The Philip Cross Affair 771


UPDATE “Philip Cross” has not had one single day off from editing Wikipedia in almost five years. “He” has edited every single day from 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018. Including five Christmas Days. That’s 1,721 consecutive days of editing.

133,612 edits to Wikpedia have been made in the name of “Philip Cross” over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week. And I do not use that figuratively: Wikipedia edits are timed, and if you plot them, the timecard for “Philip Cross’s” Wikipedia activity is astonishing is astonishing if it is one individual:

The operation runs like clockwork, seven days a week, every waking hour, without significant variation. If Philip Cross genuinely is an individual, there is no denying he is morbidly obsessed. I am no psychiatrist, but to my entirely inexpert eyes this looks like the behaviour of a deranged psychotic with no regular social activities outside the home, no job (or an incredibly tolerant boss), living his life through a screen. I run what is arguably the most widely read single person political blog in the UK, and I do not spend nearly as much time on the internet as “Philip Cross”. My “timecard” would show where I watch football on Saturdays, go drinking on Fridays, go to the supermarket and for a walk or out with the family on Sundays, and generally relax much more and read books in the evenings. Cross does not have the patterns of activity of a normal and properly rounded human being.

There are three options here. “Philip Cross” is either a very strange person indeed, or is a false persona disguising a paid operation to control wikipedia content, or is a real front person for such an operation in his name.

Why does this – to take the official explanation – sad obsessive no friends nutter, matter?

Because the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is systematically to attack and undermine the reputations of those who are prominent in challenging the dominant corporate and state media narrative. particularly in foreign affairs. “Philip Cross” also systematically seeks to burnish the reputations of mainstream media journalists and other figures who are particularly prominent in pushing neo-con propaganda and in promoting the interests of Israel.

This matters because, an ordinary reader who comes across an article questioning (say) the official narrative on the Skripals, is very likely to turn to Wikipedia to get information on the author of the article. Simply put, the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is to make certain that if that reader looks up an anti-war person such as John Pilger, they will conclude they are thoroughly unreliable and untrustworthy, whereas if they look up a right wing MSM journalist, they will conclude they are a paragon of virtue and entirely to be trusted.

The “Philip Cross” treatment is meted out not just to left wingers, but to all sceptical of neo-conservatism and who oppose “wars of intervention”. A list of Cross’s victims includes Alex Salmond, Peter Oborne, John Pilger, Owen Jones, Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Hayward, Diane Abbott, Neil Clark, Lindsey German, Vanessa Beeley, and George Galloway. As you would expect “Philip Cross” is particularly active in making amendments to the Wikipedia articles of alternative media, and of MSM critique sites. “Philip Cross” has made 36 edits to the Wikipedia entry of The Canary and, staggeringly, over 800 edits on Media Lens. George Galloway remains the “Philip Cross” operation’s favourite target with a quite incredible 1,800 edits.

Just as revealing are the people who “Philip Cross” seeks to protect and promote. Sarah Smith, BBC Scotland’s uber-unionist, has had “Philip Cross” kindly delete references from her Wikipedia entry to family ties that (ahem) may have helped her career. Labour Friends of Israel’s Ruth Smeeth MP has had reference to the Wikileaks released US diplomatic cable that showed she was an informer to the US Embassy on the secrets of the Labour Party, deleted by “Philip Cross”. Right wing columnist Melanie Phillips had her embarrassing climate change denial excised by Cross.

“Philip Cross” not only carefully tends and protects the Wikipedia entry of Guardian editor Katherine Viner, who has taken the paper four square into the neo-con camp, Philip Cross actually wrote the original hagiographic entry. The Guardian’s MI6 contact, Luke Harding, is particularly looked after by Cross, as are their anti-Corbyn obsessives Nick Cohen and Jonathon Freedland. So are Murdoch hacks David Aaronovitch and Oliver Kamm.

There is no doubt that Kamm, leader wirter of Murdoch’s Times, is close the the “Philip Cross” operation. Many people believe that Kamm and Cross are the same person, or that Kamm is part of a multiple persona. Six times I have personally had hostile edits to my Wikipedia page by “Philip Cross” made in precise conjunction with attacks on me by Kamm, either on Twitter, in a Times editorial or in Prospect magazine. Altogether “Philip Cross” has made 275 edits to my Wikipedia page. These include calling my wife a stripper, deleting my photo, removing my reply to attacks made on me by Kamm and Harding among others, and deleting my refusal of all honours while a British diplomat.

Neil Clark and Peter Oborne are among many others who have suffered attacks on them by Philip Cross on Wikipedia simultaneously with attacks by Kamm on other media. Clark is taking Kamm to court for stalking – and “Philip Cross” has deleted all reference to that fact from Kamm’s Wikipedia page.

What is plain is that Kamm and Cross have extremely similar political views, and that the dividing line of those they attack and those they defend is based squarely on the principles of the Euston Manifesto. This may be obscure, but is in fact an important Blairite declaration of support for Israel and for neo-con wars of intervention, and was linked to the foundation of the Henry Jackson Society. Who do we find editing the Wikipedia entry for the Euston Manifesto? “Philip Cross”.

What is particularly interesting is that “Philip Cross”‘s views happen to be precisely the same political views as those of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales has been on twitter the last three days being actively rude and unpleasant to anybody questioning the activities of Philip Cross. His commitment to Cross’s freedom to operate on Wikipedia would be rather more impressive if the Cross operation were not promoting Wales’ own opinions. Jimmy Wales has actively spoken against Jeremy Corbyn, supports the bombing of Syria, supports Israel, is so much of a Blairite he married Blair’s secretary, and sits on the board of Guardian Media Group Ltd alongside Katherine Viner.

The extreme defensiveness and surliness of Wales’ twitter responses on the “Philip Cross” operation is very revealing. Why do you think he reacts like this? Interestingly enough. Wikipedia’s UK begging arm, Wikimedia UK, joined in with equal hostile responses to anyone questioning Cross.

In response many people sent Jimmy Wales evidence, which he ignored, while his “charity” got very upset with those questioning the Philip Cross operation.

Wikimedia had arrived uninvited into a twitter thread discussing the “Philip Cross” operation and had immediately started attacking people questioning Cross’s legitimacy. Can anybody else see anything “insulting” in my tweet?

I repeat, the coincidence of Philip Cross’s political views with those of Jimmy Wales, allied to Wales’ and Wikimedia’s immediate hostility to anybody questioning the Cross operation – without needing to look at any evidence – raises a large number of questions.

“Philip Cross” does not attempt to hide his motive or his hatred of those whose Wikipedia entries he attacks. He openly taunts them on twitter. The obvious unbalance of his edits is plain for anybody to see.

I have in the past exchanged messages with “Philip Cross”. He says he is a person, and that he edits in conjunction with Oliver Kamm tweets because he follows Kamm and his tweets inspire him to edit. He says he has met Kamm and admits to being in electronic communication with him. That excjange I had with Cross was some years ago. More recent communication with Cross (who has now changed his twitter ID to “Julian”

has been less forthcoming and he has not replied:

George Galloway has offered a reward of £1,000 for the name and address of “Cross” so he may also take legal action.

My view is that Philip Cross probably is a real person, but that he fronts for a group acting under his name. It is undeniably true, in fact the government has boasted, that both the MOD and GCHQ have “cyber-war” ops aiming to defend the “official” narrative against alternative news media, and that is precisely the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation on Wikipedia. The extreme regularity of output argues against “Philip Cross” being either a one man or volunteer operation. I do not rule out however the possibility he genuinely is just a single extremely obsessed right wing fanatic.

Finally, it is worth noting that on Wikipedia, an operation to boost the mainstream media narrative and denigrate alternative sources has the massive advantage that only information from mainstream media sources is permitted in political articles.

In conclusion, some images from the edit pages of Wikipedia articles to give just a little flavour of what I am talking about:

I am slightly concerned lest I am myself getting obsessed. Do you find this as fascinating as I do?


771 thoughts on “The Philip Cross Affair

1 4 5 6 7 8 10
  • bj

    @Craig
    There is a simple tool that you can install in your browser that will highlight any changes made by a specific editor.
    The highlights will be in the actual current article.

    The extension, WhoColor can be found here:
    https://f-squared.org/whovisual/
    Its installation instruction is just a bit down on the page, and the process is really simple.

    After installation, each WP page will have an extra button, ‘WhoColor’, which when clicked, will give you a pane with list of editors, which you can click, to highlight their edits.

    Two example of what the result will look like:
    https://f-squared.org/whovisual/color_history_today.png
    (example on the WhoColor website)

    and:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/11woyr8h2ofwpxy/Screenshot%20%28317%29.png?dl=0
    (example from George Galloway’s web page, created by me a couple of minutes ago; note the WhoColor button, and also note the extreme whopping 61% of edits by one Philip Cross.)

    One caveat: the Wikipedia page will take a bit longer to load in your browser, so be patient.

  • Republicofscotland

    Jeez, every single royal arse licking commentator, has crawled out the woidwork today to espouse the taxpayer paid royal wedding.

    The media (the Third Estate) are as one today, as they focus on praising the (First Estate) to high heaven.

    Spare a thought for the poor souls who were forced off the streets, to allow the royal spongers and their troughing vain retinue, the courtesy of not catching a glimpse of the real face of the nation. One where poverty is rife.

    • Sharp Ears

      So funny. ITV is still at it. In the ad break, one came up for the new album by the young cellist who played in the service. Nothing like grabbing an opportunity when presented.

    • Vivian O'Blivion

      My daily tolerance of BBC output is limited to a maximum half hour exposure to Radio Scotland. In the last couple of days did I detect a minor shop floor revolt against management edicts? Presenters were allowing acknowledgement of public disinterest (disinterest to put it mildly). Normal service will be resumed to protect career prospects.

  • Lea

    Thanks a million. It’s good that people should at long last point out that Wikipedia is anything but neutral. I personally have a long-standing beef with them: in the name of “neutrality” and “debate”, they host a most unsavoury bunch of pedophilia advocates. Let me point out something: their entries have nothing to do with “debate” or “dispassionate facts”, as they include blatant lies that you cannot edit out, because your edits will be reverted, sometimes within the next hour. If you complain to one of their senior editors or whatever they call them in English (I am French), he will tell you he can do nothing about it, please rest assured that our neutrality, blah blah blah, and go back to edit the page if you want. So you do. And your edits are reverted once again by some individual whose online username is Encolpius (the Roman character of Petronius’ Satyricon, who has a very young male sexual slave). So you go back to the senior editor with your evidence of the blatant bias of that editor, and you get the same “can do nothing, edit the page if you want and go to the discussion page”. Which you don’t bother to try, because by then, you have understood the senior editor is on the side of “Encolpius”, because he knows full well “Encolpius” is obsessively erasing all criticism of pedophilia, knows full well your evidence is sound hence “Encolpius” is lying, and STILL won’t do anything about it but give you a way to drive you crazy, so you’ll drop it. I have boycotted Wikipedia ever since.
    They had the same problem:
    http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article=11

    Your feud with Jimmy Wales reflects precisely what I went through. I am seeing myself: facing arrogant propagandist trolls who make a mockery of debate, facts and truth. And who know full well what they are doing.

  • Republicofscotland

    Meanwhile in the aftermath of the Texas High School shootings.

    “Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick says there are too many entrances and exits to schools, and that is why shootings are able to happen. “Had there been one single entrance possibly for every student, maybe he would have been stopped.”

