71–80 of 387 posts
This is extremely concerning. Phillip Cross was easily caught because he was running his mouth on twitter, and was blatantly making one-sided edits from his single account. Imagine if a country like Russia makes an orchestrated effort to achieve similar goals, using an army of fake-wikipedia-profiles. They could easily turn Wikipedia into a platform for disseminating propaganda. In fact, I'd be surprised if they have…
"Anti-war" doesn't sound like a particularly descriptive adjective for the apparent targets here. They are not anti-war campaigners per se, they seem to be sitting in the Russia-sympathetic zone of discourse. I'm not saying that to discredit them (I might, but I won't), but calling them anti-war rather obscures the problems people might have with them. That doesn't mean that a "one-man" effort to shepherd their Wikip…
This, and many other political arguments I have seen on it before, really makes me think that Wikipedia would benefit from a policy where a sufficient number of individual complaints against a user who has passed some threshold of number of edits to a single article (say 100) would be automatic grounds to block the user from further edits to the article, regardless of fault. I understand that this sort of obsessiveness is also an important asset to Wikipedia (and so they are understandably reluctant to set up obstructions to what it considers its "10x editors"), but in my eyes this pattern of personal crusading and article ownership causes damage to its utility as a source on any contentious topic far in excess of the damage it would suffer even in the worst case of every single editor that has put more than 1000 edits into any single article quitting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like we're missing the context here. Why is wikipedia ignoring it?
The admin who summarily closed the conflict-of-interest report explains his motivation as follows: « You can't amass 130,000 edits, as Philip Cross has, without being reasonably committed to Wikipedia. You'd be noticed if you were an agenda account with that many edits. And being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right. » ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't remember the exact claims I tried to fight, but let's pick a random diagram from the page I linked: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Linux_AP... See if you can spot any inaccuracies. Here are a few: 1. SDL doesn't use libevdev. It uses the kernel ioctls directly: http://hg.libsdl.org/SDL/file/3a50eb90e4b2/src/core/linux/SD... 2. Sockets, netfilter, network protocols are all listed under "ev…
You haven't linked to an article, so I don't have the context here. Where is this diagram included? But I suspect you're running into exactly what I ran into: you're trying to correct a page using yourself as a source. I'm sure you're right (although I think you're nitpicking about the sockets-are-files thing --- not that they are, but rather than I don't think the diagram is making that claim --- it is a _really_ ba…
Next time Jimmy pesters me for a donation I'll be contacting him and citing this as a reason why I won't.
Judging by the time card, I would bet multiple individuals are using this account. And they're probably getting paid to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NeilN isn't the abusive or sinister one here. It is the fact that KalHolmann's posts were closed on the boards that is the issue.
Ok, look at the admin who closed it --- and their talk page, where they talk more about the reason they closed the COI notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG Also no apparent connection to the topic. There over a thousand admins on Wikipedia; most of them don't know or have any connection to each other.
Regarding JzG's reply, it sounds a little disingenuous when they claim Cross is "editing with an opinion" and those bringing COI up are "people with a vested interest." I probably believe those against him have a vested interest, but that Cross who openly admitted to having a feud with the pages of people he edits (TFA's point) is the one operating with acceptable behavior is okay is strange.
It seems like me the best way to address the warring is just to openly discuss it.
