AntiSocial Media, Slideshow Presentation by Judd Bagley Options

[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: Thu 5th March 2009, 12:50am

[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: Thu 5th March 2009, 12:58am

[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: Thu 5th March 2009, 1:48am

[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: Thu 5th March 2009, 2:00am

[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: Thu 5th March 2009, 2:20am