pretty funny. still no MONGO article yet, and he went on a rampage once removing links to wikitruth after he deemed it an attack site.

SlimVirgin has done all she can to harm wikipedia and nothing but harm is what she does.

I hope my anti-SlimVirgin credentials are unassailable when I say that, historically, Slim has done some reasonably creditable work on historical figures in Judaism and the Holocaust, notably Rudolph Vrba. Regrettably, much of this was some time ago, and she is mostly back to POV-pushing in animal-rights articles and general policy manipulation/abuse.

Yours in futherance of fair and balanced attack sites,
Gomi

It took them long enough to have an article on SlimVirgin. By comparison, MONGO is relatively new.

But I guess that MONGO and SlimVirgin both have something in common. In most places, they'd both be banned for their behaviour. Yet they are admins. If they ever got de-sysopped, surely banishment would be close behind. Unless there's someone protecting them of course (which there is).

MONGO already has been desysopped.

Yes, MONGO has been desysopped, although if I understand correctly, he is free to reapply for adminship, and his close buddies would be almost certain to vote for him. And to quickly label any opposers as "trolls" and even "sockpuppets of banned users".

MONGO does receive the support of the wikicult, despite his desysopped status. He evokes sympathy from other Wikipedians. I suppose he evokes sympathy from me as well; you kinda do have to feel sorry for someone that bloody stupid.

To the Wikitruth,

I must commend you all for compiling such a provocative, elaborative, and funny site that sheds light on the dark side of Wikipedia.

With that being said, however, I do find it rather odd that you don't have an article on SlimVirgin, who has come up in far too many Wikipedia Review.com threads in the Editors board and others, has perhaps the most interesting and convoluted stories of all the administrators of Wikipedia, and is a clear and obvious example of administrator abuse at the site - heck, she's practically the head of the cabal at that site.

I needn't be too exhaustive on her "accomplishments" there as I'm sure you all know them, but nevertheless I am sure you could easily write a revealing exposé of her without becoming AntiSocialMedia.net - and you would certainly get more readers than Judd's site.

Thanks for telling the Wikitruth and keep up the good work.

You're famous! Woo hoo! But will they give you credit? I don't see your name anywhere.

Of course, you do know that Wikipedia Review is basically responsible for Wikitruth, don't you? Through Andrew Orlowski at least. But Wikitruth don't say thanks for that either.