Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority aye 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 or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

On this case, 1 arbitrator is recused and 2 are inactive/away, so 5 votes are a majority.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Four net aye votes needed to pass (each nay vote subtracts an aye)

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

Editing ban by participants in this matter[edit]

1) Herschelkrustofsky (contribs), Weed Harper (contribs), C Colden (contribs), IP address 64.30.208.48 (contribs), and User:Cberlet, User:Willmcw, and User:SlimVirgin are prohibited from editing articles on Template:LaRouche, editing the talk pages on Template:LaRouche Talk or creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement pending resolution of this matter. This includes editing by anonymous AOL accounts.

Aye:
  1. The existing articles are no count, no purpose is served by further churning Fred Bauder 15:36, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  2. An effective way to squish the dispute until such time as we can figure out a better way to squish the dispute. -- Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 18:10, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
mav 19:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) (only if this is enacted not less than 24 hours after Fred's vote; other ArbCom members need time to look at this and give input.) David's version is much better. --mav
Nay:
  1. David Gerard 23:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) No, it's in no way symmetrical cases. The sockpuppetry by Herschel/Weed shows sufficient bad faith to make me prefer an asymmetrical injunction. Note also adding LaRouche mentions to unrelated articles.
  2. sannse (talk) prefer David's version
  3. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Editing ban by participants in this matter[edit]

Enacted 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.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 23:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) See talk - the other side don't object to a block on editing if they can work in the sandboxes for now. The pages about this case are on the template.
  2. sannse (talk) 23:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 00:47, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 01:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) (again, my vote is delayed for 24 hours after David voted on this item)
  5. Fred Bauder 16:42, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Vote delayed as mav's. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 20:53, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Protection of La Rouche related articles[edit]

2) All La Rouche related articles are protected pending resolution of this matter.

Aye:
  1. An alternative Fred Bauder 15:35, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Iff 1) doesn't pass. -- Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 18:10, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  3. Only if 1 or 1.1 doesn't pass - David Gerard 23:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 00:48, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. I'd rather not punish everyone because of a few -- or the one. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I'd like to see if #1 works first. --mav 19:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 23:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) as mav

Proposed principles[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Sockpuppets[edit]

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.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 03:53, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 03:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 03:29, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) True enough but these folks claim different people using the same computer so not actually sockpuppets but different people who share the same general ideas.
    According to User:AndyL, HK and Weed put corrections in "each other"'s comments. I've asked AndyL for the edits - David Gerard 14:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 14:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 07:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 19:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox[edit]

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

Aye:
  1. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 03:53, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 03:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 03:30, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 14:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 07:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 19:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Revert wars considered harmful[edit]

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.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 03:54, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 03:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 03:31, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 14:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 07:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 19:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

No personal attacks[edit]

4) No personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 04:03, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 03:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 03:32, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 14:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 07:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 19:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

One user or several?[edit]

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.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 14:54, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 15:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) Changed 'shall' to 'may' - it's case by case
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:38, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 07:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) I don't really like this wording, but I think considering it as one matter is still acceptable—one user with sockpuppets is different than a group of like-minded users acting in unison or very similarly, but in each case the matter can be treated as a single issue.
  7. sannse (talk) 19:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) on a case by case basis, with due care
Nay:
Abstain:

Holding a strong POV does not necessarily imply POV-pushing edits[edit]

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.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 13:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 13:58, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 14:37, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:08, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 11:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 05:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Herschelkrustofsky's advocacy[edit]

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.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 03:58, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 03:23, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 03:32, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 14:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 07:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 23:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Herschelkrustofsky's sockpuppetry[edit]

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.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 04:00, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 03:23, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 14:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 15:42, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 07:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 23:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 03:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) The technical evidence only shows that the same computer was used.
    I've emailed you about the technical evidence - they're as confirmed as any pair of sock puppets ever was - David Gerard 14:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Herschelkrustofsky's sockpuppet abuse[edit]

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.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 04:02, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 03:23, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 14:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 13:51, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 07:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 23:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 03:34, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) Hard to say if we are dealing with one person or a small group with similar ideas.
    See above - David Gerard 14:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Herschelkrustofsky's personal attacks[edit]

4) Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in personal attacks during the course of his advocacy. ([1], [2])


Aye:
  1. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 04:05, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 03:23, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 15:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) I think they count.
  4. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 23:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) While the quoted diffs do not meet the criteria for personal attacks in themselves, Herschelkrustofsky shows a clear pattern of characterising his opponents as "anti-LaRouche activists" in order to discredit them. In my opinion, this tactic amounts to personal attacks. -- sannse (talk) 23:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 03:45, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) Neither example amounts to a personal attack.
  2. Delirium 07:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) Cited examples don't rise to the level of a personal attack, IMO.
Abstain:

User:SlimVirgin's personal attacks[edit]

5) User:SlimVirgin has made personal attacks in the course of the debates with Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper/C Colden. [3] [4]

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 15:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) (under great provocation, but nevertheless.)
  2. Fred Bauder 18:11, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 18:14, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:37, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 23:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Delirium 07:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) Cited examples don't rise to the level of a personal attack, IMO.
    Calling someone a "toxic troll" is not a personal attack? Okay... -- Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 20:27, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
Abstain:

Proposed decision[edit]

Remedies[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Sockpuppet abuse[edit]

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.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 12:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:55, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 21:34, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 16:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 15:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 02:31, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 03:21, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Personal attack ban[edit]

2) Herschelkrustofsky is banned for three months for personal attacks.

Aye:
Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 04:08, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:21, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 14:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Possibly a bit strong, but not unjustly.
  3. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 03:50, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) Cited examples of personal attacks don't amount to much.
  2. Delirium 07:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) Agree with Fred; even if the cited comments are borderline personal attacks, they aren't particularly egregious behavior deserving of a 3-month ban.
  3. Personal attacks are not the central issue of this case. -- Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 23:57, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 00:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Ban for disruption[edit]

2.1) For significant disruption, relating to political advocacy of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement, Herschelkrustofsky is banned for three months.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 01:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) The incorrigible POV-pushing warrants this IMO - David Gerard 01:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 00:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) the remedy was right - but, I think, for the wrong reason. The general disruption is the real problem here.
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:17, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC) basically he edits in two areas, La Rouche related articles and in classical music. The edits in classical music are generally unobjectionable. I see no reason to ban him when he is making useful contributions.
  2. Concur with Fred. -- Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 15:30, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 16:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Fair comment from Fred
  5. Neutralitytalk 02:31, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 03:21, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Personal attack parole[edit]

3) Herschelkrustofsky is placed on standard personal attack parole for up to and including one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week.

Aye:
Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 04:09, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:21, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 14:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) (what does "up to and including" mean in this context?)
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 03:50, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) Cited examples of personal attacks don't amount to much.
  2. Delirium 07:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) (Same as above.)
  3. Given sannse's comments in the FoFs, I now feel this would be (nearly) impossible to enforce properly. -- Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 23:59, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 00:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

POV parole[edit]

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.

Aye:
  1. This is the wording from 168.209.97.34. It may need to be updated. -- Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 04:11, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 03:20, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 14:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 07:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 00:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) added "Repeat deletions...", experence has shown this is a loop-hole in the original wording
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 03:50, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) Does not take into account POV warriors on the other side and places decision in the hands of the majority of the editors editing a particular article.
    Read the talk page of the proposed decision for representations from other side - I really don't think 'POV warriors' describes their Wikipedia edits on the subject - David Gerard 14:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Ban on editing LaRouche-related articles[edit]

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.

