> Philip Cross cannot be said to be an agenda driven editor; people checked all the evidence (One person went so far as to hand-check and score large samples of

> Philip Cross cannot be said to be an agenda driven editor; people checked all the evidence (One person went so far as to hand-check and score large samples of his edits; a hellish job!). The facts just weren't there to support that assertion. Philip Cross edits in different areas, e.g. jazz and film. He's highly prolific. He needn't have an agenda in all areas to be called an agenda-driven editor in other areas. And the fact that he's made over a 100,000 edits means someone who approaches an examination of his edits by looking at a small random sample of his total output (as the editor you mention did) is not likely to come up with anything useful (I think this was pointed out to him). So to say "the facts just weren't there to support that assertion" is not really true. We've documented his editing in three articles now: * https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/ https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/ * https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html * https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/evidence/ https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/evidence/ Readers can make up their own minds. > KalHolmann was ultimately NOT the messenger here, and was also not the person who brought the arbitration case. Who was the messenger, then? As far as we're aware, he was the Wikipedia editor who attempted to notify the community to the problems when the story emerged. Only to be shut down by admin Guy - who, it should be mentioned, appears to be an acquaintance of yours: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_155#meatball:ExpandScope_wrt_User:Philip_Cross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_155#meat... > In fact, when KalHolmann was explicitly invited to help sort things out, they couldn't back out fast enough. What little KalHolmann did do brought more heat than light to the situation. He withdrew because of the way he was treated by Wikipedia admins, including Guy (your friend/acquaintance), and the arbitrators who started censoring his contributions. Anyone can read his contribution to the case here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=845422299&oldid=845421753&title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FBLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles%2FEvidence&type=revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=845422299&oldid=84... and the edit history which shows editing of his contributions (mostly permanently deleted now by the arbitrators): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles/Evidence&offset=&limit=500&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitra... > Fivefilters.org is very good at cherry-picking; they are quite ...selective... with the truth. You've not really demonstrated that with your contributions here.