Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Herschelkrustofsky

Considering the editor Will Beback has approved removing the 'attack' section as agreeable to him and that he initiated this deletion page, I move that the portion of the 'attack' be removed and the rest remain - that this deletion be closed and we all move on. Of course that is up to everyone else. --Northmeister 02:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that qualifies as an "attack." This user disagrees with some arbcom decisions, it seems. He's not the only person to have complaints on his user page. --207.200.116.70 16:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued from the project page:

• • • User pages are not articles. The guidelines for user pages are they should avoid excessive content unrelated to Wikipedia. The content on this user page is related to Wikipedia. This user is not permanantly banned. Deleting user pages of temporarily blocked editors is a particularly obnoxious form of abuse by admins who enjoy exerting their power over others. Sort of an "add insult to injury" kind of thing. It reminds me of the ATF raising an ATF flag over the Branch Davidian's complex after they burned it down. The symbolism this conveys is despicable. Herschel was only banned because of a handful of admins piling up on him like some kind of gang of "in-group" kindergarten children bullying the kid who was different. Deleting his user page is just plain juvenile. This is the first time I have ever cast a keep vote on anything here, which should say something. If this were posted as a POV fork of criticism of Wikipedia I would have said delete, but it's a user page not an article. Let it stay. KleenupKrew 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI, HK was banned because an arbitrator felt he was not contributing to the project, and a majority of ArbCom members agreed. Ordinary admins had nothing to do with his banning. User pages are still community property. -Will Beback 21:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ordinary admins had nothing to do with it? Then what is this: "Arbcom rulings are meaningless unless admins enforce them. If Herschelkrustofsky is causing disruption on the administrators' noticeboard, the arbcom instructs admins to block him for up to one year for disregarding his probation. 172 | Talk 02:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)""Maybe we should propose an enforcement in this case, pursuant to the ArbCom's rulings. -Will Beback 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)" (from admins incident board) --NathanDW 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pursuant to a previous ArbCom ruling placing him on indefinite probation, five admins, including myself, agreed that HK should have a two-week general ban as well as a permanent ban from editing certain articles.[1] Subsequently, with no outside input, the ArbCom decided on its own to ban HK for a full year.[2] That was the fourth ArbCom decision against HK. He is one of the most problematic editors on Wikipedia, whose every contribution has been to promote the theories of Lyndon LaRouche. As have yours. -Will Beback 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback, your comment about the ordinary admins turned out to be false. Then you say that HK's every contribution promotes the theories of Lyndon LaRouche, and so do mine. This is also false. (My history -- HK's history) In fact, almost all of my contributions are criticisms of the tactics of you and your friends. You don't like criticism, so you attack me, claiming that I am a supporter of LaRouche. I think that you are a bit obsessive on this LaRouche thing, and I think that this is why you filed a request for deletion of HK's user page. --NathanDW 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My statements were not false. HK was banned for a year by the ArbCom, with no input from me or any other admin that I'm aware of. All of his article edits promoted LaRouche theories and positions. I'm far less obessed with LaRouche than you, as all of your edits have been connected to LaRouche. I presume you know HK peronally, as you haven't edited here in months prior to voting here. -Will Beback 21:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]