User:SlimVirgin/philosophy tasks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article does not adequately cite its sources and may contain unverified information or original research.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references or removing unreferenced material. See the talk page for details.

Contents


[edit] User:Herschelkrustofsky, User:Weed Harper, User:C Colden, and IP address 64.30.208.48

User accounts Herschelkrustofsky (contribs), Weed Harper (contribs), C Colden (contribs), and IP address 64.30.208.48 (contribs) have engaged in a pattern of promotion of the Lyndon LaRouche movement, which is widely regarded as a political cult. Their contribution histories show that almost all their edits have been LaRouche-related. The same user accounts appear also to have posted using a number of AOL IP addresses and AOL proxies. The developers have confirmed that: "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."

[edit] Promotion of LaRouche

The promotion of LaRouche takes the form of the deletion of material unfavorable to LaRouche; the addition of material favorable to him, either with no references or with reference only to LaRouche publications; the creation of articles intended to serve as a platform or showcase for LaRouche material; and attacks on Wikipedia editors who stand up to them. Often, the material inserted appears to have no basis in reality whatsoever, but is entirely a product of the LaRouche movement's propaganda and of Lyndon LaRouche's imagination. This pattern of behavior has been on-going since the first user account Herschelkrustofsky was set up in May 2004. Despite going through mediation and arbitration, nothing has changed. The promotion of LaRouche is in violation of Wikipedia policy and in violation of the Arbitration Committee's previous ruling regarding Herschelkrustofsky.

The accounts Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper have assumed ownership of most of the 17 articles on Template:LaRouche, and any other article that mentions LaRouche. The result is that none of the articles about LaRouche accurately reflects the nature of the man or the organization. Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper have caused so much dissent that there are now numerous breakaway articles about LaRouche and his groups, when in reality his movement does not warrant this much space on the Wikipedia. In addition, there are serious omissions in the articles, rendering them misleading. The Schiller Institute page, for example, stresses the cultural activities of the organization. In reality, it is regarded as a far-right political cult, whose members have complained of brain-washing techniques, but none of this is mentioned. There are many other inaccuracies, too numerous to mention here, woven throughout the entire LaRouche template. They are also trying to insert LaRouche ideology, without mentioning LaRouche by name, into Australian articles where they have no expertise and are engaging in revert wars to protect the material. (See Michael Danby history They appear to be doing this in order to annoy Adam Carr, who retreated to editing only Australian articles after a lengthy dispute with the LaRouche accounts, at which point they pursued him to those articles too.

[edit] Attacks on editors

The attacks on editors take the form of accusing the editors of being anti-LaRouche activists, in an attempt to poison the well in terms of those editors' reputations. They engage in seemingly endless arguments on the Talk pages (see Template:LaRouche Talk), which amount so far to over 185,000 words, so that most editors eventually get worn down and give up. They are known to have caused problems for editors with very different political views and editing styles, including Bcorr, Andyl, Adam Carr, Cberlet, DJ Supreme, John Kenney, Slim Virgin, Xed, and 172.

[edit] 3RR violation

If the user accounts Herschelkrustofy and Weed Harper are operated by the same person, they have been used to violate 3RR. At Lyndon LaRouche on Jan 22, they reverted four times in 19 hrs and 30 mins. The page history is here. [1] At 01:29 on that date, Herschel reverted [2]. At 07:28, Weed Harper reverted [3]. At 16:07, Herschel reverted. [4] At 21:07, Weed Harper reverted. [5]

[edit] Dispute resolution attempted

The most recent was between Herschel and SlimVirgin. On December 17, SlimVIrgin set up a subpage at User:SlimVirgin/references to discuss with Herschel the need to use reliable references on the LaRouche pages, and to establish a relationship based on civility. Herschel continued to discuss detailed points rather than address the substantive issue, and after a few days stopped replying to posts.

Between August and October, there was informal mediation between Herschel, Adam Carr, and AndyL by User:Snowspinner, which resulted in compromise versions of the LaRouche articles, but which did not address the issue of the editors' behavior.

