4 ms·

Everything looks good here. The biased Wikipedia editor can no longer edit pages on post-1978 British politics. The whistleblower can no longer speculate on any

Everything looks good here. The biased Wikipedia editor can no longer edit pages on post-1978 British politics. The whistleblower can no longer speculate on any editor's off-wiki behaviour. No more biased edits from the accused, and no more witch-hunting from the whistleblower. Relevant quotes from article: Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter KalHolmann is indefinitely restricted from linking to or speculating about the off-wiki behavior or identity of other editors. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter Well done Wikipedia.

lucideer 8y ago
> no more witch-hunting from the whistleblower. I think the issue raised is the definition of Holmann's actions as whistleblowing or witchhunting. If it's the latter, that would seem to imply he shouldn't have engaged in that witchhunt, in which case the ban on Philip Cross would definitely not have come to pass. Are you saying this should be the case? If it's the former (whistleblowing), it can't be defined as witchhunting and you must agree Holmann should not be restricted. You can only agree with one of the above and remain logically consistent.
- Kim_Bruning 8y ago
  Kalholmann didn't open the arbcom case, and they didn't provide the bulk of useful evidence. I'd say they were neither whistleblowing nor witchhunting; just producing more heat than light (sadly).
  - k1m 8y ago
    KalHolmann's post about Philip Cross' conflict of interest was posted on 18 May 2018 on the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard. It ended with the following proposal: > I request that Philip Cross be topic banned from editing George Galloway and the other "goons" with whom he is at war—Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media Lens— all of whose Wikipedia pages Cross has frequently edited. KalHolmann (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Five minutes after posting that, your acquintance Wikipedia admin Guy rejected it, as he'd done the previous attempt (also within minutes). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&direction=next&oldid=841905271#User:Philip_Cross_has_COI https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis... As it turns out, two months later, the arbitration committee essentially ruled agreeing with his initial request (and in fact broadening the ban to all of post-1978 British politics). So your claim that he was "producing more heat than light" is nonsensical.
    - Kim_Bruning 8y ago
      Be that as it may initially; ultimately JzG relented, opened an Arbcom case, and explicitly invited KalHolmann to put forward their position. One of KalHolmann's key actions in response was to seek to be removed from the case entirely! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles/Workshop#Remove_KalHolmann_as_party_to_this_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests... Do you deny that this happened? Would you put forward the position that KalHolmann changed his mind later? Or (checking the record) do you see that mostly other people took over and examined the case instead?
      - Kim_Bruning 8y ago
        -- seeing your other comments, I do see some timeline issues in the above statement which I need to doublecheck. (+edit): Ah, here's the first statement by KalHolmann on 26 may, which is a bit more ambiguous. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=843054921 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitra... It could just be that KalHolmann isn't sure of their footing: It's still not the most brilliant of openings in building a case against Philip Cross of course. I was disappointed.
        k1m 8y ago
        I can't speak for Kal, but if you examine his actions from the start (I quoted his 18 May 2018 post, which precedes the one you linked, here it is again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&direction=next&oldid=841905271#User:Philip_Cross_has_COI https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis...) it appears he simply wanted to notify the community of Philip Cross' conflict of interest and to suggest a topic ban to prevent Cross from editing pages of people he had a conflict of interest with. There is nothing to indicate he wanted to open an arbitration case, nor be party to one. So that all occurred because of Guy (JzG) who after blocking all of Kal's attempts to start a discussion about this, finally started one himself in which he misrepresented the issue (by making the whole dispute to be about Galloway) and falsely accused Kal of being a supporter of Galloway, among other baseless accusations. In light of that, Kal Holmann's statement which you linked above makes perfect sense. He was dragged into an arbitration dispute by a Wikipedia admin (Guy/JzG) who you seem very keen to defend, and then posted a statement denying the accusations levelled against him. Wikipedia arbitrators end up punishing Kal but say not a word about Guy/JzG's actions.

lucideer 8y ago

> no more witch-hunting from the whistleblower. I think the issue raised is the definition of Holmann's actions as whistleblowing or witchhunting. If it's the latter, that would seem to imply he shouldn't have engaged in that witchhunt, in which case the ban on Philip Cross would definitely not have come to pass. Are you saying this should be the case? If it's the former (whistleblowing), it can't be defined as witchhunting and you must agree Holmann should not be restricted. You can only agree with one of the above and remain logically consistent.

Kim_Bruning 8y ago
Kalholmann didn't open the arbcom case, and they didn't provide the bulk of useful evidence. I'd say they were neither whistleblowing nor witchhunting; just producing more heat than light (sadly).
- k1m 8y ago
  KalHolmann's post about Philip Cross' conflict of interest was posted on 18 May 2018 on the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard. It ended with the following proposal: > I request that Philip Cross be topic banned from editing George Galloway and the other "goons" with whom he is at war—Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media Lens— all of whose Wikipedia pages Cross has frequently edited. KalHolmann (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Five minutes after posting that, your acquintance Wikipedia admin Guy rejected it, as he'd done the previous attempt (also within minutes). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&direction=next&oldid=841905271#User:Philip_Cross_has_COI https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis... As it turns out, two months later, the arbitration committee essentially ruled agreeing with his initial request (and in fact broadening the ban to all of post-1978 British politics). So your claim that he was "producing more heat than light" is nonsensical.
  - Kim_Bruning 8y ago
    Be that as it may initially; ultimately JzG relented, opened an Arbcom case, and explicitly invited KalHolmann to put forward their position. One of KalHolmann's key actions in response was to seek to be removed from the case entirely! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles/Workshop#Remove_KalHolmann_as_party_to_this_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests... Do you deny that this happened? Would you put forward the position that KalHolmann changed his mind later? Or (checking the record) do you see that mostly other people took over and examined the case instead?
    - Kim_Bruning 8y ago
      -- seeing your other comments, I do see some timeline issues in the above statement which I need to doublecheck. (+edit): Ah, here's the first statement by KalHolmann on 26 may, which is a bit more ambiguous. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=843054921 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitra... It could just be that KalHolmann isn't sure of their footing: It's still not the most brilliant of openings in building a case against Philip Cross of course. I was disappointed.
      - k1m 8y ago
        I can't speak for Kal, but if you examine his actions from the start (I quoted his 18 May 2018 post, which precedes the one you linked, here it is again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&direction=next&oldid=841905271#User:Philip_Cross_has_COI https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis...) it appears he simply wanted to notify the community of Philip Cross' conflict of interest and to suggest a topic ban to prevent Cross from editing pages of people he had a conflict of interest with. There is nothing to indicate he wanted to open an arbitration case, nor be party to one. So that all occurred because of Guy (JzG) who after blocking all of Kal's attempts to start a discussion about this, finally started one himself in which he misrepresented the issue (by making the whole dispute to be about Galloway) and falsely accused Kal of being a supporter of Galloway, among other baseless accusations. In light of that, Kal Holmann's statement which you linked above makes perfect sense. He was dragged into an arbitration dispute by a Wikipedia admin (Guy/JzG) who you seem very keen to defend, and then posted a statement denying the accusations levelled against him. Wikipedia arbitrators end up punishing Kal but say not a word about Guy/JzG's actions.