It's turning into the usual ArbCom case request shitshow. Half of the holy robed ones turn up within a leisurely few days, and give an opinion before they even know what is going on. The other half apparently haven't even noticed anything is even going on.
How do you even get this job if you don't understand that people who put statements to you, up to and including the filer, are usually at the very least not telling you the full unvarnished truth, and at the very worst, actively trying to deceive you? Even more are just sending you on wild goose chases, because, attention whores that they are, they can't resist giving you their opinion and recommendations, even though they admit they have no real clue what the fuck this is all about.
Most hilarious is seeing Euralysis REVISION DELETE an editor's provided list of all the coverage this scandal has generated. His nominal reason was "some of the links are to pages which encourage outing of an editor". This is a rather pointless act, especially given Guy himself had not only linked to Galloway's bounty tweet in his coming statement, he broadcast it as one that "encouraged outing". There are also links aplenty on the AN/I report. And also, of course, they all come from the first page of search results for "Philip Cross Wikipedia".
DGG has at least had the good sense to note all those advocating for a private case have rather missed the boat. If they take it but go into a private session, not telling anyone what the hell is being investigated, it is only going to make them look like they are part of the alleged conspiracy. For those who do not believe there is a conspiracy, but do see that Cross has questions to answer regarding his use of Twitter and his overall editing, both of which seem to violate multiple Wikipedia rules to this seasoned and experienced observer (as always, caveated with the assumption of competence and ethics in those applying the rules), well, you would have to be an idiot to leave all that to be examined in private.
Philip Cross
Re: Philip Cross
What unfortunate timing.Unfortunately, a recent update to the spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the Arbitration Committee through Wikipedia (e.g. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. This issue is now fixed, but the discarded emails were unable to be recovered.
If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee through Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
-
Flip Flopped
- Sucks Warrior
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:38 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Philip Cross
Wow. ArbCom found a new way to screw up. I thought setting up email filters was pretty easy? Nice to know that ArbCom may have been summarily deleting all emails from anyone they deem a spammer.CrowsNest wrote::oops:What unfortunate timing.Unfortunately, a recent update to the spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the Arbitration Committee through Wikipedia (e.g. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. This issue is now fixed, but the discarded emails were unable to be recovered.
If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee through Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
So far the media don't seem to be picking up the angle that Wikipedia's processes have been failing the subjects of Cross's attacks. Also, nobody seems to be explaining to journalists that Cross's editing pattern isn't unheard of for Wiki-addicts (though I tend to agree that shared account working for pay is the simplest explanation).
Re: Philip Cross
I really think this could go properly bad for Wikipedia.
Witness the following......
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... eter_Wilby
Even now, in the full glare of the accusations, Cross is pretending like he has no case to answer when it comes to accusations of biased editing. His answers either completely ignore the issue in favour of discussing something else, or he gives a formulaic response which looks like what it probably is, a practiced script that he has learned over many years is enough to achieve victory in each specific case, neatly deflecting attention away from the overall pattern and effect of his edits, which remained unnoticed for so long because on Wikipedia, who ever really cares what anyone else is doing, if they are simply satisfied they aren't totally inept.
Wikipedia editing is meant to be more than just being able to add text with a source. An Arbitration case focused on Cross' edits in the round, would have to expand on what that really means, and how it can possibly be that someone can edit for this long, on these subjects, at this level of obsession, without ever getting what they are supposed to be there for, either voluntarily or due to corrective action. Which probably explains their reluctance to either have a case at all, or have one in public.
Cross might well become the prototypical example of why Wikipedia was such a mistake, if this case rightly turns into an expose of how he isn't just a glitch in the system, he is a product of it. Wikipedia has many users like Cross, and many more with their own similar issues around discerning what it really means to be an encyclopedia writer. Wikipedia, thorough Cross et al, has proven that if you lack any effective means of oversight, if there is no leadership or ethics or accountability, then the old adage of paying peanuts and getting monkeys, absolutely applies.
If I were Cross, I'd be worried about the prospect of ArbCom properly throwing me under the bus, as a good way to obscure the institutional failings that allowed him to do what he does and believe he was perfectly in the right. Many people have found out to their cost that ArbCom really isn't interested in clearing people's names if doing so would expose Wikipedia to massive fundamental questions, like just how do you actually, in practice, ensure editors are not engaged in large scale efforts to promote one single POV. Sure, you've got policy and principles which says it shouldn't happen, and places where it can be reported and investigated, but then here's this guy Cross, just doing it, and here's this guy Jimmy, telling everyone they're off their rockers.
Witness the following......
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... eter_Wilby
Even now, in the full glare of the accusations, Cross is pretending like he has no case to answer when it comes to accusations of biased editing. His answers either completely ignore the issue in favour of discussing something else, or he gives a formulaic response which looks like what it probably is, a practiced script that he has learned over many years is enough to achieve victory in each specific case, neatly deflecting attention away from the overall pattern and effect of his edits, which remained unnoticed for so long because on Wikipedia, who ever really cares what anyone else is doing, if they are simply satisfied they aren't totally inept.
Wikipedia editing is meant to be more than just being able to add text with a source. An Arbitration case focused on Cross' edits in the round, would have to expand on what that really means, and how it can possibly be that someone can edit for this long, on these subjects, at this level of obsession, without ever getting what they are supposed to be there for, either voluntarily or due to corrective action. Which probably explains their reluctance to either have a case at all, or have one in public.
Cross might well become the prototypical example of why Wikipedia was such a mistake, if this case rightly turns into an expose of how he isn't just a glitch in the system, he is a product of it. Wikipedia has many users like Cross, and many more with their own similar issues around discerning what it really means to be an encyclopedia writer. Wikipedia, thorough Cross et al, has proven that if you lack any effective means of oversight, if there is no leadership or ethics or accountability, then the old adage of paying peanuts and getting monkeys, absolutely applies.
If I were Cross, I'd be worried about the prospect of ArbCom properly throwing me under the bus, as a good way to obscure the institutional failings that allowed him to do what he does and believe he was perfectly in the right. Many people have found out to their cost that ArbCom really isn't interested in clearing people's names if doing so would expose Wikipedia to massive fundamental questions, like just how do you actually, in practice, ensure editors are not engaged in large scale efforts to promote one single POV. Sure, you've got policy and principles which says it shouldn't happen, and places where it can be reported and investigated, but then here's this guy Cross, just doing it, and here's this guy Jimmy, telling everyone they're off their rockers.
Re: Philip Cross
@leftworks1 wrote:I wonder if it has occurred to anyone at @Wikipedia to remark on the fact that Philip Cross's first follower on Twitter is editorial director of a PR firm?
-
Flip Flopped
- Sucks Warrior
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:38 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Philip Cross
Yes. Your earlier post nails it that this one can't be covered-up quietly. They're going to have to nail Cross to the cross sooner or later.CrowsNest wrote:@leftworks1 wrote:I wonder if it has occurred to anyone at @Wikipedia to remark on the fact that Philip Cross's first follower on Twitter is editorial director of a PR firm?
-
AndrewForson
- Sucks Critic
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am
Re: Philip Cross
Galloway claims to have identified Cross. Any clues?
PS: Youtube offers me an accompanying advert for a holiday in Israel. Who says algorithms don't have a sense of humour?
PS: Youtube offers me an accompanying advert for a holiday in Israel. Who says algorithms don't have a sense of humour?
Re: Philip Cross
Nothing concrete, except an apparent confirmation Cross' self-identification is real.
He is strongly hinting at this being a case of Cross and Kamm being associates, in such a way that definitely breaches WP:COI. And that is the mildest interpretation. He goes darker. You could frankly read all sorts into that broadcast.
Not a lot to go on really. You could make certain inferences based on what he wasn't prepared to say, but it would be barely above guesswork.
It was interesting to see how he started out as if he was feeling sympathy for Cross, given one interpretation of how the COI works, but by the end he becomes quite chilling, as if he thinks Cross has all his faculties and isn't likely to misinterpret such things.
What this scandal needs is the Daily Mail. I want them to doorstep Jimmy and demand to know why he isn't doing more to protect Cross from Galloway, given Jimmy seems to think he's done nothing wrong, certainly nothing warranting a public bounty, repeated phonecalls and now this chilling radio broadcast.
He is strongly hinting at this being a case of Cross and Kamm being associates, in such a way that definitely breaches WP:COI. And that is the mildest interpretation. He goes darker. You could frankly read all sorts into that broadcast.
Not a lot to go on really. You could make certain inferences based on what he wasn't prepared to say, but it would be barely above guesswork.
It was interesting to see how he started out as if he was feeling sympathy for Cross, given one interpretation of how the COI works, but by the end he becomes quite chilling, as if he thinks Cross has all his faculties and isn't likely to misinterpret such things.
What this scandal needs is the Daily Mail. I want them to doorstep Jimmy and demand to know why he isn't doing more to protect Cross from Galloway, given Jimmy seems to think he's done nothing wrong, certainly nothing warranting a public bounty, repeated phonecalls and now this chilling radio broadcast.
-
sashi
- Sucks Critic
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:01 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 67 times
Re: Philip Cross
AndrewForson wrote:PS: Youtube offers me an accompanying advert for a holiday in Israel. Who says algorithms don't have a sense of humour?
And I had thought it was just my navigation history bringing me this advert somehow. Glad to hear the ad is associated with the content, not the content viewer. ^^