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:
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.

They call that a "Courtesy".

See Also

• Kangaroo Kourtesy

Ja Ja

I think most people who are banned tend complain about pages that are not deleted, or at least they complain more loudly, so that might be part of the reason this is the default thing to do.


Well in this uhh day and age you would probably find enough people arguing that one can look topic bans in the face and laugh as long as they cite BLP as their reason. However in practice the judgment would probably depend more on the topic than which editor is banned from it. The final frontier as it were. :s


Of course he missed it. He wasn't born yet.

In my mind you probably have no chance of being unbanned, but stranger things are certainly possible. Consider Rootology's Nelson Mandela stunt. Of course he timed it with Obama's inauguration, which was pure genius I thought. Somehow I doubt anything like that will work in regard to LaRouche.

Sorry I missed that. What are you referring to?

Which reminds me -- there had already been a battle over the deletion of User:Herschelkrustofsky by (you guessed it) SlimVirgin. It was restored by User:Ashibaka and then survived an AfD vote. Since my username was linked all over kingdom come at Wikipedia, I wanted it to stay up so that I might have my side of the story heard. It was, of course, ultimately re-deleted and remains in this archive courteously provided by Daniel Brandt.

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?

People here were able to show that Jossi Fresco had a serious conflict of interest. He was a PR worker for Prem Ruwat, cult leader.

No one at Wikipedia gave a crap. Jimbo Wales even wrote that Jossi was "a great Wikipedian" after it was made public. What Jossi was up to on Wikipedia didn't bother me. What bothered me was that your "serious conflicts of interest" were treated in an arbitrary and unfair way with punishments meted out to some but not others.

I've looked at virtually every edit Hersch has made, and I see no difference in principle between his edits and Jossi Fresco's.

Shouldn't edits be judged on their merits? Or should users be profiled; "tracked down to a name, home address, telephone number, and place of work", and railroaded off no matter what they've been writing on Wikipedia?

---------

Here's you giving Jossi your approval:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jossi/Awards


---------

Here's what happened when someone gave Herschelkrustofsky one of those barnstars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=18172179

---------

This brings me back to my main thesis:

I believe that you, Slim, were responsible for fostering a damaging culture that warped the notions of "outing" and "conflicts of interest" - that exploited memes of "stalking and harrassment" ("I could be killed if exposed") which ultimately, like the ludicrous anti-LaRouche campaign and many others, subverted Wikipedia from within, causing massive problems for many people. Add to that the blatant cronyism, which you exemplified, and you have the definition of a dysfunctional and dangerous process.

Very much so. What do you think about this article of HK's, as an example? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e&oldid=3820805

Is there such a thing as the Eurasian Land Bridge? Is it connected to the [[Asian Highway Network]] that it redirects to? LaRouche's wife was photographed standing next to its supposed entrance, as though she were opening it, or were somehow responsible for it.

Perhaps HK can explain what it is?

Non notable?

Was it put on Request for Deletion, for that "consensus / community" malarkey to decide?

Is it just non-notable? Is there such a thing as the Eurasian Land Bridge? If there is, does it have anything to do with LaRouche?

I suppose other than putting the non-notable and banal article up for deletion to see what the "community" thought, you could go on a quest to discover who Herschelkrustofsky is, ban him, delete all his edits on any topic, attack anyone who edits anywhere near him, and a bunch of people by mistake who didn't even do that, and pursue a bitter crusade across the internet that lasted years?

I guess you took the latter option.

I'm not talking about something non-notable. Of course it would be notable if it existed. I'm talking about HK creating articles about things that, so far as anyone could tell, were non-existent.

Here is Helga Zepp-LaRouche standing next to the Eurasian Land-Bridge's terminal. http://www.schillerinstitute.org/graphics/...lga/hzlterm.jpg This image was added or restored to the article by one of HK's first socks, Weed Harper. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=5897949 What is it she's standing next to, HK?

As for "crusade," pls get your facts straight, Kato, and stop the kneejerk support for this person just because he's staff. I would have long forgotten him were it not for *his* crusade against me, which he started in December 2005 and continues to this day.

Look at the substantive issue for once. Here you have someone who creates articles about *entirely bogus subjects*, uses sockpuppets in an effort to keep them, then when thwarted, becomes staff on a WP criticism site in an effort to persuade people that the editors who thwarted him are evil.

And you are helping him.

I have about as much interest in Lyndon LaRouche as I do in Lex Luthor, Pokemon, or Ayn Rand.

If I ever did conceive a curiosity about any of those subjects, where would I go for unbiased information?

The sad fact is that Wikipedia has a far better chance of providing unpoisoned info about the middle terms than it does about either of the extremes.

Why is that exactly?

It's because the nature of Wikipedia Warkraft determines that articles about controversial subjects will be written by the victors in a War of Attrition whose Rules of Engagement are the very antitheses of everything written down in Wikipedia's declared principles.

Which is why my eyes have developed a reflex of skipping the Wiki-Poison Capsules on the top shelves of most Google caches.

Jon Awbrey

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.

One example of why his ban was justified was because he created an article on a barely (if non) notable bridge proposal?



You haven't answered why that wasn't just put up for Articles for Deletion, for the 'ol "community / consensus" thing to happen?

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

The Earth-2 Golden Age version, the Pre-Crisis Earth-1 version, the Post-Crisis John Byrne version, the current DC Universe version, or the Smallville TV version? (Among others...)

What part of "Not Interested" (NI) did you not understand?

Ja Ja

I don't think Slim's poodle is the hunting type.

There's a whole butt-load of web pages on that Schiller Institute site about this so-called "landbridge" - it looks like they're trying to propose some sort of express rail-freight line from China to Europe, which (I'm guessing, though educatedly so) probably involves a lot of standardization of railroad gauges and various other unlikely things. The inscription on the monument is obviously photoshopped. Are you just wanting him to admit that? This is the Larouche Movement, SV - we should be glad they didn't put her in front of the First Manned Base on Mars.


Well, maybe it is.

In other words, you're saying this landbridge proposal is basically a scam to get people to donate money to the Larouche Movement, right? Why not just say so? He (assuming it really was HK) clearly didn't just "make it up" out of whole cloth, the way you'd make up an article on Kitten Huffing or something. It may be he's been deluded into thinking this landbridge thing is very, very real, or he may just be a tool of the Vast Larouche Conspiracy™, but that still doesn't mean your (and Wikipedia's) reaction was proportional to the offense.

In any event, this Larouche stuff is hardly a major focus of WR, though I will at least admit that if it weren't for HK and his experiences on WP, we probably wouldn't hear much (if anything) about it here at all.

So... happy?

This is pointless. And pathetic.

She's playing all of you. Again.

I'm giving just *one* example. How much of this stuff would you need before a ban becomes proportional?

We were never able to work out what the Eurasian Land-Bridge was. Herschelkrustofsky writes that construction has 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

Despite being asked many times by several editors, he was never able to say *where* construction had begun, but he also didn't say, "hang on, perhaps I've made a mistake." No, he continued trying to have the page say what he wanted, with no sources other than LaRouche -- who also doesn't say where construction has begun, so far as I can tell.

So a ban is justified if 2 people voting in the middle of the night say it is?

The Very Essence of Wikipediot Consensus (WC).

Case Closed.

The condemned prisoner will please report to the extermination booth.

Ja Ja

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!

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) :



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.

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.

Now this isn't fair. Hell promised to answer my questions if I addressed hers. I did that and now she's evidently decided that my questions (and those by others) were too difficult to answer so she's now ignoring the "Who is this?" discussion for greener pastures where she has an easier task - trying to prove that LaRouche's wingnut fantasies are wingnut fantasies.

Here's an idea, why don't the LaRouchies take advantage of Wikipedia's license and start their own online encyclopedia a la Conserveapedia replete with articles about Martian moonbases, Queen Elizabeth's life as a drug pusher and the evil that is the World Wildlife Fund? Ed Poor can then go start Mooniepedia and whatshisname can start an Prempedia. Maybe then Jimbo can start Randpedia and write an article about how government intervention caused Hurricane Katrina?

Anyway, Hell, I want to know whether you think Proaby should have been banned from Wikipedia for outing Krimpet (and her parents) or for outing Crum (and his parents) and why you don't think he should have been banned from WR for trying to out someone else complete with their address after having promised not to do something like that again after the Krimpet and Crum outings? You've always been adamant that outing was a red line that cannot be crossed and should merit a ban yet you actually intervened in Proab's case to try to get him reinstated at WP after his ban and you are still pal-ling around with him even after he threw your best friend, Crum under the bus in what seems to have been a pique of sycophant to sycophant puppy dog jealousy. Your explanation here would be far more interesting then beating up Hershey for being a cultist - that's easy pickins and you're not going to impress anyone by doing it.

It wasn't just the ban, though, nor was it just one. The ban was augmented by a whole host of strictures and special policy interpretations, and what Nobs eventually called "ideological profiling" used against several people who disagreed with Berlet, Dennis King, and yourself...

Look, I'm not going to defend the Larouche Organization, their various propaganda arms, and their tactics. And hey, if you want to post some more examples of articles HK posted about questionable Larouche-inspired proposals, etc., that's fine by me - just don't bother with the exaggerations, distortions, and innuendo, okay? You're better off just presenting the facts without all the "he's trying to destroy me and everything Wikipedia holds dear" nonsense.


Is it just possible you were asking the wrong question? The way it looks to me, if this landbridge proposal is legitimate, the real work wouldn't be in "construction," it would be in getting a bunch of countries who don't like each other to agree on a whole new set of standards that might cost them a lot of money up-front. If the Larouche people are getting them to do that, maybe they really do have something. And frankly, any actual construction that might have occurred might be going on inside some rather insular countries, like Iran and Azerbaijan, and might not even be known to them.

Of course, I figured that out in about 10 minutes of reading, so don't feel bad - that's about 9 minutes and 50 seconds more than the average WP editor puts into researching something they're not already inclined to agree with.

And all of this happens without anyone violating any policies.

Why?

Because Wikipedia has no policies.

All they have is the fact that some faction doesn't like it, and has the power to edit the membership to suit their preferences.

Jon Awbrey

Sucker!

Kato, you need to stop posting here without checking your facts a little. HonourableSchoolboy was a LaRouche account. Look at the contribs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...urableSchoolboy

What happened was that HK turned up on WP to try to add LaRouche propaganda right, left, and centre. When opposed, he created socks. When blocked, he created more. Then he arrived here to trash the editors who stopped him, claiming to be innocent of all wrong-doing.

You're going along with that because of "my enemy's enemy." That's fine. But if you won't criticize what HK tried to do on WP, you have no right ever to criticize any other editor, because he was one of the worst.

My childhood World Book Encyclopedia was so well behaved and I never even appreciated it. Without spilling and beans and earning a trip to bansville would you mind sharing with us exactly how you came to know H's name, address, phone etc? If that is to much to ask for could you at least tell us why?

Like Kato I thought that Wikipedia possessed mechanisms, like AfDs, to get shed of things that "the community" determined to be not worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Even if these mechanism were stacked and dishonest they set some limits as to what Wikipedians might stoop to in order to get their own way. How do H's doxs fit into these processes? These protracted discussions of your tenure on Wikipedia could be called When Encyclopedias Attack.

What about the account I was talking about and specifically referring to using diffs? Mbhiii (T-H-L-K-D).

I'll say it again.

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



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.

Um, you need to stop posting here without reading the posts you're responding to. Kato was actually referring to Mbhiii (T-C-L-K-R-D) , not HonourableSchoolboy. Click on the little "C" for the contribs - you'll see that he's correct, there's no Larouche-related content in there to speak of.


Well, that sounds a lot like your own story, if you swap "Larouche" for "New antisemitism," except of course for the "blocked" part.


That's a bit of a stretch - if people don't feel qualified to criticize someone's WP activities because of unfamiliarity with the subject matter, they shouldn't feel like they have no "right" to criticize someone else's WP activities in areas they do know about.

I'll admit that's contrary to the fundamental WP principle of "pretend to be an expert when challenged," but I've never been much of one to agree with that.

This latest "enemy's enemy" meme is false. I saw it all clearly with my own eyes independently of this site and Hersch, I wrote about it (the Mbhiii case) when I saw that two years ago, and would write about it regardless of whether Hersch was here or any other factor. Because the profiling of innocent editors as "LaRouchies" was very real and very wrong. Ask Nobs, yet another victim of it.

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.

Mbhiii was never blocked as a LaRouche/HK sock, so I've lost track of what you're saying. What exactly did you see with your own eyes? Some examples, please.

That's a big part of it.

Wikipedia has no policies in the proper sense of the word. Everything advertised as a rule is negated by some other policy, guideline, or excuse for existence, then utterly demolished by ongoing practices.

The Wikimedia Foundation excuses its total lack of responsibility by saying that it's analogous to a phone company that simply provides a service. So Wikipedia is just a Big Party Line. Who denies an individual user the use of this service? Any user or group of users who can get away with doing so.

Other service providers can legitimately deny you their services if you violate the Terms of Service that you agree to abide by. Wikipedia has no Terms of Service. Period.

A "rule" is not a rule unless it is universal, that is, applies equally to all who act in specified ways. There are no rules like that in Wikipedia. We can all name dozens of active users who would have been banned years ago if there were any justice at all in Wikipedia.

Topping it all off, the rule of Ignore All Rules explicitly negates every other rule.

Without equal justice in the application of policies, there is simply no basis for saying that any ban is justified.

Jon Awbrey

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

2. LaRouche publications are reliable sources for the views of notable persons who have granted them interviews. (answer continues below)

The Eurasian Land Bridge was a proposal that LaRouche made back in the early 90s. Without question, the proposal exists. Your tactic was to use a bit of sleight of hand, and argue that my article claimed that it had been completed. This tactic evidently worked on credulous people who didn't read the article. 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. Ms. LaRouche was in China at the invitation of the Chinese government, to speak on her husband's proposal. Refresh my memory -- was it you, or Will Beback that had the image deleted from Wikipedia on the grounds that it was "misleading"?

In this version of the Eurasian Land-Bridge article, there were two solid sources that are not LaRouche sources (one of them is now a dead link.)

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



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

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

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

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.

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, {{fact}}

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?



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?

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?


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

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: 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.

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

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".