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]

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. 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 {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]
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]

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]

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 *'''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)
-== McGill University ==
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Upapilot|Upapilot]] ([[User talk:Upapilot|talk]]) '''at''' 17:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{userlinks|Upapilot}}, ''filing party''
-*{{userlinks|Jacknpoy}}
-;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
-<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jacknpoy&diff=843069448&oldid=840079148]
-;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:McGill_University#%22Coeducational%22_in_lead]
-* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McGill_University&action=history]
-=== Statement by Upapilot ===
-[[User:Jacknpoy]] insists on the inclusion of "coeducational" in in the opening sentence. ("... McGill is a coeducational public research university ...").
-However as I, and 2 other editors have already pointed out to him, this inclusion is completely redundant and verbose for an intro as ALL public universities in Canada and most in North America are coeducational anyway.
-I've even pointed out to him in the Talk page (to which he never responds before undoing my edits) that the standard across Wikipedia is to mention "men's college"/"women's college" (Examples: [[Bryn Mawr College]], [[Hampden–Sydney College]] etc.) where applicable and assume coeducational otherwise (Examples: [[University of Toronto|U of T]], [[University of British Columbia|UBC]], [[Queen's University|Queen's]] etc.). I've also pointed out to him examples of other major North American university (Good/Featured) pages that do not mention "coeducational" in the lead.
-Despite all this, [[User:Jacknpoy]] keeps citing a handful of outlier examples, some of which even have major issues with their articles or aren't even relevant, along with making vague references to "Hundreds of universities" that also mention coeducational in their leads. He does not reply to my Talk page comments and continues to undo any edits I or the other editors make.
-=== Statement by Jacknpoy ===
-=== Statement by Dave ===
-Yep obvious content dispute, The talkpage is the place for this to continue, Obviously should be declined. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 18:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
-=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
-Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
-<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
-=== McGill University: Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-*
-=== McGill University: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> ===
-{{anchor|1=McGill University lead Editorial Conflict: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
-*'''Decline''' as a content dispute. I fully protected the page for a week to force discussion on the talk page. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 17:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)