Rogol disappears

Some of my most enduringly popular posts have been about Rogol Domedonfors/ Renée Bagslint. (See Renée Bagslint joins “The Conversation”.)  But the other day I suddenly noticed that his new friends weren’t dropping by any more. I wasn’t getting any more page hits.

Rogol used to come around here, making a lot of comments, and I mean a *lot*. Until one day my evil twin put him in the dungeon so I could go to the beach, and we sort of forgot about him. After that, things between us were never the same, and he found some new friends.

But Rogol turned out to be very hard to forget, especially when his new friends kept linking here.  It seems Rogol/Renée was very prolific over there.  Every time I checked, he was making 3 or 4 posts an hour. Yes, that’s not per day, that’s just in one hour.  And he kept it up for hours on end. The last time I checked, they were asking for his real name – they have a comment policy of real names only –  convinced that “Bagslint” could not be a real name.  Not a good sign.

And it didn’t help that he posted some advice about socking over on Dysk’s blog: “Serious sock-puppetteers may wish to invest in a few cheap notebooks or tablets, download a variety of browsers, and get themselves an unlocked MiFi.”  (Hmm….what is this MiFi of which you speak…) Yep, they linked to the WikiCabal too. They must have thought he was playing them.  (And not to go all Kohs or anything, but isn’t it “puppeteers”?)

So when his friends stopped coming around here, I had to go looking for him.  And he is gone.  His profile is a dead link. Or rather it links to their “oops” page.  Now that is _cold_.

And if you go back to the first article I linked to, “Theresa May’s Brexit deal… ” etc etc, his comments there have all disappeared (although someone did mention him in a comment).  Compare this to the version on the Wayback Machine that was  archived only a month ago.  https://web.archive.org/web/20190126215358/https://theconversation.com/theresa-mays-brexit-deal-is-dead-in-the-water-now-what-for-britain-107029

trump-inauguration-women-march
Trump (l), women (r)

The most hits ever came on Valentine’s Day, when they published “Climate change: young people striking from school see it for the life-threatening issue it is” by a guest writer and Rogol was all over it, like white on rice.  He carefully avoided the appearance being a climate change denier, but instead tried to discredit the protesting students. Yeah right, Millennials don’t know their own minds—NOT.

march-for-our-lives-aerial
March for our Lives

Ask the Parkland students — their march was even bigger than the women’s march, which was bigger than the Trump inauguration the day before.

But if you go back now, you will only see one comment from him.  All the responses from the readers he got riled up seem to be gone too. Even the Internet Archive has no trace of those comments.

bagslint not found

All that effort down the drain.  Just gone.  Hours and hours.  He should have taken my advice and started his own blog.

 

23 thoughts on “Rogol disappears

  1. Hopefully it’s not too annoying when I comment about a very specific narrow part of your posts instead of engaging with your message in general…. but Mi-Fi (aka Mobile Wi-Fi) is basically a wi-fi router that is connected on the cellular 3G+ network instead of a wired Internet connexion, so you can bring it anywhere you have cellular network and keep your devices connected to it over Wi-Fi. It’s similar to turning your phone into a Wi-Fi hotspot, except Mi-Fi is dedicated to only that function, usually allows more customized network configurations and more simultaneous devices

  2. Oh not at all, sometimes the digressions are the best part. If I really have a problem with something, I try to straighten it out by email first, then with Rulz. https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2018/09/04/what-gender-desk-is-not/

    But why would Mi-Fi be better for socking than a plain WiFi connection. (not that I am personally interested in socking or anything) It seems they would trace the device–it’s just a virtual cell phone yes? Or maybe the checkuser is dependent on IP or cookies.

  3. Checkuser can’t trace the device itself, only the cookies, browser useragent tag, and IP address, (but mainly they just look at the IP address), so if you use Mi-Fi, you have the advantage of being able to switch SIM card, in doing so changing network and IP addresses, and still being able to use a laptop with multiple profiles/browsers.

    A normal Wi-Fi router keeps the same IP address until it is reset, when it will generally get a new one on the same range of the same network. So it’s not as useful.

    A mobile phone has less software and less browser options, and it is harder to clear your cookies and change your browsers useragent tag. So that’s not as useful either.

      1. “By clicking on this button, only anonymous data will be collected and a cookie will be stored in your browser for four months.” No thanks. There is another one somewhere, I will try to find.

          1. Is this open source and/or published somewhere? Can anyone use it or do you need a technical background? I know the major browsers have plugins to change user agent, but I’m not sure how (or how well) they work.

  4. I used to have something like this only different, I got from a Pakistani supermarket, I think it had multiple SIM cards. But I think the data SIM are pretty hard to come by in the U.S. If you start a private channel every time you open a browser, it should not leave cookies then, no? Browser useragent tag…includes…info hardwired to the device, so this would not be an advantage for a laptop, as the useragent would be from the laptop …or does the Mi-Fi bypass this somehow? I think the checkuser must be very unreliable, you keep hearing about false positives.

  5. Thanks for taking such an interest in postings by people whom you believe to be me. The whole *The Conversation* story is rather interesting and I hope that you, your evil twin, and any other readers will bear with me. Yes, I did get banned from that site, on the grounds that The Powers That Be believed that Bagslint couldn’t be anyone’s real name. They had no evidence for that, since absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. However, it wasn’t until they discovered a blog post on a fourm somehwere alleging that Renée Bagslint was the same person as Rogol Domedonfors, that they felt able to declare that I was in breach of their Ts&Cs by not posting under my real name — yes, that’s right, they actually believe that in “reality” I am a fictional wizard from the far future! In fact, their real reason was that I was making myself unpopular by exposing the lack of logic and evidence from some of the more politically biassed opinion pieces masquerading as research reports.

