The "foreign sources" controversy returns, the dynamic duo rides again Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

In a remarkable development, Will Beback and SlimVirgin have emerged from their undisclosed location from which they WP:OWN the Lyndon LaRouche articles without deigning to participate in talk page discussions. They are both making the same argument (surprise!) that non-American sources are incompetent (unless, of course, they're British.)

[EricBarbour]

Linky please.......

[Silver seren]

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.

[Cla68]

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]

Needless to say, both Will and Slim would be talking out of the other side of their collective ass if the subject of the BLP were someone they were not bent on defaming. Lar nails it here.

[EricBarbour]

Lar nails it here.

I wonder if he enjoys the feeling when Will and Hochman team up to attack him.....
this will end badly, I suspect. (Someday, when you least expect it.)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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.

This is a time-honored propaganda techniquie known as Straw man. The objective is to suppress LaRouche's ideas, and an actual critique of his ideas might have the effect of calling attention to them. The last thing Berlet's sponsors want is a debate.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Here, and I've been involved in the discussion.

Do you really think that Angel's Flight is more incongenial than SV?

[Cla68]

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.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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]

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:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

One of the editors you denounced seems to have departed, but AF and SV seem to be meeting each other half way.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

One of the editors you denounced seems to have departed, but AF and SV seem to be meeting each other half way.

There's something peculiar going on here. As recently as 5 days ago both Slim and Will were spreading the rumor on ANI that Angel's Flight was my sock. Now, why just a rumor instead of a point-blank accusation? They could get away with it. And why the relatively cooperative attitude over the past days at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche? Although there is a new bone of contention there -- Slim and Will are saying that the transcript of a seminar at the Lebedev Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences cannot be used as a source because researchers from the LaRouche-affiliated Schiller Institute spoke at the seminar. The paper in question was about LaRouche's theories, but not written by a LaRouche-affiliated scientist. 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.

[Detective]

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?

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Who is Crotalus horridus? He seems to be making a very neutral and reasonable intervention.

[Cla68]

Who is Crotalus horridus? He seems to be making a very neutral and reasonable intervention.

It seems almost any time other editors look in on the LaRouche article, they quickly recognize the absurdity of how the topic is being treated by Will and comment on it. They don't, however, stick around to ensure that it gets fixed, I'm sure for a variety of reasons.

[melloden]

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.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

There is an epic battle now at the Reliable Sources board over the Russian source.

[EricBarbour]

There is an epic battle now at the Reliable Sources board over the Russian source.

Gad. tl:dr indeed.

I see that noticeboard hasn't improved--still packed with awesome layers of stupid.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I see that noticeboard hasn't improved--still packed with awesome layers of stupid.

Jonathanwallace (T-C-L-K-R-D) looks to be an up-and-comer in the Asshole Olympics --

In general, I think a fear of being borderline libelous, expressed in WP:BLP, has mushroomed into a protectiveness of living people that can be quite un-encyclopedic. [1]

[Kelly Martin]

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.)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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.)

Unfortunately, this tactic is not unique to Slim 'n' Will; it seems to be one of the essential building blocks of WikiMMORPGism.

[BananaShowerMonkey]

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:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

This exchange is in some ways more interesting. It reveals the depth of WB's obsession with the LaRouche articles. There is some hysterical lying, as when he says "I don't have any personal feelings about the subject of those articles." There are also indications that WB is a faithful reader of the Review. WB apparently continues to believe that every editor who opposes him is me. This is despite the fact that in the past several months, several of his opponents have been IP editors, and it doesn't require you to have a CheckUser in your pocket to know that they could not possibly be me. For example, 81.210.206.223 geolocates to Europe and 190.80.8.6 geolocates to South America. It's possible that these editors have resorted to editing as IPs, rather than open accounts, as a defense against being banned by WB. It seems clear that WB is impervious to self-reflection.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

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:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Will is doing his usual victory dance right now, which may be a tactical error. He's under a fair amount of scrutiny.

[Cla68]

Will is doing his usual victory dance right now, which may be a tactical error. He's under a fair amount of scrutiny.

Where is Will's checkuser evidence? As far as I know, Will isn't a checkuser, but he talks in that ANI thread as if he has all the information he needed. How did he get checkuser information without making a formal request?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Is jpgordon a checkuser? He makes the same claim here.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Another interesting detail: Beback planted the "sock of Hersch" flag here, but "Please refer to this Sockpuppet investigation for evidence" is a redlink.

[Cla68]

Another interesting detail: Beback planted the "sock of Hersch" flag here, but "Please refer to this Sockpuppet investigation for evidence" is a redlink.

I emailed the checkuser audit subcommittee and asked them to check into it.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Will is doing his usual victory dance right now, which may be a tactical error. He's under a fair amount of scrutiny.

Where is Will's checkuser evidence? As far as I know, Will isn't a checkuser, but he talks in that ANI thread as if he has all the information he needed. How did he get checkuser information without making a formal request?

Well, now we know. Yep, she's still got it goin' on!

The ANI thread has turned into a real Donnybrook.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

There's something peculiar going on here. As recently as 5 days ago both Slim and Will were spreading the rumor on ANI that Angel's Flight was my sock. Now, why just a rumor instead of a point-blank accusation?

All in good time.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

This exchange is in some ways more interesting.

It's a lot longer now, and includes this golden moment:

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)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

If there is someone here with a Wikipedia account in good standing who would be willing to post a message for me on ANI, please PM me.

[Gruntled]

Where is Will's checkuser evidence?

WR:AGF, please. Maybe he spotted a couple of cases of someone editing while logged out. It happens all the time.

[Gruntled]

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.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Angel Flight's 2nd unblock request has been up in the air for 2 days, which seems to me to be a remarkably long time. From what I have observed, unblock requests usually result in "Wham, bam, thanks, you're banned." I think that Cla68's remarkable grilling of Slim 'n' Will may have caused some turbulence behind the scenes among the WikiElites. I think it's also a bit of a revelation that Jpgordon is Slim's new pet CheckUser, now that Jayjg is out of the picture.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Virginia Slim makes an abortive attempt to declare victory, and then commences WikiHoundingâ„¢ of her various opponents, with the delightful added feature of accusing her quarry of WikiHounding.

[Silver seren]

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.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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.

I don't really understand how these things work, but out of the dozens and dozens of alleged socks that Will Beback said were me, there are only a handful listed here, and the CU is marked "Inconclusive." And yet, they appear to have been banned.

[Kelly Martin]

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?

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Most use of the checkuser tool is done privately. The fact that you haven't heard of it just means that you aren't that much inside.

[Silver seren]

I'm not sure if I really want to be, honestly. I'm fine with just editing articles.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

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.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Back to the topic, we now learn that Mexican and Argentinian sources are also bad, especially when talking about Mexico, but Crawdaddy! is impeccable.,

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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.

[HRIP7]

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,

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,

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]

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]

Now that is just excruciatingly vexatious dishonesty.

That's one way of putting it. "Business as usual" would be another.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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]

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]

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)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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.

Call me Pollyanna, but I'm thinking that the Slim 'n' Will abuse has grown so blatant that the [ahem]Communityâ„¢ may eventually take note of it and maybe even hand down topic bans as was done with Jayjg, who also seemed invulnerable at one point.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Will waited a day or so before doing this, which is what he has been yearning to do for months.

This as well, which should help the neutrality of the article.

[Jon Awbrey]

Call me Pollyanna …

You're not Pollyanna — you're Wiki-Pollyanna …

Your fixation on 1 single solitary wiki-picometer² of the Big Picture has blinded you to the fact that Slim has already slipped through all the changes she wanted on the global scene.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Your fixation on 1 single solitary wiki-picometer² of the Big Picture has blinded you to the fact that Slim has already slipped through all the changes she wanted on the global scene.

Hey, I write what I know. I can appreciate every nuance of Slim's POV-pushery because I know the subject matter.'

[Silver seren]

Herschel, I think you need to stop making sockpuppets. They only serve to prove that you are a POV warrior.

[lilburne]

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.

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]

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)

[TungstenCarbide]

Will waited a day or so before doing this, which is what he has been yearning to do for months.

This as well, which should help the neutrality of the article.

It's amazing that they haven't range blocked the ips mentioned in that ANI thread.

[Silver seren]

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]

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.

[Silver seren]

Then clearly someone else who still works at ASP is making the edits?

And you could easily prove that you don't work at ASP anymore by going there and revealing your IP address, which should presumably be far removed from the IP addresses for ASP.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Going where?

[Silver seren]

The ANI discussion. I mean, I presume you don't edit Wikipedia anymore as it is, so it won't matter.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I still live in southern California, so they would take that as evidence of guilt, not innocence. Not that they care much about being consistent -- take a gander at this.

[Silver seren]

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.

[Cla68]

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.

[Silver seren]

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.

[Text]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mUjBpHQiRKw/R_qw...ternetdrama.png

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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.

[Silver seren]

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]

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.

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]

Well, I can't do much this week, too many tests and such, but I should have more free time come spring break in two weeks. Then I can take my time to look through all of that.

[Cla68]

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.

Most of the threads in which positive or neutral sources about LaRouche are discussed somehow get archived fairly quickly. If you'll look through the recent archives, you'll see some discussion of many of them. I added some neutral/positive text a year ago and I probably should check to see if what I added is still in the article.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I added some neutral/positive text a year ago and I probably should check to see if what I added is still in the article.

The part about "the call for economic cooperation between the governments of the US, China, Russia, and India at a November 2007 meeting in Los Angeles of the Forum on US-China Relations and China's Peaceful Reunification" bit the dust somewhere along the line during the past weeks. The Cox Report stuff is intact.

Meanwhile, WB has invited BillMasen back to do a massive rewrite of "Views of LaRouche."

[Silver seren]

Meh.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Pachuco Cadaver and Orange Claw Hammer are obviously the same guy, as any cultured person will tell you. Which leaves open the question of whether AntManBee (T-C-L-K-R-D) is a LaRouche sleeper account.

[Silver seren]

Are you sure you don't mean ManBearPig (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Nope. There's a method to my madness.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

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]

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.

Am I missing something, or is GWH simply lying?

Which do you think is more plausible? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

[Silver seren]

HK's sockpuppet archive merely says that the CU for Angel's flight was done privately, which I already commented on earlier. The CU ended with a confirmation that it was a sock of HK.

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.

This post has been edited by Silver seren:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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.

Where does it say that? I believe that allegation was made about Angel's Flight, not Delia.

[lilburne]

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.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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]

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:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

WB & SV; A knob and a cunt, no wonder they fit together so well. Two of da 'pedia's finest POV pushers.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) That may not be the most appropriate analogy.

[EricBarbour]

WB & SV; A knob and a cunt, no wonder they fit together so well. Two of da 'pedia's finest POV pushers.

Snappy!

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:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

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.

As far as I can tell by looking at the various WP pages, that's not correct. It looks to me that Delia was "linked" to two other accounts, probably by POV and "living in California in a similar way." One of those accounts made an edit where he or she place this template on the LaRouche talk page (hilarious IMO,) The same template was also placed on a different page (much earlier) by an IP editor using a computer from American System Publications. So the "link" between Delia and American Publications looks pretty thin.

[Silver seren]

Hmm...I think I got confused from the discussion at the ANI thread and the two other places. Never mind.

Oh, and that template IS hilarious.

[BananaShowerMonkey]

Question: Why is "PROmotion of LaRouche" a bananable offence but "DEmotion of LaRouche" not?

[thekohser]

Question: Why is "PROmotion of LaRouche" a bananable offence but "DEmotion of LaRouche" not?

Because Wikipedia is all about hate, defamation, and libel of persons not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation or the "trusted" Wikipediot community.

For those affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation or the "trusted" Wikipediot community, Wikipedia is all about love, promotion, and stumping for the subject persons.

[Silver seren]

It's not technically those that aren't affiliated so much as it is those that are actively against Wikipedia or its rules that such defamation is allowed to slip through. The only place where this doesn't seem to be the case is the Larry Sanger article and that's just because Jimbo and everyone else knows that that article is watched far too much by people in general and likely Sanger himself in specific to allow anything truly defamatory through.

Sanger would spring on it and have it in a news article in a heartbeat.

But everyone else that is against Wikipedia is fair game. Aren't you an example of that yourself, Kohser?

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Which came first, chicken or egg? It may be, hypothetically, that no one would be against Wikipedia without first being smeared by it.

[Silver seren]

Though I would bet that, most of the time, the people that edited the article to have the smear were people that were already rivals of the subject in question. So, it's not so much Wikipedia as those rivals themselves.

[thekohser]

Though I would bet that, most of the time, the people that edited the article to have the smear were people that were already rivals of the subject in question. So, it's not so much Wikipedia as those rivals themselves.

Speaking of smears, do you know about Benjiboi and the Crisco caper?

[Text]

Speaking of smears, do you know about Benjiboi and the Crisco caper?

lol, that factoid has been around since 2001 at least!

http://everything2.com/title/Crisco

[Herschelkrustofsky]

This back-and-forth at Georgewilliamherbert's page demonstrates a certain kind of inverted logic. GWH says that the purported socks always press the same issues and are therefore recognizable due to "behavior" and should be banned forthwith. This ignores that fact that these editors or socks or whatever they are are generally reacting to what Slim 'n' Will are doing, which is a monotonously consistent pattern of abuse. Anyone who objects to it would tend to fall into the pattern of behavior which GWH says is grounds for a ban.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Case in point:

Okay. So let me get this: this is King's website. King quotes LaRouche saying,

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,

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."

[EricBarbour]

But everyone else that is against Wikipedia is fair game. Aren't you an example of that yourself, Kohser?

Seren, did you ever read up about how they treated Daniel Brandt?

Start here.

Yes, there were FOURTEEN AFDs.
Ask Brandt why. Go ahead.

[Text]

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?

[Silver seren]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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_Gabbert

Other 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:

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.

[thekohser]

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.

How is your article about Carolyn Doran coming along?

[Text]

How is your article about Carolyn Doran coming along?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

Pretty good. Redirect to "Wikimedia Foundation" has been moved; it now redirects to HOGGÄ–R? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Silver seren]

See Mimi Macpherson.

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]

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?

[Silver seren]

I'm going to try something, the results will be interesting. I'll get back to you.

[carbuncle]

See Mimi Macpherson.

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.

[Silver seren]

I agree, though there is a certain amount of weight to the point made in the deletion discussion that almost all of her notability comes as a result of her sister and that the news pieces on her are trivial and serve only to tie her into her sister's fame.

Doesn't mean I don't think there isn't enough notability lying around for her on her own, but it is rather thin.

[Lar]

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.

[carbuncle]

I agree, though there is a certain amount of weight to the point made in the deletion discussion that almost all of her notability comes as a result of her sister and that the news pieces on her are trivial and serve only to tie her into her sister's fame.

Doesn't mean I don't think there isn't enough notability lying around for her on her own, but it is rather thin.

Yes, they probably put "Elle Macpherson's sister" on those tourism awards that she won for her company. Look, I'm not saying she needs to have a BLP on WP, but if she gets to opt out, so should other people.

[Cla68]

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 will be interesting to see how much participation the current RfC on the economist issue gets.

Talking about the RfC in Wikipedia Review may actually lessen the likelihood of participation by some editors, because they don't want to be seen as acting on discussion from off-wiki from banned editors. Will Beback has been a broken record on that meme lately. The ID and CC Cabs also often beat that drum.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[taiwopanfob]

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.

(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.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Talking about the RfC in Wikipedia Review may actually lessen the likelihood of participation by some editors, because they don't want to be seen as acting on discussion from off-wiki from banned editors. Will Beback has been a broken record on that meme lately.

I always assumed that the only people who read the review were the people who post here, along with a few obsessives like Beback. If what you say is true, maybe the moderators should be more aggressive about weeding out the nonsense.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

SlimVirgin has another request for comment about the use of foreign sources at Talk:WP:V. What she's saying seems completely reasonable, but I wonder if it is going to be leveraged into something else.

[Gruntled]

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.

What she's saying seems completely reasonable

Emphasis mine - we are after all dealing with the ultimate WP gamer.

[BananaShowerMonkey]

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: