Well, I was indefinitely blocked

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
User avatar
SoymilkChocolate
Sucks Noob
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:22 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Well, I was indefinitely blocked

Post by SoymilkChocolate » Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:11 pm

Just feeling really unhappy with my experience at wikipedia and wanting to rant.

I had a wikipedia account for years. I was a casual wikipedia user and my editing was limited to things fixing typos and poorly formatted/worded statements or reverting clear vandalism when I would come across any of it. I didn't make any substantial edits or create articles. I was basically just a guy in the park, occasionally picking up pieces of trash when I'd come across it. I just felt like I was doing my little part to help out the site that I enjoyed and valued.

I had recently found myself on a article. There was a sentence on the page that was both irrelevant to the article at hand and it wasn't even grammatically correct. I rolled my eyes and removed the statement as I had done numerous times before. It turned out, however, that there was a heavy editor who viewed himself as the guy in charge of this page, who didn't like me coming in and just removing a statement without his permission (the statement was not added by him).

We got into a back and forth over this statement. He eventually calls in his editor friends who all gang up on me and report me for edit warring. They were all making all these false claims about rules I had broken and things I had done and how I had a long history of problematic behavior on wikipedia. They mocked me for not having thousands of edits and declared that I should be blocked. I would point out that these claims they were making about me were false, many of them easily verifiable as false. But me disputing their accusations just led to them calling me "combative" and "hostile" and "not WP:CIVIL" and that I should be blocked for that.

Eventually, the admin shows up, echoes all the lies already stated about me and says I'm "not here to build an encyclopedia," and I got indefinitely blocked. They gloated and danced on my talk page and continued their lies about me, knowing I couldn't dispute them any more. And after all this, an IP editor comes in and removes the statement that I had tried removing in the first place, and not a peep out of anyone about it.

All of this has me really unhappy and angry. I had zero idea of how wikipedia operated at the time. I've never interacted with anyone on there before this instance nor had I ever seen or even known about any of the pages were moderators and admins congregate over various things. I've since learned that my situation was not uncommon, but it was so disheartening and maddening getting a crash course into the reality of wikipedia. Basic, human decency wasn't even considered as an option by these people.

I really regret all the improvements I had made to the site over the years.

User avatar
badmachine
Sucker
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:55 am
Has thanked: 530 times
Been thanked: 255 times
Contact:

Re: Well, I was indefinitely blocked

Post by badmachine » Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:28 pm

SoymilkChocolate wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:11 pm
[...]
I really regret all the improvements I had made to the site over the years.
welcome. :^)

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Well, I was indefinitely blocked

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:04 am

badmachine wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:28 pm
SoymilkChocolate wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:11 pm
I really regret all the improvements I had made to the site over the years.
welcome. :^)
Seconded. LIke a lot of people, I'm sorry you had to find out what a pit of crazy WP really is. We are still getting occasional people seeking advice on how to edit without problems--I try to tell them it is simply not worth the trouble, and they usually ignore me and keep trying. Very similar abuse happens on Reddit and Facebook. It's all "social media" whether the operators admit it or not. And therefore attractive to abusive bastards.

User avatar
Arsenal4904
Sucks Noob
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Well, I was indefinitely blocked

Post by Arsenal4904 » Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:38 am

Hello,

Welcome to the Wikipedia Sucks forum.

I have been editing Wikipedia for years now. I created an account in 2014, doing just about the same as what you did.

I suffer from autism and easily get traumatized from rude people. In November 2016, I was editing an article on Wikipedia that used the wrong date format. It was about a British singer and the date format is the American format. I changed it to British and some idiot reverted it, along with a few other constructive revisions to other pages, abusing the rollback right. I decided to get revenge with my account in July 2017 and that same editor reported me to Bbb23, who ignored my unblock requests and was very impolite and rude. He then lied a week later about it, saying "hIs rEsPoNsEs WeRe NoT iGnOrEd" to "scam" editors who wanted to defend me. My definition of "scam" is to trick people to believe their side and not defend me or someone innocent. I got so angry that I decided to get even more revenge on the November 2016 rollbacker and that got me indefinitely blocked.

Since them, I have tried multiple attempts to sock. I first created a new account later in 2017, and attempted to write an article for the first time. I got caught by Bbb23 because I was using the same IP address I used with my old account. He deleted every single useful redirect I made, and the article draft I was about to publish. All because of his totalitarian, oppressive views on Wikipedia. I never felt so much hatred for anyone, ever, until then.

In 2019, I removed repetitive statements from articles relating to a specific topic (they are on every single article, and are redundant). I got permanently blocked for "dIsRuPtIvE eDiTiNg".

That same year, I went on Wikipediocracy and complained. Wikipediocracy is such a poor, toxic environment where former admins turn it into a cesspool by trying to "scam" everyone there into their beliefs. Alex Shih called my thread on Bbb23 "mErItLeSs" and Beeblebrox denied the truth when I was telling what admins love doing. I, along with a Bbb23 hater, got banned from Zoloft in Wikipediocracy.

I eventually found this forum, Wikipedia Sucks, and its environment is much safer.

Thank you for writing about your experience with Wikipedia administrators who want to "scam" everyone and deliberately lie to editors (both innocent ones and editors who defend them).

User avatar
notalawyerxyz
Sucks Noob
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:45 pm
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Well, I was indefinitely blocked

Post by notalawyerxyz » Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:38 pm

I never liked contributing to an article. the only consensus was was a mod liked, and there was no point in creating an edit war. my block was in talk.

I think the most important thing is people can do is to put the admin in a position to spell out the issues, the arguments, and the evidence. They will not because they are not capable of it. One of the appeal guidelines is that we can appeal, because the block wasn't necessary. But they instead seem to want us to admit guilt and to admit wrong doing, even in the absence of wrongdoing. And so when they proffer a false block when you clearly did nothing wrong, and they refused to make their allegation, how do you really then have a basis to appeal. 3x in my case, and they could not provide any basis for how I violated any rule. you are guilty and punished on mere accusation, and deprived of logos.

perhaps you can do as i did, dissect all their flags, go prong after prong, and show how they failed to establish a violation And well, there response is "no". before you know it, your 3 attempts have failed. I have filed an arbitration request, hopefully they will intervene and remove the admins. Of course this whole system of guilty until proven innocent is completely backwards. this is made worse, because you really don't have a viable chance to successfully to plead innocence anyways. Bad admins recruit more bad admins, who have metastasized into a cancer that needs to be cut off.

Multiple times, i requested the basis of the accusation. Even the rules themselves for original research, does not apply to talk. But the admins are more interested in tossing out bans via labels, than the actual rules. They care more about bullying users out of their snowflake community than the rules of wikipedia, or the truth. With the exception of Bots, or a spam campaign, if the admins accuses someone of something, they better be able to formulate some type of legal proof of a rule violation. Multiple times I pleaded for them to make their case before they blocked my talk page "as disruptive", and they literally can't specify how I violated the rules. I specifically pointed out that if they cannot prosecute their case, they have an obligation to dismiss. Their only response is "no".

I think what is important on the way out of wikipedia is to make the talk page a monument about discussing your rights as human beings. Legals lines are of psuedo-obsolete, because they are a private-ish entity. But rather an appeal to the ancient rights that have guided mankind for thousands of years which has manifested as legal rights, and how they have discarded them because the admins cannot handle ideas that differ from their own agendas, and keep pounding on the fact the claims are meritless and the admins cannot prove their point. That they are running a star chamber by a privy council of court jesters, and point out that no user should have to go through this, and the admins have abandoned thousands of years of our understanding of justice. Hint Acts 25:16.

Keep demanding that they make their case, keep mocking them for being unable to prove their allegation, keep showing how their definitions falls, keep driving the point that have absconded every shred of due process and justice. Create monuments of permanently blocked users like this everywhere on wikipedia, and let these monuments flood wikipedia's graveyard of injustices against editors. Perhaps we can turn these into a whole collection for display.

SkepticalHistorian
Sucks Fan
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 4:00 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Well, I was indefinitely blocked

Post by SkepticalHistorian » Sun Jul 31, 2022 7:07 pm

notalawyerxyz wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:38 pm
3x in my case, and they could not provide any basis for how I violated any rule. you are guilty and punished on mere accusation, and deprived of logos.
That’s the first time I’ve seen the word “logos” used other than in regards to John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Logos”, which was mistranslated as “Word”.

User avatar
notalawyerxyz
Sucks Noob
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:45 pm
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Well, I was indefinitely blocked

Post by notalawyerxyz » Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:07 pm

SkepticalHistorian wrote:
Sun Jul 31, 2022 7:07 pm
notalawyerxyz wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:38 pm
3x in my case, and they could not provide any basis for how I violated any rule. you are guilty and punished on mere accusation, and deprived of logos.
That’s the first time I’ve seen the word “logos” used other than in regards to John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Logos”, which was mistranslated as “Word”.
There are long debates as to what constitutes logos both in the christian and philosophical sense. But the abridged version is that Aristotle recognized that the difference between man and beast, was man's ability to use speech and reason-substantially more than what could be observed by animals. So it was long held, for thousands of years, that depriving a person of speech was a[n unmanly] punishment not fit for man, but for beast. Taking away man's ability to speak was to turn him into an animal, incapable of articulating his want and needs, and reducing them, in some cases, to violent beasts. There are rare exceptions like the scold's bridle, or the infamous case of John Lilburn, but up until the last 50 years, when the feminist movement started infiltrating the family courts on their conquest to destroy the traditional family unit, gags were not used. Such gags are still constitutionally forbidden in the case law, but that doesn't stop the courts of chancery from issuing them 2 million times a year in the USA alone. Many of the times when we see students on campus crying about an idea that they do not like and how it makes them fear for their safety (an attempted unconstitutional heckler's veto), they are trying to invoke the statutes authorizing a gag or other criminal sanction hoping for an investigation to silence [and obviously intimidate] a speaker. These gags are known to kill both men and woman. Then these fraudulent feminist groups start cranking up the crocodile tears all over the media begging for money to help women, even though their own policies of gagging are directly responsible for killing them thus increasing their coffers more. They know this; they cite the very case law (Milk Wagon Drivers v. Meadowmoor Dairies, Inc., 312 U.S. 287 (1941)) mentioning this when they want to enjoin abortion picketers.
The people of this world needs to fight for their logos, but I doubt most people know what they are fighting for in this big tech era. Many take it into terms of constitutional rights v the rights of private companies, instead of taking notice that their own humanity is on the line by unelected sovereigns just as dangerous as any government-if not more.

Personally, I think it is a tragedy that western ideas, such as logos, are virtually expelled from our university system as the universities advance communism. To the many of us techies who felt a gen ed requirement was a waste of time; it truly was a waste of time. The purpose of the university was to make us well rounded, but this hasn't been the case for decades now. The greatest concept to protect our humanity is the idea of man in the wilderness. Whether by Judeochristianity, by Atheist such as Ayn rand, or the Chinese Taoist, or other unmentioned groups, this concept is the greatest reminder that our rights do not come from government, nor a constitution, but rather by virtue of existing and our ability to use reason to understand the natural law. Once this concept of rights coming from God/nature is lost, then effectively the beast (antichrist) is set to come in and restrict the rights of man through physical force (as they are already doing)-or in the case of big tech, electronic control-as the people lost their ability to claim that their rights do not come from government.

It may be a tragedy that we are losing what made the west great, but when push comes to shove, most people invoke various western ideas whether they are conscious of it or not. It is ingrained into their very person, no matter their race, gender, nor where they came from. I would think there are 3 major ways of adopting said philosophies: having having been exposed to said ideas in reading (where are the churches teaching this anymore?); having to contemplate the morality of going to war, or; being exposed to various hardships cause by the government. Maybe the left can try to impair our ability to debate their policies by keeping the public ignorant and always changing definitions and standards. But eventually their tyranny will tap into man's innate nature, and these ideas will return at a feral nature as the people prosecute their appeal to heaven and reclaim their humanity.

The True nature of man is evil, and not for the reason it is impossible to live a life without sin, nor that we are born with the original sin. Rather, it is the natural inclination of man to ask government, or some other group of men, or use himself, to violate the nature rights of other men for some unearned gain, or disproportional punishment or remedy. While there is some need for government, such as national defense or seeking a neutral party to settle a dispute, etc, the reliance of government-and to some extent even reliance on the economy-is to abscond reason and an act of praying to man not God for what is unearned.

I know it looks like I've strayed pretty far from the concept of logos. It's just the west has lost its way, and logos is the most peaceful path to recovery. Logos is also crucial to our understanding of the natural law, and right from wrong, and what the natural limits should be on anything trying to govern men or mankind. It is also crucial to understanding the nature of the dehumanizing attack against us.

User avatar
Jennsaurus
Sucks
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:31 am
Location: Debrecen, Hungary
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Well, I was indefinitely blocked

Post by Jennsaurus » Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:35 am

SoymilkChocolate wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:11 pm
They gloated and danced on my talk page and continued their lies about me, knowing I couldn't dispute them any more.
This is apparently extremely common, especially with indefinitely blocked or banned users who were not well liked by the community or, in more and more cases, if the users were women.

What I've seen go down in my research is someone will get indefinitely blocked (or banned) and then shortly afterwards those responsible will begin filling the talk page with "notices" about reversions on edits, article deletions, and copyright violations. None of this will have been brought up before, but the moment the person is blocked there will be new "concern". Also, articles nominated for deletion will usually be justified simply by the fact that the blocked user in question had worked on them and they should not be trusted.

Typically, also the editors making these talk page edits, often the admin group who initiated the block in the first place, will also give each other various "awards" and thanks notices on each other's own talk pages. In rare cases, they will even post notices on the blocked user's own user page about how they are a "chronic vandal", "danger to the community", or other such labels in a typical "We got you" gloating moment. And again, magnify this by ten if the blocked user was (or was perceived as) a woman.

What makes this so disgusting is that all of this is also apparently against Wikipedia's own guidance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gravedancing

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Well, I was indefinitely blocked

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:51 pm

Jennsaurus wrote:
Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:35 am
This is apparently extremely common, especially with indefinitely blocked or banned users who were not well liked by the community or, in more and more cases, if the users were women.
Been a routine occurrence since around 2003. AND THEY WILL DENY IT. Female editors were tolerated at first, but usually only if they were aggressive and had protection from admins. Quite a few of them have given up and bailed out.
What makes this so disgusting is that all of this is also apparently against Wikipedia's own guidance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gravedancing
And even though they LOVE to do such things, you know damn well they will say "Oh, that's just an "ESSAY", it's not "official policy", stop talking about it".

They lie and manipulate about everything. Automatically. Numerous such "essays" have been written and posted in the last 15+ years. Most of them are quite accurate and descriptive of common practices by insiders. But they will keep denying it.

User avatar
Bbb23Hater
Sucks
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:53 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Well, I was indefinitely blocked

Post by Bbb23Hater » Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:13 pm

Same. Look at this, I'll just tell you my profile, and show you an image. Here, I am BananaBreadPie12, and a url that is important is here. Help me get unbanned. https://drive.google.com/file/d/10zZODM ... lFsZS/view

Post Reply