https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ly_editing
I want you to focus on how many establisted Wikishits are in the debate, and not one, NOT ONE, asks the question....
Hey, so this guy CejeroC is adding a parameter to film infoboxes that isn't needed, but since this doesn't break anything and isn't likely to mislead any reader, is it logical or even rational to call this DISRUPTIVE, and is their apparent inability or unwillingness to communicate over this one tiny issue, good grounds to block them forever?
Because, as should have been obvious was a real risk at the time, not even an indefinite block seems to have got this user to understand how to, or otherwise persuade them it was in their best interest, to use a talk page.
CejeroC was blocked indefinitely on April 9th, after a 48 hour block hadn't seemingly worked. They have never edited again.
Only a week later, did it even occur to the dimwit blocker, Rosguill, a rookie Admin naturally, to downgrade the block to only apply to article space, having apparently realised (or been told) the point of the block was to get them to use a talk page, any talk page.
I am perhaps unfairly blaming Doniago, because while it was him who brought this non-issue to the attention of the admins, he did at least leave the door open for other less drastic options.....
......an other option being of course, admins telling him to ignore it and find something else to worry about.I would be happy to see them unblocked as soon as they indicated that they would stop applying that parameter for non-animated films, and am amenable to other options that will similarly result in their no longer making these disruptive edits.
And it wasn't only him who were, quite wrongly making out like reverting these improper parameter edits was an absolute necessity that the Wikishits really had to KEEP doing, over and over and over, even though for whatever reason, they kept getting added back, otherwise Wikipedia would EXPLODE.....
People can't keep checking/correcting these edits while being unable to communicate with CejeroC. It's a poor solution but it will hopefully get their attention and an inquiry from them. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
And, also, when it looked like it wasn't going to lead to a block, Doniago did keep returning to the thread, with increasingly desperate sounding requests for a block.That old saying about the definition of insanity seems extremely relevant right now. I would hate to block this user since their edits have been generally constructive but I don't want to babysit and patrol their edits for the rest of my Wiki-editing career. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 11:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
His report and other people's reactions is remarkable in how it makes a totally minor, eminently ignorable problem, sound like it is actually disruptive, and more to the point, how literally nobody realised this was the crux of the issue.
Wikipedia's most important rule was violated here. WP:IAR.
If a rule prevents you from maintaining or improving Wikipedia, ignore it.
It takes very little imagination for that to be read in context, as ...
If a user's apparent unwillingness or inability to communicate is going to lead to the loss of their mostly productive edits because a rule says they need to be blocked until they acknowledge a totally minor and eminently ignorable issue with their editing, ignore it.
If he later went on to actually do disruptive things that the inability to communicate would affect, then yes, block him, but he hadn't done that yet. Even the additional wikicrime added to his rap sheet as if it further justified a block, not using edit summaries, is something quite a lot of experienced editors are allowed to get away with, on the basis that it would be STUPID to block people just for that. Certainly on a project where an experienced user doesn't even get blocked even if they have a habit of telling others to fuck off. All hamper good communication.
What is actually REALLY FUCKED UP about this situation, was that nobody actually spotted that not only were the users edits not breaking anything, to the user themselves, they actually looked like they were improvements (and thus might have perceived their removal as the disruption, assuming he was consciously readding them)......
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1016295824
(Look at the movie poster. Doesn't it look perfectly normal for the infobox to say, "Color process: Technicolor"?)
.....and even worse, at NO POINT did he probably ever even see the "documentation instruction" for the parameter that he was supposedly wilfully ignoring, according to the original complaint. This, of course, wasn't even realised until April 14, long after he had been blocked.
The clear underlying issue here, rather than the problem being Wikipedia's issues with technical barriers to communication, is actually that they have film infoboxes with parameters named "color process" that are apparently meant to only apply to animated films. That would obviously confuse people unfamiliar with Wikipedia, but familiar with films. Technicolor, is a color process, after all.
This person's manner of editing, to simply make logical improvements in the moment and then walk away, not knowing or caring about any relevant documentation or other people's daft OCD issues, is closer to the original model of how Wikipedia is supposed to be, than any of the myriad mess of rules, obsessive ownership, and other bullshit.
In that vain, for those who apparently see themselves as the proper custodians of the wiki these days, the experienced inner circles, it is important to note there was both a technical and an editing solution here. Either rename the parameter (e.g. animation colour process), or code the infobox not to display it, if the film is animated. Either would have solved the issue and prevented the need to block the editor. But nobody could see that.
They were zeroed in on his non-compliance. His DISRUPTION.
At this point, from the perspective of this user, if he actually could make out what they were saying and doing, was there likely going to be any perceived benefit to him to even talking to these FUCKING MORONS?
He surely came to Wikipedia solely to improve film articles, not partake in a Kafkaesque exercise in micromanagment.
His silence may not have been a technical issue at all. Just a sensible choice.
Needless to say, this perfect and eye catching example of so many of the many deep rooted issues Wikipedia has, all in one nice small incident that actually reached the rare heights of Jimmy Wales' to do list no less, flew entirely under the radar at Wikipediocracy.
Because they're MORONS too. Every last one of those dickheads, probably think the Wikishits were totally in the right here, and that the only people to blame for this sad loss of an editor, are of course, the EVIL distant and uncommunicative Foundation.