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.

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.

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.

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

I know you are, but what am I?





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.

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)

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

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:



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.

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

Take that, Illinois!

Jon

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?

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.

[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]

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.

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.



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



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.

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.

I was about to say you couldn't make it up, but that wouldn't be quite true, would it?

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

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.


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...)

Barnsley?

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.

Better than a dead horse, I guess...



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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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....

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.

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.

ahhh but I recognized you -- this is you isn't it Not surprising that you like Shakespeare ....and perhaps James Joyce too

hey,, you guys have a nice weekend

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?

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

Nicely put.

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

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.



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?

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."

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.

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

Gee Wikilures, I should think you would know that.

Ja Ja Ja

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.