The "old" SlimVirgin is back.

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?

The "old" SlimVirgin is back.

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?

To be brutally honest, without Wikipedia I would never have heard of [LaRouche]...

Word. I first heard of him by reading an old arbcom case.

The "old" SlimVirgin is back.

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.")

The "old" SlimVirgin is back.

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?

Lyndon LaRouche seems to be one of those topics grossly over-covered as a result of edit warring; loads of kooks use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their cult or fringe movement of choice, then their critics come and double the size of the article with their criticism, often with people citing their own works and sneaking in a little self-promotion in the process. The Scientology articles are the same way, as are other fringe topics, I'm sure.

I disagree--the upside to edit warring is traditionally that you get vastly expanded and improved content. The two sides beat each other black and blue, but as the beatings in part take the form of research, sourcing, and expansion, the ultimate result can be very positive. If not for all the LaRouche edit warring, articles related to LaRouche would no doubt be rather few and rather pitiful.

See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference.

Such as this one.

Be fair: She did add some material to the lead (details available), so the edit summary was deceptive, but she wasn't sneaking in accusations of fascism: the text was already there.

Yes, someone wrote on the web that the Britney Spears article was (at that time) twice as long as the article on Brittany, a region of north west France.

Some enterprising entrepreneur (hello Greg) should start a company in Brittany to manufacture and sell reproductions of medieval armaments. The company, of course, would be named Brittany Spears.

It is probably also worth noting that the talk page for LaRouche is infrequently viewed at 318 times in July and 1,405 times in August compared to 4,662 times for my talk page. The talk page has only 3,492 edits, which isn't even enough to make the most edited talk page list. All of which seems on par for an article 3,071 hits a day (not even in the top 3,000 for for the site).

See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference.

Some enterprising entrepreneur (hello Greg) should start a company in Brittany to manufacture and sell reproductions of medieval armaments. The company, of course, would be named Brittany Spears.

Yeah it's almost as if we need to actively recruit a bunch of boring, normal people to work on those articles.

See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference.

Such as this one.

Leatherstocking is indignantly protesting her big Anschluss, not realizing that Wikipedia policies simply don't apply to her.

It's now at the ANI forum. I think that Leatherstocking honestly had no idea who SlimVirgin is, and the extent to which she is a law unto herself. LS was holding his own pretty well against Will Beback, but now he has entered the Octagon of Death with SlimVirgin, and I don't think he's going to be the one who comes out alive.

Part and parcel of he bankrupcy of Wikipedia is that no one -- especially the (nominally) rational cognoscenti of NewYorkBrad and Lar -- will stand up and saySlimVirgin and Will Beback should not be editing these articles. If there is any faith whatsoever in anyone can edit, it should be that non-cabal editors can sort out wacky POVs like those at Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). It hardly seems constructive to the "encyclopedia" to let these warriors have their way, any more than the pro-LaRouche types.

Ahem, Lar did say something, which SV apparently appreciated none too much.

My, my, that's quite a tantrum, considering the ultra-diplomatic wording of Lar's post.

Ahem, Lar did say something, which SV apparently appreciated none too much.

Nah, not really. Remember that Linda never forgets and never forgives. The mere fact that Lar commented at all is considered grievously offensive in the Slimmiverse.

... I still contend, however, that SlimVirgin is outrageously flouting numerous policies, and no one seems to raise an eyebrow. Does she have a free pass of some sort? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

An excellent question. The answer, of course, is that no one has a free pass here. Theoretically, anyway. ++Lar - 03:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Lar, if you don't stop posting snide remarks about me, [8] I'm going to approach the ArbCom for relief. You've been asked many times to stop by several editors. There's no call for it, and I won't respond in kind. It's particularly depressing to see it extend to you lending support to a LaRouche editor who's trying to prevent the LaRouche bio from being improved (and in such a way that any reasonable person would see was an improvement). If you have a low opinion of me, just stay away from me, and I'll continue to do the same for you. Or we should seek private mediation, as I suggested in a recent e-mail to which you didn't respond. But the current one-way public sniping is not acceptable. SlimVirgin - 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and bringing your concerns forward. Let's unpack some of the key themes as I see them.

