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.

[Jon Awbrey]

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.

They call that a "Courtesy".

See Also

• Kangaroo Kourtesy

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

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.

I think most people who are banned tend complain about pages that are not deleted, or at least they complain more loudly, so that might be part of the reason this is the default thing to do.

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 (in 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.

Well in this uhh day and age you would probably find enough people arguing that one can look topic bans in the face and laugh as long as they cite BLP as their reason. However in practice the judgment would probably depend more on the topic than which editor is banned from it. The final frontier as it were. :s

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.

Of course he missed it. He wasn't born yet.

In my mind you probably have no chance of being unbanned, but stranger things are certainly possible. Consider Rootology's Nelson Mandela stunt. Of course he timed it with Obama's inauguration, which was pure genius I thought. Somehow I doubt anything like that will work in regard to LaRouche. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Heat]

Of course he missed it. He wasn't born yet.

In my mind you probably have no chance of being unbanned, but stranger things are certainly possible. Consider Rootology's Nelson Mandela stunt. Of course he timed it with Obama's inauguration, which was pure genius I thought. Somehow I doubt anything like that will work in regard to LaRouche. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Sorry I missed that. What are you referring to?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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.

I think most people who are banned tend complain about pages that are not deleted, or at least they complain more loudly, so that might be part of the reason this is the default thing to do.

Which reminds me -- there had already been a battle over the deletion of User:Herschelkrustofsky by (you guessed it) SlimVirgin. It was restored by User:Ashibaka and then survived an AfD vote. Since my username was linked all over kingdom come at Wikipedia, I wanted it to stay up so that I might have my side of the story heard. It was, of course, ultimately re-deleted and remains in this archive courteously provided by Daniel Brandt.

[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?

[Kato]

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)

People here were able to show that Jossi Fresco had a serious conflict of interest. He was a PR worker for Prem Ruwat, cult leader.

No one at Wikipedia gave a crap. Jimbo Wales even wrote that Jossi was "a great Wikipedian" after it was made public. What Jossi was up to on Wikipedia didn't bother me. What bothered me was that your "serious conflicts of interest" were treated in an arbitrary and unfair way with punishments meted out to some but not others.

I've looked at virtually every edit Hersch has made, and I see no difference in principle between his edits and Jossi Fresco's.

Shouldn't edits be judged on their merits? Or should users be profiled; "tracked down to a name, home address, telephone number, and place of work", and railroaded off no matter what they've been writing on Wikipedia?

---------

Here's you giving Jossi your approval:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jossi/Awards

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your steadfastness, faith, great negotiating skills, and all your hard work in keeping the new policy alive and smoothing the transition from the past to the future. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

---------

Here's what happened when someone gave Herschelkrustofsky one of those barnstars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=18172179

---------

This brings me back to my main thesis:

I believe that you, Slim, were responsible for fostering a damaging culture that warped the notions of "outing" and "conflicts of interest" - that exploited memes of "stalking and harrassment" ("I could be killed if exposed") which ultimately, like the ludicrous anti-LaRouche campaign and many others, subverted Wikipedia from within, causing massive problems for many people. Add to that the blatant cronyism, which you exemplified, and you have the definition of a dysfunctional and dangerous process.

[Hell Freezes Over]

Shouldn't edits be judged on their merits?

Very much so. What do you think about this article of HK's, as an example? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e&oldid=3820805

Is there such a thing as the Eurasian Land Bridge? Is it connected to the [[Asian Highway Network]] that it redirects to? LaRouche's wife was photographed standing next to its supposed entrance, as though she were opening it, or were somehow responsible for it.

Perhaps HK can explain what it is?

This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over:

[Kato]

Very much so. What do you think about this article of HK's, as an example? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e&oldid=3820805

Non notable?

Was it put on Request for Deletion, for that "consensus / community" malarkey to decide?

[Hell Freezes Over]

Very much so. What do you think about this article of HK's, as an example? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e&oldid=3820805

Non notable?

Is it just non-notable? Is there such a thing as the Eurasian Land Bridge? If there is, does it have anything to do with LaRouche?

[Kato]

Very much so. What do you think about this article of HK's, as an example? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e&oldid=3820805

Non notable?

Is it just non-notable? Is there such a thing as the Eurasian Land Bridge? If there is, does it have anything to do with LaRouche?

I suppose other than putting the non-notable and banal article up for deletion to see what the "community" thought, you could go on a quest to discover who Herschelkrustofsky is, ban him, delete all his edits on any topic, attack anyone who edits anywhere near him, and a bunch of people by mistake who didn't even do that, and pursue a bitter crusade across the internet that lasted years?

I guess you took the latter option.

[Hell Freezes Over]

I suppose other than putting the non-notable and banal article up for deletion to see what the "community" thought, you could go on a quest to discover who Herschelkrustofsky is, ban him, delete all his edits on any topic, attack anyone who edits anywhere near him, and a bunch of people by mistake who didn't even do that, and pursue a bitter crusade across the internet that lasted years?

I'm not talking about something non-notable. Of course it would be notable if it existed. I'm talking about HK creating articles about things that, so far as anyone could tell, were non-existent.

Here is Helga Zepp-LaRouche standing next to the Eurasian Land-Bridge's terminal. http://www.schillerinstitute.org/graphics/...lga/hzlterm.jpg This image was added or restored to the article by one of HK's first socks, Weed Harper. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=5897949 What is it she's standing next to, HK?

As for "crusade," pls get your facts straight, Kato, and stop the kneejerk support for this person just because he's staff. I would have long forgotten him were it not for *his* crusade against me, which he started in December 2005 and continues to this day.

Look at the substantive issue for once. Here you have someone who creates articles about *entirely bogus subjects*, uses sockpuppets in an effort to keep them, then when thwarted, becomes staff on a WP criticism site in an effort to persuade people that the editors who thwarted him are evil.

And you are helping him.

This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over:

[Jon Awbrey]

I have about as much interest in Lyndon LaRouche as I do in Lex Luthor, Pokemon, or Ayn Rand.

If I ever did conceive a curiosity about any of those subjects, where would I go for unbiased information?

The sad fact is that Wikipedia has a far better chance of providing unpoisoned info about the middle terms than it does about either of the extremes.

Why is that exactly?

It's because the nature of Wikipedia Warkraft determines that articles about controversial subjects will be written by the victors in a War of Attrition whose Rules of Engagement are the very antitheses of everything written down in Wikipedia's declared principles.

Which is why my eyes have developed a reflex of skipping the Wiki-Poison Capsules on the top shelves of most Google caches.

Jon Awbrey

[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.

[Kato]

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.

One example of why his ban was justified was because he created an article on a barely (if non) notable bridge proposal?

The '''Eurasian Land-Bridge''' is the title of a proposal made by American economist and political activist [[Lyndon LaRouche]] in [[1992]]. It has been promoted internationally by his wife, [[Helga Zepp LaRouche]], and the organization she founded, the [[Schiller Institute]].

You haven't answered why that wasn't just put up for Articles for Deletion, for the 'ol "community / consensus" thing to happen?

[Jon Awbrey]

And so I am giving just one example of why the ban is justified.

Ay, there's the rub.

What exactly justifies a ban?

To say that a ban is just is to say that equal justice is applied to all participants.

Do you really want to go there?

I don't think so.

Jon Awbrey

[dtobias]

...Lex Luthor...

The Earth-2 Golden Age version, the Pre-Crisis Earth-1 version, the Post-Crisis John Byrne version, the current DC Universe version, or the Smallville TV version? (Among others...)

[Jon Awbrey]

… Lex Luthor …

The Earth-2 Golden Age version, the Pre-Crisis Earth-1 version, the Post-Crisis John Byrne version, the current DC Universe version, or the Smallville TV version? (Among others …)

What part of "Not Interested" (NI) did you not understand?

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[dtobias]

this dog won't hunt either

I don't think Slim's poodle is the hunting type.