Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez
Statement by btipling[edit]
I'm a new editor, I've been using Wikipedia for a few years though, and I was involved for a bit on the Khmer Rouge page. There was an edit war in progress, and at first I thought Ruy Lopez was the blame of it (which may still be true), and I thought he should be blocked from the page because it looked as if he were reverting in the face of opposition of all the other editors. But then I started looking through the article's history and noticed that Ruy Lopez actually had improved the article a bit. Yet, I don't disagree with CJK that Ruy Lopez refuses to discuss the issues. While the storm was raging on Khmer Rouge I tried to begin a compromise and Ruy ignored it while continuing to edit the article. He's got some extremist views, and as for this Samuel Thorten guy, I'm not convinced he's credible or notable enough to include on a general article on Cambodia's ruling party during the most of the 70's (although in fact I was the first to put him in the article as a concession, I hoped Ruy would it develop further). Overall I think Ruy has some unpopular views on Khmer Rouge that aren't traditionally accepted. I don't know if Wikipedia may be the best place for these alternative views. I do want to say though that Ruy has always been civil on talk pages. (Bjorn Tipling 01:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
Statement by disinterested Third-Party ConradRock[edit]
I have dealt with Ruy Lopez on one occasion, with the revert war involved with the Joe Scarborough article. I do not agree with Ruy's POV, but the issue at hand is his heavy-handed, ignoring all discussion, constant reverting to his POV. Ruy will always involve himself within a revert war, make a few choice edits without consulting others or even involving himself within discussion, even insofar as ignoring directed questions on his talk page. Each of his edits are pretty much aimed at causing further disruption to the means of reaching a consensus; on top of all of that, if you disagree with Mr. Lopez, he labels you as biased, non-conforming to NPOV, and part of the "conservative, Pro-American" Wikipedia cabal. This is not only based on his actions with Joe Scarborough, but his actions with numerous other articles here in Wikipedia. His actions need further review before he causes more collateral damage to our modus operandi. Conradrock 23:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The KR article is pretty messed up. Nearly endless edit wars make meaningful changes almost impossible. I don't see how arbitration is going to help, but something needs to be done. Is it all Ruy Lopez's fault? No. But he is particularly difficult to deal with. He never seems to be able to answer simple questions about his facts or sources. Rangek 03:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am currently travelling in Laos - once again seeing firsthand a part of the world which for western parlor-communists like Lopez exists only as an ideological fetish - so I cannot play much part in this process. When I get back I will be rewriting History of Laos and related articles from scratch, so I suggest Lopez starts re-reading his Noam Chomsky now if he wants to take me on. In the meantime I support any effort to get Lopez and his whole family of sockpuppets banned from Wikipedia, and I don't believe for one second that his statement of withdrawal is genuine. He will just come back as someone else as he has done many times. The issue is not his "standard of behaviour". As regulars will know, I don't much care about either revert wars or political-personal abuse. The issue is his determination to use Wikipedia as an arena for promoting communist propaganda. Until this, of itself, is made a bannable offence, Lopez and his type will continue to waste Wikipedia's time and damage its reputation. Adam 04:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The claim by "Ruy Lopez" (since erased), that I used to go through his edit history and revert all of his edits, has been made by him about a dozen times on various pages. It is a lie, it has always been a lie, and he knows it is a lie. If many of his edits were reverted by me and others, it is because they are exquisitely revert-worthy. Simple inspection of these edits will bear this out.
"Ruy Lopez"'s campaign of destruction via his endless array of sockpuppets has gone on for two years. Why any self-respecting encyclopedia would tolerate this is beyond me. If the ArbComm, which has come down like a ton of bricks on so many good users, does not stamp this menace down once and for all, it is worse than worthless. VeryVerily 11:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I note his statement of withdrawal, but don't think this means action is not called for. And the delusions that Secretlondon was persecuted (she is a bureaucrat who has always denied being a victim) or that Jimbo Wales drove off 172 (who he adminned despite others' obvious concerns) or that Wik/Gzornenplatz/NoPuzzleStranger was banned for his leftism (rather than running a vandalbot) hint at his research talents or, more bluntly, his level of honesty. VeryVerily 12:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I also wish to echo Adam Carr's general sentiment above. The stupid fixation on revert arithmetic blinded the ArbComm to the obvious differences in the nature of our edits in past conflicts (well, not that the AC got the facts right then anyway). VeryVerily 12:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by PMA[edit]
Like many who have commented above i have been fighting "Wikipedia's Favourite Marxist" for years now - whatever guise he may be in - and like Verily i feel his campaign of destruction and disortion through his multiple sockpuppets should not be tolerated - if as on that page he has declared war on the project then Wiki should fully meet fire with fire rather than die a death of a thousand cuts. PMA 17:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- This seems so naieve now
i hope for everyone's sake that your belief in "constructive engagement" proves right and we don't all get taken for a ride and made to look fools. After his behaviour in Wiki and IRC, i can't be blamed for having a "healthy scepticism". PMA 04:26, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Hey all, I have not been involved much with Ruy, but I have been involved with some of the wikipedians who are asking for arbitration.
That said, I don't know Ruy's edit behavior, only some of the wikipedians who are requesting arbitration.
But I am not writing about Ruy's behavior, I am writing about some of the comments on this talk page.
Has Ruy come out and said he is a communist?
VerilyVerily and Adam Carr accuse him of being one. I think if Ruy hasn't come out and said he was a communist, that VerilyVerily and Adam Carr should retract these statments.
Unless Ruy has come out and said he is a communist, then this is a character assination and should not be tolerated.
The Duck test should not apply. If the Duck test applies, as some of you may argue, then it will be okay for me to call Ruy's accusers facists or "little Eichman" because I could argue that some of you "act like facists, walk like facists, and talk like facists" (the Duck test).
This is clearly against Wikipedia policy, which I have been justifiably punished for in the past. If calling someone a facists or "little Eichman" will not be tolerated, calling someone a communist should not be tolerated either.
"What should one write to ruin an adversary? The best thing is to prove that he is not one of us -- the stranger, alien, foreigner. To this end we create the category of the true family. We here, you and I, the authorities, are a true family. We live in unity, among our own kind. We have the same roof over our heads, we sit at the same table, we know how to get along with each other, how to help each other out. Unfortunately, we are not alone."
Again, if Ruy has came out and said he is a communist, then calling him a communist is acceptable, otherwise VerilyVerily and Adam Carr should retract these statments and, if their statments are found to be as inflammatory as my own past comments, be booted for 72 hours.Travb 21:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)