Announcing SlimSearch. Search 59,000 of SlimVirgin's edit summaries. "As easy as finding a virgin in a haystack."

This was simple to set up because I merely had to modify the hostmask program slightly. If Slim starts up another sock on Wikipedia, I'll add a search of the 43 User_talk archived pages I have. That will require more effort, so I'm not doing that yet.

Very good. Notice slanders of Mr. Laird Wilcox were REDFLAGGED by myself with SV's response (2005-09-21 19:24 Talk:Chip Berlet (->Laird Wilcox)) poopooing it. Nothing was done. On October 30 2005 another critic of Mr. Berlet was slandered. Both these vicitims of a malicious defamatory smear camapign occured prior to WP:BLP, and WP:REDFLAG.

Nobs01 conducted a breaching experiment, or disruption to mark the point in time how WP was being used systematically to discredit Mr. Berlet's critics. That is the very first principal resolution in Nobs01 case. Nobs01 closing statement, reads "I'll take the bullit on this one. Evidently Wikipedia is better and more improved now (see WP:V#Dubious sources). " WP:BLP & the REDFLAG provision soon followed.

Ironic, however, that the primary author of BLP did nothing when I REDFLAGGED slanders of Wilcox, and proceeded to slander another critic of Mr. Berlet by creating the Danial Brandt page.

Can we compare it with User:Privatemusings ?

Errr... what is the point of this?

To find SlimVirgin's sockpuppets.

Why? If her accounts are abusive they will stand up as abusive by themselves. And there are a billion more abusive users abusing socks every day.

WR's stupid obsession with SV makes me sad.

WP's allowing SV to continue to participate in WP makes me sad. But that's just me I guess. I expect people to follow their own rules and not wield power hypocritically.

Adminship of wikipedia isn't power. How ironic that the people WR is trying to take power from are the people it is giving power to.

If you can ban people wily nilly on WP, you have power on WP. She does have that. She has tried to anonymously change and/or control articles about and directly affecting persons that she has personal grudges/etc with. Salinger and Byrne to start.

Do you want a more extensive list of how she has abused WP? Really? You actually need that at this point? Or do you just follow Jimmy Wales' Today's Version of Ethics That Apply Now?

I agree. I don't think any of us believe that she should be immune from criticism, but the response here has been disproportionate to anything she might have done.

She's still allowed to administer WP. That is disproproportionate to what she has done. Her bans of people for looking at her crisscross-eyed is disproportionate.

Her edits to Salinger alone without revealing that he fired her should have her banned from WP. Why do you think she had Jayjg erase them? Privacy? No. Those edits reveal nothing specific about who made them. Except that they came from someone with a bunny-boiling grudge.

Her double voting with a sock, ditto. 2 years ago, whatever. How many times has it happened since. She was not caught in the interim, so had no incentive to quit. If you think that Sweet Blue Water was her only double vote, and her only sock up until these things started getting exposed, you probably do not have the odds are your bets on that in your favour.

Everyone's sick of it, yes. That doesn't mean it should be allowed to continue.

There has not been a word uttered on WP about Jayjg lately. Funny, huh? Never happened, nothing to see here, move along. Wales' hypocrisy is a joke.

Yes I understand she is a terrible administrator and not good for Wikipedia or the world, but at the same time, I think custom-designing tools to track her and calling her a spy and keeping files on her dogs and probable locations, etc. is overkill for the problem. Really she is just one exceptionally bad cog in a machine that never worked right to begin with.

Well, maybe it does? New information is welcome, rehashing old information is really tiring and is why the idea was mooted to lock these SV threads when they start looking like overkill.

Reviewers, there's a swamp of corruption out there in WP World that needs our attention. SV is only one component. Don thine Deerstalkers and Magnifying glasses and report it where it can be found!

You know about the secret dog surveillance? Shhhhh...we are on the verge of turning that puppy.

Study this list. It's a redundancy-edited (not erased by Jayjg) composite of edits made by SV with "Sockpuppet" in it.

SV, the double-voting sockpuppeter, doesn't like others who sockpuppet. Or double vote. The current context of this in hilarious - enjoy:

2004-12-01 17:57 User talk:Weed Harper (->Sockpuppet?)
2004-12-31 22:42 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (->Sockpuppets of User:Alberuni)
2005-01-29 08:01 User:SlimVirgin/Sock (->Evidence of using sockpuppets)
2005-01-29 09:08 User:SlimVirgin/Sock (->Evidence of sockpuppetry)
2005-01-29 12:04 User:SlimVirgin/Sock (->Evidence of using sockpuppets to violate policies)
2005-01-30 04:27 m Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Evidence (->Using sockpuppets to giving the impression of broad support for a position)
2005-04-08 14:32 User talk:Sandleroneill (sockpuppetry: pointless waste of time)
2005-04-08 19:52 User talk:Mel Etitis (Oliver North sockpuppets)
2005-04-09 21:43 Talk:Oliver North (->Sockpuppet update)
2005-04-11 08:51 Talk:Oliver North (->Sockpuppet update)
2005-04-12 03:40 m Oliver North (removed mention of criminality to keep the sockpuppets happy)
2005-05-13 21:26 User talk:Gillian Tipson (sockpuppets)
2005-05-24 02:36 User:Fredwall (sockpuppet)
2005-05-26 00:03 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (->User:ElKabong - another sockpuppet)
2005-05-26 19:36 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (->User:KaintheScion, User:ElKabong, and all associated sockpuppets -added names to statements)
2005-06-07 03:10 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple Curve (->Triple Curve - sockpuppet)
2005-06-11 10:16 User talk:Eyeon (User:Eyeon seems determined to delete all mention of nonsense articles, sockpuppetry, and changing people's votes on VfD from this talk page)
2005-06-14 02:00 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (->Sockpuppet check)
2005-06-18 05:11 User talk:Poetatoe (->Vandalism report - blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Thodin) (top)
2005-06-21 19:13 User:KaintheScion (added sockpuppet notice and link to WP:AN)
2005-08-07 07:56 User talk:Golbez/Archive San (sockpuppetry)
2005-08-09 08:29 User talk:Saxifrage (sockpuppet)
2005-09-12 01:47 User talk:David Gerard (->Sockpuppet check request)
2005-09-18 01:16 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence (->Yuber's sockpuppets)
2005-09-20 07:19 User:Jayjg/Alberuni (->Editor attacking sockpuppet names - added one from May)
2005-10-27 16:47 Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor (->Sockpuppetry)
2005-12-01 04:06 User talk:Chaosfeary (->Sockpuppet allegations)
2005-12-21 23:37 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9 (->User:Dhimmi - admits he's a sockpuppet)
2005-12-26 10:13 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (->Rachel Brown sockpuppet army blocked)
2005-12-29 21:35 Osama bin Laden (rv sockpuppet account created to violate 3RR)
2005-12-29 21:44 User talk:Farhansher (Sockpuppet accounts)
2006-01-04 02:27 User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/Archive1 (->sockpuppet)
2006-03-02 08:00 User:A bird in the hand (sockpuppet notice)
2006-03-18 22:59 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (->Zephram Stark sockpuppet - very apt)
2006-03-31 07:42 m User:SlimVirgin/Sock (moved User:SlimVirgin/Sockpuppets to User:SlimVirgin/Sock) (top)
2006-04-24 02:41 Carol Kaye (rv sockpuppet sleeper account)
2006-04-26 08:06 m User talk:Mystork (Protected User talk:Mystork: blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet account [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (top)
2006-05-14 06:53 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Sockpuppet policy being rewritten by Zephram Stark)
2006-05-15 21:09 Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (->Tagging ''legitimate'' sockpuppet accounts - removed deleted userboxes per talk)
2006-07-06 05:31 George Washington (sprotecting against sockpuppets apparently editing as anon IPs)
2006-07-07 03:12 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation (->Involved parties - removing names added by single-issue account, including at least one sockpuppet, and I don't just mean El C)
2006-07-24 20:48 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (->User:Mantanmoreland using a sockpuppet and violating policies)
2006-07-25 03:10 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (->User:Mantanmoreland using a sockpuppet and violating policies - keeping related sections together)
2006-07-25 17:17 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (removed Shalom1980 edits as he's a sockpuppet of a banned user, and do you have a reference for over one million members/supporters?)
2006-07-25 18:16 m User talk:Anomicene (Protected User talk:Anomicene: sockpuppet of Gnetwerker, blocked indefinitely [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
2006-07-26 23:16 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (->User:Mantanmoreland using a sockpuppet and violating policies -130.15 range was Homeontherange, not WordBomb)
2006-07-29 23:42 m User talk:Bailan (Protected User talk:Bailan: sockpuppet of banned user [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (top)
2006-08-02 20:42 User talk:Theabsman (sockpuppets) (top)
2006-08-02 20:44 m User talk:Applesnsauce (Protected User talk:Applesnsauce: indefblocked sockpuppet [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (top)
2006-08-05 08:38 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (->Blocking User:Homeontherange sockpuppets)
2006-08-16 09:44 Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WordBomb (cat) (top)
2006-08-16 09:45 Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WordBomb (cat)
2006-08-17 07:03 m User talk:BlindVenetian (Protected User talk:BlindVenetian: This sockpuppet account is blocked indefinitely; any admin looking into it should e-mail me for further details [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (top)
2006-08-17 17:38 Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ptmccain (created page)
2006-08-17 17:39 m Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ptmccain
2006-09-04 14:50 m User talk:D Sanchez (Protected User talk:D Sanchez: abusive sockpuppet; blocked indefinitely [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (top)
2006-09-05 05:03 m User talk:Katie Jemson (Protected User talk:Katie Jemson: abusive sockpuppet with several accounts, blocked indefinitely [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
2006-09-18 15:43 Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey (see also)
2006-09-18 15:46 Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey (cat)
2006-09-18 22:23 Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JonGwynne (cat)
2006-09-27 17:16 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop (->Use of Sockpuppet accounts in Arbcom procedings is strongly discouraged)
2006-10-07 23:26 Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision (->Anyone else's sockpuppet)
2006-11-08 00:59 Wilhelm Reich (please read the sources, don't stalk me, and answer the question on your talk page regarding whose sockpuppet you are)
2006-11-10 22:13 Animal liberation movement (->Nature of the movement - removing Homey sockpuppet claims about Nazi animal protection legislation being anti-Semitic because that had nothing to do with AR then, or today)
2006-11-10 22:21 Animal liberation movement (->Campaigns against ritual slaughter - this has nothing to do with animal rights, but animal *welfare*, and the bans affect Jews and Muslims equally: this material was added by a Homey sockpuppet)
2007-01-22 21:07 Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ptmccain (some dynamic IPs)
2007-02-04 01:00 Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Marsden (created page)
2007-04-10 23:54 Template:Sockpuppet (or meatpuppet)
2007-04-10 23:56 Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Herschelkrustofsky (created page)
2007-04-12 06:59 Template:Sockpuppet (it's helpful to include it)
2007-04-18 21:35 Animal Liberation Front (SpinyNorman, you're banned; stop your sockpuppetry and edit warring)
2007-05-02 19:52 Factory farming (rv sockpuppet)
2007-06-02 20:56 Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes/Bureaucrat chat (->Sockpuppet votes)
2007-06-28 22:58 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (->False sockpuppet accusations)

That last one was where she accused me. And then deleted the proof that she accused me.

That depends... is there anything new to say? Why rehash the same stuff over and over without any purpose?

The same principle applies to SV, I believe. At a certain point, it just crosses the line into obsession, at which point any valid points are lost on anyone who happens to look into it, because it just looks crazy.

Count me among those who doesn't get all worked up over SlimVirgin and Jayjg.

However, you know how I feel about Jimmy Wales. And when he tells us something like this...



...I expect to hear something "clear and public and transparent" back from him within at least seven weeks. But, it's been over seven weeks, and all we hear are the crickets, chirping their tune of "Jimbo is a deflecting, spineless, lying, manipulator."

Greg

You didn't read what you just quoted. WP, not WR. Not a peep on WP about what Jayjg did. His account is still active. His checkuser/admin tools apear to still be on. No corrective action has been taken that is accountable to the "community".

Not only is that wikicrazy, it's a blatant kick in the nuts to the honest members of that community.

Same goes for Maj. Jay Burns's hotlips, SweetBlueVirginSplash. Colonel Jimbo Blake has been truly gone fishing ever since.



I can guess at his response, when cornered. He has no problem with that. Unless a publication that can give him bad publicity does.

You know, like Ms. Schiff and the New Yorker. Then the ethics change.

Interesting that you assume I misread. I did not.

O, I C, wikipedism is next to recentism …

Jonny

Well it's not really interesting that you and Jimmy Wales both think that what Jayjg (and SlimVirgin) have done nothing wrong. Yet they aren't editing anymore under those names. So what WP and Jimmy Wales thinks is that the best way to run his website is to allow his friends to betray his volunteers, and continue to administer/oversee WP with their names changed to protect the wikiguilty.

Fine example set there.

I'm sure the strawman response will be that they've been harrassed and are forced to edit (again) with sockpuppets. Crying harassment - the #1 Past-time of Wikipedia Abusers.

C'mon Piperdown, now that is a strawman response. No one is saying that Jayjg (and SlimVirgin) have done nothing wrong. People are expressing their view that these relentless posts regurgitating their crimes are getting hard on the old eyes. Especially when there is so much other crap coming from the increasingly entrenched Wikipedia posse now we can barely keep up.

Geez....the person I was replying to was making a point that, on Wikipedia (not Review), that is OK that no one has bothered to...ahem...follow up on the Jayjg/SV situation in any manner that is apparent to the "community"....I believe you have crossed up the conversation to think I am talking about WR. The newbie was clear his reply to me was re: WP, not WR, regarding the backroom-only reaction to this situation.

Interesting second set of assumptions about what I think... also false.

Digging up the same old dirt without any relevance to current issues isn't necessarily about follow-up; it's often about dragging around old offenses like a security blanket. Many people seem to consider a good portion of the old material history now, which means it's often somewhat interesting (and should be remembered), but bringing it up on a regular basis comes across as obsessive.


Not really. Recentism on WP is another issue entirely, IMO. It's one thing to keep track of history as it relates to the present, it's another thing to wallow in old issues as if people should be just as upset now as they were then.

This argument has become rather convoluted, but I do think that Piperdown has a point here. It's not a question of the personal obnoxiousness of SV or Jayjg. It's that there is genuine corruption in the Wikipedia establishment, and a double standard. Lord knows how many honest editors have been hounded off the project by hooting lynch mobs of admins, for having made some trivial error, or no error at all. Then on the other hand, you have two darlings of the cabal, who have committed world class WikiCrimes, and they are put into the witness protection program and allowed to edit under new identities (in the case of SV -- I don't know of any attempt by Jayjg to do this.) If WP took its own policies seriously, they would be banned. I think it is to the credit of the Review that SV's attempt to slink back into the project as Sunsplash seems to have been nipped in the bud.

You seem to be evading the point: SV and Jayjg are perennial WP villians who have caused much harm, both to "the project" and to many individuals, but neither one has been taken to task for their actions. They're not part of the dead past, they're here right now and not going away. One of them is still editing under yet another sock, and both have admin rights on some of their accounts.

All this goes to show that, once Jimbo's your uncle, you're safe forever. For some reason, that doesn't seem to bother you. Fortunately, some of us care about justice and don't give up so easily. If you're truly apathetic, I suggest you show it by walking away right now.

Al

SV was abusive and that never stopped her.





Administrators are able to control articles, ban people just to control articles or else bully, defame them and lock pages, lie and slander people, and about all administrators back each other up just because a person is an adminstrator.

Sorry. I meant real world power.

It depends on how much influence Wikipedia has in the real world.

The more time goes on, the more I realise how little influence it actually has. Sure, people look up stuff there, but I bet the vast majority of them don't even read the whole article; I think most people read critically enough that most innacuracies don't really matter. And who cares if someone thinks an electrion has a relative mass of 1⁄2000 of 1⁄1822.888? I'm beginning to see that WP's mediocrity is unimportant. If it wasn't there, people would still look stuff up on the internet and believe whatever they have read. The problem isn't with WP, it's with humans. We just suck.

And I've never actually seen evidence of SV's so-called 'pov pushing'.

I think WR spends so much time being immersed in WP's underbelly they can't see the wood for the trees.

Have you looked?

Kamryn,

If you have come to The Wikipedia Review to ventilate your opinions about the phylum or genre of media into which Wikipedia falls, and to do that solely on the basis of the information and knowledge that you currently have — that's okay, people do that. If nothing else, it's good intellectual exercise to articulate one's experiences and to argue on behalf of one's opinions.

But it might be worth your while to do something a bit more productive, namely, to listen to other people's articulations, information, knowledge, observations, and opinions, and to consider the possiblity that some of that manifold of expression may be based on real experiences with the subjects under discussion.

People have a diversity of experiences — experiences of different things altogether and always to a degree different experiences of the same things.

Experience is always an expensive thing to get. People share their experiences in order to save the expense of having to learn everything for themselves. That is one of the reasons why we have our media of communication.

Sometimes the manifold of diverse experience can be integrated, sometimes it cannot.

But it is usually worth a try.

Jon Awbrey

Now why would I give a damn about proving anything to you?

The obsession I see over SV reads more like a desire to punish than for justice.

"Now why would I give a damn about proving anything to you?" - code word for "I don't know what I'm talking about"

WP's form of justice is banning. I think that's what those who feel they were banned by SV for the same things (actually she's done much worse as she is able to do much worse with admin tools and Jajyg's wikiballs twisted in her hand) feel that a corrupt judge should be subject to his own brand of justice.

Ah, now I think you're getting to the heart of the matter. It's understandable that people who feel they've been mistreated would want some measure of vengeance. However, has it sometimes gone too far? I'm inclined to think so, and it seems there are others who have also come to a similar conclusion. I'm fully aware I could be wrong, as there's a lot of history involved, but it is worth considering.



It's not "code" for anything. It's a direct response to someone asking me to show my apathy "by walking away right now." I'm perfectly willing to enter into discussion, explaining my views and seeing what others have to say, but I'm not going to take a course of action solely to prove something to another person.

Sxeptomaniac,

Look, we get this all the time, so please excuse my impatience.

If you don't want to know what people are really saying, and you don't care to find out what they've been writing here for many moons now, and you don't have any new information or points of view to impart — and so far you have imparted neither — then please just walk away. Speaking just for myself, you are insulting my intelligence, you are insulting my motives — and not even doing that in an especially entertaining or novel way — and pretty soon now there will be nothing for it but to start insulting back.

I will of course try to do that in an entertaining or novel way, but I have no illusions about the limits of my creativity when it comes to that.

Jonny

It's not a question of vengeance. It's about the good of the project. Won't it be improved if the good, productive editors banned for fake reasons, solely because they've annoyed SlimVirgin, are unbanned?

Sadly, all too sadly, it's far too late for that.

Wikipedia has shown itself to be, in John Seigenthaler Sr's words, a "flawed and irresponsible research tool" — and that is putting it mildly. The good faith that Wikipedia has squandered can never be redeemed. The good will and good work that Wikipedia has wasted can never be repaid. Much of the content can be salvaged, but the Entire Empire of Managerial Structure has proven itself time and time again to be utterly beyond redemption. The only salvation that remains is to dismantle it permanently and scatter the ashes for the fertilizer they are.

Jonny

The aspects of WP that make inquiry and understanding of SlimVirgin important are non-obvious. I would encourage you to read as many threads pertaining to the social networking and POV pushing aspects of the project as you can comfortably get to. Post constructively as much as possible. By the time you accumulate a significant level of posts you will probably begin to understand why so much attention is focused on her. If not revisit your concern that WR obsesses with SlimVirgin at that time. This is not just a matter of sour grapes. SlimVirgin's systematic manipulation of the content of WP raises the issues of her motivation and affiliations to a level of social responsibility.

Jonny, you've had 3000+ posts to make your point already. What's the harm in listening to what Sxeptomaniac and Kamryn have to say? Maybe you'll learn something.

I read what people write.