In August, there was an Arbitration Committee ruling, which stated:

[edit] Relief requested

The relief requested is that these user accounts be prohibited from:

  • editing articles on Template:LaRouche
  • editing the talk pages on Template:LaRouche talk
  • editing the Australian articles Michael Danby, William Spence, Frank Anstey, John Dunmore Lang, King O'Malley, Daniel Deniehy, or their talk pages
  • creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement
  • inserting material originating with the LaRouche movement into other articles
  • operating sockpuppet accounts
  • be asked to choose one user account and stick to it

[edit] Evidence

  • MO: linking of pages throughout Wikipedia; same as LaRouche MO: get material published, then refer critics to those publications (e.g. Eurasian Land Bridge talk page. The publication of the thing used to prove its existence with the truth becoming more blurred after each article.)
Make note of John Train (created him) - Paris Review - Association for Cultural Freedom (CIA expanded 198.81.26.77, which is him; also created Amelia Bonyton Robinson) so it fits with John Train Salon, created by him. And the mention of Michael Danby on that page by anon 198 Dec 23



See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence

Larouche says his critics framed him in the 1980s on fraud charges. That was just after he says Ronald Reagan called off an assassination attempt by 100 armed men who surrounded his house. Lyndon LaRouche: "They were coming in to get me overnight. I was supposed to be dead in the morning." [6]

[7] LaRouche death threat in magazine

It's a cult: http://www.rickross.com/reference/larouche/larouche21.html http://www.rickross.com/reference/larouche/larouche12.html http://www.rickross.com/reference/larouche/larouche36.html


References to Lyndon LaRouche

4) 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. Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 4: Martin 21:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) (not attached to particular wording, parallels #1) Fred Bauder 23:52, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC) James F. (talk) 00:21, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) Gutza 14:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) mav 05:43, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Edits and reversions favoring LaRouche:

Weed Undoing a redirect at Eurasian Land Bridge to Asian Highway, and replacing it with "this article has been vandalized and must be rewritten" Sept 13 Using two LaRouche articles as a source [8]

The redirect was put back. Weed undid it again on Sept 15, and replaced it with LaRouche's description of an Asian land bridge, in which he claims it was LaRouche's idea. [9]

Again, it was redirected, and again Weed replaced the redirect with an article about LaRouche [10]

Fred Bauder ruled that Eurasian Land Bridge counted as original research on Sept 17, and should be deleted or redirected. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/[index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Bauder/Archive_5&diff=prev&oldid=5951970]

Eurasina Land Bridhe is a fantasy; and the date the real Asian Highway started predates the date LaROuche supposedly conceived of te idea. http://[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurasian_Land-Bridge&diff=prev&oldid=5961218]

Weed doesn't give up, and the row continue at Lyndon LaRouche An editor writes that LaRouche tried to take credit for the Asian Highway. Weed deletes it. Sept 18 [11] That information remains left out of the article.

Weed once again deletes the re-direct of the Eurasian Land Bridge and reinserts his article. Sept 27 [12]

Anonymously puts the accuracy tag on Asian Highway, using [13] He later logs in, which shows the IP address to be one he was using. [14]

Inserts details of John Train Salon into Political Views of Lyndond LaRouche [15] no reputable reference Sept 28

Sept 30 Created an article about Mira Lansky Boland, one of the John Train conspirators [16]

LYndon LaRouche: Star Wars January 18, 2005 17:55 A quote from a LaRouche "science adviser" (claiming to be quoting someone else) attributing the design of Star Wars to "he developer, the originator of this idea, who is the scientific-technological strategic expert, Lyndon LaRouche." Removed by Cberlet who asks for an external source [17]

18:16 Herschel re- adds it, citing LaRouche cable TV [18]

19:02 Removed again by Cberlet, who asks for a non-LaRouche source [19]

21:11 C Colden reinserts it with "I saw Scherer's speech on cable access. Does Berlet think it was done with special effects?)" Still no non-LaRouche source. [20]

And there it sits

Schiller Institue Jan 19 15:23 Weed Harper removes a cited quotation from a Schiller supporters about a tyupe of music being Satanic, becuse t makes the Schiller look nuts, with the comment "there is no "Paul Schmitz" at SI". How does he know that? [21]

December 6 01:51 Herschel removes referenced information (referenced to Times, Washington Post, Guardian, and the transcript of a British coroner's inquest) out Jeremiah Duggan;s death, which is crtical of the Schiller, including all the links in the references section. [22]

Dec 6 01:54 Slim VIrgin returns it [23]

Dec 6 03:18 H deletes it again [24]

Dec 6 03: 33 SV returns it, then posts a request for page protection [25]

The page is protected until December 13

December 15 00:23 C Colden adds unreferenced info and under a new "history" section posts a list of conferences. This appears to be designed to make the Duggan information lower inthe article. She also deletes the References section. [26]

Revision as of 01:01, Dec 15, 2004 Copy edit. Deleted claim that Wills and French woman attended opening; please supply reference. Moved "history" to "conferences" section, as all it is, is a short list of some conferences [27]

Revision as of 01:05, Dec 15, 2004 Re-added References section. Do not remove references unless they are not reputable [28]

Revision as of 01:14, Dec 15, 2004 Added reference and link for claim that Institute is a political cult [29]

Revision as of 01:20, Dec 15, 2004 H reverts "revert to C Colden version. Slim, your edits are insanely and unacceptably POV" which puts conference back up front as "history" and removes the References section.; and removes the Washington Post link to the claim that the Institute is a political cult. [30]

Revision as of 01:26, Dec 15, 2004 I revert to my version [31]

Revision as of 01:32, Dec 15, 2004 H reverts to C Colden's version [32]

Revision as of 02:07, Dec 15, 2004 [33] SV reverts to her version with "top removing properly referenced material! " and posts a request for page protection

The page is protected until December 21. Revision as of 05:00, Dec 27, 2004 172.194.97.169 (Talk |contribs ),which is within the LaRouche IP range, removes the Institute from the category of cults, with the words "a bit biased, wouldn't you say?" [34]

[edit] Poisoning the well

Chip Berlet Bcorr, you clearly wish the article to tip-toe around the relationship between Berlet and his sponsors. Why is that? -- Herschelkrustofsky 21:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) Bcorr, both you and Berlet seem to find the Train meetings to be something of an embarassment, and you wish to finesse the content of the article. -Herschelkrustofsky 06:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chip, I'm happy to see you come around to balance and fairness, so late in the game. It reminds me of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol." Weed Harper 07:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chip, your self-descriptive edits read like a resum?. You should carefully examine Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms , and realize that Wikipedia is an entirely different world than your own websites: you can't just practice your vocation as a mud-slinger-for-hire here . . . Herschelkrustofsky 21:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche's role in politics, that being that he has been the target of one of the most massive propaganda campaigns in post-WWII history. The fact that you, Chip, played a role in that propaganda campaign, is essential to an understanding of your own role in politics, and your desire to expunge it from your own Wikipedia article is understandable, while also self-serving and unacceptable. -- HK 15:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slim, your proposal is meaningless unless you also offer not to edit LaRouche related articles, because you are an anti-LaRouche editor. Weed Harper 01:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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. Weed Harper 16:03, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slim, you also removed the material on Richard Melon Scaife [but] . . . you left intact the hostile (and irrelevant) characterization of LaRouche by the ADL, confirming once again my suspicion that you are editing these articles as an anti-LaRouche activist. -- HK 16:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slim, it would be a bit silly of you to claim that you have no axe to grind here. -- Herschelkrustofsky 07:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Jeremiah Duggan I believe SlimVirgin wrote this story to make Wikipedia a soapbox for his Anti-LaRouche campaign, which goes against Wikipedia policy. Caroline 14:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To AndyL You have a bad habit of trying to twist all research to suit your own cherished theories, which is particularly inappropriate behavior for a person who aspires to be a Wikipedia editor. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List/archive1




[edit] Using sockpuppets to violate polices

[edit] Creating apparent support for an edit or position

Herschel's hodgepodge beats Adam's diatribe. - 64.30.208.48 Lyndon LaRouche, June 20 It's not just the propaganda -- even the parts that attempt to be non-propagandistic are sloppy and amateurish, as if the writer(s) had done no research whatsoever. This ought to be re-written from scratch. -- Peter_Abelard@ausi.com, around July 21 at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/The_Herschelkrustofsky_List&oldid=5082555


[edit] Dennis King

Weed's view of Dennis King, journalist Also, accusations that come from Dennis King should be identified as coming from him, and not simply presented as fact. As far as no one discreditting Dennis King, what is there to discredit? He was a guy scratching our a living as "Caspar the friendly ghost writer", selling term papers to college students. Then he was paid by a bunch of rich right-wingers to write an attack on LaRouche, which was circulated to a tiny group of die-hard LaRouche-haters, and then it wound up in the discount bins at K-Mart. Then Dennis vanished back into obscurity. Weed Harper 19:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

Also talk about him and Frederick Wills




The Beatles

"The Beatles had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division (Tavistock) specifications, and promoted in Britain by agencies which are controlled by British intelligence."

"Why Your Child Became A Drug Addict" Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Campaigner Special Report, Copyright 1978

Adolf Hitler

"The first, and most important fact to be recognized concerning the Hitler regime, is that Adolf Hitler was put into power in Germany on orders from London. The documentation of this matter is abundant and conclusive."

"Humboldt Versus Hitler", Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Campaigner, August 1978

Harvard and MIT

"Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are among a handful of leading centers of fascist social engineering research and development throughout the post-war U.S. Other universities of comparable status include Columbia University, Cornell University, University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan, University of Chicago, University of California at Berkeley, and Leland Stanford University."

"What Happened To Integration", Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Campaigner, August 1975


[edit] Background

The Lyndon LaRouche movement is regarded by the mainstream press in the U.S., UK, and Germany as a political cult with fascist tendencies. A British court heard in 2003 that a London metropolitan police report called the movement Ða political cult with sinister and dangerous connections." [35] [36] The movement is based upon the personality cult of Lyndon LaRouche, a perennial American presidential candidate and convicted fraudster. Associated groups are the National Caucus of Labor Committees, the Schiller Institute, and the LaRouche Youth Movement. Former members have told journalists that they believe brainwashing (so-called "ego-stripping) techniques were used on them; that they were expected to work many hours a day fund-raising, yet live in poverty themselves; and were required to live in collective housing. These are the some of the defining qualities of a cult. [37] [38]

Lyndon LaRouche himself is a conspiracy theorist. For example, he claims that rogue elements in the U.S. military helped with the attack on the World Trade Center; that the British royal household wants to assassinate him; that London put Adolf Hilter in power; and that the Tavistock Institute, a respected British psychotherapy research group, is at the center of an international mind-control plot involving the Beatles.

Three LaRouche-associated user accounts, and several anonymous IP addresses, have been editing the Wikipedia since around May 2004. It is not known whether they belong to one person or several. The accounts have made over 2,000 edits, almost all of which amount to advocacy and propaganda on behalf of the LaRouche movement. They insert LaRouche ideas into articles, create articles for the purpose of advocacy, insert attacks on LaRouche's critics, and delete criticism of LaRouche. Here is an example of the Schiller Institute page written by one of them, as of June 2 2004. [39], in which it sounds more like the Women's Institute than a fascist cult. They also accuse editors who stand up to them of being anti-LaRouche activists, and therefore untrustworthy.

The user names are Herschelkrustofsky ([[40] contribs]), registered on May 19, 2004, which is the most active account with around 1,700 edits, and who has admitted to being a LaRouche supporter/activist for 30 years; Weed Harper ([contribs), registered August 6, 2004; and C Colden ([41]), registered September 1, 2004, which is the least active account with just 43 edits. There is also IP address 64.30.208.48 (contribs), first used July 15, 2004, which is believed to be the same IP address used by the Weed Harper account. (During a discussion on Talk:Michael Danby, an editor declined to discuss the issue with the anon IP address; minutes later Weed Harper announced that he had logged in with a user name and he continued the discussion. [42] S/he has also posted on Usenet with the name Weed Harper from the same IP address.) There are also several AOL proxy addresses that these users appear to have used anonymously. For example, Weed Harper appears to edit with 172.199.24.28 [43]

They rarely provide sources for their claims, even when asked to repeatedly, which violates Wikipedia:Cite sources. What sources they do provide are invariably LaRouche's own publications, or extremist political websites that have taken ideas from LaRouche, which is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. They attempt to stigmatize editors who stand up to them, by calling the editors "anti-LaRouche activists", thereby poisoning the well. Most editors are eventually worn down and driven away by the endless discussions on Talk pages, the insults, and the requests for mediation. See Template:Lyndon LaRouche Talk for a list of the Talk page archives these user accounts have caused. In the space of six months, Hrschelkrustofsky submitted four requests for mediation; one request for arbitration; and one complaint to the ArbCom about a personal attack.

As a result of Herschel's request for arbitration, the ArcCom case ruled that LaRouche supporters may use LaRoche publicatoins as source on articles "closely related" to LaRouche. This was a problematic rulign because it failed to define "closely related", which has led to arguments among editors, with the LaRouche editors claiming that anyone who is even a critic of LaROuche shold be regarded as "closely related"; and also because the ArbCom didn't distinguish between LaRouche publications being used as primary or secondary sources on LaRouche pages. In allowing the LaRouche-related pages to be based on LaROluche's vanity publications, without those publications being explicity cite as sources, these editors and those pages have been awarded a privileged status in Wikipedia, by being allowed to rely on sources that would be considered unreliable for any other Wikipedia article, and so in effect being the only editors on the Wikipeida who are allowed to compose articles based on origial research.

[edit] NPOV

HErschel repeatedly claims that failing to allow LaRouche's ideas to be inserted into articles is a violation of the NPOV policy. Howeber, NPOV does not mean that all unverifiable claims have a place in WIkipedia. The NPOV policy states that, and Jimbo Wales has said that:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

[edit] Relief requested

That these user accounts be banned from editing the Wikipedia; or failing that, that they be prohibited from editing any of the pages on Template:Lyndon LaRouche (there are currently 16 such pages) and related Talk pages, creating new pages related to LaRouche, inserting LaROuche's name or reference to LaRouche publications into any other article, and that Gerschel be prhibite from editing Australian articles, where he has engaged in a pattern of what is arguably trolling against Adam Carr.

[edit] Applicable policies

Applicable policies, guidelines and ArbCom rulings:

[edit] Applicable ArbCom findings and remedies

ÐUser 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 [1] This is then followed by further linkings such as that in this edit of the article Frankfurt School [2] which form a pattern of attempting to insert the original work of Lyndon LaRouche into Wikipedia.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentionsÓ

ÓUser Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentionsÓ

ÓOriginal 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.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions.Ó

ÓSupporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon LaRouche directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions.Ó

ÓWikipedia 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.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions.Ó

[edit] List of mediation/arbitration requests made by Herschel

Said thet would stop editing Chip Berlet, but then edited it on Jan 9, with 198.81.26.73 (Talk |contribs ) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=9230921&oldid=9230802 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=9235875&oldid=9230921

This same IP created Amelia Boynton Robinson (also see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Decius&diff=prev&oldid=9251875 User Desius; it may just be an AOL proxy)


64.30.208.48 is the Weed Harper one

Friedrich Schiller, removed information in a link about the true nature of the Schiller Institute. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Schiller&diff=8847777&oldid=8847688 198.81.26.11 (Talk |contribs )

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Schiller&diff=3556365&oldid=3556296 added link to Schiller Institute, with no mention that it's part of LaRouche movement 64.12.116.24 (Talk |contribs ) May 13, 2004 examples of vandalism of above IP http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lord_Emsworth&diff=prev&oldid=6078130 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endoplasmic_reticulum&diff=prev&oldid=6502178 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Bell-Davies&diff=prev&oldid=6051411

"Anti-LaRouche editor, AndyL" Herschel http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnited_States_v._LaRouche&diff=0&oldid=9326193


Richard Maillon Scarfe http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Mellon_Scaife&diff=prev&oldid=4387243 172.192.4.176 (Talk |contribs ) inserted "finances DK campaign against LaRouchem May 24 created on May 18 by Mentions the Quinde affidavit in External links. Sure sign that it's a LaRohche supporter. IP address 172.193.192.242

Smith Richardson Foundation May 24, creasted by 172.193.192.242 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smith-Richardson_Foundation&oldid=3966072

Leo Cherne, created by 172.192.4.176


Herschel Calinfornia LaRouche spam Linkline about governor Schwarzenegger

[edit] Jewish deaths in the Holocaust

Check Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4 for accusation about Adam and his employer.

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/fullarchive , may have material missing

Herschel appears to be a LaRouche activist of some seniority, as he has several times said he remembers something LaRouche said in 1978. Herschel is not interested in writing encylopedia articles. He wants to protect the image of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. Though he claims on his talk page tobe a big fan of NPOV, this Lyndon LaRouche/draft is an example of a draft Lyndon LaRouche article that he wrote, and apparently wanted Wikipedia to display. It makes no mention of LaRouche's homophobia, his statements indicating Holocaust denial, et cetc

Calls Adam and Andym, the Empire Faction, Accusse Adam of stuff with his employer REmove Bcorr's disrespect for Amelia Boynton Robinson http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amelia_Boynton_Robinson&diff=prev&oldid=5924592 because Bcorr called her a minor figure in the American Civil Rights Movment,' which is the truth, changed by Herschel to a "prominent figure," for which there is no evidence. Refers to court case, which she lost.

user:Herschelkrustofsky, user:Weed Harper, user:C Colden, and user:64.30.208.48


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/The_Herschelkrustofsky_List, the intro to wh ich you wrote on October 11, says that "Content relating to Jews, Judaism, Zionism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism, has been moved to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues " But as you know, it wasn't. You actually removed content from Jewish issues and moved it to Herschel List 1


Herschel, I'm having trouble finding material in the archives. You seem to have moved a lot of material and installed it elsewhere out of context. For example, can you tell me what happened to the following, and why you moved it? On August 19, you deleted this discussion [44] about LaRouche's alleged Holocaust denial from Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues and moved it to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List/archive1 [45]. Then on October 11, you moved the entire Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues to Talk :Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List/archive1, [46] which makes me wonder why you extracted the Holocaust denial discussion and moved it separately.

You later moved Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4, where it is out of context, and the Holocaust denial discussion doesn't seem to have been restored.

There is some discussion about Holocaust denial in Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive7 and I've also looked through Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/fullarchive, but I still can't find this material. Could you let me know where you archived it please, and why you removed it from its context? I apologize if it's there and I have simply overlooked it. It's hard to be certain after looking at diffs for a couple of hours.

I've restored it to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues, and I've put Talk :Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List/archive1 on the template too. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 10:39, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted an attempt by Krusty to archive a substantial portion of the comments in this talk page. I struck me as an attempt to sweep under the rug these comments addressing his own question of sources , which he ignored. 172 07:07, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Accused MyRedDice of simply "cribbing from King and Berlet"? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALyndon_LaRouche%2FJewish_issues&diff=5170742&oldid=5150784


-- Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/archive4#Krusty's_talk_archiving 19 Aug. He deletes the references to LaRouche Holocaust denial http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALyndon_LaRouche%2FJewish_issues&diff=5379804&oldid=5302397

11th Oct. H moves the Jewish discussion to Talk :Lyndon LaRouche/ The Herschelkrustofsky List /archive1 . http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALyndon_LaRouche%2FJewish_issues&diff=9296740&oldid=6484730

He does move it there.

But when LaRouche and the Jews is moved to Lyndon LaRouche/archive4, the missing discussion about LaRouche and Holocaust denial appears not to have moved with it.

From: ralphgibbons@my-deja.com (ralph gibbons) aka Herschelkrustofsky aka Weed Harper Newsgroups: alt.politics.uk,aus.politics,can.politics,nz.politics Subject: Re: Christian soldier, Muslim soldier Date: 17 Oct 2003 16:37:56 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 17 Message-ID: <7abfe569.0310171537.cb3a531@posting.google.com> References: <6_zeb.318$MZ5.9798@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au> <8b5c46df.0310101414.5bbdf0e2@posting.google.com> <526813.0310130657.4d36a100@posting.google.com> <7a2d2c30.0310131533.723d5942@posting.google.com> <8b5c46df.0310140852.7e4d2dd@posting.google.com> <7a2d2c30.0310142230.7a4c3d5d@posting.google.com> <8b5c46df.0310150459.30ddc9de@posting.google.com> <7a2d2c30.0310152151.b2d8ba8@posting.google.com> <8b5c46df.0310160511.376b42f4@posting.google.com> <8b5c46df.0310161534.57c83c50@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: '64.30.208.48' Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1066433876 8917 127.0.0.1 (17 Oct 2003 23:37:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:37:56 +0000 (UTC)


baglowj@travel-net.com (John Baglow) wrote in message news:<8b5c46df.0310161534.57c83c50@posting.google.com>...

> Are you arguing that the only authentic articles by LaRouche appear on > the larouchepub site?

Generally, yes. There are many inauthentic quotes, which get recycled endlessly as internet gossip, and are generally inspired by generous funding from individuals and institutions such as Richard Mellon-Scaife (Chip Berlet) or the Smith-Richardson Foundation (Dennis King).

Also, I find it peculiar, in a significant sort of way, that those who rant against LaRouche invariably quote some website that has nothing to do with him. I should think that if he were such a bad fellow, it were more convenient to simply go to his own websites, where, one would think, there should be a wealth of material with which to illustrate his badness.

Dennis King is a journalist who wrote a book critical of Lyndon LaRouche in 1989. He is therefore regarded as an enemy of the LaRouche movement. The August 2, 2004 arbcom ruling allows LaRouche material to be inserted into articles only if the articles were "closely related" to LaRouche and the edits are "highly relevant." Dennis King cannot be regarded as closely related to LaRouche because of one book he wrote sixteen years ago. These user accounts created the article and proceeded to insert arguably defamatory material that originated with the LaRouche movement, using the three main accounts, the 64.30.208.48 address, and several AOL addresses, which gave the impression of broader support for the edits than actually existed. Page history here [47].

Examples:

  • 01:07, May 16, 2004 Page created by 172.199.126.121 [48]
  • 20:51, May 16, 2004 64.30.208.48 [49]
  • 14:16, Jun 19, 2004 Herschelkrustofsky [50]
  • 15:32, Jun 27, 2004 Herschelkrustofsky [51]
  • 20:17, Jul 29, 2004, 172.196.126.139 [52]
  • 16:35, Sep 20, 2004 Herschelkrustofsky [53]
  • 22:15, Sep 23, 2004, Weed Harper [54]
  • 15:13, Oct 27, 2004 172.199.126.240 [55]
  • 07:15, Nov 23, 2004, C Colden [56]
  • 20:45, Dec 2, 2004 Herschelkrustofsky [57]

[edit] CD

Nov 9 : email to Claire from Tigermoon/Ben. He'll look at the pages Claire has e-mailed him and he refers her to this page User Talk:Tigermoon/commentsToClaire [58]

Jan 31: though they've been in touch for some time and are meeting for dinner, he spells her name differently; now it's Clare. [http://[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CheeseDreams&diff=prev&oldid=9822823]

At one point on Historicity of Jesus, Tigermoon got logged out and her IP showed as 217.150.114.18 Sept 10, 217.150.114.18 went to the talk page of 64.12.116.81, and made an edit that looked like a response to someone's query, as though this was 217"s talk page [59]

Therefore, following 64.12.116.81 for a bit led to Jimbo Wales' talk page where on Aug 7, 64.12.116.81 corrected an edit made by 149.174.164.19, deleting someone's name [60]

So is 64.12 linked to 149.174?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:64.12.116.81&diff=prev&oldid=5895992 Ben Tigermoon is 217.150.114.18 is 64.12.116.81? and 149.171.164.19? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=5062468 Michael Garcia and User:Hephaestos|Hephaestos]

81.156.181.197 is Cheesedreams is Snigger http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A81.156.181.197&diff=6979014&oldid=6979007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A81.156.181.197&diff=0&oldid=6979019


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A217.150.114.18&diff=7359803&oldid=6964927

81.156.181.197 (Talk |contribs ) Have no idea what they were on about Newer edit ? deleted material from 217,150 talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tigermoon&oldid=7752586 diob't tell them I'm a woman CD - TM