Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2

message: I feel that the above complaint is a wholly dishonest misrepresentation of the facts, by an editor/admin who has a reputation for using administrative bans to eliminate her opponents in content disputes.
SlimVirgin has acted to protect POV pushing by two minor LaRouche critics who have become editors at Wikipedia in order to promote themselves and their agendas, Dennis King () and Chip Berlet (.) These two editors, with the protection of SlimVirgin, dominate LaRouche-related articles through excessive citations from websites they control, in violation of WP:OWN, WP:COI#Citing oneself, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The fact that SlimVirgin is abetting them due to a shared POV is demonstrated by comments like this one .
Regarding her complaint about the John Train Salon, which she describes as a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," I would first like to point out that:
*It was removed from a section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche with the header "Conspiracy theories." It strikes me as appropriate that views of LaRouche that are described as "conspiracy theories" be sourced to LaRouche. If it is a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," it would be inappropriate to omit it from that section.
*The John Train Salon story is the LaRouche organization's response to the attacks by Berlet and King, which dominate the Wikipedia articles. Under NPOV it should be included. There has been a Wikipedia article for the past two years called John Train Salon, which was recently deleted out-of-process by SlimVirgin.
*As SlimVirgin points out, I didn't add the material -- I restored it, after it was deleted by Dking. When this edit was disputed, I added a third party source at the request of SlimVirgin, which was Daniel Brandt of Public Information Research. SlimVirgin apparently objected to that source as well, but when asked to explain her objection, she refused (diff.) Note that SlimVirgin's response to this edit was to issue a BLP warning that I had "made an edit that may be defamatory."
Regarding her accusation that my edits violated the ArbCom rulings, I have read the rulings carefully, and I have asked SlimVirgin to specify how I violated them. She answered by saying only, "You're acting to promote LaRouche."  However, it is clear from the ArbCom decision in question that "promotion of LaRouche" means inserting references to LaRouche in articles where his views are not notable. The heading of the section in question is References to Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin is trying to obtain a "revisionist" interpretation of this decision, which would mean that any objection I raise to the many policy violations of Cberlet and Dking may be considered "promotion of LaRouche." This is the crux of the matter. --Tsunami Butler 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: I really agree with SlimVirgin on this matter.  We have been through this repeatedly.  The past Arbcom decisions are really quite clear. This will happen again and again, and to open this Arbcom decision rather than enforcing it will waste literally hunderds of editing hours for no constructive purpose.--Cberlet 21:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reluctant comment

message: There appears to be more and bolder activity by LaRouche-related accounts in the recent weeks. Yesterday one of them, added extremely derogatory information about Al Gore to a talk page along with a link to an article in LaRouche's Executive Information Review that includes a serious assertion tying John Seigenthaler to "the faction covering up the assassination of President John F. Kennedy." I had to read that twice before I believed what I saw. There may be some sock puppetry going on. User:Herschelkrustofsky (HK) had several well-established accounts later proven to be sockpuppets, one a female, so it wouldn't be beyond him to be behind some of these new accounts including Tsunami Butler. HK also tended to plagiarize and that seems to going on too. Back in January an editor using a new account added incorrect information, obviously copied from a LaRouche-movement newsletter. 
Regarding the proposed ban, Tsunami Butler appears interested only in pursuing one aim: promoting Lyndon LaRouche and his ideas. Like HK, she engages in lengthy unproductive talk-page debates that never reach a conclusion, and engages in edit warring. She has "has engaged in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement", a finding of fact in HK's first ArbCom case.. I suggest that Tsunami Butler has a style and behavior similar enough to HK's to warrant banning the account as a sockpuppet. -Will Beback · † · 09:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in response to SlimVirgin, objecting to edits by Dking and Cberlet does not constitute "promoting LaRouche and his ideas." In fact, since the policy violations by Dking and Cberlet are so rampant, I have often wondered why the two admins, SlimVirgin and Will Beback, never take action against them (although I will concede that Will Beback did mildly chide Dking on his talk page for incivility.) The sock puppet allegations are a lame tactic. I'm sure that they can be disproved by Checkuser. I had never heard of Dr. Gary Carter until I read the above post. I have seen comments on talk pages by Nemesis, who appears to be a young person editing from Germany. --Tsunami Butler 15:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see a single edit of yours which didn't relate directly to Luyndon LaRouche or his ideas, and I don't see any of edit which didn't improve the position of LaRouche or, in some cases, disparage a group or individual he oppposes. Rather than simply reacting to the edits of Dking and Cberlet, your editing appear to be a primary reason for their current involvement. It's a pattern of editing that we've seen often before and that has resulted in 3 previous ArbCom cases involving HK. -Will Beback · † · 18:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsunami continually responds to questions about her own editing by trying to shine the spotlight on Chip Berlet and Dennis King, even when they have nothing to do with the issue. I noted above that she added to John Siegenthaler  that he was involved in a "racially motivated" sting operation masquerading as a journalistic investigation when he was the publisher of a newspaper, an  edit that is arguably defamatory, and which Kaldari removed as such.  The source she used didn't say the investigation was "racially motivated,"  and the issue originates from a LaRouche publication.  She did this after being given a final warning. I therefore see no realistic possibility of change from her. Perhaps Tsunami could explain that edit (without reference to Berlet or King, please). SlimVirgin (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would explain it as a mistake. I left this message on Kaldari's talk page, to which Kaldari did not respond. I also discussed it on the talk page of the article, and have not pursued the matter further. BTW, check the date on the LaRouche publication that you are claiming is a factor. --Tsunami Butler 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Socks & Seigenthaler

message: I would like to call attention to the fact that the blocking Tsunami Butler is in explicit violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy, where it says the following: "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on."
SlimVirgin began by claiming "promotion of LaRouche," then shifted her rationale until arriving at the last resort of the scoundrel, accusations of sock- or meatpuppetry. She has been engaged in a fierce content dispute with TB during the entire episode. --NathanDW 15:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been established before that any admin may enforce the LaRouche rulings, and in fact one other admin and myself usually do it simply because we know most about the situation. There's no LaRouche content dispute that I have any interest in gaining an advantage in. My aim is to make sure that the LaRouche sockpuppetry and disruption is kept to a minimum, and that the rulings are adhered to. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but your user contributions, edit summaries and talk page contributions tell a different story. --NathanDW 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to take my word for it. You're welcome to ask another admin to review the blocks. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that several admins have reviewed this matter and don't disagree with the block. NathanDW is not contesting the cause of the block, only the involvement of the person who carried it out. We've already been over this issue previously. When the ArbCom chooses to say "any uninvolved admin" they do so. When they say "any admin" that's what they mean.  -Will Beback · † · 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are twisting the facts to suit your purposes. The two admins who spoke up both said that "there is a problem." They didn't specify who the problem was, and they certainly didn't endorse a block.--NathanDW 15:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thatcher131 also spoke up and explicitly endorsed the assertion that these editors were sock puppets of a banned user. -Will Beback · † · 19:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia policy violation

message: ===LaRouche editors again===
 and  (DLTN) are supporters of Lyndon LaRouche. Both are single-issue accounts who add favorable material about LaRouche, remove anything negative, and add negative material about people they see as LaRouche's enemies. They've been warned several times about the ArbCom rulings and BLP, to no avail. NathanDW has been editing for 20 months and has 183 mainspace edits; DLTN since February 2007, with 351 mainspace edits.
I would like to block the accounts indefinitely for BLP violations at Chip Berlet, one of the articles covered by LaRouche2 (see Modification of LaRouche 2).
On July 20, an anon IP with no other edits, , added an anonymous geocities website as an external link. This is a personal website that contains actionable libel against Chip Berlet and myself, alleging some big conspiracy and repeating material about Berlet from Executive Intelligence Review, which is a LaRouche publication, and about me from Wikipedia Review. I believe it is maintained by , a user who was banned for BLP violations against Berlet.
Threeafterthree removed the link. DLTN restored it. I admin-deleted the edit on BLP grounds.  DLTN restored it again ; Tom Harrison removed it; NathanDW restored it. 
Both accounts have been warned about ArbCom and BLP violations before. I issued BLP warnings to NathanDW about his edits to Chip Berlet on November 20, 2006, March 4, 2007, with a final warning on March 5, 2007.
DLTN was blocked indefinitely on April 10, 2007 as a sockpuppet of Tsunami Butler and HonourableSchoolboy, after checkuser showed all three accounts edited from within the same narrow range. I unblocked DLTN because there was one indication of a difference between him and the others, which I won't repeat here, and I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. He was unblocked on condition that he stick to the ArbCom rulings and make no BLP violations.  I had to warn him about BLP again on April 26, 2007. 
WillBeback also recently appealed to DLTN for a change of behavior. 
I don't think this situation is ever going to change. The individuals behind the accounts are either clueless or malicious, and for our purposes it doesn't really matter which. Feedback from the committee about the proposed blocks would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The blocks seem justified. Fred Bauder 21:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. They look correct to me. If your own name hadn't been dragged into it, there'd be no question at all about the propriety, so it's right to ask. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the responses. I'll go ahead with the blocks. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From RfAr requests for clarification section, July 2007 

message: and  (DLTN) are supporters of Lyndon LaRouche. Both are single-issue accounts who add favorable material about LaRouche, remove anything negative, and add negative material about people they see as LaRouche's enemies. They've been warned several times about the ArbCom rulings and BLP, to no avail. NathanDW has been editing for 20 months and has 183 mainspace edits; DLTN since February 2007, with 351 mainspace edits.
I would like to block the accounts indefinitely for BLP violations at Chip Berlet, one of the articles covered by LaRouche2 (see Modification of LaRouche 2).
On July 20, an anon IP with no other edits, , added an anonymous geocities website as an external link. This is a personal website that contains actionable libel against Chip Berlet and myself, alleging some big conspiracy and repeating material about Berlet from Executive Intelligence Review, which is a LaRouche publication, and about me from Wikipedia Review. I believe it is maintained by , a user who was banned for BLP violations against Berlet.
Threeafterthree removed the link. DLTN restored it. I admin-deleted the edit on BLP grounds.  DLTN restored it again ; Tom Harrison removed it; NathanDW restored it. 
Both accounts have been warned about ArbCom and BLP violations before. I issued BLP warnings to NathanDW about his edits to Chip Berlet on November 20, 2006, March 4, 2007, with a final warning on March 5, 2007.
DLTN was blocked indefinitely on April 10, 2007 as a sockpuppet of Tsunami Butler and HonourableSchoolboy, after checkuser showed all three accounts edited from within the same narrow range. I unblocked DLTN because there was one indication of a difference between him and the others, which I won't repeat here, and I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. He was unblocked on condition that he stick to the ArbCom rulings and make no BLP violations.  I had to warn him about BLP again on April 26, 2007. 
WillBeback also recently appealed to DLTN for a change of behavior. 
I don't think this situation is ever going to change. The individuals behind the accounts are either clueless or malicious, and for our purposes it doesn't really matter which. Feedback from the committee about the proposed blocks would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The blocks seem justified. Fred Bauder 21:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. They look correct to me. If your own name hadn't been dragged into it, there'd be no question at all about the propriety, so it's right to ask. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the responses. I'll go ahead with the blocks. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LaRouche editors again

message: === Request for clarification: Lyndon LaRouche 2===
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
* Cberlet 
* Will Beback  (Has been active in helping enforce the case's rulings.)
* Post at relevant ANI thread  
* Georgewilliamherbert 
====Question by Cla68====
The original Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 case contained specific findings against only two editors:  Herschelkrustofsky and SlimVirgin.  A post-decision motion , passed nine months ago, however, appears to expand the scope of the case to include any behavior exhibited by anyone that violates WP:NOR, WP:POV, or WP:BLP with regard to the LaRouche articles.  The exact verbiage in the passed motion is: 
If my interpretation of this ruling is correct, then should the recent block of Cberlet  for violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPA at Views of Lyndon LaRouche with this  remark on the article's talk page be annotated in the log of blocks and bans for this case?  And, by extension, any other editors who have been blocked for violating these policies and guidelines in a similar manner to CBerlet in LaRouche-related articles should also have had their blocks annotated?  Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2008

message: List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
* Cberlet 
* Will Beback  (Has been active in helping enforce the case's rulings.)
* Post at relevant ANI thread  
* Georgewilliamherbert 
====Question by Cla68====
The original Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 case contained specific findings against only two editors:  Herschelkrustofsky and SlimVirgin.  A post-decision motion , passed nine months ago, however, appears to expand the scope of the case to include any behavior exhibited by anyone that violates WP:NOR, WP:POV, or WP:BLP with regard to the LaRouche articles.  The exact verbiage in the passed motion is: 
If my interpretation of this ruling is correct, then should the recent block of Cberlet  for violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPA at Views of Lyndon LaRouche with this  remark on the article's talk page be annotated in the log of blocks and bans for this case?  And, by extension, any other editors who have been blocked for violating these policies and guidelines in a similar manner to CBerlet in LaRouche-related articles should also have had their blocks annotated?  Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2|Lyndon LaRouche 2]]

message: The original Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 case contained specific findings against only two editors:  Herschelkrustofsky and SlimVirgin.  A post-decision motion , passed nine months ago, however, appears to expand the scope of the case to include any behavior exhibited by anyone that violates WP:NOR, WP:POV, or WP:BLP with regard to the LaRouche articles.  The exact verbiage in the passed motion is: 
If my interpretation of this ruling is correct, then should the recent block of Cberlet  for violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPA at Views of Lyndon LaRouche with this  remark on the article's talk page be annotated in the log of blocks and bans for this case?  And, by extension, any other editors who have been blocked for violating these policies and guidelines in a similar manner to CBerlet in LaRouche-related articles should also have had their blocks annotated?  Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question by [[User:Cla68|Cla68]]

message: It seems a bit self-serving to call Polly Hedra's message on Will's talk page "unremorseful." She calls attention to the fact that Will deleted her comment on the LaRouche talk page, while allowing a far more inflammatory comment  by Cberlet to stand. This does not indicate any particular lack of remorse, but rather calls attention to a double standard which has been a continuing problem.
I also have real concerns about Will's proposal that editors be banned for holding a suspicious POV, in lieu of actual Checkuser evidence. Based on Will's long history of partisanship in LaRouche-related content disputes, I have difficulty believing that this proposal is motivated by nothing more than a desire to protect the project from sockpuppets. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Marvin Diode]] 

message: The meme to the effect that "everybody expressing similar opinions to a banned user should be banned too" came into play frequently in the whole Mantanmoreland vs. WordBomb saga, and one would hope it had been discredited by now.  This issue needs to be pursued in a "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" manner with no special consideration, pro or con, being given to either side based on their having a more powerful circle of friends here. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Dtobias]] 

message: * Is there a way for our established users to avoid name calling when they are confronted to difficult situations? Incivility (in all forms) has never been something constructive at all. We can do better than that and most people do not necessarily need to use such a language in order to prove something they believe is right. But logging it just for the sake of logging it is not a solution. It is rather an obstacle. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  06:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
* (initiator)
*
=== Statement by Leatherstocking ===
I have received a message on my talk page from SlimVirgin, informing me in a very convoluted way that she believes that an edit I made "violates the spirit of BLP and the LaRouche 2 ArbCom case" and that "If that kind of editing continues," I'm "likely to be subject to sanctions." She also mentions that she is "writing this as an editor, not as an admin." I find this very strange for several reasons. Her argument against using a court filing as a source () may have some merit, although normally one would simply raise the issue on the article talk page and not leave a threatening note. I am concerned because SlimVirgin recently made an unsuccessful attempt to get me in trouble at the ANI board (,) and this appears to be a follow-up effort. My specific questions are as follows:
1. What on earth does this have to do with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2? SlimVirgin claims that I'm "editing about someone perceived as an enemy of a movement you support." I'm not sure who is doing the "perceiving" here, but I looked on the two main LaRouche websites and found no mention of A.J. Weberman.. I also find SlimVirgin's accusation that the LaRouche movement is "a movement that I support" to be outrageous and unfounded. I made this sufficiently clear at the ANI discussion.
2. Is SlimVirgin's accusation that I am a supporter of the LaRouche movement a violation of Wikipedia:Requests for_arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Caution to SlimVirgin on personal attacks?
3. This morning I restored material that I felt was improperly deleted by SlimVirgin, in this edit. This afternoon, she deleted it again, along with related material, in this edit, in which she cites Wikipedia:Requests for_arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 as justification. Is this a permissable interpretation of LaRouche 2? It appears to me that SlimVirgin is arguing that Dennis King, or any other person "perceived as an enemy" of LaRouche, may not be criticized at Wikipedia, no matter for what reason and no matter how well sourced the criticism. By her logic, if anyone adds material critical of King or others, that person is transformed into a supporter of LaRouche, and is therefore, by her unusual interpretation of LaRouche 2, not permitted to edit.
4. At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Post-decision motion passed, it says that 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. Since SlimVirgin was a party to that case, does this line have the effect of a specific instruction to her that she must not violate BLP at LaRouche articles?
:Responses to other statements: Will Beback and SlimVirgin are using some truly tortured logic here. They seem to be arguing that if LaRouche doesn't like the Yippies, then editors must add only flattering material to articles on Yippies, or be tarred with the brush of being a "LaRouche editor" (that's Step #6 of WP:9STEPS.) The fact of the matter is, I opened an account here because I noticed that a number of persons close to the Yippies, particularly A.J. Weberman/User:Ajweberman and Dennis King/User:Dking. were exploiting Wikipedia for purposes of self-promotion (which is the sort of thing at which Yippies are known to excel.) I was only vaguely aware of LaRouche at that time. I began to watch Dking participate in conflicts at the LaRouche articles and I noticed that Dking had a small group of allies who were using tactics that I believed to be WP:Gaming the system#Abuse of process, and I began to oppose them, which seems to have made me a target. My edits at "LaRouche" articles have always been made from the standpoint of asking that BLP and other policies be strictly observed, but Will And SlimVirgin are misrepresenting them to the effect that if I remove material that violates BLP, or restore sourced material that has been deleted without cause, I am said to be "adding positive material or deleting negative material from the LaRouche articles." In fact, recent disputes have been due to a team effort by Will and SlimVirgin to entirely re-write, from a POV agenda, several articles which I felt were stable and well-balanced.
:One other item that needs to be addressed: Will mentions that I violated the forum shopping rule. This is true; I violated it because I was unaware of it. As soon as it was brought to my attention, I stopped. This request for clarification, to my mind, is an unrelated matter; I made the request after receiving a threatening note from SlimVirgin on my talk page. Since I was being threatened, I felt it was urgent that I get a clarification of the policy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification (October 2009) 

message: I have received a message on my talk page from SlimVirgin, informing me in a very convoluted way that she believes that an edit I made "violates the spirit of BLP and the LaRouche 2 ArbCom case" and that "If that kind of editing continues," I'm "likely to be subject to sanctions." She also mentions that she is "writing this as an editor, not as an admin." I find this very strange for several reasons. Her argument against using a court filing as a source () may have some merit, although normally one would simply raise the issue on the article talk page and not leave a threatening note. I am concerned because SlimVirgin recently made an unsuccessful attempt to get me in trouble at the ANI board (,) and this appears to be a follow-up effort. My specific questions are as follows:
1. What on earth does this have to do with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2? SlimVirgin claims that I'm "editing about someone perceived as an enemy of a movement you support." I'm not sure who is doing the "perceiving" here, but I looked on the two main LaRouche websites and found no mention of A.J. Weberman.. I also find SlimVirgin's accusation that the LaRouche movement is "a movement that I support" to be outrageous and unfounded. I made this sufficiently clear at the ANI discussion.
2. Is SlimVirgin's accusation that I am a supporter of the LaRouche movement a violation of Wikipedia:Requests for_arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Caution to SlimVirgin on personal attacks?
3. This morning I restored material that I felt was improperly deleted by SlimVirgin, in this edit. This afternoon, she deleted it again, along with related material, in this edit, in which she cites Wikipedia:Requests for_arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 as justification. Is this a permissable interpretation of LaRouche 2? It appears to me that SlimVirgin is arguing that Dennis King, or any other person "perceived as an enemy" of LaRouche, may not be criticized at Wikipedia, no matter for what reason and no matter how well sourced the criticism. By her logic, if anyone adds material critical of King or others, that person is transformed into a supporter of LaRouche, and is therefore, by her unusual interpretation of LaRouche 2, not permitted to edit.
4. At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Post-decision motion passed, it says that 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. Since SlimVirgin was a party to that case, does this line have the effect of a specific instruction to her that she must not violate BLP at LaRouche articles?
:Responses to other statements: Will Beback and SlimVirgin are using some truly tortured logic here. They seem to be arguing that if LaRouche doesn't like the Yippies, then editors must add only flattering material to articles on Yippies, or be tarred with the brush of being a "LaRouche editor" (that's Step #6 of WP:9STEPS.) The fact of the matter is, I opened an account here because I noticed that a number of persons close to the Yippies, particularly A.J. Weberman/User:Ajweberman and Dennis King/User:Dking. were exploiting Wikipedia for purposes of self-promotion (which is the sort of thing at which Yippies are known to excel.) I was only vaguely aware of LaRouche at that time. I began to watch Dking participate in conflicts at the LaRouche articles and I noticed that Dking had a small group of allies who were using tactics that I believed to be WP:Gaming the system#Abuse of process, and I began to oppose them, which seems to have made me a target. My edits at "LaRouche" articles have always been made from the standpoint of asking that BLP and other policies be strictly observed, but Will And SlimVirgin are misrepresenting them to the effect that if I remove material that violates BLP, or restore sourced material that has been deleted without cause, I am said to be "adding positive material or deleting negative material from the LaRouche articles." In fact, recent disputes have been due to a team effort by Will and SlimVirgin to entirely re-write, from a POV agenda, several articles which I felt were stable and well-balanced.
:One other item that needs to be addressed: Will mentions that I violated the forum shopping rule. This is true; I violated it because I was unaware of it. As soon as it was brought to my attention, I stopped. This request for clarification, to my mind, is an unrelated matter; I made the request after receiving a threatening note from SlimVirgin on my talk page. Since I was being threatened, I felt it was urgent that I get a clarification of the policy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Leatherstocking 

message: I believe that the ArbCom decision was intended to prevent POV pushing. But  SlimVirgin's re-interpretation seems to be intended to prevent POV pushing only from the pro-LaRouche camp, while giving almost unlimited license to POV pushing from the anti-LaRouche camp. It seems that anyone who opposes SlimVirgin's edits must necessarily be pro-LaRouche, and therefore any and all tactics to shut that person up are acceptable. Here is a cute logical trick, akin to "have you stopped beating your wife?: Whether Leatherstocking is a member of the movement or just a sympathizer doesn't matter. False dichotomy; there is a third option, which happens to be the correct one: I tend to react if I see what looks like bullies who are gaming the system. If I saw these tactics at work in some other group of biographical articles, sooner or later I would feel obliged to get involved in that conflict as well. 
SlimVirgin makes this accusation: He's clearly intensely interested in and sympathetic toward LaRouche, and he's editing BLPs of people LaRouche doesn't like, and that's just not a good thing. I would say in response that SlimVirgin is clearly interested in and antipathetic toward LaRouche, and she's made several hundred hostile edits to his BLP in the past weeks, and that's just not a good thing. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to SlimVirgin

message: I would like to re-emphasize that none of the material removed from Dennis King by SlimVirgin originated with LaRouche. It's from Daniel Pipes and Laird Wilcox. Also, as I indicated, I had edited both Dennis King and A.J. Weberman long before I edited a LaRouche article or got into any scrap with SlimVirgin. I would like to see the ArbCom issue very clear guidelines as to constitutes a "pro-LaRouche editor," so as to prevent the designation of others as "pro-LaRouche editors" from becoming a tactic available to POV-warriors. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Carcharoth

message: Leatherstocking has been engaged in forum shopping, posting complaints in the last week to WP:ANI, WP:BLPN, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard , and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Regarding Leatherstocking's assertion that he does not support the LaRouche movement, virtually all of his 1000+ edits have been to LaRouche-related topics or to critics of LaRouche. Inevitably, he's added positive material or deleted negative material from the LaRouche articles, while adding negative material to the articles about critics or their projects. Despite his protests, I don't think his assertions of being disinterested are credible. I am currently compiling diffs to show the many occasions on which he's edit warred on behalf of a banned user, or to add LaRouche material to the project. As for Slimvirgin's concern, I'm not sure I agree with her view that it violates WP:RFAR/LL2. However if the ArbCom is interested in this case, I'd urge them to wait until all of the evidence can be assembled.   Will Beback  talk   01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Will Beback 

message: Carcharoth is correct that decisions about sources have led to repeated disputes. (I think that is typical of contentious topics). Over the years, engaged editors have made extensive use of noticeboards, creating unusually long threads, sometimes with multiple HK socks participating at once.  One stayed active for five months.  As an experiment, editors of another contentious topic have create a project, WP:RAWAT, to serve as a central place to find consensus on issues like sourcing that apply to several articles. (It's based on  Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration). However there are many editors involved in the Rawat articles. The LaRouche articles have only three regular editors: myself, Leatherstocking (LS), and HK's sock accounts. (Slimvirgin has had a flurry of activity recently, but she's been mostly inactive for the past two years. Dking edits occasionally but is mostly retired. Cberlet is entirely retired.) (Besides LS and HK, the only other editor to make significant pro-LaRouche edits was Cognition. A recent checkuser finding showed that he may have been a sock of 172, to everyone's astonishment.) So I don't think the project concept would work if there are only two unbanned editors who are regularly involved. We could seek to form a task force of another project, though deciding which one would be appropriate could be tricky.   Will Beback  talk   05:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment about source decisions

message: 1. Leatherstocking is clearly a LaRouche editor. He says he's not, but his entire contribution history (since 2007) says otherwise. He edits articles about LaRouche, and about LaRouche's "enemies," and about the friends of LaRouche's enemies, to add material that would be favoured by the LaRouche movement. When he's not doing that, he's posting on the BLP, RS, and NPOV noticeboards, or on AN/I and AE, trying to cause problems for editors who oppose him. Every request to Leatherstocking to change his ways causes him to file more complaints or requests for clarification (like this one), which takes up yet more time.
2. My warning to him today concerned this edit, which includes in the lead of A.J. Weberman that Weberman manages Dennis King's website. Dennis King is LaRouche's biographer, widely disliked within the LaRouche movement. The edit was a BLP violation because it was based on a court document that no secondary source has written about and, further, was posted on a dubious website. BLP says: "Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use ... trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them."
3. In addition (and this is a separate issue from the BLP violation above), the LaRouche 2 ArbCom case cautioned named LaRouche editors not to edit Dennis King or make edits about him elsewhere. Although the ruling does not name Leatherstocking, the spirit of the ruling certainly applies to him. It says:  ... the remedies applied in Lyndon LaRouch 2 are applied to Cognition, 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).
Georgewilliamherbert is the admin who's been keeping an eye on LaRouche issues, so I told him about my warning to Leatherstocking, and asked if he would look out for the BLP issues. 
Will knows more about this editor than I do, so I'm not in a position to provide more diffs about him at this point, in case more are needed. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by SlimVirgin

message: Vassyana, there are several clauses in LaRouche 2 that could apply, for example (bold added):
The general ban on editing was that anyone editing like Herschelkrustofsky should stay away from LaRouche-related articles. The decision says (bold added): 
The remedy above (8.3.3.1 "Ban extended") extended the definition of "LaRouche-related articles" to cover Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, and Dennis King, and their talk pages, because these are people that LaRouche and his supporters regard as enemies, and some inappropriate edits were being made to them. In fact, the two BLPs were created by Herschelkrustofsky in the first place.
Leatherstocking is not Herschelkrustofsky but his editing is the same. He has been editing Dennis King, and has been adding material about King to other articles e.g. to this article about yet another LaRouche enemy. That edit also violated BLP because it was based on a primary source, and the issue has not been mentioned by secondary sources. BLP doesn't allow that. 
The basic problem is this: for the past five years at least, accounts associated with the LaRouche movement have used Wikipedia to create articles about LaRouche's enemies, to add little barbs to existing BLPs, and to add conspiracy theories to BLPs and to other articles about the BLP subjects. Most of it was sourced to LaRouche publications. Sometimes there were other sources, but almost never good ones.
This used to happen a lot before we had BLP. Now, it seems clear to me that the spirit of BLP (even though it doesn't actually say this) is that people with personal axes to grind about living people shouldn't be editing articles about those people. The more we mature as a project, the more clarity there is around that issue. Dennis King, for example, should probably stay away from Lyndon LaRouche too, even though he's LaRouche's published biographer and knows a lot about him. But there were legal threats between them a few years ago, and obviously he had to immerse himself in LaRouche to write the biography, and he still maintains a website about LaRouche. That degree of offwiki involvement, even if 100 percent legitimate, probably means he should leave it to others to add his information to the LaRouche article. Keeping a distance in such a case protects LaRouche, King, and Wikipedia.
Whether Leatherstocking is a member of the movement or just a sympathizer doesn't matter. He's clearly intensely interested in and sympathetic toward LaRouche, and he's editing BLPs of people LaRouche doesn't like, and that's just not a good thing.
Finally (sorry for the length), the ArbCom did, as you say, explicitly address this situation in 2007 in an addition to LaRouche 2 (bold added): 
SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Vassyana

message: * (Disclosure: I performed a CheckUser during one of the recent AN/I threads and asked some experienced admins to review the matter, but I have no other involvement.) Will, I believe that if there is sufficient evidence to act that action may be taken at AN/I or by forwarding the information to the functionaries list without the direct intervention of the Committee. Regarding the applicability of the case per the clarification request, I believe (and she may correct me if I am mistaken) that SlimVirgin is referring to: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Post-decision motion passed. I am not endorsing any accusations or defenses in this instance, but it does seem that it clearly applies if the concerns are founded. Vassyana (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: I seeem to be caught in a personal feud between two reportedly longtime editors of Wikipedia with a strong interest in the same topic.  I'll explain the background of my involvement in full within the next day or so.  For right now, though, I simply suggest checking the article history, the article talk page, and the article itself.  The article's topic is valid, the treatement is within policy, the sources are solid, helpful community involvement was ongoing and productive (until today), and SlimVirgin (SV) was not an active editor with this topic.  I think the quality of the article speaks for itself.  More to follow... Cla68 (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Cla68

message: Following Cla68's considerable involvement in October with the AfD on a topic edited by SlimVirgn, WP:AFD/Jeremiah Duggan in October, I posted a notice reminding him of the ArbCom's remedy in C68-FM-SV. (After I posted that, and with no connection to Cla68, it was serendipitously discovered that  was a sock/meat puppet of banned serial puppet master  WP:LTA/HK, and the account was blocked the same day it was discovered. Cla68 jumped to the conclusion that he was "chased away" ahead of time in order to prevent him from interfering with the block. There is no truth and no evidence of that.) 
The LaRouche movement has advocated a variety of proposals in its political platforms over the years. A reasonably inclusive list is now at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Campaign platforms. It includes planks ranging from a return to the gold standard and the colonization of Mars. But the support of the LaRouche movement is not a significant factor in the promotion of the proposals, so LaRouche is not mentioned in those Wikipedia articles. The LaRouche movement is a small group holding what are generally described as fringe or extremist views. The only LaRouche proposal that has received significant coverage in secondary sources was a 1986 ballot proposition in California concerning AIDS patients. The 2009 Obama=Hitler campaign has been widely reported, but despite being mentioned in dozens of newspapers articles and hundreds of blogs, none of the sources I've seen have actually discussed LaRouche's health care proposal. The attention was just on the posters and the genocide accusation. 
While the movement does publish articles on the Eurasian Land Bridge (ELB), they are ignored by mainstream writers writing about the topic. The view that the LaRouche movement is a significant advocate of ELB is held only by the LaRouche movement. No one else says that. There are many institutions that have actual, significant connections to the topic but which aren't mentioned by name. Sources that say it's a plank of the movement don't go into any greater depth. Devoting a named section partly to LaRouche's promotion is undue weight. 
While the other aspects of the article appear to be of good quality, Cla68 says that its creation was due to the discussion on Wikipedia Review concerning LaRouche, Herschelkrustofsky, and SlimVirgin. The LaRouche material is not just a random paragraph inserted into a pre-existing article but rather it's the reason for the article. The inclusion of this content appears to be determined by factors beyond NPOV article writing on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk   12:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Will Beback 

message: I think the real violation of sanctions here is by SlimVirgin and WillBeback. Their (coordinated?) thesis that this is "her" article and therefore Cla68 has to stay away beggars belief. They seem to be bent on harassing Cla68, and anyone who has the temerity to get involved in anything related to LaRouche. I ask ArbCom for a summary judgment banning SlimVirgin and WillBeback from all LaRouche related articles, broadly construed. Including this one, which is a fine article... might be an FA someday if it's just allowed to be worked on peaceably, instead of being interfered with as these two seem determined to do.
I may have more to say later. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Lar 

message: I may be missing something here, but the only possibly sound approaches SlimVirgin seems to want to pursue are:
*An accusation that Cla68 is editing the article as an indirect attack on SlimVirgin; 
*The suggestion that SlimVirgin's virtual presence is somehow so strongly associated with Eurasian Land Bridge Cla68 should not be involved; and
*Its within (SlimVirgin's?) administrative discretion to handle the LaRouche aspect of the article.
I'm going to skip over analysis of whether SlimVirgin exercising administrative discretion in this situation is proper (it isn't) and just suggest it would be an incredibly bad idea to use a content related remedy position in the midst of what appears to be actually fruitful discussion.
As for the Cla68-SlimVirgin interaction angle, if I was actioning this request on WP:AE (where Arbitration enforcement usually goes), I'd say SlimVirgin has to meet a high burden of proof to convince me that Cla68 is acting (in bad faith) to attack SlimVirgin, or that creating an article for even allegedly dubious content positions on the significance of the LaRouche movement is relevant to SlimVirgin or any other policy.--Tznkai (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Tznkai

message: I worked with  on LaRouche criminal trials in a successful effort for it to become a FAC and found him to be reasonable on all accounts and without an agenda regarding the facts.  I do not believe  was involved at all in that article, so I have no statement regarding her involvement in the issues at stake.  —mattisse (Talk) 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Mattisse 

message: The concept that merely creating or editing an article on a particular subject is somehow inherently "harassment" of SlimVirgin is the sort of ridiculous stretch of the concept of harassment that cheapens actual harassment; crying wolf too many times about this sort of thing will result in people ignoring you if and when you actually do get harassed.
However, I do share with Slim some skepticism about whether the involvement of LaRouche and his movement in the concept of a Eurasian land bridge is truly notable; is that really what the reliable sources show? *Dan T.* (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Dtobias 

message: *Slim, just a reminder to notify Cla of the request.  Also, I don't see a User:Herschelkrustofksy registered.  Assuming there is a typo in there somewhere, could you notify him as well.  Assuming his talk page is unlocked, he could post a statement and have it transferred here or email it to arbcom. MBisanz talk 09:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have notified Cla. I'll check the typing of HK's name, but he is not an involved party; he has been banned for some time. Apologies if this is in the wrong place; please feel free to move it. SlimVirgin 09:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: *Comment - this appears to conflate a content dispute and a ruling about the interaction of two editors. As regards the content dispute, might I suggest that other parts of the article are expanded before returning to that dispute? As far as the "avoiding unnecessary contact" bit goes, can I ask the two parties involved if they have been able to interact amicably outside of Wikipedia or not? The other question is whether they (and any others here) are engaged in disputes outside of Wikipedia that they are bringing onto Wikipedia? I take a very dim view of editors who argue about something outside of Wikipedia, and then continue that argument here on Wikipedia. You need to be able to leave baggage at the door when you come to edit Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion