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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Previous talk

Martin, I have a question about the findings you have posted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision. You congratulate Adam for re-writing the article Lyndon LaRouche from scratch. But it seems to me almost self-evident, that this article is chock full of innuendo, undocumented (and unattributed) accusations, and large dollops of clumsily obvious, heavy-handed propaganda (see updated list of wild fabrications and propagandistic slurs in the present version). It seems to me that even a person unfamiliar with LaRouche should be able to discern this, after reading this article. My question is the following: in what way does Adams's version of this article not violate the following:

Point #6 from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. But of course an article can report objectively on what advocates say, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view." --Herschelkrustofsky 20:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To answer your question, Adam's version does not, in my judgement, appear to be propaganda or advocacy, and thus does not cause issues with the point you cite. This is not to make a judgement as to whether it is better or worse than the preceding version, nor whether either version is perfectly accurate and neutral.
I hope this helps. Martin 21:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My copy of Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines propaganda as "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person." The deliberations on the Talk:Lyndon LaRouche pages, in conjunction with Adam's admission on the Arbitration Evidence Page ("It is of course true that I and others editing here are hostile to LaRouche."), leave little doubt that what we have here is a lynch mob of sorts, editing at cross-purposes with Wikipedia policy as stated. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. Although it is hard to imagine anyone from the United States or Australia that does not have strong opinions on Lyndon LaRouche it is obviously that both versions suffer from a partisan viewpoint as does the King book. Fred Bauder 18:24, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Two comments from an onlooker

While I think I understand what Fred's proposed principle five is getting at, IMHO, it's a bit vague, and could really do with some clarification.

Secondly, I'm a little bit curious as to where Adam has supposedly attacked anyone during the proceedings of this arbitration. I believe this was the statement referred to in proposed remedy five.

To quote Adam:

Surely this is an error. The statement you quote doesn't even mention Krusty, let alone attack him. My personal attack on Krusty was to call him (from memory) a lying, slanderous piece of filth. If you want to convict me for making personal attacks, please do so over something which actually is a personal attack. I also point out that my personal attack on Krusty followed his description of a Jewish social-democratic member of the Australian Parliament as a fascist. I consider that to be far more offensive than anything I have said about Krusty.

This was one reference, in relation to these proceedings, to something he'd said earlier. I can't really see how this can be called "engaging in a pattern of personal attacks during this arbitration", nor how it warrants a week ban of a prolific and good contributor. Ambivalenthysteria 01:55, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The second personal attack is contained in this post by Adam Carr, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Fred_Bauder&diff=0&oldid=4895236 and consists of the language, "...I called Herschelkrustofsky a slanderous piece of filth, a comment I made after due consideration and which I stand by." This is an excellent example of why having someone represent you in emotionally charged situations like this is a good idea. Fred Bauder 02:33, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. Isn't there a difference, however, between stating you still believe something you said earlier, even if that was rather...negative, and "a pattern of personal attacks", worthy of not only doubling, but increasing the original ban x7? That sounds like something I'd expect to apply to Irismeister - and applying it to Adam here seems like a bit of a stretch. Ambivalenthysteria 04:09, 29 Jul 2004

First, my initiative in this matter may or may not be supported by the other arbitrators. While I believe the findings are appropriate they remain only my position until they are considered by the other arbitrators. Second, this is very like the Wik cases where good and responsible behavior in one area is held to excuse nasty behavior in another. Fred Bauder 11:45, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Status of this decision

Could we maybe move things along on this one, as it's getting a little stale? It appears that there are five votes to give Herschelkrustofsky a one-day ban, which is the same number of votes that Adam Carr's one-day ban (already served) was based on. I would be willing to execute this decision (if for no other reason than because I imposed Adam's ban, and wouldn't mind showing that I'm not playing favorites in this case), but nobody has requested it on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested so I'm not sure if the decision is final. --Michael Snow 00:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Does this ruling apply to SlimVirgin vs. HerschelKrustofsky

SlimVirgin has initiated edit wars at numerous articles pertaining to Lyndon LaRouche, and has argued that LaRouche publications may not be used as sources in these articles, citing this ArbCom decision.

To my mind, the essential facts are these: the Arbcom ruling prohibits the inclusion of "original research" (which in this case I take to mean citations from the various print and electronic news media affiliated with the Lyndon LaRouche organization,) except in those articles where LaRouche and his movement are "closely related" or "highly relevant."

Assuming that my interpretation of the ruling is correct, the articles where SlimVirgin has initiated edit wars are all clearly articles that conform to those criteria of "closely related" and "highly relevant." These are the article on the Schiller Institute, a LaRouche-affiliated organization; the article on Jeremiah Duggan, which alleges that attending a conference of the Schiller Institute caused Mr. Duggan to commit suicide; the article on Frederick Wills, a founder of the Schiller Institute; and the article on Dennis King, where the topic of the article is the fact that Mr. King wrote a book which accuses LaRouche of being a fascist. There have been minor conflicts on other pages, all LaRouche-related.

SlimVirgin vehemently denies being an "anti-LaRouche activist," although in the one month that he has been editing Wikipedia his edit history is heavily weighted toward editing LaRouche-related articles. He authored the Jeremiah Duggan article during his second week at Wikipedia. He has also been deleting material from articles that I was completely unaware of, citing the arbcom decision; I would like to inquire as to whether this was the intention of the decision, which I thought was directed primarily at myself.

--H.K. 16:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It applies to any advocate of LaRouche, there is an organizational structure with supporters. There is some controversy over this point as some might feel it wrong to apply a ruling to new editors who may appear. I don't have any problem with it as I assume the organization, as an organization, will take an interest if it has not already done so. Similar restrictions probably should also apply to anti-activists. It's pretty hard to imagine anyone who would not have strong opinions on these issues and thus a tendency to edit from a POV. Fred Bauder 18:55, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Point well taken, but then the question becomes: if a LaRouche publication, cited by a LaRouche supporter, shall be considered "original research", would an anti-LaRouche publication, cited by an anti-activist, be given the same legal status under the ruling? That could become very complicated.
I'd like to make an observation, as well, respecting the journalistic quality of Executive Intelligence Review and other LaRouche publications: they are recognized as highly professional news publications; the EIR reporter that covers U.S. government matters has White House credentials and other relevant credentials; Google News includes EIR among the press that it spiders on the web; and EIR is widely quoted in other media, which seems to disturb SlimVirgin, because he must go looking for any press account that seems to echo EIR, in order to delete the reference from Wikipedia articles.
Let me emphasize in this regard, however, that the bone of contention here is a series of articles which may all be fairly described as "closely related" and "highly relevant", and my contention is that SlimVirgin is misusing the arbcom ruling by seeking to apply it to those articles. --H.K. 21:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I agree with Herschelkrustofsky (for once) that it might be helpful to have the Arb Comm ruling clarified.
First, I want to make clear that I'm not an anti-LaRouche activist. I couldn't care less about LaRouche. The only reason I came to the LaRouche supporters' attention (and they to mine) is that I wrote an article on Jeremiah Duggan, an issue that affects their interests. My edit history shows that I've created or rewritten five articles in the last month. Apart from Jeremiah Duggan, these were about Bernard Williams, a well-known philosopher (the article is currently a Featured Article nomination); Rat Park, a famous psychology experiment, [[Cambridge Apostles}, a secret society; and Kenneth Bigley, a British hostage in Iraq. Nothing to do with LaRouche. On the other hand, Herschelkrustofsky's edits are 90 per cent or higher about LaRouche, and Weed Harper's and C Colden's 100 per cent.
The main issue here, as I see it, is the "no original research" rule. That is, all material in Wikipedia entries must have been published somewhere else already, preferably in a reputable publication. The Wikipedia guidelines and the material written by Jimbo Wales are very clear on this point.
In the case of Wikipedia entries about LaRouche and his organization, or "closely related" entries, it was accepted by the Arb Comm that the LaRouche organization's publications could be used as a reference, as the entries are about that organization.
However, it is still the case that the information must have been published somewhere; for example, on a LaRouche website or in a LaRouche journal. Herschelkrustofsky and the other LaRouche supporters (C Colden and Weed Harper) seem to believe that, because they are connected to the LaRouche organization, they can insert their own beliefs and views into articles they deem to be "closely related" to LaRouche, and can pass that off as knowledge. They provide no references at all for most of their edits. My argument is that the same "no original research" rule must apply to them as it does to all other Wikipedia editors on all other subjects.
Secondly, it would be helpful to have some clarification on what counts as being "about LaRouche and related people and organizations" and "closely related." For example, a Wikipedia entry on the journalist Dennis King is being edited by the LaRouche supporters; they don't like him because he wrote a book about LaRouche. Herschelkrustofsky writes above that: "the topic of the [Dennis King] article is the fact that Mr. King wrote a book which accuses LaRouche of being a fascist."
However, that this is the "topic" of the entry is just Herschelkrustofsky's claim, which he makes so he can count the entry as an article "about LaRouche and his organization" or "closely related." This will allow him, or so he thinks, to insert unverifiable, unpublished and arguably defamatory claims. But Dennis King is an established journalist who has been writing for over 30 years. One of the issues he has written about is Lyndon LaRouche. It is not the only one.
In summary, I am requesting clarification of the following:
(a) that the "no original research" rule applies to all Wikipedia editors on all subjects;
(b) that the "no original research" rule means that material in Wikipedia entries must have been published elsewhere previously, wherever possible in a reputable outlet; an exception being that LaRouche publications may be quoted in articles about LaRouche and his organization, or where LaRouche and his organization are being criticized, in which case the LaRouche point of view must be included; and
(c) that the phrase "about LaRouche and related people or organizations" or "closely related" cannot be extended to include everyone who has ever published criticism of Lyndon LaRouche. I am not asking for the phrase "closely related" to be defined by the Arb Comm, as it's almost impossible to do that: the issue will have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. But I am asking that it not be understood as an umbrella term to cover everyone who has criticized LaRouche. Slim 21:50, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Herschelkrustofsky's entry above is typical of what I mean. He writes that Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) is "widely quoted in other media," without giving examples. EIR is widely quoted on issues pertaining to LaRouche because it is his main outlet. It is absolutely absurd to suggest that EIR is widely quoted by reputable news organizations unless they are doing a story about LaRouche. EIR is a vanity publication. As for EIR writers being granted White House accreditation, any writer who is not a terrorist and who requests it may be granted this. It means nothing. Slim 21:57, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

A point of order, with respect to SlimVirgin's assertions. It is completely untrue that my edits are "90% or higher" about LaRouche. I have, in fact, furnished evidence of this fact to SlimVirgin, at his request. It is also untrue that Weed Harper's edits are 100% about LaRouche. C Colden's edits, by my reckoning, are 89% about LaRouche, which is easy to calculate because she has only edited 9 articles, not counting talk pages. SlimVirgin, in discussing his own edits, is using a bit of captious reasoning, in that he refers to aticles that he has "created or rewritten", but avoids discussing articles that he has edited. Looking at his edit history, it appears that he is systematically searching Wikipedia for references to LaRouche, something that I myself have never done. --H.K. 22:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think detailed analyses of user edits are entirely relevant here, but I would like to address Herschel's points. I believe that any reasonable person who looked at Herschelkrustofsky's, C Colden's, Weed Harper's and 64.30.208.48's edit histories would conclude that they are LaRouche activists or supporters; and that any reasonable person looking at my edits would NOT conclude that I am an anti-LaRouche activist.
First, all Weed Harper's contributions are here [1].
They are 100 per cent about LaRouche or related. Weed Harper also edits as 64.30.208.48. (This is not my speculation: he once failed to log on during a discussion, then did log on, and continued the discussion. The same IP address has been used to post pro-LaRouche posts on Usenet under the name Weed Harper [2] and also under the name Ralph Gibbons [3] and was reported for sending out anonymous pro-LaRouche spam during the election.) 64.30.208.48's edits are here [4].They are 100 per cent LaRouche or related. All C Colden's edits are here [5]. With the exception of the very first edit, they are 100 per cent LaRouche or related. Herschelkrustofsky has edited a greater number of articles, so I can't (without a lot of work) put an accurate percentage on the LaRouche-related material, but it appears to be over 90 per cent. He has not, as he claims above, shown me evidence of his non-LaRouche edits, though I have asked him to. In addition to the obvious LaRouche-related material, he also inserts LaRouche POV into other articles.
See this post, dated November 20. --H.K. 15:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But some of these ARE considered by other editors to have LaRouche POV in them, which is why your edits are reverted. You're currently going through mediation because of it. I would like to see you compose a list of your edits that no editor could possibly argue had a LaRouche component to them. We would be able to balance that list on the head of a pin. Slim 19:46, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I am in mediation because I requested it, and the other editor in question is Adam Carr (the originator of your conspiracy theory regarding my edits). Need I say more? --H.K. 15:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It would be wonderful if Herschel would just try to be a regular Wikpedia editor, regardless of his views on LaRouche, and sometimes edit or even write an article on flowers or philosophy or music (or whatever). While being single-minded doesn't count as a criticism -- lots of editors focus on their areas of expertise -- when that expertise involves the constant elevation of one controversial politician's point of view, then it becomes a problem. For example, in one of the Usenet posts written by 64.30.208.48, the writer refers to journalist Dennis King, who has criticized LaRouche, as a "sludge." I feel that anyone holding this view should be careful about editing the Wikipedia article on Dennis King and should probably recuse themselves; but that IP address does show up in the Dennis King history. The consequence of allowing LaRouche supporters to edit articles like these can be seen here [6] after a Herschelkrustofsky edit, which implies, without a reference, that Dennis King's LaRouche book may have been financed by the CIA, and here [7] where King is accused, again with no reference, of having earned a living as a student writing term papers for other students i.e. helping people to cheat. These are not encylopedic entries and they are possibly defamatory. In my view, this kind of writing has no place in Wikipedia. Slim 22:58, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I don't intend to keep on adding to this page, but I'd like to include some words from Jimbo Wales about the original research rule, as I feel that's the crux of the matter, and he has summed it up very well and has explained the reasoning behind it. These e-mails were sent out to WikiEN-l, so I assume it's appropriate to quote them here. I draw your attention to the second e-mail in particular, where he talks about the tendency of some editors to "produce novel narratives and historical interpretations." The points Jimbo Wales makes are important. What's at issue here is NOT whether LaRouche claims about the world are true. The issue is whether they are verifiable. Slim 23:16, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

"The phrase orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web. The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we "can" do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history, though I suppose the application will in some cases be a bit different and more subtle."

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

"An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one."
"I think in part this is just a symptom of an unfortunate tendency of disrespect for history as a professional discipline. Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not to create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history."

I took a look at this article [8] in Executive Intelligence Review. It contains the following passage:

"This aggressive diplomacy, which also included a trip to the region by South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun, occurs at a moment of extraordinary international turmoil. The world financial system is spiralling out of control, reflected in the daily plummeting of the U.S. dollar. Synarchist financial and raw materials cartels are attempting to seize control of oil, strategic minerals, water, and food supplies, on a global scale. Their brutality is most visible in Africa, where gangs acting on behalf of oil and mining conglomerates have plundered entire regions and butchered their populations.
These Anglo-Dutch oligarchical interests plan the same fate for resource-rich Ibero-America. Large portions of the continent have already been "Africanized" by decades of the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) criminal free-market policies, resulting in desperate poverty, expanding narco-terrorism, and societal breakdown.
China, one of the world's largest raw material consumers, is attempting to navigate in these turbulent waters, by securing its own supply of strategic raw materials, energy resources, and food to meet the needs of its rapidly growing economy and population. The Chinese proved to be tough negotiators in extracting from Argentina and Brazil official recognition as a "market economy," which under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, limits the protective barriers these countries can put up against Chinese imports.
In exchange, China agreed to open its economy up to previously banned beef and poultry imports from both countries, and conferred on them the status of preferred tourist destinations for millions of Chinese tourists."

This article contains some factual information such as recognition of China as a market economy by Argentina and Brazil and opening up of China to beef and poultry imports. It also contains an original LaRouche take on the situation shown in the passages: "Synarchist financial and raw materials cartels are attempting to seize control of oil, strategic minerals, water, and food supplies, on a global scale. Their brutality is most visible in Africa, where gangs acting on behalf of oil and mining conglomerates have plundered entire regions and butchered their populations." and "These Anglo-Dutch oligarchical interests plan the same fate for resource-rich Ibero-America. Large portions of the continent have already been "Africanized" by decades of the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) criminal free-market policies, resulting in desperate poverty, expanding narco-terrorism, and societal breakdown." This is the sort of material that is referenced by the term original research, although Jimbo would rather the decision had been expressed in terms of POV. Inclusion of this material referenced back to LaRouche in the article, imperialism or possibly new imperialism would violate the ruling. The ruling is not based on the original material being false or not significant, but on its creative and original content. The same information from the People's Daily, the Hindu Times, Izvestia, the New York Times, the Economist, or even the Village Voice could be referenced in a Wikipedia article should for example the concept of Africanization become part of current knowledge. Fred Bauder 03:16, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

To answer Slim's questions:
Does "no original research" cover everyone? 
Yes, it's a policy that covers everyone, and a highly crucial one in maintaining NPOV.
Does "no original research" extend to reproducing others'? 
Well, to an extent; taking others' research, putting it here, and coming to conclusions of one's own would be covered by this; I think that it's a bit of a stretch to say that noting the views, however, comes under this policy.
Does the term "related [to LaRouche]" include critics? 
Indeed, this was most definitely meant to mean those espousing his POV, although I would caution that this does not mean that anti-LaRouchians (?) have free-reign.
In truth, on reflection I'm not overly happy with the wording we chose to use here; we probably should have framed it in terms of POV instead, as Fred mentions above.
James F. (talk) 13:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My answers to Slim's questions:

Does "no original research" cover everyone? 
Yes, it's a policy that covers everyone, and a highly crucial one in maintaining NPOV.
Does "no original research" extend to reproducing others'? 
"No original research" hinges on verifiability -- Wikipedia editors do not judge (in their writing here) the truth or validity of new ideas. It doesn't matter whether I state that I have proven that the world is secretly ruled by cabal of mutant space monkeys, or whether I state that Leroy Fibeetz, self-proclaimed Poobah of Grand Fenwick, has proven that the world is secretly ruled by cabal of mutant space monkeys -- both are prohibited as original research. Once Leroy's conclusions are written up in a publicly accessible forum, we can quote that forum, but we can't quote Leroy himself.
Does the term "related [to LaRouche]" include critics? 
Yes. All articles involving LaRouche are held to the same standards -- NPOV, no original research, good grammar and spelling.
[[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 16:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fred, James and Epopt, thanks for your responses. I think I expressed myself badly regarding my third query. The issue is this: The Arbcom ruled that LaRouche supporters ARE allowed to use LaRouche publications (which often include "original research" and controversial POV not found anywhere else) as references in articles that are "closely related" to LaRouche and where the information is "highly relevant." They are not allowed to use these publications anywhere else in Wikipedia, because the opinions in the publications are regarded as "novel narratives or historical interpretations," which Wikipedia does not allow.

The problem I have is that I feel LaRouche-supporting editors are interpreting this ruling too widely to allow themselves to insert LaRouche original research into articles that are not, in my view, closely related to LaRouche. For example, they are currently interpreting it to refer to the article on journalist Dennis King, because he wrote a critical book about LaRouche, and the LaRouche organization maintains almost a campaign of vilification against him because of that. The LaRouche-supporting editors want to be allowed to insert the LaRouche POV into the Dennis King article because, they argue, his authorship of the anti-LaRouche book makes him "closely related" and "highly relevant" to LaRouche. I feel they should not be allowed to do this because Dennis King is an established journalist who has written about issues other than LaRouche.

So what I'm trying to get a feel for is how the Arbcom wants "closely related" and "highly relevant" to be defined. An article about LaRouche is clearly "closely related" and "highly relevant." An article directly criticizing LaRouche is also "closely related" and "highly relevant" because the LaRouche organization must be allowed to defend itself. But is an article about a journalist who once wrote a book about LaRouche "closely related" and "highly relevant"? How about a journalist who once wrote an article about LaRouche? I feel we are on a slippery slope that is allowing LaRouche supporters to insert LaRouche POV and LaRouche original research into Wikipedia articles that have little or nothing to do with LaRouche. I know finding a definition of these terms is very hard, but any thoughts on what the intention of the Arbcom was (the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law) would be greatly appreciated. Slim 17:26, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

--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)

Fred, I stand by my view that Herschelkrustofsky, C Colden and Weed Harper (I believe the latter are the same person) are trolls; that they are in almost constant violation of the ArbCom ruling; and that they edit Wikipedia for the sole purpose of inserting pro-LaRouche propaganda. By the word "troll," I mean the definition given in Wikipedia:What is a troll, particularly the section that says: "A troll deliberately exploits weaknesses of human nature or of an online community to upset people as much as possible. In other words, a vandal is a nuisance; a troll is a plague."
Every time an article mentioning LaRouche settles down into some form of stability after a compromise has been reached, C Colden makes another pro-LaRouche edit to start it all up again, either with no references or with absurd ones; or else s/he simply deletes other editors' properly referenced material. Herschelkrustofsky recently inserted material into Dennis King using, of all things, a white supremacist, pro-Nazi magazine as his source. I can only imagine the reaction of a reader who looks something up in Wikipedia for the first time, and sees that we use white supremacist magazines as our references. Herschelkrustofsky engaged in an edit war to keep the information and the reference in the article to the point where I had to ask for page protection.
This situation has been going on with these users for many months (since before I joined Wikipedia), causing a lot of extra work and distress for several editors, including AndyL, Ambi, Adam Carr, Xtra, DJSupreme23, 172, John Kenney, and now myself. I believe there has been one ArbCom ruling against them, and three mediations started, one of which continues. Yet they have made no contribution to Wikipedia other than to promote Lyndon LaRouche. I believe they enjoy the disruption they cause. I believe they enjoy the distress they cause to other editors. I believe they enjoy using Wikipedia's mediation and ArbCom procedures to cause more distress to, and work for, editors who are trying to keep out their propaganda. I believe they deliberately goad editors into criticizing them personally, so they can rush to the ArbCom with complaints of personal attacks. That is, I believe their behavior is "poisonous" and "toxic". I also believe the ArbCom ought to enforce its ruling against these users, namely "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed . . . 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.) I cannot see the point of having a ruling if no one enforces it.
If you want to ban me for saying all this, and for calling them trolls, so be it. I believe that description of them is factual and that it constitutes fair comment. I hope you will also look at my comments in the context of the articles' Talk pages and my numerous efforts to have them observe Wikpedia NPOV and No Original Research policies. The only thing I ask is that they provide reputable references for their claims, but they won't do it. They are making this complaint now in an effort to poison the well because I have told them I'm considering approaching the ArbCom for a firmer ruling that would disallow them from editing LaRouche-related articles entirely. Regarding Herschel's claim that I have "escalated [my] anti-LaRouche activism, initiat[ed] more edit wars, and added a new tactic, a pattern of personal attacks and other egregious violations of Wikiquette," I hope you will ask for more evidence than one of them being called a troll. Slim 00:35, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
As Slim well knows, the material I inserted into the Dennis King article came from a site (www.ex-iwp.org) run by disaffected members of the International Workers Party, a leftist group. This site was the primary source for AndyL's contributions to the Lyndon LaRouche article. Apparently one of their members also writes for a magazine called "National Alliance", with which I was unfamiliar -- the name doesn't suggest much about their politics. Slim is resorting to a bit of transparent sophistry here, which is unfortunately typical of the tactics he is employing in his campaign.
I have now discovered that Slim is posting an announcement on the talk pages of other articles that I have edited, characterizing me as a person who uses Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist sources. I would like permission to delete these announcements as personal attacks. --H.K. 16:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, you are the one exercising sophistry. The article you used as a reference was the National Alliance, a white supremacist magazine. It was not an article by an ex-IWP member who also writes for them. Here is the article. [9] Even after I pointed out to you that this was a white supremacist publication, you kept reverting to keep it in as a reference. It was only when Andyl also said it was not a reputable source that you backed down. A Google search for National Alliance brings up their own website as the very first item, saying that it brings news and commentary "from a white racial perspective". See here If you're saying you're using as references publications that you've never heard of, know nothing about, and that you don't even do a Google search to find out what they are, that's arguably even worse. And please do not insert your comments into the middle of other people's texts. I repeat: Please do not insert claims into articles without including reputable references. Slim 00:48, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky, you keep inserting your comments into the middle of mine. Please don't do that. Put your responses AFTER each person's comment and I will do likewise. Otherwise you are effectively editing what they said. I have moved your coments so they are not inside mine. Please don't move them back again. Slim 22:37, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Dan Friedman, the person whose article was posted on the ex-IWP site, is indeed either a former or current member of the IWP. He has also produced plays written by Fred Newman at something called the Castillo Theater[10], and this year a musical entitled "Crown Heights", co-written by Friedman and Newman, was performed in New York[11]. --H.K. 23:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the behaviour of Herschel, Weed Harper et al should be seen as a mitigating factor here. As well, if SlimVirgin is to be taken to task for "personal attacks" this should be treated as a new matter requiring a new ArbComm hearing rather than having disciplinary action meted out based on this talk page's arbitration case. There is a case to be made that Herschel, Weed et al are continuing the activity which led to the original ArbComm ruling but are simply being a bit more sophisticated about it. The goal remains the same, to subordinate certain wikipeadia articles to the intersts of the LaRouche movement either by trying to use them to promote LaRouche's ideas or, at a minimum, trying to neutralise damaging or embarassing information about LaRouche as well as attemping to discredit his critics such as King and Berelet by any means necessary. Adam Carr perhaps has a point when he complains that Wikipedia, at present, is not equipped to deal with such concerted campaigns - certainly some care should be taken to establish checks and balances that make it difficult for determined cadres to insert their group's propaganda throughout wikipedia. If a line is not drawn here with LaRouchians we will face an endless barrage of campaigns from every group under the sun be they LaRouchians, Scientologists, Moonies, Flat Earthers, or Raelians. AndyL 05:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In response to this, I would like to point out that the LaRouche-related articles that I have edited were not authored by myself, but by opponents of LaRouche (Slim helpfully provided a list, above). I think of all the "concerted campaigns" I have seen, SlimVirgin's is the most obvious. I am in favor of "checks and balances that make it difficult for determined cadres to insert their group's propaganda throughout wikipedia," although I think that the NPOV policy ought to cover it. The belligerence of users like Slim and Adam ("If you want to ban me for saying all this, and for calling them trolls, so be it" is almost a word-for-word quote from something Adam posted recently) makes editing here very unpleasant, and I am going to put in another request for mediation. --H.K. 16:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The extended edit wars that brought me to call for arbitration last spring, came to a dead stop on October 10 of this year, after protracted negotiations and compromise between AndyL and myself. This cessation of hostilities continued undisturbed until the arrival of SlimVirgin. I don't enjoy these conflicts, and the arbitration and mediation that I have been involved in has come about, without exception, at my own request. The idea that someone is goading Slim into personal attacks is reminiscent of the old tactic in rape trials, where the defense would claim that the victim was provocatively dressed. --H.K. 16:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would have banned them from editing all articles which relate to LaRouche. I was overruled by the majority of the Committee. However, the policy on no personal attacks remains in place and as editors in good standing, if you attack them you may be subject to discipline, and in the case of repeated deliberate attacks, harsh discipline. Fred Bauder 12:18, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the way to proceed is to approach the ArbCom again for a new ruling based on these users' edit histories since the last ruling. I believe the motion to have them blocked from editing LaRouche-related material was only one vote short. In any event, as they're twisting everything I say, I'm going to delete their unreferenced claims without further discussion. I won't revert on sight, and I won't revert relevant edits where reputable publications are provided as references. Slim 00:48, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "National Alliance"

I cited a page from an organization (www.ex-iwp.org) of former members of the International Workers Party. It turns out that one such former member, Dan Friedman, wrote an article, which appears on the ex-iwp website, that was published in a magazine called National Alliance[12], which is completely unrelated to the White Supremacist group with the same name. It is published by the New Alliance Party of Lenora Fulani (who is African-American). The New Alliance Party appears to be an IWP front. --H.K. 13:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)