Unsubstantiated claims of Wikimedia corruption

Evidence of Wikimedia corruption includes:

• no actual end user (as opposed to "developer" or "sysop" or "editor") rep on the "board"
• "Wikimedia Foundation" not consulted when legally important decisions made, e.g. in response to Wikipedia being blocked in China, which is the biggest issue it has ever faced, the GodKing unilaterally "hereby authorize Andrew Lih to make a statement on our behalf, based on usual happy NPOV talk." This was less than one day after the "election" of Wikimedia Board of Trustees who evidently had no opinion that mattered, on this all-important question.
• false claims added to Wikimedia article here, and true claims removed

Note that most false claims here have been made by 142.177.X.X who seems to be on a personal vendetta on Wikipedia for banning him for persistent non-encyclopedic edits in the past

• technological escalation against Recyclopedia and threatened against Wikinfo
• users not consulted when user environment changes
• libel chill by Wales
• solicitation of donations beyond Florida state lines
• withholding of information regarding link transit at Wikipedia which would be very useful to editors, but also quite profitable for a search engine like Bomis
• outing and concomitant libel based on echo chamber claims
• sysop vandalism most notably by Auntie Angela
• sysop vigilantiism and more serious developer vigilantiism, notably by Tim Starling and Erik Moeller
• ad hominem delete without process, recently spread to Meta-Wikipedia
• ad hominem revert allowed to stand
• U.S. and U.K. centric editorial policy, set by people who speak only English