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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Lyndon LaRouche State: Closed Requested By: Tsunami Butler Other Parties: Multiple Mediated By: Geo.plrd (talk · contribs) Comments: Working on solutions

Contents 1 Mediation Case: LaRouche intro 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: LaRouche intro

Mediation, arbitration, requests for clarification, and other discussions about the LaRouche movement, 2004-2007 This box: view • talk • edit
ArbCom clarification/enforcement, AN/I, 2005-7
Enforcement, MaplePorter, Sep 19, 2007 Clarification, Nathan/DLTN, July 23, 2007 Enforcement, Herschelkrustofsky (HK) Clarification, Tsunami Butler", Apr 1, 2007 Clarification, Appeal, Jan 24, 2007 Clarification, ManEatingDonut, Nov 22, 2006 Clarification, LaRouche, Oct 23, 2006 HK probation, Apr 15, 2006 HK/BirdsOfFire, Mar 31, 2006 HK blocked, Sep 29, 2005
Arbitration 2006
HK banned, May 5, 2006.
Arbitration 2005
N_ and others, Nov 2005. Cognition's statement, Nov 22, 2005. Modification of LaRouche 2, Dec 23, 2005. HK indef probation, Dec 23, 2005 LaRouche 2, Jan 25, 2005–Feb 17, 2005. LaRouche 2 talk LaRouche 2 evidence LaRouche 2 proposed decision LaRouche 2 proposed decision talk
Arbitration 2004
LaRouche 1, July 4—Sep 13, 2004. LaRouche 1 talk LaRouche 1 evidence LaRouche 1 evidence talk LaRouche 1 proposed decision LaRouche 1 proposed decision talk
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Med cabal talk, Feb 17, 2007 Med cabal/Tsunami Butler, Nov 26, 2006
Mediation 2004
HK and AndyL, July 3, 2004 HK and DJSupreme23, Jun 14, 2004 HK and Adam Carr, Nov 15, 2004 HK and SlimVirgin, Dec 16, 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche Lyndon LaRouche 1, Jan 17–Jun 17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 2, Jun 20–22, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 3, Jun 21–24, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche draft, June 24-25, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 4, Jun 25–July 5, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 5, Jul 05–Aug 1, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish, June–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche HK list, July–Aug 2004 Lyndon LaRouche HK list archive Lyndon LaRouche 6, Aug 6-9, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 7, Aug 11-17, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche omissions, Sep 9-10, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 8, Aug 18–Sep 28, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 9, Sep 18–Oct 11, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche 10, Dec 2004–Jan 20, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche archive, material missing Lyndon LaRouche 11, Jan 20–Jul 19, 2005 Lyndon LaRouche 12, Jul 2005–Nov 12, 2006 Lyndon LaRouche 13, Nov 2006—Feb 18, 2007
Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche Political views temp Political views 1, Aug 21–Nov 29, 2004 Political views 2, Dec 2004–Jan 11, 2005 Political views 3, Jan 2005–Oct 02, 2006 "Cooked quotes", Jan 22–23, 2005 Political views mediation, Feb 27–Mar 04, 2006
Talk:Amelia Boynton Robinson Talk:American School (economics) Talk:American School/archive1 Talk:American School/archive2 Talk:Anti-Defamation League Talk:Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität Talk:Dirigisme Talk:Helga Zepp-LaRouche Talk:Jeremiah Duggan Talk:Jeremiah Duggan 1, Nov 14–Dec 6, 2004 Talk:Jeremiah Duggan 2, Dec 2004–Jan 2005 Talk:John Train Salon Talk:Kenneth Kronberg Talk:LaRouche Movement Talk:LaRouche Youth Movement Talk:Schiller Institute Talk:Schiller Institute/archive1 Talk:Synarchism Talk:Tavistock Clinic Talk:Tavistock Institute Talk:Tavistock Institute 1, Nov '04–June '06 Talk:United States v. LaRouche Zayed Center
Template talk
Template talk:LaRouche Template talk:LaRouchetalk
Categories
HK sockpuppets

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Tsunami Butler

Where is the issue taking place?

...Lyndon LaRouche

Who's involved?

Tsunami Butler (talk · contribs)

ManEatingDonut (talk · contribs)

Will Beback (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

Mgunn (talk · contribs)

172 (talk · contribs)

NathanDW (talk · contribs)

Calton (talk · contribs)

Cberlet (talk · contribs)

Dking (talk · contribs)

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 Dking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), has made over 100 edits this article which are very problematic from the standpoint of WP:COI#Citing_oneself, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] 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 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. Geo. 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. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)