Appeal for community support Options

[nobs]

VeryVerily has posted an appeal for community support to Wikien-1.

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien...ary/040641.html

The issues in this case in many particulars are identical with Nobs01.

One 16 September, Ruy Lopez stated, "I, and others, like Chip Berlet,
have taken a stand", in a particularly venomous personal attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=23306588

One minute later, Chip Berlet created a personal attack subhead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=23319997

Neither users were sanctioned for personal attacks.

Prior to that time, I created over two hundred articles; since then
about twenty. It is ironic, my case has this principal,

"Wikipedia:Harassment prohibits actions which disrupt the editing
activity of another user."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...sion#Harassment

Ruy Lopez even admitted his presentation of evidence itself was a personal attack,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ce#Lack_of_NPOV

and was admonished by a non-Arbitrator elsewhere in the Hearing to refrain from personal attacks during the process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=29369826

What does it say about the evidence, when personal attacks had to be employed to pursued the ArbCom to achieve the desired affect?

The ArbCom has finally taken action against Ruy Lopez use of sockpuppets, after both he and one of his sockpuppets disrupted my Arbitration Hearing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ted_sockpuppets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ser:Timoteo_III

which was called to the Committee's attention, more evidence of concerted harassment by the team of Ruy Lopez and Chip Berlet, and ignored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=30044313

Regardless what Mr. Fred Bauder alleges about myself, a review
of ALL my talk pagecontributions will find NO history of personal attacks
issued by myself, or others accusing me of such. Likewise I have no history
of 'edit warring', and have NEVER recieved so much as a 3RR warning. Yet
given the evidence presented, of users "acting in concert" (Cberlet &
Ruy Lopez, et. al sockpuppets to Nth power) , to harass and disrupt
the editing activity of another, punitive action was taken against me.
And it can be proven, in all the particulars, I am not alone.

One further thing, the locus of the dispute, to wit RfC's and RfM's
were filed to hasten the process, was not even a legitimate dispute.
When the case was Mediated, Cberlet conceded the key element of the
Dispute and agreed with Nobs01 interpretation of source documents
in his Mediation Summary Workshop. Mr. Bauder knew I was
unfamiliar with the process, that diffs from Mediation could not be
presented in evidence. Simple fairness would suggest some
consideration should have been made for a newbie mistake first time to
the ArbCom.

[blissyu2]

Okay, this is my opinion:

Everyone unbanned. Find a way to get along. Resolve issues. Don't threaten to ban anyone, be it you, VeryVerily or Ruylopez or anyone else, because its too complicated an issue and you all have cases suggesting why you should or shouldn't be banned. Its just not definite enough. If in doubt, don't ban. I am not convinced either way on it, and I am not expert enough on the issues surrounding it to make a really good view. But I am sure that ultimately all of you would be prepared to work something out so that you were all happy. And in the end, that'd be the way to go.

In my opinion, bans should only be for hacking and serious attempts to destroy the project (e.g. Willy on Wheels) and this kind of thing shouldn't be bannable anyway. I think that bans should also be for punishment, for people who do the wrong thing, but these should be shorter term things. Wikipedia has the view that bans are preventative, not punitive, yet they don't even follow that rule very much - only when it suits them. Thus they won't even check old issues when someone did something wrong ages ago but got away with it. Which by extension means that if they were to apply their own rules to this case, Ruylopez and Nobs01 shouldn't be even considered to be banned over the appeal of VeryVerily - it shouldn't even be an option for them to consider.

Anyway yeah, I am not a big fan of bans, and this doesn't seem like the kind of situation where there's no choice in the matter. It belongs in mediation, not arbitration.

[nobs]

Snowspinner wrote,

"And yet all you had to do - ALL you had to do - was present some
evidence that you were sorry, that you'd mellowed out in the last
year, that you could work with others. The arbcom told you that after
the first case, I told you that during your appeal, and the arbcom is
telling you that again right now. And instead you presented yourself
as the same old vicious bulldog ready to attack anything and anybody
that stood in his way. You bungled the evidence presentation in this
case in an epic manner, and turned sympathetic people against you in
doing it.

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien...ary/040823.html

Here we see Snowspinner responding to Radiant!'s charge, "This is disgraceful...

http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/ind...ge=4#1140648914

"...The way the already controversial clerk office
is misrepresenting or editorializing evidence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=37720038

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...283997#Response

Snowspinner says,

"I was FLOORED to see that your sole grounds of appeal was that year-
old evidence and decisions were a great travesty, and wrote a summary
that was an unsubtle hint that providing some of the evidence that
the arbcom was asking for would be a good idea."

So what are we to gleen from this?
Unless a user is cowed -- despite naked abuse of process --
the user can go fuck themself, because Wikijusitce is infallible.

[Lir]

Snowspinner wrote, "And yet all you had to do - ALL you had to do - was present some
evidence that you were sorry."

I have a suspicion that if one did present some evidence of being sorry, that evidence would be rejected as 'not enough'.

And instead you presented yourself as the same old vicious bulldog ready to attack anything and anybody that stood in his way.

I think Snowie is confusing himself with the defendant.

"I was FLOORED to see that your sole grounds of appeal was that year-old evidence and decisions were a great travesty

He was FLOORED? Does anyone really think Snowspinner was FLOORED, or is he just trying to exaggerate the situation? I guess I'll never be unbanned, because Ill never agree that banning me for vandalizing 198's page, when he testifed that it wasn't vandalism, Ill never agree that should have been accepted as a reason to ban me.

[Blu Aardvark]

He was FLOORED? Does anyone really think Snowspinner was FLOORED, or is he just trying to exaggerate the situation? I guess I'll never be unbanned, because Ill never agree that banning me for vandalizing 198's page, when he testifed that it wasn't vandalism, Ill never agree that should have been accepted as a reason to ban me.

Ditto. We all know that the real reason for your ban was not related to any of the evidence in the ArbCom's final decision. That evidence is so flimsy it couldn't support a toothpick, much less the weight of Raul654. The reason for your ban was because you had the balls to oppose a member of the elitist cabal. (Snowspinner may be a lapdog, but the elitist cabal thinks very highly of their lapdogs)