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.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

To be fair, Cberlet didn't control the articles in question. Slim and Will Beback did. Berlet served at their pleasure.

[Random832]

Cberlet didn't control the articles in question. Slim and Will Beback did. Berlet served at their pleasure.

Says you.

[Milton Roe]

Cberlet didn't control the articles in question. Slim and Will Beback did. Berlet served at their pleasure.

Says you.

It's true that Berlet didn't have the block-button and the others did. However, due to his subject matter, he was given free reign.

I believe it has been mentioned that the fastest way to climb the WP social ladder is much like how to climb it in in the modern media: play on Jewish paranoia, and attack in all directions outward from the NeoCon/pro-Israeli/vaguely squishy liberal center. Just use the terms neo-fascist, racist, white supremicist, and new-antisemitism a lot. Most of the time they can be interchangable.

That's what Berlet did for a living before he came to WP anyway, and it's still what he's doing after he's gone. It's also more or less what Jayjg does for a living, apparently, and Slim has edited that way for years (without using the terms, there's still not a playing card worth of difference between SlimVirgin's wiki-politics and Berlet or Jayjg's).

As to how Will Beback got any of this pineapple up his rear, I have no idea. There must be a story, there, but I don't know it.

[Somey]

I believe it has been mentioned that the fastest way to climb the WP social ladder is much like how to climb it in in the modern media: play on Jewish paranoia, and attack in all directions outward from the NeoCon/pro-Israeli/vaguely squishy liberal center. Just use the terms neo-fascist, racist, white supremicist, and new-antisemitism a lot. Most of the time they can be interchangable.

Don't forget homophobic!

In fact, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion right now, if it weren't for the homophobia of one of our (now former) members.

Ironically enough... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Cla68]

Don't forget homophobic!

Wow:

Revert: read the quote - it is an accurate summary of a vicious statement by a homophobic bigot

SV, you asked me for an edit by CBerlet that is as bad as HK's. I think this edit summary is much worse. It's a clear violation of BLP. I checked CBerlet's talk page for the days following that edit summary and saw nary a warning or block from you or anyone else who I assume were closely watching that article to make sure no pro-LaRouche editors touched it.

To be fair, SV's name is missing from what I believe was the last pro-LaRouche editor witchhunt, but notice in that thread that Jayjg performed the checkuser, and JzG, Tom Harrison, and John Nevard were all active in pushing for action, in addition to Will Beback.

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Hell Freezes Over]

Don't forget homophobic!

Wow:

Revert: read the quote - it is an accurate summary of a vicious statement by a homophobic bigot

SV, you asked me for an edit by CBerlet that is as bad as HK's. I think this edit summary is much worse. It's a clear violation of BLP. I checked CBerlet's talk page for the days following that edit summary and saw nary a warning or block from you or anyone else who I assume were closely watching that article to make sure no pro-LaRouche editors touched it.

I haven't watched the LaRouche articles for a long time.

Yes, that edit summary was a BLP violation, though nowhere near as bad as creating WP articles in order to attack people, as Herschel did. But you might want to look at the LaRouche quote that Berlet was responding to. LaRouche is here talking about the need to take action against people with AIDS -- as I recall, he wanted to quarantine them:

"We have another purpose in fighting AIDS, for our fighting AIDS � for our inducing people to do what they should have done anyway without our speaking a word. Government agencies should have done this. There should be no issue! But government agencies didn't! That's the issue. Why didn't they? Because of a cultural paradigm shift. They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States. (I don't know why they're "gay", they're the most miserable creatures I ever saw! The so-called gay lobby, 8% of the population, the adult electorate; the drug users. There are 20 million cocaine sniffers in the United States, at least. Of course it does affect their mind; it affects the way they vote! ...

"Where did this nonsense come from? Oh, we don't want to offend the gays! Gays are sensitive to their civil rights; this will lead to discrimination against gays!

"They’re already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They’ll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they’re beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up�which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It’s a matter of children’s civil rights!" -- Lyndon LaRouche, Executive Intelligence Review, January 10, 1986. http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/context_quotes.html#gays

[the fieryangel]

Yes, that edit summary was a BLP violation, though nowhere near as bad as creating WP articles in order to attack people, as Herschel did. But you might want to look at the LaRouche quote that Berlet was responding to. LaRouche is here talking about the need to take action against people with AIDS -- as I recall, he wanted to quarantine them:
-- Lyndon LaRouche, Executive Intelligence Review, January 10, 1986. http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/context_quotes.html#gays

Leaving aside the moral aspects of making such a statement, let's talk about inclusion of this kind of material in an encyclopedia: Would Britannica include that sort of thing? Not in the way that WP does, I should think.

It all goes back to the core policy of NPOV: is adding this information "neutral"? I really can't see how it could be.

You know, if you people would just enforce your policies as they are written in a fair and level manner, then 99% of this type of stuff wouldn't happen in the first place.

[Hell Freezes Over]

Yes, that edit summary was a BLP violation, though nowhere near as bad as creating WP articles in order to attack people, as Herschel did. But you might want to look at the LaRouche quote that Berlet was responding to. LaRouche is here talking about the need to take action against people with AIDS -- as I recall, he wanted to quarantine them:
-- Lyndon LaRouche, Executive Intelligence Review, January 10, 1986. http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/context_quotes.html#gays

Leaving aside the moral aspects of making such a statement, let's talk about inclusion of this kind of material in an encyclopedia: Would Britannica include that sort of thing? Not in the way that WP does, I should think.

It all goes back to the core policy of NPOV: is adding this information "neutral"? I really can't see how it could be.

By neutral, all we mean is that we publish the views of all reliable published sources. The overwhelming majority of sources all over the western world, when writing about LaRouche, talk about allegations of cultism, homophobia, antisemitism, misogyny, his shift from extreme left to extreme right, his attempts to become president, his bizarre attacks on Britain, including that the Beatles were some kind of front for British intelligence, and that the Queen is the head of an international drug cartel. Then there are the claims by researchers who've investigated him, or former members, of their names being blackened, or their homes or pets being attacked.

Britannica doesn't have detailed articles on anything the way we do on WP, so comparing them doesn't help us to work out what's appropriate. If you're going to have a detailed article, it's impossible to leave this stuff out, because there's so much of it. Also, why would we *want* to leave it out? He did say those things, and he presumably stands by all or most of them.

This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over:

[Heat]

Yes, that edit summary was a BLP violation, though nowhere near as bad as creating WP articles in order to attack people, as Herschel did. But you might want to look at the LaRouche quote that Berlet was responding to. LaRouche is here talking about the need to take action against people with AIDS -- as I recall, he wanted to quarantine them:
-- Lyndon LaRouche, Executive Intelligence Review, January 10, 1986. http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/context_quotes.html#gays

Leaving aside the moral aspects of making such a statement, let's talk about inclusion of this kind of material in an encyclopedia: Would Britannica include that sort of thing? Not in the way that WP does, I should think.

It all goes back to the core policy of NPOV: is adding this information "neutral"? I really can't see how it could be.

By neutral, all we mean is that we publish the views of all reliable published sources. The overwhelming majority of sources all over the western world, when writing about LaRouche, talk about allegations of cultism, homophobia, antisemitism, misogyny, his shift from extreme left to extreme right, his attempts to become president, his bizarre attacks on Britain, including that the Beetles were some kind of front for British intelligence, and that the Queen is the head of an international drug cartel. Then there are the claims by researchers who've investigated him, or former members, of their names being blackened, or their homes or pets being attacked.

Britannica doesn't have detailed articles on anything the way we do on WP, so comparing them doesn't help us to work out what's appropriate. If you're going to have a detailed article, it's impossible to leave this stuff out, because there's so much of it. Also, why would we *want* to leave it out? He did say those things, and he presumably stands by all or most of them.

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. Berlet can be used as a source for Larouche articles but he shouldn't be editing them. You haven't addressed this point despite the fact that it's been brought up several times but, again, cherry picking which questions you answer is part of how you operate.

And I think you mean the Beatles, the rock band not the Beetles, the insect. It's a take off of "beat".

This post has been edited by Heat:

[the fieryangel]

Yes, that edit summary was a BLP violation, though nowhere near as bad as creating WP articles in order to attack people, as Herschel did. But you might want to look at the LaRouche quote that Berlet was responding to. LaRouche is here talking about the need to take action against people with AIDS -- as I recall, he wanted to quarantine them:
-- Lyndon LaRouche, Executive Intelligence Review, January 10, 1986. http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/context_quotes.html#gays

Leaving aside the moral aspects of making such a statement, let's talk about inclusion of this kind of material in an encyclopedia: Would Britannica include that sort of thing? Not in the way that WP does, I should think.

It all goes back to the core policy of NPOV: is adding this information "neutral"? I really can't see how it could be.

By neutral, all we mean is that we publish the views of all reliable published sources. The overwhelming majority of sources all over the western world, when writing about LaRouche, talk about allegations of cultism, homophobia, antisemitism, misogyny, his shift from extreme left to extreme right, his attempts to become president, his bizarre attacks on Britain, including that the Beetles were some kind of front for British intelligence, and that the Queen is the head of an international drug cartel. Then there are the claims by researchers who've investigated him, or former members, of their names being blackened, or their homes or pets being attacked.

Britannica doesn't have detailed articles on anything the way we do on WP, so comparing them doesn't help us to work out what's appropriate. If you're going to have a detailed article, it's impossible to leave this stuff out, because there's so much of it. Also, why would we *want* to leave it out? He did say those things, and he presumably stands by all or most of them.

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. Berlet can be used as a source for Larouche articles but he shouldn't be editing them. You haven't addressed this point despite the fact that it's been brought up several times but, again, cherry picking which questions you answer is part of how you operate.

And I think you mean the Beatles, the rock band not the Beetles, the insect. It's a take off of "beat".

"NPOV" is supposed to include all positions, both pro and con, with adjustments made for "weight". This means effectively that you have to make room for all positions in any given article. If somebody finds a source which says "LaRouche is the best thing since sliced bread" and it fits the RS criteria, you have to give that fact room in the article. Verifiability, not facts, wasn't that it?

For this process to work, you have to have procedure which does not allow material to be removed because somebody doesn't like it. It should be that something which is sourced should be not removable and removing that should be the bannable offense, not the type of political jerry mongering that typically happens now.

If you had to include a source which was not your own work and the information sourced could not be removed, then you might have a chance of coming up with "balanced" articles.

There are all types of people in the World. I just wonder if it is the place of an encyclopedia to be making judgments about who is "homophobic" and who is "racist" etc. It seems to me that if you start allowing moral judgments like that, we get to the horrors of things like the old version of the Crystal Gail Mangum article. We don't want to go there again, do we?

[Sarcasticidealist]

"NPOV" is supposed to include all positions, both pro and con, with adjustments made for "weight". This means effectively that you have to make room for all positions in any given article. If somebody finds a source which says "LaRouche is the best thing since sliced bread" and it fits the RS criteria, you have to give that fact room in the article. Verifiability, not facts, wasn't that it?

That's not true; the requirement to adjust for weight is perfectly consistent with some reliably sourced opinions not being sufficiently widely held/covered to merit any mention at all in an article.

(Not trying to cast myself in the role of defender of Wikipedia's content policies, but you were misrepresenting that one.)

[the fieryangel]

"NPOV" is supposed to include all positions, both pro and con, with adjustments made for "weight". This means effectively that you have to make room for all positions in any given article. If somebody finds a source which says "LaRouche is the best thing since sliced bread" and it fits the RS criteria, you have to give that fact room in the article. Verifiability, not facts, wasn't that it?

That's not true; the requirement to adjust for weight is perfectly consistent with some reliably sourced opinions not being sufficiently widely held/covered to merit any mention at all in an article.

(Not trying to cast myself in the role of defender of Wikipedia's content policies, but you were misrepresenting that one.)

Here are the first two paragraphs of the NPOV policy as it currently stands :

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.
Policy shortcut:
WP:YESPOV

The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.

So, I believe that my description fits into the spirit of these two paragraphs. How this is applied in practice is another matter indeed...

[Sarcasticidealist]

So, I believe that my description fits into the spirit of these two paragraphs. How this is applied in practice is another matter indeed...

From the "Undue weight" portion of that page:

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

The classic example is whether to include in the article about Elizabeth II the (documented in reliable sources) view that she's actually an extra-dimensional lizard person. Consensus (in the real sense of the word) is no.

[the fieryangel]

So, I believe that my description fits into the spirit of these two paragraphs. How this is applied in practice is another matter indeed...

From the "Undue weight" portion of that page:

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

The classic example is whether to include in the article about Elizabeth II the (documented in reliable sources) view that she's actually an extra-dimensional lizard person. Consensus (in the real sense of the word) is no.

except in the article about the "Theory that Queen Elizabeth II is an extra-dimensional lizard person" article, in which that information would have to be presented, as well as the contradictory viewpoint.

I really fail to see how LaRouche publications and sources could be kept out of any article about LaRouche and his movement, if you follow this policy.

If that's what reliable sources are saying, we do include it. We can't say that, according to NPOV, we must include all reliable sources, but then add, "except for the ones that make what we feel are inappropriate judgments."

Then why do these problems occur? They do, and according to the policies themselves and the underlying idea of objectivism, they shouldn't.

Are you saying that it is an objective reality that, for example, women should be excluded from the List of major opera composers (or more correctly, confined to a ghetto) because nobody had any sources which were current and included information about women? And if you answer that this is supposedly an evolving process, just try to change one thing on that list and see what happens.

[Hell Freezes Over]

I really fail to see how LaRouche publications and sources could be kept out of any article about LaRouche and his movement, if you follow this policy.

LaRouche publications aren't kept out of articles about LaRouche and his movement. The problem with Herschel was he was trying to use them as sources in other articles too.

Are you saying that it is an objective reality that, for example, women should be excluded from the List of major opera composers (or more correctly, confined to a ghetto) because nobody had any sources which were current and included information about women? And if you answer that this is supposedly an evolving process, just try to change one thing on that list and see what happens.

We can only include e.g. women in lists of opera composers if we have reason to believe that women composed operas. If we have reason to believe it, it must be because someone has written about it.

[the fieryangel]

Are you saying that it is an objective reality that, for example, women should be excluded from the List of major opera composers (or more correctly, confined to a ghetto) because nobody had any sources which were current and included information about women? And if you answer that this is supposedly an evolving process, just try to change one thing on that list and see what happens.

We can only include e.g. women in lists of opera composers if we have reason to believe that women composed operas. If we have reason to believe it, it must be because someone has written about it.

Well, people have written about it, but the information is excluded from the article because of WP:OWN issues.

Let's explore this further : Have a look at the article Poseur, which gives the idea that this expression is almost exclusively part of the vocabulary of pop music genres. Yes, there is a brief mention of the French origin of the expression and then a brief mention of Norman Mailer before several long segments about Punk, Metal, Hiphop and other musical genres. Wouldn't you call this giving "undue weight" to what is clearly a sub genre of the meaning of this word, rather than the principal meaning?

Isn't this article inherently misleading?

[Hell Freezes Over]

Well, people have written about it, but the information is excluded from the article because of WP:OWN issues.

Well, that's a different issue. If there are good sources, the material should be in the article.

Let's explore this further : Have a look at the article Poseur, which gives the idea that this expression is almost exclusively part of the vocabulary of pop music genres. Yes, there is a brief mention of the French origin of the expression and then a brief mention of Norman Mailer before several long segments about Punk, Metal, Hiphop and other musical genres. Wouldn't you call this giving "undue weight" to what is clearly a sub genre of the meaning of this word, rather than the principal meaning?

Isn't this article inherently misleading?

I don't know enough to be able to answer, except to say that the non-music-genre use of the term is still about people adopting mannerisms not their own, so I wouldn't call it misleading exactly. Maybe you could add some of the non-music sources to the lead, just to make clear there are/were other groups who've used the term?

[the fieryangel]

I don't know enough to be able to answer, except to say that the non-music-genre use of the term is still about people adopting mannerisms not their own, so I wouldn't call it misleading exactly. Maybe you could add some of the non-music sources to the lead, just to make clear there are/were other groups who've used the term?

Actually, I can't edit on WP because I'm under a "community ban" (which I do respect). However, if I were to edit this article, I would start by cutting a good 90 % of it as BLP violations (debating whether people are "poseurs" or not, equating "poseur" with "fags", other statements which really have no business in an encyclopedia). I would then probably create a "disambiguation" page with the "mainstream" usage and the "pop music" specific genre usage.

By this time, since I'd probably be banned and/or hauled before Arbcom by the people who "own" this article, the question is probably moot.

I'll say it for you: this article is misleading. There is clearly an agenda behind it. That seems quite clear to me. Why is this allowed to remain like this?