Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles

---

I deny the following charges against me made in the "Statement by JzG" above.

• I am not "apparently supportive of Galloway," except insofar as I believe his BLP should not be edited by someone with a clear and aggressive public animus against him
• I have not linked PC to other accounts / real world individuals, except for identifying the BLPs that he has edited of real people whom he has publicly called "punks" and "goons"
• I am not "representative of a number of others" and have never claimed to speak for anyone else
• I am not part of "the pro-Galloway camp"
• I am not a "Galloway apologist"
  

Yesterday in an ANI unrelated to Philip Cross or George Galloway et al., I argued that JzG should be topic-banned from any edits relating to Brian Martin (social scientist). Now, eleven hours later, JzG has initiated this Request for Arbitration prominently naming me. JzG employed this same maneuver at AN, where he deflected focus off Philip Cross and onto me. Notwithstanding JzG's diversionary tactics, however, I believe any fair reading of the AN will exonerate me. This is a case of an Admin shooting the messenger, and Wikipedians who support such behavior should be ashamed. KalHolmann (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been co-editing and arguing with KalHolmann for months at Joy Ann Reid. There are many things we don't agree on. But my strong impression, based on his edits and arguments, is that he is a very conscientious editor who cares about the great Wikipedia project and wants to help build an encyclopedia. If you want a character reference for KalHolmann, ignore my words and look at the talk history of Joy Ann Reid.

Because his talk page is on my watchlist, I see that he has wandered into a minefield regarding British politics, an area where I know nothing. There is apparently something to be said on both sides of the Cross vs Galloway Wikipedia quarrel, but KalHolmaan took up one side of it and worked hard to get wider Wikipedia attention to a matter he thought was important. Rather than punishing him , I believe Wikipedia should thank him for a principled effort that resulted in open debate on what may be a serious issue for us. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems blindingly obvious to me that Philip Cross should not edit within a mile of the George Galloway BLP (and others with which he has publicly expressed animosity), and I think it shows a serious lack of judgment that he has done so over a lengthy period while engaged in a public spat with Mr Galloway in which he has made his presence as a Wikipedia editor clear. A Wikipedia editor absolutely should not edit anything related to a person while publicly attacking that person and labeling them as a "goon" or a "punk", and I am nothing less than appalled by Philip Cross's behaviour in this as his actions are clearly bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. In my opinion, even a full Wikipedia site ban would not be excessive unless we can be convinced that this will stop.

At this point, I think the topic ban proposal is probably sufficient (and I will make the point again that pretty much none of the opposition so far has offered any policy basis to their objections). But I am disturbed by suggestions of off-wiki connections that should not be aired on-wiki. If there is any need to consider these alleged off-wiki connections, then I think ArbCom would be the only appropriate venue.

• @Jytdog: Re: "Boing raises the issue of something broader than an actual interpersonal dispute, and that is expressing negative opinions about public figures/politicians (I think that is what Boing meant) on social media, and editing about them. That is... interesting. Difficult. There are all kinds of free speech issues there, but also harassment issues if their editing reflects the insults." That's sort of what I mean, yes, but with the addition that public comments (through social media or whatever) need to extend beyond mere opinion before it becomes a policy problem. The distinction is indeed a difficult one to make, but I think engaging on a one-on-one personal spat with the BLP subject over a lengthy period in which both parties exchange barbs crosses the line. And I think once that line has been crossed, the editor in question should no longer edit the BLP.
• @TParis: Interesting personal observation, and that does indeed blur the boundaries. But I think the key thing, as in my point above, is that it needs to extend beyond mere public comment. There can't be many who have not voiced a public comment about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton (with my favourite comment from just before the election being the one that suggested "Americans could be on the verge of electing their worst ever president - or a worse one". I don't think that alone is prohibitive, but I'd expect anyone who had engaged in a one-on-one public spat with either of them to keep away from their BLPs.
• @Doug Weller: Yes, my thought was that the community discussion (which has now led to a topic ban) was probably sufficient (as I said above). But if off-wiki considerations were to become prominent (as was starting to be suggested) then ArbCom would be the only suitable venue. I do not now think that is the case. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

user:Philip Cross - there is massive involved with him - not difficult is it. Looking through his contribution history, a case is really needed here. there is a massive involved concern across multiple wp:blp articles. the worst thing for wikipedia is that he has done it over years without ever getting blocked. that is what has happened, wikipedia policies allow a user like Cross to get away with long term non neutral involved contributions, that is what a case should look at, banning a violator from blp content is easy. Case needs renaming, Cross's controversial contibutions are across multiple living people. Cross's recent comments show that clearly he doesn't get it. He has today [1] changed this biography of a British journalist Peter Wilby beyond comparison. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Opabinia regalis appears to be opining diff and which I agree, a topic ban on "British politics" by motion would satisfy. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what Guy wrote above and I hold him in high regard. However, I do object to the way he frames the dispute by describing those with deep concerns about Philip Cross's behavior as "the pro-Galloway camp" which consists of "Galloway apologists". I have no sympathy for Galloway's politics, am not part of a camp and am not an apologist. But even knaves and rogues worse than Galloway are entitled to the protection of BLP policy. The fact is that Philip Cross has edited Galloway's biography for years and is the most active editor there. Also for years, has openly taunted and insulted Galloway on Twitter, identifying himself as a Wikipedia editor. That is unseemly and I consider it conduct unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor. It brings disrepute to the encyclopedia, and that behavior and related behavior on other articles must be brought to an end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not by any account in a socalled "the pro-Galloway camp", however I am very much in the "WP:BLP camp." Some of the statement/edits by Philip Cross by horrifies me...it brings me back to the bad, bad old day before the Daniel Brandt fiasco. Have we learned nothing? Philip Cross shouldn't only stay away from the George Galloway article; he need also to stay miles away from the articles of Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, John Pilger, Vanessa Beeley, Jeremy Corbyn, and Alex Salmond —and probably a few more that I have missed. Actually, a ban on him editing any WP:BLP article seem like a good idea to me, Huldra (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see this. A full ban on Philip Cross editing any WP:BLP seems like the minimum solution, at this stage, Huldra (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here Philip Cross tweets: Thank you, all the goons in one tweet.@georgegalloway @mwgbanks @CraigMurrayOrg @NafeezAhmed @Tim Hayward @piersRobinson1 @medialens ....that is: George Galloway, Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson and Media Lens.

All of the above articles have been heavily edited by Philip Cross. Now, who among us here would feel comfortable having a WP:BLP on Wikipedia about ourself....edited by someone who has publicly called us a "goon"? I would guess exactly 0 persons.

So why do we let Philip Cross edit those articles? Huldra (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you, User:Jytdog for linking to NYT social media guidelines for their reporters, where the first point is:

•In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation.

Ok, so we are Wikipedia editors, not NYTIMES journalists, but that guideline sure gives rooms for thoughts, Huldra (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for those of you who don't remember, (or were not around) during the Daniel Brandt fiasco: Mr Brandt did not want a Wikipedia article about himself, and told WP so. When that was ignored (with a lot of rather spiteful comments from various anon editors), Brandt set up his own Wikipedia Watch page.....outing all he could, who had edited/commented on his Wikipedia page. In the end I believe he outed anyone he could who had any "power" on Wikipedia. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination) it was merged, then deleted. (And then Brandt took down the Wikipedia Watch page.) It was as if I was watching a Scorched earth policy....unfolding on the internet. I rather not see that again.

I do not like George Galloway offering a reward for outing Philip Cross...(I am an anon myself, and intend to remain that way)....but I can perfectly understand where Galloway is coming from.

Also, for User:Coretheapple comment that Philip Cross twitter feed has less than 300 followers, yes, but many of those twitter followers are mainstream British journalist...it is not the quantity of your followers which matter... Huldra (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statement above by Philip Cross unfortunately does not, to my view (and I am cynical about stubborn editors) read well. Philip Cross writes: “I will not edit the George Galloway article again for an indeterminate length of time regardless of any decision.” In short: “I’ll be back … I just won’t say when.” It is very common for aggressive or passive-aggressive editors, after a trip to WP:ANI, to say that they need to take an extended break from Wikipedia. In the past, it was the usual rule to drop the ANI proceedings. A few months later, the difficult editor would come back, and the community had to deal with them all over again. What I see is a disruptive editor who is willing to take a break from disruption, and expects this to be a Get Out of Sanctions free card. If the ArbCom declines to accept a case, then Philip Cross will come back in a few months. They said so. They just didn’t say when.

I don’t have a recommendation at this time on whether ArbCom should accept a full case, possibly with closed evidence. However, if ArbCom decides not to accept a full case, I would urge, at a minimum, an infinite topic-ban on editing of George Galloway. (Indeterminate doesn’t mean infinite. Indefinite does not mean infinite. In this case, the ban should be infinite, or at least until some date like 2038 that represents the end of the world.) I will note that Huldra has recommended restrictions on other biographies of living persons also.

The statement by Philip Cross is self-servingly mealy-mouthed from an editor who is otherwise not mealy-mouthed, and needs to be parsed, and dealt with by some sort of restriction.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the community has imposed a topic-ban.

I haven't reviewed the details of the controversy sufficiently to have an opinion on whether it is still necessary for ArbCom to act. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a bit ...overheated to me.

In my view the only reason to bring this to Arbcom, is the BLPCOI aspect with respect to the off-WP activity. There are other... unmoored claims about "COI" and I have not been able to figure out what that is about. The only relevant thing I can see with respect to COI, is BLPCOI. That, however, is a very serious thing. That is also only' about someone editing about people that they have real world disputes with. That is concrete. Social media, is now part of the real world.

Boing raises the issue of something broader than an actual interpersonal dispute, and that is expressing negative opinions about public figures/politicians (I think that is what Boing meant) on social media, and editing about them. That is... interesting. Difficult. There are all kinds of free speech issues there, but also harassment issues if their editing reflects the insults.

I called for this to go Arbcom at AN, and at that time, I had not looked carefully at PC's userpage history. I have now, and PC did disclose here that their twitter handle is @philipcross63

In my view, the first question for Arbcom is: can members of the community look at @philipcross63's tweets, and deal with them here on WP, or not?

The second question is, does tweeting insults about a public figure (not interacting with them), and then editing about them, create a BLPCOI or harassment issue per se? Again, insulting a politician is different from actually arguing with that person. In my view.

In any case, if the answer to the first question is "yes", then simply say that, close this case, and kick this back to the community, and we can do the rest. That doesn't need to happen here. (Arbcom could choose to keep it here, to better control the discussion and have it ordered, similar to the WWII case currently pending)

If the answer to the first question is "no", then the first tasks for Arbcom are to examine the tweets of @philipcross63 and

a) to determine with whom PC has disputed on Twitter and edited about here (this establishes off-WP disputes) (the TBAN is with respect to one person only)

b) to determine whom PC has insulted on Twitter and edited about here, and think about if this constitutes a BLPCOI or harassment violation, and if it is even in Arbcom's purview to decide that (this is why you get the big bucks)

c) to see if there is any other apparent issue with respect to RW disputes in social media and PC's editing (just leaving that open)

d) to at minimum put TBANs in place with respect to the people PC has disputed with, and based on what Arbcom finds, consider a TBAN from BLPs.

e) to inform the community of those TBANs and anything else that emerges, so we can review those pages for neutrality.

I think the answer to the first question should be "no", fwiw. I do not like the idea of the community digging around in people's off-WP activities.

I am unsure with regard to the second question, and also unsure whether this is intrinsically a BLPCOI or harassment issue with the insults. Interpersonal disputes in the real world are definitely a BLPCOI issue if the person also edits about that person.

But again, this is primarily at Arbcom to deal with (or clear the community to deal with) the off-WP material. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boing! said Zebedee thanks for clarifying. So you did not mean the situation where hypothetically @philipcross63 is tweeting insults about X, but never interacts wiht X, and is prolifically editing about X. You meant, @philipcross63 is arguing with X on twitter and insulting them, and edits about X here.

