SlimVirgin's melt down on the WikiEN-l, too much BS for even David Gerard Options

[Pumpkin Muffins]

Looks like Slimmy is getting dressed down on WikiEN-l:
-----------------------------

<<Slimmy>> There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that Lar checked.
<David Gerard> ... Please detail why you feel you are immune to checkuser.
-----------------------------

<<<Slimmy>>> Both the first and second editor were affected by this. The first abandoned the checked accounts because Lar is not trusted.
<<Luna>> Lar is not trusted? Why not? By whom? ...
<David Gerard>Indeed. Casual slander is not a robust method of policy formation.
-----------------------------

<David Katz>SlimVirgin has abusively sockpuppeted before - as Sweet Blue Water if my memory is correct - a sock which she tag teamed with on articles and used to vote twice in some instances. I don't think she's in a position to get self righteous that anyone would think she might be sockpuppeting again, particularly as she's never apologized or explained the SWB sock.
----------------------------

And for the grand finale, from Larry himself;

Sarah:

I've been mostly staying out of addressing your allegations because I rather
hoped that, given the amount of discussion and investigation there was about
the whole thing, that this matter had been settled some time ago. I also
refrained from giving detail in order to preserve the privacy of all
involved as much as possible. I intend to hew to that and not give detail
here either. However I just cannot allow this canard of yours to stand
without correction.

> There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that
> Lar checked. If you know some of the details of the case, and
> I assume you do (though I also know you don't know all of
> them), you'll know that he had no grounds *whatsoever* to
> perform the first check,

Patently false, and repeating it won't make it true. There was a very good
reason for the initial check. I performed the initial check based on my
judgement that a good and valid request for a check had been presented to
me. An ombudsman reviewed the request I was given and agreed with me that I
had good reason to run the check. You conveniently fail to mention that.

> or the second

As every good checkuser does, I follow checks where they lead. And when they
lead to surprising results, as this one did, I don't go public without close
consultation with my colleagues. Which is what happened in this case. After
consultation, there was no need to make the results public or act further on
them, and every good reason to not do so. You conveniently fail to mention
that as well.

> but it was assumed and hoped that both checks might lead to me.

You assume too much, I think. Unless of course your real reason for raising
this is to try to damage my reputation in order to win unrelated disputes, a
tactic that I think will increasingly fail you going forward, as more people
realise you do so.

> He performed the check upon the private request of a troublemaker who has
been harassing me for over a year.

I think you overplay the harassment card sometimes. This is one of those
times.

Others have advised you that this matter is settled. Let it be. Stop trying
to smear people.

Larry Pieniazek

[Piperdown]

i agree with Patrick Byrne (imagine that!) on his old classmate's situation...I find no pleasure and no further point in taking any joy or any victory in directly causing SlimV any distress.

I merely ask those on WP who have taken the damsel in distress routine too far on too many occasions:

1) Cla68 is one of your best editors, best problem resolutionists, and most level-headed adults. SlimVirgin fucked him over terribly for, as Johnny Cash would say, just to see his RFA die. WP, apologise to Cla68 on behalf of SV, let his RFA proceed and tell SV and her ever shrinking circle to give it a rest.

2) Take away SV's adminship. Let her edit, she's quite good at it. When the playing field is equal. When she had admin privies on a topic she's emotionally vested in, abuses have happened and continue to happen. WP will be a better place with an SV contributing as an editor and not as and admin. WP - some of your best editors make your worst admins, and vice versa. Look at Jimbo. Couldn't edit his way out of a wet paper sack. Runs your wiki. LOL.

3) Declare that the following editors should also have deadminned for the same reasons SV should be"

Crum
Jayjg
JzG

They have no business being admins. POV warriors yes, admins no.

4) Ban FM for OddNature. Extensive abusive sock puppetry = bannning of all accounts involved. Let him start from wikiscratch.

[gomi]

2) Take away SV's adminship. Let her edit, she's quite good at it. When the playing field is equal. When she had admin privies on a topic she's emotionally vested in, abuses have happened and continue to happen. WP will be a better place with an SV contributing as an editor and not as and admin.

This is an admirable, turn-the-other-cheek sentiment, but I think that in the unlikely event it is ever implemented, it will not work, unless Jayjg, Crum375, JoshuaZ and some others are de-adminned at the same time.

Slim has only indef-blocked 18 times in the last year, and most of those were in 2007. She doesn't really use the admin tools that much. She has become something of a shadow warrior, depending on her cronies for most of the real abuse. Jayjg, despite taking a nearly 5-month leave of absence, has blocked dozens of times in that period, as has Crum375, including such exceptional ones as this.

No, I think de-adminning Slimey may have the perverse effect of making her more powerful. Many will think she was wronged, and she'll simply move to directing malfeasance from her lair.

[Giggy]

2) Take away SV's adminship. Let her edit, she's quite good at it. When the playing field is equal. When she had admin privies on a topic she's emotionally vested in, abuses have happened and continue to happen. WP will be a better place with an SV contributing as an editor and not as and admin.

This is an admirable, turn-the-other-cheek sentiment, but I think that in the unlikely event it is ever implemented, it will not work, unless Jayjg, Crum375, JoshuaZ and some others are de-adminned at the same time.

Slim has only indef-blocked 18 times in the last year, and most of those were in 2007. She doesn't really use the admin tools that much. She has become something of a shadow warrior, depending on her cronies for most of the real abuse. Jayjg, despite taking a nearly 5-month leave of absence, has blocked dozens of times in that period, as has Crum375, including such exceptional ones as this.

No, I think de-adminning Slimey may have the perverse effect of making her more powerful. Many will think she was wronged, and she'll simply move to directing malfeasance from her lair.

His third proposal was to desysop those guys too, or something along those lines. I can't say it's a bad idea.