Is it time for wikipedia to take this attack page down?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...JarlaxleArtemis

It
*Posts his real name on the page -- twice!
*The first instance of real name includes the middle name used as well as first and last. This will hurt the guy's chances at getting a job and relationships for anyone googling his name.
*Links to lots of his personal information.

Wikipedia took down the Bleu Aardvark and JB196 (Looch) long term abuse pages that both were outing pages just like the JarlaxleArtemis because the people in question were less active on Wikipedia. I think JB196 quit and I don't know if Blue Aardvark has been active in Wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure that JarlaxleArtemis quit a year ago and I think JarlaxleArtemis has been less active than either Looch or Aardvark.

I find that Wikipedia keeps these attack pages on people not because they vandalize the most, as anonymous people do the most vandalism, but because these people gave out their real name and tried to help Wikipedia but things went wrong. So Wikipedia wants to make an example out of them.

The JarlaxleArtemis page shows an email between two high ranking admins and it finds that when they want to bust a vandal, they don't use the vandal's original username, but refer to the person privately by the person's own real life name. It was from Tim Starling to Linuxbeak. How Tim Starling magically finds a person's real name from their IP address, I don't know.

Looking through JarlaxleArtemis's sock pages, he never put his real name in any of his usernames whereas Blu Aardvark put his real name and phone in his usernames and yet JarlaxleArtemis gets whole full name with middle name put up on wikipedia for employers to google and not hire him. For romantic partners to google and reject him. For universities to google and reject him. It's really cruel -- they stalked Jar and then they did all that.

Yes it is time.

I don't think these long term abuse pages are of any help anyway. Perhaps in the beginning when WP was small, but now there are so many "banned" and long term abuse "vandals" that its really a joke to try to catalog all these socks and such.

Wikipedia wants to ban linking to pages that are attack pages that are also outing pages (e.g. antisocialmedia.net) and yet Wikipedia hosts its own pages that qualify as this. If Wikipedia was really serious about banning attack sites, it should ban all links to itself.

He disclosed his real name on his userpage, probably when he was more naive about the internet. He's been gone a long time, this should be deleted, I doubt it ever helped in the first place.

Oh yeah, he was a minor and maybe still is. Giving out all this personal information about minors really makes Wikipedia look bad. I wonder how Wikipedia doing this to a minor can be made more public?

If he is truly gone, then the page should be deleted, or at least the personal details should be removed. I don't really see why his name needed to be there in the first place, unless someone was thinking of contacting his ISP.

It has been deleted, I was about to redact the name when I found that Krimpet had gone one step further and just deleted the whole thing (was going to MfD it). Either this was a remarkable coincidence, or he reads this.

WR has a surprising degree of influence on what happens on Wikipedia, for a site that's supposedly so evil that nobody had better link to it.

WR does regularly bring up a lot of valid points and criticism. Unfortunately, with the many silly baseless smears and accusations also brought up here ("zomg slimvirgin is a spy!" "wtf, ryulong = danny!" "the WMF paid the author of wikiscanner!" etc.), and the lavish praise many users here heap on obsessive nuts like Brandt and Don Murphy, few on WP will ever take this site seriously, I'm afraid.

It has been deleted (perhaps because of this post): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...JarlaxleArtemis

As for his revealing his real name, that's all good and fine for him to do while he has an account. After he is banned, that's a different issue entirely.

Also they deleted this odd shortcut:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...age=WP:JARLAXLE

There is much truth in the comment that the wheat here is sometimes hidden in the chaff. Then again, sometimes if we throw enough nonsense around we do find some truth in it, so I'd never say we should ban all the nonsense!

I should just point out yet AGAIN that two people who both know what they are talking about and having nothing to do with Wikipedia Review have both said that Linda Mack was an agent of national intelligence agencies.

Good call, Krimpet.

WTG... one small good deed...vers all the evil and the devils punks that run wild on it... WTG..

But only after WR had to shove your nose in to the shit, like a dumb dog...

Again... WP is a Frankansitin and it need to have a silver stakes driven though its'
blade serves...

- as proven true



- still has suspicions



- was based on a reputable source, and made sense, but later proven to be false and retracted immediately.



While you continue to call critics nuts, sure.

Ryulong talks like a teenager of no manners (I am putting this is politely as possible)--such as he uses phrase like "get over it"--and it seems more likely he's a strong association with Danny in real life rather than being him. It is possible that they may live together and share accounts and that is how Ryulong seemed like he's been sysop before.

Now now Joseph, it would be quite hard for me to act on something I wasn't aware of now wouldn't it?

Ad Krimpet - sorry didn't realise you were a she.



Infinite monkey theorem?

Not quite; we're semi-intelligent. Some of us are, anyway.

Of course Reviewers vary from the articulate and insightful to the immature or obviously deranged, and everyone here has to share this cramped space no matter what. But then wikipedians come in all shapes and sizes as well -- not all are as confused as Ryulong or Jimbo Wales. Some of them are even on the road to enlightenment themselves.

Despite the stifling haze emanating from The Review's more bizarre tangents, the most preposterous posts on this forum invariably come from Wikipedians themselves. Attempts to justify the "seething idiocy" of Der Jimbo's grand folly usually read as though they should be accompanied by a laughter track.

Jarlaxle was the epitome of an abusive user, his name was probably placed there as some sort of payback by his enemies.

I looked a little more into this user, and I have even more qualms about his name being mentioned. I remember seeing him posting the name and email of a teacher on his user page with "[She] is a bitch!!!". For all we know, the name mentioned could be of an entirely different person, making it all the more inappropriate, and further undermining the logic of putting real names on these pages.

Trouble is, Wikipedians of that calibre often get disillusioned and leave, like Jmabel.


Some of the best contributors here are Wikipedia editors in good stead.

Three people, actually.

1. Pierre Salinger, as reported by John K. Cooley (middle of page)

2. Michael Morris (scroll to the bottom of the page)

3. David Ben-Aryeah, a Scottish journalist. He was an associate of Allan Francovich and worked with him on The Maltese Double Cross documentary about Lockerbie. Linda Mack started a petition against that film, and Ben-Aryeah had some interactions with her around that time, as she would call him and pump him for information. Ben-Aryeah was very suspicious of Mack and tried to investigate her. He said that information from acquaintances of his who are connected to MI5 confirmed Mack's association. I interviewd Ben-Aryeah by telephone on August 30, 2007, for over an hour. He has no doubt whatsoever, to this very day, that Mack was associated with MI5. But like everyone else connected with the Lockerbie investigation, he lost track of Mack after she dropped off the radar around 1995.

Intelligence agents practice "plausible deniability." If you ask MI5 for copies of Mack's paycheck stubs, you won't get any. You have to go with the weight of the evidence, and if you don't, then you are choosing to remain ignorant. Repeated demonstrations of stubborn ignorance should be regarded as further evidence that something is amiss at Wikipedia concerning this topic.

jwales on Slashdot, 2007-07-27:
Who the hell is jwales and who tells him what to say?

The thing about the Linda Mack stories that always strikes me is: if the stories weren't true, or at least weren't true in part, why would anyone feel victimised? If Jimbo was right and a private person had "absolutely no relation to the wild stories", then these "wild stories" wouldn't have much impact, and would merely be an amusing sideshow. But we at Wikipedia Review know very well that these stories have had a massive impact on SlimVirgin's behaviour, both on and off site. And are not an amusing sideshow. That alone, all this pushing of the phoney concepts of "stalking" and "harrassment", is simply more confirmation that the stories are in large part true.

Of course, there's a difference between "SlimVirgin is a women who became embroiled in the murky business surrounding the Lockerbie investigation" to "SlimVirgin is a spy". The first is almost certainly true, the second we'll likely never know. But either way, they point to a conflict of interest, and therefore a corruption at the heart of WP, that this is being ignored, ridiculed or rejected out of hand by everyone up to Jimbo Wales himself.

Whether SlimVirgin has a conflict of interest in Lockerbie-related topics is, in fact, a very valid concern. It seems fairly clear that she has a CoI -- and the tendentious edits, questionable deletions, and abuses of checkuser and oversight surrounding the case are shocking. A thorough, civil investigation into this would have been very useful and beneficial for the project, to ensure our articles stay neutral and our administrative and other powers are not being abused.

However, many of her critics have instead crossed the line into blatant harassment and intimidation. Personal information that she has every right to keep private, such as her picture and her hometown, has been tracked down and disseminated by her critics, and even spammed on-wiki by trolls. There is no reason to bring up this kind of information other than to intimidate and blackmail her -- this is completely unacceptable, unjustifiable behavior. And, of course, SlimVirgin isn't the only target of this kind of stalking -- Brandt's "hivemind" page needlessly outs dozens of admins, even completely innocent and agreeable ones, clearly for the purpose of intimidation. This kind of unscrupulous behavior has only served to paint any and all criticism of prominent WP editors, however merited and/or constructive, in a bad light.

Sadly, there has also been fair share of editors and admins on WP who have taken advantage of this to push away constructive criticism of their actions by by crying harassment or trying to somehow associate their critics with the real harassment I mentioned above. The notorious BADSITES, and its watered-down version in NPA, have been used as carte blanche to edit war, push POV, oppose RfAs, and even to make silly personal attacks, rather than simply protecting our users from actual harassment -- protection that's already fundamentally offered by NPA, the external links guidelines, and plain old common sense.

It saddens me that corruption, abuse of power, and POV-pushing is able to succeed in this manner, and I'd really like to see an end to it, for the good of the project. For one, I wish the community were more willing to hold these abusive editors and admins accountable for their actions, and reject the disastrous BADSITES quasi-policy that enables much of it. But on the other hand, I also wish more of WP's prominent critics would remain civil and actually stick to constructive criticism rather than constantly tossing around gossip and questionable smears and resorting to intimidation and harassment.

I have sympathy with this viewpoint. However, some of WP's prominent critics have been mistreated and attacked beyond endurance. We all know people on this site who have been framed and had their names falsely dragged through the mud.

I have no sympathy for that viewpoint. Everything Krimpet complained about is proper, lawful and relevant to determining SlimVirgin's COI. This site has made far better efforts at assuring IRL information is accurate and relevant than WP has ever made in it's many witch-hunts of critics. Complaining about this conduct only show an unrealistic sense of entitlement.

SlimVirgin said on 2005-01-04:

Two glaring conflict-of-interest strikes against SlimVirgin in one comment, in addition to the fact that both are lies and she knew it. Then SlimVirgin starts a biographical stub on me nine months later. Strike three. SlimVirgin started this, and it won't be finished until the fat lady sings.

My money's on Brandt. The Virgin lies.

Krimpet says on his user page that he is a second-year computer science student at the Rochester Institute of Technology. I think he should spend less time on Wikipedia, and more time studying the issue of CIA infiltration of RIT.

I was looking at Wikipedia's article on RIT, and searched for the word "intelligence" to see if the CIA connection is mentioned anywhere. Nope, no mention at all. The word "intelligence" is nowhere to be found on this puff piece of a Wikipedia article.

It's just a coincidence that my CIA-on-campus site, where this RIT history is available, was on the spam blacklist for six months, along with other sites of mine. That was because Raul654 wanted it that way, and Eric Moeller had to eventually overrule him.

Wikipedia is constantly a disaster anywhere you look, and ought to be dismantled.

This isn't a good call...



Vandals should be handled in private, because of how viglante justice often backfires.