Case Opened on 01:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Case Closed on 17:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the
Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at
/Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
Since July 2005 I have been involved in the dispute on the Khmer Rouge article, a dispute which really runs back to 2004. Throughout this time Ruy Lopez has been extremely uncooperative with using the discussion page, which he was required to do in a previous arbitration decision. [1]
His tactics are usually to make a controversial edit, then ignore talk page objections. He does respond eventually, but his long-winded rebutals contain little substance to the actual charges and consist mostly of hot air or false accusations. The disputes vary drastically from the entire article [2] to one sentence [3] For instance, currently we are disputing the credibility of a source inserted regarding an alleged CIA operation. NOTE THAT I DO NOT QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE SOURCE EXISTS, I AM SIMPLY QUESTIONING ITS RELEVANCE AND CREDIBILITY. Ruy Lopez has made some responses, but does not answer the (perfectly reasonable) questions (stated over and over again), [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] instead asserting himself over and over again with the same jargon and constantly engaging in revert war (which he got blocked for eventually for gaming the system). Sadly, this is not an isolated incident, it appears to be the general editing pattern of Ruy Lopez, though he is more persistant on this page than others.
In addition, he has stalked me in other disputes I had such as Cold War (1953-1962), History of the United States (1945-1964) and Communist State while participating in almost no discussion himself (certainly nothing meaningful).
It's also been rumored that he has edited under a wide-variety of other accounts, which I think should be investigated. CJK 17:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I've seen what Jimbo and his lieutenants have done to progressive users like 172, Secretlondon, Wik etc. Even someone mild like Viajero is barely editing any more, and with how Wikipedia has shifted, Mikkalai is now considered far out left. I gave up on Wikipedia months ago, but decided to take a stand on one article and watch the denouement. I already know what the outcome will be, and as often happens to me at the end for me, I see no point in wasting hours of time on this ArbCom case, David Gerard's comments is enough of what I knew I'd see. So I am quitting Wikipedia, permanently.
I withdraw any charges against CJK, TDC or whoever. I removed everything I put into the Khmer Rouge page over the past year. I will not make any edits after this one, outside of my talk page, and only for the next few days. I don't plan to follow this case any more either. Ruy Lopez 00:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think anyone bullied you into quitting. You're just giving up. 'Either my way or the highway.' That's just the kind of attitude that doesn't work on Wikipedia. Anyways, sad to see you go. ( Bjorn Tipling 01:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC))
Statement by DTC 20:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Ruy Lopez’s conduct on Khmer Rouge have been completely unacceptable. For the past 15 months on the article, Lopez has been engaged in a long standing edit war on the article. His proposed contributions have been rejected by the vast majority of the editors, and nearly every one of his edits on that page have been reverted after his general lack of contribution on the discussion page. He shows a complete and utter lack of willingness to work towards a consensus in any article, and even goes so far as to claim that the cabal that runs Wikipedia is hopelessly corrupt and biased: " who runs Wikipedia? The answer is the millionaire Ayn Rand devotee Jimbo Wales, and to a lesser extent his various lieutenants". This RfArb is long overdue.
There is also little dount that Lopez has used numerous Sockpuppets to attack users, and wage his edit wars in other articles. One his many suspected sockpuppetsis User:Lancemurdoch, who has had very similar things to say about the Cabal that runs Wikipedia: " Or perhaps Wikipedia is owned and controlled by a wealthy capitalist, Jimbo, and he and his little cabal see Mr. Poor as their brethren and invited him into ranks" DTC 20:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/2/1)
- Recuse Fred Bauder 19:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. The standard of behaviour needs marked improvement - David Gerard 22:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Accept ➥the Epopt 00:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. Dmcdevit· t 05:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 05:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. Charles Matthews 11:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Recuse. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am leaning towards accepting, but Ruy Lopez has not edited for three days, and claims to have left Wikipedia. Perhaps we should follow the 172 precedent and put this case on ice. If Ruy Lopez returns, I would accept. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. Claims by people that they have left Wikipedia are common, but rarely accurate. Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Temporary injunction (none)
Final decision Information
Case closed and merged into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily
Case Opened on 01:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Case Closed on 17:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the
Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at
/Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
Since July 2005 I have been involved in the dispute on the Khmer Rouge article, a dispute which really runs back to 2004. Throughout this time Ruy Lopez has been extremely uncooperative with using the discussion page, which he was required to do in a previous arbitration decision. [1]
His tactics are usually to make a controversial edit, then ignore talk page objections. He does respond eventually, but his long-winded rebutals contain little substance to the actual charges and consist mostly of hot air or false accusations. The disputes vary drastically from the entire article [2] to one sentence [3] For instance, currently we are disputing the credibility of a source inserted regarding an alleged CIA operation. NOTE THAT I DO NOT QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE SOURCE EXISTS, I AM SIMPLY QUESTIONING ITS RELEVANCE AND CREDIBILITY. Ruy Lopez has made some responses, but does not answer the (perfectly reasonable) questions (stated over and over again), [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] instead asserting himself over and over again with the same jargon and constantly engaging in revert war (which he got blocked for eventually for gaming the system). Sadly, this is not an isolated incident, it appears to be the general editing pattern of Ruy Lopez, though he is more persistant on this page than others.
In addition, he has stalked me in other disputes I had such as Cold War (1953-1962), History of the United States (1945-1964) and Communist State while participating in almost no discussion himself (certainly nothing meaningful).
It's also been rumored that he has edited under a wide-variety of other accounts, which I think should be investigated. CJK 17:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I've seen what Jimbo and his lieutenants have done to progressive users like 172, Secretlondon, Wik etc. Even someone mild like Viajero is barely editing any more, and with how Wikipedia has shifted, Mikkalai is now considered far out left. I gave up on Wikipedia months ago, but decided to take a stand on one article and watch the denouement. I already know what the outcome will be, and as often happens to me at the end for me, I see no point in wasting hours of time on this ArbCom case, David Gerard's comments is enough of what I knew I'd see. So I am quitting Wikipedia, permanently.
I withdraw any charges against CJK, TDC or whoever. I removed everything I put into the Khmer Rouge page over the past year. I will not make any edits after this one, outside of my talk page, and only for the next few days. I don't plan to follow this case any more either. Ruy Lopez 00:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think anyone bullied you into quitting. You're just giving up. 'Either my way or the highway.' That's just the kind of attitude that doesn't work on Wikipedia. Anyways, sad to see you go. ( Bjorn Tipling 01:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC))
Statement by DTC 20:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Ruy Lopez’s conduct on Khmer Rouge have been completely unacceptable. For the past 15 months on the article, Lopez has been engaged in a long standing edit war on the article. His proposed contributions have been rejected by the vast majority of the editors, and nearly every one of his edits on that page have been reverted after his general lack of contribution on the discussion page. He shows a complete and utter lack of willingness to work towards a consensus in any article, and even goes so far as to claim that the cabal that runs Wikipedia is hopelessly corrupt and biased: " who runs Wikipedia? The answer is the millionaire Ayn Rand devotee Jimbo Wales, and to a lesser extent his various lieutenants". This RfArb is long overdue.
There is also little dount that Lopez has used numerous Sockpuppets to attack users, and wage his edit wars in other articles. One his many suspected sockpuppetsis User:Lancemurdoch, who has had very similar things to say about the Cabal that runs Wikipedia: " Or perhaps Wikipedia is owned and controlled by a wealthy capitalist, Jimbo, and he and his little cabal see Mr. Poor as their brethren and invited him into ranks" DTC 20:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/2/1)
- Recuse Fred Bauder 19:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. The standard of behaviour needs marked improvement - David Gerard 22:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Accept ➥the Epopt 00:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. Dmcdevit· t 05:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 05:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. Charles Matthews 11:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Recuse. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am leaning towards accepting, but Ruy Lopez has not edited for three days, and claims to have left Wikipedia. Perhaps we should follow the 172 precedent and put this case on ice. If Ruy Lopez returns, I would accept. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. Claims by people that they have left Wikipedia are common, but rarely accurate. Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Temporary injunction (none)
Final decision Information
Case closed and merged into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily