Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

The normal ownership of the LaRouche articles by Slim and Will Beback has undergone an unusual degree of scrutiny lately. Slim 'n' Will did manage to ban two interlopers, but others remain who are editing their articles and it is making them very cranky.

One of the controversies is whether LaRouche should be called an "economist" in the lede of Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Both sides of this argument consider it to be a no-brainer. In hope of tilting things her way, Slim launched a RfC, which produced no consensus, and looked like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche&oldid=418160164#Comments after a week. Then, suddenly, a flood of new "oppose" votes came in. Why? Well, it appears that SV posted a notice http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=418791293#Lyndon_LaRouche, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=418791419#Lyndon_LaRouche, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics&oldid=418791826#Lyndon_LaRouche, and last but not least, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=418791487#Lyndon_LaRouche -- obviously, if you want a neutral assessment of LaRouche as an economist, the very first place you would go would be the Fringe Theories Noticeboard.

Now, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche&oldid=419080069#RSN_thread we see Jayen drawing the conclusion from the above posts that Slim could be canvassing. This is complicated by the fact that each and every one of her multiply-posted solicitations contains a serious misstatement of the facts, what crude and uncouth persons might refer to as a "lie": she asserts that LaRouche "has never been employed or independently published as [an economist]." Now, Slim does this sort of thing a lot, but normally on matters that can't be checked for veracity. http://www.amazon.com/Dialectical-economics-introduction-Marxist-political/dp/0669853089. Has she lost her touch?

BTW, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=419076959&oldid=419075189 is adorable.

Posted by: Emperor

I think it's really sad that Wikipedia's volunteer editors have to spend to much of their time defending their encyclopedia against nutjobs like Lyndon LaRouche supporters.

SlimVirgin should be commended for taking on this thankless task.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

I think it's really sad that Wikipedia's volunteer editors have to spend so much of their time defending their encyclopedia against nutjobs who spell the word “lead” as “lede”.

I don't know where SlimVirgin stands on this issue, so I'll just let that go till I do.

Seriously, folks, get the “lede” out.

Jon

Posted by: thekohser

How do you know Slim is a "volunteer"? Someone who spends that much time -- fervently -- on Wikipedia, defending laser-focused agendas, is likely a paid editor.

Posted by: Emperor

Good job.

Posted by: Emperor

Could be.,

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

Must be, because it's so incredibly rare for people to spend massive amounts of time on the internet unless they get paid for that purpose.

Posted by: dtobias

"Lede" is actually a term used in journalism, with that spelling, though it does derive from "lead". Supposedly the spelling was changed in the old days to avoid confusion with the metal "lead" of which movable type was made.

Posted by: thekohser

Touché!

.........Me...........................................You............

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

For paid editors, I think union regulations prohibit 72-hour editing stints. There must be some other motivation at work.

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

While it's entirely possible that she received money for editing, it seems unlikely that anyone would subject themselves to that just for a job. Also, I would imagine any editor actually paid to do so would probably keep a lower profile.

Really, it all goes far more towards the WP-as-MMO theory, as her behavior is much more in line with a WOW addict than a paid shill.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Yep. Lede is one of those words where you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, spell it in the journalistic shibboleth way. I've taken to writing it "lede/lead" to avoid just the kind of supercillious argument we just had.

Posted by: radek

I saw Slim's post at WikiProject:Economics and commented. Then Jayen posted on my talk page arguing for me to reconsider - he also posted on other people's talk pages. Both are canvassing. But as I said before, there's nothing wrong with canvassing (WP:CANVASS is one of the dumbest wikipedia policies in existence, as I've argued before) - and in fact, in real world one is usually commended for helping to inform potentially interested parties. I'm an interested party. I appreciated Slim making me aware of the discussion. I also appreciated Jayen providing the additional information on my talk - I am about to go get that AER book review article and will check up on it. This kind of "canvassing" just makes for better decision making. I see no problem with either.

As to the merits of the matter, as an economist I'm naturally going to be extremely skeptical of calling LaRouche "an economist" and so far I have not seen any sufficient sources to do that - the AER thing may be different though. My only encounter with the economics of the guy was when I read a column of his in that newspaper of his once while bored at a bus stop or something and it did seem like nonsense, AFAICR. My sense of it is that something like that is better discussed in the text rather featured prominently in the lede. There, "economic commentator" should suffice. I'm trying to keep an open mind though.

(Edit: Just checked AER. It's not a book review but rather just an advertisement in the "Back matter" section, nothing more)

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

I think the objectionable part is surreptitious canvassing intended to pad the consensus with one's own partisans.

Posted by: radek

Yeah well, that means that either
1. The other side is lazy - i.e. they don't really care that much about the issue in question or
2. One side has a lot more "partisans" than the other, hence they are the majority.

Same as in real world. Since when do we object to, say, political parties trying to motivate their supporters to go out and vote in elections? Since when do we object to interested parties making community members aware of an important town meeting? If somebody's building a waste dump a few blocks from my house, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the anti-waste dumping people to make me aware of that fact.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

How would you feel about the people who are building the dump stacking a hearing with pro-dumping people, without letting people in your neighborhood know about the hearing? Just asking.

Posted by: radek

Well, I wouldn't like it, but I would want to know why the anti-dumping people dropped the ball on that one. Arguing for one's opinion is called "persuasion". Provided that there was no legal limits to participation or other shenanigans of that type (say, tearing down posters of the anti-dumping people announcing the meeting) I'd probably lay the blame on the anti-dumping folks here - the problem would be not one of too much canvassing but too little of it.

What usually happens in real world situations of this type is that the other side says "we waz shut out we need to have another meeting", another meeting is called and now both sides do the canvassing. I think it should be the same way on Wikipedia. If someone thinks only one side got canvassed they should raise the point of discussion again, and canvass the editors they feel are appropriate. That's not applicable in this instance since both sides WERE already canvassing.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Yes, let's just agree that WP:CANVASS is one more "mad belief" that WP'ians are supposed to beleive, when it's clearly nuts. As also WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and so on. In all political and social systems there are clearly mad beliefs that you're not supposed to question. WP simply has as many as most religions, but not quite as many as most governments.

Example: here in the US, it's considered not unethical, and indeed expected and part of the job, for a prison guard to shoot a prisoner who is trying to escape and won't stop running. Even if the person is in prison for burglary or marijuana possession or a number of crimes where even a policeman wouldn't allowed to shoot an escaping criminal when caught in the very act that landed them in prison in the first place!

So why is this? Well, it's because we're mad. If you argue that it's because the prison guard can't tell the violent from the non-violent felons, that only argues that the two types shouldn't be housed together in the first place in prison, not that they should so that it creates additional problems in dealing with them when they try to escape. It' just crazy, and yet we do not question it. There are dozens of other examples, often not seen, unless a person travels from one society to another. Old-timers get so used to this stuff that they no longer even question it.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Don't quite agree. Wikipedia shows beliefs that go far beyond mere madness---it has beliefs that
are clearly paranoid, violently hostile to outsiders, completely irrational and unjustified by evidence,
and engraved in stone. Try reading some of the crap posted on SPI on a regular basis. It's not there
to "improve" the "encyclopedia", it's there to sniff out and expose witches and demons. Using tools
that are no more accurate or reliable than a ducking stool.

If that's not a "cult", the word has no real meaning.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Sticking to her normal MO, Slim stayed out of all the discussions over the article, waited until they died down, and then spent a couple of hours today reverting it back to the way she likes it, with the usual misleading edit summaries. However, Jayen is an intelligent and persistent opponent. He is raising the BLP issues in an insightful way. Slim, of course, does not give a rat's ass about BLP (except when the policy aligns with her POV.) Slim's view is that the article should reflect and amplify the views of LaRouche's critics, because they represent the correct POV. It's simple enough.

Here's a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=419733909&oldid=419728653 of POV-drenched writing:

Translation: LaRouche-affiliated organizations reportedly supported the the PRI and the labor movement in Mexico, Noriega in Panama, and Garcia in Peru. That's what an encyclopedia would say. One amusing touch is since it isn't credible to call Alan Garcia a "military dictator," then it is not sufficient to say that the LaRouche activists "supported" him -- they must be said to be "harassing the opposition."

Posted by: Milton Roe

Yeah, yeah, Slim is biased as hell, and will refuse to afford LaRouche even the same semi-courtesies given living dictators. LaRouche sounds far worse as a human being than (say) Fidel Castro. Which is very bizarre, since I don't think LaRouche has killed anybody (Slim would naturally disagree).

On the other hand, I notice you didn't address the part that says:

"When leaders of the Mexico Oil Workers' Union were jailed—corrupt leaders, according to Sarmiento—LaRouche said the union had been attacked by the Anglo-American Liberal Establishment, controlled by Scottish Rite Freemasonry."

Is that true? Because it sounds exactly like something LaRouche would say. Which is so gonzo that it's impossible to properly parody. Damn those Scottish Rite Freemasons-- I hate when they get involved in stong arm tactics against Mexican oil worker unions!

Can't they just stick with the funny costumes?

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I took a look at the http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=mexican+oil+workers+union+site%3Alarouchepub.com#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=%22La%20Quina%22%20jailed%20site%3Alarouchepub.com&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=b26d2f4496b7882f&pf=p&pdl=3000, and I what I found was that LaRouche blamed President Salinas de Gortari for the attacks on the Oil Workers' Union. From my experience, LaRouche's opponents like to put a little "spin" on his views to make them look more eccentric.

I would also add, however, that for Mexicans, the issue of Masonry is a much more volatile one than it is up here. When we think of Masons, we think of guys on little motor scooters. In Mexico, there were years of violent clashes between Masons and Catholics, including the Cristero War.

Posted by: Silver seren

Ugh, I don't want to have to deal with them anymore, I have better things to do.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

SlimVirgin and Will Beback successfully employ the "Shock and awe" tactic.

Posted by: Silver seren

I can't argue against stupidity. Attempting to do so will only result in my own arguments becoming stupid and not getting anywhere.

Logic can't break a veneer of bias.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=420028676#.22Death_of_....22_sections_in_Lyndon_LaRouche_BLP Slim 'n' Will are both getting really pissy, and totally frantic because they cannot plausibly ban Jayen as an "HK sock" (although Will is starting to make broad insinuations about Jayen "raising issues that were at one time raised by HK socks.")

The real highlight is where Slim complains:

Jayen responds, of course, with a full array of diffs about Slim's recent canvassing activity. But I give two thumbs up to the "forest fires of discussion" metaphor.

Posted by: EricBarbour

So far, you haven't actually gotten anywhere.

Posted by: Silver seren

I don't know if it's even possible to get anywhere against the two of them.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I wouldn't be so sure. It looks like at the BLP noticeboard, they are http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=420070798#.22Death_of_....22_sections_in_Lyndon_LaRouche_BLP

Posted by: Gruntled

It's quite possible if you get the full support of the WR cabal. However, they do have a nasty habit of withdrawing support at the wrong time and shooting people in the foot.

Posted by: gomi

The WR Cabal, such as it is, is pretty resolutely anti-gun. We don't shoot anyone, in any appendage. We also don't have much to do with what you can or cannot post on Wikipedia.

Posted by: Cla68

A WR participant, from what I've seen, usually acts on his/her conscience and has a low tolerance for nonsense, corruption, and hypocrisy.

Posted by: Gruntled

{{fact}}



Yes, no doubt there is a WR participant who meets that description. Probably you can find more than one.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Who is Off2riorob (T-C-L-K-R-D) ? I've never seen him edit or comment on these articles before, but he seems to have http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&curid=6768170&diff=420378268&oldid=420377871.

Posted by: Silver seren

Rob and I are often...opposed to each other in a lot of areas (the FBI seal incident being a major one), but most of those areas have to do with policy and not content. I have seen that he is a good editor who makes rather nice contributions. And he likes to jump into a lot of disputes.

I'm glad that he was able to grasp this one so well.

Posted by: Somey

I thought Daniel (Brandt) had decided that Selina was some sort of gun aficionado?

I'm not really anti-firearms in the broad sense, though I do support gun control laws, and I wouldn't mind if they were a good deal tougher than they are now. Of course, I haven't had a friend or relative get shot, either. I also realize this is totally off-topic... sorry!

Anyway, I do think we should be realistic about this latest incident - if people are giving SV and Will Beback a hard time about their treatment of Lyndon LaRouche, it probably has more to do with SV's and Will Beback's general behavior than any desire to be nicer to LaRouche. Meanwhile, I can't imagine LaRouche living much longer - isn't he well past 90 years old now? What I mean is, SV and Will Beback are lifers at this. Why not compromise a little bit now, and wait a couple years for the guy to pass on, at which point the BLP constraints will be lifted and they can paint him they way they really want to, as Worse Than Satan, etc.? What's their hurry? Will they not feel like they've "won" sufficiently if they can't do it while he's still alive?

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=420385542#.22Death_of_....22_sections_in_Lyndon_LaRouche_BLP Rob hit a major nerve with Will Beback, who is deeply offended because as everyone knows, he is not anti-LaRouche.

That reminds me of a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche&oldid=415879138

Posted by: Silver seren

Is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=420384133&oldid=420383596 meant to be a jab at me? And about this thread, I suppose. It made me laugh.

And http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=420384133. Will is not going to be happy with that comment.

Posted by: radek

Dude ran for ArbCom in the last election. I sort of appreciate his presence and often times he's in the right (haven't bothered to check in this case). But lots of folks find him... you know, not phony/butt kissing enough for Wikipedia. So he lost.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

It is truly astonishing that after two days of intensive discussion neither SV nor WB have acknowledged in any way that their preferred version has a BLP problem. They continue to shrug off every other comment from every other editor. SV has this to say:

Some one should ask her to name the editors who think BLP has a bad reputation.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

And now she says there are http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=420425726&oldid=420420651.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Slim and Will have perfected a technique of cherry-picking sources, and then cherry-picking negative material from within those sources. Slim then argues that there could not possibly be a BLP problem, because "We therefore base our article on those articles, giving attention to the issues they give attention to, and summarizing in the way they summarize." You see, Slim 'n' Will could not possibly by biased in the way that they cull material from sources and frame it in the article; it is the sources themselves that are to blame.

It is also hilarious that Slim claims that "LaRouche employees" drove Dennis King and Chip Berlet away from Wikipedia. Chip Berlet left in a giant tantrum because of a 24 hour block that he brought upon himself with his antics, a block by Georgewilliamherbert, an administrator who had no love for LaRouche, let alone a paycheck from LaRouche. In the case of Dennis King, his equally infantile behavior, plus his giant COI, was making him a liability to Slim 'n' Will, and I recall that they themselves advised him to cool it.

=

Posted by: EricBarbour

Once again, people here appear to be surprised by SV's and Will's behaviour.

They've been doing this sociopathic act since 2005 at least, and yet people still act
as if it was some kind of news.....

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I am dying to know what http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Fat_Man_Who_Never_Came_Back/JohnBambenek&diff=prev&oldid=331048044 was before it was oversighted. Cla68 refers to it on Will's talk page as a joke, evidently on the Fat Man's user talk page. It was evidently good enough to bring down the WikiWrath.

Posted by: Cla68

I believe it was admin deleted, not oversighted. It was from that episode a year ago when the Fat Man pulled off a brilliant troll on several of WP's most self-righteous admins by defending the BLP on John Bambenek, which was up for deletion for the upteenth time. When Will Beback justified deletion of the article, Fat Man told him that he (Will) didn't like Bambenek, "because he is a LaRouche supporter."

