Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: A SlimVirgin Close Encounter
> Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > Notable editors > SlimVirgin
Pages: 1, 2, 3
TabulaRasa
QUOTE
If you followed a link on O-Smear to get here, please be sure to read this topic for some more recent commentary on this whole situation. Thanks!

UPDATE: We'd also like to apologize for the fact that the topic referenced earlier was the wrong one, and was, indeed, a dead link until just recently. The topics are referenced by number, and the admin adding this note (who has since been severely punished) originally typed "8623" instead of "8263." (The link was dead until the new number came up and was taken by an RSS-fed media topic.) OOPS! Normally we're more careful than that... sorry! Anyway, the purpose of linking to the other topic was simply to help keep people up-to-date on what we're discussing, and the gist of that was that Wordbomb is not "Joey," at least not according to our IP data, analysis of posting patterns, writing style, attitude, known history on Wikipedia, and just-plain common sense. Sorry about that too, but it's our story and we're sticking to it.

Also, putting notes like this in threads that are linked to by other sites is hardly "unprecedented." Half the time we delete such threads completely, just to piss people off... we're just like that! In this case, we simply want to make it clear that while Wordbomb is generally well-tolerated here, and Gary Weiss is generally disliked, that doesn't mean we have any real desire to get in the middle of their little feud, or whatever it is. Most of us are only concerned with how it plays out on Wikipedia, not elsewhere. That's our "purview," you see. (The site is actually called "Wikipedia Review," not "The Gary and Judd Review"...)

Anyway, thanks! We hope you enjoy the site!

The Management, Apr. 17, 2007


Antisocialmedia.net has found the actual person who might be partly responsible for Linda Mack's slow descent into SlimVirginity. If the story weren't so unbelieveable I'd discount it, but trust me: you can't make this stuff up.

The first half of the post is mostly a rehash of things we've read here, but the second half is where Slim comes in and that's what you really need to read. If it's all true, then SlimVirgin mythology has just taken a huge step forward. It's at http://www.antisocialmedia.net
Herschelkrustofsky
I'd like to get Daniel's opinion on whether this represents an intelligence breakthrough. The bombastic style of the post suggests a Wordbomb/TabulaRasa/AntiSocialMedia.Net nexus.
EuroSceptic
If true, very interesting.....
LamontStormstar
Whoever runs that site is another bastard hiding behind DomainsByProxy.net so I have no idea who runs it even by their location.
IronDuke
Insofar as Slim's psycho-social background is relevant to her egregious behaviour on WP, or can be used to goad her into doing a Kelly Martin, this is probably helpful. This seems true for the Gary Weiss connection. Many of the other details seem irrelevant and of purely prurient interest.

The main problem with Slim is not purely her ownership of various articles (Judaica, Animal Rights, Gary Weiss), but her use of admin tools and threats of admin action from her minions (Jayj, etc) to enforce that ownership. If Slim were a non-admin editor, and not mindlessly supported by other admins, most of the problems with her would disappear.
TabulaRasa
QUOTE(Joey @ Tue 26th September 2006, 3:30pm) *

That Wordbomb/TabulaRasa/AntiSocialMedia.Net comprise an apparent nexus doesn't trouble me much.

I'm surprised that the Wordbomb connection comes as a surprise to anybody...I thought it was obvious, since he's been saying the same things as antisocialmedia and hasn't been seen around here since the site got started.

As for me, the only connection is a well publicized antipathy toward Gary Weiss and SlimVirgin...making me more of a psychological nexus.

Say, anybody notice the other AWOL poster around here is Dudley? He took off after Wordbomb outted him as Gary Weiss.

QUOTE
The account of pub-chat at King's College in 1988 implies either an inside source or some other undisclosed source.

As I read it (several times) the source is named as Patrick Byrne himself. He (the writer) says he had a conversation with him, which he reprinted with permission. Did I misread that?
Somey
Just so we're all clear, knda-sorta, WordBomb and TabulaRasa are accusing Weiss of supporting naked short-selling, which (as I understand it) is the illegal practice of taking what amounts to non-existent money from an account that's owed either cash or securities, delaying the completion of transactions as required to do it, and using the "phantom funds" to short-sell various stocks.

Short-selling with real money is perfectly legal, though probably not so helpful to the economy.
Somey
QUOTE(TabulaRasa @ Tue 26th September 2006, 9:14pm) *
Say, anybody notice the other AWOL poster around here is Dudley? He took off after Wordbomb outted him as Gary Weiss.

That's not how I remember it... More like "accused him of being" Weiss, and with no evidence at that, other than the fact that he publicly suggested WordBomb was essentially cyberstalking.

Let me get this straight, then. Patrick Byrne says something mean to Slimmy one day in Cambridge in '88, asks another guy there to go and apologize on his behalf, that guy dies on Pan Am 103, and now Slimmy's using Gary Weiss to get payback on Byrne, because she knows Byrne and Weiss hate each other over the naked short-selling issue?

Okay, but I'd say it's just as likely that she's using Weiss the same way she uses all the other meat puppets - he helps her game the system, she bans anyone who makes a fuss. I mean, do we know if Byrne is even aware of what's going on there?
Placeholder
/
Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Joey @ Tue 26th September 2006, 10:52pm) *

Presuming that line of inquiry has merit, it would help to know what was the nature of Byrne's offense against Slim. If it had ethnic or political overtones, it would seem plausible it could remain as a thorn in her side nearly 20 years later if she ever had occassion to interact with Byrne or somehow address his interests. They aren't the only ones, but certain animal rights activists and advocates for various ethnic interest sometimes posterize their world into only two shades -- white and black -- good guys and bad guys. My read of Slim's work is that her social graces are largely applied to control those she sees as wrong, and to dignify herself who she seems to hold as inerringly right. It wouldn't surpise me if she continues to affect grudges against someone she labeled a demon 20 years ago.


Perhaps. But I would suggest that maybe Slim's public persona, of being a bit of a fanatic, is intended to mislead. If she were a garden-variety animal-rights crusader or ethnic chauvinist, why the desperate need for anonymity? Daniel has said that he "gets a spook vibe" from her, and I trust his instincts. Spooks don't see the world in white and black -- they have a whole palette of greys.

I often point to one of her first Wikipedia exploits, her in-depth re-write of the Cambridge Apostles article. My hunch is that she admires these types, famous in espionage circles for being triple, quadruple, or lord knows what kind of agents. She may have fantasies about being a spook, or she may be one.
Somey
QUOTE(Joey @ Wed 27th September 2006, 12:52am) *
...who benefits from these supposedly illegal naked short-sells, and who is hurt?

Again, this is based on my limited understanding of what really is a very complex issue, but the simple answer is that corrupt stockbrokers benefit, and the people who are hurt are (1) the investors who don't actually receive the stocks they've purchased (or get the funds from selling them) until weeks or months later; (2) companies whose stocks are targeted (see below); and to some extent, (3) everyone who owns stock, which is a large percentage of the US population, for example - because it's the sort of thing (along with outrageous CEO salaries and other forms of corruption) that pisses investors off enormously and causes them to want to get out of the market, which in turn reduces demand, and therefore stock values. Which, I might add, are still overinflated in most cases...

The example used by WordBomb & Co. was Sedona Software, a CRM company with lots and lots of SMB (small-to-medium-sized business) customers:

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2006/lr19639.htm

...In short (heh heh, pun intended), their stock was targeted for manipulation by four unscrupulous stockbrokers (as if there's any other kind!), which drove the price down drastically and nearly put the company out of business - and did, in fact, force them into cutbacks that put quite a few people out on the street. Moreover, those customers suffer too, because the product they're using gets fewer resources devoted to its development, what with all the cutbacks.

QUOTE(Joey @ Wed 27th September 2006, 12:52am) *
Do any of the beneficiaries or injured parties map on SV's grid of good and bad guys?


Personally I don't see how, but I guess with SV, there's almost no way of knowing!
Placeholder
/
Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Joey @ Wed 27th September 2006, 9:15am) *

My source says:

"Michael Steinhardt was founder and managing partner at Steinhardt Partners. He's now retired, but is a major philanthropist and supporter of causes related to Israel and has been pretty soundly tied to the Mossad (see Google). He gives about $500,000 each year to the Jewish Heritage Museum.

Danny Wool used to be a director at the Jewish Heritage Museum, but is now #2 at Wikipedia."


Perhaps more significantly, Steinhardt is a member of the Mega Group, which would make him highly interesting to SV with her spook proclivities. He was also chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, the group of lavishly funded right-wing moles in the Democratic Party. Steinhardt's daddy was gangster "Red" Steinhardt, who did time in Sing Sing.
Daniel Brandt
From larouchepub.com:
QUOTE
"Red" Steinhardt was sent to Sing Sing on a five- to ten-year sentence, a fact that Michael kept off of his resume, in order to get his start on Wall Street with the "Our Crowd" firm, Loeb Rhodes [sic]. Like father, like son -- Steinhardt Partners came under SEC and Justice Department scrutiny in the early 1990s, along with Salomon Brothers, for cornering the market in short-term U.S. Treasury bond sales. To avoid jail, Steinhardt settled the case with a $50 million fine.

You bet he left it off his resume, and the spook-connected Washington Post was also careful not to drag up any old history. From "Wired Into Wall Street: Tough Trader Steinhardt Brings Wealth to Clients, Attention to Himself" by Brett D. Fromson, Washington Post Staff Writer, December 1, 1991, pp. H1, H4:
QUOTE
Steinhardt comes from a lower-middle class Brooklyn family. His parents divorced when he was a year old. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School in 1960 at the age of 19 and joined the investment firm of Loeb Rhoades, where he excelled as a research analyst. In 1967, he and two other young analysts also in their 20s -- Jerrold Fine and Howard Berkowitz -- opened their own hedge fund, Steinhardt, Fine & Berkowitz. Fine and Berkowitz left to open their own investment firms in the 1970s.

TabulaRasa
THIS JUST IN!

Hot off the RSS reader, it's the SlimVirgin Chronicles, Part II.

It's a post by Patrick Byrne himself, answering the questions raised by the original.
FORUM Image
Somey
Fascinating!

Assuming this is all true (and Byrne is enough of a public figure that it would probably be pointless to try to forge something like this), it could well be interpreted as confirmation of the assertion that SlimVirgin is, in fact, victimizing Wikipedia by using it as a platform for pursuing her lifelong obsessive vendetta, and in so doing, devaluing the work of all other contributors - allowing them, in effect, to be tarred with the same bad-publicity brush for having helped build a website that could be so coldly manipulated in this way.

I mean, sure, we knew that all along, but it's still fascinating. And I knew she'd have been into the 80's proto-Goth scene... Just like David Gerard, only Canadian! I'll bet she has every CD that Black Tape for a Blue Girl ever made...

The last bit is especially well-stated - I hope nobody minds my quoting it here:

QUOTE
Linda Mack is not a bad person, and if I had had a chance I would have reached out a hand in friendship myself. I ask that no one hate or abuse her: she is someone who fell in the deep end and never came out. On the other hand, SlimVirgin is a tyrant for whom ... the past is clearly not the past, and the prejudices and interests driving her behavior should be exposed.
Daniel Brandt
This is amazing. I have to assume that it is legit. Patrick Byrne is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and you don't ask them to join -- they might ask you after you are nominated by two other members. Anyone trying to pretend that they are Patrick Byrne would be taking a huge legal risk. It's very well-written. People who write that well generally don't take unnecessary legal risks. I'd like to express my appreciation to Mr. Byrne for sharing this.
EuroSceptic
Ask Patrick Byrne to send this directly to Jimmy Wales!
IronDuke
I don't know what to say other than un-fucking-believable. If it wasn't so late I'd post it to 100 places on WP with various socks. That will have to wait until tomorrow.
Daniel Brandt
About Jimbo: "He worked as Research Director at Chicago Options Associates, a futures and options trading firm then located in Chicago."

About Jayjg: "I'm Jayjg. I joined Wikipedia on June 15, 2004, was made an administrator on September 13, 2004, and in July of 2005 Jimmy Wales appointed me to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. I'm a pretty active Wikipedia editor, having made over 30,000 edits."
Q: "How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)"
A: "I'm in my forties and work in management." [Hey Jayjg, might that be financial management, perhaps?]

Maybe I'm imagining things, but after reading some of Patrick Byrne's comments about the way the financial press is constantly covering up for Wall Street, I'm starting to wonder. I've read a couple of books on Enron, and I've watched the press slobber over Google for six years now, when basically there is nothing there at all except for an extremely inflated stock price. I have to wonder about what's really going on at Wikipedia.

I don't know anything about hedge funds, but I know about establishment journalism. If I was a Wall Street heavy looking to add a few more billion to my assets, it might be smart to cover my bets by supporting Wikipedia. WSJ and NYT and WP are great at ignoring what's really happening on Wall Street, just like they ignored Vietnam for years. But when push comes to shove -- something like Watergate, for example, or Iran/contra -- they might remember that they're supposed to be journalists, and go half-cocked after a story. People on top can no longer control events. Wikipedia with its embedded cartels could be a real asset in a situation like that. It's possible that SlimVirgin doesn't even know who she's working for.

The anti-Semitism thing is connected to the Wall Street thing (it's sometimes Wall Street's first line of defense by way of a counter-accusation), but probably not for SlimVirgin. She's more likely a useful idiot, and/or an agent of influence for the spooks. Jimbo is the designated cult leader. It suits him, because he sees himself as charismatic.

"I'm doing this for the child in Africa who is going to use free textbooks and reference works produced by our community and find a solution to the crushing poverty that surrounds him." -- Jimbo

Yeah, okay.
Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 27th September 2006, 4:05pm) *

From larouchepub.com:
QUOTE
"Red" Steinhardt was sent to Sing Sing on a five- to ten-year sentence, a fact that Michael kept off of his resume, in order to get his start on Wall Street with the "Our Crowd" firm, Loeb Rhodes [sic]. Like father, like son -- Steinhardt Partners came under SEC and Justice Department scrutiny in the early 1990s, along with Salomon Brothers, for cornering the market in short-term U.S. Treasury bond sales. To avoid jail, Steinhardt settled the case with a $50 million fine.

You bet he left it off his resume, and the spook-connected Washington Post was also careful not to drag up any old history. From "Wired Into Wall Street:


Although he left it off his resume, he thoughtfully included it in his autobiography, No Bull, which is the apparent source for the story. One person who evidently read this autobiography is Patrick Byrne - he is familar with the Steinhardt family saga. He references it here. For more on Steinhardt, see this article in EIR.
Placeholder
/
Herschelkrustofsky
I'd like to offer some observations concerning the Patrick Byrne disclosures about SlimVirgin. They tend to reinforce some hypotheses and hunches I 've harbored for some time.

QUOTE
She tended to come to the pub in beautiful gowns that would not be out of place in a Dickens novel.

Halfway through the term she started speaking with an English accent that seemed pretentious, but she explained that she had had one English parent...


I have suspected that she was something of a fantasy-ridden Anglophile, not the sort that reads the tabloids and thinks of QEII as roughly equivalent to a Hollywood celebrity, but rather the sort that admires an oligarchical system, finding it so much more exciting and refined than a republican one. This is the sort of personality that aspires to be a courtier. A bright girl from a provincial Canadian background would certainly be susceptible to this sort of thing. I have already called attention before to her Wikipedia article on the Cambridge Apostles. Jimbo would probably seek out persons with these inclinations to be part of his retinue.

QUOTE
But now she was the center of attention, and over time, became invested with a new kind of bustling self-importance. We did have opportunity for a few civil words over a pint, and she spoke of “the families” and “our negotiations” as though she were emerging in a leadership role, and of meeting with news bureaus and intelligence agencies.


Her use of the expression "the families" is of particular interest here. It is possible, but unlikely, that this refers to the Lockerbie families; if Mr. Byrne is reading this forum, perhaps he might clarify this. In the context presented, I am assuming that she uses "the families" in the oligarchical sense, as I have seen it used by other admirers of the oligarchical approach. There are Families, who either by virtue of their aristocratic bloodlines, or by having ascended to a certain exalted rank in the financial world, consider themselves to be those who are qualified to administer the political and commercial affairs of the world, choosing and cultivating assorted politicians as surrogates for their discreet purposes. I kid you not. Think of the mafia approach, but with more education, better manners and classier wardrobes. It is very déclassé to discuss this if you are not one of the insiders -- you will generally be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. On the other hand, if you are an insider or a wannabe, the use of the term "the families" is considered way cool. Persons who yearn to orbit around the celestial brilliance of "the families" often seek employment as journalists or intelligence operatives, or both, so that they might make themselves useful

Now that we have the benefit of Mr. Byrne's insights, I suggest we return to the SlimVirgin: Agent of Influence? topic and reexamine it with fresh eyes.
Somey
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 29th September 2006, 4:29pm) *
In the context presented, I am assuming that she uses "the families" in the oligarchical sense, as I have seen it used by other admirers of the oligarchical approach. There are Families, who either by virtue of their aristocratic bloodlines, or by having ascended to a certain exalted rank in the financial world, consider themselves to be those who are qualified to administer the political and commercial affairs of the world, choosing and cultivating assorted politicians as surrogates for their discreet purposes. I kid you not.

Okay, you kid us not, but I've gotta say it anyway: That still sounds (to me) much less realistic than the idea that she idealized and projected her short affair with this guy at Cambridge to such an extent, that she began to consider herself a member of the "Lockerbie families" despite not having married him. As I recall, way back in the mists of time, that's pretty much the only thing the media called them - it was a catch-all term, probably meant to include girlfriends, fiances, and star-crossed lovers of the victims in general.

And to be honest, I think it explains her subsequent behavior a lot better, too... We may just have to agree to disagree on this one!
Daniel Brandt
I agree with Somey. Do a Google for "families of pan am 103" and you'll see that it's broadly used. They organized themselves, hired counsel, and it may have been their official name.

Does anyone live close to a local library that has its card catalog available online? You should check to see if they carry this book, and then visit them to pull it and check the index, and the pictures (if any), for Linda Mack. It's probably in a lot of libraries, but it has not been scanned by Amazon or Google. I believe there's a 50/50 chance that Linda Mack might be mentioned in the book: Steven Emerson and Brian Duffy. The Fall of Pan Am 103: Inside the Lockerbie Investigation (Putnam, 1990), ISBN 0-399-13521-9

Does Mr. Byrne have any old friends from Kings College who may have snapped pictures of fellow students?

I've emailed the archivist at Syracuse University and asked him what's in that box with "Linda Mack (ABC News)" listed on the contents. If it's a video of an interview, maybe some nice person at Syracuse could take a vidcap of Ms. Mack for us.
Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 29th September 2006, 3:04pm) *

That still sounds (to me) much less realistic than the idea that she idealized and projected her short affair with this guy at Cambridge to such an extent, that she began to consider herself a member of the "Lockerbie families" despite not having married him. As I recall, way back in the mists of time, that's pretty much the only thing the media called them - it was a catch-all term, probably meant to include girlfriends, fiances, and star-crossed lovers of the victims in general.

And to be honest, I think it explains her subsequent behavior a lot better, too... We may just have to agree to disagree on this one!


You may be right, of course, but could you elaborate on how it explains her subsequent behavior? How much of her activity at Wikipedia, for example, is Lockerbie-related? Or are you arguing that the whole affair simply traumatized her to the point of just being an unusually disagreeable person (it sounds, from Byrne's account, that she was already well on her way to that destination.)

What I am looking for is a degree of coherence among all her various POV-pushing and article-ownership pursuits.
EuroSceptic
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sat 30th September 2006, 1:29am) *

You may be right, of course, but could you elaborate on how it explains her subsequent behavior? How much of her activity at Wikipedia, for example, is Lockerbie-related? Or are you arguing that the whole affair simply traumatized her to the point of just being an unusually disagreeable person (it sounds, from Byrne's account, that she was already well on her way to that destination.)

What I am looking for is a degree of coherence among all her various POV-pushing and article-ownership pursuits.

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tim/cgi-bin/con...dbname=enwiki_p

shows about 25% of the edits (258/1111)....
-------
Maybe someone wants to contact these people. They mention that Linda Mack was indicated by Michael Morris as (being) an agent, but she was not questioned during the trial in the Netherlands:
LOCKERBIE-TEAM
MEBO LTD
Badenerstrasse 414
8004 Zurich/Switzerland

Tel: 0041 -1 - 492 50 20
Fax: 0041 -1 - 491 72 36

E-mail: mahnaz@bluewin.ch 1
Daniel Brandt
Michael S. Morris, born Jan.1940, is a former BOSS agent (South African intelligence under the apartheid regime) who hung out in Britain posing as a journalist and was exposed in the press in 1973. I found a white pages listing for him in East Lansing, MI, where he was a one-man "Air Incident Research" newsletter publisher and researcher. However, when I called the number it was disconnected with no forwarding number. Looks like a dead end, because Michael Morris is such a common name.

On November 18, 2004, two weeks after her first edit on Wikipedia, SlimVirgin started a stub on Steven Emerson (see the above book), and quickly expanded it into what can only be described as a "glowing" biography. The article got more NPOV over time with the addition of more sources, but SlimVirgin fought it all the way. Emerson is a controversial journalist, to put it mildly -- very anti-Arab and pro-Israel. SlimVirgin has made 77 out of the 219 edits to that article, with the most recent just two months ago. Emerson's co-author on that Pan Am book was Brian Duffy, editor at US News and World Report, which is owned by Mort Zuckerman.
Somey
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 29th September 2006, 7:29pm) *
...Or are you arguing that the whole affair simply traumatized her to the point of just being an unusually disagreeable person [?]

Well, yes and no. My guess would be that she was an unusually disagreeable person to begin with. That particular trait starts early; you don't pick it up because of any one particular trauma.

What seems more likely to me is that she'd suffered a recurring pattern in her relationships with people, especially romantic ones - a few weeks, months at the most, of emotional high, passion, and even sheer giddiness, followed by suspicion, anger, bitterness, and ultimately betrayal and breakup.

My theory would be that in this case, that pattern would have been cut short by the Lockerbie tragedy - at a point before anything bad had occurred in the relationship to sour it. As a result, the memory of this one guy would have remained idealized indefinitely, and the frustration of any further relationships would have simply reinforced the idea that she'd lost The One, or more to the point, the person who never hurt her, who never betrayed her, and who never brought out the negativity she'd experienced with all the others.

Ultimately, the people who took that idealized guy away, the terrorists, the Arabs, the haters of Jews, the murderers, became the target of her vendetta, the enemy, those who had to be punished at all costs for what they had done. In the early years, she had the energy to pursue them, to actively and aggressively fight them, both in the media and in academic circles, where she had friends and supporters to help her.

But as the years went on, she grew tired, lost her youthful energy, began to worry about other problems and other priorities. For some people, the pain would eventually fade too, but not hers. She probably never did find another guy who measured up... But actively pursuing the enemy eventually became too hard, and too costly. If she could only find a way to just sit down in her basement study and pursue them, punish them, from the comfort of her own home, surrounded by her beloved pets (who, it should be added, rarely if ever disagreed with her about anything), well... that would be perfect. And if there were a way that allowed her to see the results of her punishments immediately, with instant gratification, knowing that everything she did to punish them would be readily and clearly seen on one of the most popular informational mediums in the world, well, that would just be even more perfect. And she could just keep doing it, forever if necessary, until all of them were destroyed, wiped off the face of the planet, crushed!

Mind you, this is all a theory. Total conjecture. I could always be wrong... And frankly, if any of this is even close to the mark, then it's more personal and hurtful than I'm normally comfortable with. But this person has hurt too many people in the pursuit of her vendetta, and the people responsible have long since either been punished or disappeared beyond her reach (or anyone else's). It's time for her to stop.

She won't, though... It's what she lives to do.
Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 29th September 2006, 10:37pm) *

Ultimately, the people who took that idealized guy away, the terrorists, the Arabs, the haters of Jews, the murderers, became the target of her vendetta, the enemy, those who had to be punished at all costs for what they had done.


OK, I see your point on this. I'm trying to see how this fits the vendetta against LaRouche; I was working from the hypothesis that she was full of romantic admiration for oligarchical social systems (hence her affinity to Wikipedia), and she took umbrage at LaRouche's militant republicanism. However, it could just as easily be that she regards him as "soft on Arabs." Her initial foray against LaRouche was the Jeremiah Duggan article, and Duggan evidently committed suicide after attending a LaRouche-sponsored conference against the invasion of Iraq. But then again, there are lots of people who opposed the Iraq war. I think she'd need a better reason to focus her rage on LaRouche.
Somey
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sat 30th September 2006, 1:39am) *
I'm trying to see how this fits the vendetta against LaRouche; I was working from the hypothesis that she was full of romantic admiration for oligarchical social systems (hence her affinity to Wikipedia), and she took umbrage at LaRouche's militant republicanism.... (snip)... I think she'd need a better reason to focus her rage on LaRouche.

Well... that's a tricky one. You're Australian, so in spite of your being a supporter and all, maybe you didn't have the same exposure to LaRouche that people in the States had back in the day...? She's Canadian, but we're workiing off the hypothesis that she spent several years in the US in the early 90's, working for the media (ABC News?) when LaRouche was both active in politics and in lots of trouble with the IRS.

The fact is, as Karmafist pointed out a while ago, LaRouche was never taken all that seriously here. There was no way he was ever going to win an election, or even come close, and most of us just saw him as (in varying degrees) a crackpot. The fact that some of his predictions came true, and that a few of his ideas were later picked up by the mainstream, is easily forgotten by a society with what appears to be no long-term memory whatsoever - especially when easily-retold and remembered bits are available, like "hey. he said Queen Elizabeth was a drug kingpin! Sheeeeit!"

So it's hard to say... I'd suggest that she simply saw the anti-LaRouche POV as a means of winning allies among other agents of the Wikimedia Foundation, especially these two guys Chip Berlet and Adam Carr, both of whom are tenacious arguers if nothing else. It may also be that you're too close to the situation - she's made a lot of people angry in a lot of subject areas, and while it may seem like she was focusing her rage on LaRouche, I suspect a lot of people thought she was focusing her rage on their ideology or political interest group too, at whatever time it was, when maybe the reality is that she has plenty of rage to go around.

Again, though, I'm hypothesizing based on a limited set of facts, some of which aren't fully substantiated. You could easily be right, and me wrong... It's troubling to me that I've gotten into it to this extent, but I guess you have to break few eggs to make peach melba. mellow.gif
Placeholder
/
Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 30th September 2006, 12:15am) *

You're Australian, so in spite of your being a supporter and all, maybe you didn't have the same exposure to LaRouche that people in the States had back in the day...?


I'll need to correct a few misconceptions here, without, I hope, straying to far off topic. First of all, I'm an all-American boy. I've never been to Australia.

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 30th September 2006, 12:15am) *
She's Canadian, but we're workiing off the hypothesis that she spent several years in the US in the early 90's, working for the media (ABC News?) when LaRouche was both active in politics and in lots of trouble with the IRS.


LaRouche was in jail in the early '90s (although still active in politics.) The IRS had relatively little to do with it, although one of the charges was that he had conspired to mislead the IRS about his income. He was paroled in '94, which he attributes to the good offices of Bill Clinton.

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 30th September 2006, 12:15am) *
The fact is, as Karmafist pointed out a while ago, LaRouche was never taken all that seriously here. There was no way he was ever going to win an election, or even come close, and most of us just saw him as (in varying degrees) a crackpot. The fact that some of his predictions came true, and that a few of his ideas were later picked up by the mainstream, is easily forgotten by a society with what appears to be no long-term memory whatsoever - especially when easily-retold and remembered bits are available, like "hey. he said Queen Elizabeth was a drug kingpin! Sheeeeit!"


He was always depicted as a crank in the media. The "Queen of England" quote, attributed countless times to LaRouche, came in fact from the fertile imagination of one Mark Nykanen, who in those days was working for NBC.

However, during the Reagan administration LaRouche was meeting with members of the National Security Council, and served as a "back channel" in discussions with Soviet Union during the period '81-'82. LaRouche was taken very seriously in the spook world, as I think Daniel can attest from his NameBase files, and if SV fancies herself a spook, this would draw her attention.

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 30th September 2006, 12:15am) *
So it's hard to say... I'd suggest that she simply saw the anti-LaRouche POV as a means of winning allies among other agents of the Wikimedia Foundation, especially these two guys Chip Berlet and Adam Carr, both of whom are tenacious arguers if nothing else. It may also be that you're too close to the situation - she's made a lot of people angry in a lot of subject areas, and while it may seem like she was focusing her rage on LaRouche, I suspect a lot of people thought she was focusing her rage on their ideology or political interest group too, at whatever time it was, when maybe the reality is that she has plenty of rage to go around.


SV has no shortage of fans. wink.gif However, it is clear that when she came to Wikipedia, going after LaRouche was one of her first agenda items. She sought out Adam Carr after beginning her campaign. She knew or knew of Berlet before coming to WP, because he authored most of the "Justice for Jeremiah" site that she mirrored in her article.
Daniel Brandt
QUOTE
She's Canadian, but we're workiing off the hypothesis that she spent several years in the US in the early 90's, working for the media (ABC News?)

A minor correction. As far as I know, her work for ABC News was done out of the London bureau of ABC News. She was there at least in 1989, and a bit into 1990. In June, 1989 her address was 18 Chamberlain Court, Westfield Lane, Cambridge CB4 3QX, United Kingdom, telephone 44-223-462034. Patrick Byrne says that he was told that she moved to New York -- I'm not sure when this was, but no earlier than early 1990, because she ordered some photocopies that I sent to ABC News in London on January 22, 1990. I never got the $11.90 on that invoice. Let's see now, 16.5 years interest at a nominal 18 percent.... Hey SlimVirgin, you owe me about $180. Where do I send the bill -- to the Wikimedia Foundation? I'll accept your poodle as down payment if you don't have the cash handy.
Patrick Byrne
Hello Wikipedia Review.

Respect to all. I am honored to be able to (perhaps) have a chance to make a tiny contribution to the tremendous work you are doing (especially Mr. Brandt, whose style and courage I admire).

I start with a disclaimer. Folks discussing the foibles Wall Street often raise issues of ethnicity. I respectfully divorce myself from such reasoning. That angle is false (ethnicities are not monolithic), graceless (in my case) towards my greatest professors as well as my boyhood friends, counterproductive, and ignorant (different professions draw ethnicities in statistically odd ways, but we can discuss the professions without discussing ethnicities). To expose a corner of a financial scam I filed a suit against Marc Cohedes (Greek?), Carr Bettis and Donn Vickrey (north European?), and David Rocker. As I think your Wikipedia fight may be a different corner of the same issue I would like to provide you information, but divorce myself from ethnic issues. I am not holier-than-thou, but am staking a personal position while sharing information that might be useful.

Our fight (your fight to expose Wikipedia, and mine to expose a form of corruption on Wall Street) seem at times as though we see an elephant in the room, and the whole world seems to be cooperating to keep from admitting there is an elephant in the room. Even worse, those who do catch a glimpse of it are scared by it.

How do you eat an elephant? "One bite at a time." Let's go one bite at a time.

I am sure you, dear reader, share my discomfort in confronting a woman such as SlimVirgin. I have no interest in hurting anyone, especially a fragile woman from my past. On the other hand, we didn't go at SlimVirgin, SlimVirgin came at us, and she is hurting dozens and misleading millions. I want to take the sniper down with a shot to the knee. You may think it silly of me to give you the detail I give here, but if you are welling to suffer a lengthy story, I believe I can give answers to questions you are debating.

I do not have a photo of Linda, but she is worth describing. She was my age, that is, in 1988 we were both mid-twenties, older than the other students by a few years: I had been sick for a few years before starting grad school, and she had taken a few years to do other things as well. Pretty, if not quite beautiful (though she might have been if she wanted), and very, very striking, so much that the few months I knew her left me with vivid mental snapshots of her after these eighteen years.
Medium height, well proportioned but not athletic, skin so pale it was a bit eerie. Her hair was either red-dyed-black, or black-dyed-red, and was quite long except for bangs cut flat across her brow (think of "Morticia"). She wore blood-red lipstick. Here I confess a data corruption error, because in most images her eyes are unremarkable, but in one they are not. We had been sitting on a bench in the afternoon, talking, then I said something that I thought innocuous, and she responded, "Patrick (dramatic pause) I'm so hurt that you said that." I thought she was kidding and looked into her eyes. In this memory alone they are incredibly light blue, huge, with thick lashes curled back, welling with tears.

I felt badly, but it also felt like a trick. This was probably the first time in my life I did not fall for it automatically, and realized I don't have to give the click-whrrr response expected of me. I apologized, but made a note. Generalizing from my own experience (pardon the supermarket psychology and latent sexism): you get to know a guy, he says some frat-boy thing, and you say to yourself, "Ah, fratboy." Or a gal says something really strong and confident and you say to yourself, "This woman has it going on." Or a guy says something that shows he is not about fighting to be alpha and you say, "Cool guy" (and you give him the same sign, I hope). I think there are dozens of categories we develop like this over time. There is one I have had only a few occasions to use, from a line in an old Western: "The Indians will leave you along now, Woman, because you are 'touched'." On a small number of occasions I've gotten to know a woman and realized fairly quickly that she was not just fragile (which is fine), but "touched" and had to be treated with kid gloves. I'd say, example #1 from my life would be SlimVirgin.

I mentioned SlimVirgin's Victorian dress to convey what I just explained above. In a student pub in which kids wore jeans and tee shirts, she wore flowing, ruby red and emerald green dresses that were more costumes than attire. I am the last guy in the world to criticize another's dress (as a student, I'd change my shirt once/week whether it needed it or not, and I chose clothes less with an eye to fashion than utility: for example, I spent my undergrad years in cowboy boots and a Mexican poncho). But in a 1988 English student pub at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, SlimVirgin would show up dressed like she was ready for the start of the evening shift at Denver Dolly's Saloon and Cat House, c. 1890.

There were occasional student dances in the basement: SlimVirgin stood out as a dancer (not hard to do in England, where even women dance poorly and men think Sid Vicious is hip). She was a great dancer in a Grateful-Dead-Seaweed-Wave kind of way, but with more style and rhythm than you'd see at a Dead show. But what I remember about her was her sense that she was Den Mother, somehow in charge of the party.

I hope the reader understands now why I described SlimVirgin at this length. She's the kind you meet and realize, you'd better not only be on best behavior, you'd better walk on egg shells, and not return any flirty overtures, even in a good-natured way, or else you are going to come in one day and find that someone boiled your bunny.

I vaguely recollect what I said over dinner that upset her, but am not completely sure I am not confusing incidents. So as best as I remember, it was this: a group of us were stretched along both sides of a dining hall table. Nearing the end of dinner and feeling like clowning around a bit, I reached across the table for a French Fry from my friend Jeremy's plate, and said in a posh English boarding school boy's accent that I was just learning to imitate, "Say, may I have one of your ch-ips, lad?" Everyone froze. I suddenly remembered that Linda been using a British accent for a few weeks, people froze because there were wondering if I were making fun of her, or if Linda would think I was making fun of her, and there I was stuck with a fry half-way to my mouth, so while the others stared at their food I popped the fry into my mouth and smiled at her in an attempt to show friendliness, but instead she threw her face down in her hands.

As I said, I cannot swear with certainty that those were the events. But if it was not that exactly, it was something very much like it, and I remember wanting to reach out to her to say, "No, I was not even been thinking of you when I made the joke, it was thoughtless of me, I don't think you're being pretentious for switching to a British accent," or whatever I had to say to soothe her.
I backed away as some women there (led by a lovely Scottish woman called, “Kanya” I think) tried to console her, and when some time later another guy came to the pub to tell me, "Linda's very upset at what you said," I did go back to apologize and explain, but a few women and J_____ were sitting there with her, and J_____ waved me off. It was the first time I recall seeing J_____ and Linda together, and they began dating that evening. I believe he left Cambridge and was killed over Lockerbie the following week, or one or two after that at the latest.

After J_____’s death, she wore long black gowns.

No one has the right to say to anyone, "You only dated a guy for a few days (or a few weeks or whatever) before he was murdered, so you don't have the right to consider yourself, 'a widow.'" I know I have had brief flings that, had after we parted the gal been murdered, I would certainly have been crushed and felt a duty to avenge her. So no one has a right to judge another in such circumstances. So I never bought into the snickers that started to go around, mostly among women. I suppose what did seem a little inappropriate, however, was her emergence as one of the "leaders" of the Pan Am #103 families: as word of that spread, it did seem a bit off, and we all wondered how exactly she was portraying her relationship with J_____.

Her use of "families" in my earlier story was definitely intended in the "Families of Pan Am 103" sense. That said, she did project a sense of having “come from a good family" in Canada, used not as a crass euphemism for "wealthy," but simply, she was cosmopolitan and well-mannered (albeit dramatic). In short, she was from a family of well-educated people, and spoke of relations who were artists, writers, or teachers, I seem to recall.

I just rang up a friend of mine from those days, an English woman with whom I have not spoken in years (the one who told me, when I asked about (first name redacted) in 1989 or 1990, that she had moved off to London or New York, and was making Pan Am #103 her life's work). I just tracked down this old friend of mine in London. I'll summarize her recollection: "Yes I remember J_____. He was a very nice boy. Linda was a weirdo. She came to the King's Bar dressed like a Goth, and was always crying in public. After Lockerbie she was a wreck, but she was a wreck before it as well. We felt badly for her, but after a time it seemed like she was milking it, there with the wives and brothers and children of the deceased. I think I said something awful about it, but I mean, really. I recall thinking she was parlaying it into getting a job as a glamorous reporter. And she did: didn't she leave and end up working for ABC?"

I find it highly improbable that she was ever employed by any intelligence service. I would imagine that such groups have psychological filters through which to screen candidates to select those who are emotionally tough and stable. SlimVirgin's instability could be spotted from across the street. It is not out of the question that she could be used by one or more of them, simply by holding out the promise of feeling important. However, she would be of extremely limited use, I would imagine, and one would always have to fear her stability.

That, in excruiating detail, is that. If you have read this far I do hope you accept my apologies for the length. I have followed your efforts to expose perfidy within Wikipedia, perfidy which seems to cluster around SlimVirgin. I knew I had information that might answer some of your questions, but thought that if I just wrote out my impressions it would come across as simple gossip, though by sharing details I could convey the broadest possible picture that could be of use to you.

In sum: you are facing a person who is intelligent but went from unstable to unhinged, someone who floated around the international press corps then disappeared. She would be, I think, incapable of designing on her own any grand plan such as what you imagine, but she would be an easy target for someone who wanted to manipulate her into devoting her energy and intelligence to a bad cause, probably by flattering her desire to play an important role while confusing her with talk of higher purpose.

I wish you the best in your own efforts, and hope we meet someday. Until then, I remain,

Your humble servant,

Patrick


One more thought:

Judging from my previous post and how it showed up, I had better lay off the heavy formatting.

Since I see that you folks have caught the trail of Michael Steinhardt, I thought I would drop down something from an interview (of sorts) I did earlier this year with BusinessWeek.

http://thesanitycheck.com/DrByrneJournalis...90/Default.aspx

I apologize if this is old hat to you, but if not, you might find it relevant:


I was referring to the fact that one does not have to dig very deep into Wall Street, especially the hard-core short-selling crowd, to find mobsters and mob connections. For example, the whole Lucky Lucianno, Genovese family, Bugsy Seagull, Meyer Lanksy, Vincent "Jimmy Blue Eyes" Alo.

Lanksy had a fence named Sol "Red" Steinhardt whom the Manhattan district attorney Frank Hogan called "the biggest mafia fence in America" (or words to that effect). Did some time in Sing Sing, while there, made sure his son went to Wharton. That son, Michael Steinhardt, started Steinhardt, Fine, Berkowitz (as one friend on Wall Street described them, "That's when the bad guys showed up on Wall Street"). Financier for Marc Rich, who got busted trading with Libya and Iran, fled (with his buddy Pinky Green) the USA for, I believe, Zug, Switzerland.

Steinhardt got busted for trying (with another firm, I believe it was Caxton) to corner the US Treasury market in the early 1990's, (making him a second generation racketeer) paid $40 million and "retired" (I believe the DOJ was seeking an injunction to keep him out of the markets). Stayed in contact with Rich, negotiated Marc's pardon by Bill Clinton.

Rich is connected to Ronald Greenwald, who sponsored Evsei Agron (the guy who brought the Red mafia to the USA), who until he got whacked was apparently linked to the Genovese family, and so on and so forth.

You know, those guys.
Here, you may have missed the couple thousand stories like this:


By GREG B. SMITH
Daily News Staff Writer
Sunday, September 10, 2000
"They are getting more together," said Barry Mawn, director of the FBI's New York office. "They're apt to be taking advantage of the good times. They know how we look at them. If they can branch out in a new area where we're not as aware, that's to their advantage."

Investigators, prosecutors and regulators with the National Association of Securities Dealers and the Securities and Exchange Commission all agree that the mob has lurked at the margins of Wall Street for years.

At 17 State St., from 1993 through 1996, White Rock Investments was a cooperative agreement between the Bonanno, Colombo and Genovese families, according to Brooklyn federal prosecutors.

At 30 Broad St., in 1996 and 1997, Meyers Pollack Robbins was controlled by the same allegiance of the Bonanno, Colombo and Genovese families, according to court papers.

At 80 Broad St. and 84 William St., in 1996, First Liberty became a "joint venture" between the Bonanno and Colombo crime families, prosecutor Smith said.

And most recently, in 1998 through this June, DMN Capital Investments at 5 Hanover Square was run by the Bonanno and Gambino families, an indictment brought by a Manhattan federal grand jury alleges.

Investigators say Wall Street is a perfect spot for La Cosa Nostra strong-arm tactics: The mob is threatening white-collar yuppies, not longshoremen or Teamsters.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Smith, who is leading the 120-defendant mob-on-Wall-Street case for Manhattan U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, said the money is funneled through Persico's cousin, Frank Persico, a registered broker since the end of the last bull market in 1988.

Frank Persico, an alleged Colombo associate, along with Gallo and Vincent Langella, another reputed Colombo associate, represents the new breed of rising Mafia star, the wiseguy broker.

Etc.
guy
A very warm welcome to Patrick Byrne.
EuroSceptic
Dropping jaw. This gets more interesting every minute.
Placeholder
This points us toward a theory of personality that could help understand the dynamics of why people seek power and control of others through the Wikimedia Foundation's social networks.
Patrick Byrne
QUOTE(guy @ Sat 30th September 2006, 9:48pm) *

A very warm welcome to Patrick Byrne.


Very warmly returned, Guy.

Patrick

I am here to make positive, constructive criticisms of Wikipedia. I will not use bad language or gratuitous abuse; other users please copy.
Daniel Brandt
QUOTE
This points us toward a theory of personality that could help understand the dynamics of why people seek power and control of others through the Wikimedia Foundation's social networks.

Excellent post, Joey, and thanks again, Patrick. This recent information has confirmed for me that Wikipedia has no business doing anything at all that affects the lives of real people against their wishes.

This Web 2.0 social network stuff may be amusing and harmless in the context of discussing video games or quaint British train stations. But when it comes to important political and social issues and biographies of innocent living persons, combined with Google rankings that go through the roof, it has no right to exist. Anonymity by Wikipedia editors, with secret cabals on top of this, have no place in serious civil society. As long as there are anonymous Wikipedians who insist that it is their right to create and protect biographies of living persons against the subject's wishes, what we should conclude from this is that Wikipedia must be dismantled.

"Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) in the context of a SlimVirgin has no meaning whatsoever. Look at how much effort was required by us just to get this far in our understanding of what's going on with her. And look at how much we still don't know.

Jimmy Wales has created a monster.
Patrick Byrne
Joey,

I commend you on the intelligence of your post.

Dan Brandt,

I am with you except for the "right to exist" stuff. I assume you would not seriously propose having the government shut such entitites down. (?!?!) I agree that it is a monster, but clever folks have gotten together to figure out how to slay monsters before.

I know how irritating it can be when someone comes into an arena where one is trying to make one point, and tries to connect it to some other private battle of his. However, a remarkable simiarity is emerging between our two respective battles (mine on Wall Street corruption, yours on Wikipedia).

My view is that we are on the edge of exposing the greatest financial crime in US history: hedge funds and broker dealers have been making money by destroying companies through an illegal technique called "naked shorting" (the details of which can be found at thesanitycheck.com). It is a scandal that will dwarf Enron if it ever breaks through the bad guys' attempts to contain it. In the process of trying to expose this I came to see how badly our social institutions are failing us: the financial press, the SEC, the Senate Banking Committee, the US Congress. With rare exception (and there are good men and women in DC, I promise, I've met some), DC seems to be a facade for something malevolent. It is though an image of democracy and represenitive government is projected to the masses: "Here's the Constitution, and it lays out all this plumbing nad machinery for amalgamating the desires of millions of citizens." But behind the scenes, that machinery has a bunch of levers and buttons on it, and those have been seized by a bunch of gangsters to the extent that it cannot function to correct an obvious and lethal manipulation in the marketplace.

Your view (as I understand it, having spent just some time in the last week becoming familiar with what you are saying here) is that Wikipedia is more or less the same thing. It presents a facade of consensual "neutral point of view," but that behind that facade there is a bunch of plumbing that is supposed to combine and amalgamate the knowledge of millions, but that plumbing has been gangstered by some bad guys, so that they can manipulate it into saying what they want it to say, and hide their machinations behind its authoritative "neutral point of view."

It is the damndest thing, and I do not want to come in and try to make my fight your fight, but I just want to tell you folks this: your gangsters turn out to be connected to our gangsters. That is, for two years there has been a group of folks (bloggers, clean stock brokers, lawyers, economists, etc.) trying to unravel an enourmous financial crime on Wall Street. It has been a battle of the Swarm (that being us) versus the mainstream financial press (who have downplayed and denied and been part of the cover-up). I do not want to distract any of you here from the fight you are fighting, and you may think that Wall Street is just a bunch of rich guys sticking it to rich guys anyway. But if you have any time you should check out this fellow's blog and his site in general: thesanitycheck.com/BobsSanityCheckBlog/tabid/56/Default.aspx

If you want to spend an hour really understanding it in depth, go to businessjive.com and see the narrated PowerPoint I did there.

Again, apologies if I am distrcting you from your cause. I thought I would point out to all here how similar our fights are (in a deep structure kind of way), and also, how odd it seems that the bad guys some of us are fighting turn out to be connected to the bad guys the others are fighting.

And Dan, back to your point: we don't have to challenge their right to exist. There may be other ways to set things aright.

Regards all,

Patrick



Somey
And on top of all that, now I learn that Sid Vicious isn't considered "hip" anymore! This just hasn't been my day... Now I'm going to have to get a whole new wardrobe...

In all seriousness, though, this really does provide further proof that Wikipedia is susceptible to a variety of subtle and devious manipulations by its own administrators. And in the face of this, what do we get - a "new BLP policy" that provides for "aggressive enforcement of WP:CITE" and "suspension of WP:3RR" for uncited additions in living-person biographies?

Not good enough. Nothing less than full opt-out is acceptable, or even tolerable, in a civilized society, wired or otherwise, that's faced with the problem that Wikipedia has become.

Last but not least, I too would like to thank Mr. Byrne for joining and participating here... It even sounds like he, SlimVirgin, and I are all roughly the same age. That would probably explain the Sid Vicious references, at least!
Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Patrick Byrne @ Sat 30th September 2006, 5:26pm) *

My view is that we are on the edge of exposing the greatest financial crime in US history: hedge funds and broker dealers have been making money by destroying companies through an illegal technique called "naked shorting" (the details of which can be found at thesanitycheck.com). It is a scandal that will dwarf Enron if it ever breaks through the bad guys' attempts to contain it.


It may all go broke before the public ever realizes it exists. With something over a quadrillion dollars in derivatives on the books, you may soon see a chain reaction of defaults that simply leaves a giant crater where there was once a financial system.
The Adversary
Just a quick note to wish Patrick Byrne: welcome, a fascinating story!

Some information: Fall of Pan-Am 103: Inside the Lockerbie Investigation (ISBN: 0708883478)
by Steven Emerson, Brian Duffy, can be bought on http://www.abebooks.com/ for 1USD +shipping.

