Wikipedia Hoists the White Flag

Someone at Wikipedia has re-written my entire article, or rather trimmed it down to nothing. No outright lies--which is all I ever asked. What there is of it is vicious and filled with hatred and petty spite, but that's all in a day's work for me. Like Commander Rockwell used to say, "Hate, boys! Keeps me young!"

You see, droogs? It is possible for the little guy to win one every now and then, so long as you just plain refuse to let the assholes push you around. Illegitimi non carborundem!

Wiki-Penitent

To be completely fair and honest, I have received several responses from Wikipedia editors who are quite familiar with the problems of left-wing, liberal bias and (apparently even more so) just plain personal malice at Wikipedia. If you are one of these, I apologize for tarring you all with the same brush--but a man is known by the company he keeps, and maybe you need to start re-thinking the company you keep.

For those of you who wish to contact me personally, my e-mail is nwnet@earthlink.net Unlike Wikipedia editors who hide behind computer keyboards and pseudonyms in order lie and defame other people, there is no mystery as to who I am, what I think and believe, or where I can be found.

-Harold A. Covington

P. S: It's best to e-mail me directly. You can post comments here if you want to say something to me, but I won't be approving any, the reason being that the Usual Suspects always accuse me of "sock-puppetry" when people agree with me, so I figure we'll just nip that whole issue right in the bud.

Wikpedia Bans This Site

Wikipedia has now banned this web site from posting on any of their pages, claiming that it is "spam."

Yeah, right. First time I've ever heard spam officially defined as "saying something a small clique of lefty-lib kooks doesn't like."

Nonetheless, we press onward and upwards. Better living through chemistry! Excelsior!

-Harold A. Covington

Looks Like I Spoke Too Soon

Yeah, looks like we're off to the races again. Damn, they were on it fast!

Now it's over a link to false and defamatory material which someone has determined is fucking well going to be in that article, no matter that it is from a source with a clear ideological agenda and a clear bias against the subject which renders it utterly unreliable and utterly unfit for use as a source.

Aaaand...they've now locked the whole page down, with the defamatory link still in place. So I wait until they unlock it, and we go around and around again. Plus whatever little gremlin-like anti-Wiki things I can get up to in the meantime.

-Harold A. Covington

Eternal Vigilance Is The Price Of Not Having Idiots Lie About You On Wikipedia

Okay, I removed the false and defamatory material from my Wikipedia entry, and it has stayed gone for almost a week now.

It's possible this is a ploy on the Goat Dancers' part, hoping I will lose interest, wander off, get slack and forget to monitor the entry every day, but nonetheless it's a step in the right direction.

I am not hollering "Victory!" yet. Nor can I ever. As long as that entry remains editable, the Goat Dancers and the cyber-stalkers and the general malicious creeps could be back fucking with it and provoking more page lockdowns tomorrow.

P.S. Oops! Spoke too soon. Memo to self; monitor the whole article, Harold. Spotted where a Goat Dancer tried to sneak in a link to false and defamatory material and removed it. So it wasn't an olive branch after all; they were just trying to be underhanded and sneak the lies in under the radar [sigh...]

-Harold A. Covington

Cautiously Optimistic

Wikipedia's secret command center where they decide who will be viciously lied about today.

Okay, the one reference and malicious link to false and defamatory material on my article was blown away and has not been restored for almost three days. Maybe they're all napping or on vacation or whatever in the Wiki-zoo this week.

I know better than to claim "victory." As long as that page remains editable by every Goat Dancing Tom, Dick, and Morris, I am going to have to watch it like a hawk. But it is true that the link to the lies has been allowed to vanish for three days. Maybe that's their idea of a "peace offering."

Still no official response of any kind to the at least half dozen official complaints I filed with Wikipedia two weeks ago alleging defamation and requesting the initiation of the formal mediation process, but it could be that the failure of a Wiki-kook to restore the defamatory material is their way of sending me a smoke signal. We'll see how long this lasts.

-Harold A. Covington

"Dear Mr. Covington..."

Excerpt from an e-mail received from a quondam Wikipedia editor who has had problems with the Wiki-zoo in the past:

"Dear Mr. Covington:

"...You're damned right these assholes [Wikiepedia editors] can recognize a troll or a cyber-stalker when they see one. What do you think most of them spend their own time doing? These guys live on the internet. When they're not screwing around on Wikipedia they're gaming."

Yeah, I figured.

-Harold A. Covington

Nice Trollwork

Interestingly, the two cyber-stalking trolls who started this horse shit about ten days ago by editing the old Wikipedia article on me--which was pretty sorry but which had stood more or less unmolested for some years--have now quietly disappeared, since the conflict is now between myself and a couple of dipshit lefty-lib editors on Wikipedia, plus of course Wikipedia management itself.

(If there is any management; so far as I can tell even those who have sued them never really sorted out who is responsible for what "over there.")

But the fact remains: the trolls struck, they stirred, and they vanished. I have to admit, these guys are sick but slick. They know what they're doing, or rather the one who's been around for 15 years does. The kid was most likely just along for the ride.

What puzzles me is the so-called editors' inability to see that they are being played. In fact, I find that so inexplicable that it is difficult for me to believe that they don't see it. After all, these characters do have at least enough intelligence to work a personal computer, and these trolls were about as subtle as a broken leg about what they were doing. So either the Wikipedia editors approve, or they've been in on the whole shabby deal from the get-go.

Paranoid? Maybe.

But remember--just because you're paranoid, that don't mean they ain't out to get you.

-Harold A. Covington

For The Record

Okay, I have no wish to be unfair and completely biased here. I'm not Wikipedia. Therefore, in all fairness, I should say:

I have just heard from an auto-confirmed editor of Wikipedia, by private e-mail, and he/she tells me that not everybody on Wikipedia is on board or okay with what goes on there. He/she (I honestly don't know which) confirms that there is a definite cabal or club or WTF you want to call it of ultra-left idiots, some of them hippie-dippy Sixties retreads, who make a policy of systematically attacking, defaming, and undermining the reputations of people they don't like, especially anybody with success and money. (Presumably excluding Jimmy Wales.)

Apparently there is some kind of sound and fury going on over there (wherever "over there" may be) over the Rupert Murdoch entry; this phone hacking thing in the U. K. has brought the screaming-meemie Murdoch-haters out in force.

Hey, I suppose I should be glad I'm not a billionaire. Imagine how these morons would treat me if I had money.

-Harold A. Covington

Raison d'Etre

The temptation to use this blog to defend myself against the specific false, malicious, and defamatory allegations made against me on Wikipedia is at times overwhelming, but I realize I need to avoid that.

I believe that the best use that can be made of this site is not to become involved in mud-wrestling with Goat Dancers--which has always been their goal, to turn my deadly serious writing and broadcasting into a zoo and a freak show.

No, I need to use this as a forum to discuss Wikipedia itself, to document how Wikipedia and its editors are engaging in a systematic campaign to shape and control my narrative, as the media libs would say, out of their own personal political and ideological agendas, and how the whole thing is basically a ghastly abuse of power on the part of people who themselves are clearly mentally, emotionally, and morally unfit to exercise such power over the lives of others.

That's what this blog is about, the central idea anyway, although I presume there will be many long and bizarre tangents as the months and years roll on. Yes, I know, this is going to be a long campaign. Taking on people with genuine money and power is never easy and never quick. I get that.

They still have until Thursday to permanently remove the false and defamatory material before we begin the next phase.

No Response Yet

Typical Wikipedia editor

On Thursday, July 21, 2011 I told Wikipedia via an e-mail to their only published contact address that I would give them one week to remove the defamatory material. I received no official response--I have not received any official response from Wikipedia at all during the entire five years or so they have been libeling me--but what someone did was to re-write the entire article in the usual snide leftist style, carefully weasel-wording everything so that no actual lie is stated but several implied.

Okay, that I expect from leftists, since they have no scholarly standards or personal honor, but they screwed up--they did include one specific and outright lie which just happens to be one of the few that I can, if necessary, prove false with documents in a court of law. I am now engaged in an "edit war" with someone called Edward321 or some such shit, removing that one single false allegation which apparently they have decided is where they nail their colors to the mast and insist on their absolute right to defame and to facilitate cyber-stalking where it is in accordance with their left-wing, liberal personal ideologies.

I take it down and he puts it back up. Apparently after three edits per day is when they block it with "temporary page protection" (i.e. lock the page to make sure the libeled individual cannot correct or remove defamatory material.) The rest of the article is nasty and malicious, but I've read worse.

However, I notice that they have also removed the entire previous talk page, including almost five years of commentary on all of these defamation attempts from myself and from Wikipedia editors. I guess there were things in there that Wikipedia doesn't want people to see. Finally, they have done something whereby I cannot add new comments to the talk page or comment on anything there, hence another reason for this blog.

-Harold A. Covington

(Oops! Almost forgot to sign it. Again, I am not a Wikipedia editor. I will sign each of these posts, with my real name.)

I'm Not The Only One

[Okay, granted, I'm not a billionaire with an endless deep pocket for attorneys--but perhaps Mr. Bacon and other people who have been victimized by these sleazeballs might be interested in my Model Statute I'm working on, which I have tentatively entitled the Protection From Anonymous Defamation Act (PADA) - HAC]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/09/us-billionaire-wikipedia-defamation US Billionaire Wins High Court Order Over Wikipedia Defamation

Louis Bacon claims comments on Wikipedia and two other sites defamed him – but forcing them to reveal names may be difficult

US billionaire Louis Bacon has won a court order telling Wikipedia and two other sites to reveal the names of commenters who allegedly defamed him. Photograph: Nick Harvey/WireImage

A billionaire US hedge fund manager has been given the green light by the high court in London to force three websites – including Wikipedia – to disclose the identities of online commenters alleged to have defamed him.

Louis Bacon, the founder and chief executive officer of Moore Capital Management, was given permission on Monday to use a UK court order to obtain the information from the US publishers behind Wikipedia, the Denver Post newspaper, and the popular blogging platform WordPress.

Bacon wants to launch defamation proceedings against a number of online commenters – all of whom use sobriquets like "gotbacon" and "TCasey82" – alleged to have posted libellous material about him on these websites.

In the high court on Monday, Mr Justice Tugendhat granted Bacon's application to serve a court order – known as a Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) – by email against these websites. However, legal experts have told the Guardian that the US-based companies could legally ignore or refuse to comply with the orders.

US-born Bacon, who owns a property in London, was this weekend named the UK's wealthiest hedge fund manager by the Sunday Times Rich List. According to the paper, Bacon is now worth £1.1bn after a 69% rise in his personal fortune in the past 12 months.

Tugendhat said that the Wikimedia Foundation had told Bacon's solicitors, Schillings, that it would hand over details of the commenters if it was served with a court order – but later said that it would have to be a US subpoena, as opposed to a NPO brought in a UK court.

Automattic, the company behind WordPress, said Bacon would need a court order and that any defamatory material would be removed from its websites. The Denver Post had not responded to requests for comment by the time of publication.

Tugendhat said civil procedure rules allowed him to grant Bacon's application against the US defendants, but added: "In future claimants should put before the court evidence as to whether that method is permitted by the law of the country in which the claim form is to be served (or a good reason for not doing so), since if it is, service by an alternative method will be unnecessary."

A spokeswoman for London law firm Schillings said the case was brought in the UK high court – as opposed to a US court – because Bacon had made a similar case against the UK-based website host, justhost.com, last year. Justhost complied with that order.

Initial Post

For many years I ignored the issue of my Wikipedia entry.

It was mendacious, incomplete, biased, and clearly written by one of my multifarious ideological enemies who had no business posing as a genuine scholar or disinterested party. The "sources" cited for the article's absurd and incomplete recounting of my life and career were all of the Looney Left variety, completely unreliable, and at times incoherent. None of them even came up to Wikipedia's own standards for sourcing, something I repeatedly pointed out to whoever the hell is on the other end of their one published contact e-mail, and which was of course completely ignored.

(Since 2006, I have yet to receive one single official response to any of my complaints to Wikipedia about false and defamatory content in my entry, and as of today five years' worth of commentary on the talk page has been completely erased--a lot of Goat Dancing idiocy, true, but also my own comments on what was going on.)

Nonetheless, while the entry was twisted and malicious in tone, in the past it avoided outright falsehood (most of the time) and on the few occasions when I corrected outright falsehood my corrections were eventually accepted, albeit grudgingly.

Now, however, the Goat Dancers have discovered Wikipedia and are posing as "unbiased editors" (of a very newly minted variety.) They are re-writing the entry to include outright falsehood, vicious ad hominem vilification, and GUBU fabrication. My experience so far in attempting to get Wikipedia to recognize and correct this problem seems to indicate that this is going to be a long and complex process, and that I need to document it. Hence this blog.

Watch this space.

-Harold A. Covington

(Unlike Wikipedia, all entries in this blog will be signed personally by myself, as author, using my real name.)