Olympic articles and contributors on Wikipedia

[MantaRaymarc 132]

Who among you knows "Sportsfan 1234?"

 

A user named Sportsfan 1234 wanted to be permanently "entitled" on the WikiProject Olympics, endlessly reverting the edits of others on Olympics, filing deletion discussions about the Olympic articles because of the GNG and NOLYMPICS guidelines, and moving the existing articles to drafts because they do not have sufficient sources.

 

Lately, he posted a section on my username in the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, proposing a topic ban towards my end on Olympics. I strive to defend my case because I have done nothing wrong about my contributions. Because of his "entitlement", he convinced other editors and administrators to support a topic ban proposal against my will on Wikipedia; hence, I ranted and unleashed my personal attacks to stop this nonsensical issue. Consequently, I was blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia. I do not know how long this case would last? I could not get the opportunity to edit any Olympic-related articles. Who will clean up the "messes"? Who will monitor the qualification process for the Games?

 

I have nothing else but to blame Sportsfan 1234. He is responsible for raising any issues against me. He does not want me to edit anymore as he agrees to impose a topic ban. I already filed an appeal but the administrators denied it several times to succeed. I urgently need your help to win my appeal for unblock.

 

What shall I tell the administrators to successfully file an unblock request? Thank you!

 

Wikipedia username: Raymarcbadz

Edited June 28, 2023 by Sindo

[JoshMartini007 2,813]

I can't help you with your current issue, but Sportsfan1234 has pretty much made it their mission to bring up sport articles up to "Wikipedia" standards. They rather have a few good pages instead of "result dumps" with the primary being the only source. This hurts smaller events and nations who don't have much of a media presence (especially in English).

 

He has Wikipedia admins on their side because it is the correct way of doing things, but it will come at a cost of knowledge preservation.

[MantaRaymarc 132]

3 hours ago, JoshMartini007 said:

I can't help you with your current issue, but Sportsfan1234 has pretty much made it their mission to bring up sport articles up to "Wikipedia" standards. They rather have a few good pages instead of "result dumps" with the primary being the only source. This hurts smaller events and nations who don't have much of a media presence (especially in English).

 

He has Wikipedia admins on their side because it is the correct way of doing things, but it will come at a cost of knowledge preservation.

Exactly. I do not understand why he trusted a group of Wikipedia admins to set restrictions and standards on the sport articles, especially the Olympics.

 

This would become a major problem for countries with a slight media presence and a rigorous demand on more constructive and reliable content. 

Edited June 28, 2023 by MantaRaymarc

[Bearas 602]

Although I do agree that Sportsfan 1234 contributions are often non productive and this user don't bring much to the table rather than hate in the community, I do find it ridiculous hearing that their contributions is brining articles up to Wikipedia standards, considering that their are extremely biased towards Canadian sport and Northern American sport articles and often have much poorer standards or nobility requirements towards those... Let's be honest, one day he will end up in your shoes too...

 

On the other hand, I've observed Raymarcbadz doing the exact same things to Olympic articles that they are complaining about. I've seen numerous unnecessary edits reverting contributions from other editors or rewriting it to own liking without justification over the years... I do hope you get your editing rights back, but you might want to reflect are you not acting the same?

 

I'm not really active on English wikipedia as all of my contributions are directed in other languages wikis and I only refer to English wiki when looking for inspiration or some good references, as I do think at the moment there are too many cooks in the kitchen and there's nothing but fights amongst the editors in sports community...

[Olympian1010 8,276]

Yeah, I was thinking about getting into Wikipedia editing a while back, and then I looked at the multi-sport games and Olympic projects, and gave that a hard pass. I’d love to converse with those people, like I do with y’all on here, but I’m not trying to get into the quagmire of editing debates and rules.

Edited June 28, 2023 by Olympian1010

[MantaRaymarc 132]

6 hours ago, Bearas said:

Although I do agree that Sportsfan 1234 contributions are often non productive and this user don't bring much to the table rather than hate in the community, I do find it ridiculous hearing that their contributions is brining articles up to Wikipedia standards, considering that their are extremely biased towards Canadian sport and Northern American sport articles and often have much poorer standards or nobility requirements towards those... Let's be honest, one day he will end up in your shoes too...

Time will tell if this user will end up being blocked and topic-banned. He's more "entitled", abusive, and authoritative than mine. He insists to revert my edits and other users involved and putting negative remarks on the summary, such as "grammar" and "disruptive editing." And yes, Bearas. Many editors agree to restrain the standards on the notability guidelines for the articles, causing the regular editors, including me, to engage in a community-based conflict. Surely, the articles for the succeeding Olympics would no longer be useful because of these circumstances. 

 

6 hours ago, Bearas said:

I do hope you get your editing rights back, but you might want to reflect are you not acting the same?

Yes, I'm hoping for my editing rights to restore. I don't want to intensify personal attacks toward editors over and over again. At this moment, Sportsfan 1234's "entitlement" is more apparent than my case.

[MantaRaymarc 132]

6 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

Yeah, I was thinking about getting into Wikipedia editing a while back, and then I looked at the multi-sport games and Olympic projects, and gave that a hard pass. I’d love to converse with those people, like I do with y’all on here, but I’m not trying to get into the quagmire of editing debates and rules.

Best not to check and edit Wikipedia at this moment as the conflict between me and the administrators entrusted to the user arises. Their rules are already tightened because of the recently established GNG and NOLYMPICS guidelines.

 

In the near future, Wikipedia administrators would impose general sanctions on the Wikiproject Olympics, including source citations and publishing new articles. I predict that because of these guidelines, more users are required to produce high-quality Olympic-related articles, i.e. proper citation, personal life (for Olympic athletes), historical background (see this NOC article), results summary, and many more. Failure to comply with these measures would entail a more severe sanction toward a member of the Wiki community, and if repeatable, he or she will be indefinitely blocked or topic-banned. So tragic.

[Griff88 2,018]

Ahhh Sportsfan1234

He deleted his user page so it's harder to find him. I once got into trouble with his standards and decided it's best not to engage with this person.

 

Btw @hckošiceyou're now getting dragged to this too   (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sportsfan_1234)

[hckošice 15,873]

14 minutes ago, Griff88 said:

Btw @hckošiceyou're now getting dragged to this too   (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sportsfan_1234)

I feel honored. I assume it is my first mention in the wikipedia world

[Vektor 3,326]

This is just another example how Wikipedia is fucked up. It controls the knowledge of millions and millions, maybe billions of people. The editors and admins have an insane amount of power in their hands, and they are just some random folks who happen to have free time to edit and control Wikipedia. It's too much power in the hands of anonym people. The concept of Wikipedia is great, but it became too big and too popular for its own good and now it's viewed as the #1 source of information by huge number of people.