After denying the leaked logs, then acknowleding them, then denying them again, Cryptome edits their own Wikipedia page. *Again.* https://twitter.com/NatSecGeek/status/652593111881908224
Next time, raise issues on the article's talk page with sources. This isn't the first time and it's a major breach of protocol for Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest This is the first time Wikipedia's watchlist has caught an edit I found interesting. --Mike On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Michael Best <[email protected]> wrote: > Here is Cryptome's full set (so far) of post-admission replies. I'm unable > to make anything consistent out of it. > > "Admission of leaked logs" is rather generously overstated of what we > specifically understated. > https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652581186036989953 > Me: You understated things? As in, left something(s) out?? > Cryptome: Told what was needed to defuse your exaggeration and resist > your demands to auth visitors. > https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652585088912355328 > > Note that Cryptome doesn't dispute the email that I quoted, which was copy > and pasted in it's entirety. > > > Rigged and disinfo remain valid. You overstated the disclosure. Leaking is > press exaggeration. > https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652581918215684096 > > Nothing is ever deleted, that is subterfuge to escape culpability. You > ratted Cryptome visitors. Not the first or last. > https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652582251805474816 > *Note that Cryptome is definitely NOT using subterfuge to escape > culpability or advising users of the data leak/breach/compromise/whatever > spin word Cryptome wants to use. > > Still refusing to validate what you faked, rigged and released. And will > not, it's your story, run with it. > https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652583921352355840 > > Our claims remain valid despite the biased cherry-picking so beloved of > childish argumentum ad hominem -- Cicero's bitch. > https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652579919340421120 > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:45 PM, coderman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 10/9/15, Michael Best <[email protected]> wrote: >> > ... >> > Not sure how I was right AND the info is rigged and disinfo... >> >> QUANTUMSQUIRREL casts suspicion, just like shade, too. >> > >
