That said, one of the Arbs hinted that ArbCom may have been pressured into doing something if they wished to avoid a new VoldeMareGate.
(These two statements are not necessarily contradictory.)
That said, one of the Arbs hinted that ArbCom may have been pressured into doing something if they wished to avoid a new VoldeMareGate.
Pardon me, what was "VoldeMareGate"?
Sorry about that, I thought about going back and making that clearer. I was referring to FramGate. (§) I got the impression Moneytrees was hinting that T&S let ArbCom know they might well intervene if ArbCom didn't...Ognistysztorm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 4:18 pmPardon me, what was "VoldeMareGate"?
Welcome back to the free world. You can name him here. We're not going to threaten or ban you like that other site which is circling the wagons to defend Wikipedia's intentional distortion of the Holocaust.
Stephen Harrison of Slate just published this:sashi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 8:59 pmSorry about that, I thought about going back and making that clearer. I was referring to FramGate. (§) I got the impression Moneytrees was hinting that T&S let ArbCom know they might well intervene if ArbCom didn't...
VoldeMare is pond-flight..
It comes from shortening he-who-shall-not-be-named's pseudo (Volunteer Marek) and adding an aristo-particle. (§)
VM and GCB have engaged in a battleground mentality both in the past and in the present. They both continue to exhibit it. In the above examples, I think it's extremely important to note that opposition to VM/GCB/et al is not synonymous with support for Icewhiz or this essay/paper. Any framing of such a discussion in that manner of equating such opposition is a red herring/ad hominem and is inherently against the principles of WP. Not only should it be discounted, but it should be WP:BOOMERANGed back on the person making the charge. I don't doubt that extremists are pushing an agenda here on all sides. I also don't doubt that VM/GCB mean well in their own heart. But, at best, they have demonstrated repeatedly that they cannot control their behavior/reactions to the collegial manner required on WP. At worst, they appear to have engaged in advocacy via a battleground mentality. Neither is acceptable on WP and should be addressed accordingly Any editors who demonstrate such behavior, especially over such an extended period of time should be restricted, banned, or blocked. Why this hasn't been handled by an Admin via WP:ARBEE is beyond me. Perhaps encouragement to address such issues by ArbCom would help the matter. (if such conclusions are not permitted, please feel free to strike/delete).
Newest evidence submission on the case. For me I would revise the prediction to say that GCB and VM will likely get topic-banned or even site-banned, however some other editors like Piotrus might be left untouched, leaving them pretty much in control of the topic area as they could simply recruit a new batch of editors just to "defend the territory" (the Slate article already mentioned that TrangaBellam's correction attempt met with pushback from the gang). Cla68's doomsday scenario is still definitely possible.I had intended not to present evidence against anyone, but I will make an exception for the editor who has taken shots at my reputation behind my back, and without notifying me. As I said before, and as I will say again, I did not collude with Icewhiz in my prior case request. When I filed the 2021/22 request for arbitration, I had no memory of Icewhiz. He contacted me, and in my usual way, I optimistically (and incorrectly) assumed good faith. When I learned why I shouldn't, I cut off contact with him.
Volunteer Marek has been talking smack about me on Wikipediocracy:
Some comments (link) by Jehochman ( :facepalm: ) and SilkTork have prompted me to check the archives. [347]
Also, they [ArbCom] say they want to revisit the 2021 Jehochman/Icewhiz case request but not the 2019 case. Which is good as far as the 2019 and earlier stuff, cuz I been over that so much I can't stand looking at it anymore, but... that's also like half the G&K paper (it's all the stuff that's transparently Icewhiz). So it sounds like... they want to look at the last third of the paper? Except... the 2021 case is not even mentioned in the paper (there's some indirect connections)? [348]
since the end of the 2021 Jehochman fiasco [349]
These posts should be considered in formulating findings and remedies. This is needless battleground behavior by VM. I left him alone, but he was unable to control himself.
How "funny". The dedicated and blind Wikipedia fanboy actually ended his essay with a well-reasoned warning for Arbcom. A warning they will ignore, of course. Because he's NOTOFTHEBODY.Ognistysztorm wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 8:15 pmStephen Harrison of Slate just published this:
https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/ho ... oland.html
If Harrison were not such a damned jerk, he would know how useless and cowardly Arbcom actually has been, throughout its history. When someone with real power wants the rules twisted for their own ends, Arbcom will instantly roll over and show its collective belly. Calling it the "Supreme Court of Wikipedia" does nothing but inflate the petty egos of arbitrators. They are actually the "Kangaroo Court".If there’s a silver lining to Wikipedia taking up the case, it could be this: Battleground behavior is a conduct issue that is clearly within ArbCom’s scope. While we may not expect justice in terms of Wikipedia settling the truth, something truthful may emerge by other means. Until then, the Wikipedia editors at the center of the controversy have been vigorously defending their actions in the court of public opinion, citing sustained off-Wiki harassment and reputational damage. Their situation serves as a stark reminder that the boundary between “real” life and Wikipedia activity can be perilously thin, and that engaging with this painful history poses risks for everyone involved.
That's a good article. The last paragraph reminds me of a tactic that one of the sides in that dispute can use to win this arbcom case. It appears that TrangaBellam recently tried to "fix" the articles in question in a way Grabowski and Klein were pushing for and the Poland cabal immediately blocked TrangaBellam's efforts. That should have produced some new "evidence of misconduct" to present to the ArbCom committee that they would probably jump on to give them an out in resolving this case.Ognistysztorm wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 8:15 pm
Stephen Harrison of Slate just published this:
https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/ho ... oland.html
Maybe they're being paid? You never know.
How plausible is it that they thought of Hebrew but not English Wikipedia? If there's someone being paid on English Wikipedia, who else would it be?Grabowski&Klein wrote: On March 6, 2018, at the height of the diplomatic crisis between Israel and Poland over the Holocaust Law, the prime minister’s advisor wrote to the chief of staff that "Ms. Joanna Hofman (our former ambassador in Helsinki) is a very sensible person and she understands the situation. I asked her to find someone who could start to position the Israeli sites in Google and to correct the Hebrew entries in Wikipedia. We need to be super discreet on this score, and she (Hofman) is aware of that…she will need a larger budget to cover this expense. It can be arranged if the Foreign Office allocates more money"