Could it really be her?, Captain! There's a ship up ahead! Options

[Daniel Brandt]

SlimVirgin has inadvertently confirmed that she is (name redacted):

Doc, Brandt is banned for very good reason, and any edit he makes should indeed be reverted. He has stalked me for many months, stalking that has included contacting what he thinks are old boyfriends of mine from 20 years ago. He has posted seriously libellous material then refused to publish a correction that was sent to him, which shows he is not the honest researcher he claims to be. He tried to hound another woman either out of her job or out of Wikipedia, and succeeded in doing the latter. He has posted photographs of people without their consent, some of which were very intrusive and clearly intended to be hurtful and possibly damaging to their lives. The only person I know of who has more seriously invaded Wikipedians' lives was Amorrow, whose edits are reverted on sight so that he gets the message that he isn't welcome here, no matter how useful his contributions might otherwise be. If we don't afford that minimum courtesy to editors — that we're not going to be asked to edit alon gside people who are stalking us — then we'll lose everyone that Brandt and others like him decide to target. It's common sense to allow corrections to his BLP to be made if he draws attention to them, but if that's his only interest, as opposed to grandstanding, he can do it by e-mail. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The old boyfriend, Neil Croally, told me to my face on June 5, 1989 in Arlington, Virginia, that (name redacted) was his girlfriend. Maybe he lied, but that doesn't justify Slim's spin on it. That "seriously libellous material" was from John K. Cooley, who was reporting what his boss Pierre Salinger believed to be the case about (name redacted), when Salinger locked her out of her office in London in the early 1990s. Cooley told me that Salinger believed that (name redacted) had been working on behalf of (an intelligence agency) while employed by ABC News. Cooley has not retracted this statement, and I have no doubt that Pierre Salinger believed this.

The woman I "hounded" was Katefan0, who is still a reporter at Congressional Quarterly. Last June she had a press pass to the House/Senate press gallery, but I don't see her on the gallery list anymore. All I did was ask Katefan0 to identify herself on her user page. She had already claimed on her user page that she was a reporter, and an alum of the University of Texas at Austin journalism school. I told her to identify herself because otherwise it was a conflict of interest for a journalist to be an anonymous admin on Wikipedia, where she was occasionally fiddling with biographies of members of Congress. I never contacted her employer. Ironically, Jimmy Wales now supports the notion that those claiming real-world credentials should use their real names and be verifiable. SlimVirgin apparently disagrees with Jimmy.

Now that I've corrected Slim's Spin, the important point here is that Slim has, for the first time as "SlimVirgin from Wikipedia," confirmed that she is indeed (name redacted). If I was guilty of a mistaken identity, I'd be "stalking" the wrong person, not her. And the exchange I had with John Cooley would have been about a (name redacted) who was not the same as SlimVirgin. But no, it's very clear that SlimVirgin is (name redacted), for anyone who needed more evidence.

[Heat]

Daniel, she said "contacting what he thinks are old boyfriends of mine" not "contacting old boyfriends of mine". True, it's a rather slim bit of equivocation (pardon the pun) but I don't think it's an outright admission unless this is something you hadn't said publicly before and which she could only know if her ex told her about it. Is that the case?


"Neil Croally, told me to my face on June 5, 1989 in Arlington, Virginia"
Is that year right?

[Daniel Brandt]

Daniel, she said "contacting what he thinks are old boyfriends of mine" not "contacting old boyfriends of mine". True, it's a rather slim bit of equivocation (pardon the pun) but I don't think it's an outright admission unless this is something you hadn't said publicly before and which she could only know if her ex told her about it. Is that the case?

"Neil Croally, told me to my face on June 5, 1989 in Arlington, Virginia"
Is that year right?

The date is correct. You are splitting a hair on the boyfriend. Here's another hair you can split: When I announced on this board that I finally found contact information for John K. Cooley in Athens, Greece, Cooley got a call within about 48 hours from (name redacted) asking him to not talk to me. Unfortunately for Slim, she was too late — I had already received a long email from Cooley with the information about Salinger.

