QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 28th October 2009, 7:33am)
Well, for one thing, why have you and Will been so eager to ban pro-LaRouche editors, but so reluctant to ban Chip Berlet and Dennis King, who are just as entrenched in their POV as the pro-LaRouche editors? If you and Will really were trying to produce "fair" articles, how did you overlook what those two editors were doing? I give Chip and Dennis credit for being open about their POV and agenda, but they apparently could be open about it because they feared no sanction for doing so.
The ArbCom ruling appears to allow editors to be banned if they are associated with LaRouche. Thus, someone like Leatherstocking would have no choice but to lie about their affiliation. To do otherwise would have meant an instant ban. Now, if these bans were being handed out fairly, to both sides, then there wouldn't be a problem. But, that's not the case, is it?
You didn't really answer the question. Why are you strongly opposed to cultist editing on Prem Rawat, but not strongly opposed to it on the LaRouche articles?
The LaRouche accounts have been banned because they're believed to be controlled by one person, Herschelkrustofksy, who is a staff member of this website. I don't know whether Leatherstocking was also HK. I do know that his IP address was owned by American System Publications, the LaRouche company in Los Angeles that HK said he worked for, under the name he gave for himself, which has been discussed here before. I won't repeat the name in case he'd prefer it wasn't posted, and I'm not even sure it really is him, but that person does work for American System Publications in Los Angeles. So if HK didn't operate the Leatherstocking account himself, he surely knows who did.
As for King and Berlet, both are published experts on LaRouche. This website normally deplores when published experts are run off Wikipedia, yet here you are supporting it. A lot of your strongly entrenched positions seem to be overturned when it comes to LaRouche, presumably in part because a LaRouche movement member runs this site, and in part because it's a way of taking a dig at me. But I hope you'll do your best to stand back and look at the situation clearly, ignoring who you like and don't like.
Berlet hasn't edited [[Lyndon LaRouche]] since 2007, and is barely used as a source, if at all. In three years, he only made 192 edits to it, and I doubt many have survived. King has edited it more recently, but his edits aren't sticking, and he's been asked by e-mail more than once to stop editing it, in his own interests as much as for any other reason. He is also barely used as a source in the article. It's disgraceful that two experts on LaRouche, people the high-quality mainstream media use as sources, have been so discouraged or prevented from editing those articles, assisted by personal attacks posted against them here by the movement -- including BLP attack pages created by Herschelkrustofksy -- but that's Wikipedia for you.
In total, the accounts known to be associated with LaRouche have made around 1200 edits to the article, more than anyone else. If you want to complain about inappropriate editing, please address your complaints in the first instance to the man who controlled all or most of these accounts, Herschelkrustofsky.