Wikipedia talk:Unblockables

Note to the casual reader

This essay was originally written long before the term "Unblockable" was tossed about at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. The only change made since that page was first written was to add illustrations. -- llywrch (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Llywrch: We've gotten to the point it's now been referenced in news stories and in WMF board statements, so... idk. The move seemed appropriate to me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed it was moved, MJL. I had found this essay when it was still in Beeblebrox's userspace, & wanted to make the point this wasn't just something he decided to write up since that blow-up, but defines a concept that's been around for a while. IMHO, it's fine there or under the Wikipedia namespace. (One sign you've been on Wikipedia maybe far too long is that you honestly don't care about a lot of stuff -- as long as it doesn't get in the way of writing articles.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Llywrch: That's certainly fair way about going about things lol. The one benefit of the move is it has a talk page now. Before this used to be a redirect to the author's talk page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitely keep the article in the Wikipedia nameplace

I came here from a link on the Signpost Talk page, and I'm glad I clicked! This is one of the most enjoyable articles I've read on Wikipedia in a while. The images and photos are hilarious and provide some welcome comic relief. The article succinctly discusses an important topic with seriousness and a wicked fun sense of humor. Kudos to the authors!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The move totally escaped my attention at the time, but I guess I'm cool with it, since ya'll seem to like it so much. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Came to second this, and thank you for writing this! This is invaluable piece and really spoke to me, while making me laugh! Shushugah (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"The controversial topic of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"

Actually the question is "how many angels can dance on the point of a needle" and it is most likely a later reformulation of medieval question "can several angels be in the same place?", which itself is another way of addressing the serious mathematical question "can an infinite number of objects of zero size simultaneously occupy a single point?

Maybe we should change it to something like "Why is the Lone Ranger called 'Lone' if he always has his Indian friend Tonto with him?" :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

List of unblockables

Can we start a list of who the unblockables are, so editors know to head the other way? Surely the dishonest and/or unethical administrators who create these Frankenstein monsters wouldn't reveal who they are, so perhaps the community can compile a helpful and specific reference guide. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

No, that's a really bad idea. Can you imagine how ridiculously contested such a list would be? No one would agree on who belongs there. It's like making a list of the "popular" kids in a high school. Or, as has been tried before at some colleges and universities, a list of people who have committed sexual assault and not been punished [1] [2] [3]. It's vigilantism and mob justice and just generally a bad idea. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Mob justice? Popular kids? Rushing to punishment? Silly me, you're right. Those things don't happen on Wikipedia. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying they don't, but they aren't exactly shining examples of Wikipedian virtue. We should not strive to emulate such behaviors... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedian virtue LOL! And I thought I was being funny. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll give you an example. I was actually at the University of Chicago when some students published the "Hyde Park List." And, originally, I too thought it was a good idea. Who would be against anything that fights sexual assault, right? But then, it became a crowd-sourced thing. And people started placing entries on the list for "unhealthy relationship practices" and "misogyny." It quickly descended into he-said-he-said-she-said. Exes were placing each other on the list, then there was infighting among the individuals who started the whole thing about what was and was not legitimate... etc etc. It was a disaster, and quickly shot itself in the foot and collapsed. Such mob justice/vigilantism was not a theme I would love to repeat, in any context, no matter how minor. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hm, you might be right. I suppose the unblockables will forever operate under a shroud of mystery then :) They might be slowly undermining the credibility of the site, along with the toxic and biased/unethical administrators who create them, but, yes, Wikipedian virtue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say, overall, the right thing to do is to reform RfA and the venues for seeking remedy, to make it easier to get rid of such users. Have more admins who are willing to act, and then create better venues for them to justify actions.

I could, for example, see value in a version of WP:AE that is for non-sanctioned topic areas. I have seen long-term editors go down at WP:AE much more easily than at WP:ANI, which is almost universally a cluster-F#$%. Just because the format and constraints of WP:AE make it easier to make cogent arguments and display blatant policy-violations. And it is much less likely to descend into a content dispute slap-fest. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no oversight of administrative decisions in either venue. It's six of one, half dozen of the other. Administrators are rarely overturned, no matter how biased the decision or how improper the action—unless, of course, a "rogue" administrator penalizes one of the unblockables. Editors are punished for reasons that have nothing to do with merit and everything to do with politics, i.e., running into one of the unblockables. The problem is a deep-seated cultural problem that emanates from top. Oh, and unblockables can quite literally do whatever the hell they want.

The value that the "unblockables" serve for administrators is that they allow them to avoid getting their hands dirty. Administrators often express deeply partisan views in some of the most contentious areas on the site, and there are editors who are willing to act in service to those views. Soon, we'll see the unblockables becoming administrators. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, you're correct: Attempts at mob justice and vigilantism are a profoundly bad idea. Unintended consequences could easily occur with a list of unblockables, as you said. I was curious and unfamiliar about those 3 links you referenced, from 2014. I got the gist of it from The Guardian. Kind of shocking that Chicago Maroon redirects to an unrelated architecture article published in 2004 (with 2014 in the URL lol) and Jezebel removed their coverage. Even an Al Jazeera Americas article about the list incident at Columbia gave a weird error message. I'm sure it was embarrassing to those involved when it happened, but erasing the past ensures that no one learns from it.--FeralOink (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's the correct Chicago Maroon article: [4]. I think it's just because they changed the way their site is built so the old URLs don't work properly anymore as permalinks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

What’s wrong with this article and why was it removed

• Wood, Mike (2020-04-07). "Untouchable, Unblockable and Often Unbeatable Problematic Wikipedia Editors". Legal Morning.

--evrik ^(talk) 04:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's published by a Wikipedia editing company. That may have something to do with it. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:81D5:6D64:11E:646B (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring over Justin Bieber and Donald Trump

Let's stop adding and reverting the pictures of Justin Bieber and Donald Trump (each with a caption about how their fans are going to "tear you a new one" if crossed). Yes, Justin Bieber has many fans; also, he had a facial paralysis condition in 2022 after contracting COVID19, and hasn't released an album since 2021, hasn't toured since 2022, hasn't performed since 2023. He sold off the IP rights to his entire recording catalog to Blackstone last year.

Donald Trump was nearly murdered less than two months ago and is currently one of the two leading contenders for the office of President of the United States. He is also the 45th president. Trump isn't a good fit for the unblockable essay, as he has been convicted of 34 felonies, and is still facing charges for others.

I see no reason to include either Justin Bieber or Donald Trump. There's been a lot of slow reverting over these two pic. Can we stop? This is supposed to be fun, not cruel.--FeralOink (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You're the only one edit warring about it.[5][6][7] This is an essay. Some wit and creativity in getting the point across is expected. I doubt Trump is losing any sleep over it. – Joe (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no comment on the images, but in regards to this edit summary asking "sanction" is not a Wikipedia term, is it? see Wikipedia:Sanctions and Wikipedia:General sanctions for examples. - Aoidh (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Aoidh. You are correct about sanctions being a Wikipedia term.--FeralOink (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Joe Roe, you reverted my correction of the misspelling of yous. See here and for something external, here. Youse is wrong. You are an administrator, so if you believe the alternate spelling for yous (youse) is preferable, I'm not going to argue with you about it.

I am not edit warring about Donald Trump. At least one of those edits was because I merely commented out images of Justin Bieber and Trump, as others had done before me, rather than deleting them. In your revert note, you observed that "the article has been stationary with Trump in it for the past four years." Keep in mind that Trump was not one of the two candidates for the 2024 general election for President of the United States for the past four years. It doesn't really matter whether "Trump is losing any sleep" over this or not. Yes, it is an essay, but there is zero wit or creativity in puerile Orange Man Bad tropes. Keep in mind that half of the American electorate supports Trump. They read Wikipedia too. Wikipedia doesn't ridicule other current or former heads of state in essays. Also, it doesn't even make sense to include Trump in an "unblockables" essay. He hasn't been blocked from anything recently. He doesn't have any loyal band of followers that go around intimidating those who don't support him. If you fail to understand why this is unfunny and out of date for what should be a light-hearted Wikipedia essay, there's nothing I can do about it: You are an administrator and this is not the Wiki hill that I want to die on.--FeralOink (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)