Nonetheless, what you wrote made me think about the former possible situation. It is something to think about. As an example here are the NYT social media guidelines for their reporters, revised in 2017: "The new guidelines underscore our newsroom’s appreciation for the important role social media now plays in our journalism, but also call for our journalists to take extra care to avoid expressing partisan opinions or editorializing on issues that The Times is covering." For them, that is kind of obvious, right? But ...how should such a principle apply here, to editors? That is the question your post made me think about. Narrowly asked -- does using social media to just insult public figures, intrinsically create a BLPCOI situation for us, if the person also edits here about that figure? What I wrote at AN is that the optics of what PC has done are very bad. I agree with TParis that the edits are what matter. But public perception of WP matters too. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to clarify that this is not a "COI" matter per se - it is primarily a BLP matter, with COI only brought in with respect to BLPCOI, which is a different kettle of fish from normal COI considerations. It may be a harassment matter as well per WP:HNE. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Would the committee please speak clearly as to what off-WP material is legit for people to discuss, with regard to this, and what is not, in light of what PC has posted on WP? This would be very helpful. Thx Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is any long-term pov-pushing, or any sort of long term problems of Cross with BLPs or George Galloway, and I think we may just be going into a WITCH HUNT. I can't say for certain, because it is hard to prove a negative, but based on what I've looked at and the fringeness of the sources claiming that Cross has problems with his editing, my overall feeling is that this is mostly people complaining about Cross using mainstream sources and removing things primary sourced to wikileaks/russian propaganda/other things like that.

Here's what I looked at, anyhow: I looked at a few of the edits to Galloway, and immediately found examples of him removing controversies/negative stuff about Galloway: [2], [3], which suggests against pov-pushing there.

I also looked at some of the claims made in the Craig Murray article, and found them not hold up very well. The claims about Philip Cross editing 15 hours a day is obvious nonsense. Another claim was that Cross removed stuff about Ruth Smeeth apparently being an "informer to the US government". The removal appears very sensible considering this explanation, and indeed I removed it again.

Another claim was that Cross called Murray's "wife a stripper" when editing the Craig Murray article, but I actually see the very opposite: replacing that she worked as a "a dancer, 'in just [-] underwear'", with "belly dancer", and replacing that he met here at a lap-dancing club with that he met her at a nightclub. I went through his edits on Craig Murray, and I see Cross scrupulously following BLP; removing Murray's children's name per BLPNAME, regularily removing Daily Mail sources ([4], [5] etc) and so on. My feeling is that the complaining is because he is not treating primary sources from Wikileaks/Murray as the Truth.

Overall I see lots of grand claims without any backing, and various offwiki conspiracy theories. Even here, I see Huldra's statement on banning him from all BLPs, for example, is apparently somewhat based on this google doc, alleging apparently a conspiracy between Kamm and Cross; but I don't think the committee should start a case based on the existence of such sort of claims.

I suggest, that if committee members like BU Rob13 want to look at long-term pov-pushing, to not accept a case merely based on internet hubbub and vague/misleading articles off-wiki, with perhaps an assumption that if there is smoke there must be fire. As usual, claims about someone being a long term malicious pov-pusher, should be backed up with diffs to be taken seriously. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so that just expressing an insult to a BLP offwiki is enough for COI. While if one is in a dispute, one shouldn't edit the BLP article, people should be free to be activists off-wiki; what matters then is if they are pov-pushing on-wiki. I also find Cross's comments linked in his statement on his tweets being mainly a recent thing and in response to offwiki harassment to be relevant, as it also shows that the length of the COI editing is perhaps short. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Jytdog's comments, I have follow on concerns that Arbcom should consider.

1) If it's true that no one that has made a critical comment of a public person should be editing their article, then we all have a lot to own up to. Who hasn't made a critical comment of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton on social media? Between those two people, I could probably expect about 99% of American Wikipedian's to stop editing American politics. I was at the WikiConference in San Diego during the 2016 Presidential Debates and 95% of the room was shouting obscenities during the debate (a debate that the hosts had put on the screens despite my objections) and resulted in several Wikipedians feeling attacked and that they were in the middle of a hostile group despite Wikipedia's "Safe Space" policy. Long story short, that entire room was very open with their hostility toward Donald Trump. Others continue to edit that topic area.

2) Do supportive comments of public figures similarly fall under this precedent?

3) If Philip Cross is admonished for public tweets regarding Galloway, that is going to open a can of worms of opposition research. If Wikipedians in disputes can learn the real life identities of their opposition, they can effectively get rid of them by digging through their social media accounts for off the cuff remarks that could be seen as "bias".

Let's continue to operate the way we've always done it: which is the most fair and justifiable way. Focus on the edits, not the editor.--v/r - TP 12:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: Ask Rosie or Brenda what happened.--v/r - TP 00:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: You're welcome to get the story via email or on my talk page.--v/r - TP 16:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some of the articles which have been publishced in the last few days:

• List noted by Arbcom

Some of the articles are very uncomfortable reading. Philip Cross revealing his COI publicly and baiting the subjects on Twitter is very inapporpriate of a Wikipedia editor, clearly bringing the encylopedia into disrepute and this conduct can't continue.

Wikipedia editors shouldn't be editing pages of subjects who they are publicly let alone privately in dispute with.

As per Huldra, I think Philip Cross' topic ban shouldn't be limited to George Galloway it should extend to the numerous other articles if not a full site ban. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will George Galloway be invited to take part in the ArbCom case? Count Iblis (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the nature of off-wiki activity here may justify a private case regarding Philip Cross; I don't intend to comment or participate in such a matter.

If there is a public case, I feel the correct scope may be "British Politics", rather than focused purely on BLP matters or any individual editor. Articles such as Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party have POV issues caused by a variety of editors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Communications Chair of WikiConference North America 2016 I am obligated to respond to the erroneous claims that TParis has made above.   Our Sunday evening reception was held on the same evening as one of the presidential debates.  We planned well in advance to show the debate at the reception at the request of a number of attendees, including some of the keynote speakers, all of whom stated they would not attend the reception otherwise. The reception was held in a 500 person capacity, 3500 square foot room with two large open-air patios on either side. There was ample space for attendees to avoid any interaction with the debate or those watching the debate, even in the same room.

It was an evening reception and there was a cash bar, so there were definitely some saucy comments thrown at the screen during the debate.  Differing political opinions often make people uncomfortable, certainly, but neither I nor any of the other organizers of WikiConference North America can recall witnessing or hearing a report of any incident such as TParis described that we would consider a violation of the Safe Space Policy for events.   (Of course, there were definitely some unrelated Safe Space concerns and incidents that evening and throughout the conference.)  In attendance that evening were the entire WCNA organizing team, most of WCNA's volunteers including TParis, the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, and a large percentage of the WMF's Trust and Safety team (with whom we worked with closely regarding Safe Space incidents during the conference).  If any Safe Space Policy violations occurred and the organizing team failed to address them, surely one of those people I listed would have taken some action at the time or sometime during the last two years. 

I and the organizing team attended the entire reception and speaking for us all I can flatly state that the claim "95% of the room was shouting obscenities during the debate" is false and the Two Minutes Hate described by TParis did not occur.  It is disappointing that a well-respected editor like TParis has chosen to unfairly malign his fellow volunteers and conference attendees in such a matter.

On behalf of WikiConference North America Gamaliel (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself only on the matter at hand, I do believe that sensible people are able to distinguish between airing your political opinions on Twitter and taunting the subject of an article you are writing with particular edits. Gamaliel (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: I spoke with Rosiestep and a number of the other lead organizers before posting here and I'm speaking on behalf of all of us. Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The case request might be premature since discussion at AN is not yet exhausted. If it's just about Philip Cross and George Galloway, AN discussion is headed towards a PC/GG topic ban based on WP:BLPCOI, and now PC has volunteered to step away from those articles, so that would seem to wrap it up. An arbitration case (if opened) should investigate wider issues and shouldn't be called "George Galloway". Particularly, the absence of Twitter posts that show a COI shouldn't result in our allowing long-term biased editing of the sort being alleged. We should all do our best to edit neutrally regardless of whatever private biases we have.

More widely, people on the interwebs are claiming PC is a long-term agenda pusher or possibly a state-sponsored propaganda operation, fueled partly by a blog post[6] by Craig Murray that you have probably seen. Wikipedia doing nothing about this gives the impression we're not keeping our house in order. Jimbo and WMUK reinforced that impression by brushing off concerns (Streisand effect). So now there's a lot of internet outrage directed at us, maybe driven by an anti-Philip Cross propaganda operation in its own right, but people are finding it convincing. There are currently 27 Reddit threads linked to the Craig Murray post, plus the Hacker News threads[7][8] and now [9] that drew my attention to the issue, and who knows what else. I have no idea if those posts were coordinated, but Wikipedia is taking a beating in all of them.

So I think that if there is a private arb case that doesn't result in scorched earth remedies, it will be seen as another whitewash. And the part any case about this would need the most is a tedious examination of Philip Cross's edit history, which is not private and is best examined in the open. There are some limited facets of the situation that involve real names and other private info. But if there is a case at all, a normal open one should suffice, with some limited evidence submitted privately, as is routine in lots of cases when off-wiki evidence comes up. What people outside want most is for us to take the concerns seriously, check them out carefully and openly, and come to some reasonable conclusion. They mostly don't give a rip about left-wing UK politics (Hacker News is a tech forum that is US-centric and if anything leans libertarian) but they don't like the idea of Wikipedia ignoring long-running content manipulation from any corner. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added

I don't agree with Jytdog's view that this is a COI case: I don't even see it as substantively a BLP case. The central allegation I see is content manipulation through POV-pushing, with BLP impact as an aggravating factor making the problem more urgent. Unless there's surprising new info I also currently don't think the privacy issues are very relevant. It makes almost no difference whether Philip Cross and Oliver Kamm merely follow each other on Twitter or are in some closer cahoots. So if there is an arb case, it can probably ignore that whole question and just focus on Cross's on-wiki edits. Private evidence can still be submitted but it's unlikely to be important.

I imagine the necessary analysis as being something like the Noleander case of a few years back, as I mentioned in an AN post earlier tonight.[10] That case didn't involve BLP's, but it involved a long pattern of tendentious editing that could only be established by examining 1000s of diffs. Lots of that examination happened before the arb case was filed. Similar examination hasn't happened here since it's such hassle, and because the case was somewhat thrown at us from outside. (Since I haven't stepped up, I can't blame others for also not stepping up). BU Rob13 indirectly called for such analysis but I just don't see it happening in the current circumstances.

Under AMPOL discretionary sanctions, people who edit tendentiously in US politics routinely get tbanned from the whole topic area, unilaterally by uninvolved admins. Here, it might be enough to just monitor the situation while giving the George Galloway topic ban some time. If problems continue, AN can discuss a possible wider sanction, maybe from politics in general rather than from BLP's. One can get into all sorts of mischief distorting political articles without touching a BLP. (I'm not claiming Philip Cross is definitely doing that, but only that there are plausible allegations of such that I see as worthy of investigation but whose current status is "unproven").

Alex Shih: people shouldn't be able to make us open arb cases merely by spamming Reddit, unless those cases should be opened anyway. But this may be a genuine instance of us needing an outside poke because we've been asleep at the wheel. That happens sometimes. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• above statement by 173.228.123.166 copied from Special:Permalink/843427125#George_Galloway_case_request. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited to this request by a message on my talk page from Alex Shih. I wasn't aware of the dispute prior to that message as I generally steer clear of editing or discussing British politics articles (I have strong political opinions and so its not always easy for me to judge what is and is not neutral). That said, I've read the ANI thread Alex linked to and this case request, and I encourage the committee to accept a public case (with private evidence accepted where necessary in the usual manner) to examine a few questions:

1. Has Philip Cross edited in violation of the BLP and/or BLPCOI policy with respect to George Galloway and/or others?
2. Have any other parties violated the same policies with respect to those same individuals?
3. Going forwards, can Philip Cross' or other parties' judgement regarding BLP and or BLPCOI be trusted (either generally or in one or more specific topic areas)?
4. Are the current policies and guidelines around BLPCOI clear and fit for purpose, especially with regards social media? (If not the committee should obviously not make changes themselves but give direction to the community about what aspects should be looked at).

