Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/172 vs VeryVerily

message: User:VeryVerily and User:Cadr refuse to back down (and even accept my offer of a compromise footnote) following an overwhelming poll result defeating their position that a version of the intro asserting U.S. backing for the Chilean coup in 1973 without any weasel terms ("many people believe...") is 'misleading' and 'controversial'.
Rather than accepting the poll results (as User:TDC accepted a similarly overwhelming result on Talk:Fascism), VeryVerily in particular is preceding to impugn the credibility of the users who disagree with him on the poll. It is clear his barrage of personal attacks (and now attacks on the credibility of Wikipedia-- see his latest comments on Talk:Augusto Pinochet) is the last stand of his desperate attempts to keep Augusto Pinochet protected indefinitely.
This page needs to be unprotected, with Augusto Pinochet/intro (succinct version) replacing the current, emphatically rejected, weasel term intro. If VeryVerily continues to revert the page over and over again, perhaps measures should be taken to prevent him from vandalizing the page and refusing to accept the addition of indisputably factual content to the article. 172 13:08, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful for anyone curious about this to consult those who had to suffer through this process.  Several users spent weeks working together to develop an intro which addressed everyone's concerns.  172 then showed up out of the blue, erased and rewrote it entirely including adding inflammatory POV content, dismissed the previous discussion as "partisan bickering", and refused to alter it by even one word, systematically reverting edits by four or five users.  His supposed "compromise" by adding a 1 is not a compromise at all, but a way to prevent any changes.  As has been pointed out variously by Michael Snow, Cadr, Ed Poor, and me, the poll is non-binding by policy, was not as phrased about which intro is better, and was overwhelming only b/c 172 campaigned on chosen user pages for it, bringing in people who had had no part of the debate.  (See talk page for more on this.)  The "barrage of personal attacks" has in fact been directed against me by 172, who has called my edits "bullshit" and "gibberish" and called me a "little bitch" living in a "fantasy world" - well, listing all his personal attacks would be impossible, but suffice it to say I have refrained from such behavior.  172 has been lying about the history and events on all manner of discussion pages.  This is his latest gambit. VV 14:35, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I now realize that I should complement User:TDC for his contrastingly and refreshingly honorable response to the poll results at Talk:Fascism. VV should learn something from TDC. 172 15:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Michael Snow, I am not interested in a personal fight. Let's keep the focus on this article, alright. 172 01:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

message: If indeed 172 is withdrawing is request, then I would like to renew it myself, requesting arbitration vis-a-vis 172's conduct on Augusto Pinochet.  Those that were present during the bulk of it - me, Cadr, Cantus, Eloquence, AstroNomer, and perhaps Ed Poor and Michael Snow - have all witnessed his belligerent, rude, intransigent, bullying, and dishonest behavior and his repeated failure to discuss content issues.  This continues unabated as of this writing. VV 04:55, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I find his attempts to make this into a black and white battle between innocent and guilty duplicitous and deceitful. We are both equally guilty of violating the three revert rule, although I admit that and justify that on the basis of the changes made to articles, not on the basis of villifying VeryVerily. 172 06:16, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but that's how I see it.  I also justify my work on articles and my increasingly severe actions to protect that work.  By "vilifying" you (seeking 3rd party help) I am taking measures to curb your destructive behavior, as other means have failed.  Part of that must be bringing said behavior to light. VV 08:12, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit trying to make yourself sound like a saint. People here fall for a lot, but they're not so stupid that they won't figure out what you're up to at some point. You know very well that I could pile up a list of charges myself and call it "taking measures to curb your destructive behavior, as other means have failed."  I could say that part of that must be bringing said behavior to light as well. The only difference is that I'm not nearly bored enough to waste my time thinking about you more than I have to. You're safe so long as I'm in a position in which I'm just sick of dealing with you, not in which I have to counter-attack. So, please, for your own sake and mine, watch out. If you start a witchhunt against someone, don't be surprised if he has to start up his own witchhunt to defend himself. I can leave you alone forget/shut up about all the bullshit you've made me suffer through if you too can leave me alone. 172 09:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You already made such an attempt to "pile" (Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/172#Passive aggression); it was not persuasive.  And if this last month was being "safe", well, I'm not worried about unsafety.  Believe me, I have no desire to deal with you either, but I have a yet greater desire to not be steamrolled. VV 09:36, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

text: As this discussion was going on, you reverted every one of my changes to My Lai Massacre without explanation. Hypocrite! 172 11:13, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Renewal?

message: On 172's request:
# Recuse. Fred Bauder 16:16, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
# I'm going to say reject to 172's request. 172's requested remedy appears chiefly to be that the page be unprotected - but this is a matter for wikipedia:requests for page protection, not for this committee. Martin
# Reject, too. Direct content disputes such as this one, other than the way in which the protagonists behave towards one another and anon, are somewhat beyond the scope of Arbitration. James F. (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion and votes by arbitrators