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.
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_DiP…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiP…
And the previous arbitration case concerning Anthony:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiP…
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.