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

Intro

I have added User:Kevin baas to the list, at his request. (See the talk page.) Shorne 19:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please note that I have always used the talk page in any edit war in which I have been involved. I strongly object to your position that I am provoking edit wars; in fact, I have been doing the most to prevent them and resolve them. It is user VeryVerily who just insists on reverting pages over and over without discussion. I don't see why I should accept that. I tried for a while, but the task of merging multiple sets of changes that straddled one of VeryVerily's reversions grew so annoying that I finally decided to give it up a couple of days ago.

User Shorne cannot be accused of failing to discuss things adequately. So far, VeryVerily has refused to discuss anything, despite numerous requests from me. The evidence is available on the talk pages for all to see; let no one deny it.

I note also that the mediation committee and the arbitration committee have failed to respond to my complaints against VeryVerily, which were filed almost a week ago.

Since VeryVerily has been so brazen as to aver that he will not abide by the three-revert rule, I hereby declare that I will not do so either on any page that VeryVerily reverts without discussion. I hope that this decision will spur the arbitrators to address my complaint against VeryVerily; for if they fail to act, I'll just have to take matters into my own hands. Shorne 05:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I decided about three weeks ago to go back to honouring the three-revert rule again, even on pages that VeryVerily reverts nine times in a single day. Quixotic and foolish of me, I know, but I'm trying to make a very clear case here to a kangaroo court of biased and effete arbitrators—who, incidentally, still have not replied to procedural questions that I asked more than a month ago, despite numerous clear requests from me. Shorne 11:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shorne is a dedicated POV warrior who is pushing a minority Marxist-Leninist viewpoint in violation of both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, the propaganda and advocacy section. He engages in some discussion, but does very little research to back up his assertions or reversions, mostly demanding exhausting research by anyone he disagrees with; which when produced he ignores or discounts. See for example [1] and [2]. Fred Bauder 15:35, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

When all is said and done, what is POV is somewhat subjective, while whether someone is breaking the three reverts rule is not, as VeryVerily has been doing.

I don't think these are great examples to use in calling Shorne POV, for reasons already started in Talk:Great Purge. He is removing a POV paragraph that says that the work of former anti-Soviet propaganda writer for the British Foreign Office and former intelligence officer Robert Conquest wrote the "definitive" work on the Great Purge, while those who disagree with him are "revisionists". I think inserting this was POV, not removing it. Research is to assert or dispute facts, not opinions on which work is "definitive" and which is "revisionist". I think arbitrators *should* look at this to determine who is POV and NPOV here. I also urge arbitrators to look at the many times VeryVerily has violated the three reverts rule (which he's been banned for before). We have complained about him breaking the rule, you can read his comments about what he thinks about that. Ruy Lopez 19:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No need to listen to Fred Bauder's or anyone else's opinion (including the bugbear of my "minority Marxist-Leninist viewpoint"); just look at the facts. They will show who is pushing a POV here, and it is not I. As Ruy Lopez said, this case is a straightforward matter of violations of the three-revert rule, so all this stuff about my viewpoint and all is simply irrelevant. By the way, I call on Fred Bauder to recuse himself in this matter. Shorne 19:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I applaud the attempt to get the Arbitration Committee to deal with this issue and to (hopefully) affirm that the 3RR is policy that will be enforced. I just want to say it is a gross misrepresentation of my position when Michael Snow claims that I "have openly stated that [I] do not intend to abide" by the 3RR. I have openly stated that I do not intend to abide by the 3RR so long as it is not enforced against others. Once it is, I'm glad to abide by it. If VV is under revert parole, I don't mind being under it myself. However, there are more users who are bound to violate it, and instead of having to bring everyone to arbitration individually (seeing how look it took with VeryVerily, who has been doing this for months), it would be better if it were general policy, i.e. if sysops were instructed to block anyone violating the rule (possibly starting with 1-hour blocks, and doubling in time for each repeat violation). Gzornenplatz 08:46, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Which is a great excuse for starting revert wars over articles with no revert wars previously, isn't it. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 22:01, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Start with the easiest cases:

In case, 23, 9/11, my only recent edit was italicizing a link. Huh? (Addendum: Apparently I did revert once, which I'd forgotten and overlooked. However, one revert still does not seem to me to constitute an "edit war". VeryVerily 00:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC))

In cases 12, 16, 18, (and arguably 4) I jumped in to help out others being bombarded. Isn't community support (meatball:DefendEachOther) supposed to be "the way"? There is not enough of that.

Anyway, on a few others, I have this to say: Wikipedia is an open project, and as it grows it's attracting more and more simple troublemakers. The project needs people who are willing to protect our valuable articles from sudden and sustained attacks. I have been serving this role on many of these communism-related pages, where otherwise Khmer Rouge would be a hollowed-out article, with no mention of atrocities, which blamed famine and killings on the U.S. Witness the recent discussion on the mailing list about having "stable" versions of pages, or Adam Carr's announcement that he wants articles to be "finished" if he is to return. It's clearly being acknowledged as a huge problem. Editors become unmotivated to work on articles, since they know whatever compromises they reach, whatever wording they figure out, will be destroyed by the next round of spamming.

Shorne went on what could only be called a rampage across several articles pertaining to communism, replacing well-established facts about communist states with shallow propaganda - or more often erasing them entirely. Cf. Fred Bauder's complaint. A few of us attempted to prevent this crusade. For that I am to be punished? And what's wrong with using protection on an article being subjected to such attacks, anyway? That seems like the right approach.

Ruy Lopez is a sockpuppet of Richardchilton/Hanpuk/etc. He goes on the attack when he perceives I am vulnerable, as I was in this case. But it's the same person who's been around a long time trying to mess up articles and who in fact declared his intentions of disrupting Wikipedia explicitly. That is one main reason things piled on for me. (I also think Gzornenplatz was trying to provoke edit wars with me, to get me tagged as an edit warrior.)

Many of these people want us to waste hours haggling with them to justify not allowing them to erase half of the article. Every couple of months. In the absence of a better way to handle this, reverting and/or protecting seems to be the tool at our disposal to prevent these sorts of attacks. Is there a better way? Indeed, it makes no sense to not protect a page which is being subjected to massive controversial changes.

Finally, the 3RR sounds nice in theory, but in practice has several problems. First off, some of our most determined users rely on armies of sockpuppets. For instance, the Richardchilton series used two accounts to try to certify an RfC against me. Why would they not to circumvent the 3RR? Indeed, why wouldn't anybody? Turrican was happy to use an endless supply of proxies. Also, the 3RR just means the reverting continues the next day, and nothing is solved. Furthermore, people can use "quasi-reverts" (almost reverts) to get around it.

Perhaps most of all, applying it to just some users, to, say, a user who is willing to go to bat to defend Wikipedia's content, means that the project has crippled a major asset. Applying it to everyone at least would be consistent, although that never worked (it only applied to me at quickpolls, if to anyone).

Perhaps many who favor such approaches prefer process to product, caring less about what is in the articles than how they were written. There is something to be said for having Wikipedia be "congenial", but not if it means our articles become utterly wrecked and filled with propaganda and garbage.

(By my count in only five cases was I battling a "normal" ("real") user.) VeryVerily 10:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) (edit VeryVerily 10:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Pffffffffffft. Shorne 10:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily says he's "willing to protect our valuable articles from sudden and sustained attacks. I have been serving this role" (protecting our valuable articles? What about our precious bodily fluids?), So he wants to cast himself as a "protector" against "attacks", OK whatever.

As far as the nonsense about the Khmer Rouge being hollowed out...two of the pages there have been edit wars over are the Great Purge article is filled with data I'm fine with. It is factual and referenced. Only false and unreferenced facts have been removed. I think that's a good example of how much negative data me, Shorne and whatnot are willing to leave on as long as it's factual and referenced.

The Khmer Rouge page says "Three sources, United States Department of State, Amnesty International and the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project, give estimates of the total death toll as 1.2 million, 1.4 million and 1.7 million respectively". The Yale Cambodian Genocide Project may be right, it may be wrong, but it's a fact it said the death toll was 1.7 million. This is factual information, and I have seen no attempts to remove it. This is a far cry from VV's claim that "Khmer Rouge would be a hollowed-out article, with no mention of atrocities".

It's better to go to Talk:Khmer Rouge and go over the arguments there instead of here. But I'll make a quick synopsis here. The sentence - "The Khmer Rouge's rule is generally remembered for its violent rule in which at least one million people were killed." Killed? As in one million people executed right after mentioning the violent rule of the Khmer Rouge? Then the anti-KR Wikipedia people in other places say that many of the deaths were due to starvation, but is the verb killed to be used for that? And what was the food situation before the KR took power - if there was already a food shortage, and the foreign food aid keeping the country alive was immediately cut off when the KR took over, is any starvation due to "the Khmer Rouge's...violent rule"? As I said, I have no problem with the Amnesty International death toll, which is presented in an NPOV manner.

I'll give one last KR example - one that was of course reverted. "Former Khmer Rouge leaders Khieu Samphan and Pol Pot, who could be expected to give underestimations, give figures of 1 million and 800,000, respectively." Well first of all, apparently we need to be told in an objective encyclopediac fashion that Khieu Samphan "could be expected to give underestimations" (If this is NPOV, can I qualify every French and American source with "American and French sources could be expected to give overestimations?"). Second of all, the sentence says Khieu Samphan said this, as if it were true he did. I dispute whether Khieu Samphan ever said this. In fact, one of the main anti-KR sources which everyone cites, Ponchaud, says Samphan never said this. In other words, what is considered the leading anti-KR writer, and the source of most anti-KR polemics, himself says the charge is false. So how is questioning whether Samphan ever said this POV?

VeryVerily justifies his breaking of the three revert rule by saying I have a sock puppet called Richardchilton so that I can use six edits per day against his. I would like him to show me one example of this - one example where I and Richardchilton alternate reverts within 24 hours so that I can transgress the three revert rule. Can he please cite examples from the above 23 where this has happened? He can't cite such an example because there is no such example. This is something that has never happened, yet VeryVerily is using it as an example of why he is breaking the three revert rule. The reality is VeryVerily is breaking the three revert rule so as to keep certain pages in the POV he wants. I don't know why he thinks he is the only person on Wikipedia who can "protect" Wikipedia from "attacks" as he puts it, and must violate the rules to do so. I think I (and Shorne) have been perfectly reasonable on pages like Great Purge, with only one paragraph ("definitive" vs. "revisionist") under dispute currently, which I'd hope arbitrators would not see as neutral versus our alleged "POV pushing" Ruy Lopez 19:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also resent using past appearance before the ArbCom against anyone (well, me). Any joker can start an ArbCom request these days, and in fact many do. None of these requests has ever been granted. VeryVerily 12:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who suspended you a few months ago, if not the Arbitration Committee? Shorne 12:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That was via the now defunct quickpolls process. --Michael Snow 15:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, even if we don't want to always accept the 3RR as law (and I'm not sure we shouldn't), use of 3RR paroles where necessary (and these are such cases) is a good thing. --fvw 11:38, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz and I agree. We'll gladly submit to that if it is applied to VeryVerily as well (and everyone else), since the two of us always intended to follow the rules—and did so until it became quite clear that VeryVerily was just doing what he damn well pleased. Indeed, of the three people called to task here, the only one who has spoken out against the three-revert rule is VeryVerily. Shorne 12:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Why is it that one request gets a vote within seven minutes whereas another doesn't get a vote within three days? Shorne 05:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Answered on the talk page. If you want to discuss this question further, please do it there. --Michael Snow 05:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add that some of the histories of revert wars for the stated pages go back much further, and involve more users. I am not aware of the circumstances on all the pages, but I am confident that, whereever VV or TDC are involved, Gz's reasons for reverting are as he stated: because when the 3RR is not enforced, those who respect it in principle become powerless against those who disregard it in principle. Instead of becoming powerless, Gz has attempted to bring the matter to arbitration. Arbitration being rejected, he decided that he had two choices: accept VV's tyrannical behavior, or play tit-for-tat, in attempt that VV would eventually realize the futility of his ways: that if other people operated the same way as him on the wiki, nothing would ever get accomplished. I think that this is a reasonable and respectful approach to a serious and persistent problem, where petitions have been ignored. Gz respects the 3RR, to the extent that he put his reputation at risk in order to defend it when others had derelicted.

As to Shorne, he is a new user, and I have found him to be very reasonable and npov. On encountering VV's conduct, he took an assertive position almost immediately. I do not fault him for this. As with Gz, I cannot speak where I have not bore witness. Kevin Baas | talk 20:01, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm happy to submit to any disciplinary action provided that it is applied consistently and proportionally. Kevin Baas | talk 20:08, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

So am I. Shorne 21:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I note with disgust that no one on the committee has yet voted on my week-old case, whereas this one has received several votes in less than a day. Why is that? Bias is the only explanation that I can find. Shorne 21:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • As I said, we can discuss that on the talk page. Your case is three days old, not a week. I wouldn't attribute the difference to bias; rather, it's that very few people are interested in hearing the pot call the kettle black. --Michael Snow 22:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • My case is five days old if you count the request for mediation, which also went ignored. As for your groundless allegation, let the arbitrators vote against my case if they don't approve of it. Evidently they're too cowardly or too biased to do so. Shorne 22:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

      Let me butt in here briefly: I can understand why Shorne is upset. I appreciate the time and effort spent by Micheal Snow to make a very thorough request. It is not unreasonable to think that this is why the arbitrators voted more quickly, and I'll accept this pov in good faith. Yet, as this problem has gone untreated for a long time, after being brought to the arbitrators' attention on multiple occasions, I share Shorne's frustration. I hope the reasonableness of this frustration can be understood. Admittedly, the earlier requests were more laconic, relying more heavily on the good faith of the arbitrators. I think I am correct in assuming that the requestors were ready to provide plenty of evidence. Personally, I don't feel that our grievances have been given the consideration neccessary for conducive and effective policy enforcement, and I hope the arbitrators can understand how this is frustrating and tries my faith, as I'm sure it has Shorne's and others'. Kevin Baas | talk 23:34, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

• • • • My own request is quite detailed and thorough, though most of the detail is given on two other pages. It is now more than ten days old, and not one arbitrator has voted on it. A more recent request by Fred Bauder (in fact, a vindictive response to my own complaint) has received votes, as has this one. I can only conclude bias on the part of the arbitrators, for it seems that they are deliberately ignoring my complaints. I have no confidence in their good faith or even their integrity. Shorne 22:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that it might be wise to add the parties from the other cases as well. If Ruy Lopez is indeed a reincarnation of the users that VV and others suspect him to be, then he has a long history of edit wars. Furthermore, considering that a temporary order seemed to be in the works with Turrican before arbitrators simply stopped voting, wouldn't that now justify an actual case? Ambi 23:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Trying to prove that Ruy Lopez is a reincarnation requires different evidence and has the potential to make things substantially more complex. I believe that should be addressed separately, since as Ruy Lopez this person seems to generally follow the three revert rule. Turrican appears to have indicated that he was leaving Wikipedia, and in any case had already abandoned using an account. --Michael Snow 23:51, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez has encouraged me not to violate the three-revert rule. As far as I know, he has assiduously followed the rule himself. As for edit wars, the key is VeryVerily. Take him out of the picture, and scores of edit wars immediately vanish. Shorne 00:11, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If, however, we're going to add other people to this case, I want to add User:Boraczek, who is almost as bad as VeryVerily. Shorne 22:10, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to request also that anyone be temporarily banned who makes the same change twice in a row without discussing it on the talk page. Shorne 00:11, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

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)

User:Gzornenplatz

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)

Temporary injunction?

Since none of the named parties except Kevin Baas have stopped or even moderated their revert wars, may I suggest that they be placed under a temporary restriction from editing articles and templates until this case is resolved? —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have a better suggestion. How about a temporary ban to be imposed on any user who reverts an article twice in a row without discussing it on the relevant talk page? I'm entirely willing to abide by this policy if it is applied fairly. Gzornenplatz and Kevin Bass have also expressed their willingness to comply. It seems that VeryVerily is the only one who objects. Shorne 18:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support whatever must be done to stop those pointless revertions. I don't see a problem. After 3+ reverts, ban for a week. Again? For a month. Again? Two months... Want to revert and can't? Ask sb else to do it, ask for arbitration, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(Moved from the page →Raul654) I support Fred Bauder statement regarding trouble (and guilty parties) on Katowice. Gzornenplatz actions and lack of any reply forced me to request protection for Katowice (granted). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(Moved from the page →Raul654):

Bauder's statements about me are utter piffle. Go and see the talk page for Great Purge to see what I am up against. Bauder keeps inserting the same outrageous slander (opponents to his view are "revisionist scholars" guilty of "minimizations") over and over—and accusing me of bias when I delete it.

I call for Bauder to be added to this request for arbitration. His behaviour is utterly irresponsible. He should certainly be stripped of his status as an arbitrator, as he is too biased even to edit articles responsibly, let alone pass judgement on others.

As for an injunction, I have said numerous times—to the arbitrators' deaf ears—that I am willing, even eager, to abide by any injunction that is applied fairly. ONCE AGAIN, for about the thirty-ninth time, VeryVerily is the ONLY one in this case who is opposed to obeying the three-revert rule. I have been following it scrupulously. I have called on the arbitrators to act swiftly, but it seems that they haven't yet done a thing. VeryVerily gets away with riding roughshod over the articles and making life impossible for everyone, yet the arbitrators seem not to care. Shorne 19:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(Moved from the page →Raul654) How typical! Bauder's request gets immediate attention, while my own requests are ignored time and time again. Shorne 22:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sweeping injunctions = bad idea. Discretion of any admin = very bad idea. Next thing you know I'll get a one week ban for correcting a typo on Franco-Prussian War or Wienerschnitzel. VeryVerily 23:47, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since you have shown an unwillingness/inability to reign in the very editing tendancies that caused us to take your case in the first place, I (for one) do not intend to split hairs when it comes to giving admins the power to block you. I suggest that you trod very carefully when editing on those topics. →Raul654 00:06, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

These sorts of comments from an arbitrator bode ill. I don't think you should be talking to another serious editor in this manner. My "editing tendencies" are to protect articles from rampages, for which I've been commended by several users. I don't see that you taking the case vindicates those who think this is wrong. And your trust in admins seems to me quite misplaced. (And it's rein, tendencies, and tread.) VeryVerily 00:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To add to above, you seem to be pronouncing me guilty before the trial has even started. Perhaps you should recuse yourself if you have strong feelings coming into this. I know you and I have differed in the past, but I had thought it nothing worth bringing up here. But your comments about me on RfA and now this make me wonder. VeryVerily 11:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Martin, do you have any idea how much vandalism I repair, and how many important articles I protect from wrecking? (Also, I note you're not including Ruy Lopez in your proposal, whose case has been merged with this one.) VeryVerily 01:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, I should note that due to the pace of arbitration, "temporary" is anything but. This should be considered in any proposal to "sort out the mess later". VeryVerily 01:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For once I agree with VeryVerily: arbitration takes an eternity. Kevin Baas and I have moved for summary judgement on the grounds that there is no dispute over the facts: VeryVerily is unwilling to abide by the rules (especially the three-revert rule), and in fact he violates them every day; the rest of us are most willing to comply with rules that are fairly applied and enforced, and in fact we are upholding them faithfully. Since the arbitration committee has ignored our requests to accelerate the decision, any "temporary" ban would be a gross miscarriage of justice. Shorne 21:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

May I note regarding the mention of German/Polish articles in the proposed injunction:

1. It is uncalled for since it only affects me among those involved in this arbitration. My opponents in those Polish city edit wars are not included in this arbitration, but if I'm placed on special restrictions regarding those articles, then (a) my opponents in those edit wars should be similarly restricted and (b) the other parties in this arbitration should be similarly restricted on their special fields (i.e. communism- and U.S.-politics-related articles in case of Shorne and VeryVerily).
2. What you have so far only proposed is already applied by User RickK, who blocked me for reverting said articles, even though I was far from violating the 3RR (I reverted them once a day). This proves that RickK acted out of order, because if he was already allowed to do this you wouldn't have to propose an injunction to that effect. Gzornenplatz 02:54, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

The only bans that should be imposed are the ones that I have requested: a ban on any of us four who violates the three-revert rule. Shorne 21:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Has this been merged with the Ruy Lopez case or not? If so, why is he not being included in the proposals? VeryVerily 04:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Corrupt arbitrators exposed: James F., Martin, the Epopt, Delirium, Raul654, mav

I hereby demand the resignations of James F., Martin, the Epopt, Delirium, Raul654, and mav for voting to ban me temporarily from editing articles on German or Polish subjects. These people voted in favour of the ban without even checking to see whether I was guilty of any wrongdoing on those pages. In fact, I have not even touched any article related to Germany or Poland recently, and I certainly haven't ever been involved in any edit wars on German or Polish themes. Obviously these six arbitrators did not do the minimum of investigation before rushing to take the part of fellow arbitrator Fred Bauder. Their dereliction constitutes a gross abuse of power and establishes their inability to discharge their duties with the competence and impartiality required.

I therefore demand their resignations or, failing that, their expulsion. In addition, I demand the annulment of their unjust votes to ban me.

I shall carry this complaint above the arbitration committee if the resignations are not forthcoming. Any other arbitrator who votes in favour of the proposed ban will also be asked to resign. Shorne 21:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The above complaint has been extended to Delirium and Raul654. The entire committee should be purged and re-created from scratch by a consensus of the users. Shorne 10:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have also added mav to the list. Shorne 11:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I fully agree. The arbitrators are totally unresponsive and unaccountable. Unfortunately a complaint "above the arbitration committee" (i.e. to Jimbo) is not likely to help from my experience. Gzornenplatz 02:11, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't expect any justice from him either. But I'm going to make the complaint, and publicly, so that everyone can see how corrupt the whole operation is. Shorne 10:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Since temporary injunctions are supposed to be made quickly they are made while only giving a cursorary look at the evidence. I for one saw many, many reverts by Shorne and I trusted that the ArbCom member who proposed the order knew what he was talking about so I voted for the order (I've now changed my vote and amended the order). But since your reverts seem to be in the subject areas of the Cold War and communism, I've added a proposed order that would be exactly the same as the other, but cover those subjects instead. Again, thank you for mentioning this - it would be have been pointless to ban you from editing an area you don't edit in now. --mav 12:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Trust misplaced. I've done it too, recently in fact. It's curious you skipped Gzornenplatz's comments, if they were read by any arbitrator at all, because he states clearly he is in fact the only one engaged in such disputes. I already wrote Jimbo about this blind and irrational injunction, but he'll likely take no action and the ArbCom will force their way. Might makes right? VeryVerily 12:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) (post edit conflict with below)

Exactly. It's nothing short of tyranny. The arbitrators do not even acknowledge comments or respond to direct questions. They're not interested in fairness or justice, and they're obviously unable to dispense them. Shorne 13:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

God almighty damn! You didn't even apologise for the gross miscarriage of justice done by you and your five corrupt colleagues. I reject your vindictive action (see User talk:Shorne) and reiterate my demand for your expulsion. Corrupt arbitrators like you who don't even examine the evidence before (ab)using their powers discredit the arbitration committee and the entire site. I shall publicise this matter. Shorne 12:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, by what right do you unilaterally amend an order already voted upon? More evidence of corruption. Shorne 12:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Were you blocked or in any way harmed by what was done here? If no adverse action was taken against you, then there is no miscarriage of justice. In fact the quick correction is the exact opposite of a miscarriage of justice. If we make or have made other mistakes, then those will be corrected as well. --mav 13:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was blocked; and, yes, I was harmed. Your "correction" is also dubious, given that you have violated procedure. As far as I am concerned, the ban on me is still in effect. I just realised that I have indeed edited an article on a Polish subject in recent weeks: Frédéric Chopin. Am I not allowed to touch that? Shorne 13:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I checked Wikipedia:Block log and did not see your user name anywhere in it. We develop our own procedure. And part of that procedure is that we make good faith modifications to proposed rulings. And our orders are never retroactive so your edit to the Chopin article would not be illegal even if the order was still in effect. --mav

I consider myself effectively banned from editing such articles as Frédéric Chopin because your vile order has specified that I will be blocked if I touch anything remotely connected to Germany or Poland. The order is still in effect; your unilateral disregard for procedure does nothing to change it. Shorne 14:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I want a pronouncement on this subject. Under the shameful, tyrannical injunction against me, am I allowed to edit Frédéric Chopin? How about Haymarket Riot, some of the participants of which were German or Polish immigrants? Shorne 14:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I already told you that temporary injunction #1 no longer applies to you. --mav 15:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that you have the authority to countermand the decision of the kangaroo court. Let's put it this way: is a person subject to this injusti—er, injunction permitted to edit Frédéric Chopin or Haymarket Riot without getting blocked? Shorne 15:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, someone just moved Jimbo Wales's page to "HITLER!!!" or some such. Please go and fix this destructive act. Shorne 15:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Temporary injunctions are there to prevent further disruption while we consider a case, and I'm entirely comfortable to take a shotgun approach to that, even if it causes some temporary inconvenience. I'm also entirely comfortably with mav's correction of the temporary order. If I were corrupt, I would be making money off bribes, but regretfully I'm not making any money. Shame. Martin 17:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Redundant

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)

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)

So is yours. But it wasn't strictly a rule then, and it will be - enforced - soon. VeryVerily 11:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It certainly was, and is, a rule. If it will soon be enforced, thank heaven for that. Shorne 11:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Corruption exposed

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)

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)

You are welcome to vote for the dissolution of the arbcom at wikipedia:arbitration policy ratification vote. Martin 18:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From temp injunction

I suppose I could mention yet again that this case was merged with that of Ruy Lopez, and he's not included in these wild injunctions. Deaf ears again, or third time's the charm? VeryVerily 11:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By what right do you unilaterally amend an injunction already voted on? I reject your vindictive proposal, call for its dismissal, and reiterate my demand for the resignations or expulsion of the six corrupt arbitrators who voted to ban me without even examining the evidence for two seconds. Shorne 12:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My right comes from the fact that I am 100% certain that the other ArbCom members will agree. I'm also very sure each will vote for the proposed new order. --mav 12:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then why even have a committee or a vote? Just exercise malevolent dictatorship over the site all by yourself. Shorne 13:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We trust each other - I corrected an obvious mistake. --mav

The obvious mistake is the appointment of corrupt people to the arbitration committee. I have called for this obvious mistake to be corrected. Please tender your resignation. Shorne 13:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that mav did, indeed, correct an obvious mistake. He enjoys my complete confidence.

James F. (talk) 14:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(same here - Martin)

Why am I not surprised? Shorne 14:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also hereby point out that mav suppressed a legitimate complaint of corruption about himself by removing it from this location. His lack of detachment is yet more proof of his corruption and inability to serve as an arbitrator with any legitimacy. Shorne 13:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I moved that to the talk page. --mav

Where it is far less visible. Shorne 13:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Only to the rabid fools who fail to act in a proper way in reading all relevent materials before acting.

James F. (talk) 14:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for characterising the six corrupt arbitrators who voted on this matter as "rabid fools who fail to act in a proper way in reading all relevent [sic] materials before acting". Shorne 14:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Six moderators voted for that injunction. I do not want to see it changed at this point without a proper amendment, duly proposed and voted on according to the established process. Shorne 13:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, arbitration cannot always make everyone happy. We prefer to do the right thing, rather than being hidebound by a purely legalistic approach. Arbitration is not a criminal court. Martin 18:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Complaint about VeryVerily

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)

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)

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)

---

NOTE: Mediation on Gzornenplatz, KB, and VV

I was involved in mediating a dispute between these parties. I am now declaring that process failed. In addition, I am personally forwarding the issue of 3RR violation by some or all parties to the ArbCom. You may wish to also consider the other issues raised in the Mediation (see the relevant page). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:43, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Note to "arbitrators": Shorne had nothing to do with that case. Shorne 18:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that's apparent both in the title of this subject heading and the page link I provided. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:07, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Lots of other things that are apparent to you and me somehow manage to get overlooked by all the "arbitrators". Shorne 20:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Touché. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:07, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Shorne: Do you have any respect for anyone at all? Mackensen (talk) 23:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Respect needs to be earned, and the unresponsive "arbitrators" here do not deserve much. They also have shown me nothing but disrespect. If you read the relevant discussion of their corruption and lack of accountability, you will understand my position. Check my edit history for the appropriate links. Apparently rooting around in Shorne's edit history has become a popular sport in some circles. Shorne 23:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're quite right that respect needs to be earned. You might have earned mine, except that the first time we ever interacted you blithly dismissed my inquiries and generally acted like a pedant. See the relevant diff here: [3]. Wikipedia is a community-based project, one that to succeed must be built on trust and respect. It has struck me that your first instinct is to assume the intellectual inferiority of other editors. I have also been distressed by your tendency to be rude to other editors and dismissive of their concerns. I have worked with James F. off-and-on for well over a year, and I regard him as a man of ability and integrity. I have tried to work with you for two months - and will continue to do so - but I fear that unless you adopt a positive attitude efforts at compromise will come to naught. Mackensen (talk) 00:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm open to discussing these concerns with you elsewhere. Here they are out of place.

Since you have raised them in this inappropriate location, however, I shall respond. It is true that I bristled when you came bounding in out of nowhere to lecture me on "violence", evidently without having read much of the lengthy discussion with others that had already taken place. I had already refuted every word of what you said, and I didn't appreciate your coming along as if you had something new and informative to add. I apologise for the offence that my tone caused, but I do not apologise for what were accurate statements that were subsequently borne out by your later comments.

However respectable James F. may be as a person, he has proven himself not to be up to the task of serving as an arbitrator. Ditto all the others. Nothing wrong with that; it just means that they should step down. I am not going to discuss this anymore; I have already been over it ten times in the last day or two, and obviously not one moderator gives a tinker's damn. Shorne 02:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, indeed you apparently have the last word on everything. I don't agree that you "disproved" my comments; in fact, there is at least one place on Talk:Communism where I asked for proof and you never responded. However, this is indeed not the place to discuss this, and I suggest that any further comments be directed to my talk page. Mackensen (talk) 02:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, let us move this to your talk page. Shorne 03:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, Dante. Martin

Please ban VeryVerily

Please ban VeryVerily. In violation of the injunction issued by the arbitrators, he has reverted List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 three times in the past twenty-four hours. (The last time was also a violation of policy, for he added "twoversions" after restoring his own version.) Shorne 20:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VV was banned by Mirv for violating the ArbCom ruling as you reference above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:58, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to Mirv for his (her?) rapid intervention. Shorne 23:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More corruption and vindictiveness

Now the arbitrary arbitration committee has approved yet another "temporary" ban, one vindictively drafted by mav in response to my complaint. God forfend that the "arbitrators" be accountable for their heavy-handed, corrupt acts. Shorne 02:10, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We are accountable via elections, via the community, and via Jimbo Wales. Martin

Revert parole: Clarification requested

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Against VeryVerily's claims that the block was motivated by personal animosity, I'll note that I blocked both him and Shorne at the time when I thought the injunction extended to project pages, and that I unblocked both of them when Mav clarified the injunction. If either thinks I misused my powers, they are welcome to assess community opinion via RFC. —No-One Jones ^(m) 06:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Reiteration of the position of Shorne

For the ninth or tenth time, I demand to know why my own request for arbitration has not yet received any votes when this one and others that were filed later have been voted on. No one on the committee has yet spoken to this question. I charge the committee with bias and abuse of power. Shorne 18:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Update:

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:

1. Affirmation that the three revert rule is Wikipedia policy.
2. 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.
3. 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)

If unjustly banned, I will never come back.

No self-respecting person could accept such an affront with equanimity. Shorne 01:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Meatball:GoodBye? Martin

Henry Kissinger: another block

Shorne and VeryVerily both edited this article today, and since I considered this a violation of the injunction against editing articles having to do with the Cold War (Henry Kissinger is a major figure of the Cold War, as evinced by his article's placement in category:Cold War people), I blocked them both. Since I don't doubt this will lead to complaints from both, I welcome the arbitrators' opinion on this matter. —No-One Jones ^(m) 06:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to note that his justification for the edit on Kissinger ("restoring consensus") [4], is bogus, as the talk page shows only that there was no consensus, except that of the five votes, only two were for his version, and both myself and User:MacGyverMagic had declined to vote at all, citing dissatisfaction with the listed options. Discussion trailed off as people went elsewhere, but Shorne was completely wrong to claim his wording as a consensus version. Mackensen (talk) 08:54, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Untrue. There is consensus that the alleged war crimes must be mentioned. In addition, an earlier vote on the wording was unanimous. Shorne 04:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I find no fault or mistake in the block. --mav 19:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, there's a risk now that any 20th century figure could be connected to communism somehow. Richard Nixon? Spiro Agnew? I had anticipated an injunction much more specific, applying to articles such as Communist state and Collectivisation in the USSR. Shorne apparently did as well, since he edited that same article. Is this not evidence that we both believed it did not fall under the injunction and should be given the benefit of the doubt? Why would we voluntarily allow ourselves to be blocked? VeryVerily 22:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The block was wholly inappropriate. I have asked for, but not received, clarification on the extent of the "temporary" injunction. If it covers Henry Kissinger, presumably it also covers chromium, as Albania under Hoxha was the largest producer of this substance in Europe. A sufficiently broad construction of "Cold War" or "communism" would cover almost everything on Wikipedia. Am I banned from editing my own user page? After all, I was alive during the Cold War.…

As VeryVerily mentioned, I have been avoiding articles that seemed to pertain to the Cold War or to communism—and also those on German or Polish subjects, for I perceive that "temporary" injunction still to be in effect against me. In view of my careful observance of these unjust injunctions, I should not have been blocked for this purported violation.

VeryVerily and I are owed an apology. I must say that Mirv's judgement in this matter seems rather poor, though not poor enough for me to withdraw my support of his candidacy to the arbitration committee. Shorne 04:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz has violated injunction; please ban for 24 hours

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)

Mackensen appears to have blocked both Gzornenplatz and Samboy. VeryVerily 01:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)