I saw the ban discussion (ban, not block - a technicality that means a lot on Wikipedia, and blocks can be unilaterally undone by any admin. Bans may only be rescinded by the community), but I didn't end up participating because I didn't want to pile on. Their hundreds of edits to individual articles were making it impossible to navigate their histories, especially since they regularly used misleading edit summaries. They're not blocked on Wikimedia Commons (the sister site, essentially Wikipedia's image repository) so hopefully they can still edit productively there and learn collaboration before coming back. It always sucks to see good faith contributors banned, but bans are indefinite, not infinite, so hopefully he can come back someday. And hopefully he didn't drive you away from Wikipedia! Your edits were much appreciated, and your video was one of the few examples I've seen of good reporting about Wikipedia. Please, carry on!
2 months ago | 57
Never did I thinking I'd be so emotionally invested in Wikipedia editing drama since Croatian revisionists took over croatian WW2 Wikipedia pages
2 months ago | 83
This outcome felt pretty inevitable, sadly. I was following the noticeboard discussion as it unfolded and the pattern of behaviour was pretty damning, especially considering their previous blocks and sockpuppetry. It’s a shame when an enthusiastic contributor gets the boot, but if nothing else, things like this put off other productive editors. It’s really nice to see coverage of Wikipedia that isn’t wilfully ignorant about how things work, even if your first experience editing was somewhat negative.
2 months ago (edited) | 29
It’s a real shame. Despite their antics it was clear they had a genuine interest in certain spaces and cared about cultivating them. I think it was the correct decision and I hope Wolverine XI is able to find something else to pour their energy into.
2 months ago (edited) | 23
As a Wikipedia administrator... yeah, it always hurts a bit to see a good-faith user get community banned. That said, it was understandable in this case given the editing behavior. The main thing to understand is that the community is very understanding if you are willing to genuinely listen to feedback and try to improve your editing. But if you respond defensively, things won't end well for you even if you are 100% right (which people almost never are).
2 months ago | 11
Who knew that the Wikipedia editing efforts of Wolverine X-eye would culminate in a cautionary epic of truly Shakespearean quality. We bow before the bards el_fucko and soulmata who sang us this tale
2 months ago (edited) | 2
Honestly, thank you for putting a spotlight on this. I used to get very anxious interacting with this type of guy, now I feel I understand them a lot better. And they lord over niche fandom wikis even more aggressively than on The Big Wiki.
2 months ago | 0
I'm sad that it came to this, but also pleasantly surprised to find that I am not the only one sharing this sentiment in these comments. It may be trivial internet drama in the grand scheme of things, but reading through the Administrator's noticeboards/incidents, it was undeniable that Wolverine X-eye genuinely cared about doing good work (and perhaps he cared a bit too much, in that there were some conflicts where other Wikipedians advised him to take time away from certain articles, or the "Good Article" nomination process, but it seemed that his passion made it hard for him to step back). I sincerely hope that he is able to find somewhere to positively direct all of that care that he has within him - an outlet that is positive for him in a way that it seems Wikipedia wasn't.
2 months ago | 3
Totally correct decision, they are delusional to say that this is the first time someone has complained about their high number of edits to GAN pages. Also you cannot personally attack someone then say nah that's not a personal attack because I didn't mean to personally attack them. Your words are your words, nobody can read your thoughts, take some ownership. Aside from adding poorly sourced material and 100s of edits in a short space of time making it impossible to find changes, this is the kind of person that makes good people leave sporting teams, companies and wikis. It's not just about all the poor quality edits this person makes, it's also all the good edits you lose from other users giving up. Anyway enjoying your stuff HGModernism, I was having some gut issues and was worried I might be lactose intolerant. Got it checked, they do one blood test then you drink a glass of pure lactose then 5 more blood tests in the space of an hour and a half to see if my glucose levels increased. Totally worth the 6 needles because it told me I'm not lactose intolerant. I'm the kind of person who does not drink choc milk often but when I do I buy a 2L bottle (2.1 quarts) and drink more than half of it in one sitting!
2 months ago (edited) | 20
It’s sad that this is the outcome. I’ve read a lot of AN/I and arbitration discussions and the community tries really hard to keep even editors who have blatantly done something wrong if there is some way for them to continue editing without being disruptive. Something like being limited to specific topics, editing in certain ways, or not engaging with certain other editors. Every time someone who could be productive in some way leaves the project, that’s one less person helping and Wikipedia needs all the help it can get. But sometimes there’s nothing that can be done :(
2 months ago | 0
It's one thing to make mistakes, or get egotistical, or just get caught up. But when you have an entire community repeatedly telling you to chill, and you just simply refuse to learn from those mistakes, there is no real good solution other than getting a time out. Maybe one day said person will re-calibrate and try again.
2 months ago | 1
I mean good riddance? I get that he has done some good but like sometimes people are doing more damage than their actual contributions. People should be able to take responsibility of their actions and not be able to get away because "well, we kinda like him, he is doing something*" but in my honesty, that *single contributor has ruined the experience of many potential contributors. At that point you're effectively trying to side with one bad apple who has some good stuff done over the potential contributions of many many people who cumulative could or would be doing way more overall than that single person. Star Trek quote comes to mind: Needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. And: Don't let your personal bias get in the way of removing destructive community member.
2 months ago | 31
Crazy that Wikipedia changed from "the wisdom of the crowd made up of individuals" to "the opinions of individuals mimicking the crowd (or else)"
2 months ago | 2
Can they just register a different account and log in via VPN?
2 months ago | 4
what an interesting conclusion to come to months down the line. may he edit the narwhal page from heaven.
2 months ago | 0
HGModernism
Wolverine X-eye, formerly known as Wolverine XI, has been blocked indefinitely from editing wikipedia.
I'm disappointed it came to this because he put a lot of time and effort in and other editors mentioned having good experiences with him. Reading the list of inappropriate comment examples, there is a pattern of him editing in a way that is strange or inconvenient for others, getting called out (sometimes rudely), and then responding in kind. I can see why it would be confusing what tone of comments is acceptable – I think he was trying to pattern match the kinds of comments he received from others.
I think the main issue was that he never stopped to think about how his actions impacted others. His frequent tiny edits make the diff tools unusable, he made requests of editors that wasted their time. His goal seemed to be to get FA status for the pages he cared about, but that goal wasn’t for readers, it was for him. I’m sorry it turned out this way, but I appreciate the thought and care the admins put into their decision of how to handle it.
From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1269075389#Unco…
Thanks to @el_fucko and @soulmata for sharing.
Context: https://youtu.be/P0L-3FfkXfM
2 months ago (edited) | [YT] | 478