Greetings Eric and nice to meet you!
As much as I'd love to concur, but: The last utterly revenge-obsessed freak, who incidentally turned military leader gave his country a raw deal when he had a face-off with another leader who gave his country a New Deal. It may be wise to keep more than one eye open

Call me Pollyanna, but I'm thinking that the Slim 'n' Will abuse has grown so blatant that the [ahem]Communityâ„¢ may eventually take note of it and maybe even hand down topic bans as was done with Jayjg, who also seemed invulnerable at one point.

Will waited a day or so before doing this, which is what he has been yearning to do for months.

This as well, which should help the neutrality of the article.

You're not Pollyanna — you're Wiki-Pollyanna …

Your fixation on 1 single solitary wiki-picometer² of the Big Picture has blinded you to the fact that Slim has already slipped through all the changes she wanted on the global scene.

Jon

Hey, I write what I know. I can appreciate every nuance of Slim's POV-pushery because I know the subject matter.'

Herschel, I think you need to stop making sockpuppets. They only serve to prove that you are a POV warrior.

Well I took the liberty of contacting a retired American journalist I know to take a look at the wiki article and give me an opinion on it. We have different political outlooks but I trust him to give me a straight opinion when asked.

This could be embarrassing for HK. People might start saying that he's impersonating females online, just because there happens to be a female who supports him!

It's amazing that they haven't range blocked the ips mentioned in that ANI thread.

Well, since she seems to be someone in his office, HK should probably personally go and ask her to stop.

It's important to know that I don't work for American System Publications, and have not for some time. SV makes a number of other claims for which she has absolutely zero evidence. ASP is a not-for-profit and most people there are volunteers. It is also not a "tiny" organization. SV discovered long ago that if she applied the "be bold" principle to lying, most people will not challenge what she says.

Then clearly someone else who still works at ASP is making the edits?

And you could easily prove that you don't work at ASP anymore by going there and revealing your IP address, which should presumably be far removed from the IP addresses for ASP.

Going where?

The ANI discussion. I mean, I presume you don't edit Wikipedia anymore as it is, so it won't matter.

I still live in southern California, so they would take that as evidence of guilt, not innocence. Not that they care much about being consistent -- take a gander at this.

What exactly am I supposed to see from this? A WHOIS search leads me to the Road Runner HoldCo LLC, which is an internet service provider.

I don't know if the last two accounts that have been blocked as HK socks, Angel's Flight or Delia Peabody, were socks of his or not, although they were apparently socks of somebody. Even if they were, there are some questions that need to be answered about the way the blocks occurred:

- The two regular editors of that topic, SV and Will Beback, apparently have set up a hidden process for investigating and blocking other editors in that topic area who disagree with their approach to editing those articles. Their process includes having at least one checkuser who agrees to perform private checkusers for them and then shares the results privately with them.

- SV and Will Beback then, when asked, make selective decisions on who they will share this information with. Thus, it appears that they are acting as administrators as well as regular editors of this topic. From what I understand, this isn't supposed to be allowed anymore in Wikipedia.

- It appears that anyone who edits from that LaRouche organization's IP range is labeled as a "sock of HK", even though it appears that over 100 people "work" there (I know "work" is not necessarily what they do, but I can't think of a better word). As far as I know, the LaRouche organization has not been prohibited from editing Wikipedia.

- Any recent account editing the LaRouche topic, no matter how well they are following Wikipedia' rules, faces scrutiny through this backroom tribunal.

It'll be interesting to see how they try to block me.

By the way, if you guys could get me reliable sources that say positive (or at least neutral) things about LaRouche, it would be greatly appreciated. I'm sure all of you are better at finding sources in this subject area than I am.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mUjBpHQiRKw/R_qw...ternetdrama.png

Check the location.

I see. It leads to Florida.

Some of the sources that SV and Will Beback use say positive (or at least neutral) things. However, SV and Will Beback exclude that which doesn't match up to their POV. You can read their preferred sources, and you can also go over the edit histories of Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D) and Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement (T-H-L-K-D) and look at the sources that have been deleted. SV and WB never leave edit summaries that say they are deleting a source -- it's always "tidying," "tightening," "improving flow," and so on, so it may be a tedious process. However, Will just made the rounds of these articles and deleted all the positive stuff that had been added by recent banned editors. You can't revert his deletions without facing charges of meatpuppetry, but you can look at the sources and draw your own conclusions. Here's an easy one.


If nothing else, they have article ownership down to a science.

Well, I can't do much this week, too many tests and such, but I should have more free time come spring break in two weeks. Then I can take my time to look through all of that.

Most of the threads in which positive or neutral sources about LaRouche are discussed somehow get archived fairly quickly. If you'll look through the recent archives, you'll see some discussion of many of them. I added some neutral/positive text a year ago and I probably should check to see if what I added is still in the article.

The part about "the call for economic cooperation between the governments of the US, China, Russia, and India at a November 2007 meeting in Los Angeles of the Forum on US-China Relations and China's Peaceful Reunification" bit the dust somewhere along the line during the past weeks. The Cox Report stuff is intact.

Meanwhile, WB has invited BillMasen back to do a massive rewrite of "Views of LaRouche."

Meh.

Pachuco Cadaver and Orange Claw Hammer are obviously the same guy, as any cultured person will tell you. Which leaves open the question of whether AntManBee (T-C-L-K-R-D) is a LaRouche sleeper account.

Are you sure you don't mean ManBearPig (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

Nope. There's a method to my madness.

Could someone explain to me how this works? It says here that Delia Peabody was blocked for having "suspected sockpuppets." This is presumably on top of "Duck Test" POV bullshit. But if the checkuser simply indicates that she "may have had" sockpuppets of her own, but not that she was herself a sockpuppet of someone else, then hasn't it established a grand total of nothing?

edit:Also, on that page Georgewilliamherbert says that Angel's flight is a "CU confirmed sockpuppet" of Hersch, but here it says differently. Am I missing something, or is GWH simply lying?

So a female colleague of HK's is involved as a suspected sockpuppet? This gets ever curiouser.


Which do you think is more plausible?

HK's sockpuppet archive merely says that the CU for Angel's flight was done privately, which I already commented on earlier. The CU ended with a confirmation that it was a sock of HK.

And, yes, Delia's investigation only showed that she was also two other accounts and was not definitive that she was HK, other than the fact that she was editing from the American System Publication's office. Though, since HK said before that he doesn't work there anymore, it's clear that it is someone else in the office then? Which is why I made my comment before saying that HK should go ask her to stop.

Regardless, sockpuppeting is a blockable offense, so the behavioral connection to HK doesn't matter as it is.

Where does it say that? I believe that allegation was made about Angel's Flight, not Delia.

The only problem with socks is when they are being used to talk at the same time in the same thread. Otherwise I can see no reason why someone cannot have multiple accounts for different purposes. For example some one might be an Ballet buff but not want those that they edit boxing articles to know.

WB's view is that the greatest crime of all is block evasion, because it cheats the victorious POV warrior of his reward. SV, on the other hand, has simply stated that, according to her interpretation of this ArbCom decision, no one who is in any way pro-LaRouche should be allowed to edit, because any challenge to Slim's rootin' tootin' BLP-violatin' ownership of the articles must be construed as "promotion of LaRouche."

WB & SV; A knob and a cunt, no wonder they fit together so well. Two of da 'pedia's finest POV pushers.

That may not be the most appropriate analogy.

Snappy!


Do you realize that you sound like a minor bureaucrat in a Kafka novel?

As far as I can tell by looking at the various WP pages, that's not correct. It looks to me that Delia was "linked" to two other accounts, probably by POV and "living in California in a similar way." One of those accounts made an edit where he or she place this template on the LaRouche talk page (hilarious IMO,) The same template was also placed on a different page (much earlier) by an IP editor using a computer from American System Publications. So the "link" between Delia and American Publications looks pretty thin.

Hmm...I think I got confused from the discussion at the ANI thread and the two other places. Never mind.

Oh, and that template IS hilarious.

Question: Why is "PROmotion of LaRouche" a bananable offence but "DEmotion of LaRouche" not?

Because Wikipedia is all about hate, defamation, and libel of persons not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation or the "trusted" Wikipediot community.

For those affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation or the "trusted" Wikipediot community, Wikipedia is all about love, promotion, and stumping for the subject persons.

It's not technically those that aren't affiliated so much as it is those that are actively against Wikipedia or its rules that such defamation is allowed to slip through. The only place where this doesn't seem to be the case is the Larry Sanger article and that's just because Jimbo and everyone else knows that that article is watched far too much by people in general and likely Sanger himself in specific to allow anything truly defamatory through.

Sanger would spring on it and have it in a news article in a heartbeat.

But everyone else that is against Wikipedia is fair game. Aren't you an example of that yourself, Kohser?

Which came first, chicken or egg? It may be, hypothetically, that no one would be against Wikipedia without first being smeared by it.

Though I would bet that, most of the time, the people that edited the article to have the smear were people that were already rivals of the subject in question. So, it's not so much Wikipedia as those rivals themselves.

Speaking of smears, do you know about Benjiboi and the Crisco caper?

lol, that factoid has been around since 2001 at least!

http://everything2.com/title/Crisco

This back-and-forth at Georgewilliamherbert's page demonstrates a certain kind of inverted logic. GWH says that the purported socks always press the same issues and are therefore recognizable due to "behavior" and should be banned forthwith. This ignores that fact that these editors or socks or whatever they are are generally reacting to what Slim 'n' Will are doing, which is a monotonously consistent pattern of abuse. Anyone who objects to it would tend to fall into the pattern of behavior which GWH says is grounds for a ban.

Case in point:

Expressing concerns about King as a source is considered a "red dye" by GWH, WB and SV. It is prima facie evidence that the user expressing said concerns is my sock. Will Beback proclaims that King is "the best source."

Seren, did you ever read up about how they treated Daniel Brandt?

Start here.

Yes, there were FOURTEEN AFDs.
Ask Brandt why. Go ahead.