Addendum: Partially done, with thanks to another editor.
Addendum2: Split into two parts (and removed some intervening posts -- sorry) to get around bug in software here. Cla has now updated it, but I don't have an automated way of converting, so I'll give it some time before updating -- gomi
The original (and current state) on Wikipedia: User:Cla68/Sandbox/RfC_draft
Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
SlimVirgin is a dedicated administrator and editor who often does some very good work in helping to improve and administer Wikipedia. Unfortunately, however, she also consistently behaves in a manner — both as an editor and as an admin — which clearly and repeatedly violates several policies and guidelines and are inappropriate and counterproductive for constructing an open content encyclopedia. Below are some examples of SlimVirgin's problematic behavior.
Evidence of disputed behavior
Abuse of administrator privileges
- Protects the talk page of Carl Hewitt (*), with the claim that "As the article is currently protected from editing, there's no need for this to be open at the moment anyway" (*).
- Admin deletes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Hewitt for "BLP concerns" (*) (*). When asked to provide evidence of BLP concerns, does not respond (*) (*) (*) and page is restored (*) (*)
- Using admin tools to win a dispute over where to have a discussion: Moves editing content and history related to dispute she was involved in (*) to the animal rights project forum of which she is the founder (*) (*), edit wars over location of discussion, then admin deletes original discussion (*) (visible to admins)
- Protects WP:V policy page during dispute in which she is involved (*) then edits the protected page (*). Reported to ANI (*)
- After an editor questions a block issued by Jayjg, SlimVirgin accuses the editor of "stalking" her and Jayjg on the talk page of an article and the editor's userpage and then threatens the editor with dispute resolution and a ban (*) (*) (*). Criticism of her comments by other editors are deleted by Crum375 (*).
- To editor in which she is involved in a policy content dispute, "I feel almost as though I'm being wikistalked" (*) (*) and accuses same editor of supporting "wikistalking and trolling" (*) (*) and WP:POINT and "childish behavior" (*) (*)
- Personal attack on editor with which she is involved in a content dispute, "I think you're into disruption rather than editing." (*) (Crum375 then soon after archives the entire talk page (*))
- During a content dispute: "It's rather unfortunate to see SandyGeorgia, TimVickers, and Marskell join forces yet again for another attack" and "just because you didn't get your own way doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to deprive you of it" (*)
- During same content dispute: "But will that apply to you too, Sandy, when you ask your friends to turn up to revert and argument and insult other people on your behalf? Or should it apply only to people who get in the way of what you want?" (*) and "Don't start up here, Sandy. This is not a medical article. This is about animal research, and requires very specific knowledge. It certainly isn't helped by enemies arriving with insults about conspiracy theories." (*)
- During same content dispute: "two people who oppose me over other issues have turned up, one of whom regularly wikistalks me", "neither of whom has any specialist knowledge", and "Tim. In fact, it looks like an attempt simply to get some numbers on your side" (*)
- Accuses editor of personal attacks, without providing evidence, saying "It has been going on, on and off, for well over a year" and "be aware that I will take this further" (*), "you and I are going to end up at the ArbCom over this", "stop making personal comments about me, and stop looking for excuses to get another dig in" (*)
- To an editor in which she is involved in a content dispute: "You're just looking for an excuse to remove links to a source you don't like, Tim, and that's a misuse of this board" (*), "Because I fought him on that, Tim became very annoyed with me, and I think resentful, and posted a large number of complaints about me in various places, accusing me of WP:OWN, and encouraging other people to oppose me" and "Tim subsequently wikistalked me to a few articles" (*), "Except that he's been told many times that it's inappropriate, and yet he continues. AGF doesn't involve being deaf, dumb, and blind. Either he knows what he's doing and is deliberately out to cause a problem; or he has so little idea about policy creation and maintenance that he really believes we can (and should) fundamentally undermine NPOV" (*), "as usual I was too busy arguing petty non-issues with you. I don't know where you find the time or energy to engage like this, Tim, I really don't. We are supposed to be writing articles" (*), "All that's happening at the moment is that, because I know sources are not being represented well, I don't trust your edits, so I feel I have to check everything. This leads to endless back and forth between us, poisons this page, and makes us distrust each other. It would be great if I could know I didn't have to check your edits when I see your name crop up" (*), and "Tim is giving us...That's OR, uninformative, and not what's wanted" (*)
- During same content dispute gives false warning of 3RR violation on editor's talk page "If you add that again, you may be reported for 3RR. Please read the policy carefully, as you've almost certainly violated it already" (*) (reported to WP:ANI here (*))
- To editor in which she was involved in a content dispute, "Marskell, you need to stop the poison. This is one of several poisonous threads you've either started about me or gleefully joined in" and "I've had nothing but the drip, drip, drip of toxicity from you" (*) and, "Given your own tendency to follow SandyGeorgia around backing her up in disputes, including disputes of her own making, and attacking people she wants you to attack", "It sometimes feels as though you'd be happy to see certain people driven off the website" and "You are allowed to post insults about me and my friends, but I am not meant to respond, unless I want to risk even more attacks" (*) and, "You follow her around acting as an attack dog" (*)
- To editor in which she was involved in a dispute over a FAR "Sandy, please quit trying to make trouble. You turned up at an FAR insulting the editors who had written it. My suggestion is that you apologize first to FM and the other editors of that article, and that you start writing some FAs yourself instead of only reviewing other people's, because that would give you some much-needed insight into how much work is involved, and how dispiriting it is when that work is aggressively attacked" (*) (Note: SlimVirgin also appears to be supporting an attack by FeloniousMonk on SandyGeorgia (*))
- Removes comment from established editor on her userpage as "removed trolling" (*) Has previously told at least one other editor that "It's a violation of NPA to call someone a troll" (*).
- To editor in which she was involved in a content dispute, "If you want to drive me away from Wikipedia, you, Tim, Sandy, and your little circle of insulting friends are going the right way about it" (*)
- During discussion over creation of :Category:Animal rights activists, comments to other involved editors who have a different opinion: "The two users who want to split the category into activists v. everyone else, Viriditas and Lquilter, are not familiar with the animal rights literature" (*), "you make personal attacks, sarcastic comments, and keep repeating the same old claims (claims, not arguments). For once, provide some scholarly sources to back up what you say" and "you must provide a scholarly source that says something different about those terms, or else don't mention it again, please" (*), "You're making a huge supposition there, Safemariner (and so far as I know, false for the most part), and in any event, it's the people editing those pages who understand the issues" (*), "it looks as though you're happy to create a mess and leave it for others to tidy up" (*), "Your posts are so unpleasant that I'm not going to answer any more, and your spamming for support isn't helpful." (*), "I think you ought to try, because it would help you to see the wrongheadedness of the categories you were suggesting" (*)
- During discussion of Animal rights subcats, comments to other involved editors who have a different opinion: "it needs to be done by people who know something about the movement, otherwise we'll have chaos" (diff missing), "It was undone because you made a mess of it" (*), "Please learn something about the movement before trying to involve yourself" (*), "You know nothing about AR" (*), "You're the one who tried to ignore all the regular editors of the pages and leap in regardless" (*), "Please stop the implied threats and the hostility" (*)
- To editor in which she is involved in a topic dispute: "V, you wikistalked me here" (*), "I have the diffs. You've stalked me to animal rights pages" (*), "You seem to think you can act provocatively and it somehow doesn't count (it's just "improving the encyclopedia"), but when anyone else does it, they're in the wrong. That's not how the world works" (*), "Please keep your opinion of him to yourself from now on" (*), "stop attacking people, please, or I will request admin intervention" (*), "whenever you get involved in a disagreement, the talk page turns toxic" (*), "We need some sources for this one because Viriditas has been making them up" (*), "I just wanted to see that we were only adding real acronyms, and that we didn't include the ones you earlier made up" (*), "you point to a previous non-answer in another section, in order to confuse people. I've watched you do this before. All it achieves is that people get annoyed with you" (*), "You're deliberately creating confusion, and have been doing it for days. There's no point, because no one understands what you're saying" (*), "I don't think I've ever been involved in a discussion on Wikipedia with someone who has posted so much and has been so unhelpful" (*), "It's like watching someone commit wikisuicide, to be frank" (*)
- To editor in which she is involved in a content dispute, "You are fanatically anti-PETA, and have been at this for around two years. Please give it a rest" (*)
- In edit summary to editor in which she is involved in a content dispute, "quit stalking me" (*)
- To opposing editors during a content dispute in which she is involved at Factory farming, "the arguments of the last few days have been very damaging, very toxic" (*), "Nathan, the long and frequent posts from you are starting up again. They aren't helping" (*), "Life's too short for silliness and wikilawyering, and you can't take this talk page hostage again" (*)
- Tells editor, "Do not place templates on my talk page" and to talk about the article only on the article talk page, not on her talk page (*)
- States that editor "wikistalked" her without providing evidence (*)
- Tells editor with which she is in a dispute over an image license, "You are being disruptive. Do not edit my user page again." (*) (*)
- Reverts a userbox back to a version containing a personal attack on a living person.(*).
