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

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I am posting this in response to comments made by Hell Freezes Over in some recent threads.

9 days ago, this page at Wikipedia was deleted. Don't ask me why. It provided a useful chronology of how I was driven off the project. It included a description of my role in the Nobs01 and others arbcom case. I was the only respondent who was not named in the proposed findings of fact. If I had kept my mouth shut, nothing would have happened to me. Because I insisted on speaking out, asserting that the penalties doled out by the arbcom were inequitable (Cberlet was "cautioned," others who had committed comparable offenses were blocked or placed on probation,) I was place on indefinite probation. Fred Bauder justified this decision in the following way:

15) In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Herschelkrustofsky with the decisions reached in this case, and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case, he is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation.

Since this was a little too obvious, Raul654 covered the tracks with this edit.

This action set the stage for what followed. Slim and Will Beback began wikistalking me to various articles, accusing me of adding ideas which they alleged were similar to ideas advocated at one time or another by LaRouche (see Searching for LaRouche under the bed.) They were assisted by 172 (T-C-L-K-R-D) in setting a trap for me (into which I foolishly walked) at Synarchism (T-H-L-K-D). The article did not mention LaRouche, until 172 added a bunch of defamatory crap about LaRouche, which I should have ignored, because the article has probably been read by about six people. But, I removed it, and was charged with "editing a LaRouche-related article," in violation of probation. I protested that it was not a LaRouche-related article, and Slim's response was [paraphrase]"It is now."[/paraphrase]

Now, you can still read this page, some great stuff which I excerpted from the ANI board. The admin who deleted my user page missed it. Hurry! Also, as a sort of postscript, this one, extracted from User talk:SlimVirgin.

[Hell Freezes Over]

This action set the stage for what followed. Slim and Will Beback began wikistalking me to various articles, accusing me of adding ideas which they alleged were similar to ideas advocated at one time or another by LaRouche ...

Your opening a thread about your WP editing puts me in an awkward position. I'm able to show that you had a serious conflict of interest (not just as a LaRouche follower), and that you misled people about your sockpuppets, but doing that would require me to post material that leads to a name, home address, telephone number, and place of work. I'd be banned if I were to do that.

So let me simply ask you this instead. Do you believe Lyndon LaRouche is a reliable source (in Wikipedia terms or in any other)? Do you believe his views should be added to WP articles? Do you believe WP articles should be created about his real or proposed projects, when his publications are the only sources that mention them?

[Somey]

Your opening a thread about your WP editing puts me in an awkward position. I'm able to show that you had a serious conflict of interest (not just as a LaRouche follower), and that you misled people about your sockpuppets, but doing that would require me to post material that leads to a name, home address, telephone number, and place of work. I'd be banned if I were to do that.

If you're defining "conflict of interest" as Wikipedia defines it, we already know all about that. HK has (obviously) made no secret about his political affiliations, and if you managed to find an article or photo or musical composition of his that appeared on some Larouche-related website or other publication, well, congratulations. But that doesn't mean he's being paid by them, or has a title, or anything like that. Larouche supporters are nothing if not generous when it comes to contributing content, after all.

Nobody here (well, hardly anybody) is particularly sanguine on the question of HK's ties to the Larouche Movement, but he's never threatened anyone here with even a whiff of sanction for disagreeing with him about any of that stuff. So, since he admits to it, and he's doing no harm here (or elsewhere, AFAIK, other than the occasional campaign contribution), what's the point of even bringing it up, other than to pursue your standard half-baked innuendo and conspiratorial hoo-ha campaign?

Long story short, this dog won't hunt either. I wouldn't want HK or his pals running my country, and neither should you, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have the same rights to express his opinions as anyone else.

[Hell Freezes Over]

Your opening a thread about your WP editing puts me in an awkward position. I'm able to show that you had a serious conflict of interest (not just as a LaRouche follower), and that you misled people about your sockpuppets, but doing that would require me to post material that leads to a name, home address, telephone number, and place of work. I'd be banned if I were to do that.

If you're defining "conflict of interest" as Wikipedia defines it, we already know all about that. HK has (obviously) made no secret about his political affiliations, and if you managed to find an article or photo or musical composition of his that appeared on some Larouche-related website or other publication, well, congratulations. But that doesn't mean he's being paid by them, or has a title, or anything like that. Larouche supporters are nothing if not generous when it comes to contributing content, after all.

Nobody here (well, hardly anybody) is particularly sanguine on the question of HK's ties to the Larouche Movement, but he's never threatened anyone here with even a whiff of sanction for disagreeing with him about any of that stuff. So, since he admits to it, and he's doing no harm here (or elsewhere, AFAIK, other than the occasional campaign contribution), what's the point of even bringing it up, other than to pursue your standard half-baked innuendo and conspiratorial hoo-ha campaign?

Long story short, this dog won't hunt either. I wouldn't want HK or his pals running my country, and neither should you, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have the same rights to express his opinions as anyone else.

Somey, I'm not talking about creating non-notable stuff, or POV stuff, or COI stuff.

I am talking about someone *inventing* things. Making them up. Even you who wants to defend HK can surely see that that is problematic. Not least because, if he can do it there, he can do it here.

If I'm wrong -- if this is just my "half-baked innuendo" -- I hope HK will explain what (and where) the Eurasian Land-Bridge is, and what Helga Zepp-LaRouche (of the [[Schiller Institute]], which HK is also involved with) is standing next to in that image.

The point of bringing it up, as you asked, is that HK started a thread about his ban, with that as the title. And so I am giving just one example of why the ban is justified.

[The Joy]

Your opening a thread about your WP editing puts me in an awkward position. I'm able to show that you had a serious conflict of interest (not just as a LaRouche follower), and that you misled people about your sockpuppets, but doing that would require me to post material that leads to a name, home address, telephone number, and place of work. I'd be banned if I were to do that.

If you're defining "conflict of interest" as Wikipedia defines it, we already know all about that. HK has (obviously) made no secret about his political affiliations, and if you managed to find an article or photo or musical composition of his that appeared on some Larouche-related website or other publication, well, congratulations. But that doesn't mean he's being paid by them, or has a title, or anything like that. Larouche supporters are nothing if not generous when it comes to contributing content, after all.

Nobody here (well, hardly anybody) is particularly sanguine on the question of HK's ties to the Larouche Movement, but he's never threatened anyone here with even a whiff of sanction for disagreeing with him about any of that stuff. So, since he admits to it, and he's doing no harm here (or elsewhere, AFAIK, other than the occasional campaign contribution), what's the point of even bringing it up, other than to pursue your standard half-baked innuendo and conspiratorial hoo-ha campaign?

Long story short, this dog won't hunt either. I wouldn't want HK or his pals running my country, and neither should you, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have the same rights to express his opinions as anyone else.

Somey, I'm not talking about creating non-notable stuff, or POV stuff, or COI stuff.

I am talking about someone *inventing* things. Making them up. Even you who wants to defend HK can surely see that that is problematic. Not least because, if he can do it there, he can do it here.

If I'm wrong -- if this is just my "half-baked innuendo" -- I hope HK will explain what (and where) the Eurasian Land-Bridge is, and what Helga Zepp-LaRouche (of the [[Schiller Institute]], which HK is also involved with) is standing next to in that image.

The point of bringing it up, as you asked, is that HK started a thread about his ban, with that as the title. And so I am giving just one example of why the ban is justified.

I Googled "Eurasian Land Bridge" and found some info on it. Apparently, its a proposed transportation system (not a single bridge) that spans from Europe to Asia. Supposedly, China has developed or is developing part of it using the old Silk Road.

EIRNA (LaRouche sympathetic publication?) explanation:
http://www.eirna.com/html/reports/eurasiae.htm

The Eurasian Land Bridge concept has been around since the mid-1800s (if this Rolf-Witzsche guy is to be believed).
http://peace.rolf-witzsche.com/landbridge/...l-eurasian.html

LaRouche aside, a Google search does come up with some scholars and journalists discussing the benefits of such a land bridge. China has apparently launched part of it in 2008 on the Silk Road.

Inderscience Publishers
http://inderscience.metapress.com/app/home...ults,1:120367,1

Worldcargonews.com
http://www.worldcargonews.com/htm/n20081016.579306.htm

International Railway Journal
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-176903890.html

Japan Railway and Transportation Review article:
http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr28/pdf/f42_ots.pdf


Heck, you could probably get Eurasian Land Bridge up to GA status on non-LaRouche material alone!

[Hell Freezes Over]

I Googled "Eurasian Land Bridge" and found some info on it. Apparently, its a proposed transportation system (not a single bridge) that spans from Europe to Asia. Supposedly, China has developed or is developing part of it using the old Silk Road.

That can't be the same thing, Joy, because HK wrote that construction had begun by 2004. His article was not about a proposal.

This was the problem. When you tried to find out what he was talking about, there were several things that looked like one part of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, but only up to a point; other things that looked like another part of it, but had nothing to do with LaRouche.

But there was nothing that fitted HK's description of it. I hope he'll come on here and explain what it is, with non-LaRouche sources who attribute the idea to LaRouche.

[The Joy]

I Googled "Eurasian Land Bridge" and found some info on it. Apparently, its a proposed transportation system (not a single bridge) that spans from Europe to Asia. Supposedly, China has developed or is developing part of it using the old Silk Road.

That can't be the same thing, Joy, because HK wrote that construction had begun by 2004. His article was not about a proposal.

This was the problem. When you tried to find out what he was talking about, there were several things that looked like one part of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, but only up to a point; other things that looked like another part of it, but had nothing to do with LaRouche.

But there was nothing that fitted HK's description of it. I hope he'll come on here and explain what it is, with non-LaRouche sources who attribute the idea to LaRouche.

It does appear HK may have violated WP's policies and deserved to be banned. Many Reviewers have been banned for violating WP rules.

However, what others in this thread are concerned about is the problem of extremes. Pro-LaRouche editors may be a problem, but Anti-LaRouche editors are just as troublesome. Neutrality and "NPOV" should keep things objective. This is not how it has worked out.

I notice that Pro-LaRouche editors are closely analyzed. What of the Anti-LaRouche editors like Berlet and Will Beback? Have any major Anti-LaRouche editors been banned?

Now anyone that edits LaRouche-related articles will have their contributions scrutinized. I doubt I or anyone could write about the Eurasian Land Bridge concept sans LaRouche material without some administrator watching my every edit and waiting for me to "slip."

When Jon says there are no Wikipedia policies, I think he means (I may be wrong about that) that policies exist only to benefit those who can socially and technically enforce their own POV on Wikipedia. For now, the Anti-LaRouche group holds sway. Who knows? Tomorrow, the Pro-LaRouche group may be in charge. It's like Somalia with its many warlords and who knows how "neutrality" and "NPOV" will be enforced at any given time.

You may be right about HK's edits, but your enforcement of neutrality and NPOV on Wikipedia is uneven.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I notice that Pro-LaRouche editors are closely analyzed. What of the Anti-LaRouche editors like Berlet and Will Beback? Have any major Anti-LaRouche editors been banned?

...You may be right about HK's edits, but your enforcement of neutrality and NPOV on Wikipedia is uneven.

That's putting it kindly. Dennis King Dking (T-C-L-K-R-D) is the most egregious policy violater, having been nailed by the WP COI team for linkspamming his ridiculous website all over the project. SV's reaction to Dking's excesses was to develop an extensive off-wiki correspondence with him:

Another Wikipedian and myself wrote to Dennis King some time ago, suggesting that he stick closely to reliable sources if he edits LaRouche material. (from Who is this?)

And here's a special message from Jimbo from SV's talk page archives. Compare SV's helpful attitude toward Dking, with her gratuitious abuse of pro-LaRouche editor Cognition (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

The moral of the story is that overly aggressive enforcement of the rules is forgivable; lax enforcement of the rules is forgivable; but selective enforcement of the rules, to further a POV agenda, is unforgivable, and ought to be grounds for swift and permanent desyssoping.