Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Philip Cross[edit]

No action. Filer blocked for socking. Sandstein 11:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Philip Cross[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Alextiffin88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 07:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
[Philip Cross topic banned ruling] :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 08/01/19 It was well known that Riley had entered the political debate prior to this editing. As you can see from the page now there is a significant amount on politics.
  2. 08/01/19
  3. 23 November 2018 Posting a link to Oliver Kamm's article. The article mentions George Galloway, Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson all involved in post-1978 British politics. Cross's hostile editing of these pages was what led to the arbitration case in the first place.
  4. 29 November 2018 Explanation: Editing Monica Sims BBC Radio producer, Controller of Radio 4, Editor of Woman's Hour.
  5. 2 December 2018 Editing The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear BBC documentary by a British documentary film-maker. The Wikipedia article contains: "...where Tony Blair uses the threat of terrorism to give him a new moral authority."
  6. 31 December 2018 Editing Geeta Guru-Murthy Journalist "with regular work for BBC World, BBC News 24, and BBC Breakfast, and by 2005 presenting the news on BBC Radio 4."
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months in May 2018 see link above.
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months in August 2018.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Whilst Riley is new to the political debate, her connection to George Galloway for which PC has been warned on before is clear. She had been in various news and media following her public spat with Galloway. See link

Riley News Article

A warning may be sufficient but it should at the very least be looked at. As you can see from Rachel Riley's page it is now highly political.

I have added new information links above which I ask be looked at too. May I specifically bring your attention to #23 November 2018 Posting a link to Oliver Kamm's article. The article mentions George Galloway, Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson all involved in post-1978 British politics. Cross's hostile editing of these pages was what led to the arbitration case in the first place. Is this not something that should be considered
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
Explained on Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Discussion concerning Philip Cross[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Philip Cross[edit]

Statement by (Alextiffin88)[edit]

Cross intentionally edited an article on Rachel Riley despite knowing her entry into UK Political debate. Whilst it may seem minor it is still a breach of the ruling on post 1978 political articles.

Whilst it may be on the fringe I believe that the connection to George Galloway is what is relevant in this case.

The anti-Semitism debate which is well founded is currently a highly political event that PC would know Riley was involved in from the outset.

I'll add that I added the reference to the tweet in the belief that it was relevant. She used "Ayran" which is highly inappropriate.
The "stepping into the political arena" was an appropriate phrase which has now been resolved in talk. My bad I'm new.
If I was trying to disruptively edit her page, I wouldn't have requested it be protected as, I'd then be blocked from editing myself as I'm not an admin.
Instead I got a warning template for reverting what I believed to be a fair interpretation of the facts.
Indeed she is now attending Parliament with the home secretary next week and is in the political arena.
This was a genuine arbitration request due to the George Galloway connection. I'd rather her page be protected as soon as possible.
I even said to PC on his talk this is to clarify things.
Her page has turned into edit wars between certain users. You ask a question you get snapped at.

I have added further difflinks please see above. They show Cross editing articles related to UK politics. The reason I raised the request this way is so that it is public and fair. If I'm wrong so be it but it will be a learning experience regardless.

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

At the time of Cross's edits - Rachel Riley (on Cross's last edit) had nothing about UK politics or antisemitism. The subject is primarily known for being a TV presenter (e.g. Countdown (game show)). Riley, who is Jewish, also recently spoke out against antisemitism and has been trolled by elements in the fringes of UK politics. It is far than obvious this makes her related to " post-1978 British politics" - it is even less obvious Cross should have known about this on 9 Jan, and Cross's edits (combined diff) had nothing to do with politics - being copy edits, game show related stuff, marriage, veganism, being Jewish, etc. Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll further note that the filer's edits to Rachel Riley may merit attention - diff - using twitter to suggest - "show that although fighting antisemitism she inadvertently or not used an antsemitic trope. Then included reference to 2012 tweet showing use of Ayran." (on what was quite obviously said ironically - an ironic self-use), as well as the somewhat unsourced assertion she "stepped into the political arena in 2019" in the lede - reverted twice - diff, diff (first added by an IP diff - 20 minuts prior). Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Note - I sent a message to the Arbcom mailing list with private evidence pertaining to this filing. Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The new diffs, above, besides being stale are on a radio producer/children programming person, US necon / Islamism, and a journalist/actress (who covered the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal in the 90s) - these are not related to post 1978 UK politics. Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by NSH001[edit]

Philip Cross added a quote from Oliver Kamm 23 November 2018 to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018. As Kamm, and the controversy about the relationship between Kamm and Cross was right at the heart of the Arbcom case, this is unquestionably a breach of his topic ban. --NSH001 (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The Arbcom case, inter alia, was about Cross adding negative material to the wiki bios of people he disapproved of, while adding favourable material to the bios of those whom he approved, among which Kamm was prominent. I cannot understand how anyone can fail to see that this is a breach of his topic ban. --NSH001 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The first remedy in the Arbcom decision states that Cross "is warned to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest", which clearly applies to this diff. The second remedy states that he is banned from "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed". I suppose that a lot depends how one interprets "broadly construed", but I contend that posting a quote from Kamm falls into that category, especially when the article linked to unequivocally is about British politics. I agree with Vannamonde's point that it is really not possible to separate news media and journalists from politics, when that is what they're discussing. Cross should, at the least, be warned against testing the boundaries in this way. --NSH001 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm the 2017 Complainant from the original Philip Cross arbitration case and the earlier, ignored complaint over Luke Harding's page. This particular breach, the link to the Oliver Kamm article, is the most egregious. It is a conflict of interest (as acknowledged by Philip Cross) and also an attempt to put on record at Wikipedia an article from Cross's special friend, Oliver Kamm, attacking those who had complained about Philip Cross and calling them conspiracy theorists. Yes, attacking the very same people that Philip Cross obsessively worked against over years, turning their pages into attack pages which, very eventually, led to his topic ban. Kamm's attacks on his political enemies over the Philip Cross case are 100% post-1978 British politics. I note that Cross has already been found to have broken his ban and yet here he is again, seemingly unable to help himself. And why would he worry? There are plenty of people here to say, “Nothing to see here, move along please.” Wikipedia, if it once again does nothing for such a blatant breach, or simply punishes the complainant, will add to the public disrepute that the mishandling of the case has already brought on it. 121.72.171.202 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

BU Rob13, re your block of Alex Tiffin, this does not look to me like the behaviour of a typical sockpuppet, but rather an innocent mistake by a relatively inexperienced user. See the discussion on my talk page. --NSH001 (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, I finally got round to looking at Rachel Riley's twitter feed. Here's one of her posts on 8 January: "For months now, I’ve been speaking out to highlight the growing problem of AS in the UK." Her tweets are full of abuse aimed at alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party, including calling "antisemites" many people who really aren't. This is part of a campaign which is attempting to use (in my opinion obviously bogus) claims of antisemitism in order to discredit Jeremy Corbyn. This had been going on for months before Cross edited the Rachel Riley article, and Cross, without doubt, would have been fully aware of this. The fact that her article had nothing of this when Cross edited it is irrelevant; anyone aware of the vast propaganda campaign against Corbyn would have been aware of her tweets. Her twitter feed contains stuff like "Fuck off George Galloway", and libellous material I won't repeat here. So I don't accept the claims below that the first diff doesn't relate to "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed", it obviously does. --NSH001 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

[posting here as although I'm not involved with Phillip Cross at all, I do not regard myself as impartial with regards British Politics]
The diffs presented by Alextiffin88 are not violations. The single diff provided by NSH001 is closer to a violation but the edit is only tangentially about British politics (Kamm is someone who is not a politician but is known for strong views about British politics, but this story is not about politics or their political views) on a page that is not about British politics and it is also stale (getting on for 3 months old). We can only take action regarding what sanctions were actually placed, not violations of unwritten restrictions based on what we think the case was actually about (regardless of whether our thoughts are right or wrong). In this case that means Cross is banned from the topic of Post-1978 British Politics, not from "adding positive material to bios of people he approves of or adding negative material to bios of people he disapproves of" - and it's also worth noting that the edit in question was not to a biography.
In summary I would advise Cross not to get any closer to his topic ban than this, but absent a clear pattern of boundary-pushing or crossing I do not see the need for even a formal warning. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other editor}[edit]

Result concerning Philip Cross[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I see no violation here. While the restriction is broadly construed, it is not a ban from editing any biography of anyone who has ever made a public comment on politics. Unless something much more substantial comes up in the next few hours, I'll close this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As an aside, while the edits of Alextiffin88 are perhaps not the most wonderful ever, they do appear to be engaging on talk and co-operating with others. And since this is not an area under discretionary sanctions, there is not so much we can do here, even if we thought action was needed. The committee will deal with any private evidence as they see fit without our help. GoldenRing (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing a violation here. None of the new diffs are either edits about UK politics or edits to pages primarily about UK politics. I am therefore going to close this. GoldenRing (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I have undone my close because NSH001 has asked me to. I still don't think the edit linked is a violation of the ban, though I do think it is not a million miles away from a violation. If any other admin feels inclined to act on it, they are welcome. I will not. GoldenRing (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
In other words, I agree with Thryduulf. GoldenRing (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not too happy about some of these diffs, but I wouldn't be willing to apply a sanction here. All but the first and last diff are to pages and content falling outside the scope of the sanction. The first diff is to a page that later came under the scope of the topic ban. It can be argued that PC should have known that when he edited it, but I can't see anything to suggest the connection was obvious. The link to the news story was a bad idea; it's not related to parliamentary politics, but certainly related to the broader scope of British politics. For that, I would consider a warning at most; but really what we need here is for Philip Cross to realize that continued editing of topics relating to British news media is equivalent to testing the boundaries of his ban, whether he intends it that way or not; it's nearly impossible to separate the news media from the politics of any country. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The request is meritless. These edits and pages are not about British politics. I would take no action. Sandstein 21:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the filer because he was abusing multiple accounts, for what that's worth. ~ Rob13Talk 01:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Closing accordingly. Sandstein 11:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

AndInFirstPlace[edit]

Blocked 36 h and topic-banned for six months by GoldenRing.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning AndInFirstPlace[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
David O. Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 05:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
AndInFirstPlace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
[1] (Discretionary sanctions 1932 cutoff) :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 1/17/19 Re-adding Andrew Yang to major candidates list
  2. 1/17/19 Re-adding Andrew Yang to major candidates list
  3. 1/17/19 Re-adding Andrew Yang to major candidates list

User has gone against 1RR three different times, reverting each specified time outlined above. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 01/15/19 Blocked for disruptive editing
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[2]

Discussion concerning AndInFirstPlace[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by AndInFirstPlace[edit]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

For the record, in their 5 day editing career AndInFirstPlace has

  • Gotten in disputes with multiple editors on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
  • Taken one of those editors to EWN [3] (closed without action)
  • Had a Post-1932 American Politics DS notice placed on their talk page [4]
  • Filed an AN/I report against an editor who was simply trying to explain how admins worked on Wikipedia [5]
  • Filed an RfA -- apparently copied from someone else's RfA -- deleted by an admin per NOTNOW [6]
  • Was handed down a short block for disruption [7]
  • Filed another AN/I against the admin who deleted the RfA claiming that the admin called them "autistic", but it turned out that the "autistic" reference was in the material they had copied from when they filed their RfA [8]
  • Is the subject of an AN/I due to messages they left on another editor's talk page [9]
  • Is the subject of this AE report.

That's all within a five day period, which might be a record of some kind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • To be clear, Acoterion's block of AndInFirst place was not a DS block, it was for "disruptive editing." I really think this is an AN/I matter and not an AE one -- and not for the adding of Andrew Yang to the list (a content dispute), but for their overall behavior. It's quite possible, given AIFP's inability or unwillingness to slow down and listen to the advice they've been given, that this may, in time, become an AE issue, but I don't think it is at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I could be wrong. 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries is under 1RR, and AIFP has made many edits to the article within 24-hour blocks, so it's quite possible that they violated the 1RR sanction, but I don't think David O. Johnson's "diffs" show that clearly. Someone (not me) needs to go through AIFP's contributions from the last few days to see if they violated 1RR; or someone could simply issue a "final warning" to AIFP not to violate 1RR with an explanation as to exactly what that means, and the clock can start ticking again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning AndInFirstPlace[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'll take no action unless it is promptly explained how this violates any conduct policy or guideline and therefore warrants sanctions. Sandstein 06:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Very clear 1rr violation and generally problematic. I'm on mobile now but when I reach my desk I intend to block for 36 hours and tban for a period of months. GoldenRing (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)