Eastern European Warfare

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Eastern European Warfare

Post by wexter » Fri Mar 10, 2023 11:25 pm

Marriage is verboten - so is free speech - me, I thought "encyclopedias" were supposed to present easy to understand facts as to provide an overview and thus are not platforms for speech, opinion, or narrative framing. I guess a funny thing happened on the way to the forum.

Join an online social network If you want "free speech" that is then censored (or where you can easily be blocked at a whim) - oh wait Wikipedia is a social network where participants can spout their opinions and frame narratives that are then spun as encyclopedic-fact.

That is why our Polish propagandists are engaged in Eastern European Warfare, why there are online NAZI hunters, Orthodox Jewish Zealots, raving antisemitism, child pornographers pretending to be manga fans, 50c Army from China, Indian and Pakistani editing conflicts, mentally ill folks in search of crazy, autistic folks pounding the dinosaurs, women looking to create women scientists out of thin air, publicity hunters fudding bitcoin, and gender benders armed with personal pronouns. The list of narratives being framed goes on and on and on.... Wikipedia is a battleground but it is not an encyclopedia.....

Does anyone read or use Wikipedia? Can you read faux-articles that are longer than books?


The founder of Wikipedia has claimed that the site does not restrict free speech, despite evidence of it hindering editors who expressed support for traditional marriage.
In 2020, Wales’s Wikipedia co-founder, Larry Sanger, wrote in a blog post that its neutrality policy was “dead” because of political bias.
https://www.christian.org.uk/news/wikip ... upporters/
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Eastern European Warfare

Post by wexter » Sun Mar 12, 2023 6:03 pm

Twitter Files tell a "Frankenstein tale of a human-built mechanism" – "one of the world's largest and most influential social media platforms" – "grown out [of] the control of its designer".
Just took a look at the "Twitter Files" article where narrative framers (on two diametrically opposed sides) are still having a field day over nonsense.

I found the quote above amusing because it could easily apply to Wikipiedia.

Wikipedia tells a "Frankenstein tale of a human-built mechanism" – "one of the world's largest and most influential social media platforms" – "grown out [of] the control of its designer".
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Eastern European Warfare

Post by wexter » Tue Mar 14, 2023 7:53 pm

The Eastern European Warfare Arbitration has gone into the "Evidence Phase" looking for "diffs" to provide proof of "wrongdoing" in editing by examining subjective content.

On the part of the platform; the issue is one of "weak internal controls and processes" that are easily exploited.

For the editors, the issue at hand is that anyone can dominate whole sections of the encyclopedia (for years) . Facts are subjective the editors have their set of facts and realities.

For these particular editors - there is a clear conflict of interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... d/Evidence


At present the dialog is personal in that it is all trying to determine who said what in a he said she said fight that occurred over years. Here is the only meaningful quote so far;
it's almost impossible to figure out who originally added the problem because so much reverting has gone on over the years as well as shuffling of text around
Pathetic and confused.

Any "diffs" based decision will be totally arbitrary..... there is no evidence or proof as "facts" obtained/described/supported through the Wikipedia processes are totally fake/spurious. The problem is one of leadership, responsibility taking, and ownership.

A "mosh pit" of "diff" nonsense (the means to justify the ends) does not require leadership, responsibility taking, or ownership. Wikipedia and WMF are the problem. Where is the embarrassment?
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Eastern European Warfare

Post by wexter » Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:43 pm

The "Brain Trust" in the arbitration case cannot seem to assemble any evidence using diffs.
The whole process is insane and is just noise.

curprev 21:30, 15 March 2023‎ Primefac talk contribs‎ 31,517 bytes −3,560‎ Undid revision 1144839116 by Thebiguglyalien (talk) this is not evidence undothank Tag: Undo



https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Eastern European Warfare

Post by wexter » Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:56 am

The following link shows how closely related the Eastern European Warriors are in terms of editing the same articles, using the noticeboards to advantage, and coordinating together to build a unified narrative.

The arbitration is looking for "he said she said" rules violations - instead these editors are "tag teaming" topics and "smacking down" dissent on noticeboards. Its all very 2009 Eastern European Mailing List redux.

https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinter ... ver=enwiki

Image

Image
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Eastern European Warfare

Post by wexter » Fri Mar 17, 2023 4:46 pm

The "Eastern European Witch Hunt" has been called out for what it is "a total failure of process at Wikipedia"


Evidence of what? & suggestions
The central issue of the case seems to be an allegation that an entire set of articles is biased, possibly deliberately although I don’t know how you can ascribe “deliberate” behavior to a herd of cats. “Evidence” typically is of alleged conduct issues that are the subject of the case, but on the main topic none have been defined.

Wikipedia is influential. Contentious topics are all where there is a real world contest where the “sides” see leaning the Wikipedia towards their view as a way to further their view or cause. Wikipedia policies and guidelines enable, allow and reward this POV pushing as long as it is done in a Wiki-savvy way. And such is common.

If this proceeds along the normal arbcom lines, the most likely outcome is a finding that there are no arbcom-level conduct violations, which may be a useful finding. Or a misfire of sanctioning people who don’t deserve it due to a SOP of finding somebody to blame. Meanwhile Arbcom is stuck with the usual eternal problem on contentious articles, and/or no resolution on this issue. Since Arbcom is not in a position to make the necessary policy and guideline changes to help the problem, it can look like a dilemma.

IMO there is a way to make some genuine progress. You’d need to work creatively on the edges of what’s in policies and guidelines. And since you’d be doing so, the understanding would be that you’d be providing findings and guidance, not sanctions. This would be to review by a standard that editors should be guided by the concept that their highest and only priority when editing should be to create quality articles that follow the general goals of Wikipedia. And so not by other outside POV’s. Outside POV-tilted editing goes against this principle.

In that case an item being reviewed could be whether or not folks are following that principle. In order to get this sorted out (vs. just forcing folks to just dig in defensively) and acknowledging that it’s a bit creative, you should state at the start that any determinations against this standard would be findings and guidance, not sanctions.

There was also some discussion of some potential partial outing or doxing issues. This is an important and serious conduct area. It appears that this may involve “changing the degree off publicness” type issues in which case handling the issue publicly would further the harm to any victims. A good start there would be to say that any evidence regarding this should be provided in private. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I tried to express that the issue at hand relates to "conflict of interest" with "facts being subjective."
Real "evidence" (and this might be true on a variety of topics being edited mono-culturally {a focus in on one topic set} from dinosaurs, to women scientists, and to Nazi Hunting on Wikipedia) is that a single individual or group of individuals can dominate topics which as a result are not subject to consensus building, vetting, or proper weighting.
Conflict of Interests may lead to issue framing and the setting of narratives. Where an area of editing is dominated by a few individuals there are effectively no controls, checks, and balances to validate content, assure it is weighted correctly, and is neutral.
Going a step further notice boards (and longstanding social relationships) destroy both new participation on the platform and the factual input of information that deviates from the narrative being set by the people who "own" the subject matter.
It's my opinion, that searching for "diffs" won't accomplish anything as the topic speaks to "alternate facts." The real question is whether or not a group of individuals are dominating a set of topics and therefore setting a narrative.
What would provide usable evidence would be a study of the edit histories of the accused to identify the range of topics edited and the extent to which the notice board process has been used or misused.
The issue at hand is "conflict of interest" and the proper course of action would be a wide-ranging topic ban.
(I would appreciate it if this comment was not reverted or subject to retaliation) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Regarding your "a group of individuals are dominating a set of topics and therefore setting a narrative" that is basically a sum of individual POV editors/editing and is (unfortunately) commonplace and accepted as long as it is done in a wiki-clever way. IMO that means it would be unfair to sanction people for doing it, if just that. But my suggested middle ground is to make findings to identify that behavior and provide guidance to stop it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
All current versions of these pages reflect WP:Consensus. Yes, there is a general issue that I saw in all subject areas: WP:CONSENSUS may override WP:NPOV during RfCs and other discussions, even though NPOV is the most important rule. How this can be fixed short of creating editorial boards? I have no idea. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd quibble and add a note on your first sentence. A "Consensus" in the context of your usage is a sort of supermajority (yes, I know it's not a vote) and certainly not everything in the articles has received that. Second, even actual consensuses on article can be badly flawed in our easily gameable processes and rules. We have editorial boards which is groups of editors at articles but gaming of/ gamed rules overrides those types of of deliberations. The answer is to fix the rules which is beyond the purview of Arbcom. My idea was to suggest something that Arbcom can probably do. North8000 (talk)
My understanding of WP:Consensus is a little different, i.e. it says: "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted." and so on. Hence, if someone made an edit, it did not cause anyone's objections, and it stays for a long time in the article - that would be current consensus. No majority required. If an edit causes objections, then it became a matter of discussion, dispute resolution and so on. But again, however this might be resolved, it will become new consensus. Perhaps this policy should be changed? Yes, maybe. If Arbs could suggest something, that would be great, I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
You are correct. Which is why I calibrated my statement with "in the context of your usage" (I should have said "in the context of my impression of your usage"). North8000 18:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
It does happen in all subject areas that several like-minded contributors dominate content disputes. One could say they make de facto editorial boards. Someone who does not like it could call them a "tag-team", "a group of distortionists" or whatever else appears in Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. Someone could say this is a natural behavior of people in such editing environment. This is just a general comment; I do not imply guilt by anyone specific. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Its only a problem in a select few topic areas and its a problem which the community is working hard to address (including through this current discussion). Its not a natural behavior, its disruptive and juvenile (cliques are just as damaging here as in the 5th grade lunchroom). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I have to disagree. I saw such "groups" in every subject area, including physics and biology. Are they problem or solution? If you happened to disagree with them, then yes, that's a "problem" from your personal perspective. But if you usually agree with them, this is a "solution". And no, they are not "cliques as in a lunchroom". Everyone of them is typically an educated and independent contributor. They just had happen to have common interests, read same books, have a similar background and therefore generally agree on something, after short discussion. In that case, this is probably just a common interest in Polish history. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
IMO they're always a problem, even when they agree with me or when I am arguably part of that clique. Even if you think they're a necessary evil at the moment you must agree that they aren't something we should tolerate in the long term. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, if you are not going to tolerate the groups of productive collaborators in the project, this is very bad. We must encourage collaboration in the project, not discourage it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The problem isn't with the collaboration, the problem is with the domination and thats a problem restricted to minority of topic areas. Domination is not collaboration, its pretty much the opposite. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Before this gets into an argument, I think it should be pointed out that both of you seem to be talking about two very different things. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I'm not sure I see what you see but it would make sense for us to be be talking about two very different things because what My very best wishes is saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The only official guideline applicable here is Wikipedia:Canvassing, and of course we have WP:Consensus. Did particular contributors (or an alleged "group" of contributors) violate these rules? My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I must have missed something, can you link where it was established that WP:Canvassing was the only official guideline which was applicable here? As far as I can tell nobody has even mentioned it up until this point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
These are guidelines most relevant to people working in "groups". Let me rephrase. Did contributors X,Y,Z clearly violate any WP rules? If they did not, they are just productive collaborators. If they did, that needs to be judged on a case to case basis. Simply being systematically in agreement about something is NOT a proof of any wrongdoing, maybe just an opposite. G&K think this is a proof of wrongdoing. My very best wishes (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Productive editors do not dominate topic areas... They do the opposite, they invite others in to participate and instead of pushing newcomers out of a topic area they welcome them in. Productive editors in general want more participation in their topic area from other editors, not less, even if that means that their own contributions will be less prominent (I would be absolutely ecstatic for example if someone completely obliterated my overwhelming majority authorship of Maritime industries of Taiwan by quintupling the size of that article). Perhaps this has gotten too philosophical, I will digress here unless you feel that there is a pressing need to continue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, someone saying "Get out of here and don't come back!" would be clearly problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
That does appear to have been the effect of what has occurred in this topic area. If extremely reasonable long term editors share feelings like these[11][12] we clearly have a problem, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
No, I do not think these two diffs mean a lot by themselves. I do not know anything on this subject. Apparently, two participant have expressed dissatisfaction three years ago. But maybe they were on the wrong side of the dispute and did not check some sources? This is frequently happen with me in areas where I am not an expert. Or maybe that was just a typical content dispute? I have no idea. If these people still think there is a serious problem and come forward with evidence, then perhaps Arbcom will consider their diffs with explanations. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
And speaking in general, not about these two contributors, saying "what a hell, I am out of here!" is not helpful for improving content, although totally OK because no one has an obligation to participate in anything. But this is not a proof of wrongdoing by another side in a content dispute. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
AS mentioned many editors concentrate on topics that interest them; Say dinosaurs - there is some point where editing dinosaurs to exclusion (individually or in a group) could become ownership of the topic and somewhere beyond that resides conflict of interest.
Because of the subject matter, the parties accused in the arbitration may be "more vulnerable" than editors who concentrate exclusively into areas that are perceived as being laudable. The approach taken to address this issue needs to be uniform across all topics and all users.
It was mentioned that the process of editing might allow (or even encourage) the type of editing that occurred in this case.
Therefore, The issue really relates to process which in turn means that a change to Wikipedia's rules and operating procedures may be needed. This might be a "big ask" but it might be the right thing to do.
Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we need to change anything, this is why topic bans exist... For when an editor is disruptive within a specific topic area but not in other topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Did Icewhiz canvass? Xx236 (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I have been topic banned. The result is that I was not allowed to finish my edits and the subject has been ignored by other editors since 2018, which is just used as a prove of my bias in 2018. I have included my source, a 42 pages long paper by the Jan Grabowski, but I did not summarize it and noone has since 2018. WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence#Evidence presented by Ealdgyth
Generally people are emotionally involved in their work. This Wikipedia prefers people uninvolved, which may support psychpats, ignorants, paid editors. The other problem is cultural. Some cultures control emothions more than other ones. Multiculturalism has to coordinate the two types of cultures rather than prefer the cold West and exclude warm South (generally speaking).
We have here cases of Westplaining, people from eg. Australia explain what is to be enslaved, murdered, to live on ashes of millions. Further topic bans will make Innuits editing pages about surfing and Beduins editing types of snow. Referenced sources belong to certain cultures. An American may misunderstand an European article and vice versa, even if both are written in English. People study history, to understand historical sources. Any text is such source and should be critically evaluated. One needs some education to understand the problem.
Xx236 (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
There are thousands of articles with this same problem. This set just happened to receive a very thorough analysis from outside of Wikipedia. And the cause is not editors violating our policies and guidelines, it is from editors USING our policies and guidelines. Which enable, allow and reward this type of activity. The big fix would be to fix the policies and guidelines. The "medium level" fix (which I encouraged Arbcom to do here) would be findings and "soft" enforcement of the concept that when we edit here, we leave everything else at the door and just strive to create quality, informative articles. North8000 (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

AS an example of "outside influence" consider the positive press and attention garnered by the effort to add women scientists to Wikipedia. In this case we have a "conforming editor" that stays well within the process while advocating for what is perceived (internally and externally by the press) to be "an underrepresented group of people." There is a positive perceptual bias in and outside the community to address what might be considered systemic bias.
However and because the editing is a "monolithic construct" of a single editor; there is no possibility of consensus building or vetting. I am sure the facts behind each woman scientist added has been researched to "conform" to existing guidelines such as notability and being verifiable.

AS in this case there is no consideration for context or weighting which is a key to narrative framing and the gauging of conflict of interest.

It would actually be more difficult to allege bias in regards to narrative framing in terms of Women Scientists than it would be to allege narrative framing as was done within this arbitration.
Yes, "There are thousands of articles with this same problem" therefore the concern is with process and rules.
(again, I would appreciate it if these statements are not revered or retaliated against). 
Flibbertigibbets (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 635 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: Eastern European Warfare

Post by boredbird » Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:52 pm

wexter wrote:
Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:43 pm
curprev 21:30, 15 March 2023‎ Primefac talk contribs‎ 31,517 bytes −3,560‎ Undid revision 1144839116 by Thebiguglyalien (talk) this is not evidence undothank Tag: Undo

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history
The blanked submission illustrates the psychology they hope the committee will embrace. Summary: instead of Wikipedia following reliable sources, reliable sources must comply with Wikipedia procedures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... guglyalien
Thebiguglyalien wrote: Grabowski and Klein gamed the system and subverted Wikipedia dispute resolution

The information at doi:10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939 provides evidence that Grabowski and Klein (G&K) were aware of the ongoing long-term dispute, had an in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia WP:DR procedures, and chose not to use them.

The same article is evidence that G&K intentionally and extensively involved themselves in the dispute. They did so by making accusations against specific editors and challenging specific edits within the ongoing dispute. These are the exact behaviors that indicate involvement in a Wikipedia dispute, and editors that do such things onsite are routinely considered to be "involved editors". ARBCOM has previously recognized that If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forum. (2013, 2014, 2015, 2018, 2018, 2020, 2020). G&K have circumvented this process, making accusations that have been widely disseminated through the Wikipedia community without the typical standards imposed on such accusations. Evidenced by the fact that we are discussing this now, we can see that G&K have not only become actively involved in a Wikipedia dispute, but they have elevated their voices and arguments above those of all other participants in a way that exempts them from policies and guidelines, indicating an unprecedented level of success in an attempt to game the system.

Given these facts, the aforementioned article provides evidence that G&K used their positions in academia to participate in an English Wikipedia conflict in a way that allowed them to circumvent the community's policies and guidelines. This evidence should not be construed as an assertion of jurisdiction over offsite activity, but it is pertinent as it is a recent event that has directly affected and engaged with—and continues to directly affect—onsite activity in regard to this topic area and the named parties. ARBCOM has recognized that The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors. (2018). It is also pertinent as the response of the community and that of ARBCOM specifically will determine whether this method of circumventing policies and guidelines becomes a viable method for special interest groups or other individuals with platforms to create a chilling effect against Wikipedia editors or control the direction of Wikipedia disputes, creating the potential for a severe adverse effect on the community should it not be adequately considered.
This way of thinking is evident in Marek's "main response" to Grabowski & Klein, which focuses almost exclusively on Icewhiz and the various Wikirules he broke, as if this had any bearing at all upon what Wikipedia should say about the Holocaust in Poland. What's important is that Grabowski and Klein are "proxying for a banned user."

It's not just administrators or ArbCom either as Icewhiz was banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Maybe "Trust and Safety" are the real Holocaust deniers.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Eastern European Warfare

Post by wexter » Fri Mar 17, 2023 11:05 pm

boredbird wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:52 pm
instead of Wikipedia following reliable sources, reliable sources must comply with Wikipedia procedures.
-Boredbird, Got to say you hit the nail on the head

reliable sources, reliable sources must comply with Wikipedia procedures - they don't need to be reliable or even true

neutral point of view - articles must be written with a neutral and authoritative tone - articles don't need to present information fairly, accurately, and neutrally

verifiable - articles have to be verified to a secondary source - but the quality of the secondary source is never verified or taken in weighted context. Nor are the article references ever verified for accuracy, content, or context.

no original research - you cannot present your own ideas; but you can structure an article to your ideas or narrative by citing sources out of context. Every article is a research project of sorts.

conflict of interest - you can only talk about yourself or your company by disclosing conflict of interest; but you never have to disclose that your editing in a particular area is a conflict

consensus editing - you must build articles in consensus with others; but its easy to make sure that folks outside your viewpoints are kept out of the discussion by tag teaming, reverting, or using notice boards.

The articles by Jess Wade provide a classic example
-She uses obscure reliable sources
-She is not neutral because the stated objective is to bring more women scientists into Wikipedia
-What she writes is verifiable but it is out of context
-She researches women scientists as to back them into the process and thus into Wikipedia
-She has a conflict of interest because her editing has focus to objective (its the same as public relations)
-She does not write in consensus because she is the only person editing on the subject matter
-In terms of weighting - adding women scientists to Wikipedia does not create more important women scientists

Nobel prizes for physics plus chemistry men 491 to women 11; with no women nominated in 2021..
Fewer than three percent of Nobel science winners are women, and only one woman of color has ever received the award
Sort of the same percentage of Poles rescuing Jews from NAZI's - The reality is scored - Nazi's 97 Jews 0 and Poles 3

The "number of helpful Poles" is just not relevant to the overview of "lots of Jews killed by NAZI's" no matter how the flawed system of

Wikipedia is misused.. Ksenia Coffman and Jess Wade are abusing the system just as much as Volunteer Mareck.
Nobel statistics is that 22 per cent of winners have been Jewish, even though they comprise less than 0.2 per cent of the world’s population. - of that 8 of the 11 women in science are Jewish.. Perhaps the score is Nazi's 0 Poles 0 and Jewish women 8..too many bagels. "The fractured-history moral of the story Sherman is that nobody likes a smart ass - better to crucify them on poles, gas them, or fry them nazi style.. " Peabody.
---------

Don't underestimate, what we can achieve
We're scientists, we can make you believe
In the power of knowledge, in the power of girls
We're changing the world, with our discoveries unfurled

Oppa Oppa Nazi Style
Nazi Style
A girl who is warm and humanly during the day
A classy girl who knows how to enjoy the freedom of a cup of coffee

Oppa Oppa Nazi Style
Nazi Style
A girl whose heart gets hotter when night comes
A girl Seig Heling with a NAZI twist
Shooting Jews or Dancing on Poles
Playing the narrative on Wikipedia never gets Old

Oppa Gagnam style
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 635 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: Eastern European Warfare

Post by boredbird » Sat Mar 18, 2023 9:28 pm

Marek has posted evidence, really an argument, in the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... teer_Marek

The logic is, Holocaust in Poland used to be a contentious area, but since Icewhiz and his sockpuppets were banned all has been calm so there's nothing for the committee to address.
Volunteer Marek wrote: The interventions by the Committee, as well as the work of several dedicated admins, had done what it was suppose to. It worked.
But over on the "Analysis" page it's more like Icewhiz #metoo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... s_evidence
Volunteer Marek wrote: There is also a social norm, both on Wikipedia and outside, that individuals subject to abuse and harassment, especially this vile kind of harassment, are expected not to talk about it… much. It’s ugly stuff. It’s in bad taste. Bringing it up makes people uncomfortable. You have my sympathies, now let’s change the subject. Talk about something else. If you talk about it you risk some other nut case out there getting ideas. Let’s just move on. Etc. But what this often leads to is just facilitating more abuse.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Eastern European Warfare

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:22 pm

wexter wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2023 4:46 pm
The "Eastern European Witch Hunt" has been called out for what it is "a total failure of process at Wikipedia"
Evidence of what? & suggestions
I wish you would PLEASE summarize these long posts. Wikipedia arbitrations routinely turn into unreadable walls of jabber.....Jabber which nobody really reads or analyzes in depth--which covers up whatever stupid thing they are trying to hide. And to summarize arbitrations, you have to boil down their insane typing-practice exercises. Please. Try to boil these things down if at all possible.

Also, be warned, it is very likely that someone will block your accounts after reading this thread. In the early days it was routine for WP insiders to shriek "BADSITE" about Wikipedia Review. And yet, they also used threads on WR to figure out what was happening in complex and loudly-disputed noticeboard squabbles and arbitrations. So they hated it and pretended it didn't exist, but they read and used it anyway. Hypocrisy is their most popular "unwritten policy".
But over on the "Analysis" page it's more like Icewhiz #metoo.
El_C is one of the worst insider admins in their history. Few people have noticed it to date. Too many sleazy acts and dirty tricks to list. Sucked up to SlimVirgin, hated/purged political conservatives, sneaky pro-Israel type, blocked anyone he was arguing with about content, pulled strings to get unblocked or his sysop powers restored (REPEATEDLY), and on top of all that, he's probably a sockpuppet belonging to another "prominent wikipedian".

Post Reply