Dr Piers Robinson's @Wikipedia page is being deliberately and viciously targeted by editor "NomdeA", whose interests are startlingly similar to those of "Philip Cross", who is banned from such editing. @PiersRobinson1 1/
"NomdeA" is only active a few times a month or less, most usually to attack someone of whom the Western establishment disapproves. There have been four edits of @PiersRobinson1's page thus far, apparently still going on. 2/
"NomdeA" attempts to insinuate again the unsubstantiated allegation, denied by Dr @PiersRobinson1, that he left Sheffield University due to a furore over his alleged support of conspiracy theories. "NomdeA" has attempted to get this allegation into @wikipedia before.
The edits by "NomdeA" are uniformly hostile, taken from hatchet jobs by @TimesKennedy and @ChrisDYork, and coincide with Dr Robinson @PiersRobinson1 being back in the spotlight due to a recent attack by @NermaJelacic.
Fortunately, they are being resisted by some editors with integrity, such as "Burrobert" (see comment appended). If you are a @Wikipedia editor, I urge you to complain about this targeted and biased editing. Many thanks! :D @PiersRobinson1
Addendum. "NomdeA" is absolutely determined to get an association between @PiersRobinson1 and Holocaust denial into @wikipedia, and is using a tenuous (and stupid) reference in @thetimes for that purpose. I strongly suspect the source for that editorial to be Oliver Kamm.
And, of course, either "NomdeA", or "Philip Cross", or both (unless they are the same person), is continuing to stalk my Twitter account. Looky here! :D
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have read this book, and I think everyone who is interested in the recent history of the Labour Party will find it rewarding. In particular, it is a valuable resource for tracing the development of the anti-Semitism controversy and allegations over the last 5-6 years. 1/6
The author's position is clear: he is solidly committed to putting the case for Chris Williamson. I should say at once that I have been very critical at times of Mr Williamson's approach, which has seemed a bit blundering. I think Mr Garratt is more forgiving than many. 2/6
But the book is by no means all about Mr Williamson; it takes on almost all the issues around alleged Labour Party anti-Semitism, and gives a valuable view of them which is not often seen outside left and Labour left circles. There is also much material... 3/6
So. Whatever anyone may think of him, @MaxBlumenthal has published articles in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. This is indisputable fact.
As these are prestigious journals, his @Wikipedia article, not unnaturally, mentioned them. See here.
This is, apparently, not good enough for @Wikipedia narrative manager "Philip Cross". He doesn't want anyone to know from Wikipedia that nasty anti-Western crank @MaxBlumenthal has in fact written for prestigious mainstream media publications. So he deletes the details.
Wikipedia administration idiot-in-chief User:JzG [Guy] blunders into the Philip Cross BLP discussion with irrelevant and insulting remarks and a heap of blatant prejudice. How this person ever got to be a @Wikipedia admin is a mystery.
"Being attacked by a subject of an article you've already edited doesn't constitute a COI."? Yes, fine. What Philip Cross has done is the exact reverse - gone and edited the @timand2037 and @AbbyMartin articles in a hostile manner *after* their tweets regarding him.
Even Philip Cross supporter NedFausa is disturbed by this behaviour. It is also at present an action for which Philip Cross has not even attempted a defence.
REPOST. Okay. So I had a closer look at this "report", including following the hyperlinks. I'd like the University and others to pay particular attention to this paragraph. @EdinburghUni
There are at least four things wrong with this. Firstly, the words "has also claimed on his blog" include a hyperlink. That link does not, in fact, go to Tim Hayward's blog. @EdinburghUni
That's deceitful, giving the incorrect impression that the link goes to Professor Hayward's own words. Instead, it goes to the notorious Times article of 14 April 2018. @EdinburghUni
I've been looking a little more closely at #PhilipCross's recent antics regarding the @guardian article on Paul Manafort and Julian Assange on @Wikipedia.
I vaguely recall that Mr Cross is highly protective of the Guardian, for some reason. Maybe others can help me on that.
The @wikipedia article Mr Cross is editing on this is that of @ggreenwald, a U.S. writer. However, the Guardian is a British newspaper, reporters are British, and the Embassy involved is in London. It therefore could not be clearer that this is a ban violation from Mr Cross.
To begin with, I will simply present the original paragraph and Mr Cross's edited version, side by side.