- Asks RfA candidate that she opposes because of his opposition to the rejected BADSITES policy, "I seem to recall your posting something that implied you felt it was okay to link to attack sites" (*), then opposes after he answers stating his opposition to the BADSITES policy (*). Then states that her opposition is based on his posting to Wikipedia Review, saying, "I fear there's a lack of imagination and empathy in your approach" (*) and says, "People can be poor admins without actually abusing the tools" (*) and to the candidate directly "How utterly bizarre that you'd repeat the opinion of an anon IP and an attack site" (*) and "every reply, every evasion, has deepened my concerns. The last thing we need is another admin who jumps in head first to defend troublemakers without knowing the background" (*) and "During this RfA, you have exhibited exactly the qualities of the part-time, doesn't-inform-himself-before-posting admin" (*). Then moves responses to oppose votes, even though usually allowed, to the talk page (*) (*) (*). Later says of candidate, "I fear Gracenotes will be an admin who gives every troll and troublemaker the benefit of the doubt because he's unwilling to inform himself before speaking" (*)
- Attacks an administrator during a image license/deletion debate. First, tries to tell administrator to leave the discussion (*), then accuses him of making an attack (*), then implies that he isn't acting in good faith (*), then attacks him as a "Wikipedia Review contributor and supporter and the very worst of both worlds" (*), and claims that the editor "has a grudge" against her and is conducting a personal attack and trolling (*), repeats that the administrator is "trolling" and adds that he is "out to cause trouble" (*), then asks of the administrator, "is there any need for you to continue to post here?" (*), and then adds, "No, you don't have to post here. Doing so simply deepens the impression that you are, indeed, trying to cause trouble." (*), then refers to the administrator as one of a group of "lunatics and trolls" (*) (Note: Jayjg and FeloniousMonk joined SlimVirgin in making personal attacks during the discussion. Jayjg: (*) (*) (*) (*). FeloniousMonk: (*) and (*).)
- Without presenting evidence, states in an RfA that the RfA candidate "appears to live in the same state" as a banned editor (*).
Owning of policy or article pages
- Attacks editor who made changes to a policy, saying that the editor's edits "have clearly caused the writing to deteriorate" and that the editor "doesn't have the experience to be going around changing guidelines or policies" and concludes with "It is starting to feel as though I'm being trolled" (*)
- Reverts edit on New antisemitism article even though change had been agreed to in talk page discussion in which she had not participated (*) (*), then, on the talk page, tells one of the actively involved editors, "Just because people don't keep on responding to your many, many posts doesn't mean they agree. Your changes don't improve anything." (*)
- Revert wars at WP:NOR (*) (*) (*)
- Makes significant change to WP:NOR, including removal of entire paragraph, with misleading edit summary (*), discussed here (*) and then reverts other editors' changes, stating that they must have "consensus" first before making the changes (*) (*) discussed here (*) and then reverts changes made from a talk page discussion that she did not participate in (*)
- Makes significant change to WP:POLICY with edit summary of "tweaked writing" (*).
- Reverts edit (*) at WP:BLP, saying "silence doesn't mean assent." Editor had posted proposed wording change the day before on talk page and had been extensively discussed and accepted by other editors except for SlimVirgin (*)
- Reverts a significant amount of material to WP:A and labels edit as "minor" (*)
- Uses strawmen argument at WP:BLP with editors she doesn't agree with "we may as well skip that step altogether, and just allow editors to add their personal opinions about other people to articles directly" (*) (*) (*)
- Edit wars at WP:V against a consensus other editors have formed on the talk page without participating in the talk page discussion (*) (*) (*) reverts editor who made a blank edit- (*)
- Makes significant changes to WP:V with edit summary of "tightened" (*)
- Deletes :Category:Animal rights activists without discussion (*), then reverts editor who restores it (*), then redirects it to :Category:Animal rights movement (*), then redirects again saying, falsely "as agreed" (*), and redirects again (*)
- Move redirects new article List of animal rights activists to Animal rights movement (list) (*)((*) 03:31, 24 December 2006) then redirects to Animal liberation movement without copying over any of the material (*) from the original article (*), effectively making it disappear
- Redirects "ALF" to Animal Liberation Front (*) in spite of evidence that this is incorrect and against policy (WP:DAB) (*) (*). Community involvement required to correct the redirect (*). Then, continues to try to fight community consensus by again redirecting (*) (*) and resurrecting the discussion (*) (almost this entire page is her and Crum375 unsuccessfully trying to argue that their redirect opinion on "ALF" is the correct one). During this time, does nine move-over redirects of page (*). She still didn't give up, requiring intervention by additional editors (*) (*) (*).
- Redirects Intensive farming to Factory farming and labels it as minor edit (*) then, after being reverted (*) redirects again, stating that "no, these terms are used interchangeably; see factory farming talk page; it is absurd to have three articles on the same topic" (*) although there is clearly no agreement on the talk page for this redirect (*) (almost this entire archived page is debate over having Factory farming and Intensive farming as two separate articles)
- 3RR's cited material from Animal Rights (*) (*) (*), then, after the cited material is readded, Jayjg protects the page (*), then reverts it to SlimVirgin's version (*)
- Removes cited material during content dispute at Animal testing, saying, "either find more sources that say that (preferably specialist sources) or leave it out" (*). After second and third confirmatory sources are added, Crum375 tries to POV massage the material (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) including another revert (*) and SlimVirgin helps with more POV edits (*) (*)
- Rejects cited material in a content dispute she is involved in at Animal testing, stating that the "authors have almost certainly just made a mistake" (*) (full discussion (*))
- Removes cited content from an article during a content dispute with an edit summary of "some tidying" (*)
- Removes part of a cited statement by an expert source from article (*)
- Changes section heading of WP:ANI thread to remove Crum375's name (*)
- Deletes editor's comment from someone else's user talk page (*)
- Deletes another editor's comment during an RfA that she opposes (*)
- Deletes a post from WP:AN announcing the opening of an RfC in which past actions that she was involved in are discussed (*). When the editor asks her on her user talk page why she deleted the post, she immediately deletes the question without responding, then quickly archives her talk page (these diffs were subsequently admin deleted by Crum375 but the times and text are here)
- Edits the blocking policy to provide support for the block threat (*) made by Crum375 around the same time over the posting of the name of an off-wiki website at the center of a debate in which SlimVirgin is involved.
- After a lengthy tag team revert war on the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals page (involving Crum375), a request for sock puppet investigation of SlimVirgin/Crum375 was deleted by SlimVirgin citing "quit it" (*)
- Requests mediation during a content dispute and states, falsely, that "several article RfCs" had occurred previously (*)
- Requested that an RfA nomination that was within three hours of successfully closing be extended by using guilt by association without evidence (*). After the RfA is extended, she then votes to oppose the RfA, stating, again without evidence, that the RfA candidate had posted on Wikipedia Review (*).
- Redirects :Category:Animal rights activists with edit summary "as agreed" (*). There was no discussion on the category's talk page related to redirecting the category (*) and discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion two months prior was "no consensus" (*)
- Ownership (via reverting, tag team reverting with Crum375, forcing page protect)(*)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Factory_farming/ Archive_4#Protected_exactly_three_minutes_after_Crum_again_reverted_to_an_unexpl
ained_version.3F] of various animal related pages including People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Zoo, Factory farming. Revert is used often in place of participation in discussion despite many requests to engage in discussion.(*), (references to user's talk page have been deleted)
- Attempt to redefine terms in face of numerous editors, dictionary and encyclopaedic evidence.(*)(*)
- Although having edited pages to do with animal welfare and animal liberation: misrepresented the two in order to excuse editing without further discussion.(*)
- During dispute at WP:V claims that opposing editors are "engaged in all kinds of unpleasant tactics, including personal attacks and starting forest fires in an effort to wear people down" without providing evidence, because there isn't any (*)
- Votes twice in an FAC nomination using a sockpuppet (*) and keeps it a secret during subsequent RfA (*)
- Unblock of Zareaph (*) AN discussion (*) ArbCom opinion: (*) other: (*) (*) (*)
- Possible false accusation of violation of 3RR (*).
- Request for mediation (*)
- (*) (*) (*) (*)
- (*) question about Crum375's admin deletion of most of SlimVirgin's talk page history
- Diffs related to use of abusive sockpuppet in FAC nomination (*) (*) (*) (*)
- Abusive editing of guideline page with Crum375 (*)
- Ownership of policy pages: Harrassment- (*) (*); Private correspondence- (*)
- Use of CyberStalking mailing list to canvass support for or against issues/editors (*) (*) (*) (*)