SlimVirgin's Missing Edits Options

[WordBomb]

I've conducted a comparison of the record of SlimVirgin's first year editing as captured exactly one year ago, versus the same record captured today.

The more recent list is about 1,000 items shorter, due largely to article and user deletions, but also due to apparent use of the Oversight hammer.

I've made a list of those missing edits of indeterminate origin on the AntiSocialMedia.net wiki and am looking for any insights you might have as to why these particular edits might be gone.

NOTE: I do not yet have the substance of the edits...that'll come soon.

You can find the wiki here.

[Daniel Brandt]

Nice work, WordBomb. Here's something else to investigate. If you like Sherlock Holmes, we'll call this one "The Case of the Dog That Didn't Bark."

"[SlimVirgin] has absolutely no relation to the wild stories that this article promulgates." —Jimmy Wales, 2007-07-27, on Slashdot

Look at this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...9&oldid=7112063

Are we to believe that no one edited this article from October 20, 2004 to November 6, 2004, and then some anon came in and did all of those edits with just click, and falsely labeled his edit summary as "The bomb"?

Something happened on this article before SlimVirgin's first official edit as SlimVirgin, which as far as I know was on November 5, 2004. SlimVirgin also says that she started Wikipedia in November, 2004.

Something happened, and it all got memory-holed. Maybe this mystery is the key to how and why SlimVirgin got involved with Wikipedia in the first place.

This is starting to smell. I think Jimmy knows something.

[Chris Croy]

A cursory look tells me most of them are probably just archives getting shuttled around and deleted, not oversighted. The special relativity ones, for example, still exist here.

Potentially interesting ones that jump out:

11/12/2004 16:00 Pan Am Flight 103 - Edit would be inbetween here.

11/12/2004 18:55 Hezbollah. Edit would be inbetween here.

User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon - Apparently explicitly deleted it to remove references to 'UserName'.

[Infoboy]

This what is needed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Slimv

Her original username.

[Daniel Brandt]

Kelly Martin says:
http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/...nonymizing.html

But more disturbing to me is Jay's hypocrisy about privacy. Jay is, as anyone who reads Wikipedia Review knows, assidiously careful about his privacy. What few personal claims he's made about himself don't add up, and it's likely that he's lying in order to misdirect inquiries into his identity. He's also very careful about protecting the privacy of his friends, such as when he oversighted every edit made by SlimVirgin's other account (User:Slimv) on the grounds that those edits might possibly allow someone to determine her identity. But his respect for privacy doesn't extend beyond the circle of his friends; he has no compunction against revealing information that comes to him under a bond of privacy (that is, checkuser data) when doing so serves his own interests.

We should not forget that Jayjg was appointed by Jimmy to some exalted position. I forget exactly what it was, and don't feel like looking it up right now.

[guy]

We should not forget that Jayjg was appointed by Jimmy to some exalted position. I forget exactly what it was, and don't feel like looking it up right now.

ArbCom.

[JohnA]

Judd,

it would be more interesting to see how many edits were oversighted from key articles like Pan Am 103, Pierre Salinger etc

I suspect that there is more to those articles than meets the eye.

[blissyu2]

Judd,

it would be more interesting to see how many edits were oversighted from key articles like Pan Am 103, Pierre Salinger etc

I suspect that there is more to those articles than meets the eye.

I think from memory they removed over 50 edits by SlimVirgin to Pan Am Flight 103 that SlimVirgin had made in her first month of editing on Wikipedia (SlimV was her 2nd account, not her first, although she retired it later). These were deleted first, then the oversight command came in a week later, and before Wikitruth or anyone else could do anything about them, they were deleted. There should be a topic in here somewhere about it.

[Infoboy]

Doesn't all this deliberately violate the GFDL, by their deleting it? Also, doesn't the fact that SlimVirgin's entire user page was blown away of 3,000+ revisions, with only 85 restored by Crum375, also violate GFDL?

Could someone legally force WP's hand to disclose all this information under GFDL compliance?

[Chris Croy]

There's nothing in the GFDL that says Wikipedia MUST distribute all edits, only that if they do so the author must be credited and you will not be held responsible for the changes others make to your work.

[LamontStormstar]

There's nothing in the GFDL that says Wikipedia MUST distribute all edits, only that if they do so the author must be credited and you will not be held responsible for the changes others make to your work.

Yes, however they hid many edits that contributed to content in the current version of the article, so they thus hide who the authors were.

[Viridae]

Kelly Martin says:
http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/...nonymizing.html

But more disturbing to me is Jay's hypocrisy about privacy. Jay is, as anyone who reads Wikipedia Review knows, assidiously careful about his privacy. What few personal claims he's made about himself don't add up, and it's likely that he's lying in order to misdirect inquiries into his identity. He's also very careful about protecting the privacy of his friends, such as when he oversighted every edit made by SlimVirgin's other account (User:Slimv) on the grounds that those edits might possibly allow someone to determine her identity. But his respect for privacy doesn't extend beyond the circle of his friends; he has no compunction against revealing information that comes to him under a bond of privacy (that is, checkuser data) when doing so serves his own interests.

We should not forget that Jayjg was appointed by Jimmy to some exalted position. I forget exactly what it was, and don't feel like looking it up right now.

Actually Kelly Martin is not quite right, there is one edit remaining on the SlimV account, a deleted contribution. Not reproducing it here though - suffice to say it isn't exactly inflammatory.

[Infoboy]

Is it appropriate to remove ALL work by one user in this magnitude, however?

[LamontStormstar]

To those that say Kelly Martin got better after Kelly quit many of her wikipedia powers, on wikitruth's talk page of its article about Kelly, it says that Kelly abandoned Kelly's wife and and Kelly's children to go off selfishly and have a sex change and never see Kelly's children again. That's bad parenting.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Tue 31st July 2007, 5:56pm

[Nathan]

Oh just choose a pronoun and use it

[The Joy]

Oh just choose a pronoun and use it

"He" is gender neutral when one is unsure of the gender of a person. Now, there are some left-wing feminists that say it should be "she" in gender neutral situations, but they'll have to get through the English professors and teachers first! (apologies for going off topic)

[WordBomb]

Oh just choose a pronoun and use it

"He" is gender neutral when one is unsure of the gender of a person. Now, there are some left-wing feminists that say it should be "she" in gender neutral situations, but they'll have to get through the English professors and teachers first! (apologies for going off topic)

I recommend using the pronoun that the subject him or herself would use. In Kelly's case I suspect that would be an unambiguous "she".

[Infoboy]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ust/078394.html

On 8/1/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/1/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > What would make the most sense is if Sarah just switched to a new
> > account. Her hope for remaining pseudonymous using User:SlimVirgin is
> > quickly dwindling to nil, and the vain attempts to change this
> > situation are doing nothing but cause problems for the project.
>
> I don't see any good coming from giving into trolls and stalkers. The
> fact that a bunch of disgruntled, mostly banned ex-Wikipedians like to
> spin conspiracy theories, and occasionally disrupt Wikipedia, should
> simply be ignored. Not discussed on Wikipedia, not discussed here,
> just ignored.
>
The good is that Sarah can once again contribute pseudonymously, at
least until she's outed again (which could take long or short
depending on how carefully she edits this time around).

On the other hand, if you want to ignore it, then ignore it. Stop
oversighting things, stop banning links to websites simply because
they provide the information, stop deleting comments which in good
faith ask questions about it, stop contributing to this thread.
Ignoring it of course means giving in as well, because if you ignore
it all the private details are going to come out. Various people at
Wikipedia Review have already reconstructed pretty much all of the
edits that were oversighted. Archive.org contains much of the rest.
User:SlimVirgin is outed. That's the reality of the situation. You
can call the people anything you want, but calling people names
doesn't change reality.

[blissyu2]

Wow, 25 of 26 messages to the Wikipedia mailing list for August are in relation to this scandal, which they are trying to say is meaningless. If its so meaningless, then why are you talking about it so darn much? This is reminiscent of their argument that Wikipedia Review was totally irrelevant and unimportant, when it was the number 1 most linked to site on their IRC channel for 8 months in a row.

[Jonny Cache]

Bryan Derksen, "Re : Oh {Expletive Deleted}, {Name Redacted} Is An Attack Site!"

UC, UC, it jes cudda not happened ...

U crazee con-spiro-see blearists jes dreamed d'ho bit ...

Now go bak 2 slip ...

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 8th August 2007, 4:04am