Slimvirgin gets slashdotted, No place to hide... Options

[JohnA]

Link to slashdot[

"International Humanitarian Law professor Ludwig Braeckeleer thinks so. In an article published yesterday in the Korean newspaper OhMyNews, he reveals a discovery he made while researching a story on the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland. It turns out that a Wikipedia administrator named SlimVirgin is actually Linda Mack, a woman who as a young graduate in the 1980s was hired by investigative reporter Pierre Salinger of ABC News to help with the investigation. Salinger later came to believe that Mack was actually working for Britain's MI5 on a mission to investigate the bombing and to infiltrate and monitor the news agency. Shortly after her Wikipedia identity was uncovered, many of her edits to articles related to the bombing were permanently removed from the database in an attempt to conceal her identity. This discovery comes only months after another Wikipedia admin was caught lying about his credentials to the press. What can Wikipedia do about those who would use it for their own purposes?"

Bring popcorn. This one could get interesting.

[GlassBeadGame]

Link to slashdot[
Bring popcorn. This one could get interesting.

You seldom get such good seats to watch a story move up the journalistic food-chain.

[Infoboy]

ATTACK SITE AIR RAID!

Wow.

[Kato]

Take a look at the comments. One WP apologist named sepluv (641107) writes

In Wikipedia, appeals to personal authority don't work at all, unlike Britannica, which bases its entire approach on these. They are at either end of these extremes, and both work to some extent. Being in the middle would like not work at all.

What new nonsense is this? Yeah, Britannica's methods of employing numerous experts and fact checkers is "extreme" and worked "to some extent".

[GoodFaith]

ATTACK SITE AIR RAID!

Wow.

File an RFC -NOW-. This woman may have THOUSANDS of WP:COI violations. This should be investigated. Seriously.


Get filing!!!!

This post has been edited by GoodFaith: Fri 27th July 2007, 11:18pm

[JohnA]

We have our first winner!

Wow, I was just banned from editing by Crum375 for posting a question to her talk page, asking if she was Linda Mack/Sarah McEwan and part of an intelligence agency. I guess Crum375 doesn't feel that is relevant to an editor's NPOV considerations so my reason for banning was "Harassment and attempted outing of a fellow editor".

It might qualify as harassment if it wasn't totally relevant to her NPOV and should be known by fellow editors but as far as I can find, "attempted outing of a fellow editor" isn't even in the policy guidelines. I really do believe this is just a sockpuppet of hers.

[Infoboy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=147547715

Deleted thread on ANI;

User talk:SlimVirgin

Due to edit wars on User talk:SlimVirgin, I've protected the page for 24 hours. If you disagree, feel free to revert, but I submit that SV can revert whenever she returns and wants to, until then email is available, and it is possible that we do not want certain topics posted. I really don't have an opinion either way, but I wanted to get protection in ASAP. Also, remember that WP:OVERSIGHT is an option if we want it. Questions here are:

* Reverts by Crum: Good or bad?
* Protection: Leave it or remove it?
* How do we proceed?

--ST47Talk·Desk 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: Additionally, Crum375 has removed related comments from his/her talk. --ST47Talk·Desk 22:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Reverts against me and you [ST47] - bad. I hardly doubt either of us would dream of outing her. Then again, Crum is acting in hers and the project's best interests and protection seems acceptable given it's on the front page of Slashdot. Will (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[JohnA]

Take a look at the comments. One WP apologist named sepluv (641107) writes

In Wikipedia, appeals to personal authority don't work at all, unlike Britannica, which bases its entire approach on these. They are at either end of these extremes, and both work to some extent. Being in the middle would like not work at all.

What new nonsense is this? Yeah, Britannica's methods of employing numerous experts and fact checkers is "extreme" and worked "to some extent".

Yes, if you mean "has served as a beacon of scholarship for more than 200 years" by "extreme", then of course.

Here we see the full fruits of Slimvirgin's attacks on Daniel Brandt (and everyone else) - her past life is now be blasted around the world and she can't delete or ban the perpetrators.

[Infoboy]

How long until we see an article called [[SlimVirgin controversy]] on Wikipedia to go with [[Essjay controversy]]? We can then get [[Category:Former wikipedians who edited under false pretenses]] and add [[SlimVirgin controversy]] to {{Template:History of Wikipedia}}.

[GoodFaith]

Here we see the full fruits of Slimvirgin's attacks on Daniel Brandt (and everyone else) - her past life is now be blasted around the world and she can't delete or ban the perpetrators.

The Linda Mack story is common knowledge, I thought.

[Kato]

According to WP's own article on Slashdot (which could mean anything quite frankly) "famous or well-known active Slashdotters" include Der Jimbo himself. I wonder how Der Jimbo will feel about having his very own Miss Moneypenny outed in one of his favorite hang-outs.

[GlassBeadGame]

According to WP's own article on Slashdot (which could mean anything quite frankly) "famous or well-known active Slashdotters" include Der Jimbo himself. I wonder how Der Jimbo will feel about having his very own Miss Moneypenny outed in one of his favorite hang-outs.

I just perused wikien-l. They are in the "Essjay is our boy and we're sticking with him" phase of denial.

[Daniel Brandt]

How long until we see an article called [[SlimVirgin controversy]] on Wikipedia to go with [[Essjay controversy]]? We can then get [[Category:Former wikipedians who edited under false pretenses]] and add [[SlimVirgin controversy]] to {{Template:History of Wikipedia}}.

There is a case to be made that Linda's editing of the PanAm 103 article is the equivalent of Essjay's editing of articles on Catholicism. Both made edits under false pretenses.

First of all, you have to admit that no one who knows anything about Lockerbie claims that the Libyans did it. This includes Robert Baer, who was the CIA officer closely involved with the investigation. The Libyans were used to redirect the investigation away from Syria, because Syria's support for the Gulf War was considered more important than an honest investigation. The one Libyan who was convicted will probably end up getting a new trial. The CIA, the FBI, Scotland Yard, and MI5 and their friends planted evidence in order to focus on the Libyans.

How do you reconcile these three items:

1) John K. Cooley said, "Once the two Libyan suspects were indicted, she seemed to try to point the investigation in the direction of Qaddafi, although there was plenty of evidence, both before and after the trials of Maghrebi and Fhima in the Netherlands, that others were involved, probably with Iran the commissioning power."

2) Daniel and Susan Cohen lost their daughter on PanAm 103. They have aggressively supported the "Libya did it" theory, to the consternation of many with an interest in the case. In their book, on page 233, they state that "with Linda Mack taking the lead, we helped to organize a petition against the film." The film they're referring to was a 1994 documentary by Alan Francovich titled "The Maltese Double-Cross," which presented a conspiracy theory that was at odds with those pushing the Libyan angle. The point is that this item supports Cooley's statement that Linda Mack was working to push the Libyan angle (or at least working to suppress points of view that did not support the Libyan angle).

3) All of a sudden, by 2005, Linda no longer buys the Libyan angle. Her comment here refers to the convicted Libyan as a "miscarriage of justice which has put a man in jail for 27 years."

This evidence suggests that Linda was indeed working for outside interests when Pierre Salinger locked her out of her office at the London bureau of ABC News in the early 1990s. Either that, or sometime between 1994 and 2005 she had a "come to Jesus" moment and realized that she was on the wrong side of the truth. But if you look at her editing on Wikipedia on the Lockerbie tragedy, it seems that Linda is engaged in damage control more than anything. The keyword here is "control." She needs to control that article, because it has the potential for considerable damage.

Unlike the Essjay situation, this is not an amusing case of Catholicism for Dummies. This is a fundamental perversion of the editing process. Linda should have recused herself from all editing on any Lockerbie article, because she has conflicts of interest and zero credibility.

[Kato]

Either that, or sometime between 1994 and 2005 she had a "come to Jesus" moment and realized that she was on the wrong side of the truth.

Recall that by 2005 Gaddafi had become an ally and friend of the Slim generation. Generation doyen Nelson Mandela had brokered various deals, and the business community needed Gaddafi's oil. It became acceptable at dinner parties to deny Libya's involvement, and blame more topical foes - Iran, Palestinians and so on. It is unsurprising that someone like Slim, the embodiment of the liberal zeitgeist and the chattering class, would change her tune.

This post has been edited by Kato: Sat 28th July 2007, 12:36am

[dtobias]

A new low for Slashdot
(Score:2)
by jwales (97533) Alter Relationship on Friday July 27, @08:10PM (#20018335)
(http://search.wikia.com/)
This story is demented and broken on so many levels, it is quite difficult to know where to begin, even.

Here we have an excellent Wikipedia administrator who has been victimized by lunatic conspiracy theorists, a private person who has absolutely no relation to the wild stories that this article promulgates.

Slashdot, you have been trolled.
--
Wikia Search [wikia.com]

[GoodFaith]

Why are these people so obsessed with Lyndon Larouche? He is a minor, isolated eccentric. Who cares?

Slashdot, you have been trolled.

A troll is anyone who wins an argument against an admin.

I just perused wikien-l. They are in the "Essjay is our boy and we're sticking with him" phase of denial.

There are dozens of Essjays and SlimVirgins. You have to become a complete public nuisance to be held accountable.

[BobbyBombastic]

JUST A PARANOID ANNOUNCEMENT:

Save everything that is posted related to this, code and/or screenshot

there may be a disappearing act shortly......

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Take a look at the comments. One WP apologist named sepluv (641107) writes

In Wikipedia, appeals to personal authority don't work at all, unlike Britannica, which bases its entire approach on these. They are at either end of these extremes, and both work to some extent. Being in the middle would like not work at all.

What new nonsense is this? Yeah, Britannica's methods of employing numerous experts and fact checkers is "extreme" and worked "to some extent".

Forgive me, but I thought they meant extreme as in opposite ends of the spectrum.

Wikipedia works by anti-intellectualism. Britannica works by intellectualism.

I'd disagree on the "to some extent" though.

[FNORD23]

LOL ! I knew this was going to spread like wildfire.

The Cabal must be freaking out.

One of their most important members and the co-administrator of the 'Israel / Mideast disinfo bureau' (and her sock) have been outed!

LOL !

Karma.

429 comments so far!

Ouch.

This post has been edited by FNORD23: Sat 28th July 2007, 1:31am

[blissyu2]

Is WR even mentioned there? I mean we're basically responsible.

And Slashdot - thank you! I had hoped that this story would get bigger. For a brief period I thought that it might manage to be swept under the carpets. But it is a big issue, and needs to be exposed.