6 ms·

Wikipedia, however, appear to be trying to protect him. Please see one Wikipedia editor's efforts to flag his behaviour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk

by k1m 8y ago

Wikipedia, however, appear to be trying to protect him. Please see one Wikipedia editor's efforts to flag his behaviour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KalHolmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KalHolmann

tptacek 8y ago
Exactly what is it we're supposed to be looking at here? And what does "Wikipedia", as an entity, mean in your comment?
- k1m 8y ago
  It's not that long. Did you read it? One Wikipedia editor is trying to highlight the problem of Cross' edits and have him marked as having a conflict of interest on certain articles. The Wikipedia admin (or superiour, I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia hierarchy) shuts him down very rudely and doesn't appear to want to address the issue at all. Leaving the editor to give up: "Forgive me for concluding that Wikipedia is circling its wagons around Philip Cross...I know when the deck is stacked against me."
  - TwoBit 8y ago
    Maybe that editor is Philip Cross?
  - Kim_Bruning 8y ago
    Wikipedia is not a hierarchy. Admins are experienced wikipedians who have a few extra administrative tasks (hence the name). The Admin in question seems to have acted based on their own judgment. (I know because I asked them! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG#meatball:ExpandScope_wrt_User:Philip_Cross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG#meatball:ExpandS... ) . You could even talk to the admin yourself, if you would like extra information. Wikipedia has a function to add questions to a talk page, and there is a function to send an email instead/as well, if you have questions. That said, I went looking around, and there appear to be politicians and russian media involved here. This is not a "Evil admin stomps on poor innocent victim" story, for sure.
    - k1m 8y ago
      What are you suggesting with your last comment? Did you read the story posted here and the changes Philip Cross has made? "I went looking around, and there appear to be politicians and russian media involved here." - Is that the level of evidence needed to do whatever you want on Wikipedia?
      - Kim_Bruning 8y ago
        Yes, I have read most carefully. And I have also talked to one of the admins, as you can see. Obviously, things are not adding up. We can both agree on that much ;-) What I don't quite get is why fivefilters.org is interested?
        k1m 8y ago
        Because we like the work of many of the people targeted by Cross and decided to write something up on it.
    - twic 8y ago
      Oh, JzG is Guy Chapman! I remember him from usenet back in the day. I haven't interacted with him in almost a decade, but i remember that he was one of the good guys, even if he did take it a bit seriously. Seeing a link to Meatball is also a blast from the past - i just about remember the drama when it split off from Ward's Wiki. Reminiscences aside, i suppose these are both reminders that Wikipedia is a living fossil; it was started in the early days of the web (not the early early days, but early enough), drew its participants and culture from other places which existed at the time, and has been evolving on its own terms ever since.
- noobermin 8y ago
  The relevant bit is the last two comments by KalHolmann. Attempts to discuss Cross' behavior in the relevant, public boards were closed within minutes of each posting with unsatisfactory explanations. See [0] for example. Not a wikipedian, but from my nerdish poking around and learning about how wikipedia works, it was my impression that these boards are supposed to be public forums to openly discuss issues, in line with its spirit of open collaboration. The fact that editors closed it immediately is evidence that, as KalHolmann says, there is circling of wagons going on. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Philip_Cross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest...
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I see an admin with no apparent connection to this subject[0]: (1) instructing KalHolmann not to canvass (this is one of WP's older rules and comes up all the time in AfD, where people will canvass WP and Twitter to get votes to keep marginal articles) (2) backing out KalHolmann's canvassing comments (3) responding to KalHolmann's question about where to direct his concern by telling him to take it to ANI (4) advising against him taking it to the "COI Noticeboard" (I'm not sure I know what that even is but I guess I can guess and I'm not surprised it exists) (5) after KalHolmann takes it there anyways and complains about the outcome, telling him again to take it to ANI. None of this seems bad to me; it seems like a WP admin going out of their way to be helpful (in a WP'ian sort of way) and getting slagged for it on HN. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/NeilN&offset=&limit=500&target=NeilN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contribut...
    - noobermin 8y ago
      NeilN isn't the abusive or sinister one here. It is the fact that KalHolmann's posts were closed on the boards that is the issue.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Ok, look at the admin who closed it --- and their talk page, where they talk more about the reason they closed the COI notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG Also no apparent connection to the topic. There over a thousand admins on Wikipedia; most of them don't know or have any connection to each other.
- dboat 8y ago
  It seems obvious to me that by "Wikipedia" he is referring to the Wikipedia admin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG) who quashed user KalHolmann's attempts to discuss the issue of Philip Cross's campaign of biased edits. Did you not read the link?
- jakobegger 8y ago
  It looks like a wikipedia editor requested that Cross should not be allowed to edit articles where he has a conflict of interest. Rather than dealing with the request, it was immediately closed and the editor reporting the conflict of interest was accused of picking a fight.

by k1m 8y ago

tptacek 8y ago

Exactly what is it we're supposed to be looking at here? And what does "Wikipedia", as an entity, mean in your comment?

k1m 8y ago
It's not that long. Did you read it? One Wikipedia editor is trying to highlight the problem of Cross' edits and have him marked as having a conflict of interest on certain articles. The Wikipedia admin (or superiour, I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia hierarchy) shuts him down very rudely and doesn't appear to want to address the issue at all. Leaving the editor to give up: "Forgive me for concluding that Wikipedia is circling its wagons around Philip Cross...I know when the deck is stacked against me."
- TwoBit 8y ago
  Maybe that editor is Philip Cross?
- Kim_Bruning 8y ago
  Wikipedia is not a hierarchy. Admins are experienced wikipedians who have a few extra administrative tasks (hence the name). The Admin in question seems to have acted based on their own judgment. (I know because I asked them! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG#meatball:ExpandScope_wrt_User:Philip_Cross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG#meatball:ExpandS... ) . You could even talk to the admin yourself, if you would like extra information. Wikipedia has a function to add questions to a talk page, and there is a function to send an email instead/as well, if you have questions. That said, I went looking around, and there appear to be politicians and russian media involved here. This is not a "Evil admin stomps on poor innocent victim" story, for sure.
  - k1m 8y ago
    What are you suggesting with your last comment? Did you read the story posted here and the changes Philip Cross has made? "I went looking around, and there appear to be politicians and russian media involved here." - Is that the level of evidence needed to do whatever you want on Wikipedia?
    - Kim_Bruning 8y ago
      Yes, I have read most carefully. And I have also talked to one of the admins, as you can see. Obviously, things are not adding up. We can both agree on that much ;-) What I don't quite get is why fivefilters.org is interested?
      - k1m 8y ago
        Because we like the work of many of the people targeted by Cross and decided to write something up on it.
  - twic 8y ago
    Oh, JzG is Guy Chapman! I remember him from usenet back in the day. I haven't interacted with him in almost a decade, but i remember that he was one of the good guys, even if he did take it a bit seriously. Seeing a link to Meatball is also a blast from the past - i just about remember the drama when it split off from Ward's Wiki. Reminiscences aside, i suppose these are both reminders that Wikipedia is a living fossil; it was started in the early days of the web (not the early early days, but early enough), drew its participants and culture from other places which existed at the time, and has been evolving on its own terms ever since.
noobermin 8y ago
The relevant bit is the last two comments by KalHolmann. Attempts to discuss Cross' behavior in the relevant, public boards were closed within minutes of each posting with unsatisfactory explanations. See [0] for example. Not a wikipedian, but from my nerdish poking around and learning about how wikipedia works, it was my impression that these boards are supposed to be public forums to openly discuss issues, in line with its spirit of open collaboration. The fact that editors closed it immediately is evidence that, as KalHolmann says, there is circling of wagons going on. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Philip_Cross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest...
- tptacek 8y ago
  I see an admin with no apparent connection to this subject[0]: (1) instructing KalHolmann not to canvass (this is one of WP's older rules and comes up all the time in AfD, where people will canvass WP and Twitter to get votes to keep marginal articles) (2) backing out KalHolmann's canvassing comments (3) responding to KalHolmann's question about where to direct his concern by telling him to take it to ANI (4) advising against him taking it to the "COI Noticeboard" (I'm not sure I know what that even is but I guess I can guess and I'm not surprised it exists) (5) after KalHolmann takes it there anyways and complains about the outcome, telling him again to take it to ANI. None of this seems bad to me; it seems like a WP admin going out of their way to be helpful (in a WP'ian sort of way) and getting slagged for it on HN. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/NeilN&offset=&limit=500&target=NeilN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contribut...
  - noobermin 8y ago
    NeilN isn't the abusive or sinister one here. It is the fact that KalHolmann's posts were closed on the boards that is the issue.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Ok, look at the admin who closed it --- and their talk page, where they talk more about the reason they closed the COI notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG Also no apparent connection to the topic. There over a thousand admins on Wikipedia; most of them don't know or have any connection to each other.
dboat 8y ago
It seems obvious to me that by "Wikipedia" he is referring to the Wikipedia admin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG) who quashed user KalHolmann's attempts to discuss the issue of Philip Cross's campaign of biased edits. Did you not read the link?
jakobegger 8y ago
It looks like a wikipedia editor requested that Cross should not be allowed to edit articles where he has a conflict of interest. Rather than dealing with the request, it was immediately closed and the editor reporting the conflict of interest was accused of picking a fight.