Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/VeryVerily

Moved here from project page:

Utterly frivolous. Arbitration is obviously premature. His claim about me being the first to revert is demonstrably false. V V 22:57, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Umm...demonstrably false, unless someone looks for the first revert, which was by you at 04:44 on the 25th of September. CK 01:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I corrected this falsehood in Talk, yet he repeats it. Oh well. V V 01:51, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Veryverily is simply lying, and I urge interested parties to examine the PNAC edit history themselves in order to see the truth. CK 02:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Update: there is also a summary of the dispute, with some comment from a disinterested moderator, on the talk page: [1] CK 10:18, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm the "disinterested moderator" CK mentions above (not that I consider this a particularly "official" role, I just happened by), and at this point I think I'm satisfied enough that the talk: page discussion is going nowhere that I'll add my voice to this request. VeryVerily seems to be arguing vigorously against a position that is not actually being taken by those he's arguing against (both the editors on the talk page and the version of the article he was disputing), and I think the version he wants to replace it with is highly POV. I've tried at great length to explain why I think this but it just doesn't seem to be helping and VV has rejected all the other approaches to dealing with this that are suggested on the dispute resolution page. Bryan 01:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily deleted this comment with the summary "outside comments belong in talk." This is not an outside comment, I'm seconding this request for arbitrarion in accordance with the last bullet point in #What belongs in Requests for Arbitration. Bryan 04:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My comment copied from Talk

The conversation is indeed starting to head to nowheresville, because BD is simply not processing what I am saying, whether out of laziness or, whatever. However, he is not an involved party here. V V 04:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I consider myself to have become involved when I tried to help work out a resolution to the edit war on the page's talk. I suppose if the arbitrators tell me I haven't become involved enough I'll bow out, but until then I've said my piece and want it duly recorded. Bryan 20:49, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fine. I wrote my comment before your response and put it here for the record (now Fred Bauder has reduplicated it on the Talk page, so who knows?). Very Verily

Mediation was declined. See Requests for mediation archive 10 for details.
BCorr, Chair of the Mediation Committee, BCorr|Брайен 13:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate the absurd prematurity of this request. This conflict is not even one week old, and people are already jumping to arbitration. By this standard any content disagreement could wind up at arbitration in a heartbeat. V V 23:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The argument on talk: was going in circles, IMO - we were both saying the same things over and over to no effect. Would you like to participate in mediation or a survey before going to arbitration (assuming CK also agrees)? You rejected both of those ideas earlier. Bryan 00:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You were not even listening to me, that's why. But no matter. Take a survey if you want, but I know from experience these become referenda on political perspective and brings swarms of uninformed people to make snap judgements. IMHO we should give it at least several more days before burdening a mediator, and that step should obviously be tried before arbitration. V V 00:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how going through additional cycles of the same argument is going to help considering we're each repeatedly accusing the other of not even listening to what we're saying, and you'd already rejected a mediation request on this subject as a "waste of time." I've set up a draft survey at Talk:Project for the New American Century/Survey and I hope we can come up with questions/results that will settle things, but if you already believe from the outset that none of this is going to resolve the issue I don't see what else is left besides arbitration. Bryan 01:50, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm still trying to work out a survey everyone can agree on, but I'm having a hard time understanding what VV's objections actually are at this point. While doing some cleanup on the current draft I removed some questions he'd added that were flagrantly loaded (and which he agreed were flagrantly loaded) and moved some discussion to the main talk: page because it was about what the "correct answers" of several proposed questions were rather than about whether they should be in the surey. VV responded to this by telling me I'd restored someone's loaded/strawman questions (I had only removed questions so I don't see how that's possible) and saying "I just can't believe you people are for real. This isn't The National Enquirer." I asked for clarification on that and all he said was that I needed to familiarize myself with his objections. I get the feeling that once again one or both of us is reading something completely different from what the other is writing, whether deliberately or not I have no idea. Bryan 23:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, after 11 days of attempting to get some sort of useful information out of VV about what his objections actually were, I finally propose starting the survey with the questions we've got worked out. VV's response: "If you start a survey with these questions, you know of course that I will never, ever accept its results. But I guess that's the goal, isn't it?" Not my goal, but I guess not unexpected considering he's rejected every other possible method of settling this dispute so far and said from the outset he wouldn't accept the results of a survey either. I'm going to start the survey in the morning, but I expect this one's pretty much in the hands of arbitration at this point. Bryan 08:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heh. And he's also now tried reinserting variants of those old flagrantly loaded questions he added days ago: "Should articles written on Wikipedia possess any internal logic, or should they be a string of meaningless and disconnected assertions?", "Should we write an encyclopedia or a tabloid?", "Should absurd conspiracy theories be noted on all articles about subjects of those conspiracies?", "Should surveys be written to reflect actual disputes or strawman opposition?" and "Should obvious facts be imputed only to "supporters" of a group because they happen to reflect favorably on that group?" Bryan 08:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And now, finally, he's removed the poll from Wikipedia:Current surveys with the edit summary "rm poll, vandal subverted development process". [2] As I've chronicled above, there has been plenty of opportunity for VV to explain what he thinks should be changed about the survey. He wasted all that time, I have no sympathy with any complaints he has at this point. Bryan 23:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Did you examine my complaint? Did you even notice that Shorne had removed my response to you repeatedly, and I was only able to get it back up after you started the survey? You would have if you read that I wrote on that very page that this had happened. Wouldn't you say a "vandal subverted development process" if someone repeatedly erased your criticisms of a poll, and it started without them getting heard? By removing the survey from Current Surveys I was giving you a last chance to exhibit some integrity. But you restarted the poll anyway, my objections notwithstanding, and now you cry foul that I'm objecting to it. Apparently you have sole dictatorial power over its contents, and no one else is welcome. I guess that's what you need to keep it nice and deceptive. Very Verily 07:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily has moved on to vandalizing the actual survey-in-progress now, repeatedly inserting non-vote commentary (mostly pointless sniping and griping) into the voting section despite very clear guidelines to the contrary in the survey procedure. Here's the latest example of stuff I've removed: [3]. The first time I did it I moved copies of most of these comments down into the disucssion section, if anyone cares to actually respond to them. Bryan 07:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Vandalizing"? You mean, commenting? As I explained in my edit summary, my comments are not extensive, and I don't believe I should be required to cast a vote in order to make a comment. Explain how my comments are "disrupting" the survey. Very Verily 07:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The section intended for comments is the "discussion" section, where I moved your comments the first time. They're entirely welcome down there. Putting them in the voting section instead makes the voting messy and is in contravention of the survey's guidelines in any event. Bryan 07:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I've turned it into a huge mess. I can't even tell what's what anymore. Very Verily 07:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll do my best to keep it tidy, then. Bryan 08:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CK is now engaged in erasing my comments from this page [4]. Very Verily 00:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily and reversion

I would like to add that I have been having a problem with VeryVerily as well. I also know User:Shorne has been having a problem with him as well, he unfortunately has become so unhappy he is discussing leaving Wikipedia. VeryVerily has a great technique for harrassing people - he goes through people's edit history backwards, reverting all of the changes they have made. No user page comments, nothing said on the discussion page, nothing said even on the edit except "rv". Of course, editting a dozen pages make take hours of my time, for VeryVerily it just takes one minute to wreck all of that work.

A look through the edit history[5] of Great Purge might serve as an example. Within 93 minutes (04:01, 11 Oct 2004 to 05:34, 11 Oct 2004), VeryVerily reverted the page six times. This of course is disobeying the Wikipedia:Three revert rule which he certainly knows about since he's been banned before for breaking it.

I think Great Purge is a good example because many editors and admins with different opinions have come together since September 24th to work on the article - me, Fred Bauder, Everyking, Shorne, Mikkalai, Andris, and others. VeryVerily walks into this and just starts a revert war. And not only that, he openly flouts the three revert rule, which he has been banned for before, because I suppose he figures the dispute resolution process will take forever, and perhaps he will succeed in that time in driving away someone like Shorne. I wonder what he will say that with the capable abilities of me, Fred Bauder, Everyking, Shorne, Mikkalai, Andris, and others working out a compromise on the Great Purge page, why he will say it was absolutely necessary for him to break the three revert rule and revert the page six times within 93 minutes. And of course, this is just one example of many for a user who has already been banned in the past for the same thing - breaking the reversion rules. Ruy Lopez 07:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I concur wholeheartedly with every word that Ruy Lopez wrote. There is too much for me to repeat here on the subject of VeryVerily, so I would like to incorporate the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation here by reference.

It has become perfectly clear to me that user VeryVerily has no intention whatsoever of working together with anyone. I see no place here for someone who boasts about getting his own way come hell or high water and shows absolutely no regard for the rules, the rights of others, or even common decency. VeryVerily simply must be kept from incessantly reverting others' work and imposing his own POV if the site is not to degenerate into a grotesque propaganda-fest.

Although I do not know the conventions here for disciplinary action, which I had never hoped to invoke, I consider a ban of some sort appropriate. At a minimum, some way to prevent him from making the same change (usually a reversion) twice in a row without discussing it on the talk page is needed. I am going to have to insist because VeryVerily is utterly incorrigible and even prides himself on the fact. Right now I am awaiting VeryVerily's reply to my request for mediation, which I fully expect to be a refusal, since he has sneered at every one of my dozens of requests to discuss matters. If he refuses, I will wish to proceed with arbitration immediately, and I will have to request swift action. Given that VeryVerily is well known to the committee as a troublemaker, I trust that this request will be understood and accepted. I am also willing to combine my case with another one if the committee deems that appropriate. Shorne 08:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also would like to speak out and point that the reason why I am currently not active at Wikipedia anymore is exactly the fact that VV began reverting all my edits and that I simply decided that while I enjoyed Wikipedia continuously fighting against such people was a bad way to spend my free time.

I think it is time that WP-Admins take position on such issues. There are two people who try to turn Wikipedia into a US-Propaganda-Encyclopedia : VV and TDC. While TDC has a tendency to bring out the worst in people, including me, one can at least work with him - he just doesn't delete thing he doesn't like if one sources them - which is anyways always a good idea, from an academic point of view. But VV is absolutely beyond reason and I think that in this case tolerating him amounts to "collaboration". VV is not willing to work with anyone and while he reverts to vandalism himself if he doesn't like an author - kinda like a bombing run - it is only vandalism if someone reverts his edits. A classic case of Double Standards. If you let such people continue people will read in WP that the Japanese actually wanted to be nuked, that Henry Kissinger was a nice guy, that only the Commies believe that the 73 Coup in Chile was started / backed by the US and that the US has "the best Human Right Records in the world." We are not talking about POVs here, this is plain propaganda.

If you want to ban me for getting freaked out because of VV do so, but please write a warning on the front page that WP has a strong Pro-US Right-Wing Bias and that serious users should look elsewhere for information. - Turrican

Oh, save me. I, on the other hand, have found VeryVerily quite reasonable to negotiate with - and I'm a leftist. There's times where he can go a bit overboard, but no more than many other users here - and certainly not those going after him with such voracity, who have in many cases been worse, and simply using their numbers to attempt to bully him. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Ambi 11:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the others, and I've lost confidence in Wikipedia as a neutral source of information as a result of his activities. The project becomes essentially worthless if NPOV isn't enforceable. CK 20:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. The inaction of the administration speaks volumes. I also note with amusement that Ambi's comment originally said "veracity", not "voracity". Shorne 20:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From what I see on wikipedia, VV makes usefull edits, while Shorne only pushes his stalinist POV. Mir 08:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Mir. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone's even paying attention here. Even at the "big" case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily) the arbs appear to only occasionally glance at the Talk pages. Very Verily 03:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily is reverting this very page

In the last twenty-four hours, VeryVerily has reverted this page six times, in clear violation of the three-revert rule. Shorne 08:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Votes and comments by arbitrators (2/0/1/0)

~~Accept, mediation requested but refused, Fred Bauder 12:56, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)~~ Recuse Fred Bauder 00:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Accept, though I hope a little more evidence will be presented? But what there is is sufficient to accept, I judge. Jwrosenzweig 14:20, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Accept. Mediation was refused, and while I would be inclined to ask if this was an isolated incident, the sheer number of arbitration complaints concerning VeryVerily would seem to indicate that this wasn't. →Raul654 20:47, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Comments on votes

Sigh. The reasoning for both votes 1 and 3 is seriously flawed. But I explained this already on User talk:Fred Bauder, so repeating it probably won't make anymore of an impression. Very Verily 22:51, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Case closed?

Can we be done with this? The situation has looong since sorted itself out. With the help of other editors, we worked it all out and all is well and settled. As I stated at the outset, it was premature to bug a mediator over a content conflict barely four days old, it was absurdly premature to drag this to arbitration only days later, and it was absurd to accept it on the grounds that I believed it was premature to bug a mediator. These content disputes usually sort themselves out after due time and due attention. Let's shut this case down, it's a big enough distraction having to deal with the other one. Very Verily 09:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)