The saga of Patchou and his short lived MVP award
I had originally decided not to blog or otherwise comment publicly about Patchou's short lived MVP award because I felt it was not appropriate for me to participate in the online maelstrom that blew up around his award because of my previous blog and Web site entries about the Sponsor Program and Patchou. Therefore, I made no public comment, leaving it to others to speak publicly about what they thought of the situation.
Unfortunately, some of Patchou's supporters at www.msgplus.net have forced my hand.
"Sunshine", Female Elite Member, Msg Plus! Official Tester, Msg Plus! Sound Moderator, Dutch Msg Plus! Forums Smod, SPNG Betatester, Messenger Plus! SoundPack DB Admin (CR), and a long time participant at the msgplus forums, says in a message here:
Note: you will need to be a registered with, and signed in to, msghelp.net to access this URL
http://www.msghelp.net/showthread.php?tid=67092&pid=739699#pid739699
Edit: the original forum threads have been deleted, but preserved at the following links - these pages may disappear as well:
http://random.menthix.net/Patchou_MVP/Patchou%20Lost%20MVP%20Status%20-%20page1.htm
http://random.menthix.net/Patchou_MVP/Patchou%20Lost%20MVP%20Status%20-%20page2.htm
Sunshine said: "All this happend because, asfar as my eyes can see, two MVPs (namely Sandi Hardmeier and Christopher Boyd) complained and threathened to withdraw themselves from re-evaluation if Patchou kept his MVP status."
She continues on saying "
hat they don't seem to get is the fact that Patchou gotten this status because of his programming work/skills in total...not the optional sponsorprogram...All they see is ohh deary me you could install some adware (not even looking for the reason behind why there is such a thing), not what Plus! (and with that Patchou) done for Messenger.
Microsoft knows what Plus! means for Messenger..that's why he was given that status (i still think patchou deserves MVP status) and tbh i don't get why they revoke it over 2 people complaining. Asfar as i know there is no voting on wether or not someone gets MVP status...i know MVPs can suggest people for MVP status, but the final decision lies with Microsoft..not other MVPs! A much fairer decision would have been to let Patchou keep his status and look again when it's re-evaluation time...all this doesn't make Microsoft look all to good either. Now i don't know about all them rules for becoming MVP and if there is such a rule that one can't make revenue of a program written (and surely Patchou has bugbusted messenger along with us all too)..this is just my opinion on the whole matter."
And then, when some who *are* in a position to know what I did or didn't do posted to point out the errors in her statement she said:
Note: you will need to be a registered with, and signed in to, msghelp.net to access this URL (the original thread in forum has been deleted)
http://www.msghelp.net/showthread.php?tid=67092&pid=739718#pid739718
"Those two did start it, ever heard of followers? Besides i don't think they are the ones deciding on wether an award is to be granted or not."
Fine. Since Sunshine wants to argue the point, I shall respond on my own behalf.
Sunshine's allegations are completely and utterly false.
Here are the FACTS:
1) I did not complain to MS about Patchou's award, nor ask MS to rescind the award.
2) I did take part in discussions on some private email lists and agreed to sign a petition that was being composed BUT the petition was not my idea AND I was only one of many who said they would sign the petition AND the petition was not finalised or sent because Patchou's award was revoked before that could occur.
3) I did NOT threaten to withdraw myself from the MVP Program.
4) I said nothing in the public MS newsgroups until AFTER Patchou's award was rescinded.
5) I said nothing in the private MVP newsgroups until AFTER Patchou's award was rescinded, and then only because I was referred to by name.
6) Some MVPs even queried why I was being so quiet about the whole situation.
7) I was not interviewed for any of the online articles that appeared - instead, my previous writings were quoted. I did not give my permission for my writings to be used in any of the news articles. I received email one request for an interview, but did not read that email request until after the reporter's article went live because the request was sent to my spamtrap email account. I *would* have given my permission if I had been asked, but the fact remains that I did not have the opportunity to give, or withhold, my permission.
8) I did not write a blog post mentioning Patchou's award until today, again AFTER his award was rescinded and only because I was Slashdotted and I found it a good opportunity to talk about the power of the online community. Even then I only mentioned that the award was short lived and made no further comment.
I actually feel very sorry for Patchou because it is not nice to have a gift or award given, and then taken away. We have had some very reasonable and open discussions by email about our respectives positions on the various issues surrounding the sponsor program. That being said, I am relieved that Patchou's MVP Award was rescinded although, of course, it would have been far better if he had not been awarded at all.
MP supporters keep saying that the Sponsor Program is "optional", as if that somehow makes everything ok. It doesn't.
- Those agreeing to install the sponsor would not be aware of the risk that they are taking on by doing so. They know that they are getting adware, but even if they read the entire EULA they still will not know that the advertisements that appear have a history of being used by malware pushers as a vector to try and infect computers.
- The advertisements generated by the lop.com adware that is the heart of the Messenger Plus Sponsor Program are a direct security risk, with malware pushers using pop-up advertisements generated by the sponsor as an infection vector to attempt to install malware such as winfixer onto user's computers. These attempts can infect older systems, or systems with reduced security settings. Patchou seems unable to stop this from happening, yet is unwilling to forgo the income that the advertising generates.
- Patchou said a long time ago, and I quote, "if no one installs the sponsor with the new agreement window, I'll change it back, sorry".
- Patchou's work on Messenger Plus! does not, and can not, outweigh the fact that his Sponsor Program has been used as a malware infection vector, that it is presenting age inappropriate advertising to his underage users (and he must know that he has underage users - all you have to do is spend some time in his forums to see that) and that the advertisements generated by his Sponsor Program can put his users at risk.
- Yes, Patchou knows that malware pushers use his sponsor program as an infection vector. He has addressed individual examples of malware pushers using his Sponsor Program to spread when I have informed him that it is occurring, but that is not good enough. I can't and won't spend all my time policing his Sponsor's advertisements for him. There are many sites out there that use pop-up windows for advertising that do not have a problem with malware pushers or fake anti-spyware services hawking their wares. So why can't Patchou's current "distributor", Circle Distribution, do the same? If his "distributor" does not have the skills or technology to clean up the advertisements then he should find one that does.
- Patchou's software is used by *kids* yet he will not or can not stop the gambling, dating and age inappropriate advertising.
- Some of the pop-ups generated by his sponsor program direct users to Web sites that are a security risk in and of themselves, also attempting to install additional adware or malware.
- The sponsor program advertisements promote adware, they promote betrayware, they promote sites that in and of themselves are risky to visit.
- Yes, Windows Live Messenger (aka MSN Messenger) has advertising, but those advertisements do not present a security risk like that described in this blog post, nor are fake anti-spyware products or malware advertised.
Update: Sunshine, after reading all of the above, posted an apology to the now deleted thread as follows:
"I've read what you linked to and i also read the Spyware Sucks blog...apparently someone slashdotted an article from her blog.
Let me explain how i got to think she had anything to do with it:
I saw a TeMerc commenting on vitalsecurity article, wich i believed was Sandi..contribution to that confusion is a forumthread i found on TeMerc's forum in wich in the second post someone says "Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble Sandi" from wich i concluded first poster must be Sandi. I sincerely apologise to Sandi for this misconception..it was TeMerc i should have been refering to (whoever that might be).
Point remains however that Patchou's MVP status wasn't "discussed" until that article appeared on VitalSecurity.org."
Microsoft issues a statement about why they revoked Patchou's MVP status:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks/archive/2006/10/09/164071.aspx