83.218.151.178

February 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Graham Linehan has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Graham Linehan was changed by 83.218.151.178 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.860772 on 2019-02-19T14:53:48+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. . specifically - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title= Talk:John_A._Hobson&diff=894988021&oldid=894987541 diff] - is WP:ASPERSIONS.Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

All I'm saying is lots of people picked up on Philip Cross' and your opportunistic editing. Seriously it's all over Twitter.

June 2019

Hello, I'm I dream of horses. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Titania McGrath— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 13:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

November 2019

Hello, I'm Philip Cross. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The relevant discussion where I show the source is correct and it fits the criteria of notability with reference to the wikipedia guidelines is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oliver_Kamm. If you disagree please explain in the Talk Page why you disagree with specific reference to which Wikipedia guidelines would be breached by referencing Oliver Kamm's blog article entitled 'The "Islamophobia" scam'. Please confirm that amending Oliver Kamm's page is not in breach of your topic ban from edits relating to post-1978 British politics 83.218.151.178 (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I am not worried IP 83.218.151.178, reverting vandalism is not covered by topic bans. Philip Cross (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The relevant discussion where I show the source is correct and it fits the criteria of notability with reference to the wikipedia guidelines is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oliver_Kamm. If you disagree please explain in the Talk Page why you disagree with specific reference to which Wikipedia guidelines would be breached by referencing Oliver Kamm's blog article entitled 'The "Islamophobia" scam'. 83.218.151.178 (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You seem quite familiar with the editing policies of Wikipedia. Have you had an account in the past? Perhaps one which added improperly sourced material to one (or more) of the articles you have been editing. Philip Cross (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

To repeat: "Oh, I am not worried IP 83.218.151.178, reverting vandalism is not covered by topic bans." Sock-puppetry, which these comments allegedly suggest, is covered by other policies and you are may contribute here to a current sock puppet investigation of my own account as you demonstrate an interest in my edits. Philip Cross (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines regarding assuming good faith WP:GF. If you have dispute with a fellow editor please follow the agreed upon Dispute resolution guidelines WP:DR 83.218.151.178 (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

You are evading my legitimate questions above which are not dissimilar to regular queries to IP users who appear to know how Wikipedia works. Inviting you to a contribute to an SPI which concerns my editing rights demonstrates I am assuming good faith. Which of my recent edits suggests otherwise? Philip Cross (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting I have had a previous account because I took the time to read the rules and guidelines fits the criteria of not assuming good faith 83.218.151.178 (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I urge you to complain as soon as possible. Philip Cross (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this warrants official dispute resolution, it was simply a friendly reminder to Assume Good Faith ((WP:GF)) and Please Do Not Bite The Newcomers ((WP:BITE)) 83.218.151.178 (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• You can quote whatever Wikipedia policies you want; you were still edit warring, and being correct is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war believes they are correct. If you edit war further, you will be at risk of being blocked. If the other party is edit warring, then you can make a report to WP:ANEW or take other appropriate measures like dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll add I have already warned the other party about edit warring as well. You two need to find a way to resolve this dispute without edit warring. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please quote which Wikipedia guidelines I am in breach of, with examples, or delete your accusation 83.218.151.178 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I've already said what you've done, which is reflected in the edit history of Oliver Kamm. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please quote which Wikipedia guidelines I am in breach of, with examples, or delete your accusations. I have tried to resolve this in the Talk page with reference to the guidelines, in accordance with the guidelines, and the other editor refuses to engage with me. I repeat, please quote the guidelines you believe I'm in breach with quotes and references, or delete your comments. If you fail to quote the guidelines I am in breach of I will be forced to refer this matter to the Dispute Resolution (see WP:DR) and possibly WP:RAA 83.218.151.178 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

If the other editor does not respond to you, then you need to do as I've suggested above, instead of edit warring. That's the guideline you are in breach of- edit warring. I can provide the diffs if you insist, but they are clearly in the edit history. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I have already done as you suggested. Please provide the objective criteria for which guidelines I have broken, with objective evidence. Thank you 83.218.151.178 (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Sigh. I'm not sure why I have to tell you what you yourself did, but you made an edit to Oliver Kamm here. You reversed its removal here, here, here, and here today. This violates Wikipedia policy on edit warring. You did not cross the bright line of WP:3RR, but as stated at WP:EW, "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.". Satisfied? 331dot (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear is your objection based on the fact Oliver Kamm didn't write the blog post titled 'The Islamphobia' Scam" and in it he wrote:

"To that end, I note from Harry's Place that my comrades have been nominated by an absurd lobby calling itself the Islamic Human Rights Commission for an "Islamophobia" award (according to its organisers, "an annual event to acknowledge - through satire, revue and comedy - the worst Islamophobes of the year"). Other nominees in the UK include Tony Blair and Sky News. Sky's citation reads: "For being a prominent vehicle for anti Muslim propaganda, harboring [sic] bias in the [sic] every report and every question asked". I went on Sky News not long ago to debate a man called Asghar Bukhari of another grandiloquently named lobby group, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, and can confirm that the presenter, Kay Burley, insisted on posing him loaded questions such as "what's your reply to that, Asghar?"

I was mildly surprised that the nominees did not include the political editor of the New Statesman, Martin Bright, for his important work in detailing the remarkably uncritical dialogue going on between the Foreign Office and Islamist groups. So I nominated him myself. I cannot claim to have done anything like the exhaustive work and analysis that he has done on this subject, but if any reader wishes to nominate me and I am successful, you can be sure I'll turn up to collect the award and express my reasons for pride in it."

or is it that Oliver Kamm did write an article titled 'The Islamphobia' Scam" and in it he wrote:

"To that end, I note from Harry's Place that my comrades have been nominated by an absurd lobby calling itself the Islamic Human Rights Commission for an "Islamophobia" award (according to its organisers, "an annual event to acknowledge - through satire, revue and comedy - the worst Islamophobes of the year"). Other nominees in the UK include Tony Blair and Sky News. Sky's citation reads: "For being a prominent vehicle for anti Muslim propaganda, harboring [sic] bias in the [sic] every report and every question asked". I went on Sky News not long ago to debate a man called Asghar Bukhari of another grandiloquently named lobby group, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, and can confirm that the presenter, Kay Burley, insisted on posing him loaded questions such as "what's your reply to that, Asghar?"

I was mildly surprised that the nominees did not include the political editor of the New Statesman, Martin Bright, for his important work in detailing the remarkably uncritical dialogue going on between the Foreign Office and Islamist groups. So I nominated him myself. I cannot claim to have done anything like the exhaustive work and analysis that he has done on this subject, but if any reader wishes to nominate me and I am successful, you can be sure I'll turn up to collect the award and express my reasons for pride in it."

but it's not notable?

Thanks83.218.151.178 (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I take no position in the merits of the dispute. You may be correct or you may not be- I have no idea. My only concern here is the edit warring. Being correct- if you are- is not a defense to edit warring. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please quote the part of WP:3RR that says you should not revert edits that remove sourced, objective facts that are discussed in the Talk Page. Thank You 83.218.151.178 (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you insist on wikilawyering this; the reason for the edit war does not matter. The only legitimate exceptions to edit warring are listed here, and "edits that remove sourced, objective facts that are discussed in the Talk Page" is not listed there- because 99% of edit wars involve people removing some information they believe to be correct. The one possible justification you might have is the #7 exception, "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Note, however, that it states that you should not necessarily just rely on that exemption if that is the justification, but take it to the talk page or use dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

And even that is a stretch, because you were attempting to add something, not remove it. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:IAR and explain why it should be ignored in this instance 83.218.151.178 (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NOTIAR. "Ignore all rules" does not prevent the enforcement of certain policies." It "does not mean that every action is justifiable". If you are correct in your edits, that will be borne out when you make use of dispute resolution and other valid processes. It is not up to me to provide you with a justification for your edit warring or why you should be permitted to ignore policy on edit warring. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Also from WP:NOTIAR: "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable, and "is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule". (also, "does not prevent the enforcement of certain policies", what 331 said before). I don't see how IAR can be twisted from "if a rule keeps you from improving something, ignore that rule" to "policies and guidelines don't affect me". ☮Senny is a Hippie☮ 17:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you insist on wikilawyering this 83.218.151.178 (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

My edits

You should raise your concerns at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unclear delimiters of Philip Cross topic ban. Philip Cross (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank You, I will do. Can you explain why you are flouting your ban? 83.218.151.178 (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I covered that allegation on the talk page of Marina Hyde's article, and made a minor deletion which might be on the wrong side of my topic ban. Philip Cross (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Marina Hyde is a political journalist. You are banned from any edits relating to post-1978 British politics, BROADLY CONSTRUED. Therefore I will continue to revert your edits due to your ban 83.218.151.178 (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Marina Hyde is described in the article as writing about current affairs, and very briefly on politics without being more specific. Some of the time James Bloodworth writes on this subject, whose page you have edited this morning. but you will find in the AN/I discussion my minor edit to his page on 10 February has not been taken by most administrators as infringing on my topic ban. You will also note from the edit history that I have intermittently been editing Marina Hyde's page over the last eighteen months (since the topic ban was imposed) without the issue being raised until now, on Wikipedia at least as far as I recall. Philip Cross (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You should gain agreement with admins that I should not edit the article, otherwise your reverts count as disruptive, an issue which has been raised with you before. Philip Cross (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

An admin has already decided your ban covers pages, therefore I am acting within the rules. If you disagree please comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unclear delimiters of Philip Cross topic ban 83.218.151.178 (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This does appear that Phillip Cross does not have an answer as to why he flouted his ban 80.47.148.59 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

---