The idiocy and the irony, banning nonsense goes full circle Options

[Kato]

A few months ago, I was arguing here with Slim about how, back in the old days, she and others were targeting just about anyone as being a LaRouchie, and I described the chaos that witchhunt had caused. I especially noted an incident when herself and long time user (and another anti-LaRouche figure) 172 (T-C-L-K-R-D) discussed banning a totally innocent guy as a "New LaRouche editor" back in 2007.

Here is my post, Slim simply batted this incident off by not addressing it specifically - claiming that people weren't banned as LaRouchies without good reason.

Not necessarily so. The whole LaRouche vs anti-LaRouche thing was a farce that had spilled out all over Wikipedia. Wholly unrelated people were getting threatened by Wikipedia powerplayers as "LaRouchies" on a regular basis. People saw it with their own eyes and have not been swayed by Hersch at this site. It was outrageous, and one of my first posts at this site was to highlight one such offense.

In April, 2007, an editor went to SlimVirgin and Willbeback and wrote this about Mbhiii (T-C-L-K-R-D) :

New LaRouche editor

This looks quite familar now. [10] Like the last HK sockpuppet blocked by SlimVirgin, HonourableSchoolboy, this account has been editing articles that appear in my recent contributions history or are linked to my userpage. Sigh. 172 | Talk 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sadly, by now I can spot LaRouche propaganda from a mile away. 172 | Talk 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The message to SlimVirgin has since been deleted. But the spirit of the message is typical. The accused had nothing to do with LaRouche, and his edits had nothing to do with LaRouche. Yet he was immediately attacked as a "New LaRouche" editor.

A group of editors, led by SlimVirgin, and accompanied by anti-LaRouche campaigners Chip Berlet and Dennis King (whose Conflicts Of Interest were never questioned) were allowed to treat Wikipedia like an anti-LaRouche version of the McCarthy witch-hunts. Thus creating massive bad feelings and subverting the whole culture of the place.

Well here comes the most ridiculous development yet. Having spent years orchestrating witch-hunts with Slim and Will against LaRouchies, former admin User:172 has himself been indefinitely banned by some lunatic administrator - on the declaration that he is the pro-LaRouche renegade Cognition (T-C-L-K-R-D) based on "checkuser evidence".

So either User:172 was the most brilliant stooge account ever (going back to 2002), or WP's checkuser facitilities are so incompetent, it has convicted the Witchfinder General of being a witch!

And to cap it off. Slim was right in the mix during these latest banning discussions which nailed 172!

[Newyorkbrad]

(background snipped)
Well here comes the most ridiculous development yet. Having spent years orchestrating witch-hunts with Slim and Will against LaRouchies, former admin User:172 has himself been indefinitely banned by some lunatic administrator - on the declaration that he is the pro-LaRouche renegade Cognition (T-C-L-K-R-D) based on "checkuser evidence".

The original LaRouche controversy is well before my time on Wikipedia, and I think we've established that by my own admission I'm not an authority on technical aspects of checkuser or sockpuppetry investigations, so no direct comment from me on this block. So instead I'll comment on this WR thread itself.

Whatever disagreements exist between the checkuser team on Wikipedia and the longtime members of Wikipedia Review, I think there has been a trend recently for Wikipedians to recognize that valid comments and criticism sometimes appear on this site (amongst other posts that I won't characterize), and for Wikipedia Reviewers to recognize that many people on Wikipedia are trying to do their best. And this situation is an example. It may not be clear just what the relationship is among the accounts that were blocked, but several Persons Generally Recognized As Clueful have explained that the action that was taken was not arbitrary.

So it just seems to me that it might have been better for this topic to have been opened by observing that a potentially unjustified and mistaken block had been made and required an explanation, if that was the poster's view. I don't quite see how starting out with an accusation that an idiotic action was taken by a lunatic advances the cause of healthy and convincing Wikipedia criticism.

Of course, that's probably just my usual mamby-pambyism flaring up again, so feel free to ignore.

[Kelly Martin]

So it just seems to me that it might have been better for this topic to have been opened by observing that a potentially unjustified and mistaken block had been made and required an explanation, if that was the poster's view. I don't quite see how starting out with an accusation that an idiotic action was taken by a lunatic advances the cause of healthy and convincing Wikipedia criticism.

Perhaps it would help if there were fewer administrative actions on Wikipedia that turn out, on deeper examination, to be idiotic actions taken by lunatics.

You know, maybe it is an outrageous coincidence. And both Cognition and 172 ended up editing from the same internet point in the St Petersburg area? That would be hilarious, if true.

If Cognition is the creepy-crazy LaRouchian who went to the 2005 St Pete meetup, I'd not put it past him to actively stalk 172, hack his residential wireless, or arrange to use the same public access point, especially if he thought doing so would result in 172 being silenced on Wikipedia.

Them LaRouchians are a scary lot.

[everyking]

If Cognition is the creepy-crazy LaRouchian who went to the 2005 St Pete meetup, I'd not put it past him to actively stalk 172, hack his residential wireless, or arrange to use the same public access point, especially if he thought doing so would result in 172 being silenced on Wikipedia.

Them LaRouchians are a scary lot.

So you're saying you actually saw a LaRouchite at that meetup? I think that would change things quite a bit.

This post has been edited by everyking: Sun 6th September 2009, 1:00am

[Herschelkrustofsky]

So you're saying you actually saw a LaRouchite at that meetup? I think that would change things quite a bit.

If this is legit, I would have to reconsider my assessment of Cognition. I don't think a bonafide LaRouchista would attend a meetup. I suppose it could have been someone who was on the periphery of the organization. There are no LaRouche offices in Florida.