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

Proposed decision
This should be posted within the next 24 hours, give or take. Apologies for the delay. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by 2017 complainant
"There is no evidence to indicate that Philip Cross ... has coordinated with any other editors or organizations in his editing."

This is incorrect. A document clearly showing this coordination was submitted via a link on the Workshop page. A clerk later stated that on the request of an arbitrator this link would be redacted as a violation of Wikipedia protocol, but this has not been done and it remains on the page as of this moment.

It therefore appears that the committee has chosen to ignore this evidence. 121.72.188.161 (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The worst aspect of the proposed decision is the failure to express due contrition or concern for those harmed, in particular the way it presents the perpetrator as a victim and the defensive actions taken by some of the many real victims in response to Wikipedia abuses as "harassment." The mindset of insider solidarity against outsiders that has been evident at all stages of the process, while it is to be expected, is not conducive to public confidence in the justice of Wikipedia procedures and will not reduce the future likelihood that action against abusive editors will be taken by their victims without reference to Wikipedia interests and processes and in ways that contradict Wikipedia's internal norms.

I want to put on record that as an outsider and complete novice I was factually able to take part in the proceedings and was treated by most participants with perfect courtesy, although as noted above I fear that my ignorance of external linking policy may have allowed the suppression of evidence I submitted incorrectly.

In conclusion: some of the egregious problems exposed by this case have been recognised to exist, albeit somewhat euphemistically, and steps seem likely to be taken in the direction of resolving some of them. Overall, despite the many flaws in this "arbitration" process, its results seem likely to be modestly positive, in terms of reducing the personal animus and the oligarchic bias and propaganda that permeate Wikipedia politics and biography articles and also in terms of raising awareness among editors of the harm Wikipedia sometimes causes to victims of abusive editing. 121.72.188.161 (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading news articles or tweets and then editing related Wikipedia articles is not coordination or collusion in any typical sense of the word. I don't even find the evidence that Philip Cross regularly edited in response to Oliver Kamm's tweets to be credible. As a journalist, Kamm is tweeting about topical things in the news, things that Cross could have read about in any number of relevant publications. As for concern for article subjects, I would recommend a re-reading of the principles section of the proposed decision, which clearly states the impact that editing BLPs may have on the article subject and urges the strongest possible caution when doing so. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The sheer scale and closeness of the synchrony between propaganda ("opinion") articles in the Times, Kamm attack tweets and biassed Cross Wikipedia edits demonstrated in that document is what makes this collusion, despite collusion not being typically used to describe such interactions. Your attempted exculpatory narrative also failed to account for the phenomenon that a Kamm/Cross political vilification binge can start with a Cross edit rather than a Kamm tweet or Times hit piece.


 * But I take your comment as an assurance that you did at least look at the document in question, thank you. And I totally understand why you would be disposed not to acknowledge the Murdoch-to-Wikipedia political propaganda train despite its obviousness. I urge anyone interested to look at the evidence and form their own conclusions.


 * Added in response to Huldra's comments: the particular newsworthiness of some of the targets of a Cross/Kamm attack at the time of the attack is not in doubt, but it is simply not the total explanation Huldra wants to make it. As Philip Cross himself put it here: 'In my defence, pointing to the "(Philip) Cross-Referencing" document, I should note that Diane Abbott, Ken Loach, Seumas Milne, Max Mosley, Alex Salmond, Nick Timothy and Mark Wadsworth were very much in the news when Oliver Kamm's tweets either preceded or followed my edits to Wikipedia.'


 * But what about the other three quarters of the attack victims listed in that document who weren't particular news foci at the time that the Cross/Kamm nexus was attacking them on Wikipedia and Twitter? Or who were such foci solely because of a synchronised attack piece in The Times? The ones for whom even Cross didn't try to raise Huldra's defence of coincidence through newsworthiness?


 * The example Huldra cited, of the attacks on Hayward and Robinson and the research group they were part of, actually proves the converse of her thesis. The formation of an academic research group is not front-page newsworthy and this particular one only became so because The Times, Kamm's employer, chose to create a media furore, with a hyped-up pseudo-exposé falsely smearing the academics as "Assad apologists" and witch-hunting them over their employment at "British universities." A vicious propaganda piece ... that soon found its way to their Wikipedia pages courtesy of Philip Cross.


