Jimbo requests diffs on abuse by Raul654 Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

As per this thread, Jimbo has requested diffs which demonstrate abusive behavior from those admins who scored in the top five of our abusive admins poll. I would recommend that those who are skeptical of Jimbo's intentions and wish to flame him should start a different thread for that purpose -- this thread should be reserved for those that wish to Assume Good Faith. Please present the diffs in a nice, orderly, ArbCom-ready fashion.

[GoRight]

Well, better late than never. I'll certainly be happy to add my own story to the list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=306394021

This part of that sums the whole affair up nicely:

I hereby claim that it should be all too obvious that this is merely another in a long line of actions on Raul's part to try and have me banned or otherwise sanctioned merely because he disagrees with my POV on global warming and other issues. A brief summary of that history can be found here and more recently on the following ArbCom pages: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

As a example of Raul's veracity in making such charges against me, please take the time to review the descriptions he has placed in the WP:ATTACKPAGE he maintains against me here and then follow the links and read my edits in context. I believe that they demonstrate a clear propensity on his part to stretch the truth beyond all reasonable recognition or proportion. The same is being done here today, but merely in a different forum and from a newly devised angle of attack.

As a single example of what I mean, Raul previously claimed that I had "provoked [an incident for which he blocked me and was subsequently overturned] by making this series of inflammatory edits [9][10][11] ..." to which an uninvolved administrator, User:B, remarked "There is nothing inflammatory about those edits - all three were in good faith and there is no way that an unbiased, uninvolved admin would consider them to be disruptive."

The bottom line is that you CANNOT take Raul at his word on ANY of these issues. You will have to follow the links and read them in context to form your own opinion of the reality behind his facade.