This essay is supposed to become a future article on WikiTop.cc.
You are encouraged to share this to Wikipediocracy or anywhere else.
Disclaimer: I don't hate Wikipedia. Actually, quite the opposite, at least their concept.
But Wikipedia has flaws that they refuse to acknowledge due to confirmation bias.
Evidently, no matter how civil, friendly, logical and sincere one tries to communicate to some people (especially
Bbb23), it just gets neglected, silenced or labelled as an attack.
Wikipedia claims to embrace constructive criticism, but when someone actually gives constructive criticism, it is labelled as “attack page”.
Also, when their administrators evidently violate their own policies (e.g. Bbb23 has repeatedly violated WP:
SOCKLEGIT
by exposing legitimate sock puppets), they can just get away with it. Zero consequences.
>
“checks must be made only in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing.”There are probably many cases we have not heard of, but Bbb23's coarse policy breach, legal immunity and gaslighting has been proven in
the curious case of Handroid7.
Also read:
This important Reddit comment.
(some things I mention here are already mentioned there)
The
logical purpose behind
the ban evasion policy is simple:
Prevent damage.There was absolutely
no single logical reason
to block Handroid7,
because his >1000 edits since his account creation were clean, legitimate and productive. Exactly what Wikipedia supposedly wants.
His previous account was permanently blocked for a few anti-circumcision edits.
A few anti-circumcision edits might have justified a one-day ban, but definitely not a permanent ban.
Also, according to the ban comment, there had been personal attacks, but I could find zero personal attacks looking through his recent edits.
What is their definition of a “personal attack”?These few anti-circumcision edits are
pretty much nothing compared
to Bbb23's mass-deletion of legitimate content, yet Bbb23 never gets blocked.
I also bet that if any user had blanked the exact same pages Bbb23 has deleted, that user would have been blocked.
How come Bbb23 is allowed to harm Wikipedia?
Handroid7 has evidently
proven
(and
again) that he has good faith. In fact,
he was a very prolific editor.These are just two of dozens of legitimate articles created by Handroid7.
According to Handroid7's meta talk page, ArbCom has rated his Bbb23 report as an attack page.
Presumably, because of one phrase out of the entire thing:
“(Guess: Why would he delete it, if he could? Maybe to cover up something shady about him?)”Does
this one phrase
make the
entire page
being considered as an attack page? How paranoid are they?
Also, that phrase is actually
a legitimate thesis,
regarding Bbb23's suppressive behaviour.
Also, how is Handroid7 expected to not be emotionally hurt after some admin comes and
destroys months of his prolific work?
Also, then humiliating him and shutting his mouth despite he tried to be as civil as possible.
Bbb23 also exposed his account Anonymous201910 that has done
exactly zero edits
on the English Wikipedia.
The account Anonymous201910 was used on the German Wikipedia for legitimate purposes (asking a sensitive question on their reference desk), and then got blocked there for allegedly wasting time (WP:NOTHERE), by User:Hyperdieter, presumably the equivalent of Bbb23 in German. But the German Wikipedia is out of scope for now.
Side note: I wonder why exactly Handroid7 was asked by Bbb23 to disclose his accounts.
Bbb23 can check it for himself using his tools!
What is the point of that question? Apparently none.
Show me one example of Bbb23 putting so much work and dedication into
creating, like Handroid7, instead of
destroying and demolishing.
Wikipedia is made for readers.
And those readers care about contents and information.If a formerly blocked user writes great content,
no reader of Wikipedia cares about that past block.
There is
not a single logical reason
to block that user.
But there are logical reasons for
not
blocking that user.
Blocking a good user withholds readers from good and interesting contents he could have written.
Of course, Handroid7 should have indeed requested an unblock on his previous account instead of just creating a new account, according to policy.
My best guesses are:
* Handroid7 didn't know that before creating a new account, one needs to get the previous one unblocked, in order to be compliant to their policy.
* He misunderstood WP:CLEANSTART.
* He accidentially referred to the wrong Chris Watts on a talk page edit, and did not want that mistake to be associated with his identity on Wikipedia, which is understandable.
In all three cases, there was still no logical reason to block his new account, because it has done absolutely zero damage to Wikipedia, but the opposite.
One evidently can not claim Handroid7 has bad faith, or is
nothere, because he made over 1000 clean edits with his new account, including very good draft articles, all of which were destroyed by Bbb23.
In other words: Bbb23 has evidently damaged Wikipedia more in 1 minute than Handroid7 in his entire life.
Yet, Bbb23 faces not even one second of block, because he is evidently
legally immune
on Wikipedia.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you find any more cases of Bbb23 misbehaving,
please post them here.TL;DR:
When the ban evasion policy prevents innovation and good contents, it goes against Wikipedia's own purposes and fundamentals.
Readers,
the people who Wikipedia was built for.
care about contents and knowledge,
not whether user XY has done some minor mistake a long time ago.
If there is anything to add, I will add a post.
