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.
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#Lyndon_LaRouche)
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 respondent User: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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#User:Herschelkrustofsky_and_User:Homey and User_talk:Bcorr#.95_Mediation_request:_Herschelkrustofsky_and_Homey. -- BCorr| Брайен, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee. 16:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence and Talk:Frankfurt School. User:Homey 16:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Homey seems to have developed a heartfelt interest in the articles he cites, only after having launched his "edit cleansing" campaign against me (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence#Homey.27s_role). 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)
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.
1) Wikipedia does not provide a forum for original research, see Wikipedia:No original research
2) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".
3) Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks.
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.
5) Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.
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, [1]. This is then followed by further linkings such as that in this edit of the article Frankfurt School, [2] which form a pattern of attempting to insert the original work of Lyndon LaRouche into Wikipedia.
2) User Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.
3) User:Adam Carr has engaged in personal attacks on User Herschelkrustofsky. Examples include:
4) There has been no abusive or negligent use of the page protection facility.
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.
3) User:Adam Carr is banned for one day for making a personal attack.
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.
6) User:Herschelkrustofsky is banned for one day for poor wikiquette.
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.
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.
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.
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#Lyndon_LaRouche)
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 respondent User: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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#User:Herschelkrustofsky_and_User:Homey and User_talk:Bcorr#.95_Mediation_request:_Herschelkrustofsky_and_Homey. -- BCorr| Брайен, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee. 16:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence and Talk:Frankfurt School. User:Homey 16:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Homey seems to have developed a heartfelt interest in the articles he cites, only after having launched his "edit cleansing" campaign against me (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence#Homey.27s_role). 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)
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.
1) Wikipedia does not provide a forum for original research, see Wikipedia:No original research
2) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".
3) Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks.
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.
5) Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.
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, [1]. This is then followed by further linkings such as that in this edit of the article Frankfurt School, [2] which form a pattern of attempting to insert the original work of Lyndon LaRouche into Wikipedia.
2) User Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.
3) User:Adam Carr has engaged in personal attacks on User Herschelkrustofsky. Examples include:
4) There has been no abusive or negligent use of the page protection facility.
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.
3) User:Adam Carr is banned for one day for making a personal attack.
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.
6) User:Herschelkrustofsky is banned for one day for poor wikiquette.
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.
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.