| Revision as of 22:12, 14 November 2005 view sourceHerschelkrustofsky (talk | contribs)2,877 edits archive← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:11, 16 February 2011 view source NawlinWiki (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators221,643 editsm Protected User talk:Herschelkrustofsky: Page-move vandalism ( (indefinite) (indefinite)) | ||
| (84 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | #REDIRECT ] | ||
| =''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 ]. My version of the story is that I wished the article to conform to Misplaced Pages ] policy, whereas my opponents wished it to be a soapbox for their anti-LaRouche point of view (see ] 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 ] 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 ] 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 ] policy. One of these editors briefly enjoyed, back in the 1980s, the status of being a ] 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 link. --] 14:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ] 8 July 2005 00:37 (UTC): I haven't visited Misplaced Pages for several months, and I am pleased to discover that someone attempted to place this on my user page. I prefer to have it appear here: | |||
| ]<small>For your hard work in keeping ] propaganda out of Misplaced Pages, I hereby award you the ancient ''Defender of reason'' ], which is given to those who have gone above and beyond the call of duty to stop ] being used for ] purposes. ] 5 July 2005 04:51 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ''Archives:'' | |||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| == ArbCom enforcement == | |||
| Your insistence on adding LaRouche material to ] has violated the prohibition placed on your editing by the ArbCom in ]. 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, ], ]. 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, -] 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. ] 05:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:11, 16 February 2011
Redirect to: