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

[Mackan]

I wouldn't defend HK's editing, since he seems to acknowledge using sockpuppets. But, I think it's notable that SV switches to addressing this topic, while refusing to answer questions about her editing.

Of course, there are strong reasons to question the idea that SV gave HK or others no reason to question her good faith. An example from experience: it was forty minutes before SV first decided to follow me to the bio of Folke Bernadotte (my experience with her then consisted solely of a conflict on the Zionism article), that she requested that I "post questions on the articles' talk pages from now on, please, rather than on my talk page, because others may want to respond too." After arriving on the bio, she then immediately moved my response from her talk page to the article talk page. The series of edits is here. Who asks another editor not to comment further on their talk page, immediately before first following the editor to another article?

We aren't talking about a little rhetoric here, but flagrantly underhanded behavior. Another example I noted to arbcom was where SV adjusted a talk page several times over reversions, then immediately archived the page so that it wouldn't be undone (point 8). Who escalates several reverts on a talk page by immediately archiving the page? It isn't even the outrageousness, but exactly the triviality of these acts that illustrated the disregard for even a semblance of good faith interaction.

If SV wants a reevaluation of her conflicts on Wikipedia, that's great, just as long as she can acknowledge what she was actually doing. The truth is I don't think anyone would try to defend WR on whole anyway, but at least there could be a meaningful discussion.

This post has been edited by Mackan: Sun 12th April 2009, 9:11am

[Hell Freezes Over]

1. LaRouche's publications are reliable sources for his own views under WP:SELFPUB.

Do you believe his own views ought to be added to any topic he has expressed a view on?

The Eurasian Land Bridge was a proposal that LaRouche made back in the early 90s. Without question, the proposal exists.

So what did you mean by writing that construction had begun? "Following a conference held in China in 1996, which was addressed by Helga Zepp LaRouche, construction began in earnest." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e&oldid=3820805

[dtobias]

Who escalates several reverts on a talk page by immediately archiving the page?

JzG, for one... it's a favorite technique of his.

[Jon Awbrey]

I wouldn't defend HK's editing, since he seems to acknowledge using sockpuppets. But, I think it's notable that SV switches to addressing this topic, while refusing to answer questions about her editing.

Of course, there are strong reasons to question the idea that SV gave HK or others no reason to question her good faith. An example from experience: it was forty minutes before SV first decided to follow me to the bio of Folke Bernadotte (my experience with her then consisted solely of a conflict on the Zionism article), that she requested that I "post questions on the articles' talk pages from now on, please, rather than on my talk page, because others may want to respond too." After arriving on the bio, she then immediately moved my response from her talk page to the article talk page. The series of edits is here. Who asks another editor not to comment further on their talk page, immediately before first following the editor to another article?

We aren't talking about a little rhetoric here, but flagrantly underhanded behavior. Another example I noted to arbcom was where SV adjusted a talk page several times over reversions, then immediately archived the page so that it wouldn't be undone (point 8). Who escalates several reverts on a talk page by immediately archiving the page? It isn't even the outrageousness, but exactly the triviality of these acts that illustrated the disregard for even a semblance of good faith interaction.

If SV wants a reevaluation of her conflicts on Wikipedia, that's great, just as long as she can acknowledge what she was actually doing. The truth is I don't think anyone would try to defend WR on whole anyway, but at least there could be a meaningful discussion.

I can still remember how shocked I was, back in the day when I actually believed that Wikipedians were serious about the Words, Words, Words they spew under the name of Pillar & Policy, the first few times I saw Adminds like SlimVirgin, FeloniousMonk, KillerChihuahua, Jayjg, and JzG tag-teaming up with their sleight-of-hand jobs to do whatever they damn well pleased at any time — then raising clouds of lies, comment deletions, and talk page shuffles to cover their tracks. I quit being surprised at that somewhere around the twentieth time I saw it happen.

Jon Awbrey

[Herschelkrustofsky]

1. LaRouche's publications are reliable sources for his own views under WP:SELFPUB.

Do you believe his own views ought to be added to any topic he has expressed a view on?

I believe his views on any topic should be subject to the same notability standards as those of any other public figure. Incidentally, this, along with the question of whether I should be banned for creating an article which ostensibly would have failed AfD had it ever been submitted for one (Eurasian Land-Bridge,) is a part of the latest school of red herrings, because I wasn't banned for any of these things. I was banned because of the gambits described at the beginning of this thread.

The Eurasian Land Bridge was a proposal that LaRouche made back in the early 90s. Without question, the proposal exists.

So what did you mean by writing that construction had begun? "Following a conference held in China in 1996, which was addressed by Helga Zepp LaRouche, construction began in earnest." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e&oldid=3820805

I meant that construction had begun, not that the project was completed, which is the claim that you were implicitly making. The Chinese embraced the idea and it has continued to play an important role in their enormous infrastructure agenda. In China, Ms. Zepp-LaRouche was known as the "Silk Road Lady" and there is an ongoing dialogue between the LaRouches and government of China, typified by this series of interviews in 2005 entitled "Global Financial Crisis is Coming." Incidentally,

The inscription on the monument is obviously photoshopped.

{{fact}}

[Hell Freezes Over]

I believe his views on any topic should be subject to the same notability standards as any other public figure.

Can you explain what that means? How would we judge the notability standards of LaRouche's views on any given topic, as opposed to any other public figure's views?

My question was: if you're editing an article on, say, the political aspects of stem cell research, and if this is an issue that LaRouche has strong feelings about, and has spoken or written about often in Executive Intelligence Review, do you believe it would be appropriate to add his views to the article?

I meant that construction had begun, not that the project was completed, which is the claim that you were implicitly making ...

Is there any evidence independent of LaRouche that construction *of his project* has begun?

I also wanted to ask you about your views on BLP, given that you're staff on a website that says it campaigns on behalf of people traduced by anonymous Wikipedians.

You created the articles on Chip Berlet and Dennis King, editing as an IP, even though by your own admission you've been a dedicated part of a political organization since the 1970s that has been at odds with Berlet and King for decades. Here's your first version of Berlet (using Brandt and LaRouche as two of your sources) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...t&oldid=3597556 and here of King. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...g&oldid=3597662

Do you regret creating those, or do you still feel it was appropriate?

[CharlotteWebb]

Here is the photo in question, which shows LaRouche's wife being interviewed in front of a memorial built by the Chinese government, which is labeled, in English, "Eastern Terminal of Eurasia Landbridge." If you want to refer to it as the "supposed entrance," go ahead, it's a free country.

Yeah but China isn't. Let's just call it an on-ramp for the sake of argument. Are you asserting that the yellow letters were not in fact added in post-production?

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

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

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Sun 12th April 2009, 1:52pm

[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.

[Hell Freezes Over]

SV's reaction to Dking's excesses was to develop an extensive off-wiki correspondence with him

Compare SV's helpful attitude toward Dking, with her gratuitious abuse of pro-LaRouche editor Cognition (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

How on earth do you translate that I wrote to King asking him to use reliable sources into "SV's reaction to Dking's excesses was to develop an extensive off-wiki correspondence with him"? I have had no extensive correspondence with Dennis King -- barely any.

I'm so glad you reminded me of Cognition! "Chip Berlet is a 5 cent thug in a long-range Aristotelian network, an evil, Venetian-based clique which has found its most demonic individuals in men such as Bertrand Russell, the advocate of nuclear genocide; Adolf Hitler, a perverted figure of anti-christ calibre who was installed into power by British bankers; and the Beatles, generals of a literal "British Invasion," doped-up zombie devils whose atrocious personal lives matched the Satanic musical presentation of their pop songs."

I will give her the last word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req....7BCognition.7D

This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over: Sun 12th April 2009, 2:15pm

[The Adversary]

I wouldn't defend HK's editing, since he seems to acknowledge using sockpuppets. But, I think it's notable that SV switches to addressing this topic, while refusing to answer questions about her editing.

Of course, there are strong reasons to question the idea that SV gave HK or others no reason to question her good faith. An example from experience: it was forty minutes before SV first decided to follow me to the bio of Folke Bernadotte (my experience with her then consisted solely of a conflict on the Zionism article), that she requested that I "post questions on the articles' talk pages from now on, please, rather than on my talk page, because others may want to respond too." After arriving on the bio, she then immediately moved my response from her talk page to the article talk page. The series of edits is here. Who asks another editor not to comment further on their talk page, immediately before first following the editor to another article?

We aren't talking about a little rhetoric here, but flagrantly underhanded behavior. Another example I noted to arbcom was where SV adjusted a talk page several times over reversions, then immediately archived the page so that it wouldn't be undone (point 8). Who escalates several reverts on a talk page by immediately archiving the page? It isn't even the outrageousness, but exactly the triviality of these acts that illustrated the disregard for even a semblance of good faith interaction.

If SV wants a reevaluation of her conflicts on Wikipedia, that's great, just as long as she can acknowledge what she was actually doing. The truth is I don't think anyone would try to defend WR on whole anyway, but at least there could be a meaningful discussion.

Do you think it was only you? They always did that, back in the bad old days of 2005-2006, early 2007. Jayjg was even coldly bragging about it back in 2005, when their wiki-stalking was the norm ("agree with us or else.."), telling an editor that: " [we] simply reverted him regardless of what he edited. I've seen it happen to other editors as well".

[Jon Awbrey]

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

That would be a consideration if Wikiputia had any policies against multiple accounts — but of course it doesn't.

Aside from the fact that Wikiputia has no policies at all, the only de facto consideration that makes an alternate account a BADACCOUNT is that the Cabal Don't Like It.

And you all know it.

Jon Awbrey

[CharlotteWebb]

My best guess is that continued exposure to the dangerous mind-destroying effects of marijuana caused him to take such bizarre opinions about LaRouche.

...and furthermore, Herschel, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised...

[The Adversary]

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

Bad, bad socky

[Jon Awbrey]

And so I am giving just one example of why the ban is justified.

Ay, there's the rub.

What exactly justifies a ban?

To say that a ban is just is to say that equal justice is applied to all participants.

Do you really want to go there?

I don't think so.

Jon Awbrey

Now it doesn't surprise me one little bit that HFO cannot respond to simple questions about justice and justification. When it comes to that, she has no leg to stand on, snow-booted, spike-heeled, or otherwise. Like the alternate accountants of her many other sets of books, she displays all the incapacities of the average sociopath to grasp and actualize the most basic concepts of ethics.

But it worries me a little that she seems to be turning the rest of your brains to Whip'n'Chill — to the point where you forget the very meanings of justice and justification.

So here's a little visual aid that I whipped up:

Left Justified

Ay, there's the rub.

What exactly justifies a ban?

To say that a ban is just is to say that equal justice is applied to all participants.

Do you really want to go there?

I don't think so.

Jon Awbrey

Right Justified

Ay, there's the rub.

What exactly justifies a ban?

To say that a ban is just is to say that equal justice is applied to all participants.

Do you really want to go there?

I don't think so.

Jon Awbrey

Not Justified

Ay, there's the rub.

What exactly justifies a ban?

To say that a ban is just is to say that equal justice is applied to all participants.

Do you really want to go there?

I don't think so.

Jon Awbrey

See how that works?

Jon Awbrey

[Somey]

Do you believe his own views ought to be added to any topic he has expressed a view on?

Apparently you do?

[Obesity]

Do you believe his own views ought to be added to any topic he has expressed a view on?

Apparently you do?

but... but... but.... when she does it's cute.

[Lar]

"SV wants a reevaluation of her conflicts on Wikipedia"...

{{citation needed}}

[Bottled_Spider]

This is pointless. And pathetic.

She's playing all of you. Again.

Yep. But you've got to admit she does it with style, goshdarnit. I say this thread'll be a 6-pager. Maybe 7, or 8. It's beginning to be tough keeping up with it all. So much material, so little time.

[dtobias]

and the Beatles, generals of a literal "British Invasion," doped-up zombie devils whose atrocious personal lives matched the Satanic musical presentation of their pop songs."

Yes, such horrendous debauchery as "I Want to Hold Your Hand", which unleashed a huge Satanic movement of unconstrained hand-holding!

----------------
Now playing: The Beatles - I Want To Hold Your Hand
via FoxyTunes

[LessHorrid vanU]

and the Beatles, generals of a literal "British Invasion," doped-up zombie devils whose atrocious personal lives matched the Satanic musical presentation of their pop songs."

Yes, such horrendous debauchery as "I Want to Hold Your Hand", which unleashed a huge Satanic movement of unconstrained hand-holding!

----------------
Now playing: The Beatles - I Want To Hold Your Hand
via FoxyTunes

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

I wonder if Cognito ever listened to "Venus in Furs"?