|
Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines.
However, they are not hidden from automobile engines, including the newer, more "environmentally-friendly" electric and hybrid engines. Also, please note that this subforum is meant to be used for discussion of the actual biographical articles themselves; more generalized discussions of BLP policy should be posted in the General Discussion or Bureaucracy forums.
|
|
The "foreign sources" controversy returns, the dynamic duo rides again |
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 8th February 2011, 11:43pm) Ugh, I hate that argument. Nowadays, i'm of the opinion that foreign sources are more reliable than US sources, considering how incompetent US media has proven themselves in the past year.
And, yes, link please.
Here, and I've been involved in the discussion. It appears to me that SV and Will are afraid of LaRouche supporters using foreign sources to do an end-around the general prohibition on using materials from the LaRouche organization in the articles. They seem to be afraid of LaRouche's supporters trying to use the articles to promote LaRouche's platform. I understand that outside observers like Chip Berlet say that what LaRouche actually stands for is different than what he publicly says he stands for. But what do we care? We're not supposed to take sides. If the LaRouche articles accurately reflect what the LaRouche movement claims it stands for, then includes any notable criticism, that seems fine to me.
|
|
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 9th February 2011, 9:06pm) QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Thu 10th February 2011, 4:12am) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 9th February 2011, 12:17am) Here, and I've been involved in the discussion. Do you really think that Angel's Flight is more incongenial than SV? I haven't seen SV acting that way lately, at least, not in that discussion. She is a veteran of a thousand POV battles, and a master of the saccharine "Fuck you." She is employing several tactics at once here: a constant drumbeat of condescending and insulting remarks that are kept just below the "incivility" threshold; an editing offensive that, as usual, contains a high volume of POV edits mixed with so-called "tightening" and is intended to keep her opponents on edge; and the raising of all sorts of new issues on the talk page in order to change the subject away from the foreign language sources, because she has run out of arguments on that one.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 10th February 2011, 2:51pm) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 9th February 2011, 9:06pm) QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Thu 10th February 2011, 4:12am) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 9th February 2011, 12:17am) Here, and I've been involved in the discussion. Do you really think that Angel's Flight is more incongenial than SV? I haven't seen SV acting that way lately, at least, not in that discussion. She is a veteran of a thousand POV battles, and a master of the saccharine "Fuck you." She is employing several tactics at once here: a constant drumbeat of condescending and insulting remarks that are kept just below the "incivility" threshold; an editing offensive that, as usual, contains a high volume of POV edits mixed with so-called "tightening" and is intended to keep her opponents on edge; and the raising of all sorts of new issues on the talk page in order to change the subject away from the foreign language sources, because she has run out of arguments on that one. That may be, but I expect that any editors who disagree with her and want to be taken seriously should probably take the high road and not allow the dispute to give the appearance of a personal battle. This post has been edited by Cla68:
|
|
|
|
Detective |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sat 12th February 2011, 11:52pm) Slim and Will appear to be arguing that the Lebedev Institute is now controlled by LaRouche and must be excluded as a self-published source. I have no idea if the Lebedev Institute has been taken over by HK. However, it may well be a self-published source. So are the proceedings of many learned societies, and so indeed are many newspapers. It does make you concerned about some of the rules for reliable sources when they are clearly self-contradictory like that. Incidentally, if a reliable source quotes a self-published source with approval, does that validate the self-published source?
|
|
|
|
melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Tue 15th February 2011, 5:48pm) Who is Crotalus horridus? He seems to be making a very neutral and reasonable intervention.
The rattlesnake? Oh, the user. He failed an RfA a year ago.
|
|
|
|
BananaShowerMonkey |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined:
Member No.: 33,476
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 16th February 2011, 1:42pm) The stupid in that discussion is inane; they are arguing over sourcing regarding various predictions made by LaRouche? It's quite fairly transparent here that source reliability arguments are being used as proxies to exclude STUFFIDONTLIKE. The whole "exceptional claim" rule of theirs is just a hook for doing this sort of thing. (Then again, the "exceptional claim" notion is itself an outgrowth of Wikipedia's systemic preference for dogmatic Skepticism, which, of course, has nothing to do with being skeptical.)
Interesting. "Dogmatic Skepticism", a lovely paradox: to stubbornly put everything in doubt but stubbornness itself. This post has been edited by BananaShowerMonkey:
|
|
|
|
It's the blimp, Frank |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined:
Member No.: 82
|
And now Will Beback makes his move to get Angel's Flight indef-blocked. It looks like this exchange with Cla68 pushed him over the edge. This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:
|
|
|
|
It's the blimp, Frank |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined:
Member No.: 82
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 17th February 2011, 1:37am) This exchange is in some ways more interesting. It's a lot longer now, and includes this golden moment: QUOTE It's blindingly obvious who AF is and, even if it's an associate, it's still a group with a POV to push. That itch you have is, I think, more related to the offensive double standards. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Will's (albeit valid) point if he was even half as fast at identifying B&K socks as he is in identifying HK socks... and of course if he'd admit to and stop his own POV pushing efforts. Slim raised the issue of naked short selling, and I tend to agree. Except I don't think she'd agree with my view that the only difference I'm seeing is that HK doesn't have anything of the moral high-ground (such as it was) enjoyed by JB. Having said all that, no one really cares what an unimportant American fruitloop thinks. I mean, seriously? Why else do you think Will gets away with it, but gets pulled up when he tries it elsewhere?120.23.0.60 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what any of that means... Will Beback talk 04:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Gruntled |
|
Quite an unusual member
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 16,954
|
QUOTE It's blindingly obvious who AF is and, even if it's an associate, it's still a group with a POV to push. That itch you have is, I think, more related to the offensive double standards. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Will's (albeit valid) point if he was even half as fast at identifying B&K socks as he is in identifying HK socks... and of course if he'd admit to and stop his own POV pushing efforts. Slim raised the issue of naked short selling, and I tend to agree. Except I don't think she'd agree with my view that the only difference I'm seeing is that HK doesn't have anything of the moral high-ground (such as it was) enjoyed by JB. Having said all that, no one really cares what an unimportant American fruitloop thinks. I mean, seriously? Why else do you think Will gets away with it, but gets pulled up when he tries it elsewhere?120.23.0.60 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Same old, same old. Someone has vaguely the same views, interests and style as a banned user, ergo they are effectively the same user (even if they are physically someone different), ergo they must be blocked. I call that the Bauder rule, and it's been going on for years.
|
|
|
|
Silver seren |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined:
Member No.: 36,940
|
Here's the CU investigation on Angel's Flight. It was in your sockpuppet archive, Herschel. However, T. Canens as clerk closer just stated "This is being hashed out on ANI with the CU done privately. No need for a separate SPI." Since when is a private Checkuser done in a situation like this? I've only heard of private CU's done in very specific situations, where it was high profile and there were possible legal issues and things like that. But a private CU in a situation like this? Something's fishy here.
|
|
|
|
HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Wed 23rd February 2011, 7:01pm) Here's a good scene from the movie: Angels Flight provides a pretty damaging example of Dennis King intentionally misleading his readers here, but then the real hilariousity comes with WIll Beback's defense of King. Okay. So let me get this: this is King's website. King quotes LaRouche saying, QUOTE It is not necessary to wear brown shirts to be a fascist….It is not necessary to wear a swastika to be a fascist….It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist to be a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one! which in its original context is about LaRouche denouncing his political opponents as fascists ... King sticks it under an image of LaRouche and Hitler, which conveys the impression that LaRouche is giving a Hitler salute. And with another out-of-context quote following, taken from here. And Will says, QUOTE While King did quote a line without giving extensive context, that isn't necessarily an error. He didn't assign any specific meaning to it and readers can interpret it for themselves. It's not an example that proves the book unreliable. Now that is just excruciatingly vexatious dishonesty. This juxtaposition is meant to be interpreted in one way, and one way only, to anyone with two brain cells to rub together: "LaRouche is a fascist and wants you to be a fascist too." And that is a misleading use of a quote, nothing else. Any editor who, like Will, doesn't admit that, and is not prepared to take King with a grain of salt after that, does not deserve having the assumption of good faith extended to him. No? This post has been edited by HRIP7:
|
|
|
|
HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 28th February 2011, 2:11am) And now, because of this obviously non-neutral edit, Virginia Slim goes into a fury, sends that sekrit email to Georgewilliamherbert, and presto! Delia Peabody is permablocked. But, not before she has a chance to launch this ANI thread. FWIW, I don't see what's wrong with that edit. The source checks out.
