Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What we know about SlimVirgin
Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > Notable editors > SlimVirgin
Daniel Brandt
Let me summarize what I think we know.

1. SlimVirgin is Linda Mack who studied philosophy at King's College, lost a close friend on PanAm 103, and worked for Pierre Salinger at ABC News, London from about 1989-1991 on the PanAm 103 investigation.

2. She pursued various PanAm 103 conspiracy theories, but once the two Libyans were indicted, she seemed to steer the investigation in the direction of the government's case against Libya, according to John K. Cooley, who along with Pierre Salinger, was responsible for hiring her at ABC.

3. Pierre Salinger interviewed the two Libyans in Tripoli, and believed, along with quite a few independent investigators, that they were either completely innocent, or only peripherally involved, perhaps unwittingly.

4. Syria's support in the Gulf War was important to the West. The leading theory until such time that the finger was pointed at Libya, was that Syria was involved, perhaps with Iran bankrolling them, in retaliation for the Iranian airliner that the U.S. shot down.

5. Scotland Yard raided ABC and made off with videotapes and documents. ABC fought in court, and after an expensive battle, lost the case.

6. Salinger came to believe that Linda Mack was working for MI5, and had been all along. He locked her out of her office.

7. Michael S. Morris, a former BOSS (South Africa) agent who investigated PanAm 103, has named Linda Mack as an "agent."

8. For at least two or three years after this, Linda Mack worked on the case as a freelancer. She started a petition drive against Allan Francovich's film, The Maltese Double-Cross: Lockerbie. This film promoted a conspiracy theory that was at odds with the government's case against Libya.

9. Linda Mack next shows up in Canada in 2002, registering the domain slimvirgin.com, using the name S. McEwan and a PO box in Swalwell, Alberta, Canada. Patrick Byrne, who knew Linda Mack at Cambridge, says she was half Canadian, and she switched on an English accent suddenly one day at Cambridge, and continued to use it from that point forward.

10. The email address on the slimvirgin.com domain registration was slimvirgin1@yahoo.com. The email address for Linda Mack on the alumni list at King's College, Cambridge was also slimvirgin1@yahoo.com. This mailing list was purged of Linda Mack's name several months ago. Similarly, the domain registration became a private registration within the last year.

11. One "Sarah McEwan, Canada" wrote comments or sent a letter to telegraph.co.uk in Britain in support of animal rights in 2004.

12. SlimVirgin signs her name as "Sarah" on the Wikipedia mailing list.

13. Daniel Brandt emailed slimvirgin AT gmail.com in late October, 2005, using a pseudonym, and asked if she would be interested in selling the slimvirgin.com domain. Twice she denied that she was the owner of that domain.

14. SlimVirgin's IP address geolocates to Shaw Communications in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, but the accuracy of this is disputed and she could be living in either Alberta or Saskatchewan.

15. SlimVirgin indicated a very early interest in the PanAm 103 article when she started editing Wikipedia sometime on or before November 5, 2004. At least one edit that was oversighted suggests inside knowledge of the Pierre Salinger investigation.

16. Jimmy Wales has admitted that articles have been oversighted to protect the identity of SlimVirgin and others.

17. Today almost no one with knowledge about the investigation, including Robert Baer, the CIA official who was close to the CIA's investigation at the time, pretends that the Libyans were guilty.

18. SlimVirgin has made a comment on a Talk page suggesting that the Libyan in prison is not guilty.

19. After Daniel Brandt emailed John K. Cooley in Athens, Greece to ask about Linda Mack, she called Cooley to ask him not to talk to Brandt. She had read on Wikipedia Review that Brandt had located Cooley, and was hoping to hear from him. But Brandt had already received Cooley's response shortly before Linda Mack made this call.

20. Various articles that are politically significant, in addition to the PanAm 103 articles, suffer from excessive ownership by SlimVirgin in that they are seriously skewed in directions that she has promoted and protected. These include articles about Lyndon LaRouche. Moreover, several months before SlimVirgin started the stub on Daniel Brandt, she declared that Brandt was an unreliable source on the topic of one Chip Berlet.
the fieryangel
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 1st August 2007, 10:12pm) *

Let me summarize what I think we know.



Perfect! Thanks Daniel, as always.

This is the thread that the press needs to see. Get cracking, folks!
Infoboy
Archive of that SlimVirgin diff:

QUOTE

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=15150972

Revision as of 02:13, 14 June 2005 (edit) (undo)
SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs)
(→Some useful policy and guideline refs)
Newer edit →


::::That's what's very annoying about this, and why I see it as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I'm trying to write an article about a long, complicated, unpleasant business, which killed 270 people directly; which was triggered by attacks on Libya or Iran, and possibly both, which killed hundreds; which indirectly led to the deaths of many hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Libyans, because of UN sanctions against Libya, which led to things like planes crashing because of the lack of spare parts; and which may have led to a miscarriage of justice which has put a man in jail for 27 years. Not to mention that it was the UK's largest and most expensive criminal inquiry ever, America's second deadliest attack against civilians, and the only UK trial that I'm aware of to have taken place on foreign soil. All big issues.

::::And yet I'm having to spend all my time on it discussing what a ton is, and whether people know what miles are. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


Anything we draw attention to in public needs to be archived yesterday, now, since she's got to be royally pissed now. Her on-wiki activities are way down. Also, we need to keep watch for any 'new' admins getting a sysop bit without having gone through RFA.
Nathan
Webcite'd here (be patient, you might not see it immediately) just in case it mysteriously *ahem* disappears.
anthony
QUOTE(Nathan @ Wed 1st August 2007, 10:30pm) *

Webcite'd here (be patient, you might not see it immediately) just in case it mysteriously *ahem* disappears.


I just read it, and noticed something:

QUOTE

Length of debris spread

* 01:53, 5 Nov 2004 Slimv 180 miles Non-metric only
* 23:25, 8 Nov 2004 SlimVirgin 130 kms Metric only


There's one of those oversighted edits by User:Slimv.
LamontStormstar
QUOTE(Infoboy @ Wed 1st August 2007, 3:26pm) *

Archive of that SlimVirgin diff:

QUOTE

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=15150972

Revision as of 02:13, 14 June 2005 (edit) (undo)
SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs)
(→Some useful policy and guideline refs)
Newer edit →


::::That's what's very annoying about this, and why I see it as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I'm trying to write an article about a long, complicated, unpleasant business, which killed 270 people directly; which was triggered by attacks on Libya or Iran, and possibly both, which killed hundreds; which indirectly led to the deaths of many hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Libyans, because of UN sanctions against Libya, which led to things like planes crashing because of the lack of spare parts; and which may have led to a miscarriage of justice which has put a man in jail for 27 years. Not to mention that it was the UK's largest and most expensive criminal inquiry ever, America's second deadliest attack against civilians, and the only UK trial that I'm aware of to have taken place on foreign soil. All big issues.

::::And yet I'm having to spend all my time on it discussing what a ton is, and whether people know what miles are. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)



Ah when you can't call it trolling without bursting into laughter at how ridiculous a notion is, shut someone up by falsely claiming they are "disrupting wikipedia to make a point".


...........


I googled slimvirgin1@yahoo.com and found this nice analysis


http://millosh-wm.blogspot.com/2007/07/wik...ups-part-1.html

QUOTE

Saturday, July 28, 2007
Wikipedia and interest groups, part 1
This page is here only for keeping links not broken. Please, use this page to comment the issue.

Yesterday I left the article on Slashdot to read it today, because the subject is particularly interesting to me (at the some point of my involvement in WM projects, I had very similar experience).

However, as it is usual on Slashdot, user comments are much more interesting and better then commented article. Working on Wikipedia brings strict scientific method: If claims in articles outside of Wikipedia are not supported by relevant sources, their relevancy drops very low.

This is the situation with article on which Slashdot article referes. So, before I start to talk about the topic (which is important), inside of the first part of this analysis I want to say a couple of words about the Slashdot article as well as about the surrounding articles.

Slashdot article


It operates with words like "believe" instead of "is". This is a good habit of the Slashdot article writers.
However, claims like "Shortly after her Wikipedia identity was uncovered, many of her edits to articles related to the bombing were permanently removed from the database in an attempt to conceal her identity." This claim needs at least an investigation. As well as it is doubtful what is the main purpose of such claim: To say that "Wikipedia" wanted to hide something?
And, of course, at the end the article consists a reference on Essjay incident, which barely may be interpreted as "informing readers", but much more as a sensationalist connection between one questionable opinion, one personal incident and Wikipedia as a whole.
Ludwig De Braeckeleer's article

"Slim Virgin had been voted the most abusive administrator of Wikipedia. She upset so many editors that some of them decided to team up to research her real life identity."
I didn't hear for such polls on Wikipedia, as well as I would like to know the relevancy of the people who voted her as "the most abusive administrator on Wikipedia". Of course, no reference in the article.

(During the investigation on other claims, I found now User:SlimVirgin is voted as "the most abusive administrator". According to this article, it happens at Wikipedia Review.)

"Daniel Brandt of the Wikipedia Review and founder of Wikipedia-Watch.org patiently assembled tiny clues about Slim Virgin and posted them on these Web sites. Eventually, two readers identified her. Slim Virgin was no other than Linda Mack, the young graduate Salinger hired."
Daniel Brandt's claims and Wikipedia Watch

I needed a lot of time to find where Daniel Brandt analyzed this because there were no reference inside of the article. Finally, I found one forum article on Wikipedia Review site which is written after the article on OhmyNews. (As I don't want to investigate purely sourced article, I will assume that the article on which Ludwig is referencing shows the same data.)

