On 2/28/06, Snowspinner <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed, I have
been very, very patient with all of you. Many users
would be screaming in your ear right now, and not without cause. I
was mistreated badly once, condemned and banned without due cause.
You might do me the courtesy of cutting me some slack now on account
of this.
I was going to wait for the case to actually wrap up to comment,
since I clerked it, but this is frankly beyond the pale, and since
the case is going to go to closed any time now, I'll comment.
Put yourself in my shoes and try to imagine how frustrating this
experience must be for me.
I was FLOORED to see that your sole grounds of appeal
was that year-
old evidence and decisions were a great travesty, and wrote a summary
that was an unsubtle hint that providing some of the evidence that
the arbcom was asking for would be a good idea. I left a note on your
talk page to that effect. You basically told me to go fuck myself,
though to your credit you were somewhat more civil than that.
I told you that your summary completely missed the points I was trying
to make. Which it did. And you put words in my mouth I never said,
and seemed to deny that a vandal was a vandal. I don't even know what
clerking was supposed to be for, but you didn't really do much in the
end. I feel it was you who was attacking me, and I was not uncivil at
all.
Here's the problem - regardless of the previous
case, you were, when
you edited Wikipedia, one of the most committed revert warriors in
existence. You and 172 still have an all-time record for the size of
a revert war. And how were you sanctioned for your 40RR violation?
This has been brought up before. That happend on *one* article, after
months of frustration, and a long time ago when Wikipedia was much
more of an anarchy. The enforcement then in existence was quickpolls,
which voted against sanctioning me. The situation was resolved and
over, community rules evolved, and nothing like that has happened
since. I didn't expect double jeopardy.
I could have raised all these points had the AC actually brought them
up. But instead they listed cases involving clear stalking and the
like.
Remember their allegation was not just reverting but reverting
*without adequate discussion*. And that was not the case in the May
2004 conflict anymore than it was in the later disputes. So it
*can't* be relevant to the current case.
So basically you're splitting year-old hairs and
ignoring the fact
that if that case wasn't the one that brought you down, another case
would have, because there were easily a dozen that could have been made.
A dozen? Pretty much anyone with a beef with me tried to use
adminstrative sanctions against me. One conflict went to mediation
(which was favorable to me), one was brought to arbitration but then
resolved, one was the one in questin, and, well, that may be about it.
telling you that again right now. And instead you
presented yourself
as the same old vicious bulldog ready to attack anything and anybody
that stood in his way.
? This is an absurd characterization.
You bungled the evidence presentation in this
case in an epic manner, and turned sympathetic people against you in
doing it.
Now you're way off base.
VV