Based on that, it would seem like these could be some possibilities:
Maybe they enjoy “the game” or deception more than doing anything real with it. They may already have another alt admin in the making, or even made one already.
It’s a lot of time to keep up the same charade, so maybe they’re doing it as a job, with who knows how many more accounts already.
Or maybe they finally got bored with it, and decided to go out with a “POP!” while showing everyone their “superiority”.
For better and for worse, the Wikipedia attracts people good with words, which includes those capable of writing clearly, and those who can organize the whole project, and also those who enjoy playing games of sophistry to whatever end.
Honestly, both the behavior and the tone kind of remind me of someone in the Conan Exiles rp community. They’re a great roleplayer to a point, but they always have a meltdown and inevitably get themselves banned from every single new server. They can’t help themselves.
But their attitude at this point seems to just be that it’s going to happen, at which point they shrug and evade the ban until it happens again. I don’t think I know of a single server they haven’t gotten banned from, but they just kind of take it in stride and keep making alts.
The thing is, they love Conan and do actually want to have somewhere to RP, they just also have this other thing they can’t or won’t really fight
Toxic behavior has a double-edged consequence. It both tends to make the person responsible feel like they act that way naturally, and it also makes people respond to them as if they act that way naturally, it becomes a feedback loop. So much of the perpetual cycle is subconscious.
Sometimes it takes a hell of a lot of patience and a step back to say, “you aren’t toxic but your behavior certainly is.” It’s moments like those where maybe, hopefully they can realize that behavior is something for which they need to seek proper help.
Was suspected of being paid to edit pages, and was an admin. But people tell me wikipedia is totally trustworthy. People never really see the fighting that goes on in the Talk pages, if they did they would absolutely give pause about giving full faith to wikipedia.
I am more likely to trust a site that is open and public about its edit wars and that demands sourcing claims than I am all the others that are completely opaque about it and is just trust us bro.
I don't know how it is now but back in the late 00's/very early 10's I had attempted to correct some obvious mistakes in some articles I came across. Some edits were immediately reverted -- seemingly by a bot while others were reverted to some editor. On some, I tried using Talk to discuss why the reversion is incorrect and had put forth better sources (the actual source) instead of some 'scientific journalist's' article that got it wrong and was basically threatened that I'd be banned.
These weren't some esoteric or difficult subjects but fairly well-known and straight-forward data. It was such a hassle that I just gave up after my very short foray into Wikipedia editing for 5 or so years. I gave it another go for some subjects in my industry and learned that editors are not only territorial but take corrections personally. Sources be damned. What I've seen is so-called scientific journalists for news articles/blogs are just anecdotes pulled from paper abstracts. An abstract of an abstract with opinions not derived from the actual data. How is something like theregister, CNN, MSNBC or Fox News more reputable than the sources that they sourced from?
With that, the well-known advice of "Take Wikipedia with a grain of salt and actually read the cited sources." and more importantly, the cited sources' source, rings true.
In other words, in my opinion, Wikipedia is more a summary of blogspam than it is an encyclopedia, though there are some exceptions of course.
That doesn't sound normal to Wikipedia at all. In fact in the first half of Wikipedia history most editors weren't territorial and even now territorialism is against policy (WP:OWN). It's only warnings to block for 4+ repeated edits after informing.
Is there also a policy against evading blocks/bans? If there was then perhaps the subject in this article would have never happened.
Perhaps the takeaway here is that we could all learn from writing policies that would definitely solve every instance of a problem. For example, if a company could have policies against sexual harassment it could all stop.
In another example on a bigger scale, if countries would sign a treatise of some type with other peoples and nations then we could all get along far better. A great example of this could be when the US signed various treaties with different Native American Tribes such, as happens, this Wikipedia article describes.
Thank you. I believe the world could learn much from our discussion and I know, I feel that my own experiences and opinions have been rightfully invalidated.
Yes, there is. In fact SPI (sockpuppet investigations) is known as one of the hardest "departments". You'd need pretty suspicious behavioral evidence before filing one for good reasons. Clerks need to sort through all the requests and see which ones deserve the actual IP-inspectors (CheckUsers) to check if the users seem to be the same (or an open proxy. Don't worry, the IP address retention period is only 90 days). Also, cases to check if an IP address is the same as an established user will never be CheckUser'd cuz that would be exposing the IP address though it won't go unpunished and will be judged purely on behavioral evidence.
Sockmasters who span ridiculously long amounts of time are documented at WP:LTA (long-term abuse). However, ones that inspire copycats (like some WillyOnWheels who move-vandalized tons of pages) have their documentation deleted as part of a policy called Deny Recognition (to the trolls).
What was the point of spending years as a productive administrator, making tens of thousands of edits and logging thousands of actions, to implode the whole thing over a pointless argument on an RfA talk page?
People do weird things. Mood disorders, (develop-/)mental disorders, personality disorders, extreme cases of having a shitty day, or just being a twat.
What is really fucked up isn't just the meltdown, but the insinuation they did this to fuck with someone else, this Beeblebrox guy. That's not very hoopy.
god I hate wikipedia abuse. It even happens from non admins. There’s this one movie I watched and I realized that it wasn’t on the lead actor’s filmography so I added it, and within minutes it was removed without reason. I go on this guy’s talk profile and it’s full of people claiming that they religiously remove edits on a number of random articles. Probably 80% of edits in the past year alone on that filmography page were from this one guy and almost all of them were removing tiny contributions from other users. Some people just like to act like an article is “theirs”
This was a weird and gripping tale of a user who can’t stand being not an admin. Why they would dox themselves as the person that earned a previous super-duper ban is bewildering.
Wikipedia is one of the best, if not the best, free and open internet information sources. I’m not surprised that people are going to go after it like Musk has been.
Many years ago there was a newscaster in southern California whose last name was Beard but he didn’t have a beard. I forget his first name but let’s say it was Gary. My husband and I called him Gary “I don’t have a beard because my last name is Beard” Beard and we thought it was the funniest thing.
Tons of cool ZZ top facts. How about how “Master of sparks” tells the true story[1] of Billy Gibbons and his friend R.K. Bullock who with a workman, welded together a steel ball cage with a seat and seatbelt fitted inside. They placed the cage into the bed of a truck and at night, after reaching a speed of 60 miles per hour (97 km/h), on Highway 6 near Houston (also known as Jack Rabbit Road), rolled the cage out the back with the hapless narrator and friend taking a ride inside. The cage generated a tail of sparks on the road but in its crushed condition stopped rolling. Still moving at high speed, the now egg shaped cage crashed into a fence. Both occupants survived relatively unscathed and were awarded the title “Master of Sparks” by the cheering crowd.
en.wikipedia.org
Active