I finally stumbled across an earlier request when looking at the COFS case.
***********
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:43:40 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive sockpuppetry]
FYI. I asked Judd for permission to forward this and asked him to
postpone publication (I guess that although this is on the web without
password he has not pushed it into "public view" on his site? dunno.)
SlimVirgin, let me be blunt. It looks like he has you dead to rights on
the sockpuppetry. Do me the kindness of coming clean with me if true.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive sockpuppetry
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:53:02 -0600
From: Judd Bagley
To: jwales
http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=115Mr. Wales,
I've managed to assemble a lot of data like what you'll read if you
follow that link. Let me know if you're interested in reviewing or
discussing any of it before publication.
Regards,
Judd
--
Judd Bagley
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:54:48 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> FYI. I asked Judd for permission to forward this and asked him to
> postpone publication (I guess that although this is on the web without
> password he has not pushed it into "public view" on his site? dunno.)
A bit late for that, I think:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12063(And, based on that thread, it looks like Bagley has succesfully
managed to reconstruct all the oversighted edits, to boot.)
Kirill
------------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:07:06 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
Wow. Six edits two years ago. Take her out and shoot her.
------------
From: (Theresa Knott)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:23:52 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Josh Gordon wrote:
> Wow. Six edits two years ago. Take her out and shoot her.
I don't think you should be so glib. It's a serious matter.
Theresa
------------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:27:49 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On Aug 23, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:
> Wow. Six edits two years ago. Take her out and shoot her.
That is not the whole of it. The other issue is the possible use of
oversight to cover this up.
Paul August
-------------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:40:37 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On Aug 23, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Theresa Knott wrote:
> It's a serious matter.
Yes it is. Both fundamentally -- as well as from a public relations
point of view. I doubt that this issue is going to go away. I
wouldn't want to be in Jimbo's shoes having to publicly answer the
questions this issue has and will continue to raise. It would be nice
to try and get out front of the public reaction to this. Instead of
simply appearing to be responding to it.
Paul August
------------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:07:37 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Theresa Knott wrote:
>
> > It's a serious matter.
>
> Yes it is. Both fundamentally -- as well as from a public relations
> point of view. I doubt that this issue is going to go away. I
> wouldn't want to be in Jimbo's shoes having to publicly answer the
> questions this issue has and will continue to raise. It would be nice
> to try and get out front of the public reaction to this. Instead of
> simply appearing to be responding to it.
I don't see any real way to do this without admitting the truth of the
entire affair, and I think that we ought to do so. There *has* been
inappropriate behavior here, and trying to cover it up further is both
infeasible -- too much evidence is available to the public now -- and
hardly in the best interests of the project in any case.
Kirill
----------
From: charles.r.matthews
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:19:35 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's
abusive sockpuppetry]
"Kirill Lokshin"
> I don't see any real way to do this without admitting the truth of the
> entire affair, and I think that we ought to do so.
Agree. But then in a sense this is a PR, damage limitation exercise, and the ArbCom is not really in a position to handle it. Well, a couple of us here on this list have drafted press releases before. But it should be handed over to those whose responsibility includes PR.
Chartles
[sic]----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:23:30 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 23, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Theresa Knott wrote:
> >
> > > It's a serious matter.
> >
> > Yes it is. Both fundamentally -- as well as from a public relations
> > point of view. I doubt that this issue is going to go away. I
> > wouldn't want to be in Jimbo's shoes having to publicly answer the
> > questions this issue has and will continue to raise. It would be nice
> > to try and get out front of the public reaction to this. Instead of
> > simply appearing to be responding to it.
>
> I don't see any real way to do this without admitting the truth of the
> entire affair, and I think that we ought to do so. There *has* been
> inappropriate behavior here, and trying to cover it up further is both
> infeasible -- too much evidence is available to the public now -- and
> hardly in the best interests of the project in any case.
>
> Kirill
What is "the entire affair" in your view? What is the issue?
Back in 2006 WordBomb/Judd Bagley, Daniel Brandt, and the rest of the
WR crew were desperately trying to out SV, and as they still continue
to do, including discovering her name and where she lived. Wikipedia
sometimes logs editors out, exposing their IP addresses, and IP
addresses expose one's location, among other things. Oversight has
been used to hide those edits, and before oversight existed,
developers did so by hand; in fact, that was one of the reasons
oversight was created, so developers wouldn't have to do this any
more.
The edits in question were not oversighted to hide evidence of
"sockpuppeting". I have no idea if this was indeed a sockpuppet, but
it's certainly not a particularly active account; it has made about 2
dozen edits, mostly in December 2004/January 2005, and four others in
July and September of 2005 - hardly a "crime" worth hiding - and
nothing like that *actual* abuse that Judd's two dozen proven
sockpuppets have done. The oversights were to protect Wikipedia
editors from vicious stalkers like Judd Bagley and Daniel Brandt, and
Bagley's many ridiculous conspiracy theories should be treated as what
they are, troll-bait. Guy Chapman's page on Wikipedia's flaws is bang
on in this case; Wikipedia doesn't do nearly enough to protect editors
from this kind of abuse.
