The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Herschelkrustofsky (Oct - Dec 2005)
MaliceAforethought
post Sun 3rd July 2011, 1:13am
Post #1


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From sannse at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 19 19:40:01 2005
From: sannse at tiscali.co.uk (sannse)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:40:01 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Wikipedia: forward to ArbCom]
Message-ID: <43A70C91.8070601@tiscali.co.uk>

I think RSpeer has a point here, so agreed to pass it on. I think the
intention of the remedies is something like "for refusing to accept (or
comply with?) the decisions of the committee and continuing to cause
disruption...". But as it stands, it looks far too much as though
/criticism/ of the committee is, in itself, a reason for censure. I
think that is a very dangerous route to go down.

I hope you will have another look at this.

--sannse

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Wikipedia: forward to ArbCom
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:31:26 -0500
From: Rob Speer <rspeer at mit.edu>
To: sannse at tiscali.co.uk

sannse told me on IRC to relay this message through him.

I am concerned by the reasons given for the proposed ArbCom remedies
against HerschelKrustofsky and Sam Spade
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision).

I'm not concerned about the actual outcome of the case - I've had no
interaction with these users. The precedent set by the wording of the
decision is what concerns me.

The justification begins, "In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by
(HK|Sam) with the decisions reached in this case..." Expressing
dissatisfaction for ArbCom should not be a reason for sanction, not even
when it's one reason of two. The other reason given is their "lack of
insight" into their part in the conflict, which is vague and indirect.

Various users agree that these users need ArbCom remedies. But they
should be sanctioned for something they _did_, not for their opinion of
ArbCom. I think it would be better for Wikipedia and for people's trust
in ArbCom if you changed that text.

Thanks,
-- RSpeer
----------
From fredbaud at ctelco.net Mon Dec 19 19:57:28 2005
From: fredbaud at ctelco.net (Fred Bauder)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:57:28 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Wikipedia: forward to ArbCom]
In-Reply-To: <43A70C91.8070601@tiscali.co.uk>
References: <43A70C91.8070601@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <5BA57726-F4B8-4EDE-9F15-20CA90783F3C@ctelco.net>

I suggest the remedy is sometimes appropriate with users who have
engaged in a sustained pattern of behavior which they feel is quite
justified despite it having been sanctioned by us.

Fred

On Dec 19, 2005, at 12:40 PM, sannse wrote:

> I think RSpeer has a point here, so agreed to pass it on. I think
> the intention of the remedies is something like "for refusing to
----------
From sannse at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 20 18:07:51 2005
From: sannse at tiscali.co.uk (sannse)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:07:51 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Wikipedia: forward to ArbCom]
In-Reply-To: <5BA57726-F4B8-4EDE-9F15-20CA90783F3C@ctelco.net>
References: <43A70C91.8070601@tiscali.co.uk>
<5BA57726-F4B8-4EDE-9F15-20CA90783F3C@ctelco.net>
Message-ID: <43A84877.2020008@tiscali.co.uk>

Again, that's not what comes across with the current wording. It
doesn't say "have continued with behaviour despite admonishment", it
says "in view of the dissatisfaction expressed". Expressing
dissatisfaction should not be a reason for penalties.

--sannse

Fred Bauder wrote:
> I suggest the remedy is sometimes appropriate with users who have

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anna
post Sun 3rd July 2011, 3:37am
Post #2


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu 16th Jun 2011, 3:47pm
Member No.: 57,500



Power drunk much?

Those people sound like freaking vigilantes. Except vigilates are typically violent folk, and since violence doesn't usually transfer well through ethernet cables and computer monitors, with the exception of towards some epileptic victims, I'm guessing the sanctions in question are something far more innocuous.

Speaking of which, what kind of "sanctions" are they talking about, anyhow? And why do they seem to have this idea that people shouldn't just ignore them? They seem to go on and on insulting people behind their backs over trivial matters. And on and on and on and on like a cho-cho-train. Chug-chug-chug! It's not that I'm opposed to free speech among friends, but that sort of thing isn't the source of any moral authority.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Sun 3rd July 2011, 5:22am
Post #3


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Anna @ Sat 2nd July 2011, 8:37pm) *

Those people sound like freaking vigilantes.


Actually, the remarks provided by Malice are from the moderate voices, who wonder whether it might be unseemly to sanction someone (i.e., me) without demonstrating that that person did anything wrong. Except for Fred Bauder, of course. He was all for sanctioning me on the basis of incorrect POV.

In an ArbCom case there is a section called "Findings of Fact," which are basically a listing of crimes committed by the the defendent. This is the "guilty" verdict. In this particular ArbCom case, you will see that my name does not appear in that section. If I had kept my mouth shut, they would have forgotten all about me. Unfortunately, I was unable to do that. I added my two cents here and was therefore awarded a sanction.

QUOTE(Anna @ Sat 2nd July 2011, 8:37pm) *

Speaking of which, what kind of "sanctions" are they talking about, anyhow?
In this instance, I was placed on "indefinite probation," which meant that if any three admins decided that I was "disrupting Wikipedia," they could do anything to me that their fevered imaginations could conjure up. My two main opponents in content disputes were SlimVirgin and Will Beback, both admins, and they had no difficulty finding a third when needed.

Thanks, Malice. What I find shocking is that there was so little discussion on the ArbCom list about this. Rob Speer via Sannse raises exactly the right point, but no one responds. I had forgotten that Kelly Martin was an Arb at that time. Kelly, have you any observation to make?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Craftyminion
post Sun 3rd July 2011, 8:06am
Post #4


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon 7th Sep 2009, 2:57pm
Member No.: 13,484

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 3rd July 2011, 3:22pm) *

Thanks, Malice. What I find shocking is that there was so little discussion on the ArbCom list about this. Rob Speer via Sannse raises exactly the right point, but no one responds. I had forgotten that Kelly Martin was an Arb at that time. Kelly, have you any observation to make?


Observation? What observation should she make?

You're a fucking La Rouchite. A bigot. An antisemite.

You are simply beyond the pale. No decent person should have dealings with you under reasonable circumstances.

You are beneath contempt.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sun 3rd July 2011, 9:01am
Post #5


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Craftyminion @ Sun 3rd July 2011, 1:06am) *

Observation? What observation should she make?

You're a fucking La Rouchite. A bigot. An antisemite.

You are simply beyond the pale. No decent person should have dealings with you under reasonable circumstances.

You are beneath contempt.

rolleyes.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anna
post Sun 3rd July 2011, 1:16pm
Post #6


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu 16th Jun 2011, 3:47pm
Member No.: 57,500



Craftyminion --

Why not? I haven't witnessed Herschelrustofsky making any racist comments, and I'm not going to take your word for it.

Herschelrustofsky --

My comment was a fairly generic one, which would more or less have applied to a number of Arbitrary discussions forwarded here. Yes, there are moderate voices in this particular conversation. Which of them are actually Arbitraries and which are people e-mailing the Arbitraries? It's hard to keep track. Anyway, I've seen Fred's name, so he's probably an Arbitrary thing-a-ma-jig.

To be specific on who I think is power drunk in this particular conversation.

* Whomever came up with the "for refusing to accept the decisions of the committee and continuing to cause disruption" thing originally. Why should anyone "accept the decisions of the committee" of an obsessed clique who can't even come up with hardly anything but ad hominems to say about climate change? And what do they mean by "causing disruption"? That could mean anything. It could mean a completely involuntary action like falling down and having a seizure in a public area. It's a very vague term. If it were anything serious, I expect they would use a more specific term.
* Whomever came up with the "In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by (HK|Sam) with the decisions reached in this case..." thing originally. Expressing dissatisfaction is an ordinary routine that people engage in in society. Decent people generally express dissatisfaction in oral or written form. Violent maniacs sometimes express dissatisfaction in other ways. Decent people may occasionally express dissatisfaction in other ways too. (For example, a violent maniac vigilante may decide to punch me in the head to express his/her dissatisfaction with what s/he believes I have done based on the word of some liar who's actually just dissatisfied that I rejected him. I may in turn express my dissatisfaction with the violent maniac vigilante by hitting/kicking/biting back. There's a chance I could win. In fact, the most recent time that happened, it was the violent maniac vigilante who ran away from me. :-) On the other hand, an activist may peaceably "express dissatisfaction" by waving a sign at a protest, signing a petition, or giving a speech at City Hall.) "Expressing dissatisfaction" is very vague, you see, and I guessed from their lack of specificity that it was probably something inconsequential. And I guess I was right. Giving two cents is pretty inconsequential.
* Fred for supporting whichever of those he was supporting.

I really doubt there's a whole lot they can do to "sanction" you over the internet. They take themselves way too seriously. I mean, what are they going to do? Call your ISP and tell them to disconnect you? The ISP wouldn't have any reason to listen, given that you are the one who's paying them money. Even if hell froze over and they did, you could always sign up with their competitor.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Sun 3rd July 2011, 1:20pm
Post #7


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 3rd July 2011, 12:22am) *
Rob Speer via Sannse raises exactly the right point, but no one responds. I had forgotten that Kelly Martin was an Arb at that time. Kelly, have you any observation to make?
I have no recollection of this incident. Of course, it was over five years ago and involved a case that was decided long before I joined the arbcom and for which there was no active deliberation. I probably ignored it at the time as something I didn't know anything about anyway.

HK, you might press Malice to post the threads regarding you from April 2006 and June 2006, though.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Sun 3rd July 2011, 2:53pm
Post #8


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Anna @ Sun 3rd July 2011, 6:16am) *

To be specific on who I think is power drunk in this particular conversation.

* Whomever came up with the "for refusing to accept the decisions of the committee and continuing to cause disruption" thing originally. Why should anyone "accept the decisions of the committee" of an obsessed clique who can't even come up with hardly anything but ad hominems to say about climate change? And what do they mean by "causing disruption"? That could mean anything. It could mean a completely involuntary action like falling down and having a seizure in a public area. It's a very vague term. If it were anything serious, I expect they would use a more specific term.
* Whomever came up with the "In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by (HK|Sam) with the decisions reached in this case..." thing originally. Expressing dissatisfaction is an ordinary routine that people engage in in society. Decent people generally express dissatisfaction in oral or written form. Violent maniacs sometimes express dissatisfaction in other ways. Decent people may occasionally express dissatisfaction in other ways too. (For example, a violent maniac vigilante may decide to punch me in the head to express his/her dissatisfaction with what s/he believes I have done based on the word of some liar who's actually just dissatisfied that I rejected him. I may in turn express my dissatisfaction with the violent maniac vigilante by hitting/kicking/biting back. There's a chance I could win. In fact, the most recent time that happened, it was the violent maniac vigilante who ran away from me. :-) On the other hand, an activist may peaceably "express dissatisfaction" by waving a sign at a protest, signing a petition, or giving a speech at City Hall.) "Expressing dissatisfaction" is very vague, you see, and I guessed from their lack of specificity that it was probably something inconsequential. And I guess I was right. Giving two cents is pretty inconsequential.
* Fred for supporting whichever of those he was supporting.

It looks like Fred was the main instigator for all of the above.

QUOTE(Anna @ Sun 3rd July 2011, 6:16am) *

I really doubt there's a whole lot they can do to "sanction" you over the internet.
No, the "sanctions" only apply to the wacky and wonderful world of Wikipedia. Of course, if I were Notable™, they could defame the hell out of me.


QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 3rd July 2011, 6:20am) *

HK, you might press Malice to post the threads regarding you from April 2006 and June 2006, though.


That would be the time frame in which the "sanctioning" process was in full swing. Got anything good on that, Malice? Kelly, would you care to provide any sort of teaser about what might be there?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Sun 3rd July 2011, 3:41pm
Post #9


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 3rd July 2011, 9:53am) *
Kelly, would you care to provide any sort of teaser about what might be there?
Well, there is Mark Pelligrini saying "trolls aren't known for being the brightest bulbs" when talking about you, and of course Dominic's apparently sua sponte motion to broaden and extend your ban. Fred thought that one year wasn't long enough.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Sun 3rd July 2011, 5:31pm
Post #10


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Dear old Fred always had my back.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Tue 5th July 2011, 8:06am
Post #11


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



(Everything from 2006/2007)
----------
From dmcdevit at cox.net Sat Apr 29 05:45:43 2006
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:45:43 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Herschelkrustofsky
Message-ID: <4452FD87.3000503@cox.net>

Herschelkrustofsky was found to have pursued advocacy of LaRouche's POV
in the first Lyndon LaRouche case, found to have continued advocacy and
made personal attacks and used sockpuppets in LaRouche 2, for which he
was put on POV parole and forbidden from sockpuppets, and put on general
probation in Nobs01. It's been almost two years and he's still at it. He
was recently banned for two weeks with consensus of a number of admins
on ANI per his probation, for continued advocacy and another suspected
sockpuppet (full discussion at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive91#HK_enforcement>).
He has also, along the way, gotten himself banned from a number of
articles per probation for advocacy. His response to the ban was to make
more vicious attacks on SlimVirgin, Will Bebback, and 172 (i.e. "judging
from my rather extensive experience with these two, their conduct is so
consistently devious and malicious that one would have to be hopelessly
naive to assume good faith on their parts."). I can't realy find any
recent productice edits at all, and his presence here seems totally
disruptive. At this point, I would consider a motion for a one-year
general ban and wonder if anyone else would agree.

Dominic
----------
From fredbaud at ctelco.net Sat Apr 29 11:58:30 2006
From: fredbaud at ctelco.net (Fred Bauder)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 05:58:30 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Herschelkrustofsky
In-Reply-To: <4452FD87.3000503@cox.net>
References: <4452FD87.3000503@cox.net>
Message-ID: <8CE35412-4DE7-4E46-BB4D-1CAD36CD88F9@ctelco.net>

Not long enough.

Fred

On Apr 28, 2006, at 11:45 PM, Dmcdevit wrote:

> Herschelkrustofsky was found to have pursued advocacy of LaRouche's
> POV
> in the first Lyndon LaRouche case, found to have continued advocacy
> and
> made personal attacks and used sockpuppets in LaRouche 2, for which he
> was put on POV parole and forbidden from sockpuppets, and put on
> general
> probation in Nobs01. It's been almost two years and he's still at
> it. He
> was recently banned for two weeks with consensus of a number of admins
> on ANI per his probation, for continued advocacy and another suspected
> sockpuppet (full discussion at
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%
> 27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive91#HK_enforcement>).
> He has also, along the way, gotten himself banned from a number of
> articles per probation for advocacy. His response to the ban was to
> make
> more vicious attacks on SlimVirgin, Will Bebback, and 172 (i.e.
> "judging
> from my rather extensive experience with these two, their conduct
> is so
> consistently devious and malicious that one would have to be
> hopelessly
> naive to assume good faith on their parts."). I can't realy find any
> recent productice edits at all, and his presence here seems totally
> disruptive. At this point, I would consider a motion for a one-year
> general ban and wonder if anyone else would agree.
>
> Dominic
> _______________________________________________
> Arbcom-l mailing list
> Arbcom-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
>
---------
From dgerard at gmail.com Sat Apr 29 14:48:29 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:48:29 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Herschelkrustofsky
In-Reply-To: <4452FD87.3000503@cox.net>
References: <4452FD87.3000503@cox.net>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140604290748s7646eb62l10e3a43078199244@mail.gmail.com>

On 29/04/06, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:

> Herschelkrustofsky was found to have pursued advocacy of LaRouche's POV
[...]
> disruptive. At this point, I would consider a motion for a one-year
> general ban and wonder if anyone else would agree.


Is he still also editing as Eggplant Wizard or whatever it was?

Also, one of the big problems with nailing the sockpuppetry in the
original La Rouche case was him bouncing between his cable and AOL.
Gah ...

OTOH, he can be spotted by problematic behaviour easily enough. And he
has actually done the occasional productive edit, somewhere, some
time. So evading a ban would be as easy as not behaving in the manner
which led to the ban. (Though the inability to avoid ban-inducing
behaviour is what tends to land people with bans.)


- d.
----------
From jayjg99 at gmail.com Sun Apr 30 02:31:56 2006
From: jayjg99 at gmail.com (jayjg)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 22:31:56 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Herschelkrustofsky
In-Reply-To: <8CE35412-4DE7-4E46-BB4D-1CAD36CD88F9@ctelco.net>
References: <4452FD87.3000503@cox.net>
<8CE35412-4DE7-4E46-BB4D-1CAD36CD88F9@ctelco.net>
Message-ID: <6a8d9d700604291931r6e2b45eenfa5267d0f751e20b@mail.gmail.com>

As per Fred. He does nothing useful on Wikipedia except push
Larouche, and wikistalk and attack the "synarchist gang". I'm not
exactly sure what a "synarchist gang" is, but the people you've
mentioned are apparently part of it; perhaps they have been paid by
the Queen of England to gang up on him.

Does anyone else think that the ban should be just a year, or does a
permanent one make more sense?

Jay.

On 4/29/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Not long enough.
>
> Fred
>
> On Apr 28, 2006, at 11:45 PM, Dmcdevit wrote:
>
> > Herschelkrustofsky was found to have pursued advocacy of LaRouche's
----------
From dmcdevit at cox.net Sun Apr 30 19:22:16 2006
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:22:16 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Herschelkrustofsky
In-Reply-To: <6a8d9d700604291931r6e2b45eenfa5267d0f751e20b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4452FD87.3000503@cox.net> <8CE35412-4DE7-4E46-BB4D-1CAD36CD88F9@ctelco.net>
<6a8d9d700604291931r6e2b45eenfa5267d0f751e20b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44550E68.3010201@cox.net>

Motion up. I just proposed a year as I don't particularly see a reason
to change that convention yet, and one year seems to be about the same
as indefinite in practice anyway.

Dominic

jayjg wrote:

>As per Fred. He does nothing useful on Wikipedia except push
>Larouche, and wikistalk and attack the "synarchist gang". I'm not
----------
From jwales at wikia.com Fri Jun 9 21:29:38 2006
From: jwales at wikia.com (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:29:38 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Re: Constructive criticism of Wikipedia]
Message-ID: <4489E842.40004@wikia.com>

FYI

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Constructive criticism of Wikipedia
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Herschel Krustofsky <hersch_krustofsky at yahoo.com>
To: Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>



We have already encountered an obstacle. It seems that someone has
deleted the entire edit history of WIllmcw, the previous username for
WIll Beback:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Willmcw

This seems like something that deserves your personal attention.

Sincerely,
HK
----------
From jayjg99 at gmail.com Fri Jun 9 21:51:50 2006
From: jayjg99 at gmail.com (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 17:51:50 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Re: Constructive criticism of Wikipedia]
In-Reply-To: <4489E842.40004@wikia.com>
References: <4489E842.40004@wikia.com>
Message-ID: <6a8d9d700606091451u3bf79a95j495a0b9f47a57329@mail.gmail.com>

Huh. Will is one of the best editors in all of Wikipedia; HK has a
grudge against him because of his involvement in the case that got HK
banned.

Jay.

On 6/9/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> FYI
----------
From dmcdevit at cox.net Fri Jun 9 21:58:31 2006
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dominic)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:58:31 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Re: Constructive criticism of Wikipedia]
In-Reply-To: <6a8d9d700606091451u3bf79a95j495a0b9f47a57329@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4489E842.40004@wikia.com>
<6a8d9d700606091451u3bf79a95j495a0b9f47a57329@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4489EF07.7060005@cox.net>


> On 6/9/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>> FYI
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: Constructive criticism of Wikipedia
>> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Herschel Krustofsky <hersch_krustofsky at yahoo.com>
>> To: Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> We have already encountered an obstacle. It seems that someone has
>> deleted the entire edit history of WIllmcw, the previous username for
>> WIll Beback:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Willmcw
>>
>> This seems like something that deserves your personal attention.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> HK
>>
>>
>>
First, HK is sadly mistaken: Willmcw changed his username to Will
Beback... which means all the edits were reattributed to the new name as
normal. Is it just me, or do I recall Will changing his username from
Willmcw to Will Beback precisely because he was getting stalked by
Herschelkrustofsky et al?

Dominic
----------
From jayjg99 at gmail.com Fri Jun 9 22:17:57 2006
From: jayjg99 at gmail.com (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 18:17:57 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Re: Constructive criticism of Wikipedia]
In-Reply-To: <4489EF07.7060005@cox.net>
References: <4489E842.40004@wikia.com>
<6a8d9d700606091451u3bf79a95j495a0b9f47a57329@mail.gmail.com>
<4489EF07.7060005@cox.net>
Message-ID: <6a8d9d700606091517vb9f3567sd5635f9dbced758a@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/9/06, Dominic <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On 6/9/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> FYI
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: Re: Constructive criticism of Wikipedia
> >> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
> >> From: Herschel Krustofsky <hersch_krustofsky at yahoo.com>
> >> To: Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> We have already encountered an obstacle. It seems that someone has
> >> deleted the entire edit history of WIllmcw, the previous username for
> >> WIll Beback:
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Willmcw
> >>
> >> This seems like something that deserves your personal attention.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> HK
> >>
> >>
> >>
> First, HK is sadly mistaken: Willmcw changed his username to Will
> Beback... which means all the edits were reattributed to the new name as
> normal. Is it just me, or do I recall Will changing his username from
> Willmcw to Will Beback precisely because he was getting stalked by
> Herschelkrustofsky et al?
>
> Dominic

Actually, I believe it was Jack Sarfatti who did that, calling Will's
elderly invalid father and threatening him.

Jay.
----------
From mapellegrini at comcast.net Fri Jun 9 22:36:57 2006
From: mapellegrini at comcast.net (Mark Pellegrini)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:36:57 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Re: Constructive criticism of Wikipedia]
In-Reply-To: <6a8d9d700606091517vb9f3567sd5635f9dbced758a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4489E842.40004@wikia.com> <6a8d9d700606091451u3bf79a95j495a0b9f47a57329@mail.gmail.com> <4489EF07.7060005@cox.net>
<6a8d9d700606091517vb9f3567sd5635f9dbced758a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4489F809.9090108@comcast.net>

Actually, none of will's old edits appear under the Will Beback name.
Willmcw's last edit was to request that his account be renamed to
user:User2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53567896

He then promptly went and started a new username.
All of his old edits appear under that name. It's not too difficult to
figure this out (all I did was go to the history of [[user:Willmcw]] and
see who had the most edits), but trolls aren't known for being the
brightest bulbs.

-Mark


jayjg wrote:

>On 6/9/06, Dominic <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>On 6/9/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>FYI
----------
From jayjg99 at gmail.com Fri Jun 9 22:45:04 2006
From: jayjg99 at gmail.com (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 18:45:04 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Re: Constructive criticism of Wikipedia]
In-Reply-To: <4489F809.9090108@comcast.net>
References: <4489E842.40004@wikia.com>
<6a8d9d700606091451u3bf79a95j495a0b9f47a57329@mail.gmail.com>
<4489EF07.7060005@cox.net>
<6a8d9d700606091517vb9f3567sd5635f9dbced758a@mail.gmail.com>
<4489F809.9090108@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <6a8d9d700606091545s4d36b37dx4ae39db8f8f495fb@mail.gmail.com>

I see no reason why we should assist them in finding that out.

Jay.

On 6/9/06, Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini at comcast.net> wrote:
> Actually, none of will's old edits appear under the Will Beback name.
----------
From jayjg99 at gmail.com Mon Aug 27 03:02:30 2007
From: jayjg99 at gmail.com (jayjg)
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:02:30 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
In-Reply-To: <530912670708261757s3f7e09ferbc3e0ecd747c3b84@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070826165449.d34e889e074bc96cc6dfd25a6a4f8894.e4e6b819d9.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
<530912670708261757s3f7e09ferbc3e0ecd747c3b84@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6a8d9d700708262002i330fb594x7e2cabfd5fd32e9@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/26/07, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/27/07, Steve Dunlop <steve-dunlop at nerstrand.net> wrote:
> > One of the reasons that I continue to believe that Jay's use of
> > oversight was inappropriate is that the committee has not seen so much
> > as a summary of the evidence of the nature of the threats to SV and the
> > reason SV believed that the oversighed edits posed a risk. I have asked
> > Jay for this information and he has not provided it, and hence it is
> > unclear to me whether Jay's judgment regarding the risks posed by the
> > material was sound. I believe that those with the oversight ability
> > have a responsibility to justify their use of the tool to this
> > committee, and am disappointed at the lack of transparency.
>
> Jay and SlimVirgin have both, on several occasions, provided quite
> reasonable explanations as to the nature of the threats and the
> potential for those edits, if left in the publically accessible
> database, to do harm. The evident refusal to ask politely for more
> detail, if necessary (though I'm not sure what could be asked for)
> instead of throwing around accusations of malfeasance is typical of
> the "assume bad faith" attitude in these cases that has been the
> subject of discussion in the broader CC thread.

Indeed. Steven, you (and a couple of others here) seem to be operating
from the premise that philosophical ideas regarding transparency of
page histories, and the GFDL, are the primary concern in any oversight
situation, and that therefore every oversight must be presumed to be
*extremely* harmful to Wikipedia unless it passes a very, very high
bar. However, others operate from the premise that trusted users who
are stalked in obviously serious ways should be protected by
oversight; that, in fact, this is exactly why oversight was designed.
If one makes an error using oversight it can, in fact, be rectified,
with a little bit of grumbling and effort from the developers. On the
other hand, if one makes an error in not using oversight, the result
could be serious, serious harm to an individual; and not just any
individual, but a dedicated volunteer member of our community, who has
come into harm's way as a result of her volunteer efforts on behalf of
the community. An error of commission can be undone, but there is no
undoing an error of omission.

The fact that SV had made the edits at all, and the specific insider
knowledge they contained, combined with her edits elsewhere, served to
identify her. Others have said that they would not have looked in
excruciating detail at the content of every edit, but would have
oversighted them based on the specific circumstances of the request.
Frankly, Steve, given your persistent failure to adequately address
the issue of potential serious harm, and the duty of the oversighter
to use the tool designed for that purpose to mitigate that, I question
your own judgement regarding the use of oversight.

> > I would disagree that the harassment SV faced is exceptional. I do not
> > believe that it is anywhere close to the level harassment that some
> > users faced from Andrew Morrow, for example.
>
> This is not a particularly sound analogy - Morrow was in a class of
> nutter all of his own. <redacted> was nonetheless a very scary (and
> deeply misogynist) character, and when he went after me, I was rather
> glad I had the Pacific Ocean seperating us, a luxury which she did not
> have. SlimVirgin has also explained in more detail why she believed
> him specifically to be a serious threat to her personal safety, and I
> see absolutely no reason not to believe her.

Agreed again. To begin with AMorrow did indeed stalk SlimVirgin, and
<redacted> as well. It's one of the reasons she changed her name.
Fortunately for them both, and to <redacted>'s detriment, he focussed most of
his efforts on <redacted>. Regarding SlimVirgin, user:Amalekite posted her
name, among others, as a Jewish editor on Stormfront, an antisemitic
site. After she blocked him for it, he set up Wikipedia Review in or
around December 2005. He was soon joined by BlissyU2 and Mistress
Selina Kyle, both banned editors, who proceeded to speculate that she
was a neo-Nazi pretending to be a Jew, that she wanted to kill Jews,
that she was in cahoots with Stormfront, that she should be murdered
by the Mossad, that she was a manipulative bitch, that she used the
weaknesses of male admins to control them, that she was probably a
pedophile, and that she was out to destroy Wikipedia and change
history. They did very little else but discuss her for several months.

Other banned editors joined in, including Herschelkrustofsky, the
LaRouche editor. He was the first to suggest that she needed to be
identified. Around the beginning of 2006, they were joined by Daniel
Brandt, who spent months trying to work out who she was and where she
lived. This included contacting two former colleagues and a former
boyfriend from decades ago, and publishing actionable libel about her.
Shortly thereafter, they were joined by WordBomb aka Judd Bagley, the
director of communications for Overstock.com, who has engaged in a
similar stalking campaign against her, because she prevented him from
outing Mantanmoreland as Gary Weiss. Then <redacted>, an obvious
lunatic who had served in the Gulf War and lived within driving
distance of SlimVirgin, posted to Wikipedia Review that he was coming
for her, that she had better find a place to hide, and that he was
looking forward to punching her in the face.

This was the context in which the decision to oversight the edits was
made, and in fact is an *unprecedented* amount of stalking and
harassment for one individual. She's been slashdotted as an MI5 agent,
for God's sake! <redacted> went through an awful lot of harassment, an
incredible and horrible amount really, but it was from *one*
individual, who lived several thousand miles and a continent and ocean
away.

> > I believe that editors should expect to take a certain amount of
> > responsibility for the material they choose to reveal. For example, if
> > I were to conclude that the presence of my real name at ENWP and
> > elsewhere posed a risk to my person, it would be unreasonable for me to
> > expect the project to expunge it. Had the material oversighted by Jay
> > been posted not by SV herself but by someone else, I would see this
> > matter in a different light.
>
> As I said before, I do not think this is a reasonable stance to take.
> New editors often reveal information without realising that this is
> likely to pose a problem later - I did not even imagine when I first
> joined the sort of vitriol that would be thrown around when I reached
> admin status, and many other users have found similarly. There is no
> excuse for leaving editors swinging in the wind in the face of
> personal harassment because of a newbie error.

I agree again. It seems that what is being demanded here is both
perfect foresight and perfect hindsight. That is, editors must know,
the second they start editing Wikipedia, that some day their edits
might be scrutinized by vicious stalkers, and that they must therefore
edit with perfect secrecy, revealing nothing. Not only that, but
oversighters must also know, in hindsight, that these same stalkers
might have downloaded the database and combed through it searching to
undo oversights, and therefore avoid making any oversights that might
later be reconstructed and spun into some conspiracy.

> > The problem that we have is that Bagley's data is detailed and
> > plausible, and because it is in fact accurate we cannot in good faith
> > make the counterargument that his accusations are baseless. It is also
> > independently verifiable since others have copies of the dumps.
> >
> > Thus the pickle we're in is that Bagley and Brandt, odious though they
> > are, have identified a legitimate problem. That leaves us in the
> > position of selecting the best of several very poor choices.
>
> I'm not buying this. This is a storm in a teacup, and the amount of
> stress we seem to be having about it is evidence to me of a
> hyperresponsive attitude towards public criticism of our actions. We
> know the edits were oversighted, we know the reasoning behind them was
> sound, and the proper response, IMO, is to decide that Bagley et. al.
> can get stuffed and say no more about the matter. No one outside
> wingnut circles gives a stuff about this sort of thing unless we give
> it credence by overreacting.

Thank goodness for some common sense on this! Our own overreactions
will cause far more harm than anything Bagley and Brandt can muster.
----------
From picaroon9288 at gmail.com Sun Sep 30 20:36:35 2007
From: picaroon9288 at gmail.com (Picaroon)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:36:35 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Continual ban evasion by Herschelkrustofsky
Message-ID: <4d9b36bd0709301336j5fc892efi5ae50582a58d4b4a@mail.gmail.com>

Yesterday, I blocked MaplePorter as a sockpuppet of Herschelkrustofsky, who
was banned in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...n_LaRouche_2and
has already had his ban extended twice (yesterday being the third
occasion). On the technical similarities between HK and this latest sock,
Raul said "Based on checkuser evidence, I think it's fairly likely that
MaplePorter is a HK sock".

The account was disrupting the same politics-related articles HK has been
clashing with others on for years. This is at least the fourth sockpuppet
since his ban (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...locks_and_bans),
so I think it is clear this fellow is unwilling to play by the rules. The
discussion can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ser:MaplePorter
.

I therefore request the committee consider extending his ban to indefinite
(the decision provides no mechanism for the community to make the ban
indefinite, only to keep extending it.)

-Picaroon
----------
From fredbaud at waterwiki.info Sun Sep 30 20:56:52 2007
From: fredbaud at waterwiki.info (fredbaud at waterwiki.info)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:56:52 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Continual ban evasion by Herschelkrustofsky
Message-ID: <W8569823791103971191185812@webmail20>

If you are an administrator, you may impose an indefinite community ban. Not because we say so, which we probably won't, but because he's worn out the patience of the community.

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: Picaroon [mailto:picaroon9288 at gmail.com]
----------
From slimvirgin at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 22:34:00 2007
From: slimvirgin at gmail.com (SlimVirgin)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:34:00 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] LaRouche RfAr
Message-ID: <4cc603b0710151534v30160acdh80326c8405957aa4@mail.gmail.com>

Several of us have been discussing the importance of the Arbitration
Committee not making things worse for the victims of stalking on
Wikipedia.

One of the ways the ArbCom inadvertently puts pressure on victims is
by accepting cases brought against them by their stalkers. This is
what's happening with the RfAr filed by Marvin Diode, a LaRouche
supporter, against Chip Berlet, Dennis King, and Will Beback.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfAr#Cberlet_and_Dking

I'm therefore writing to request that the ArbCom either reject this
case, or agree to hear it in private.

The LaRouche movement is well-known in North America and Europe for
its harassment, defamation, and threats of violence toward its
opponents, their families, and even their pets -- journalists critical
of the movement have reported finding their pets dead shortly after
publication, according to the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

Chip Berlet and Dennis King, both journalists who've investigated the
movement, have been frequent victims of this harassment. Dennis has
written about receiving death threats, a threat to be raped, and a
query about whether he might commit suicide. His father's employer was
contacted and urged to fire the father, according to The Washington
Post. Chip's name has been blackened on and off Wikipedia, including
on Wikipedia Review, where Herschelkrustofksy, a LaRouche activist who
has run multiple WP accounts over the last three years, is an
administrator. (It was Herschelkrustofsky who started the rumor that
I'm an intelligence agent being paid to edit Wikipedia, and he has
tried to organize Wikipedia Reviewers into paying for a private
detective to hunt me down.)

Chip and Dennis are regarded as serious commentators by the mainstream
media. Chip was recently interviewed about the LaRouche movement by
the BBC's flagship news program, Newsnight. Dennis is the publisher of
the only LaRouche biography in English, which is frequently used as a
source by mainstream journalists.

There's no doubt that they're reliable sources for Wikipedia. The only
question is whether they should be allowed to self-cite. This is an
issue the ArbCom can discuss with them in private without the need for
a full case.

Given the serious nature of LaRouche movement threats against Chip and
Dennis, it's very important that Wikipedia not allow itself to be used
to put further pressure on them. We especially should not open a case
on public pages that will be used by the LaRouche movement to
undermine their credibility and affect their professional lives.

I also ask that a checkuser look to see whether Marvin Diode is
another account run by Herschelkrustofsky. HK edits mostly from AOL
IPs that resolve to Los Angeles and thereabouts; examples are
172.190.221.234, 172.194.97.169, 172.195.201.53, 172.197.96.137,
172.199.126.121, 198.81.26.48, 205.177.246.156, and 64.30.208.48.
It's quite likely that he edits from the Los Angeles LaRouche office:
there are examples on Usenet of these IP addresses being used to
distribute LaRouche spam about political figures in the Los Angeles
area.

Sarah
----------
From jayjg99 at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 14:07:26 2007
From: jayjg99 at gmail.com (jayjg)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:07:26 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] LaRouche RfAr
In-Reply-To: <4cc603b0710151534v30160acdh80326c8405957aa4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4cc603b0710151534v30160acdh80326c8405957aa4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6a8d9d700710160707s6a27c866j9762f24bea1e5bf7@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/15/07, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> I also ask that a checkuser look to see whether Marvin Diode is
> another account run by Herschelkrustofsky. HK edits mostly from AOL
> IPs that resolve to Los Angeles and thereabouts; examples are
> 172.190.221.234, 172.194.97.169, 172.195.201.53, 172.197.96.137,
> 172.199.126.121, 198.81.26.48, 205.177.246.156, and 64.30.208.48.
> It's quite likely that he edits from the Los Angeles LaRouche office:
> there are examples on Usenet of these IP addresses being used to
> distribute LaRouche spam about political figures in the Los Angeles
> area.

Speaking of which, it would probably be a good idea to checkuser
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/Masai_warrior
and
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ons/Arkalochori
as well.
----------
From slimvirgin at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 06:28:48 2007
From: slimvirgin at gmail.com (SlimVirgin)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:28:48 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Nobs01
Message-ID: <4cc603b0710172328u7fa5ec74l154aa035299218bc@mail.gmail.com>

I'm writing about Fred and Kirill Lokshin's proposal to rename the old
"Nobs01 and others" case to "Complaints of Cberlet."

They also want to add a finding of fact that "There is no evidence
that User:Nobs01 is, or ever was, associated with the Lyndon LaRouche
movment or sympathetic to the views of Lyndon LaRouche."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...bs01_and_others

This follows Fred and Kirill first voting to accept a LaRouche case
against Chip, and then voting against Charles Matthews' suggestion of
coming up with a clarification instead.

As anyone familar with Nobs' editing knows, he was a strong supporter
of the LaRouche movement on Wikipedia, though probably not an actual
member. Nobs, Rangerdude, Cognition, and Herschelkrustofsky (the
latter two self-described members of the LaRouche movement) worked as
a team on Wikipedia when it came to the articles on LaRouche and Chip
Berlet, or whenever Will BeBack needed to be attacked. The case itself
illustrates that.

For anyone not familiar with the views of the LaRouche movement on
Chip, Cognition left a statement on the Nobs RfAr which is worth
reading for a fuller appreciation of the madness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req....7BCognition.7D

Nobs is obsessed by Chip to the point where, in Chip's shoes, I'd
start to worry about my personal safety. He had to be banned from
Talk:Chip Berlet because of the insane posts he was making, which
included that Chip had been indirectly involved in a murder.

Chip was *extremely* patient about this, and used dispute resolution
rather than editing his own article, removing the posts, or engaging
in personal attacks.

Nobs also maintains an attack site about Chip and myself, and has
posted crazy stuff about us on Conservapedia.

I hope the ArbCom will not make any concessions to him, and in
particular won't allow him to have the case brought against him
renamed "Complaints of Cberlet," which would simply become part of his
campaign against Chip.

In any event, the complainants included Chip, Phil Sandifer, Gamaliel,
and myself -- not Chip alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...s#Third_parties

Sarah
----------
From slimvirgin at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 06:49:18 2007
From: slimvirgin at gmail.com (SlimVirgin)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:49:18 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Nobs01
In-Reply-To: <4cc603b0710172328u7fa5ec74l154aa035299218bc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4cc603b0710172328u7fa5ec74l154aa035299218bc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4cc603b0710172349x47345dcbudc8ea5edcd2b6f7c@mail.gmail.com>

Here is Nobs's current section about Chip in the Conservapedia article
about Wikipedia. Nobs writes as Rob Smith.
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?tit...371#Chip_Berlet

Note that he's claiming some of Wikipedia's content policies were
written specifically to allow Chip as a source. This is
Herschelkrustofsky's argument.

Here is the article on Chip, written almost entirely by Nobs.
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?tit...et&oldid=316356

Here is Nobs's previous section on Chip and myself on Conservapedia,
removed because I complained about it.

"Before [SlimVirgin] was through, she created the Daniel Brandt bio
citing Berlet as a source to accuse Brandt of a false and malicious
guilt by association smear -- aligned with Holocaust deniers. Brandt,
having been smeared by the cabal of Berlet & SlimVirgin, with the
rewritten policy could no longer be used as a critic of Berlet or PRA,
on the basis of him being aligned with extremists."
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?tit...ndt_controversy

This is a description I've seen the LaRouchies post. My article on
Brandt (a) didn't use Chip as a source, (b) didn't accuse Brandt of
anything at all, and © made no mention of Holocaust deniers. Here is
the version of the Brandt article I wrote, which was written with
Brandt's cooperation because he'd complained.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=25628592

You can see from this example alone how untrustworthy Nobs is. I hope
no concessions will be made to him that cause any further grief to
Chip.

Sarah
----------
From: jayjg99 at gmail.com (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:38:46 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Notice and Request
In-Reply-To: <W26097169025821192726209@webmail34>
References: <W26097169025821192726209@webmail34>
Message-ID: <6a8d9d700710181138i60833b6cl1485367aea62ccd6@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/18/07, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jayjg [mailto:jayjg99 at gmail.com]
>
> There is absolutely no reason to accede in any way to Nobs' demands;
> on the contrary, it would only provide him with further ammunition,
> and damage Wikipedia's credibility. The case was primarily about the
> behavior of Nobs and various Larouchies, not about Chip Berlet. Nobs
> wants Berlet's name on the case (and it's his real name, not a
> pseudonym like Nobs01 or Herschelkrustofsky) as another way of
> smearing him. Again, at some point we have to start supporting the
> good editors, and ignoring the harassing stalkers, not coddling them
> and acceding to their crazy demands.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> I picked out the new name. Any suggestions for a neutral name? I could have
> use "Plea of Berlet" but we don't want to use legal language.
>
> Fred

Hmm, how about "Nobs01 and others"? Or "Nobs01, Rangerdude, Cognition,
Herschelkrustofsky, Sam Spade"? Please keep in mind that the names in
question are, again, all *pseudonyms*, unlike Berlet. It's also worth
noting that the first 4 editors in that list are banned. And finally,
if you start opening the door to anyone sanctioned by a case insisting
they can get the case name changed to protect the guilty, we'll be
into yet another "courtesy blanking" fiasco.
----------
From jayjg99 at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 13:39:06 2007
From: jayjg99 at gmail.com (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:39:06 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] LaRouche RfAr
In-Reply-To: <6a8d9d700710181127i671af799pfa2e8364f3d378ed@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20071018150603.ZGSU17393.aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>
<6a8d9d700710180834y7f4611d8i28e51ad90a6a8639@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0710180943q1af072c6tb858f39ff3a9dd17@mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700710181127i671af799pfa2e8364f3d378ed@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6a8d9d700710190639u19277c53odd2acbae696033e4@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/07, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/18/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> > > < charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > > > I've proposed an alternative motion that adds my note on Berlet and
> > King to
> > > > > the earlier text on the LaRouche POV-pushing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirill
> > > >
> > > > More concise, please. See my vote.
> > > >
> > > > Charles
> > >
> > > We need to stop providing banned harassers with sticks with which to
> > > beat good editors. Try to imagine just how many comments to Chip or
> > > Dennis on the Larouche related pages are now going be prefaced with
> > > "Chip/Dennis, please remember that the Arbcom warned you to avoid a
> > > conflict of interest. It's best if you don't edit here, leave it to
> > > us."
> > >
> > > We *must* start sending out the right signals, and giving determined
> > > POV-pushing cultists ammunition with which to drive off recognized and
> > > respected subject matter experts is not the right signal.
> >
> >
> > You seem to be making the assumption here that we need Berlet & King to be
> > doing the hand-on writing of the articles in order for their expertise to be
> > properly used. I don't think that's really true; their main value comes as
> > *sources* for other editors to use rather than as mere writers. The
> > material they produce should adequately find its way into the article
> > through the work of other editors, simply by virtue of being the most
> > prominent view of the topic.
>
> I don't agree. The LaRouchies are determined and subtle in their
> POV-pushing; frankly it takes experts to recognize and have the
> necessary knowledge and motivation to counter what they are doing. We
> don't expect laypeople to write good math or science articles based on
> stuff they looked up on the internet.
>
> >
> > An article that neither LaRouche adherents nor anti-LaRouche activists fight
> > over directly would be the best outcome, I think.
>
> Characterizing Berlet in particular as an "anti-LaRouche activist" is,
> at best, highly misleading.
>

Meanwhile, yet another LaRouche POV-pushing sockpuppet of
Herschelkrustofsky has turned up, as confirmed by Fred Bauder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gelsomina
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Tue 5th July 2011, 3:01pm
Post #12


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



It appears that my main offense was saying bad things about SV and Will Beback, but there is some tricky stuff going on here, because some persons attempt to build an argument along the lines of "saying bad things = stalking = Oversighting is good!" i.e. "Let's dispose of the evidence. Think of the children." Also, I love SV's letters, which extend the argument to include "filing RfAR = stalking" and otherwise incorporates the most extensive and shameless lying I have seen from her to date.

There's a vaguely Orwellian quality to Fred Bauder's utterance:
QUOTE
If you are an administrator, you may impose an indefinite community ban. Not because we say so, which we probably won't, but because he's worn out the patience of the community.

Fred


And Jayjg was more personally involved in all this than I had thought. He manages to write this, one presumes, with a straight face:
QUOTE
Characterizing Berlet in particular as an "anti-LaRouche activist" is, at best, highly misleading.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Tue 5th July 2011, 3:43pm
Post #13


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



QUOTE
SlimVirgin:
Nobs also maintains an attack site about Chip and myself,


I'm sure she is talking about my site. I don't know if she really believes "Nobs" was behind it, or if she just finds it convenient to pretend that she does.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Tue 5th July 2011, 10:36pm
Post #14


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



This is some good stuff. Perhaps he is now reformed, but Jayjg was really a jackass back when he wrote these emails, distorting the truth to help SV escape scrutiny for her anti-LaRouche activities in Wikipedia. It's interesting to see how SV, with Jayjg's help, has worked behind the scenes in the past to try to ensure that she is allowed to do whatever she wants with the LaRouche topic area. Her defense of Chip Berlet and Dennis King, and her and Will Beback's heavy use of them as sources in the LaRouche topic area, will be useful evidence in any future conflict resolution related to the LaRouche topic area.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Wed 6th July 2011, 12:29am
Post #15


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



How does one search for old ArbCom cases? They seem to discourage it. I tried to follow the broken link in the above mailing list material to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfAr#Cberlet_and_Dking, which sounds like a good read, but of course, I didn't arrive at my destination.

However, the broken link lead me to this, which by coincidence seems to involve all the right people. Haven't seen Tom Harrison's name in a while -- to quote a popular movie, "What a douche!"
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Wed 6th July 2011, 1:34am
Post #16


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 6th July 2011, 12:29am) *

How does one search for old ArbCom cases? They seem to discourage it. I tried to follow the broken link in the above mailing list material to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfAr#Cberlet_and_Dking, which sounds like a good read, but of course, I didn't arrive at my destination.

However, the broken link lead me to this, which by coincidence seems to involve all the right people. Haven't seen Tom Harrison's name in a while -- to quote a popular movie, "What a douche!"


Just to be fair, HK isn't completely blameless in all of this. He has tried to promote LaRouche in Wikipedia by using LaRouche-published materials and has socked. The bigger picture, however, is that Wikipedia hasn't been fair in its treatment of him and the topic area. HK has been banned while SV, Will Beback, Chip Berlet, and Dennis King were left alone or even protected in their campaign to defame LaRouche. SV and Will Beback have set up a process where no editor from the LaRouche organization can get a fair shake, even if the editor tries to obey the rules. This is wrong.

The current ArbCom, judging by the emails, are aware of this but have yet to rectify it. The situation needs to be resolved.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Wed 6th July 2011, 1:55am
Post #17


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 5th July 2011, 9:34pm) *
Just to be fair, HK isn't completely blameless in all of this.
Let me know if you find someone completely blameless, so I can change my religion.
QUOTE
[...] The bigger picture, however, is that Wikipedia hasn't been fair in its treatment of him and the topic area. HK has been banned while SV, Will Beback, Chip Berlet, and Dennis King were left alone or even protected in their campaign to defame LaRouche. SV and Will Beback have set up a process where no editor from the LaRouche organization can get a fair shake, even if the editor tries to obey the rules. This is wrong.

The current ArbCom, judging by the emails, are aware of this but have yet to rectify it. The situation needs to be resolved.
They have not understood that to find NPOV, it's necessity to integrate various points of view, so that all are reasonably satisfied with the result. Jimbo actually got this right years ago. Normally, "fringe POV pushers" are aware that most in a field reject their POV, so they will be happy with fair treatment, they are used to less than fair treatment.

Someone with a POV can detect NPOV failure, where someone with a different POV will simply think that the text is neutral, when it isn't. Often it's a simple matter of framing, of setting context, of attributing opinion, etc. When a "fringe POV" is banned, neutrality becomes elusive, and people with that POV will constantly show up to try to fix the article, leading to more and more disruption.

I generally accept the mainstream position on global warming, but when I tried to clarify text in the global warming article, so that words used by the UN panel (IPCC?) were defined as the panel had defined them, rather than allowing it to appear that the ordinary meanings were used (which produced an increased appearance of "consensus" on global warming, over the much more careful and precise language of the panel, which reflected a level of decreased certainty), it was opposed by the cabal, with all their tricks. They were not interested in neutrality, they were doing what they had attributed to their "enemies," they were pushing for "the truth." I.e., their POV. That, indeed, was where the cabal decided I was Trouble, and began to seek ways to eliminate the problem.

And that's what ArbComm allowed and supported.

They do not understand what should be fundamental policy, because there is no process training Wikipedians in what NPOV would really mean. I claimed, in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, that NPOV requires consensus, real consensus, that there is no other measure of it. Degree of consensus: Goal is 100%. Practicality may require falling short -- some people are really, really stubborn and unable to compromise --, but if that's not the goal, Wikipedia will fall short.

That "some people" is fewer than most Wikipedians would think, because most Wikipedians have never experienced genuine consensus process. It usually takes skill. It does not necessarily happen naturally.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Wed 6th July 2011, 2:51am
Post #18


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



But Abd, don't you think that most of the combatants understand all this perfectly well, and are simply trying to game the system?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Wed 6th July 2011, 3:57am
Post #19


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 5th July 2011, 8:29pm) *

How does one search for old ArbCom cases? They seem to discourage it. I tried to follow the broken link in the above mailing list material to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfAr#Cberlet_and_Dking, which sounds like a good read, but of course, I didn't arrive at my destination.

However, the broken link lead me to this, which by coincidence seems to involve all the right people. Haven't seen Tom Harrison's name in a while -- to quote a popular movie, "What a douche!"


Here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Wed 6th July 2011, 5:16am
Post #20


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 5th July 2011, 6:34pm) *

Just to be fair, HK isn't completely blameless in all of this. He has tried to promote LaRouche in Wikipedia by using LaRouche-published materials and has socked.
My use of LaRouche-published materials was predominately in "LaRouche template" articles, which is permissible both under WP:SELFPUB and the relevant ArbCom decisions. The idea that this should be impermissible is an innovation by Will Beback. To this day, i still believe that on the topic of "Views of LaRouche," his own writings should be considered an unimpeachable source. As far as socking is concerned, I have publicly acknowledged that Helen Hochwasser (T-C-L-K-R-D) is my sock.

QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 5th July 2011, 8:57pm) *
Why, thank you. However, I was unable to find "Cberlet and Dking" via that route, because as it turns out, the case was not accepted. I ultimately located it by digging through Marvin Diode's contribution history. Here it is. It provides some of the best evidence I have seen of Will Beback running interference for King and Berlet.

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 5th July 2011, 6:34pm) *

The current ArbCom, judging by the emails, are aware of this but have yet to rectify it. The situation needs to be resolved.


Although the "Cberlet and Dking" case was not accepted, there was a pretty strong statement by Thatcher going after Berlet and King (and a lamely duplicitous statement by JzG defending them.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th 8 17, 1:36am