After denying the leaked logs, then acknowleding them, then denying
   them again, Cryptome edits their own Wikipedia page. Again.
   [1]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. [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_inter
   est
   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 <[3]themikebest@gmail.com>
   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.
   [4]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.
   [5]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.
   [6]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.
   [7]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.
   [8]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.
   [9]https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652579919340421120

   On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:45 PM, coderman <[10]coderman@gmail.com>
   wrote:

     On 10/9/15, Michael Best <[11]themikebest@gmail.com> wrote:
     > ...
     > Not sure how I was right AND the info is rigged and disinfo...
     QUANTUMSQUIRREL casts suspicion, just like shade, too.

References

   1. https://twitter.com/NatSecGeek/status/652593111881908224
   2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
   3. mailto:themikebest@gmail.com
   4. https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652581186036989953
   5. https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652585088912355328
   6. https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652581918215684096
   7. https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652582251805474816
   8. https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652583921352355840
   9. https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652579919340421120
  10. mailto:coderman@gmail.com
  11. mailto:themikebest@gmail.com