Case Opened on January 25, 2005

Case Closed on 17 February 2005

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. 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.

Complaint regarding Herschelkrustofsky (contribs), Weed Harper (contribs), C Colden (contribs), and IP address 64.30.208.48 (contribs) by User:SlimVirgin and others.

Please limit your statement to 500 words Request arbitration regarding Lyndon LaRouche, specifically the actions of User:Weed Harper and User:Herschelkrustofsky, who, according to JayJG David Gerard, are dev confirmed to be the same person. In any case, there has been a long-standing edit war on LaRouche-related articles between LaRouche supporters (Namely Weed and Herschel) and LaRouche opponents (A rotating bunch including Adam Carr, and, most recently, CBerlet, who brings the added benefit of being mentioned in a number of the LaRouche articles. The dispute rages unchecked. Many sources are cited, but each side accuses the other of being unreliable - the pro-LaRouche side views the anti-LaRouche side as being a conspiracy agianst LaRouche, and the anti-LaRouche side views all LaRouche material as propaganda that is not read at all outside of the LaRouche movement.

Specifically, I request arbitration on these issues: Whether sockpuppetry by Weed/Herschel has violated policy due to a deliberate effort to appear as multiple editors instead of one. Whether LaRouche-based material is a usable source in any article content. (Previous rulings on this matter have suggested that it is not on non-LaRouche related material - the question is whether it is usable on any material at all) And, finally, whether Weed/Herschel has engaged in POV pushing, lack of witiquette, and other assorted violations of the sort generally associated with problem users. Snowspinner 02:20, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I am not involved in the dispute personally, however I direct you to [1] which is the latest request for page protection, [2] which is the stalled mediation request, [3] and [4] which give good sense of the viciousness with which the edit war is being conducted, [5] where you can peruse the edit war. Note also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, which is the previous case on the matter. Snowspinner 03:52, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I am in the process of putting together the diffs for an arbitration case that I intended to request against these users. However, I can quickly put together a request to add to Snowspinner's, if I could be given a couple of hours, where I can show evidence of attempts at dispute resolution, and can cite specific examples of violations of policy. SlimVirgin 04:00, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration committee is requested to make a ruling as to whether user accounts Herschelkrustofsky, Weed Harper and C Colden are in violation of the August 2004 arbitration ruling that: "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed . . . not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche." [6]

User accounts Herschelkrustofsky (contribs), Weed Harper (contribs), C Colden (contribs), and IP address 64.30.208.48 (contribs) have engaged in a pattern of promotion of the Lyndon LaRouche movement, which is widely regarded as a political cult. Their contribution histories show that almost all their edits have been LaRouche-related. The same user accounts appear also to have posted using a number of AOL IP addresses and AOL proxies.

A developer has confirmed that: "On technical evidence, combined with similarity in posting patterns, Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper can be considered to be operated by the same person. C Colden is either the same person or working in coordination with them, but is not *firmly* established to be the same person."

Evidence that 64.30.208.48 is also related to the accounts: On July 15 at Talk:Michael Danby, Adam Carr declined to respond to a comment from 64.30.208.48 because it was anonymous. [7] The next entry on the page was three weeks later from Weed Harper responding to Adam Carr with: "I am no longer anonymous. I have a Wikipedia logon now." [8]

The promotion of LaRouche takes the form of the deletion of material unfavorable to LaRouche; the addition of material favorable to him, either with no references or with reference only to LaRouche publications; the creation of articles intended to serve as a platform or showcase for LaRouche material; and attacks on Wikipedia editors who stand up to them. Often, the material inserted appears to have no basis in reality, but is entirely a product of the LaRouche movement. This pattern of behavior has been on-going since the first user account Herschelkrustofsky was set up in May 2004. Despite going through mediation and arbitration, nothing has changed.

