AntiSocialMedia.net by Judd Bagley

Through personal experience, lengthy observation and detailed data analysis, I have concluded that certain wikipedians, including two high-level administrators, have frequently violated core Wikipedia policies and principals for personal benefit or for the benefit of their on-wiki colleagues; furthermore, they have compounded these violations by abusing the administrative tools entrusted them in order to hide the original abuse.

A few months ago, I read an editor on Wiktionary make reference to “well-known vandals like Primetime, Bobby Boulders, Zephram Stark, and WordBomb.”

And to think, my high school guidance counselor said I’d never amount to anything.

Unfortunately, the legend of WordBomb has very little in common with the reality of WordBomb.

I created WordBomb, my first account, on July 7, 2006. My goal seemed simple: alert the Wikipedia community to the fact that the article on Gary Weiss was being written and maintained almost exclusively by Gary Weiss himself…a seemingly clear conflict of interest.

Additionally, I intended to point out that Weiss was further in violation of community norms by liberally and often inappropriately peppering articles with references to his then-recently published book and other past works appearing under his by-line.

I further intended to show that Weiss had extensively edited (and often successfully proposing the deletion of) articles of about those with whom he had ongoing off-wiki feuds.
Knowing what I know today, I’m certain I would have done things very differently. However at that time, having minimal exposure to Wikipedia, I chose a less conventional route. And you might say I suspect that has made all the difference, as I’ll explain.

Essentially, my strategy was to add accurate and noteworthy – albeit unflattering – details (of a billion-dollar libel suit filed against Weiss and his then employer Business Wees) to the article on Gary Weiss, including the fact that Weiss was a frequent editor of his own article. I predicted that Weiss, whom I had identified as the individual behind Mantanmoreland, would object and the issue would proceed to dispute resolution, at which time the “System” would remove Weiss from the project.

I had previously learned from media accounts of Wikipedia guidelines against conflicted editing, particularly editing of one’s own article.

What I hadn’t considered was the seemingly contradictory prohibition against publicly identifying editors by their real names.

And so, after editing the article on Gary Weiss as planned, I was shocked when it was me, not Gary Weiss, who was excoriated and blocked from editing Wikipedia, thanks to the quick action of SlimVirgin.

Having noted that Wikipedia culture places little value on the opinions of new editors, I opted to pursue a new strategy.
On July 9, 2006, I created IPFrehley, and spent a week accumulating edits, gathering additional evidence of what I had come to realize was not only conflicted editing, but also abusive sockpuppetry on the part of Gary Weiss, and attempting to better understand Wikipedia policies.

Even before creating IPFrehley’s userpage, I inquired at the Village Pump how to best navigate the identity minefield I had stumbled upon as WordBomb. The answer I received, while well-intended, didn’t do much to answer my question.

I then set about trying to find an advocate in the form of a more tenured editor.

Naïvely, I approached Jayjg and Humus Sapiens, neither of which responded, and I have reason to believe at least one of them was in fact forwarding my email to SlimVirgin, because on July 18, 2006, just hours before I intended to request CheckUser be performed on Mantanmoreland, Lastexit, Tomstoner and Doright, SlimVirgin blocked the account.

My first sense that SlimVirgin was compromised as an administrator came when she noted on IPFrehley’s talk page that the mountains of direct evidence of abusive sockpuppetry on the part of Gary Weiss that I had posted (and she had promptly deleted) was “without substance.”

Given the clarity and obvious nature of the data, I could only conclude that she had either taken care not to review any of it, or had chosen to disregard it.

Slim then asked me to email her any remaining evidence of abuse on the part of Gary Weiss, for her to review and “make a judgment as to whether there are grounds for taking it any further.”

Needless to say, at that point, I had some doubts as to SlimVirgin’s sincerity; particularly her willingness to simply review the evidence I sent her.

To test my theory, I added an invisible script to the document, which would ping a specific server if opened. The outcome of my experiment was disheartening: I discovered that the document was indeed opened: not by SlimVirgin, but by Gary Weiss.

When asked, SlimVirgin first denied having forwarded my email. When confronted with my server data indicating the contrary, she broke off communication and insisted I direct future correspondence to FloNight.

At that point, I had no doubt as to SlimVirgin’s goals: protect Gary Weiss and block me.

Feeling a little frustrated, and at the suggestion of others, I then approached Morven and Fred Bauder by email, asking for help.

In his reply, Fred Bauder promised to review the information I sent him.

In his reply, Morven said he didn’t care much for my username.

Two days later, Fred chastised Mantanmoreland for abusive sockpuppetry, causing Tomstoner to immediately fall silent. Lastexit, on the other hand, was kept in operation for approximately one week, claiming he and Mantanmoreland were actually uncle and nephew, given to using the same computer to edit the same articles (and occasionally, communicate via talk page).

Fred’s admonition was a positive development, but also a sign that normal accountability standards did not exactly apply to Weiss, apparently due to his relationship with SlimVirgin. At that point, I concluded that in order for Weiss to be made accountable, SlimVirgin would first need to be made accountable; and as I would learn, in order for that to happen, the rules would first need to apply to Jayjg.

To make the task still more daunting, I would have to accomplish this entirely as an outsider, with no access to any of Wikipedia’s internal procedures.

With that in mind, the next several months were spent conducting small experiments intended to discern the composition of certain users’ watchlists, reasoning that this might help illuminate deeper relationships.

Overwhelmingly, I accomplished this through comments on talk pages. With a single exception, any edits I’ve made to main namespace pages have been constructive or inconsequential.

Having formed hypotheses based on that process, I then conducted experiments to discern certain users’ geographic locations – not necessarily to establish their identities, but to differentiate them one from another.

This was understandably a controversial move.

Additionally, I employed tactics intended to alter specific editors’ editing patterns, in order to observe how those changes might in turn affect the editing patterns of suspected sockpuppets. This happened primarily through comments to Wikipedia Review, postings to AntiSocialMedia.net, and in one case, through a rather bluff-heavy email to SlimVirgin.

With the knowledge gained through that process, the final step was detailed comparison of the current record of specific editors’ activities with the original record, as captured in early database dumps.

As a result of this process, I have found (and continue to find) evidence of significant abuses regularly carried out by precisely those whom I’ve alleged operate largely without the same accountability they work so hard to impose upon others.

One example of this abusive double standard was recently posted to here, which in turn precipitated this communication.

And here we are today.

The single best predictor seems to be disagreement with Mantanmoreland. And, given the frequency with which Mantanmoreland, SlimVirgin and Jayjg are found expressing the same point of view on the same articles, this has a convenient spill-over effect.

This situation was made exceptionally clear during an episode in which User:Cla68, acting without any input from me whatsoever, nominated the article on Gary Weiss for deletion, based on the clear conflict of interest he felt it represented.

Perhaps not surprisingly, soon the claim was made (since deleted) that Cla68, a very well established and productive contributor to multiple featured articles, was a WordBomb sockpuppet, though no proof, much less a formal request for CheckUser, was offered.

At one point, SlimVirgin hinted that WordBomb and Cla68 “appear to be based in the same state.”

In reality, Cla86 lives in Japan, while I am known to live in Utah.

A quick glance at Cla68’s edit history makes it abundantly clear that he’s not WordBomb, and ultimately, I believe that’s the only thing that spared his being blocked like so many others.

Yet, as if out of habit, SlimVirgin began taking that road when attempting to deal with him, apparently without regard for what the results of an actual CheckUser might have been.

I also seek to clear my (pseudo)name by being allowed to edit Wikipedia (whether as WordBomb or another name) unhindered.

If a probationary period is needed in order to build trust, that’s acceptable.

Finally, I wish to have the allegations of conflict of interest on the part of Mantanmoreland/Gary Weiss finally examined objectively. Once that happens, I will contentedly accept the resulting decision.

Judd Bagley

Likewise, there is conflict of interest in his editing, but not to the point that it is actionable.

There is no absolute prohibition against editing articles you are interested in.

I doubt your editing status could be restored in the foreseeable structure. Sometimes things are just ruined.

Fred