User:SlimVirgin/Krusty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:DJSupreme23

There seems to be a deadlocked dispute over the article Synarchism. I indicated my willingness to accept mediation in Talk:Synarchism, and DJSupreme23 is apparently also willing to accept it.--Herschelkrustofsky 14:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have asked User:DJSupreme23 to confirm he is willing to participate. Please could you also both look at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and let me know if you have any preferences as to the mediator. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 18:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

I have no preference -- --Herschelkrustofsky 19:52, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I accept the mediator. - Peter Perlsø 14:32, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

Peter, does that mean that you accept mediation and have no preference on who is the mediator? Sorry to be pickly, but I need to be clear on this. -- sannse (talk) 19:13, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about my late reply. I have no preference. - Peter Perlsø 14:13, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Hi. BCorr asked me to offer my services as a mediator. I have been around Wikipedia longer than 99% of anybody (!), and I'm fairly good at helping people find consensus on articles. Would you like some help? --Uncle Ed 00:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The page that was being disputed has recently been vandalized by Adam Carr, and has consequently become part of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence. Unless - Peter Perlsø wants to join in the arbitrated matter, it seems better to put this dispute on hold. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:00, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:AndyL

AndyL, having intially jumped on the bandwagon of Adam Carr's revert war over Lyndon LaRouche, has now embarked upon a campaign of looking for every edit that I have done that bears upon the LaRouche controversy, and deleting it without making an argument as to whether is incorrect or inappropriate. He has so far deleted or reverted 10 articles in this manner. I request mediation. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Herschel is trying to elevate the importance of LaRouche by inserting reference to him in various articles when, in fact, the material provided is not considered important (to for intstance the Voting Rights Act or to the American System of economics) by any third party experts. To have discussion of the LaRouche peace plan in a broader article on Arab-Israeli peace efforts only puts wikipedia into disrepute as no serious sources on these issues include such reference. I welcome input from mediators in this matter. How about Bcorr? AndyL05:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note that while awaiting mediation, Andy has continued to systematically delete every contribution I have made to Wikipedia. His collaborator, Adam Carr, demanded that my edits be "reverted on sight." --Herschelkrustofsky 23:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note that I've reverted one edit Herschel has made since requesting medation. 00:32, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have left messages for User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:AndyL on their talk pages to see if they are both willing to accept mediation. However, Andy's user page says he's away until mid-July, and Herschel is away until 10 July. I also expect that I should recuse myself as I have also been editing Lyndon LaRouche, but I will consider it if both parties desire me to act as mediator in this situation. BCorr|Брайен 16:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with Bcorr if Herschel is. Otherwise, how about Danny? AndyL 05:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Herschel has asked me to recuse myself here. Ive asked that he reply here whether he accepts Danny, and if not, to suggest another mediator. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam's taken it upon himself to interfere in this mediation and has posted messages on Bcorr and Herschel's TALK pages complaining about Danny. Since Sam has poisoned the well I'm withdrawing my consent to a mediation rather than get into a drawn out process where Sam acts as a self appointed advocate and vetoes the entire mediation committee because of his own grievances. Since Herschell has listed me in his arbitration request along with Adam and John Kenney I'll just proceed on that track.AndyL 14:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Andy, and I'm sorry that this has taken so much of your energy with such an unsatisfactory ending. I'll leave a note on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche to let them know officially that it is out of the hands of the Mediation Committee. Sincerely, BCorr|Брайен 16:00, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear, it must have been so very trying, having someone object to your attempts of biasing the mediation. For the record, a mediator is ment to be a neutral party, not a partisan. Sam [Spade] 16:55, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh please, I don't even know Danny and I don't see how it's your place to judge or interfere. I just recognised his name from some talk page or another and my recollection was that he's fair and experienced. AndyL 17:58, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll accept that. I stand by my advice to krusty tho, as fair as danny may well be, he is far from impartial in these sorts of matters. As far as me judging, interfering, and knowing my place... I'll leave those sort of matters to those wiser than yourself, young grasshopper :). Sam [Spade] 19:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Case closed

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

[edit] Statement of complaint

I am requesting arbitration with respect to an edit war over article Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche is undoubtably an unusually controversial person; I began editing an article that had obviously been subject to many, many edits already. I was scrupulous about acknowledging the controversy, and the existence of opposing viewpoints; I concentrated on addressing outright falsehood, or dubious assertions made without documentation.

The problem began on June 20 when User:Adam_Carr simply eliminated the article, and posted a new one, which is a fanatical attack, and would be considered libelous back in the days when libel laws were taken seriously. He simultaneously proclaimed his intention to pursue a revert war. He was supported in this by User:John_Kenney, who also took the position that no article should be permitted that was not a full-on character assassination.

As soon as I reached the conclusion that Adam would not discuss, only revert (it appears that he has an history of this approach to disputes), I posted a request for mediation. The page (Adam's version) was protected by User:Mirv on June 21. Both Adam and John refused mediation.

In subsequent discussion, John (who is a sysop) became somewhat more open to negotiation, but has not participated now for several days. Adam has indicated that he has no intention of negotiating anything, and his comments on the talk page have degenerated to the point of mere invective. He has also, in fact, boasted that he habitually deals with this sort of situation by protracted revert wars, and that he has historically gotten away with it. Today (June 30) the article was unprotected, and I made edits on Adam's article that I think will stand up to the harshest NPOV scrutiny. Adam immediately reverted to his version. I am asking for arbitration because I believe that Adam's behavior constitutes vandalism.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) (see User_talk:Everyking#Lyndon_LaRouche)

I would like to add User:AndyL to this request, as he has joined with Adam and John and has now begun a campaign of systematically reverting every edit I have ever made. --Herschelkrustofsky 11:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can someone be added retroactively once a request has already been made and without the opportunity for mediation? And I have not been "reverting every edit (Hershell) ever made" I've been removing paragraphs which had been inserted into disparate articles with the intent of artificially inflating the importance of Lyndon LaRouche eg LaRouche as the foremost proponentof the "American System" alive today, the Voting Rights Act being defunct because the courts ruled against LaRouche in the 1980s, LaRouche's "peace plan" for the middle east in an article on attempts to improve Arab-Israeli relations etc,. AndyL 12:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note from Mediation Committee: User:Adam Carr and User:John Kenney have both declined mediation with User:Herschelkrustofsky regarding Lyndon LaRouche as of 21 June 2004. For more information, please see this version of the article's talk page for the discussion regarding mediation, as well as the current version on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche for subsequent developments. BCorr, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee. 00:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've decided to decline mediation as well so please continue to include me in this arbitration as a respondentAndyL 14:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note from Mediation Committee: Just to confirm, AndyL has now declined mediation with User:Herschelkrustofsky after interference from User:Sam Spade as of 9 July 2004. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#User:Herschelkrustofsky_and_User:AndyL and User_talk:Bcorr#.95_Mediation_request:_Herschelkrustofsky_and_AndyL. -- BCorr|Брайен, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee. 16:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do I get to comment here? The facts of this matter are perfectly simple, and were recently set out by me at some length at the article's Talk page. Herschelkrustofsky is a LaRouche activist whose sole interest here is protecting the LaRouche fantasy biography. Anyone familiar with the LaRouche movement will recognise his style and tactics. John, Andy and I have been trying to write a proper encyclopaedia article about LaRouche, a difficult task given the limited sources, but one I think we have done a reasonable job of. I am confident that anyone who reviews the whole history of this matter will conclude that Herschelkrustofsky is no more than a partisan pest, who ought to be firmly told to desist and let genuine Wikipedians get on with the job. Adam 10:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Counterclaim by respondant AndyL

Herschell admits to being a follower of Lyndon LaRouche, a controversial political figure who many in the mainstream have accused of being a cult leader. He has systematically edited Wikipedia to insert a pro-LaRouche POV and to elevate the importance of LaRouche and his organisation or otherwise promote his organisation. This varies from edits which add external links to articles in LaRouche publications to adding paragraphs to articles making elevated claims about the importance of LaRouche to a particular issue or theory or project. These edits tend to be of dubious value and make dubious claims which do not withstand scrutiny. Herschell's [Eurasian Land-Bridge] article for instance consisted entirely of information culled from the LaRouche organisation and is completely unsupported by outside sources. Herschell's attempts to prove the claims made in the article have been debunked ( see this Talk page )

Herschell also added claims to the Voting Rights Act article claiming that the Act was "effectively nullified" by the judgement in a legal case involving Lyndon LaRouche yet when I asked him in Talk to find some neutral third party sources such as law books or journals which would support his case that the LaRouche trial has any bearing on the act or is at all important he was unable to do so.

In the American System (economics) article Herschell made the following claim: "The most outspoken proponent of American System Economics in the early 20th Century was Dr. Sun Yat-sen. Today, it is the American politician and economist Lyndon LaRouche" a claim that is not supported by any neutral parties and which ignores the fact that LaRouche is not a trained economist and would not be considered an "economist" by others in that field.

In the article Projects working for a peace among Israelis and Arabs Hershell added a reference to Lyndon LaRouche's peace plan (The "Oasis Plan") for the region, a plan which has not been taken under consideration by either side or indeed by anyone outside of the LaRouche movement. The only purpose in referencing this plan is to elevate the importance of LaRouche and help create the false impression that he is an international statesman of some importance.

Herschell is editing at cross purposes with the goal of wikipedia. His edits do not help wikipedia become a serious, comprehensive encyclopedia but instead are designed to promote Lyndon LaRouche. If he is successful and his edits go unchallenged he will bring this project into disrepute by having it pass off claims that no one in the real world, let alone the world of academe take seriously. At best he is a nuisance, at worst he is a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia. AndyL 22:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that Herschell's habit of inserting LaRouche propaganda throughout wikipedia should be considered a form of vandalism. AndyL 01:15, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Addendum; Herschel is refusing to provide supporting evidence for his edits in Frankfurt School where he has added Lyndon LaRouche as the third major school of criticism of the Frankfurt School. He is relying on Page Protection to enforce his view and refusing to engage in the sort of discussion on Talk which Page Protection is supposed to create time and space for. He is thus failing in his responsibilities as an editor and abusing the page protection mechanism. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence and Talk:Frankfurt School. AndyL 16:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Herschelkrustofsky

Andy seems to have developed a heartfelt interest in the articles he cites, only after having launched his "edit cleansing" campaign against me (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence#Andy.27s_role). I think a careful examination of the page histories of the pages where Andy has attacked my work, will demonstrate that Andy had no interest in any of them, prior to his decision to launch an editing vendetta against me.

Also, Andy is misrepresenting my responses to his allegations on the various talk pages, particularly when he alleges that I am "refusing to provide supporting evidence" for my edit in Frankfurt School. His arguments are highly sophistical and self-serving; I encourage the arbitrators to read the relevant Talk pages and draw their own conclusions. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is of course true that neither Andy not I had previously edited the various articles we have been vetting for LaRouche propaganda. It is a pity that other editors have not been sufficiently vigilant (or well-informed perhaps) to have undertaken a similar project. But the importance of such a project is shown by the amount of blatant LaRouche propaganda and total arrant nonsense we have found in and deleted from these articles. In my view every edit Krusty has ever made to any article needs to be vetted, and on current evidence two-thirds of them will need to be deleted. Adam 05:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam's sophistry is almost entertaining; he laments the fact that his particularly inflamed and arrogant POV is not shared by other editors at Wikipedia, and if only the other editors would get on the stick, he wouldn't have to go charging around, reverting anything that he disagrees with. The arbitrators should please note that I am not the first Wikipedian to be subjected to Adam's "robust tactics"; he practically brags of this in Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to Andy's Counterclaim

• Eurasian Land-Bridge: An examination of that talk page will show that I did provide outside sources. I did so in a hurried fashion, and some of the citations I provided were not relevant, while others were. Andy in fact acknowledges the relevance of those latter citations (contradicting his assertions above), while proceeding to nit-pick them. I invite arbitrators to visit this talk page and draw their own conclusions.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Voting Rights Act: Andy is once again misrepresenting the debate. I invite arbitrators to visit Talk:Voting_Rights_Act and draw their own conclusions.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• American System (Economics): The importance of LaRouche with respect to that article, is that he has pretty much singlehandedly resurrected American System Economics from obscurity. I invited Andy to name a more prominent advocate of the American System, and he did not respond (I won't say he "refused", as Andy would do in my place). Andy also linked American System (economics) to the personal homepage of a Libertarian Party activist, who denounces Henry Clay as a National Socialist, and to a rabid slander of Abraham Lincoln by the Von Mises Institute. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Projects working for a peace among Israelis and Arabs/Oasis Plan: LaRouche delivered an address on this topic in 1975 at the Baath party conference in Baghdad. The government of Iraq was to have sponsored a conference on this topic later that year at its embassy in France, but the conference was cancelled due to pressure from the U.S. Department of State. Several presentations on the Oasis Plan have been made during the past several years at the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up in Abu Dhabi. See also this interview with Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decision

[edit] Arbitrator's opinions on hearing this matter

1. Accept Fred Bauder 04:09, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
2. Accept James F. (talk) 20:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. Accept, I think. Martin 21:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. Accept the Epopt 01:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction

[edit] Final decision

Voting still in progress at /Proposed decision (same numbering). Below are the items that have passed with a majority of arbitrators as of 2 August 2004. Additional items will be placed here when and if they reach a majority in favor.

[edit] Principles

1) Wikipedia does not provide a forum for original research, see Wikipedia:No original research

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

2) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

3) Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

4) Personal attacks which occur during the course of arbitration either on the arbitration pages or on the talk pages of the arbitrators fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

5) Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

[edit] Findings of fact

1) User Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in a pattern of adding original material, not his own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Wikipedia articles, see for example, the material in the article, counterculture, [1]. This is then followed by further linkings such as that in this edit of the article Frankfurt School, [2] which form a pattern of attempting to insert the original work of Lyndon LaRouche into Wikipedia.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

2) User Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

3) User:Adam Carr has engaged in personal attacks on User Herschelkrustofsky. Examples include:

• "Because LaRouchism is a cult, its adherents are incapable of objective thought on any subject, let alone the subject of the cult leader's own biography." See [3].
• "I called Herschelkrustofsky a slanderous piece of filth", see [4].

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

4) There has been no abusive or negligent use of the page protection facility.

Passed with 4 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

[edit] Remedies

1) Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

3) User:Adam Carr is banned for one day for making a personal attack.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

4) Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

6) User:Herschelkrustofsky is banned for one day for poor wikiquette.

Passed with 5 of 8 active arbitrators on 17 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

[edit] Enforcement

1) Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

3) If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision#Personal attacks

[edit] February 17, 2005 decision

From Herschelkrustofsky's Talk page:

The case against you has closed. The Arbitration Committee has decreed that you are to be restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns as you are to be blocked indefinitely. This includes the accounts User:Weed Harper and User:C Colden. You are also not permitted to edit anonymously. If you are discovered to have created or edited using any other account, or have edited anonymously, that account shall be blocked indefinitely and you shall be banned for up to one week. You are to be placed on POV parole for up to and including one year. If you re-insert any edits which are judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy, then you shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week. Repeat deletions of text, similarly judged to result in a violation of NPOV, shall be treated in the same way. In addition, you are hereby banned from editing any article relating to Lyndon LaRouche for up to and including one year. If you edit any LaRouche-related article, you may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator. Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect. If, in the judgement of any administrator, you or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of you edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article you may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles. A one-week ban may be imposed for use of a sockpuppet for any purpose; such a ban shall reset both bans. Finally, you are officially cautioned against derogatory characterisations of other contributors. Such repeated and unwarranted assertions amount to personal attacks. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grunt   ҈  01:16, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Case Opened on January 25, 2005

Case Closed on 17 February 2005

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

[edit] The parties

Complaint regarding Herschelkrustofsky (contribs), Weed Harper (contribs), C Colden (contribs), and IP address 64.30.208.48 (contribs) by User:SlimVirgin and others.

[edit] Statement of complaint

Please limit your statement to 500 words Request arbitration regarding Lyndon LaRouche, specifically the actions of User:Weed Harper and User:Herschelkrustofsky, who, according to JayJG David Gerard, are dev confirmed to be the same person. In any case, there has been a long-standing edit war on LaRouche-related articles between LaRouche supporters (Namely Weed and Herschel) and LaRouche opponents (A rotating bunch including Adam Carr, and, most recently, CBerlet, who brings the added benefit of being mentioned in a number of the LaRouche articles. The dispute rages unchecked. Many sources are cited, but each side accuses the other of being unreliable - the pro-LaRouche side views the anti-LaRouche side as being a conspiracy agianst LaRouche, and the anti-LaRouche side views all LaRouche material as propaganda that is not read at all outside of the LaRouche movement.

Specifically, I request arbitration on these issues: Whether sockpuppetry by Weed/Herschel has violated policy due to a deliberate effort to appear as multiple editors instead of one. Whether LaRouche-based material is a usable source in any article content. (Previous rulings on this matter have suggested that it is not on non-LaRouche related material - the question is whether it is usable on any material at all) And, finally, whether Weed/Herschel has engaged in POV pushing, lack of witiquette, and other assorted violations of the sort generally associated with problem users. Snowspinner 02:20, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I am not involved in the dispute personally, however I direct you to [5] which is the latest request for page protection, [6] which is the stalled mediation request, [7] and [8] which give good sense of the viciousness with which the edit war is being conducted, [9] where you can peruse the edit war. Note also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, which is the previous case on the matter. Snowspinner 03:52, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I am in the process of putting together the diffs for an arbitration case that I intended to request against these users. However, I can quickly put together a request to add to Snowspinner's, if I could be given a couple of hours, where I can show evidence of attempts at dispute resolution, and can cite specific examples of violations of policy. SlimVirgin 04:00, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Herschelkrustofsky, User:Weed Harper, User:C Colden, and IP address 64.30.208.48

The arbitration committee is requested to make a ruling as to whether user accounts Herschelkrustofsky, Weed Harper and C Colden are in violation of the August 2004 arbitration ruling that: "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed . . . not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche." [10]

User accounts Herschelkrustofsky (contribs), Weed Harper (contribs), C Colden (contribs), and IP address 64.30.208.48 (contribs) have engaged in a pattern of promotion of the Lyndon LaRouche movement, which is widely regarded as a political cult. Their contribution histories show that almost all their edits have been LaRouche-related. The same user accounts appear also to have posted using a number of AOL IP addresses and AOL proxies.

A developer has confirmed that: "On technical evidence, combined with similarity in posting patterns, Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper can be considered to be operated by the same person. C Colden is either the same person or working in coordination with them, but is not *firmly* established to be the same person."

Evidence that 64.30.208.48 is also related to the accounts: On July 15 at Talk:Michael Danby, Adam Carr declined to respond to a comment from 64.30.208.48 because it was anonymous. [11] The next entry on the page was three weeks later from Weed Harper responding to Adam Carr with: "I am no longer anonymous. I have a Wikipedia logon now." [12]

[edit] Promotion of LaRouche

The promotion of LaRouche takes the form of the deletion of material unfavorable to LaRouche; the addition of material favorable to him, either with no references or with reference only to LaRouche publications; the creation of articles intended to serve as a platform or showcase for LaRouche material; and attacks on Wikipedia editors who stand up to them. Often, the material inserted appears to have no basis in reality, but is entirely a product of the LaRouche movement. This pattern of behavior has been on-going since the first user account Herschelkrustofsky was set up in May 2004. Despite going through mediation and arbitration, nothing has changed.

The accounts Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper have assumed ownership of most of the 17 articles on Template:LaRouche, and any other article that they believe is related to LaRouche. The result is that none of these articles reflects what mainstream or significant-minority commentators say about the LaRouche movement. The LaRouche user accounts have caused so much dissent that there are now numerous breakaway articles about LaRouche and his groups, when in reality his movement does not warrant this much space. The LaRouche talk pages amount to over 185,000 words: see Template:LaRouche Talk. There are omissions of fact and omission of mainstream opinion which render the articles misleading. The Schiller Institute page, for example, stresses the cultural activities of the organization, whereas in reality, it is regarded as a far-right political cult, whose members have complained of brain-washing techniques, but little of this is mentioned. Until recently, the page on Helga Zepp-LaRouche contained a photograph of LaRouche's wife standing in front of the "eastern terminus of the Eurasian Land Bridge." [13] But there is no eastern terminus of the Eurasian Land Bridge, because the bridge exists only as a figment of LaRouche's imagination. There are many other inaccuracies, too numerous to mention here, woven throughout the entire LaRouche template.

[edit] Attacks on editors

The attacks on editors take the form of accusing the editors of being anti-LaRouche activists, in an attempt to poison the well in terms of those editors' reputations. The LaRouche accounts engage in seemingly endless arguments on the Talk pages, so that most editors eventually get worn down and give up. They are known to have caused problems for editors with very different political views and editing styles, including but not limited to: Bcorr, AndyL, Adam Carr, Cberlet, DJ Supreme23, John Kenney, Slim Virgin, Xtra, and 172.

[edit] 3RR violation

If the user accounts Herschelkrustofy and Weed Harper are operated by the same person, they have been used to violate 3RR. At Lyndon LaRouche on Jan 22, they reverted four times in 19 hrs and 30 mins. The page history is here. [14] At 01:29 on that date, Herschel reverted [15]. At 07:28, Weed Harper reverted [16]. At 16:07, Herschel reverted. [17] At 21:07, Weed Harper reverted. [18]

On Jan 24, Herschelkrustofsky reverted five times in two hours at Lyndon LaRouche; using deceptive edit summaries, and rearranging text so that it was hard to see what he was doing. Page history here [19] Here are the diffs of just one of the changes, but there were several others:

• Herschel deleted a quote from LaRouche regarding his view of the "black ghetto mother" at 6:45 Jan 23 [20]
• Again at 02:01 Jan 24 [21]
• Again at 03:07 Jan 24 [22]
• Again at 03:26 Jan 24 [23]
• Again at 03:35 Jan 24 [24]
• Again at 04:05 Jan 24 [25]

Herschelkrustofsky was blocked for 24 hours on January 24 for 3RR violation, and Weed Harper was blocked for 48 hours for posting while under a block.

[edit] Dispute resolution attempted

The most recent was between Herschelkrustofsky and SlimVirgin. On December 17, SlimVIrgin set up a subpage at User:SlimVirgin/references to discuss with Herschelkrustofsky the need to use reliable references, and to establish a relationship based on civility. Herschel continued to discuss detailed points rather than address the substantive issue, and after a few days stopped replying to posts.

Between August and October, there was informal mediation between Herschel, Adam Carr, and AndyL by Snowspinnner, which resulted in compromise versions of the LaRouche articles, but which did not address the issue of the editors' behavior; and the behavior did not change.

There is a current Request for Mediation between Herschelkrustofsky and Adam Carr [26] regarding the former's editing of Australian articles, namely Michael Danby, William Spence, Frank Anstey, John Dunmore Lang, King O'Malley, and Daniel Deniehy.

Apart from the mediation with Snowspinner and the current RfC with Adam Carr, there have been three other rejected requests for mediation from Herschekrustofsky in the eight months since the user account was set up: User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:AndyL [27]; User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:DJSupreme23 [28]; and User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:SlimVirgin [29].

In August, there was an Arbitration Committee ruling, which stated: [30]

• Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche;
• Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles;
• Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense;
• If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche.

Because the ruling allowed LaRouche publications to be used in "closely related" articles, the LaRouche editors made constant attempts to extend the definition of that to cover even critics of LaRouche. For example, journalist Dennis King, who wrote a book about LaRouche 20 years ago, was considered by them to be "closely related". In addition, the LaRouche supporters interpret the ruling to mean they can insert as much material from a LaRouche point of view as they wish in LaRouche-related articles, rather than ensuring that the articles reflect that LaRouche's views on himself are not held by most commentators.

[edit] Temporary relief requested

That the user accounts Herschelkrustofsky, Weed Harper, C Colden, and IP address 64.30.208.48 be prohibited from:

• editing articles on Template:LaRouche
• editing the talk pages on Template:LaRouche Talk
• creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement

These user accounts may request that Cberlet and possibly also SlimVirgin be prohibited from editing the LaRouche pages too. It is requested that this not be granted them, as this is precisely what they want. Cberlet and SlimVirgin have violated no policies and are editing in good faith. Cberlet is extremely knowledgeable about the LaRouche movement, as he is an investigative journalist (Chip Berlet) who has studied the LaRouche movement. In an effort to discredit him, the LaRouche user accounts have accused him of fabricating or "cooking" LaRouche quotes, but the accusation is untrue. Cberlet has posted the contexts of the quotes, and has even posted an image file of the relevant publications on the website of the company he works for, Political Research Associates. Weed Harper recently set up an "evidence" page regarding the cooked-quote allegation at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence of "cooked quotes". When that didn't work, they accused him of doing original research because he has quoted from his own published articles (though he does so carefully and not excessively).

Currently, editors Cberlet, Willmcw, and SlimVirgin are attempting to edit the three main LaRouche pages (Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, Lyndon LaRouche, and United States v. LaRouche), but have had to create "sandboxes" so the editing can be done without interference from the LaRouche editors (see e.g. Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox. They would like to be able to continue to work toward making these articles NPOV. SlimVirgin 05:01, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by affected party: Herschelkrustofsky

[edit] Regarding Snowspinner's complaint

• It is worthy of note that the "stalled mediation request" [31] is not directly a LaRouche-related matter, although there is clearly bad blood on Adam's part, most likely a residue of the first arbcom case. I would like it to be noted that my conduct here ([32]) is very civil, in contrast to Adam's.

• The various computers and internet accounts that I use to edit Wikipedia are shared with many other people, including Weed Harper. I regard SlimVirgin's accusations of multiple identities as petty harassment.

• Regarding the reliability of LaRouche publications as sources:

• • Given the controversial nature of LaRouche's movement, and his many vociferous critics, the factual accuracy of the LaRouche publications is scrupulously checked, since lawsuits would otherwise be certain

• • Prominent personalities choose EIR as a vehicle for making their views known to the world. For example:
    • General Anthony Zinni, in the Spring of 2004, launched his political offensive against the neoconservative leadership of the Pentagon with an interview in EIR, before moving on to "60 Minutes" and the entire circuit of televison "talking heads" programs.
    • Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg granted this interview to EIR to make known his contempt for the decision of George Bush and Ariel Sharon to abandon the Oslo Accords.

• With respect to conflict resolution, note that all requests for mediation, and the previous request for arbitration, were made by myself. I have not refused any other request for mediation. SlimVirgin turned down my request for mediation [33]. Snowspinner can also attest to the fact that the day before this arbitration request was initiated, I sent a Wikipedia e-mail to Snowspinner, asking him to visit the LaRouche talk pages to provide a relatively neutral voice in the debate.

As a note, I never recieved any such e-mail. Snowspinner 18:32, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding SlimVirgin's complaint

• With respect to the August 2004 arbitration ruling that: "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed . . . not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche," I have restricted my use of LaRouche sources to the articles presently listed in Template:LaRouche (which template was created by AndyL). Any other cases, of which none come to mind, would be the posting of rebuttal information if I find that LaRouche is mentioned in a misleading way. In the example of Dennis King, cited by Slim Virgin, I did edit the article, but used non-LaRouche sources. SlimVirgin asserts that I have been involved in "the creation of articles intended to serve as a platform or showcase for LaRouche material," but names no examples. In fact, the articles on the LaRouche template, with the exception of Lyndon LaRouche and Janice Hart, which pre-date my Wikipedia participation, were largely created by AndyL and Adam Carr. I created Amelia Boynton Robinson, Schiller Institute and Helga Zepp LaRouche prior to the first arbcom decision.

• If you examine my edit history between October 10, 2004 -- the cessation of disputes between Adam Carr, AndyL, Weed Harper and myself -- and the beginning of SlimVirgin's edits to Schiller Institute on November 14, you will note that my edits were predominately non-LaRouche related. I contend that I am being forced to devote my editing time to these articles to defend them against POV editing. SlimVirgin objects to being called an "Anti-LaRouche activist", but no person who looks at his edit history, or the sheer volume of time he has devoted to disputing LaRouche articles and simply harrassing me personally, could fail to come to that conclusion. With regard to Chip Berlet, his credentials as an anti-LaRouche activist are impeccable; much of his professional career has revolved around attacks on LaRouche. His edits to Wikipedia have consisted largely of simply inserting material from anti-LaRouche web pages he has authored. SlimVirgin mentions the page set up by Weed Harper, Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence of "cooked quotes", saying that it "didn't work," but I disagree; I think that the evidence on that page is a compelling indictment of Chip Berlet's practices as a "journalist" and as a Wikipedia editor, and I recommend that members of the arbcom read it for themselves. And to put a fine point on the matter, I contend that defending LaRouche articles against POV edits cannot be considered to be "promotion of LaRouche."

• SlimVirgin complains that "Until recently, the page on Helga Zepp-LaRouche contained a photograph of LaRouche's wife standing in front of the "eastern terminus of the Eurasian Land Bridge." [34] But there is no eastern terminus of the Eurasian Land Bridge, because the bridge exists only as a figment of LaRouche's imagination." I invite members of this committee to inspect the photo that so aroused the ire of SlimVirgin, Image:SilkRoadLady.jpg -- you will see Helga Zepp LaRouche being interviewed by Chinese journalists in front of a monument erected by the government of China, with the inscription, in English: Eastern Terminal of the Eurasia Landbridge. This is supposed to be an example of an "inaccuracy."

• Regarding SlimVirgin's implication that I have been uncooperative with respect to Dispute Resolution, I need only remind him that all the mediation requests were initiated by myself, and the one requested of SlimVirgin was rejected by SlimVirgin.

• I find it particularly revealing that SlimVirgin asks that pro-LaRouche editors be prohibited from editing talk pages on LaRouche articles. SlimVirgin is asking for a license to pursue POV edits with no scrutiny.

--HK 01:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Counterclaim by respondant Herschelkrustofsky

In What Wikipedia is not, it says: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind."

In this edit to a talk page, CBerlet announces that he will be "documenting my claims that LaRouche is a fascist, antisemitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, crackpot, and crook." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for Berlet's personal theories.