The accounts Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper have assumed ownership of most of the 17 articles on Template:LaRouche, and any other article that they believe is related to LaRouche. The result is that none of these articles reflects what mainstream or significant-minority commentators say about the LaRouche movement. The LaRouche user accounts have caused so much dissent that there are now numerous breakaway articles about LaRouche and his groups, when in reality his movement does not warrant this much space. The LaRouche talk pages amount to over 185,000 words: see Template:LaRouche Talk. There are omissions of fact and omission of mainstream opinion which render the articles misleading. The Schiller Institute page, for example, stresses the cultural activities of the organization, whereas in reality, it is regarded as a far-right political cult, whose members have complained of brain-washing techniques, but little of this is mentioned. Until recently, the page on Helga Zepp-LaRouche contained a photograph of LaRouche's wife standing in front of the "eastern terminus of the Eurasian Land Bridge." [9] But there is no eastern terminus of the Eurasian Land Bridge, because the bridge exists only as a figment of LaRouche's imagination. There are many other inaccuracies, too numerous to mention here, woven throughout the entire LaRouche template.

The attacks on editors take the form of accusing the editors of being anti-LaRouche activists, in an attempt to poison the well in terms of those editors' reputations. The LaRouche accounts engage in seemingly endless arguments on the Talk pages, so that most editors eventually get worn down and give up. They are known to have caused problems for editors with very different political views and editing styles, including but not limited to: Bcorr, AndyL, Adam Carr, Cberlet, DJ Supreme23, John Kenney, Slim Virgin, Xtra, and 172.

If the user accounts Herschelkrustofy and Weed Harper are operated by the same person, they have been used to violate 3RR. At Lyndon LaRouche on Jan 22, they reverted four times in 19 hrs and 30 mins. The page history is here. [10] At 01:29 on that date, Herschel reverted [11]. At 07:28, Weed Harper reverted [12]. At 16:07, Herschel reverted. [13] At 21:07, Weed Harper reverted. [14]

On Jan 24, Herschelkrustofsky reverted five times in two hours at Lyndon LaRouche; using deceptive edit summaries, and rearranging text so that it was hard to see what he was doing. Page history here [15] Here are the diffs of just one of the changes, but there were several others:

• Herschel deleted a quote from LaRouche regarding his view of the "black ghetto mother" at 6:45 Jan 23 [16]
• Again at 02:01 Jan 24 [17]
• Again at 03:07 Jan 24 [18]
• Again at 03:26 Jan 24 [19]
• Again at 03:35 Jan 24 [20]
• Again at 04:05 Jan 24 [21]

Herschelkrustofsky was blocked for 24 hours on January 24 for 3RR violation, and Weed Harper was blocked for 48 hours for posting while under a block.

The most recent was between Herschelkrustofsky and SlimVirgin. On December 17, SlimVIrgin set up a subpage at User:SlimVirgin/references to discuss with Herschelkrustofsky the need to use reliable references, and to establish a relationship based on civility. Herschel continued to discuss detailed points rather than address the substantive issue, and after a few days stopped replying to posts.

Between August and October, there was informal mediation between Herschel, Adam Carr, and AndyL by Snowspinnner, which resulted in compromise versions of the LaRouche articles, but which did not address the issue of the editors' behavior; and the behavior did not change.

There is a current Request for Mediation between Herschelkrustofsky and Adam Carr [22] regarding the former's editing of Australian articles, namely Michael Danby, William Spence, Frank Anstey, John Dunmore Lang, King O'Malley, and Daniel Deniehy.

Apart from the mediation with Snowspinner and the current RfC with Adam Carr, there have been three other rejected requests for mediation from Herschekrustofsky in the eight months since the user account was set up: User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:AndyL [23]; User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:DJSupreme23 [24]; and User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:SlimVirgin [25].

In August, there was an Arbitration Committee ruling, which stated: [26]

• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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.

Because the ruling allowed LaRouche publications to be used in "closely related" articles, the LaRouche editors made constant attempts to extend the definition of that to cover even critics of LaRouche. For example, journalist Dennis King, who wrote a book about LaRouche 20 years ago, was considered by them to be "closely related". In addition, the LaRouche supporters interpret the ruling to mean they can insert as much material from a LaRouche point of view as they wish in LaRouche-related articles, rather than ensuring that the articles reflect that LaRouche's views on himself are not held by most commentators.

That the user accounts Herschelkrustofsky, Weed Harper, C Colden, and IP address 64.30.208.48 be prohibited from:

• editing articles on Template:LaRouche
• editing the talk pages on Template:LaRouche Talk
• creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement

These user accounts may request that Cberlet and possibly also SlimVirgin be prohibited from editing the LaRouche pages too. It is requested that this not be granted them, as this is precisely what they want. Cberlet and SlimVirgin have violated no policies and are editing in good faith. Cberlet is extremely knowledgeable about the LaRouche movement, as he is an investigative journalist (Chip Berlet) who has studied the LaRouche movement. In an effort to discredit him, the LaRouche user accounts have accused him of fabricating or "cooking" LaRouche quotes, but the accusation is untrue. Cberlet has posted the contexts of the quotes, and has even posted an image file of the relevant publications on the website of the company he works for, Political Research Associates. Weed Harper recently set up an "evidence" page regarding the cooked-quote allegation at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence of "cooked quotes". When that didn't work, they accused him of doing original research because he has quoted from his own published articles (though he does so carefully and not excessively).

Currently, editors Cberlet, Willmcw, and SlimVirgin are attempting to edit the three main LaRouche pages (Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, Lyndon LaRouche, and United States v. LaRouche), but have had to create "sandboxes" so the editing can be done without interference from the LaRouche editors (see e.g. Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox. They would like to be able to continue to work toward making these articles NPOV. SlimVirgin 05:01, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

• It is worthy of note that the "stalled mediation request" [27] is not directly a LaRouche-related matter, although there is clearly bad blood on Adam's part, most likely a residue of the first arbcom case. I would like it to be noted that my conduct here ([28]) is very civil, in contrast to Adam's.

• The various computers and internet accounts that I use to edit Wikipedia are shared with many other people, including Weed Harper. I regard SlimVirgin's accusations of multiple identities as petty harassment.

• Regarding the reliability of LaRouche publications as sources:

• • Given the controversial nature of LaRouche's movement, and his many vociferous critics, the factual accuracy of the LaRouche publications is scrupulously checked, since lawsuits would otherwise be certain

• • Prominent personalities choose EIR as a vehicle for making their views known to the world. For example:
    • General Anthony Zinni, in the Spring of 2004, launched his political offensive against the neoconservative leadership of the Pentagon with an interview in EIR, before moving on to "60 Minutes" and the entire circuit of televison "talking heads" programs.
    • Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg granted this interview to EIR to make known his contempt for the decision of George Bush and Ariel Sharon to abandon the Oslo Accords.

• With respect to conflict resolution, note that all requests for mediation, and the previous request for arbitration, were made by myself. I have not refused any other request for mediation. SlimVirgin turned down my request for mediation [29]. Snowspinner can also attest to the fact that the day before this arbitration request was initiated, I sent a Wikipedia e-mail to Snowspinner, asking him to visit the LaRouche talk pages to provide a relatively neutral voice in the debate.

As a note, I never recieved any such e-mail. Snowspinner 18:32, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

• With respect to the August 2004 arbitration ruling that: "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed . . . not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche," I have restricted my use of LaRouche sources to the articles presently listed in Template:LaRouche (which template was created by AndyL). Any other cases, of which none come to mind, would be the posting of rebuttal information if I find that LaRouche is mentioned in a misleading way. In the example of Dennis King, cited by Slim Virgin, I did edit the article, but used non-LaRouche sources. SlimVirgin asserts that I have been involved in "the creation of articles intended to serve as a platform or showcase for LaRouche material," but names no examples. In fact, the articles on the LaRouche template, with the exception of Lyndon LaRouche and Janice Hart, which pre-date my Wikipedia participation, were largely created by AndyL and Adam Carr. I created Amelia Boynton Robinson, Schiller Institute and Helga Zepp LaRouche prior to the first arbcom decision.

• If you examine my edit history between October 10, 2004 -- the cessation of disputes between Adam Carr, AndyL, Weed Harper and myself -- and the beginning of SlimVirgin's edits to Schiller Institute on November 14, you will note that my edits were predominately non-LaRouche related. I contend that I am being forced to devote my editing time to these articles to defend them against POV editing. SlimVirgin objects to being called an "Anti-LaRouche activist", but no person who looks at his edit history, or the sheer volume of time he has devoted to disputing LaRouche articles and simply harrassing me personally, could fail to come to that conclusion. With regard to Chip Berlet, his credentials as an anti-LaRouche activist are impeccable; much of his professional career has revolved around attacks on LaRouche. His edits to Wikipedia have consisted largely of simply inserting material from anti-LaRouche web pages he has authored. SlimVirgin mentions the page set up by Weed Harper, Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence of "cooked quotes", saying that it "didn't work," but I disagree; I think that the evidence on that page is a compelling indictment of Chip Berlet's practices as a "journalist" and as a Wikipedia editor, and I recommend that members of the arbcom read it for themselves. And to put a fine point on the matter, I contend that defending LaRouche articles against POV edits cannot be considered to be "promotion of LaRouche."

• SlimVirgin complains that "Until recently, the page on Helga Zepp-LaRouche contained a photograph of LaRouche's wife standing in front of the "eastern terminus of the Eurasian Land Bridge." [30] But there is no eastern terminus of the Eurasian Land Bridge, because the bridge exists only as a figment of LaRouche's imagination." I invite members of this committee to inspect the photo that so aroused the ire of SlimVirgin, Image:SilkRoadLady.jpg -- you will see Helga Zepp LaRouche being interviewed by Chinese journalists in front of a monument erected by the government of China, with the inscription, in English: Eastern Terminal of the Eurasia Landbridge. This is supposed to be an example of an "inaccuracy."

• Regarding SlimVirgin's implication that I have been uncooperative with respect to Dispute Resolution, I need only remind him that all the mediation requests were initiated by myself, and the one requested of SlimVirgin was rejected by SlimVirgin.

• I find it particularly revealing that SlimVirgin asks that pro-LaRouche editors be prohibited from editing talk pages on LaRouche articles. SlimVirgin is asking for a license to pursue POV edits with no scrutiny.

--HK 01:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In What Wikipedia is not, it says: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind."

In this edit to a talk page, CBerlet announces that he will be "documenting my claims that LaRouche is a fascist, antisemitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, crackpot, and crook." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for Berlet's personal theories.

Although the mainstream media did offer Chip Berlet (who is the same person as User:Cberlet) a limited platform to present some of his theories back in the 1980s, the material he seeks to introduce into Wikipedia is predominately not material that has been published in mass-circulation publications, but rather material that is considerably more arcane and esoteric, which originates from a website called Political Research Associates that is dominated by essays by Chip Berlet. It says in Wikipedia:No_original_research that:

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancilliary article), regardless if it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not.

I believe that the following edits by Cberlet violate the policy on No Original research: [31](The theory that LaRouche's views reflect something called palingenesis and should therefore be regarded as neofascistic) and [32](the theory that an emotional crisis caused by the break-up of his first marriage caused LaRouche to completely revise his political theory). When the latter material was removed by Weed Harper on the grounds that is was original research, it was restored by SlimVirgin in this edit.

In Cberlet's response, he defends these insertions on the grounds that the quoted material has been published. I don't dispute the fact that it is published, but I would remind members of the committee that there is a tremendous amount of material that has been published, but is still unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The criterion is clear: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia." The theories that Berlet defends are held by himself, Matthew Lyons, Dennis King, possibly Russ Bellant, and possibly SlimVirgin. They have not and will not "become a permanent feature of the public landscape." [33] They are motivated not by highly original scholarship, but by the fierce animus of their proponents.

In Wikipedia#Neutral_point_of_view it says: "Wikipedia is grounded in the idea that all of its articles need to be written from a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." The edits cited at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence of "cooked quotes" are at the very least a violation of NPOV policy, and arguably a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader.

I ask that these examples be found to be violations of Wikipedia policy, and that Cberlet, SlimVirgin, and Willmcw be warned against future violations of this sort, with some sanctions to apply if the warnings are ignored. --HK 21:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to ask the Arbitration Committee to correct an error made by the previous ArbCom in its ruling in the first LaRouche arbitration case:

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.

Let me begin by citing these comments by Jimbo Wales:

[WikiEN-l] Arbcom Overstepping

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales at wikia.com

Mon Nov 29 14:35:26 UTC 2004

"It is important to recognize the following general principles:

1. The ArbCom deals with behavioral issues, and not directly with content issues. When the behavioral issue is persistent bad POV editing, then of course there is an interface to the content issue. But it is the behavior which is the problem.

2. The ArbCom can not and should not (and in my opinion has not ever) attempted to subject certain points of view to extra restrictions. There was some confusion about this in the case of LaRouche, but I think this was an unfortunate wording and misinterpretation.

In the LaRouche case, the problem is that publications produced by LaRouche and affiliated organizations are not suitable for routine citation as ordinary documents in the same way as other documents. This is not unique to LaRouche, of course, but is true of a wide variety of pov publications. The decision of how to handle this is complex and not easily (nor properly) subject to a hard and fast rule, but is rather a job for serious editors to undertake thoughtfully.

--Jimbo"[34]

The cited clause in the original ArbCom decision was intended, I believe, to discourage POV edits by pro-LaRouche editors. It has had the unfortunate side effect of encouraging POV edits by anti-LaRouche editors, in the form of deletions that would ordinarily be considered vandalism, but are opportunistically justified by the above cited clause in the first ArbCom decision. Here are two examples:

• In this edit by SlimVirgin, he cites the ArbCom decison and deletes material which:

1. was not added by myself or any other party to the ArbCom proceedings;
2. can in no way be construed as "promotion of LaRouche";
3. was factual and highly relevant to the subject of the article.

• In this edit by Willmcw (dated yesterday), he deletes a quote from Pope John Paul II, citing the Arbcom decision.

Note that in neither case can the deleted material be considered "original research" of the sort prohibited in Wikipedia:No original research.

As Jimbo points out, the ArbCom deals with behavioral issues, and not directly with content issues. I would like to propose that the cited clause be stricken, and replaced by some sort of sanctions against persistent POV edits, either by pro-LaRouche editors, or by anti-LaRouche editors (which category would include SlimVirgin, Cberlet, Willmcw, AndyL, and Adam Carr). --HK 21:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My name is Chip Berlet and I am User:Cberlet. I am an employee of Political Research Associates (PRA), a non-profit research group that publishes reports and maintains a website, [The Public Eye]. My biographical page is here, and a page with selected list of published articles is here. These pages demonstrate that I am a professional writer and researcher with published materials in scholarly and journalistic publications. I write entries for print encyclopedias, with a special focus on right-wing movements, apocalypticism, and conspiracism.

I fully understand that the concepts and principles behind Wikipedia make it essential that on LaRouche-related pages that the views of Lyndon LaRouche and his followers be given fair and accurate consideration. This is entirely appropriate for any encyclopedia that takes itself seriously. I support these concepts and principles and have attempted to follow the appropriate guidelines when editing here at Wikipedia.

The views of LaRouche supporters, especially Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper, about the content, nature, and importance of the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche are not shared by the vast majority of scholars and journalists who have studied and written about LaRouche and LaRouche-related groups.

I have never invented, "cooked," or misrepresented quotes by Lyndon LaRouche here on Wikipedia or anywhere else. LaRouche himself has made a similar claim, and I have demonstrated it is false on [this page on the PRA website]. This claim is thoroughly debated at [[35]].

That Herschelkrustofsky still makes these accusations is significant, and reflects the larger problem that Herschelkrustofsky, Weed Harper, and other LaRouche supporters view the world through a lens distorted by Conspiracism. The comments on the related talk page [[36]] by [Weed Harper on 06:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) are a good example. Here I am accused of being part of a global conspiracy, involving the "pro-war faction" of the "British establishment" acting "In retaliation" to something LaRouche said. For the record, I deny this claim, and think it is significant to this discussion that anyone would make such a claim.

This type of claim of vast conspiracies against LaRouche appears throughout the LaRouche-related pages. As examples of typical LaRouche-style claims they are appropriate, but they need to be balanced by text that calls these claims into question. The bottom line for this arbitration is that Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper do not seem able to distance themselves from a problematic conspiracist mindset and engage in a serious collective editing process. A good example is the discussion on Wikipedia at [[37]] of the so-called "John Train Salon," which claims a vast conspiracy with almost no factual basis and which reflects the relentless omission of facts that refute the claims.

