The crux of the GP's comment is a specific example of a high-profile political propagandist on Wikipedia, whom the poster specifically ran into. I think your ch

The crux of the GP's comment is a specific example of a high-profile political propagandist on Wikipedia, whom the poster specifically ran into. I think your characterization of the "guy", that he "fact-checks pro-authoritarian propaganda", is just a positive rephrasing of "political propagandist." It doesn't seem relevant what George Galloway and Mint Press News' problem with "Philip Cross" is, just whether the evidence they present that he is an extremely prolific editor is true (seems to be the case). It seems to be up to your personal judgment whether you think this strongly implies he's not an individual or not. Certainly it's relevant information supporting the claim that he's not.