Wikipedia intentionally distorting Holocaust history?

[Volunteer Marek]

I think Piotrus hits the nail on the head here. This gets to my reservations about this whole thing. Nobody has an active complaint about anyone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ode=source

Yup, it's kind of clear at this point that this is the "Case That Nobody Really Wanted to Have". There have been no major disputes in the topic area since the 2021 Jehochman fiasco. Most people, except of course Icewhiz, have moved on. This is why almost all the "Evidence" provided so far is either a) ancient stuff from like 2019 (K.e.coffman) or b) stuff from after the case opened/G&k paper came out (basically post Feb 10th 2023) - people reacting to the paper and the Arb Com case in one way or another. And it's pretty weak-sauce (GCB posted too many diffs on WP:AE!) or some editors trying to piggy-back their own idiosyncratic and unrelated grudges on the case (Gitz6666).

The bird's eye view of the topic area is roughly as follows:

Up to mid 2019 - Icewhiz. Culminates in the 2019 ArbCom case. Topic bans then Icewhiz starts harassin' and sock puppetin'

Late October 2019 up to mid 2021 - Icewhiz socks all over the place. Like a ton of them (at least a few dozen). At least half the AE reports and good number of RSN discussions initiated by his socks. And if not initiated then dominated. All the disputes from this period have to do in some way or another with his socks.

Then 500/30 kicks in

Second half of 2021 - Jehochman's Request for a Case and all the crap about Haaretz article/List of Hoaxes. Icewhiz sock puppetin' on those "List" articles and Icewhiz in touch with Jehochman who resign his tools. BTW, this G&K paper here? Basically an attempt by Icewhiz to redo that whole sorry episode.

2022 - quiet. People moved on. Icewhiz ran out of auto confirmed sock puppets. Non-autoconfirmed ones get quickly reverted and blocked. 500/30 does what it's supposed to. Icewhiz supporters on Wiki have no sock puppets to tag team with. Controversy dies out.

And here we are.

[Bezdomni]

The bird's eye view of the topic area is roughly as follows:

and

The best way to dominate a subject is to ban or topic ban your opponents. People who discuss here, have survived purges, many editors have not, not always because they were incompetent. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]]

source

Looks like Xx had some second thoughts about this post , because while it obviously doesn't apply to Xx236, Poeticbent, or Molobo's accounts, about whom abundant evidence was presented, some have been topic-banned via shiftless diff-less power-plays by the VM-GCB team (which apparently appealed to1 seasoned RPG dungeon-master and rabbit-roaster SFR).



1 appealed to here is used in the sense of pleased or perhaps were found amusing by. It is not used in the litigious/tattling sense more prevalent in the wikizone.

[Xx236]

:There is no evidence against me. Especially abundant.
:I have been topic banned, to promote other opinions.

[Midsize Jake]

:There is no evidence against me. Especially abundant.
:I have been topic banned, to promote other opinions.

...Mr. Xx!

Most of us just ignore Mr. Bezdomni, actually. I used to try to interpret what he'd post here, but I gave up a few years back so that I'd have time to concentrate more on my macramé and needlepoint projects.

[Bezdomni]

:There is no evidence against me. Especially abundant.

diff (among others)

[...] my macramé and needlepoint projects.

You should really post some photos of your work in the off-topic hobbies thread. That's where I learned SFR was a rabbit-roaster, incidentally, though he's spoken of it on-wiki too. It was in his RfA that he mentioned his dungeon-mastery (to explain his significant week-one proficiency with wiki-weaving).

eta: reading further at the ArbCom case I learn that summary evidence has its charm.

[nableezy]

...There's no way any of this ends well.

I'm tempted to agree, but in theory, there could be mass resignations.

Nah, I dont think so. I think youre going to end up with a few topic bans, including VM and GCB, and generally a ceding of the topic area to Icewhiz. GCB, I understand how it feels to have a specific person come at you over and over and over again, but the defense but Icewhiz stops working over time. VM seems to fall victim to the Isarig vs Malik treatment, fuck with a person enough times with enough socks they get pissed enough to say fuck you. The problem with evaluating VM's language, or reverts, or whatever in a vacuum is that it ignores there is only one side that is cheating. Icewhiz never got banned because Icewhiz never went away. So when the one side that is playing by the rules appears "problematic" and gets banned, that side that never played by the rules to begin with wins.

I think there are a number of admins that get this, and so they give a little more latitude in the day to day enforcement in these topic areas. They see the never ending parade of socks, they see that one side is doing their best to not just push their own extreme POV at all costs but in fact do their best to follow the content policies, so as long as there isnt anything egregious they allow it. But when it gets to ArbCom, where it becomes X said for fucks sake twelve times in his edit summaries and has been uncivil, the result is always always always X is topic banned. Which, again, cedes the topic area to the side that never stopped cheating to begin with. Because VM isnt going to start socking around a ban. But the committee will issue a few bans, reiterate the topic area is a "contentious topic" and call it a day is my bet.

[GizzyCatBella]

...There's no way any of this ends well.

I'm tempted to agree, but in theory, there could be mass resignations.

Nah, I dont think so. I think youre going to end up with a few topic bans, including VM and GCB, and generally a ceding of the topic area to Icewhiz. GCB, I understand how it feels to have a specific person come at you over and over and over again, but the defense but Icewhiz stops working over time. VM seems to fall victim to the Isarig vs Malik treatment, fuck with a person enough times with enough socks they get pissed enough to say fuck you. The problem with evaluating VM's language, or reverts, or whatever in a vacuum is that it ignores there is only one side that is cheating. Icewhiz never got banned because Icewhiz never went away. So when the one side that is playing by the rules appears "problematic" and gets banned, that side that never played by the rules to begin with wins.

I think there are a number of admins that get this, and so they give a little more latitude in the day to day enforcement in these topic areas. They see the never ending parade of socks, they see that one side is doing their best to not just push their own extreme POV at all costs but in fact do their best to follow the content policies, so as long as there isnt anything egregious they allow it. But when it gets to ArbCom, where it becomes X said for fucks sake twelve times in his edit summaries and has been uncivil, the result is always always always X is topic banned. Which, again, cedes the topic area to the side that never stopped cheating to begin with. Because VM isnt going to start socking around a ban. But the committee will issue a few bans, reiterate the topic area is a "contentious topic" and call it a day is my bet.

If you are right .. (I hope you aren't) then Icewhiz will be laughing his ass off for the rest of his miserable life. Laughing his ass off at the Wikipedia editors who allowed that to happen, but especially at the ArbCom folks. Notice please how stubborn that sick fella is (Icewhiz). He got banned from Wikipedia, went on Twitter, and got banned from there. Then he created multiple sock puppets, one of which was almost promoted to administrator status. (!) At the same time, he tormented his Wikipedia opponents in real life, impersonated others, and sent emails with severe harassment. Then he found some friendly Haaretz journalists who wrote rubbish based on his story. That didn't work, so he went knocking higher and higher and finally found a controversial scholar who agreed to produce another junk piece, but this time in an academic environment. What a fellow that Icewhiz is... I'm shaking my head with disbelief.
PS
Psst - do you hear that noise? Yes, that's Icewhiz and his few pals giggling at Wikipedia.

[Bezdomni]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks (T-H-L)

Wasn't it you who was always typing the second syllable of his pseudo as -witz? I suppose you were thinking of Auschwitz?

Wasn't it also you who SarahSV insinuated was a former EEMLer? I wonder which one she had in mind?

Not sure that VM fighting everyone everywhere will lead the Arbs to the right conclusion... who knows, it just might, if he could just fight write a little louder.

It'll be interesting to see if Nableezy turns out to be right, or if the great Volunteer will sock through the site ban he's won with his singing of the how-wrongly-we've-been-done songs.

One thing is certain: none of the EEMLers have been led down the path towards greater humility yet.

[nableezy]

blah

To be honest I have barely any insight into the politics of this side of Wikipedia, so can you, hopefully in fewer than 500 words, explain the origin for this beef you have with VM?

[Bezdomni]

It's not about "politics". It's about behavior. If you think it's normal for people to simultaneously fight at the Signpost, Wikipediocracy, ArbCom, on user talk pages, constantly deflecting, and regularly tag-teaming in mainspace with GCB or MVBW ... well, that's your right.

As far as beefs go... misrepresentation is the main problem. Take in this very thread how he accuses Grabowksi & Klein of "lying their asses off" about his defense of Glaukopis.

Then read this comment on the talk page of Grabowski's book (which was the impetus for the RSN thread in question).

Grabowski and Klein were not "lying their asses off". In the interest of space, they didn't go through the whole litany of how someone had to take the matter to RSN to get VM to revise his position while still saving face...

More recently, it seems that the journal has been unanimously evaluated rather more harshly at RSN than back in 2009 when Poeticbent called it "one of the most respected journals out there".


(§)

Until recently, Piotrus seems to have agreed... by searching wikiblame to see who buried the "large axe" formerly on the BLP of Antony Polonsky, I found myself directed to Piotrus' TP comment encouraging mention of a strange PDF published at Glaukopis. This pdf was allegedly written by a reviewer of a Marek Chodakiewicz book and manages not only to confuse "loath" and "loathe" but also to place a large axe into Polonsky's hands, which Piotrus thought might look nice at the top of the talk page of his BLP. Unfortunately, the original author seems to have thought the suggestion was to add it to the entry itself, because Piotrus tagged the article as POV a few weeks later when the criticism hadn't yet been added.

