Case Closed on 22 Dec 2004
Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.
All of the users named above have engaged in multiple revert wars recently on various pages. Each of them has appeared before the Arbitration Committee in the past or is presently under consideration by them. Requests for comment or requests for mediation have been attempted for each of these users, but their excessive reverting continues nevertheless. Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily have openly stated that they do not intend to abide by the three revert rule (see for example Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gzornenplatz).
These tactics lead to needless protection of pages, clutter page histories, flood recent changes, and interfere with the efforts of other editors. Often these revert wars are conducted without any real attempts at discussion on talk pages. Instead of negotiating over disputed changes, these users often have the attitude that they can state their position once and then enforce it, rather than debating the merits of their edits with others.
In the past month alone, these users have precipitated protection of the following pages (participants in the revert war are indicated, but the parties other than these three users generally abided by the three revert rule):
Note: talk* means the talk page was not even used during the dispute that led to page protection. In many of the other instances, the discussion that did take place was inadequate or inappropriate. For those keeping score, VeryVerily is listed here 17 times, Gzornenplatz 11+ times, and Shorne (a newer participant in the revert wars on Wikipedia) 8 times.
Since October 1st, 42 of the 149 total entries on the protection log (28%) relate to these articles. And that's without counting several pages that had to be protected when several IPs believed to be User:Turrican began systematically reverting VeryVerily, or the mediation pages Bcorr protected while trying to deal with the proposed mediation between Shorne and VeryVerily. Nor does this list include various pages on which these users engaged in revert wars that did not result in page protection. Dealing with this problem would significantly reduce the number of locked pages.
I find this comment by Tuomas on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily2 insightful:
I think it is time to send the message to revert warriors of all POVs that this conduct is unacceptable. The vast majority of Wikipedians enforce the three revert rule against themselves through respect for community norms, willingness to engage in discussion, and ultimately by their own self-control. For those who lack these qualities, I ask the Arbitration Committee to quickly and expeditiously allow enforcement in appropriate cases. This has been largely successful in restricting similar behavior by Wik and Cantus, although unfortunately Wik was unable to abide living with the restrictions placed on him.
The case presented is very simple. It should not take the Arbitration Committee long to decide. I ask for only these things:
The proposed remedy is narrowly focused on the objectionable behavior. I ask the Arbitration Committee not to dally with broader remedies (like banning these users from certain types of articles) at this time. If revert paroles prove insufficient, such remedies can be considered at a later date. -- Michael Snow 05:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(From the case "Users Ruy Lopez, Shorne, and VeryVerily" which has been merged with this case)
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)
User:VeryVerily has refused to agree to mediation, while engaging in an edit war with me over the name of the mediation subpage where I moved the request (see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily and Shorne, Ruy Lopez and User talk:Bcorr#.95 RfM).
BCorr, Chair of the Mediation Committee, 12:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
No self-respecting person could accept such an affront with equanimity. Shorne 01:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would like this to go more quickly. The sooner the better. I'm willing to accept whatever the arbitrators choose, provided that it is sufficiently punitive and applied consistently and proportionally. Kevin Baas | talk 22:55, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
In proposed decision it says "For failing to discuss reverts, Shorne, Ruy Lopez, and Gzornenplatz are banned for one week; VeryVerily for two weeks."
Brief response: Ruy Lopez is an incarnation of Richardchilton. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richardchilton. This user should have been banned long ago, if only for his declarations of war and subsequent implementation, if not his vandalism, subvandalism, unilateralism, and persistent whitewashing of communist regimes. Shorne went on the attack on a huge number of articles pertaining to communism and began deleting everything unfavorable he could get his hands on, while writing flagrant POV attacks on the US on other articles. If you don't want to believe me, glance at Fred Bauder (a respected arbcom member)'s description below, which should settle the matter. I prevented these users from running wild on Wikipedia and wrecking our good articles. Not that I'm expecting gratitude. Very Verily 03:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Users Shorne, VeryVerily, Gzornenplatz continue to wage wasteful edit wars pending resolution of this matter, see page history for an example of Shorne and VeryVerily at work. If you check the talk page you will find a great deal of argumentation from Shorne, but little or no checking of references provided by others or presentation of references on behalf of his own edits, while VeryVerily dispenses even with talk. For Gzornenplatz see the page history of Katowice, another example of the German names for Polish cities nonsense. Again no substantial discussion by Gzornenplatz on Talk:Katowice. Fred Bauder 14:42, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
There are proposed temp. orders being voted for at
/Proposed decision.
Martin 02:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
1) Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorised to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.
2) 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.
3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.
1) Contributors are expected to obey Wikipedia policies, including the three revert rule.
2) When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum.
3) When reverting, users are expected to give their reasons in the edit summaries.
4) When disputing the accuracy or neutrality of an article, users are always expected to give a reason on the article's talk page.
5) Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others.
6) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
7) Although discussion is always encouraged, the Arbitration Committee does not expect users to compromise in all circumtances; doing so would serve only to support cranks and POV pushers.
8) In cases where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.
1) Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily have all violated the three revert rule on numerous occasions during numerous disputes. Kevin Baas has as well, but not nearly to the extent of the others. Gzornenplatz refused to follow it even after being asked by Jimbo himself.
2) During many of those disputes, Gzornenplatz, Shorne, Ruy Lopez, and especially VeryVerily made no attempt at a dialogue.
Random sampling of non-use of talk page:
1) For failing to discuss reverts, Shorne, Ruy Lopenz, and Gzornenplatz are banned for one week; VeryVerily for two weeks.
2) For making personal attacks on Arbitration pages and trying to disrupt the process of Arbitration, Shorne is banned for one week.
3) VeryVerily, Shorne, and Gzornenplatz are hereby limited to one revert per page per day (this includes any page editable on the English Wikipedia).
4) Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily, and Ruy Lopez are required to discuss all reverts on the relevant talk page, with the goal of finding mutually acceptable compromises.
5) If Gzornenplatz, VeryVerily, or Shorne can demonstrate good behavior (abiding by wikipedia policies and generally sociable editing habits), in 6 months, they may each request that the Arbitration Committee reduce or lift the revert parole against them.
6) For repeated violations of the three revert rule, VeryVerily and Shorne and Gzornenplatz are placed on a 3 month general probation. If during this period they violate the other remedies passed in this case, then they can, at the discretion of the Committee, be ordered to serve the rest of their probation period banned from editing the English Wikipedia.
1) If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page more than once per day, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours.
2) If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page without discussing it on the relevant talk page, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours.
Case Closed on 22 Dec 2004
Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.
All of the users named above have engaged in multiple revert wars recently on various pages. Each of them has appeared before the Arbitration Committee in the past or is presently under consideration by them. Requests for comment or requests for mediation have been attempted for each of these users, but their excessive reverting continues nevertheless. Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily have openly stated that they do not intend to abide by the three revert rule (see for example Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gzornenplatz).
These tactics lead to needless protection of pages, clutter page histories, flood recent changes, and interfere with the efforts of other editors. Often these revert wars are conducted without any real attempts at discussion on talk pages. Instead of negotiating over disputed changes, these users often have the attitude that they can state their position once and then enforce it, rather than debating the merits of their edits with others.
In the past month alone, these users have precipitated protection of the following pages (participants in the revert war are indicated, but the parties other than these three users generally abided by the three revert rule):
Note: talk* means the talk page was not even used during the dispute that led to page protection. In many of the other instances, the discussion that did take place was inadequate or inappropriate. For those keeping score, VeryVerily is listed here 17 times, Gzornenplatz 11+ times, and Shorne (a newer participant in the revert wars on Wikipedia) 8 times.
Since October 1st, 42 of the 149 total entries on the protection log (28%) relate to these articles. And that's without counting several pages that had to be protected when several IPs believed to be User:Turrican began systematically reverting VeryVerily, or the mediation pages Bcorr protected while trying to deal with the proposed mediation between Shorne and VeryVerily. Nor does this list include various pages on which these users engaged in revert wars that did not result in page protection. Dealing with this problem would significantly reduce the number of locked pages.
I find this comment by Tuomas on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily2 insightful:
I think it is time to send the message to revert warriors of all POVs that this conduct is unacceptable. The vast majority of Wikipedians enforce the three revert rule against themselves through respect for community norms, willingness to engage in discussion, and ultimately by their own self-control. For those who lack these qualities, I ask the Arbitration Committee to quickly and expeditiously allow enforcement in appropriate cases. This has been largely successful in restricting similar behavior by Wik and Cantus, although unfortunately Wik was unable to abide living with the restrictions placed on him.
The case presented is very simple. It should not take the Arbitration Committee long to decide. I ask for only these things:
The proposed remedy is narrowly focused on the objectionable behavior. I ask the Arbitration Committee not to dally with broader remedies (like banning these users from certain types of articles) at this time. If revert paroles prove insufficient, such remedies can be considered at a later date. -- Michael Snow 05:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(From the case "Users Ruy Lopez, Shorne, and VeryVerily" which has been merged with this case)
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)
User:VeryVerily has refused to agree to mediation, while engaging in an edit war with me over the name of the mediation subpage where I moved the request (see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily and Shorne, Ruy Lopez and User talk:Bcorr#.95 RfM).
BCorr, Chair of the Mediation Committee, 12:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
No self-respecting person could accept such an affront with equanimity. Shorne 01:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would like this to go more quickly. The sooner the better. I'm willing to accept whatever the arbitrators choose, provided that it is sufficiently punitive and applied consistently and proportionally. Kevin Baas | talk 22:55, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
In proposed decision it says "For failing to discuss reverts, Shorne, Ruy Lopez, and Gzornenplatz are banned for one week; VeryVerily for two weeks."
Brief response: Ruy Lopez is an incarnation of Richardchilton. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richardchilton. This user should have been banned long ago, if only for his declarations of war and subsequent implementation, if not his vandalism, subvandalism, unilateralism, and persistent whitewashing of communist regimes. Shorne went on the attack on a huge number of articles pertaining to communism and began deleting everything unfavorable he could get his hands on, while writing flagrant POV attacks on the US on other articles. If you don't want to believe me, glance at Fred Bauder (a respected arbcom member)'s description below, which should settle the matter. I prevented these users from running wild on Wikipedia and wrecking our good articles. Not that I'm expecting gratitude. Very Verily 03:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Users Shorne, VeryVerily, Gzornenplatz continue to wage wasteful edit wars pending resolution of this matter, see page history for an example of Shorne and VeryVerily at work. If you check the talk page you will find a great deal of argumentation from Shorne, but little or no checking of references provided by others or presentation of references on behalf of his own edits, while VeryVerily dispenses even with talk. For Gzornenplatz see the page history of Katowice, another example of the German names for Polish cities nonsense. Again no substantial discussion by Gzornenplatz on Talk:Katowice. Fred Bauder 14:42, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
There are proposed temp. orders being voted for at
/Proposed decision.
Martin 02:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
1) Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorised to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.
2) 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.
3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.
1) Contributors are expected to obey Wikipedia policies, including the three revert rule.
2) When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum.
3) When reverting, users are expected to give their reasons in the edit summaries.
4) When disputing the accuracy or neutrality of an article, users are always expected to give a reason on the article's talk page.
5) Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others.
6) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
7) Although discussion is always encouraged, the Arbitration Committee does not expect users to compromise in all circumtances; doing so would serve only to support cranks and POV pushers.
8) In cases where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.
1) Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily have all violated the three revert rule on numerous occasions during numerous disputes. Kevin Baas has as well, but not nearly to the extent of the others. Gzornenplatz refused to follow it even after being asked by Jimbo himself.
2) During many of those disputes, Gzornenplatz, Shorne, Ruy Lopez, and especially VeryVerily made no attempt at a dialogue.
Random sampling of non-use of talk page:
1) For failing to discuss reverts, Shorne, Ruy Lopenz, and Gzornenplatz are banned for one week; VeryVerily for two weeks.
2) For making personal attacks on Arbitration pages and trying to disrupt the process of Arbitration, Shorne is banned for one week.
3) VeryVerily, Shorne, and Gzornenplatz are hereby limited to one revert per page per day (this includes any page editable on the English Wikipedia).
4) Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily, and Ruy Lopez are required to discuss all reverts on the relevant talk page, with the goal of finding mutually acceptable compromises.
5) If Gzornenplatz, VeryVerily, or Shorne can demonstrate good behavior (abiding by wikipedia policies and generally sociable editing habits), in 6 months, they may each request that the Arbitration Committee reduce or lift the revert parole against them.
6) For repeated violations of the three revert rule, VeryVerily and Shorne and Gzornenplatz are placed on a 3 month general probation. If during this period they violate the other remedies passed in this case, then they can, at the discretion of the Committee, be ordered to serve the rest of their probation period banned from editing the English Wikipedia.
1) If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page more than once per day, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours.
2) If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page without discussing it on the relevant talk page, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours.