Who are the best Wikipedia editors and admins who got blocked or banned?

[adamovicm]

Question in the subject, what are their Usernames, why do you think they were doing a great work, why they end up being blocked or banned.

An appropriate citation (author: Ross McPherson from comment: https://wikipediocracy.com/2015/08/16/a ... criticism/ Ross can be contacted at http://eyeamross.com ):

Wikipedia is the repository of all the world’s knowledge and, if that needs proof, it is everywhere on the internet. It is the new way, the new truth. Best of all – anyone can edit it. Except the dispossessed. Speaking as one of the dispossessed (I have been indefinitely blocked), I endorse the Compendium here. It accords with my personal experiences as an editor. I declare myself to be an honest man, a sane man, a citizen of Australia accustomed to the rule of law, a man without any criminal record. Many other dispossessed citizens of the new order should speak up too but I guess they are embarrassed by Wikipedian accusations against them as editors. Maybe also they are wary of the public bias in favour of Wikipedia. Wikipedia hands out mountains of beautifully packaged free ‘information’, making research for the slightly curious wonderfully easy. So of course world opinion is biased in its favour. I agree that parts of Wikipedia function the way they are supposed to – the parts the world most often sees. But open the door, step inside and try to fix just some of the many broken things! You are then in danger of vanishing through a hole in the floorboards or getting mugged by the vagrants that live there. My advice to everyone is – don’t go there. If you do, don’t stay there for long. Or you could wake up some morning as one of the newly dispossessed.

The worst thing about Wikipedia is the way it takes people captive. Think of all the conscientious people who edit it only because they feel a need to correct mistakes. Think of all the ‘notable’ people who feel they must edit it merely to protect themselves against slander. Think of all those editors who become captive to the powerful groups at Wikipedia in a desperate effort to negotiate proper outcomes. Think of all those editors who become captive to dishonesty and corruption when there seems to be no other way to secure the proper outcomes. Think of all those who have been blocked from editing the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, the encyclopaedia that is inescapable. They are captives too, locked outside. Think of the poor lunatics that keep trying to edit the encyclopaedia anyone can edit and who get thrown out regularly. Insult is added to their injury. Think of the critics who are captive to the need to fight this juggernaut, dedicating years to it when there is so much else they could be doing.

Wikipedia’s tendency to misinformation is a running sore. Its tendency to inhumanity is an open wound in the collective conscience of humankind. I can’t find words to describe its hypocrisy. I don’t know how anyone can justify its existence. The best it can offer is an inherently unstable, unreliable body of ‘information’ that no serious researcher would ever use. It is a smorgasboard for the blowfly of idle curiosity – that’s all. The worst thing about it could be this – thousands of conscientious people toil there daily, captives to a system that doesn’t really value them as people and which has no secure future for their achievements. Humanity is not anonymous.

[Hemiauchenia]

Eric Corbett (T-C-L) would undoubtedly be high on a list like this. A highly productive editor who was involved in the production of many high quality articles. He was blocked because of his penchant for personal attacks and in the end socking.

[jf1970]

many high quality articles

Example?

[Hemiauchenia]

many high quality articles

Example?

An example usually given by his defenders was his work on the Donner Party (T-H-L) article. That said, this is a Wikipedia criticism forum, and you could pick holes in basically any example I could provide. Also I said "involved in the production of", which included his voluminous GA reviews. My point was, at the time of his ban, Corbett had a reputation as a great "content contributor" regardless of whether that was true or not.

[jf1970]

many high quality articles

Example?

An example usually given by his defenders was his work on the Donner Party (T-H-L) article. That said, this is a Wikipedia criticism forum, and you could pick holes in basically any example I could provide. Also I said "involved in the production of", which included his voluminous GA reviews. My point was, at the time of his ban, Corbett had a reputation as a great "content contributor" regardless of whether that was true or not.

I was curious what a high quality article looks like.

[Tarc]

The Wikipedia essentially had a carbon offset mentality for the project's bad actors; "write a lot of articles, we'll let some behavioral issues slide."

Malleus/Corbett was an absolute dumpster fire of a human being.

[Charliebware]

The Wikipedia essentially had a carbon offset mentality for the project's bad actors; "write a lot of articles, we'll let some behavioral issues slide."

Causing good editors to be scared off and leaving the bad actors to seem more valuable than they really are.

[Randy from Boise]

I'm still pissed about the way Richard Arthur Norton (1959- ) (T-C-L) got burned at the stake at ANI after 13 years at Wikipedia.

Was he a great editor? No. But he contributed a steady stream of useful historical content, new biographical starts.

'Cept he was around too long and the early days of WP, in which some forms of copyvio was more or less accepted, came back to bite him on the ass. And he was a grouchy fucker, which didn't help his cause.

t

[redbaron]

I'm still pissed about the way Richard Arthur Norton (1959- ) (T-C-L) got burned at the stake at ANI after 13 years at Wikipedia.

Was he a great editor? No. But he contributed a steady stream of useful historical content, new biographical starts.

'Cept he was around too long and the early days of WP, in which some forms of copyvio was more or less accepted, came back to bite him on the ass. And he was a grouchy fucker, which didn't help his cause.

t

He's still around on Wikidata I think.

[Catfish Jim & spd]

Question in the subject, what are their Usernames, why do you think they were doing a great work, why they end up being blocked or banned.

I think it might be me. I got really drunk when someone killed my cat and thought editing wikipedia might be a good idea. Wait, no... great work? No.

Is it you?

[adamovicm]

Is it you?

100% no. Also, I had a very low number of contributions in the past 15 years or so. Some of the definitely useful contributions were that I have added/updated information about taxation in Serbia and updated the article about one historical figure (who was posthumously rehabilitated more than 50 years after his death, that's one of those historical articles that will probably always be unreliable), for some other changes, it was probably much better than there were never created

I just wanted to see the scope of the blocked/banned users....

[Randy from Boise]

Is it you?

100% no. Also, I had a very low number of contributions in the past 15 years or so. Some of the definitely useful contributions were that I have added/updated information about taxation in Serbia and updated the article about one historical figure (who was posthumously rehabilitated more than 50 years after his death, that's one of those historical articles that will probably always be unreliable), for some other changes, it was probably much better than there were never created

I just wanted to see the scope of the blocked/banned users....

In general answer to your question: there are not that many solid content-writers who get banned off. They/we tend not to get involved in huge controversies or to play Wikipedia like a war game.

Generally the hammer falls on newcomers who edit only on one or a few controversial topics and who don't know the site's culture or rules.

t

[Mojito]

My observation is that the best editors usually get run out of town or burned out, rather than blocked.

[adamovicm]

In general answer to your question: there are not that many solid content-writers who get banned off. They/we tend not to get involved in huge controversies or to play Wikipedia like a war game.

Definitely, looks that way. Any long-term solid content-writer who got blocked and banned seems of engaging in some controversies, i.e. serious sock puppeteering, like Kumioko. He was among top 15 contributors at some time, and for most people in forums the situation with his contributions is unclear. There is shitloat of contributions someone would have to go through with dozens of accounts involved.

Generally the hammer falls on newcomers who edit only on one or a few controversial topics and who don't know the site's culture or rules.

Yeah, it seems in the vast majority of the cases, blocks/banns are with a valid reason. In projects like this, there will always be some small percentage of probably undue victims.

It seems there are more solid editors that decided to walk away, perhaps that would be a better topic for this forum "solid editors who walked away, why they did so?" It seems to me a good conversation to supplement or help improve "Compendium of Wikipedia Criticism" blog post written a decade ago. I don't know if there were similar conversations in the past, in one place, but there are certainly pieces scattered through this forum.

That could help answer the question of why Wikipedia is dying (the number of contributors is reducing).

Certainly, from my point of view, Wikipedia culture seems more hostile toward newbies than it should be.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

Certainly, from my point of view, Wikipedia culture seems more hostile toward newbies than it should be.

I think you have nailed what is probably Wikipedia's biggest problem today.

[The Blue Newt]

Certainly, from my point of view, Wikipedia culture seems more hostile toward newbies than it should be.

I think you have nailed what is probably Wikipedia's biggest problem today.

I’d have to disagree. Wikipedia’s biggest problem is external to it. While the number of people who have some form of certification suggesting otherwise is climbing, the number of people who actually have an education or training is dropping.

Many wikipediots simply can not tell the difference between low quality sources and good ones, and tend to equate “quality” with “accords with my beliefs and prejudices”. Much as I would like to blame Jimbeau for this, it is probably more down to the NEA.

[Volunteer Marek]

Malik Shabazz (T-C-L)

One of the best blocked by one of the worst (no, not El_C, that was just subsequent fallout). Also I got my first block because of Malik so he'll always have a special place in my heart.

[eppur si muove]

Malik Shabazz (T-C-L)

Who conincidentally has a post on his talk page from Randy Krynn encouraging him to return.

