Philip Cross

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!

Re: Philip Cross

Postby AndrewForson » Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:57 am

CrowsNest wrote:[Galloway] Took the high road. Something that is alien to the Wikpedians.


You don't think it at all conceivable that he didn't actually find out but decided to claim that he had for ulterior motives?
User avatar
AndrewForson
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm

Re: Philip Cross

Postby CrowsNest » Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:18 pm

AndrewForson wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:[Galloway] Took the high road. Something that is alien to the Wikpedians.


You don't think it at all conceivable that he didn't actually find out but decided to claim that he had for ulterior motives?
Not really. He has nothing to gain from it, and it would be a real pain in the ass to keep up that lie.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Philip Cross

Postby CrowsNest » Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:59 am

Jeeesus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?di ... erage_2018

This happened in November. Why didn't they act? Did they see nothing wrong with an edit like this? See no reason to question whether Cross edits for the good of Wikipedia, or the good of himself or those closely connected to him?

ArbCom rejected all claims that his edits were biased. They only cared about the appearance of COI. Here he is making an edit where he flat out admitted he has a COI. One that directly related to concerns raised in the Arbitration case about who he is and why he edits Wikipedia. What happened? Nothing.

That is Wikipedia governance all over.

What else has he been up to the last few months, that nobody noticed?
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Philip Cross

Postby CrowsNest » Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:14 am

Obviously I only learned of that from this.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ilip_Cross

....which is a whole other kettle of fish.

Most interesting to me seems the likely reason for his sudden interest in Riley, although it appears he first touched it on the evening of 8 Jan, when George Galloway only targeted her on Twitter on the morning of the ninth. Raises lots of interesting questions. Much like the whole Cross affair.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Philip Cross

Postby sashi » Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:51 am

That was binned fast! O Golden Ring!

[youtube]Vkfpi2H8tOE[/youtube]

We'll see if Sandstein is the literalist they're touted to be. :)

I see 90 days for lèse-Snoog was also playing at AE.
User avatar
sashi
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Philip Cross

Postby CrowsNest » Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:40 am

Welcome to Wikipedia, where this shit makes sense......
We can only take action regarding what sanctions were actually placed......I do not see the need for even a formal warning. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 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)
The first remedy in the Arbcom decision states that Cross "is warned to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest", ....... --NSH001 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
No action. Sandstein 11:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
While Sandstein's approach to enforcement does come in useful, he sure does drop the ball sometimes. Still, I'd take that any day, over the routinely biased or predictably incompetent actions of others who turn up to play mall cop.

There is something really fucked up with a system where a formal warning not to do something, when ignored, doesn't result in anything. I would be surprised if there is anything in the actual documentation that says they can only enforce sanctions like topic bans, as in, warnings are to be ignored for the purposes of AE. It can't say that, because that is absurd.

If this shows anything, it is that there is a gap in the governance system. AE should be a venue where quick and obvious violations are acted upon, but if there is no place to adjudicate the more complex cases, where there is an obvious violation and it is a pattern, but only when you properly get into the weeds and examine prior records, then inevitably stupid shit is going to happen.

Still, this wouldn't be the first time when Wikipedia has required a second Arbitration case simply because of the failings of the first, both in drafting and enforcement.

I will say it plainly, so they can't pretend not to have realised it. Even by Wikipedia's lax standards, Cross has done enough to merit a ban at least from all BLP related editing, because of ongoing concerns about his inability to edit solely in the interests of Wikipedia, and his apparent willingness to skirt boundaries, not interpreting his Case as a second chance but as vindication. These don't even need to be proven to be conscious behavour for it to merit action, even though it seems unlikely it is not deliberate.

Not for the first time, he has chosen to say nothing in his defence, rather than open his mouth and confirm suspicions. Wikipedia has no Fifth Amendent, this can be assumed to signify bad intent.

Also not for the first time, this idea that a violation wasn't immediately noticed, voids the need for a response. I am quite sure this is explicitly not meant to be a thing in AE, again because it is absurd, but it persists.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Philip Cross

Postby disembodiedcathead » Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:46 pm

i notice Philip Cross is not only hyperactive once more, but going after Ron Unz, who has given large sums of money to Wikipedia in the past. is he cruising for a bruising, or has some kind of decision been made to throw Unz to the wolves? perhaps he hasn't kept up his tithing?
also, how is Cross not banned again? i see a couple of people in his recent edits who are relevant to post-whatever-the-date British politics.
User avatar
disembodiedcathead
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:43 am

Re: Philip Cross

Postby CrowsNest » Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:00 pm

The latest reasons used to justify not sanctioning Cross for clear and obvious breaches, are the usual nonsense. He didn't really break them, and even if he did, you cannot let random outsiders be the ones who report it. He has of course, said nothing in the proceedings, given only a brief explanation on his talk page, and he is being allowed to get away with that too, as per usual. While I am sure this is just the usual insider mindset driven nonsense, it does nothing to dispel the idea Cross is being protected by the Wikipedia community, whose rules and procedures evidently apply to the outsiders, not the addicts.

Given how much press attention this received last time, I wonder if they have really thought through who might be reporting this and why.........and if their theories on who is doing it and why are correct, what the consequences will be in terms of negative press attention, if they react how they apparently want to react, whether they are right or wrong.

He broke the sanction and his excuse for doing so is lame, he has repeated that pattern several times now, so he is due a block, just like anyone else has and would be, in that situation. Everything else is just noise.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Philip Cross

Postby CrowsNest » Thu May 16, 2019 5:06 pm

Now we're being told that editing "Political views of Christopher Hitchens" isn't a breach of his topic ban.

It's like they genuinely want to be fucked with.

Other than their innate stupidity, it really baffles me why Wikipedians insist on taking people for fools. They always seem to assume that just because someone isn't a Wikipedia devotee/addict like themselves, they won't understand enough about Wikipedia'a governance system to know when they're being fed horse manure and being told it is filet mignon.

It is rather obvious (hint:because they told you) that external actors are seeking to demonstrate that Cross is a game playing punk and Wikipedia has absolutely no intention of enforcing its own Arbitration findings on him, and they are not above taking the ABSOLUTE FUCKING PISS out of anyone who tries to make them do so.

It is working. In their transparently corrupt attempts to protect Cross, the almighty Arbitration Committee is showing these external actors what Wikipedia is all about. Hopefully the external actors are not going to take it lying down.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Philip Cross

Postby sashi » Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:46 am

Philip Cross wrote:rm tendentious source by Milosevic defender, albeit in a usually reliable source

source


"Comment is Free" is a usually RS?

Wade-a-cotton-pickin'-minute...

isn't that PC deleting Neil Clark again :?:
User avatar
sashi
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:01 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Wikipedians

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Abd, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests