Fred Bauder wrote: There's a fine line to be trodden here. Certainly, we don't want or need to dignify wild rumors with any attention at all. But once a story "has legs" (and whether it deserves them or not), too-strenuous attempts to deny it only fuel the speculations that there *is* a cabal and a cover-up -- and those speculations can end up driving more long-term damage than the original, spurious accusation would have. A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375. (And there may have been other reverters, sorry if I left you out, but evidently this issue has become so "serious" that [[User talk:SlimVirgin]] has had a bunch of its history deleted.)

On 7/30/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote: Not everyone reads the mailing list/Slashdot and may want to enquire about rumours they've heard. I would rather that they heard about these ridiculous allegations from Wikipedians on Wikipedia, rather than on some other website because self-righteous Wikipedians decide any mention whatsoever of the claims is ridiculous. Johnleemk

On 7/29/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote: Is there anything to this? # 19:59, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) restored "Mordechai Vanunu" (813 revisions restored) # 19:57, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) deleted "Mordechai Vanunu" (PI) # 19:55, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) restored "Robert Maxwell" (177 revisions restored) # 19:54, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) deleted "Robert Maxwell" (PI) # 19:52, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Slimv" (User page deleted) # 19:51, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Slimv" (PI) # 19:50, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) restored "Pan Am Flight 103" (1109 revisions restored) # 19:45, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) deleted "Pan Am Flight 103" (PI) # 19:42, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) restored "Pierre Salinger" (101 revisions restored) # 19:40, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) deleted "Pierre Salinger" (PI)

Maintaining the integrity of WP editing and WP editors has everything to do with writing an encyclopedia. Responsible discussion of attacks on either is appropriate. As for notability, what may appear on WR etc may not be widely noticed, but what appears on slashdot is another matter. The only reason for hiding the truth is the fear that it might be damaging. Now in this case anyone knowing even a little of the story can see that the fear is wildly excessive. So the net result is that the ignorant will thing we're evil, and the slightly more knowledgeable will think we're cowards. I don't think we're either--I think its the trap of trying to justify our previous errors by insisting on repeating them, so we can pretend to ourselves that they aren't errors. All concealment looks suspicious, and the resort to it is self-defeating. Had we not concealed, this discussion--which is now permanently recorded-- also would not have occurred. So the net result is that we have multiplied the effectiveness of the slashdot story. On 7/30/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

You honestly think that if she said it was false, everyone would go away and leave her alone, and all the trolling and stalking would stop? If I were in Slim's position, I would make no comment either. You don't start answering some of the stalkers' questions, knowing that there will be more later. Remember that they have found various "identities" for her, and are still looking. Presumably, they'll come up with a few more in the next year. What is she supposed to do? Make a statement on this occasion, and keep silence when they actually guess right? Q. Is it true that your name is Melissa Davenport? A. No, that's false. Q. Is it true that your name is Marjorie Simpson? A. No, that's false. Q. Is it true that your name is Jennifer Collins? A. I refuse to say. What kind of impression would that give? E

On 7/29/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: Steve, could you point out exactly what I have been "rampantly reverting" in this regard?

jayjg wrote: Between 03:22 and 22:12 on July 27, at least 8 questions about That Slashdot Thread were posted by various users on Slim's talk page, and systematically removed by you, ElinorD, and Crum375. Though one or two of the questions were snide, I have to assume that at least a few of them were in good faith: editors unaware of Slim's storied history, who came across the Slashdot thread and thought she might like to know about it. I suppose "rampantly" might have been a smidge too strong. The point remains, however, that a group of editors unilaterally decided, without explanation, that a certain question was Absolutely Forbidden on Slim's talk page. I understand the reasoning behind the deletions, of course, no need to rehash all that now, but my own feeling is that the cure may have become worse than the disease.

On 8/1/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: Wait a minute, so 3 different editors removed a total of 8 questions. Out of curiosity, exactly how many did I remove during that "rampant reverting"? No need to reply, the answer is one. One of the things that has marred these kinds of discussions is rampant hyperbole. Another is that far too much of it is directed at slamming other editors, rather than discussing issues. I don't see any particular reason this discussion would add any value to the wikien-l thread, but if people feel that they must discuss it, let's try to do it in a way that generates light, not heat.

On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: I would like to second all of what Andrew has said above. This incessant cacophony of personal drama is drowning out useful conversations actually relevant to the building of the project. It is causing stress and emotional pain for many of us. It's completely unnecessary, and is within your power to stop. Hand in your bits, and step away from the project for three months. Get some fresh air. Say hi to your friends and family. And don't worry about what's happening here, because others will be rising to take your place in sharing the workload; that's how we work. Go. We can afford to spare you, for as long as you need. We'll see you again, because those who care about this project can never stay away permanently. But staying in the heart of the fire out of pride, or ego, or vanity, is folly, and can only lead to madness.

Andrew Gray wrote: I understand the motivation for saying this, but I think you misunderstand the goals of the people attacking WP; they are not after individuals, they want the project as a whole to fail, or to come under their control in some way. If a dozen prominent Wikipedians leave, then the attackers will go after the next dozen, and so forth. Go and read some of the conspiracy stuff at WR; Jimbo's use of the term "lunatics" is not an exaggeration! Is that really who you want deciding what goes on at WP? Appeasement is not going to work. Stan

On 01/08/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs(a)earthlink.net> wrote: And characterising it as "appeasement" just further polarises the situation. The fact that someone we don't like would be pleased (or smug, perhaps more accurately) does not stop the fact that the project would be better off for it. I am not calling for this because it's what Wikipedia Review demand - I don't know what Wikipedia Review want, to be frank. I am calling for this because I'm sick of it, and I feel strongly that others are too. I have no doubt that there are people who would keep attacking the project if every single one of our existing "senior" users, however we define that, you and I included, left tonight and were replaced by new people. That's life. Those people are nuts, and we ignore them. But this is above and beyond that. It's senseless, self-perpetuating, worthless drama. It actively *encourages* further trolling and attacks - like this "spy" claim - and artificially boosts their plausibility by the way we react to them. It sullies the project as a whole; it makes us look like paranoid loons with bizzare hidden agendas. It makes it look like the nutters have something sensible to say, which is the most worrying part... And that's not just how it looks to the crazies. This is the image we begin to show to the outside world at large! I have invested several years work in this project; so have you. This self-centred drama is trivialising what we've tried to achieve; it's using the encyclopedia as a playground for personalities, with a vague pretence that this in some way benefits the community. It makes us *all* look bad, and if left unchecked it will begin to seriously jeopardise the goodwill we have patiently built up over the years. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 8/1/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote: Huh? What does this have to do with me? I thought Andrew was suggesting the people who insist on discussing this on the list and on Wikipedia should take a break.

On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: So because I removed one comment from SV's page, you think I need to take a few months off?

Andrew Gray wrote: Where do you think all this drama is coming from in the first place? The lunatics at WR have been trying to get wider attention for their conspiracy theories for several years. So you're unwittingly playing into their hands, and in fact, your "please leave" message is already reproduced at WR as the start of a new discussion thread. Now it would be good if we had better ways to tamp down the drama once it gets started. But asking valuable editors to quit in response to outsiders going after them is completely the wrong way to go about it - you may not like the word "appeasement", but what else would you call it? You're giving the attackers what they want, at the expense of the victims. Now that you're featured on WR, you're going to be under scrutiny yourself - are you willing to quit and abandon all your WP work when they start attacking you? And no, coming back under another name won't help, they are always ready to make sockpuppet accusations. You really should go take a look at WR, and see the malevolence for yourself. Stan

On 8/1/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: The good is that Sarah can once again contribute pseudonymously, at least until she's outed again (which could take long or short depending on how carefully she edits this time around). On the other hand, if you want to ignore it, then ignore it. Stop oversighting things, stop banning links to websites simply because they provide the information, stop deleting comments which in good faith ask questions about it, stop contributing to this thread. Ignoring it of course means giving in as well, because if you ignore it all the private details are going to come out. Various people at Wikipedia Review have already reconstructed pretty much all of the edits that were oversighted. Archive.org contains much of the rest. User:SlimVirgin is outed. That's the reality of the situation. You can call the people anything you want, but calling people names doesn't change reality.

On 01/08/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: The talk of appeasement, of course, makes one think of Chamberlain. "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" -- - Andrew Gray (or would the first use be more appropriate?) andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: Frankly, I don't really know what you're talking about any more, Andrew. The people who look bad are those promoting this nonsense, and those who insist on continually re-hashing it on Wikipedia and the mailing list. Enough navel-gazing; go build an encyclopedia.

Shit, I messed up the quoting in that post. Shebs was saying that stuff himself, not quoting Gray. On 8/1/07, Ben Yates <ben.louis.yates(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com

On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: Someone gossips about ME, and I'm supposed to drop out to stop them? Huh? What references do you have that suggest this will shut a gossip up? KP

On 8/1/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: On 8/1/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: Jay, the "who, me?" attitude you are taking is getting tiresome. Do you really not realize the damage you have done to your own reputation, and the project's? Either you do, in which case your continuing to be inflammatory towards fellow editors and trolls alike is inexcusable, or you do not, in which case you have not yet heard the patient explanations and pleas of your fellow editors. Assuming the latter: Your actions have been counter-productive to any goals you may have had in mind while taking them. The endless discussions that you help generate are drowning out useful collaboration internally, and advocacy and goodwill for the project externally. While the long service you have given this project is vast and will always be appreciated, I for one can no longer in good conscience ask you to stay; both you and the project need for you to step back, and let fresher hands take up your work. Go, with our blessing.

Please don't say 'our', you reflect views of yourself and can not in any capacity represent all of en.wp. While I know and dislike some of jayjg's actions and realize he has done things which are infact questionable and morally wrong. He is still a good editor and has made a number of good faith contributions to this project. He atleast in my eyes is welcome to stay and contribute. If you have an issue with him using tools, in a way he shouldn't then please take that up directly to him or another authority, or establish the ability to recall an editors mop/various bits. I'll go back to waiting on my flight and hope to see you at wikimania. -Josh/Somitho On 8/1/07, Michael Noda <michael.noda(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/1/07, Michael Noda <michael.noda(a)gmail.com> wrote: Huh? What are you talking about?

On 8/1/07, Joshua Brady <somitho(a)gmail.com> wrote: I was certainly not presuming to speak for all of en.wp; I apologize if I gave that impression. However, I think I'm speaking for more than myself; minimally, I think I speak for those on this list who have voiced similar sentiments. I think the use of the first person plural was appropriate here. Alas, I won't be there this year. Have fun, and keep us homebound folk posted on the festivities!

Rob wrote: If I wanted to read discussion and analysis of these allegations about SlimVirgin where else would I go? There's apparently nothing on Wikipedia about it.

[offlist] On 02/08/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: Oh, that's beautiful. Thank you for making me laugh over this... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 8/1/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: So she starts over from scratch, rebuild's her reputation, makes admin again, blocks one of "them", and we're back here talking about this again.

On 8/1/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hopefully we'll be smarter next time not to talk about it. And hopefully she'll be smarter to not "inadvertantly reveal personal information" by adding original research to articles about which she has a conflict of interest. And merely blocking "one of them" probably wouldn't be enough anyway. If Sarah hadn't started an article on Namebase or Brandt I seriously doubt any of this would have happened. There's more to Wikipedia than blocking people anyway. If you're someone who's really concerned about not being outed, maybe you should spend all of your time on the millions of tasks other than blocking. And laying off those topics about which we hold strong feelings is probably a good idea whether we care about being outed or not. There are what, tens of thousands of Wikipedians who go about writing an encyclopedia without drawing the ire of people on Wikipedia Review?

On 01/08/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: You have been involved in this whole long-term ongoing debacle a lot more than removing "one comment", and whilst you seem to have a hard time understanding what my message meant I notice no-one else on this thread seemed under any misconceptions about it. Let me explain my stance again. I am all for people's rights to privacy, and all for us doing reasonable amounts to protect their anonymity where people are dickish about that. Heck, I would be v. upset if someone started "outing" information about me for whatever petty reasons they might have, and though I sign my name here, I have taken quiet care to conceal details I consider private. But when it comes to disrupting the encyclopedia [as with the whole attack-sites fiasco before], consuming vast amounts of our time and energy and attention, and making us look like a bunch of easily-gamed incompetents to the outside world - all to protect the anonymity of one username, anonymity which seems to be thoroughly torpedoed by this stage? We're going too far; we're prioritising stubborn pride over our work. This is a problem that could be solved not by "appeasement", that loaded but meaningless term, but by a simple and pragmatic decision by a handful of [already-pseudonymous] users to stop editing for a few weeks and come back under another name. I don't care who you think "wins" if that happens - it's the best solution, inasmuch as it stops this vast amount of noise and disruption. And everyone else would feel the benefit. I know I'm banging the drum here, but really, it's for the good of the encyclopedia. Yes, it would dent some egos. Yes, some trolls somewhere would be smug. But pragmatically, there is no other way to stop it, to control and calm the debacle. There isn't a "and then everything is fluffy bunnies" outcome at this stage. Nothing you do can make this situation better. *Nothing*. Yes, it sucks. Like I said originally, this is not personal; this is not because I dislike any of the participants (you and I have had many disagreements in the past, but I don't recall dealing with Slim, and I've never had cause to argue with you over an actual *article*!). I feel a heel saying it. I wish the situation wasn't where it's got to. Right now, you and Slim and the others are just magnets for drama. It doesn't matter why it all started, or what the details of it are, or who said what when, or how terribly unfair it all is to complain; your responses perpetuate it and aggravate it. This whole thing is ballooning bigger and bigger as time goes on; what you are doing is harming the project, and if it goes on much further the incremental damage will be that much worse. Please. For the good of the project, turn around and walk away. Nothing to stop you coming back - you can tell us about it privately or you can keep it quiet - and no-one will be any the wiser; new account, muddle around editing something trivial for a few weeks, and that's it. We'll survive without you, for a while; the graveyards are full of indispensable men, and all that. Heck, even keeping your current identity and just dropping all this endless game of whack-a-mole oversighting would be a start. We can't make this decision for you; there isn't a "process" the community can use to make you do the sensible thing. But we can *ask*, we can explain, we can advocate, that you do it. As one colleague to another. Please. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:> > Why should there be anything on Wikipedia about it? Why would you expect an encyclopedia to contain discussion and analysis of the absurd allegations of trolls and stalkers?

On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: What do you mean by "long-term ongoing debacle", and what has my "involvement" been?

On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: But it is not a free speech zone. Dedication to the dissemination of legitimate knowledge does not require us to help the spread of unsubstantiated attacks and ridiculous allegations across the globe, whether it be libel against the subjects of articles or our fellow editors.

Rob wrote: I'm referring to talk pages. Talk pages aren't part of the encyclopedia, they're for discussion _about_ the encyclopedia. This obviously falls under that.

Rob wrote: Not relevant, I never claimed it was. You snipped the rest of my email where I use this point simply to establish that the sort of people who would be attracted to working here are the sorts of people who value free speech highly, hence why morality is being brought up.

On 8/1/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote: If Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a pedophile, do you imagine you respond civilly to questions of "John, what's all this about you being a pedophile"? Who asked for reversions to be oversighted? If I missed those posts, I apologize, but I don't recall seeing people ask for that.

On 8/2/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well, I would certainly laugh it off as the usual bullshit stunts these people pull. I would not demand that we salt the earth as if nobody ever made such allegations. David Gerard posted about being asked to do it. He told them to bugger off. Johnleemk

On 8/1/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote: Here's another forwarded response from ArmedBlowfish: -------- I am sure you mean well, but falling to the Victim-Blaming fallacy very psychologically harmful to SlimVirgin and other victims nonetheless... hence the terms 'the second rape' and 'the second assault'... well, the psychology of rape is the psychology of abuse. See the thread entitled 'The Second Rape: Victim-Blaming (was Re: Self-sensorship, how far should it go?)' for a more detailed explanation. Armed Blowfish

On 8/1/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't see anyone making such demands, though. I've looked at David's post; that's not what he said.

On 8/1/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: The allegations are far more outrageous and extensive than that; that's why the pedophile question is indeed apt.

On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: But the only "public drama" I'm seeing is the continual mastication of this topic on this very list.

On 8/2/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: I've seen it. I fail to see how I am blaming the victim; as far as I can tell she was not directly responsible for the attempted salting of apparently innocent questions/statements made by misguided by otherwise good-faith editors, and I have never blamed her for such. Johnleemk

On 8/2/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: Most of it lately has been in response to you.

jayjg wrote: There's also various news and blog posts around the net, for example I saw http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/27/1943254.shtml before I even got into this thread here. If you're looking for it on Wikipedia itself, that's a bit of a catch-22.

On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: Unfortunately, this is not possible. You can't easily come back to Wikipedia under another name and not be recognized, if you're recognizable, if people already know you and your writing style and your interests and your behavior. It's been tried over and again by people trying to escape their reputation and start afresh, and it fails often enough that I must conclude that it's not a winning strategy. And if you disappear and come back under another name, it'll only add gasoline to the flames in terms of conspiracy theorists. -Matt

On 8/2/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: Indeed; I can think of at least a half-dozen off the top of my head who have tried and failed. And it especially doesn't work if you have a pack of obsessive Wikipedia-watchers hovering in the sidelines trying to foil any such attempt.

On 8/1/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: In some cases I've known in confidence that someone is a returnee; most of these have been exposed eventually. Perhaps there's a correlation between my knowing and those people being more likely to be exposed, however; certainly possible. I'm not sure what the answer is. Personally, I make no great effort to be anonymous or pseudonymous. I use my real (albeit common) name and people could probably find me with very little effort. IMO, I think it being too easy makes it less tempting, and makes it appear like there's no big exciting secret - since there's not. However, I have no enemies I know of and have an employer and family that are pretty damn cool. Not everyone is in that situation. In the end, I'd recommend that anyone who has big reason to be anonymous not edit Wikipedia. If they are willing to take the risk to, it's much safer if you do not edit in areas where you are a known figure, do not seek adminship or if you do, don't court controversy, and in general avoid Wikipedia's battlegrounds. -Matt

On 02/08/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote: To clarify: requests were sent to oversight-l. Mostly we've been responding "no." Some have been oversighted. I didn't actually say "bugger off" and I can't say that I care deeply about what's been zapped or that the encyclopedia or project would be greatly enhanced by its presence. - d.

jayjg wrote: I probably wouldn't be civil at all: well, about WR, I'd try to be nice to the questioner. I would compare them (WR again) unfavourably to the mighty John Grubor who was the first (and AFAIK only, so far) person to allege on-line that *I* was a pedophile (me, and hundreds of others, it was a favourite tactic ;-), and I would likely be provided with an opportunity to mock them for their lack of knowledge of Internet history when they said "John who?" (if the article on Grubor hadn't been deleted by some nitwit who thinks that history finished with the invention of the Internet, I would be able to point them at a Wikipedia article, but as it is I would have to Google for him). I would chide them for their lack of anything approaching intellect or imagination, and compare them (again) to small children at the zoo poking the animals through the cage (myself, I'd like to be a polar bear, but a civet would also be perfectly acceptable, in terms of self-defence capabilities). I would not, however, go screaming around the wiki waving my virtual hands in the air and demanding that any reference to any such allegations be deletionated with extreme prejudice. I would not expect any of my friends or colleagues to do so either, and any such juvenile behaviour indulged in on my behalf would be soundly mocked in turn. I would not attempt to create a policy which said that any web-site which mentioned such allegations should be delinked from any and all pages on the wiki: assuming that any such site exists, it would likely be an integral part of our sources on the early history of the Internet (oh, no, wait…see above for the end of history and consequent deletionation). For your information, in my position as an Adoptive Father, allegations of pedophilia would be much more worrying to me than anything to do with being some sort of Secret Agent, but happily I am comfortable that neither is true (although some of that stuff Q makes would be kewl). Whether or not SV is or is not an agent for MI-5, Mossad, the Bavarian Illuminati, or the Gestapo themselves is now lost in the crackle of flames as Good Faith in Wikipedia is destroyed: if "the Kabal" are willing to go to town over something as stupid and trivial as this, what would they be like if a *serious* allegation came along? HTH HAND -- Phil -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Oh-shit%2C-Slashdot-is-an-attack-site%21-tf4160239.ht… Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.