[tarantino]

Definitely, looks that way. Any long-term solid content-writer who got blocked and banned seems of engaging in some controversies, i.e. serious sock puppeteering, like Kumioko. He was among top 15 contributors at some time, and for most people in forums the situation with his contributions is unclear. There is shitloat of contributions someone would have to go through with dozens of accounts involved.

Kumioko, Also known as Reguyla, has his military history wiki at fandom, where he's made 1.5 million edits. He doesn't really need wikipedia to satisfy his compulsion. How does anyone find that much time?

[jf1970]

Malik Shabazz (T-C-L)

One of the best ...

Example of Malik's work? I'm still curious what exactly the editors who are considered the best or better than average are doing to earn the accolade.

[The Blue Newt]

Malik Shabazz (T-C-L)

Based on the work you’ve done in an extremely contentious area, I have a great deal of respect for your opinion.

I am trying to square that with my personal experience with MS, and so far it isn’t working.

[Midsize Jake]

Example of Malik's work? I'm still curious what exactly the editors who are considered the best or better than average are doing to earn the accolade.

Tirelessly reverting racist numbskulls is what I remember the most, but he did a lot of good work (both technically and aesthetically) on 60's and 70's proto-punk musicians and bands, too, among other subjects. He wasn't known for creating new articles, but he was very clever and intelligent about dealing with various forms of sociopathic bullshit — I don't know about "one of the best," but I wouldn't argue the point. Definitely better than average, at the very least.

[ArmasRebane]

Definitely, looks that way. Any long-term solid content-writer who got blocked and banned seems of engaging in some controversies, i.e. serious sock puppeteering, like Kumioko. He was among top 15 contributors at some time, and for most people in forums the situation with his contributions is unclear. There is shitloat of contributions someone would have to go through with dozens of accounts involved.

Kumioko, Also known as Reguyla, has his military history wiki at fandom, where he's made 1.5 million edits. He doesn't really need wikipedia to satisfy his compulsion. How does anyone find that much time?

He certainly didn't need Wikipedia, but that didn't stop him from spamming people with unblock requests and socking compulsively for years.

I'm still pissed about the way Richard Arthur Norton (1959- ) (T-C-L) got burned at the stake at ANI after 13 years at Wikipedia.

Was he a great editor? No. But he contributed a steady stream of useful historical content, new biographical starts.

'Cept he was around too long and the early days of WP, in which some forms of copyvio was more or less accepted, came back to bite him on the ass. And he was a grouchy fucker, which didn't help his cause.

t

I mean, this is all on him, though. I don't think editors need to be excoriated for copyvios or close paraphrasing—it happens all the time. But they have to actually, when presented with the problem, make a change, and Richard refused. Even if he was just not an asshole he could have left the mess for others to clean up and skated on by (like Blofeld did.) Instead he went for the Martinevans123 insufferable prick strategy, and he just didn't have as many friends to make that work.

[Vice Cabal Leader]

Many content creators or otherwise helpful editors got site bans where topic bans would suffice, or broad topic bans where narrow ones would work, or were sanctioned without prior warnings or attempt to mediate etc.

Look at the list of most active Wikipedia editors (yeah, I know, editcountis), see how many in the Top 100 or Top 1000 are site banned, and try to tell me a single one is justified. You will probably find the one or two cases where you are right, I wager - and a few dozen where we lost very valuable volunteers because of some petty dramu.

[casualdejekyll]

The content creator stuff is probably true. (Perhaps drifting extremely off topic from this thread, but still) I'd have to imagine what sort of alternate universe would extend from the Butterfly Effect if Vigilant~enwiki (T-C-L) hadn't been blocked by Tony Sidaway all those years ago. He had all the signs of developing into a total Wikiholic - edits that'd get any new user accused of socking because "they know too much!", common commenting on the various dramahboards, all complete with an appeal to Jimbo.

I think both Wikipedia and Wikipedia criticism sites would be much different places if the events had gone down differently.

[Vigilant]

The content creator stuff is probably true. (Perhaps drifting extremely off topic from this thread, but still) I'd have to imagine what sort of alternate universe would extend from the Butterfly Effect if Vigilant~enwiki (T-C-L) hadn't been blocked by Tony Sidaway all those years ago. He had all the signs of developing into a total Wikiholic - edits that'd get any new user accused of socking because "they know too much!", common commenting on the various dramahboards, all complete with an appeal to Jimbo.

I think both Wikipedia and Wikipedia criticism sites would be much different places if the events had gone down differently.

It was 2006.
That wasn't really a thing then.