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

[Mackan]

...it was forty minutes before SV first decided to follow me to the bio of Folke Bernadotte...

Does this have something to do with Krustofsky, LaRouche, Brautigan, or the price of land-bridges in the PRC?

I'm sorry, I thought the Bernadotte/Brautigan/land-bridge connection was obvious.

I'm just saying: It's nearly impossible to go back and tell who was being especially reasonable with who else this long ago. You can do it, just as long as you have days or weeks to throw away. What I know is that in the few cases I've been aware of, SV made an artform of tweaking people in just the right way. The way she did it also showed a basic disregard for social mores (honesty, golden rules, etc.) that I think is hard to look past as she tries to claim that all of the opposition to her on this site stems from inventions of HK.

This post has been edited by Mackan: Sun 12th April 2009, 11:13pm

[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?

[Mackan]

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".

Not at all, and exactly the point. But then the question is who exactly was doing this kind of thing, under what circumstances, and where? Are these people still seeking to be taken seriously, and do they acknowledge what they did, or are they still trying to claim that it was someone else's fault? That's where I'm coming from.

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

I do?

Yeah, but then you made a comment on the subject in one place or another about how you like irony, which looked to me like an admission. Of course that was about more recent actions, but all the same.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Luckily the Americans responded with the clean cut Beach Boys, Crosby, Stills and Nash (Young is Canadian, doesn't count)

Nash is British, so I'd think he counts even less.

[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.

[dtobias]

*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.

Yes, the Cberlet who left in disgrace a few months ago after the decline of the clique that was formerly protecting him in his POV-pushing and conflicts of interest (citing his own material) while banning others who went against him on charges of doing the same thing Berlet was doing himself.

[Jon Awbrey]

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.

Now your IP is a secret all over the /16 block,
and it never stops not even when your CU fails.

— Sorry 'bout that, Leonard

Someone please bring HFO up2date on that newfangled dynamic addressing thingy …

Ja Wohl !

Jon von Bonn

[Cla68]

*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.

Yes, the Cberlet who left in disgrace a few months ago after the decline of the clique that was formerly protecting him in his POV-pushing and conflicts of interest (citing his own material) while banning others who went against him on charges of doing the same thing Berlet was doing himself.

This does seem to be true, which is one reason, SV why you don't have much moral high ground here. Why weren't Chip Berlet and DKing topic or indef banned if you were really interested in keeping the LaRouche article's NPOV? They're editing was almost as, if not just as, POV as many of the "Pro-Larouche" editors who were banned.

As Kato and others have pointed out here, other editors like Jossi, Jayjg, and Mantanmoreland, with which you frequently interacted, were also unconcealed POV pushers. Why didn't you ever try to call them out on their behavior?

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 13th April 2009, 2:44am

[The Adversary]

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".

Not at all, and exactly the point. But then the question is who exactly was doing this kind of thing, under what circumstances, and where? Are these people still seeking to be taken seriously, and do they acknowledge what they did, or are they still trying to claim that it was someone else's fault? That's where I'm coming from.

And that is where I´m coming from, too.

Having observed them for a long, long time, I have basically drawn the conclusion that there were several "groups" of interest, who were watching each others back. Some of those "groups" could consist of one person (Jossi). Basically you had people with very strong opinions about something, or COI-issues, who then supported each others COI.
I first noticed this once, way, way back, the first time I reported someone for 3RR. You know; you enter your report at the bottom of the page, end of the line, so to speak. Of course, I then keenly watched to see what an admin would do.

And then I noticed there were some "steady" admin-workers, you could see them start with the top of the line, and work themselves down the list, one block, or warning, or "not guilty," at a time. The steady working bees. (Incidentally, those admins who are never discussed on WR )

However; I also noticed there were admins who did blocks completely out of line. See this typical from one 3RR archive in 2006:
*FeloniousMonk reports two 3RR; one immediately blocked by Jayjg, the other blocked (against opposition) by SV.
*Jayjg reports two 3RR; both blocked by FeloniousMonk
*SlimVirgin report one 3RR, blocked by Jossi , etc, etc.

Of course there wasn´t (and still isn´t) any "law" against this, AFAIK. But a heck of a lot of those "out-of-line" blocks were disputed. And as we know: admins are not very happy undoing other admins work, even if they disagree.

It was things like this that brought me to WR.

[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.

[CharlotteWebb]

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.

All my socks are banned (all my socks are banned)...
And there's hell to pay (there is hell to pay)...
California livin' (California livin'), in a very sim'lar way...

Char

[Hell Freezes Over]

*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.

Yes, the Cberlet who left in disgrace a few months ago after the decline of the clique that was formerly protecting him in his POV-pushing and conflicts of interest (citing his own material) while banning others who went against him on charges of doing the same thing Berlet was doing himself.

This does seem to be true, which is one reason, SV why you don't have much moral high groud here. Why weren't Chip Berlet and DKing topic or indef banned if you were really interested in keeping the LaRouche article's NPOV? They're editing was almost as, if not just as, POV as many of the "Pro-Larouche" editors who were banned.

Can you show me an edit from Cberlet that was almost as bad as the edits of the LaRouche accounts?

Cberlet did not "leave in disgrace." He left because he was tired of having to fight lunatics to improve articles.

You all claim to care about BLP. Chip Berlet and the article about him were attacked on Wikipedia by Nobs, HK, and friends, in a way that was absolutely deplorable. Nobs even implied Chip had some connection to a very serious criminal offence, at one point -- I won't post details here because it would be libel. Chip put up with it for two or three years. Did anyone here, anyone who cares about BLP so much, help him, even once?

BLP applies to people we dislike, as much as to people we love. It applied to Gary Weiss too, and that is why WordBomb was indefblocked for posting that GW = MM. Yet you oppose that block, because you don't like the people involved.

You don't even try to disguise the hypocrisy. Decisions about what's right and what's wrong are based entirely on whether you like the parties or not. It's sad that this is the standard of intellectual debate about Wikipedia.

[dtobias]

You don't even try to disguise the hypocrisy. Decisions about what's right and what's wrong are based entirely on whether you like the parties or not. It's sad that this is the standard of intellectual debate about Wikipedia.

Psychological projection, anyone?

[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.

[Jon Awbrey]

You don't even try to disguise the hypocrisy. Decisions about what's right and what's wrong are based entirely on whether you like the parties or not. It's sad that this is the standard of intellectual debate about Wikipedia.

Psychological projection, anyone?

Gadzooks! — where is that emeticon when I really need it?

Ah, there it is —

Ja Ja Jaaaaaaa

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

This is extraordinary. You collect and release information of this nature in pursuit of of what you believe to be "unencyclopedic" conduct. No one even remotely violated any ToS or licensing provisions let alone anything amounting to serious misconduct. It is based on perceived violations of rules and policies which are nothing more than just another type of user generated content. This justified this level of intrusion? Quite an encyclopedia.

[EricBarbour]

You don't even try to disguise the hypocrisy. Decisions about what's right and what's wrong are based entirely on whether you like the parties or not. It's sad that this is the standard of intellectual debate about Wikipedia.

Moderator's note: extra-large-font fulminations deleted, because it was easier than tarpitting the post. --HK


(dammit....what does it take to kill a thread?)

[Cla68]

Can you show me an edit from Cberlet that was almost as bad as the edits of the LaRouche accounts?

I can't believe that you can ask me that question with a straight face. Look at this thread. In his comments, CBerlet doesn't even try to hide that he is, in his words, trying to protect Wikipedia from LaRouche supporters. Notice that Will Beback tries to gently coax him down from his soapbox.

DKing and CBerlet were obviously virulently anti-Larouche. Since both of them were involved off-wiki in research of LaRouche and his politics with the objective of exposing LaRouche as a dangerous anti-Semite, perhaps even trying to profit from such research, then I think that COI could probably also apply in addition to the NPOV concerns.

Your pursuit of HK and the others while leaving CBerlet and DKing alone is hypocritical. The fact that you had a secret page in your userspace with an extensive list of editors, pages, and discussion thread links related to the LaRouche articles, and also seem to have somehow come to know HK's personal information, including where he lives and works, appears to indicate that your interest in LaRouche may rise to the level of personal interest. Are you personally interested in making sure that any POV that happens to take place in the LaRouche articles is anti-LaRouche?

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 13th April 2009, 4:57am

[Shalom]

RANDOM CRAP
RANDOM CRAP
RANDOM CRAP
RANDOM CRAP
RANDOM CRAP
RANDOM CRAP
RANDOM CRAP
RANDOM CRAP

If EricBarbour can post it, I can too.

Edit: oh never mind, the mods got it.

This post has been edited by Shalom: Mon 13th April 2009, 3:20am

[Somey]

You all claim to care about BLP. Chip Berlet and the article about him were attacked on Wikipedia by Nobs, HK, and friends, in a way that was absolutely deplorable. Nobs even implied Chip had some connection to a very serious criminal offence, at one point -- I won't post details here because it would be libel. Chip put up with it for two or three years. Did anyone here, anyone who cares about BLP so much, help him, even once?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the prevailing (I hate to use the term "consensus") members' position here on BLP articles, SV. If Chip Berlet had asked to have his article deleted, I think most of us would have supported that wholeheartedly - I know I would have, and I think I might have even said so at the time.

Likewise, if the article was being vandalized, someone should have protected it - and as I recall, someone did do just that, at least twice that I can recall, just off the top of my head. But if The Chipster's ultimate objective was to have the article protected in a state he personally and explicitly approved of, then that's not something anyone here should care much about, other than to point out that it's unfair to all the other article subjects who don't have friends among the admins.

As for helping him, don't be ridiculous - we were helping him, by pointing out the insufficiency of the existing BLP policies, advocating for opt-out, and proposing other kinds of reforms. He might not have recognized that we were helping him, but that's only because he was being told by certain people that WR was a "nazi hate-site" and other such nonsense. Also, Daniel Brandt was here, and he doesn't like Daniel Brandt.

I guess it would be nice if you took the time to properly understand the culture here, but I understand that you wouldn't want to risk being drawn in to the point of actually having some degree of appreciation for the place.