Is anyone here able to edit Wikipedia?

Thanks Aaaaaaaaaaaargh, I do what little I can.

JezGrove is awesome ♥️

The Talk page is just as bad 😲 Under 'sexism' it says "she was never attractive" 😲 I guess if you've for a section for sexism then go for it ..

There's an opportunity to discuss the disputed wording on the article's Wikipedia talk page at en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frances_Barber#Edit_warring_over_JK_Rowling's_views

Honestly this frustrates me too. Wiki is INSANELY complicated, and no one should feel bad for accidentally breaking a rule or not knowing how to do things.

I've been on it for years and I still make mistakes and don't know how to do things all the time, because it is just stupidly complex and you have to memorise a bunch of rules and basically learn coding (at least on a basic level) to be able to do anything.

I appreciate your comment, and yours too deeperthanallroses.

(Sorry I realise I contradict myself in saying "they have to have rules" but later saying "there is no they." I meant "the site has to have rules." The whole point of Wiki is that it's peer edited, that ordinary members of the public do all the edits and resolve disputes. If someone removes your edit or warns/bans you then it's not some shadowy powerful "They" doing it, it's usually just one single ordinary person who doesn't work for Wikipedia.)

Thanks Jemima, both for reporting and for taking the time to explain. As you say, it's not obvious to newbies how (and how not) to interact with wiki.

Thanks @JemimaPuddlegoose very informative!

That's just not how Wikipedia works though. Wikipedia has billions of entries; they have to have standarised rules that apply to everyone, and "discuss difference of opinion, use arbitration when there's conflict, and report people who break rules rather than edit-war" is a pretty sensible standardised rule. Such a huge site with would be completely unmanageable otherwise.

And they DO take context into account. That's the entire reason why each article has a "Talk" page (which exists solely for Wikipedia editors to discuss any differences of opinion) and why every editing dispute has an "Arbitration Procedure." Literally the entire reason those Talk pages and APs exist is to be a place to discuss the kind of context you're talking about. (Having said that, a big problem with Wiki is that it's not user-friendly to newbies; most people don't know those things exist, and don't realise that there are rules and procedures to be followed. So people like yourself get unfairly banned for breaking rules you didn't know existed.)

I reported Shana and within ten minutes she'd been banned, the page corrected to something neutral and factual, and the page locked. It's very easy if you know how Wiki works and infuriating otherwise.

Just... stop thinking there's some "They" overseeing everything. There is no "they." Just millions of individuals who don't work for Wikipedia but choose to spend their spare time editing it.

It's worth remembering that an "indefinite" ban on Wikipedia is precisely that - there is no proscribed time period that has to be waited out and the block can be lifted quickly if the editor concerned makes a successful appeal.

I see what you're saying but you would have thought they would take into account that we were changing it to the accepted non-partisan wording, not the problematic objective one, they writing we are trying to change to was just factual.

I've checked, and yes, you're correct. I did not scroll down the page far enough.

That actually explains why you got an indefinite ban, and Shana only got a 24 hour ban: CambridgeBayWeather obviously thinks that you're one person using three separate accounts to sock puppet.

Three brand new accounts all created at the exact same time, all posting the exact same thing, and all breaking the exact same rules, does look like sockpuppeting.

I'm very sure if three accounts were registered on Mumsnet at the same time and all three started posting identical content and starting breaking Talk Guidlines in the same way, the MNHQ mods would assume it was one person using three sockpuppet accounts and would ban them to.

Again, there's nothing stopping any of you (assuming those three accounts do belong to three separate people) from explaining that you're three different people and explaining why all three of you registered at the same time and have been making the same edits.

But objectively all three of those accounts DID break the rules.

If you'd reported Shana instead of engaging in edit-warring then none of you would have been banned, and she would have been banned hours ago.

Think it's only protected for two weeks though

Well at (hopefully) the end of that saga, the page now has a sensible neutral description for the page linked to, and properly referenced details about the supportive letter being a response to death threats. Which is satisfactory I think.

Justdoingthis and Glad to be who I am also blocked indefinitely it looks like

Wikipedia does not have moderators, in the sense that MN has moderators Certain unpaid volunteer peer-users, if they've built up enough good edits, get voted by other volunteer peer-users to be allowed a degree more control, but they have to take public votes and act in accordance to the written rules and guidelines.

The page currently just says "her views" and the word "transphobia" has been removed. The page is protected so only Wikipedia editors with a proven history of making reliable edit can change it.

The ShanaChan poster was given a 24 hour ban because they're a registered user who broke a specific rule called the "Three revert rule". Wikipedia's written guidelines state that a 24 hour ban is the first response for breaking the "three-revert rule." If ShanaChan starts breaking rules once the 24 hour ban is over, then she'll get a permanent ban.

It clearly is not true that "the Mumsnet lot" have been banned since most of us can still edit.

I've just checked and only one person ("Justquicklyum") has been banned, and Justquicklyum was banned by the same person (CambridgeBayWeather) who banned ShanaChan95. The only difference is that Shana got a 24 hour ban and Justquickly got an indefinite ban. I personally disagree with that - clearly Justquicklyum and ShanaChan95 should have been treated the same since both were breaking the Three-revert rule equally.

But that doesn't mean there's some kind of agenda on behalf of Wikipedia as an entity, it just means one single unpaid volunteer made a bad decision.

There's literally nothing stopping you from contesting CambridgeBayWeather's decision to ban you!

Wikipedia is not a "TRA mouthpiece"
Then it's weird that ShanaChan95 is blocked for 24 hours and the Mumsnet lot are blocked indefinitely

What happens with pages that are 'locked due to vandalism'? Is there a way of submitting corrections and updates to the admins?

ShanaChan95 has been banned from Wikipedia (a 24 hour ban, because they nearly always start with a 24 hour ban, but will be banned permanently if they don't stop).

Just to explain further, Wikipedia is not a "TRA mouthpiece" anymore than the council is a ACAB mouthpiece just because someone graffities on a council-owned wall.

If you don't like something, then change it. There's literally nothing on Wikipedia you can't change.

Think of Wikipedia as a giant chalkboard set up in a town square. Anyone can come along and scrawl anything they like on it.

I could edit Frances Barber's page to say that she was born on the moon and lives on an all-cheese diet, and the only way it would be removed would be if someone happened to notice and decide to manually remove it.

Please get out of this mindset that just because something is on Wikipedia, it means Wikipedia as an entity approves of it. There is no "higher authority" on Wikipedia. Just normal people. Wikipedia does not have moderators. (They do have Admins but admins are just regular users who other users have voted should receive greater access - for example being able to ban people - because they have a history of making frequent beneficial edits to Wiki.)

If there's something up that shouldn't be there, then the only reason it's there is because either no one has noticed, or no one has bothered to remove it. There's no conspiracy or "mod decision" to let it be there. The onus is on other wikipedia editors ie regular people like us to remove anything that's not cited or not objective.

Just to explain, if it's useful: Wikipedia is entirely peer-edited.

They do have rules, but if someone is breaking the rules then you have to manually report them. There's no automated process

It's been reported now.

By my count shanachan has corrected 20 times today! How is this allowed?

FYI Wikipedia has a rule that you're not allowed to revert an edit more than three times, as it's called "edit warring" and can lead to being banned.

So be careful that none of you as individuals revert a change more than twice in a row.

If anyone else on Wikipedia has done this, then they should be reported and potentially banned.

And back to OTT slander...