As for Slim and Lockerbie: I wonder if she was enough "Inside the family" to receive compensation? Each family got 10 mil USD, minus fees for law firms; 8-9 USD. Is it possible to find out which persons benefited? Could it be that Slim received, say, 2-3 mill. ..so she does not have to keep a payed job. Now, that would be irony: Libya has perhaps payed for Slims edits at Wikipedia...
Jonny Cache
Well, this is all very fascinating stuff, and of course I never believe anything I read on the Internet anymore, but it does give me clues to follow up one day on my own. I wouldn't want Wikipedia Review to slide down the slippery slope of becoming nothing more than SlimVirgin Review, but that particular anonymph was a major convulsant in the ASOTAC that ended my Brief Life at Wikipedia. And the hill on which I died was the hill of Factual Reporting And Responsible Scholarship (FRARS), which the ASOTAC is still attacking with all its might, with no quarter given to anybody who gets in the way of their WikiPutsch to decimate the accountability of Wikepedia articles, even in such far-flung and seemingly de"tetched" houses as the Mansion of Philosophy. So the question that is really important to me here is this: Why Is That ? Any hints will be duly considered, with the usual quantum of saliciousness.

Jonny cool.gif
TabulaRasa
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 30th September 2006, 10:19pm) *

I wouldn't want Wikipedia Review to slide down the slippery slope of becoming nothing more than SlimVirgin Review...

I have a comment on your point about becoming overly Slim-centric, and and then an observation that might make my first point moot.

1- There will always be more to discuss here than SlimVirgin, but that we examine her in particular depth seems appropriate, given her status as the embodiment of all that's wrong with wikipedia in toto, and that directly observing or being directly affected by her excesses is one thing almost all of us have in common.

2- That said, I have this nagging feeling that SlimVirgin has morphed into something much bigger than we know. Her 27 hour edit-a-thon earlier this month, which (without first showing any loss of momentum) ended abruptly only when Bhouston pointed it out publicly, forces me to wonder whether "she" even really exists any more.

Remember Wordbomb's chart showing how email he sent SlimVirgin was opened by Gary Weiss? Wordbomb seems to believe that SV sent the email to Gary and he opened it. Mr. Ockham (you may know him by his Razor) might suggest that the simplest explanation is that Gary Weiss IS SlimVirgin, at least part of the time.

And ultimately, that might not matter, because be she an army of editors or just an army of one, Wikipedia will not change until she does.
Somey
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 30th September 2006, 10:19pm) *
I wouldn't want Wikipedia Review to slide down the slippery slope of becoming nothing more than SlimVirgin Review...

I wouldn't worry about that too much... This is just one of our "SlimVirgin flare-up weekends," really. After this one, I don't think we're due for another round for almost an entire fortnight!

QUOTE(TabulaRasa @ Sat 30th September 2006, 9:38pm) *
...That said, I have this nagging feeling that SlimVirgin has morphed into something much bigger than we know.

I dunno, folks. Maybe it's because I haven't had any direct contact/confrontation with Slimmy, but let's not be too quick to race headlong into conspiracyland here. Lots of people stay up for 2-3 days straight - it's called insomnia, and it's often part-and-parcel with various personality issues, the names of which I wouldn't care to speculate on at the moment.

The reality is that there are 1.3 million articles over there on the Wikimedia Foundation's website, roughly half of which are actually articles about something, and Slimmy can't get involved in every topic that's covered over there. Clearly she's not at all interested in, say, experimental botany, or Tibetan tantras, or podiatric medicine. I daresay there are all sorts of topic areas that she hasn't touched at all, or even considered touching.

The way I see it, the problem isn't her extensive reach; the problem is that she, and the people who support her, create an atmosphere of negativity that infects and spreads through the entire project, no matter what the topic area is. And when her motives and manipulations are exposed, it makes everyone involved in Wikipedia look bad, and it devalues their efforts, even if those efforts are completely unrelated to any topics she's involved in.

To be sure, we've clearly explained why Slimmy is so fond of User:Mantanmoreland, and sure, Mantanmoreland is probably Gary Weiss, yada yada yada. But the whole Weiss business is just one of many irons she has in the fire, and if you don't mind my mixing metaphors a bit, she's frying a lot of fish... But that still doesn't mean she's some sort of multi-person "Wikiteam." And actually, Surfer's "multi-million-dollar Lockerbie payoff" theory could explain her apparent lack of any need for regular employment.
Jonny Cache
Myself, I swear by Maxwell's Razor:

Don't abduct a demon as a hostage to entropy.

But never mind that now.

For the rest of this discussion, and those to follow, let me introduce a form of brevity that stores a bit of wit for me:
  • STIB (s) = State Transition Indexed By (s), where s is a character string.
  • Let X be the state space of a database, for example, the state of a wiki.
  • A state transition t is a transformation of X, a mapping of type t : X -> X.
My own experience confirms the gist of what Tabula Rasa says, as my first encounters with the set of Wikipedia state transitions indexed by the string "SlimVirgin", in symbols, the set {t : X -> X | t = STIB ("SlimVirgin")} were quite benign, but for reasons that remain beyond my ken, though a subject of so far futile speculation, they radically altered all of a sudden when I began to work on the WP:NOR policy page.

But assigning too much causality to single individuals is a prediction of a well-known theory in psychology, the theory of "Fundamental Attribution Bias" (FAB), and falling into that error has the effect of causing us to ignore the role of the rest of the population that winks at these acts. I mean, you can't blame the leader for the stupidity of those who follow. Okay, thare are leaders who slash education funding, so I guess that's an exception to the rule.

Jonny cool.gif
Somey
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 30th September 2006, 10:35pm) *
Myself, I swear by Maxwell's Razor: Don't abduct a demon as a hostage to entropy. But never mind that now.

Good, because I have absolutely no clue as to what that means...

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 30th September 2006, 10:35pm) *
But assigning too much causality to single individuals is a prediction of a well-known theory in psychology, the theory of "Fundamental Attribution Bias" (FAB), and falling into that error has the effect of causing us to ignore the role of the rest of the population that winks at these acts.

Agreed! And to some extent, I've advocated all along that we focus less on Slimmy, salacious as all this is. When you think about it, the fact that in another thread we're chiding Larry Sanger, and to some extent the rest of the Faithful, for "blaming it all on Lir" while we're over here doing practically the same thing with SlimVirgin could very well look rather untoward to an outsider, sincere though it may be.

The other point I've sometimes tried to make, probably unsuccessfully, is that even if you can get rid of the worst of the worst, somebody else (presumably User:Cyde, in this scenario) just becomes the worst of the worst to take that person's place... And then you get rid of that person, and someone else comes along, ad infinitum. That isn't to say that every society has to have its bad guys, but the fact is, every society does have its bad guys. And it's easy to spend too much time going after the bad guys, to the point where you don't spend enough time trying to figure out why there are so many of them.
guy
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 1st October 2006, 5:15am) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 30th September 2006, 10:35pm) *
Myself, I swear by Maxwell's Razor: Don't abduct a demon as a hostage to entropy. But never mind that now.

Good, because I have absolutely no clue as to what that means...

Read up on James Clerk Maxwell and what is known as Maxwell's demon.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.