Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin2

Dispute resolution?

Can you clarify how this qualifies as "trying and failing to resolve the dispute"? It reads more as an attempt to get an admission of guilt. Wasn't the page unprotected long before you pointed out the alleged violoation of the protection policy? —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-17 09:14:32Z

First, I've actually been disputing with SlimVirgin over the proper application of the PPol prohibition for a couple of months due to the Islamophobia dispute. I posted that note on the talk page to voice my objections to her continued violation of the same policy in hopes that she would voluntarily withdraw it. She did not and instead refused to acknowledge any error both there and on my talk page. The ensuing conversation went nowhere with neither of us coming to an agreement, so I posted an RfC for outside comment. Second, you are incorrect about the timing of the page's unprotection. I posted about Slim's PPol violation at 03:45 - approximately 45 minutes after SlimVirgin protected it. Daniel Brandt was unprotected at 04:16 by Linuxbeak [1]. A little over an hour later SlimVirgin criticized Linuxbeak for unprotecting it since he was also involved in the dispute [2], even though she was equally involved when she protected it in the first place. Rangerdude 09:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean you've been stalking her and trying to turn her every admin action into a "crime"? Guettarda 17:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, Guettarda. My only concern is when SlimVirgin abuses her admin powers, and in the case of page protection she does so on a regular basis. SlimVirgin and I edit a number of articles in common including Chip Berlet. The other day this article was reformatted, including the criticisms section. I was reviewing the changes yesterday, followed the wikilink to the Daniel Brandt article, and saw it had been page protected by Slim, who I knew to have been involved extensively in the dispute there. That makes it a clear violation of PPol and it's one she's done before, as with our previous dispute over the Islamophobia page protection. I decided to raise the issue because she evidently has not curtailed her violations of this rule since the Islamophobia article, which makes it a recurring problem of admin privilege abuses. Rangerdude 18:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You presented your Islamophobia page protection "evidence" as part of the ongoing arbcom case involving your conduct. The arbcom has not sanctioned her for it. Why must you continue, then, to bring it up? It's very unseemly. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I bring it up, Katefan, because it's a recurring problem in her misuse of admin privileges that happened again as recently as yesterday. Fred Bauder chose not to sanction her for Islamophobia because she's a well connected admin and told her that here even while recognizing that she broke the rules. But that is a problem with the current Arbcom's structure and history of showing favoritism to admins - not an issue of any determining value on how to handle SlimVirgin's continuing misuse of page protection. Fred argued at the time that it was a minor one time transgression, but I am arguing here that it is a recurring pattern and I'm asking for community input on how this rule should be applied since my conversations with SlimVirgin seeking her compliance with the rule have not produced any resolution. If you have any recommendations on how to properly address the PPol issue you are welcome to post them. Remember the RfC policy though - "Mediate where possible - identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart." Rangerdude 18:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The conspiracy against you reaches far beyond Fred Bauder. Trust me. The Illuminati are involved. Phil Sandifer 19:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who ever said anything about conspiracy? I'm simply concerned about the abuse of power that is increasingly common on Wikipedia among Administrators and Arbcom members. Rangerdude 19:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I see -- the arbcom is corrupt. Isn't it possible, just maybe, that you were simply wrong? · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this case, Katefan. The evidence is clear cut for both. Slim had an extensive editing history on both articles when she imposed Page Protection. The policy explicitly forbids admins from doing that. Oddly, you seem uninterested in addressing the question at hand of whether SlimVirgin's breaches of this policy are a problem and what to do about it, instead preferring to refight Arbcom disputes. That certainly doesn't seem to be an "attempt to draw editors together" though it does contain elements of "push(ing) them apart." Rangerdude 19:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you included the Islamophobia information in an ongoing arbcom case that's all but over, do you consider the Islamophobia information you included here "refighting arbcom disputes?" · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rangerdude, why should I assume good faith when you have been acting in bad faith for months? It's painfully obvious what you are up to. This is about Will reverting your POV pushing. Wikipedia does not exist for you to push your agenda, and it does not exist for you to stalk and harrass the people who supported Will. This is ridiculous. Guettarda 19:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda - I've asked you previously in a polite and reasonable manner to abstain from personal attacks and bad faith insinuations. I'll ask you once again to please focus on the issue at hand, which is the problem of administrators applying page protection to articles where they've been in disputes. Should you wish to comment on this, your input may be useful. Should you continue making personal attacks and bad faith insinuations such as the above, then I have nothing further to say to you and will accordingly ignore your subsequent input here. Rangerdude 21:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, I attempted to resolve the dispute at User_talk:SlimVirgin#Wondering... while the page was protected, which did not work at all. But the page is no longer protected anyway, and thus there is no problem unless SlimVirgin decides to protect it again. Guettarda's view is pure ad hominem, though, in my opinion... :( --Nymph 20:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really? Have you looked at Rangerdude's long history of stalking and harrassing SV and Willmcw? Guettarda 20:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not he has a, er, long history of stalking and harrassing SV and Willmcw, is not quite relevant to the report he made. "RANGERDUDE!!" does not refute "Well she did this, this, and this wrong." --Nymph 21:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She last edited that page on 16 October. AnnH ^(talk) 21:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She also created the page itself and has been involved in the Daniel Brandt dispute that's been occuring both on and off Wikipedia ever since. When Brandt set up his anti-wikipedia page he identified SlimVirgin as one of the main and original instigators in the dispute and she has participated extensively in it throughout. Rangerdude 21:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look below for some good explanations, Vivaldi. This is basically tantamount people saying that Slimvirgin smells like shit she because she cleaned it up. Quite frankly, we need more cleaners like Slimvirgin. karmafist 19:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did she break a rule or not?

Can we please talk about the issue at hand? Did SV break the rule or not? Whether or not this is an elaborate, well-planned conspiracy to undermine SV is completely irrelevant. All that we should be considering is whether SV broke the rules. If you want to start up a discussion about why the reporter of her misdeeds is a low-down dog for pointing it out that SV is breaking the rules, then please do so in an appropriate forum. Vivaldi 21:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have yet to see one purpose DENY that Slim Virgin broke the rule. Does any such purpose exist here? Who denies that a rule is broken? Can you please explain why the evidence presented here should be disregarded on some other basis than by bringing up the character of the person who pointed the rule violations out? Vivaldi 21:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldi - thank you for getting this discussion back on topic. The issue is whether or not SlimVirgin is abusing her admin powers, and if so how we can better address WP:PPol's restrictions on admin powers in her case. Rangerdude

Clearly SV did not, as she was not currently editing the page. Dan100 (Talk) 10:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cognition's testimony

Yes, SlimVirgin clearly did break a rule. As Rangerdude clearly demonstrates, SlimVirgin makes no secret of her disdain for Wikipedia policy. Just to add to Rangerdude's case... SlimVirgin uses her administrative power to protect pages when she is in disputes stemming from her attempts to promote synarchist POV. One notable example was her abuse of sysop powers on physical economics, a school of thought on economics developed by American statesman Lyndon H. LaRouche which is rapidly gaining wide influence worldwide, especially in Russia and China. She, along with Willmcw and Snowspinner, is the archtypical example of the "rogue admin". Cognition 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cognition, unless you can show that you are one of the "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" you should not put your name in that section. "The dispute" measn this specific dispute. -Willmcw 02:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is not particular to any article. The dispute involves her pattern of abusing her admin powers, which I have noted again and again on such pages as Talk:Physical economics. The dispute with both Rangerdude and me cannot end until she is de-sysoped or starts respecting the rules. Cognition 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the definitive statement:

Statement of the dispute
Wikipedia administrator User:SlimVirgin has imposed page protection on articles where she has been involved extensively as an editor and/or participant in a dispute. Doing so is explicitly prohibited by WP:PPol and constitutes an abuse of administrative privileges.

Unless your grievance deals with page protection, and unless you've made positive steps to resolve the disput, then your name does not belong among those who have. Since Physical economics was never protected, that can't be involved. -Willmcw 02:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, physical economics was protected. Check the log. She just did not bother to insert the template because she considers herself above the rules. Cognition 02:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. You are correct. Now where did you talk about the page protection? I don't see any dispute about it. -Willmcw 02:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello????! SlimVirgin reverts my edits almost every time I log on. The dispute is ALWAYS going on and I am ALWAYS making an attempt to resolve it. Cognition 03:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cognition attempted to resolve the revert warring on the talk page immediately after SlimVirgin began [3]. SlimVirgin did not respond and continued reverting including the PPol violation and a 3RR violation. Her failure to respond to Cognition's efforts at curtailing the dispute through talk page discussions is indicative that Cognition tried to work things out with her but was unsuccessful there. Rangerdude 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute is evidently not about edit warring, it is about improper page protection. -Willmcw 09:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is about something more serious. It is about abuse of admin powers in the service of POV pushing. --HK 15:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is about something completely different and you know it. It's actually about the fact that SilmVirgin has been bearing the burden of enforcing the ArbCom's ruling against a particular cult leader you and User:Cognition happen to regard as "the modern day Socrates." [4] SlimVirgin is obviously doing something right if the LaRouche cultists dislike her so much. 172 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like he said. --Calton | Talk 13:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then allow me to amend my previous comment. It is about abuse of admin powers in the service of pushing a POV that is shared by 172 and Calton. --HK 15:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of anyone's POV this was an arbcom decision. Slim is enforcing their decision not pushing her POV. It may not be her or Calton or 172's POV but that they accept arbcom rulings while Cognition and HK don't. Personally I think we should accept arbcom decisions and expect our admins to enforce them or the wikipedia process will collapse, SqueakBox 15:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still no refutation of the evidence

To date the editors who have weighed in favoring SlimVirgin have provided plenty of ad hominems and shooting the messenger, but one thing remains certain: nobody denies that SlimVirgin broke the rules. I'll add to that that nobody denies that SlimVirgin broke the same rule on more than one occasion as the list of evidence demonstrates. Barring any new evidence otherwise, the rule violation is thus undisputed. Rangerdude 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be undisputed, when 9 people have signed endorsements disputing this RFC? · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 07:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None of the endorsements have stated a dispute with the facts of the case, Katefan, and none has refuted so much as a word of my complaint about Slim's behavior. Instead they simply flung or seconded ad hominems against me and attacks on my motives for pointing out SlimVirgin's violations. If you have evidence that exonerates Slim from the charge that she broke the rules then by all means let's see it. Rangerdude 07:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, because 9 people disagree with you, their opinions are simply invalid? Pardon me for asking this question twice in the same day, but is it possible that you may simply be wrong? · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 07:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I were wrong in this case, Katefan, you would be able to refute the evidence that SlimVirgin broke the rules without resorting to personal attacks on me or my alleged motives for pointing it out. You have not and apparently cannot though because the evidence is conclusive, hence your use of the ad hominem fallacy in its place. Rangerdude 07:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. If the evidence is conclusive, why not file a case with arbcom? Why bother soliciting others' opinions if your only purpose is to try to shout people down when they differ with you? But hey, at least your conclusive evidence is bringing people together instead of pushing them apart. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 07:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starting another Arbcom case at this point would be out of process, Katefan. Not that you care for such "technicalities" yourself. Still waiting for you to refute the proof that SlimVirgin repeatedly broke the rules... Rangerdude 18:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your diffs are adequate proof that no rules were broken -- for more information, you can refer to my outside view. (Endorsed now by 29 other ~~corrupt/wrong/misguided~~ people.) · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And yet (1) some 90% or so of those opposing this RfC are admins themselves with a history of covering up for other admins who break the rules, and (2) not a single one of them to date has disputed the fact that SlimVirgin broke the rules. Go figure. Rangerdude 04:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nobody has denied that SlimVirgin broke the rules. This is correct. I am having a similar issue with trying to get people to realise that whether or not someone hacked a computer is not an opinion when you have systems logs proving it and a confession by the person that did it. So I agree with you in principal. As I said, my issue is that I believe that, whilst it was wrong in truth, it was right in spirit. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue with granting her a pass on this one time with the Brandt article is that it's NOT the first time she's broken this exact same rule to her own benefit. She also chided Splash and Linuxbeak for opposing her protection of the Brandt article by accusing them of breaking the same rule that she did. The problem with SlimVirgin's behavior is that it's recurring and demonstrates a mentality of an administrator who thinks she is above the rules. Sadly the admin clique has rallied behind her to ensure she can continue to break the rules with impunity, and I have little faith that a corrupt Arbcom would find any differently. Rangerdude 18:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Double jeopardy

All of the contested edits on Islamophobia have already been presented to the ArbCom. This appears to be a poor procedure, for the same evidence to be used in case after case attacking SlimVirgin. The evidence has already been considered formally and any appropriate action taken. RfC's should not cover ground that has already been travelled by the ArbCom and by SlimVirgin, with repetitive demands for responses. -Willmcw 19:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to post a link to where the Arbcom voted on this evidence? I'm curious to see the outcome of that vote. Thanks. Rangerdude 19:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They reviewed all evidence that was submitted to them. The fact that they did not find any violations by Slimvirgin that merited further consideration shows that these are not serious charges. -Willmcw 22:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I only see evidence of one Arbcom member reviewing it, Fred Bauder. And he recognized that Slim had broken the rules then promised not to penalize her for it because of who she is. Rangerdude 04:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing does not require commenting. Absent evidence to the contrary, we can sssume that the ArbCom reviews all evidence. -Willmcw 07:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And why should we make a silly assumption like that, Will? There's no evidence to suggest any arbcom member other than Fred even reviewed the charge, and since no finding was made either for or against that charge it is erronious to claim that it was rejected. So I'll ask you again the question you avoided the first time it was asked. Would you care to post a link to where the Arbcom voted on this evidence? Rangerdude 07:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Care with protection

Admins who regularly use protection would do well to work together on protecting articles, so that they do not get into the habit of both fighting vandals over, and protecting, the same page. Not because this is prohibited by current policy -- I don't believe it is -- but because it can be difficult to distinguish between 'fighting vandals', or even 'enforcing arbitration', and 'edit-warring over content'.

Slimvirgin is one of the more active and productive admins wrt use of page-protection; so it is natural that she should come across more borderline cases than others, and have slightly different views of PPol than others. It's worth discussing different interpretations of what it means to be "in an edit war" over a page, and how to clarify that point; but an RfC is not the right place to have that discussion.

Rangerdude, if you really want to discuss PPol, you should do so on its talk page, not via an RfC. Discussions there over the past few months have been marred by ad hominems and strong emotion. Can you try discussing the issues more peacefully there, in a general sense -- and not targetted at Slimvirgin or any other specific administrator? +sj + 22:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll examine the history of the PPol talk page, you will find that I had several extensive conversations with SlimVirgin there regarding her misuse of page protection on the Islamophobia article [5]. She was uncooperative in finding a solution and remained incorrigible about her behavior. This RfC was filed in response to a recurring problem that I've attempted to address with her by other means several times before. Rangerdude 04:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]