Posted on Giano's talkpage. I never thought I'd see the day...

Is there any particular arbitrators she's referring to?

Don't be too surprised, it's not like she provided evidence or anything.

Any and all that didn't give her the free pass she wanted in the recent SlimVirgin/Lar matter?

Well I've not really been following that. Other than the Arbcom case, is there anywhere I can read that can summarise what the situation with that is?

Yup.

Maybe those bad ones that nailed FM.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_II



Why, the very idea that a good-content contributor should be blocked and other admins told not to unblock them! Land sakes. What is WP coming to, these days?

Oh, wait-- anybody who has disagreed with SlimVirgin's POV in the past is a BAD-CONTENT contributor. By definition. So tag-team blocking them would have been okay. And that's why she doesn't remember ever seeing anything else.

She can't be talking about FM since he's not been blocked.

Good point. Just defrocked. Who, then?

I presumed it was OrangeMarlin, even though he wasn't actually blocked.

Probably Giano and/or Peter Damian. Who knows? It could be a lot of people by now. The point is that the ArbCom's blocks are increasingly blatantly political. Even with a true "rogue administrator" like Ryulong, most of his blocks are against actual vandals. The Committee shows no sign of caring about content. Its function is only to control the high-level politics of the project, and especially to purge it of its own critics.

Possibly me as we (i.e SV and I) had an email exchange about this a few days ago. I have generally always stood up against the criticism of her on WR.

Especially this bit?



That's what makes Slim so sinister No wonder simple folk- like PD evidently - still think 'she' is worth defending!

In passing:

MiniConspiracy theory: SlimVirgin will have been involved in the 'special Jimbo block' of PD by Jimbo - clearly the two act strategically on all matters.

Either the SV is literally insane, (ie. is unaware of the fact that 'it' has blocked many good content contributors while invariably acting as an imperialist dictator, changing the rules as suits, or this is part of some cunning plan to oust another admin...

Bauder's line is just priceless.

In the context of Bauder emailing Judd Bagley with an admission (That email is on ASM) that he, a sitting arb, knew that Weiss sockpuppeted abusively ( this was the 2006 era abuse of TomStoner-Lastexit-Mantanmoreland), and created/guarded his own BLP, and pumping and dumping references to his own nonbestselling book all over WP.....well, Fred Bauder - defrocked from the Colrado Bar and the WP Bar - calling out the current WP Arb for being less than competent is a hoot.

The Arbcom that kissed Linda and Gary's abusive asses unconditionally in 2006-7, then gave it up to the 2008 Arb who refused to do anything about it but didn't stop the community (they stopped banning people for it) from doing something about it....well....Bauder's Arbcom is the Nixon Administration compared to the 2008 Arb's GW Bush Administration.

[/quote] I would hazard a guess that these abuses are far more memorable when done to you, than they are when you are doing unto others.

Subsequent edit: And St. Tobias, as he often does, hits the mark with unerring accuracy.

Wow, I can picture the uneasy smirk on your face when you posted that. Who could've possibly been banned by ArbCom recently? I wonder...

I sincerely hope SV isn't referring to your ban, considering how your outing, insulting, and smearing people on BADSITES (including moi for one, of course) seems to be completely against everything she publically condemns.

Now you see why the Founders ruled out Bill of Attainder in the US Constitution.

Painful history reveals that Bill of Attainder is a corrosive and corrupting practice that eventually sinks any government that adopts and employs it as a regulatory tool.

Per Hammurabi's first three laws (which deal with banishment and proving just cause), Giano is right to tell them to go jump in the lake.

So the Review is only a BADSITE when you're outed? As you're aware, I was myself outed on WR. You took that identification, pretending that it was the fruit of your own genius, and posted it to Wikipedia, falsely claiming that I'd intended to evade the Arbitrator's meaningless wikisanction, as if it were inconceivable that I hoped to avoid further attacks on my name - attacks which you cheerfully perpetuated. I don't remember you calling the Review (or Wikipedia for that matter) a "BADSITE" then. Truthfully, I was treated far more respectfully here (as are you) than you and your IRC buddies treated me on Wikipedia. You turned Wikipedia into a BADSITE for me, and, I'll wager, enjoyed every moment of it. I'm not happy to be blocked, but it beats bowing down to the likes of you.

WP:HAMSTER is born

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=247854459



WP:HAMSTER is not to be confused with WP:GERBIL (the anonymous WP'ian's inalienable right to declare any BLP to be gay in a very googlable way, based on reports in blogs of gerbil handling practices)

Good job straying from the point again. I'm not going to rehash my version of those events again and again, as much as you like to. (I'll repeat this, though: had you ever considered, um, telling me that your real name was the issue, instead of instantly going into your usual attack-dog mode and simply reverting me with the vague accusation of "violating WP:HARASS"?)

Back to the point of this thread, I really hope it isn't your ban that SlimVirgin is referring to. I've always thought she has good intentions, though very frequently misguided. But if she doesn't understand why your ban was completely warranted... I really don't know what to think anymore.

The two of you seem to be a case in point for WP:GOOSE, not to be confused with WP:DUCK, WP:HAMSTER, or any other creature.

SV has just, bizarrely, added a picture of herself as a 3 year old to her user page.

She also added the Latin phrase "Audi alteram partem!", which means (though my Latin is a bit rusty) "I gave birth to a German automobile!". Another astonishing piece of Slimvirginlore.

It means "let the other side be heard" which is an incredibly ironic thing to say given how many editors she's tried to silence during various conflicts.

Slim disappeared down the irony hole long ago.

Next she'll be complaining about that Canadian Woman who started the biography on Daniel Brandt. It can only be a matter of time before she's bitterly spamming this site and going to Slashdot to accuse an Arbcom member of working for MI6.

By Easter next year, she'll be operating an attack blog called Anti-Social Media which aims to expose the hidden hand of Wikipedia and she'll be concocting "lunatic conspiracy theories" about WP's ruling elite. etc... etc...

...the merry-go-round never ends

Might as well make her a WR mod now then. what do you think Somey?

Wook at me. How could this cute widdle girl do harm to anyone? How could you not wuve her?

Well, I wuve all 3 year-olds. Kid pics of serial murderers are cute, and remind us of why their mothers still love them, even if nobody else does by the time they're ready for the old needle-of-reconcilliation.

Just as soon as WP gives Slim the wikipowers of a three year-old (i.e., edit-only, like the rest of their 3-year olds whose only addition to content is "jikjknnknknknkn") I'm willing to forgive her past transgressions against articles and editors. But not forget-- in case they decide to backpedal.

And Josh P. Gordon, though I love all music but rap (which doesn't count as music), you don't get WP points with me if you personally played every instrument including the kazoo and the holophoner with some band in 1973. If you don't stop tag-teaming, OWNing, and POV pushing, it simply makes us all wish somebody would shove all those instruments up where the music is greatly muffled and you walk funny. What you do on WP, is definitly not cool. You can even post a picture of yourself and Slim and Jayjg at age 3, giving us the WP version of Little Bush, and all that will happen is we'll laugh at you and still wish your mommies had toilet-trained you less brutally. Since you clearly have some kind of power-problem that only deep Freudian psychoanalysis is going to get at.

I'm guessing she did that to show there's a real, live human behind the screen name(s). So often, people are dehumanized by their detractors and thus it's far easier to bat them about. Just MHO. Giving people a voice and a face brings them into the real world.

Little cutie, though, in her mary-jane shoes and button-up cardie I wanna pick her up and hug her

And I'm fighting back an urge to go back on there and speedy-delete it, lest some freako decide to shoop it or something


Ok, now that is funny!


True, too, I guess

There may be some pychological angle at play - reversion to childhood - call out to some mommy or daddy figure to come to her rescue - or it could just be a crass attempt at manipulation.

After the Poetlister affair shouldn't we be rather more cynical about pictures of editors? Not that anyone shouldn't AGF!

Perhaps symbolically reclaiming Durova. Yes, Velma to her Scooby-Doo indeed. Jimbo as Shaggy.

Lots of good metaphors here of late.

This is very off topic, but you're wrong.

I just don't see how she ever expected to be able to play volleyball with a badminton racquet.

Although I do think SV's picture is a manipulative ploy for sympathy, I think I might be falling for it. She was a darn cute kid (and sartorially snappy)!

I know someone else who's going to upload a picture of himself as a toddler, if he can find one. He was far more slovenly at that age.

And I suppose it would be pointless to restate what more eloquent minds have already recognized (i.e., the monumental, glaring, sickening hypocrisy of her user page plea for fairness/due process).

it's actually quite common on social networking sites for adults to post pictures of themselves from childhood. It's usually just funny, and doesn't usually give away what you look like now to maintain some privacy. And WP is first and foremost a social networking site, so that's about right.

i haven't looked, but if it replaces that stupid cartoon strip club advert icon, then its a step up.

And what would PETA say about "Wikihounding"?

If you put the 3-year-old pic through one of those aging software programs that they use on the TV cop shows, does it morph into something like the one on Hivemind?

I want one! Shame I looked like a skinny, female version of Damien out of The Omen as a child.

Why are we dissing on SlimVirgin here?

She's posted very cogent arguments about ArbCom's failings here. In fact, she agrees with many of the proposals first suggested by users here, and argues for them is a straightforward way. Quite frankly, there's much more criticism of Wikipedia in her posts on Jimbo's talk page than there is in this whole thread.

I get that some people see her as a prolific past abuser, but if she wants to help reform ArbCom, I bless her for it.

I upvote this post

I think people just find it peculiar that SV is (eloquently, I agree) blasting the environment/culture that she and her friends helped create.

Thanks, I think.

A PM I received suggests that SlimVirgin is more than a past abuser. That may be true, but right now I feel that SV is making the right message, even if she's an imperfect messenger. She might be a cabalist, but she certainly doesn't like the other cabalists (mentioning IRC in particular).

It's as if, after playing recklessly for a while, she finally gets whacked upside the head and then says, "ok, now it's time to put the toys away." It's undoubtedly humorous to watch, but it's a very positive development.

It's as if she's a petty warlord living in a state of nature. She might be better off than some random peon, but she seems to be begging for an fair and credible leviathan to rule over the wiki; it would make everyone better off. I agree with her there. She implicitly rejects Jimbo's claim to monarchy, and is clearly dissatisfied with the current ArbCom for many of the same reasons we are. I'm sympathetic to her position.

SV is the first person on WP to agree with my proposal that all the ArbCom seats should go up for election in December (probably without realizing I made that proposal). Funny, huh? Even though I think her treatment of Lar has been very wrong, I'm not inclined to criticize her now that she's adopted this position on the ArbCom. Even at her worst, SV is nowhere near as harmful to the project as the ArbCom, and I'd be careful about accusing her of hypocrisy: often your eyes aren't opened until the system fucks you over. I thought the ArbCom was basically doing a good job until I personally experienced its injustice, at which point I completely reevaluated my views on the WP power structure. Things like this can be moments of revelation and conversion.

"Conversion" implies repudiation of your previously sinful ways. The Apostle Paul Sarah ain't.

How about a compromise, EK? Everyone goes up for re-election, but the current sitting members only lose their seats if actually defeated (more opposes than supports) rather than simply by having fewer net supports than the other candidates.

We could continue this indefinitely, as a built-in annual vote of [no] confidence.

Why tip the election to make it easier for some people than others?

Because they got in expecting to have three years, and the people who voted for them elected them for three years. Overturning that should require an actual mandate.

(not that I think any but maybe one or two of the current arbcom would actually survive a vote at this point; they've got pretty much _everyone_ lined up against them. It's the principle of the matter.)

Well, it certainly wouldn't be ideal, but it would at least be an improvement over the current system.

Here it is.

What do you think? The rumpled blue suit... the clip-on tie... the malevolent scowl of pure hatred...

I'm rather pleased with it.

TFMWNCB would like you to know he apologizes for his parents' abysmal photographic preservation skills (note the dust, scotch tape, etc.)

Who cares what the Arbitrators expected? They don't feel obliged to give others a fair shake, and surely there can be "right to serve out one's expected term."

NewYorkBrad would win reelection; most would be soundly defeated. Isn't that the real argument against them standing again, that they will be defeated? If they thought they'd win, they would seize the opportunity the repair their tattered mandate.