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:19, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 03:50, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) Need to add the anti activists such as Chip Berlet also
    If we have strong evidence of a pattern of bad POV-pushing edits on Wikipedia itself, we should do a separate FoF and remedy - David Gerard 19:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 14:38, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 14:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) The bad faith editing has been breathtaking.
  5. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) (what does "up to and including" mean in this context?)
  6. Delirium 07:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 00:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) I think we can lose the "up to and including"? "for one year" is clear enough
Given the legalistic games some people play, it's best to be explict. Neutralitytalk
Nay:
Abstain:

Caution to SlimVirgin on personal attacks[edit]

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

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 15:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 18:13, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 18:18, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 00:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) But only if there is some censure for Herschelkrustofsky on this issue too - see above for comments on his attacks. to clarify - this vote is only valid if 7 also passes.
Nay:
  1. Delirium 07:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) (Don't think the cited examples were particularly worth censuring over.)
Abstain:
  1. Neutralitytalk 03:38, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Caution to Herschelkrustofsky on personal attacks[edit]

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

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 16:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 17:01, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 19:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:00, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 01:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Herschelkrustofsky banned[edit]

Despite involvement in 3 arbitrations, two of which found and prohibited continued advocacy, Herschelkrustofsky (talk  contribs) has continued to violate his arbitration remedies, continued advocacy, continued edit warring, and continued incivility and assmptions of bad faith (see for example [5]). The background for the most recent ban is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive91#HK_enforcement. Accordingly, I propose that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 be modified to include the following remedy:

(The above is not part of the actual remedy, as it was the preamble to this motion to add the remedy.)

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.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevitt 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. 鉃he Epopt 20:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Enforcement[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

Herschelkrustofsky sockpuppets[edit]

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.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 12:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 14:30, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 23:27, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 15:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 03:21, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:

Ban enforcement[edit]

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.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 01:10, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 01:11, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 01:59, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 00:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) yep, I was still trying to figure out how to include this above - this covers my concerns
  6. ➥the Epopt 19:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Four Aye votes needed to close case

  1. sannse (talk) 00:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) I think we are done here (vote not valid until 24 hours from the timestamp)
  2. Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 00:53, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 02:34, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 02:44, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Post-decision motions (October 2007)[edit]

Motion 1[edit]

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.

As there were 8 active arbitrators while this motion was considered, a majority was 5. The motion is passed.
Support:
  1. I move. Charles Matthews 08:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Despite issues on both sides, I think that this is the more pressing part. James F. (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Does not clearly address the issues raised by point of view editing of Views of Lyndon LaRouche by both parties. Fred Bauder 10:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Yes, there are problematic aspects to the behavior of all parties here. Kirill 15:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Motion 2[edit]

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.

The Committee further notes that Cberlet (talk  contribs) and Dking (talk  contribs) have at times displayed excessive personal zeal in editing the articles in this area, and wishes to remind them of the need to avoid behavior that may be perceived as a conflict of interest.

As there were 8 active arbitrators while this motion was considered, a majority was 5, which cannot be attained based on the votes cast. The motion is defeated.
Support:
  1. Slightly expanded from the above. Kirill 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Hate the added wording. Lose "excessive personal" and "behavior that may be perceived as a" and I'll reconsider. Charles Matthews 15:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. per Charles. Plus I think reality on the ground needs to be considered when making our decisions. To regularly edit very controversial article on Wikipedia requires editors to have a high level of determination to be able to tolerate sustained attempts by editors with COI to change the article against our core policies. Also, it is helpful to have editors with knowledge of the topic edit articles on the topic as long as they follow our core content policies. Labeling these traits excessive personal zeal does not seem right to me. I've long felt that the solution is that we need to give these editors more support so they do not become so frustrated that they occasionally lose their cool and edit war to bring the articles back to a consensus stable version that are supported by policy. Having a somewhat stable version of these articles is a good thing, I think, so I see the low level (and rare high level) editing warring in these cases as a symptom of the problem, not the true underlying issue that needs to be resolved. That is the reason that I'm forgiving of some editors less than ideal editing style. That is the case here, I think, and needs to be taken into consideration if we are going to have a stable version that meets our articles standards and the article remains open for editing. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per Flo in general, and Charles in specifics. James F. (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I'm going through the edit history of Views of Lyndon LaRouche and trying to figure out what's going on. I'm not ready to either make a motion or support this one. Fred Bauder 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)