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.

[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.

[Hell Freezes Over]

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.

Thank you. I apologize again for my tone when I replied.

My request is that you very carefully check anything you say about me in future. Your claim in this thread, for example, that, "In email to me, before she knew what I'd done, she said she'd not shared my emails with anybody," isn't correct. I was always clear with you that I'd forwarded your e-mails to others, including ArbCom.

Did that include Mantanmoreland? I honestly can't remember. I have nothing in my gmail archive showing I did, and I usually don't delete gmails, so that suggests I didn't. But I can't rule it out, though I can say with certainty that I had no idea at that point that MM might be GW, except for your claim, and I really didn't care who he was. I was more concerned about your claims that he was sockpuppeting. I handed the whole issue over to FloNight pretty quickly and left it to her to decide what to do about the sockpuppetry. Then Fred Bauder stepped in and warned MM (I had forwarded Fred some of your e-mails, and I think you wrote to him too), and that was that, at least as far as the early socks were concerned.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

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).

Quite what's "no good" about it is unclear. It seems to have achieved something positive.

For clarity: your use of the term "spyware" makes you a liar. The term has overtones which do not reflect the reality of the story you're misrepresenting.

And as others have noted, it makes you an anonymous liar, lying about an identifiable and above-board person. Are you going to fix that?

I just find it frustrating that there are so many inaccuracies floating around

Then stop floating them.

[Jon Awbrey]

A pseudonym has no rights at all.

Strictly speaking, HFO is a Pseu-Pseu-Pseudonym, and counting.

I suppose that Pseudo³nymph would do, for short.

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

[Somey]

That whole "tracking pixels = spyware" thing was one of the main reasons I, personally, took Wordbomb's side in the first place. (Well, that and Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D)...!)

To be honest, when he first joined WR, Wordbomb wasn't quite as "well-behaved" as he is now, and there was a period of about a month there when we actually considered banning him. Remember, he tried to do that stuff here too, which caused us all sorts of trouble - because even then, there were enough Wikipedia-types here who bought into the "OMG it's spyware" nonsense that we had to do something, which meant we had to disable embedded images for everybody here until I was able to get the image-host whitelist feature working, which was about a year later because I'm such a lazy sod. (Not to mention the fact that I had to clean out all the "naughty" posts... though that only took a few minutes.) Of course, Wordbomb couldn't necessarily trust us WR admins either, given that we were all acting anonymously too.

Anyhoo, the overreaction to the tracking pixels tended to indicate to me and most of the other admins/mods that "they" were trying to demonize him beyond what should have been considered reasonable.

I think the Big Difference, all along, was that I (and to some extent, "we") felt that you couldn't blame him for trying, given that people's livelihoods were involved - and by that I mean the employees of Overstock.com and their families, who IMO were being set up as potential innocent victims in a rather dirty short-selling campaign. Sadly, that sort of thing never really occurs to Wall Street financier-types, or Wikipedia admins either, as it would seem.

Lastly, the crucial question for SlimVirgin in this case has always been, did she know Mantanmoreland was Weiss all along? But asking it remains rather pointless, IMO - even if she did know, she has to keep saying "no," or it contradicts all sorts of statements made earlier on. Not to mention the fact that the more conspiracy-minded folks here would jump all over it, to say the least. Nobody needs that kind of aggravation!

[Hell Freezes Over]

That whole "tracking pixels = spyware" thing was one of the main reasons I, personally, took Wordbomb's side in the first place. (Well, that and Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D)...!)

To be honest, when he first joined WR, Wordbomb wasn't quite as "well-behaved" as he is now, and there was a period of about a month there when we actually considered banning him. Remember, he tried to do that stuff here too, which caused us all sorts of trouble - because even then, there were enough Wikipedia-types here who bought into the "OMG it's spyware" nonsense that we had to do something, which meant we had to disable embedded images for everybody here until I was able to get the image-host whitelist feature working, which was about a year later because I'm such a lazy sod. (Not to mention the fact that I had to clean out all the "naughty" posts... though that only took a few minutes.) Of course, Wordbomb couldn't necessarily trust us WR admins either, given that we were all acting anonymously too.

Anyhoo, the overreaction to the tracking pixels tended to indicate to me and most of the other admins/mods that "they" were trying to demonize him beyond what should have been considered reasonable.

I think the Big Difference, all along, was that I (and to some extent, "we") felt that you couldn't blame him for trying, given that people's livelihoods were involved - and by that I mean the employees of Overstock.com and their families, who IMO were being set up as potential innocent victims in a rather dirty short-selling campaign. Sadly, that sort of thing never really occurs to Wall Street financier-types, or Wikipedia admins either, as it would seem.

Lastly, the crucial question for SlimVirgin in this case has always been, did she know Mantanmoreland was Weiss all along? But asking it remains rather pointless, IMO - even if she did know, she has to keep saying "no," or it contradicts all sorts of statements made earlier on. Not to mention the fact that the more conspiracy-minded folks here would jump all over it, to say the least. Nobody needs that kind of aggravation!

I didn't know MM might be GW. I first saw evidence at the end of 2006 that MM was connected in some way to GW (evidence independent of Judd's). That's when I wrote to MM asking him to withdraw from editing any of the naked short selling BLPs (GW, Byrne, etc), which was copied to a few other admins and arbitrators.

As for the spyware/tracking distinction, I'm still not entirely clear what the difference is or why it matters. I know that others have claimed there were applications that were downloading, which I take it is what's meant by spyware proper. Whether that's true or not, the intent was to track people by fooling them into clicking on links they wouldn't have clicked on otherwise. When that's your first encounter with a person, it doesn't exactly create a good foundation for a relationship. It wasn't a question of demonizing. It was just "what on earth is going on here?" and a desire not to be involved.

[Somey]

As for the spyware/tracking distinction, I'm still not entirely clear what the difference is...

Still? That seems rather hard to believe after all this time, but the difference is that a tracking pixel is totally passive, and spyware is not. To be considered "spyware," there has to be actual program code running on the user/victim's machine (the code can run via a web browser, but it still has to be running locally - even if you encounter a web page that tries to get you to download spyware, the page/site itself isn't spyware, it's still just a "distribution scheme" at that point).

A tracking pixel doesn't actually do anything - you have to host it on a web server whose raw access logs you can read, and then you download the logs and search them for the image file name. Each access-log entry tells you what IP address accessed (i.e., viewed) the image, and at what time. I'm not saying it isn't sneaky, because it is, but other than determining the viewer's IP address, a tracking pixel is completely harmless.

Of course, if a person swaps out their tracking pixel with a goatse image, then that's a different story. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

...or why it matters.

That should be even more obvious - distributing spyware is illegal in some countries, and distributing it without the knowledge or consent of the victim is illegal in most countries.

Tracking pixels are widely used for marketing purposes and are perfectly legal in all countries, pretty much without exception. (Governments probably couldn't enforce laws against tracking pixels even if they had them, but that too is another story.)

[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.

[Somey]

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).

Unfortunately we can't refer to the actual Wikback post directly, but as I recall, he was trying to say that he didn't care about SV's IP address at the time he sent the e-mail.

Obviously he cared about it a great deal afterwards, i.e., after he had been banned from WP, etc.

[Jon Awbrey]

Governments probably couldn't enforce laws against tracking pixels even if they had them, but that too is another story.

The only way they could e-force laws against tracking pixels would be to plant tracking pixels on anyone who uses any computer anywhere — okay, they already do that, but you don't think they're going to fess up to doing that, do you?

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

[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).

Unfortunately we can't refer to the actual Wikback post directly, but as I recall, he was trying to say that he didn't care about SV's IP address at the time he sent the e-mail.

Obviously he cared about it a great deal afterwards, i.e., after he had been banned from WP, etc.

He sent the e-mail after he'd been blocked.

[Random832]

As for the spyware/tracking distinction, I'm still not entirely clear what the difference is or why it matters. I know that others have claimed there were applications that were downloading, which I take it is what's meant by spyware proper.

I think I have a missing piece. When I was reading up on this during the arbcom case, I came across a blog post - I think Weiss's, but I honestly can't say for sure - which said that Bagley was using spyware that (by unspecified means) "opens the directory structure of your computer" or something like that.

I was also reading ASM and saw a post there describing what appeared to have been the same incident (not 100% clear, but in so far as it was also about directory structure) - he corroborated his belief about someone's identity by looking at a local pathname which had been included in a document that person had posted online (i.e. someone wrote a html file, it included something like an image reference to C:\Documents and Settings\<name>\Desktop\foo.jpg - amateurish HTML authoring mistake, really, we've all probably done it - and posted that online, and WB just viewed the source and that happened to confirm what he already suspected).

I didn't say anything at the time since nothing more seemed to have come of it, but this looks like it might have been something that fueled your suspicions.

Unfortunately we can't refer to the actual Wikback post directly

I may have a copy of that thread saved and/or webcited.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Hell Freezes Over]

To be considered "spyware," there has to be actual program code running on the user/victim's machine (the code can run via a web browser, but it still has to be running locally - even if you encounter a web page that tries to get you to download spyware, the page/site itself isn't spyware, it's still just a "distribution scheme" at that point).

He did send me several attachments that I was meant to open/download, but I never did. I kept asking him to stick to Wikipedia links. It was at that point that he sent me the link to a blog he had access to, disguised as a Wikipedia link.

If someone who knows about these things wants to check the attachments, let me know.

[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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

Stop over-reaching to make your point. Obviously if you are going to defame people, edit BLP's or hold positions of authority on a top ten website you should act under your real name. But of course for every bat shit crazy and reckless pseudonym on Wikipedia there is a corresponding bat shit crazy person using their real name. For every thoughtful critic using real names there is a thoughtful pseudonym critic.

The bat shit flies everywhere. In this environment why would anyone who has no authority and leaves BLP's alone want to reveal information, especially if they are critical of the bat shit and don't want put up with needless aggravation? Your over-reaching only chills dissent.

If you are going to harp on everyone to reveal information you are not entitled to you are going to undermine your better arguments.

[the fieryangel]

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.

Stop over-reaching to make your point. Obviously if you are going to defame people, edit BLP's or hold positions of authority on a top ten website you should act under your real name. But of course for every bat shit crazy and reckless pseudonym on Wikipedia there is a corresponding bat shit crazy person using their real name. For every thoughtful critic using real names there is a thoughtful pseudonym critic.

The bat shit flies everywhere. In this environment why would anyone who has no authority and leaves BLP's alone want to reveal information, especially if they are critical of the bat shit and don't want put up with needless aggravation? Your over-reaching only chills dissent.

If you are going to harp on everyone to reveal information you are not entitled to you are going to undermine your better arguments.

We have a named individual who is having to justify his actions to a pseudonym. Why is it over-reaching to say that this is not fair because the named person's real life is in the balance and the pseudonym's real life is not? And why should anyone listen to a pseudonym when a named person has given out pretty much everything that can be known about him except whether he carries to the right or to the left?

The whole reason that this entire discussion is taking place is because people are being paranoid because they're hiding behind pseudos. That's the whole problem right there. The named individual is, by nature of what that entails, immediately more believable. That's just how that game works, my friend.

Just to calm this recurring discussion down once again (how many times have we had this already? five times? ten times? I've lost count): whatever I know about anybody is going to remain a secret. I'm not going to out anyone, ever. All that I'm saying is that once you're "out", a lot of problems go away.

I will continue to say this because it's a fact. Like it or not.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

Stop over-reaching to make your point. Obviously if you are going to defame people, edit BLP's or hold positions of authority on a top ten website you should act under your real name. But of course for every bat shit crazy and reckless pseudonym on Wikipedia there is a corresponding bat shit crazy person using their real name. For every thoughtful critic using real names there is a thoughtful pseudonym critic.

The bat shit flies everywhere. In this environment why would anyone who has no authority and leaves BLP's alone want to reveal information, especially if they are critical of the bat shit and don't want put up with needless aggravation? Your over-reaching only chills dissent.

If you are going to harp on everyone to reveal information you are not entitled to you are going to undermine your better arguments.

We have a named individual who is having to justify his actions to a pseudonym. Why is it over-reaching to say that this is not fair because the named person's real life is in the balance and the pseudonym's real life is not? And why should anyone listen to a pseudonym when a named person has given out pretty much everything that can be known about him except whether he carries to the right or to the left?

The whole reason that this entire discussion is taking place is because people are being paranoid because they're hiding behind pseudos. That's the whole problem right there. The named individual is, by nature of what that entails, immediately more believable. That's just how that game works, my friend.

Just to calm this recurring discussion down once again (how many times have we had this already? five times? ten times? I've lost count): whatever I know about anybody is going to remain a secret. I'm not going to out anyone, ever. All that I'm saying is that once you're "out", a lot of problems go away.

I will continue to say this because it's a fact. Like it or not.

Don't broaden this point further needed or you will find yourself isolated, again. We repeat this discussion over and over again because of your failure to understand a nuanced and reasoned position. Of course Judd has nothing to answer to SlimVirgin, an abusive admin of extraordinary authority and influence who has completely abused her use of a pseudonym. You are "known," like Proab, only because you failed to manage your own doxs. Then you both bitch and moan about it. Followed by complaining about people who have done a better job and do in no way abuse their own pseudonyms. This is hardly any great virtue. Knock the "like it or not" nonsense off. You make yourself look like an intrusive busybody.

[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?

[Moulton]

There appears to be two competing schools of thought regarding the practice of exercising political power over others whilst hiding behind a mask of anonymity.

Those who are wearing a mask very likely live with some fear of exposure. Those who are not wearing a mask may have complementary fears about being stalked or having their professional lives otherwise disrupted.

I reckon that Alison and NYBrad could write memoirs on the subject.

My own observation is that those who enter the political arena without wearing a hood over their head are more effective in the long run.

[Proabivouac]

You are "known," like Proab, only because you failed to manage your own doxs. Then you both bitch and moan about it.

Ludicrous, GBG. My name became known because it was already known - I contributed under it for three years. I had never before had occasion to use a pseudonym, and hope to never have to again. When asked who I was, I told the truth, unlike certain cowardly liars who run this forum.

The main one bitching and moaning around here is you, Mr. Game, as your lies and misdeeds of your Wikipals are exposed. Last I heard, you were telling us that it’s perfectly acceptable for high-level Wikipedia administrators to use fake names, fake genders and fake credentials. Say, don’t you have an account over there? I hope you’re not impersonating a young woman like your colleagues - it would explain a lot, though, if you were.

Followed by complaining about people who have done a better job and do in no way abuse their own pseudonyms.

How would you know? Do you know who runs this site, for example? The last time a staff member here was identified, it didn’t look so good. Your watch, your fail. And you’re still failing away, because you’re too lazy to do any actual work, and lack the will and probably also the integrity to clean up your own house. What’s changed?

What Greg, Paul, Judd and Anthony are doing isn’t novel: it’s called setting an example. You’re setting one, too, come to think of it, and your rationalization about why it’s honorable for all of you, but not others, to hide behind pseuds is just a trivial component of that example.

[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:

[WordBomb]

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

Not sure what you're referring to...I don't recall ever having done that.

[Cla68]

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

Not sure what you're referring to...I don't recall ever having done that.

Actually, it looks like what happened is that you sent me Wikipedia page copied into an attachment, not a link to your website, so I retract that and apologize. I appreciate your quick response and hope that Hell Freezes responds also.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[dtobias]

A good "hall of shame" of attempts at BADSITES enforcement is here in the evidence section of the ArbCom "Attack Sites" case. Several of those items pertain to Bagley and AntisocialMedia, and many were perpetrated by close friends and allies of Slim, especially ElinorD.

[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.

[gomi]

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

You are not now, nor have ever been a checkuser. How is it that you have access to checkuser information? And if so, what is it that prevents you from sharing it?

[GlassBeadGame]

You are "known," like Proab, only because you failed to manage your own doxs. Then you both bitch and moan about it.

Ludicrous, GBG. My name became known because it was already known - I contributed under it for three years. I had never before had occasion to use a pseudonym, and hope to never have to again. When asked who I was, I told the truth, unlike certain cowardly liars who run this forum.

Nonsense. you have bitched about being "outed" on some butt-hurt level, not that I give a shit about your petty dramas. This motivated your current destructive campaign. Now you have degenerated into a bully and thug. You no longer contribute to any meaningful critique. You continue to be a creature of Wikipedia and it's obsessions with game playing and revenge. You only hamfistedly pretend to some moral high ground. Being "known" operates as no deterrent on your excesses.

[gomi]

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.

Most of that information -- the correct and incorrect, the scurrilous and humorous, the baiting and incisive -- is still here on WR for the searching. As we say over and over, such are the perils of an open forum. What has changed such that you are here now? The puppy that you fed grew into a big, mean dog and bit you. Little seems to have changed on Wikipedia. Much has changed here, but the criticism hasn't.

[Hell Freezes Over]

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

You are not now, nor have ever been a checkuser. How is it that you have access to checkuser information? And if so, what is it that prevents you from sharing it?

I and others (admins and a couple of arbitrators) were given information that derived from checkuser. It was the kind of information that is allowed to be shared among people looking into a case. I'm sorry I can't be more explicit.

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.

Most of that information -- the correct and incorrect, the scurrilous and humorous, the baiting and incisive -- is still here on WR for the searching. As we say over and over, such are the perils of an open forum. What has changed such that you are here now? The puppy that you fed grew into a big, mean dog and bit you. Little seems to have changed on Wikipedia. Much has changed here, but the criticism hasn't.

It has changed radically. It's much more of a serious criticism site now. I don't want to give examples of previous claims made about me (or else Glassbeadgame will start posting again about how "oh, poor me" doesn't "work here"), but suffice to say they were ridiculous at best, often hurtful, and sometimes creepy.

[Proabivouac]

you have bitched about being "outed" on some butt-hurt level, not that I give a shit about your petty dramas.

It's your fine prose that qualifies you to moderate a critical Review.

[GlassBeadGame]

you have bitched about being "outed" on some butt-hurt level, not that I give a shit about your petty dramas.

It's your fine prose that qualifies you to moderate a critical Review.

You deserve no better.

[gomi]

My request is that you very carefully check anything you say about me in future.

Slim, this venue does not really reward Wiki-style nano-parsing of people's statements. This is conversational, and it really doesn't work to try to turn things into a venue for "very careful". WordBomb or anyone else can say what he wants, which is his impression of the conversation. No particular care is required.

I was always clear with you that I'd forwarded your e-mails to others, including ArbCom.

As an aside, I find it laughable that it is offense worthy of banning, stoning, or being drawn-and-quartered to publish an email sent to you by a WP admin, but an admin can forward an email on to a large, provably porous mailing list of people without a care. Another aspect of the Wikipedia Reality Distortion Field™, I guess.

For my part, I think that WordBomb's method of tracking his email was very clever, very pertinent to the situation, and well-justified. Oh, and most definitively not "spyware", and not even worse than what Google does to me 1000 times a day. But that's just me.

It has changed radically. It's much more of a serious criticism site now. I don't want to give examples of previous claims made about me (or else Glassbeadgame will start posting again about how "oh, poor me" doesn't "work here"), but suffice to say they were ridiculous at best, often hurtful, and sometimes creepy.

It was a serious criticism site then, as well, you were just less well-disposed to seeing WP and your own behaviour criticized. And if you think anything you were called then is worse than what you participated in versus Lar, or what people have said going after FT2, then your empathy bone is broken. Yes, posting pictures of enormously fat women and labeling them with your pseudonym was childish and not helpful, but it didn't, by itself, make WR other than a valid site for criticism. There is little being said now on this forum that wasn't also being said two years ago. You just didn't want to listen then.

[Kato]

Most of that information -- the correct and incorrect, the scurrilous and humorous, the baiting and incisive -- is still here on WR for the searching. As we say over and over, such are the perils of an open forum. What has changed such that you are here now? The puppy that you fed grew into a big, mean dog and bit you. Little seems to have changed on Wikipedia. Much has changed here, but the criticism hasn't.

A lot of the material aimed at SlimVirgin from this site was way out of line, ridiculous on occasion, nasty on others.

A depressing by-product of that lunatic mud-slinging was that it suppressed credible criticism, and allowed the BADSITES brigade on Wikipedia to concoct a defence in support of ongoing abuse.

There's no doubt that this site has played host to completely unreasonable people, clearly unhinged types quick for revenge, that no one would like to cross.

I don't really like the "open forum" defense. Sure, it is important to have an arena free from Wikipedio influence. But sometimes you have to call a nutjob a nutjob. Thankfully, and eventually, the worst offenders have either left in a flurry of bile, or have been banned for their own safety.

[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]

It was a serious criticism site then, as well, you were just less well-disposed to seeing WP and your own behaviour criticized. And if you think anything you were called then is worse than what you participated in versus Lar, or what people have said going after FT2, then your empathy bone is broken. Yes, posting pictures of enormously fat women and labeling them with your pseudonym was childish and not helpful, but it didn't, by itself, make WR other than a valid site for criticism. There is little being said now on this forum that wasn't also being said two years ago. You just didn't want to listen then.

I was accused of being a private investigator who had faked his own death. A teenage girl who had killed her mother. A woman who wanted to have sex with teenage boys. A Nazi pretending to be a Jew in order to compile lists of Jews on Wikipedia who would then be killed; that's why I wanted all the names in Lists of Jewish X to be well-sourced -- so I didn't kill any non-Jews by mistake! A poll was held about whether the Mossad might assassinate me when they found out about it.

And that's not even to get into the hurtful and creepy stuff.

I really don't want to say any more about it. Suffice to say, this site has changed.

[Kato]

It was a serious criticism site then, as well, you were just less well-disposed to seeing WP and your own behaviour criticized. And if you think anything you were called then is worse than what you participated in versus Lar, or what people have said going after FT2, then your empathy bone is broken. Yes, posting pictures of enormously fat women and labeling them with your pseudonym was childish and not helpful, but it didn't, by itself, make WR other than a valid site for criticism. There is little being said now on this forum that wasn't also being said two years ago. You just didn't want to listen then.

I was accused of being a private investigator who had faked his own death. A teenage girl who had killed her mother. A woman who wanted to have sex with teenage boys. A Nazi pretending to be a Jew in order to compile lists of Jews on Wikipedia who would then be killed; that's why I wanted all the names in Lists of Jewish X to be well-sourced -- so I didn't kill any non-Jews by mistake! A poll was held about whether the Mossad might assassinate me when they found out about it.

Whoah steady on.

I don't remember any of that.

There's been some terrible threads, but no, nothing that fits the description of the above. And I had access to all the deleted threads as well.

Somey, confirm this?

[Cla68]

It was a serious criticism site then, as well, you were just less well-disposed to seeing WP and your own behaviour criticized. And if you think anything you were called then is worse than what you participated in versus Lar, or what people have said going after FT2, then your empathy bone is broken. Yes, posting pictures of enormously fat women and labeling them with your pseudonym was childish and not helpful, but it didn't, by itself, make WR other than a valid site for criticism. There is little being said now on this forum that wasn't also being said two years ago. You just didn't want to listen then.

I was accused of being a private investigator who had faked his own death. A teenage girl who had killed her mother. A woman who wanted to have sex with teenage boys. A Nazi pretending to be a Jew in order to compile lists of Jews on Wikipedia who would then be killed; that's why I wanted all the names in Lists of Jewish X to be well-sourced -- so I didn't kill any non-Jews by mistake! A poll was held about whether the Mossad might assassinate me when they found out about it.

And that's not even to get into the hurtful and creepy stuff.

I really don't want to say any more about it. Suffice to say, this site has changed.

I don't think that me, or Gracenotes, DanT, AlecMcConroy, or any of the others were advocating the allowance of hyperlinks linking directly to those kind of personal attacks. The thing is, though, you and the same group of admins (Jossi, ElinorD, Crum375, Jayjg, etc) were advocating a blanket ban of all criticism sites, no matter what the reason. That's crossing the line into censorship. Do you agree that you went too far? Also, you haven't answered my other question about the mailing list.

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?

[Cla68]

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?

Here is where you admin deleted the page, indicated by the edit you had to make to restore some lost material. (I respond in confusion.) Then, Crum375 threatens me with a block. About an hour and a half later, you edited the policy to back up Crum's threat.

All these diffs, by the way, are included in my evidence section in the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[GlassBeadGame]

Most of that information -- the correct and incorrect, the scurrilous and humorous, the baiting and incisive -- is still here on WR for the searching. As we say over and over, such are the perils of an open forum. What has changed such that you are here now? The puppy that you fed grew into a big, mean dog and bit you. Little seems to have changed on Wikipedia. Much has changed here, but the criticism hasn't.

A lot of the material aimed at SlimVirgin from this site was way out of line, ridiculous on occasion, nasty on others.

A depressing by-product of that lunatic mud-slinging was that it suppressed credible criticism, and allowed the BADSITES brigade on Wikipedia to concoct a defence in support of ongoing abuse.

There's no doubt that this site has played host to completely unreasonable people, clearly unhinged types quick for revenge, that no one would like to cross.

I don't really like the "open forum" defense. Sure, it is important to have an arena free from Wikipedio influence. But sometimes you have to call a nutjob a nutjob. Thankfully, and eventually, the worst offenders have either left in a flurry of bile, or have been banned for their own safety.

Much of this is due to Wikipedians exporting disputes to this site. Initially this was tolerated on WR. In fact such activity seemed to be WR 's raison d'être. This site has grown much less tolerant of this use. Currently it is likely that posters who wish to continuosusly revisit the minutia of their conflicts are likely to encounter hostility unless this can be tied to some wider criticism or analysis.

[dtobias]

Slim's grasp on reality can sometimes seem a little tenuous, and her memory selective and altered as if it's a wiki that's been edited and the inconvenient parts oversighted. However, when she's without admin powers or a powerful clique backing her up, she becomes rather harmless, bringing to mind an 1898 song, "She's More to be Pitied than Censured". (I wonder if FoxyTunes will have a meaningful link for that one?) But a little Googling actually found a YouTube video (gee, a music video from 1898?):



----------------
Now playing: Marguerite Newton - She's More to Be Pitied Than Censured
via FoxyTunes

This post has been edited by dtobias:

[Cla68]

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.

I believe you that you don't do it anymore, but you were doing it at one time. That's controlling content. Why was the content really so important to you that you were willing to cross that ethical line by secretly enlisting other editors to help you keep it controlled? Isn't that against what Wikipedia is supposed to be about?

[gomi]

It was a serious criticism site then, as well, you were just less well-disposed to seeing WP and your own behaviour criticized. And if you think anything you were called then is worse than what you participated in versus Lar, or what people have said going after FT2, then your empathy bone is broken. Yes, posting pictures of enormously fat women and labeling them with your pseudonym was childish and not helpful, but it didn't, by itself, make WR other than a valid site for criticism. There is little being said now on this forum that wasn't also being said two years ago. You just didn't want to listen then.

I was accused of being a private investigator who had faked his own death. A teenage girl who had killed her mother. A woman who wanted to have sex with teenage boys. A Nazi pretending to be a Jew in order to compile lists of Jews on Wikipedia who would then be killed; that's why I wanted all the names in Lists of Jewish X to be well-sourced -- so I didn't kill any non-Jews by mistake! A poll was held about whether the Mossad might assassinate me when they found out about it.

Whoah steady on.

I don't remember any of that.

There's been some terrible threads, but no, nothing that fits the description of the above. And I had access to all the deleted threads as well.

Somey, confirm this?

We've been through this before, when Slim published similar accusations on Wikipedia. Most of them have been debunked, in the manner that they often contain some tiny grain of truth, but are taken completely out of context, are mis-interpretations, and are spun to make them sound much worse than they originally were. Classic SlimVirgin spin. When I have a moment, I'll publish a link to the original conversation.

[Hell Freezes Over]

It was a serious criticism site then, as well, you were just less well-disposed to seeing WP and your own behaviour criticized. And if you think anything you were called then is worse than what you participated in versus Lar, or what people have said going after FT2, then your empathy bone is broken. Yes, posting pictures of enormously fat women and labeling them with your pseudonym was childish and not helpful, but it didn't, by itself, make WR other than a valid site for criticism. There is little being said now on this forum that wasn't also being said two years ago. You just didn't want to listen then.

I was accused of being a private investigator who had faked his own death. A teenage girl who had killed her mother. A woman who wanted to have sex with teenage boys. A Nazi pretending to be a Jew in order to compile lists of Jews on Wikipedia who would then be killed; that's why I wanted all the names in Lists of Jewish X to be well-sourced -- so I didn't kill any non-Jews by mistake! A poll was held about whether the Mossad might assassinate me when they found out about it.

Whoah steady on.

I don't remember any of that.

There's been some terrible threads, but no, nothing that fits the description of the above. And I had access to all the deleted threads as well.

Somey, confirm this?

We've been through this before, when Slim published similar accusations on Wikipedia. Most of them have been debunked, in the manner that they often contain some tiny grain of truth, but are taken completely out of context, are mis-interpretations, and are spun to make them sound much worse than they originally were. Classic SlimVirgin spin. When I have a moment, I'll publish a link to the original conversation.

All of the above was posted, and not just once or twice. I'm glad that a lot of it has been deleted, but the problem with deletion is that it allows some of you to claim it never existed. It very much did exist, much of it posted by BlissyU2, I believe with the encouragement of Poetguy. Though not all of it. Other stuff was posted by people who still post here, which is why I'd rather not get into detail. I'd prefer to let sleeping dogs lie.

[gomi]

Here is the previous conversation. Regrettably, largely due to Proab, it degenerates fairly quickly.

[tarantino]

For clarity, I asked Slim for a copy of the emails from WB that she has complained about. in addition to links to a filesharing site that were to contain evidence of MM's socking, there were 3 attachments that apparently reproduced what were in the files on that site. (the filesharing site has long since purged what was there).

I've uploaded the 3 attachments here.

http://boxstr.com/files/4959365_oghmg/gw2.csv
http://boxstr.com/files/4959366_fikgi/mantan-lastex4.zip
http://boxstr.com/files/4959367_opidq/weiss2.zip

gw2.csv is a text file that can be imported into a spreadsheet that is basically a timeline of MM's and his sock's edits.

mantan-lastex4.zip is an archived html file. It contains links to these 2 diffs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62596208
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=63417088

It also uses javascript to launch a Shockwave movie, loads an image from businessjive.com and runs an activemeter javascript counter with a id of 7123. If one were to unzip it and view it in their browser the Businessjive webmaster and Activemeter account holder would know what browser and operating system you used, your IP address and the directory the html file was in when it was loaded. I'm not sure what else if anything the javascript and shockwave does as I don't know js or swf very well and I didn't actually load it.

weiss2.zip which was received last, is basically the same as mantan-lastex4.zip except the html file doesn't link to any diffs or load an image from businessjive.

This post has been edited by tarantino:

[Cedric]

I'd prefer to let sleeping dogs lie.

{{citation needed}}

[dtobias]

Don't some Wikipedians allegedly have fetishes that involve lying with sleeping dogs?

----------------
Now playing: Al Stewart - Year of the Cat
via FoxyTunes

[Jon Awbrey]

Don't some Wikipedians allegedly have fetishes that involve lying with sleeping dogs?

That'd be Dormicaniphilia, but it's thankfully quite rare.

Most of them just have fetishes that involve dogged lying.

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

[Random832]

I had never before had occasion to use a pseudonym, and hope to never have to again.

And yet you use it now.

Don't look at me that way. You know where to find my name; I don't know where to find yours; it's that simple.

When you and wikiwhistle were attacking Lar I was half-tempted to characterize it as "two pseudonyms attacking a real name", but I figured it would be unproductive. You have buried it - the average person who wasn't previously clued in to this doesn't know who you are, nor whom to ask.

[EricBarbour]

Hooray, pointless wiki-dramah!
Next stop: the tar pit!

Slim, dear, you seem to have little to no support on this forum.
It's a matter of character. Or lack thereof.

So I'd suggest giving up the Bagley bashing.

Start a blog, you can backstab all you want there without being challenged.

Isn't it amazing, when the worst Wiki-freaks show up on WR, they cheerfully
export their Wiki-warfare here? And get away with it?

[Random832]

All of the above was posted, and not just once or twice. I'm glad that a lot of it has been deleted, but the problem with deletion is that it allows some of you to claim it never existed.

It also allows you to claim it was much worse than it was - so everyone wins.

[Jon Awbrey]

Hooray, pointless wiki-dramah!
Next stop: the tar pit!

Slim, dear, you seem to have little to no support on this forum.
It's a matter of character. Or lack thereof.

So I'd suggest giving up the Bagley bashing.

Start a blog, you can backstab all you want there without being challenged.

Isn't it amazing, when the worst Wiki-freaks show up on WR, they cheerfully
export their Wiki-warfare here? And get away with it?

I know what you mean — it's like Nixon all over again:

• "I can't recall …"
• "I was not aware …"
• "I have no recollection …"
• "Rose Marie erased my brain …"

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

[dtobias]

Isn't it amazing, when the worst Wiki-freaks show up on WR, they cheerfully
export their Wiki-warfare here? And get away with it?

I'm a Wiki-geek, so I can combine with those guys for a Wiki-Freaks and Geeks.

----------------
Now playing: Cheap Trick - Surrender
via FoxyTunes

[Random832]

For clarity, I asked Slim for a copy of the emails from WB that she has complained about. in addition to links to a filesharing site that were to contain evidence of MM's socking, there were 3 attachments that apparently reproduced what were in the files on that site. (the filesharing site has long since purged what was there).

I've uploaded the 3 attachments here.

http://boxstr.com/files/4959365_oghmg/gw2.csv
http://boxstr.com/files/4959366_fikgi/mantan-lastex4.zip
http://boxstr.com/files/4959367_opidq/weiss2.zip

gw2.csv is a text file that can be imported into a spreadsheet that is basically a timeline of MM's and his sock's edits.

mantan-lastex4.zip is an archived html file. It contains links to these 2 diffs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62596208
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=63417088

It also uses javascript to launch a Shockwave movie, loads an image from businessjive.com and runs an activemeter javascript counter with a id of 7123. If one were to unzip it and view it in their browser the Businessjive webmaster and Activemeter account holder would know what browser and operating system you used, your IP address and the directory the html file was in when it was loaded.

Not all web browsers report referers for local files, but IE does. It is exceedingly unlikely this is what he was after.

I'm not sure what else if anything the javascript and shockwave does as I don't know js or swf very well and I didn't actually load it.

The swf file does absolutely nothing except fail to load - it is not included in the zip and the html makes no provision for loading it from an external site. The javascript (apart from the activemeter bit at the end) appears to be there exclusively to support the swf; nothing malicious.

If one goes to http://businessjive.com, one will find a familiar-looking slideshow applet. I suspect the file was a failed attempt to save such a presentation. WordBomb?

[Jon Awbrey]

Wikipedia Management publishes what they believe to be people's IP Numbers to the World — right or wrong, it does not matter to them — any damn time they feel like it.

Will some sane person please explain to me why any of us should give a rat's ass about this gawdawful bitchin and moanin of HFO, compared to that?

Puh-leez !!!

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

[tarantino]

Thanks for the corrections, Random832. I've seen referers that are were in the form of C:\directory\file but didn't know that was mostly limited to IE.

[Somey]

Oh dear, I was afraid this would happen...

We've been over this before, as Gomi has pointed out - I did do some research into this stuff, and it turned out that Blissy was the source of most of it. Unfortunately, Blissy has chosen to say some fairly ludicrous things about me, too, so to point all this out will probably look vindictive, to him at least. Nevertheless... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I was accused of being a private investigator who had faked his own death.

Blissy claimed that SlimVirgin might be an Australian dude named "Joe Vialls," who was, in fact, dead. But Blissy was so enamored of this theory that he suggested Vialls might have faked his own death, presumably in order to become a Wikipedia admin. (And really, who wouldn't?) When challenged, Blissy wrote, "He claims to be dead, but there's no proof of it. Indeed, there is no proof that he lived either. Just his internet conspiracy theories."

...A teenage girl who had killed her mother...

Blissy also suggested that SV might be Rachelle Waterman, who had apparently been released into the custody of her father after being found Not Guilty of killing her mother. (Evidently, the mother's death was not the result of an editing dispute.) He quickly back-tracked on this suggestion, claiming he wasn't serious about it, and in any event the thread was tarpitted fairly quickly.

A woman who wanted to have sex with teenage boys.

Early teens, or late teens? If it's late teens, this isn't actually all that unusual, much less illegal. Anyway, I don't remember that one and I can't find it in any of the deleted threads, though like you say, that doesn't mean it never existed.

...A Nazi pretending to be a Jew in order to compile lists of Jews on Wikipedia who would then be killed; that's why I wanted all the names in Lists of Jewish X to be well-sourced -- so I didn't kill any non-Jews by mistake!

That was Blissy again, but this is really the crux of the matter: In 2006, Blissy apparently went through a period of several weeks, even months, in which he felt that SV "might be a neo-Nazi" because of her actions regarding the various Lists of Jews. This, of course, is the issue that brought us the whole Poetguy business, since Poetguy was of the opinion that as many prominent Jews as possible should be listed on Wikipedia as a point of ethno-religious pride, and allegedly wasn't anywhere near as picky about sources as SV and Jayjg were. SV, and quite rightly I might add, was concerned that people from Stormfront would use the lists to target Jews who were on them. The issue became so heated that Blissy posted the unfortunate speculation in question, among others - most of this is contained in the infamous Topic 1135, "The SlimVirgin Thread" (requires registration to view, and a bit more on top of that, actually). I couldn't find a post about her not wanting to "kill non-Jews by mistake" in any of the (now-deleted) threads in question, but that's hardly exculpatory of those who made the various accusations.

I think it could legitimately be said that Poetguy was egging Blissy on during this period, but to my knowledge, none of the Poetguy accounts publicly agreed with Blissy about the more scurrilous of these allegations, particularly the neo-Nazi and anti-semitic one(s). For the most part, at least in my opinion, Poetguy generally came off as a "voice of reason" in these discussions (along with Everyking, Ashibaka, and what few other pro-WP members we had at the time), though he did participate in them and it might obviously have been better if he hadn't. Alas, Poetguy later gained the necessary access rights to remove any and all evidence of "egging on," assuming it actually did occur - and while I still don't believe he did that, I can't rule it out.

It should also be pointed out that Poetguy was attempting to maintain an article about himself (and his brother, no less) on Wikipedia pretty much the whole time, and it's possible that both he and his brother were also on the List of British Jews at some point, or that an attempt was made to add them. (I'll have to check that.)

A poll was held about whether the Mossad might assassinate me when they found out about it.

The actual poll, also started by Blissy, contained three questions: 1: "Is Slim Virgin Jewish?" 2: "Do Slim Virgin's actions on Wikipedia help or hurt the Jewish community?" 3: "Is Slim Virgin an anti-semite/neo nazi or otherwise deliberately hurting the Jewish community?" The fact that this poll was allowed to last for almost 24 hours before being deleted is a good example of WR's problems during those days - the site had too few active moderators, Blissy was still quite clearly the domain owner and was afforded special deference because of it, and of course, nobody liked SlimVirgin.

The actual comment about the Mossad, however, was posted by ex-member Sgrayban, who was only the second member to suggest that the poll be deleted (another ex-member, Donny, was the first). Sgrayban was no fan of SV - indeed, he was one of her most virulent detractors. In this case, his exact words were, "I wouldn't doubt it if the MOSSAD would take her out for it," but this was in reference to the point that if SlimVirgin were an Israeli citizen and a neo-Nazi and a high-ranking WP admin, the helpful folks at the Mossad would be none too happy about it - in other words, a reasonable, if not true, statement. Anyhoo, this was not the subject of the poll, but rather an attempt to get Blissy to stop posting insane shit without hurting his (Blissy's) feelings excessively, since he was, after all, the domain owner and could have shut down the site at any time.

Now, I don't want to appear to defend Blissy - Heaven knows he doesn't deserve it from me at this point - but we all have to remember something very important: As the domain owner, Blissy didn't appreciate, at all, being accused of operating a "neo-Nazi hate site" by various Wikipedians, including SlimVirgin, though Raul654 was probably the most egregious offender in this regard. They made these accusations because WR's precursor site was, evidently, run by a man named Igor Alexander who apparently was an anti-semite, and possibly a neo-Nazi. The warm-'n'-fuzzy WR you're reading now is actually a split from that site (hosted by ProBoards) by people who (with maybe one or two exceptions) were not in any way anti-semitic, and wanted to distance themselves from that sort of thing as much as possible. When the aforementioned Wikipedians insisted on repeating the idea that WR was "founded by a neo-Nazi," they only helped to escalate the conflicts that existed at that time. It's obvious that this was both frustrating and anger-inducing, for Blissy in particular, because he was the domain owner. Also for Selina, who was (and still is, to this day) in charge of the whole thing.

And that's not even to get into the hurtful and creepy stuff.

Um, now there I would have to disagree - that actually does cover most of the hurtful/creepy stuff, though admittedly there might have been a few things that got deleted right off the bat, which I may or may not have even seen.

I really don't want to say any more about it. Suffice to say, this site has changed.

Most of the people participating in those threads have left or been banned by now. Even Daniel Brandt doesn't participate here much anymore... Selina, Herschel, and I are obviously still here, as is Saltimbanco on occasion. But Blissy, the Poetguy accounts, Sgrayban, Donny, Hushthis/Joey, Joel Leyden, Jorge, Lir, and Blu Aardvark are all gone. (And to be fair to the last two, they didn't involve themselves much in those threads.)

Other stuff was posted by people who still post here, which is why I'd rather not get into detail. I'd prefer to let sleeping dogs lie.

Probably for the best! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

One last thing: There was another claim made by SV as recently as last year, to the effect that WR members had accused her of "sleeping with people to get jobs." This presumably referred to a post made by Yours Truly, (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) and in my defense, I didn't really make that accusation, at least not directly. Rather, I pointed out that a young female college student, placed in the midst of a large media pool-coverage site (in this case, Lockerbie, Scotland) that would have certainly been dominated by men, could have easily become the center of attention for those men - possibly to the point where promises of hiring her might have been made as a "come-on." I realize that this was an inappropriate and hurtful suggestion under the circumstances, and FWIW I apologize for it - but regardless, I've been personally involved in such media pools myself (also during the 80's), and I know first-hand that this is exactly what goes on, and that the suggestion I actually did make wasn't the least bit implausible.

Sorry to go on so long, folks... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

[EricBarbour]

Sorry to go on so long, folks... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

No you're not.

It's probably good to see that recap, anyway. Still.....

Why are people hyper-dissecting the clues into the real person behind SV?
Didn't this thread beat it to death already?

And who cares? She's toxic, and she's vindictive, and you can't trust her.
That ought to be straightforward.

[One]

A lot of the material aimed at SlimVirgin from this site was way out of line, ridiculous on occasion, nasty on others.

A depressing by-product of that lunatic mud-slinging was that it suppressed credible criticism, and allowed the BADSITES brigade on Wikipedia to concoct a defence in support of ongoing abuse.

There's no doubt that this site has played host to completely unreasonable people, clearly unhinged types quick for revenge, that no one would like to cross.

I don't really like the "open forum" defense. Sure, it is important to have an arena free from Wikipedio influence. But sometimes you have to call a nutjob a nutjob. Thankfully, and eventually, the worst offenders have either left in a flurry of bile, or have been banned for their own safety.

I'm with you here. Wikipedia has a problem with unverified libel from any unidentified kook that wants to post it; I'm not sure why this site powers are hell bent on recreating that problem here. I don't think this site should require identity checks, but it should at least refuse to give paranoid nutters a platform.

Thankfully WR isn't doing so bad at this precise moment, but I hope the next nutjob is shown the door.


Edit: Good post, Somey, thanks.

This post has been edited by One:

[Cla68]

Edit: Good post, Somey, thanks.

I agree, a good post that can be used in the future whenever someone repeats the same, or similar claims. Actually, this thread has been useful in getting several issues discussed and clarified to some degree. Too bad that it has taken so long.

The discussion made me remember how Wikipedia was administered in 2006-07 and how changed it is now. The blatent POV-pushing by a number of admins, who openly teamed up to help and support each other, appears to have ended for the most part. Jayjg's continuing behavior is one of the last remnants of that mess, but this current ArbCom case, hopefully, will be his Waterloo.

What does this all mean to the big picture? Will it now be more difficult for someone to use Wikipedia for propaganda or to promote a personal agenda (like Naked Short Selling and defaming a certain CEO)? Will cabals of Wikipedia editors that try to operate as openly as they used to continue to be publicly criticized on Wikipedia, much like the IDCab was (more or less) recently? We'll see, I guess. No matter what, I think WR will continue to be an important element in ensuring that Wiki-abuse won't go unchallenged.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[the fieryangel]

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.

Stop over-reaching to make your point. Obviously if you are going to defame people, edit BLP's or hold positions of authority on a top ten website you should act under your real name. But of course for every bat shit crazy and reckless pseudonym on Wikipedia there is a corresponding bat shit crazy person using their real name. For every thoughtful critic using real names there is a thoughtful pseudonym critic.

The bat shit flies everywhere. In this environment why would anyone who has no authority and leaves BLP's alone want to reveal information, especially if they are critical of the bat shit and don't want put up with needless aggravation? Your over-reaching only chills dissent.

If you are going to harp on everyone to reveal information you are not entitled to you are going to undermine your better arguments.

We have a named individual who is having to justify his actions to a pseudonym. Why is it over-reaching to say that this is not fair because the named person's real life is in the balance and the pseudonym's real life is not? And why should anyone listen to a pseudonym when a named person has given out pretty much everything that can be known about him except whether he carries to the right or to the left?

The whole reason that this entire discussion is taking place is because people are being paranoid because they're hiding behind pseudos. That's the whole problem right there. The named individual is, by nature of what that entails, immediately more believable. That's just how that game works, my friend.

Just to calm this recurring discussion down once again (how many times have we had this already? five times? ten times? I've lost count): whatever I know about anybody is going to remain a secret. I'm not going to out anyone, ever. All that I'm saying is that once you're "out", a lot of problems go away.

I will continue to say this because it's a fact. Like it or not.

Don't broaden this point further needed or you will find yourself isolated, again. We repeat this discussion over and over again because of your failure to understand a nuanced and reasoned position. Of course Judd has nothing to answer to SlimVirgin, an abusive admin of extraordinary authority and influence who has completely abused her use of a pseudonym. You are "known," like Proab, only because you failed to manage your own doxs. Then you both bitch and moan about it. Followed by complaining about people who have done a better job and do in no way abuse their own pseudonyms. This is hardly any great virtue. Knock the "like it or not" nonsense off. You make yourself look like an intrusive busybody.

You've chosen once again to continue this discussion down this line and I'm only doing so to clarify some points. Anytime you want to stop is fine with me. At any rate, this is completely on topic, because we're talking about the underlying problem...and the underlying solution.

The pseudonymous culture of WP is at the heart of this problem. Denying that is to deny the obvious solution. By squelching (once again) the discussion of the very issue that is behind all of this is continuing the aims of the very structure that you supposedly put yourself up against. The main question that I have is "why?". It doesn't make any sense and suggests that you might have other motivations for doing so.

Secondly, you're pushing this "Proab = TFA" agenda again, while there is simply no evidence to support this, other than my having contact with Proab--as do you. If you'll read what I wrote above, I'm not at all "bitching" about having been "outed" because it's turned out to be the solution which has given me more power, not less. That's the "like it or not" part because although I realize that you're still stuck in "the Game" here with the whole mental process of seeing monsters behind every stray pseudonym, the reality of getting out of it is extremely objective.

You're still all playing with mirrors. My advice to you (and this means all of you) is to stop. That's the only way out. The applies as much to SV as it does to you.

Have you noticed that Flonight is using her real name here? I think that she's figured this out too...

I don't mind being the mirror that reflects your reality back to you (more on that in my next akahele article) and I'm well aware that this causes hostility--That's the point, actually! I'm far from "isolated", so I really don't care about this attitude. It's your "game" anyway, not mine.

And as far as I've been careless about "managing my dox"....Well, you all have. But why should that matter? Who believes what a bunch of pseudos say anyway? And unless you have something to hide, it doesn't really matter what they say.

[Jon Awbrey]

Sorry to go on so long, folks … (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

No you're not.

It's probably good to see that recap, anyway. Still …

Why are people hyper-dissecting the clues into the real person behind SV?
Didn't this thread beat it to death already?

And who cares? She's toxic, and she's vindictive, and you can't trust her.
That ought to be straightforward.

Goodness Gracious, People! I've been at The Wikipedia Review for almost 3 years now and I Have No Recollection Of Ever Reading This Stuff (IHNROERTS)™ — I guess it's good to know that we have such avid readers out there in WikiPodunkia, but it's really not worth the pain of having to sit through the roadshow version of The Most Excrement and La Mental Tragedy of SlimVirgin Again!

I know that a lot of the oldtimers here are not nearly so stoopid as they seem to be, that they are just letting HFO rave on … and on … and on … and on … in the more than likely vain hope that s/he'll slip ↑ and drop some actual sop of information here and there — but Goodness Gracious!², this is HFO=?=SV=?=SMcE=?=LM that we are talking about here, and I for one am getting sick and φucking tired of worrying about whether one of her many victims might have done a pun on one of her many pseuds or otherwise hurt the feelings of one of her many fake personalities!

But now s/he goes and wastes Somey's precious time digging through dusty archives, when he's way behind on vastly more important tasks — like fixing my favorite favicon!

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

[Moulton]

I know you are, but what am I?

You have bitched about being "outed" on some butt-hurt level, not that I give a shit about your petty dramas.

It's your fine prose that qualifies you to moderate a critical Review.

You deserve no better.

Terrorism vs Anti-Terrorism

Terrorist: You have sown fear in me. Now I will repay you by sowing fear in you.

Anti-Terrorist: I will hunt you down and annihilate you and your kind.

Terrorist: I am not afraid to die. My violence will strike anywhere, anytime, when you least expect it.

Anti-Terrorist: I am not afraid of your terrorist attacks. I will redouble my efforts to bring you down.

Terrorist: There are more where I came from. We will continue to fight your violence with our violence until the end of time.

Anti-Terrorist: Our violence is holy. We are using authorized and sanctioned violence under the color of law to fight your unlawful, evil violence.

Terrorist: I believe in my violence even more than you believe in yours. It is my true religion. I have no compassion for your lawful violence.

Anti-Terrorist: I have no compassion for your unlawful violence.

Terrorist: Then we are in agreement. Our mutual lack of empathy and our mutual fear ensures that our drama will continue forever and ever.

Anti-Terrorist: Suits me fine.

Terrorist: Me too. It gives meaning to my life.

Anti-Terrorist: Mine, too.

Terrorist: Then we're in agreement. We will escalate the mutual and reciprocal violence forever and ever.

Anti-Terrorist: Roger that.

I know you are, but what am I?

[the fieryangel]

I know you are, but what am I?

In other words, don't get even, get M.A.D.

...there's a lot of that going around...(I didn't know that David Gerard was in "Peewee's Big Adventure" either)

[Jon Awbrey]

I know you are, but what am I?

In other words, don't get even, get M.A.D.

… there's a lot of that going around …

Most of these Fake Equivalence Conflict Ending Strategies (FECES) appear to derive from the general philosophy of Coherentism.

The cache, of course, is that all such approaches to Sea Level In Mind Only (SLIMO) ignore the reality of where the true sea lies.

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

[GlassBeadGame]

By squelching (once again) the discussion of the very issue that is behind all of this is continuing the aims of the very structure that you supposedly put yourself up against.

Once again you make the the error of conflating "disagreeing" with "squelching" or suppressing. You are free to express what you want here on terms equal to everyone else to an extent that really quit unique. This level of freedom causes endless problems but seems to work very well.

You have an unrealistic and extreme position on the use of pseudonyms. That is you say they are never appropriate. I take a more nuanced and thoughtful approach. I believe pseudonyms should never be used to hood authority, that it is not appropriate for admins and people with authority on a top 10 website. I further believe that it is not appropriate for people who write BLPs on the same site because of power this gives them to do harm.

I believe that pseudonyms do have socially valuable uses, especially in relation to dissent and criticism. This view has a long history in the protection of minority viewpoints. The initial political debates that shaped the contours of America's political landscape saw much of the debate conducted by pseudonyms, with Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison all assuming there use.

This use has been enshrined in the case law of free speech:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 514 U.S. 334 (1995)

Notice that this is a shield for dissent not a sword for the powerful. I can't think of a more "intolerant society" than Wikipedia. You would think that our diverging positions would allow for a great deal overlap, especially if we are interested in a critique of Wikipedia.

Your crying "squelching" is especially annoying because while you are free to participate on equal and uncensored terms here your new site (Akahele) gives "real people," presumably including many of the abusive "real people" who run riot on Wikipedia, access you would deny me. I have supported the development of Akahele, have contributed comments, even on unequal terms. I will continue to do this so long as I believe it contributes to a meaningful discussion. It is your site and I think you should run it as you see fit. I don't appreciate your bitching that how those who operate this site might see things differently.

[Jon Awbrey]

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views … Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority … It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation … at the hand of an intolerant society.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 514 U.S. 334 (1995)

So wait, in Ohio you can vote early, often, and anonymous?

Take that, Illinois!

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

[the fieryangel]

By squelching (once again) the discussion of the very issue that is behind all of this is continuing the aims of the very structure that you supposedly put yourself up against.

Once again you make the the error of conflating "disagreeing" with "squelching" or suppressing. You are free to express what you want here on terms equal to everyone else to an extent that really quit unique. This level of freedom causes endless problems but seems to work very well.

You have an unrealistic and extreme position on the use of pseudonyms. That is you say they are never appropriate. I take a more nuanced and thoughtful approach. I believe pseudonyms should never be used to hood authority, that it is not appropriate for admins and people with authority on a top 10 website. I further believe that it is not appropriate for people who write BLPs on the same site because of power this gives them to do harm.

I believe that pseudonyms do have socially valuable uses, especially in relation to dissent and criticism. This view has a long history in the protection of minority viewpoints. The initial political debates that shaped the contours of America's political landscape saw much of the debate conducted by pseudonyms, with Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison all assuming there use.

This use has been enshrined in the case law of free speech:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 514 U.S. 334 (1995)

Notice that this is a shield for dissent not a sword for the powerful. I can't think of a more "intolerant society" than Wikipedia. You would think that our diverging positions would allow for a great deal overlap, especially if we are interested in a critique of Wikipedia.

Your crying "suppression" is especially annoying because while you are free to participate on equal and uncensored terms here your new site (Akahele) gives "real people," presumably including many of the abusive "real people" who run riot on Wikipedia, access you would deny me. I have supported the develop of Akahele, have contributed comments, even on unequal terms. I will continue to do this so long as I believe it contributes to a meaningful discussion. It is your site and I think you should run it as you see fit. I don't appreciate your bitching that how those who operate this site might see things differently.

Who's bitching? I'm trying to show you guys "the way out". You can listen or not. Either is fine with me. But don't say that I'm against all "anonymity". That's just not true. I am against anonymity here because it has lead to a climate of paranoia, fear and imbalanced behavior.

Your "shield" of anonymity is an illusion. That's all I'm trying to say. This is not a threat, because I'm not going to out anyone. It's a statement of fact. The only way to stand up to intolerance is to stand up to it, with your mask off. It's just that simple. Once you've admitted your humanity and your own distortions and faults, you can then see that much of what was causing the conflict is simply an illusion.

Wordbomb is scary, striking out from nowhere, meriting an almost Statewide IP block and black-ops attacking his neighborhood (according to WP folklore...). Judd Bagley is a nice guy who's got a sharp mind and a lively sense of humor. When you know that WB = Judd Bagley, the black-ops story seems pretty ridiculous.

SlimVirgin is...well, we don't know who she is. But I'm sure that if you guys knew her story that you'd think of her in a very different way. That wouldn't change anything that she's done, but it might help in understanding why she did it and how you can relate to her in a different way in the future. Maybe she had her reasons, which you can agree or disagree with, but once you see her as a person instead of as an "action figure" then your view of her will change.

In terms of Akahele being slanted in terms of identified people verses pseudo, you're right. This is part of what we're doing. However, have you ever considered that your real identity does not have to be connected to any pseudos on Akahele? If you post a comment using your real name, nobody is going to ever figure out that this one is pseudo x and this one is pseudo y. As a matter of fact, I don't think that the four of us really want to know anybody's pseudos. That subject has never come up, only that we only want "real names" contributing pieces. And I think that any discussion trying to connect a real name poster to a pseudo would not be looked upon kindly either. So, participating there does not necessarily mean giving up anonymity here. It only means that you've proven to four people that you're who you say you are.

The point being, people, that if we don't start working together to address some these BLP/privacy issues with imput given by both supporters and critics of WP, the legislative branch is going to do it for us--just look at the stories coming through the news feed and you'll see that this meme is speeding up. When that happens, the net result will be less freedom of expression for all, not more. This will be the only way to address these sorts of issues.

IF Wikipedia can be coaxed to take a much harder line on BLP and privacy issues in a time frame of the next two to six months, then there might be a chance of spearheading an action in the principle social media sites to make policies to take care of such issues themselves. If this doesn't happen, then I think that all discussion of this and other issues of "free speech" will become increasingly irrelevant in the near future.

If there is to be a chance of this happening, then US verses THEM has to go. Can we start that here?

[Lar]

In terms of Akahele being slanted in terms of identified people verses pseudo, you're right. This is part of what we're doing. However, have you ever considered that your real identity does not have to be connected to any pseudos on Akahele? If you post a comment using your real name, nobody is going to ever figure out that this one is pseudo x and this one is pseudo y.

I agree with a lot of what you say, so I snipped it. But this para? No. Not in the culture that predominates at WR, WP, ED, et al... there is no way that there would not be rampant speculation, analysis, correlation and the like if a new name turned up at Akahele. Maybe if there were 1000 authors there already and the new name was 1001. But now? No way.

This is a side issue (however important that your differences be worked out, you're both "good people", so I hope you do) to what this thread is, or ought to be, about. So perhaps it needs forking off, dunno.

[the fieryangel]

In terms of Akahele being slanted in terms of identified people verses pseudo, you're right. This is part of what we're doing. However, have you ever considered that your real identity does not have to be connected to any pseudos on Akahele? If you post a comment using your real name, nobody is going to ever figure out that this one is pseudo x and this one is pseudo y.

I agree with a lot of what you say, so I snipped it. But this para? No. Not in the culture that predominates at WR, WP, ED, et al... there is no way that there would not be rampant speculation, analysis, correlation and the like if a new name turned up at Akahele. Maybe if there were 1000 authors there already and the new name was 1001. But now? No way.

This is a side issue (however important that your differences be worked out, you're both "good people", so I hope you do) to what this thread is, or ought to be, about. So perhaps it needs forking off, dunno.

You guys will see people writing on Akahele who have no connections at all to WP/WR/ED et al. So, y'all can speculate all you want. I imagine that'll be part of the fun!

[Lar]

In terms of Akahele being slanted in terms of identified people verses pseudo, you're right. This is part of what we're doing. However, have you ever considered that your real identity does not have to be connected to any pseudos on Akahele? If you post a comment using your real name, nobody is going to ever figure out that this one is pseudo x and this one is pseudo y.

I agree with a lot of what you say, so I snipped it. But this para? No. Not in the culture that predominates at WR, WP, ED, et al... there is no way that there would not be rampant speculation, analysis, correlation and the like if a new name turned up at Akahele. Maybe if there were 1000 authors there already and the new name was 1001. But now? No way.

This is a side issue (however important that your differences be worked out, you're both "good people", so I hope you do) to what this thread is, or ought to be, about. So perhaps it needs forking off, dunno.

You guys will see people writing on Akahele who have no connections at all to WP/WR/ED et al. So, y'all can speculate all you want. I imagine that'll be part of the fun!

You miss my point. I won't be speculating, but others will (To validate that, do I need to name names? Er, I mean, identify pseudonyms?). And I don't consider it a fun activity at all. They aren't doing it in fun, they are doing it out of malice.

[the fieryangel]

In terms of Akahele being slanted in terms of identified people verses pseudo, you're right. This is part of what we're doing. However, have you ever considered that your real identity does not have to be connected to any pseudos on Akahele? If you post a comment using your real name, nobody is going to ever figure out that this one is pseudo x and this one is pseudo y.

I agree with a lot of what you say, so I snipped it. But this para? No. Not in the culture that predominates at WR, WP, ED, et al... there is no way that there would not be rampant speculation, analysis, correlation and the like if a new name turned up at Akahele. Maybe if there were 1000 authors there already and the new name was 1001. But now? No way.

This is a side issue (however important that your differences be worked out, you're both "good people", so I hope you do) to what this thread is, or ought to be, about. So perhaps it needs forking off, dunno.

You guys will see people writing on Akahele who have no connections at all to WP/WR/ED et al. So, y'all can speculate all you want. I imagine that'll be part of the fun!

You miss my point. I won't be speculating, but others will (To validate that, do I need to name names? Er, I mean, identify pseudonyms?). And I don't consider it a fun activity at all. They aren't doing it in fun, they are doing it out of malice.

Sorry for my flippant response here, Lar. You're right that people will make those kinds of speculations. That's why saying "I'm X and here's my story" is the only way to stop that: once they see reality and how boring it all really is, they can't keep speculating.

Before anybody points out the hole in my theory, I am aware of things like "Chris Chan" on ED and other such incidents. The only response I have to that is take the discussion up one level and say "we only want adult discussion here". This won't stop others from doing this kind of thing on ED etc...which is why I'm extremely pessimistic in the idea that the status quo is going to be allowed to continue on the web in the long term. I think that it's all gotten out of hand and that something is going to have to be done on a legislative level.

Why do you think that Danièle Citron is getting invited to Radio shows and panel discussions? Her "Cyber Civil Rights" tactic is pretty good as far as promoting free speech (and I have sent Sue Gardner a link to her paper, because this is the kind of idea that WMF should be pushing hard to get adopted as the norm...). When enough legislators see that sort of thing, get a gander at ED (which she is speaking of in many of her presentations) and think about this, they're going to say "that's way too soft: let's fix the problem".

And that's when free speech on the web is going to get challenged. This is going to happen in the next few months, once they decide that they need a break from trying to "fix the economic crisic" which isn't fixable. This will be used as a convenient diversion and a cause that everybody will be able to get behind.

[gomi]

[Moderator's note: the off-topic meta-discussion concerning Moulton's song parodies, and their removal to his own thread, has itself been moved to that thread. -- gomi]

[Hell Freezes Over]

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.

I believe you that you don't do it anymore, but you were doing it at one time. That's controlling content. Why was the content really so important to you that you were willing to cross that ethical line by secretly enlisting other editors to help you keep it controlled? Isn't that against what Wikipedia is supposed to be about?

I don't know which page you're talking about, so I can only answer in general terms. Most of the time I asked for back-up was on policy pages when people were trying to weaken them. Much of the time (not always, of course), editors who try to make radical changes to core policies have found themselves unable to make certain edits, so they arrive at the policy that thwarted them and they try to undermine it. I see keeping out poorly sourced material and OR as absolutely essential to Wikipedia, because without them we'd have a free-for-all, and so I didn't (and still don't) feel that requesting back-up there is a problem. Also, just because something is e-mailed doesn't mean it's necessarily a "secret."

If you're talking about article space, that's different, and it would depend very much on what was being kept out. There are things I would still defend and things I wouldn't, so I'd need more details before I could answer properly.

[Hell Freezes Over]

... Blissy, the Poetguy accounts, Sgrayban, Donny, Hushthis/Joey, Joel Leyden, Jorge, Lir, and Blu Aardvark are all gone. (And to be fair to the last two, they didn't involve themselves much in those threads.)

Blu Aardvark did his best to help with the situation, both here and on ED. I think it was Blu who first made the posts not be cached by Google, for example. He was really very kind to me.

One last thing: There was another claim made by SV as recently as last year, to the effect that WR members had accused her of "sleeping with people to get jobs." This presumably referred to a post made by Yours Truly, (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) and in my defense, I didn't really make that accusation, at least not directly. Rather, I pointed out that a young female college student, placed in the midst of a large media pool-coverage site (in this case, Lockerbie, Scotland) that would have certainly been dominated by men, could have easily become the center of attention for those men - possibly to the point where promises of hiring her might have been made as a "come-on." I realize that this was an inappropriate and hurtful suggestion under the circumstances, and FWIW I apologize for it - but regardless, I've been personally involved in such media pools myself (also during the 80's), and I know first-hand that this is exactly what goes on, and that the suggestion I actually did make wasn't the least bit implausible.

Thanks for the apology, Somey. It's much appreciated.

About an hour and a half later, you edited the policy to back up Crum's threat.

You're right that I shouldn't have made that edit. In my defense, I saw and still see no difference between posting active or non-active links, so I probably didn't see that edit as much of a change — just making something explicit that to me was self-evident. Still, I take your point that it was the wrong time to make the edit given it had just been raised as an issue at RfA. I apologize to you for having done that.

[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:

[Proabivouac]

…switching between a Canadian and British accent because I had identity issues.

I can't speak to the rest of it, but I will say that anyone who's spoken to Slim will quickly recognize a very obvious flaw in this claim.

[Alison]

…switching between a Canadian and British accent because I had identity issues.

I can't speak to the rest of it, but I will say that anyone who's spoken to Slim will quickly recognize a very obvious flaw in this claim.

Slim has a quite distinctive accent, actually - a regional British one - but it's a million miles away from anything Canadian (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Somey]

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)

I hope we're not going to start in on this again... It's safe to say everyone here accepts that there will never be any admissions to this effect, but the idea that the identification is incorrect just isn't credible - too many people who couldn't possibly have conspired or corroborated their stories in advance would all have to be lying, and for no good or logical reason.

You're still all playing with mirrors. My advice to you (and this means all of you) is to stop. That's the only way out. The applies as much to SV as it does to you.

I'm afraid you've now firmly positioned yourself on what's generally referred to as a "high horse," Mr. TFA...

[the fieryangel]

You're still all playing with mirrors. My advice to you (and this means all of you) is to stop. That's the only way out. The applies as much to SV as it does to you.

I'm afraid you've now firmly positioned yourself on what's generally referred to as a "high horse," Mr. TFA...

Yup, you've got that one right, Mr. Somey. The air is better up here and you can see a lot farther. It shows off my nice new white hat too, don't you think?

Now, just a few months ago, if I had suggested that SV was going to be posting all of this to WR and talking with people like WB about this stuff, would anybody have believed me? Would anybody have believed that FloNight would be posting here using her real name? Not a chance, right? Well, here we are.

We can't just all pretend that nothing has changed, because it has. And it just isn't WP, it's all over the web. We can either react with it, and maybe make a few modifications along the way....or we can resist these changes and be crushed by them.

The fact that WRers were right about BLP and so many other things is rapidly becoming beside the point. The new question is "how can we keep some of our free speech rights when Government decides to fix the LOLZ problem on the web?". It's obvious that pseudonymous editing is probably not going to make it through that particular discussion. So, you might as well get used to the idea right here, right now.

(I remember saying pretty much the same thing to artists/management at mp3.com about a year before the beam-it fiasco. They didn't believe me either. Two years later, the servers there were erased. I've got a pretty good track record of playing Cassandra...)

[Kato]

…switching between a Canadian and British accent because I had identity issues.

I can't speak to the rest of it, but I will say that anyone who's spoken to Slim will quickly recognize a very obvious flaw in this claim.

Slim has a quite distinctive accent, actually - a regional British one - but it's a million miles away from anything Canadian (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Barnsley?

[Somey]

The fact that WRers were right about BLP and so many other things is rapidly becoming beside the point. The new question is "how can we keep some of our free speech rights when Government decides to fix the LOLZ problem on the web?". It's obvious that pseudonymous editing is probably not going to make it through that particular discussion. So, you might as well get used to the idea right here, right now.

I'm already used to the idea...

The problem I have with this, as I've no doubt written on several occasions, is that it's totally unfair to expect critics, or any "outsiders," to present themselves as non-pseudonymous role models to a mob of WP revenge-fantasists who have absolutely no respect for role models whatsoever. What the WP'ers need is a taste of their own medicine, not role models.

They don't get to be the only ones on the interwebs slagging people off with no fear of accountability. Besides, it doesn't work anyway - we've just been through months of dealing with one of the nastiest vandal/troll-kids Wikipedia has ever seen, maybe the nastiest, and this person's name, age, address, and family history are all perfectly well known to just about everyone who's even the slightest bit interested. And if that isn't proof enough, then tell me how is it possible that Dave Gerard can still be employed by, well, anyone? Obviously his appalling online activities haven't put much a of dent in his "IRL" living arrangements, such as they are.

If they change the laws, great - I'm all for it, but until that happens, I'm not going to be ashamed of it if they aren't going to be.

[dtobias]

I'm afraid you've now firmly positioned yourself on what's generally referred to as a "high horse," Mr. TFA...

Better than a dead horse, I guess... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

a mob of WP revenge-fantasists who have absolutely no respect for role models whatsoever.

That's a rather crude way to lump together Wikipedians and make assumptions about their character. You didn't like it when, back in the "old days" when I was more pro-WP and anti-WR, I lumped together the "WR crowd" and attributed to them the worst elements of the most wacky people here.

[Jon Awbrey]

Besides, it doesn't work anyway — we've just been through months of dealing with one of the nastiest vandal/troll-kids Wikipedia has ever seen, maybe the nastiest, and this person's name, age, address, and family history are all perfectly well known to just about everyone who's even the slightest bit interested. And if that isn't proof enough, then tell me how is it possible that Dave Gerard can still be employed by, well, anyone? Obviously his appalling online activities haven't put much a of dent in his "IRL" living arrangements, such as they are.

If they change the laws, great — I'm all for it, but until that happens, I'm not going to be ashamed of it if they aren't going to be.

Just because the Grand Drag-on appears sans hoodie doesn't mean that sheets are optional. The Kook Klucks Klan couldn't really function without anonymity and secrecy.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif)

[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)

[GlassBeadGame]

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)

Sad it is to see her pan-handling for spare change in exchange for helpful advice. Next she will have to be an outright soldier of fortune in the edit wars of others. Poor dear, she has not factored in the unfavorable exchange rate, nor the crushing blow of the compound interest on the debts she left behind.

[Kato]

The fact that WRers were right about BLP and so many other things is rapidly becoming beside the point. The new question is "how can we keep some of our free speech rights when Government decides to fix the LOLZ problem on the web?". It's obvious that pseudonymous editing is probably not going to make it through that particular discussion. So, you might as well get used to the idea right here, right now.

Way off.

Are you seriously suggesting that Governments are going to step in and implement measures curbing anonymous speech on the internet? That will never happen.

Anonymity on Wikipedia is one of the main problem causers, but it is by no means the sole or core cause. And, as pointed out, some of the worst antagonists on WP are known people. From the worst vandal, to the most narcisstic attack dogs.

In the real world, anonymous writers, tip-off merchants, insiders, satirists etc form a central part of the (British) media industry and have done for many years. I think you've lost perspective on this issue.

The most important element presently regarding Wikipedia would be the implementation of Flagged Revisions of Biographies. If they were implemented, from that point, everything changes. And it will impact on Wikipedia, and the wider internet, far more than a lot of people here have envisaged. The "Yeah, but if..." crowd who can't see this seem to lack vision. With the implementation of Flagged Revisions on Biographies, the chaotic merry-go-round stops, and everyone is forced to examine the nature of those articles, and who is editing them. At the moment, no one has a moment to take this seriously, because of the crazy ongoing drama surrounding relentless free-for-all defamation. By publicly implementing these measures, Wikipedia sends a message throughout the internet that a free-for-all against someone's reputation is no longer legitimate.

BLP is not beside the point, it is the point. I can show you many examples of known characters using the WikiVerse to attack others, and they've done it as much (if not more) than pseudonymous characters. So there is plenty of evidence that the psuedonymity thing is not the root cause of defamation in the Wikisphere. Whereas, the failure to vet content before publication is the root cause of defamation in article space. No other explanation is available or pertinent. Address that first, and a whole load of other stuff falls into place naturally. Whether Reviewers realize this yet or not.

[Jon Awbrey]

The fact that WRers were right about BLP and so many other things is rapidly becoming beside the point. The new question is "how can we keep some of our free speech rights when Government decides to fix the LOLZ problem on the web?". It's obvious that pseudonymous editing is probably not going to make it through that particular discussion. So, you might as well get used to the idea right here, right now.

Way off.

Are you seriously suggesting that Governments are going to step in and implement measures curbing anonymous speech on the internet? That will never happen.

Anonymity on Wikipedia is one of the main problem causers, but it is by no means the sole or core cause. And, as pointed out, some of the worst antagonists on WP are known people. From the worst vandal, to the most narcisstic attack dogs.

In the real world, anonymous writers, tip-off merchants, insiders, satirists etc form a central part of the (British) media industry and have done for many years. I think you've lost perspective on this issue.

The most important element presently regarding Wikipedia would be the implementation of Flagged Revisions of Biographies. If they were implemented, from that point, everything changes. And it will impact on Wikipedia, and the wider internet, far more than a lot of people here have envisaged. The "Yeah, but if …" crowd who can't see this seem to lack vision. With the implementation of Flagged Revisions on Biographies, the chaotic merry-go-round stops, and everyone is forced to examine the nature of those articles, and who is editing them. At the moment, no one has a moment to take this seriously, because of the crazy ongoing drama surrounding relentless free-for-all defamation. By publicly implementing these measures, Wikipedia sends a message that a free-for-all against someone's reputation is now illegitimate.

BLP is not beside the point, it is the point. I can show you many examples of known characters using the WikiVerse to attack others, and they've done it as much (if not more) than pseudonymous characters. So there is plenty of evidence that the pseudonymity thing is not the root cause of defamation in the Wikisphere. Whereas, the failure to vet content before publication is the root cause of defamation in article space. No other explanation is available or pertinent. Address that first, and a whole load of other stuff falls into place naturally. Whether Reviewers realize this yet or not.

This is where I begin to feel that Pseudonym Dependency begins to warp even the best folks' judgment.

No, the Guvs are not going to curtail Free Speech, not even Anon Free Speech.

But that does not make Anon Free Speech = Charitable Educational Enterprise.

That is a point about which Guvs are massively ignorant at the present time and where they need a Charitable Educational Enterprise to educate them about it.

It is clear that the Grand Dragons of Wikipedia are only the Tip Of A Very Large Assberg and that they simply could not get away with what they do without the support of massive underwater masses of asses whose identities are hidden from view.

We all grok the role of confidential sources in a Free Press, but their legitimacy depends on the fact that some known entity takes final responsibility for what gets printed. None of that holds true of Wikipedia.

Jon Awbrey

[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.

[Piperdown]

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. IANAH, so don't bite my head off.

cool. One of your upline Jon Awbreys probably got around back in the day and now there's web pundit J.A.'s all over.....you should recruit them all to form an Awbrey WP Posse. They'll get your back ;-) An inherited interest in Charles Peirce might be required for recruitment....

[JoseClutch]

The fact that WRers were right about BLP and so many other things is rapidly becoming beside the point. The new question is "how can we keep some of our free speech rights when Government decides to fix the LOLZ problem on the web?". It's obvious that pseudonymous editing is probably not going to make it through that particular discussion. So, you might as well get used to the idea right here, right now.

Way off.

Are you seriously suggesting that Governments are going to step in and implement measures curbing anonymous speech on the internet? That will never happen.

Anonymity on Wikipedia is one of the main problem causers, but it is by no means the sole or core cause. And, as pointed out, some of the worst antagonists on WP are known people. From the worst vandal, to the most narcisstic attack dogs.

In the real world, anonymous writers, tip-off merchants, insiders, satirists etc form a central part of the (British) media industry and have done for many years. I think you've lost perspective on this issue.

The most important element presently regarding Wikipedia would be the implementation of Flagged Revisions of Biographies. If they were implemented, from that point, everything changes. And it will impact on Wikipedia, and the wider internet, far more than a lot of people here have envisaged. The "Yeah, but if..." crowd who can't see this seem to lack vision. With the implementation of Flagged Revisions on Biographies, the chaotic merry-go-round stops, and everyone is forced to examine the nature of those articles, and who is editing them. At the moment, no one has a moment to take this seriously, because of the crazy ongoing drama surrounding relentless free-for-all defamation. By publicly implementing these measures, Wikipedia sends a message throughout the internet that a free-for-all against someone's reputation is no longer legitimate.

BLP is not beside the point, it is the point. I can show you many examples of known characters using the WikiVerse to attack others, and they've done it as much (if not more) than pseudonymous characters. So there is plenty of evidence that the psuedonymity thing is not the root cause of defamation in the Wikisphere. Whereas, the failure to vet content before publication is the root cause of defamation in article space. No other explanation is available or pertinent. Address that first, and a whole load of other stuff falls into place naturally. Whether Reviewers realize this yet or not.

In the usual lingo of the internet "+1 - would fap again".

But this is very much on point. I had not actually considered the "role model" aspect that Kato espouses here, but it does not seem crazy. That anonymity is not really very important, and that lack of controls is very important, is worth harping on.

But the "potential role model" point deserves further exploration.

[Kato]

But this is very much on point. I had not actually considered the "role model" aspect that Kato espouses here, but it does not seem crazy. That anonymity is not really very important, and that lack of controls is very important, is worth harping on.

But the "potential role model" point deserves further exploration.

Wikipedia presently legitimises the practice of free-for-all defamation.

In the wake of Wikipedia, we've seen scores of similar sites spring up that have adopted Wikipedia's flawed and corrosive model. "Wikipedia does it - and Wikipedia seems to be friendly and respectable - so why can't we?"

By reforming, Wikipedia effectively marginalizes these sites.

By implementing measures on BLPs, and BLPs only at this stage, it throws the whole defamation debate firmly into the public sphere. Everything else follows that, including the debate about anonymity.

[luke]

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.

ahhh but I recognized you -- this is you isn't it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Not surprising that you like Shakespeare ....and perhaps James Joyce too (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

hey,, you guys have a nice weekend (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[WordBomb]

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.

Here are my thoughts:
1- How strange that that became the basis of this.
2- Did you ever suspect that any of the above (either as Patrick Byrne actually wrote them, or your exaggerated versions) might do much less to harm you than being characterized like this and this and this (which were the first three I bumped into...there are literally hundreds of others just like them) on one of the top ten websites in the world might harm me?

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)

That depends. I've never heard you go on record stating that it wasn't you.

[EricBarbour]

BLP is not beside the point, it is the point. I can show you many examples of known characters using the WikiVerse to attack others, and they've done it as much (if not more) than pseudonymous characters. So there is plenty of evidence that the psuedonymity thing is not the root cause of defamation in the Wikisphere. Whereas, the failure to vet content before publication is the root cause of defamation in article space. No other explanation is available or pertinent. Address that first, and a whole load of other stuff falls into place naturally. Whether Reviewers realize this yet or not.

Nicely put.

[Jon Awbrey]

Wikipedia presently legitimises the practice of free-for-all defamation.

And that will never change.

Because the freedom to practice Free-For-All Defamation is one of the main services that Wikipedia provides to its target market, and the marks in that market will desert Wikipedia in droves if they cannot get that and related services there.

Jimbo knows this.

Why don't you?

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

[Hell Freezes Over]

Did you ever suspect that any of the above (either as Patrick Byrne actually wrote them, or your exaggerated versions) might do much less to harm you than being characterized like this and this and this (which were the first three I bumped into...there are literally hundreds of others just like them) on one of the top ten websites in the world might harm me?

I didn't write any of those. If you see anything I've written about you on WP that you find offensive, let me know and I'll consider removing it or striking it through.

I've never heard you go on record stating that it wasn't you.

This was always the old trick -- we're not libeling you unless you really are that person, and we'll be happy to help just as soon as you confirm that -- on the other hand, if you're *not* that person, it's not really about you, is it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[WordBomb]

I didn't write any of those. If you see anything I've written about you on WP that you find offensive, let me know and I'll consider removing it or striking it through.

I'll take you up on that. In the meantime, you've missed my point: who can objectively look at what appears on ASM and Wikipedia and not conclude that, of the two, Wikipedia is the true attack site? It would be great if your concern were more consistently applied.

[Hell Freezes Over]

I didn't write any of those. If you see anything I've written about you on WP that you find offensive, let me know and I'll consider removing it or striking it through.

I'll take you up on that. In the meantime, you've missed my point: who can objectively look at what appears on ASM and Wikipedia and not conclude that, of the two, Wikipedia is the true attack site? It would be great if your concern were more consistently applied.

Well, ditto. Look, you posted a really horrible description of SlimVirgin -- me -- the person typing this. You did it anonymously, and only said who you were when the New York Post (as I recall) outed you. I've asked that it be taken down, but when I last checked it was still there. There's no evidence for it, and others have confirmed it has at least that one error about me having a Canadian accent, which puts in doubt all the other Canadiana (e.g. that I talked about my Canadian family of artists and intellectuals etc), and indeed all the rest, because the story of my accent switching was pivotal to the picture of someone so crazed, she couldn't even decide where she came from.

My point is that it's really quite hard for me to watch people who've done this kind of thing talk about BLP, yet make no effort to correct material that is entirely under their control. BLP applies to *all* living persons, and that includes me, notwithstanding that Jon has taken to calling me "it."

[Moulton]

Defamation, Narcissistic Wounding, and Scarlet Lettering are rampant practices in WikiCulture.

Perhaps someday, those who are stung by such practices will craft a Peace Treaty to discontinue those practices.

Perhaps.

Someday.

Perhaps.

[Jon Awbrey]

This was always the old trick — we're not libeling you unless you really are that person, and we'll be happy to help just as soon as you confirm that — on the other hand, if you're *not* that person, it's not really about you, is it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

No, it actually works this way — once you e-stablish beyond the Shadow (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif) of a Doubt (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cthulhu.gif) that you are indeed the person being articulated about, that ipso fatso convicts you of COI, and then you get banned (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/banned.gif) for trying to influence what is written about you.

Gee Wikilures, I should think you would know that.

Ja Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Daniel Brandt]

...it's really quite hard for me to watch people who've done this kind of thing talk about BLP, yet make no effort to correct material that is entirely under their control. BLP applies to *all* living persons, and that includes me, notwithstanding that Jon has taken to calling me "it."

This thread is bogged down with the little picture. Let's move on to the big picture.

My theory is that you left London for Canada under a false name in the mid or late 1990s (and may have had professional help in doing so), because you were worried that the defense in the al-Megrahi trial might compel you to testify. If they managed to call you as a hostile witness, you would almost certainly have been asked about various allegations that were made in the early 1990s concerning your possible connections to British intelligence.

Can you confirm or deny?

[gomi]

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? :hmmm

Since they are clearly stated as the reminiscences of a named person, they are as much "evidence" as anything else. They are Byrne's memories, and as such may differ from yours or those of another, more neutral observer. That doesn't mean they are lies or fabrications, but it really doesn't much matter.

Many have commented that the chain of causality here is, indeed, pretty darn thin, but on the other hand the coincidence factor(s) are also just too much to swallow. It has been said that the difference between fiction and real life is that only fiction has a clear narrative line. In real life, shit pretty much just happens. It seems entirely plausible to me that most or all of the individual "facts" and reminiscences in ASM are correct, but that the narrative line is somewhat distorted. That SlimVirgin initially edited on Lockerbie (and went to pains to cover it up), is somehow connected with Cambridge (and went to pains to remove that connection), and was an admin supporter of Mantanmoreland seem virtually unassailable. If there is an error in the surrounding connective tissue, that doesn't seem to call the whole much into question.

Personally, I find it enlightening that, of all the claims made on ASM and elsewhere about Linda Mack and SlimVirgin, the ones with which you choose to quibble are ... frock dresses and accents! That says something all by itself.

[GlassBeadGame]

...it's really quite hard for me to watch people who've done this kind of thing talk about BLP, yet make no effort to correct material that is entirely under their control. BLP applies to *all* living persons, and that includes me, notwithstanding that Jon has taken to calling me "it."

That is wrong on so many levels, I choose Films for 200, Alex. My second favorite scene in Dr. Zhivago. What is the one where the old czarist uncle throws the "Confiscated for the People" sign to the side and marches into the farm house on his former country estate, saying "I'm the people, too?"

Films for 300. My favorite scene. What is the one where Zhivago's Bolshevik brother confronts an old officer who is pleading with his troops not to desert saying "But it's your country" and the Bolshevik then shoots him and replies "your country, officer" as the old man sinks into the rain barrel he was using as a soapbox?

[Hell Freezes Over]

That SlimVirgin initially edited on Lockerbie (and went to pains to cover it up), is somehow connected with Cambridge (and went to pains to remove that connection) ...

Yes, I've been trying for years to remove "this user is a Cantabrigian" from my user page, but I can't seem to work out how to get rid of it.

[Somey]

That's a rather crude way to lump together Wikipedians and make assumptions about their character....

True, but technically I didn't say that all Wikipedians are part of said mob. I'm still on the fence over the whole "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem" thing, actually - in fact, I always have been.

[gomi]

…switching between a Canadian and British accent because I had identity issues.

I can't speak to the rest of it, but I will say that anyone who's spoken to Slim will quickly recognize a very obvious flaw in this claim.

Slim has a quite distinctive accent, actually - a regional British one - but it's a million miles away from anything Canadian (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

And Americans are notoriously bad at distinguishing British Commonwealth accents from one another. So what? I'm something of a connoisseur of Commonwealth accents, and there are still a few midlands accents that I can't distinguish from mild Australian ones.

I'm still on the fence over the whole "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem" thing

But you are part of the precipitate.

That SlimVirgin initially edited on Lockerbie (and went to pains to cover it up), is somehow connected with Cambridge (and went to pains to remove that connection) ...

Yes, I've been trying for years to remove "this user is a Cantabrigian" from my user page, but I can't seem to work out how to get rid of it.

I was referring the the "slimvirgin" email address on the "Linda Mack" entry on the alumni site, actually.

[Hell Freezes Over]

My theory is that you left London for Canada under a false name in the mid or late 1990s (and may have had professional help in doing so), because you were worried that the defense in the al-Megrahi trial might compel you to testify. If they managed to call you as a hostile witness, you would almost certainly have been asked about various allegations that were made in the early 1990s concerning your possible connections to British intelligence.

Can you confirm or deny?

I should really try to find a way to capitalize on the exotic creature you've created. Perhaps I could record a pop song. Moulton could help with the lyrics.

(ZOMG, she's not denying it, so it must be true!)



This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over:

[written by he who wrote it]

Slim has a quite distinctive accent, actually - a regional British one - but it's a million miles away from anything Canadian (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

And Americans are notoriously bad at distinguishing British Commonwealth accents from one another. So what? I'm something of a connoisseur of Commonwealth accents, and there are still a few midlands accents that I can't distinguish from mild Australian ones.

Nobody* could confuse British and Canadian accents. Canadian English resembles American more than it does any other Commonwealth accent.




*Nobody who knows anything about accents of English other than their own, that is.

This post has been edited by written by he who wrote it:

[Somey]

This was always the old trick -- we're not libeling you unless you really are that person, and we'll be happy to help just as soon as you confirm that -- on the other hand, if you're *not* that person, it's not really about you, is it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Hardly a "trick" - for good or ill, that's exactly how it works, from both a legal and ethical standpoint.

Anyway, at the risk of repeating myself redundantly for the umpteenth time again, there's really no point in challenging SV here over the whole IRL-identification issue - that poodle just won't hunt, as they say. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[tarantino]

And Americans are notoriously bad at distinguishing British Commonwealth accents from one another. So what? I'm something of a connoisseur of Commonwealth accents, and there are still a few midlands accents that I can't distinguish from mild Australian ones.

Well, Alison is an Irish National and Proab's a linguist. I suspect they're somewhat better at identifying Commonwealth accents than the typical American.

[Somey]

I should really try to find a way to capitalize on the exotic creature you've created.

Why not make her the main character in a series of lurid spy novels? Seriously, you've already got a following, so you're guaranteed at least enough sales to break even, even if you self-publish.

I mean, I'd do it in a heartbeat, if it were me...

[Hell Freezes Over]

I should really try to find a way to capitalize on the exotic creature you've created.

Why not make her the main character in a series of lurid spy novels? Seriously, you've already got a following, so you're guaranteed at least enough sales to break even, even if you self-publish.

I mean, I'd do it in a heartbeat, if it were me...

