AntiSocial Media, Slideshow Presentation by Judd Bagley Options

[Kato]

Here's Judd Bagley's slideshow presentation for anyone who might have missed it. The early part of his lecture covers the Naked Short Selling Financial Issue, gradually moving onto blogging problems, and finally detailing his experiences with Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia stuff is a must see.

You can cut in at any point of the presentation / lecture using the sidebar.

http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/player.html

*Update: Blog post about the lecture is here:

http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=158

LECTURE ON ABUSE OF SOCIAL MEDIA BY STOCK MANIPULATORS

I recently had the honor of lecturing a group of business students at the University of Texas, on the topic of abuse of social media by stock manipulators. I’ve merged the recording of the lecture with my slide presentation and make it available for you here.

I should also note that I found this experience to be a very positive one, and would welcome similar opportunities in the future. Please contact me via email at: antisocialmedia@gmail.com

[Cedric]

Here's Judd Bagley's slideshow presentation for anyone who might have missed it. The early part of his lecture covers the Naked Short Selling Financial Issue, gradually moving onto blogging problems, and finally detailing his experiences with Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia stuff is a must see.

You can cut in at any point of the presentation / lecture using the sidebar.

http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/player.html

I watched this yesterday, and it is definitely worth a view (the Wikipedia stuff starts at slide 52, if you are already familiar with what NSS is and who the DTCC are). As noted elsewhere, some of the details are missing, but it provides a good summary of the whole Mannisox scandal.

[dogbiscuit]

I was intrigued how the audience coped with it. I wasn't sure of what the target of the lecture was, but it did get rather Wikipedian at times. It is not something I'd share widely cos it seems you need to be into it, and in fact I thought the most interesting part was the Naked Short Selling bringing down the banks - big important real world stuff of which the Wikipedia element was just one small part of a co-ordinated attack across many different media. Perhaps what went unsaid was "Why was Wikipedia deemed to be so important to require such a significant effort by Weiss?" (which I think is the point that I got worried about the whole Wikipedia thing a couple of years ago).

Wordbomb, how do you think it went down as a lecture?

[GlassBeadGame]

I have gone some time with the task "Form an opinion about JB and ASM" on my to-do list. There are a number of reasons for this. The principal one is that, like much of Wikipedia, it requires a detailed foray in the substance of topics that offer me little appeal. A Republican PR guy, an internet start up capitalist, the financial media, pet theories about the market, none of these were exactly my cup of tea. So I only delved in enough to follow the discussion. Wordbomb, Bagley, Byrne seemed to have a good understanding the dysfunctional nature of WP, the use of sock-puppets, and conflicts of interest. But I don't really have a real opinion.

So I decided, despite my dislike of getting information in non-text mediums, to watch the full presentation start to finish. Maybe I could knock one off my to-do list.

The quality of the presentation was excellent. I was entertained and informed. Bagley presented a coherent narrative of the social media, naked short selling, Weiss, and SlimVirgin. I was also convinced and relieved that the means that Bagley employed to sort out the identities of Weiss and his various puppets was merely clever and not some kind of evil black arts.

I more or less accept Bagley's narrative of Wikipedia's role. Weiss launches a wide social media campaign using false identities to advance his works and ideas. I maybe even accept that Weiss was in the pay of the DTCC, although this is less convincing. Weiss finds his way to Wikipedia. Makes sense to me. He falls in with SlimVirgin when they share a common interest in using "antisemitism" as way to isolate any opostion to their seperate and somewhat diverse editing interests. Such alliances are the makings Wikipedia dysfunction as I have come to understand it. I'm in the stands cheering when Bagley uses analysis of editing patterns and ip-account editing shifts to nail Weiss and Slim.

It hangs together as presented. It makes sense. And that is the problem. It works without the Byrne account of himself and Slim at Cambridge. I expected that somehow that this little episode would be pivotal in understanding the story. But the story works without recourse to that vignette. This reduces the Byrne account of Slimvirgin at Cambridge to a coincidence. Mind you it is not that I don't believe in coincidences. But really, what are chances?

[Kato]

So I decided, despite my dislike of getting information in non-text mediums, to watch the full presentation start to finish. Maybe I could knock one off my to-do list.

Well I loved the format, and find these things much easier to follow than simple text on a screen. It had a voice and appropriate text.

If I knew how, I'd be knocking them up myself to explain various aspects of WP.

[WordBomb]

Wordbomb, how do you think it went down as a lecture?

As I've listened back to my recording of the lecture, I can identify at least 100 things I wish I'd done differently (better).

But as far as its reception...here's what I gather:
1- I finished up about five minutes past the end of class, but everybody (as in, 100% of those present at the beginning) remained in their seats.
2- When it was over, the professor said, aloud, that is was "very suspenseful."
3- About a half-dozen students approached me afterward with some very insightful questions relating to finer points of the lecture.

Based solely on those three observations, I'd venture that it was well-received.

The real test should be to see whether I get any other invitations.

[Cla68]

Wordbomb, how do you think it went down as a lecture?

As I've listened back to my recording of the lecture, I can identify at least 100 things I wish I'd done differently (better).

But as far as its reception...here's what I gather:
1- I finished up about five minutes past the end of class, but everybody (as in, 100% of those present at the beginning) remained in their seats.
2- When it was over, the professor said, aloud, that is was "very suspenseful."
3- About a half-dozen students approached me afterward with some very insightful questions relating to finer points of the lecture.

Based solely on those three observations, I'd venture that it was well-received.

The real test should be to see whether I get any other invitations.

If the WMF was smart they would invite you (and pay you) to give your presentation to their full staff and boardmembers at their headquarters.

[WordBomb]

It hangs together as presented. It makes sense. And that is the problem. It works without the Byrne account of himself and Slim at Cambridge. I expected that somehow that this little episode would be pivotal in understanding the story. But the story works without recourse to that vignette.

I didn't include it because in my opinion, the Cambridge story only serves two purposes:
1- To shed some light on the nature and background of SlimVirgin
2- As a worthy follow-up to the question: "Now do you want to hear something really strange?"

[Emperor]

Are tracking pixels included with this presentation?

[Piperdown]

Are tracking pixels included with this presentation?

yeah, just like the one on gary weiss's blog.

[Bottled_Spider]

Are tracking pixels included with this presentation?

Activemeter is used. Very common. And completely harmless. Everyone should have one and call it a friend.

I liked the presentation very much. The audience can be heard in the background, but it's non-intrusive (unlike the tracking pixel, eh?! Just teasing!) and quiet, and adds to the atmosphere. The part of me that listens to a lot of audience-sourced music bootlegs ever-so-slightly missed the ambience of the standard American audience. You know, the sharp whistles, the drunken "Yeah! Rawk an' Roll!"'s and (of course) the "Whoooop!"'s.

Despite that, it was great. I can imagine Weiss and SlimVirgin enjoyed it too, and took notes throughout, in-between the teeth-grinding and the strangled grunts. Nice!

[dtobias]

the ambience of the standard American audience. You know, the sharp whistles, the drunken "Yeah! Rawk an' Roll!"'s and (of course) the "Whoooop!"'s.

If it's an audience of teenage girls, there's also the frequent "Squeeeeeeeeee!!!!!".

----------------
Now playing: Carly Simon - We Have No Secrets
via FoxyTunes

[Bottled_Spider]

the ambience of the standard American audience. You know, the sharp whistles, the drunken "Yeah! Rawk an' Roll!"'s and (of course) the "Whoooop!"'s.

If it's an audience of teenage girls, there's also the frequent "Squeeeeeeeeee!!!!!".

I would imagine so, though what I tend to listen to doesn't attract many teenage girls. Damn.

[dtobias]

the ambience of the standard American audience. You know, the sharp whistles, the drunken "Yeah! Rawk an' Roll!"'s and (of course) the "Whoooop!"'s.

If it's an audience of teenage girls, there's also the frequent "Squeeeeeeeeee!!!!!".

I would imagine so, though what I tend to listen to doesn't attract many teenage girls. Damn.

Try a live edition of the "Pottercast" podcast about Harry Potter, and listen at any point where they mention the kid who plays Potter in the movies.

----------------
Now playing: Meat Loaf - Paradise By The Dashboard Light
via FoxyTunes

[WordBomb]

Are tracking pixels included with this presentation?

yeah, just like the one on gary weiss's blog.

I haven't been to his blog for a while, but at one point, he actually had three different trackers going at the same time: Activemeter, Statcounter and Google Analytics, meanwhile claiming that my one instance of Activemeter was "spyware."

[Random832]

Are tracking pixels included with this presentation?

yeah, just like the one on gary weiss's blog.

I haven't been to his blog for a while, but at one point, he actually had three different trackers going at the same time: Activemeter, Statcounter and Google Analytics, meanwhile claiming that my one instance of Activemeter was "spyware."

To be fair - having one on a blog or website is socially acceptable, putting one in an _email_ is not - it's even considered dodgy for commercial mailers to do it.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Piperdown]

Are tracking pixels included with this presentation?

yeah, just like the one on gary weiss's blog.

I haven't been to his blog for a while, but at one point, he actually had three different trackers going at the same time: Activemeter, Statcounter and Google Analytics, meanwhile claiming that my one instance of Activemeter was "spyware."

To be fair - having one on a blog or website is socially acceptable, putting one in an _email_ is not - it's even considered dodgy for commercial mailers to do it.

but what's acceptable on Wikipedia is for an adminstrator, oh, let's call him "SlimVirgin", to deceptively intercede into a problem resoultion process by asking a new, goodfaith editor to submit proof of WP rulebreaking, but then immediately forward it on to the individual the complaint is against, without disclosing that to the plaintiff or the rest of Wikipedia.

WP had no problem with that. Slimmy kept her adminnies for years after.

Good thing Judd suspected he was dealing with a scumbag and did his own auditing of that deceptive process.

[Random832]

but what's acceptable on Wikipedia is for an adminstrator, oh, let's call him "SlimVirgin", to deceptively intercede into a problem resoultion process by asking a new, goodfaith editor to submit proof of WP rulebreaking, but then immediately forward it on to the individual the complaint is against, without disclosing that to the plaintiff or the rest of Wikipedia.

We don't actually know it was direct. I believe on WikBack she claimed it was forwarded to "other admins", which would imply it was not direct, as MM never was an admin.

[WordBomb]

but what's acceptable on Wikipedia is for an adminstrator, oh, let's call him "SlimVirgin", to deceptively intercede into a problem resoultion process by asking a new, goodfaith editor to submit proof of WP rulebreaking, but then immediately forward it on to the individual the complaint is against, without disclosing that to the plaintiff or the rest of Wikipedia.

We don't actually know it was direct. I believe on WikBack she claimed it was forwarded to "other admins", which would imply it was not direct, as MM never was an admin.

In email to me, before she knew what I'd done, she said she'd not shared my emails with anybody.

Hmmm.

I don't believe either version.

[Hell Freezes Over]

In email to me, before she knew what I'd done, she said she'd not shared my emails with anybody.

Here's our exchange about whom I forwarded your e-mails to. This has been referred to so many times, including in the ArbCom case, that I'm assuming you have no objection to me posting it in full. You seem not to be able to summarize it accurately

Scroll down to see the first e-mail. Becky Beckett = Wordbomb = Judd Bagley.

From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: to get some perspective...
To: Becky Beckett <mulieribusfare@gmail.com>


I have sent nothing to Gary Weiss.

I'd appreciate it if you would correspond with FloNight about this.
I've handed the entire matter over to her, complete with our
correspondence, and that means I'm no longer dealing with it.

Sarah


On 7/21/06, Becky Beckett <mulieribusfare@gmail.com> wrote:


July 19, 1:54am, I sent you two documents, as per your request for evidence.

I'll explain how if you insist, but the bottom line is somehow Gary Weiss
tried to open one of the two documents at 4:40pm and again at 4:44pm that
day. I know this to be the case, Sarah, so please don't tell me it isn't. I
guess there are a few ways it might have happened, but the easiest
explanation is that you gave it to him.

Take another look at that email and you'll notice I asked you to keep it
confidential, not that I should have had to say that, I suppose.

Is that standard procedure?



On 7/21/06, Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which e-mail are you talking about, and to whom was it sent?
>
> On 7/21/06, Becky Beckett < mulieribusfare@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is it standard Wikipedia practice for someone in your spot to forward
> > ostensibly confidential email to another user, especially when the
content
> > of the email deals directly with that user?
> >
> > I'm still trying to get a handle on how disappointing it was to see that
> > you'd done that. And I'm still trying to understand how you can justify
it.
> > And I'm still trying to decide what should be done about it.
> >
> > Any input?

[dtobias]

So I guess it's possible that it's FloNight who forwarded it on?

[Hell Freezes Over]

So I guess it's possible that it's FloNight who forwarded it on?

No idea. I forwarded Wordbomb's e-mails liberally -- along with warnings to be careful about clicking on his links -- because they contained spyware.

[EricBarbour]

No idea. I forwarded Wordbomb's e-mails liberally --
along with warnings to be careful about clicking on his links --
because they contained spyware.

Oh? May we see some of those links?

[Hell Freezes Over]

No idea. I forwarded Wordbomb's e-mails liberally --
along with warnings to be careful about clicking on his links --
because they contained spyware.

Oh? May we see some of those links?

I think some examples were posted in the ArbCom case. Some were tracking applications, others were hidden links to websites he controlled.

For example, I asked him if he had edited WP with any other account. He replied that he was User:Flashgrotto. But there was no such account. What appeared to be a link to the user page contained a hidden link to a blog Bagley had access to. You can see it below, but in gmail the blog link was invisible.

Begins:

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006
From: "Becky Beckett" <mulieribusfare@gmail.com>
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: status?

I used this account with a colleague to do some serious work I did on
evolution theory and population genetics last year:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flashgrotto<http://www.charlesdarwinblog.com/wikpedia/Flashgrotto>

Ends

The blog owner said he had contracted with Blake Snow of Provo Labs, Utah, to look after the blog for ad revenue. The CEO of Provo Labs is Paul B. Allen. Bagley is reportedly connected to one or both of these men.

It was because of shenanigans like this that I forwarded Bagley's e-mails to numerous people, with warnings, in case he was doing the same to others.

[WordBomb]

The strangest thing about SV's decision to revive this subject is the fact that in the past, every time it's come up in a setting where I can actually participate, her reputation gets mercilessly hammered. I mean look where she is today compared with two years ago. Am I the only one who sees a link?

But damn...it's like in the movies, when the underworld figure walks into the middle of the meeting between the cops who are at that moment planning his take-down, and then it turns out he's wearing a bomb or something.

Slim, are you wearing a bomb? This is just too easy.

But fine. I'll take one bite.

SV says my email to her made it to Gary Weiss because she was forwarding it liberally to others, warning them that my emails contained "spyware".

First of all, the email actually linked to another file which contained a tracking pixel, which has as much in common with spyware as a firecracker has in common with a nuclear bomb, but anyway.

If this is true, the following must also be true:
1- After ignoring all the (since proven accurate) emails proving Mantanmoreland was Gary Weiss, SV received another email and sensed, without following the link, that it pointed to a document which would alert me when opened.
2- She then felt the best thing to do would be liberally forward the email -- intact -- to others, warning them. Amazingly, none of these opened the document, either.
3- One or more of these recipients decided Gary Weiss needed to see the suspect email. Gary received it and became the first and only person to open it.

Now Slim, how would Mr. Occam regard that silly explanation?

Just as you're seeming to rejoin the human race and I'm beginning to feel some shred of compassion toward you, you revert to form and show up here with your lies. And not even good lies, but insulting, irresponsible ones.

Go get your story straight and come back to try again.

[Hell Freezes Over]

SV says my email to her made it to Gary Weiss because she was forwarding it liberally to others, warning them that my emails contained "spyware".

First of all, the email actually linked to another file which contained a tracking pixel, which has as much in common with spyware as a firecracker has in common with a nuclear bomb, but anyway.

If this is true, the following must also be true:
1- After ignoring all the (since proven accurate) emails proving Mantanmoreland was Gary Weiss, SV received another email and sensed, without following the link, that it pointed to a document which would alert me when opened.
2- She then felt the best thing to do would be liberally forward the email -- intact -- to others, warning them. Amazingly, none of these opened the document, either.
3- One or more of these recipients decided Gary Weiss needed to see the suspect email. Gary received it and became the first and only person to open it.

Now Slim, how would Mr. Occam regard that silly explanation?

I don't really understand your response. All I know is that you never seem able to get the basic facts straight. For example, in your talk, you said something about me promoting the category "Antisemitic people." I'm in fact on record as saying that category should be deleted. And on it goes.

As for your e-mails, you know you were playing silly buggers (call it spyware, call it tracking, call it spoofing; it doesn't change that you were up to no good). I therefore forwarded your e-mails to a lot of people, including ArbCom. Make of it what you will, but please stick to the facts. Don't embellish. Don't make stuff up. If you'd done that from day one, your issues would have been sorted out a lot faster and without fuss.

[Hell Freezes Over]

Don't embellish. Don't make stuff up. If you'd done that from day one, your issues would have been sorted out a lot faster and without fuss.

I have to apologize for the schoolmarmish tone. I just find it frustrating that there are so many inaccuracies floating around, and that so much is built on them.

[Moulton]

Middle School Day Dreams

I have to apologize for the schoolmarmish tone. I just find it frustrating that there are so many inaccuracies floating around, and that so much is built on them.

Yes, it's frustrating when foggy politics displaces science. Frustrating and exasperating, not to mention chagrinworthy.

I have heard from the kids on the playground that there is a reliable method for Hypothesis Testing — something about evidence, analysis, reasoning, and scholarly peer review — but I don't think we will study that subject until we get to the 7th Grade. I can hardly wait.

[FloNight]

So I guess it's possible that it's FloNight who forwarded it on?

No. I would not have forwarded the email to MM/Gary Weiss or anyone else. And I don't recall copying any emails about this topic to anyone except people on ArbCom for checkuser and oversight discussions. I wouldn't had any reason to do so.

I do recall that SlimVirgin was concerned about a particular email that she said contained a deceptive link that she said could be used to track an ip address. I don't remember the details of the exchange between us about it and I have no idea who else she told or forwarded the email to as an example of her concerns.

Sydney

[dtobias]

I see both Judd and Slim as rather sneaky, underhanded, manipulative types more interested in promoting their own agendas than in openly and straightforwardly exploring the facts. Both can get highly indignant (and sometimes schoolmarmish) over parts of the other's behavior that they can pick apart and ruthlessly skewer, but will clam up when it comes to responding to uneasy questions about their own behavior. But at least they're finally now actually participating in a frank discussion in a venue without clique buddies to censor anything they don't like.

WordBomb: Wasn't it a dirty trick to put links in your e-mails that purport to go to Wikipedia user pages but actually go to pages in your own site or blog?

Slim: Wasn't it an extreme overreaction on your part to get WordBomb summarily banned and then highly demonized for the next few years, with all of the points he was trying to make declared to be "Bagley attack memes" and vigorously suppressed on-wiki, including via the BADSITES concept?

[Random832]

So I guess it's possible that it's FloNight who forwarded it on?

No idea. I forwarded Wordbomb's e-mails liberally -- along with warnings to be careful about clicking on his links -- because they contained spyware.

Bottom line, did you or did you not forward it directly to Mantanmoreland? You've denied sending it to "Gary Weiss", but that denial could just as easily be based on not formally accepting the evidence that it's him. While I can accept that if you forwarded it to enough people you might not recall who all it had been, it seems that forwarding it to MM specifically would be inappropriate enough that it's implausible that you would forget whether or not you had done so.
____

Something else that occured to me - I think it's plausible enough that when she forwarded it, it was accompanied by warnings not to click on the links.

So then, why did MM click on the link? WordBomb, I think he did so deliberately to provoke your reaction, knowing it would destroy your reputation. You got played.

[edit: it's sometimes annoying when the forum software merges posts together]

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Bottled_Spider]

I therefore forwarded your e-mails to a lot of people, including ArbCom.
Make of it what you will......

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)
Sure. Thanks. It reminds me of that old film, The Court Jester. "The pellet email with the poison's spyware's in the flagon inbox with the dragon erm .... Gary! The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!", and all that. Only much funnier. Thank you very much.

[Moulton]

Hints and Allegations

How many hypotheses do we now have up in the air?

Hâ‚€: Sarah innocently forwarded the e-mail into the aether whereupon it mysteriously found its way to Gary Weiss by routes unrevealed or unknown.

H₁: Sarah knowingly forwarded the e-mail to Gary Weiss, but without malicious intent.

Hâ‚‚: Sarah conspired with Gary Weiss to nefariously frame Judd Bagley.

H₃: Sydney was aware of the traffic, but not of any underhanded intrigue.

Hâ‚„: Sydney was aware of nefarious plots and intrigues and gave it a wink and nod.

What is the evidence and reasoning to support any of the above hypotheses? What is the evidence and analysis to falsify any of them? What measures, if any, are the principals who are under a cloud doing to clear up the fog and construct an accurate and sustainable explanation, well-supported by evidence and forensic analysis?

[dogbiscuit]

Hints and Allegations

How many hypotheses do we now have up in the air?

Hâ‚€: Sarah innocently forwarded the e-mail into the aether whereupon it mysteriously found its way to Gary Weiss by routes unrevealed or unknown.

H₁: Sarah knowingly forwarded the e-mail to Gary Weiss, but without malicious intent.

Hâ‚‚: Sarah conspired with Gary Weiss to nefariously frame Judd Bagley.

H₃: Sydney was aware of the traffic, but not of any underhanded intrigue.

Hâ‚„: Sydney was aware of nefarious plots and intrigues and gave it a wink and nod.

What is the evidence and reasoning to support any of the above hypotheses? What is the evidence and analysis to falsify any of them? What measures, if any, are the principals who are under a cloud doing to clear up the fog and construct an accurate and sustainable explanation, well-supported by evidence and forensic analysis?

Well, it is agreed that Wordbomb sent an email to SlimVirgin which was deemed to be confidential.

It seems to be undisputed that eventually Gary Weiss got the same email.

I am not yet sure if WordBomb copied that email elsewhere (but I believe not).

Therefore either SlimVirgin forwarded it to Gary Weiss (and/or Mantanmoreland if we are being pedantic) or she forwarded it to someone untrustworthy as she claimed to have distributed it widely, which hardly seems like due care for someone claiming to be neutral. She was directly or indirectly involved in getting that information to the other party in the dispute. At best she was careless in who she involved - which now seems to be the world and their spouse by her version.

The fake links are irrelevant, it is not as if they were in any way designed to install tracking software or disrupt a PC on a permanent basis, JoshuaZ has done worse to his own PC it seems (though those pesky CIA do get everywhere). Actually, the whole email thing is pretty irrelevant aside from it did the trick of being part of the jigsaw of linking an unethical and possibly criminal journalist with the wackos at Wikipedia who simply don't have a problem with ethics. It bemuses me how offended Wikipedians get about this, it is only a big deal in WackyWikipediaWorld.

[Moulton]

Of all the hypotheses up in the air, Hâ‚‚ is clearly the most damning one with respect to Sarah's role in this long-running drama.

Hâ‚‚: Sarah conspired with Gary Weiss to nefariously frame Judd Bagley.

Is there any evidence to falsify Hâ‚‚? (None that I know of has yet come to light.)

Is there any evidence to support H₂? Yes. Upthread, Sarah admits to being aware of tracking URLs, which she warns her correspondents about. She characterized the tracking URLs as "spyware" — a well-defined term that has a substantially different meaning (and a more nefarious purpose) than a commonplace tracking link or pixel. The most convincing recent evidence that Sarah was intending to frame Judd Bagley is this admission:

As for your e-mails, you know you were playing silly buggers (call it spyware, call it tracking, call it spoofing; it doesn't change that you were up to no good). I therefore forwarded your e-mails to a lot of people, including ArbCom.

The hypothesis that Judd Bagley was "up to no good" is one that we must now add to the mix. However, the above quote clearly supports the hypothesis, Hâ‚‚, that Sarah was out to demonize Judd and undermine his standing. Whether she was doing this in cahoots with Gary Weiss remains to be demonstrated.

[Kato]

call it spyware, call it tracking, call it spoofing; it doesn't change that you were up to no good.

No, no, no. You called it "spyware".

Let's take a look at how that meme spread.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=986031&cid=25267811

Weiss never had Wikipedia administrator status, and thus the actions which Byrne blames for "censorship" were done by the other Wikipedia participants, mostly actual site administrators, who did not have conflicts of interest over the topic area. Byrne and his employee's accounts were permanently blocked from editing, and hundreds of known "sockpuppet" accounts created and used by them were also blocked. They were blocked because they threatened numerous Wikipedia volunteers, exposed alledged real names (sometimes wrong, sometimes right) of pseudonymous volunteers and personal information both of pseudonymous and openly identified individuals.

Threatening phone calls were made to volunteers and their employers, viruses and various web tracking mechanisms were placed onto Byrne's website to try and help ID his alledged persecutors, and illegal access to some of the volunteers computers was made by Byrne and/or his employee. At least one other volunteer in California was subjected to threats and behavior that rose to the level of felony stalking here, though I was unable to get them to file police reports.