My need to engage in "documenting my claims that LaRouche is a fascist, antisemitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, crackpot, and crook," arose after Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper claimed I could not document these views as representing a majority view of scholars and journalists regarding Lyndon LaRouche; and then set out to systematically delete text that reflected these criticims. In the process, there were repeated allegations that I had invented quotes, even though they were properly cited to a source. Then there was a claim that these quotes were taken out of context. So I posted extensive surrounding text at the PRA website here. Then there was a claim that this text might somehow also be an invention, so there was a demand for image files. I scanned in image files and posted links to links to them on the same page [38].

The extensive record of disputes and talk page battles demonstrates that Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper engage in a war of attrition, whereby they create roadblock after roadblock to the collective editing process in an endless campaign to sanitize LaRouche-related pages and wear down editors until they simply give up attempts to make the LaRouche-related pages, fair, accurate, majority-view oriented, and NPOV.

I am also tired of being called a liar and unethical on the Talk pages of Wikipedia, (and tired of the many false and defamatory claims about me posted at various times on my entry and various other pages on Wikipedia--from whence they disperse around the world); and hope that in the future, rules against personal attacks and rules on reliable sourcing will be enforced.--Cberlet 19:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky writes that he believes "the following edits by Cberlet violate the policy on No Original research."

Herschelkrustofsky:

[39](The theory that LaRouche's views reflect something called palingenesis and should therefore be regarded as neofascistic)

Palingenesis is the word used by Roger Griffin, see "The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology" PDF file Griffin is a world-renowned scholar of fascism,[40] and he uses "palingenesis" (a real word) used on Wikiepdia and elswhere. Griffin uses "palingenesis" to describe that aspect of fascist movements that involves a populist call for the metaphysical heroic rebirth of a nation. This is closely related to Emilio Gentile's theory of fascism as involving the "Sacralization of Politics;" (the title of his book[41]); and the long-standing idea of fascist movements as Millenarian, Millennial, or apocalyptic by authors such as Cohn and Rhodes. In a book I cowrote with Matthew N. Lyons published by the mainstream Guilford Press,[42] we argue that all right-wing populist movements are apocalyptic. We then discuss the LaRouche movement using this lens. The publisher has given PRA permission to post the section we wrote on LaRouche here. Simply because I helped write this text, and that it appears on a website, does not erase the fact that it was published by a mainstream publisher in a book. It is not "original research" for the purposes of use on Wikipedia.

Herschelkrustofsky:

[43](the theory that an emotional crisis caused by the break-up of his first marriage caused LaRouche to completely revise his political theory). When the latter material was removed by Weed Harper on the grounds that is was original research, it was restored by SlimVirgin in this edit.

This material comes from a printed report published by Political Research Associates (see Berlet/Bellman report. Simply because I helped write this text, and that it appears on a website, does not erase the fact that it was published as a report. It is not "original research" for the purposes of use on Wikipedia. Furthermore, after many complaints and deletions, it was I who deleted this text and replaced it with text from the book by Dennis King. See the diff here. Herschelkrustofsky simply deleted it, see the diff here. The note on the edit by Herschelkrustofsky read: "There is enough propaganda from King already in this article, and theories about LaRouche's views belong in 'LaRouche's views.' " Of course, at the time, the page [[44]] was protected and locked. See the [[45]] history page.

• Reject. Please bring at least some preliminary evidence and show that you've tried to resolve previous disputes; I'll consider accepting it then. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:17, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)Accept, now that the aforementioned request has been met. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:59, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
• Recuse. Ambi 08:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Neutrality^talk 14:30, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. (I asked Tim Starling about the multiple accounts for SlimVirgin on request, but have no familiarity with the users or articles otherwise.) David Gerard 14:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 14:51, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

1.1) Herschelkrustofsky (contribs), Weed Harper (contribs), C Colden (contribs), IP address 64.30.208.48 (contribs) are prohibited from editing articles on Template:LaRouche, editing the talk pages on Template:LaRouche Talk creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement or adding LaRouche-related material to other articles pending resolution of this matter. User:Cberlet, User:Willmcw, and User:SlimVirgin are also prohibited from editing articles on Template:LaRouche or creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement pending resolution of this matter, though they may continue to work in the present sandbox articles Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox, Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox and Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox. Arbitration pages relating to this case are not included. This includes editing by anonymous AOL accounts.

Passed 6 to 0 on 27 January 2005.

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts are there as well)

1) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.

Passed 7-0.

2) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising. (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)

Passed 7-0.

3) Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.

Passed 7-0.

4) No personal attacks.

Passed 7-0.

5) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Passed 7-0.

6) A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.

Passed 6-0.

1) Since the last arbitration committee decision on the matter Herschelkrustofsky has continued to engage in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

Passed 7-0.

2) Technical evidence has shown that the accounts Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper and the IP address 64.30.208.48 have been used to make edits from the same person; i.e. that they are sockpuppet accounts. The account C Colden may also be considered a sockpuppet account due to similarity in editing patterns.

Passed 7-0.

3) Herschelkrustofsky has used his sockpuppets to further his advocacy in violation of Wikipedia policy, especially the three revert rule, and to further edit wars.

Passed 7-0.

4) Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in personal attacks during the course of his advocacy. ([46], [47])

Passed 5-2.

5) User:SlimVirgin has made personal attacks in the course of the debates with Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper/C Colden. [48] [49]

Passed 6-1.

1) Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely. This includes the accounts User:Weed Harper and User:C Colden. Nor is Herschelkrustofsky to edit anonymously.

Passed 7-0.

4) Herschelkrustofsky is placed on POV parole for up to and including one year. If he re-inserts any edits which are judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week. Repeat deletions of text, similarly judged to result in a violation of NPOV, shall be treated in the same way.

Passed 6-1.

5) Herschelkrustofsky is banned from editing any article relating to Lyndon LaRouche for up to and including one year. If he edits any LaRouche-related article, he may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator. Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect.

Passed 7-0.

5.1) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 is modified so that the remedies applied in Lyndon LaRouch 2 are applied to Cognition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and the general ban on LaRouche-related article editing is expanded to include Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, and Dennis King (and their talk pages).

Passed 7-0 on December 23, 2005

6) User:SlimVirgin is cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation.

Passed 5-1-1.

7) User:Herschelkrustofsky is cautioned against derogatory characterisations of other contributors. Such repeated and unwarranted assertions amount to personal attacks.

Passed 6-0.

8) For violations of his parole, and continued disruption by advocacy, edit warring, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith, Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Passed 6-0. (May 5, 2006)

1) If Herschelkrustofsky is discovered to have created or edited using any other account, or has edited anonymously, that account shall be blocked indefinitely and Herschelkrustofsky shall be banned for up to one week. The IP should be blocked with due caution as to whether it is a dynamic IP or ISP proxy likely to have many users.

Passed 6-0.

2) If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles. A one-week ban may be imposed for use of a sockpuppet for any purpose; such a ban shall reset both bans.

Passed 6-0.

The findings of fact of the original decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, closed in September 2004, referred to two problematic behaviours:

• a pattern of adding original material, not an editor's own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Wikipedia articles,
• a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Wikipedia. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV pushing on Wikipedia, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification.

It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.

Passed 5 to 2, 17:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• A suspicion that Herschelkrustofsky was editing as HonourableSchoolboy (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) prompted a check user request, which showed HonourableSchoolboy was editing from Herschel's AOL IP range and also as Tsunami Butler (talk · contribs · count · api · block log). Both accounts have been blocked, and Herschel's ban will be reset to April 10, 2008. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested Thatcher131 01:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Another sock of Herschelkrustofsky, Mr Keck (talk · contribs) was identified through technical and textual methods. HK's block is extended to June 26, 2008. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Another sock, User:MaplePorter, has been uncovered. Block reset, expires September 29, 2008. Picaroon (t) 20:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Gelsomina (talk · contribs) has been identified as an HK sock based on checkuser and editing evidence. Block reset, expires October 19, 2008. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive316#Indefinite_ban_for_Herschelkrustofsky, an indefinite community ban has replaced the previous one year ban imposed by the ArbCom. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional technical information indicates that Leatherstocking (talk · contribs) was in fact editing from a LaRouche organization's IP address ( Special:Contributions/64.183.125.210 http://www.utrace.de/whois/64.183.125.210 ). With the updated geolocation, behavioral and location information place Leatherstocking in the sockpuppet groups identified above. Leatherstocking is now indefinitely blocked per the previous incidents. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]