Understanding why I was blocked indefinitely

[adamovicm]

Hi guys,

I was blocked on 10 May 2023 (UTC) with this message:
"You were warned last month about editing the article directly, despite the fact that you have a clear conflict of interest, but you have continued to do so, both using this account, and while logged out. This is not acceptable. I considered just blocking you from that particular article, but since it seems to be the only article you have any interest in, I am making it a site-wide block." by Girth Summit

I have tried to explained that I was not warned by an admin as far as I know, but by the single user. I have then found COI policy and have found that COI edits are discouraged but allowed if done under certain circumstances (I have thought that whatever is done "in good faith" would not create me problems).

So what I did in May is the following:
1) I went to Talk:Numbeo opened several disputes and edited the page as Disputed (seems legit to me for the CEO with COI, if he opens multiple disputes for the page).
2) As the page was in a poor state and there was a lack of interest I suggested the page for Deletion (seems legit to me as I have read that everyone can suggest the page for deletion).
3) I have removed the description of "Founded in April 2009, Numbeo claims itself to be a "collaborative online database" which enables users to "share and compare information about the cost of living between countries and cities"" that used the broken link http://www.icaew.com/en/library/subject ... omparisons
Even in Internet Archives that claim could not be found on that link. So it was a seriously broken description. I don't know any other website whose description contains "claims itself to be", if someone can inform me of such cases that would be nice. I didn't want to write a description as I have COI, so I left it to someone else to write (if any).

Removing invalid stuff, suggesting the page for deletion and opening several disputes seems to me for a page that was seriously vandalized seems legit to me.

So I don't really understand why I was blocked. Perhaps there were better actions to do, but I guess no one in Wikipedia always does the best actions. I don't see anything I've done in May was done in bad faith.

I have asked the admin for clarification but haven't got any. I haven't seen some kind of Wikipedia policy forum so I'm asking this in this forum.

Could someone explain to me, why I was blocked indefinitely actually?

SIDE NOTE with another question

Someone came to the Numbeo page and suggested the page for Deletion, User:Nubiamerges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... biaemerges
I was looking into his changes and it really looks like someone's sockpuppet, but it wasn't my sockpuppet.
I'm sorry guys, if I'd create a sockpuppet to edit the page, I'd edit it with more style than that.
As I always use certain user agents and my edit style history is different than from Nubiaemerges, it's easy to see that's not my sockpuppet.

Who the fuck is that Nubiamerges user?
He was blocked after that change.

Maybe someone who wanted anonymously to suggest a page for deletion.

It seems very unlikely that the user who registered several days ago would suggest Numbeo page for deletion.
He left the message on his user page: "why was my account block as a checkuserblock? There was no justification for this." that stayed unanswered.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

If Nubiamerges was blocked with a checkuser block, that means the blocking admin is claiming there's technical information (IP address, user agent...) linking them to another account. Could it be someone using the same IP address as you, for example?

[adamovicm]

Could it be someone using the same IP address as you, for example?

I'd know if other users edit the Numbeo page using my IP address unless someone injected a virus or something on one of my devices (that I found extremely unlikely considering that I'm using mostly Manjaro Linux).

[Boing! said Zebedee]

Could it be someone using the same IP address as you, for example?

I'd know if other users edit the Numbeo page using my IP address unless someone injected a virus or something on one of my devices (that I found extremely unlikely considering that I'm using mostly Manjaro Linux).

Well, they say they found a technical connection of some sort - but they won't reveal what it is (as that's forbidden by checkuser policy).

[adamovicm]

Well, they say they found a technical connection of some sort - but they won't reveal what it is (as that's forbidden by checkuser policy).

I have opened a checkuser policy:

The tool should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to use the CheckUser tools to investigate a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (examples of violations include double-voting, increasing the apparent support for any given position, or to evade blocks or bans).

While there was a valid reason to use CheckUser tool in this case, I found almost impossible that he used my rare user agents, my IP addresses and probably geolocation was different (as more than 99% of users have different geo than me).

It wasn't me as I stated, so I just asked if anyone have an idea who the fuck is that guy. It could be another blocked or banned user although.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

It wasn't me as I stated, so I just asked if anyone have an idea who the fuck is that guy. It could be another blocked or banned user although.

Yes indeed. It could easily be a known troublemaker pretending to be a sock, to try to get you into socking trouble (a "joe job" as it's known). I've no idea why people do that, but it happens quite a lot.

I doubt anyone will have any idea who it is, though.

[Ognistysztorm]

CheckUser™ is never an all-perfect magic 8-ball to begin with. All on Wikipedia should consider yourselves warned that things like that will invite privacy law related nightmares one day.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

CheckUser™ is never an all-perfect magic 8-ball to begin with.

Indeed, it's not even close. Most web sites have far better management tools than the crude Checkuser.

[orangepi]

Probably because, as noted, you seem to have no interest in doing anything other than editing the Numbeo article and wasting other editors' time. Neither of those is something you should be doing on Wikipedia right now, hence the indef block.

[Provost]

How far back does a checkuser go to luck for puppets? One month? Three months? Six?

[Vigilant]

Your account will never be unblocked at this point.

Leave wikipedia, it's brain poison.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

How far back does a checkuser go to luck for puppets? One month? Three months? Six?

The WMF says that non-public personal information (IP address, user agent) is kept for a maximum of 90 days. But I haven't seen any statement of how long checkuser results are kept - they're in a separate checkuser database. And I don't see anything that could stop an individual checkuser admin from keeping a private record for as long as they want.

[adamovicm]

Probably because, as noted, you seem to have no interest in doing anything other than editing the Numbeo article and wasting other editors' time. Neither of those is something you should be doing on Wikipedia right now, hence the indef block.

You are wasting our time here, dude.

I have edited other articles in the past, i.e. Draža Mihailović article.

It's completely legit for the founder of the company to address issues on the company page.

Wikipedia claims it is not censored. Yet any representative of the company would be seen as a kind of puppet.

If this orangepi is Wikipedia insider, I think he should be fired right now.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I await the inevitable locking of this thread and the banning of adamovicm, who doesn't seem to understand that we aren't Wikipedia's help desk.

[adamovicm]

I await the inevitable locking of this thread and the banning of adamovicm, who doesn't seem to understand that we aren't Wikipedia's help desk.

How do you know that I haven't asked the Wikipedia help desk about this one?

[Giraffe Stapler]

How do you know that I haven't asked the Wikipedia help desk about this one?

I don't care who you've asked. I just want you to stop asking here. We can't help you.

[Beeblebrox]

[adamovicm]

I don't care who you've asked. I just want you to stop asking here. We can't help you.

Asking about the admin action that might or might not be justified seems of being an appropriate topic in Wikipedia Critics forum to me if there is no better forum for that kind of stuff. If the admin thinks it is off-topic, he can move it to the off-topic discussion. First, I asked the Wikipedia admin itself, he had more than 10 days opportunity to answer.

Jake can ban me as well if he sees it as justified.

I bet the newspapers would be happy to hear that no one actually answered his question in the Wikipedia Critics forum.
So, if you ban me, Jake, you might get some additional publicity.
Think twice, it seems you have an interest to actually ban me

[Beeblebrox]

I feel like this sort of thing is a bonding experience between the folks here who actually edit Wikipedia and the ones who do not. It's a real taste of what we deal with on WP when someone just won't shut up and listen to anyone, and insists on making everything about themselves.

[Julien]

I bet the newspapers would be happy to hear that no one actually answered his question in the Wikipedia Critics forum.
So, if you ban me, Jake, you might get some additional publicity.
Think twice, it seems you have an interest to actually ban me

I can see it on front page of all the tabloids ... « Man Ignored On Online Forum »

You should sell your story to the press soon, since everyone will be after this juicy scoop ...

[Anroth]

How far back does a checkuser go to luck for puppets? One month? Three months? Six?

The WMF says that non-public personal information (IP address, user agent) is kept for a maximum of 90 days. But I haven't seen any statement of how long checkuser results are kept - they're in a separate checkuser database. And I don't see anything that could stop an individual checkuser admin from keeping a private record for as long as they want.

The relevant policies (data retention & privacy on meta) say, unequivocally, that at most 90 days is the limit for non-public personal info (for the purposes of CU, this would be user-agent primarily).

Unfortunately we know (because people have been banned for it) that technical matches are made over 90 days on non-public personal data. We know checkuser results are sometimes located elsewhere (eg mailing lists, personal records, CU database etc.) What we dont know is the extent, and I doubt we ever will unless the WMF performs an actual audit and publically releases the results, or someone sues them.

What has yet to be tested, and personally I am waiting for someone to have a crack at here in the UK/EU, is that under GDPR it doesnt really matter if the individual CU keeps them locally or not. The CU is a data handler for the WMF, the WMF provides them the authority and access to non-personal public data, and is responsible for where it is kept and how long. The CU has to sign an agreement saying they will comply by the WMF's policies. The WMF's only defense to accusations of data mishandling is that it has robust clear guidelines, appropriate training etc and that it is the individual handler who is at fault. Which to its credit it does have insofar as it comes to the documented policy side (I couldnt say if they provide any actual training regarding same), what it doesnt have, as far as I have attempted to discern over the years, is a sufficiently robust enough process for pro-active auditing. Sure it has reactive audits, but that wont be sufficient if a data commisioner decides to ask them what they did to prevent mis-use.

[adamovicm]

I can see it on front page of all the tabloids ... « Man Ignored On Online Forum »

What I found amazing is the amount of hostility here. The guy asks a specific question about Wikipedia policies and himself, and then gets hammered here.

Boing! said Zebedee was nice to me, explained to me nicely, that no one here probably knows who the Nubiaemares is. Thank you Boing! It would be nice that most other people here are not hostile as well.

If nobody wants to answer the original question, and the admin doesn't want to delete the topic, the topic can be closed after a couple of days.

Jesus, you got to the forum guy who actually designed anti-spam algorithms for various stuff, former Google software engineer, and yet if you don't want to answer his questions (completely legit), you don't have to show hostility, I think.

[Vigilant]

I don't care who you've asked. I just want you to stop asking here. We can't help you.

Asking about the admin action that might or might not be justified seems of being an appropriate topic in Wikipedia Critics forum to me if there is no better forum for that kind of stuff. If the admin thinks it is off-topic, he can move it to the off-topic discussion. First, I asked the Wikipedia admin itself, he had more than 10 days opportunity to answer.

Jake can ban me as well if he sees it as justified.

I bet the newspapers would be happy to hear that no one actually answered his question in the Wikipedia Critics forum.
So, if you ban me, Jake, you might get some additional publicity.
Think twice, it seems you have an interest to actually ban me

You're not listening.

We sympathize with your situation.
We have seen it dozens of times.
We are giving you the factual run down on how we've seen this go before.

You don't seem to understand what we're saying.
You insist that 'things should be different'.
We don't disagree with this, but the reality isn't changing any time soon.

[adamovicm]

Vigilant, I guess your post means we don't know why he blocked you, is that justified or not justified, we don't want to dig deeper into that, there are numerous examples in the past of similar situations?

Just correct me if I was wrong? In plain English, that even I can understand.

Few sentences, straight to the point, no need for endless discussions really.

[tarantino]

Here's a compendium of people who were unhappy with how they or their businesses were portrayed on wikipedia and some of them asked us for advice. It only goes up to 2012 though and rarely was there a happy ending. We should probably put together a list from 2012 to the present.

[Konveyor Belt]

How far back does a checkuser go to luck for puppets? One month? Three months? Six?

The WMF says that non-public personal information (IP address, user agent) is kept for a maximum of 90 days. But I haven't seen any statement of how long checkuser results are kept - they're in a separate checkuser database. And I don't see anything that could stop an individual checkuser admin from keeping a private record for as long as they want.

My impression is that CUs can't see anything before 90 days, but information about long term abuse socking is kept on a private wiki. So even if a notorious sock master hasn't edited in 90 days, they'll be able to find some socks based on past CUs. If someone is newly accused of socking and the socks are older than 90 days, they won't find anything because no past CUs have been run and the fresh CU won't work on the old accounts.

[Midsize Jake]

Just correct me if I was wrong? In plain English, that even I can understand.

Few sentences, straight to the point, no need for endless discussions really.

They blocked you because they define the term "conflict of interest" in a way that suits them, not in the conventional way that everyone else defines it.

So the only way to properly answer the original question is to say that the block was certainly not justified from a conventional, non-Wikipedian perspective — but under Wikipedia's internal, arbitrary, self-imposed rules, based on their definition of the term "conflict of interest," it was.

What you're calling "hostility" on our part is really just frustration. People whose livelihood depends on the internet being an nice, orderly thing will often apply a kind of mental "filter" to things they see happening on the internet, as in, "hey, that can't be right, so I must be looking at it all wrong" — particularly in a case like Wikipedia, which gets glowing reviews all the time about how great and wonderful it is, and how it's the "Last Good Place on the Internet." So, we're thinking that maybe this applies to you too, and while (thankfully) you're already starting to realize that stuff about Wikipedia isn't true, it's still going to take you a few more weeks to reach the point where most of are, cynicism-wise. So, in the meantime, you're going to get people here saying "what's wrong with you, don't you get it?" in just about every other post, which is obviously irritating. Like I wrote at the beginning of the other thread, I'm sorry about that, but it can't really be helped.

FWIW, I agree that this "Nubiamerges" account is probably a joe-job, and although they've gotten better about it in recent years, I believe there are still cases where checkusers will claim an IP address "match" based on two IPs merely geolocating to the same city and ISP. (Back in the old days, the same state or even the same country might have been sufficient.)

[eppur si muove]

Just correct me if I was wrong? In plain English, that even I can understand.

Few sentences, straight to the point, no need for endless discussions really.

What you're calling "hostility" on our part is really just frustration. People whose livelihood depends on the internet being an nice, orderly thing will often apply a kind of mental "filter" to things they see happening on the internet, as in, "hey, that can't be right, so I must be looking at it all wrong" — particularly in a case like Wikipedia, which gets glowing reviews all the time about how great and wonderful it is, and how it's the "Last Good Place on the Internet." So, we're thinking that maybe this applies to you too, and while (thankfully) you're already starting to realize that stuff about Wikipedia isn't true, it's still going to take you a few more weeks to reach the point where most of are, cynicism-wise. So, in the meantime, you're going to get people here saying "what's wrong with you, don't you get it?" in just about every other post, which is obviously irritating. Like I wrote at the beginning of the other thread, I'm sorry about that, but it can't really be helped.

Over in the other thread I wrote

It's an unfortunate fact of life that people who feel hard done by often feel the need to talk about it at length. But a lot of the people who hear about it might not be interested in the matter and can eventually label the aggrieved person a bore. And then their negative reaction can lead to the person who feels that they've been ignored might then go on about it at even greater length, creating a vicious circle

That's partly what's happening here.

Jake's comment above may be more optimistic. In that he suggests that adamovicm is already in the process of getting to realise what things are like. Psychology has the concept of cognitive dissonance in which someone experiences discomfort because how they believe the world should be doesn't align with what they are experiencing and doing.

Adamovicm is in that position of dissonance. He has optimistic belief about people on the internet being helpful and trying to get things right. That after all is something his business relies on. If his business were not being supplied with mostly useful information, then it would be useless. He's approached Wikipedia on the assumption that it is run by decent people who act decently who will appreciate that he's just trying to fix a few mistakes in the article on his company and has been blocked. He's approached his being blocked with the idea that it must be fixable but it is here encountering a mixture of Wikipedians who don't really believe that there is much that needs fixing and non- or ex-Wikipedians who believe it is irreparably broken. Some iiof his beliefs about Wikipedia need to be adjusted before the discomfort of dissonance can be resolved.

[Mojito]

It's a real taste of what we deal with on WP when someone just won't shut up and listen to anyone, and insists on making everything about themselves.

Amen!

[Arishok]

Perhaps I missed it, but I can't find anything on-wiki to indicate that anyone there has actually accused OP of operating or being linked in any way with the Nubiamerges account. Only the latter account is CU-blocked, whereas the OP's block is a standard indef with the only stated socking accusation being logged-out editing.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I bet the newspapers would be happy to hear that no one actually answered his question in the Wikipedia Critics forum.
So, if you ban me, Jake, you might get some additional publicity.
Think twice, it seems you have an interest to actually ban me

I await the inevitable locking of this thread and the banning of adamovicm, who thinks it's a good idea to make veiled threats to unknown people online.

[ScotFinnRadish]

Yes, the newspapers will certainly care about some forum with a few dozen active editors not answering your repeated questions in the way you'd like them answered. Jesus Christ. We don't even care, why do you think someone else would?

[Vigilant]

Vigilant, I guess your post means we don't know why he blocked you, is that justified or not justified, we don't want to dig deeper into that, there are numerous examples in the past of similar situations?

Just correct me if I was wrong? In plain English, that even I can understand.

Few sentences, straight to the point, no need for endless discussions really.

You crossed several red lines for en.wp:
* You edited the article for your own company. WP:COI
* You sent a legal letter and told everyone about it. WP:NLT
* You were seen to contribute here. WP:BADSITES
* You don't seem to take on board what people are saying when they tell you what you're doing wrong. WP:NOTHERE/WP:COMP

There was never a doubt in my mind that you were going to be indef'd.

It's not *your fault*, you were doing what lots of people before you have done when confronted with the shitty people at en.wp.

It's just the wrong way to go about things ON en.wp.

Clear?

[Beeblebrox]

My seldom-cited essay WP:BYENOW (T-H-L) seems relevant here.

[Mason]

On this site and on Wikipedia I used to sometimes offer advice to people who felt they’d been blocked unfairly. If I were doing so today I would suggest you:
- acknowledge the concerns that led to the block (apologies aren’t necessary, just say you understand why the block occurred), and
- explain how you better understand the rules now and will avoid the behavior that led to the block

Also:
- don’t make any excuses whatsoever
- don’t say the block was bad (even if it was) or that the blocking administrator is a dolt (even if they are)
- avoid sarcasm or blaming others, even if there are others who are very much blameworthy.

It’s not guaranteed to work, but in my observation over the years that’s the approach that’s most likely to be successful.

But I don’t offer such advice any more, because in my observation, virtually everyone who’s followed that advice has been successful in getting unblocked, but later reblocked indefinitely after further aggravating people.

Is that a problem with the person who was blocked? Or a Wikipedia problem? Or a simple mismatch between the person and the site? A little of each? Opinions vary.

Anyway, good luck.

[adamovicm]

Only the latter account is CU-blocked, whereas the OP's block is a standard indef with the only stated socking accusation being logged-out editing.

That logged-out editing I made before was really a bad idea. I wanted to play the games with people who ran a very negative article. Instead of discussing in the Talk page with them the problems and finding a solution, I did play some games, and I have just waited for the Admin to come.

When I did the change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1154065253 I intentionally wanted to create an NPOV trap. I later figured out that Wikipedia has no trap policy somewhere. User:Pauline Muley actually didn't notice the trap. Or she has. Who knows.

WP:COI is easily be misinterpreted by someone who is not very deep into Wikipedia policies, "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" probably should be rephrased to "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" (emphasize discouragement even more). I think I have seen somewhere examples on what is allowed and what is not, and I have tried to make my edits adhere to those examples. Unsuccessful, obviously.

[adamovicm]

* You were seen to contribute here. WP:BADSITES
* You don't seem to take on board what people are saying when they tell you what you're doing wrong. WP:NOTHERE/WP:COMP

WP:BADSITES is not actually a policy, WP:NLT I haven't understood on how it is actually enforced at the time of the blocking. While technically speaking I was the person who sent the (withdrawn) letter, it was sent on the behalf of the company. There is a legal distinction between private liability company (fully controlled by myself) and myself, at least in many jourisdictions.

WP:NOTHERE I see how it could easily be understood that it applies to me. There were some issues at the page at the time of the blocking, so while it is easy to see that it could apply, I think WP:AGF and WP:ROPE could apply as well.

I have broken WP:CANVASS policy after being blocked. I didn't know it exists until Mr Grump mentioned it.
I completely understand why it was enforced, however, the extent of canvassing does actually matter in the discussion outcome.

[Vigilant]

* You were seen to contribute here. WP:BADSITES
* You don't seem to take on board what people are saying when they tell you what you're doing wrong. WP:NOTHERE/WP:COMP

WP:BADSITES is not actually a policy, WP:NLT I haven't understood on how it is actually enforced at the time of the blocking.

WP:NOTHERE I see how it could easily be understood that it applies to me. There were some issues at the page at the time of the blocking, so while it is easy to see that it could apply, I think WP:AGF and WP:ROPE could apply as well.

I have broken WP:CANVASS policy after being blocked. I didn't know it exists until Mr Grump mentioned it.
I completely understand why it was enforced, however, the extent of canvassing does actually matter in the discussion outcome.

Do you understand that sometimes even though something isn't 'policy' that it is, in fact, the way things work?

[adamovicm]

Do you understand that sometimes even though something isn't 'policy' that it is, in fact, the way things work?

I understand.

[adamovicm]

But I don’t offer such advice any more, because in my observation, virtually everyone who’s followed that advice has been successful in getting unblocked, but later reblocked indefinitely after further aggravating people.

Yeah, I can see that people tend to behave in certain patterns. While they might understand policies, or how things work better, their behavioral patterns get most of them blocked again.

[adamovicm]

He's approached Wikipedia on the assumption that it is run by decent people who act decently who will appreciate that he's just trying to fix a few mistakes in the article on his company and has been blocked. He's approached his being blocked with the idea that it must be fixable but it is here encountering a mixture of Wikipedians who don't really believe that there is much that needs fixing and non- or ex-Wikipedians who believe it is irreparably broken. Some iiof his beliefs about Wikipedia need to be adjusted before the discomfort of dissonance can be resolved.

If there are no people willing to actually provide decent information to Numbeo, it would be useless and no one would use it. I would not have a need to actually visit Wikipedia article at all. Or to start this conversation.

We have seen many situations where:

• we were unsure if someone is the same user or not
• we were unsure if a certain user is intentionally manipulating the database or mistakenly wrongly inputting certain entries
• we have seen situations where manipulators can stay undetected for months, even years

I can clearly see many situations where Wikipedia admins cannot be sure of something, but they have to act in this way or another. And frequently the best approach is to actually shoot first, only on suspicion of wrongdoing.

I think the guys like this could be the biggest threat to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1154139336
So it looks like he added some positive or neutral content. But is it really so?
He used the reference from Toward a Just Society to mention: "Data on Numbeo is not peer-reviewed, and could be inserted or altered by anyone accessing the website."
The same Toward a Just Society contains this paragraph about Numbeo: "The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was 0.63 between Numbeo and the first and an impressive 0.92 between Numbeo and the second, and the test of independence was decisively rejected in both cases. Despite reasonable misgivings therefore, in our judgment there is no a priori reason to reject the data on the basis of quality.""
And his change of Wikipedia page has the description: "I added more refs, and with the old ones I think we got it."
I'd really like to know what was in his head when he has written that "...we got it".
BTW, I suspect that statement "Data on Numbeo is not peer-reviewed, and could be inserted or altered by anyone accessing the website" could actually appeared first in Wikipedia, to be cross-referenced back, if you haven't watched the video "Why I hate Wikipedia (and you should too!)" it is probably a good time to watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vmSFO1Zfo8

The guys who have an account where it is easy to figure out who is behind the account (like myself) and what are their intentions are much less of a threat than the guys who are much less obvious and where somebody needs to have really an insight into the topic to see something, most other eyes cannot see.

"I added more refs, and with the old ones I think we got it." this could actually mean that Boink Boink could be right about WP:COATRACK .

NOTE: While I wanted to avoid quoting large paragraphs of text, this time I had to do it.

SIDE NOTE: Obviously, Numbeo approach (in collecting prices) has certain problems and flaws: we have to deal with spam, the information can fast become obsolete, and, in the end of the day, many people who don't know what is the actual price of milk in the supermarket, in many cases they will enter what they think it is a price of milk. The biggest problems are the situations of potential manipulators where it's difficult to determine manipulations from genuine contributors and unexpected situations like this: https://imgur.com/sydWd79.png
Did anyone here imagine that we actually have the problem with the high-profile canvassing (that might or might not be canvassing) as well?

Jake, BTW, thanks for your previous answer, and your opinion, I cannot reply to every message here, so I haven't replied to that one.

[Vigilant]

lol

Nobody really cares who you are Crow.

You're an object of pity at this point.

Feed ME!

[Midsize Jake]

Nobody really cares who you are Crow.

You're an object of pity at this point.

To be fair, I actually was thinking we should try using the board's rarely-used poll feature to determine what percentage of us think a Wikipedia ban is a violation of the banned person's human (or civil? or legal?) rights. Mr. Crowsnest is probably correct in that the percentage is very low, but I've always been a bit curious about that.

[adamovicm]

It's a real taste of what we deal with on WP when someone just won't shut up and listen to anyone, and insists on making everything about themselves.

What about this: should individuals and companies be allowed to open content disputes about themselves?

[Vigilant]

It's a real taste of what we deal with on WP when someone just won't shut up and listen to anyone, and insists on making everything about themselves.

What about this: should individuals and companies be allowed to open content disputes about themselves?

There should be an official way for company owners and employees to interact with the article about their company and the volunteer editors on en.wp.

For example, it could be as simple as sending as email with verification (WMF or some other body) and then editing in a special section on the talk page.

Company articles should be handled as carefully as BLPs.

[adamovicm]

There should be an official way for company owners and employees to interact with the article about their company and the volunteer editors on en.wp.

There is even more. Infrequently, in many companies, insiders (i.e. founder) of the company is at the same time expert in that field (knowledge about the company). In this case, Wikipedia is blocking access of the company IP address, it's founder and we have seen in Talk:Numbeo random wikipedians accused of being meatpuppets or sockpuppets.

I have never removed any criticism about Numbeo from Wikipedia pages. Never. Even I was the guy who added that section to the page.

But it got to the point that as Wikipedian Wesley said: "But an article that is 100% condemnatory, almost hostile, is hardly a “neutral point of view.” "

And you know what happened? Wikipedia blocked the founder over disruptive edits, that might not be so disruptive after all.
And everyone else, no investigation at all?

And then Wikipedia Arb member says topic sucks?

Perhaps he should change his opinion? Or he never does?

I know that I sound very irritated at times, but anyone in my skin would feel irritated.

I've got a new interview request, as I mentioned that I refused almost all interviews since 2016 or so... and it's from CNBC! I hope it will go live and be accessible on Youtube.... Wish me best!

[Midsize Jake]

I've got a new interview request, as I mentioned that I refused almost all interviews since 2016 or so... and it's from CNBC! I hope it will go live and be accessible on Youtube.... Wish me best!

Cool! Try to avoid that Jim Cramer (T-H-L) guy though — he's a bit of a nutcase.

Also, my guess would be that whoever interviews you will try to steer the conversation towards "the future of AI," since that's the hot topic at the moment, so... be prepared for that, is all I'm suggesting.

[Tarc]

lol

I always forget that that forum still exists. I looked there once and found they really don't like me for some reason.

I am, above all, a people person. It's puzzling.

[Vigilant]

lol

I always forget that that forum still exists. I looked there once and found they really don't like me for some reason.

I am, above all, a people person. It's puzzling.

Great reference...

[adamovicm]

Cool! Try to avoid that Jim Cramer (T-H-L) guy though — he's a bit of a nutcase.

The guy is famous for The Inverse Cramer ETF on Reddit. In Serbian finance Reddit, we have the moderator BasLedeni who, whenever he buys $VWCE ETF, the price drops, and I made quite a few jokes about him and Jim Cramer.

Recently, Cramer twitted: "Apple: Own it Don't Trade it!" see https://twitter.com/jimcramer/status/16 ... 9660052480
The thread on Reddit that used that citation with the comment "We are all doomed" went popular.
BasLedeni bought $VWCE again. I made a new joke about it.

Something weird happened that time. $AAPL went to an all-time high.

Also, my guess would be that whoever interviews you will try to steer the conversation towards "the future of AI," since that's the hot topic at the moment, so... be prepared for that, is all I'm suggesting.

So I guess to increase the likelihood of the interview being aired I should mention AI as many times as possible.
To prepare for the interview I have asked ChatGPT to generate the description of Numbeo using as many times AI as possible. Got this:

Numbeo is a pioneering web-based platform harnessing the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to provide a comprehensive and data-driven understanding of global cities and their numerous facets. Leveraging advanced machine learning algorithms and natural language processing techniques, Numbeo assimilates vast volumes of user-contributed data, transforming it into actionable insights and statistical analyses.

This AI-powered platform employs sophisticated algorithms to aggregate, process, and analyze diverse data sets encompassing a wide range of socioeconomic factors, including cost of living, property prices, healthcare services, crime rates, traffic congestion, pollution levels, and quality of life indicators. With its cutting-edge AI capabilities, Numbeo integrates and organizes this wealth of information, allowing users to access real-time data and dynamic visualizations for over 8,000 cities worldwide.

Numbeo employs AI-powered sentiment analysis to extract subjective information from user-generated content, such as reviews and ratings, allowing for a nuanced understanding of individuals' perceptions and experiences. This sentiment analysis, coupled with AI-driven anomaly detection algorithms, ensures data integrity and reliability by identifying and mitigating potential inaccuracies or outliers.

Additionally, Numbeo utilizes AI-driven predictive modeling to forecast future trends and anticipate changes in various urban aspects, empowering users with foresight to make informed decisions. By leveraging AI techniques such as regression analysis, time series forecasting, and pattern recognition, Numbeo facilitates the identification of emerging patterns, enabling stakeholders to adapt their strategies and plans accordingly.

Moreover, Numbeo employs AI algorithms for clustering and categorizing cities based on their similarities and dissimilarities across multiple dimensions. By employing techniques such as unsupervised learning and clustering algorithms, Numbeo facilitates the identification of clusters or groups of cities with similar profiles, aiding in comparative analysis and benchmarking.

Through its AI-driven data visualization capabilities, Numbeo transforms complex statistical information into user-friendly charts, graphs, and maps, facilitating intuitive comprehension and interpretation. This empowers users to navigate and explore the data landscape efficiently, uncovering hidden patterns, trends, and correlations.

Numbeo's AI-driven platform continues to evolve, leveraging cutting-edge AI technologies, including deep learning, neural networks, and natural language understanding, to further enhance its data collection, analysis, and prediction capabilities. By embracing AI, Numbeo remains at the forefront of urban analytics, delivering valuable insights and enabling evidence-based decision-making in an increasingly interconnected world.

Mladen enhanced with AI has a much higher likelihood of being aired. It seems it's a much better answer than "how the fuck I could know I have never been there?". I guess my chances are much better if whatever they ask me, I answer that ChatGPT-generated text.

BTW, has anyone thought of launching a parody Wikipedia site with ChatGPT-generated articles? Sounds like a business plan to me....