User talk:Herschelkrustofsky/The Third Trial of Lyndon LaRouche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] The third trial of Lyndon LaRouche

I now find myself having to play the role of Emile Zola vs. a clique that wishes to have Wikipedia host a character assassination of LaRouche.

I would like Wikipedia mediatiors, arbitrators, and other interested parties to know that I will be away from the internet until Monday, July 12. I will respond promptly to any messages left on this page during that interval. --Herschelkrustofsky 23:22, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I request to serve as a witness for your arbitration case. I too have been victimized by Carr, in a similar fashion; in fact, the reason Herschel is treated this wasy, is undoubtedly because Carr got away with doing the same towards me. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Thanks just the same, but I would prefer to have my case stand or fall on its own merits. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] re: Request for Mediation

I have left a message for User:AndyL on his talk page to see if he is willing to accept mediation. However, Andy's user page says he's away until mid-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. Could you please respond, either on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or on my talk page, to say whether you are prepared to accept mediation. If you accept, could you please say whether you have any preference over who the mediator is. And there is a list at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, although you may choose someone not on the official committee if you prefer.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee 16:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I strongly reccomend you do not accept User:danny as your mediator. His POV is roughly the same as User:Adam Carr ;). Sam [Spade] 00:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Duly noted. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Would it be possible to retract that accusation on the Evidence page? Ambivalenthysteria 11:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Ambivalenthysteria 14:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, it wasn't an accusation -- I said I was "suspicious." I am no longer suspicious, at least of your role. Dealing with Adam and Andy is getting on my nerves. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] AndyL

Please come and share your thoughts at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:AndyL. Sam [Spade] 01:46, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, Andy evidently corrected this error. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:59, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Adam and Andy please use threats and insults page. Andy, this includes your various anonymous incarnations such as 65.95.225.20 (NEXXIA HSE in Toronto).

[edit] Re: From User:Herschelkrustofsky

Sam, you seem to have been around a while, and you seem as well to have gotten yourself embroiled in a fair amount of controversy. I'd like to ask your opinion on a few matters:

1. Despite all the proclamations about NPOV and no propaganda, yadda yadda yadda, is Wikipedia really just dominated by gangs of thugs, imposing their own POV?

2. Has the arbitration process ever been known to work? If so, how long did it take? And were the results durable?

Thanks for your time, --Herschelkrustofsky 07:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1. Short answer, no. Long answer, everything in life is POV, and dominated by groups of likeminded individuals. The wiki is actually less so than most, but its no exception.
2. Yes, but it takes a very long time, and in your case it looks like you may be railroaded for being a larouche advocate. From what I saw here you are losing your case rather handily. I am sympathetic, and feel too little attention has been paid to Adam's incivility, and too much to your pro-larouche sympathies, but what will be, will be.
Good luck, Sam [Spade] 01:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In a better world, the questions of Adam's incivility or my symphathies would be tertiary at best, and the arbitrators would be primarily concerned with the truth or falsity of the articles that Wikipedia is presenting to the world. I am beginning to suspect that there is no standard for truthfulness, period. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:39, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree... In many ways this (the wikipedia) is a Consensus reality. Sam [Spade] 18:17, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Post-arbitration communications

I don't think you're helping your cause very much by trying to attack Adam's employer, Herschelkrustofsky. Doing so by quoting the files of the CEC is just playing into Adam's hands - and I don't think it'll win you much sympathy from passers-by. Why not take the moral high ground? Ambi 03:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I think that Adam may be essentially a cat's paw for Danby, who has a much longer and more egregious history of slandering LaRouche than does Adam. I have met representatives of the CEC, and I was struck with admiration for them -- a bunch of unusually spunky, altruistic and jolly souls. And I'm not looking for sympathy, though I am looking for the moral high ground, which I have come to believe can be attained by telling the truth as fearlessly as possible. But I will be happy to discuss this further. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please don't engage in personal attacks directed at User:Adam Carr though association with Adam Carr's employer, Michael Danby. Please avoid the characterization of Michael Danby as "fascist". Fred Bauder 12:46, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
I'd just like to backup Fred's request, and to remind you that the Lyndon LaRouche article is not going to get any more favourable to that man as a result of you attacking Adam Carr or Michael Danby. One other small comment: Wikipedia is not Truth; it is an encyclopedia. We desire to be accurate, unbiased, verifiable, and encyclopedic. Being "true" is sometimes a by-product of these things, but not always. Martin 22:22, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK, I get both points. Believe it or not, I have never sought a "favorable" article on LaRouche -- if you look at my Lyndon LaRouche/draft, I scrupulously acknowledge all the attacks on him. I suppose that Truth is not something we should be aiming for, but I would certainly settle for accurate and unbiased. Verifiability is necessary, but beware of fallacy of composition: you can have an article made up of verifiable facts that completely misrepresents its subject, by means of what it leaves out. And the thing that troubles me about the whole Lyndon LaRouche affair vis-a-vis Wikipedia, is that many of the participants in the controversy seem comfortable with something that may be biased and inaccurate, so long as it is consistent with biased and inaccurate media reporting. I'd like to think that Wikipedia aims higher than that. --Herschelkrustofsky 01:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Am I a party? I've largely tried to stay out of it. But if you want, I'll refrain from any further such involvement here. Ambi 00:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alright. As I said, IMO, I haven't been overly involved here, but if you perceive otherwise, that's fine. Ambi 14:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] CEC/LaRouche

a) I think I've solved the box problem re Helga Zepp-LaRouche. The LYM article is too short for me to use the same trick there so I've left the box where it is.

b) sorry Herschell but I know a bit about constitutional law and political systems in the Commonwealth and your claims regarding the Privy Council are utter nonsense. In any case, Australia has no Privy Council and ceased making any appointments to the British (or Imperial) Privy Council over twenty years ago. See Right_Honourable#Australia ie Adam's assertion that there is no constitutional link between Austalia and the Privy Council is absolutely correct. AndyL 23:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Queries

Hi. I'm just wondering if you got my email concerning LaRouche. If you got it, my address is ncdems@yahoo.com . Thanks. Pincus 02:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why the sudden interest in the Australian labour movement? Ambi 03:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User: Adam Carr believes it's because Herschelkrustofsky is a Lyndon LaRouch acolyte and that the figures he is writing on are claimed by members of the Australian LaRouche organisation to be their intellectual forebears. Carr claims his edits are an attempt to write the LaRouche version of history into Wikipedia. Psychobabble 00:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Duggan

Sorry Herschel but if you take out all the material related to LaRouche there wouldn't be an article on Duggan. Hence the difference between the Duggan article and the ones on King or Berlet. The only reason Duggan is notable is because of his experience with the LaRouche movement. There is nothing else in his life that would merit an article on him in wikipedia. AndyL 03:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] banned, and unbanned, Caliban

I agree that it is difficult to interpret the decision of the arbitration committee and to determine whether the information in any particular edit originally had its source in the Lyndon LaRouche movement. However, any user who determines that material in an edit had its source in the Lyndon LaRouche movement is authorized to remove it and you may be subject to a ban if you put it back. I think it is probably just best to stay away from areas where this is likely to happen. Jimbo looked at this decision and was not please with the "original research" approach, but he did agree that Wikipedia was not a proper venue for, "advocacy and propaganda". You can probably expect any further proceedings will result in further restrictions. Fred Bauder 14:38, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Herschelkrustofsky, C Colden and 64.30.208.48

After complaints to the Arbitration Committee Herschelkrustofsky, C Colden and 64.30.208.48 are banned for one week for violation of the provisions of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#Edit_wars_or_re-insertion_of_original_material. Effective November 25, 2004 on the vote of 5 arbitrators conducted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested.

[edit] Reply from Weed

Probably so, but intermittently as usual. Weed Harper 21:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The missing Holocaust denial material

Herschel, you haven't replied to my query about the Lyndon LaRouche Talk archives. There seems to be quite a bit of material missing that you appear to have deleted or moved. As an example, I drew your attention to this discussion [1] about LaRouche's alleged Holocaust denial, which was in Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues, and which you moved, for no obvious reason, on August 19, to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List/archive1 [2]. On October 11, you moved Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4. But because you had previously deleted the Holocaust denial discussion, it was not among the material that went to archive 4. Can you explain that to me please, because it looks like an attempt to hide it. If I have misunderstood, I apologize, and would appreciate you pointing to where the material can be found in the regular archives that were listed on the Talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 22:57, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please note response by MyRedDice/Martin [3]. --HK 14:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, Martin's reply indicates that he doesn't know anything about this. He writes that the missing LaRouche material about his alleged Holocaust denial [4] can be found at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues. But I was the one who recently restored it to this archive when I found it had been deleted by you on August 19, 2004. So the question remains: after you deleted it on August 19 and placed it in the Herschelkrustofsylist1, why didn't you move it into the regular archives; or if you did, where is it? I continue to wonder what the general archiving practises were at that time, and why you were allowed to remove things and move discussions out of context, and I would appreciate a response. The archives are in a complete mess as a result; a lot is missing; the rest is not in chronological order; and Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/fullarchive is nowhere near complete. I would be grateful if you would explain, as you were the one doing the bulk of the archiving, not Martin. SlimVirgin 19:21, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, the facts are these: the so-called "Herschelkrustofsky list" of objections to the Adam and Andy versions of the Lyndon LaRouche article appeared numerous times on the talk page of that article during the summer of 2004, until MyRedDice, a member of the arbcom committee, intervened to consolidate it and move it to two seperate pages. At his suggestion, as each objection was resolved, it was moved, by me, to a seperate archive of "closed issues." Around October 10, 2004, all remaining disputes were resolved, and I moved what was left on those pages to the "closed issues" page. If you think that I misplaced some material, which I doubt, you can find it by going over the edit histories of those pages. I am unwilling to do it for you, as I am somewhat overtaxed responding to POV edits on the LaRouche pages from the new team of Chip Berlet and yourself. If you continue to post notices on all the talk pages which imply that I was "deleting archive material," I shall consider it a malicious personal attack. --HK 17:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You may consider it in any way you wish. You wrote: " Around October 10, 2004, all remaining disputes were resolved, and I moved what was left on those pages to the "closed issues" page." What and where is the "closed issues" page? SlimVirgin 18:05, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

That would be Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/The_Herschelkrustofsky_List/archive1, the sole archive for the list. --HK 18:20, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked for grossly violating the 3 Revert Rule on Lyndon LaRouche. You will continue to be reverted until you establish consensus or at least support for your edits. Use the talk page (which you don't appear to have done at all yet) instead of blindly reverting. --fvw* 06:45, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

You should be aware that a request for arbitration has been made against you. Snowspinner 13:59, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] La Rouche arbitration

The La Rouche arbitration part two has been accepted; temporary injunctions have been proposed which would affect your editing of La Rouche related articles; please made any comments at the talk page of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_Part_Deux/Proposed_decision#Proposed_temporary_injunctions. Fred Bauder 15:51, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee injunction

Pending a final decision on the case concerning you, you 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. Violation of this injunction will result in a block of up to twenty-four hours. Pages relating to the case are not included. Please see the injunction order for details. -- Grunt   ҈  04:02, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee ruling

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)

[edit] What violations?

In a counterclaim posted here:[5], you conclude:

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 you have not indicated any supposed violations on my part. Either you should document my violations or you should remove me from your list of violators. -Willmcw 22:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/e/r/User_talk%7EHerschelkrustofsky_The_Third_Trial_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_74bb.html"