Nota bene

Shortly after joining Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia as an attempt to relive his glory days.

A third ArbCom case arose, in which I was essentially a bystander. However, I followed the case very carefully, as it involved some of the same personalities, and when I saw the ArbCom moving to dispense penalties in what I felt was an egregiously inequitable manner, I objected, publicly. As a result of my intervention, I was further penalized (see below,) and when I made a public request for an explanation, the response from Arbcom member User:Fred Bauder was that I was "making trouble." Not long thereafter, two administrators who had been my opponents in the second ArbCom case began a systematic campaign of harassment, and when I complained, yet more penalties were imposed. A record of all these events may be found on this page.

As a result of these events, I have become convinced that the present administrative organs of Wikipedia are hopelessly corrupt: they exist only to promote an array of viewpoints preferred by those who hold the reins of power, they have allowed Wikipedia to become a soapbox for notorious charlatans, and they exhibit the rankest kind of hypocrisy whenever they speak of Wikipedia's publicly enunciated policies. Therefore, I you wish to contact me, do not leave a message on this page; instead, use the "email this user" link. --HK 03:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia project. For the first time, to my knowledge, the ArbCom has taken it upon itself to administer penalties against Wikipedia 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[1]. 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 Wikipedia:Probation."

Then, in an act of cowardly CYA, arbitrator Raul654 simply removed the explanation (edit summary: "removed controversial part" [2]), leaving a penalty with no explanation whatsoever:

"15) Herschelkrustofsky is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Final decision

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

Archives:

User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky/archive1

User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky/archive2

User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky/threats and insults

User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky/The Third Trial of Lyndon LaRouche

A case study in Admin Abuse

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia so long as you adhere to our policies and ArbCom decisions. Regretfully, -Willmcw 05:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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." [3]

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 ^(talk) 09:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record...What is a LaRouche-related article? What about Judge Alito? How about Franklin D. Roosevelt or the Democratic Party? What constitutes LaRouche-related and where does this definition end? Are we to assume that any article is LaRouche related? What criteria is used in this determination? Who is judge and jury? Are there differences between judge of related article and jury to make the decision on the prosecuting administrators assertions? What determines that an article is not LaRouche related? Again...What is a LaRouche-related article by your definition? The community should know to uphold the rulings of Arbcom. --Northmeister 01:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 04:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Wikipedia:Wikipedia 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)[reply]

In defense of the above HK, I have been the one to edit along with Rjensen and others the American System page. Will Beback's statement above is false and misleading. Numerous sources are provided on that page and not to LaRouche websites. The American System is not a philosophy of LaRouche, but one be supports, as Progressivism is not a philosophy of LaRouche but one he holds to on many issues. The actions taken against this user without due process, is as I have proclaimed over and over again, WRONG and MCCARTHYISM to the extreme by only a few editors who are abusing their administrator privileges to harass and torment one user because that user happens to be an adherent to LaRouche ideas. The sock-puppet charge is the worst case yet of abuse. If HK is using an AOL account it CAN NOT be proven that he is using sock-puppets and to make a claim without proof offered or warnings to USER HK to the same; and a hearing for him is blatant abuse of person and defamation of character. I ask you retract your statements, provide HK with a open forum hearing, provide your evidence of sock-puppetry, and evidence of Larouche related websites HK has linked too...just adding material that LaRouche may agree with is not prohibited here at Wikipedia nor should it; as that would include much that the Democratic Party adheres to in the United States and those on the left side of politics here. I should know, because I am a Democrat. The above editors (because of their past quarrels with HK) should recuse themselves from actions against him and submit their protests about his so-called activity to Arbcom to consider outside of partisan and personal attacks. What blatant abuse! --Northmeister 14:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 they designate any editor who questions her tactics as a "LaRouche activist" (as SlimVirgin did BirdsOfFire in this instance, or as Will Beback designated User:Northmeister after that user disagreed with him on the talk page of American System (economics).)

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" [4]. Will abused his admin powers by misrepresenting my edits to this article: in Wikipedia: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 on the basis of this theory, 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[5].

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 Wikipedia admins, merely trying to bring order and make the trains of Wikipedia run on time. They are both impassioned anti-LaRouche activists. One of SlimVirgin's first interventions into Wikipedia 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. Will Beback obsessively compiles lists (see User:Will Beback/LaRouche topics) of every article ever edited by myself, or by other editors that he has designated as "LaRouche editors." The two of them constantly compare notes, and they are generally comically misinformed about the objects of their vendetta (see this example.)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)[reply]

See also this exchange, extracted from the Administrator's Notice Board incident page, and this one, extracted from User talk:SlimVirgin.

HK enforcement

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#HK enforcement -Will Beback 08:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to ArbCom decisions and the endorsment of six admins, you are banned from editing American System (economics), Anti-Defamation League, Dirigisme, and Synarchism for the duration of your probation. You also have been banned from any editing for two weeks. -Will Beback 00:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript

Please note that, for reasons enumerated on this page, I won't be editing Wikipedia for the time being. To leave a message, click on "my preferences" at the top of your screen, make sure that you have provided and authenticated an email address, and then click here. --HK 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following sites cannot be linked to this page because they have been censored by Wikipedia administrators, who are hypersensitive to criticism:

www.google-watch.org

wikipediareview.com