Flibbertigibbets

While Wikipedia serves many purposes for different people, such as providing entertainment, helping with learning, and serving as a social network, it also provides valuable content to large businesses like Google, Amazon, and Facebook.

However, the question arises whether or not the mission to be an encyclopedia is comprehensive or accurate enough to define what Wikipedia is. In comparison, ChatGPT also provides a body of information, but it does so without the need to provide support for what is said.

In my estimation, ChatGPT does a better job in organizing raw information than the public can through the processes of Wikipedia. This is a complex issue, but my conclusion is that each platform provides a different product.

Without references, ChatGPT provides better information for the layman and is more transparent about the loose quality of the information it provides.

I believe that there is a lack of examination on the difference between Wikipedia being viewed as an encyclopedia versus the reality that it serves multiple purposes for different individuals and organizations.

I tend to focus on the big picture rather than specific details, and in my opinion, Wikipedia is not the ideal platform for my personal preferences. I am grateful and have respect for those who enjoy using the platform.

 

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Based on a mixture of CU am behavioral evidence, it is likely that you are a sock of Lfrankbalm --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I unblocked because the master account is not as well. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for addressing the issue of my previous block. I assure you that I have not engaged in any abusive behavior on this platform.

As previously stated on the Talk page, I have chosen to discontinue my participation on Wikipedia. I revisited Wikipedia because an outside "research paper" and "article" confirmed toxic behavior (and narrative framing) I experienced in my short tenure on the platform. I have outlined my reasons for exiting Wikipedia in a professional and courteous manner.

However, if it would be more beneficial for me to be more direct and candid with you (WMF and your peers), I would be happy to oblige.

If I am found to be at fault for anything, it would be my request for long-standing users, who may have a vested interest in the content they edit, to refrain from editing areas that are "under dispute".

Rather than use "socks" these editors coordinate with each other to dominate and distort a wide number of topics. They alienate and intimidate other editors and they are currently using (abusing) notice boards to do so.

Administrator/Arbitrators, such as yourself, are not able or willing to address major abuses of the platform in the form of narrative framing. It is easier to point fingers at me (who has made constructive content edits) than it is for you to take true responsibility to address a powerful group of editors misusing the platform and distorting information without recourse for years.

The concern for which I was initially blocked was a result of promoting personal accountability. Unfortunately, it appears that the project is not adequately equipped to address important issues at hand that have been unaddressed for years.

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Slandering the reputation of Poland and lying about Jewish communist crimes is punishable by 3 years in prison.

Stop what you are doing. We have friends here and around the world. We are watching. We will act. 199.7.159.46 (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

shibbolethink I appreciate your diligence, action, and concern. You reverted based on a "legal threat" the above is just a "threat" of violence or even a "terrorist threat" that went out to several editors. In my opinion transparency is the way to address this issue so I don't want to suppress the threat.

More importantly the above post is a result of this platform failing to take responsibility on narrative framing for years. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

(Please find a duplicate of the comments in response to a signpost article)

The chronology on Wikipedia suggests that a progenitor/related concern was first acknowledged through arbitration committee findings in 2009 (with indicators of the source issues and concerns going back to 2005). The current arbitration "revisits" a prior arbitration that occurred in 2021. "I know you are but what am I" simply does not negate process and governance concerns which remained open and unaddressed for 13-19 years. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Flibbertigibbets,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

A recent submission to the Evidence page has been reverted by an arbitrator with the summary this is not evidence, contains no diffs, and is thus outwith the bounds of what should be posted here.. Before submitting any further evidence, please read the information at the top of that page about how the evidence phase works. In particular:

Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Regenerate response"-- You seem to be using Wikipedia discussion for some sort of Chat GPT experiment, pasting wordy but mostly meaningless comments into various discussions. This is wasting the time of other editors. Coupled with the activity of your previous accounts, I am blocking for disruptive editing. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Actually it was quite constructive.. you just don't like what was said.. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Flibbertigibbets. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Russian Strategic Targeting of the Ukraine, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Flibbertigibbets. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Russian Strategic Targeting of the Ukraine".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply