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

[WordBomb]

Morven during BADSITES

...Nor do I think it worthwhile to give stalkers, especially stalkers for pay, satisfaction by giving much credence to things like this - minor allegations of tiny improprieties a long time ago...

Joshua Zelinsky on Wikien-l

...Could someone please go over there and explain at minimum how Bagley is a complete ass and please list a few of the things he did that got him banned?

More JoshuaZ on Wikien-l

We should confuse bad faith (i.e. Judd Bagley) with good faith editors who just don't work well with other people at all.

Yet more JoshuaZ on Wikien-l

Bagley, Brandt, Amorrow and others have engaged in real life harassment that has ruined lives.

Guy Chapman on his wiki

Finally you get the hard core of genuinely dangerous sociopaths. They are so determined that the world is doing them down by not letting them drive at 60 past a school that they will stalk the traffic police and attack them when they are off duty. In the real world, people have attacked police, magistrates, traffic wardens, jurors and judges. In the Wiki world, this increasingly vocal and dangerous group is currently exemplified by Judd Bagley but we have seen it in the past from 9/11 Truthers and various other individuals. And this, I think, is a serious and pressing problem. There is no mechanism in place by which they can be prevented from following their victims. They are often resourceful, and in most cases seriously unbalanced. They are scary, and they are as dangerous as a drunk redneck wandering round Greenwich Village with an Armalite. During a Gay Jewish Communists Against War March.

George W. Herbert on Wikien-l

However, IMHO, Bagley's claims are false, for reasons unrelated to him being a sociopathic, evil harrasser.

David Gerard on Wikien-l

Mostly around the arbcom list. Bagley isn't your regular corporate spammer, he's actually notable in Reliable Sources™ for his odious stalking behaviour. Read the sources on [[Judd Bagley]]. As I noted in the AFD, he's about as provably unpleasant as you're going to get without an indictment. Is there any conceivable bad use for a link to the site? Hell yes. Is there any conceivable good use for a link? Not that I can think of.

Phil Sandifer on Wikien-l

If it's an action that's standing because Bagley is so odious that everybody is unwilling to take him off the blacklist, even if they wouldn't have put him there themselves, well, that's a non-trivial difference.

More Phil Sandifer on Wikien-l

Nobody is seriously suggesting that Brandt, Bagley, or any other nutjob running an attack site be taken seriously.

Brock Weller(?) on Wikien-l

As for protecting this particular asshole its far from that. He's dangerous, it seems they were simply protecting previous victims from retribution.