G'day The Mangoe,
You got a personal apology on your talk page for that,
SV. I jumped to
what was most likely a wrong conclusion, and I'm sorry I did it. I had
them move the thread into the hidden part of WR so that the accusation
isn't visible to the public. If we're going to go the "I have a hard
time assuming good faith" route, everything is going to go up in
If you don't already help out at Wikipedia that's a great place to
meet up. We have controlled animal rights articles there for
several years, but the project is always expanding and we always
need people to make sure new peripheral articles are slanted our
You read that, and assumed you'd scored a king-hit on SlimVirgin. The
problem there is not that you need to apologise to Sarah (though you
do); it's that ... *you read that and assumed you'd scored a king-hit on
There have been many complaints about SlimVirgin colluding with
other users and particularly administrators. I do not know whether
they are true. However, this post seems to me to have the character
of a smoking gun. Mangoe 13:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Smoking gun, or smirking gnu?
Oh, and you came across it while trying to work out SlimVirgin's true
identity, even though she's made it plain that she wants to remain
anonymous (ish). Apart from any other concerns, this is simply really
And then we get to the other concerns. Such as: what exactly did you
hope to achieve by discovering SV's identity? Was it just to prove how
easy it is? If so, what does that prove? If you hope to assert that,
if an anonymous person leaves "breadcrumbs" and unwittingly makes it
easy for the likes of you to expose her: congratulations, you've just
fit neatly into Jayjg's comparison with rape victims who are trivialised
because they wore skimpy clothing.
And: what on Earth made you think it was ever appropriate for you to go
looking for information to expose a Wikipedia editor --- or any
anonymous person --- just for kicks? What made you think this
*wouldn't* be exceptionally creepy? Really?
BUt then, assuming good faith is already in tatters
here. There are
What's in tatters is your credibility. You actually believed that the
poster in that case was SlimVirgin! My goodness! That incident alone
should have had you blushing so much the neighbours called the fire brigade!
simply too many theories bouncing around as to why
people are doing
what they're doing for there to be much good faith here, with the
"DennyColt was a sockpuppet for the Bad Guys" theory serving as the
jewel in the crown. Apparent COIs are a dime a dozen, and
characterization of the WR membership has been pretty much one long
personal attack. Discussion of that site is so tainted that there is
no way to come up with a good basis for policy using it.
This is the site that welcomed AMorrow with open arms. This is the site
that Daniel Brandt regularly contributes to. This is the site that
organised severe harrassment of Phil Sandifer, then lied about their
motives. This is the site that drove Katefan0, *an admin who even they
couldn't fault*, away from Wikipedia out of pure meanness of spirit.
This is the site where, when a board administrator mentioned that
revealing personal information was frowned-upon, the rest told that
fellow: "Speak for yourself."
Wikipedia Review, in theory, could turn out not to be a cesspool. In
theory, it could even be a reasonable, useful, intelligent forum. Many
WR posters are very intelligent; some of them are even sane. Skyring is
one obvious example of a reasonable poster, as is Blu Ardvaark (when
he's on his meds), and I assume you, sir, would like to claim that title
as well. But having one or two reasonable members is nothing to boast
about, when the overall site and tone of the site is so filthy.
The actions I've mentioned above (and the dozens I'm not aware of)
cannot be hidden away, or "explained" with handwaving and lies.
Wikipedia Review cannot pretend they never happened, and cannot pretend
they were reasonable. What they can say is: We've changed. We're not
the same forum that did those things. We're sorry. They will not
happen again. In the future, we will confine ourselves to legitimate
criticism and the occasional fart joke.
What they --- you --- cannot say is: It's not a big deal. We're not as
bad as you think. We were never as bad as you think. Anyway, those
admins deserved everything they got. And our motives were pure as the
driven snow, just ask us.
You cannot say this because it's not true. Because you're liars. And
because we know you are liars. If you continue lying, we will find it
very difficult to believe that you are better than we think you are. Do
you know why this is? I'll tell you why.
It's because you're liars.
 Every forum needs some release ...
"'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten
in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/