Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go here and create an edit request.
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Expected standards of behavior
You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Again, there are no charges, and this is not a criminal court. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been communicated to you, your addition as a party was based on your involvement in the underlying dispute (without comment on whether that involvement was in any way problematic) and your conduct during the case. ~ Rob13Talk 00:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Please remove me as an involved party to this case. I have done nothing wrong and deny the charges against me. KalHolmann (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I'd be happy for the title of my section regarding KalHolmann to be renamed "KalHolmann has mis-interpreted procedural actions" or something to that effect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
As suggested by Collect, the existence of a case does not require sanctions be imposed. As the community has imposed a TBAN on Philip Cross editing George Galloway (and strongly implied that he should not edit other articles on topics that he has discussed on external sites), action by the arbitration committee may not be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This would be probably the best idea. We shouldn't really be giving into the Moonbat Response Force's conspiracy theorising, even if the BBC did. Sceptre (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Normally this would be in the form of "the community topic ban is endorsed" or some such, I think. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only edits of George Galloway which are bad, virtually all the other BLPs relating to British politicks were rotten, too. Philip Cross need a ban on all of those BLPs, Huldra (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Staggering suggestion. A TBAN on a single article & a vague expectation that Cross will voluntarily avoid articles of those he can't manage to edit neutrally? I find it difficult to believe that those supporting this have actually viewed the evidence. Anyone who has looked at it & still tries to dismiss it as a "moonbat" conspiracy theory or a "Kremlin" plot isn't acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2) The Arbitration Committee authorizes Discretionary Sanctions for all articles related to post-1979 British Politics.
Comment by Arbitrators:
I don't see sufficient evidence presented to support this. ~ Rob13Talk 00:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about the presumable course of British politics in the future, it might be a good idea to discourage what I anticipatewill be COI editing. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
2010 is the year that Theresa MayDavid Cameron defeated Gordon Brown in a general election. The intention is to impose this on contemporary issues, particularly those involving Jeremy Corbyn. British politics has been historically less controversial than American politics, but the various temptations to influence current events and/or the the perceptions of partisan/NPOV editing remain for contemporaneous topics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed this from 2010 to 1979 (Thatcher's election). As Galloway was most prominent in the Iraq War (2003) timeframe, 2010 obviously won't work. The committee may prefer 1945 (end of WWII and Attlee election) as a cut-off. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see enough evidence of wide ongoing disruption in British politics to justify this drastic action, and there certainly hasn't been nearly enough evidence in the instant arb case. Admittedly I don't pay much attention to the topic, so closer observers might be better attuned than I am to problems in it. But it seems to me, editing in US politics is much crazier, so we have and need the AMPOL sanctions. In other places, we don't need them. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: there's certainly less disruption here than in American Politics or Eastern Europe, but more than in some existing areas under DS (although I believe you are considering removing some of those DS). Any Corbyn-specific issues would fall under the existing BLP-related discretionary sanctions, and the Lewisham East by-election, 2018 article seems to have survived without significant issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3) Philip Cross is indefinitely topic-banned, broadly construed, from the subject of British Politics. This may be appealed no sooner than 6 months after the imposition of this remedy, and every 6 months thereafter.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
To ensure the avoidance of doubt, per the various off-wiki accusations, and per evidence suggesting that his edits may give a conflict of interest, Philip Cross is topic-banned from this well-defined area. The TBAN may be appealed in the standard manner after 6 months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? Are you saying you want your first proposal (dismiss the case w/o sanctions) and the current one (topic ban someone, which is a sanction) to both pass? They are contradictory so you should pick one. As of a few days ago I didn't see enough evidence presented to justify a topic ban. Some more has been posted that I haven't looked at closely: it still might not be enough. Obviously I haven't seen what arbcom has been sent privately. It did seem until the recent posts that the case had fizzled, that this was foreseeable, and that arbcom therefore shouldn't have accepted it in the first place. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting both may be reasonable actions here; the off-wiki evidence will be relevant to the committee's votes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good idea. He clearly is a net-positive to the topic area. Yes, he is "biased" in the way that he added material critical of Corbyn or other named people, but you are under heavy illusions if you think that's problematic alone. That's how political articles have always worked in Wikipedia: for example pro-Democratic editors add their own content, pro-Republican editors add their own content and then they BRD and reach some kind of a balance. This is a volunteer project. You can't force someone to find pro-Trump or pro-Galloway references and write text about them just because it would be good for WP:WEIGHT. Philip Cross didn't push for fringe or undue ideas, the antisemitism controversy is well-covered in reliable sources. You'll just have to deal with the fact that people who politically disagree with you edit Wikipedia and that they will use most of their time editing in a manner which fits with their point-of-view. Everyone has a POV. --Pudeo (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Full support. Six months off. Multiple issues have been raised over his general editing especially in regards to living people in this area. See WP:BLP - he seems to be still contributing to films and other non political stuff so it will be a win win to restrict his problematic contribution area - 18:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Govindaharihari (talk)
Support on account of professional propaganda-style editing in British BLP area, and especially their particular preference to employing association fallacyinperception management. For instance, at Peter Wilby, articles penned by various journalists in Wilby-edited newspaper are presented by Philip Cross as if they represented the subject's point of view (even though obviously there is no evidence of this)[1]; while departure of a subordinate staff member is suggested by Philip Cross to be the case of dismissal by the subject [2], even though sources quote both the subject and the staff member denying it. At Piers Robinson, Philip Cross highlights the subject's membership in an academic group and inserts criticism of this group[3]. In Craig Murray, Philip Cross inserts quotes from a personal blog that cast the subject in unfavourable light [4]. Similar manipulation attempts are observed in other BLPs edited by this editor. Worth noting that all this is sourced (although rarely to WP:RS), thus minimising the risk of immediate removal.
As Wikipedia is expected to provide neutral, unbiased information, Philip Cross's edits in the British BLP area have an overall net negative value. It might indeed take a professional propaganda expert (called "political communication expert" these days) to fully appreciate the extent of subtle manipulation associated with the editor's contributions. However, plenty such experts work in the areas associated with political marketing, BLPs on Wikipedia being one of them. Therefore, I would like to urge the ArbCom to play safe in this and similar cases by enforcing WP:N as strongly as possible. — kashmīrīTALK 14:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) Some people with WP:BLP have been treated with less respect on Wikipedia, than they would have been treated in newspapers, ie, their refutation of allegations have been censored out.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
This is a terrible idea. We already have a problem with people who do not understand the difference between refutation, rebuttal and repudiation, but much more importantly, we are not a newspaper. Most newspapers tend to give the last word to the person discussed, but we have no such obligation. We have many articles on frauds, charlatans and other unsavoury types where giving them the last word is an absolute failure of WP:UNDUE. Imagine iif we had to give Donald Trump the last word every time, despite his long and extensively documented history of saying stuff that is both self-serving and absolutely objectively false. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Huldra was referring to the Tim Hayward edit she wrote up in her evidence section. And if Trump responds to something and the response is written up in RS, then WP:NPOV requires us to use it whether we agree with it or not. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure, but consideration of that specific instance has led to proposal of a rule that would unavoidably result in false equivalency. There are better ways of achieving the same result I think. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
•In social media posts, Wikipedia editors must not make offensive comments or disparage WP:BLPs they are writing about.
As to be unenforceable: it is clearly enforced in most newspapers I know of (not only NYT). Of course, as an anon editor, I could make a twitter account under another nick, but when a wikipedia editor connects his/her , say twitter account with their wikipedia account (as was done in this case), and treat his subject (or rather, his victims) in a way which would have gotten him blocked for violating NPA on WP....then our rules are missing vital parts. Huldra (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BLP policy already has included that it: "should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." At the same time we have the WP:NPA policy, regulating our interactions internally on wp. I do not think it is overreaching if we expect editors to treat the WP:BLPs with a similar respect. (If you feel too strongly about a subject, then you shouldn't edit in that area. (Personally, there are lots of articles which I would never, ever edit on wp, as I feel too strongly about them) Huldra (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Our jurisdiction is the English Wikipedia, and we can impose restrictions only on activity here. On the other hand, we can certainly note that certain off-wiki activity can be incompatible with either editing related topics on the English Wikipedia or editing on the English Wikipedia at all. ~ Rob13Talk 00:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And in any case we can't rewrite policy. Doug Wellertalk 15:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
This is unenforceable. We could, however, expand COI to mention off-wiki disputes with article subjects, in a way that does not give subjects the option to blacklist editors just by attacking them off-wiki. But the committee will not make that happen, it would be a matter for an RfC. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Except in a high profile case like this, where the user has declared their social media accounts, this is unenforcable. We don't expect users to declare their real world identity, nor declare social media accounts. Besides, this can be wrapped up with COI. ∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss 01:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is way off, especially when the BLP subjects are high visibility public figures. I don't mind if someone tweets something terrible about Donald Trump or Barack Obama, and also edits Wikipedia about them, as long as their editing is up to snuff. There's more of a COI issue when the subject is less visible, like Tim Hayward. George Galloway (a former politician but a comparatively minor one) is somewhere in between, I suppose. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
4)
Philip Cross is topic-banned for one year, broadly construed, from all WP:BLPs relating to British politics. This may be appealed no sooner than 6 months after the imposition of this remedy, and every 3 months thereafter.
4) Philip Cross is topic-banned indefinitely, broadly construed, from all WP:BLPs relating to British politics. This may be appealed no sooner than 12 months after the imposition of this remedy, and every 6 months thereafter.
4) Philip Cross is indefinitely topic-banned, broadly construed, from the subject of British Politics. This may be appealed no sooner than 12 months after the imposition of this remedy, and every 6 months thereafter.
Comment by Arbitrators:
If a topic ban were to be imposed, what is the value in making it fixed length versus indefinite? I believe the appeals process is sometimes (not always) helpful in ensuring an editor is on the right track before allowing them to return to the areas in which they previously caused issues. ~ Rob13Talk 00:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Nothing I have seen of his editing makes me trust his judgement with BLPs, (except for jazz people, etc) Huldra (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:BU Rob13, actually, I would have liked to see the topic ban indefinite, but I misread the template above, thinking that a remedy had to be of a certain length(!)....My bad. I have fixed that now. Also, I agree with 173.228.123.166 below, but I would claim that Media Lens, Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party comes under the "broadly constructed" term. (I normally edit Israel/Palestine area, which is under general sanctions "broadly constructed"...and no-one "survives" in this area believing "broadly constructed" doesn't mean very broadly, indeed,Huldra (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]
To 173.228.123.166: Well, IMO, WP:BLPs deservers special protection, which non BLPs does not. Though I agree with you, that Philip Cross edits regarding anything relating to British politics seem problematic. Perhaps User:power~enwiki suggestion: that Philip Cross is banned from editing anything relating to British politics is a better suggestion than my suggestion. I consider my suggestion a mere minimum. (E.g. I haven't looked through all of Philip Cross edits, but if he has, eg, removed references to Media Lens, then that is problematic, as the only time Media Lens was discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, there seem to have been a consensus that it could be used with attribution). If anyone could points to diffs where Philip Cross have removed references to Media Lens, it would be useful.) Huldra (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 185.152.35.250, that was very useful. So Philip Cross removes any mention of Media Lens, with diffs like this, with edit line "rm fringe site, fails WP:IRS", this "fringe site, fails WP:IRS", this, again referring to WP:IRS. However, the only place what is a WP:RS can be decided (if it is disputed, like in this case), is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. That noticeboard is linked from WP:IRS, still Philip Cross constantly ignores the one time Media Lens was discussed there, namely back in 2010, when the consensus, as far as I read it, was that Media Lens could be used with attribution. These removals are clearly against policy. If these removals are done by ignorance, stupidity or malice; I have no idea and I will not speculate. In any case, they indicate to me that Philip Cross shouldn't be let near anywhere close to subjects pertaining to British policies. I was tempted to just strike my proposal, and support User:power~enwiki proposal ...but in view of how long this has been going on, I think 6 months is too short a time for first appeal: I would go for 12 months. Huldra (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, here are some examples of Cross removing (mostly) or changing references to Media Lens:
A little more about the dispute and examples of Cross' Twitter trolling of Media Lens and Clark can be found on the Five Filters articles. 185.152.35.250 (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding similar examples but removal of refs to Neil Clark. Diffs of his Clark edits and removals are interesting because Clark has articles in mainstream sources, so not as easy to cite RS, so edit notes become a little confusing and I would say deceptive in some cases:
I don't think the affected topic area is exactly BLP's, though those are the articles we're most sensitive about because of their impact on subjects. Edits to non-BLP articles like Media Lens, Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, etc. should also be examined. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, I don't see how to construe Media Lens as a BLP, even broadly. It's an organization, as is Socialist Workers Party (UK), to which PC has made 379 edits that I haven't looked at. Greville Janner (344 edits) was a UK politician who died in 2015, etc. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
full support - Philip Cross is indefinitely topic-banned, broadly construed, from the subject of British Politics - Govindaharihari (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support on account of professional propaganda-style editing in British BLP area, and especially their particular preference to employing association fallacyinperception management. For instance, at Peter Wilby, articles penned by various journalists in Wilby-edited newspaper are presented by Philip Cross as if they represented the subject's point of view (even though obviously there is no evidence of this)[6]; while departure of a subordinate staff member is suggested by Philip Cross to be the case of dismissal by the subject [7], even though sources quote both the subject and the staff member denying it. At Piers Robinson, Philip Cross highlights the subject's membership in an academic group and inserts criticism of this group[8]. In Craig Murray, Philip Cross inserts quotes from a personal blog that cast the subject in unfavourable light [9]. Similar manipulation attempts are observed in other BLPs edited by this editor. Worth noting that all this is sourced (although rarely to WP:RS), thus minimising the risk of immediate removal.
As Wikipedia is expected to provide neutral, unbiased information, Philip Cross's edits in the British BLP area have an overall net negative value. It might indeed take a professional propaganda expert (called "political communication expert" these days) to fully appreciate the extent of subtle manipulation associated with the editor's contributions. However, plenty such experts work in the areas associated with political marketing, BLPs on Wikipedia being one of them. Therefore, I would like to urge the ArbCom to play safe in this and similar cases by enforcing WP:N as strongly as possible. — kashmīrīTALK 14:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given reports in Haaretz et al that Galloway wants to sue Cross, this policy should be clearly stated in the record. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Galloway posted that intention on Wikipedia, NLT doesn't sound relevant. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLT doesn't apply to off-wiki legal threats by people who don't edit Wikipedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2) Editors should not be intimidated from contributing to the encyclopaedia.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
This is the crux of the issue, namely that Cross has been the subject of an intimidatory campaign from some sections of the political spectrum with regards to his editing of articles relating to politics. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cross's editing has been the subject of angry criticism off-wiki, some of which is overblown (or even literally a conspiracy theory, in the case of Craig Murray's article) and some of which is valid. IMHO the central claims have not been checked out very carefully so far. KalHolmann and Five Filters backed out of posting in the evidence section and I don't think either Five Filters submitted anything privately. Five Filters posted some diffs off-wiki and those *did* check out, but there weren't very many. Five Filters said in /Evidence they were going to post some more stuff on their site, but as of a couple days ago they hadn't done so. It seems like everyone wants someone else to do the work. My take is that arbcom accepted this case too early, since the level of investigation that it takes to reach a reasonable conclusion wasn't happening.
In particular your proposal seems to reach a negative conclusion that I don't think is justified. Yes people do engage in long periods of voluminous bad editing without being noticed (remember Jagged 85 or Darius Dhlomo). We do sometimes have to be called out in the press before we do anything (remember Seigenthaler). Has that been going on here? I don't feel any more assured now than I did when the case opened. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added: K.H. informs me that he in fact did submit something privately.[10] I'm glad to hear this and I've updated my post above. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Five Filters said in /Evidence they were going to post some more stuff on their site, but as of a couple days ago they hadn't done so." Check again please. 213.114.92.59 (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I see that the Five Filters (FF) page says it has a June 21 update but it's not obvious what the recent changes are. Particularly, I don't see any new diffs of Philip Cross's edits. Is there some chance FF could label new additions to their page with the dates? The FF page still uses that stupid time card that Craig Murray wove his conspiracy theory about, and that detracts from its credibility. I see a dude who feeds the cat every day, and also checks their email, reads the newspaper, and makes a few Wikipedia edits. Taken by itself, that is a yawner. FF's page would be much more usable as evidence if it had more concrete documentation of actual problems. Huldra's diffs about Tim Hayward are the kind of thing I have in mind. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, FF has a separate evidence page that has also been updated. I trust arbcom has seen it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there have been any serious on-wiki outing attempts related to this case. We can't control what happens off-wiki. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Galloway is offering ~£1k for anyone willing to give him Cross's details. Given that Cross and Galloway are both British and, therefore, are subject to GDPR, any editor who does so would be arguably breaching it. Sceptre (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, it's shitty of Galloway to punch down like that, but completely outside our control, unless something like Wikipedia checkuser data is involved. I don't see the GDPR as applying to individuals or to inferences from public data, or to info collected offline (e.g. one of Cross's drinking buddies hypothetically ratting him out to Galloway), but I'm not in EU and IANAL etc. I'm presuming Galloway isn't personally trying to edit Wikipedia. Under NLT we should not allow that, since he is supposedly trying to sue Cross. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Standard restatement of policy. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this resembles WP policy or real-world fact even slightly, and it's even something of a contradiction in terms (writing conservatively means being more careful than it takes to merely meet our obligations, and being obliged to exceed our obligations sounds paradoxical). We don't have any legal or (arguably) any moral obligation to adhere to anything like BLP: we could publish a tabloid without getting in trouble with the law, or we could put up a vehemently pro-Galloway or anti-Galloway site etc, as long as its contents meet some very low standards (see actual malice), nowhere near our BLP requirements. We instead chose to write a neutral encyclopedia and BLP is one of many internal policies that we use to maintain its quality. That is, we have it by choice rather than obligation. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5) The intersection of the BLP and NPOV policies does not imply that material about living persons should be hagiographic. Material about living persons should be neutral with regards to treatment of that living person in reliable sources.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Standard interpretation of NPOV. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6) For subjects of biographies of living persons, standard channels exist for subjects to discuss articles pertaining to them, including talk pages, the dispute resolution process, and in serious cases, the oversight team and the Wikimedia Foundation.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Standard policy interpretation. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you going with this? You're referring to a bunch of policies about on-wiki editing, but it sounds like you're trying to apply them to off-wiki publications by non-editors, which isn't going to fly. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia editor should be giving any assistance or credence to Galloway et al. Sceptre (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly do you think arbcom accepted this case, if it wasn't to check out the claims being made by Galloway et al? 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That (further) hostile comment against the victims in the case by Sceptre, suggesting that they be dismissed with prejudice, exemplifies why this line of reasoning is a non-starter.
Wikipedia standard channels may be well adapted to forming consensus about edits among Wikipedia editors, but they are woefully unsuited to resolving in a just and humane way cases where Wikipedia abuses have harmed others, in particular because there is no protection for the victims and their interests.
Any person who has been harmed by Wikipedia and who then attempts to use Wikipedia standard channels to resolve the issue can expect to enter a process like this one, where third-party Wikipedia insiders who sympathise with the denigrations complained of can pile in to abuse the victims, to prejudge, trivialise and over-particularise the issues and then to work to minimise or prevent remedies and sanctions even for egregious abuses. All those failures of proper process have marked the present case, and it's clear that even many of the more neutral participants have been less focused on righting editorial wrongdoing than on protecting Wikipedia from its consequences.
The opportunity for victims to defend themselves within Wikipedia standard processes is provided without confidentiality, assistance or advocacy support. The victim will enter an unfamiliar, unfriendly and conspicuously macho discursive culture that is riddled with special markup techniques, procedural rules and sanctions and insider jargon (WP:THIS and WP:THAT), a hostile setting for them in which they will be marginalised but the accused perpetrator will be fully at home and enjoying the partisan backing of fellow-insider friends.
It is surely no accident that not one of the numerous victims in this case has joined the process. Apparently one of the academics whose biography Mr Cross turned into an attack page tried to complain, but the account he created to do so was instantly banned. Mr Galloway raised the matter with Wikipedia supremo Jimmy Wales on Twitter but his complaint was immediately dismissed out of hand and mocked by Mr Wales, and this was followed up with further abuse from the anonymous Wikipedia UK sock account.
Any victim of Wikipedia abuses would be better advised to pursue their grievance in a different forum where more attention is given to questions of justice, fairness and victim safety, such as a court of law or the court of public opinion. It's noteworthy that until that was done in this case, the Wikipedia standard channels had done precisely nothing to resolve what is a long-running and previously reported pattern of abuse.
To sum up: Wikipedia needs a new, accessible, fair, just and safe complaints process for victims of abusive editing. The processes designed for resolving conflicts between editors are not fit for that purpose.
Disclosure: I made the earlier complaint from 2017, originally regarding Mr Cross's protective censorship of the Luke Harding page (that was never addressed and where the information remains unjustifiably suppressed). I have never personally been a victim of Wikipedia abuses by Philip Cross or anyone else. 121.72.165.111 (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7) Editors should remain cordial in all interactions on the encyclopaedia. This principle is especially important when dealing with subjects of biographies.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Standard policy interpretation. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal is probably good advice, but it looks far from a standard policy interpretation. Again I have trouble understanding what you're getting at here. Generally a principle should be connected with a factfinding showing that the principle was breached, and the factfinding should be supported by evidence from the evidence page. Following that pattern can make your proposals easier to understand.
Also, this is supposed to be dispute resolution, and the dispute regarding Cross and Galloway was already resolved by Cross's tban before the arb case started. So anything still needing resolution should be about something other than Cross's conflict with Galloway: for example, Cross's edits of the articles about Craig Murray, Tim Hayward, and possibly others. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8) Editors must refrain from behaviour which may disparage the encyclopaedia or otherwise bring it into disrepute.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Standard policy interpretation. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What policy is that? I mean I'll come out and say it: Wikipedia (edit filter blocked word) and I think we all know that (though it has some redeeming qualities that keep us editing). In fact we even have a page WP:SUCKS expanding on the idea. So I've just disparaged the project but I think it's fine to do that. The philosophy of the neutral point of view suggests that if we act disreputably, that should bring us into disrepute. If we want to be in good repute we should act reputably. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Crux of the case. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, and even if it's true, it's not remotely the crux of the case, which is Philip Cross's editing, not off-wiki responses to it. I would say Galloway and Murray criticized Cross off-wiki in response to Cross's editing Wikipedia's biographies of them. Nobody has undertaken a diff-by-diff examination of Cross's edits to those biographies but a quick glance at the edit summaries doesn't look good. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: Who started it? It wasn't off wiki, it started here. I didn't bother going through diff-by-diff examination of all Cross's edits to various BLP, as that has been done off wiki, and I assume arb.com reads those diffs, too. I just looked at some of the shorter ones, like Tim Hayward (academic) and Piers Robinson, and Cross turned them into attack bios. There is no other word for it. This is exactly the same behaviour which Daniel Brandt was subject to, 10 years ago. When we treat the subjects of our BLPs with open distain, even openly mock them on social media...then you can expect nothing good. You deserve nothing good, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your judgment about the Hayward and Robinson bios, which I haven't looked at myself. As of last week the off-wiki pages had a little bit of diff evidence and a lot of dumb rhetoric. One of them added some more evidence a few days ago, which looks useful, though still not all that thorough. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I offer my opinion as an outsider and this is what it looks like: Cross has been engaged in the manipulation of Wikipedia to attack his "targets" for at least 12 years. Thousands of "good" edits partially disguise a pattern of malicious editing. What he's experienced over the past few weeks is a consequence of his long term actions, both on & off Wikipedia. From the outside looking in, the harassment & intimidation is actually what he's been engaged in via Wikipedia, via blogs & various social media platforms - all while openly identifying as the Wikipedia Editor, who is responsible for the bulk of edits to articles of those he is trolling. Evidence to demonstrate this has been emailed to ArbCom. With regard to being "outed", he did that himself via Twitter (12 May) while engaged in threatening Tim Hayward, who is one of those he targeted. Evidence also sent via email. I ask those who still maintain that this is all about George Galloway & a recent dispute to view the updated FiveFilters article, which contains clear evidence & diffs of the long term abuse his targets have been on the receiving end of. Media Lens, Neil Clark, Piers Robinson, Tim Hayward, Craig Murray, Seumas Milne & they are just a tiny sample. RebeccaSaid (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is clear Cross has been subject to an off-wiki intimidation campaign due to his wiki edits. He was "out" in the sense that he edited under his real name, but that does not mean mean it is legitimate to offer a cash reward for his address, to publicly brag about phoning him day and night or to share maps purporting to be of his location, and to insight others to do this sort of thing, all of which were done by George Galloway on social media, on his radio show and on YouTube in recent weeks. This would constitute a campaign of intimidation whether Cross' edits were legitimate or not. (And I guess I should declare that some of those who have boosted this campaign have at various points accused me of being Cross or his "sidekick", have commented on my WP edits on Twitter, and tried to identify my real name on line.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to set the record straight. Galloway did not offer a cash reward for Cross's address, but for his positive identification, and he specifically denied on radio that positive identification would necessarily include his address. Nor did Galloway publicly brag about phoning him day and night: as far as I recall, his public statement was that Cross had not answered his phone for twenty-four hours, which said nothing about who telephoned him, when, or why. Unless Bobfrombrockley can give specific references, to make false and intemperate charges like this does not help the temperature of the discussion.
A distinction without a difference. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. There is a great deal of difference between offering a cash reward for someone's address and offering a cash reward for a positive identification of them; there is also a considerable distinction between bragging and informing an audience. 87.74.217.225 10:56, 4 July 2018
Oh, so he only wanted Philip Cross to be a little bit doxxed? Not fully all the way doxxed? And his followers were all on side with that? This is a man who works for Russian state media. Any attempt to find personally identifying information is going to be viewed as sinister. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. JzG, you appear to be outing someone right here on Wikipedia in [[REDACTED - Oshwah] this diff] and then [[REDACTED - Oshwah] re-inserting their real identity] after they removed it. Unless you can explain that, please spare us your feigned concern for targets of doxxing.
2. If Galloway wanted identity information for the purposes of pursuing a legal case against Cross, and he hasn't published the information he has been given, then it's not even doxxing he's engaged in. If it's viewed as sinister because he has worked at RT, that says more about people's Russophobic prejudices than about his actions in this matter. 94.46.131.7 (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Have you been living under a rock for two years? Russia has been engaging in sustained programme of interference in foreign politics, with significant success: they got the Trumpster fire elected and they tipped the scales on Brexit, both of which critically weaken Russia's historical enemies. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not provide URLs or diffs to edits or content that contain someone's personal information like this and in a public place if you believe that the information was disclosed without their permission. Concerns regarding the outing of another editor should be submitted to the oversight team for suppression and/or submitted in private to the Arbitration Committee. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 11:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for redacting. And sorry to have had to post this here. I'll just add that the instance of doxxing now redacted was carried out by JzG as admin. Yet he continues to lecture others on the seriousness of doxxing. I'm not aware that he has apologized for his actions, even though it's been brought to his attention a number of times now. Presumably if he was as concerned as he claims to be, he would have followed the Wikipedia protocol you have linked above (as admin, I'm sure he is better informed of it than I am). 94.46.131.7 (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cross certainly hasn't been doxxed in any way, shape or form. Anything in the public domain he put there himself & of his own volition & I can't even begin to comprehend why anyone would seriously think the Kremlin would have any interest whatsoever in a random Wikipedia editor. I am sure they have bigger fish to fry than Cross. Now that is a conspiracy theory........... --RebeccaSaid (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On factual matters, it seems to me that Galloway sought identification information in order to be in a position to bring a legal action for libel (or to have lawyers send letters short of action) - an area where Galloway has much successful experience (egre Twitter comments) - rather than "out" him; as the BBC reported Galloway "received information about Philip Cross and that the reward has already been claimed, but that he is not revealing the personal details of the person behind the account." Rwendland (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the radio and YouTube, Galloway's phrase was something like "Cross is not answering his telephone, which has been ringing out for the last 24 hours or more". After this, Galloway posted a map on Twitter of what one of his followers believed they had identified as a location where Cross was online and said『I’m on my way to that address now...』This clearly goes beyond simply seeking identification for the purpose of pursuing legal action, and surely constitutes an obvious intimidation campaign. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "User:Philip Cross(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been the subject of an off-wiki intimidation campaign in relation to his editing of political articles on the encyclopaedia"....but that happened after he himself had harassed BLP victims both on-wiki and on twitter. Seriously, if you chose to partake in the running of the bulls in Pamplona, then don't come complaining afterwards that the vicious bulls hurt you...Huldra (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This continued focus on George Galloway, misconstruing what he actually said, while presenting Cross as a victim in this is mind boggling. The catalyst for this was a Times article written 14 April & which led to the creation the pages of Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson & Tara McCormack, all of which were turned into attack pages by Cross within days of creation. This was highlighted by Neil Clark, who is one of the long term targets of Cross. For background info: Cross spent 3 years targeting the article of Mr Clark before it was deleted. He wrote a blog, the sole purpose of which was to attack & ridicule Mr Clark & his wife. On this blog he openly identified as the Wikipedia editor responsible for the bulk of edits to the article. When the article was up for deletion he encouraged readers of his blog to open Wikipedia accounts to vote to keep the article up. He has continued trolling Mr Clark via other social media platforms. One would hope that would adequately explain why Mr Clark raised concerns after seeing other people being seemingly targeted by Cross.
George Galloway didn't step up until 12 May & that was after Cross had been trolling respondents to Neil Clarks tweet & then the subjects of the articles themselves. He effectively intimated that people were free to use the official process to complain, but they wouldn't likely get anywhere. This appeared to be born out by the dismissive comments of Jimmy Wales, 9 May and the blocking of Piers Robinson on the same day. While this was going on Cross declared himself to be "enjoying this". That George Galloway got involved, in order to identify Cross for legal reasons, would be a logical step in the face of an ineffective & hostile response from Wikipedia & the continued goading by Cross. That Cross eventually got a reaction that he didn't like doesn't make him the victim. Hostile actions & continued provocation inevitably bring consequences & that's what he got.
I also find it of note that those who continually focus on this particular aspect, without looking at the background, have nothing to say about his actual editing. particularly on the numerous problematic articles which have been highlighted. Odd --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I presume ArbCom are looking at the actual Cross edits to establish the truth or otherwise of the findings of fact relating to these (my view is probably there were some tendentious edits, but that these don't constitute anything close to the kind of harassment and provocation you're alleging). This section relates specifically to the finding of fact around an intimidation campaign, and I think the now six-week public co-ordinated multi-platform off-wiki effort by Galloway and his allies to bring Cross into public attention because of his Wikipedia editing clearly constitutes a campaign of intimidation that should be of concern to all Wikipedia editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the comments of BobfromBrockley about the tweet of a map, that was potential evidence of Cross using multiple sock accounts to POV push, via VPN. It was in no way intimated that it was his actual location. In fact Galloway specifically stated『Yet “PhilipCross” doesn’t live there』& that was before stating he would view the address. Visiting a specific location identified by numerous IP addresses with a link to Cross is not intimidating Cross.
So Galloway publicly circulating the location of Wikipedia editors and declaring he will visit is not intimidation of Wikipedia editors? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A 12 year multi-platform on & off-wiki campaign, conducted to malign his chosen targets, all the while reveling in the attention & highlighting his status as a Wikipedia editor brought him public scrutiny. As far as editors having concern, one would hope that most Wikipedia editors don't behave as Cross has. Most would likely assume a position of dignified silence off-wiki & wouldn't goad to the point where legal action becomes a possibility.
Circulating the real location of editors would be a problem if that's what he'd done - but that isn't what he did. As I've already clarified the map was the location of a cluster of proxy IP's. All of which share the same specific coordinates as the proxy IP Cross used before putting his name to his account. As it's not a "real" location, it's a big stretch to call it intimidation. The point was connecting edits to targeted accounts, not seeking someones location. Cross put personal information about himself into the public domain (and his family members) via Twitter. That was his choice. George Galloway hasn't given away any personal information about Cross & whatever he knows has been kept confidential. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear from Galloway's tweet ("Great work Emma. This is a significant breakthrough. I’m on my way to that address now...") that when you posted the map of the IP location, Galloway thought it was a real location, and reposted it to encourage others to join him in going to seek out Cross. The fact it was actually a proxy IP so in this case the intimidation failed doesn't diminish this. In fact, even if it was inept, posting locations of WP editors' IP addresses still communicates a "we are watching you" message, and the tagging in of other accounts suggests a co-ordinated campaign. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying a spot of doxxing "Bob"? I could respond in kind, but I'm not prone to resorting to spitefulness in the face of a failing argument.
So, first you say that map was posted to identify where Cross himself was online. That is categorically untrue & would have been abundantly clear to anyone who read the tweet & attachment. The first response to that tweet, from George Galloway, came at 9.59pm & clearly stated "But Phillip Cross does not live there". The tweet you refer to came after that. If George Galloway wants to recce a non-residential area, that's his prerogative - it has nothing to do with "intimidating" Cross.
Secondly you shift to accusations of identifying the locations of Wikipedia Editors in general. Again, that is untrue & you are being very selective with your reference points. I wonder why? The attachment has been sent to ArbCom anyway, so they can view it in true context & not just rely on an individuals skewed interpretation.
Thirdly you then shift back to an intention to "seek out Cross" personally & you imply encouragement of some kind of mob justice, again absolutely untrue. It would be laughable if it wasn't such a serious & twisted allegation.
With regard to a "coordinated campaign" & tagging, George Galloway wasn't tagged into that tweet. Wikipedia was though...... I note you don't seem to have any comments on the fact that Cross may have been using multiple sock accounts to conduct his malicious editing, which is exactly what the tweet was about. Interesting, --RebeccaSaid (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get drawn into this, except to say no I am not doxxing - you tweeted about your edits to this page, as you have regularly tweeted about mine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine - I am not trying to draw you into anything. I am simply clarifying, for other users, that you are misconstruing the facts around something that cannot be posted here to ensure context. Re: Twitter - this isn't Twitter "Bob", you sought out & identifieda link &publishedit here. Call it "outing" or "doxxing" - you highlighted a potential association right here - I didn't. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative hypothesis: Philip Cross is one of the rather large number of people who does not think much of Galloway. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that's the case, he's made that quite clear both on & off Wikipedia - but if he can't manage to edit that article without making his personal opinion glaringly obvious he shouldn't be anywhere near it. Additionally, his personal feelings towards George Galloway don't explain the host of other targets he has. Maybe he "does not think much of them" too & the same applies, if he's incapable of maintaining a semblance of neutrality & he can't stop himself from target trolling off-wiki, he shouldn't be editing any of those articles either. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so on Wikipedia we have built this little world, with all these rules (No legal threats! No personal attacks! Absolutely no Outing!)...but the thing is: we have no right to demand people off-wiki to follow our rules! (or rather: we look damn silly when we do.). People off-wiki are not restricted by our rules:, AFAIK, people off-wiki have every right to Out us (if they can), pursuing legal action against us, etc, etc. What I see on this page is a lot of holy indignations over the fact that non-wiki people don't follow wiki-rules...and that simply looks plain silly to me, Huldra (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra nails it. - User:Philip Cross has edited the biographies of living people he has been shown to be opinionated against on and off the project in such a serious manner as to cause a poor reflection in the press and wider world on the wikipedia project and this opinionated editing resulted in an off-wiki campaign in relation to his editing of political articles on the encyclopaedia, especially but far from solely in relation to editing of the article pertaining to the former British Member of Parliament George Galloway - Govindaharihari (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2) In relation with intimidation campaign, Philip Cross has engaged in uncivil behaviour in response.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
I think Philip himself would not doubt this. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Has he been uncivil to someone on-wiki? If you mean off-wiki, you should say so. Also you should specify whether the subject was George Galloway. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent a list of linked IP accounts to ArbCom, including the one he acknowledges editing from [12] so you'd hope that'd be a standard part of the investigation. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
2b) Philip Cross is indefinitely prohibited from conduct both off-wiki and on-wiki which, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, is uncivil towards any living person for which a biography exists on Wikipedia. This may be appealed no sooner than 12 months after the imposition of this remedy, and every 6 months thereafter.
Comment by Arbitrators:
The Arbitration Committee does not have jurisdiction over actions beyond the English Wikipedia, though such actions could lead to sanctions here if incompatible with editing. ~ Rob13Talk 00:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Alternative to 2a. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't control what people do off-wiki, even slightly. We can at best disallow some combinations of off-wiki and on-wiki behaviour. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3) Philip Cross is topic-banned for one year, broadly construed, from the subject of George Galloway. This may be appealed no sooner than 6 months after the imposition of this remedy, and every 3 months thereafter.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Less harsh proposal than proposed above. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed: endorsing the community tban per JzG's suggestion is fine. This isn't about Galloway's biography though (the tban has already handled that). There are many other articles involved. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absurdly lenient, Huldra (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uncontroversial. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember ever seeing this in an arb decision before. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC) Sorry I think I confused this with something else. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over interactions on en.wikipedia.org. The arbitration committee has no jurisdiction over off-wiki interactions, however The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction.
2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources available, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.
3) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.
4) Users must not post legal threats on Wikipedia. However, third parties do not fall under the jurisdiction of Arbcom, provided that said interaction does not occur on wiki.
5) The purpose of principle 4 is to avoid editor intimidation, and legal threats are considered WP:uncivil. Off-wiki legal threats will not be viewed favorably by the Arbitration committee.
6) Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research.
7) An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing the biographical article on that individual.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
As previously, my main concern with this is effectively giving people a right of veto over their article's editors simply by attacking them offline. So I agree wit the principle but it must be two-way and non-trivial. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The wp:privacy policy is about what info the WMF can release, not about editors posting stuff. You want WP:OUTING. Note that the WMF does turn over info in some situations.[13]173.228.123.166 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to nail down the extent of this, at least with the evidence that's been posted on wiki. It has undoubtedly happened but it's unclear if it exceeded the level that could normally be handled by civil discussion and feedback on talk pages. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clear and long term by a user that is clever enough to hide it, if you understand wikipedia policy it is easily abused. I will note now for future reference that if he is not restricted for his previous editing now he will have a green light to continue in the same vein.Govindaharihari (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Users, especially single purpose users, are reminded to direct legal correspondence to the OTRS team, not individual editors. Informal rasing of legal concerns is allowed, provided that it is not done so in a threatening manner.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I think this is an important point, but I'm not sure what do do about it. Shouldn't we add it to WP:HARASS / WP:COI or something? Guy (Help!) 08:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they have a problem with individual editors, WMF Legal cannot act as a middleman. Cf. m:Wikimedia Legal Disclaimer — regards, Revi 12:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if someone has a problem with what their biography says and wants help with it beyond posting on the talk page, they should normally contact OTRS rather than WMF legal. However, we can't require that of anyone-- it's just a recommendation. If they decide to sue an editor we can't stop them.
It's really unclear what this remedy is about. If it refers to something that happened on-wiki there should be a factfinding connected to it, supported by a diff in /Evidence. If it was off-wiki then "Editors reminded" is mis-targeted because it refers to something done by a non-editor. If it's about a hypothetical situation it should just be dropped. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to point at OTRS. I've addressed users rather than editors, hopefully casting the net wider. ∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss 16:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have "single purpose users" linked to WP:SPA which is about users with accounts. The vast majority of our users only read the site, not edit or log in. If you're trying to address BLP subjects, it's better to say so instead of including a much wider group to whom the suggestion has no relevance. Also, the OTRS is not lawyers and doesn't handle "legal correspondence". 173.228.123.166 (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a one-click route to refer legal complaints to WMF legal from OTRS. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Emails to WMF legal are allowed, and off wiki legal threats cannot be prohibited, but it's preferable to exhaust on-wiki dispute resolution. ∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss 21:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you talking about? Galloway threatened a suit against Cross, but afaik Galloway doesn't edit Wikipedia. He can do whatever he wants off-wiki. The most Wikipedia can do to anyone is boot them off the site, and it can't boot Galloway because Galloway isn't on it to begin with. So we can't do anything about Galloway. If you mean someone else, be specific (privately to arbcom if necessary). 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know its going to be of limited effect, but it seems to me the best we can do. Hopefully, it'll encourage BLP subjects to come on-wiki and raise their concerns with the community, rather than going through a legal process. ∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss 16:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is directed at Galloway, he is not an editor at all as far as I know, single-purpose or otherwise. You might instead write a factfinding that Galloway got in an off-wiki dispute with Cross (evidence emailed to arbcom), and a remedy encouraging biography subjects to refer to WP:BLPHELPorWP:ABOUTYOU if they want assistance with content issues in their biographies. That might come across as another bureaucratic runaround by now, given how we got here, but it's still the best recommendation we can give. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added: I think you're missing the traditional concept of an SPA, which is someone who edits singlemindedly on a single content area, typically a controversy/soapbox that they get into disputes about because they don't know what they're doing. Those editors should generally widen their focus rather than pursue dispute resolution where they invariably get sanctioned. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals by sanctioned editors
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
1) Wikipedia is a content-focused project. Editors who become aware that subjects of biographical articles have concerns about their article, are encouraged to assist them in resolving the issue through Wikipedia's processes, for example via Wikipedia:Advice to biography subjects.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents: This has been a process which has seen failings on both sides. First, we should have reacted against WP:BLP violations long before it became an off wiki affair. There were enough diffs to show a deeply problematic editing pattern. However, secondly, various WP:BLP victims have reacted in a way which was not helping their cause, to put it diplomatically. When someone offers a reward to OUT you, I think most Wikipedians react instinctively with "circling the wagons". (I am an anon, I edit in a "difficult" area.....and I have received hundreds, and hundreds of death and rape threats over the years: my first instinct in this case was to wish "A pox on both your houses")
However, I think we need to see that we (that is: Wikipedia) were the ones who "started the fire." We need to strengthen the WP:BLP rights, and that takes more than linking to an essay. If we do not strengthen the BLP rights, I fear we will have more boomerang situations like this one: with outings, possible libel suit etc. No-one (except possibly some lawyers) will gain anything from that. Huldra (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the outside looking in, does the responsibility for maintaining neutrality, particularly in BLP articles, not ultimately lie with Wikipedia & its contributors? Or do you seriously expect individuals to routinely monitor their own article & go through a long winded process, with a variety of anonymous editors & admins just to get some balance?
See the Tim Hayward article as an example. It's hardly rocket science to recognize the multiple issues with it - an attack page, simple as that. A prominent Admin got involved with the edit warring there, however his response was to revert edits, protect the page and call a variety of editors "sock" accounts - whether they were "sock" accounts or not, did he even look at what was going on? Is that not an appropriate point for the intervention of an Admin? Is that not part of the role? It hardly instills confidence to engage when you're greeted with that reaction.
Look at Neil Clark [Clark] Although the article was deleted, it's worth noting as it demonstrates that this is not a new issue with Cross. That particular campaign went on for nearly 3 years practically unhindered. Again, it hardly instills confidence. 3 years after deletion Cross was still having a dig Figures of fun
Maybe this is normal for Wikipedia. Maybe it's acceptable. I'd like to think, for reputations sake, it isn't. RebeccaSaid (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Clark revision history didn't link Neil Clark
Broadly yes, but in this case people seem to have preferred to feed Galloway's conspiracy theory and bring it to Wikipedia rather than find out the actual concerns with specifics of the article, let alone address them. I think that is disappointing. Making a huge fuss about Philip Cross should not have been an alternative to fixing the article, which is what seems to me to have happened here. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Guy, I don't understand the continued single-minded focus on George Galloway. It's not just about George Galloway. No matter how disappointed you are about the way it was handled, that doesn't change the fact that this is a long-term, multiple article issue, which maybe gained more attention because George is a higher profile figure than those who have raised it before. And people have been raising it, on & off Wikipedia for at least 12 years.
I reference Neil Clark (again) as that is probably one of the most blatant examples of the failure of Wikipedia to address the concerns of an article subject that I have seen; I note that you personally asked him to stop editing that article due to complaints. User talk But he continued regardless. User Talk....... Judging by the dismissive language used, which the complainant will be able to see, & the failure to actually deal with it, I can understand why people take their complaints off-wiki.
Piers Robinson is a more recent example. Within 25 minutes of his first edit he was blocked for having a user name which "matches the name of a well-known, living person". I almost understand why that is the case - to avoid potential impersonation - but I don't understand why zero effort was made by that Admin to engage before he did that. Same Admin whose response was to revert edits, protect the page and call a variety of editors "sock" accounts on the clearly problematic article of Tim Hayward, as above. This kind of reaction is why people vent their frustration off-wiki & don't bother with the formal processes. I am just saying.........
The block template tells the user how to verify their ID. They also have a talk page. We can't allow unverified accounts with names that match article subjects, for obvious reasons. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I had made an account here, trying to clean up the worst excesses in a BLP of myself, and the first reaction was a block, (without anyone even contacting me to find out if I was who I claimed I was!): I would have taken that as a kick in the face, and, quite frankly, would have wished Wikipedia to go to hell. Also, this is a ”policy” which is extremely haphazardly implemented.. say, no one has blocked User:Rjensen for impersonating Richard J. Jensen...and there are many, many other examples, Huldra (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great argument for changing the wording of the block template, and a terrible argument for allowing unverified accounts with names matching article subjects. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern."
User:RebeccaSaid has a point: I cannot see that policy has been followed here. Huldra (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Having said that: I have experienced user:NeilN as a very experienced and good admin. BUT,...in this case I don't understand him, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]
The posts above by "outside looking in" RebeccaSaid are a good example of why we need to be cautious about strengthening BLP rights. Our policies, guidelines, and article content will be manipulated by those seeking to remove negative information about themselves or add negative information about their opponents in the name of "balance". Some attempts will be obvious, others less so. My actions have been mentioned twice up above. Let's see how the criticisms stack up:
A prominent Admin got involved with the edit warring there, however his response was to revert edits, protect the page and call a variety of editors "sock" accounts - whether they were "sock" accounts or not, did he even look at what was going on? If you follow the link on RebeccaSaid's talk page you'll go to a offsite webpage filled with details about this situation. It's clear this person is quite adept at gathering and displaying evidence yet the comments above, complete with innuendo and leading question, contains no diffs or actual evidence. Looking at the actual history of Tim Hayward (academic), you'll see that a number of accounts were blocked as socks by me. RebeccaSaid attempts to throw doubt on my reasons for blocking but fails to mention that all the registered accounts were later checkusered and confirmed as socks. This information is easy to find (e.g., User:Cint4198) but somehow RebeccaSaid, who is capable of uncovering small details, failed to do so. As for the reverts, ([14], [15]) editors can check if the socks were removing any obvious BLP violations. If not, then it becomes a content dispute which admins do not adjudicate and socks are prohibited in participating in. There may be a question of balance, but that's basically the cry of every sock POV-pusher.
Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. Note that policy states "the subjects", not "claiming to be the subjects". There's a good reason for this - editors should monitor WP:UAA for a while and see how many editors we get claiming to be a famous person. I softblocked the account which is perfectly inline with policy and the block message even states, "If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia." Instructions are given on how to prove an identity and in Robinson's case, a simple tweet from his account would probably do. Editors who are against this blocking practice need to seriously think about what happens when the media catches wind of someone trying to whitewash their biography or attacking their opponents biographies. If we allow an impersonator to do so, that negative attention shifts to us (and deservedly so) for allowing the impersonation to occur.
Finally, as best as I can recall, I initially got involved in this situation by handling a standard edit warring report. The content was unsourced and made reference to a legal document and made with some sort of "balance" in mind. I cannot stress strongly enough how we do not need any kind of BLP or WP:BLPGROUP rights that would allow for such editing. We already have our hands full with blatant and subtle COI editing, mixed in with offwiki campaigns, socking, and real-life threats to good-faith editors. --NeilNtalk to me 09:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like I clearly said I am looking at it from the outside, I am not au fait with your copious "rules" & I am really not minded to look into that aspect too much. My concern is how subjects of articles are treated. The purpose of my comments are to demonstrate how it looks from an outsiders perspective, a layperson & why people are loathe to use the official process. It seems some people have taken umbrage with issues being dealt with off-wiki & I am giving some insight as to why that might be. Yes I am capable of "gathering evidence", it's not difficult, there's so much of it & any evidence I have found has been sent via email, no need to repeat myself here. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not monitor WP:UAA, but if standard practice is to block first, ask later, than that is a horrible practice. It is basically punching people in the face, and then inviting them to a conversations. Secondly, the stuff that the Piersgregoryrobinson (talk·contribs) was removing was what made the article an attack bio (things like: "The Guardian, Robinson has said, should employ Beeley and another blogger, Eva Bartlett (who reputedly wears an “I ♥ Bashar” bracelet)" ..basically guilt by association, something which should NOT be in a bio.) Virtually all the stuff this account wanted to remove is now removed. As for : this edit, I agree with NeilN, an unsourced court case, where there has been no judgement (AFAIK), should not be in any bio. The problem (as I see it) isn't that bad stuff has been taken out (of, say, the Kamm article), the problem is that so much bad stuff and half baked innuendos were not taken out from a lot of other peoples BLPs. Huldra (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: With respect to usernames, no, it is not a horrible practice. We don't want people to post private information (which is frequently needed to confirm identities) publicly. Remember that new editors sometimes don't realize "their" talk page is viewable by the entire world. Even when the block message tells them to email OTRS we still get people posting private email addresses or phone numbers or posting a link to scanned images of drivers' licenses they've uploaded somewhere. --NeilNtalk to me 23:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: Well, Piers Robinson have both phone number and email address listed on his University page, linked from the article. Why not try to contact him? Huldra (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra:1) I'm talking about the general practice here. 2) Chasing down a person in real life is seriously out of an admin's remit. Admins don't even have automatic access to OTRS - their membership has to be approved. --NeilNtalk to me 23:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: But blocking an editor who had done nothing wrong (just removed horrible stuff from a BLP) is in an admins remit, obviously. I still say that this is punching people in the face, and then inviting them to a conversations. I still think this is a horrible, horrible practice, also I think it is unevenly practised: I seem to recall having seen others been asked first to identify themselves, then, if they don't do that, it is fair to block them. But it is not decent that a block is the first response! Huldra (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, the account made 2 edits. The first of which was explained "remove inaccurate and misleading editing", it took Cross all of 7 minutes to revert that, citing "obvious COI" COI & to leave a message on the users talk page. Bear in mind Cross had been trolling this person on Twitter over the proceeding 2 days, so I can personally see why they would be loathe to engage with him further & I would question whether it was appropriate for Cross to involve himself at all, judging by the comments he made to NeilN when reporting the account at 19.43. User_talk:NeilN/Archive_45#Piers_Robinson_&_Tim_Hayward
The 2nd revert from this account was at 19.45 & at 19.46 a different editor reverted & noted that there wasn't an edit summary.
One minute later NeilN had blocked the account & noted that "Off-wiki lobbying and canvassing always works so well... Editors blocked, pages protected. The complainants need to learn how to use article talk pages". Would it have been too much of a trial to leave a polite message on the users talk page, as opposed to a block, explaining how to confirm identity? The subject is a Professor, an academic, so I am sure he's quite capable of following simple instructions. Or is it standard procedure to treat those unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy in this way?
Well, we have not had it confirmed, AFAIK, that the Piersgregoryrobinson (talk·contribs) account was indeed Piers Robinson ...or an impersonator, so all options are still on the table. But the Talk:Piers Robinson page does indeed look like a total horror story. It is difficult to look at that page and understand that WP:AGF is one of Wikipedias basic rules. Actually, one look at that page, and I understand completely why people took this off wiki. Huldra (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per Huldra, I felt that NeilN's abrupt block and the obnoxious talkpage template on Piersgregoryrobinson's talk page showed poor AGF and lousy communication. Contacting Piersgregoryrobinson through his public email address would have been an obvious step, though not obligatory since I can understand a Wikipedia admin not wanting to use a personal email address for that purpose. But in that case, an obvious alternative is ask OTRS to contact the person, or at minimum, ask the person to contact OTRS. The latter means include the actual email addresses in your talk message and saying "please write to this address explaining that you're a biography subject and you want them to verify that you're actually the person who your username says". It doesn't mean spam a template with some urls where the person could potentially find the addresses if they spend hours reading through pages of crap. In other words, don't pile bureaucracy on the person. Rather, help them cut through the bureaucracy that is already there.
It is not enough to say we provided a mechanism for the user to get their problem sorted, so if they don't use it, that's on them. We're responsible for the outcome (fair treatment of BLP subjects etc), so if the mechanism we provided doesn't result in the necessary outcome being reached, then the mechanism wasn't adequate for the purpose which means we didn't do our job. What we instead need to do is treat people who approach us as humans and help them as best we can, rather than acting like Wikipedia is a giant machine and tossing the BLP subjects a manual saying what levers to pull. Wikipedia (like Soylent Green) is people and we should act like people. So I urge NeilN to try to bring more empathy to these situations. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obnoxious, you say.
This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, Piersgregoryrobinson, matches the name of a well-known, living person.
If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username. If you choose to do so, we ask the following:
Please be willing and able to prove your identity to Wikipedia.
Please send an email to info-en@wikimedia.org. Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles email is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate.
If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).
So, the "obnoxious" template notes that it's for their protection, tells them how to verify their identity, and also tells them how to change name if they are not the individual concerned.
What was the obnoxious bit? Guy (Help!) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the actual action of the abrupt block & posting the template without any attempt to engage. The content of the template isn't the point. Maybe your rules/processes have radically changed over the years, but compare how Oliver Kamm was welcomed when he opened his account - I don't see any blocks or requests to confirm identity there. User_talk:OliverKamm#Welcome Even when he was editing the page of someone he had/has a clear COI with, the only admin action I can see is a polite request for Kamm to email them & that was more than 2 months after he started editing. User_talk:OliverKamm#E-mail Like I said, maybe processes have changed over the years &, if that's the case, some would say processes have gone backwards. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, yeah, this looks as one of this cases where everything...and nothing is allowed, which can lead to an extremely uneven handling of editors. Over at WP:UAA you have a link to WP:REALNAME...which say that that you can be blocked as a "precaution against damaging impersonation." Alas, in the Piersgregoryrobinson (talk·contribs) I certainly do not see any "damaging impersonation", the editor only removed a lot of awful WP:COATRACK stuff from the Piers Robinson article, something which is exactly what I would assume the real Piers Robinson would do. And the difference in the welcome given to Piersgregoryrobinson (talk·contribs) vs. given to OliverKamm (talk·contribs) is absolutely staggering. This does not look pretty for Wikipedia. Huldra (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a 10 year difference between those 2 users, BLP policy has changed significantly since then. Iffy★Chat -- 11:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that change has basically been in strengthening the BLP rights. I am not aware of any new policy of instantly blocking a BLPs user account, if that account hasn't done anything harmful. As RebeccaSaid noted: if this is the way the process has gone generally, then Wikipedia has gone backwards, Huldra (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this similar-ish example, which oddly enough, involves Cross too. Dina Nagapetyants is a colleague of Luke Harding at The Guardian. She, if it was her (& I see no effort made to establish whether it was or wasn't), opened an account for the sole purpose of editing the article of Luke Harding. Edit History. Her edits & comments on her talk page, including accusing editors of being Julian Assange & veiled threats "If you choose not to do so and keep the defamatory content on this page, other measures will be taken to remove it for good.", demonstrate a clear COI & disruptive editing maybe. (backed up by Cross). Talk Page. Her identity could've have been clarified - unusual name & Google is your friend. But nothing....until more than 12 months later COI when her being a colleague of Harding was pointed out. Maybe she wasn't considered "notable" enough to block & ask for evidence of identity at the time. Yet Piers Robinson (& others) became "notable" initially on the sole basis of an opinion based hit piece in The Times. Anyway, the account remains live. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2) Off-wiki attacks, particularly those involving speculation about pseudonymous users' identity, should not be linked on Wikipedia. Instead concerns should be emailed direct to the Arbitration Committee.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Ermph, a revival of WP:BADSITES? I'd agree we should all be careful about such linking, but turning it into a bright line creates drama and has already been rejected. Trying to control access to outside information is also supposed to be one of the characteristics of a cult. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, a reiteration of the privacy policy. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As stated to Sceptre, I don't see anything in the wmf:privacy policy remotely resembling this. Maybe you mean WP:OUTING. But you're proposing a considerable expansion of scope, rather than a "reiteration". Also, I'm not sure at all that this situation would have been handled properly if it had only been brought up behind the scenes. It's not even clear that it will be handled properly (mostly) out in the open, like we're doing now. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
any user editing articles about living people on this wikipedia in a biased way and then taking his bias to the www and publishing it should be able to be named on here Govindaharihari (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Political articles and biographies of living persons on Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view and in particular should not reflect or form part of broader political campaigns against their subjects.
2) When abusive editing against a living person occurs, the interests of the victim should be protected at all stages of the ensuing Wikipedia process.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Significant, persistent bias in Wikipedia causes personal harm
3) When Wikipedia pages relating to a living person or extant organisation are persistently and significantly biased against them, they suffer harm as a result. 121.72.172.191 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
I want to explain why I have been harping on so much about the harm to victims even though I have not been victimised myself. As an outsider, I perceive a definite mindset shared by most of the participants in this process that systematically focuses on the narrow question of whether edits conform to Wikipedia rules and standards and systematically ignores – or does not even see – the impact of the biased articles on human beings.
When Wikipedia allows an attack page to stand for months or years unfairly disparaging living people, it effectively supports online harassment of real and potentially vulnerable human beings by providing the harasser with a global platform and a large audience who are misled into belief in the harasser's unjust denigrations by Wikipedia's official myth of the Neutral Point of View.
Online harassment has been proven to cause severe harm to victims and can lead to depression and even suicide. I know that at least two of Cross's targets have contemplated suicide as a result of online harassment.
To be blunt, you people at Wikipedia need to break out of your insular internal culture a bit and remember that you are not just "editors" but human beings whose project impacts on other human beings and can cause significant harm to them even just through negligent inaction. That gives you a responsibility to be humane that I believe you have neglected and that is in the end greater than the responsibility you actually do perceive, i.e. to ensure the conformance of your website's content to your internal policies. 121.72.172.191 (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a two-way street. We've also seen harassment of Wikipedia editors who have told truth to power (e.g. when Paul Dacre ordered investigation and doorstepping of the guy who started the RfC on the reliability of the Mail). Guy (Help!) 10:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When Wikipedia pages relating to a living person or extant organisation are persistently and significantly biased against them, they suffer harm as a result - yes, without doubt. It is not a two way street when almost all wikipedia editors are nameless and hidden behind a pseudonym.Govindaharihari (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) Philip Cross has engaged in a long-term pattern of abusive editing with a clear political bias, particularly but not only against left-wing British political figures and journalists and has also protected from critical content the pages of establishment figures.
Outside of the topic area of British politics, examples include the brutal Wikipedia attack pages against the Russian state owned media organisation RT and the Iranian channel PressTV. Or the Douma chemical attack page or the biographies of e.g. Noam Chomsky or John J. Mearsheimer and Seymour Hersh.
A protected page example would be that of Luke Harding, from which proven and well sourced material about an early plagiarism was removed by Cross and by a Harding associate.
Examples of hostile editing of pages against leftists would be those of Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson, Craig Murray, Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald, George Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn, Media Lens, Seumas Milne, Edward S Herman, Afshin Rattansi, Mo Ansar, John Pilger, Andrew Murray, Gilad Atzmon, John Mearsheimer, Vanessa Beeley, Eva Bartlett, John McDonnell, Chris Williamson, Momentum and Ian Lavery. Another good and recent example is the page of Len_McCluskey which is 87% Cross and illustrates both his hostile bias and his obsession with linking those he doesn't like to anti-Semitism and especially in the UK Labour Party.121.72.188.161 (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This language of "brutal" and "victims" is really excessive. I looked at one of the examples listed as "brutal", Douma chemical attack, as I'd edited that page too. It looks like Cross had two bouts of editing: here is the first, and here is the second. I cannot see how this could possibly be described as "brutal", or even tendentious. This claim seems to me seriously lacking in evidence.
You simply misread this, failing to note the sentence break that delimits the application of the "brutal attack" phrase. The RT and PressTV pages are brutal attack pages tendentiously edited by Cross and outside the area of British politics. The pages mentioned in the other sentence, including the one you edited, are just cited as more examples of tendentious editing by Cross that are outside the area of British politics. (Yes, I'm the same person.) 121.72.182.187 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Co-ordination to import outside political agendas into Wikipedia
2) Philip Cross has co-ordinated his attack editing with an outside party, and in particular with the right wing political agenda of the Murdoch newspaper The Times.
This collusion has been documented by concerned parties in a document shared on Twitter which has been submitted to this process already.
This is definitely not proven, and I presume this belief comes from not knowing very well how Wikipedia works. If you do work in one certain area, you typically look what other editors who edit in that area are up to. I know, I do it myself (in the Israel/Palestine area), and I know half a dozen or so editors check each and every edit that I do. That 2, or 3 or 5 of the same editors turn up at the various similar articles is therefore certainly no proof of out-side co-ordination, just of editors with similar interests, Huldra (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's copiously proven in the "document shared on Twitter" that was cited, which is way too large to include its contents here. (As I recall, it was linked to on the arbitration request page if you're interested.)This document.121.72.182.187 (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Contrary to your presumption, the claim does not rely at all on the regular appearance of the same editors on related articles. To reiterate: it's about coordination of Philip Cross's attack editing with the political campaigns of outside parties, in particular the Murdoch paper, The Times. 121.72.182.187 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's response to these abuses has been inadequate
3) My arguments for this have been made elsewhere on this page, on the Administrators Noticeboard section relating to the case, and in the original complaint of late 2017 originally regarding the Luke Harding page.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Here's an example from 2015 of where the Philip Cross attack-editing problem was noticed but nothing was done. It includes the Galloway page issue, raised by user:Solntsa90. 121.72.182.187 (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good example of how he operates across the board with regard to those he has an issue with.
Open hostility towards the subject, including inappropriate comments; "wretched"?
Personal commentary in among the facts, often unsourced.
Ad hominem.
Blogs from obviously biased sources.
General hubris when challenged.
Then nothing happens & I suspect there are many examples just like that --RebeccaSaid (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute full support.Wikipedia's response to these abuses has been inadequateGovindaharihari (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Philip Cross seems never to have been sanctioned, but there are a ton of incidents involving him that got to the level of the Administrators' Noticeboard. Mostly Cross is the complainant and – usually successfully – making effective use of the rules to get his way against less-experienced opponents. Looking at those complaints now, in hindsight and all together, it's possible to see the long term agenda of political bias promotion, but that wouldn't generally have been evident in each case seen in isolation. You can push a political point of view and advance personal vendettas through the long-term aggregate of apparently innocuous individual complaints in the same way as through apparently innocuous individual edits. It's only when you look at the overall thrust of Cross's complaining and its hostile focus on the likes of Craig Murray and Neil Clark (or its protection of Oliver Kamm) that the problem is evident. So perhaps the failure to detect the overall pattern is excusable given the material realities of a large user-written encyclopedia.
But there were other cases where notice should have been taken and action could and should have followed. That 2015 case mentioned above, for example, came up again the next year and once again absolutely nothing was done.
There was also an early case from 25 January 2007, Malicious editing of Neil Clark's biography in which it was pointed out that "There is very strong evidence that Cross and [Elena] Zamm are Oliver Kamm." The complainant was referred to Biographies of Living Persons/Noticeboard by User:FayssalF. The matter was raised there the same day by Philip Cross. Then absolutely nothing was done. That was 11 years ago.
Then there was the case from 20 September 2012 A friendly word. This was about Cross attack-editing the page of anti-Zionist British journalist Jonathan Cook. User:Zrdragon accused Cross of a campaign of harassment against them, which started over edits to the page of the ubiquitous Oliver Kamm. Incidentally, it is perfectly clear that in this case Cross deliberately outed Zrdragon on Wikipedia, but no real fuss was made at all. This strikes me as remarkable given the outrage now being displayed over George Galloway's possible future outing of Cross in a potential defamation case. Once again, absolutely nothing was done (other than redacting Zrdragon's real name).
Then there was the case from 10 December 2017 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitism in the Labour Party in which Philip Cross's bias (to keep the page) was evident. He admitted to canvassing on Twitter to keep the page and that some of his followers were Wikipedia editors. Incidentally, while minimising the number of his Twitter followers, Cross didn't mention that many of them are prominent centrist UK journalists whose Wikipedia pages have been curated by Cross (as pointed out in the document shared on Twitter).
In response, those present enjoyed a long discussion about the word "moot". But once again, absolutely nothing was done. 121.72.182.187 (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons nothing has been done, as I see it, is that if he can vaguely justify his actions with word salad around the "rules" the majority seem to think that's fine, irrespective of what the edit is. The fact that he manipulates those same "rules" when it suits doesn't seem to matter either. For example he will remove information on the basis of a lack of reliable sources, yet he will insert information short of sources, with borderline unreliable sources or no sources at all, if it fits his POV. Someone on here noted that everyone edits to a POV & maybe that's the case. The clear distinction in this case is that he has openly & loudly linked his off-wiki campaign of harassment to his on-wiki activities. No amount of quoting the "rules" makes that OK. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate the advice of a veteran Wikipedian, to keep COI offline & confidential, wasn't followed going forward. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add to this section the way in which the editor, who tried to highlight this case, was treated by some sections of the community when raising valid concerns. Threats, hostility, a general intolerance towards someone who is less familiar with the copious "rules", & obvious attempts to shut down discussion.
Is this the normal way to communicate with someone for raising concerns? "Do not ping me. Do not write on my talk page. If you reply to this, I will not reply. I want nothing to do with you. You were advised below to drop this, and you absolutely should." Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
He even had Cross stalking his edits, making irrelevant changes to articles he's never edited before or hadn't touched for 7 tears. (Evidence via email)
With the above in mind, I am not surprised that the editor lacks/lacked confidence in the internal processes & his frustration is understandable. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Philip Cross to be permanently banned from Wikipedia
1) So far Philip Cross has been banned only from the George Galloway page, a blatant half-measure. Now the proposal is to consider the area of British politics broadly construed, but Cross's abusive editing demonstrably has a wider scope than this. Furthermore, the co-ordination with outside political forces to bring their partisan political agendas into Wikipedia has brought the encyclopedia into serious disrepute already, not least because Wikipedia failed to address the issue and in fact compounded it by attacks on the victims. Further half-measures will only add to the scandal. Finally, Mr Cross, an intelligent and determined individual, has already run rings around the Wikipedia quality enforcement mechanisms literally for years and could be expected to do so in future under any restricted editing regime.
A disadvantage of this is that Wikipedia would lose Cross's helpful services - Cross is an effective, literate and diligent editor who has done a lot of useful and meticulous work between (and effectively disguising) his abuses. An advantage is that it would be in Cross's own interests from a moral and personal perspective to be freed from what amounts to a career of political denigration and whitewashing on the encyclopedia.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
It would be the best option for wikipedia to ban this account, the fact that some of his contributions were ok is far from the point of all this. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia needs a proper procedure for handling victims of its abuses
2) This argument has been made under Sceptre's contribution on this page.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
We already have one. It could arguably be better communicated, and reinforced by reminding editors that they, too, bear some responsibility. Standing in the middle of the street shouting "look at the fire!" is markedly less useful to the person in the burning building than getting a bucket of water and trying to put the fire out. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
This is outside of ARBCOM's responsibility. They can encourage the creation of an RfC at the community's behest, but they cannot simply request a change in policy—declaring what the community "needs" or does not need—through an arbitration decision. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3) A task force carefully selected for probity and neutrality should be formed to examine the pages edited by Philip Cross, starting from those where he has edited the most and to whom he is most hostile, mark them as potentially biassed immediately and then clean them up.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Again, this is outside of ARBCOM's responsibilities. The formal institution of task forces for such checks would probably require an alteration in policy. In the meantime, ARBCOM can examine the edits themselves and determine whether or not Cross has edited with bias. The responsibility for fixing these issues is a general one that lies with the community in pursuance to BLP. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying this. The main burden of my suggestion is that, to minimise the ongoing harm that these abuses are continuing to cause to the victims, an organised, worst-first approach to correcting the attack pages would be helpful rather than relying on a laissez-faire approach. I remain ignorant of exactly how Wikipedia institutional disabilities might hinder the formal organisation of such a task force, but it seems to me that if necessary it could be self-organised by concerned editors. 121.72.172.191 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4) When and if pages relating to living persons or extant organisations are determined by the Arbitration Committee after due consideration to have had a significant and persistent hostile bias Wikipedia should apologise directly the Arbitration Committee should bring those findings of bias directly to the notice of those harmed where possible and acknowledge the fact that harm has been caused. (Presumably the committee could also choose to express regret on its own account, rather than on behalf of Wikipedia, or committee members could choose to do so in their personal capacities.) 121.72.172.191 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This could take place almost immediately for the most egregious cases like Mr Galloway, Piers Robinson, Tim Hayward and Media Lens.
Wikipedia should immediately apologise publicly for the failure to address this problem in a timely manner despite the numerous reports available over the years and in particular for the hostile way the most recent complaints were handled, including Mr Wales' ill-judged intervention on Twitter. The Arbitration Committee should explicitly note in its finding that Wikipedia's processes did not address the problem in a timely way and that the handling of the complaint was not satisfactory. Mr Wales should be requested to address the matter of his handling of the complaint with the Twitter interlocutors. Fronting up and taking responsibility like this would significantly defuse the scandal and reduce the damage to the encyclopedia project and its credibility deriving from the warranted opprobrium now falling on the organisation. 121.72.172.191 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Wikipedia simply doesn't have a form of governance could make any statements on behalf of Wikipedia, let alone take responsibility for past actions or inaction. Additionally, as an encyclopedia anyone can edit, almost any article can become biassed in a hostile way at some point. Then there's the fact that whether or not any bias is "in a hostile way" is a subjective determination, as is the determination of bias. Doug Wellertalk 09:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that clarification Doug.
I did not interpret in a simplistically literal way your statements that bias is subjective and that any article can be biased, since an absolutist reading would render nugatory Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View cultural more and would in particular make the current Arbitration Committee investigation of the Philip Cross case completely senseless. Reading your intervention instead as being consistent with the notion that the accuracy and objectivity of a finding of bias increases with the egregiousness and durability of the bias, the thoroughness of the investigation and the disinterest of the investigators, I am amending my suggestion to relate concretely to Arbitration Committee findings of bias.
On the question of apologies, I want to clarify that my suggestion that Wikipedia apologise was mostly concerned with the interests of victims of harm caused by Wikipedia. (I therefore added above a suggested principle to recognise that persistent and significant hostile bias in pages relating to living persons and extant organisations causes them harm.)
An apology has two basic elements, first, a recognition by the apologiser of the fact of their wrongdoing and second, an expression of remorse. It is the first element that addresses the interests of the victim; the second element actually addresses the interests of the perpetrator because their contrition is a prerequisite for their moral rehabilitation.
Bringing to the attention of the victim an explicit finding by the Arbitration Committee that Wikipedia pages relating to them have exhibited significant and persistent hostile bias and that they have suffered harm as a result, which the Arbitration Committee absolutely should be able to do, would amount to the first element of an apology and would be sufficient to address the interests of those harmed.
If that is done then the institutional inability of Wikipedia to apologise for the harm it causes as an institution – an organisational dysfunction so profound and obvious as to surely be unique amongst corporations of its scale – can remain unaddressed as irrelevant to the interests of victims and causing harm only to Wikipedia itself.
Disclosure: I am the same 2017 complainant. 121.72.172.191 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Mere opinion in "reliable sources" is not reliable
5) Mere opinion in "reliable sources" should not be cited as quasi-factual in Wikipedia.
Looking at Philip Cross's edit history I was struck by how often he could insert hostile and abusive content sourced from mere opinion expressed by his favoured journalism and commentary clique and published in "reliable sources" like the upmarket Murdoch media. For example, the Andrew Murray page where Cross is able to cite a journalist's opinion calling Mr Murray a Stalinist.
The reasons that supposedly make those "reliable sources" reliable do not apply to material like this which is intentionally published as opinion. Such material need not be factual and would not be withdrawn by the publisher if it were not.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Full support, this is a meat and veg of advanced users with a bias ability to install non neutral content. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand this correctly, this means that Wikipedia could never mention any opinions in articles ever, which is bizarre. Surely so long as opinions are described as such, the question would be around notability and due weight, not reliability? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, it's about how the supposed reliability of the "reliable sources" can be used to lend a spurious authority to the non-factual opinions of certain paid opinionators working for right-wing media oligarchs. Returning to an example from the Andrew Murray article (a brutal attack page effectively controlled by Cross), it's about how a reader could easily have been misled to believe that Mr Murray is a Stalinist, when what they should have learned was that a super-hostile Blairite opinionator (Oliver Kamm, Mr Cross's close collaborator or alter ego) was paid by a far-right oligarch's media outlet (The Times) to misrepresent him ("in short") as one.
Or look at this diff from the same article where hostile opinion from Kamm associate and fellow-Blairite Nick Cohen, in the far-right Spectator (i.e. from an even more right-wing "reliable source" than Murdoch's The Times and from a campaign article explicitly seeking to divide the British Labour Party from the left-wing Unite union), smearing Mr Murray outright as a "Stalinist," is used to sum up the faux-factual section purporting to describe Murray's political positions.
Is that what you think Wikipedia should be? A retailer for right-wing media oligarchs' political poison-penmanship and a vehicle for their campaigns? Then again, if you're the same Blairite "BobFromBrockley" who is the greatest of mates with Kamm/Cross on Twitter, perhaps it is. 121.72.182.187 (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at these diffs. They could be described as tendentious, but they clearly attribute and they distinguish opinion from reportage. I don't think it is right-wing to include commentary on the fact that a notable member of the Communist Party of Britain defended Stalin's Soviet Union (there are plenty of RSs that say Murray has called himself a Stalinist,[17][18] that he is described by others as a Stalinist,[19][20] and that he was a member of a Stalinist party,[21][22][23], as well as published examples of Murray writing positively of Stalin[24]) but if Cross's edits were examples of POV-pushing, that would be easily dealt with by other editors editing to keep it neutral; they're hardly reasons for sanctions. And, for the record, I am not a Blairite, nor a mate of Kamm or Cross, although I follow them on Twitter, but I don't see how that is relevant. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support A biography is about someones life. So how about the practice of creating an BLP article on the sole basis of an opinion hit-piece? If a subject is notable for nothing more than the POV of random "opinion journalists" in The Times, for example, are they notable enough for an article? I don't think so. That's not a biography, it's the foundation of an attack page. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Phillip Cross has liberally used opinion pieces (by eg Kamm) to disparage those he dislikes, while at the very same time removing any reference to, say, Media Lens. From what I can see, he has had an appalling double standards for years. If Kamms opinion about Murray is notable, then so is Murray (or any other notable persons opinion) about Kamm. Alas, Phillip Cross has fought hard to keep any critical sources out of the Oliver Kamm article for years. (see Talk:Oliver Kamm archives). Same for the Luke Harding article and others. We need to learn to treat our "foes" like our "friends"....otherwise we deserve all the scorn, outings and libel trials the off wiki world can throw at us. Huldra (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra hits the nail on the head again. Cross obviously feels very strongly about the opinion of Kamm, in particular. According to Cross, Kamm is more authoritative that those who have said anything positive about Media Lens, for example. That list would include people like John Pilger, Glen Greenwald & Peter Oborne. He also feels that the opinion of Kamm deserves prominence Cross also managed to squeeze the opinion of Kamm on Media Lens into the personal biography of one of the founders, David Cromwell. He likes to quote Kamm at length if he can, selectively picking out the most controversial comments. He's not so keen to give space to any rebuttal though. Judge for yourself whether the opinion of a partisan blogger & pundit carries such weight. Cross obviously thinks so, as he will happily edit war to keep his opinion in & any criticism out & he's done it over & over again, without consequence. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
