The end of an era, in great need of ending. Options

[WordBomb]

I find that one of the strongest desires a person can have is to simply feel understood.

Something interesting happened in the middle of the now-legendary "Who is this?" thread: I finally felt understood (thanks to Milton Roe).

And that felt very good. And, it got me thinking.

They say that acid does far more damage to the vessel that holds it than it does to the object over which it is poured.

Every time the matter of my early clashes with SlimVirgin comes up, I'm reminded that for nearly three years, I've been carrying around some fairly strong acid, in the form of a festering resentment for the people and events associated with that time.

Well, I'm tired of it.

SlimVirgin and I have been in contact privately, and I daresay we finally understand one another. We've reached a mutual recognition of the fact that our early reactions were atypical and made worse by a particularly unusual sets of circumstances that greatly colored our frames of reference. We assumed the worst of each other and that brought out something less than the best in ourselves.

We've forgiven each other and the issue is now, officially, put to rest.

Having said that, I think there is a lot to learn from that episode, and so, while I have no intention of pretending it never happened, I'm simply done dealing with it from the standpoint of assigning blame.

And I must say, it feels much better this way.

[Jon Awbrey]

I find that one of the strongest desires a person can have is to simply feel understood.

Something interesting happened in the middle of the now-legendary "Who is this?" thread: I finally felt understood (thanks to Milton Roe).

And that felt very good. And, it got me thinking.

They say that acid does far more damage to the vessel that holds it than it does to the object over which it is poured.

Every time the matter of my early clashes with SlimVirgin comes up, I'm reminded that for nearly three years, I've been carrying around some fairly strong acid, in the form of a festering resentment for the people and events associated with that time.

Well, I'm tired of it.

SlimVirgin and I have been in contact privately, and I daresay we finally understand one another. We've reached a mutual recognition of the fact that our early reactions were atypical and made worse by a particularly unusual sets of circumstances that greatly colored our frames of reference. We assumed the worst of each other and that brought out something less than the best in ourselves.

We've forgiven each other and the issue is now, officially, put to rest.

Having said that, I think there is a lot to learn from that episode, and so, while I have no intention of pretending it never happened, I'm simply done dealing with it from the standpoint of assigning blame.

And I must say, it feels much better this way.

Nunc Dementis …

[WordBomb]

Nunc Dementis …

Were it anybody else, I'd assume you intended to say "Nunc dimittis" but I know Jon Awbrey always means what he says.

[Moulton]

Nunc Dementis …

Were it anybody else, I'd assume you intended to say "Nunc dimittis" but I know Jon Awbrey always means what he says.

And for those of us who rarely understand JA, I suppose it's Nunc Dimwittus.

[Milton Roe]

I find that one of the strongest desires a person can have is to simply feel understood.

Something interesting happened in the middle of the now-legendary "Who is this?" thread: I finally felt understood (thanks to Milton Roe).

And that felt very good. And, it got me thinking.

They say that acid does far more damage to the vessel that holds it than it does to the object over which it is poured.

I just read this. And I hope you will accept that, without any trace of sarcasm, I'm glad it worked out that way, for both of you. As my favorite character Alan Campbell in The Picture of Dorian Gray (recently alluded to, on WR) might have opined, there's only so much acid to go around. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) I even feel myself running low, now and again. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/peanuts-lucy-psychiatrist.png)

[the fieryangel]

I find that one of the strongest desires a person can have is to simply feel understood.

Something interesting happened in the middle of the now-legendary "Who is this?" thread: I finally felt understood (thanks to Milton Roe).

And that felt very good. And, it got me thinking.

They say that acid does far more damage to the vessel that holds it than it does to the object over which it is poured.

I just read this. And I hope you will accept that, without any trace of sarcasm, I'm glad it worked out that way, for both of you.

Let me second that, Uncle Miltie, as well as offering my compliments for a job well done.

It took us over 600 posts to get there, but the outcome is worth it!

[Jon Awbrey]

So it's true —

Too many ironies in the fire
Really doth quench the ire.

Do we change your name to WordSquib now?

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Noroton]

So it's true —

Too many ironies in the fire
Really doth quench the ire.

Do we change your name to WordSquib now?

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Could Wordbomb's experience ever happen with Awbrey?








Naaaaah....

This post has been edited by Noroton:

[Somey]

Naaaaah....

It's a completely different situation. Awbrey contributed lots of material to Wikipedia, in a highly complex and advanced topic area (actually more than one, as I recall). Since hardly anyone else understood it, it was labeled "Original Research" and the related articles messed with, pretty badly. Once the inner circle (or ASOTAC, as he used to call it) decided they were tired of being criticized by him for their various ethical inadequacies, etc., most notably his objection to the use of the term "wikilawyering," the rest was just the usual railroad-and-ban job.

That's not to say a rapprochement is impossible (though it probably is) - but it's not going to occur just because a fellow WR member writes a really good summary of the related events, nice though that might be. IMO there's no way you could call it a "series of unfortunate misunderstandings"... If anything, such a summary would just reinforce his current thinking, I suspect.

[Jon Awbrey]

So it's true —

Too many ironies in the fire
Really doth quench the ire.

Do we change your name to WordSquib now?

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Could Wordbomb's experience ever happen with Awbrey?








Naaaaah………

I'd have to change my name to Jonny Decachet — that just wouldn't be me.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[Noroton]

Naaaaah....

It's a completely different situation.

I'm only talking about rapproachment (or however you spell it), not whatever it was that happened (I don't know anything about it), and I'm not judging. Joking, mostly.

[Son of a Yeti]

We've forgiven each other and the issue is now, officially, put to rest.

This is a nice thing to do. And praiseworthy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I do hope therefore that it is sincere on both sides. To forgive is one thing but to forgot is another. Let's watch SV when (if?) she regains her bits.

[Peter Damian]

Naaaaah....

It's a completely different situation. Awbrey contributed lots of material to Wikipedia, in a highly complex and advanced topic area (actually more than one, as I recall). Since hardly anyone else understood it, it was labeled "Original Research" and the related articles messed with, pretty badly. Once the inner circle (or ASOTAC, as he used to call it) decided they were tired of being criticized by him for their various ethical inadequacies, etc., most notably his objection to the use of the term "wikilawyering," the rest was just the usual railroad-and-ban job.

That's not to say a rapprochement is impossible (though it probably is) - but it's not going to occur just because a fellow WR member writes a really good summary of the related events, nice though that might be. IMO there's no way you could call it a "series of unfortunate misunderstandings"... If anything, such a summary would just reinforce his current thinking, I suspect.

The fact is that much of Awbrey's work was original research, some of it pretty poor.

[Son of a Yeti]

The fact is that much of Awbrey's work was original research, some of it pretty poor.

I'll use my #300 posting to say that he was not the only editor to do so.

[Mackan]

The fact is that much of Awbrey's work was original research, some of it pretty poor.

I'll use my #300 posting to say that he was not the only editor to do so.

I think WP:NOR used to be more receptive to "original research," so long as it didn't promote a position held by the writer, or something like that. Now it seems to prohibit original arguments and ideas, but only to prohibit "analysis or synthesis" that "serves to advance a position." So I guess now only non-idea-related analysis or synthesis that doesn't serve to advance a position is still ok.

This post has been edited by Mackan:

[dtobias]

I don't edit the philosophy-related articles Awbrey did, so I don't have any opinion on the quality of his mainspace edits. I did, however run into him a few times elsewhere and was not favorably impressed. His battle to abolish the term "wikilawyering" because he claimed it was defamatory to lawyers seemed really silly to me, and it seemed like he was ironically wikilawyering about it. He then started posting a really pompous, full-of-himself series of messages on wikien-l entitled "Exit Interview" about why he was leaving Wikipedia (this may have been before he was actually banned, when he was claiming he was going away of his own free will), which prompted some list members to refer to the Gilbert & Sullivan scene where a group of characters makes a big deal about how they're leaving (Ta ra, ta ra!) but never quite gets around to actually going away.

Since he's been banned, he keeps making a big deal here about how stupid everybody else is for contributing free labor to the Wikipedia project... but then he hypocritically goes back into it with a series of sockpuppet accounts to resume editing about his pet obsessions. Do what he says, not what he does, huh?

[Jon Awbrey]

Naaaaah……

It's a completely different situation. Awbrey contributed lots of material to Wikipedia, in a highly complex and advanced topic area (actually more than one, as I recall). Since hardly anyone else understood it, it was labeled "Original Research" and the related articles messed with, pretty badly. Once the inner circle (or ASOTAC, as he used to call it) decided they were tired of being criticized by him for their various ethical inadequacies, etc., most notably his objection to the use of the term "wikilawyering", the rest was just the usual railroad-and-ban job.

That's not to say a rapprochement is impossible (though it probably is) — but it's not going to occur just because a fellow WR member writes a really good summary of the related events, nice though that might be. IMO there's no way you could call it a "series of unfortunate misunderstandings"… If anything, such a summary would just reinforce his current thinking, I suspect.

The fact is that much of Awbrey's work was original research, some of it pretty poor.

I don't edit the philosophy-related articles Awbrey did, so I don't have any opinion on the quality of his mainspace edits. I did, however run into him a few times elsewhere and was not favorably impressed. His battle to abolish the term "wikilawyering" because he claimed it was defamatory to lawyers seemed really silly to me, and it seemed like he was ironically wikilawyering about it. He then started posting a really pompous, full-of-himself series of messages on wikien-l entitled "Exit Interview" about why he was leaving Wikipedia (this may have been before he was actually banned, when he was claiming he was going away of his own free will), which prompted some list members to refer to the Gilbert & Sullivan scene where a group of characters makes a big deal about how they're leaving (Ta ra, ta ra!) but never quite gets around to actually going away.

Since he's been banned, he keeps making a big deal here about how stupid everybody else is for contributing free labor to the Wikipedia project … but then he hypocritically goes back into it with a series of sockpuppet accounts to resume editing about his pet obsessions. Do what he says, not what he does, huh?

Good Grief !!! — It's Saturday, and waaaay too nice a day outside …

Most of the histories are still there — get 'em while they're hot !!! — anyone who wants to know the truth can still do so, for a while anyway. The rest of you e-holes are a gang of post-historical secondary revisionists who buy and sell Wikipediot Mistology like it was going out of style — let's pray it is — you are all soooo full o' beans that it's not even worth lampooning anymore and you don't deserve the respect that is due honest scholars.

Sincerely yours,

Jon Awbrey

[dtobias]

get 'em while they're hot !!!

When I was a kid back in the '70s, I sometimes published newsletters using an archaic form of printing known as a "ditto machine", which had the characteristic that freshly-printed papers were cool to the touch due to the alcohol-based ditto fluid being in the process of evaporating. I would thus sometimes refer to my latest issue as "Cold off the press!"

(A rather irrelevant tangent, at that.)

[Moulton]

Perhaps we can have yet another tongue-in-cheek faux push poll to determine whether Awbrey's crappy original research is more worthless than my semi-original song parodies about this unforgivably crappy comic opera.

[Jon Awbrey]

get 'em while they're hot !!!

When I was a kid back in the '70s, I sometimes published newsletters using an archaic form of printing known as a "ditto machine", which had the characteristic that freshly-printed papers were cool to the touch due to the alcohol-based ditto fluid being in the process of evaporating. I would thus sometimes refer to my latest issue as "Cold off the press!"

(A rather irrelevant tangent, at that.)

Speaking of post-historical secondary revisionist fax, there is at least one Ditto Machine still in operation today.

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Good Grief !!! — It's Saturday, and waaaay too nice a day outside …

Most of the histories are still there — get 'em while they're hot !!! — anyone who wants to know the truth can still do so, for a while anyway. The rest of you e-holes are a gang of post-historical secondary revisionists who buy and sell Wikipediot Mistology like it was going out of style — let's pray it is — you are all soooo full o' beans that it's not even worth lampooning anymore and you don't deserve the respect that is due honest scholars.

The histories are there and indeed I referred to one of them on a thread here, last year. The edits were undeniably by Awbrey and they were undeniably awful, or would that be Awbrey-full in Awbrey-speak. Let me see if I can find them.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Jon Awbrey]

Good Grief !!! — It's Saturday, and waaaay too nice a day outside …

Most of the histories are still there — get 'em while they're hot !!! — anyone who wants to know the truth can still do so, for a while anyway. The rest of you e-holes are a gang of post-historical secondary revisionists who buy and sell Wikipediot Mistology like it was going out of style — let's pray it is — you are all soooo full o' beans that it's not even worth lampooning anymore and you don't deserve the respect that is due honest scholars.

The histories are there and indeed I referred to one of them on a thread here, last year. The edits were undeniably by Awbrey and they were undeniably awful, or would that be Awbrey-full in Awbrey-speak. Let me see if I can find them.

We've been through this before. We watched you regress to the level of a Hypo-Critical Wikipediot Twit, and it was not a pretty sight. Please spare yourself the e-barassment.

Jon Awbrey

[dtobias]

and they were undeniably awful, or would that be Awbrey-full in Awbrey-speak.

No, to produce fully native Awbrey-speak, you'd have to include some Greek letters and mathematical symbols, as well as a few pointless "e-" prefixes.

[Peter Damian]

and they were undeniably awful, or would that be Awbrey-full in Awbrey-speak.

No, to produce fully native Awbrey-speak, you'd have to include some Greek letters and mathematical symbols, as well as a few pointless "e-" prefixes.

That would be Awbr-e-full, then?

We've been through this before. We watched you regress to the level of a Hypo-Critical Wikipediot Twit, and it was not a pretty sight. Please spare yourself the e-barassment.

E-barassment, that's very funny! how does this joke work? Any word with an 'e' in it, and you isolate the letter with a hyphen or two. Why actually is this funny? Is it meant to be? Or is it providing us with some insight? What is that?

Meanwhile I found the edits in question, to the Peirce article, link is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=59059034

To my mind this is very bad writing - verbose, pompous, ungrammatical in places. This, e.g.

And so we are required, as so often happens in trying to read a writer of another age, to lift the scales of the years from our eyes, to drop the reticles that have encrusted themselves on our 'reading glasses', our hermeneutic scopes, due to the interpolant philosophical schemata that have managed to enscounce themselves in our unthinking culture over the years that separate us from the writer in question.

[edit] I forget this:

When we start to hear these abstract, general, uninterpreted symbols being described as 'meaningless' symbols, then we can be sure that a certain line in our sand-reckoning has been crossed, and that the crossers thereof have hefted or sublimated 'formalism' to the status of a full-blown Weltanschauung rather than a simple heuristic device.

The whole section is here:

Formal perspective
Peirce did not live or work in a vacuum. No one who appreciates his use of phrases like laws of the symbol in their historical context can fail to hear the echoes of George Boole, nor the undertones of the symbolist movement in mathematics that was inspired by the ideas of George Peacock.
At the outset of his Laws of Thought, Boole tells us how he plans to evade the horns of a dilemma that would otherwise threaten to block his inquiry before he can even begin.
In proceeding to these inquiries, it will not be necessary to enter into the discussion of that famous question of the schools, whether Language is to be regarded as an essential instrument of reasoning, or whether, on the other hand, it is possible for us to reason without its aid. I suppose this question to be beside the design of the present treatise, for the following reason, viz., that it is the business of Science to investigate laws; and that, whether we regard signs as the representatives of things and of their relations, or as the representatives of the conceptions and operations of the human intellect, in studying the laws of signs, we are in effect studying the manifested laws of reasoning. (Boole, Laws of Thought, p. 24)
Boole is saying that the business of science, to investigate laws, applies itself to the laws of signs at such a level of abstraction that its results are the same no matter whether it finds those laws embodied in objects or in intellects. In short, he does not have to choose one or the other in order to begin. This simple idea is the essence of the formal approach in mathematics, and it is one of the reasons that contemporary mathematicians tend to consider structures that are isomorphic to one another as tantamount to being the same thing. Peirce avails himself of this same depth of perspective for much the same reason. It allows him to investigate the forms of triadic sign relations that exist among objects, signs, and interpretants without being blocked by the impossible task of acquiring knowledge of supposedly unknowable things in themselves, whether outward objects or the contents of other minds. Like Aristotle and Boole before him, Peirce replaces these impossible problems with the practical problem of inquiring into the sign relations that exist among commonly accessible objects and publicly accessible signs.
How often do we think of the thing in algebra? When we use the symbol of multiplication we do not even think out the conception of multiplication, we think merely of the laws of that symbol, which coincide with the laws of the conception, and what is more to the purpose, coincide with the laws of multiplication in the object. Now, I ask, how is it that anything can be done with a symbol, without reflecting upon the conception, much less imagining the object that belongs to it? It is simply because the symbol has acquired a nature, which may be described thus, that when it is brought before the mind certain principles of its use — whether reflected on or not — by association immediately regulate the action of the mind; and these may be regarded as laws of the symbol itself which it cannot as a symbol transgress. ("On the Logic of Science" (1865), CE 1, 173).
The motive themes of the symbolist movement are familiar to anyone who has worked a "story problem" in a mathematics course. One learns to approach the story problem, a roughly realistic representation of a concrete set of circumstances, with the aim of abstracting the appropriate general formula from the mass of concrete details that make up the problem — not all of which data are equally pertinent to the solution and some of which may even be thrown in as distractors. The next step is to derive the logical implications of the abstract formula, generally speaking substituting specific values for some of its variables but just as often leaving other variables unfilled in. The bearing of the formula on the desired answer is obscure at first — that is what makes the problem a problem in the first place. But progressive clarification of the formula leads to an equivalent or implied formula that amounts to an abstract answer or a generic solution to the story problem. Given that, there is nothing more to do but fill in the rest of the concrete data to arrive at the concrete answer or the specific solution to the problem.

The three-phase maneuver for solving a story problem, (1) teasing out, (2) cranking the crank, (3) plugging in, can be articulated in semiotic or sign-relational terms as follows: The first phase passes from the object domain to the sign domain, the second phase passes from the sign domain to the interpretant sign domain, continuing perhaps in a relay of successive passes, and the third phase passes from the last interpretant sign domain back to the object domain.
There are a number of issues that typically arise with the continuing development of a symbolist perspective, in any field of endeavor, over the years of its natural life-cycle. We can see these issues illustrated clearly enough in our story problem paradigm, with its parsing of the problem-solving process into the three phases of abstraction, transformation, and application.
Once the division of labor among the three phases of the process has been in place for a sufficiently long time, each of the three phases will tend to take on a certain degree of independence, sometimes actual and sometimes merely apparent, from the other two phases.
As a side-effect of the increasing independence among the various phases of inquiry, there tend to develop specialized disciplines, each devoted to a single aspect of the initially interactive and integral process. A symptom of this stage of development is that references to the 'independence' of the several phases of inquiry may become confused with or even replaced by assertions of their 'autonomy' from one another.
Returning to the formal sciences of logic and mathematics and focusing on the rise of symbolic logic in particular, all of the above issues were clearly recognized and widely discussed among the movers and shakers of the symbolist movement, with especial mention of George Boole, Augustus De Morgan, Benjamin Peirce, and Charles Peirce.
The first symptoms of a crisis typically arise in connection with questions about the status of the abstract symbols that are 'manipulated' in the transformation phase, to express it in sign-relational terms, the sign-to-sign aspect of semiosis. In the beginning, while it is still evident to everyone concerned that these symbols are mined from the matrix of their usual interpretations, which are generally more diverse than unique, these abstracted symbols are commonly referred to as 'uninterpreted symbols', the sense being that they are transiently detached from their interpretations simply for the sake of extra facility in processing the more general thrust of their meanings, after which intermediary process they will have their concrete meanings restored.
When we start to hear these abstract, general, uninterpreted symbols being described as 'meaningless' symbols, then we can be sure that a certain line in our sand-reckoning has been crossed, and that the crossers thereof have hefted or sublimated 'formalism' to the status of a full-blown Weltanschauung rather than a simple heuristic device.
What we observe here is a familiar form of cyclic process, with the crest of excess followed by the slough of despond. The inflationary boom that raises 'formalism' beyond its formative sphere as one among a host of equally useful heuristic tricks to the status of a totalizing worldview leads perforce to the deflationary bust that makes of 'formalist' a pejorative term.
The point of the foregoing discussion is this, that one of the main difficulties that we have in understanding what the whole complex of words rooted in 'form' meant to Peirce is that we find ourselves, historically speaking, on opposite sides of this cycle of ideas from him.
And so we are required, as so often happens in trying to read a writer of another age, to lift the scales of the years from our eyes, to drop the reticles that have encrusted themselves on our 'reading glasses', our hermeneutic scopes, due to the interpolant philosophical schemata that have managed to enscounce themselves in our unthinking culture over the years that separate us from the writer in question.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Jon Awbrey]

You people need to go back and read the Five Pillars, as they were written at the time. I know today that it's all hypocrisy, and always will be — Peter Demian and Dan Tobias have e-lected to provide us with near perfect examples of that hypocrisy — but the sad fact is that I was working in good faith accord with those noble ideals, however ludicrous they may sound in the current time frame.

Those who violated the Pillars & Polices of Wikipedia — the worst of them being Wikipediot Adminds like SV, KC, FM, etc. — are the worst class of Vandals ever to blight the site. But their Policy Poop has already dried and hardened into a layer of shitrock that can no longer be budged, short of a major earthquake.

Jon Awbrey

[Peter Damian]

You people need to go back and read the Five Pillars, as they were written at the time. I know today that it's all hypocrisy, and always will be — Peter Demian and Dan Tobias have e-lected to provide us with near perfect examples of that hypocrisy — but the sad fact is that I was working in good faith accord with those noble ideals, however ludicrous they may sound in the current time frame.

Those who violated the Pillars & Polices of Wikipedia — the worst of them being Wikipediot Adminds like SV, KC, FM, etc. — are the worst class of Vandals ever to blight the site. But their Policy Poop has already dried and hardened into a layer of shitrock that can no longer be budged, short of a major earthquake.

Jon Awbrey

Well possibl-e. My point was only that much of your work was original e-search and that some of it was prett-e poor.

[Jon Awbrey]

You people need to go back and read the Five Pillars, as they were written at the time. I know today that it's all hypocrisy, and always will be — Peter Demian and Dan Tobias have e-lected to provide us with near perfect examples of that hypocrisy — but the sad fact is that I was working in good faith accord with those noble ideals, however ludicrous they may sound in the current time frame.

Those who violated the Pillars & Polices of Wikipedia — the worst of them being Wikipediot Adminds like SV, KC, FM, etc. — are the worst class of Vandals ever to blight the site. But their Policy Poop has already dried and hardened into a layer of shitrock that can no longer be budged, short of a major earthquake.

Jon Awbrey

Well possibl-e. My point was only that much of your work was original e-search and that some of it was prett-e poor.

On the first point, I know the meaning of "Original Research", as the term is used in a wide spectrum of disciplines, and I knew it before Jimbo Wales, much less Wikipedia was conceived. There was a time when a sensible scholar could imagine that the few phrases written on the main WP policy pages were not totally inconsistent with the normal senses of the term. That is no longer the case, at least, not the last time I checked — at any rate, the words of the policies are utterly beside the point when it comes to discussing actual Wikipediot practice.

On the second point, …

Later …

Jon Awbrey

[Jon Awbrey]

We've been through this before. We watched you regress to the level of a Hypo-Critical Wikipediot Twit, and it was not a pretty sight. Please spare yourself the e-barassment.

E-barassment, that's very funny! how does this joke work? Any word with an 'e' in it, and you isolate the letter with a hyphen or two. Why actually is this funny? Is it meant to be? Or is it providing us with some insight? What is that?

Meanwhile I found the edits in question, to the Peirce article, link is here

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Sanders_Peirce&diff=61546825&oldid=59059034

Huh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) ??? Did you even bother to click on that link yourself, or did you just cut-&-paste it from your JzG-feed?

Or maybe you've taken all your lessons in evidentiary sleight-of-hand from SlimVirgin herself?

Jon Awbrey

[Peter Damian]

Huh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) ??? Did you even bother to click on that link yourself, or did you just cut-&-paste it from your JzG-feed?

Or maybe you've taken all your lessons in evidentiary sleight-of-hand from SlimVirgin herself?

Jon Awbrey

You are pretending you were not the author of this dreadful rubbish? Here is the 'Weltanschaung' edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=33485807

Are you saying there was another Jon Awbrey editing this article?

Returning to the formal sciences of logic and mathematics and focusing on the rise of symbolic logic in particular, all of the above issues were clearly recognized and widely discussed among the movers and shakers of the symbolist movement, with especial mention of [[George Boole]], [[Augustus De Morgan]], [[Benjamin Peirce]], and Charles Peirce.
+
+ The first symptoms of a crisis typically arise in connection with questions about the status of the abstract symbols that are 'manipulated' in the transformation phase, to express it in sign-relational terms, the sign-to-sign aspect of semiosis.
+ In the beginning, while it is still evident to everyone concerned that these symbols are mined from the matrix of their usual interpretations, which are generally more diverse than unique, these abstracted symbols are commonly referred to as '[[uninterpreted symbol]]s', the sense being that they are transiently detached from their interpretations simply for the sake of extra facility in processing the more general thrust of their meanings, after which intermediary process they will have their concrete meanings restored.
+
+ When we start to hear these abstract, general, uninterpreted symbols being described as 'meaningless' symbols, then we can be sure that a certain line in our sand-reckoning has been crossed, and that the crossers thereof have hefted or sublimated '[[formalism]]' to the status of a full-blown [[Weltanschauung]] rather than a simple [[heuristic]] device.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[EricBarbour]

PD, you may think that embarrassing, but it's dead typical of how
philosophy professors write. In my experience, the postmodern
crowd are even more pedantic and pretentious.

[Heat]

I too received a private email from SV, in this case acknowledging that she had retagged/undeleted pages concerning me and apologizing and that she wouldn't do something like that today. Well, of course not, she's not an admin.

I don't know how much these private apologies are worth. I don't have any particular rancor towards SV and have (mostly unbeknownst to her) intervened at various times against some of the more egregious attacks against her. But I don't see any point in forgiving her if she's not even able to apologize publicly for her past misdeeds, take responsibility for them and at least try to correct the damage she's done. In my case I was a user who had never been banned or sanctioned but who "quit" WP but ended up continuing to edit under other accounts and when I did try to come back fully she interfered with Jimbo and Fred Bauder to try to stop that and then, when they largely ignored her she helped get me blocked through a lynch mob inspired community ban and even changed the rule that had been in place until then which stated that there could be no community ban if a single admin objected. Given that the lynch flash mob that pushed for my community ban consisted of the usual suspects who, in that period, would magically appear to vote the same way as her on RFAs, RFDs and other matters I suspect she sent emails to her posse putting the community ban ball into motion.

[CharlotteWebb]

I don't know how much these private apologies are worth.

More than public ones in my opinion. At least you know somebody's not just smiling for the camera.

[The Adversary]

I too received a private email from SV, in this case acknowledging that she had retagged/undeleted pages concerning me and apologizing and that she wouldn't do something like that today. Well, of course not, she's not an admin.

I don't know how much these private apologies are worth. I don't have any particular rancor towards SV and have (mostly unbeknownst to her) intervened at various times against some of the more egregious attacks against her. But I don't see any point in forgiving her if she's not even able to apologize publicly for her past misdeeds, take responsibility for them and at least try to correct the damage she's done. In my case I was a user who had never been banned or sanctioned but who "quit" WP but ended up continuing to edit under other accounts and when I did try to come back fully she interfered with Jimbo and Fred Bauder to try to stop that and then, when they largely ignored her she helped get me blocked through a lynch mob inspired community ban and even changed the rule that had been in place until then which stated that there could be no community ban if a single admin objected. Given that the lynch flash mob that pushed for my community ban consisted of the usual suspects who, in that period, would magically appear to vote the same way as her on RFAs, RFDs and other matters I suspect she sent emails to her posse putting the community ban ball into motion.

I think Heat is right on target here. It is nice that WordBomb and ms. Hell "kiss and make up", but will WordBomb get unbanned? Will Heat get unbanned?

Until then: words are cheap.

[Jon Awbrey]

We've been through this before. We watched you regress to the level of a Hypo-Critical Wikipediot Twit, and it was not a pretty sight. Please spare yourself the e-barassment.

E-barassment, that's very funny! how does this joke work? Any word with an 'e' in it, and you isolate the letter with a hyphen or two. Why actually is this funny? Is it meant to be? Or is it providing us with some insight? What is that?

Meanwhile I found the edits in question, to the Peirce article, link is here

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Sanders_Peirce&diff=61546825&oldid=59059034

Huh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) ??? Did you even bother to click on that link yourself, or did you just cut-&-paste it from your JzG-feed?

Or maybe you've taken all your lessons in evidentiary sleight-of-hand from SlimVirgin herself?

Jon Awbrey

This is the same line of attack you took before. It does not speak well of you, either on Real World principles or on what used to be espoused as Wikipedian ideals. I can only advise you to unplug yourself from whatever WikiPoison IV you currently have plugged into your veins before it rots what's left of your judgment beyond repair.

Sincerely yours,

Jon Awbrey

[Hell Freezes Over]

In my case I was a user who had never been banned or sanctioned but who "quit" WP but ended up continuing to edit under other accounts and when I did try to come back fully she interfered with Jimbo and Fred Bauder to try to stop that and then, when they largely ignored her she helped get me blocked through a lynch mob inspired community ban and even changed the rule that had been in place until then which stated that there could be no community ban if a single admin objected.

I'm not going to get involved in a back-and-forth with you, because I've been told I can't post your user names, and therefore I can't give diffs to show what I'm saying. I'm also tired of arguing with you, in general, and would just as soon not respond to you again.

However, I have to correct the above, because it's the opposite of the truth. You were asked to leave by one of the people you say "largely ignored" what was going on. You didn't decide to leave then start again with new accounts. You were caught massively sockpuppeting, which you at first denied, then admitted when the evidence became overwhelming. Then you started an email correspondence with a number of people that amounted to dozens and dozens of emails, and that included threatening at least one person with legal action. In the end, you were told you'd exhausted the patience of the people you were writing to, and you were asked to leave. It is because you agreed to leave that your sock tags were deleted, and your contribs moved to new accounts.

It wasn't only sockpuppetry that was the issue. Creating BLPs about people you don't like was a major issue, which led to complaints about you to the Foundation.

[gomi]

However, I have to correct the above, because it's the opposite of the truth.

Slim, as we have establish beyond any doubt, few of us believe that you and the truth have even a passing acquaintance. And suggestions of "massive sockpuppetry" coming from you are about as convincing as Grawp crowing about the massiveness of his endowment. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Noroton]

However, I have to correct the above, because it's the opposite of the truth.

Slim, as we have establish beyond any doubt, few of us believe that you and the truth have even a passing acquaintance. And suggestions of "massive sockpuppetry" coming from you are about as convincing as Grawp crowing about the massiveness of his endowment. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Gomi, how many days ago was it that you denied that Gnetworker was one of your socks?

I'm a little tired of seeing allegations fly fast and furious in all directions without proof. Who was it that came up with the line

Show Us The Diffs Or Shut The Hell Up

Oh yeah, Awbrey. Damn useful principle. Thanks, Jon.

To save time in the future, we should eventually use just the acronym SUTDOSTHU. Looks like it'll come in handy.

[Jon Awbrey]

I'm a little tired of seeing allegations fly fast and furious in all directions without proof. Who was it that came up with the line

Show Us The Diffs Or Shut The Hell Up

Oh yeah, Awbrey. Damn useful principle. Thanks, Jon.

To save time in the future, we should eventually use just the acronym SUTDOSTHU. Looks like it'll come in handy.

Just think of it as SON OF CTHULHU (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cthulhu.gif) —

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[gomi]

Show Us The Diffs Or Shut The Hell Up

Oh, I thought it was Show Us The Diffs or Tell 'Hell' to Shut Up. My mistake. But maybe we need a special rule for SlimVirgin apologists like you.

Oh, and here's the diff: SlimVirgin: Pathological Liar and Demagogue

[Heat]

The main problem here is that our Hellish friend is a liar and a hyporcrite.

Hell, you are in absolutely no position to self-righteously go after anyone for "sockpuppetry" when you yourself are a sockpuppeteer and have refused to ever explain or even acknowledge your behavior (yet you've never denied that Sweet Blue Water was your abusive sock). Until you take responsibility for your own behavior don't bother talking about other people's socks.

As for being a liar, let's not forget that in an earlier thread you denied that you had ever undeleted or retagged pages related to me despite my concerns about having been outed - only to have to privately admit you had done this and apologize when I sent you the proof by email. Sadly, you lacked the integrity to retract your public claims to the contrary.

Now, you are lying about what I've said in this thread. I never said Jimmy and or Fred "largely ignored" what was going on in regards to my activity on wikipedia. I said they "largely ignored" *YOU* and your objections to my return:

In my case I was a user who had never been banned or sanctioned but who "quit" WP but ended up continuing to edit under other accounts and when I did try to come back fully she interfered with Jimbo and Fred Bauder to try to stop that and then, when they largely ignored her she helped get me blocked through a lynch mob inspired community ban and even changed the rule that had been in place until then which stated that there could be no community ban if a single admin objected. Given that the lynch flash mob that pushed for my community ban consisted of the usual suspects who, in that period, would magically appear to vote the same way as her on RFAs, RFDs and other matters I suspect she sent emails to her posse putting the community ban ball into motion.

So you took my quote and completely changed its meaning. But moreover you're lying about the situation because what I say above is true:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@xxxxxxx>
Date: Oct 31, 2006 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: New accoung
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: [Heat], Fred Bauder <fredbaud@xxxxxx>
Please let us not do anything quickly. We are still talking. I think
by Thursday or Friday we can hammer out an agreement that everyone can
live with.

Fred wrote:
>> > > OK, how about starting off with talk pages only for controversial
>> > > articles? And then, judging by the reaction, ease into article
>> > > editing. Meanwhile, buy some books, go to the library, etc. Try to
>> > > figure out how to address the fascist aspects of Israeli policy
>> > > without slipping into anti-Semitism.
>> > >
>> > > Fred
>> >
> XXXX has caused an enormous amount of trouble on the talk pages of
> certain articles. I can guarantee that if he starts editing in those
> areas again (talk pages or articles), all that will happen is that the
> good, moderate editors will stop editing them and they'll be left to
> become attack pages instead of encyclopedia articles.
>
> As I deleted the sockpuppet category on the understanding he was
> leaving or at least would stop editing provocatively, I'm going to
> restore them. I feel we're being played with here.
>
> Sarah
>

You objected to my coming back to edit despite the fact that I'd never been banned or sanctioned. My problem was that I could not use my original account because I'd scrambled the password and also because of my concerns about it having been outed, yet whenever I started a new account I was blocked by Jayjg or FM as a "sockpuppet". Finally, I just refused to open a new account and just edited without logging in. You objected and that's when I began negotiating with Fred and Jimmy. As we can see from the email above *you* objected and you would go on to object further. Rather than allow the arrangment Fred refers to above to go ahead a "community ban" was engineered - with you playing a central role *while* my discussion with Jimmy and Fred was going on and despite that discussion. Then when two admins (as I recall) objected to the community ban *you* changed the rules and declared that a single admin could not stand in the way of a community ban.

This post has been edited by Heat:

[Noroton]

Show Us The Diffs Or Shut The Hell Up

Oh, I thought it was Show Us The Diffs or Tell 'Hell' to Shut Up. My mistake. But maybe we need a special rule for SlimVirgin apologists like you.

Oh, and here's the diff: SlimVirgin: Pathological Liar and Demagogue

I'm not an apologist for her at all. I'm a critic of balderdash when I see it. Seeing you call anyone a liar is too brazen to ignore.

Now that I think of it, maybe I should just ignore it in this case.

[Heat]

It wasn't only sockpuppetry that was the issue. Creating BLPs about people you don't like was a major issue, which led to complaints about you to the Foundation.

Yes, by Rachel Marsden but that's a whole other story and we know how that turned out. As I recall Ms Marden claimed (falsely) that I knew her personally and included the details of her life for which she is best known in Canada out of some sort of personal spite. She was wrong of course, I've never met her or interacted with her nor have I ever known any of her friends of acquaintances.

This post has been edited by Heat:

[Hell Freezes Over]

The main problem here is that our Hellish friend is a liar and a hyporcrite.

Hell, you are in absolutely no position to self-righteously go after anyone for "sockpuppetry" when you yourself are a sockpuppeteer and have refused to ever explain or even acknowledge your behavior (yet you've never denied that Sweet Blue Water was your abusive sock). Until you take responsibility for your own behavior don't bother talking about other people's socks.

Sweet Blue Water was not an "abusive" sock, or really a sock of any kind, as I explained to people at the time. It was an account I was going to start editing with instead of SV. I changed my mind after a very small number of edits.

Heat, I'm looking at a partial list right now of *40* of your accounts, most of them eventually acknowledged by you, plus numerous IP addresses, which were deleted only because you claimed your right to vanish. There was massive abuse. You even unblocked one of the accounts yourself.

If you're going to continue to post about what happened with you, you have to let people name your accounts, because otherwise no one can check what you're saying, and I can't respond in any detail.

As for posting Jimbo's e-mail, that's really not on, first because you don't have his consent, and secondly, because it gives a very false impression. I could post several where he makes his views about you very clear. You have most of them too. Why not post those instead, if you have to post anything?

It wasn't only sockpuppetry that was the issue. Creating BLPs about people you don't like was a major issue, which led to complaints about you to the Foundation.

Yes, by Rachel Marsden but that's a whole other story and we know how that turned out.

You created a large number of BLPs about public figures you dislike and whose politics you disapprove of, two of which (that I know about) led to complaints about you to the Foundation.

This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over:

[Heat]

Oh, and I've just been reminded, it was Felonious Monk, your meat puppet Hell, who blocked the account I was using when this was going on despite the fact that the community ban discussion *was still in progress* - effectively stopping me from participating in the discussion of my fate.

As you know, Hell, FM has been deadminned for his record as an abusive administrator. During his tenure he regularly intervened to block various people you disliked or were having problems with on frivolous grounds. You've been asked several times to explain your relationship with FM but never have.

You worked very hard to get FM adminned in the first place as evidence by your violation of WP:CANVASS below:

from: slimvirgin@xxxxxxxx
to: xxxxx@sympatico.ca

date: Tue, Aug 9, 2005 at 10:50 PM
subject: FeloniousMonk adminship



XXXX, I wondered whether you might have an interest in
[[User:FeloniousMonk]]'s nomination for adminship here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...p/FeloniousMonk

The vote is currently very borderline, and he's being strongly opposed
by a few on the right: mostly Sam Spade, Rangerdude, Silverback, and
Kim Bruning. Most of the comments have been moved to the talk page
here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...p/FeloniousMonk

I'm sorry to see you're being pestered again by that absurd Armchair
thingy Don. Hopefully the arbcom will deal with it quickly and get it
out of your hair.

Hope all is well with you.

Sarah

You created a large number of BLPs about public figures you dislike and whose politics you disapprove of, two of which (that I know about) led to complaints about you to the Foundation.

One of whom was Rachel Marsden. The second complaint you refer to is one I'm unaware of so it couldn't have been very important. I also created a much larger number of BLPs about public figures whom I either like or have no strong opinion of one way or the other so you're raising a red herring. However, I suspect there have been more than two complaints about your editing to the Foundation.

As for posting Jimbo's e-mail, that's really not on, first because you don't have his consent, and secondly, because it gives a very false impression.

No, it just disproves your false claim - directly so. This isn't wikipedia, Hell, and I'm not bound by Wikipedia's rules regarding emails.

And Sweet Water Blue *was* an abusive sock by definition since that account voted on I believe it was a Feature Article discussion alongside your SlimVirgin account.

This post has been edited by Heat:

[Hell Freezes Over]

fromslimvirgin@gmail.com
to xxxxx@sympatico.ca>

dateTue, Aug 9, 2005 at 10:50 PM
subjectFeloniousMonk adminship

All I can do here is to ask readers to reflect on the fairness of Heat posting my emails and Jimbo's without our consent, out of context and selectively, while I'm not even allowed to say what his accounts were on Wikipedia, under threat of being banned from this board if I do.

Even though it's an open secret what his main account was, it is very difficult for anyone trying to find his other accounts to recreate the trail broken by his requests for deletion, and his insistence on having his remaining edits moved to three new accounts. That means he is free to posture here as though he did nothing wrong.

[Heat]

fromslimvirgin@gmail.com
to xxxxx@sympatico.ca>

dateTue, Aug 9, 2005 at 10:50 PM
subjectFeloniousMonk adminship

All I can do here is to ask readers to reflect on the fairness of Heat posting my emails and Jimbo's without our consent, out of context and selectively, while I'm not even allowed to say what his accounts were on Wikipedia, under threat of being banned from this board if I do.

Even though it's an open secret what his main account was, it is very difficult for anyone trying to find his other accounts to recreate the trail broken by his requests for deletion, and his insistence on having his remaining edits moved to three new accounts. That means he is free to posture here as though he did nothing wrong.

So you acknowledge then that you violated WP:CANVASS by soliciting votes for FM's adminship via email?

[GlassBeadGame]

fromslimvirgin@gmail.com
to xxxxx@sympatico.ca>

dateTue, Aug 9, 2005 at 10:50 PM
subjectFeloniousMonk adminship

All I can do here is to ask readers to reflect on the fairness of Heat posting my emails and Jimbo's without our consent, out of context and selectively, while I'm not even allowed to say what his accounts were on Wikipedia, under threat of being banned from this board if I do.

Even though it's an open secret what his main account was, it is very difficult for anyone trying to find his other accounts to recreate the trail broken by his requests for deletion, and his insistence on having his remaining edits moved to three new accounts. That means he is free to posture here as though he did nothing wrong.

Feel free to post each and every email of yourself and Mr. Wales. That should take care of the "context and selectivity" concern. Sorry but you have to follow the same rules as everyone else here.

[Mackan]

Sweet Blue Water was not an "abusive" sock, or really a sock of any kind, as I explained to people at the time. It was an account I was going to start editing with instead of SV. I changed my mind after a very small number of edits.

HFO, your comments here and elsewhere call into question that explanation.

It's a fair point you make that you don't know who I am, but at least I don't pretend to be more than one person, as you have clearly done above. Featured article status tends to be awarded based on numbers of objections, so if you're pretending to lodge more than one, you're cheating. Anyway, I see you've set up a User page now, so I will drop you a further note there instead of here. Slim 21:37, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

This was early in the same month you created Sweet Blue Water, then double voting in a Featured Article nomination. You made a similar comment about cheating in featured articles nominations here, and a third similar comment here, all in the same month. So, what you are asking people to believe is that just after arguing repeatedly, in detail, why it was cheating to double vote on a featured articles nomination, you then did this only by accident.

I notice the explanation JzG appears to have received and the explanation I received also don't match, as in his you were trying to avoid harassment (I encountered this on a blog here), but in mine you didn't care if people knew you were the same account.

This post has been edited by Mackan:

[Hell Freezes Over]

So, you are asking people to believe that shortly after you talked repeatedly about how it was cheating to double vote on a featured articles nomination, you then did this only by accident.

Yes, of course, that's exactly what I'm saying. I voted with Sweet Blue Water one night, went to bed, looked at it the next day, forgot I'd already voted, and voted again with Slim. Or it may have been the other way round. It's obvious to any reasonable person who looks at it, and the context, that that's what happened.

You already know this, Mackan, because I emailed it to you a few months ago, so it's odd that you're posting here as though you have no information.

The FA I *accidentally* voted on is one I had very little interest in -- certainly not enough to even *want* to double vote -- and my doing so made no difference. If it had, I would have told Raul.

But you see, here we are again. Every single thing I do -- no matter whether it's positive or negative -- is put under the microscope here. *No* editor's contribs could withstand this, including yours, Mackan. It's doubly absurd because the board has invented a rule that only applies to me, that says I'm not allowed to say -- or even to *ask*! --what people's Wikipedia names are. So you have someone like Heat posting, with his 40-plus, very active, and seriously abusive, socks. And then you have me with ONE accidental double-post to an FA page, in an account with very few edits.

But guess which one Mackan wants to question? :-)

[Shalom]

So, you are asking people to believe that shortly after you talked repeatedly about how it was cheating to double vote on a featured articles nomination, you then did this only by accident.

Yes, of course, that's exactly what I'm saying. I voted with Sweet Blue Water one night, went to bed, looked at it the next day, forgot I'd already voted, and voted again with Slim. Or it may have been the other way round. It's obvious to any reasonable person who looks at it, and the context, that that's what happened.

You already know this, Mackan, because I emailed it to you a few months ago, so it's odd that you're posting here as though you have no information.

The FA I *accidentally* voted on is one I had very little interest in -- certainly not enough to even *want* to double vote -- and my doing so made no difference. If it had, I would have told Raul.

But you see, here we are again. Every single thing I do -- no matter whether it's positive or negative -- is put under the microscope here. *No* editor's contribs could withstand this, including yours, Mackan. It's doubly absurd because the board has invented a rule that only applies to me, that says I'm not allowed to say -- or even to *ask*! --what people's Wikipedia names are. So you have someone like Heat posting, with his 40-plus, very active, and seriously abusive, socks. And then you have me with ONE accidental double-post to an FA page, in an account with very few edits.

But guess which one Mackan wants to question? :-)

Slim's got a point here. Even assuming the worst, it was one double-vote that had no effect on the result of that discussion. Note that Featured Article candidacies are more discussion than vote in most cases; that's said of AFD and RFA but is dubious there, but at FAC it's closer to accuracy.

[Mackan]

So, you are asking people to believe that shortly after you talked repeatedly about how it was cheating to double vote on a featured articles nomination, you then did this only by accident.

Yes, of course, that's exactly what I'm saying. I voted with Sweet Blue Water one night, went to bed, looked at it the next day, forgot I'd already voted, and voted again with Slim. Or it may have been the other way round. It's obvious to any reasonable person who looks at it, and the context, that that's what happened.

To the contrary, I think it's pretty obvious if someone just gets done explaining why it is cheating to double vote in featured articles nomination -- about how it is rewarded when the objections are resolved and about how mindless supports can skew the results -- and then posts a mindless support and several objections to resolve with two accounts, that something not so mysterious is happening.

You did email me an explanation, which as I said was inconsistent with what I'd read of other explanations you offered, and inconsistent with the fact that both accounts went on to continue editing the same article.

Why do I question you and not Heat? Well, for one thing the entire discussion about Heat seems only to be about whether he is reliable about you. The discussion also suggests that he's blocked on Wikipedia, whereas you'e for some time been extremely active, to profound effect, often in recklessly and dishonestly trying to damage the reputations of other editors. I also think it's a little funny that you only seem to want to address people when you can talk about their sockpuppets. You'd seemed more reasonable recently, but until you address my question here, I'd think it was clear enough why I would question how straight-forward your approach has been.

This post has been edited by Mackan:

[gomi]

So, you are asking people to believe that shortly after you talked repeatedly about how it was cheating to double vote on a featured articles nomination, you then did this only by accident.

Yes, of course, that's exactly what I'm saying. .... But you see, here we are again. Every single thing I do ... is put under the microscope ...

Slim's got a point here.

Of course she does. And SlimVirgin's general willingness to overlook minor infractions, concede to the unlikely explanation, promptly admit to her mistakes, and generally act so pleasantly is why she's so well liked, by so many of those who have interacted with her, here and on Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Mackan]

So, you are asking people to believe that shortly after you talked repeatedly about how it was cheating to double vote on a featured articles nomination, you then did this only by accident.

Yes, of course, that's exactly what I'm saying. .... But you see, here we are again. Every single thing I do ... is put under the microscope ...

Slim's got a point here.

Of course she does. And SlimVirgin's general willingness to overlook minor infractions, concede to the unlikely explanation, promptly admit to her mistakes, and generally act so pleasantly is why she's so well liked, by so many of those who have interacted with her, here and on Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I'll go ahead and say I don't think it can be considered a minor infraction for anyone. Sockpuppeting is to Wikipedia what plagiarism is to other media; it's a line you just can't cross if you want to be seen as having a basic level of respect for the medium. Maybe others disagree, or certainly I know many here would readily acknowledge the lack of basic respect, but I think that's how anyone who claims to support Wikipedia as reputable or as a community project would have to look at it.

This post has been edited by Mackan:

[Hell Freezes Over]

You did email me an explanation, which as I said was inconsistent with what I'd read of other explanations you offered, and inconsistent with the fact that both accounts went on to continue editing the same article.

" ... both accounts went on to continue editing the same article":

Here is Sweet Blue Water's single edit to the page. I removed, "In reality an US Fighter shot down the plane and killed all onboard."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=9123864

Here are Slim's edits to that article at that time:

*Added a link to a book. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=9077052
*Added a See also. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=9068403
*Copy-edited. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=9154384 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=9092358 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...t&oldid=9092358 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...t&oldid=9092358 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...t&oldid=9092593

So what, Mackan? So bloody what? The way you insinuate things is so bloody dishonest.

In addition, the explanation you received about Sweet Blue Water is the same as the one every one else received, because all I did was *copy* you the email I sent out.

SWB made *21 edits* in December 2004 and January 2005. That's it. Look at the dates - over four years ago.

You've been pursuing me for over two years now, because you were blocked for 3RR by Dmcdevit in January 2007, and you blamed me. Emails to ArbCom, to Jimbo, to multiple people you think are after me, posts here and there. Multiple requests for checkuser. *Dossiers* to various people about my edits. All about these tiny little points of trivia, not one of which has ever led to anything. *Don't you get bored?*

[Kato]

So what, Mackan? So bloody what?

Exactly.

Also, I forgot to say earlier that, judging by some of Cla's edits, he appears to be based in the same state as Wordbomb.

Cla68 was in Japan the whole time, but so what? So bloody what?

[gomi]

[Mackan], You've been pursuing me for over two years now, because ... blah, blah, blah

Let's see: Mackan, Heat, Gomi, Herschel, Jon Awbrey, Daniel Brandt, WordBomb, -- I'm sure I'm leaving many out. Slim, did it ever occur to you that it is your behavior that attracts such broad-based yet similarly-themed attention? Or that maybe if you would stop it, people would leave you alone?

Really, here's the recipe: 1) Resign your admin bit permanently; 2) Sign out and scramble the password on User:SlimVirgin; 3) Delete Jayjg's and every other Wikipedian's email address from your address book; 4) Create a new account; 5) Set your computer to enforce no more than 2 hours per day on Wikipedia; and 6) Never edit an Animal Rights, Israel-Palestine, or other controversial article ever again.

If you did this, in six months you would be all but forgotten, and you could edit in peace. This is another way of saying everything going on here you have brought on yourself. Get you head around that.

[Mackan]

You did email me an explanation, which as I said was inconsistent with what I'd read of other explanations you offered, and inconsistent with the fact that both accounts went on to continue editing the same article.

" ... both accounts went on to continue editing the same article":

Here is Sweet Blue Water's single edit to the page. I removed, "In reality an US Fighter shot down the plane and killed all onboard."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=9123864

Here are Slim's edits to that article at that time:

*Added a link to a book. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=9077052
*Added a See also. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=9068403
*Copy-edited. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=9154384 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=9092358 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...t&oldid=9092358 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...t&oldid=9092358 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...t&oldid=9092593

So what, Mackan? So bloody what? The way you insinuate things is so bloody dishonest.

The simple fact that has been raised is this: you used two accounts, and both voted on the same nomination against policy. You claim that you were just trying to start over. But your edits at the time strongly suggest something much more in the direction that you were fooling around to see what would happen if you did exactly what you'd been chasing Herschel Krustofsky around for doing. Is it something you should be sanctioned for? No, but it suggests something that your comments don't rebut, which at a basic level is that you are not above gaming Wikipedia. Of course those like Kato who presumably take this for granted aren't likely to care much.

If I vehemently described something as cheating, then did exactly that, I would apologize, not try to go after the person who points it out.

In addition, the explanation you received about Sweet Blue Water is the same as the one every one else received, because all I did was *copy* you the email I sent out.

No, you discussed it in a couple emails besides that, one of which said that you had not tried to conceal that they were both yours since you weren't thinking about sockpuppetry.

You've been pursuing me for over two years now, because you were blocked for 3RR by Dmcdevit in January 2007, and you blamed me. Emails to ArbCom, to Jimbo, to multiple people you think are after me, posts here and there. Multiple requests for checkuser. *Dossiers* to various people about my edits. All about these tiny little points of trivia, not one of which has ever led to anything. *Don't you get bored?*

Of course I get bored, if that's the right word. I've simply been curious in all of this if you were willing to discuss our interaction in a little more candor, as you've gone into so much detail about some others. Incidentally, I notice that you don't seem to get too upset about anything HK or others say, but somehow with this you are pushed into... again making things up, such as that our interaction went bad with Dmcdevit. So why are you so willing to discuss a history of problems with others where you can focus on all of their transgressions, but not me? Touchy, touchy...

This post has been edited by Mackan:

[Hell Freezes Over]

Really, here's the recipe: 1) Resign your admin bit permanently; 2) Sign out and scramble the password on User:SlimVirgin; 3) Delete Jayjg's and every other Wikipedian's email address from your address book; 4) Create a new account; 5) Set your computer to enforce no more than 2 hours per day on Wikipedia; and 6) Never edit an Animal Rights, Israel-Palestine, or other controversial article ever again.

If you did this, in six months you would be all but forgotten, and you could edit in peace. This is another way of saying everything going on here you have brought on yourself. Get you head around that.

All I know is this, and this is my last post in this thread. A very small number of men in their 50s and 60s have spent the last several years attacking me viciously on or offwiki, or both -- Gnetwerker/Gomi, Brandt, Lar, Poetlister, Awbrey, Herschel, Mackan. Heat is a bit younger, though not by much. I think Blissy was a little younger too. The attacks have been malicious, very personal sometimes, sexist, and sustained.

When I try to defend myself, I'm accused of whining, of being repetitive, of derailing threads, of being mentally ill, and I'm warned that I can't even *ask* who the attackers are on Wikipedia, or else I'll be banned from here.

Why mature men would have such brittle, sticky minds, I have no idea. That, in itself, has been quite frightening -- that after 2, 3, 4 years, some of you are still going on and on about some trivial slight, real or perceived. Perhaps you just couldn't stand being blocked or criticized by a woman, or perhaps you're like this with everyone. I don't know. (Loud guffaws that she's raised the issue of being a woman -- what a useless, stinking bitch she is!!!)

What is undeniable is that a few of you have managed to turn this website into the biggest attack board on a single individual probably anywhere on the Internet. Anyone who looks through the posts can see it. And it is nothing to be proud of.

[gomi]

On a completely unrelated note, I notice that the Wikipedia article on Persecution complex (T-H-L-K-D) could use some expert attention. Slim?

[Mackan]

Really, here's the recipe: 1) Resign your admin bit permanently; 2) Sign out and scramble the password on User:SlimVirgin; 3) Delete Jayjg's and every other Wikipedian's email address from your address book; 4) Create a new account; 5) Set your computer to enforce no more than 2 hours per day on Wikipedia; and 6) Never edit an Animal Rights, Israel-Palestine, or other controversial article ever again.

If you did this, in six months you would be all but forgotten, and you could edit in peace. This is another way of saying everything going on here you have brought on yourself. Get you head around that.

All I know is this, and this is my last post in this thread. A very small number of men in their 50s and 60s have spent the last several years attacking me viciously on or offwiki, or both -- Gnetwerker/Gomi, Brandt, Lar, Poetlister, Awbrey, Herschel, Mackan. Heat is a bit younger, though not by much. I think Blissy was a little younger too. The attacks have been malicious, very personal sometimes, sexist, and sustained.

When I try to defend myself, I'm accused of whining, of being repetitive, of derailing threads, of being mentally ill, and I'm warned that I can't even *ask* who the attackers are on Wikipedia, or else I'll be banned from here.

Why mature men would have such brittle, sticky minds, I have no idea. That, in itself, has been quite frightening -- that after 2, 3, 4 years, some of you are still going on and on about some trivial slight, real or perceived. Perhaps you just couldn't stand being blocked or criticized by a woman, or perhaps you're like this with everyone. I don't know. (Loud guffaws that she's raised the issue of being a woman -- what a useless, stinking bitch she is!!!)

What is undeniable is that a few of you have managed to turn this website into the biggest attack board on a single individual probably anywhere on the Internet. Anyone who looks through the posts can see it. And it is nothing to be proud of.

Slim we were talking about me here, you know who I am on Wikipedia, and none of this has anything to do with me. With all due respect, this is more invective of the kind I was hoping you were willing to discuss and move past.

My problem is, as Heat has suggested earlier: you've been friendly in private, but then you let these accusations hang in public without comment. The accusations have, speaking for myself only, always been a baseless calumny. If I'm going to think that you'd like to turn over a leaf with all of this, I'd need to think this was something you were willing to repair.


Edited to add: If SV is withdrawing from the discussion with the above, let me say a few things about her previous comment. From the time of an early interaction with each, it appeared that SV and User:Crum375 were working together inappropriately. After looking into it, a great deal of additional peculiarities became apparent. I emailed ArbCom and some others for information (not Jimbo, as SV incorrectly states). Eventually a checkuser was apparently run which found that SV and Crum375 had edited from the same closed proxy IP address. I don't know what else has been done about it. I presented evidence in the C68/FM/SV arbitration, in which it was specifically found that SV had "edited in conjunction with one or more other users in a fashion that has created at least a perception of excessively coordinated editing." A finding was also issued that editors should avoid "even the appearance of impropriety." This was very similar to my proposal. SV was later desysopped in part for disregarding the warnings in that case.

SV has, through this, apparently been told about my inquiries, and has repeatedly made incendiary comments that she has never been able to support or discuss. This is something I was looking to discuss here, without any real way to expect how she would respond.

This post has been edited by Mackan:

[dtobias]

All I can do here is to ask readers to reflect on the fairness of Heat posting my emails and Jimbo's without our consent, out of context and selectively, while I'm not even allowed to say what his accounts were on Wikipedia, under threat of being banned from this board if I do.

It sucks to be on the wrong side of somebody with a banhammer, doesn't it?

[Moulton]

It sucks to be on the wrong side of somebody with a banhammer, doesn't it?

It sucks to live in a Banhammurabic Culture.

Tomorrow is the 10th anniversary of the Columbine HS shootings.

On that occasion, I co-wrote an essay that offered an analysis of the cycle of violence that Columbine illustrated.

That same model applied to other conflict scenarios, too, including the verbal violence that characterizes online antagonisms.

And it also applies to the special case of WikiCulture, as well.

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as comedy.

I'm still waiting for this one to evolve to comedy.

[Jon Awbrey]

Slim's got a point here. Even assuming the worst, it was one double-vote that had no effect on the result of that discussion. Note that Featured Article candidacies are more discussion than vote in most cases; that's said of AFD and RFA but is dubious there, but at FAC it's closer to accuracy.

Tagged for Web Searches under • Terminal Koolaid Overdose (TKO) •

[Jon Awbrey]

I'll go ahead and say I don't think it can be considered a minor infraction for anyone. Sockpuppeting is to Wikipedia what plagiarism is to other media; it's a line you just can't cross if you want to be seen as having a basic level of respect for the medium. Maybe others disagree, or certainly I know many here would readily acknowledge the lack of basic respect, but I think that's how anyone who claims to support Wikipedia as reputable or as a community project would have to look at it.

Tagged for Web Searches under • Φunniest Thing Ever Written About Wikipedia (ΦTEWAW) •

[Heat]

All I know is this, and this is my last post in this thread. A very small number of men in their 50s and 60s have spent the last several years attacking me viciously on or offwiki, or both -- Gnetwerker/Gomi, Brandt, Lar, Poetlister, Awbrey, Herschel, Mackan. Heat is a bit younger, though not by much. I think Blissy was a little younger too. The attacks have been malicious, very personal sometimes, sexist, and sustained.

Sorry to burst your ageist bubble but I'm younger than you - indeed you're much, much closer in age to 50 than you are to my age. Further, I've never said anything remotely sexist and I don't think I've been malicious and I'm rarely "personal". Also, to be frank, if I could choose only one person to banish from WP it would be Jayjg, not you. I guarantee you that if Jayjg or JzG or a number of other WP admins started posting on WR they would get more attention than you as even if you resume your adminship you lack the influence you once had on WP because you no longer hold the respect of Jimbo, senior admins or of the administrative class in general. Is that because they are sexist as well or is it possibly a result of your own behavior?

What is undeniable is that a few of you have managed to turn this website into the biggest attack board on a single individual probably anywhere on the Internet.

And that single individual you refer to would be Jimbo? Because he gets much more criticism and attention here than you. If you look at posts made in the year before you decided to log on to WR the mentions of Wales outnumber the mentions of you by several times.

You also ignore the fact that there are quite a number of women who oppose you and disagree with your behavior, but I guess that works against your thesis which is why you don't mention it.

And you overlook the fact that your most ardent defenders on Wikipedia and elsewhere are another small number of men in their 40s and 50s and that the most adamant of these chivalric knights on shining armor, though younger, is a misogynistic, deeply homophobic, viciously transphobic serial stalker who was expelled from college for sexual harassment. That doesn't bother you, in fact, you have favored him over other male middle aged sycophants, including Crum375 who was thrown under a bus and outed by this fellow in what to me looks like a jealous fit. You still haven't explained how you could pal around with him after he outed and destroyed your "best" WP friend.

