Herschelkrustofsky (Oct - Dec 2005) Options

[MaliceAforethought]

From sannse at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 19 19:40:01 2005
From: sannse at tiscali.co.uk (sannse)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:40:01 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Wikipedia: forward to ArbCom]
Message-ID: <43A70C91.8070601@tiscali.co.uk>

I think RSpeer has a point here, so agreed to pass it on. I think the
intention of the remedies is something like "for refusing to accept (or
comply with?) the decisions of the committee and continuing to cause
disruption...". But as it stands, it looks far too much as though
/criticism/ of the committee is, in itself, a reason for censure. I
think that is a very dangerous route to go down.

I hope you will have another look at this.

--sannse

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Wikipedia: forward to ArbCom
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:31:26 -0500
From: Rob Speer <rspeer at mit.edu>
To: sannse at tiscali.co.uk

sannse told me on IRC to relay this message through him.

I am concerned by the reasons given for the proposed ArbCom remedies
against HerschelKrustofsky and Sam Spade
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision).

I'm not concerned about the actual outcome of the case - I've had no
interaction with these users. The precedent set by the wording of the
decision is what concerns me.

The justification begins, "In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by
(HK|Sam) with the decisions reached in this case..." Expressing
dissatisfaction for ArbCom should not be a reason for sanction, not even
when it's one reason of two. The other reason given is their "lack of
insight" into their part in the conflict, which is vague and indirect.

Various users agree that these users need ArbCom remedies. But they
should be sanctioned for something they _did_, not for their opinion of
ArbCom. I think it would be better for Wikipedia and for people's trust
in ArbCom if you changed that text.

Thanks,
-- RSpeer
----------
From fredbaud at ctelco.net Mon Dec 19 19:57:28 2005
From: fredbaud at ctelco.net (Fred Bauder)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:57:28 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Wikipedia: forward to ArbCom]
In-Reply-To: <43A70C91.8070601@tiscali.co.uk>
References: <43A70C91.8070601@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <5BA57726-F4B8-4EDE-9F15-20CA90783F3C@ctelco.net>

I suggest the remedy is sometimes appropriate with users who have
engaged in a sustained pattern of behavior which they feel is quite
justified despite it having been sanctioned by us.

Fred

On Dec 19, 2005, at 12:40 PM, sannse wrote:

> I think RSpeer has a point here, so agreed to pass it on. I think
> the intention of the remedies is something like "for refusing to
----------
From sannse at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 20 18:07:51 2005
From: sannse at tiscali.co.uk (sannse)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:07:51 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Wikipedia: forward to ArbCom]
In-Reply-To: <5BA57726-F4B8-4EDE-9F15-20CA90783F3C@ctelco.net>
References: <43A70C91.8070601@tiscali.co.uk>
<5BA57726-F4B8-4EDE-9F15-20CA90783F3C@ctelco.net>
Message-ID: <43A84877.2020008@tiscali.co.uk>

Again, that's not what comes across with the current wording. It
doesn't say "have continued with behaviour despite admonishment", it
says "in view of the dissatisfaction expressed". Expressing
dissatisfaction should not be a reason for penalties.

--sannse

Fred Bauder wrote:
> I suggest the remedy is sometimes appropriate with users who have

[Herschelkrustofsky]

How does one search for old ArbCom cases? They seem to discourage it. I tried to follow the broken link in the above mailing list material to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfAr#Cberlet_and_Dking, which sounds like a good read, but of course, I didn't arrive at my destination.

However, the broken link lead me to this, which by coincidence seems to involve all the right people. Haven't seen Tom Harrison's name in a while -- to quote a popular movie, "What a douche!"

[Cla68]

How does one search for old ArbCom cases? They seem to discourage it. I tried to follow the broken link in the above mailing list material to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfAr#Cberlet_and_Dking, which sounds like a good read, but of course, I didn't arrive at my destination.

However, the broken link lead me to this, which by coincidence seems to involve all the right people. Haven't seen Tom Harrison's name in a while -- to quote a popular movie, "What a douche!"

Just to be fair, HK isn't completely blameless in all of this. He has tried to promote LaRouche in Wikipedia by using LaRouche-published materials and has socked. The bigger picture, however, is that Wikipedia hasn't been fair in its treatment of him and the topic area. HK has been banned while SV, Will Beback, Chip Berlet, and Dennis King were left alone or even protected in their campaign to defame LaRouche. SV and Will Beback have set up a process where no editor from the LaRouche organization can get a fair shake, even if the editor tries to obey the rules. This is wrong.

The current ArbCom, judging by the emails, are aware of this but have yet to rectify it. The situation needs to be resolved.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Just to be fair, HK isn't completely blameless in all of this. He has tried to promote LaRouche in Wikipedia by using LaRouche-published materials and has socked.

My use of LaRouche-published materials was predominately in "LaRouche template" articles, which is permissible both under WP:SELFPUB and the relevant ArbCom decisions. The idea that this should be impermissible is an innovation by Will Beback. To this day, i still believe that on the topic of "Views of LaRouche," his own writings should be considered an unimpeachable source. As far as socking is concerned, I have publicly acknowledged that Helen Hochwasser (T-C-L-K-R-D) is my sock.

Here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index

Why, thank you. However, I was unable to find "Cberlet and Dking" via that route, because as it turns out, the case was not accepted. I ultimately located it by digging through Marvin Diode's contribution history. Here it is. It provides some of the best evidence I have seen of Will Beback running interference for King and Berlet.

The current ArbCom, judging by the emails, are aware of this but have yet to rectify it. The situation needs to be resolved.

Although the "Cberlet and Dking" case was not accepted, there was a pretty strong statement by Thatcher going after Berlet and King (and a lamely duplicitous statement by JzG defending them.)