Posted by: Rhindle

I say it's time for an Rfc re the involvement of SV and WB in the LaRouche articles. That should be fun.

Posted by: Cla68

Since there have already been two ArbCom cases over the LaRouche topic area, an RfC may not be necessary. Straight to arbitration may be the appropriate action.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

I remember that one -- and Beback replied with "Huh?" Did they delete that just because you linked to it on a talk page?

Posted by: EricBarbour

Feel free to try and get those Arby-Commies to act. Good luck sonny.

Tellya what: if you succeed in getting an arb case opened, I'll give you a weird gift.
Something completely useless that you can't buy in any store.

Posted by: Cla68

After I linked to it, Will nominated it for speedy deletion, the rationale being that it was the talk page of a deleted user account page.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Just for completeness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Bambenek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Bambenek_%282nd_nomination%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_C._A._Bambenek_%283rd_nomination%29 (in that one, someone claiming to be Bambenek himself asked for deletion!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_C._Bambenek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/John_Bambenek

It's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Perennial_requests#John_Bambenek as a "perennial request". Right after the Gay Nigger Association of America.

In most of them, there's Will, manipulating and backstabbing.

And don't forget http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/wikipedia_garbage_in_garbage_out/ on MercatorNet.

Yeah, great "encyclopedia" you've got there, assmunchers.

Posted by: Silver seren

Does that mean there's a chance for getting it back, considering the perennial request for the Gay Nigger Association of America has finally resulted in it being overturned and the article reinstated?

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Never let it be said that Will can't take a joke.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

On the various talk pages, Will keeps denying that he pushes POV on LaRouche articles, demanding that someone show him a diff. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement&curid=910778&diff=420623466&oldid=420401697 would be a good place to start.

Posted by: Somey

I have no particular interest in this whole business personally, but since when is Chip Berlet "a widely cited expert on the far right in America"? He isn't a widely-cited expert in anything, from what I can determine. Unless you count Slimmy's own contributions to Wikipedia... Besides, I don't think he knows much about the far right anyway. His main interest, aside from Lyndon LaRouche, seems to be criticizing left-wing folks for not being "rainbow" enough. His usefulness to American liberalism is practically nil. If he wanted to do something worthwhile, he wouldn't spend all his time on a marginal-at-best figure like LaRouche, who is really just a stalking-horse to him - I can understand that he hates LaRouche for referring to himself as a "Democrat," something he clearly isn't (though he might believe in democracy to some degree), but Berlet might as well write for the History Channel, for all the good he does.

Slimmy makes a good point about the effect of LaRouche's having run for President 8 times (is that all? I thought it was at least 50 times), but it's still pretty damn obvious that she and Mr. Beback have cherry-picked, if not actually rigged, sources for those articles practically from the get-go. It remains one of the best examples of well-poisoning Wikipedia has - even if they were "topic-banned," the shit-puddle effect would still intimidate other WP'ers for a long time to come - maybe 2-3 years or more.

Posted by: Silver seren

He dislikes LaRouche because they were both in the same group in the Communist Party and LaRouche "besmirched" it or something when he left. Or that's what i've picked up from the bouts between Jayen and Will/Slim.

Posted by: Somey

I could certainly believe that - actually, is there anything or anyone LaRouche hasn't "besmirched"? Other than folks like Beethoven, Liebnitz, Plato, and George Washington? That's the whole point, seems like.

Mind you, I do think he deserves some props for his understanding of modern economic control structures.

Posted by: lilburne

Really? I had no idea. But if so http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=420577206&oldid=420576502 eh!

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Not so. For starters, neither was ever in the CPUSA. They were in other leftist groups, and you may not place much stock in sectarian differences among leftists, but they certainly do. Also, they were never in the same group.

