User talk:Philip Cross: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:28, 27 May 2018

Template:Usertalkpage (rounded)

Archives

1: 10/05
2: 10/06
3: 10/07
4: 12/08
5: 05/09
6: 12/09
7: 11/10
8: 06/11

9: 03/12
10: 09/12
11: 11/12
12: 08/13
13: 12/13
14: 03/14
15: 08/14
16: 02/15

17: 07/15
18: 04/16
19: 07/16
20: 12/16
21: 05/17
22: 09/17
23: 02/18
24: 05/18

Notifications

Who is Philip Cross? What is the nature of his interest in George Galloway? Why has he made so many edits on the Wikipeda page about George Galloway? Roland Sparkes (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We now know. "A Wikipedia editor called Philip Cross (Andrew Philip Cross and later "Julian" on Twitter) has a long record of editing the entries of many anti-war figures on the site to include mostly critical commentary while removing positive information contributed by others. At time of writing he is number 308 in the list of Wikipedians by number of edits."^[1]

"After George Galloway, Media Lens is his second most edited article on the site. Cross is responsible for almost 80% of all content on the Media Lens entry."

So now, we have to research all his edits, and tag them ALL with Bias. Its the 'Wikipedia way." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:56:A494:E24D:2C11:BD29 (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest gentleman. I have taken the very minor liberty of moving these talk page comments so that they are under a heading without having altered those comments. Philip Cross (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have also made minor format changes. Philip Cross (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you get even better trolls than the one that wrote my bio for me Dtellett (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Kamm

Is this wiki admin Oliver Kamm? If so, it puts into question the notability of their own bio (which they have been the primary editor of), and highlights enormous conflicts of interest issues in their editing of various pages with real life conflicts with Oliver Kamm. To simply wave them off as "trolls" or sock puppets is nonsensical wagon circling, ignoring a profound and obvious problem with an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.189.109 (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am not a Wikipedia administrator, nor secondly, am I Oliver Kamm. Although born in the same year as Mr Kamm, he writes The Times and other publications, while I edit Wikipedia. Philip Cross (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago I dealt with material concerning Oliver Kamm at OTRS. He most definately is not Philip Cross. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	If you're annoying both George Galloway and Russia Today, you're doing something right. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you need to just go somewhere else to do that Timbow001 (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	In the face of all the crap, you still remain civil, so here's to you! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. No biggie I think, but I am concerned about the amount of crap being thrown around. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy. Philip Cross (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary it is a very big issue. Cross is being widely held up as an example of a blatantly politically motivated editor whose prolific and one-sided edits have been tolerated for years. So wikipedia looks at best complacent and at worst biased itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbow001 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC) yes Timbow001 (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/

Congrats on the RT profile

You must be doing a good job.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice you got featured twice on RT lol. [2] Nixinova T C 22:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One man army or army of men?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phantomsnake, there's an existing WP:AN discussion and now an open arbitration request, and I think people are aware of the Craig Murray post that might have sent you here. Murray seems to have overestimated the amount of effort it takes to make 30 or so Wikipedia edits over the course of a day. The only way to make a credible allegation that Philip Cross is multiple people involves tedious analysis of 1000s of individual diffs. I'm unconvinced you'll find anything: an alternate theory that someone posted on Reddit is "the evidence shows a Times-reading retiree". If anything Philip Cross himself may be the target of a propaganda campaign: there are currently 27 Reddit threads[3] linked to the Craig Murray post, and who knows if they were really all opened independently?

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

Arbitration

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

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

AN outcome

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

[1] ttps://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/

[1]

@@ Line 123: / Line 123: @@
 : Thank you for a fair and reasonable summary of the issues. [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross#top|talk]]) 09:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
+== AN outcome ==
+After seeing your note at ArbCom and the general support at AN, I have [[Special:PermaLink/843227728#Propose_topic_ban|closed the discussion]] regarding your topic ban of [[George Galloway]]. If you see content that needs changing, please use edit requests on the talk page. If you have any further questions or clarifications please feel free to ping me here or on my talk page. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 20:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)