Need to turn back time, If it's not too much trouble Options

[WordBomb]

An alert reader out there brought this to my attention, which I'm ashamed to say I had missed completely.

On the surface, it would appear Slim-V protected a page that hadn't been edited in about a month.

Looking at the logs, you find that she first deleted what she termed "inappropriate material" and blocked Jkilla.

Then, she brands Jkilla a WordBomb sock puppet.

Of course, s/he is not a WordBomb sock (mine never edit article pages, save constructive edits, which are usually reverted), but considering how inconsequential that point is, and after about a dozen similar false accusations, I'm not going to get hung up on it.

What I'm dying to know is exactly what someone like SV finds "inappropriate."

Can anybody (other than SV) see what was the essence of the changes to Gary Weiss' page and tell me? Or is it gone forever?

Jkilla: please email or PM me and let me know what you did!

[Dudley]

Not my IP, stalker. Somebody feeding you IPs off Wiki user logs, or have you got some other method you can share with us?

What's your agenda so you can put so much energy into stalking? It's not Wiki that much is for sure.

This post has been edited by Dudley: Mon 4th September 2006, 3:19pm

[Somey]

What's your agenda so you can put so much energy into stalking? It's not Wiki that much is for sure.

Weiss is a journalist known for writing exposés on Wall Street malfeasance, in particular its relationship to organized crime (and vice-versa). So unfortunately, the implication could be that WordBomb is either a stockbroker, or possibly even an organized-crime figure. So you're right, Dudley - WordBomb might well be "stalking" Weiss, or he might have some completely different, and even morally justifiable, reason for all of this. Either way, as long as he doesn't explain what his motivation is (and nobody is insisting that he do so), it's easy to assume the worst in a text-only forum, no matter how otherwise decent a fellow he might appear to be.

Ideally, we would focus less on who these people are and more on the tactics used to protect them while they insert material that's favorable to them and remove material that isn't. Also there's the larger issue of how hopelessly hypocritical it is for Wikipedia to claim there are "legal reasons" for hiding the identity of admins and editors, while biographical articles on real people are left open for anyone to insert libelous material (and remove positive material) to their heart's content - not to mention dates of birth, mother's maiden names, and other information that can easily be used by identity thieves.

As for WordBomb himself, if the worst-case assumption is true, then I guess that personally I could forgive the organized crime thing, but stockbroker? That would just be beyond the pale, I'm afraid.