Prosecute religion for blasphemy

by ZJ — 13 July 2009

Could Ireland's religions be criminalized under the law that's supposed to protect them?

No comments — Filed under , , , , ,

February YouTube digest

by ZJ — 1 March 2009

19 videos for the month, totalling nearly an hour and a half. As usual, the best ones are in bold. If you watch any of them, I highly recommend the information theory series—it's the same kind of informative, educational content that I used to post thousands of words about here. And if you find my voice unbearably annoying, I'll also be posting transcripts.

Right now, there are 428 subscribers, which is pretty great. It's getting to the point where I'm aggregating many "regulars" who are interested in actually discussing the myriad subjects I cover; it's the same sort of phenomenon that spawned EMPTV back in 2004. Unfortunately, YouTube is possibly the worst place to hold discussions — 500 characters is hardly enough space for a conversation — so I'll be making a forum to facilitate this.

It will be nothing like 17chan, considering how well that ended.

No comments — Filed under , , , , , , ,

California: Four legs good, two legs bad

by ZJ — 11 November 2008

One week ago, Californians voted 63% to 37% in favor of Proposition 2, an animal welfare law requiring farmers to confine veal calves, pregnant sows and egg-laying hens in a way that allows them to move freely. Californians also voted 52% to 48% in favor of Proposition 8, which enacts a constitutional amendment eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry and reversing the validity and recognition of same-sex marriages. This right was already in effect, and had been since a California Supreme Court order this June, following a ruling in May. There have already been an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages in California this year; Attorney General Jerry Brown believes these marriages will not be retroactively annulled, which leaves the state in a legal bind of recognizing some same-sex marriages, but not others. Even this is far from certain, as supporters of Prop 8 may sue to annul these marriages.

Take a moment to think about what this means. California is overwhelmingly willing to grant animals the right to walk around before being slaughtered for meat, yet they somehow just can't bring themselves to let two men or two women enjoy the benefits of marriage. While these are not mutually exclusive, this is indicative of a populace with its priorities so wildly out of order, they'll gladly take away the existing rights of their own family, friends and neighbors, while extending additional rights to animals.

California, you make me sick. There really is no more fitting emotion than raw and unceasing revulsion at people who would rush to strip equal rights from their fellow citizens. But the collective disgust of millions of freedom-loving Americans will erupt into blazing outrage, sweeping across the state and nation until equal rights are secured once and for all. You can count on it.

Not to single out California, of course. Floridians voted 62% to 38% in favor of Amendment 2, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, as well as any "other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof". Same-sex marriage was already illegal in Florida, but Amendment 2 goes further, banning similar institutions such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. This will invalidate domestic partnerships between heterosexual couples, eliminating benefits such as shared healthcare coverage, shared pensions and hospital visitation rights. The same thing happened in Michigan last year.

And it doesn't end there. In 1999, Arkansas' Child Welfare Agency Review Board introduced a policy: "no person may serve as a foster parent if any adult member of that person's household is a homosexual". The Arkansas Supreme Court unanimously overturned the policy in 2006. And so the people of Arkansas voted 57% to 43% on Tuesday to ban all unmarried couples, homosexual or heterosexual, from adopting children or serving as foster parents. Furthermore, Arizona voted 56% to 44% to enact a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, which was already illegal.

I can't say I'm surprised about Florida, whose local news is so bizarre, it's become a running joke across the internet. Or about Arizona, which just can't stop re-electing complete lunatic Joe Arpaio as sheriff. And Arkansas, well... it's Arkansas. But California? The state that, until Prop 8 passed, had a reputation as one of the most gay-friendly locations in America? What happened?

The scourge of Mormonism

Religion. Religion happened. According to religion, we should follow the laws of ancient texts to the letter and waste our time on the worship of nonexistent supernatural entities, instead of respecting the rights of mankind in contemporary society and working to solve real problems in the real world. And that is wrong. In a pluralistic nation, religion is an inappropriate basis for law, and there is not a single valid non-religious argument to support banning same-sex marriage. Every argument ultimately boils down to personal religious beliefs, or blind irrationality and ignorance. A single valid secular argument could prove that wrong, but there are none. Zero. And for this reason, the illegality of same-sex marriage should be viewed as an implicit violation of the establishment clause. The few churches that support same-sex unions are vastly outnumbered by the churches that work actively to forbid legal recognition of those unions. Just so we're clear on this: religion is the problem.

If anyone doubts the denial of equal marriage rights is perpetrated almost exclusively by religion, the Yes on 8 campaign posted a list of over 200 churches endorsing Prop 8, which they've now removed from their site. The list includes evangelicals, fundamentalists, Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Baptists, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, and Scientologists. And Mormons. Especially Mormons. In an internal memo from 1997, Loren C. Dunn, a leader of the Mormon church, discusses strategies for working with the Catholic Church to ban same-sex marriage in California and Hawaii. He referred to it using the code word "H.L.M." Following the legalization of same-sex marriage in California in June of this year, the First Presidency sent a letter to be read in every Mormon congregation:

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

Thousands of Mormons subsequently volunteered for the Yes on 8 campaign, and at least 59,000 Mormon families donated nearly $20 million—over half of the total donations to Yes on 8. Private campaign notes distributed among Mormon leaders acknowledged that Prop 8 was mainly promoted by Mormons:

Elders Ballard, Christopherson & Clayton met last week with leaders of the Coalition for 2 hours. The brethren emphasized that there wasn't much participation from non-LDS people. The work depends on us.

Mormons bought Prop 8; without their support, it would have withered and died. They funded a campaign of fear and lies to force religious values upon people who do not share their beliefs. This is not an isolated occurrence. In 1998, Mormons donated $500,000 to the campaign for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Alaska, an overwhelming majority of the $600,000 in donations received by the campaign. This year, they donated $6.9 million to support an amendment against same-sex marriage in Arizona. And after what they've done, the Mormon church has the unmitigated gall to claim "it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship", and "call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other". Bullshit. Respect is earned, not granted on demand. They decided to poke their noses into our business, and we will not let them evade judgement when the tide turns against them. By working to repeal civil rights, Mormons have forfeited any respect they had prior to their contemptible display of bigotry. I will not respect any religion that disrespects my natural rights and the legal recognition thereof.

The Mormon faith is founded upon the laughable delusions of a man who married multiple underage women, some as young as 14—yet, on the basis of this faith, Mormons refuse to allow lesbians the right to marry one woman of legal age. In the 1800s, the government enacted multiple laws against polygamy specifically targeted towards Mormons. And now, Mormons are exploiting the political process and using the government to impose an even more restrictive definition of marriage upon everyone. For over a century, the Mormon church banned black people from joining the priesthood or participating in sacraments. They claimed people of African ancestry carried the curse of Cain, because Joseph Smith said so in his "scriptures". Brigham Young had this to say about black people:

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.... Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.

Other Mormons said the spirits of black people were less virtuous than the spirits of white people prior to embodiment. John Taylor, the church's third president, claimed black people exist because "it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth". The church's ninth president, David O. McKay, said that even though they don't know why black people should be discriminated against, God said so, and apparently that's good enough for them. Various doctrines and church elders, including a 1947 letter from the First Presidency, stated unequivocally that marriage between black people and white people is forbidden by God. (Sound familiar?) The racist policies of Mormonism were not repealed until 1978.

And these people, with their despicable history of blatant disrespect for the most basic of rights, are so incomprehensibly arrogant that they've appointed themselves the ruling body on the rights of all humanity. They envision their church as the enforcer of an imaginary "divine authority" whose desires just to happen to be precisely aligned with their own. They are cowards hiding behind God, unwilling to be held accountable for their personal prejudices. But they will be. "God said so" is not good enough, ever. Their most recent offense against the dignity of man is a searing indictment of not only the Mormon church, but its individual members. The church has forever branded itself as a strident advocate of intolerance, division, oppression and hatred, and those who continue to follow the Mormon faith have committed an unforgivable sin against all human decency. As long as they threaten the civil rights of all citizens, pervert the rule of law with their bigotry, and justify it with mythological nonsense, we will have absolutely no qualms about telling them: Take your god and shove it.

Worst precedent ever

To understand the consequences of Prop 8's passage, we must examine the basis on which same-sex marriage was granted legal recognition. The California Supreme Court struck down statutory bans on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, on the grounds that equal protection requires the fundamental right to marry, which is protected by Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, to be extended to same-sex couples. This is not a unique interpretation. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that "the marriage ban does not meet the rational basis test for either due process or equal protection", making it unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for four years. This October, the Connecticut Supreme Court found that the equal protection clause of the Connecticut Constitution protects the right to same-sex marriage, and the state's failure to recognize same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. Marriages will begin in Connecticut this Wednesday.

Prop 8 directly contradicts the equal protection clause. Same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution, and Prop 8 amends the constitution to ban same-sex marriage; thus, Prop 8 alters the constitution to eliminate a fundamental right and reject equal protection. The ACLU has already filed a petition making this argument. It's an unbelievably dangerous precedent, and it affects everyone. This isn't just about LGBT rights, it's about rights period. If amendments removing constitutional rights are considered valid, this threatens every aspect of our freedom—and it's even worse in states like California, where amendments can be passed by a simple majority voting in favor of a ballot initiative. Whose rights will be repealed next? Whose equal protection will be denied next? It could be yours. If Prop 8 is allowed to take effect, it opens the door to every civil rights violation imaginable. Mormons could fund a campaign to ban all non-Christian marriages, or the "gay agenda" could vote to ban heterosexual marriage. Everyone else can vote to ban the practice of Mormonism. 51% could vote to execute the other 49%. There's no way around it: Prop 8 is antithetical to the traditional values of liberty our great nation stands for.

And yet there are still morons like Bishop William Weigand of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento, Prop 8 supporter Neil Wilson, Charles Cox of Central Valley "Save" Marriage, Mormon Doug Clark of Seattle, churchgoer John Kirkpatrick of the Saddleback Church, and Larry Black, Richard McConnell and Yvonne Lee of Seal Beach who think a popular vote supersedes anything and everything. They are either ignorant or intellectually dishonest. Our country is not a pure democracy, where three wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner. It was never meant to be ruled by a mob. We live under a constitutional republic intended to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Anyone who's taken the most basic class on American government should know this, but not enough people do. Rights are exactly that: rights. Not privileges, rights. It isn't very popular to acknowledge this, but the people simply should not be allowed to vote on rights. And the judicial system exists to interpret the law and protect these rights. Laws against interracial marriage were overturned once and for all by court ruling, not by popular vote. Were we supposed to follow the popular vote when the people refused to legalize interracial marriage? Should the courts have refrained from overturning such a vote? Any sensible person can see how absurd this is. If LGBT rights are not protected, nobody's rights are protected.

The next step

If you're as pissed off about this as I am, good. Few things are more intensely motivating than the sting of institutionalized injustice. Remember this feeling, hold on to it, and channel it towards the fight for equality. Over the past week, protests numbering in the tens of thousands have broken out, often spontaneously, in California, Utah and Washington. But the truth is, this needed to happen before November 4th. When Yes on 8 campaigners were screaming on every street corner like they were waiting for the Rapture to whisk them away, we should have been marching down those streets. This election demonstrated, quite painfully, that we can't afford complacency. We can't afford to stay silent. And we can't afford to underestimate the opposition. Those who stand against us are driven by a maniacal devotion to something that doesn't even exist. If we are to have any chance of defeating them, our dedication to freedom must exceed their commitment to extinguishing it. We need to get our act together, get organized, and above all, get out there. The importance of this issue warrants an attack from all angles, and we need to start right now.

A nationwide protest for gay rights will be held this coming Saturday. Find a protest near your area and attend it. Learn how to make effective picket signs. If no protest is planned for your area, organize one at a major city hall, Mormon temple, Catholic church (Catholics worked with Mormons to pass Prop 8), any church listed here, or any church you know of that spreads anti-gay sentiment—religious beliefs are not beyond criticism when they pose a threat to anyone's rights. Use social networks like Facebook and MySpace to get people together. It doesn't matter if you live somewhere like Missouri, Oklahoma or Georgia, where same-sex marriage doesn't seem to have a chance at being legalized. If you don't believe victory is within our grasp, why should anyone else? Even if you're in the most rural village in the reddest state, even if you're the only one who shows up to protest, it sends a visible message that this is important to someone, and that's far better than nothing. And if you're fortunate enough to live in a state where same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships or civil unions have been legalized, you need to remain especially vigilant. California has illustrated how quickly and easily our rights can be stolen, and we need to keep up the fight until equal marriage rights are secured in all 50 states.

