One of the problems with the LaRouche articles is that right now they appear to primarily represent the views on the topic, including the way that sources are represented, of Will Beback. That would be fine if he had done a good job of NPOV editing, but judging from the observations of most previously uninvolved editors who have commented on the current state of those articles, including Jayen, SilverSeren, Collect, and a few others, Will hasn't done a very good job at NPOV editing in those articles.
Now that a few editors are trying to fix it, he appears to be trying to fight it, and in the process he's showing what he is about to a large segment of Wikipedia's admin enforcement community. He doesn't seem to understand that compromise would be the way to go. For example, me and Jayen appear to agree that Chip Berlet's and Dennis King's published books are reliable sources. But, that doesn't seem to be good enough for him. That was one of the points of my ACTIVIST essay, which is that activist editors won't accept ambiguity. Instead, they want to establish the authority of their POV as Wikipedia's voice, and they can't accept anything less than that.