On 10/26/05, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiP…
> "Anthony is subject to a one revert
limitation, prohibited from
> creating deleted content that fails to pass a vote for undeletion,
> subject to ad hoc blocks for disruption, and banned from editing the
> Wikipedia namespace."
> Anthony, it wasn't Snowspinner who got you blocked from the Wikipedia
> namespace for a year. It wasn't anyone else either. It was you and
> no-one else. You wuzn't robbed, you did it to yourself. This is
> unlikely to change until you understand that life is not a breaching
> experiment.
False accusations with no facts to back them up.
Sounds like a repeat of
the
arb ruling itself.
What amazes me is that you can straightfacedly say that while quoting
the URL documenting otherwise.
Apparently you haven't read my comments on the ruling, which I made on the
talk pages. The findings of fact give no basis for such a block, and what
little explanation they do give is for the most part wrong.
For those wondering at the veracity of my statements above, I offer
Yes, please, look at them both. The first one was over the fact that I made
a lot of arguments and votes to keep articles on VFD. It occured around two
years ago. The second one was because I got into an edit war on a subpage of
my own user page regarding an issue the arb com agreed I was in the right
about on the first place.
I should also note that it was a small minority of the arbitrators who voted
to impose that ban. 4 people chose to implement the ban over unsubstantiated
accusations *that weren't even in the finding of facts*. The deliberation
for this was done almost exclusively behind the scenes. Even those who voted
for the ban agreed to review it after 3 months, which they flatly refused to
do when the 3 months came around. The whole thing was a complete travesty of
justice, perhaps due in part to my handling of the case in which I made
little attempt to prove a negative and instead trusted that the arb com
would realize that the parties against me were making baseless accusations
without backing them up with any evidence.
Not sure what you mean about it not being likely to
change. I'll be allowed
to edit in the Wikipedia namespace again in a few
months.
Then please note from the proposed decision in your second case: "I
would warn Anthony that should Anthony 3 be necessary any hesitations
we have about imposing a substantial remedy may not apply. Fred Bauder
10:23, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)"
The last cases of an editor waiting out their bans and coming back to
continue where they left off (Plautus Satire, Irate) resulted in a
rapid ejection from the wiki. Anthony, I ACTUALLY DON'T WANT THIS TO
HAPPEN and I really don't think anyone does. Your dedication to and
love for Wikipedia is unquestionable, and it'd be a damn shame.
I don't know enough about those cases to really comment on this comparison,
but I know about my case. It was a case which was almost entirely about
punishment for past acts, most of which occurred over a year before the
ruling (nearly two years ago), and almost entirely not about a current
ongoing problem.
In my opinion the slate will be completely swept clean after the year is up.
I really can't say what specifically is going to happen, but I really doubt
I'm going to ever care enough to make very many contributions to the wiki.
The arb com had its chance to reconcile itself with me during the three
month review, and it refused. What I probably *should* do is stop caring
about wiki politics completely. It's something I had accomplished for the
first 6 months or so, but now I find myself getting interested in them all
over again.
I really don't know what's going to happen after the ban is lifted.
Can't be much worse than the current system.
I've come to find that the
best
way to deal with the arb com is to ignore them. I
can't think of a
single
good thing that has come out of the arb com, save
those things that only
needed to be resolved because the arb com existed in the first place. I
don't think it matters very much who's on the arb com. The position
itself
is fundamentally flawed.
You really, really need some self-insight and to admit the possibility
that you may be at least somewhat the author of your own misfortunes,
not everyone else.
I'm clearly part of the reason that the arb com banned me. I just happen to
think that for the most part I was in the right. I do admit that some things
I did were inappropriate, mostly occurring in the earlier periods of the 2-3
years I've been involved with Wikipedia.
I think most importantly, the arb com has solidified in my mind as a fact,
sort of like taxes or speed limits or drug laws. If I get pulled over for
speeding I'm not going to argue with the cop that it's a stupid law. And
it's unarguably true that the *reason* I got pulled over had a whole lot to
do with me. The same arguments apply to the arb com, who basically act as a
rubber stamp for mob rule. Mob rule is harder to deal with than laws,
because the mob doesn't write its rules down, but you can usually figure out
what they are before it becomes too big of a problem.
Anthony