[WikiEN-l] I ask you to consider whether this block was not malicious and frivolous

Tue Oct 4 16:14:39 UTC 2005

On 10/4/05, Herschel Krustofsky <hersch_krustofsky at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I believe that I have been blocked by an administrator for frivolous reasons, as part of a campaign of personal animosity that constitutes [[Wikipedia:Harassment]]. The administrator in question is Willmcw, and the ostensible reasons for the block are posted at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FLyndon_LaRouche_2]. >
> If you will examine this exchange: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Willmcw#LaRouche] ...on Willmcw's talk page, you will note that, despite the rather furtive language, the topic is the best means to prevent "H", that is, myself, from editing. Willmcw and his correspondent, SlimVirgin, are clearly aware of the impropriety of either of them banning me, since they have both engaged me in protracted POV conflicts. They also make reference to recent discussions of "WikiCliques or POV posses," indicating that they are aware that their behavior is under scrutiny. SlimVirgin advises Willmcw to persuade a third party, Snowspinner, to block me.
>
The discussion between myself and Will on his talk page was not
"furtive." I called you H only because Herschelkrustofsky is a long
word. I didn't advise him to "persuade" Snowspinner to block you: I
advised him to refer the matter to Snowspinner only to be safe. In the
end, Will correctly took the matter to [[WP:AN/I]], where you accused
him of "harassment" and "wikistalking," and received a reply from Fred
Bauder saying: "Enforcement of the Arbitration remedies which have
been enacted concerning Herschelkrustofsky is not Wikistalking. It is
doing your job."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN/I#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FLyndon_LaRouche_2

The fact is that you appear to have resumed your behavior of inserting
pro-LaRouche material into articles in violation of the injunction
against you. The arbcom ruled that the IP address identified with you
counts as a sockpuppet of yours. You had ample opportunity at the
time to explain either that it wasn't yours, or that it was in a house
or office containing more than one person who might be making
pro-LaRouche edits to the same articles you were editing. You chose
not to offer any such explanation, and so the arbcom ruling stands,
and Will was right to block you and to reset your ban.

Sarah