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:23:56 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> "Kirill Lokshin"
>
> > I don't see any real way to do this without admitting the truth of the
> > entire affair, and I think that we ought to do so.
>
> Agree. But then in a sense this is a PR, damage limitation exercise, and the ArbCom is not really in a position to handle it. Well, a couple of us here on this list have drafted press releases before. But it should be handed over to those whose responsibility includes PR.
What, in your view, is "the truth of the entire affair"?
----------
From: (Kat Walsh)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:26:56 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> "Kirill Lokshin"
>
> > I don't see any real way to do this without admitting the truth of the
> > entire affair, and I think that we ought to do so.
>
> Agree. But then in a sense this is a PR, damage limitation exercise, and the ArbCom is not really in a position to handle it. Well, a couple of us here on this list have drafted press releases before. But it should be handed over to those whose responsibility includes PR.
Is this really a big press thing? Will anyone care? I suspect the
answer is no, other than the usual malcontents.
Not that I don't think the evidence is pretty convincing and that she
shouldn't come clean and apologize for it (unless for some strange
reason it wasn't her).
But I just don't see any media caring beyond the usual group of people
with small blogs and news sites who love to publish anything negative
about Wikipedia and its admins that they can dig up. I think it's even
below Slashdot's standards.
-Kat
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:34:14 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Kat Walsh wrote:
> On 8/23/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> > "Kirill Lokshin"
> >
> > > I don't see any real way to do this without admitting the truth of the
> > > entire affair, and I think that we ought to do so.
> >
> > Agree. But then in a sense this is a PR, damage limitation exercise, and the ArbCom is not really in a position to handle it. Well, a couple of us here on this list have drafted press releases before. But it should be handed over to those whose responsibility includes PR.
>
> Is this really a big press thing? Will anyone care? I suspect the
> answer is no, other than the usual malcontents.
>
> Not that I don't think the evidence is pretty convincing and that she
> shouldn't come clean and apologize for it (unless for some strange
> reason it wasn't her).
>
> But I just don't see any media caring beyond the usual group of people
> with small blogs and news sites who love to publish anything negative
> about Wikipedia and its admins that they can dig up. I think it's even
> below Slashdot's standards.
>
> -Kat
Indeed. And by the way, if it is indeed a sockpuppet, it was created
before SV was an admin, and was last used to edit articles 2 months
before SV became an admin. It made 2 edits in July 2005 to User talk
pages (including one to its own), and in September 2005 it blanked its
own user and Talk: page.
----------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:35:13 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On Aug 23, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Kat Walsh wrote:
> Is this really a big press thing? Will anyone care? I suspect the
> answer is no, other than the usual malcontents.
I care. And my guess is that so will lots of other Wikipedia editors.
Paul August
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:37:22 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, jayjg wrote:
> On 8/23/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> > >
> > > On Aug 23, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Theresa Knott wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's a serious matter.
> > >
> > > Yes it is. Both fundamentally -- as well as from a public relations
> > > point of view. I doubt that this issue is going to go away. I
> > > wouldn't want to be in Jimbo's shoes having to publicly answer the
> > > questions this issue has and will continue to raise. It would be nice
> > > to try and get out front of the public reaction to this. Instead of
> > > simply appearing to be responding to it.
> >
> > I don't see any real way to do this without admitting the truth of the
> > entire affair, and I think that we ought to do so. There *has* been
> > inappropriate behavior here, and trying to cover it up further is both
> > infeasible -- too much evidence is available to the public now -- and
> > hardly in the best interests of the project in any case.
> >
> > Kirill
>
> What is "the entire affair" in your view? What is the issue?
That would be the various instances of SV's inappropriate behavior --
in particular, as far as I'm concerned, her early editing history --
together with the unwarranted use of oversight to conceal evidence of
said behavior.
(But, in all honesty, I suspect you're well aware of this.)
Kirill
----------
From: charles.r.matthews
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:37:39 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's
abusive sockpuppetry]
jayjg wrote
> On 8/23/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> > "Kirill Lokshin"
> >
> > > I don't see any real way to do this without admitting the truth of the
> > > entire affair, and I think that we ought to do so.
> >
> > Agree. But then in a sense this is a PR, damage limitation exercise, and the ArbCom is not really in a position to handle it. Well, a couple of us here on this list have drafted press releases before. But it should be handed over to those whose responsibility includes PR.
>
> What, in your view, is "the truth of the entire affair"?
I have no idea. I think Jimbo would like to know, and to be able to instruct others as to appropriate reactions.
As I have just said, assuming we are looking for a PR response, the AC list is not the forum. We _are_ a forum for discussing editor behaviour, on enWP, in line with widely accepted community norms, customs, and documented pieces of policy. I don't think we now have much of a chance in engaging in meaningful discussion of the sort of considerations that are being thrown around ('defence' of Wikipedians). This is, roughly speaking, the point at which "there is no cabal" becomes more than an in-joke. If there have been no actions culpable in our terms, it all becomes easy once more: we just say that.
Charles
----------
From: (Kat Walsh)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:40:46 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Kat Walsh wrote:
>
> > Is this really a big press thing? Will anyone care? I suspect the
> > answer is no, other than the usual malcontents.
>
> I care. And my guess is that so will lots of other Wikipedia editors.
>
> Paul August
Sure, but that's not something you write a press release for, as
Charles was asking about.
-Kat
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:42:07 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Kat Walsh wrote:
> On 8/23/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> > "Kirill Lokshin"
> >
> > > I don't see any real way to do this without admitting the truth of the
> > > entire affair, and I think that we ought to do so.
> >
> > Agree. But then in a sense this is a PR, damage limitation exercise, and the ArbCom is not really in a position to handle it. Well, a couple of us here on this list have drafted press releases before. But it should be handed over to those whose responsibility includes PR.
>
> Is this really a big press thing? Will anyone care? I suspect the
> answer is no, other than the usual malcontents.
Hopefully that will continue to be the case -- unlike Seigenthaler,
Salinger is in no position to complain about it -- but I wouldn't
necessarily bet that nobody else will pick up on it.
Kirill
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:46:08 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 23/08/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 8/23/07, Kat Walsh wrote:
> > Is this really a big press thing? Will anyone care? I suspect the
> > answer is no, other than the usual malcontents.
> Hopefully that will continue to be the case -- unlike Seigenthaler,
> Salinger is in no position to complain about it -- but I wouldn't
> necessarily bet that nobody else will pick up on it.
I'm thinking up my responses to press queries already ;-) Personally
I'm not inclined to feed trolls (like Judd Bagley and WR).
- d.
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:54:06 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 8/23/07, jayjg wrote:
> > On 8/23/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > > On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Aug 23, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Theresa Knott wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It's a serious matter.
> > > >
> > > > Yes it is. Both fundamentally -- as well as from a public relations
> > > > point of view. I doubt that this issue is going to go away. I
> > > > wouldn't want to be in Jimbo's shoes having to publicly answer the
> > > > questions this issue has and will continue to raise. It would be nice
> > > > to try and get out front of the public reaction to this. Instead of
> > > > simply appearing to be responding to it.
> > >
> > > I don't see any real way to do this without admitting the truth of the
> > > entire affair, and I think that we ought to do so. There *has* been
> > > inappropriate behavior here, and trying to cover it up further is both
> > > infeasible -- too much evidence is available to the public now -- and
> > > hardly in the best interests of the project in any case.
> > >
> > > Kirill
> >
> > What is "the entire affair" in your view? What is the issue?
>
> That would be the various instances of SV's inappropriate behavior --
> in particular, as far as I'm concerned, her early editing history --
Well, it appears that, if we accepts all the claims of Wikipedia
Review/Daniel Brandt etc. as true, as a new editor she might have
edited the article of someone she once worked with - before, I might
add, the COI rules were even written.
> together with the unwarranted use of oversight to conceal evidence of
> said behavior.
But oversight was used to protect her from some rather horrific
stalking, not to hide any "evidence" of any particular behavior.
> (But, in all honesty, I suspect you're well aware of this.)
I'm well aware of the Judd Bagley/Daniel Brandt/Wikipedia Review
conspiracy theories; in many cases I'm also well aware of just how far
they diverge from reality (and the divergence regarding things I
actually know about is immense - for example, they include theories
about me being friends with Danny Wool before coming to Wikipedia, and
having some sort of financial arrangement with Jimmy). I'm not yet
fully aware of how many minds they have poisoned with their nonsense.
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:55:42 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Kat Walsh wrote:
>
> > Is this really a big press thing? Will anyone care? I suspect the
> > answer is no, other than the usual malcontents.
>
> I care. And my guess is that so will lots of other Wikipedia editors.
It's important to know if SV created a sockpuppet in 2004, and used it
to make a couple of dozen edits before she became an administrator? An
account that hasn't edited any articles since January 2005?
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:01:37 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> jayjg wrote
>
> > On 8/23/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> > > "Kirill Lokshin"
> > >
> > > > I don't see any real way to do this without admitting the truth of the
> > > > entire affair, and I think that we ought to do so.
> > >
> > > Agree. But then in a sense this is a PR, damage limitation exercise, and the ArbCom is not really in a position to handle it. Well, a couple of us here on this list have drafted press releases before. But it should be handed over to those whose responsibility includes PR.
> >
> > What, in your view, is "the truth of the entire affair"?
>
> I have no idea. I think Jimbo would like to know, and to be able to instruct others as to appropriate reactions.
Well, actually, you do. SV was being stalked by people who were
publishing wild stories about her, and who were trying to figure out
her name and location. They included some rather frightening
individuals, like Scott Grayban, who were quite threatening. A number
of edits from her IP were inadvertently exposed, and were oversighted
for that reason. That's "the truth of the entire affair".