Perhaps you could ghost-write it. Or I could sell you the rights to my personal story ... not that it *is* my personal story, you understand. You have a film director here too, so what with Moulton's song, your novel, and his movie, I might end up having cause to thank Daniel Brandt. It's a horrible thought but I was trained to be ready for anything.

[Somey]

Perhaps you could ghost-write it. Or I could sell you the rights to my personal story ...

Okay... Just tell me what name to put on the check!

I'm thinking a sort of Our Man Flint meets Bridget Jones' Diary kinda thang here.

[Hell Freezes Over]

Perhaps you could ghost-write it. Or I could sell you the rights to my personal story ...

Okay... Just tell me what name to put on the check!

All you'll need is a box number.

I'm thinking a sort of Our Man Flint meets Bridget Jones' Diary kinda thang here.

I actually did come up with a synopsis last year. It involved Daniel Brandt being accidentally killed by the Animal Liberation Front.

[Alison]

Can I just say that this whole thread is very surreal indeed (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Slimvirgin, Judd Bagley and Daniel Brandt in the one, really strange conversation. I never thought I'd see the day ...

[EricBarbour]

Why not make her the main character in a series of lurid spy novels?

This isn't a spy novel, it's a Monty Python sketch.

Can I just say that this whole thread is very surreal indeed (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
Slimvirgin, Judd Bagley and Daniel Brandt in the one, really strange conversation. I never thought I'd see the day ...

Surreal isn't the word I'd use.

Possibly, behaviour to be expected of Wikipedia trolls might be more accurate.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Daniel Brandt]

I actually did come up with a synopsis last year. It involved Daniel Brandt being accidentally killed by the Animal Liberation Front.

Like Somey said, that poodle won't hunt either.

(IMG:http://i530.photobucket.com/albums/dd347/richdaw/wr/POODSNOW.jpg)

But we could start a biography of you on Wikipedia, to see if your life story will fly (hope you don't mind occasional vandalism and anonymous POV editing).

[EricBarbour]

But we could start a biography of you on Wikipedia, to see if your life story will fly (hope you don't mind occasional vandalism and anonymous POV editing).

Couldn't resist, could you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[gomi]

This isn't a spy novel, it's a Monty Python sketch.

Precisely! However, is it The Spanish Inquisition, or The Ministry of Funny Walks?

[Hell Freezes Over]

I actually did come up with a synopsis last year. It involved Daniel Brandt being accidentally killed by the Animal Liberation Front.

But we could start a biography of you on Wikipedia, to see if your life story will fly (hope you don't mind occasional vandalism and anonymous POV editing).

'''Linda Mack''', also know as '''Sarah McEwan''' (born a long time ago in Swalwell, Alberta) came to public attention in the 1980s in England, when she was involved in a bizarre series of events that led not only to the jailing of the wrong man for the Lockerbie bombing, but which also implicated [[MI5|King's College, Cambridge]] in a controversial stockmarket practice that triggered the worst depression in the history of the U.S. economy.

Known on Wikipedia as the SlimVirgin, or Queen of Pain, Mack is believed by supporters of Lyndon LaRouche to control the online encyclopedia on behalf of the Jewish British security service, MI5, from a farmhouse in Alberta inherited from her family of Canadian artists and intellectuals.

Patrick B. of Oversold.com, whose theft of a [[French fry]] from Mack 20 years ago made him a target of British intelligence, told ''The New York Times'': "I'm a gentleman, so of course I can't say whether we had sex. I *can* confirm that she was really good at accents. Especially in bed."

[Kato]

'''Linda Mack''', also know as '''Sarah McEwan''' (born a long time ago in Swalwell, Alberta) came to public attention in the 1980s in England, when she was involved in a bizarre series of events that led not only to the jailing of the wrong man for the Lockerbie bombing, but which also implicated [[MI5|King's College, Cambridge]] in a controversial stockmarket practice that triggered the worst depression in the history of the U.S. economy.

Known on Wikipedia as the SlimVirgin, or Queen of Pain, Mack is believed by supporters of Lyndon LaRouche to control the online encyclopedia on behalf of the Jewish British security service, MI5, from a farmhouse in Alberta inherited from her family of Canadian artists and intellectuals.

Patrick B. of Oversold.com, whose theft of a [[French fry]] from Mack 20 years ago made him a target of British intelligence, told ''The New York Times'': "I'm a gentleman, so of course I can't say whether we had sex. I *can* confirm that she was really good at accents. Especially in bed."

You forgot the obligatory "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" Section.

[One]

'''Linda Mack''', also know as '''Sarah McEwan''' (born a long time ago in Swalwell, Alberta) came to public attention in the 1980s in England, when she was involved in a bizarre series of events that led not only to the jailing of the wrong man for the Lockerbie bombing, but which also implicated [[MI5|King's College, Cambridge]] in a controversial stockmarket practice that triggered the worst depression in the history of the U.S. economy.

This is surreal. I, for one, am glad you have a sense of humo(u)r, Sarah.

Well, play nice.

[GlassBeadGame]

...(u)r, Sarah.

Is that any way for a member of ArbCom to act?

[WordBomb]

'''Linda Mack''', also know as '''Sarah McEwan''' (born a long time ago in Swalwell, Alberta) came to public attention in the 1980s in England, when she was involved in a bizarre series of events that led not only to the jailing of the wrong man for the Lockerbie bombing, but which also implicated [[MI5|King's College, Cambridge]] in a controversial stockmarket practice that triggered the worst depression in the history of the U.S. economy.

This is surreal. I, for one, am glad you have a sense of humo(u)r, Sarah.

Well, play nice.

Indeed, this has recently evolved into the single most interesting thread in the history of WR, in my opinion, and I'm hono(u)red to have my name in its title.

[Milton Roe]

I actually did come up with a synopsis last year. It involved Daniel Brandt being accidentally killed by the Animal Liberation Front.

The accident happened in Battersea Park, said police. Mr. Brandt was in the process of being passed a dossier of information on certain former King’s College, Oxford alumni, from a cross dressing middle-aged man who was a former government statistician, said authorities, when Brandt tripped over a memorial statue of a dog in the park. Brandt supposedly then claimed that the precise location of the statue had been spoofed on the website Wikipedia, by a website volunteer with the anonymous name of “SlimVirgin,” who he said has connections with the Animal Liberation Front, or ALF. The dossier in fact contained information about the identity of SlimVirgin.

After tripping in the dark, Brandt was allegedly bitten by an ill raccoon in the shrubbery, one which he said had been released by well-known ALF animal-rights activist Keith Mann, after the animal was recovered from a laboratory which was doing rabies research on animals, and also upon Mr. Mann.

Unconfirmed reports have noted that since the incident, nearly every person connected with the Brandt accident has been foaming at the mouth, including Mr. Brandt. Local physicians have laboured to separate the diagnosis of rabies from the ordinary effects of contact with SlimVirgin and Wikipedia, or contact with the cross-dressed man in Battersea Park, still not identified (a number of identities have been suggested), or from Mr. Brandt’s normal state. A new virus, tentatively identified as Wolf Mountain Merkevirus, has been cultured from ALF-released animals in the area, and may be capable of causing hallucinations and delusional behavior also, said authorities.

Meanwhile ALF animal activist Mel Broughton has been convicted of bombing a sports pavilion connected with Oxford’s Queen’s College, which he said was originally planned at King’s College, but changed out of respect to SlimVirgin, which he expects to polish his bio on Wikipedia, as happened for Mr. Mann. “I only tried to get SlimVirgin out of the pool in which she was held captive, and into her natural element,” said Broughton. “And in return, she was going to do things for me, which I can’t tell you about.” When contacted about the Broughton case, Mr. Brandt was only able to say something unrecognizable over the phone, which was translated by his private nurse as a reference to journalist Pierre Salinger, and induced dementias such as mad cow disease, from animal viruses secretly administered by the ALF. Supposedly the person known as “SlimVirgin” once worked for Salinger before being fired by him soon before he became demented. The Mirror was unable to confirm this statement directly at press time.

[wikiwhistle]

Nobody* could confuse British and Canadian accents. Canadian English resembles American more than it does any other Commonwealth accent.




*Nobody who knows anything about accents of English other than their own, that is.

I did know someone from Aberdeen, who went to Oxford, and everyone always asked him if he was American or something, so you can't always tell.

"Known on Wikipedia as the SlimVirgin, or Queen of Pain, Mack is believed by supporters of Lyndon LaRouche to control the online encyclopedia on behalf of the Jewish British security service, MI5, Lizard Kings of the Illuminati, from a farmhouse in Alberta inherited from her dynasty of Lovecraftian mutants.

Patrick B. of Oversold.com, whose theft of a [[French fry]] from Mack 20 years ago made him a target of British intelligence the illuminati overlords, told ''The New York Times'': "I'm a gentleman, so of course I can't say whether we had sex. I *can* confirm that she constantly reveals greater numbers of tentacles. Especially in bed."

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[Jon Awbrey]

Mods,

It looks like it's time to move the HFO portions of this thread to the Support Group.

If HFO wants the consensual simpathy of WR, she should do what everyone else does, and get herself a BLP on WP.

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

[Bottled_Spider]

Can I just say that this whole thread is very surreal indeed (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
Slimvirgin, Judd Bagley and Daniel Brandt in the one, really strange conversation. I never thought I'd see the day ...

This is surreal. I, for one, am glad you have a sense of humo(u)r, Sarah.

I'll just pile-on, here, and agree. This is a most entertaining thread, and I'm damn grateful to all concerned. You guys are the best. This is the sort of thing I stopped watching TV for.

Slimso and the Word fella slugging it out ........ Brandt slipping the odd broadside in ........ the hilarious "anonymity is, like, baaaad" meme being sneaked in (my favourite!) ........ it's all so wonderful.

Slim is obviously enjoying the whole thing as well, of course - and why not. I hope everyone understands that there's a danger of her ending up looking way more cooler than those who are asking her those increasingly shrill questions which she'll never answer. New strategic approaches are required. Heh!

[Sarcasticidealist]

'''Linda Mack''', also know as '''Sarah McEwan''' (born a long time ago in Swalwell, Alberta) came to public attention in the 1980s in England, when she was involved in a bizarre series of events that led not only to the jailing of the wrong man for the Lockerbie bombing, but which also implicated [[MI5|King's College, Cambridge]] in a controversial stockmarket practice that triggered the worst depression in the history of the U.S. economy.

Known on Wikipedia as the SlimVirgin, or Queen of Pain, Mack is believed by supporters of Lyndon LaRouche to control the online encyclopedia on behalf of the Jewish British security service, MI5, from a farmhouse in Alberta inherited from her family of Canadian artists and intellectuals.

Patrick B. of Oversold.com, whose theft of a [[French fry]] from Mack 20 years ago made him a target of British intelligence, told ''The New York Times'': "I'm a gentleman, so of course I can't say whether we had sex. I *can* confirm that she was really good at accents. Especially in bed."

My head just exploded. So long, WR, and thanks for all the indignation.

[gomi]

Nobody* could confuse British and Canadian accents. Canadian English resembles American more than it does any other Commonwealth accent.

You have clearly never spoken to a Newfie.

[Random832]

I was referring the the "slimvirgin" email address on the "Linda Mack" entry on the alumni site, actually.

Was that actually removed specifically - rather than the whole site going private which could happen for any number of unrelated reasons?

While there's not as much doubt as I thought there was when I mistakenly thought it was two gmail addresses a while back, it's still not 100% clear what ties the slimvirgin1@yahoo.com address to wikipedia's SV - any more than I am tied to the WR user formerly known as "Random23". I double-checked Brandt's page about it, and it merely asserts "Her email address (slimvirgin1@yahoo.com) was the same address that Cambridge showed for L* M* in its list of alumni. " - if Brandt had any basis but the similarity in name for tying the two (the three, including the domain, which has neither this email nor SV's current gmail address on it) together, he hasn't shared it.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[WordBomb]

I was referring the the "slimvirgin" email address on the "Linda Mack" entry on the alumni site, actually.

Was that actually removed specifically - rather than the whole site going private which could happen for any number of unrelated reasons?

While I believe the site itself has changed a bit in recent months, prior to that happening, and shortly after it was revealed here, the email address of "Linda Mack" was removed.

[EricBarbour]

My head just exploded. So long, WR, and thanks for all the indignation.

Load of crap. You love this vaudeville as much as anyone else. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[GlassBeadGame]

My feeling is Slim pretty much pwn'd the Review on this thread. But if she wasn't good at what she does...

[WordBomb]

My feeling is Slim pretty much pwn'd the Review on this thread.

I don't think that's true at all.

To the extent that this was a "debate", Slim lost in the first round.

To the extent that this was a contest of stamina and/or message discipline, she won hands down.

But as far as that goes, the old Iraqi information minister "won" that contest with the American media back in 2003.