Full Version: Jimbo requests diffs on abuse by Raul654
As per this thread, Jimbo has requested diffs which demonstrate abusive behavior from those admins who scored in the top five of our abusive admins poll. I would recommend that those who are skeptical of Jimbo's intentions and wish to flame him should start a different thread for that purpose -- this thread should be reserved for those that wish to Assume Good Faith. Please present the diffs in a nice, orderly, ArbCom-ready fashion.
Was Blu banned for calling Raul a troll? Yep, obviously he is abusive.
Im not sure but this doesnt look like a diff. Jimbo isn't going to go through all that.
QUOTE(sgrayban @ Fri 9th June 2006, 11:22am) 
Im not sure but this doesnt look like a diff. Jimbo isn't going to go through all that.
You can't get diffs for bans; Jimbo wants us to waste our time hunting for some abusive thing Raul said, at which point he'll say, "Well, I'll tell Raul to be more polite in the future." Banning people -- that's abuse, and there are no diffs for that. He isn't going to go through any of this anyways, he just wants to pretend like he is being reasonable.
I have had almost no contact with Raul654, but I figured I'd provide a diff of the only contact, where he made what I consider an inappropriate comment when rejecting my RFA.
I filed an RFAr against FeloniousMonk, Duncharris, and RoyBoy. Duncharris and RoyBoy respondents to my request made derogatory comments about me personally, especially administrator Duncharris (known, and RFC'd for writing things like "FUCK OFF" in his edit summaries) who said I was a "lowly troll" "childish" etc. Prior to filing the RFAr Duncharris had even vandalized an article I had written, which he admitted to doing in his statement. FeloniousMonk pulled the "improper procedure" card, and accused me of failing to seek any other dispute resolution, which is a lie which I also pointed out in the RfAr (I, in fact, asked FM to participate in an RFC filed against him, and he said he would ignore it. I noted this in the RfAr.)
Irrespective of the blatant abuse simply within the RFAr statements, Raul noted in his rejection, that
This was extremely upsetting to me, because it seemed to be giving these people carte blanche to abuse me. They clearly took carte blanche, repeatedly, until I finally snapped back at their passive-aggressive and condescending bullying and was permanently banned.
If you (Jimbo) would like a small glimpse of what I experienced at Wikipedia, please see my Anti-Bullying petition that I was going to send to you before it was attacked and destroyed by FeloniousMonk and various other people. Please check the history and edit summaries as well.
I filed an RFAr against FeloniousMonk, Duncharris, and RoyBoy. Duncharris and RoyBoy respondents to my request made derogatory comments about me personally, especially administrator Duncharris (known, and RFC'd for writing things like "FUCK OFF" in his edit summaries) who said I was a "lowly troll" "childish" etc. Prior to filing the RFAr Duncharris had even vandalized an article I had written, which he admitted to doing in his statement. FeloniousMonk pulled the "improper procedure" card, and accused me of failing to seek any other dispute resolution, which is a lie which I also pointed out in the RfAr (I, in fact, asked FM to participate in an RFC filed against him, and he said he would ignore it. I noted this in the RfAr.)
Irrespective of the blatant abuse simply within the RFAr statements, Raul noted in his rejection, that
QUOTE
"One need only take a cursory look at Talk:Intelligent design to see that FeloniousMonk's actions are EXACTLY what we expect our admins to do. →Raul654 07:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)"
This was extremely upsetting to me, because it seemed to be giving these people carte blanche to abuse me. They clearly took carte blanche, repeatedly, until I finally snapped back at their passive-aggressive and condescending bullying and was permanently banned.
If you (Jimbo) would like a small glimpse of what I experienced at Wikipedia, please see my Anti-Bullying petition that I was going to send to you before it was attacked and destroyed by FeloniousMonk and various other people. Please check the history and edit summaries as well.
Well, better late than never. I'll certainly be happy to add my own story to the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=306394021
This part of that sums the whole affair up nicely:
I hereby claim that it should be all too obvious that this is merely another in a long line of actions on Raul's part to try and have me banned or otherwise sanctioned merely because he disagrees with my POV on global warming and other issues. A brief summary of that history can be found here and more recently on the following ArbCom pages: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop.
As a example of Raul's veracity in making such charges against me, please take the time to review the descriptions he has placed in the WP:ATTACKPAGE he maintains against me here and then follow the links and read my edits in context. I believe that they demonstrate a clear propensity on his part to stretch the truth beyond all reasonable recognition or proportion. The same is being done here today, but merely in a different forum and from a newly devised angle of attack.
As a single example of what I mean, Raul previously claimed that I had "provoked [an incident for which he blocked me and was subsequently overturned] by making this series of inflammatory edits [9][10][11] ..." to which an uninvolved administrator, User:B, remarked "There is nothing inflammatory about those edits - all three were in good faith and there is no way that an unbiased, uninvolved admin would consider them to be disruptive."
The bottom line is that you CANNOT take Raul at his word on ANY of these issues. You will have to follow the links and read them in context to form your own opinion of the reality behind his facade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=306394021
This part of that sums the whole affair up nicely:
I hereby claim that it should be all too obvious that this is merely another in a long line of actions on Raul's part to try and have me banned or otherwise sanctioned merely because he disagrees with my POV on global warming and other issues. A brief summary of that history can be found here and more recently on the following ArbCom pages: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop.
As a example of Raul's veracity in making such charges against me, please take the time to review the descriptions he has placed in the WP:ATTACKPAGE he maintains against me here and then follow the links and read my edits in context. I believe that they demonstrate a clear propensity on his part to stretch the truth beyond all reasonable recognition or proportion. The same is being done here today, but merely in a different forum and from a newly devised angle of attack.
As a single example of what I mean, Raul previously claimed that I had "provoked [an incident for which he blocked me and was subsequently overturned] by making this series of inflammatory edits [9][10][11] ..." to which an uninvolved administrator, User:B, remarked "There is nothing inflammatory about those edits - all three were in good faith and there is no way that an unbiased, uninvolved admin would consider them to be disruptive."
The bottom line is that you CANNOT take Raul at his word on ANY of these issues. You will have to follow the links and read them in context to form your own opinion of the reality behind his facade.
OMG. I saw the thread title, having never seen it before, read the first post and got all excited. I was like "OMG, I can contribute to this one!" Damn it. Old news. 
Maybe I should start a new thread with this, but it seems to me that as long as folks like Raul are around, we should have a handy scorecard to refer to, like this:
LOW (OR NO) TOLERANCE OF NON-MAINSTREAM POV:
----------------------------------
Global Warming
Intelligent Design (vs. Evolution)
Cold Fusion
Scientology
HIGH TOLERANCE OF NON-MAINSTREAM POV, and/or
LOW TOLERANCE OF MAINSTREAM POV:
----------------------------------
Ayn Rand/Objectivism
Neuro-Linguistic Programming
Martin Luther
Pornography
...and hundreds of others, I'm sure. (This would just be for starters.)
LOW (OR NO) TOLERANCE OF NON-MAINSTREAM POV:
----------------------------------
Global Warming
Intelligent Design (vs. Evolution)
Cold Fusion
Scientology
HIGH TOLERANCE OF NON-MAINSTREAM POV, and/or
LOW TOLERANCE OF MAINSTREAM POV:
----------------------------------
Ayn Rand/Objectivism
Neuro-Linguistic Programming
Martin Luther
Pornography
...and hundreds of others, I'm sure. (This would just be for starters.)
If you edit any article owned by mr. Connolley & friends, no matter how innocent the edit, you're doomed.
I got permabanned over changing the ambiguous 'past century' into 'twentieth century'.
I got permabanned over changing the ambiguous 'past century' into 'twentieth century'.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.