[WikiEN-l] Deletion again

Wed Oct 26 10:41:34 UTC 2005

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro_2
>> "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.

For those wondering at the veracity of my statements above, I offer
the above URL, its related detailed ruling and evidence pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro_2/Proposed_decision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro_2/Evidence

And the previous arbitration case concerning Anthony:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro

>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.

> 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.

- d.