Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Cross (Wikipedian)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. WP:SNOW. I know it's a day early, but nobody (except the creator) wants to keep the article, and several editors have called for a speedy, so I can't see consensus going any other way. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Philip Cross (Wikipedian)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Philip Cross (Wikipedia Editor) (February 2023), where there was a unanimous consensus to delete. The current article is a polemic and not a neutral encyclopedia entry, propose deletion per WP:TNT and WP:BLP1E. Prod has been reverted by author. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the idea that Cross having an entry in List of Wikipedia controversies, but I don't see why that should involve the merging of any material from this version. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United Kingdom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a poorly-sourced argumentative navel-gazing essay masquerading as a biography. Utterly unencyclopedic, and doesn't even remotely belong in article space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @AndyTheGrump when did the BBC became a "poor source"?
 * can you please be specific to "argumentative navel-gazing essay" as most of what is written was paraphrased from reliable sources. The strcuture of the article is similar to the BBC about the topic. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Rather than erecting straw men here, your time would be better spent reading WP:RS, and than considering whether quotations from Twitter posts made by random Wikipedia contributors fall within the guidelines... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How is citing the BBC and use its editorial guideline is a strawman? FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in debating WP:RS policy with someone who cites robot-mangled plagiarised gobbledygook as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * BBC? no one used whatever you linked as source FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is an outright falsehood. You linked it here. . AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * and it was removed. I mean, you want to delete the article becuase of a 2nd reference to verifiable infromation? now the source is gone, does that mean you will change your mind? FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Go away. Get a clue. Come back when you have one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator (polemical text and not a neutral encyclopedia entry). Can't be saved.—Alalch E. 18:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alalch E. when the tag was put, there were not disucssion on the talk about neutrality and I think you should provide at least a sentense or two, that is not backed by a source and has bias. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I had the damn AfD nomination dialog open in Twinkle and refreshed the page to see this! I'm on the fence as to whether the article actually ought to be deleted, which is why I didn't actually click "submit". It is truly a terrible article, starting from the bizarre emphasis on "he made a hundred thousand edits in fourteen years, whoa" -- note for the record that I've made about ninety thousand in nine years (of which I was only actively editing for three). I also removed a bizarre passage about how his identity was "mysterious" because... some columnist didn't know his real name? What? Nobody knows my real name either, or for that matter Hemiauchenia's, or for that matter several of our currently seated arbitrators (who have names like "Izno" and "Barkeep"). It is kind of strange to see these things turned into FUD topics when they are true of some few hundred (thousand?) editors. I am not sure if it would be possible to write an article about this topic that wouldn't be a disaster. For example, note that it claims he has 133k edits: he actually has 210k. Do we cite... xtools? In mainspace? Furthermore, and more importantly, the actual guy (User:Philip Cross) is currently indef-blocked for topic ban violations. Shouldn't this be in an article about his Wikipedia editing career? Isn't this relevant information (especially given it refers to his editing in the present tense)? But then we are citing... our own arb enforcement pages in a BLP? Isn't that kind of idiotic?
 * But, at the same time, it kind of looks like there is WP:SIGCOV. Also, it kind of makes us look like jackasses if we reflexively delete the article, given that most of the (asinine) charges being leveled against us on the subject are that some kind of shadowy cabal activity is suppressing the truth. That said, if restricting ourselves to reliable sources means that the only article we're able to write is laughably incorrect, we should simply not have one, especially if it is a WP:BLP. jp×g 18:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Cross was personally harassed as a result of this controversy. Sputnik literally sent a guy around to his house. Technically we could write an article on Chris Chan, there's more than enough sources to do so, but should we? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @JPxG that what the sources says and that what avoiding original research means. That even if I can read what is written on your page, I cannot use it as reference. read Citing Wikipedia as for the other points, I think coverage by BBC covers that FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you should read WP:CIR, because it's clear you don't understand Wikipedia policy at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. What I'm saying here is that if you are trying to write an article based on reliable sources, and the only information you're able to write in said article is badly out-of-date, ridiculous, or untrue, this is an indication that the subject is not covered thoroughly enough by reliable sources to write a Wikipedia article about it. jp×g 18:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @JPxG and what is your source for that? FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea that we should not knowingly make false claims about living people seems so utterly fundamental to policy that I am confused as to your question. I hate to be brusque in this way, but I really do think you should refrain from further posting on the subject until you have read the entirety of WP:BLP. jp×g 18:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I added the phrase "at the time", to avoid this problem and again what do you mean by "knowingly" what is your source for that? FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, the bar should be rather high on Wikipedia writing about its own editors. Particularly when they're being secretive, there is a risk that a lot of the information that journalists can gleam about these people comes from the Wikipedia-ecosystem itself, so if we start using those journalists' words to feed our ecosystem, we're creating a sort of citogenesis cyclotron of ever more drastic circulating rumours. Positive feedback turns random clicks into howls of anguish. Let's not go that way. Elemimele (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elemimele I do not think it is good to hide things. We write article about many topic and I do not think your arguement fit any policy of notablity or coverage FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting hiding things; the world is free to air our laundry. I'm saying that there is too much danger that we will write an article supported by a journalist who in turn wrote his article by reading what we are writing about Philip Cross's Wikipedia career in venues like this. I.e. it's circular, and in writing the article we're just writing our own personal opinions as though they were fact, because they've been sanitised by passing through the digestive system of the BBC. Incidentally, the first two sources are in places near-word-perfect identical, which doesn't speak well of them as acts of independent journalism. Elemimele (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment (as I am not sure if the author can do nothing but oppose), on the previous deletion discssuion the main point of contention was negative BLP and WP:POLEMIC violation. On this article, I tried (to the best of my ability), to use the BBC article as a guide on how to write about this topic and be as neutral as possible. I understand that writing about editors is normally avoided especially in a negative way but i really don’t think pushing things under the carpet is the answer. Up to now, I am yet to find any1 here citing a specific policy or referring to a something specific which is really worrying to say the least. The previous discussion also eluded to a conspiracy which is also problematic.
 * We have a list of Wikipedia controversies to remind us to do better and keep an eye out, and not to diminish our collective effort or portray Wikipedia in bad light, and this is another reminder. Be safe FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as an attack page, regardless of the intent of the creator. Phrasing throughout the article such as ... who has generated controversy and scrutiny due to their extensive editing activities casts aspersions on a living person. Murray's unreliable blog post, used as a source, contains targeted harassment and abuse of a living person.The three sources that contribute to notability (two BBC and one Haaretz) are from May/June 2018 and are largely about one incident involving Cross and George Galloway, such that this additionally fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED (or WP:BLP1E) and could be (non-speedily) deleted through AfD if the article is not speedily deleted. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies as mentioned by author. Regardless of the fact that the article is written in an unencyclopedic manner, the topic does not have sufficiently enduring notability for a standalone article per bilrov. small jars  19:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit: I hadn't realised the topic was already covered at the target, and performing the merge would cause more trouble per Alalch E. small jars 00:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of Wikipedia controversies. I think this is a topic that belongs on Wikipedia, but not as its own article, what more is there to say of note about the subject of the article other than the controversy? -Asheiou   (they/them • talk)  20:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies per SmallJarsWithGreenLabels and Asheiou's decisions. CastJared (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In order to merge, history needs to be retained, and this page should be deleted so that this content is not accessible. Perhaps you are advocating simple redirection but calling it a merge. When merging, content is copied over to the target article, and this content... is not good.—Alalch E. 20:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as an attack page. As Alalch said, merging and redirecting are not options here because it would remain in the revision history. I'll echo calls for the author to read WP:CIR; no one with even passing familiarity with our policies should think this type of gossip-rag article is remotely acceptable. DFlhb (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G10. There's no way this should stay in the revision history in the event of a merge.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 02:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * G10 and redirect: Is biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced and there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Fails WP:BLP1E, and would be better off just in the list. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 02:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: has blanked this and tagged for G10. C LYDE  TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 03:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Without comment about its notability or anything else about this discussion, I agree with decision to decline the G10 nomination as this article does not, in my assessment, meet those criteria. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I have untagged the article. I think since this AFD is in progress, it is better to come to a decision here rather than a quick speedy deletion. If the AFD decision is to Delete, then this decision could be enforced if there are future versions of this article that pop up. An article that is deleted by CSD can always be recreated with the smears toned down. This is an important discussion about whether there should be articles in main space about anonymous Wikipedia editors. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Continuing from what I said before, and perhaps for the benefit of anyone reading I think it is important to stress that deleting this merely for reflecting poorly on Cross is a bad argument and would set a bad precedent. Note, for example, that we have articles on both the Seigenthaler affair (which doxes the guy who wrote the article) and the Essjay controversy (which features not only his name, but a bigass photo of Essjay in its lead). The difference is that both of them have a solid assload of citations demonstrating sustained, in-depth coverage; what was the deal with the Siegenthaler hoax? What was the deal with Essjay? We are capable of writing the whole story, in a way that's reliably sourced and verifiable, which is why it is good for us to have articles about them. In this case, however, the entirety of the coverage seems limited to a couple complaints in 2018, none of which seem to have subsequently been revisited (Philip did continue editing for several years afterward, seemingly without attracting any attention from media outlets by doing so, even though he kept doing basically the same stuff as he was before). This means that it is not possible for us to write an article that tells the whole story without resorting to weird borderline original research like "what percentage of Wikipedia's top editors are actually pseudonymous?" or "how many edits does he actually have?" et cetera. jp×g 08:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @JPxG I agree with your argument. It’s really a good one tbh and frankly make sense. A mention on the List of Wikipedia controversies, I think, will be enough for a problem this size. Stay safe FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do believe this is an attack page but I would say the same it this about, say, a journalist for The Economist (chosen as an example because its articles are written anonymously). I agree that negative articles about Wikipedians who wish to remain anonymous can be warranted when the sourcing is there and the tone is neutral. For Essjay, it was in the formative years on Wikipedia and generated media and academic discussion about internet anonymity and crowdsourcing knowledge from unqualified individuals. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some relevant content on this belongs at List of Wikipedia controversies but the writing here is so outside of neutral that I can't support maintaining the revision history or the current language. Cross doesn't seem notable outside of a single burst of reporting; there is no sustained coverage on them. Also it's deeply unclear to me why "The Philip Cross Affair" is treated as a secondary title and redirects here, since as far as I can tell that's only the title of one blog post . Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 17:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Overly polemical attack page, also general lack of verifiability and sourcing. -- Prodraxis talk contribs  02:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per the above, some of this could be rewritten into List of Wikipedia controversies, but fails the 10Y test (or even the 10 minute test...) - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete largely because this is at best borderline notable and the BLP implications mentioned at this AFD. Afterwards though, redirect to List_of_Wikipedia_controversies, where the Haaretz and BBC sources can be used. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there's ever any point to redirecting disambiguated titles with parentheses in them. You'd need to type the exact title, guessing which disambiguation was used (was it "Wikipedian"? was it "Wikipedia editor"?) in order to reach the redirect, since it wouldn't show up in the search. DFlhb (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete/Strong delete. Unacceptable attack page. It's inconceivable that this should even have reached this stage. Should have been deleted as an attack page at the very outset. Violates the most basic principles of BLP and everything the Wikipedia community stands for. My words may mean nothing, but my sincerest best wishes to Philip Cross. Disgusted to see this. --Technopat (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I mostly decided to remove myself from this conversation and let Wikipedia do its thing. Howver, There are mentions of personal attacks but you added a layer of disgust which is just intriguing.
 * The thing we write here has consequences in real life, actually this is part of real life. For an editor to (1) edit pages in a very skewed way to the extent it catches BBC attention, and (2) go on twitter to call people - who he is actively editing their pages - “goons”, and (3) being blocked from editing on the topic of British politics and breach it. And you calling the message “disgusting”, and Not the actions?
 * kill the messenger! FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Based on the arguments and materials presented so far, it seems more appropriate as a short entry in the "List of Wikipedia controversies" article, rather than as a standalone article with a lot of problematic content. JoseJan89 (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.