Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 6: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Substing templates: {{Unsigned}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info. |
WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) m Fix font tag lint errors |
||
Line 191:
**This is why we thought in our [[Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Meeting/December 2006|last AMA meeting]] to do gather arbitrators with our Coordinator and Deputies to talk about these things... Well, in summary, the answer to my request is: "Advocates are the same as anyother editor in the case". Have I undertood it well? If so, then, we can say this request is closed, wouldn't be? --[[User:Imaglang|Neigel von Teighen]] 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*I honestly must say that I find myself taken aback by comments such as ''"In short, the AMA is useless,"'' but I cannot deny that ''historically'' such observations have been true. In the past, members of the AMA were causing havoc by bringing cases that were far too young in the [[WP:DR]] process to MedCom and ArbCom. This, in turn, was mostly due to two things: 1) Advocates who did not have enough direction or practical experience and 2) the fact that the AMA was practically inactive and running "on its own" without any sort of supervision or direction. People were "signing up" with no communication between members and no idea of what to do, the request system was horrific, and the previous Coordinator had resigned months earlier with no acknowledgment from the Association. (This is the state I found it in when I joined). <br/><br/>Recently, with many Advocate efforts, there has been a resurgence in membership, a reorganization of our structure and and influx of zeal to help and because of that the AMA is back on its feet. We've kept the same goal that we initially held (helping disputes on Wikipedia) yet have a very different way of going about things. As a result we have ''already'' relieved ArbCom of dozens of cases and saved many hours of precious time by reducing the escalation of conflicts as they arise and are referred to us.<Br/><br/>Things are working well, but they are far from perfect yet, and I feel that the next logical step is for the AMA to foster a closer, functional, and working relationship with ArbCom in order for our processes to be more efficient, and in the end, put less strain on [[WP:DR]]. If we end up doing "our job" properly, even fewer cases will rise to the level of Arbitration, and those that do should be properly researched, formed and submitted. What my wishes are in discussing this would be to see that there is some cooperation between us to further these goals and make Wikipedia a better place. <Br/><br/>-- (AMA Coordinator) <small>[[User_talk:The_Thadman|אמר]]</small> <tt><b>[[User:The_Thadman|<
I had suggested that we open a formal hearing on this but there wasn't much interest from the other members of the committee. I'll throw out a few comments informally here since I've seen the AMA in action before and have a few specific concerns and believe I can see both sides:
Line 281:
:The reason I think that this appeal deserves to be heard is that the ArbCom precedent, as it is presently being interpreted, makes a special, and I believe unique policy with respect to ''EIR''. It essentially makes ''EIR'' an ''exception'' to [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:OR]], by saying that citations from ''EIR'' may ''not'' be evaluated under these policies, but must simply be excluded out of hand. There are plenty of highly partisan media publications which are used as sources when appropriate, or excluded as sources when appropriate. If the ArbCom is to make a policy that ''EIR'' is a special and unique case, I think that it warrants a formal hearing. Incidentally, I do ''not'' think that this policy, as it is presently being interpreted, is clearly enunciated in the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche|"LaRouche 1"]] case; the ruling says that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." The interpretation that anything from a LaRouche publication is axiomatically OR comes after the fact. My personal interest is that this is also now being used to exclude ''EIR'' as a source specifically in "the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles," which also seems to go beyond what the ArbCom ruled in this case. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 07:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::Tsunami, LaRouche publications don't count as reliable sources, and may therefore be used only in articles about LaRouche and his movement, and even then with certain limitations — for example, when used in LaRouche-related articles, they can't be used as sources of information about third parties. That the publications are not reliable sources can be demonstrated by reading their contents, and by examining the extent to which those contents are entirely at odds with material found in publications known to be reliable. One example that serves to illustrate is that LaRouche believed employees of the British royal family were plotting to kill him just a few years ago, and he apparently warned the White House that they might be plotting against the president too. I forget the motive, but I think it had something to do with Diana. Any publication that routinely published this kind of material would find itself regarded as an unreliable source for Wikipedia; it isn't anything against LaRouche as such, but against material of that nature. The ArbCom rulings are one source that prohibits the use of LaRouche publications, except in limited circumstances, but other sources prohibiting that type of material are [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:BLP]], and [[WP:RS]], the first three of which are policies, the fourth a guideline. To have LaRouche sources declared reliable, you'd have to change several key passages in these policies, as well as overturn ArbCom rulings. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
:::SlimVirgin, I have seen from various talk pages that you are an outspoken critic of LaRouche, as is Calton. The article you mention, which you linked from one of the LaRouche articles [http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1999/2632_brit_death_threat.html], is not as simplistic as your description suggests. I could also say in response that ''EIR'' warned of the demise of the U.S. auto industry, and of the Bush administration's intention to go go to war against Iran, well in advance of other media, but the other media are now echoing ''EIR'' warnings. Therefore, for a time, ''EIR'' was "entirely at odds" with other publications, but in the long run, this was not the case.
Line 469:
* I disagree with the framing in the question, which starts from the assumption that this controversy is primarily an incident in RM's life. Our regular editors of Canadian topics seem to be of a clear consensus that the notability of the controversy is independent of what later happend in RM's life, and it would be notable even if she had vanished from the public eye thereafter. Some have, though I don't opine on whether the group would agree, even gone so far as to describe RM as a figure of dubious independent notability in a controverst on unquestionable notability, and thus would frame the question more in the form "Is it worth having a stub on a figure of no great notability if it prevents coverage of an indicident that of unquestionable notability." My personal opinion is that both framings are important ways to look at the question, and neither framing is correct in the absence of the other. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
** GRBerry's comment is a good one, and it explains much of the feeling I had that I am not only in a different country from the other camp, but in another universe as well. I had no idea that Rachel Marsden was involved in politics or journalism before the Arbcom case began and I started following it. I only recognized the name from the SFU fiasco. [[User:Clayoquot|Kla'quot]] 04:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
*I agree with Sam and Guy, and I'm concerned that GRBerry overrode the deletion review, in which most of those commenting wanted to keep the article deleted. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
*I missed the vote, so let me support Sam's sentiment here. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] <sup>[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]</sup> 10:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
*:The DRV close included relisting at AFD. If deleting is clearly correct, why is nobody bothering to contribute to the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy|AFD]]? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] ([[User talk:GRBerry#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/GRBerry|contribs]]) </span>
Line 565:
:: The anon is back, but has an account now. I filed a checkuser, and it indicated that it was likely that the new user was also the anon. The edits are not taking place on the same article, but a related one. [[User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, there is always the usual [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process, at the end of which, if the editor is still disruptive, is arbitration. You could try filing an arbitration case now; acceptance would depend on whether the arbitrators agree that the editor's previous pass through arbitration and current behavior are enough to demonstrate the futility of running through the whole DR process from the beginning. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Thatcher and The Epopt. However, one can approach the Arbcom, or even AN/I, if disruptive behaviors that were once under Arbcom sanction recur, and the process for getting those sanctions re-applied or even extended are often much less formal and quicker. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small
{{abot}}
Line 714:
I gave Tsunami a final warning on March 13. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATsunami_Butler&diff=114744280&oldid=114193297] On March 30, s/he added an arguably defamatory claim (not LaRouche-related that I'm aware of) to [[John Siegenthaler]], writing that Siegenthaler had been involved in a "racially motivated" sting operation masquerading as a journalistic investigation when he was the publisher of a newspaper. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.&diff=118982931&oldid=118631004]
:The Seigenthaler thing is indeed a LaRouche claim; I just wasn't aware of it until now. [http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3414racist_gore.html] Seigenthaler has been attacked by LaRouche because of his early association with Al Gore, and Al Gore has become a LaRouche enemy because of his views on global warming. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
The source she used, the [[WorldNetDaily]] website, is perhaps okay for non-contentious material, but not for BLP criticism, and it anyway said nothing about the alleged sting operation being "racially motivated." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17703] [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] removed the edit as "defamation." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.&diff=119047953&oldid=118982931] I feel that anyone who adds an unsourced accusation of racism to a BLP as prominent as Siegenthaler's, together with a poorly sourced allegation of journalistic dishonesty, doesn't have the interests of the project at heart and is unlikely to change after nearly six months of editing.
Line 720:
To be fair, I should add that Tsunami is not as bad as some of the previous LaRouche editors, and was helpful on one occasion in keeping inappropriate material out of [[Jeremiah Duggan]]. I added a quote to the article from a press release issued by Duggan's mother's lawyers alleging that LaRouche's wife had made a negative comment about Duggan soon after his death. Tsunami pointed out that, even though the sources were lawyers, their press release was self-published, and self-published third-party sources aren't allowed for biographical material about living persons. This is correct, so I reverted my edit. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremiah_Duggan&diff=113700099&oldid=113621338] However, the few occasions of positive editing are very much outweighed by the disruptive defense of LaRouche.
In case it's helpful, here's a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=104792903#Request_for_appeal_of_precedent_from_LaRouche_case previous request for clarification brought by Tsunami] in January 2007, when she asked that the ArbCom rulings about LaRouche publications be repealed. Here are [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision|LaRouche 1]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Proposed decision|LaRouche 2]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Proposed decision|Nobs01]] also had some LaRouche-related decisions in it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
====Response====
Line 742:
*"It was removed from a section of [[Political views of Lyndon LaRouche]] with the header "Conspiracy theories." It strikes me as appropriate that views of LaRouche that are described as "conspiracy theories" be sourced to LaRouche. If it is a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," it would be inappropriate to omit it from that section."
:*It involved BLP violations, which is why it was removed, as several of us explained to you at the time. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
*"The John Train Salon story is the LaRouche organization's response to the attacks by Berlet and King, which dominate the Wikipedia articles. Under NPOV it should be included. There has been a Wikipedia article for the past two years called [[John Train Salon]], which was recently deleted out-of-process by SlimVirgin."
:*No, there was an article with that title created in December 2005 by Herschelkrustofsky. There were no reliable sources to support it, so the page was redirected to [[Political views of Lyndon LaRouche]]. Then it was speedied by me because the story consists of a set of completely unsupported BLP violations; even the title may be a BLP violation. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
"Regarding her accusation that my edits violated the ArbCom rulings, I have read the rulings carefully, and I have asked SlimVirgin to specify how I violated them. She answered by saying only, "You're acting to promote LaRouche." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=114322367&oldid=114321182] However, it is clear from the ArbCom decision in question that "promotion of LaRouche" means inserting references to LaRouche in articles where his views are not notable. The heading of the section in question is [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#References_to_Lyndon_LaRouche|References to Lyndon LaRouche]]. SlimVirgin is trying to obtain a "revisionist" interpretation of this decision, which would mean that any objection I raise to the many policy violations of Cberlet and Dking may be considered "promotion of LaRouche." This is the crux of the matter."
:This is exactly the kind of discussion we used to be forced to have with Herschelkrustofsky, Weed Harper, C Colden, Cognition, etc. There's no understanding of the need for reliable sources, and no appreciation of the need not to defame living individuals, unless those individuals happen to be Lyndon LaRouche or his wife, at which point [[WP:BLP]] is suddenly understood with astonishing clarity. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
::The various LaRouche rulings have not really been kept up-to-date with the evolution of policy—even the most recent considerably predates a number of significant policy developments in 2006 and 2007—so I do not think they should be interpreted as providing for broad restrictions on behavior; the main remedy imposed in them that was not applied to specific parties covered only the introduction of LaRouche-originated material into unrelated articles, in any case. I think anything other than a community sanction here will require a new case to consider the various related issues more thoroughly. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Kirill, the usual thing with LaRouche editor blocks is to ask the ArbCom for clarification. Having yet another case that relates to LaRouche would surely be overkill. (We've had LaRouche 1, 2, and Nobs01 that contained LaRouche decisions, and numerous clarifications and mediations). [[WP:NOT]] is policy and the LaRouche editors use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas, with scant regard for our editing policies, including BLP. During a previous clarification, the Arbcom replied that: "The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles. LaRouche publications are useful sources about LaRouche's views about LaRouche himself and his organisations / affiliated parties, but are not acceptable sources about anyone or anything else." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=87319887#Lyndon_LaRouche] This is what Tsunami Butler was trying to do by adding the John Train Salon section to [[Political views of Lyndon LaRouche]]: use it as an excuse to talk about other people. Here are a list of LaRouche-related arbitrations, clarifications, and mediations in case it's helpful: {{tl|LaRouche Talk}}. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
::::I think that Kirill has hit the nail on the head, and SlimVirgin is attempting to change the subject. I know that SlimVirgin has orchestrated the banning of a number of editors that she prefers to call "LaRouche editors" for the purposes of [[Poisoning the well]] -- but in none of these cases have I seen ''any'' evidence that the editors she banned were "using Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas." What in fact these editors did (the most recent example that I know of was [[User:ManEatingDonut]]) was to object to the violations of policy, which I enumerated above, by editors Cberlet and Dking. It is in fact Cberlet and Dking that are using Wikipedia to promote themselves and ''their'' ideas, many of which fail the test of notability. Cberlet and SlimVirgin have on a number of occasions insisted that the ArbCom decisions have certified the website that Berlet controls, that of [[Political Research Associates]], as an all around Reliable Source. I find nothing in those decisions to support that argument. It is also the case that the LaRouche ArbCom cases predate the [[WP:BLP]] policy, and I think that many of the more venomous attacks that appear in the LaRouche articles, sourced to Berlet at the PRA site, ought to be re-examined in light of BLP.
Line 781:
:If I may respond here, I would like to point out that SlimVirgin is proposing to ban me under the ArbCom remedy against "promotion of LaRouche," and as Kirill has noted, the edits of mine that SlimVirgin is objecting to do not constitute "promotion of LaRouche" as specified in the decision. I am also puzzled by your comment that "[e]xpansion of the original research of Lyndon LaRouche and his associates beyond articles with cover him and his associates is not acceptable," since the only articles that have been discussed here are articles which cover him and his associates. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
::LaRouche may be used as a source on himself and his group, but may ''not'' be used as a source on anyone else. You were trying to use him as a source on the activities of people associated with the so-called John Train Salon, but LaRouche articles may not be used as an excuse to write about other people. The ArbCom has said: "The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects '''includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles'''" (emphasis added). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=87319887#Lyndon_LaRouche] Are you willing to edit in accordance with this? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
:::Yes. But if, as a corollary to your request, LaRouche and his movement are not permitted to respond to the vituperation from Dennis King and Chip Berlet that presently fills the articles about him, then it seems reasonable to me that the self-citing and other quotes from these two minor critics be reduced to a level that is commensurate with their notability. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
::::The problem for you is that they are widely regarded as experts. Dennis King has written the only English-language biography of LaRouche, and it's frequently used by journalists. Chip Berlet is a known and respected researcher, and a specialist on LaRouche. The BBC's flagship news program, ''Newsnight'', used him last year when they were doing a segment on the LaRouche movement. Are you saying Wikipedia shouldn't rely for its coverage on the same experts that the rest of the Western media relies on? That's a serious question, by the way, not a rhetorical one. Given that they're widely acknowledged as experts, how do you suggest we handle their input? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
:::Like I said, they should be featured at a level commensurate with their notability. Their commentaries seldom appear in the legitimate press. It has been suggested before that a good yardstick would be to cite them when their comments appear in major press, like the BBC show you mention, but not give them carte blanche to self-cite from the websites they either control or dominate. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 793:
::::This springs from the LaRouche view that the British establishment is out to get him, the Queen's advisers want to kill him, MI6 left a death threat in a woman's magazine for him a few years ago, etc.
::::I'm afraid I can't see any practical alternative to an indefblock here, because Tsunami clearly has no intention of stopping this. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
:::::And I agree with TB that this is a content dispute that SlimVirgin wants to win the easy way, by banning an opponent. SlimVirgin is not a neutral admin, or she'd be arguing for the banning of Dking for massive incivility and excessive self-citing. Incidentally, the alleged OR in [[Jeremiah Duggan]] was not added originally by TB, but she did restore it after SlimVirgin deleted it. The sentence has now been changed by consensus to something different. --[[User:NathanDW|NathanDW]] 18:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 806:
::I can't see a single edit of yours which didn't relate directly to Luyndon LaRouche or his ideas, and I don't see any of edit which didn't improve the position of LaRouche or, in some cases, disparage a group or individual he oppposes. Rather than simply reacting to the edits of Dking and Cberlet, your editing appear to be a primary reason for their current involvement. It's a pattern of editing that we've seen often before and that has resulted in 3 previous ArbCom cases involving HK. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 18:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Tsunami continually responds to questions about her own editing by trying to shine the spotlight on Chip Berlet and Dennis King, even when they have nothing to do with the issue. I noted above that she added to [[John Siegenthaler]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.&diff=118982931&oldid=118631004] that he was involved in a "racially motivated" sting operation masquerading as a journalistic investigation when he was the publisher of a newspaper, an edit that is arguably defamatory, and which Kaldari removed as such. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.&diff=next&oldid=118982931] The source she used didn't say the investigation was "racially motivated," [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17703] and the issue originates from a LaRouche publication. [http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3414racist_gore.html] She did this ''after'' being given a final warning. I therefore see no realistic possibility of change from her. Perhaps Tsunami could explain that edit (without reference to Berlet or King, please). [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
::::I would explain it as a mistake. I left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaldari&diff=119355924&oldid=117793827 this message] on Kaldari's talk page, to which Kaldari did not respond. I also discussed it on the talk page of the article, and have not pursued the matter further. BTW, check the date on the LaRouche publication that you are claiming is a factor. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 812:
I would like to respectfully submit to the Arbcom the following: if there were a serious problem of disruptive "LaRouche editors," you would think that a wide range of Wikipedia admins would have noticed it and called attention to it. Instead, it's always the same two admins, SlimVirgin and Will Beback, coming back here every couple of months to say "off with his head" regarding some allegedly "LaRouche-supporting" editor. It has been suggested that SlimVirgin and Will Beback have a strong POV with respect to LaRouche -- some might even say a bias (consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin this].) Has the ArbCom considered the possibility that SlimVirgin and Will Beback might themselves be a significant part of any problem that may exist? --[[User:NathanDW|NathanDW]] 23:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:If you're going to make an accusation you should back it up with evidence, not just a link to SlimVirgin's entire contribution list. If you'd like to make a case about editors then you are free to do so. The LaRouche-related actions of SV, myself, and other editors have been reviewed by the ArbCom repeatedly. Except for some warnings to remain cool they haven't found fault. The problem is with the steady stream of LaRouche accounts that keep appearing and pushing the same POV, month after month, year after year. Blaming the responsible admins who patrol these topics is like blaming vandalism on the counter- vandalism unit.-[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:Here is [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] after reverting Tsunami Butler's defamatory edit to Seigenthaler leaving a note about it on my talk page, and commenting that Tsunami is "begging to be banned." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=119053353&oldid=119007340] [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
::If it were simply a matter of you and SlimVirgin, as "responsible admins," enforcing policy, I would expect to see some action taken against Cberlet and Dking. When I don't, it makes me wonder. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 14:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:::If there are issues with those editors then bring a complaint. This proposal concerns your behavior, and saying "But what about them?!" is not a defense. This account appears to be sock or meat puppets of HK, and should be banned indefinitely based on the previous ArbCom decisions, including [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Sockpuppet abuse]]: "Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely." -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 19:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 822:
:Fully agree with Ral315 here, and I've had no connection with the articles in question that I am aware of. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 22:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks, everyone. A check user has confirmed that Tsunami Butler appears to be sockpuppeting with [[User:HonourableSchoolboy]], another LaRouche account. Given that, combined with the above, I'm going to block both accounts indefinitely. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
:::Would you be so kind as to explain how a check user "has confirmed" that TB "appears to be sockpuppeting"? Does that mean anything at all? --[[User:NathanDW|NathanDW]] 01:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Tsunami Butler and HonourableSchoolboy are the same editor, and they are editing from the same general area as Herschelkrustofsky. That, plus behavior, satisfies the [[WP:DUCK|duck]] test. As this thread was started by a banned user, I'm going to close it and archive it at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2]], which is where Herschelkrustofsky's ban is recorded. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 01:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
| |||