Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: gomi

Here are a few accusations about Wikipedia Review that SlimVirgin makes in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate:

• The four of them ... proceeded to trash me with any allegation they could think of, including that I was a neo-Nazi pretending to be a Jew
• They were going to report me to an Israeli Embassy in Australia (where Blissy lived)
• They held a poll to decide whether the Mossad would kill me or jail me
• They posted that I had faked my own death, and that I was a teenage girl who had murdered her mother. Selina kept posting photographs of obese women, claiming they were me
• They discussed whether I feared being raped, what underwear I wore, whether I wanted to have sex with teenagers, and whether I had to sleep with men to get jobs.
• I was openly referred to as a whore and a cunt.
• An Iraq war veteran in Canada ... warned that I had better find a place to hide, because he was coming to look for me, and was looking forward to punching me in the face.

Slim doesn't provide any links. Here is my question: are any of these accusations even remotely true? I've been on WR for well over 2 years, and I can't recall a single one of these things happening (except maybe for some people addressing Slim with derogatory and sexist epithets). For those who've been on the site longer, does any of this ring true?

What this appears to be is Slim attempting yet again to tar WR with outrageous but unprovable accusations, most sourced in ancient history and unrelated to the WR of today.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

Along time ago I visited this site (more than two years, I think) and there was a pornographic image, basically the antonym of SlimVirgin, representing her in a thread. After seeing that, and sorry I don't have the link, I wrote this site off and didn't pay any attention to it until its standards improved.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

WR was a lot "wilder" in the old days; it wasn't entirely without justification that I referred to it as a "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15526" not all that long ago. It's gotten a lot more respectable in recent days.

I expect that Slimmy's catalog of offenses is about 30% factual, 20% imaginary, and the rest hyperbolic exaggeration.

Posted by: Selina

it wasnt pornographic unless you use the term very loosely to include anything naked... If SV or anyone found it "pornographic" or exciting they need medical help. I think I just googled huge fat woman or something and pasted the first result (this was several years ago, I have no idea how long)

At the time he/she (I think the Poetlister debacle has made people think a bit more about taking people that claim to be "slim virgins" on face value, the posturing and preening of SV is in many ways very similar) was being a total bitch to me, and I wasn't staff or anything back then (this is the oooold times when Igor was running things before he showed his true colours and started pasting nazi propaganda and banning loads of people).

it wasn't nice, but the way SV was acting towards me I think was just a bad in their own way, just not as blatant. They were doing the usual tarring of enemies as "trolls", and the sneaky slimy organising their cabal through email (at telling points messages on talk pages "Please see my email" etc, which seems to be a characteristic of how they work) and so on. It was just venting really, I didn't think he/she even read the forum at the time, and I don't think it was really that big of a thing other than turned into a convenient thing for SV to play victim from.

The "kept posting" bit is an outright lie, it was just one picture.

Most of the other stuff I don't think is true, but god knows I didn't read everything, even when I became staff... I especially tuned out from rant style posts which if any of it is true would probably be where they were. A lot of it sounds like Amorrow, who was very thoroughly banned for being a total loon (and I read recently he's coming out of jail for something, no idea what).

"They were going to report me to an Israeli Embassy in Australia (where Blissy lived)" ---- blissy is one of those people who I wouldn't be surprised if I was told they had done anything weird/pointless.

"trash me with any allegation they could think of, including that I was a neo-Nazi pretending to be a Jew" ---- I think that originally came from grace note (who ironically is one of his/her supporters now). I've said it might be true in the past but never said definite (I know this is not just about me but the site tho, but blaming the site for what a couple people said is like saying America is a bad country because it has michael moore in it) - simply because it is quite possible, and for similar reasons why he/she claimed wrongly that Poetguy was an anti-semite (when they are actually a Jew!) - it's just hard to tell who is playing games and who's for real.

Posted by: Somey

You also have to remember that most of the really vituperative stuff against Slimmy was coming not from the PoetEntity at all, but from now-banned members Sgrayban, Hushthis, Donny, Amorrow, and Jorge. A lot of those posts have since been deleted, some of them irretrievably. As for the posts that weren't deleted, the PoetEntity actually supported the toning-down of that material through tarpitting and redactions - he certainly didn't object at all to my abortive effort to redact Slimmy's real name from all WR public forums (though it wasn't his idea either, of course).

The PoetEntity didn't want to hurt or even humiliate SlimVirgin, he simply wanted to defeat SlimVirgin. The others were far angrier, and much more likely to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

I thought they had banned all the furries?

Oh wait … I really gotta get new glasses …

Jon

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

She also says that I sent her a Christmas message worded "ho, ho, ho." Now, I actually think that it's relatively witty, compared to the more general vituperation, but I don't think I can claim credit for it.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Ah, but it all becomes clear. MB is a neonazi who makes lists and bios of Jews and infiltrates high positions in various British Jewish orgnizations. But he has only one purpose-- perversion! Much like FT2, he really wants to (re)introduce the Jews back into the notion of ... bondage!




Then, when they've gotten used to that, some gentle zoophilia:

And then finally, when all is complete, bondage AND zoophilia!



Safety phrase: Damn Dirty Apes!

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I've been here about a year and a half and don't remotely recognize the topography of WR she describes. It resembles a Blissy-like dreamscape more than anything else I know. Perhaps she is stuck in hating a WR that no longer exists and very likely never existed at all.

Posted by: flash

Now I'm reposting a little bit from the poetlister thread because I think it answers something about SlimVirgin's research methods...

First, re: The "poetlister dispute'

The key opening allegation that Slim blocked " Amalekite " with an expiry time of indefinite ?(disruption; posted a list of Wikipedians he believes are Jews on the Stormfront website; posted details of how to edit using proxies and sockpuppets)"

- seems to be backed by no evidence. indeed, Slim's case seems to be based on the earlier claim by 'Formeruser-82'that he was a 'neo-nazi Troll soliciting other trolls off of Stormfront".

(It still seems odd to me that someone who spends so much time infiltrating WP (Guy/Poetlister) should have pointlessly revealed their neo-Nazi interests by posting 'lists of jews'. But then maybe neo-nazis can't stop themselves...)

Secondly, despite Slim's 'love of diffs' few of the links on this poetlister page work - those that do are only to trivial Wikidefinitions... The diffs go nowhere - this can't be by accident. It must be an attempt to make the account look more imposing, and an assumption that readers will either not folow the links or not balme her for their not working. As Slim complains people don't follow links, this looks excellently cunning!

I asked Slim by email if she had any evidence for this, but got no response. No response from Slim is however itself a kind of message.

Second, re. Slim's character and 'modus operandi', Slim explained to my colleague, DMC, why she started two pages, the one Wikigiraffes was banned for editing 'Bagginni' and the one DMC was banned for taggiong as spam, 'Stangroom'. Slim has not started THAT many pages so this is unusual for her.

Slim created pages just because she came across their names in a book? 'Poorly researched rubbish' to coin a phrase! The same goes for this account of WR and Poetlister.

But Slim is far too clever to do things in a rubbishy way. "My best guess' (yes, Milton) is that there is a subplot here.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Sorry, I've been away, and apologize if someone has already noted this, but I don't think you guys, er dudes realize just how disastrous SlimVirgin's little philippic essjay can be for us — but when you get that x-orbitant bill from her at the end of the month for Services Rendered as our Recruiting Agent, don't say I didn't warn you.

Better start taking up a collection — and now!

Jon

Posted by: Proabivouac

It seems probable that Slim's allegation that "Herschelkrustofsky wished me Merry Christmas one year with a "ho, ho, ho.""…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate&diff=prev&oldid=236905028
refers to these posts of Christmas 2006:


SlimVirgin has, to my eye, accurately captured the spirit of these remarks.

Posted by: everyking

I remember several of the items on her list occurring, and I suspect the remaining items are at least grounded in reality. Of course, as others have noted, the really insane accusations mostly came from Blissy, who is long gone, and the more vicious attack stuff was also mostly from people who are now long gone.

I would have a lot of sympathy, reading about how she lost sleep, lived in fear, and checked the forum constantly, but then I observe that she still takes no responsibility for her history of admin abuse and pretends to be a blameless victim, and it's hard to muster much of that sympathy. I then observe that she is attempting to explain the widespread objections to her conduct as the result of PoetGuy's machinations, leading me to consider the motive behind her account of events to be suspect, and my remaining sympathy evaporates. Sorry, SV--the excesses weren't justified, but I'll save my sympathy for people who haven't abused Wikipedia and its community so terribly.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Well, yes and no. They were pretty insulting but as ever, she twists it to make it seem a personal interaction rather than an offhand throwaway joke - as a Brit, it took me several reads to work out the sockpuppet remark.

More interesting though is that nearly two years on, Slim has bookmarked, festered on, and rewritten and regurgitated a remark that was a throwaway comment. Wikipedians ability to bear a grudge over immense periods of time knows no bounds. To be frank, I'd be embarrassed to bring something like that up after this length of time.

I propose that at next year's awards, we introduce the Grudge Bearing Award for the Wikipedian maintaining the longest grudge over the most trivial matter, extra points awarded for those who manage to get blocks and bans achieved on the basis of bringing these stale matters up. We could get several Eastern European states to sponsor it.

Posted by: Giggy

Usually when you have an award up for grabs you expect some form of competition. In this case, I don't think anyone is close to having a chance of taking Slim's prize.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

I'm not so sure, there are some sulky Wikipedians who hang around here who are giving her some stiff competition, at least in the trivia department

Posted by: Proabivouac

I am not clear that she has bookmarked these links, which I found in the course of my own research. Perhaps her hazy representation of the context in which these remarks were posted reflects her failure to adequately archive this material.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Physically, or mentally she has indexed these remarks. Regardless, it is the fact that a throwaway remark, that she has remembered exactly who said it and when, yet inflates its impact, is just so typically Slim. As others have commented, she can produce the links when she wants to, so always be suspicious if she chooses not to. I mean, how much searching does it require here to find that thread, knowing what she says she remembers, though I hadn't read her accusation as describing a post here at all.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Perhaps we should have a contest to come up with even more memorable comeuppances, so that SlimVirgin can finally put that old chestnut back in her hope chest and bury it in mothballs with all her old sleepers and socks.

Jon

Posted by: dtobias

Chestnuts should be roasting on an open fire, shouldn't they?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

That temper of vengeance is not mine to assign.

All in good thyme.

Jon

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I doubt it. She's very methodical. She also routinely misrepresents her archived material, assuming that she can get away with it due to the sheer volume of accusations that she presents. In this case, it is likely that you managed to find the actual basis for her accusation, which most people would not trouble themselves to do. And it is also clear that there was no personal "Christmas message" to her from either Gomi or myself.


Bingo.

Posted by: Proabivouac

I agree that Slim's wording, "Herschelkrustofsky wished me Merry Christmas one year with a "ho, ho, ho."", is misleading on two counts. The first is that you were not the initiator of this "witticism", but only responded to Gomi. The second is, as you say, no personal message was sent to her; while Slim's language doesn't require this, it's the most natural reading.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

SlimVirgin is apparently unacquainted with the imminently — and I do mean "imminently" — good advice contained in WP:BEANS.

Keep those cards and letters coming, folks!

Jon

Posted by: The Adversary

I joined here in May 2006, and for some of those first weeks there were some posts which were waaaayyyyy over the line. Some of them were mentioned in the arb.com against Blu Aardvark back in June -06. Follow the links in Simetrical´s evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Simetrical. (Oh; and I´m "Surfer (no Wikipedia username listed)" (You bet.)) I think that today we can all agree that, say, Sgraybans remark was totally unacceptable, in fact he himself apologised a few days later. And Simetrical was right: I reacted very angrily to the "gutter language". It was really strange: I came to WR to vent my anger against Slimey and Jay, and ended up defending her (sort of) the first week Those were the wild, but wild old days in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mos_Eisley_Cantina

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

When people treat you like dirt beneath their royal feet, it's only natural to kick what clods you can back in their face.

What's so hard to comprehend about that?

It's only Rock@ Science, but I like it …

Jon

Posted by: The Adversary

Well, one point I tried to make is that not all of Slimeys accusations are totally baseless. She was called a "scabby c.u.n.t." Once. More that 2 years ago.

This just leaves the "other" problem: that she never sees anything wrong with her own behaviour

From my own RL experience I have found that "perfect" people, people who never accept that they are wrong or make mistakes are the very worst people to be around. They make me ill. Quite literally.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

P.S. We Didn't Start The Fire.

Jon

Posted by: The Adversary

True. But if somebody treats you as if you are dirt under their noble feet, it is not very wise to behave and use language as if you belong just there. In the gutter.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Bugger Off …

Jon

Posted by: gomi

In the cool light of day, I will admit that my own language vis-a-vis SlimVirgin is not above reproach (far from it). I am as likely as others to mix up the various uses of this forum: 1) as a serious critical review of WP and its adminsitrators; 2) as a compendium and record of administrative mis-behaviour and hypocrisy; and 3) as a place for those wronged by WP admins to commiserate and blow off steam. Slim and Jayjg are responsible for not only my banning under false pretenses, but that of my then-employer and several colleagues, so it is no secret that I hold some ill-will. Some of the banned have subsequently made some kind peace with Slim and have urged me to do the same, but like The Adversary, I find her so pernicious and annoying that I'm not able to do that. So this is my mea culpa for using sexist epithets that I should not have, but not for making strong criticisms in strong terms.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Oh, Gomi, you bring me to tears.

And, no, it's not just your abuse of Latin for saying "my mea culpa" …

So let this be mea maxima culpa for all those times in childhood when I regarded Betty Boop as a mere object of infantile lust.

Next thing you know we'll be apologizing to Poet* for all those times we addressed him as she.

Boo Hoo Hoo …

Lordy, lordy, at what age do people finally stop taking cartoon characters for real?

Jon

Posted by: The Adversary

That´s ok, that is what we are here for

More seriously: The one thing to remember about people who are perfect is....that they are perfect and if you are in disagreement with them, it is because you are wrong. Always. Simple as that. You will not be able to change it. And if you don´t have the health/strength to deal with that, then get the hell out of there.

WP is luckily that big that you can always find some interesting corner away from them. I try most of all to avoid people like Slim, instead I observe them from a distance..and then you can really laugh of it all.

Look e.g at the infamous anime deletion discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shii/Image_talk:Anime_by_nima.jpg

See how they demand to know the qualifications from other editors? ("Are you a copyright lawyer?") Hilarious, when you know that only 2 hours before this discussion the tables were completely turned..when someone wanted to know Jay´s qualifications http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOn_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies&diff=55664415&oldid=55663944#.3DA_Sincere_Question_for_JayJG


It reminds me of this:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

Posted by: Proabivouac

I take it you were User:Gomi-no-sensei?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AGomi-no-sensei

Posted by: One

I'm sorry to disagree, but that's funny all by itself. I've never seen that before. They're all accusing that guy of disruption for bringing up a freaking obvious point about copyright. I love where Kelly Martin weighs in, and Slim just ignores her because she must have come from IRC! FeloniousMonk's there too! Oh lord, that's amusing.

Thank you.

Posted by: Viridae

Was gonna say pretty much the same thing.

Posted by: Milton Roe

The one guy is mad because he made some complaint about edit-POVing on Jayjg's TALK page and Jay simply blanked it and ignored him. I wonder which one of them learned that move from the other? It's led to many an all-out war on WP, for sure.

Posted by: Proabivouac

I'm interested in hearing more about this. If Slim and Jayjg, along with your employer and colleagues, banned you under false pretenses, you ill will would be perfectly justified. What happened?

Posted by: gomi

[Moderator's note: I moved the discussion of Asperger's to http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20395. gomi]

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Are you people Still having Imaginary Arguments with Kabal Kartoon Karacters?

Are you Still confused by the Painted On Secondary Sex Characteristics of Animated Least Action Heroins?

Did you learn Nothing, Nothing At All (N²A²) from the 15 Months of Fame you gave up to Poetaster?

Has Wiki-Induced Kognitive Impairment (WIKI) finally rotted every last Gray Cell in your Bitty Brains?

Well, I'm Sorry, there is No Pill, No Patch for that —

You will just have Boot Up your Brain by its BootStraps, if you have any Straps to Boot.

Jon

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

It might be interesting to conduct a poll to see what percentage of members of the Review were banned under corrupt circumstances by Slim and her posse. I suspect the numbers would startle you.

Posted by: Proabivouac

Such a number would be meaningless without a thorough vetting of each case, which is what I am trying to do here.

Posted by: The Adversary

Well, yeah, I guess I should have said even more hilarous. Though I think poor Ashibaka (or Shii) didn´t find it so funny at the time
I knew from very early on that Slim could go totally ballistic over some minuscule detail, but that she could start WWIII on WP over...peanuts.. Ah well: be warned!

Though, in fact, I think that Slim has improved, and I put this down to Wordbomb After his revelations (last year) about Slim´s sockpuppets + oversighted edits: the whole attitude has changed. For the better, IMHO.

Posted by: Ashibaka

You know, I don't doubt that all of the crazy things that SlimVirgin accuses WR members of saying were actually said. At one time she had a list of names she had been called on her WP userpage, and I would not be surprised if she had an Excel spreadsheet with a list of usernames and insults used. The reason she rallied the troops around me is likely because of her willingness to percieve the general mish-mash as "lynchings" and "organized harassment".

On the other hand, we all have our faults, and for her lifelong efforts to qualm disruption on our Internet encyclopedia, she really does deserve a trip to Bermuda expenses paid. Provided she does not give in to the desire to check her e-mail while she's there.

Posted by: dtobias

Accusing her of using Micro$oft products? That's the lowest insult I've heard against her yet!

----------------
Now playing: http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/pat+benatar/track/heartbreaker
via http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Actually, what you find is that often the things she says were said, but she casts them in a completely different light. So a discussion on a talk page, she will lose the argument, go off in a huff, and then state that she was being harassed and abused; we just discussed the Christmas Card incident where there was a tasteless but clever comment made, and she turned that into a personal interaction.

Mainly though, I don't have a lot of faith in the judgement of the community that will listen to her complaints where she twists innocuous comments into evil attacks yet sees nothing wrong with one of their own calling all and sundry a cunt.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I'm in that collection, if you expand it to those effectively forced out through her actions as well as those actually banned.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Depends on your frame of reference. The SlimVirgin account appears better behaved, because she delegates the more tendentious edits to the latest sock accounts, first Sunsplash and now John Nevard.

Posted by: Selina

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18890&st=540&p=132343&#entry132343

Sweet blue water, Sunsplash, John Nevard, god, at least as bad as Poetthing, what a hypocrite - but no doubt whoever is behind "slimvirgin" will get away with at as usual. I did say before the creepy slimey way they manipulate people reminded me of them (all the extra fake girliness and acting defenceless and asking people to come to the rescue, making a point of using the fake name "Sarah" as the ending line on every email every mailing list, claiming anyone who criticises them is a stalker or harasser (I feel like how I would imagine a black person feels to the kind of people who use the race card at every opportunity to get at others)), but wow, this really takes the biscuit. They should totally get married, if they both aren't men. Or maybe still if they are, whatever, lol...

Posted by: The Adversary

-and I assume KvdLinde comes in the same category as you. And "user:neurocientist" who also quit in disgust over SV.

Posted by: Proabivouac

Slim presented the situation in a way which sounded like it was saying something that it wasn't, and people here pretended to have no idea what she was talking about. I don't think it's fair to say she cast in a completely different light, not at all. Publicly calling a woman a whore - and that isn't the only occasion - is guaranteed to get a angry reaction. And it wasn't "clever", but a very awkward shoehorn into an unrelated discussion.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

I don't think that is quite accurate to say that people here pretended to have no idea what she was taking about - it was quite a stretch to get from sending Christmas greetings to a crass comment made flippantly a long time ago.

Clever - bad choice of words though a perfectly reasonable one to use: simply a "clever" comment not meaning intelligent, and again, without defending a crass and tasteless comment, I was vaguely under the impression that it was simply nasty name calling rather than any serious imputation as to her personal activities - uncalled for, but essentially picking up on a well known old joke. We all do tasteless things at times. But anyhow, that was just one example, I have personally been subjected to more than one of her rapid about turns where an innocent comment is turned into a personal slight - and sure enough, up it pops some time later. She files these battle scars away, festers on them and brings them out as weapons to use as she sees fit.

Posted by: dtobias

I'm not sure where to find the diff for it, but I remember in some onwiki discussion (perhaps connected with one of the ArbCom cases or user RFCs related to the ongoing war of the cliques) Slim's loyal servant ElinorD made a point of bringing up a (then at least a month old) quip I had made on the wikien-l mailing list as an example of my gross incivility (to make me seem a hypocrite to complain about incivility of others). The quip was in response to a message on that list in a thread discussing Slim that happened to use the word "fucking", to which I responded "Anyone involved in fucking is clearly not a virgin" (or something like that).

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Well, I suppose that is a good reason as to why it is best to take the high ground, but why should the Devil have all the good music?

Posted by: Proabivouac

Under what username? Readers of the Review deserve to know what you're talking about, all the more so since you're a moderator.


If I'd posted that about your wife, mother or daughter you'd not post these kinds of excuses. Even if we do "all do tasteless things at times," we all find occasion to apologize at times and, - as an appointed officer of the Review - you might consider that. Don't give me and other readers this spin where it's somehow okay for supposedly grown men to hang out over here and pseudonymously slag her as a "bitch" and a "whore." This being the leadership. What a disgrace.

Posted by: gomi

Oh, stop it. As we've been through elsewhere, posting here incurs no obligation to reveal one's Wikipedia identity, and your braying will not change that.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Under my real name - and on your quid pro quo basis, if Slim is prepared to reveal her name to defend her slights against others, where she as a matter of course impugns the honesty and integrity of other editors, I am quite prepared to reveal mine. No, didn't think it was much of a risk offering that either. Though I wouldn't like it, being called a wanker, bastard or cunt doesn't bother me overly, being suggested to be dishonest does, because regardless of pseudononymity, it actually does reflect on me.


Oh don't be so deliberately dense, in what sense do you take the words crass, tasteless, nasty name calling, uncalled for a defence? However, it was not my comment, and it is not my role to apologise for it, and H is a big enough guy that if he feels like it he could comment, but to be honest, nitpicking over something said so long ago, emphasises the point. It was lost and forgotten until the target of the comment unearthed it, just for the purposes of revenge.

The point stands, it was a nasty throw away comment, but SlimVirgin stacks it all up, inflates it and throws it all back 10 times bigger.

You vastly overrate my role and status. The masses have made it quite clear that they are not interested in leadership. If you think moving the odd post around and grizzling about Moulton's latest onslaught amounts to leadership, you have gravely misunderstood how this site works.

Posted by: Proabivouac

We at least know who you are, and thus are able (at least in theory) to evaluate this, if you'd like to discuss it further.

You're kidding, right? Sweet blue water is an obvious sock, but quite old, and double voted, what, once? John Nevard isn't SlimVirgin. Sunsplash declares himself/herself an "alternate account", and looks like an anti-La Rouche single-purpose account:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Sunsplash
Are we certain this is her? Even if so, Selina,- it's completely ridiculous to say that this is "at least as bad as" what Baxter did.

We've published her name over here on many occasions - more than probably anyone else's excepting perhaps Gary Weiss, who richly deserves the scrutiny. As for yours, well, so am I. Readers can't fairly evaluate your conflicts with her without you telling them what they were. Saying she does this or that without reference to specific incidents is prejudicial without being informative.

So hand me, Tarantino and Rootology (for starters) the mod bit, since it's "no big deal." What's the trouble?

Posted by: gomi

It appears you are being obdurate and biased, Proab. This forum, Notable Editors/SlimVirgin, is chock-full of well-documented cases of her abuse, complete with links and citations. If it has also attracted some invective and slurs, that is regrettable but not surprising. Asking for "references to specific incidents", especially when in the presence of so many examples, is a classic Slim/Jayjg tactic, in fact.

Why all this sudden interest on your part in reconstructing SlimVirgin's reputation? She appears to have, for the moment, largely stepped back from both WP admin and editorial duties, so time will tell whether she is, in fact, reformed. However, her long association with Jayjg, who continues his abusiveness and POV-pushing, is enough to give anyone pause in considering her rehabilitated.


To my mind, asking for it is a prima facie reason not to grant it.

Posted by: sarcasticidealist

There's plenty of room for debate about the merits of pseudonymity in general, but I hope all concerned will take this bit to heart. Well said, Proab.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

In some MMORPGs, fantasy characters shoot, stab and slay other fantasy characters. In other MMORGs, pseudonyms insult other pseudonyms, or, if they can accumulate enough gnarly powers, they ban them from the game. The sad aspect of Wikpedia is that there is spillover from these conflicts that affects real life individuals who are not even participants and didn't ask to be included.

Posted by: sarcasticidealist

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, Hersh, you're among those saying that Wikipedia has consequences that are too serious for it to be treated as just a game. Accordingly, I'm not sure I buy your rationale for why that kind of garbage is acceptable.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

You're not mistaken, except about my having a rationale. Hint: I like irony.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Pro, I am not going to debate this further. From my perspective it is a mountain out of a molehill. I don't approve of H's comment, but in my eyes, but clearly not yours, it was a minor thing from some time ago. I do not intend to be dragged into some high drama over what in my mind is a triviality.

Posted by: Proabivouac

Well, you see, I know what the trouble was. I hadn't asked - I was tipped off awhile back that someone had suggested me, but I was rejected because I didn't oppose SlimVirgin and Jayjg.

So it's no surprise to me to see that you, who were made a mod after this tip, have your own issues with SlimVirgin. Having not looked at them too closely, I take no position on their validity, but only observe that Slim appears to have been entirely correct when she said that badmouthing her is an "entry ticket" to the Review.


This pith of wisdom from the site which promoted "Poetlister" to staff.

Hmm, let's see: 1) is a total liar 2) impersonates third parties 3) opposes SlimVirgin and Jayjg. Bring him onboard!

Posted by: gomi

What an aggressively idiotic argument. Two of those "facts" were not in evidence at the time, and the third was not a substantial consideration. I'll also point out that the Poet thing was de-sysoped here before being revealed as a multiganger or whatever.

In any case, that is old news. No doubt there are an equal or greater number of disqualifying facts about you not yet in evidence, but those already extant do seem sufficient. I might point out that you completely dodged the question: Why the sudden interest in rehabilitating SlimVirgin? Enquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Proabivouac

O RLY?

Posted by: Piperdown

i'd been surprised that an W-R account hasn't been outed by now as SlimV. She's addicted to reading it, surely she's joined into the fray a time or two.

I'm not aware of any situations here where Linda has been called a bitch or a whore.

A liar? Yes. And the folks who enable her adminship on WP are worse.

The El Reg today went overboard speculatiing on Byrne and the Virgin having had a rollnzeehay.
He just asked for a french fry, the virgin cried, and 20 years later she got her revenge with her email buddy Gary Weiss on wikipedia.

That was after getting her wikirevenge on Pierre Salinger.

That part hasn't made it to the Reg yet. The Virgin is getting more notable in the Reg. You can tell Metz is getting very interested in Slimda....

Posted by: gomi

Yes. Poetlister was de-sysopped by Somey on July 29, more than a month before the first post in your secret thread about him. PL's behaviour toward other members here and deletion of Guy's posts tipped the scale.


Prescient of me, wasn't it! Of course, many had suspicions, but many more were taken in! And, of course, I also noted, 18 months in advance, the essential conundrum of the PoetGuy affair -- his actual Wikipedia edits really weren't all that bad. Why someone would wish to spend so much time establishing those personae still confuses me.

But back to the question at hand: Why the sudden interest in rehabilitating SlimVirgin?

Posted by: Somey

I sort of got the impression that Slimmy was indulging in a bit of wishful thinking about the nature and extent of the changes that would occur around here in the wake of PoetGuy's Big Exit™. Specifically, she'd gotten it into her head that PoetGuy was guilty of several of the more vitriolic and/or ludicrous accusations against her, most of which were actually made by others (most of whom have already been banned from WR, though admittedly not for that specific reason.)

The fact is, PoetGuy actually tended to elevate the general level of civility and decorum around here, and most of his posts about Slimmy were completely non-speculative, hardly full of insane accusations and conspiracy theories. I don't really blame Slimmy for not accepting that, since the fact that he (apparently) came up with one of the more important clues that led to Slimmy's identity would certainly have been unforgivable from her perspective. And obviously, he never let up on the "she got RachelBrown blocked!" theme either, but I suppose that was to be expected, at least in retrospect.

Slimmy's problem with respect to Wikipedia Review has always been tied up with her Wikipedia problem in general. There was a time when, it seemed, she felt that if you banned someone from an interactive website, whether by hook or by crook, the person is supposed to just vanish, disappear, never to be heard from again. And if they don't disappear (i.e., they appear elsewhere, and are angry about what happened), it's somehow just not fair, as if the banning didn't work, so you have to keep banning everyone whom you think might conceivably be that person until it does work. I suspect she's improved considerably during the last two years, but there was clearly a time when, in her mind, the ban-button represented some sort of "kill," as in "that's it, no more you!"

Having said that, I myself am not averse to removing some of the more egregious material about Slimmy - most of it is just the lunatic ravings of Blissyu2, and a few other people who are no longer with us (and who might also be desperately and irretrievably confused about who the owner of this website is). About 90 percent of that material is out of public view, but I can sort of understand why that's not good enough for her.

Posted by: Mr. Mystery

Ehh, fuck it. like i've said elsewhere, she brought it on herself, and obviously digs the attention. the gigabytes of text spent discussing SV is a testament to her power, even in her current weakened state. she enjoys this.

the hilarity of it to me is the extent to which the community supported her from the beginning, when it should have been obvious that she was up to no good in writing an article on Brandt, for one thing, to begin with. They completely followed her line in making Brandt out to be the evil guy, and later the Bagley incidents took the same course. the community believed her, believed they were defending WP from some malignant trolls who were only trying to protect themselves or their interests from malignant influences on WP. never have i seen an on-line community so effectively manipulated, or united, in mass numbers behind one person's idiosyncratic agenda before.

she is far less interesting now that she is less effective, but she is still the subject of conversation.

Posted by: Kato

In retrospect, that looks like it was largely Gary Weiss's doing. He hooked himself onto the bandwagon, onto the "harassment meme" and exploited it - and by extension, SlimVirgin - for his own ends.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Yes, but it's like with those toxic home loans-- for every predatory lender there's a predatory borrower, and it takes two to tango.

SlimVirgin and Jayjg and David Gerard and ultimately Jimbo Wales should all have STAYED THE HELL AWAY from a big financial argument between Gary Weiss, and his proxies, and Patrick Byrne and HIS proxies. Unless they all have degrees in economics that I missed. Jimbo actually has some academic training and experience in the stock market, but he zeroed that out by saying he'd never sold a stock short in his life. Okay, Jimbo, we take you at your word. Now, toodle off, will you?

As it was, the whole WP Kabal ended up supporting Weiss and his socks against all comers. Irrationally. And past the point where it was apparent to all but morons that Mantanmoreland was a sockpusher of a far more dishonest variety than Wordbomb. And with the economy going down the tubes and the naked variety of short-selling looking worse and worse, it turns out that the powerstructure of WP backed the wrong side.

But NONE of them will ever admit error. Because that's the kind of people they are. They're never wrong, even when they're wrong. And THAT, more than anything else, is why they make me crazy.

Posted by: Piperdown

weiss didn't know slim had a history with byrne prior to the time she hopped into it. she dove into that shitestorm headfirst with glee. oh mr wordbomb, may i please see your socking evidence against mantan? i'll take an objective admin look at it and surely wouldn't pass it on directly to mr weiss without your knowledge. I wouldn't have anything personal against byrne at all! I was just passing by.

she played gary. i wouldn't doubt they identified each other to each other and shared journalism empathies and letsfuckbyrne yukyuks. they had a lot in common professionally and personally. hacks posing as journalists who had a grudge with the same guy.

too bad those schneider emails probably just detail mostly his stock forum and common hedge fund buddies NSS propaganda exploits (that is what schneider, his email correspondent was involved with him in) against byrne and apparently few wikipedia ones.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

I was under the impression that I was invited to be a mod because generally speaking I didn't go around crusading, had some vaguely relevant points to make, and clearly have too much time on my hands.

I thought I was fairly independent of the other mods, in the same way we all are - even more so now that PoetGuy has gone.

It is probably wrong to characterise me as an Anti-Slim faction. Yes, I really don't like her - I had the idea that Wikipedia was a good place, and just needed a bit of common sense; once supplied we could move on. I was shocked at the intransigence and illogic of the policy pages, and could not understand why 3 months of considered debate, coping with every hurdle thrown in the path of discussing a policy change, can be set aside as no consensus to change, then Slim or one of what I now know are the usual suspects swept into town, merrily changes things on a whim and this sticks because she is a "well-respected admin." It wasn't Slim that bothered me, rather than the culture that supported this blatant abuse. You should know that, as you've PM'd me in the past. For reference, I think my irritation with Slim http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18138&view=findpost&p=105502
The path to WR is a well trodden one. Minor conflict. Sense of injustice. Learn to use talk page of another user. See other user sweep aside discussion. Confused bemusement. Call on confused bemusement. Dawns that other users are involved. Query other user if they are aware of how they appear. Get the brush off. Discover AN/I. Watch talk page (without even realising it, due to the watch feature grabbing stuff). See other incidents. Realise there is a pattern. Sense of injustice leads to deeper involvement. Deeper involvement leads to research. Research leads to WR. Sense of not being alone. Join in the "Me Too!". Kept nose clean, not obviously insane (unlike some regular posters!!) potential mod.

I am troubled as you seem to have me marked down as corrupted in some way. Is it just because that last set of posts triggered your Slim button, or was there something that I did generally that made you decide I was a friend of PoetGuy (which I certainly was not, which did not make me unique among the mods) and therefore am the spawn of the devil?

Generally speaking, I am not of the destroy Wikipedia crowd - the issues are common Internet issues and it would therefore be better to use the mass of Wikipedia to sort these issues out. I do think that the WMF and Jimbo are at best incompetent and have failed in their duty of care, yet this is not insolvable. The ideal for me would be that sufficient reform took place at Wikipedia that this site evolved into a proper literary criticism site rather than a WikiPolitics campaign site.

So that's where I stand. I did not express any view either for or against you being a mod. I would suggest though, that every now and again, you have these moments of righteous indignation and that has led the moderators as to being unsure as to whether you would remain calm in a crisis.

Posted by: Cla68

Durova and Georgewilliamherbert have admitted that they were mistaken in which side they took at first. Hopefully, some of the other, involved admins will come clean and admit the same thing so that the episode can be put to rest.

Posted by: Random832

I remember on wikback I asked (her position at the time was that this is what justified passing it on to unspecified* "other admins" [who, one imagines, relayed it to Mantanmoreland entirely without her knowledge or approval]) if it wasn't perhaps a bit irresponsible of SV to forward a message containing 'spyware' to others.

Her response was that, well, she only thought it might contain spyware. In that case, I respond, is that really a strong enough reason to justify disclosing something shared with you in confidence? No answer.

*She never said who she sent it to, and to this day there is no evidence that anyone but Mantanmoreland received it.

Posted by: Random832

I've received a complaint about the above post. Please disregard that "speculation" in favor of the facts listed below.

(emphasis mine)

Posted by: Cla68

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps the person who complained to you about your first post could come here and answer some questions from all of us, since WikBack is kaput? I think the posters here would respect his/her willingless to enter this forum and would be professional and respectful in their interactions with the person in question?

Posted by: Random832

Somehow I doubt they would. Without going into too many details, I have not been impressed with many people here's attitudes towards this person.

Posted by: gomi

I disagree with this position, but I know where it comes from. Slim, if she turned up here, would not want to answer all the questions that people had for her about her past abuses of the system. These would be seen as attacks, when in fact the other perspective is that her actions in many cases were indefensible.

So she would come here and have to endure the give-and-take without the ability to ban people who ask rude, impertinent, or angry questions. If she did that for a comparatively short period of time, I think she would be accepted here as we accept Lar, Alison, and other pro-Wikipedians. If she can't take that, then she should indeed stay in the cloister.