Leatherstocking Finally booted from wikipedia

If you’ve been following my posts regarding Larouche — I first want to ask you, er, Why?
Then I’ll say that if you’ve been following my posts regarding Larouche, you know about the Wikipedia Editing Job that the Org has been pulling.  For over a year, this has been dominated by a sock puppet by the nom de plome “Leatherstocking”, a name garnered from the generally maligned literature of Fenimore Cooper, though celebrated within the corridors of the Lyndon Larouche movement.

Finally, after a peculiar history full of “I’m not a Larouchie.  Who’s calling me a Larouchie?” and after one last attempt to boot out Dennis King from any consideration, he has been kicked out.  Final edit discussions are interesting and relevant for a gist of the type of things he was wavering the wiki editors were dealing with:

I have removed this phrase: [his followers have been charged with possession of weapons and explosives along with a numbers of violent crimes including kidnapping and assault] from the summary of the Allegations section, because there is no reference to any such charges in the body of the text. The only reference to a LaRouche activist getting charged is for disorderly conduct in the liver incident. –Leatherstocking (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC);

All very cult-serving.
At any rate, the word on the blocking can be found here.

You have repeatedly denied that you are a person associated with the Lyndon LaRouche organization – [10] [11]. Based on your representations and a lack of other technical evidence to the contrary, I and other administrators have assumed good faith about your Wikipedia contributions and believed that you were an independent person in this matter.

However, your internet service provider (RR) has published additional referral WHOIS data on your IP netblock which indicates that you have been lying to us. The IP address you have used a number of times – ( (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ( see [12] for an example of you taking credit for that logged-out edit ) – is now confirmed to be a LaRouche organization’s network block, American System Publications. See http://www.utrace.de/whois/, http://www.utrace.de/ip-adresse/

As technical information which is freely available now clearly ties you to the LaRouche organization, which you have repeatedly denied, at the very least you have a clear and evident conflict of interest which you have repeatedly strenuously denied. In addition, your behavior when compared to other, permanently blocked accounts such as the Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) account sockpuppet farm seems to fall squarely into the area we have established is off limits. Based on this technical information we now have no reason not to assume that you are part of that organizational sockpuppet team.

Phrases that I imagine absolutely goad Leatherstocking: “organizational sockpuppet team.”  Indeed, Leaterhstocking seems to leap to that one, in claiming he’s getting booted due to “POV”.  He also shouts “Conspiracy!”
“This block is improper in every way. First of all, Georgewilliamherbert is re-interpreting the ArbCom decision to mean something that it does not mean — he is claiming that it is a license to ban editors based on perceived POV (see WP:9STEPS.) If the basis for the ban is to be violation of the LaRouche 2 arbcom decision, the proper procedure would be to go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I myself filed a request for ArbCom clarification,[13] which resulted in very little clarification. Finally, Georgewilliamherbert is acting here not as an honest broker, but as a proxy for User:SlimVirgin, who is pushing POV at the LaRouche articles and would like to eliminate any opposition.[14

I am not a banned user. It is being alleged that I have a POV similar to that of a banned user.

Actually the larger allegation is that he’s using the same office space of computers as a banned user, and that the computers used provide conclusive evidence that he’s lying and automatically acting in bad faith.  Back to the statement of banning:

Based on the totality of the information available at this time, I am placing an indefinite block upon your account. I am extremely dissapointed that the trust that the Wikipedia community showed you was betrayed in this manner. It reflects extremely badly on the LaRouche organizations that you continue to commit such acts of subterfuge to try and spin media information about the organization. One of these days you will come to realize that such actions in the long term harm your reputation far more than merely having external critics and unbiased external reporting and reference sources – until then, unfortunately, we have no option but to extend the indefinite blocks to anyone associated with these activities.

Sigh.  A Zen Parable for you, via a quick google search:  Another version of this story describes a fox who agrees to carry a scorpion on its back across a river, upon the condition that the scorpion does not sting him. But the scorpion does indeed sting the fox when they are in midstream. As the fox begins to drown, taking the scorpion with him, he pleadingly asks why the scorpion has jeopardized both of them by stinging. “Because it’s my nature.”
I have a hard time believing that “one of these days” he “will come to realize” such actions “harm” “reputations”.

Will Beback has compiled an interesting list of “Not me” claims worth a pursual.  It is absurd that wikipedia gives these people such a long leash, and I hope they have what it takes to not do so again in the future.  We shall see, shan’t we?

Also, as I indicated, I had edited both Dennis King and A.J. Weberman long before I edited a LaRouche article or got into any scrap with SlimVirgin. I would like to see the ArbCom issue very clear guidelines as to constitutes a “pro-LaRouche editor,” so as to prevent the designation of others as “pro-LaRouche editors” from becoming a tactic available to POV-warriors. –Leatherstocking (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A good definition of a “pro-LaRouche editor” would certainly include someone using a computer in a LaRouche office to edit Wikipedia.   Will Beback talk 09:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


3 Responses to “Leatherstocking Finally booted from wikipedia”

  1. Justin Says:

    Has anyone heard of the LaRouche Project? I’m looking into it I would just like to get more opinions?

    it has something to do with canada?


    Long time LaRouche associate and activist, Mike Billington spent an hour in conversation on the Jack Stockwell radio talk show.

    No thank you. But I do see how this game is played. I’ve heard of Jack Stockwell before. Larouche was on his show on 9/11, I do believe.

    I do want to put a cap on this chapter of the Larouche Wikipedia War Room Game.
    I’m in a surreal mood noting this:
    Hello Will, now that Leatherstocking was found to be a sock and operating from the LaRouche organization. I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone or something. I’ve closed the mediation, and I’m extremely disappointed that all the discussion we’ve had over the months was for nothing. Anyway, good luck with further work on the LaRouche articles (yourself and SlimVirgin both). — Atamaé ­ 22:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    I felt like I was in the Twilight Zone reading Atama’s mediations of the things, and further commenting on them in a zone not being read by her. I knew what was going on, some partipants in these discussions had to willfully give giant benefits of the doubt for a “Fairness” that undermines the “Wikipedia Project” — that which I’m free not involved in these matters. Atama’s comments I always read as boilerplate platter — but I wouldn’t know what else she could say being in that weird zone that wikipedia seems to require.
    I note in passing a bit of an oddity: that we have two women involved in editing or mediating the matter of Larouche. See too here, http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/wikipedia_contributors_mostly_male — I take the third answer there to be about the right answer as against
    http://www.feministing.com/archives/017942.html … Somewhere in the fascinating data-point of:
    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/01/the-wiki-core.html …………. over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users … 524 people. … And in fact the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits.

    Wikipedia. A frightening little enterprise, a hobby I do not understand.

    The last item I wish to point to I can not quite locate. It is slimvirgin (and or cla68) expressing a basic desire to keep out the members of the Larouche organization as well as Dennis King. I would have some sympathy for that if wikipedia were able to kick out the “Larouche sock-puppet organization” and if Dennis King were editing and commenting a helluva lot more than he has (without the impetus from having to provide a balance against the Larouche sock puppet organization) — as it were, I’m stuck with a giant “Huh.”

  2. Justin Says:

    The Wikipedia War Team never sleeps. I think I can go ahead and not check for a few weeks — thinking there might be an interval before they resurrect themselves, but for the sake of curiosity go ahead and take a looksee, and — Look See!
    Tell me if you believe any of these.

    Why isn’t there a section on LaRouche’s theory of physical economy in this article? After watching several YouTube videos on this by different people, and having never heard of LaRouche before today, I came here hoping to find a synopsis of “physical economy” and its connection to thermodynamics and Vladimir Vernadsky. I hope someone adds something on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by
    Just happened to be watching several youtube videos, by different people, never heard of Larouche before today. And, why, “I find your theories interesting, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.” Any takers?

    I don’t see the justification for including sections on the suicides of Jeremiah Duggan and Kenneth Kronberg. From what I can tell from the sources (and please correct me if I’m wrong), LaRouche was not even charged with any crime in connection with these deaths, nor were any of his followers. How then can we justify including them in his biography? I did a Google Books search on their full names in conjunction with LaRouche’s last name, and found no valid hits on either. (There were a couple of unrelated hits, and in Duggan’s case, several Icon Group books that simply reprinted portions of Wikipedia articles). In my opinion, these paragraphs fail the requirement of WP:BLP to cover the subject “responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.” They give undue weight to conspiracy theories propounded by the distraught family members of these individuals. *** Crotalus *** 16:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    of note here, worth a quick marker for my fugure reference:

    I have been following the discussion of this article at the Wikipedia Review, and I agree that the following portions of this article were illegally removed:
    Zola says (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

    Huge in Russia. Gotcha!
    At least this one was properly checked:
    Greetings. Sockpuppets are not welcome on this topic. Could you tell us what your main account is please? Will Beback talk 07:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

    We’ll see how these things develop.

  3. Justin Says:

    There is a reference to something called the “Wikipedia Review”. Interesting. Some factoids from thence:

    Herschelkrustofsky is a user who was banned from Wikipedia for supporting the Lyndon LaRouche movement, and subsequently became a stable administrator on Wikipedia Review.
    HSK was made an administrator shortly after Hushthis and Sgrayban were, and before Donny was. Whilst HSK had been a regular poster for a longer time than the others, Blissyu2 had had a concern that he might be biased, because of his involvement with Lyndon LaRouche, hence gave it more time than usual. Nonetheless, Blissyu2 supported him being made an administrator, and this happened. […]
    HSK today remains as the longest standing active administrator on Wikipedia Review. Whilst Selina technically has been about for longer, Selina was actually never officially made an administrator, as she was actually meant to be the coder and had used “temporary emergency powers” to ban Igor Alexander. Selina is also not currently active. HSK therefore is the longest term actual administrator on the site. He is still totally uncontroversial.

    Ah. A website for wikipedia cast-aways?

    Rummage through this all you want. I don’t have the time or patience right now.

    Wikipedia commentary done wrong.

    Now. Things get weird in wiki comment land:

    We have “hugs and kisses” “British” guy.

    Will, my eels are not at all reared. Can you show me how to use your “eelrear analogy” to rear them?? Thanks..hugs and kisses! (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

    And for renewed interest in the Jeremiah Duggan article.:
    Helloooo….I love everyone on Wiki and on the wiki-review! Kisses! But the new account is right, there is a problem with the article here: The article in BZ says, that they put Jeremiah “through the wringer” and Wikipedia cites this as “in the wringer”. So, not even citation is correct.
    Cheerio! Love you all! (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

    I am distributing Hugs, Kisses and Corrections. Do you find that “mysterious”? Do you want a big Bear Hug? Cheerio! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    Whoever you are, mystery editor, the correction has already been made. The text of the article says “through the wringer”. Will Beback talk 18:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks, Love and Kisses and a big Bear Hug to Will! Cheerio! (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, so its metaphorical, not literal. Very disappointing. I had thought Larouche to be more evil than this, but if he only uses metaphorical wringers and no literal ones..Thats disappointing. Anyway, Cheers, and Hugs and Kisses and a big Bear Hug to Will for being such a cutie! (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

    A pointless distraction, I suppose. If there were a way to just delete this –as the top of the page points out “Not a general discussion board” — they really oughta just delete that.

Leave a Reply