The ruling was that original research developed by Lyndon LaRouche was not
to be inserted into articles which did not concern Lyndon Larouch and his
Lyndon LaRouche has put forth a great many creative ideas regarding economic
and political issues. His partisans, in our case User, Herschelkrustofsky,
as a mean of promoting Lyndon LaRouche, inserted the ideas Lyndon LaRouche
has developed into articles on which Lyndon Larouche had expressed ideas
which were not significant form the point of view of the articles.
1) Original 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.
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
1) Wikipedia 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.
3) If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of
Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal
protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon
From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales"
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 02:19:26 -0700
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] pirate radio station as source (was: Zero0000 has
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I don't think the small but hardcore
following necessarily makes their
views encyclopedic - consider the case of Lyndon LaRouche, which the
arbcom has ruled ought not be mentioned in articles that do not
directly pertain to LaRouche. So I would still lean towards this not
Has the ArbCom actually ruled that LaRouche ought not to be mentioned in
articles that do not directly pertain to LaRouche? Or is it more accurate
to say that one particular user with a history of problems was instructed
not to do that? It's an important distinction, because it is not for the
ArbCom to make broad rulings on matters of content alone.
WikiEN-l mailing list