Mackan79 kicks SlimVirgin while down, When else, after all, are you going to kick someone? Options

[jorge]

They communicate off site and Crum helps Slim in whatever dispute she finds herself in. I found a whole load of long screeds by the two of them on active talk page discussions that were virtually simultaneous. That one person could physically manage to log off / log on, post long replies interacting with other users in the fashion I saw looked impossible.

You wouldn't need to log in/log off- you just have a different wikipedia account in another browser i.e. one account in internet explorer, one in firefox, not difficult in any way. There is also the possibility that they are sometimes operated by different users and sometimes by just one, i.e. when one needs backup but the other is unavailiable to edit.

[dtobias]

You wouldn't need to log in/log off- you just have a different wikipedia account in another browser i.e. one account in internet explorer, one in firefox, not difficult in any way.

Make it any two of {Firefox | Mozilla SeaMonkey | Opera | Safari | Konquerer}... friends don't let friends use Internet Explorer!

[Pumpkin Muffins]

You wouldn't need to log in/log off- you just have a different wikipedia account in another browser i.e. one account in internet explorer, one in firefox, not difficult in any way.

Make it any two of {Firefox | Mozilla SeaMonkey | Opera | Safari | Konquerer}... friends don't let friends use Internet Explorer!

Opera for windows, I believe, allows you to switch user agents, which is one of the things check user looks at.

[jorge]

Make it any two of {Firefox | Mozilla SeaMonkey | Opera | Safari | Konquerer}... friends don't let friends use Internet Explorer!

And even more oppurtunity to run multiple accounts simultaneously. It just shows that useragent should be completely ignored when checkusering.

[Kato]

They communicate off site and Crum helps Slim in whatever dispute she finds herself in. I found a whole load of long screeds by the two of them on active talk page discussions that were virtually simultaneous. That one person could physically manage to log off / log on, post long replies interacting with other users in the fashion I saw looked impossible.

You wouldn't need to log in/log off- you just have a different wikipedia account in another browser i.e. one account in internet explorer, one in firefox, not difficult in any way.

....and shoot off long posts reacting to talk page developments instantaneously? And show completely different writing styles, intelligence, interest?

They're not the same user. Marksell, another Slim adversary on WP best describes it
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ng_on_WP:LAYOUT

Slim's postings are far more subtle, cogent, and bright than Crum's, so I just can't imagine they're the same person. There's too much stylistic difference. The duckling editing is obvious—Crum will show up whenever she does, on disputes. I basically agree with Merkinsmum and earlier comments: most everybody knows he follows her around, and that they must communicate off-site (which isn't disallowed).

But what to do? Admit they have a six-revert rule, and...? *Shrugs.* I mean, really, what can you do? You can't police that stuff.

I think it more important that people know Crum's signature. Slim remains herself: an intelligent, informed, and sometimes maddening presence on policy. Crum is a duckling—ignore his edits, because it's always "per her." That's my policy

[jorge]

You wouldn't need to log in/log off- you just have a different wikipedia account in another browser i.e. one account in internet explorer, one in firefox, not difficult in any way.

....and shoot off long posts reacting to talk page developments instantaneously? And show completely different writing styles, intelligence, interest?

Can you post specific examples where that has happened? I don't think that it is likely that two people were operating the accounts when I made my observations here, here, and here.

See also Wordbomb's observation back in December here.

[dtobias]

I think it more important that people know Crum's signature. Slim remains herself: an intelligent, informed, and sometimes maddening presence on policy. Crum is a duckling—ignore his edits, because it's always "per her." That's my policy

Do we need a WP:DUCKLING test now?

This post has been edited by dtobias: Sun 16th March 2008, 6:19pm

[jorge]

Relata Refero said "Do you seriously want them blocked for meatpuppetry?"

Why is meat puppetry any less bad than sock puppetry when it has exactly the same purpose, to get around policies and guidelines? Viewing it as a lesser offense just means that the editors more desparate to impose their POV who work in groups are allowed to get away with it whereas individual editors are driven to exasperation and reported for 3RR and they can clearly see that those reverting them are working together and that high level admins know about it and allow it to go on.

[Miltopia]

Anybody else notice Viridae's

06:36, 13 March 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs) unblocked Mackan79 (Talk | contribs) ‎ (Not a cockpuppet per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...omb_sockpuppet)

???

I think he said "cockpuppet" on Mackan's talk page too. Must have been intentional :-D

[WordBomb]

You wouldn't need to log in/log off- you just have a different wikipedia account in another browser i.e. one account in internet explorer, one in firefox, not difficult in any way. There is also the possibility that they are sometimes operated by different users and sometimes by just one, i.e. when one needs backup but the other is unavailable to edit.

It might be worth knowing that SV uses Firefox on a pre-Intel Mac, while Crum uses IE on a PC.

So at the very least, there would be two computers operating side-by-side.

[Heat]

Tony Sideways is taking this to ArbComm!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...n#User:Mackan79

[dogbiscuit]

Tony Sideways is taking this to ArbComm!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...n#User:Mackan79

I predict blood will flow - in a congealed fashion. Slum has been at it so long there are a gazillion diffs. Crum has had a number of posts on hes page questioning that behaviour. There are numerous meatpuppet 3RR infractions that can be dug out. If you put it all together you could probably beat the 150 odd infractions of the Guy RFC.

This will backfire on Tony because there are a lot of respected editors who are tired of our TagTeam winners of 2007, and it will backfire on ArbCom because they will not be able to defend Slum without the same embarrassment of the non-determination of MM. I suspect that they will WP:DUCK this one.

I again want to write that I cannot believe Tony is that stupid, but I think it is a reflection that the cabal think they won the MM ArbCom and are getting more confident about getting rid of their enemies. The wiser members of the cabal are probably telling Tony to get lost now, I can't believe the likes of Slum would have wanted that attention focused on them.

Is it Mack's Law when a post starts with Slim?

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit: Sun 16th March 2008, 10:42pm

[Kato]

The case put forth by Sidaway, and the responses of the arbitrators are interesting. Sidaway is clearly out of his tree these days and is just making things up to attack someone who disputes "the cabal". Mackan79 has gone from a "wiki-stalker" according to Slim, to a "long term harasser" according to Sidaway.

The response from FT2 sheds more light on GeorgeWilliamHerbert's outrageous block of Mackan -- which was another blatant show of power by the corrupt strain to attack outsiders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...n#User:Mackan79

edit conflict) Decline. (And involved, though as neutral administrative/arbitrator, rather than as a party, for full disclosure.) Background of my awareness: - GWH emailed Arbcom with his concern that Mackan had self-outed as a sock of a banned user, a concern worded fairly, and based upon a good-faith but erroneous interpretation of a post by Mackan. I investigated (at least 4 checkusers did so in total) and within 1.5 hours emailed GWH back that this was "exceedingly unlikely". GWH for reasons I don't fully understand, later blocked Mackan, a block that was reversed. Somewhere in all this Mackan positively identified himself to a checkuser (name, corporation, phone number, city), and was fully verified not to be the person in question. A discussion ensued by one Arbitrator whether the block log was problematic enough to be wiped, and due to concerns of excessive favor (this is not a move most users would have for a bad block) I posted a statement requesting communal views at ANI on the suggestion. SlimVirgin posted a strongly worded objection which to my mind was unhelpful and cited Mackan allegedly being a problem in other ways, then toned it right down to a fair one sentence opinion, which allowed the thread to be concluded fairly (no alteration to the log was made; the discussion at ANI is sufficient for Mackan to rebut allegations if raised in future). SV has stated she wishes to avoid Mackan and have him avoid her, and has not suggested raising any case on the matter as far as I know.

Upon review, I don't actually see an Arbitration need here. The dispute was quiet, and probably will be quiet. If Mackan visibly follows SV around and discomfits her, then there is a wealth of remedy in various policies and guidelines to deal with it, which she or anyone else can invoke. Arbitration is the last resort of this, and yet whilst it is laudable to seek to help others, it is not at all clear to me that "other measures have failed" (or even that there is a genuiinely active problem of a magnitude to need it at present). Indeed most measures have not been sought or tried. And the concern that possible misconduct by Mackan (if a problem) could not be addressed by those processes seems unsupported at this time. The one circumstance I would accept would be if there was strong evidence of harassment by Mackan that could not be shown on-wiki which was of such a nature that it would be material to assessing the matter and yet could not be made public. Even then an Arbitrator might post that they have seen material X which shows Y, for some kinds of material. The other matter is, SV herself has not sought any action save avoidance of dispute, a sensible approach. This brief spat is due to a misjudged post of hers that she very quickly withdrew, and which he too withdrew his response to in recognition of her withdrawal, both of them apparently seeking to avoid dispute. Posting his comment to her talk page instead, for discussion, is not under that circumstance, an action I would say signifies an arbitration case is proven needed for stalking.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

... If Mackan visibly follows SV around and discomfits her, then there is a wealth of remedy in various policies and guidelines to deal with it, which she or anyone else can invoke...

In other words, Mackan79 is now banned from any article the SV owns.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Mon 17th March 2008, 4:09am

[The Wales Hunter]

Slimmy must own usernames now, too

[Somey]

This is probably as good a place as any to mention that we got an e-mail from Mr. Mackan79 the other day, politely asking everyone to please be more careful about potentially confusing him with User:Mackan, who is in fact a completely different person. I would have mentioned it earlier, but I got sidetracked a little bit there.

Also, I believe Mackan79's suggestion was that Slimmy and Crummy have an "off-wiki relationship" that could involve more than mere similarity in attitude towards "attack sites." I remember the last time I looked at Crummy's edits, I was about 98 percent convinced that they were two different people. The only reason I don't say "100 percent" is because it is theoretically possible. It's also conceivable that Crummy is a shared account between Slimmy and another person based in NYC, or who was using a proxy IP that geolocated there. But let's not kid ourselves - there are plenty of people out there who share Slimmy's agenda on Israel, so-called "new" antisemitism, and animal rights, and there's bound to be a percentage of those people who share her eagerness to "game the system" on WP in support of that agenda. She found someone like that in Crummy, and Crummy became an admin like many others who have supported Slimmy in the past. Nothing especially odd or weird about it, though it obviously does prolong the agony for everyone else.

[Kato]

CoolHandLuke has done his numbers / graph thing again, this time on Slum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mac..._go_any_further

I decided to put their edits in the same spreadsheet I've used previously. Going back to September 18, 2006 (SlimVirgin's last 25,000 edits, and the last 9120 or so for Crum375), they have 385 edit collisions—that is, they edited during the same minute 385 times. I've also made these graphs that suggest that Crum375 lives on more regular hours, while SlimVirgin definitely does not.

Of course, Tony would tell you that these methods are untested so mean nothing. I just thought you should keep them in mind. If you still think SlimVirgin might have access to the Crum375 account, perhaps you could look at the edits that Crum375 made in the early morning when the account usually does not. I, at least, would demand a smoking gun, because I'm not seeing it here.

See also:

* Image:SlimVirgin Crum 4 month sample.png‎
* Image:Crum only.png
* Image:SlimVirgin only.png

Cool Hand Luke 16:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Theres a few more graphs as well linked from the page. But as I suspected, there's no real correlation and no evidence that they're the same user.
[imgx]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/SlimVirgin_Crum.png[/imgx]

[dogbiscuit]

The notable difference being that Crum at least requires a small amount of sleep. SV never sleeps.

Rummage, rummage, I remember a little exchange some time back on Factory Farming which proved that she also has no sense of humour:

I have to head off for a bit. I'll reply to the rest when I come back. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

...folk lore has it you don't have a life ... Spenny 23:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That obviously hit home, because, after no mention, 6 days later, up it pops...

This page has seen a lot of personal attacks, which you are also engaged in, Spenny, referring to other editors' posts as ignorant and offensive, telling me you thought I had no life, and accusing editors of tag-teaming. All the personal attacks needs to stop, and the issues focused on. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The section in the archive 3RR is a classic, Crum calmly stating that 3RR between tag team members is perfectly legitimate and in no way against the spirit of the law - here.

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit: Mon 17th March 2008, 8:49am

[jorge]

The section in the archive 3RR is a classic, Crum calmly stating that 3RR between tag team members is perfectly legitimate and in no way against the spirit of the law - here.

This is one of the main problems currently with Wikipedia. It should be very easy to determine if a group of users is acting as a a team in reverting articles and subverting 3RR. They should then be warned about and if they don't stop, given a short block, and if they persist ultimately a permanent block.

[dogbiscuit]

This is one of the main problems currently with Wikipedia. It should be very easy to determine if a group of users is acting as a a team in reverting articles and subverting 3RR. They should then be warned about and if they don't stop, given a short block, and if they persist ultimately a permanent block.

Seeing that page reminds me that an over-excitable member of the tag-team there, Cerejota, who was always vocal on the Israeli Apartheid ArbCom ("Civility is at the heart of the matter, Thanks!") had sock like attributes, probably a meat rather than a sock. Having run around most enthusiastically sticking his nose into several disputes, he then vanished without comment, popping back for a very out of character edit (which made me think that he was a meat rather than a sock). I checked his contributions, and it seems like he is warming up again, which might be sock-like activity. On the other hand, he might be a sensible person who realised he had to get on with the real world and is now dipping in with minor tweaks.