SlimVirgin gets a vandal warning Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Team America consists of super-patriotic conservatives who believe in America uber alles, which is quite compatible with being a neocon and being pro-Israel. People like UltraMarine and MONGO are members in good standing.

However, a number of TA members have a close alliance with putative leftist Cberlet, on the basis of shared opposition to "conspiracism." A conventional conservative, like Nobs01 (wait a minute -- is he "conventional"?) would shy away from such an alliance. And of course, there is the question of whether Cberlet is really a leftist. This stuff can make your head spin.

[Jonny Cache]

This stuff can make your head spin.

No, this Spin can make your head Stuff.

Jonny

[guy]

Guy, Antidote was an idiot on all articles, he wasn't anti-Semitic.

OK, so Antidote is a generally unpleasant person all round. But undoubtedly he has spent more time on lists of Jews than anything else.

Stalwart Jewish editor but general irritant IZAK makes the most sense on the rfc, and even he doesn't accuse Antidote of being an anti-Semite, which is a first. Meanwhile, SV was going around banning people because she hated those Jewish lists and wanted to control them, not because she was supporting Antidote.

Yes, IZAK doesn't like these lists either and I respect his motives. However, he says in the same breath "ban Antidote" and "get rid of Jewish lists" - not, please note, other articles that Antidote and his sockpuppet army have attacked. SV was supporting Antidote; yes, it was because he was attacking Jewish lists, but you can't deny that she supported him.

In retrospect, Jmabel was about the only person who came out of it looking OK, as usual.

Jmabel has said that the attacks on Jewish lists are one of the reasons he left Wikipedia. I can't find the link, but I think it was the third AfD on List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society, a list that Antidote has particularly attacked over a prolonged period although even Jayjg defended it on its second AfD.

[Kato]

OK, so Antidote is a generally unpleasant person all round. But undoubtedly he has spent more time on lists of Jews than anything else.

Not really, no. He was anal about all sorts of lists. See his Proposal for List of Ukrainians for example, and most of his edits were on List of Poles, List of Serbians etc. Equally anal, but with no reference to Jewish subjects on these pages at all.

SV was supporting Antidote; yes, it was because he was attacking Jewish lists, but you can't deny that she supported him.

Well she didn't support him on his rfc. Which would have been a good place to start.

What matters here though is that Bliss's statement earlier:

SlimVirgin's attitude in the List of Jews was very much antisemitic, and she supported Antidote, who was very antisemitic.

This is evidently false and unnecessary. I see this kind of thing as a dirty cloud obscuring our view. There's enough real evidence of SV's misdemeanors on WP to communicate, without needing to make stuff up. These unfounded claims get in the way of real exposure, and hamper the site.

List of British Jews is up for deletion again by the way.

[blissyu2]

I don't think that there is a point to having any lists on Wikipedia, period.

Categories are good, and perhaps summaries of those categories are useful sometimes.

But no real Encyclopaedia would have a list.

[Rochelle]

Really, sorry for breaking the conversation and all, but I just gotta say this.

SlimVirgin is not a vandal. Is there any reason for her to get a vandal warning? no. Why should she have one? The reason MONGO gave for removing it was bad, but so was the reason of the giver of the warning. From what I see, it was because of some image issues or something.

SlimVirgin is not vandal. Is there any reason for her to get a vandal warning? no.

[Jonny Cache]

Really, sorry for breaking the conversation and all, but I just gotta say this.

SlimVirgin is not a vandal. Is there any reason for her to get a vandal warning? no. Why should she have one? The reason MONGO gave for removing it was bad, but so was the reason of the giver of the warning. From what I see, it was because of some image issues or something.

SlimVirgin is not vandal. Is there any reason for her to get a vandal warning? no.

You may find that many of us templatus fugi types at The Wikipedia Review will take personal offense at having our intelligences insulted. It is not unheard of for profanity to ensue. So please refrain from doing that.

One of the things that I personally regard as an insult to my intelligence is when someone tries to sell me a piece of Infantile Mythology that flies in the face of my Hard Knocks Experience. SlimVirgin belongs to that self-elect gang of Hard Knockers Extraordinaire on Wikipedia, and she is without a doubt — to anyone who has experienced her work first hand — one of its Biggest, Baddest Administrative Vandals To Boot.

The proof of that fact is rife enough for anyone who has eyes to see, and it grows with every passing day.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 22nd August 2007, 6:54pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Really, sorry for breaking the conversation and all, but I just gotta say this.

SlimVirgin is not a vandal. Is there any reason for her to get a vandal warning? no. Why should she have one? The reason MONGO gave for removing it was bad, but so was the reason of the giver of the warning. From what I see, it was because of some image issues or something.

SlimVirgin is not vandal. Is there any reason for her to get a vandal warning? no.

What is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a bank?
---Bertolt Brecht

[Rochelle]

Really, sorry for breaking the conversation and all, but I just gotta say this.

SlimVirgin is not a vandal. Is there any reason for her to get a vandal warning? no. Why should she have one? The reason MONGO gave for removing it was bad, but so was the reason of the giver of the warning. From what I see, it was because of some image issues or something.

SlimVirgin is not vandal. Is there any reason for her to get a vandal warning? no.

You may find that many of us templatus fugi types at The Wikipedia Review will take personal offense at having our intelligences insulted. It is not unheard of for profanity to ensue. So please refrain from doing that.

One of the things that I personally regard as an insult to my intelligence is when someone tries to sell me a piece of Infantile Mythology that flies in the face of my Hard Knocks Experience. SlimVirgin belongs to that self-elect gang of Hard Knockers Extraordinaire on Wikipedia, and she is without a doubt — to anyone who has experienced her work first hand — one of its Biggest, Baddest Administrative Vandals To Boot.

The proof of that fact is rife enough for anyone who has eyes to see, and it grows with every passing day.

Jonny

It didn't take long to figure this out: You just don't like me. Probably because I think differently than you.

But I dont care

Because I dont like you either.

Have fun!

This post has been edited by Rochelle: Wed 22nd August 2007, 7:06pm

[jorge]

OK, so Antidote is a generally unpleasant person all round. But undoubtedly he has spent more time on lists of Jews than anything else.

Not really, no. He was anal about all sorts of lists. See his Proposal for List of Ukrainians for example, and most of his edits were on List of Poles, List of Serbians etc. Equally anal, but with no reference to Jewish subjects on these pages at all.

SV was supporting Antidote; yes, it was because he was attacking Jewish lists, but you can't deny that she supported him.

Well she didn't support him on his rfc. Which would have been a good place to start.

What matters here though is that Bliss's statement earlier:

SlimVirgin's attitude in the List of Jews was very much antisemitic, and she supported Antidote, who was very antisemitic.

This is evidently false and unnecessary. I see this kind of thing as a dirty cloud obscuring our view. There's enough real evidence of SV's misdemeanors on WP to communicate, without needing to make stuff up. These unfounded claims get in the way of real exposure, and hamper the site.

List of British Jews is up for deletion again by the way.

The reason there are no Jewish people on lists of Ukrainians and Serbs is that Antidote felt the need to cleanse Jews from them because as he said "they have their own lists". He claimed that he was Jewish himself but he identified as Russian, not Jewish so he wouldn't want to be on a list of Jews himself and didn't want other people who are regarded as Jewish by other Jews to be on the lists either. SlimVirgin was never anti-semitic - she was just paranoid that the lists would serve as an attack list- I proposed that the people on the lists should only be deceased or people born before say 1900 but she just ignored that.

[FNORD23]

Really, sorry for breaking the conversation and all, but I just gotta say this.

SlimVirgin is not a vandal. Is there any reason for her to get a vandal warning? no. Why should she have one? The reason MONGO gave for removing it was bad, but so was the reason of the giver of the warning. From what I see, it was because of some image issues or something.

SlimVirgin is not vandal. Is there any reason for her to get a vandal warning? no.

Questionable vandal warnings, and describing edits as 'vandalism' or 'trolling' is done ALL the time, including by Admins like SV, during content disputes. If you describe an edit as 'vandalism' (often done when a large amount of sourced text is deleted in content disputes) you're not constrained by 3RR.

One of the POV pusher's favorite tricks turned around and bit them.

This post has been edited by FNORD23: Wed 22nd August 2007, 7:37pm

[Jonny Cache]

Really, sorry for breaking the conversation and all, but I just gotta say this.

SlimVirgin is not a vandal. Is there any reason for her to get a vandal warning? no. Why should she have one? The reason MONGO gave for removing it was bad, but so was the reason of the giver of the warning. From what I see, it was because of some image issues or something.

SlimVirgin is not vandal. Is there any reason for her to get a vandal warning? no.

You may find that many of us templatus fugi types at The Wikipedia Review will take personal offense at having our intelligences insulted. It is not unheard of for profanity to ensue. So please refrain from doing that.

One of the things that I personally regard as an insult to my intelligence is when someone tries to sell me a piece of Infantile Mythology that flies in the face of my Hard Knocks Experience. SlimVirgin belongs to that self-elect gang of Hard Knockers Extraordinaire on Wikipedia, and she is without a doubt — to anyone who has experienced her work first hand — one of its Biggest, Baddest Administrative Vandals To Boot.

The proof of that fact is rife enough for anyone who has eyes to see, and it grows with every passing day.

Jonny

It didn't take long to figure this out: You just don't like me. Probably because I think differently than you.

But I dont care

Because I dont like you either.

Have fun!

Rochelle, I will most likely never like you nor dislike you, 'cause I will most likely never really know you as a person. So don't take it personally, as I am simply behaving the very same way that I behaved toward the last post-emitter who exhibited the same Transmitter Operating Characteristics (TOC).

The TOC in question is a habit of generating Opinions Without A Clue (OWAC). What they mostly do on Wikipedia is generate a form of OWAC that they over-affectionately call "articles", so I well understand how an otherwise innocent person could get in the noxious fuming habit of continuous OWAC e-mission.

But what we do at The Wikipedia Review is try to dig up a clue or two — it's a dirty job, but ∑body's just got to.

Nobody is asking you to believe everything you read here or anywhere — I know I don't — but simply to reject the possibility that things might be different from what you currently wish to believe, well, why bother talking to others at all?

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 22nd August 2007, 7:46pm

[Nathan]

Rochelle: To say you dislike someone because of differing points of view, that's pretty silly. Saying you don't like someone because you think they don't like you? That's pretty silly too. Why harbour negative feelings for someone you don't know? Why waste all that time and energy when you could be doing something more constructive?

I can hold grudges against lots of people on Wikipedia, ED, LiveJournal, and the list goes on... but I have better things to do. I have a good memory though, so I don't forget. I just don't see the point in hating them. They are who they are and only they can change that. I can't change that so I accept it.

Not everyone is going to like you. Not everyone is going to agree with you. That's part of life.

If everyone agreed with each other, wouldn't life be boring?

Harbouring negative feelings eventually changes you as a person, for the worse. I've seen it happen. Hell, I've seen it happen to myself.

[Rochelle]

Rochelle: To say you dislike someone because of differing points of view, that's pretty silly. Saying you don't like someone because you think they don't like you? That's pretty silly too. Why harbour negative feelings for someone you don't know? Why waste all that time and energy when you could be doing something more constructive?

I can hold grudges against lots of people on Wikipedia, ED, LiveJournal, and the list goes on... but I have better things to do. I have a good memory though, so I don't forget. I just don't see the point in hating them. They are who they are and only they can change that. I can't change that so I accept it.

Not everyone is going to like you. Not everyone is going to agree with you. That's part of life.

If everyone agreed with each other, wouldn't life be boring?

Harbouring negative feelings eventually changes you as a person, for the worse. I've seen it happen. Hell, I've seen it happen to myself.

Don't worry. I just said that because I was mad. I was acting in the "heat of the moment", I guess. I'll never actually dislike anyone here, for the same reasons as Jonny Cache.

[blissyu2]

Rochelle, I think that the issue is that when you first came here, you didn't say who you were, but acted like a Wikipedia administrator, or at least someone who was ridiculously pro-Wikipedia. This led many people here to be suspicious of your motives for coming here, feeling like you might be here to attack us. Indeed, someone suggested that you might be SlimVirgin (I am not going to go in to that - because you can be whoever you like, so long as you're behaving). That's really why so many people felt upset about you, and may have attacked you. It was really a defence mechanism. Dtobias I think experienced a fair amount of the same kind of reaction when he first came here.

This is because historically when Wikipedia Review first started, we had a major struggle to try to keep our collective heads above water, as there were many and varied people trying their level best to stop this site from existing. Some people were trying to contact our hosts with some excuse to get us shut down, others were trying to suggest some legal reason that we could be destroyed, and others simply came here to troll and try to destroy it. Yes, we did have GNAA and other more general trolls (and continue to get them occasionally) but the main problem was from Wikipedia administrators and other vehemently pro-Wikipedia people (and of course from Grace Note and Malber). We struggled for a long time, and even after we created our own domain name (which made a massive difference) we still struggled as there were all sorts of accusations thrown around, and we had to really try to deal with them in a consistent and positive way, whilst at the same time trying to legitimise our presence by presenting actual criticism of Wikipedia. Let me tell you it wasn't easy at all to do, and we nearly folded several times. Indeed, I suspect that if the lease wasn't a 1 year lease, and we hadn't already invested money and time in to creating this, we probably would have folded early in 2006, perhaps March or April or so. Certainly if we'd stayed on ProBoards I think that that is what would have happened. It was a struggle.

But we've gone beyond that now, and nowadays have very few major problems on here. We mostly get along with each other, argue like crazy, but always working towards the same kinds of goals. And it becomes what I consider to be a very warm and fuzzy place, where you can feel at home and comfy and secure and so forth. At least that's how I feel. And I don't say that about a lot of places!

Of course, in saying that, I have had some of the most heated arguments imaginable on here, with not just people like Lir, but also more recently Kato, Guy, occasionally Poetlister, Bobby Bombastic, Selina, Jorge, Jonny Cache, and heck pretty much everyone. I think that about the only people that are regular contributors that I haven't had arguments with would be Nathan, Lamontstormstar and Glassbeadgame. And Nathan I've known (online, we've never met) since 1996 so we've already well and truly had our arguments and got them out of the way. The other two I've only barely talked with, so I am sure I will disagree with them over something!

But this is the point of this site, it is about disagreeing with things. If we all agreed on everything, there would be no point to it. We make points, some of them are shot down, others are modified, others are agreed to. Every single important discussion has had someone disagree with them, and that is the whole point of them being relevant. If we all agreed, well, ho hum, there's no point discussing it. Take the recent Wiki Scanner thread by Olivier. Good point, we all agree with it, no discussion.

So I hope that you enjoy being here Rochelle. I know for me personally, you are starting to grow on me. I don't know about anyone else.

[Nathan]

You know you've known someone for too long when, even online, your first impulse is to use their first name.

[BobbyBombastic]

Of course, in saying that, I have had some of the most heated arguments imaginable on here[...]

I prefer to call them debates!

This would be a fairly boring unproductive place if we didn't disagree from time to time, and I know that I've disagreed with some things on here, only later to be persuaded the other way. A thing I like about WR is, as small a group as it is, there are a lot of different points of view represented, more so than the propaganda on the mailing list or WP would lead a person to believe, and honestly I do consider them all.

Additionally, on the internet you are more likely to get feedback from people when they disagree with you, since typing "I agree" is usually considered bad form, unless you have some other point to add. I know that many times I find myself agreeing with Jonny, GBG, Somey, Kato, blissy or whoever and don't say anything because they have "said it all". I guess I am probably more likely to chime in if I disagree with a point, and I think that is because of the form of the discussion. If we were sitting in a room discussing you'd see me nodding my head in agreement, but textual discussions have no such positive reinforcements.

[alienus]

And of course, there is the question of whether Cberlet is really a leftist.

Indeed.

Al

[Jonny Cache]

If we were sitting in a room discussing you'd see me nodding my head in agreement, but textual discussions have no such positive reinforcements.

Except for one bobblehead whose name I might mention, namely, Name Redacted.

Jonny

[blissyu2]

Gosh Name Redacted is now a Wikipedia user!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/Name_Redacted

No blocks yet either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r:Name_Redacted

But isn't that an impersonator account of little Miss you-know-who?