Help needed, please use your researching skills..., JzG and others' historical statements on Wordbomb's claims Options

[Kato]

Following this post by Piperdown...

GWH and JzG's are treasures of Wikipedia Review. You guys should put these two into a WR Hall of Fame. Complete with a long list, including GWH's wikien-l diamonds, of their best work. By best work I mean the many ways they can declare the sky green. It's endlessly entertaining, and should keep W-R in high traffic-cotton for years to come.

Now that Wordbomb's long standing claims have been proved correct beyond reasonable doubt, I think it would be a good thing to review the many statements by JzG and others which ridiculed these claims month after month. They are all over the place going back a long time. Here's one from last week :

[Bagley] is an obsessive troll. And I thought we'd learned our lesson about "sleuthing" established editors. It's got nothign to do with that other site you're involved in, other than as the venue for Bagley publishing his possibly fraudulent evidence. I don't know why anyone would give him the time of day, he's so obviously off in laa-laa land on this subject.

and another...

Bagley is a known net.kook and absolutely not above forgery, the "evidence" he presents off-wiki is questionable not just because he is a vicious agenda-driven troll but also because the times have been called into question. In the absence of hard evidence, or indeed of evidence of an actual problem with the edits made by either account, I am strongly inclined to point Bagley in the direction of the colloquial version of Genesis 1:28 and leave it at that.

Here's one from December about the Register article on Judd Bagley:

Both the Register pieces are clearly polemical, the followup parrots Bagley's lunacy completely uncritically

[Kato]

More JzG historical quotes

On the other hand, I will freely admit to being if not enraged then certainly disgusted by Bagley. His vile smear campaigns against people he dislikes are simply not the kind of thing that earns my respect.

here...

The Register is unreliable in this instance, not only because it repeats the harassment meme that Bagley invented,

here JzG actually links to Gary Weiss's blog O-Smear, taking everything in it as gospel...

...given the [http://o-smear.blogspot.com/2007/04/wikipedia-assault.html long history of abuse] by Bagley we're going to need some pretty solid sources before we even think about letting his POV creep in here.

here...

I don't know about the NYT piece, but The Register is absolutely inappropriate. It is not even tabloid journalism, it's not journalism at all, just polemic, strongly inspired by Bagley's manipulation.

here...

It's a completely absurd suggestion. We absolutely must not succumb to the paranoid fantasies of banned abusers of the project. I have no agenda whatsoever in respect of overstock, as a company it holds little interest for me. What is not acceptable is for people who have been banned from Wikipedia due to abuse and harassment, to be allowed to dictate who may and may not engage in respect of content. It looks to me very much as if the measure of NPOV being applied above is that the article will be NPOV when it reflects Bagley's POV. Sorry, no. His cynical manipulation of The Register (with which, admittedly, they seemed to co-operate gleefully) does not change the facts: Bagley's allegations against Weiss have no substance any more than his Holy Jihad against naked short selling is an excuse for the poor performance of overstock's stock - that was, as has been pointed out by many impartial observers, easily explained by reference to their consistent failure to show a profit.

Here...

Bagley's attacks on people are pretty base; we should rely in every case on how reliable secondary sources describe Weiss and the dispute.

Here:

You're sure doing a lot to give the impression that you prefer your friend Mr. Bagley to my friend Mr. Wales.

Here:

I do not think it does your credibility much good to come here, as a well-known Wikipedia Review member, supporting Bagley, another Wikipedia Review member. What Bagley says about anybody is relevant to Bagley but not provably relevant to the targets of his harassment.

Here...

We already know that Bagley uses disinformation and harassment against anyone who does not uncritically support his company, we can scarcely say that a failure to repeat that harassment here is a failure of neutrality.

Bagley is as polemical as you can possibly get, and the material is stated in terms that are functionally indistinguishable from an outright attack. So, unless we can find better sources and better wording, we shrug it off as "vituperative piece by vituperative person" and ignore it.

Here...

Bagley is a vicious hatemonger whose approach to anything other than uncritical adoration is reliably to harass and attack.

Here...

the Register does not make a fair point, it parrots Bagley's idiocy uncritically.

[Proabivouac]

It's JzG who's swallowed the Weiss memes hook, line and sinker.

[Cedric]

It's JzG who's swallowed the Weiss memes hook, line and sinker.

Indeed. And what is even worse for Guy is that he has not received even the first penny in compensation for all of the rather considerable time and effort he has spent on these NSS issues. Weiss/Mannisox may well be a paid shill for the brokerage houses behind the NSS fraud, which would go a long way toward explaining why an author and reporter formerly known for exposing Wall Street frauds is now a fanatical promoter of a particular species of stock fraud. However, we can be fairly confident that Guy has not been bought off. That was not necessary. He was already a true believer and a pronounced wiki-addict by the time Mannisox showed up on WP. All he required was a nod from Jimbo.

I'm afraid Guy has become the poster child for how WP ruthlessly exploits the mentally ill and people with addictive personalities.