Seeing nowhere better to post this, as of [1] the ban on editing LaRouche articles is reset. It will expire on March 18, 2006 now. Snowspinner 16:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Tsunami Butler(talk·contribs·count·api·block log) is a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche. I would like to block the account indefinitely for acting to promote LaRouche, and would appreciate feedback from the Arbcom.
Tsunami started editing with this account in October 2006, and has made 300 edits to articles (600 in all), mostly to LaRouche-related pages in defense of LaRouche; 155 of the edits were to Lyndon LaRouche. S/he removes criticism of LaRouche from articles even when it's well-sourced, engages in revert wars to keep it out, and argues each and every tiny point on talk pages, even when the proposed edit is clearly in violation of the content policies. There are many examples of edits that violate the ArbCom rulings, but these two are illustrative:
On March 5, Tsunami restored to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche details of a LaRouche conspiracy theory known as the John Train Salon, [3] something that Herschelkrustofskuy used to write about a lot. [4] There are no reliable sources for the John Train Salon claim, which is a major LaRouche conspiracy theory, and which arguably defames a number of named individuals. Tsunami reverted twice when others tried to remove it. [5][6] Talk page discussion here.
On March 7, in the same article, Tsunami removed quotes from LaRouche that cast him in a poor light. [7] S/he continued reverting even after other editors added more references for the quotes, which included two Washington Post articles from 1985 and 2004. [8]. Tsunami either removed the quotes or added that they were from unpublished documents "alleged by Chip Berlet" to be quotes from LaRouche. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] The reverting stopped only when s/he was blocked for 3RR. [16] Talk page discussion here.
I gave Tsunami a final warning on March 13. [17] On March 30, s/he added an arguably defamatory claim (not LaRouche-related that I'm aware of) to John Siegenthaler, writing that Siegenthaler had been involved in a "racially motivated" sting operation masquerading as a journalistic investigation when he was the publisher of a newspaper. [18]
The Seigenthaler thing is indeed a LaRouche claim; I just wasn't aware of it until now. [19] Seigenthaler has been attacked by LaRouche because of his early association with Al Gore, and Al Gore has become a LaRouche enemy because of his views on global warming. SlimVirgin(talk) 02:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source she used, the WorldNetDaily website, is perhaps okay for non-contentious material, but not for BLP criticism, and it anyway said nothing about the alleged sting operation being "racially motivated." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17703] Kaldari removed the edit as "defamation." [20] I feel that anyone who adds an unsourced accusation of racism to a BLP as prominent as Siegenthaler's, together with a poorly sourced allegation of journalistic dishonesty, doesn't have the interests of the project at heart and is unlikely to change after nearly six months of editing.
To be fair, I should add that Tsunami is not as bad as some of the previous LaRouche editors, and was helpful on one occasion in keeping inappropriate material out of Jeremiah Duggan. I added a quote to the article from a press release issued by Duggan's mother's lawyers alleging that LaRouche's wife had made a negative comment about Duggan soon after his death. Tsunami pointed out that, even though the sources were lawyers, their press release was self-published, and self-published third-party sources aren't allowed for biographical material about living persons. This is correct, so I reverted my edit. [21] However, the few occasions of positive editing are very much outweighed by the disruptive defense of LaRouche.
I feel that the above complaint is a wholly dishonest misrepresentation of the facts, by an editor/admin who has a reputation for using administrative bans to eliminate her opponents in content disputes.
SlimVirgin has acted to protect POV pushing by two minor LaRouche critics who have become editors at Wikipedia in order to promote themselves and their agendas, Dennis King (Dking(talk·contribs·count·api·block log)) and Chip Berlet (Cberlet (talk·contribs·count·api·block log).) These two editors, with the protection of SlimVirgin, dominate LaRouche-related articles through excessive citations from websites they control, in violation of WP:OWN, WP:COI#Citing oneself, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The fact that SlimVirgin is abetting them due to a shared POV is demonstrated by comments like this one [22].
Regarding her complaint about the John Train Salon, which she describes as a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," I would first like to point out that:
It was removed from a section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche with the header "Conspiracy theories." It strikes me as appropriate that views of LaRouche that are described as "conspiracy theories" be sourced to LaRouche. If it is a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," it would be inappropriate to omit it from that section.
The John Train Salon story is the LaRouche organization's response to the attacks by Berlet and King, which dominate the Wikipedia articles. Under NPOV it should be included. There has been a Wikipedia article for the past two years called John Train Salon, which was recently deleted out-of-process by SlimVirgin.
As SlimVirgin points out, I didn't add the material -- I restored it, after it was deleted by Dking. When this edit was disputed, I added a third party source at the request of SlimVirgin, which was Daniel Brandt of Public Information Research. SlimVirgin apparently objected to that source as well, but when asked to explain her objection, she refused (diff.) Note that SlimVirgin's response to this edit was to issue a BLP warning that I had "made an edit that may be defamatory."
Regarding her accusation that my edits violated the ArbCom rulings, I have read the rulings carefully, and I have asked SlimVirgin to specify how I violated them. She answered by saying only, "You're acting to promote LaRouche." [23] However, it is clear from the ArbCom decision in question that "promotion of LaRouche" means inserting references to LaRouche in articles where his views are not notable. The heading of the section in question is References to Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin is trying to obtain a "revisionist" interpretation of this decision, which would mean that any objection I raise to the many policy violations of Cberlet and Dking may be considered "promotion of LaRouche." This is the crux of the matter. --Tsunami Butler 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It was removed from a section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche with the header "Conspiracy theories." It strikes me as appropriate that views of LaRouche that are described as "conspiracy theories" be sourced to LaRouche. If it is a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," it would be inappropriate to omit it from that section."
It involved BLP violations, which is why it was removed, as several of us explained to you at the time. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The John Train Salon story is the LaRouche organization's response to the attacks by Berlet and King, which dominate the Wikipedia articles. Under NPOV it should be included. There has been a Wikipedia article for the past two years called John Train Salon, which was recently deleted out-of-process by SlimVirgin."
No, there was an article with that title created in December 2005 by Herschelkrustofsky. There were no reliable sources to support it, so the page was redirected to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. Then it was speedied by me because the story consists of a set of completely unsupported BLP violations; even the title may be a BLP violation. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Regarding her accusation that my edits violated the ArbCom rulings, I have read the rulings carefully, and I have asked SlimVirgin to specify how I violated them. She answered by saying only, "You're acting to promote LaRouche." [24] However, it is clear from the ArbCom decision in question that "promotion of LaRouche" means inserting references to LaRouche in articles where his views are not notable. The heading of the section in question is References to Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin is trying to obtain a "revisionist" interpretation of this decision, which would mean that any objection I raise to the many policy violations of Cberlet and Dking may be considered "promotion of LaRouche." This is the crux of the matter."
This is exactly the kind of discussion we used to be forced to have with Herschelkrustofsky, Weed Harper, C Colden, Cognition, etc. There's no understanding of the need for reliable sources, and no appreciation of the need not to defame living individuals, unless those individuals happen to be Lyndon LaRouche or his wife, at which point WP:BLP is suddenly understood with astonishing clarity. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The various LaRouche rulings have not really been kept up-to-date with the evolution of policy—even the most recent considerably predates a number of significant policy developments in 2006 and 2007—so I do not think they should be interpreted as providing for broad restrictions on behavior; the main remedy imposed in them that was not applied to specific parties covered only the introduction of LaRouche-originated material into unrelated articles, in any case. I think anything other than a community sanction here will require a new case to consider the various related issues more thoroughly. Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill, the usual thing with LaRouche editor blocks is to ask the ArbCom for clarification. Having yet another case that relates to LaRouche would surely be overkill. (We've had LaRouche 1, 2, and Nobs01 that contained LaRouche decisions, and numerous clarifications and mediations). WP:NOT is policy and the LaRouche editors use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas, with scant regard for our editing policies, including BLP. During a previous clarification, the Arbcom replied that: "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." [25] This is what Tsunami Butler was trying to do by adding the John Train Salon section to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche: use it as an excuse to talk about other people. Here are a list of LaRouche-related arbitrations, clarifications, and mediations in case it's helpful: ((LaRouche Talk)). SlimVirgin(talk) 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Kirill has hit the nail on the head, and SlimVirgin is attempting to change the subject. I know that SlimVirgin has orchestrated the banning of a number of editors that she prefers to call "LaRouche editors" for the purposes of Poisoning the well -- but in none of these cases have I seen any evidence that the editors she banned were "using Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas." What in fact these editors did (the most recent example that I know of was User:ManEatingDonut) was to object to the violations of policy, which I enumerated above, by editors Cberlet and Dking. It is in fact Cberlet and Dking that are using Wikipedia to promote themselves and their ideas, many of which fail the test of notability. Cberlet and SlimVirgin have on a number of occasions insisted that the ArbCom decisions have certified the website that Berlet controls, that of Political Research Associates, as an all around Reliable Source. I find nothing in those decisions to support that argument. It is also the case that the LaRouche ArbCom cases predate the WP:BLP policy, and I think that many of the more venomous attacks that appear in the LaRouche articles, sourced to Berlet at the PRA site, ought to be re-examined in light of BLP.
I am not proposing that the LaRouche cases be re-opened. I am suggesting, however, that SlimVirgin's request to block me be seen for what it is: a tactic in a content dispute. This is an attempt to misuse admin authority and it should be rejected. --Tsunami Butler 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me correct just a few of the falsehoods that argue in favor of upholding the previous Arbcom decisions. I do not control the website of Political Research Associates; Political Research Associates has a staff of eight and has been relied on as a reliable source by major daily newspapers and in publications by academics; I am not the director of Political Research Associates, nor have I ever been; I have written extensively about the Lyndon LaRouche network, and and some of my articles appear in major daily newspapers and scholarly publications; I avoid citing my own work on Wikipedia whenever possible; all of the charges made by Dennis King and me are extensively researched and in most cases have been verified by other journalists who have had access to the original documents and former members. I believe that Tsunami Butler is not able to see these types of distinctions, and instead continues to post material that is not suitable for Wikipedia due to its uncritcal and credulous POV support for Lyndon LaRouche, his idiosyncratic (and frankly lunatic) ideas, and the slavish regurgitation of those ideas by his sycophant followers.--Cberlet 02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Berlet may claim that he is just another employee at PRA, but in reality, he is the principal writer there, and is free to post anything he likes on the PRA website, such as this, a special page he set up for his disputes on Wikipedia talk pages. And like SlimVirgin, he slyly tries insinuate that the conflicts on the LaRouche pages are about editors making favorable assertions about LaRouche, when in fact, the conflicts generally arise in response to Berlet and King adding precisely the sort of invective you see in Cberlet's post above. --NathanDW 05:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I am only correcting false and misleading statements. I am one of five people at PRA who write articles for PRA and outside media. I am not free to post anything on the PRA website, we have a web editor, and a research director, and an executive director, all of whom can (and do) reject my proposals on a regular basis. The few pages (out of thousands) on the PRA website that mention Wikipedia and LaRouche were posted because a few Wiki editors were making false (and in some cases defamatory) claims about my work in my outside persona as Chip Berlet. Among these false claims were that I was inventing quotes attributed to LaRouche. This is false. I was finally forced to post actual page scans in some cases before these pro-LaRouche Wiki editors would admit the quotes existed, and even then some persisted in challenging the authenticity of the documents--a false claim that still continues today. The conflicts on LaRouche pages generally arise when pro-LaRouche editors such as Tsunami Butler and NathanDW uncritcally accept as true the relentless falsehoods and lunatic conspiracy theories propounded by LaRouche, (a convicted criminal, and "notorious antisemite,") and his followers. That this is so is shown by the posts above on this page. --Cberlet 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enough. This is not an appropriate forum for your soapboxing about LaRouche. Kirill Lokshin 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will stop posting comments here after this one which poses a legitimate question to Kirill Lokshin to which I would appreciate an answer here: Why is it acceptable for editors to call me a liar, falsely suggest I am part of a conspiracy linked to entries about LaRouche, and make false statements about my work and the organization for which I work; but when I post comments about LaRouche for which there is copious evidence in reputable published sources, (relentless falsehoods, lunatic conspiracy theories, convicted criminal, notorious antisemite) it is "soapboxing about LaRouche?" Can you consider for a moment that this is exactly the ongoing pattern of inverting reality, conspiracism, and muddying the waters with false claims originating with the LaRouche network that creates the disruptive situation on LaRouche-related pages? I think this is the crux of why what I am posting here is appropriate to the current discussion.--Cberlet 19:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assessing sources for an entry includes critically assessing its authors, such as you. Andries 20:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that your comments are unacceptable doesn't mean that others' comments about you aren't as well—false accusations are, of course, inappropriate regardless of any other considerations—but the crux of the matter is that you are an editor here, and hence your behavior is of interest in examining what is occurring here as far as editorial activity is concerned. LaRouche, meanwhile, is not personally involved in the editorial process on Wikipedia, and thus any evaluation of him is entirely irrelevant outside of a discussion of what material articles dealing with him should contain. Kirill Lokshin 20:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really agree with SlimVirgin on this matter. We have been through this repeatedly. The past Arbcom decisions are really quite clear. This will happen again and again, and to open this Arbcom decision rather than enforcing it will waste literally hunderds of editing hours for no constructive purpose.--Cberlet 21:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are problems raised by Cberlet's behavior, I think he is not being civil; if we expect Azerbaijanis and Armenians, victims of mutual genocidal campaigns, to be polite to one another, we can expect Cberlet to extend a measure of courtesy to the LaRouchies, who as far as I know, haven't killed anyone. Likewise, while the cited quotations of LaRouche may be genuine, they are the product of original research, excellent research, to be sure, but he is not a special exception. The problem is that conflating problems posed by Cberlet's behavior with the problems posed by an editor who is to a certain extent mirroring the behavior of Herschelkrustovsky is not likely to be productive. SlimVirgin's actions and proposals are within the bounds of the prior decisions and are proper. Expansion of the original research of Lyndon LaRouche and his associates beyond articles with cover him and his associates is not acceptable. If there are problems with Cberlet's behavior or editing they should be brought up in a separate proceeding by someone without the LaRouche axe to grind. That includes the anti-communist axe as well. Fred Bauder 17:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may respond here, I would like to point out that SlimVirgin is proposing to ban me under the ArbCom remedy against "promotion of LaRouche," and as Kirill has noted, the edits of mine that SlimVirgin is objecting to do not constitute "promotion of LaRouche" as specified in the decision. I am also puzzled by your comment that "[e]xpansion of the original research of Lyndon LaRouche and his associates beyond articles with cover him and his associates is not acceptable," since the only articles that have been discussed here are articles which cover him and his associates. --Tsunami Butler 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LaRouche may be used as a source on himself and his group, but may not be used as a source on anyone else. You were trying to use him as a source on the activities of people associated with the so-called John Train Salon, but LaRouche articles may not be used as an excuse to write about other people. The ArbCom has said: "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" (emphasis added). [26] Are you willing to edit in accordance with this? SlimVirgin(talk) 20:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But if, as a corollary to your request, LaRouche and his movement are not permitted to respond to the vituperation from Dennis King and Chip Berlet that presently fills the articles about him, then it seems reasonable to me that the self-citing and other quotes from these two minor critics be reduced to a level that is commensurate with their notability. --Tsunami Butler 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem for you is that they are widely regarded as experts. Dennis King has written the only English-language biography of LaRouche, and it's frequently used by journalists. Chip Berlet is a known and respected researcher, and a specialist on LaRouche. The BBC's flagship news program, Newsnight, used him last year when they were doing a segment on the LaRouche movement. Are you saying Wikipedia shouldn't rely for its coverage on the same experts that the rest of the Western media relies on? That's a serious question, by the way, not a rhetorical one. Given that they're widely acknowledged as experts, how do you suggest we handle their input? SlimVirgin(talk) 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, they should be featured at a level commensurate with their notability. Their commentaries seldom appear in the legitimate press. It has been suggested before that a good yardstick would be to cite them when their comments appear in major press, like the BBC show you mention, but not give them carte blanche to self-cite from the websites they either control or dominate. --Tsunami Butler 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even as this request for clarification remains open, Tsunami Butler is continuing to push a LaRouche POV. I recently added some material from the Berliner Zeitung, a perfectly normal mainstream German newspaper, to Jeremiah Duggan. The material was critical of LaRouche, including: "According to the Berliner Zeitung, 'next to Scientology, [the LaRouche organization] is the cult soliciting most aggressively in German streets at this time'." Tsunami Butler has now added her original research before that sentence in order the undermine the newspaper as a source: "The Berliner Zeitung has been the subject of controversy, because it is Germany's only British-controlled newspaper." [27]
This springs from the LaRouche view that the British establishment is out to get him, the Queen's advisers want to kill him, MI6 left a death threat in a woman's magazine for him a few years ago, etc.
I'm afraid I can't see any practical alternative to an indefblock here, because Tsunami clearly has no intention of stopping this. SlimVirgin(talk) 21:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree with TB that this is a content dispute that SlimVirgin wants to win the easy way, by banning an opponent. SlimVirgin is not a neutral admin, or she'd be arguing for the banning of Dking for massive incivility and excessive self-citing. Incidentally, the alleged OR in Jeremiah Duggan was not added originally by TB, but she did restore it after SlimVirgin deleted it. The sentence has now been changed by consensus to something different. --NathanDW 18:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be more and bolder activity by LaRouche-related accounts in the recent weeks. Yesterday one of them, added extremely derogatory information about Al Gore[28] to a talk page along with a link to an article in LaRouche's Executive Information Review that includes a serious assertion tying John Seigenthaler to "the faction covering up the assassination of President John F. Kennedy." I had to read that twice before I believed what I saw. There may be some sock puppetry going on. User:Herschelkrustofsky (HK) had several well-established accounts later proven to be sockpuppets, one a female, so it wouldn't be beyond him to be behind some of these new accounts including Tsunami Butler. HK also tended to plagiarize and that seems to going on too. Back in January an editor using a new account added incorrect information, obviously copied from a LaRouche-movement newsletter.[29][30]
Regarding the proposed ban, Tsunami Butler appears interested only in pursuing one aim: promoting Lyndon LaRouche and his ideas. Like HK, she engages in lengthy unproductive talk-page debates that never reach a conclusion, and engages in edit warring. She has "has engaged in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement", a finding of fact in HK's first ArbCom case.[31]. I suggest that Tsunami Butler has a style and behavior similar enough to HK's to warrant banning the account as a sockpuppet. -Will Beback · † · 09:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in response to SlimVirgin, objecting to edits by Dking and Cberlet does not constitute "promoting LaRouche and his ideas." In fact, since the policy violations by Dking and Cberlet are so rampant, I have often wondered why the two admins, SlimVirgin and Will Beback, never take action against them (although I will concede that Will Beback did mildly chide Dking on his talk page for incivility.) The sock puppet allegations are a lame tactic. I'm sure that they can be disproved by Checkuser. I had never heard of Dr. Gary Carter until I read the above post. I have seen comments on talk pages by Nemesis, who appears to be a young person editing from Germany. --Tsunami Butler 15:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a single edit of yours which didn't relate directly to Luyndon LaRouche or his ideas, and I don't see any of edit which didn't improve the position of LaRouche or, in some cases, disparage a group or individual he oppposes. Rather than simply reacting to the edits of Dking and Cberlet, your editing appear to be a primary reason for their current involvement. It's a pattern of editing that we've seen often before and that has resulted in 3 previous ArbCom cases involving HK. -Will Beback · † · 18:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tsunami continually responds to questions about her own editing by trying to shine the spotlight on Chip Berlet and Dennis King, even when they have nothing to do with the issue. I noted above that she added to John Siegenthaler[32] that he was involved in a "racially motivated" sting operation masquerading as a journalistic investigation when he was the publisher of a newspaper, an edit that is arguably defamatory, and which Kaldari removed as such. [33] The source she used didn't say the investigation was "racially motivated," [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17703] and the issue originates from a LaRouche publication. [34] She did this after being given a final warning. I therefore see no realistic possibility of change from her. Perhaps Tsunami could explain that edit (without reference to Berlet or King, please). SlimVirgin(talk) 02:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would explain it as a mistake. I left this message on Kaldari's talk page, to which Kaldari did not respond. I also discussed it on the talk page of the article, and have not pursued the matter further. BTW, check the date on the LaRouche publication that you are claiming is a factor. --Tsunami Butler 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to respectfully submit to the Arbcom the following: if there were a serious problem of disruptive "LaRouche editors," you would think that a wide range of Wikipedia admins would have noticed it and called attention to it. Instead, it's always the same two admins, SlimVirgin and Will Beback, coming back here every couple of months to say "off with his head" regarding some allegedly "LaRouche-supporting" editor. It has been suggested that SlimVirgin and Will Beback have a strong POV with respect to LaRouche -- some might even say a bias (consider this.) Has the ArbCom considered the possibility that SlimVirgin and Will Beback might themselves be a significant part of any problem that may exist? --NathanDW 23:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to make an accusation you should back it up with evidence, not just a link to SlimVirgin's entire contribution list. If you'd like to make a case about editors then you are free to do so. The LaRouche-related actions of SV, myself, and other editors have been reviewed by the ArbCom repeatedly. Except for some warnings to remain cool they haven't found fault. The problem is with the steady stream of LaRouche accounts that keep appearing and pushing the same POV, month after month, year after year. Blaming the responsible admins who patrol these topics is like blaming vandalism on the counter- vandalism unit.-Will Beback · † · 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Kaldari after reverting Tsunami Butler's defamatory edit to Seigenthaler leaving a note about it on my talk page, and commenting that Tsunami is "begging to be banned." [35]SlimVirgin(talk) 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it were simply a matter of you and SlimVirgin, as "responsible admins," enforcing policy, I would expect to see some action taken against Cberlet and Dking. When I don't, it makes me wonder. --Tsunami Butler 14:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are issues with those editors then bring a complaint. This proposal concerns your behavior, and saying "But what about them?!" is not a defense. This account appears to be sock or meat puppets of HK, and 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 · † · 19:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless accusations of sockpuppetry are just another form of incivility, like your insinuation that I am being paid by the LaRouche organization [36]. This latter strikes me as a rather serious violation of NPA and AGF. --Tsunami Butler 14:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To NathanDW's point above: I will confirm that I, as another admin, believe that there are serious problems with the content, and some of the editors of, the LaRouche-related articles. I'm sure other admins agree with me. SlimVirgin and Will Beback are just in the minority of admins in that they're willing to actually deal with the issue (unlike myself), and for doing so, I commend them. They're not the only ones seeing a problem with the articles by any means. Ral315» 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a mostly-uninvolved admin: I agree with the active ones here that there's a problem. I just don't have time to get involved in it. Georgewilliamherbert 18:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with Ral315 here, and I've had no connection with the articles in question that I am aware of. - TaxmanTalk 22:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone. A check user has confirmed that Tsunami Butler appears to be sockpuppeting with User:HonourableSchoolboy, another LaRouche account. Given that, combined with the above, I'm going to block both accounts indefinitely. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind as to explain how a check user "has confirmed" that TB "appears to be sockpuppeting"? Does that mean anything at all? --NathanDW 01:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tsunami Butler and HonourableSchoolboy are the same editor, and they are editing from the same general area as Herschelkrustofsky. That, plus behavior, satisfies the duck test. As this thread was started by a banned user, I'm going to close it and archive it at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, which is where Herschelkrustofsky's ban is recorded. Thatcher131 01:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I would like to call attention to the fact that the blocking Tsunami Butler is in explicit violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy, where it says the following: "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on."
SlimVirgin began by claiming "promotion of LaRouche," then shifted her rationale until arriving at the last resort of the scoundrel, accusations of sock- or meatpuppetry. She has been engaged in a fierce content dispute with TB during the entire episode. --NathanDW 15:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been established before that any admin may enforce the LaRouche rulings, and in fact one other admin and myself usually do it simply because we know most about the situation. There's no LaRouche content dispute that I have any interest in gaining an advantage in. My aim is to make sure that the LaRouche sockpuppetry and disruption is kept to a minimum, and that the rulings are adhered to. SlimVirgin(talk) 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but your user contributions, edit summaries and talk page contributions tell a different story. --NathanDW 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to take my word for it. You're welcome to ask another admin to review the blocks. SlimVirgin(talk) 20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that several admins have reviewed this matter and don't disagree with the block. NathanDW is not contesting the cause of the block, only the involvement of the person who carried it out. We've already been over this issue previously. When the ArbCom chooses to say "any uninvolved admin" they do so. When they say "any admin" that's what they mean. -Will Beback · † · 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are twisting the facts to suit your purposes. The two admins who spoke up both said that "there is a problem." They didn't specify who the problem was, and they certainly didn't endorse a block.--NathanDW 15:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin seems to have a biased, vested interest in the LaRouche article. "You'll have to take my word for it" is an unacceptable defense in any context. --Ivangeotsky
Thatcher131 also spoke up and explicitly endorsed the assertion that these editors were sock puppets of a banned user. -Will Beback · † · 19:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From RfAr requests for clarification section, July 2007[edit]
LaRouche editors again
NathanDW(talk ·contribs·count·api·block log) and Don't lose that number(talk·contribs·count·api·block log) (DLTN) are supporters of Lyndon LaRouche. Both are single-issue accounts who add favorable material about LaRouche, remove anything negative, and add negative material about people they see as LaRouche's enemies. They've been warned several times about the ArbCom rulings and BLP, to no avail. NathanDW has been editing for 20 months and has 183 mainspace edits; DLTN since February 2007, with 351 mainspace edits.
I would like to block the accounts indefinitely for BLP violations at Chip Berlet, one of the articles covered by LaRouche2 (see Modification of LaRouche 2).
On July 20, an anon IP with no other edits, 24.117.110.173 (talk ·contribs), added an anonymous geocities website as an external link. This is a personal website that contains actionable libel against Chip Berlet and myself, alleging some big conspiracy and repeating material about Berlet from Executive Intelligence Review, which is a LaRouche publication, and about me from Wikipedia Review. I believe it is maintained by Nobs01(talk·contribs·count·api·block log), a user who was banned for BLP violations against Berlet.
Threeafterthree removed the link. DLTN restored it. I admin-deleted the edit on BLP grounds. [37] DLTN restored it again [38]; Tom Harrison removed it; NathanDW restored it. [39]
DLTN was blocked indefinitely on April 10, 2007 as a sockpuppet of Tsunami Butler and HonourableSchoolboy, after checkuser showed all three accounts edited from within the same narrow range. I unblocked DLTN because there was one indication of a difference between him and the others, which I won't repeat here, and I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. He was unblocked on condition that he stick to the ArbCom rulings and make no BLP violations. [40] I had to warn him about BLP again on April 26, 2007. [41]
WillBeback also recently appealed to DLTN for a change of behavior. [42]
I don't think this situation is ever going to change. The individuals behind the accounts are either clueless or malicious, and for our purposes it doesn't really matter which. Feedback from the committee about the proposed blocks would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs) 18:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The blocks seem justified. Fred Bauder 21:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. They look correct to me. If your own name hadn't been dragged into it, there'd be no question at all about the propriety, so it's right to ask. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses. I'll go ahead with the blocks. Cheers, SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs) 01:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 case contained specific findings against only two editors: Herschelkrustofsky and SlimVirgin. A post-decision motion [48], passed nine months ago, however, appears to expand the scope of the case to include any behavior exhibited by anyone that violates WP:NOR, WP:POV, or WP:BLP with regard to the LaRouche articles. The exact verbiage in the passed motion is:
The findings of fact of the original decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, closed in September 2004, referred to two problematic behaviours:
a pattern of adding original material, not an editor's own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Wikipedia articles,
a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.
The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Wikipedia. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV pushing on Wikipedia, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification.
It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.
Passed 5 to 2, 17:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If my interpretation of this ruling is correct, then should the recent block of Cberlet [49] for violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPA at Views of Lyndon LaRouche with this [50] remark on the article's talk page be annotated in the log of blocks and bans for this case? And, by extension, any other editors who have been blocked for violating these policies and guidelines in a similar manner to CBerlet in LaRouche-related articles should also have had their blocks annotated? Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the need for this. The original ArbCom case closed over two years ago. The only remedies concerned HK and his sockpuppets. Those blocks were logged because they had an escalation clause. Cberlet was an innocent party. Why would this block be logged - what purpose would it serve?
While we're on this topic, we might as well get a determination about the applicability of this motion to current editors. In particular, Polly Hedra (talk·contribs), who posted this message.[51] I simply deleted it as unhelpful and left a message on the user's talk page. However, since this matter is being contested it's worth making sure that remedies are applied evenly. The user is unremorseful.[52] As for being potential sock puppets of HK, there are several editors whose edits are very similar to HK's in that they only edit LaRouche-related articles and articles that LaRouche has a strong POV about, and they consistently promote that POV. Due to HK's clever puppet mastering (see the first RfAr), it is probably impossible to find them using Checkuser, and so they can only be determined by behavior.
FWIW, I received notes from Cberlet asking that the biography of Chip Berlet be deleted, and apparently signalling his intention to leave the project.[53][54] I'd guess that being punished while those who've baited him are unpunished might be a cause.
It seems a bit self-serving to call Polly Hedra's message on Will's talk page "unremorseful." She calls attention to the fact that Will deleted her comment on the LaRouche talk page, while allowing a far more inflammatory comment [55] by Cberlet to stand. This does not indicate any particular lack of remorse, but rather calls attention to a double standard which has been a continuing problem.
I also have real concerns about Will's proposal that editors be banned for holding a suspicious POV, in lieu of actual Checkuser evidence. Based on Will's long history of partisanship in LaRouche-related content disputes, I have difficulty believing that this proposal is motivated by nothing more than a desire to protect the project from sockpuppets. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The meme to the effect that "everybody expressing similar opinions to a banned user should be banned too" came into play frequently in the whole Mantanmoreland vs. WordBomb saga, and one would hope it had been discredited by now. This issue needs to be pursued in a "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" manner with no special consideration, pro or con, being given to either side based on their having a more powerful circle of friends here. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
Is there a way for our established users to avoid name calling when they are confronted to difficult situations? Incivility (in all forms) has never been something constructive at all. We can do better than that and most people do not necessarily need to use such a language in order to prove something they believe is right. But logging it just for the sake of logging it is not a solution. It is rather an obstacle. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The motion merely affirmed that, while way back in 2004 it may not have been entirely clear that policies like no original research and neutral point of view were ordinarily enforceable without going so far as having an arbitration case (for interest, here is a contemporary revision of NOR, and here's one of NPOV), by 2007 those principles had long since passed in to the general corpus of policy, and the existence of special remedies in this subject area in no way meant that general policy did not also apply. --bainer (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as petty and unnecessary. As per FayssalF, this is unhelpful; and per bainer, normal policy is handling these issues just as well anyway. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have received a message on my talk page from SlimVirgin[56], informing me in a very convoluted way that she believes that an edit I made "violates the spirit of BLP and the LaRouche 2 ArbCom case" and that "If that kind of editing continues," I'm "likely to be subject to sanctions." She also mentions that she is "writing this as an editor, not as an admin." I find this very strange for several reasons. Her argument against using a court filing as a source ([57]) may have some merit, although normally one would simply raise the issue on the article talk page and not leave a threatening note. I am concerned because SlimVirgin recently made an unsuccessful attempt to get me in trouble at the ANI board ([58],) and this appears to be a follow-up effort. My specific questions are as follows:
1. What on earth does this have to do with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2? SlimVirgin claims that I'm "editing about someone perceived as an enemy of a movement you support." I'm not sure who is doing the "perceiving" here, but I looked on the two main LaRouche websites and found no mention of A.J. Weberman.[59][60]. I also find SlimVirgin's accusation that the LaRouche movement is "a movement that I support" to be outrageous and unfounded. I made this sufficiently clear at the ANI discussion.
3. This morning I restored material that I felt was improperly deleted by SlimVirgin, in this edit. This afternoon, she deleted it again, along with related material, in this edit, in which she cites Wikipedia:Requests for_arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 as justification. Is this a permissable interpretation of LaRouche 2? It appears to me that SlimVirgin is arguing that Dennis King, or any other person "perceived as an enemy" of LaRouche, may not be criticized at Wikipedia, no matter for what reason and no matter how well sourced the criticism. By her logic, if anyone adds material critical of King or others, that person is transformed into a supporter of LaRouche, and is therefore, by her unusual interpretation of LaRouche 2, not permitted to edit.
4. At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Post-decision motion passed, it says that It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement. Since SlimVirgin was a party to that case, does this line have the effect of a specific instruction to her that she must not violate BLP at LaRouche articles?
Responses to other statements: Will Beback and SlimVirgin are using some truly tortured logic here. They seem to be arguing that if LaRouche doesn't like the Yippies, then editors must add only flattering material to articles on Yippies, or be tarred with the brush of being a "LaRouche editor" (that's Step #6 of WP:9STEPS.) The fact of the matter is, I opened an account here because I noticed that a number of persons close to the Yippies, particularly A.J. Weberman/User:Ajweberman and Dennis King/User:Dking. were exploiting Wikipedia for purposes of self-promotion (which is the sort of thing at which Yippies are known to excel.) I was only vaguely aware of LaRouche at that time. I began to watch Dking participate in conflicts at the LaRouche articles and I noticed that Dking had a small group of allies who were using tactics that I believed to be WP:Gaming the system#Abuse of process, and I began to oppose them, which seems to have made me a target. My edits at "LaRouche" articles have always been made from the standpoint of asking that BLP and other policies be strictly observed, but Will And SlimVirgin are misrepresenting them to the effect that if I remove material that violates BLP, or restore sourced material that has been deleted without cause, I am said to be "adding positive material or deleting negative material from the LaRouche articles." In fact, recent disputes have been due to a team effort by Will and SlimVirgin to entirely re-write, from a POV agenda, several articles which I felt were stable and well-balanced.
One other item that needs to be addressed: Will mentions that I violated the forum shopping rule. This is true; I violated it because I was unaware of it. As soon as it was brought to my attention, I stopped. This request for clarification, to my mind, is an unrelated matter; I made the request after receiving a threatening note from SlimVirgin on my talk page. Since I was being threatened, I felt it was urgent that I get a clarification of the policy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to SlimVirgin
I believe that the ArbCom decision was intended to prevent POV pushing. But SlimVirgin's re-interpretation seems to be intended to prevent POV pushing only from the pro-LaRouche camp, while giving almost unlimited license to POV pushing from the anti-LaRouche camp. It seems that anyone who opposes SlimVirgin's edits must necessarily be pro-LaRouche, and therefore any and all tactics to shut that person up are acceptable. Here is a cute logical trick, akin to "have you stopped beating your wife?: Whether Leatherstocking is a member of the movement or just a sympathizer doesn't matter. False dichotomy; there is a third option, which happens to be the correct one: I tend to react if I see what looks like bullies who are gaming the system. If I saw these tactics at work in some other group of biographical articles, sooner or later I would feel obliged to get involved in that conflict as well.
SlimVirgin makes this accusation: He's clearly intensely interested in and sympathetic toward LaRouche, and he's editing BLPs of people LaRouche doesn't like, and that's just not a good thing. I would say in response that SlimVirgin is clearly interested in and antipathetic toward LaRouche, and she's made several hundred hostile edits to his BLP in the past weeks, and that's just not a good thing. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Carcharoth
I would like to re-emphasize that none of the material removed from Dennis King by SlimVirgin[61] originated with LaRouche. It's from Daniel Pipes and Laird Wilcox. Also, as I indicated, I had edited both Dennis King and A.J. Weberman long before I edited a LaRouche article or got into any scrap with SlimVirgin. I would like to see the ArbCom issue very clear guidelines as to constitutes a "pro-LaRouche editor," so as to prevent the designation of others as "pro-LaRouche editors" from becoming a tactic available to POV-warriors. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Will Beback
Leatherstocking has been engaged in forum shopping, posting complaints in the last week to WP:ANI, WP:BLPN, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard , and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Regarding Leatherstocking's assertion that he does not support the LaRouche movement, virtually all of his 1000+ edits have been to LaRouche-related topics or to critics of LaRouche. Inevitably, he's added positive material or deleted negative material from the LaRouche articles, while adding negative material to the articles about critics or their projects. Despite his protests, I don't think his assertions of being disinterested are credible. I am currently compiling diffs to show the many occasions on which he's edit warred on behalf of a banned user, or to add LaRouche material to the project. As for Slimvirgin's concern, I'm not sure I agree with her view that it violates WP:RFAR/LL2. However if the ArbCom is interested in this case, I'd urge them to wait until all of the evidence can be assembled. Will Bebacktalk 01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding LaRouche v. Weberman, Weberman was a member of the Yippies.[62]
The LaRouchians used the false-witness tactic in 1981 against an enemy they hated even more than the environmentalists-the Yippies. To the LaRouchians, the Yippies were the symbol of everything evil--long-haired potheads who hung out at rock concerts, had no respect for Beethoven, and made constant trouble for LaRouche. They had picketed his headquarters with the banner "Nazis Make Good Lampshades" and on several occasions placed crank calls to Steinberg and Goldstein from pay phones. Aron Kay, the Yippie "pie man," was plotting to land a mushroom pie in LaRouche's face at the earliest opportunity. Security prepared a series of "Dope Dossiers" on Kay, Abbie Hoffman, and other Yippies. A New Solidarity editorial, "Cleaning Up the Filth," described them as "gutter scum" and announced that the dossiers were "being supplied to the New York City Police Department and other law enforcement agencies." The contents of the dossiers were oriented toward inducing the police to investigate the Yippies for possession or sale of marijuana. The LaRouchians were well aware that marijuana possession was low on the police list of priorities, but suggested that the police would thereby find evidence of Yippie involvement in terrorism and other serious crimes.
— King, Dennis (1989). Lyndon LaRouche and the new American fascism, Doubleday. ISBN9780385238809
That's from Dennis King, but ther's no reason to doubt it. According to a source that Leatherstocking wants to add, Weberman has served as King's webmaster in recent years. (King's book was written long before the Wolrd Wide Web.)
General Luis Giuffreda, who headed under President Reagan the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) between 1981 and 1985, testified to the considerable danger LaRouche's life, referenced numerous reports of threats to LaRouche, from terrorist groupings including the Baader-Meinhof band, Weather-Underground, Yippies and Jewish Defense League, as well as threats from the Communist Party U.S.A. and the Soviet Union directly. In view of these threats, LaRouche's security arrangements were much too little. LaRouche's security was not in the "Cadillac category" but rather in the "VW bug" category, and that LaRouche's living quarters reminded Gen. Giuffreda of his son's student housing.
— "LaRouche Trial Fact Sheet", The following is a fact sheet documenting the background to the trial of Lyndon LaRouche at the Federal Court in Alexandria, Virginia USA., Posted by John Covici, 28 Mar 92
That is a LaRouche source. Will Bebacktalk 02:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I don't see why this can't be handled at WP:AE. Will Bebacktalk 21:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about source decisions
Carcharoth is correct that decisions about sources have led to repeated disputes. (I think that is typical of contentious topics). Over the years, engaged editors have made extensive use of noticeboards, creating unusually long threads, sometimes with multiple HK socks participating at once. One stayed active for five months. As an experiment, editors of another contentious topic have create a project, WP:RAWAT, to serve as a central place to find consensus on issues like sourcing that apply to several articles. (It's based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration). However there are many editors involved in the Rawat articles. The LaRouche articles have only three regular editors: myself, Leatherstocking (LS), and HK's sock accounts. (Slimvirgin has had a flurry of activity recently, but she's been mostly inactive for the past two years. Dking edits occasionally but is mostly retired. Cberlet is entirely retired.) (Besides LS and HK, the only other editor to make significant pro-LaRouche edits was Cognition. A recent checkuser finding showed that he may have been a sock of 172, to everyone's astonishment.) So I don't think the project concept would work if there are only two unbanned editors who are regularly involved. We could seek to form a task force of another project, though deciding which one would be appropriate could be tricky. Will Bebacktalk 05:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by SlimVirgin
1. Leatherstocking is clearly a LaRouche editor. He says he's not, but his entire contribution history (since 2007) says otherwise. He edits articles about LaRouche, and about LaRouche's "enemies," and about the friends of LaRouche's enemies, to add material that would be favoured by the LaRouche movement. When he's not doing that, he's posting on the BLP, RS, and NPOV noticeboards, or on AN/I and AE, trying to cause problems for editors who oppose him. Every request to Leatherstocking to change his ways causes him to file more complaints or requests for clarification (like this one), which takes up yet more time.
Georgewilliamherbert is the admin who's been keeping an eye on LaRouche issues, so I told him about my warning to Leatherstocking, and asked if he would look out for the BLP issues. [63]
Will knows more about this editor than I do, so I'm not in a position to provide more diffs about him at this point, in case more are needed. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 01:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Vassyana
Vassyana, there are several clauses in LaRouche 2 that could apply, for example (bold added):
8.3.3.1 Ban extended
5.1) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 is modified so that the remedies applied in Lyndon LaRouch 2 are applied to Cognition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and the general ban on LaRouche-related article editing is expanded to include Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, and Dennis King (and their talk pages). [64]
The general ban on editing was that anyone editing like Herschelkrustofsky should stay away from LaRouche-related articles. The decision says (bold added): [65]
8.1.5 One user or several.
For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."
The remedy above (8.3.3.1 "Ban extended") extended the definition of "LaRouche-related articles" to cover Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, and Dennis King, and their talk pages, because these are people that LaRouche and his supporters regard as enemies, and some inappropriate edits were being made to them. In fact, the two BLPs were created by Herschelkrustofsky in the first place.
Leatherstocking is not Herschelkrustofsky but his editing is the same. He has been editing Dennis King, and has been adding material about King to other articles e.g. to this article about yet another LaRouche enemy. That edit also violated BLP because it was based on a primary source, and the issue has not been mentioned by secondary sources. BLP doesn't allow that.
The basic problem is this: for the past five years at least, accounts associated with the LaRouche movement have used Wikipedia to create articles about LaRouche's enemies, to add little barbs to existing BLPs, and to add conspiracy theories to BLPs and to other articles about the BLP subjects. Most of it was sourced to LaRouche publications. Sometimes there were other sources, but almost never good ones.
This used to happen a lot before we had BLP. Now, it seems clear to me that the spirit of BLP (even though it doesn't actually say this) is that people with personal axes to grind about living people shouldn't be editing articles about those people. The more we mature as a project, the more clarity there is around that issue. Dennis King, for example, should probably stay away from Lyndon LaRouche too, even though he's LaRouche's published biographer and knows a lot about him. But there were legal threats between them a few years ago, and obviously he had to immerse himself in LaRouche to write the biography, and he still maintains a website about LaRouche. That degree of offwiki involvement, even if 100 percent legitimate, probably means he should leave it to others to add his information to the LaRouche article. Keeping a distance in such a case protects LaRouche, King, and Wikipedia.
Whether Leatherstocking is a member of the movement or just a sympathizer doesn't matter. He's clearly intensely interested in and sympathetic toward LaRouche, and he's editing BLPs of people LaRouche doesn't like, and that's just not a good thing.
Finally (sorry for the length), the ArbCom did, as you say, explicitly address this situation in 2007 in an addition to LaRouche 2 (bold added): [66]
a pattern of adding original material, not an editor's own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Wikipedia articles,
a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.
The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Wikipedia. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV pushing on Wikipedia, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification.
It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.
(Disclosure: I performed a CheckUser during one of the recent AN/I threads and asked some experienced admins to review the matter, but I have no other involvement.) Will, I believe that if there is sufficient evidence to act that action may be taken at AN/I or by forwarding the information to the functionaries list without the direct intervention of the Committee. Regarding the applicability of the case per the clarification request, I believe (and she may correct me if I am mistaken) that SlimVirgin is referring to: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Post-decision motion passed. I am not endorsing any accusations or defenses in this instance, but it does seem that it clearly applies if the concerns are founded. Vassyana (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Vassyana that SlimVirgin is probably correct that LL2 does seem to apply, but I see no reason to believe this needs to be handled by the committee directly at this time. As far as I can tell, AN/I and AE are suitable venues. — Coren(talk) 12:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Vassyana's assessment of the situation, but the motion is not a remedy, just a restatement of the applicability of ordinary editorial policies. Editors in this topic area should have those policies in mind, not this motion. --bainer (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take a different tack here, to those of my colleagues, and step back and look at the wider picture. I looked at Lyndon LaRouche, LaRouche movement and then at articles on critics of the LaRouche movement (all in Category:Critics of the LaRouche Movement), articles such as Dennis King, Chip Berlet, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, John Rees (journalist) and Mike Royko. Some of those articles are of borderline notability (others are much more notable), and risk becoming a battleground over what to add and remove about LaRouche material (as has happened here with Dennis King). My advice with respect to editor conduct would be to try and work out a unified approach to dealing with such matters, rather than arguing over the same things in different articles. Get some editorial agreement on a guideline on how to approach such things, and build on the arbitration remedies and motions, rather than using them a club. I also see that the arguments for and against various sources are scattered over lots of talk pages and discussion archives. A well-written summary for permanent reference would help here as well. Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 [67] 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. [68]
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. [[69][70] 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, [71] but was reverted by Lar and Cla. [72][73] I therefore opened an article RfC [74] 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. [75] 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.
"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."
"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."
"[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."
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 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]
Statement by Cla68
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]
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 [76]. 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 hostilityand 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 [77], 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, [78][79][80][81]. 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 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]
Statement by Will Beback
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.[82] (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.[83] 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 Bebacktalk 12:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[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.[84] The following afternoon, while reviewing the contribution list of the mediation in which Leatherstocking (LS) and I were engaged,[85] 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."[86]Will Bebacktalk 05:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Lar
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 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]
Statement by Tznkai
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]
Statement by Mattisse
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]
Statement by Dtobias
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]
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
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. MBisanztalk 09:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[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]
Clerk noteUser: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. MBisanztalk 22:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator views and discussion
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]
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]
Concur with bainer. Vassyana (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[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]
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]
Per above, no intended harassment. Wizardman 17:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the above, and the RfC should address the content issue. Risker (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]