Once again, I seem to be the conduit for an "anonymous" source of information that the author desires to be posted at Wikipedia Review. I'm just the messenger here.

++++++++++++++++++++++
======================

SlimVirgin et al versus SandyGeorgia

As some have noted before, SlimVirgin and few other members of her clique appear to have some strong animosity towards SandyGeorgia. What hasn’t been noted before is the apparent source of this animosity and the extremes that SlimVirgin has been willing to go to in her vendetta against Sandy.

Background:

In March 2007, apparently in coordination with Jimbo, SlimVirgin proposed merging the Verfiability, No Original Research, and aspects of the Reliable Sources policies into a single policy, called Attribution (ATT).

To kick off the initiative, a poll was posted drafted by Jimbo and SlimVirgin and some others, such as Jossi and Crum375.

Once the poll closed, SlimVirgin and Jossi selected some participants from the support, neutral, and oppose camps to participate in a working group on the proposed ATT policy. SandyGeorgia was one of the participants selected from the “oppose” camp. SlimVirgin and Jossi appear to have been trying to stack the deck in the working group by carefully selecting the participants with proposed editors such as Jossi and Crum375 as well as SlimVirgin herself. They then tried to rush through the implementation of the new policy with help from Jayjg who also appears to try to intimidate objecting editors.

Ultimately, SandyGeorgia throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing by correctly pointing out that the working group is being loaded and that the initiative is being needlessly rushed for no apparent good reason, after which SlimVirgin suddenly leaves in a huff, followed soon by Jayjg, Felonious Monk, and Jossi, who leave only a few more comments before apparently joining her in abandoning the initiative. Note also that another heavily involved participant, suggested by Sandy, was Marskell.

SLRubenstein and Jayjg then voice their displeasure with Sandy on her userpage with Jayjg especially expressing his unhappiness with her attitude.

Over the next year, there then follow a series of personal attacks on Sandy and Marskell by admin SlimVirgin. Felonious Monk joins in and SlimVirgin supports him in doing so. Note that SlimVirgin, when attacking Marskell, usually extends the attack to include Sandy.

The kicker was after Sandy announced that she would be busy for a few days with her family, SlimVirgin unblocked an editor, Zareaph, who had been harassing Sandy off-wiki, including with posts, subsequently redacted, here on WR questioning Sandy’s mental health (notice who closes this ANI discussion) forcing ArbCom to eventually reban Zareaph but causing Sandy and others a lot of unnecessary stress and time wasted.

The sum of all of this appears to be an effort by SlimVirgin and a few of her friends to drive SandyGeorgia from Wikipedia. Especially troubling about this is that SandyGeorgia’s work with the Featured Article Candidate forum measurably improves Wikipedia’s quality as much as any other editor’s effort in the project. If SlimVirgin would try to drive such an editor away from Wikipedia, the question has to be asked if she is truly committed to improving Wikipedia, or is she participating for some other reason?

++++++++++++++++++++++
======================

That last question has got to be sarcastic, right?

Apologies to the original author if I embedded the many, many links on not the exactly appropriate words, but there were a ton of links, and I think people are more likely to click them when they're embedded.

Greg (the messenger)

There seems to be some kind of "wedge strategy" among the more powerful admins to drive subject-matter experts and competent editors off Wikipedia.

It's obvious that there is something seriously wrong with the rest of the world that Linda Mack is continually finding herself in such venomous disputes with other people. It's a hard thing to accept, but I can't think of any other possible explanation: people are just plain BAD (except for Linda Mack)!

Seems par for the course for SlimVirgin...

I've never interacted with SandyGeorgia, she's a bit too much in the "obsessed with the MoS - should we use em dashes, shouldnt we, oh the quandary" camp for my tastes but she's a darn sight less irritating than SV and probably isn't any more corrupted than anyone else on Wikipedia.

First, I'm a bit jealous that thekohser gets all this action from wiki deep throats (not deep throats). I'm obviously doing something wrong. This feels just like high school...


Well that question has been asked quite a bit! I think it normal for people to go through "phases" when thinking about SlimVirgin. For example, for quite a while you may be convinced she works for MI5. The next day, you may believe she is actually an unwitting dupe for another intelligence agency. Eventually, I think you settle on the likelihood that she is actually a shut-in located in Canada with a few poodles and a computer to occupy her time.

I do not mean to rehash that debate again, I'm trying to make the point that there's nothing I find really special about SlimVirgin anymore...I mean sure, she had somehow inserted herself squarely into at least two of the biggest Wikiscandals ever (Brandt and Weiss sagas) but other than that, she's not all that special. What does aggravate me is that people that are truly insignificant and irresponsible at their core have as much "power and influence" as they do through Wikipedia.

She is just one of many people that, while they may do a good thing here and there, prove that this "encyclopedia anyone can edit" thing may not be so great of an idea, and the reason why does not have to do with intelligence agencies. There are people all over Wikipedia removing good content and chasing off good contributors, directly and indirectly. It's time that people start generalizing the theme a little more and stop getting caught up in specific cases--this is not the first time SlimVirgin has attempted to chase someone off. The problem does not end if SlimVirgin leaves Wikipedia, because others are doing the same things she is. This suggests that the Wikipedia model is indeed flawed, but one can hardly get any sensible discussion on that topic, since it frequently delves into ideological arguments. In no time, that discussion starts to resemble some sort of a religious debate between Christians, Buddhists and atheists, rather than people discussing a "free encyclopedia".

So thanks for the information that the anonymous deep throat has passed on, but it really is just more of the same. It's good to catalogue things like this, just for the purpose that someone in the future may be interested in them. However, I fear that stories like this are not useful to us right now, as Wikipedia still needs to scale before these problems can ever be tackled.

Where did Zeraeph actually question SandyG's mental health on here? I don't think she did. She said she had a mad stalker who she originally thought SG was, as that person had followed her to other sites before, but Zeraeph had apologised for thinking that of SG.

Anyone know which article SG implied Raul promoted in spite of having a CoI?

Intelligent Design

Verrry Interesting.

I have a seemingly random question...

Is SandyGeorgia a redhead?

Here's the dispute. Sandy is a genuine "editor" in the acutal sense of raising the standard of received texts, and didn't think the Intelligent Design article was technically up to scratch, despite Raul and others pushing it to the Main Page last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fea...design/archive2

Various individuals and cliques have tried to bully Sandy to their own ends, and have failed.

SG was right. There was a subtle but significant error in the ID article the day it was highlighted as an FA. The problem was that the definition of ID was incorrect.

It still hasn't been properly fixed, although the current definition is not as far off the mark as the way it was first written.

OK, I'll bite, why is this question only "seemingly" random? IOW, why do you ask? You make the most amazing connections sometimes, what are you up to?

First, see this muse: All About Redheads

Then blend in this one: The Phreaking Spectrum

Can you posit an answer to the last question on the second link, above?

If not, let's dive into it a bit deeper.

OK, gotcha. This is far afield of my area of expertise to be sure but you've certainly made some interesting associations there. As to the last question, I'll hazard a guess that higher adrenaline levels correlate to being more upper/left on that response table (what is Phoenix Pheather though, that one I couldn't deciPHer...)

For the record my two kids are a blond and a redhead and I'd tend to categorise the redhead as the mellower of the two. However, he's a Second so birth order may have something to do with that as well. That's anecdotal and therefore useless as corroboration... but fun to mention.

Pardon me for a bit of on-topic posting here.
Well, Virginia Slim certainly raised the bar for everyone. She has set a standard for misbehaviour which other contestants now must aspire to.

I'd like to ask Lar, or other leading WPers such as NYBrad or No One of Consequence, what their take is on this. Slim has stuck out like a sore thumb as a problem user for some time. Why is the WP establishment so extraordinarily tolerant of her?

Right. Adrenaline fuels Fight or Flight. Phoenix Pheather is a reference to rising out of the ashes, as if resurrected. On the Internet, they can't really kill you off, so you can rise out of the ashes fairly easily.

I'm rather glad these two characters are consuming each other's energies. SandyGeorgia is actually an idiot of the first magnitude who has driven off a dozen or so volunteers that i know of. She argues with whoever is around, refusing to yield ground despite a startling inability to read or reason. Instead, she threatens to call the wikicops and summons a swarm of wikipals. She accuses others of being "off-wiki canvassed" while her canvassing is just "asking another editor to take a look at something."

She clocks about 18 hours a day on Wikipedia, which in and of itself shows impressive dedication,but does not speak well for her possession of any competence which the real word - which does not put up with this sort of bullshit - has put to use.

In other words, an archetypal wikipedian.

Has she? I have only known her as a beleaguered and mostly retired contributor. I understand that there's a history here, but isn't it only chivalrous to offer and honor an honorable withdrawal?


I can only attest that her dealings with me have been entirely non-evil. We've disagreed on content, but personally, that's really no big deal.

I suggest that this is extraordinarily unrepresentative, as many people here can attest. Indeed, I very much doubt that this site would exist except for her. Ask HK, Jorge, Poetlister and others.

Pro, she has largely toned down her behaviour since you started editing due to the criticism she faced. Of course we don't know that she isn't behaving in exactly the same old way under another account.

I've not seen SlimVirgin be rude, she often conducted herself in a moderated way.

She has a thing about stalking, but most people aren't directly on the receiving end of such accusations from her.
The problem is she has preconceived ideas about a lot of people, to take one of numerous instances, Sarah777, and she is prepared to be lenient or tough with them according to her existing feelings about them, often regardless of circumstance. Plus, she will sometimes not support someone if it would be politically damaging for her to do so, such as with the Durova and !! debacle.

But she's not lacking in social skills and unless they are her fave articles, she can help knock an article into shape, with common sense. Where I first encountered her was through her reponding to the BLP noticeboard I think, she helped well and quickly to problems with the Gillian McKeith article.

I sometimes find myself agreeing with her on ANI about some incidents, though an example doesn't spring to mind there.

I remember Grace Note once offered to mediate between SV and me, and I was sucker enough to accept. My, I've learnt a lot in my time in Wikiworld! He said that SV didn't like it when RachelBrown and I ganged up on her. (Poor, sensitive violet.) I pointed out that I had only come to Rachel's defence after LoTLE and SV had ganged up on Rachel!

There is no way to decisively determine content other than to attack and chase off other contributors. That's the flaw.

Imagine a scholarly journal where editorial decisions are made this way: hmm, Suzy and Mike disagree, so let's put them an arena wherein they shout insults at another and/or accuse one another of various rules violations. Suzy and Mike's friends then "spontaneously" appear, pretending to be neutral obsevers who just happened upon the scene - we must "assume good faith" that this is so (conversely, if they're honest about being partisan or having been solicited, we assume bad faith and their opinions are dismissed.) From this process derives a "consensus" that one or the other must be fired, or no consensus, in which case the battle continues until there is one.

That's what passes for "dispute resolution" at Wikipedia, and its nuts.

Throwing volunteers off the island is wasteful, forcing people to fight like pit bulls in the ring of ANI and RfArb is a mockery of humanity, deciding content in this way is unprincipled to say the least…

At least one might say it's decisive…except that it's not, because the aggrieved contributors just open sockpuppets and/or vent offsite.

This is the emergent system that took the place of no plan at all. There is no consensus for it, actually, as most of its features were never proposed - they just emerged.

There's a difference between getting a pseudonym banned and tracking down someone's real world identity, wouldn't you agree? Or does she do that, too?

If not, this strikes me as an unwarranted escalation.

Without some evidence that she's recently done or supported the same, or messed with BLP's, it strikes me that Slim, whatever her name, deserves some respect for her privacy. Conflict is inherent to the wiki model, but it's in everyone's benefit to keep it within limits. The rightful purpose of outing, in my opinion, is to establish the reciprocity of those limits.

There's a difference, sure. There are also similarities. And who says that no one SlimVirgin has banned was using his real name?


It's not her privacy that has been violated in revealing SlimVirgin's identity, but rather her secrecy. They are different things, although many people, possibly including you, use the term "privacy" when they really mean "secrecy." Someone may use the loss of SlimVirgin/Linda Mack's secrecy to violate her privacy, but do you really think that anyone has the right to express his or her opinion, and moreover to suppress the expression of opinion by others, under a cloak of anonymity? I do not.

(Follow up question: if you do have the right to express your opinion under a cloak of anonymity, does Wikipedia have the right to ban you?)

She is not rude -- that would be self-defeating. She knows the rules, she is extremely calculating, and she has perfected the art of gaming the system. When she has manipulated others into a lynch mob against her chosen target, she is wont to purr something oh so civil that is nonetheless intended to convey her malicious gratification over her triumph.

Perhaps privacy is, as you say, a misleading term. The point of pseudonymity, as far as I'm concerned, is to avoid malicious attacks on my name, not to cover for any secret agenda. As it happens, these came from Wikipedia, not from WR, where attacks were relatively mild and quickly put to rest. In Slim's case, there's some pretty nasty stuff over here, and I question if she's done anything lately to deserve it. If she had, well, goose, gander, but it seems just malicious at this point. There seem to have been legitimate COI concerns at one point, which is a valid reason to identify a person, but those are long past. At this point, it's just gratuitous.

Indeed. RachelBrown's real name is - surprise - Rachel Brown.

I'd disagree - she is not foul-mouthed, she actually manages to be ruder than that. She will make comments along the lines of saying no rational person could honestly believe such a thing, and you must be unqualified and incompetent to say such a thing. It is part of her regular armoury, as well as ignoring anyone who makes an argument that she cannot deal with. Usually, it is carefully phrased so that a superficial viewing (e.g. someone biased coming from AN/I) will adjudge that intemperate comments from the other party are the incivility and therefore must be the party in the wrong.

That sounds more like you're agreeing than disagreeing!

Strictly in terms of WR thread-count (at least until this one came up), she's been less problematic recently, has she not? I mean, there's clearly been a dropoff in incidents reported here over the last 3 months or so. Unless (like Jorge suggested) she's doing the mean ol' stuff with another account - I actually doubt she'd risk it, but then again, I'm not so experienced in these matters.

Still, don't all go out and try to prove me wrong all at once...

Yep! Civility policy is defined, when I read it, in a way that I am more than comfortable with. It is the application, with the Wikipedian distorting glass, where it fails. Rude gets redefined to be obscene rather than discourtesy.

But, I agree, the impact of most individual editors seems to be being diluted (Guy seems to be the notable exception, and even he is smoother in tone than he was). I haven't decided whether that is that there are more drama queens, or their sins are lesser than they used to be, or whether I am just losing interest.

What you suggest here, however, is that you plan on doing something that might provoke malice against you, and you don't want that malice to have you as its real world target. I would think that if you want to avoid being the target of malice, the burden is almost entirely on you not to do anything that would provoke malice, and not on the rest of the world to help you maintain secrecy in whatever you do. Really, aren't you potentially harming the rest of the world if in secret you do something that might provoke malice? An uninvolved party could mistakenly be identified as the source of your actions, and become subject to the malice that you, through your subterfuge, avoided.

Why should anyone feel obligated to help you in such a plot?

Backlash is often an unintended consequence of one's actions.

It's an interesting chicken and egg. I was not anonymous on Wikipedia, it was only when I perceived that there were some extremely malicious people with some nasty history that I thought that joining here I should be anonymous. That anonymity is not particularly prized by myself and I am less paranoid than when I joined. I would like to think that I have not done anything malicious, and performing malicious acts is not the purpose of my role here. However, given the history of some of the disputes, I am not entirely confident that some goofball will not do something I regret leaving myself open to.

I'm am also quite comfortable that the great and good of this site know who I am through information I have revealed, and there is nobody of the administrative body that gives me any indication of being so irrational as to give me concern.* I would not give the same credit to Wikipedia, which allows people like Guy & WjBscribe who are publicly vindictive and irrational, to be responsible for the ethical side of the system, and would no doubt have access to such "private" information and could not be trusted to hold it in confidence.

*[Edit: nothing like damning with feint praise, aye?]

Are you suggesting that SlimVirgin would use a sockpuppet? Sir, I am shocked that you would suggest such a thing.

And even if she did use a sockpuppet once, or twice, or three times in the past - certainly she would take responsibility and publicly apologize to the community.

:? [that's the emoticon for "tongue-firmly-in-cheek"]

It's impossible to entirely avoid provoking malice in people- anyway it's not about provoking malice, it's the fact that there are people around who need little or no provoking to do anything, and could turn against you for any reason whatsoever. Not that most people are like that, but there are some real wrong'uns around on the net, so presumably, unfortunately, also a few on wikipedia.

Malice in Blunderland!

So no accountability whatever is the answer?