Arbitration motion included

this is already detailed in this thread

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21260

in the continuing story of the weirdness that is "slimvirgin"'s wikicareer, here she inserts a carriage return to the first talk page comment on David Levy's talk page, with an edit summary about "an end of politeness".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255925912

Levy reverts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255927620

Why?

Levy took the initiative (why is another question, lol) to edit notices from SV on her talk page that she wouldn't be servicing you as admin any more, just as the usual virgin. As far as you know. That the virgin went down so nicely tells you she has a Sunsplash or SweetBlueWater or two in the wings. Probably with an adminship already. Lifers plan ahead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255921587

Pull an slightly odd busybody grooming of SV's talk page (unless you're Crum375, then it's welcome), and expect a "Single White Female" (Film) type response. Fair warning to Mr Levy. Lol.

Levy and The Virgin talked it out, and Levy seemed possibly assured that he won't be finding a bunny in his boiler anytime soon, but that wikigrin is a but uneasy. But then Levy deserves it, his edit of someone else's user page "intro" subpage is creepy. But still not as creepy as the virgin. lol.

...oh lord. I spoke too soon about Crum.

Unlike David Levy, this UK IP gets the block for doing the same thing. Editing the virgin's user page.

Which is something the Crummy does him/herself.

Who needs the tool, when you own one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:84.65.202.138


So this IP, which might be dynamic, I have no idea, is forever blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Perhaps Crummy is just saving this wandering user slot from being exposed to Scorpiorn.

Surely the block isn't some unhinged lashing out. Crum woudn't do something that like for his/her liege. Could someone figure out why exactly it is that Crum375 is an administrator?

Actually it is blocked for 24 hours.

ah, good catch.

thank god no one at that IP will be able to edit Slim's userpage to reflect some useless to WP claim that the editor has reached some arbitrary rank at some point in time. Blocks all around! Now if that IP had edited in a couple of porn images of 2 young rutters getting it on, well that would have just gotten a revert and a nice "We don't usually censor on wikipedia, but just for you and your irritatiing IP, which can be traced by anyone, thereby neutralising our own soopersekretadmin superpowers, we're going to make an exception!".

Did I mention that IP editors are less anonymous than the Crum375's of the world?

more from the bizarre case files of the Crum375-SlimVirgin team.

Marshelsea is a pet article for Ms Virgin. Lots of garden tending there.

Sometime abouts in November, a UK IP decided to change a description of a garden from unkempt to just a garden. Odd, but whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=250097381

Crum375, who had never edited the article, and hadn't edited anything for months, decides to quickly revert the subtle edit.

Again, I ask folks here.....why is Crum375 doing these odd things at seemingly random, dispersed intervals, around seemingly obscure SlimVirgin edits?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=251675779


# 20:34, 27 November 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:SlimVirgin ‎ (WP Monarch)
# 20:17, 27 November 2008 (hist) (diff) N Image:Wikipedia Monarch Award.png ‎ ({{Information |Description=Derived image |Source=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Monarch_Butterfly_Danaus_plexippus_on_Echinacea_purpurea_2800px.jpg |Date=Saturday, July 28, 2007 (original) |Author=Derek Ramsey (original) |Permission=GNU Free Docu) (top)
# 13:51, 15 November 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Crum375 ‎ (restore page) (top)
# 13:48, 15 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Marshalsea ‎ (Reverted edits by user to last version by Postlebury)
# 22:06, 26 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Crum375 ‎ (privacy of the victims is not a shield for the aggressor)
# 10:01, 24 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Newyorkbrad ‎ (→Lar case: format)
# 10:00, 24 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Newyorkbrad ‎ (→Lar case: victims' "privacy" should not be used as a pretext to shield the aggressor)
# 12:33, 15 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Crum375 ‎ (→resolved ?: thanks again to all)
# 01:08, 15 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Crum375 ‎ (→resolved ?: Thank you)
# 04:30, 18 August 2008 (hist) (diff) m Macbeth ‎ (Reverted edits by Rowda z (talk) to last version by 76.64.58.43)
# 22:33, 10 August 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Crum375 ‎ (→Crum375 on enwikiquote: please take care of this)
# 14:50, 10 August 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Crum375 ‎ (→Crum375 on enwikiquote: gr)
# 14:47, 10 August 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Crum375 ‎ (→Crum375 on enwikiquote: please try to help)
# 20:29, 8 August 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Crum375 ‎ (→Crum375 on enwikiquote: no room for AGF)
# 18:36, 8 August 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Crum375 ‎ (→Crum375 on enwikiquote: typo)
# 18:34, 8 August 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Crum375 ‎ (→Crum375 on enwikiquote: Not the impostor)
# 13:18, 11 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Brown Dog affair ‎ (Compromise is when everyone get what they want, see talk)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Crum375

Crum has become relatively active after several months of near-hibernation. I suppose he's needed now that neither SV nor ED have their admin tools.

Is there clear evidence that SV is using Crum's admin tools by proxy (ie is he being a meatpuppet admin)? If so this may violate the spirit of the desysopping of SV and should be brought to the arbcomm's attention.

He hasn't used the block button since August, though. Slim has Jayjg and the rest of the cabal for that, I suppose.

I do hope Jayjg will be the next one to meet the banhammer.

Did I hear "Impossible"?

In tightly-knitted paranoia-driven cabals everything is possible.

One would hope that was true, but Jayjg is a different kettle of fish. Unlike Slim, FT2, MONGO, and other once-and-future cabal members, Jay has now very successfully barricaded himself in the clocktower of his POV editing. He almost never comments (in any public forum) on wiki-politics and wiki-drama, stays away from most policy disputes, and hasn't run for any wiki-office for years.

Why? He has everything he wants: he's a checkuser, so he can spy on anyone he wishes, he has oversight, so he can remove any edit he deems inconvenient to himself or his posse, he is on the Arbcom mailing list, so he can observe and influence the inner workings of Arbcom.

Most importantly, by dint of sheer tenaciousness, disingenuous argument, and outright threats, Jayjg WP:OWNs his articles with an iron first. Anyone opposing him will be labeled with a series of epithets, beginning with "disruptive" and ending (in the few cases needed) with "anti-Semite". The combination of these things make him very nearly unassailable.

It would seem that Jayjg may be a truly different kind of Wikipidiot that the others, even Slimey: he values being effective at pushing his narrow, partisan POV more highly than being powerful, or at least being seen as powerful. And that makes him the scariest one of all.

He does make mistakes though and his "power" is far less than it was only two years ago. His day will come.

I am so out of touch...I just learned about this.

Now that it's actually happened -- the thing that brought me here originally and consumed much more of my life than I care to admit -- I'm not sure what to think.

On one hand, it should have happened a long time ago.

On another hand, it should have happened for something that actually mattered. Not like this.

And on yet another hand, I was just starting to warm, ever so slightly, to Slim, particularly after seeing that she voted to support both SirFozzie's and Cool Hand Luke's ArbCom candidacies.

Hmmmm.

This sort of reminds me of a time here in Utah when, in an interview right before his execution, a condemned child killer told the reporter that his pathology was sparked by child pornography. Understandably, the public was moved and the legislature went into action, changing the law such that the penalty for possessing child pornography became quite a bit more harsh than for actually molesting a child.

Nobody objected to what the legislature did, but many wondered why the penalties for both crimes didn't increase.

My point being: sometimes, folks with authority and an emotional problem before them get caught up in the moment and loose sight of what they're actually supposed to solve.

This has been the case each and every time the ArbCom has had the opportunity to address SlimVirgin's abuses. They've gotten it wrong every time.

IMO we're all trying not to make such a big deal over it, actually, so that people won't accuse us of "gloating." And after all, you're right - this incident shouldn't have been the thing that led to it happening, and it might even leave open the possibility of her being reinstated after a future review, on the basis of it not having being properly "adjudicated." Of couse, that presumes she would even want to be reinstated, which seems somewhat dubious at the moment.

Not just that, but we were also tired of the frequent wikipediot accusation that we are all "completely obsessed with SlimVirgin". In fact, as SV's power and influence on WP declined, so too did interest in her, which is just what should have been expected on a WP criticism site.

what percentage of blocks/bans by Crum375, including the latest temp block against an IP for an extremely minor annoyance, are to editors who are in direct editorial conflict with SlimVirgin?

Percentage, not totals, please! ;-)

What I find odd is that this punishment is toothless. She gets the bit back after six months without having to re-run for adminship. Other admins running afoul of arbcom are stripped of their epaulets a-la Lieutenant Dreyfuss and are forced to either re-run or gain approval through Arbcom.

Why does she warrant special consideration, for her hard work writing partisan animal liberation articles?

Temporary desysopings have occurred before, are likely to occur as ArbCom looks to punish rather than rehabilitate. Gustafson got a temporary desysop, I am sure there have been others.

We are to suppose that temp-blocks are not punative but temp desysoppings are?

The really proper thing to do with SlimVirgin would be to not desysop her for any timed length, but simply remove her bit and tell her she can initiate a new RfA any time she likes. And good luck.

And if she perennially fails to make it, that would be sort of like a "community desysopping," would it not? Kind of like what all those Kabbalistas suggested had happened (and continues to happen) to perennially pissed-on Everyking.

Of course, they'll never set it up this way for Slim to be retooled, because they know very well what would happen. It would indeed be a cold day in hell before she got the bit back, THAT way.

Now, I see the counterargument coming: that any longtime active administrator builds up enough skeletons and grudges that re-bitting by poll, would be impossible. But that's wrong. Any good amin should be building up goodwill even faster. In the last ArbCom election, plenty of active and longtime administrators were elected with high % of supports. That's proof if can happen. It's not possible for many of the admins we mock here are WR, perhaps, but it should be possible for many good ones.

This argument has merit. The counter-argument, that the alternative would be a lot of indef bans early on, would sink any proposal against it.
Personally, I would rather see more grace time extended to new accounts, and then no more shit tolerated. But it will not happen that way, so there you are.

Has anyone ever successfully regained adminship after having it removed by the Committee?

Carnildo and Darwinek, but the latter didn't go through the full vote.

I'd like to know the answer, but AFAIK heretofore anybody desysopped by committee has had it done with the clear suggestion that they should never get it again (or else some suggestion on when they SHOULD).

This would be something different. Essentially, it would be the Arb imposing a novel remedy: "You don't smell good to us, and the community needs to take a fresh look at your sysop bit." It would correspond to an odd case where a court ruled neither guilty or innocent for a politician, but "no confidence" and ordered a new election (or a recall election). Stuff like this happens in parliamentary politics, but we're not used to it in the US, where it must be initiated (where it rarely is) by voter recall petition. But in a system where sysops have no term limits, something like this becomes increasingly important to have in the toolkit of Arb possible remedies. There's no precident for it on Wikipedia, but so what?

If they do this to somebody in a difficult political case, and just put it before the community, and the crowd says "Release Barabas!" then the Arb can wash their hands of the whole thing.

Yes, although, for different reasons, the two cases (Guanaco and Carnildo) are kind of the exceptions that prove the rule.

If you don't have a bunch of screws loose it's probably easier to start a new account. Get a new ip, do some editing for a year or so, make some friends. Any normal person should be able to gain adminship without too much trouble. And if you enjoy creating content it'll be fun. That said, most people who loose their adminship under a cloud have a few screws loose and can't help but attract attention to themselves.