The Philip Cross Affair 772


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?


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments will be closed on June 26, 2018.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

772 thoughts on “The Philip Cross Affair

1 7 8 9 10
      • bj

        Could it be that Robert Mueller III’s special counsel is investigating the wrong country for election collusion?

        I would go even further: the country investigated is wrong, and the investigating country is wrong.

        • lysias

          And most of the public in the UK is unaware that it was first and foremost the UK intel community that pushed the lie that there was collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. I just now read that GCHQ head met with a still unconvinced John Brennan in the summer of 2016 to persuade him that there was such collusion. No wonder “retired” MI6 types produced the Steele dossier. No wonder Brannigan quit on 6 hours notice three days after Trump was inaugurated.

          If and when the U.S. public becomes aware of such facts, there won’t be much left of UK influence in the U.S. Mind you, I’m not sure that matters much, because the U.S. is going down too. But people in the UK should be aware of what their government has done.

          • SA

            “If and when the U.S. public becomes aware of such facts, there won’t be much left of UK influence in the U.S. “
            not nescessarily as there must be collusion between the two deep states that will see that it either does not happen or is obfuscated. Talking of which why is the Cambridge Analytica scandal not so high profile?

          • Paul Barbara

            @ lysias May 21, 2018 at 01:17
            I fondly believe that Is*ael won’t have much influence among the US public if and when they learn the true story of Is*ael’s murderous attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. That is why it is so important to get the info out. Unfortunately, most pro-Palestine demonstrators prefer parroting slogans to thoughtfully addressing issues like the Liberty.
            For those who are unaware (or only slightly aware) of the Liberty story, the best source is Peter Hounam’s ‘Operation Cyanide’, though a very good documentary (the BBC commissioned Peter Hounam to make it) is:
            “USS Liberty: Dead In The Water”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjOH1XMAwZA
            PH knew nothing about the Liberty till he made the documentary; he then wrote the book.

  • doug scorgie

    Anon1
    May 20, 2018 at 19:04

    “The taxpayer paid nothing for the wedding. ”
    ……………………………………………………….

    The taxpayer paid for the whole lot; from the organisers to the tea ladies; the Chef to the food suppliers; the soldiers in bright regalia to the SAS and police and all the free booze.
    Then there is the sweeping-up of the mess afterwards; the unblocking of over-used toilets; mopping-up of vomit and all the other unpleasant stuff.

  • BrianFujisan

    Sharp Ears
    May 19, 2018 at 08:39
    Q. Who is the new Duke of Sussex, the Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel? Why have one title when four will do? Emphasizing the rule over England, Scotland and N Ireland. Wales a given?

    ‘Dumbarton is a town in West Dunbartonshire, Scotland, on the north bank of the River Clyde where the River Leven flows into the Clyde estuary.’

    When I look out my window Sraight ahead is ( across the the clyde,) is North..Ben Lomond Looms..Turn My eyes just Slightly to the Right, I’m looking at Dumbarton, Turn my head to the left, I”m Lookin at Helensburgh..And Faslane..

    Sharp Ears..The reason I picked out your Post.. Is to Highlight my own location on an OT matter –
    This afternoon we attended a beautiful Wee / Huge celebration in Gourock.. Just doon the water from Dumbarton,
    It was for Gourock, Scotland, Winning the Fuji Decleration’s Peace Pole..The FIRST in Europe comes to My River ( well it is )

    Congratz Geraldine and Al –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3ipjbYJcjY&t=79s

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAQU7N02Xjw

    • flatulence

      Congratz indeed.

      As a side note: I enjoyed your triangulation game. By my spectacular powers of deduction, I can confirm that you are living in a tree house near Hootenanny Owls, and your name is Yassin Aref.

        • flatulence

          please stop correcting yourself flatulence. A fart cannot be undone. Not with today’s technology anyway. I’d love to see the grant application for that research. But then there’s still the question of what to do with all that guff. Pump it into Gaza probably. and then bomb them for trying to make money from that natural gas deposit.

