Thursday, 20 March 2008

Blocked on English Wikipedia

So last night, after nearly two years of editing I was indefinitely blocked for restoring a banned user's edits. Ho-hum. Basically, what happened is I saw Alison reverting a load of edits from one editor, and as far as I could see, they were perfectly acceptable edits. I've had issues with removing banned users edits in the past. A user, by the name of Punk Boi 8 was community banned near the end of 2006, and he returned recently as Whiteandnerdy111. He was discovered, and subsequently, Daniel basically removed everything this user ever did. Whether it was productive or not. In some cases, the user adds a reference to an article, and it is reverted back to {{citation needed}}. This is unproductive. Punk Boi 8 was banned for exhausting the community's patience. If I recall, he was about 11 years old and didn't really get the idea of Wikipedia fully, and so the idea was to impose a temporary ban until he was mature enough to contribute. Whiteandnerdy had no apparent problems, and so Punk Boi had obviously improved somewhat. If he had improved, what is the purpose, and benefit in removing perfectly acceptable edits? This is a kid I'm talking about here. He's not looking for trouble at all, just a bit clueless. I queried Daniel on his talk page, and asked him if the user had written a featured article, would he have deleted it as well? He said it was a possibility... remember folks, this is a 12 year old who is only temporarily banned until he grows up a bit. Through his sockpuppet, he has proven that he can work within our community norms, and had probably learnt his lesson.

Now bearing this in mind, I saw Alison do a similar thing. She was reverting articles back to a really poor state (e.g. full of tags, poor prose etc) simply for the reason the user who improved them was banned. I have a gut feeling that even if this user had reverted vandalism, they'd revert back to the vandalism rather than let his edit stay. Anyway, I asked her on her talk page, and reverted a few of her reverts back to an improved version of the article. I was told not to, but with no clue as to why not. I never received any kind of indication about the problem, just a "trust me, you don't want to go there". Daniel told me to email arbcom. The only problem with that is arbcom tend to ignore what I have to say, so I expected the same again. SirFozzie reverted me, then I reverted him... then East718 popped up out of nowhere and blocked me (yes, this is the same East718 who thought it a great idea to bot edit the main page up to 5000 revisions, so obviously a history of great judgement). I received several emails about this - still nothing from Alison, as though I'm expected to know the history of all this. I have received an email from JzG who has informed me more clearly of the situation. If I had been informed, I'd have stopped so much sooner. But no one bothered to. I emailed Alison, but she has not replied. I indicated on my talk page I don't intend to continue editing. I'm not sure I want to continue. I have had nearly two years editing, and my block log is now scarred with something as bad as this. No one warned they'd block me (well Alison did, but was too late). I'd have stopped; I'm not stupid, and have better things to do if people want to make Wikipedia's articles worse.

There's a thread about this over on Wikipedia Review; as I write this there's been over 1000 views. Believe me though, being in the middle of Wiki-drama is no fun at all. I don't want these things to happen - they just happen. I'm sorry for all the problems I caused with this.

EDIT: Alison has very very sadly resigned from both checkuser and admin. While not directly responsible, I was the one who started this business, and it should be me not her.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Eh, don't you give up the bit too. We need at least one of you and Allie as a sysop (though preferably we'd have both).

David "SirFozzie" Yellope said...

Keep the faith Majorly. As I said via email, it's a rough week all around, I guess.

Anonymous said...

Are you butthurt that your precious block log is now unclean? Or just hoping that if you throw your toys out of the pram people will plead with you to stay? Just go away, Majorly. You do nothing on Wikipedia except be a clown and cause drama over stupid shit like this. Nobody likes you.

Anonymous said...

You behaved reasonably. You couldn't have known that this wasn't another example of unproductive mass reverting (apparently the user is a stalker and it's hoped he will stop editing this way).

Stalker or not, I'm with you. We shouldn't flush good contributions down the toilet. It appears most of WR is with you too, even though you're not exactly loved over there.

Keep it up.

Anonymous said...

*sniffle* *sniffle*...

:|

Here is a bandaid.

Anonymous said...

A bandage won't stop this little chav from sulking around. What will is him coming to a realization that if you play with fire, you'll get your skirt pulled up - and that crying about it doesn't change the fact that it happened.

Anonymous said...

You're an absolute tool, Majorly. Seriously, get over yourself. Have you every considered there's a reason *why* ArbCom don't care what you say?

FT2 said...

Miscommunications happen. You had no way to know it was a "big deal" and shouldn't be blamed for that by anyone. Likewise you didn't exactly listen to others at times, and have acted in a way that's cut down many people's goodwill and patience, so it's likely faced with a real problem that the tools will come out earlier if you demanded the "right to extended arguement".

Once you did understand the issue - I think many people emailed you to explain - you did stop, and were unblocked. You had been blocked a total of 32 minutes, and the block was a fair one -- in accordance with indefinite blocking, it was used to stop a problem going on and get understanding, and you understood and stopped.

The best option by far for everyone would be to class it all as "in the past".

My $0.02.

Anonymous said...

You're a good kid.

Keep on doing what you think is right. It usually is.

Don't sweat the WR crowd: they're a motley crew of nutbars with nothing better to do.

Anonymous said...

Don\'t sweat the WR crowd? They\'re his only cheerleaders at the moment. What are sane people to think of Majorly when the office declared him \"mentally unstable\" and refused to let him on the 2008 Board Election Committee? When the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee refused to fulfill his requests for checkuser and oversight permissions because he\'s immature? When his request for bureaucratship failed because of his consistently poor judgement? When Greg Maxwell caught him abusing multiple accounts? If he went all emo over these things, what\'ll he do now? Commit an hero?

Anonymous said...

I think whoever said "don't sweat the WR crowd" was referring to some of the trolls above...

However, "butthurt" usually tends to be a dead giveaway that someone is from the "ED crowd" rather than the "WR crowd".

Also, I didn't know that Majorly had been treated so poorly during the Board Elections...

And no, don't become an hero. Plzkthxbai~

ft2 said...

Not that its anyone's business, but lets see.

I've been on English Wikipedia arbcom since end December. In that time * all * external requests for OS/CU have been declined, since it's unclear the need. One new checkuser was appointed (Thatcher) due to specific project benefit (he does a lot of work at WP:AE where enforcement of anti-puppetry propvisions are common, and it speeds matters up if one Arbcom clerk has access. Thatcher is currently the clerk with most experience).

The next matters was not really on English Wikipedia, and its notable the issue with Greg maxwell's allegation turned out to be a storm in ateacup by comunal reckoning.

I think the poster above needs to not editorialize so much.

Alison said...

Dagnabbit, Majorly, it was so not your fault. Honestly! You'd no idea of the background to all this and, well, you weren't warned fairly before your block. Stick around over there - you're needed ;)

BTW - my last sysop action was unblocking you! Auspicious or what?

Anonymous said...

To FT2: In your internal discussions, you determined that Krimpet and Swatjester shouldn't get CU because the need for more checkusers simply wasn't there. But you specifically collectively blackballed Majorly because he has a history of poor decisions, immature behavior, and escalating interpersonal conflicts at the expense of the community: FloNight even said that the biggest mistake she ever made was to support Majorly's RFB on Meta. No matter what else happens today or whatever anybody says on this, you, I, and Majorly all know this to be true.

Alex said...

After speaking to someone I trust, I've been told you're stirring and likely making it up. Unless you've got more than bad faith comments why don't you just leave it alone? You've already been told by one person that no checkusers except one were appointed, so no, I dont "know" it. And elections pass or fail for many reasons, mainly if there are others that people vote for more.

Anonymous said...

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I'm likely making it up? Fall back, child. Here's a snippet of your application, followed by a snippet of your rejection.

----

I've been working on Wikimedia projects since June 2006, starting with the English Wikipedia. I have admin rights on four wikis, English Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki (where I am also the most active bureaucrat), Commons and Simple English Wikipedia. I was granted OTRS access in September 2007, and in general, I find myself well trusted and respected by most people across many projects.

----

Regarding your request for CU access: as well as your request, the Committee has received several other requests and we are in the process of reviewing them for when we decide to expand access.

----

What do you have to say on it now?

Alex said...

Ignoring the juvenile remarks, this supports exactly what I was saying. They let people apply, and have said they aren't appointing more for a while. I'm sure it's really significant but I don't see what you're trying to prove.

As I said, this is just intended to stir.

Anonymous said...

He's proving he has access. If he was making it up, he would still have access (which makes him a leaker in either case).

Unless those quoted deny the quotes, I think we can assume they're accurate.

Anyhow, Somey's comment on the new thread summarizes my feelings.

Anthere said...

when the office declared him \"mentally unstable\" and refused to let him on the 2008 Board Election Committee?

Just as a matter of clarification, the Board Election Committee was not chosen by the office, but by the board, through a resolution. The office was not involved in that decision.