Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-02-28/Disinformation report

← Back to Disinformation report

Discuss this story

• Crazy stuff. ~ HAL333 22:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• The most bizarre bad neighbors dispute I've ever heard of. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • You gotta admit blasting out your neighbor's party with industrial grade speakers (if that's what really happened) has a certain something to it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• So we're allowed to WP:DOX editors now as long as it's in a Signpost article? Let's just wipe our ass with civility policy and legalize doxxing for SPAs now I guess. They don't deserve any rights here and can go fuck themselves. The Signpost has really fallen from what it once was. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure if this qualifies... Firestar464 (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Totally agree. ~ HAL333 04:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Pardon me if I don't shed many tears for "editors" who are WP:NOTHERE. Ntsimp (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Chess: Can you explain where you see the doxxing here? I guess I'm not reading closely enough because I don't see where The Signpost is revealing any editor's legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph (per WP:DOX). I don't think "this SPA is probably John Doe, or someone being paid by John Doe", counts as doxxing. If it is, then Wikipedia would need to give up the fight against paid editing and COI editing. _{```</sub> t b w i l l i e <sub>`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`</sub> 18:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • These are definitely not likeable people, but it's the principle that counts. ~ HAL333 23:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • You said it yourself. Revealing an editor's legal name or their work isn't ok. There's SPAs in this article who are called out as working for or being "John Doe".
    • For that matter, them being SPAs doesn't fucking matter. SPAs aren't banned. SPAs aren't exempt from civility or doxxing policies. They're not second class editors that are not entitled to protection. SPA is a vaguely defined pejorative term used by the more equal editors when they want to shit all over another editor's motivations but want to pretend like they're not violating the civility policy in doing so. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
      • @Chess: Please forget I said "SPA" -- I only used the term because it's in the article. I didn't mean to imply that anyone is less worthy of protection. Agreed, so-called "SPAs" are not exempt from civility, DOX, AGF, etc. My argument is that there's no doxxing here. Based on what's presented in this article, I still have no idea what is the legal name, place of residence or employer of the editor(s) behind the usernames cited. Is a multimillionaire likely to be doing his own dirty work on Wikipedia? I'd give it no better than 50-50 odds. Can we even narrow the identity down to salaried employees of the multimillionaire? No. I think it's just as likely that the cited usernames belong to (a) a "reputation defender" contractor who does regular work for the principal; (b) an independent pay-editor hired for this purpose only; (c) a friend or relative of the principal, doing him a favor or currying a favor; (d) more than one person, possibly some combination of the foregoing. Any of these could be any person anywhere in the world, and I see no attempt in this article to identify any off-Wiki attribute of any editor, aside from the observation that whoever's behind these usernames seem(s) interested in promoting or denigrating certain specific individuals. Even if moved to do so, I'd have no idea how to contact, harass offline or publicly expose any actual Wikipedia contributor. The only people I can identify in this story are the principals, and the only facts I can confirm or even assume about them are the same things that were already reported publicly in the cited mainstream press articles. <sub>```} t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 03:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• There should be broader&softer protection to prevent libel and vandalism on BLP articles. Implement WP:Timed flagged revisions -- Vis M (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Only no one has proven that Flagged revisions works, let alone is worth the effort to maintain it. For one thing, implementing it would require all active volunteers to review changes on tens of thousands of little-trafficked articles for it to work -- on top of their current voluntary contributions. -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • This proposal does not need it. All newbie edits will get autoreviewed after about 2 hours, if no reviewer revert or accept them. It just adds a delay of 2 hours.- Vis M (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      • My original point stands: no one has proven this or any similar technology makes a difference. It was implemented on an experimental basis some years back, but instead of evaluating the results -- which could have supported adoption -- Jimmy Wales insisted that it simply be adopted; when the required 75% threshold for adoption was not met, he then urged that we follow WP:IAR & put it in force anyway. Of course that did not happen, but Wales lost a lot of clout in unsuccessfully pushing for it. Provide evidence that any form of flagged revisions helps to fight vandalism, & we will consider the proposal. -- llywrch (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Maybe there's evidence of the effectiveness of sighting on German Wikipedia? - Bri.public (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
          • There very well could be evidence on de.wikipedia. However, during the debate to implement it on en.wikipedia no one bothered to share any of it, let alone evaluate the results of the test. And I want to be clear about this: I'm agnostic about the effectiveness of Flagged revisions; it might actually help with managing content on Wikipedia. But no one has bothered to provide any evidence to support this. Only handwaving & belief worthy of religious conviction that it will work. -- llywrch (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Update, November 2023 conviction

According to the NY Times [1] Nygard was convicted in Toronto of 4 of 5 counts of sexual assault, which seems to call for a sentence of only 10 years. But his is 82 now, so it might be a life sentence. He faces 2 other trials on similar charges in Montreal and Winnipeg. Then he is set to be extradited to NY for a very serious 9 count charge (underaged rape, etc.) He at one point agreed to the extradition, but is now fighting it. He lost a civil case to Bacon in May for $200+ million, but I think he's broke and can't pay it - so it's mainly symbolic now. There seem to be other civil cases outstanding as well. At least now we can say he is a convicted felon. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)