I've noticed that most of the history of your talk page has been deleted, including several thousand revisions with nothing harmful. Was this unintentional? I noticed you weren't the one who carried out the deletion, and there wasn't a reason cited at the time. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been raised and answered several times in several places, including one of the noticeboards (I forget which, and it was archived a long time ago), here and here. As you are an administrator, I'm sure you know that it's not possible to click a button that will delete just the inappropriate revisions, when trolls post personal details, or what they believe to be personal details. You have to delete everything, and then restore everything that isn't objectionable. Now, when people have been trolling you for over a year, and have made harassing posts on (say) 17 June, 29 June, 2 July, 11 July, 20 July, 28 July, . . . . . . . . right up to today, and then an administrator sees more trolling and deletes the page again, it's not just a simple matter of restoring everything except today's edit. And when there are over thousands of edits in the deleted history, and you really don't want to restore something inappropriate through carelessness or stupidity, the best thing is to wait. I'm sure Slim would have restored the page herself long ago, after Crum375 deleted it, except that unfortunately she has been victim of a lot more harassment since then. Apart from the difficulty of going through the deleted history to decide what should and what shouldn't be restored, there's also the problem that it's so massive that the computer may freeze! I have been in touch with SlimVirgin privately about the best way to restore the page. For the moment, I would suggest that it's not a highly urgent matter, and that people should let the matter drop until she comes back. If she doesn't come back, it's even less urgent, as I recall Jimbo posting that when people leave and want their talk pages deleted, there's nothing wrong with respecting their wishes. ElinorD (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So there is currently no time table, plans or estimation for when this will be done? --Android Mouse 00:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Slim is gone under that name:

Some argue that SlimVirgin, AKA Linda Mack, and Jayjg, AKA Andrew Blum, are now on lifetime Wikipedia community probations.

Jay isn't Andrew Blum.

Jayjg *probably* isn't Andrew Blum. Remember there was a point in time when we weren't sure if SlimVirgin was Sarah McEwan, after we'd previously decided it was, then it turned out that she was. I don't think we've completely crossed out the Andrew Blum link.

However, in saying that, we shouldn't be listing his real name in a public forum until we know for sure.

No we have already ruled it out about three times actually.

We've ruled it out when we have a better name, I think.

Oh whatever. It hasn't been dismissed, its just that we haven't gone any further. If Andrew Blum comes forward and provides evidence that that couldn't possibly be him THEN we can dismiss it as a link. Or alternatively if Jayjg comes forward and proves that he couldn't possibly be him THEN we can dismiss it. Until then its just an opinion.

Regardless of Jayjg's identity, which I don't think we have yet resolved, inducing SlimVirgin and Jayjg to quit is a tremendous victory. I think it probably premature to assume they won' return just yet. If this was a pilot project of the intelligence community it is likely that the whole thing will be judged a failure. If they do not return it is only prudent for us to continue to monitor and assess the possibility that they are operating under new (or heretofore sleeping) pseudonymous identities.

Unfortunately I think you're being too optimistic- I am sure people like them would have already maintained sockpuppets for this eventuality, or if they are being coordinated by some kind of group that group would already have other representatives in place.

I see your point, Jorge. Still the lose of social networking clout, and access to Checkuser privileges would be a serious blow.

How do we actually know he will longer continue to have access to Checkuser? In fact, how do we know that Jimbo Wales hasn't given the powers to anyone he feels like?

How do we actually know he will longer continue to have access to Checkuser? In fact, how do we know that Jimbo Wales hasn't given the powers to anyone he feels like?

Considering the way that Jayjg and SlimVirgin have been given free reign to control articles relating to Israel and Palestine by Mr. Wales we should also look at his appointment of Danny Wool who was formerly CHIEF EDUCATOR AT THE MUSEUM OF JEWISH HERITAGE IN NEW YORK. I suppose that is just a coincidence right? I notice that a Ruth Mack is listed in the Board of Overseers of the Museum here but she may be unconnected.

How do we actually know he will longer continue to have access to Checkuser? In fact, how do we know that Jimbo Wales hasn't given the powers to anyone he feels like?

Considering the way that Jayjg and SlimVirgin have been given free reign to control articles relating to Israel and Palestine by Mr. Wales we should also look at his appointment of Danny Wool who was formerly CHIEF EDUCATOR AT THE MUSEUM OF JEWISH HERITAGE IN NEW YORK. I suppose that is just a coincidence right? I notice that a Ruth Mack is listed in the Board of Overseers of the Museum here but she may be unconnected.

These are good questions. They are also questions the WMF Trustees need to ask.

Possibly no connection at all but interesting anyway:
(From here)

"I stayed in Vietnam until July 1968. I was there during the Tet Offensive and I ran one courier mission to the Paris Peace Talks. I was in my mid-twenties, not important in the scheme of things, but I was a conduit for information and passed a lot of material on to people who could do more with what I saw through my eyes.

My former grad school professor, Ruth Mack, was a high level advisor in Washington. In the summer of 1968, she picked my brains for every shred of information I had, constantly reassuring me that every word would be used well. She didn't need to beg me for my time. I remember sitting in her garden by the sea in Connecticut. I told her the war wasn't worth one drop of anyone's blood. I told her it would be difficult to make movies about the war because there were no heroes and no heroic deeds. I told her that no mother should lose a son and no wife should lose a husband over such a stupid war.

The conversation ended the way many such conversations do. Ruth was Jewish and she asked how I would have addressed Hitler if I had been alive then. This question may perhaps never die, and I don't have the answers. Ideally, people would refuse to give such power to anyone. I'm a pacifist, unequivocal pacifist, no exceptions. We do not solve problems through murder. We solve them by refusing to empower those who misuse their power. We do this through boycotting, through voting, through information and perhaps even civil disobedience, but two wrongs do not make a right."

What are they going to say? "We think that that there has been an organized campaign by certain Jewish lobbyists to control content on Wikipedia and we think you J Wales have fully assisted them in doing that"? Jimbo would just dismiss them as anti-semites/conspiracy theorists and appoint new trustees.

Additionally the board needs to investigate the possibility that intelligence agencies are misusing the project.

For a start they should rigorously identify and vet all person with Checkuser privleges. These vetting should be made public with real identities of Checkuser revealed. Additionally the board needs to investigate the possibility that intelligence agencies are misusing the project.

For a start they should rigorously identify and vet all person with Checkuser privleges. These vetting should be made public with real identities of Checkuser revealed. Additionally the board needs to investigate the possibility that intelligence agencies are misusing the project.

To have checkuser you must have sent identifying documents to the foundation as I remember.

For a start they should rigorously identify and vet all person with Checkuser privleges. These vetting should be made public with real identities of Checkuser revealed. Additionally the board needs to investigate the possibility that intelligence agencies are misusing the project.

On another note: as was noted in another thread, Slim came back on the 10th to "delete stuff"; socalled "courtesy deletion" of everything connected with banned user:Robert I. Those deletions are anything but uncontroversial.

First; user:Robert I was assumed to be one of the sockpuppets of Gregory Lauder-Frost ...see e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ry_Lauder-Frost

Slim was heavily involved with the (now deleted) WP article on him (long story cut short: GLF does not want publicity about his early 1990-jail-sentence); ----the uncensored version is still at Wikitruth: http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...ry_Lauder-Frost


user:Robert I came up for Arb., which resulted in a "temporary" ban, which has turned out to be permanent so far; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...uests#January_2


And now Slim have "courtesy deleted" the whole arb. com case! Note that this Arb. case is the ONLY one ever to be completely deleted (AFAICS) -I didn´t even know that was allowed (does this mean that others can have their arb.com cases deleted, too?)


Amusingly, it was Slim herself who inserted: "The right to vanish does not extend to pages retained for the purposes of protecting the website against disruption; for example requests for arbitration, requests for check user, or sockpuppet categories" into
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish


So; doesn´t Slimmys actions here contradict the very policies she herself has written?

Someone REALLY ought to post to ArbCom for clarification on that. Bullshit moves.

Someone REALLY ought to post to ArbCom for clarification on that. Bullshit moves.

I think we've pretty well established that ArbCom couldn't clarify a glass of spring water.

Well, can she wipe my Arb Com case? Quite frankly ArbCom is nothing but a smear campaign.

The ArbComm case is going to proceed but, if history is any judge, the most the ArbComm will do is "admonish" Jay for the nth time.

Probably. But they may also apply some minor punishment.

Or alternatively they might go after all of the others and praise Jayjg.

I think Jay has had enough chances. I believe the WP:POINT actions he made in relation to the multiple Apartheid articles was possibly just a rouse to get himself banned knowing full well that either he has a sock or there is someone else in place to take over his role. I really can't see how Wales is going to change his attitude to Israel/Palestine articles as his motivation for starting Wikipedia was clearly, and he even stated as much to destroy the established educational sources that he perceived had a Liberal/Academic bias on issues such as Israel/Palestine.

I think Jay has had enough chances. I believe the WP:POINT actions he made in relation to the multiple Apartheid articles was possibly just a rouse to get himself banned knowing full well that either he has a sock or there is someone else in place to take over his role. I really can't see how Wales is going to change his attitude to Israel/Palestine articles as his motivation for starting Wikipedia was clearly, and he even stated as much to destroy the established educational sources that he perceived had a Liberal/Academic bias on issues such as Israel/Palestine.

According to a recent profile in Toronto Life, Concordia was a wake-up call for the so-called “power couple,” Heather Reisman and Gerald Schwartz. Reisman, niece of free-trade negotiator Simon Reisman, is CEO of Indigo/Chapters Books. Her husband, Gerry, Liberal Party chief fundraiser and former co-founder of CanWest Global Communications, is CEO of Onex Corporation. As fundraisers, both enjoyed “exceptional closeness to [Prime Minister Paul] Martin” and were eager to “flex their newfound political clout.” Trying to “decode their agenda,” Toronto Life noted that the first signs of their intentions had surfaced immediately after the Concordia controversy. “Shocked into action, Schwartz and Reisman summoned a group of fellow philanthropists, including Toronto tycoons Larry Tanenbaum and Brent Belzberg, to plot a counter-strategy.” Tanenbaum is co-owner of the Toronto Maple Leafs, and venture capitalist Belzberg owns Torquest Partners. The four gathered together a select group of like-minded and monied colleagues and “self-appointed” themselves the “Israel Emergency Cabinet,” intent upon lending “more conviction and financial muscle” to advocacy for Israel in Canada. The Toronto Star observed that “the membership of the emergency cabinet reads like a who’s who of power and influence among the Jewish community” and that “some members are well known for their hawkish opinions favoring Israel in the long and bloody Middle East conflict.”

In addition to Reisman, Schwartz, Tanenbaum and Belzberg, the group included Senator Leo Kolber, former director of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Seagrams and Loews Cineplex; Israel Asper, co-founder and CEO of CanWest Global; Stephen Reitman, whose family owns Reitman’s clothing stores; Julia Koschitzky, whose family fortune derives from the IKO Group, global manufacturer of construction materials; and Stephen Cummings, CEO of Maxwell Cummings. Together, the group represented billions of dollars in assets, which its members knew how to use. Over the next year, through the facilitation of the United Israel Appeal Federation, which funded both the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) and the Canada-Israel Committee (CIC), the Emergency Cabinet morphed into the CIJA. Chaired by Tanenbaum, Belzberg and Cummings, CIJA eventually brought both the CJC and the CIC under its effective control. The stated aim of the new umbrella organization was to double the funding for Israel advocacy in Canada and make it more “pro-active".

We know that Jayjg had the Onex page in his browser and accidentally pasted it onto wikipedia. We also know that he quickly used oversight to remove his error and that oversight is a tool that is meant to only be used to remove information that is libelous or which reveals personal information about someone. Why then, would Jayg so quickly use oversight to remove this link if it didn't give some sort of hint about his identity? My guess is that Jayjg is either an employee of Onex or of Gerry Schwartz or has some sort of other personal or professional link with them or with Schwartz' other main enterprise, the "Council on Israel Jewish Advocacy".

If that's true, then it's a good catch. But can you prove it?

If that's true, then it's a good catch. But can you prove it?

I think that if there were a link between Jayjg and Onex, that the WP stub on Gerry Schwartz would be in better shape than it is.

I think that if there were a link between Jayjg and Onex, that the WP stub on Gerry Schwartz would be in better shape than it is.

He would be more likely to avoid it I think.

...I really can't see how Wales is going to change his attitude to Israel/Palestine articles as his motivation for starting Wikipedia was clearly, and he even stated as much to destroy the established educational sources that he perceived had a Liberal/Academic bias on issues such as Israel/Palestine.

I doubt Jay will be banned but it does look like he's tried the patience of his more senior allies. FloNight, who was basically Jay and SV's candidate for ArbComm, has turned against him and decided not to stand in the way of the case going to ArbComm. This is a major reversal!

I suppose it can only be absolutely verified by another person with Oversight capacity who can examine Jay's oversights from July 31 immediately prior to 5:51 wikitime.

I hear rumors that Jayjg got fired. Is this true?

Fired from where? His job or Wikipedia? I didn't think he was in a paid position at Wikipedia.

That he was booted off Wikipedia. If so, it's something silent.