This post has been edited by Heat:

[Noroton]

All I know is this, and this is my last post in this thread. A very small number of men in their 50s and 60s have spent the last several years attacking me viciously on or offwiki, or both -- Gnetwerker/Gomi, Brandt, Lar, Poetlister, Awbrey, Herschel, Mackan. Heat is a bit younger, though not by much. I think Blissy was a little younger too. The attacks have been malicious, very personal sometimes, sexist, and sustained.

When I try to defend myself, I'm accused of whining, of being repetitive, of derailing threads, of being mentally ill, and I'm warned that I can't even *ask* who the attackers are on Wikipedia, or else I'll be banned from here.

Why mature men would have such brittle, sticky minds, I have no idea. That, in itself, has been quite frightening -- that after 2, 3, 4 years, some of you are still going on and on about some trivial slight, real or perceived. Perhaps you just couldn't stand being blocked or criticized by a woman, or perhaps you're like this with everyone. I don't know. (Loud guffaws that she's raised the issue of being a woman -- what a useless, stinking bitch she is!!!)

Slim, you've generally been more patient, used much, much less invective and hewed more closely to the facts (providing diffs) than most on the other side have. That's been useful in pushing the other side toward (somewhat) better behavior, I think. Nobody who doesn't have it in for you already is impressed when you're "accused of whining, of being repetitive, of derailing threads, of being mentally ill, and I'm warned that I can't even *ask* who the attackers are on Wikipedia, or else I'll be banned from here." So don't worry about any of that.

When you start speculating that sexism of older men is involved, it's something you can't possibly prove, and it looks like you're making a sexist attack. Please drop it. As a man of a certain age, I find it offensive. Actually, you said this before and several women on this board countered by saying they were also critical of you and sexism couldn't explain it.

It is actually kind of interesting why there's this obsession with you, but it's not just you. There's an obsession with Wikipedia among these same people, with their loads of socks. Wikipedia seems to attract obsessive people. I guess in some ways, to some extent, I can understand it -- a person gets invested in getting information out to other people about his personal hobby horse, comes into conflict with others, doesn't handle it well, gets blocked from something he loves and is mad over it. Given Wikipedia's lack of professionalism about these things, there's generally something the person can point to that was unfair to some degree or other. I can even understand getting interested in someone (you) who they feel is abusing Wikipedia, and I can even understand a sustained interest in that for a while. I don't get what it is that sustains the interest this long, this heatedly. To that extent, Wordbomb is much closer to the norm. Perhaps the Internet is just able to bring together the few people who are capable of sustaining their anger this long. I guess that feeds on itself, and I guess most of these people have no clue as to how malicious they look to everyone who hasn't been sipping the Kool-ade.

There are Wikipedia editors that I'm disgusted at, after getting in tussles with them and getting myself blocked, but I don't ignore my own culpability, and I don't have the energy to keep going after them forever. There's an Arbcom case about the Obama pages where I could lay into Wikidemon and a few others, but frankly, it's gotten boring. It's a stupid to think that going after individuals is going to do much good when Wikipedia's systemic problems will only throw up another mole to whack.

Just keep answering questions and providing diffs. When it looks like a fair question is being asked and you don't answer it, your opponents score. I'm not sure, but I think it's doing a little bit of good. I don't know if it's worth the effort.

What is undeniable is that a few of you have managed to turn this website into the biggest attack board on a single individual probably anywhere on the Internet.

Exaggerated, but -- amazingly -- not really a whole lot.

Anyone who looks through the posts can see it. And it is nothing to be proud of.

Completely true. And the bear-baiting, gore-at-the-scene-of-the-traffic-accident aspect of this is what's attracting eyeballs to the threads.

[Jon Awbrey]

Slim, you've generally been more patient, used much, much less invective and hewed more closely to the facts (providing diffs) than most on the other side have. That's been useful in pushing the other side toward (somewhat) better behavior, I think. Nobody who doesn't have it in for you already is impressed when you're "accused of whining, of being repetitive, of derailing threads, of being mentally ill, and I'm warned that I can't even *ask* who the attackers are on Wikipedia, or else I'll be banned from here." So don't worry about any of that.

When you start speculating that sexism of older men is involved, it's something you can't possibly prove, and it looks like you're making a sexist attack. Please drop it. As a man of a certain age, I find it offensive. Actually, you said this before and several women on this board countered by saying they were also critical of you and sexism couldn't explain it.

It is actually kind of interesting why there's this obsession with you, but it's not just you. There's an obsession with Wikipedia among these same people, with their loads of socks. Wikipedia seems to attract obsessive people. I guess in some ways, to some extent, I can understand it — a person gets invested in getting information out to other people about his personal hobby horse, comes into conflict with others, doesn't handle it well, gets blocked from something he loves and is mad over it. Given Wikipedia's lack of professionalism about these things, there's generally something the person can point to that was unfair to some degree or other. I can even understand getting interested in someone (you) who they feel is abusing Wikipedia, and I can even understand a sustained interest in that for a while. I don't get what it is that sustains the interest this long, this heatedly. To that extent, Wordbomb is much closer to the norm. Perhaps the Internet is just able to bring together the few people who are capable of sustaining their anger this long. I guess that feeds on itself, and I guess most of these people have no clue as to how malicious they look to everyone who hasn't been sipping the Kool-ade.

There are Wikipedia editors that I'm disgusted at, after getting in tussles with them and getting myself blocked, but I don't ignore my own culpability, and I don't have the energy to keep going after them forever. There's an Arbcom case about the Obama pages where I could lay into Wikidemon and a few others, but frankly, it's gotten boring. It's a stupid to think that going after individuals is going to do much good when Wikipedia's systemic problems will only throw up another mole to whack.

Just keep answering questions and providing diffs. When it looks like a fair question is being asked and you don't answer it, your opponents score. I'm not sure, but I think it's doing a little bit of good. I don't know if it's worth the effort.

Tagged for Web Searches under • Φunnier By Φar Than The Φunniest Thing Ever Written About Wikipedia (ΦBΦTTΦTEWAW) •

[GlassBeadGame]

While SlimVirgin supply of sycophants is greatly reduced it is not yet completely exhausted. Although perhaps more is at play here. The advice to continue tit for tat ad nauseam, while amusing to Ms. Virgin's "fans," might not have her best interests at heart.

[Noroton]

While SlimVirgin supply of sycophants is greatly reduced it is not yet completely exhausted. Although perhaps more is at play here. The advice to continue tit for tat ad nauseam, while amusing to Ms. Virgin's "fans," might not have her best interests at heart.

He who isn't with us is against us, eh? If I'm not against her, I'm a "sycophant" or "fan"? There have been some answers given by her and some palpable hits on both sides. Also a lot of malicious blather on both sides. As I say, I dunno if the dialogue, to the extent it is a dialogue, is worth it.

[GlassBeadGame]

While SlimVirgin supply of sycophants is greatly reduced it is not yet completely exhausted. Although perhaps more is at play here. The advice to continue tit for tat ad nauseam, while amusing to Ms. Virgin's "fans," might not have her best interests at heart.

He who isn't with us is against us, eh? If I'm not against her, I'm a "sycophant" or "fan"? There have been some answers given by her and some palpable hits on both sides. Also a lot of malicious blather on both sides. As I say, I dunno if the dialogue, to the extent it is a dialogue, is worth it.

Please note scare quotes around the word "fans" while lacking (above) around the word "sycophants."

[Heat]

While SlimVirgin supply of sycophants is greatly reduced it is not yet completely exhausted. Although perhaps more is at play here. The advice to continue tit for tat ad nauseam, while amusing to Ms. Virgin's "fans," might not have her best interests at heart.

He who isn't with us is against us, eh? If I'm not against her, I'm a "sycophant" or "fan"? There have been some answers given by her and some palpable hits on both sides. Also a lot of malicious blather on both sides. As I say, I dunno if the dialogue, to the extent it is a dialogue, is worth it.

It's not at this point - as I've stated several times Slim is no longer a player on WP. But while she's making herself available there's no reason not to take the opportunity to try to have a few questions answered. If you've been following the exchange over several threads over the past few weeks you'll see that Hell has persistently avoided answering certain questions regarding her gaming of Wikpedia through alliances with people like Jayjg, Crum375 and others and she's also studiously avoided answering questions about her association with Proaby and in particular her attempt to get him unbanned from WP for doing exactly what she had previously held to be a bannable offence.

This post has been edited by Heat:

[Lar]

All I know is this, and this is my last post in this thread. A very small number of men in their 50s and 60s have spent the last several years attacking me viciously on or offwiki, or both -- Gnetwerker/Gomi, Brandt, Lar, Poetlister, Awbrey, Herschel, Mackan. Heat is a bit younger, though not by much. I think Blissy was a little younger too. The attacks have been malicious, very personal sometimes, sexist, and sustained.

I am so tired of your slanderous allegations about me. Get over yourself.

All I've ever done is responded factually to your vicious attacks on me which you have carried out in multiple venues. My responses have been mild, and factual. I'm not the one who uses innuendo, and conspires with blackmailers, tries to distort the facts or carries out repeated personal attacks.

You need to review the findings in the arbcom case... your commentary was, and continues to be, out of line, and your attempted use of the court of public opinion has been repudiated. If you keep it up, you're sooner or later going to find yourself at arbcom again. I've got better things to do than start fights with you, (starting fights is more your speed than mine) but I'm not the only person you've slandered.

So watch out for that.

Oh, and I'm not in my fifties either. Not yet anyway.

[Jon Awbrey]

While SlimVirgin supply of sycophants is greatly reduced it is not yet completely exhausted. Although perhaps more is at play here. The advice to continue tit for tat ad nauseam, while amusing to Ms. Virgin's "fans," might not have her best interests at heart.

He who isn't with us is against us, eh? If I'm not against her, I'm a "sycophant" or "fan"? There have been some answers given by her and some palpable hits on both sides. Also a lot of malicious blather on both sides. As I say, I dunno if the dialogue, to the extent it is a dialogue, is worth it.

Try to understand.

All of the e-regulars that I have long e-quaintance with at The Wikipedia Review have their ultimate concerns with far bigger issues than the personalities, if any, of JW, FM, KC, SV, et al. They are people just like yourself who came to Wikipedia to do what it says it's s'posed to be doing. If they now have their sundry degrees of contempt for JW, FM, KC, SV, and the horse they rode in on, then they came by that contempt honestly, through their individual experiences with JW, FM, KC, SV, and their whole damned rodeo.

Wikipediots make their enmity the old-fashioned way — They earn it.

Jon Awbrey

[Lar]

It's not at this point - as I've stated several times Slim is no longer a player on WP.

I hope you are right. I fear you are not.

Consider this snippet of her talk page ... after she was harassing Tryptofish and I reminded her that she needs to take her allegations to the proper channel, she "shot the messenger", disparaging me in several venues.

This got her not one, but two arbitrators warning her and reminding her that she needs to use the proper channel.

Now, it may be that Tryptofish IS someone come back to try to get her goat... who knows? But SlimVirgin's way of addressing the issue is WRONG. It's a throwback to the bad old days of intimidation and muscle, and cabalism that WP hopefully is moving away from.

[Noroton]

But while she's making herself available there's no reason not to take the opportunity to try to have a few questions answered. If you've been following the exchange over several threads over the past few weeks you'll see that Hell has persistently avoided answering certain questions regarding her gaming of Wikpedia through alliances with people like Jayjg, Crum375 and others and she's also studiously avoided answering questions about her association with Proaby and in particular her attempt to get him unbanned from WP for doing exactly what she had previously held to be a bannable offence.

Maybe it would be useful to have a nice, neat, concentrated "Questions for SV" thread where questions from various people are posted. Then you could just link to your post when you want to remind everybody that a question or set of questions weren't answered. Just a thought.

[Lar]

But while she's making herself available there's no reason not to take the opportunity to try to have a few questions answered. If you've been following the exchange over several threads over the past few weeks you'll see that Hell has persistently avoided answering certain questions regarding her gaming of Wikpedia through alliances with people like Jayjg, Crum375 and others and she's also studiously avoided answering questions about her association with Proaby and in particular her attempt to get him unbanned from WP for doing exactly what she had previously held to be a bannable offence.

