Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-26 LaRouche intro

Mediation Case: LaRouche intro
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Tsunami Butler


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * ...Lyndon LaRouche


 * Who's involved?




 * What's going on?
 * ...An edit war began over the intro to the article. Mgunn said that statements sourced to LaRouche publications must be removed. Calton cited an Arbcom case which says that "1) Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." However, the disputed article IS Lyndon LaRouche. Mgunn and others have edited the intro so that it contains only criticism of LaRouche, with no mention of what makes him notable. When I added a quote from the Washington Post, this also was reverted by Mgunn. I believe that there have been other, subsequent edits which are biased and which violate the tenets of WP:BLP, WP:COI, and WP:NPOV. In particular, Dennis King, who edits Wikipedia as, has made over 100 edits this article which are very problematic from the standpoint of WP:COI, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV.

There has also, more recently, been revert warring and violations of Wikiquette, including this edit by Mgunn, where he reverted numerous edits to various unrelated sections of the article, by two different editors. --Tsunami Butler 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is now protected due to edit warring. --Tsunami Butler 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * ...I think that this article should conform to the same standards as other Wikipedia biographies of living persons. I believe that there is POV pushing going on by anti-LaRouche editors.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * ...I would prefer that you work publicly. The Wikipedia community should be aware of what is going on here.


 * I, Mgunn, removed statements which were some combiantion of (1) factually inaccurate (2) sourced using LaRouche publications and (3) didn't say what the source said. People are entitled to their own opinion on LaRouche, but not their own facts.  LaRouche publication material CAN be used to source the viewpoints of LaRouche, but LaRouche material is NOT a reliable source on general facts or the viewpoints of others.  I removed incorrect statements of the second type.  This view is fully backed up by and consistent with the ArbCom's ruling that reinsertion of material from a  LaRouche publication into a non-LaRouche article is grounds for a ban.  LaRouche material is too completely filled with factual inaccuracies, zany conspiracies etc... to be reliable on any subject other than the viewpoint of LaRouche.  This is the general logic and essence of the ArbCom ruling.


 * Hopefully this minor flare up will soon calm down, but if any editor is concerned, I invite them to review the Lyndon LaRouche talk page. Essentially, ManEatingDonut and Tsunami Butler have continually inserted misleading, superfluous, or false material in order to make LaRouche sound like a well respected, mainstream political figure; he isn't.  Just recently, ManEatingDonut was temporarily banned for "once again reinserting material emanating from the LaRouche movement into an article not related to it, namely restoring the article Eurasian Land-Bridge."  LaRouche thinks that various governments and companies are currently constructing some giant maglev train to network Japan, China, Russia, and Europe.  This is obviously wacko.  Once again, ManEatingDonut and Tsunami Butler are entitled to their own opinion of LaRouche, but not their own facts.  I'm trying to be fair, and I've tried to find alternative sources for some material that I think actually is correct.  If everyone is intellectually honest, I think these disputes can be handled in a quiet and fair manner, but if any enforcement action is warranted, it might eventually have to be against certain people who keep throwing in bogus material that wouldn't even cut it in a 6th grade research paper.  On the other hand, I fully support honest edits that are accurate, relevant, not misleading, and properly sourced.  Basic Wikipedia standards should be followed on all articles, including Lyndon LaRouche.Mgunn 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response
Related link: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche  --Ideogram 06:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This case seems to have been superseded by the discussion linked to above. If there are no objections within the next few days I will close this case. --Ideogram 05:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to object in the strongest possible terms. The link above concerns a policy that applies throughout Wikipedia, and is not specific to this article. Meanwhile, the edit warring on this article is out of control, resulting in the return of page protection. We need mediation in the worst sort of way. --Tsunami Butler 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All right, if you insist. However, I have no control over who will take on your case or when.  You might want to file a request with WP:MEDCOM.  --Ideogram 08:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Closing. --Ideogram 12:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion
Mediator response ''Suggest deletion of LaRouche from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for serious articles. (Strikethrough on 1/31/2007 - posting was on 22:04, 25 December 2006 by User:81.96.191.70, the first edits by that account. -- John Broughton  (☎☎) 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

Um, call me crazy, but if articles about obscure basketball players, video game programmers (with 4 pictures!), and something that never happened are serious articles, then I think it might be good to have something about a |prominent, controversial, right-wing American populist, who won two (non-binding) Democratic primaries, and appears to be mentioned in 650 places on Wikipedia. --Achumawi 16:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC) (innocent bystander/spectator, definitely NOT a LaRouche-ite)


 * Before you get worked up, realize that Wikipedia gets vandalized. That supposed "mediator" response was simply vandalism. Mgunn 17:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha! thanks. I THOUGHT that was a rather severe position on the matter! ^) --Achumawi 17:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * i have started discussion at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/medcab06-07. G  e  o .  Talk to me  03:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Could someone say what the status of this is, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming by the lack of response that there is no mediator and no case. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that Ideogram has closed it. SlimVirgin (talk)  21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)