Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where are the findings of fact to justify keeping this restriction on me? How many of you read my evidence?

If this restriction on me holds, it will effectively be a hard ban. It is the reason I stopped editing for the last year, so obviously I will continue not being able to edit if it stays.

What is missing in my justification and explanation? Will the arbitrators just tell me what they think I've done wrong so we can talk about it?

VeryVerily 18:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As I told you once already here - the reason you are obligated to discuss all reverts is because you have an indisputable history of revert warring on a massive scale. Raul654 21:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I apologize for not being able to read comments posted in the future, but anyhow there was one such "titanic" revert war you allude to, and it was two years ago when Wikipedia was much more anarchic (e.g., no 3RR to speak of) and I was a newer user, and I was incredibly frustrated by weeks of circular discussion on the talk page and 172's aggressive behavior. Nothing like that has been repeated since.

If this was the grounds for these actions, why didn't you tell me? It would have saved me a lot of trouble explaining the six articles you complained about. I could have instead talked about that situation.

The 3RR now in effect takes care of these cases now, were this to ever happen again. But the restriction here is based on the assumption I wasn't discussing my reverts, which is completely untrue. You can see I was discussing every little detail on the talk pages, as I have always been responsible in this way. The cases where I don't use the talk page are the obvious ones (vandalism, stalking, rampages, mass deletion, or where the edit summary suffices), which I was trying to explain.

The restriction leaves me vulnerable to constant blocking if something is deemed a "revert", as happened before. You can see from the fact that I haven't edited an article in over a year that this might as well be a ban. Getting rid of the 1RR doesn't help at all.

VeryVerily 03:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

---

For using countless socks and engaging in POV pushing since his existance Ruy Lopez gets... probation? This is the grand solution for stopping his outright assault on Wikipedia, when many others have been banned for lesser or equal crimes? CJK 22:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Indeed. VeryVerily 03:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Any admin may ban Ruy Lopez from any article which that admin (using his discretion) considers Ruy Lopez to be disrupting. "It may not be sexy, but it has teeth" Raul654 03:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is Ruy Lopez not being banned for this outrageous behavior? Why do others have to go through this bereaucratic sh*t in order to rightfully remember the millions of people murdered by the Khmer Rouge? What more evidence do you need of his offences? If this disgraceful decision passes, he'll just play "cat and mouse" like he always does. And you can't find any evidence of POV pushing? None? Did you check the Evidence? Or the workshop? I don't mean to sound demanding, maybe its customary for Arbcom to ignore these things. CJK 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the AC does seem to be ignoring the key issue, which is quality. I was blocked for trying to repair Ruy Lopez's denial of the Ukrainian famine and the millions of its victims. And my attempt to keep him from ruining other articles was used against me in the last case (now that I've rebutted that, Raul says the "real" issue is the previously unmentioned conflict I'd had with 172 seven months earlier!).

I first brought "Ruy Lopez" to the attention to the community at the beginning of 2004. I pleaded for community support for a year, supplying abundant evidence. It finally came to an AC case, and their conclusion was to ban me and restrict me for daring to oppose him and the vandal stalker Turrican. Handed a chance here, they don't seem to want to undo their error. VeryVerily 00:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everyone else is being replied to

I left a message on Raul654's talk page (since he is the one who called me a sock puppet here, on the basis of David Gerard), and received no reply, nor a reply to what I said on the evidence page, yet VeryVerily (who openly wiki-stalked and violated 3RR, and is now being forgiven for that) and CJK get replies here, great.

So is someone going to explain why I am being called a sock puppet on the basis of David Gerard, wghen the comparison of two diffs ([1] and [2]) shows that David Gerards accusations of editing "AFDs" is false - I never edited one AFD as Mr. Know-It-All, never mind "AFDs" (plural). The top of the evidence page says he can't even link to which AFDs these supposedly were, he has to link to the diffs, but he linked to neither, because he can't because they don't exist.

What a joke...I'm being railroaded on false evidence which anyone who compares the two links above can see, what I say on the evidence page or Raul654's talk page is ignored, yet he replies to the nonsense VeryVerily and company say here. Having witnesses what Jimbo and Arbcom (which includes non-elected appointees like Jayjg) have done to progressives like Wik, 172, Shorne, Plato, Lir, Secretlondon and on and on I can't say I'm surprised they'd use their power to do something to me, but I never thought they'd stoop to lies about sock puppets, which a comparison of two diffs will show is completely false. Which shouldn't even be evidence anyhow since no diffs were linked to - which can't be, because there are no overlapping AFDs.

Anyhow, I knew this would happen months ago, and knew my head is now on the same chopping block other left-leaning users are in, which is why polls on Wikipedia Review show almost everyone there is left-wing, as opposed to Jimbo, or his Arbcom appointees like Jayjg and Fred Bauder. I never thought ArbCom would stoop so low to trying to over up why they're doing what they're doing and throwing some mud about sock puppets (and doing a pretty incompetent job at it, not giving diffs, and where it's obvious its untrue to anyone who compares the two links I provided).

It will take a number of years to make Wikipedia irrelevant, and I'm sure some of Mediawiki and the GFDL pages will be used, but with another lurch into the sewer like this (the last lurches being the userbox coverup, Jimbo's powergrab for ArbCom elections and then Jayjg's appointment etc.), and the rise of Wikipedia Review (which Raul654 and cohorts are making every effort to not let anyone on Wikipedia know about), the time will come. Ruy Lopez 20:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment removed by Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn

I removed the following comment from the page. If we allow people to edit the page we risk the page turning into a mess. Please comment on this talk page only. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I must have been too stunned by your boundless generosity to catch this. But I'd be foolish to "dillude" myself that after two dishonest evaluations this third one will somehow be fair. Work on your people skills. VeryVerily 08:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle. Black. Raul654 17:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Pants on fire. VeryVerily 06:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC) (Boy this is fun.)

ArbCom is not a moot court. And good work on escalating the discussion, Raul. Ashibaka tock 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

VeryVerily is attempting to redefine the dispute in terms of him-versus-the-arbcom (just look at his absurd attempt to get us to "convince" him to "jump through hoops" - e.g, to not get into any more disputes) VeryVerily is operating under some dangerous assumptions that should be thoroughly dispelled before this case is closed. If that's "escalating" the discussion, so be it. Raul654 21:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are displaying a lack of maturity. You are calling "absurd" what are different perspectives. I see that the ArbComm made a mistake last time through inattention and, well, possibly worse, and are asking them to correct it. You think that the ArbComm dines in Valhalla with the gods and rules from on high without being bound by right and wrong or being accountable to anyone. You believe that I was bad, and my job is to show I'm not bad now. I believe mine is to show that I was not bad and the AC screwed up big time. Etc., etc. "Dangerous assumptions", hah! You are not omniscient nor infallible. VeryVerily 06:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I think VV is making a fundemental misconception as to why we are loosening restrictions. We are not rejudging the previous decision. Our decision does not reflect on the correctness of the last decision. We are giving VV the chance to show that the restrictions are unnecessary, whether or not they ever were necessary. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words, guilty till proven innocent. Unless I was proven guilty before (I wasn't, and if the correctness of that decision is not an issue, then you should start from assuming that I wasn't). The restriction-loosening is irrelevant, as I've stated repeatedly. VeryVerily 06:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What he's complaining about isn't that the ArbCom made a mistake last time, it's that this time around they still aren't lifting restrictions, and he is wary that the same people who got him in trouble last time will manage to do so again despite his best efforts. Ashibaka tock 22:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

We have lifted restrictions, and I intend, unless events affect matters otherwise, to lift them further when we have seen some evidence of good editing. VV has been in self-imposed exile for a year, after all. My decisions are not based on old evidence. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There was plenty of good editing before the exile. And decide what you want, good editing or absence of bad editing? VeryVerily 06:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Good behaviour. Something different from both. Let's look at what you're required to do. You are required to make an explanation for every non-vandalism revert you make. Are you incapable of this? It seems like very good practice to me. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am well used to being ignored

But I must restate the problems I have here. First of all, the statement of "insertion of POV" as a bannable offense is vague and open to interpretation, and I don't trust administrators, many of whom edit from a point of view that is ideologically closer to Ruy Lopez than to myself. Second, Ruy Lopez has done more than enough to receive a ban on KR related articles, in fact all articles (if anyone here bothered to look at the evidence). I have seen others banned from articles altogether for commiting lesser or equal crimes. It is disturbing that the Arbcom has not come up with a "finding of fact" condemning him of POV pushing. Third, there is no guarentee that his sockpuppets would be detected if he used a proxy or masked his IP. The provision I placed in the Workshop (which was ignored) called for the banning of people reasonably believed to be Ruy Lopez (i.e. making very similar edits). The Arbcom had no problem passing the same thing in a decision involving a certain User:Beckjord. Thank you. CJK 23:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably too late. Didn't realize these things could close this fast. CJK 00:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T CLOSE! CJK 01:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

To counter the possibility of a Ruy Lopez sockpuppet that cannot be confirmed to be him, I've tweaked the decision [3] and informed the other arbitrators via the mailing list. Raul654 01:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As to your distrust issue -- if you distrust individual administrators, you can notify them in large numbers via wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard. If you distrust them as a whole, then you're SOL. Raul654 01:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you, but I still believe that probation is about a year or two too late for all the stuff he has done. CJK 01:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm fresh out of time machines. Raul654 02:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

???? This is exactly why I don't like administrators. You make a simple comment, and they throw it in your face. CJK 02:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup. But don't judge them all by Raul's rudeness. VeryVerily 06:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think we should have dealt with Ruy Lopez earlier, you should have brought a case earlier. In point of fact, there *was* a case in late 2004, and nobody presented convincing evidence then. (Not for lack of screaming, though - the evidence page was 300k of incoherent ranting). Raul654 02:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A rotten excuse, especially since you are responsible for the state of the evidence page, by combining five cases so that inevitably everyone would comment. And no most of the Ruy Lopez-related matters were not at issue there, it was narrowly focused on 3RR. (And again you would do well to not refer to others' sincere comments as "incoherent ranting". Civility, you see?) VeryVerily 06:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would have presented evidence, but I didn't know that Wikipedia existed back then. Its just incredible that you can't ban this guy for all the stuff he has done but you CAN ban other users who do exactly the same thing. This demonstrates to the world that there is absolutely no credibility here. CJK 23:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)