When I first started editing Wikipedia, it didn’t take me long to figure out not everyone is welcome on the site. You find out quickly that there are biased editors on Wikipedia that don’t like new people coming in with an opinion. New editors often run into harsh tones and berating because of Wikipedia’s toxic editing environment.
Clients often contact me and say they are having a difficult time with a particular editor. And, despite following Wikipedia guidelines, that editor continues to add or remove content contrary to those guidelines.
The first thing that comes to mind is whether the client followed Wikipedia guidelines properly.
Unfortunately, most of them did. And they still face backlash despite following the rules.
The issue here is that the community seems to shield these editors. So, even if they add or remove content contrary to guidelines, other editors don’t seem to care. They run freely on Wikipedia, interjecting their personal points of view into their edits.
So how do some editors get away with violating rules while others cannot?
What is an Unblockable Editor on Wikipedia?
According to Wikipedia, an unblockable is an editor who violates Wikipedia rules, draws a block for it, and then has an admin quickly lift that block, with little, if any, admonition.
The unblocking admin often admits that the user violated the rules, but argues that their contribution to the site outweighs the violation.
So basically, an experienced editor whom the community likes becomes almost immune to blocks for their behavior. This is dangerous because they often edit contentious articles and chase away other editors who don’t agree with their point of view.
You could consider these administrators toxic editors themselves, as they often turn their back on bad behavior.
It is also unfair. Admins block other editors for similar (or often less egregious) behavior, and those editors must abide by their punishment, while biased editors on Wikipedia roam free causing trouble.
Who Are These Editors?
A few good examples include:
- Calton – I have discussed this user before, and since that time admins have still blocked and unblocked them for the same offenses. Their block log shows dozens of blocks, mainly for civility, followed by an unblock shortly thereafter.
- Jytdog – This was one of my all-time favorites and even has a long thread on Wikipediocracy. Their block log doesn’t show a lot of blocks because they always avoided them by leaving Wikipedia before anyone could ban them. However, the most recent offense was so egregious they could not avoid it. They contacted someone off-Wiki by telephone who they had a disagreement with – something they also did with me several years ago. They even asked Arbcom to let them come back to Wikipedia after a year away. If it goes as it usually does, an admin will unblock them and they will land right back to causing problems again at Wikipedia.
- David Gerard – Sometimes admins don’t even block unblockables in the first place. Here is an example where someone with an anti-cryptocurrency stance runs around Wikipedia unchecked. Despite the off-Wiki and on-Wiki complaints about the conflict of interest, they still edit cryptocurrency topics freely with little oversight. In fact, this person is an administrator, so they become even more difficult to block.
There are dozens more that I could bring up, but there’s a good chance you already know them (probably the reason you are here in the first place).
Now, let’s discuss how unblockables get away with toxic editing and expressing their personal points of view with little, if any, oversight.
Wikipedia is Run by Consensus
Consensus.
This is the term that makes Wikipedia go around. Obtaining consensus is one of the keys to open source collaboration, as people need to agree on things before they can implement them. Without consensus, there would be chaos and nothing would get done.
Sounds pretty simple. Common sense will tell you that consensus just means getting everyone on the same page and agreeing on what editors should or shouldn’t write in Wikipedia.
Well, not so fast.
As with everything in Wikipedia, consensus isn’t so simple.
One of the most important parts of Wikipedia’s definition of consensus is as follows:
“Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity, which is ideal but not always achievable, neither is it the result of a vote.”
That little caveat lets a mob mentality take over. It lets a group of editors who want to control a specific narrative have their way. Biased editors on Wikipedia then control the narrative of specific pages, making it nearly impossible to correct misinformation.
“As long as I count the Votes, what are you going to do about it?” — William M. “Boss” Tweed
Lord of the Flies Mentality Takes Hold
For those not familiar with Lord of the Flies, it is a 1954 novel that inspired several movies and became a study in mob rule. It follows kids stranded on an island who attempt to self-govern.
Unfortunately, it ends in disaster. They wind up doing whatever they want, regardless of what is good for the community as a whole.
This type of mob mentality often takes place with Wikipedia pages. A few editors get together and share a similar personal point of view on an article.
When you try to change something based on a reliable source, they revert it for whatever reason they decided. If they lack a valid policy reason, it often comes down to an “I don’t like it” argument. The mob will agree with each other, and you are out of luck regardless of what you do.
This gets very frustrating and often causes people to give up. But don’t! You can do many things to help, such as going to noticeboards and getting help from Wikiprojects.
Unblockable Editors and Civility
Now that you see how editors get away with violating guidelines for their own benefit, you should also expect an issue with civility. You will come across editors who accuse you of having a conflict of interest or being a “newbie” because they don’t want to address the actual content issue.
There is no way around this. Wikipedia editors act superior and want you to know that they are in charge. It’s the same as the mob mentality described above, and God forbid you challenge their authority.
When this happens, don’t attack back.
Stay calm, because anything inflammatory only makes things worse and may get you blocked. An admin could also protect the article so you cannot edit it at all.
So, what can you do when you have a problem with a toxic and likely unblockable editor?
Overcoming Problem Editors
Now that I have scared you and made you believe it is impossible to beat editors such as these, there is a bright side.
You can beat some of these editors, and people have.
To do this, you need to be precise in your arguments while still adhering to Wikipedia guidelines. Over the years, I have learned the editing behaviors of various editors and know what they like to see and what they don’t. I know how things need to be worded, which sections to use, and which sources editors consider reliable. This gives me an advantage when advising clients on how to deal with biased editors in Wikipedia.
It’s like surgery.
Every Wikipedia page is different, and every editor you go up against is different. You need to evaluate their edit history and know what types of edits they are likely to revert. You also need to know who is watching the article and likely to jump in and assist the mob mentality. It is a difficult process, but you can master it if you monitor these editors’ behaviors.
There is also a way to get help outside of editing the page directly and edit warring. You can use the talk page to elicit feedback from other editors. You can also take up the issue with certain Wikiprojects that cover the topic you are editing. Finally, Wikipedia has noticeboards where you can settle content disputes.
Now, make sure you approach these methods carefully. They can sometimes cause more issues if you state your complaint in a way that makes editors feel inferior. When editors feel attacked, they are less likely to listen to your complaint.
Final Thoughts
Yes, Wikipedia is frustrating. Even with guidelines, editors don’t always follow them. It can be difficult to get something edited if you don’t have thousands of edits and years of experience on the site. Mob mentality rules, and it can be hard to work with editors, especially on a highly controversial topic.
Make sure to stay calm and be patient.
Use noticeboards if necessary, and you can always reach out for a consultation if you are running into issues you feel you cannot overcome.