Again, I had to investigate all of the claims because references are narrative and without possibility to confirm a lot of the claims. So, article stays for:

Some time ago slimvirgin.com was registered on the person named S.McEwan from Swalwell, Alberta, Canada. Domain was registered in 2002. Today, domain is anonymously registered.
Domain was registered on the address slimvirgin1@yahoo.com.
"S." means "Sarah".
"[Sarah McEwan] wrote a couple of letters to a newspaper in Britain defending animal rights on the foxhunting issue".
"Slim signs the name "Sarah" on Wikipedia."
According to her IP addresses, she is somewhere in central Canada.
During 2006. on her page she said that she was alumnus of Cambridge.
There was a page there which had "mouseover on the name of alumnus Linda Mack showed an email address of slimvirgin1@yahoo.com", but ""The Kings College website listing of Linda Mack was deleted within the last six months, ..."
"Then by looking at SlimVirgin's early edits on Wikipedia, it was obvious that she was obsessed with PanAm 103, "
"... just as Linda Mack was known to be obsesseed with PanAm 103."
"Just as Slim's edits on Wikipedia have slowly but surely been oversighted to obscure the Linda Mack connection, so too has some of the above information."
In short, there are two points here: (1) User:SlimVirgin is Sarah McEwan who owns domain slimvirgin.com and (2) Sarah McEwan is Linda Mack, who is a member of MI5.

User:SlimVirgin = Sarah McEwan => owns domain slimvirgin.com

Some time ago slimvirgin.com was registered on the person named S.McEwan from Swalwell, Alberta, Canada. Domain was registered in 2002. Today, domain is anonymously registered.
It is not possible to check this claim.

Domain was registered on the address slimvirgin1@yahoo.com.
It is not possible to check this claim.
"S." means "Sarah".
"S" may be at the beginning of a lot of female names.

"[Sarah McEwan] wrote a couple of letters to a newspaper in Britain defending animal rights on the foxhunting issue".
User:SlimVirgin wrote on articles related to animal rights: Animal Rights Militia, Animal testing, Factory farming etc. Also, there is at least one reference which connects Sarah McEwan with animal rights (a comment on the Telegraph.co.uk site).

"Slim signs the name "Sarah" on Wikipedia."
Not found.

Only one of five claims is confirmed. Two is not possible to check, one is explicitly negative and one is arbitrary.

Sarah McEwan (= User:SlimVirgin) = Linda Mack, MI5 spy

According to her IP addresses, she is somewhere in central Canada.
I don't want to check, so I'll say that this is true.

During 2006. on her page she said that she was alumnus of Cambridge.
Only admins on English Wikipedia may check that. The first available version of ther user page is from 22 October 2006.

There was a page there which had "mouseover on the name of alumnus Linda Mack showed an email address of slimvirgin1@yahoo.com", but ""The Kings College website listing of Linda Mack was deleted within the last six months, ..."
It is not possible to check this claim.
"Then by looking at SlimVirgin's early edits on Wikipedia, it was obvious that she was obsessed with PanAm 103,"
"Obsessed" is hard word. But, User:SlimVirgin was working on that article up to July 2005 (last page edit, last talk edit).

"... just as Linda Mack was known to be obsesseed with PanAm 103."
It is not possible to check this claim.
"Just as Slim's edits on Wikipedia have slowly but surely been oversighted to obscure the Linda Mack connection, so too has some of the above information."
According to my investigation, this is not true.
Here is a little bit better situation: From six claims, two are positive, one is maybe positive, it is not possible to check two claims and one claim is negative.

Wikipedia Watch

Wikipedian and Wikimedian communities have a lot of problems. And no one is hiding that. Also, it is a natural human reaction not to talk a lot about her/his own problems. I am against that because only with open talk about our problems -- we may solve them. However, Wiki(m|p)edian community is far of censoring critics. Look at the article Wikipedia on Wikipedia.

There are some serious problems, too. Wikimedian community became inert, which is usual for big communities. Faction wars on Wikipedias are usual. Bureaucracy is a big problem, too. Not so small language communities are often under hard pressure of nationalists. Political model of Wikipedia reached it's own limits and project needs some deep changes to survive to the next decade.

However, up to this moment I've seen a small amount of constructive outsider's critics of Wikipedia. The vast majority of critics are written in more or less bad faith.

Wikipedia Watch is particularly bizarre. It seems that Daniel Brandt knows to use "history" option on every article, but he shows extremely poor knowledge of Wikipedia functioning. For one long-term fighter against social monsters, it is very unusual. So, here are some examples:

I was laughing when I saw the page "Wikipedia's Hive Mind". It seems that I'll be there, sooner or later; and in that moment I'll be completely sure that the site is a real bullshit. (BTW, as this will be seen by a lot of the people from the list, I would like to hear them about their involvement in conspiracy wink.gif )
"Plagiarism by Wikipedia editors" shows that:
He doesn't know anything about article-making process and constant fights against copyright infringements on Wikipedia.
He was able to remove sections, too and he didn't do that. Also, I am sure that if he gave this list directly on Wikipedia -- community would remove that. And it is done when it was noticed (cf. articles about Mercy Otis Warren through Wikipedia Watch and at the 28 July 2007). A little bit more good faith would help...
A number of other things may be found which is in the range from simple bad faith up to the conspiracy theories. Please, look at the site.

End note

It seems that this issue is very complex. I didn't finish with some points and I'll give them in the next few days.

Posted by Milos Rancic at 11:50 AM

Labels: conspiracy theories, wikipedia criticism


2 comments:
SV said...
"Slim signs the name "Sarah" on Wikipedia."

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/076658.html

"During 2006. on her page she said that she was alumnus of Cambridge."

http://web.archive.org/web/20060326120616/...User:SlimVirgin

"Just as Slim's edits on Wikipedia have slowly but surely been oversighted to obscure the Linda Mack connection, so too has some of the above information."

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/078336.html

"... just as Linda Mack was known to be obsesseed with PanAm 103."

I Solemnly Swear: Conmen, DEA, the Media and Pan Am 103 By Micheal T. Hurley

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zj8D144UX...nda+Mack+pan+am

July 31, 2007 4:11 PM
Milos Rancic said...
Please, leave your comments about this issue at my page on WordPress. I'll analyze links as well as I'll incorporate them int the article.

July 31, 2007 5:22 PM
jdrand
Very interesting, thanks Mr Brandt. Sounds like something out of a Robert Ludlum novel. wink.gif
blissyu2
That denial blog is particularly stupid, given that just moments later it was all proven false, and given that if he had looked properly he would have found that it was mostly proven false before he'd even written it. It just reeks of ignorance. That's not a cover up, its stupidity.
BobbyBombastic
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Thu 2nd August 2007, 9:35am) *

That denial blog is particularly stupid, given that just moments later it was all proven false, and given that if he had looked properly he would have found that it was mostly proven false before he'd even written it. It just reeks of ignorance. That's not a cover up, its stupidity.

exactly. Inadvertently, he has made the case much stronger, because anyone who knows what the information is (that is now gone) realizes that it is a very strong case.
jdrand
A NameBase entry for Linda Mack can be found at: http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01?Na=mack%2C+linda.
blissyu2
QUOTE(jdrand @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 5:04pm) *

A NameBase entry for Linda Mack can be found at: http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01?Na=mack%2C+linda.


A very small entry though. Perhaps Daniel is waiting for the conclusion of this investigation so he can put it all in order?
Daniel Brandt
This was indexed in NameBase shortly after the book was published in 1993. This book was never published in the U.S. due to legal threats. You have to understand that Lester Coleman's version of the circumstances that allowed the bomb to be placed on PanAm 103 was information that Western governments had to suppress. Michael T. Hurley, who has recently written his own book, was the DEA attaché in Cyprus, and he has a motive for disputing Coleman's version of events. PanAm airlines, on the other end, may have had a motive to push the story, because it would tend to get them off the hook for damages from baggage-handling negligence lawsuits by the families. Juval Aviv, a New York City investigator, pursued this DEA angle, which even made it into a Time Magazine cover story on 1992-04-27. Nevertheless, it was suppressed in due course. Coleman and Juval Aviv both ended up as targets for apparent legal harassment.

The NameBase citation is from Goddard, Donald with Coleman, Lester K., Trail of the Octopus: From Beirut to Lockerbie -- Inside the DIA, London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1993. 326 pages.

Lester Coleman began as a reporter, became an agent for the Defense Intelligence Agency in the Middle East (he's fluent in Arabic), and ended as an exile in Sweden after trumped-up passport charges were filed against him in Chicago. The problem was that Coleman, without fully realizing it, had inside information about Drug Enforcement Administration operations in the Middle East, and specifically about DEA arrangements for controlled-delivery baggage handling out of the Frankfurt airport. In other words, what he knew put an different spin on the Lockerbie tragedy, and suggested a degree of U.S. intelligence complicity with the bombing of Pan Am 103. This book is well-written, perhaps because principal author Donald Goddard spent eight years as an editor at the New York Times.

Here is the page from the book that mentions Linda Mack. It's inside of a quotation from Coleman. It's not much, but it does mention another person, David Mills, as someone who might have something to say about Linda Mack, assuming that he can be located. I haven't tried to find him, but perhaps it's time to make an effort.
Infoboy
Mills appears British:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22david+mi...lient=firefox-a

Perhaps contacting him immediately is in order before Linda can get to him.
Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(Infoboy @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 3:34pm) *

Mills appears British:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22david+mi...lient=firefox-a

Perhaps contacting him immediately is in order before Linda can get to him.

Yes, he's British, but not everything is a Google click away. Here are 1,147 David Mills and I don't think he's on there.

It's possible he's the one mentioned here and here but it's a long shot. In fact, this one suggests it isn't him. But he might know where we can look. Go ahead and ask him.
jdrand
Thank you.
jorge
Additionally, I'd like to draw peoples attention to this thread where Daniel Brandt recounts his interview with Dr. Jim Swire, representative of UK Lockerbie (Pan Am) families.

I should also point out that "SlimVirgin" removed information on a question made by the British MP Tam Dalyell regarding an alleged payment or bribe made to Toni Gauci. This is now a main element in the second appeal of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi.
Jonny Cache
QUOTE(jorge @ Thu 11th October 2007, 2:48pm) *

Additionally, I'd like to draw people's attention to this thread where Daniel Brandt recounts his interview with Dr. Jim Swire, representative of UK Lockerbie (Pan Am) families.

I should also point out that "SlimVirgin" removed information on a question made by the British MP Tam Dalyell regarding an alleged payment or bribe made to Toni Gauci. This is now a main element in the second appeal of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi.


Butte-i-full ! An Absolutely Classic Example (ACE) of the All But Patented SlimVirgin Polymorphous Prevarication Castling Maneuver™. A complex edit where an innocent bit of pre-text gets switched around, the real target gets taken off the board in passing, all camouflaged by a deceptive edit line, "Dalyell reference not appropriate in investigation section".

Jonny cool.gif
Dr_Debug
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 9:46pm) *

Here is the page from the book that mentions Linda Mack. It's inside of a quotation from Coleman. It's not much, but it does mention another person, David Mills, as someone who might have something to say about Linda Mack, assuming that he can be located. I haven't tried to find him, but perhaps it's time to make an effort.


This is not related to Wikipedia, but I know a David Mills who is mostlikely an intelligence asset and active in a similar profession as SlimVirgin, ie. disrupting and abusing the internet to stiffle conspiracy theories. It is a hunch especially since there are many Mills however the chance of two David Mills who are intelligence assets/agents is quite small especially if they seem to do the same kind of job.

I used to be quite active in the 9/11 conspiracy movement and for a time used to post at the intelligence troll infested site called progressiveindependent.com One of the intelligence trolls telling you that there is nothing to see here is David G. Mills, a personal injury lawyer from Memphis ( http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov06/Mills10.htm )

He first appeared on that site because TruthIsAll (The man who proved Election Fraud 2004) moved that PI after being kicked off DemocraticUnderground. David Mills used to be focused on the election however TruthIsAll is too difficult ... until a number of 9/11 posters from DU including me started to use PI instead and then David was awaken again to keep us entertained.

It is not clear whether David G. Mills is a lawyer covering for intelligence assets or an intelligence asset himself, he is most definitely senior intelligence, because during the investigation into Michael Zebuhr by MirandaPriestly (sadly the posts disappeared and Miranda got banned for that) google results started to disappear as soon as messages where posted on the site. The same happened on this thread which is still online ( http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboa...8&topic_id=4857 ) where google immediately corrected itself after a comment was made that results suddenly gone missing. I assume that it takes a senior intelligence agent/asset to make google results disappear and reappear.

If Slimvirgin is Linda Mack and one of her tasks was to discourage people looking into the Lockerbie affair then what are the odds that the David Mills is the David G. Mills whose task is to discourage people looking into the 9/11 conspiracy.
Derktar
QUOTE(Dr_Debug @ Mon 31st December 2007, 6:04am) *

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 9:46pm) *

Here is the page from the book that mentions Linda Mack. It's inside of a quotation from Coleman. It's not much, but it does mention another person, David Mills, as someone who might have something to say about Linda Mack, assuming that he can be located. I haven't tried to find him, but perhaps it's time to make an effort.


This is not related to Wikipedia, but I know a David Mills who is mostlikely an intelligence asset and active in a similar profession as SlimVirgin, ie. disrupting and abusing the internet to stiffle conspiracy theories. It is a hunch especially since there are many Mills however the chance of two David Mills who are intelligence assets/agents is quite small especially if they seem to do the same kind of job.

I used to be quite active in the 9/11 conspiracy movement and for a time used to post at the intelligence troll infested site called progressiveindependent.com One of the intelligence trolls telling you that there is nothing to see here is David G. Mills, a personal injury lawyer from Memphis ( http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov06/Mills10.htm )

He first appeared on that site because TruthIsAll (The man who proved Election Fraud 2004) moved that PI after being kicked off DemocraticUnderground. David Mills used to be focused on the election however TruthIsAll is too difficult ... until a number of 9/11 posters from DU including me started to use PI instead and then David was awaken again to keep us entertained.

It is not clear whether David G. Mills is a lawyer covering for intelligence assets or an intelligence asset himself, he is most definitely senior intelligence, because during the investigation into Michael Zebuhr by MirandaPriestly (sadly the posts disappeared and Miranda got banned for that) google results started to disappear as soon as messages where posted on the site. The same happened on this thread which is still online ( http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboa...8&topic_id=4857 ) where google immediately corrected itself after a comment was made that results suddenly gone missing. I assume that it takes a senior intelligence agent/asset to make google results disappear and reappear.

If Slimvirgin is Linda Mack and one of her tasks was to discourage people looking into the Lockerbie affair then what are the odds that the David Mills is the David G. Mills whose task is to discourage people looking into the 9/11 conspiracy.

Welcome to the Review Dr. Debug, I trust that you are licensed!
flash
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 11:52pm) *

QUOTE(Infoboy @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 3:34pm) *

Mills appears British:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22david+mi...lient=firefox-a

Perhaps contacting him immediately is in order before Linda can get to him.

Yes, he's British, but not everything is a Google click away. Here are 1,147 David Mills and I don't think he's on there.

It's possible he's the one mentioned here and here but it's a long shot. In fact, this one suggests it isn't him. But he might know where we can look. Go ahead and ask him.


There's also another 'David Mills' evidently involved in high politics, a British lawyer who is mentioned in the ongoing case against Berlusconi in Italy: "Berlusconi is accused of having given 600,000 dollars (380,000 euros) to his British lawyer David Mills in exchange for false testimony in two cases dating back to the 1990s."

This woud fit Dr Debug's profile of a well-connected individual in terms of the intelligence community.

Myself, I think he sounds very nice and there is absolutely nothing bad about him to be inferred from this post!

Yahoo News
guy
QUOTE(flash @ Sun 22nd June 2008, 11:55am) *

There's also another 'David Mills' evidently involved in high politics

Yes, that's the most preposterous allegation. David is the husband of Labour politician Tessa Jowell and is a tremendously fine chap.
flash
QUOTE(guy @ Sun 22nd June 2008, 2:55pm) *

QUOTE(flash @ Sun 22nd June 2008, 11:55am) *

There's also another 'David Mills' evidently involved in high politics

Yes, that's the most preposterous allegation. David is the husband of Labour politician Tessa Jowell and is a tremendously fine chap.


And politics don't get much lower than that...
Proabivouac
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 1st August 2007, 10:12pm) *

Let me summarize what I think we know.


Are we certain that all these assertions are true?

We're not doing this pinned thing with anyone else, which as someone observed on WP, requires moderator action. As such, this rather looks like The Official Findings of the Wikipedia Review.

Would anyone object to unpinning it?
Moulton
The title of the thread should be: What Daniel Brandt Believes To Be True.

In the past, I've discovered some of his beliefs to be inaccurate.

(And if I'm wrong about that, then here I am spouting an inaccurate belief of my own.)
Sxeptomaniac
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 15th July 2008, 3:51pm) *

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 1st August 2007, 10:12pm) *

Let me summarize what I think we know.


Are we certain that all these assertions are true?

We're not doing this pinned thing with anyone else, which as someone observed on WP, requires moderator action. As such, this rather looks like The Official Findings of the Wikipedia Review.

Would anyone object to unpinning it?

I would agree with the above. It does seem to go against the premise that there is a variety of opinions here, many of which don't necessarily agree with Brandt on this.
gomi
The information has been located and researched by many, many others in addition to Mr. Brandt. Brandt is only the one who summarized it. While this is not an "official WR pronouncement" (there really isn't such a thing, except maybe from Somey), it represents the work of many people, not just Daniel Brandt.
Proabivouac
QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 16th July 2008, 1:31am) *

The information has been located and researched by many, many others in addition to Mr. Brandt. Brandt is only the one who summarized it. While this is not an "official WR pronouncement" (there really isn't such a thing, except maybe from Somey), it represents the work of many people, not just Daniel Brandt.

How is this different from any other post or thread representing the work of many people? Why is it pinned?

This makes it looks like an official finding of WR and its moderators, regardless of your disclaimer here.

Lar
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 15th July 2008, 10:04pm) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 16th July 2008, 1:31am) *

The information has been located and researched by many, many others in addition to Mr. Brandt. Brandt is only the one who summarized it. While this is not an "official WR pronouncement" (there really isn't such a thing, except maybe from Somey), it represents the work of many people, not just Daniel Brandt.

How is this different from any other post or thread representing the work of many people? Why is it pinned?

This makes it looks like an official finding of WR and its moderators, regardless of your disclaimer here.

Agree with Pro... it does make it look like it's "official". It's not. I think it's rather a lot of rather uninformed speculation, and irrelevant, really... I strongly suggest unpinning it.
gomi
There is a standing offer to remove entirely from the site any claim that is refuted by documentary evidence, provided by Linda Mack SlimVirgin, to the contrary.

Frankly, the pinning of the topic prevents the 2nd, 5th, and 20th threads being started on those topics by people new to the subject, and as SlimVirgin seems to generate enemies at a pretty rapid clip, except when under an ArbCom cloud, those people are always coming forth.

I don't see any reason to change it.
The Joy
QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 15th July 2008, 9:31pm) *

The information has been located and researched by many, many others in addition to Mr. Brandt. Brandt is only the one who summarized it. While this is not an "official WR pronouncement" (there really isn't such a thing, except maybe from Somey), it represents the work of many people, not just Daniel Brandt.


I agree. Daniel and others provided convincing evidence to back these assertions.
Proabivouac
QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 16th July 2008, 5:15am) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 15th July 2008, 9:31pm) *

The information has been located and researched by many, many others in addition to Mr. Brandt. Brandt is only the one who summarized it. While this is not an "official WR pronouncement" (there really isn't such a thing, except maybe from Somey), it represents the work of many people, not just Daniel Brandt.

I agree. Daniel and others provided convincing evidence to back these assertions.

So, on the one hand, it is not an official finding of WR. On the other, two moderators show up to endorse its substance and its artificially frozen maximally prominent placement.
gomi
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 15th July 2008, 10:39pm) *
So, on the one hand, it is not an official finding of WR. On the other, two moderators show up to endorse its substance and its artificially frozen maximally prominent placement.

There are no "hands" -- one, the other, good, or bad. Mods and others were privy to the conversations (not always public) in which the evidence was developed, so perhaps we have a better perspective, but that is coincidence, not conspiracy.

Don't try to make two mods agreeing with each other into more than it is. There is no "official position", no matter how much you bray about it. If it was an official position, it would be posted by Somey and would say at the top: "This is the official position of the Wikipedia Review".

Then everyone would have a good laugh and go back to what they were doing before.
Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Lar @ Tue 15th July 2008, 8:12pm) *

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 15th July 2008, 10:04pm) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 16th July 2008, 1:31am) *

The information has been located and researched by many, many others in addition to Mr. Brandt. Brandt is only the one who summarized it. While this is not an "official WR pronouncement" (there really isn't such a thing, except maybe from Somey), it represents the work of many people, not just Daniel Brandt.

How is this different from any other post or thread representing the work of many people? Why is it pinned?

This makes it looks like an official finding of WR and its moderators, regardless of your disclaimer here.

Agree with Pro... it does make it look like it's "official". It's not. I think it's rather a lot of rather uninformed speculation, and irrelevant, really... I strongly suggest unpinning it.
Allow me to add my own personal take on this matter. SlimVirgin is without a doubt one of the most, if not the most, notoriously corrupt admin at Wikipedia. There are many, many good editors that she banned for capricious, or more often, POV-pushing reasons. Many of them come to the Review. Over time, a substantial corpus of knowledge has been developed about her particular brand of COI.

As controversial as Daniel's tactics may be, I have tremendous respect for his skills as a researcher, and I can think of no one better qualified to summarize "what he believes we know" about SV. I think his summary is an extremely useful resource for anyone who wants to know the story behind the SlimVirgin pseudonym (I also recommend Chip Berlet, SlimVirgin and Wikipedia.)

I think that pinning his thread is helpful to readers who come here looking for answers about SV. I don't see it as any sort of official pronouncement -- official pronouncements go in the blog, after we play a bit of catch-up and make the WordPress software secure from hackers.
everyking
Broadly speaking, I think the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and I don't really think it's partisan to have it up there. As far as I know, there hasn't been a serious challenge to the accuracy of the basic outline of events.
Proabivouac
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 1st August 2007, 10:12pm) *

19. After Daniel Brandt emailed John K. Cooley in Athens, Greece to ask about Linda Mack, she called Cooley to ask him not to talk to Brandt. She had read on Wikipedia Review that Brandt had located Cooley, and was hoping to hear from him. But Brandt had already received Cooley's response shortly before Linda Mack made this call.

And Cooley's response was?
Aloft
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 16th July 2008, 3:55am) *
And Cooley's response was?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=3910
Proabivouac
QUOTE(Aloft @ Wed 16th July 2008, 9:03am) *

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 16th July 2008, 3:55am) *
And Cooley's response was?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=3910

Okay. Can we confirm that that is the whole of Cooley's correspondence with Mr. Brandt?
Saltimbanco
I think it makes sense to leave the thread pinned, not because it is an Official Wikipedia Review Position, but because a lot of the new traffic we get here has been of people abused by "SlimVirgin" who wondered, "Who is this *****?!?"

Any particular reason you bring this up now, Proabivouac?
Proabivouac
QUOTE(Saltimbanco @ Wed 16th July 2008, 2:57pm) *

I think it makes sense to leave the thread pinned, not because it is an Official Wikipedia Review Position, but because a lot of the new traffic we get here has been of people abused by "SlimVirgin" who wondered, "Who is this *****?!?"

Any particular reason you bring this up now, Proabivouac?

Yes. Someone mentioned in the arbitration case, amidst a whole barrage of distorted and irrelevant points, that this thread was pinned, and that this requires moderator action, thus is not easily dismissed as merely the opinion of a forum participant. I am certain I am not the only one who will see this as a fair point, and I believe it makes sense on several levels for WR to consider it.
BobbyBombastic
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 15th July 2008, 10:04pm) *

How is this different from any other post or thread representing the work of many people? Why is it pinned?
This was pinned back when the SlimVirgin story got slashdotted and a lot of people were heading over here for more information or asking questions. If I recall, it was also after we had one member that was making some ridiculous accusations (ridiculous even for us! smile.gif). This was pinned in an attempt to stop that type of thing from spreading. At this point, I think it would be ok to unpin it, at least until SV gets slashdotted again. biggrin.gif

To my recollection, that is exactly why it was pinned in the first place, though.
LessHorrid vanU
Yeah, if was intended as a sort of FAQ default topic it may be time to take it down (until a fresh SV drama starts up).

I'm not that interested in this aspect of WR, but I suggest that one long section in respect of who (cares who) SV might be is better than having a new one created each time - and it is a subject that will keep turning up.
everyking
QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Wed 16th July 2008, 9:29pm) *

Yeah, if was intended as a sort of FAQ default topic it may be time to take it down (until a fresh SV drama starts up).


The tide rises and falls, but the ocean remains. Not to mention--it looks like the tide is coming back in right now.
Proabivouac
QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 17th July 2008, 7:41am) *

QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Wed 16th July 2008, 9:29pm) *

Yeah, if was intended as a sort of FAQ default topic it may be time to take it down (until a fresh SV drama starts up).


The tide rises and falls, but the ocean remains. Not to mention--it looks like the tide is coming back in right now.

Slim's doing herself no favors on ANI. But it hasn't got a whit to do with any of what's posted, does it? Do you think she's foolishly defending Tony Sidaway because she's a spy? Because of PanAm 103?
Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Thu 17th July 2008, 2:49am) *

Slim's doing herself no favors on ANI. But it hasn't got a whit to do with any of what's posted, does it? Do you think she's foolishly defending Tony Sidaway because she's a spy? Because of PanAm 103?

She may be all of those things (or none of them, but probably all of them) but the reason she's foolishly defending TS is...... cool.gif ..... she's a fool.

Only a blathering idiot would edit so obviously as she, in such a manner that outed herself.......... that and all the books she was mentioned in regarding Pan Am 103. Talk about a crappy spy!
Then she comes here, and picks on people for political - and persnickety petty - reasons, creates an army of haters, and they research her and figure everything out.

Really. If her "livelihood" is at risk, there are four fingers pointing back at her to her one pointing wildly at everyone else.

She needs a livelihood? Just patent the t-shirt logo "I'm a Secret Undercover SPY - ASK ME HOW".
Zeraeph
Guys,

WHAT were you smoking?

I do not *know* SV, she is too manipulative and guarded for that...

But I know what she is NOT.

I have private email dialogues with SV where she maneouvers and crosses all acceptable boundaries to get at any personal dirt she could use for or against me (as it suited her, foolishly assuming I hadn't noticed for some odd reason) while totally ignoring some serious potential for the kind of stuff that WOULD be of use to Jason Bourne, or Mata Hari or whoever you think she is this week. rolleyes.gif

SV...Sarah, is just like the rest, a big fish in a very small pond, defining herself, and her life, in terms of her power and influence on Wikipedia, because that is, pretty much, all she has got...

But you guys have her built up into this glamourous pre-raphaelite cross between James Bond and Kathy from Wuthering Heights...and if she isn't getting one hell of a kick out of that, she bloomin' well SHOULD be! I would (in fact, if it was me I would start dressing the part too - wonder what the goth romantic field operative is wearing this season?)

Apart from which, WHAT ON EARTH would the CIA need to plant a full time, experienced, field operative with a brief to get as much control as possible, on Wikipedia for?

Anything they would ever need to do could be done by a couple of interns with watchlists and specific briefs.

The former is "how-to-ensure-everybody-realises-the-CIA-is-interfering-even-without-the-long-black-veil 101" the latter would hardly be noticed if they kept varying IPs, kept it small and subtle and didn't get into locking horns over edits.

Back to the point...

Whatever you are smoking...can I have some? biggrin.gif


Anonymous editor
Your block expires in a little more than two weeks.
Zeraeph
QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Sun 28th December 2008, 1:50am) *

Your block expires in a little more than two weeks.


I know that pet...makes no difference to me...I certainly won't be going back (the words "nasty" "toxic" and "mess" occur).(though I see "A Kiwi" in her new (admitted) identity of "a.spotted.owl" suddenly reappeared yesterday, for the first time since july, in the hope that I will)

Not sure what that has to do with Slimvirgin?

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.