British leftists on the warpath against Wikipedia

[Kingsindian]

I do not want to get into politics too much, but "militarism and imperialism" is not exclusive to neo-cons. Indeed "liberal" imperialism has a long pedigree.

In Europe, the word "neoliberal" is often used, which is a better description for Blair. "neocon" means something specific, and is largely restricted to the US. The neoconservatism (T-H-L) article, which you call "not entirely useless", is almost entirely about the US.

Labels describe things. If nobody knows what you're talking about, then what's the use of the label?

[Bezdomni]

Yes, I had written something similar earlier: interventionism, in neoliberal economies, is an artificial consequence of humans' desire for the convenient explosions of internal combustion engines to be affordable (most especially in economies heavily dependent on sophisticated weapon sales, like the US, UK, France, Russia, Israel, etc.).

An example of a prototypical French neo-liberal was Senator Serge Dassault, whose holdings included the inherited family fighter jet business (Mirage & Rafale §) and the center right newspaper Le Figaro. He died a billionaire a couple months ago.

[Johnny Au]

Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Brian Mulroney are all described as neo-liberals, despite those three being leaders of their respective conservative parties.

[Midsize Jake]

...militarism and imperialism, both of which have been ardently embraced by the Blair people and the Hillary people.

Obviously, militarism and imperialism have not been "ardently embraced" by the "Hillary people." Hillary Clinton isn't a pacifist, but this sort of thing is just more false propaganda coming from the Russia-loving Republicans and the Republican-loving Russians.

[Bezdomni]

Obviously, militarism and imperialism have not been "ardently embraced" by the "Hillary people."

I won't touch that discussion with a ten-foot pole: §.

A more directly relevant question might be: "Have militarism and imperialism been "ardently embraced" by the Wiki-wardens?"

In the 11 Featured Articles Bri reports have been promoted in the last month, there are 7 about weapons & war. (see the Signpost tomorrow, if Kudpung gets his op-ed done... )

This has been fairly consistent at FA since I've been watching the aggregated results (§), though this month the other ArbCom case about how Knight's Cross recipients are written up may have slowed overall production in the FA area.

[Poetlister]

Is that the article that says "Historically speaking, the term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism during the 1960s and 1970s"?

It seems that "neoconservative" means "people that Hersh doesn't like", which in British politics is everyone except the supporters of Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein and their ilk.

Incidentally, does Putin's invasion of Georgia, the Crimea, etc. make him a neoconservative? Presumably not, as it wasn't in the intrests of democracy.

[Bezdomni]

It does make him a neoliberal, since it has a lot to do with pipelines and gas futures. I suppose the definition of the neo-con artists is that they use that "making the world safe for democracy" trope on TV.

Heh...there was something on this at Chomsky-spam Now! just today.

Why NATO? [...] to control and safeguard the global energy system, sea lanes, pipelines and so on.

source

ps: for more on Wikipedia's Chomsky-spam woes, the snoog is the expert: §

data:
insource . . basic . . google (searches for string at en.wiki)
52,216 . . . 6,903 . . . 9,860 . . . washingtonpost.com
1,870. . . . . 195 . . . . . 363 . . . . democracynow.org

[Hersch]

...militarism and imperialism, both of which have been ardently embraced by the Blair people and the Hillary people.

Obviously, militarism and imperialism have not been "ardently embraced" by the "Hillary people." Hillary Clinton isn't a pacifist, but this sort of thing is just more false propaganda coming from the Russia-loving Republicans and the Republican-loving Russians.

Good one! Now, let's Impeach Earl Warren!

[Hersch]

I would suggest this for further reading on the topic:

https://extranewsfeed.com/clinton-democ ... 00dd02a6e9

[Kingsindian]

Perhaps we can limit the politics discussion and increase the Wikipedia discussion?

KalHolmann did get a minor sanction, but nothing too serious. If he had not posted external links on-wiki (instead of simply emailing them to ArbCom), he might have escaped sanctions altogether. ArbCom does tend to do a bit of "both sides", so it would have been better to be careful.

[Hersch]

I think the real interest in this story is not that it teaches us anything new about the internal workings of Wikipedia (it doesn't), but that it indicates a growing public awareness of the rotten role that Wikipedia plays. In particular, a spotlight was cast on the similary between Jimmy Wales' political POV and that of Philip Cross (T-C-L), as Jimmy went to bat for PC on Twitter. I saw a new tweet this morning which suggests that Wikileaks has taken an interest in Jimbo, which could make for an interesting battle of the digital activist groups:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/10 ... 3204659200

[Kingsindian]

Jimbo doesn't like Corbyn. At all. Of course, he has been a contra-indicator on everything Corbyn, but that is just a special case of Jimbo being a contra-indicator generally.

Interesting that Wikileaks has taken an interest. I don't think it has anything directly to do with the Philip Cross affair, or at least I don't see any evidence of that.

[Poetlister]

Jimbo doesn't like Corbyn. At all.

That's scarcely surprising. He's well in with the mainstream of the Labour party, who are almost to a man or woman horrified by Corbyn.

Really the title of this thread is a bit misleading. It's not leftists in general who are on the warpath, it's the Hard Left.

[Midsize Jake]

Really the title of this thread is a bit misleading. It's not leftists in general who are on the warpath, it's the Hard Left.

I could go with "anti-war guys" maybe, but "Hard British leftists" could easily be misinterpreted in ways that might not be appropriate.

[Bezdomni]

So, in the last couple of weeks Cross was let off despite clear violation of his topic ban because he reverted when called out by Kal Holmann. (& because there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the edits, perhaps)

Kal Holmann, on the other hand, was blocked (by Oshwah) because he asked ArbCom for a clarification on his weird topic ban / gag.

I suppose I should dig the diff off of AE (when it archives, maybe). Here's the one from the Arbcom noticeboard, where Oshwah explained the insta-block to KH ex post facto so he couldn't retract his question. Games, games...

And you just violated your editing restriction by speculating the off-wiki behavior of Phillip Cross, another editor on Wikipedia. That's gonna cost you 24 hours of editing privileges.

source

erm... no, actually, he didn't speculate on the off-wiki behavior of Cross.

Do we have a thread on Oshwah? Why or why not?

[tarantino]

Do we have a thread on Oshwah? Why or why not?

You could start one, if you must.

His original user name was BeanoJosh. He's put in some effort to hide that fact. Probably because it leads to his Facebook account.

[Midsize Jake]

Do we have a thread on Oshwah? Why or why not?

You could start one, if you must.

Hmmm... he's been an admin for about two years now, but from what I gather, he's only now starting to play the power'n'pettiness game. Apparently he got a lot of opposes on his RfA (second try, btw) because he was seen as inexperienced, not sufficiently interested in content creation, and a "hat collector." And let's face it, this is 2018, and people who still collect hats... I think it's fair to say that strikes most people as a little creepy.

So I'm tempted to say that he does deserve some scrutiny, but maybe we should wait until the next incident - especially if hats are directly involved.

[Hersch]

Really the title of this thread is a bit misleading. It's not leftists in general who are on the warpath, it's the Hard Left.

I could go with "anti-war guys" maybe, but "Hard British leftists" could easily be misinterpreted in ways that might not be appropriate.

I can easily see the problem here, particularly with the opposing camp, the "Liberal Imperialists", being commonly called LIMPS.

Meanwhile, it looks like the focus of the controversy is moving from Philip Cross (T-C-L) to Jimbo, as it ought to be:

https://mondoweiss.net/2018/08/wikipedi ... ntisemite/

And on Twitter, and growing number of people are telling Jimmy that they are cancelling their donations to WP in response to his political pronouncements. If they are really people who donate and not just saying so, this could begin to cause him some pain.

https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/ ... 2386016258

[Dysklyver]

Do we have a thread on Oshwah? Why or why not?

You could start one, if you must.

His original user name was BeanoJosh. He's put in some effort to hide that fact. Probably because it leads to his Facebook account.

That and other reasons. I played online chess with him once, great guy. And he has a multi monitor setup for editing Wikipedia, which contributes to a running joke that he is faster than Cluebot at huggling (reverting vandalism with Huggle).

I can't say for sure if he is getting involved in the wiki-politics, more than likely he is simply one of the only active admins not involved yet.

[Poetlister]

And on Twitter, and growing number of people are telling Jimmy that they are cancelling their donations to WP in response to his political pronouncements. If they are really people who donate and not just saying so, this could begin to cause him some pain.

https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/ ... 2386016258

Jimbo can't do anything right, can he? He's just pointing out that if Jeremy Corbyn wants to refute the allegations that he is antisemitic, he should do something positive like criticise the Hamas terrorists he has formerly called friends and brothers. Interestingly, even Peter Tatchell (T-H-L), at one time synonymous with anti-war anti-Blair activism, opposes Corbyn.

[Poetlister]

Really the title of this thread is a bit misleading. It's not leftists in general who are on the warpath, it's the Hard Left.

I could go with "anti-war guys" maybe, but "Hard British leftists" could easily be misinterpreted in ways that might not be appropriate.

For those without dirty minds, "hard left" has a precise meaning! It just means those who hold extreme left-wing views, which in the current climate means views unacceptable to the great majority of Labour members of Parliament.

[Hersch]

Here's a choice bit:

https://twitter.com/jewssf/status/1028194091790749696

[Midsize Jake]

Here's a choice bit:

https://twitter.com/jewssf/status/1028194091790749696

Actually, the Twitter thread you probably want is beneath a tweet by the Corbyn-lovin' Israel-criticizin' UK journalist Jonathan Cook (T-H-L). (He has twice as many followers as the other dude, for starters.)

[Kingsindian]

Interestingly, even Peter Tatchell (T-H-L), at one time synonymous with anti-war anti-Blair activism, opposes Corbyn.

Maybe on some issues. But Tatchell backed Corbyn for Labour leadership when he first stood (2015). He is critical of Corbyn about many things (he expresses those criticisms in the article I linked). In a tweet this April, Tatchell said that "he wants Corbyn as PM" (while criticizing him on Syria).

It's hardly surprising: Tatchell has worked with Corbyn for over 30 years. Tatchell is a Green Party member, by the way.

[Poetlister]

Yes, "Jewssf" is an utterly insignificant fringe group. Peter Tatchell has had a long and complex history. The Grens, which began as an environmental lobby group, has now turned into a Trotskyist clique.

[Anroth]

Yes, "Jewssf" is an utterly insignificant fringe group. Peter Tatchell has had a long and complex history. The Grens, which began as an environmental lobby group, has now turned into a Trotskyist clique.

I vote green. They have surprisingly sane policies on health, education etc.

Its just they have batshit insane ones elsewhere thats the problem....

[Bezdomni]

Well, I'm glad that KI took the time to create an RfC to clear up the Snoog's silly BLP attack. The verdict is in.

result= '''No Consensus''' The article will remain as is. People who participated in this RFC noted that #2 was particularly objectionable.

source

(#2 is the status quo, i.e. what Snoog smuggled into the article, what is still there, and has been for weeks...

en.wp once again getting it wrong despite the GF efforts of legions of "minor minions".)

I assume this will eventually get sorted, but you never know...

"Clue" is required to play the Wikipedia game well enough to evolve to the higher levels of WP:BURO (you know, corner office, private potty, etc.)


In the meantime, there's a good post from Crowsnest about Philip Cross' subsequent TP violations here.

[Kingsindian]

Nah, I'm sure that #2 will be removed. DQ most probably just got confused and didn't realize that #2 is in the article already.

RfCs just take a bit of time.

[Bezdomni]

You're right. 29 days after it was pointed out (§), the Snoog's spin (which the community found "particularly objectionable") has been removed. ^^

[Kingsindian]

Topic bans are fuzzy. Checking the boundaries goes on all the time. There's nothing special about Cross' behavior. He got a week-long block for his latest violation, which also happens all the time.

[tarantino]

Oliver Kamm wrote recently about the Philip Cross affair.

How credulous cranks made me the subject of their baseless conspiracy theory

[Poetlister]

Will that be duly noted anywhere on Wikipedia?

[Bezdomni]

Where would you suggest? Phillip Cross' talk page header? That could be dicey.

[iii]

Where would you suggest? Phillip Cross' talk page header? That could be dicey.

Maybe arbcomm could apologize to Phillip Cross.

[Midsize Jake]

As I recall, the ArbCom folks tried, after a fashion, to make it look like the allegations regarding a conspiratorial relationship between Kamm and User:Philip Cross (T-C-L) were immaterial to their decision to topic-ban Mr. Cross (i.e., they would have done it regardless of whether or not any real evidence existed to support those allegations). They did this mostly by trying to ignore the whole question, but to be fair, it's possible they were sincere on this point.

Kamm doesn't mention the topic ban in this latest piece, but that could conceivably be because he doesn't know what a topic ban is, or else doesn't think the non-editing public would understand the concept. But of course it's far more likely that he didn't mention it because it would work against his own argument, which is that Mr. Cross did nothing wrong and is the "real victim" in this whole business. And again, to be fair, it's quite possible that Mr. Cross felt a lot of stress from worrying that his IRL identity might be exposed by Galloway and Hayward, or even the Russians - stress that the others didn't feel because they were all operating under their real names to begin with.

And as far as that's concerned, the main take-away from all this probably should be that Wikipedia isn't the all-fun-and-games site they'd like you to think it is, and you edit at your own risk - it's not going to lift a finger to "protect" you, and more likely than not it's going to ignore whatever constructive work you've done and throw you under the bus if you manage to do something that subjects them to even a small amount of negative media coverage. (Unless you manage to eventually become an admin, of course, but even that's no guarantee.) Obviously many of us have made this point many times, but it never hurts to repeat it, I guess.

[iii]

As I recall, the ArbCom folks tried, after a fashion, to make it look like the allegations regarding a conspiratorial relationship between Kamm and User:Philip Cross (T-C-L) were immaterial to their decision to topic-ban Mr. Cross (i.e., they would have done it regardless of whether or not any real evidence existed to support those allegations). They did this mostly by trying to ignore the whole question, but to be fair, it's possible they were sincere on this point.

They really may have been sincere, but it is still outrageous that the ruling authority at what many believe to be the web's "number one reference site" cannot seem to get their acts together enough to denounce the "alternative facts" practices that lately have been stirring the pot on the interwebs. This, of course, has always been the case. "Arbcomm doesn't rule on content." Well, what happens when the content in question is how Wikipedia may or may not be manipulated by individuals with a less than competent grasp on reality?

[Poetlister]

Kamm doesn't mention the topic ban in this latest piece ... it's far more likely that he didn't mention it because it would work against his own argument, which is that Mr. Cross did nothing wrong and is the "real victim" in this whole business.

It wouldn't work against his argument. Obviously, the topic ban is grossly unfair and was only imposed because the Wikipedia system is stacked in favour of clever people who know how to play the system.

[iii]

Kamm doesn't mention the topic ban in this latest piece ... it's far more likely that he didn't mention it because it would work against his own argument, which is that Mr. Cross did nothing wrong and is the "real victim" in this whole business.

It wouldn't work against his argument. Obviously, the topic ban is grossly unfair and was only imposed because the Wikipedia system is stacked in favour of clever people who know how to play the system.

It's also ludicrously "inside baseball". Have you ever tried to explain what a "topic ban" is to outsiders? It goes like this:

• YOU: Wikipedia has this sanction called a "topic ban" which can be imposed to prevent people from making changes to the database according to the topic of the particular page.
  OUT: Oh, so like they have a filter or something that can turn off editing for a particular category?
  YOU: No.
  OUT: Oh, so some person sets up a list of URLs that the person is blocked from?
  YOU: No.
  OUT: So what do they do?
  YOU: They just tell you not to change the database on a certain set of topics. If you do, they block you.
  OUT: Are you fucking serious?

[Vigilant]

Kamm doesn't mention the topic ban in this latest piece ... it's far more likely that he didn't mention it because it would work against his own argument, which is that Mr. Cross did nothing wrong and is the "real victim" in this whole business.

It wouldn't work against his argument. Obviously, the topic ban is grossly unfair and was only imposed because the Wikipedia system is stacked in favour of clever people who know how to play the system.

It's also ludicrously "inside baseball". Have you ever tried to explain what a "topic ban" is to outsiders? It goes like this:

• YOU: Wikipedia has this sanction called a "topic ban" which can be imposed to prevent people from making changes to the database according to the topic of the particular page.
  OUT: Oh, so like they have a filter or something that can turn off editing for a particular category?
  YOU: No.
  OUT: Oh, so some person sets up a list of URLs that the person is blocked from?
  YOU: No.
  OUT: So what do they do?
  YOU: They just tell you not to change the database on a certain set of topics. If you do, they block you.
  OUT: Are you fucking serious?

And they decide after you've edited whether that edit constitutes something in the topic.

[Randy from Boise]

Kamm doesn't mention the topic ban in this latest piece ... it's far more likely that he didn't mention it because it would work against his own argument, which is that Mr. Cross did nothing wrong and is the "real victim" in this whole business.

It wouldn't work against his argument. Obviously, the topic ban is grossly unfair and was only imposed because the Wikipedia system is stacked in favour of clever people who know how to play the system.

It's also ludicrously "inside baseball". Have you ever tried to explain what a "topic ban" is to outsiders? It goes like this:

• YOU: Wikipedia has this sanction called a "topic ban" which can be imposed to prevent people from making changes to the database according to the topic of the particular page.
  OUT: Oh, so like they have a filter or something that can turn off editing for a particular category?
  YOU: No.
  OUT: Oh, so some person sets up a list of URLs that the person is blocked from?
  YOU: No.
  OUT: So what do they do?
  YOU: They just tell you not to change the database on a certain set of topics. If you do, they block you.
  OUT: Are you fucking serious?

It's a close cousin to tattletailing to parents...... You spot somebody being naughty and run to mommy and daddy to narc on them...

RfB

[Kingsindian]

Why would ArbCom apologize to Cross?

[Midsize Jake]

Why would ArbCom apologize to Cross?

I'm fairly certain Mr. iii was being facetious there.

As for Mr. Poetlister's contention that Cross's topic ban would be seen as just another part of the overall pattern of Arbcom injustice, people like us might believe that, but I think this is something that should be seen more from an outsider's perspective. Kamm isn't trying to appeal to people like us, he's trying to appeal to the general public. Most of the innocent civilians out there in the real world are perfectly happy with Wikipedia - it's free, no ads, you can look stuff up, you don't get lots of tracker warnings from Ghostery, etc. So it's one thing to say Cross was victimized by the so-called "dumb-dumb left" (i.e., Putin-supporting leftists who judge leaders mostly on their drone-strike count), since most people have very little respect for the dumb-dumb left - but it's another thing entirely to say that Wikipedia itself imposed a sanction on him, ineffectual as that sanction may have been. Just by admitting that, you might have some of your readers actually go to Wikipedia and try to find the Arbcom case pages in which the case is discussed, which are largely one-sided against Cross for his "POV pushing" and clear lack of neutrality.

That, in turn, could easily be enough for some people to doubt Kamm's sincerity, and even his honesty. The smart political move for him (IMO) is to leave it out, and take advantage of the fact that very few people are going to seek out the details of this on WP if they're not directly linked to it from the article.

[The Adversary]

Oliver Kamm wrote recently about the Philip Cross affair.

How credulous cranks made me the subject of their baseless conspiracy theory

"I’m a critic of Wikipedia and its ethos. I never consult the site, let alone participate as one of its “community”."

So trustworthy.

OliverKamm (T-C-L)

[Midsize Jake]

So trustworthy.

OliverKamm (T-C-L)

Hmmm...

I guess there are two main points in his favor. First, his last edits (in 2010) were in an effort to get his BLP deleted, so he did at least try to opt out as best he could. Second, most of his edits are to the talk page of his BLP, and most of them are basically pleas to remove references to the so-called "Neil Clark affair," which were, in fact, removed (Clark had tried to sue Kamm for defamation, and the case was later thrown out by a judge, but not before it had been mentioned in the Guardian and added to his BLP). So that leaves only this edit to the article on Anatole Kaletsky (T-H-L), but I wouldn't say that was especially damning since it was deleting material and not adding any new stuff.

So... basically he's using "weasel words" here to avoid admitting that he does have a Wikipedia account, but technically those two statements could still be true. I suspect he does use WP to look up plot spoilers for old Doctor Who episodes like everybody else, but he knows his enemies can't prove that without revealing where their hidden spy cameras are in his basement, so not much risk there.

[iii]

So trustworthy.

OliverKamm (T-C-L)

Hmmm...

I guess there are two main points in his favor. First, his last edits (in 2010) were in an effort to get his BLP deleted, so he did at least try to opt out as best he could. Second, most of his edits are to the talk page of his BLP, and most of them are basically pleas to remove references to the so-called "Neil Clark affair," which were, in fact, removed (Clark had tried to sue Kamm for defamation, and the case was later thrown out by a judge, but not before it had been mentioned in the Guardian and added to his BLP). So that leaves only this edit to the article on Anatole Kaletsky (T-H-L), but I wouldn't say that was especially damning since it was deleting material and not adding any new stuff.

So... basically he's using "weasel words" here to avoid admitting that he does have a Wikipedia account, but technically those two statements could still be true. I suspect he does use WP to look up plot spoilers for old Doctor Who episodes like everybody else, but he knows his enemies can't prove that without revealing where their hidden spy cameras are in his basement, so not much risk there.

The existence of that account shows that it is pretty unlikely Phillip Cross is Oliver Kamm. You would think the drum beaters would have considered this, but, of course, given the typical patterns that confirmation bias shows, they could have easily come to the conclusion that the existence of the real name account somehow proves that the other account is his.

[Bezdomni]

The only place that "Oliver Kamm" is found in the MocBar decision "BLP issues on British politics" is here in Cross' statement. This is probably because he was not mentioned at all in Evidence and only peripherally (and certainly not as a potential evil genius behind PC) on the Workshop page. I was not aware that anyone really seriously entertained the idea that Phillip Cross was Oliver Kamm.

At least Kamm describes their Twitter correspondence, which would help explain some things that were actually mentioned in some of the pages I read in the wider world than wiki (which talked about PC's Twitter contacts).

in re: Drmies' recent edit-summary "Saudia Arabia: per WP:FART" I did a quick search and found GG complaining about US $6 trillion in US banks rather than Islamic banks back in a response to a caller in (or before) 2013. I don't think GG's displeasure with Saudi began yesterday. Is it notable/due/etc.? Well, it's strident at least...

[Kingsindian]

So trustworthy.

OliverKamm (T-C-L)

Hmmm...

I guess there are two main points in his favor. First, his last edits (in 2010) were in an effort to get his BLP deleted, so he did at least try to opt out as best he could. Second, most of his edits are to the talk page of his BLP, and most of them are basically pleas to remove references to the so-called "Neil Clark affair," which were, in fact, removed (Clark had tried to sue Kamm for defamation, and the case was later thrown out by a judge, but not before it had been mentioned in the Guardian and added to his BLP). So that leaves only this edit to the article on Anatole Kaletsky (T-H-L), but I wouldn't say that was especially damning since it was deleting material and not adding any new stuff.

So... basically he's using "weasel words" here to avoid admitting that he does have a Wikipedia account, but technically those two statements could still be true. I suspect he does use WP to look up plot spoilers for old Doctor Who episodes like everybody else, but he knows his enemies can't prove that without revealing where their hidden spy cameras are in his basement, so not much risk there.

The existence of that account shows that it is pretty unlikely Phillip Cross is Oliver Kamm. You would think the drum beaters would have considered this, but, of course, given the typical patterns that confirmation bias shows, they could have easily come to the conclusion that the existence of the real name account somehow proves that the other account is his.

You've never heard of sockpuppets? The existence of one account shows nothing about any other account.

Anyway, Galloway said in the BBC interview that he knows who Cross is. It's most likely not Kamm (otherwise Galloway would have been shouting it from the rooftops).

[Dysklyver]

Drmies' recent edit-summary "Saudia Arabia: per WP:FART"

Such a good edit summary, imagine a Saudi reading that.

[iii]

You've never heard of sockpuppets? The existence of one account shows nothing about any other account.

C'mon, you're smarter than this. The clunky actions of the OliverKamm account are not exactly the modus operandi of a Phillip Cross-type Wikipedian when socking.

[Poetlister]

Drmies' recent edit-summary "Saudia Arabia: per WP:FART"

Such a good edit summary, imagine a Saudi reading that.

It's a humorous essay, so is scarcely a justification for removing well-sourced material. He should have cited WP:WEIGHT (T-H-L).