Guilt by Association, The follow-up to their hit single "Walk Away Renee" Options

[jorge]

What do you want archived? I saved the revisions of the Pan am flight article too (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Her talk pages and any key articles she's been involved with that might get deleted. Sounds like that's been done. I can't imagine that they'll delete the talk pages and articles on the various lists of Jews.

I think they only deleted certain edits (not articles) which they were concerned might reveal her identity. I don't think she ever mentioned anything about her personal life on the Lists so they haven't been touched. Interestingly some edits were removed from Mordecai Vanunu for some reason. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[nobs]

I have til now avoided trashing SlimVirgin on this board, despite being an eyewitness to a cybercrime of defamation I beleive was committed with malicious intent in 2005. Recently, however, I discovered this evidence,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=20497284

which consists of no less than two policy violations, (1) removing another editors talk page comments; (2) misleading edit summary (this is the only edit to that page).

I had not realized until now, nearly one and half years later, SlimVirgin have broken the good faith I had always extended to her. And this act of hers had direct consequences on me. Let me insert for the record a recent email to Fred Bauder.

from Rob Smith <nobs03@gmail.com> hide details Feb 3 (4 days ago)
to Fred Bauder <fredbaud@ctelco.net>
date Feb 3, 2007 4:29 PM
subject Brandt & SlimVirgin
mailed-by gmail.com

Given the problems at
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=22084

and the fact that my breaching experiment arose over the naming of a Category
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/032068.html

what am I to make of SlimVirgin's actions which I just discoverd here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=20497284

Can we call this bad faith, at a minimum?

nobs01

[Somey]

HEY, EVERYBODY FROM WIKIEN-L! HOW Y'ALL DOIN'?

Just in case you happened to follow the link Mr. Nobs posted on your fine mailing list, directing you to the posting just above this one, please remember that Nobs is currently under a somewhat unique form of posting restriction here, and I suspect it was for that reason that he felt it necessary to link to this thread instead of one that was perhaps more appropriate. Sorry about that! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

And just in case nobody else has bothered asking, could I make a polite request? Couldn't you guys just, like, apologize to Nobs or something? Or just take back whatever it was you said about him, sort of? He isn't going to stop any of this, y'know, until you do. He isn't bothering us here, not anymore at least... I'm monitoring his posts for libelous statements, and while you guys probably think everything he says is libelous, so far he's managed to avoid anything overtly actionable, at least in my opinion.

I also have the power to remove supposedly personal information about various would-be anonymous people from this website, and am willing to use it, but you folks have to go first, okay? That's because you started it all, and ultimately, that's what Nobs seems to be trying to say here. (And failing miserably as usual, I might add!)

And don't you people ever get tired of creating situations like this? I know Nobs is a royal PITA, but what do you expect, if you keep insisting on shooting yourselves in the foot?

Saturday, March 3, Approx. 6AM UTC

ADDENDUM

And as long as I'm at it, please allow me to point out that no one in their right mind (and not that I don't necessarily include Nobs in this category) would attempt to suggest that Mr. Yanksox and Mr. Ken Myers are the same person, or that anything Ken Myers wrote here could have influenced Mr. Yanksox to "suddenly" decide to delete the Daniel Brandt article. Yanksox had, in my considered opinion, become increasingly frustrated with Wikipedia's self-destructive policies over a long period of time. Also, this wasn't the first time an administrator had deleted that same article as a "parting gesture" - the previous attempt was made by a user named "Hoopydink," as I recall.

In closing, I'll just repeat something I've already posted elsewhere on this site. The only way the internal WP squabbling over this will ever stop is if the Brandt article goes away completely. We could stop discussing it here altogether, and the squabbling would still go on and on and on, because this is a moral issue, not a content issue. There will always be sound moral justification for getting rid of this article, and little or no sound moral justification whatsoever for keeping it. The people voting to delete are the ones who are guided by their sense of morality, and while Daniel Brandt may be a thoroughly unpleasant individual (to you folks at least), so are a lot of people - and in my experience, they usually get that way because others just won't let them get on with their lives in peace.

Thanks for your time!

(Written 30 minutes after the bit just above this one)

Well I, for one, would like to propose a warm round of cyber-applause for Nobs, who went out of his way to find a highly appropriate thread in which to post this latest piece of information. YAY NOBS! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

As pleased as I think we all are about this, I nevertheless feel compelled to ask something. Nobs, you're not trying to suggest that anyone here should be surprised to see a diff in which Slimmy uses a misleading edit summary to disguise her deletion of another user's discussion entry that she finds personally inconvenient, are you?

Surely not!

As for the matter at hand, a cursory check of the various contribs and page histories involved shows that User:Jnc, apparently a long-time administrator, actually did defend you to some extent - and also User:Rangerdude as well. He's now essentially left WP, having been run off by the edit-warring tactics of User:Barberio, who in turn has only recently been run off by the administrative "cyberbullying" tactics of User:Radiant!... who himself quit Wikipedia for several months, exactly a year ago today, over... well, who knows? Just the usual crap, looks like.

To some extent, your own situation is just more of the usual crap too, Nobs. I'll grant that it's unusual in some respects, but the devious, arrogant, and hypocritical behavior of the WP high mucky-mucks is not one of them, I'm afraid. Ahh, well! On and on it goes...

[nobs]

...a cursory check of the various contribs and page histories involved shows that User:Jnc, apparently a long-time administrator, actually did defend you to some extent - and also User:Rangerdude as well. He's now essentially left WP, having been run off by the edit-warring tactics of User:Barberio,

User:Jnc was a heavyweight -- "one of the four MIT people whose name is on the "Creation of the Internet" plaque at Stanford". Was in mediation with Barbiero over History of the Internet, but couldn't cite himself cause he personally was involved in creating the history of the internet. See Talk:History of the Internet/Archive 3#Pictures, for example

As to where did they come from, I personally scanned them in from original hardcopies that are in my files. I don't know which meetings I was at that I got them at, I went to innumerable Internet-related meetings between '77 and around '90...

and

They are hard copies. Someone personally gave them to me, several decades ago.

Some of this stuff ought to be saved too, like Rangerdude's.

Specifically, Jnc & I discussed the problems with the name Cat:Soviet spies; it remains controversial and unsolved. WikiProject:Military history/Military science task force uses the problem category twice in its categorization scheme. I agreed on several occasions to work with Cberlet in and out of mediation to rename it. Cberlet went behind my back and asked his fellow NLG member to delete the Category. Fred Bauder sanctioned circumventing Official Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Policy in the above email to the Wikien-1 link. The evidence I just discovered, which dates just days after the Blob of Horowitz hit shows me telling Jnc,

Perhaps Soviet spies could be renamed, sorted out, and integrated into this Category:Soviet and Russian intelligence agencies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nobs01 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 5 August 2005.nobs 17:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I can follow it the way you explained. Two questions: (1) what would be the appropriate time frame, wait til the Category survives the VfD? and (2) what about "operatives" as a temporary catchall, excluding Soviet nationals as Case Officers, perhaps leaving them in Category:NKVD? nobs 17:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin deliberately removed the next posting.

I have some questions for you regarding both (1) terminology and (2) categorization. Would you mind private email corrrespondence on this? Thank you. nobs 21:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Jnc never responded. Now I know why.

On 7 Nov 2005, after Cberlet got approval from Bauder to violate policy, and witnessing what they did to Daniel Brandt, I got mad and performed a breaching experiment. I made a permanent record of the shenanigans on the Chip Berlet/Talk page by dumping verbatim the Wilcox material, all per WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V. Bauder ruled a verifiable citation to the Washington Post was a personal attack by Nobs01. This is a matter of record and historical fact.

This post has been edited by nobs:

[nobs]

Proceedural question: in this diff we have a Statement by involved third party: Katefan0; the very next edit SlimVirgin moves Katefan0's statement and deletes involved third party and makes Katefan0 an "involved" party".

The RfArb/User:Willmcw and User:SlimVirgin was voted to Accept, and the retaliatory RfArb/Rangerdude was voted to Accept and Merge with the below Willmcw and SlimVirgin case, to which SlimVirgin was never named either an "involved party", nor a "defendent".

This primea facia shows more than the Arbitration policy violations of transparancy, and internal regulatory abuse.

And it should be further noted, that Mindspillage aka Kat Walsh, a law student, who took more than 6 weeks consideration to Accept the case against SlimVirgin, and voted Accept and Merge a case entitled "Rangerdude" into the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin, now sits on the Wikimedia Board of Trustees

This post has been edited by nobs: