Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-17 Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Request for cabal mediation[edit]

Request Information[edit]

Request made by: Northmeister 06:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: ...At the Political Views of Lyndon LaRouche site and elsewhere.

Who's involved?: ...Northmeister(myself),Will Beback,SlimVirgin,NathanDW,Anol,Phil,Sean etc.

What's going on?: ...I have questioned the legitimacy of this page and its sources and wished to have the page edited fairly. When I questioned this or another user Anol or NathanDW we were immediatly accused of be LaRouche supporters, shot down, etc. I feel the questions are legitimate. Now Will Beback who has been stalking my posts and harrassing me to no end and Sean have not only discussed me being a LaRouche supporter but also made such allegations elsewhere with other posts I've made. The American System (economics) page is another case. I feel persecuted for even contributing, then Will Beback goes to my other edits and again and again and again. I provide cites and he continues and continues. It's about this page, the policy of name calling and labeling, and Will Beback, SlimVirgin, Cberlet, Phil, Sean's behavior toward myself and others. User Will Beback has just vandalised the collectve work of several editors. --Northmeister 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?: ...I would like to have Will Beback banned/blocked from doing any edits on the American System page, it is not a perfect page and needs improvement; others have been working with me legitimately to straighten it out and he continues his ways. I would also like a ban/block on him editing my stuff elsewhere for the same reasons. I would also like to have a proper conversation on the LaRouche political views with blocks to Snowspinner(AKA Phil Sandifer) Adam Carr, 172, HOTR, Jayjg, especially SlimVirgin/Cberlet/WillBeback/Sean doing any edits thereof as they are biased against this particular character and Larouche ideas in general and a policy of not accepting PRA or Public Eye contributions in lieu of that they are a minority group (very minority) that has engaged in smear against this person and others outside of wikipedia against among other Buchanan, Perot, Horowitz, Fulani and inside to ssame said articles including the Reform Party placing producerism as their philosophy for example. I am not an angel, I responded harshly on the talk pages and admit that; but under diress from Will Beback and his tactics (used on others as Williamc user name which he changed) when I tried to contribute, answered his allegations with credible cites and then continues to harrass me and my efforts including the most recent attack on the page which is not only my effort coming from a history standpoint but Rjensens from an economic one.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?: [email protected] Thanks.

Comments by others[edit]

Comment by Will Beback[edit]

User:Northmeister is an adherent to the philosophies of Lyndon LaRouche. Like other adherents, he has been adding LaRouche's ideosyncratic ideas to the project. Two previous Arbitration Committee cases have dealt with similar additions to articles by LaRouche adherents. The ArbCom has decided that the LaRouche ideas are not mainstream, that associated sources are not reliable, and as a result editors are prohibited from edit warring to push his ideas into articles or using sock puppets.

We have not treated User:Northmeister disrespectfully, but have simply required non-LaRouche sources for his edits. Due to the outstanding ArbCom rulings, the matter has already been decided at a higher level. For those reasons I believe that this is a case for adminstrator enforcement rather than mediation. -Will Beback 10:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Herschelkrustofsky[edit]

User:Will Beback's allegation is false. Northmeister is not an adherent to the philosophies of Lyndon LaRouche, and believe me, I know one when I see one. I would describe Northmeister, from what I have seen, as more of perhaps a paleo-conservative type, perhaps very generally along the lines of Pat Buchanan (i.e., opposed to Globalization and Free Trade.) It is the unfortunate tendency of Will Beback and SlimVirgin to edit in a rather arrogant manner, which will often result in a challenge to their methods from other editors; they then will often brand their opponent as a "LaRouche supporter." This is a form of McCarthyism, and the community should encourage them to desist. --HK 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator response[edit]

I'll open a section on the PVLL talk page. Ted 02:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

disposition of the case—irresolvable: this case is irresolvable through informal mediation. there is a prior ArbCom decision prohibiting supporters of LaRouche from activities that might be seen as promotion of Lyndon LaRouche, outside of the specific page Lyndon Larouche (and closely related articles). several other editors on the page, including SlimVirgin, Will Beback, and Cberlet, have decided on these grounds that:

Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche cannot be considered a sufficiently closely related article to Lyndon LaRouche
Northmeister is an adherent of LaRouche, actively engaged in promoting his cause (despite Northmeister's statements to the contrary), therefore,
Northmeister should not be allowed to edit the article, under the ArbCom decision.

They are agreed on this point, and conversation is non-productive.

Suggestions for resolution:

Northmeister may be allowed to post in a limited capacity, so long as he avoids specific references to LaRouche or his policies.
Northmeister might appeal to the ArbCom committee for clarification on the definition of 'related articles', if that issue has not been decided already.
Northmeister might appeal to the ArbCom committee on the grounds that he is not a LaRouche supporter, or is not engaged in the promotion of a LaRouche agenda, and that this ruling should not apply to him personally (keeping in mind the difficulty of judging the truth of negative assertions).

Ted 06:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted has misunderstood both the arbcom ruling and what was said to him. The arbcom ruling prohibits any editor from appearing to promote LaRouche on any page, with no exceptions. And no one said that Political views of Lyndon LaRouche is not a "closely related" article; rather, it makes no difference whether it is or not, because promotion of LaRouche is not allowed anywhere. Indeed, promotion of anyone is not allowed anywhere per WP:NOT.

Ted's intervention in this situation was somewhat unfortunate. He has made around 100 edits to articles and has no knowledge of the complex LaRouche background, our content policies, or our dispute-resolution structure. His aggressive and threatening style, which involved posting long messages in green ink to the article talk page, despite being told there was no interest in mediation, was inappropriate and counter-productive, to put it mildly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: my statement came verbatim from SlimVirgin's comments (see SV re: edits on my talk page), and I made it clear, repeatedly, that I would leave on request (as I did, when she requested it). And I rather like green ink. ;-) I stand by my actions and statements. Ted 07:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you have shown by this recent post what your about and what McCarthyism is. Do not attack the mediator for trying, that is unbecoming. --Northmeister 07:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]