latest, media watch

Wikipedia disappears 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. Apparently defaming John Pilger, George Galloway, Media Lens etc is acceptable Wikiconduct, but drawing attention to the persona responsible is a banning offence

Here is the text of the now-vanished entry on Philip Cross. Judge for yourselves if the response was deserved,

Philip Cross is a self-described jazz and drama enthusiast. He is also a controversial Wikipedia user and editor who dedicates considerable effort to editing Wikipedia entries for well-known British anti-establishment journalists, bloggers, authors and academics such as:

  • George Galloway
  • Neil Clark
  • Craig Murray
  • Media Lens
  • Gilad Atzmon
  • Tim Hayward
  • Piers Robinson
  • Cross’ edits in relation to the above parties are generally disparaging, however, the quantity and frequency of the edits suggest that “Philip Cross” may be a pseudonym for a group of like-minded individuals acting in concert.

    Edit references are provided below:


    • “Luckily all the changes are saved on the Wikipedia edit page:”

      Not anymore!

      Wow, I understood that wikipedia was not a trustable source on politics and anything really controversial, but I didn’t even imagine that they would have a literal nuke option to delete content without a trace from their servers, specifically this edit history scrubbing option, let alone that it’s use will be this liberal, and not tightly controlled, as we’ve now learned. They even have policies on removal.

      Very interesting. Wikipedia administrators really are gods of their domain.

      • The administrators can still see it. All deleted content is still on the servers. Just inaccessible by the general public.

      • Eric Tucker says

        My first effort at rediscovering erased pages is to go to The Wayback Machine.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      I saw that odious creature, Masha Gessen on our ABC TV the other day. The repulsive golem has been slithering about the country for a while, to great adulation from the Dunning-Krugerite dullards who worship her various ‘identities’ most particularly her facility at lying about Putin and Russia, in the required fashion. Her interlocutor, a truly mucilaginous Goodthinker, destined for greater things, and a real fanatic ‘Russian interference’ junkie, threw up the usual soft questions, and fairly gushed with joy as Gessen returned them with such concerted, but practised, lying, that one could almost see whence her immense and undisguised self-satisfaction flowed. The hate is flowing ever more freely, and is in full spate.

  1. stevehayes13 says

    Silencing news one does not want the public to hear is unfortunately all too common. Yesterday, the parliamentary Justice Select Committee heard evidence of how the police systematically deny the right to privacy of victims of sexual assaults. A google search provides zero results, even though the evidence is readily available.

    In my view this is both shocking and scandalous in equal measure.

  2. George says

    Thanks for introducing me to the fascinating world of the Wiki-talk pages. They are more informative than the acutal articles.

    • George says

      I meant ACTUAL articles. Damn this irreversible editing software.

  3. There is a German documentary on YouTube about the treatment dished out to Daniele Ganser, a Swiss historian and peace campaigner who dared to question the official narrative on 9/11. He is cast as a conspiracy theorist by Wikipedia, and any edits to change that pejorative to “critically investigates 9/11” are quickly undone, and those making such edits are banned. For those who speak German, here’s the link:

    • Maybe this documentary should be subtitled or a similar one should be made in English, about the Philipp Cross editing organization maybe.

    • Jim Scott says

      Why are conspiracy theories banned?
      We know that many conspiracies have been carried out by individuals, organisations and states. For instance the conspiracy carried out to start the Vietnamese war and the conspiracy by the neoconservatives through the Program for a New American Century which culminated in the Iraq War. Whether or not the Twin Towers were bought down as the official version claimed, the event was used by the New American Century group to falsely blame and then go to war with Iraq.
      There clearly was a conspiracy and it succeeded in its aim..

      • Conspiracy are banned by those fakers because once you have an official policy like that, then you have some way of silencing those with the ‘wrong’ political views. Now you just have to slap the label ‘conspiracy theorist’ on them and walk away and not worry about trouble from the international deep state. You could just ban, without a policy, but it wouldn’t look good. This doesn’t look good either, but it’s less ugly, especially to those who are dull, than censorship willy nilly.

        We’ve known about the problematic Wikipedia for some time. I only ever use it for basics, including spelling. I might even link to an entry here and there, but I’m always wary about Wikipedia. But with this, It’s no longer just trouble that we see with individuals and groups ninja editting Wikepedia. This is Wikipedia itself.

        We can pretty much expect that if it’s big (Google, Mozilla, Facebook etc), then the deep state and its allies and tools will not leave it alone forever. The war-making State sees all big things as potential big weapons. And the class war rages and the Warren Buffetts would have it no other way.

        “There’s class warfare, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” – Warren Buffett

        • rilme says

          I wouldn’t use wikipaedia for spelling. Try onelook.

          • Oh I don’t, exclusively. I have a dictionary link in my Bookmarks toolbar.

      • Robbobbobin says

        “Why are conspiracy theories banned?”

        Because conspiracy is one of the commonest modes of most commonly disparaged social existence. Conspiracy starts in the family – two or more siblings against others or their parents, children edging parents into unwanted retirement homes, potential beneficiaries rigging and disappearing holographic wills and codicils, etcetera – and it continues from there through school, work, offices and workshops, social and political groupings, local councils, regional governments, *pedias, and so on up. Conspiracy is rife everywhere. Some degree of ill-motivated, unfair conspiracy is close to the hidden aspects of so many upright citizens’ lives that banning, ridiculing, marginalizing or trivializing all of them is the safest and easiest way to keep such ubiqitous demons at bay.

      • Many claims of conspiracies are simply not theoretical in the least but entirely evidenced-based and it is the official story that is pure theory. There is zero evidence whatsoever of fire being implicated in WTC-7’s collapse on 9/11 while the collapse displayed all the unique characteristics of controlled demolition. NIST dismissed investigation of the most obvious hypothesis of controlled demolition on the contrived and untrue basis that the sounds of explosions weren’t “loud enough” for controlled demolition and then simply made up purely speculative, hitherto unknown precedents of “thermal expansion” pushing a girder off its seat which caused a single column failure which, in turn, led to a cascade of column failures. These speculations are totally outside the realm of reality. These things do not and cannot happen. They ignored witness testimony of explosions and denied the evidence of molten metal. Their fire explanation also had no way to account for the 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration in WTC-7’s 6.5 second collapse although NIST agreed to it.

        I highly recommend this tutorial by Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth on the collapse of WTC-7.

        We do not need an investigation to know that 9/11 was an inside job. The evidence can be played over and over again right before our eyes on YouTube – for the moment.

      • With Iraq, a country that albeit ruled by Sunni leadership, had no links to AQ as Saddam would not allow any organisation to question his governance. If you look at it from a different angle the US indeed was involved in 9/11 as they were the ones that is created AQ back in the 80s as a proxy to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and as my ole friend Malcolm X used to say ‘The chickens are coming home to roost’. So the conspiracy theory is kind of right.

        • monostrovich says

          So the conspiracy theory is kind of right.

          The Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory is kind of wrong, because there is no possible way that they could make this happen. Hence, the common expression, “it’s an inside job.”

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        ‘Conspiracy theories’ are generally ‘Truth theories’ hence the ruling psychopaths’ fevered hostility and opposition. The elites have, moreover, turned to really fake conspiracy theories peddled by intelligence operatives, sometimes via stupid dupes, to cloud the waters, as it were. We live in entities in the Western kakastocracies where the lie is no longer exceptional, or even a preferred modus operandi for the ruling psychopaths, but has become virtually all of existence. The ‘truth’ is anything that the powers that be say it is, and any dissent is rapidly being vilified, then will be outlawed, with the Zionist ‘antisemitism’ industry leading the way. Surely a ‘Light Unto the Nations’, leading us into the eternal dark.

        • There are certainly lots of issues with our modern society and the way we are ruled, or allow ourselves to be ruled, but there’s still such a thing as an unfounded conspiracy theory. The landing on the Moon, 9/11, the crash of that German airliner into the Alps by a suicidal pilot, the shootings in the US, the “Illuminati”, chemtrails etc, all of which are characterised by a shortage of proof, a total disregard for contrary evidence and failing to accept that failures and disasters are much more likely to be simple human ignorance, stupidity and sheer chance. Why on Earth formulate a complicated and unlikely conspiracy when these other factors are so much simpler to postulate? However that doesn’t mean there aren’t conspiracies. The Iraq War was a tragic conspiracy, for instance, as was the Vietnam war, both based on lies and deliberate concealment by the powerful. What’s supposedly happened to the Skripals may well be another or that Russia did or didn’t interfere in the US election. What Craig Murray is reporting about the so-called Philip Cross looks pretty suspicious too. Craig Murray is no fool and his research has led to some very interesting places indeed.

          That big business, governments, the media and various powerful cliques are often in cahoots and operate in secret to our detriment and their benefit is not in doubt. But, a conspiracy theory is NOT a “truth theory” – far from it. Most supposed conspiracies are very unlikely and most provably false, you can only be guided in each instance by what knowledge you have and what motives might be attributable to those taking part. To say that most conspiracy theories are “truth theories” is to leave your brain on the step at the back door. Every situation needs its own independent analysis and freedom from bias or pre-judgement.

          • monostrovich says

            failures and disasters are much more likely to be simple human ignorance, stupidity and sheer chance.

            Perhaps you could explain what combination of ignorance, stupidity and sheer chance caused this building to collapse, and how.

            Why on Earth formulate a complicated and unlikely conspiracy when these other factors are so much simpler to postulate?

            Rather than laboriously walking everywhere, it would be much simpler for me to postulate that I could flap my arms and fly. Unfortunately, that would be contrary to the laws of physics, and hence such postulation would be entirely fruitless.

            One could postulate that WTC-7 was destroyed by witches and faeries casting an evil spell on it. That would be even simpler than the Official Story, if that’s the only relevant criterion.

            • Winty says

              The combination of ignorance, stupidity and sheer chance would be the numerous engineering flaws that went into the building’s construction, correct?
              This seems pretty well known among engineers that have examined the plans…

              • Tony M says

                Bolted joints in steel-framed structures, where both steel and bolts meet the highest specifications are not invulnerable to unexpected failure in fire, during the fire event and afterwards if not replaced. Very extreme high temperatures perhaps only found in industrial settings and shear stresses many times far beyond normal would be required, the most common mechanisms being bolt elongation and thread failure.

                These alarming findings with implications for the construction industry, but no suggested remediation were made in the early-80s by the then nationalised British Steel Corporation.

                Simultaneous perfect symmetrical all around and top to bottom failure from localised fires is however out of the question. The buildings in question were taken down by deliberate design, which required prior planning and implementation.

          • Tony M says

            No manned spacecraft has ever left low-earth orbit, therefore no human-being has or is ever likely to walk on the moon, or even to leave low-earth orbit even briefly and survive.

            • The argument, “If we’d landed on the moon we would have gone beyond low-earth orbit since” is a logical fallacy of the type argumentum ad speculum involving speculation that really has no weight in relation to the reality of whether we went or not.

              How do you explain that Russia, China, India and Japan have imagery from unmanned missions that match the imagery from the Apollo missions and even show stuff they left behind? Are they all in on it too?

              See Neil Armstrong show footage from the 1969 landing against the imagery from Google Moon

              I find it so fascinating the way people believe that 9/11 was the work of 19 men armed with boxcutters while others believe the moon landings were fabricated with extraordinary skills of fakery involving thousands upon thousands of people who’ve all kept very, very quiet about it. I know 9/11 involved a lot of people too but nothing like the moon landings and we have whistleblowers and experts calling out 9/11 – while there are none of these for the moon landings.

              To me they are both extraordinary feats: one an incredible collaboration to send man to a so very distant and hostile place and the other a mindblowing feat of deception. I really cannot get over the skill of deception of 9/11. If ever a crime was hidden in plain sight, it’s 9/11.

              I have issued $5,000 Occam’s Razor challenges on the 9/11 (plus a couple of other hoaxes) and the moon landings. No one has responded to the 9/11 (plus others) challenge and I can’t see it happening but I’ve just issued the moon landings challenge so only time will tell.

  4. Peter C says

    I never use Wikipedia for information on anything controversial, anything that does not toe the ‘official’ line gets edited and re-edited by dedicated and enthusiastic gate keepers. It is an excellent resource for non-controversial and very factual things. I judge pages on the number of sources cited and check their quality.

    • Likewise – you must have read one of my comments on that subject as yours is like a condensation of what I wrote. 🙂

    • Manda says

      I only use Wikipedia to check dates presidents, prime ministers, parties etc. were in office and to get some initial information on organisations I don’t know anything about. Never trusted it and don’t even remember the reason that prompted me to mistrust it.
      It is clearly partly co-opted for a political agenda that I am opposed to, so I have no reason to change or expand my very limited use of it.

      Good on those pushing back, if nothing else the editing system is being exposed as able to be co-opted by those with vested interests.

  5. Richard Wicks says

    You mean wikipedia promotes propaganda?

    How is wikipedia funded, and who is funding them?

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      Zionists control the commanding heights of the Internet, and Wikipedia CANNOT be an exception. That would be dweadfully ‘antisemitic’.

    • Peter C says

      Funded largely by private individual donations, average is around $30. However, they have moved a long way from their original roots. is worth a read, although a little out of date.

      It was an excellent idea, but has suffered from people using it to take advantage of a free and (once) respected source, promoting their ‘truth’ rather than the actual truth or reality.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        Remember when the propaganda told us that Obama was financed by myriad ‘small donations’? That was bulldust, as Obama the great Trojan Horse got most of his blood-money from his rich creators, the financial mega-parasites in particular. Then he gave them trillions in pay-back, like a good House Negro.

    • Ceredig says

      Me! Amongst others. No conspiracy here.

  6. Simon says

    I love it when things like this happen – gives me more interesting people to research/follow that I hadn’t known about before.

    Thanks Wikipedia!

  7. Victor David Rothschild = Cambridge Five says

    The frequency and consistency of edits of the Phil Cross account suggests potentially a paid commentator hasbara type operation whether that is a private operation or backed by an intelligence agency such as GCHQ or the Mossad.

    However making an article on a Wikipedia contributor like this is a big no no and unsurprising to see he was banned as a result.

    A daft result when a better choice would be to fight on certain pages to maintain a more neutral line.

    • Colin Brace says

      Indeed. I recall from my time as an active editor that doing something like creating a fake page to make a point is considered disruptive and hence a banning offence. As you say there were probably better ways to highlight the problem with Mr Cross.

      • Richard Wicks says

        Cross is most likely working with the intelligence agencies, and with the full knowledge as well as approval of Wikipedia.

        There is no way to “deal” with Mr. Cross. You have to expose Wikipedia itself.

        • And when Wikipedia steps out of the shadows in some dramatic fashion, that’s when we see more clearly who we are dealing with. And it’s a start. We know about many of the behemoths, since they’ve been exposed and reported on. We know about Google, Facebook, etc.. Mozilla has also been outed. I’m just waiting for the blogging platform I use to do something revealing. I dread that day. I’ve been blogging for 9 years and have over 700 posts on my blog and put many hours into it. Even so, We can be beaten. God can’t.

            • I wouldn’t know how. I’m totally tech stupid. But I know you’re right.

                • That’s interesting. Google is my friend ‘only’ on the surface. I’ll have to do some research. I wish I had tech savvy friends.

                  • reinertorheit says

                    Goolag is rather like a female praying mantis. After a period of lovemaking, it kills the mate and eats it.

                  • If you’re using blogspot you should export it to wordpress or elsewhere regardless of the fact it’s own by google as most of its templates look awful, verge on illegible and don’t play with accessible readers.

                    • I use WordPress. They’ve been dumbing it down forever. I was recently going to do a second WordPress blog for practice purposes. There’s things with pages I’d like to know how to do. So I started and found it to be so infuriating I gave up. I don’t even know whether I can have a WP blog like the one I have. I have dodged a few WP bullets, thanks to the work-around scripts of one WP user. One of those scripts allows you to continue to using WPs robust original editor.

                      I expect WP to one day go even further and become political, going after those who publish ‘harmful’ fake news. That’s just how it is with fascism.

      • Gribble says

        But is this a fake page? the page author didn’t invent the subject, neither is anything they say about him demonstrably false. Philip Cross manifestly exists and demonstrably does what the page states.

    • I strongly disagree. The editor’s action was not disruptive in any but the most navel-gazing way, and in any case drew much more attention to Wikipedia’s strange deference to “Philip Cross”‘s bona fides. That tells us a lot.

    • It’s just as likely to be British military intelligence. They’re surprisingly common.

  8. Sav says

    Jimmy Wales has a lot to answer for. He even got into an anti-Syrian government campaign. So much for claiming to be neutral. I even donated money to Wikipedia. They emailed again for more. No chance.

Comments are closed.