Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure exactly where to put this, as I'm not a party to the dispute, per se, but Herschelkrustofsky has alleged that I had ulterior motives in protecting Leo Strauss. I didn't. I was patrolling RC at the time, caught Andy's request on Requests for page protection, and did so. I don't even know who Strauss is.

My apologies. I still don't know a lot of the Wikipedia ropes, and I was not aware that there was such a thing as Requests for page protection. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Secondly, he accused me of siding against him on Lyndon LaRouche. This isn't true. I did pressure him to answer a key question regarding Adam's citations, and to cite neutral sources. But I did also suggest (back in Archive4) that he'd raised several NPOV issues that Adam, Andy and John could've dealt with - that were not related to factual accuracy issues, but that were overlooked in the resulting bickering. I still believe that if this had gone to mediation first, at least those could've been resolved. Ambivalenthysteria 00:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wish I could share your optimism. I give John credit for playing by the Marquess of Queensbury rules, even if he is a committed antagonist. Adam and Andy, however, are going for some sort of final solution with respect to my participation at Wikipedia, and they have no intention of settling for anything short of that.--Herschelkrustofsky 03:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And as a postscript, I'd like to acknowledge your comment on the Talk:Lyndon LaRouche page:
"Regardless of the outcome of arbitration proceedings, how about dealing with some of the disputed points in Krusty's latest list (the NPOV ones, anyway)? Ambivalenthysteria 04:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This is the most fair and useful comment I've seen from any of the Sysops that have commented on the controversy-- although the relevant parties show no sign of responding to it. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I must give credit where it is due: Andy has now removed two, perhaps three of the most egregious slurs in article, and hopefully, since it was Andy who did it, Adam will not revert the edits. See updated list. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:50, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's quite correct, because you have no interest in Wikipedia as a project, only as another vehicle for foisting LaRouche lies and slanders on unsuspecting readers. LaRouchies are one of several categories of people (others are the various nationalist propagandists and obdurate Stalinists [personal attack removed]), who ought to be given one warning and then banned. Adam 06:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam's retraction looks correct to me. This kind of mistake is expected, and I see no reason to suspect bad faith. Martin 19:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Martin, your suggestion that I may suffer from poor Wikiquette astounds me somewhat. In each of the examples you cite, I am reacting to the fact that Adam and company have insisted that the article Lyndon LaRouche be laden with assertions that are factually incorrect, or to put it more undiplomatically, lies. Any attempt to edit this article that does not leave said lies entirely intact, is met with a resumption of revert war (see my two attempted edits since all this this began: here is number one, and here number two, and see the responses of the Adam, John and Andy gang). I can't imagine a more egregious violation of Wikiquette, unless it were the kind of personal attacks that Adam brazenly indulges in.

However, I must confess that I find the issue of Wikiquette to be somewhat trivial (I'm sure this will find its way into my dossier), in comparison with the larger issue of truth. It seems to me that if Wikipedia is what it professes to be, a real encyclopedia, the internet visitor ought to be able to come to Wikipedia with a sense of confidence that no malicious persons have planted false information on the topic of interest. It is my conviction that the most important issue at hand in this arbitration is whether a determined gang of editors, including but not limited to Adam, John and Andy, can enforce a regime of falsehood in this particular article, aided by the indifference of other editors -- a form of mob rule. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since it appears that the "arbitration" group is not in fact arbitrating anything and that this page has became just one more forum for feeding Krusty's egotism by debating his absurd assertions such as those in his posting above, I am taking this page off my watchlist. Adam 03:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what we're being criticised here for, Adam, but thank you for your involvement up to this point. Martin 16:02, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)