Misplaced Pages

Talk:London Action Resource Centre: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:33, 9 December 2006 edit210.5.254.98 (talk) →Request for Comment: []← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:34, 29 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,053,591 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(155 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}} {{Talkheader}}
{{oldafdfull|result=speedy keep|votepage=London Action Resource Centre|date=January 9, 2009}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject London |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Anarchism }}
}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age=2160
| archiveprefix=Talk:London Action Resource Centre/Archive
| numberstart=1
| maxarchsize=75000
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads=5
| minarchthreads=2
| format= %%i
}}


== Removed controversial material ==
==Bickerings==


The paragraph below was removed:
This should not be classified in Misplaced Pages, since WP is a 'systemic' resource and as such appears to be against the ideals of the LARC.


Despite this there have been various issues around hierarchical structure of the organisation. The library was set up to run on the principles of the ] on June 18, 2003. A split in the User Group over claims of ] and of ] infiltration of ]<ref>, , </ref>. of which LARC is one of the founding info-points, led to the expulsion of the ] group ] ] at the December 2004 ] of the company. This led to the forced departure of the ]<ref></ref> and eventually the relocation of the Antisystemic Library. Many of the books and resources, however, were retained by the LARC library.
If anything it should be filed under a different, completely unrelated and hard to find name.


:I just removed this paragraph for the umpteenth time. As has previously been stated (see above), it is poorly referenced and irrelevant. Before re-adding it, please let us discuss here how to proceed. I would suggest that unless other references are found, it stays off the page. I'd also like to see citations for these claims: "Many of the books and resources, however, were retained by the LARC library." and "Despite this there have been various issues around hierarchical structure of the organisation." ] (]) 12:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
--] 13:15, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


::Ok i will leave the sentence "Many of the books and resources, however, were retained by the LARC library." out as there is no reference for it. However the sentence "Despite this there have been various issues around hierarchical structure of the organisation." is clearly referenced. And Mujinka please do not try to threaten me on my talk page again. Thats not the way to have a discussion. ] (]) 20:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


::I agree with this restoration. It is no good just accusing people of vandalism because they add material that is not to your liking. Ikipedia is not a place for companies like LARC to simply have promotional material. Critical comments are not only allowed but encouraged in order to retain balance. I am sorry that ] regards ] as irrelevant, but that is not generally the perspective found on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
How useful.
The buildings puropose does seem to be to help people carry out various prjects and what not, as such it's a practical one. ] 10:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


:::Notice how you haven't provided any new references for this nonsense. as i already said the existing two references are non-notable and need backing up. if you (either Leutha or paki.tv or indeed anyone else) cannot do that, then the material stays off the page. let me be clear - i don't agree with this poorly referenced abuse (which has very little to do with LARC itself) being repeatedly inserted on the LARC page. please answer me this question - if you two wikipedians were behind the antisystemic library at LARC and were kicked out of the group for being disruptive, why on earth do you bother carrying on this vendetta against LARC on[REDACTED] a decade later?
:::also paki.tv im not "threatening" you on your talk page, im recording each individual act of vandalism. ] (]) 00:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
::I feel that ] could usefully spend some time reflecting on the ] and its application to their recent behaviour. For example, the accusation of a "vendetta" (above) hardly fits ]. In fact it is Mujinga who has been active in trying to get people banned: ] and ]. After six years since things settled around a consensus ] has decided to simply resolve matters by changing the page, accusing editors vandalsim and vendetta's, attempts to have the banned and ]. The question of "notable references" is just another element of confusion: the sources are appropriate for the context. In all of this I hope that ] will consider ''psychological projection'' as the most appropriate explanation of their accusations consistent with assuming good faith, and henceforth adopt a more conciliatory approach to their fellow editors. In the meanwhile I have restored the material.] (]) 11:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
::: vandalism reverted again. strange that you talking of assuming good faith when you are restoring edits which are not reliably sourced and already have resulted in the page being protected previously. there was no consensus on the controversial material being re-added, you simply sneaked the material in question and no-one noticed. if you would like to explain your bizarre accusations of projection and form a question which can be answered, please do. in the mean time, i will ask again - please answer me this question - if you two wikipedians were behind the antisystemic library at LARC and were kicked out of the group for being disruptive, why on earth do you bother carrying on this vendetta against LARC on[REDACTED] a decade later? ] (]) 19:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
:::: the sources are there and very clear. I will ask you a second time - please stop making threats on my talk page. I understand you disagree with my edits - you do not need to make threats about being banned on my talk page. Please stop it. there is no vendetta against larc - it is hard to see why you would think this. However there is clear information about the project that you want to deny and suppress. why is that? ] (]) 11:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
: The library at LARC is experiencing a fresh start and is free from the tyranny of structurelessness that the oxymoronic anti-systemic library imposed! ] 22:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


==orphaned links==


== Continued adding of disputed text ==
i have changed "collectively run" to "run by a limited company". ], a former director should be able to verify this. ]


Users Paki.tv (formerly Psycho Active Kinetic International Transversal) and Leutha (formerly Harrypotter) appear to be disgruntled participants in LARC with a massive ]. They could even be the same person, I'm not sure. Over the course of many years now (see above) they have been adding controversial statements to this page. They continually refuse to discuss their ] or provide ]. This paragraph below has been added umpteen times in varying forms:
It is very debatable about whether WP is a systemic resource!
It is a very POV to suggest that WP is systemic!#


Despite this there have been various issues around hierarchical structure of the organisation. The library was set up to run on the principles of the Antisystemic Library on 18 June 2003. A split in the User Group over claims of institutional racism and of fascist infiltration of Peoples' Global Action. of which LARC is one of the founding info-points, led to the expulsion of the No Platform group West Essex Zapatista at the December 2004 AGM of the company. This led to the forced departure of the Voice Refugee Forum and eventually the relocation of the Antisystemic Library.
---


In 2009 (!), the page was protected, here's the progression Paki.tv readds part of this paragraph yet again, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry removes it, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry then protects the page, saying: ''Protected London Action Resource Centre: Full protection: vandalism, POV blanking, poor references, and attempts to insert poorly referenced allegations of fascism''. I don't understand why the same nonsense is being reinserted every so often (eg and now this edit. I've already tried to resolve this in various ways, see , as examples all from the talkpage above, but the fact that this is a very slowburning editwar seems to mean that correct[REDACTED] procedure is hard to enforce. Thus we are still arguing over a few sentences in 2019. It's ridiculous. I really feel like there's no point in even asking at this stage, but hope springs eternal. So before seeking further assistance, I would ask Paki.tv and Leutha to kindly stop adding this nonsense. ] (]) 10:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I've put a POV warning as NickW's edits are not neutral! ] 18:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


It's happening again in 2020, see and . ] (]) 09:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
:1)How am I not neutral? 2)How are you neutral? 3)Who's got the axe to grind? ] 19:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


I think that my recent edit deals with linkrot. ] (]) 16:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
____
: Well that's not even true but since you and Paki.tv are back re-adding the same nonsense info I would like to know why you think it's OK to repeatedly add poorly sourced info about a library project (which got you both expelled from the social centre in real life) to[REDACTED] article about a social centre for over ten years now. Do you not see the conflict of interest? ] (]) 17:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
:: Please see guidance on achieving Neutrality: "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." see https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality
:: Also please assume good faith. We are interested in a fair and factual encyclopaedia entry not an advert or an attack xx ] (]) 20:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


The disputed text is still being added in 2021, see and . This is being done by Paki.tv.
==Moving forward==
London needs to get it's act together and come up with a reasonable solution on this entry, so that us here across the pond can get the proper information about the LARC. ] 22:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Paki.tv and Leutha are disgruntled exmembers of LARC with an axe to grind and they should not be editing this article. In a new twist, it seems Leutha is adding to the article in a continued attempt to besmirch the project's good name. I've just removed that. I would add that Leutha is apparently Fabian Tompsett from their self-declaration on their talkpage and anyone who has been a wikimedian in residence should not be using[REDACTED] to pursue a vendetta. ] (]) 14:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
::Agreed! I cleaned up a bit, more is needed... ] 21:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Disputed text added and again ... ] (]) 14:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
== removal of POV tag ==


Added and again ] (]) 22:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
i have taken out a few unsubstantiated statements, which can be replaced if backed up by a reliable source. having done that, i feel i can remove the POV tag and i hope we can expand the article again by adding more information, perhaps along the lines of the ] entry. ] 16:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Added and again ] (]) 14:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I have restored some of the material. Unfortunately the ] website is shut at the weekend so I could not put up the company refrence number etc. I hope to get a chance later in the week. I do not see how the entry can be along the lines of the ], when LARC is basically Mark Brown's ]!] 18:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Added again five minutes later with no engagement here, then ] (]) 14:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
:I have removed the POV, spurious self-referencing, and non-notable content. I'm also fed up of Harrypotter and his sidekick taking it upon themselves to use Misplaced Pages to promote their personal fantasy - as I was involved in setting up LARC I don't want to have to constantly fight over what's in this article. Is there an uninvolved third party out there willing to check up on all this? ] 09:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Please see my comments above about achieving neutrality and cease your vandalism ] (]) 19:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
:::::: Vandalism? I don't see it that way. So emboldened by lack of sanction for you continue to add the disputed text. Great! . Also noting you haven't apologised for the personal attack on the next section. ] (]) 19:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
:::::::: you have continued to vandalize the page instead of editing the text, collaborating and trying to achieve neutrality. You have lied about me not engaging with you and have ironically not engaged but made adhominem attacks and insults. I am happy to let administrators look at the facts objectively and make a decision because it is obvious that you and I will not resolve our differences in this. ] (]) 10:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
::::::::: wow Paki.tv has added the disputed text again, going against a on their talkpage. and . i'm also not keen on the second accusation of lying ] (]) 16:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


==We do indeed live in hope==
::Hmmmm. I'm an uninvolved third party i guess, but i dont have much time to waste right now. This page should certainly be better .. i have tried to clean it up again. ] 11:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
We live in hope . . . because we have no choice.

], you have been reminded to of a key[REDACTED] principle: Assume good faith, but you have not done so. Instead you have repeated ad hominem attacks. Yes the world moves on and particularly since ], and the development of the ] movement, attempts to ignore or belittle people who raise issues or racism have been less successful. I do feel I need to elaborate too much on these issues, as these are well known. One key element to shutting people of colour up is to accuse them of bad faith, of ], etc. The recent ] is one example of this. Here the issues raised by Azeem Rafiq date back a few years, but were consistently ignored until recent weeks. Do you really find it so hard to understand that there are people who hold out hope that you might also reconsider your strident dismissal of these issues as regards the LARC page? Do you not understand that this is one aspect of assuming good faith, that it is about recognising that people can make mistakes and the hope that in time they will come to recognise those mistakes?
== More on moving forwards ==
You accuse me of pursuing a vendetta. This is untrue. You have no basis for such an accusation. The use of public documents, such as Annual Reports, is not original research. Actually, your claim that a recent addition was part of "a continued attempt to besmirch the project's good name" is also without foundation. As the company memorandum of association specifically state "a) To liaise with local authorities, government bodies, training and enterprise councils, community organisations and other bodies having similar objects whether in Great Britain or elsewhere." (available from the Companies House website) it would seem that in taking state funds the directors are acting in accordance with their governing document. Indeed some people might see this as example of shrewdness. I have no idea who you are (and I'm happy to keep it that way!) however I would suggest that if you find the the decision to accept state funds as problematic, then please, take this up with the LARC directors. This may not chime well with the suggested claim that LARC is an anarchist centre - but as you may well be aware many anarchists are happy to receive financial support from the state in the form of benefits as they regard this as their right.

This is all part of a scattergun approach to making accusations. One moment ] suggests ], now we have the false claim that I was formerly a member of LARC resurfacing. (I have set foot in the building, quite some time ago now, but I have never been a member. ] dismisses referenced as "nonsense", rather like how Azeem Rafiq's complaints were dismissed by YCC.
I have contacted NickW, Paki.tv and Harrypotter about having a discussion here as to how to make the page better. First of all it would seem to be a good idea to find out what exactly the controversy is. Where is the disagreement? I'm not really sure but it seems to revolve around different ideas of how the place is run, but that should be quite simple to state in a way. ] 12:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
We live in hope, because we have no choice. Perhaps ] would spend a few minutes reading Sheree Atcheson short article ". She remarks:

:"Last year unearthed a lot of white guilt. For progress, we need more than that. Guilt is not useful if it simply remains and festers. Unsurprisingly, white guilt can cause white people to gaslight people of colour when issues of race come to light, because it highlights 1) treatment they have not and will never experience and 2) that they have benefitted from systems and societies that are ingrained with racism."
I have made some minor alterations - i.e. ''claim'', ''selected'' and included the company reference number.
:Please, ] take some time to reflect upon these remarks.] (]) 19:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

::: uh huh ] (]) 22:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
The controversy is not necessarily simple and indeed involves issues which appeared in the national press in England wand also stuff translated in French as well. It also relates directly to the fascist infiltration of the PGA by ] a follower of ]. These are of course very real issues, despite the smug complacency of ] who seems very keen to cover the LARC/PGA collusion with fascism
:::: @mujinga is that all you have to say? even after you ignore my comments and requests above and then accuse me of not engaging in discussion?? ] (]) 15:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

:::: You haven't engaged with me since 26 November 2021. You were first asked to stop adding this nonsense in 2009 when the page was protected to stop you adding the same paragraph which you have added four times in the last 24 hours. And now you are whining because I reported you for 3RR!? ] (]) 15:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
==== 2004 Controversy ====
::::: why lie? u know that i wrote to you on your talk page on 8 december because, rather than reply, u yourself deleted the comment... ] (]) 20:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Following the disruption of the ] ] (ESF) meeting, on Friday October 14, 2004 the ] (NAAR) issued a statement signed by twenty signatories denouncing this intervention as "the introduction of physical violence by a very small minority to undemocratically suppress people�s views within the ESF"<ref></ref>. They then refer to two groups of "anarchists", one of which completely opposed the ESF and threatened the Mayor ] with violence, and the other group the ] who they say organised the storming of the stage on October 14.
::::::: Look User:Paki.tv you were blocked for adding this same text all the way back in 2009 and I actually don't understand why you haven't been blocked again for yesterday. You ask me above to assume good faith which is a bit rich since you have been adding disputed text to this article for over a decade now without consensus. And consensus isn't established by your buddy Leutha attempting to back you up by posting an irrelevant wall of text. Now you call me a liar; please retract that claim, the time stamps clearly show that I removed your unhelpful comment on my talkpage an hour after posting here. And of course you are still not engaging about why it is so important to you to add nonsense to this page ... ] (]) 21:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::ok i have changed the antisystemic source to an article from ] which clearly covers the same material. Happy now? ] (]) 14:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
The following day, the ] arrested four anarchists at ], whilst on their way to the ESF ] Rally. (], secretary of NAAR is also Ken Livingston's Special Advisor on equality and policing <ref></ref>). Following this, Javier Ruis, singled out by the police for arrest in Trafalgar Square<ref></ref>, issued a response which highlighted his role as the technical person responsible for the computer in LARC and stated that the threats were made by the ] which he claimed consisted of two people.

Paki.tv/PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal it has recently been suggested to you by an admin who for 48 hours to use dispute resolution and to not re-add the disputed text. Instead, you have re-added the disputed text with a different citation. The new citation does not even mention the Antisystemic Library or the West Essex Zapatista, so I do wonder how on earth anyone can consider it a decent reference. How bad this citation is should not need to be explained to someone who has been editing[REDACTED] since 2005. Plus you added it as a bare url!? Therefore I have removed the addition again and would ask for talkpage discussion before any of it is re-added. I would suggest as a way forward starting a ], in order that consensus to add this material or not can be established.
Although not responsible for the original ''Attack Red Ken'' posting, the West Essex Zapatista issued a statement criticising the NAAR, the ] and the PGA (of which LARC is an info point).

I have to leave the computer know, but this is a start at dealing with the controversy which as you can see involves quite complex issues. More later.] 13:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:I dont see at all how these comments relate to the page we are discussing here, namely a page about the LARC. Please clarify. ] 00:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::Sorry, it had timed out on the signature. As stated above it has not been completed.] 13:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== selected ==

I do not understand why this sentence: "The London Action Resource Centre supports individuals and groups taking direct action on social and ecological issues, or enagaging in other radical projects" should read "The London Action Resource Centre supports SELECTED individuals and groups taking direct action on social and ecological issues, or enagaging in other radical projects".
If you want to include the word "selected" please explain your reasons here and back up the inclusion of this ] with a ]. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:actually i did sign this comment, but there was some technical problem - also only half the above message was shown. now the problem seems to be resolved ] 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::problem explained ... please be sure to close your tags! ] 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I've made a change to the introduction which I think explains this issue better than the use of the so-called weasel word. Comments? ] 00:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Which change do you refer to? 'Building' to 'buiolding' or "which runs the centre in the fashion of a Bakuninist invisible dictatorship". I find both pretty strange. Neither explain at all for me to use of the word 'selected'. I am trying to ] but i think you need to explain yourself better Paki.tv ] 00:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::::: well, its not "building", comrade thats obviously a typo - but i too will try to assume good faith on your part... and i appreciate that its not easy to understand all this. the articles on bakunin and invisible dictatorship should make it clearer wahat is the politics behind the project - ... ie that a group operating behind the limited company (ie the so-called revolutionary elite) will make decisions while functioning behind a front group which claims to be non-hierarchical and self-organised. it is that bakuninist group (ie a secret organisation) which will select which groups use the building and which do not. i am not arguing for the inclusion of the so-called weasel word in any case, but to explain the situation to a better to newcommers. ] 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear answer Paki.tv. Now i can understand your reasoning i can reply that you are doing what appears to be original research. The Misplaced Pages maxim of ] states in a nutshell "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position". Thus, the claim that the centre is run in the "fashion of a Bakuninist invisible dictatorship" needs to be backed up by a ] ]. Otherwise it is has no place in the article. ] 11:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

===NPOV===
I do not think ] is NPOV, but perhaps is unfamiliar with the events which have taken place at LARC - but this does not mean NPOV. Having looked at the contribution to the ]s page and their involvement in the decision to completely excise the discussion relation between Social centers and ]s it is clear that the person is very partisan concerning these issues. i,e,
::Social Centres are distinguished from Community centers in the particular relationship social centres have toward the state and governmental institutions. While "communtiy centre" is a term used to describe any center of "public" activity, occasionally sanctioned by the state or private interests such as a corporation, social centres are characterized by their quasi-legal and sometimes illegal existence, their direct subsistence on the community that supports it and their political vision vis-a-vis the state.

This simply has no basis and runs against the terminology of social center in the early twentieth century see the section in Community Centres on Schools as Social Centres:
::==Schools as social centers==
Early forms of community centres in the ] were based in ]s providing facilities to ] communities out of school hours. An early celebrated example of this is to be found in ], ] from ]. ], a ] minister, joined the Extension Department at the ], organising the ]. By ] they organised a country-wide conference on schools as social centres. Despite concerns expressed by politicians and public officials that they might provide a focus for alternative political and social activity, the idea was successful. In ], with the foundation of the National Community Center Association, the term ''Community Center'' was generally used in the US. By ] there were community centres in 107 US cities, and in 240 cities by ]. By ] there were nearly 500 centers with more than four million people regularly attending. The first of these was Public School 63, located in the ]. ], one of the organisers, described it as
:"''A Community organized about some center for its own political and social welfare and expression; to peer into its own mind and life, to discover its own social needs and then to meet them, whether they concern the political field, the field of health, of recreation, of education, or of industry; such community organization is necessary if democratic society is to succeed and endure''".

bearing in mind the history of the building as an International Modern School - linked to that in New York (in which ] was involved and the previous discussion in which ] was deeply involved, it is clear that this person has quoite distinct views on Social Centres, particularly in relation to Ramparts. - which is about 700 metres away from LARC. Further as one of the bones of contention is whether LARC is sanctioned by private interest - i.e. the millionaire ] of the ] family. This is not to say that ] hasn't got important and interesting things to say about LARC, merely that it is no more Neutral than anyone elses and certainly I would not accept them in any way as a neutral arbitor between Nick W, myself and Paki.TV. i have to admit I gave up arguing on the Social centers page faced with a glacier of ignorance and the preposterous suggestion that only activists in recent years have been smart enough to invent the wheel as it were. (] is basically the greek for social centre and emerged fromjewish culture in the hellenised world of cAlexandria about two thousand years ago. In nthis context the emergence of the International modern Schools out of Jewish culture is particularly instructive, as it is in many ways a secularisation of jewish culture - and in this context it would be good to remember that certainly in England the idea of universal education was first implemented in Jewish circles who created their own schools lonmg beforethe educational reforms of the late nineteenth century. Of coyrse I a don't know to what extent ] is actally interested in how the ral world works and the historical developemnts which have yielded contemporay society, or whetehr they prefer to reiterate the mouthings of contenmporay ] thought, but where's there life there's hope . . . I hope. hey why not check out and get yuself an edikation!] 22:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:thanks for your reply harrypotter, it makes interesting reading but i would suggest that it would be better if you could stick to the topic, namely how to improve this page about LARC rather than zooming off on tangents.
and if i might reply to some of your points...

: 1 of course I am not NPOV, being a human being. but i hope my edits to[REDACTED] are NPOV, because that is one of the three content policies.

: 2 you seem to attribute this quote to me:
:"Social Centres are distinguished from Community centers in the particular relationship social centres have toward the state and governmental institutions. While "communtiy centre" is a term used to describe any center of "public" activity, occasionally sanctioned by the state or private interests such as a corporation, social centres are characterized by their quasi-legal and sometimes illegal existence, their direct subsistence on the community that supports it and their political vision vis-a-vis the state".
: - i didnt write it. if you can back up your arguments with reliable sources, by all means improve this paragraph. it's pretty bad right now in my opinion! i do believe social centres are different to community centres, at least in the parlance of modern England, and my part in the debate was merely to back up brooklyn_agit and prenna when they said that you had not put forward a good enough case for the . see also this

: 3 if you are not happy with me arbitrating this dispute between yourself, Paki.tv and NickW, then thats fine, we can take the arbitration process another step further. i already said that i dont have much time to waste on this. but i remember i never claimed to be NPOV - just an uninvolved third party. if you make accusations, they should at least be correct.

: 4 let me reiterate, please stay on topic - rather than ranting about contemporay ] thought, which im sure you can quite happily do down the pub, why not discuss on this page how to improve the LARC page?
] 02:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

== moving forwards again ==

so harrypotter is not happy with me arbritrating this dispute (as stated above). that's fine by me, but i think we are going to have to get some more people involved and maybe even end up in formal arbitration because NickW states that harrypotter and Paki.tv are in fact the two members previously expelled from the LARC collective. then it seems quite clear that they are following a path of destructive vandalism on this page, albeit a path more of a bizarre intellectual nature than a straightforward page blanking. i thank harrypotter and paki.tv for engaging in discussion with me, but i really dont think[REDACTED] is the best place to pursue a vendetta. i hope you both understand that.

examples of the vendetta can be found , , , , , and
.
The path followed seems to be one of inserting weasel words or of obfuscation.

Following the steps on ] i think we are at the stage where has failed and therefore the next step is . Now i dont think it is worth getting a ] because <strike>i doubt that will help very much</strike> it is not "a controversy involving only two editors". I would rather we get some sort of consensus on how to progress, so im going to make a ]. For any users wanting to help mediate, i do advise that this is quite a strange case!
] 02:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

::: This page isn't an advertisment for LARC, which Mujinga, along with Nick W - a director of LARC, seems keen on making. I can understand why NickW would want to do that but wheres the rub for you Majinga? I'm just describing what i know, not researching anything - i am getting accused by all sorts of nonsence by NickW, but i will not stoop to that level to respond - but i will say that i have alot of personal experience with anarchist activity in London - i run a website on http://paki.tv where u will see that paki.tv is involved with the scene and i know a Bakuninist invisible dictatorship when i see one !!!! ] 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Paki.tv you may very well know what a bakuninist invisible dictatorship is. good for you. all i ask is that you give a reliable source when saying that about LARC in the LARC wikiarticle .. i think thats not asking too much. Please participate in the rfc below .. i will leave you a message now. ] 03:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

== Request for Comment: ] ==

This is a dispute about the content of the ] page 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

;Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

*i asked for the rfc in the hope that we can get some consensus on how to break through this slow burning edit war. my thoughts on the matter are summarised ] 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Also I note that this identifies a clear COI regarding LARC for Harrypotter/Leutha/Fabian Tompsett, which makes a mockery of their denials above (eg "I have set foot in the building, quite some time ago now, but I have never been a member") about being involved in the centre, since they say "Asim and I were heavily involved in developing the London Action Resource Centre (LARC)". So I'll ask one last time ... can Paki.tv and Leutha please note their conflict of interest as regards editing this page. ] (]) 01:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
;Comments
:Again, I repeat, at no time was I a member of LARC. Surely that's easy to grasp. Whatever previous involvement I may have had, this at no time included membership of LARC, or constituted any other form of ownership of the business, as outlined in ], ], or ].] (]) 17:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
::question i have is: why is @mujinga so obsessed with policing the LARC page? whats your skin in the game? as for references i think i meant to add this one https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/antti-rautiainen-my-belgrade-experience but will have a better look when i have time x ] (]) 20:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
::: What a surprise, another attempt to avoid admitting a COI by attacking me instead. My edits speak for themselves, as do the ones you make, Paki.tv. The new reference you propose is again poor, see LiveJournal on ], but it does happen to make your COI clearer. I've requested help at ] ] (]) 15:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


== Blocks ==
:: OK, I've removed the Bakunin reference until a source is found ] 03:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:::that's not quite true. i the reference yesterday, what you have just done is to make another destructive edit, this time justifying it as "remove non verified and promotional material", which is indeed partly true, since you were removing some material lifted from the LARC's own website, but not the whole story. in fact, this is quite a good example of your insidious campaign against the LARC, which you seem to be waging through the[REDACTED] page. i call this destructive because you have created a few grammatical errors and removed a referenced statement (which harrypotter had tempered with the word "claim") ] 04:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Following a discussion at ], and were both blocked from editing this article. ] (]) 20:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::: what i meant is i will not re-insetrt the bakunin reference. and what gramatical errors do u refer to? all you need do is correct them - and the statement i took out is just larc's self promotion, whoever put it there. Your accusations are what are insidious and your use of the word "destructive" is what is weasly. ]

Latest revision as of 21:34, 29 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the London Action Resource Centre article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on January 9, 2009. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconLondon Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAnarchism
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism
 Anarchism WikiProject open tasks
watch · edit · history · talk · purge
Recognized content · Drafts & requests · Subscribe · Member list · Resources · How can I help?

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles for creation

Cleanup (0) · Potentially related articles · Recent edits · Recent Commons images · Stub expansion project (512)


Removed controversial material

The paragraph below was removed:

Despite this there have been various issues around hierarchical structure of the organisation. The library was set up to run on the principles of the Antisystemic Library on June 18, 2003. A split in the User Group over claims of institutional racism and of fascist infiltration of Peoples' Global Action. of which LARC is one of the founding info-points, led to the expulsion of the No Platform group West Essex Zapatista at the December 2004 AGM of the company. This led to the forced departure of the Voice Refugee Forum and eventually the relocation of the Antisystemic Library. Many of the books and resources, however, were retained by the LARC library.

I just removed this paragraph for the umpteenth time. As has previously been stated (see above), it is poorly referenced and irrelevant. Before re-adding it, please let us discuss here how to proceed. I would suggest that unless other references are found, it stays off the page. I'd also like to see citations for these claims: "Many of the books and resources, however, were retained by the LARC library." and "Despite this there have been various issues around hierarchical structure of the organisation." Mujinga (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok i will leave the sentence "Many of the books and resources, however, were retained by the LARC library." out as there is no reference for it. However the sentence "Despite this there have been various issues around hierarchical structure of the organisation." is clearly referenced. And Mujinka please do not try to threaten me on my talk page again. Thats not the way to have a discussion. PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this restoration. It is no good just accusing people of vandalism because they add material that is not to your liking. Ikipedia is not a place for companies like LARC to simply have promotional material. Critical comments are not only allowed but encouraged in order to retain balance. I am sorry that Mujinga regards institutional racism as irrelevant, but that is not generally the perspective found on Misplaced Pages. Leutha (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Notice how you haven't provided any new references for this nonsense. as i already said the existing two references are non-notable and need backing up. if you (either Leutha or paki.tv or indeed anyone else) cannot do that, then the material stays off the page. let me be clear - i don't agree with this poorly referenced abuse (which has very little to do with LARC itself) being repeatedly inserted on the LARC page. please answer me this question - if you two wikipedians were behind the antisystemic library at LARC and were kicked out of the group for being disruptive, why on earth do you bother carrying on this vendetta against LARC on[REDACTED] a decade later?
also paki.tv im not "threatening" you on your talk page, im recording each individual act of vandalism. Mujinga (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I feel that Mujinga could usefully spend some time reflecting on the psychological notion of "projection" and its application to their recent behaviour. For example, the accusation of a "vendetta" (above) hardly fits assume good faith. In fact it is Mujinga who has been active in trying to get people banned: here and here. After six years since things settled around a consensus Mujinga has decided to simply resolve matters by changing the page, accusing editors vandalsim and vendetta's, attempts to have the banned and issuing a series of threats. The question of "notable references" is just another element of confusion: the sources are appropriate for the context. In all of this I hope that Mujinga will consider psychological projection as the most appropriate explanation of their accusations consistent with assuming good faith, and henceforth adopt a more conciliatory approach to their fellow editors. In the meanwhile I have restored the material.Leutha (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
vandalism reverted again. strange that you talking of assuming good faith when you are restoring edits which are not reliably sourced and already have resulted in the page being protected previously. there was no consensus on the controversial material being re-added, you simply sneaked the material in question and no-one noticed. if you would like to explain your bizarre accusations of projection and form a question which can be answered, please do. in the mean time, i will ask again - please answer me this question - if you two wikipedians were behind the antisystemic library at LARC and were kicked out of the group for being disruptive, why on earth do you bother carrying on this vendetta against LARC on[REDACTED] a decade later? Mujinga (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
the sources are there and very clear. I will ask you a second time - please stop making threats on my talk page. I understand you disagree with my edits - you do not need to make threats about being banned on my talk page. Please stop it. there is no vendetta against larc - it is hard to see why you would think this. However there is clear information about the project that you want to deny and suppress. why is that? PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. On New Right infiltration in PGA, Savin's website, What really happened at the PGA Europe Wintermeeting
  2. | Institutional Racism in the Left, Alytusbiennial

orphaned links

Continued adding of disputed text

Users Paki.tv (formerly Psycho Active Kinetic International Transversal) and Leutha (formerly Harrypotter) appear to be disgruntled participants in LARC with a massive axe to grind. They could even be the same person, I'm not sure. Over the course of many years now (see above) they have been adding controversial statements to this page. They continually refuse to discuss their conflict of interest or provide decent references. This paragraph below has been added umpteen times in varying forms: 

Despite this there have been various issues around hierarchical structure of the organisation. The library was set up to run on the principles of the Antisystemic Library on 18 June 2003. A split in the User Group over claims of institutional racism and of fascist infiltration of Peoples' Global Action. of which LARC is one of the founding info-points, led to the expulsion of the No Platform group West Essex Zapatista at the December 2004 AGM of the company. This led to the forced departure of the Voice Refugee Forum and eventually the relocation of the Antisystemic Library.

In 2009 (!), the page was protected, here's the progression 1 Paki.tv readds part of this paragraph yet again, 2 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry removes it, 3 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry then protects the page, saying: Protected London Action Resource Centre: Full protection: vandalism, POV blanking, poor references, and attempts to insert poorly referenced allegations of fascism. I don't understand why the same nonsense is being reinserted every so often (eg 2015 and now this 2019 edit. I've already tried to resolve this in various ways, see here, herehere as examples all from the talkpage above, but the fact that this is a very slowburning editwar seems to mean that correct[REDACTED] procedure is hard to enforce. Thus we are still arguing over a few sentences in 2019. It's ridiculous. I really feel like there's no point in even asking at this stage, but hope springs eternal. So before seeking further assistance, I would ask Paki.tv and Leutha to kindly stop adding this nonsense. Mujinga (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It's happening again in 2020, see here and here. Mujinga (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that my recent edit deals with linkrot. Leutha (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Well that's not even true but since you and Paki.tv are back re-adding the same nonsense info I would like to know why you think it's OK to repeatedly add poorly sourced info about a library project (which got you both expelled from the social centre in real life) to[REDACTED] article about a social centre for over ten years now. Do you not see the conflict of interest? Mujinga (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Please see guidance on achieving Neutrality: "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." see https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality
Also please assume good faith. We are interested in a fair and factual encyclopaedia entry not an advert or an attack xx PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The disputed text is still being added in 2021, see here and here. This is being done by Paki.tv.

Paki.tv and Leutha are disgruntled exmembers of LARC with an axe to grind and they should not be editing this article. In a new twist, it seems Leutha is adding original research to the article in a continued attempt to besmirch the project's good name. I've just removed that. I would add that Leutha is apparently Fabian Tompsett from their self-declaration on their talkpage and anyone who has been a wikimedian in residence should not be using[REDACTED] to pursue a vendetta. Mujinga (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Disputed text added and deleted again ... Mujinga (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Added and deleted again Mujinga (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Added and deleted again Mujinga (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Added again five minutes later with no engagement here, then deleted Mujinga (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see my comments above about achieving neutrality and cease your vandalism PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Vandalism? I don't see it that way. So emboldened by lack of sanction for breaking 3RR you continue to add the disputed text. Great! Reverted again. Also noting you haven't apologised for the personal attack on the next section. Mujinga (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
you have continued to vandalize the page instead of editing the text, collaborating and trying to achieve neutrality. You have lied about me not engaging with you and have ironically not engaged but made adhominem attacks and insults. I am happy to let administrators look at the facts objectively and make a decision because it is obvious that you and I will not resolve our differences in this. PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
wow Paki.tv has added the disputed text again, going against a crystal clear warning on their talkpage. reverted and noticeboard updated. i'm also not keen on the second accusation of lying Mujinga (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

We do indeed live in hope

We live in hope . . . because we have no choice. @Mujinga, you have been reminded to of a key[REDACTED] principle: Assume good faith, but you have not done so. Instead you have repeated ad hominem attacks. Yes the world moves on and particularly since death of George Floyd, and the development of the Black lives matter movement, attempts to ignore or belittle people who raise issues or racism have been less successful. I do feel I need to elaborate too much on these issues, as these are well known. One key element to shutting people of colour up is to accuse them of bad faith, of playing the race card, etc. The recent Yorkshire County Cricket Club racism scandal is one example of this. Here the issues raised by Azeem Rafiq date back a few years, but were consistently ignored until recent weeks. Do you really find it so hard to understand that there are people who hold out hope that you might also reconsider your strident dismissal of these issues as regards the LARC page? Do you not understand that this is one aspect of assuming good faith, that it is about recognising that people can make mistakes and the hope that in time they will come to recognise those mistakes? You accuse me of pursuing a vendetta. This is untrue. You have no basis for such an accusation. The use of public documents, such as Annual Reports, is not original research. Actually, your claim that a recent addition was part of "a continued attempt to besmirch the project's good name" is also without foundation. As the company memorandum of association specifically state "a) To liaise with local authorities, government bodies, training and enterprise councils, community organisations and other bodies having similar objects whether in Great Britain or elsewhere." (available from the Companies House website) it would seem that in taking state funds the directors are acting in accordance with their governing document. Indeed some people might see this as example of shrewdness. I have no idea who you are (and I'm happy to keep it that way!) however I would suggest that if you find the the decision to accept state funds as problematic, then please, take this up with the LARC directors. This may not chime well with the suggested claim that LARC is an anarchist centre - but as you may well be aware many anarchists are happy to receive financial support from the state in the form of benefits as they regard this as their right. This is all part of a scattergun approach to making accusations. One moment @Mujinga suggests sock puppetry, now we have the false claim that I was formerly a member of LARC resurfacing. (I have set foot in the building, quite some time ago now, but I have never been a member. @Mujinga dismisses referenced as "nonsense", rather like how Azeem Rafiq's complaints were dismissed by YCC. We live in hope, because we have no choice. Perhaps @Mujinga would spend a few minutes reading Sheree Atcheson short article "There Is No Race Card To Play Because Race Is Intertwined Into Everything. She remarks:

"Last year unearthed a lot of white guilt. For progress, we need more than that. Guilt is not useful if it simply remains and festers. Unsurprisingly, white guilt can cause white people to gaslight people of colour when issues of race come to light, because it highlights 1) treatment they have not and will never experience and 2) that they have benefitted from systems and societies that are ingrained with racism."
Please, @Mujinga take some time to reflect upon these remarks.Leutha (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
uh huh Mujinga (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@mujinga is that all you have to say? even after you ignore my comments and requests above and then accuse me of not engaging in discussion?? PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
You haven't engaged with me since 26 November 2021. You were first asked to stop adding this nonsense in 2009 when the page was protected to stop you adding the same paragraph which you have added four times in the last 24 hours. And now you are whining because I reported you for 3RR!? Mujinga (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
why lie? u know that i wrote to you on your talk page on 8 december because, rather than reply, u yourself deleted the comment... PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Look User:Paki.tv you were blocked for adding this same text all the way back in 2009 and I actually don't understand why you haven't been blocked again for clearly violating 3RR yesterday. You ask me above to assume good faith which is a bit rich since you have been adding disputed text to this article for over a decade now without consensus. And consensus isn't established by your buddy Leutha attempting to back you up by posting an irrelevant wall of text. Now you call me a liar; please retract that claim, the time stamps clearly show that I removed your unhelpful comment on my talkpage an hour after posting here. And of course you are still not engaging about why it is so important to you to add nonsense to this page ... Mujinga (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
ok i have changed the antisystemic source to an article from Mute (magazine) which clearly covers the same material. Happy now? PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Paki.tv/PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal it has recently been suggested to you by an admin who blocked you for 48 hours to use dispute resolution and to not re-add the disputed text. Instead, you have re-added the disputed text with a different citation. The new citation does not even mention the Antisystemic Library or the West Essex Zapatista, so I do wonder how on earth anyone can consider it a decent reference. How bad this citation is should not need to be explained to someone who has been editing[REDACTED] since 2005. Plus you added it as a bare url!? Therefore I have removed the addition again and would ask for talkpage discussion before any of it is re-added. I would suggest as a way forward starting a Misplaced Pages:Rfc, in order that consensus to add this material or not can be established.

Also I note that this new citation identifies a clear COI regarding LARC for Harrypotter/Leutha/Fabian Tompsett, which makes a mockery of their denials above (eg "I have set foot in the building, quite some time ago now, but I have never been a member") about being involved in the centre, since they say "Asim and I were heavily involved in developing the London Action Resource Centre (LARC)". So I'll ask one last time ... can Paki.tv and Leutha please note their conflict of interest as regards editing this page. Mujinga (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, I repeat, at no time was I a member of LARC. Surely that's easy to grasp. Whatever previous involvement I may have had, this at no time included membership of LARC, or constituted any other form of ownership of the business, as outlined in WP:ACTUALCOI, WP:POTENTIALCOI, or WP:APPARENTCOI.Leutha (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
question i have is: why is @mujinga so obsessed with policing the LARC page? whats your skin in the game? as for references i think i meant to add this one https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/antti-rautiainen-my-belgrade-experience but will have a better look when i have time x PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
What a surprise, another attempt to avoid admitting a COI by attacking me instead. My edits speak for themselves, as do the ones you make, Paki.tv. The new reference you propose is again poor, see LiveJournal on Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, but it does happen to make your COI clearer. I've requested help at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#London_Action_Resource_Centre Mujinga (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocks

Following a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#London_Action_Resource_Centre, Leutha and Paki.tv were both blocked from editing this article. Mujinga (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:London Action Resource Centre: Difference between revisions Add topic