| Revision as of 22:35, 20 March 2006 view sourceBov (talk | contribs)1,905 edits →A little help here?← 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)) | ||
| (43 intermediate revisions by 15 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) | |||
| ==Herschelkrustofsky closing statement in the ], 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 ] and ] 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 ]." | |||
| Then, in an act of cowardly ], arbitrator ] simply removed the explanation (edit summary: "removed controversial part" ), leaving a penalty with no explanation whatsoever: | |||
| *"15) Herschelkrustofsky is placed indefinitely on ]." | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| *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 ] 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 ], Wikipedians must prevail upon ] to appoint an ArbCom that will adhere to a much higher ethical standard. --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Final decision== | |||
| The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the ] case. ] 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ''Archives:'' | |||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| =Other recent business= | |||
| == 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) | |||
| :''Note to new users: ] has subsequently taken on a second user name, ].'' --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 15:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==A little help here?== | |||
| Y'all left me alone with a guy who seems to think it valid to include character criticism in a section regarding criticism of Perkins' book. ] | |||
| Also, the same criticisms are being repeated when they could/should be summarized (and cited if readers want to look at all of them). It's bloating the section. | |||
| I have to leave for the weekend. Don't want it to go to hell while I'm gone...... | |||
| (] 21:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| ==Gatekeeper (politics) page== | |||
| Do you by any chance have a copied version of the original 'disappeared' page or know where to look at it in it's last form? | |||
| ] 22:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:11, 16 February 2011
Redirect to: