Italian abuses and vendetta. Gitz6666 globally locked

[Gitz]

On 9 June my account Gitz6666 (or simply "Gitz") was globally locked by Italian stewards Sakretsu and Vituzzu (block ID #543766). They hold me responsible for leaking the information that on 5 June led to the publication of this article in "Il Fatto Quotidiano" (Italian national press): https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/in-edi ... o/7183125/. The article claims that Italian admin Hypergio works for the NATO Communication and Information Agency. As reported in "Il Fatto Quotidiano", on 23 May Hypergio indefinitely blocked my account on it.wiki for no reason at all other than editing the article on a vocal opponent of NATO's policy, Alessandro Orsini https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandr ... (saggista). Hypergio had a conflict of interest when he blocked me, which explains why he resigned from admin on 1 June https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... twikipedia.

Note the following:

• In 2013, Hypergio posted his name and surname on it.wiki (diff recently deleted by another Italian admin https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... d=55344599). In February 2023 a blog totally unrelated to me published a list of names of Italian editors, including Hypergio https://creatoridifuturo.it/csr/greenwa ... tangibili/. Since then, if one googles "Hypergio identità personale" that blog is the first result one gets. The identity of Hypergio's employer was revealed by Hypergio himself on his LinkedIn profile (now deleted).
  
  So this was not an outstanding piece of investigative journalism on the part of "Il Fatto Quotidiano": the information was already out there easily accessible in the public domain. They did not need my help to write that article, and they never asked for it or got it.

• The 23 May indefinite block on it.wiki has no basis. At "Alessandro Orsini (saggista)" https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandr ... (saggista) I did not make any personal attack, edit war, doxing, nothing at all.
  Following my block, the discussions I had joined or started were hidden by an admin in collapsible boxes, so to evaluate my contribution to the talk page one needs to check this old version: https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =133639818).
  
  I was trying to remedy one the most blatant BLP violation I have ever encountered. The article included Orsini's very low final grade in high school, but omitted his excellent graduation grade. The article quoted several negative reviews to his book on the Italian terrorist group Red Brigades, but omitted each and every positive reviews published on international peer-reviewed academic journals. The article even included the negative review published by a former member of the Red Brigades (who was sentenced to more than 20 years in prison for murder) on his personal blog. The article falsely claimed that according to Orsini Ukraine has no right to defend itself against Russia's aggression (three sources were cited and misrepresented).
  
  The article had been written largely by a group of four Italian admins between March and May 2022. When on 22 May 2023 I removed some BLP violations mentioning WP:BLP in the edit summary, one of them reverted me and on the next day Hypergio blocked me, among other things (non-existent personal attacks, etc.), for "edits without consensus" https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... d=55300945.

• "Il Fatto Quotidiano" neither asked for nor obtained my help in writing the article. I do not know who first learned and circulated the information about Hypergio, which anyway was not hard to find. However, on 31 May, as soon as I heard about Hypergio's COI and the journalistic investigation about it, I contacted the stewards and informed them about what was going on. On their suggestion, I also tried to alert the Italian admins and bureaucrats, who never replied to me. Knowing them as I do, I was worried that they would attempt some kind of clumsy reaction and childish vendetta, such as the global lock that on 9 June they applied to my account. Following the publication of the article, the Italian admins started removing any evidence of Hypergio’s COI, e.g. Hypergio revealing his name and Hypergio publishing and editing the article on the agency he works for, the NCIA https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history. And they globally locked my account.

In the next few days/hours, I intend to submit an appeal to the WMF and also to the English ArbCom, since I am an active editor on the English Wikipedia.

[eppur si muove]

Good luck with the appeal. I've not done more than look at the newspaper article with my reader's poor translation into English. But it looks as if you are being punished for having your id mentioned in the article. That's not proof that you are the person who spoke to the press. And in any case the WMF cannot ban that.

As a Wikipedia critic, it would be nice from that point of view if the WMF rejected the appeal and then press coverage was generated in multiple languages about how it was complicit in hushing up how a NATO staff member was banning editors who took a stance against his employers.

[Midsize Jake]

I'm a fairly big Ukraine supporter myself, so I can certainly see why they'd be tempted to something like this and then try to cover it up, but actually doing it is another thing entirely — and even I have to say that this is almost a textbook example of how not to react after getting caught at it.

In particular, putting a global lock on your account is just stupid, especially since they could have gotten roughly the same benefit from a local 48-hour block followed by a quick apology for thinking you were trying to "out" someone.

It seems like it would be smarter for the admins to just leave the Putinist BLPs alone for the most part, unless maybe someone adds something that's completely over the top. They should focus their efforts on articles about the war itself, and/or whatever weapons the Italian government is supplying... but who knows, maybe they've had those locked down for some time now, and they just got bored and had to find something else?

[Gitz]

I'm a fairly big Ukraine supporter myself, so I can certainly see why they'd be tempted to something like this and then try to cover it up, but actually doing it is another thing entirely — and even I have to say that this is almost a textbook example of how not to react after getting caught at it.

It's quite funny because actually the Italian Wikipedia has plenty of articles that Putin would be delighted to read, starting with the flagship article on the Russian invasion, "Invasione russa dell'Ucraina del 2022", link. In the lead section, one reads that "the Federation Council unanimously authorized President Vladimir Putin to use military force" (my emphasis); in the "causes" section, the 2014 Odesa clashes are mentioned as a cause of the war and described as clashes with Ukrainian neo-Nazis; "Russian accusations" have a section of their own, are described in great detail, including Russian claims about forced assimilation of the Russian minority; Russian claims about Ukrainian Nazi politics are described as "false according to the Western media", etc. I believe that on it.wiki it's rarely about left/right, NATO/Russia, Church/secularism, and so on: it's just a matter of sheer personal power of the admin or group of admins who control the article. They just don't want you to fuck with them. Admins have a firm and unchallenged editorial grip and influence, only admins can stand up to other admins, there is no notion of "uninvolved admin" per WP:INVOLVED (they really don't have that policy) and if you disagree with them, they repeatedly block you unless you have good friends among admins. Things work completely differently from the English Wikipedia.

[The Garbage Scow]

I'm assuming the English Arbcom appeal with be to undo the global lock? They won't be able to do anything about your block on it-wiki, but maybe you could be unlocked on en-wiki or allowed to start over there with a new account... I don't know as I don't think I've heard of this situation before or know of a codified method to appeal a global lock on the local level.

The lack of an INVOLVED policy on it-wiki is interesting, considering the recent AlisonW drama that could result in her being desysopped.

[eppur si muove]

Have you tried putting in a request for an unlock to the global stewards? (Someone can do it your behalf if you want.)

The legitimate reasons for a global lock seem to be either that you have been globally banned or that you have disrupted multiple projects.

Looking at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of ... nned_users you are not globally banned. If the WMF or the global community believed that you were outing editors that could be a reason to globally ban you. But no one has done so and your post at the top of this thread casts doubt on whether you did out the dodgy NATO admin in question.

That leaves the list of reasons at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_locks none of which seem to apply based on what you have said.

There are also two other alternatives.

1) You could choose not to donate any more of your time to an organisation that has a long history of treating badly people who have given it their time for free.

Or

2) Wait 6 months until all records of what IPs and computers you have used on Wikimedia in the past have been lost and create a new id.

[Gitz]

Have you tried putting in a request for an unlock to the global stewards? (Someone can do it your behalf if you want.)

Yes, I've been already enqueued for the lock appeals review process, that is, I guess, stewards reviewing global locks applied by other stewards. Stewards have also suggested that I submit an appeal to the English ArbCom, which I will do today or tomorrow. I'd like to attach to it a report on UCoC violations by it.wiki admins and stewards. If I'm not mistaken, I should address it directly to WMF, since the U4C has not yet been established https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... efinition:. My goals? I'd like to continue editing on en.wiki but I also would like WMF and all Wikipedians to know how Italian admins behave. Vendetta, tremenda vendetta! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VblMMVOpNs. I'm an Italian, after all

[eppur si muove]

Vendetta, tremenda vendetta! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VblMMVOpNs. I'm an Italian, after all

Beware of hiring dodgy assassins especially if you have a daughter who will sacrifice herself to save your target.

BTW, the Stewards say that they have banned you under the UCoC: "User:Gitz6666@global": set locked; unset (none) (violation of the UCoC, threatening and intimidating behaviour)" link So make sure you don't do anything that will justify their claims about your behaviour.

[Gitz]

Yes, you're right. Of course my "vendetta tremenda vendetta" is a joke and I hope it doesn't sound like a threatening joke - I'm powerless, what threats coud I possibly make? But I feel really sorry, and hurt, and angry, and abandoned, and so and so on - I could go on complaining endlessly. It's so unfair! But I've just filed my appeal to the Wikimedia stewards: fingers crossed.

[Vice Cabal Leader]

Sanity check: is this something that warrants a global lock? I'd think most issues of this type are 'internal' to a particular Wikipedia. Italian wikipedia can site-ban people for this, but escalating this to a global ban seems somewhat weird... no?

[FelinaLavandula]

I agree, but it seems that perhaps some strings have been pulled. I’m not familiar with the Italian Wikipedia and wonder if there’s a deeper issue at play here.

[Beeblebrox]

As usual, I'm limited in what I can say based on private correspondence, but, as Gitz has now found out, there is no reason for the en.wp arbcom to be involved here. Apparently there were multiple lines of communication opened here and there was some confusion, and the Stewards wrongly advised them to contact the committee.

[Gitz]

There are a couple of things I really don’t get, and I was hoping some more experienced editor could help me. I understand that doxing is a cross-wiki violation (if you’re a victim of it, it affects you on all projects) and that the guideline “Usually, global locks happen in clear-cut situations” https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_locks implies that occasionally they can happen in less-than-clear situations, like mine. I did not post nonpublic information either on any Wikimedia project or elsewhere, but I shared a few diffs privately via email. And these diffs were not about, say, Hypergio's sexual orientation, but about the COI he had when he indefinitely blocked me on it.wiki. So here are my questions: is it really the case that the only venue for addressing this kind of situation is the stewards and the stewards only, that is, the same office that locked me? Does anyone know how fair their global lock review process is? I know they are experienced and trustworthy editors, but it seems surprising to me that a situation like this is not brought up for community discussion on Meta or on en.wiki. I know, it is a common mistake to give too much importance to things that affect us personally, we all make it...

[tarantino]

You could ask someone to file a request for comment on meta for you. Sometimes they gain traction.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special ... r_comment/

[Gitz]

Well, the thing is, first, I don't know the email address of many Wikipedians, but even if I did, it would be hard for me to openly ask them to file an RfC. It's a bit embarrassing and I don't want to put others in danger of retaliation. If Italian stewards and admins behave on Meta the way they behave on it.wiki, it's quite likely they will eventually block editors who dare file an RfC about their action.
Do you think I'm exaggerating? During the "Alessandro Orsini (saggista)" saga, a newcomer tried to submit an RfC on an admin and was immediately reverted and warned on the user talk page. They then opened a thread on the local equivalent of WP:BLPN and were blocked for a month for that sole reason. I myself in June 2021 was a newcomer, I opened an RfC on an admin and was blocked for a week for personal attacks. On it.wiki it's almost a rule: every RfC on an admin ends up with a WP:boomerang.
So no, I'm not going to ask anybody to file an RfC on my behalf. My best hope is that an editor in good standing reacts to this thread by submitting an RfC out of "public spirit", so to speak, to uphold the independency and tranquillity of local projects and their editors in the face of "bold" administrative actions by stewards. I also must rely on the fairness of the the lock appeals review process.

[eppur si muove]

I would be happy to do so. I've only done a dozen logged in edits since 2013 and roughly half of those were fixing my own typos. SO it would be no skin of my nose if arseholery happened.

[Ron Lybonly]

Well, the thing is, first, I don't know the email address of many Wikipedians, but even if I did, it would be hard for me to openly ask them to file an RfC. It's a bit embarrassing and I don't want to put others in danger of retaliation. If Italian stewards and admins behave on Meta the way they behave on it.wiki, it's quite likely they will eventually block editors who dare file an RfC on their action.
Do you think I'm exaggerating? During the "Alessandro Orsini (saggista)" saga, a newcomer tried to submit an RfC on an admin and was immediately reverted and warned on the user talk page. They then opened a thread on the local equivalent of WP:BLPN and were blocked for a month for that sole reason. I myself in June 2021 was a newcomer, I opened an RfC on an admin and was blocked for a week for personal attacks. On it.wiki it's almost a rule: every RfC on an admin ends up with a WP:boomerang.
So no, I'm not going to ask anybody to file an RfC on my behalf. My best hope is that an editor in good standing reacts to this thread by submitting an RfC out of "public spirit", so to speak, to uphold the independency and tranquillity of local projects and their editors in the face of "bold" administrative actions by stewards. I also must rely on the fairness of the the lock appeals review process.

Are you looking for an RfC on meta, en.wikipedia or it.wikipedia ?

[Gitz]

I would be happy to do so.

That would be great! I'd be very grateful, thank you. If you think it's helpful, you or anyone else can write to me at gitz6666 at gmail dot com and I will send you my appeal to the stewards + report of UCoC violations at "Alessandro Orsini (saggista)" (provides some background on my appeal) and my brief correspondence with Hypergio (nothing interesting but shows that I've never threatened him in any way)

[Gitz]

Are you looking for an RfC on meta, en.wikipedia or it.wikipedia ?

Tarantino above suggested Meta and I think they are right. It.Wiki would be completely useless - they would never accept me back and I myself have no intention of ever editing there again - I'm done with that project. En.Wiki is the project I feel most attached to, but I suspect that an RfC there would be toothless and irrelevant to the Italian stewards. Meta is the right venue to discuss this global lock.

[eppur si muove]

That would be great! I'd be very grateful, thank you. If you think it's helpful, you or anyone else can write to me at gitz6666 at gmail dot com and I will send you my appeal to the stewards + report of UCoC violations at "Alessandro Orsini (saggista)" (provides some background on my appeal) and my brief correspondence with Hypergio (nothing interesting but shows that I never threatened him in any way)

Have you seen my PM? I'm not too keen on giving out my real life email to someone I hardly know. I assume that the correspondence is all in Italian.

I have read the newspaper article and looked at the Italian Wikipedia with Google translate. I can see that it is mentioned that his main book won a major award and yet every single review quoted is negative. A google on the book title has turned up reviews that are overall positive.. So I can say that the BLP is the sort of attack piece that would see its authors rather than the complainants sanctioned on en.wiki.

Would you be able to pm the material here? Or would it overflow the user space. Obviously you have to be careful about redacting Hypergio's email address etc. I would want stuff that I could just copy if necessary onto Wikimedia myself without having to redact abything.

[Gitz]

I've already sent you materials that are TL;DR (appeal + report on UCOC violations + email exchanges with Hypergio and stewards). I could send more (email exchanges with WikiIT mailing list and a few Italian admins) and I'll be happy to do so if you want. But the point is: I've never, NEVER threatened anybody. Of course I was upset when they indeff'ed me, but I never said or implied anything like "If you don't do this, I'm gonna do bad things to you (e.g., reveal Hypergio's personal information)". Immediately after my indefinite block, I said something like "Don't you think it would be better for the project to have a disaffected and voluntarily retired user instead of a resentful indefinitely blocked one?", but that was a general argument, and a commonense one, meaning that they could have achieved the same result without having a disgruntled editor who was active on other projects and who felt he was treated unfairly.
Note that in talk page discussions my point about Orsini's book on terrorism was that we should have written something like "mixed reviews" ( here) or even, to achieve a compromise, "mixed reviews, mostly negative and occasionally positive" (providing references) ( here), but the Italian admins disagreed with this - they really wanted half of the article to be filled with verbatim quotes of exclusively negative reviews. Why did they want that? I have my own theory and it has nothing to do with "high (international) politics", NATO and things like that but rather with internal (editorial) policy. They simply don't have the rules to deal fairly with editorial and other conflicts - they don't have RfCs, WP:INVOLVED, ArbCom - and they haven't yet learned how to use the newly established namespace:draft, which they use very badly. I hope they will learn something from this disaster.

[Gitz]

My 16 June email to stewards (still unanswered):

Dear Stewards,

I understand that you're all volunteers, are very busy and have a significant case backlog, but please put yourself in my shoes: global locks usually happen in clear-cut situations and my situation is nothing but clear - most definitely not a clear case of doxing. I did not publish nonpublic information either on any Wikimedia project or elsewhere, but I shared a few diffs privately via email. These diffs were not about, say, Hypergio's sexual orientation, but about the COI he had when he indefintiely blocked me on it.wiki. And I had no channel to let the Italian admins know about this COI (they wouldn't have cared anyway). So this is global lock is not justified by a clear-cut situation: it is a "bold" global administrative action on the part of the Italian stewards. So I'd be very grateful if you could answer the following three questions:

1) My 14 June question is still unanswered: "Will the Italian stewards provide some evidence that I have published NPI about Hypergio and, if so, will it be shared with me"? To put it differently: is it undisputed that I have never published non-public information anywhere, either on-Wiki or off-Wiki? Do we all agree that the contentious point here is whether I was allowed to share the 2013 diffs of Hypergio disclosing his name on it.wiki and creating the NCIA article?

2) Related to the first point. Will the Italian stewards answer my 12 June question [Ticket#2023060910010749]? My translation: What is Sakretsu referring to when they talk about my "threatening and intimidating behavior"? As I explained in my appeal, "unless the Italian stewards provide me with a diff, an e-mail excerpt, or other evidence, I don't know how to comment on this". In other words, will you let me know what is the Italian stewards' take on the matter?

3) On 11 June you mentioned your "significant backlog". I'm afraid this lock appeal review might take time, because there's a lot to read - my appeal, the "Il Fatto Quotidiano" article, and the evidence provided by the Italian stewards (if any). When do you expect to rule on the case approximately? one day, one week, one month...?

Thanks for letting me know,

Gitz

[eppur si muove]

Andreas has covered this in Signpost on en.wiki. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-06-19/In_the_media (T-H-L)

[eppur si muove]

The blocking Steward has been questioned at link.

Gitz, do you have any idea what this "Private information" for which you have been blocked is?

[The Garbage Scow]

"Private information" implies they're trying to avoid outing someone's real life identity. So maybe they think Gitz is somehow personally connected to Orsini. I can't imagine what else they would need to keep private and as Gitz himself doesn't seem to know why, I'm really curious what they're basing this on. And if it's not a belief he's connected to Orsini, then why else would they globally lock someone? I also don't see how "COI" could result in a global lock, especially when the article is clearly not objective.

Also, looks like it-wiki deleted the Orsini article and then locked it citing a legal dispute.

[Gitz]

I'm convinced that by "private information" Sekrestu means the diff where Hypergio reveals his name and the diffs where Hypergio creates the article on the NATO agency he works for. I think the Italian stewards are overstretching the notion of posting nonpublic information to the point of including the sharing of links to Wikipedia. I've never published/posted personal information about Hypergio, either on-Wiki or off-Wiki, I have only shared privately (via email) diffs documenting Hypergio's activity on it.wiki (by the way, I didn't even send them directly to the journalist, but to a friend of mine who forwarded them to the journalist and possibly other people). Wikipedia is written in public by the public, and I truly don't get how these diffs can possibly qualify as "nonpublic information". Their argument is not really about "doxing" but rather "You've fucked Hypergio, and now we fuck you". I understand this reasoning well, but I don't see why they insist in calling it "Universal Code of Conduct". Maybe it was universal in ancient times, but now we've moved forward.

[eppur si muove]

Any sane person would consider that the public have a right to know if someone who worked for NATO (or the Labour Party or the Russian government or who used to be in the Red Brigades, or as publicist for a public figure involved in a scandal etc) were editing WIkipedia articles on their employers. It's only crazy WIkipedians who think it's fair to libel someone else but not to find outnwho did the libelling who think otherwise.

[Gitz]

Perhaps one mystery is solved. Now we know what the Italian stewards meant when they pointed out my "threatening and intimidating behavior" in their global lock's rationale. Actormusicus just mentioned ( here) the "unfriendly" closing line of the email I sent to him on 23 May after he blocked me for one week: "I wouldn't do that if I were you", which sounds really threatening, right, but was it a threat? Please, read the email below and judge for yourself.
(English translation)
Dear Actor,
before you blocked me, did you notice that Luix had pinged me on her talk? And that the "topic" under discussion was not only Luix's behaviour, but also mine? "I hope @Gitz6666 also remembers it", Luix wrote. Now, aside from the fact that even if Luix had not pinged me, the idea that it is "abuse of a service page" to comment on a user talk page, especially when their but also your behavior is being questioned there, and the idea that there is something wrong with "dictating the line" to admins – these ideas, I just don't get them. But in this case I understand them even less since I had been pinged and was therefore fully entitled to be part of that conversation on Luix's talk page.
If I were you, I would unblock my account.
Best,
Gitz
(Original text)
Caro Actor,
ma prima di bloccarmi hai notato che Luix mi aveva pingato sulla sua talk? E che il "topic" di cui si discuteva lì era il comportamento di Luix, ma anche il mio? "mi auguro che se ne ricordi anche @Gitz6666", aveva scritto Luix. Ora, a parte che, se anche Luix non mi avesse pingato, l'idea che sia "abuso di pagina di servizio" intervenire nella talk di un utente, per di più quando lì si discute del suo e del tuo comportamento, o che ci sia qualcosa di sbagliato nel "dettare la linea" agli admin, non si capisce proprio... ma in questo caso si capisce ancor di meno visto che, appunto, ero stato pingato e quindi facevo parte di quella conversazione sulla talk di Luix a pieno diritto.
Fossi in te, mi sbloccherei.
Ciao,
Gitz

[Bezdomni]

For the record, the "new user" referred to in Actormusicus' comment has been a member of it.wp since September 2021 and has been blocked four times in the last four months. In the comment Gitz made on the user talk page, he does not use the term "block" at all, though I suppose "insisting that I block her" is a possible personal extrapolation from what was actually said.

Incidentally I read your unblock request on es.wp. Do you confirm that that block was related to a user now banned indefinitely on 13 projects?

How do you manage to find such friendly collaborators?

[Gitz]

Do you confirm that that block was related to a user now banned indefinitely on 13 projects?

I was trying to contain that user's subtle cross-wiki disruption. Eventually they were globally locked, same as me, but it took them 13 indefinite blocks before getting there, while I was given the Go To Jail card from the Italian stewards much faster!
With regard to Luix710, my comment on her talk was "if no one explains to her the fundamentals of NPOV, CON, NPA, etc., how will she learn?" I didn't particularly want Luix to be blocked, but I thought Actor shouldn't have blocked Danieleb2000, who had been ringing the allarm bell on the Orsini's article for some time and for that reason had already been repeatedly blocked: admins kept telling him he had a COI! The way they treated Danieleb2000 (who is really a new editor, since he started editing in March 2022 and has made 179 edits so far) is unacceptable and should be closely scrutinized by Trust and Safety.

[Gitz]

I just read Sakrestu's reply here and I'm trying hard to make sense of it. The final question is mindblowing: "Let's start off with this: perhaps can Gitz explain how I knew that legal actions were on the way?" How the fuck do I know how Sakrestu knew that legal actions were underway?!? Is this a weird mind game?!? I've literally no idea!
However I KNOW that I didn't take legal action, i KNOW that I've never threatened legal action, and I also KNWO that I've never asked any organisation (the judges, the WMF, the NATO) to shut down the Orsini's article!!!
Now, this is really too much and I demand from Sakretsu:
1) To publicly explain how he knew that legal actions were underway. We are now terribly curious to know this, so please tell us.
2) To publicly explain why he thinks I should know that he knew legal actions were underway. I know this sounds like a tounge-twister but the point is pretty clear, right? I'm fed up with obliquous mafia-style innuendoes by the steward that globally locked me for no reason.
Please answer asap.
[by the way, there's a factual mistake in Sakretsu comment: "When Gitz appealed the block, the community giving him a second chance". No, I never appealed my indefinite block. Admin Pequod76 filed a Request for comment, which originally was a thread at the Bar (Village pump) without me even knowing about this. Pequod didn't ask my permission and he did not even inform me of the discussion. Maybe Pequod did this because he thought the community had treated me badly (my hypothesis)? In any case, he acted of his own accord and I never appealed my first indefinite block, which was applied to me by admin Gianfranco following this exchange]

[eppur si muove]

What we are seeing is a scenario which is familiar to many Wikipedia critics: Wikipedians caring more about their on-Wiki mates' feelings more than they do about those mates' dishonesty or how those mates have set out to malign someone in one of the most heavily used reference sources in the world.

The BLV of Orsini has now been hidden apparently following some legal threats. As Gitz and Andreas and others have documented, it dedicated most of the space about Orsini's most important book - for which he won a major prize - to quoting only negative reviews of the book. The panel who awarded him the prize must have said something positive about it. but they were not quoted. Neither were the four favourable reviews (Including the first item I see when searching on Orsini+ Red Brigades+review) and two neutral ones published in academic journals that Andreas mentions in the Signpost. The blog of a member of the Red Brigades might have something interesting to say about a book that examines the group but, from what I can remember, the BLV failed to make it obvious to the reader that this was a response by one of the subjects of the book and not an independent review.

One version of the article I looked at said that Orsini achieved an indifferent score (40/60?) in their school-leaving exams. There was no mention of any of the academic degrees he gained later in his university education. Orsini worked for MIT for something around a decade. He must have had some academic qualifications. I can remember some issue on en.wiki where the fact that an academic did not get a first was mentioned in their BLP. This was considered poisoning the well. How much worse is it to focus on someone's school results?

Just as journalists who write untrue reports for the likes of The Daily Mail and Fox News deserve to be named and shamed, so do Wikipedians who deliberately distort BLPs. Even if the BLPs are about Fox journalists.

However, because Danielep did not understand the rules and Gitz did not tug his forelock enough, it.wiki's admins and the stewards who originated from the project have chosen to block them and not those responsible for maligning Orsini. They're corrupt the lot of them.

Over in the comments on the Signpost article, Italian admins responsible for their project being such a farce are whining about being criticised by a bigger project. If their project didn't block those who tried to fix blatant BLV-violations, then it wouldn't be being criticised either here or on en.wiki or in the Italian press. But they prefer to pretend that they are the victims here.

[eppur si muove]

I just read Sakrestu's reply here and I'm trying hard to make sense of it. The final question is mindblowing: "Let's start off with this: perhaps can Gitz explain how I knew that legal actions were on the way?" How the fuck do I know how Sakrestu knew that legal actions were underway?!? Is this a weird mind game?!? I've literally no idea!

I don't know what Sakretsu thinks you said but with my 100% hindsight tells me that how Sakretsu should have known it was coming was that smug arseholes like him are more interested in blocking someone with the click of a button than in checking whether there might be something in what the person said about a BLV being malicious. And the fact that Sakretsu refers to the WRONG VERSION essay in the context of a BLV having to be hidden because it is libellous just shows that he is the WRONG PERSON to be a Steward or even an admin as are most of the other it.wiki admins involved in this farce. En.wiki has one Sandstein; it.wiki seems to have dozens of them.

In any case, he acted of his own accord and I never appealed my first indefinite block, which was applied to me by admin Gianfranco following this exchange]

That's worth quoting.

But yes, I have practical sense, and in fact it's not like collaborating with it.wiki is bringing me great satisfaction or recognition! So go ahead and apply the infinite block: I'm not interested in collaborating with bullies (or rather, under the domination of bullies, because I've seen that many users here know how to work excellently).... I hope you are happy with your work.

[The Garbage Scow]

This may be the most blatant example of abuse of power on a Wikipedia project I've ever seen.

[Hemiauchenia]

I can't say I've been the biggest fan of Gitz's conduct when I've seen him in the Holocaust in Poland topic area, but I agree that this case highlights the issue that other Wikipedia projects outside enwIki lack functional checks and balances on the system. It's interesting that the italian article about Alessandro Orsini has been completely redacted by the VRT Team https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandr ... (saggista) , citing legal issues. Usually on enwiki when people make legal threats they are told to pound sand.

[eppur si muove]

Vituzzi is an arsehole. Sakretsu is an arsehole. I'm sorry Gitz but I've got so annoyed with these Wikipediots that I'm not going to be able to put together the appeal. Besides it now seems to depend on nuances of language in your comments and emails which someone who relies on translation tools is not going to be able to argue. You need someone who is Italian or who has lived there to manage your appeal.

Alternatively just say "Fuck Wikipedia" and stay away.

Or wait 6 months and then return to en.wiki under a new name but stay away from it.wiki where they'll be keeping an eye out for you.

[eppur si muove]

In what is going on I am reminded of concepts that were taught in my social work training of homeostasis and the identified patient.

Homeostasis is a concept in systems theory whereby a system tries to maintain or return to its status quo ante. Everyone in on organisation is used to things functioning in a certain way and are uncomfortable when things are different. So they collectively do their best to get things back to how they were.

The identified patient sometimes designated patient is a concept in family therapy whereby the members of a family attempt to shift their discomfort over a threat to the homeostasis of the family onto one individual, often labelled as a black sheep. The more they are blamed and the more distressed they get, the more likely they are to be acting in ways that create an excuse to generate a referral to mental health or similar organisations. This then enables the family to confirm their belief that the problem is with the identified patient and not elsewhere in the family system.

So, in this case, the problem was that powerful editors on it.wiki had created an attack piece and were obstructing its being fixed. Gitz and danieleb complained about this and therefore caused discomfort and a threat to the homeostasis whereby the powerful editors were respected as valued members of the it.wiki community. So the two editors who complained became the identified patients and were scapegoated. Because Gitz was being scapegoated he got more and more frustrated and therefore wrote things which the established people on it.wiki could use as excuses to warn and them block him. Gitz then took his complaints to email and because the admins and stewards affiliated to the project who received the emails were discomforted by Gitz's assertion that they had handled the situation badly, they looked for things that they could identify as harassment which they could then use as an excuse to globally block him.

With Gitz expelled, homeostasis has been restored. Except now Orsini has sent them legal threats and the Italian daily and the Signpost have published articles about the situation. Because Gitz is the identified patient, one of the it.wiki-affiliated stewards has posted bizarre remarks suggesting that Gitz was somehow responsible for or involved in Orsini threatening to sue.

Also the it.wiki admins (including the stewards) who have been discomforted by the Signpost article still feel the homestasis of it.wiki is under threat. They therefore are coming up with claims that en.wiki is interfering with it,wiki. Whilst what in fact has happened is that members of it.wiki have interfered in en.wiki by globally locking an en.wiki editor who is in good-standing and has made thousands of contributions. If that had not happened, Gitz would not have come here,
and Andreas would not therefore have become aware of the press coverage in Italy and therefore would not have written the article for the in the media section of Signpost. So it.wiki's affiliated stewards have disrupted en.wiki and created a reaction. it is not surprising that it.wiki is being identified as the problem in a lot of the discussion on en.wiki.

(I know that the two stewards will claim that they are acting as global functionaries and not as it.wiki members. But does anyone really believe that their being embedded in the culture of it.wiki does not play a part in this?)

This isn't just an it.wiki problem. We've seen again and again on en.wiki how perfectly good editors get frustrated by something wrong. When they complain, other editors feel that homeostasis is threatened and push back. The frustrated editor gets more frustrated and does things that then give admins an excuse to act against them and potentially the editor is finally ejected, allowing everyone left to feel that order (homeostasis) has now been restored.

Wikipedia Review and its successors came into existence because this repeated pattern of events produced enough disgruntled former Wikipedians. BAD SITES was an attempt by Wikipedians to protect their discomfort at a threat to the homeostasis of Wikipedia by designating the critics as the problems. We've now reached a position where Sucks is the bad site and Wikipediocracy has been recognised as a semi-respectable site orbiting around Wikipedia that can sometimes provide useful input and where even arbs can comment.

It.wiki hasn't had to come to an accommodation with external critics. It also seems to be set up in a way that encourages the creation of more discontented ex-editors. When someone is blocked on en wiki, the admin (usually) posts a message to explain how to appeal on wiki. The user is normally left with access to their talk page until at least two or three appeals have been rejected. They also can appeal to arbcom. In recent threads here we have seen blocks by Alison W and Bbb23 overturned following visible discussion on en.wiki. It.wiki doesn't have such a clear process whereby the most egregious bad blocks can be over-turned. Because the blockee cannot appeal on wiki, they have to resort to email. I think it's quite likely that an admin receiving criticism of what they have done by email, when they were maybe finished with Wikipedia for a day, more discomforting and potentially more threatening than they would an appeal on wiki. (And we know how Alison W went over the top when she was challenged on wiki.) So I think that Gitz is again being scapegoated as the problem because of it.wiki's systemic failure in not providing an easier channel of appeal. But the culture where admins there seem to be regarded as more untouchable than on en.wiki is also a systemic problem.

[ArmasRebane]

Over in the comments on the Signpost article, Italian admins responsible for their project being such a farce are whining about being criticised by a bigger project. If their project didn't block those who tried to fix blatant BLV-violations, then it wouldn't be being criticised either here or on en.wiki or in the Italian press. But they prefer to pretend that they are the victims here.

Definitely one of those cases where you just need to read the defense to realize who's wrong here. What a bunch of pedantic, insufferable nitwits.

Probably the first good example of the UCOC being used to justify bullshit. Even if the locking steward was clearly wrong, there's no incentive to prove the functionaries fucked up by undoing it. And because it's "private material" no one will ever be able to call them out.

[Bezdomni]

Lightning rods serve to prevent structures from being burned down. For this reason, they are usually not sentient. Wikipedia is not yet aided by AI to prevent BLPs from becoming attack pages, so people end up climbing the Reichstag in a spidey suit during a media-storm and even those holding the ladder sometimes get struck by NCIA employees.

The moving clouds discharge, and having struck, move on. No bribes of pie nor nitwit banter will cancel half a glocking.

[Vigilant]

Over in the comments on the Signpost article, Italian admins responsible for their project being such a farce are whining about being criticised by a bigger project. If their project didn't block those who tried to fix blatant BLV-violations, then it wouldn't be being criticised either here or on en.wiki or in the Italian press. But they prefer to pretend that they are the victims here.

Definitely one of those cases where you just need to read the defense to realize who's wrong here. What a bunch of pedantic, insufferable nitwits.

Probably the first good example of the UCOC being used to justify bullshit. Even if the locking steward was clearly wrong, there's no incentive to prove the functionaries fucked up by undoing it. And because it's "private material" no one will ever be able to call them out.

Trial balloon.

WMF, "This is the way."

[Beeblebrox]

Gitz, from your comments here you appear not to be fully aware of what it is you are accused of. If true, it is for sure a bright line that should not be crossed and I think most people even here would agree that a global lock was warranted at the very least.

I am only aware of the accusation, not the supporting evidence, so I can't speak to that, but you should ask the stewards to explicitly tell you everything they believe you did. You will never be able to appeal this global lock without that piece of information.

If they won't explicitly spell out what you are accused of, your remaining avenue of appeal is probably the Ombuds commisssion link.

If I wasn't bound by privacy rules I''d be perfectly willing to clarify what the most serious accusation as I don't think it is at all fair to ask you to appeal when you may not be fully aware of what accusations you're defending yourself from. People pull out the whole "Kafkaesque" trope a little too easily sometimes, but Kafka actually wrote a novel, The Trial (T-H-L), on exactly this scenario.

Of course, I am not privy to every piece of communication between you and the stewards, so as far as I am concerned it is also possible you are totally aware of it and just aren't mentioning it here because it would make you look like an incredible jerk. I really don't know.

[Gitz]

Gitz, from your comments here you appear not to be fully aware of what it is you are accused of.

You might be right: I'm not aware of what I am accused of. I've always thought they blame for leaking Hypergio's name and occupation to the press - what else? Since my account was globally locked, I repeatedly asked the stewards for information, e.g. "What is Sakretsu referring to when they talk about my 'threatening and intimidating behaviour'?" (12 June); "Will the Italian stewards provide some evidence that I have published NPI about Hypergio and, if so, will it be shared with me?" (14 June)" (17 June). No one has ever answered me.
Since Sakrestu and Vituzzu made suggestive, unclear comments about information I should have and/or information they have on me, today I wrote an email to Vito who refused to reply. But Vito mentioned Trust and Safety a couple of times, so I've just sent an email to Trust and Safety, plus an email to the Ombuds commisssion, as you suggsted. I'd be grateful if you could contact me by email (gitz6666 at gmail dot com) or private messaging on this site to clarify what the "most serious accusation" is, because I have no idea. I know I have done nothing wrong, but this situation is tremendously distressing.

[eppur si muove]

The Kafkaesque aspects of this are another dimension of the problem. But I still think that, even if it emerges that Gitz did something atrocious, the root cause of the problem was the failure of Italian admins to acknowledge that the BLP was an attack piece. The flippant references by various of the it-aligned admins in the Signpost discussion to the Wrong Version joke article just shows their failure to recognise that the inclusion of a hit-piece in a major reference source should have been fixed long before the issue hit the press. The article in the Italian newspaper makes it clear that this has been going on for over a year, long before Gitz took an interest.

[Gitz]

even if it emerges that Gitz did something atrocious

But I didn't do anything atrocious!!!
I will let you know as soon as I have reliable information that can be shared publicly. At the moment I have no idea what this is all about.

[eppur si muove]

even if it emerges that Gitz did something atrocious

But I didn't do anything atrocious!!!
I will let you know as soon as I have reliable information that can be shared publicly. At the moment I have no idea what this is all about.

After a little birdie spoke to me earlier today and, after going back and checking some dates and the text of the Fatto article, I'm pretty sure that they are blaming you for a journalist ringing HyperGio at work. Or, if they are particularly stupid, they think that it was you and not the journalist who made the call despite the Fatto saying that they did it. link

Indeed, Gitz is "banned" from Wikipedia by HyperGio, a user that some public domain " leaks " connect to an analyst at Nato Communications and Information Agency (contacted by Fatto, did not want to reply, then making himself untraceable on social networks).

[Vigilant]

Wikipedia volunteers with too much 'muh authoritah' made a mistake and blocked the wrong person?!!?

Just what the doctor ordered!!!

[Gitz]

I'm pretty sure that they are blaming you for a journalist ringing HyperGio at work. Or, if they are particularly stupid, they think that it was you and not the journalist who made the call

Well, that would be slander. It's consistent with what Vituzzu said ("Nothing can justify harassment, nothing" and "so he knows he's safe from threats like outing, threats of outing, contacts through workplace") but it wouldn't explain Sakretsu's question ("can Gitz explain how I knew that legal actions were on the way?"), which suggests that I've collaborated with Orsini's lawyers. Do they accuse me of WP:DOX, HAR and NLT?
Anyway, I've never called Hypergio at work: it would have been crazy of me and also completely inconsistent with the email I wrote to Hypergio on 1 June. Since this is an utter lie, it is impossible for the Italian stewards to provide any evidence to support it.
I'm still waiting for Trust and Safety and the Ombuds commission to reply to my messages from yesterday.

[Gitz]

Il "Fatto Quotidiano" published another article on Orsini/Wikipedia. One needs a subscription to read it (or possibly access to the Wikipedia Library? which I no longer have), anyway, it's here: https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/in-edi ... i/7201924/

[eppur si muove]

Wikipedia volunteers with too much 'muh authoritah' made a mistake and blocked the wrong person?!!?

What we need is an essay WP:The Wrong Person written by a smug admin (preferably from it.wiki) explaining why it is in the interests of community harmony that they block someone and it is only POV warriors who think it matters if they were mistaken about who they blocked.

[Gitz]

Anxiously awaiting the response from Trust and Safety and the Ombuds commision, I re-read yesterday's discussion on The Signpost. Four remarks and some documentation follow.

1) I cannot believe Sakretsu when they say "To be honest, I haven't even read the article itself". Based on my experience, when someone starts a sentence with "To be honest", they are lying. I'm sorry, but I cannot stretch my AGF to the point of believing that Sakretsu never read that very short article on Orsini, an article that has been hotly debated in the community and outside the community - on social media, blogs and eventually the national press - for over one year.

2) As Andreas and others noted, the Italian stewards' actions should be discussed on Meta. I understand that an RfC is not advisable until the "most serious accusation" mentioned by Beeblebrox is clarified, but to clarify it I need to know what this accusation is and how the Italian stewards supported it with evidence.

3) A few Italian admins (apart from Vituzzu, also Phyrexian) made harassment allegations against me ("...someone threaten a voluteer in real life..."). They are completely false and I'm looking forward to knowing what they are about.

4) In his last comment (20:03, 20 June 2023) Vituzzu wrote "I find quite odd to be forced to write here to Gitz6666 to stop writing to my personal email address. Writing blatant lies as a provocation is a very very old trick to either draw attention or rude replies." It is therefore important for me to share, here below translated into English, the two emails I had sent to him.

Hi Vito,
I just read your comment in the Signpost discussion. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that you cannot fully explain the reasons behind the global lock of my account for the sake of my own privacy: Gitz would be "taking advantage from the fact that both the admin in question and anyone who has been made aware of what happened off-wiki won't act like him, so he knows he's safe from threats like outing, threats of outing, contacts through workplace etc etc etc."
Now, I understand that privacy considerations may prevent you from explaining the reasons on-Wiki, but they certainly do not prevent you from responding to me by email. It’s since 12 June (if I am not mistaken) that I’ve repeatedly written to the stewards with the request that someone explain the reasons for the global lock. Could you please respond? Could you tell me what is the personal information about me (first name, last name, profession, etc.) or about my private behaviour that prevents you from disclosing on-Wiki the reasons why you globally locked my account? Could you help me understand what Sakretsu has in mind when they ask me to explain how Sakrestu themselves knew there was a lawsuit going on? What the fuck do I know about how Sakrestu knew?
Frankly, I can only make two hypotheses about these comments of yours. 1) AGF: you have made a gigantic blunder and are just misinformed. For example, you believe that I am Luca Poma, or the Wikipedian who doxed you and sent him your names. If that's the problem, we can solve it right away: I'll send you a copy of my ID card and we'll have a videocall; 2) non-AGF: you are just beating around the bush, pretending to know who knows what kind of dark secrets about me and my behavior in the Orsini affair.
Please let me know if it is true 1) or 2) or if there is a 3) that didn't occur to me.
Best,
Gitz

Vituzzu's reply here: As a note, I've received an email by Gitz6666, given that he reads this page I take to chance to clarify I won't reply through personal emails given his bad faith and his habit (even in the email in question) to skew facts. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC). I replied to this comment with my second and last email:

Here, with this response, [above] you solved the problem I still had, the question of your good faith. You clearly have no personal information about me whose disclosure should concern me. The rationale for the global lock, which you persist in not explaining either to Wikipedians or to me, is therefore very simple: "You fucked Hypergio? And now we fuck you." The argument is quite understandable, I just wonder why you insist on calling it the "Universal Code of Conduct" (it was universal when we used obsidian knives and clubs).
I sent diffs about Hypergio's Wikipedian activities to someone I was corresponding with. Apparently only you Italian stewards and admins think this is doxing. But you don't have the courage to say so publicly and so you adumbrate mysterious information about me, "ah, if only we could talk...!", "why doesn't Gitz explain what we know he knows", etc. Shame on you.
Gitz