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.
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”.
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
Neil
In 2007 you wrote the following on your blog, à propos alleged harrassment by Oliver Kamm and consorts:
“Having given the matter much thought, I have this week, passed on all the evidence to the legal department of my union, the NUJ, who have very kindly offered to assist me in this matter. If you read all the material (and follow the relevant links on my blog), then I’m sure you will agree that what I have been subject to only be described as criminal harassment. The perpetrators of this activity have a clear aim: to discredit me in the eyes of those who employ me and prevent me from earning my living as a journalist. They are also perhaps hoping that in the light of their constant, malicious attacks, I will decide that in order to have a ‘quiet life’, I will quit journalism. They could not be more wrong. Unlike them, my conscience is clear. The malicious attacks have only energised me and motivated me to work even harder to expose the lies and deceit which underpin the neo-con war machine.
Anyway, things are now, at last, coming to a head. Let me make this pledge now: I will not rest until those responsible for such cowardly, underhand, and deceitful attacks are bought to justice.”
What happpened? Did you go to court and what was the outcome?
Buckle up. Habba and the other tinfoil hatters will be along in just a minute.
I posted just a millisecond too late…
Vronksky – “discrediting post before it appears”
Perhaps they tried.
In my opinion security agencies have been editing Wiki for years.
Here Reuters reports that the CIA and FBI edited Wiki on the war in Iraq, the edits were traced straight back to the security service.
If the CIA and FBI are editing Wiki, you can be sure Mossad and the British securtiy services are doing the same.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSN1642896020070816
Craig more on the “Slim Virgin” aka Linda Mack and Co.
It becomes clearer.
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=374006&rel_no=1
http://m.slashdot.org/story/88191
“In my opinion security agencies have been editing Wiki for years.”
___________________
With great respect, Republicofscotland, most readers are probably more interested in Craig’s opinion than yours.
Hence my question to Craig at 16h07.
Before Google blocked it, using Scroogle as a safe search engine gave links to a sister site Wikiwatch which showed you exactly the relation between Wiki and US security services.
In those days you could compare the results for searches using Scroogle vs. Google to show exactly what ads they were punting and, presumably, what info was being gathered.
Neil
An apology might be due
From me to you.
I think I may have wrongly assumed that you were the “Neil” referred to in the very first comment on this thread from that dunderhead “Node”.
If you are not the dunderhead’s “Neil”, then apologies and disregard my post (although the dinderhead might wish to respind since he seems to follow the Real Neil….)
“If you are not the dunderhead’s “Neil”, then apologies and disregard my post (although the dinderhead might wish to respind since he seems to follow the Real Neil….)”
_____________
Oh Dear, by the amount of spelling mistakes in Habbs above comment, it would appear the poor soul can’t cope with this threads topic, as he scrambles to post illegible comments ?
Not much time so quickly;
1- Zersetzung / Zersetzen has long been practised to suppress and repress any potential/probable dissidents. The simple fact is our dear leaders and co have spent billions of pounds to breed a particularity ignorant breed of “citizens” with little working knowledge of governance, finance, and recourse to arbitration. Whilst concurrently enjoying a highly developed avaricious appetite for material goods, and copulation!!!! This work is being undone by many of the latter day publishers on the internet! As the saying goes Colonel Colt helped to make all men equal, and Tim Berners-Lee helped to make all men publishers!
2- Given the above the subsequent repression/suppression of all those who are publishing material that contradicts and draws attention to the out right lies that are being peddled as “wisdom”/current affairs/politics hence the initiative is being taken back by the very same fat controllers who are feeling the ill winds of dissent and fearing the awakening of the sleepers from their stupefaction!
3- All those alternative publishers are as yet playing the game as per the set of rules of the establishment, that in turn is leaving these novices to be worked on by those whom have devised the system and can game it for any end they wish to!
4- The fishwife techniques of assumption, assertions, followed by the denunciations are stock in the trade that are targeting the would be dissenting publishers. This is done in many formats included the favourite chestnut the charges of antisemi…. holo…… etc. Already on this thread there is a reference to it, that evidently is sufficient evidently to rule out any sources as a nut case foaming in the mouth lunatic!!!!!!!!
5- Don’t play the game their way, start moving on and develop your own sources and cooperate to make shish kebabs out of the sacred cows that are evidently the basis of the narrative that is being pushed as the “conventional wisdom” by the very gamesters/banksters/oligarchs and their minions.
6- Goo luck all, always remember we are legion and they are few, we can beat their butts any day hands down, keep up the good work, and have faith in one another.
Neil / NSH001 gives excellent advice:
I have seen much suspicion of Wikipedia on these threads. Please remember that traditional encyclopaedias are as susceptible to bias or employing staff influenced by government or vested interests as Wikipedia is.
If a Wikipedia article seems biased, moaning about it is pointless. The correct thing to do is to edit it. However, to make your edit last you need a rough understanding of the Wikipedia rules, probably the most important being verifiability – you need to back your edits up using reliable sources.
Love it!
Habb 4:36,
Thank you for your apology. I am indeed NOT the Neil whom you quoted earlier. I stated very clearly in my post above who I am (just follow the links), so please pay attention in future!
Matt, 3:19 pm:
Oliver Kamm’s Wikipedia account only existed from March 2007 to January 2010, and he didn’t seem to do much editing; here’s his entire list of contributions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OliverKamm
Philip Cross has been active since 2005; his latest contributions page covers less than one month of editing! –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Philip_Cross
Kamm is unlikely to have been daft enough to create a new account in his own name if he already had a very active account as “Philip Cross”. And the Wikipedia community seem pretty good at detecting and banning sock-puppets.
An article about Wikipedia by…. Oliver Kamm! – Hint: Kamm doesn’t think much of us nonentities who might contribute to such a project.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110814104256/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2267665.ece
Many thanks for the link to Wikipedians NSH001 (Neil on this thread) and Nishidani.
Thank you Neil for bringing Habb down a peg or two, he should be used to it by now.
Neil, you appear to be the right man to ask on this matter, your opinion will be much appreciated
Thanks?
Obviously Neil I can’t ask you outright in here about CAMERA, and if you don’t reply I’ll get the message so to speak.
“A series of emails by members and associates of the pro-Israel group CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), indicates the group is engaged in what is now termed a “war” on Wikipedia.
A 13 March action alert signed by Gilead Ini, a “Senior Research Analyst” at CAMERA, calls for “volunteers who can work as ‘editors’ to ensure” that Israel-related articles on Wikipedia are “free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context.”
.” To further conceal the identity of CAMERA-organized editors, Ini warns, “don’t forget to always log in before making [edits]. If you make changes while not logged in, Wikipedia will record your computer’s IP address”
“A key goal is to have CAMERA operatives elected as administrators — senior editors who can override the decisions of others when controversies arise.”
RoS 5:26,
For the avoidance of doubt, my aim was to clarify who I am, not to “bring[ing] Habb down a peg or two”. If it were the latter, I wouldn’t have thanked him. But I admit I couldn’t resist having a playful little dig at him …
Kamm is a neocon messenger boy and glorified troll. He once called accused me of anti-semitism for saying that the US congress was a pack of AIPAC-funded stooges.
Kamm is an atheist who worships at the altar of the Church of Blair.
Kamm is an outright apologist for Israel atrocities and human rights abuses.
Kamm thinks that US/UK wars of aggression are a redeeming feature of Western civilisation.
Kamm’s enemies are a Who’s Who of journalistic and intellectural integrity, eg. John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein.
Kamm’s allies are a Who’s Who of cowards and unhinged interventionsts, eg. David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Marko Atilla Hoare.
Craig, if Kamm hates you then you must be doing something right.
Deepgreenpuddock, 3:56 pm; Wikipedia works because it has an excellent set of rules , a varied and active community, and wonderful software.
* Contributions must be verifiable,
* Unverifiable contributions must be removed,
* A copy of removed material remains in the page’s ‘History’,
* Removing any contribution that was supported by a reliable source is called ‘vandalism’. This will be detected and the material restored from the ‘History’, either automatically or manually.
The software is developed by the same Wiki methods as the encyclopaedia itself. There are ‘robots’ doing all sorts of things, like looking for vandalism and reverting it. And it’s all possible because of Copyleft licensing which started with the GNU project (which is what most people think of as ‘Linux’):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License
Neil Clark first mentions Philip Cross on his blog in 2007. Even then he was strongly linked with Oliver Kamm. What ever Philip Cross is telling you now, Craig (see Craig’s two updates above), he is being disingenuous to suggest that his Wikipedia connection with Oliver Kamm is limited to “occasionally, it is one of OK’s tweets that reminds me.”
GFDL is the GNU Free Documentation License –
Free as in “free speech” rather than “free beer”.
“For the avoidance of doubt, my aim was to clarify who I am, not to “bring[ing] Habb down a peg or two”. If it were the latter, I wouldn’t have thanked him. But I admit I couldn’t resist having a playful little dig at him …”
__________
No matter Neil, you still brightened my day.
Thank you ?
I have made some changes to my own Wikipedia entry – very bad form I know – but needed to undo the damage done by Cross. Grateful for anything any of you can do to cement them by adding proper citations and any other amendments needed to meet the rules – I don’t know how you add links and references. Also obviously grateful if you can sometimes defend from further ill-motivated attentions of Zionist shills.
Kamm, of course, works for the so-called ‘intellectual property’ industry. “All rights reserved” would paralyse Wikipedia. No one would be allowed to edit anything, because they’d be infringing the rights of whichever editor wrote it.
Wikipedia and similar projects can exist only under a ‘copyLEFT’ licence, which grants the rights to copy and to make derivative works.
Both sectors derive from copyright law – applied in opposite ways to opposite ends.
Free as in Freedom –
‘Free’ meaning ‘Without restriction’ = Libre
‘Free’ meaning ‘Without payment’ = Gratis
The English language makes no distinction between these two concepts, but if you get imprisoned you suddenly realise that libre matters far more than gratis.
Kamm’s writing in the Times is also behind a paywall, so not libre, and not even gratis.
Worth reminding ourselves that Kamm is rather poor when it’s man to man, in public, with direct right of reply;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usdGgR8cI1Y
Probably explains why he prefers skulking in the background.
Craig,it is a pity that you and Oliver Kamm are on the same side when it comes to Brexit,doesn’t even he put you off the remain side ?
He has another scare story about leaving the EU in today’s Times business section.
Tim Hoddy
15 Mar, 2016 – 12:14 pm
“Someone should start a Wikipedia article on the “Philip Cross Phenomenon”.
+1
Herbie –
That was a truly beautiful moment. Finkelstein put the pretentious little twerp Kamm in his place in front of a large audience.
Node
“Neil Clark first mentions Philip Cross on his blog in 2007.”
_____________________
And you first mentioned Neil Clark in your post at 12h01 today on this thread.
The Neil Clark article to which you linked includes the following (from 2007 – nine years ago):
““Having given the matter much thought, I have this week, passed on all the evidence to the legal department of my union, the NUJ, who have very kindly offered to assist me in this matter. If you read all the material (and follow the relevant links on my blog), then I’m sure you will agree that what I have been subject to only be described as criminal harassment. The perpetrators of this activity have a clear aim: to discredit me in the eyes of those who employ me and prevent me from earning my living as a journalist. They are also perhaps hoping that in the light of their constant, malicious attacks, I will decide that in order to have a ‘quiet life’, I will quit journalism. They could not be more wrong. Unlike them, my conscience is clear. The malicious attacks have only energised me and motivated me to work even harder to expose the lies and deceit which underpin the neo-con war machine.
Anyway, things are now, at last, coming to a head. Let me make this pledge now: I will not rest until those responsible for such cowardly, underhand, and deceitful attacks are bought to justice.””
Since you seem to be a fan of Neil Clark and quite familiar with him, and given that Mr Clark probably isn’t following this thread, perhaps you might be able to update us about what happened: did Neil Clark take legal action against the alleged “criminal harrassment”? And what was the outcome?
Thanks, Node.
*********************
Habbabkuk he says: Stand by your source!