Although the mainstream media did offer Chip Berlet (who is the same person as User:Cberlet) a limited platform to present some of his theories back in the 1980s, the material he seeks to introduce into Wikipedia is predominately not material that has been published in mass-circulation publications, but rather material that is considerably more arcane and esoteric, which originates from a website called Political Research Associates that is dominated by essays by Chip Berlet. It says in Wikipedia:No_original_research that:

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancilliary article), regardless if it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not.

I believe that the following edits by Cberlet violate the policy on No Original research: [35](The theory that LaRouche's views reflect something called palingenesis and should therefore be regarded as neofascistic) and [36](the theory that an emotional crisis caused by the break-up of his first marriage caused LaRouche to completely revise his political theory). When the latter material was removed by Weed Harper on the grounds that is was original research, it was restored by SlimVirgin in this edit.

In Cberlet's response, he defends these insertions on the grounds that the quoted material has been published. I don't dispute the fact that it is published, but I would remind members of the committee that there is a tremendous amount of material that has been published, but is still unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The criterion is clear: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia." The theories that Berlet defends are held by himself, Matthew Lyons, Dennis King, possibly Russ Bellant, and possibly SlimVirgin. They have not and will not "become a permanent feature of the public landscape." [37] They are motivated not by highly original scholarship, but by the fierce animus of their proponents.

In Wikipedia#Neutral_point_of_view it says: "Wikipedia is grounded in the idea that all of its articles need to be written from a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." The edits cited at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence of "cooked quotes" are at the very least a violation of NPOV policy, and arguably a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader.

I ask that these examples be found to be violations of Wikipedia policy, and that Cberlet, SlimVirgin, and Willmcw be warned against future violations of this sort, with some sanctions to apply if the warnings are ignored. --HK 21:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request that the present ArbCom rectify an error in the previous Arbcom decision

I would like to ask the Arbitration Committee to correct an error made by the previous ArbCom in its ruling in the first LaRouche arbitration case:

Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

Let me begin by citing these comments by Jimbo Wales:

[WikiEN-l] Arbcom Overstepping

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales at wikia.com

Mon Nov 29 14:35:26 UTC 2004

"It is important to recognize the following general principles:

1. The ArbCom deals with behavioral issues, and not directly with content issues. When the behavioral issue is persistent bad POV editing, then of course there is an interface to the content issue. But it is the behavior which is the problem.

2. The ArbCom can not and should not (and in my opinion has not ever) attempted to subject certain points of view to extra restrictions. There was some confusion about this in the case of LaRouche, but I think this was an unfortunate wording and misinterpretation.

In the LaRouche case, the problem is that publications produced by LaRouche and affiliated organizations are not suitable for routine citation as ordinary documents in the same way as other documents. This is not unique to LaRouche, of course, but is true of a wide variety of pov publications. The decision of how to handle this is complex and not easily (nor properly) subject to a hard and fast rule, but is rather a job for serious editors to undertake thoughtfully.

--Jimbo"[38]

The cited clause in the original ArbCom decision was intended, I believe, to discourage POV edits by pro-LaRouche editors. It has had the unfortunate side effect of encouraging POV edits by anti-LaRouche editors, in the form of deletions that would ordinarily be considered vandalism, but are opportunistically justified by the above cited clause in the first ArbCom decision. Here are two examples:

• In this edit by SlimVirgin, he cites the ArbCom decison and deletes material which:

1. was not added by myself or any other party to the ArbCom proceedings;
2. can in no way be construed as "promotion of LaRouche";
3. was factual and highly relevant to the subject of the article.

• In this edit by Willmcw (dated yesterday), he deletes a quote from Pope John Paul II, citing the Arbcom decision.

Note that in neither case can the deleted material be considered "original research" of the sort prohibited in Wikipedia:No original research.

As Jimbo points out, the ArbCom deals with behavioral issues, and not directly with content issues. I would like to propose that the cited clause be stricken, and replaced by some sort of sanctions against persistent POV edits, either by pro-LaRouche editors, or by anti-LaRouche editors (which category would include SlimVirgin, Cberlet, Willmcw, AndyL, and Adam Carr). --HK 21:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by affected party: Cberlet

My name is Chip Berlet and I am User:Cberlet. I am an employee of Political Research Associates (PRA), a non-profit research group that publishes reports and maintains a website, [The Public Eye]. My biographical page is here, and a page with selected list of published articles is here. These pages demonstrate that I am a professional writer and researcher with published materials in scholarly and journalistic publications. I write entries for print encyclopedias, with a special focus on right-wing movements, apocalypticism, and conspiracism.

I fully understand that the concepts and principles behind Wikipedia make it essential that on LaRouche-related pages that the views of Lyndon LaRouche and his followers be given fair and accurate consideration. This is entirely appropriate for any encyclopedia that takes itself seriously. I support these concepts and principles and have attempted to follow the appropriate guidelines when editing here at Wikipedia.

The views of LaRouche supporters, especially Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper, about the content, nature, and importance of the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche are not shared by the vast majority of scholars and journalists who have studied and written about LaRouche and LaRouche-related groups.

I have never invented, "cooked," or misrepresented quotes by Lyndon LaRouche here on Wikipedia or anywhere else. LaRouche himself has made a similar claim, and I have demonstrated it is false on [this page on the PRA website]. This claim is thoroughly debated at [[39]].

That Herschelkrustofsky still makes these accusations is significant, and reflects the larger problem that Herschelkrustofsky, Weed Harper, and other LaRouche supporters view the world through a lens distorted by Conspiracism. The comments on the related talk page [[40]] by [Weed Harper on 06:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) are a good example. Here I am accused of being part of a global conspiracy, involving the "pro-war faction" of the "British establishment" acting "In retaliation" to something LaRouche said. For the record, I deny this claim, and think it is significant to this discussion that anyone would make such a claim.

This type of claim of vast conspiracies against LaRouche appears throughout the LaRouche-related pages. As examples of typical LaRouche-style claims they are appropriate, but they need to be balanced by text that calls these claims into question. The bottom line for this arbitration is that Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper do not seem able to distance themselves from a problematic conspiracist mindset and engage in a serious collective editing process. A good example is the discussion on Wikipedia at [[41]] of the so-called "John Train Salon," which claims a vast conspiracy with almost no factual basis and which reflects the relentless omission of facts that refute the claims.

My need to engage in "documenting my claims that LaRouche is a fascist, antisemitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, crackpot, and crook," arose after Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper claimed I could not document these views as representing a majority view of scholars and journalists regarding Lyndon LaRouche; and then set out to systematically delete text that reflected these criticims. In the process, there were repeated allegations that I had invented quotes, even though they were properly cited to a source. Then there was a claim that these quotes were taken out of context. So I posted extensive surrounding text at the PRA website here. Then there was a claim that this text might somehow also be an invention, so there was a demand for image files. I scanned in image files and posted links to links to them on the same page [42].

The extensive record of disputes and talk page battles demonstrates that Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper engage in a war of attrition, whereby they create roadblock after roadblock to the collective editing process in an endless campaign to sanitize LaRouche-related pages and wear down editors until they simply give up attempts to make the LaRouche-related pages, fair, accurate, majority-view oriented, and NPOV.

I am also tired of being called a liar and unethical on the Talk pages of Wikipedia, (and tired of the many false and defamatory claims about me posted at various times on my entry and various other pages on Wikipedia--from whence they disperse around the world); and hope that in the future, rules against personal attacks and rules on reliable sourcing will be enforced.--Cberlet 19:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to counterclaim by respondant Herschelkrustofsky

Herschelkrustofsky writes that he believes "the following edits by Cberlet violate the policy on No Original research."

Herschelkrustofsky:

[43](The theory that LaRouche's views reflect something called palingenesis and should therefore be regarded as neofascistic)

Palingenesis is the word used by Roger Griffin, see "The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology" PDF file Griffin is a world-renowned scholar of fascism,[44] and he uses "palingenesis" (a real word) used on Wikiepdia and elswhere. Griffin uses "palingenesis" to describe that aspect of fascist movements that involves a populist call for the metaphysical heroic rebirth of a nation. This is closely related to Emilio Gentile's theory of fascism as involving the "Sacralization of Politics;" (the title of his book[45]); and the long-standing idea of fascist movements as Millenarian, Millennial, or apocalyptic by authors such as Cohn and Rhodes. In a book I cowrote with Matthew N. Lyons published by the mainstream Guilford Press,[46] we argue that all right-wing populist movements are apocalyptic. We then discuss the LaRouche movement using this lens. The publisher has given PRA permission to post the section we wrote on LaRouche here. Simply because I helped write this text, and that it appears on a website, does not erase the fact that it was published by a mainstream publisher in a book. It is not "original research" for the purposes of use on Wikipedia.

Herschelkrustofsky:

[47](the theory that an emotional crisis caused by the break-up of his first marriage caused LaRouche to completely revise his political theory). When the latter material was removed by Weed Harper on the grounds that is was original research, it was restored by SlimVirgin in this edit.

This material comes from a printed report published by Political Research Associates (see Berlet/Bellman report. Simply because I helped write this text, and that it appears on a website, does not erase the fact that it was published as a report. It is not "original research" for the purposes of use on Wikipedia. Furthermore, after many complaints and deletions, it was I who deleted this text and replaced it with text from the book by Dennis King. See the diff here. Herschelkrustofsky simply deleted it, see the diff here. The note on the edit by Herschelkrustofsky read: "There is enough propaganda from King already in this article, and theories about LaRouche's views belong in 'LaRouche's views.' " Of course, at the time, the page [[48]] was protected and locked. See the [[49]] history page.

[edit] Preliminary decision

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)

• Reject. Please bring at least some preliminary evidence and show that you've tried to resolve previous disputes; I'll consider accepting it then. -- Grunt   ҈  03:17, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)Accept, now that the aforementioned request has been met. -- Grunt   ҈  03:59, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
• Recuse. Ambi 08:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Neutrality^talk 14:30, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. (I asked Tim Starling about the multiple accounts for SlimVirgin on request, but have no familiarity with the users or articles otherwise.) David Gerard 14:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 14:51, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction

1.1) Herschelkrustofsky (contribs), Weed Harper (contribs), C Colden (contribs), IP address 64.30.208.48 (contribs) are prohibited from editing articles on Template:LaRouche, editing the talk pages on Template:LaRouche Talk creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement or adding LaRouche-related material to other articles pending resolution of this matter. User:Cberlet, User:Willmcw, and User:SlimVirgin are also prohibited from editing articles on Template:LaRouche or creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement pending resolution of this matter, though they may continue to work in the present sandbox articles Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox, Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox and Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox. Arbitration pages relating to this case are not included. This includes editing by anonymous AOL accounts.

Passed 6 to 0 on 27 January 2005.

[edit] Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Sockpuppets

1) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.

Passed 7-0.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox

2) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising. (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)

Passed 7-0.

[edit] Revert wars considered harmful

3) Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.

Passed 7-0.

[edit] No personal attacks

4) No personal attacks.

Passed 7-0.

[edit] One user or several?

5) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Passed 7-0.

[edit] Holding a strong POV does not necessarily imply POV-pushing edits

6) A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.

Passed 6-0.

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Herschelkrustofsky's advocacy

1) Since the last arbitration committee decision on the matter Herschelkrustofsky has continued to engage in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

Passed 7-0.

[edit] Herschelkrustofsky's sockpuppetry

2) Technical evidence has shown that the accounts Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper and the IP address 64.30.208.48 have been used to make edits from the same person; i.e. that they are sockpuppet accounts. The account C Colden may also be considered a sockpuppet account due to similarity in editing patterns.

Passed 7-0.

[edit] Herschelkrustofsky's sockpuppet abuse

3) Herschelkrustofsky has used his sockpuppets to further his advocacy in violation of Wikipedia policy, especially the three revert rule, and to further edit wars.

Passed 7-0.

[edit] Herschelkrustofsky's personal attacks

4) Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in personal attacks during the course of his advocacy. ([50], [51])

Passed 5-2.

[edit] User:SlimVirgin's personal attacks

5) User:SlimVirgin has made personal attacks in the course of the debates with Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper/C Colden. [52] [53]

Passed 6-1.

[edit] Remedies

[edit] Sockpuppet abuse

1) Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely. This includes the accounts User:Weed Harper and User:C Colden. Nor is Herschelkrustofsky to edit anonymously.

Passed 7-0.

[edit] POV parole

4) Herschelkrustofsky is placed on POV parole for up to and including one year. If he re-inserts any edits which are judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week. Repeat deletions of text, similarly judged to result in a violation of NPOV, shall be treated in the same way.

Passed 6-1.

[edit] Ban on editing LaRouche-related articles

5) Herschelkrustofsky is banned from editing any article relating to Lyndon LaRouche for up to and including one year. If he edits any LaRouche-related article, he may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator. Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect.

Passed 7-0.

[edit] Caution to SlimVirgin on personal attacks

6) User:SlimVirgin is cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation.

Passed 5-1-1.

[edit] Caution to Herschelkrustofsky on personal attacks

7) User:Herschelkrustofsky is cautioned against derogatory characterisations of other contributors. Such repeated and unwarranted assertions amount to personal attacks.

Passed 6-0.

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Herschelkrustofsky sockpuppets

1) If Herschelkrustofsky is discovered to have created or edited using any other account, or has edited anonymously, that account shall be blocked indefinitely and Herschelkrustofsky shall be banned for up to one week. The IP should be blocked with due caution as to whether it is a dynamic IP or ISP proxy likely to have many users.

Passed 6-0.

[edit] Ban enforcement

2) If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles. A one-week ban may be imposed for use of a sockpuppet for any purpose; such a ban shall reset both bans.

Passed 6-0.

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Proposed decision

[edit] First section

Hi folks. I'm still a newbie, so apologies if I have this process mixed up. I think I am suppossed to make comments here? I can understand why a temporary injunction on all of us makes sense while arbitrators figure stuff out; but before I received the notice of this arbitration, Willmcw (contribs), SlimVirgin (contribs), and I ( Cberlet (contribs) ), had tried repeatedly to get Herschelkrustofsky (contribs), Weed Harper (contribs), C Colden (contribs), and other pro-LaRouche editors to join us and stop editing the LaRouche-related pages except for Political views of Lyndon LaRouche which had been protected while a discussion took place over content. The Pro-LaRouche editors refused, and continued editing other pages, while engaging in a lengthy and often heated discussion on the Political views of Lyndon LaRouche page.

Finally, User:Willmcw, User:SlimVirgin, and I (User:Cberlet), created sandbox articles in an attempt to create and edit versions of three LaRouche-related pages that we hoped would be less repetitious and more focused; and which would provide majority source views on the subjects while preserving the minority views of the LaRouche editors. Here are the assorted pages:

Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

United States v. LaRouche

Talk:United States v. LaRouche

Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox

I wanted to make sure that you folks were made aware that the sandboxes were created before we received the notice of arbitration. Our intent had been to edit the pages, and then ask for page protection to be removed from the Political views of Lyndon LaRouche page and then invite further discussion. I do not know if the temporary injunction means we should stop working on the sandbox pages as well. Please advise. Thanks. --Cberlet 19:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm speaking here only for myself. I would like Cberlet, Willmcw, and SlimVirgin (and any other non-LaRouche editor who wants to join us) to be allowed to continue editing the sandbox pages, in an effort to see what these pages would look like if there were no LaRouche interference. We've not had that before in Wikipedia, so I'd like us to be allowed to continue that experiment. SlimVirgin 20:29, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ooops. I assumed it was OK unless they told us specifically to stop editing the sandboxes. I'll stop and await further instructions.--Cberlet 20:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well the injunction does specifically mention articles linked to from the LaRouche template. So I guess it is OK to work in sandboxes. What I do not want to see happen is the creation of forked articles in the article namespace. That will be viewed by me as an attempt to get around the order and will not all be looked upon favorably (by me at least). --mav 21:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, Thanks--Cberlet 21:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not object to a moratorium on all edits of the visible LaRouche articles and talk pages. We can move the "sandbox" pages to a user's space and continuing editing them there, if necessary. On a separate note, I see on the arbitration page an assertion by HK that he has abided by the August 2004 ArbCom decision. Nonetheless, I have found numerous edits by HK and Weed Harper since that time in which they added LaRouche theories and links to articles not included in the LaRouche template. I cannot judge whether they are violations, but I think that they are questionable in that regard.

• National bank [54] [55]
• Australian anti-terrorism legislation, 2004 [56] [57]
• Henry Charles Carey [58]
• American System (economics) [59]
• Regulation [60]
• International Monetary Fund [61]
• Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up (edit history)
  • Added:
  • Alexander Hamilton [62]

As for the Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence of "cooked quotes" page, I added a severely misquoted reference that previously had been added by Weed Harper to an article. I questioned it on the article's talk page, and questioned it again on the "cooked quotes" page, yet WeedHopper has never responded with an explanation for why he mischaracterized the facts so flagrantly. -Willmcw 21:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I object to an editing block on myself, Cberlet, and Willmcw, because it implies we have done something wrong, and it also leaves the LaRouche articles in their current mess, when getting them into order should, in my view, be a priority. SlimVirgin 23:45, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

It is my view that editors SlimVirgin and Cberlet have in fact "done something wrong," and I will be posting a counterclaim as soon as possible. In the meantime, please refer to my remarks here. --HK 01:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

During the preliminary stages of an investigation, it is common practice to ask all parties to stop what they are doing. It does not imply anything other than the investigators needs time to sort things out.--Cberlet 14:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gee, I didn't realize it was gonna take two days just for the preliminary injunction to be agreed upon! I guess the wheels of Wikijustice grind on. Since the injuction specifically mentioned only three sandbox articles I moved a fourth sandbox page, that had been created previously with a draft of a future LaRouche article, to my own user space. I assume that so long as it is not posted as an article the editing of it will not violate the injunction. This is my first involvement with the ArbCom so I hope someone will nudge me to let me know when to stand up and when to sit down. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I could not respond to this sooner, because my account was blocked, even though I violated no rule. As near as I can tell, Herschel accused SlimVirgin of violating the the 3R rule, and Slim retaliated by contacting a friend of his who is an admin and accusing Herschel of violating the same rule. He managed to get a block not only on Herschel, but anyone who attempted to use a computer that had ever been used by Herschel, which may have also inconvenienced users who were not involved in the LaRouche controversy.

Slim accuses me of being a sockpuppet. He made this accusation the first time I disputed his edits back in November. He noted that I had received a welcome greeting on my talk page from Sam Spade, and another editor who disputed with him, C Colden, had received the same greeting from Sam Spade, so it follows that I and C Colden were the same person. On the Wikipedia:Sock puppet page, it says that any account with more than 100 edits is presumed not to be a sock puppet. I have over 400 edits. Slim's attempts to manipulate administrative rules to silence his POV opponents is just too John Ashcroft.

When the debate over the Iraq war was raging in the British establishment, the anti-war faction arranged to have Lyndon LaRouche interviewed on the BBC on April 3, 2003, to attack the fraudulent rationale for the war. In retaliation, the pro-war faction attempt to blame LaRouche for the suicide of a troubled young anti-war activist named Jeremiah Duggan who attended a LaRouche conference in Germany. This tactic fizzled, but SlimVirgin came to Wikipedia with the idea that he could use Wikipedia as a platform to revive the story (see Jeremiah Duggan). Chip Berlet was also involved in the Duggan project. I suspect that Slim solicited Berlet to come to Wikipedia as his ally. Both have made some comments that Berlet was disturbed that criticism of Berlet in Wikipedia was hurting his business.

Berlet is a professional propagandist. Even though the article Chip Berlet has been carefully groomed and sanitized by SlimVirgin and Willmcw, it is still evident that there are many from across the political spectrum that consider him to be a propagandist. His edits at Wikipedia should be watched carefully. Weed Harper 06:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Weed, you and Herschel have not only shared the same computers (home and office it seems) but have edited each others comments on talk pages which suggests the same person with different logins and perhaps being confused about who he has logged in as at what time. Perhaps, in the interests of honesty, you could tell us frankly what your association with HK is and also what your relationship is with the LaRouche movement. Are you a staff member of any organization or group linked with the LaRouche movement? If Adam Carr was expected to disclose his relathionship with Danby then you should be expected to disclose the nature of your relationship with the LaRouche movement. AndyL 07:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adam didn't disclose anything. He promotes himself all over the web, and when Herschel had a hunch about Danby, the answer was just a Google away. You are wrong about Herschel and I editing each others posts. I did use Herschel's words when I set up the "cooked quotes evidence page," and I said so at the time.

My relationship to the LaRouche movement is that I subscribe to their publications, make donations, and occasionally pass out leaflets. Editing Wikipedia was my own idea. In fact, a LaRouche activist suggested to me that it was an unproductive use of my time. Weed Harper 18:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I'm a she, not a he. Regarding Weed Harper's claim that I solicited Cberlet to come to Wikipedia as my ally regarding the Jeremiah Duggan story, Cberlet joined Wikipedia several months before me, and the first time I encountered him was in December 2004, two or three weeks after I created Jeremiah Duggan. The controversy surrounding the death of Duggan has nothing to do with the Iraq War, the British government, or LaRouche being interviewed on British television. That is a LaRouche fantasy. This case is being brought because the person operating these user accounts is editing fantasies like these into the Wikipedia. SlimVirgin 09:42, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What violations?

In a counterclaim posted here:[63], user:Herschelkrustofsky concludes:

I ask that these examples be found to be violations of Wikipedia policy, and that Cberlet, SlimVirgin, and Willmcw be warned against further violations, with some sanctions to apply if the warnings are ignored.

But he does not indicate any supposed violations on my part. Either HK should document my violations or he should remove me from the list of violators. -Willmcw 00:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FYI: I cross-posted this query to HK's user:page and got the following response, along with my reply.

Please note that you are not on my "list of violators", but rather on my list of editors to "be warned against further violations." I don't think you have broken any rules to date, although you did sort of embarrass yourself in your hunt for LaRouche-under-the-bed, especially at Classical music. --HK 15:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I haven't committeed any violations, I don't think I can commit "further" violations, but that's semantics. Cheers, -Willmcw 16:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In order to eliminate any ambiguity, I have amended my counterclaim to say "future" violations. --HK 16:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] A few responses to Grunt's assertions

Grunt has made a few assertions on the "Proposed decision" page that I think should be addressed. Weed and I have already denied the sockpuppet allegations, but I think that it should be further pointed out that if you look at the edit histories of the articles, we do not generally "buddy up" in edit wars in the way that Grunt suggests, or engage in any other sort of behavior of that sort. Weed was banned for attempting to edit using a computer that I had used; this was unfair to him, since he has never, to my knowledge, been accused of any rule violation, and he had no way of knowing that I had been banned, or that a ban on me could affect him.

Regarding Grunt's allegation of personal attacks on my part, it should be noted that the two examples he cites are technically ambiguous: Chip Berlet is both a Wikipedia editor, and an occasional source for Wikipedia. Wikipedia rules prohibit personal attacks on other editors, but they do not prohibit discussion of the merits, or lack thereof, of external sources. --HK 16:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of personal attacks, I would like to reproduce this section from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#Personal_Attacks:

In the past week, SlimVirgin has escalated his anti-LaRouche activism, initiating more edit wars, and added a new tactic, a pattern of personal attacks and other egregious violations of Wikiquette. Given Slimvirgin's obvious interest in this arbcom ruling, I would like to ask that the committee find him to be a partisan in the controversy, and to warn him that if he continues his abusive comments, he may find himself banned, as Adam and I were banned under the arbcom decision. SlimVirgin's abuse has been directed against myself, but he reserves his most violent language for the only female participant in the controversy, Caroline Colden:

• "You are a toxic troll." Slim 20:07, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC) (Talk:Jeremiah Duggan)

• "You are a poisonous troll." Slim 19:29, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC) (Talk:Schiller Institute)

--H.K. 23:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If he ever shows up before the arbitration commitee, we'll have to ban him for a day or two, at least. Fred Bauder 23:48, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

When alleging personal attacks, please (1) provide the actual diffs, not just naming the page, so that context is apparent (2) leave out the appeals to emotion when making the allegations - David Gerard 15:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to this as I see I'm being warned. These were the only two occasions in months of dealing with Herschel/Weed/C Colden that I resorted to what might be called a "personal attack," which amounted to calling C Colden a "toxic troll" and "poisonous troll" within one half-hour period. There was no "pattern" as alleged, and the comments were arguably factual, which is how I intended them. SlimVirgin 23:56, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing boilerplate

Whenever there is a finding of sockpuppetry, isn't there usually a clause added to the "findings of fact" or "remedies" sections to the effect of "All decisions apply to the user or any sockpuppets he creates"? --Carnildo 19:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too broad?

I had reviewed Herschelkrustofsky's edit history, and it seems that he seems to edit fine in other topics (especially classical music and Manuel Noriega) unrelated to Lyndon LaRouche. Therefore, I ask that the proposed remedies only apply to articles (and possibly talk pages) related to LaRouche. (I never knew about LaRouche before coming to Wikipedia and therefore I have no opinion on him). I seem to agree with HK's assessment that he had been forced to edit LaRouche articles in the past month. Thank you for your time. Peter O. (Talk) 20:43, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I attest, and am willing to attest on the evidence page, that to my knowledge nobody has ever compelled Herschel to edit Lyndon LaRouche or any other article. Snowspinner 20:46, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

True, if unnecessarily sarcastic. However, if the ArbCom restrains Weed and myself from editing the LaRouche articles, without placing similar restraints on the anti-LaRouche faction, that latter faction will waste no time in converting the LaRouche articles into a soapbox for its views, making a mockery of the NPOV policy. As much as I enjoy editing articles on music, South America, and so on, I would be embarassed to be associated with Wikipedia under such circumstances. --HK 14:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what Poccil regards as fine editing, but copying, word for word, text from LaRouche sites to paste into articles that concern topics on which LaRouche has theories does not strike me as fine editing. HK has gone well beyond inserting the LaRouche POV into just the Template:LaRouche series, and has copied LaRouche material into at least eight non-LaRouche articles, and added LaRouche theories to many more, all after being banned from doing so. He has done so without citing the LaRouche websites as his source, which I consider to be dishonest. I can hardly find a single edit in which he has not tried to further the LaRouche worldview, including the adoration of certain classical composers and the denigration of others. The Noriega/Panama articles, while I agree with his facts, are also being edited to reflect LaRouche's anti-neo-colonial policy.

I consider the remedies proposed by user:Grunt to be fair and proportional to the harm done, and to the demonstrated proclivity of HK to ignore previous warnings. -Willmcw 21:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I invite all interested parties to scrutinize my edits of Classical music and all related articles, to see if you can find one instance in which I have either "adored" or "denigrated" a composer. Willmcw's accusations are hysterical and false. In case anyone thinks I exaggerate, today he removed a quote from Pope John Paul II from an article on Deregulation, claiming that it was LaRouche-related. --HK 01:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I said that it was "LaRouche-sourced". I said that because when I searched for a source the sole website carrying the quotation was the EIR.[64] [65] If you can find another source, then I have no problem with the quote.

Before you go attacking others, HK, I think that we all deserve an explanation for what the relationship between you and Weed Harper is, seeing as how you so frequently use the same computer yet you deny being the same person. Further, I would like an explanation for your repeated plagiarism. Until you have fully addressed these charges of fraud, I find it hard to take your complaints seriously. -Willmcw 02:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV Warriors or Serious Journalists & Researchers?

[edit] Cberlet

These comments really bother me:

Fred Bauder </wiki/User:Fred_Bauder> 03:50, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) Does not take into account POV warriors on the other side and places decision in the hands of the majority of the editors editing a particular article.

Fred Bauder </wiki/User:Fred_Bauder> 03:50, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) Need to add the anti activists such as Chip Berlet also

Simply because I try to edit LaRouche pages to be more balanced and reflect the majority view of serious journalists and scholars concerning LaRouche I am transformed into a "POV Warrior" and one of the "anti activists?" What evidence is there that this is the case? As others have pointed out, this is not a symmetrical case. I repeatedly invited Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper to join in a collective editing of the Political views of Lyndon LaRouche page after it was protected, and suggested we all agree to stop editing the other LaRouche related pages until we achieved an edit that was acceptable.[66] This suggestion was repeatedly rejected.

I understand the idea of writing for encyclopedias

[edit] My print encyclopedia entries

• Chip Berlet. 2003. “Apocalypticism,” “Report from Iron Mountain,” “Scaife, Richard Mellon,” “Secular Humanism.” Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. Peter Knight, ed. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO
• _______. 2003. “Ku Klux Klan.” Encyclopedia of Religion and War. Gabriel Palner Fernandez, ed. (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society). New York: Routledge.
• _______. 2002. “Surveillance Abuse.” Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. David Levinson, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• _______. 2001. “Apocalypse,” “Nativism,” “Devil and Satan,” and “The Illuminati.” Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism. Brenda Brasher, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society). New York: Routledge
• _______ (associate editor). 2000. “Apocalypse,” “Conspiracism,” “Demagogues,” “Demonization,” “Militia Movements,” “Populism,” “Survivalism,” Totalitarianism,” and “Year 2000.” Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millennial Movements. Richard A. Landes, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society). New York: Routledge.

[edit] I respect the Wikipedia ethos

I came to Wikipedia as an editor enthusiastic about the idea of the collective editing of a quality source of information available to the public. A check of my contributions shows that my interests are not limited to the LaRouche-related pages.[67]. On many other pages I have been involved in the collective editing process in a non-confrontational manner.

[edit] Critical analysis of LaRouche is appropriate

I call LaRouche a fascist because, based on my research, that is what he is. This is not POV Warrior rhetoric. I write scholarly articles on fascist and neo-fascist movements with a special focus on their conspiracism. Here are some examples:

• Chip Berlet. (2004). “Mapping the Political Right: Gender and Race Oppression in Right-Wing Movements.” In Abby Ferber, ed, Home-Grown Hate: Gender and Organized Racism. New York: Routledge.
• _______. (2004). “Anti-Masonic Conspiracy Theories: A Narrative Form of Demonization and Scapegoating.” In Arturo de Hoyos and S. Brent Morris, eds., Freemasonry in Context: History, Ritual, Controversy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• _______. (2003). “Terminology: Use with Caution.” Fascism. Vol. 5, Critical Concepts in Political Science, Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, eds. New York, NY: Routledge.

Please do not let frustration with this matter blur your vision as to what is going on. I respectfuly ask that folks reconsider the idea that I should be banned from editing pages relating to LaRouche.--Cberlet 05:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An additional note. No matter what the decision about me, there should be no doubt that user:Willmcw and user:SlimVirgin have attempted to play a constructive and balanced editing role throughout this controversy. A number of times they sought to find some way to reach a compromise wording or text. They have been diligent in ensuring that material from the LaRouche network is used when appropriate to convey primary opinions and ideas.--Cberlet 14:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Willmcw...Another non-warrior

Dear Arbcom,

Editing should not be an adversarial effort. HK and his sockpuppets/coworkers/roommates have turned it into a battle. I personally do not think that I've acted as a warrior, or even as someone who has expressed a POV in this matter. I only became involved in editing the LaRouche series after I saw the mess that the articles were in. I have written one article in the LaRouche series from scratch, California Proposition 64 (1986), which is a short, comprehensive article of which I am proud and which elicited no controversy. And I substantially re-wrote three biographies, Amelia Boynton Robinson, Janice Hart, and Frederick Wills, and I propose that all three are better than the efforts of the previous editions based on LaRouche-only material with attendent edits and counter-edits. They, too, have been non-controversial. I have removed plagiarized, copyrighted materials, and LaRouche links and theories, as allowed by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee.

I believe that the other editors involved have sought to be fair and patient. While journalist Chip Berlet may have a history of reporting negative aspects of the LaRouche movement, user:Cberlet has been a fair and largely NPOV editor. I think that user:SlimVirgin deserves a St. George Barnstar for single-handledly preventing HK from writing fantasy biographies and histories. I am still too new in to editing this series to name the editors who have dropped out, but I doubt that any of them came with a strong anti-LaRouche POV either. Despite what some people believe (see Weed Harper above), we are not part of an organized effort. On the contrary, it is HK and his gang who have apparently been working in concert.

Regarding proposed remedies. I hope the Arbcom members will examine the evidence that I've presented. On at least nine occasions material was copied verbatim from LaRouche websites into non-LaRouche articles (along with many additions of external links, internal links, and factoids). When other editors have removed the material HK has attacked them for violating NPOV rules (he still does this, see above). I didn't find a single case in which the other editors were aware of the verbatim copying, and in several articles the material was still there. Altogether there were dozens of articles that had LaRouche text, theories, or links added in the last year, before and after the August ban, all done by HK and his terminal-sharing editors. I reiterate all of this to say that I hope whatever sanction is placed on this editor fully addresses the problem of LaRouche POV material being added to non-LaRouche articles. It is easier to handle an editor with a strong POV within the small LaRouche series than in the many, seemingly unrelated, articles where the other editors, if any, are not aware of the LaRouche theory being promoted, or even of the real source of the text being added. Also, I don't see a plagiarism policy, and the text is often short enough that copyright policies probably wouldn't apply. I believe it is a practice which should be stopped, especially on the part of this editor.

Respectfully, -Willmcw 06:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SlimVirgin: A question of fact v. fantasy, not POV

Regarding Fred Bauder's statement that anti-activists on the other side, for example Chip Berlet, should be included in the ruling, I would like to argue for an asymmetrical ruling in this case.

Herschelkrustofsky has admitted to being a LaRouche supporter/activist for nearly 30 years. His edits amount to a pattern of disinformation, sometimes obvious, but sometimes subtle, which can be hard to spot without expert knowledge. Chip Berlet has that expertise, and other editors who have worked over the last eight months to contain Herschelkrustofsky have developed expertise to some degree. These include Adam Carr, AndyL, Ambi, Bcorr, Cberlet, DJ Supreme23, Everyking, John Kenney, SlimVirgin, Willmcw, Xtra, and 172, editors with very different editing styles and points of view, yet they probably have similar stories to tell regarding Herschelkrustofsky's edits and disruption of Talk pages. [68] His activities will not stop no matter how many arbitration cases are brought against him, because it's in the nature of the LaRouche movement to proselytize.

This case is not about an editor with a strong point of view. It's about a movement that promotes false and absurd ideas, and which wants to use the Wikipedia to spread those ideas. The Wikipedia articles will then be cited by the movement as references in order further to bolster their claims.The LaRouche movement has practised planting stories for this purpose in newspapers and on television for decades. It's what investigative journalists call creating false echoes.

The absurdity of the movement's beliefs is worth noting. They believe inter alia that LaRouche developed the Star Wars program; [69] that a 1999 women's magazine article about LaRouche was a coded message from the British royal household and MI6 that they're going to assassinate him; [70] that the philosopher Bertrand Russell advocated genocide and was a "virtual incarnation of Satan"; [71] and that the Beatles were part of an international mind-control plot. [72] There are no cooincidences in the LaRouche mentality: all events are interpreted within the same framework of international conspiracies. Even this Wikipedia dispute has been woven into the narrative: C Colden has stated that I oppose LaRouche edits because I want to protect the British royal family from charges that they killed Diana [73].

I respectfully request that the arbitration committee take a stand on this and prohibit the LaRouche editor(s) from editing any of the pages on Template:LaRouche or Template:LaRouche Talk, and from adding material originating with the LaRouche movement to other articles. I also ask that other editors who have developed expertise about the movement be allowed to get these pages into NPOV shape. Willmcw and Cberlet are both great editors. Willmcw has put together some excellent research about LaRouche, has done a great job of checking for LaRouche references in non-LaRouche articles, and has a strong instinct for how to achieve NPOV and avoid original research. Chip Berlet has shown himself to be a fair, talented, and very knowledgeable editor, who has written for academic journals and mainstream newspapers, who understands how to be encyclopedic, who has access to useful research archives, and who respects Wikipedia's policies and ethos. No editor should be penalized for having worked on Wikipedia's behalf to contain Herschelkrustofsky. SlimVirgin 15:12, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eurasian Land Bridge

Herschelkrustofsky said in his defense or counterclaim that I alleged Herschel/Weed Harper inserted fantasy claims into the Wikipedia, but I had produced no examples. I have therefore added an example to my evidence regarding a LaRouche claim to have developed a proposal for a Eurasian Land Bridge which, he says, he regularly discusses with world leaders. No reference to this proposal or the international discussions has been found outside LaRouche publications. The new evidence is here. [74] SlimVirgin 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I am reproducing this post by Weed Harper from Talk: Eurasian Land-Bridge, which disproves SlimVirgin's accusations:

Attn. Fred and Thue: I have found references to the Eurasian Land-Bridge proposal on the web, in press accounts from Hong Kong [75], India [76] and , and Japan [77]. None of these media are affiliated with LaRouche, so how do you reconcile this with your view that it is "original research"? And Thue, LaRouche and his colleagues have been promoting this proposal all over the world for 12 years. If it is your belief that LaRouche has "no involvement," please tell me who the real author of the proposal is. Weed Harper 20:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--HK 16:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not the concept of a Eurasian Land-Bridge (road/railroad) but whether or not LaRouche developed a specific proposal that is discussed by world leaders. There is no dispute that this general idea is discussed, as it has been for decades, as a modern replacement for the Silk Road. The claim that LaRouche plays any significant role in this discussion has been posted on Wikipedia from LaRouche-related websites. Outside of these LaRouche-related websites, what evidence exists for the claim that LaRouche plays a role in discussions with world leaders about the Eurasian Land Bridge? Not on two of the links posted above by Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper. (one link did not work for me).--Cberlet 17:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint about re-insertions of LaRouche original research

The Arbitration Committee adopted this enforcement decision on 2 August 2004, in the previous Larouche arbitration:

Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense. Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions. [78]

There is evidence that User:Herschelkrustofsky (HK) has re-inserted verbatim text LaRouche into two unrelated articles since August. In both of those cases HK attacked the other editor, user:Adam Carr (AC), for removing the material.

This is in addition to numerous initial insertions of LaRouche theories, links, and verbatim text into unrelated articles since August that HK has not re-inserted when they have been deleted. [79]

I contend that the re-insertions, one of them occuring just a few days ago, are violations of the August 2004 enforcement decision. If that is true then I request the decision be followed. -Respectfully submitted, -Willmcw 00:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Spence

• On 31 Oct 2004 editor HK created William Spence, and on 3 Nov 2004 he copied verbatim text from a copyrighted LaRouche site ([80]) into it. Dif -Google cache Some of the text is purported quotes from the subject, but which have no source other than a LaRouche article.
• On 13 Nov 2004, editor AC removed the LaRouche-sourced text. Dif
• An intense and unproductive editing session followed for the next month, with the material repatedely removed and re-inserted. During that time, HK posted two messages on the talk page.
• On 13 Nov 2004, HK wrote:

Adam, I am at a loss to see why you would find it necessary to delete the quote from Bill Shorten about the Eureka Stockade, the quote from Spence himself on the Common Good, or the reference to Spence's collaboration with King O'Malley on the Commonwealth Bank. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC). dif

• On 3 Dec 2004, HK wrote:

Are you disputing the accuracy of these items, or are you making an ostentatious display of contempt for the Wikipedia NPOV policy? --Herschelkrustofsky 21:53, (UTC) Dif

• Some of the LaRouche text was re-inserted as recently as 15 Dec 2004, and again was deleted immediately by editor AC. Dif

[edit] King O'Malley

• On 29 Oct 2004, HK created the King O'Malley article, and on 4 Nov 2004 he pasted verbatim text from a copyrighted LaRouche site ([81]) into it. Dif -Google cache. Some of the text is purported quotes from the subject, but which have no source other than a LaRouche article. The text of the article was the subject of an intense and unproductive editing effort with AC, in which the same text was reinserted over and over.
• On 3 Dec 2004, HK wrote on the talk page:

Adam, you have repeatedly deleted the following information from this article:

disputed blocks of text cited.

Are you disputing the accuracy of these items, or are you making an ostentatious display of contempt :for the Wikipedia NPOV policy? --Herschelkrustofsky 21:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) [82]

• On 18 Dec 2004, AC deleted the text most recently. dif.
• On 31 Jan 2005 editor HK once again restored the text in King O'Malley (edit summary "restore material deleted by Adam"). Dif

[edit] Response from HK

I'd like to think that Willmcw is doing me a favor here, by demonstrating the somewhat obsessive nature of the Jihad being waged by the anti-LaRouche faction. The two items being contested in the King O'Malley article are a reference to the fact that O'Malley campaigned to elect James Garfield as President of the U.S., and a direct quote from O'Malley. These are presented as evidence of a vast conspiracy to insert LaRouche POV. This is probably Adam Carr's contention as well, although he has never taken the trouble to explain his deletion of this material. --HK 15:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, HK, this is not about whether O'Malley campaigned for Garfield. This is about whether you've been violating the August 2004 prohibtion on edit wars over LaRouche material. You reproduced a purported O'Malley quote from an article in the Executive Information Review, including ellisions, with no reference as to the source, which appears to be an effort to hide the source. You copied other material as well, including O'Malley's supposed interest in the American System, some of which you paraphrased and some copied verbatim. And most importantly, when another editor removed it, you reinserted it again and again. Regarding O'Malley and Garfield, Google finds only two webpages that have both names in them - both are LaRouche sites. Google search Can you provide us with the non-LaRouche reference that you used to support your quotes and your Garfield factoid and if you can, why haven't you cited that material before? -Willmcw 19:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

Will there be a remedy regarding sockpuppetry, perhaps limiting HK to one account and/or banning him for using a sockpuppet to get around the 3RR? Snowspinner 13:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

A remedy is being proposed, I may not vote for it as I am not quite sure that we are really dealing with one person. I would probably want each person editing to use a separate computer and a separate username, if indeed there is more than one. Fred Bauder 01:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Call me self-destructive, but I think Fred is right, there is something more complicated going on here. I don't like it, but I am not convicned we are not dealing with two people in one office. They are virtual sock-puppets, but...--Cberlet 02:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between 'beyond reasonable doubt' and 'beyond spurious doubt' :-) - David Gerard 12:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would not be out of line to restrict Herschel and Weed to a combined three reverts instead of three each? Snowspinner 02:45, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've put up a proposed remedy, which is open to editing, amendment or other proposals by the other arbitrators. The issue does need to be addressed - David Gerard 12:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV parole

Given that the POV issues seem entirely limited to LaRouche articles, I question a POV parole that coincides with a ban on the articles where POV is an issue. Perhaps the POV parole should be delayed until after the LaRouche ban, or extended to two years?

I disagree strenuously. The LaRouche POV has been added to almost every article that the HK team has edited. Here is a list of articles that the HK team has edited: User:Willmcw/sandbox2. With the exception of a few ofhte classical music entries, every one is an expression of LaRouche theories. -Willmcw 22:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is an existing ruling that exists th prevent LaRouche content from being added to non-LaRouche articles. Snowspinner 22:55, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

I see no enforcement of this rule. I have presented substantial evidence showing the insertion and re-insertion of LaRouche original research. -Willmcw 22:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The ruling wasn't enforced, Snowspinner. There was also an existing ruling that said Herschel shouldn't engage in personal attacks, and which placed him on personal-attack parole, also not enforced, and not, it appears, being taken into account now either. I tried to enforce the former ruling once, regarding the page about Frederick Wills, a former Guyana foreign minister, to which Herschel added that, when Wills made a speech in the 70s to the United Nations about debt relief, he was only putting forward a LaRouche proposal. There was no evidence whatsoever to support this. Wills did later (I believe mid-80s) become a member of the Schiller Institute, though not an officer, but there's no evidence that he had anything to do with LaRouche in the 70s, and no evidence that LaRouche had ever come up with a serious debt-relief proposal for the UN. Wills has died and so couldn't be approached for verification. I deleted the edit because the only source was a LaRouche publication, and in fact even that didn't go as far as Herschel was going with it. Herschel engaged in a revert war over the claim, so I went to the arbcom to ask for enforcement of the rule about not inserting LaRouche material into articles not "closely related" to LaRouche. I argued that Wills was only "closely related" because Herschel was claiming he was, and that membership of the Schiller Institute should not constitute someone being "closely related" so that unsubstantiated edits may be made about them. The arbom accepted the argument and blocked Herschel, C Colden, and the main Herschel/Weed/Colden IP address for, as I recall, a week. They were unblocked because you intervened, arguing on the mailing list that it was not a fair block, and Jimbo agreed with you (though I'm not sure he would now), and unblocked them. This led to a surge in Herschel's confidence because he seemed to believe thereafter that editors would have difficulty getting the arbcom ruling enforced, and so he continued inserting LaRouche material into non-LaRouche articles, and continued with the personal attacks, particularly against Cberlet.

This whole episode has been one long trail of upset editors, propaganda masquerading as NPOV, oddly worded rulings, rulings not being enforced, and toxic talk pages. I hope the ruling this time will be decisive. SlimVirgin 23:24, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

As a sysop, let me apologize for my part in the failure to enforce these rulings. And let me also apologize for any legitimacy my extended efforts to assume good faith on HK's part may have lent him. Let me make it clear that I will respond swiftly to any violations of any of HK's paroles from this case or others that are brought to my attention in the future. My objection was that C. Colden was not covered by the arbcom ruling. Of course, it turns out now that she is just Herschel in yet another disguise. Snowspinner 23:44, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, Snowspinner, which I appreciate very much, but there is no need for it, because you couldn't have known the extent of the deception, and you were assuming good faith, which was the right thing to do. SlimVirgin 23:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, I assure you that these rulings will be enforced this time. Let me know of any violations. Snowspinner 23:55, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Snowspinner. SlimVirgin 23:58, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner, here is an apparent violation: [83] -Willmcw 00:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You'll forgive me for being dense - I don't see LaRouche represented there in any obvious way there. This is presumably original research originating with the LaRouche movement? Snowspinner 00:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

You are forgiven. The difficulty of tracing LaRouche original research is one reason why the HK team is a problem. In this instance, see above #Complaint about re-insertions of LaRouche original research and #Response from HK. -Willmcw 00:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, then you're right that the info should be removed. At least from my read of things, removal of the material falls outside the domain of the 3RR. Remove at will. Meanwhile, I will continue to ask for more teeth to be put into this arbcom ruling so that bans can be metted out for this without having to consult the arbcom. Snowspinner 00:26, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not whether LaRouche material may be removed. The issue is the ArbCom "enforcement" ruling from August 2004, which reads "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." How does one "demonstrate" an offense to the ArbCom, beyond what I have already done? -Willmcw 00:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One presumably submits a request, though at this point it would probably be more fruitful to wait a week for the new rulings to pass, as I think they'll be stricter and more helpful. Snowspinner 00:39, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Do you know how I should go about submitting a request? Is there a specific page to request enforcement of existing ArbCom rulings? Thanks much, -Willmcw 02:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The incidents section of the admin noticeboard would be a good place to start. -- Grunt   ҈  03:04, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

[edit] Previous Ruling

I've just looked at the previous ruling here, and there's some ambiguity. The ruling states that "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." I know this ruling was claimed by Jimbo to not cover new users such as C. Colden at one point, which makes sense. Does this ruling thus cover Herschel only? And, considering the continuation of the problem, can this ruling be expanded to not require an arbcom sign off? Snowspinner 00:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

If you mean can action be taken against Herschel now because of that ruling, yes, it should be. Because my approach for enforcement was overturned, I felt there was no point in asking for enforcement again, and so I decided to ask for a new case and a fresh ruling to get rid of the "closely related" business, which was causing confusion. You asked for arbitration just a few days before I was going to: I was trying to get my diffs in order first and was waiting for an answer to the sock-puppet query. But yes, the old ruling against insertion of LaRouche material into non-LaRouche articles stands, as does the personal-attack parole, and the ruling not to engage in advocacy, and he has violated all of them. SlimVirgin 00:25, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I was really identifying some fundamental problems with the ruling, namely the phrasing problem whereby it applied to users who weren't parties to the case (And thus amounted to arbcom policy creation). The ruling thus applies to Herschel only? Regardless, I'd like this to be enforcable without recourse to the AC. Snowspinner 00:28, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of it was that it applied to any editor who tried repeatedly to insert LaRouche material into non-LaRouche articles, and was therefore a policy. But it's oddly worded, and if you read all the previous rulings together, jointly it's not clear what's meant. There's "closely related" and there's "directly relevant", and these are both terms capable of being stretched, and I recall there was some inconsistency between the decisions, though I'd have to look at it again to be sure. SlimVirgin 00:51, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

There was a lot of bad-faith editing on Herschel's part to try to get round the rulings. For example, the LaRouche movement has a thing against the Tavistock Clinic in London, which is a very well-known, and so far as I know, respected psychotherapy training clinic. LaRouche believes they're behind an international mind-control plot. Herschel as Weed Harper created a page on the Tavistock Institute, and inserted that unnamed critics accuse it of being involved in mind control, offering a list of "critics" via a link to a Google search. [84] But all the non-LaRouche critics base their claims on the LaRouche allegations, so it counts as LaRouche material, but editors would have to be knowledgeable about the Tavistock and about LaRouche to see that. When you look at the article itself, there's no mention of LaRouche, and no mention of LaRouche publications, so it looks as though he's conforming with the ruling. SlimVirgin 00:51, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

The matter of whether it applies to new users seems like a moot issue. The only LaRouchite editors have been HK's team of designated sockpuppets. The problem in the C. Colden case was the failure to realize that the editor was part of a sockpuppet group. I think that this is an issue about one problem user, HK, not about the LaRouche movement as a whole. And yes, some practical enforcement mechanism is needed. SV is also correct, some definition of "closely-related" is needed. The de facto definition is inclusion in the LaRouche Template, but that is not a direct correlation. -Willmcw 00:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think what we need is essentially a ruling baring HK from edits related to LaRouche. Not topics. Edits. The problem is that the original ruling was policy, which is outside AC jurisdiction. Snowspinner 00:55, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and I wish it could be indefinitely, not just for a year. It seems to me that if Herschel is a genuine editor who wants to make a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, he will stick around and make non-LaRouche edits, so it won't amount to a ban. If he isn't a genuine editor, then he'll lose interest in Wikipedia when it puts a stop to the propaganda, but that'll be his decision, not ours. I also wish that Weed Harper and C Colden could be named separately, without prejudice to the ruling that they are sockpuppets, because they will simply claim that the decisions were not directed at them, and that they're not sockpuppets. Notice how C Colden has been completely silent throughout this process. S/he will be able to appear at the end of it, claiming to know nothing about it, and that it shouldn't apply to him/her. SlimVirgin 01:07, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

The current ruling will shut down HK's use of socks. Snowspinner 01:08, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Factual error

The arbcom is currently voting on this:

"Ban for disruption: 2.1) For significant disruption, relating to political advocacy of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement, Herschelkrustofsky is banned for three months."

The committee seems to be voting against this on the basis of a remark in the voting area by Fred Bauder that: "basically [Herschel] edits in two areas, La Rouche related articles and in classical music. The edits in classical music are generally unobjectionable. I see no reason to ban him when he is making useful contributions."

It is not true that Herschel basically edits in two areas, LaRouche and music. Herschel has edited a wide variety of articles, almost always inserting LaRouche material or POV, causing a considerable amount of disruption, particularly on Australian politician pages, which are the subject of a current mediation request. Here is the list of pages edited by Herschel: User:Willmcw/sandbox2. This has been pointed out elsewhere, but the committee may not have seen it, so I'm repeating it here. SlimVirgin 03:18, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that this is a problem - at least if the LaRouche ban does apply to adding LaRouche POV to articles as well. Snowspinner 03:42, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a problem as such, but based on that inaccurate comment, the committee is voting not to ban Herschel for disruption: already one vote (Sannse's) has been changed because of it. Whether they ban him for that or not is entirely up to them, and I don't seek to influence their interpretation of the facts, but I'd like the decision to be based on the known facts and the evidence that's been presented, and not on a falsehood or a misunderstanding. SlimVirgin 04:17, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky will be breaking the prohibition on editing LaRouche material if he edits unrelated articles and inserts LaRouche material in them. If he uses his year off to edit music or other articles with respect to general information there should be no problem. I am aware that he is unlikely to be able to comply with the ban, but I'd like to give him a chance. I will concede that he may have violated the ban in the past. Fred Bauder 13:52, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

FB, it appears that the ban is only on engaging in an edit war over re-inserting LaRouche original research, not on inserting it (or even re-inserting it in a non-edit war). He has not complied with that ruling in the past, as I have tried to demonstrate to the ArbCom. There has been a huge problem with HK adding LaRouche material to non-LaRouche articles since the August 2004 ruling. You "gave him a chance" in 2004 and he violated the ruling repeatedly without consequences. Considering how much time and energy the editor's willful misconduct and deceptions have consumed, I do not understand your generosity. Assuming good faith is wonderful, continuing to assume it after bad faith has been demonstrated is not. -Willmcw 23:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think Fred is being pretty clear here. If he adds LaRouche material into non-LaRouche articles, he gts banned for a week. At least, that's how I interpret the above. If I'm wrong, the arbcom should please correct me. Snowspinner 23:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Review of existing and proposed rulings on editor HK and LaRouche original research

[edit] August 2004

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision

[edit] Removal of original work

Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

[edit] Edit wars or re-insertion of original material

Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.

[edit] Regarding protection of articles

If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche.

[edit] February 2005

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Proposed decision

[edit] POV parole

Herschelkrustofsky is placed on POV parole for up to and including one year. If he re-inserts any edits which are judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week. Repeat deletions of text, similarly judged to result in a violation of NPOV, shall be treated in the same way.

[edit] Ban on editing LaRouche-related articles

Herschelkrustofsky is banned from editing any article relating to Lyndon LaRouche for up to and including one year. If he edits any LaRouche-related article, he may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator. Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect.

[edit] Analysis & discussion

There is no current or proposed ban on HK inserting LaRouche original research into articles. Only if he engages in an edit war over the re-insertion of that material would there be a violation. Since he has engaged in such an edit war, and the violation has been "demonstrated" to the ArbCom without any resulting action, this ruling does not appear to be enforceable. The POV parole does not explicitly include original research issues. The definitions of a "closely-related" article (which may have LaRouche original research added) or "LaRouche-related" article(which HK may not edit) are undefined, although there has been at least one past controversy over which articles to consider "closely-related." -Willmcw 23:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest better language, but as I interpret our proposed rulings there will be a ban on editing any LaRouche related article or inserting material derived from LaRouche material into any article. This will be followed by a one year POV parole. Fred Bauder 23:30, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly what I wanted. Just to make clear, all objections I have are satisfied. :) (Though I'd still like clarification - does the ban on the LaRouche editing reset every time he does it?) Snowspinner 23:35, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why not use the language that you (FB) just employed? "A ban on editing any LaRouche related article or inserting material derived from LaRouche material into any article." Also, how will this be enforced? I have yet to discover a way of bringing the latest violation (from just two weeks ago) to the attention of the ArbCom (or rather, I have yet to hear back that it has been received and will be considered). Thanks -Willmcw 23:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's enforced by admins banning HK when he does it. My understanding is that there's no more "demonstrate to the arbcom" prevision, or it would be mentioned here. Snowspinner 23:43, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

The new proposal allows Herschel to insert LaRouche original research into articles once. He may not reinsert, but he may insert. This means he may do it to articles few people edit, without anyone noticing, so that he isn't challenged. This proposal will require someone to have to watch all his edits and challenge him, wait for his reinsertion, then organize a 24-hour poll. However, the August 2004 ruling allowed LaRouche-originating original research to be removed on sight from non-LaRouche articles. Therefore, it appears that the current proposal and the August 2004 rulings contradict each other. SlimVirgin 23:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

"ofsky is banned from editing any article relating to Lyndon LaRouche for up to and including one year. If he edits any LaRouche-related article, he may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator. Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect." Thus, if HK inserts any LaRouche material into an article, I will ban him for a week. Period. Snowspinner 23:51, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm confused about this 24-hour poll business, and the reference to reinsertion, rather than insertion. SlimVirgin 00:11, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think enforcement should be in the hands of Wikipedia administrators (sysops and higher) who may ban up to a week following any edit which in their judgment violates either of the two prohibitions. Any such ban would reset the one year ban. Fred Bauder 23:54, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Are the rulings clear enough that most other Admins would interpret them the same way as Snowspinner? I can't help but notice that the complaint I filed to the Admin's noticeboard has been totally ignored. -Willmcw

This is largely because the rulings are not in place. Otherwise, I would have acted. Snowspinner 00:00, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Fred's latest addition clarifies things. [85] SlimVirgin 01:16, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks to Fred Bauer for adding that. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One last clearing up

Is the POV parole running concurrently with the LaRouche ban, or consecutively? Because if it's concurrent, why bother with it, given the fact that his classical music edits are unobjectionable. Snowspinner 16:01, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

It is not a "fact" that HK's classical music edits are unobjectionable. The LaRouche movement has many strongly held, idiosyncratic concepts about music. I'm not sure I follow your overall point, but if the premise is that HK can be trusted to edit music articles without inserting LaRouche material, then I dispute that "fact". -Willmcw 23:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's concurrent. If there are no non-neutral edits on non-LaRouche articles then it's not needed, but will cause no hardship either. -- sannse (talk) 00:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Query about talk pages

Does the prohibition on editing LaRouche-related articles extend to their talk pages too? It is on the talk pages that Herschelkrustofsky has caused a lot of disruption. SlimVirgin 05:06, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest editors of LaRouche related articles use the talk pages to obtain information and inside perspective regarding LaRouche and his activities. Herschelkrustofsky is a valuable resource for this. He needs to keep in touch anyway; he'll be back editing in just a year after all. Fred Bauder 13:26, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

If you allow Herschelkrustofsky to edit Talk pages, the disruption may continue as before. We don't need inside perspective from him for three reasons: First, as an encyclopedia, we can only use material that has been published, not Herschel's personal views. Secondly, he has several times over-stated what the LaRouche publications have said, even when he has supposedly been quoting from them, so he is not a reliable source. Third, we've had nearly 200,000 words of his perspective on Talk pages already, so we can probably live without more of it. SlimVirgin 13:37, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and fourth: I didn't mention this in my evidence, because I felt it probably wouldn't be needed, but he also managed to "lose" criticism of LaRouche on Talk pages when he archived. I found several sections that he had deleted instead of archiving; for example, he moved one talk section where LaRouche's Holocaust denial was discussed into a personal archive of his instead of into the regular one. SlimVirgin 13:37, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

This may be my last edit, for reasons enunciated on my talk page. For some reason, I can't ignore this last example of SlimVirgin's remarkable vindictiveness and disingenuousness. As has been made abundantly clear to SlimVirgin on more than one occasion, I have never moved any talk page material into a "personal archive." After I had posted a list of NPOV objections on the talk page of the original LaRouche article, and then re-posted revised versions of the list as the article was modified, MyRedDice/Martin created a sub-section of Talk:Lyndon LaRouche as a discussion page for my objections. Martin asked that as each objection was resolved, that it be moved to a "closed issues" archive, and as of October 10, 2004, when the dispute was ended, all remaining objections and discussion thereof were moved to that archive (Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/The_Herschelkrustofsky_List/archive1), where they remain to this day. SlimVirgin, however, has repeated insinuated that I, not Martin, initiated this sub-section in order to hide something.

As far as any further participation on the talk pages by myself, I don't see much point in it. Honest editors who wish to check the accuracy of statements attributed to LaRouche may simply consult the numerous websites of the various LaRouche organizations. However, I anticipate that SlimVirgin, Cberlet and Willmcw will simply interpret this latest ArbCom decision as a license to use the LaRouche articles as a soapbox, and my participation on the talk pages would not deter them. --HK 15:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The above is not accurate. I know that Martin oversaw some of the archiving, but much of it was carried out by Herschelkrustofsky, and the material was not placed where Martin had suggested. Material critical of LaRouche is missing from the numbered archives and the supposedly complete archive at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/fullarchive.

As the case is now closed, I'd like to thank the arbitration committee for its work and for wading through such a lot of evidence and discussion. The decisions reached are fair, appropriate, and well-worded. Thank you. SlimVirgin 00:35, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

Thanks to the ArbCom and to the other editors who helped resolve this arbitration. -Willmcw 02:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to say congratulations and thank you to everyone involved in the arbitration process, including Will, Chip, AndyL, and Snowspinner, and to the arbitration committee who sifted through the evidence. Regardless of the muck that got thrown around in various directions, we did the right thing for the right reasons, and Wikipedia will improve as a direct result. Well done and thank you to everyone. SlimVirgin 02:15, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to the ArbCom for wading through a lot of material. I know I have been critical of LaRouche outside of Wikipedia, but I have no doubt that Willmcw and SlimVirgin and even I will do our best to treat LaRouche fairly, and represent the view of the man and the organization equally fairly.--Cberlet 02:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [86].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Contents 1 User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:DJSupreme23 2 User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:AndyL 3 Statement of complaint 4 Counterclaim by respondant AndyL 4.1 Response by Herschelkrustofsky 4.2 Responses to Andy's Counterclaim 5 Preliminary decision 5.1 Arbitrator's opinions on hearing this matter 5.2 Temporary injunction 6 Final decision 6.1 Principles 6.2 Findings of fact 6.3 Remedies 6.4 Enforcement 7 February 17, 2005 decision 8 The parties 9 Statement of complaint 9.1 User:Herschelkrustofsky, User:Weed Harper, User:C Colden, and IP address 64.30.208.48 9.2 Promotion of LaRouche 9.3 Attacks on editors 9.4 3RR violation 9.5 Dispute resolution attempted 9.6 Temporary relief requested 10 Statement by affected party: Herschelkrustofsky 10.1 Regarding Snowspinner's complaint 10.2 Regarding SlimVirgin's complaint 11 Counterclaim by respondant Herschelkrustofsky 12 Request that the present ArbCom rectify an error in the previous Arbcom decision 13 Statement by affected party: Cberlet 13.1 Response to counterclaim by respondant Herschelkrustofsky 14 Preliminary decision 14.1 Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0) 14.2 Temporary injunction 15 Final decision (none yet) 15.1 Principles 15.1.1 Sockpuppets 15.1.2 Wikipedia is not a soapbox 15.1.3 Revert wars considered harmful 15.1.4 No personal attacks 15.1.5 One user or several? 15.1.6 Holding a strong POV does not necessarily imply POV-pushing edits 15.2 Findings of fact 15.2.1 Herschelkrustofsky's advocacy 15.2.2 Herschelkrustofsky's sockpuppetry 15.2.3 Herschelkrustofsky's sockpuppet abuse 15.2.4 Herschelkrustofsky's personal attacks 15.2.5 User:SlimVirgin's personal attacks 15.3 Remedies 15.3.1 Sockpuppet abuse 15.3.2 POV parole 15.3.3 Ban on editing LaRouche-related articles 15.3.4 Caution to SlimVirgin on personal attacks 15.3.5 Caution to Herschelkrustofsky on personal attacks 15.4 Enforcement 15.4.1 Herschelkrustofsky sockpuppets 15.4.2 Ban enforcement 16 Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Proposed decision 17 First section 18 What violations? 19 A few responses to Grunt's assertions 20 Missing boilerplate 21 Too broad? 22 POV Warriors or Serious Journalists & Researchers? 22.1 Cberlet 22.1.1 My print encyclopedia entries 22.1.2 I respect the Wikipedia ethos 22.1.3 Critical analysis of LaRouche is appropriate 22.2 Willmcw...Another non-warrior 22.3 SlimVirgin: A question of fact v. fantasy, not POV 23 Eurasian Land Bridge 24 Complaint about re-insertions of LaRouche original research 24.1 William Spence 24.2 King O'Malley 25 Response from HK 26 Sockpuppetry 27 POV parole 28 Previous Ruling 29 Factual error 30 Review of existing and proposed rulings on editor HK and LaRouche original research 30.1 August 2004 30.1.1 Removal of original work 30.1.2 Edit wars or re-insertion of original material 30.1.3 Regarding protection of articles 30.2 February 2005 30.2.1 POV parole 30.2.2 Ban on editing LaRouche-related articles 30.3 Analysis & discussion 31 One last clearing up 32 Query about talk pages 33 Conclusion 34 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Evidence 35 Evidence presented by SlimVirgin 35.1 August 2, 2004 35.1.1 Previous Arbitration Committee ruling 35.2 January 22, 2005 35.2.1 Evidence of sockpuppetry 35.2.1.1 Information from Tim Sterling 35.2.1.2 Evidence that the accounts use the same DSL connection 35.2.1.3 Editing from AOL addresses, mostly anonymously 35.2.1.4 Same IP addresses on LaRouche press releases and spam 35.3 January 22, 2005 35.3.1 Using sockpuppets to violate 3RR 35.4 November 15, 2004 35.4.1 First example of using sockpuppets to give the impression of broad support 35.5 May-December 2004 35.5.1 Second example of using sockpuppets to give the impression of broad support 35.6 Sept 2004–Jan 2005:personal attacks 35.6.1 Sept 6 35.6.2 Sept 15 35.6.3 Oct 4 35.6.4 Nov 28 35.6.5 Dec 6 35.6.6 Dec 7 35.6.7 Dec 15 35.6.8 Dec 31 35.6.9 Jan 4 35.6.10 Jan 5 35.6.11 Jan 9 35.6.12 Jan 18 35.6.13 Jan 28 35.7 Sept 2004: Repeated insertion of LaRouche fantasy 35.7.1 July 3 35.7.2 Sept 13 35.7.3 Sept 14 35.7.4 Sept 15 35.7.5 Sept 17 35.7.6 Sept 18 35.7.7 Sept 27 36 Evidence presented by Cberlet 36.1 What constitutes mainstream "non-original" reporting concerning LaRouche? 37 Evidence presented by Snowspinner 37.1 29 November 38 Evidence presented by Willmcw 38.1 Copying/plagiarizing from LaRouche sources 38.2 Promotion of LaRouche and his theories 38.3 Personal note 38.4 19 May 2004 38.5 31 May 2004 38.6 3 Jul 2004 38.7 13 Jul 2004 38.8 26 Jul 2004 38.9 26 Jul 2004 38.10 11 Aug 2004 38.11 10 Sep 2004 38.12 10 Oct 2004 38.13 2 Nov 2004 38.14 3 Nov 2004 38.15 4 Nov 2004 38.16 7 Nov 2004 38.17 10 Nov 2004 38.18 12 Nov 2004 38.19 13 Nov 2004 38.20 14 Nov 2004 38.21 18 Nov 2004 38.22 14 Dec 2004 38.23 19 Dec 2004 38.24 23 Dec 2004 38.25 5 Jan 2005 38.26 31 Jan 2005

[edit] Evidence presented by SlimVirgin

[edit] August 2, 2004

[edit] Previous Arbitration Committee ruling

The Arbitration Committee agreed on Aug 2, 2004 that "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda . . ." and that: "User:Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in a pattern of adding original material, not his own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Wikipedia articles, see for example, the material in the article, counterculture [87]. This is then followed by further linkings such as that in this edit of the article Frankfurt School, [88] which form a pattern of attempting to insert the original work of Lyndon LaRouche into Wikipedia. [89] The Committee agreed that: "User Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement." [90]

The Arbitration Committee ruled that:

• "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche." [91]
• "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." [92]
• "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." [93]
• Herschelkrustofsky was also placed on "personal attack parole". [94]

[edit] January 22, 2005

[edit] Evidence of sockpuppetry

[edit] Information from Tim Sterling

In response to a request from SlimVirgin on or around January 12, 2005, David Gerard asked Tim Sterling about the user accounts:

• 64.30.208.48, first used anonymously on May 15, 2004 contribs
• User:Herschelkrustofsky, registered May 19, 2004 contribs
• User:Weed Harper, registered Aug 6, 2004 contribs
• User:C Colden, registered Sept 1, 2004 contribs

The reply on Jan 22, 2005 was:

"On technical evidence, combined with similarity in posting patterns, Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper can be considered to be operated by the same person. C Colden is either the same person or working in coordination with them, but is not *firmly* established to be the same person."

[edit] Evidence that the accounts use the same DSL connection

64.30.208.48 is a DSL connection. Evidence that 64.30.208.48 is both Weed Harper and Herschelkrustofsky:

• 02:31, Jul 13, 2004 64.30.208.48 posted to Michael Danby about Danby supporting the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act. [95]
• 14:49, Jul 28, 2004, in discussion with Fred Bauder, Herschelkrustofsky defended his edit to Michael Danby, quoting from the July 13 post made by 64.30.208.48 about the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act. [96] The Herschelkrustofsky user account did not edit Michael Danby until August 27. [97]
• 17:45, Jul 15, 2004, at Talk:Michael Danby, Adam Carr declined to debate with 64.30.208.48 because s/he was anonymous. [98]
• 00:28, Aug 8, 2004, Weed Harper logged in with his user name, announced s/he was no longer anonymous, and continued the discussion with Adam Carr. [99]
• 16:34, Jun 30, 2004, at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche, Weed Harper left his/her name and email address after posting as 64.30.208.48 [100]

On the basis of the confirmation from Tim Sterling and the evidence of a shared DSL connection, I refer below to the person operating the accounts in the singular.

[edit] Editing from AOL addresses, mostly anonymously

The same user has posted as Weed Harper, Peter Abelard, and anonymously from AOL dial-up IP ranges 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 and 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255.

• 05:00, Dec 27, 2004 as 172.194.97.169 at Schiller Institute [101]
• 14:53 Sept 27, 2004 as 172.199.24.28 at Talk:Asian Highway [102]
• 14:56 Sept 27, 2004, the 14:53 edit attribution was changed from 172.199.24.28 to Weed Harper. [103]
• 20:10 Jul 26, 2004, as 172.197.96.137 at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche wrote his/her name as Peter_Abelard@ausi.com [104]
• 03:25, Aug 30, 2004, as 172.195.201.53 at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche again gave his/her name as Peter_Abelard @ausi.com [105]
• 00:58 May 16, 2004 as 172.199.126.121 to create Chip Berlet [106]
• 01:07 May 16, 2004 as 172.199.126.121 to create Dennis King [107]
• Also [108] [109] [110] [111] [112].

This person has also used AOL proxy addresses. Examples:

• 20:29, May 18, 2004 as 198.81.26.48 to create Amelia Boynton Robinson, a member of the LaRouche movement [113]
• 14:48, May 18, 2004 as 198.81.26.76 to edit Chip Berlet [114]
• 12:51, May 19, 2004 as 198.81.26.76 at American System (economics) [115];
• 07:12, Dec 4, 2004 as 198.81.26.76 at Chip Berlet [116];
• 15:24, Jan 9, 2005 as 198.81.26.73 at Chip Berlet [117]

[edit] Same IP addresses on LaRouche press releases and spam

The IP address ranges 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255 and 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255, as well as 64.30.208.48, have been used to post LaRouche press releases and other material on Usenet, and an abuse report exists on 64.30.208.48, which belongs to ISP Linkline Communication in Los Angeles, for sending out LaRouche press releases as spam during the 2004 election for the governor of California. Herschelkrustofsky has said he is based in California. That LaRouche press releases are emanating from these IP addresses raises the question as to whether the Wikipedia edits have come from a LaRouche office. Someone using the name Ralph Gibbons has posted 500 [118] LaRouche press releases and other material from the same two AOL IP address ranges that were used on Wikipedia [119] [120] [121] [122] (note: the NNTP-posting-host shows the IP address) and from 64.30.208.48 [123] [124] as has Weed Harper. [125] [126] [127] [128]

[edit] January 22, 2005

[edit] Using sockpuppets to violate 3RR

Jan 22, 2005, Lyndon LaRouche Herschel/Weed reverted four times in 19 hrs and 30 mins. Page history [129]

• 01:29 Jan 22, 2005 Herschelkrustofsky reverted [130]
• 07:28, Jan 22, 2005 Weed Harper reverted [131]
• 16:07, Jan 22, 2005 Herschelkrustofsky reverted [132]
• 21:07, Jan 22, 2005 Weed Harper reverted [133]

[edit] November 15, 2004

[edit] First example of using sockpuppets to give the impression of broad support

This stretches across the 17 articles on Template:LaRouche, the 32 archives and pages on Template:LaRouche Talk (185,000 words), and others. See here [134] for disrupted Talk pages. Example from Jeremiah Duggan:

• 01:07, Nov 15, 2004, as Weed Harper [135]
• 15:59, Nov 15, 2004, as C Colden [136]
• 21:42, Nov 15, 2004, as Herschelkrustofsky [137]
• 23:59, Nov 15, 2004, as Weed Harper [138]

[edit] May-December 2004

[edit] Second example of using sockpuppets to give the impression of broad support

Dennis King was created and inaccurate material originating with LaRouche was inserted, though Dennis King is not "closely related." Page history [139].

• 01:07, May 16, 2004 Page created by 172.199.126.121 [140]
• 20:51, May 16, 2004 64.30.208.48 [141]
• 00:14, May 21, 2004 172.137.140.36 [142]
• 14:16, Jun 19, 2004 Herschelkrustofsky [143]
• 15:32, Jun 27, 2004 Herschelkrustofsky [144]
• 20:17, Jul 29, 2004, 172.196.126.139 [145]
• 16:35, Sep 20, 2004 Herschelkrustofsky [146]
• 22:15, Sep 23, 2004 Weed Harper [147]
• 21:16, Oct 5, 2004 Weed Harper [[148]
• 15:13, Oct 27, 2004 172.199.126.240 [149]
• 07:15, Nov 23, 2004, C Colden [150]
• 20:45, Dec 2, 2004 Herschelkrustofsky [151]

[edit] Sept 2004–Jan 2005:personal attacks

Editors are accused of being anti-LaRouche activists or of being disrepectful to the LaRouche movement. Examples:

[edit] Sept 6

• 10:38, Sep 6, 2004

Herschelkrustofsky: (to John Kenney at Amelia Boynton Robinson, who is a LaRouche member): "This was inserted as an insult to Mrs. Robinson, who knows very well who is a racist and who is not," (because John Kenney wrote that there were "frequent accusations of racism against LaRouche.") [152]

[edit] Sept 15

• 20:58, Sep 15, 2004

Herschelkrustofsky to Bcorr: "remove Bcorr's disrespect for Ms Boynton Robinson" (because Bcorr said Boynton Robinson was a "minor" figure in the civil rights movement. Herschel changed it to "prominent.") [153]

[edit] Oct 4

• 14:58, Oct 4, 2004

C Colden: "Andy's hatred of LaRouche reminds me very much of the people who obsessively hate Bill Clinton . . ." [154]

[edit] Nov 28

• 01:23, Nov 28, 2004

C Colden: " . . . SlimVirgin is an anti-LaRouche activist who is looking for opportunities to insert anti-LaRouche propaganda into Wikipedia articles. He hints at his real motives sometimes on talk pages; apparently he believes that he is defending the British Royal Family against accusations of misconduct in the death of Princess Diana." [155]

[edit] Dec 6

• 21:46 Dec 6, 2004

Herschelkrustofsky: "Chip . . . you can't just practice your vocation as a mud-slinger-for-hire here." [156]

[edit] Dec 7

• 02:02, Dec 7, 2004

Herschelkrustofsky: "That category of editors "with no vested interest" would have to exclude you, Slim, as you are looking, as usual, for fora in which to conduct your anti-LaRouche activism." [157]

[edit] Dec 15

• 14:10 Dec 15, 2004

C Colden: "I believe SlimVirgin wrote this story to make Wikipedia a soapbox for his Anti-LaRouche campaign . . ."

[edit] Dec 31

• 15:17, Dec 31, 2004

Herschelkrustofsky: "Chip . . . You are yourself a "marginal conspiracist critic", who makes "hyperbolic charges" and "personal attacks;" they are your stock in trade." [158]

[edit] Jan 4

• 16:03 Jan 4, 2005

Weed Harper: "Slim, you have claimed on half a dozen different talk pages that you are not an anti-LaRouche activist, but I think at this point your claim has no credibility."

• 22:31, Jan 4, 2005

Weed Harper: "It is clear to me that Berlet is trying to hijack Wikipedia to promote his (ahem) commercial endeavors." [159]

[edit] Jan 5

• 16:02, Jan 5, 2005

Herschelkrustofsky: "Slim, you . . . [confirmed] once again my suspicion that you are editing these articles as an anti-LaRouche activist." [160]

[edit] Jan 9

• 07:11, Jan 9, 2005

Weed Harper: "You are once again making a mockery of your claim not to be an anti-LaRouche activist.

[edit] Jan 18

• 21:21, Jan 18, 2005

C Colden: "I can't believe that Chip Berlet has to come to Wikipedia now to drum up business. That unnamed individual who supposedly underwrites Political Research Associates must be tightening the purse-strings. And, I am absolutely certain that SlimVirgin can see that Berlet cooked the quotes, but yet he treats him like the Professor fawning over Marlene Dietrich in "The Blue Angel." [161]

[edit] Jan 28

• 06:21, Jan 28, 2005

Weed Harper: ". . . SlimVirgin came to Wikipedia with the idea that he could use Wikipedia as a platform to revive the . . . [Jeremiah Duggan] story. Chip Berlet was also involved in the Duggan project. I suspect that Slim solicited Berlet to come to Wikipedia as his ally. Both have made some comments that Berlet was disturbed that criticism of Berlet in Wikipedia was hurting his business . . . the article Chip Berlet has been carefully groomed and sanitized by SlimVirgin and Willmcw . . ." [162]

[edit] Sept 2004: Repeated insertion of LaRouche fantasy

Lyndon LaRouche claims to have a proposal called the Eurasian Land Bridge, which his publications say he regularly discusses with world leaders. No reference to this proposal has been found outside LaRouche publications. There is a real project called the Asian Highway, initiated in 1959 by the UN, which is also called the Silk Road, and is sometimes referred to as part of a Eurasian Land Bridge idea, but LaRouche has nothing to do with it, and his claim to have had a proposal for such a bridge looks like an attempt to take credit for the Asian Highway, as he did with Star Wars. Several editors prevented an attempt by Weed Harper to insert the Eurasian Land Bridge claims into Wikipedia. Below is a sample of the edits.

[edit] July 3

• 09:14, Jul 3, 2004

AndyL redirects the Eurasian Land Bridge page to Asian Highway. [163]

[edit] Sept 13

• 15:01, Sep 13, 2004

Weed Harper deletes the redirect and replaces it with the comment "this article has been vandlized." [164]

[edit] Sept 14

• 15:54, Sep 14, 2004

Thue redoes the redirect. [165]

[edit] Sept 15

• 06:39, Sep 15, 2004

Weed Harper undoes the redirect and replaces it with an article about LaRouche's claims to have developed a Eurasian Land Bridge proposal. This includes a misleading photograph [166] of LaRouche's wife standing next to something called the "eastern terminal of the Eurasian Land Bridge (which doesn't exist) speaking to someone who could be a reporter. Herschelkrustofsky later says this was an interview in China and that the Chinese government had erected some kind of structure with the words "eastern terminal of the Eurasian Land Bridge". But this was not explained to the Wikipedia reader. The photograph makes it look as though construction of the Eurasian Land Bridge may have begun and/or that LaRouche and his wife are connected to it. [167]

• 08:30, Sep 15, 2004

Adam Carr deletes the LaRouche article and redirects the page to Asian Highway. [168]

• 21:35, Sep 15, 2004

Weed Harper deletes the redirect and replaces it with the LaRouche claims. [169]

[edit] Sept 17

• 18:20, Sep 17, 2004

Fred Bauder decides that LaRouche claims about the Eurasian Land Bridge count as original research and should be deleted. [170]

• 20:13, Sep 17, 2004

Weed Harper tells Fred he has found references to the Eurasian Land Bridge in Japanese and other newspapers. [171]

• 20:30, Sep 17, 2004

AndyL points out that the Japanese and other references don't mention LaRouche. [172]

[edit] Sept 18

• 00:20, Sep 18, 2004

Weed Harper deletes from Lyndon LaRouche that LaRouche has tried to take credit for the Asian Highway. [173]]

[edit] Sept 27

• 01:00, Sep 27, 2004

Weed Harper again deletes the re-direct of the Eurasian Land Bridge to Asian Highway and reinserts the LaRouche claims. [174]

• 14:51, Sep 27, 2004

IP address 172.199.24.28 anonymously puts the "accuracy" tag on Asian Highway [175]

• 14:53, Sep 27, 2004

172.199.24.28 leaves a note on Talk:Asian Highway saying he has put the tag up. Weed Harper later signs his name in place of the IP address. [176]

[edit] Evidence presented by Cberlet

Cberlet is my user name. I am Chip Berlet, a journalist and researcher.[[177]] [178].

[edit] What constitutes mainstream "non-original" reporting concerning LaRouche?

Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper wrongly claim that harsh criticism of LaRouche is a minority viewpoint, and "original research." They then delete text critical of LaRouche. See for example:

• 13:53, 19 Jan 2005 Weed Harper deleted text, stating: "Conflicts with the Left - this whole section should be put on hold until it is determined whether this theory is "mainstream", or just a personal schtick of Berlet" [179]
• 21:55, 19 Jan 2005 Herschelkrustofsky: deleted text, stating: "Conflicts with the Left - If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia)" [180]
• 01:29, 22 Jan 2005 Herschelkrustofsky: deleted text, stating: "(Remove original research (see talk; I will accept quotes from a "mainstream" publication) and restore material deleted without explanation)" [181]
• 03:07, 24 Jan 2005, Herschelkrustofsky: "The effort to insert copious amounts of the esoteric Dennis King/Chip Berlet theories into this article is unencyclopedic, "original research" in violation of policy, and malicious." [182]

This particular series of incidents has been covered in the definitive biography of LaRouche written by Dennis King, and was reported in legitimate press outlets:

• Paul L. Montgomery, "How a Radical-Left Group Moved Toward Savagery," New York Times, 1/20/74.
• James C. Hyatt, "A Communist Group Uses Fists and Epithets To Battle U.S. Unions," Wall Street Journal, 10/7/75.
• Nat Hentoff, "Of Thugs and Liars," the Village Voice, 1/24/74.

But this claim was the fallback position for trying to hide the facts of this matter. Previously Weed Harper simply deleted the text, claiming:

• 06:20, 28 Sep 2004 Weed Harper: "The Move Away from Marxism - This article already has more of Berlet than LaRouche. People can just follow the link." [183].

In fact, there was only one sentence where my work was quoted other than what was cut.

Mainstream press articles are frequently harshly critical of the LaRouche network. Some are available online through search engines, but most are not:

Mainstream articles & text online(partial list):

• October 24, 2004, Washington Post [184]
• January 14, 1985, Washington Post [185]
• June 29, 1986, San Francisco Examiner [186] (Temporarily posted by Cberlet for evidence in this matter)

Articles written by Cberlet in mainstream press, not online:

• June 17, 1979, Chip Berlet, "U.S. Labor Party: an Odd Saga," Chicago Sun Times.
• September 23, 1981, Chip Berlet "Ever Hear of Lyndon LaRouche? He May be Keeping Tabs on You," Des Moines Register, syndicated by Pacific News Service.

A jury in Virginia heard a LaRouche-filed defamation case against NBC and others (including Cberlet), and ruled that a broadcast calling LaRouche an anti-Semite, "small-time Hitler," cult-leader, and crook was not defamation.[187].

[edit] Evidence presented by Snowspinner

[edit] 29 November

• [188]
  • In this mailing list post, Jimbo notes that LaRouche documents cannot be cited like normal documents in terms of source citation. Although he rejects any firm ruling as to how they should be cited, this does quite a number on any claims that Herschel and his socks were following the NPOV policy, despite providing citations when asked.

[edit] Evidence presented by Willmcw

[edit] Copying/plagiarizing from LaRouche sources

A disturbing practice by HK and WH and others that apparently has continued since May 2004 is the posting of material directly copied from LaRouche-related (and other) websites. This is problematic for three reasons:

• The sites are all copyrighted, and there is no indication that permission was granted for re-use of the material.
• Direct copying of material with no attribution is plagiarism, a form of intellectual dishonesty.
• The addition of the material generally served to promote LaRouche and his concepts, and, in most of the cases that I uncovered, the material was posted to articles which are not "closely related" to LaRouche.

HK's 13 Jul 2004 posting indicates that he was aware of the concept of plagiarism and its inappropriateness on Wikipedia. Even earlier, on 1 Jun 2004, he'd written, "this section, along with the entire article, is a plagiarism problem..." (and then cited a Wikipedia mirror).[189]

[edit] Promotion of LaRouche and his theories

HK's team continued to add material promoting LaRouche and his worldview to articles that are not "closely related" after the August 2004 ban. Since then material was copied verbatim on at least eight occasions from LaRouche sites into loosely connected articles. On January 26, 2005, as part of this arbitration, HK denied using any LaRouche-sourced material after August in non-LaRouche articles. [190] That assertion is refuted by the edit records.

[edit] Personal note

[Refactored] Because of the willful nature of these offenses and the repetition after warnings, I urge the ArbCom to use whatever tools they have to prevent a recurrence. Regretfully and respectfully submitted, -Willmcw 21:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) (refactored -10:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC))

[edit] 19 May 2004

• 20:29, 18 May 2004 user:198.81.26.48 Copied text from a copyrighted LaRouche site [191] to create Amelia Boynton Robinson. Dif -Google cache

[edit] 31 May 2004

• 23:25, 31 May 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Copied text from a copyrighted (non-LaRouche) site [192] to Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up. Dif - Google cache

[edit] 3 Jul 2004

• 11:41, 3 Jul 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Copied text from a copyrighted LaRouche site [193] to American System (economics). Dif -Google cache

[edit] 13 Jul 2004

Posted by HK in response to a posting to the Talk:History of Guyana page, which said..."Readers should note that the basic text of this entry has been lifted from the U.S. State Department's Background notes."

• 14:31, 13 Jul 2004 Herschelkrustofsky wrote: "This is true, as the recently added link demonstrates, and it probably constitutes a violation of Wikipedia plagiarism rules." [194]

[edit] 26 Jul 2004

• 20:30, 26 Jul 2004 user:172.197.96.137. Copied text from a copyrighted LaRouche site [195] to Central bank to promote LaRouche theories. Dif -Google cache

[edit] 26 Jul 2004

• 20:39, 26 Jul 2004 user:172.197.96.137. Added LaRouche link [196] to National Bank. Dif

[edit] 11 Aug 2004

• 22:42, 11 Aug 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Added LaRouche link [197] to Australian anti-terrorism legislation, 2004 Dif

[edit] 10 Sep 2004

• 00:49, 10 Sep 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Copied verbatim text from LaRouche site [198] into Alberto Fujimori. Dif -Google cache

[edit] 10 Oct 2004

• 10 Oct 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Added LaRouche theory (pro-infrastructure, anti-class structure) to American System (economics). Dif

[edit] 2 Nov 2004

• 00:05, 2 Nov 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Copied text from a copyrighted LaRouche site [199] to create Frank Anstey, and promoted LaRouche theories ([200]). Dif -Google cache

[edit] 3 Nov 2004

• 07:46, 3 Nov 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Copied text from a copyrighted LaRouche site ([201]) to William Spence. Dif -Google cache

When other editors tried to remove the material (which they did not know was copied from LaRouche), user:Herschelkrustofsky first wrote on the article's talk page: "Adam, I am at a loss to see why you would find it necessary to delete the quote from Bill Shorten about the Eureka Stockade, the quote from Spence himself on the Common Good, or the reference to Spence's collaboration with King O'Malley on the Commonwealth Bank. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)". When the material was deleted again he contested the deletion with this comment: "Are you disputing the accuracy of these items, or are you making an ostentatious display of contempt for the Wikipedia NPOV policy? --Herschelkrustofsky 21:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)" [202]

[edit] 4 Nov 2004

• 15:14, 4 Nov 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Copied text from a copyrighted LaRouche site ([203]) to King O'Malley. Dif -Google cache

When other editors tried to remove the material (which they did not know was copied from LaRouche), user:Herschelkrustofsky contested the deletion with this comment on the article's talk page: "Are you disputing the accuracy of these items, or are you making an ostentatious display of contempt for the Wikipedia NPOV policy? --Herschelkrustofsky 21:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)" [204]

Some of this material was deleted again in mid-December, and then was restored again by HK #31 Jan 2005.

[edit] 7 Nov 2004

• 14:40, 7 Nov 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Created Yiddish Renaissance with text copied verbatim from LaRouche site [205]. Dif -Google cache

[edit] 10 Nov 2004

• 15:51, 10 Nov 2004 Weed Harper. Added LaRouche theory (infrastructure, etc.) to National bank article (edit summary: "public credit"). Dif
• 15:54, 10 Nov 2004 Weed Harper. Added LaRouche link [206] to Alexander Hamilton. Dif

[edit] 12 Nov 2004

• 23:13, 12 Nov 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Added LaRouche link ([207]) to Henry Carey (economist) Dif
• 23:06, 12 Nov 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Added LaRouche theory ("advocates of the American System (economics) approach" = LaRouche followers) to Regulation. Dif

[edit] 13 Nov 2004

• 22:12, 13 Nov 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Copied text from a copyrighted LaRouche site ([208]) in order to create H.C. Coombs. Dif -Google cache

[edit] 14 Nov 2004

• 16:09, 14 Nov 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Added LaRouche theory (connection between Symons and Cheney) to Elizabeth Symons, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean. Dif

[edit] 18 Nov 2004

• 21:56, 18 Nov 2004 Weed Harper. Created Tavistock Institute using LaRouche theories (clinic is center for brainwashing reasearch [209], [210]). Dif

[edit] 14 Dec 2004

• 15:47, 14 Dec 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Added material promoting LaRouche to Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up. Dif

[edit] 19 Dec 2004

• 12:40, 19 Dec 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Copied text from a copyrighted LaRouche site [211] to Chip Berlet, (edit summary: "copy edit" - although substantial new material was added). Dif -Google cache

[edit] 23 Dec 2004

• 21:39, 23 Dec 2004 user:198.81.26.71. Copied text from a copyrighted LaRouche site [212] to John Train. Dif - Google cache

[edit] 5 Jan 2005

• 22:36, 5 Jan 2005 Herschelkrustofsky. Copied text from a copyrighted LaRouche site [213] to Amelia Boynton Robinson (edit summary: "restore deleted info with documentation" - although this was the first time the material had been added.) Dif - Google cache

[edit] 31 Jan 2005

• 21:10, 31 Jan 2005 Herschelkrustofsky. Restored verbatim LaRouche material in King O'Malley (edit summary "restore material deleted by Adam") (This is some of the same material added #4 Nov 2004. user:Adam Carr had deleted it in mid-December [214]). Dif

---