  • Nikolas Bourbaki

    There is software called Signature that can be used to analyze if two pieces of written text are by the same person. This software was written by philosopher Peter Millican in 2003 and uses word frequency analysis, grammar and other bits of data to come up with a probabilistic assessment.

    http://www.philocomp.net/humanities/signature.htm

    I wonder if this can be used to show that “Julian” and Kamm are the very same person.

      • Clark

        At Wikipedia, you use the “History” tab to find an earlier copy of the article which included the section you wish to analyse, and use the tool on that instead.

        • bj

          I was just kidding.

          But to be specific: how do you compare, for author style, text A (by user a) and text B (by user b), where B is text A minus stuff that has been cut out by user b.

          You don’t. The cut-out text was authored by user a. User b’s style doesn’t come into play.

          I know how to operate WP. As a recommendation, I gave an exposé in this thread on Firefox plugin WhoColor, which comes in handy in seeing who made which edits in the current WP-article.

  • David Blackall

    William Connolly is a similar activist who is like Cross, all over the climate change entries in Wikipedia. If some scientist wants to change something, they do and within minutes it is changed back. It is impossible for one person to be William Connolley. This disgusting, inhuman comment is not unique in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) climate science community, like the Syria war issue, there is constant smearing of skeptics, write-ups to refute their stories and we not only see it in the Wikipedia context, but the UK Guardian has a similar campaign in climate change as the Syria rewriting of history. For instance, William Connolley (Stoat) commented on the passing of climate scientist Dr. Bob Carter, saying that: “Science advances one funeral at a time.”

    Russell Cook wrote a blog (link below) about how there is a routine process, like that of the Syria smear process, to smear sceptic climate scientists and Cook wrote about who is behind the smearing. He offers his post as a “Summary for Policymakers regarding my series of seven prior blog posts about a smear effort which took place back in 2007 that is a case study for examining other prior and current industry corruption accusations against skeptic climate scientists.”

    Like the Syria smearing, you can’t beat the simplicity of the global warming issue: “1) The science is settled. 2) The few skeptic climate scientists out there are paid to lie about that by ‘big coal & oil’ interests.” Throw in a third talking point about “reporters and the public can ignore those sceptics because of reasons one and two,” and the whole situation becomes a work of propaganda art. Assad must go, he gasses his own people and Russia too is bad, bad, bad.

    Cook wrote: “Each one of my seven posts about a 2007 formal complaint submitted to the UK Office of Communications over alleged television presentation regulations breaches by “The Great Global Warming Swindle” video was between 1200 and 1700 words in length, and I could have written much more. The complaint – much like any similar smear of sceptic climate scientists – is besieged with easily found errors and narrative contradictions readily apparent to any objective examiner.”
    http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=3887

    • Antonyl

      Yes, this William Connelley was all over the RealClimate.org for example. “He” also has his own site: https://mustelid.blogspot.in/ Obsessed, nuts or a group thing.
      He got in trouble as an admin on Wikipedia. Funnily an article in his defense can now be used against a Philip Cross: we could say that the community management of anonymous expertise, as practiced on Wikipedia, results in extraordinary costs, in the form of uncertainty and flawed perspectives for users; irresponsibility and increased judicial and police work for producers; to say nothing of the consequences of the resulting concentration of legal competencies. https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/09/01/Jcom0901(2010)C01/Jcom0901(2010)C04/Jcom0901(2010)C04.pdf

    • SA

      “William Connolly is a similar activist who is like Cross, all over the climate change entries in Wikipedia.”
      No he is not. He is a scientist who is known with expertise in the field. Philip Cross is an obvious cover name for a person or organisation. By conflate the two and then add Syria to the equation is all trying to either obfuscate one thing or to sell climate skepticism under the cloak of skepticism about these other issues.

      • Antonyl

        Connelley is a software engineer; 11 years ago he worked on (climate) models from the Mathematical side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley There is a clear link to Wikipedia, the topic here.

        SA has been an expert here in piggy backing the Palestinians into any thread. The whole ME might be going up in smoke but he is obsessed with only 0.1% of the area / people.

        • SA

          Very honoured to have someone notice what I write. Incidentally I have written also about Syria. Palestine happens to be an important topic on this website because of the i humane treatment of them by an occupying settler community.
          On this thread I did not mention Palestine so who is piggy backing what by way of innuendo? Or am I touching a raw nerve?

    • John Doran

      William Connolley is part of the plot to sustain the myth that human-caused CO2 Carbon Dioxide is causing global warming. We’ve now had 20 years of no significant warming since the El Nino year of 1998, despite all MSM lies to the contrary. So “They” changed the marketing of the scam to climate change, which is a safer claim, as the climate is always changing: “For about the last 4.5 billion years” as Buzz Aldrin correctly said.

      Connolley edited, apparently, 5428 Wiki entries, all to support the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) nonsense.
      http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/wikipedia-climate-fiddler-william-connolley-is-in-the-news-again/

      The Globalist 1% & their subservient govts funding this nightmare of pretend science, which is actually pure propaganda, are failing: the general public are just not interested, they’re not buying the con. We’ve just had two years of record cooling, & the lack of sunspots indicate a coming cool patch akin to the Little Ice Age we came out of about 1850.

      Buy the lovely little book by this climatologist: http://www.drtimball.com for an accurate expose of the people & motives behind this global scandal.

      John Doran

  • squirrel

    If it is not possible to identify Philip Cross then surely there must be legal recourse against wikipedia itself?

    From http://www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk/internet-defamation.htm

    “The safest course of action for website operators or hosts facing allegations of internet libel is therefore to take down all of the content immediately. If you delay or attempt to edit the material, then your risk of legal liability for online defamation increases substantially.”

  • Jack Yan

    To answer your last question, yes!

    My interests are less political, but I recall when I criticized Wikipedia—a site, which I might add, from which one of its co-founders left because he felt it was too geared against experts—I was subjected to email abuse from a senior editor, allegedly in Canada, for days. The criticism, which I referenced from another page, was about how certain people played the system to get to the top. She evidently didn’t realize her behaviour was confirming what I had written. This was all pre-Twitter, but it demonstrates that the Wikipedia modus operandi, of defending itself against criticism through nonsensical attacks (as you have experienced), is nothing new.

    Sanger, the co-founder, once said: ‘Consequently, nearly everyone with much expertise but little patience will avoid editing Wikipedia, because they will—at least if they are editing articles on articles that are subject to any sort of controversy—be forced to defend their edits on article discussion pages against attacks by nonexperts. This is not perhaps so bad in itself. But if the expert should have the gall to complain to the community about the problem, he or she will be shouted down (at worst) or politely asked to “work with” persons who have proven themselves to be unreasonable (at best).’

    It wouldn’t surprise me that Wikipedia has fake identities fronting for groups, especially given Wales’s defensiveness above, but from experience, I have been in contact with individual “editors” there whom I would never trust in a senior editorial capacity.

  • SC

    Yes, I do. Controlling the narrative is a key objective of the sweeping army of liberal progressives asserting themselves over every Western European nation. Its tyrannical. People should be very frightened at what is taking place everywhere, in all nations. This is worse then what we saw under any previous terrorist regime. This group has eyes on ruling the world.

    • Gene Poole

      “liberal progressives”? Come right out and say “commies,” mate. You’re among friends. Rule the world and make us all drink rotgut vodka. Right?

  • Graeme Purves

    I can’t help wondering what would happen were one to create a Philip Cross page on Wikipedia? Might it create an uncontrollable editorial vortex on the Interweb?

  • SA

    Craig and moderators
    A warning that this website may now be attracting some more extreme commentators if the more extreme CT types such as climate change deniers and even one or two DT supporters not to mention some old sock puppets.

  • Sharp Ears

    The TOCS (train operating companies) 1 Passengers Nil

    At a stroke, fare paying passengers face a huge upheaval today as timetables are changed and thousands of services are lost or delayed. Drivers are missing and even the staff are confused.

    Our friendly ex Sky News reporter. Robert Nisbet, spins it –

    Verified account @RailDeliveryGrp
    Follow Follow @RailDeliveryGrp From today, 60% of the timetable has changed to enable more services to run – part of the rail industry’s plan to change and improve. Please check before you travel http://www.nationalrail.co.uk
    1:15 am – 20 May 2018.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdoEMVZVMAAeC5Z.jpg

    Craig’s previous post refers. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-right-to-stand-in-first-class/
    Warning ‘Charles Bostock’ and ‘Martinned’ are all over the comments on there.

    • Tatyana

      Sharp Ears, if you read it yourself you’ll see the same
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%9E%D0%9E%D0%9D_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%83_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B
      this part:
      “Иерусалим и Вифлеем, согласно решению ООН, должны были стать территорией под международным контролем[4]. Неприятие плана со стороны арабского сообщества, которое считало его несправедливым по отношению к арабам, стало причиной начала Арабо-израильской войны 1947—1949 годов.”

      “Jerusalem and Bethlehem, according to the UN decision, were to become a territory under international control[4]. The rejection of the plan by the Arab community, which considered it unfair to the Arabs, led to the outbreak of The Arab-Israeli war of 1947-1949.”
      ——-
      BTW,
      Recently here someone mentioned there’s a party of Israely friends in UK.
      Then I remembered Mrs. May intended to investigate into Russian money investements in UK.
      it is common knowlege in Russia, that the first oligarchs after USSR has Jewish roots and many of them fled to London.
      It is huge amount driven from Russia to UK and its off-shores.
      Wiki still have some lines about Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky.
      Billioner Poroshenko, current Ukrainian president changed his surname by marriage, and this info is already absent at Wiki.

      I understand it may be judjed as hate speech, it is not my intention, but I’m just bringing facts that I know.
      Let’s see if British Government find something wrong with russian money in UK or not.
      ———-
      I’m not trying to manipulate. Please, stop poking me, let’s respect each other.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Philip Cross has been the subject of intense debate among Wikipedia editors, some of whom are obviously very senior people. This debate has been astonishingly revealing.

    A very courteous but obviously not very experienced editor named “KalHolmann” has been trying to raise the matter on the grounds that Cross has been abusing people on Twitter while also editing their Wikipedia pages, and that this is a conflict of interest (which is quite obviously true). George Galloway in particular, but it is not restricted to Galloway. Senior admin “Guy” just shuts the discussion off with “Zero evidence of COI. Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not the other way around”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Philip_Cross

    That is not the only place where Guy abruptly shuts down the discussion, in one case within two minutes of it being raised.

    KalHolmann has been trying to follow protocol but has made some mistakes. The bullying attitude of senior admin “NeilN” here is really striking.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KalHolmann

    Guy raises the matter himself to discuss whether Cross should go to the Arbitration Committee. His attitude is revealing. His assumption is that Cross has done nothing wrong, and ArbCom is for “transparency” to allow Cross to “definitively clear his name”. He’s also against the move.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Philip_Cross

    (Further discussion is by reference to this page except where specified.)

    To his credit, Cross supports such a referral himself.

    I think KalHolmann deserves a medal for the way he or she argues the case. The information KalHolmann provides is also very revealing. Thankfully, other editors get involved and some seem to have sensible attitudes, and for the first time there seems to be some recognition that Cross has not been acting in an irreproachable way.

    NeilN’s bullying and dismissive attitude to KalHolmann again comes through here very strongly.

    Someone attempts to present evidence of previous misdemeanours by Cross and is immediately blocked as a sock puppet. Okay, but the evidence itself is also removed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=842175877

    Later, similar evidence is presented by KalHolmann. The evidence is removed again, by bully NeilN, but thankfully is restored by another editor who courteously terms it an “accident”:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=842187430

    Some form of consensus is reached that Cross should voluntarily restrict himself from commenting on certain articles. (That’s progress, if he agrees. One of them is Craig Murray’s.)

    Bully admin Guy is clearly not too pleased at the courage and eloquence of KalHolmann, who in my opinion has done an amazing job of fighting his or her corner against powerful opposition. He proposes that KalHolmann be banned from discussing this topic again. |(I wonder why?) Fortunately, KalHolmann is not without allies at this point. This discussion is still going on.

    I must say the complacent, obfuscating and bullying attitude of senior Wikipedia admin here has to be seen to be believed.

    Best, John

    • bj

      Having not read the talk exchange (yet), but believing you when you see a sliver of optimism, I suppose Jimmy ‘Jimbo’ Wales is beginning to feel the heat?

    • Clark

      JSD, I have not read the passages you linked, but I should highlight some background. Wikipedia is a magnet for supporters of all sorts of conspiracy theories, and quite understandably, after a few altercations admins lose patience and start making assumptions.

      I’ve had my own experience of being bullied by a team of conspiracy theorists, all of them commenters on this blog. It stems from a fundamental problem in human nature; there are just far more people who would rather push their preferred agenda than people who are willing to trawl through facts and trace widely accepted false memes back to their sources.

  • Anon

    The outlaw called Jimmy Wales cannot be so dumb and unaware. It is more likely that the IRS,etc has got to him, and Wikipaedia has been compromised. If the CIA can spend $600M to buy the allegiance of WaPo, the American Welshman is just small beer. We now have to wait for Tatyana Zhirinovskys to come up with a defence in his favour after consulting with their open plan office colleagues !!

    • Radar O'Reilly

      CIA spending $600M is very small beer. Remember that two Estonian hackers (they were a bit DK and SE, Zennström & Friis, & there were other Estonians involved ) invented a secure, encrypted decentralised peer-to-peer communications system that would resist Soviet levels of government surveillance: Skype)

      For some reason an American online marketplace decided that they needed to have it and Z&F sold to venture capitalists/eBay for $2.8B in 2005. Sneakily, these hackers did not sell all their secrets, as they licensed the Skype core technologies from another small company (that Z&F also owned) but which was NOT sold to eBay, lawsuits & fighting ensued.

      https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/0510/Why-Microsoft-paid-8.5-billion-for-Skype-which-is-mostly-free

      So another US company bought Skype again, in 2011, for another $8.5B, including the core secrets. total $11300M
      That’s the C.I.A. at work, I suppose they have their own printing press or something?

      Estonian youth remembered the USSR, were not that happy with the corruption and scariness of some aspects of that society, they developed a paranoid tool that could survive even full-on State levels of total interception – and it was undermined by a bunch that on-the-whole seem to regard the STASI Staatssicherheitsdienst as a good starting point to leverage their spectrum dominance in all the new realms?

      or I could be completely wrong . . .

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Radar O’Reilly May 21, 2018 at 10:11
        ‘..That’s the C.I.A. at work, I suppose they have their own printing press or something?…’
        Apart from a generous allowance from the government, they get most of their money from drugs, arms trafficking (often getting the arms from ‘sweetheart’ military ‘surplus’ deals, banking and insurance scams, real estate dealings and other filth like human trafficking.
        And then, as Webster Tarpley wrote: The CIA is Wall Street, and Wall Street is the CIA’.

  • Supertroll

    Very interesting and insightful article, and in-your-face evidence.

    I just don’t understand your “right-wing” narrative. Globalism isn’t right-wing. The neocons would not have all that leftist support they have if it were, and anti-globalist right-wingers are attacked, shunned, and silenced by the MSM which is strongly aligned with the globalist left.

    • Anthony

      Yes, important to clarify that. The distinction between the liberal-globalist “left” and the neocons is small to vanishing. In which category are we to place Philip Cross, Jimmy Wales and little Ollie Kamm?

    • lysias

      The late George Morse said in his writings that fascism is totalitarianism not of the left or the right but of the center. He had had personal experience of its German version.

      • bj

        Yes. NSDAP: NationalSozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei.

        Nationalism and Socialism shake hands and promise great stuff.

  • Niall Bradley

    Wikipedia is a great resource for relatively mundane information. But it’s common knowledge that one cannot cite Wikipedia without qualifications because its content is ‘safeguarded’ – around the clock – against anything ‘threatening’ to the political-cultural status quo.

  • Ian Perkins

    No, I don’t find it as fascinating as you do, but that’s only because I already knew about the GCHQ/MoD psy-ops stuff, at least in outline.
    Keep it up!

  • Max-Headroom

    Hit Jimmy Wales where it hurts. Spread the word that Wikipedia should not get any donations anymore. But I guess the GCHQ or some NGO will fill the gap.

  • Don Jackson

    This is certainly a funded operation to attack those opposed to establishment wars and to promote bigots like Kamm. Perhaps it shouldn’t have surprised me that Viner the Guardian editor is one of the favoured. There is no doubt this is multiple people in a paid operation. Whether this is the Wikipedia owner (likely) or some unpleasant right wing cabal, is anyone’s guess.

  • Jude

    Interesting that Mr Murray mentions Unionists in the context of the Philip Cross business. It’s a little commented upon fact how fanatically supportive of Ulster Orangeism almost all Neocons tend to be: Dean Godson, Charles Moore, Melanie Philips, Michael Gove, David Aaronovitch, Julie Burchill, to name just a few. Melanie Philips has said that Irish claims to nationhood are “tenuous”. Imagine the outcry if someone said that about Israel.

    I’m not saying all supporters of Northern Ireland remaining in the Union are Neocons – far from it – Peter Hitchens isn’t for example – but I am saying that almost all Neocons are Orangeist Unionist fellow travellers. Indeed Neocons are often as passionately hostile to Irish and Scottish nationalism as they are to the Palestinian variety.

    The same is true of Irish Neocons by the way: the leading Irish Neocon rag, the soft porn Sunday Independent is staffed with Orange Order fan boys and ex members of the Workers Party – a Stalinist outfit with a paramilitary wing “OIRA-Group B”, that had very close connections to British intelligence and the British security forces during the Northern Irish troubles.

  • Jim Murphy

    The edits seem too precise to be an AI Bot, therefore I suspect this is a planned operation with multiple operators using/sharing a single user account. Ultimately, it is a clumsy and lazy attempt at censorship; atypical of the hubris evident from those who assume or share the aspiration to be exceptional.

    Well done, this is an excellent expose.

  • sebastian garman

    You and your followers must have seen this from the offGuardian site (15/May/18) https://off-guardian.org/2018/05/15/wikipedia-takes-down-article-on-philip-cross-life-bans-author/ : “Wkipedia contributor “Mojito Paraiso” recently tried the experiment of creating an entry for “Philip Cross” the apparently pseudonymous editor/contributor who has been a persistent defamer/disinfo source, making rapid-fire and negative editing of the Wikipedia entries for many alt-media and “pro-Russia” journalists and commentators.Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article was disappeared very rapidly. And in what looks a lot like overkill, Mojito_Paraiso was then banned from editing in perpetuity.

  • Sue

    Dear Craig I am so pleased that there are people like you around, able to disentangle the media manipulation that is going on in the world. I respect your knowledge, expertise and background and your undoubted courage in speaking out.
    I do sometimes think that paranoia stalks twitter but joining the dots as you do should make all of us question the narrative pushed out.

  • Brian Cady

    Craig, if this is the tip of the iceburg, I fear we’re snowed and wikipedia is hosed. Thanks for documenting this – sorry it’s impinging on your life so sharply.

  • Lord Koos

    This very interesting. Wikipedia does a similar thing with alternative health modalities, obsessively editing them with an obvious negative bias against whatever is not western medicine. I’ve had personal experience with this.

    • Per/Norway

      true, i dont understand that people still use that shitty site. ffs people do some real research, never trust a thing you read that you cant verify with at least 3 other sources.

1 7 8 9 10