Revision as of 08:17, 1 April 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

The ongoing vendetta of SlimVirgin and Will Beback against myself

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)

Synarchism was not a "LaRouche-related article" until it was vandalized by User:172. There is really no reason for material on LaRouche to appear in that article, and the ArbCom has indicated that it prefers that material on LaRouche not be added to articles unless "highly relevant." Please clarify your motives here: is it your objective to reduce unnecessary references to LaRouche? Or to find ways to expand the number of articles that are used as a platform for expounding an anti-LaRouche POV? Or just to find any excuse for banning me? --HK 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If I were looking for excuses to block you, I'd have found plenty before today, so we can safely rule that one out. Regardless of how the LaRouche passage came to be in the article, you're not allowed to make LaRouche-related edits or to act in a way that appears to promote him (or reduce criticism of him). The arbcom ruled (as I recall) that material from LaRouche not be added unless the article is "closely related" to him. My objective is simply to make sure you adhere to the ruling, in letter and spirit. SlimVirgin 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Block

You've been blocked for three days for the BirdsOfFire edits to Synarchism. A check user has confirmed that the two accounts are editing from within the same two IP ranges. BirdsOfFire has been blocked indefinitely and your year ban has been reset. Any further violation of your NObs01 probation or of LaRouche 1 or 2 will attract longer blocks. SlimVirgin 04:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, in accordance with Nobs01 and Misplaced Pages:Probation, you've been banned from editing Synarchism. You may continue to edit the talk page. SlimVirgin 05:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

HK, you have also been edit warring at American System (economics), repeatedly adding and re-adding LaRouche themes for more than a year now. I'd like to request that you please stop editing the article. Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and it violates your various probations. Unusual beliefs should be described in their proper place, and in this case that is Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. -Will Beback 07:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Response from HK

The following is not intended to be a direct response to the accusations of SlimVirgin and Will Beback, because judging from my rather extensive experience with these two, their conduct is so consistently devious and malicious that one would have to be hopelessly naive to assume good faith on their parts. Rather, the following is intended to illuminate these matters for the benefit of any third parties that might have occasion to visit this page.

1. I use one computer only. No one else has access to this computer. It automatically logs on to this screen name, and I never log off this screen name. SlimVirgin's accusations of sockpuppetry are an entirely fraudulent and dishonest vehicle for pushing her POV. As far as IP ranges are concerned, I access the internet from an AOL account in the Los Angeles area; there may well be a few dozen other Misplaced Pages editors who are using these IP ranges as you read this post.

2. The article Synarchism has not historically been regarded as a "LaRouche article"; it does not appear on the "LaRouche template," and I did not add material about LaRouche to this article. User:172, in collusion with User:Will Beback, began adding original research, in the form of gratuitous and irrelevant misrepresentations of LaRouche's ideas, to the article, and I objected. SlimVirgin and her cohorts designate articles as "LaRouche related" at their pleasure, just as SlimVirgin designates any editor who questions her tactics as a "LaRouche activist," as she did BirdsOfFire in this instance.

3. The article American System (economics) has also not historically been considered a "LaRouche article," and I have not added material on LaRouche or his ideas to this article since the time of the first LaRouche Arbcom decision, although other editors (including Will Beback) have done so. Will Beback professes to hold the singular point of view that the entire school of economic thought known as the American System is a "LaRouche concept" . Will abused his admin powers by misrepresenting my edits to this article: in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2#Enforcement, it says that "If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles." Will insisted that a reference to the Centennial Exposition represented "material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche," a fanciful theory which I regard as an entirely illegitimate reading of the ArbCom decision. Since Will re-set my one year ban in September of last year, other editors have begun working on this article and the section which was disputed by Will Beback has been restored, not by myself, but by consensus of those editing the article.

4. Likewise, re-setting my ban for yet another year, based on spurious charges of sockpuppetry, should be regarded as an example of SlimVirgin's underhanded Nacht und Nebel tactics at their worst. I will emphasize in closing that SlimVirgin and Will Beback are not disinterested Misplaced Pages admins, merely trying to bring order and make the trains of Misplaced Pages run on time. They are both impassioned anti-LaRouche activists. One of SlimVirgin's first interventions into Misplaced Pages was the creation of the attack article Jeremiah Duggan, which is basically a mirror for the Justice for Jeremiah website, created by Chip Berlet and the usual gang. The actions taken against me by these two, under color of enforcing ArbCom decisions, are POV warfare, scantily disguised as administrative action. --HK 08:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)