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 [3], and encouraged outing [4]. 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. [5] (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]

Statement by KalHolmann

I deny the following charges against me made in the "Statement by JzG" above.

I am not "apparently supportive of Galloway," except insofar as I believe his BLP should not be edited by someone with a clear and aggressive public animus against him
I have not linked PC to other accounts / real world individuals, except for identifying the BLPs that he has edited of real people whom he has publicly called "punks" and "goons"
I am not "representative of a number of others" and have never claimed to speak for anyone else
I am not part of "the pro-Galloway camp"
I am not a "Galloway apologist"

Yesterday in an ANI unrelated to Philip Cross or George Galloway et al., I argued that JzG should be topic-banned from any edits relating to Brian Martin (social scientist). Now, eleven hours later, JzG has initiated this Request for Arbitration prominently naming me. JzG employed this same maneuver at AN, where he deflected focus off Philip Cross and onto me. Notwithstanding JzG's diversionary tactics, however, I believe any fair reading of the AN will exonerate me. This is a case of an Admin shooting the messenger, and Wikipedians who support such behavior should be ashamed. KalHolmann (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HouseOfChange

I have been co-editing and arguing with KalHolmann for months at Joy Ann Reid. There are many things we don't agree on. But my strong impression, based on his edits and arguments, is that he is a very conscientious editor who cares about the great Wikipedia project and wants to help build an encyclopedia. If you want a character reference for KalHolmann, ignore my words and look at the talk history of Joy Ann Reid.

Because his talk page is on my watchlist, I see that he has wandered into a minefield regarding British politics, an area where I know nothing. There is apparently something to be said on both sides of the Cross vs Galloway Wikipedia quarrel, but KalHolmaan took up one side of it and worked hard to get wider Wikipedia attention to a matter he thought was important. Rather than punishing him , I believe Wikipedia should thank him for a principled effort that resulted in open debate on what may be a serious issue for us. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

It seems blindingly obvious to me that Philip Cross should not edit within a mile of the George Galloway BLP (and others with which he has publicly expressed animosity), and I think it shows a serious lack of judgment that he has done so over a lengthy period while engaged in a public spat with Mr Galloway in which he has made his presence as a Wikipedia editor clear. A Wikipedia editor absolutely should not edit anything related to a person while publicly attacking that person and labeling them as a "goon" or a "punk", and I am nothing less than appalled by Philip Cross's behaviour in this as his actions are clearly bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. In my opinion, even a full Wikipedia site ban would not be excessive unless we can be convinced that this will stop.

At this point, I think the topic ban proposal is probably sufficient (and I will make the point again that pretty much none of the opposition so far has offered any policy basis to their objections). But I am disturbed by suggestions of off-wiki connections that should not be aired on-wiki. If there is any need to consider these alleged off-wiki connections, then I think ArbCom would be the only appropriate venue.

Statement by Govindaharihari

user:Philip Cross - there is massive involved with him - not difficult is it. Looking through his contribution history, a case is really needed here. there is a massive involved concern across multiple wp:blp articles. the worst thing for wikipedia is that he has done it over years without ever getting blocked. that is what has happened, wikipedia policies allow a user like Cross to get away with long term non neutral involved contributions, that is what a case should look at, banning a violator from blp content is easy. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I agree with much of what Guy wrote above and I hold him in high regard. However, I do object to the way he frames the dispute by describing those with deep concerns about Philip Cross's behavior as "the pro-Galloway camp" which consists of "Galloway apologists". I have no sympathy for Galloway's politics, am not part of a camp and am not an apologist. But even knaves and rogues worse than Galloway are entitled to the protection of BLP policy. The fact is that Philip Cross has edited Galloway's biography for years and is the most active editor there. Also for years, has openly taunted and insulted Galloway on Twitter, identifying himself as a Wikipedia editor. That is unseemly and I consider it conduct unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor. It brings disrepute to the encyclopedia, and that behavior and related behavior on other articles must be brought to an end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

I am not by any account in a socalled "the pro-Galloway camp", however I am very much in the "WP:BLP camp." Some of the statement/edits by Philip Cross by horrifies me...it brings me back to the bad, bad old day before the Daniel Brandt fiasco. Have we learned nothing? Philip Cross shouldn't only stay away from the George Galloway article; he need also to stay miles away from the articles of Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, John Pilger, Vanessa Beeley, Jeremy Corbyn, and Alex Salmond —and probably a few more that I have missed. Actually, a ban on him editing any WP:BLP article seem like a good idea to me, Huldra (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see this. A full ban on Philip Cross editing any WP:BLP seems like the minimum solution, at this stage, Huldra (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

The statement above by Philip Cross unfortunately does not, to my view (and I am cynical about stubborn editors) read well. Philip Cross writes: “I will not edit the George Galloway article again for an indeterminate length of time regardless of any decision.” In short: “I’ll be back … I just won’t say when.” It is very common for aggressive or passive-aggressive editors, after a trip to WP:ANI, to say that they need to take an extended break from Wikipedia. In the past, it was the usual rule to drop the ANI proceedings. A few months later, the difficult editor would come back, and the community had to deal with them all over again. What I see is a disruptive editor who is willing to take a break from disruption, and expects this to be a Get Out of Sanctions free card. If the ArbCom declines to accept a case, then Philip Cross will come back in a few months. They said so. They just didn’t say when.

I don’t have a recommendation at this time on whether ArbCom should accept a full case, possibly with closed evidence. However, if ArbCom decides not to accept a full case, I would urge, at a minimum, an infinite topic-ban on editing of George Galloway. (Indeterminate doesn’t mean infinite. Indefinite does not mean infinite. In this case, the ban should be infinite, or at least until some date like 2038 that represents the end of the world.) I will note that Huldra has recommended restrictions on other biographies of living persons also.

The statement by Philip Cross is self-servingly mealy-mouthed from an editor who is otherwise not mealy-mouthed, and needs to be parsed, and dealt with by some sort of restriction.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

George Galloway: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

George Galloway: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

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 him 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]
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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Euryalus and RickinBaltimore: Philip Cross is already topic banned indefinitely. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:48, 28 May 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. 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]
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. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:42, 27 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 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 would likely need to be considered, despite of being possibly out of scope. Alex Shih (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 **My initial inclination was to decline a case at this point based on the commitment [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] made above, but I've now seen the statement by [[User:Huldra|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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 *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. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 15:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
-**'''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. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 16:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
+**<s>Decline</s> 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. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 16:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 **{{re|Euryalus|RickinBaltimore}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AEditing_restrictions%2FPlaced_by_the_Wikipedia_community&type=revision&diff=843214909&oldid=842436647 Philip Cross is already topic banned indefinitely.] ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 00:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
+**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. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 02:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Decline''' with the same priviso that if the issues reoccur we should accept a private case. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 *Their commitment not to edit the Galloway article "for an indeterminate period" is noted, but would prefer we formalise this as a topic ban. There's a couple of other issues raised in this thread, but a topic ban motion would be a reasonable start. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 21:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)