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

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hell Freezes Over]

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

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

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

[Somey]

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

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

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

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

[Hell Freezes Over]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Somey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

So... happy?

[Kato]

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

Not necessarily so. The whole LaRouche vs anti-LaRouche thing was a farce that had spilled out all over Wikipedia. Wholly unrelated people were getting threatened by Wikipedia powerplayers as "LaRouchies" on a regular basis. People saw it with their own eyes and have not been swayed by Hersch at this site. It was outrageous, and one of my first posts at this site was to highlight one such offense.

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

New LaRouche editor

This looks quite familar now. [10] Like the last HK sockpuppet blocked by SlimVirgin, HonourableSchoolboy, this account has been editing articles that appear in my recent contributions history or are linked to my userpage. Sigh. 172 | Talk 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sadly, by now I can spot LaRouche propaganda from a mile away. 172 | Talk 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The message to SlimVirgin has since been deleted. But the spirit of the message is typical. The accused had nothing to do with LaRouche, and his edits had nothing to do with LaRouche. Yet he was immediately attacked as a "New LaRouche" editor.

A group of editors, led by SlimVirgin, and accompanied by anti-LaRouche campaigners Chip Berlet and Dennis King (whose Conflicts Of Interest were never questioned) were allowed to treat Wikipedia like an anti-LaRouche version of the McCarthy witch-hunts. Thus creating massive bad feelings and subverting the whole culture of the place.

[Hell Freezes Over]

Like the last HK sockpuppet blocked by SlimVirgin, HonourableSchoolboy, this account has been editing articles that appear in my recent contributions history or are linked to my userpage. Sigh. 172 | Talk 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The message to SlimVirgin has since been deleted. But the spirit of the message is typical. The accused had nothing to do with LaRouche, and his edits had nothing to do with LaRouche.

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

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

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

[Kato]

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

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

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

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

New LaRouche editor

This looks quite familar now. [10] Like the last HK sockpuppet blocked by SlimVirgin, HonourableSchoolboy, this account has been editing articles that appear in my recent contributions history or are linked to my userpage. Sigh. 172 | Talk 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sadly, by now I can spot LaRouche propaganda from a mile away. 172 | Talk 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The message to SlimVirgin has since been deleted. But the spirit of the message is typical. The accused had nothing to do with LaRouche, and his edits had nothing to do with LaRouche. Yet he was immediately attacked as a "New LaRouche" editor.

[Mackan]

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Mackan:

[The Adversary]

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

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

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

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

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

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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

I do?

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

[Hell Freezes Over]

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

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

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

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

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

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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

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

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

In the LaRouche II case, I freely admitted sharing computers with Weed Harper. From that point on, after learning that it was trouble, I discontinued the practice. That did not prevent you and Will Beback from banning umpteen accounts that got in your way, by using speculation about dynamic IP addresses.

It doesn't help your case to continue harping on this point, while ignoring questions about the Sweet Blue Water and Sunsplash accounts. My complaint is not about Wikipedia policies, but rather about the selective, POV-driven application of those policies.

[Hell Freezes Over]

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

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

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

In the LaRouche II case, I freely admitted sharing computers with Weed Harper.

You shared a computer with him at work, and you shared a computer with him at home too? Because that is what the technical evidence showed.

There's other evidence that unfortunately I'm not allowed to post, but there was also an email address. Not an identical address, but a very similar handle that you both used at the time, him on-wiki, you off-wiki.