
Wikipedia bans agenda-driven editor, but punishes the messenger too - k1m
https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/banning/
======
bhouston
Wikipedia internal solidarity politics are just messed up if you approach the
inner circle. There is no fixing it. There is a lot of behind the scenes back
scratching, horse trading, and manipulation via back channels between the
members. Just stay away from them and avoid their gaze. It has also been like
this, it isn't new nor does it mean there is impending doom for Wikipedia. It
is just how it is. It is like the black whole at the center of the galaxy, you
want to just stay away from it.

~~~
cm2187
Well, some people care about an organisation's internal politics. That's
basically what the "delete uber" movement is, otherwise why would the clients
care how they treat women internally?

But in the case of Uber, the internal company politics don't really affect my
ride from point A to point B. The editorial policy within Wikipedia however
may have an impact on the content I read. Particular on politically sensitive
topics, it is important to keep a critical mind and be aware of the intentions
of the authors.

~~~
majormajor
Seems like an awfully big jump. You can have a crapload of internal politics
without harassment, sexism, or anything like that. You'll probably also get
some of those in any sufficiently large group of people, but it's possible to
respond to them well _and still be a political minefield_ in terms of
interpersonal relationships and power games.

~~~
ethbro
Avoiding situations like this has swung me around to the profound organization
health effects of regularly shuffling director+ level personnel (e.g. every
2-4 years).

What you lose in efficiency (as they refamiliarize themselves) -- you more
than gain in healthier politics, cross-organization cooperation and knowledge,
and overall following of rule of law / documentation.

~~~
Gibbon1
Reminds me of chatting with a director level manager at a fortune 500 firm. He
was on vacation between assignments. When I asked why he was being reassigned
he said the company moves them around every 2-3 years.

Another example friend lives in a small rural town. The county sheriffs
department rotates deputies every two years. Because the deputy needs to be
willing to arrest respected members of the community for drunk driving and not
be taking bribes from the local meth dealer.

~~~
jhayward
> _Reminds me of chatting with a director level manager at a fortune 500 firm.
> He was on vacation between assignments. When I asked why he was being
> reassigned he said the company moves them around every 2-3 years._

This is a healthy practice in larger organizations. Not only does it avoid the
concretion of personal politics but it exposes managers to a breadth of
experience, which is useful if they are promoted. It also ensures that the
organization has stretched its adaptation muscles regularly, and is not
brittle in the event of personnel turnover.

~~~
Gibbon1
One of the issues I found with the first company I worked at was because there
was little turnover there wasn't a lot of horizontal knowledge transfer that
you get at more dynamic companies. Meant their processes, technologies, etc
were stale and getting more stale as time went on. Which is why I left.

Best thing that happened to them was they let one of my utterly burned out
coworker go, followed by exit of myself and another more sr engineer. Which
forced them to hire three outsiders within a short span.

------
sverige
The idea that _anyone_ (including me and you, dear reader) is free from bias,
especially when discussing politics, seems painfully obvious after reading
lots of history. And yet, the claim that this or that person or organization
is 'neutral' is very common.

Further, the desire to create a 'neutral' 'encyclopedia' online is presumably
what drives the entire Wikipedia community. I'd wish for a Wikipedia that
consistently allows all viewpoints to be given an opportunity to be presented
on any given topic, but I have no faith that such a thing is possible given
the pervasiveness of the idea of neutrality and the interests at work to
preserve that myth.

~~~
throwaway5752
That is nihilism, plain and simple.

You can recognize bias and try to avoid it, like Wikipedia, by requiring
credible citations and having processes to avoid editorial bias from impacting
the end result (which it obviously did, eventually, as we're reading about
here). Like CNN, the WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg, WP, and many other sources of
information (across the political spectrum) do every day.

Or you can go the route of Fox news, take a pronounced editorial bias that
takes clear precedence over reporting facts. I would post video of Jeanine
Pirro or Hannity, but it seems unecessarily crude.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
>having processes to avoid editorial bias from impacting the end result

>like CNN, WP, NYT

Um... really? Are you saying those three specifically aren’t putting out very
biased results? You could be left of Marx and know that isn’t true for those
three specifically. Esp CNN!

The only explanation here is a different topic, that you yourself are so
biased that you think CNN is putting out good journalism.

~~~
cm2012
CNN, WP, and NYT basically do just present the facts in their reporting. To
the extent that it's a big deal when they put out a falsehood and people have
gotten fired. Opinion sections are obviously different.

~~~
monocasa
At least during the 2016 primaries, they were basically just mouthpieces of
the Clinton campaign.

~~~
cm2012
That's just not true.[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump-
hacked...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump-hacked-the-
media/)

~~~
monocasa
[https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-
campaig...](https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-
intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/)

The Clinton campaign specifically asked the news media (including CNN, WP,
NYT) to increase coverage of Trump (as well as Carson and Cruz). This is so
that they'd either have someone easier to beat in the case of these 'pied
piper' candidates, or pull a stronger opponent farther right come the general.

Nate Silver didn't know about this in March of 2016 when he wrote that
article.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
This is the most inconvenient truth of the entire 2016 Campaign. Hillary
requested Trump to be propped up as someone she "knew" she could beat. If she
had just played fair, she might have actually won against Jeb who the GOP
actually wanted.

Don't like Trump? Thank Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the media for playing
along.

------
kevin_b_er
Wikipedia is like a microcosm of public politics, large version of a high
school social system, or maybe a cult.

There's cliques, arcane rules, and always always an agenda. It would make for
a fascinating study on human behavior and how it relates to politics in the
real world. Wikipedia internal politics are a scary beast fraught with peril.
And the actual content suffers horribly.

~~~
convery
Indeed, it's always fun to read about a controversial topic one day and find a
totally different article the next. Then watch the talk where some news-
sources are unacceptable when they support the wrong narrative but
unsubstantiated blogs can be used to push the right one. It's fascinating
although a little scary.

~~~
cheeko1234
Any examples?

------
wavefunction
I think the most productive move that folks critical of Wikipedia can make is
to create an alternative. It's unfortunate that Jimmy Wales and his clique
comport themselves the way they do, because Wikipedia would be much stronger
if they didn't.

I find it useful for browsing on subjects that interest me but I don't tend to
use it for subjects that are too controversial. At least superficially. And
yet given what I know about the biases of Internet denizens I have to wonder
how much of what I expose myself to is accurate and not the result of some
weird personal biases.

I also consider the citations listed in the footnotes which gives me a bit
more confidence than none, I suppose.

~~~
KaoruAoiShiho
How would any alternative be any less biased?

~~~
chris_wot
I had an idea that you could create a Wikipedia with the same content, but
allow for certain, more opinionated alternative articles. A link to these
would be incorporated into the UI of the site and by default the best, most
neutral one would be shown but you would suspend neutrality on the alternative
articles. All the other Wikipedia policies would still apply.

~~~
JCharante
For example, Wookiepedia shows the cannon articles by default, but at the top
you're able to select the Legends version of the article, which uses sources
that were retconned. Just replace Legends with a different name/bias, and add
multiple tabs.

~~~
chris_wot
Precisely my idea!

------
Kim_Bruning
Fivefilters.org is very good at cherry-picking; they are quite ...selective...
with the truth. Take everything they say with a barrel of salt, and keep your
eyes peeled for what they _leave out_.

Philip Cross cannot be said to be an agenda driven editor; people checked all
the evidence (One person went so far as to hand-check and score large samples
of his edits; a hellish job!). The facts just weren't there to support that
assertion.

KalHolmann was ultimately NOT the messenger here, and was also not the person
who brought the arbitration case. In fact, when KalHolmann was explicitly
invited to help sort things out, they couldn't back out fast enough. What
little KalHolmann _did_ do brought more heat than light to the situation.

~~~
k1m
> Philip Cross cannot be said to be an agenda driven editor; people checked
> all the evidence (One person went so far as to hand-check and score large
> samples of his edits; a hellish job!). The facts just weren't there to
> support that assertion.

Philip Cross edits in different areas, e.g. jazz and film. He's highly
prolific. He needn't have an agenda in all areas to be called an agenda-driven
editor in other areas. And the fact that he's made over a 100,000 edits means
someone who approaches an examination of his edits by looking at a small
random sample of his total output (as the editor you mention did) is not
likely to come up with anything useful (I think this was pointed out to him).
So to say "the facts just weren't there to support that assertion" is not
really true. We've documented his editing in three articles now:

* [https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/](https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/)

* [https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html](https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html)

* [https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/evidence/](https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/evidence/)

Readers can make up their own minds.

> KalHolmann was ultimately NOT the messenger here, and was also not the
> person who brought the arbitration case.

