Wiktionary's "Community" is even worse than Wikipedia

[Bbb23sucks]

Wiktionary is run by two hyper-abusive admins - Surjection and Equinox. Both of them routinely verbally harass users and block users for no reason. They have even rewritten the blocking policy so they can block anyone they don't like. On Wikipedia, they (sometimes) at least PRETEND to be nice.

Take this user, all he did was add "hi" to an article. While this is moderately "disruptive", even on Wikipedia at most you would get a small warning. But he was blocked indefinitely.

It's also nearly impossible to expose their abuses since they revdel EVERYTHING (and I mean it) that they don't like.

They even do this something insanely cruel thing - they will randomly revert several of your edits stating "If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.", then if you ask them, they will block you indefinitely. If you try to appeal, they will verbally insult you then disable your talk page access.

Example (archive)

Equinox blocked LlywelynII with an expiration time of 3 days "putting 'A misunderstanding of Wiktionary entries, misparsing' in an Etymology is destructive bullshit to the project, go think about it in your room"

---
Best description I have heard:
"Wiktionary should be accessible for all people despite of faith nationality or skin color, you should get a real job instead of being a dick and sabotaging other people's work."

---
Spam? REVDEL IT! Holocaust denial? Just fine, apparently (archive)

[badmachine]

six posts in 32 minutes? why not collect your thoughts and compose one effortpost?

that said, smaller wikis are easier to wreck

(edited)

[Bbb23sucks]

six posts in 32 minutes? why not collect your thoughts and compose one effortpost?

I prefer several small posts to giant unreadable walls of text.

Edit: I have merged most of the posts.

[wexter]

I think you will have more luck trolling Wookieepedia as it's used more and it's less precise and twice as fanatical.

What would someone interested in dictionaries actually abuse? we know they are pro-nouns so what are they against?

FYI - Reading is fundamental.....

As long as I was spending time following your entrails on Wiktionary - my sense of humor/irony set in.

https://loggerhead.insurance/

Do you really want to buy insurance from a company named loggerhead... brought to you from someone who really needs to use Wiktionary..

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/at_loggerheads#English

We were really at loggerheads about what to do with the money we found on the side of the road; she said we should turn it in, I said we should keep it.

Enough all ready..

[Bbb23sucks]

I think you will have more luck trolling Wookieepedia as it's used more and its less precise and twice as fanatical.
(cut)

Fine. I didn't mean I could NOT read them, just that I prefer basic information first, follow by further details. But you are correct that I am going overboard.

[badmachine]

I think you will have more luck trolling Wookieepedia as it's used more and it's less precise and twice as fanatical.

unwatched/less-watched Wikia wikis are great targets because the vandalism is more likely to persist. in the case of Wookiepedia and maybe a few others with large fanbases, youre less likely to get away with it. wikiquote is fairly easy to game but i havent tried to vandalize it. yet.

[Bbb23sucks]

I think you will have more luck trolling Wookieepedia as it's used more and it's less precise and twice as fanatical.

unwatched/less-watched Wikia wikis are great targets because the vandalism is more likely to persist. in the case of Wookiepedia and maybe a few others with large fanbases, youre less likely to get away with it. wikiquote is fairly easy to game but i havent tried to vandalize it. yet.

What are you vandalizing? Are you trying to expose the truth about wiki(m/p)edia? Otherwise, it is just pointless.

Also, where did you hear that about wikiquote?

[ericbarbour]

Also, where did you hear that about wikiquote?

Here's a deal:

If you agree to not "floodpost" because you're angry about some petty nonsense on a WMF project, I'll post the book-wiki material about Wiktionary. It's ALWAYS been run by abusive paranoiacs, right back to the beginning.

I've merged your first 3 posts.

[Bbb23sucks]

Also, where did you hear that about wikiquote?

Here's a deal:

If you agree to not "floodpost" because you're angry about some petty nonsense on a WMF project, I'll post the book-wiki material about Wiktionary. It's ALWAYS been run by abusive paranoiacs, right back to the beginning.

I've merged your first 3 posts.

Yeah I'll stop. Sorry.

Also, I have something pretty big to post later.

[ericbarbour]

Thank you. And now here's what I've got about Wiktionary--a very minor project, whether the WMF admits it or not. They now have 110 administrators, most of whom are en-WP admins, and who usually do nothing on Wiktionary.

Wiktionary

One of the few Wikimedia projects that isn't an insane mess -- or so it appears to outsiders. In fact, much of the same wargaming and abuse, and many of the same wargamers, are at work on the English Wiktionary. A dictionary would be easier to keep "neutral" than an encyclopedia, yet Wiktionaries had major problems with neutrality.

basic info

The first proposal for a "Wikipedia dictionary" was made in April 2001 by Larry Sanger. It was debated, Jimbo was in favor, Lee Daniel Crocker was opposed. Problems were still evident with the old wiki software they used at the time. It was apparently allowed to drop.

Oddly enough, the article text in the Wikipedia article about Wiktionary currently reads:

"Wiktionary was brought online on December 12, 2002,[3] following a proposal by Daniel Alston and an idea by Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia.[4] "

whereas, right next to it, the infobox simply reads:

"Created by Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia community"

Instead of an administrator's noticeboard or the other usual WP argument pits, en-wiktionary has a "tea room", a "beer parlour", and a "grease pit". Much more decorous than the Wikipedia equivalents. Also quite moribund today.

Wiktionary has a very large group of administrators, listed here. A staggering 104 of them as of 2015, far more than would even be necessary for such a minor project. Note the longtime presence of a few familiar names from en-WP: Pierre Abbat, GerardM, Uncle G, BD2412, Pathoschild, Elizabeth "Versageek" Kilpatrick, Dmcdevit, Thryduulf, and most recently Angr, an actual linguist who has been an en-WP administrator since 2005. Wiktionary adminship appears to be just a minor feather for the wargamer's cap. Many of them also are on Wikisource and Wikibooks. Unusually for the WMF, English Wiktionary does not have an Arbitration Committee or a mediation system.

The official administrator's page does not list all the current admins. In fact, Pathoschild is clearly a Wiktionary admin since 2007, yet appears on no list. Also, as of 2017 most of the listed admins were inactive anyway.

issues

Quote from Kelly Martin: "I was a guest checkuser on enwikt for a while. They, like many other English projects, have a number of enwiki refugees, and have a great deal of animosity toward their larger cousin. In addition, like many small projects, the project is basically controlled by a small ingroup, all of whom know one another. Enwikt got hit bad by a vandal who managed to score at least one, if not several, adminships, and then badly vandalized the project. Since then, they've taken a much more authoritarian stance on most aspects of the project."

A typical example of how Wiktionary mishandles editing problems: this. A massive dispute between Brian Speer and Kwamikagami, one of many over the years. Just like English Wikipedia, but worse -- admins on Wiktionary automatically block and disable all access by users they don't like. They also evidently censor the record, as the linked discussion on Speer's talkpage has completely vanished. WR thread. The two have fought many times, but the only record remaining is virtually always on en-WP's noticeboards.

Quote: "I can't speak to Kwami's actions at Wiktionary, not having reviewed them. The language Kwami used here is certainly too harsh, but I can honestly understand his frustrations having had a similar experience with EncycloPetey on Wiktionary. (I was blocked for an hour for trivial matters and then reblocked when I challenged his actions as being contrary to Wiktionary's published guidelines.) It was an insightful experience, as I learned (through extensive discussions with another admin there) that Wiktionary's standards for punitive actions are far, far stricter than here. Blocks are handed out in a manner that would certainly lead to desysopping on Wikipedia. --Ckatzchatspy 05:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC) "

jp-wiktionary

According to this article, the Japanese Wiktionary "fell apart" in 2005 due to some kind of dispute between two editors.

Urdu wiktionary

Per Tarantino[1]: "Over 9,000 pages were deleted last October from the Urdu Wiktionary by wmf contractor Sam Reed, because they were lifted directly from urduencyclopedia.org." Resulting in a DMCA claim from Urdu Encyclopedia. Oopsie.