Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by VeryVerily

Since the AC may not bother to look it up, here are the mailing list posts on Wikien-l I alluded to:

• Jimmy Wales (Thu Jul 7 18:43:15 UTC 2005)

• Ruy Lopez (Fri Jul 8 20:18:48 UTC 2005)
  • (the latter is not pleasant to read).

Also if the AC doesn't look in depth at the Richardchilton RfC page, it's worth underscoring this additional offense, which in itself may be sanctionable, and also gives a sense as to what I had to deal with. VeryVerily 12:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by David Gerard

Ruy Lopez = Mr. Know-It-All

I was asked by the AC to check into an allegation that Mr. Know-It-All (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppet of Ruy Lopez (talk · contribs). Not only did the IPs and favoured articles to edit match (which I'd call a clear "they're the same person"), but they edited the same AFDs giving the impression of different people. As such, I blocked the Mr. Know-It-All account indefinitely.

I haven't seen further edits from matching IPs since; any further checks would need to be on the basis of similar editing styles. - David Gerard 18:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Johnleemk

Ruy Lopez reverts without discussion

Between 08:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC) and 03:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC), Ruy Lopez made the following reverts without any discussion at all on the talk page of Khmer Rouge: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Sept. 26 was the last time he made a comment on the talk before the series of reverts, and Dec. 6 was the first time he'd made a comment on the talk since the revert spree.

Afterwards, Ruy made several comments on the talk defending his actions, but then proceeded on another revert spree between 02:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC) -- the last time he commented on the talk before this spree -- and 21:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC): [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

During this period, he also made some questionable reverts on a number of other articles, none of which were accompanied by an explaining note either on the talk or on a user talk page: [16] [17] [18] [19] (this previous one is especially questionable, as Ruy appears to be reverting to a vandalised revision) [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

As a result of these reverts, Ruy was blocked by Jtdirl (talk · contribs) on December 18: [29] Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by CJK

My statement sums up my charges fairly well: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ruy_Lopez#Statement_by_CJK

Since July 2005 I have been involved in the dispute on the Khmer Rouge article, a dispute which really runs back to 2004. Throughout this time Ruy Lopez has been extremely uncooperative with using the discussion page, which he was required to do in a previous arbitration decision. [30]

His tactics are usually to make a controversial edit, then ignore talk page objections. He does respond eventually, but his long-winded rebutals contain little substance to the actual charges and consist mostly of hot air or false accusations. The disputes vary drastically from the entire article [31] to one sentence [32] For instance, currently we are disputing the credibility of a source inserted regarding an alleged CIA operation. NOTE THAT I DO NOT QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE SOURCE EXISTS, I AM SIMPLY QUESTIONING ITS RELEVANCE AND CREDIBILITY. Ruy Lopez has made some responses, but does not answer the (perfectly reasonable) questions (stated over and over again), [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] instead asserting himself over and over again with the same jargon and constantly engaging in revert war (which he got blocked for eventually for gaming the system). Sadly, this is not an isolated incident, it appears to be the general editing pattern of Ruy Lopez, though he is more persistant on this page than others.

In addition, he has stalked me in other disputes I had such as Cold War (1953-1962), History of the United States (1945-1964) and Communist State while participating in almost no discussion himself (certainly nothing meaningful).

It's also been rumored that he has edited under a wide-variety of other accounts, which I think should be investigated. CJK 17:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by DTC 20:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez’s conduct on Khmer Rouge have been completely unacceptable. For the past 15 months on the article, Lopez has been engaged in a long standing edit war on the article. His proposed contributions have been rejected by the vast majority of the editors, and nearly every one of his edits on that page have been reverted after his general lack of contribution on the discussion page. He shows a complete and utter lack of willingness to work towards a consensus in any article, and even goes so far as to claim that the cabal that runs Wikipedia is hopelessly corrupt and biased: "who runs Wikipedia? The answer is the millionaire Ayn Rand devotee Jimbo Wales, and to a lesser extent his various lieutenants". This RfArb is long overdue.

There is also little dount that Lopez has used numerous Sockpuppets to attack users, and wage his edit wars in other articles. One his many suspected sockpuppetsis User:Lancemurdoch, who has had very similar things to say about the Cabal that runs Wikipedia: "Or perhaps Wikipedia is owned and controlled by a wealthy capitalist, Jimbo, and he and his little cabal see Mr. Poor as their brethren and invited him into ranks" DTC 20:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.