Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shorne (talk | contribs) at 11:27, 12 October 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

The last step of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is Arbitration, (see arbitration for a general overview of the topic). If, and only if, all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, Wikipedia:Arbitrators, /Admin enforcement requested


Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia   14 June 2025 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due


Indian military history (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 08 Jun 2025 22 Jun 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Venezuelan politics none (orig. case) 12 June 2025
Amendment request: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones none (orig. case) 16 June 2025

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Earlier Steps

Please review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take before requesting Arbitration. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for Arbitration will be rejected.

What belongs in Requests for Arbitration

  • The Complaint including enough links to evidence that an Arbitrator considering the matter can find examples of what is being complained of. Include links to any policy which applies.
  • The Response which should address the matters raised by the Complaint. Again, links to edits or other evidence are useful.
  • Any Complaint by the defendant against the user who made the original Complaint as well as against other users who have seconded the Complaint or were intimately involved in the events complained of.
  • Information regarding what steps of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedures were followed. Not the details, especially not what happened during any mediation.
  • Users may join in the Complaint by seconding the Complaint or elaborating on it, but by doing so they implicitly respresent that they wish to be a party to the case and are thus subject to counterclaims which they may have to respond to.

What doesn't belong in Requests for Arbitration

  • Comments regarding the viability of the Complaint by persons not involved in the matter.
  • Comments regarding how the matter is to be titled or the effect of choosing one title or another.
  • Any posting by anyone who is not involved in the case. These are welcome on the talk page.

Structure of this page

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Important points:

  • Be brief - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence elsewhere if you need to.
  • You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.
  • Please sign and date at least your original submission with '~~~~'.
  • New requests to the top, please.

The numbers in the ====Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/0/0/0)==== sections correspond to (Accept/Reject/Recuse/Other).

Current requests for Arbitration

Users Ruy Lopez, Shorne, and VeryVerily

I request arbitration with User:VeryVerily for the matter described below at "VeryVerily and reversion" (entry "User:VeryVerily") and, most fully, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily. My request for mediation, now in its third day, has gone ignored by VeryVerily, who has failed to accept or decline mediation despite several requests. I believe that arbitration is the only appropriate avenue at this point, and I request quick action, as VeryVerily is riding roughshod over numerous articles.

Since there are already two other cases involving VeryVerily, it has been suggested that this one be merged with one or both of the others. I am willing to merge it with the case filed by User:Christiankavanagh, listed below.

As user Ruy Lopez added his name to the request for mediation, I have taken the liberty of listing him as a party to this request as well. Thank you for your attention. Shorne 10:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also call upon Fred Bauder to recuse himself on the grounds of a personal interest in this matter, specifically the fact that he has taken VeryVerily's part, as can be seen on the talk pages of VeryVerily and certain other users. Shorne 11:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[1]. VeryVerily 10:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Users Shorne and Fred Bauder

User:Shorne engages in edit wars on the articles, Great Purge, Communism, Communist state and People's Republic of China. He claims to be removing POV material and demands documentation, but no matter how minutely referenced, removal continues. Most references are unacceptable in his view including references which are generally accepted in the scholarly community. When negotiation is attempted he pleads lack of time and energy, but continues to have plenty of time and energy for his edit wars with me and other editors. Extensive discussions on article talk pages have been to no avail, see especially Talk:People's Republic of China, for example this edit: [2]. Mediation has been refused, see [3] Fred Bauder 22:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

The claim that mediation has been refused is a gross misrepresentation unbecoming of an arbitrator. My comments on this matter can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I refuse to proceed until my own complaint against VeryVerily has been addressed or a disinterested mediator or arbitrator speaks with me personally. Shorne 22:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Fred Bauder mentions four pages, I have been only following one, Great Purge. I do not see a problem with Shorne's actions on Great Purge. This is a page that VeryVerily is continually reverting, ignoring the three-revert rule incidentally. The edit back-and-forth with Fred Bauder and Shorn on Great Purge is Fred Bauder putting in a paragraph that says the work of cold warrior hawks is "definitive", while any other work is "revisionist". Not that it matters for what Fred Bauder is trying to put in the article, but the opinions are not "generally accepted in the scholarly community", whatever that means. Ruy Lopez 02:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I remain open to mediation should Shorne chose to join me in requesting it. When I requested joining the VeryVerily mediation he refused, see [4]. He has plenty of time and energy for his edit warring though. Fred Bauder 23:17, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I request that Shorne be banned temporarily from editing articles which relate to communism. He is a new editor and there is some evidence he does not understand the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, believing that rather than including diverse points of view the goal is to achieve what he calls "balance", see [5] Fred Bauder 23:17, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

With Very Verily flouting the three revert rule on that page continually, you want Shorne banned because he says he says he wants a page with "balance"? Ruy Lopez 02:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Groundless. In addition, it is inappropriate, according to user Neutrality (see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily), to institute bans of any sort outside arbitration. It will be found, in addition, that it is Fred Bauder who keeps inserting the most appallingly blatant POV assertions into articles, showing disdain for the agreements of other users on the talk page, as, for example, in Talk:Communism in the past hour or two.
I hereby request that Fred Bauder be expelled from the arbitration committee, as he apparently lacks the intelligence, the impartiality, and even the understanding of administrative procedures needed to discharge the rôle with anything resembling propriety. Shorne 23:35, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I assume Fred was asking for your ban to be part of the relief offered by the arbcom.
Furthermore, I have to wonder what you mean when you say you refuse to continue. Snowspinner 23:46, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
As I have explained in my complaint against VeryVerily, which has not yet seen one bit of action, I feel that it would be a mockery of justice to give Fred Bauder's complaint precedence over one that I filed earlier. I note with interest that hsi complaint received an answer in 97 minutes, whereas mine still has not received one word from anyone on the committee after two days. In addition, I feel that Fred Bauder has not made adequate efforts to resolve the dispute through discussion and is merely exerting strong-arm tactics to get me suppressed through bureaucratic means. Shorne 00:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I concur. VeryVerily is the one being antagonistic to Shorne (among many others), and had mediation charges brought back in August. And absolutely nothing has happened, even though he openly breaks the three revert rule which he has been banned for before. Yet within one day, Shorne enters mediation and on the same day jumps onto the arbitration page. It would be a joke for VeryVerily, who has been banned for this type of behavior before, to continue to get away with his antagonism towards Shorne and others, while Shorne can jump onto the mediation page and then onto the arbitration page within the space of a day. Ruy Lopez 02:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can't find your complaint against VV. Where is it? Snowspinner 00:33, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest. Perhaps you cannot find the complaint because VV moved it at least three times, against the instructions of the chairman of the committee (see the most recent entries at User talk:Bcorr for the sordid details). The last location was Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily. I hope it will still be there when you read this. Shorne 00:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have one last thing to say on this subject. I believe, as do user Ruy Lopez and probably others, that any dispute that may exist between Fred Bauder and me can be resolved through discussion once VV has been brought under control. Although I strongly disapprove of Fred Bauder's behaviour in many (not all) instances and feel that he is baiting me by continually making POV changes and moaning about the supposed left-wing bias that dominates Wikipedia, I have never denied that he does at least hold discussions on talk pages, and we have successfully negotiated on issues before. The principal contradiction is between those of us who are trying to get real work done and about three users (VeryVerily, TDC, Adam Carr) who use the site as a bully pulpit and prevent anyone who doesn't agree with them from doing anything. The behaviour of VV alone has created such hellish chaos during the past several days that adequate discussion on a dozen or more pages has been practically impossible. I feel, therefore, that this aggressive push to arbitration within the space of a day or two is premature and that the way to approach it would be to start with a single article—say, Communism—, protect it if necessary, and resolve the remaining issues through a discussion. Fred Bauder never proposed this; he simply took the push directly to arbitration, presumably in a tit-for-tat response to my complaint about his associate. Shorne 01:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I think a lot of this is a misunderstanding. Mediation tends not to have any official action until the other party accepts mediation, which, as I look at the page, it doesn't look like VV has done. Since mediation is a voluntary procedure, there's nothing really to be done on that. Arbitration, on the other hand, is not voluntary. And so it requires actiona nd response.

You could concievably try escelating to a request for arbitration against VV, but with two requests already in progress, it would probably be redundant, and you would be better off adding evidence to one of the existing ones. Snowspinner 01:05, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I have already expressed a willingness to merge my request with one of the other two (or to merge the three into one), and at least three people did add comments to one of the requests for arbitration filed against VV, who promptly deleted all the comments on the grounds that they were irrelevant. (You'll find them on the talk page.)
I do hate to bother you again for advice, but would you consider it proper for me to petition for arbitration immediately, taking VV's repeated failure to answer my call for mediation as a constructive refusal? Shorne 01:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/0/1/0)

  1. Recuse Fred Bauder 22:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Irismeister 3

User is being a royal pain, again. See contribs, and in particular his comments towards myself and other sysops, including his legal threat on Sam Spade's RFA, for no really obvious reason. Actually, just click through all his contribs from say Oct 10-11, and it'll be pretty obvious why I'm taking him here. Pakaran. 21:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Irismiester has absolutely no interest whatsoever in writing a NPOV encylopedia. He is here to push his POV, write long rants which he copies and pastes all over the place and to insult and threaten people. His two previous arbitrations have not worked. He has shown that he cannot be reformed by soft penalties. Please please please can we have a long term ban? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 21:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Shorne 21:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Irismeister's comments on Talk:Alternative medicine in particular ([6] [7] [8] [9] [10][11] [12] ) demonstrate that he has not been cowed by the personal attack parole. I think it's clear that the censure and limited sanctions of two previous RFAs are ineffective in solving this problem -- I hope the Arbitration Committee will save itself the inconvenience of continually revisiting this user's legal threats and personal attacks, and impose a long-term ban. Jwrosenzweig 21:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) P.S. While the comments on T:AM are the largest part of the evidence, I think the fairly detailed legal threat posted to an RfAR subpage is worth considering also. Jwrosenzweig 21:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/0/1/0)

User:66.20.28.21 contribs and other accounts

The above user has engaged in a edit war that's epic in scope (stretching from June 2004) and completely flies in the face of consensus. Specifically, he has targeted the articles Phil Gingrey and Rick Crawford, inserting material that is extremely POV (he asserts that Gingrey is a war criminal for his role in Guantanamo Bay) (diff). Upon first seeing this material, I reverted in June 2004 and attempted to discuss the matter on Talk:Phil Gingrey (June 23 version of Talk). However, no matter how much discussion was done, there was never any willingness to compromise. I believe the material to have essentially no place in an article on Gingrey, and so removed it. I considered the matter closed, as the anon user did not edit again for some time.

In July 2004, he returned (I believe) as User:168.9.250.3 (contribs). He repeatedly inserted the same material into the two articles, and was reverted by several users, including myself, User:Hcheney, User:Alteripse, and User:TacoDeposit. This pattern continued through August and September, during which he was also reverted by User:Khalid and User:Isomorphic. No users wanted to include any of his material.

In September, several new accounts began editing the two articles, such as User:GreatLeapForward, User:Dreisshh, User:AMoll, User:InHere, and User:EasyMassood. They all made exactly the same edits to the articles, and all displayed the same refusal to discuss their edits, despite repeated requests (User talk:AMoll, User talk:EasyMassood). I believe them to be sockpuppet accounts.

On September 25, Phil Gingrey was protected; it was unprotected on October 8. During the interval when it was protected, the same edits continued to be made on Rick Crawford. Immediately upon unprotection, the pattern continued on Phil Gingrey.

Recently, the intensity of the editing has increased; over a few days, a reader had an equal chance of encountering the neutral version and the POV version (which includes sentences like "Gingrey's single-minded focus on social issues misses the mark" diff). He has also taken to attacking articles that I have listed on my user page, such as inserting his own opinion of the electoral college in swing state (diff). In addition, he has begun using misleading edit summaries, such as "New link", for inserting the same inaccurate and biased material (diff).

I really don't know what to do about this. There would seem to be a few options, none of them very palatable--permanent blocking of the IPs, permanent protection of both pages--so I'm hoping the arbitration process will provide a solution. If there is no possibility of discussion, then permanent blocking would seem best, but I'm willing to defer to the wisdom of the committee--any ideas would be helpful.

After repeated requests on article talk and user talk, there has never been any compromise or, recently, even willingness to engage in dialogue, and thus I believe mediation would not be helpful. I respectfully request arbitration. Thank you. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:04, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I support banning this editor and sockpuppets, not because of his political views, which are probably shared by many here, but because of offensive behavior.

  • He refuses to honor or even acknowlege our NPOV policy.
  • He usually refuses to discuss changes.
  • He reverts without negotiating content even when factual errors have been pointed out.
  • His edit summaries are frequently dishonest, misrepresenting reversions as new material.
  • Ample examples in the history of Phil Gingrey and Medical torture.
  • Very few of his edits add anything of value to the articles.
  • This person does not appear to be here for any reason other than political advocacy, if not just to exasperate and annoy, and has been given many explanations, requests for improved behavior and warnings.
  • He has no respect for this project and the other editors here and I resent the time wasted for the rest of us.

This is the kind of behavior that drives away good editors. Please, can we show that we can protect ourselves from this? Alteripse 19:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Turrican and VeryVerily

Since going quickly to arbitration seems to be the "in" thing to do, and has been condoned by the two users who accepted CK's complaint, I will register a request for immediate banning here.

Turrican has stated on my talk page [13] [14] and on Mackensen's [15] that he intends to be and has been carrying out a campaign of reverting my edits without prejudice. Since this has nothing to do with content issues - some are just housekeeping edits (the most absurd is Kim Jong-Il) - I believe this constitutes vandalism.

If you view his talk page, you will see I gave him repeated warnings, including quoting specific policies. Mackensen and GBWR also warned him. I thought he had maybe stopped, and so I was willing to drop the matter, but he has recently resumed.

He has also engaged in personal attacks on me, for instance recently calling me a "disgusting Nazi" (Talk:Henry Kissinger).

To stave off would-be counters:

  1. Re his complaints that I am "destroying his edits", this referred so far as I know to two (2) edits, one adding a dispute notice on a page after he added a questionable section (History of Italy), the other a revert of what I perceived as highly POV additions to an article, where I instead later resorted to a notice (History of Modern Greece). Now he seems peeved that I removed an absurd claim that Kissinger killed 600,000 Cambodian civilians from the introductory paragraph of Henry Kissinger.
  2. My statement that "I am not negotiating" on User talk:Turrican is almost certain to be misinterpreted by someone, so I will clarify now. I am not agreeing to any kind of "trade" in exchange for him not reverting my edits arbitrarily. To do so is "negotiating with terrorists", allowing the threat of vandalism to be used as leverage.

To reiterate, request banning for vandalism and personal attacks. I do not think mediation is needed for someone who is so flagrantly violating Wikipedia rules.

VV 00:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Update: He has since vandalized my user page twice three times. VV 03:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Editing anonymously also.) VV 05:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The vandalism of my user page continues (Fred Bauder provides a diff link below), as does the vandalism of near every article I touch, including reverting simple mechanical fixes. I have notified Turrican on his talk page now, for what it matters. VeryVerily 22:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To re-emphasize the parenthetical above, the account Turrican has been inactive for close to a day, but (hitherto) five different IPs have carried on his legacy - 141.76.1.121, 141.76.1.122, 200.118.118.4, 203.150.225.117, 80.247.147.24. VeryVerily 06:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) Six, 80.58.33.46. VeryVerily 20:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) Seven, 200.14.206.166. VeryVerily 22:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) Eight, 210.249.82.66, but why worry? VeryVerily 07:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) (9) 198.165.90.75 (but what's the rush?). VeryVerily 11:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) Ten 195.185.151.235, and now a gazillion pages are protected. Action yet? VeryVerily 22:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Like, can we, like, get this, like, injunction, like, going? There needs be general authority to block and revert Turrican on sight. VeryVerily 00:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators (3/0/0/0)

  1. Reject, no notice of arbitration on User talk:Turrican. Fred Bauder 14:47, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) Accept, see [16] Fred Bauder 14:56, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) I believe swift action is justified with a temporary ban imposed in light of personal attacks. Fred Bauder 23:45, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC). I'm not sure that all the proxies cited by VeryVerily are vandals however, for example this edit seems reasonable, if controversial [17] Recuse Fred Bauder 00:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • That edit is just him reverting me! That's his MO, regardless of the content. VeryVerily 22:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Accept; also support temporary injunction in this matter to restriction to editing of Arbitration case pages only. James F. (talk) 00:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Accept -- I think I would also accept the injunction. Jwrosenzweig 14:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro

User:VeryVerily

VeryVerily is endlessly reverting a controversial passage of the PNAC page. His version demolishes a strawman of the opposing side of the discussion, and falsely paints the issue as being resolved in favour of his own interpretations when in fact it's a matter of much debate even in mainstream media sources.

He also accuses me of just reverting everything he does, which I feel is a bit unfair because he was the first to revert (04:44 on the 25th of September). My version presents both sides of the issue, his presents only his own and the strawman.

I've tried to be reasonable but he just doesn't seem interested in any opinion but his own. He seems determined to make the article conform to his own worldview.

VeryVerily "rejects" mediation on the grounds it will be a waste of time and that the discussion isn't complete (when in fact, as a glance at the discussion page will reveal, it's just going around in circles). Is there anything that can be done? I'm a new Wikipedian and this annoying dispute is completely ruining my enjoyment of this place. Thanks. CK 13:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

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. VV 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: [18] 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. VV 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?). VeryVerily

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. VV 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. VV 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)

CK is now engaged in erasing my comments from this page [19]. VeryVerily 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[20] 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 veracity, 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)

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. VeryVerily 22:51, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:Netoholic

Netoholic's propensity for conflict has gone on for some time now. Much of it is well-documented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Netoholic. The RfC, however, was largely ineffective due to his assertion that, because no one certifying it had been involved with all of the disputes, its certification was invalid. Although I find the irony of the idea that Netoholic had done too many bad things to be actionable on RfC amusing, I find this disturbing, to say the least. To my knowledge, there are four central concerns with him.

  1. His edit war with JamesF and others, which culminated in him accusing JamesF and others of running a bot, and listing them on Vandalism in Progress with no meaningful cause.
  2. His edit war with Mintguy, in which he repeatedly removed a poll and reinstated an expired poll, demanding an extension of the poll until it gathered consensus. The poll, having majority opposition, was clearly never going to do this.
  3. His refactoring of comments, often removing informative information. One example is at [21], though really, you just want to look at the entire edit history of that page.
  4. Delisting of articles on VfD ([22] and [23].

His refactoring is, in many ways, the most severe problem, as he has continued it, most recently on my talk page at [24]. As is often the case, what he is removing is not a personal attack.

Finally, and possibly not actionably, Netoholic opposed my request to run a bot to handle Templates for Deletion at Wikipedia Talk:Bots in the section titled Snowbot. The manner of his objection, particularly with its links to my edits, makes it clear that his only objection was that I had previously objected to his running a bot. Aggravating this was that he PMed me in IRC repeatedly while objecting to inform me that I was a "fuck." A sample exchange follows:

<NetAway> lmao SnowBot. so if I object....
<Snowspinner> If you object, I'll ask you what you object to about me running a bot.
<NetAway> no, my objection should be enough, ya fuck.
<NetAway> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Guanaco&diff=6173231&oldid=6172763
<NetAway> How do I phrase "you're a fuck" in a nice way, to allow me to reply....

At one point, this spilled into the #wikipedia IRC channel:

<Snowspinner> Hey, I'm curious - someone just told me that there was a consensus that I was a fuck. Now, I'd probably vote neutral on a poll as to whether I'm a fuck, but I'm just curious - is there in fact consensus that I'm a fuck? Straw poll.
<cimon> Well, we can all improve.
<ugen64> i would support that argument, as you are a member of teh sekret cebal
--> Cantus ([email protected]) has joined #wikipedia
<ugen64> hi cantus
<Netoholic> I would say you are a fuck, but you're also a channel op.
<bumm13> hi cactus
<-- Cantus ([email protected]) has left #wikipedia
<Netoholic> so i guess i can't say that

I know IRC is not presently actionable, but I contend that his vote against my bot was clearly meant to be construed by me as a claim that I am a fuck, and is thus a personal attack.

Mediation, in this case, will not prove fruitful, simply because I am not inclined to mediate with someone who has repeatedly called me a fuck. Snowspinner 19:02, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

My last comment there is perhaps more flippant than it needs to be. Let me clarify. I repeatedly told Netoholic that, if he would simply avoid any fracases like the ones listed above for a month, I would drop my objection to his bot and even apologize. I pointed him towards situations that I thought he'd handled badly.

Every time I did this, I was called a fuck.

Netoholic's continued abuse of me has driven me away from active editing on Wikipedia. This is not a situation that can be mediated. This is persistant harassment of the same level of ferocity and malice that characterized Kenneth Allen, Mr. Natural Health, Irismeister, and others, coupled with the cleverness to do it through unregulated channels. There is a level of abuse at which mediation is no longer useful or possible. Netoholic has passed that level. It is not reasonable to ask me to go into any negotiation that assumes good faith with a user who has reiterated, again and again, that he considers me to be a fuck. That level of contempt poisons the well far beyond what any negotiation based process can salvage. Snowspinner 21:29, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

While the RFC is persuasive, why have you not attempted mediation? →Raul654 07:40, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Because I'm unable to figure out how to assume good faith at this point. He calls me a fuck privately and then moans publicly about how he's tried to discuss this reasonably but I just wouldn't listen and blew him off. I'm not sure how to mediate with a liar like that. Snowspinner 14:20, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Given that Snowspinner has publicly admitted that "the personal attack was the part of my claim [against Netoholic, above] I knew was kinda dodgy" and that he admits that Netoholic indeed only engaged in (emphasis mine) "low-grade 'needling' on Wikipedia, while fanning the flames in IRC", (both at [25]) it seems clear that Snowspinner's claim for Arbitration is fatally flawed.
Snowspinner is essentially admitting that 1) Netoholic's "personal attacks" against Snowspinner on Wikipedia did not rise to a level justifying Arbitration (and the Arbitration Committee, as Snowspinner knows, has no jurisdiction over IRC [26], and Jimbo himself has opined that the "No personal attacks" policy probably should not apply to IRC) and 2) that Snowspinner knew his claim was "dodgy" when he made it -- that he knowingly and willingly exaggerated the case, if not entirely lying.
Snowspinner, then, has as much as said he knowingly made a false claim before the Arbitration Committee and moreover that the claim was for relief he knew was outside the Arbitration Committee's traditional jurisdiction. This alone should be enough to dismiss Snowspinner's claim as frivolous. Whether Snowspinner should be sanctioned for knowingly making such false claims is of course up to the Arbitration Committee.
I also note that the Request for Comment against user Xed had as its principle allegations the making of frivolous claims for Arbitration outside the Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction [27], a view certified or endorsed by sixteen Wikipedians, including Snowspinner himself. [28]
-- orthogonal 23:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This intrerpretation is wrong in several respects. First, Snowspinner's claim WRT Netholic's transgressions in Wikipedia proper center are not based solely on personal attacks - in fact, the RFC lists several actions for which I find this case acceptable for arbitration (none of which is the personal attacks). Snowspinner himself said that the most severe problem is Netholic's tendancy to edit other people's comments. The (alleged) personal attacks are an aggrivating factor, not the primary cause of action for the case. Second, I suggest you do not accuse another Wikipedian of lying, when in fact the record (the RFC, in this case) seems to support this case. →Raul654 02:10, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)


Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/1/2/0)

  1. Recuse (obviously). James F. (talk) 20:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Reject, try mediation Fred Bauder 20:57, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Abstain, for the moment. I'm torn between recommending for mediation and accepting. I'm discussing the matter with the mediation committee right now, so I recommend the other arbitrators don't vote until I get back. →Raul654 02:23, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
    Recuse. However, after having talked to both parties on several occasions, as well as several mediators, and I don't think there's any hope that mediation will be successful, and I would suggest the other arbitrators take the case. →Raul654 07:03, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

Rejected requests

  • Avala vs various users - Rejected - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala
  • Wheeler vs 172 - Rejected - please try mediation first. Discussion moved to user talk:WHEELER
  • Cheng v. Anonymous and others - Rejected - refer to wikipedia:username for name change policy. For content dispute, try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Nathan w cheng.
  • WikiUser vs. unspecified others - Rejected due to lack of a specific request.
  • Simonides vs. "everyone" - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
  • Sam Spade vs. Danny - Withdrawn
  • Sam Spade vs. AndyL - Withdrawn
  • Raul654 vs Anthony DiPierro - Withdrawn after agreement of both parties (see standing order).
  • RickK - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
  • Mike Storm - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Lir (IRC blocking claims) - Rejected due to either a lack of jurisdiction (the IRC channels are not official), or a failure to follow earlier steps.
  • Sam Spade vs. 172 - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • User:JRR Trollkien 2 - Inconclusive deadlock: 3 votes to reject, none to accept. Archived at User talk:JRR Trollkien
  • Tim Starling - Rejected.
  • VeryVerily - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Xed vs. Jimbo Wales - Rejected - lack of jurisidiction over Jimbo, private email, lack of initial litigant's involvment, and various other reasons.
  • Emsworth vs. Xed - Rejected
  • Gene Poole vs. Gzornenplatz - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Mintguy - Rejected
  • VeryVerily vs Gzornenplatz - Rejected

Completed requests

  • /Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 11th Februry 2004 that Mr-Natural-Health would be banned from editing for 30 days (i.e., until 12 Mar 2004). The vote was 6-2 in favor of banning, with 2 explicit and 1 de-facto abstention.
  • /Plautus satire vs Raul654 - Decided on 11th March 2004 that Plautus satire is to be banned for one year, up to and including March 11 2005. The vote was unanimous with 8 votes in favour and 1 de-facto abstention; a further vote in favour of extending the ban indefinitely was held but not met.
  • /Wik - Decided on 15th March 2004 that Wik would have a three month probation during which he may be temp-banned in certain circumstances. There were six votes in favour, three opposed, and one de-facto abstention. Further decisions and minority opinions can be read at /Wik.
  • /Anthony DiPierro - Decided on 25th April 2004 to instruct Anthony with regards to his VfD edits, and refer other issues to mediation. The vote was unanimous with 6 votes in favour and 4 de-facto abstentions. Note that the case was accepted solely to investigate use of VfD.
  • /Mav v. 168 - Closed on 03 July 2004 with an open verdict.
  • /Cantus - Decided on 01 Aug 2004, apply a revert parole to Cantus and other remedies.
  • /Lir - Decided on 23 Aug 2004, blocked for 15 days, revert parole applied, and other remedies.
  • /Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 26 Aug 2004. There was an earlier partial decision on 25 June.
  • /Lyndon LaRouche (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - Decided on 12 Sep 2004.
  • /User:PolishPoliticians - Decided on 18 Sep 2004, personal attack parole applied to PolishPoliticians and all new accounts on affected pages.
  • /ChrisO and Levzur Closed on 20 Sep 2004 with an open verdict; no ruling necessary, as Levzur has ceased contributing to Wikipedia.
  • /K1 - Closed on 28 Sep 2004 with an open verdict; no ruling necessary, as K1 has ceased contributing to Wikipedia.
  • /JRR Trollkien - Closed October 2, 2004, with no findings of fact or decision. JRR Trollkien has long since left.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=6518407"