http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI...ng_on_WP:LAYOUT

Translation: if SV and Crum help each other, it's OK. If normal people do it, they're sockpuppets or at least effectively so hence need to be blocked.

SandyGeorgia goes for SV again

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=192089008



SV has tried to discredit Sandy a few times before, to wrestle Sandy off the Featured Article process, one of the few arenas where SV has no control. I hope Sandy keeps this kind of thing up. Because SV has no answer to Sandy.

Slim threatens Sandy on Sandy's talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=192132240

I hope Slim does "take this further". Because Slim will lose. Badly.

Amusing response: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=192236142

Reading that section, I decided that if a "Counter-Cabal" is formed here through Wikipedia Review, probably the most entertaining thing to do with it would be to form revert war daisy-chains against the silliest stuff the Slimmy, Jayjg, and Crum decide is important. You may only need 4 or 5 people operating two distinct accounts each (one from work, one from home -- never cross-pollinating the two).

So, you'd essentially have an army of 8 or 10 accounts who could just endlessly suppress any effort of Slimumverate to revert their way to "victory". It would be really interesting to see the amount of time they might spend trying to find out "who is behind this odious team".

Another beautiful thing would be that the Counter-Cabal wouldn't even have to "meet up" to discuss what their next project would be. Just stalk the SlumJay edits, and when one looks juicy enough to revert, the rest of the team would see the warning shots, then move in for the kill.

I don't have the time for it, but it could be fun for others.

Greg

They wouldn't particularly worry about who's behind it, they simply vil be blocked. Or if the rest of the cabal are like Durova, they'll probably assume it's us lot behind it- either that, or they seem to blame 4chan for a lot at the moment, though 4chan's attacks would probably be less sophisticated than ours, bless 'em

The flaw is that to oppose Slum you need to justify your edits, Slum needs no justification for hes. Random reverting without justification would be "vandalism". Go from one article to another, you would be stalking. S/h has the complete set of moves to resist this. If there was an edit war, Slum's version magically becomes the protected version. You can point to numerous articles where Slum has generated a de-facto anti-CABAL, where a significant group of people develop a common purpose to oppose Slum, not arbitrarily but because s-he is wrong, or cannot justify hes position. So if you cannot do it with genuinely unrelated people, I don't see how a fabrication of an anti-CABAL would work seeing as the real thing does not.

That's what a lot of wikipedians to do each other.

That's the analog of border skirmish battles in combat games. It's just staking out territory for no better reason than it's a mindless objective of the game, when nothing of substance is really at stake.

There is a splendid battle between Virginia Slim and SandyGeorgia at the end of the ANI thread, and has been predicted on this board, SandyGeorgia is a capable fighter.

And in other news, this post by a Badsites prankster lasted all of six minutes.

The one-sided AGF of Slum gets rather old. Share similar interests? I don't think so. they plough quite different furrows until the alarm sounds. After the incident, their ways part again. I think what is interesting is that there are people making pointed criticisms of Slum in public and they are getting away with it rather than being banned. Be interesting to see how Slum deals with her opponents, no doubt with the same wiki-stalking that she derides in others.

Yet again, I am sure WR highlighting patterns of behaviour has had an influence. This is not about "Linda" this is about abusive behaviour on WP. When I called Slum on the tag team reverts and warned that they were approaching (not exceeding) 3RR, s/he had the audacity to say that tag team warring was perfectly acceptable within 3RR and my warning on 2 reverts to not make a third was a personal attack.

Would this be a bad time to point out that in the underlying dispute, Slim-ula-Crum actually has the right idea here in arguing that "See Also" sections really should be highly expansive, containing more external links rather than fewer? And that external links are, in fact, the best feature of Wikipedia in general?

I mean, sure, I suppose it would be better for them if some of the external links pointed here to WR, but that's a whole 'nuther issue.

I don't know how to ask for this on Wikipedia; I think a SirFozzie/Cool Hand Luke-style analysis of Slim-Crum would be very useful; not of overlapping edits in general, for we know they exist, but of how many times Crum has leaped to Slim's defense (by reverting, protecting, or blocking) on a page he previously had no involvement in.

Could this be Cla68's next target on his mission to clean up the dark alleys of WP, after dealing with the JzG "problem"?

Its been mentioned already as a possibility somewhere on that thread.

The thing is that the article already has a huge navbox at the bottom which repeats nearly every link in the "see also" section. I'm not sure what is going on here, because unless there's an exterior motive in dragging the detractors into a dispute, it's just SV and Crum being hard-headed for the sake of being hard-headed.