My suggestion for a case name would be "Philip Cross and others". I should stress that I am not presupposing the answer to any of these questions either way, and the Committee opening a case about them should not be seen as doing so either. There is simply enough happening to merit investigation to see whether there is anything that requires arbcom sanctions.

There might be scope for a wider case about British politics articles in general, as suggested e.g. by power~enwiki but it would be unhelpful and possibly counterproductive to combine that with a case looking at the actions of and around Philip Cross specifically.

The statements by 173.228.123.166 and Huldra, and the first two paragraphs of JzG's statement are particularly cogent. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think applying the well written guidelines at WP:COI is all that is needed to determine the correct course of action. My assessment coupled with the guideline confirms that Philip Cross does have a conflict of interest regarding George Galloway and quite probably some of the other living subjects as Huldra has suggested.

"That [Philip Cross] has a conflict of interest is a description of [his] situation, not a judgment about [his] opinions, integrity, or good faith." While coi-editing is discouraged, for good reasons, it is not preemptively forbidden in any way. It's not even actionable unless the coi-editing causes disruption.

Interestingly, the disruption is not contingent on nefarious motives or poor edit quality. It is quite possible that disruption can occur even when the edits themselves are high in quality (which is what seems to have occurred in this situation). I say this because the disruption evident in this and earlier threads is rather incontrovertible, yet no diffs have been linked showing poor quality edits.

To the contrary, Galobtter has shown that many edits are unambiguously well appended improvements, yet disruption exists so something has to change. I see this as necessitating that the conflicted editor cease editing in the area of conflict because it is entirely their burden for choosing to edit the area of know conflict in spite of being strongly encouraged not to.

In the absence of actual disruption, provided the edits are fully compliant with policy otherwise, the only thing the coi-editor is required to do is acknowledge their coi so other volunteers can scrutinize their edits accordingly. Therefor, unless someone can produce some diffs showing some form of incompetence or malice intent, the only thing to do is to quell the disruption and I suppose a topic ban would be the way forward.

I, nevertheless, think there could be something for this ArbCom to do, if further preventative measures are needed or desired and I think a motion could bring it about. Consider drafting a motion that treats an editor with a coi as if discretionary sanctions are authorized for them, individually, whenever they are found editing an article/page that is broadly within the area of conflict their coi encompasses. This would of course allow an uninvolved admin to shut the disruption down post haste when it spawns from their edits.--John Cline (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take a dim view of COI and am known for that. However, this is not a typical COI situation. According to a deeply disturbing article in a major media outlet that I found - I'd post a link but am not sure if it would be allowed by the outing policy - it is arguable that the Cross account is the subject of a "witch hunt" of a political character. I have not edited any of the articles in question and an unfamiliar with the editors involved. However, in light of the special circumstances, in my opinion the sole criteria that should be taken into consideration regarding these editors is their on-wiki edits. We should not act in response to off-wiki pressure, and in this case it appears that a wiki editor is possibly being subject of coordinated attacks by Russian/pro-Russian media as well as by the article subject. To act as "tools" of such outside forces sets a terrible precedent. Just don't. If the Cross account has been editing badly, sanction him. If not, don't. I have no opinion one way or the other on his behavior. User:TParis and I don't tend to agree in this subject area but in this case I am in 100% agreement with his comments. Coretheapple (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Admittedly I'm late to this and don't know all the facts. When you say "publicly quarrel," I hope that you mean more than responding to attacks, which have included a 1000 British pound reward for doxing him. Again, I am very nervous about allowing Wikipedia to respond to act on the basis of any off-wiki pressure from political figures. Coretheapple (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just one other point. I located what appears to be the Twitter feed of the Cross editor, and if I have the right person he has under 300 followers. If that is what we're getting excited about, if that is the "public quarrel," then it is ludicrous. A person with so few followers can't be said to be involved in a "public quarrel" with a major public figure with hundreds of thousands of followers. What;s at issue here is that political figures dislike the editing by this person. Period. I find it very disturbing that the community imposed a topic ban on the basis of off-wiki pressure of this kind. I hope that Arbcom reverses it, though I can understand Cross voluntarily withdrawing from the subject matter as he has. Coretheapple (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kashmiri Yes, the wording of BLPCOI applies to whether an editor is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual. But I read that to cover situations in which an editor is a direct competitor of an article subject, or has engaged in litigation. In this instance, we have a dicey situation. As I read what has happened, the "controversy" was manufactured by the article subject. If the community bends to that will, then we give article subjects the implicit power to remove editors they dislike. That is why I suggest that we apply the principle of evaluating the edits, not the editor, and not allow that to happen. Re "Russian": that was the description of the controversy in an article in Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper that is hardly a hard-right organ. Coretheapple (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kashmiri: Re your 31 May comment: that is the impression that I receive from the press coverage. I recommend that, if this case is accepted, that it be done publicly as there is no bona fide doxing issue that I can detect, and that users have the opportunity to cite open-source material such as news articles and tweets. Far more than this particular user's fate is at issue here. I think it would be terrible to allow article subjects to in effect manufacture controversies (yes, abetted by users taking the bait), so as to effectuate a de facto veto over editors they don't like. To determine if indeed that is happening, there needs to be examination of the off-wiki materials. Editors other than the subject need to be involved if they so wish, both to provide and to analyze evidence. That cannot be done in private proceedings. I'll conclude by noting that while I am alarmed by this case, recent edits by this editor in one article, Peter Wilby, do indeed suggest that he is POV-pushing and adding excessive detail, at least in that one article. If it is a pattern, then we have a whole different ball game here. So therefore I suggest that Arbcom accept this case and scrutinize, publicly, the conduct of both on- and off-wiki parties. Coretheapple (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kashmiri: Certainly the devil is in the details. That's why the issues need to be explored fully, in the open. Arbcom, please, don't do this privately unless the editor himself feels that it is necessary and if the committee agrees. The exact parameters of just what constitutes a "public quarrel" under BLPCOI need to be hashed out. It may well be that this editor has been editing poorly and BLPCOI does not even apply. However, whatever is done I hope that it not be twisted by outside parties and exploited for their own political ends. If indeed there is a "witch hunt" as alleged by the media, let's not be a party to it. The only way of ensuring that is full transparency. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the nature of it all personally I think this should be a private case, The actions around of all this do need investigating if you like but as I said IMHO private would be better than public. –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the publicity around Philip Cross's editing and the fact that his declared off-wiki activism has potentially had a bearing on Wikipedia, both as its content and reputation, I support that ArbCom carries out a full investigation of the matter.

I have no particular preference as to whether the case should be heard in public or in private. The fact that Wikipedia's transparency has been questioned would suggest that a public hearing might offer a better opportunity to restore trust in the project. On the other hand, it seems that whatever was to be said has already been said and the key pieces of information will have to be shared privately anyway. As the matter involves PC's off-wiki activities, I am inclined to ask him how he would prefer the case to progress and whether he would be comfortable providing the required evidence to ArbCom in public. Noting that in lack of his co-operation the case will go nowhere.

EDIT: Coretheapple is making a convincing argument for a public hearing which I am inclined to support now as we likely have a pattern of editing that stretches many years. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not expect the ArbCom to attempt establishing the real-life identity as it is not their role. I only expect that they will elucidate the nature and extend of the potential COI as well as look more closely into the timing of PC's off-wiki conflict so as to establish to what degree it reflected in the editor's editing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Coretheapple: An off-wiki element is inherent in the concept of COI, so I don't get how a COI investigation could be limited exclusively to on-wiki activities. I also find your derogatory use of "Russian/Pro-Russian" rather disturbing – do you imply that comparable witch-hunt by American/pro-American media would be more acceptable? BTW, not sure whether degree of "public" can be reliably measured by simple number of Twitter followers. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Coretheapple: I am not entirely sure the clash was "manufactured by Galloway". You need two hands to clap, says an old Hindi adage. Also, it appears that Cross was the first one to take a not-so-flattering interest in Galloway, and not the other way round. Anyway, one of ArbCom prerogatives is to investigate both the on- and off-wiki conduct. Here we should rather focus on arguing for or against the investigation instead of trying to approportion the blame. FYI, BLPCOI does not require litigation; the policy reads: "... legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes" (underlining mine).

As to your fear that "we [would then] give article subjects the implicit power to remove editors they dislike", I vehemently disagree. If an article subject starts to complain publicly about a Wikipedia article, the proper way of addressing it is a discussion on respective Talk page. Going to Twitter instead and branding the article subject "a goon" with whom "I am at war" is precisely a behaviour that many object to, including me. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by RebeccaSaid at 12:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• RebeccaSaid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Please can you provide clarification around the scope of the Topic Ban issued to Philip Cross, 26 July 2018?

On 2 August Philip Cross edited the article of Colin Jordan and on 3 August he edited the article of /Andrew Faulds.

Both of these articles would appear to fall within the reach of “post-1978 British politics, broadly construed”.

On 5 August User Kal Holmann raised the potential breach of the TB here: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Philip_Cross

Notwithstanding the issue of self-reverting, which Cross did only after the potential breach was raised, there’s an interesting point being made around the wording of the actual Topic Ban.

Looking at the standard policy I read “a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". “ Topic ban

However, it would appear that the Topic Ban of Philip Cross is being interpreted differently -

"I would close this as not actionable. The wording of the remedy is in relevant part: "Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics". This is more restrictive than a usual topic ban per WP:TBAN: while a usual topic ban covers both pages related to the topic and edits related to the topic, the unusual wording of the remedy ("banned from edits relating to ...") indicates that this ban is intended to cover only edits related to the topic. The normal wording would have been something like "banned from anything related to ...". In this case, the edits as such were not related to politics, and the remedy was therefore not violated." Sandstein 06:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you kindly confirm then, which of these interpretations is accurate? Thank you. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Thank you for clarifying Rob. It was pretty obvious to me that's what was meant. Apologies for bothering you with it. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Philip Cross: Throw as much shade as you like Mr Cross, but it's quite simple. The 2 examples I cited were British political figures who remained active beyond 1978 and, therefore, fall within the scope of your TB. You've been around long enough to know what the boundaries are. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, I edited the article on John Strachey who died in 1963. The article also links to Harold Wilson who left the House of Commons in 1983 (died 1995), Manny Shinwell (1884–1986) a Labour peer and Peter Doig who left the Commons in 1979. These edits are thus marginally in the post-1978 era, and it is possible I could be successfully challenged. A little earlier today, I worked on an article about Jon Kimche, who knew George Orwell in the 1930s, but decided to revert because the article contains a mention of Michael Foot during the second world war when he was a journalist. Possibly I should do the same at Anthony Crosland (died 1977) because Roy Jenkins is mentioned and the article cites a book which includes the term 'New Labour' in the title. I edited David Mamet yesterday after searching for references to 'antisemitism'. It cites an interview with Mamet conducted in New York in 2011 which mentions his general claims about A/S in the UK and also includes a mention of Harold Pinter who was certainly a writer on politics post-1978. Should I revert? There are other recent edits of mine, such as to Dennis Potter, which should be counted as well. The article includes Potter's comments about the Australian-American Rupert Murdoch, who has had an influence on British politics since 1978 as elsewhere, and surely also falls under the "broadly construed" element. Philip Cross (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Today's exchange between inactive ArbCom member User:BU Rob13 and uninvolved admin User:Sandstein emphasizes the need for formal clarification of this point by the Arbitration Committee.

"The remedy as written," Sandstein comments, "appears to contradict itself. While it links to WP:TBAN, which defines a standard topic ban that includes both topic-related edits and other edits to topic-related pages, the clause 'edits relating to' has, as I read it, a limiting effect such that only topic-related edits are prohibited, not other edits to topic-related pages. To avoid such uncertainty, I recommend that future remedies are worded to only make reference to WP:TBAN without additional clauses, e.g., '... is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from British politics'. Based on the current wording, I myself would take no action here, although of course other admins are free to interpret the remedy differently and take action."

As a non-administrator, I naturally defer to admins in their knowledge of Wikipedia procedures. However, Sandstein's reading seems contrary to the spirit of ArbCom's sanction against Philip Cross. Please resolve this. KalHolmann (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13: I identified you as an inactive member of ArbCom because I suspect many editors are unaware of your recent change of status and might misconstrue any remarks you make as speaking on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. If you are still an official spokesman for ArbCom, I'd appreciate clarification of that point as well. KalHolmann (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13: Please accept my sincere wishes for a speedy and full recovery by your family member following emergency surgery to remove a cancerous tumor. The mutual animosity between you and me is personal and has nothing to do with your family. KalHolmann (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin working at AE, I appreciate the proposed motion because it clarifies the remedy. When evaluating an AE request, I generally try to apply the plain meaning of the text of the applicable remedy. If the text is unclear or appears contradictory, as in this case, I tend to not take action, so as to err on the side of caution. Other admins, of course, may want to proceed differently. Sandstein 07:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• There seems to be some confusion about what "inactive" arbitrator status means. All it means is that the arb has sent the clerks an email asking to be designated as inactive, and the effect is basically a presumed abstention on any new matters that comes up. The arbitrator can at any time be moved back to being active, either on all matters or selectively on just some. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We definitely did not intend the topic ban to be construed to not apply to some edits to pages about the topic area. All topic bans apply to such edits. We chose the wording of “all edits” rather than “all pages” to emphasize that even edits that cover the topic on pages that do not typically cover the topic are covered, which is the standard meaning of a topic ban. If we intended to place a restriction other than a topic ban, we would not have called it such. I think even the admins at AE occasionally need a reminder not to wikilawyer - a topic ban is a topic ban. If it helps, we can strike “all edits about” and just say Philip Cross is topic banned from the topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KalHolmann: As a side note, is there a reason you choose to emphasize my inactivity as if it’s a slur? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remain a member of the Arbitration Committee. My current inactivity refers to the fact a family member was just released from the hospital following an emergency surgery to remove a cancerous tumor. I am not necessarily available as often as usual as a result. I would hope you don’t begrudge me that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can’t speak for you, of course, but there is no animosity on my end. I don’t know I’ve ever seen anyone boldly declare they’re interested in a personalized conflict with someone on Wikipedia, but I’ll leave that bit alone. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly appreciate you bringing this to our attention. It was on my radar already, and I was probably going to propose this motion later today even in the absence of an ARCA. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. This is also the current meaning of the sanction, but let's modify it just to make this "slap you in the face" obvious. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. I would of thought this wouldn't have shown up at our doorstep like this...but surprises. I think this more clearly explains the intent of the original motion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 15:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Rob, and confirming as the other drafter that this was our intent. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Alex Shih (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Katie^talk 15:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

---

---

Initiated by Guantolaka at 09:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Guantolaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Philip_Cross

I'm posting here to request clarification on the Philip Cross topic ban.

It currently reads: "Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed."

On 13 August 2018, Philip Cross was blocked from Wikipedia for one week for violating the topic ban.

There have been edits since then which I believe also violate the topic ban. I'm listing some of these below:

• 27 December 2018: Joan Rodker

"Joan M Rodker (1 May 1915, Kensington, London – 27 December 2010) was an English political activist and television producer."

• 31 December 2018: Geeta Guru-Murthy

Journalist "with regular work for BBC World, BBC News 24, and BBC Breakfast, and by 2005 presenting the news on BBC Radio 4."

• 16 April 2019: Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange

Links showing discussion in the House of Commons, comments from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, the Shadow Home Secretary, and how a change of government in the UK could affect Assange's fate: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]

• 25 April 2019: Political views of Christopher Hitchens

"Christopher Hitchens (13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011) was a British-American author, polemicist, debater and journalist who in his youth took part in demonstrations against the Vietnam War, joined organisations such as the International Socialists while at university and began to identify as a socialist."

Some of these have been posted on the Arbitration Enforcement Request page recently:

• 16 April 2019 - Request concerning Philip Cross

• 16 January 2019 - Request concerning Philip Cross

No action has been taken.

I would like to ask the arbitration committee for clarity here. Are the instances highlighted above outside the scope of "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed"?

Conflict of interest

Additionally, the arbitration decision also contained the following warning:

"Philip Cross is warned to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest."

On 23 November 2018, Philip Cross posted a link to an Oliver Kamm article

The article mentions George Galloway, Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson. They are not only involved in British politics, but Cross's hostile editing of their pages and derogatory comments about them on Twitter was what led to media interest and the ensuing arbitration case.

@Icewhiz, Doug Weller, Johnuniq: I'm not a Wikipedia editor, and the Philip Cross case was opened because of off-wiki concern about the editing he was doing. That off-wiki concern and attention led to an arbitration case and resulted in a unanimous decision by the arbitratration committe to impose a topic ban and a warning. I don't think that ban has been adhered to, so I'd like to understand why. Either the ban is not what I understand it to be, or it's not being enforced. I hope posting here will clear that up. Guantolaka (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz, I have deliberately not focused on the edits themselves because my understanding of the topic ban is those edits should not have occurred in the first place. Getting into a debate about the edits is what happened during the arbitration case, and resulted in the topic ban. What is the point of a topic ban if to make a successful enforcement request you have to prove that the edit in itself was problematic. Surely that goes for any editor on here whether sanctioned or not. So I have deliberately avoided doing that not because I think all the edits are fine (I don't), but because I want to see the topic ban adhered to. I have also not looked to find more examples of Philip Cross's editing that falls in this topic area, again, not because they don't exist, but because I don't think that should be necessary. I'm happy to post more examples if that would help convince you that these instances are not isolated breaches.

Regarding your point about Galloway. The problem was never solely about Galloway. The narrow focus on Galloway was how it was framed by an administrator at the very beginning. After the community-imposed ban on Galloway, the arbitration case was opened and a review of Philip Cross's editing led to an expansion of the ban to the wider topic area by the arbitration committee. (In my view, that was not wide enough, but I don't want to get a discussion about that now.) Guantolaka (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork, perhaps I should have been clearer. I don't believe the matter has been handled appropriately at AE. As someone who followed the arbitration case closely, it appears to me that the administrators are applying a much narrower reading of the topic ban than what was intended by the arbitration committee. So much so that I think the topic ban becomes nonsensical if the pages I linked above are considered acceptable topics to edit. Of course, it's also possible that this much narrower reading is in fact what was intended. But without comment from the committee, it's hard to know. I'd find it very strange if that is what was intended, considering the conduct and editing brought up during the arbitration case. But if the committee do not see the instances I highlighted as constituting a breach of the ban, it would be good to have that confirmed here. Guantolaka (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob, Assange's situation is very much related to British politics. This was debated in the last filing I linked above. Editor NSH001 quoted a BBC article:

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Landale said backing Assange is not without political risk and will not find universal favour among Labour MPs - but Mr Corbyn's intervention "means the battle over Assange's future will now be as much political as it is legal".

Editor Pawnkingthree linked to a Guardian article pointing out the Home Secretary's involvement in Assange's fate.

Asked for comment on Twitter by a journalist, Wikipedia editor and co-founder Jimmy Wales agreed: "I agree with you that this is related to UK politics." Shown an edit where Cross had left incorrect information up for two days, he went on to advise Cross to "steer clear of this topic indefinitely".

So I have to say, the staunch refusal to see a connection between Assange and British politics here is pretty odd.

@Opabinia regalis: please save the moralising. I think I've submitted enough here to show a connection to UK politics, and you've also seen long-standing editors agree that it is too. I did want to see how the arbitration committee would reconcile all that with its "broadly construed" topic ban, and I think we've seen that now. If anyone is unsure whether Philip Cross should be held to his topic ban, I suggest they carry out a search and look at the editing that led to the arbitration case. Guantolaka (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cross has been under quite a bit of scrutiny by people who do not normally edit Wikipedia - including AE by a sockpuppet and another by the filer here that were closed as not actionable. Cross has been productive as an editor over the past 8 months. To avoid further wasting of community time, ARCA should consider lifting the TBAN entirely or limit it to Galloway, as time served.Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of an off-wiki campaign - it is quite evident from a simple search on twitter and to a lesser extent google. There are also a few pieces on RT (TV network) and other sites of a similar bent. (to avoid possibly running foul of WP:OUTING - I won't link here, however the extent of commenting on this is evident from a simple search). Cross's edits are under intense off-wiki scrutiny - if there were something more actionable than what was brought forward (and dismissed an non-actionable in Jan 2019 AE and April 2019 AE) - it would have been presented. Cross shouldn't have been editing (while being involved in a twitter exchange) Galloway's article (and possibly a few related articles). The current very wide sanction - has off-wiki observers scrutinizing Cross's every edit (13,553 edits (well over 90% of them to mainspace) since September 2018 through 29 April 2019) and coming forth with the very few examples that are possibly extremely broadly construed at the edges of the current fairly wide (for a UK editor) TBAN. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something's pretty fishy here. It's hard not to wonder if there is some off-wiki campaign against Cross. I haven't been following his editing but I do see it from time to time and have never seen anything problematic when we've crossed paths. Perhaps the Committee should at least consider Icewhiz's suggestion. Doug Weller talk 09:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the merits of the case, would a passing admin please indef the filer as WP:NOTHERE. Wikipedia has enough drama—we don't need off-wiki campaigners. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do share the doubt whether the filer is here to build an encyclopaedia. While I do not support banning new editors who haven't engaged in clear-cut vandalism or severe disruption, I do think that Guantolaka should be permanently banned from discussing anything Philip Cross related. They are welcome to contribute in other areas.

That said, I recall the Philip Cross issue very clearly and am well aware of the amount of work it took the community to undo their blatant disruptive editing carried on over years in quite a significant number of articles. It required hours and hours of community time. Judging from the examples of their recent editing listed here, it is highly likely that Philip Cross will resume the sort of disruptive editing that brought about their TBAN. My advice is thus to leave the ban as is. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Inactive on this request: AGK ■ 10:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not seeing there is anything here for the Committee to do with the clarification request, other than to confirm that AE have handled the matter appropriately, and so have already answered the question regarding "Are the instances highlighted above outside the scope of "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed"?". If there is more support for reviewing Philip Cross's topic ban, we could look into that. SilkTork (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• SilkTork is correct, there is nothing for the Committee to do here. I agree with Doug that there certainly seems to be an outside interest in having Philip Cross sanctioned, and I don't particularly appreciate it. If Philip Cross wants to appeal his topic ban (either to reduce the scope or have it lifted) he is well within his rights to do so himself, as the original six-month period has passed, but we should not be making that decision for him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As a matter of procedure, "no action" at AE can absolutely be appealed to ArbCom at ARCA, and we theoretically could disagree with AE and take action. Having said that, nothing linked here appears to be a topic ban violation. Rodker wasn't politically active post-1978. A journalist is not automatically involved with politics just because they occasionally cover it neutrally as part of the news. Assange isn't involved much at all in British politics. Hitchens is mostly a political figure in American politics, not British politics, though he probably comes closest to being placed in the topic area. It is within administrative discretion to consider none of these topic ban violations, and so I see no reason to overturn the result at AE. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As above, it doesn't seem like there's anything for us to do here. Also as above, people are welcome to join the community and participate as editors no matter how they first encountered us - even if it was a bad experience - but hanging around for the specific and sole purpose of trying to get another editor sanctioned is not OK. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing to add that hasn't already been said. This ARCA could most likely be closed at this point. Mkdw ^talk 16:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with other statements, and that this can be closed. Worm^TT(talk) 08:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]