The normal ownership of the LaRouche articles by Slim and Will Beback has undergone an unusual degree of scrutiny lately. Slim 'n' Will did manage to ban two interlopers, but others remain who are editing their articles and it is making them very cranky.

One of the controversies is whether LaRouche should be called an "economist" in the lede of Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Both sides of this argument consider it to be a no-brainer. In hope of tilting things her way, Slim launched a RfC, which produced no consensus, and looked like this after a week. Then, suddenly, a flood of new "oppose" votes came in. Why? Well, it appears that SV posted a notice here, and here, and here, and last but not least, here -- obviously, if you want a neutral assessment of LaRouche as an economist, the very first place you would go would be the Fringe Theories Noticeboard.

Now, here we see Jayen drawing the conclusion from the above posts that Slim could be canvassing. This is complicated by the fact that each and every one of her multiply-posted solicitations contains a serious misstatement of the facts, what crude and uncouth persons might refer to as a "lie": she asserts that LaRouche "has never been employed or independently published as [an economist]." Now, Slim does this sort of thing a lot, but normally on matters that can't be checked for veracity. This one was an exception. Has she lost her touch?

BTW, this is adorable.

I think it's really sad that Wikipedia's volunteer editors have to spend to much of their time defending their encyclopedia against nutjobs like Lyndon LaRouche supporters.

SlimVirgin should be commended for taking on this thankless task.

I think it's really sad that Wikipedia's volunteer editors have to spend so much of their time defending their encyclopedia against nutjobs who spell the word “lead” as “lede”.

I don't know where SlimVirgin stands on this issue, so I'll just let that go till I do.

Seriously, folks, get the “lede” out.

Jon

How do you know Slim is a "volunteer"? Someone who spends that much time -- fervently -- on Wikipedia, defending laser-focused agendas, is likely a paid editor.

Good job.

Could be.,

Must be, because it's so incredibly rare for people to spend massive amounts of time on the internet unless they get paid for that purpose.

"Lede" is actually a term used in journalism, with that spelling, though it does derive from "lead". Supposedly the spelling was changed in the old days to avoid confusion with the metal "lead" of which movable type was made.

Touché!

.........Me...........................................You............

For paid editors, I think union regulations prohibit 72-hour editing stints. There must be some other motivation at work.

While it's entirely possible that she received money for editing, it seems unlikely that anyone would subject themselves to that just for a job. Also, I would imagine any editor actually paid to do so would probably keep a lower profile.

Really, it all goes far more towards the WP-as-MMO theory, as her behavior is much more in line with a WOW addict than a paid shill.

Yep. Lede is one of those words where you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, spell it in the journalistic shibboleth way. I've taken to writing it "lede/lead" to avoid just the kind of supercillious argument we just had.

I saw Slim's post at WikiProject:Economics and commented. Then Jayen posted on my talk page arguing for me to reconsider - he also posted on other people's talk pages. Both are canvassing. But as I said before, there's nothing wrong with canvassing (WP:CANVASS is one of the dumbest wikipedia policies in existence, as I've argued before) - and in fact, in real world one is usually commended for helping to inform potentially interested parties. I'm an interested party. I appreciated Slim making me aware of the discussion. I also appreciated Jayen providing the additional information on my talk - I am about to go get that AER book review article and will check up on it. This kind of "canvassing" just makes for better decision making. I see no problem with either.

As to the merits of the matter, as an economist I'm naturally going to be extremely skeptical of calling LaRouche "an economist" and so far I have not seen any sufficient sources to do that - the AER thing may be different though. My only encounter with the economics of the guy was when I read a column of his in that newspaper of his once while bored at a bus stop or something and it did seem like nonsense, AFAICR. My sense of it is that something like that is better discussed in the text rather featured prominently in the lede. There, "economic commentator" should suffice. I'm trying to keep an open mind though.

(Edit: Just checked AER. It's not a book review but rather just an advertisement in the "Back matter" section, nothing more)

I think the objectionable part is surreptitious canvassing intended to pad the consensus with one's own partisans.

Yeah well, that means that either
1. The other side is lazy - i.e. they don't really care that much about the issue in question or
2. One side has a lot more "partisans" than the other, hence they are the majority.

Same as in real world. Since when do we object to, say, political parties trying to motivate their supporters to go out and vote in elections? Since when do we object to interested parties making community members aware of an important town meeting? If somebody's building a waste dump a few blocks from my house, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the anti-waste dumping people to make me aware of that fact.

How would you feel about the people who are building the dump stacking a hearing with pro-dumping people, without letting people in your neighborhood know about the hearing? Just asking.

Well, I wouldn't like it, but I would want to know why the anti-dumping people dropped the ball on that one. Arguing for one's opinion is called "persuasion". Provided that there was no legal limits to participation or other shenanigans of that type (say, tearing down posters of the anti-dumping people announcing the meeting) I'd probably lay the blame on the anti-dumping folks here - the problem would be not one of too much canvassing but too little of it.

What usually happens in real world situations of this type is that the other side says "we waz shut out we need to have another meeting", another meeting is called and now both sides do the canvassing. I think it should be the same way on Wikipedia. If someone thinks only one side got canvassed they should raise the point of discussion again, and canvass the editors they feel are appropriate. That's not applicable in this instance since both sides WERE already canvassing.

Yes, let's just agree that WP:CANVASS is one more "mad belief" that WP'ians are supposed to beleive, when it's clearly nuts. As also WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and so on. In all political and social systems there are clearly mad beliefs that you're not supposed to question. WP simply has as many as most religions, but not quite as many as most governments.

Example: here in the US, it's considered not unethical, and indeed expected and part of the job, for a prison guard to shoot a prisoner who is trying to escape and won't stop running. Even if the person is in prison for burglary or marijuana possession or a number of crimes where even a policeman wouldn't allowed to shoot an escaping criminal when caught in the very act that landed them in prison in the first place!

So why is this? Well, it's because we're mad. If you argue that it's because the prison guard can't tell the violent from the non-violent felons, that only argues that the two types shouldn't be housed together in the first place in prison, not that they should so that it creates additional problems in dealing with them when they try to escape. It' just crazy, and yet we do not question it. There are dozens of other examples, often not seen, unless a person travels from one society to another. Old-timers get so used to this stuff that they no longer even question it.

Don't quite agree. Wikipedia shows beliefs that go far beyond mere madness---it has beliefs that
are clearly paranoid, violently hostile to outsiders, completely irrational and unjustified by evidence,
and engraved in stone. Try reading some of the crap posted on SPI on a regular basis. It's not there
to "improve" the "encyclopedia", it's there to sniff out and expose witches and demons. Using tools
that are no more accurate or reliable than a ducking stool.

If that's not a "cult", the word has no real meaning.

Sticking to her normal MO, Slim stayed out of all the discussions over the article, waited until they died down, and then spent a couple of hours today reverting it back to the way she likes it, with the usual misleading edit summaries. However, Jayen is an intelligent and persistent opponent. He is raising the BLP issues in an insightful way. Slim, of course, does not give a rat's ass about BLP (except when the policy aligns with her POV.) Slim's view is that the article should reflect and amplify the views of LaRouche's critics, because they represent the correct POV. It's simple enough.

Here's a beautiful example of POV-drenched writing:


Translation: LaRouche-affiliated organizations reportedly supported the the PRI and the labor movement in Mexico, Noriega in Panama, and Garcia in Peru. That's what an encyclopedia would say. One amusing touch is since it isn't credible to call Alan Garcia a "military dictator," then it is not sufficient to say that the LaRouche activists "supported" him -- they must be said to be "harassing the opposition."

Yeah, yeah, Slim is biased as hell, and will refuse to afford LaRouche even the same semi-courtesies given living dictators. LaRouche sounds far worse as a human being than (say) Fidel Castro. Which is very bizarre, since I don't think LaRouche has killed anybody (Slim would naturally disagree).

On the other hand, I notice you didn't address the part that says:

"When leaders of the Mexico Oil Workers' Union were jailed—corrupt leaders, according to Sarmiento—LaRouche said the union had been attacked by the Anglo-American Liberal Establishment, controlled by Scottish Rite Freemasonry."

Is that true? Because it sounds exactly like something LaRouche would say. Which is so gonzo that it's impossible to properly parody. Damn those Scottish Rite Freemasons-- I hate when they get involved in stong arm tactics against Mexican oil worker unions!

Can't they just stick with the funny costumes?

I took a look at the English-language material on the web, and I what I found was that LaRouche blamed President Salinas de Gortari for the attacks on the Oil Workers' Union. From my experience, LaRouche's opponents like to put a little "spin" on his views to make them look more eccentric.

I would also add, however, that for Mexicans, the issue of Masonry is a much more volatile one than it is up here. When we think of Masons, we think of guys on little motor scooters. In Mexico, there were years of violent clashes between Masons and Catholics, including the Cristero War.

Ugh, I don't want to have to deal with them anymore, I have better things to do.

SlimVirgin and Will Beback successfully employ the "Shock and awe" tactic.

I can't argue against stupidity. Attempting to do so will only result in my own arguments becoming stupid and not getting anywhere.

Logic can't break a veneer of bias.

This is great stuff. Slim 'n' Will are both getting really pissy, and totally frantic because they cannot plausibly ban Jayen as an "HK sock" (although Will is starting to make broad insinuations about Jayen "raising issues that were at one time raised by HK socks.")

The real highlight is where Slim complains:


Jayen responds, of course, with a full array of diffs about Slim's recent canvassing activity. But I give two thumbs up to the "forest fires of discussion" metaphor.

So far, you haven't actually gotten anywhere.

I don't know if it's even possible to get anywhere against the two of them.

I wouldn't be so sure. It looks like at the BLP noticeboard, they are getting their butts kicked.

It's quite possible if you get the full support of the WR cabal. However, they do have a nasty habit of withdrawing support at the wrong time and shooting people in the foot.

The WR Cabal, such as it is, is pretty resolutely anti-gun. We don't shoot anyone, in any appendage. We also don't have much to do with what you can or cannot post on Wikipedia.

A WR participant, from what I've seen, usually acts on his/her conscience and has a low tolerance for nonsense, corruption, and hypocrisy.

{{fact}}



Yes, no doubt there is a WR participant who meets that description. Probably you can find more than one.

Who is Off2riorob (T-C-L-K-R-D) ? I've never seen him edit or comment on these articles before, but he seems to have quickly grasped the situation.

Rob and I are often...opposed to each other in a lot of areas (the FBI seal incident being a major one), but most of those areas have to do with policy and not content. I have seen that he is a good editor who makes rather nice contributions. And he likes to jump into a lot of disputes.

I'm glad that he was able to grasp this one so well.

I thought Daniel (Brandt) had decided that Selina was some sort of gun aficionado?

I'm not really anti-firearms in the broad sense, though I do support gun control laws, and I wouldn't mind if they were a good deal tougher than they are now. Of course, I haven't had a friend or relative get shot, either. I also realize this is totally off-topic... sorry!

Anyway, I do think we should be realistic about this latest incident - if people are giving SV and Will Beback a hard time about their treatment of Lyndon LaRouche, it probably has more to do with SV's and Will Beback's general behavior than any desire to be nicer to LaRouche. Meanwhile, I can't imagine LaRouche living much longer - isn't he well past 90 years old now? What I mean is, SV and Will Beback are lifers at this. Why not compromise a little bit now, and wait a couple years for the guy to pass on, at which point the BLP constraints will be lifted and they can paint him they way they really want to, as Worse Than Satan, etc.? What's their hurry? Will they not feel like they've "won" sufficiently if they can't do it while he's still alive?

Double popcorn on this one. Rob hit a major nerve with Will Beback, who is deeply offended because as everyone knows, he is not anti-LaRouche.

That reminds me of a funny template...

Is this meant to be a jab at me? And about this thread, I suppose. It made me laugh.

And ouch, that hurt. Will is not going to be happy with that comment.

Dude ran for ArbCom in the last election. I sort of appreciate his presence and often times he's in the right (haven't bothered to check in this case). But lots of folks find him... you know, not phony/butt kissing enough for Wikipedia. So he lost.

It is truly astonishing that after two days of intensive discussion neither SV nor WB have acknowledged in any way that their preferred version has a BLP problem. They continue to shrug off every other comment from every other editor. SV has this to say:
Some one should ask her to name the editors who think BLP has a bad reputation.

And now she says there are no BLP issues with the article.

Slim and Will have perfected a technique of cherry-picking sources, and then cherry-picking negative material from within those sources. Slim then argues that there could not possibly be a BLP problem, because "We therefore base our article on those articles, giving attention to the issues they give attention to, and summarizing in the way they summarize." You see, Slim 'n' Will could not possibly by biased in the way that they cull material from sources and frame it in the article; it is the sources themselves that are to blame.

It is also hilarious that Slim claims that "LaRouche employees" drove Dennis King and Chip Berlet away from Wikipedia. Chip Berlet left in a giant tantrum because of a 24 hour block that he brought upon himself with his antics, a block by Georgewilliamherbert, an administrator who had no love for LaRouche, let alone a paycheck from LaRouche. In the case of Dennis King, his equally infantile behavior, plus his giant COI, was making him a liability to Slim 'n' Will, and I recall that they themselves advised him to cool it.

=

Once again, people here appear to be surprised by SV's and Will's behaviour.

They've been doing this sociopathic act since 2005 at least, and yet people still act
as if it was some kind of news.....

I am dying to know what this was before it was oversighted. Cla68 refers to it on Will's talk page as a joke, evidently on the Fat Man's user talk page. It was evidently good enough to bring down the WikiWrath.

I believe it was admin deleted, not oversighted. It was from that episode a year ago when the Fat Man pulled off a brilliant troll on several of WP's most self-righteous admins by defending the BLP on John Bambenek, which was up for deletion for the upteenth time. When Will Beback justified deletion of the article, Fat Man told him that he (Will) didn't like Bambenek, "because he is a LaRouche supporter."

I say it's time for an Rfc re the involvement of SV and WB in the LaRouche articles. That should be fun.

Since there have already been two ArbCom cases over the LaRouche topic area, an RfC may not be necessary. Straight to arbitration may be the appropriate action.

I remember that one -- and Beback replied with "Huh?" Did they delete that just because you linked to it on a talk page?

Feel free to try and get those Arby-Commies to act. Good luck sonny.

Tellya what: if you succeed in getting an arb case opened, I'll give you a weird gift.
Something completely useless that you can't buy in any store.

After I linked to it, Will nominated it for speedy deletion, the rationale being that it was the talk page of a deleted user account page.