User talk:Herschelkrustofsky/sv

HK
Herschel has posted what seems like a reasonable response to his situation on his talk page. Have you read it? I suggest that, since HK has served out almost all of his 3 days now, that as a conciliatory gesture this shouldn't reset his one-year ban on LaRouche related articles. You must acknowledge that the circumstances are difficult for him. If you are wrong about anything in your treatment towards him, what recourse does he have? Everyking 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I second the above. Very well stated. See my talk page for a proposal to resolve these types of situations. I am assuming Slimvirgin feels she is acting in good faith and I accept that. But the very Arbcom rulings need to be reconsidered in their finality to conclude by not targeting any individual group or persons (per Jimbo) but to do as I propose on my talk page. I am asking Everyking and Slimvirgin to look into this and work out a solution to keep propaganda out of wikipedia without targeting single groups or persons based on political affiliation. --Northmeister 01:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Like all users, HK can appeal to the ArbCom and to Jimbo Wales. HK's circumstances are of his own making, as is their difficulty. His response has been just to make incorrect accusations. I think that under the circumstances SV acting with restraint. -Will Beback 02:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, SV is simply enacting the ArbCom mandated ban- No one but Jimbo or the ArbCom, should they accept an appeal, has the authority to "reset" HK's ban on LaRouche related articles, that's just the way it is.--Sean Black (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is rather poor logic. Not everyone agrees that SV's action was legit; HK makes some arguments, as I pointed out, which would need to be addressed. Therefore the idea that SV is enacting an ArbCom mandated ban is a highly questionable assertion. If we could agree that HK was indeed in violation, then you would have an argument, but as it stands we are just trying to reach a pragmatic arrangement with someone who has taken the power of interpretation into her own hands. Everyking 04:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading over what I assume is the response mentioned by Everyking as a otherwise (AFAIK) uninvolved party, I do not consider the response "reasonable" nor do I consider there to be justified dispute over the facts of the case. HK makes no credible answer to the claim of sockpupetry except to say "it didn't happen", and the rest of his "response" is unrelated to the matter at hand. I find SlimVirgin's actions quite justifiable. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that until some evidence of sockpuppetry is presented, there is not much to which I may respond. --  HK   14:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What evidence has been provided to indicate HK is using sock-puppets? I would like to see it listed.  HK, is being accused and an accused person has the right to be presented with the evidence against him, if any.  He then has the right of rebuttal presenting his defense against accusations.  He by all standards of English and American judicial procedure ought to have the right to be Innocent until proven guilty.  That is only right in any situation.  I have not seen the evidence of his guilt, unless the above user is privy to material I am not. --Northmeister 05:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a court of law. The purpose here is to write an encyclopedia; everything else is secondary, including people's "rights" in "judicial procedures". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That is convienant. You are right, this is an encyclopedia. Tell that to this administrator, and to Arbcom then, not me. They have made it a Court of Inquisition. --Northmeister 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So by that logic HK's restrictions should be removed so he can improve articles? Come on. Everyking 18:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooh, ascribing a position to somebody else and then criticizing it! Can you say straw man? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I was trying to point out the flaw in you logic. Whenever people say "we're here to write an encyclopedia", they are implying that their opponent does not think writing an encyclopedia is primary. But of course I think it's primary. The thing is, writing the encyclopedia goes hand in hand with having fair processes and treating volunteers properly. To make the division between the two is unrealistic&mdash;if the division is made, then what you get is actually an outcome harmful to the encyclopedia. What you're trying to say, I suppose, is that writing the encyclopedia and letting SV have her way with this or that admin issue or ArbCom interpretation are the same thing (straw man again? as far as I know this is truly what you think). But of course I don't agree with that.


 * Here's reality: SV made this decision based on her interpretation of the ruling and of HK's actions. HK has no practical alternative but to accept her decision; if she is wrong, he just has to deal with it. The same goes for the rest of us: if someone, like me, disagrees with SV about this, there is basically nothing we can do. If she chooses to ignore us, as she is doing now, that's it. All she has to do is not respond and she automatically gets her way. The only way she could not get her way is if we somehow managed to convince her to reverse herself. But this is impossible; SV's feelings on this issue are hardline and aren't going to change. I boldly suggest that this situation I'm describing is bad. Everyking 03:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)