This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at

Wikimedia Foundation

AN/I discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. IWI (chat) 01:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

User:IWI, please read WP:PROXYING, you may find it helpful. Philip Cross (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
These edits are mine and not at the direction of anyone. IWI (chat) 14:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Abby MartinEdit

With this tweet, Abby Martin criticized your activity as a Wikipedian, referring to you as "this mysterious spook." I bring this to your attention not to spread her slander, but because I noticed that 16 hours after her tweet, you edited Martin's BLP. Forgive me for saying so, as I am new to Wikipedia, but this presents the appearance—to a newcomer at least—of a conflict of interest. I readily acknowledge that I have no way of knowing whether or not you saw her tweet before editing her BLP. But the timing is nevertheless unsettling. If I am off base here, please accept my apology. NedFausa (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

User:NedFausa, you will have read it, but for lurkers, an administrator has explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Philip Cross BLP issue. Philip Cross (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for directing me to the administrator's comment, which I had not seen. His explanation that "being attacked by a subject of an article you've already edited doesn't constitute a COI" certainly applies here. I failed to realize that you are a longstanding editor of Abby Martin, and that her tweet, which I cited, came after edits by you to her BLP over the course of nearly six years. I humbly withdraw my suggestion of a conflict of interest. NedFausa (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions alertEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible SYNTHEdit

Your 07:06, 13 January 2020 comment at ANI immediately follows my 06:49, 13 January 2020 question to you. Did you intend your comment as a reply to my question? If so, I cannot understand how the comment addresses what I wrote. The source said certain things. You used the source to assert something about a living person. My question relates to whether the source verifies the assertion because the edit looks like WP:SYNTH to me. Do you stand by your edit? If so, how do you justify making that assertion about a BLP subject? Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

How would you describe "no evidence" when there is evidence? In the quote, Khalek refers to the "alleged" attack, when only fringe figures (as now, mainly) were using the "false flag" or similar arguments. It is the Haaretz article which interprets the quote and her "no evidence" claim as denial (though it is introduced to suggest far right/far left parallels in the rejection of the attack). The early evidence was taken as indicating the attack was genuine and asserting pro-Assad forces were responsible and the Haaretz article follows this interpretation. In other words, I was only drawing on a source as WP editors should rather than inventing a claim. Philip Cross (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
That reply looks like more SYNTH. What text in the source justifies asserting that she denied the Syrian government was responsible? The source actually quoted her as saying there was no evidence that the [Syrian] government carried out last week's alleged attack (and the date of her statement in relation to when the event took place is missing). At any rate, now that you have the BLP notice, you will be topic banned from all BLP articles if such SYNTH occurs again. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
As the full quote reproduced in the Haaretz article from which I drew in the deleted edits is from an RS, I will reproduce it here with a citation:

"Congratulations to all the war hawks and pundits and regime change propagandists who encouraged [Trump]. There is still no evidence that the [Syrian] government carried out last week’s alleged attack."[1]

Thus it is should be completely clear Khalek's comments refer to the American military response to the Douma chemical attack on 14 April 2018; the article was published only three days later. Her comment was very recent, unless it can be proved Alexander Reid Ross had sourced a quote relating to another incident in the Syrian Civil War. Khalek blames the Western media for leading the Trump administration government to respond, in other words she was certainly aware evidence had been presented by mainstream media, but chose to disagree with it so denying its credibility. Plenty of the other citations which were deleted also suggested Khalek's favouritism towards Assad's government in Syria, as "regime change propagandists" does in this citation. I probably should have used the full quote, but the opening seemed off-topic. My response here should be raised in the AN/I discussion, because I believe the case for me having practiced SYNTH is slight.
  1. ^ Ross, Alexander Reid Ross (17 April 2018). "How Assad's War Crimes Bring Far Left and Right Together - Under Putin's Benevolent Gaze". Haaretz. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
Philip Cross (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Text like "should be completely clear" and "unless it can be proved" and "she was certainly aware" is complete SYNTH. The suggestion that "other citations" are relevant is off-topic because the only point I'm making is that you left the article in a state where a certain claim was made with a certain source, and the source did not verify the claim. There may be some confusion about what part of the claim I am saying is SYNTH although I spelled it out at ANI: the article said "Haaretz quoted her denial in April 2018 that the Syrian government was responsible..." yet the source said Khalek had posted that there was no evidence. Khalek may be totally wrong and at that time she should have known there was evidence—I don't know. I also agree that saying "there is no evidence" is a debating trick used by trolls the world over to spread confusion. However, we cannot know what was in Khalek's mind when she made the statement quoted by the source, and the source does not make any ruling on that. The source effectively says "she said there is no evidence" but the article effectively said "she denied the Syrian government was responsible". That is a blatant misuse of a source. Anyone can have a bad day but I am concerned that you still not getting it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
You are citing my opinions from this talk page where they are totally admissible. I also made use of other sources, confirming the date of the American response, for this page. I added the Khalek quote saying "no evidence" after m assertion of denial, so readers could make up their own mind whether it was an accurate introduction. As I said above, I probably should have added the whole quote which makes the context clearly. It is rather clear what was in Khalek's mind. Philip Cross (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I have seen your name mentioned on noticeboards and assumed from the context that you were an advanced editor with a team of opponents on political grounds. However your above comment, coming after everything else, is breathtaking. A core point of WP:BLP is that we do not cherry-pick factoids "so readers could make up their own mind". I don't know why you can't just see the very simple point I made above: the article said X but the source said Y, and a complex set of unsourced arguments is needed to stretch from Y to X. Please be aware that believing you are right is not a defense against a BLP topic ban if future problems arise. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I should perhaps have said "confirm." It was added to the article in the context of all the other (deleted) cited material suggesting Rania Khalek is pro-Assad. Philip Cross (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
[1] <-- this is an opinionated blogpost you added to embellished a BLP with a pullquote from. Sounds like you're only to realio-trulio lastest warnings, you should be good for another while yet. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 10:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


Hello, just please note that the WP:NOTABILITY does not apply to content within articles, as stated on the page itself, but only for the creation of a page. You cannot use this as basis for removal of content. IWI (chat) 10:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

In the context I used the term, notability is demonstrated by what reliable sources say, and the inclusion of content is dependent on them. You might find this link useful. Since you are keen on editing Syrian Civil War related articles, please note that editors' are strongly discouraged from making use of sources like RT (international topics entry) which may present President Assad and his government in a positive way Philip Cross (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes RT is unreliable. Don’t attribute these edits to the wrong guideline as all I’m saying. IWI (chat) 11:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Complaint by BoMbYEdit

Hi Philip Cross, I'll just move this here. For your information, and for BoMbY getting a different response than someone else's "wrong noticeboard". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  Moved from WP:AIV: ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@BoMbY: Please talk to the user directly. If you are unsatisfied with their response, WP:ANI would theoretically be the right noticeboard to complain at. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not have anything new to add to my comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Philip Cross BLP issue about the edits I made to Rania Khalek's article. My most recent edits to Ms Khalek's page have mostly been reverted, as have those for the Tim Anderson article. I have added many comments to the talk page of the Max Blumenthal article in the last few weeks and it is there that BoMbY should outline his problems with my edits. The Wikipedia articles about Anderson, Blumenthal and Khalek concern their politics and affiliations with the citations I have added being drawn from reliable sources in line with Wikipedia policies such as reliable sources. Philip Cross (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Jill SteinEdit

[2] <-- this is an opinionated blogpost you added to embellished a BLP with a pullquote from. Sounds like you're only to realio-trulio lastest warnings, you should be good for another while yet. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 10:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

User:SashiRolls, I have moved your comment to a new section. The sources used in the article on John Aravosis and AMERICAblog itself give it a high rating. On a regularly edited and viewed article (10,668 views since Christmas Day), no editor has chosen to remove the source and quote from Jill Stein's WP article and it remains after nearly fifteen months. It looks as though the consensus is that AMERICAblog is a reliable source. Philip Cross (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I just removed the blog (now only used 72 times on en.wp as a source) from her BLP. You'll notice someone embedded a "better reference" tag in the template on 22 October 2019. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c
As you wish. I had not noticed the better source tag was present although it was added almost a year after I edited the passage on 1 November 2018. Philip Cross (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised to find that it was Snoog who originally added that blogpost to the BLP? You guys know each other, or is it just a "birds of a feather" type thing? [3] 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 00:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I quote User:SashiRolls entire edit summary (the ellipsis is not mine) : "sorry forgot to sign. looked at your 'revenge' edit over there. a lot was ok, but there was no need to blank her response about ranked choice voting. I imagine there's a bot that can straighten out date patterns... but I've added in some of your revisions." No, Stein's advocacy of ranked choice voting was entirely off-topic in the 'Russia probe' section. Philip Cross (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Didn't Snoog create that Russian probe part? I think so, maybe I'm wrong. I bet he wasn't expecting HRC to get confused between Russians & Republicans when accusing Stein of being someone's "asset". Stein said ranked choice voting was the cure for undue election meddling. Maybe she is wrong, but it reads to be her opinion on the whole Russia-probity panic concerning her running for office in 2016. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in JournalismEdit

Is that a MOS issue? I need the correct name on Kim Iversen. – (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a title, so you have used the correct form, see MOS:MAJORWORK. Awards are not mentioned directly but on the same MOS page (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Neither) the policy for "Exhibitions, concerts, and other events" is that they should not even be rendered in quotation marks, let alone italics, which may be assumed to include Awards. Philip Cross (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  I'm not familiar with the MOS, some fun facts such as GB vs. GiBi not withstanding. – (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)