Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche

Case closed

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statement of complaint
I am requesting arbitration with respect to an edit war over article Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche is undoubtably an unusually controversial person; I began editing an article that had obviously been subject to many, many edits already. I was scrupulous about acknowledging the controversy, and the existence of opposing viewpoints; I concentrated on addressing outright falsehood, or dubious assertions made without documentation.

The problem began on June 20 when User:Adam_Carr simply eliminated the article, and posted a new one, which is a fanatical attack, and would be considered libelous back in the days when libel laws were taken seriously. He simultaneously proclaimed his intention to pursue a revert war. He was supported in this by User:John_Kenney, who also took the position that no article should be permitted that was not a full-on character assassination.

As soon as I reached the conclusion that Adam would not discuss, only revert (it appears that he has an history of this approach to disputes), I posted a request for mediation. The page (Adam's version) was protected by User:Mirv on June 21. Both Adam and John refused mediation. In subsequent discussion, John (who is a sysop) became somewhat more open to negotiation, but has not participated now for several days. Adam has indicated that he has no intention of negotiating anything, and his comments on the talk page have degenerated to the point of mere invective. He has also, in fact, boasted that he habitually deals with this sort of situation by protracted revert wars, and that he has historically gotten away with it. Today (June 30) the article was unprotected, and I made edits on Adam's article that I think will stand up to the harshest NPOV scrutiny. Adam immediately reverted to his version. I am asking for arbitration because I believe that Adam's behavior constitutes vandalism.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) (see User_talk:Everyking)
 * I would like to add User:Homey to this request, as he has joined with Adam and John and has now begun a campaign of systematically reverting every edit I have ever made. --Herschelkrustofsky 11:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Can someone be added retroactively once a request has already been made and without the opportunity for mediation? And I have not been "reverting every edit (Hershell) ever made" I've been removing paragraphs which had been inserted into disparate articles with the intent of artificially inflating the importance of Lyndon LaRouche eg LaRouche as the foremost proponentof the "American System" alive today, the Voting Rights Act being defunct because the courts ruled against LaRouche in the 1980s, LaRouche's "peace plan" for the middle east in an article on attempts to improve Arab-Israeli relations etc,. User:Homey 12:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note from Mediation Committee: User:Adam Carr and User:John Kenney have both declined mediation with User:Herschelkrustofsky regarding Lyndon LaRouche as of 21 June 2004. For more information, please see this version of the article's talk page for the discussion regarding mediation, as well as the current version on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche for subsequent developments. BCorr, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee. 00:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've decided to decline mediation as well so please continue to include me in this arbitration as a respondentUser:Homey 14:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note from Mediation Committee: Just to confirm, User:Homey has now declined mediation with User:Herschelkrustofsky after interference from User:Sam Spade as of 9 July 2004. For more information, please see Requests_for_mediation and User_talk:Bcorr. -- BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee. 16:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Do I get to comment here? The facts of this matter are perfectly simple, and were recently set out by me at some length at the article's Talk page. Herschelkrustofsky is a LaRouche activist whose sole interest here is protecting the LaRouche fantasy biography. Anyone familiar with the LaRouche movement will recognise his style and tactics. John, Homey and I have been trying to write a proper encyclopaedia article about LaRouche, a difficult task given the limited sources, but one I think we have done a reasonable job of. I am confident that anyone who reviews the whole history of this matter will conclude that Herschelkrustofsky is no more than a partisan pest, who ought to be firmly told to desist and let genuine Wikipedians get on with the job. Adam 10:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Counterclaim by respondant Homey
Herschell admits to being a follower of Lyndon LaRouche, a controversial political figure who many in the mainstream have accused of being a cult leader. He has systematically edited Wikipedia to insert a pro-LaRouche POV and to elevate the importance of LaRouche and his organisation or otherwise promote his organisation. This varies from edits which add external links to articles in LaRouche publications to adding paragraphs to articles making elevated claims about the importance of LaRouche to a particular issue or theory or project. These edits tend to be of dubious value and make dubious claims which do not withstand scrutiny. Herschell's [Eurasian Land-Bridge] article for instance consisted entirely of information culled from the LaRouche organisation and is completely unsupported by outside sources. Herschell's attempts to prove the claims made in the article have been debunked ( see this Talk page )

Herschell also added claims to the Voting Rights Act article claiming that the Act was "effectively nullified" by the judgement in a legal case involving Lyndon LaRouche yet when I asked him in Talk to find some neutral third party sources such as law books or journals which would support his case that the LaRouche trial has any bearing on the act or is at all important he was unable to do so.

In the American System (economics) article Herschell made the following claim: "The most outspoken proponent of American System Economics in the early 20th Century was Dr. Sun Yat-sen. Today, it is the American politician and economist Lyndon LaRouche" a claim that is not supported by any neutral parties and which ignores the fact that LaRouche is not a trained economist and would not be considered an "economist" by others in that field.

In the article Projects working for a peace among Israelis and Arabs Hershell added a reference to Lyndon LaRouche's peace plan (The "Oasis Plan") for the region, a plan which has not been taken under consideration by either side or indeed by anyone outside of the LaRouche movement. The only purpose in referencing this plan is to elevate the importance of LaRouche and help create the false impression that he is an international statesman of some importance.

Herschell is editing at cross purposes with the goal of wikipedia. His edits do not help wikipedia become a serious, comprehensive encyclopedia but instead are designed to promote Lyndon LaRouche. If he is successful and his edits go unchallenged he will bring this project into disrepute by having it pass off claims that no one in the real world, let alone the world of academe take seriously. At best he is a nuisance, at worst he is a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia. User:Homey 22:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that Herschell's habit of inserting LaRouche propaganda throughout wikipedia should be considered a form of vandalism. User:Homey 01:15, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Addendum; Herschel is refusing to provide supporting evidence for his edits in Frankfurt School where he has added Lyndon LaRouche as the third major school of criticism of the Frankfurt School. He is relying on Page Protection to enforce his view and refusing to engage in the sort of discussion on Talk which Page Protection is supposed to create time and space for. He is thus failing in his responsibilities as an editor and abusing the page protection mechanism. See Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence and Talk:Frankfurt School. User:Homey 16:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response by Herschelkrustofsky
Homey seems to have developed a heartfelt interest in the articles he cites, only after having launched his "edit cleansing" campaign against me (see Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence). I think a careful examination of the page histories of the pages where Homey has attacked my work, will demonstrate that Homey had no interest in any of them, prior to his decision to launch an editing vendetta against me.

Also, Homey is misrepresenting my responses to his allegations on the various talk pages, particularly when he alleges that I am "refusing to provide supporting evidence" for my edit in Frankfurt School. His arguments are highly sophistical and self-serving; I encourage the arbitrators to read the relevant Talk pages and draw their own conclusions. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is of course true that neither Homey not I had previously edited the various articles we have been vetting for LaRouche propaganda. It is a pity that other editors have not been sufficiently vigilant (or well-informed perhaps) to have undertaken a similar project. But the importance of such a project is shown by the amount of blatant LaRouche propaganda and total arrant nonsense we have found in and deleted from these articles. In my view every edit Krusty has ever made to any article needs to be vetted, and on current evidence two-thirds of them will need to be deleted. Adam 05:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Adam's sophistry is almost entertaining; he laments the fact that his particularly inflamed and arrogant POV is not shared by other editors at Wikipedia, and if only the other editors would get on the stick, he wouldn't have to go charging around, reverting anything that he disagrees with. The arbitrators should please note that I am not the first Wikipedian to be subjected to Adam's "robust tactics"; he practically brags of this in Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Responses to Homey's Counterclaim

 * Eurasian Land-Bridge: An examination of that talk page will show that I did provide outside sources. I did so in a hurried fashion, and some of the citations I provided were not relevant, while others were. Homey in fact acknowledges the relevance of those latter citations (contradicting his assertions above), while proceeding to nit-pick them. I invite arbitrators to visit this talk page and draw their own conclusions.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Voting Rights Act: Homey is once again misrepresenting the debate. I invite arbitrators to visit Talk:Voting_Rights_Act and draw their own conclusions.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * American System (Economics): The importance of LaRouche with respect to that article, is that he has pretty much singlehandedly resurrected American System Economics from obscurity. I invited Homey to name a more prominent advocate of the American System, and he did not respond (I won't say he "refused", as Homey would do in my place). Homey also linked American System (economics) to the personal homepage of a Libertarian Party activist, who denounces Henry Clay as a National Socialist, and to a rabid slander of Abraham Lincoln by the Von Mises Institute. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Projects working for a peace among Israelis and Arabs/Oasis Plan: LaRouche delivered an address on this topic in 1975 at the Baath party conference in Baghdad. The government of Iraq was to have sponsored a conference on this topic later that year at its embassy in France, but the conference was cancelled due to pressure from the U.S. Department of State. Several presentations on the Oasis Plan have been made during the past several years at the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up in Abu Dhabi. See also this interview with Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator's opinions on hearing this matter

 * 1) Accept Fred Bauder 04:09, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Accept James F. (talk) 20:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Accept, I think. Martin 21:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Accept the Epopt 01:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Final decision
''Voting still in progress at /Proposed decision (same numbering). Below are the items that have passed with a majority of arbitrators as of 2 August 2004. Additional items will be placed here when and if they reach a majority in favor.''

Principles
1) Wikipedia does not provide a forum for original research, see No original research
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

2) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

3) Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

4) Personal attacks which occur during the course of arbitration either on the arbitration pages or on the talk pages of the arbitrators fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

5) Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

Findings of fact
1) User Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in a pattern of adding original material, not his own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Wikipedia articles, see for example, the material in the article, counterculture, . This is then followed by further linkings such as that in this edit of the article Frankfurt School, which form a pattern of attempting to insert the original work of Lyndon LaRouche into Wikipedia.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

2) User Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

3) User:Adam Carr has engaged in personal attacks on User Herschelkrustofsky. Examples include:
 * "Because LaRouchism is a cult, its adherents are incapable of objective thought on any subject, let alone the subject of the cult leader's own biography." See.
 * "I called Herschelkrustofsky a slanderous piece of filth", see.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

4) There has been no abusive or negligent use of the page protection facility.
 * Passed with 4 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

Remedies
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.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

3) User:Adam Carr is banned for one day for making a personal attack.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

4) Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

6) User:Herschelkrustofsky is banned for one day for poor wikiquette.
 * Passed with 5 of 8 active arbitrators on 17 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

Enforcement
1) Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

3) If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions