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

[Hell Freezes Over]

You seem to reach decisions based entirely on whether you like the players or not.

...and you don't?

That's right, I don't, and there's an example in my post above. I like Jossi, but I can't support his editing [[Prem Rawat]] if he was indeed working for him.

[Kato]

But with LaRouche, you want the experts topic-banned...

Listen, what kind of neutral fucking editing expert distributes propaganda pamphlets about the subject carrying cheap caricatures of him wearing swastikas, has been in involved in various cases of litigation with the subject, and actually makes money writing bad stuff about the guy?

I'll give you the benefit that you actually believe what you are saying, in which case I think you are simply deluded and ignorant.

[Kato]

That's right, I don't, and there's an example in my post above. I like Jossi, but I can't support his editing [[Prem Rawat]] if he was indeed working for him.

Well take another trip down WP's irony wormhole. It was Jossi and yourself who hammered out the Conflict of Interest policies back in 2006. By the time you'd finished, you'd written:

Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

Jossi suggested adding "legal" on the talk page, and you agreed.

So we've got Mr Conflict of Interest himself, Jossi, ironing out the policy. Meanwhile, you added the "legal" while all the time assuming its perfectly acceptable for Chip Berlet - who has been in litigation with LaRouche - to be all over the LaRouche articles editing away to his heart's content?

And you didn't think people would have a problem with that? Ridiculous. Wikipedia deserves all the trouble caused by this LaRouche mess. It deserves it. What an incompetent shambles.

[Heat]

You seem to reach decisions based entirely on whether you like the players or not.

...and you don't?

That's right, I don't, and there's an example in my post above. I like Jossi, but I can't support his editing [[Prem Rawat]] if he was indeed working for him.

Really - then why are you silent in regards to Jayjg's POV editing, FenloniousMonk's abusive adminship and in regards to Proaboviac's harassment and outing of individuals - including your friend?

[Hell Freezes Over]

And you didn't think people would have a problem with that? Ridiculous. Wikipedia deserves all the trouble caused by this LaRouche mess. It deserves it. What an incompetent shambles.

What trouble was caused on WP by the "LaRouche mess"? Herschel was taken to ArbCom, a number of LaRouche sockpuppets were blocked, and an expert on LaRouche stopped editing because he felt WP panders too much to lunatics. What trouble was there other than that?

[Heat]

The question is would Britannica allow someone who is involved in the story to write their article? No. They might use him as a source but they wouldn't ask him to contribute.

Britannica had (or used to have in 2007-8) its animal rights article written by a law professor who is openly and actively pro-animal rights.

What we're dealing with here though is BLP and in particular one involving litigation. Peter C. Newman wrote a biography of former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and is certainly an expert on him. Mulroney sued Newman over the book's contents and they settled out of court. Newman's book certainly can be used as a source for Wikipedia's article on Mulroney but if he tried to edit Mulroney's article himself he'd be clearly considered to have a Conflict of Interest. The situation is the same with Berlet and Larouche's bio.

This post has been edited by Heat: Wed 15th April 2009, 2:34am

[Random832]

But with LaRouche, you want the experts topic-banned, the editors who opposed the LaRouche edits topic-banned, but the LaRouchies themselves, including those apparently employed by LaRouche -- for them you mention no restrictions whatsoever!

They're already banned; it's not worth mentioning.

[Lar]

And you didn't think people would have a problem with that? Ridiculous. Wikipedia deserves all the trouble caused by this LaRouche mess. It deserves it. What an incompetent shambles.

What trouble was caused on WP by the "LaRouche mess"? Herschel was taken to ArbCom, a number of LaRouche sockpuppets were blocked, and an expert on LaRouche stopped editing because he felt WP panders too much to lunatics. What trouble was there other than that?

Asked and answered. But if you wanted to ask it again...

We have a backlog of unanswered questions on this thread. Let's get to these first, after which I am sure thread participants will be happy to answer your questions:

You never addressed my question from yesterday, which is if you have a personal interest in making LaRouche look bad on Wikipedia? Here's why I ask:

- The LaRouche ArbCom case you were a party to found that you had committed personal attacks.
- You admit that you somehow know Herschel's name, living location, and place of work.
- You defend two rabidly (no, this word isn't an exaggeration, see the evidence others like Kato have presented in this thread) anti-LaRouche journalists' access to edit LaRouche articles while helping Jayjg and a few other admins ban all editors who appear even slightly pro-LaRouche
- You kept a secret page in your userspace that extensively documented suspected pro-LaRouche editors and sources related to the LaRouche articles.
- You often used to edit articles, frequently with Jayjg, about right-wing and anti-semitic topics, like New Anti-Semitism.
- Your editing almost, if not completely, always agreed with Jayjg's POV on those topics.
- Jayjg, as documented in a recent thread in his section in WR, is often quick and active at labeling BLP subjects as anti-semitic or anti-zionist, including, evidently, LaRouche
- You became irritated in a previous post in this thread, calling me a hypocrite, for asking why you never called-out Jayjg for POV-pushing or didn't advocate topic banning DKing and CBerlet

A good question, deserving of an answer. And don't forget mine:

Slimvirgin: Please address, in a non-evasive way, your relationship to the Sunsplash and Sweet Blue Water accounts.

You seem to reach decisions based entirely on whether you like the players or not.

...and you don't?

That's right, I don't, and there's an example in my post above. I like Jossi, but I can't support his editing [[Prem Rawat]] if he was indeed working for him.

One has to wonder if your lack of support of Jossi is because sticking up for him now is not possible now that the tide has turned so definitively? Or is it perhaps because he's no longer useful to you?

But more generally, the suggestion that you don't reach decisions based on alliances (another way of saying "whether you like the players or not")... is... laughable.

[Kato]

And you didn't think people would have a problem with that? Ridiculous. Wikipedia deserves all the trouble caused by this LaRouche mess. It deserves it. What an incompetent shambles.

What trouble was caused on WP by the "LaRouche mess"? Herschel was taken to ArbCom, a number of LaRouche sockpuppets were blocked, and an expert on LaRouche stopped editing because he felt WP panders too much to lunatics. What trouble was there other than that?

Hours and hours and hours wasted of good people's time. People who wanted nothing to do with your obviously flawed battle with LaRouche. All those RFC's and arbitrations. The not so small matter of innocent people being profiled as LaRouchies. The suspension of common sense and basic standards of neutrality and Conflict of Interest. The absolutely ridiculous state of affairs that means you are still arguing about it now.

According to Wikipedia's great proclamations, administrators are supposed should be impartial overseers of neutral content. But you started editing on LaRouche related topics within a month of editing. And you've obviously got serious personal issues with LaRouche as evidenced by this thread.

What on earth did you thing you were doing using admins tools on the LaRouche articles? What on earth did you think you were doing building up profiles of "LaRouche editors" in your private space? What on earth do you think you're doing still trying to justify the blatant disregard for tenets now?

If you still can't see the discrepancies in your conduct, and the obvious Conflicts of Interest problem caused by allowing Chip Berlet to cite himself on LaRouche articles, I can only conclude that you are simply deluded, and beyond reason.

[Hell Freezes Over]

According to Wikipedia's great proclamations, administrators are supposed should be impartial overseers of neutral content. But you started editing on LaRouche related topics within a month of editing. And you've obviously got serious personal issues with LaRouche as evidenced by this thread.

What on earth did you thing you were doing using admins tools on the LaRouche articles? What on earth did you think you were doing building up profiles of "LaRouche editors" in your private space? What on earth do you think you're doing still trying to justify the blatant disregard for tenets now?

If you still can't see the discrepancies in your conduct, and the obvious Conflicts of Interest problem caused by allowing Chip Berlet to cite himself on LaRouche articles, I can only conclude that you are simply deluded, and beyond reason.

Get your facts right, please.

1. I am discussing this only because Herschel started this thread about it. I'd be quite happy not to discuss it ever again, but I don't want his disinformation to stand uncorrected anymore. He has been doing it for several years here. It's time that someone gave another side of the story. None of you have ever tried to.

2. Admin tools were used on those articles by admins who were editing them *only with the consent of the ArbCom*.

3. Show me one "innocent" person who was wrongly blocked as a LaRouchie (blocked per the rulings in three ArbCom cases).

4. I have no serious personal issues with LaRouche, just as any other Wikipedian who opposes cult editing need have no serious personal issue with those cults. I have issues with single-purpose accounts who turn up to use WP as their latest platform and who violate the content policies.

As I said earlier, there's an enormous hypocrisy here among a small number of you. You applaud the editors who opposed the Prem Rawat cult editing, yet you attack the editors who did the same with LaRouche. The difference? You have a LaRouche employee here as staff, and you can use the LaRouche articles as another stick to beat me with, your favourite pastime. It is intellectually dishonest, and reasonable readers of these posts will see that, notwithstanding the insults that a handful of you keep posting.

[Heat]

I have issues with single-purpose accounts who turn up to use WP as their latest platform and who violate the content policies.

And yet you're silent in regards to Jayjg.

[Jon Awbrey]

I have issues with single-purpose accounts who turn up to use WP as their latest platform and who violate the content policies.

