The Herschelkrustofsky ban revisited, SV and her posse at work Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I am posting this in response to comments made by Hell Freezes Over in some recent threads.

9 days ago, this page at Wikipedia was deleted. Don't ask me why. It provided a useful chronology of how I was driven off the project. It included a description of my role in the Nobs01 and others arbcom case. I was the only respondent who was not named in the proposed findings of fact. If I had kept my mouth shut, nothing would have happened to me. Because I insisted on speaking out, asserting that the penalties doled out by the arbcom were inequitable (Cberlet was "cautioned," others who had committed comparable offenses were blocked or placed on probation,) I was place on indefinite probation. Fred Bauder justified this decision in the following way:

15) In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Herschelkrustofsky with the decisions reached in this case, and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case, he is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation.

Since this was a little too obvious, Raul654 covered the tracks with this edit.

This action set the stage for what followed. Slim and Will Beback began wikistalking me to various articles, accusing me of adding ideas which they alleged were similar to ideas advocated at one time or another by LaRouche (see Searching for LaRouche under the bed.) They were assisted by 172 (T-C-L-K-R-D) in setting a trap for me (into which I foolishly walked) at Synarchism (T-H-L-K-D). The article did not mention LaRouche, until 172 added a bunch of defamatory crap about LaRouche, which I should have ignored, because the article has probably been read by about six people. But, I removed it, and was charged with "editing a LaRouche-related article," in violation of probation. I protested that it was not a LaRouche-related article, and Slim's response was [paraphrase]"It is now."[/paraphrase]

Now, you can still read this page, some great stuff which I excerpted from the ANI board. The admin who deleted my user page missed it. Hurry! Also, as a sort of postscript, this one, extracted from User talk:SlimVirgin.

[Hell Freezes Over]

This action set the stage for what followed. Slim and Will Beback began wikistalking me to various articles, accusing me of adding ideas which they alleged were similar to ideas advocated at one time or another by LaRouche ...

Your opening a thread about your WP editing puts me in an awkward position. I'm able to show that you had a serious conflict of interest (not just as a LaRouche follower), and that you misled people about your sockpuppets, but doing that would require me to post material that leads to a name, home address, telephone number, and place of work. I'd be banned if I were to do that.

So let me simply ask you this instead. Do you believe Lyndon LaRouche is a reliable source (in Wikipedia terms or in any other)? Do you believe his views should be added to WP articles? Do you believe WP articles should be created about his real or proposed projects, when his publications are the only sources that mention them?

[Somey]

Your opening a thread about your WP editing puts me in an awkward position. I'm able to show that you had a serious conflict of interest (not just as a LaRouche follower), and that you misled people about your sockpuppets, but doing that would require me to post material that leads to a name, home address, telephone number, and place of work. I'd be banned if I were to do that.

If you're defining "conflict of interest" as Wikipedia defines it, we already know all about that. HK has (obviously) made no secret about his political affiliations, and if you managed to find an article or photo or musical composition of his that appeared on some Larouche-related website or other publication, well, congratulations. But that doesn't mean he's being paid by them, or has a title, or anything like that. Larouche supporters are nothing if not generous when it comes to contributing content, after all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Nobody here (well, hardly anybody) is particularly sanguine on the question of HK's ties to the Larouche Movement, but he's never threatened anyone here with even a whiff of sanction for disagreeing with him about any of that stuff. So, since he admits to it, and he's doing no harm here (or elsewhere, AFAIK, other than the occasional campaign contribution), what's the point of even bringing it up, other than to pursue your standard half-baked innuendo and conspiratorial hoo-ha campaign?

Long story short, this dog won't hunt either. I wouldn't want HK or his pals running my country, and neither should you, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have the same rights to express his opinions as anyone else.

[Hell Freezes Over]

Your opening a thread about your WP editing puts me in an awkward position. I'm able to show that you had a serious conflict of interest (not just as a LaRouche follower), and that you misled people about your sockpuppets, but doing that would require me to post material that leads to a name, home address, telephone number, and place of work. I'd be banned if I were to do that.

If you're defining "conflict of interest" as Wikipedia defines it, we already know all about that. HK has (obviously) made no secret about his political affiliations, and if you managed to find an article or photo or musical composition of his that appeared on some Larouche-related website or other publication, well, congratulations. But that doesn't mean he's being paid by them, or has a title, or anything like that. Larouche supporters are nothing if not generous when it comes to contributing content, after all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Nobody here (well, hardly anybody) is particularly sanguine on the question of HK's ties to the Larouche Movement, but he's never threatened anyone here with even a whiff of sanction for disagreeing with him about any of that stuff. So, since he admits to it, and he's doing no harm here (or elsewhere, AFAIK, other than the occasional campaign contribution), what's the point of even bringing it up, other than to pursue your standard half-baked innuendo and conspiratorial hoo-ha campaign?

Long story short, this dog won't hunt either. I wouldn't want HK or his pals running my country, and neither should you, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have the same rights to express his opinions as anyone else.

Somey, I'm not talking about creating non-notable stuff, or POV stuff, or COI stuff.

I am talking about someone *inventing* things. Making them up. Even you who wants to defend HK can surely see that that is problematic. Not least because, if he can do it there, he can do it here.

If I'm wrong -- if this is just my "half-baked innuendo" -- I hope HK will explain what (and where) the Eurasian Land-Bridge is, and what Helga Zepp-LaRouche (of the [[Schiller Institute]], which HK is also involved with) is standing next to in that image.

The point of bringing it up, as you asked, is that HK started a thread about his ban, with that as the title. And so I am giving just one example of why the ban is justified.

[Somey]

If I'm wrong -- if this is just my "half-baked innuendo" -- I hope HK will explain what (and where) the Eurasian Land-Bridge is, and what Helga Zepp-LaRouche (of the [[Schiller Institute]], which HK is also involved with) is standing next to in that image.

There's a whole butt-load of web pages on that Schiller Institute site about this so-called "landbridge" - it looks like they're trying to propose some sort of express rail-freight line from China to Europe, which (I'm guessing, though educatedly so) probably involves a lot of standardization of railroad gauges and various other unlikely things. The inscription on the monument is obviously photoshopped. Are you just wanting him to admit that? This is the Larouche Movement, SV - we should be glad they didn't put her in front of the First Manned Base on Mars.

The point of bringing it up, as you asked, is that HK started a thread about his ban, with that as the title. And so I am giving just one example of why the ban is justified.

Well, maybe it is. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

In other words, you're saying this landbridge proposal is basically a scam to get people to donate money to the Larouche Movement, right? Why not just say so? He (assuming it really was HK) clearly didn't just "make it up" out of whole cloth, the way you'd make up an article on Kitten Huffing or something. It may be he's been deluded into thinking this landbridge thing is very, very real, or he may just be a tool of the Vast Larouche Conspiracy™, but that still doesn't mean your (and Wikipedia's) reaction was proportional to the offense.

In any event, this Larouche stuff is hardly a major focus of WR, though I will at least admit that if it weren't for HK and his experiences on WP, we probably wouldn't hear much (if anything) about it here at all.

So... happy?

[Kato]

In any event, this Larouche stuff is hardly a major focus of WR, though I will at least admit that if it weren't for HK and his experiences on WP, we probably wouldn't hear much (if anything) about it here at all.

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) :

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.

[Hell Freezes Over]

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)

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.

Kato, you need to stop posting here without checking your facts a little. HonourableSchoolboy was a LaRouche account. Look at the contribs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...urableSchoolboy

What happened was that HK turned up on WP to try to add LaRouche propaganda right, left, and centre. When opposed, he created socks. When blocked, he created more. Then he arrived here to trash the editors who stopped him, claiming to be innocent of all wrong-doing.

You're going along with that because of "my enemy's enemy." That's fine. But if you won't criticize what HK tried to do on WP, you have no right ever to criticize any other editor, because he was one of the worst.

[Kato]

Kato, you need to stop posting here without checking your facts a little. HonourableSchoolboy was a LaRouche account. Look at the contribs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...urableSchoolboy

What about the account I was talking about and specifically referring to using diffs? Mbhiii (T-H-L-K-D).

I'll say it again. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

In April, 2007, an editor went to SlimVirgin and Willbeback and wrote this about Mbhiii (T-C-L-K-R-D) :

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.

[Mackan]

I wouldn't defend HK's editing, since he seems to acknowledge using sockpuppets. But, I think it's notable that SV switches to addressing this topic, while refusing to answer questions about her editing.

Of course, there are strong reasons to question the idea that SV gave HK or others no reason to question her good faith. An example from experience: it was forty minutes before SV first decided to follow me to the bio of Folke Bernadotte (my experience with her then consisted solely of a conflict on the Zionism article), that she requested that I "post questions on the articles' talk pages from now on, please, rather than on my talk page, because others may want to respond too." After arriving on the bio, she then immediately moved my response from her talk page to the article talk page. The series of edits is here. Who asks another editor not to comment further on their talk page, immediately before first following the editor to another article?

We aren't talking about a little rhetoric here, but flagrantly underhanded behavior. Another example I noted to arbcom was where SV adjusted a talk page several times over reversions, then immediately archived the page so that it wouldn't be undone (point 8). Who escalates several reverts on a talk page by immediately archiving the page? It isn't even the outrageousness, but exactly the triviality of these acts that illustrated the disregard for even a semblance of good faith interaction.

If SV wants a reevaluation of her conflicts on Wikipedia, that's great, just as long as she can acknowledge what she was actually doing. The truth is I don't think anyone would try to defend WR on whole anyway, but at least there could be a meaningful discussion.

This post has been edited by Mackan:

[The Adversary]

I wouldn't defend HK's editing, since he seems to acknowledge using sockpuppets. But, I think it's notable that SV switches to addressing this topic, while refusing to answer questions about her editing.

Of course, there are strong reasons to question the idea that SV gave HK or others no reason to question her good faith. An example from experience: it was forty minutes before SV first decided to follow me to the bio of Folke Bernadotte (my experience with her then consisted solely of a conflict on the Zionism article), that she requested that I "post questions on the articles' talk pages from now on, please, rather than on my talk page, because others may want to respond too." After arriving on the bio, she then immediately moved my response from her talk page to the article talk page. The series of edits is here. Who asks another editor not to comment further on their talk page, immediately before first following the editor to another article?

We aren't talking about a little rhetoric here, but flagrantly underhanded behavior. Another example I noted to arbcom was where SV adjusted a talk page several times over reversions, then immediately archived the page so that it wouldn't be undone (point 8). Who escalates several reverts on a talk page by immediately archiving the page? It isn't even the outrageousness, but exactly the triviality of these acts that illustrated the disregard for even a semblance of good faith interaction.

If SV wants a reevaluation of her conflicts on Wikipedia, that's great, just as long as she can acknowledge what she was actually doing. The truth is I don't think anyone would try to defend WR on whole anyway, but at least there could be a meaningful discussion.

Do you think it was only you? They always did that, back in the bad old days of 2005-2006, early 2007. Jayjg was even coldly bragging about it back in 2005, when their wiki-stalking was the norm ("agree with us or else.."), telling an editor that: " [we] simply reverted him regardless of what he edited. I've seen it happen to other editors as well". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I wouldn't defend HK's editing, since he seems to acknowledge using sockpuppets.

I do?

As I have said before, I will respond to any evidence that I have used socks. The argument used by SV and Will Beback, and I assume Jayjg (who keeps his cards pretty close to his vest,) is that the various accounts that they have banned geolocate to southern California, and the idea that there could be more than one LaRouche supporter editing Wikipedia in southern California is just too big a coincidence to be believed. I mean, how many people live in southern California?

[Hell Freezes Over]

As I have said before, I will respond to any evidence that I have used socks. The argument used by SV and Will Beback, and I assume Jayjg (who keeps his cards pretty close to his vest,) is that the various accounts that they have banned geolocate to southern California, and the idea that there could be more than one LaRouche supporter editing Wikipedia in southern California is just too big a coincidence to be believed. I mean, how many people live in southern California?

The connection was a little closer than just southern California -- it was the same IP addresses that a developer found for at least two of your accounts, possibly three, in the second ArbCom case. Not just one shared IP address, but at least two, one of which was on an abuse list for sending out LaRouche spam.

*See the evidence from the second case involving Hershelkrustofsky (2005) here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...of_sockpuppetry brought against HK by Snowspinner, Cberlet, Will, and me.

*For background, first HK case (2004), brought by HK against Adam Carr, Andyl, and John Kenney, is here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Rouche/Evidence

*Third case (2005) involving HK here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nvolved_parties Brought by Cberlet against various parties, including HK, on BLP grounds, though this was before we had an actual BLP policy, I think, so it had to go to ArbCom.

[dtobias]

*Third case (2005) involving HK here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nvolved_parties Brought by Cberlet against various parties, including HK, on BLP grounds, though this was before we had an actual BLP policy, I think, so it had to go to ArbCom.

Yes, the Cberlet who left in disgrace a few months ago after the decline of the clique that was formerly protecting him in his POV-pushing and conflicts of interest (citing his own material) while banning others who went against him on charges of doing the same thing Berlet was doing himself.

