4 ms·

I am basing myself on those pages you mentioned. I already communicated to you about some of the omissions I noticed before. I am explicitly cautioning readers

I am basing myself on those pages you mentioned. I already communicated to you about some of the omissions I noticed before. I am explicitly cautioning readers who read those pages that I noticed a lot of unbalanced omissions. They can then be on the lookout for that and indeed check and decide for themselves.

k1m 8y ago
I don't think your earlier comments contained much substance, but were more an attempt to deflect and defend a Wikipedia admin with whom you are perhaps acquainted. But I will link to those earlier comments below for the interested reader. We've had three articles about this story discussed on Hacker News, including this one. Here are your comments on the previous articles, and my replies: * A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17109849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17109849 * Update: The agenda-driven edits of Philip Cross and Wikipedia's response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17169786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17169786
- Kim_Bruning 8y ago
  I'm familiar with a lot of wikipedia editors. That doesn't mean I agree with all of them all at once. (Even if that was possible, which it definitely isn't :-P ) As you observed: after reading your first story, I managed to convince JzG to at least consider changing tack wrt Kalholmann. Which they did! Unfortunately Kalholmann was a very bad choice for a champion. In fact, they decided to post Personally Identifying Information right in full view of the arbitration committee; even after being advised not to! (this behavior is at best unethical, arguably illegal, but definitely against the rules!) In practice, the ironic fact is that JzG turned out to be more effective for your cause than Kalholmann! I guess I'm just surprised that you're still sticking with your old story, even despite the added clarity of 20/20 hindsight. You appear to be rather prone to cherry-picking. I'm not sure whether this is by accident or on purpose. (I'm also not sure if it matters; either way it causes harm!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
  - k1m 8y ago
    > Unfortunately Kalholmann was a very bad choice for a champion. In fact, they decided to post Personally Identifying Information right in full view of the arbitration committee; even after being advised not to! (this behavior is at best unethical, arguably illegal, but definitely against the rules!) Care to provide some evidence? Worth pointing out that Philip Cross never claimed to be using a pseudonym. In fact he claimed the opposite, right on Wikipedia: stating that he wasn't using a pseudonym. He linked his Twitter account to his Wikipedia account. None of this was exposed due to sleuthing/doxxing - it was simply what he himself stated. So there was understandably a lot of confusion around posting personally identifiable information (ie. his name) when he himself claims on Wikipedia that that is what he's called and he's not operating under a pseudonym. Also, did you see Guy/JzG's own doxxing effort? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles/Workshop#Intimidation_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests... (he outed someone and another admin had to revision delete his outing). Curious that you don't consider that a big offense, but are happy to accuse Kal Holmann of something without providing any links. > In practice, the ironic fact is that JzG turned out to be more effective for your cause than Kalholmann! It's hilarious that you're still attempting to defend JzG. How can we know he was more effective? We can't see how this would have turned out had JzG not interfered. So why speculate? But there's plenty he did wrong, and faced no consequences for, which we are attempting to highlight. > I guess I'm just surprised that you're still sticking with your old story, even despite the added clarity of 20/20 hindsight. You've done little to bring clarity here.
    - Kim_Bruning 8y ago
      Right, so JzG clearly had it in for you. And yet somehow their actions ended up getting the exact result you were hoping for (as reported by you). In the mean time Kalholmann was your best friend ever... and somehow every time they tried something, they got themselves in more trouble and ultimately got sanctioned by the arbitration committee. (also as reported by you) Yup, right, clearly your narrative makes perfect sense here. Good job, well done. ;-) ( Just because someone doesn't immediately prostrate themselves and profess their undying loyalty to your cause, that doesn't mean they can't effectively be your friend-du-jour. Vice versa, just because someone does say they support you doesn't mean they're automatically competent and able to help.)

k1m 8y ago

I don't think your earlier comments contained much substance, but were more an attempt to deflect and defend a Wikipedia admin with whom you are perhaps acquainted. But I will link to those earlier comments below for the interested reader. We've had three articles about this story discussed on Hacker News, including this one. Here are your comments on the previous articles, and my replies: * A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17109849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17109849 * Update: The agenda-driven edits of Philip Cross and Wikipedia's response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17169786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17169786

Kim_Bruning 8y ago
I'm familiar with a lot of wikipedia editors. That doesn't mean I agree with all of them all at once. (Even if that was possible, which it definitely isn't :-P ) As you observed: after reading your first story, I managed to convince JzG to at least consider changing tack wrt Kalholmann. Which they did! Unfortunately Kalholmann was a very bad choice for a champion. In fact, they decided to post Personally Identifying Information right in full view of the arbitration committee; even after being advised not to! (this behavior is at best unethical, arguably illegal, but definitely against the rules!) In practice, the ironic fact is that JzG turned out to be more effective for your cause than Kalholmann! I guess I'm just surprised that you're still sticking with your old story, even despite the added clarity of 20/20 hindsight. You appear to be rather prone to cherry-picking. I'm not sure whether this is by accident or on purpose. (I'm also not sure if it matters; either way it causes harm!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
- k1m 8y ago
  > Unfortunately Kalholmann was a very bad choice for a champion. In fact, they decided to post Personally Identifying Information right in full view of the arbitration committee; even after being advised not to! (this behavior is at best unethical, arguably illegal, but definitely against the rules!) Care to provide some evidence? Worth pointing out that Philip Cross never claimed to be using a pseudonym. In fact he claimed the opposite, right on Wikipedia: stating that he wasn't using a pseudonym. He linked his Twitter account to his Wikipedia account. None of this was exposed due to sleuthing/doxxing - it was simply what he himself stated. So there was understandably a lot of confusion around posting personally identifiable information (ie. his name) when he himself claims on Wikipedia that that is what he's called and he's not operating under a pseudonym. Also, did you see Guy/JzG's own doxxing effort? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles/Workshop#Intimidation_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests... (he outed someone and another admin had to revision delete his outing). Curious that you don't consider that a big offense, but are happy to accuse Kal Holmann of something without providing any links. > In practice, the ironic fact is that JzG turned out to be more effective for your cause than Kalholmann! It's hilarious that you're still attempting to defend JzG. How can we know he was more effective? We can't see how this would have turned out had JzG not interfered. So why speculate? But there's plenty he did wrong, and faced no consequences for, which we are attempting to highlight. > I guess I'm just surprised that you're still sticking with your old story, even despite the added clarity of 20/20 hindsight. You've done little to bring clarity here.
  - Kim_Bruning 8y ago
    Right, so JzG clearly had it in for you. And yet somehow their actions ended up getting the exact result you were hoping for (as reported by you). In the mean time Kalholmann was your best friend ever... and somehow every time they tried something, they got themselves in more trouble and ultimately got sanctioned by the arbitration committee. (also as reported by you) Yup, right, clearly your narrative makes perfect sense here. Good job, well done. ;-) ( Just because someone doesn't immediately prostrate themselves and profess their undying loyalty to your cause, that doesn't mean they can't effectively be your friend-du-jour. Vice versa, just because someone does say they support you doesn't mean they're automatically competent and able to help.)