[Heat]

Daniel, she said "contacting what he thinks are old boyfriends of mine" not "contacting old boyfriends of mine". True, it's a rather slim bit of equivocation (pardon the pun) but I don't think it's an outright admission unless this is something you hadn't said publicly before and which she could only know if her ex told her about it. Is that the case?

"Neil Croally, told me to my face on June 5, 1989 in Arlington, Virginia"
Is that year right?

The date is correct.

Really, you had a connection with SlimVirgin back in 1989? I'm genuinely amazed, I just assumed it was a typo and you meant 2005 or something.

You are splitting a hair on the boyfriend. Here's another hair you can split: When I announced on this board that I finally found contact information for John K. Cooley in Athens, Greece, Cooley got a call within about 48 hours from (name redacted) asking him to not talk to me. Unfortunately for Slim, she was too late — I had already receivd a long email from Cooley with the information about Salinger.

Now that is confirmation in my book. Daniel, I didn't mean to be snotty, it just looked like you had missed the "he thinks" in her statement.

[Daniel Brandt]

Really, you had a connection with SlimVirgin back in 1989? I'm genuinely amazed, I just assumed it was a typo and you meant 2005 or something.

She sent Croally to buy NameBase (it was called SpyBase back then, and was available on floppies) to help her with PanAm 103 research. One or two covert U.S. intelligence officers who were passengers on that plane were in my database before it went down, and the CIA/DEA connection was important for researchers before disinformationists like (name redacted) focused on Libya as a convenient scapegoat.

Now all of sudden, with the same original material in NameBase but the total number of names and citations about four times what it was in 1989, SlimVirgin decides that I'm a crackpot: "Weed, I removed Daniel Brandt. He's not a credible source, not a journalist, and seems to write only for his own website i.e. he's a blogger. It's not appropriate to use someone's personal website as a source. There's no evidence that Roy Godson is an intelligence operative and the weasel catch-all phrase 'representatives from intelligence-linked funding sources' is typical Brandt and typical LaRouche." SlimVirgin, 05:51, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Roy Godson is up to his eyebrows in intelligence connections, and has never tried to hide it. One has to wonder why SlimVirgin uses the name Sarah (presumably-fake last name redacted). Does she now, or has she ever, worked for an intelligence agency? Is Jimmy Wales a "useful idiot"?

[Somey]

By the way, Roy Godson is up to his eyebrows in intelligence connections, and has never tried to hide it.

The same Roy Godson who's president of the National Strategy Information Center and the Consortium for the Study of Intelligence...? Hard to imagine he could hide it, with credentials like those!

Is Jimmy Wales a "useful idiot"?

Well, I'd hardly call him "useful"...

[gomi]

Mr. Brandt -- I have been wondering lately. Is the Alberta location for Slim reliable, or is there a risk that she was conflated with the other (name redacted) who is a professor at the U. of Calgary nearby? Also, I have to assume, given her editing procilivities, that she isn't the (name redacted) who is a recent president of the (name of organization redacted). (All serious here, I can send links if you need them). It jsut seems that (name of town redacted) is too small a place for her not to have (e.g.) a local phone book entry or some other record.

[Daniel Brandt]

S. (presumably-fake last name redacted) used a (name of town redacted) PO box to register slimvirgin.com, but they never heard of her at that unlisted phone number that was on the registration. It's possible the PO box is defunct, or was fake to begin with. Her IP traced to the Calgary area 18 months ago. The defunct email on the registration was the same as the email address for (name redacted) on the website for alums at the philosophy department at Kings College, Cambridge. That email was slimvirgin1@yahoo.com

A Sarah (presumably-fake last name redacted) from Canada wrote a couple of pro-animal-rights letters to the UK Telegraph, so the assumption is that S. (presumably-fake last name redacted) stands for Sarah (presumably-fake last name redacted).

The slimvirgin.com registration was changed to a private registration a week ago, but it used to read:
S. (presumably-fake last name redacted), Box 112, (name of town redacted), AB, Canada (with a phone number that won't help you, but it was a Calgary exchange +1-403-261-xxxx)

There's a (name redacted) at the University of Calgary?

[gomi]

I thought I saw that (similar name redacted) (nota bene for those not keeping up -- not SlimVirgin) associated with U. Calgary. I may have been mistaken.

This page referes to a Saskatchewan (name redacted).

Then there's this:

(name redacted), a former lieutenant with the Detroit Police Department, sued the City of Detroit in Wayne County Circuit Court in 1999, claiming she was reassigned from her position as a squad leader in the sex crimes unit to desk duty after she rebuffed romantic advances of male supervisors. [8/7/02]

[blissyu2]

The point here really is not so much to find out who Slim Virgin is, but more to find out what Slim Virgin's secret bias is. Slim Virgin edits a lot of animal rights articles, a lot of jewish articles, and a lot of conspiracy articles. What is her bias in editing these? Perhaps in her special case, there is something to be said for her behaviour on Wikipedia full stop as well.

[Jonny Cache]

All of this goes to confirm my hunch that one of Slim's worst fears at this point is that the tables are finally turning and that somebody somewhere is going to find her notable enough to write established media pieces on her. What will Wikipedia do when that that particular bit of WikiPlumbing in the World Wide Web Toilette — excuse my French — backs up on them? I don't know if it will be appetizing enough to break out the WikiPopcorn, but maybe if we stand way, way, way upwind.

Jonny

[Jonny Cache]

The point here really is not so much to find out who Slim Virgin is, but more to find out what Slim Virgin's secret bias is. Slim Virgin edits a lot of animal rights articles, a lot of jewish articles, and a lot of conspiracy articles. What is her bias in editing these? Perhaps in her special case, there is something to be said for her behaviour on Wikipedia full stop as well.

I think that the content edits are either a deliberate diversion, indifferent R&R to while away the idle hours, or maybe even done by one or more distinct cohorts of SlimVestals. The main mission here is not to support any particular bias, since their enemies one week may be their friends the next, but to craft a web disinformation organ that is infinitely flexible, something that will Snap To and direct the public's attention to whatever they wish to focus it on, with whatever spin they wish to put on the cue. That work is done at the level of Policy Fabrication — all of that encyclopulpfiction content and filler is just a distractor, a barrel of red herrings to disguise the smell of what they are really up to.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 21st March 2007, 1:37pm

[anon1234]

S. (presumably-fake last name redacted) used a (town name redacted) PO box to register slimvirgin.com, but they never heard of her at that unlisted phone number that was on the registration. It's possible the PO box is defunct, or was fake to begin with. Her IP traced to the Calgary area 18 months ago...

It is also very well established that SlimVirgin edits from a (name of Canadian province redacted) IP address. Usually something like 70.64.XXX.XXX which has a reverse DNS something like XXXXXXXXXXXXX.ss.(name of ISP redacted).net. I would share the whole thing, but she might have a static IP and I don't want to be giving people enough information to hack her machine.

[Heat]

It is also very well established that SlimVirgin edits from a (name of Canadian province redacted) IP address. Usually something like 70.64.XXX.XXX which has a reverse DNS something like XXXXXXXXXXXXX.ss.(name of ISP redacted).net. I would share the whole thing, but she might have a static IP and I don't want to be giving people enough information to hack her machine.

That ISP's IPs don't necessarily resolve to the same place as the user. See http://forum.statcounter.com/vb/archive/in...hp/t-13548.html

[anon1234]

That ISP's IPs don't necessarily resolve to the same place as the user. See http://forum.statcounter.com/vb/archive/in...hp/t-13548.html

The forum you pointed to does say that the rDNS information hostname is correct, at least the city identifier code. The rDNS for SlimVirgin contains the city identifier code "(city identifier code redacted)" which does mean (name of city redacted).

