User talk:YeahRight

===I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for.=== Adam 14:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

 * Since the sole purpose of this account seems to be to pursue the revert war of user:Cognition I have blocked the account for eighteen hours, the amount of time remaining in Cognition's block. -Willmcw 23:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I had nothing to do with this user. Check the IPs. Cognition 04:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What is the significance of IPs? -Willmcw 04:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Everyone was accusing me at the time of creating a sockpuppet for the purpose of revert warring, but I obeyed my block. Checking IPs would prove that it was not me. BTW, I saw your discussion with SlimVirgin on the admin's noticeboard, and I'd like to add that I am not Hershel in California, Florida, or anywhere. Checking the IP of HK's recent edits would confirm this too. Cognition 04:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. How can looking at the IPs prove that you are a separate persons? I change IPs everytime I call up my internet service provider. The more direct approach is to review behavior. YeahRight acted like a sockpuppet. -Willmcw 04:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * He was probably someone who didn't like the idea of the blantant unfairness. It could have been anyone. And minor changes in IP address are one thing, but checking my account and Herschel's will be the difference between California and Florida. Cognition 04:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Could have been anyone - yeah right. And IPs do not prove location as it isn't hard to bounce them around, like a ventriloquist throwing his voice. You're going to have to do better than that. -Willmcw 05:02, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you can check the IPs and assume good faith. However, it is a farce to hold me accountable for things that I did not do. Cognition 05:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I extended considerable good faith to HK until it was found that he was a plagiarizing sockpuppet. Because he was proven to engage in sockpuppetry he has poisoned the well for LaRouche adherents. An editor claim to be "Mary Sue" in Timbuktu, but if she edited the same way as HK/WeedHarper/CColden then I'd doubt her word. -Willmcw 05:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. A personal dispute between two editors months before I became a user has nothing to do with me, and I see nothing in the policy page Assume good faith saying anything about you being above the rules in your dealings with me. Cognition 05:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal dispute. It was a determination by the ArbCom that HK had engaged in activities that were harmful to the encyclopedia, in particular promoting LaRouche's theories. The guideline (not policy) that calls on us to assume good faith makes it clear that it applies only when possible. There are occasions, like trolling, fraud, sockpuppeting, when editors act in such clear bad faith that it would be foolish for others to continue to assume good faith. Since HK was utterly unrepentant there is no reason to think that he would not try again, using the same techniques of sockpuppetry that he perfected before. Maybe if he actually apologized and admitted wrongdoing then we'd view his/your contributions with good faith again. -Willmcw 05:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)