User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

One man army or army of men?

How is Philip Cross able to edit so consistently for the past 5 years from from 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018. WIkipedia does not pay people as far as we know especially given their advertisements asking for donations every couple of months. Philip Cross has a clear agenda and should not be allowed to enact his crusade on the lives of people. This is a very dangerous person (or peoples) involved in gatekeeping information, vandalism and even driving a politician to near suicide. Wikipedia should act before this story puts the website in the headlights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.154.47 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No conspiracy or anything suspicious. Don't believe everything you read online. Philip Cross (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Who is employing you to edit the BlPs of certain people ? I ask this as the amount of edits and time stamps of those edits would make it impossible for you to have genuine employment, which could present a possible COI. Finally how many people are operating the "Philip Cross" account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.17.116 (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Any further inquiries along this line will be treated as harassment and may result in immediate blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

And more media coverage here. I've come across Philip Cross while editing David Frost and didn't think that there was anything wrong with his editing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ian MacM for the thumbs up. Philip Cross (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you please link to where the accusation that user 'Philip Cross' is multiple people has been explicitly rebutted by 'Philip Cross'? Phantomsnake (talk • contribs) 00:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please keep comments in a strict chronological order. Philip Cross (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Philip Cross does not have to "explicitly rebut" this allegation as it was made off-wiki. If ArbCom became concerned, they could run a WP:CHECKUSER or use other tools to analyse the contributions. Nobody on-wiki has complained, but he seems to have upset some people off-wiki.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

What would constitute a complaint 'on-wiki' and how does one go about making one? Phantomsnake (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It could be raised at WP:ANI, but no-one there seems to have suggested that Philip Cross is more than one person; I don't believe that he is, but that's irrelevant.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Phantomsnake, there's an existing WP:AN discussion and now an open arbitration request, and I think people are aware of the Craig Murray post that might have sent you here. Murray seems to have overestimated the amount of effort it takes to make 30 or so Wikipedia edits over the course of a day. The only way to make a credible allegation that Philip Cross is multiple people involves tedious analysis of 1000s of individual diffs. I'm unconvinced you'll find anything: an alternate theory that someone posted on Reddit is "the evidence shows a Times-reading retiree". If anything Philip Cross himself may be the target of a propaganda campaign: there are currently 27 Reddit threads[1] linked to the Craig Murray post, and who knows if they were really all opened independently?

Anyway it looks like the situation might resolve itself with Philip Cross voluntarily stepping away from the disputed articles (per his statement in the arb request). Otherwise, from having observed these kinds of processes on Wikipedia for a while, seeking interventions by making wide allegations and spouting opinions never gets results. It needs careful analysis which (in this case) nobody has done because of the amount of work involved. You could look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence (the ongoing evidence presentation in an unrelated dispute) to see what such an analysis effort looks like. Those cases go on for weeks or months and participating in one is almost a full-time job. It's especially thankless if you're not invested in the outcome yourself, and if you are invested then you may be part of the problem. That's why nobody is excited about the prospect. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Further to this, the on-Wiki complaint procedure against this user or users has been opened. A link to the evidence gathering page - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Evidence. .Though the 'one man army' view seems to have been assumed. Signed Phantomsnake (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § George Galloway, for reasons I think I explain in the case filing. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for a fair and reasonable summary of the issues. Philip Cross (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

AN outcome

After seeing your note at ArbCom and the general support at AN, I have closed the discussion regarding your topic ban of George Galloway. If you see content that needs changing, please use edit requests on the talk page. If you have any further questions or clarifications please feel free to ping me here or on my talk page. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac I withdrew from editing George Galloway's article, and the others, pending a potential Arbcom investigation. While I do accept I have a COI over Galloway, I have agreed not to edit that article and others for an indefinite period, which is not necessarily permanent, although I accept it may be wise to acknowledge it as such. Even so, that is not quite the same as accepting a topic ban, which I do not.

I would like a decision being made on the acceptability, or otherwise, of my edits to George Galloway's article and the others, in the past, which are now in dispute. I have edited Mr Galloway's Wikipedia article regularly for many years, and it appears he has known about my edits to the article for several years at least. Yet my editing has received no intervention from administrators in all that time, and as far as I know, no formal complaint from Mr Galloway.

If I can, I wish to clear my name. While the COI does make it near impossible for me to edit the George Galloway article again, I do not accept I have edited the article in bad faith; the COI is recent. The vast bulk of my anti-Galloway tweets are recent. They were mainly posted after he announced a £1K reward for my positive real life identification on May 12. See here. This followed an earlier request on May 1 to appear with him on one of his broadcasting outlets to explain my editing of Wikipedia. For that, see here. In other words, I responded on twitter, but not on Wikipedia, to provocation from Mr Galloway and some of the others who dislike my editing. It is my belief I have observed the rules on Identifying reliable sources and so forth in editing Mr Galloway's article and the others. My twitter feed is now accessible via @philipcross1963.

Does your request for me to "use edit requests on the talk page" apply only to George Galloway's article, the others I have withdrawn from editing, or more widely? Philip Cross (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Philip, the restriction that Primefac imposed is, as the word "imposed" implies, in effect indefinitely whether you agree to it or not. That means you will probably get blocked from editing in the event that you edit the article again without first having the restriction lifted. As a matter of observed practice (i.e. not by codified policy but just by custom), if you want it lifted, it's reasonable for you to wait about 6 months and then open a WP:AN thread acknowledging the past problems and indicating that you think you can edit the article neutrally going forward. It will help if you've built up a good record of neutral editing in other articles that you can point to in the request. There would then be another discussion where other editors can support or oppose lifting the restriction, followed by an admin evaluating the consensus and lifting it or not lifting it. In the event that it's not lifted, it's ok to try again 1x every 6 months or so but not more often than that. Again, if a request is turned down, the best way to improve the prospects of a future one is keep making good edits in other articles.

As for the scope of the restriction, it looks like it applies only to the GG article and that you can still edit non-GG articles and the GG talk page. (@Primefac:, you might want to note that in the closing statement, since sometimes people also get restricted from the talk page). But I'd urge being very careful about any potentially controversial edits in other articles. One way I stay out of trouble as an IP editor (while I'm not super conservative about what I add to articles) is by almost never reverting stuff that other people have added. I usually make a note on the talk page rather than reverting, and only revert if nobody objects after a while. But that's just me. As a general practice (and contra to WP:BOLD) I think it's best that if you have doubts about a possible edit, to propose it on the talk page instead of making it directly. If you make it after nobody says anything for a day or so, you're in better shape than if you made it without waiting. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

As stated by the IP, the fact that you voluntarily agreed to cease editing Galloway's page simply means you understand that editing the page isn't exactly the best of ideas; the fact that there was a consensus at AN to impose the topic ban does mean this is a "community" action rather than a "voluntary" one.

The tban only included Galloway's article itself, so (at the moment) you're welcome to make edit requests on its talk page and continue editing other articles as normal.

As for appealing, you're welcome to make an appeal at any point but I would highly recommend waiting at least six months, as that is the standard "minimum time frame" for demonstrating that there will be no further issues. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Philip Cross - Wikipedia Editor

Came across this Draft:Philip Cross - Wikipedia Editor they are probably up to no good. Theroadislong (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Obvious sock of Mojito Paraiso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 22:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks both. Glad to see the creation of such an article is now blocked for unconfirmed editors. Philip Cross (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reactivity and cancelation, indeed we have to remain carefull now than they do kind on harassment thourgh twitter and that Galloway has made this shame accusations on youtube and raido. But it proves only that he doesn't know how Wikipedia works, not because of contributors but because of reliable sources (I could have been also annyoed myself for having created the articles on 2 of the propagandists. Thanks you Philip Cross for improving them ! FromNewsToEncyclopedia (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Show/hide

Throughout Wikipedia there are many show/hide boxes at the bottom of the screen. Take Capitol Records, with the Vivendi box. Is there a default position for these? If so, what do I type to show or hide? I would rather have them hidden to spend less time scrolling, but I don't know what the rule is, if any. Thanks for your help.
Vmavanti (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I am unable to say anything constructive about this issue. Philip Cross (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The Art Farmer Septet

Can you help with the formatting of the artwork on this page please? I can’t get it right.Design (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Appears to have been a problem with too few closing braces (}). Obviously the formatting still isn't quite right, as the background behind the heading breaks prematurely. Will have to investigate further as to how fix that issue. Philip Cross (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Query regarding the George Galloway case

Hi. The arbitration case request currently titled "George Galloway" has reached an absolute majority of active arbitrators to open a case, and we are currently working to get it open. During discussion among arbitrators, we considered that it may be ideal to proceed with the case on an accelerated schedule for a couple reasons. The community has already spent substantial time sifting through the contributions relevant to this case, including presenting them at the case request, so the Committee expects that evidence will not take multiple weeks to compile. Further, an accelerated schedule avoids a long drawn-out case which is usually perceived negatively by all participants. Rest assured that, if we proceed with an accelerated schedule, the Arbitration Committee will still review all the evidence, public and private, as well as the contributions to the workshop phase. If it becomes necessary, we will also extend the schedule to the usual time to allow for additional contributions and review. As you are one of the parties in the case request, could you please comment on your opinion of this possibility? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The decision is not mine to make, but it is in the interests of all concerned to get this arbitration case right. Those on Twitter and elsewhere discussing this issue may not stop whatever the outcome may be. Therefore, I do not think an accelerated schedule is appropriate. As the issue of banning me from editing any article with a connection to British politics or BLPs has been raised, a wide classification involving a high proportion of my edits, involved parties should look at many thousands of diffs, especially those away from the Corbyn-Galloway wing of British politics which are, in fact, a small part of my total work in this area. Additionally, many of my edits to the George Galloway article, and the other BLPs which have met with objections in the last two months or so are not solely about British politics anyway. So far only a minority of my edits which relate to British politics have been accused of being problematic. Yet it would appear I might be banned from many articles where my diffs have not met with an objection. As I have already said, I do [not] think an accelerated schedule is appropriate. For the avoidance of any doubt, I have received a limited number of new media requests for comment in the last week or so, but I will continue to ignore them. Philip Cross (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC) (Amendment for clarification.Philip Cross (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC))

BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 22, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I have a question!

Dear Philip Cross, I live in Germany, I´m German native. I joined recently the English Wikipedia to ask you something. My question to you: Is it true, that you have the Asperger syndrome? Some Germans in Youtube-videos talk about you. They are making recherches of the seriosity, truth and hierarchie of the German Wikipedia. (Markus Fiedler: teacher of biology and music teacher, Dirk Pohlmann, a journalist).Their name is Gruppe42. Group42. Here is one video of them:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugkQMWxFciw They regard also the English Wikipedia and make comparations to the German Wikipedia. They are looking for manipulation and lies in the German Wikipedia and try to find it out. They compare you, Philip, with a German user with the name Kopilot. While watching the English Wikipedia they found you. The group is telling stories about you. I am not part of that group, I´m not a member of that group. I am a single person for my own.

I´m interested especially in the Asperger syndrome. Politics are not so important for me. Crazy stuff. So, if you want, answer me. But if you don´t want, it is okay! Don´t stress yourself. But think, England will also recognize your answer, so be careful. 12.06.2018 Germany --SanktHieronymus (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Today is 19 June 2018. I received no answer from you, Philip Cross. I worry about you. I have a premonition. 18 June 2018 you ( or another person? ) made only two contributions on articles. 19 June 2018 also only two contributions from user Philip Cross. I think this is unusual and strange. Usually you make more contributions a day. And you visit your own discussion page no longer! Dear Philip, I hope you are still alive! I have a premonition. Soon I´ll go back to German Wikipedia. My English is not the best. I will make a prayer for you tonight. Yours --SanktHieronymus (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

thank you

Hi, I read about you in the press today, and I wanted to say, while I may not agree with all your edits, I am very thankful for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please do not let the media intimidate you and please do not let somebody bully just because they are famous. If we start compromising on the pillars of the project and we bow to pressure just because some famous guy doesn't like what an article says, sooner or later Wikipedia will lose all traces of neutrality or reliability, which is ultimately bad for everybody. Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I echo User:DrVogel. This nonsense from Galloway is paranoid. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 28

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018

• #1Bib1Ref
• New partners
  • Rock's Backpages
  • Invaluable
  • Termsoup
• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
• Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Show/hide

There was a question last month about showing or in this case hiding a template when first seen ("transcluded") on an article page. I noticed that your artist templates, like the one for Art Pepper, also were not shown as collapsed to the title box when the page is first viewed, which was obviously the intention. Well, I figured out how to fix the problem. I will let Vmavanti know about this too. --Alan W (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Page 3

Hi Philip

I wanted to ask you about a query I have concerning your last edit to the Page 3 article. The edit nicely helped to improve the readability of the definition, but as I understand the WP guidelines on this subject, the edit contravenes WP:ISATERMFOR, which says that the definition should only say what something is and not what it is a term for. Did you have a particular reason in mind as to why this article should deviate from the guidelines?

Polly

Polly Tunnel (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the passage you link to had, so thank you for notifying me. I have tried to take account of the policy document, as well as removing what turned out to be a piece of original research, in fresh edits. Philip Cross (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

British politics PD

I'm sure you're aware but we're required (and forgot) to notify you that a remedy has been proposed that relates to you in the proposed decision of the BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Zeinab Badawi

Here is the source that details Ms Badawi co presenting the Channel 4 with Jon Snow news back in 1988 https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/bbc-appoints-two-female-newsreaders-in-their-50s-1845094.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eamoc (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I looked at The Independent source earlier. The passage in the Cathy Newman article needs better sourcing to clear up this issue. The 'other' presenter was given a secondary role until earlier this decade. The meaning in th piece you cite above is not as clear as the Evening Standard article from 2011: "Newman, 37, is the first woman to take on full presenting duties with Snow on Channel 4 News". Philip Cross (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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

An arbitration case regarding BLP issues on British politics articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Philip Cross (talk · contribs) is warned to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest. Further, he is warned that his off-wiki behavior may lead to further sanctions to the extent it adversely impacts the English Wikipedia.
2. Philip Cross (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in May 2018.
3. KalHolmann (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from linking to or speculating about the off-wiki behavior or identity of other editors. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. All appeals must be directed toward arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.
4. The community is reminded that publicly posting details or speculation regarding an editor’s personal information or off-wiki behavior violates the policy on outing, unless the information has been disclosed on-wiki by the editor in question. Concerns regarding off-wiki behavior are best reported through an appropriate private channel rather than on community noticeboards.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles closed