The
"LaRouche 1" ArbCom case established that "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," and that "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."
Ah, but what constitutes "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement"? This phrase has acquired a remarkably elastic definition. Consider
this quote from Pope John Paul II, removed by Will Beback as "LaRouche-sourced material," although there is no source cited. Presumably most pronouncements by the Pope get published by the Vatican, although we don't know in this case.
Increasingly, "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement" has been taken to mean "opinions with which LaRouche might conceivably agree." Aside from Will Beback/Willmcw/User2004, the other hyper-vigilant defender against creeping LaRouchism is User:172, who waged a mammoth battle at the article "Privatization" to prevent inclusion of material on a conference on the privatization of national security functions ( see the
lengthy debate on the talk page.) !72 argued that the material ought to be deleted because it sounded like something LaRouche might consider to be important. My edit, which triggered a revert war by 172, was sourced to the Princeton University transcript of the conference proceedings.
Recently, User:Tsunami Butler made a fruitless
appeal to the ArbCom, which included an entertaining
sampler of recent complaints on Will Beback's talk page. Predictably, this was ignored by the ArbCom.
In the course of the discussion, however, Will Beback announces his latest exploit, which I tracked down to
the ANI archive. Will reverts two edits: one edit, in article "Laissez-faire," mentions George Schultz and Milton Friedman as laissez-fair advocates that went so far as to call for drug legalization. This edit was sourced to the Wikipedia articles on George Schultz and Milton Friedman, and sure enough, they did that. However, Will Beback
pounces, calling it a "LaRouchism." Similarly, in the article "Free Trade," Will Beback comes to the rescue against an edit which references Henry Carey and Friedrich List, and includes a quote from William McKinley --
"remove LaRouche concepts," he writes. He also threatened to ban HonourableSchoolboy for that one.
So now, if you are an admin and you want to ban someone, you can accuse them of holding an opinion similar to one of LaRouche.