Berlet really isn't much of a leftist, which seems to be Somey's point, more or less. He discovered early on that there was money to be made as a watchdog for Wall Street foundations, particularly the Ford Foundation, keeping leftist groups from criticizing the financial power structure by accusing them of "conspiracism."

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Berlet doesn't write much about LaRouche now. He has written a lot about the Tea Party lately. Could you elaborate on why you think LaRouche isn't a Democrat? If you put aside the conspiracies and focus on policy, he seems to me to advocate the standard Democratic line from 1930-1970 -- pro-unions, pro-regulation, etc. So he's a throwback, IMO. But clearly you are thinking differently.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

I see that Slim, having lost the argument at the BLP board, is starting over from scratch, with a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=next&oldid=420668479 and the usual http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=next&oldid=420671706 to promote it. Isn't that called "forum shopping"? Or, "starting forest fires of discussion"?

Posted by: Silver seren

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Comments

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Note that after the first BLPN thread went overwhelmingly against her and Jayen removed the Duggan material, Slim immediately restores it in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=420668063&oldid=420661531. You'll have to look carefully for it, because she throws up an astonishing smokescreen of other miscellaneous edits to cover her tracks. And before you click on the link, guess whether she says anything about it in her edit summary.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Yeah, but we get to see Slim promoting the reliability of "reports in high quality sources". Which means to her "what some guy told a big newspaper one time, and they printed it." Sometimes it means "what some guy told a small newspaper one time, and they printed, and a big newspaper then picked up."

Slim has no science. Her world is journalism, and a slimy one it is, too. Alas, she personally has written more of WP:V policy than any other author (3 times more than the next author, her pet Crum375). Together they have made more edits to the policy page than the next 10 editors put together (literally!)

A similar pattern is repeated on WP:IRS (the reliable source guideline page) where again, SlimVirgin is historical contributor #1, and Jossi is #2 (with 1/2 of her edits). Together, this tag-team had edited more of that guideline than the next 8 editors put together.

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/articleinfo/index.php?article=Wikipedia:Verifiability&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/articleinfo/index.php?article=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia

So, WP's policies on verifiability and reliable sources reflect SlimVirgin's view of what a reliable source is. Which is (alas) nonsense.

Posted by: lilburne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#is_this_WP:SYN.3F for fucks sake just how cossetted are these guys? What is being described here was Standard Operating Procedure across most radical groups through the 60s and 70s. There was a book by Saul Alinsky "Rules for radical" which outlined all those plays. Including "If your organisation is too small to make a noise, stink up the place", "the threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself", "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it".

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

I think that it is true that SlimVirgin is making a lot of surprising newbie mistakes. She admits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=420725776#RfC:_Should_Lyndon_LaRouche_contain_a_paragraph_about_Jeremiah_Duggan.3F that for all intents and purposes, she was fishing for editors that think the LaRouche group is a cult, so that they would share her bias and vote her way on the RfC regardless of how it works with Wikipedia rules.

Posted by: Silver seren

I thought that was why the Fringe Wikiproject existed in the first place?

Posted by: Milton Roe

For wiki-cultists, narcissists, and superannuated children (another name for narcissist) to attack their previous gurus, or other gurus? Indeed, you've got it.

Liburne's rules for radicals could as well be rules for normal 4 year-olds. A great deal of "performance art" is adults merely behaving like small children.

The BLP of LaRouche on WP illustrates so many things wrong with WP at one time, that it probably could be used all by itself, like some kind of universal bad example, like the ineluctable Nazis of Godwin..

Just off the top of my head, the LaRouche BLP illustrates:

[1] The unavoidability of WP:SYNTH in any WP article.
[2] The unavoidability of somebody using BLPs to get revenge, or to attack particular disliked people.
[3] The badness of allowing BLP on WP due to [1] and [2] (just two among many OTHER reasons).
[4] The badness of modern journalism as a reliable source about anything.
[5] The badness of WP's WP:IRS policy which includes newspapers in the category of "high-quality information sources" even when they merely repeat what some family member told some reporter.
[6] The badness of allowing a few editors to control WP policy by steady and unrelenting editing of key policy-pages like WP:V and WP:IRS to suit their personal agendas.
[7] The badness of allowing WP admins who are involved in disputes to tag-team up to revert content to their own liking, and block and ban editors who have differing viewpoints. SUX2BU, Herschel.
[8] The badness of defining "meatpuppets" via the "Duck test", which essentially allows the banning of people for their opinions, as a violation of anti SOCKPUPPET policy.
[9] The badness of allowing accussations of antisemitism to be used as a weapon, to de-rail any other discussion of anything at all. And in the service of nearly any viewpoint one desires, if one can only locate an Unhappy Jewish Person (UJP) who is involved in the particular issue.
[10] The badness of SlimVirgin, on account of her involvement in [1] through [9] inclusive.
And finally:
[11] The badness of SlimVirgin in general, for reasons not specified above.

Have I missed any? I was hoping for an even dozen.

Posted by: lilburne

We all did it to some extent. The http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=coventry&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=15.03761,42.495117&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Coventry,+United+Kingdom&ll=52.411199,-1.489704&spn=0.001891,0.005187&t=h&z=18 was once the old football stadium, and the housing in the foreground was earmarked for demolition to build a car park, the block houses around Mowbray street had been bought by the club and they had started to gut them. We wanted the council to deny planning permission and had squatted the houses to stop further 'vandalism'. Things weren't looking good as the senior councillors were arm in arm with the club. However, they had young teenage girls, and I had a couple of cute teenage boys (not mine BTW I was only a couple of years older). Suffice to say that within 10 days of the council vote those kids had been shown the cities overcrowding and homelessness, and the noise and stink was firmly in the councillor's homes.

There are other residential streets in the city that are similarly NOT car parks.

One day I might relate the story of http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=upper+heyford+bicester&hl=en&sll=51.930454,-1.276234&sspn=0.027525,0.06403&ie=UTF8&view=map&f=d&daddr=Upper+Heyford,+Bicester,+Oxfordshire+OX25&geocode=CR-Pt9sqLD1lFVZlGAMdtobs_w&ll=51.933378,-1.262312&spn=0.007647,0.02075&t=h&z=16 of this place.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Perhaps, but nowadays it SUX2BSV. During my 2-year sojourn at WP, I was never the WP:OWNer of any of those articles. I was fighting a defensive action to keep them moderately defamatory as opposed to ultra-defamatory. Compare my lot with that of SV, along with Will, who plays Igor to her Dr. Frankenstein.They have been the unchallenged WP:OWNers for over 5 years, and now they see the mob gathering outside the gates with torches and pitchforks. Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

Posted by: Emperor

Whatever. She's won. Five years of control means she plays the Wikipedia game much better than you. You're here, complaining about her to a bunch of nitwits, and she has hundreds of people a day reading her article. Have some grace and quit badgering the poor lady.

Posted by: Silver seren

I think Jayen will be a much better owner though.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

All good points, but I am beginning to wonder whether there is not a growing tendency to take the BLP policy seriously. Scott MacDonald made a big splash by doing it, and now there is a whole flock of new editors at the Lyndon LaRouche article giving Slim a hard time. Slim despises BLP, you can tell from her comment about it having a bad reputation among some editors (who have yet to be named.) But if the "next generation" of Wikipedia editors decides to take it seriously, then Wikipedia could possibly become actually more responsible than the "reliable sources" press (who will defame public figures at the drop of a hat.) And the old "cabal" types at Wikipedia may have to step aside.



As somebody around here said recently, it aint' over until the slim virgin sings.

Posted by: EricBarbour

You so funny!

Posted by: Milton Roe

I see that she has created account:SlimVirgin II a while ago. No doubt in the process of eventually making her edit history disappear.

Yeah, if I were her, I'd do that, too.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Dang, they're coming out faster than new iPod models. Introducing: SlimVirgin III (T-C-L-K-R-D) !

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=420875495&oldid=420874433