Mods are stupid

[Bbb23Hater]

Sometimes they block you for no reason. Then they make you wait half a year for them to even CONSIDER unblocking you, even if you have great evidence against the accusations.

[wexter]

Sometimes they block you for no reason. Then they make you wait half a year for them to even CONSIDER unblocking you, even if you have great evidence against the accusations.

There is no way you should be adversely affected by the "judgement" of the Wikipedia crowd.

It's a toxic culture where a small set of people elevate themselves by pushing other/new/expert/thinking "good faith" participants of the website down.

The toxic culture comes from the very top; with the Bradv example of "conflict of interest editing" providing cover for the bad and behavior of the founder.

Making Wikipedia part of a course curriculum elevates and insulates an editor such as Piotrus who has been coordinating propaganda on Wikipedia for more than a decade. Being a non-profit, embedding a work product with less than 1% total accuracy into education, and dominating search all serve to elevate a toxic and flawed website.

The only benefit of having a Wikipedia account resides in understanding how toxic and dysfunctional the social network is for participants and how it preys on the vulnerable. The consumers of information from Wikipedia are being duped.

Don't let the Wikipedia judge you.. instead stand in judgement of Wikipedia based on the facts listed here on Wikipedia Sucks.

[oranges33]

I was globally banned many years ago because someone mistakenly thought I was another person (who is now dead, they were apparently abusing pages I had edited before when they were alive). A Wikipedia administrator of French nationality appealed my ban without me asking him to. This prompted them to change their mind about me being a sock puppet at the time, and then they added me to the globally banned list. Having other people appeal for you is apparently ban worthy itself, but I never asked that dude to appeal my ban.

My account they globally banned me on has been accused of being at least 4 different people by administrators/mods. Never shared the account with anyone so dunno what their issue is. The admins/mods there are pretty bad. The account they globally banned didn't even have any disruptive edits except maybe a single one that wasn't even the one that prompted any bans. Never been banned from Facebook once since I joined 15 years ago but banned from all Wikimedia sites, bizarre.

Multiple people have told me you can't really reverse a ban so never emailed wmf about it. No real point either. You can get banned from the wiki arbitrarily just for having a wrong opinion since gamergate.

[ericbarbour]

I was globally banned because someone mistakenly thought I was another person (who is now dead). A Wikipedia administrator of French nationality appealed my ban without me asking him to. This prompted them to add me to the globally banned list.

My account they globally banned me on has been accused of being at least 4 different people by administrators/mods. The admins/mods there are retarded honestly.

Safaque? I looked thur the histories and damned if I can figure out why Safaque was chased off so aggressively.

This is routine. They WILL NOT admit it, but WP operates more like 4chan or Something Awful than an "encyclopedia". The operators are seat-of-the-pants types with ADHD and no discernible attention span, who are allowed to do foolish things every day. You're receiving "average" treatment.

[oranges33]

I was globally banned because someone mistakenly thought I was another person (who is now dead). A Wikipedia administrator of French nationality appealed my ban without me asking him to. This prompted them to add me to the globally banned list.

My account they globally banned me on has been accused of being at least 4 different people by administrators/mods. The admins/mods there are retarded honestly.

Safaque? I looked thur the histories and damned if I can figure out why Safaque was chased off so aggressively.

This is routine. They WILL NOT admit it, but WP operates more like 4chan or Something Awful than an "encyclopedia". The operators are seat-of-the-pants types with ADHD and no discernible attention span, who are allowed to do foolish things every day. You're receiving "average" treatment.

Don't really see any benefit to doxxing myself further here although a couple WP admins are clearly are tailing me and others because of the presence of overzealous banned people here. I made the mistake of edit warring with what you call "wiki nukes" on my now globally banned account, even though that wasn't my intention when joining. Might be the reason they added me to the globally banned list after an administrator appealed my ban.

The (super old) account they globally banned me on was kind of amateur, and I've gotten a lot better at wiki editing since then and think I'd be a really good Wikipedia editor at this point. Not sure if any of that matters to them though.

[oranges33]

They WILL NOT admit it

They won't even talk in PMs. I went to IRC years ago to ask why my account was globally banned and it was just silence. I PMd a person there and also just silence. Went onto Quora and there's like thousands of people complaining about Wikipedia administrators, and the consensus there is overwhelmingly negative about Wikipedia staff. So your right it's pretty average treatment I'm receiving, I just got a larger inflammatory response because I made the mistake of edit warring with "wiki nukes".

Later some internal Wikipedia discussion was leaked and people were discussing my global ban as a mistake, but figured I was put on the list again after they confirmed the initial account wasn't a sock, because one of my websites had a page on a wikipedia admin or something. But the page didn't even have anything identifiable about the admin or anything.

[oranges33]

On RationalWiki they said I was globally banned from Wikipedia because I have bad takes on incels. But... it wasn't me who described "incel" as a life circumstance for 15 years, that was the English Wikipedia community that did that for 15 years. They had the most incel-sympathetic articles for like 15 years, more sympathetic than you could find anywhere else on the net.

An example https://web.archive.org/web/20121205160 ... wiki/Incel
That was one was even scrutinized and allowed to stay by admins.

Are they going to retroactively ban themselves for doing that? Doubt it.

[Ognistysztorm]

The worst part is many regular people are OBLIVIOUS about the true dysfunctional nature of Wikipedia, and like to think that you have certainly done something wrong if you are blocked, even if it's just a bullshit done by admins out of power-plays. This is unlike cult groups and other "problematic" social media services namely Facebook and TikTok where the mainstream audiance are pretty clear about their downsides even if some thinks that ignorance is bliss.

Endless moaning and groaning is going to be bad for your health in the long run, so instead of that we should strategize a real effort and band with other critics and disgruntled editors in order to dethrone Wikipedia from its undeserving altar. One lead that seems very promising is that there is a second Holocaust scandal with one of its participants a chomo trafficker, however the investigating reporter is afraid to get it on print for fear of Wikipedia's vexatious lawsuits.

Possible ways to bypass that include involving Anonymous group as a messenger and cannon fodder which was so far so good because of the CCP defilements incident last fall, making "small-bore" complaints to authorities about Wikipedia's technical violations and slowly feed them with more juicy secrets i.e. pedo scandals, make a fund and plan to reward and protect defectors who is willing to go Snowden against Wikipedia, and finally make a fictional horror flick depicting how a "fictional encyclopedia" corrupts a soul, as a warmup. Submit it to as many contests and self-publishing platforms as you want, and if Amazon and so accepts it go even further by making it into a movie.

Or, wait for the Holocaust scandal itself to go beyond a point of no return, soften up everyone to Wikipedia's dysfunctional nature and erode any basis Wikipedia would use in its vexatious lawsuit against whistleblowers.