User talk:Maybellyne

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

All Lyndon LaRouche related articles are under article probation and there have been two arbitration committee cases regarding those articles and editors who are focused only on promoting LaRouche on Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. Editors who have disruptively focused only on that topic are subject to indefinite block from editing Wikipedia.

I have reviewed your edit history and find that you clearly and unambiguously are a single purpose account, focused on that topic. Your account is permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I was on the verge of filing a sock report about this and two other accounts. They are obvious socks of user:Herschelkrustofsky. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Herschelkrustofsky. I can send more information any interested admin. Will Beback talk 02:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to contributions for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Maybellyne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1=This is a complete misrepresentation of my activity. I have done extensive work on Thai and South Asian articles, see [1] and [2] for example, and also see [3]. In recent days I have been preoccupied with responding to hyperactive single-purpose editing from User:Will Beback (see [4].) The admin who blocked me is not a disinterested party, either. He says he works as a partner with Will Beback ([5]) and apparently shares his POV, so this block is a partisan tactic.

Decline reason:

I do not see any evidence of collaboration between Georgewilliamherbert and Will Beback; working on the same page, be it article or discussion, is not evidence thereof. The block appears appropriate to me, and your failure to accept this does not help you. For the record, I have never even heard of Lyndon Larouche until this moment, so can claim with some justification to be disinterested. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Confirmed by CU. Will Beback talk 20:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]