    However, Wikipedians may like to take note of one interesting feature of this little saga — some of the parallels are uncanny. The Conversation has a “Community Council”, of trusted readers who are able to delete comments and have special access to deleted comments — just like admins. They are expected to be role models for exemplary behaviour in discussions — just like admins. They look out for sock puppets and people breaching the Ts&Cs — just like admins. And some of them abuse their petty privileges — just like admins. In this case, a couple of CC members decided that I was some kind of returning serially banned reader, and openly stated that, while another decided to remove my comments as “abusive” — meaning, at variance with the left-leaning editorial line. Not surprisingly I pushed back, and, rather more suprisingly, The Conversation has now disbanded this “Council” completely. They banned me at the same time, but, hey, everyone has to have a hobby.

  6. So you weren’t able to dislodge the Wikimedia Foundation, but were successful in sabotaging the Conversation’s Council. Interesting.

    So now you’re going to come over here and do a few victory laps and a little bragging. It’s amazing the lengths some people are willing to go to to “own the libs”.

    That’s the thing with volunteerism. Some people try to create things and build relationships and solve problems, while others go around finding fault and looking for things to complain about. But since they are volunteers, they get to pick what they want to do.

    1. “sabotaging the Conversation’s Council” — I prefer to to think of it as exposing the violence inherent in the system.

      “finding fault and looking for things to complain about” — er, isn’t that what the whole of the “critical community” is doing, at least vis-a-via Wikipedia: you know, trying to ensure that the barbarians don’t win?

      1. By “violence inherent in the system” I take it you mean you intentionally stood in their way and disrupted their business model in order to force them to remove you so you could complain about being removed.

        But it seems that what you are promoting – by disrupting their comment system – is the opposite of “a mandate from the masses”.., I mean, the Wikimedia blog moved off of volunteer territory completely into their own space in the foundation URL, and no longer accepts comments. Which is pretty much the opposite of volunteer input. And you are carrying water for…Big Oil? And anyone who isn’t a Tory is a barbarian? Or are you the scion of a big oil family, in which case you wouldn’t be British but maybe Russian or Saudi, or in their employ. Which would certainly give you incentive not to use your family name.

        1. Since you ask: “disrupted their business model in order to force them to remove you so you could complain about being removed.” No, I exposed their hypocrisy and bias. “you are carrying water for…Big Oil?” “are you the scion of a big oil family” “or in their employ” No, no and no. I prefer to see, and take, constructive practical action on climate change, rather than prance about shouting slogans. “anyone who isn’t a Tory is a barbarian? ” No, that’s not what what I think, and nothing like anything I ever said, although like you I hope the barbarians don’t win. “incentive not to use your family name” Why would you think that, Ms Desk?

          1. Okay, so this is the same old, same old.

            Renee/Rogol appears to be intellectual, given to outrage and negativity, eager to take pot shots at centrist and progressive views, but very carefully avoids exposing actual views. The tactic is to bombard comment forums with spam, “concern trolling”, and posing comments as questions or implied questions. Numerous offers to post links to blog posts, essays, analyses, in-depth assessment etc, are ignored.

            And now, after special Rulz that were made specially just for Rogol, and special tutoring from my ever-patient and long-suffering Evil Twin, it appears that Rogol is still not ready to cut to the chase. Oh, Rogol, Rogol, Rogol, what am I going to do with you?

  7. how much admin abuse is there on the english wikipedia, actually? does anyone regularly vet admin logs or anything like that?

    [Note: name of Wikipedia admin removed so no one thinks it’s impersonation. -GD]

  8. Um, would you like to pick a different user name? I don’t mind objecting to admins by name, if there is some context and links, and I don’t mind implying that admins in general might be smoking something, or that specific admins are stoners, if they have said so themselves. But I think linking a specific named volunteer with drug use out of the blue is not quite fair. Other than that, it’s a really good question. A pity Wikipediocracy hasn’t set something up. I bet they could find out what the logs are and how they are being used.

    New post, Open thread: which admins are stoners?

  9. smh, it’s the Oshwah hate cultists at work again.

    “the oshwah drug traffickers association”

    [redacted] off.

    (feel free to delete this message if it seems too rude for this venue)

    [edited -GD]

  10. Well, no one cares about anyone’s real identity here. That’s why everyone is anonymous, to be able to discuss things more openly.

    But “Oshwah hate cultists at work again”, it sounds like they’ve been around before. I hope Oswah didn’t block Congress again.

    I am giving them a special thread to explain, if they want [Open thread….]. If they don’t want to explain here, there is always the WikiInAction reddit. Or email (in the side bar), if they don’t want to expose their IP, but sometimes I am slow with checking the email.

  11. “are you the scion of a big oil family, in which case you wouldn’t be British but maybe Russian or Saudi, or in their employ. Which would certainly give you incentive not to use your family name.”

    “no one cares about anyone’s real identity here”r

    1. And we are still no closer to discovering Rogol’s motives either…surely he has some skin in the game somewhere, but if he can’t talk about it, …must be pretty bad.

      [EDIT]
      Okay, I’ll tell you what, Rogol, my Evil Twin says you’ve exceeded your two-comment limit again, and you’re becoming insufferable, so why don’t you write a nice essay about who is Icky, why it matters and all of that, send me a link, and I’ll post it here. Be sure to make it interesting to read so you will get lots of page hits. I see this subdomain is available https://en.wordpress.com/typo/?subdomain=bagslint

      Extra credit if you can use this:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s