Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence
all proposed
Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.
- Only items that receive a majority yay vote will be enacted.
- Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
- Items that do not receive a majority yay or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
- Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.
Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.
Contents
|
[edit] Proposed principles
proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on
1) Wikipedia does not provide a forum for original research, see Wikipedia:No original research
- Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 1:
- Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 1:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 1:
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".
- Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 2:
- Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 2:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 2:
3) Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 3:
- Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 3:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 3:
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.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 4:
- Fred Bauder 01:13, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Gutza 14:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) Hey, it happens anyway on a subjective level, at least let's formalize it!
- Martin 16:10, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) But I might be more tolerant of them in some cases.
- mav 05:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 4:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 4:
5) Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 5:
- Fred Bauder 01:22, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 00:16, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) - calling someone, e.g., a 'fucking Jew' (unrelated to the current case) is a personal attack, even if they are Jewish and do occasionally fornicate)
- Gutza 14:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Martin 16:10, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) In general.
- mav 05:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 5:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 5:
6) Rewriting an article from scratch is fine if necessary under wikipedia:be bold, and is not unprecedented. It is not a forbidden activity on Wikipedia, though it should always be done responsibly.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 6:
- Martin 19:28, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Fred Bauder 20:14, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Delirium 00:42, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 6:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 6:
[edit] Proposed temporary orders
1) {text of proposed orders}
- Arbitrator votes for proposed temporary order 1:
- Arbitrator votes against proposed temporary order 1:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed temporary order 1:
[edit] Proposed findings of fact
proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on
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.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed finding of fact 1:
- Arbitrator votes against proposed finding of fact 1:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed finding of fact 1:
2) User Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed finding of fact 2:
- Arbitrator votes against proposed finding of fact 2:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed finding of fact 2:
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 [3].
- "I called Herschelkrustofsky a slanderous piece of filth", see [4].
- Arbitrator votes for proposed finding of fact 3:
- Arbitrator votes against proposed finding of fact 3:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed finding of fact 3:
4) There has been no abusive or negligent use of the page protection facility.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed finding of fact 4:
- Arbitrator votes against proposed finding of fact 4:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed finding of fact 4:
5) User Herschelkrustofsky has often been impolite and aggressive in dealing with those who disagree with him, as demonstrated on the Evidence page and typified by his characterisation of his opponents as a "lynch mob".
Arbitrator votes for proposed finding of fact 5:
- Arbitrator votes against proposed finding of fact 5:
- Fred Bauder 21:35, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
- mav 05:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed finding of fact 5:
6) User Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in personal attacks directed at User:Adam Carr though association with Adam Carr's employer, Michael Danby who he characterizes as "Australia's most outspokenly fascist Member of Parliament" see [5]
- Arbitrator votes for proposed finding of fact 6:
- Fred Bauder 13:55, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 18:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Martin 00:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delirium 00:42, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Arbitrator votes against proposed finding of fact 6:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed finding of fact 6:
[edit] Proposed remedies
proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on
[edit] Removal of original work
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.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 1:
- Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 1:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed remedy 1:
[edit] Editing of the article Lyndon LaRouche
2) User Herschelkrustofsky is prohibited from editing the article Lyndon LaRouche and closely related articles as well as their talk pages.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 2:
- Fred Bauder 12:44, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
- mav 05:43, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 2:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed remedy 2:
[edit] Adam Carr banned
3) User:Adam Carr is banned for one day for making a personal attack.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 3:
- Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 3:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed remedy 3:
[edit] References to Lyndon LaRouche
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.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 4:
- Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 4:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed remedy 4:
[edit] Longer Ban of Adam Carr
5) User:Adam Carr is banned for one week for engaging in a pattern of personal attacks during this arbitration.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 5:
- Fred Bauder 01:18, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 5:
- Set against remedy #2 (which I also oppose), I feel Fred's position is fair. However, it is too heavy-handed for my liking. Martin 22:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 00:21, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) Too harsh, but balanced, yes.
- Gutza 14:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) idem - I could support 3 days
- (maybe next time) mav 05:43, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed remedy 5:
[edit] Herschelkrustofsky banned for poor wikiquette
6) User:Herschelkrustofsky is banned for one day for poor wikiquette.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 6:
- Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 6:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed remedy 6:
[edit] Herschelkrustofsky banned for personal attacks
7) User Herschelkrustofsky is banned for one day for making personal attacks.
- Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 7:
- Covered by the poor wikiquette ban Fred Bauder 11:25, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Martin 19:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) (ditto, now #6 has been passed)
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed remedy 7:
[edit] Enforcement
proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on
[edit] Edit wars or re-insertion of original material
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.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed enforcement 1:
- Fred Bauder 12:13, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Martin 22:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I prefer #3, as helping empower the community to deal with this without us, but this can't hurt)
- James F. (talk) 00:21, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Agree with Martin - gosh! ;-))
- Gutza 14:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) ibidem
- mav 05:43, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Arbitrator votes against proposed enforcement 1:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed enforcement 1:
[edit] Editing of the article, Lyndon LaRouche
2) User Herschelkrustofsky is subject to a short ban upon discovery of any edit he has made to the article Lyndon LaRouche and closely related articles or their talk pages, the duration of the ban to gradually increase upon subsequent offenses.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed enforcement 2:
- Fred Bauder 12:44, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
- mav 05:43, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Arbitrator votes against proposed enforcement 2:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed enforcement 2:
[edit] Regarding protection of articles
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.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed enforcement 3:
- Arbitrator votes against proposed enforcement 3:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed enforcement 3:
[edit] Bans for personal attacks
4) In the event of additional personal attacks by either party, either User Herschelkrustofsky or User Adam Carr are subject to short bans (around a day), the duration of the ban to gradually increase upon subsequent offenses to a two week maximum. These bans may be imposed at the discretion of administrators, in a similar way to other personal attack paroles.
- Arbitrator votes for proposed enforcement 4:
- Fred Bauder 14:03, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 18:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Comme d'habitude.)
- Martin 19:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) (given Fred's clarification below, I support this. I've added some text to make our intention clear.)
- Arbitrator votes against proposed enforcement 4:
- Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed enforcement 4:
The administrator who imposes the block would decide [the ban length]. Short is one day or a bit more. But if the attacks continue blocks of several days. Just a tool to deal with repeated personal attacks, which both of these folks seem prone to. Fred Bauder 18:42, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion by arbitrators
It is alleged, "Herschelkrustofsky is a LaRouche activist whose sole interest here is protecting the LaRouche fantasy biography." I think this is the core of the dispute in this matter. Although this is on the surface a content issue, if the allegation is true no support for the "facts" in the "fantasy biography" should be found outside RaRouche controlled websites and written materials. This could be handled either by removing such material or clearly identifying it having its origin in LaRouche controlled media. Fred Bauder 11:54, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
I believe I have identified a deeper issue in this matter. It is exposed in the case of the article counterculture. The version advanced by Herschelkrustofsky can be seen here where it was removed by AndyL: [6]. What this is, is not POV as AndyL has it but original work, of the sort contemplated by Wikipedia:No original research. Fred Bauder 18:36, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Another matter is the valid assertion that user Herschelkrustofsky is engaged in advocacy for Lyndon LaRoache and his movement's views and persectives, see Lyndon LaRouche/draft which he advances as a suitable article. This is in violation of the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind". Fred Bauder 18:36, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
- While Adam's been the more impolite of the two, Herschel has also been somewhat inelegant in places, but this is not his major flaw - compared to the issues of original research and such.
- Rewriting an article from scratch is fine if necessary under wikipedia:be bold, and it's been done in a few cases. It's rare and often controversial to rewrite large articles from scratch, but not something we'd want to condemn. I'm not aware of any community consensus for or against such large rewrites, perhaps because it's rare? Personally I congratulate Adam for having the courage to do a rewrite, but who knows what the community might decide to set as policy in the area in the future? Martin 19:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The various discussions people had on wikipedia:auto-biography and the like are highly relevant here too. But, when I think of Daniel C. Boyer, I recall that Wikipedia was able to deal with the issue without requiring bans, rulings by Jimbo, or anything beyond folks editing with boldness and confidence. So is a remedy necessary? Martin 19:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Motion to close
This case has sat here for 3 weeks, untouched. In the absence of any new Arbitrators voting to seal up the other parts, I move to close.
James F. (talk) 22:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Second. Jwrosenzweig 20:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support Fred Bauder 20:45, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes. →Raul654 01:53, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Passed: Case closed
