Slim and Will put the smackdown on LaRouche, was: SlimVirgin, back with a vengeance Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?

[Cedric]

The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?

This was at least 110% predictable. As I have said before, lovers of intrigue rarely if ever fall out of love with it. They nearly always revert back to type, even though they occasionally lie low or switch tactics. Remember the "new" Richard Nixon?

[Shalom]

The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?

"Some tidying" can mean anything. Cla68's arbitration evidence did include some misleading edit summaries, but when you add content, the content you add should speak for itself. Meanwhile, you seem unable to give up on the whole LaRouche cluster bomb. To be brutally honest, without Wikipedia I would never have heard of the fool, and I don't especially care.

[CharlotteWebb]

To be brutally honest, without Wikipedia I would never have heard of [LaRouche]...

Word. I first heard of him by reading an old arbcom case. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Oh yeah Hersch since you asked: I am in fact an American citizen (yes sir, so far...)

[Krimpet]

Word. I first heard of him by reading an old arbcom case. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Lyndon LaRouche seems to be one of those topics grossly over-covered as a result of edit warring; loads of kooks use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their cult or fringe movement of choice, then their critics come and double the size of the article with their criticism, often with people citing their own works and sneaking in a little self-promotion in the process. The Scientology articles are the same way, as are other fringe topics, I'm sure.

[MBisanz]

The 15 most edited article talk pages are:

1. Talk:Main_Page 86775
2. Talk:Barack_Obama 30115
3. Talk:Sarah_Palin 23755
4. Talk:Global_warming 21823
5. Talk:George_W._Bush 21117
6. Talk:Intelligent_design 20672
7. Talk:Gaza_War 18572
8. Talk:Jesus 17841
9. Talk:Anarchism 17323
10. Talk:September_11_attacks 16194
11. Talk:Prem_Rawat 15946
12. Talk:Evolution 15219
13. Talk:Muhammad 14962
14. Talk:Homeopathy 14313
15. Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo 13985

I'm not that surprised about the main page, or Obama, Bush, Jesus, and Muhammad, but I am very surprised to see Prem Rawat (as opposed to Religion, Christianity, or Hinduism) and Homeopathy (as opposed to Health, Medicine, or Science) on the list.

[MBisanz]

It is probably also worth noting that the talk page for LaRouche is infrequently viewed at 318 times in July and 1,405 times in August compared to 4,662 times for my talk page. The talk page has only 3,492 edits, which isn't even enough to make the most edited talk page list. All of which seems on par for an article 3,071 hits a day (not even in the top 3,000 for for the site).

[written by he who wrote it]

The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.")

Be fair: She did add some material to the lead (details available), so the edit summary was deceptive, but she wasn't sneaking in accusations of fascism: the text was already there.

This post has been edited by written by he who wrote it:

[Cla68]

The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?

It won't work to list a series of interviews of LaRouche with Russian or Chinese TV or newspaper journalists, who seem to give him more credibility than the media in the west. You (in the general sense) need to tie those reports into the topics that are more relevant to a general, "encyclopedic" overview of LaRouche's life and politics. If that is done, then it will be harder for anyone to justify removing the information.

[Casliber]

Some unusual topics get quite a going over - for instance, a bunch of birds named Conures or Parakeets - Conure is more specific but is an avicultural name..and the pet trade has been responsible for decline....waht's in a name?

Sun Parakeet or Conure talk page

[Casliber]

Also the Liopleurodon talk page - should the appearance of a Liopleurodon in the youtube vid Charlie the unicorn be mentioned...rather involved and lengthy argument (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[everyking]

Word. I first heard of him by reading an old arbcom case. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Lyndon LaRouche seems to be one of those topics grossly over-covered as a result of edit warring; loads of kooks use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their cult or fringe movement of choice, then their critics come and double the size of the article with their criticism, often with people citing their own works and sneaking in a little self-promotion in the process. The Scientology articles are the same way, as are other fringe topics, I'm sure.

I disagree--the upside to edit warring is traditionally that you get vastly expanded and improved content. The two sides beat each other black and blue, but as the beatings in part take the form of research, sourcing, and expansion, the ultimate result can be very positive. If not for all the LaRouche edit warring, articles related to LaRouche would no doubt be rather few and rather pitiful.

[Shalom]

Word. I first heard of him by reading an old arbcom case. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Lyndon LaRouche seems to be one of those topics grossly over-covered as a result of edit warring; loads of kooks use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their cult or fringe movement of choice, then their critics come and double the size of the article with their criticism, often with people citing their own works and sneaking in a little self-promotion in the process. The Scientology articles are the same way, as are other fringe topics, I'm sure.

I disagree--the upside to edit warring is traditionally that you get vastly expanded and improved content. The two sides beat each other black and blue, but as the beatings in part take the form of research, sourcing, and expansion, the ultimate result can be very positive. If not for all the LaRouche edit warring, articles related to LaRouche would no doubt be rather few and rather pitiful.

See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference. I'm not espousing that perspective, but I can see why someone might think so. It's more congruous to expect proportional coverage in a centralized model, but Wikipedia's decentralized model leads to growth in odd topics. This is plain to see, writ small, in the collection of Good Articles and Featured Content.

[dtobias]

See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference.

Such as this one.

[Shalom]

See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference.

Such as this one.

Yes, someone wrote on the web that the Britney Spears article was (at that time) twice as long as the article on Brittany, a region of north west France.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.")

Be fair: She did add some material to the lead (details available), so the edit summary was deceptive, but she wasn't sneaking in accusations of fascism: the text was already there.

No, she was sneaking in the (non-notable) guy; his accusations of fascism come later in the article.

[Moulton]

Yes, someone wrote on the web that the Britney Spears article was (at that time) twice as long as the article on Brittany, a region of north west France.

Some enterprising entrepreneur (hello Greg) should start a company in Brittany to manufacture and sell reproductions of medieval armaments. The company, of course, would be named Brittany Spears.

[Lar]

Yes, someone wrote on the web that the Britney Spears article was (at that time) twice as long as the article on Brittany, a region of north west France.

Some enterprising entrepreneur (hello Greg) should start a company in Brittany to manufacture and sell reproductions of medieval armaments. The company, of course, would be named Brittany Spears.

mod +1 funny

[CharlotteWebb]

It is probably also worth noting that the talk page for LaRouche is infrequently viewed at 318 times in July and 1,405 times in August compared to 4,662 times for my talk page. The talk page has only 3,492 edits, which isn't even enough to make the most edited talk page list. All of which seems on par for an article 3,071 hits a day (not even in the top 3,000 for for the site).

Only 127 for my talk page. Makes me feel so ronery.

Anyway that's just the main biography article. I don't suppose you could get a total figure for all articles/talk-pages related to LaRouche and the LaRouche "movement"?

See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference.

Yeah it's almost as if we need to actively recruit a bunch of boring, normal people to work on those articles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[thekohser]

Yes, someone wrote on the web that the Britney Spears article was (at that time) twice as long as the article on Brittany, a region of north west France.

Some enterprising entrepreneur (hello Greg) should start a company in Brittany to manufacture and sell reproductions of medieval armaments. The company, of course, would be named Brittany Spears.

I was already taking out a "doing business as" name registration in Nantes, but we were planning to grow and sell asparagus, not pole weapons.

Speaking of which, do the Wikipedians who create maps go to some sort of clinic or school for Unhelpful Cartography, or something?

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[thekohser]

Now, this is how I'd do an asparagus map... if I were more committed to the Wikimedia "free culture" cause.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference.

Yeah it's almost as if we need to actively recruit a bunch of boring, normal people to work on those articles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Yes, that's an admirable suggestion, except that they would just become shark-bait for Will Beback and SlimVirgin. Just ask Everyking.

[EricBarbour]

See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference.

I must agree. And must also point out, it won't happen, with crazies like SV and Beback running loose.

Such as this one.

Yeah! How dare they not talk more about Tiffany!!

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Leatherstocking is indignantly protesting her big Anschluss, not realizing that Wikipedia policies simply don't apply to her.

[Cla68]

Leatherstocking is indignantly protesting her big Anschluss, not realizing that Wikipedia policies simply don't apply to her.

