![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Kato |
![]()
Post
#1
|
dhd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Member No.: 767 ![]() |
A few months ago, I was arguing here with Slim about how, back in the old days, she and others were targeting just about anyone as being a LaRouchie, and I described the chaos that witchhunt had caused. I especially noted an incident when herself and long time user (and another anti-LaRouche figure) 172Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)
discussed banning a totally innocent guy as a "New LaRouche editor" back in 2007.
Here is my post, Slim simply batted this incident off by not addressing it specifically - claiming that people weren't banned as LaRouchies without good reason. Not necessarily so. The whole LaRouche vs anti-LaRouche thing was a farce that had spilled out all over Wikipedia. Wholly unrelated people were getting threatened by Wikipedia powerplayers as "LaRouchies" on a regular basis. People saw it with their own eyes and have not been swayed by Hersch at this site. It was outrageous, and one of my first posts at this site was to highlight one such offense. In April, 2007, an editor went to SlimVirgin and Willbeback and wrote this about Mbhiii (T-C-L-K-R-D) : QUOTE(User:172) New LaRouche editor This looks quite familar now. [10] Like the last HK sockpuppet blocked by SlimVirgin, HonourableSchoolboy, this account has been editing articles that appear in my recent contributions history or are linked to my userpage. Sigh. 172 | Talk 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks. Sadly, by now I can spot LaRouche propaganda from a mile away. 172 | Talk 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC) The message to SlimVirgin has since been deleted. But the spirit of the message is typical. The accused had nothing to do with LaRouche, and his edits had nothing to do with LaRouche. Yet he was immediately attacked as a "New LaRouche" editor. A group of editors, led by SlimVirgin, and accompanied by anti-LaRouche campaigners Chip Berlet and Dennis King (whose Conflicts Of Interest were never questioned) were allowed to treat Wikipedia like an anti-LaRouche version of the McCarthy witch-hunts. Thus creating massive bad feelings and subverting the whole culture of the place. Well here comes the most ridiculous development yet. Having spent years orchestrating witch-hunts with Slim and Will against LaRouchies, former admin User:172 has himself been indefinitely banned by some lunatic administrator - on the declaration that he is the pro-LaRouche renegade Cognition (T-C-L-K-R-D) based on "checkuser evidence". So either User:172 was the most brilliant stooge account ever (going back to 2002), or WP's checkuser facitilities are so incompetent, it has convicted the Witchfinder General of being a witch! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) And to cap it off. Slim was right in the mix during these latest banning discussions which nailed 172! |
![]() ![]() |
One |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Postmaster General ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,553 Joined: Member No.: 4,284 ![]() |
I remember 172 vaguely, and surveying his work refreshes my recollection. Kato is right that there's no damn way he's pro-Larouchian.
Possibilities suggested so far: 1) Cognition created to demonize Larouchians, 2) 172 account compromised, 3) massive IP table failure. |
Somey |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 11,816 Joined: From: Dreamland Member No.: 275 ![]() |
Possibilities suggested so far: 1) Cognition created to demonize Larouchians, 2) 172 account compromised, 3) massive IP table failure. Don't forget the one where 172 and Cognition are using the same Wi-Fi network... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) OK, looking over Cognition's contribs, I'd say it's more likely that Cognition's account is the one that's been compromised, so maybe I'd tend to lean toward Option 1 after all - utterly insane though it may be. It's just not like a die-hard Larouche supporter to behave like this - like he's desperate to get the account unblocked and willing to say almost anything to make it happen. There's something very weird going on here, but I must say, it's fairly entertaining at least! |
Lar |
![]()
Post
#4
|
"His blandness goes to 11!" ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,116 Joined: From: A large LEGO storage facility Member No.: 4,290 ![]() |
Don't forget the one where 172 and Cognition are using the same Wi-Fi network... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Apparently doesn't fit the available data the way the first three options do. CU data, and the CU who interprets it, lacks infallability. It helps to have multiple eyes but even then it's possible to be wrong. Nevertheless that option seems less likely... even less likely than a massive IP table error. Sometimes the simpler explanation is better. Here the simpler technical explanation points to a much more complicated social explanation though... that 172 ran a con for a long time is rather a complex (social) explanation. |
Kato |
![]()
Post
#5
|
dhd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Member No.: 767 ![]() |
