The one who disappeared, Can Wikipedia trust the Russkies? Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

After an unprecedented period of stability, there is some new fancy footwork at Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). First, TallNapoleon (T-C-L-K-R-D) arrives and objects to a favorable assessment of LaRouche by Russian economist Stanislav Menshikov, which appears in the lead (here's the blow-by-blow.) Leatherstocking asks whether he thinks Menshikov is non-notable. Then Will Beback, sensing an opportunity, speedy-deletes the WP bio of Menshikov. Leatherstocking objects, but an oblivious TallNapoleon goes on to say, how can Menshikov be notable? His name is redlinked!

Now, here is where I am asking for a bit of enlightenment from any WP admins who may be reading this thread. Señor Beback provides the following justification for his deletion of the Menshikov article: He cites a passage from WP:Criteria for Speedy Deletion, where it says that "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others." I remember reading that article some months ago, but I don't remember who authored it, although I checked at the time. As I recall, there were edits by a variety of editors, including Beback himself, which means that he violated policy by deleting it. However, since the history is now invisible to the plebes, I'm asking an admin to take a peek to see whether I'm right on this. I'd also like to know whether there is any credible basis for the author being a "banned user," because with Will's methodology, that is likely to mean "an editor who has used the same ISP as another editor who was banned for using the same ISP as another editor who was banned for using AOL" (my ISP.)

Meanwhile, Coleacanth (T-C-L-K-R-D) found a Google cached version of the deleted article and linked to it on the talk page (here it is.) Coleacanth is a new user who appears to be pro-LaRouche, which means he or she is likely to be banned as a sock by Will in short order. Of course, if anyone challenges this, Will can no longer go to Jayjg for bogus CU support.

[Eva Destruction]

After an unprecedented period of stability, there is some new fancy footwork at Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). First, TallNapoleon (T-C-L-K-R-D) arrives and objects to a favorable assessment of LaRouche by Russian economist Stanislav Menshikov, which appears in the lead (here's the blow-by-blow.) Leatherstocking asks whether he thinks Menshikov is non-notable. Then Will Beback, sensing an opportunity, speedy-deletes the WP bio of Menshikov. Leatherstocking objects, but an oblivious TallNapoleon goes on to say, how can Menshikov be notable? His name is redlinked!

Now, here is where I am asking for a bit of enlightenment from any WP admins who may be reading this thread. Señor Beback provides the following justification for his deletion of the Menshikov article: He cites a passage from WP:Criteria for Speedy Deletion, where it says that "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others." I remember reading that article some months ago, but I don't remember who authored it, although I checked at the time. As I recall, there were edits by a variety of editors, including Beback himself, which means that he violated policy by deleting it. However, since the history is now invisible to the plebes, I'm asking an admin to take a peek to see whether I'm right on this. I'd also like to know whether there is any credible basis for the author being a "banned user," because with Will's methodology, that is likely to mean "an editor who has used the same ISP as another editor who was banned for using the same ISP as another editor who was banned for using AOL" (my ISP.)

Meanwhile, Coleacanth (T-C-L-K-R-D) found a Google cached version of the deleted article and linked to it on the talk page (here it is.) Coleacanth is a new user who appears to be pro-LaRouche, which means he or she is likely to be banned as a sock by Will in short order. Of course, if anyone challenges this, Will can no longer go to Jayjg for bogus CU support.

The Menshikov article was created by MaplePorter (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I have no opinion as to whether this is a sock, but Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 claim to have evidence that it's you. As I don't have access to checkuser etc, I can't say whether that's valid.

Full history of the Menshikov article:

* (diff) 16:00, 16 May 2009 . . 198.147.225.69 (talk | block) (2,006 bytes)
* (diff) 15:59, 16 May 2009 . . 198.147.225.69 (talk | block) (1,993 bytes)
* (diff) 23:25, 2 August 2007 . . Will Beback (talk | contribs | block) (1,594 bytes) (identify Schiiler inst.)
* (diff) 06:51, 21 May 2007 . . Alex Bakharev (talk | contribs | block) (1,570 bytes) (+cats)
* (diff) 23:10, 18 May 2007 . . MaplePorter (talk | contribs | block) (1,448 bytes) (add name of wife)
* (diff) 15:37, 18 May 2007 . . MaplePorter (talk | contribs | block) (1,385 bytes)
* (diff) 15:36, 18 May 2007 . . MaplePorter (talk | contribs | block) (1,372 bytes) (←Created page with ''''Stanislav Menshikov''', born 1927, is a Russian economist. He is the author of numerous books, and co-authored, with John Kenneth Galbraith, ''Cap...')

Bakharev just added a category and Beback just changed "Schiller Institute" to "The LaRouche Movement's Schiller Institute"; the IP added "During the eighties, he served as a spokesman for the Soviet government on U.S. television" as its first edit and the {{reflist}} list as its second.

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Well, this establishes that Will knew of this article well over a year ago, but did not choose to speedy-delete it until such time as he found it useful to do so, in service of a POV-pushing gambit. He is deliberately setting up a situation where TallNapoleon and now Cs32en (T-C-L-K-R-D) will say "Ooh! Redlink! Not notable!", and Will can sit on the sidelines, saying, "My goodness, I think you may have a point."

[dtobias]

Yes, it's commonplace for the dominant clique there to use their various tools in concert... get somebody banned on trumped-up charges so they can then delete the article that user created so that they then can claim the article's subject is non-notable on the grounds that they have no article... it all makes perfect sense.

[Somey]

Stanislav Menshikov, Catastrophe and Catharsis, p. 119:

The main principle of the organization of wholesale trade should be to overcome monopoly and make it impossible. Every industry should have not one, but at least five to ten competing firms dealing in the same commodities so that from the start independent producers should have not only the formal right, but also a real opportunity to choose from among rival wholesalers and suppliers.

It's easy to see why Wikipedia would want to eliminate the ideas of such a person from its pages...

Menshikov was (is?) probably one of the most prominent economists of the post-Soviet era, and it's not like there are never going to be other countries coming out of a communist phase into a free-market economy, whose people will need this kind of information - even if it's wrong on some particulars. To delete the guy's bio article on the basis of some stupid LaRouche-related dispute is outrageous. Why don't they just delete all the LaRouche stuff altogether, including the article on Pierre Salinger (T-H-L-K-D) since Salinger and LaRouche were apparently casual acquaintances, and have done with it?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Thanks to EvaD for providing the history. Here's a suggestion for any WP admin that may happen by: given that there were multiple editors who contributed over time, the notability of the subject, and the curious timing of the speedy-deletion, I think that it might be appropriate for someone to un-delete it and request that the deletion request go through standard AfD channels.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Meanwhile, Tom harrison (T-C-L-K-R-D) shows up out of the blue, as is his wont, deletes the Menshikov quote without comment, and within an hour the article is fully protected. That's teamwork!

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Tom Harrison and William Connelly have been overlooked in the Dick of Distinction contests.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

This is on ANI now, and Maury Markowitz undeleted the article, although not everyone is happy with this outcome.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

It looks like Will Beback is going through a rough patch just now. The next item on ANI is Will getting a 24 hr. block for violating the Prem Rawat arbcom decision.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

There is now a regular AfD on the Menshikov article, which is leaning heavily toward Keep.

[EricBarbour]

It looks like Will Beback is going through a rough patch just now.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

I've also written about the frustration of being followed around Wikipedia and harassed by a talentless troll who calls himself "Will BeBack". Among his many deliberately irritating tactics is his insistence that you're not allowed to use contractions in reference entries. I edited reference books for years without ever hearing about that rule.

[zvook]

At the AfD WillBeback says of Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits (T-H-L-K-D)—not the most uncontroversial of policies at the best of times—"I note that this case is a good reason for the rule"... despite being aware that neither the HK or Mapleporter accounts were banned or under block at the time of the article's creation and edits... and also despite the article not being newly created... and also despite the IP edit not looking all that insubstantial in fact. He also says that doubts anyone would have noticed if "an involved editor hadn't complained"... as opposed to if an involved admin hadn't deleted, one supposes. Those pesky involved editors.

It's quite funny to see members of the admin corps tiptoe deftly around the issue of this cavalier style playing fast and loose with rules. IAR and all that, chaps! "I want to be free to do would have done the same myself!" As if this not the kind of admin behaviour Arbcom assured "the community" they were equipped to deal with. But no one has a sufficiently big dog in this fight, and even if they did, for reasons gomi points out elsewhere, you wouldn't exactly blame anyone for not bothering to bring a case. That's been a too much a case of "Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss", as some sixties hedonistic rockers that HK no doubt disdains put it.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

It looks like Will Beback is going through a rough patch just now.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Is this a droll reference to Essjay?

#1 ::: Anticorium ::: (view all by) ::: May 06, 2007, 12:29 AM:
In my role as a tenured professor of religion at a private university, I respectfully disagree with your opinion of Wikipedia.

[zvook]

It looks like Will Beback is going through a rough patch just now.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Is this a droll reference to Essjay?

#1 ::: Anticorium ::: (view all by) ::: May 06, 2007, 12:29 AM:
In my role as a tenured professor of religion at a private university, I respectfully disagree with your opinion of Wikipedia.

Hahaha.

#2 ::: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: May 06, 2007, 12:36 AM:

Drat. I can't top that.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

That's been a too much a case of "Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss", as some sixties hedonistic rockers that HK no doubt disdains put it.

As a former Wikipedian, I feel an irresistible anal-retentive compulsion to point out that your quote comes from some seventies hedonistic rockers (who, however, got their start in the sixties.) Incidentally, dude, I spent the seventies as a professional hedonistic rocker myself, so please respect any Original Research that I may accidentally add.

It's quite funny to see members of the admin corps tiptoe deftly around the issue of this cavalier style playing fast and loose with rules.

Also funny, as always, is the Fat Man's contribution to the debate.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

And in a related story, Will is carrying on like the energizer bunny at the reliable sources noticeboard, arguing that a Russian magazine which published a speech that LaRouche's wife made before the Duma should not be considered a reliable source.

[Milton Roe]

And in a related story, Will is carrying on like the energizer bunny at the reliable sources noticeboard, arguing that a Russian magazine which published a speech that LaRouche's wife made before the Duma should not be considered a reliable source.

And just how was it you managed to get yourself permabanned from the entire site, and not just topic-banned for a year like the Scientologists? What did you do that they didn't do?

When I finally read the Scientology COI/sock/SPA decision (something that apparently no journalist did, but the people on Colbert's Comedy Writer Staff managed to do), by the time I got to the end, I was expecting it to end in this motion:

All Scientologists are urged not to take this gentle admonishment personally, and know that ArbCom tousels each one upon their errant heads, extends each a gentle and nonsexual pat on the tushie, and wishes them well upon their return to editing this fine encyclopedia in 365364 days...

Support: Carasachothothofuckit
Support: GandalfGreyteeth
Support: Cassegrain
Support: OneCool

Whereas WillBeback has foamed about LaRouche like Cujo, and been allowed to do it, following an ArbCom decision that sewed the fields on that subject with salt.

Does anybody really think LaRouche and his followers REALLY are crazier than the Scientologists? Nah, not even on WP. Instead I think money and lawsuit-happy-churches get the kidgloves.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The LaRouche organization has had no institutional response to Wikipedia beyond this little article. Why, I don't know; I suppose they have bigger fish to fry.

To be fair, the arbcom did not ban me -- not in so many words. But they created a mechanism that was available for the gaming by Will Beback and SlimVirgin:
If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles. A one-week ban may be imposed for use of a sockpuppet for any purpose; such a ban shall reset both bans.

This was sufficiently vague that Will 'n' Slim had a field day, conjuring up excuses to extend my ban at every turn (see Searching for LaRouche under the bed and The Herschelkrustofsky ban revisited.) Eventually Will went to ANI and asked for a community ban, since I was obviously such a chronic offender, and also because I was active as a mod at the Review. The very public-spirited JoshuaZ heard the call, and responded.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

And in a related story, Will is carrying on like the energizer bunny at the reliable sources noticeboard, arguing that a Russian magazine which published a speech that LaRouche's wife made before the Duma should not be considered a reliable source.

And he is getting his butt kicked there.