Leatherstocking should just make a request for clarification from the ArbCom as to whether any of the previous LaRouche case remedies apply to SV's edits and then ask for a topic ban if the ArbCom agrees that they do. Otherwise, all Leatherstocking is doing is irritating Wikipedia's admin corps by complaining about it in so many different forums.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

It's now at the ANI forum. I think that Leatherstocking honestly had no idea who SlimVirgin is, and the extent to which she is a law unto herself. LS was holding his own pretty well against Will Beback, but now he has entered the Octagon of Death with SlimVirgin, and I don't think he's going to be the one who comes out alive.

[gomi]

It's now at the ANI forum. I think that Leatherstocking honestly had no idea who SlimVirgin is, and the extent to which she is a law unto herself. LS was holding his own pretty well against Will Beback, but now he has entered the Octagon of Death with SlimVirgin, and I don't think he's going to be the one who comes out alive.

Part and parcel of he bankrupcy of Wikipedia is that no one -- especially the (nominally) rational cognoscenti of NewYorkBrad and Lar -- will stand up and saySlimVirgin and Will Beback should not be editing these articles. If there is any faith whatsoever in anyone can edit, it should be that non-cabal editors can sort out wacky POVs like those at Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). It hardly seems constructive to the "encyclopedia" to let these warriors have their way, any more than the pro-LaRouche types.

[Cla68]

It's now at the ANI forum. I think that Leatherstocking honestly had no idea who SlimVirgin is, and the extent to which she is a law unto herself. LS was holding his own pretty well against Will Beback, but now he has entered the Octagon of Death with SlimVirgin, and I don't think he's going to be the one who comes out alive.

Part and parcel of he bankrupcy of Wikipedia is that no one -- especially the (nominally) rational cognoscenti of NewYorkBrad and Lar -- will stand up and saySlimVirgin and Will Beback should not be editing these articles. If there is any faith whatsoever in anyone can edit, it should be that non-cabal editors can sort out wacky POVs like those at Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). It hardly seems constructive to the "encyclopedia" to let these warriors have their way, any more than the pro-LaRouche types.

Ahem, Lar did say something, which SV apparently appreciated none too much.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Ahem, Lar did say something, which SV apparently appreciated none too much.

My, my, that's quite a tantrum, considering the ultra-diplomatic wording of Lar's post. Tungsten Carbide made a more straighforward critique of Slim's tactics, but since his account had zero MMORPG standing, his comment was ignored.

[Cedric]

Ahem, Lar did say something, which SV apparently appreciated none too much.

My, my, that's quite a tantrum, considering the ultra-diplomatic wording of Lar's post.

Nah, not really. Remember that Linda never forgets and never forgives. The mere fact that Lar commented at all is considered grievously offensive in the Slimmiverse.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Ahem, Lar did say something, which SV apparently appreciated none too much.

And, we have Slim bestowing her approval on Cirt (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Is Cirt a cabal member, or just a major brown-noser?

[It's the blimp, Frank]

I think it's interesting that Georgewiliamherbert seems to have broken ranks at the ANI, and is defending Leatherstocking against the SlimVirgin/Will Beback grand inquisitors.

[gomi]

Ahem, Lar did say something, which SV apparently appreciated none too much.

My, my, that's quite a tantrum, considering the ultra-diplomatic wording of Lar's post.

Nah, not really. Remember that Linda never forgets and never forgives. The mere fact that Lar commented at all is considered grievously offensive in the Slimmiverse.

The exchange was funny enough I think it should be preserved:

Leatherstocking defends himself, closing with:

... I still contend, however, that SlimVirgin is outrageously flouting numerous policies, and no one seems to raise an eyebrow. Does she have a free pass of some sort? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

to which Lar simply replies:

An excellent question. The answer, of course, is that no one has a free pass here. Theoretically, anyway. ++Lar - 03:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Slim's shrill response on Lar's talk page is:

Lar, if you don't stop posting snide remarks about me, [8] I'm going to approach the ArbCom for relief. You've been asked many times to stop by several editors. There's no call for it, and I won't respond in kind. It's particularly depressing to see it extend to you lending support to a LaRouche editor who's trying to prevent the LaRouche bio from being improved (and in such a way that any reasonable person would see was an improvement). If you have a low opinion of me, just stay away from me, and I'll continue to do the same for you. Or we should seek private mediation, as I suggested in a recent e-mail to which you didn't respond. But the current one-way public sniping is not acceptable. SlimVirgin - 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Lar decides not to take it lying down:

Thanks for stopping by and bringing your concerns forward. Let's unpack some of the key themes as I see them.

• "snide remarks about me" - The user raised a legitimate concern about free passes, or the perception of them. This is something I've been concerned about for a long time, and have commented about for a long time as well, in many contexts. "Free passes" for anyone is against the spirit of the wiki. Surely you agree that there may be a perception among some that some users do have free passes? (if not, see a few threads up, right here on this talk, for just one example of many) So, not a snide comment and not directed specifically at you. Not everything onwiki is about you, believe it or not. But let me apologise if you think it was directed specifically at you or was intended to be snide.
• "It's particularly depressing to see it extend to you lending support to a LaRouche editor who's trying to prevent the LaRouche bio from being improved" If answering a question is "lending support" in your view, I think you're not seeing things clearly. Perhaps you should step back from the conflict at that bio and leave it to uninvolved editors.
• "If you have a low opinion of me" - My personal opinion of you is irrelevant. As should be yours of me. What matters to me is whether your actions bring harm to the project. If I think they do, I will speak out about it. I won't be constrained by any previous history we might have. Nor should you be.
• "just stay away from me, and I'll continue to do the same for you." - Our current difficulties started when you made a number of unjustified and unsupported allegations in an inappropriate manner in a number of venues, something which you were sanctioned by ArbCom for doing,[see note] and something for which you've never expressed any remorse, regret, or even acknowledgment that you erred in any way. It's ironic that now you want to stay away, as the damage you did with public invective was done long ago.
• "we should seek private mediation" - I don't see that as particularly useful yet, given that in our prior communications, you've not been willing to acknowledge that you erred in how you raised issues or how you approached conflict resolution. Mediation requires an honest willingness to start afresh. Perhaps at some point in the future, though, if you're now willing to acknowledge what you did was wrong? I remain hopeful. You can start the process by apologizing.

I hope that helps address your concerns. ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes
1. ^ quoting: The Committee reminds the users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct.

I wish I could see Slim while reading it!
(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/AngryWikipe-tan.png)

[Cedric]

The exchange was funny enough I think it should be preserved:

Leatherstocking defends himself, closing with:

... I still contend, however, that SlimVirgin is outrageously flouting numerous policies, and no one seems to raise an eyebrow. Does she have a free pass of some sort? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

to which Lar simply replies:

An excellent question. The answer, of course, is that no one has a free pass here. Theoretically, anyway. ++Lar - 03:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Slim's shrill response on Lar's talk page is:

Lar, if you don't stop posting snide remarks about me, [8] I'm going to approach the ArbCom for relief. You've been asked many times to stop by several editors. There's no call for it, and I won't respond in kind. It's particularly depressing to see it extend to you lending support to a LaRouche editor who's trying to prevent the LaRouche bio from being improved (and in such a way that any reasonable person would see was an improvement). If you have a low opinion of me, just stay away from me, and I'll continue to do the same for you. Or we should seek private mediation, as I suggested in a recent e-mail to which you didn't respond. But the current one-way public sniping is not acceptable. SlimVirgin - 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Lar decides not to take it lying down:

Thanks for stopping by and bringing your concerns forward. Let's unpack some of the key themes as I see them.

• "snide remarks about me" - The user raised a legitimate concern about free passes, or the perception of them. This is something I've been concerned about for a long time, and have commented about for a long time as well, in many contexts. "Free passes" for anyone is against the spirit of the wiki. Surely you agree that there may be a perception among some that some users do have free passes? (if not, see a few threads up, right here on this talk, for just one example of many) So, not a snide comment and not directed specifically at you. Not everything onwiki is about you, believe it or not. But let me apologise if you think it was directed specifically at you or was intended to be snide.
• "It's particularly depressing to see it extend to you lending support to a LaRouche editor who's trying to prevent the LaRouche bio from being improved" If answering a question is "lending support" in your view, I think you're not seeing things clearly. Perhaps you should step back from the conflict at that bio and leave it to uninvolved editors.
• "If you have a low opinion of me" - My personal opinion of you is irrelevant. As should be yours of me. What matters to me is whether your actions bring harm to the project. If I think they do, I will speak out about it. I won't be constrained by any previous history we might have. Nor should you be.
• "just stay away from me, and I'll continue to do the same for you." - Our current difficulties started when you made a number of unjustified and unsupported allegations in an inappropriate manner in a number of venues, something which you were sanctioned by ArbCom for doing,[see note] and something for which you've never expressed any remorse, regret, or even acknowledgment that you erred in any way. It's ironic that now you want to stay away, as the damage you did with public invective was done long ago.
• "we should seek private mediation" - I don't see that as particularly useful yet, given that in our prior communications, you've not been willing to acknowledge that you erred in how you raised issues or how you approached conflict resolution. Mediation requires an honest willingness to start afresh. Perhaps at some point in the future, though, if you're now willing to acknowledge what you did was wrong? I remain hopeful. You can start the process by apologizing.

I hope that helps address your concerns. ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes
1. ^ quoting: The Committee reminds the users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct.

I wish I could see Slim while reading it!
(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/AngryWikipe-tan.png)

Hee hee! Seriously though, this caused me to realize something. Since Lar himself is no stranger to the arts of subtle intimidation, it seems reasonable that he makes a poor subject for Linda's style of intimidation (far more BFO than Lar, it would seem). It would appear that Stroynaya has chosen to twist the tail of the wrong cat. Again.

[Achromatic]

Slim's shrill response on Lar's talk page is:

Lar, if you don't stop posting snide remarks about me, [8] I'm going to approach the ArbCom for relief. You've been asked many times to stop by several editors. There's no call for it, and I won't respond in kind. It's particularly depressing to see it extend to you lending support to a LaRouche editor who's trying to prevent the LaRouche bio from being improved (and in such a way that any reasonable person would see was an improvement). If you have a low opinion of me, just stay away from me, and I'll continue to do the same for you. Or we should seek private mediation, as I suggested in a recent e-mail to which you didn't respond. But the current one-way public sniping is not acceptable. SlimVirgin - 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis mine. This, ladies and gentleman, would be Slim laying the groundwork for a future "harassment" charge against Lar.

This post has been edited by Achromatic:

[Cla68]

I think it's interesting that Georgewiliamherbert seems to have broken ranks at the ANI, and is defending Leatherstocking against the SlimVirgin/Will Beback grand inquisitors.

He's not necessarily defending Leatherstocking. I think he's indirectly telling SV that she has no case and that she should probably back off.

Along those same lines, Will Beback needs to realize that trying to tar and feather someone with allegations of having the "wrong" POV may be a counterproductive strategy. I guess he didn't notice that hardly anyone continued to respond in that ANI thread once it became apparent that SV's case wasn't airtight, to say the least.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Will Beback needs to realize that trying to tar and feather someone with allegations of having the "wrong" POV may be a counterproductive strategy.

It has certainly worked for him in the past. However, the moment may come without warning where the "community" ceases to be amused by it.

[Cla68]

I thought that it was ok to use primary sources for BLPs as long as it was compliant with other policies such as "undue weight"? I hope any arbitrators reading this will take Leatherstocking's request seriously, because I think SV and Will Beback aren't acting in completely good faith here. In fact, in my opinion they appear to be bullying Leatherstocking.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Why do you suppose SV said that she was "writing this as an editor, not as an admin"? There had to be some legalistic ulterior motive for using that formulation.

[Cla68]

Why do you suppose SV said that she was "writing this as an editor, not as an admin"? There had to be some legalistic ulterior motive for using that formulation.

Because she is involved as an editor in the article(s). If she were acting as an admin it would look like she was using her admin status to try to intimidate an editor with which she was involved in a content dispute.