SV appears to be trying to head-off Poetlister's return to en.Wikipedia by complaining to the Foundation:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...une/043805.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...une/043834.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...une/043807.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...une/043831.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...une/043841.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...une/043847.html

She also takes the opportunity to complain about editors in Wikipedia who use the dispute resolution process with her or, of course, use this forum to discuss issues that she's involved in. She of course, labels them all as "stalkers."

Add it to the RfArb evidence.

If you read through the thread, which is currently ongoing, SlimVirgin (and Durova) keep making allusions to WR users who have gotten promoted to admin on en.Wikipedia and now use their power to harrass innocent users.

I can only assume she means admins who have WR accounts. Now, I am pretty sure all the admins I know have an account on WR were admins long before they created their WR accounts.

So who does SV mean? Let's have a rollcall of Wikipedia admins who contribute here:

Viridae, Alison, Lar, myself, SirFozzie, Majorly, the undertow (former), LaraLove, Ryan Postlethwaite, UninvitedCompany, Sarcasticidealist ... are there any others?

JzG has a WR account but has never used it.

It appears that SV and FloNight are now at odds over someone's election. (No idea whose, but its relevant for the current Arb case).

Durova doesnt have the general WR animosity that grips SV - she is pretty reasonable (and I know i will probobly get shouted down for that one - not bothering to reply so just post it straight to the tar pit) - I have discussed things at length with her in relation to the MM stuff and while we dont always agree (who does) she was pretty reasonable - doesnt seem to bother her that I and others are here - though given her treatment here it doesn surprise me that she doesnt want to be here herself.

There are quite a few others. Though "contribute" may not be the best term...

msharma - SV is alluding to the election of Poetlister as a bureaucrat on Wikiquote

She's talking about Poetlister (who, remember, is still "officially" considered to have dozens of sockpuppets including whoever passed Daniel Brandt a key piece of information) becoming a bureaucrat on Wikiquote.

It is one massive strawman argument.

1. Equating legitimate criticism of behaviour with harassment. This, of course, is the primary defence of the ID cabal, Guy and indeed Sarah herself, who merrily harasses users as she edits in concert with Crum.

2. gwh returns, with some obscure link to an " a largely Wikipedia-unrelated stalking going on in my real life right now" yet somehow this turns into another strawman to demonstrate the need to ban stalkers.

3. It is fascinating that, Poetlister, who has barely posted here since her return aside from harassing Greg (BADSITER extraordinaire!) and kept her head well down on Wiki is being harassed by SlimVirgin for having the temerity to return to en.WP. The mere editing of the same database of 2,000,000 articles clearly creates a chilling atmosphere for Slim. Bananas!

SlimVirgin sees the whole dispute resolution system as a mechanism to harass her and other fine Wikipedians of good standing. Clearly Poetlister is the mastermind, and using sooper-sekrit means of co-ordinating these attacks, which is entirely wrong, whereas the paranoia of the supposedly stalked is fuelled by her own sooper-sekrit cyber-stalking mailing list.

I guess it is all part of the Old Guard trying to avoid the clean-up where they know that if they lose this phase of the game, they will no longer wield the power over other users that they did before. Perhaps if they had not been so abusive in the past, then there would not be any evidence to put into those RFCs and ArbCom cases.

Yes, msharma is referring to the fact that FloNight supported Poetlister's RFB. Are you two having a slow day?

Done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ar.27s_evidence

PL has already returned, of course. Can you imagine the implications of the Foundation overturning an ArbCom decision to unblock a user?


If any known WR poster applies for RfA, like Giggy, the Cabal comes down like a ton of bricks. There are certainly more admins or ex-admins with accounts, but mostly they seem to have gone away (Fred Bauder, A Man in Black and of course NewYorkBrad) or have not disclosed their WP identities.


I don't think that the person who uncovered SV has ever been charged with being a Poetlister sockpuppet. (So that narrows it down a lot. )

An m.o. Slim is very familiar with.

As we all know, one of the worst cases of harassment (in the SV sense) has been the harassment of Poetlister and her friends by [name redacted] and her friends. That is why it is essential that we all stick together here and assert how delighted we are that Poetlister is editing WP again and how strongly we urge her to carry on doing so.

Just to be clear, I was not meaning to add fuel to a smouldering fire - it was purely intended to be an observation that SlimVirgin will not find any postings here that support her contention that PL is conducting any sort of campaign against Wikipedians - indeed, I can't recall anything she has posted recently that even Slim could take offence at.

Still, it seems simply reading WR is taken as proof of abusive behaviour, unless you are looking for evidence of abusive behaviour. It does make me wonder whether some of those unconverted readers might come across something that will make them question their unshakeable conviction that they have done no wrong.

I am neither delighted nor disappointed at PL editing WP, though the political manoeuvrings that editing continues to generate is interesting. I was never aware that PL did anything, or was even accused of anything, that could even be construed as stalking, so it intrigues me as to why Slim has such fascination for her in this context.

Guy and Poetlister, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but...

I am loving this!

Greg

Let's just take a look at the exact statement, then:

1. Note that most, if not all, of the mods and admins here were actually trying to prevent NYB from being identified, and his full name (and the name of his firm) are still not being carried by WR in any public forum. And nobody has been more adamant in maintaining that position here than Poetlister. I myself have redacted his real name from various WR posts at least 5 times.

2. "The" three people? Poetlister had nothing to do with any of that - she's obviously never liked Slimmy, since Slimmy was instrumental in getting her and several others blocked over a bogus dispute involving the "Lists of Jews" on Wikipedia. (Bad move, as it turned out.) But the "three people" she's referring to are actually two people, Daniel Brandt and Judd "Wordbomb" Bagley. If you want to throw in a third person, maybe Patrick Byrne... but certainly not Poetlister.

3. "With the support of Flonight" presumably refers to this support vote. Personally, I don't blame Slimmy for seeing Poetlister as part of the "enemy camp," but the context here is simply wrong. Once again, if anything, Poetlister has been one of the people helping to prevent real-life WP-editor identities from being exposed, at least in public. So to bring Flonight into it is highly disingenuous at best. Note that this vote also took place before the whole Newyorkbrad business, not after.

Anyway, I'd just like to conclude with my usual ongoing points about the proposed BLP opt-out policy, reciprocity here and elsewhere, limits of accountability, ethical standards, blah blah blah.

I was very surprised to see her speak out publicly against FloNight. Perhaps FloNight isn't in her pocket as much as I suspected.

Slim has turned against a number of former members of her camp over the years. Her support is becoming narrower and she's becoming more isolated as time goes on. FloNight is on ArbComm and perhaps she's seen enough "secret evidence" and backchannel pleadings from SV to realize that she's full of shit.

I think Slim is not beyond sticking a metaphorical dagger in even her friends' and allies' backs if she perceives them as crossing her in any way (which equates to disagreeing with her in any way).

Would somebody else who is a regular on that list please inject some sanity into that discussion? That discussion went off the rails a long time ago and it seems that SV is trying to preempt her possible moment of accountability. It is really getting absurd with the level of hyperbole flowing from some quarters.

Hmm. I think it's odd that she would blow her ArbCom karma for a cheap shot on the foundation mailing list. She ain't stupid. There must have been a lot more that went down behind the scenes. If she took a shot at FloNight it's likely because she knew she wasn't going to get any more out of her.If someone went through and listed all the editors that have been accused of "stalking" by Slim, that would really take some of the steam out of the discussion. She accuses way too many people of "stalking" to be taken seriously.

They could link to Lar's evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...erm_.22stalk.22

Not that I'm a SlimVirgin or Poetlister expert by any means, but this is the first time I have heard this allegation.

For the benefit of people who still don't understand, to do other than to encourage and support PL is to play into SV's hands. She'd like nothing better than for PL to throw in the towel and stop editing WP.



However, I'm sure you have enough sense to be delighted that she can in the teeth of SV's opposition.



I'll bet.

This all depends on where you fit in her agenda. She's ok with some people, and makes a dirty mess all over others. Usually she poops on people she sees as weak (hence her continual self-insertion into ongoing big-cat-fights for a single-shot asskick).

As for being here. She's here. She's made a few identities, that people have identified, and she slunk off, as if she's never been a sock puppet in her life.

I'm sure she lurks.

Well. Consider the source. Its about as self-referencing as when she calls someone else crazy. She's a sick soul, crying out for help, by pointing fingers at everyone else.

QUOTE

My point, Nathan, is that someone from the English Arbitration
Committee supported the appointment of that person to bureaucrat. If
they had somehow only slipped through, it would say less about us --
it would only tell us, as you say, that we are not monolithic.

The point is, what can we do? Dan talks about action, but what action
is possible when admins, bureaucrats, stewards, and ArbCom members are
either involved or are not sympathetic?

Sarah

Here she is, ragging on Poetlister, a woman who never hurt a person in her life.

Okey dokey Sarah. Don't ruffle your chantilly feathers. I have an idea of how you should handle stalkers. Don't make me say it... YOU know

The Foundation-L thread in question has now moved into a more general discussion on stalking and harassment. John Barberio gives some interesting comments on the topic:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...une/043946.html

Hmmm... Mr. Barberio seems to actually have a fair degree of understanding of the issue, which means he'll be either ignored or treated with open contempt.

Meanwhile, Durova continues to show complete cluelessness regarding the problem, as if increasing the number of one's "Facebook friends" will somehow decrease the level of "harassment" one is likely to experience. And of course, it's telling that she shows support for Mr. Shankbone, possibly the most egregious stalker/harasser Wikipedia has ever produced.

In a way, it's nice that I can say with complete assurance that Shankbone's continued non-banned status on the English Wikipedia means that en.wp essentially relinquishes any moral or ethical basis for complaining about "harassment" whatsoever. Since it's me saying it, they probably won't ban him no matter what he does, and therefore I can just keep saying it as long as I like.

Yes, a fairly sensible summary. I still feel a little sensitive to the use of the word harassment in the context of what may actually be reasonable Wikipedia behaviour. Especially if you do a post on "someone's" talk page, see that some other user apparently accidentally deletes it so you post it again and then get the shrieks of Harassment in return. I've seen people claim harassment by experienced users simply for taking something to someone's talk page to avoid the heat of an article discussion.

Perhaps "pestering" would be a better word, as in "Will you please stop pestering me?" - sounds suitably irritated without the "OMGSTALKERBANHIM" overtones of "Stop harassing me".

"Pestering" would be a much better word, given that it's much more descriptive of what it actually is. Mr. Barberio apparently thinks along similar lines - use of the terms "stalking" and "harassment" for some of the things they use them for is totally counterproductive, if not self-defeating (in the boy-who-cried-wolf sense). What's more, he understands the concept of a limited public figure and how it relates to prominent WP editors/admins. That's exceptionally rare for a Wikipedian...

The term "wikistalking" is probably the best example, and actually shows what I consider to be an unhealthy obsession with the idea of "stalking" in general. A much better term might be "wikisnooping" or "wikinosing," if it has to begin with those four letters.

I might even suggest "birdwatching" or "shadowing" if it doesn't, as in "MONGO has been birdwatching me for weeks!" or "JzG does nothing but shadow my contribs 24 hours a day!" or something of that nature.

FloNight is not in anyone's pocket, IMO.

BTW - now where did Daniel Brandt get FloNight's nursing ID from? I know And, BTW, nice to see it's now gone from Hivemind, but why was it ever there?

Edit: Oh, and the following comment from http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...une/043834.html ;

QUOTE

We are careful about who we invite [to the Cyberstalking mailing list], Gerard, to ensure that members can speak freely. Two previous members leaked in the past, and that caused us to tighten the criteria further.

Of course, that is a reference to the SooperSekrit list leaks from last year. SlimVirgin blamed me repeatedly for that one via email, but I never actually did leak anything. Guess she never believed me .....

WHO harassed Slim? When did this stalking take place?

I've seen an army of people she's abused coming here and ... hating her. When did she get stalked? How?



Excuse me, but I thought that some kid got arrested for such musings, after posting something on Wikipedia, no? What about Snowspinner?

The police and FBI take violence-musings VERY seriously. They WILL show up at your house. What she wrote is wrong.

Did she try to report it to the police? Well? Is what she's saying real?

To be honest, and from what I know from behind-the-scenes, SlimVirgin did, and largely does, take a huge amount of abuse both on and off Wiki. Yeah, there were things that happened. Of course, it's all hearsay, as you say but having said that, I've had issues too that I was unable to discuss. When hints of this and that came out, so did all the naysayers. I was lying; overreacting, deserving of it, stalking them, etc, etc. So I told the full story and got trouble for that, too. Can't win, betimes.

Worst thing about victims of stuff like this is that nobody believes them. I'm no fan of SlimVirgin - in fact, I'm certain she despises me, to be honest. But seriously - whatever about what she's done on WP, she's had to take a serious amount of shit. I'm actually inclined to believe her re. harassment.

Yeah, and I know it's kinda popular for folks to have a go at her on here. I don't like what she does on WP ... but this? Sorry, but I feel I have to defend her right now. Flame on ....

Edit: did she report it to the police? I dunno. Do you?

Hosea 8:7. On the other hand, Deuteronomy 32:35 says

While I am not privy to the details, I think it is more accurate to say that SlimVirgin incurs a great deal of criticism both on and off Wiki.

While you are perhaps excused due to your personal experience, you are perpetuating the conflation of two distinct things, namely: 1) scrutiny of and commentary (often vitriolic and sometimes puerile) on her actions on Wikipedia, combined with speculation and research concerning her identity as a special-purpose public figure; and 2) actual, in-real-life, call-the-police stalking.

The second is unconscionable and illegal, and the remedy for it is to call the police. That stalkers in this category may use information procured from those in the first category need not be taken as evidence of illegal or unethical behaviour by critics in the first category.

In short, Wikipedia admins are public figures, as you would expect of powerful persons controlling the world's seventh-most-visited website (or whatever it is). If SlimVirgin -- or anyone else -- wishes to preserve her anonymity, she would be well-advised to drop her admin bits and change her pseudonym.

Failing that, however, her actions and those of her colleagues, along with the potential sources of conflicts of interest or undue influence and similar subjects, are the right and proper domain for scrutiny by critics of all stripes.

Saying otherwise diminishes the sympathy and protection that is needed and deserved for those who find themselves with real stalkers. I would hope that you would be one of the first to make this clear distinction.

The irony of the "anti-cyberstalking" mailing list is pardon my french...

SO FUCKING OBVIOUS.

sorry about the explicitive, anyway, I find it a bit ironic SV and buddies complain about "off wiki harassment" yet they do it over a private mailing list. Nice double standard there Slim.

Another useful synonym here is hectoring.

I've heard wacky rumours it's also referring to me on Commons. *shrug*

Not impossible. Wooyi was refused admin on Commons because he supported my unblock on Wiki.

Oh wow.

I think the thinking of a number of folks has evolved since then.

I never, ever thought I'd agree wholeheartedly with Dmcdevit.

But then, Dmcdevit is an expert on how reliable checkuser is, right Alison?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ali..._12#Gerry_Lynch



Has Dmcdevit's?

The evolution and maturation of knowledge and thinking is generally called learning. While there is evidence that learning does take place, it's hard to determine when it takes place, and under what circumstances.

In the interests of accelerating the learning curves of all of us, it would be helpful to know what conditions optimize the rate of successful learning for various participants in these curious adventures and misadventures.

My own thinking on WikiPolitics has gone all over the map over the years... though always a bit gadfly-ish.

But what was Lar thinking when he endorsed the guilt-by-association attitude of the WikiClique to the effect that expressing a politically incorrect opinion on something that the Clique felt strongly about was sufficient cause to oppose them for adminship on any project?

And how is it that Guy, Poetlister, and Yehudi have not drawn and quartered Lar on a weekly basis for the past three months for this stance?

Ooo... sorry. I wasn't supposed to bring it up again.

Seriously, I'm just kidding. I know the reason -- Lar has evolved.

Greg

To be honest, I'm not really sure. I think there were other reasons why Wooyi might not have been a good admin, but if I had it to do over, I would have focused on those more. But I do seem to vaguely recall that looking into Wooyi's contribs on en suggested not just a disagreement, but disruptive behaviour about that disagreement, and that was the larger concern, and that is I was getting at in my comments... I could be wrong.

He hasn't evolved. He has the intelligence to realise when he has made a mistake, the integrity to admit it and the courage to act on his admission. We should be proud to have people of that calibre posting here.

If you have some criticism of me, please be more explicit. I'm just a naive young WQ admin who can't grasp subtleties, you know.

Or are you just being less amiable since I sympathised with you?

I'm completely isolated, so I can't hear you!