Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:55, 12 Jul 2004), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct.

  • Description:
"There is no consensus if I disagree with it." -- VeryVerily, on his talk page
  • VeryVerily, in clear contravention to established principals of Wikietiquette and consensus-building, has made repeatedly made reverted edits on George W. Bush that were agreed upon by the community. First, some background. After an edit dispute that caused the page to be temporarily protected, I initiated a poll on the talk page. VeryVerily, Kevin baas, and myself each made a proposal and a vote was taken over the next four or five days. VV’s suggestion got two, Kevin’s five, and myself 11. After a few days, it was clear that my version had been determined as the best one. Kevin, and many users who had voted for his version and VV’s accepted this, VV did not.
  • After Blankfaze had unprotected the page, and the consensus version was put in, VeryVerily made radical changes to it nine times, changing terminology and removing a relevant wikilink. In addition, VV misrepresented his edits in the summary box as "minor improvements."
  • Though both I and Gzornenplatz reverted VV’s edits back to the consensus version, VV continued to ignore consensus, even as we communicated with him, first in edit summaries and at his talk page.
  • In summary, VeryVerily ignores consensus, inserts POV, misrepresents edits in edit summaries, refuses to discuss issues.
  • Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links):
  • Applicable policies:
  • Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):
  • Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~~~~):
  • Other users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
  • Shard 05:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I suspect this vote. Is Shard a sockpuppet? First edit 26 July 2004, and his 6th edit the very next date is voting on a user dispute? -- Cecropia | Talk 06:44, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. No sockpuppet of mine, to be sure, but I'm mighty uncertain.--Neutrality 21:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

First, it is important to note that Neutrality's claim about the poll is completely fraudulent. Neutrality altered the text after nearly all votes had been cast, to include some of the very language that is now being disputed. [5] [6] By comparison, here are the changes I am trying to make: [7].
Second, nearly everything else is false. I made a significant effort to work with Neutrality, but his tactic of "Revert first and ask questions later" is obnoxious. As Jimbo put it, "a revert is a slap in the face". Yet that is how Neutrality handled the FOX News flare-up, where he was so intent on reverting me he by his own admission he did not even notice the edits I was making [8], even as I was searching for wording to please him. Unsurprisingly, similar behavior has been manifested on the Bush article.
As for me "refusing to discuss issues", I have tried very hard to work constructively with this user. My last note on his Talk page was detailed and intended to be conciliatory [9]. He never responded. I also replied to him on my talk page, and never got a response. (Looking at his note on User talk:Gzornenplatz, he may not have been interested in a response, but rather was seeking to satisfy the technical requirements of an RfC page.)
As for me "reverting edits", almost every one of my reverts have just been restoring my own work recklessly reverted.
There are many users who seem very interested in seeing Bush painted in as negative a light as possible. I'm not a Bush fan myself, but I do insist that the coverage be balanced and neutral. To say that my edits were "POV" is outrageous - point to an example of this, if you can, Neutrality. Since primarily I was weakening overly broad claims, that is not defensible.
There are more details about the polling process I would add, but I've spent enough time on this. Suffice it to say that consensus requires more agreement than appears to exist.
Addendum: I gave detailed statistics in the Talk page, as you can see for yourself, to back up my position.
VV 05:15, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  1. VV 05:14, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) (endorsing my own summary)
  2. Rex071404 22:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Once again, I see this as an article dispute being made into a user dispute. "To come to a court of equity, one must have clean hands" and I see Neutrality as just as stubbornly reverting other people's work both on George W. Bush and John Kerry without adequate discussion, though I will grant he wrote a reasonable piece on Kerry's medals after a couple of editors (including me) spoke to him. As with the action against User:Get-back-world-respect, I think this should be worked out in article talk. If someone wants me or another admin to {{protect}} the article page, I'm sure this could be done, and hash this out either on article talk (with an RfC article redirect) or make a /Temp page or /Draft page to wrangle over the changes. I realize there was a vote, but are these arguments of fact, and cannot be cast in stone by a consensus.
For my own part, I think the disputed language is a tempest in a teapot wasting a lor of time that could be spent editing other articles, which is why I almost never edit on the two articles in question any more. I also am against using RfC against editors except in the most egregious cases. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:43, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Users agreeing with this perspective:

  1. Endorse own comment Cecropia | Talk 05:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutrality, I'm afraid you did shoot yourself in the foot a bit with your late changes which did weaken the neutrality of the initial proposed wording, but VV is clearly pushing things back harder than he should. Why not let the numbers speak for themselves? easy. (Minor point: By the way Neutrality, your case would have been a tiny bit stronger if you linked to diffs ov VV's changes rather than the reversions of his changes) best wishes to all Erich 11:27, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. User:Neutrality is up for vote as a mediator??? This argument speaks strongly against the appointment. Both positions are POV, and the passage in question called for a historical perspective, rather than one which is going to change week-by-week. I find the case not proven. Noisy 12:24, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. I have to agree with this. Ilyanep (Talk) 12:59, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Yes, purely an article dispute, but I don't blame Neutrality too much. From my experience, article RfCs are usually ignored. Johnleemk | Talk 13:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response[edit]

"Once again, I see this as an article dispute being made into a user dispute."

This is not an article dispute, this is an interpersonal dispute. The articles rightful content has already been determined on the George W. Bush talk page. VV refuses to accept this, and he reverts the changes. This is not an RfC about the content of George W. Bush, but about VV?s actions.

"I see Neutrality as just as stubbornly reverting other people's work both on George W. Bush and John Kerry without adequate discussion"

Adequate discussion? The version I (and several others) reverted to was voted on and discussed extensively on the talk page. I instigated the vote and multiple users made suggestions and uses voted among them. My version got 11, his two. Most users, even the ones that did not vote for mine, accepted this. That's not "stubborness," that's sanity.

"Though I will grant he wrote a reasonable piece on Kerry's medals after a couple of editors (including me) spoke to him."

This suggests that I only write unbiased pieces if I am forced to by you. Nonsense.

"As with the action against User:Get-back-world-respect, I think this should be worked out in article talk."

As I said above, we worked this out on talk with a five-day long poll. The version was properly unprotected, the consensus version was put in, and VV continuously reverts. It?s a form of extortion. What else can we do on talk? Reference VV?s quote above ? ?there is no consensus if I disagree with it.? How can you negotiate with a person like that? Is VV?s opinion worth that of 11 other users, several of them respected users and sysops?

FYI: Accuser Neutrality has injected himself deeply into controversy at John Kerry as well[edit]

I suggest that this group consider that Neutrality has enaged in activites which could imply a hidden anti-Bush agenda. If that is true, this underscores perhaps his motivations against VeryVerily. A careful examination of Neutrality's actions at the George_W._Bush talk page and history will show he had considerable conflict with VeryVerily there.

Looking at that in the light of the conflict Neutrality has been invloved with me at John Kerry, leads me to believe that there is a drive to silence certain editors who disagree with him polticially. For your information, in a current Arbitration proceeding, my chief complaints against Neutrality are: Misleading/false edit summaries, excessive reversions and refusal to dialog on Talk page.

Also, please take note of the Rfc [10] against the user name "Neutrality" and see that Neutrality is quick to "archive" anything which impacts him, while at the same time, has no problems with persuing others.

Rex071404 07:52, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is utterly irrelevant, and is an attempt at ad hominem logical fallacy. Kevin Baas | talk 19:04, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I don't quite understand the comments above by Cecropia et al. There was an article RfC, and the whole point here is that VeryVerily ignored its result. This is not about the article dispute; myself, I didn't even vote for Neutrality's version, but it won by a clear margin and it must be considered the best consensus that can be reached. That VeryVerily then reverted essentially to his version, which only got two votes, is a proper matter for a user RfC. I agree that Neutrality shouldn't have kept reverting either, which predictably just led to page protection, but at least he was reverting to the consensus version. The late changes Neutrality made to his version during the vote are not essential, given that VeryVerily has refused my offer to have a new vote, even sentence by sentence, saying essentially that he considers most voters here to be anti-Bush and voting accordingly, so that he can't recognize any such vote. Gzornenplatz 07:06, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

This is a user RfC. Notice the title of the RfC is the name of a user. The initiator of the RfC determines whether it is a user or an article RfC, and it is not anyone's place to second-guess the concern of another person. This page is for making comments regarding the actions and behavior of VV. The content of any article or the actions of any other user does not belong here, and only obfuscates the issue, impending it's proper resolution.

From an objective standpoint, so far as I can see, the allegations made against VV are objectively and indisputably accurate. After his edit was reverted, rather than discuss it on talk page, which is what I always do in such a case, as it seems to me only reasonable, he reverted again. A revert war insued. The one who makes a change is responsible for substantiating it. If there is a lasting dispute, the page should be returned to the state before the disputed change, and the dispute resolved on the talk page. If an agreement cannot be reached between all parties by reason, a poll should be taken, and the result of that poll should determine the outcome. Consensus was reached on the paragraph, by poll. While voting, the voters commented on the version that they voted for. Neutrality took the liberty of making minor changes to incorporate the suggestions of those voting for his version. I doubt that anyone who voted for his version would object to these minor changes, seeing as though they encouraged them.

The first change was made early in the poll: notably->significantly, and a link was inserted. The second change, which was made perhaps inappropriately late, was signifcantly->much. However late, this change complied with the suggestions of those voting for the version. It is reasonable to infer, thus, that the final version still reflects consensus, perhaps even more than the initial version. The page became unprotected, and the final version was inserted.

Soon afterwards, VV unilaterally made, as I concur with Neutrality, radical changes to the paragraph, diluting it (which is a form of POV) such as "is much lower"->"tends to be lower", and added irrelevant and false information: "although significant minorites continue to report favorable views" - as anyone familiar with demographics knows, minorities predominately vote democratic, and anyone politically informed knows they are "significantly" perturbed by the current president. The introduction of "significant" to such a demographically misleading insertion, after the reverse change of "is much"->"tends to be" clearly constitutes a strong shift away from established consensus and towards a POV. This objectively violates consensus and NPOV. Kevin Baas | talk 00:01, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the outside view again - there is no article dispute. The paragraph is not disputed. Consensus was reached, quite recently in fact. I repeat, there is no article dispute. Kevin Baas | talk 00:19, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

User's conduct has not changed[edit]

I don't know if it's appropriate for me to continue this here, if not, I apologize in advance. I thought it should be noted that the VeryVerily has continued to conduct himself in the manner described above, resulting in the George W. Bush page being protected once again. (The page had been protected due to VV's obstinate violation of consensus at about the same time this RfC was posted. after some time it became unprotected. Today it has become protected again.) This occured after repeated attempts from multiple users to convince him to use due process (discuss substantial changes to a disputed article on the talk page first, esp. sensitive sections which have explicit consensus). [11] In my opinion, VV has been very uncooperative, and I can't think of any actions of his in the past couple of weeks that could be construed as examples of cooperation. Kevin Baas | talk 01:21, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)


Today, VeriVerily engaged in as many as three revert wars: George W. Bush, Anti-American sentiment had to be protected, I also requested the same action at Project for the New American Century. At Anti-American sentiment he even started the same edit war that had led to protection the last time right away after protection was removed. He had refused to discuss in the meantime, in spite of several requests of several users. Veriverily does not even summarize his controversial edits. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Get-back-world-respect 01:30, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily's behaviour has still not changed. He keeps reverting two sections of the George W. Bush article (those regarding his popularity and the 2000 election) to versions different from those supported by majorities on the talk page. Gzornenplatz 02:54, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

User's conduct still has not changed[edit]

still revert warring on Bush, two more pages to add to the list now: Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration, Anti-American sentiment. Still not discussing. Still violating policy. The only thing about VV's conduct that has changed is the scale: he is now conducting himself this way on more pages, with less discussion.

Kevin Baas | talk 05:21, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)


Even deletes factual information he does not like

[25] and repeatedly reincludes dozens of typos because he is too lazy and stubborn to defend his ideological position otherwise ([26] [27] [28] "a couple typos are small potatoes to the serious content issues"). Get-back-world-respect 07:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

More evidence of disruptive and destructive behaviour from VeryVerily[edit]

I am not party to the dispute over the article on George Bush, but I should like to point out that user VeryVerily has shown the very same pattern of disruptive and destructive behaviour in numerous other articles, among them Henry Kissinger, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, Communist state, and Khmer Rouge. The article Henry Kissinger was frozen last night because VeryVerily kept reverting everything that didn't suit him.