• "snide remarks about me" - The user raised a legitimate concern about free passes, or the perception of them. This is something I've been concerned about for a long time, and have commented about for a long time as well, in many contexts. "Free passes" for anyone is against the spirit of the wiki. Surely you agree that there may be a perception among some that some users do have free passes? (if not, see a few threads up, right here on this talk, for just one example of many) So, not a snide comment and not directed specifically at you. Not everything onwiki is about you, believe it or not. But let me apologise if you think it was directed specifically at you or was intended to be snide.
• "It's particularly depressing to see it extend to you lending support to a LaRouche editor who's trying to prevent the LaRouche bio from being improved" If answering a question is "lending support" in your view, I think you're not seeing things clearly. Perhaps you should step back from the conflict at that bio and leave it to uninvolved editors.
• "If you have a low opinion of me" - My personal opinion of you is irrelevant. As should be yours of me. What matters to me is whether your actions bring harm to the project. If I think they do, I will speak out about it. I won't be constrained by any previous history we might have. Nor should you be.
• "just stay away from me, and I'll continue to do the same for you." - Our current difficulties started when you made a number of unjustified and unsupported allegations in an inappropriate manner in a number of venues, something which you were sanctioned by ArbCom for doing,[see note] and something for which you've never expressed any remorse, regret, or even acknowledgment that you erred in any way. It's ironic that now you want to stay away, as the damage you did with public invective was done long ago.
• "we should seek private mediation" - I don't see that as particularly useful yet, given that in our prior communications, you've not been willing to acknowledge that you erred in how you raised issues or how you approached conflict resolution. Mediation requires an honest willingness to start afresh. Perhaps at some point in the future, though, if you're now willing to acknowledge what you did was wrong? I remain hopeful. You can start the process by apologizing.

I hope that helps address your concerns. ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes
1. ^ quoting: The Committee reminds the users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct.

The exchange was funny enough I think it should be preserved:

Leatherstocking defends himself, closing with:
to which Lar simply replies:
Slim's shrill response on Lar's talk page is:

Lar decides not to take it lying down:


I wish I could see Slim while reading it!

Slim's shrill response on Lar's talk page is:

I think it's interesting that Georgewiliamherbert seems to have broken ranks at the ANI, and is defending Leatherstocking against the SlimVirgin/Will Beback grand inquisitors.

Will Beback needs to realize that trying to tar and feather someone with allegations of having the "wrong" POV may be a counterproductive strategy.

Why do you suppose SV said that she was "writing this as an editor, not as an admin"? There had to be some legalistic ulterior motive for using that formulation.

Why do you suppose SV said that she was "writing this as an editor, not as an admin"? There had to be some legalistic ulterior motive for using that formulation.

I thought that it was ok to use primary sources for BLPs as long as it was compliant with other policies such as "undue weight"?

Weberman is also employed as a webmaster, maintaining websites for [[Dennis King]], the [[Jewish Defense Organization]], and websites related to the [[Youth International Party]] which are owned by [[Dana Beal]] .

I hope any arbitrators reading this will take Leatherstocking's request seriously, because I think SV and Will Beback aren't acting in completely good faith here. In fact, in my opinion they appear to be bullying Leatherstocking.

If Leatherstocking hasn't been banned by next year, I'm going to put him up as a nominee for the Cojones de latón award.

Leatherstocking should just make a request for clarification from the ArbCom as to whether any of the previous LaRouche case remedies apply to SV's edits and then ask for a topic ban if the ArbCom agrees that they do.

Emphasis mine. This, ladies and gentleman, would be Slim laying the groundwork for a future "harassment" charge against Lar.

Why must everything be interpreted as some kind of Machiavellian plot?

It seems like a reasonable request to me--they clearly don't get along and their interactions aren't productive, so simply ignoring each other seems like a good solution. Why must everything be interpreted as some kind of Machiavellian plot?

I did immediately assume he was HK, as 99% of people who agree with LaRouche are HK, but I didn't feel like stopping to chat since I was hungry and wanted some tomato soup.