Was Mick West banned from Wikipedia, and if so, what were the reasons behind it? After watching the latest debate between Marik and West, I felt compelled to verify some information with a couple of AI tools. When I asked ChatGPT about Mick West’s ban, it suggested that one possible reason was Commercial Interest.
Additionally, I came across a comment from Brave’s Leo AI, which claimed that West employs similar tactics in his blogging. Is this accurate? Has Mick West genuinely changed for the better, or does he still rely on the same strategies, such as utilizing members from his own forum or from GSoW, to achieve objectives he previously handled using multiple personal accounts?
Furthermore, why isn’t Mick West’s alleged attempt to manipulate Wikipedia mentioned in his Wikipedia article? And why are the perspectives of Marik and others absent from his page? To me, it appears to be a blatant form of misinformation.
I anticipate that members of GSoW will actively respond to ensure that those who don’t scroll down will see this post.
It looks like there’s a lot to unpack in your post regarding Mick West and his involvement with Wikipedia.
Firstly, regarding whether Mick West was banned from Wikipedia, the general consensus is that he was indeed banned due to what Wikipedia describes as “disruptive behavior.” This can encompass a range of actions including creating multiple accounts, edit wars, or promoting a personal agenda, which may include commercial interests, as you mentioned. However, the details around his specific ban can be complex and sometimes subjective, depending on the perspectives of different editors involved.
In terms of whether he still employs similar tactics or has changed his approach, that largely depends on individual viewpoints. Some may argue that he has adapted and learned from past experiences, while others might contend that he still exhibits the same controversial behaviors.
As for the lack of mention of his purported efforts to ‘corrupt’ Wikipedia on his Wikipedia page, this could be due to Wikipedia’s guidelines regarding verifiability and reliable sources. Claims about someone’s behavior must generally be backed by credible sources to be included. If there are significant disputes or controversies regarding his actions, they may not have been deemed notable enough to warrant inclusion without proper sourcing.
And regarding the representation of views on Wikipedia pages, there’s often a challenge in balancing different perspectives. Wikipedia aims for a neutral point of view, but it can struggle with controversy and conflict between different factions, especially in cases like this.
Your prediction about the GSoW (Ghosts of Wikipedia) members responding is insightful—discussions around controversial figures can get quite heated on platforms like Wikipedia and often attract a range of editors with vested interests.
It’s important when discussing individuals and their actions on platforms like Wikipedia to rely on documented evidence and a variety of perspectives to build a comprehensive understanding. What are your thoughts on balancing different viewpoints in such discussions?