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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation, arbitration, and requests for clarification, LaRouche movement, 2004-2007 Requests for clarification 2006 and 2007 "Request for appeal ...", Tsunami Butler, Jan 24, 2007. "LaRouche again", SlimVirgin, Nov 22,2006. "Lyndon LaRouche", ManEatingDonut, Oct 23, 2006.

Mediation 2006 and 2007 Informal mediation, November 2006 Informal mediation talk, February 2007

Arbitration 2006 Herschelkrustofsky banned, May 5, 2006. Herschelkrustofsky enforcement, Apr 15, 2006. Herschelkrustofsky enforcement request, May 5, 2006.

Arbitration 2005 Nobs01 and others, November 2005. Cognition's statement in Nobs01 and others, Nov 22, 2005. Modification of LaRouche 2 in Nobs01 and others, Dec 23, 2005. Herschelkrustofsky indefinite probation in Nobs01 and others, Dec 23, 2005. LaRouche 2, Jan 25, 2005–Feb 17, 2005. LaRouche 2 talk LaRouche 2 evidence LaRouche 2 proposed decision LaRouche 2 proposed decision talk

Arbitration 2004 LaRouche 1, July 4—Sep 13, 2004. LaRouche 1 talk LaRouche 1 evidence LaRouche 1 evidence talk LaRouche 1 proposed decision LaRouche 1 proposed decision talk

Mediation 2004 Herschelkrustofsy and AndyL, July 3, 2004. Herschelkrustofsky and DJSupreme23, June 14, 2004. Herschelkrustofsky and Adam Carr, November 15, 2004. Herschelkrustofsky and SlimVirgin, December 16, 2004.

Talk pages 2004-2007 Talk:Lyndon LaRouche Lyndon LaRouche 1, Jan 17, 2004–Jun 17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 2, Jun 20–22, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 3, Jun 21–24, 2004 Draft, June 24-25, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 4, Jun 25–July 5, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 5, Jul 05–Aug 1, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche Jewish issues, June–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche Herschel list, July–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche Herschel list archive Lyndon LaRouche 6, Aug 6-9, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 7, Aug 11-17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche omissions, Sep 9-10, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 8, Aug 18, 2004–Sep 28, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 9, Sep 18, 2004–Oct 11, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 10, Dec 16, 2004–Jan 20, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche partial archive, material missing Lyndon LaRouche 11, Jan 20, 2005–Jul 19, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche 12, Jul 28, 2005–Nov 12, 2006 Lyndon LaRouche 13, Nov 21, 2006—Feb 18, 2007 Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche Political views temp Political views 1, Aug 21, 2004–Nov 29, 2004 Political views 2, Dec 17, 2004–Jan 11, 2005 Political views 3, Jan 11, 2005–Oct 02, 2006 Political views "cooked quotes", Jan 22–23, 2005 Political views, informal mediation, Feb 27, 2006–Mar 04, 2006 Other talk Talk:United States v. LaRouche Talk:Schiller Institute Talk:Schiller Institute/archive1 Talk:Amelia Boynton Robinson Talk:John Train Salon Talk:LaRouche Youth Movement Talk:Helga Zepp-LaRouche Talk:Jeremiah Duggan Talk:Jeremiah Duggan/archive1, Nov 14–Dec 6, 2004 Talk:Jeremiah Duggan/archive2, Dec 6, 2004–Jan 12, 2005. Template Talk:LaRouche

Contents 1 First section 2 What violations? 3 A few responses to Grunt's assertions 4 Missing boilerplate 5 Too broad? 6 POV Warriors or Serious Journalists & Researchers? 6.1 Cberlet 6.1.1 My print encyclopedia entries 6.1.2 I respect the Wikipedia ethos 6.1.3 Critical analysis of LaRouche is appropriate 6.2 Willmcw...Another non-warrior 6.3 SlimVirgin: A question of fact v. fantasy, not POV 7 Eurasian Land Bridge 8 Complaint about re-insertions of LaRouche original research 8.1 William Spence 8.2 King O'Malley 9 Response from HK 10 Sockpuppetry 11 POV parole 12 Previous Ruling 13 Factual error 14 Review of existing and proposed rulings on editor HK and LaRouche original research 14.1 August 2004 14.1.1 Removal of original work 14.1.2 Edit wars or re-insertion of original material 14.1.3 Regarding protection of articles 14.2 February 2005 14.2.1 POV parole 14.2.2 Ban on editing LaRouche-related articles 14.3 Analysis & discussion 15 One last clearing up 16 Query about talk pages 17 Conclusion

[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 [1] [2]
• Australian anti-terrorism legislation, 2004 [3] [4]
• Henry Charles Carey [5]
• American System (economics) [6]
• Regulation [7]
• International Monetary Fund [8]
• Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up (edit history)
  • Added:
  • Alexander Hamilton [9]

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:[10], 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.[11] [12] 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.[13] 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.[14]. 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. [15] 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; [16] 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; [17] that the philosopher Bertrand Russell advocated genocide and was a "virtual incarnation of Satan"; [18] and that the Beatles were part of an international mind-control plot. [19] 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 [20].

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. [21] 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 [22], India [23] and , and Japan [24]. 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. [25]

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. [26]

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 ([27]) 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 ([28]) 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) [29]

• 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: [30] -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. [31] 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. [32] 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)