article itself came under intense attack after a vandalising and deletion campaign by Burnley and Manchester editors along with other Wikipedia editors who had administrative powers to delete and block authors whose articles or amendments they did not approve of.


Therefore, the information on the Ewood Park pages of this web site were routinely censored, edited and deleted by Wikipedia editors who believe they own the articles on Wikipedia.

In response, I have decided to set up this web page with the wood Park pages as a tribute to Ewood Park, the home of Blackburn Rovers.

This web page includes the kind of information which should be available to all Rovers fans.


Sadly, other people have arbitrarily decided that YOU have no right to read about Rovers record attendances in FA Cup and League competitions at Ewood Park.


Other people have arbitrarily decided that YOU have no right to read about the history of the stands at Ewood Park which go all the way back to 1890.


Other people have arbitrarily decided that YOU have no right to read about the honour bestowed upon the club regarding the right to have the club crest on all four corner flags.


Other people have arbitrarily decided that YOU have no right to read about the interesting social history around crowd trouble, racism and the Burnley rivalry at Ewood Park.

It was claimed that my input in the original Ewood Park Wikipedia article was not written from a factual base; that assertion is wrong. My input was from a factual base and I provided many, many sources all of which can be seen on the Links and Bibliography page of this web site.


None of the Wikipedia editors provided any evidence that my input was not from a factual base nor would they discuss with me which comments were biased or which comments were personal points of view or which comments were factually incorrect.


However, they have since reintroduced selected comments from a discussion I tried to have with them at the time. That they have edited and censored the comments I posted in order to provide a skewed version of the what was said when I attempted to engage with them says it all really.

The Wikipedia editors did not provide any of their own sources to prove their own amendments to the article that they were largely deleting.

Indeed, all I did experience were biased actions and comments from Wikipedia editors with little or no knowledge of Ewood Park and who totally disregarded Wikipedia policy and procedure by vandalising, editing and deleting articles without first attempting to discuss their wholesale alterations or why they had been made.

I established my credibility by trying to discuss changes.

Any casual glance at the history books shows league tables, positions and trophies won. I provided a number of credible and detailed factual sources for attendance figures and crowd trouble.

Interestingly, the original Wikipedia article came under intense attacks from a number of editors over the weekend of 28.03.2010 when Blackburn Rovers defeated Burnley 0 - 1 significantly contributing to their relegation. It cannot be a coincidence that most of the attacks on this article took place over that weekend.


I did trace several IP address to Burnley and I believe that was really what was going on; fans from a rival club vandalising a good article without discussing it first. 

I was criticised by Wikipedia editors for making reference to a “neighbours decline" (Burnley), this is perfectly acceptable when that decline is being used to illustrate a point; the point being that a clubs decline can often coincide with the worseningbehaviour of its fans. I also referred to Blackburn Rovers decline numerous times and how this was reflected in thebehaviour of their fans. 


However, as described above, the majority of that conversation has been removed with only a few comments left that do not provide a propper context. This type of jiggery pokery is cowardly.

I believe that Wikipedia is a subjective platform for people’s opinions and emotions rather than an objective platform for facts.


Wikipedia is not interested in the search for truth.


If anyone wants to cut and paste the information from this web page and use it to correct the Wikipedia article on Ewood Park they can do so.


Take a look at the Wikipedia article's for other clubs grounds and you will see how bare the Wikipedia article for Ewood Park actually is in comparison.

Below is the troll responsible for much of the vandalism on the Ewood Park wikipedia page.

He even has his own wikipedia page. Tells you all you need to know.

These kind of internet nerds will lockdown (ban/block) anyone that does not agree with their input; they think that they can deprive access on an open forum to new users when ever they feel like it - remarkably, on such a large and extensively popular culturual subject such as football.


I see no extensive awards held by them. I see no admiralship held by them. I see no open forum for discussion on the Ewood Park talk page, nor on their pages.


The Ewood Park topic has the potential of drawing a very large audience to the Wiki community. The current Ewood Park article is poorly written and needs extensive editing and correction. I see no major informative changes contributed by the vandalising, trolling 'editors', other than unilateral fascist style lockdowns, deletions, vandalism and censorship.


They may beleve that I am an anonymous and unimportant no-one simply because I am not an 'editor'. However, I can tell them that their unilateral and negative input to the Ewood Park article will be reviewed by a number of long time and much superior contributers in the future, and I can assure them that my web page will bring their ridiculous actions to the attention of many of those that use the internet and who share an interest in BRFC. 


The the actions taken by these basement nerds has the potential to totally undermine the eforts of those that care about accuracy on wikipedia. Indeed, many are increasingly ignoring wikipedia, viewing it as completely innacurate much of the time.

This one one of the editor trolls that vandalised the original Ewood Park article. What a Gimp.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Me in 2012
Me in 2012
Name Chris Cunningham
Birth date 22 March 1982 (age 31)
Birth place Irvine Central Hospital
Current location Edinburgh, Scotland
Education and employment
Occupation System administrator
Education Bachelor's degree
University Heriot-Watt University
High school Ayr Academy


  • 1 Who are you?
  • 2 What kind of work do you do?
  • 3 Where are all your barnstars / article badges / userboxes?
  • 4 See also
  • 5 External links

Who are you?[edit]

I'm a thirtysomething male based in Edinburgh, Scotland. (I'm not this guy.) I edit Wikipedia in my spare time.

What kind of work do you do?[edit]

I do a lot of copyediting, refactoring of established but low-quality articles to bring them up to Featured Article status, and cleanup of short and stub articles.

I'm experienced in working with templates, especially {{navbox}}, {{infobox}} and the {{mbox}} master templates. I'm active in converting Wikipedia's older templates to use the system, and in improving it so that it is more flexible.

I'm also an administrator, which lets me delete things, move or edit protected pages, set protection on things and block accounts.

Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you'd like help or advice on the above or any other aspect of Wikipedia.

Where are all your barnstars / article badges / userboxes?[edit]

If I've received one attached to a comment on my talk page it'll be in my talk archives, but I would rather not think of my purpose here as collecting trophies. You are not your barnstars.