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

Evidence presented as part of complaint

This is a list of pages that were protected between September 15 and October 15 as a result of edit wars involving one or more parties to this case. Listed next to each page are the participants in the edit war, defined as anyone who made one or more reverts. In most cases, participants other than the parties to the case did not violate the three revert rule.

1. George W. Bush (talk, history) - Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily (see page history for 28-29 Sep, 2-3 Oct, and 8-9 Oct)
2. Project for the New American Century (talk, history) - VeryVerily and Christiankavanagh, plus single reverts by Gzornenplatz and Get-back-world-respect
3. Anti-American sentiment (talk, history) - VeryVerily, Get-back-world-respect, and Tuomas
4. Khmer Rouge (talk, history) - Shorne, VeryVerily, Ruy Lopez, Adam Carr, Stargoat, TDC, and Ambi
5. Empire of Atlantium (talk, history) - VeryVerily and Gzornenplatz
6. Nagaland (talk, history) - Gzornenplatz and Simonides
7. Pila (talk, history) - Gzornenplatz and Emax
8. Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (talk, history) - VeryVerily, TDC, and Get-back-world-respect
9. Henry Kissinger (talk, history) - VeryVerily, Shorne, Ruy Lopez, and Turrican; also an earlier revert war from September 1st involving Gzornenplatz, VeryVerily, Node ue, and LegCircus
10. Enclave (talk, history) - Gzornenplatz and Gene Poole
11. Template:Sep11 (talk, history) - VeryVerily, Gzornenplatz, Neutrality, plus isolated reverts by several others including anons
12. Great Purge (talk, history) - Shorne, VeryVerily, Boraczek, and Fred Bauder
13. India (talk, history) - Gzornenplatz, Simonides, and Nichalp (VeryVerily edited but did not revert)
14. Gwangju (talk*, history) - VeryVerily and Ruy Lopez
15. History of South Korea (talk*, history) - VeryVerily and Ruy Lopez
16. Communist state (talk, history) - Gzornenplatz, Shorne, VeryVerily, Fred Bauder, Mikkalai, Boraczek, and Ruy Lopez
17. Pol Pot (talk, history) - VeryVerily, Shorne, Ruy Lopez, and Turrican
18. People's Republic of China (talk, history) - Shorne, VeryVerily, Ruy Lopez, Fred Bauder, Boraczek, and Ran
19. Human rights in the United States (talk, history) - VeryVerily, Shorne, and Gazpacho
20. United States (talk, history) - Shorne, VeryVerily, and Cantus
21. Bystrzyca Klodzka (talk, history) - Gzornenplatz, Space Cadet, and Halibutt
22. Poznan (talk*, history) - Gzornenplatz, Radomil, and Halibutt
23. September 11, 2001 attacks (talk*, history) - Gzornenplatz, VeryVerily, and 198

Notes:

• talk* means that the talk page was not used by the participants during the period surrounding the edit war.
• Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily did not each violate the three revert rule for every edit war in which they are listed here. For example, VeryVerily only reverted once initially on September 11, 2001 attacks (but see the subsequent history for another edit war). However, in most of the cases for which they are listed they did violate the rule, which is why the pages had to be protected.

Ruy Lopez et Shorne contra VeryVerily

User:VeryVerily, User:Shorne, and User:Ruy Lopez

I hereby request mediation with User:VeryVerily, whose behaviour makes any sort of progress on the affected articles singularly impossible. Specifically:

1. He constantly reverts changes over and over again when they do not match his POV. He also adds blatantly biased, opinionated, sometimes even factually incorrect material and will not tolerate any attempt to neutralise it. He has proven himself utterly intransigent with regard to compromises. Pages severely affected in the past few days include, but are not limited to, the following:
   • Khmer Rouge
   • Pol Pot
   • Henry Kissinger
   • People's Republic of China
   • United States
   • Human rights in the United States
   • History of Cuba
   • Communism
   • Communist state
   • South Korea
   • Kim Jong-il

   Some of these pages have had to be protected, precisely because of VeryVerily's unyielding behaviour.

2. Even when asked—in capital letters, no less, and over and over—to discuss issues on the talk pages, he does not do so. On the rare occasion when he appears on a talk page, it is generally to call me a "POV-pusher", a "whitewasher", or something of the sort or to portray himself as a long-suffering victim of oppression.
3. Because of (2), it is absolutely impossible to negotiate with VeryVerily, let alone reach a compromise. Recently the page Henry Kissinger was protected, largely owing to his behaviour as described in (1) and (2). The issue to be resolved was a single sentence in the introduction. Everyone involved participated but VeryVerily, who remained mute throughout. We quickly reached a consensus on the wording and adopted it unanimously. A few hours ago, when the page was unprotected, I registered the accepted wording in the article. Minutes later, VeryVerily replaced it with something slanted of his own, quite unlike anything that had been discussed during the negotiations.

Anyone as utterly insufferable as VeryVerily is not here to make useful contributions. His impossible behaviour merely wastes everyone's time and retards the development of the encyclopædia. There can be only one way—his—, as he has proven countless times in numerous articles. I also see that I am not the only one to have experienced this problem. I am confident that I have already said more than the panel of mediators needed to hear, as they must be amply familiar with VeryVerily's antics by now. Nevertheless, I shall be happy to provide details and references to substantiate the preceding charges, and I shall, of course, be delighted to coöperate fully with a mediator. Whether VeryVerily will meet me halfway I sincerely doubt. Shorne 10:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to say that Shorne doesn't seem to allow any compromise. He just presents his extremist views and puts them in articles. He discards all opinions other than his own and all data not supporting his views (even the generally known and obvious facts) as "lies and propaganda" and remove them from articles without any discussion or adding comments. Then he reverts changes made by other Wikipedians. His strategy is to make a reversion and then try to engage opponents in endless and ineffective discussions, so as to let his version stay. It is enough to look at the articles he edited - I guess he was involved in an edit war in each of them and not only with VeryVerily, but with many other users (including me). Boraczek 08:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User Boraczek is welcome to cite references to substantiate his allegations if they pertain to my dispute with user VeryVerily. Generalities, however, are not helpful. I should add that I first crossed Boraczek's path less than twenty-four hours ago. Shorne 12:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wish to join this request and participate in it. My experiences in attempting to negotiate with Shorne with respect to the articles Communism, Great Purge, Communist state and People's Republic of China have been very unsatisfactory. In my view he seems unwilling to either come up with references of his own for his edits or to permit opposing edits to remain in the article, even when references are provided in support of them. Fred Bauder 12:40, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

First of all, as I've said elsewhere on this page, this page is about VeryVerily, how he has, with anyone with eyes to see it, broken rules such as the three revert rule - a rule which he has been banned for breaking before. This is not the place to make ad hominem attacks on the many people unhappy with him (me, Shorne, Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas etc.) Why are people coming in here, which is not the place for it at all, to make ad hominem attacks on his many accusers? This is a section for discussing VeryVerily's breaking of rules, the same exact rules he's been banned for breaking before, not ad hominem attacks on his legion of accusers. Nonetheless, I'll take the bait for this. Fred Bauder makes reference to four articles here, only one of which I'm familiar with, Great Purge. I dispute the notion that Shorne is being unreasonable on that page. In fact, I was going through the edits recently wondering who changed the page to make it more in the Conquest vein and saw it was Shorne. Which I am planning to change by the way. Shorne has been negotiating the Great Purge page in discussion. VeryVerily, who broke the three revert rule on the page, has made a grand total of one entry to the discussion page. I leave whom is being more unreasonable on the Great Purge page, Shorne or VeryVerily, as an exercise to the reader. I think everyone on that page has been reasonable, except one or two TDC edits, and all of VeryVerily's work on it. And as I said, this is a page about VeryVerily, not as hominem attacks on the many people who want to see him abide by the three revert rule. Ruy Lopez 17:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If user Fred Bauder has a dispute with me, he is welcome to request mediation. The present request is not appropriate for him to join because it concerns disputes solely between user VeryVerily and me. Said disputes could not possibly include Fred Bauder because they have not even contained any significant degree of communication between the two parties concerned. In addition, the present dispute is qualitatively different from any that may exist between Fred Bauder and me, and I must insist on keeping it as it is, for reasons that will become clear once it is under way. Therefore I respectfully reject Fred Bauder's petition to join this request, at least in its initial stages. Shorne 12:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:VeryVerily indeed hasn't attempted to join the discussion where the Henry Kissinger article is concerned. I'm still reading the discussion on the talk page more closely to determine whether there was indeed concensus over the changes. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 13:01, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Then who wrote all the comments signed by me? VeryVerily 13:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The comments you made did not show you were attempting to reach consensus. You just said others were wrong. If you can show me a quote from that discussion and prove otherwise, I'd be happy to retract my claim. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 16:56, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Lest this claim deceive anyone, I wish to point out here how very little VeryVerily did say in the discussion. I have marked late additions that were added only today, some two hours after the page was unprotected. VeryVerily avoided the direct question "It's a good solution. Are you willing to work with it?", which was plainly aimed at achieving consensus. Noticing this refusal, the people involved, having achieved a decision with no input of substance from VeryVerily, decided to proceed. Two days later, no comment from VeryVerily having been received, User:Gentgeen, who had been monitoring the discussion, concluded that "a consensus of those willing to discuss the matter ha[d] been reached" and accordingly unprotected the article. If VeryVerily was not "willing to discuss the matter", it is not because of lack of opportunity. And he certainly is not justified in returning once the matter had been settled and imposing his own preference upon everyone else. Shorne 13:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For the record I was distracted on Oct 9 and didn't notice that my comment had been replied to (though not answered) when I glanced at that page. For one, I was repelling a vandal attack. I don't think absence for one day constitutes implicit agreement, especially given my previous level of activity. At any rate, I'm not going to concede, so it's moot. VeryVerily 20:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't be coy. No one is going to fall for your claim. The fact that you are "not going to concede" one bit shows that there would be no point in further discussion. A consensus has been reached, and a minority of one who won't coöperate will not be allowed to get his way.

Again, I request mediation. Given the urgency of the situation, I also call for a temporary ban on repeated reversions by VeryVerily that are not backed by discussion on the talk page. (This is the prelude to a permanent ban on such outrageous activity, but I think that intervention right this minute is justified.) Shorne 22:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my charge that VeryVerily did not join the discussion. Please start reading at the heading "Something is wrong" (in Talk:Henry Kissinger), started by an unsigned user. I joined the discussion on October 6 and have had nothing but frustration since. I'm afraid I had absolutely no choice but to bring this matter to mediation. Shorne 13:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User VeryVerily just now averred the following, at User talk:Fred Bauder, in connexion with me:

Until the bureaucracy here functions more like a court than a circus, I am happy to use the main tool at my disposal - reverting - to deal with problem users. I appreciate your support for this effort on the few articles where you have provided it, as the only thing that has ever worked to dissuade attackers is making it clear their efforts will be for naught.

I think it is quite clear to everyone that he is acting as a self-appointed censor, with utter disregard for the rules of the site and for the most minimal standards, evidently under the delusion that he knows best. This cannot be tolerated any longer. I demand action. Shorne 04:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request urgent action against User:VeryVerily

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution states: "These steps [for dispute resolution] are designed for resolving disagreements between two or more parties. Vandalism and flagrant violations of Wikipedia policies and behavior guidelines by repeat offenders may be handled using expedited procedures, potentially resulting in the offender being banned from Wikipedia."

There is no "dispute" between user VeryVerily and me, simply because he refuses to discuss anything. I therefore request expedited procedures to curtail his single-minded disregard of the collaborative and coöperative spirit of Wikipedia. See the preceding request for mediation for a discussion of the details.

I wish to have a temporary block imposed on this user whenever he makes any change twice in a row without discussing it on the talk page. I may add to this request later if necessary. Shorne 22:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mediation is not a place to oppose binding penalties—only ArbCom and Jimbo can do that. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:26, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

So far I have seen no action whatsoever in response to my request. Since mediation is not possible with someone who refuses to discuss anything or recognise the "circus" that is in his opinion the "bureaucracy" of the arbitration committee, I would like to know just exactly what can and will be done about this obnoxious user. Evidently he has waged his petty little battles all over hell's half acre before, and nothing much has been done. Why is that? Is he a 51% shareholder or something? Or could he be right in calling the administration a circus? Shorne 04:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Abuse, abuse, abuse. Somehow I don't blame him for being unwilling to mediate, facing this sort of conduct. Ambi 07:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Somehow I'm not surprised that you feel that way. Shorne 08:48, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very Verily's modus operandi

VeryVerily's modus operandi seems to be seeing an edit he doesn't like, deciding not to talk about it in the article discussion, or even in his comment, nor leave a message for the user on their user page, but simply to revert it. Then he goes through the user's edit history and reverts their last dozen or so edits. It's probably the best attempt at being annoying in the shortest amount of time - someone spends hours editting articles, and within one minute you revert everything they've done, and furthermore you only do it to one user so only one person is mad at you (to begin with). He seems to do this for a lot of users. In reading the above, he seems to be aggravating a lot of people. He also seems to have no regard for the three-revert rule, which he continually flouts. From reading over his history, I also see that he has been reprimanded by admins in the past for abusive behavior - he was banned from Wikipedia at one point. I ask for the mediators to do something about this user, or else these rever wars will spiral out of control. Ruy Lopez 04:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do not revert users' edits arbitrarily. VeryVerily 05:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't be coy. We're all onto you and your antics. Shorne 05:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quoted from Talk:Khmer Rouge:

Ruy Lopez, or whatever your name is today, I will revert if need be a hundred times your attempt yet again to whitewash the Khmer Rouge. VeryVerily 21:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Readers who check Talk:Khmer Rouge will see who the true whitewashers are. Shorne 21:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And from User talk:Fred Bauder:

I wrote voluminous amounts of material on all the community pages about these people early this year. No action was ever taken, despite me pleading for it. I am not going to waste more hours haggling with them over simple historical facts which have already been laid out for them and documented ad nauseam in the Talk pages. The only thing that has made them go away was having every one of their execrable edits reverted on sight. Perhaps you just don't have enough experience with these people and their behavior on in particular the Cambodia pages to understand this. Your approach of "soft and steady" I think reflects naivete about what we're up against. Do you want Wikipedia to be ruined while we spend months writing up RfC's and making gentle suggestions on the Talk pages? VeryVerily 21:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or people will leave. That, of course, is what he wants. Shorne 04:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've been reading over the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution pages regarding this. One sentence says "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." This is advice for people like me trying to deal with VeryVerily, but it is something which he seems to have no conception of. Ruy Lopez 04:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How does one "improve" an edit which consists of mass erasure of all facts about the Khmer Rouge which are unfavorable to it? VeryVerily 05:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Readers are invited to see Talk:Khmer Rouge for a refutation of those "facts". Shorne 05:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. This is the clear message that I am getting. Shorne 04:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VV has broken the Wikipedia:Three revert rule on several articles within the past two hours. Great Purge and Khmer Rouge are two examples. So far VeryVerily has done five reverts within the past two hours on Khmer Rouge and Great Purge, among other pages. Ruy Lopez 05:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Make that six. Also at United States (five in the past two hours), People's Republic of China (six), Lon Nol (four), Human rights in the United States (five), and Pol Pot (six, culminating in the protection of the article by User:Mirv). Shorne 05:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And who was that other person matching him revert for revert? Why, it was you, it seems. You'd have more credibility if you showed more respect for Wikipedia policy yourself. Stan 06:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Meaning that I should allow him to destroy my changes and not restore them? Shorne 06:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Making an ad hominem attack is an easy way to distract from the issue of VeryVerily's conduct, which has a long history, with many complaints by many people going a long way back. This mediation request was made by Gzornenplatz, Shorne is just one of VeryVerily's victims. Anyhow, Shorne has been on Wikipedia for less than a month, and I just sent him a link to the three revert rule page. VeryVerily has a long history of complaints, and has been banned before for his behavior. I am yet another user having a revert war with VeryVerily, I have been around long enough to know that I should stand aside and let the page stay the way VeryVerily wants it when VeryVerily openly breaks the three revert rule. Ruy Lopez 07:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. When I've disagreed with him on various issues, I've found him far more willing to negotiate than many others on Wikipedia. Ambi 07:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You've been just as bad as him, only with the added addition that your changes are biased as well. Furthermore, I think you've got the wrong page. If you want to attack someone's conduct, go file an RfC. Mediation is for people who want to resolve disputes, not pour petrol on the flames. Ambi 06:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne is "just as bad as" VeryVerily? VeryVerily is a user with a long history of user complaints against him, and has been banned previously for misbehavior. How is Shorne "just as bad" as that? Furthermore Shorne is a somewhat new user, VeryVerily is flagrantly breaking rules which he knows since he has been around for much longer and has been banned for breaking those rules before. In dispute resolution, arbitration is the "last step" in dispute resolution, and so far two arbitrators have said VeryVerily is in need of arbitration (and none have disagreed). "Mediation is for people who want to resolve disputes, not pour petrol on the flames" - the dispute is many users have complained about VeryVerily breaking the rules, VeryVerily has made clear he does not care. We are asking him to follow the rules, this dispute would be resolved if VeryVerily followed the rules that the rest of us have to follow, I don't see any other solution to the dispute than VeryVerily agreeing to honor Wikipedia rules such as the three revert rule. Ruy Lopez 08:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for the RfC, I believe the charges leveled at: [1] are fundamentally the same as the ones made here. GuloGuloGulo 06:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

They are. Likewise those made in some active and inactive requests for arbitration in very similar situations. Shorne 07:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WP isn't going to its one-and-only printing tomorrow, and everything is fixable. There's been more than a few cases where I got my way just by waiting out a difficult person, then changing an article back after they had moved on. If you aspire to have anything more than an ephemeral effect on Wikipedia, you need to figure out how to work with people, even rightwingers, and how to add text that makes the points you want to make, but is written so judiciously that rightwingers would be too ashamed to delete. Stan 06:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've worked successfully with a number of right-wingers. See Talk:Henry Kissinger for one recent example. There is, however, no working with VeryVerily, as has been amply proven in the preceding text and elsewhere. He is not here to coöperate, collaborate, or "co-"anything. Shorne 07:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to meet you halfway on the theory that Pol Pot was a misunderstood saint. VeryVerily 07:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An absurd distortion of my position. Does not even deserve an answer. Shorne 07:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An absurd distortion? You could have fooled me. Ambi 07:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm awfully sorry. You see, I write only for people who know how to read. I realise that that excludes many people. Do forgive me. Shorne 08:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course this is the tactic I'd expect on a page discussing VeryVerily's indisputable rule-breaking (which he's been banned for before) - launch an ad hominem attack on the numerous people who have become unhappy with his rule breaking. Sorry, this is a section to discuss VeryVerily's rule-breaking, it's not a discussion about the edit war over the Pol Pot page. I'll indulge you in your mud-slinging anyway. Two sentences Shorne erased were "The casualty list from the civil war, Pol Pot's consolidation of power, and the invasion by Vietnam is disputed...Khieu Samphan and Pol Pot, who could be expected to give underestimations, cited figures of 1 million and 800,000, respectively." So this not only tells us Khieu Samphan allegedly said 1 million had died, but adds the commentary within the article that "they could be expected to give underestimations". The problem is that many people dispute Khieu Samphan ever said that. The source for the quote (which all subsequent sources draw from), is an obscure Italian newsletter that only has a few hundred, or possibly even a few dozen subscriptions. You might as well use some random Geocities web page by some lunatic who thinks the Book of Revelations forecasts the future as a source. Shorne wants the article on Pol Pot to contain facts and sources of information instead of tabloid commentary. Of course VeryVerily only knows how to have revert wars, throw mud at people and so forth, so he wants to turn a discussion of him breaking the rules into a mud-slinging of anyone who asks him to follow the three-revert rule. Ruy Lopez 08:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Answer from VeryVerily requested

I wish to know right now whether VeryVerily intends to coöperate with my request for mediation. A simple yes or no will suffice. If the answer is yes, I wish to proceed immediately, with public documentation of the discussion here on Wikipedia. If the answer is no, I shall proceed immediately to arbitration, again with public documentation. Shorne 07:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mediation, you say? Reading statements like "Request urgent action against User:VeryVerily", I rather got the impression that mediation was not in fact on anyone's mind. Just out of curiosity, do you know what mediation is? VeryVerily 11:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have asked for mediation. Are you willing? Please answer yes or no. Shorne 11:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a reply. Presumably the answer does not involve deep soul-searching. I also note with disgust that not one mediator has seen fit to comment on this request in the two days that it has been active. Shorne 20:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tell me what mediation is and what is being mediated if you seriously want to ask me a question I can answer. VeryVerily 21:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mediation is "intervention between conflicting parties to promote reconciliation, settlement, or compromise." What is being mediated is clearly and elaborately explained above. We seriously are asking you a question you can answer. GuloGuloGulo 01:09, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I have asked for mediation. Are you willing? Please answer yes or no. Shorne 22:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would someone please tell me how long should I wait for VeryVerily to accept or decline mediation? I consider his failure to answer to be a constructive refusal. I wish to proceed immediately to arbitration if others agree and deem that action consistent with the procedures. Shorne 06:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Never mind. To hell with this! It has long been obvious that VeryVerily is ignoring this request. I'm going to go straight to arbitration. Shorne 10:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History destroyed

VeryVerily destroyed the edit history by moving this article to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shorne and VeryVerily. Twice. Even when told not to do so. Shorne 22:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why do I respond to the frivolous charges? I don't know. But (a) no edit history was destroyed, just moved, (b) who has the authority to "tell me not to"?, and (c) I didn't see Bcorr's response to me on his own Talk page till after the second move. VeryVerily 22:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BCorr, the mediation chairman, moved the article. VV appears to be engaging in an edit war with the chairman regarding the location of this article; engaging in an edit war in an RfM where he is being accused of engaging in edit wars. Whatever I may think of VV, I have to say that his sheer audacity is highly entertaining. GuloGuloGulo 22:49, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I don't find it entertaining in the slightest. It is wasting the time of many people here, me in particular, and interfering with the orderly editing of the articles. I wish to hear one good reason not to ban this troglodyte permanently from Wikipedia.

This request for mediation has now been moved to yet another location. I lack the energy to figure out who moved it and why or to guess where it will end up next. Shorne 23:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Readers are most welcome to review VeryVerily's shocking exchange with User:Bcorr, chairman of the mediation committee, at User talk:Bcorr. Particularly curious is the comment "This is a wiki, not a dictatorship". Yet VeryVerily seems to exercise a dictatorship of the Very-tariat by imposing his own private views über alles, even to the point of countermanding the instructions of the chairman of the mediation committee over an issue that is of no consequence whatsoever.

I also note that VeryVerily has failed to accept or decline mediation, despite numerous requests from me. Shorne 23:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe this is the fourth time that VeryVerily has moved this page, but I have lost count. Shorne 08:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moving to arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration against user VeryVerily at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Shorne 10:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Supplemental evidence

Evidence regarding Kevin Baas

Kevin Baas was added as a party to this case at his own request, based on an admission to participation in edit wars and violations of the three revert rule. Pages where Kevin Baas has violated the three revert rule include:

1. George W. Bush (talk, history)
2. Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration (talk, history)

Kevin Baas' edit wars on George W. Bush are from July and August. The page was protected on July 17, August 16, and August 21 as a result of these edit wars, generally involving VeryVerily as the other primary participant. The edit war on the Domestic policy article proceeded at a slower pace than others, developing soon after the article's creation in early September, and the page has not required protection.

Continuing conduct after complaint was made

Edit wars have continued since the original complaint was made, leading to a number of additional page protections. Several pages on the original list were unprotected and had to be reprotected when the edit war resumed. Pages protected since October 15 due to edit wars involving one or more parties to this case include:

1. September 11, 2001 attacks (talk*, history) - Gzornenplatz, VeryVerily, and 198
2. Pol Pot (talk*, history) - VeryVerily and Shorne
3. India (talk*, history) - Gzornenplatz and Simonides (protected before either could violate the three revert rule)
4. Image:IndiaNagaland.png (talk*) - Gzornenplatz, Simonides, AndyL, and Poccil
5. Human rights in the United States (talk, history) - VeryVerily, Shorne, and an IP believed to be Turrican
6. Henry Kissinger (talk, history) - VeryVerily, Shorne, Stargoat, and William M. Connolley
7. Khmer Rouge (talk*, history) - Shorne, VeryVerily, and Stargoat
8. Collectivisation in the USSR (talk, history) - VeryVerily, Shorne, Fred Bauder, Ruy Lopez, and Mihnea Tudoreanu
9. United States (talk, history) - Shorne, VeryVerily, Cantus, Leif, and Ruy Lopez
10. History of Modern Greece (talk, history) - VeryVerily, Shorne, Turrican, Ruy Lopez, Aris Katsaris, and Boraczek
11. Gwangju (talk, history) - VeryVerily, Ruy Lopez, and an IP believed to be Turrican
12. Opposition to U.S. foreign policy (talk*, history) - VeryVerily, Ruy Lopez, and an IP believed to be Turrican
13. List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 (talk, history) - Shorne and VeryVerily

VeryVerily, Shorne, and Gzornenplatz have all continued to disregard the three revert rule, consistent with their statements and established practice. Notably, they are also demonstrating even less inclination to attempt discussion (as before, talk* means they did not use the talk page).

Actually, I decided a week or so ago, fool that I am, to go along with the three-revert rule even while VeryVerily shows wanton disregard for it. Shorne 06:01, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz and Polish cities

(Note that discussion of these sterile revert wars has been concentrated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/German names.) Some of these revert wars were included in the original complaint; some of them are new. Gzornenplatz has been reverting each of these once per day since about November 4, thus holding to the letter if not the spirit of the three-revert rule. Sicherlich, Space Cadet, Emax, and Halibutt are his main opponents. All the disputes follow the same monotonous pattern: Gzornenplatz changes "German: [Name]" to "former German name: [Name]"; one of the four others reverts; Gzornenplatz reverts; merry hell ensues.

• Zielona Góra history
• Zlotoryja history
• Wyrzysk history
• Wambierzyce history
• Walbrzych history
• Usti nad Labem history
• Torun history
• Tczew history
• Szczecinek history
• Swiebodzice history
• Swidnica history
• Starogard Gdanski history
• Stargard Szczecinski history
• Sopot history
• Slupsk history
• Rumia history
• Puck, Poland history
• Pyskowice history
• Pila history
• Police, Poland history
• Opole history
• Olsztyn history
• Olawa history
• Nowa Sol history
• Nowa Ruda history
• Myslowice history
• Luban history
• Legnickie Pole history
• Legnica history
• Lebork history
• Lidzbark Warminski history
• Kwidzyn history
• Koszalin history
• Klodzko history
• Katowice history
• Karpacz history
• Hel, Poland history
• Gryfino history
• Grudziadz history
• Gorzów Wielkopolski history
• Goleniow history
• Elblag history
• Glogow history
• Danzig (disambiguation) history
• Chojnice history
• Chodziez history
• Cedynia history
• Bytów history
• Bytom history
• Bydgoszcz history
• Brzeg history
• Boleslawiec history
• Bialogard history
• probably more. . .

Evidence provided by —No-One Jones ^(m) 05:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is Gzornenplatz User:Wik?

There is a striking similarity between Gzornenplatz's edit pattern and behavior and that of Wik. If these users are the same person, that should be taken into account in arbitration, as this would then not be a first offense.

Examples:

• Pila: Gzornenplatz inserting 'former'[2], Wik doing the same[3]
• Atlantium: Gzornenplatz casting doubt on[4], Wik casting doubt on[5]
• Zürich - Gzornenplatz wanting w/ umlaut[6], Wik wanting w/ umlaut[7]
• WP:RFA
  • Gzornenplatz vociferously opposed Alex Plank's nomination [8]; as Wik did several times [9] [10]
  • Gzornenplatz strongly against Anárion (reputedly Jor's new account)[11]; as Wik was strongly against Jor [12]
• German fluency - example - Gzornenplatz as indicated by involvement over at de[13], Wik by (among other things) chewing out someone for their German and English at Template:VfD-Structure of German grammar
• both make lots of small fixes - grammar and spelling - to a wide range of articles (here Gzornenplatz is given an "award" for it)
• little article generation, of which most is PD; Wik with stuff such as February 1922 in the United Kingdom (from?) and Gzornenplatz with stuff from 1911EB (listed on user page)

-- User:Yup

This is an interesting and fairly credible hypothesis. I've been reviewing my history with Gzornenplatz again to check better if it's a "match". Certainly he has struck me as someone's sockpuppet, appearing suddenly interested in matters he had no apparent connection to. And although I knew long ago that only a naif would believe Wik was really gone and would not just return with a new account, I'm almost embarrassed to admit that this possibility never occured to me till you brought it up (whoever you are). VeryVerily 01:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blocks of Gzornenplatz

German Wikipedia

After two days of discussions regarding compliance with naming conventions (see Gzornenplatz's German Wikipedia talk page), surrounding some of the same cities cited above by Mirv, Gzornenplatz was blocked from the German Wikipedia for a week on October 20.

Notice of this block given by Elian on Gzornenplatz's talk page: "Since you apparently disregarded the advice you were given yesterday in chat and have not changed your behavior, instead continuing with your edit wars, I have blocked your account for a week. You may direct any complaints to the German mailing list." (my translation, see [14])

English Wikipedia

From Wikipedia:Block log:

• 23:27, 28 Oct 2004 Jimbo Wales blocked "Gzornenplatz" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of 3 revert rule on Pila after I personally asked him to follow the rule; pesonal attacks on the talk page; user already banned in de.wikipedia.org for same general sort of reasons.)
• 17:05, 2 Nov 2004 Jimbo Wales blocked "Gzornenplatz" with an expiry time of 8 days (11 reverts in 24 hours on Pila after I asked him very nicely to stop. 8 days is 1 day for each revert over the 3 revert rule.)
• 18:36, 2 Nov 2004 Jimbo Wales unblocked "Gzornenplatz" (He has promised to follow the 3RR and work towards a constructive policy solution to these problems)
• 18:37, 2 Nov 2004 Jimbo Wales unblocked "#10495" (Gzornenplatz autoblock, we reached an agreement)

Above evidence primarily compiled by Michael Snow

Miscellaneous comments and evidence

I have asked VeryVerily over and over again to discuss disputes. He refuses to do so. As can be seen from any number of talk pages, I manage to discuss issues reasonably with almost everyone else and to negotiate compromises. If VeryVerily refuses to discuss anything, don't blame me. Shorne 21:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne: continuing conduct

On 16 Oct Shorne broke the three revert rule in the article Joseph Stalin, reverting 4 times within less than 2 hours (21:11-22:52). Let me add that nobody else broke the three revert rule on that day and VeryVerily was not involved at all, so Shorne can't claim that he only breaks the three revert rule when VeryVerily or anyone else does. User:Boraczek

The above comments, unsigned by user Boraczek (I inserted the attribution), are especially hypocritical in view of Boraczek's repeated VeryVerily-esque reversions without discussion. Witness his change history for today, 24 Oct 2004. I wish for Boraczek to be added to this case. Shorne 17:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. If Shorne wants to begin a dispute resolution process with me, I suggest trying mediation first. 2. If the arbitators decide I should be included in this case, I will be glad to reply to Shorne's unjust accusations in a proper place. Boraczek 07:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History of Modern Greece, 14 Oct, 2:50-17:13: Shorne reverted 5 times. He never edited the talk page. Nobody else broke the three revert rule on that day.

VeryVerily: Nine reversions in twenty-four hours on one page

VeryVerily reverted United States nine times in twenty-four hours, prompting a new user (User:leif) to wonder on VeryVerily's talk page (after a fruitless discussion with him) why VeryVerily has not yet been banned. Since VeryVerily deleted the information, I am posting a link here. [15] Fred Bauder also stated quite plainly that "VeryVerily is very much mistaken" to think himself exempt from the rules that apply to everyone. Shorne 06:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne on Stalin

Shorne and Ruy Lopez feel that there should be no mention in the introductory paragraph of Joseph Stalin of the many deaths which resulted from Stalin's policies. While the exact language which proponents of a mention of this fact has varied Shorne and Ruy Lopez have consistently reverted all versions, see Shorne, Ruy Lopez, Shorne. Fred Bauder 13:41, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

The claim is distorted. We have tried again and again to hold a discussion with Fred Bauder, to no avail. He insists on inserting his POV over and over, regardless of the facts. Please see Talk:Joseph Stalin and Talk:Communism for evidence of Fred Bauder's intransigence and refusal to discuss the issues on a substantive basis. Shorne 15:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The sentence I reverted was "While the Soviet Union achieved immense economic growth under his tenure, his policies resulted in millions of deaths."

My first problem is "his". How did whatever he is being accused of become his, solely, personal responsibility? Was there a Politburo? Was there a Central Committee? Was there a Party? Was there a country? This personalization of political events involving millions of people is idiotic, and rampant on pages pertaining to Stalin (and Hitler as well).

My second problem is "policies resulted in millions of deaths". Funny how this escaped notice of the American press until the Cold War started! I don't possibly see how millions - millions? of deaths in the USSR can be pinned on Stalins(/Politburo/CPSU) policies, unless you want to blame him for old men dying of heart attacks, or causing the Nazis to invade the USSR.

Thats not to mention POV. How come George W. Bush's article doesn't begin "Bush is responsible for the deaths of thousands, from the people he executed as governor, to the people he's killed (and is still killing) in Iraq"? Because it would be removed as POV so fast your head would spin. But of course, I'm sure Bauder does not think what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Ruy Lopez 07:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have also discussed the problems with the sentence quoted; see the talk page. Indeed, I wasted considerable time spelling out the numerous problems with one little eighteen-word sentence. That was on November 1. Bauder finally replied a few hours ago, and only to go into the same tired old rhetoric about how he is supposedly reporting "facts". Little discussion with Bauder is possible. I write careful paragraphs; he calls me a Stalinist and a revisionist and considers the matter settled. Shorne 10:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily and List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945

VeryVerily keeps reverting factual and documented statements of US interventions in List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945. In other cases, he inserts "Alleged" where there is solid evidence, often from the US government itself. Today alone he has already reverted the page four five six times. (No one else has violated the three-revert rule.) He refuses to discuss most of his changes, although I repeatedly state "RAISE YOUR DISPUTE ON THE TALK PAGE" in the edit history. Others have managed to negotiate compromises on wording; VeryVerily just rides roughshod over everything. Shorne 22:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At my request, this article was finally protected today. Shorne 05:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nov. 9: the saga continues

Today this lot managed, between them, to get five pages protected in quick succession:

• Henry Kissinger hist - Very Verily vs. Ruy Lopez.
• Jane Fonda hist - VV vs. Ruy Lopez
• Human rights in the United States hist- VV, Ruy Lopez, and Shorne
• The Black Book of Communism hist - Shorne and Fred Bauder
• United States hist - VV, Ruy Lopez, and Shorne

No talk page discussions, of course. Any chance of a temporary injunction? —No-One Jones ^(m) 23:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you not distinguish between a productive user and ones little better than a vandal? VeryVerily 06:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, let's try. One is a user who has been banned for breaking Wikipedia rules, has been flouting the three revert rule lately and even shows open contempt for the idea of following Wikipedia rules on this page. The other user has never been banned, does not break the three revert rule, and desires to follow Wikipedia rules. Which one is the productive user and which one is little better than a vandal? Ruy Lopez 07:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mirv is correct there was no discussion on these pages, like United States. I posted to the talk page regarding my thoughts on the economic matters in the US article. VeryVerily did not want a discussion, he was just going through my edit history and reverted that particular edit with 'rv - more tendentious edits by "ruy lopez"'. I'm sure he could care less what the rate and pace of economic growth in the US is. Ruy Lopez 08:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is becoming absurd. Shorne and Ruy Lopez are not even pretending to make legitimate content edits; they are simply stalking and tag-team reverting me, jumping in to revert on articles they'd never had anything to do with. These users should just be banned - both Shorne and the army of Ruy Lopez sockpuppets, past, present, and future - once and for all. If left unchecked, they will ruin hundreds of our articles which have been produced through years of painstaking work and careful and delicate negotiation. Enough about "revert rules" and instead contrast the users who are trying to preserve and maintain the encyclopedia and those who are trying to wreck it. And fercrissakes there was one revert only on some of these pages before someone went and protected. VeryVerily 06:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This coming from a user who has been banned before for breaking the three revert rule, and who is continually flouting the three revert rule. Yaa, enough with these "rules", right? Who else is going to protect Wikipedia and articles like Gwangju from people trying to shove in stuff from illegitimate sources (in the case of Gwangju, from the BBC)?

I'm also very happy that you have stated that stalking someone and jumping in to revert on articles they'd never had anything to do with is deliquent behavior - for which people should be banned! Unfortunately for you, the very first time you reverted me (on October 8th), you went through all of my edits and reverted them as well And I am not the only one who has complained of your doing this, and Shorne is not the only one either. So there are a multitude of people accusing you of this, which you now state is misbehavior, yet you are the sole accuser of a multitude of people doing this to you. Ruy Lopez 07:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aren't you overdue for creating a new sockpuppet? VeryVerily 07:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No one with any integrity can claim that Ruy Lopez and I have not tried to hold discussions on talk pages. I routinely post "RAISE YOUR DISPUTE ON THE TALK PAGE" when restoring changes silently reverted by VeryVerily, yet he never engages in any discussion. I have no option but to complain to the arbitrators, as numerous others have done. Shorne 10:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is regrettably possible that you have fooled some with these antics, but for you to impute lack of integrity to anyone at all is between comical and disgusting. VeryVerily 11:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz's use of accuracy dispute tags

On 7 November, Gzornenplatz put accuracy dispute tags on 41 pages listing heads of government; most or all of these were the work of JohnArmagh. In no case was any message put on talk pages to explain why. Susvolans 13:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily and South Korea

VeryVerily has reverted South Korea five times in the past twenty-four hours. No one else has violated the three-revert rule. Shorne 16:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily and The Great Terror

VeryVerily has reverted this article five times in the past twelve hours. Shorne 12:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Make that six times in the past twenty-four hours. Shorne 05:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the sake of overworked arbitrators, note that Shorne and Ruy Lopez are tag-teaming on their reverts, which as far as I'm concerned isn't any different than one person doing them all - otherwise everybody will create sockpuppets as a way to get around the three-revert rule. My own talk page comment is the first to be added for this article in nearly two weeks, which tells you something about how much talk page discussion is actually going on. Stan 07:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tag-teaming? This is silly. The accusation is based on nothing stronger than the fact that Ruy Lopez and I happen to edit some of the same articles that VeryVerily is ruining. Shorne 10:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily and History of Italy

VeryVerily has reverted this article four five times in the past twenty-four hours. Shorne 12:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yesterday he also violated the three-revert rule by reverting the article four times within twenty-four hours. No one else has violated the rule. Shorne 15:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily just reverted about ten batches of changes, including spelling corrections, without discussion. (Again, in violation of the three-revert rule, which everyone else has honoured.) The efforts of User:Joy and me to engage VeryVerily in substantive discussion on the talk page have not paid off. Shorne 04:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Five reversions in twenty-four hours. Shorne 05:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Six reversions. VeryVerily is trying to send Italy's 1948 elections down the memory hole. Ruy Lopez 06:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seven reversions. Shorne 10:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily and United States

Four reversions in twenty-four hours. Shorne 15:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nov 13

• VeryVerily: Great Purge, four reversions in twenty-four hours. Shorne 10:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nov 15

• When the hell is anything going to be done with all this evidence? Not one "arbitrator" has yet said a word about any of this, or even answered questions. (How anyone can be an "arbitrator" without interacting with the parties of the dispute is beyond me, but obviously it takes a very perverse mind to understand how things are done at Wikipedia.) Is anything ever going to be done?
• For those who may not have noticed, I have already established the corruption of at least six of the nine active arbitrators at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. I have also called for the resignations or expulsion of all six. Indeed, the committee's lack of action strongly suggests that it's time to bring in some fresh blood—people who will do the job fairly and well. Shorne 23:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nov 16

• It's obvious that no one is paying any attention to these data, but I continue to compile them nonetheless so as to make a watertight case against VeryVerily and anyone who either defends him or alleges that he and I behave the same way.

• Yesterday a number of articles were unprotected. VeryVerily has gone back to his old practice of reverting, reverting, and reverting. Even though I keep posting "RAISE YOUR DISPUTE ON THE TALK PAGE", he fails to do so. See, for example, History of Modern Greece and List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945.
  • Have you, at last, no decency, Shorne? History of Modern Greece was first reverted by you [16], 48 minutes after Mirv unprotected it. VeryVerily reverted it 2 hours and 37 minutes later [17]. You then reverted him around nine in the morning the next day [18]. VV reverted a second time, before he was blocked: [19]. You reverted him (that's #3), at 19:29, on November 16, 2004, approximately 24 hours and 39 minutes after your first reversion: [20]. At no time did either you or VeryVerily raise a dispute on the talk page. While you are within the letter of the injunction, you have clearly violated the spirit. Mackensen (talk) 01:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • • What are you doing here? Have you followed the dispute between VeryVerily and me? VeryVerily refuses to discuss anything. I most certainly shall revert his mindless reversions when he refuses to talk. What the hell else should I do: let him destroy my changes by dint of being brazen enough to revert something without discussion?
    • If you don't know what you're talking about, I suggest that you keep your mouth shut. Things are confused enough here without people like you to fan the flames. Shorne 02:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • • • Tu quoque is not an acceptable defense. I know full well what I'm talking about and I will not be silenced because of your say-so. I am quite familiar with the dispute between you and VeryVerily and I do not countenance his actions (and when have I ever said that I did) any more than I countenance yours. You have not visited the talk page on History of Modern Greece since October 26th. Nowhere on the talk page did you state your objections to the article. Your response here was not to explain your actions, but to attack my credibility. "People like me"? Well, I'm from Michigan, I'm an administrator, and I'm interested in history. I'm not sure what you're implying and I'd appreciate an explanation. I'd also appreciate an explanation for why the article on the history of modern Greece is unacceptable, and I think the other editors of that page would appreciate one too. Mackensen (talk) 02:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • • • • On October 26, the date of the last discussion at History of Modern Greece, I stated that "I [should] not be back until [a] discussion [between Aris Katsaris and Ruy Lopez] ha[d] started". Separately, I privately discussed the matter with Katsaris and explained my position. As far as I'm concerned, Katsaris's attempted cover-up of a significant aspect of Greek politics has already been adequately discussed. Katsaris has made no effort that I can discern to continue the discussion. VeryVerily, for his part, has contributed nothing but reversions. Shorne 03:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • • • • • No, I read that, and you stated that you never "blindy revert" anything. His question regarding de-categorization was left unanswered. When he confronted you about reverting without reference to the talk page, you dismissed his concerns. Clearly other users do not regard the matter as adequately discussed. You violated the tacit compact made on your talk page when you blindly reverted VV. What are your objections to the page? Where are your sources? Why aren't they on the talk page? Mackensen (talk) 03:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • • • • • • There is no dispute about sources. The objections are from Katsaris, and they pertain to the alleged inappropriateness of including the material. He wants to suppress it almost completely, although he does not dispute its accuracy. The matter has been discussed numerous times. If other users don't regard the matter as adequately discussed, why haven't they accepted my request to discuss it? Put in a request for mediation if you wish. I am not going to touch that goddam article again; I'm sorry that I ever got involved in an idiotic argument with someone who was foaming at the mouth about Greek Orthodox clergy and filling my talk page with invective. Shorne 03:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• VeryVerily is also trying to circumvent the "temporary" injunction imposed on him and me that prevents either of us from reverting any article more than twice in a twenty-four-hour period. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily#Complaint about VeryVerily. I could play the same juvenile games, but so far I have observed the spirit as well as the letter of the injunction. This incident shows who is serious about coöperating and who is only playing administrative games. Shorne 20:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• In violation of the injunction issued by the arbitrators, VeryVerily 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.) According to the injunction, VeryVerily must now be banned for twenty-four hours. Shorne 20:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  I have blocked him. The diffs: first, second, and third revert. —No-One Jones ^(m) 20:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Thank you for acting promptly. Shorne 20:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • Of course, this was a mistake; I had intended to add the dispute notice to Shorne's execrable version. I explained this to Mirv, but the "impartial" admin who once called me an "ignorant fuck" naturally would not unblock me. At least he was civil, which is more than I can say for Fred Bauder, who responded to my explanation in E-mail with juvenile gloating. Really, we have preteens editing here who display more maturity than this. VeryVerily 21:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd love to see more maturity out of you, but I don't expect to. You got what you damn well deserved. If you had not overtly violated the rules ("a mistake", no doubt), you should have been blocked anyway for playing procedural games to circumvent the "temporary" injunction. Shorne 01:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Wow, I never would have guessed that you felt this way. VeryVerily 02:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • By the way, due apparently to some MediaWiki glitch, the IP I was using is still blocked. VeryVerily 21:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nov 19

Material copied from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision. Raul654 rudely dismissed it. Shorne 05:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More findings of fact

Please also collect the following as findings of fact (no attempt at a dialogue):

• VeryVerily, Henry Kissinger. Shorne, on the other hand, conducted a negotiation, which VeryVerily unilaterally rejected, and later a vote, which VeryVerily also unilaterally rejected.
• VeryVerily, Khmer Rouge. Pages and pages of discussion by Shorne; only an occasional non-substantive comment from VeryVerily and a number of other users.
• VeryVerily, List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945. Shorne discussed his work extensively and reasonably with various other editors on the talk page. VeryVerily repeatedly reverted material, deleted references, and inserted "alleged" about incidents that the US government has admitted (I documented a number of these). Shorne's repeated calls of "RAISE YOUR DISPUTE ON THE TALK PAGE" were ignored. Even when other people asked VeryVerily to discuss his changes, he refused to do so.
  • Once again, VeryVerily reverted this article just now, without discussion. Shorne 05:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• VeryVerily, United States. As many as nine reversions in a single twenty-four-hour period. Many people have complained.
• VeryVerily, History of Italy. Would not engage in discussion on talk page, despite efforts of Joy and Shorne. Reverted page as many as seven times in one day (Nov 12).
• VeryVerily, South Korea. Repeated attempts by Ce garçon, Shorne, and others to engage him in discussion were met with more and more reversions over a period of weeks.
• VeryVerily, George W. Bush. Numerous unilateral reversions.

Finding of fact #1

This is biased. It fails to mention several salient points:

• VeryVerily alone has shown open disdain for the three-revert rule and has stated repeatedly that he considers himself exempt from it. All other participants in this dispute have repeatedly endorsed the
• Gzornenplatz and Shorne said quite clearly that they would not comply with the three-revert rule in articles on which VeryVerily did not comply with it. Shorne changed his mind shortly thereafter and has since upheld the three-revert rule consistently on all articles, even those trampled underfoot by VeryVerily.
• VeryVerily, on the other hand, has continued his merry reversions, as many as nine times in a single day in the case of United States. He even violated the arbitration committee's temporary injunction restricting multiple reversions and had to be banned temporarily.
• Shorne repeatedly called for a temporary injunction requiring the parties to this dispute to engage in discussion after the second reversion by anyone.
• Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, and Shorne have repeatedly called for the three-revert rule to be enforced across the board.

I ask that this proposed finding of fact be revised to include this important information. Shorne 04:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where is my complaint?

What happened to Rup Lopez's and my complaint against VeryVerily, which was supposedly merged with this one? I'm trying to find the long discussion in order to quote it here, but it seems that it has been deleted. Shorne 07:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See above for information on VeryVerily

See above for the text of my request for mediation against VeryVerily. Respondent never answered the summons but instead initiated an edit war with BCorr, head mediator, over the name of the case. After warning Respondent numerous times to cease his misbehaviour, BCorr moved the matter to arbitration. The arbitration committee saw fit to disregard the case for weeks while giving prompt attention to subsequent cases, such as the one vindictively filed against me in response by arbitrator Fred Bauder. Finally, after enough protests, they merged it with this one. There is, however, no evidence that they have reviewed Lopez et Shorne contra VeryVerily, so I have incorporated some of the material above. Shorne 07:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nov 19

Quoted from Talk:Human rights in the United States:

This is a formal request for VeryVerily to discuss his dispute about this article (my most recent version) before editing the article any further. Shorne 05:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh shut up. You reverted all the edits I made to the article. Why don't you explain your reverts? Oh, because the burden of proof is always on whoever is not you. VeryVerily 09:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He then proceeded to revert the article.

My changes reflect the consensus reached through negotiation weeks ago on the talk page and in an accompanying sandbox. VeryVerily has not engaged in any discussion. Shorne 09:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Likewise on Talk:List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945:

Once again, it is entirely inappropriate and POV to say that US interventions are "alleged" when they are well documented and in some cases even admitted by the US government. I have defended all of my changes on this page, but I still have not heard what VeryVerily's disagreement is.

This is a formal call for VeryVerily to discuss his disputes here before editing the article any further. Shorne 05:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I made comments above. You have not defended your changes at all, which are obvious POV in clear non-compliance with Wikipedia policy. VeryVerily 09:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why is yet more of my time being wasted dealing with this troll through the venue of arbitration? Can the arbitrators not see what is going on here? VeryVerily 10:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, everyone can see what you're doing. You don't fool anyone. Shorne 10:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Again, VeryVerily twice deleted my new page Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Discussion. His deletion consisted of blanking the page and then marking it for "speedy deletion", which seems to be against policy: the page should not have been blanked. He never explained this manœuvre, even though I asked him to in my edit summaries. I also discussed my objections on the talk page. He also reverted, without discussion, two related pages. Shorne 11:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• VeryVerily's POV-pushing. At Human rights, I inserted a link to Human rights in the United States, which is obviously germane. VeryVerily reverted that, claiming that the entry belonged in a category. I restored it, telling him that we needed more than one entry for a category and suggesting that he either compile the category or leave the link in place. He reverted it again, and again I restored it. Finally, having exhausted his two authorised reversions for the day, he changed it to Human rights in China.
• This shows that VeryVerily is not serious. His only purpose was to keep attention away from the article Human rights in the United States, which he does not like. (He has repeatedly destroyed it despite the consensus that I and some others carefully and amicably worked out.) Fortunately, someone else came along and compiled a short list of country-specific articles, including Human rights in the United States. I suppose VeryVerily will go and remove that entry the first chance he gets. Shorne 16:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily and the cold war

At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision it says "Enacted 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."

Yet he not only editted, but just reverted changes that me and Ce garcon had worked on [21] pertaining to the very Cold War Gwangju massacre (with the South Korean dictatorship claimed had been instigated by North Korea and so on). It appears this is breaking the temporary order but the arbs would know best. Ruy Lopez 11:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I have not edited that article. I did, however, contribute to the negotiation through comments on the talk page. VeryVerily said nothing on the talk page; he just destroyed the agreement reached by Ce garçon, Ruy Lopez, and me. Shorne 11:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is some edit history between times 10:53 and 10:26 on November 19,2004 from the Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress page which clearly shows animosity between the parties. Peace and WikiLove, Ancheta Wis 11:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He reverted my complaints twice. I have since been advised to file them elsewhere, but I don't think he was right to revert them. (Ancheta Wis issued a warning.) Shorne 11:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I certainly did not and do not regard History of South Korea as being a "Cold War" article. This is a stretch by any count. And it goes without saying that I did not destroy anything. VeryVerily 11:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

North Korea and South Korea are still at war, and the US has tens of thousands of soldiers stationed there against a "communist state". Sounds like communism and the Cold War to me, which is why I refrained from editing that article and instead discussed my points on the talk page. Shorne 11:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So would Kimchi be a "Cold War" article too? VeryVerily 11:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edit war over arbcom elections page

On 19 November, VeryVerily and Shorne fought an edit war over Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements. Both reverted more than twice, so I blocked both. I am not sure this qualifies under the letter of the rule, since the page is not technically an "article", but it certainly violates the spirit. —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is not true. VeryVerily violated the rule; I complained about it to Mirv and others. It took hours before anything was done—and then I was blocked for a violation that I did not commit. Shorne 18:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

These are the reverts for which I blocked: #1 Shorne, #2 Shorne, #3 Shorne (this last one changes the wording slightly, but is still a revert in my book); #1 VV, #2 VV, #3 VV. —No-One Jones ^(m) 19:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My third "reversion", which you acknowledge not to have been a reversion, was an attempt to negotiate a compromise with VeryVerily. Since VeryVerily refused to discuss the matter, despite my own attempts on the talk page and my requests in the edit summary, I took his dispute to pertain to the wording and tried to seek something more neutral and inoffensive. I was banned for a "reversion" that was not one. Shorne 19:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The diffs of each edit paint a slightly different picture: Shorne #1, VV #1, Shorne #2, VV #2, Shorne #3, VV #3, Shorne #4, VV #4. I think it's clear what was going on. —No-One Jones ^(m) 19:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What would that be? pray tell. Shorne 00:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Material copied from talk page

Since the material, including my rebuttals of the only specific charges made against me, does not even appear to be being looked at it by the arbs, I am copying the latter rebuttals here from the Proposed decisions Talk page, in case that somehow makes a difference: VeryVerily 18:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Finally, some specifics to refute point by point! Of course, this all needs to be looked at against the background that by the time many of those disputes started, Shorne was already well-established as a troublemaker and Ruy Lopez as a sockpuppet of an old enemy of Wikipedia:

• VV/213.56.68.29/Ruy Lopez - October 24-25, Opposition to U.S. foreign policy
  • The IP in question is that of Turrican. He vandalized my user page with swastikas and obscenities and a wish that I would die, several times. In fact, I asked the ArbCom for help; the request is still sitting unattended. He stated on my user page that he would revert all of my edits as part of his grudge against me, which he began doing, including both content changes and grammatical fixes. This article is one victim. The notion that I should enter into a "dialogue" in every case of his persistent vandalism is absurd. Ruy Lopez later joined in the reverting, with no justification.

• VV/Shorne - History of Modern Greece - Nov 16 dispute
  • Also a dispute with Turrican. Shorne was a latecomer. There was a dialogue in the edit summaries and then on the talk page. Both Aris Kataris and I made airtight points. In fact, this was a clearcut case.

• VV - Collectivisation in the USSR - October 24 dispute

• VV - Great Purge - Nov 13 dispute
  • Why am I the only one listed, when Shorne and Ruy Lopez were also involved? Oh, why bother.... Anyway, these were basically cases of me getting involved when I saw that others were already carefully explaining their positions in the edit summaries and the talk pages, and Shorne kept reverting, so I lent a hand so that he wouldn't just "win" by force. I only interfered sporadically. Also, Turrican was involved in the usual way.

• Ruy Lopez/Shorne/VV - Communist state - Nov 9 dispute
  • You forgot Gzornenplatz (though not on Nov 9). The comments above apply here too, except for that last dispute, where Ruy Lopez made an obviously unacceptable edit. He knows NPOV well enough to know better. I see no point in entering dialogue with those who make such edits (another recent example [22]).

• Shorne/VV - Human rights in the United States - Nov 9 dispute
  • This is a trickier one. I already voiced my objections to the text long ago. To help work it out, Gazpacho created a sandbox for working out an acceptable version of a section. That was going fine, until Shorne simply reverted all the edits I made to the sandbox, declared the process finished, and insisted that that version in the article was the end result. Obviously, I didn't stand for this.

Hopefully this will put these accusations to rest. VeryVerily 09:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) (updates VeryVerily 09:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Yet more findings of fact

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily#Proposed decisions. Not that the kangaroo court of "arbitrators" gives a flying flip. Shorne 18:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• VV/Shorne - History of Modern Greece - Nov 16 dispute
  • Also a dispute with Turrican. Shorne was a latecomer. There was a dialogue in the edit summaries and then on the talk page. Both Aris Kataris and I made airtight points. In fact, this was a clearcut case. VeryVerily

Shorne has discussed the matter with others on that talk page and elsewhere. It is VeryVerily who refuses to join the discussion, despite my repeated edit summaries of "RAISE YOUR DISPUTE ON THE TALK PAGE". I therefore want my name taken off the list of those who "made no attempt at a dialogue". That would be only VeryVerily. Shorne 04:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily deleted the above comment of mine. Shorne 04:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• VV - Collectivisation in the USSR - October 24 dispute

• VV - Great Purge - Nov 13 dispute
  • Why am I the only one listed, when Shorne and Ruy Lopez were also involved? Oh, why bother.... Anyway, these were basically cases of me getting involved when I saw that others were already carefully explaining their positions in the edit summaries and the talk pages, and Shorne kept reverting, so I lent a hand so that he wouldn't just "win" by force. I only interfered sporadically. Also, Turrican was involved in the usual way. VeryVerily

As usual, Ruy Lopez and Shorne conducted discussion on the talk page; VeryVerily did not. Shorne 05:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Ruy Lopez/Shorne/VV - Communist state - Nov 9 dispute
  • You forgot Gzornenplatz (though not on Nov 9). The comments above apply here too, except for that last dispute, where Ruy Lopez made an obviously unacceptable edit. He knows NPOV well enough to know better. I see no point in entering dialogue with those who make such edits (another recent example [23]). VeryVerily

Ruy Lopez and Shorne have conducted extensive discussion on Communist state. Check the archives as well as the current talk page. Shorne 04:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Shorne/VV - Human rights in the United States - Nov 9 dispute
  • This is a trickier one. I already voiced my objections to the text long ago. To help work it out, Gazpacho created a sandbox for working out an acceptable version of a section. That was going fine, until Shorne simply reverted all the edits I made to the sandbox, declared the process finished, and insisted that that version in the article was the end result. Obviously, I didn't stand for this. VeryVerily

This is distorted. See the talk page. I carefully worked out a compromise in a sandbox with Gazpacho. There is extensive discussion by me on the talk page. VeryVerily, without discussing anything, came along and reverted our agreement time and again. He is still doing so, to the present day. I keep restoring the text, since there has been no dispute, and stating "RAISE YOUR DISPUTE ON THE TALK PAGE". VeryVerily never has done so. Therefore I want my name to be removed from the list of those who "made no attempt at a dialogue". For this article, that would be only VeryVerily. Shorne 04:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is anyone at all fooled by this "RAISE YOUR DISPUTE ON THE TALK PAGE" nonsense? I'm just curious, it seems completely transparent to me, but maybe the arbitrators are confused on this point too. VeryVerily 04:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is indeed a transparent request for discussion. I must have posted a few hundred of them by now, but you have never responded, except with more mindless reversions and such. Shorne 04:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Once again, VeryVerily reverted this article just now, without discussion. Astoundingly hypocritical of him. Shorne 05:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

18 Oct/19-20 Nov: continued conduct by User:Gzornenplatz

On 25th Oct., the following comment was posted by me on this page:

I strongly second the arbitration case against Gzornenplatz. This user almost never discusses reverts and then disappears after a comment or two; he continues to revert war after the RfC and arbitration cases have been drawn up against him; and most serious of all, he has not actually contributed any material to the pages he has been edit warring on, preferring POV or inaccurate versions and rejecting all substitutes with no attempts to offer alternatives of his own.

As of 20 Nov, despite the continuing arbcom case against him, the above user continues to revert Image:IndiaNagaland.png and the India article over a disputed map which reached consensus both a few weeks ago (Talk:India#map) and again very recently on Talk:India#Map comments, albeit among a small number of editors, though no major objections were made. The above user insists that "no consensus was reached", despite clear evidence to the contrary and continues his general habit of carefree, discussion-less reversion (absurd considering the lengths to which his behaviour has been accommodated, and that he reverts even versions that he previously did not claim to have a problem with) ; he has also reverted the agreed-on map at the 27 following pages (without discussion) for the first time though I am certain he intends to revert them again if he is not prevented in some manner - pages that took an enormous amount of time to replace with corrected maps (that were in turn time-consuming as they had to be created), and further to revert to the consensus version. -- Simonides 00:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• [29]
• [30]
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• [38]
• [39]
• [40]
• [41]
• [42]
• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]
• [47]
• [48]
• [49]
• [50]

The injunction against Gzornenplatz does not bar him from editing articles on India. Unless he has reverted any of the articles you mentioned more than twice in twenty-four hours, you have no legitimate grievance here. Shorne 00:22, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You mean only if an injunction exists does a "legitimate grievance" exist? How nonsensical. The problem is his continued, grating behaviour, and if it hasn't been looked at before, it should be now, current injunction or not. -- Simonides 00:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought your complaint pertained to the injunction. If you are just adding evidence, go right ahead. I haven't reviewed the evidence, so I won't comment on it. Shorne 00:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. There is not much to review except on the Talk pages, where Gzornenplatz offered some scant and contradictory justification for his behaviour before continuing with his pretended ignorance of consensus. He claims the current map is POV though it uses the same wording and colour-scheme as the map above it on the India article, which has not tried to revert and apparently has no problem with; more disruptive is his nonchalant lack of effort at correcting and replacing the maps himself, preferring a clearly inaccurate one that he reverts to without notice whenever possible. -- Simonides 00:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, I haven't examined the editing in question. I do remember some spat weeks ago over Nagaland in which I was wrongly accused of waging an "edit war" just because an unrelated change that I had made, over which there was no dispute, happened to coincide with some battle over the map. I did not then get involved and do not now intend to, but I think we should all admit that India's borders with China and Pakistan are contested—militarily, in some cases—and that the maps used here should aim for neutrality. Shorne 01:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh I'll be extremely happy if Gzornenplatz is kicked out for good. The article on India was protected for what looked like a month thanks to him. He seems to have no regard for consensus. A prolific reverter of consensus images his actions were seconded by user VeryVerily (to a degree). The issues about Map of India had already been settled. The other image on the same page reflects similar ideas, yet he seems to be satisfied with it. If he indulged a little more in discussing before reverting the images it would have helped us in sorting the problem out but he ignores discussion. He has discussed just once with context to the image. --Ankur 10:10, 23 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)

• The collected evidence shows that several of the users mentioned in this arbitration have broken rules on numerous occasions. I therefore ask action to be taken to any of them who continue to violate rules - without exceptions. The actions as described in the three points above sound reasonable. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 22:37, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • I concur. Indeed, all that I ever asked for was enforcement of the rules. Shorne 03:00, 24 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)

VeryVerily defying temporary injunction

Despite a temporary injunction instructing VeryVerily not to edit articles pertaining to communism - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily#Temporary_injunction - VeryVerily continues to make communism-related edits including this one[51] which he did twenty minutes ago. Ruy Lopez 07:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What does the IMC have to do with communism? VeryVerily 07:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd back VV's interpretation here. A communism-related edit? I don't think we're banning the use of the word communism around here. Moreover, he was merely changing the page back after another user made a unilateral change without discussing it on the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 07:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whatever your opinions about what is banned, the arbitrators injunction says "VeryVerily [is] banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going." The content of the change is immaterial. I don't know what a "unilateral change without discussing it on the talk page" is, it sounds like the majority of Wikipedia edits. But as I said, that doesn't matter, because VeryVerily is banned from making edits regarding these subjects. Ruy Lopez 07:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All well and good. Explain to me how IMC is an article having to do with the Cold War or communism. The word "Communist" was in the article. You changed it to socialist, claiming there was no such thing as a Communist nation. Maybe so, but as there are plenty of socialist countries with IMC, you created a factually incorrect statement when you made what is arguably a POV change. Mackensen (talk) 07:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not that important of a point, but I'd say the nations that have IMCs are social-democratic, not socialist. And the issue isn't whether VeryVerily's edit made sense or not, it's whether he edited an article that was pertaining to communism. And I would suggest if he adds the word communism to the article, that makes the article pertaining to communism. Ruy Lopez 07:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He didn't add it so much as restore it. And I'd find that reasoning really thin. To clarify-I wouldn't block Shorne on similar grounds either. Mackensen (talk) 08:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)