Start a discussion group focusing on LGBT issues. It's really not that difficult. Eight months ago, I launched the LGBT reddit, which now has over 2,700 subscribers who post numerous links daily. I invite everyone to visit and participate. Start a website or blog, and write about this subject as often as possible. Link up with other relevant blogs in order to increase everyone's visibility. Post LGBT-related news on social news sites. Write letters to your newspapers advocating the recognition of marriage rights for everyone. Try to get the attention of the local media. Write to your elected officials and ask them to take a stand for equal rights. If you can get in touch with any celebrities, ask them to speak out in support of LGBT rights. They wield a critical degree of influence over public opinion. File a complaint with the IRS to revoke the Mormon church's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status for their political activities. Demand that Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress repeal DOMA, which forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages—Obama supported a full repeal, and we'll hold him to that.

Boycott businesses and organizations that supported Prop 8, such as the Knights of Columbus. Boycott the Marriott hotel chain and other businesses owned by the Mormon church. Make sure they know why you're boycotting them. And make a point of patronizing businesses that respect gay rights, while avoiding LGBT-hostile businesses. If you're a member of a church and you disagree with its gay-unfriendly views, consider leaving. There are numerous congregations that respect gay people, in various degrees. Provide support to LGBT rights groups like the Human Rights Campaign, PFLAG, Lambda Legal, Invalidate Prop 8, GLAAD, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, GLSEN, Freedom to Marry, the Equality Federation, Equality California, Equality Arizona, Equality Florida, the Family Equality Council, Equality Utah, MassEquality, Equality Illinois, the Kansas Equality Coalition, Oklahomans for Equality, Equality Alabama, Wyoming Equality, Equality New Mexico, Equality Texas, Iowa Equality, the Kentucky Equality Federation, the Tennessee Equality Project, Georgia Equality, Equality Mississippi, Equality North Dakota, OutFront Minnesota, Fair Wisconsin, Michigan Equality, Equality Ohio, Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, Equality North Carolina, the South Carolina Equality Coalition, Equality Virginia, Marriage Equality New York, Garden State Equality, Vermont Freedom to Marry, the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, EqualityMaine, Equal Rights Colorado, Equal Rights Washington, Basic Rights Oregon, Indiana Equality, Equality Maryland, Marriage Equality RI, Delaware Pride, and the ACLU.

Talk to people you know and explain how important LGBT rights are. If you're in school, join the Gay-Straight Alliance or a similar club. If no such club exists, ask your school for permission to start one. If you have an inclination towards creativity, come up with some catchy slogans. Reframe the issue by repurposing phrases that have been used against us. Make this about protecting marriage, families and children from dishonest hate groups like the American Family Association, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. Draw attention to the "special rights" of heterosexual couples. Design visually appealing media and produce viral videos—if you don't know how, find someone who does. And finally, if you yourself are gay and still closeted, think about coming out to your family and friends. I know, it can be fucking frightening. But when people personally know someone who's gay, this strongly influences their opinions, and their opinions influence how they will vote. It's good for them, and it's good for the sake of your own sanity and well-being.

Needless to say, accomplishing our ultimate goal will not be easy. It will take several years, a decade, perhaps even several decades. But if we are discouraged by the immensity of the task before us, it will take even longer. Every moment you spend working towards equality will make universal legal recognition of all marriages arrive one moment sooner. This is the defining American civil rights struggle of our generation, and we know we can't wait for someone else to do the fighting for us. We will vanquish ignorance with knowledge. We will defeat fear with truth. We will show them what happens to a dream deferred, and they will know that no law can ever diminish the love shared by same-sex couples. Fight like your rights depend on it—because they do.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics; they will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks and months to come. We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds, when we've been told we're not ready, or that we shouldn't try, or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes we can.

—Barack Obama after the New Hampshire primary

Yes, we did. And yes, we will.

3 comments — Filed under , , , , ,

Reverse donations: click "fraud"?

by ZJ — 4 November 2008

Occasionally, users on reddit and Digg propose an interesting idea: the reverse donation. They'll start by searching for someone or something they dislike, such as the McCain/Palin campaign[1][2][3][4][5][6][7], Rudy Giuliani[8], Mike Huckabee[9], Hillary Clinton[10], various Republican politicians[11], Microsoft[12], Christians looking for converts[13], or intelligent design advocates[14]. On the page of search results, they'll click on ads being run by one of the aforementioned parties. Advertisers pay to have their ads run a specific number of times, such as 100,000, so this means one fewer ad that someone else will see from said advertiser. Instead, the ad is "wasted" on a viewer with no actual interest in whatever they're selling. This effectively depletes the advertiser's budget by however much they paid to have an ad run once, making it a small "reverse donation".

Other reddit and Digg users have claimed that this is a variety of click fraud. More often, click fraud takes the form of someone clicking ads on their own website to generate revenue for themselves, someone encouraging readers to click ads on their website to generate more revenue, or a company clicking a competitor's ads to cut into their advertising budget. If reverse donations are considered click fraud, they're an entirely atypical kind of fraud. The advertiser loses money, but those committing "fraud" stand to gain nothing from it; the whole thing is negative-sum. And it isn't part of some coordinated operation. It's not as though the people clicking on McCain ads are doing it as part of Obama's campaign. Someone just throws the idea out there on a social news site, and everyone else runs with it, criticizes it or ignores it.

Accusations of fraud imply criminal activity with the potential for legal consequences, but this probably isn't the case. Those engaging in reverse donations aren't part of any agreement between advertisers or advertising networks, legally binding or otherwise (although Google has demanded that reddit discourage its users from engaging in reverse donations). It is, at most, a dick move. And whether or not a particular click is actually invalid depends on the viewer's state of mind at the moment of the click. Advertising networks aren't psychic, the best they can do is develop heuristics to detect the sort of behavior typically exhibited by people engaging in click fraud, such as clicking on the same ad multiple times. For one click on one ad from one person, a genuine click is technically indistinguishable from an invalid click. As Dr. Alexander Tuzhilin wrote in his report (PDF) for Google:

In summary, between the obviously clear cases of valid and invalid clicks, lies the whole spectrum of highly complicated cases when the clicking intent is far from clear and depends on a whole range of complicated factors, including the parameter values of the click. Therefore, this intent (and thus the validity of a click based on the above definitions) cannot be operationalized and detected by technological means with any reasonable measure of certainty.

If reverse donations are considered click fraud, the consequences are far-reaching. This implies internet users have some sort of ethical obligation to refrain from clicking on ads if they have no interest in what's being advertised. Essentially, users have a responsibility to avoid wasting advertisers' money. I don't think this is a tenable proposition. First, I'd wager most people have no understanding whatsoever of internet advertising and its business model. All they see is ads on their screen; they have no comprehension of the related ethical concerns, and can't accurately weigh the consequences of their actions. Furthermore, plenty of people will click ads simply out of curiosity rather than a desire to buy something. I've clicked on that "Murder Yellow Teeth" ad before, not because I had any intention of murdering yellow teeth, but just because I wanted to know who the hell would run an ad that says "Murder Yellow Teeth". Is murder-yellow a new Crayola color?

Personally, I think the possibility of being hit by reverse donations is an inherent risk for advertisers who run ads on contentious topics. If it begins to occur on a large scale as grassroots movements by third parties who just don't like what's being advertised, advertisers will have to take this into account as an additional cost. But for the time being, it seems to be localized to minor, sporadic outbreaks on a few sites, certainly not at a level that justifies accusing individuals of committing actual fraud. Then again, I'm no expert, so I could be completely off on this.

1 http://www.reddit.com/comments/79rcm/i_just_clicked_on_a_mccain_banner_ad_supported_a/

2 http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Help_Kill_McCain_s_Ad_Budget_For_Just_A_Click_Or_Two_A_Day

3 http://www.reddit.com/comments/76qyv/see_a_mccain_palin_ad_click_it_itll_cost_them_a/

4 http://www.reddit.com/comments/6v1v5/google_john_mccain_and_click_on_his_ad_its_your/

5 http://www.reddit.com/comments/709kc/so_how_much_money_does_it_cost_the_mccain/

6 http://www.reddit.com/comments/78sd1/john_mccain_google_ads_reddit_a_bankrupt_mccain/

7 http://www.reddit.com/comments/6xalu/vote_up_if_you_know_clicking_a_mccain_ad_costs/

8 http://www.reddit.com/comments/612s9/giuliani_bought_google_ads_clicking_on_them_costs/

9 http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Help_Waste_Mike_Huckabee_s_1_000_000_War_Chest_Click_ADS

10 http://www.reddit.com/comments/6agsi/please_click_on_hillary_clintons_ad_it_should/

11 http://www.reddit.com/comments/5yhuh/every_time_you_see_guilliani_thompson_mccain/

12 http://www.reddit.com/comments/66nw0/fun_fact_if_you_google_report_software_piracy_and/

13 http://www.reddit.com/comments/6xh0s/as_an_atheist_i_love_clicking_paid_links_on/

14 http://www.reddit.com/comments/6qtbt/sometimes_i_google_intelligent_design_and_click/

1 comment — Filed under , , , ,

Indiana Gregg and Ian Morrow: Still mastering the internet

by ZJ — 17 July 2008

"When your only weapons are lawsuits, everyone looks like a defendant."

rmuser, The Banality of Gregg (2008)

On 14 July, "Tim Hardwell" posted a comment expressing mild disagreement with my article about Indiana Gregg. Yesterday, "generationx" posted a similar comment. Both comments originated from the same IP address, 82.9.58.47, owned by Virgin Media of Britain. If I were the RIAA, I would consider an identical IP to be conclusive proof that they're the same person, but the idea that one IP corresponds to one person doesn't accurately reflect reality—that standard of evidence has led the RIAA to legally threaten printers. Many British ISPs, running out of address space, use network address translation, which makes many users appear to have the same IP. In the past, I've inadvertently banned a large region of Britain by blocking a single IP. I haven't been able to determine whether Virgin users are subject to NAT[1], but even if they are, this still indicates that "Tim Hardwell" and "generationx" are using the same ISP and live in the same area. Moreover, they've commented within two days of each other, on a site with only 1,400 readers[2], making it very likely that they're the same person. With some trivial internet detectiving, I've uncovered evidence suggesting that this person is Indiana Gregg, or her husband Ian Morrow, or both of them.

From April to September of 2007, the IP 82.9.49.104 (also owned by Virgin) edited Wikipedia several times, focusing exclusively on articles related to Indiana Gregg. Both 82.9.49.104 and 82.9.58.47 are part of Virgin's Renfrew area, a town six miles west of Glasgow. Indiana Gregg currently lives in Glasgow, and on 17 May 2007, 82.9.49.104 made an edit to Gregg's Wikipedia article, replacing it with a link to her website and MySpace page. The edit was signed:

Thankyou...... Ian Morrow Gr8pop Ltd

There's those pesky ellipses again! Wikipedia generally doesn't like it when one person makes the unilateral decision to delete an entire article that dozens of people have collaborated on, especially if they replace it with blatant advertising. Morrow's edit was treated as vandalism, and reverted in less than a minute. 12 minutes later, Wikipedia user IanMorrow erased the article, saying it was "now unavailable, subject to our enquiries with wikipedia". Once again, this was reverted four minutes later. Morrow blanked the page again. His edit was reverted again. Rather than learning something from this, he opted to fire off a legal threat for no apparent reason:

To whom ever it may be, constantly editing this page.... The violation of our artists page is now subject of legal action in the UK. If you continually edit and defame our artist you will become subject to legal proceedings also.

This page is now down

Ian Morrow

Diector Gr8Pop Ltd

The "Diector" failed to specify exactly what was defamatory about Gregg's article, and this page was now up again in less than a minute. Morrow then blanked the talk page for Gregg's article, and blanked the article thrice more in the next 10 minutes, at which point he was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. User:Littleredm&m registered the day after Morrow was blocked. This utterly thrilling Wiki-drama simmered down for a year, before flaring up again when Morrow and Gregg began threatening The Pirate Bay.

Morrow's first email to TPB on 22 June 2008 originated from 82.9.50.198, another IP in Virgin's Renfrew area. From 2 July to 12 July, User:Carribeanqueen made numerous edits to the Wikipedia articles on Indiana Gregg and The Pirate Bay, nearly all of which contained material heavily promoting Gregg's point of view, and several links to her personal blog. Carribeanqueen also changed the phrase "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" in Gregg's article to "Digital Millineum Copyright Act". Gregg referred to the "Digital Millineum Copyright act" in her 23 June 2008 email to TPB. Carribeanqueen also claims to be a journalist, and was warned to stop reverting everyone else's edits to the Indiana Gregg article. Two days after Carribeanqueen stopped editing, Littleredm&m made their first edits since registering in 2007. Nearly all of their edits revert the Indiana Gregg article to contain material contributed by Carribeanqueen, including many links to Gregg's websites.

82.9.58.47, who replied twice to my post under different names, made two edits to Wikipedia while this was all going on. Both were edits to the Indiana Gregg article, and the latest edit, made on the same day as the reply of "Tim Hardwell", added the same Gregg-promoting material contributed by Carribeanqueen and Littleredm&m. On that day, Littleredm&m made another edit referring to the G8 summit's handling of piracy, which is also mentioned in the reply of "Tim Hardwell". A Wikipedia administrator has now listed Carribeanqueen, Littleredm&m, and 82.9.58.47 as suspected sockpuppets—one person using multiple identities. The article about Gregg was then protected from editing until the sockpuppet issue can be conclusively resolved.

To Indiana Gregg, Ian Morrow, Littleredm&m, Carribeanqueen, Tim Hardwell, generationx, and whoever you'll be masquerading as tomorrow: What is wrong with you? I'm honestly curious. What could possibly make you think this was a good idea? That's precisely the problem with your ignorance of contemporary technology: When you try pulling a stupid stunt like this, you'll be caught in the act by people more capable than yourselves. This advice will serve you well in any situation: If you don't know how something works, don't touch it. Maybe instead of legally threatening Wikipedia for no reason, flagrantly disregarding its guidelines and attempting to hide behind different names, you should just stop. Stop it. Stop all of this, right now. This is not the behavior people expect from professionals, and it speaks very poorly of you when you're unwilling to even defend yourselves using your real names.

I suppose that's the responsible thing to say, but on the other hand, this sort of insanity is hilarious! Keep it up.

Update, 20 July 2008: The Master of Sockpuppets made three more comments—each with its own identity, of course. The first was from 82.9.58.47; evidently she didn't bother reading this post before replying. After I called her out on this, she posted the next two from 212.183.134.66, which is shared among British subscribers to Vodafone's 3G internet service. Plug in one of their USB modem sticks or datacards, and you're on a whole other ISP. Tricky! The problem is she clicked here from another page where she had replied thrice under her real name, and her user agent was identical to that of 82.9.58.47.

Hey, at least she was observant enough to notice my website is pink. I've also noticed her websites autoplay crappy music that nobody actually wants to steal.

Update, 23 July 2008: User:Littleredm&m removed the entire section on the talk page for Gregg's article that accused her of using sockpuppets, which also included a link to this post. I'm pretty sure this is considered unacceptable under some obscure Wikipedia policy.

Update, 26 July 2008: Yesterday, User:Littleredm&m and 82.9.58.47 were blocked from Wikipedia for being the same person, as identified by CheckUser, and for having a conflict of interest. Meanwhile, Gregg and Morrow had some tabloid run a puff piece uncritically promoting their idiotic claims of "cyber-bullying", "250,000 illegal downloaders", "policing of the web" and "internet passports". You know, it's not "cyber-bullying" when you make such obviously stupid statements, and everyone else points out exactly how stupid this is. Seriously, these people are acting like facts are tear gas. I'd also really like to see how they came up with the figure of 250,000 that they keep repeating. They haven't explained this at all, and I'm starting to think they might be lying or something.

Notes

1 Update, 18 July 2008: Reliable sources have informed me that Virgin Media allocates one IP address per customer, which can remain static for months.

2 Approximately 0.0001% of about 1.4E+9 global internet users.

34 comments — Filed under , , ,
1 2