Guilt by Association, The follow-up to their hit single "Walk Away Renee" Options

[nobs]

I have til now avoided trashing SlimVirgin on this board, despite being an eyewitness to a cybercrime of defamation I beleive was committed with malicious intent in 2005. Recently, however, I discovered this evidence,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=20497284

which consists of no less than two policy violations, (1) removing another editors talk page comments; (2) misleading edit summary (this is the only edit to that page).

I had not realized until now, nearly one and half years later, SlimVirgin have broken the good faith I had always extended to her. And this act of hers had direct consequences on me. Let me insert for the record a recent email to Fred Bauder.

from Rob Smith <nobs03@gmail.com> hide details Feb 3 (4 days ago)
to Fred Bauder <fredbaud@ctelco.net>
date Feb 3, 2007 4:29 PM
subject Brandt & SlimVirgin
mailed-by gmail.com

Given the problems at
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=22084

and the fact that my breaching experiment arose over the naming of a Category
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/032068.html

what am I to make of SlimVirgin's actions which I just discoverd here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=20497284

Can we call this bad faith, at a minimum?

nobs01

[Somey]

HEY, EVERYBODY FROM WIKIEN-L! HOW Y'ALL DOIN'?

Just in case you happened to follow the link Mr. Nobs posted on your fine mailing list, directing you to the posting just above this one, please remember that Nobs is currently under a somewhat unique form of posting restriction here, and I suspect it was for that reason that he felt it necessary to link to this thread instead of one that was perhaps more appropriate. Sorry about that!

And just in case nobody else has bothered asking, could I make a polite request? Couldn't you guys just, like, apologize to Nobs or something? Or just take back whatever it was you said about him, sort of? He isn't going to stop any of this, y'know, until you do. He isn't bothering us here, not anymore at least... I'm monitoring his posts for libelous statements, and while you guys probably think everything he says is libelous, so far he's managed to avoid anything overtly actionable, at least in my opinion.

I also have the power to remove supposedly personal information about various would-be anonymous people from this website, and am willing to use it, but you folks have to go first, okay? That's because you started it all, and ultimately, that's what Nobs seems to be trying to say here. (And failing miserably as usual, I might add!)

And don't you people ever get tired of creating situations like this? I know Nobs is a royal PITA, but what do you expect, if you keep insisting on shooting yourselves in the foot?

Saturday, March 3, Approx. 6AM UTC

ADDENDUM

And as long as I'm at it, please allow me to point out that no one in their right mind (and not that I don't necessarily include Nobs in this category) would attempt to suggest that Mr. Yanksox and Mr. Ken Myers are the same person, or that anything Ken Myers wrote here could have influenced Mr. Yanksox to "suddenly" decide to delete the Daniel Brandt article. Yanksox had, in my considered opinion, become increasingly frustrated with Wikipedia's self-destructive policies over a long period of time. Also, this wasn't the first time an administrator had deleted that same article as a "parting gesture" - the previous attempt was made by a user named "Hoopydink," as I recall.

In closing, I'll just repeat something I've already posted elsewhere on this site. The only way the internal WP squabbling over this will ever stop is if the Brandt article goes away completely. We could stop discussing it here altogether, and the squabbling would still go on and on and on, because this is a moral issue, not a content issue. There will always be sound moral justification for getting rid of this article, and little or no sound moral justification whatsoever for keeping it. The people voting to delete are the ones who are guided by their sense of morality, and while Daniel Brandt may be a thoroughly unpleasant individual (to you folks at least), so are a lot of people - and in my experience, they usually get that way because others just won't let them get on with their lives in peace.

Thanks for your time!

(Written 30 minutes after the bit just above this one)

Well I, for one, would like to propose a warm round of cyber-applause for Nobs, who went out of his way to find a highly appropriate thread in which to post this latest piece of information. YAY NOBS!

As pleased as I think we all are about this, I nevertheless feel compelled to ask something. Nobs, you're not trying to suggest that anyone here should be surprised to see a diff in which Slimmy uses a misleading edit summary to disguise her deletion of another user's discussion entry that she finds personally inconvenient, are you?

Surely not!

As for the matter at hand, a cursory check of the various contribs and page histories involved shows that User:Jnc, apparently a long-time administrator, actually did defend you to some extent - and also User:Rangerdude as well. He's now essentially left WP, having been run off by the edit-warring tactics of User:Barberio, who in turn has only recently been run off by the administrative "cyberbullying" tactics of User:Radiant!... who himself quit Wikipedia for several months, exactly a year ago today, over... well, who knows? Just the usual crap, looks like.

