Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision

message: I'm afraid that I must partly agree with the sentiment that the rulings and proposals are being a little sloppy with the evidence. For example:
*VeryVerily has no significant history of involvement in German vs. Polish disputes, unlike Gzornenplatz. The closest thing resembling this was the protection of East Germany and Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies a while back, which happened because Turrican was auto-reverting all of VeryVerily's work at the time. It has nothing to do with the naming dispute pursued by Gzornenplatz, and I quite specifically didn't include it in the evidence because the Turrican case is a separate matter. So anyway, like Mirv I don't see the point of applying this particular injunction to VeryVerily.
*Contrary to the current proposed finding of fact, I'm not aware of any evidence that Ruy Lopez has violated the three revert rule. Indeed, if I had found any such evidence, I would have made a point of including Ruy Lopez in the case I originally brought, as I was quite well aware that he was closely involved with Shorne in many of the disputes where Shorne and VeryVerily were violating the rule. It would be more appropriate to address the practice Shorne and Ruy Lopez have adopted of tag-team reverting against VeryVerily, with little attempt at negotiation or sincere discussion, knowing that VeryVerily was under considerable pressure to stop his excessive reverting.
I hope the arbitrators will take these points into consideration. --Michael Snow 21:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: By my count, this makes Michael Snow the sixth person to point this out on the relevant talk pages. VeryVerily 21:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Of course, "Ruy Lopez" just creates new accounts if the old one accumulated baggage. VeryVerily 21:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Connections between evidence and rulings

message: VeryVerily has removed my comments from this page twice. I know that he can't control his penchant for destructive behaviour, but please do not allow him to do this. Shorne 09:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Write your own comments; do not scribble all over mine.  I copied your responses out to separate them once, but I'm not going to do it again and again. VeryVerily 10:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please notice how impossible VeryVerily is being. Shorne 10:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Just attach a diff of the revert where this happens, so we can easily look both at what you said, and whether it should have been reverted. Thanks. Martin 18:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  VeryVerily is removing my comments 

message: * VV/Shorne - History of Modern Greece - Nov 16 dispute
**Also a dispute with Turrican.  Shorne was a latecomer.  There was a dialogue in the edit summaries and then on the talk page.  Both Aris Kataris and I made airtight points.  In fact, this was a clearcut case. VeryVerily
:::Shorne has discussed the matter with others on that talk page and elsewhere. It is VeryVerily who refuses to join the discussion, despite my repeated edit summaries of "RAISE YOUR DISPUTE ON THE TALK PAGE". I therefore want my name taken off the list of those who "made no attempt at a dialogue". That would be only VeryVerily. Shorne 04:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: VeryVerily deleted the above comment of mine. Shorne 04:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, Ruy Lopez and Shorne conducted discussion on the talk page; VeryVerily did not. Shorne 05:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ruy Lopez and Shorne have conducted extensive discussion on Communist state. Check the archives as well as the current talk page. Shorne 04:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: This is distorted. See the talk page. I carefully worked out a compromise in a sandbox with Gazpacho. There is extensive discussion by me on the talk page. VeryVerily, without discussing anything, came along and reverted our agreement time and again. He is still doing so, to the present day. I keep restoring the text, since there has been no dispute, and stating "RAISE YOUR DISPUTE ON THE TALK PAGE". VeryVerily never has done so. Therefore I want my name to be removed from the list of those who "made no attempt at a dialogue". For this article, that would be only VeryVerily. Shorne 04:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Is anyone at all fooled by this "RAISE YOUR DISPUTE ON THE TALK PAGE" nonsense?  I'm just curious, it seems completely transparent to me, but maybe the arbitrators are confused on this point too. VeryVerily 04:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed a transparent request for discussion. I must have posted a few hundred of them by now, but you have never responded, except with more mindless reversions and such. Shorne 04:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Once again, VeryVerily reverted this article just now, without discussion. Astoundingly hypocritical of him. Shorne 05:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet more findings of fact

message: Findings of fact says:
"During many of those disputes...Ruy Lopez, and VeryVerily made no attempt at a dialogue."
My comments on this are firstly that, barring discussion of VeryVerily for a moment, I always attempt dialogue with other users when I have a dispute.  The only user I could theoretically be accused of not attempting dialogue with is VeryVerily.  So I would like it noted that I have only a possible failure at discussion with one user, a user who it seems has failures with many more people.  I think VeryVerily's disregard of dialogue is much more widespread to me, and linked to many more users, so I don't think I should be put at the same level as he is with this.
My introduction to VeryVerily was he went through my edit history and reverted all of my recent changes.  No talk page comments, no discussion page comments, not even edit page summaries, just "rv", "rv", "rv", "rv" in article after article.  I see many users have complained about this.  I don't know if there are any rules about this but only VeryVerily seems to do this on a wide scale and it is very annoying.  I attempted to engage in discussions in article pages but VeryVerily always ignored them (within the past week or two as this arbitration moved along he has engaged in discussion a bit more, mostly with others).
One thing to consider is a time consideration.  If I spent 10 minutes editting an article, and edit 6 articles, it takes me an hour to do all of that editting.  It takes VeryVerily less than 30 seconds to revert all of that.  What am I being asked to do, when someone goes through my edit history and reverts everything with a simple "rv", go to the discussion in all of those articles and say "You went through my edit history and reverted everything with rv, I just wanted to mention that in this articles discussion".  When someone is engaged in that kind of behavior, it seems less about the article, and more about you.  It is not an article dispute as discussion would be necessary, it is a personal vendetta.  In light of this, tacking on my hour of work to his 30 seconds needed to wreck all that work, another however many minutes of fruitless posts to discussions seems pointless.  I guess I will do this if Arb. says it's necessary but in light of what I said it seems silly.
What seems to make more sense when someone does this is to post to their talk page instead of the article discussion page, yes?  My last post to his talk page was removed with the comment "get off my talk page".  Discussing his edit history reversion of me (which he does to others) on the discussion pages of those articles seems a waste of time (mine, not his, he is already hours ahead of me in wasting my time with his quick reverts).  He doesn't seem to want me to post to his discussion page either, he says to get off of his talk page.  So I really don't know what to do about this.
If you look over recent history, with the point I mentioned about where to discuss this - it seems when he goes through my edit history and reverts everything, the place to discuss this is his user page.  But he says I should "get off of [his] talk page".  
So blaming me for not wanting to discuss things with the sole user I have had a problem with on this, who tells me I am not welcome to discuss his reversions of me on multiple pages on his talk page - I just don't know what to do.  I'm not sure what I should have done.  I haven't posted to his discussion page since he said that - should I have ignored what he asked and attempted to have a discussion on his talk page after he threw me off of it?  That would seem like I am trying to get into a fight with him it seems.  I consider that noted edit by VeryVerily his attempt to close off any discussion with me, and I think if I had repeatedly written to his talk page against his wishes it would have made things worse.  Should I have ignored his request, am I in error in getting off of his talk page as requested?  I don't know, but I think I have only had discussion problems with this one user and he shut the discussion down.  Other users who work on the same pages I often do like Fred Bauder do engage in discussion, and with others involved as well I have come to a consensus on various pages when he uses NPOV language and sources information.  This is unlike VeryVerily where some of our arguments about a sentence goes back for months.  I feel Fred Bauder does not always write from NPOV language, at least from my perspective, but at least he discusses things, follows the rules and sometimes, like water dripping on a stone, accepts a change.  And most importantly adds references to things, which I have been very happy with.  But that's just shown as a contrast - I probably go back and forth with VeryVerily and Fred Bauder the most, but Fred Bauder engages in discussion and follows Wikipedia rules while VeryVerily rejects my desire for discussion and breaks the rules.  And I feel I attempted to engage in dialogue until VeryVerily threw me off his discussion page. Ruy Lopez 10:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this. It is very unfair and foolish of the arbitration committee to say "no discussion was held" and conclude that each side is equally at fault. Everyone knows that VeryVerily does not engage in discussion. I, too, have been greeted with "get off my talk page" and deletion of my comments when I attempted to post anything to VeryVerily's talk page. Mine, by contrast, contains everything that anyone (including VeryVerily) has ever written. There just isn't any way to discuss anything with VeryVerily, and I don't appreciate being given half of the blame. Shorne 10:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  findings of fact 

message: From the "proposed decision": "If Gzornenplatz, VeryVerily, or Shorne can demonstrate good behavior (abiding by wikipedia policies and generally sociable editing habits), in 6 months, they may request that the arbcom reduce or lift the revert parole against him."
This, like the rest of the "proposed decision", utterly fails to take into account the differences in behaviour between Shorne and VeryVerily (I'm leaving out Gzornenplatz because I haven't seen enough of his behaviour to pass judgement) that have already been demonstrated here. Unfairly, the blame is put equally on the shoulders of the two parties when it is Shorne who has made substantially all of the attempts at holding a discussion and VeryVerily who has rejected them; when it is Shorne who has been upholding the three-revert rule scrupulously for weeks (and only ever violated it when VeryVerily did) and VeryVerily who to this day refuses to recognise it as a rule or consider himself bound by it. Shorne 21:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why VV is proposed to be banned for twice as long as you for not discussing things (1 week instead of 2). --mav 17:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: "Good behavior" - another demeaning comment.  I have been engaging in very good behavior: heavy and consistent editing, article writing, maintenance tasks, enforcing NPOV, and fighting trolls.  I imagine I have done far more to make Wikipedia a viable resource than the vast majority of my detractors.  The only substantive charge is violating a rule that was never officially made a rule being punished retroactively, and the charge I rebutted of not adequately discussing my reverts.  I suppose you can't accept that lack of passion about the content does not make you a better human being than me. VeryVerily 23:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to comment on VeryVerily's "very good behavior"; doing so would be almost anticlimactic. I agree, however, that the comment is demeaning. I'll add another adjective: condescending. Shorne 23:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Good behaviour" 

message: Am I the only one to notice that the arbitrators sat around for more than a month without doing anything at all on this case, then suddenly put up a very suppressive "proposed decision" just hours after Gzornenplatz, VeryVerily, and I spoke out against the candidacies of some of them for reëlection? Shorne 23:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no connection - I was about to go on a weekend holiday and another ArbCom member happened to be on IRC at the same time. We looked at the evidence again and worked on the proposed items. I didn't even know about your complaints (neither am I running). --mav 17:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More corruption by the "arbitrators"

message: I, and very likely several other editors, would much appreciate it if Gzornenplatz was also blocked from all India-related articles, at least temporarily. A more detailed complaint can be found on the Evidence page, here. -- Simonides 00:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We are very close to closing this case - at which point Gzornenplatz will be banned for at least 2 months. --mav 17:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for injunction against Gzornenplatz, reposted from main request page 

message: I want to say that I find what I'm reading to be much too harsh. These are all people who have devoted their time and energy to the project; even if they fight, surely they do more good than harm and don't deserve to be treated like this. A two month ban? Who would endure something like that, anyway? A person would most likely either start a new account or just leave forever. Everyking 01:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I shall leave forever if banned unjustly—and I certainly consider any ban of me under the circumstances unjust. I haven't even called for VeryVerily to be banned (though some days I'm tempted); I just think that he should be forced to enter into productive, rational discussion of his disagreements. The person who brought the original complaint, Michael Snow, also wanted merely enforcement of the three-revert rule and the principle that disputes should be worked out in discussion. Shorne 04:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The bans are for causing a great deal of disruption in the community. --mav 17:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the community will be worse off with them gone. I think they've done more good than harm. Everyking 18:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be redundant to state that I don't believe I've caused much disruption (e.g., protection of pages that are under attack is de rigueur whether defended by a single user or not), and even if you disdain my approach in a handful of conflicts, I have toiled here long hours on much else. VeryVerily 22:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks very much, Everyking.  That really needed to be said.  This is a big slap in the face after fifteen months of intense contribution to and participation in Wikipedia. VeryVerily 04:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we read it. --mav 17:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that I'm enjoined still from German/Polish topics is strong evidence to the contrary. VeryVerily 04:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We noticed that. But you didn't seem to mind at the time since you don't edit in that area anyway. If you really do want to edit in that area, then say so and we will fix it. However, we will likely close the case soon and thus the temp order will be gone anyway. --mav 08:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't raise the noise that Shorne did, but that does not mean it was not an "obvious mistake", nor that it might have caused me problems (interestingly, Michael Snow gave two examples of such articles I had edited). VeryVerily 09:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: It's strong evidence of their tyrannical behaviour, utterly divorced from reality, to say nothing of responsibility. Shorne 08:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaining

message: Several users - including one I didn't even know (Everyking) - have, both here and elsewhere, surfaced of their own initiative to state the obvious, that these "remedies" are wholly out of hand - including a penalty sixty times greater than any ever previously announced or enacted for my supposed crime.  Perhaps you should heed the thoughtful words of these experienced users over whatever groupthink haunts the arbcom IRC channel.
A curious irony is that the arbs themselves have gotten a taste of what I have experienced from Shorne: the relentless personal attacks, the constant disruption, and the what can only be called trolling.  And this is how he acts to people with authority over him.  How do you think he treats common editors he disagrees with?  How fruitful do you think "dialogue" with him has been?  (I ask because I now strongly suspect the arbs have not examined the history of this conflict.)
Similarly, an arbitrator judging me now (Mav) has experience with "Ruy Lopez", and even once asked for my help  to stop one of his numerous efforts to ruin his "favorite" article (Khmer Rouge).  Of course, we wasted endless hours arguing these points, quoting citations, filling talk pages - only to have him disappear each time and then resurface weeks or months later with a new account to try it all again.  To scorn me for not "discussing" over and over again his unending stream of garbage is lunacy.
To repeat the equal lunacy of the "finding of fact" that I should be in dialogue with Turrican, a vandal who proudly announced his intent to revert all my edits, would be redundant.  Yet there sits that finding, damning me for not cheerfully taking abuse no self-respecting editor would take.
Indeed I have refuted point by point these thoughtless "findings of fact".  As someone once said on de about Gz, it's been as fruitful as talking to my cat - as these accusations stand defiantly unaltered, with never so much as a peep from the arbs.
I should note that the focus hitherto has been on the outrageous and extended bans, but they serve as a lightning rod only as being the most offensive of the "remedies".  All the restrictions on me are offensive and wrong, for largely the same reasons.  So are the humiliating and pointless "temporary" injunctions I have been compelled to labor under, but in spite of which I have continued to do good and useful work to improve Wikipedia, as I have from the beginning.
Treating a top-notch contributor like a common criminal is perhaps most offensive of all.  I hope the election changes these attitudes.  In any case, it would be a dereliction of your duty and a betrayal of our trust to impose these rulings. VeryVerily 08:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  La(te)?st appeal 

message: It is probably too late now, since there is already a motion to close this case, but I would like the Arbitration Committee members review the edit history of Economy of the United States. I find Ruy Lopez's edits to be just pure POV-pushing that also disturbs normal page maintenance. See how he blindly reverted corrections to (defunct) external links and changes to category names that was discussed weeks before in cfd-page. Of course, "discussion" with him in talk page does not lead to anything. Note also that he broke the three revert rule on Dec 15th. I urge the arbitrators to consider his actions in Wikipedia more closely before closing this case; otherwise we will see more of his disturbive edits in future, I'm afraid. jni 11:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite correct about Ruy Lopez.  He has been doing this for almost a year with his many accounts.  An amusing twist on this is that Shorne also does this while simultaneously accusing others of it.  See, e.g., , where he reverts away an interwiki tag (and minor changes) in order to revert back the inflated death toll, and in the edit summary accuses me (who had restored from that version) of "irresponsibly reverting".  Will any of this matter to our "judges"?  Hmph. VeryVerily 18:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing by Ruy Lopez 

message: If I may observe:
Remedy 5:
5) Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily, and Ruy Lopez are required to discuss all reverts on the relavant talk page, with the goal of finding mutually acceptable compromises.
Enforcement 2:
2) If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page without discussing it on the relevant talk page, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours.
Ruy Lopez is required to discuss his reverts (as the rest), but he may not be banned for violating the remedy. Maybe it's a casual omission, which occurred because Ruy Lopez was included in the case later? At least I can't see any explanation for the difference between Ruy Lopez and the rest in this particular point. Boraczek 13:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because we have not said what to do if/when Ruy Lopez violates the order, does not mean that nothing should be done. We have just said exactly what to do if the others violate the ruling. Ruy still can not violate the ruling - we just have not said what exactly should be done if he does. --01:43, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mistake? 

message: I noticed that there have been 4 close votes, the threshold, and that on WP:RFAr the case is listed as closed.  However, the main arb page still says "case open" at the top, and I have not been notified on my user talk page that the case is closed and the temp. inj "whilst arb. is ongoing" is thus expired. Kevin Baas | talk 21:54, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
:Yes the case is closed and the temp orders have now expired. I've made note of the case's status. --mav 01:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed?  Temp. Inj. over?