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

message: I cannot recommend the arbitration case against User:Gzornenplatz enough, though I do not know much about the other users. Let me admit right away that I edit war at heated moments, but I do my best to follow, or at least remind myself of protocol - respect the 3RR, request protection, use Talk pages, try civility, request the same from other users. Despite these routines, there are some users, such as Gplatz, who rarely or never return the favour and do not seem to have any justifiable reason for appearing on Wikipedia other than to disrupt articles (since they never contribute any material of their own, but simply revert the constant and time consuming efforts of others - see, for example, the work that has gone into creating an NPOV image by three different users (Poccil, Nichalp, myself) at Image:IndiaNumbered.png which the above user has done nothing but revert). Their obnoxious behaviour is complemented by their refusal to engage in discussion, taking refuge in the obtuse dogmatism of edit warring, as they have nothing substantial to argue (once again, Gplatz is representative, since he reverts even pages/images that he previously did not have a problem with.) They shun Talk pages till the last moment. And when they use them, they prefer to insist rather than debate. I would personally like to see this user blocked or even banned, unless someone can point out to me anything this user has done that can be certified constructive or helpful. -- Simonides 22:47, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: Just wanted to add that User:Gzornenplatz was blocked recently in the German WP for one week because of edit-wars. --Mkogler 19:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Gzornenplatz 

message: Well nothing we say here appears to be being read anyway, but I'll scream in the wind that since the relief sought by Michael Snow is revert parole, but there is a proposed policy that would in effect put all of Wikipedia on revert parole, this entire arbitration may soon be made obsolete, and in fact based on the current vote tally almost certainly will be.  I also note 172's case is being watered down to nothing for this very reason, so perhaps this one should be dispensed with too. VeryVerily 06:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not allow this case to be watered down. Your wilful violation of the three-revert rule is a clear-cut, objective matter of fact that must be addressed. Shorne 11:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So is yours.  But it wasn't strictly a rule then, and it will be - enforced - soon. VeryVerily 11:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly was, and is, a rule. If it will soon be enforced, thank heaven for that. Shorne 11:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant 

message: Six out of six arbitrators who voted for "temporary" injunction (1) did so without even examining the evidence. When I complained of a gross miscarriage of justice and demanded the resignations or expulsion of the corrupt arbitrators in question, corrupt arbitrator mav posted vindictively on my talk page his intention to have me banned from editing articles on a vast range of subjects in response to my complaint. He also unilaterally altered injunction (1) after the voting was complete. See the talk page to this article for the evidence.
It is perfectly clear that this kangaroo court has no legitimacy. I call for its immediate dissolution and replacement. Shorne 12:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment was originally posted to the main page. Arbitrator mav moved it to this location, where it is less visible. Shorne 13:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are welcome to vote for the dissolution of the arbcom at wikipedia:arbitration policy ratification vote. Martin 18:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Corruption exposed

message: Please see VeryVerily's behaviour on Henry Kissinger. Judging from his past behaviour in editing that article, I'd say that his third change to the article—deleting an entire sentence rather than imposing his version of it again—is simply a way to skirt the "temporary" injunction against reverting an article more than twice in one day. Please give me a ruling on this question before I edit the article. Shorne 13:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See also South Korea. It is obvious that VeryVerily is just trying to circumvent the injunction. Two can play at this game. While I have no intention of being so juvenile, I will do so if the committee takes no action. I call for VeryVerily to be banned for twenty-four hours as a consequence of his behaviour. Shorne 13:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The ArbCom is not a police force. Thus we do not enforce our own rulings. Ask a non-ArbCom admin to look into it. --mav 20:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaint about VeryVerily 

message: I blocked Shorne and VeryVerily for edit warring over Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements, where both reverted at least three times. VeryVerily thinks the injunction does not apply to project pages; can we have a clarification on whether it does or not? Thanks. —No-One Jones (m) 00:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Shorne did not violate the injunction. Mirv admitted this indirectly at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Evidence. Shorne 19:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As it turns out, neither of you violated the injunction, but please don't misrepresent what I said, Shorne. —No-One Jones (m) 19:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The injunction says "any article" and by definition anything in the Wikipedia namespace is not an article. However, I do not think you acted in bad faith and would not support any action against you. If anything, you have pointed out a shortcoming of the order that may need to be fixed. For that, I thank you. --mav 01:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mirv in the past signed a statement calling me an "ignorant fuck", in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  Thus, I would not "assume good faith".  Furthermore, the order was clear, and I pointed it out to him in E-mail.  Instead, he sought "clarity" here on plain English, and left me blocked in the interim.  This is clearly wrong. VeryVerily 04:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Also, you seem unconcerned about the "shortcoming" of the order banning me from German/Polish topics, pointed out by at least six users. VeryVerily 04:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Of course you also blocked Shorne.  Why not?  It would have been obvious anyway.  And we both know screaming at a wall is more productive than starting an RfC. VeryVerily 08:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Shorne did not violate the injunction. Mirv admitted this indirectly at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Evidence. Shorne 19:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As it turns out, neither of you violated the injunction, but please don't misrepresent what I said, Shorne. —No-One Jones (m) 19:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert parole: Clarification requested 

message: The case that I brought against VeryVerily, which Ruy Lopez subsequently joined (with my approval), was "merged" with this one. I had agreed to let it be merged with the case brought by Christiankavanagh, but evidently the "arbitration" committee (which hasn't tried to arbitrate anything; there has been no discussion at all from them, not even in response to repeated procedural questions) failed to notice this offer or simply disregarded it so that it could effectively lose my complaint in this larger and more complex one, thereby nullifying it.
Michael Snow's complaint requested only the following actions:
:# Affirmation that the three revert rule is Wikipedia policy.
:# A finding that each of the users named here has violated the rule repeatedly and excessively without adequately discussing matters on the appropriate talk page.
:# A ruling that each of these users is placed on revert parole, to be enforced by 24-hour blocks for violations.
Snow specifically denied that he was requesting bans on specific types of articles, to say nothing of bans from the entire site. Yet that is the sort of action that this committee is taking. Again, I have repeatedly endorsed the position taken by Snow and asked again and again that those conditions be imposed on all of us, myself included. Shorne 01:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Update:

message: Trusted administrators,
I need to inform you that User:Gzornenplatz has violated the section of the injunction that states "Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, and VeryVerily are banned from reverting any article more than twice in one 24 hour period whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops are hereby authorised to enact 24 blocks for violations of this."  Gzornenplats has violated this rule, reverting a page three times in 24 hours here:  revert one, revert two, and revert three
Please ban User:Gzornenplatz for violating this injunction. Samboy 23:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mackensen appears to have blocked both Gzornenplatz and Samboy. VeryVerily 01:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Gzornenplatz|Gzornenplatz]] has violated injunction; please ban for 24 hours