Re: Abd banned from the WMF projects
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:59 pm
IMO Wikiversity is almost a "dead" project anyway.....less than 10 people are generating ALL the recent changes.
BADSITEBADSITEBADSITE
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/
Mutineer wrote:By the page views, this is one of our most popular threads. I dunno why. Maybe it's Abd refreshing it constantly.
Or, rather, to get the story, one needs to see a lot of evidence, and Wikipedia is terrible at arranging that -- they hate actual documentation -- and social media fora like this can be not a hell of a lot better.
I was banned on Wikipediocracy, some years ago, without warning. Why?
It could be because the place is overrun with Wikipedians with their Wikipedian understandings of what constitutes harassment and disruption, so there tends to be lots of, shall we say, synergy, in their thinking.Abd wrote:I was banned on Wikipediocracy, some years ago, without warning. Why?
"Abd had a long career as a critic of the WMF. He's a banned member here. Not all the interactions were unpleasant. He is a man of some intellect and strongly-held convictions."
The problem is not the software, but the community habits and reactivity. I did organize evidence on Wikipedia, before ArbComm, using hypertext. As a result, that evidence was deleted, though an MfD filed to suppress it and most of my Wikipedia studies. As to centralizing, not enough, perhaps, I got busy with other things, and I have actually just now hidden much of what I've written, because ... if you are going to shoot the King, don't miss. What I have uncovered is larger than occasional admin dysfunction. What it takes to get someone WMF banned with no TOS violations is also what it takes to get web sites taken down, etc., and ... these people have done that, many times!sashi wrote:Or, rather, to get the story, one needs to see a lot of evidence, and Wikipedia is terrible at arranging that -- they hate actual documentation -- and social media fora like this can be not a hell of a lot better.
It's not the software alone, a lot of it is rules of presentation of evidence (500 words max at AE for example). I think you can use mediawiki to organize evidence quite simply and as thoroughly as need be. Of course you can do the same with any text editor. Have you centralized your story somewhere?
I was banned on Wikipediocracy, some years ago, without warning. Why?
See, here a link to a memorable thread would have been really handy...
Mutineer wrote:"Abd had a long career as a critic of the WMF. He's a banned member here. Not all the interactions were unpleasant. He is a man of some intellect and strongly-held convictions."
Zoloft's chief characteristic is pomposity. I mean how dare he judge a person like that. He should quit Wikipediocracy and go take up up residence at WP:AN/ANI.
"But how can we help Wikipedia" said Zoloft, basically, in his suspenders and belt.
Abd wrote:Try to tell me that I'm lying about what I've seen, I may get a little testy.
Graaf Statler wrote:It is not about if you are lying or not. I'm a complete unknown Dutch artisan, did not one edit wrong, but criticize Dutch wikpedians, that was all. Because they were lying, trolling, corrupt and breaking the Dutch copyright law. It's a pity it is in Dutch but on my blog you can find many, many evidences of that. But THEY were protected, first by the Meta stewards, and later by WMF with a SanFanBan. Again, the evidences for what I am claming you can find with links on my blog and you can find a explanation in (broken) English here. It is pure slander and defamation, but that is the way they work. They don't need lies, they need rumours, that's enough for them to SanFanBan someone.
ericbarbour wrote:Ask this guy about Google defamation:
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechcon ... rom-google