Do you stand by any of that? Given that it directly stems from your claims that a link in an email to Judd's blog constitutes "spyware"?

[Cedric]

The only thing that mystifies me is what made Stroynaya think that this many times warmed over accusation would gain any significant purchase here now. Even houseflies have longer memories than she seems to attribute to us. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

The only thing that mystifies me is what made Stroynaya think that this many times warmed over accusation would gain any significant purchase here now. Even houseflies have longer memories than she seems to attribute to us. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Be thou unmystified henceforth and forever !!! —

Flies be whom she's e-costumed to Lord over.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[Kato]

The only thing that mystifies me is what made Stroynaya think that this many times warmed over accusation would gain any significant purchase here now. Even houseflies have longer memories than she seems to attribute to us. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Well it works.

Wikipedia World is a swirling tempest. Controlling that Tempest in your favour is difficult but not impossible as Slim proved back in 2006-7. Wikipedios are a unworldly, obsessive bunch of nerds who will regurgitate any old crap if it suits. Old hands who know a bit about propaganda, manipulation, politics, presentation, conspiracy etc, can manipulate the mob any which way they choose. It is part Art, part Science.

Slim is really good at it. Witness the Lar trials, for example, where a fair few people were duped into going on the attack against Lar, relying on a fog of innuendo. Within a few days, the whole thing had morphed into inquiries into Lar's marriage, false claims of sexy undie pictures, and anyone who complained were accused of being "hostile" to the plight of women and living in the 1950s. That was some piece of work. And then it turned out that Slim's accusations at Lar last year, that dragged on for months were "never regarded as a big deal" anyway.

I mean, Spyware, Schmyware! What's in a word? What is important is that the opponent is "up to no good" - and it is essential that the oafish minions who roam the WikiVerse get behind that meme. The rest writes itself.

PS: Also, I forgot to say earlier that, judging by some of Cla68's edits, he appears to be based in the same state as Wordbomb.

[the fieryangel]

The only thing that mystifies me is what made Stroynaya think that this many times warmed over accusation would gain any significant purchase here now. Even houseflies have longer memories than she seems to attribute to us. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Well it works.

Wikipedia World is a swirling tempest. Controlling that Tempest in your favour is difficult but not impossible as Slim proved back in 2006-7. Wikipedios are a unworldly, obsessive bunch of nerds who will regurgitate any old crap if it suits. Old hands who know a bit about propaganda, manipulation, politics, presentation, conspiracy etc, can manipulate the mob any which way they choose. It is part Art, part Science.

Slim is really good at it. Witness the Lar trials, for example, where a fair few people were duped into going on the attack against Lar, relying on a fog of innuendo. Within a few days, the whole thing had morphed into inquiries into Lar's marriage, false claims of sexy undie pictures, and anyone who complained were accused of being "hostile" to the plight of women and living in the 1950s. That was some piece of work. And then it turned out that Slim's accusations at Lar last year, that dragged on for months were "never regarded as a big deal" anyway.

I mean, Spyware, Schmyware! What's in a word? What is important is that the opponent is "up to no good" - and it is essential that the oafish minions who roam the WikiVerse get behind that meme. The rest writes itself.

Well, let's follow this one step further: Everybody knows that Wordbomb = Judd Bagley, who is a free-lance journalist whose location everybody knows.

Lots of conjecture has been made, but we don't really know who SlimVirgin is, where she lives or what she does. That's fine with me, but it begs the question:

How much damage does it do when you say that "Judd Bagley" (real name) did all sorts of dastardly deeds? How does this affect his real life existence? Do you suppose that maybe he's lost work because of this stuff going on? I'd have to say that this is probably pretty damned likely.

How much damage does it do when you say that "SlimVirgin" (a screen name attached to a website, of which nothing else is known) has done all sort of dastardly deeds? Does it affect her real life existence? Has she lost jobs because of it? I'd have to guess that, no, she probably has not. She might not even be a 'she' for all that we know. So, this cannot be connected to her real existence.

That's the point, folks. Identity matters. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to lay your cards on the table and come out of your wiki-closets. You're going to stalked a hell of a lot less if you just stop playing this game with mirrors and masks and just say who you are.

As far as I'm concerned, Judd has something to beef about. A pseudonym has no rights at all.