SlimVirgin got a vandalism warning and I was wondering what she'd do. Supposedly you aren't allowed to remove these... EVER! You get reverted and blocked for doing so.

What would SV do? I wait and waited... then MONGO to the rescue

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=152616300

Reverts it with "don't template experienced editors"

And how would you summarize the results of your investigation?

Pick one:

1. Oh wow, Wikipedia is not really the non-elitist community that I was told it was.
2. Further research is needed. Please renew my funding for the next fiscal year.

Inquiring minds want to know …

Jonny

Ok, I admit it: I can't keep track without a scorecard. Isn't SV on Team Israel while MONGO is on Team America, or am I just confused?

Al

I thought America and Israel as countries were allies? Maybe I'm wrong.

SlimVirgin has never said that she is Jewish, or indicated that she has a pro-Jewish bias. In my opinion and the opinion of many others, SlimVirgin has an antisemitic point of view, demonstrated by her many heavily pro-Moslem friends, and some of her attacks on Jewish editors. Her claims that for example Wikipedia Review is antisemitic seems to be a front for her point of view. There is nothing to suggest that she is Jewish or pro-Israel at all. She has a point of view, without question, but it seems to be more detailed than that.

MONGO is interested in stopping all conspiracy theories from existing, in a similar way to Morton Devonshire and friends. SlimVirgin also likes to get rid of all things that she labels as "Conspiracy theories". Of course, in doing so, SlimVirgin uses some theories which most of the world considers to be "conspiracy theories" and suggests that they are fact, for example her edits to Lockerbie bombing, where she pushed an extreme view as if it was fact.

Both of them have something in common - they like Wikipedia to be factually inaccurate, and to hide any evidence that they had done this. They are both very much on the same team.

This is an example of bureaucracy on Wikipedia, and that the name "bureaucrat" really fits there. "Don't template experienced editors" is an example of indirectly "biting newbies".

You may not have recognized it — on account of the fact that Wikipediots spew so much gas decrying the value of expertise — but it's actually an example of an argument from authority-expertise. The only twist is that seniority at being a Wikipediot counts for something, while experience with a discipline or subject matter counts for nothing.

Jonny

Oh, I have to agree with the part about how they both want to bias Wikipedia, but Team America is conservative while SV is a fine example fo a flakey liberal. It doesn't look like they're on the same team. Then again, corrupt editors show a willingness to team up with other corrupt editors on an ad hoc basis to attack common enemies. A fine example is the recent alliance of Team America, Team Jesus and Team Rand to fuck over ThAtSo.

Al

Didn't we already go over the Jewish / Israel / Zionist differences with you? ;-) She is not pro Islam. She's pro Israel / Pro Zionist / Pro Neocon. I have no idea of her stance on Jews or Jewishness or Matzoh or Knishes, or Kugel or Brisket, or even if she finds Jackie Mason funny since they're not interrelated. I have never seen any evidence that she's pro Muslim. She fought me tooth and nail taking an Anti Islam / Muslim position over the Islam / Muslim / Liberal bashing site zombietime.

Put DOWN the Foster's :-)

Blissy, I have seen you articulate this theory before, but I have never seen any convincing evidence that it is true. On the other hand, I have taken note of the fact that your theory annoys SlimVirgin like few other things do.



The "Team Israel" thing is a bit naive, while the "Team America" term is intended, I believe, ironically and facetiously. To be precise, both SV and MONGO are on Team Neocon, which is a threat to the well-being of Israel, America, and pretty much everyone else outside of the Cayman Islands, to which they are fanatically loyal.

Ok, here's my scorecard:

Team America consists of super-patriotic conservatives who believe in America uber alles, which is quite compatible with being a neocon and being pro-Israel. People like UltraMarine and MONGO are members in good standing.

Team Israel isn't necessarily conservative, neo-con or patriotic towards America, but it's all for Israel and against any apparent criticism of Judaism. The head of this team is Jayjg, who WP:OWNs such articles as Circumcision. His team includes non-Jewish, single-issue allies, such as foreskin fetishist Jakew.

It looks like these two teams have enough common ground and shared enemies to ally as needed.

Al

Yes, I'm familiar with that. A teenager who knows nothing except Dungeons & Dragons is more highly regarded there than say, a sociologist. It is a sad truth, but it is the truth.

Nobody can deny her attacks on Vulturell, Smerus, Newport and other Jewish editors.

Complete nonsense.

BrandonYusuf was one of the most pro-Islam users on Wikipedia, and a good wiki-friend of SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin's attitude in the List of Jews was very much antisemitic, and she supported Antidote, who was very antisemitic.

On the other hand she attacked Amalekite, who was posting to Stormfront, and was a neo nazi.

Then she suggested that people who she had attacked for being Jews were secretly antisemitic.

Perhaps there's a whole other world out there that I haven't seen, but in that microcosm she has behaved in an anti-semitic way.

Suggesting that she is in any way pro-Israel seems naive.

BrandonYusuf is an intelligent editor with no visible anti-jewish sentiment whatsoever. Being a Muslim editor editing Islamic articles doesn't make one automatically anti-Semitic, nor necessarily a "pro-Islam" editor for that matter.


Was it heck. As discussed at length elsewhere, several editors, including SV and Jayjg were uncomfortable about WP compiling lists of Jews. SV making the point that "putting people in boxes" on the basis of religion - an ambiguous way to categorise people at the best of times - was a bit suspect. They've got a point if you ask me. It was motivated by fears that the lists themselves would be used as tools by right wing anti-Semitic groups. Though their methods of assertion were typically abhorrent.

Antidote wasn't anti-Semitic. Where did you get that idea from? And SV barely supported him anyway.


We're talking about the editor that owns New-Antisemitism. That fought rigorously to protect Israel in the Apartheid wars. That makes pro-Israel edits on just about every article she comes across. Whose closest ally is Jayjg.

Please give this line of reasoning up, Bliss. It looks no more accurate than Gracenote's rumour mongering about you.

SlimVirgin never said that she wanted the List of Jews *REMOVED* that's a lie. They wouldn't have fought for ages about who to include if she simply wanted it to be deleted, so don't talk out of your backside.

Just give it up, lad. It doesn't fly.

Oh dear. Antidote's attitude to Jews was exposed at length in the RfC against him. He hates to accept that notable people could be Jews and goes to vast lengths to remove claims to Jewishness if he can possibly find grounds for doing so. Is it suggested that SV had nothing to do with the blocks on people who argued with him, such as Vulturell, Arniep and of course the Poetlister/Runcorn sagas? And let's keep the present tense, as he's still editing now Runcorn isn't there to stop him.

Guy, Antidote was an idiot on all articles, he wasn't anti-Semitic. Here's him getting aggressive about who is a Serb, and making a mess of List of female composers. People were accusing him of disruptive idiocy, not anti-Semitism on the rfc. Stalwart Jewish editor but general irritant IZAK makes the most sense on the rfc, and even he doesn't accuse Antidote of being an anti-Semite, which is a first. Meanwhile, SV was going around banning people because she hated those Jewish lists and wanted to control them, not because she was supporting Antidote.

I'm not particularly opposed to these articles, but I understand the various points of view. A lot of the hoo-har about them just looks cheap and nasty from multiple parties. And all these anti-Semitic claims levelled at people without substance just looks like poor form, whether it's Grace Note or anyone here dishing it out. In retrospect, Jmabel was about the only person who came out of it looking OK, as usual.

However, a number of TA members have a close alliance with putative leftist Cberlet, on the basis of shared opposition to "conspiracism." A conventional conservative, like Nobs01 (wait a minute -- is he "conventional"?) would shy away from such an alliance. And of course, there is the question of whether Cberlet is really a leftist. This stuff can make your head spin.

No, this Spin can make your head Stuff.

Jonny

OK, so Antidote is a generally unpleasant person all round. But undoubtedly he has spent more time on lists of Jews than anything else.


Yes, IZAK doesn't like these lists either and I respect his motives. However, he says in the same breath "ban Antidote" and "get rid of Jewish lists" - not, please note, other articles that Antidote and his sockpuppet army have attacked. SV was supporting Antidote; yes, it was because he was attacking Jewish lists, but you can't deny that she supported him.


Jmabel has said that the attacks on Jewish lists are one of the reasons he left Wikipedia. I can't find the link, but I think it was the third AfD on List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society, a list that Antidote has particularly attacked over a prolonged period although even Jayjg defended it on its second AfD.

Not really, no. He was anal about all sorts of lists. See his Proposal for List of Ukrainians for example, and most of his edits were on List of Poles, List of Serbians etc. Equally anal, but with no reference to Jewish subjects on these pages at all.


Well she didn't support him on his rfc. Which would have been a good place to start.

What matters here though is that Bliss's statement earlier:

This is evidently false and unnecessary. I see this kind of thing as a dirty cloud obscuring our view. There's enough real evidence of SV's misdemeanors on WP to communicate, without needing to make stuff up. These unfounded claims get in the way of real exposure, and hamper the site.

List of British Jews is up for deletion again by the way.

I don't think that there is a point to having any lists on Wikipedia, period.

Categories are good, and perhaps summaries of those categories are useful sometimes.

But no real Encyclopaedia would have a list.

Really, sorry for breaking the conversation and all, but I just gotta say this.

SlimVirgin is not a vandal. Is there any reason for her to get a vandal warning? no. Why should she have one? The reason MONGO gave for removing it was bad, but so was the reason of the giver of the warning. From what I see, it was because of some image issues or something.

SlimVirgin is not vandal. Is there any reason for her to get a vandal warning? no.

You may find that many of us templatus fugi types at The Wikipedia Review will take personal offense at having our intelligences insulted. It is not unheard of for profanity to ensue. So please refrain from doing that.

One of the things that I personally regard as an insult to my intelligence is when someone tries to sell me a piece of Infantile Mythology that flies in the face of my Hard Knocks Experience. SlimVirgin belongs to that self-elect gang of Hard Knockers Extraordinaire on Wikipedia, and she is without a doubt — to anyone who has experienced her work first hand — one of its Biggest, Baddest Administrative Vandals To Boot.

The proof of that fact is rife enough for anyone who has eyes to see, and it grows with every passing day.

Jonny

It didn't take long to figure this out: You just don't like me. Probably because I think differently than you.

But I dont care

Because I dont like you either.

Have fun!

The reason there are no Jewish people on lists of Ukrainians and Serbs is that Antidote felt the need to cleanse Jews from them because as he said "they have their own lists". He claimed that he was Jewish himself but he identified as Russian, not Jewish so he wouldn't want to be on a list of Jews himself and didn't want other people who are regarded as Jewish by other Jews to be on the lists either. SlimVirgin was never anti-semitic - she was just paranoid that the lists would serve as an attack list- I proposed that the people on the lists should only be deceased or people born before say 1900 but she just ignored that.

Questionable vandal warnings, and describing edits as 'vandalism' or 'trolling' is done ALL the time, including by Admins like SV, during content disputes. If you describe an edit as 'vandalism' (often done when a large amount of sourced text is deleted in content disputes) you're not constrained by 3RR.

One of the POV pusher's favorite tricks turned around and bit them.

Rochelle, I will most likely never like you nor dislike you, 'cause I will most likely never really know you as a person. So don't take it personally, as I am simply behaving the very same way that I behaved toward the last post-emitter who exhibited the same Transmitter Operating Characteristics (TOC).

The TOC in question is a habit of generating Opinions Without A Clue (OWAC). What they mostly do on Wikipedia is generate a form of OWAC that they over-affectionately call "articles", so I well understand how an otherwise innocent person could get in the noxious fuming habit of continuous OWAC e-mission.

But what we do at The Wikipedia Review is try to dig up a clue or two — it's a dirty job, but ∑body's just got to.

Nobody is asking you to believe everything you read here or anywhere — I know I don't — but simply to reject the possibility that things might be different from what you currently wish to believe, well, why bother talking to others at all?

Jonny

Rochelle: To say you dislike someone because of differing points of view, that's pretty silly. Saying you don't like someone because you think they don't like you? That's pretty silly too. Why harbour negative feelings for someone you don't know? Why waste all that time and energy when you could be doing something more constructive?

I can hold grudges against lots of people on Wikipedia, ED, LiveJournal, and the list goes on... but I have better things to do. I have a good memory though, so I don't forget. I just don't see the point in hating them. They are who they are and only they can change that. I can't change that so I accept it.

Not everyone is going to like you. Not everyone is going to agree with you. That's part of life.

If everyone agreed with each other, wouldn't life be boring?

Harbouring negative feelings eventually changes you as a person, for the worse. I've seen it happen. Hell, I've seen it happen to myself.

Don't worry. I just said that because I was mad. I was acting in the "heat of the moment", I guess. I'll never actually dislike anyone here, for the same reasons as Jonny Cache.

Rochelle, I think that the issue is that when you first came here, you didn't say who you were, but acted like a Wikipedia administrator, or at least someone who was ridiculously pro-Wikipedia. This led many people here to be suspicious of your motives for coming here, feeling like you might be here to attack us. Indeed, someone suggested that you might be SlimVirgin (I am not going to go in to that - because you can be whoever you like, so long as you're behaving). That's really why so many people felt upset about you, and may have attacked you. It was really a defence mechanism. Dtobias I think experienced a fair amount of the same kind of reaction when he first came here.

This is because historically when Wikipedia Review first started, we had a major struggle to try to keep our collective heads above water, as there were many and varied people trying their level best to stop this site from existing. Some people were trying to contact our hosts with some excuse to get us shut down, others were trying to suggest some legal reason that we could be destroyed, and others simply came here to troll and try to destroy it. Yes, we did have GNAA and other more general trolls (and continue to get them occasionally) but the main problem was from Wikipedia administrators and other vehemently pro-Wikipedia people (and of course from Grace Note and Malber). We struggled for a long time, and even after we created our own domain name (which made a massive difference) we still struggled as there were all sorts of accusations thrown around, and we had to really try to deal with them in a consistent and positive way, whilst at the same time trying to legitimise our presence by presenting actual criticism of Wikipedia. Let me tell you it wasn't easy at all to do, and we nearly folded several times. Indeed, I suspect that if the lease wasn't a 1 year lease, and we hadn't already invested money and time in to creating this, we probably would have folded early in 2006, perhaps March or April or so. Certainly if we'd stayed on ProBoards I think that that is what would have happened. It was a struggle.

But we've gone beyond that now, and nowadays have very few major problems on here. We mostly get along with each other, argue like crazy, but always working towards the same kinds of goals. And it becomes what I consider to be a very warm and fuzzy place, where you can feel at home and comfy and secure and so forth. At least that's how I feel. And I don't say that about a lot of places!

Of course, in saying that, I have had some of the most heated arguments imaginable on here, with not just people like Lir, but also more recently Kato, Guy, occasionally Poetlister, Bobby Bombastic, Selina, Jorge, Jonny Cache, and heck pretty much everyone. I think that about the only people that are regular contributors that I haven't had arguments with would be Nathan, Lamontstormstar and Glassbeadgame. And Nathan I've known (online, we've never met) since 1996 so we've already well and truly had our arguments and got them out of the way. The other two I've only barely talked with, so I am sure I will disagree with them over something!

But this is the point of this site, it is about disagreeing with things. If we all agreed on everything, there would be no point to it. We make points, some of them are shot down, others are modified, others are agreed to. Every single important discussion has had someone disagree with them, and that is the whole point of them being relevant. If we all agreed, well, ho hum, there's no point discussing it. Take the recent Wiki Scanner thread by Olivier. Good point, we all agree with it, no discussion.

So I hope that you enjoy being here Rochelle. I know for me personally, you are starting to grow on me. I don't know about anyone else.

You know you've known someone for too long when, even online, your first impulse is to use their first name.

I prefer to call them debates!

This would be a fairly boring unproductive place if we didn't disagree from time to time, and I know that I've disagreed with some things on here, only later to be persuaded the other way. A thing I like about WR is, as small a group as it is, there are a lot of different points of view represented, more so than the propaganda on the mailing list or WP would lead a person to believe, and honestly I do consider them all.

Additionally, on the internet you are more likely to get feedback from people when they disagree with you, since typing "I agree" is usually considered bad form, unless you have some other point to add. I know that many times I find myself agreeing with Jonny, GBG, Somey, Kato, blissy or whoever and don't say anything because they have "said it all". I guess I am probably more likely to chime in if I disagree with a point, and I think that is because of the form of the discussion. If we were sitting in a room discussing you'd see me nodding my head in agreement, but textual discussions have no such positive reinforcements.

Indeed.

Al

Except for one bobblehead whose name I might mention, namely, Name Redacted.

Jonny

Gosh Name Redacted is now a Wikipedia user!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/Name_Redacted

No blocks yet either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r:Name_Redacted

But isn't that an impersonator account of little Miss you-know-who?

Well, that's the problem with Name Redacted, now isn't it ? — once you start redacting names, all the Name Redacteds kinda start running together, don't they ?

Me, just from the Con-Tributes, I'm guessin' Mel Gibson …

Jonny

And within a day, [name redacted] was accused of being our own Jonny Cache. [name redacted] took umbrage.

Whoever it was, they wasted their time changing numbers against Manuel of Style policy. And they were changed right back.

No, I'm pretty sure that "name redacted" and "[name radacted]" are two entirely different accounts, most likely old-timers, as they would have to go back to the time when the non-redactable nom de phume policy didn't redact names that began with lower case characters like "n" and special characters like "[". I'll check, but I abdeuce they've been oeuvre-slighted long ago by now.

As to the identity of the dastardly evil-doer who would dare to dopple-∧/∨-doppel-gang the Kink's Anglish with Machiavellian Mathematics ???

Elementary, My Dear Watson — when we have e-liminated the IPossible, whatever is left, however Improv, must be none other than —

Moriarty !!!

Jonny

Heh, well that person seems to like to accuse people of being socks. Check out their contributions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...V%C3%BCr%C3%9Ft

Juzon seems to be playing the game. A little too well though, if you ask me. You are only meant to make sock puppet accusations occasionally, not all over the place. And you're meant to at least pretend that you have evidence - unless they aren't there to defend themselves of course.

Name Redacted is a joke though.

This San Diego IP was also targetted by our sleuth Juzon Vürßt. As yet another incarnation of Jonny. On the basis that the IP, the contribs or Mr Cache himself "smells like a sock".

How do you get those special characters to display?

Anyway, it also looks like this person doesn't like Jonny.

Not sure why. Any ideas?

Who is Juzon Vürßt?

First edit:23 April 2007

Fourth edit:Claims Denny Colt is Jonny

Carries on in this vein till further notice....

Hmm. Sounds to me like Juzon Vürßt is a sock puppet of someone else, someone who really doesn't like Jonny.

Remember that the ones who most frequently make false claims of sock puppetry do it to try to hide their own abusive sock puppetry.

I'd say that he's running a sock farm.

Last time we ran into that Honig-aufgeleckter Teufel, Juzon Vürßt, my finely-honied linguistic ears detected a blend of Spanish and German accents, so naturally I suggested that it might be the BeakSox of SqueakBox hisownself, but he denied it, which naturally makes him the natural suspect all the more.

Where is Jayjg when you really need him ???

Off on a BustMan's Holiday, I guess …

Jonny

Let's look through his contributions for how often he has made accusations of sock puppetry, and against whom. He has made 57 total contributions:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DennyColt&diff=prev&oldid=127429127]
4: Accused Denny colt of being Jon Awbrey[/url]

5: Accused Vkrayl of being Jon Awbrey

6: Made a strange edit to Vkrayl's talk page

11: Made a sock puppet accusation inside an AFD for Daniel Brandt against Angelina Wartenberg

12: Made a sock puppet accusation inside an AFD for Daniel Brandt against Kaypoh

14: Made 2 sock puppet accusations inside an AFD for Daniel Brandt against Shawn K. Quinn and 86.131.90.51

17: Made a sock puppet accusation inside an AFD for Daniel Brandt against ElbridgeGerry

20: Accused 213.120.114.7 of being Jon Awbrey

27: Accused Name Redacted of being Jon Awbrey

35: Accused 63.150.3.18 of being Jon Awbrey

43: Accused Name Redacted (again) of being Jon Awbrey

44: Accused 208.38.3.9 of being Jon Awbrey

45: Accused 67.101.199.15 of being Jon Awbrey

46: Accused 69.208.5.128 of being Jon Awbrey

47: Accused NoneOfYourBusiness of being Jon Awbrey

48: Accused 69.158.147.119 of being Jon Awbrey

50: Accused 67.183.153.10 of being Jon Awbrey

53: Accused 68.33.91.106 of being Jon Awbrey

54: Accused 68.7.66.56 of being Jon Awbrey

That's 19 out of 57 edits being to accuse someone of sock puppetry, 15 of the 19 being accusing people of being Jon Awbrey, the other 4 being inside an AFD and not saying who it was accusing them of being. That's a pretty big proportion of edits, especially when you consider that he also had a few more edits clarifying his sock puppetry accusations.

So we can draw a few conclusions here:

1) This guy is a genius, knows instinctively who is a sock puppet and who isn't, without having CheckUser, being an experienced user, or even being an admin, and furthermore that Jon Awbrey (Jonny Cache) has access to a wide range of different IP addresses (lots of friends, great hacker, or lots of money)

2) This guy is trying his level best to bash Jon Awbrey, and knows him somewhere else (ergo has another account)

So is he a genius, or is this guy a sock puppet of someone else?

Jonny Cache, perhaps you can give us a theory as to who you think might behave like this.

Okay so its Squeakbox. I guess the best evidence for that is that Squeakbox reverted the strange edit to the user's talk page (edit 6):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=127446682

Sounds like there's a chance its SqueakBox. But who knows.

Is that against Wikipedia's policy? They may argue that that is a "role account", to try to pretend that he's not attacking Jonny Cache, and the only reason for it being separate is so that it doesn't confuse his own goings on.

In other words, it might be okay by WP rules.