Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

Anybody can add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence - you don't need special permission to do so. --Camembert


Is this really necessary? I've been watching this dispute all along, and IMHO, a large proportion of the issues with this article could still be talked over, In all fairness, I don't know whether the ArbCom is particularly suitable for resolving such a dispute such as this. Ambivalenthysteria 16:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's been accepted now... we'll see what happens. --Camembert

Why on earth is this being arbitrated? Also, why didn't anybody notify me on my talk page about this? john k 20:29, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I could ask the same question. I'm sure Krusty will be comforted to know he has the support of Lirath, a notorious pest who has come close to banning several times. Adam 16:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) Correction: who has in fact been banned, for abusive behaviour and the use of multiple identities. Adam 17:43, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As Herschel was unable to get any satisfaction from mediation (it was rejected by Adam and Andy), and seemed unlikely to get any progress by (eg) talking to Adam (based on Adam's responses in Talk), it seemed that I had to vote to accept the case, lest Krusty be left with no legitimate means of protest.
The lack of notification was an oversight, I'm sure - I'm glad you both found it only a couple of days later anyway. Martin 17:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fred, when might there be some movement on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche? Hershelkrustofsky is now saying on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection that protection of Frankfurt School should remain indefinitely until there is a decision from the arbitration committee despite the fact that he has refuses to engage in a serious discussion of his version in Talk:Frankfurt School. My talk page says I am away but I am checking in to participate in matters such as the arbitration so don't let my vacation notice deter you from proceeding with the arbitration. AndyL 05:04, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fred, I'd like to make two observations regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision: it is, of course, relevant that I am a LaRouche activist, but no more so than Adam Carr being a professed Gay activist, or Andy being whatever it is that he is. If I were to go on a rampage of reverting Adam's articles on the grounds that he is Gay, I would be justly accused of being homophobic. Adam and Andy have deleted or reverted material that I have written that has no relation to LaRouche, a case in point being Counterculture.

That's because everything you write is driven by your LaRouchist ideology. The analogy between you being a LaRouchist and me being a gay activist is a spurious one. LaRouchism is a cult whose adherents are no longer capable of objective thought or writing on any subject, which should alone be grounds for disqualifying them from writing encyclopaedia articles. It might conceivably be argued that my role as a gay activist disqualifies me from writing an article on, for example, Fred Phelps, although I would dispute even that. But gay activism is not a cult organisation like LaRouchism, nor does it have a universalist political ideology that dictates what I think about other subjects. In any case, I do not remove Krusty's material from articles merely because he is a LaRouchist. I remove it because it is arrant nonsense. See counterculture and Anti-Defamation League for two obvious examples. Adam 05:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Secondly, regarding the issue of the "fantasy biography": I have been a supporter of the LaRouche movement for going on 30 years, so I think I would be justified in considering my opinion on this subject "expert." Adam admits that his sole source of biographical information is Dennis King; in fact, Adam has gone so far as to dispute the accuracy of quotes from LaRouche, on the question of LaRouche's own opinions, when they conflict with characterizations by King.[1] If LaRouche can be accused of misrepresenting his own views in public statements (a rather Orwellian construct), then King, whose animus is obvious and whose credentials are neglible, has at least an equal basis for being disregarded as a source. I think that it is in the interests of Wikipedia to not provide a forum for slander (see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:47, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Krusty says I have been a supporter of the LaRouche movement for going on 30 years, so I think I would be justified in considering my opinion on this subject "expert." This is of course the exact opposite of the truth. It is like saying that Rudolph Hess was well qualified to write a biography of Hitler. Because LaRouchism is a cult, its adherents are incapable of objective thought on any subject, let alone the subject of the cult leader's own biography. The question of sources for the Lyndon LaRouche article has been discussed several times in the relevant place. I am working on obtaining better sources. But that is quite a separate issue from that of Krusty's role at Wikipedia. Adam 05:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Because LaRouchism is a cult, its adherents are incapable of objective thought on any subject..." goes way far. I'm still researching this, but however unusual Larouche may be certain things did happen and certain things did not. While we may tolerate some reference to claims that events which are unverifiable happened, after all the claim itself is verifiable, encyclopedic content must mainly consist of verifiable events. Fred Bauder 14:10, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
"Because LaRouchism is a cult, its adherents are incapable of objective thought on any subject..." is classic sophistry: Adam believes that if he is sufficiently vociferous in demanding that this formulation be accepted as the axiomatic basis for discussion, he can get away with pretty much anything that follows. In fact, the origin of the slander that LaRouche is a "cult leader" is easily identified, as is the motive for the slander: see Significant Omissions from the current version. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I doubt Fred wants this discussion to continue on his Talk page. I hope Fred and co are close to giving us their opinions on this so we have something concrete to debate. Adam 04:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fred, I have a question about the findings you have posted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision. The article Lyndon LaRouche, in its various incarnations since rewritten from scratch by Adam Carr, 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 20:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. Fred Bauder 11:33, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

You guys write:

3) User:Adam Carr has engaged in a personal attack on User Herschelkrustofsky, "Because LaRouchism is a cult, its adherents are incapable of objective thought on any subject, let alone the subject of the cult leader's own biography."

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. Adam 08:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No error. But I hadn't found the other attack. Nor had I found the attack he made. Please supply links to both attacks. As to the quoted attack above although it does not mention User Herschelkrustofsky as a LaRouche supporter he would be included. By the way, use of the term "Krusty" is probably also not good, unless he uses it himself. Fred Bauder 11:29, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Several points in response to that:

  • to characterise a political comment about the LaRouche cult which names no individual as a "personal attack" is to introduce an unworkably broad definition of a personal attack.
  • the LaRouche debate has taken place on many pages over more than a month. I have no idea where the two comments refered to above are located. I have quoted both of them to the best of my recollection. If you don't believe me you will have to search the files yourself.
  • Krusty chooses not to edit here under his real name, so he can't complain if I call him by a convenient version of his pseudonym - and as far as I know he hasn't complained. If I knew his real name I would use it.
  • In any case, Krusty did not ask you to arbitrate on the things he and I have had to say about each other in the course of this controversy. His complaint concerned my actions in rewriting the Lyndon LaRouche article. I suggest, with respect, that you would find your task easier if you confined yourselves to the matters you were asked to arbitrate.

Adam 12:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because I happened to see this and was curious, I point you to Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/archive4. Five or six paragraphs down. Danby is one of the most outspoken fascists on the Australian political scene. Ambivalenthysteria 12:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have looked at this now. It does constitute a personal attack in my opinion as it implies some vague connection between Adam Carr and an allegedly "fascist" member of the Australian Parliament. But this draws on the same broad interpretation of personal attack Adam Carr complains of. If you chose to make a personal attack on the talk page of an arbitrator while a matter is under consideration you should expect it to become an issue in the arbitration. Your explanations regarding the use of "Krusty" seem specious. If he wanted to be called Krusty he would have chosen that user name. Fred Bauder 14:36, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Two points in response: in fact, I did ask the arbitrators to address the issue of Adam's personal attacks, which are not limited to my person. See Adam's role. I made no reference there to the use of the name "Krusty", which I find annoying, but trivial in comparison with the offences that I specify.
And, my characterization of Michael Danby was not ad hominem; I provided what I consider to be ample evidence for the charge: "He is an ardent supporter of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2004, which legalizes--under Australian law--the institutions and procedures as specified in an Executive Order by President Bush, which set up the torture regimes at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The act cites the relevant Executive Order by Bush by name, and also cites by name the lawless military detention system at Guantanamo Bay, to which that order gave rise. Danby officially spoke in Parliament for the (nominally) opposition Labor Party on behalf of this bill, which was put forward by the neo-con government of Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard." I did not "imply a vague connection" between this individual and Adam -- the connection is quite specific: he is Adam's employer, and was vigorously slandering LaRouche before Adam acquired the habit, leading me to believe that he may possibly be, to some extent, Adam's mentor. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:49, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It is not established, at this time, that the policies of the United States can fairly be described as "fascist". Fred Bauder 17:46, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that there are many folks out there who regard the policies of a faction of the Bush administration as characteristic of the United States -- I hope not. Otherwise, while what you say may be techically correct, I think it is only a matter of time before it becomes "established" -- even the Reynquist court seems to have some qualms about what has transpired at Guantanamo. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I did not say that I saw Herschelkrustofsky's description of Michael Danby as a fascist was a personal attack on me, or indeed a personal attack on Danby. It is a political comment, not a personal one. What I did say was that it was more offensive than anything I have called Herschelkrustofsky. I repeat that to call a Jewish social-democrat whose grandparents died in fascist concentration camps a fascist is grossly offensive (not to mention defamatory, which is of course why Herschelkrustofsky lacks the courage to edit under his real name). I mentioned this not to "complain" about it but to make clear the context in which I called Herschelkrustofsky a slanderous piece of filth, a comment I made after due consideration and which I stand by.
  • I have re-read Herschelkrustofsky's original complaint and it makes no reference to comments made by me about him, only to the issue of the LaRouche article. He evidently made a supplmentary complaint after the exchange referred to above. But I repeat that I don't think who has called who what is a matter with which you ought to be concerning yourselves. Herschelkrustofsky and I are both adults, and Herschelkrustofsky has been on his own account a LaRouche activist for 30 years. He is thus no stranger to political and personal abuse, both giving and receiving, and nor am I. I suggest that you ignore side-issues and address the matters of substance relating to the LaRouche article.

Adam 00:26, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to remind Adam that crimes committed against Michael Danby's grandparents cannot excuse Danby's behavior half a century later -- and there is certainly more substance to my charges against Danby, than to Adam's charges against LaRouche. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fred wrote "By the way, use of the term "Krusty" is probably also not good, unless he uses it himself."

Just in case Fred is not up on the issue, I'll point out that in the tv show The Simpsons, Herschel Krustofsky is the real name of Krusty the Clown. Given the reference Herschelkrustofsky implies with his selection of nickname I don't see how calling him Krusty for short should be seen as insulting. If anything it's just playing along with the joke Herschelkrustofsky is making with the choice of his name. AndyL 03:05, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As in the show where Bart and Lisa help Krusty be happilly reunited with his father, if I recall? :) Martin 17:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And the fact that Krustofsky is Jewish makes this choice of nickname by a 30-year disciple of a notorious Jew-baiter a rather unfunny joke. Adam 03:43, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good questions[edit]

Could somebody explain to me:

  • What the finding about "original research" means and what it has got to do with the matter under dispute?
  • In what sense my observation that the LaRouche movement is a cult can be a "personal attack" when it names no persons?
  • Why the arbitrators have not arbitrated what they were asked to arbitrate, namely the propriety of my rewriting the Lyndon LaRouche article, but instead have issued dicta on various other subjects which they were not asked to arbitrate?

Adam 06:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We don't try to arbitrate the content of articles, for example by doing a lot of research regarding Lyndon LaRouche and trying to figure out what's true and what's not, or even whether this source or that source said what about him. With regard to original material and your replacement article you were complaining that a great deal of the material in the original article was not credible, having its source only within the Lyndon LaRouche movement, the "fantasy biography". This does seem to be true. This sort of material is what is contemplated within Wikipedia as original research. That is material not based on authoritative references but based on personal creativity, in this case that of Lyndon LaRouche and his supporters. This also is a sort of self dealing and subject to the same sort of objections that are made when someone tries to write a Wikipedia article about themselves. Although we did not mention the propriety of rewriting the article we implicity "said" there was no problem with that but did not approve its content. Otherwise we would have addressed it explicitly. Fred Bauder 12:03, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your problem with understanding why what you said was a personal attack, it is astounding that you don't get it. If an entire class is called idiots because they are adherants of a cult and if someone is clearly within the class then you are saying that that person is an idiot. Fred Bauder 12:03, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

As to our decision being dicta (thus non-binding), don't count on it. Fred Bauder 12:03, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

What I believe that Fred is trying to say is that our "power", such as it is, to issue... guidance to sysops and other editors in general on how to act, ranging from coercing others to ban a particular down to asking people to be generally nice and cordial to each other, stems from Jimbo's God-King powers over the entire project (however much he disclaims their existence ;-)); we are certainly not a self-imposing authority, though of course we're somewhat ineffectual without actions being taken as a result of our urging.
And dicta can very much be binding, depending on the forces implementing said imposed "orders".
James F. (talk) 14:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have added a proposed "principle" regarding rewriting of articles, to indicate that it is in principle allowed, based on my understanding of things. As Fred said, I think this is implicit anyway, but I have no problems making it explicit. Martin 19:34, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will treat this "arbitration" with the contempt it deserves until I see something being done about Herschelkrustofsky and his attempt to turn this project into a vehicle for LaRouche propaganda. The remarks I directed at him were entirely justified and I will repeat them as and when it seems to me to be appropriate to do so. Adam 07:00, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Read the rest of the ruling. As for continuing to issue personal attacks, you do that at the risk of possible additional sanction. --mav

Kindly do not patronise me, of course I have read the ruling. It says nothing about the Lyndon LaRouche article, which is what you were actually asked to arbitrate. It does nothing to stop Herschelkrustofsky corrupting this project with his LaRouche garbage and slandering other people with his filthy insinuations. Instead you have allowed yourselves to be diverted by his various red herrings. I have no problems with taking a day off from Wikipedia (I should probably take a month off), but I reject your rulings as confused, ineffective and morally worthless. Adam 09:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What follows is my opinion.
It was Herschelkrustofsky's arbitration request, so calling his complaints "red herrings" seems bizzare. It seemed sensible to investigate his complaints, having accepted his request for arbitration, just as we investigated the counter-complaints made against him.
In my opinion, nothing much needed to be said about the Lyndon LaRouche article. Since you rejected mediation, and argued against arbitration, I can only assume that you, like me, feel that outside interference in the content of that article would not be productive. You will be glad then, that we have not interfered.
We haven't done much for the promotion and original research problem on other articles, but neither have we done nothing. Protection bias will help a little, a ban threat likewise. But the Daniel C. Boyer case shows us that the community is entirely capable of dealing with promotion incidents without arbitration rulings, so better not to come down heavy-handed and possibly obstruct that process. "Edit this page" is a powerful tool.
We may yet rule on Herschel's "filthy insinuations" - it depends how the voting goes. Our failure to do so would not prevent you or anyone else from simply removing them. Again, "Edit this page" is a powerful tool.
I hope you will vote in the forthcoming arbitrator elections in favour of someone who you feel is less confused, more effective, and morally worthy. I also hope that after your day's holiday from Wikipedia, you will refrain in the future from making personal attacks. Martin 17:44, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


(from Fred's Talk)

I believe the anon,,,, who has recently been inserting and reinserting LaRouche propaganda in the LaRouche article is Herschelkrustofsky. See [2] AndyL 14:15, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The part of the proposed decision which would affect this is:

2) User Herschelkrustofsky is prohibited from editing the article Lyndon LaRouche and closely related articles as well as their talk pages.

   Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 2:
      1. Fred Bauder 12:44, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
      2. mav 05:43, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
   Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 2:
      1. Martin 21:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) (not convinced this is necessary or particularly helpful, given the Boyer comparison - were Hershel to become abusive or very reverty, for example, this would change)
      2. Gutza 14:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
   Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed remedy 2:
      1. James F. (talk) 00:21, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Not sure about this one...)

So you see, he is doing nothing which violates our decision as we split on this matter. Fred Bauder 15:17, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I attempted to block the anon users with a tempban but it seems I misread the Arbcom decision re what sort of edits to the article are allowed (adding Lyndon LaRouche "propaganda" to articles unrelated to him is not permitted, by my understanding, but this does not restrict such edits to the Lyndon LaRouche article itself):

I've unblocked your blocks of several anonymous users, because the decision doesn't authorize the use of blocks and bans. However, you can present this as evidence to the Arbitration Committee, and they may decide to ban the user. Guanaco 16:15, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

In any case, even if we were to effectively bar the anon IP being used (by Herschelkrustofsky?) given the IP numbers we would have to bar quite a large range and that might not be justifiable.

Anyway, just reporting the IP activity to you FYI in case it's evidence. AndyL 17:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They've also been instructed not to engage in promotion, which does apply to Lyndon LaRouche. As enforcement, you have the old standby of "edit this page", and also (as a special exemption) the ability to choose which version to protect. I expect that will be sufficient, and as you not blocking a huge IP range would seem a little OTT. Martin 19:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there seems no effective way to block Herschel when he edits without logging in due to the nature of his ISP. One thing I'm unclear about, do sysops who edit Lyndon LaRouche have dispensation to protect the page themselves when necessary or must we still request that the action be taken by an uninvolved sysop? AndyL 17:56, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ooh, good question! Not one I'd explicitly thought about either way. I think it would be sensible to ask an uninvolved sysop, but I can see how our ruling could be interpreted the way you suggest, and I have no serious objection to that. It would be nice to hear what other arbitrators think. Martin 19:32, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Clarification request from November 2006[edit]

User:SlimVirgin reverted this edit by, with no editing memo explanation. I didn't see the need to do that, so I put the external link back in this edit. SlimVirgin then left a message on my talk page implying that I could be blocked for doing so. I asked for clarification as to whether she was threatening me with a block, and she replied with these words.

I don't plan to replace the external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article, but I would like to know whether SlimVirgin is accurately describing the Arbitration Committee ruling, and whether it really applies to an external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article. There are about 19 footnotes and external links to LaRouche websites on the Lyndon LaRouche article. Are they all forbidden by the Arbitration ruling as well? If not, what makes this particular link different? Please post your answer at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Policy_Question so that other editors will be aware of it. Thanks in advance for your time. --ManEatingDonut 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SlimVirgin may have been confused. The relevant ArbCom ruling, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, states:
  • 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.
Thus, LaRouche sources may be used for LaRouche articles. However the link that was added was not relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche, and should haev been remoevd for that reason, not for violating this ruling. -Will Beback 03:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, for the benefit of the ArbCom, the issue is that the LaRouche publication ManEatingDonut wanted to link to was about a living person.
Will, I would interpret the ArbCom rulings as meaning that LaRouche publications may not be used as sources about third parties, regardless of whether it's in articles about LaRouche or elsewhere. (There's the ruling you quoted, and there was mention of the issue during a case involving Chip and again in relation to Cognition, but I'd have to search for them.) ArbCom apart, the content policies indicate that LaRouche publications may only be used in articles about the LaRouche movement to make points about that movement, and may not be used as third-party sources, whether in articles about LaRouche or anywhere else. The relevant policies are WP:BLP and WP:V. The latter says that sources of dubious reliability — defined as "sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight" — may be used in articles about themselves so long as the material "does not involve claims about third parties ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • SlimVirgin is correct here. The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles. LaRouche publications are useful sources about LaRouche's views about LaRouche himself and his organisations / affiliated parties, but are not acceptable sources about anyone or anything else. Will Beback is also correct that in any case the link given was not on topic for the article and thus deletable anyway. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Explained that way, it seems like a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the ruling. -Will Beback 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have looked over the article in question (the one that was the target of the external link) and it appears to me that it is entirely "relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche." It discusses many of LaRouche's various campaigns and issues. It is mainly a rebuttal of the theories of Berlet, theories which dominate most of the Wikipedia articles on LaRouche. But I am mainly interested in a precise clarification of what the Arbitration ruling means, because I have seen Berlet threaten other editors with this ruling as well (see Talk:National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees#Disputed.) Perhaps there should be clarification on this example as well. The edit that appears to have provoked the threat is here. --ManEatingDonut 15:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The material on the external link mainly concerned Chip Berlet, not LaRouche, thus removal was appropriate. Fred Bauder 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an additional issue that was under consideration in the first LaRouche case - the fact that LaRouche organizations publish an extremely large amount, responding to all criticisms. Excessive citation of this material when describing controversies surrounding LaRouche leaves the mistaken sense of giving LaRouche the "last word" in every dispute. Phil Sandifer 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your responses, but may I also ask whether there was something wrong with this edit referred to above? --ManEatingDonut 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems OK, perhaps I'm missing something though. Fred Bauder 18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But following this way of reasoning means that we should also remove the homepage of Michael Moore from the article Michael Moore because it makes negative statements about George W. Bush. I think that is absurd. Moore is notable because of his criticism of Bush. Andries 18:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think if LaRouche is defending himself against the insinuations or statements of another person, he may (perhap reasonably perhaps unreasonably, but understandably) refer to that person in negative terms and may provide reasons to doubt or question that persons motives. To allow that first person (in this case Berlet) the liberty to criticize LaRouche (through the article and links) and yet NOT allow LaRouche to fire back in some way, is a distortion of NPOV. --Blue Tie 06:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anton Chaitkin, not Lyndon LaRouche, is the source for the rebuttal. He begins his response, printed in LaRouche's "Executive Intelligence Review", by calling the critic:
  • ...a sewer creature who has been paid throughout most of his adult life to slander American political leader Lyndon LaRouche,...[3]
"Sewer creature". Yes, I guess that is "firing back". Should we add a counter-counter-response saying that the critic is not regarded as a sewer creature by a broader audience? And then a counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-rebutal to that?
Stepping back, let's remember that our aim is to have an NPOV biogaphy of a notable political figure. Even the most revered political figures have their critics, and LaRouche is no exception. Excessively adulatory biographies do not achieve this project's goals. Lets' just mention the opposing viewpoints and be done with it. -Will Beback 11:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From clarification request[edit]

I've blocked ManEatingDonut (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche, which says "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." See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche#Enforcement.

ManEatingDonut was warned on Oct 23 about reinserting LaRouche material, [4] and took part in a request for clarification on this page about it. [5] Despite the warning, on Nov 18, he removed the redirect of Eurasian Land-Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Asian Highway Network and twice reinserted a LaRouche-related text. The Eurasian Land-Bridge is a name that some people use for parts of the Asian Highway, so the title is redirected there. However, it's also a name used for a more complex idea that LaRouche claims is his. Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper wrote the original article that included LaRouche's views; [6] it was redirected to Asian Highway Network in September 2004. The text was restored and rewritten a little by NathanDW, [7] another LaRouche supporter, on October 31, 2006; reverted by Will BeBack; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 18; [8] reverted by SlimVirgin; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 22. [9]

I've blocked him for 24 hours for the repeated re-insertion, but I'd like to make the block indefinite. He has made 186 edits since August, almost all promoting LaRouche. He has edited logged out (acknowledging that it was him) and used the same AOL IP range - that Herschelkrustofsky/WeedHarper used. There's no firm evidence that it's the same person, but I believe he may be from the same LaRouche group in Los Angeles. As any proposed ban needs to be confirmed by the ArbCom, I'm asking here for your thoughts. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makes sense to me. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good call. Both user:ManEatingDonut and user:NathanDW have followed almost the exact footsteps of User:Herschelkrustofsky, including the same aggressive promotion of LaRouche that got HK into trouble. NathanDW says he's independent of the LaRouche movement but his single-minded edit history belies his claim. Both of these editors appear to be sock or meat puppets of HK, and both should be banned indefinitely based on the previous ArbCom decisions, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Sockpuppet abuse: "Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely." -Will Beback · · 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Righteous Fred Bauder 21:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the responses. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm surprised that no one thought to notify me of this. I left a note on SlimVirgin's talk page asking her to warn me if she thought I was violating an arbcom decision, preferably before blocking me rather than afterward. I made my views on LaRouche clear to the only person who asked me, at User talk:Astor Piazzolla. It is wrong to accuse me of "promoting LaRouche" when I have added almost no material to these articles -- I have only opposed edits that I thought were biased, or looked up sources and added them when sources were requested. As far as those other people are concerned (Herschelkrustofsky, etc.) I became aware of them for the first time when I discovered the talk page of Eurasian Land-Bridge. Apparently there was a lot of conflict between them and SlimVirgin and Will Beback. I have no interest in reviving that conflict, and it is unfair to somehow involve me in it.

I came to this page tonight to ask further clarification. The arbcom decision that I have read says "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." This is now being interpreted by editors at the article Lyndon LaRouche to include the article Lyndon LaRouche as well, and material is being removed such as a quote from Eugene McCarthy that appeared in an EIR interview, or in this case, a quote from Mexican President Lopez Portillo. Since the arbcom decision explicitly says "other than the article Lyndon LaRouche," I would like to know if you think that this behavior is justified. --ManEatingDonut 07:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does information about Eugene McCarthy or Lopez Portillo have to do with LaRouche?
May I also ask a question here? I read the arbcom decision, and I can find no explanation for the ban on the use of EIR as a source. EIR has been published continuously for over 30 years, and is included in the Google News feeds. Is there any evidence that there have been factual errors in EIR? Has EIR ever been sued for libel? If not, why is EIR being singled out for special exclusion? --Tsunami Butler 22:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what EIR is, but if it is produced by the LaRouches it is unacceptable. The reason is that it is original research. Fred Bauder 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EIR is "Executive Intelligence Review" and is the main publication of the LaRouche organizations. See 6SJ7 22:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Please bear with me on this -- all I know about original research is what I read on the policy page (WP:NOR,) and this seems to be an unusual cirmcumstance. In the opinion of Wikipedia, what is the difference between EIR, and other political journals such as The Nation or National Review? Are they also considered original research?
2. The Eugene McCarthy question has come up at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. McCarthy was closely associated with the LaRouche movement beginning in the early '90s, when he chaired hearings into Justice Department misconduct organized by a LaRouche group, the Committee to Investigate Human Rights Violations. In '96 he signed the ads for LaRouche's exoneration that appeared in the Washington Post and Roll Call. He continued to work with LaRouche until he died last year. The dispute at the LaRouche article is over whether the arbcom decision prohibits the use of a quote from this interview which appeared in EIR. Thanks for your consideration. --Tsunami Butler 06:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The arbitration committee has specifically decided in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche that 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. In other words, Lyndon LaRouche, his movement and its publications are not considered reliable sources for anything except what Lyndon LaRouche, his movement and his publications think about something. In this particular case, a LaRouche quote could be sourced to a LaRouche source but a McCarthy quote can not be. Perhaps you can find the quote reported in an alternate source that has not been determined to have reliability problems. Thatcher131 20:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. This goes to my other question above, but in what way was EIR "determined to have reliability problems"? Is there evidence, for example, that they have published factual errors?
2. How is an interview considered "original work"?
3. How do you make the determination that McCarthy is not part of LaRouche's movement? It seems to me that he is. --Tsunami Butler 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People who follow these things know. Fred Bauder 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pardon my persistence, but I am here requesting clarification, and as I understand it, this is the place to do so. Surely the policy made by the ArbCom can be explained. There must be some kind of clear criteria the the layman can understand. I am trying to find out whether this publication, EIR, has a special, unprecedented, unique status at Wikipedia, or whether there is a clear guideline that applies to it, and presumably, other, similar publications. Also, I don't know which question you are not answering. --Tsunami Butler 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing unique here. Partisan sources are not considered reliable except with respect to their own opinions about things. We would not rely on sources controlled by the Democratic Party (US) for a factual description of George Bush's presidency, we would not rely on the CCHR for a factual presentation on the benefits of psychiatry, and we do not rely on LaRouche controlled sources for factual descriptions of things outside the LaRouche organization. It's just that unlike the many other situations I could mention, pro-LaRouche editors have been so persistent that a special arbitration finding was necessary to establish the principle. Thatcher131 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, that is somewhat more helpful. There are still some things that are unclear to me. I listed the examples of two highly partisan political journals, The Nation (partisan to the left) and National Review (partisan to right,) both of which cover much the same range of issues as EIR does. Would these publications then also be considered original research? I am also asking for further clarification on whether Eugene McCarthy should not be considered part of the LaRouche movement, since this issue remains unresolved at the Lyndon LaRouche talk page. His involvement in the movement was quite extensive, and it would seem dishonest to write him out of the history. --Tsunami Butler 15:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The journals you mention are not the result of one man's unique vision, in the sense that LaRouche publications are. They often contain fact based information from reliable sources and can sometimes be used. Information about Eugene McCarthy from a reliable source could be used, but not from a LaRouche journal or website. Fred Bauder 15:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps I should clarify here. We're talking about quotes from Eugene McCarthy, from an on-the-record interview. Do you consider that to be inadmissable?
Yes, unless they are also reported by a non-LaRouche publication. Thatcher131 14:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I dare say that National Review represents the views of William F. Buckley every bit as much as EIR represents the views of Lyndon LaRouche. --Tsunami Butler 23:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for appeal of precedent from LaRouche case[edit]

These sections from the "Lyndon LaRouche" arbcom decision strike me as vaguely worded, but have been subsequently interpreted to represent a general ban on the use of Executive Intelligence Review, Fidelio, and other publications associated with LaRouche as sources for Wikipedia articles. I believe that this interpretation is overbroad (see Jimbo's comment) and has had unintended negative effects on the project (see examples.)

I would like to propose the following: that the policy of a "blanket ban" on cites from LaRouche publications be repealed, and replaced with a warning that such cites are simply subject to the policies laid out in WP:RS. The Wikipedia policy is clear and ought to be sufficient to prevent abuses.

It is my contention that there will be instances where it is in fact appropriate to cite LaRouche publications, particularly Executive Intelligence Review, which has been in publication for over 30 years and has been called "one of the best private intelligence services in the world" by Norman Bailey, a former senior staffer of the National Security Council. There may be instances where analysis from EIR may be deemed to be OR, but there is a wealth of information, for example in interviews of prominent persons that regularly appear in EIR, that should not be considered OR.--Tsunami Butler 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this being treated as a blanket ban? My reading is that the limitation on use of LaRouche-based sources only applies to Wikipedians who are supporters of LaRouche. If there are neutral editors with no connection to LaRouche who believe that these are the best available sources in any particular case, they may add them, unless there is some other decision or clarification of which I am not aware. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you look at the examples I am citing, plus the answers I received in my earlier clarification request, you will see that it is indeed being treated as a blanket ban. The arbcom case in question makes no distinction between a supporter of LaRouche and a non-supporter (the "LaRouche 2" case bans two LaRouche supporters from editing LaRouche-related articles.) --Tsunami Butler 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some classes of sources are not presumed unsuitable, such as blogs and forums, but it's only a presumption. Editors can make a case for particular sources in individual instances.
The LaRouche material has several problems. His theories and methods are widely viewed as being fringe so they shouldn't be used as objective sources of information or interpretation for an encyclopedia. Just read the Washington Post article that give the Bailey quotation cited above, "Some Officials Find Intelligence Network 'Useful'". Bailey himself sued LaRouche for libel and received a cash settlement and a correction. Authors in the movement often write on obscure topics with novel viewpoints, so the volume of their material, and their availability on the web, could significantly impact Wikipedia if widely used for sources. Readers and editors unfamiliar with LaRouche's theories may not realize that an article they're reading is based on his views of the topic. Further, the LaRouche movement editors have a problematic history at Wikipedia. The main editor, Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs), was found to have been expertly controlling several sockpuppets while engaging in edit wars over plagiarized material and LaRouche theories. It appears likely that he is still editing despite his one-year ban. There now are several single purpose accounts devoted to LaRouche articles, so it seems as if there are more editors promoting LaRouche's POV than ever.
Material like this:[10], just doesn't belong as a source. On the other hand a user made a good case for linking to some animated geometry diagrams on a LaRouche site,[11] and so we kept it. However the 40-page LaRouche-written article that they illustrate is characteristic of his material and of why we avoid him as a source.[12] LaRouche sources are still in the articles that use them to source LaRouche opinions or statements, for example, Enéas Carneiro and October surprise conspiracy. So it's not a blanket ban.
I've recently removed dozens of inappropriate LaRouche sources from Wikipedia articles, links that appear to have been added within the last year. That's the action which has precipitated this appeal. The ArbCom's ruling on LaRouche sources exists to prevent fringe theories pushed by aggressive editors from skewing Wikipedia articles. It's needed now just as much as when it was adopted. -Will Beback · · 09:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ruling here is clear. Sources that originate with LaRouche may not be used in any articles except those associated with the LaRouche movement. Jimbo's clarification [13] backs up Will's point that LaRouche sources are not reliable in the ordinary sense, and Jimbo further says that evaluating such sources is a difficult job "for serious editors to undertake thoughtfully." Will appears to have done that. Furthermore, Uninvited's comment that neutral editors may add LaRouche sources if they are appropriate both fits in with Jimbo's remarks and excludes Tsunami Butler. So the current status quo is about right, as far as I can tell. Thatcher131 13:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, I disagree with many assertions made by Will Beback and Thatcher131, plus assertions that I may anticipate will be made by Fred Bauder, based on my earlier clarification request. Rather than responding point-by-point to those assertions here, I am asking the ArbCom to open a formal appeal on this matter so that it may be discussed in depth. --Tsunami Butler 15:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arbitration cases should not be reopened or revisited without clear and compelling issues. Is there a case where these sources are not being allowed? If so, they shouldn't be re-removed without discussion on the talk page - consensus is what powers Wikipedia. If one of the banned users is adding them, then an appeal to Arbitration Enforcement should be made. The Administrator' Noticeboard may be a good way to get a range of opinions on the issue. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 00:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The list of examples that I provided are all recent cases where Will Beback removed material in a manner that was, by my reckoning, arbitrary and senseless. In each case, editors from the affected pages protested on Will's talk page, making clear that they held no pro-LaRouche POV. The one older edit on the list was this one that was referenced in the second ArbCom case. I was not a party to these disputes.
The dispute where I am a party is on the article Lyndon LaRouche, where I object to the removal of quotes from an interview given by Eugene McCarthy to the LaRouche publication EIR, quotes removed by editors Mgunn and 172, with the support of Will Beback, citing the arbcom ban. I can see no valid argument that quotes from an on-the-record, published interview should be considered OR. When I raised this before in my clarification request, I was told by Fred Bauder that "People who follow these things know." I found this explanation less than complete. --Tsunami Butler 01:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The reason is straightforward:
  • A Lyndon Larouche publication is not a reliable source.
  • The interview is from a Lyndon Larouche publication.
  • Therefore, the interview is unreliable.
  • To see how it fits, substitute "Blogspot posting", "personal communication", "forum posting" or other unreliable source for "Lyndon Larouche publication" above, irrelevant qualifiers like "published" on "on-the-record" notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As noted above, LaRouche publications are often interesting and useful. The problem is that, with few exceptions, they are original research, sometimes excellent, informative original research, but still original research. For whatever reason, the LaRouche movement is not integrated with either the academic or journalistic world, thus there is little of the give and take with makes up peer review. Bottom line, it isn't who uses them, it's what they are, unreliable sources, not because they are not sometimes brilliant, but because they are original research. Fred Bauder 03:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at WP:RS, it seems to me that EIR is both "publication with a declared editorial policy" and an example of "published news media," so that there may well be cases where it would be appropriate as a source. I do not think that it is accurate to assert that EIR is "not integrated with the journalistic world," although it is cited far more frequently in the foreign than in the domestic press.
The reason I think that this appeal deserves to be heard is that the ArbCom precedent, as it is presently being interpreted, makes a special, and I believe unique policy with respect to EIR. It essentially makes EIR an exception to WP:RS and WP:OR, by saying that citations from EIR may not be evaluated under these policies, but must simply be excluded out of hand. There are plenty of highly partisan media publications which are used as sources when appropriate, or excluded as sources when appropriate. If the ArbCom is to make a policy that EIR is a special and unique case, I think that it warrants a formal hearing. Incidentally, I do not think that this policy, as it is presently being interpreted, is clearly enunciated in the "LaRouche 1" case; the ruling says that "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." The interpretation that anything from a LaRouche publication is axiomatically OR comes after the fact. My personal interest is that this is also now being used to exclude EIR as a source specifically in "the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles," which also seems to go beyond what the ArbCom ruled in this case. --Tsunami Butler 07:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tsunami, LaRouche publications don't count as reliable sources, and may therefore be used only in articles about LaRouche and his movement, and even then with certain limitations — for example, when used in LaRouche-related articles, they can't be used as sources of information about third parties. That the publications are not reliable sources can be demonstrated by reading their contents, and by examining the extent to which those contents are entirely at odds with material found in publications known to be reliable. One example that serves to illustrate is that LaRouche believed employees of the British royal family were plotting to kill him just a few years ago, and he apparently warned the White House that they might be plotting against the president too. I forget the motive, but I think it had something to do with Diana. Any publication that routinely published this kind of material would find itself regarded as an unreliable source for Wikipedia; it isn't anything against LaRouche as such, but against material of that nature. The ArbCom rulings are one source that prohibits the use of LaRouche publications, except in limited circumstances, but other sources prohibiting that type of material are WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:RS, the first three of which are policies, the fourth a guideline. To have LaRouche sources declared reliable, you'd have to change several key passages in these policies, as well as overturn ArbCom rulings. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SlimVirgin, I have seen from various talk pages that you are an outspoken critic of LaRouche, as is Calton. The article you mention, which you linked from one of the LaRouche articles [14], is not as simplistic as your description suggests. I could also say in response that EIR warned of the demise of the U.S. auto industry, and of the Bush administration's intention to go go to war against Iran, well in advance of other media, but the other media are now echoing EIR warnings. Therefore, for a time, EIR was "entirely at odds" with other publications, but in the long run, this was not the case.
An unreliable source is not wrong all the time (in that case it would still give reliable information - reliably wrong), but is a source where it is impossible (or very hard) to determine a-priori whether it is right or wrong. Thus, the existance of some correct predictions is no evidence for the reliability of a source. --Stephan Schulz 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, the issue before the ArbCom is a special case where an ArbCom decision, or rather a subsequent interpretation of that decision, has made an unusual policy. Uninvited Company asked if it were a "blanket ban"; Thatcher131 has confirmed that, at least by his interpretation, it is. Fred Bauder, who to my knowledge is the only other actual ArbCom member to weigh in in this discussion, is now saying that LaRouche publications are OR "with few exceptions."
Somehow I had the impression that Thatcher131 was a member of the Arbcom. Apparently the only actual Arbcom members who have posted here are Fred Bauder and Uninvited Company. --Tsunami Butler 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that I am not proposing any changes in WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, or WP:RS. I am proposing that the blanket ban be overturned, and let those policies work as they would under any other circumstances. It is on this issue that I request a formal hearing. --Tsunami Butler 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rather than abrogate the remedy in this case I would like to see the sound principles involved in arriving at it applied to the other "walled gardens" which from time to time are improperly used as sources for information on Wikipedia. For example, the material in the People's Daily, a good part of which is simply made up. Extreme Zionist material is another example, as are similar nationalistic, religious, and political writings. Indeed, any intellectual work which is based not on facts but on premises. I suppose, taken to the limit, that would include much of what passes for knowledge. We would need to develop policy which insists on some contact with reality, but avoids demanding perfection in that regard. Fred Bauder 15:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are proposing the drafting of a universal policy which would encompass LaRouche sources, that makes sense to me. But if Wikipedia is to continue to have a specific policy which applies uniquely to LaRouche publications, I ask for a formal appeal.
I am also requesting some sort of relief on the specific issues I raised. The practice of hunting down and purging LaRouche citations as in these examples seems silly and disruptive. I don't think the arbcom should condone it. I am also asking for some sort of intervention with respect to Lyndon LaRouche and related articles, where there are perennial edit conflicts because of a few highly aggressive critics, who have opened accounts as editors at Wikipedia and wish to load those articles with self-citations. If it is forbidden to supply material, such as the aforementioned quotes from interviews, from LaRouche publications in response, it becomes very difficult to balance the articles, creating problems from the standpoint of both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. --Tsunami Butler 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly agree that this issue needs further discussion, although I'm unsure if ArbCom is the right venue. As these kinds of otherwise considered crank sources become more popular and, to a degree, accepted, it is important for us to acknowledge them, so that the integrity of our NPOV policy is maintained. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 01:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The practice of hunting down and purging LaRouche citations as in these examples seems silly and disruptive. Nope. Given Mr. LaRouche's range of -- shall we say odd -- opinions on a wide variety of subjects (ask him about 20th-century music sometime) and he and his followers's willingness to push them aggressively, I'd call it the opposite of "silly and disruptive". --Calton | Talk 08:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you actually looked at the examples in question? Nary a one of them involves LaRouche's opinion on anything. Nor were the relevant editors "followers of LaRouche." --Tsunami Butler 07:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So? My point stands outside of whatever examples you dredge up, given Mr. LaRouche's range of -- shall we say odd -- opinions on a wide variety of subjects (ask him about 20th-century music sometime) and he and his followers's willingness to push them aggressively. To recap:
  • No Lyndon LaRouche source is a reliable one.
  • Therefore, per standard Wikipedia rules, information from Lyndon LaRouche sources are unreliable and not allowed as third-party references.
ArbCom made its explicit ruling regarding those points in great part to head off the wikilawyering. Or, as David Gerard once said about detailed ArbCom rulings, it's a "No, you can't do THAT, either" ruling. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So far as I know, the perspectives of the LaRouche movement are rarely described internally as his "opinions". Instead of "opinions" they are truths that have been discovered by LaRouche and his group. As for who added them there are two issues. The first is that "followers of LaRouche" do not necessarily identify themselves that way on Wikipedia. The other is that unrelated editors, grateful for any sources on obscure topics, may add links without sufficiently evaluating their merits.
Some of this appeal appears based on the presumption that the LaRouche sources are treated in an unprecedented fashion. While their use is specifically restricted in some ArbCom rulings those restrictions are essentially the same as for other fringe sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist sources. for example. -Will Beback · · 08:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just in time to prove the need for this policy, we once again have an editor warring over the inclusion of LaRouche viewpoints sourced to LaRouche-movement sources. HonourableSchoolboy (talk · contribs) on Free trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Will Beback · · 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is worthwhile to take a few minutes to examine the case that Will is citing here. First of all, although the discussion at Talk:Free trade has been somewhat contentious, it appears to me that differences are being worked out. The most singular thing is that there seems to have been no dispute over the section that Will deleted (this one.) In fact, Mgunn, the editor who had argued with HonourableSchoolboy on a variety of points, specificly invites him here to add such a section, and the only subsequent edit to this section is a modification of the sub-heading, until Will Beback comes along a week later and deletes it altogether. Therefore, the claim that there is edit warring over this section is specious. Likewise, the claim that these are "LaRouche viewpoints" is also specious, regardless of whether LaRouche may agree with them, because he did not originate them. They are common knowledge. Looking at the user contributions of Honourable Schoolboy, I find that Will also threatens to ban him over this edit. So I would like to ask readers, especially members of the ArbCom, two questions on this matter:
I think Will's point is that describing free trade as the "British system" and tariffs as the "American system" isn't mainstream history. It reflects the rather unusual worldview of LaRouche where he advocates the "American system" and demonizes the British. In real history, the British had a variety of tariffs from time to time (eg. "Corn Laws") and the American South opposed tariffs while many industries of the North supported them for self interested reasons. The whole bit by HonourableSchoolboy is a semi-disguised attempt to put the views of LaRouche into articles not about LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. Mgunn 00:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you arguing that William McKinley, Henry Carey and Friedrich List did not in fact hold those views? Or that they are not notable? From an encylopediac point of view, that's what matters. If you follow the links to the articles on Carey and List, those articles support the claims made by HonourableSchoolboy's edits. None of this was invented by LaRouche. LaRouche has also made a point that the British had a variety of tariffs (eg. "Corn Laws"), suggesting that they did not practice what they preach. Are your comments a semi-disguised attempt to introduce his views into this discussion? For shame.--Tsunami Butler 00:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You know, if it's such "common knowledge", why is it being sourced from a Tripod-hosted website?

But that aside, Tsunami Butler is blowing smoke: the real question is, does using unreliable sources improve or harm articles?

Rhetorical question, of course. But to summarize:

  • Unreliable sources are, well, unreliable, and should and must not be used in an encyclopedia striving for accuracy and reliability.
  • Lyndon LaRouche is a not reliable source. He may or may not be correct on some issues, but he is unreliable.
  • ArbCom has, in the face of aggressive POV-pushing by LaRouche acolytes, taken the unusual but necessary step of officially declaring, yes, Lyndon LaRouche and his various outlets are unreliable sources.
  • Lyndon LaRouche and his various outlets, therefore, must not be used as sources in an encyclopedia striving for accuracy and reliability.

Tsunami Butler's hurdle, bafflegab about harm aside, is simple: convince ArbCom that Lyndon LaRouche can, in fact, be a reliable source on anything other than Lyndon LaRouche. And Tsunami Butler is not even trying. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your argument is circular: if all LaRouche publications are not reliable sources, then all LaRouche publications are unreliable sources, QED. I don't accept it. When LaRouche articles are basically editorials, as is often the case, they would be OR. When they are meticulously researched and documented, as is also often the case, they may be acceptable, IMO. When they are providing, for example, an online source of quotations from historical speeches and documents, or interviews with prominent persons, they may be in fact very useful. I'd like to hear the views of some ArbCom members. The views of the POV warriors are already known to me. --Tsunami Butler 07:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK. The status quo is appropriate. LaRouche publications are in the same boat is IHR publications; their source makes them intrinsically unreliable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for clarification: Lyndon LaRouche, Lyndon LaRouche 2, and C68-FM-SV December 2009[edit]

Initiated by SlimVirgin 09:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by SlimVirgin[edit]

This is part request for clarification, part request for help, and part expression of bewilderment. It's an issue I'm not keen to be involved in, because of the ArbCom ruling that Cla68 and I avoid each other. I'm therefore going to post this, and hope that it ends my involvement.

Cla68 and I were asked some time ago to avoid unnecessary contact with one another. This followed an ArbCom case in May 2008. I made a statement there [15] that Cla68 was following me to articles I edited and he never had, to strike up positions that opposed me, and was generally making very negative comments about me on and offwiki, and doing so frequently, a situation that started in 2006. I have not sought to enforce the ruling that we avoid each other, because his onwiki comments about me mostly stopped after the case, though his offwiki remarks continued. When Will Beback wrote to Cla recently to say that his onwiki remarks about me seemed to be starting again, I did ask Cla if we could please both adhere to the spirit of the ruling. [16]

Over the last few months, Cla has been discussing offwiki with a banned LaRouche editor, User:Herschelkrustofsky on Wikipedia Review, a project to restore an article HK created in 2004 as a platform for the LaRouche movement, Eurasian Land Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I and several other editors opposed the creation of this article in 2004 (under the title Eurasian Land-Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and it was redirected. [[17] [18] The article was one of the issues in both LaRouche 1 and LaRouche 2, as an illustration of editors using WP to promote LaRouche.

Cla has now restored the article, and has added LaRouche to the lead and given him his own section in it. The Eurasian Land Bridge is a project that Lyndon LaRouche has claimed at various points to be behind or somehow involved in, though there has never been any independent evidence of his involvement. HK's creation of the article in 2004 can be seen here. It reads: "The Eurasian Land-Bridge was first formally proposed in 1991 by the American economist, politician and philosopher, Lyndon LaRouche." This is similar to LaRouche claiming, as he did, that he was behind the idea for Star Wars.

As I see it, Cla68's restoration of this article with the LaRouche material in it is a violation of the ArbCom ruling that he and I avoid each other (Cla knew that this was an article I had been involved in opposing); a violation of the LaRouche ArbCom rulings that say material stemming from the LaRouche movement should not be added to articles that aren't about the movement; possibly a violation of WP:BAN, because he's arguably acting as a proxy for a banned user; and most importantly a violation of WP:UNDUE, because LaRouche is a tiny-minority, fringe source. We shouldn't add LaRouche's views to an article about the land-bridge, just as we don't add to Queen Elizabeth II that LaRouche thinks she's a drug dealer (though the BBC has reported he claims this), or add to Autism that Scientologists say autism doesn't exist (though reliable sources have reported that Scientologists claim this). UNDUE is one of the most basic principles of the NPOV policy. There are only two English-language sources that mention LaRouche and the bridge that are used in the article. Both are articles mentioning LaRouche's campaigning, not articles about the bridge. Both are relying entirely on LaRouche. Neither of the texts has been linked to in the article so we can't even see exactly what the sourcing consists of.

My opinion is that Cla68 is doing this to continue his campaign of baiting me, and perhaps I am rising to the bait by filing this request for clarification, but I don't know what else to do. If I ignore it, I have no doubt that something else will be round the corner, because that has been the pattern so far. I would like it to stop.

I tried to remove the LaRouche material from the article, [19] but was reverted by Lar and Cla. [20] [21] I therefore opened an article RfC [22] and hope not to have to comment on the article again. I have also opposed Cla's attempt to get GA status for it while the LaRouche issue remains in it. [23] My purpose in posting here is to ask the ArbCom to look at the situation, and decide whether any previous rulings have been violated. I also want to get it on the record that Cla is continuing to do this kind of thing. I have not tried to do anything formally about his offwiki remarks about me (though I've emailed Brad a couple of times about them), even though they've caused considerable distress, but I'm upset that this continues after three years of similar issues. I find the obsessionality worrying.

My specific question is whether the rulings below apply, and whether the ruling in Cla68/SV that the parties avoid, "Uncivil comments to or regarding other editors, personal attacks, and unsupported allegations of bad faith" applies to remarks on other websites.

1. LaRouche 1:

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

2. LaRouche 2:

  • "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."

3. Cla68/SV:

  • "[T]he parties are admonished and instructed to avoid the following ... Unnecessary interaction between Cla68 and SlimVirgin ... provided that this does not preclude legitimate involvement in formal dispute resolution procedures where necessary."

SlimVirgin 09:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cla68's claim below that he is "caught in a personal feud between two reportedly longtime editors" doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny (and HK is not a longtime editor), but it's exactly the kind of disingenuous, injured-innocence type of comment he's been posting for three years. He has strongly supported User:Herschelkrustofsky, a staff member of WR who has been out to get me for years because he was blocked many moons ago after several editors, myself included, took him to the ArbCom. Please don't let Cla get away with this anymore. His pursuit of me needs to end, as does his willingness to use mainspace to keep it going. SlimVirgin 10:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reply to Carcharoth
  • What looks like a content dispute isn't really. As Will says, Cla created this article explicitly as part of his involving himself on Wikipedia Review with the LaRouche issue. He did that only because of me. It has been quite clearly discussed in those terms on Wikipedia Review. The article is just a vehicle for making the claims about LaRouche—were those claims to be removed, I believe he'd have no further interest in the topic.
  • Regarding your questions, I have made a couple of attempts to reach out to Cla68 by e-mail, and I once asked Giano to mediate between us, but it makes no difference. He seems obsessed with me, and I use that word advisedly because no other word would seem to describe what has gone on. He started it around the end of 2006/beginning of 2007, and has continued unabated, either on WP, or WR, or both. He has posted regularly about me on Wikipedia Review, sometimes naming me, sometimes only referring to me obliquely. It lessened somewhat after the 2008 ArbCom ruling, but only somewhat. The main change is that he would try to get other people to do things for him, instead of doing it himself. For example, he posted recently on Wikipedia Review, effectively looking for someone to cause me to be "put through the wringer":
"QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 1st November 2009, 1:24am) *
"If someone wishes to dispute SV's removal of Chinese sources at the reliable sources noticeboard, and leaves a message at the WP:China talk page asking for interested editors to comment, I suspect that she'll be put through the wringer. I can't do it, however, because I've been asked not to enter into disputes with her." (my bold)
This has been going on for so long now that the length of time alone worries me. I can understand people falling out on WP, but to keep something going for three years, when the other party isn't responding, crosses all kind of lines. I see no reason that I should have to tolerate it anymore, to be honest, given how stressful and damaging it is. SlimVirgin 14:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Cla68[edit]

I seeem to be caught in a personal feud between two reportedly longtime editors of Wikipedia with a strong interest in the same topic. I'll explain the background of my involvement in full within the next day or so. For right now, though, I simply suggest checking the article history, the article talk page, and the article itself. The article's topic is valid, the treatement is within policy, the sources are solid, helpful community involvement was ongoing and productive (until today), and SlimVirgin (SV) was not an active editor with this topic. I think the quality of the article speaks for itself. More to follow... Cla68 (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Some months ago (I'll find the exact date) I was involved in a discussion with several others and User:Herschelkrustofksy (HK) on Wikipedia Review. SlimVirgin is also a member and has interacted with HK in that forum, but not in that particular discussion. The discussion concerned HK's description of the LaRouche movement's involvement in the Bering Strait crossing and Eurasian Land Bridge projects. I and several others were giving HK a fairly hard time about it, because he couldn't back up what he was saying with any sources or evidence.
  • As the discussion was ongoing, I received an unexpected email from SV which congratulated me on the hard time that we were giving HK. I didn't respond to the email, because it made me uncomfortable. In the email, SV appeared to take personal delight and gloat in HK's discomfort. In contrast to her attitude, I saw the discussion as simply a debate about a mildly interesting topic. If I still have the email, I am willing to share it with ArbCom if requested.
  • Around the beginning of November, a coworker of mine, for unrelated reasons, emailed me this article. After reading the article, I realized that the Eurasian Land Bridge was an actual, real thing. I became interested in the subject, so I decided to write an article on it, which I started in userspace [24]. The article's history did not show that the topic belonged to SV. Since it had been a subject of discussion before in WR, I started a thread there about what I had found. Later, as I worked on the article, I noted that I had not found any reliable sources mentioning LaRouche's involvement. I later did, however, find three sources, which, along with the high number of Google hits on the "Eurasian Land Bridge" search term, meant to me that the association was notable enough to include in the article, which I did. The sources are not linked to the LaRouche organization, so no violation of the ArbCom ruling occurred.
  • Since posting the article, I believe it has been a model of community collaboration. Editors from the Rail and Russian wikiprojects have added content, disagreements have been amicably resolved, including about the mention of LaRouche in the article, and the page was progressing towards what I hope to be FA status.
  • All of this changed suddenly two days ago. SlimVirgin went against the current consensus by removing the LaRouche content. She was reverted by another editor.
  • What followed was an onslaught of hostility and obstruction. All SV needed to do was open a content RfC, which she did after I suggested that course of action. The discussion in the RfC so far seems to be leaning towards SV's opinion [25], which is fine and is the way that we like to do things when it comes to content dispute resolution. So why did SV initiate so much drama surrounding this issue? I think the reason is that she carries intense personal feelings with regard to the LaRouche topic and sees Wikipedia and LaRouche as a battleground between her and banned "LaRouche editor" HK. I'll show why this is evident below.
  • SV vs HK. The long-time, intense, bad blood between SV and HK is obvious. In fact, it seems that a significant aspect of SV's involvement with the LaRouche articles is geared solely to a mission to prevent HK from somehow editing it, even to the point of maintaining an investigation page in her userspace. Will BeBack appears to share this hostility judging from the barbed questions he put to me in that forum. Note that although Leatherstocking was blocked for being linked to the LaRouche organization and POV editing, SV and Will BeBack have started referring to the editor as a "sock" of HK, indicating the intense personal animosity the two feel towards HK which is clouding their objectivity. SV has been very open in expressing this opinion, both on and off wiki.
  • Thus, I believe that SV's hostility related to the mention of LaRouche in that article is because she sees it as a battle between herself and HK, which HK cannot be allowed to win. Unfortunately, as evidenced above, her intense hostility is disrupting what otherwise was a fine example of community collaboration working to build a quality article.
  • The allegation that I'm to blame or in violation of ArbCom sanctions is disingenuous. I and SV have interacted or communicated numerous times since our ArbCom case closed. See, for example, [26] [27] [28] [29]. Also, SV has emailed me on a number occasions, including trying to ask for my assistance in hounding FT2 from the Committee, which I declined to provide (she did not use the word "hounding", but that's how I interpret what she was asking me to do. Again, if I still have the emails, I'm willing to provide them). In the Jeremiah Duggan article, I took her side. Note that SV and Will BeBack did not quote the ArbCom sanction and ask me to vamoose at that time, but waited until just before they moved on Leatherstocking, whom they evidently believe to be a sock of HK. No, this is not about me, this about the ongoing war between SV and HK.
  • I believe that it is now evident that the issue of mentioning LaRouche in the Eurasian Land Bridge article was not a problematic issue, as far as content disputes go, that was not being resolved by the community. It was and is being resolved by the normal dispute resolution process. The problem here is SV's and Will BeBack's overly emotional response, disruption, and what could be interpreted as harrassment. The impetus for their behavior appears to be an uncontrolled animosity for a banned editor and SV's and Will's willingness and, unfortunately, ability to turn Wikipedia into a battleground over it.
  • In order to prevent this from happening again, I suggest that SV and Will BeBack be topic banned from the LaRouche topic, interpreted broadly. If the Committee agrees I hope they will simply prefer a vote on it, or else ask someone to propose it at the ArbCom enforcement board. Such an action should resolve this situation for the long term.
  • Thank you for your attention on the matter and I'm sorry that this had to be brought to your attention in this way. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reply to Will Beback
  • Will states that as far as he remembers he has never, "expressed any animosity nor used disrespectful language when referring to HK." To help refresh his memory, here, he calls HK a "lying zealot." Anyway, the article was just promoted to Good Article. Effective collaboration has resumed, including helpful input from Will. Cla68 (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Will Beback[edit]

Following Cla68's considerable involvement in October with the AfD on a topic edited by SlimVirgn, WP:AFD/Jeremiah Duggan in October, I posted a notice reminding him of the ArbCom's remedy in C68-FM-SV.[30] (After I posted that, and with no connection to Cla68, it was serendipitously discovered that Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) was a sock/meat puppet of banned serial puppet master Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) WP:LTA/HK, and the account was blocked the same day it was discovered. Cla68 jumped to the conclusion that he was "chased away" ahead of time in order to prevent him from interfering with the block.[31] There is no truth and no evidence of that.)

The LaRouche movement has advocated a variety of proposals in its political platforms over the years. A reasonably inclusive list is now at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Campaign platforms. It includes planks ranging from a return to the gold standard and the colonization of Mars. But the support of the LaRouche movement is not a significant factor in the promotion of the proposals, so LaRouche is not mentioned in those Wikipedia articles. The LaRouche movement is a small group holding what are generally described as fringe or extremist views. The only LaRouche proposal that has received significant coverage in secondary sources was a 1986 ballot proposition in California concerning AIDS patients. The 2009 Obama=Hitler campaign has been widely reported, but despite being mentioned in dozens of newspapers articles and hundreds of blogs, none of the sources I've seen have actually discussed LaRouche's health care proposal. The attention was just on the posters and the genocide accusation.

While the movement does publish articles on the Eurasian Land Bridge (ELB), they are ignored by mainstream writers writing about the topic. The view that the LaRouche movement is a significant advocate of ELB is held only by the LaRouche movement. No one else says that. There are many institutions that have actual, significant connections to the topic but which aren't mentioned by name. Sources that say it's a plank of the movement don't go into any greater depth. Devoting a named section partly to LaRouche's promotion is undue weight.

While the other aspects of the article appear to be of good quality, Cla68 says that its creation was due to the discussion on Wikipedia Review concerning LaRouche, Herschelkrustofsky, and SlimVirgin. The LaRouche material is not just a random paragraph inserted into a pre-existing article but rather it's the reason for the article. The inclusion of this content appears to be determined by factors beyond NPOV article writing on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  12:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to Cla68

Cla68 makes a number of charges against me without providing evidence, and misstates or misinterprets events.

  • To the best of my recollection, I have never expressed any animosity nor used disrespectful language when referring to HK or his numerous socks, nor to Lyndon LaRouche or the LaRouche movement.
  • Cla68 seems to question the block of Leatherstocking. The constant stream of HK's sock puppets has been frustrating. I've repeatedly gone above and beyond any reasonable assumption of good faith, only to find out in every case that the accounts were more of HK's socks. (Not to mention the bizarre Cognition issue). If anyone wants to start a serious discussion of whether Leatherstocking was blocked unfairly then I'd be happy to defend it in detail.
  • Cla68 continues to assume that my reminder to him of the ArbCom remedy was connected to Leatherstocking's block. Looking on my email archive, I see that I did not consult with SlimVirgin about issuing the reminder. My note to him followed his posting to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche, a page that Cla68 certainly knew was often edited by SV.[32] The following afternoon, while reviewing the contribution list of the mediation in which Leatherstocking (LS) and I were engaged,[33] I re-discovered LS's IP address. I'd seen it before, but it geo-located to a city far from HK so it appeared to be an "alibi". That's probably why he was cleared by at least one checkuser. However a different search revealed that it actually belonged to the LaRouche movement's office in the same city as HK. Once identified, it was easily confirmable and showed LS's mendacity. The account was blocked within hours of the discovery. So here was an editor pushing the identical fringe POV as HK, generally behaving the same as HK, vehemently denying his connection to the movement (as is typical for HK's socks), and who we now know was lying from his first edits (even assuming he's a different person from HK). Recall that HK was found to have used socks from the beginning of his editing on Wikipedia, and was only discovered by a small mistake that was revealed in a careful checkuser analysis. He was a sophisticated puppet master from the start. Evidence and contemporary accusations indicate that HK used socks back on the Usenet before he arrived at Wikipedia. HK's use of socks to promote a fringe group makes this history reminiscent of a one-man COFS case.
  • The basic question that SlimVirgin presumably wants answered by the committee in this clarification request is whether the prohibition on unnecessary contact between she and Cla68 includes editing LaRouche-related articles. Given that SlimVirgin has had extensive involvement in the topic going back many years, and given that Cla68 usually edits article totally unrelated to the LaRouche movement, it would seem that he could easily avoid unnecessary contact by not editing pages related to the LaRouche movement. That doesn't mean SV "owns" the topic, but it does mean she got there the "firstest with the mostest". If these kinds of restraining orders have any applicability then I'd think the remedy would apply to this topic.
Reply to Lar

Lar's request that I be topic-banned is not accompanied by any evidence of misbehavior.

Reply to Cla68, #2

Thanks to Cla68 for researching that. As I wrote above, dealing with a serial sock puppet master has been frustrating. When I wrote that, in September 2008, 29 socks of HK had already been blocked, along with various IPs. In the 14 months since then, at least 30 more have appeared and been blocked. The last major account, Leatherstocking, repeatedly lied about his involvement in the LaRouche movement. User talk:Leatherstocking#"What a bizarre fantasy!". That's on top of the lies inherent in using multiple socks at the same time, and other specific lies along the way. Given the effort HK has devoted to promoting this fringe view, and that he apparently closely monitors the activities here even though he's been banned for years, I think that he it's accurate to view his participation here as zealous. "Someone who is zealous spends a lot of time or energy in supporting something that they believe in very strongly, especially a political or religious ideal."[34]   Will Beback  talk  05:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Lar[edit]

I think the real violation of sanctions here is by SlimVirgin and WillBeback. Their (coordinated?) thesis that this is "her" article and therefore Cla68 has to stay away beggars belief. They seem to be bent on harassing Cla68, and anyone who has the temerity to get involved in anything related to LaRouche. I ask ArbCom for a summary judgment banning SlimVirgin and WillBeback from all LaRouche related articles, broadly construed. Including this one, which is a fine article... might be an FA someday if it's just allowed to be worked on peaceably, instead of being interfered with as these two seem determined to do.

I may have more to say later. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to Will

Cla's evidence is sufficient to make the case. No offense, Will, but you have a blind spot with respect to this area. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Tznkai[edit]

I may be missing something here, but the only possibly sound approaches SlimVirgin seems to want to pursue are:

  • An accusation that Cla68 is editing the article as an indirect attack on SlimVirgin;
  • The suggestion that SlimVirgin's virtual presence is somehow so strongly associated with Eurasian Land Bridge Cla68 should not be involved; and
  • Its within (SlimVirgin's?) administrative discretion to handle the LaRouche aspect of the article.

I'm going to skip over analysis of whether SlimVirgin exercising administrative discretion in this situation is proper (it isn't) and just suggest it would be an incredibly bad idea to use a content related remedy position in the midst of what appears to be actually fruitful discussion.

As for the Cla68-SlimVirgin interaction angle, if I was actioning this request on WP:AE (where Arbitration enforcement usually goes), I'd say SlimVirgin has to meet a high burden of proof to convince me that Cla68 is acting (in bad faith) to attack SlimVirgin, or that creating an article for even allegedly dubious content positions on the significance of the LaRouche movement is relevant to SlimVirgin or any other policy.--Tznkai (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Mattisse[edit]

I worked with Will Beback (talk · contribs) on LaRouche criminal trials in a successful effort for it to become a FAC and found him to be reasonable on all accounts and without an agenda regarding the facts. I do not believe SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) was involved at all in that article, so I have no statement regarding her involvement in the issues at stake. —mattisse (Talk) 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Dtobias[edit]

The concept that merely creating or editing an article on a particular subject is somehow inherently "harassment" of SlimVirgin is the sort of ridiculous stretch of the concept of harassment that cheapens actual harassment; crying wolf too many times about this sort of thing will result in people ignoring you if and when you actually do get harassed.

However, I do share with Slim some skepticism about whether the involvement of LaRouche and his movement in the concept of a Eurasian land bridge is truly notable; is that really what the reliable sources show? *Dan T.* (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by other user[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

  • Slim, just a reminder to notify Cla of the request. Also, I don't see a User:Herschelkrustofksy registered. Assuming there is a typo in there somewhere, could you notify him as well. Assuming his talk page is unlocked, he could post a statement and have it transferred here or email it to arbcom. MBisanz talk 09:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have notified Cla. I'll check the typing of HK's name, but he is not an involved party; he has been banned for some time. Apologies if this is in the wrong place; please feel free to move it. SlimVirgin 09:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Clerk note User:Herschelkrustofsky (or at least the individual on Wikipedia Review claiming to be him) requested the Arbcom email, which I have provided, so the Arbitrators will want to be aware that an email may be sent in this matter from him. MBisanz talk 22:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • Comment - this appears to conflate a content dispute and a ruling about the interaction of two editors. As regards the content dispute, might I suggest that other parts of the article are expanded before returning to that dispute? As far as the "avoiding unnecessary contact" bit goes, can I ask the two parties involved if they have been able to interact amicably outside of Wikipedia or not? The other question is whether they (and any others here) are engaged in disputes outside of Wikipedia that they are bringing onto Wikipedia? I take a very dim view of editors who argue about something outside of Wikipedia, and then continue that argument here on Wikipedia. You need to be able to leave baggage at the door when you come to edit Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tznkai summarises the situation well. I don't think it has been made out that Cla68 does not have a genuine desire to contribute to the article, nor that the bare fact of Cla68 editing the article constitutes "unnecessary interaction". As can be seen from the portion of the remedy SlimVirgin quoted, the relevant parties are not prevented by the remedy from legitimately participating in dispute resolution processes, such as this request for comments on the article. As for the potential applicability of remedy 1 in Lyndon LaRouche, that is, at the end of the day, a content question and the request for comments currently underway is capable of answering that. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Concur with bainer. Vassyana (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It seems clear to me that this dispute can be resolve strictly within the confines of the RfC, and that the participation of the parties in that RfC is appropriate and not barred by remedies. — Coren (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree in general with the views expressed by the other arbitrators. I do not see sufficient evidence that Cla68's work on the Eurasian Land Bridge article was intended to harass or provoke SlimVirgin, which I take to be the essence of her concern here. I do think it could be helpful given the history if Cla68 would try to avoid focusing comments unnecessarily on SlimVirgin, even where the comments are made on another website. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per above, no intended harassment. Wizardman 17:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Concur with the above, and the RfC should address the content issue. Risker (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]