Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by SlimVirgin[edit]

August 2, 2004[edit]

Previous Arbitration Committee ruling[edit]

The Arbitration Committee agreed on Aug 2, 2004 that "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda . . ." and that: "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 [2]. This is then followed by further linkings such as that in this edit of the article Frankfurt School, [3] which form a pattern of attempting to insert the original work of Lyndon LaRouche into Wikipedia. [4] The Committee agreed that: "User Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement." [5]

The Arbitration Committee ruled that:

  • "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]
  • "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." [7]
  • "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." [8]
  • Herschelkrustofsky was also placed on "personal attack parole". [9]

January 22, 2005[edit]

Evidence of sockpuppetry[edit]

Information from Tim Sterling[edit]

In response to a request from SlimVirgin on or around January 12, 2005, David Gerard asked Tim Sterling about the user accounts:

The reply on Jan 22, 2005 was:

"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 the accounts use the same DSL connection[edit]

64.30.208.48 is a DSL connection. Evidence that 64.30.208.48 is both Weed Harper and Herschelkrustofsky:

  • 02:31, Jul 13, 2004 64.30.208.48 posted to Michael Danby about Danby supporting the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act. [10]
  • 14:49, Jul 28, 2004, in discussion with Fred Bauder, Herschelkrustofsky defended his edit to Michael Danby, quoting from the July 13 post made by 64.30.208.48 about the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act. [11] The Herschelkrustofsky user account did not edit Michael Danby until August 27. [12]
  • 17:45, Jul 15, 2004, at Talk:Michael Danby, Adam Carr declined to debate with 64.30.208.48 because s/he was anonymous. [13]
  • 00:28, Aug 8, 2004, Weed Harper logged in with his user name, announced s/he was no longer anonymous, and continued the discussion with Adam Carr. [14]
  • 16:34, Jun 30, 2004, at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche, Weed Harper left his/her name and email address after posting as 64.30.208.48 [15]

On the basis of the confirmation from Tim Sterling and the evidence of a shared DSL connection, I refer below to the person operating the accounts in the singular.

Editing from AOL addresses, mostly anonymously[edit]

The same user has posted as Weed Harper, Peter Abelard, and anonymously from AOL dial-up IP ranges 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 and 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255.

This person has also used AOL proxy addresses. Examples:

Same IP addresses on LaRouche press releases and spam[edit]

The IP address ranges 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255 and 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255, as well as 64.30.208.48, have been used to post LaRouche press releases and other material on Usenet, and an abuse report exists on 64.30.208.48, which belongs to ISP Linkline Communication in Los Angeles, for sending out LaRouche press releases as spam during the 2004 election for the governor of California. Herschelkrustofsky has said he is based in California. That LaRouche press releases are emanating from these IP addresses raises the question as to whether the Wikipedia edits have come from a LaRouche office. Someone using the name Ralph Gibbons has posted 500 [33] LaRouche press releases and other material from the same two AOL IP address ranges that were used on Wikipedia [34] [35] [36] [37] (note: the NNTP-posting-host shows the IP address) and from 64.30.208.48 [38] [39] as has Weed Harper. [40] [41] [42] [43]

January 22, 2005[edit]

Using sockpuppets to violate 3RR[edit]

Jan 22, 2005, Lyndon LaRouche Herschel/Weed reverted four times in 19 hrs and 30 mins. Page history [44]

  • 01:29 Jan 22, 2005 Herschelkrustofsky reverted [45]
  • 07:28, Jan 22, 2005 Weed Harper reverted [46]
  • 16:07, Jan 22, 2005 Herschelkrustofsky reverted [47]
  • 21:07, Jan 22, 2005 Weed Harper reverted [48]

November 15, 2004[edit]

First example of using sockpuppets to give the impression of broad support[edit]

This stretches across the 17 articles on Template:LaRouche, the 32 archives and pages on Template:LaRouche Talk (185,000 words), and others. See here [49] for disrupted Talk pages. Example from Jeremiah Duggan:

  • 01:07, Nov 15, 2004, as Weed Harper [50]
  • 15:59, Nov 15, 2004, as C Colden [51]
  • 21:42, Nov 15, 2004, as Herschelkrustofsky [52]
  • 23:59, Nov 15, 2004, as Weed Harper [53]

May-December 2004[edit]

Second example of using sockpuppets to give the impression of broad support[edit]

Dennis King was created and inaccurate material originating with LaRouche was inserted, though Dennis King is not "closely related." Page history [54].

  • 01:07, May 16, 2004 Page created by 172.199.126.121 [55]
  • 20:51, May 16, 2004 64.30.208.48 [56]
  • 00:14, May 21, 2004 172.137.140.36 [57]
  • 14:16, Jun 19, 2004 Herschelkrustofsky [58]
  • 15:32, Jun 27, 2004 Herschelkrustofsky [59]
  • 20:17, Jul 29, 2004, 172.196.126.139 [60]
  • 16:35, Sep 20, 2004 Herschelkrustofsky [61]
  • 22:15, Sep 23, 2004 Weed Harper [62]
  • 21:16, Oct 5, 2004 Weed Harper [[63]
  • 15:13, Oct 27, 2004 172.199.126.240 [64]
  • 07:15, Nov 23, 2004, C Colden [65]
  • 20:45, Dec 2, 2004 Herschelkrustofsky [66]

Sept 2004–Jan 2005:personal attacks[edit]

Editors are accused of being anti-LaRouche activists or of being disrepectful to the LaRouche movement. Examples:

Sept 6[edit]

  • 10:38, Sep 6, 2004
Herschelkrustofsky: (to John Kenney at Amelia Boynton Robinson, who is a LaRouche member): "This was inserted as an insult to Mrs. Robinson, who knows very well who is a racist and who is not," (because John Kenney wrote that there were "frequent accusations of racism against LaRouche.") [67]

Sept 15[edit]

  • 20:58, Sep 15, 2004
Herschelkrustofsky to Bcorr: "remove Bcorr's disrespect for Ms Boynton Robinson" (because Bcorr said Boynton Robinson was a "minor" figure in the civil rights movement. Herschel changed it to "prominent.") [68]

Oct 4[edit]

  • 14:58, Oct 4, 2004
C Colden: "Andy's hatred of LaRouche reminds me very much of the people who obsessively hate Bill Clinton . . ." [69]

Nov 28[edit]

  • 01:23, Nov 28, 2004
C Colden: " . . . SlimVirgin is an anti-LaRouche activist who is looking for opportunities to insert anti-LaRouche propaganda into Wikipedia articles. He hints at his real motives sometimes on talk pages; apparently he believes that he is defending the British Royal Family against accusations of misconduct in the death of Princess Diana." [70]

Dec 6[edit]

  • 21:46 Dec 6, 2004
Herschelkrustofsky: "Chip . . . you can't just practice your vocation as a mud-slinger-for-hire here." [71]

Dec 7[edit]

  • 02:02, Dec 7, 2004
Herschelkrustofsky: "That category of editors "with no vested interest" would have to exclude you, Slim, as you are looking, as usual, for fora in which to conduct your anti-LaRouche activism." [72]

Dec 15[edit]

  • 14:10 Dec 15, 2004
C Colden: "I believe SlimVirgin wrote this story to make Wikipedia a soapbox for his Anti-LaRouche campaign . . ."

Dec 31[edit]

  • 15:17, Dec 31, 2004
Herschelkrustofsky: "Chip . . . You are yourself a "marginal conspiracist critic", who makes "hyperbolic charges" and "personal attacks;" they are your stock in trade." [73]

Jan 4[edit]

  • 16:03 Jan 4, 2005
Weed Harper: "Slim, you have claimed on half a dozen different talk pages that you are not an anti-LaRouche activist, but I think at this point your claim has no credibility."
  • 22:31, Jan 4, 2005
Weed Harper: "It is clear to me that Berlet is trying to hijack Wikipedia to promote his (ahem) commercial endeavors." [74]

Jan 5[edit]

  • 16:02, Jan 5, 2005
Herschelkrustofsky: "Slim, you . . . [confirmed] once again my suspicion that you are editing these articles as an anti-LaRouche activist." [75]

Jan 9[edit]

  • 07:11, Jan 9, 2005
Weed Harper: "You are once again making a mockery of your claim not to be an anti-LaRouche activist.

Jan 18[edit]

  • 21:21, Jan 18, 2005
C Colden: "I can't believe that Chip Berlet has to come to Wikipedia now to drum up business. That unnamed individual who supposedly underwrites Political Research Associates must be tightening the purse-strings. And, I am absolutely certain that SlimVirgin can see that Berlet cooked the quotes, but yet he treats him like the Professor fawning over Marlene Dietrich in "The Blue Angel." [76]

Jan 28[edit]

  • 06:21, Jan 28, 2005
Weed Harper: ". . . SlimVirgin came to Wikipedia with the idea that he could use Wikipedia as a platform to revive the . . . [Jeremiah Duggan] story. Chip Berlet was also involved in the Duggan project. I suspect that Slim solicited Berlet to come to Wikipedia as his ally. Both have made some comments that Berlet was disturbed that criticism of Berlet in Wikipedia was hurting his business . . . the article Chip Berlet has been carefully groomed and sanitized by SlimVirgin and Willmcw . . ." [77]

Sept 2004: Repeated insertion of LaRouche fantasy[edit]

Lyndon LaRouche claims to have a proposal called the Eurasian Land Bridge, which his publications say he regularly discusses with world leaders. No reference to this proposal has been found outside LaRouche publications. There is a real project called the Asian Highway, initiated in 1959 by the UN, which is also called the Silk Road, and is sometimes referred to as part of a Eurasian Land Bridge idea, but LaRouche has nothing to do with it, and his claim to have had a proposal for such a bridge looks like an attempt to take credit for the Asian Highway, as he did with Star Wars. Several editors prevented an attempt by Weed Harper to insert the Eurasian Land Bridge claims into Wikipedia. Below is a sample of the edits.

July 3[edit]

  • 09:14, Jul 3, 2004
AndyL redirects the Eurasian Land Bridge page to Asian Highway. [78]

Sept 13[edit]

  • 15:01, Sep 13, 2004
Weed Harper deletes the redirect and replaces it with the comment "this article has been vandlized." [79]

Sept 14[edit]

  • 15:54, Sep 14, 2004
Thue redoes the redirect. [80]

Sept 15[edit]

  • 06:39, Sep 15, 2004
Weed Harper undoes the redirect and replaces it with an article about LaRouche's claims to have developed a Eurasian Land Bridge proposal. This includes a misleading photograph [81] of LaRouche's wife standing next to something called the "eastern terminal of the Eurasian Land Bridge (which doesn't exist) speaking to someone who could be a reporter. Herschelkrustofsky later says this was an interview in China and that the Chinese government had erected some kind of structure with the words "eastern terminal of the Eurasian Land Bridge". But this was not explained to the Wikipedia reader. The photograph makes it look as though construction of the Eurasian Land Bridge may have begun and/or that LaRouche and his wife are connected to it. [82]
  • 08:30, Sep 15, 2004
Adam Carr deletes the LaRouche article and redirects the page to Asian Highway. [83]
  • 21:35, Sep 15, 2004
Weed Harper deletes the redirect and replaces it with the LaRouche claims. [84]

Sept 17[edit]

  • 18:20, Sep 17, 2004
Fred Bauder decides that LaRouche claims about the Eurasian Land Bridge count as original research and should be deleted. [85]
  • 20:13, Sep 17, 2004
Weed Harper tells Fred he has found references to the Eurasian Land Bridge in Japanese and other newspapers. [86]
  • 20:30, Sep 17, 2004
AndyL points out that the Japanese and other references don't mention LaRouche. [87]

Sept 18[edit]

  • 00:20, Sep 18, 2004
Weed Harper deletes from Lyndon LaRouche that LaRouche has tried to take credit for the Asian Highway. [88]]

Sept 27[edit]

  • 01:00, Sep 27, 2004
Weed Harper again deletes the re-direct of the Eurasian Land Bridge to Asian Highway and reinserts the LaRouche claims. [89]
  • 14:51, Sep 27, 2004
IP address 172.199.24.28 anonymously puts the "accuracy" tag on Asian Highway [90]
  • 14:53, Sep 27, 2004
172.199.24.28 leaves a note on Talk:Asian Highway saying he has put the tag up. Weed Harper later signs his name in place of the IP address. [91]

Evidence presented by Cberlet[edit]

Cberlet is my user name. I am Chip Berlet, a journalist and researcher.[[92]] [93].

What constitutes mainstream "non-original" reporting concerning LaRouche?[edit]

Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper wrongly claim that harsh criticism of LaRouche is a minority viewpoint, and "original research." They then delete text critical of LaRouche. See for example:

  • 13:53, 19 Jan 2005 Weed Harper deleted text, stating: "Conflicts with the Left - this whole section should be put on hold until it is determined whether this theory is "mainstream", or just a personal schtick of Berlet" [94]
  • 21:55, 19 Jan 2005 Herschelkrustofsky: deleted text, stating: "Conflicts with the Left - If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia)" [95]
  • 01:29, 22 Jan 2005 Herschelkrustofsky: deleted text, stating: "(Remove original research (see talk; I will accept quotes from a "mainstream" publication) and restore material deleted without explanation)" [96]
  • 03:07, 24 Jan 2005, Herschelkrustofsky: "The effort to insert copious amounts of the esoteric Dennis King/Chip Berlet theories into this article is unencyclopedic, "original research" in violation of policy, and malicious." [97]

This particular series of incidents has been covered in the definitive biography of LaRouche written by Dennis King, and was reported in legitimate press outlets:

  • Paul L. Montgomery, "How a Radical-Left Group Moved Toward Savagery," New York Times, 1/20/74.
  • James C. Hyatt, "A Communist Group Uses Fists and Epithets To Battle U.S. Unions," Wall Street Journal, 10/7/75.
  • Nat Hentoff, "Of Thugs and Liars," the Village Voice, 1/24/74.

But this claim was the fallback position for trying to hide the facts of this matter. Previously Weed Harper simply deleted the text, claiming:

  • 06:20, 28 Sep 2004 Weed Harper: "The Move Away from Marxism - This article already has more of Berlet than LaRouche. People can just follow the link." [98].

In fact, there was only one sentence where my work was quoted other than what was cut.

Mainstream press articles are frequently harshly critical of the LaRouche network. Some are available online through search engines, but most are not:

Mainstream articles & text online(partial list):
  • October 24, 2004, Washington Post [99]
  • January 14, 1985, Washington Post [100]
  • June 29, 1986, San Francisco Examiner [101] (Temporarily posted by Cberlet for evidence in this matter)
Articles written by Cberlet in mainstream press, not online:
  • June 17, 1979, Chip Berlet, "U.S. Labor Party: an Odd Saga," Chicago Sun Times.
  • September 23, 1981, Chip Berlet "Ever Hear of Lyndon LaRouche? He May be Keeping Tabs on You," Des Moines Register, syndicated by Pacific News Service.

A jury in Virginia heard a LaRouche-filed defamation case against NBC and others (including Cberlet), and ruled that a broadcast calling LaRouche an anti-Semite, "small-time Hitler," cult-leader, and crook was not defamation.[102].

Evidence presented by Snowspinner[edit]

29 November[edit]

  • [103]
    • In this mailing list post, Jimbo notes that LaRouche documents cannot be cited like normal documents in terms of source citation. Although he rejects any firm ruling as to how they should be cited, this does quite a number on any claims that Herschel and his socks were following the NPOV policy, despite providing citations when asked.

Evidence presented by Willmcw[edit]

Copying/plagiarizing from LaRouche sources[edit]

A disturbing practice by HK and WH and others that apparently has continued since May 2004 is the posting of material directly copied from LaRouche-related (and other) websites. This is problematic for three reasons:

  • The sites are all copyrighted, and there is no indication that permission was granted for re-use of the material.
  • Direct copying of material with no attribution is plagiarism, a form of intellectual dishonesty.
  • The addition of the material generally served to promote LaRouche and his concepts, and, in most of the cases that I uncovered, the material was posted to articles which are not "closely related" to LaRouche.

HK's 13 Jul 2004 posting indicates that he was aware of the concept of plagiarism and its inappropriateness on Wikipedia. Even earlier, on 1 Jun 2004, he'd written, "this section, along with the entire article, is a plagiarism problem..." (and then cited a Wikipedia mirror).[104]

Promotion of LaRouche and his theories[edit]

HK's team continued to add material promoting LaRouche and his worldview to articles that are not "closely related" after the August 2004 ban. Since then material was copied verbatim on at least eight occasions from LaRouche sites into loosely connected articles. On January 26, 2005, as part of this arbitration, HK denied using any LaRouche-sourced material after August in non-LaRouche articles. [105] That assertion is refuted by the edit records.

Personal note[edit]

[Refactored] Because of the willful nature of these offenses and the repetition after warnings, I urge the ArbCom to use whatever tools they have to prevent a recurrence. Regretfully and respectfully submitted, -Willmcw 21:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) (refactored -10:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC))

19 May 2004[edit]

31 May 2004[edit]

3 Jul 2004[edit]

13 Jul 2004[edit]

Posted by HK in response to a posting to the Talk:History of Guyana page, which said..."Readers should note that the basic text of this entry has been lifted from the U.S. State Department's Background notes."

  • 14:31, 13 Jul 2004 Herschelkrustofsky wrote: "This is true, as the recently added link demonstrates, and it probably constitutes a violation of Wikipedia plagiarism rules." [109]

26 Jul 2004[edit]

26 Jul 2004[edit]

11 Aug 2004[edit]

10 Sep 2004[edit]

10 Oct 2004[edit]

2 Nov 2004[edit]

3 Nov 2004[edit]

When other editors tried to remove the material (which they did not know was copied from LaRouche), user:Herschelkrustofsky first wrote on the article's talk page: "Adam, I am at a loss to see why you would find it necessary to delete the quote from Bill Shorten about the Eureka Stockade, the quote from Spence himself on the Common Good, or the reference to Spence's collaboration with King O'Malley on the Commonwealth Bank. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)". When the material was deleted again he contested the deletion with this comment: "Are you disputing the accuracy of these items, or are you making an ostentatious display of contempt for the Wikipedia NPOV policy? --Herschelkrustofsky 21:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)" [117]

4 Nov 2004[edit]

When other editors tried to remove the material (which they did not know was copied from LaRouche), user:Herschelkrustofsky contested the deletion with this comment on the article's talk page: "Are you disputing the accuracy of these items, or are you making an ostentatious display of contempt for the Wikipedia NPOV policy? --Herschelkrustofsky 21:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)" [119]
Some of this material was deleted again in mid-December, and then was restored again by HK #31 Jan 2005.

7 Nov 2004[edit]

10 Nov 2004[edit]

  • 15:51, 10 Nov 2004 Weed Harper. Added LaRouche theory (infrastructure, etc.) to National bank article (edit summary: "public credit"). Dif
  • 15:54, 10 Nov 2004 Weed Harper. Added LaRouche link [121] to Alexander Hamilton. Dif

12 Nov 2004[edit]

  • 23:13, 12 Nov 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Added LaRouche link ([122]) to Henry Carey (economist) Dif
  • 23:06, 12 Nov 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Added LaRouche theory ("advocates of the American System (economics) approach" = LaRouche followers) to Regulation. Dif

13 Nov 2004[edit]

14 Nov 2004[edit]

18 Nov 2004[edit]

14 Dec 2004[edit]

19 Dec 2004[edit]

  • 12:40, 19 Dec 2004 Herschelkrustofsky. Copied text from a copyrighted LaRouche site [126] to Chip Berlet, (edit summary: "copy edit" - although substantial new material was added). Dif -Google cache

23 Dec 2004[edit]

5 Jan 2005[edit]

  • 22:36, 5 Jan 2005 Herschelkrustofsky. Copied text from a copyrighted LaRouche site [128] to Amelia Boynton Robinson (edit summary: "restore deleted info with documentation" - although this was the first time the material had been added.) Dif - Google cache

31 Jan 2005[edit]

  • 21:10, 31 Jan 2005 Herschelkrustofsky. Restored verbatim LaRouche material in King O'Malley (edit summary "restore material deleted by Adam") (This is some of the same material added #4 Nov 2004. user:Adam Carr had deleted it in mid-December [129]). Dif


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2/Evidence&oldid=431107625"