After Daniel and Seth, it's Angela's turn on the merry-go-round.

Her bio is a complete waste of time, what needs to be known about her is already on her user page. As she rightly observed, it is a "troll magnet" of no value. I hope her article is treated in the same manner as Daniel's/Seth's and is deleted as more evidence of wikipedia's recent coming of age.

Every minute, I regret bailing less and less. How ridiculous.

Pretty predictable — I s'pose that Jimbo will be next ...

The voice of the Turdle POV is heard in the land, crying that "Wikipedia Has Come Of Age", but no1 is saying of what age Wikipedia has come. I reckon we should have a poll on that, but I'm voting ~1½.

But c'mon, folks, does NE1 really imagine they'll get the strait dope on <Insert Name of Yet Another Large Legacy Corporate Owned Media Empire (YALLCOME) here> from reading about it in the e-missions of a4said YALLCOME ?

If you think that, you've yet to come of the age of which Wikipedia has actually come.

Jonny

It's not that I don't see the pat response from those espousing dead UseNet wisdom, but I believe the age they think they are coming into is Godwin's Thousand Year Reich. The cabal believe they have consolidated power, fended off threats by both plebeians inside WP, Wiki-Crits of the WR variety and tamed DB. They are absolutely intoxicated. The worst thugs, social media warlords and well just plain sociopaths, including Slim and Tony Sidaway believe that they have now done the right thing and now are destined to rule.

I guess WR is probably riding pretty low in the minds of the of WP's outsiders and thought criminals, non-orthodox political partisans, those with conspiracy views, anti-Zionist leftists, Muslims, Mormons, depleted uranium activists, intoxicated philosophers and assorted other outliers, who at this moment they gather up, sock puppet masks placed over their heads and beat bloody with mop handles. Such unpleasant people anyways.

They came for the LaRouchies but I was not a LaRouchie....


Yes Mister Godwin I know, we have lost the argument. For now anyways. But those thousand years can go by pretty fast sometimes.

Delete. Semi-notable, and subject has requested deletion. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


The cabal is voting to delete.

It would appear that they are trying, in their stumbling and sometimes delightfully misguided way, to steer in the direction that we mentioned a long time ago.

Events can be notable without the person doing them being notable.

In Angela Beesley's case, there is really nothing terribly notable about her outside her work with the WMF. So put her activities in the WMF article and delete the bio. And (gasp) don't wikilink her name. What a concept!

Don't get me wrong, there's no generosity of spirit here.

Quite frankly, I suspect SV realized that as the bar of notability drifted lower and lower, she was going to be the subject of an article herself (as some 16-year-old idealist decided that SV's status as a powerful WP admin made her notable). Allowing the Brandt article to go away, and pushing for the Beesley article to disappear, makes it harder for someone to argue she's notable.

So even though it's for the wrong reason, it's likely to produce a positive result.

How 'bout that?

DB, Seth, Beesley. All up to their eyeballs in internet culture and WP. All willing to endlessly engage in esoteric WP processes. None of this is the real test. Soon a true stranger to WP will be hurt by BLP actions. Someone who will never hit the "edit' button. Someone who will Drop the Real Dime instead.

There will eventually be articles about all of these characters, but they won't appear in Wikipedia, and they won't be written by amateurs.

Jonny

I'm wondering: wouldn't an article on SV be valuable in and of itself? From the various threads about her, there seems to be a borderline notability similar to Daniel Brandt. Aren't you performing a disservice to the community without describing her past behavior as well as her present activity in an objective fashion? I think everyone will acknowledge that her influence on Wikipedia is probably greater than any of the individual Trustees, perhaps rivalling Jimmy Wales' influence.

Perhaps, but SV's notability is rising, while Brandt's is probably not...


I wouldn't think so... Objectivity, or rather feigned objectivity, is part of the essential problem with WP, and not something we'd really want to emulate, is it? People should know who and where the evidence is coming from, and evaluate it on that basis.


I'd agree on it being greater than any of the trustees, but Jimbo? Naaah! Besides, you have to define the word "influence." She doesn't really influence WP to take a specific ideological approach to content outside of the areas she's personally interested in, and I personally would say her influence over policy is somewhat overrated. What she does seem to influence is attitude, environment, and toleration levels within the community. The influence is mostly negative, of course, and sure, I'd probably agree that it's greater than Jimbo's is just at this moment... Overall, though, I'd have to say WP still reflects Jimbo's personal values and approach to community relations far more than it reflects SV's. What's more, there are plenty of signs that the community is trying to resist the negative influences, and may even ultimately succeed in doing so.

Somey, this seems to be something of a blindspot for many Reviewers, who overlook SimVirgin's massive impact on Wikipedia's core pseudopolicies. Indeed, what she has contributed to article content is entirely ephemeral compared to the way that she and her cohorts have effaced the letter of its former rules and warped the very space of its culture. The policy pages are the nucleus where this cabal (within a clique within a core within a corps ...) deposits its POV-DNA, without which mechanism they could not leverage their influence over the whole Body Of Wikipediocy.

Jonny

WP:A was her creation.

What a lot of people who do not follow WP:Policy Devolution very closely do not realize is that the whole WP:A debate was moot from the get-go, as all of the policy mutations that SlimVirgin and crew wanted had already been implemented in the Big Three Policies and their satellites at the cost of massive bloodshed in the year preceding the WP:A initiative. The merge and rename were simply finishing touches that would have consolidated the fait accompli a little more than it already was.

See Wikipedia Talk : No Original Research/Historical Datapoints

Jonny