Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.4K

No, I am not kidding. Yes, it is indeed stupid.

Wikipedia has this completely absurd and counterproductive policy called ******.

If you are merely suspected to be evading a block, the rule G5 allows everything you created to be deleted, even if their content is legitimate.

Now imagine someone using your IP adddress or a close IP address happens to have a blocked Wikipedia account that is older than yours and spoofs their browser's user agent to match yours.

Then they could fool a so-called CheckUser into not just blocking you, but deleting all your correct redirects, legitimate articles you started and templates you created.

This is how ridiculous their rule G5 is.

If Wikipedia was serious about their purpose, rule G5 would not exist.

No, I am not kidding. Yes, it is indeed stupid. Wikipedia has this completely absurd and counterproductive policy called ***[WP:G5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:G5)***. If you are merely suspected to be evading a block, the rule *G5* allows everything you created to be deleted, even if their content is legitimate. ---- Now imagine someone using your IP adddress or a close IP address happens to have a blocked Wikipedia account that is older than yours and spoofs their browser's user agent to match yours. Then they could fool a so-called *CheckUser* into not just blocking you, but **deleting all your correct redirects, legitimate articles you started and templates you created.** This is how ridiculous their *rule G5* is. If Wikipedia was serious about their purpose, rule *G5* would not exist.

(post is archived)

[–] • 1 pt

That’s stupid.

[–] • 1 pt

Absolutely it is.

But whoever criticizes this rule will also likely get blocked.

Wikipedia administrators are .

[–] • 1 pt

My IP is already blocked so I don't really have to care.

[–] • 0 pt

Why did they block your IP? Because of their political agenda?

(Wikipedia proclaims **)

[–] • 1 pt

I believe that most online organizations have gone this way, where a few toxic individuals use their passive aggressive ways to climb to the top and poison everything with their behavior.

Additionally, wikipedia does have a certain agenda so it attracts more of those individuals (similarly to reddit), though I have heard that metapedia suffers from a similar ubiquity of toxic persons.

[–] • 1 pt

In , a Metapedia admin (volunteer, not site staff, as far as I know), whose name is Westwall, has been exposed as hostile.

[–] • 1 pt

I just read the report, and I have heard much worse than that through the years. I believe that this is one of the reasons metapedia hasn't taken off like it could. I remember there have been one or two forks as well.

[–] • 1 pt

There was a fork called RightPedia.info.

The other administrators such as Thore (buerocrat) and Hyperobeer appear nicer, but they have not taken action against hostile admin Westwall so far.

[–] • 1 pt

and I have heard much worse than that through the years.

Feel free to share, especially if the communities are still like that.