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

[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

[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?

[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: Sun 19th April 2009, 8:09pm

[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?

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?

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: Sun 19th April 2009, 8:26pm

[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: Mon 20th April 2009, 7:33am

[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: Mon 20th April 2009, 9:57am

[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.

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.

[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?