Sounds like a lite version of Bbb23.
Added to hall of shame leaderboard immediately .
Thanks for sharing!
Sounds like a lite version of Bbb23.
Added to *hall of shame* leaderboard **immediately**.
## **Thanks for sharing!**
• 5y
Disclaimer: The following text is not meant as criticism of Metapedia itself , but criticism of one particular administrator .
I formally asked(de.metapedia.org) the de.Metapedia.org administrator Westwall on his talk page about why he did this(de.metapedia.org) edit (removing Tehran , Iran's capital city, from the new article suggestions). I also suggested him to use the edit comment feature to explain such removals.
Instead of actually addressing my legitimate question, Westwall distracted from the topic and referred me to an alleged formatting error I created.
His lousy reply(de.metapedia.org) translated to English:
[Using an edit comment] would be good, but [I am not obligated to write an edit comment]. In the meantime, one does [you do] better correct your formatting error in the Article [about] Wikipedia(de.metapedia.org), instead of asking why Tehran was removed.
That was the moment when I already realized that Westwall is a corrupt administrator, and I already foresought that he is about to suspend my account.
In my next reply(de.metapedia.org), I asked where exactly the alleged formatting errorerror is. And frankly, it would have been easier for him to just take 15 seconds and correct that himself, instead of commanding another user to do it.
I also kindly pointed out that he should be able to explain his uncomprehensible edit if asked about it, which he failed to do.
Shortly after, I reverted(de.metapedia.org) his unexplained edit.
The suspension.
The next time I opened Metapedia, I already expected to be suspended, because it can be expected from an administrator that delivers such a lousy answer to a legitimate question. This behavioural pattern seems familiar.
And my guess was not wrong.
The alleged reason(de.metapedia.org) for my suspension is edit-warring (because of one revert), anti-social behaviour (describes himself, actually), and a random accusation of being a user called Part Time City Troll , who was banned from Metapedia in October 2019.
Legitimate questions are not “anti-social behaviour” . The same hypocrite that suspends a user for a simple question accuses me of being anti-social ? Ridiculous.
I wrote a statement on my talk page, from which most of this text is translated.
A few hours later, Westwall has made clear that he has noticed(de.metapedia.org) the statement on my talk page. But obviously, his response does not address any of the points in my statement.
As of posting this (2020-02-29), Westwall still has not addressed any of my points. If any of my points were wrong, he would have responded, but when his misconduct is exposed, he just keeps his mouth shut.
On 2020-02-26, I have already mailed the buerocrats of de.metapedia.org (MediaWiki buerocrats can enable and revoke administrative privileges), but apparently, they abruptly went inactive on 2020-02-25. Hopefully, they will be back as soon as possible.
When I joined Metapedia, I thought it would be a space free from rogue administrators, because Metapedia was originally created in response of Wikipedia's leftist bias. Sadly, I was wrong, but I hope Westwall is the only administrator this phenomenon, and that his privileges will soon be revoked.
I am not suggesting to suspend Westwall entirely, because his non-administrative contributions look good. But he evidently is very unsuitable as an administrator.
Administrators who abuse their powers and then refuse to acknowledge their misconduct are those who harm the reputation of a site. The world would be better off with fewer of those.
↓ expand content
Disclaimer: The following text is **not** meant as criticism of Metapedia **itself**, but criticism of **one particular administrator**.
----
I formally [asked](https://de.metapedia.org/m/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion%3AWestwall&type=revision&diff=1230887&oldid=1229517) the de.Metapedia.org administrator *Westwall* on his talk page about why he did [this](https://de.metapedia.org/m/index.php?title=Metapedia:Artikelw%C3%BCnsche&curid=1770&diff=1230880&oldid=1230879) edit (removing *Tehran*, Iran's capital city, from the new article suggestions). I also suggested him to use the *edit comment* feature to explain such removals.
Instead of actually addressing my legitimate question, Westwall distracted from the topic and referred me to an alleged formatting error I created.
His lousy [reply](https://de.metapedia.org/m/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Westwall&diff=prev&oldid=1230888) translated to English:
> [Using an edit comment] would be good, but [I am not obligated to write an edit comment]. In the meantime, one does [you do] better correct your formatting error in the Article [about] [Wikipedia](https://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia), instead of asking why *Tehran* was removed.
That was the moment when I already realized that Westwall is a corrupt administrator, and I already foresought that he is about to suspend my account.
In my [next reply](https://de.metapedia.org/m/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion%3AWestwall&type=revision&diff=1230975&oldid=1230888), I asked where exactly the alleged formatting errorerror is. And frankly, it would have been easier for him to just take 15 seconds and correct that himself, instead of commanding another user to do it.
I also kindly pointed out that he should be able to explain his uncomprehensible edit if asked about it, which he failed to do.
Shortly after, I [reverted](https://de.metapedia.org/m/index.php?title=Metapedia:Artikelw%C3%BCnsche&diff=prev&oldid=1230974) his unexplained edit.
## **The suspension.**
The next time I opened Metapedia, I already expected to be suspended, because it can be expected from an administrator that delivers such a lousy answer to a legitimate question. This behavioural pattern seems familiar.
**And my guess was not wrong.**
The alleged [reason](https://de.metapedia.org/m/index.php?title=Spezial:Logbuch/block&page=Benutzer%3AAnon8) for my suspension is edit-warring (because of *one* revert), anti-social behaviour (describes himself, actually), and a random accusation of being a user called *Part Time City Troll*, who was banned from Metapedia in October 2019.
Legitimate questions are **not** *“anti-social behaviour”*. The same hypocrite that suspends a user for a simple question accuses **me** of being *anti-social*? Ridiculous.
----
I wrote a statement on my talk page, from which most of this text is translated.
A few hours later, Westwall has made clear that [he has noticed](https://de.metapedia.org/m/index.php?title=Metapedia:Intern&diff=prev&oldid=1231040#Anon8_alias_Part_Time_City_Troll) the statement on my talk page. But obviously, his response does not address **any** of the points in my statement.
As of posting this (2020-02-29), Westwall still has not addressed any of my points. If any of my points were wrong, he would have responded, but when his misconduct is exposed, he just keeps his mouth shut.
On 2020-02-26, I have already mailed the *buerocrats* of de.metapedia.org (MediaWiki *buerocrats* can enable and revoke administrative privileges), but apparently, they abruptly went inactive on 2020-02-25. Hopefully, they will be back as soon as possible.
When I joined Metapedia, I thought it would be a space free from rogue administrators, because Metapedia was originally created in response of Wikipedia's leftist bias. Sadly, I was wrong, but I hope Westwall is the only administrator this phenomenon, and that his privileges will soon be revoked.
I am not suggesting to suspend Westwall entirely, because his non-administrative contributions look good. But he evidently is very unsuitable as an administrator.
Administrators who abuse their powers and then refuse to acknowledge their misconduct are those who harm the reputation of a site. The world would be better off with fewer of those.
(post is archived)