What are you doing, SV?, A brief review of Slim & "Animal Rights" Options

[Cla68]

What are your other accounts, SV/HFO? Do you have a problem with Tryptofish because he/she disagrees with some of the content in a certain article?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Milton Roe]

What are your other accounts, SV/HFO? Do you have a problem with Tryptofish because he/she disagrees with some of the content in a certain article?

LOL. Didn't I opine somewhere that women in particular get nutty about the gender of things? In this case, we don't know the monkey's gender, but SV doesn't want it to be called "it" but "she". But SV would have no problem with "it" if it was a castrated monkey. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

And if SV should ever have occasion to be castrated itself, I have no doubt that it will have no problem with people refering to it, from then-on, as "it." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Personally, I've thought of SV as "it" for some time, now. But that's just me.

[Daniel]

lol @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=279840350

[Milton Roe]

lol @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=279840350

Quite obviously Tryptofish might be any fishy person here on WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) And you never know who else on WP. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I wonder if SV has enough social capital left on WP to even get a checkuser done? Bother. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Somey]

I wonder if SV has enough social capital left on WP to even get a checkuser done?

Possibly, but if it turns out that this is someone like FT2 or one of the members of the Bishonen/Giano/Geogre club, that could backfire on her. Then again, it's impossible to say how these things will play out these days.

Still, there's no legitimate reason to think this person isn't legitimate, just because he/she happens to have shown up on Animal Rights (T-H-L-K-D), Atheism (T-H-L-K-D), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (T-H-L-K-D) all within the same month.

Oddly enough, when this same sort of thing happens to Don Murphy, nobody seems to mind so much! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[Proabivouac]

Quite obviously Tryptofish might be any fishy person here on WR.

That's a reasonable hypothesis, considering that a member of WR's staff has a history of creating sockpuppets precisely for this purpose.

[emesee]

A human holds a rope around the monkey's neck

[Cla68]

I wonder if SV has enough social capital left on WP to even get a checkuser done?

Possibly, but if it turns out that this is someone like FT2 or one of the members of the Bishonen/Giano/Geogre club, that could backfire on her. Then again, it's impossible to say how these things will play out these days.

Still, there's no legitimate reason to think this person isn't legitimate, just because he/she happens to have shown up on Animal Rights (T-H-L-K-D), Atheism (T-H-L-K-D), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (T-H-L-K-D) all within the same month.

Oddly enough, when this same sort of thing happens to Don Murphy, nobody seems to mind so much! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Well, Tryptofish did seem to know how to push her buttons. Unfortunately, SV responded by reverting back to old form with edit warring, moving comments around on the talk page, personalizing the argument, then attacking the editor on his/her userpage.

Some editors don't seem to understand what a wiki is. One of the ramifications of a wiki is that you can spend 20-hours a day for two or three years constructing a select list of articles exactly the way you want them to read, and then someone can come along and change the entire tone of each article within 30-minutes to an hour with some strategic editing. If, as an editor, you can't accept that, then Wikipedia is not the venue for you.

[gomi]

What are your other accounts, SV/HFO? Do you have a problem with Tryptofish because he/she disagrees with some of the content in a certain article?

I've always been in favor of shining light on these creepy tactics, and this is a good one. It is widespread, though SlimVirgin is a leading participant. You can bet that if one of the Kabal asks this question, you are not long for Wikipedia. Some other links:

• Slim asks Applensauce (T-C-L-K-R-D) the question, and he/she/it is soon after blocked. Same with Axxaer (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
  
• Slim and Jayjg tag-team Katie_Jemson (T-C-L-K-R-D) in the same way.
  
• The triple-threat of Slim, Jayjg, and IronDuke conspire to do the same here, here, and here.
  
• IronDuke (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Jayjg's meatpuppet and Special Helper In Training follows suit on his own here and here, but he's only a little S.H.I.T, so he only does it to IPs who edit in ways that displease him.

The message here is: if you stay away from articles Slim, Jayjg, or their cabal WP:OWN, then do your will, but edit in a way a powerful admin doesn't like, and you're immediately accused of being the dreaded "sockpuppet", if only on the basis of one or two edits!

[emesee]

What are your other accounts, SV/HFO? Do you have a problem with Tryptofish because he/she disagrees with some of the content in a certain article?

I've always been in favor of shining light on these creepy tactics, and this is a good one. It is widespread, though SlimVirgin is a leading participant. You can bet that if one of the Kabal asks this question, you are not long for Wikipedia. Some other links:

• Slim asks Applensauce (T-C-L-K-R-D) the question, and he/she/it is soon after blocked. Same with Axxaer (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
  
• Slim and Jayjg tag-team Katie_Jemson (T-C-L-K-R-D) in the same way.
  
• The triple-threat of Slim, Jayjg, and IronDuke conspire to do the same here, here, and here.
  
• IronDuke (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Jayjg's meatpuppet and Special Helper In Training follows suit on his own here and here, but he's only a little S.H.I.T, so he only does it to IPs who edit in ways that displease him.

The message here is: if you stay away from articles Slim, Jayjg, or their cabal WP:OWN, then do your will, but edit in a way a powerful admin doesn't like, and you're immediately accused of being the dreaded "sockpuppet", if only on the basis of one or two edits!

But the power at the top is apparently all fine with this. Its gone on for a while it seems. So certainly, if they think that it is probably fine that all this goes on. They must be right. Nothing's amiss, nothing to see here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

[Proabivouac]

I've always been in favor of shining light on these creepy tactics, and this is a good one.

We think the same way!

If you want to bait her, start messing gently with the PETA and other "animal rights" pages.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...438&#entry50438

[Alison]

I've always been in favor of shining light on these creepy tactics, and this is a good one.

We think the same way!

If you want to bait her, start messing gently with the PETA and other "animal rights" pages.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...438&#entry50438

Oops!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[gomi]

I've always been in favor of shining light on these creepy tactics, and this is a good one.

We think the same way!

If you want to bait her, start messing gently with the PETA and other "animal rights" pages.

Aww, Proab, I understand you feel the all-consuming urge to defend SlimVirgin, but you left out the context:

She stopped editing in August, started again briefly, and now has stopped for a couple of weeks. .... If I had to bet, I would say that she'll be back.

Really! To paraphrase that old C&W song, How Can We Miss Her if She Won't Go Away?

[Proabivouac]

I've always been in favor of shining light on these creepy tactics, and this is a good one.

We think the same way!

If you want to bait her, start messing gently with the PETA and other "animal rights" pages.

Aww, Proab, I understand you feel the all-consuming urge to defend SlimVirgin, but you left out the context:

She stopped editing in August, started again briefly, and now has stopped for a couple of weeks. .... If I had to bet, I would say that she'll be back.

Okay. So what happened in the few weeks following that post? Did any such baiting occur, to your knowledge?

[gomi]

Okay. So what happened in the few weeks following that post? Did any such baiting occur, to your knowledge?

Judge for yourself: here is the relevant history for PETA (T-H-L-K-D), and here for Animal Rights (T-H-L-K-D). In the first case, a little garden-variety vandalism by IPs, but nothing qualifying as "gentle messing", and in the latter, nothing to speak of.

[Proabivouac]

Okay. So what happened in the few weeks following that post? Did any such baiting occur, to your knowledge?

Judge for yourself: here is the relevant history for PETA (T-H-L-K-D), and here for Animal Rights (T-H-L-K-D). In the first case, a little garden-variety vandalism by IPs, but nothing qualifying as "gentle messing", and in the latter, nothing to speak of.

Okay. So, to be perfectly clear, Gomi, you're not personally aware of any instances in the weeks following your post where anyone used a sockpuppet to bait SlimVirgin on animal right topics, correct?

[Somey]

Apparently the thing that aggravated Slimmy on the Animal Rights article was an attempt to change the photo caption at the top, so as to refer to the organ grinder's monkey as "it" rather than "she"?

And then, in yet another "unwelcome compromise" case, Hq3473 (T-H-L-K-D) - an unreadable moniker if there ever was one - came along and changed the wording completely, so that it now reads, "A man holds a monkey by a rope around the neck, a scene epitomizing the idea of animal ownership"... thereby removing the monkey's-gender issue completely.

Anyway, I guess it's always possible that Gomi is Tryptofish, but it's not like it's hard to figure out how to push SlimVirgin's buttons. Getting the ear-splitting alarm buzzers to stop blasting afterwards is a different story, though.

[Bottled_Spider]

It's amazing how much drama can be generated on Wikipedia over wurdz, innit? It's even funnier when Slimmy gets involved and ends up looking like a prannie. Again. My advice to all concerned is to simply replace all instances of "her", "it", and "its" with "Monkey! Monkey!".

As for the picture, the pair of them are obviously preparing to indulge in a bit of fake-UFO photography. A few good out-of-focus shots and the monkey will make an excellent downed Venusian pilot, parachute cord wrapped round the neck. Yes; a space-parachute.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

What are your other accounts, SV/HFO?

Based on this resource, the only documented ones are Sweet Blue Water and Sunsplash.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Quite obviously Tryptofish might be any fishy person here on WR.

That's a reasonable hypothesis, considering that a member of WR's staff has a history of creating sockpuppets precisely for this purpose.

I don't know whether Proab is impugning myself here, or Gomi. I can affirm that my only involvement with the Animal Rights article was entirely above board, and concluded with this edit almost exactly 3 years ago.

[Son of a Yeti]

The message here is: if you stay away from articles Slim, Jayjg, or their cabal WP:OWN, then do your will, but edit in a way a powerful admin doesn't like, and you're immediately accused of being the dreaded "sockpuppet", if only on the basis of one or two edits!

Hell hath no fury like a slim virgin reverted!


(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[Kato]

Quite obviously Tryptofish might be any fishy person here on WR.

That's a reasonable hypothesis, considering that a member of WR's staff has a history of creating sockpuppets precisely for this purpose.

I don't know whether Proab is impugning myself here, or Gomi. I can affirm that my only involvement with the Animal Rights article was entirely above board, and concluded with this edit almost exactly 3 years ago.

Here's you, Hersch:

The quoted section makes clear that there is a very specific philosophical commonality between the animal rights movement and the Nazis.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

I guess if LaRouche is an anti-semite, then animal rights supporters are Nazis. Welcome to Wikipedia.

----------

For what it's worth, ditch that photograph of the man with a monkey. Or at least move if down the article.

[Somey]

I'm pretty sure Probey here doesn't mean to implicate Herschel, at least not in this case. Not that it matters...

The thing is, as long as the intro to the Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D) continues to state, "His anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45," I can't criticize anyone for engaging in this kind of SV-directed editing activity on Wikipedia - in fact, I would strongly encourage it.

[Jon Awbrey]

The thing is, as long as the intro to the Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D) continues to state, "His anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45", I can't criticize anyone for engaging in this kind of SV-directed editing activity on Wikipedia — in fact, I would strongly encourage it.

In order to expedite the Equal Slime Provisions of the Wikipediot Code Of Conduct (WP:COC), someone should create a template that would permit the corresponding citation to be added to all applicable Wikipedia articles:

«{{X}}'s anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45.»

Get On It, You Slime Slackers !!!

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Tarc]

What are your other accounts, SV/HFO?

Based on this resource, the only documented ones are Sweet Blue Water and Sunsplash.

I love that story; much of her general fucked-upness traces back to Agent 99-like antics and a glorified friends-with-benefits who got himself blowed up.

Explains a lot of the anti-Muslim crusade that she's been on with jay, too.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[gomi]

Okay. So, to be perfectly clear, Gomi, you're not personally aware of any instances in the weeks following your post where anyone used a sockpuppet to bait SlimVirgin on animal right topics, correct?

Proab, I should point out (again) how tiresome and annoying your crypto-moralistic Inquisitions are. There is absolutely no reason I should stoop to answering that, or any, question from you. That having been said, the easiest way to shut you up in this particular case is to say no, I'm not personally aware of any "baiting" of Slimvirgin in the weeks following that September 2007 post. Indeed, I'm not aware of any baiting of SlimVirgin at all. As pernicious elements on Wikipedia go, SlimVirgin's crimes run more toward support of Jayjg and the cabal than her own silly POV on Animal Rights.

Anyway, I guess it's always possible that Gomi is Tryptofish, but it's not like it's hard to figure out how to push SlimVirgin's buttons. Getting the ear-splitting alarm buzzers to stop blasting afterwards is a different story, though.

I briefly considered "outing" myself as Tryptofish just to see what would happen, then I considered that the poor SOB running that account would probably not appreciate it.

For the record, I think there is nothing whatsoever wrong with sockpuppetry on Wikipedia, but I have had better things to do for quite some time, and don't edit WP -- with or without footwear-based mouthpieces.

[Somey]

I briefly considered "outing" myself as Tryptofish just to see what would happen, then I considered that the poor SOB running that account would probably not appreciate it.

Probably not!

But there you have the essential problem society has with the abuse of anonymity. If used for purposes of naughtiness, it gets other people into double-bind, triple-bind, even n-level-bind thinking. In other words, sure, Tryptofish could be a WR member, but he could also be a loyal WP'er pretending to be a WR member to stir things up or discredit us all. Or, he could be a WR member pretending to be a loyal WP'er who's pretending to be a WR member to discredit loyal WP'ers. And on and on and on, to infinity... You just don't know, do you?

The only practical solution, then, is also the least palatable to established editors - treat every editor, and indeed every edit, on its own individual merits. Hence, you get burnout, disaffection, and attrition. The choice is almost impossible to accept over a long period, and if anything, SlimVirgin and many other admins have never really been able to accept it, at least when it comes to subjects they're particularly interested in. Indeed, this might even help explain their longevity on WP: If one refuses to accept the thing that causes most other WP'ers to burn out, maybe it reduces your own burnout rate.

So... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

I was thinking we could all claim to be Tryptofish, i.e., have one of those "I AM SPARTACUS!" pile-ons, but that gag seems a little overdone to me these days.

[Doc glasgow]

The thing is, as long as the intro to the Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D) continues to state, "His anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45", I can't criticize anyone for engaging in this kind of SV-directed editing activity on Wikipedia — in fact, I would strongly encourage it.

In order to expedite the Equal Slime Provisions of the Wikipediot Code Of Conduct (WP:COC), someone should create a template that would permit the corresponding citation to be added to all applicable Wikipedia articles:

«{{X}}'s anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45.»

Get On It, You Slime Slackers !!!

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

I've often wondered why the lead in the Darwin article never mentions the Nazis using his ideology. He was used far more than Luther.

But then, the baby Dawkins would cry.

[Jon Awbrey]

The thing is, as long as the intro to the Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D) continues to state, "His anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45", I can't criticize anyone for engaging in this kind of SV-directed editing activity on Wikipedia — in fact, I would strongly encourage it.

In order to expedite the Equal Slime Provisions of the Wikipediot Code Of Conduct (WP:COC), someone should create a template that would permit the corresponding citation to be added to all applicable Wikipedia articles:

«{{X}}'s anti-Jewish statements were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis during 1933–45.»

Get On It, You Slime Slackers !!!

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

I've often wondered why the lead in the Darwin article never mentions the Nazis using his ideology. He was used far more than Luther.

Feel free to fix it.

Here's another Bit Of Slime Automation (WP:BOSA), not to mention a way to up your edit count by leaps and bounds:

«This passage of {{Your Favorite Holy Book}} was frequently used to justify {{Your Favorite Historical Atrocity}}.»

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The only practical solution, then, is also the least palatable to established editors - treat every editor, and indeed every edit, on its own individual merits.

Holy guacamole, Batman -- that would be the moment of transition from MMORPG to encyclopedia.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Quite obviously Tryptofish might be any fishy person here on WR.

That's a reasonable hypothesis, considering that a member of WR's staff has a history of creating sockpuppets precisely for this purpose.

Who was that man? I'd like to shake his hand! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[gomi]

And that's the reason, I believe, that SV has that article structured the way she does (SV can correct me if I'm wrong since I assume she is reading this thread). The Animal Rights article in Wikipedia tries to build the case that western philosophy has, at least in part, accepted the premise that animals have rights, whether inherent or bestowed. That's why it's important for that picture of the human holding the rope tied to a monkey's neck be at the top of the article, to present the base moral/ethical rationale for animal rights (that humans do not have the right to ownership over animals) which the article then attempts to justify.

To put it more simply, SlimVirgin wants to firmly put forward her point of view on the subject. Thus is virtually every area of controversy (and many that are not) owned by entrenched Wikipidiots.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

And that's the reason, I believe, that SV has that article structured the way she does (SV can correct me if I'm wrong since I assume she is reading this thread).

It would be interesting to hear what she has to say, in this environment, where we check our banhammers at the door.

[Proabivouac]

It would be interesting to hear what she has to say, in this environment, where we check our banhammers at the door.

O RLY?

]I will add one component you left out -- I think SlimVirgin's presence here has been unhelpful. She somehow manages to personalize every thread she comments on.

…
I guess we could threaten to fish-tank or even suspend her if she keeps it up, and actually do it if necessary, but I'd rather it didn't come to that.

[Noroton]

And that's the reason, I believe, that SV has that article structured the way she does (SV can correct me if I'm wrong since I assume she is reading this thread). The Animal Rights article in Wikipedia tries to build the case that western philosophy has, at least in part, accepted the premise that animals have rights, whether inherent or bestowed. That's why it's important for that picture of the human holding the rope tied to a monkey's neck be at the top of the article, to present the base moral/ethical rationale for animal rights (that humans do not have the right to ownership over animals) which the article then attempts to justify.