|
|
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 27th February 2011, 7:33pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 28th February 2011, 2:11am) And now, because of this obviously non-neutral edit, Virginia Slim goes into a fury, sends that sekrit email to Georgewilliamherbert, and presto! Delia Peabody is permablocked. But, not before she has a chance to launch this ANI thread. FWIW, I don't see what's wrong with that edit. The source checks out. SV had carefully constructed a narrative, using cherry-picked sources, that indicated that the "intelligence gathering" was amateurish, "hateful," and generally nonsense. The contrasting views from the Washington Post "interrupted the flow."Meanwhile, Will Beback has commenced his victory dance over the banning of Delia.
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
Congrats, for the nth time we have seen SV and McWhiney do their incredibly predictable Dance of Crazy.
Sorry to say, I'm a bit weary of all this. Can't we just agree, yes SV and McW are nuts, yes they abuse process every time they can, and yes Larouche will continue to get a raw deal on en-wiki?
My apologies to Hersh. There are better, more lovely activities to engage in than showing-up the Wiki-Woompers as what they are. It's frightfully old news, and SV appears to be one of those utterly obsessive freaks who ordinarily make great businesspeople or military leaders---if they would just stop obsessing on insipid pointless things, like revenge (or Wikipedia). Apologies, just had to write it here.
This post has been edited by EricBarbour:
|
|
|
|
BananaShowerMonkey |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined:
Member No.: 33,476
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 28th February 2011, 10:48am) Congrats, for the nth time we have seen SV and McWhiney do their incredibly predictable Dance of Crazy.
Sorry to say, I'm a bit weary of all this. Can't we just agree, yes SV and McW are nuts, yes they abuse process every time they can, and yes Larouche will continue to get a raw deal on en-wiki?
My apologies to Hersh. There are better, more lovely activities to engage in than showing-up the Wiki-Woompers as what they are. It's frightfully old news, and SV appears to be one of those utterly obsessive freaks who ordinarily make great businesspeople or military leaders---if they would just stop obsessing on insipid pointless things, like revenge (or Wikipedia). Apologies, just had to write it here.
Greetings Eric and nice to meet you! As much as I'd love to concur, but: The last utterly revenge-obsessed freak, who incidentally turned military leader gave his country a raw deal when he had a face-off with another leader who gave his country a New Deal. It may be wise to keep more than one eye open (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
Well I took the liberty of contacting a retired American journalist I know to take a look at the wiki article and give me an opinion on it. We have different political outlooks but I trust him to give me a straight opinion when asked. QUOTE The Wikipedia entry contains vastly more information than I had ever heard about him. He still has a few acolytes who set up "information" tables in public places, where they accost people with insults in order to strike up conversations. I almost got into a fist fight with one that was parked outside of our local post office (a common location for them) just before the 2008 presidential election.
But I have no way to know how accurate the Wikipedia entry is. Considering the negative way most people view him (those of us old enough to remember who he is, from the days when he was in the news a lot -- 1980s, mostly), the tone of the Wiki seems mild. Among a younger generation, relatively few will even know who you're talking about, if you bring up his name.
The media lost interest in him decades ago. I wouldn't trust them to give unbiased reports, either, unless there was some reason to do extensive checks and analyses of his claims. But I don't recall seeing anything about him with any real reportorial depth. If I do see his name in a rare article headline, I skip over it.
