Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Libertas/Evidence

moved from Requests for arbitration by sannse:


 * I would welcome someone explaining how I respond to the falsehoods of Radicalsubversiv's claims when I am not Libertas. This process is farcical and contemptible. Ollieplatt 21:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Evidence is welcome from anyone, including on issues of identity. Please add to the evidence page.  But take care to edit only in a separate section from other users - it is important that you do not edit evidence presented by others. -- sannse (talk) 22:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Riddle me this, this is an arbitration page on Libertas. I am not Libertas. Reading Rhobite/Radical's commentary, they are commenting mainly on me. I wish to respond to those charges but in so doing am acknowledging a claim which is just false. It is ridiculous. If Libertas has behaved incorrectly, then Libertas should be held to account. I would appreciate having my own page for my response, until then I'm not going to participate in this unjust farce which delivers verdicts before evidence. Radicalsubversiv and his sockpuppets has a radical left-wing POV agenda, which I was perfectly willing to demonstrate and did so. Ollieplatt 01:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

12 Jan

 * 05:16
 * Within minutes of his first edits, Ollieplatt begins inserting POV: Calling both John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy "serial adulterers"


 * There is ample evidence supporting this assertion, Kennedy supporters might not like it, but there are lots of women who have come forward with such accounts. Maybe they're all lying.


 * 06:24
 * Ollieplatt makes POV edits to Democratic Party (United States) and Russ Feingold.


 * How are these edits even remotely POV?

Edit summaries include "hey hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today", "deleting excreta, flussh" , "this is shit, pure shit written by a blatant fan" , "snob effete snob" , "Feingold deserves a truthful article not one that kneels before him Lewinsky style".


 * The edit summaries were not nice and I apologize for them, the content of it is perfectly fine.


 * 06:48
 * Ollieplatt continues making POV edits:, , claiming that Feingold is "low-profile" and has "low charisma". I believe these edits were borderline vandalism, and gave him a final warning on his talk page:


 * Rhobite/Radicalsubversiv incorrectly interpreted 'vandalism', and apologized although later withdrew the apology effectively, claiming he had not erred. He only apologized under pressure for nearly a dozen editors who condemned his breach of policy.


 * 06:58
 * Ollie made this edit at approximately the same time that I gave him a final warning: . I blocked him for 24 hours for vandalism. While I believe his edits and personal attacks were detrimental and disruptive to the encyclopedia, I have since apologized to him for blocking him prematurely.


 * And later withdrew the apology. What a joke.

Arbitration Commitee Corruption and Related Issues
Before bothering to provide any evidence, I ask the following questions:


 * Will the misconduct and impropriety of Radicalsubversiv and his sockpuppets Rhobite be considered in this case?
 * Will Arbitration Committee members (David Gerard) and (Ambi) who decided to reject my arbitration request PRIOR to it being completed be participating in the decision-making?
 * Will there be a separate page to consider claims made against me as distinct from Libertas (who is not me)? If not, how does this Star Chamber propose that I disprove that I am another user?
 * Will Arbitration Committee members with known left-wing POV editing styles be participating in the decision-making?
 * Will those submitting evidence, asserting a different perspective, themselves be examined for sockpuppetry of radicalsubversiv and other left-wing POV pushers?
 * Does the fact that Radicalsubversiv is in fact motivated by a false belief that I produced a weblog about Michael Sherrards effect these proceedings and by what process can this committee adjudicate on web-logs produced outside Wikipedia. I believe Sherrards produced this web-log to cast me in a negative light prior to initiating this action. I post the link here so that committee members can see what is behind this claim.
 * Will the misconduct of Rhobite (Radical's sockpuppet) be examined specifically as it relates to his serial abuse of administrator's duties to protect POV in articles.

I require answers to these questions from the Arbitration Commiteee in whole, or someone speaking on its behalf. Ollieplatt 01:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A Confusing Process Even Among Experienced Users
See the following from Rhobite(Radical's sockpuppet)'s user page. I'm glad I'm not the only confused one. Ollieplatt 02:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary for you to copy and paste random bits of my talk page into the evidence page? Rhobite 02:45, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Ollieplatt 03:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Libertas/Evidence
Did you mean to write the info about Olliplatt on the Libertas page? Are you claiming that they are the same person? RickK 23:47, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Who knows? I'm not sure if they're the same person, but the arbitration appears to be against both of them, so I'll add my evidence. I think the ArbCom needs to look at Ollieplatt's conduct, it doesn't really matter what the title of the request page is. I'll request arbitration against Ollie if it turns out that the current request doesn't cover him. Rhobite 01:11, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about Olliplatt. He came in with a bias and has continued that bias, uploading POV pictures and adding them to articles, and making "Keep" votes on obvious VfD candidates (and yes, even though I'm what they call a "deltionist", there's no way that anyone who wasn't a troll would vote to keep.)  RickK 01:23, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

More evidence of Rhobite/Radicalsubversiv acting in concert and intimidating new users
That is a heinious thing to do. You don't cut & slice comments from Rhobite's user talk page & then place them out of context regarding "intimidating new users." You know very well that refers back to a comment that I made when someone vandalized me while I was attempting to report a vandalism in progress and I thanked Rhobite for being so quick to revert before I could even report it. I noticed that you didn't clarify with my follow-up regarding suspicious comments by anexperienced Wikipedian regarding that something was afoot, Dr. Watson. Shame on you. Newbie but not a dupe. Watch your step. --allie 03:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apology given and then effectively withdrawn Rhobite, please explain how you can give an apology and then assert you did not err. Ollieplatt 03:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey: All I know is I really want to thank you Thanks for that uber quick revert while I was reporting a vandalism. It took me the better part of the day to track all that information. Imagine my surprise when I hit the click and saw: Boobs. Now, boobs has an interesting etymology.... In the singular, a boob can be a rube, a dolt, or a person in a hissy (vernacular for insisting on carrying on when something is better left to drop). .... --allie 21:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who do you think I was referring to? And why are you so truculent? --allie 04:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton
RadicalSubversiv didn't mention this in his statement. You know that I am a (gasp) newbie. There was a comment on 12 Jan by User:Schissel regarding "Further rv of an entry that no longer exists. Odd," I have no idea what that means; I just try to edit that page so it doesn't sound like a rap sheet & maintain some clarity. Please review for yourself to see if it is relevant. Best Regards from the (gasp) newbie, --allie 02:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Nutrosnutros
I have noticed that User:Nutrosnutros appears in both sections of James Day's evidence. Thryduulf 08:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * unless JD tells us what his methodology was (and I wouldn't give out security info like that), we can't really tell what that means. Blair P. Houghton 18:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recommend total ban on all IP's ever used by Ollieplatt or his suspected sock puppets.
Threatening email = smoking gun. Blair P. Houghton 04:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)