SlimVirgin dies
Posted: Sun May 09, 2021 1:31 pm
She appears to have passed away within the last few days. I searched for an obituary for "Sarah McEwan Mack" which may have been her real name, but couldn't find anything.
Wikipedia Sucks!
BADSITEBADSITEBADSITE
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/
SlimVirgin dies
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1999
Page 1 of 8
Re: SlimVirgin dies
Posted: Sun May 09, 2021 5:43 pm
That's mental. Makes me sick to think the Wikipedia "community" revels in the fact that genuinely sick people are forced to spend their last years on Earth in endless battle against pure psychos like James Heilman and RexxS, when they are so obviously in the right, while at the very same time, absolute scum like Guy Macon are allowed to hide behind obviously fake illnesses rather than be held accountable for their beyond obvious lack of any single beneficial quality for Wikipedia.
Re: SlimVirgin dies
Posted: Sun May 09, 2021 6:30 pm
Here is a perfect example of the sort of utter bullshit SV had to endure in what we now know must have been a period of serious illness....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... he_article
David Gerard didn't say or do anything in that "debate" that he hasn't done a million times over.
Here is an example of what someone like SV had to deal with......
If it's so well documented, if it's been EXTENSIVELY documented, then why don't seriously damaging claims like this appear in Wikipedia's own article for the Daily Mail?
Isn't it just SO CURIOUS that claims like this about the Mail's supposed unreliability, expressed this vehemently and with this specificity, only ever appear in eminently unreliable sources? Including Wikipedia talk pages.
Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, and all that. Think I read I somewhere.
Because make no fucking mistake, it would be EXCEPTIONAL if the UK's most widely read newspaper, a newspaper that often carries the exclusive words of the Prime Minister no less, had a "serious track record of fabrication".
I think we would have heard about that, no?
And hold the fucking phone. If the Mail is the benchmark for "serious", what the fuck is Wikipedia? Words matter. Serious means serious. Not occasional. Not comparable to other UK newspapers. Not, more often than I would like. Serious would indeed mean, unusable as a source.
As in, Wikipedia has a serious record of printing claims that are totally made up, and that is why it's not considered a reliable source.
You try and find this crap from Gerard being repeated in unimpeachable sources in the topic area of media reliability. It doesn't exist. He made it up. Like a Wikipedian would.
Shit, you won't get even find this sort of claim being repeated in The Guardian as if it were actual fact, since they know it can't be supported and they don't want to get sued.
You can't have a serious debate about sourcing with a delusional POV pushing wanker like this. POV pushing as blatant as this, if it were being done to impinge the reputation of, say, CNN, would lead to a block on Wikipedia. It's that blatant.
Hence why, after having to deal with this bullshit, SV was moved to say this.......
David Gerard is still tearing through Wikipedia removing every single use of the Mail, and he is still unable to articulate any reasonable argument for why it should be assumed or even suspected that any and every use of the Mail would be a critical threat to Wikipedia. Other than, of course, CONSENSUS.
It would be a fitting tribute, especially from any of those scum who are now busy expressing their condolences and saying what a wonderful editor SV was, if they did actually do the work required to properly investigate how and why the Daily Mail ban was arrived at, and why it is that only David Gerard seems to be doing the work to enforce it.
Pigs might fly.
A life spent debating with the likes of David Gerard, win lose or draw, is indeed, a life wasted. That it ended in a loss, and she was seriously ill, is doubly depressing. Thankfully her family is unlikely to ever know this was how she spent her final years.
Will David Gerard feel any shame or remorse?
Are you fucking kidding me. Psycho is as psycho does.
Will probably even sign her condolence book. Evil bastard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... he_article
David Gerard didn't say or do anything in that "debate" that he hasn't done a million times over.
Here is an example of what someone like SV had to deal with......
Daily Mail, a site with an extensively documented history of fabricating quotes,
Bullshit.The Daily Mail has a serious track record of pure fabrication, that's well documented
If it's so well documented, if it's been EXTENSIVELY documented, then why don't seriously damaging claims like this appear in Wikipedia's own article for the Daily Mail?
Isn't it just SO CURIOUS that claims like this about the Mail's supposed unreliability, expressed this vehemently and with this specificity, only ever appear in eminently unreliable sources? Including Wikipedia talk pages.
Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, and all that. Think I read I somewhere.
Because make no fucking mistake, it would be EXCEPTIONAL if the UK's most widely read newspaper, a newspaper that often carries the exclusive words of the Prime Minister no less, had a "serious track record of fabrication".
I think we would have heard about that, no?
And hold the fucking phone. If the Mail is the benchmark for "serious", what the fuck is Wikipedia? Words matter. Serious means serious. Not occasional. Not comparable to other UK newspapers. Not, more often than I would like. Serious would indeed mean, unusable as a source.
As in, Wikipedia has a serious record of printing claims that are totally made up, and that is why it's not considered a reliable source.
You try and find this crap from Gerard being repeated in unimpeachable sources in the topic area of media reliability. It doesn't exist. He made it up. Like a Wikipedian would.
Shit, you won't get even find this sort of claim being repeated in The Guardian as if it were actual fact, since they know it can't be supported and they don't want to get sued.
You can't have a serious debate about sourcing with a delusional POV pushing wanker like this. POV pushing as blatant as this, if it were being done to impinge the reputation of, say, CNN, would lead to a block on Wikipedia. It's that blatant.
Hence why, after having to deal with this bullshit, SV was moved to say this.......
I can't tell you what a depressing discussion this is for me. It's upsetting for several reasons, partly that I put a lot of work into this. But it's also the ideology over thinking that upsets me. It upsets me that that has gained the upper hand on Wikipedia, because our most important rule was always IAR. The significance of that was precisely a signal that ideology should never replace thinking on this project. Whenever I've helped to write a content policy, I've tried to build space for thinking into it.
there is no reason to suppose that the quotation was made up or changed. This business with the Mail is conspiracy theory, something I despise and that I thought all sensible Wikipedians did too. But for some reason, when it comes to the Mail, the community (or part of it) has let itself be led down that path
What happened? Nothing.I think WP:DAILYMAIL needs to be revisited, and how this whole thing unfolded. I remember at the time saying that the wording of the RfC close would cause problems.....Not a 100 percent ban. But now editors are going around removing it from all articles, no matter how it is being used.
David Gerard is still tearing through Wikipedia removing every single use of the Mail, and he is still unable to articulate any reasonable argument for why it should be assumed or even suspected that any and every use of the Mail would be a critical threat to Wikipedia. Other than, of course, CONSENSUS.
It would be a fitting tribute, especially from any of those scum who are now busy expressing their condolences and saying what a wonderful editor SV was, if they did actually do the work required to properly investigate how and why the Daily Mail ban was arrived at, and why it is that only David Gerard seems to be doing the work to enforce it.
Pigs might fly.
A life spent debating with the likes of David Gerard, win lose or draw, is indeed, a life wasted. That it ended in a loss, and she was seriously ill, is doubly depressing. Thankfully her family is unlikely to ever know this was how she spent her final years.
Will David Gerard feel any shame or remorse?
Are you fucking kidding me. Psycho is as psycho does.
Will probably even sign her condolence book. Evil bastard.
Re: SlimVirgin dies
Posted: Sun May 09, 2021 10:29 pm
Yes, arguing and fighting with pussy fascists like David Gerard is a huge waste of time. To think that anyone, SlimVirgin included, would be spending even a single minute of the last year of their lives engaging with toxic wastes of oxygen like him is really depressing. By the way, the Daily Mail has the highest majority of women readers of all of the UK's major newspapers, and thus the Wikipedia cabal's hatred of that newspaper is part of the general misogyny that characterizes Wikipedia's culture. That misogyny is something that SlimVirgin had to put up with her entire time with "the project."
Re: SlimVirgin dies
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 12:13 am
On one hand, sorry to hear it. On the other hand, before you defend her in any squabble with Gerard, remember how many abuses of power she managed to pull off prior to 2012. She and Gerard had fought over petty nonsense before. The fact that she disliked Gerard doesn't mean she wasn't a leftist (LOTS of people hate Gerard by now--left and right).
In Sarah's memory, I shall post her book wiki article. Got references for most of this too. Ask Brandt or Kelly Martin or Cla for their further opinions, if you don't believe the materials below. CLA had a knockdown battle with her in 2008 that led to a completely vile and comical arbitration. Also remember that she ran admin-power sockpuppets, at least one that we know of and possibly others. If any present admin accounts "mysteriously disappear" now, chances are good that was her.
Part 1
In Sarah's memory, I shall post her book wiki article. Got references for most of this too. Ask Brandt or Kelly Martin or Cla for their further opinions, if you don't believe the materials below. CLA had a knockdown battle with her in 2008 that led to a completely vile and comical arbitration. Also remember that she ran admin-power sockpuppets, at least one that we know of and possibly others. If any present admin accounts "mysteriously disappear" now, chances are good that was her.
Part 1
In the story of Wikipedia, there have been many "colorful characters". Linda Mack (SlimVirgin) is perhaps the most frequently mentioned name of all. Her story is so torturous and bizarre, it could have come from a bad spy novel.
history
Alleged to have started editing Wikipedia in 2003, under the name "Slimv", all records of which have been deleted. Her edit history as SlimVirgin starts in Nov 2004, there are clues that the previous history was oversighted (this is the first diff in the history). She is believed to be living in Swalwell, Alberta, Canada since 2002. Believed to be married and to suffer from cardiac problems, which even her Wikipedia colleagues are not aware of.
The following summary was written by Daniel Brandt, 2007.
1. SlimVirgin is Linda Mack who studied philosophy at King's College, lost a close friend on PanAm 103, and worked for Pierre Salinger at ABC News, London from about 1989-1991 on the PanAm 103 investigation.
2. She pursued various PanAm 103 conspiracy theories, but once the two Libyans were indicted, she seemed to steer the investigation in the direction of the government's case against Libya, according to John K. Cooley, who along with Pierre Salinger, was responsible for hiring her at ABC.
3. Pierre Salinger interviewed the two Libyans in Tripoli, and believed, along with quite a few independent investigators, that they were either completely innocent, or only peripherally involved, perhaps unwittingly.
4. Syria's support in the Gulf War was important to the West. The leading theory until such time that the finger was pointed at Libya, was that Syria was involved, perhaps with Iran bankrolling them, in retaliation for the Iranian airliner that the U.S. shot down.
5. Scotland Yard raided ABC and made off with videotapes and documents. ABC fought in court, and after an expensive battle, lost the case.
6. Salinger came to believe that Linda Mack was working for MI5, and had been all along. He locked her out of her office.
7. Michael S. Morris, a former BOSS (South Africa) agent who investigated PanAm 103, has named Linda Mack as an "agent."
8. For at least two or three years after this, Linda Mack worked on the case as a freelancer. She started a petition drive against Allan Francovich's film, The Maltese Double-Cross: Lockerbie. This film promoted a conspiracy theory that was at odds with the government's case against Libya.
9. Linda Mack next shows up in Canada in 2002, registering the domain slimvirgin.com, using the name S. McEwan and a PO box in Swalwell, Alberta, Canada. Patrick Byrne, who knew Linda Mack at Cambridge, says she was half Canadian, and she switched on an English accent suddenly one day at Cambridge, and continued to use it from that point forward.
10. The email address on the slimvirgin.com domain registration was slimvirgin1@yahoo.com. The email address for Linda Mack on the alumni list at King's College, Cambridge was also slimvirgin1@yahoo.com. This mailing list was purged of Linda Mack's name several months ago. Similarly, the domain registration became a private registration within the last year.
11. One "Sarah McEwan, Canada" wrote comments or sent a letter to telegraph.co.uk in Britain in support of animal rights in 2004.
12. SlimVirgin signs her name as "Sarah" on the Wikipedia mailing list.
13. Daniel Brandt emailed slimvirgin AT gmail.com in late October, 2005, using a pseudonym, and asked if she would be interested in selling the slimvirgin.com domain. Twice she denied that she was the owner of that domain.
14. SlimVirgin's IP address geolocates to Shaw Communications in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, but the accuracy of this is disputed and she could be living in either Alberta or Saskatchewan.
15. SlimVirgin indicated a very early interest in the PanAm 103 article when she started editing Wikipedia sometime on or before November 5, 2004. At least one edit that was oversighted suggests inside knowledge of the Pierre Salinger investigation.
16. Jimmy Wales has admitted that articles have been oversighted to protect the identity of SlimVirgin and others.
17. Today almost no one with knowledge about the investigation, including Robert Baer, the CIA official who was close to the CIA's investigation at the time, pretends that the Libyans were guilty.
18. SlimVirgin has made a comment on a Talk page suggesting that the Libyan in prison is not guilty.
19. After Daniel Brandt emailed John K. Cooley in Athens, Greece to ask about Linda Mack, she called Cooley to ask him not to talk to Brandt. She had read on Wikipedia Review that Brandt had located Cooley, and was hoping to hear from him. But Brandt had already received Cooley's response shortly before Linda Mack made this call.
20. Various articles that are politically significant, in addition to the PanAm 103 articles, suffer from excessive ownership by SlimVirgin in that they are seriously skewed in directions that she has promoted and protected. These include articles about Lyndon LaRouche. Moreover, several months before SlimVirgin started the stub on Daniel Brandt, she declared that Brandt was an unreliable source on the topic of one Chip Berlet.
Mack attended Cambridge in the late 1980s, her friends there included Neil Croally, Julian Baggini (whose Wikipedia article was created in 2005 by SlimVirgin), and her faculty advisor at Kings College Bernard Williams (whose Wikipedia article was heavily edited in 2004-05 by SlimVirgin). "Linda Mack's boyfriend in 1989 was Neil Croally, who is now head of the Classics Department at Dulwich College. Croally came by my apartment in Arlington, Virginia in 1989 and got a set of NameBase disks for Linda. I contacted Croally last June by email, and he says that he lost all contact with Linda. But I think he's protecting her, because when I contacted him twice last month with new information that should have amazed him and sparked at least some sort of comment, I never got a reply. At Kings College, Linda was pursuing a PhD in philosophy, under the supervision of Bernard Williams. "
Rumoured origins of the two names
According to a private conversation with a source connected to SlimVirgin, it would seem that the two names are indeed correct. The first is most-likely her "birth name". The second is the name that she uses as a married woman. According to the source, "Linda" is the first name and "Sarah" is a middle name used as a choice. "McEwan" seem to be the name of her husband. It may be that her current legal name is "Linda McEwan".
From Daniel Brandt:
"The most important evidence was an involuntary confession by SlimVirgin that she was Linda Mack. In the early 1990s, American journalist John K. Cooley worked with Pierre Salinger at the London bureau of ABC News, and was involved with the investigation of Lockerbie. In his email to Brandt, he described how they hired an impressive and energetic Linda Mack, who was eager to investigate the bombing. But after a while it became clear that Linda was trying to push journalists toward the official version of the story that accused Libya. It wasn't long before a special unit of Scotland Yard raided ABC News and seized certain materials. Because only a few people knew about the seized material, Salinger realized that this was the work of Linda Mack, and he locked her out of her office."
From Brandt, 2007:
"I spoke with a journalist on the telephone for over an hour today. He worked with Allan Francovich on the Lockerbie film, and knew Salinger and Cooley. He firmly believes that Mack was an informant for MI5. Some of the anecdotes he related about Mack strongly suggest that she was psychologically unstable. He said that as far as he knows, Mack went to Washington after London and hung out with the CIA crowd there. He heard from a friend that she married someone from MI5. That's all he knows about the post-London Linda Mack — basically, she fell off the radar completely. He said that her middle name is Beverley (or Beverly), which contradicts with the middle initial "E" that was listed at King's College. (I just deleted that initial on hivemind because now I don't know which is right.)"
Long rumored to be a plant for MI5 and/or CIA. She once admitted openly on the secret "Wikistalking" mailing list that she worked for MI5. See below.
She was known to use covert recording devices. Quote: "I asked Dr Jim Swire if he knew anything about Linda Mack. He replied today:"
"I can confirm that the lady then calling herself Linda Mack was a Cambridge graduate and attempted to infiltrate an early meeting between our group (UK Families-Flight 103) and the American families in London. We had her thrown out when we discovered that she was 'wired' with a microphone under her coat."
"Dr Swire further stated that David Ben-Aryeah, who worked with Allan Francovich on the Maltese Double-Cross film, assisted in the ejection of Linda Mack from the joint relatives meeting."
Also: "She once told Andreas and me that the whole MI5 saga is a big crock of shite. I'm willing to believe her. These folks don't usually let you walk away and have a life, unless you have a sizable bargaining chip or are so damaged that nobody would take you seriously anyway."
WP activity
Successful RFA, March 2005. Voted in by all the notorious "cabalists", only opposing vote was Everyking.
She was involved in a 1994 petition drive against the "conspiracy documentary" film The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie. Later on Wikipedia, when an article was created about the film, SV allegedly used sockpuppets in 2007 to try to get it deleted. The AFD failed. This was discussed in a WR thread.
One thing that comes across with crystal clarity when reading old SlimVirgin WR threads: the woman is 100% crazy. She tends to work in 48-hour straight shifts with no breaks. [1] It is likely that either she eats trucker meth with both hands, and/or she has other people using her account to edit specific items.[2] She has pushed POV in Israel/Palestine disputes in favor of Israel. Has pushed POV in animal-rights disputes. Has pushed POV in various BLPs. Has worked closely with Jayjg and Cirt, and many sock/meat puppets thereof. And she has worked closely with Will Beback on defamation of Lyndon LaRouche. At one time, she maintained a list of "enemies".
The "SlimVirgin search engine" created by Brandt covers SlimVirgin's entire editing history from its beginning until August 2007. Searches on words like "Israel" and "animal rights" show thousands of hits. (Currently down as of 2012.)
On 17 August 2006, she combined her two major obsessions (other than Pan Am 103), Israel and animal rights, to create Animal rights and the Holocaust, one of the most absurd, biased articles on Wikipedia. It underwent an AFD that same day, which attracted the shrieking rage of many major players in the Israel-Palestine squabbles. Despite being poorly written and questionably documented, the article remains today, untouched and untouchable.
She was mentioned in a July 2007 Slashdot post in re. her Salinger involvement. [3] She was also the subject of an Alex Jones conspiracy "investigation". [4]
Re: SlimVirgin dies
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 12:15 am
Part 2 (had to split it because it's too long for the forum sw)
Between 2005 and 2007, multiple attempts to open an RFC about her activities are deleted, out of process, by her friends.[5]
Her attempt in early 2007 to merge the "Notability" and "No original research" policies into a single policy "WP:ATT", failed. See Notability arguments. "WP:ATT was an attempt by SlimVirgin to rig things in her favour."
August 2007: she deleted two RFCs filed against Chip Berlet and Dennis King, improperly and out of process, and her friend Jayjg helped out.[6]
September 2007: She deliberately "outed" other Wikipedians. [7] This was a result of the BADSITES campaign. [8]
2008: she was dragged to arbitration in May due to continual disputes with Cla68 -- result was FeloniousMonk losing sysop power, worthless "admonishments" for all the other participants. She was dragged to arbitration again in November by FT2 for daring to unblock Giano. Her poisonous POV pushing, support of Gary Weiss, and general notoriety caught up with her, numerous opponents came by to call for her head/heads, though FT2 did most of the talking (as usual). Despite numerous complaints about SV's behaviour, Arbcom wimped out and desysopped her for only six months. Whereupon she showed up on Wikipedia Review, and started a long argument. When her admin powers were returned in May 2009, she abandoned WR and went right back to work on Wikipedia, pushing assorted POVs.
She attempted to create an "advocacy noticeboard" in January 2011, which was deleted. Apparently as a way of attacking someone who was opposing the pro-Israel WP camp.
She is known to canvass in support of her editing, regardless of the rules.
2013: her interest turned toward the articles about BP. See BP editing scandal. As usual, she editwarred and pulled tricks to get opponents removed. [9] "SlimVirgin noticed that an employee from BP has been getting a lot of content into the article with approval from other editors and has begun raising holy hell over the matter at the talk page. Of course, the employee is actually doing everything as suggested by the conflict of interest guideline, bringing proposals based on reliable sources to the talk page and getting approval from non-COI editors after revisions. Yet Slim is insistent that this is not enough and claims they should just create some page to get their view out there so that Wikipedia can cite it."
Further quotes from Brandt:
"I still believe that Linda Mack is/was MI5-affiliated, and also because just today I was clicking around and realized that when an article gets deleted, the edit histories on all the various user pages that contributed to that article also seem to get deleted. At least this seems true with the early SlimVirgin edits."
"Try finding Slim's edit history by using Wikipedia on her user page for these early articles, which are now extinct. Here is the format for my search engine:
"2005 "john train salon"
"2005 "dennis king"
"2005 "daniel brandt"
"They are all gone from her history today because those articles are gone. Sometimes her comments are interesting:
"2005-01-03 22:17 Dennis King (You can't use a LaRouche source. The Namebase entry you cite is based entirely on the LaRouche affidavit; and Namebase is Daniel Brandt.)"
other information
Steven Zvi Beer, aka Crum375, one of her closest allies, was commonly thought to be a sock.
Past sockpuppets of Ms. Mack were Sunsplash (T-C-F-R-B), Sweetbluewater, Royalguard11 (an admin sock), probably many more. Bittersweetsmile (T-C-F-R-B) is believed to be another, not yet verified though likely, because of their common deep interest in Brian Josephson. See Autobiographies#Brian_David_Josephson.
Summaries of her talkpages, saved by Brandt. Ask Brandt or Judd Bagley for their views of her.
She was believed to have written amateur transgender porn in the early 2000s.[10]
Other background:[11][12][13]
enemies list
Saved on Wikipedia Review. Original location unknown.
LaRouche Talk
A list of accounts known or strongly suspected as [LaRouche movement] accounts, in order of arrival.
{user11|64.30.208.48}, May 15, 2004, resolves to Linkline, Santa Monica, California.
An abuse report exists on user:64.30.208.48 for sending out LaRouche press releases as spam during the 2004 election for the governor of California. [14]
{user11|172.199.126.121}, May 16, 2004, created [Chip Berlet] and Dennis King, May 16, 2004, resolves to Los Angeles, California, and other IP addresses within the same ranges 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 and 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255, sometimes signing as Peter_Abelard@ausi.com. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
Jul 26, 2004, as User:172.197.96.137at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche wrote his/her name as Peter_Abelard@ausi.com [20]
Aug 30, 2004, as User:172.195.201.53 at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche again gave his/her name as Peter_Abelard @ausi.com [21]
Sept 27, 2004 as User:172.199.24.28 at Talk:Asian Highway [22]
Sept 27, 2004, the 14:53 edit attribution was changed from User:172.199.24.28 to User:Weed Harper. [23]
Dec 27, 2004 as User:172.194.97.169 at Schiller Institute [24]
The IP address ranges 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255 and 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 have been used to post LaRouche press releases and other material on Usenet. A "Ralph Gibbons" has posted several. [25] LaRouche press releases and other material from the same two AOL IP address ranges that were used on Wikipedia [26] [27] [28] [29], and material from "Weed Harper." [30] [31] [32] [33]
{User11|198.81.26.48}, May 18, 2004, to create Amelia Boynton Robinson [34]
May 18, 2004 as [User:198.81.26.76|198.81.26.76] to edit [Chip Berlet] [35]
May 19, 2004 as [User:198.81.26.76|198.81.26.76] at [American System (economics)] [36]
Dec 4, 2004 as [User:198.81.26.76|198.81.26.76] at [Chip Berlet] [37]
Jan 9, 2005 as [User:198.81.26.73|198.81.26.73] at [Chip Berlet] [38]
{user11|Herschelkrustofsky} May 19, 2004, acknowledged he was from California, check user confirmed he posted from {user11|64.30.208.48} (Santa Monica, CA) and the AOL addresses that were the source of LaRouche press releases on Usenet.
{user11|Weed Harper}, August 6, 2004, who sometimes signed as Peter Abelard, as did some of the AOL addresses, check user confirmed he also posted from {user11|64.30.208.48} and the AOL addresses.
{user11|C Colden}, September 1, 2004.
{user11|The Power of Reason}, June 6, 2005.
{user11|The Power of Human Reason}, June 7, 2005.:{user11|Cognition}, July 12, 2005 — [Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_.7BCognition.7D|Cognition's unforgettable statement]
{user11|BirdsOfFire}, November 2, 2005.
{user11|NathanDW}, November 12, 2005.
{user11|Northmeister}, February 5, 2006.
{user11|IAMthatIAM}, March 20, 2006.
{user11|IAMwhatsIAM}, March 23, 2006.
{user11|71.35.98.217}, May 29, 2006, Qwest, Seattle, Washington.
{user11|ISTJester}, June 3, 2006.
{user11|Nemesis1981}, July 10, 2006.
{user11|ManEatingDonut}, August 21, 2006.
{user11|Tsunami Butler}, October 7, 2006.
{user11|63.3.66.18}, January 16, 2007, resolves to UUNET Technologies, Burbank, California.
{user11|Dr. Gary Carter}, January 18, 2007.
{user11|HonourableSchoolboy}, January 20, 2007.
{user11|76.166.224.229}, February 1, 2007, Roadrunner, location unknown.
{user11|89.62.102.62}, February 24, 2007, resolves to STRATO Medien AG, Germany.
{user11|Don't lose that number}, February 25, 2007.
2006 IRC capture (source unknown)
Note: "NotACow" was Kelly Martin's most common IRC handle.
[Sep 22 2006 10:45:45] <jwales> SlimVirgin is generally thought of quite highly
[Sep 22 2006 10:45:49] <NotACow> jwales: no, she's not
[Sep 22 2006 10:45:55] <NotACow> jwales: she is thought of rather poorly by a LOT of people.
[Sep 22 2006 10:46:04] <SuppleUrn> wikipediareview.com always complains about SlimVirgin constantly
[Sep 22 2006 10:46:05] <NotACow> jwales: myself, james, kat, danny.
[Sep 22 2006 10:46:24] <jwales> SuppleUrn: right, wikipediareview.com. Precisely my point.
[Sep 22 2006 10:49:02] <jwales> Karynn, I ignore what wikipediareview says about you, too.
Is she a British spy? See for yourself
From the "Wikistalking" mailing list:
On 10/11/07, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:
"Here's a good example of the farce. The policy page on attack sites that the ArbCom recommended the "community" develop is at Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. The only problem is that the main editors are the trolls themselves. "
http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl
"*The first editor, BenB4, is a sockpuppet of banned editor Nrcprm2026. *Privatemusings is a self-confessed sock. *WAS 4.250 suggested when I was slashdotted that I open my bank accounts to lawyers for the Foundation (perhaps because MI5 has not yet figured out how to pay people discreetly), and who did his best to keep the issue alive on Jimbo's talk page. "
"*Miltopia is a former ED admin. "
"*Hoplon is a suspected Andrew Morrow sock."
"*Random832 appears to be the banned Nobs01. "
"*Dtobias you all know. "
"Will Beback is struggling valiantly, but really, this is farcical beyond belief."
"Sarah"
And as posted on the Foundation-l mailing list, 21 Sept 2007:
"Nobs is one of the people who maintains an attack site, or in his case an attack page, alleging that -- well, it's hard to paraphrase -- but I think it's that I work for MI5, and I've teamed up with someone else to do something else on Wikipedia, perhaps for money. Who knows. If you want to be a good conspiracy theorist, Nobs, you need to learn how to construct a narrative."
Re: SlimVirgin dies
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 6:43 am
Thank you, Eric Barbour. An excellent summary of what I found out about SlimVirgin some 15 or 16 years ago. It took me two years to dig up that stuff on SlimVirgin. After 14 "Articles for Deletion" votes to delete that bio on me that she maliciously started, Slim finally mentioned on the Wikipedia mailing list that it was okay with her to delete it. Then, and only then, did it get deleted. I wore her down! At that point I lost interest in Wikipedia.
I'm glad you collected all that information from me and others, and preserved it. I'm also glad that a now-defunct forum, The Wikipedia Review, is still available with more on SlimVirgin:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s= ... owforum=43
I'm glad you collected all that information from me and others, and preserved it. I'm also glad that a now-defunct forum, The Wikipedia Review, is still available with more on SlimVirgin:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s= ... owforum=43
Re: SlimVirgin dies
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 8:46 am
Daniel, I should thank YOU for going thru all that misery. And you were far from the only outsider she tried to ruin. I could not begin to summarize all the tricks she pulled to protect Jayjg, Cirt, FeloniousMonk, and the charming Will Beback. Who remains banned from Wikipedia despite eight years of pathetically begging forgiveness. Slim treated Will like a hero. And together they conspired to control specific content areas, like LaRouche and Prem Rawat. Not to mention crackpot shit like this, which Slim thought was "very important". I can find all kinds of likely sockpuppets of hers in the history of that article. She was a big animal lover--yet evidently hated people. Unless they gave her whatever crap her MI5 handlers directed her to obtain.Daniel Brandt wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 6:43 amThank you, Eric Barbour. An excellent summary of what I found out about SlimVirgin some 15 or 16 years ago. It took me two years to dig up that stuff on SlimVirgin. After 14 "Articles for Deletion" votes to delete that bio on me that she maliciously started, Slim finally mentioned on the Wikipedia mailing list that it was okay with her to delete it. Then, and only then, did it get deleted. I wore her down! At that point I lost interest in Wikipedia.
I could go on but let's just say one thing. Ultimately she failed on Wikipedia. A lousy spy too.
Re: SlimVirgin dies
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 12:55 pm
She was a Zionist, which seems to be a conservative cause nowadays, but she was liberal/leftist on just about everything else. She was really into animal rights and "peoples history" topics, like protests against police powers. For awhile she was really into giving Islam a hard time in Wikipedia because of the treatment of women in their religion and societies. Interestingly, that used to be a leftist cause (feminism) but it is now taboo in leftist political culture, if I understand correctly, and as far as I know once that happened SlimVirgin left them alone in Wikipedia for the most part.
When she torpedoed my Request for Admin back in 2007, I think it was, I ended up getting into a lengthy email exchange with Jimbo Wales about her, and he defended her to the hilt. I don't think it was necessarily just because she had put so much work into writing Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. If I understand correctly, she would attach a headshot of herself to emails she would send to certain people and sometimes invite them to a video chat. If you've ever seen her picture, you would understand why. I believe that had something to do with why Jimbo Wales defended her. I expect that he was hoping that she would show up to a Wiki-Mania one day. For those of you unaware, Jimbo was notorious for using his status within the Wikipedia and social media world for dates.
I won't go any further with psycho-analyzing her today, maybe later. But I will say that she's one of the reasons that Wikipedia shot to prominence in its early days because of her hard work on getting it organized. However, she is also one of the reasons why it lost most of its credibility in subsequent years, because she institutionalized the use of cabals, administrator abuse, favoritism for established editors, and other techniques to control topics and articles and that chased away most of the editors over the years who had a genuine desire to use Wikipedia for good things.
When she torpedoed my Request for Admin back in 2007, I think it was, I ended up getting into a lengthy email exchange with Jimbo Wales about her, and he defended her to the hilt. I don't think it was necessarily just because she had put so much work into writing Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. If I understand correctly, she would attach a headshot of herself to emails she would send to certain people and sometimes invite them to a video chat. If you've ever seen her picture, you would understand why. I believe that had something to do with why Jimbo Wales defended her. I expect that he was hoping that she would show up to a Wiki-Mania one day. For those of you unaware, Jimbo was notorious for using his status within the Wikipedia and social media world for dates.
I won't go any further with psycho-analyzing her today, maybe later. But I will say that she's one of the reasons that Wikipedia shot to prominence in its early days because of her hard work on getting it organized. However, she is also one of the reasons why it lost most of its credibility in subsequent years, because she institutionalized the use of cabals, administrator abuse, favoritism for established editors, and other techniques to control topics and articles and that chased away most of the editors over the years who had a genuine desire to use Wikipedia for good things.
Re: SlimVirgin dies
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 3:30 pm
I did of course know all the history, and chose to leave it be, because it seems like the decent thing to do when someone has died, and to a large extent, for Wikipedia criticism, this is basically committing the sin of fighting the last war. A defining trait of those useless bastards, Wikipediocracy.
Don't like what she did? Newslash, she got away with it.
Here's the 411. Given Slim was that bad, given she had that much power, what the holy fucking hell do you think it means that even she ended up being an editor who, like everyone else, can't do a damn thing about David Gerard talking utter fucking bollocks, right to her face?
What does that say about how Wikipedia has changed, in just the last five years? It says what I have observed - it's got worse. A LOT worse.
Back in the day, you probably really could have stopped someone like Slim from the inside, or by simply being a right pain in the ass from the outside. If not because it was the right thing to do, but because it was the right thing for Wikipedia to do. You could wear her down. You could reach moderate editors. Or you could at least reach an identifiable faction and have a bit of the enemy of my enemy type stuff.
No longer. There is no, hang on, have we unfairly maligned the Mail for our own dubious reasons? faction on Wikipedia. Slim was probably it. Says a lot that she did, if she was indeed left on most areas. Sanity is apolitical.
Wikipediocracy is defunct, as far as this sort of pushback or awareness effort is concerned. They are ALL IN with what Gerard is doing. All, fucking, in. All the way. To the fucking hilt.
Now, there's really no stopping someone like David from the inside, or even the outside if your external means is just typing. Like a lot of my campaigns, what I do isn't about effecting change in the here and now. It's to assist the future blood trials. It's the evidence that not everyone was so stupid as to not see what was going on.
The only way to stop David right now, is, well, call someone who knew Slim in her day job.
Unfortunately, they might not be that interested right now, either because the world isn't sufficiently aware of why David Gerard is doing what he does, or far more likely, they have looked at what he's doing, and have concluded it's no threat.
I have said before, I have been overjoyed to see, particularly in the last round of election results, how utterly pointless David Gerard's crusade against the Mail has been.
It's having utterly no effect here. If it has done anything, it has cemented in the public's mind, that Wikipedia is a tool of the left. In particular, the bad left, the wanky metropolitan elite left, The Guardian left. The part of the left that is getting ABSOLUTELY CRUSHED at the ballot box.
Even though, supposedly, according to Wikiwanks, we're actually currently being ruled by a Trump clone, installed by a Fox News lookalike. What a load of shit.
The (moderate) left is still getting killed here, hot on the heels of their hardcore left wing getting annihilated in 2019 (which itself was an unwise lurch to the left resulting from a long line of other moderate left wing losses back to 2010), and not because their policies are all that bad. Who doesn't want less poverty and more free healthcare?
Americans had to vote for Biden, because the other guy was crazy. Didn't really matter what his policy offer was. His policy was, dude, I'M NOT CRAZY.
We don't have to vote for our Biden, because the right wing of politics here is still reasonable sane. A little nasty and occasionally incompetent, but the left has failed to present the case that their worst is any better.
If you can believe it, the worst of the future platform of this current government, Boris the cartoon as you out it, is actually voter ID law. That's the most Trumpian thing they propose, whereas in the land of the donut, that shit is the starting block. The very bottom rung. Here, that shit is not likely to make them look any worse, and might actually bring them votes, for the usual reasons. Racism lite. In America, it's a naked appeal to actual racists. Their starter for ten.
Wikipedia being in the grip of the left is proving to be not a problem for us here in the UK, because we have trusted alternatives to Wikipedia, and a well regulated media, where the TV is largely neutral, and the print media is, by design, opinionated, and their opinion is known.
With all of us being aware that Wikipedia is not giving us a genuinely neutral view, which is just fucking obvious when you read it and compare their reality to actual reality, being aware that it is really only an echo chamber for Guardian reading wankers, and that seems to be the case when you look around at Wikipedia's public perception, well, we can go to other perfectly reasonable, not crazy, media outlets.
It's America that needs to worry, given you do tv and media quite differently. You've really got no trusted neutral sources, so the more and more the right wing voters realise Wikipedia is presenting leftist opinion as objective fact, they're going to gravitate to the only thing you ready have left on the right media landscape. Crazy koo koo land.
I'm already seeing/reading in my reliable news media, that Trumpism is alive and well. Shouldn't be able to happen, right? Should have been fixed with the victory of Biden, right? Nah.
How ironic it would be that America might be lurching back to Trump in 2024, or be knee deep in a literal civil war to prevent it, when over here, given a fair wind, if the moderate left here gets its act together and finally realises what doesn't work, by then we might already be governed by a moderate and sensible left wing government. Change is as good as a rest, and all that.
Don't like what she did? Newslash, she got away with it.
Here's the 411. Given Slim was that bad, given she had that much power, what the holy fucking hell do you think it means that even she ended up being an editor who, like everyone else, can't do a damn thing about David Gerard talking utter fucking bollocks, right to her face?
What does that say about how Wikipedia has changed, in just the last five years? It says what I have observed - it's got worse. A LOT worse.
Back in the day, you probably really could have stopped someone like Slim from the inside, or by simply being a right pain in the ass from the outside. If not because it was the right thing to do, but because it was the right thing for Wikipedia to do. You could wear her down. You could reach moderate editors. Or you could at least reach an identifiable faction and have a bit of the enemy of my enemy type stuff.
No longer. There is no, hang on, have we unfairly maligned the Mail for our own dubious reasons? faction on Wikipedia. Slim was probably it. Says a lot that she did, if she was indeed left on most areas. Sanity is apolitical.
Wikipediocracy is defunct, as far as this sort of pushback or awareness effort is concerned. They are ALL IN with what Gerard is doing. All, fucking, in. All the way. To the fucking hilt.
Now, there's really no stopping someone like David from the inside, or even the outside if your external means is just typing. Like a lot of my campaigns, what I do isn't about effecting change in the here and now. It's to assist the future blood trials. It's the evidence that not everyone was so stupid as to not see what was going on.
The only way to stop David right now, is, well, call someone who knew Slim in her day job.
Unfortunately, they might not be that interested right now, either because the world isn't sufficiently aware of why David Gerard is doing what he does, or far more likely, they have looked at what he's doing, and have concluded it's no threat.
I have said before, I have been overjoyed to see, particularly in the last round of election results, how utterly pointless David Gerard's crusade against the Mail has been.
It's having utterly no effect here. If it has done anything, it has cemented in the public's mind, that Wikipedia is a tool of the left. In particular, the bad left, the wanky metropolitan elite left, The Guardian left. The part of the left that is getting ABSOLUTELY CRUSHED at the ballot box.
Even though, supposedly, according to Wikiwanks, we're actually currently being ruled by a Trump clone, installed by a Fox News lookalike. What a load of shit.
The (moderate) left is still getting killed here, hot on the heels of their hardcore left wing getting annihilated in 2019 (which itself was an unwise lurch to the left resulting from a long line of other moderate left wing losses back to 2010), and not because their policies are all that bad. Who doesn't want less poverty and more free healthcare?
Americans had to vote for Biden, because the other guy was crazy. Didn't really matter what his policy offer was. His policy was, dude, I'M NOT CRAZY.
We don't have to vote for our Biden, because the right wing of politics here is still reasonable sane. A little nasty and occasionally incompetent, but the left has failed to present the case that their worst is any better.
If you can believe it, the worst of the future platform of this current government, Boris the cartoon as you out it, is actually voter ID law. That's the most Trumpian thing they propose, whereas in the land of the donut, that shit is the starting block. The very bottom rung. Here, that shit is not likely to make them look any worse, and might actually bring them votes, for the usual reasons. Racism lite. In America, it's a naked appeal to actual racists. Their starter for ten.
Wikipedia being in the grip of the left is proving to be not a problem for us here in the UK, because we have trusted alternatives to Wikipedia, and a well regulated media, where the TV is largely neutral, and the print media is, by design, opinionated, and their opinion is known.
With all of us being aware that Wikipedia is not giving us a genuinely neutral view, which is just fucking obvious when you read it and compare their reality to actual reality, being aware that it is really only an echo chamber for Guardian reading wankers, and that seems to be the case when you look around at Wikipedia's public perception, well, we can go to other perfectly reasonable, not crazy, media outlets.
It's America that needs to worry, given you do tv and media quite differently. You've really got no trusted neutral sources, so the more and more the right wing voters realise Wikipedia is presenting leftist opinion as objective fact, they're going to gravitate to the only thing you ready have left on the right media landscape. Crazy koo koo land.
I'm already seeing/reading in my reliable news media, that Trumpism is alive and well. Shouldn't be able to happen, right? Should have been fixed with the victory of Biden, right? Nah.
How ironic it would be that America might be lurching back to Trump in 2024, or be knee deep in a literal civil war to prevent it, when over here, given a fair wind, if the moderate left here gets its act together and finally realises what doesn't work, by then we might already be governed by a moderate and sensible left wing government. Change is as good as a rest, and all that.