I think the photo is a good, dramatic illustration of the subject, and I don't have a problem with it, or with its prominent placement. It's not necessarily an illustration of abuse, but the fact that a rope is being used does make you wonder. The fact that it's some Chinese guy not dressed very well reminds the viewer that there are competing interests here, and subjects competing for our sympathy.

I don't know enough about the subject to know whether or not the article is subtlely biased -- doesn't that really depend on whether or not it reflects the best sources? Various philosophers are quoted, and it seems to me they're relevant to the history of the idea. I don't see obvious bias in the article as it stands. That said, some things seem odd: It takes a long read to get to the point where the animal rights movement and the animal welfare movements are clearly separate. The article is 98K (although the many pictures must be a big part of that), and it seems to me some parts could use a separate article. Peter Singer gets an enormous amount of space in this article, but I don't know whether or not that reflects his real importance in the history of the idea of animal rights (he's clearly important). Actually, the subject seems to be "the history of the idea of animal rights in the west". Isn't it really odd that Hindu religious ideas aren't covered here and the only religious tradition represented is Christianity? Where are the sacred cows? Is that anything more than a cultural bias? I doubt it. And just what the hell is Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" doing as the second picture down? It's screwing up the layout, illustrates nothing and distracts from the subject.

This post has been edited by Noroton:

[Milton Roe]

That said, some things seem odd: It takes a long read to get to the point where the animal rights movement and the animal welfare movements are clearly separate. The article is 98K (although the many pictures must be a big part of that), and it seems to me some parts could use a separate article. Peter Singer gets an enormous amount of space in this article, but I don't know whether or not that reflects his real importance in the history of the idea of animal rights (he's clearly important). Actually, the subject seems to be "the history of the idea of animal rights in the west". Isn't it really odd that Hindu religious ideas aren't covered here and the only religious tradition represented is Christianity? Where are the sacred cows? Is that anything more than a cultural bias? I doubt it. And just what the hell is Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" doing as the second picture down? It's screwing up the layout, illustrates nothing and distracts from the subject.

I think it's put in there because somebody says something about Adam. So somebody with a brain fog used this picture to represent that.

Which is actually ironically appropriate, because God here is surrounded by the ORIGINAL brain-fog. It's a brain-shaped fog. For a sort of foggy story, from the misty past. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[Somey]

[b]O RLY?[/b

Let's just say I'm on good terms with the girl who works the hat-check counter... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I've pointed this out before, Mr. Probey, but we're not in the business of self-criticism. You folks have Wikipedia for that - they love to criticize us over there, and what's more, they get better Google rankings than we do.

SlimVirgin isn't going to lost any privileges here just for discussing the situation re WP's Animal Rights articles, but that's not to say it wouldn't be better if she could discuss how Wikipedia deals with Animal Rights issues, as opposed to focusing solely on the "okay-now-which-one-of-you-is-it" question.

[EricBarbour]

It would be interesting to hear what she has to say, in this environment, where we check our banhammers at the door.

O RLY?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Your head seems to have a few oddly hammer-shaped dents.....

Which is why I've seen a zillion buffalo and elk and even some wolves in Yellowstone, but the only bears I've seen were a mother grizz and two cubs out in the middle of nowhere, and they were WAAAAY across a river and going ... thataway. Which is the way it should be. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Yep, those damn hoo-mans really suck. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

SlimVirgin isn't going to lost any privileges here just for discussing the situation re WP's Animal Rights articles, but that's not to say it wouldn't be better if she could discuss how Wikipedia deals with Animal Rights issues, as opposed to focusing solely on the "okay-now-which-one-of-you-is-it" question.

When she gets into a controversy here, she instinctively tries to turn the topic of the discussion to the personalities who are discussing, which at WP is always a prelude to banning, like the skunk doing its little handstand. However, that doesn't work here, and I think it would be useful to engage SV/Ms. Hell in this discussion so we could see how she does when she must actually discuss the subject.

[gomi]

It would be interesting to hear what she has to say, in this environment, where we check our banhammers at the door.

O RLY?

Yes, RLY. Slim can say what she wants here regarding her position on "Animal Rights". Or "Mineral Rights", or "Vegetable Rights", for that matter. No one will stop her. Which is more than she allows us to say on Wikipedia, whether it on Talk pages, User pages, or elsewhere. Wikipedia Review doesn't ban people for expressing their opinions, unless they do it in a persistently tiresome way, and even in that case (cf Moulton), we generally don't ban them, just admonish them.