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

[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: Sun 19th April 2009, 5:10am

[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: Sun 19th April 2009, 5:38am

[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: Sun 19th April 2009, 6:03am

[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: Sun 19th April 2009, 6:58am

[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: Sun 19th April 2009, 7:29am

[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.

[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.

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: Sun 19th April 2009, 7:45am

[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: Sun 19th April 2009, 8:38am

[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: Sun 19th April 2009, 9:58am