Don't forget the one where 172 and Cognition are using the same Wi-Fi network... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Apparently doesn't fit the available data the way the first three options do. Admittedly, that would be a major coincidence. 172 actually had a run-in with Cognition in 2006 according to diffs and the chances of the same two people now sharing a Wi-Fi network is minimal. No. The most likely explanation (amazing as it sounds) is that Cognition was a "black ops" account created to demonize Hersch and add fuel to the theory that LaRouchies were attacking WP. 172 seemed to work in a small tight group which included Adam Carr and Will Beback, and these guys were adamant that WP had fallen into the hands of conspiracy theorists. They clearly co-ordinated their exploits, and saw their anti LaRouche activities as a war. This was in the old days, when there really was a cabal. Fred Bauder and even Jimbo Wales were on the periphery, overseeing the anti-LaRouche campaign. And it is on record that Will Beback plotted "black ops" accounts against enemies. Slim was influential, but was almost certainly not party to this, if true. Here's Cognition editing the article of Michael Danby, Adam Carr's real life boss. On his user page, Cognition states that his "areas of expertise" include Bretton Woods system (T-H-L-K-D). 172 actually wrote that article back in 2004. Here, Cognition sarcastically gives Slim a barnstar. Is this a spoof or is this genuine? It seems hysterical even for a LaRouchie. As I said, if this is true, then it explains a lot about the history of Wikipedia - and the McCarthyite atmosphere that prevailed. It may turn out that even the pro-LaRouche behavior was in part a fake. This is important, not because it concerns LaRouche, but because it had repercussions on governance throughout the site which still resonate today. |
Herschelkrustofsky |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,199 Joined: From: Kalifornia Member No.: 130 ![]() |
No. The most likely explanation (amazing as it sounds) is that Cognition was a "black ops" account created to demonize Hersch and add fuel to the theory that LaRouchies were attacking WP. On his user page, Cognition states that his "areas of expertise" include Bretton Woods system (T-H-L-K-D). 172 actually wrote that article back in 2004. And here, SV adds "ignorance" to Cognition's "areas of expertise." |
Somey |
![]()
Post
#7
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 11,816 Joined: From: Dreamland Member No.: 275 ![]() |
First of all, the WP database definitely is f**cked up, to the point where I should probably stop using asterisks in that word. Look at those dates, WP'ers - does that look right to you folks? I don't think even WR has ever had anything like that happen, and we've definitely had our share of problems in that area.
No. The most likely explanation (amazing as it sounds) is that Cognition was a "black ops" account created to demonize Hersch and add fuel to the theory that LaRouchies were attacking WP. That's not credible, because the Cognition who was editing back before I was banned had a detailed knowledge of LaRouchismo that would be nearly impossible to fake.Nearly impossible for whom, though? I'd tend to disagree with this - someone like Adam Carr or Will Beback, or even King & Berlet, probably got at least some of their information by reading uncritical commentaries and essays written by Larouche supporters. At some point they might easily have reached the point where they could imitate it. Also, the fact that he was mainly active only during that few weeks in Summer '05 actually makes it more likely to me that the account was a "stalking horse" sock puppet, not less. Remember to always look at the first article edit - in this case, changing the photo for the article on Immanuel Kant. I'll admit it's not out of the realm of possibility, but is that normal for an inexperienced first-time editor? I don't think it is, and the anti-Larouche people on WP must not have thought so either at the time, because they quickly assumed he was a sock puppet of either HK or someone named "C Colden." (Also, the account might have been active longer if it hadn't been banned, obviously.) The thing about User:Cognition, based on a closer look at his contribs, is that s/he always got reverted, in most cases very quickly: Chip Berlet: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=17992862 The Beatles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=17880311 Australian Larouche Youth Movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=18529862 Moreover, Cognition was clearly Australian - his hours of activity were the same as Carr's, often responding to Carr's talk page entries within five minutes, whereas he sometimes took several hours to respond to SlimVirgin, who presumably was/is in Canada. Cognition's spelling is British (favored by Aussies), not American - s/he "apologises," and doesn't "apologize," for example. Incidentally, this actually got me confused about HK, too, back in 2006 - because of Carr, the number of Larouche-related conflicts involving Australia was so much greater than one would have expected, I guessed (wrongly) that HK was also Australian. (I was a little less experienced at the time, of course.) User:172 is clearly British, however - he generally seems to have avoided anything Aussie-related. So, my working crackpot theory would be that Cognition was Carr's brainchild, but that they shared the account among several WP'ers (including User:172) in need of a convenient stalking horse. Or else, when Carr got bored with WP he simply turned the account over to 172. Either way, 172 tried to revive the account, possibly for the same purpose it was used for before, but got caught. It sounds crazy, and it definitely is, but not many other explanations can account for all the facts here - even given that the database has been corrupted. I think it would be quite hard to fake this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req....7BCognition.7D On the contrary - the more over-the-top it is, the more likely it is to have been faked in order to make the Larouchies look like nutcases. (I'm not saying they're not nutcases, but let's try to be serious about this.) Try to find a diff on WP where Herschelkrustofsky, whom we know to be genuine, says anything close to that - I don't believe you can. |
Kato |
![]()
Post
#8
|
dhd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Member No.: 767 ![]() |
User:172 is clearly British, however No, 172 is (was) in Miami. I can't find it now, but it was on his user page. He was a liberal scholar in economics and history. So, my working crackpot theory would be that Cognition was Carr's brainchild, but that they shared the account among several WP'ers (including User:172) in need of a convenient stalking horse. Or else, when Carr got bored with WP he simply turned the account over to 172. Either way, 172 tried to revive the account, possibly for the same purpose it was used for before, but got caught. It sounds crazy, and it definitely is, but not many other explanations can account for all the facts here - even given that the database has been corrupted. That's what I'm thinking as well. |
Somey |
![]()
Post
#9
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 11,816 Joined: From: Dreamland Member No.: 275 ![]() |
User:172 is clearly British, however No, 172 is (was) in Miami.I just meant that he seemed like a British (or I should probably say "English") person, regardless of where he was editing from - based on the sorts of articles he was interested in early on. (Though I have to wonder what someone in Miami would be doing editing WP at all, given all the beaches and nightclubs and late-night parties with women in bikinis. I know fr damn sure I'd be doing something other than edit-warring over Larouche propaganda if I lived in a place like that! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) |
Kato |
![]()
Post
#10
|
dhd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Member No.: 767 ![]() |
User:172 is clearly British, however No, 172 is (was) in Miami.I just meant that he seemed like a British (or I should probably say "English") person, regardless of where he was editing from - based on the sorts of articles he was interested in early on. No, he was a Jewish-American and about as British as Groucho Marx. So it just seems to me that it might have been better for this topic to have been opened by observing that a potentially unjustified and mistaken block had been made and required an explanation, if that was the poster's view. I don't quite see how starting out with an accusation that an idiotic action was taken by a lunatic advances the cause of healthy and convincing Wikipedia criticism. Of course, that's probably just my usual mamby-pambyism flaring up again, so feel free to ignore. I will ignore. Convincing Wikipedia criticism is not possible without using terms like "lunatic" and "idiotic". Don't blame the critics, blame Wikipedia. |
dtobias |
![]()
Post
#11
|
Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG] ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,213 Joined: From: Boca Raton, FL, USA Member No.: 962 ![]() |
I will ignore. Convincing Wikipedia criticism is not possible without using terms like "lunatic" and "idiotic". Don't blame the critics, blame Wikipedia. I would disagree strongly there. No criticism that uses terms like "lunatic" and "idiotic" is likely to be convincing (of anybody other than the "choir" who already agrees with your side). I admit that there is a cathartic venting aspect to criticism that is more satisfying the stronger the language that is used, and I sometimes feel like using such terms to describe whoever I'm against at the moment, but it's not a particularly useful tactic. |
Kato |
![]()
Post
#12
|
dhd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Member No.: 767 ![]() |
This is interesting because Cognition wrote in 2005 of his willingness to attend the Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Petersburg2. Apparently, Cognition claims to have made it to the event (or so it says in the current version of the Meetup page). And there's even a group photo, with Jimbo, Angela, and Danny Wool - and also Phil Sandifer, who was one of the more vociferous of those trying to get Cognition banned. Here's another one, with Raul654 pictured more clearly (I believe his face is obscured in the first one). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) You know, maybe it is an outrageous coincidence. And both Cognition and 172 ended up editing from the same internet point in the St Petersburg area? That would be hilarious, if true. I will ignore. Convincing Wikipedia criticism is not possible without using terms like "lunatic" and "idiotic". Don't blame the critics, blame Wikipedia. I would disagree strongly there. No criticism that uses terms like "lunatic" and "idiotic" is likely to be convincing (of anybody other than the "choir" who already agrees with your side). I admit that there is a cathartic venting aspect to criticism that is more satisfying the stronger the language that is used, and I sometimes feel like using such terms to describe whoever I'm against at the moment, but it's not a particularly useful tactic. Well I'll criticise in my way, you in yours Dan. We could perhaps hold a vote to see whose criticism at this site has actually had more impact over the years? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |