At the risk of feeding the trolls.
1. Raul did not say you made an ad hominem attack. He said that your
defense was ad hominem - that is, you were defending yourself by
criticizing your accusers, instead of by engaging the evidence in any
2. Raul did not refuse to look at evidence. He asked you to present him
with evidence. "Read this talk page" is not evidence. Evidence would be
a link to a specific problem edit.
3. I'm not sure why you just found out today when Raul left a message
on your talk page on the 6th, especially since it's not as though you
weren't around between now and then.
That said, if this case has been going since August 1st, why didn't
anyone leave a note on RK's talk page until a month into the case?
On Sep 19, 2004, at 4:44 PM, Robert wrote:
I just found out today that there was a formal
case against me, yet I had no idea such a case was going
on. It is grossly improper to do this without me being part
The arbitrator of this case against me, Raul654, refuses to
read any of the Talk sections of the articles in question,
and is accepting without question charges against me made
by Zero, Simonides and a handful of others.
Raul654 was unaware that Simonides was himself nearly
banned for his non-stop damage of several Wikipedia
articles. Simonides launched into abusive polemics against
nearly everyone on the [[Philosophy]] and [[Anti-Semitism]]
articles. (Many people are upset with the way that
Simonides's kept hurling ad homenim attacks at so many
people, so many times.) Since I was one of the many people
who did not allow him to unilaterally rewrite all of our
articles to match his own peculiar POV, he tried to ban me.
When I merely asked the arbitator, Raul654, to check on
this, he refused to do so, and shockingly accused me of
making an ad homenim attack. That is just too much. It
seemed a clear indication that the facts do not matter to
him, the history of the people in question do not matter,
and that he is just going to try and get me banned
regardless. That alone is reason to recuse him from his
The case with Zero is both puzzling and disappointing. We
rarely have any conflict. Zero does have a great deal of
anger, and I am sure that he is a sockpuppet for another
user. So what did I do? Fight? No. Argue? No. I instead
did the following:
* I requested that in the one area we have a significant
difference, we mediate (i.e. the [[Israel Shahak]]
article.) For whatever reason, nothing occured. For this I
should be banned?
* I've thanked Zero a number of times for good suggestions
he has made.
* As for many other articles that we could have had
disagreements on (relating to the Arab-Israeli wars), I
unilaterally removed nearly all of those articles from my
Watchlist! I let him have his way on over a dozen
articles, no matter how I may disagree. I did this of my
own accord; if this is not a sign of compromise and good
faith, then nothing is.
What was Raul654's response to learning this? He accused
me of making ad homenim attacks! Such a response is
indicative of imparital hostility to me. Raul654 makes it
clear, further, that Jimbo is supporting these efforts to
ban me, which is news to me! (Simonides is claiming that
Jimbo is on his side, which Raul654 unquestioningly
At this point, I have to formally make a request for
arbitration against Raul654, Zero and Simonides. Given the
way that I am being harassed and threatened, I don't see
much option. But isn't this a huge waste of time? For the
good of Wikipedia, and to save everybody's time so we can
actually work on articles, please stop this nonsense. It
is hard to move forward when two people get an arbitator to
bring progress to a halt based on their personal animosity.
In distress at this time-wasting nonsense,
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
WikiEN-l mailing list