> 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... (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.
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.)
> 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.
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... (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.