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/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

Please note that the bulk of my evidence is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily. I fear this may be overlooked by some arbitrators.

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)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ruy Lopez is suspected of having used the following users as sockpuppets: HectorRodriguez (talk · contribs), Lancemurdoch (talk · contribs), Richardchilton (talk · contribs), Hanpuk (talk · contribs), Timoteo III (talk · contribs) and Halifax (talk · contribs).

Ruy Lopez has a history of disagreeing with Ed Poor (talk · contribs), who is "a Unificationist, a follower of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon", and also holds right-wing opinions opposed to Ruy Lopez's left-wing stance. ([30] [31] In addition, Ruy also has a history of railing against "the millionaire Ayn Rand devotee Jimbo Wales, and to a lesser extent his various lieutenants". ([32])

HectorRodriguez has taken a similar left-wing stance to Ruy Lopez's, and has frequently edited several articles that Ruy Lopez is also interested in, such as Khmer Rouge. These edits have consistently taken a stand akin to Ruy Lopez's, in violation of WP:NPOV. ([33], [34], [35], [36]) In addition to edit warring consistently in favour of a left-wing POV on numerous articles, LanceMurdoch has also reverted others in favour of a revision supported by Hector and Ruy. ([37], [38]) Lancemurdoch has also written derogatively of Ed Poor and Jimbo Wales, insinuating a right-wing conspiracy behind Wikipedia exists, on his userpage. ([39])

Shortly after Hector and Lance stopped editing, Richardchilton began edit warring on Khmer Rouge, often performing actions (such as writing about the same topics) similar to those Hector and Lance had done. ([40], [41], [42]). Richard has also made similar statements to those of Ruy and Lance on his userpage: "I should note that Jimbo, who controls Wikipedia's capital of servers, is a fan of the far right Ayn Rand. The right-wingers base what they want to do on authority - the authority of adminships, where they can ban users and so forth and so on." [43]

Just when Richard stopped editing Khmer Rouge for good, Hanpuk came along, and began a similar pattern of edit warring. ([44], [45], [46], [47], [48])

No further possible sockpuppets appeared for more than a year. Then in November last year, Timoteo III began making controversial edits to Alger Hiss, and engaged in revert warring. ([49], [50], [51]) His edits appeared to suspiciously agree with Ruy Lopez's; Ruy had also edited the article before. ([52], [53], [54], [55]) Timoteo III may still be editing; his last edit as of 09:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC) was on February 2.

Halifax has made only a few edits, but nearly all of them have been hostile towards Ed Poor, to the point of vandalising articles on Ed Poor's religion. ([56], [57], [58], [59], [60]) It is suspicious that Halifax's very first edit was to Wikipedia:Conflicts between users, to lambast Ed Poor, as most newbies do not edit much in the Wikipedia namespace.

A request for checkuser on all of the aforementioned accounts has proved inconclusive.

The evidence presented here is based on what I could gather from discussions on Ruy and his possible sockpuppets, and the edits of these users. It is presented on the request of an arbitrator. Johnleemk | Talk 09:25, 13 February 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. [61]

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 [62] to one sentence [63] 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), [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] 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)

The result of a checkuser request on Lopez was inconclusive, but this should not be surprising, considering the ramifications of a positive verification combined with editing from a dynamic IP. Lopez is suspected to have edited using many accounts, and here is some of the evidence I brought forth in both his recent RfArb as well as the check user request.

User has been accused of using multiple sockpuppets to abuse other editors, and wage endless RV wars on other articles. Probable sockpuppets include User:HectorRodriguez, User:Lancemurdoch, User:Richardchilton, User:Hanpuk, user:Timoteo III and User:Halifax. User is currently involved in RfArb against multiple users, and prior acts of sockpuppets could support an unacceptable pattern of behavior.

Lopez’s thoughts on who owns and runs Wikipedia are very similar to those of User:Lancemurdoch, and User:Richardchilton

• Lopez: '"who runs Wikipedia? The answer is the millionaire Ayn Rand devotee Jimbo Wales, and to a lesser extent his various lieutenants".
• Lancemurdoch:"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"
• Richardchilton "I should note that Jimbo, who controls Wikipedia's capital of servers, is a fan of the far right Ayn Rand. The right-wingers base what they want to do on authority - the authority of adminships, where they can ban users and so forth and so on."

It is my opinion that this evidence as well as all the results from the checkuser request make it very likely that Lopez has edited under all of these names and most likely all the names he has been accused of using as sockpuppets. To reply to Lopez's claim that the Checkuser request cleared him, it did no such thing; editing with a dynamic IP means that Checkuser can neither confirm nor deny if users are the same Ten Dead Chickens 14:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ruy Lopez

Even those without CheckUser privileges can see DavidGerard's evidence is BS

I said previously that it was obvious David Gerard had already made up his mind, so proceeding with a defense is pointless. I now see he is off the ArbCom however.

I don't mind whatever happening due to being booted off because I don't follow some political party line, or the nutty idea that my dozens and possibly hundreds of edits on the Khmer Rouge talk page, which go back several archives were not sufficient discussion. I do mind that this old bogus accusation of sock puppets is brought up. That is just mud-slinging, anyone who buys into that will ignore everything else.

TDC and CJK accused me of having a number of sock puppets. This was checked and shown to be false. After over a year of having this accusation finally be shown to be false, I was happy, for a few days anyhow.