It frequently happens that new arrivals on these shores write a lot of comments that have the following characteristics:

• Making statements about the Way Wikipedia is Sposed To Be — as if we didn't know that already — and making those statements as if they were fact, when many of us have tons and tonnes of experience with the fact that they are not.
• Making statements about our aims, attitudes, intentions, and motivations — as if we didn't know those already — and making those statements based on what others have said about us, with no real acquaintance with what we ourselves have said about the matter.

I tend to lose patience with that kind of uninformed commentary.

Jonny

Good point. I don't intend to describe everyone who has a problem with SlimVirgin, nor make a judgment at this time whether or not various grievances are valid. I just question whether some of the things I've seen regarding her really contribute towards a tangible goal. For example, is it really necessary to try and find out her complete biography, as I see several have done? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to focus solely on significant events involving WP? WikiTruth did a lot better on this point, but, even so, I haven't seen a lot that explains what's going on very effectively.



Insults have not been my intent. Some of the things I'm reading just don't quite fit from my perspective. I really wasn't intending to make value judgments at this point, only describe what I perceive. I came here and posted specifically because I'm interested in what people are saying. However, that doesn't mean I'm not going challenge viewpoints from time to time (I actually tend to post more often on points of disagreement, as I'm disinclined to make "me too" posts).

I would prefer to avoid animosity, but be aware that attempting to drive me off with insults may not produce the desired results. If you want to give me reasons why you think I'm wrong on a point, that's always fine.

The form of words "X insults Y's intelligence" typically describes a situation where a semiotic agent X addresses a message M to an interpreter Y, and does so under the Unmarked Mode Of Discursive Implicature (UMODI) that presupposes an intention on the part of X to have M be accepted as a true statement by Y, with the additional complication of being in a situation where it is tantamount to ludicrous for any informed observer Ω to believe that Y would ever believe M.

Now, I fully realize that not every X who finds Xself in such a complex situation really realizes the fact of it, but that is just how the phrase is used.

One way to lessen the probability of finding oneself in such a situation is to acquaint oneself with some approximation to the facts that our informed observer Ω might reasonably be expected to know about the universe of discourse in question.

If you wish to challenge viewpoints, this happens to be a very good place to do that. But the successful candidate, challenge-wise, will be one who enters these lists armed with facts and rides a steady steed of rational argument, not one who flaps the fleeing banners of dogma and dreams in the passing breeze.

Jonny

"Banners of dogma and dreams"? Are we reading the same thread?

Since you have repeatedly accused me of ignorance, without explaining what it might be that I'm ignorant of, I believe we are at cross purposes here. You don't seem terribly interested in what I've posted, and I have found a few of the other replies to my comments far more thought-provoking than yours have been. It seems we might be better off doing our best to ignore each other for now. It probably won't be too difficult on your part, as I tend to lurk most of the time.

Let's see if we can understand the general point that KM is trying to make here.

Abstracting the form of her above statement:


That is, of course, a variant way of stating one of the fundamental doctrines of the Wikiputian Old Testament (WP:OT).

From that hallooed, er, hallowed doctrine KM apparently derives the conclusion that it is pointless to prosecute a Drag.Net, a Φishing Xpedition, a Wiki-Witch-Hunt for the alternate accounts operated by X, since the individual edits accountable to all of those accounts should all be judged on their own individual merits.

Okay, I can already hear that hysterical laughter again, so I'll let it go at that.

Jonny

I think that we should perhaps have a thread for newbies to explain why we care about SlimVirgin. I'll give you a bit of a rundown.

First of all, a number of the early posters had involvements with a number of different administrators, and it was determined that in general some of the most abusive administrators included Jayjg, SlimVirgin, Snowspinner and Raul654. As a general point of view from people who had interacted with them, these were 4 of the top ones. Raul654 was seen by many as the most abusive, followed by Snowspinner then SlimVirgin.

As we continued to investigate, we kept coming up with examples that linked to SlimVirgin. And people who, as at when they first posted here, liked and supported SlimVirgin, such as myself and Daniel Brandt, discovered that she was far from what she made out to be. Thus over time SlimVirgin became used as an example more and more frequently. She is central to so many different issues. To many others she is simply involved in what is going on. You might say in business circles that she "has her finger in many pies".

The single biggest example of "POV pushing" by SlimVirgin is Lockerbie bombing, which has been discussed at length, and is central to the reason why SlimVirgin came to Wikipedia. Secondarily, almost everything that SlimVirgin has ever done has involved extreme POV pushing, and she edits nothing but highly controversial topics - terrorism, arabs, jews, animal rights and conspiracy theories is pretty much all that she does. It could perhaps be argued that anyone who edits any of those articles, because of the nature of the topics, has a major POV to push, but with her it is somewhat more extreme. But where SlimVirgin is at her worst is with her manipulation. If all that she ever did was to edit articles, then there would be far less of an issue, but she goes out of her way to manipulate others. She lies to people. She lies about people. She gets other people to do things for her. She pretends that she is pure and innocent and then paints a lie that she is being harassed so that someone who she doesn't like gets abused. And SlimVirgin then changes the rules to suit herself. SlimVirgin spends as much as 1/3 of her time on Wikipedia involved in changing the rules to suit herself. She is more heavily involved in rules changing than probably anyone else on Wikipedia. And whilst other abusive administrators ban more people unfairly, SlimVirgin gets others to do her dirty work for her. She uses the stereotypical "damsel in distress" ruse to get others to act as "knights in shining armour". Predominantly those who help her out are male, and SlimVirgin of course is female.

That's why we care about SlimVirgin. Because really she should come with a warning label.

WARNING: Objects may not be quite as innocent as they first appear. This is not a damsel in distress, but a powerful member of Wikipedia, who is used to manipulating others. Be careful lest you too get manipulated.

That's why we care about SlimVirgin.

I need to correct the record here. SlimVirgin started the stub on me on 2005-09-28. I wasn't even interested in Wikipedia then, and had barely heard about it. I discovered the stub on a search engine. It surprised me that I had no say in the matter. I tried to negotiate with her, and even appealed to Jimbo within weeks of that stub getting started. She apparently took my objections seriously, but I soon discovered that months earlier she had been dissing me on talk pages dealing with Berlet and LaRouche. Also, I detected a spook vibe from her from the very beginning. In late October 2005 she lied when I asked her through my own pseudonym if she'd be interested in selling the slimvirgin.com domain. She cooly claimed twice to my Gmail pseudonym that she wasn't the owner of that domain.

Things got worse as I tried to voice my objections over the bio. SlimVirgin withdrew from the fight and let her cronies work me over. Then the teenagers got involved and it turned into a gang rape of me through editing my bio. Twenty months later I got the bio redirected, and it wasn't because they were trying to be nice to me.

Slim would do well to stay away from me in the future. She can appear polite and professional when it serves her immediate interests, but in the long term you'll end up with a slit throat, and she'll have an airtight alibi. She's many times trickier than 95 percent of the other administrators on Wikipedia.

It is true that blissyu2 went through a brief infatuation with Slim, but he's confusing the issue when he says both of us liked her. As I recall, blissyu2 was very enthusiastic about supporting me for a brief period in late 2005 or early 2006, and someone asked me about whether he spoke for me. At that time I felt his enthusiasm was excessive and not particularly helpful, and I wrote something in reply that had the words "premature ejaculation" in them. He got mad and switched sides, and started denouncing me. Later he half-apologized, and said that he did this as a short-term trick to gain favor with the powers that be on Wikipedia.

That's my side of the story, for what it's worth. All of the above happened about six months before anyone connected Slim with the name Linda Mack. It got even more interesting after that happened, because Slim was starting to feel some pressure at that point.

No, vengence would be about retaliation for how I was mistreated. Justice is the recognition that nobody deserves to be.



Blah, blah, blah. I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is, and all you've done is put your foot in your mouth.

Al

This post has pretty much clinched it for me. She's not a spy. I think that the only reason you want her to be a spy is to assign some real importance to the retarded Wikipedia drama you went through over two years ago. Otherwise you'd have to realize that worrying about being gang raped through teenagers editing of your bio is a pretty pathetic place for a grown-up to be so long after you basically won.