Is GCHQ Embedded in Wikipedia? 169

Once upon a time, being a leader writer for the Times implied Jupiter like vision and magisterial judgement, thundering out opinions that changed events across the globe. Astonishing that now it is done by the empty, bombastic Murdoch lickspittle Oliver Kamm.

On 7 February I published an article calling out Kamm for publishing a blatant and deliberate lie about me. The very next day, 8 February, my Wikipedia page came under obsessive attack from somebody called Philip Cross who made an astonishing 107 changes over the course of the next three days. Many were very minor, but the overall effect was undoubtedly derogatory. He even removed my photo on the extraordinary grounds that it was “not typical” of me. Edits to Wikipedia articles can be seen by clicking the “view history” tab top right. Here is just a sample of the record of “Philip Cross'” obsession with me.

Screenshot (6)

Screenshot (7)

I don’t look at my own Wikipedia page, but was told about it yesterday. I therefore googled Philip Cross and was amazed to discover that he is allegedly an alias for Oliver Kamm attacking people online. Furthermore that Kamm has employed lawyers to threaten those who claim that he is Philip Cross, and by Kamm’s own account the Metropolitan Police have even warned off Neil Clark from saying Kamm is Cross. The Kamm/Cross affair was discussed on George Galloway’s show on Saturday. It starts 12mins 30s in.

It could of course be an extraordinary coincidence that Philip Cross, who has been named as Oliver Kamm, launched this massive attack on my Wikipedia entry the day after I outed Kamm as a liar on this blog.

But here is another extraordinary coincidence for you. On 6 August 2015 Philip Cross had launched an initial edit attack on my Wikipedia entry, with only about two dozen edits. What was my last blog post before that attack? The revelation that Murdoch lackeys at the Times had tens of thousands of fake twitter followers purchased for them. I have only criticised Murdoch’s Times operation twice in two years, and each one has been followed immediately by attacks on my Wikipedia entry from Philip Cross. I wonder if Mr Kamm’s lawyers would care to explain this?

I am not alone by any means. The magnificent Stephen Sizer has suffered fearful attacks for his stalwart stand against the oppression of Palestinians, at great risk to his livelihood in the new neo-con Welby Church of England. Sizer has been a constant target for Oliver Kamm. On 22 August 2015 Oliver Kamm published an attack on Stephen Sizer in the Jewish Chronicle describing him as “an insanitary crackpot.” Of course, something published in the Jewish Chronicle on 22 August will have been written a couple of days earlier – around 20 August 2015. On 20 August 2015 we find that “Philip Cross” made six edits to Stephen Sizer’s Wikipedia page. These coincidences really do build up, don’t they?

And just in case you are not convinced, in early February 2015 Kamm was launching a series of twitter insults at Stephen Sizer, including Kamm’s remarkable claim that Veterans Today – for which several of my ex-CIA friends write – is an “anti-Semitic website”.

Screenshot (10)

And lo and behold! Up pops “Philip Cross” on 9 February 2015 making 32 more edits on Sizer’s Wikipedia page.

Now I really do not care whether or not “Philip Cross” is actually Oliver Kamm or whether he is just Oliver Kamm’s bitch. For Oliver Kamm’s lawyers, my address is 89/14 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8BA. I should love to see Kamm explain all this in court.

Kamm has for years exhibited an absolute obsession with attacking John Pilger, the great Australian journalist. Just google “Oliver Kamm John Pilger” to see. And who has hundreds of edits on Jon Pilger’s Wikipedia page? Philip Cross. Cross has apparently his own twitter account. Here it is obvious that he shares Kamm’s precise views. Zionism, and accusing pro-Palestinians of anti-Semitism, is the single most dominant element along with attacks on Jeremy Corbyn, Julian Assange and Kamm’s other targets. Cross retweets the Jewish Chronicle, for which Kamm is a columnist, and notably Joan Smith, leading anti-Assange campaigner and former partner of convicted expenses fiddler and Israeli lobbyist Dennis McShane.

I genuinely had no idea that Kamm had an established reputation for years for weird internet trolling. For example he published readers’ reviews on Amazon of 19 of Noam Chomsky’s books, giving every one of them one star. That link is very well worth reading, incidentally. Did you know that Kamm has written that the invasion of Iraq was “the most far-sighted and noble act of British foreign policy since the founding of NATO”?

There are some very serious points to all of this. It is not just personal flim-flam. The first serious point is that it really is the most appalling comment on what Murdoch has done to the Times, that its leader-writer should be such a low creature as Kamm. A man who has not only written that the Iraq invasion was “great”, that Noam Chomsky is an “idiot” and that John Pilger is a “fraud”, but who genuinely appears to hold those views.

The second is a very serious point indeed about Wikipedia. “Philip Cross” is not just anybody who can, like you and me, make edits on Wikipedia. he is a senior editor with special administrative privileges. He uses this access on a continued basis to repeatedly and in enormous detail denigrate any individuals who hold anti-establishment views. Equally sinister, he bigs up and protects the reputation of those who promote the corporate media agenda. “Philip Cross” has not just edited, but according to Wikipedia “predominantly written” the hagiographic entries of

James Harding, Former Editor of the Times, now Head of BBC News
Katherine Viner, Editor of the Guardian
Paul Dacre, Editor of the Daily Mail
Amol Rajan, Editor of the Independent
and numerous other corporate media journalists.

Philip Cross may be Oliver Kamm. Or he may be someone who shares his views closely and echoes them in a synchronised way. Or he may be an identity which cloaks the activities of a group of people. But it is absolutely plain that “Philip Cross” is used systematically to attack the Wikipedia entries of prominent anti-establishment figures, and simultaneously to bolster the image of the corporate media. The purpose of “Philip Cross” is to ensure that an anti-establishment narrative does not take hold on Wikipedia.

The burning question is this. “Philip Cross'” activities and purpose are blindingly obvious. Actions such as the hundred edits to my page and removal of my photo, or the continued war on John Piger’s entry, are completely unjustifiable. Why then does Wikipedia continue to tolerate “Philip Cross” and grant him administrator privileges?

Oliver Kamm briefly held an internet admin account in his won name. It is particularly noteworthy that Kamm was contacted by email on 28 June 2007 at 17.25 in this guise by “slim virgin”, another Wikipedia admin account that has been widely reported to be a security services front. It ostensibly belongs to Canadian Oxbridge graduate Linda Mack, but impossibly high levels of activity (including once editing straight for 26 hours) have led many to conclude that Slim Virgin is a team – she averaged 100 articles a day, seven days a week, for a year! Linda Mack was believed by ABC News to have been acting on behalf of MI5 in monitoring their Lockerbie investigation while working for their London bureau. The admin page on which “slim virgin” contacted Oliver Kamm is specifically about his attacks on Neil Clark, which is where we came in.

There are just far too many coincidences and linkages for any reasonable person to conclude that nothing murky is happening on Wikipedia. We know for certain from the Snowden revelations that the government does carry out internet operations to promote its narrative and to degrade the image and reach of known opponents on the web. I know from personal professional experience that the security services work with trusties in the media. We have plainly uncovered something at the edge of one of these operations here.

UPDATE I have received twitter messages from “Philip Cross” that he is a person, not part of GCHQ, and that his activity on Wikipedia is often sparked by things he has read, including by Oliver Kamm. He also points out that I had blogged that I did not like my photo on Wikipedia (this is true). He states that Oliver Kamm’s influence on his Wikipedia activity is “not as great as it seems”. I have replied to “Philip Cross” asking if he knows Oliver Kamm, and why Kamm has any influence at all on his Wikpedia activity. I shall keep you posted.

FURTHER UPDATE “Philip Cross” has now replied that “occasionally, it is one of OK’s tweets that reminds me. There is no conspiracy here and I am not a paid editor.” No reply to if he knows Oliver Kamm.

Hat-Tips to Node, Clark and Squonk

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

169 thoughts on “Is GCHQ Embedded in Wikipedia?

1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Republicofscotland

    Craig thank you for that RT video, it would appear that you’re in fine company when it comes to being denounced by the swivel eyed loons.

    Neil Clark, Seamus Milne, John Pilger, and of course your good self show us the way, even though you pay a price for it.

  • Habbabkuk (for fact-based, polite, rational and obsession-free posting)

    “The person who is so quick to bring up David Irving is also the person who strenuously defends the view that the Nazis were not responsible for the Reichstag Fire”

    The great majority of reputable historians (including Professor Richard Evans) is of the same view.

  • Habbabkuk (for fact-based, polite, rational and obsession-free posting)

    “Craig thank you for that RT video, it would appear that you’re in fine company when it comes to being denounced by the swivel eyed loons.

    Neil Clark, Seamus Milne, John Pilger, and of course your good self show us the way, even though you pay a price for it.”

    Having just watched that RT video, I note that Mr Clark did not mention Craig.

    I count that in Craig’s favour.

  • craig Post author


    I don’t think you are a troll. You are however extremely mischievous. I have no problem with your robust arguments with commentators or indeed with me, but I dislike your occasional descent to the ad hominem and your frequent and perfectly deliberate attempts to inflame the less temperate.

    If you could restrain the wind-up merchant inside you, you would be a much more valued contributor.

  • lysias

    Great majority by whose calculation? Not including Ian Kershaw or Gerhard Weinberg.

  • John Goss

    Excellent piece of investigative and collaborative journalism (which is what paid journalists ought to be doing). Regardless of whether these two are one and the same (or even a Spooks’ department) you have well and truly nailed Kamm to the Cross. Well done! I bet they feel quite small having been shown to be what they are – which certainly does not amount to much.

  • Hieroglyph

    Of course, GCHQ don’t have to have an employee do the work. This would probably be illegal, infofar as any laws apply to our spooks. No, they have a propaganda budget, which is large. And this can pay for PR agencies, who can, in turn, outsource certain functions, etc etc. PR agencies will be bound by commercial in confidence provisions, and probably HR laws, so don’t have to reveal anything. So if Cross says he is not part of GCHQ, he is just a person, this could well be the truth.

    I make no comment about Cross himself, just the general principle. Neil above is, I’m, sure, one of the many excellent Wiki editors who do it for love, not money, and wouldn’t even consider working for GCHQ. And Wiki does have safeguards. However, the spooks have a way of getting round safeguards, and it doesn’t take all that many Wiki editors to muddy the waters, which is all that’s really required. Take Craig. All that would be needed is to emphasise the fact (admitted by Craig) that he got into a spot of bother with the ladies, and suggest this was a factor in his sacking. It’s nonsense, but not a ‘lie’ as such, and can be cited with evidence. This totally misses the point that he was poisoned and sacked for whistleblowing, which would be regarded as a ‘win’. Note, I haven’t read the page, perhaps this has already been done?

    I say it again. National Security laws are a menace, and our spooks need to have their powers seriouslt reviewed. But, who can review them? Parliament? Think not.

  • Clark

    Craig to Habbabkuk:

    I dislike your occasional descent to the ad hominem and your frequent and perfectly deliberate attempts to inflame the less temperate.

    That’s virtually a definition of trolling.

    There are no trolls nor eminences, there is only trolling or contributing; we all do both.

    There are no good people or bad people, only good or bad behaviours:

    “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
    ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

    We each have choice and we each have awareness, and like all abilities they improve the more we exercise them.

  • Habbabkuk (for fact-based, polite, rational and obsession-free posting)

    “Great majority by whose calculation? Not including Ian Kershaw or Gerhard Weinberg.”

    By the calculation of those who have elementary arithmetic.

    Kershaw and Weinberg = 2 historians (by my arithmetic). A minority, I’d say.

  • lysias

    Well, Kershaw + Weinberg + Hett + Bahar + Kugel make 5. Who can name 5 on the other side?

  • Habbabkuk (for fact-based, polite, rational and obsession-free posting)


    Thanks for that.

    “You are however extremely mischievous.”

    So are you. It’s stimulating, don’t you think?


    “..your frequent and perfectly deliberate attempts to inflame the less temperate.”


    When the stew’s rather dull, chuck in a couple of red hot chilli peppers.

    Those who have some character and factual strength (eg, OldMark) can partake without getting indigestion or the vapours.

  • Aidworker1

    This is a fascinating and really interesting post.

    I thought it odd that neither Clark nor Galloway mentioned directly that their trolls were Zionists.

    If, the great man, Galloway really gets a death threat every week it must be followed up.

    Hasbara has gone too far and we will see a backlash soon.

  • Clark

    Habbabkuk, so what? Essentially what you’re saying is “Lysias is a bad person and should shut up”, right?

  • Habbabkuk (for fact-based, polite, rational and obsession-free posting)

    Funny that our Transatlantic Friend should enlist Ian Kershaw to his side.

    It so happens that I have before me Ian Kershaw’s “Hitler : 1889-1936 Hubris” (Penguin, London, 2001).

    Here is what he writes (pp456-7):

    “But on 27 February, Marinus van der Lubbe set fire to the Reichstag.

    Marinus van der Lubbe came from a Dutrh working-class family, and had formerly belonged to the Communist Party youth organisation in Holland. ……In particular, he was determined to make a lone and spectacular act of defiant protest at the ‘Government of National Concentration’ in order to galvanise the working class into struggle agaionst their repression. Three attempts at arson on 25 February in different buildings in Berlin failed. Two days later he succeeded in his protest – thouygh the consequences were scarcely those he had envisaged”.

    So perhaps our Transatlantic Friend should replace “5” by “4”? 🙂

  • John Goss

    Here is the Wikispooks entry on Slim Virgin, aka Rolfe, aka Linda Mack, aka aka et al.

    My own view is that some accounts may not be the sole accounts of individuals but may be shared accounts which any of a number of individuals can access working to a prescribed house-style. Actually the internet is at the moment one of the few areas of free speech where the real news, and not that shit MSM puts out, can be filtered from the garbage thanks to dedicated people who are contributing unpaid because they believe in human rights and justice. It is a great cedit to them in the face of MSM multi-trillions propaganda that the truth is still getting out and this is causing MSM and their owners big nightmares.

    Long may it continue. 😀

  • Habbabkuk (for fact-based, polite, rational and obsession-free posting)

    “Habbabkuk, so what? Essentially what you’re saying is “Lysias is a bad person and should shut up”, right?”

    I am not pronouncing on Lysias’s moral standing, which does not interest me very much. I am just persuaded that he has a lot of the Walter Mitty about him.

  • Clark

    Habbabkuk (for fact-based, polite, rational and obsession-free posting)

    How do you think I, or another reader might feel about that? Do you think we’d be more or less likely to comment, if we felt that someone like you might take the piss out of us?

  • lysias

    Kershaw wrote that before he read Hett’s book, whereupon he wrote what Hett quotes here:

    Some senior scholars have been, perhaps surprisingly, receptive to this argument (which runs counter to the case advanced not only by the rather shady Fritz Tobias, but the eminent German historian Hans Mommsen). No less a figure than Sir Ian Kershaw, for instance, wrote that I had

    done a very good job of dissecting the murky evidence related to the Reichstag Fire, and [the book is] particularly illuminating on Fritz Tobias and the climate in which he wrote his book. For me, Hermann Graml hit the nail on the head with his comment, quoted on p. 323 of the book, that what is at stake comes down in the end to not much more than that the Nazis ‘did not shrink from the crime of arson’. In my view, therefore, Professor Hett goes too far in claiming on the following page that ‘to control the narrative of the fire is to control the narrative of Nazism itself’. However, his meticulous analysis, which goes a long way towards rehabilitating the line first advanced soon after the war by Hans Bernd Gisevius, is, for me, largely compelling, both in the balance of probabilities on the authorship of the fire, and in the elucidation of the postwar atmosphere in West Germany which made the ‘single authorship’ of van der Lubbe important for the Gestapists to establish.

    Some historians can change their minds when presented with solid evidence, whereas some (like Evans?) seem to have more difficulty.

  • Why be ordinary?


    At least that last post convinced me that you don’t work for GCHQ

  • lysias

    I think the fact that Hett’s evidence was powerful enough to change Kershaw’s mind speaks to the power of Hett’s evidence. (Much of Hett’s evidence had already been presented by Kugel and Bahar — I have no idea if Kershaw read or paid any attention to them — but what was new that Hett brought to the table — and this may have made the difference for Kershaw — was a trial lawyer’s skill in evaluating the credibility of the testimony of witnesses.)

  • Njegos

    I don’t know who to address this to, and I have no doubt it has been raised already, but it would be useful if this blog had a comment/reply ladder. It would make it somewhat easier to follow the discussions.

    Apologies for stating the obvious!


  • Bud Butley

    I have read this thread with interest and forwarded the link to someone who has had their Wiki removed for reasons yet to be determined. But I had no idea how many, many, fervent folk labored feverishly to keep Wiki not wonky. It’s wonderful. FWIW I consult Wiki on spellings, birth and death dates, succession, but neither Kamm nor Cross can fool me about the Reichstag fire. I wonder what they’ve done to Thyssen’s page? I must have a look.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Comments are closed.