The top of this page says "Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient." David Gerard has not only not linked to the diffs me and Mr. Know-It-All supposedly both edited, he has not linked to the pages themselves. We are completely in the dark about what these "favoured articles" of both of us are. I have over 2000 edits and Mr. Know-It-All has over 500 edits, I suppose it's conceivable we have both edited the same article, but since David Gerard has not given any links to articles, never mind diffs, as the top of this page says he should, we are in the dark about this, as it would take me hours to see if any articles match (and even if one or two did, what would this prove? I'm sure my 2000+ edits have me sharing an edit with tens of thousands of accounts). We are supposed to take David Gerard's word.

But David Gerard's word is not that good. He says "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." He says me and Mr. Know-It-All have edited the same AFDs - plural, meaning there are more than one AFD we have edited in common. Well, narrowing it down from editing "favoured articles" in common to editing AFDs in common (which is the supreme crime according to him) makes it a lot easier to do some match-ups for me. I have done less than 10 AFDs since Mr. Know-It-All started editing last year. And I can not only find no AFDs, plural, which David Gerard claims, I can not find one AFD we have edited in common. Anyone reading this can check fairly easily and quickly through both of our user histories that this is complete BS. Which is of course why David Gerard offered no links as the top of this page requires. Because then it would be shown to be BS right off the bat.

He also offers no links to "favoured articles", although with my thousands of edits and Mr. Know-It-All's hundreds, it's conceivable we edited the same article at some point. His edits seem mostly to be counter-vandalism patrol, he even wrote programs to do this. Perhaps that we edited any articles in common is as BS as the AFD accusation, which anyone reading this can see is BS. If we have, I have a feeling it will be something like me editing George Bush, and him six months later reverting blatant vandalism on the page.

David Gerard claimed he indefinitely blocked the account because we edited AFDs in common. Which he provided no links to as required - provided no links because it is complete BS. Now that he has done this, I have no method of talking to Mr. Know-It-All regarding David Gerard's IP claims. This appears to be a total frameup to me - David Gerard did not hide at all what he thought off the bat, then he makes a false accusation, which anyone can see is false by just looking, provides no links as required, and bans a user permanently on the basis of this false accusation, conveniently pushing them out of the picture so I can't figure out if we have similar IP addresses. I know AOL, some countries and some schools here have the same or similar IP addresses. Since Mr. Know-It-All is banned for a false reason (the BS AFD claim), very conveniently for David Gerard I can't ask him now.

As I said, if ArbCom punishes me for not towing a political party line, or even for some silly reason like my dozens of well-referenced posts to the talk page of Khmer Rouge were not enough, that is fine. I consider this sock puppet thing, which ArbCom implictly cleared me of when this VeryVerily case went on the first time around, which recently was once again showed to be BS on the checkuser reuqests, to just be mud-slinging. The one accusation of David Gerard's I can easily check is shown to be complete BS.

With Jimbo appointing and re-appointing POV warriors like JayJG, who was appointed with no votes last time around and had to be re-appointed because people did not like his work as an editor or arbitrator, I have little faith in ArbCom (of course, JayJG has been one of the ones hottest to punish me). And with ex-ArbComers like David Gerard ignoring the requirements to link to evidence, because he knows it is BS for anyone to check, I know to expect nothing but mostly ignoring what David Gerard did, catty comments and power tripping from most of the rest of ArbCom. I realized what Wikipedia was and was becoming months ago, and luckily prominent people like John Seigenthaler are saying the same things I did. There are also sites like Wikipedia Review around, so I do not have to hang around this project managed by the theories of some nutcase like Hayek ("Hayek’s work...is central to my own thinking about how to manage the Wikipedia project" -- Jimbo Wales[71]). But for posterity, in this denouement which I realize is no longer necessary, I do want the non-ArbCom people reading this to see how it is obvious to anyone with a minute or two of searching, that David Gerard's mud slinging is BS, which is why he provided no links as required. Ruy Lopez 18:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by TJive

I have long been rather sick of this user's complete and utter disregard of neutrality, civility, and even basic decency or honesty. He traipses around as if he were a victim of aggression, when in fact he has been engaging in an off and on war against this site in the name of his political ideology for years. While some fellow users of like mind or sheer naivete have come to his defense, he has failed to man the barricades and so lately writhes pathetically like a sore loser with a discredited cause.

I compiled a fact sheet cum prosecutorial argument about Ruy Lopez months ago which several editors have viewed in secret and taken advantage of in small part. While I am not familiar with arbitration proceedings and do not know what full value this may have in producing a valuable decision, I am compelled to make available to the larger Wikipedia public the facts about this editor--a political fanatic and compulsive liar who is never honest about his beliefs, his intentions, or his actions, all three of which should rightly throw him into severe disrepute in respectable company. Even should this fail to make a dent in the current proceedings, coming to terms with this information is requisite in dealing with this person in whatever form or fashion.

Written months ago, I present it in its latest and unabridged form, including now valid Wikipedia links. Anyone wishing to utilize it in whole or in part will start at User:TJive/Ruy Lopez.

Incidentally, on past occasions when I have encountered this user I have received in kind accusations that I am of sockpuppet of User:Trey Stone (typically the entirety of his response), a person with whom I was familiar elsewhere before I joined this site. I invite a CheckUser request or similar investigation to dispel this. No other information can be gathered to support it, unlike in this case. --TJive 09:44, 14 February 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.