Contents

User talk:Philip Cross: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:45, 30 October 2022

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philip_Cross.

I have blocked you for one year as an arbitration action for breaching both your topic ban from British politics, imposed by ArbCom in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles, and your topic ban from "living people who are significantly involved in politics, broadly construed (including, but not limited to, candidates, activists, and political journalists or commentators)", imposed by me under the auspices of WP:NEWBLPBAN. After that year, the block continues indefinitely as a regular admin block for disruptive editing.

The violation that caused this block is this. I will take a moment to explain why I am electing to impose the maximum DS block length for an edit that, on its surface, may appear fairly minor:

• Your three previous TBAN violation blocks were all for cases in which you appeared to deliberately test the limits of your TBAN.
• You are coming immediately off of a three-month block and the imposition of the new additional TBAN.
• You spent much of those three months editing our sister wiki Wikiquote. We often encourage editors to edit sister wikis while blocked, but I note that much of your editing there was in the topic areas you are banned from here, including edits like this regarding Ghislaine Maxwell and Prince Andrew and this regarding George Galloway, subject of the community ABAN that was expanded into the BritPol TBAN. I am not sanctioning you for this sister-wiki conduct, as it is beyond my jurisdiction, but it does speak to your state of mind regarding the intersection of enwiki, enwikiquote, and biographies of living persons, and in that way it influences my assessment of your intent here.
• Hadley Freeman is, by any reasonable definition, a living person significantly involved in politics, and specifically British politics at that. Her article has a 262-word section on her political views, and she has written professionally about politics. You know this because you quoted her political commentary when you wrote q:Hadley Freeman.
• And that is the crux of it. You wrote her Wikiquote page, including content about politics, and then you came to enwiki and added a link to it to her article.

If this had been a case of adding some other template to her article, it would be a minimal violation of the TBANs, and I would have probably responded with an only warning. But this specific template linked to content you had written that would have much more squarely violated your TBANs if written on this wiki, and which show you knew she was engaged in political journalism.

I can view this as nothing other than trying to game the system yet again. There is no reason to expect a warning will suffice where three blocks haven't. There is no reason to expect broadening your BLP TBAN will suffice when you've flouted the current one at the first opportunity. And so I conclude there is no adequate preventative remedy other than an indefinite block, the first year as an AE action. The paperwork for that is included below.

AE block template (this links to the British Politics case but the block will be logged under BLP as well)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my edits to the Hadley Freeman article. Obviously, I did not consider the trans issue come under the "broadly construed" politics provision; the mention of a parliamentary act is only in passing. Freeman's Wikiquote article naturally mainly contains Freeman's own writing, the only portion directly contributed by me says she "is an American British journalist based in London. She wrote for The Guardian from 2000 to 2022." The only direct reference to a living (Polish) politician in the quotes I selected for Wikiquote is in passing. None of the Wikipedia categories describe her as being a "political journalist". Adding the wikiquote template to Ms Freeman's Wikipedia article is not original content with a BLP issue with faulty sourcing, although I did not dare add the template to other articles which are about explicitly political writers I added to the other Wikimedia site. I would have removed it if asked, which is normally a requirement.

I recall when someone objected to my edits in January 2021 to the article on the suppressed television film Royal Family (1969), which had illicitly appeared on YouTube, it was considered the British royal family was excluded from the British politics post-1978 topic ban, so my addition to the Ghislaine Maxwell WQ article mentioning the Duke of York and his mother, the late Queen, should not be considered any kind of breach. The quote you mention in the Wikiquote article about a Scottish politician relates to an incident much cited in the UK media over the years and should have been added long ago. It isn't even directly about politics.

If mentioning my edits to Wikiquote on my user page is so objectionable, please remove it. Philip Cross (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]