And I have issues with single-minded manic mobsters who rewrite the content policies to suit their platform, conspiring to harass, intimidate, and ban anyone who gets in the way of their programme.

Jon Awbrey

[Cla68]

But with LaRouche, you want the experts topic-banned, the editors who opposed the LaRouche edits topic-banned, but the LaRouchies themselves, including those apparently employed by LaRouche -- for them you mention no restrictions whatsoever!

They're already banned; it's not worth mentioning.

That's exactly why I didn't mention them.

So, why shouldn't you or Jayjg not be topic banned from the LaRouche articles? Perhaps in your case it's because you haven't touched them in more than a year, as far as I know. But what about Jayjg? The AN discussion I linked to earlier in this thread showed him performing a checkuser on editors of the LaRouche articles about six months ago. Based on that and his history related to POV-pushing in topics about what he perceives are anti-Semitism, do you agree that he should be topic banned?

This post has been edited by Cla68: Wed 15th April 2009, 3:43am

[Heat]

But with LaRouche, you want the experts topic-banned, the editors who opposed the LaRouche edits topic-banned, but the LaRouchies themselves, including those apparently employed by LaRouche -- for them you mention no restrictions whatsoever!

They're already banned; it's not worth mentioning.

That's exactly why I didn't mention them.

So, why shouldn't you or Jayjg not be topic banned from the LaRouche articles? Perhaps in your case it's because you haven't touched them in more than a year, as far as I know. But what about Jayjg? The AN discussion I linked to earlier in this thread showed him performing a checkuser on editors of the LaRouche articles about six months ago. Based on that and his history related to POV-pushing in topics about what he perceives are anti-Semitism, do you agree that he should be topic banned?

Or at the very least that he shouldn't be running Checkusers against users in topics in which he's been heavily involved? Slim has been very critical of Checkuser abuse but has been silent on one of the biggest abusers.

[Jon Awbrey]

Slim has been very critical of Checkuser abuse but has been silent on one of the biggest abusers.

SlimVirgin is solely concerned with the possibility that a Checkuser might be checking her.

Jon

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I'd say that the next step is, how can Wikipedia resolve this? Well, I suggest:

- Topic ban DKing and CBerlet (I know, I know, Berlet is "retired" from editing).
- Delete Berlet's BLP.
- Topic ban Jayjg, SV, and any of the other editors and admins who have pursued the "pro-LaRouche" editors using bad-faith tactics.

SV hasn't edited LaRouche articles in a long time, and I don't think Jayjg has ever edited them -- he's just the "go-to" guy when you want somebody banned. As of late, Will Beback is the sole OWNer.

[Cla68]

I'd say that the next step is, how can Wikipedia resolve this? Well, I suggest:

- Topic ban DKing and CBerlet (I know, I know, Berlet is "retired" from editing).
- Delete Berlet's BLP.
- Topic ban Jayjg, SV, and any of the other editors and admins who have pursued the "pro-LaRouche" editors using bad-faith tactics.

SV hasn't edited LaRouche articles in a long time, and I don't think Jayjg has ever edited them -- he's just the "go-to" guy when you want somebody banned. As of late, Will Beback is the sole OWNer.

By topic ban, I mean anything to do with the articles, including running checkuser or any other type of admin action.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

2. Admin tools were used on those articles by admins who were editing them *only with the consent of the ArbCom*.

There's the problem, right there. The real corruption lay in the implied consent of Fred Bauder, Jayjg, and Raul654. It was well known that SV and Will Beback were routinely using admin tools to prevail in content disputes at these articles.

3. Show me one "innocent" person who was wrongly blocked as a LaRouchie (blocked per the rulings in three ArbCom cases).

Only a person with CU access could do this. Is there anyone participating in this thread who has access?

I have issues with single-purpose accounts who turn up to use WP as their latest platform and who violate the content policies.

Yeah, right.

[The Joy]

2. Admin tools were used on those articles by admins who were editing them *only with the consent of the ArbCom*.

Why would ArbCom allow administrators actively editing LaRouche articles to use their administrator tools on those articles? Administrators are not allowed to use administrator tools on articles they are actively editing. Even if ArbCom gave the unorthodox order to allow it, it's downright unethical. It gives the editors with administrator tools more power and control over the articles. Neutral administrators should have been called to watch the LaRouche articles, not administrators actively involved in the editing process.

Or have I misinterpreted something?

Could an Arbitrator looking at this thread determine if such "consent" was ever given by the Committee?

[dtobias]

I don't think Jayjg has ever edited them -- he's just the "go-to" guy when you want somebody banned.

Was he the one who prompted the famous computer science paper, Go-To considered harmful?