Somewhere in between - the ruling was 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." and that "Supporters of
Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly
to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in
activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche."
So the ruling was not targeted at one specific user, but rather at the
class of users who support LaRouche.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 23, 2004, at 4:19 AM, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I don't think the small but hardcore
following necessarily makes their
views encyclopedic - consider the case of Lyndon LaRouche, which the
arbcom has ruled ought not be mentioned in articles that do not
directly pertain to LaRouche. So I would still lean towards this not
being encyclopedic.
Has the ArbCom actually ruled that LaRouche ought not to be mentioned
in
articles that do not directly pertain to LaRouche? Or is it more
accurate
to say that one particular user with a history of problems was
instructed
not to do that? It's an important distinction, because it is not for
the
ArbCom to make broad rulings on matters of content alone.
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l