Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Case

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 19:43, 26 July 2018 (fmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: L235 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: BU Rob13 (Talk) & Premeditated Chaos (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened on 14:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Case closed on 18:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Case information

Involved parties

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

Statement by JzG

Philip Cross (PC) is a long-standing and prolific editor who has made many edits to articles about George Galloway and related topics, generally (ahem) not supportive of Galloway. Galloway has attacked PC off-wiki for this [1], and encouraged outing [2]. Galloway characterises this as politically motivated attacks on "anti-war" people - I find this unpersuasive, not least per the lede of the Galloway article. For the same reason I find the idea of a directed attack against Galloway to be entirely plausible. Galloway is a divisive and marginal figure with more enemies than friends, and any properly neutral depiction of him is unlikely to please him, but in the view of many PC's edits go well beyond that.

PC has not helped his case: he has responded to and then sparred with Galloway off-wiki and in doing so openly linked to his Wikipedia persona. That implicitly drags Wikipedia into the battle, and editors apparently supportive of Galloway, notably KalHolmann, have duly brought the battle back home, making numerous (IMO speculative) complaints of COI and (also speculatively) linking PC to other accounts / real world individuals.

This is under discussion at AN, where I raised it, but I think the involvement of private data and the off-wiki element makes that a dangerous route to final determination - the AN thread already includes encouragement to off-wiki sleuthing, which precedent shows to be a bad idea.

It is somewhat unfair of me to single out KalHolmann as a party, he is representative of a number of others but he seems to be the most vocal and will IMO at least be able to clearly articulate the concerns of the pro-Galloway camp. KalHolmann has engaged in some forum shopping / canvassing and adding content about the dispute from inappropriate sources such as Sputnik e.g. [3] (Galloway works for Sputnik, an RT brand), but issues with KalHolmann's conduct seem low grade and should not obscure a possibly much bigger problem with PC. Either that or PC is the victim of an off-wiki harassment campaign and needs to be able to clear his name, which is very difficult without credible evidence of his real-world identity, which, if released, would likely result in physical danger to him.

This is an off-wiki dispute about Wikipedia, imported to Wikipedia. It is inherently difficult for the community to handle not least because some off-wiki material would result in an instant block or ban if repeated here and we have very blurred lines about linking to off-wiki outing and harassment. A temporary injunction may be needed to prevent (a) further questionable edits by PC and (b) continued problematic behaviour by Galloway apologists. There may be a need for private submission of evidence due to off-wiki outing speculation and other issues.

I believe that ArbCom is the only appropriate venue to resolve this issue as I do not think it can be solved without private data and potentially privately establishing real world identities. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pace Cullen328, I am not ascribing motives here. If you come to Wikipedia bearing allegations from RT, it natural to suspect that they may have a dog in the fight, especially when the edit history consists largely or exclusively of politically charged articles. I do not assert, and would like to be clear on this, that everyone concerned about PC is pro-Galloway. If it were only boosters v. knockers it would be an easy one to fix. Many good faith onlookers express concern, hence bringing this here. Apologies if I seemed to be casting aspersions. I'm really not. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Philip Cross

Not a formal statement, but a response to the points raised by two Arbcom members below. I will not edit the George Galloway article again for an indeterminate length of time regardless of any decision. This also includes quite minor changes, like the two I made on 24 May 2018 here and here which I unwisely assumed would be entirely uncontentious and could not be interpretated as being anything other than "positive". Plus the other articles which have been queried by interested parties, including the article about Oliver Kamm with the proviso about very minor edits also applying to them, and accepting any interventions by administrators if I should err in future. Philip Cross (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the comment by Newyorkbrad below to the points raised by Huldra, I posted this on the Administrator's noticeboard a few minutes ago. 18:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I have recently posted comments on my user talk page which are relevant to the (closed) Administrator's Noticeboard discussion and the discussion here, especially the comments made below by User:Boing! said Zebedee. Philip Cross (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (7/1/0)

  • Awaiting statements, but I've read through the ANI thread and I think I have the gist. Philip Cross previously acknowledged that given recent developments he should not be editing the George Galloway article much. At this point I ask h im if he is willing to step away altogether from editing that article and perhaps a few related ones given his active participation in the controversy off-site. His doing so would not be a concession of any wrongdoing, merely an acknowledgement that it's a big wiki and no one should be indispensable in any particular place. One is free to call a public figure names on Twitter, and one is free to edit the public figure's Wikipedia article, but it is better for the same editor not to do both of these things. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My initial inclination was to decline a case at this point based on the commitment Philip Cross made above, but I've now seen the statement by Huldra and I believe it warrants Philip Cross's response. That response should be posted here to the extent it does not involve private information, and otherwise by e-mail to the Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section of the BLP policy stating that an editor who is in an off-wiki dispute with someone should not edit that someone's biographical article derives from principles developed in decisions by this Committee (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs). Like any other wiki-policy or guideline, this rule needs to be construed and enforced in a sensible fashion. ¶ The community has concluded on the noticeboard, and I agree, that Philip Cross may no longer editing George Galloway. There is also an emerging consensus that Philip Cross should avoid other articles involving the people and entities with whom he has publicly quarreled; either the Committee or the AN discussion needs to work out the proper scope of a restriction (Philip Cross may himself wish to suggest one for consideration). I am not convinced that Philip Cross should be banned from all BLP editing, although I'm still reading the statements as they come in. ¶ I am not inclined to accept a case focused on Philip Cross's frequency of editing or allegations of that nature. While all editors should indeed seek a healthy wiki-life balance, many of the external-site claims about Philip Cross's quantity of editing appear to be overblown. ¶ There is no need for a case concerning KalHolmann. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Brad. If PC doesn’t agree to step away, I would vote to accept this case, probably to be heard privately due to the apparent outing issues here. ~ Rob13Talk 15:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline based on the statement by PC¶¶, with a note that I will vote to accept a private case in the future if issues arise again. If PC has no intention to edit the article again, I see nothing for us to do here right now. ~ Rob13Talk 16:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Euryalus and RickinBaltimore: Philip Cross is already topic banned indefinitely. ~ Rob13Talk 00:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck my decline. When I wrote it, this had been presented as a relatively simple issue on a narrow topic of Galloway. It's clear that's no longer the case. In particular, the claims of long-term POV pushing may warrant a look. This is normally something I'd want to push to the community, but because of the outing/privacy concerns, this seems to be the appropriate venue. If we wind up having a case, I'm leaning public case with encouragement to submit any evidence that involves private information to the Committee by email. Awaiting statements. ~ Rob13Talk 02:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept to examine the issue of COI/BLP editing by PC more broadly. Normally, this would be something the community could do, but that's not ideal given the off-wiki and private information involved. I think the case should be public, since PC's editing record should be scrutinized, but anything off-wiki should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee via email. If it turns out not to be private, we can post it publicly. ~ Rob13Talk 03:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline with the same priviso that if the issues reoccur we should accept a private case. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their commitment not to edit the Galloway article "for an indeterminate period" is noted, but would prefer we formalise this as a topic ban.Already done by Primefac There's a couple of other issues raised in this thread, but a topic ban motion would be a reasonable start. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tanbircdq: thanks for the list of articles, some of which offer useful context. I've removed the list from this page as some of the links are to pages which encourage outing of an editor. The Committee has seen the links, can view them in the page history, and will give them due consideration in the case request. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that the topic ban was enacted by Primefac on May 27. Am inclined to suggest we add the words "broadly construed." Other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I respect that Philip Cross is willing to not edit the Galloway article for as he put it "an indeterminate period", that period should not be up to his discretion given the edit history. I would agree with a topic ban at the least on George Galloway. Adding to this comment, I also Accept this case, as there are much wider BLP issues at hand here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic ban has now been enacted based on the noticeboard discussion. Awaiting more statements, but I agree with Newyorkbrad also; Huldra's statement warrants a fuller response from Philip Cross. It appears that Philip Cross has themselves acknowledged that the range of articles stretch beyond George Galloway, so an investigation on whether or not there was longstanding COI editing across multiple BLP articles can be of interest for all parties involved. As a minor note, I am somewhat persuaded by this statement that is currently on hold. There are some potential social ramifications from the outcome of this case that may be worth considering, despite of being possibly out of scope. Alex Shih (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept. Let's move this forward, as there have not been any new statements. A motion would probably be insufficient to examine some of the issues highlighted in this case request. It would also only be a temporary solution, as there would still be shadow cast over the remainder of Philip Cross's edits. Alex Shih (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept essentially per Alex Shih, because I think there is a general BLP issue. All personal matters are already so much in the open that I see no need for this to be done in private. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept generally, I think this something that the community cannot handle on it's own due to the private information involved. WormTT(talk) 11:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, in the interests of clarifying whether there has been ongoing COI/POV editing across BLP articles in British politics beyond just Galloway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline (but see below). Lately I always seem to show up a day late and a dollar short to arb cases, usually prompted by someone making a decision I don't like so I finally have to tell myself 'OK, you have to finish reading that today'. So - the behavior that prompted this incident is cringe-inducing. It is frankly hard to imagine how someone could be a consistently active editor for over a decade and still be under the impression that this was OK. There have been several arb cases during that time articulating the point, if it was ever somehow unclear, that you can write someone's article or you can have a personal dispute with them, but you certainly cannot do both. The commenters above who point out that this brings Wikipedia into disrepute are exactly right. Now, PC has said they'll stay away from Galloway, and a topic ban has since been enacted; I said a while back on the mailing list that I preferred to handle this request by motion to broaden that ban, and I haven't seen much since to convince me that isn't still the best solution. (Whether the mechanics of it are "decline in favor of a motion" or "accept and then dismiss by motion", I don't really care.) I do not think we should be having a private case about alleged COI and various off-wiki matters, and I equally do not think the substance of the alleged POV-pushing would warrant a case without the off-wiki stuff. What remains is the scope of the broader ban - perhaps someone has a suggestion more specific than "BLPs". Maybe "British politics", structured similarly to the American politics restrictions? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There doesn't seem to be much appetite for a motion, and I don't think the narrow topic ban as it stands covers all the bases here, so I'm somewhat reluctantly switching my vote, though I hope this won't drag on long. Accept. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and promotion of political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them or placed under sanctions, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Passed 12 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Jurisdiction

2) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction only over the behavior of editors on the English Wikipedia.

Passed 10 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Scope of the Committee

3) It is within the scope of the Arbitration Committee to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons.

Passed 12 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Off-wiki conduct

4) The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors.

Passed 12 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Scrutiny for off-wiki behavior

5) 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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Jurisdiction (2)

6) While the Arbitration Committee may take note of off-wiki behavior for the purposes of settling on-wiki disputes, restricting the behavior of users off-wiki is not within its remit.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality in biographies of living persons

8) Material about living persons must be neutral with regards to the treatment of that person in reliable sources. It is expected that all content be duly weighted and scrupulously sourced.

Passed 11 to 0 with at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Article subjects

9) Wikipedia articles are collaboratively edited, and article subjects may not dictate content. Given the sensitive nature of biographies of living persons, the editing community should seriously consider any concerns raised by article subjects about the verifiability and neutrality of material about living persons. Article subjects with such concerns should present them through an appropriate avenue. They may direct concerns to the article's talk page, the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, or to the Volunteer Response Team via email at info-en-q@wikimedia.org.

Passed 11 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

10) Editors with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. While most conflicts of interest relate to the potential for unduly positive editing, the conflict of interest guideline also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing. Editors should avoid editing in areas where they have a negative conflict of interest, as it undermines public confidence in the project.

Passed 12 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Off-wiki controversies and biographical material

11.1) An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual due to a potential conflict of interest.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Limitations of arbitration

12) Despite employing more formal procedures than other aspects of Wikipedia, Wikipedia Arbitration is not and does not purport to be a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. The Arbitration Committee strives for fairness in every case. However, the evidence is generally limited to what can be located and presented online, safeguards such as mandatory disclosure of information and cross-examination of witnesses are not available, and only issues directly affecting Wikipedia are considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be taken out of context or misused by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding.

Passed 9 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a personalized, public, off-wiki dispute with George Galloway while simultaneously making significant content edits to George Galloway’s article over an extended period of time.

Passed 12 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

2) Philip Cross has demonstrated a conflict of interest with respect to George Galloway and certain other individuals in the area of post-1978 British politics.

Passed 12 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Prior dispute resolution and topic ban

3) In a discussion at the Administrators’ noticeboard in May 2018, editors expressed significant concerns about the neutrality of Philip Cross’ edits to the George Galloway article. As a result of this discussion, Philip Cross was restricted from editing the George Galloway article directly. Subsequently, the neutrality of Philip Cross’ editing in the overall area of modern British politics was questioned.

Passed 12 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Alternate accounts

5) There is no evidence to indicate that Philip Cross has used alternate accounts or sockpuppets to edit or support his views on-wiki, nor that he has coordinated with any other editors, outside individuals, or organizations in his editing.

Passed 12 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

6) KalHolmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Philip Cross warned

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.

Passed 10 to 1 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Philip Cross topic banned

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

KalHolmann restricted

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-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Community reminded

5) 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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles&oldid=852122351"