Finding Mr X - Cycling Tips Investigates the "Drivers for Registration of Cyclists" Hate Page

[bychosis]

The whole thing is disturbing the the fake pictures, and sad that someone resorts to outright lies to push the point.

That's the worst part. If it was a legit picture to make a point, then maybe you could forgive them their argument, but baiting the whack jobs with photoshopped images is leaning heavily toward hate speech and incitement to violence.

[Duck!]

Not to mention the identity fraud of the "admin's profile", dragging in some poor bloke who's apparently never even met the guy to get on his bad side.

[10speedsemiracer]

Ok so google tells me that it's *probably* Queensland ex competitive cyclist **** ******, but that is still only suspected. Whether or not this is the actual guy that's running DFROC , I am at least certain that this *is* the character that the above cycling tips article is discussing.

Yes definitely mental issues, no doubt about that. The behavior leading up to this (as described in the cycling tips article), where he keeps falling out with every group he tries to ride with, points to a controlling type personality disorder. It's not unlike those cases you read about where someone cannot get on with anyone at work and they get fired - then come back the next week and shoot up the place trying to kill everyone.

So if multiple people suggest not speculating or alluding to a person's identity, and the person is clearly experiencing some form of psychological issue which manifests itself in identity theft, threatening behaviour and possibly an unpredictable physical reaction if ever met.....*why would you write this post?

Sorry uart I don't mean to be insensitive or judgemental I just don't understand...

[AndrewCowley]

He who shall not be named.

[AUbicycles]

Mod Stuff: There is no benefit to naming the rider here if you know (or a guessing) so please don't.

[AUbicycles]

Comments on the coverage.

The article was interesting to read and for people familiar already, much of it was already known but I felt somewhat annoyed by the sensationalism of asking questions.... but then having a let down. This was done for identical questions a few times - it certainly works for readers thinking "so now you are going to reveal something new". I understand that the piece reflects a linear narrative and the thoughts or anticipation of the authors but it is still edited and in the end moves much closer to an opinion style article than investigative journalism.

But I still appreciate that the authors were torn... essentially identifying a person following this article is easy and while a name isn't given, everything else provided. The result is that is a documentation rather than a critical analysis and there are very real questions - if the person (Mr X) feels targeted there could be further reaction... both in further targeting cycling progress but also potential more tragic consequences.

With this very direct article, the authors certainly are aware of potential consequences and the possibility for it to do more harm than good.

What is missing is "What Now".... or rather, when this type of targeting happens, how can it be prevented / limited / reversed but also, now the article is published, what are positive and active steps to prevent the same destructive activity or to work against it.

A few groups and individuals had been actively working to highlight the fake content along with lobbying and reporting fake content with hosts Facebook and Change.org essentially took now action and made no response (that I am aware of).


For this discussion, I would love to gather input about how the community should react or work to prevent it from having such an impact. Politicians and decision makers have a tendency to react rashly on topical issues to try and win favour with the masses - so fake content and popularity built on false premises can negative impact cycling safety.

[uart]

So if multiple people suggest not speculating or alluding to a person's identity, and the person is clearly experiencing some form of psychological issue which manifests itself in identity theft, threatening behaviour and possibly an unpredictable physical reaction if ever met.....*why would you write this post?

Initially?

I'm very annoyed, naturally.
Voluntarily excluding this sicko's identity condones him.

[AUbicycles]

Voluntarily excluding this sicko's identity condones him.

I understand where you are coming from and it appears that there is compelling evidence, but we also have to be careful of the mob-mentality and internet-vigilantes. What if one piece of information is wrong and there are consequences or repercussions?

Fighting fire with fire is tricky and CyclingTip 'almost' expose an individual... perhaps it is also a reaction to the pain and hurt from the damage to the cycling cause, a type of revenge. But there are also other approaches and potentially a few unknowns.


Shaming is one approach... and if it all adds up, there is more than enough that this was done in the CT article.

But other next steps including publicising the fraud to the media... and that there was active manipulation. I think some individuals / entities are onto this this and the benefit is that media outlets should question it more.

Also shaming Facebook and Change.org who hosted the content... received numerous reports but failed to act or respond. More accountability.

So this is where I feel that anger and frustration should lead... refocussing and working on preventing or creating positive info. There may even be a stronger catalyst for cycling advocacy groups to unite strongly and work more closely together.

[Jmuzz]

I'm very annoyed, naturally.
Voluntarily excluding this sicko's identity condones him.

Everyone who has followed the page/petition progress and his local groups already knew all the details. He basically confirmed it himself with the ludicrous fake letter on his own page.

If anyone wasn't interested before to watch the saga then it's not too critical they be told is it?

The journalists and the admin here don't need the legal hassles and the stalking, identity fraud and totally unpredictable behaviour which has been suggested he might resort to if you pick a fight.

He had gone quiet possibly with a new hobby to move on in life, hopefully the article doesn't bring him back even angrier.

[Howzat]

He had gone quiet possibly with a new hobby to move on in life, hopefully the article doesn't bring him back even angrier.

That's the "Ignore him and he'll just go away" ploy. Ever met a bully who was impressed by that?

Ignoring him is how he got 80K signatures on his cyclist-hate poll.

If you want to beat a bully, stand up to him, and make him understand there is a price to be paid for the hate-baiting. Naming him is a good first step. In the article, that's what DFROC-exposed does, and effectively.

[tcdev]

Personally I don't see the reason some are calling for "name and shame". Why? What are you or anyone else going to do with that information? I suspect nothing - except cause someone to potentially become a target of an obviously mentally unstable individual. It's a very open secret anyway, posted numerous times on FB and turns up in the top few Google hits.

A caveat for those that haven't read the article: as interesting as the article is, it labours the point over and over and over again. It could have been about one quarter the length and still conveyed all the important information contained within it.

[Howzat]

...we also have to be careful of the mob-mentality and internet-vigilantes. What if one piece of information is wrong and there are consequences or repercussions?

Jeepers Chris, this is weak tea.

Mob mentality and vigilantism is not some remote possibility to be speculated about and guarded against.

Its real and it's deadly and happening - and it's directed against cyclists every day by hoons and bogans riled up by this kind of hate. Tomorrow people will get honked at, shouted at, close-shaved and intimidated by angry drivers who think they are in the right because cyclists should be in single file - they signed the petition on that just last month. Bike-riders are "breaking the law" by riding on the road so time to teach them a lesson. Pretty sure that's what the shock jocks said. They don't pay rego. So you're allowed to get them.

Actual vigilantism is an actual problem.

But what you - and Cycling Tips - are worried about is "both sides" vigilantism, as if some weight-weenie mamils are going to go over to his place and do skids on his lawn or ring their bells outside his house or something.

It's is the most craven, namby-pamby, short-sighted false equivalence I can recall. For shame.

[10speedsemiracer]

He had gone quiet possibly with a new hobby to move on in life, hopefully the article doesn't bring him back even angrier.

That's the "Ignore him and he'll just go away" ploy. Ever met a bully who was impressed by that?

Ignoring him is how he got 80K signatures on his cyclist-hate poll.

If you want to beat a bully, stand up to him, and make him understand there is a price to be paid for the hate-baiting. Naming him is a good first step. In the article, that's what DFROC-exposed does, and effectively.

Agree with what you are saying, if we were just dealing with some smug ignorant opinionated internet bully. And so what, he's got some signatures on some piss-ant little petition..
But this muppet has already demonstrated that he is far worse than that. He is obviously not rational, and the unpredictability coupled with historical events, and the loser here would be this forum if this idiot decided to get nasty. Especially now that events are in flux.
And if he is indeed feeling wrongly persecuted and backed into a metaphorical corner, the likelihood is that he would react desperately (DDOS, Hijack, Court Order, Civil suit ?).
Much safer to not invite even the possibility of being immersed in this cesspool as I doubt BNA would be adequately resourced financially to deal with any sort of action, which is not a criticism more an observation on the type of forum this is, being a member-centric forum which has not been transmogrified into a platform for ceaseless and invasive advertising. So safest thing is to not get directly involved or expose itself.

The risk to BNA far outweighs any perceived benefit (of which I can't see any).

Plus, I don't see where he was named in the article, and have no doubt that the article (as padded and meandering as it was) was washed and scrubbed by legal-beagles before publication. Honestly the whole thing could have been condensed into a couple of paragraphs.

[Howzat]

Yeah, I can see the real fear may well be a libel suit.

So say so.

[10speedsemiracer]

well that's the problem, this looney-toon (medical terminology) is so unpredictable it could be anything.

[AUbicycles]

Jeepers Chris, this is weak tea.

Mob mentality and vigilantism is not some remote possibility to be speculated about and guarded against.

But isn't this a contradiction - when I highlight this risk and it is questioned but then noted that it is infact a risk?


I understand that you are presenting a solution to tackle this by reacting in the same way back.

Sure, that is one way... but not an approach I support because I feel it would escalate it and further polarise. In the cycling advocacy world, I think there is an advantage with a more considered approach. Many people and groups took a non-confrontation approach during the onslaughts to report and encourage the hosts to review and take down the hate content, unfortunately without much success.

The boring approach of forgetting the 'wicked witch of the west' can de-escalate if the momentum is taken out, however can also leave a critical issue left unchallenged.

I am still interested in understanding what other approaches are available to limit or stop these types of threats... and what do passionate cyclists and advocacy groups need to do or change in future.


For BNA, I am happy to keep it out of the limelight and there is also a very real factor of being very careful representing cycling topics. Not really related to this issue, but on other cycling topics if BNA publicly pushes an approach but it is not endorsed by all members, that is problematic so instead a middle-line or even an observation role makes more sense.

But... when it comes to member initiatives and gaining support and traction for important approach or ideas... just ask.

Cheers
Christopher

[lone rider]

I can see CT's point of view is to draw attention to the guy for those that don't know the back story. Those that wish to find out who he is, it's literally 10 seconds on Google so I guess to a legal extent he has been exposed as far as they can. I'm still not sure it was worthy of the cloak and daggers type of writing that was displayed, it reads a lot like the transcript of an ACA/TT expose. I mean did they seriously go on the road, undercover to the GC to interview people in the article? That's nearly as odd behaviour as the protagonist. I was glad to read he has been outcast by the local cycling community, the rest I dont really care about that much.

[fat and old]

Best post yet....it did sound like an ACA story.

Should BNA stay out of it? Of course
Is the bloke rational? I think he is actually as far as the fb page goes.
Will he fight back? Who cares.
Will ignoring it work? Ask George over on stop the tacks.
Is this whole saga overblown? Yeah
Should Dave live up to his own hype and belt him? Yes.
Should Sean live up to his own hype and launch a private criminal case? Yeah....I wanna see that.
Meh, another day on the bike. Who said it was boring?

[fat and old]

With this very direct article, the authors certainly are aware of potential consequences and the possibility for it to do more harm than good.

What is missing is "What Now"....

Clicks man. Clicks!!! That’s what now!

Every forum and Facebook page remotely connected to cycling is talking about CT. Mission accomplished.

[andrewjcw]

I mean c'mon... it's cyclingtips.com not the bloody Wall Street Journal. They write stuff to entertain bored cyclists not undercover international conspiracies. I think the article is great. Sure BNA as an org has to be neutral and non committal blah blah but expecting Facebook or Change.org or Sunrise to get to the bottom of some bored angry Facebook troll is really naive. The article puts enough together to basically say the gig is up, we know what you're doing and you've crossed the line from trolling to harassment/abuse so cut the crap. Seems like a pretty good way to deal with things honestly unless you're the type that believes sending a box of chocolates and a smile can 'save' serial internet trolls.

[find_bruce]

Facebook should be caring because it’s exactly the fake news that is trashing their business model

[Jmuzz]

Facebook should be caring because it’s exactly the fake news that is trashing their business model

That might be why it has been gone for a while.
They have had a big crackdown on fake news after Zuckie was hauled before the senate or whatever, the site literally has news screenshots with photoshopped headlines so doesn't get much fake news'er than that.

They banned InfoWars this week so are being pretty tough, at least on rightwing stuff, which anti cycle is more or less.

[AUbicycles]

So much to say... and some really good points, nice summary fat and old!


Regarding media / facebooke / change.org - it is not an expectation but a suggestion that these have all failed by hosting and promoting the fake content. Surely this is embarrassing because they were told it was fake... the content was reported, but the continued. This is where Cycle.org with their media activity may become a little more active and guide media towards credible coverage.

Facebook don't care (they are running multi-million dollar campaigns in Europe to apologise to people.... but it is insincere and really just brand advertising) and change.org may indeed simply not care.

For Change.org - a number of cycling positive endeavours have been run through it - perhaps their actions of ignoring the reports and calls to remove the fake campaign is a signal for cyclists to turn their back on them and look for other channels when raising awareness and publicity for important issues.

[mikesbytes]

One has to remember that encouraging hate is going to encourage some who lack good judgement skills to increase the danger to others. Inducing hate may indirectly result in someones death

[Duck!]

Much as we'd like mto hang the guy by his..... thumbs, there are some legal implcations which make it unwise to publically name the guy prematurely.

Given the murky history of DFROC shrouded in identity fraud, it's not impossible - but on balance of the evdence available, improbable - that Mr X (or is it Mr V?) is another puppet drawn into the mess, and the due process should be allowed to determine first if Mr V is indeed the scumbag before plastering his name everywhere. Throwing mud at the wrong guy could end up with messy defamation cases.

There is a huge raft of apparent crimes throughout this whole saga, way beyond the relatively simple hate speech and inciting violence; there's the aforementioned identity fraud, more than one it would appear; multitudes of copyright infringements - the source photos for his work are likely not all his, then add in the almost certainly unauthorised use and modification of those photos, the fake current affais show "screen shots", which would also fall under copyright regs..... This is a big, complex case that is going to take a fair while to process. When the legal mud sticks and there is a formal case lodged against the guy, then his name may be released.