The "foreign sources" controversy returns, the dynamic duo rides again Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

In a remarkable development, Will Beback and SlimVirgin have emerged from their undisclosed location from which they WP:OWN the Lyndon LaRouche articles without deigning to participate in talk page discussions. They are both making the same argument (surprise!) that non-American sources are incompetent (unless, of course, they're British.)

[EricBarbour]

Linky please.......

[Silver seren]

Ugh, I hate that argument. Nowadays, i'm of the opinion that foreign sources are more reliable than US sources, considering how incompetent US media has proven themselves in the past year.

And, yes, link please.

[Cla68]

Ugh, I hate that argument. Nowadays, i'm of the opinion that foreign sources are more reliable than US sources, considering how incompetent US media has proven themselves in the past year.

And, yes, link please.

Here, and I've been involved in the discussion.

It appears to me that SV and Will are afraid of LaRouche supporters using foreign sources to do an end-around the general prohibition on using materials from the LaRouche organization in the articles. They seem to be afraid of LaRouche's supporters trying to use the articles to promote LaRouche's platform.

I understand that outside observers like Chip Berlet say that what LaRouche actually stands for is different than what he publicly says he stands for. But what do we care? We're not supposed to take sides. If the LaRouche articles accurately reflect what the LaRouche movement claims it stands for, then includes any notable criticism, that seems fine to me.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Needless to say, both Will and Slim would be talking out of the other side of their collective ass if the subject of the BLP were someone they were not bent on defaming. Lar nails it here.

[EricBarbour]

Lar nails it here.

I wonder if he enjoys the feeling when Will and Hochman team up to attack him.....
this will end badly, I suspect. (Someday, when you least expect it.)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I understand that outside observers like Chip Berlet say that what LaRouche actually stands for is different than what he publicly says he stands for.

This is a time-honored propaganda techniquie known as Straw man. The objective is to suppress LaRouche's ideas, and an actual critique of his ideas might have the effect of calling attention to them. The last thing Berlet's sponsors want is a debate.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Here, and I've been involved in the discussion.

Do you really think that Angel's Flight is more incongenial than SV?

[Cla68]

Here, and I've been involved in the discussion.

Do you really think that Angel's Flight is more incongenial than SV?

I haven't seen SV acting that way lately, at least, not in that discussion.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Here, and I've been involved in the discussion.

Do you really think that Angel's Flight is more incongenial than SV?

I haven't seen SV acting that way lately, at least, not in that discussion.

She is a veteran of a thousand POV battles, and a master of the saccharine "Fuck you." She is employing several tactics at once here: a constant drumbeat of condescending and insulting remarks that are kept just below the "incivility" threshold; an editing offensive that, as usual, contains a high volume of POV edits mixed with so-called "tightening" and is intended to keep her opponents on edge; and the raising of all sorts of new issues on the talk page in order to change the subject away from the foreign language sources, because she has run out of arguments on that one.

[Cla68]

Here, and I've been involved in the discussion.

Do you really think that Angel's Flight is more incongenial than SV?

I haven't seen SV acting that way lately, at least, not in that discussion.

She is a veteran of a thousand POV battles, and a master of the saccharine "Fuck you." She is employing several tactics at once here: a constant drumbeat of condescending and insulting remarks that are kept just below the "incivility" threshold; an editing offensive that, as usual, contains a high volume of POV edits mixed with so-called "tightening" and is intended to keep her opponents on edge; and the raising of all sorts of new issues on the talk page in order to change the subject away from the foreign language sources, because she has run out of arguments on that one.

That may be, but I expect that any editors who disagree with her and want to be taken seriously should probably take the high road and not allow the dispute to give the appearance of a personal battle.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

One of the editors you denounced seems to have departed, but AF and SV seem to be meeting each other half way.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

One of the editors you denounced seems to have departed, but AF and SV seem to be meeting each other half way.

There's something peculiar going on here. As recently as 5 days ago both Slim and Will were spreading the rumor on ANI that Angel's Flight was my sock. Now, why just a rumor instead of a point-blank accusation? They could get away with it. And why the relatively cooperative attitude over the past days at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche? Although there is a new bone of contention there -- Slim and Will are saying that the transcript of a seminar at the Lebedev Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences cannot be used as a source because researchers from the LaRouche-affiliated Schiller Institute spoke at the seminar. The paper in question was about LaRouche's theories, but not written by a LaRouche-affiliated scientist. Slim and Will appear to be arguing that the Lebedev Institute is now controlled by LaRouche and must be excluded as a self-published source.