(§)

nb: Years later, Marek eventually removed the entire "criticism of other scholars" section, after restoring the large axe twice (because <gasp> Icewhiz had removed it).

[Volunteer Marek]

It's not about "politics". It's about behavior. If you think it's normal for people to simultaneously fight at the Signpost, Wikipediocracy, ArbCom, on user talk pages, constantly deflecting, and regularly tag-teaming in mainspace with GCB or MVBW ... well, that's your right.

As far as beefs go... misrepresentation is the main problem. Take in this very thread how he accuses Grabowksi & Klein of "lying their asses off" about his defense of Glaukopis.

Then read this comment on the talk page of Grabowski's book (which was the impetus for the RSN thread in question).

Grabowski and Klein were not "lying their asses off". In the interest of space, they didn't go through the whole litany of how someone had to take the matter to RSN to get VM to revise his position while still saving face...

More recently, it seems that the journal has been unanimously evaluated rather more harshly at RSN than back in 2009 when Poeticbent called it "one of the most respected journals out there".


(§)

Until recently, Piotrus seems to have agreed... by searching wikiblame to see who buried the "large axe" formerly on the BLP of Antony Polonsky, I found myself directed to Piotrus' TP comment encouraging mention of a strange PDF published at Glaukopis. This pdf was allegedly written by a reviewer of a Marek Chodakiewicz book and manages not only to confuse "loath" and "loathe" but also to place a large axe into Polonsky's hands, which Piotrus thought might look nice at the top of the talk page of his BLP. Unfortunately, the original author seems to have thought the suggestion was to add it to the entry itself, because Piotrus tagged the article as POV a few weeks later when the criticism hadn't yet been added.

(§)

nb: Years later, Marek eventually removed the entire "criticism of other scholars" section, after restoring the large axe twice (because <gasp> Icewhiz had removed it).

Oh bullshit. You're pissed because you got banned for your wacky stuff in a completely different topic area with some involvement from me. Your obsession with me predates Icewhiz and any of this crap. You were active on old Wikipedia Review accusing me of being a CIA agent. Eventually you realized how stupid that made you look - people laughed at you - so you switched to these "EEML conspiracy" accusations

Also, you're an obsessive creep.

(edit: or maybe it was that I was working for DNC. Or both - CIA on WR and DNC on Wiki? Either way it was related to 2016 election. Here you are supporting Trumpers at WP:AE, asking for a boomerang for me. It didn't work. The other editor was topic banned. That's roughly when all your nonsense started, a couple years before Icewhiz. link. The Icewhiz thing has just been a convenient thing for you - and now Gitz6666 - to latch on to try and get payback. This always happens in cases like these.)

[Bezdomni]

If all else fails, change the subject with new accusations, the wilder the better, right Marek? CIA, huh? Actually, you reminded me more of the description of the foul-mouthed PropOrNot characters at the time.

Yes, you did have a weird role in trying to keep the widely known Clinton Foundation role in Haiti out of en.wp. That is indeed when I first became acquainted with your behavior. From the single link you provide it looks like I was correctly documenting a 1RR violation; from the talk page archive it looks like you were a known "shadow" in the topic area.

[GizzyCatBella]

More recently, it seems that the journal has been unanimously evaluated rather more harshly at RSN than back in 2009 when Poeticbent called it "one of the most respected journals out there".


(§)

Until recently, Piotrus seems to have agreed... by searching wikiblame to see who buried the "large axe" formerly on the BLP of Antony Polonsky, I found myself directed to Piotrus' TP comment encouraging mention of a strange PDF published at Glaukopis. This pdf was allegedly written by a reviewer of a Marek Chodakiewicz book and manages not only to confuse "loath" and "loathe" but also to place a large axe into Polonsky's hands, which Piotrus thought might look nice at the top of the talk page of his BLP. Unfortunately, the original author seems to have thought the suggestion was to add it to the entry itself, because Piotrus tagged the article as POV a few weeks later when the criticism hadn't yet been added.

(§)

nb: Years later, Marek eventually removed the entire "criticism of other scholars" section, after restoring the large axe twice (because <gasp> Icewhiz had removed it).

Oh bullshit. You're pissed because you got banned for your wacky stuff in a completely different topic area with some involvement from me. Your obsession with me predates Icewhiz and any of this crap. You were active on old Wikipedia Review accusing me of being a CIA agent. Eventually you realized how stupid that made you look - people laughed at you - so you switched to these "EEML conspiracy" accusations

Also, you're an obsessive creep.

(edit: or maybe it was that I was working for DNC. Or both - CIA on WR and DNC on Wiki? Either way it was related to 2016 election. Here you are supporting Trumpers at WP:AE, asking for a boomerang for me. It didn't work. The other editor was topic banned. That's roughly when all your nonsense started, a couple years before Icewhiz. link. The Icewhiz thing has just been a convenient thing for you - and now Gitz6666 - to latch on to try and get payback. This always happens in cases like these.)

Oh, that's the story behind Bezdomni and his trolling, I always wondered. Thank you for explaining VM.
(that's very pathetic what you're doing, Bezdomni/SahiRolls )

[Arishok]

I'll concur in nableezy's prediction that GCB will end up TBanned as a remedy from this case.

Not ready to join him on predicting the same for VM; looking at the evidence summary page, the argument that he'd abandoned the topic area after Jehochman's Arbcase request up until the paper was published hasn't really been refuted, and I could see that swaying enough Arbs not to support the TBan vote (which will absolutely be in the proposed decision to vote on). I could also see a scenario where this TBan passes with a large or even unanimous majority, whereas I'd be very surprised if it had unanimous opposition.

A two-way IBan between VM and Gitz is the most likely sanction for them, I think.

In retrospect, Levivich's strategy for dealing with this case, i.e. "ignore it", was probably the best one from an "avoid sanctions" perspective, and I doubt he'll be sanctioned at all in the case remedies (unless some evidence against him is posted before the phase closes).

[nableezy]

If you are right .. (I hope you aren't) then Icewhiz will be laughing his ass off for the rest of his miserable life. Laughing his ass off at the Wikipedia editors who allowed that to happen, but especially at the ArbCom folks. Notice please how stubborn that sick fella is (Icewhiz). He got banned from Wikipedia, went on Twitter, and got banned from there. Then he created multiple sock puppets, one of which was almost promoted to administrator status. (!) At the same time, he tormented his Wikipedia opponents in real life, impersonated others, and sent emails with severe harassment. Then he found some friendly Haaretz journalists who wrote rubbish based on his story. That didn't work, so he went knocking higher and higher and finally found a controversial scholar who agreed to produce another junk piece, but this time in an academic environment. What a fellow that Icewhiz is... I'm shaking my head with disbelief.
PS
Psst - do you hear that noise? Yes, that's Icewhiz and his few pals giggling at Wikipedia.

You know Im no fan of IW, but like I said in the case request a couple of years ago, countering Icewhiz cant be the basis of an edit. Yes, you can revert any edit an IW sock makes, but you cant say oh IW made this same edit you did to an editor that is not an IW sock as though that makes the edit itself unquestionably bad. At that point it doesnt matter that it was initially an Icewhiz supported edit, and bringing that up repeatedly is going to wear thin over time with the people watching (ie, the arbs).

I think banning you from the topic area is going to be a bad thing, especially if WP:SPI/Icewhiz is included in said ban, but I think the arbs almost feel like they must do something in response to this article. And reinstituting the bans that were lifted seems like the lowest hanging fruit available to them.

[nableezy]

I'll concur in nableezy's prediction that GCB will end up TBanned as a remedy from this case.

Not ready to join him on predicting the same for VM; looking at the evidence summary page, the argument that he'd abandoned the topic area after Jehochman's Arbcase request up until the paper was published hasn't really been refuted, and I could see that swaying enough Arbs not to support the TBan vote (which will absolutely be in the proposed decision to vote on). I could also see a scenario where this TBan passes with a large or even unanimous majority, whereas I'd be very surprised if it had unanimous opposition.

A two-way IBan between VM and Gitz is the most likely sanction for them, I think.

In retrospect, Levivich's strategy for dealing with this case, i.e. "ignore it", was probably the best one from an "avoid sanctions" perspective, and I doubt he'll be sanctioned at all in the case remedies (unless some evidence against him is posted before the phase closes).

That may also be true, Im basing my prediction mostly on the tone in the case. I think past cases have shown a tendency by ArbCom towards lowering the temperature/volume in a topic area as opposed to analyzing the actual POV-pushing, which means the people perceived to be the loudest get the boot. And in that regard, at least for this case that was opened by the committee and not directed at a user to begin with, Levivich played it smart to avoid it completely (well until recently at least).

[Vice Cabal Leader]

at least for this case that was opened by the committee and not directed at a user to begin with.

Errr, wasn't the case directed at users = the listed parties?

The case FAQ (link) states: Scope: Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed

So off-wiki harassment is not even in the scope, apparently...

[jf1970]

Yes, you can revert any edit an IW sock makes, but you cant say oh IW made this same edit you did to an editor that is not an IW sock as though that makes the edit itself unquestionably bad. At that point it doesnt matter that it was initially an Icewhiz supported edit, and bringing that up repeatedly is going to wear thin over time with the people watching (ie, the arbs).

Worse, the more it's pointed out that other editors repeated Icewhiz's edits, the more it looks like Icewhiz made good edits.

[Volunteer Marek]

Yes, you can revert any edit an IW sock makes, but you cant say oh IW made this same edit you did to an editor that is not an IW sock as though that makes the edit itself unquestionably bad. At that point it doesnt matter that it was initially an Icewhiz supported edit, and bringing that up repeatedly is going to wear thin over time with the people watching (ie, the arbs).

Worse, the more it's pointed out that other editors repeated Icewhiz's edits, the more it looks like Icewhiz made good edits.

But that's not what's going on though. For the most part (I'm sure there may be some exceptions) no one except actual Icewhiz socks has really tried to restore any of Icewhiz's controversial edits. Maybe Francois Robere and more recently, Gitz6666 (but that's a special case in and of itself). But most of these cases have literally been Icewhiz coming back with socks to do it, so it's not "other editors repeated Icewhiz's edits"

(one other possible exception I can think of that I'll leave unmentioned)

[nableezy]

Yes, you can revert any edit an IW sock makes, but you cant say oh IW made this same edit you did to an editor that is not an IW sock as though that makes the edit itself unquestionably bad. At that point it doesnt matter that it was initially an Icewhiz supported edit, and bringing that up repeatedly is going to wear thin over time with the people watching (ie, the arbs).

Worse, the more it's pointed out that other editors repeated Icewhiz's edits, the more it looks like Icewhiz made good edits.

But that's not what's going on though. For the most part (I'm sure there may be some exceptions) no one except actual Icewhiz socks has really tried to restore any of Icewhiz's controversial edits. Maybe Francois Robere and more recently, Gitz6666 (but that's a special case in and of itself). But most of these cases have literally been Icewhiz coming back with socks to do it, so it's not "other editors repeated Icewhiz's edits"

(one other possible exception I can think of that I'll leave unmentioned)

That may be tbh, I don't have many of the pages watchlisted. And I hope I'm wrong about a ban, as I think FeydHuxtable's line "I consistently found mitigation for the incivility. And that VM invariably seemed the one best complying with policy other than WP:Civil, generally showing the best fidelity to sources, displaying great analytical rigour and integrity, despite much inaccurate argumentation against him." is the most accurate thing in that evidence page. You have a similar weakness that I do, people start fucking with the policies that matter its too hard not to tell them to fuck off.

[Bezdomni]

So an Arb asked this Feyd fellow to dive down deep into the dreck only to delete his idiosyncratic findings?

to wit --> Marek's extreme difficulties with WP:CAVIL, WP:CIVAL and his "propensity to use belittling language" likely led IW off his rocker... and into the deep dreck.

[Arishok]

Marek's extreme difficulties with WP:CAVIL, WP:CIVAL and his "propensity to use belittling language" likely led IW off his rocker... and into the deep dreck.

Ok now this is just straightforwardly victim-blaming.

[Bezdomni]

Ok now this is just straightforwardly victim-blaming.

I guess that's why

Agreed, I've removed the insinuation.
— Wugapodes 00:43, 4 April 2023

You understand then why I think it's a mistake to report only the part of Feyd's rather long post that valorizes the "belittler"... as had been done in the post preceding mine.

[Midsize Jake]

You understand then why I think it's a mistake to report only the part of Feyd's rather long post that valorizes the "belittler"... as had been done in the post preceding mine.

You don't necessarily have to come along and post something catty or snippy every time someone says something nice about Mr. Marek, you know. Especially when you know very well that irrespective of his motivations, Mr. Icewhiz was not some sort of wonderfully nice guy who was then "driven to it" by his various mean, nasty Wikipedia opponents.

It just makes you look petty, really. But I guess the only people who will see you that way are the ones willing to spend the 30-40 minutes required to figure out what you're actually referring to, so hey, carry on.

[Bezdomni]

Mr. Icewhiz was not some sort of wonderfully nice guy who was then "driven to it" by his various mean, nasty Wikipedia opponents.

Sure, but if we're going to quote someone as being some sort of authority about Marek's virtue despite his "viscous" attitude, we should also quote that authority saying Icewhiz was a "near-model editor for his first year until VM attacked him": (§). WPO is not Marek's cheering section. It is a critical forum.

[Vigilant]

Mr. Icewhiz was not some sort of wonderfully nice guy who was then "driven to it" by his various mean, nasty Wikipedia opponents.

Sure, but if we're going to quote someone as being some sort of authority about Marek's virtue despite his "viscous" attitude, we should also quote that authority saying Icewhiz was a "near-model editor for his first year until VM attacked him": (§). WPO is not Marek's cheering section. It is a critical forum.

Dude.

Fuck off with this weird virtue signaling/school marm bullshit.

Fuck all the way off.

[Midsize Jake]

Sure, but if we're going to quote someone as being some sort of authority about Marek's virtue despite his "viscous" attitude, we should also quote that authority saying Icewhiz was a "near-model editor for his first year until VM attacked him": (§). WPO is not Marek's cheering section. It is a critical forum.

You're right, it isn't Mr. Marek's cheering section, and you could have even used the original diff, too!

But y'know, high-viscosity attitudes are like high-viscosity motor oils. You want them in your car's engine, not on your living-room floor.

[Hemiauchenia]

Mr. Icewhiz was not some sort of wonderfully nice guy who was then "driven to it" by his various mean, nasty Wikipedia opponents.

Sure, but if we're going to quote someone as being some sort of authority about Marek's virtue despite his "viscous" attitude, we should also quote that authority saying Icewhiz was a "near-model editor for his first year until VM attacked him": (§). WPO is not Marek's cheering section. It is a critical forum.

Being a "critical forum" does not meant we are Wikipedia Sucks. You can go there (you are a long-time member) and rant about how bad VM is there if you want, but Wikipediocracy frowns upon PVP for a reason. Occasionally telling people to fuck off is not uncommon amongst Wikipedians and hardly a unique trait to VM.

[Ryuichi]

It's not just the occasionally telling people to fuck off, whether or not they start fucking with the policies that matter.

It's just not.

[Ognistysztorm]

Stephen Harrison of Slate reported the story!
https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/ho ... oland.html

[nableezy]

we should also quote that authority saying Icewhiz was a "near-model editor for his first year until VM attacked him": (§). WPO is not Marek's cheering section. It is a critical forum.

I wouldnt quote that part because I know it to be not true, but I wouldnt blame the author for writing it either. Icewhiz was an incredibly pernicious editor precisely because he could fool you into thinking he was a "near-model editor". He was not, he was never that. He was always a liar who would through sheer bluster say things with such conviction that people not familiar with the topic would think he was correct. Yes, he was polite. But treating your interlocutor as though they are an idiot is, to me at least, wayyyyy more uncivil than "fuck you, you fucking fuck". Here for example he says, arguing that an article on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank has too much focus on *gasp* the effect on the occupied people, that "Jews (native born in the West Bank) live under the yoke of the military gvmt as well". Which is horseshit, no they do not. Jews in the West Bank live under Israeli civil law, not military law. And he knows this, so he lied with a straight face. He should have been banned just off the evidence collected here as a liar who cannot be trusted for the time of day. So no, I dont think it necessary to quote something I know to be false.

It's not just the occasionally telling people to fuck off, whether or not they start fucking with the policies that matter.

It's just not.

It would be more occasional if the fucking with the real policies was less regular.

[Midsize Jake]

Stephen Harrison of Slate reported the story!
https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/ho ... oland.html

I think we were expecting that...? Though it was delayed long enough that I (for one) was beginning to suspect the piece had been spiked. It would be interesting to hear from Mr. Harrison as to whether this scheduling was the plan all along, but of course he'd have to stop lurking in order to tell us.

The way the article is written isn't going to make Israeli hard-liners happy, but while it's definitely written from a pro-Wikipedian perspective, it's probably the fairest treatment of the immediate situation we've seen in the media so far. I'd still be surprised if it triggers a "breakout" into the MSM... it might increase the chances by 10 or 20 percent, maybe.

As for the article's comments section, it's pretty much what you'd expect — not many (so far at least), and they're more interested in rehashing World War II than in asking why the world has to accept these issues being decided by anonymous non-experts. There are a few interesting ones in there, though.

[Hemiauchenia]

snip

I agree that mistaking civil POV-pushing for being a "model editor" is a pretty bad error. Superficial civility is ultimately not worth anything if the person is not here to contribute with a neutral point of view.

[Ognistysztorm]

Stephen Harrison of Slate reported the story!
https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/ho ... oland.html

I think we were expecting that...? Though it was delayed long enough that I (for one) was beginning to suspect the piece had been spiked. It would be interesting to hear from Mr. Harrison as to whether this scheduling was the plan all along, but of course he'd have to stop lurking in order to tell us.

The way the article is written isn't going to make Israeli hard-liners happy, but while it's definitely written from a pro-Wikipedian perspective, it's probably the fairest treatment of the immediate situation we've seen in the media so far. I'd still be surprised if it triggers a "breakout" into the MSM... it might increase the chances by 10 or 20 percent, maybe.

As for the article's comments section, it's pretty much what you'd expect — not many (so far at least), and they're more interested in rehashing World War II than in asking why the world has to accept these issues being decided by anonymous non-experts. There are a few interesting ones in there, though.

I'd wager that the chances of a breakout into MSM and subsequent souring of mainstream opinion on Wikipedia has crossed 50% after the publication of the Slate article.

[Midsize Jake]

I'd wager that the chances of a breakout into MSM and subsequent souring of mainstream opinion on Wikipedia has crossed 50% after the publication of the Slate article.

[Konveyor Belt]

Meanwhile, Andreas/Jayen has introduced evidence arguing that the Grabowski/Klein paper violates the UCoC because of outing: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence#Grabowski and Klein's essay violates the Wikimedia Foundation's Universal Code of Conduct as written
(T-H-L). At the analysis, VM says that the disclosure of his workplace in the paper was not based on publicly available information and could have come from Icewhiz himself. Even if this is untrue, though, the UCoC does not define outing in terms of what has been disclosed publicly.

[Arishok]

It's going to be nearly impossible to overturn the motion passed at the start of the case explicitly stating that OUTING was not violated by Chapmansh via the paper.

I see a valiant attempt is being made to do so, but I just can't see enough Arbs wanting to actually revisit that decision, even if Barkeep does seem at least slightly receptive.

[Vice Cabal Leader]

Isn't outing just a side-show to the harassment angle?

[Midsize Jake]

Isn't outing just a side-show to the harassment angle?

For about 80 to 90 percent of Wikipedians, no — it's at least one or two levels above that on the "Must Be Punished" scale, always assuming the victim is part of the in-group of course.

I would add something like "surely you know that already," but since you've always been open about your identity, maybe it doesn't affect you so much that you notice it?

[orangepi]

Meanwhile, Andreas/Jayen has introduced evidence arguing that the Grabowski/Klein paper violates the UCoC because of outing: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence#Grabowski and Klein's essay violates the Wikimedia Foundation's Universal Code of Conduct as written
(T-H-L). At the analysis, VM says that the disclosure of his workplace in the paper was not based on publicly available information and could have come from Icewhiz himself. Even if this is untrue, though, the UCoC does not define outing in terms of what has been disclosed publicly.

Did he check Everipedia?

[Vice Cabal Leader]

Isn't outing just a side-show to the harassment angle?

For about 80 to 90 percent of Wikipedians, no — it's at least one or two levels above that on the "Must Be Punished" scale, always assuming the victim is part of the in-group of course.

Hmmm, my logic is this: WHY do we care so much about outings (aka violations of privacy)? Because it is part of the harassment. After all, why would anyone care about being outed, if not for the potential for harassment to go off-wiki and affect their real life?

If one gets a ticket because their car has a broken light, it is not just because the light is broken - by itself that is not an issue - but because it can lead to serious accidents.

[Midsize Jake]

Hmmm, my logic is this: WHY do we care so much about outings (aka violations of privacy)? Because it is part of the harassment. After all, why would anyone care about being outed, if not for the potential for harassment to go off-wiki and affect their real life?

Sure, but it's also leverage. Again, you're not so anonymous yourself, so you might not appreciate this to the same degree, but if you know you can't win a dispute against an anonymous person by the quality of your argument, and you don't have advanced administrative rights, then what else are you gonna do? Apologize and walk away? This is Wikipedia we're talking about here — what an absurd notion!

If one gets a ticket because their car has a broken light, it is not just because the light is broken - by itself that is not an issue - but because it can lead to serious accidents.

Well, you live in South Korea, which is a much more orderly and disciplined society. In the good ol' USA, you mostly get the ticket because the local cops are facing a budget shortfall and they don't think they can get away with straight-up theft.

I know, call me cynical.

[Vice Cabal Leader]

Well, you live in South Korea, which is a much more orderly and disciplined society. In the good ol' USA, you mostly get the ticket because the local cops are facing a budget shortfall and they don't think they can get away with straight-up theft.

Actually, the traffic police in South Korea are very lenient, and that makes road safety a major issue there: https://thediplomat.com/2021/09/south-k ... -epidemic/ "A primary reason for this is a lack of enforcement. In South Korea, even the most basic traffic laws, such as stopping at pedestrian crossings, are not enforced. It has been observed that the only place in Seoul where cars routinely stopped for pedestrians was in the now-closed U.S. army base in the city center. Korean taxi drivers would enter the base and follow every rule, then exit and go back to flouting the law. The difference: visible policing."

Things might be changing now: https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/opinio ... 32576.html but in general "Korea's road safety laws are notoriously lax. In 2017, the death rate of pedestrians in Korea was 3.3 per 100,000 population. This figure is more than three times the OECD average of 1.0 per 100,000. On average, three pedestrians die each day just walking on the streets. It is all too common a sight to see cars blithely ignoring traffic lights, speed limits and stop signs."

[Konveyor Belt]

Hmmm, my logic is this: WHY do we care so much about outings (aka violations of privacy)? Because it is part of the harassment. After all, why would anyone care about being outed, if not for the potential for harassment to go off-wiki and affect their real life?

I don't think it's so much about the material consequences of outing for Wikipedia. This isn't social media, where certain accounts post identifying information which leads to those people actually being harassed in real life. Harassers and trolls on Wikipedia do not have the following necessary to make things like that happen. Rather, it's mostly about the "chilling effect" that outing has on the victim. Even if I was aware that absolutely no material harm would come to me as a result of being outed, it would still be pretty scary to see my name broadcasted on the internet when I thought I was being anonymous. Even if the moderators and users of whatever site I was doxed on had my back, I'd probably seriously reconsider going there.

[Ognistysztorm]

Hmmm, my logic is this: WHY do we care so much about outings (aka violations of privacy)? Because it is part of the harassment. After all, why would anyone care about being outed, if not for the potential for harassment to go off-wiki and affect their real life?

I don't think it's so much about the material consequences of outing for Wikipedia. This isn't social media, where certain accounts post identifying information which leads to those people actually being harassed in real life. Harassers and trolls on Wikipedia do not have the following necessary to make things like that happen. Rather, it's mostly about the "chilling effect" that outing has on the victim. Even if I was aware that absolutely no material harm would come to me as a result of being outed, it would still be pretty scary to see my name broadcasted on the internet when I thought I was being anonymous. Even if the moderators and users of whatever site I was doxed on had my back, I'd probably seriously reconsider going there.

Doxxing/outing frequently precede more serious attempts such as swattting, which often happens in gaming worlds. Having spend some months understanding the "meta" aspect of Wikipedia, I find that it is really no different than a MMORPG after all.

The big problem being that, Wikipedia's mentality is apparently still stuck in the 2000s, even as so many thing has changed such as the data privacy laws. The perception that Wikipedia is "equal to history" and is "the center of the internet" has created many dynamics which are often toxic, pitting many editors against each other to disastrous results.

What happens if someone lose an editorial dispute, particularly in adding new information? That will then become as if it's never existed in the first place for the eyes of the many as Wikipedia left it out. Archive it through Wayback Machine? Sure but almost all of us like to walk a smoother path and we'd just hop on directly to Wikipedia, browse an article or more before calling it a day. For the losers think of a Star Trek Voyager episode where a mad scientist wipes things out not just from surface, but from history.

This is so salient when coming to community health, yet most of Wikipedia is so short sighted and didn't really bother self-reflecting on that at all.

[Volunteer Marek]

More evidence for "stuff you say on Wikipediocracy" link

[Konveyor Belt]

Also, a section below:

Committee statement on private request received in 2022

In 2022, the Arbitration Committee received a private request for action against an editor for harassment in this topic area. The Arbitration Committee declined to consider the matter privately and advised the requester to file a request publicly. Subsequently a submission was made to T&S alleging harassment, which was deferred to ArbCom per policy for handling under their existing ArbCom procedures.

Anyone have any idea what this is about?

[Bezdomni]

Based on comments made during the drama over the creation of List of political editing incidents on Wikipedia (T-H-L) it could be related to François Robere asking for Mo' Crab (or for T&S) to do something about what he perceived to be harassment.

As for the timing of the Arb statement, it could be connected to GCB posting about that page (but without including a link to FR's comment about T&S). It could also be related to my recent comment over at Sucks that the Arbs may have wanted to avoid T&S swooping in and starting VoldeMarGate by taking unilateral action.

Or the timing could be related to nothing at all, the ways of the ol' Macbro being ever-mysterious as they are.

ed. add space & fix link & spelling

[Midsize Jake]

More evidence for "stuff you say on Wikipediocracy" link

One of Wikipedia's most determined and energetic fiasco-creators got upset because you referred to something he did as a "fiasco"? I guess I shouldn't speak for everyone, but I actually thought you were being nice.

(I think he's probably just jealous because he didn't create this latest fiasco all by himself.)

[Disgruntled haddock]

Isn't outing just a side-show to the harassment angle?

For about 80 to 90 percent of Wikipedians, no — it's at least one or two levels above that on the "Must Be Punished" scale, always assuming the victim is part of the in-group of course.

Hmmm, my logic is this: WHY do we care so much about outings (aka violations of privacy)? Because it is part of the harassment. After all, why would anyone care about being outed, if not for the potential for harassment to go off-wiki and affect their real life?

If one gets a ticket because their car has a broken light, it is not just because the light is broken - by itself that is not an issue - but because it can lead to serious accidents.

I'm skirting close to off-topic here, but privacy violations are a legitimate problem on their own, not merely because harassment can ensue. If you consider privacy as a property-theoretic right to exclude others from your information then you'll be able to connect the dots appropriately. In the past ten years I think some common-law jurisdictions have begun to recognize a private right of action for privacy violations.