Warning: Apparently, Metapedia ain't much better than Wikipedia in terms of admin culture.

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
Post Reply
User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Fan
Posts: 227
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Warning: Apparently, Metapedia ain't much better than Wikipedia in terms of admin culture.

Post by CMAwatch » Sat Apr 18, 2020 6:15 pm

While browsing the general mod/admin criticism forum https://poal.co/s/ModAbuse , where users can call out misbehaving moderators and administrators from any online site (Poal describes itself as a free-speech Reddit alternative), the following has come to my attention:

——————————

Metapedia declares itself as a Wiki of truth and about taboo topics.

But apparently, their administrators still use brigading practices.

And according to the special page Special:Version, there is no Echo MediaWiki extension, and on their help pages, I could not find any unblock request templates. This probably means that if one administrator decides to block a user, that user can not solicit the help of another administrator.

According to their respective Special:Statistics pages, the German Metapedia has 40+ active editors at the moment and 71000 content pages. The English one just 15 and around 7000 content pages.

———————————

An administrator named Westwall from Metapedia is on the "Hall of shame" leaderboard of /s/ModAbuse. The table describes him as Bbb23 lite.

His misconduct can be read on that leaderboard. It sounds terrible.

Apparently, a user named Anon8, who got blocked by Westwall for one revert and criticiz

Anon8/Anon9 has circumvented his block as ReliKritiker. The edits he has done during his ban evasion look positive and legitimate. Yet he got blocked by a different administrator called Hyperboreer.

Using Google Translate, we can get a rough idea of their conversations:

Blocking note:
Anon8 and Anon9 were blocked by Westwall with the note: Creation of user accounts blocked! Thus, bypassing the barrier [ban evasion]!
That's the standard note of MediaWiki! Don't they know that?

From https://de.metapedia.org/wiki/User_Talk:ReliKritiker :
As I just noticed, although too late (I just warned), Westwall had blocked the Anon8 and Anon9 accounts. ReliKritiker is definitely one and the same user, so I have no choice but to block ReliKritiker, because blocked users are not allowed to bypass a block by registering again. The rules apply to everyone. Anon9 had received a four-week ban which he / she should have waited.
The reason why his previous account Anon9 got blocked might be this: (Translated using Google Translate and Bing Translate)

From https://de.metapedia.org/wiki/User_Talk:Anon9 (I highlighted some parts that look relevant and added comments in [these brackets + yellow colour] )
Such nonsense [1] is now better avoided. There are already enough such “category experts”, a new one is not needed! - Westwall (discussion) 21:07, 2. Launing (April) 2020 (UTC)

How can you tell in advance whether a category will be considered "nonsense"? I think Category: On Wayback Machine's blacklist might interest some readers. In addition, more categories should not bother readers as they do not interfere with the reader's user experience. On Wikipedia, some articles have dozens of categories for even more (for average readers) much less important properties. --Anon9 (discussion) 21:28, 2nd Launing (April) 2020 (UTC)

First, it should be avoided because I say so. Second, you have absolutely no idea about the category structure. That's enough. If I were you, I would put a lot of energy into getting the urge to discuss things under control with me.

Afterwards, I wanted to say about the "urge to discuss": I will largely refrain from discussing with you in the future, since I have learned that a discussion with you is not useful, but only counterproductive. Someone who would be helpful would not use the non-teaching phrase "because I say that". I should have recognized that yesterday. --Anon9 (discussion) 06:45 [after block], 4th Launing (April) 2020 (UTC)

Then I suggest that someone write an article like Metapedia: Category Structure. If I have "no idea" there should be a way to learn it. I would also be interested in what at least one other administrator has to say about it. --Anon9 (discussion) 06:26, 3rd Launing (April) 2020 (UTC)

I do not have the impression that I have expressed myself misleadingly. But since you ignore this once again from all admins (which is not surprising to me), I give you four weeks to rethink your behavior of eternal complaining about admin decisions and all other insolence in general behavior on your part. The measure is not only full, it is overfilled. Happy weekend and happy holidays [obviously sarcasm] - Westwall (discussion) 11:00, 3rd Launing (April) 2020 (UTC)

"Of eternal complaining about [my] decisions" - I can understand that you personally do not like me personally, but the question was for the purpose that I know in the future which categories I should create and which I should not. "Because I say that" is not helpful in knowing in advance which category you think is appropriate and which is not.
"Ignored by all admins" - No other administrator has commented on the category: On the blocked list of the Wayback Machine. In addition, I have recently followed all of Thore's advice, such as the non-cursive writing of page titles. I also followed Hyperboreer's instructions to stop submitting further article requests, see here.
"As well as all other insolence" - do you mean the discussion on Metapedia: arbitration board? I thought that would have resolved long ago.

--Anon9 (discussion) 11:17, 3rd Launing (April) 2020 (UTC)


Another thought

Could it be that you started this discussion since you already knew that I would ask for a reason to be able to block myself? In that case, I have to confess that I fell into your trap.

I know you personally loathe me. But in a wiki, constructive collaboration is important. I asked for the reason for your decision in order to be able to understand the facts better because I am interested in constructive cooperation. --Anon9 (discussion)

I just found Metapedia: Categories. There is also nothing to suggest that my created category is undesirable.

The administrator rules state: "If there are differences in content in which an admin is involved, another admin should be consulted to make a decision." --Anon9 (discussion) 14:08, 3. Launing (April) 2020 (UTC)


How should new users learn and continue to participate if they are blocked for their curiosity? --Anon9 (discussion) 10:20 pm, 3rd Launing (April) 2020 (UTC)


A request to Westwall

One more thing: When you accused me of making a reference error last time, it turned out that it was actually not a reference error, but the system simply does not know the short but correct spelling. And what would have been so difficult to explain to me in a few words that "Tehran" is the appropriate spelling? If you hadn't been (by definition) so hostile and argumentative, both cases would have been resolved soon instead of escalating.

Since you personally loathe me, you can't be judge me neutrally.

You (Westwall) do good edits (see e.g. Morris, Brian), but at the same time damage the project with your hostility and deter new, productive users, of whom we urgently need more.

I know I'm just a new user and you've been here since 2015. Nevertheless, I ask you to rethink your behavior and treat new users more peacefully, as experience has shown the other administrators. --Anon9 (discussion) 08:34, 4th Launing (April) 2020 (UTC)
I guess this says everything. Metapedia, which strived to take on Wikipedia as an alternative, sadly appears corrupt too. Abd if the German Metapedia is like that, the English one is likely too.
#BbbGate [+] [Bbb23 exposed]

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Re: Warning: Apparently, Metapedia ain't much better than Wikipedia in terms of admin culture.

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Apr 19, 2020 4:06 am

Get used to this. Something about MediaWiki seems to encourage administrative abuse and socking, regardless of the purpose of the wiki. MW was purpose-built for Jimbo and his buttkissers to brigade each other and suppress criticism--and it shows.

Anyone remember all those RationalWiki admins who were blocking each other hundreds of times? MediaWiki was born deformed.
https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?ti ... r%3AGrantC

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Fan
Posts: 227
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Warning: Apparently, Metapedia ain't much better than Wikipedia in terms of admin culture.

Post by CMAwatch » Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:28 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 4:06 am
Get used to this. Something about MediaWiki seems to encourage administrative abuse and socking, regardless of the purpose of the wiki. MW was purpose-built for Jimbo and his buttkissers to brigade each other and suppress criticism--and it shows.

Anyone remember all those RationalWiki admins who were blocking each other hundreds of times? MediaWiki was born deformed.
https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?ti ... r%3AGrantC
Wow, that is pretty Wickedpedia!

Worth reading: https://poal.co/s/ModAbuse/164245 („A moderator who has logical arguments wouldn't try to shut down a user.”)
#BbbGate [+] [Bbb23 exposed]

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Fan
Posts: 227
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Warning: Apparently, Metapedia ain't much better than Wikipedia in terms of admin culture.

Post by CMAwatch » Mon May 04, 2020 1:01 pm

:idea: The only difference between what grotesque admin WestwaII (Bbb23 lite) said and "because I said so and now shut your f*cking mouth" is Westwall's more sincere wording. But it has the same meaning.
ericbarbour wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 4:06 am
Get used to this. Something about MediaWiki seems to encourage administrative abuse and socking, regardless of the purpose of the wiki. MW was purpose-built for Jimbo and his buttkissers to brigade each other and suppress criticism--and it shows.
[ . . . ]
MediaWiki was born deformed.
How would you have designed MediaWiki differently if you could?
#BbbGate [+] [Bbb23 exposed]

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Re: Warning: Apparently, Metapedia ain't much better than Wikipedia in terms of admin culture.

Post by ericbarbour » Mon May 04, 2020 8:19 pm

CMAwatch wrote:
Mon May 04, 2020 1:01 pm
How would you have designed MediaWiki differently if you could?
No "administrators" or "bureaucrats" or checkusers, none of the accumulation of basement-dwelling blubber with "special privileges". Creation of new articles would have to be voted up by a minimum number of users. Same for deletions. Reference works should not be operated like Masonic lodges or Scientology.

The biggest mistake Nupedia made was to demand "recognized experts only" could edit. They became fractious and argumentative like Wikipedia--yet did not grind out content. There has to be a balance between encouraging content production and turning it into a shrieky little private club.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Fan
Posts: 227
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Warning: Apparently, Metapedia ain't much better than Wikipedia in terms of admin culture.

Post by CMAwatch » Tue May 05, 2020 7:14 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Mon May 04, 2020 8:19 pm
CMAwatch wrote:
Mon May 04, 2020 1:01 pm
How would you have designed MediaWiki differently if you could?
Same for deletions.
Couldn't agree more. This would end that shitty deletionism.

As for creation, everyone should be able to create and help editing draft articles, and after enough upvotes (e.g. 5 upvotes or maybe 10), it shoukd become eligible for the main article namespace.

Some degree of moderation may be necessary, but there should be more transparency and accountability.

And it should be possible to undelete articles after enough votes.
#BbbGate [+] [Bbb23 exposed]

Post Reply