It astonishes me that anyone would take anything Judd Bagley says
seriously. Just a couple of weeks ago he was outing some teenage kid
on the Talk: page of the high school the kid goes to. Apparently the
kid said something on his blog that Judd didn't like , so he had to be
"dealt with". This is the level of the individual you are dealing
with.
----------
From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:05:24 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's
abusive sockpuppetry]
jayjg wrote:
> The edits in question were not oversighted to hide evidence of
> "sockpuppeting". I have no idea if this was indeed a sockpuppet, but
> it's certainly not a particularly active account; it has made about 2
> dozen edits, mostly in December 2004/January 2005, and four others in
> July and September of 2005 - hardly a "crime" worth hiding - and
> nothing like that *actual* abuse that Judd's two dozen proven
> sockpuppets have done. The oversights were to protect Wikipedia
> editors from vicious stalkers like Judd Bagley and Daniel Brandt, and
> Bagley's many ridiculous conspiracy theories should be treated as what
> they are, troll-bait. Guy Chapman's page on Wikipedia's flaws is bang
> on in this case; Wikipedia doesn't do nearly enough to protect editors
> from this kind of abuse.
>
The question is not so much of the sockpuppetry, which is old and easily
forgiven, I suspect, but of the oversight use. Do you really have no
idea if this was a sockpuppet? Why then was your very first act as an
oversight user to remove this
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Oversight&revision=9165353&diff=1>,
an edit by an IP that appears to be User:Sweet Blue Water, from context?
Did SlimVirgin contact you and ask for it to be removed, and what reason
could she have given? These are not accusations or rhetorical questions;
I think we'd like to know how it happened. I know if an administrator
asked me to oversight an edit that compromised her IP, but that also was
evidence of her abusive sockpuppetry, I would not look too favorably
upon the request.
Dominic
----------
From:(Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:06:49 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On Aug 23, 2007, at 3:55 PM, jayjg wrote:
> It's important to know if SV created a sockpuppet in 2004, and used it
> to make a couple of dozen edits before she became an administrator? An
> account that hasn't edited any articles since January 2005?
Creation of a sockpuppet and using it abusively is a serious matter,
no matter by whom or when. Attempts to cover-up such abuse is also a
serious matter.
Paul August
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:13:13 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 23/08/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2007, at 3:55 PM, jayjg wrote:
> > It's important to know if SV created a sockpuppet in 2004, and used it
> > to make a couple of dozen edits before she became an administrator? An
> > account that hasn't edited any articles since January 2005?
> Creation of a sockpuppet and using it abusively is a serious matter,
> no matter by whom or when. Attempts to cover-up such abuse is also a
> serious matter.
Was it used abusively, though? That is, to create a false impression
of consensus?
- d.
----------
From: (Theresa Knott)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:15:27 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2007, at 3:55 PM, jayjg wrote:
>
> > It's important to know if SV created a sockpuppet in 2004, and used it
> > to make a couple of dozen edits before she became an administrator? An
> > account that hasn't edited any articles since January 2005?
>
> Creation of a sockpuppet and using it abusively is a serious matter,
> no matter by whom or when. Attempts to cover-up such abuse is also a
> serious matter.
100% agree. If she's done it once how can anyone know that she wont
do it again? When I saw the title of this thread I couldn't believe
she would do it. I still can't really. But if she has then then it's
an important matter.
Theresa
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:15:44 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, jayjg wrote:
> On 8/23/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > On 8/23/07, jayjg wrote:
> > > On 8/23/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > > > On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Aug 23, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Theresa Knott wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's a serious matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes it is. Both fundamentally -- as well as from a public relations
> > > > > point of view. I doubt that this issue is going to go away. I
> > > > > wouldn't want to be in Jimbo's shoes having to publicly answer the
> > > > > questions this issue has and will continue to raise. It would be nice
> > > > > to try and get out front of the public reaction to this. Instead of
> > > > > simply appearing to be responding to it.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see any real way to do this without admitting the truth of the
> > > > entire affair, and I think that we ought to do so. There *has* been
> > > > inappropriate behavior here, and trying to cover it up further is both
> > > > infeasible -- too much evidence is available to the public now -- and
> > > > hardly in the best interests of the project in any case.
> > > >
> > > > Kirill
> > >
> > > What is "the entire affair" in your view? What is the issue?
> >
> > That would be the various instances of SV's inappropriate behavior --
> > in particular, as far as I'm concerned, her early editing history --
>
> Well, it appears that, if we accepts all the claims of Wikipedia
> Review/Daniel Brandt etc. as true, as a new editor she might have
> edited the article of someone she once worked with - before, I might
> add, the COI rules were even written.
"edited the article of someone she once worked with" is a bit of an
understatement in light of things like
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=7036398&diff=1,
no? I'd be inclined towards being a bit more descriptive here;
something like "spread odious rumors about a former US Senator a scant
two weeks after his death" would seem a better summary. The COI makes
is a bigger problem, but those edits were in no way appropriate even
if we ignore the personal connection to Salinger.
> > together with the unwarranted use of oversight to conceal evidence of
> > said behavior.
>
> But oversight was used to protect her from some rather horrific
> stalking, not to hide any "evidence" of any particular behavior.
We have no responsibility to protect people from the consequences of
their own misbehavior, in my opinion, nor to shield them from exposure
when they bring external conflicts onto Wikipedia.
Kirill
----------
From: (Theresa Knott)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:22:15 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23/08/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 2007, at 3:55 PM, jayjg wrote:
>
> > > It's important to know if SV created a sockpuppet in 2004, and used it
> > > to make a couple of dozen edits before she became an administrator? An
> > > account that hasn't edited any articles since January 2005?
>
> > Creation of a sockpuppet and using it abusively is a serious matter,
> > no matter by whom or when. Attempts to cover-up such abuse is also a
> > serious matter.
>
>
> Was it used abusively, though? That is, to create a false impression
> of consensus?
Like dual voting? Yes!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...5&oldid=9086621http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=9074635Theresa
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:00:16 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Dmcdevit wrote:
> jayjg wrote:
> > The edits in question were not oversighted to hide evidence of
> > "sockpuppeting". I have no idea if this was indeed a sockpuppet, but
> > it's certainly not a particularly active account; it has made about 2
> > dozen edits, mostly in December 2004/January 2005, and four others in
> > July and September of 2005 - hardly a "crime" worth hiding - and
> > nothing like that *actual* abuse that Judd's two dozen proven
> > sockpuppets have done. The oversights were to protect Wikipedia
> > editors from vicious stalkers like Judd Bagley and Daniel Brandt, and
> > Bagley's many ridiculous conspiracy theories should be treated as what
> > they are, troll-bait. Guy Chapman's page on Wikipedia's flaws is bang
> > on in this case; Wikipedia doesn't do nearly enough to protect editors
> > from this kind of abuse.
> >
> The question is not so much of the sockpuppetry, which is old and easily
> forgiven, I suspect, but of the oversight use. Do you really have no
> idea if this was a sockpuppet?
Of course not.
> Why then was your very first act as an
> oversight user to remove this
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Oversight&revision=9165353&diff=1>,
> an edit by an IP that appears to be User:Sweet Blue Water, from context?
I simply removed all the edits from that IP.
> Did SlimVirgin contact you and ask for it to be removed, and what reason
> could she have given? These are not accusations or rhetorical questions;
> I think we'd like to know how it happened.
As I recall, she wrote that she had edited from that IP, that those
edits had been inadvertently exposed, and asked that they be
oversighted. The reasons for oversighting exposed IPs were obvious, as
explained in earlier e-mails. I simply oversighted all the edits from
the IP; there's no way of telling in the context of that user talk:
page that the edits were supposed to have been from a different
account, much less that it was an "abusive sockpuppet".
> I know if an administrator
> asked me to oversight an edit that compromised her IP, but that also was
> evidence of her abusive sockpuppetry, I would not look too favorably
> upon the request.
But the issue here was IP exposure and stalking, not sockpuppetry.
Malice's note: These are the kind of blokes they keep around. I've no words.----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:03:02 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2007, at 3:55 PM, jayjg wrote:
>
> > It's important to know if SV created a sockpuppet in 2004, and used it
> > to make a couple of dozen edits before she became an administrator? An
> > account that hasn't edited any articles since January 2005?
>
> Creation of a sockpuppet and using it abusively is a serious matter,
> no matter by whom or when.
I haven't looked through all the edits of that account, but I think
the questions you are responding to are still relevant.
> Attempts to cover-up such abuse is also a
> serious matter.
Fortunately, no "attempts" to "cover up abuse" were made; instead,
attempts were made to protect Wikipedia editors from serious stalking.
-----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:12:11 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 8/23/07, jayjg wrote:
> > On 8/23/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > > On 8/23/07, jayjg wrote:
> > > > On 8/23/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > > > > On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Aug 23, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Theresa Knott wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's a serious matter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes it is. Both fundamentally -- as well as from a public relations
> > > > > > point of view. I doubt that this issue is going to go away. I
> > > > > > wouldn't want to be in Jimbo's shoes having to publicly answer the
> > > > > > questions this issue has and will continue to raise. It would be nice
> > > > > > to try and get out front of the public reaction to this. Instead of
> > > > > > simply appearing to be responding to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see any real way to do this without admitting the truth of the
> > > > > entire affair, and I think that we ought to do so. There *has* been
> > > > > inappropriate behavior here, and trying to cover it up further is both
> > > > > infeasible -- too much evidence is available to the public now -- and
> > > > > hardly in the best interests of the project in any case.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirill
> > > >
> > > > What is "the entire affair" in your view? What is the issue?
> > >
> > > That would be the various instances of SV's inappropriate behavior --
> > > in particular, as far as I'm concerned, her early editing history --
> >
> > Well, it appears that, if we accepts all the claims of Wikipedia
> > Review/Daniel Brandt etc. as true, as a new editor she might have
> > edited the article of someone she once worked with - before, I might
> > add, the COI rules were even written.
>
> "edited the article of someone she once worked with" is a bit of an
> understatement in light of things like
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=7036398&diff=1,
> no? I'd be inclined towards being a bit more descriptive here;
> something like "spread odious rumors about a former US Senator a scant
> two weeks after his death" would seem a better summary. The COI makes
> is a bigger problem, but those edits were in no way appropriate even
> if we ignore the personal connection to Salinger.
Perhaps, but she was a very new editor at the time. This was in 2004,
and if I'm not mistaken, that may well have been her very first edit.
>
> > > together with the unwarranted use of oversight to conceal evidence of
> > > said behavior.
> >
> > But oversight was used to protect her from some rather horrific
> > stalking, not to hide any "evidence" of any particular behavior.
>
> We have no responsibility to protect people from the consequences of
> their own misbehavior, in my opinion, nor to shield them from exposure
> when they bring external conflicts onto Wikipedia.
The stalking was not the result of "external conflicts"; on the
contrary, it was a direct result of acting on Wikipedia's behalf. The
Judd Bagley stalking, for example, started because SV was trying to
protect another editor from Judd's abuse. The Daniel Brandt stalking
happened because SV had the temerity to create an article on him; this
article, in fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=24251234which hardly seems that terrible.
----------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:13:45 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On Aug 23, 2007, at 5:03 PM, jayjg wrote:
> Fortunately, no "attempts" to "cover up abuse" were made; instead,
> attempts were made to protect Wikipedia editors from serious stalking.
One reason does not preclude the other. Do you think it is possible
that by asking you to oversight the edits of that IP, that SlimVirgin
was trying to cover-up her sockpuppetry?
Paul August
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:20:12 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2007, at 5:03 PM, jayjg wrote:
>
> > Fortunately, no "attempts" to "cover up abuse" were made; instead,
> > attempts were made to protect Wikipedia editors from serious stalking.
>
> One reason does not preclude the other. Do you think it is possible
> that by asking you to oversight the edits of that IP, that SlimVirgin
> was trying to cover-up her sockpuppetry?
It is quite clear to me that there was a genuine and well-founded fear
of stalking, including many attempts to discover her name and
location. Subsequent events have borne that out, to an unprecedented
degree. It is also clear that that was the primary issue and reason
for asking for oversight. I can't really comment on the other, as I
don't know anything about it.
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:32:48 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, jayjg wrote:
> On 8/23/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > We have no responsibility to protect people from the consequences of
> > their own misbehavior, in my opinion, nor to shield them from exposure
> > when they bring external conflicts onto Wikipedia.
>
> The stalking was not the result of "external conflicts"; on the
> contrary, it was a direct result of acting on Wikipedia's behalf. The
> Judd Bagley stalking, for example, started because SV was trying to
> protect another editor from Judd's abuse. The Daniel Brandt stalking
> happened because SV had the temerity to create an article on him; this
> article, in fact:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=24251234> which hardly seems that terrible.
But the question is not why someone wanted to out SV, but rather why
the use of oversight was desired here. In other words, what did the
existence of these edits really reveal?
According to your own comments at the time:
"User:SlimVirgin e-mailed me, and explained that before she created her
SlimVirgin account she edited for a day or so as SlimV. She said
that, as a brand-new and inexperienced editor, she entered information
into the articles in question which would instantly identify who she
(the editor) was..."
What, then, was this information that would identify not only the
editor responsible, but also her real-life identity? Looking at the
edits you oversighted, I am forced to conclude that the only points
that might truly be unique to a particular individual were the tone
and nature of her comments regarding Salinger (e.g. the allusions to
"Those who worked with Salinger", etc.).
If this is correct, then it was SV's own pursuit of a vendetta against
Salinger that caused these edits to need oversighting; and, in that
case, the use of oversight to cover for her was, in my opinion, quite
inappropriate.
Kirill
----------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:35:31 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On Aug 23, 2007, at 5:20 PM, jayjg wrote:
> It is quite clear to me that there was a genuine and well-founded fear
> of stalking, including many attempts to discover her name and
> location. Subsequent events have borne that out, to an unprecedented
> degree. It is also clear that that was the primary issue and reason
> for asking for oversight. I can't really comment on the other, as I
> don't know anything about it.
Jay, do you think all of your oversights of SlimVirgin's edits were
entirely appropriate and within policy?
Paul August
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:39:49 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 23/08/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2007, at 5:20 PM, jayjg wrote:
> > It is quite clear to me that there was a genuine and well-founded fear
> > of stalking, including many attempts to discover her name and
> > location. Subsequent events have borne that out, to an unprecedented
> > degree. It is also clear that that was the primary issue and reason
> > for asking for oversight. I can't really comment on the other, as I
> > don't know anything about it.
> Jay, do you think all of your oversights of SlimVirgin's edits were
> entirely appropriate and within policy?
FWIW, I'd say they'd be fine within my understanding of oversight,
given the stated reason she wanted them oversight and the unwarranted
crap she's received from the trolls - and that oversight was created
because there was stuff we couldn't trust even all admins with
possible access to.
- d.
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:59:11 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 8/23/07, jayjg wrote:
> > On 8/23/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > > We have no responsibility to protect people from the consequences of
> > > their own misbehavior, in my opinion, nor to shield them from exposure
> > > when they bring external conflicts onto Wikipedia.
> >
> > The stalking was not the result of "external conflicts"; on the
> > contrary, it was a direct result of acting on Wikipedia's behalf. The
> > Judd Bagley stalking, for example, started because SV was trying to
> > protect another editor from Judd's abuse. The Daniel Brandt stalking
> > happened because SV had the temerity to create an article on him; this
> > article, in fact:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=24251234> > which hardly seems that terrible.
>
> But the question is not why someone wanted to out SV, but rather why
> the use of oversight was desired here. In other words, what did the
> existence of these edits really reveal?
>
> According to your own comments at the time:
>
> "User:SlimVirgin e-mailed me, and explained that before she created her
> SlimVirgin account she edited for a day or so as SlimV. She said
> that, as a brand-new and inexperienced editor, she entered information
> into the articles in question which would instantly identify who she
> (the editor) was..."
>
> What, then, was this information that would identify not only the
> editor responsible, but also her real-life identity? Looking at the
> edits you oversighted, I am forced to conclude that the only points
> that might truly be unique to a particular individual were the tone
> and nature of her comments regarding Salinger (e.g. the allusions to
> "Those who worked with Salinger", etc.).
>
> If this is correct, then it was SV's own pursuit of a vendetta against
> Salinger that caused these edits to need oversighting; and, in that
> case, the use of oversight to cover for her was, in my opinion, quite
> inappropriate.
That's one way of looking at it, and that's certainly the one being
promoted by Judd Bagley, Daniel Brandt, and Wikipedia Review. However,
the more accurate way of looking at it that actually accords with the
facts is that a new editor made some edits on her first couple of days
of editing, later came under a horrific amount of stalking and
attempts to find her by various Wikipedia-haters, realized that the
edits could personally identify her, and asked for them to be
oversighted for that reason, and that reason alone. That would be be
the true and accurate reason for both the request for oversight, and
the oversighting.
As I've said before, I've seen much of the stuff Bagley/Brandt/WR
writes about me, and I *know* what really happened and the reasons
why, and their take is inevitably far removed from reality; so much so
that sometimes I literally laugh out loud. This is a persistent and
reliable characteristic of theirs; assume bad faith and the most
negative possible reasons for a person's actions (typically involving
some sort of conspiracy), and present those assumptions as the truth -
this only applies, of course, to people they are attacking.
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:18:53 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2007, at 5:20 PM, jayjg wrote:
>
> > It is quite clear to me that there was a genuine and well-founded fear
> > of stalking, including many attempts to discover her name and
> > location. Subsequent events have borne that out, to an unprecedented
> > degree. It is also clear that that was the primary issue and reason
> > for asking for oversight. I can't really comment on the other, as I
> > don't know anything about it.
>
> Jay, do you think all of your oversights of SlimVirgin's edits were
> entirely appropriate and within policy?
Paul, do you think it is appropriate to oversight edits which
personally identify an editor when it is clear that she has a genuine
and well founded fear of stalking, including (but hardly restricted
to) many attempts by scary and threatening individuals to discover her
name and location?
----------
From: charles.r.matthews
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:25:34 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's
abusive sockpuppetry]
jayjg wrote
> On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 23, 2007, at 5:20 PM, jayjg wrote:
> >
> > > It is quite clear to me that there was a genuine and well-founded fear
> > > of stalking, including many attempts to discover her name and
> > > location. Subsequent events have borne that out, to an unprecedented
> > > degree. It is also clear that that was the primary issue and reason
> > > for asking for oversight. I can't really comment on the other, as I
> > > don't know anything about it.
> >
> > Jay, do you think all of your oversights of SlimVirgin's edits were
> > entirely appropriate and within policy?
> Paul, do you think it is appropriate to oversight edits which
> personally identify an editor when it is clear that she has a genuine
> and well founded fear of stalking, including (but hardly restricted
> to) many attempts by scary and threatening individuals to discover her
> name and location?
Err ... considering how many people on this list have already alluded to how serious a matter they consider this, do you really have to answer a straight question with a rhetorical one? You know, if it was all quite as simple as you make out (Brandt and cohorts are crazies - which is fair enough with me - so ends justify the means on WP, which is not what I think), you would not be having to write so many mails redefining the issues.
Charles
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:26:48 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, jayjg wrote:
> On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> > Jay, do you think all of your oversights of SlimVirgin's edits were
> > entirely appropriate and within policy?
>
> Paul, do you think it is appropriate to oversight edits which
> personally identify an editor when it is clear that she has a genuine
> and well founded fear of stalking, including (but hardly restricted
> to) many attempts by scary and threatening individuals to discover her
> name and location?
Presumably you determined that the edits did, in fact, "personally
identify an editor" before you oversighted them, and will be able to
explain how they did so?
Kirill
----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:30:30 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
Using oversight to protect our editors against disclosure of their personal
information is the very purpose of oversight. We do so freely and liberally
when there's just an outside chance someone's privacy might be compromised.
In this case, we either have to assume Jayjg is lying about this, or we have
to assume he's telling the truth. Since it's so obvious that the fuckwads
whose enmity she has accrued will stop at nothing when it comes to giving
her a bad time, and since, whatever you may think of Jayjg, there's no
indication he's a piece of shit liar, unlike many SV's detractors, we need
to let this be. I've been offered the details; I refused them as
unnecessary. I believe Jay's reluctance to share them with a wider audience
is justified.
--
--jpgordon ????
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:55:12 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, Josh Gordon wrote:
> Using oversight to protect our editors against disclosure of their personal
> information is the very purpose of oversight. We do so freely and liberally
> when there's just an outside chance someone's privacy might be compromised.
> In this case, we either have to assume Jayjg is lying about this, or we have
> to assume he's telling the truth.
We don't have to -- and shouldn't -- assume anything; that's the whole
point of having a log of oversight actions. The question of whether
you would have oversighted the edits in question is not an idle one;
the edits are there for you to examine.
You have, in any case, missed the rather more obvious third option --
that Jayjg is telling the truth but that his decision to oversight the
edits was wrong in spite of this.
Kirill
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:59:03 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 23/08/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> You have, in any case, missed the rather more obvious third option --
> that Jayjg is telling the truth but that his decision to oversight the
> edits was wrong in spite of this.
FWIW: As an oversighter, I'd probably have zapped them in the
circumstances for the reason stated, without worrying too deeply about
them on an individual basis.
- d.
-----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:25:49 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/23/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> jayjg wrote
>
> > On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> > >
> > > On Aug 23, 2007, at 5:20 PM, jayjg wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is quite clear to me that there was a genuine and well-founded fear
> > > > of stalking, including many attempts to discover her name and
> > > > location. Subsequent events have borne that out, to an unprecedented
> > > > degree. It is also clear that that was the primary issue and reason
> > > > for asking for oversight. I can't really comment on the other, as I
> > > > don't know anything about it.
> > >
> > > Jay, do you think all of your oversights of SlimVirgin's edits were
> > > entirely appropriate and within policy?
>
> > Paul, do you think it is appropriate to oversight edits which
> > personally identify an editor when it is clear that she has a genuine
> > and well founded fear of stalking, including (but hardly restricted
> > to) many attempts by scary and threatening individuals to discover her
> > name and location?
>
> Err ... considering how many people on this list have already alluded to how serious a matter they consider this, do you really have to answer a straight question with a rhetorical one? You know, if it was all quite as simple as you make out (Brandt and cohorts are crazies - which is fair enough with me - so ends justify the means on WP, which is not what I think), you would not be having to write so many mails redefining the issues.
It wasn't a straight question, it was premised on all sorts of
assumptions, and I haven't been "writ[ing] so many mails redefining
the issues." And my argument hasn't been that "the ends justifies the
means" either.
----------
From: (Slim Virgin)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:39:15 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
Jimbo, I don't read WordBomb's website and I've stopped reading
Wikipedia Review because I find it very upsetting. I've also asked my
wikifriends not to tell me if those sites are saying anything about
me, so I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't want to
have to pour through their nonsense to find out.
Would you please tell me what *your* exact concerns are? Not theirs,
but yours. I'm certainly willing to "come clean" as you put it,
because I haven't done anything I need to hide from you.
I hope you're bearing in mind that WordBomb (Judd Bagley) is insane
and very unpleasant, even worse than Brandt.
As for trying to avoid "publication," WordBomb publishes his various
allegations on his website, Wikipedia Review, and investors' websites
all the time. He's been threatening me with "publication" of some
terrible thing since mid-2006, and to this day I don't know what he
means. I've pasted one of his e-mails to me below, this one from 12
months ago, where he said "[his] plan is to present these data in a
rather high profile venue where you can't silence us." If he's not
managed to find a "high profile venue" in 12 months, he can't have
much of a story.
I recall he wrote a similar e-mail to you, accusing you of sockpuppetry.
Sarah
From: Becky Beckett <mulieribusfare>
Date: Aug 28, 2006 2:44 AM
Subject: we need to talk.
To: Sarah
Slim,
As I'm sure you know by now, we've been doing some homework. And not
too long ago, we "cracked the code" you might say, on you and your
activities on WP. At this point, we have what I think is a complete
picture, including your various sockpuppets (several, including Jon513
and Szero, both of which were mentioned publicly yesterday I believe),
anonymous IPs (in London, Edinburgh, NYC, etc), proxies (many). You
get the idea. And you've done everything you've banned others for
doing. We have the diffs.
We also have long past wikidumps, which have been available for
download in their original form, complete with many since
"oversighted" pages nicely intact (talk about an oversight!).
All in all, Slim, it's very unlikely that you'll make it through this
one. Right now, our plan is t
SlimVirgin socking (Part 1)
