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

[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?

[WordBomb]

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.

Everything above is opinion -- and thus not worth arguing over -- until the part about my clamming up when it comes to responding to uneasy questions. That's just not true. I'll talk about all of this all day long. That said, I do tend to get minimalist when discussing it here on WR, since it's all been said so many times and I hate to subject everybody to the minutiae over and over again.

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.

That's very true. I should not have attacked SV last night as I did. At least she's willing to talk about it. That's very admirable, particularly given the mostly hostile crowd here. Slim, I apologize for that.

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?

No, it was not a dirty trick, in my opinion. To understand why I did it, it might help to understand the prevailing circumstances: I knew with certainty that email sent to SlimVirgin was opened by Gary Weiss. I was fairly certain I knew what that meant -- SlimVirgin forwarded it to Weiss. But Occam's Razor, which I referenced earlier, would suggest that the simplest solution was that SlimVirgin was Gary Weiss. In fact, that seemed to explain a lot of things in those earliest days, particularly the way SlimVirgin appeared out of nowhere to ban me, and the way she said over and over that all the evidence I'd amassed and sent to her proving what's now completely obvious "didn't amount to much" (or something like that). The disguised link was my way of ruling out the possibility that SV was actually Gary Weiss. I didn't give a fig for Slim's IP address...as long as it wasn't 151.202.102.139.

Dirty trick? No.

Resourceful? Yes.

[Random832]

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?

No, it was not a dirty trick, in my opinion. To understand why I did it, it might help to understand the prevailing circumstances: I knew with certainty that email sent to SlimVirgin was opened by Gary Weiss. I was fairly certain I knew what that meant -- SlimVirgin forwarded it to Weiss. But Occam's Razor, which I referenced earlier, would suggest that the simplest solution was that SlimVirgin was Gary Weiss. In fact, that seemed to explain a lot of things in those earliest days, particularly the way SlimVirgin appeared out of nowhere to ban me, and the way she said over and over that all the evidence I'd amassed and sent to her proving what's now completely obvious "didn't amount to much" (or something like that). The disguised link was my way of ruling out the possibility that SV was actually Gary Weiss. I didn't give a fig for Slim's IP address...as long as it wasn't 151.202.102.139.

Hold it.

On WikBack, you said that you didn't care about her IP address at all, did not suspect she was Weiss, and only included the link to see if she read the documents at all (vs discarding them unopened).

Not being able to get your story straight doesn't help your credibility.

[WordBomb]

On WikBack, you said that you didn't care about her IP address at all, did not suspect she was Weiss, and only included the link to see if she read the documents at all (vs discarding them unopened).

Not being able to get your story straight doesn't help your credibility.

You're confusing two events: the pixel and the link.
The pixel (embedded in a document hosted on a file sharing site, which was linked to via email) was sent after it became apparent that SV wasn't reading what I was sending her. I wanted to know whether or not that was true. All I wanted to see was a ping verifying that it was opened. I got my ping, but from an IP address I happened to know, without a doubt, belonged to Gary Weiss.

At that point, before I could draw conclusions about what the results of the first test meant, I had to rule out the possibility that SlimVirgin was Gary Weiss. The challenge was figuring out how to do that given her apparent unwillingness to read attachments I sent her.

About that same time, she asked me to identify any other accounts I'd used. Of course, there were none, but this presented me with an opportunity. So I sent what appeared to be a link to a Wikipedia userpage, but was actually a link to a site with server logs I could access. By the way, that kind of link spoofing is not easy in Gmail.

At that point, all I wanted to know was whether the click came from Weiss's IP or another.

[Hell Freezes Over]

On WikBack, you said that you didn't care about her IP address at all, did not suspect she was Weiss, and only included the link to see if she read the documents at all (vs discarding them unopened).

Not being able to get your story straight doesn't help your credibility.

You're confusing two events: the pixel and the link.
The pixel (embedded in a document hosted on a file sharing site, which was linked to via email) was sent after it became apparent that SV wasn't reading what I was sending her. I wanted to know whether or not that was true. All I wanted to see was a ping verifying that it was opened. I got my ping, but from an IP address I happened to know, without a doubt, belonged to Gary Weiss.

I'm not sure that makes much sense. I think I told you at the time that I wasn't reading your attachments, and that I didn't want to go to offwiki sites to see your evidence, so what made you think you'd get a ping from me by embedding something in a document on another website?

[Cla68]

On WikBack, you said that you didn't care about her IP address at all, did not suspect she was Weiss, and only included the link to see if she read the documents at all (vs discarding them unopened).

Not being able to get your story straight doesn't help your credibility.

You're confusing two events: the pixel and the link.
The pixel (embedded in a document hosted on a file sharing site, which was linked to via email) was sent after it became apparent that SV wasn't reading what I was sending her. I wanted to know whether or not that was true. All I wanted to see was a ping verifying that it was opened. I got my ping, but from an IP address I happened to know, without a doubt, belonged to Gary Weiss.

I'm not sure that makes much sense. I think I told you at the time that I wasn't reading your attachments, and that I didn't want to go to offwiki sites to see your evidence, so what made you think you'd get a ping from me by embedding something in a document on another website?

I have a question for each:

Hell Freezes Over- Instead of fully investigating Bagley's claims by checkuser and other processes, why did you instead try to ban all mention of his website and other Wikipedia criticism sites, allow Mantanmoreland onto one of your private mailing lists, and try to suppress editors who questioned what was going on, such as myself and Gracenotes? Also, why did you use private mailing lists to canvass other editors to help you out in doing this (examples available upon request)?

WordBomb- Why did you email me a link to your website in an attachment that looked like it was a link to Wikipedia?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Hell Freezes Over]

Hell Freezes Over- Instead of fully investigating Bagley's claims by checkuser and other processes, why did you instead try to ban all mention of his website and other Wikipedia criticism sites, allow Mantanmoreland onto one of your private mailing lists, and try to suppress editors who questioned what was going on, such as myself and Gracenotes? Also, why did you use private mailing lists to canvass other editors to help you out in doing this (examples available upon request)?

First, Bagley's claims *were* investigated by checkuser, starting in 2006. I'm not allowed to give details, unfortunately.

I was involved in efforts to keep links to WR off WP, because at the time it was full of seriously abusive material about living persons, myself included, and showed little, if any, restraint. It's hard to stand by and watch people link to pages where you're called every name under the sun, accused of conspiring to jail innocent people, of being a Nazi, of being paid to edit WP etc etc. You can't expect people not to defend themselves, and in those days (going back to 2005-6), there would have been little point in posting a defence here. The next best thing was to stop the claims from proliferating via WP.

I'm not sure what you mean about the private mailing lists. If you mean the cyberstalking list, that certainly wasn't a core issue, to the best of my recollection. I don't recall ever using it to "canvass" having links removed. My memory is that I'd pretty much given up on the BADSITES concept by then, though I stand to be corrected.

[Cla68]

First, Bagley's claims *were* investigated by checkuser, starting in 2006. I'm not allowed to give details, unfortunately.

I was involved in efforts to keep links to WR off WP, because at the time it was full of seriously abusive material about living persons, myself included, and showed little, if any, restraint. It's hard to stand by and watch people link to pages where you're called every name under the sun, accused of conspiring to jail innocent people, of being a Nazi, of being paid to edit WP etc etc. You can't expect people not to defend themselves, and in those days (going back to 2005-6), there would have been little point in posting a defence here. The next best thing was to stop the claims from proliferating via WP.

I'm not sure what you mean about the private mailing lists. If you mean the cyberstalking list, that certainly wasn't a core issue, to the best of my recollection. I don't recall ever using it to "canvass" having links removed. My memory is that I'd pretty much given up on the BADSITES concept by then, though I stand to be corrected.

You and Crum375 would threaten people with blocks for even mentioning sites, especially WordBomb's site. When I was asked during my RfA where I got my information about Mantanmoreland, I stated that I got it from AntiSocialMedia.net (ASM). When I tried to edit my response, the browser started acting really strange. Then I realized that you had admin deleted the RfA page, removed the reference to ASM, and then admin restored the page. Then you went and edited the related policy to support what you had just did, while at the same time Crum375 warned me on my talk page for having done it. In other words, you were changing the rules in real time, in apparent collaboration with other admins, and using admin priviliges, for self-serving reasons. Do you still feel that you were right to do so?

As far as private mailing lists, let me ask you this...Did you ever send emails to a mailing list of editors which said something along the lines of, "Could someone please go revert so-and-so at (such-and-such) article? I've already used two reverts today."?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Hell Freezes Over]

When I was asked during my RfA where I got my information about Mantanmoreland, I stated that I got it from AntiSocialMedia.net (ASM). When I tried to edit my response, the browser started acting really strange. Then I realized that you had admin deleted the RfA page, removed the reference to ASM, and then admin restored the page. Then you went and edited the related policy to support what you had just did ...

Can you provide a diff, or say which policy and when this happened?

The thing about ASM is that it contained (and may still contain) some incredibly insulting material, arguably libellous, claiming it was about me. It was in exactly the same boat as ED or WR (as it was then).

... In other words, you were changing the rules in real time, in apparent collaboration with other admins, and using admin priviliges, for self-serving reasons. Do you still feel that you were right to do so?

I have no recollection of changing the rules in real time, nor would anyone have needed to (as I recall), because the rules were pretty clear. Please give more details so that I can check.

As far as private mailing lists, let me ask you this...Did you ever send emails to a mailing list of editors which said something along the lines of, "Could someone please go revert so-and-so at (such-and-such) article? I've already used two reverts today."?

I have sent requests like that, though not for years. I don't recall sending one to a mailing list as such, though I may have done, but definitely not the cyberstalking list. Anything like that would have been before that period.

[WordBomb]

The thing about ASM is that it contained (and may still contain) some incredibly insulting material, arguably libellous, claiming it was about me. It was in exactly the same boat as ED or WR (as it was then).

Slim, there is not one claim...not one...on ASM that is not supported by evidence.

That's the opposite of libelous.

I challenge you to prove me wrong.

If you found some of it insulting, I cannot help that.

I suspect that instead, you found this post, which proved that you had sockpuppeted, to be inconvenient. Indeed, the Attack Sites fiasco got started in earnest a few days after that post was published and Cyde Weyes linked to it from an AN/I. Coincidence?

[Hell Freezes Over]

Slim, there is not one claim...not one...on ASM that is not supported by evidence.

I've not looked at it for a long time, but when I last checked, it had me running around college bars in Dickensian frocks, throwing my head in my hands and weeping at the slightest excuse, and switching between a Canadian and British accent because I had identity issues. When your boss uses a British accent to offer me a French fry, I take it as a mortal insult -- 20 years later I get the chance to help destroy the American economy by defending naked short selling on Wikipedia in order to avenge myself. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I was about to say you couldn't make it up, but that wouldn't be quite true, would it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over:

[Piperdown]

Slim, there is not one claim...not one...on ASM that is not supported by evidence.

I've not looked at it for a long time, but when I last checked, it had me running around college bars in Dickensian frocks, throwing my head in my hands and weeping at the slightest excuse, and switching between a Canadian and British accent because I had identity issues. When your boss uses a British accent to offer me a French fry, I take it as a mortal insult -- 20 years later I get the chance to help destroy the American economy by defending naked short selling on Wikipedia in order to avenge myself. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I was about to say you couldn't make it up, but that wouldn't be quite true, would it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Typical reaction. Exagerrated re-cap to make something seem not credible.

So the politicking begins to re-assert WP Power when your little exile times out.
You have a proven history of editing/adminning personal issues/relationships on Wikipedia. Your deal with Byrne wasn't about NSS. It was about you continuing a pattern of petty personal revenge.

So just why did you have your oversight buddy cover up that stunt you pulled on Pierre? Editing in books from old boyfriends, BLP's of old colleagues, making sure the boss that fired you - and saving the journalism profession from yet another ethically challenged individual - got it good from some choice negative sources. Supporting the "outing" of others and banning them for "disruption" when they dare to "disrupt" your little wikigame.

So you were an overly sensitive goth chick with local accent affectations in grad school. There's nothing extraordinary or unusual about that. So what part of Byrne's description of you wasn't true? lol. And it did serve a purpose for him to write that - it shows that you have drama queen tendencies IRL to correlate with your WP personality. And that you knew him and it was, if anything, a negative situation.

Your WP activity on the Byrne related issues is no more a coincidence than your WP activity on BLP's of other people you knew IRL. And you had a nice history banning other editors for "conflicts of interest" while yourself hiding any you had behind creepy avatars. You don't actually answer anything; you ignore, deflect, and half-truth your way out of everything on WP.

You got caught. Get over it. Go back to POV-pushing PETA on WP and manipulating virtual friends with passive-agressive power plays and cute but sexy cartoons, lol. There's always a new crop of horny anime-suggestive WP players every few years who will always be there to get your back.

Meanwhile, Charles Ainsworth is still not an admin while Linda Mack and Guy Chapman are. Well, that about sums up what's wrong with WP.

[Jon Awbrey]

Typical reaction. Exagerrated re-cap to make something seem not credible.

So the politicking begins to re-assert WP Power when your little exile times out.

You have a proven history of editing/adminning personal issues/relationships on Wikipedia. Your deal with Byrne wasn't about NSS. It was about you continuing a pattern of petty personal revenge.

So just why did you have your oversight buddy cover up that stunt you pulled on Pierre? Editing in books from old boyfriends, BLP's of old colleagues, making sure the boss that fired you � and saving the journalism profession from yet another ethically challenged individual � got it good from some choice negative sources. Supporting the "outing" of others and banning them for "disruption" when they dare to "disrupt" your little wikigame.

So you were an overly sensitive goth chick with local accent affectations in grad school. There's nothing extraordinary or unusual about that. So what part of Byrne's description of you wasn't true? lol. And it did serve a purpose for him to write that � it shows that you have drama queen tendencies IRL to correlate with your WP personality. And that you knew him and it was, if anything, a negative situation.

Your WP activity on the Byrne related issues is no more a coincidence than your WP activity on BLP's of other people you knew IRL. And you had a nice history banning other editors for "conflicts of interest" while yourself hiding any you had behind creepy avatars. You don't actually answer anything; you ignore, deflect, and half-truth your way out of everything on WP.

You got caught. Get over it. Go back to POV-pushing PETA on WP and manipulating virtual friends with passive-agressive power plays and cute but sexy cartoons, lol. There's always a new crop of horny anime-suggestive WP players every few years who will always be there to get your back.

Meanwhile, Charles Ainsworth is still not an admin while Linda Mack and Guy Chapman are. Well, that about sums up what's wrong with WP.

Now, now, now � pipe down, Piperdown � you know perfectly well that WINT (What's Its Name Today) dozent know how to win an argument without a Lynch Mob in its wiki-pocketses and a Ban Button under its thumb, so you'll have to go EZ honour until such time as s/he can manage to inveigle some local recruits.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Piperdown]

Now, now, now � pipe down, Piperdown � you know perfectly well that WINT (What's Its Name Today) dozent know how to win an argument without a Lynch Mob in its wiki-pocketses and a Ban Button under its thumb, so you'll have to go EZ honour until such time as s/he can manage to inveigle some local recruits.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

jonny, I miss your coolest ever cache avatar. And were you recently photo featured on the nets? I read some news article some weeks ago, forget about what, with a whole paragraph and a photo of a "Jon Awbrey". Surely there can be only one....

[Jon Awbrey]

Jonny, I miss your coolest ever cache avatar. And were you recently photo featured on the nets? I read some news article some weeks ago, forget about what, with a whole paragraph and a photo of a "Jon Awbrey". Surely there can be only one …

Haven't seen that. Last time I checked there were at least a dozen other people currently flourishing under the same name, not counting middle names, of course.

Jon [Middle Name Redacted] Awbrey

P.S. IANAI � so don't bite my head off.