To some extent, your own situation is just more of the usual crap too, Nobs. I'll grant that it's unusual in some respects, but the devious, arrogant, and hypocritical behavior of the WP high mucky-mucks is not one of them, I'm afraid. Ahh, well! On and on it goes...

[nobs]

...a cursory check of the various contribs and page histories involved shows that User:Jnc, apparently a long-time administrator, actually did defend you to some extent - and also User:Rangerdude as well. He's now essentially left WP, having been run off by the edit-warring tactics of User:Barberio,

User:Jnc was a heavyweight -- "one of the four MIT people whose name is on the "Creation of the Internet" plaque at Stanford". Was in mediation with Barbiero over History of the Internet, but couldn't cite himself cause he personally was involved in creating the history of the internet. See Talk:History of the Internet/Archive 3#Pictures, for example

As to where did they come from, I personally scanned them in from original hardcopies that are in my files. I don't know which meetings I was at that I got them at, I went to innumerable Internet-related meetings between '77 and around '90...

and

They are hard copies. Someone personally gave them to me, several decades ago.

Some of this stuff ought to be saved too, like Rangerdude's.

Specifically, Jnc & I discussed the problems with the name Cat:Soviet spies; it remains controversial and unsolved. WikiProject:Military history/Military science task force uses the problem category twice in its categorization scheme. I agreed on several occasions to work with Cberlet in and out of mediation to rename it. Cberlet went behind my back and asked his fellow NLG member to delete the Category. Fred Bauder sanctioned circumventing Official Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Policy in the above email to the Wikien-1 link. The evidence I just discovered, which dates just days after the Blob of Horowitz hit shows me telling Jnc,

Perhaps Soviet spies could be renamed, sorted out, and integrated into this Category:Soviet and Russian intelligence agencies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nobs01 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 5 August 2005.nobs 17:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I can follow it the way you explained. Two questions: (1) what would be the appropriate time frame, wait til the Category survives the VfD? and (2) what about "operatives" as a temporary catchall, excluding Soviet nationals as Case Officers, perhaps leaving them in Category:NKVD? nobs 17:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin deliberately removed the next posting.

I have some questions for you regarding both (1) terminology and (2) categorization. Would you mind private email corrrespondence on this? Thank you. nobs 21:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Jnc never responded. Now I know why.

On 7 Nov 2005, after Cberlet got approval from Bauder to violate policy, and witnessing what they did to Daniel Brandt, I got mad and performed a breaching experiment. I made a permanent record of the shenanigans on the Chip Berlet/Talk page by dumping verbatim the Wilcox material, all per WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V. Bauder ruled a verifiable citation to the Washington Post was a personal attack by Nobs01. This is a matter of record and historical fact.

This post has been edited by nobs: Thu 8th February 2007, 6:20am

[nobs]

Proceedural question: in this diff we have a Statement by involved third party: Katefan0; the very next edit SlimVirgin moves Katefan0's statement and deletes involved third party and makes Katefan0 an "involved" party".

The RfArb/User:Willmcw and User:SlimVirgin was voted to Accept, and the retaliatory RfArb/Rangerdude was voted to Accept and Merge with the below Willmcw and SlimVirgin case, to which SlimVirgin was never named either an "involved party", nor a "defendent".

This primea facia shows more than the Arbitration policy violations of transparancy, and internal regulatory abuse.

And it should be further noted, that Mindspillage aka Kat Walsh, a law student, who took more than 6 weeks consideration to Accept the case against SlimVirgin, and voted Accept and Merge a case entitled "Rangerdude" into the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin, now sits on the Wikimedia Board of Trustees

This post has been edited by nobs: Thu 15th February 2007, 8:11pm

[Jonny Cache]

Well I, for one, would like to propose a warm round of cyber-applause for Nobs, who went out of his way to find a highly appropriate thread in which to post this latest piece of information. YAY NOBS!

As pleased as I think we all are about this, I nevertheless feel compelled to ask something. Nobs, you're not trying to suggest that anyone here should be surprised to see a diff in which Slimmy uses a misleading edit summary to disguise her deletion of another user's discussion entry that she finds personally inconvenient, are you?

Surely not!

As for the matter at hand, a cursory check of the various contribs and page histories involved shows that User:Jnc, apparently a long-time administrator, actually did defend you to some extent -- and also User:Rangerdude as well. He's now essentially left WP, having been run off by the edit-warring tactics of User:Barberio, who in turn has only recently been run off by the administrative "cyberbullying" tactics of User:Radiant! ... who himself quit Wikipedia for several months, exactly a year ago today, over ... well, who knows? Just the usual crap, looks like.

To some extent, your own situation is just more of the usual crap too, Nobs. I'll grant that it's unusual in some respects, but the devious, arrogant, and hypocritical behavior of the WP high mucky-mucks is not one of them, I'm afraid. Ahh, well! On and on it goes ...

I spent several seconds trying to figure out what cyber-applesauce might be, something to serve with clockwork orange marmalade maybe ...

Anyway ...

May I suggest a more appropriate venue for all of these Schocking -- just plain Claude Rains Schocking -- revelations, to wit, here.

Jonny Cacheblanca

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 15th February 2007, 9:04pm

[nobs]

May I suggest a more appropriate venue for all of these schocking -- just plain Claude Rains shocking -- revelations...

Before you begin repeating Wikipedia defamatory and guilt by association smears, you need to read Rangerdude's Request for Finding regarding White Supremacist sources used by Will Beback/Willmcw/User2004, to wit

Willmcw added White Supremacist and other overtly racist sources to discredit legitimate opinions held by more mainstream individuals ... The first time he did this was... when he added a white supremacist publication called the Jubilee Newspaper to the criticisms section of the Morris Dees article.... to discredit an award-winning investigative report on Dees by the Montgomery Advertiser ...also ... the Ludwig von Mises Institute where Willmcw attempted to make guilt-by-association links to the Institute for Historical Review - a holocaust denial group. It is thus evident that using white supremacist insinuations is not an isolated infraction but rather a pattern of infractions by Willmcw. I'd like the Arbcom to investigate this matter since white supremacist insinuations are highly offensive and abusive given their connotations of violence, bigotry, and extremism. Rangerdude 08:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

What I do consider objectionable though is the addition of guilt-by-association attacks linking him [Joseph Sobran] to the Institute for Historical Review in articles where it has nothing to do with the topic.

et. seqq.

This post has been edited by nobs: Thu 15th February 2007, 9:08pm

[Jonny Cache]

Whu-ut ???

Yer not accusing me of defaming the K^3 or sumpting are you ???

Jonny

[nobs]

Has nothing to do with the substance of this discussion, or the sources cited. In fact, your last two posts repeat and deseminate defamtory material made by high level Wikipedia Administrators and Editors, posssibly maliciously, against several living persons.

[Somey]

Has nothing to do with the substance of this discussion, or the sources cited. In fact, your last two posts repeat and deseminate defamtory material made by high level Wikipedia Administrators and Editors, posssibly maliciously, against several living persons.

What the f**k are you talking about, Nobs? And it had better be good, too! You've just about completely lost me at this point, and I was actually making a half-hearted effort to keep up.

FYI, I don't believe in guilt-by-association either... which is why I'd rather see it confined to WP, rather than dragged over here. Also, please, try to learn how to spell the word "disseminate." Your consistent mangling of the word "consensus" is bad enough!

[Jonny Cache]

Protest To Muck ???

Never My Wub

Guilting The Lily

Ay, Dares Da Rub !!!

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 16th February 2007, 5:02am

[nobs]

Has nothing to do with the substance of this discussion, or the sources cited. In fact, your last two posts repeat and deseminate defamtory material made by high level Wikipedia Administrators and Editors, posssibly maliciously, against several living persons.

What the f**k are you talking about, Nobs? And it had better be good, too!

Alright. I'll try once more.

This link, is linked to Wikien-1.

Then, as what appears to be a joke, an implication was made that the victims of smears by Wikipedia somehow are associated with hate groups, i.e. the very complaints many living persons, some regular contributors to this board, have with Wikipedia. The joker in this instance is doing precisely what is intended by the very sources of these guilt by association smears. They ought to let him back in if he's that willing to do their bidding.

This post has been edited by nobs: Fri 16th February 2007, 8:12pm

[everyking]

So she removed a post of yours to a talk page with a deceptive edit summary? That is sneaky.

[Somey]

This link, is linked to Wikien-1.

So you posted an e-mail to the WP mailing list containing nothing but a direct link to a post in this thread. Cool! I can see the PageRanks climbing already...

Then, as what appears to be a joke, an implication was made that the victims of smears by Wikipedia somehow are associated with hate groups, i.e. the very complaints many living persons, some regular contributors to this board, have with Wikipedia. The joker in this instance is doing precisely what is intended by the very sources of theses guilt by association smears. They ought to let him back in if he's that willing to do their bidding.

Well, irrespective of whether or not they should "let him back in" for that reason alone, given all the other reasons he's probably given them to not do so, there's no reason why any given victim of smears by Wikipedia can't be associated with a hate group, is there? Are hate groups really so exclusive as all that? And heck, as far as the folks on WikiEN-L are concerned, this whole website is a "hate group"!

Besides, it looks to me like all he did was suggest moving your post about White Supremacist sources being used on WP to a topic he started three weeks ago, entitled "KKK Grand Dragon Makes Racially Biased Statement," which might not have been a nice thing to suggest I suppose. Still, maybe you misinterpreted his intent somewhat? And would you like me to delete that topic, since there's nothing substantive in it anyway? I doubt Jon would mind too terribly.

[Jonny Cache]

Besides, it looks to me like all he did was suggest moving your post about White Supremacist sources being used on WP to a topic he started three weeks ago, entitled "KKK Grand Dragon Makes Racially Biased Statement", which might not have been a nice thing to suggest I suppose. Still, maybe you misinterpreted his intent somewhat? And would you like me to delete that topic, since there's nothing substantive in it anyway? I doubt Jon would mind too terribly.

Geez, Geezers, I'm beginning to think that 2nd hand smoke & mirrors from WP causes as much brain damage as direct e-mersion. The point is that some of the observations that some people keep making about WP Bureaucraps are about as surprising as reporting that a KKK Grand Dragon made a racially biased statement.

G'nite Everbody, Drive Safely ...

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 16th February 2007, 6:58am

[Somey]

The point is that some of the observations that some people keep making about WP Bureaucraps are about as surprising as reporting that a KKK Grand Dragon made a racially biased statement.

Well, there ya go! A simple misunderstanding.

And I really don't mean to pick on you, Nobs, but a lot of this is just the somewhat-inevitable result of this general atmosphere of confusion and distraction that you're creating here, pretty much all by yourself. This stuff all happened, what, 16 months ago? That's an awfully long time, at least in Wikiland. Maybe you don't mean to do it, but at this point one could be easily forgiven for thinking that you're only keeping this up to prevent us from discussing things of, shall we say, more general interest...?

[nobs]

all he did was suggest moving your post about White Supremacist sources being used on WP

This is where the confusion lies. He didn't bother to review the content before posting. I have been assiduosly documenting how source links to white supremacist and hate groups on WP are used by Will Beback, et al he gets guidance from -- with the explicit aim to denigrate the credibility of certain people, Horowitz, Brandt, Rangerdude, et al for example.

And I really don't mean to pick on you, Nobs, but a lot of this is just the somewhat-inevitable result of this general atmosphere of confusion and distraction that you're creating here, pretty much all by yourself. This stuff all happened, what, 16 months ago? That's an awfully long time, at least in Wikiland. Maybe you don't mean to do it, but at this point one could be easily forgiven for thinking that you're only keeping this up to prevent us from discussing things of, shall we say, more general interest...?

Valid criticism. Point is there is a method to my madness. Number one, to prove bona fidas I accept responsibilty for my actions and remained silent for one year. Two, I am not free to weave across the centerline and urinate alongside buildings as most editors who get bored during a 30 second commercial do. Three, after the smears on me, I had to very patiently divorce myself from the allegation of "LaRoachism", which only now I've had the opportunity to (for example, coming to this board anytime over the past 16 months and speaking freely with HK obviously would be "proof" I led a cabal "acting in concert"). Four, I will lay out an outline what remains to be done, before I begin an unblock request on the Nobs01 account.

Proper methodolgy requires a system of investigation and analysis for the areas where gaps in the written record occur. These are closely approximated in Argument to the best explanation. Naked we all came forth and naked we shall depart. The only thing we truelly possess in this life, is our name. Our name and our credibility -- they are one and the same.

In studying LaRouchism, a painful thing to endure, we quickly discover Chip Berlet is one of the world's experts. I've had a year to examine this stuff, and when Berlet says

LaRouche announced that women's feelings of degradation in modern society could be traced to the physical placement of sexual organs near the anus which caused them to confuse sex with excretion.

I'll invite HK to show where LaRouche is taken out of context, or exagerated, or hyped, cause I don't know where to begin to investigate who's telling the truth in this fever swamp where the vital issue of credibility between LaRouche & Berlet is concerned. I'm inclined to accept Berlet as an expert on the subject of LaRouchism. But having become an unwitting and unathorized biographer of several 60s activists now (about four), I'll lay out an "arguement to the best explaination" (not a conspiracy theory) as to a key element of what the Wikipedia project is and why it was initiated. And this is all available in the source documents (you will recall Somey, I said it had a wide breadth). Then a serious student can connect the dots and make thier own decisions. By that time, hopefully I'm back in (P.S. if they want me to shut up, then speed the process up. I'm not gonna testify without a subpeona, and I can't be subpeoned if they don't know who I am).

This post has been edited by nobs: Mon 19th February 2007, 1:07am

[Jonny Cache]

Well I, for one, would like to propose a warm round of cyber-applause for Nobs, who went out of his way to find a highly appropriate thread in which to post this latest piece of information. YAY NOBS!

As pleased as I think we all are about this, I nevertheless feel compelled to ask something. Nobs, you're not trying to suggest that anyone here should be surprised to see a diff in which Slimmy uses a misleading edit summary to disguise her deletion of another user's discussion entry that she finds personally inconvenient, are you?

Surely not!

As for the matter at hand, a cursory check of the various contribs and page histories involved shows that User:Jnc, apparently a long-time administrator, actually did defend you to some extent -- and also User:Rangerdude as well. He's now essentially left WP, having been run off by the edit-warring tactics of User:Barberio, who in turn has only recently been run off by the administrative "cyberbullying" tactics of User:Radiant! ... who himself quit Wikipedia for several months, exactly a year ago today, over ... well, who knows? Just the usual crap, looks like.

To some extent, your own situation is just more of the usual crap too, Nobs. I'll grant that it's unusual in some respects, but the devious, arrogant, and hypocritical behavior of the WP high mucky-mucks is not one of them, I'm afraid. Ahh, well! On and on it goes ...

I spent several seconds trying to figure out what cyber-applesauce might be, something to serve with clockwork orange marmalade maybe ...

Anyway ...

May I suggest a more appropriate venue for all of these Schocking -- just plain Claude Rains Schocking -- revelations, to wit, here.

Jonny Cacheblanca

If NE1 will bother to peruse the note that I actually wrote, instead of the no doubt more fasces-nating stream of whatever's coursing through their conches nest -- oh, listen, you can hear the oshun -- then they may just see that what I was talking about was what Somey was saying about what Nobs was saying about SlimVirgin -- what else!? cf. the topic title, of all the silly places to look for a clue -- and maybe I didn't click on all the links, but I did not even know that NE1 was talking about The White Supremes or any other cover band like that.

In fact, I was only talking about this remark:

As pleased as I think we all are about this, I nevertheless feel compelled to ask something. Nobs, you're not trying to suggest that anyone here should be surprised to see a diff in which Slimmy uses a misleading edit summary to disguise her deletion of another user's discussion entry that she finds personally inconvenient, are you?

Jeez-O-Pete, Ma, Must Everbuddy Get Stoned This Early In The Day ???

Are you guys getting CARE Packages from Squeaky or something ???

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 16th February 2007, 5:48pm

[nobs]

If NE1 will bother to peruse the note that I actually wrote... of all the silly places to look for a clue

Backpeddling. This is just like Jimbo and the Foundation, through User:WAS 4.250, trying to declare Jimbo's comments in Editor & Publisher per WP:V#Dubious sources as "tabloid", after I proved the source of all thier legal problems was from a Questionable source. Imagine that, per Wikipedia, Jimbo and Editor & Publisher are tabloid sources. This is the box they've painted themselves into, in their efforts to prove a point.

I'm not saying complaining about Wikipedia is a waste of time. I'm saying complaining about Wikipedia like this is a waste of time. Read the tone and content of a few, randomly sampled posts here - go on, do it - and tell me you think any distenterested observer would take this board as a thoughtful, serious, well-researched corpus of information "reviewing" (not just bagging) Wikipedia?

.... Why aren't you creating coherent content (god forbid, even a Wiki!) which might be syndicated, or at least submitted to Google, and might get picked up by a news aggregator? Why aren't you guys co-ordinating to achieve something constructive? Why is no-one here taking any initiative? Why does no one want to be taken seriously?

I think I've demonstrated Electric Ray made some broad generalization, and I'll go so far as to say I attracted his return here after almost 10 months.

...Your consistent mangling of the word "consensus" is bad enough!

Archaic reading leads to archaic spelling.

This post has been edited by nobs: Sat 17th February 2007, 3:09am