[Cla68]

*Third case (2005) involving HK here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nvolved_parties Brought by Cberlet against various parties, including HK, on BLP grounds, though this was before we had an actual BLP policy, I think, so it had to go to ArbCom.

Yes, the Cberlet who left in disgrace a few months ago after the decline of the clique that was formerly protecting him in his POV-pushing and conflicts of interest (citing his own material) while banning others who went against him on charges of doing the same thing Berlet was doing himself.

This does seem to be true, which is one reason, SV why you don't have much moral high ground here. Why weren't Chip Berlet and DKing topic or indef banned if you were really interested in keeping the LaRouche article's NPOV? They're editing was almost as, if not just as, POV as many of the "Pro-Larouche" editors who were banned.

As Kato and others have pointed out here, other editors like Jossi, Jayjg, and Mantanmoreland, with which you frequently interacted, were also unconcealed POV pushers. Why didn't you ever try to call them out on their behavior?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Hell Freezes Over]

*Third case (2005) involving HK here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nvolved_parties Brought by Cberlet against various parties, including HK, on BLP grounds, though this was before we had an actual BLP policy, I think, so it had to go to ArbCom.

Yes, the Cberlet who left in disgrace a few months ago after the decline of the clique that was formerly protecting him in his POV-pushing and conflicts of interest (citing his own material) while banning others who went against him on charges of doing the same thing Berlet was doing himself.

This does seem to be true, which is one reason, SV why you don't have much moral high groud here. Why weren't Chip Berlet and DKing topic or indef banned if you were really interested in keeping the LaRouche article's NPOV? They're editing was almost as, if not just as, POV as many of the "Pro-Larouche" editors who were banned.

Can you show me an edit from Cberlet that was almost as bad as the edits of the LaRouche accounts?

Cberlet did not "leave in disgrace." He left because he was tired of having to fight lunatics to improve articles.

You all claim to care about BLP. Chip Berlet and the article about him were attacked on Wikipedia by Nobs, HK, and friends, in a way that was absolutely deplorable. Nobs even implied Chip had some connection to a very serious criminal offence, at one point -- I won't post details here because it would be libel. Chip put up with it for two or three years. Did anyone here, anyone who cares about BLP so much, help him, even once?

BLP applies to people we dislike, as much as to people we love. It applied to Gary Weiss too, and that is why WordBomb was indefblocked for posting that GW = MM. Yet you oppose that block, because you don't like the people involved.

You don't even try to disguise the hypocrisy. Decisions about what's right and what's wrong are based entirely on whether you like the parties or not. It's sad that this is the standard of intellectual debate about Wikipedia.

[Somey]

You all claim to care about BLP. Chip Berlet and the article about him were attacked on Wikipedia by Nobs, HK, and friends, in a way that was absolutely deplorable. Nobs even implied Chip had some connection to a very serious criminal offence, at one point -- I won't post details here because it would be libel. Chip put up with it for two or three years. Did anyone here, anyone who cares about BLP so much, help him, even once?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the prevailing (I hate to use the term "consensus") members' position here on BLP articles, SV. If Chip Berlet had asked to have his article deleted, I think most of us would have supported that wholeheartedly - I know I would have, and I think I might have even said so at the time.

Likewise, if the article was being vandalized, someone should have protected it - and as I recall, someone did do just that, at least twice that I can recall, just off the top of my head. But if The Chipster's ultimate objective was to have the article protected in a state he personally and explicitly approved of, then that's not something anyone here should care much about, other than to point out that it's unfair to all the other article subjects who don't have friends among the admins.

As for helping him, don't be ridiculous - we were helping him, by pointing out the insufficiency of the existing BLP policies, advocating for opt-out, and proposing other kinds of reforms. He might not have recognized that we were helping him, but that's only because he was being told by certain people that WR was a "nazi hate-site" and other such nonsense. Also, Daniel Brandt was here, and he doesn't like Daniel Brandt.

I guess it would be nice if you took the time to properly understand the culture here, but I understand that you wouldn't want to risk being drawn in to the point of actually having some degree of appreciation for the place.

[Kato]

You all claim to care about BLP. Chip Berlet and the article about him were attacked on Wikipedia by Nobs, HK, and friends, in a way that was absolutely deplorable. Nobs even implied Chip had some connection to a very serious criminal offence, at one point -- I won't post details here because it would be libel. Chip put up with it for two or three years. Did anyone here, anyone who cares about BLP so much, help him, even once?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the prevailing (I hate to use the term "consensus") members' position here on BLP articles, SV. If Chip Berlet had asked to have his article deleted, I think most of us would have supported that wholeheartedly - I know I would have, and I think I might have even said so at the time.

Likewise, if the article was being vandalized, someone should have protected it - and as I recall, someone did do just that, at least twice that I can recall, just off the top of my head. But if The Chipster's ultimate objective was to have the article protected in a state he personally and explicitly approved of, then that's not something anyone here should care much about, other than to point out that it's unfair to all the other article subjects who don't have friends among the admins.

As for helping him, don't be ridiculous - we were helping him, by pointing out the insufficiency of the existing BLP policies, advocating for opt-out, and proposing other kinds of reforms. He might not have recognized that we were helping him, but that's only because he was being told by certain people that WR was a "nazi hate-site" and other such nonsense. Also, Daniel Brandt was here, and he doesn't like Daniel Brandt.

I guess it would be nice if you took the time to properly understand the culture here, but I understand that you wouldn't want to risk being drawn in to the point of actually having some degree of appreciation for the place.

The biography of Chip Berlet should be deleted. He is barely notable and no encyclopedia worth anything will miss it. Berlet also requests the deletion in this Articles for Deletion debate.

It is claimed that the article was originally created by Herschelkrustofsky, and I'll take Slim's word for that.

Interestingly, if you look at that old Articles for Deletion debate, where Berlet adds his request for deletion, there are a few BLP extremists resisting for their own reasons. Including the later disgraced John254.

Someone should try again, giving the rationale that the subject and the creator want the biography deleted, and stating the facts that Wikipedia is simply incapable of handling a biography on such a figure who has spent years claiming that Lyndon LaRouche is a "neo-fascist anti-Semite". Deleting the bio on Berlet would be a step towards closing that shameful LaRouche / Wikipedia episode.

[Hell Freezes Over]

You all claim to care about BLP. Chip Berlet and the article about him were attacked on Wikipedia by Nobs, HK, and friends, in a way that was absolutely deplorable. Nobs even implied Chip had some connection to a very serious criminal offence, at one point -- I won't post details here because it would be libel. Chip put up with it for two or three years. Did anyone here, anyone who cares about BLP so much, help him, even once?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the prevailing (I hate to use the term "consensus") members' position here on BLP articles, SV. If Chip Berlet had asked to have his article deleted, I think most of us would have supported that wholeheartedly - I know I would have, and I think I might have even said so at the time.

He did ask that it be deleted, but it was kept. But for years before that, at least two posters here (HK and Nobs) used Wikipedia as a platform to attack him via his BLP and its talk page, and I don't recall anyone here objecting.

As for helping him, don't be ridiculous - we were helping him, by pointing out the insufficiency of the existing BLP policies, advocating for opt-out, and proposing other kinds of reforms. He might not have recognized that we were helping him, but that's only because he was being told by certain people that WR was a "nazi hate-site" and other such nonsense. Also, Daniel Brandt was here, and he doesn't like Daniel Brandt.

One of the people who was attacking him, and who created the BLP in the first place, is one of only four staff members here. This board has spent a lot of time attacking Berlet, for reasons I've never understood. Chip Berlet was someone who wrote for at least one real encyclopaedia. He was a published expert on the LaRouche movement and on right-wing extremist groups in general. He should not have been driven off Wikipedia just because a few people decided to use that website and this one to ridicule him. It's very sad that he was given no support here at all, even though you all claim to support expert editors and harassed BLP victims. Berlet was both.

[Somey]

He did ask that it be deleted, but it was kept.

The fact that it was "kept" is completely irrelevant to the discussion, obviously, but the fact that you mention it is somewhat telling...

But for years before that, at least two posters here (HK and Nobs) used Wikipedia as a platform to attack him via his BLP and its talk page, and I don't recall anyone here objecting.

Well I did, sort of, but it sounded earlier as though you were calling us "hypocrites" for not logging into Wikipedia and defending the guy's article. That's not something I would ever do, but as for the rest of the membership here, we're not some sort of cyber-vigilante organization (AFAIK). Even if Berlet was someone we actually liked, which might have been possible if he wasn't being protected by a substantial group of WP admins, that would have been a bit much to ask.

One of the people who was attacking him, and who created the BLP in the first place, is one of only four staff members here.

Well, shame on him, then. Then again, like Rhindle says, if you're going to use him as a source in a highly contentious group of articles, you really should have an article on him, at the very least. Now, if you weren't using him as a source, maybe I could see it.

He was a published expert on the LaRouche movement and on right-wing extremist groups in general. He should not have been driven off Wikipedia just because a few people decided to use that website and this one to ridicule him. It's very sad that he was given no support here at all, even though you all claim to support expert editors and harassed BLP victims. Berlet was both.

I don't think so. As I recall, most of the "attack" edits to his article were attempts to suggest, if not actually prove, his conflicts of interest with regard to Larouche-related material, and to point out criticism of him by conservative groups. At no time did anyone here (to my knowlege) edit his article to claim or even vaguely suggest that Berlet is, or was, a "pedophile," a "wife-beater," a "faggot," a "child-molester," or that he fathered multiple children out of wedlock with an Albanian prostitute. Those are the kinds of things we tend to object to around here when it comes to BLP's. I'm not saying the "attack" edits in question were fair, or even factual, but there's just no equivalence for them - beyond the fact that Berlet himself objected to them.

As for him being an expert, let me give you a "hypothetical." Let's say that for the next 25 years, I make a career out of trying to convince the world that US President Barack Obama is an anti-semite, and to do so I not only use innuendo, selective interpretation, and references to "coded phraseology" in obscure Obama speeches that I worked out all by myself, but I also totally ignore published material written by Obama in which he writes or says things like "anti-semitism is one of the most despicable ideologies in human history." Or, when I don't simply ignore such statements, I dismiss them as "lies" and "rhetorical trickery."

So where am I, after 25 years? Am I considered an "expert on Barack Obama"? Of course not. I'm considered, quite rightly, a crank, a crackpot, an idiot, maybe even a traitor (if there's any justice). And yet there's no real difference between this and what Berlet has done with Larouche for the last 25 years, except for the fact that nobody likes Larouche, and Larouche doesn't like anybody else either. Larouche himself is widely considered a crackpot, as we all know. He is, basically, an "easy target," someone nobody cares much for, outside of his immediate circle of followers.

Regardless, the point here isn't that Berlet is dishonest or unethical, or even that he isn't really an "expert" on Lyndon Larouche in the sense that, say, Steven Hawking is an expert on advanced astrophysics, or even that Phil Sandifer is an expert on Doctor Who. I don't think anybody should have the right to demand that "experts" on them be impartial, though it would be nice if they were. The point is that Wikipedia ought to be able to discern whether or not any given expert is impartial, and if he isn't, don't let him control the articles in question. That didn't happen in this case.

[Hell Freezes Over]

He did ask that it be deleted, but it was kept.

The fact that it was "kept" is completely irrelevant to the discussion, obviously, but the fact that you mention it is somewhat telling...

Telling of what?

"But for years before that, at least two posters here (HK and Nobs) used Wikipedia as a platform to attack him via his BLP and its talk page, and I don't recall anyone here objecting."

Well I did, sort of, but it sounded earlier as though you were calling us "hypocrites" for not logging into Wikipedia and defending the guy's article.

I'm not saying you needed to log in. I'm saying it's odd that so many other BLP issues get noticed, but the sustained (four years long roughly) attack on Berlet not only didn't get commented on in his favour -- it was added to here by Herschel, Nobs, and a couple of others, without anyone here saying, "Hang on, those are vicious attacks on someone already under vicious attack on Wikipedia *by the same people*, and we don't encourage that here." No, you *do* encourage it here, because one of the people doing it was promoted to staff.

"One of the people who was attacking him, and who created the BLP in the first place, is one of only four staff members here."

Well, shame on him, then. Then again, like Rhindle says, if you're going to use him as a source in a highly contentious group of articles, you really should have an article on him, at the very least.

Berlet wasn't being used as a source, so far as I know, when Herschel created the BLP on him in May 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...t&oldid=3597556 And you didn't use that argument when it came to Brandt -- that because he was a source for WP, we needed an article on him.

At no time did anyone here (to my knowlege) edit his article to claim or even vaguely suggest that Berlet is, or was, a "pedophile," a "wife-beater," a "faggot," a "child-molester," or that he fathered multiple children out of wedlock with an Albanian prostitute.

Herschel suggested in Berlet's BLP that he was corrupt. Nobs posted some awful stuff on the article's talk page that I won't repeat here, and as I recall tried to get some of it into the article too.

... Let's say that for the next 25 years, I make a career out of trying to convince the world that US President Barack Obama is an anti-semite, and to do so I not only use innuendo, selective interpretation, and references to "coded phraseology" in obscure Obama speeches that I worked out all by myself, but I also totally ignore published material written by Obama in which he writes or says things like "anti-semitism is one of the most despicable ideologies in human history."

I suppose I wonder how much LaRouche you've read, Somey. You don't have to read much to find some very depressing material about Jews (as well as about gays and women), notwithstanding that he denies any antisemitism himself. And to dismiss him as a crackpot, as though he's a harmless one, is wrong-headed. The LaRouche movement used to be very good at cultivating young reporters in an effort to get its propaganda spread. An enormous number of prominent political conspiracy theories have been started or in some way spread by the LaRouche movement's ability to influence naive journalists. Over time, the origins of the rumours get lost, and they take on a life of their own. The LaRouchies then use those stories to spread the memes even further, trumpeting them as evidence of something they've been claiming for a long time, when in fact they made them up, and using their supposedly astonishing predictive power to bolster their credibility with the next generation of befuddled reporters.

The point is that Wikipedia ought to be able to discern whether or not any given expert is impartial, and if he isn't, don't let him control the articles in question. That didn't happen in this case.

I wonder how it would be possible to be a true expert on LaRouche, yet remain impartial.

[CharlotteWebb]

Or, more generally:

I wonder how it would be possible to be a true expert on [INSERT TOPIC HERE], yet remain impartial.

[Milton Roe]

Or, more generally:

I wonder how it would be possible to be a true expert on [INSERT TOPIC HERE], yet remain impartial.

I take it that this is a rhetorical question.

The answer has been given over and over by Jon Awbrey. The only people with no point of view are dead people. The only editors on WP who think they edit without any point of view, are people with the self-awareness of wooden blocks. Of which, there seem to be quite a few.

I guess you've confirmed that you have a personal stake in seeing that the content about LaRouche in Wikipedia is negative in nature. Do you see any problem with that?

There's no problem with that. You see, LaRouche is an anti-Semite. Since combating anti-Semitism is inherently good, any action taken in furtherance of combating anti-Semitism is also inherently good. It is therefore appropriate to take all possible measures to ensure that LaRouche's article contains as much negative content as possible, so as to ensure that his anti-Semitic views are discredited as much as possible.

That's why there's no conflict of interest. Zealots don't ignore that they have a conflict of interest; they are simply incapable of understanding that a conflict even exists. It's really something of a form of mental illness.

Exactly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

Because decoding many of Jon's other posts requires the services of a certified Awbreyologist.

Certainly a certified something. Probably also takes a certain committment.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Perhaps even a certain institutional committment.

[Jon Awbrey]

Or, more generally:

I wonder how it would be possible to be a true expert on [INSERT TOPIC HERE], yet remain impartial.

I take it that this is a rhetorical question.

The answer has been given over and over by Jon Awbrey. The only people with no point of view are dead people. The only editors on WP who think they edit without any point of view, are people with the self-awareness of wooden blocks. Of which, there seem to be quite a few.

This is one of those Deja Vu to the N-th Power places for me � just about everything wrong with the Crypto-Randroid-Or-Whoever-The Hell-It-Is Uncritical Unreflective Perspective of the Sanger–Wales E-Pyre of Wikipedia and Citizendium is betrayed in the above few lines. It makes me feel like I'm back in the '50s. It's a POV that seems to predate about 60 years of Dialogue & Research on Methods of Inquiry, Learning How To Learn, Systems Thinking, Values Clarification, Critical Thinking, Reflective Practice, Learning Organizations, Learning Communities � just to mention a few of the themes that I remember since I started paying attention. What sorts of attics, basements, closets, and dungholes have these bee-tles been moldering away in all these years? I have no idea. It's like they have a whole separate Cargo Cult Pidgin that makes it impossible to have an intelligent conversation with them.

At any rate, it makes me too tired to talk about now …

Jon Awbrey

[Milton Roe]

This is one of those Deja Vu to the N-th Power places for me � just about everything wrong with the Crypto-Randroid-Or-Whoever-The Hell-It-Is Uncritical Unreflective Perspective of the Sanger–Wales E-Pyre of Wikipedia and Citizendium is betrayed in the above few lines. It makes me feel like I'm back in the '50s. It's a POV that seems to predate about 60 years of Dialogue & Research on Methods of Inquiry, Learning How To Learn, Systems Thinking, Values Clarification, Critical Thinking, Reflective Practice, Learning Organizations, Learning Communities � just to mention a few of the themes that I remember since I started paying attention. What sorts of attics, basements, closets, and dungholes have these bee-tles been moldering away in all these years? I have no idea.

I do not know, either. I have mentioned the Randroid connection and the mad idea that it is in possible in principle to settle in on the SINGLE best theory which fits all the presently-known facts. Presuming that there EXISTS a set of black-and-white things you know as a hard 'fact," so that you don't have to wrestle with Bayesian methods-- which naturally spit out only probabilities, since probabilities are all that they were fed....

But the other obvious route to madness is this fresh-faced journalism students' view that one can fairly represent any topic by simply (neutrally) representing all the major viewpoints about it, in proportion to the fraction of people who hold them. They actually teach this as a goal in journalism. And I suppose it's better than nothing, so long as its limitations are recognized. We've talked about these over time at WR. In no particular order:

1) The fraction of people who hold a given view is drastically different depending on which group you poll. In particular, the mass view changes depending on what culture and socioeconomic group you look at. Israel, for example, has 10% of the population of Egypt, but publishes 10 TIMES the number of books each year. Which view of the world and politics do you think might be overrepresented, in a literary effort like Wikipedia? Is a cultural viewpoint less valid because that culture has fewer printing presses? Good culturally sensitive people would say "no" in the cause of Australian aboriginies. But it gets much more complicated in the Middle East, where the view tends to be "If they can't publish in English, fuck em."

Views also change depending on level of education and expertise. As we found out with anthropogenic global warming, and Darwinian evolution. This problem comes up every time they ask the experts what they should teach in public school texts, and the public doesn't like the answer. Wikipedia, a popularly written encyclopedia, is not going to fix this tension. If anything, Wikipedia is lucky if it doesn't come out like a biology textbook written by Texas preachers and their congregations.

2) The standard journalism problem of what fraction of expert people hold what views, cannot even be approached except by experts on a given subject-- if you're not an expert, how would you even guess approximately the answer? But Wikipedia tends to be written in drive-by edits by the general public, who learn some fact about X and then go and add it to Wikipedia if they can't find it there already. Wow, magnesium is used in Mag auto wheels! That tends to give the popular wisdom of people who use the internet, and it has enormous inertia. But it intrinsically lacks expertise, and the experts themselves have no extra traction.

3) The idea that one can judge what the expert view is, except by talking to lots of experts, is wrong. Even expert review articles tend to be biased toward the research that the expert did for his or her last grant proposal (in fact, this is where most of those articles come from). At least TV journalists know they should to talk to many experts and let them present directly (if edited). Print journalists often talk to experts, but garble the results, and the experts are lucky if they are read the snippets of how they are quoted, but don't get to read the entire article. And the product of this goes into Wikipedia sources.
The idea that one can judge the depth of a view by doing a Google search on it, has the problem that Google is self-amplifying, and interest and advertisement driven, not evidence-driven. As demonstrated by the fact that top Google result for most topics is the Wikipedia article. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) People keep seeing that without wanting to admit the meaning of it. If that's what Google does to the topic you're looking at, why would you trust it for the #2 entry, either (which is likely to be Answers.com (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) ). Using Google Scholar helps some, but last I checked, WP didn't even encourage using that over regular Google, for scholarly subjects. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

4) The above is why any field of human knowledge is subject to short term manipulation and advertising. There is a "theme" to most science conferences, and that theme may or may not survive as conventional wisdom to the conferences down the road. Often it does not. But meanwhile, journalists who write about the latest exciting results, make the same mistakes as the scientists themselves, but worse. If you read a newspaper science section about some (supposedly) new science result, you'd think it was just discovered, when most of the time it's been known for years, but the scientific paper being covered is one currently getting hype. There are far fewer shocking and genuinely new discoveries than you'd think, from reading the newspapers or science pop journal reporting. But there are a lot of scientists who would be happy for the grant review committees to think that they were actually the ones moving ahead an entire field.

Finally, the Bayes problem mentioned at the beginning, just won't go away. There is lots of evidence, but evaluating the quality of evidence is a full-time job, and takes experts. Knowing who these experts are, and why they believe as they do, takes savvy. People with something to sell, can sometimes generate huge amounts of "science" showing that their viewpoints are correct, and this takes years to sort out. If all that is "known" about treatment of a certain disease was discovered in drug-company funded trials, what are you going to do with that "knowledge"? Does it even count as "knowledge"? And so on.

Yikes, I'm getting weary, too. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)