Sorry I can't help you in measuring the bias in that article. LaRouche's great strength is in couching his assertions in ways that are very difficult to pick apart and evaluate. That's why he's so frustrating. But my own opinion of him is extremely negative, so I'm not a good one to judge.
|
|
|
|
Detective |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 28th February 2011, 2:11am) And now, because of this obviously non-neutral edit, Virginia Slim goes into a fury, sends that sekrit email to Georgewilliamherbert, and presto! Delia Peabody is permablocked. But, not before she has a chance to launch this ANI thread. This could be embarrassing for HK. People might start saying that he's impersonating females online, just because there happens to be a female who supports him! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)
|
|
|
|
Silver seren |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined:
Member No.: 36,940
|
QUOTE(Detective @ Mon 28th February 2011, 9:01pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 28th February 2011, 2:11am) And now, because of this obviously non-neutral edit, Virginia Slim goes into a fury, sends that sekrit email to Georgewilliamherbert, and presto! Delia Peabody is permablocked. But, not before she has a chance to launch this ANI thread. This could be embarrassing for HK. People might start saying that he's impersonating females online, just because there happens to be a female who supports him! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Well, since she seems to be someone in his office, HK should probably personally go and ask her to stop.
|
|
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 28th February 2011, 1:44pm) QUOTE(Detective @ Mon 28th February 2011, 9:01pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 28th February 2011, 2:11am) And now, because of this obviously non-neutral edit, Virginia Slim goes into a fury, sends that sekrit email to Georgewilliamherbert, and presto! Delia Peabody is permablocked. But, not before she has a chance to launch this ANI thread. This could be embarrassing for HK. People might start saying that he's impersonating females online, just because there happens to be a female who supports him! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Well, since she seems to be someone in his office, HK should probably personally go and ask her to stop. It's important to know that I don't work for American System Publications, and have not for some time. SV makes a number of other claims for which she has absolutely zero evidence. ASP is a not-for-profit and most people there are volunteers. It is also not a "tiny" organization. SV discovered long ago that if she applied the "be bold" principle to lying, most people will not challenge what she says.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
I don't know if the last two accounts that have been blocked as HK socks, Angel's Flight or Delia Peabody, were socks of his or not, although they were apparently socks of somebody. Even if they were, there are some questions that need to be answered about the way the blocks occurred:
- The two regular editors of that topic, SV and Will Beback, apparently have set up a hidden process for investigating and blocking other editors in that topic area who disagree with their approach to editing those articles. Their process includes having at least one checkuser who agrees to perform private checkusers for them and then shares the results privately with them.
- SV and Will Beback then, when asked, make selective decisions on who they will share this information with. Thus, it appears that they are acting as administrators as well as regular editors of this topic. From what I understand, this isn't supposed to be allowed anymore in Wikipedia.
- It appears that anyone who edits from that LaRouche organization's IP range is labeled as a "sock of HK", even though it appears that over 100 people "work" there (I know "work" is not necessarily what they do, but I can't think of a better word). As far as I know, the LaRouche organization has not been prohibited from editing Wikipedia.
- Any recent account editing the LaRouche topic, no matter how well they are following Wikipedia' rules, faces scrutiny through this backroom tribunal.
|
|
|
|
Text |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined:
Member No.: 15,107
|
|
|
|
|
Silver seren |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined:
Member No.: 36,940
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 28th February 2011, 11:22pm) QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 28th February 2011, 2:58pm) What exactly am I supposed to see from this? A WHOIS search leads me to the Road Runner HoldCo LLC, which is an internet service provider.
Check the location. I see. It leads to Florida.
|
|
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 28th February 2011, 3:03pm) It'll be interesting to see how they try to block me.
By the way, if you guys could get me reliable sources that say positive (or at least neutral) things about LaRouche, it would be greatly appreciated. I'm sure all of you are better at finding sources in this subject area than I am.
Some of the sources that SV and Will Beback use say positive (or at least neutral) things. However, SV and Will Beback exclude that which doesn't match up to their POV. You can read their preferred sources, and you can also go over the edit histories of Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D) and Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement (T-H-L-K-D) and look at the sources that have been deleted. SV and WB never leave edit summaries that say they are deleting a source -- it's always "tidying," "tightening," "improving flow," and so on, so it may be a tedious process. However, Will just made the rounds of these articles and deleted all the positive stuff that had been added by recent banned editors. You can't revert his deletions without facing charges of meatpuppetry, but you can look at the sources and draw your own conclusions. Here's an easy one. QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 28th February 2011, 3:00pm) I don't know if the last two accounts that have been blocked as HK socks, Angel's Flight or Delia Peabody, were socks of his or not, although they were apparently socks of somebody. Even if they were, there are some questions that need to be answered about the way the blocks occurred:
- The two regular editors of that topic, SV and Will Beback, apparently have set up a hidden process for investigating and blocking other editors in that topic area who disagree with their approach to editing those articles. Their process includes having at least one checkuser who agrees to perform private checkusers for them and then shares the results privately with them.
- SV and Will Beback then, when asked, make selective decisions on who they will share this information with. Thus, it appears that they are acting as administrators as well as regular editors of this topic. From what I understand, this isn't supposed to be allowed anymore in Wikipedia.
- It appears that anyone who edits from that LaRouche organization's IP range is labeled as a "sock of HK", even though it appears that over 100 people "work" there (I know "work" is not necessarily what they do, but I can't think of a better word). As far as I know, the LaRouche organization has not been prohibited from editing Wikipedia.
- Any recent account editing the LaRouche topic, no matter how well they are following Wikipedia' rules, faces scrutiny through this backroom tribunal.
If nothing else, they have article ownership down to a science.
|
|
|
|
Silver seren |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined:
Member No.: 36,940
|
|
|
|
|
It's the blimp, Frank |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined:
Member No.: 82
|
Could someone explain to me how this works? It says here that Delia Peabody was blocked for having "suspected sockpuppets." This is presumably on top of "Duck Test" POV bullshit. But if the checkuser simply indicates that she "may have had" sockpuppets of her own, but not that she was herself a sockpuppet of someone else, then hasn't it established a grand total of nothing? edit:Also, on that page Georgewilliamherbert says that Angel's flight is a "CU confirmed sockpuppet" of Hersch, but here it says differently. Am I missing something, or is GWH simply lying? This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:
|
|
|
|
Detective |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
|
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 28th February 2011, 9:44pm) Well, since she seems to be someone in his office, HK should probably personally go and ask her to stop.
So a female colleague of HK's is involved as a suspected sockpuppet? This gets ever curiouser. QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Tue 1st March 2011, 8:21pm) Am I missing something, or is GWH simply lying?
Which do you think is more plausible? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)
|
|
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 1st March 2011, 2:49pm) QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 1st March 2011, 10:36pm) Regardless, sockpuppeting is a blockable offense, so the behavioral connection to HK doesn't matter as it is.
The only problem with socks is when they are being used to talk at the same time in the same thread. Otherwise I can see no reason why someone cannot have multiple accounts for different purposes. For example some one might be an Ballet buff but not want those that they edit boxing articles to know. WB's view is that the greatest crime of all is block evasion, because it cheats the victorious POV warrior of his reward. SV, on the other hand, has simply stated that, according to her interpretation of this ArbCom decision, no one who is in any way pro-LaRouche should be allowed to edit, because any challenge to Slim's rootin' tootin' BLP-violatin' ownership of the articles must be construed as "promotion of LaRouche."
|
|
|
|
RMHED |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 1st March 2011, 11:15pm) QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 1st March 2011, 2:49pm) QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 1st March 2011, 10:36pm) Regardless, sockpuppeting is a blockable offense, so the behavioral connection to HK doesn't matter as it is.
The only problem with socks is when they are being used to talk at the same time in the same thread. Otherwise I can see no reason why someone cannot have multiple accounts for different purposes. For example some one might be an Ballet buff but not want those that they edit boxing articles to know. WB's view is that the greatest crime of all is block evasion, because it cheats the victorious POV warrior of his reward. SV, on the other hand, has simply stated that, according to her interpretation of this ArbCom decision, no one who is in any way pro-LaRouche should be allowed to edit, because any challenge to Slim's rootin' tootin' BLP-violatin' ownership of the articles must be construed as "promotion of LaRouche." WB & SV; A knob and a cunt, no wonder they fit together so well. Two of da 'pedia's finest POV pushers. This post has been edited by RMHED:
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 1st March 2011, 11:29pm) WB & SV; A knob and a cunt, no wonder they fit together so well. Two of da 'pedia's finest POV pushers. Snappy! QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 1st March 2011, 2:36pm) And, yes, Delia's investigation only showed that she was also two other accounts and was not definitive that she was HK, other than the fact that she was editing from the American System Publication's office. Though, since HK said before that he doesn't work there anymore, it's clear that it is someone else in the office then? Which is why I made my comment before saying that HK should go ask her to stop.
Regardless, sockpuppeting is a blockable offense, so the behavioral connection to HK doesn't matter as it is. Do you realize that you sound like a minor bureaucrat in a Kafka novel? This post has been edited by EricBarbour:
|
|
|
|
BananaShowerMonkey |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined:
Member No.: 33,476
|
Question: Why is "PROmotion of LaRouche" a bananable offence but "DEmotion of LaRouche" not?
|
|
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
Case in point: QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 27th February 2011, 7:22pm) Okay. So let me get this: this is King's website. King quotes LaRouche saying, QUOTE It is not necessary to wear brown shirts to be a fascist….It is not necessary to wear a swastika to be a fascist….It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist to be a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one! which in its original context is about LaRouche denouncing his political opponents as fascists ... King sticks it under an image of LaRouche and Hitler, which conveys the impression that LaRouche is giving a Hitler salute. And with another out-of-context quote following, taken from here. And Will says, QUOTE While King did quote a line without giving extensive context, that isn't necessarily an error. He didn't assign any specific meaning to it and readers can interpret it for themselves. It's not an example that proves the book unreliable. Now that is just excruciatingly vexatious dishonesty. This juxtaposition is meant to be interpreted in one way, and one way only, to anyone with two brain cells to rub together: "LaRouche is a fascist and wants you to be a fascist too." And that is a misleading use of a quote, nothing else. Any editor who, like Will, doesn't admit that, and is not prepared to take King with a grain of salt after that, does not deserve having the assumption of good faith extended to him. No? Expressing concerns about King as a source is considered a " red dye" by GWH, WB and SV. It is prima facie evidence that the user expressing said concerns is my sock. Will Beback proclaims that King is "the best source."
|
|
|
|
Silver seren |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined:
Member No.: 36,940
|
I've heard about the Brandt case before, yes, though i'm probably the wrong person to talk to about this, as i'm fairly certain you are of the opinion that people should be allowed to recuse themselves. I am of the opinion that, since Wikipedia runs off of secondary sources, if you are notable enough due to those, then it is in an encyclopedia's interest to have information about you from those sources, regardless of your opinion. The existence of the article will not effect the existence of the sources themselves.
Now, if an article is being thrown together on very thin sources and people wish to be recused, that's a different matter. But I personally believe that truly notable people have already had it taken out of their hands because of their notoriety. They just have to live with it.
This post has been edited by Silver seren:
|
|
|
|
carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 3rd March 2011, 12:10pm) I've heard about the Brandt case before, yes, though i'm probably the wrong person to talk to about this, as i'm fairly certain you are of the opinion that people should be allowed to recuse themselves. I am of the opinion that, since Wikipedia runs off of secondary sources, if you are notable enough due to those, then it is in an encyclopedia's interest to have information about you from those sources, regardless of your opinion. The existence of the article will not effect the existence of the sources themselves.
Now, if an article is being thrown together on very thin sources and people wish to be recused, that's a different matter. But I personally believe that truly notable people have already had it taken out of their hands because of their notoriety. They just have to live with it.
See Mimi Macpherson.
|
|
|
|
taiwopanfob |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined:
Member No.: 214
|
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 3rd March 2011, 12:10pm) I've heard about the Brandt case before, yes, though i'm probably the wrong person to talk to about this, as i'm fairly certain you are of the opinion that people should be allowed to recuse themselves. I am of the opinion that, since Wikipedia runs off of secondary sources, if you are notable enough due to those, then it is in an encyclopedia's interest to have information about you from those sources, regardless of your opinion. The existence of the article will not effect the existence of the sources themselves.
So you will indemnify the target? I am serious here: you, whateveryounameis, will sign a contract that says you will take personal responsibility for the BLP, paying any damages out of your own pocket (or the pocket of your liability insurance company)? You know, put your money where your mouth is. QUOTE Now, if an article is being thrown together on very thin sources and people wish to be recused, that's a different matter. But I personally believe that truly notable people have already had it taken out of their hands because of their notoriety. They just have to live with it. Yeah, and fuck you too. Almost all BLP's at the project are non-notable: if there is no dead-trees, or equivalent, then notability has not been sustained. This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:
|
|
|
|
taiwopanfob |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined:
Member No.: 214
|
QUOTE(Text @ Thu 3rd March 2011, 11:50am) QUOTE But everyone else that is against Wikipedia is fair game. Aren't you an example of that yourself, Kohser? And Bauder who recently tried to insert a biography about that woman who was saying she would boycott wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisa_GabbertOther commentary here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=33097 as well as at http://thefrenchexit.blogspot.com/2011/02/oh-ho.html. From the subject herself: QUOTE So criticizing Wikipedia in my tiny corner of the internet has somehow made me a target for the editors. Could this be why there aren't more women in the Wikipedia community? It's a little threatening. I say again, Silver seren, apologist extraordinaire: fuck you.
|
|
|
|
Silver seren |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined:
Member No.: 36,940
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 3rd March 2011, 1:54pm) Hmm, thanks, i'll look into that. Though i'm sure you already know whatever the situation was behind that and aren't telling me so i'll get into trouble. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) I'm only going to respond to the first part of what taiwopanfob, since the rest is just abuse. Anyways, Wikipedia is liable for damages that result from incorrect, defamatory information that is added onto it, i'm sure you all know of the main cases involved with that like the Seigenthaler case. However, Wikipedia is not liable for collecting publically available information from sources. It is the sources themselves, I would suppose, that are liable, but not a collector of such. (Oh, and Elisa Gabbert seems to be up for deletion.) @Kohser: Still working on it. I'm involved in a number of discussions right now and also have schoolwork, so it's really draining. Remind me about it during spring break in a week and a half? I'll have more time then. Edit: I'm going to add Carolyn to the list of articles on my userpage to work on so I don't forget. I'll probably also be adding Mimi, but i'm going to wait to see what NW's response it first. This post has been edited by Silver seren:
|
|
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
The LaRouche BLP is about to get interesting. Jayen466 has been going over it and editing it as if it were a normal BLP. SV and WB have been biting their tongues, knowing that there are a lot of eyes on the article following the big blow-out at ANI. I could tell that SV was reaching the boiling point when Jayen deemphasized the Jeremiah Duggan section, which is the holy of holies for SV. She added a "to do" list to the talk page which includes "tidy Duggan section." This means, as always, "impose correct POV," and in this case restore an actual special section for Duggan, since it is just reported matter-of-factly in Jayen's version. However, Jayen crossed the line when he put in the lead that LaRouche is an economist. This has always been a trigger for edit war for SV and WB, and this time is no exception. The "economist" issue is one where "reliable sources" no longer matter. Angel's Flight attempted to make that argument, which probably put him or her on the hit list. So, what tactic will be used to drive Jayen away?
|
|
|
|
carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 3rd March 2011, 9:53pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 3rd March 2011, 1:54pm) Hmm, thanks, i'll look into that. Though i'm sure you already know whatever the situation was behind that and aren't telling me so i'll get into trouble. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Just so you don't misunderstand, I'm trying to point out the inequity between BLPs of people who have access to the wiki-levers of wiki-power and BLPs of those that don't. This may be a better example than the Carolyn Doran one, because Carolyn Doran doesn't have a website promoting herself, but Mimi Macpherson does. Carolyn Doran didn't ask for her BLP to be deleted - that was done to save the WMF further embarrassment. Mimi Macpherson gets to opt out of having a BLP, but look at the battle Daniel Brandt faced. Is Don Murphy more notable than Mimi Macpherson? I get five times as many hits in Google for her than for him. Why does she get to opt out and he doesn't? Not everyone is created deleted equally.
|
|
|
|
Lar |
|
"His blandness goes to 11!"
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined:
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 3rd March 2011, 6:06pm) The LaRouche BLP is about to get interesting. Jayen466 has been going over it and editing it as if it were a normal BLP. SV and WB have been biting their tongues, knowing that there are a lot of eyes on the article following the big blow-out at ANI. I could tell that SV was reaching the boiling point when Jayen deemphasized the Jeremiah Duggan section, which is the holy of holies for SV. She added a "to do" list to the talk page which includes "tidy Duggan section." This means, as always, "impose correct POV," and in this case restore an actual special section for Duggan, since it is just reported matter-of-factly in Jayen's version. However, Jayen crossed the line when he put in the lead that LaRouche is an economist. This has always been a trigger for edit war for SV and WB, and this time is no exception. The "economist" issue is one where "reliable sources" no longer matter. Angel's Flight attempted to make that argument, which probably put him or her on the hit list. So, what tactic will be used to drive Jayen away? Don't know the answer but if you could see your way clear to not socking at all... either for a while or indefinitely, that might, at this juncture, actually help a lot.
|
|
|
|
taiwopanfob |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined:
Member No.: 214
|
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 3rd March 2011, 9:53pm) Anyways, Wikipedia is liable for damages that result from incorrect, defamatory information that is added onto it, i'm sure you all know of the main cases involved with that like the Seigenthaler case. However, Wikipedia is not liable for collecting publically available information from sources. It is the sources themselves, I would suppose, that are liable, but not a collector of such.
Google up "section 230". Wikipedia is not liable for anything under current US law. Hasn't this been explained to you already? Individual editors, with bizarre names like "Silver seren" and "SlimVirgin" are responsible. However, these people seek to hide their meat-space identity, and are probably judgment-proof in any case. This latter bit probably explains why you aren't offering any indemnities: no money to put your mouth to. QUOTE (Oh, and Elisa Gabbert seems to be up for deletion.) "Watergate is proof the system works." Silver seren, it's pretty damn clear you have no idea what you are supporting with your continued participation There and your naive apologetics Here. The Gabbert article should never have been allowed to be created in the first place. People who edit BLP's should be known to the foundation, if not the general editing public. The likes of Fred Bauder should not have any place at the project, let alone one of authority.
|
|
|
|
Gruntled |
|
Quite an unusual member
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 16,954
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 3rd March 2011, 11:47pm) The LaRouche article has 227 watchers although I don't know if that includes all the blocked accounts that have been involved in the article in the past. It does, and since there are probably 220 of them (mostly HK and his colleagues) there could be only seven active watchers. QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Fri 4th March 2011, 5:02am) What she's saying seems completely reasonable
Emphasis mine - we are after all dealing with the ultimate WP gamer.
|
|
|
|
BananaShowerMonkey |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined:
Member No.: 33,476
|
I have noted, that most of SVs policy proposals and editing bouts are made in IMMEDIATE terms, so articles and policies are created ad hoc to back-up some articles or edits she is CURRENTLY interested in.
This post has been edited by BananaShowerMonkey:
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |