|
Results and statistics for the '''[[Victorian Football League]] season of [[1898]]'''.
(Old stuff cleared out.)
''[[Victorian Football League season 1897|Season 1897]] – '''Season 1898''' – [[Victorian Football League season 1899|Season 1899]]''
Please don't remove other people's messages from here, even if they are just being mean to me or complaining about something stupid. Yes, you're probably right that I don't need to see all that, but my concern is just that I might overlook something that ends up being important later. :-)
''See [[List of Australian Football League premiers]] for a complete list.''
==[[Grand Final]]==
[[Fitzroy Football Club|Fitzroy]] defeated [[Essendon Football Club|Essendon]] 5.8 (38) to 3.5 (23). (For an explanation of scoring see [[Australian rules football]]).
==Ladder==
All teams played 14 games during the home and away season, for a total of 56. A sectional round of 3 games per team was then played, for a total of 12. An additional 2 games were played during the finals series.
==[[Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW]]==
===Home and away ladder===
The Southern Collaboration of the Week board is now up. Please vote or nominate other articles. The first voting ends on October 3. [[User:TheCustomOfLife|Mike H]] 14:24, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
{| border style="border-collapse:collapse" cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0
|
!align=center|Team
!align=center|Won
!align=center|Lost
!align=center|Draw
!align=center|Points
|-
!1
|[[Essendon Football Club|Essendon]]
|align=center|11
|align=center|3
|align=center|0
|align=center|44
|-
!2
|[[Collingwood Football Club|Collingwood]]
|align=center|10
|align=center|4
|align=center|0
|align=center|40
|-
!3
|[[Fitzroy Football Club|Fitzroy]]
|align=center|10
|align=center|4
|align=center|0
|align=center|40
|-
!4
|[[Geelong Football Club|Geelong]]
|align=center|9
|align=center|5
|align=center|0
|align=center|36
|-
|colspan=6|
|-
!5
|[[South Melbourne Football Club|South Melbourne]]
|align=center|7
|align=center|7
|align=center|0
|align=center|28
|-
!6
|[[Melbourne Football Club|Melbourne]]
|align=center|5
|align=center|8
|align=center|1
|align=center|22
|-
!7
|[[Carlton Football Club|Carlton]]
|align=center|3
|align=center|10
|align=center|1
|align=center|14
|-
!8
|[[St Kilda Football Club|St Kilda]]
|align=center|0
|align=center|14
|align=center|0
|align=center|0
|-
|}
===Section A ladder===
{| border style="border-collapse:collapse" cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0
==A word in your shell like==
|
!align=center|Team
!align=center|Won
!align=center|Lost
!align=center|Draw
!align=center|Points
|-
!1
|[[Fitzroy Football Club|Fitzroy]]
|align=center|3
|align=center|0
|align=center|0
|align=center|12
|-
!2
|[[Essendon Football Club|Essendon]]
|align=center|2
|align=center|1
|align=center|0
|align=center|8
|-
!3
|[[South Melbourne Football Club|South Melbourne]]
|align=center|1
|align=center|2
|align=center|0
|align=center|4
|-
!4
|[[Carlton Football Club|Carlton]]
|align=center|0
|align=center|3
|align=center|0
|align=center|0
|-
|}
===Section B ladder===
Can I just bend your ear for a quick natter? This weekend I've started the [[Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board|UK notice board]] and early indications are that it's a good idea, and a popular one at that. I feel that while you've got people like [[User:Xed|Xed]] crowing on about systemic bias at the village pump here is a real opportunity to do something about the perceived problem. I hope it expands to much greater things.
{| border style="border-collapse:collapse" cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0
My worry is the effect this is going to have on the wider community, and I'm anticipating some objections from other quarters of the encyclopedia. As more of these things come into existence it could be seen as being divisive to the wider community, weakening the overall effort (trust me, I'm a sociologist). It's just that I've put in a lot of effort this weekend (due partly to my other half being in Crete with work) and I'm worried that at some point someone's going to burst the bubble and challenge the whole idea.
|
!align=center|Team
!align=center|Won
!align=center|Lost
!align=center|Draw
!align=center|Points
|-
!1
|[[Collingwood Football Club|Collingwood]]
|align=center|3
|align=center|0
|align=center|0
|align=center|12
|-
!2
|[[Geelong Football Club|Geelong]]
|align=center|2
|align=center|1
|align=center|0
|align=center|8
|-
!3
|[[Melbourne Football Club|Melbourne]]
|align=center|1
|align=center|2
|align=center|0
|align=center|4
|-
!4
|[[St Kilda Football Club|St Kilda]]
|align=center|0
|align=center|3
|align=center|0
|align=center|0
|-
|}
[[Category:Australian Football League seasons|1898]] [[Category:1898 in sports]]
I would really appreciate your feelings on this issue. -- [[User:Francs2000|Graham ☺]] | [[User talk:Francs2000|Talk]] 23:35, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Despite Xed's unpopularity, I think his proposal on systemic bias is quite interesting and potentially very helpful. I hope people overlook his past and look seriously at what he's saying here.
:I don't see a problem with pages like yours, it can strengthen the community as long as people don't start to view these things territorially. I understand your concern, and I think that the concern you feel is actually the best defense against the problem. :-) I'm trying to put together a meetup in Chicago, with disappointing results so far, so I wish there was a way to reach people in that community. Regional boards could help a lot with personal meetups. [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 03:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Actually you read my mind, and one of the things I thought this board could do was seek opinions on having a UK wikimeet before the international one next year so that more people have a chance to have their views aired in the broader forum. I expect the UK users could organise ___location/venue/times etc amongst ourselves but we would need a bit of a hand with format/agenda items etc. Is there a report of the last wikimeet that took place in London anywhere? -- [[User:Francs2000|Graham ☺]] | [[User talk:Francs2000|Talk]] 14:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
== Michael ==
Since your apparent unilateral unbanning, [[User:Michael|Michael]] has both failed to abide by your rules and made little to no show of repentance. I trust I, and others, can look forward to your prompt unilateral rebanning of Michael... or do we need to follow some sort of procedure? --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]] 08:01, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
I've been reviewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Mike_Garcia
his edits], and I think that the experiment is going quite well, actually. First, he has generally abided by the rules, hasn't he? His edits all seem to be factually good as far as I can tell. And he's been staying within the numbers, with only one exception. (There was some confusion about this, because edits to his own user space don't count towards his total.)
He's under the mentorship of Guanaco and (especially) Danny, and they are doing a good job of counselling him and helping him to reintegrate with the community.
But, to answer your question, if Michael does start becoming a problem, yes, you can look forward to my prompt rebanning of him. But a better way to think about this is that he's "in the custody" of his "parole officers" and we should give them some wide latitude in trying to help first. [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 12:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==Assault Weapon Ban page in trouble ==
A user named [[User:GreatLeapForward|GreatLeapForward]] has been undermining major efforts to settle on a NPOV on the [[Federal_assault_weapons_ban_%28USA%29]] article. Several of us have been working quite hard as show in the discussion page of that article, and now this wacko user comes along and starts putting in his own extremist remarks. I reverted the page, and he put his remarks back in. I see no end. I looked at some other edits this user has made, and he seems to be making other non-founded edits across Wikipedia. What can we do about his edits and his activity? Thank you. [[User:Wodan|Wodan]] 01:35, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
:This is a topic about which I know quite a bit, and take a personal interest. Therefore, ironically enough, it's inappropriate for me to comment in detail. However, I can note that such language as "the failure of" is a value judgment which is inappropriate for Wikipedia, so I agree with you to that extent.
:At the same time, I must note that a portion of his edits do not seem so horrible, and the article is currently not as neutral as perhaps it should be. [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 04:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::* I know that this is a topic which you have some personal interest in, which is why I brought it up directly to your attention. While some of his comments may or may not be "so horrible," his overall editing changes are completely inappropriate. It would seem that he will continue to put in all his edits time and time again. What is the protocol to resolve this? If he was willing to introduce his changes on the discussion page, then there can be a reasonable discussion of what is appropriate and what is not. But so far he has not been willing to do so, and I anticipate will just just continue to force his POV comments on the article. What should be done to resolve this? Thanks. [[User:Wodan|Wodan]] 14:39, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Danny's contest|Danny's contest]] ==
Dear Jimbo Wales,
please contact me specifying the amount of [[Wikipedia:WikiMoney|WikiMoney]] you require for my victory in the currently running [[Wikipedia:Danny's contest|Danny's contest]]. Alternatively I would be willing to pay [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|in kind]].
Yours, [[User:Solitude|[[User:Solitude|Solitude]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Solitude|talk]]</sup>]] 08:48, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
==Beautiful quote==
So you know, that's a fantastic quote in the recent Guardian article. It's "like a sausage: you might like the taste of it, but you don't necessarily want to see how it's made". Curious... did the quote make it's debut for the article, or did it arise from a discussion? -- [[user:zanimum]]
Actually, it's just an old saying. I don't know the source. I think I heard it from my grandmother. [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 05:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:According to [http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/ottovonbis161318.html BrainyQuote], it comes from a remark about the legislative process by Otto von Bismarck: "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 19:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Nice quote, though in the context of the "librarian" complaining that Wikipedia isn't "authoritative" the whole article seemed to miss what to me is a great attraction of Wikipedia, which effectively says in large friendly letters "Check Things For Yourself, here is a start with easy links and search facilities" and makes it easy to see how the article developed if you want to. By coincidence, I found a dodgy item in Britannica 2004 on the same day as buying that Guardian - many thanks for starting this from someone who only began contributing in July, [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 19:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) edit: to clarify, overall the article was very positive and neutral accuracy is an essential aim, but any encyclopaedia contains brief summaries of whole books striving to be authoritative and should not be treated as dogma. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 07:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Muijz==
Just to keep you up to date Muijz has been blocked today. For details ask Oscar.
[[User:Waerth|Waerth]] 07:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
== department of fun ==
hey there just wanted to invite you to be a member of the [[Wikipedia:Department of Fun|Department of Fun]] as i would love to hear any critiques or anything of that nature, even just an opinion on what we are doing would be great! feel free to add your sig./timestamp in the members section. --[[User:Larsie|Larsie]] 17:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
another baby of mine is [[Wikipedia:Wikifun|Wikifun]] and i'd like to hear any comments or ideas for improvement on that too. --[[User:Larsie|Larsie]] 17:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
== Benevolent Monarchs ==
Hi Jimbo, and all who happen to read this,
Both parts of the discussion ("Benevolent Dictator" from this page and "Constitutional Monarch" from my user talk page, including my most recent reply), are now on meta ([[:m:talk:benevolent dictator]]). Figured that was sort of where this discussion belonged, for anyone to take part in.
--[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 21:52, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
== Australian images ==
Hello Jimbo, just a quick question about Aussie images. We don't actually have any fair use legislation in Australia (rather we have fair dealing legislation - considerably different) and so if I want to place any government images onto the website I need to secure permission from the Australian government department first. Regrettably, this means that only the main Wikipedia site will be able to use these images (especially historical ones where we can't get our own images). I want to place an image of Cyclone Tracy onto the website, but this will mean restricting the image use. What is your take on this? - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 08:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to respond. In general we very much like to avoid images with any sort of non-free license. Getting a nice photo for '''our''' website, but that isn't GNU-free doesn't really help our mission much, unfortunately, and may actually hinder it it a bit, because the convenience may prevent us from seeking creative ways to get free alternatives. [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 05:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No worries :-) The [[Cyclone Tracy]] at the moment has a non-free image, however anyone can use it so long as they contact the source I've listed on the image description page. This is for Australian law. For American law, I think that we can apply [[fair use]] to it, but I'm not quite sure about that. However, I talked to my flat-mate about that, and I beleive that the legal concept here is [[extraterritorality]] and once the image is on a U.S. server Australian law no longer applies to that image. I might, however, be done for exporting the image. In this case, I would not, because on my [[:Image:Cyclone_tracy_aerial_view_darwin.jpg#Copyright|email to the department]] I specifically told them I would be using it on Wikipedia. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 02:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Just to add to this, Jimbo, I believe Australia uses [[Crown Copyright]] rules, much as the UK does. You'll probably find that the same is true for other Commonwealth countries. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 13:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Photo with person again ==
Could you suggest any free license to photo that will protect honour (or reputation, or good name) presented person simultaneously? [[User:DanielZM|DanielZM]] 13:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't know of any existing license. I think some people would say that such a license is impossible, because the license would not really be free. You'd be free to take it and reuse it and modify it, but you could not distribute your modified version unless it meets some conditions. I personally think I would still call that license "free", but it is an interesting puzzle.
Consider how a license might restrict redistribution of our work. Perhaps someone would like to take our NPOV content about a famous politician, but alter it to suit their own political agenda, and redistribute it. They might want to draw a Hitler moustache on Bush for example -- a popular pastime these days. If we had a photo of Bush that forbid that kind of use, then our content would not be as free as we would like.
But consider another use: a photo of a person, where the person is not *per se* the object of the photo, but is instead being used to illustrate some concept. "Typical child playing at a typical beach" for example. It is hard to see exactly what practical problems an "honor protecting" license would cause in this case... although I haven't thought about it much.
Creative Commons is doing great work regarding making new licenses (free and semi-free) to cover various kinds of uses.
I will ask about this to see if any work is underway on a license of this sort, and also you could ask them directly.
[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 13:55, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Just thanks==
I've been editing since January of this year. Thanks for starting Wikipedia keeping it going & for being a voice of reason and never an arbitrary dictator. That's all-- and I hope that's enough-- [[User:Elf|Elf]] | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 19:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Atheism ==
Jimbo, I dare you to defend your [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view|NPOV policy]] in [[Talk:atheism]]. [[User:Adraeus|Adraeus]] 23:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:While I find the above a rudely insubordinate outburst, I too would appreciate your wise and weighty presence on [[Talk:Atheism]]. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new '''Spade''']] 01:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Rude? Doubtful. I challenged Jimbo to defend his flawed NPOV policy which allows extremely biased trolls to corrupt an NPOV article with POV using NPOV policy as a defense.
::Insubordinate? Surely. I bow before no man and no god. [[User:Adraeus|Adraeus]] 01:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::Clearly. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new '''Spade''']] 13:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
PS: note that ''atheists'' are used as an example on [[Wikipedia:Categorization of people]]. Yeah, sure, this is very "tricky" NPOV-wise. That's why I chose that example. I've no knowledge of the category being questioned again (as it was before the categorisation of people guideline existed). --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 08:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==On NPOV Misusage==
About the NPOV principle in WikiPedia I think that each of us have a point of view and that’s a fact and there are many subtle ways of expressing your POV and make it look as NPOV. Maybe it should be allow taking multiple POV in WikiPedia so that all voices can be heard! Tolerance should be the principle. There is probably as many [[POV]] on earth as humans inhabiting it. Why should we censor or repress others people point of View?
For example [[Fidel Castro]]'s article does not have a section on Opposition to Castro something I try to start and someone deleted base on the NPOV principle! Now, that I believe is a manipulation of information since there is such a thing as Opposition to Castro. One only have to make a few searches on Google to notice how many groups of Cubans oppose him inside as well as outside of Cuba.
Information can be manipulated by omission of important topics for the sake of being NPOV. There are so many omissions in that article.
Another point is that POV change with time and between cultures, countries etc. Maybe in the future people with more knowledge (hopefully!) than we have right now will treat for example Castro more harshly or even maybe in a more benign way that we currently do today. The reason for that is that they may have information that we currently do not have. So I think maybe WikiPedia can also be a repository of Information than can also survive time. I do not think the current WikiPedia history is sufficient for this. So the way some of us think about him or about anything else today will be lost forever.
You can browse many iterations of a paper encyclopedia and notice that after years many definitions get corrected as we gain more knowledge and some topics may loose importance and may even get deleted.
The question is should we keep snapshots of WikiPedia in time. I think we should. So that people in the future will know the way we think now and can study us on why we think the way we do today and all the mental blocks we currently impose ourselves.
[[User:SilentVoice|SilentVoice]] 22:46, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
==FeloniousMonk and Kim Bruning==
First, let me apologize for being so slow to respond to all of this. It's just that each time I had set aside a few minutes to write something, you had all written even more for me to read. It's been quite entertaining, I must say. Extra points for the use of the word 'preterition', and a round of drinks all around for having a huge meta-debate which managed in large part to avoid discussing any actual particulars of anything at all.
Now, as for useful advice I can offer, given how little I understand of what you're all on about, I turn for guidance to one of the great legal minds of our times, Judge Alex Kozinski. In a famous decision having to do with the trademark of Barbie, Judge Kozinski added a footnote: "The parties are advised to chill."
[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 11:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: :) [[User:Adraeus|Adraeus]] 23:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Jimbo, I agree. Would Kim Bruning starting a Request for Mediation against me on the very day you tell us both to chill qualify as chilling or not chilling? I'm tired of Kim's constant bullying and this new development within hours after your Talk page debacle confirms it is indeed bullying, and is beyond the pale.--[[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 15:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: Hey, my new-found friend. Come back down to the third floor and duke it out with ''me'' over this on ''my'' TalkPage. :) What do you say? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 17:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::Rednblu, I appreciate your generous offer ;-), but you see there's nothing to duke out, and I agree with Jimbo, Kim and I just need to do what he says, ''chill''. BTW, I've been very impressed with the progress you and Ungtss working together have made at [[Religion]], and the balanced quality of those contributions. My hat is off to you.--[[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 18:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::: Thanks. And my hat is off to you as well. Guys like you and me just never ''chill out.'' Look at us. We always have something more to say back to each other. How about we ''chill out'' on my Talk Page then? ;) No duking, you are right. :)) We could talk over and ''chill out'' over Kim's Request for Meditation ([[Meditation]]??) or anything else. :) ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 18:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::I'm not sure what you mean "we always have something more to say to each other". I only have had two comments to you, both positive ones, since we concluded our past unpleasantness and moved on. Actually, I do just chill when it comes to others I disagree with, often. My interactions, or lack of more accurately, with you after our previous disagreement attest to that, you'll have to admit. So, taking my cues from Jimbo here, chilling out is exactly what I intend to do with respect to Kim. I don't see much benefit, but plenty of risk in again starting up this conversation with Kim. Are you offering here to informally mediate our conflict? It's been my contention all along that there's nothing of significance to mediate except Kim's bullying behavior, so were I to decide to not ''chill'' and agree to enter into some form of informal mediation, it would have to include resolution of my claim that Kim is harassing me. And then I'd prefer it to be conducted by a party completely unaffiliated and unacquainted with Kim or myself. Recent previous experiences with assistance from someone who had existing relationships with the other side was less than confidence inspiring, indeed, disappointing.--[[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 21:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Your User Page ==
I can't claim much responsiblility for how your user page looks like now: my claim to fame is as the first to respond to your call for beautification. Anyway, do you like how it looks now? [[User:Dpen2000|dpen2000]] 21:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dude, it rocks. I was stunned when I saw it this morning. [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 21:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:The top toolbar is cool, but I think the play with font in the headings is unnecessary...Anyway, I added a few font alternatives for those who do not have access to the [[Georgia (font)]] font. — 22:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== December Arbitration Committee elections ==
I've written [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004]] as a kick-start for this; I'm sure that you're as busy as ever with other things right now, but a few words saying that we do indeed need to think about the elections (I was thinking maybe voting from the 1st to the 15th of December, to avoid too many complications on the, err, "holiday season", so we'd need to start accepting candidate statements soon) would be very helpful.
<br />
Yours,
<br />
[[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 00:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Photo ==
Hey Jimbo, I put up the photo I took with you when you were at UIUC on my user page. [[User:Thesilverbail|Deepak]] 16:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Blocking users scenario==
Hello Jimbo,
Although I am not a sysop myself, yet, I think that sysops shouldn't have the right to block users, and should only have the right to block non-users such as IP Addresses and such... only... As there is the threat that a personal attack could lead to the blocking of other sysops and innocent people without the right to response to the action and even if they did respond to the questionable action the questionable sysop would just delete the edit history of the what the person has to say... I think that this scenario is pretty scaring... wouldn't you think so? or am I just having one of those paranoia days... [[User:Squash|[[User:Squash|<b>Squash</b>]] [[User talk:Squash|<small><b>(Talk)</b></small>]]]] 00:59, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
== RickK ==
Jimbo, could you explain to RickK the difference between contentious edits and vandalism? He has blocked me and threatened to do so again for any edit to the Polish city articles. Obviously that's neither vandalism nor was I violating the 3RR. [[User:Gzornenplatz|Gzornenplatz]] 15:33, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
== ArbCom appeal ==
Hi. Sorry to bother you with this long message - I'm sure you're busy - but there's a recent matter which has come up for which only you can help, since it pertains to the Arbitration Committee.
First, some background. I have been editing Wikipedia for well over a year. I have made substantial contributions on a variety of topics, including history, science, politics, linguistics, mathematics, law, computer science, television, and film, as well as engaging in numerous maintenance tasks. I have close to 11,000 edits. This is the first time I have contacted you about any matter.
[[User:Ruy Lopez|Ruy Lopez]] is the latest account by a person best known as Richardchilton (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richardchilton]]). He mass produces sockpuppet accounts and engages in (among other thing) rampages of mass deletion of material unfavorable to communism from many articles. He declared on [[User:Richardchilton]] his repudiation of NPOV and his intent to simply delete large portions of text he doesn't like. (The page [[Khmer Rouge]] is a good example.) Nothing was ever done about him back when, due to apathy or lack of machinery, but he probably should have been banned. [[User:Shorne|Shorne]] is a more recent user of similar ideology and behavior, who has communicated in E-mail with "Ruy Lopez"; they now "tag-team" revert me and other users (see Stan Shebs' comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz%2C_Kevin_Baas%2C_Shorne%2C_VeryVerily/Evidence&diff=7373817&oldid=7371685]).
I have been vigilant on these pages, for which many users have commended me. This involves reverting, and no doubt reasonable people disagree over whether it's better to leave a page ruined or vandalized than engage in multiple reverts, but that's not what I'm writing about. An ArbCom case was started against me and others for excessive reverting, where I intended to defend my decisions.
Lumped together in this case is one against [[User:Gzornenplatz|Gzornenplatz]], probably a reincarnation of [[User:Wik|Wik]], who I also brushed with. Most notable in his case, he engaged in multiple revert wars on German/Polish naming. In response to their continuation, the ArbCom [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision|imposed an injunction]] against him ''and me'' against editing on ''any'' German or Polish topic.
However, I have been wholly uninvolved in those disputes. For me to be enjoined from contributing on this broad sweep of topics makes no sense. Furthermore, Raul654 made a rather rude comment to me about my "editing tendencies" on "these topics" (which in fact I had nothing to do with) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz%2C_Kevin_Baas%2C_Shorne%2C_VeryVerily&diff=7438036&oldid=7437396], prejudging me guilty. Apparently they (so far Raul654, The Epopt, MyRedDice, Jdforrester, and Delirium) did not even give a casual glance at the material presented to them, nor listen to the two users who then later pointed out this incongruity.
While I fear you may find this a minor point, I believe this seriously calls into question the ArbCom's credibility. To issue injunctions (which is a serious matter) and make demeaning comments to a disputant who is a consistent and heavy Wikipedia contributor without engaging in even the most elementary fact-finding is extremely malfeasant. I think these are all decent users in their own way, but this sort of laziness (or worse) in a position of trust should not be acceptable.
I lack a good proposed remedy. Dissolving the ArbCom may be excessive. I should certainly like the case against me dropped, lest I be subjected to yet more senseless restrictions, and the ArbCom sternly chided. The ArbCom is supposed to be the (almost) court of last resort; it needs to be better than this.
Thanks for reading,
[[User:VeryVerily|Very]][[User talk:VeryVerily|<font color=green>Verily</font>]] 02:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I agree it makes no sense that VeryVerily is enjoined from contributing to German/Polish articles where he is not involved in disputes. Instead he should be enjoined from those articles where he ''is'' involved in disputes, i.e. the communism-related topics he's edit warring over with Shorne and Ruy Lopez (and where he is pushing pro-U.S., anti-communism POV at least as much as the others are doing the opposite). So I would ask you to either repeal the injunction or make it consistent. [[User:Gzornenplatz|Gzornenplatz]] 03:08, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
== User page redesign ==
'''Since this page is so simple and ugly, my ultimate dream is that some person who thinks it is fun will come along and make it look as perfect as Angela's user page.'''
* Jimbo, I'm afraid you're simply not as attractive as Angela :) But I did my best to make your page look as perfect as hers. -[[User:Fennec|Fennec]] [[User_Talk:Fennec|(はさばくのきつね)]] 05:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Purge the arbitration committee ==
Please see my complaint against five active members of the arbitration committee at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily]]. The title is "Corrupt arbitrators exposed: James F., Martin, the Epopt, Delirium, Raul654, mav". Thank you. [[User:Shorne|Shorne]] 10:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Shorne was banned from editing a set of articles he/she does not edit much at all for about 10 hours. I have corrected this mistake. Hardly a miscarriage of justice. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 15:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::The facts speak for themselves. Your resignation, please. [[User:Shorne|Shorne]] 15:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::Your behavior is not helping your case. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 17:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::What is not helping my case is a kangaroo court of corrupt "arbitrators". You could get a good job as a judge in Peru, you know. [[User:Shorne|Shorne]] 17:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
| 