[Jonny Cache]

Watching SlimVirgin lie up one side and down the other on the Wikening List about WP:NOR and related policies is something truly amazing to behold. She's even starting to abuse the faithful like they were infidels or something.

Way back in August 2006, she persistently deleted the Diffs that I posted on the WP:NOR Talk Page to show that she and her cronies were making fundamental changes in WP:NOR, all the while claiming that those of us who were resisting the change were the ones who were trying to alter it. She must really want this real, real bad.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 21st March 2007, 9:54pm

[Jonny Cache]

A year of watching SlimVirgin work has taught me that her remarks are always carefully crafted to have the following two properties:

• Sound plausible to people who are uninformed, who haven't been paying attention over the long haul.
• Keep people from wanting to be informed, by making them think that it's not worth their attention.

Right now she's running circles around Jimbo and the rest of the Wikening List. It's really something to see, and the first time in a long time that there's been anything entertaining happening there. But her WikiPunch-&-Jimbo show has been a year in the making, and they don't even seem to know what's hitting them in the face.

Wap ! Wap ! Wap !

It's a reel laff riot ...

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 22nd March 2007, 2:45am

[anon1234]

A year of watching SlimVirgin work has taught me that her remarks are always carefully crafted to have the following two properties:

• Sound plausible to people who are uninformed, who haven't been paying attention over the long haul.
• Keep people from wanting to be informed, by making them think that it's not worth their attention.

You're completely right about that. SlimVirgin is exceptionally talented at one-on-one manipulation.

[LamontStormstar]

All of this goes to confirm my hunch that one of Slim's worst fears at this point is that the tables are finally turning and that somebody somewhere is going to find her notable enough to write established media pieces on her. What will Wikipedia do when that that particular bit of WikiPlumbing in the World Wide Web Toilette — excuse my French — backs up on them? I don't know if it will be appetizing enough to break out the WikiPopcorn, but maybe if we stand way, way, way upwind.

Jonny

She has been trying to get Daniel Brandt's article deleted, at least a few times, though.

[blissyu2]

Slim Virgin's first edits were to Lockerbie Bombing article (Pan Am Flight 103), and she initially had a heated edit war with the person who had started the article, and contributed the most to it. Put simply, Slim Virgin was lying her heart out in the article. The guy complained, but before he had managed to get the complaint in, Slim Virgin had made a complaint accusing the guy of harassing her. He wasn't, of course, but the heat that he received after he DARED to complain about her was enough to get him to quit Wikipedia.

Thereafter, Slim Virgin has persistently played the victim, insisting that she is being harassed, whilst in reality bullying people. I like to call this "Damsel in Distress" victimisation syndrome, which is coupled with a guy who is very insecure and suffers from what I term "Knight in Shining Armour" syndrome. The guy himself doesn't realise that he is being manipulated, and is just trying to be useful.

This is why I think that Slim Virgin probably isn't a girl. She might be, but it is just as plausible that this is really a guy, or, as suggested here, a number of people, deliberately manipulating things.

Wikipedia Review did a pretty thorough look at that first article, and copied it before Slim Virgin wiped it off the face of existence. Put simply, she changed the article in a deliberate fashion. However, you would need to be an expert in the topic to really be able to tell. None of us were, so we couldn't really say what she'd done. But she had lied about it, for sure. She seriously went at it after she got the nod about the false accusation of harassment and the guy left.

This led to Slim Virgin doing a lot more edits like this. Of course, when we were looking at her editing, she insisted that we were "stalking" her, and deleted piles and piles of stuff to prevent us from looking at them. But this whole thing led to her getting false trust with people, who then she was able to manipulate into giving her adminship.

I seriously doubt that Jimbo knows what Slim Virgin is up to, and I do not think that he supports it at all. Once he finds out what she is really up to, I think that he would fire her in a snap.