    It’s all the fault of the doors, and not the assault rifles.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/TomNamako/status/997557776850268162

    • James

      Only the army should have assault rifles.

      No one else has the training or discipline to safely handle them.

      Like the Israeli army, for example. Oh wait…

  • quasi_verbatim

    Wiki is Big Tech and unlike Moby Dick these whales are gasping for breath and beginning to putrefy on the beach. Aggregators come and go and Wiki has been considered suspect since it permitted a Global Warming cybermonkey to crawl all over the edits some years ago. To everyman his obsession.

    Quisling Sturgeon, on the other hand, is a Privy Councellor who believes she can cut up rough over Brexit and force another IndyRef. That is not in her gift, unfortunately, but in the gift of the powers-that-be, who do not reside in Edinburgh. Nevertheless, smoke and mirrors Quisling is a class act, as far as that goes.

    • Robert Peffers

      Utterly laughable claptrap. There is absolutely nothing to stop the SNP, or the Scottish Government , from holding a referendum on any thing they please. No one, including Theresa May can legally stop anyone from holding a referendum. The best that Westminster can legally do is say they will not recognise the result.

      However, if they were daft enough to even threated to do so they would be faced with the consequences of their threats. There is a truth about claimed sovereignty that is self evident to anyone with at least two braincells. Sovereignty is only held by anyone for as long as the people allow them to hold it. That was driven home to the French and Russian aristocracy by the people’s revolutions against them.

      It was made plain to the English Sovereign and government when the then American colonies of Great Britain threw them out and the way things are going with the stupidly named BREXIT Westminster is on the brink of learning that same lesson too. Britain cannot exit the EU because Britain is not a member state of the EU. The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland is the member state and the United Kingdom is exactly that – A two partner united KINGDOM – not a country – a kingdom and there are only two signatory kingdoms that signed that Treaty of Union document and one of them has had its legally sovereign people vote to remain.

      Remember that adage – sovereignty will always ultimately remain the prerogative of the people and the people of Scotland are legally sovereign..

  • Spencer Eagle

    An anagram of Philip Cross is ‘Spoils Chirp’. From the urban dictionary: Chirping – ‘The process of talking large amounts of shit, towards stupid individuals’.

  • Republicofscotland

    UN to investigate the recent massacre of the Palestinian people by the oppressive apartheid military state of Israel.

    “The council voted through the resolution with 29 in favour and two opposed, while 14 states abstained.”

    Britain was one of the abstainers, as Craig once said we really are swimming in sewage.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-killings-israel-hamas-un-war-crimes-investigate-border-deaths-sniper-a8357981.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      And this thread isn’t helping when we all are swiming in sewage.

  • Barden Gridge

    Why doesn’t Clarence Mitchell have an English wikipedia page?
    He’s on wikispooks ( https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Clarence_Mitchell ) but that has nothing to do with wikipedia.

    Why would he have a German wikipedia page ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Mitchell ) but not an English one?

    Anthony Glees also has a German wikipedia page ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Glees ). He has appeared on German TV so that’s not so surprising, but why no English page for him?

    Can anyone decide they don’t want a wikipedia page about them?

  • Phil

    Doing what he is doing constitutes malicious defamation, seem he needs a visit to the High Court, forced to do so by somebody that can afford to take him there…

  • Paul Cockshott

    I note that the villain in the BBC drama Unforgotten is called Philipp Cross, and he has something to hide.

  • Bob In Portland

    I discovered that the Wikipedia entry on the Atlantic Council when looking into Dmitri Alperovitch, who is a member of it and owns CrowdStrike (for other readers, CrowdStrike was the “cybersecurity” firm called to investigate the DNC hacking while the FBI was kept away) and found out that the Atlantic Council was funded by the Ukrainian World Congress (or Council). I can’t verify the name.

    I pointed this out on a number of sites and, surprise, the reference to the UWC disappeared. Don’t know if it came back, but I found that quite curious.

  • N_

    I’ve now donated about half a minute of my time to skimming stuff written about the “royal” wedding, and it seems as though the packaging (and therefore the coverage) amounted to an intelligence test that most people’s conscious minds will fail but many of their unconscious minds won’t.

    Clue: neither practical criticism of slavery nor the mental resistance to it expressed in the negro spiritual musical tradition have anything whatsoever to do with sucking up to the “royal” family.

    The “royal” family were in fact deeply involved in slavery, as many of the people who have heard of the “Royal African Society” (founded 1660), and who know where the “York” comes from in “New York”, may be aware.

    Anybody who sucks up to the “royal” family is a wretch who deserves contempt. That’s regardless of their skin colour.

    Funny how nobody in the bride’s family wanted to give her away to that foul bunch of shits she decided she wanted to marry into! Clearly they at least have good taste!

    Anyway I won’t be coming to this site any more, because I am unwilling to update my already quite newish browser version. Best wishes to Craig and to all decent contributors.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ N_ May 19, 2018 at 17:22
      Sorry to see you go. Why don’t you just use add another free browser?
      I would love to have watched the wedding, but I’m too busy watching paint dry.

  • Jeff Berg

    Obviously a ‘perception management’ operation. I had no idea, once again you have provided invaluable operation. I was also wondering what the hell happened to the Guardian. Over here in Canada we have virtually no alternative media and so used to look forward to Guardian articles to get a better sense of what was happening throughout the empire. No longer alas. Peter Hitchens said it best tweeting: ”Has Invasion of the Bodysnatchers been re-enacted at Guardian HQ? Whatever the dear old thing’s faults it was never a Pentagon patsy until recently. Rumours of relaunch as The Warmonger’s Gazette, free toy soldier with every issue.” 

  • LenkaPenka

    Just shocked that “nice man” Jimmy is revealed as a foul mouthed not particularly nice piece of work. Will be noted by many others as well.

  • Mike

    Thanks for this information
    Actually I never trust Wikipedia but this confirms
    that the information there is not reliable and many times misleading
    Philip Cross is probably a group of cabal slaves

  • Gary Weglarz

    Thanks so much for a great informative post. I now have a much better understanding of how/why Wikipedia operates the way it does in controlling the narratives challenging Western propaganda.

  • Dennis Revell

    :

    It seems VERY unlikely to me that Phillip Cross is a single individual.

    “Phillip Cross” is in all likelihood an OPERATION – by the likes of MI6, CIA, DGI, NSA … and so on … or a who knows a collaboration between two or more of the like.

    I wouldn’t be suprprised if those ‘Shadows’ initially decided it was to be called something like “Operation PC” (ie: Operation Politically Correct – correct for “them” that is). Hence even if Jimmy Wales wasn’t already sympathetic to the Western Establishments, these outfits have virtually unlimited amounts of taxpayer money they can throw at him – and we ALL know how Wales ALWAYS has his cap out.

    Of course you probably can not have an “Operation PC” as a Wikipedia editor – hence a name conforming to those initials: “Phillip Cross”? Who knows? I don’t – except I doubt VERY much if Cross exists as a SINGLE person – but a bunch of them all having the same login credentials & checklist.

    .

  • Rob

    Craig, I continue to admire your insight.

    I suppose in the old days, an individual wanting to influence public opinion was limited to writing the same letters to numerous local newspapers or putting pamphlets through doors. Nowadays a person doesn’t have to be very sophisticated or belong to the security services. Social media is often cited as prone to bots and fake news, but the comments sections of newspapers and dare I include blogs are vulnerable too. Just look at the comments in the Dailymailonline.com Not only does the mail tend to refuse to publish pro Corbyn comments in reply to their attack pieces as you might expect, but individual commentators can create multiple accounts each with a fake email address and flood articles with particular views. Once the accounts are setup, it wouldn’t take long to post, say, a hundred brief comments as long as they are not contrary to the Mail’s agenda. Up and down arrows are a little different. They seem limited to one click per IP address. If you look at articles about police misbehaviour for example, pro police comments are up arrowed around 5,000 times within a few moments and anti-police comments attract 5,000 down arrows quickly.

  • David Robertson

    George Galloway made almost identical comments on one of his talk shows. That makes two witnesses to the activities of “Philip Cross” so the matter is proven. I have therefore deleted Wikipedia as a reference source. Thanks for the heads up.

  • Tessa Gray

    Absolutely fascinating. Made me want to go and check on the entries myself. You are right. They are as you describe, sycophantic to the right and dishonest about the left. John Pilger’s entry is a disgrace.

    • lysias

      “Sycophantic to the right and dishonest about the left” strikes me as a perfect description of Habbabkuk.

      That Charles whatever his name is appears to have disappeared from this thread today.

  • Sharp Ears

    The royal lot (200 of them and the hangers on) are at a party tonight at Frogmore House, hosted by P Charles.

    Did anyone know they owned it? I didn’t.

    ‘Frogmore House is a 17th-century English country house owned by the Crown Estate. The house is situated within the Frogmore Estate, which is itself located within the grounds of the Home Park, Windsor, Berkshire. Half a mile south of Windsor Castle, Frogmore was let to a number of tenants until the late 18th century, when it was used intermittently as a residence for several members of the royal family.

    ++The house is currently uninhabited++, but it is used by the royal family to host both private and official events. It is a Grade I listed building.’

    ‘ Open to the public a few days each year.’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frogmore_House#/media/File:Frogmore_House,_Windsor_Great_Park_-_geograph.org.uk_-_265497.jpg

    It should be used to house Windsor’s homeless who were swept off out of sight by the Mayor.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frogmore_House

    We need a revolution.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    I had read this elsewhere, but didn’t give it that much credence, but I give enormous credence to Pepe Escobar, and he just wrote the following. I think it entirely possible that Craig Murray’s website has serious technical issues., and is now compromised / corrupted.

    “Letter from Iran: Mr. Trump, you have been served”

    http://thesaker.is/letter-from-iran-mr-trump-you-have-been-served/

    Bye,

    Tony

  • Walt King

    Really, really fascinating. Essential reading.
    I would like to contribute but don’t want to use Paypal. Can we arrange a direct debit or one off card payments?

  • Dan Huck

    Extremely fascinating! You really like to dig into things, and there are those, the 99.99%, who might feel you are obsessed. Not me. Thank you for bringing to my attention another arm of the war machine which we think of as impartial. Isn’t this totalitarianism? Makes me think Robert D Kaplan’s article July 2003 in the Atlantic, “Supremacy by Stealth: 10 Rules…”, and most of what I’ve read of his, are a new century catechism for the elite.

  • pete

    As usual Craig would probably be right to suspect that one person could not have performed all the edits he has drawn our attention to, it must be a team with too much time on their hands and, given the quantity of the edits, they must be being paid to do this.

    Looking for more information about the topic of who edits Wikipedia I found a story in the Hindustan Times that said “Wikipedia’s editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the online encyclopaedia’s articles, saying the tabloid is “generally unreliable.”:
    https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/wikipedia-editors-ban-unreliable-daily-mail-as-source/story-2zNFdfwbvDcddEr6e7HkII.html
    Wales has said previously ( in 2009) that he planned to recruit 20,000 editors to try to prevent online tampering with the content. But as that was an item in the Daily Mail: (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208941/Free-edit-Wikipedia-appoints-volunteer-editors-vet-changes-articles-living-people.html) it may itself be unreliable.
    Either way everyone would be correct to assume Wikipedia cannot be trusted as a source, on any contentious matter, I recommend the Reference Library as a useful starting point for information, while we still have Libraries

    • lysias

      After encyclopedic works like that of Isidore of Seville appeared in late antiquity, the earlier works that they summarized tended to disappear.

1 4 5 6 7 8 10

Comments are closed.