slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I should add to this, however, that I'm grateful to the arbcom for the decisions they reached in the end, as they managed to stop his activities here completely.
Well, theoretically. There is an editor many are fairly sure is Herschel, based on style, but who seems to be keeping well away from LaRouche related activity, and who no-one's brought a formal complaint against as yet. This is, I suppose, a combination of "infinite forgiveness" (if User:Michael came back as a good editor, ANYONE can) and "if there's no problem, there's no problem" (everyone has other things to concern themselves with, e.g. writing an encyclopedia).
(I expect a sockpuppet check to fail to turn up any evidence, as Herschel was clearly quite technically adept and was only caught as Weed Harper by slipping up. But editing patterns are how socks are suspected anyway.)
In any AC case, there will be myriad accusations and counteraccusations flying about, even if we put in a new rule that a case can only be considered in terms of the initial accused, not the initial accuser. That's why we like clear and detailed evidence pages so very much.
- d.