 * To sum up: the facile assumption that the Times/Kamm/Cross vilificatory collaboration is a mere coincidence driven by the immediate topicality of their victims simply doesn't stack up, given a proper consideration of the evidence, which is unequivocal. It is a serious defect of this Arbitration Committee decision that it completely fails to acknowledge this discreditable collusion. Sadly, it means that similar abuses of Wikipedia by outside parties for political propaganda will inevitably continue unchecked, and this will come back to bite the Wikipedia project.


 * Refusing to acknowledge unwelcome phenomena is seldom a good strategy for dealing with them. 121.72.162.200 (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Once again in response to Huldra's comments. To repeat, the Times/Kamm/Cross collusion to attack Murdoch's targets on Wikipedia has nothing to do with collusion between Wikipedia editors. It's about collusion between a biased editor (Philip Cross) on Wikipedia and external partisan interests (The Times including Oliver Kamm).


 * The Syria propaganda research group case involved Murdoch and his Times minions, including Kamm, creating a news event that didn't exist before by means of their disgraceful hit piece against the academics in the Times and using social media, including Kamm tweets. That political aggression reached Wikipedia as collusion with outside forces when Philip Cross edited the academics' pages into attack pages based on the Murdoch-machine propaganda, not when another editor created the pages as innocuous stubs, after the Times hit piece but before Philip Cross got to them.


 * The point is that this was no innocent coincidence where Philip Cross simply edited something newsworthy: instead what happened here, as in literally dozens of other cases, was that the Times political propaganda machine, usually personified as Oliver Kamm, took aim at a particular political opponent (sometimes, but usually not when that person was already a news focus) and then Philip Cross retailed the Murdochian vilifications, often simply by referencing and transcribing them, as biased Wikipedia edits. (Added: and it's noteworthy that sometimes hostile Cross edits start the sequence, not Times pieces or Kamm tweets, including where the person is not at the time a news focus, demonstrating that the collusive interaction is two-way, Cross to Kamm as well as Kamm to Cross.)


 * That's how Wikipedia politics pages tended by Philip Cross have become expressions of Rupert Murdoch's politics. That evident collusion is amply documented in the "(Philip) Cross-referencing" document shared on Twitter. It can't be found on Wikipedia edit histories because the collusion did not actually take place within the little world of Wikipedia but in the wider world, in which more powerful, more organised and more ruthless forces like the media oligarch Rupert Murdoch pursue their oligarchic aims making use of the likes of Kamm, Cross and Wikipedia.


 * So long as Wikipedia remains incapable of recognising that it is being made use of, even when, as here, all the work proving the collusion has been done by others and brought to Wikipedia on a plate, the encyclopedia will remain a political plaything of outside forces, no matter how often you look pointlessly at edit histories and comfort yourselves with the thought that "there is nothing to see here." 121.72.162.200 (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the principles section "clearly states the impact that BLPs can have on the subject." If it did it would have to acknowledge potential serious harm, but all it says is that "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives," a classic of euphemism through vagueness. 121.72.188.161 (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC) And I note that the draft decision expresses precisely zero concern or regret for the harm that was done to particular persons who were the subjects of Philip Cross's long-term attack editing, rather than to BLP subjects in general; this contrasts sharply with the tender, personalised concern shown over Cross's so-called "harrassment" that came in response to his own anonymous attacks ("Cross was quite arguably in the wrong here, but..."). Lastly on this topic, I want to point out that outside Wikipedia circles, someone who outed, or sought to out, an editor who had used the anonymity provided by Wikipedia to vilify them on a global platform for over a decade would generally not be seen as the perpetrator of an inexcusable crime but as a victim of harm making a reasonable and legitimate preliminary response to a tort. That applies especially in the current case, since redress through Wikipedia itself looked out of the question as Philip Cross himself boasted in his Twitter taunts to the "goons" he was vilifying on the encyclopedia. 121.72.188.161 (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Statements by Huldra

 * I mostly agree with what BU Rob13 says above, at 15:55, 18 July. What "insiders" to Wikipedia knows very well is that when something appear in the news, two things happen: A) the article(s) about the subject gets a lot of views, B) the same articles get a lot of edits. Take one example from my own area (Israel/Palestine): when it was finally revealed in early February, 2016, which kibbutz Bernie Sanders had been to, (namely Sha'ar HaAmakim), page views on that article for a while went from below 5 a day to several thousands a day (link). At the same time, loads of editors were editing the page. There was no off-side coordination....this happen virtually every time anything comes into the news.
 * Secondly, yes, I agree that some of the attacks on some of the WP:BLPs were inexcusable, however, some of the attacks on Cross from off-Wikipeda was also so. Especially the attempts to out him. (As an anon myself, I react very strongly to that. I have had attack pages like  this and this made about my Huldra nick; how fun do you think it would be to have the same about my real name?) IMO, non-Wikipedians simply have no idea about the level of harassment that Wikipedians can be subject to. And yes, Wikipedians "gut reaction" when we see outing attempts is to "circle the wagons", (or, as 121.72.188.161 put it;  "insider solidarity against outsiders"), Huldra (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've moved this from the "Statement by 2017 complainant" section to its own section as directed by a member of the committee. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding 121.72.188.161 statement above: "...also failed to account for the phenomenon that a Kamm/Cross political vilification binge can start with a Cross edit rather than a Kamm tweet or Times hit piece"
 * But whether or not it starts with a Murdock hit piece, a Kamm tweet, or a Cross edit, from my understanding: there has always been an event which which has triggered this. AFAIK, the "trigger event" for the notorious Times article this spring, was the formation of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. Where was that reported first? A press release? A tweet? I don't know, but if  Cross was the first to notice it, his edit would come first.
 * Again, I repeat; when any unknown person/unknown place (in "your area of interest") appear in the news/tweets/media, any Wikipedian would rush to the article about that person/place. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an example: she didn't even have an article until less than a month ago, today she has a Wikipedia article in 17 languages. When I saw the news about the Duma arson attack, I rushed to the Duma, Nablus to expand it, as I knew that article would get thousands of views. Where did I learn about the attack? I have absolutely no idea...I can have read it in the British news, I can have read it in the Israeli news, I can a have read it in a  tweet...I have long since forgotten. But what outsiders see as  synchrony in behaviour, or collusion, I see as typical Wikipedia flock behaviour.


 * Having said that, User:RebeccaSaid certainly has a point about our BLP protection being woefully and frustratingly inadequate. Suggestions for improvements are welcome, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I posted this off wiki info on 26 May 2018. Nobody reversed me, or sanctioned me, or redacted my statement. Indeed, when I posted it, there were 2 votes against opening an arb.com case, 0 in favour. After I posted several arb.coms referred to my statement, and voted in favour of opening a case.(Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles). I haven't followed what Kal Holmann have linked to off wiki. Was it that much  worse than what I linked to? Huldra (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You posted that material prior to our instructions not to link to off-wiki material during the case, and we did not retroactively enforce that restriction. It was also prior to organized efforts off-wiki by certain individuals to doxx Philip Cross, which raised the urgency to evaluate off-wiki material privately rather than allowing it on-wiki without review. We set up a bright line on posting off-wiki material to ensure nothing was posted that could lead people to private information. Once such information is posted, even accidentally (e.g. linking to the Twitter feed of someone who proceeds to later doxx Philip Cross), removal doesn't undo the damage. I can understand perfectly why such a restriction on the case pages would be a bit confusing at first, which is why we issued warnings instead of sanctions when it was violated. KalHolmann was the only case of an editor who repeatedly ignored those warnings and so the only case where we feel a remedy may be appropriate. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:BU Rob13, thanks for your reply. But as a matter of fact: a certain well known individual tweeted 12 May that he would offer £ 1k for the positive identification of Philip Cross; that was certainly before I posted my info on the 26th of May.
 * To 2017 complainant/121.72.162.200: you forget (or didn't know?) about wiki-stalking. Now, for regular editors in an area, it is perfectly normal to check out what the "other regulars" in your "area of interest" are doing. We had an editor in the I/P area, who started a lot of articles...mostly short articles about places; I would "wiki-stalk" him and the "flesh out" the articles with their history.
 * In the English area, you have a similar user: one who has started 4522 articles on Wikipedia, mostly on presently living English people. I would assume this is a user virtually anyone interested in British politics  would "wiki-stalk". After the Times hit piece, this user started the Piers Robinson, Tim Hayward (academic) and the Tara McCormack articles. The three articles looked ok when Philafrenzy left them: bare, but pretty neutral. After a day or two, Philip Cross  came along and turned them into attack bios.
 * A couple of questions: did Philafrenzy start those three articles due to reading about them in the Times? Yes, most probably he did. Did he have any sinister reason for starting them? (ie, did he want to make it into attack WP:BLPs?) No, I see no reason to believe that. He looks as if he is a guy who start a lot of short, pretty neutral articles about anyone who turns up in the news.
 * The Editor Interaction Analyser show that Philafrenzy/Philip Cross edit in the same area, but not any specific collusion; ie no "Philafrenzy start article —> Philip Cross makes them attack BLPs" pattern can be detected.
 * (Look at the Editor Interaction Analyser for myself, and another editor in the IP area: anyone can tell you that we are from the "opposite side of divide" in the I/P area, alas, our edit often overlap with the same articles.)
 * To repeat: I see no obvious signs of off-wikipedia collusion/coordination. (Having said that: such off-wikipedia collusion/coordination can be notoriously difficult to prove; you basically have to "infiltrate" a group to get the proof. That has happened a couple of times, see the WP:EEML and this case). BUT: everything I have seen in this case, can easily be explained by "normal" Wikipedia practice.
 * Having said all that: all is not well on Wikipedia (and that is a huge understatement). A group of people can dominate an area. The Systemic bias article is only an essay (ie, not vetted policy on WP), but it is very real problem, non the less. And it looks like modern British politics is in ....not a good shape. (I spent a couple of hours yesterday, trying to clean up the Naz Shah article, which was one of the worst attack BLPs I have ever seen on WP. Alas, some think every tweet deleted after a few minutes is more important than her policy proposals....sigh), Huldra (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by involved party Kal Holmann
So now I'm being punished for "repeated boundary pushing" in the course of alerting our community, in the face of interference and condescension by a longtime administrator, to an editor whose behavior was then adversely impacting the English Wikipedia. KalHolmann (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

[Redacted copyrighted material. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)]


 * You were specifically asked to refrain from behavior which violated the explicit instructions on the Evidence page for off-wiki evidence. You continued to engage in that behavior despite more than one removal and warning. It could not be any simpler. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We asked you repeatedly to send such material to the Committee privately. It wasn't the material you provided. It was how you provided it, in the face of repeated instructions and warnings. Since you've proven unable to follow instructions related to the handling of off-wiki material, we're setting up a bright-line. Please note that I've removed the copyrighted Catch-22 quote that you posted above and had to revision-delete the copyrighted material from the page history. Do not post copyrighted material on ArbCom case pages (or anywhere, for that matter). ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Disclosure in response to proposed principle 3.1.5. Scrutiny for off-wiki behavior states, "Editors who have publicly tied their Wikipedia usernames to other online or offline activities may become subject to on-wiki scrutiny of their off-wiki behavior that would impact adversely on the English Wikipedia." Please be advised that I have publicly tied my Wikipedia username to two online social media accounts. My Facebook account is inactive and does not mention Wikipedia. However, my Twitter account is active and prominently identifies me as a Wikipedian. Most of my tweets pertain to Wikipedia; they are mainly informational but some may be contentious. I'll try to refrain from outing other editors—not because ArbCom is threatening me, but because Philip Cross's example has sensitized me to the potential harm a self-identified Wikipedian can inflict on Wikipedia's reputation off-wiki. My goal on Twitter is to help increase understanding and stimulate public discourse of Wikipedia-related issues. I invite your scrutiny. KalHolmann (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the context of this case, which is about a self-identified Wikipedian feuding openly on Twitter with the subjects of Wikipedia BLPs that he frequently edited, I must also disclose that I occasionally tweet about Chelsea Manning, for whose BLP I am in the Top 10 by edits (3.9%) and by added text (9.5%). However, I do not tweet directly to Manning's account and have never addressed her as "punk" or "goon," both of which Philip Cross called George Galloway. I try at all times to be respectful to Chelsea Manning, even when questioning her actions. If, nevertheless, ArbCom sees this as a COI, I welcome your input. KalHolmann (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for Evidence of my Offenses

On 17 June 2018, during the Evidence phase for this case, I was re-added as an involved party at the direction of the Arbitration Committee. I was not notified of this development, either at my talk page or via email. Nevertheless, after spotting it at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles, I requested via email on 17 June 2018 that all evidence against me be posted publicly at the Evidence page. "If evidence must be submitted privately by email to ArbCom," I added, "I request that the committee share it with me in a timely manner so that I may respond before the Evidence phase closes on 22 Jun 2018." On the closing day of the Evidence phase, Rob replied to me by email on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, "At this time, we've received no private evidence related to you. If we did, you would receive an opportunity to respond to it before we made our decision. You were re-added as a party mainly due to your prior involvement in the dispute and conduct during the case." No evidence against me was posted at the Evidence page subsequent to or in explanation of my being re-added as an involved party.

On 23 Jun 2018, during the Workshop phase for this case, I requested removal as a party, noting that I had been re-added "without specified charges." Arbitrator PMC replied, "Again, there are no charges, and this is not a criminal court." Arbitrator Rob replied, "As has already been communicated to you, your addition as a party was based on your involvement in the underlying dispute (without comment on whether that involvement was in any way problematic) and your conduct during the case."

Despite these reassurances, however, immediately upon opening the Proposed Decision phase, ArbCom issued a Proposed Finding of Fact that I had "persistently attempted to link to private and/or off-wiki evidence despite repeated instructions and warnings to submit such things privately to the Arbitration Committee," with a Proposed Remedy that I be "indefinitely banned from linking to or speculating about the off-wiki behavior or identity of other editors."

I now request that ArbCom enumerate my offenses for the record, diff by diff, preferably in public here at Wikipedia but if necessary privately via email. This will be essential during the Appeal phase. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * User:BU Rob13 on July 23, 2018, added to Proposed Remedies: "All appeals must be directed toward {Nospam|arbcom-l|lists.wikimedia.org}." He explained, "This is due to the nature of the behavior that led to the restriction. A discussion of off-wiki material will be required in any appeal, and that shouldn't appear on-wiki." However, ArbCom has not responded here or off-wiki by email to my July 21, 2018 Request for Evidence of my Offenses. I believe it is essential for me to see this evidence now, while it is still fresh in everyone's memory and off-wiki sources remain online, in order to prepare my appeal. KalHolmann (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have seen this and we will respond by email when time permits. I’ve been rather busy the last couple days, so I haven’t yet collected the diffs for you. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by RebeccaSaid
Concur with IP user regarding the victim status of Cross. Painting him as a victim is comparable to someone repeatedly punching another person/s in the face & then whining when someone finally punches back. I am aware of the harassment that can go with editing contentious areas & I don't condone that at all. But this isn't comparable to an ex-editor with a grudge, creating an "outing" article on Encyclopedia Dramatica, for example; or being attacked for trying to edit articles around Israel/Palestine, a subject that can cause issues whatever platform. This is long-term, & crucially, unaddressed abuse of both article subjects & Wikipedia itself.

Wikipedia Editors edit by choice. They have the option to do so behind a nickname or anonymously. They choose what to edit. They choose how to edit. They are also in full control of their off-wiki activities & they have a choice whether to link the two together.

Cross chose to edit the articles of his targets. He chose to do so in a malicious fashion, allowing his COI to impact negatively on the article and article subjects. He chose to put his personal information into the public domain. He is fully responsible for his off-wiki trolling, abuse & blogs, which he chose to link to Wikipedia. Outside of the Wikipedia World mindset, years of malicious online activity has consequences & If you make the choices Cross made you leave yourself open to exactly that.

For clarification of his attitude towards off-Wiki complaints, you only have to look at his User page history: some would say he revelled in the attention.     

Best of all he issues an "explicit challenge"  to which he got a response. He actually claimed to be enjoying the attention it was bringing him a couple of days before George Galloway got involved. He is no victim.

Also outside of the Wikipedia World mindset, KalHolmann would be thanked for flagging up the activities of Cross. If he hadn't become vocal &, instead, simply allowed Guy to shut down discussion as one big "nothingburger", nothing would have been done & Cross would've continued in the same vein in which he's been allowed to operate over the years.

With regards to him linking information about the identity, or speculating about the identity, of Wiki Editors, there was no speculation with Cross. That information is on-wiki & was put there by Cross himself.

   

Here we have Guy waxing lyrical about "outing" & how the rules are "firm & non-negotiable". Quote "We do not include, or link to, speculation about the real-world identities of editors..........Normally, anyone who does this is instantly banned". That actually happened to me personally on the Workshop page & ....crickets.

It seems all editors are equal, but some are more equal than others...

The posting of off-wiki evidence? He wasn't the only person to make that mistake, yet he's the only one being penalized for it.

Pretty much sums up how he has been treated since he first raised the issues. Regardless, I am sure the long list of targets of Cross, & those Wikipedians who clearly saw the problem, are grateful that the editor wasn't successfully bullied into silence & finally something is being done.

Thanks for allowing me to participate. It's been an eye opener. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * He was the only one to ignore repeated instructions and warnings to cease adding off-wiki material on case pages and instead send it directly to the Committee by email. Plenty of people were warned, and most of them made private submissions that were fully weighed and considered by the Committee. None of his actions bringing this to the attention of the community or the Committee led to a restriction. Indeed, before he started trying to repeatedly push boundaries on our submission rules, we had removed him as a party to the case entirely. It was his actions afterwards, while refusing to stop posting links to off-wiki information, that led to the proposed remedy. As for your allegations you were outed, you explicitly linked an external account to your Wikipedia account. Mentioning that is not outing, as you yourself have argued above. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Rob, If he did, I am not surprised. As IP User below states "KalHolmann was consistently met with obstruction from Wikipedia admins when he was trying to push this case through dispute resolution, before ArbCom got involved. Many would have given up. So it is understandable that, after having faced all that, to then be forced to submit to what appeared to be arbitrary restrictions on evidence would've appeared like simply another attempt at trying to shut this thing down by Wikipedia insiders. Taking all that into account, I do think KalHolmann's actions are understandable, and that the suggested restriction on KalHolmann is going too far."
 * How about the actions of Guy? Not content with shutting down conversation, twice & within minutes, he even went as far as to try & get KalHolmann topic banned from talking about Cross. With that in mind, I totally understand his frustration & lack of confidence in the process & in the real world it would be taken into account as mitigation.
 * Yes I linked a FiveFilters article to my talk page, but I'm not FiveFilters & I don't see the relevance of that article to someone explicitly referencing my real-life Twitter account in the workshop. It's certainly not a connection I made or published on here. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment removed at the direction of committee members --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What I am being accused of exactly? Being a sock or the sock master maybe? I have one account and this is it. I am not linked to any other account & nor am I editing from St Petersburg, but scrutinize away! --RebeccaSaid (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment removed at the direction of committee members --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I obviously can't comment about the IP users, so I suggest you ask them if you have any concerns, perhaps under a separate section. Re: single-purpose account, I was quite clear when I opened the account why I had done so - "Only here for the ArbCom". I don't recall quoting policy in my first edit or, in fact, quoting it much at all. My focus here was providing evidence, not quoting internal policies.
 * But FYI I am just a standard member of the public who, like many others, heard about the Cross case via Twitter & in the media. It piqued my interest, so I looked into it further. Bearing in mind the negative impact his actions have had on some of his targets, I decided to submit the evidence I had found to ArbCom & take part in the case, which they kindly permitted me to do. Simple as that. Nothing odd about it. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by OID
The neutrality statement is wrong at both ends. As it stands at the front you imply the material has to be neutral (not what NPOV means) and at the back you place undue weight on negative material (again not what NPOV says). Its entirely misleading and NPOV is misunderstood enough. Just restate the first line of NPOV with the emphasis on the sections that apply to this case - "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by 94.46.131.7
A few comments on the proposed decision:

Harassment of Philip Cross

4) Philip Cross was the subject of an intense campaign of harassment and intimidation both on-wiki and off-wiki during this case, including the creation of attack pages, efforts to obtain and reveal his personal details, and unsupported speculation that he is a state agent.

I'm glad ArbCom has recognised that "Philip Cross has demonstrated a conflict of interest", but his conduct also constitutes harassment. To include a section highlighting harassment of Philip Cross, while not mentioning his own harassment of BLP subjects is hypocritical. I agree with the comment made by 121.72.188.161:

"I note that the draft decision expresses precisely zero concern or regret for the harm that was done to particular persons who were the subjects of Philip Cross's long-term attack editing, rather than to BLP subjects in general; this contrasts sharply with the tender, personalised concern shown over Cross's so-called 'harrassment' that came in response to his own anonymous attacks"

Links to off-wiki evidence

6) KalHolmann persistently attempted to link to private and/or off-wiki evidence despite repeated instructions and warnings to submit such things privately to the Arbitration Committee.

It was never clear why off-wiki evidence was prohibited. Especially off-wiki evidence which was mainly about on-wiki edits. To punish someone for linking to that evidence, when the reasons for not doing so appeared to simply be 'because we say so', seems a little excessive, to say the least.

Furthermore, KalHolmann was consistently met with obstruction from Wikipedia admins when he was trying to push this case through dispute resolution, before ArbCom got involved. Many would have given up. So it is understandable that, after having faced all that, to then be forced to submit to what appeared to be arbitrary restrictions on evidence would've appeared like simply another attempt at trying to shut this thing down by Wikipedia insiders. Taking all that into account, I do think KalHolmann's actions are understandable, and that the suggested restriction on KalHolmann is going too far.

It's also worth noting that despite the attention given to the harassment of Philip Cross and disobedience of KalHolmann, nothing has been said about the actions of Wikipedia admins in their dealing with KalHolmann and obstruction of his attempts to highlight Cross's conflict of interest. Again, if you are going to criticise others, please be fair. 94.46.131.7 (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Any harassment Philip Cross committed was entirely off-wiki directed at individuals who are not editors. We rule about on-wiki issues/disputes, as noted in the principles. To be very clear, the Committee is not condoning Cross’ off-wiki actions nor suggesting they wouldn’t be sanctionable if they had an on-wiki component. They simply aren’t within our jurisdiction except to the extent they constitute a conflict of interest. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, Rob. To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that ArbCom should be ruling on Cross's harassment of BLP subjects off-wiki. Simply that as it stands, someone who has not followed the case reading the 'Proposed decision' page will come away with the impression that while Cross has a conflict of interest, and is being topic banned because of it, he himself has not harassed anyone, only been subjected to "an intense campaign of harassment and intimidation both on-wiki and off-wiki". That's disingenuous. If you are able to have a section 'Proposed findings of fact' where off-wiki behaviour is acknowledged (with no action or ruling tied to it), then it's also possible to acknowledge harassment by Cross of his Wikipedia subjects off-wiki. 94.46.131.7 (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not consider it within our jurisdiction to have such a finding of fact. The best we can do is note the limitations of this process, which we’re doing in the final principle. ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

number 7
Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.

We know that, it is wp:blp - and although I support the topic ban decision, I would have preferred a total wp:blp ban - I notice the editor has already migrated to topics outside his upcoming ban and to other controversial topics, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Miller_(sociologist)&diff=prev&oldid=851176200 islamaphobia, he is a clever editor banned from his primary contribution area, let's hope and watch out for that he just doesn't just move to another topic area. David Miller (sociologist) is a living person - Govindaharihari (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Iffy
To respond to User:Newyorkbrad's point that I suspect (the proposed topic ban) could be somewhat narrower than all post-1978 British politics, but no one seems to be advocating for such a version, the reason for this is because the participants in this case fall in to 2 groups, one group that feel that Philip Cross' current topic ban is fine and doesn't need extending, and another that believe that Philip Cross' editing is so harmful that the topic ban should be extended very broadly, even as far as all BLPs (I fall in the former group). Nobody is advocating for a middle ground between the 2 positions, so it is up to the committee to come up with such a middle ground if they so desire. Iffy★Chat -- 08:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)