Who was the messenger, then? As far as we're aware, he was the Wikipedia
editor who attempted to notify the community to the problems when the story
emerged. Only to be shut down by admin Guy - who, it should be mentioned,
appears to be an acquaintance of yours:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_155#meat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_155#meatball:ExpandScope_wrt_User:Philip_Cross)

> In fact, when KalHolmann was explicitly invited to help sort things out,
> they couldn't back out fast enough. What little KalHolmann did do brought
> more heat than light to the situation.

He withdrew because of the way he was treated by Wikipedia admins, including
Guy (your friend/acquaintance), and the arbitrators who started censoring his
contributions. Anyone can read his contribution to the case here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=845422299&oldid=84...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=845422299&oldid=845421753&title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FBLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles%2FEvidence&type=revision)
and the edit history which shows editing of his contributions (mostly
permanently deleted now by the arbitrators):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles/Evidence&offset=&limit=500&action=history)

> Fivefilters.org is very good at cherry-picking; they are quite
> ...selective... with the truth.

You've not really demonstrated that with your contributions here.

~~~
Kim_Bruning
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
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
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
> 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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles/Workshop#Intimidation_campaign)
(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
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
> 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).

We never said JzG had it in for us. We highlighted problems with his conduct
in relation to the case. And what we consider the double standards of the
arbitration committee when it came to certain parts of their decision.

> 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)

Your comment here suggests that you think the arbitration committee can do no
wrong. We're highlighting what we think is unfair treatment in this case (with
supporting evidence). The fact that the story got voted to the front page of
Hacker News shows that many others find it convincing too. The many comments
here also show that people have had their own experiences of unfair treatment
participating in Wikipedia.

> ( 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.)

You're stating the obvious here, but we don't need to talk about
hypotheticals. We can examine the conduct of everyone involved. We've tried to
support our position by showing evidence of what we consider is unfair
treatment. I haven't been convinced otherwise by your contributions, but maybe
others will be.

------
gadders
Some of the back story to this is an argument between journalists Oliver Kamm
and Neil Clark.

Not picking any particular side, but there seems to have been some real life
disagreement that is playing out on Wikipedia.

[1]
[http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/neil_clark.html](http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/neil_clark.html)

[2] [https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-
philip-c...](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-
affair/comment-page-1/)

[3] [http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-sign-of-times-
vici...](http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-sign-of-times-vicious-
vendettas-of.html)

------
chris_wot
My initial reaction to this was that this was typical. I was similarly
treated. But frankly, I know Guy and something doesn’t seem quite right.

I’m not certain we have heard the full story on this.

One thing I will say: I often regret creating the admin’s noticeboard. It
helped centralise control and the incidents offshoot is a cesspool of
conflict. It often is not managed well at all.

~~~
mirimir
I gotta say that, after reading this,[0] I am very glad that I never started
contributing to Wikipedia.

0)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive299#Philip_Cross)

~~~
lucideer
I don't know Guy, but purely from that linked discussion (Guy on George
Galloway):

> _He is without question a controversial figure, and not in a good way_

That is, without any need for further context, a statement of bias, and if the
user Guy is espousing such views of relevant subjects here they absolutely
shouldn't be involved in decision-making of any kind on this topic. This
follow-up statement is worse again:

> _... and allow PC to definitively clear his name_

Presumption of innocence is one thing, but presumption of a future outcome of
arbitration is quite another.

It's pretty clear where Guy stands on this from the outset, and it's not good.

~~~
lobotryas
Are you saying that people can't be controversial in "not a good way"? I hope
not.

Whether this applies to Galloway is a matter of popular opinion. Look at
Assange. First he was hailed as a hero in the West; now he's looked at as a
Russian agent.

~~~
lucideer
> _Are you saying that people can 't be controversial in "not a good way"? I
> hope not._

Of course not. I'm just saying that judgement of whether it is in "a good way"
or "not a good way" will always be subjective, and representative of a biased
viewpoint. Noone is completely unbiased but espousing such a viewpoint
publically on a thread about arbitration isn't in keeping with
responsibilities of Wikipedia's admins.

> _Whether this applies to Galloway is a matter of popular opinion._

The popularity of the opinion should not be a qualifier for it to make up a
part of a Wikipedia aministrator's discourse on non-biased arbitration.

------
chris_wot
Tweet from Jimmy Wales:

[https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/994264792062885895?s=...](https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/994264792062885895?s=21)

~~~
dmix
Sounds like there's a lot more to this story than it seems at first...

I really hope this is not based in some right vs left wing political drama and
is legitimately about abusive behaviour.

Listening to the BBC show (as I'm not very familiar with this story), it
sounds like it's a lot of one and a little of the other
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csws6q](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csws6q)

~~~
lobotryas
Certainly feels like someone found a reason to kick a right-leaning admin off
Wikipedia. Just because someone has an agenda and seek out negative
information about people, doesn't mean said information is wrong.

~~~
phkahler
But it does mean they have an agenda.

------
kaendfinger
Cue the people trying to claim that anyone in this entire world is unbiased.
I'm biased, you're biased, everyone's biased. CNN is biased, NYT is biased,
Fox News is biased, NPR is biased. We should all stop pretending that our own
news source is unbiased. It's simply not true.

~~~
manfredo
Sure, but a reputable source actively tries to mitigate bias. Not to mention,
Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of factual information as opposed to
news publications that often deliberately focus on their own opinions rather
than facts - not that editorials are inherently bad, just that news
publications are distinct from encyclopedias.

------
FlashGit
English wikipedia on various aspects of 'British' history is pretty biased and
prejudiced. There is the typical careful framing to tilt perception positively
and negatively as required, such a desperate bunch.

------
sodosopa
I guess I won't donate this year.

------
tomtimtall
This likely won’t have huge concequences for Wikipedia, but they lost at least
one donor.

------
holstvoogd
ugh, i think it is time to scrap the internet. everything is being corrupted
to the extend there is no point imo

~~~
kypro
I really miss the web from 10 years ago. It felt so liberating back then.
Everything felt so open and genuine. I made so many friends in the early days
of the internet. I don't even know how, forums, MSN messengers, games. You'd
just add people and talk to them for hours.

Now the internet today seems to be mostly ads, corporate corruption,
government censorship, and political outrage. It's a shame. I don't enjoy the
internet half as much anymore. Maybe it's more my age or that I'm used to the
technology now, but it really feels like we lost something innocent and
special about the early days of the internet.

~~~
maze-le
I don't know how old you are, but my bet is: its an age thing.

Actually I miss the web from 1999-2004 for the exact same reasons you do, and
2008 was already way downhill for me. But when I think about it a bit more
carefully... How old was I at the time? 14-19... An age where almost
everything is exciting and new: music, parties, friends, philosophy,
technology you name it. I can easily apply this sentiment to most categories
of interest during this time period.

I wonder if in 15 years from now, the people around 30 will rumble about how
wonderful it was back then, when it was all the rage to be on Instagram etc.
and how easy it was to connect to people, and how quickly you could organize
events via social media.

~~~
stallmanite
To add more anecdotes to the fire I definitely find myself pining for the
97-2000 days. Slashdot, goofy Geocities pages, good times.

------
_louisr_
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
> _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
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
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:Adminis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&direction=next&oldid=841905271#User:Philip_Cross_has_COI)

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
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles/Workshop#Remove_KalHolmann_as_party_to_this_case)

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
\-- 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:Arbitra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=843054921)

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
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:Adminis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&direction=next&oldid=841905271#User:Philip_Cross_has_COI))
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.

~~~
Kim_Bruning
Well, if Philip Cross's alleged conflict of interest were to be examined and
dealt with, ultimately it would need to be looked at by the arbitration
committee. Once you understand that, other things start falling into place.

JzG changed tack because I poked them and pointed them at your story.

JzG went back to admin's noticeboard to gather further input, and people
confirmed that an Arbcom case would indeed have merit.

At that point, the Arbcom case became inevitable.

Now, as an honorable human being, you can't go and start something, and then
when it happens turn around and get cold feet.

I'm a bit disappointed in KalHolmann because they ran away when things Got
Interesting.

I'm also disappointed in you because your stories turned out to actually not
be as well researched as they seemed at first blush.

I now regret my own part in this :-/

~~~
k1m
> Well, if Philip Cross's alleged conflict of interest were to be examined and
> dealt with, ultimately it would need to be looked at by the arbitration
> committee. Once you understand that, other things start falling into place.

Not true. The community is more than able to reach a decision without
arbitrators. As was done when they voted to topic ban him from George
Galloway.

> JzG changed tack because I poked them and pointed them at your story.

That doesn't excuse or explain his shutting down of Kal Holmann's initial
report of conflict of interest - there was plenty in there deserving of
discussion whether one looked at our story or not. And part of Guy/JzG's
'changing tack' was to misrepresent the issue by making it out to be a dispute
mainly between Philip Cross and George Galloway, confusing other editors in
the process. Something that the arbitrators also failed to comment on in their
decision, but appeared to be aware of because they re-titled his arbitration
case from "George Galloway" to "BLP issues on British politics articles" and
later expanded the scope of the ban even more to "post-1978 British politics".
Quite a jump from Guy's preferred focus of just Geroge Galloway.

> Now, as an honorable human being, you can't go and start something, and then
> when it happens turn around and get cold feet.

You're not making sense. Earlier you wrote "KalHolmann...was also not the
person who brought the arbitration case." So why are you now saying he started
it and then got cold feet?

The fact is he didn't start it. Guy/JzG requested it and dragged him into it
with false accusations. I started to participate in the evidence phase of the
arbitration case myself and was alarmed at the way the arbitrators were
treating Kal so I withdrew too. The rest of the evidence we published on our
own site. I won't rehash what I've already said in my other replies to you
here regarding this, they're easy enought to find. You seem determined to
misrepresent this story without providing any useful evidence. Bit rich to be
accusing us of "cherry picking".

~~~
Kim_Bruning
The wikipedia community disagreed with you there. The consensus was in favor
of sending this to the arbitration committee, with the topic ban being a
temporary first fix. And it did go to arbcom, and arbcom did take action.

On the one hand, JzG is obviously not your yes-man; this particular person has
a mind of their own and presented the case from their own perspective. That
said -on balance- their behavior came out in your favor. (as is abundantly
clear now that we have 20/20 hindsight)

Kalholmann was given every opportunity to set/correct the record from their
own perspective, but they just didn't take it. Hence my dissapointment.

You and I are working with the same set of evidence. I guess the main
difference (if even that) is that I'm not just reading the partial account on
your site, but I am also reading directly from the primary source including
the bits that your team have left out.

Obviously our interpretation differs. ;-)

I guess only you yourself can know whether you are deliberately spinning
things; or whether you are genuinely personally convinced by the narrative
that you present.

~~~
k1m
> The wikipedia community disagreed with you there. The consensus was in favor
> of sending this to the arbitration committee, with the topic ban being a
> temporary first fix. And it did go to arbcom, and arbcom did take action.

You miss the point. You wrote "if Philip Cross's alleged conflict of interest
were to be examined and dealt with, ultimately it would need to be looked at
by the arbitration committee." I was pointing out that that is not in fact
true. The Wikipedia community can make decisions without referring everything
to the arbitration committee. I wasn't expressing an opinion about whether
this case should or should not have gone to the committee.

------
dingo_bat
Agenda driven editor sounds exactly like the kind of editors you need for an
encyclopedia. If you have no agenda, won't you just sit at home and watch TV?

------
baud147258
So this website is going to lose its raison d'être? Also his soft-grey on
white background is hard to read.

Edit: It's just in my browser of choice that it appears as grey on white. It
looks much better on Chrome.

~~~
pc86
What is your browser of choice and why is it displaying websites incorrectly?

~~~
baud147258
IE.

I don't think I need to explain why some website might not display correctly
with it, even if most website are displaying correctly. But I haven't look why
this one in particular is not working.

~~~
Cthulhu_
I'm no expert, but I guess it might be a font that renders differently on IE
vs Chrome / other browsers - or it's a font not supported and what you're
seeing is a less legible fallback.

~~~
baud147258
Well it's not a font problem, the issue is that the background in IE is white,
whereas it's dark grey on chrome. It's readable, but not very legible.

~~~
k1m
I'm sorry about this! I should've checked on IE. Just have and Edge shows
right background colour but chunky font which is difficult to read. And IE 11
shows white background. We used Typora to write this up and used its bundled
Night theme. Assumed it had been tested in IE, but appears not. I'll make sure
we fix this soon.

Edit: It's also possible that we tweaked the CSS it generated, which might
have caused this, so I'd rather not blame it on their theme before I test it.

~~~
baud147258
Considering the IE marketshare, I don't think it's much of a problem to not
test on IE (or even Edge). And I'm less bothered by a browser compatibility
issue than illegible design.

Also on Edge I see the same white background as on IE, but I'm on Windows 10
1703, if it's a version dépendent bug.

~~~
k1m
It appears this was related to CSS variable support.

Typora's themes use CSS3 variables which aren't supported in IE and weren't
supported in Edge until more recently. I tried on Edge 42 (EdgeHTML 17) when I
said the background colour displayed correctly. Perhaps you're using an older
version of Edge (the version is displayed at the bottom of the settings
panel).

In any case, I've added CSS to set the background colour without using CSS
variables. It now shows correctly for me in IE 11 too.

Thanks for letting us know.

