From the RfC talk:
QUOTE
I agree that we should not delete views/claims from an RFC, even when they are clearly fictitious. However, by the same token, I think there should be consequences for filing an RFC full of provably false statements and invalid charges, and this RFC would clearly qualify. Raul654 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure. When one sets out to lie, it's effective to make, first, at least two true statements, or at least two statements that will be seen as true, to get people's heads nodding "yes." Then you slip in the lie.
Raul654 made similar charges about me during RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. I asked him to substantiate them. He declined, and nobody else asked.
They know him. That Wikipedia allows liars to keep administrative privileges is one of the most blatant flaws in the structure. It's done because of their "history of service," but missed in this is that the "service" often included creating legions of blocked and banned editors through their own blatantly outrageous behavior, that was long unrestrained and even applauded.
If we were to consider the editing *lost* through these actions, it could be vast compared with the service of the administrator.
Hey, Raul was *crucial*, I tell you, in defending Wikipedia against Scibaby. However, Raul *created* that prolific puppet master by clear abuse of Scibaby. Thus he made himself necessary, and, really, too bad if huge swaths of the internet were range-blocked as part of his efforts. Can't allow edits about cow farts, can we?
Yet routine vandalism, far worse, doesn't result in page protection, unless the level rises to a point where it cannot be managed through ordinary editing, and isolated blocking when persistent from an IP or account.
No, the crime is lese majeste. Raul was the King, and anyone who defied him was clearly, ipso facto, a heinous criminal.
This is the house that Jimmy built. I don't think it was his intention, but it's what happened. Eventually, what Raul was up to became so obvious that, as the ArbComm Letters mention, he was nudged to resign advanced privileges. But nothing was done about the accumulated damage.
By the way, as to responsibility for filing deceptive RfCs, consider
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. I assisted in getting that certified, purely as a process matter, then I actually read the thing and was horrified. This is partly what set me up to be seen as an opponent of the cabal. Some of the evidence I presented in that RfC was expanded by pages in user space, recently deleted by MfD filed by JzG..... That RfC was jointly filed by WMC and Raul654, and was a hit piece that described revert wars as if they were unilaterally caused by GoRight, when what was really going on was tag-team ownership of the articles in question.
This post has been edited by Abd: