Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Gang Stalking: Wikipedia's Agent Provocateurs & Cyber trolls
Share:
by PeaceFrog | July 10, 2012 at 07:57 am
3972 views | 25 Recommendations | 369 comments
Wikipedia scrubbed the information that this author added to its stalking page. This included deleting a reference to gang stalking under the Stalking by Groups subsection. It also included scrubbing two FOX-syndicated news stories on gang stalking. The first story scrubbed was the KION interview with Santa Cruz P.D. Lieutenant Larry Richard on the subject of "gang stalking" by groups. The second story scrubbed was the KENS-5 San Antonio investigative journalist piece confirming multiple open felony investigations related to gang stalking by groups by both the local San Antonio police and the San Antonio Sheriff's Office. This information had been on the Wikkipedia Stalking page since December, 2011. The scrubbing was instigated by government agent provocateur "Batvette" using the same moniker on Wikipedia as on NowPublic.
When this author attempted to reinstate the two FOX news stories, other Wikipedia "editors" sprang into action, and, retaliated by removing this author's links to official Department of Justice documents he obtained under the F.O.I.A., about stalking by groups that were working together as teams. These F.O.I.A. documents were tenured on the Wikipedia Stalking page for over ONE YEAR.
This is the Wikipedia Stalking article before the censorship occurred:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stalking&diff=prev&oldid=501435716#Stalking_by_groups
This is the current Wikipedia page after the scrubbing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking#Stalking_by_groups
Here is the Wikipedia talk page on gang stalking explaining the "rationale" behind the scrubbing redaction "edits":
In order to follow the rest of the discussion, please read the subsection "US DOJ Report on Stalking Victimization in the US / implied to indicate "gang stalking"" linked above.
The first paragraph comes to the bogus conclusion that because stalking by groups is not referred to specifically as "gang stalking" in the DOJ stalking materials, the use of the term "gang stalking" in the above-referenced FOX news pieces makes the activity of "gang stalking" different than "stalking by groups". This is purely a semantic and cosmetic difference that would be quickly understood by any "editor" at Wikipedia who was neither a government agent provocateur, nor lobotomized.
The second paragraph in the link above, as well as, Batvette's talk page on Wikipedia "deletion review for gang stalking" subsection, linked below, make it clear that government agent provocateur Batvette (the same government agent provocateur Batvette on NowPublic) initiated the deletion of the two FOX news stories on gang stalking from the Wikipedia Stalking page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Batvette#Deletion_review_for_Gang_Stalking
The two news stories were the most probative evidence of nationwide gang stalking to date. One was the only interview with an active duty police officer to publicly speak about gang stalking. The other news story was the only reference to multiple, open felony investigations relating to gang stalking.
Here was the author's response, from the Wikipedia Stalking talk page, to Batvette's perfidious action in deleting the news stories:
User Batvette is making a false distinction between "stalking by groups" and "gang stalking". Gang stalking is simply a different terminology for stalking by groups. The Stalking Report indicates substantial group stalking in America. The FOIA documents referenced in the section on Stalking by Groups indicate 185,050 cases of "group stalking" a.k.a. "gang stalking", i.e., stalking by teams or groups acting in concert. These same FOIA documents enumerate the 185,050 cases into cases of between "3" to "50" stalkers, listing a total for each category of between "3" and "50" stalkers. The "gang stalking" news stories are in fact news stories of stalking by groups. These two stories are both mainstream FOX-syndicated T.V. news stories. Gang stalking by groups of stalkers is affirmed by an active duty police lieutenant from Santa Cruz P.D. in the first story. The second story is an investigative journalist piece confirming multiple, open police investigations of multiple felony crimes in San Antonio related to gang stalking by groups of stalkers.
This response was followed by two Wikipedia "editors" posts that basically stated that the use of "gang stalking" implied conspiracy theories, and, "sensationalist" tabloid-style news. This is contradicted by the fact that both FOX-syndicated news stories were mainstream, and, were both supported by police statement confirmation in both California and Texas. Also, eluding the "editors" is the fact that stalking performed by groups necessitates the underlying crime of conspiracy!
The author replied by stressing the solid content of the relevant and highly probative news stories deleted:
Two mainstream news stories have been redacted because of semantics, to wit, the use of the term "gang stalking". These include a public statement by an active duty police lieutenant from Santa Cruz on "gang stalking" by groups. Also included is an investigative journalist news story from San Antonio finding multiple, open felony cases related to "gang stalking" by groups by both local San Antonio police, and, the San Antonio Sheriff's Office. These are both FOX-syndicated news stories. The content being scrubbed is probative, factual in nature and relevant, and, is far from being "sensationalist" or tabloid news. The fact that vast conspiracy theories are affiliated with gang stalking is irrelevant to the value of these two factually-based news stories. There are many academic topics that are mired in conspiracy from the moon landing to the J.F.K. assassination. The litmus test should be the quality and content of the materials redacted, not the conspiracy label.PeaceFrog71 (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Both articles are mainstream media news stories and contain information derived from law enforcement officials. There has been no impeachment of the content of the stories. Batvette's argument that the stories are the residue of "sensationalist" claims is irrelevant. Nothing has been adduced to impeach the credibility of the two news stories citing law enforcement concerns and investigations in both California and Texas. The entire rationale behind the redaction is the use of the term "gang stalking" in both news stories. This term has been adopted for activities of reported group stalking by some law enforcement officials. The redaction based upon the terminology "gang stalking", of otherwise highly probative material on group stalking, is cosmetic and semantic. Suggestion:
Some commentators have used the controversial term "gang stalking" to refer to reported cases of stalking by groups. [ft] PeaceFrog71(talk) 14:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
True to form, the control freak editors have barred this author from even arguing his case further on the Stalking talk page, claiming he is guilty of "edit warring".
Here is what Wired.com has to say about the politics of Wikipedia "editing":
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker?currentPage=all
WELCOME TO CYBER 1984
Advertisement
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
Crowd Power
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (369)
at 08:37 on July 10th, 2012
I invite anyone to go to that talk page and see that:
1. He was in fact "edit warring" as long defined by wikipedia as 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. He did so against consensus of 3 or more editors, one of which was an admin.
2. He conveniently forgets to mention he is now blocked from wiki editing not just for edit warring but for sock/meat puppet activity with Elizabeth Blandra- the same nasty tactics he has long engaged in here. He thinks wiki is stupid and does not easily conduct ISP based investigations. (edit warring will get you a short suspension, not outright blocked.)
3. He now assaults my person, stating outright I am a "government agent provocateur" without a lick of evidence, no surprise there. Par for the Peacefrog Disinfo Course.
4. Yet the basis for his accusation is my trying to keep him from establishing his prolific disinformation campaign from being accepted as factual.
It's a fact, people promoting that DOJ poll as "proving" gang stalking exists are setting themselves up for ridicule as soon as anyone with a bit of sense looks at the filtering criteria for the respondents.
Note in that wiki stalking talk page, Peacefrog never addresses that issue even though other editors call him to do so. Why is he trying so hard to provide so called "facts" that can only discredit TIs?
5. He further falsely implies I had something to do with the old Gang Stalking article's deletion, which is absurd:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gang_stalking
I had nothing to do with that and was only contacted as a previous editor on the issue, and in fact the Stalking Talk page documents my past efforts to introduce a rational version of it. This more than anything shows, if it's possible, Peacefrog has found an arena in wikipedia where he is more incompetant, clueless and disconnected with protocol than he is in a court of law- and we all know his history there!
In summary, I don't really care what people think of me at Now Public because most of the posts in Peacefrog's articles are from Elizabeth Blandra posting as numerous individuals anyway. This site allows the shenanigans which foster their cheap tactics.
Just ask yourself who is the probable agent provocateur: The source of Disinformation, or the person who points it out?
at 08:38 on July 10th, 2012
Batvette writes:
He thinks wiki is stupid and does not easily conduct ISP based investigations.
No, I know that English Wikipedia rarely grants an ISP check to clear alleged sock puppetry because I read:
On the English Wikipedia, CheckUser is entrusted to a restricted number of users who can both execute CheckUser inquiries subject to their own discretion and monitor and crosscheck each other's use of the function. The permission is approved (exceedingly rarely and only to trusted editors) by the Arbitration Committee, following community consultation and committee vetting. Checkusers are not required to be administrators, but must be 18 years of age or older and have provided personal identification (whichonce confirmed is destroyed) to the Foundation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CheckUser
YOU ARE NOT ONLY A FRAUD, BUT AN IMBECILE TO BOOT!
at 09:07 on July 10th, 2012
Who the hell cares if such things are rare, the fact is one was done on you and Blandra last year and was confirmed positive!
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elizabeth_Blandra
Say hello to socky below now.
at 09:07 on July 10th, 2012
Batvette,
One was never done. Had it been done, it was have shown ISP addresses over 200 miles apart.
at 09:12 on July 10th, 2012
The IP address listed in that link is not my IP address.
at 09:24 on July 10th, 2012
Thats rather different from your previous story where you admitted it was two people using the same IP address but were different people so it wasnt trolling. Try to keep track of your stories, sweetie.
at 09:54 on July 10th, 2012
I wouldn't expect you to get it Faithie. I've made dozens of edits on Wikipedia from my ISP, some signed Peacefrog71, some unsigned (before I created a user account). I had a problem signing in ONCE and made the mistake of having another user, who is an editor, sign in for me to make a small change. This set me up for the control freaks at Wikipedia to label me and the other account as sock puppets.
at 10:02 on July 10th, 2012
LOL! So now you DID use the same IP and you are being unfairly victimized. Of course its a massive conspiracy right? expecting the same rules to apply to everyone is grossly unfair.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
anon com (not verified)at 10:35 on July 10th, 2012
Faithless, Some people (like you) have little interest in the truth. You're here to mock and disrupt. Oh, and to throw in the words "massive conspiracy" whenever possible.
at 10:35 on July 10th, 2012
I had a problem signing in ONCE and made the mistake of having another user, who is an editor, sign in for me to make a small change.
Bull s h i t. The events that initiated that sock investigation involved stacking the votes in a Request for Comments procedure. It's linked to right in on that page. Didn't you just make a big deal about how rare such investigations were? Now they would put the big hammer down on poor little you just for having someone make a little change? God you're so full of it.
at 10:54 on July 10th, 2012
Batvette,
Never seems to get it-intentionally: forgot this part?
The IP address may just be forgetting to sign in. Ruhrfisch (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elizabeth_Blandra
at 11:09 on July 10th, 2012
Which means what, as the ISP comment was exactly, word for word, the same as yours?
You just denied that was your ISP. Now you're saying it WAS yours but you "forgot to sign in"?
All of which has no bearing to the FACT you were a confirmed sock of Elizabeth Blandra.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
anon com (not verified)at 11:07 on July 10th, 2012
No, batvette. You're full of it. (You aren't interested in the truth.) A smart guy, with an interest in ending gang stalking, would have left well-enough alone on Wikipedia.
at 11:12 on July 10th, 2012
You, Elizabeth Blandra, who was confirmed by wiki to be a sock account of Peacefrog, have now posted comments under 3 different pseudonyms in this article in one day, defending his stupid bull s h i t.
Don't insult anyone's intelligence claiming anyone but YOU is "full of it".
- Sign In or Join to post comments
anon com (not verified)at 11:21 on July 10th, 2012
You're also a guy who jumps to unfounded conclusions. I'll say it again. A smart guy, with an interest in ending gang stalking, would have left well-enough alone on Wikipedia.
at 11:58 on July 10th, 2012
You've already said that, but explain to me why Peacefrog's DISINFORMATION, if it really was "well enough", could not be defended as such on that talk page?
You/him/the puppet show never addressed a word about the issue of why it's false to call that DOJ report evidence of gang stalking. How would it be better to be left alone if it ultimately discredits anyone who claims it?
But now this is where it gets fun. It appears that Peacefrog is the sole entity in possession of those polling results from the stalking victimization question form. He's the one who went public with them after his FOIA request. I'd assumed before the DOJ published them but it turns out they did not. SO:
The poll results as published by Peacefrog were conspicuously lacking the answers to a question which was AFTER being asked how many stalkers were participants. I believe it was question 6E? It asked if they were operating as a GROUP, which of the following identified them?
A fraternity. A sorority. Co-workers, a club, stuff like that, and "other". All of the answers except other were not consistent with claims of gang stalking.
THEREFORE: Where did the answers to that particular question go between the time it was asked by the DOJ/census and the time Peacefrog published it, go? Did he suppress dissemination of that part as it would rule out gang stalking to all but "other" respondents?
at 12:04 on July 10th, 2012
Batvette,
You are clearly an enemy of TI's, working to discredit and undermine them to keep this Program going. Your photo, if that is you, belongs on whosarat.com. That site, which is hated by your kind, has been hip to this Program being an FBI/police show for some time.
at 12:33 on July 10th, 2012
Why don't you answer the question, where are the results of that poll?
Why do you only speak of TIs as a distant 3rd person group?
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Regarding government data (not verified)at 13:08 on July 10th, 2012
Boy-wonder, aka batvette, asks, "Why don't you answer the question, where are the results of that poll?"........................... The DOJ has the data, rat-boy. (Why, why, why... do you even exist...) And this isn't PeaceFrog talking...
at 16:21 on July 10th, 2012
The government GAVE Peacefrog the data in his FOIA request, and since there is no rationale for the responses to that question to have been redacted due to classified information restrictions, Peacefrog should have it.
Aren't you curious what the answers were to those questions? Wouldn't that shed some light on who is "stalking by groups"? Or are we only interested in publishing information which sensationalizes "gang stalking" to a point of cartoonish parody, knowing the facts within may very well be fraudulent? How will that serve anyone's credibility when it's revealed to be wrong?
I'd like to know what happened to that information. Why is he withholding it?
- Sign In or Join to post comments
commenting anonymously (not verified)at 00:15 on July 11th, 2012
Do some heavy lifting for a change, ratvette. If you want the data, go get it. PeaceFrog isn't "withholding" anything and your comment only reveals your lack of insight into the process of obtaining information from the government. You're a troublemaker, nothing more, nothing less. And hey. That was some real good work over on Wikipedia, asshole.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Speechless (not verified)at 21:19 on July 13th, 2012
Batvette, showing off his great mind, said, "The government GAVE Peacefrog the data in his FOIA request, and since there is no rationale for the responses to that question to have been redacted due to classified information restrictions, Peacefrog should have it. " That's hilarious. (Batvette doesn't grasp some of the things that are obvious to most.)
at 03:52 on July 19th, 2012
(not verified)
All you need to know.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Questions, questions (not verified)at 06:14 on July 19th, 2012
Batvette, If you understood the FOIA process and had taken the time to look at the Victimization Survey, you might be able to answer some of your own questions, but that would take some work. It's easier to expect others to provide answers to your questions, rather than figuring out the answers yourself. The process of seeking answers for oneself -- the exercise alone -- is often instructive. You might just discover something new.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
could be anyone (not verified)at 12:56 on July 10th, 2012
Pathetic. Simply pathetic, batvette.
at 03:39 on July 18th, 2012
What is the government doing to destroy you?
at 18:09 on July 10th, 2012
I never received that data in a usable form. They gave me a disk that contained the same information that is hosted on the University of Michigan website. It is coded in SASS, STATA, and other proprietary statistical software that can not even be purchased off the shelf. The Judge, a former NYS state's attorney, allowed them to get away with that over my arguments that it was not in an accessible format.
at 03:42 on July 18th, 2012
If you didn't receive the data in a usable form then how were you able to publish what you did from it?
- Sign In or Join to post comments
My, my, my (not verified)at 16:23 on July 18th, 2012
When you ask these sorts of questions, batvette, I almost feel sorry for you, if you're really just another victim of this process. Unfortunately, I don't have the energy to try to explain it to you. You don't believe anything that most of us say, anyway, so it's not worth the trouble. And, as others have said, brilliant work on Wiki... (You're a one man, wrecking crew, with no regard for how your decisions may impact others.)
at 03:53 on July 19th, 2012
(not verified)
Did someone say something?