Talk:London Action Resource Centre

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 Wikipedia. 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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

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.[7] 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.[8]

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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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/wiki/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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, but it does happen to make your COI clearer. I've requested help at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#London_Action_Resource_Centre Mujinga (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocks

Following a discussion at Wikipedia: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)