Maybe it would be useful to have a nice, neat, concentrated "Questions for SV" thread where questions from various people are posted. Then you could just link to your post when you want to remind everybody that a question or set of questions weren't answered. Just a thought.

That's been suggested, actually. It has a lot of advantages, notably that then Slim (and others as well, presumably) can ignore questions in one convenient place, instead of having to ignore them all over the place. Much more efficient.

[Noroton]

Try to understand.

All of the e-regulars that I have long e-quaintance with at The Wikipedia Review have their ultimate concerns with far bigger issues than the personalities, if any, of JW, FM, KC, SV, et al. They are people just like yourself who came to Wikipedia to do what it says it's s'posed to be doing. If they now have their sundry degrees of contempt for JW, FM, KC, SV, and the horse they rode in on, then they came by that contempt honestly, through their individual experiences with JW, FM, KC, SV, and their whole damned rodeo.

Wikipediots make their enmity the old-fashioned way — They earn it.

Jon Awbrey

I'm not complaining that people are objecting to something. I'm complaining about the way people have objected. Ongoing insults don't work. Questions, complaints that appear reasonable and diffs are effective. Follow Lar's example.

That's been suggested, actually. It has a lot of advantages, notably that then Slim (and others as well, presumably) can ignore questions in one convenient place, instead of having to ignore them all over the place. Much more efficient.

No, I think it's harder to ignore when they're neatly presented in one thread, and it's easier for the rest of us to find them. Linking to them still can be done all over the place. Haystacks are better hiding places for pins.

[Heat]

It's not at this point - as I've stated several times Slim is no longer a player on WP.

I hope you are right. I fear you are not.

Consider this snippet of her talk page ... after she was harassing Tryptofish and I reminded her that she needs to take her allegations to the proper channel, she "shot the messenger", disparaging me in several venues.

This got her not one, but two arbitrators warning her and reminding her that she needs to use the proper channel.

Now, it may be that Tryptofish IS someone come back to try to get her goat... who knows? But SlimVirgin's way of addressing the issue is WRONG. It's a throwback to the bad old days of intimidation and muscle, and cabalism that WP hopefully is moving away from.

I don't think her mindset has adjusted to her reduced circumstances. I think the combination of the loss of her reservoir of political capital and respect on WP with her failure to modify her behaviour accordingly means she's likely to find herself in trouble again and ultimately desysopped if not banned. She also seems to thrive on attention - she hasn't been getting it on WP lately so she shows up here to try to fill that need. I think once she gets her bit back she'll at some point find or manufacture some principle the she can use as a sword to fall on much like the situation that led to her current temporary desysopping.

As I pointed out earlier, despite her claim that WR is obsessed with her and even built around her there was very little discussion of SV on WR in the year or so prior to her appearing here as Hell - even the Arbcomm case against her was largely ignored for the balance of it - it was only during the punishment stage that WR started noticing. As for Encyclopedia Dramatica, her article has only attracted 6 edits in the past 6 months. http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php...&action=history She generates far less attention and comment, even from her critics, than she used to but reading her comments here you'd think the exact opposite.

This post has been edited by Heat:

[Jon Awbrey]

Try to understand.

All of the e-regulars that I have long e-quaintance with at The Wikipedia Review have their ultimate concerns with far bigger issues than the personalities, if any, of JW, FM, KC, SV, et al. They are people just like yourself who came to Wikipedia to do what it says it's s'posed to be doing. If they now have their sundry degrees of contempt for JW, FM, KC, SV, and the horse they rode in on, then they came by that contempt honestly, through their individual experiences with JW, FM, KC, SV, and their whole damned rodeo.

Wikipediots make their enmity the old-fashioned way — They earn it.

Jon Awbrey

I'm not complaining that people are objecting to something. I'm complaining about the way people have objected. Ongoing insults don't work. Questions, complaints that appear reasonable and diffs are effective. Follow Lar's example.

Those ships have sailed … too long ago.

Expressions of contempt are partly cathartic, but they are partly informative.

People will keep their individual accounts, but when it comes to exchanges of courtesy, Wikipedia Inc. went bankrupt on my books a long time ago. I do not owe that Collective any courtesies beyond those I'd give anyone for free, which is to keep pointing out the truth.

Wikipediot Cultists have automated the exhibition of extreme contempt, not just for our persons, but for the values and virtues that a great number of us have labored toward for most of our lives. I see no indication that anything about the Wikiapede Modus OpeRandi is about to change by playing polite patty-cake and peek-a-boo with Wikipediot Ψ-Operatives.

Change will happen, but not that way.

Been There, Done That, Never Again.

Jon Awbrey

[dtobias]

Change will happen, but not that way.

...it will only happen as a result of The Great Jon making Φatuous SelΦserving Statements Full of Silly Greek Letters and Presented as Silly Acronyms (ΦSSFoSGLaPaSA)!

[Jon Awbrey]

Change will happen, but not that way.

… it will only happen as a result of The Great Jon making Φatuous SelΦserving Statements Full of Silly Greek Letters and Presented as Silly Acronyms (ΦSSFoSGLaPaSA)!

It is certainly more likely to happen that way.

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Noroton]

I'm not complaining that people are objecting to something. I'm complaining about the way people have objected. Ongoing insults don't work. Questions, complaints that appear reasonable and diffs are effective. Follow Lar's example.

Those ships have sailed … too long ago.

Expressions of contempt are partly cathartic, but they are partly informative.

People will keep their individual accounts, but when it comes to exchanges of courtesy, Wikipedia Inc. went bankrupt on my books a long time ago. I do not owe that Collective any courtesies beyond those I'd give anyone for free, which is to keep pointing out the truth.

Wikipediot Cultists have automated the exhibition of extreme contempt, not just for our persons, but for the values and virtues that a great number of us have labored toward for most of our lives. I see no indication that anything about the Wikiapede Modus OpeRandi is about to change by playing polite patty-cake and peek-a-boo with Wikipediot Ψ-Operatives.

Change will happen, but not that way.

Been There, Done That, Never Again.

Jon Awbrey

Expressions of contempt are barely informative, and after a while, how cathartic can they be? Being informative is informative, if informing third parties is really what you want. You don't have to be courteous and play patty-cake politely, just concentrate on the facts -- if informing others is really what you want. I'm using values and virtues beyond Wikipedia when I suggest this.

[Jon Awbrey]

Expressions of contempt are barely informative, and after a while, how cathartic can they be? Being informative is informative, if informing third parties is really what you want. You don't have to be courteous and play patty-cake politely, just concentrate on the facts — if informing others is really what you want. I'm using values and virtues beyond Wikipedia when I suggest this.

The economy of effort demands increasing measures of compression the more times one has been over the same damn grounds. There is such a thing as sufficient evidence, and that point was passed a long time ago for anyone who bothers to read the record. We've been through it all too many times before. Back when Rootology ran his WikiAbuse scam, we documented Admin Abuses diff by diff, play by play, by the bushel and truckload — any 3 or 4 of which would get the average WikiPeon banned for life. Some transcripts of that may still exist elsewhere hereabouts.

The sad fact is — you can only inform people who want to be informed, and that leaves Wikipediot Cultists out.

After a while, all you have time to say is "Run, You Φools !!!" —

Take Your Pick, Gimli …

Jon Awbrey

[GlassBeadGame]

I'm not complaining that people are objecting to something. I'm complaining about the way people have objected. Ongoing insults don't work. Questions, complaints that appear reasonable and diffs are effective. Follow Lar's example.

Those ships have sailed … too long ago.

Expressions of contempt are partly cathartic, but they are partly informative.

People will keep their individual accounts, but when it comes to exchanges of courtesy, Wikipedia Inc. went bankrupt on my books a long time ago. I do not owe that Collective any courtesies beyond those I'd give anyone for free, which is to keep pointing out the truth.

Wikipediot Cultists have automated the exhibition of extreme contempt, not just for our persons, but for the values and virtues that a great number of us have labored toward for most of our lives. I see no indication that anything about the Wikiapede Modus OpeRandi is about to change by playing polite patty-cake and peek-a-boo with Wikipediot Ψ-Operatives.

Change will happen, but not that way.

Been There, Done That, Never Again.

Jon Awbrey

Expressions of contempt are barely informative, and after a while, how cathartic can they be? Being informative is informative, if informing third parties is really what you want. You don't have to be courteous and play patty-cake politely, just concentrate on the facts -- if informing others is really what you want. I'm using values and virtues beyond Wikipedia when I suggest this.

"Expressions of contempt" are most useful in establishing the parameters of relevant discussion. This is something we have seen repeatedly on this board when Wikipedians attempt to focus on concerns which, however relevant within Wikipedia, might not be considered productive here. We see this currently in the discussion of SlimVirgins abusive career on Wikipedia when she and her supporters shift to the petty violations of her victims and away from her systematic abuses conducted under color of authority in concert with other influential Wikipedians.

[Somey]

When I try to defend myself, I'm accused of whining, of being repetitive, of derailing threads, of being mentally ill, and I'm warned that I can't even *ask* who the attackers are on Wikipedia, or else I'll be banned from here... Why mature men would have such brittle, sticky minds, I have no idea.

To be fair, everybody who contributes substantially to Wikipedia and participates in its governance, unless it's for the purpose of destroying it, is probably mentally ill to some degree. As for your being accused of whining and repetitiveness, that's clearly unfair - people should stop that. Derailing threads is annoying, but it's a tradition, and some people like tradition, so... meh.

The thing about identifying your "attackers," though, ostensibly in order to provide context from your perspective for what few unbiased readers still exist, is more troubling. Mr. Heat knows that it's bothersome for us to keep redacting his WP username, so it would be nice if he didn't make such an issue of his treatment by Wikipedia at all, at least not here on WR - unless he'd be willing to compromise and accept wider use of our code name for him, namely Maisonsurlagamme, which most intelligent folks should be able to figure out without being told explicitly, but most neo-nazis, hopefully not.

So, Mr. Heat, would that be acceptable?

------------------------

When you start speculating that sexism of older men is involved, it's something you can't possibly prove, and it looks like you're making a sexist attack. Please drop it. As a man of a certain age, I find it offensive. Actually, you said this before and several women on this board countered by saying they were also critical of you and sexism couldn't explain it.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to play Devil's Advocate here and say that Hell/SV is perfectly justified in thinking there's a sexism component to the reactions she gets from those she has disputes with on Wikipedia, including the several (but not all, I should add) that have been discussed here on WR, if not exported/imported here. (Whether or not she manages to take advantage of that component is another issue, of course.)

Sexism may not be a deliberate, or even conscious, influence on men's reactions to her, but to say the influence isn't there strikes me as highly unlikely at best. If SV ever does develop a new WP account, assuming she isn't already doing so, I'd strongly suggest that it be a male persona. At the risk of sounding sexist myself, I think she could pull it off rather easily.

Perhaps the Internet is just able to bring together the few people who are capable of sustaining their anger this long. I guess that feeds on itself, and I guess most of these people have no clue as to how malicious they look to everyone who hasn't been sipping the Kool-ade.

It's the lack of immediate physical feedback, Noroton. You can't see and hear the flesh-and-blood human reactions of others online, but you can be frustrated as all-get-out over the fact that others can't see and hear yours. And again at the risk of sounding sexist, it's probably worse for women - maybe much worse.

Anger doesn't usually last long, but frustration can last a lifetime, if nothing is effectively done about it.

As I pointed out earlier, despite her claim that WR is obsessed with her and even built around her there was very little discussion of SV on WR in the year or so prior to her appearing here as Hell - even the Arbcomm case against her was largely ignored for the balance of it - it was only during the punishment stage that WR started noticing. As for Encyclopedia Dramatica, her article has only attracted 6 edits in the past 6 months.

There are those of us among the current and former moderators who can probably take some credit for that. But I'm afraid I have to insist that both Gomi and Poetguy are, or were, among them. The real problem recently has been that Proabivouac's behavior during the last few months, whether or not it's to be considered justifiable (as it arguably was in Poetguy's case), has been assumed to be either SlimVirgin-directed or SlimVirgin-inspired. SV's failure to denounce it has been taken as proof of that. Now that he's gone, I'm hoping things can get back to normal, which is to say a "moderate degree of obsessiveness," as opposed to an "unseemly and occasionally disturbing" degree.

-------------------

Wikipediot Cultists have automated the exhibition of extreme contempt, not just for our persons, but for the values and virtues that a great number of us have labored toward for most of our lives. I see no indication that anything about the Wikiapede Modus OpeRandi is about to change by playing polite patty-cake and peek-a-boo with Wikipediot ?-Operatives.

I agree, but there really is too much focus on this one person, no matter how bad her behavior has been. I understand that the stakes are higher in her case because of the kinds of articles she works on, and/or attempts to control, but it still looks bad to the outsider.

---------------------

I shall conclude with this, and I swear it isn't directed at anyone in particular: Maybe "turnabout is fair play" and all that sort of thing, but that's not the best principle for civilized people to follow on a day-to-day basis. If people can't play fair, maybe they shouldn't be playing at all.

[Moulton]

The Game of Reciprocal Recriminations is one of those games of moral relativism in which all contestants inexorably sink into the abysmal depths of moby lossage.

Eventually even the proprietor of the thunderdome arena becomes bored with the whole damned thing.

[Somey]

Eventually even the proprietor of the thunderdome arena becomes bored with the whole damned thing.

Kind of a stupid link, isn't it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

Wikipediot Cultists have automated the exhibition of extreme contempt, not just for our persons, but for the values and virtues that a great number of us have labored toward for most of our lives. I see no indication that anything about the Wikiapede Modus OpeRandi is about to change by playing polite patty-cake and peek-a-boo with Wikipediot Ψ-Operatives.

I agree, but there really is too much focus on this one person, no matter how bad her behavior has been. I understand that the stakes are higher in her case because of the kinds of articles she works on, and/or attempts to control, but it still looks bad to the outsider.

It's not like I haven't said this 10³ times already, but what the heck, in the spirit of winey-repetitiveness I'll go get another glass and spew it one more time —

The contexts in which I find it pertinent to discuss SlimVirgin's impact on Wikipedia have little to do with her own pet articles — except when somey people keep bringing up Our Old Friend Martin — but they are based on the fact that SlimVirgin is the main re-writer of Wikipedia's content policies as they currently stand, and this has vastly more impact on fostering the mis-educational distortions of Wikipedia than all of her pet articles put together.

So I will continue to emphasize the significance of that fact, dankyouverymuck.

Now, the fact that SlimVirgin and her co-whort ram-rodded these changes through by lying out their arses about everything and everyone in site — well, that's just Wiki-Par for the course.

Jon Awbrey

[Heat]

When I try to defend myself, I'm accused of whining, of being repetitive, of derailing threads, of being mentally ill, and I'm warned that I can't even *ask* who the attackers are on Wikipedia, or else I'll be banned from here... Why mature men would have such brittle, sticky minds, I have no idea.

To be fair, everybody who contributes substantially to Wikipedia and participates in its governance, unless it's for the purpose of destroying it, is probably mentally ill to some degree. As for your being accused of whining and repetitiveness, that's clearly unfair - people should stop that. Derailing threads is annoying, but it's a tradition, and some people like tradition, so... meh.

The thing about identifying your "attackers," though, ostensibly in order to provide context from your perspective for what few unbiased readers still exist, is more troubling. Mr. Heat knows that it's bothersome for us to keep redacting his WP username, so it would be nice if he didn't make such an issue of his treatment by Wikipedia at all, at least not here on WR - unless he'd be willing to compromise and accept wider use of our code name for him, namely Maisonsurlagamme, which most intelligent folks should be able to figure out without being told explicitly, but most neo-nazis, hopefully not.

So, Mr. Heat, would that be acceptable?

No and to explain why let me put things in context. A week or so ago I was trying to get Hell to answer questions about her relationships with Jayjg, FeloniousMonk, Proabivouac and Crum and I was doing so without any reference to how I was treated at Wikipedia. She responded by bringing up my evil past insisting that it was somehow relevant for "context" that people know who I am. She expected, I think, that raising the prospect of outing me would result in my backing off so I decided to call her bluff and address things to the extent that I could. Of course, even though she said she'd answer my questions after I addressed hers she failed to do so. I brought up my past here in response to Wordbomb's reference to SV privately apologizing because she'd done the exact same thing to me, at least in regards to her false claim that she had not retagged my pages, because I think she's not being upfront if she privately apologizes while letting her false statement stand publicly and so she responded (though not to the point I was actually making, as per her custom). Now that I've gone into a lot of detail and responded to her questions it's time for her to live up to her end and answer the questions I and others have raised about her editing alliances and gaming of WP.

Her pretense that she can only do that if she discusses me is nonsense since her editing relationships have nothing to do with me and since the vast majority of the shenanigans she was involved in with these editors had nothing to do with me or occurred after I left the scene and I see no point in letting her try to make this about me. It's simply an attempt by her to deflect, deflect, deflect and not answer questions on subjects where she cannot answer honestly without admitting that she and her allies have abused the system. And now that I have addressed my role and others on WR know who I am and can judge accordingly she has no excuse not to deal with the real issue that I and others have been raising here for several days.

So Hell, please discuss why you have not been supportive of SPA Jayjg's abuse of Checkuser and his POV editing, why you were supportive, and indeed a beneficiary of FelniousMonk's admin abuse and your defence (to the extent of trying to get his ban lifted) of Proaboviac's harassment and outing of individuals - including your friend? Also, while you're at it, perhaps you can explain your Sunsplash sockpuppet.

This post has been edited by Heat:

[Somey]

Now that I've gone into a lot of detail and responded to her questions it's time for her to live up to her end and answer the questions I and others have raised about her editing alliances and gaming of WP.

Okay, but... are you saying you didn't realize all along that such a thing could never, ever happen? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

I mean, remember whom we're referring to.

[Heat]

Now that I've gone into a lot of detail and responded to her questions it's time for her to live up to her end and answer the questions I and others have raised about her editing alliances and gaming of WP.

Okay, but... are you saying you didn't realize all along that such a thing could never, ever happen? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

I mean, remember whom we're referring to.

It was a risk. It was pretty obvious though that if I didn't call her bluff she'd use that to continuously try to deflect my questions and also that she thought she had something over me and thought she could intimidate me by insinuating that she'd reveal it if I didn't back off (she actually did out me in a backhanded way). Now that the bluff has been called and that card has been taken away from her we can proceed with having her explain her behavior rather than playing games by trying to make this about me.

This post has been edited by Heat:

[Mackan]

I'll use this spot to say that SlimVirgin has just emailed me in quite strong words to say that I should not comment further on any aspect of her actions on Wikipedia.

I will discuss this here if SV likes. Otherwise, since her comments are uncomfortably close to a threat, and yet because she continues to discuss her contemporaneous disputes on Wikipedia, I think readers here should know the type of request she is making in private.

[Edited to remove contents of email, unnecessary unless the point is disputed].

This post has been edited by Mackan:

[Cla68]

I'll use this spot to say that SlimVirgin has just emailed me in quite strong words to say that I should not comment further on any aspect of her actions on Wikipedia.

I will discuss this here if SV likes. Otherwise, since her comments are uncomfortably close to a threat, and yet because she continues to discuss her contemporaneous disputes on Wikipedia, I think readers here should know the type of request she is making in private.

[Edited to remove contents of email, unnecessary unless the point is disputed].

Sounds like you received an email variation of the Do not post to my talk page again! message.

SV, you have treated a lot of people very rudely and unfairly during your time in Wikipedia. Kim van der Linde and Mackan are but two examples out of many. You have not admitted to most of it or apologized. These people rightfully resent it. Also, people who have seen you act this way towards others and have seen you refuse to accept accountability for it also resent it.

Some have probably also seen emails you sent to editors and admins on your old mailing lists, saying things like, Would someone go please revert so-and-so at the such-and-such article? I've already used two reverts today. while at the same time you criticized and advocated banning of other editors on Wikipedia for equivalent violations of the rules while never admitting that you engaged in this type of unethical behavior. Do you understand?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Lar]

Sounds like you received an email variation of the Do not post to my talk page again! message.

My answer to that would be "I will if there is, in my judgement, a valid reason to do so, whether you like it or not"...

SV, you have treated a lot of people very rudely and unfairly during your time in Wikipedia. Kim van der Linde and Mackan are but two examples out of many. You have not admitted to most of it or apologized. These people rightfully resent it. Also, people who have seen you act this way towards others and have seen you refuse to accept accountability for it also resent it.

Some have probably also seen emails you sent to editors and admins on your old mailing lists, saying things like, Would someone go please revert so-and-so at the such-and-such article? I've already used two reverts today. while at the same time you criticized and advocated banning of other editors on Wikipedia for equivalent violations of the rules while never admitting that you engaged in this type of unethical behavior. Do you understand?

IMHO she does not understand.

That email needs to be forwarded to ArbCom. Strikes me as another example of the sort of intimidation that SV was known for, and in general, the sort of behavior that led to the motion temporarily removing her bit.

SV may not agree, but I've found that Mackan79 sticks to the facts, focusing on a particular behaviour that's troublesome, and supporting the matter with diffs, while avoiding polemic statements. Further Mackan79 answers questions when asked, and does so directly and without evading the substance of what was asked.

The same cannot, in my view, be said for SV. SV seems to favor character assassination via raising irrelevant matters, often introducing various conspiracy theories, and for the most part avoiding substantive diffs. This is usually done in the wrong venue. That's if one can get SV to respond to questions at all. As we have seen here, quite often, questions are ignored entirely.

[Jon Awbrey]

I'll use this spot to say that SlimVirgin has just emailed me in quite strong words to say that I should not comment further on any aspect of her actions on Wikipedia.

I will discuss this here if SV likes. Otherwise, since her comments are uncomfortably close to a threat, and yet because she continues to discuss her contemporaneous disputes on Wikipedia, I think readers here should know the type of request she is making in private.

[Edited to remove contents of email, unnecessary unless the point is disputed].

Thanks, Mackan, but we already know how she rolls …

On a related note, we've been through this biz about "private emails" many times before.

Definition. Private Letter = a letter you don't send.

Don't tell anyone I told you though.

Jon Awbrey

[JohnA]

Its refreshing to watch the expression of free speech on this thread, even if most of it is self-serving and self-justifying. It would never happen on Wikipedia, because there would have been at least four RFCs, a request to ArbCom, an RFA or three and there would have been more conspiracy theories about who is secretly supporting whom than any mortal could shake a forest of sticks at. And somebody or three would have been suspended for infractions of the "Don't talk back to Admins" rule.

But the reason that people are behaving like this is because, like it or not, Wikipedia is a malign influence on the lives of everyone who thought that their participation was for the Common Good.

Of course, people don't believe me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

I would be curious to know whether SV/Sarah really wants to be a WP Admin any more. Like the Rings of Power, administering WP appears to have a corrupting influence on people's critical thinking that appears to magnify their character faults to a global scale and shrink their humanity and decency.

Like Kelly Martin, I find I have more time to engage with SV's brain when she has no more power than anyone else. And I put forward the non-controversial opinion that KM has undergone a metamorphosis since she put down the desire for Power. She talks sense pretty much all of the time now. No wonder WP doesn't like her any more.

I think Sarah would be better off out of WP, and on to something else - but I have no idea what. Maybe Wikipedia fills free time available like no other, which is part of its appeal.

And yes, Jon Awbrey is a pompous ass when it comes to subject he thinks he knows more about. Now can we move on?

[Lar]

(some BS about icons)

[[WP:DGAF]]

Seriously, who cares? This sort of crap gives ammo to those who say that you're a creepy stalker and that SV is a poor hapless victim. I don't think either of those things are true but why play into people's hands?

Concentrate on what edits happen, what blocks get handed out, what BLPs that need to go don't, etc, not on what her twitter icon looks like, FFS.

[Milton Roe]

The contexts in which I find it pertinent to discuss SlimVirgin's impact on Wikipedia have little to do with her own pet articles — except when somey people keep bringing up Our Old Friend Martin —

Has anybody here seen my old friend Martin?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed a lot of people but it seems the good are libeled.
I just looked 'round and he's gone

The one Martin is named for the other, so it's a natural connection.

Did you know that Luther and Hitler were both especially fond of the word Festung? True story. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[gomi]

[Moderator's note: Moved posts related to Slim's Twitter pix, Daniel Brandt, and Martin Luther to here. -- gomi]

[nobs]

A very small number of men in their 50s and 60s have spent the last several years attacking me viciously on or offwiki, or both .... Perhaps you just couldn't stand being blocked or criticized by a woman....

This isn't a sexist comment about men with prostate problems, is it?