How Doniago got a perfectly productive editor expelled, for no good reason at all.

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 23 times

How Doniago got a perfectly productive editor expelled, for no good reason at all.

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:00 pm

I spoke about this utter nonsense in relation to old man Cullen and sloppy Jess Wade, but it deserves immortalising in it's own right, before the incident rolls off the Admin noticeboard, into the archive.

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.....
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.
......an other option being of course, admins telling him to ignore it and find something else to worry about.

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)
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)
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.

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.

User avatar
sashi
Sucks Critic
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:01 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: How Doniago got a perfectly productive editor expelled, for no good reason at all.

Post by sashi » Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:25 pm

In fairness, wbm did -- indirectly mind you -- call into question the utility of the "we are the police" block, but as I recall it was Black Kite who told him it was neither here nor there whether the block was in fact worth making.
Why can't Template:Infobox film be coded to ignore (and not display) {{{color_process}}} unless the template is transcluded on a page which is in a subcategory of Category:Animated films? wbm1058 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
It probably can, but that's not really the issue here. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
There is no way for a template to "know" what categories a page is in and {{Infobox film}} doesn't have a "genre" parameter or similar. (otherwise that could be used) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to bet that there are any number of bot-trainers who could solve that "problem"...

Got their quotas to meet... this year they are only a little ahead of last year's numbers. (nb: This shows non-bot admin blocks of pseudonymous non-bot users only)
Padgriffin Griffin's Nest wrote: I don't want to babysit and patrol their edits for the rest of my Wiki-editing career.

;)

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: How Doniago got a perfectly productive editor expelled, for no good reason at all.

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:57 pm

Oh, dear Sashi. If we're being fair, it's fair to note that brief exchange, all three sentences of it, occurred three days after the user had been indefinitely blocked, and it occurred on Jimmy's talk page, not the Admin noticeboard.

It is a perfect example of bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted. But not even bolting it, just sort of breathing on it, in the hopes it might move an inch.

wbm1058 apparently wants a living wage from the Foundation, or at least a budget to pay his allocated workforce from the brown countries. Is there any evidence to believe this would improve their chances of bolting the door when the horse is still inside?

And Black Kite is Black Kite, that comment typifies his mindset - there is no problem too big or small, that cannot be squarely blamed on the Foundation or the "disruptive user", not the cult like volunteers or their jackbooted Admins.

If Wikipediocracy put their mind to exposing the rotten apples in Wikipedia's Administration, the people who really relish their power, and the structural faults that keep them in their roles, he'd have become a non-factor years ago. A relic, a dinosaur, of a thankfully forgotten era of unenlightnment. But no, they will not, and so Black Kite still typifies Wikipedia governance, and has done for as long as I can remember.

But hey, expecting them to speak critically of one of their most valued members, is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas.

Oh, and regarding Alexi Jazz's comment, while there isn't a genre parameter (and we probably know why!), there is an "animator" parameter. Easy stuff, this problem solving on Wikipedia lark. If only they had anything about their sick community that would attract problem solvers like me. But they don't. And unlike wbm1058, I'm not even asking for a salary or a workforce. Just an absence of assholes. Not too much to ask.

badmachine
None
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:55 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 29 times
Contact:

Re: How Doniago got a perfectly productive editor expelled, for no good reason at all.

Post by badmachine » Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:30 pm

it appears that the user may not have been able to communicate because they apparently use the Wikipedia Android app:
@CejeroC: Sorry about the problems but for reasons that none of us understand, people using the Wikipedia app may not be able to see messages that are left for them, and may find it hard to respond even if they do see such messages. See WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. It is unfair to people using that app if they are blocked, but it is also unacceptable that other editors are unable to communicate with such users to discuss problems. Please read the first link above to see what has been said. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU redirects to a page called Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs, which contains a very large table that lists the many problems with the Wikipedia app:

wikipedia mobile app problems.png
Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs
wikipedia mobile app problems.png (96.07 KiB) Viewed 157 times

... this link to Phabricator shows that the bug was submitted at March 30 (i think), only ten days before CejeroC's last edit on April 9. i can't make heads or tails of the Phabricator page but the table shows that the Android app doesn't even display custom block reasons, and may not even alert them that they have a talk page message.

(edited)
Conservatives think liberals are wrong. Liberals think conservatives are evil. ― Internet maxim

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: How Doniago got a perfectly productive editor expelled, for no good reason at all.

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:51 pm

There's a simple solution then, just change the table!

Anyone can edit, remember? :lol:

Seriously, don't ever fall into the trap of believing a page on Wikipedia is a reliable indicator of anything. We are here precisely to educate the world that these freaks are not reliable sources for anything, including testing their own interfaces.

These are people who couldn't spot (and in all honesty, literally don't care) that a lazy sloppy screwup like Jess Wade somehow managed to document two separate people in one Wikipedia biography. And she is their recognised expert in writing biographies. So how bad do you imagine their experts in software testing are?

What is causing the communication issue isn't really the issue here, to correctly use Black Kite's logic. The issue is the Wikipediots inability to see, that there was no real issue. By the looks of it, this guy could have been left alone in blissful ignorance there was anyone out there trying to communicate with him, and no actual damage to the encyclopedia would have been caused.

And indeed, people might have been better informed by his edits, because the supposed problem, not using a parameter correctly, was, ironically, an entirely internal software issue. Not even a software issue, but an internal software documentation issue. I don't know for certain, but it doesn't seem to me like not following that instruction to only use that parameter for animated films, actually breaks anything.

Outwardly, for the reader, what this guy was using it for, to denote Technicolor as the colour process used in films, it looks correct. And for that, for making edits that would appear correct to readers, he was blocked.

People who can look at that and think, yes, we did a good thing today, they're not the sort of people who get hired to test software.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2412
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 387 times

Re: How Doniago got a perfectly productive editor expelled, for no good reason at all.

Post by ericbarbour » Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:28 am

badmachine wrote:
Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:30 pm
it appears that the user may not have been able to communicate because they apparently use the Wikipedia Android app:
Christ, here we go again with the badly-written "official WMF" code.....

Post Reply