Philip Cross

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Philip Cross

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Nov 09, 2021 12:11 am

Heading for the mildest of mild wrist slaps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1054152351

The fact he tried to smear a Brazilian journalist, an area of the 'pedia entirely outside his existing topic ban, and his concerning lack of contrition when caught red handed, has been covered up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1054115406

Presumably because to acknowledge this is what he is doing these days, leads to awkward questions about why they are pissing around talking about 1970s British political figures, who the fuck ever decided this man could ever be trusted to be near any Wikipedia biography, and isn't it high time he was removed from the area of biographies completely, if not the whole of Wikipedia.

A big reason Philip Cross is getting away with it of course, is because the supposed Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy sold out hard, and these days counts people like die hard Wikipedia cultists like Hemenchuia as members, and bans dedicated and hard working critics like yours truly for dumb reasons. Making Wikipedia editors feel sad, I think was what they settled on.

I wouldn't normally bother lighting him up, he's a low ranking peon, but fuck me, if he's gonna write such obviously false crap like this on Wikipedia...
.....he sticks strongly to reliable sources..... Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
....what's a boy to do?

I could ask Jake to challenge him on it, but that sounds a little bit too much like honest to goodness Wikipedia criticism for Jake I think, and he'd rather not lose a friend for the sake of proving a cheap point about how nothing you were ever told about Wikipedia being serious about not harming living people, was true.

Let the conspiracy theory people get a good look at him, rifle under his bed, see what he's been hiding from his moms, the naughty little boy.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Philip Cross

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:57 pm

It's worth noting that despite being hit with a month long block out of the blue, interrupting his usual activity of making double digit numbers of edits every day this month bar one, he has made only one substantive edit since, his appeal, and only three in total.

And his appeal is almost perfect in terms of the dos and don't, he doesn't get angry, he doesn't focus on irrelevant issues, and he tries to make the case he didn't do the think he was blocked for doing. And he is hampered in that effort, because he did do it. But he makes a good stab of it. Enough that the bureaucracy of Wikipedia has spent many days considering an appeal, all be it an appeal that was quite obviously never going to succeed.

It's telling what he didn't do. He didn't admit guilt or apologise. Understandable if he genuinely thinks he didn't do what he is not supposed to be doing, but at the time, and certainly now it is clear his appeal is not going his way, he could and should have simply said, OK, fair cop, I disagree with your interpretation but I can see how others would see it this way, and I'll be more careful.

This speaks of his general issue, as has been observed by sadly only one member of the Wikipedia Administrator corps. A perfect editor, when already banned from editing X, not only makes sure he steers well clear of X, he avoids W and Y too, just to be safe.

Cross has chosen a different path. It is perhaps unkind to call it blatant wikikawyering, but it is wikilawyering in spirit and intent. All be it, bizarrely, in just one edit.

So what does this all show?

He is either one of a very few things....

1. A particularly good POV pusher. And I have to stress, this is really good, given a tendency to emotion and lawyering goes hand in hand with POV pushing. So to see him shut it all down here, shows a capacity for cold calculation, his eyes clearly on the bigger prize. A situation where he takes advantage of the liberty to appeal, but if he fails, he has likely done nothing to affect the thing he knew straight away. That if he simply waits a month, he can get right back to it. Presumably being well pleased that nobody there seems remotely interested in the fact he has been making wholly unacceptable POV pushing edits outside of his already generously narrow topic ban (although it helps that Wikipedia Administrator Chillum buried the evidence).

2. A paid operative. It should scare Wikipedia, given their utter inability to spot much less stop undeclared pad editing, that it is perhaps a far more likely explanation for the exceptionally good performance above, that Cross is beign paid be this good. To be mindful of his objectives.

3. A role account. As has been speculated many times, paying five people to use the Philip Cross account means you can get way more done. And necessarily, that requires all edits that could reveal a personality or anything else that speaks to him on a human level, should be avoided.

I was pretty tickeld to see this garbage....
...the theories online about Philip Cross being a state actor, or a company paid to edit Wikipedia, are absurd, and if you believe them you are not thinking very hard. The conjecture tends to center on his high edit count as res ipsa loquitur proof of malfeasance. Really, it's not that big of a deal: he makes about a thousand edits a month and he's been doing so for several years. I am just some guy who edits Wikipedia for fun, and I made about two thousand edits in October of this year. Fixing typos and using scripts adds up quickly. Moreover, while there are shady characters trying to influence Wikipedia articles, they generally do not put up huge neon glow-in-the-dark signs by using one extremely visible account to do so in a dramatic fashion (cf. some of the entries here to see what it actually looks like).
For a atart, fuck off with this obvious bullshit. Every single one of Philip Cross's edits are manual. Every single one reflects his sole purpose for being on Wikipedia, namely to add, subtract, or otherwise changing the wording in articles in a non trivial manner. A gnome, he is not. A back office monkey, he is not.

Philip Cross is all about the content. One edit at a time.

Which is exactly what you would expect of a POV pusher.

Sometimes he marks his edits as simple copyediting, and sometimes that is what they are. Someone with his focus on content, is naturally going to want to copyedit as he goes. But of course, in true POV pusher fashion, sometimes those edits he claims are mere copyedits, are also times where he is making non trivial changes....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1053717113

In that edit he changes the article to suggest Desmond ovesaw the publication of "hundreds" of defamatory articles in the Madeleine McCann case, away from the previous text which didn't give a number. Is that a faithful reflection of the sources already given (since he didn't add a new source in this edit)? Is he improving this article with more information from existing sources, or is he seeing a chance to distort it with misinformation?

One has to wonder.

And where did anyone get the idea Philip Cross himself is trying to put the spotlight on himself, or is doing anything dramatic? This appeal is typical of his entire existence on Wikipedia. He is deliberately avoiding drama. He deliberately doesn't draw attention to himself, much of it happens in some wierd parallel universe, where Cross is allowed to be absent. Not even an Arbitration Case against him, drew any great level of verbosity.

Nobody knows anything about Cross, he is a black hole of information regarding who he is and why he is on Wikipedia. Most bad actors don't do this, they do actually try to appear to be a typical Wikipedia editor, and naturally, they typically either dissappear the moment anyone has more than a suspicion that they might be up to no good, or they make a strenuous defence.

Cross has perhaps proved, given he has been able to make thousands of edits over several years in spite of tremendous loud protests against what is some pretty blatantly bad editing by a person wholly uninterested in being a model editor, that there is an even better way to be a bad actor intent on influencing Wikipedia content toward a particular POV.

A POV that does indeed suspiciously align extremely well with a certain sovereign state's world view. A state that is quite happy to violate its own Constitution to perform mass surveillance of its citizens, and so sure as shit wouldn't think twice about investing in a Wikipedia black ops programme.

Whoever invented Cross, has surely cracked the Wikipedia code. Wikipedia editors are obsessive wierdos, with difficulties in doing the things us normal humans find second nature. Expressing our personalities, working in teams, balancing emotion and logic, etc.

What better way to hide among a bunch of freaks, than be the most bland uninteresting variant of said freaks? He is obsessive. He is wierd. He's just not the most obsessive or the weirdest. There's always someone else stealing the limelight.

The steely eyed focus on his strategic goal, is the single biggest giveaway.

Wikipediots don't have that. Not even Guy Macon could stay the course. There's always some situation that sends them into a spiral.

"Philip Cross" is going nowhere. He can and probably will be skewing Wikipedia for as long as his paymasters wish it.

There are already people who are grumbling about his existing sanction, sensing the loss to Wikipedia of his POV pushes in this area, so a third party appeal where he simply has to say yes, I wish to appeal, to satisfy protocol (third party appeals are not allowed in absentia) will happen eventually.

Maybe they are real people, maybe they are plants. All I know is, the very last thing you do on Wikipedia, if you're trying to stay under the radar, is appeal your own topic ban if you have already been seen skirting the edges of it. That's noise. That's neon lights. That's drama.

You do what Cross does, and take what Wikipedia gives you, safe in the knowledge they're too stupid to see the full extent of his crimes, and too cowardly to effectively deal with what little they are forced to notice.

Wikipedia is wide open for abuse, as long as, of course, you're pushing it in a desirable direction.

It's at times like this I realise I could make a shit ton of money as an advisor to anyone looking to run a black op on Wikipedia.

And who knows, maybe I already do! 8-)

I am, after all, allegedly globally banned. Nobody knows why.

Vigilant can wave his dirty underpants in the air and shout and holler all he wants at Wikipediocracy, thanks to his own idiocy, not even the most expensive lawyer in the world will ever be able to compell the WMF to admit they have ever banned anyone because they were found to be a black ops consultant.

It's almost irrelevant that Cross isn't yet banned for his clear and obvious failure to be what a Wikipedia editor is meant to be (neutral, transparent, collaborative), if the reason is that he is a state actor. For if he is, well, as any black ops consultant would tell you, always have a replacement on alert 5, ready to go.

But if Wikipedia's owners and its most loyal followers have any due regard for its reputation, they really should ban Cross, if only to show that while we all know what they're doing in terms of their own broad goals as a movement, they at least draw the line at letting states do it better.

People aren't going to forget he exists, after all. Just like people won't forget what Snowden revealed. Sooner or later, and crucially, the longer you do nothing about it, well, all the more likely the solution becomes clearer and clearer...

:flamingbanana:

HTD.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Philip Cross

Post by wexter » Fri Mar 11, 2022 12:43 am

Started another Philip Cross thread; his edits seemed strange even by Wikipedia's standards.
This should be the primary thread on the subject of Phillip Cross;

I was watching PBS frontline interview Julia Loffe and I wanted to find out more about her. In other words; Why is Julia Loffe an expert on Putin and Russia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Ioffe

-She was born in Russia
-Went to Princeton
-Is a Journalist
-Fulbright scholarship in Russia


Because this blog keyed me into some of the mechanics of Wikipedia I drilled down a bit and I noticed that a "strange" Wikipedia editor recently took an interest in her; and that Wikipedian is Phillip Cross. Evidently, I am not alone in noticing something "strange" about Phillip Cross---

https://tinyurl.com/32hs9pzw
Last edited by wexter on Fri Mar 11, 2022 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Philip Cross

Post by wexter » Fri Mar 11, 2022 9:25 pm

'Another "jackpot" or Wikipedia "honeypot," a topic that the mainstay of wiki-idots cannot resist editing.

So here we have Gorilla Warfare and Philip Cross and other "incels"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Philip Cross

Post by wexter » Sat Mar 12, 2022 3:58 am

There is evidence that Molly "Gorilla Warfare" White rallied to the defense of Philip Cross.
These two severely "mentally ill" people find synergy with each other.

I should not have been surprised to see Cross and White cooperate on a topic like incel (incel being a slang-cultural-concept new to me) The whole idea that Incel's could be rallied to elect South Korean president seems a little far fetched with a dollop of click-biat.

With a good amount of the worlds energy supply and foodstuffs being destabilized, all this modern-society identity and click-bait nonsense will become less important. Only a very rich and hedonistic society can afford Incel and Wikipedia nonsense. Nobody getting bombed, getting poorer, or starving will care about carbon neutrality, Wikipedia, incels, non binary, or gender identity. Staying alive, clothed, warm, and fed will eventually become most important. Back to the point;


Molly (as this blog has mentioned) uses crypto as an attention seeking outlet. Her talking points about Crypto might be right but she is all wrong (a mentally ill justice-warrior attention-hound). All Wikipedia roads seem to lead to the mentally ill.


Fed up with attacks on his wife's business; an author Neil Clark tracked Phillip Cross's parents down and we find out the truth of this matter. https://www.amazon.co.uk/NeilClark/e/B00U314RKA Clark also commented on Gorilla Warfare's support of Cross.

We asked Mr Cross if he thought it possible that someone else was paying his son to attack people via Wikipedia. He dismissed the idea that money could be involved as his son wouldn't need any as he never went out, couldn't walk and just spent all day on the computer.

Mr Cross told us that his son had Asperger's. "He's not well. He doesn't work. He spends all his time editing wikipedia".

The Cross story could easily be the Molly White story.

Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Philip Cross

Post by wexter » Tue Jun 14, 2022 3:51 am

Fed up with attacks on his wife's business; an author Neil Clark tracked Phillip Cross's parents down and we find out the truth of this matter. https://www.amazon.co.uk/NeilClark/e/B00U314RKA Clark also commented on Gorilla Warfare's support of Cross.
Dr Strange, aka Philip Cross, found Gonzalo "manboobs" Lira


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

There may only be about 50 lunatics running the asylum, not 100 as per my previous estimate.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Philip Cross

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Jun 14, 2022 9:00 am

wexter wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 3:51 am
There may only be about 50 lunatics running the asylum, not 100 as per my previous estimate.
Heh heh, that's pretty close to the truth. They are down to 475 "active" administrators out of 1034. "Active" being a loaded phrase and subject to "interpretation", meaning often bullshit. A large number are bot drivers and vandalism patrollers, who do very little interaction with users or other insiders. Many are sockpuppets of other admins.

The rest are doing little or nothing other than minimal edits to keep their stupid "POWERZ". Of that "active" 475, in my experience perhaps 60 or 70 are serious dedicated "heelers" and systemic manipulators, who regularly show up at arbitrations, AFDs, AN/I, squabbles over policy, etc. Those rough percentages have been more-or-less the same since 2005.

They will deny everything, of course. You can always go thru their shitty admin statistics and figure it out for yourself.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Philip Cross

Post by wexter » Tue Jun 14, 2022 1:45 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 9:00 am
in my experience perhaps 60 or 70 are serious dedicated "heelers" and systemic manipulators, who regularly show up at arbitrations, AFDs, AN/I, squabbles over policy, etc. Those rough percentages have been more-or-less the same since 2005.

They will deny everything, of course. You can always go thru their

The same names keep on coming up over and over and over again.


Cross has a mastubatory relationship to Wikipedia as do many autistics. The sixty to seventy people you describe derive power and worth by being the "in control decision makers" of Wikipedia. At this point in time, the main goal is to keep control of the lunatic asylum.

At WMF they have very highly paid employees that raise money; and then peons who earn $40,000 $50,000. The focus is to raise money.

Britannica has 400 professional employees with about half earning over $100,000, and on top of that they have expert contributors. The point of all these professionals is to maintain a curated encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is the more profitable enterprise by far, it generates tons of profit for Google et al. Britanica is all about dust and hearing crickets.



The Mastubatory Cross;

Asperger's is a form of autism marked by very obsessional, repetitive behaviour which certainly fits with the repetitive, almost robotic pattern of Cross' online activities. One of the few periods, when Cross wasn't editing Wikipedia, was after his mother Brenda's death in September 2010.

Mr Cross said his son had lived alone in a flat for twenty years, but he "daren't" take us to where he lived as he'd "lose a son". Of course, being decent people we didn't insist. "Bless you, I appreciate that", Mr Cross said to us.

We asked Mr Cross if he thought it possible that someone else was paying his son to attack people via Wikipedia. He dismissed the idea that money could be involved as his son wouldn't need any as he never went out, couldn't walk and just spent all day on the computer. "Strange as it may seem, he doesn't realise he's doing it. He's doing it but he doesn't realise he's doing it".

Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

Post Reply