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 <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. 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 <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 10/9/15, Michael Best <themikebest@gmail.com> wrote:

...

... Not sure how I was right AND the info is rigged and disinfo...

QUANTUMSQUIRREL casts suspicion, just like shade, too.