Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/VeryVerily

message: Moved here from project page:
:Utterly frivolous.  Arbitration is obviously premature.  His claim about me being the first to revert is demonstrably false. VV 22:57, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected this falsehood in Talk, yet he repeats it.  Oh well. VV 01:51, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)

message: :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. VV 04:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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?). VeryVerily
Mediation was declined. See Requests for mediation archive 10 for details. BCorr|Брайен 13:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: 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. VV 23:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. VV 00:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: And now, finally, he's removed the poll from Wikipedia:Current surveys with the edit summary "rm poll, vandal subverted development process".  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)
replies: text: 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. VeryVerily 07:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: 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: . 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)
replies: text: "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. VeryVerily 07:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah I've turned it into a huge mess.  I can't even tell what's what anymore. VeryVerily 07:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do my best to keep it tidy, then. Bryan 08:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  My comment copied from Talk 

message: 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)
thread_title: VeryVerily is reverting this very page

message: * 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)
thread_title: Votes and comments by arbitrators (2/0/1/0)

message: 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. VeryVerily 22:51, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on votes

message: 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. VeryVerily 09:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case closed?