He simply reverts changes wholesale, often without even picking out those that should be uncontroversial (such as spelling corrections), and inserts one-sided, even factually incorrect statements over and over. Repeated attempts to get him to discuss proposed changes on the talk pages have led to almost nothing; the occasional accusation of being a "vandal" or a "Stalinist" is about all that he ever posts. He seems hellbent on making articles one-sided—or keeping them that way if, as in many cases, they already are.

There can be no consensus or compromise with someone who insists on getting his way. I and others have sought compromise, but (ab)user VeryVerily will not even meet us halfway. Something must be done to keep this user from waging constant edit wars that merely waste everyone's time and clutter up the database (and the history, which has become all but useless for several articles) with reversions. I also do not believe that mere stubbornness and hardihood are the creators of truth and that the most brazen propagandist should be allowed to prevail by dint of wearing everyone else out by repeatedly inserting or deleting the same old text until (he hopes) other people give up and yield to his petulant demands.

This person also colludes with other troublemakers, notably TDC and Adam Carr, who behave in much the same way.

I remain available to provide details if necessary. The evidence itself is, of course, available for all to see. Shorne 15:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, these charges are absurd. Shorne wanted to add to the intro of the Kissinger article that he killed 600,000 Cambodians. I even offered a rejected compromise. I never called anyone here a Stalinist, and the only person I've called a vandal in a long time is someone who vandalized my user page several times. VeryVerily 01:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why do you lie when the truth is so easy to see? I've been adding the statement that Kissinger has been widely accused of war crimes. Anyone can confirm this by reading the history for Henry Kissinger. As for compromises, see the talk page. Of the two of us, I am the only one who has made any efforts in this direction.
Readers are also welcome to examine VeryVerily's destructive behaviour in the other four articles I mentioned, as well as in South Korea and probably some others. Shorne 01:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reversion of a disputed page[edit]

VeryVerily also just now reverted the page Pol Pot, which was and is marked {{twoversions}}. Such pages are not supposed to be reverted until the issues are resolved. He merely asserted that the issues had been resolved, which is not so, and reverted the page to his preferred propaganda-filled version. Shorne 07:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am the author of the twoversions template. One is supposed to put it up instead of reverting. Shorne reverted and then added it. Furthermore, it's not appropriate here, since he is objecting to an issue which was resolved on the Talk page long ago. VeryVerily 05:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

More trouble from VeryVerily[edit]

Please see Henry Kissinger and its corresponding talk page. Summary: The page was protected because VeryVerily kept insisting on his POV in the introduction. Negotiations on the phrasing were smooth and easy; we quickly reached a unanimous agreement on the wording. VeryVerily did not participate. The page was unprotected. I made the change to which everyone had agreed. VeryVerily came along minutes later and changed it. Obviously this person contemns the opinions of everyone else and insists on getting his own POV into the article. Shorne 05:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I participated in that discussion actively. There was no "POV" in my version at all. VeryVerily 05:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please. Just let this page die already. VV and I have no quarrel anymore. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 05:45, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
Is that because you think your complaint that "VeryVerily ignores consensus, inserts POV, misrepresents edits in edit summaries, refuses to discuss issues" is no longer true, or is it that you now think it's OK to ignore consensus, insert POV, misrepresent edits in edit summaries, and refuse to discuss issues? Gzornenplatz 06:01, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
To Neutrality: You may not have a complaint against VV, but I have lots. The comments that I have written here show clearly how obstructive, dishonest, and impossible VeryVerily is being. If this is not the place for them, I apologise; I came here at someone else's request. Please tell me where to file the complaints, and I shall be glad to transfer them. Shorne 06:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please do file a new RfC. Jumbling different complaints together is confusing. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 15:14, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
The complaints seem to be the same. /Tuomas 09:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Free-for-all[edit]

VeryVerily has lent his assistance to an edit-warring faction at communist state. He just now rejoiced "it's a free for all! [sic]" while repeatedly reverting a change. Shorne 06:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily's merit[edit]

I think VeryVerily does a great job, hampering Shorne's efforts to turn Wikipedia into a site representing a communist point of view only. Boraczek 07:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, his methods are very much in conflict with Wikipedia's written guidelines, and as his methods are seen as successful by a host of POV-pushers, more and more seem to follow his bad example. Wikipedia's reluctance to deal with this kind of problem pushes Wikipedia in the direction of the Usenet Newsgroups. /Tuomas 09:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. The site is degenerating because of VeryVerily and his ilk. If it goes to hell because of the inaction of the administrators, they will have only themselves to blame.
See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for my official complaints (and those of others) against VeryVerily. Shorne 10:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think you have no right to complain about that, Shorne, as your reversion practices are not any better than VerVerily's, and your pushing POV is the real cause of the conflict between you and VeryVerily. Boraczek 10:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Exactly THAT is the kernel of the problem. The "ilk" seem to multiply by provoking mirror-images. /217.209.167.238 10:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can see how VV might feel that Shorne (and other contributors here) is biased towards a communist point of view - but what makes VerilyVerily`s behavior particularly unacceptable is that he doesn`t even try to reach a consensus... and even admits to inserting POV bias into pages. I understand that everyone is a human being and therefore biased, but VerilyVerily doesn`t even seem to be trying to achieve NPOV here on Wikipedia, and seems to want everyone else to agree with his POV. If they don`t... well, we all know VV participates in edit wars with unsurpassed enthusiasm. --Ce garcon 12:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense. I have never inserted POV into articles, I have no ambitions of getting anyone to agree with my POV, and I am far from enthusiastic about edit wars, but regard them as preferable to having the hard work of myself and others ruined by the rampages of a few clueless communist apologists, trolls, and vandals. None of these actors are trying to reach a consensus with me or anyone, although many have tried to reach them (remember I have close to a year of experience with "Ruy Lopez"). Rather, we are dealing with users who are persistently trying to erase vast amounts of material and replace it with long-discredited polemical communist gibberish, wild theories, heavy and loaded rhetoric, and obscene whitewashing of documented atrocities. To say they are "biased" greatly understates the case. VeryVerily 12:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have never seen Shorne try to reach an agreement with VeryVerily. I have only seen Shorne call VeryVerily asshole, jerk, racist, etc. No wonder VeryVerily is not too encouraged to try to reach a consensus with Shorne. Boraczek 15:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I no longer waste my time with someone so obviously stubborn and unwilling to discuss anything. But I have wasted a great deal of time before in a vain attempt to resolve disputes with VeryVerily. If you are interested in the facts, check Khmer Rouge, South Korea, Human rights in the United States, Project for the New American Century, and numerous other articles. The evidence is all permanently displayed on talk pages; it cannot be gainsaid. Shorne 15:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, I have never seen Boraczek try to reach an agreement with Shorne. Instead, people go through Shorne's user history and repeadely revert just about every edit he makes. I'm not even sure that these users are even checking to see the changes he makes to the text. 172 15:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, they often do not. Recently VeryVerily was brought up short and sharp for reverting even spelling corrections (something Boraczek has also been known to do). He ended up tacitly admitting that he had not even examined the batch of changes before reverting it. Shorne 17:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And then VeryVerily tacitly admitted to eating babies, for which he was also sternly rebuked. VeryVerily 00:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I will not even bother to reply to those vile slanders. Boraczek 09:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What I find amusing is that Shorne maliciously accused me of reverting spelling corrections and only 13 hours later he reverted a spelling correction because he didn't even check what he was reverting. See this: [29], line 8. Boraczek 13:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I didn't notice that one word in the midst of a heap of POV stuff. The correction has been restored. Shorne 14:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom temporary order[edit]

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.

Incorrect. This version is mav's unilateral revision of a measure voted upon by the kangaroo court of arbitrators. Please check the history of this page for the authentic version. Shorne 13:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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.

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. --mav 12:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily for a discussion of mav's corruption. Shorne 13:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/VeryVerily2&oldid=1138661109"