[Detective]

Slim and Will appear to be arguing that the Lebedev Institute is now controlled by LaRouche and must be excluded as a self-published source.

I have no idea if the Lebedev Institute has been taken over by HK. However, it may well be a self-published source. So are the proceedings of many learned societies, and so indeed are many newspapers. It does make you concerned about some of the rules for reliable sources when they are clearly self-contradictory like that.

Incidentally, if a reliable source quotes a self-published source with approval, does that validate the self-published source?

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Who is Crotalus horridus? He seems to be making a very neutral and reasonable intervention.

[Cla68]

Who is Crotalus horridus? He seems to be making a very neutral and reasonable intervention.

It seems almost any time other editors look in on the LaRouche article, they quickly recognize the absurdity of how the topic is being treated by Will and comment on it. They don't, however, stick around to ensure that it gets fixed, I'm sure for a variety of reasons.

[melloden]

Who is Crotalus horridus? He seems to be making a very neutral and reasonable intervention.

The rattlesnake? Oh, the user. He failed an RfA a year ago.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

There is an epic battle now at the Reliable Sources board over the Russian source.

[EricBarbour]

There is an epic battle now at the Reliable Sources board over the Russian source.

Gad. tl:dr indeed.

I see that noticeboard hasn't improved--still packed with awesome layers of stupid.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I see that noticeboard hasn't improved--still packed with awesome layers of stupid.

Jonathanwallace (T-C-L-K-R-D) looks to be an up-and-comer in the Asshole Olympics --

In general, I think a fear of being borderline libelous, expressed in WP:BLP, has mushroomed into a protectiveness of living people that can be quite un-encyclopedic. [1]

[Kelly Martin]

The stupid in that discussion is inane; they are arguing over sourcing regarding various predictions made by LaRouche? It's quite fairly transparent here that source reliability arguments are being used as proxies to exclude STUFFIDONTLIKE. The whole "exceptional claim" rule of theirs is just a hook for doing this sort of thing. (Then again, the "exceptional claim" notion is itself an outgrowth of Wikipedia's systemic preference for dogmatic Skepticism, which, of course, has nothing to do with being skeptical.)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

It's quite fairly transparent here that source reliability arguments are being used as proxies to exclude STUFFIDONTLIKE. The whole "exceptional claim" rule of theirs is just a hook for doing this sort of thing. (Then again, the "exceptional claim" notion is itself an outgrowth of Wikipedia's systemic preference for dogmatic Skepticism, which, of course, has nothing to do with being skeptical.)

Unfortunately, this tactic is not unique to Slim 'n' Will; it seems to be one of the essential building blocks of WikiMMORPGism.

[BananaShowerMonkey]

The stupid in that discussion is inane; they are arguing over sourcing regarding various predictions made by LaRouche? It's quite fairly transparent here that source reliability arguments are being used as proxies to exclude STUFFIDONTLIKE. The whole "exceptional claim" rule of theirs is just a hook for doing this sort of thing. (Then again, the "exceptional claim" notion is itself an outgrowth of Wikipedia's systemic preference for dogmatic Skepticism, which, of course, has nothing to do with being skeptical.)

Interesting. "Dogmatic Skepticism", a lovely paradox: to stubbornly put everything in doubt but stubbornness itself.

This post has been edited by BananaShowerMonkey:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

This exchange is in some ways more interesting. It reveals the depth of WB's obsession with the LaRouche articles. There is some hysterical lying, as when he says "I don't have any personal feelings about the subject of those articles." There are also indications that WB is a faithful reader of the Review. WB apparently continues to believe that every editor who opposes him is me. This is despite the fact that in the past several months, several of his opponents have been IP editors, and it doesn't require you to have a CheckUser in your pocket to know that they could not possibly be me. For example, 81.210.206.223 geolocates to Europe and 190.80.8.6 geolocates to South America. It's possible that these editors have resorted to editing as IPs, rather than open accounts, as a defense against being banned by WB. It seems clear that WB is impervious to self-reflection.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

And now Will Beback makes his move to get Angel's Flight indef-blocked.

It looks like this exchange with Cla68 pushed him over the edge.

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Will is doing his usual victory dance right now, which may be a tactical error. He's under a fair amount of scrutiny.

[Cla68]

Will is doing his usual victory dance right now, which may be a tactical error. He's under a fair amount of scrutiny.

Where is Will's checkuser evidence? As far as I know, Will isn't a checkuser, but he talks in that ANI thread as if he has all the information he needed. How did he get checkuser information without making a formal request?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Is jpgordon a checkuser? He makes the same claim here.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Another interesting detail: Beback planted the "sock of Hersch" flag here, but "Please refer to this Sockpuppet investigation for evidence" is a redlink.

[Cla68]

Another interesting detail: Beback planted the "sock of Hersch" flag here, but "Please refer to this Sockpuppet investigation for evidence" is a redlink.

I emailed the checkuser audit subcommittee and asked them to check into it.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Will is doing his usual victory dance right now, which may be a tactical error. He's under a fair amount of scrutiny.

Where is Will's checkuser evidence? As far as I know, Will isn't a checkuser, but he talks in that ANI thread as if he has all the information he needed. How did he get checkuser information without making a formal request?

Well, now we know. Yep, she's still got it goin' on!

The ANI thread has turned into a real Donnybrook.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

There's something peculiar going on here. As recently as 5 days ago both Slim and Will were spreading the rumor on ANI that Angel's Flight was my sock. Now, why just a rumor instead of a point-blank accusation?

All in good time.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

This exchange is in some ways more interesting.

It's a lot longer now, and includes this golden moment:

It's blindingly obvious who AF is and, even if it's an associate, it's still a group with a POV to push. That itch you have is, I think, more related to the offensive double standards. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Will's (albeit valid) point if he was even half as fast at identifying B&K socks as he is in identifying HK socks... and of course if he'd admit to and stop his own POV pushing efforts. Slim raised the issue of naked short selling, and I tend to agree. Except I don't think she'd agree with my view that the only difference I'm seeing is that HK doesn't have anything of the moral high-ground (such as it was) enjoyed by JB. Having said all that, no one really cares what an unimportant American fruitloop thinks. I mean, seriously? Why else do you think Will gets away with it, but gets pulled up when he tries it elsewhere?120.23.0.60 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of that means... Will Beback talk 04:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

If there is someone here with a Wikipedia account in good standing who would be willing to post a message for me on ANI, please PM me.

[Gruntled]

Where is Will's checkuser evidence?

WR:AGF, please. Maybe he spotted a couple of cases of someone editing while logged out. It happens all the time.

[Gruntled]

It's blindingly obvious who AF is and, even if it's an associate, it's still a group with a POV to push. That itch you have is, I think, more related to the offensive double standards. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Will's (albeit valid) point if he was even half as fast at identifying B&K socks as he is in identifying HK socks... and of course if he'd admit to and stop his own POV pushing efforts. Slim raised the issue of naked short selling, and I tend to agree. Except I don't think she'd agree with my view that the only difference I'm seeing is that HK doesn't have anything of the moral high-ground (such as it was) enjoyed by JB. Having said all that, no one really cares what an unimportant American fruitloop thinks. I mean, seriously? Why else do you think Will gets away with it, but gets pulled up when he tries it elsewhere?120.23.0.60 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Same old, same old. Someone has vaguely the same views, interests and style as a banned user, ergo they are effectively the same user (even if they are physically someone different), ergo they must be blocked. I call that the Bauder rule, and it's been going on for years.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Angel Flight's 2nd unblock request has been up in the air for 2 days, which seems to me to be a remarkably long time. From what I have observed, unblock requests usually result in "Wham, bam, thanks, you're banned." I think that Cla68's remarkable grilling of Slim 'n' Will may have caused some turbulence behind the scenes among the WikiElites. I think it's also a bit of a revelation that Jpgordon is Slim's new pet CheckUser, now that Jayjg is out of the picture.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Virginia Slim makes an abortive attempt to declare victory, and then commences WikiHoundingâ„¢ of her various opponents, with the delightful added feature of accusing her quarry of WikiHounding.

[Silver seren]

Here's the CU investigation on Angel's Flight. It was in your sockpuppet archive, Herschel.

However, T. Canens as clerk closer just stated "This is being hashed out on ANI with the CU done privately. No need for a separate SPI."

Since when is a private Checkuser done in a situation like this? I've only heard of private CU's done in very specific situations, where it was high profile and there were possible legal issues and things like that. But a private CU in a situation like this?

Something's fishy here.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Here's the CU investigation on Angel's Flight. It was in your sockpuppet archive, Herschel.

However, T. Canens as clerk closer just stated "This is being hashed out on ANI with the CU done privately. No need for a separate SPI."

Since when is a private Checkuser done in a situation like this? I've only heard of private CU's done in very specific situations, where it was high profile and there were possible legal issues and things like that. But a private CU in a situation like this?

Something's fishy here.

I don't really understand how these things work, but out of the dozens and dozens of alleged socks that Will Beback said were me, there are only a handful listed here, and the CU is marked "Inconclusive." And yet, they appear to have been banned.