Revision as of 09:06, 29 March 2006

Nota bene

Shortly after joining Misplaced Pages in Spring of 2004, I became involved in a dispute with a group of editors over the article on Lyndon LaRouche. My version of the story is that I wished the article to conform to Misplaced Pages NPOV policy, whereas my opponents wished it to be a soapbox for their anti-LaRouche point of view (see my user page for more information). In the course of this dispute, I requested arbitration, which had little effect. Ultimately, the dispute was resolved through negotiation and compromise on October 10, 2004. Those who are curious may consult the edit history of Lyndon LaRouche and related articles from October 10 until early November to get an idea of what I considered honest compromise versions of those articles. During this period, I was free to concentrate on editing articles about Classical Music, South America, and other areas of interest.

Not long thereafter, a new group of three editors arrived on the scene, and re-opened the dispute. These new editors were more fanatically determined to make the articles into propaganda vehicles, to further their agenda of the demonization of LaRouche and his movement. Ultimately a new round of arbitration was initiated, and this time the result was a form of restriction upon myself and another editor, Weed Harper, who took my side in the disputes; we were prevented from editing LaRouche-related articles. There were no similar restraints upon the anti-LaRouche team of editors, who wasted no time in converting the LaRouche articles into a soapbox for propaganda, making a mockery of the NPOV policy. One of these editors briefly enjoyed, back in the 1980s, the status of being a cut-out for intelligence circles who were deployed against LaRouche; he has subsequently gone into well-deserved obscurity, and is now using Misplaced Pages as an attempt to relive his glory days.

As a result of these events, I have become highly skeptical of the value of the Misplaced Pages project, and my participation in Misplaced Pages has become sporadic. Therefore, I you wish to contact me, do not leave a message on this page; instead, use the "email this user" link. --HK 14:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky closing statement in the Nobs01 and others case, December 2005

This ArbCom decision sets a precedent that will have a lasting and highly destructive impact on the entire Misplaced Pages project. For the first time, to my knowledge, the ArbCom has taken it upon itself to administer penalties against Misplaced Pages editors with no finding of fact and no explanation.

Since presumably this page will be archived, I will spell it out. In this case, I was the sole respondent that was not mentioned in the Findings of Fact. There was no discussion of any misconduct by myself. I roused the ire of the ArbCom simply by declaring, on the workshop and talk pages, that I felt that the penalties being proposed for the other editors involved were inequitable.

The original wording of the penalty against me tells the story:

• "15) In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Herschelkrustofsky with the decisions reached in this case, and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case, he is placed indefinitely on Misplaced Pages:Probation."

Then, in an act of cowardly CYA, arbitrator Raul654 simply removed the explanation (edit summary: "removed controversial part" ), leaving a penalty with no explanation whatsoever:

• "15) Herschelkrustofsky is placed indefinitely on Misplaced Pages:Probation."

Lacking a better explanation, I must conclude one of two things:

• That I am being penalized for questioning the fairness of the ArbCom. Wikipedians must not countenance an ArbCom that will dole out penalties for the crime of lese majesty.

• That this and other penalties in this case are simply a malicious expression of disapproval of the POV of the affected parties, in complete defiance of the the NPOV policy, which is heralded by Jimbo Wales as "absolute and non-negotiable". If so, then the ArbCom has abandoned its mandate and simply become just another clique, but one with the power to enforce an institutional POV -- and to stop Misplaced Pages from becoming a soapbox for propaganda, Wikipedians must prevail upon Jimbo to appoint an ArbCom that will adhere to a much higher ethical standard. --HK 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others case. Raul654 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Archives:

User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky/archive1

User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky/archive2

User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky/threats and insults

User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky/The Third Trial of Lyndon LaRouche

Other recent business

ArbCom enforcement

Your insistence on adding LaRouche material to American System (economics) has violated the prohibition placed on your editing by the ArbCom in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. In keeping with their enforcement plan and after copnsultation with other administrators, I am blocking you from editing for one week. That block for cause also resets the expiration date of the ArbCom prohibitions to one year from today, September 30, 2006. Once your temporary block has expired you are welcome to edit Misplaced Pages so long as you adhere to our policies and ArbCom decisions. Regretfully, -Willmcw 05:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Copy of my post to the incident board regarding this action: Given that there appears to be some debate at the American System article as to whether HK has inserted LaRouche material, and given that Willmcw has a lengthy history of animosity with HK dating back to and including the Arbcom case that is being cited as a basis for the ban but also including numerous other disputes, it would probably be better for this case, and any related blocking penalty, to be reviewed by a more neutral administrator than Willmcw. I state this without taking a position on the merits (or lack thereof) in this case regarding whether the LaRouche block was violated. If it is deemed that the block was violated, however, this judgment should be made in a transparent manner by a party who is NOT simultaneously involved in historical and current ongoing disputes with the editor being accused of violating the Arbcom block. Rangerdude 05:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Note to new users: User:Willmcw has subsequently taken on a second user name, User:Will Beback. --HK 15:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback

Hi HK. I got your message on my talk page. "Will BeBack" is a notorious "troll administrator" who in my opinion should totally be banned from wikiepedia. He's a real psychopath who cherrypicks articles from a very pro-Bush administration point of view. I have registed a complaint about him before for someone to attempt to stop him (he recently was granted some sort of admin "priviledges"), and my request to revoke them based on his past and (still current it seems!) behavior shows he is more destructive than constructive. I suggest making a complaint. If you wish please mention that "ReSearcher" has registered just such a complaint before about this admin. Besides that I'm unsure what you would ask me to do, so I'm sort of confused about your talk message to me, though you have my sympathy.... --ReSearcher 03:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Synarchism

Your edits to the above appear to be a violation of the ruling against you, viz. "Herschelkrustofsky is banned from editing any article relating to Lyndon LaRouche for up to and including one year. If he edits any LaRouche-related article, he may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator. Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect."

You've deleted or changed the pertinent section six times since March 26. If you do so again, or make any other LaRouche-related edits, you're likely to be blocked for one week and have the year's ban reset. I hope that won't be necessary. SlimVirgin 09:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)