[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily]] [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily/Proposed decision]]
I'm coming to the mailing list because I don't know where else to turn. I am asking for aid from anyone in the community, in any form you can muster, to save me from another wrong ArbComm ruling which may drive me off Wikipedia forever.
I hope the mailing list won't just dismiss this as some worthless disgruntled complaint. The AC can make poor decisions, as I think all can acknowledge.
After a self-imposed exile of *a year* (because I could not edit under the stress of constant blocking), I returned and worked very hard to explain in painstaking detail to the ArbComm what they overlooked before. They accused me of reverting "without discussion" based on a handful of edits picked from my many thousands, but I explained (again) that I was being stalked by an auto-reverter, and also I was dealing with someone ("Ruy Lopez") who wrecks articles in batches with the same edits to numerous articles. I point out that I've always been responsible about explaining edits when needed. I similarly provided another, more detailed, point-by-point, day-by-day account of what happened in each of the cases they mentioned in their "Finding of Fact" (which I'd done the first time in less detail).
None have contested the accuracy of my analysis (indeed, none have even acknowledged it). But they are not overturning the ruling that's based on this accusation.
However, recently, all of the sudden, Raul654 tells me on his talk page that the justification is a conflict I was in in May 2004 (!!), seven months before the AC case, which was long since resolved and over with, and which had never been mentioned in either case till now! (And, as I noted, back then community norms were quite different; that case went to a quickpoll, which voted to not take action.)
No other arbitrator will even tell me what they think I've done wrong. I have tried to talk to them individually, and have gotten dismissive responses, or none at all.
Jdforrester has gone so far as to apparently say that my thousands and thousands of contributions (~12,000), the product of endless hours of labor here, are OF NO BENEFIT TO WIKIPEDIA if I'm not willing to stay under his conditions. What am I to make of such a callous non-sequitur?
Raul says it's "galling" that I would complain when the evidence page on the last arbitration was a mess - even though five cases were lumped together and dozens of people were editing it, factors beyond my control. In fact, I made very effort to respond to the arbitrators' points, but they never seemed to even acknowledge it. The final ruling still listed articles which were reverted by a vandal stalking me (I reverted back) as evidence of my "bad behavior".
This is all explained in detail in my appeal.
I once considered myself a major member of this community. I have not earned this hate. And after more than a year, even if they're not sure, they can't just let it be the past? WP:AGF, WikiLove, all that?
So please anyone who has time take a look and comment. I was a huge contributor before, and I see so much that needs to be done and want to pitch in. But they'd have me edit as a second-class editor deprived of legitimacy and vulnerable to arbitrary blocking. With no justification for making me one.
Thanks if you're still reading,
VV
VeryVerily wrote:
I'm coming to the mailing list because I don't know where else to turn. I am asking for aid from anyone in the community, in any form you can muster, to save me from another wrong ArbComm ruling which may drive me off Wikipedia forever.
I'm somewhat of a newcomer here, so pardon me if I'm not up-to-date on what is evidently a fairly old issue. As I understand it, the "wrong ArbComm ruling" you're complaining about here is that for at least the next 4 months, you are "required to discuss all reverts on the relevant talk page". Is that correct?
On 2/26/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I'm somewhat of a newcomer here, so pardon me if I'm not up-to-date on what is evidently a fairly old issue. As I understand it, the "wrong ArbComm ruling" you're complaining about here is that for at least the next 4 months, you are "required to discuss all reverts on the relevant talk page". Is that correct?
Or forever. Anyway, hey just added the 4 month thing. But there's no guarantee they'll go through with that. Last time, they asked me to wait six months, and I voluntarily left for a year. The escape clause that I be in no "interpersonal conflicts" is of course one I may be unable to meet, given how prone users are to pick fights here.
Anyway, one main issue is that they refuse to say what a revert *isn't*, though I specifically asked for them to clarify this, and I was already (wrongly) blocked twice for supposedly "reverting". In the absence of such clarity, I feel, probably correctly, that I can be blocked at any time because an edit I make resembles in the page history, with or without my knowledge. I believe Geni made some apt comments on this mailing list about how it feels to be constantly blocked.
A user attempted to deny the history of the Ukrainian famine, using the same discredited logic he always does. I was blocked for trying to write accurately about this history. That, is very wrong. (I'm guessing a Holocaust denier would not be so coddled.)
Also, this restriction prevents me from doing RC patrol, counter-vandalism, or defending myself against the next stalker that attacks me (and there's no reason to think one won't). Moreover, the AC ruling puts me in a bad light, in essence depriving me of legitimacy in the eyes of the community, with no justification. It implies that I'm an unreasonable user, which I am not and never have been.
Perhaps the most frustrating thing is that no one has told me what I've done wrong or, rather, no one has told me why my account of the edit histories in question is not adequate for them. Many of the cases where they accused me of misbehaving are so clearcut that really the AC should apologize for attacking me on those points. But not a peep has been uttered about what I raised.
In essence, they ignored every point I made. I wasted my time preparing a solid case thinking I would get a fair hearing from the current committee, and have been basically told to get stuffed. How would that make you feel?
VV
Sorry if that last E-mail looked messy in your mail reader; somehow the formatting got messed up.
VV
Correct, a holocaust denier will get rough treatment quick. The crimes of Communism, such as the deliberate attempt to starve the Ukrainian people into submission, while the Soviet Union was EXPORTING FOOD, as pointed out in The Black Book of Communism are whitewashed by point of view editors.
Fred
On Feb 26, 2006, at 10:29 PM, VeryVerily wrote:
A user attempted to deny the history of the Ukrainian famine, using the same discredited logic he always does. I was blocked for trying to write accurately about this history. That, is very wrong. (I'm guessing a Holocaust denier would not be so coddled.)
On 2/27/06, VeryVerily veryverily@gmail.com wrote:
Or forever. Anyway, hey just added the 4 month thing. But there's no guarantee they'll go through with that. Last time, they asked me to wait six months, and I voluntarily left for a year. The escape clause that I be in no "interpersonal conflicts" is of course one I may be unable to meet, given how prone users are to pick fights here.
I don't imagine the current AC (I cannot speak for past committees, though I fully expect they would say the same) will penalise you for other people causing conflict with you.
Anyway, one main issue is that they refuse to say what a revert *isn't*, though I specifically asked for them to clarify this, and I was already (wrongly) blocked twice for supposedly "reverting". In the absence of such clarity, I feel, probably correctly, that I can be blocked at any time because an edit I make resembles in the page history, with or without my knowledge. I believe Geni made some apt comments on this mailing list about how it feels to be constantly blocked.
If people abuse the AC decision to block you spuriously, I expect the AC will have some very clear things to say on the matter.
Also, this restriction prevents me from doing RC patrol, counter-vandalism, or defending myself against the next stalker that attacks me (and there's no reason to think one won't). Moreover, the AC ruling puts me in a bad light, in essence depriving me of legitimacy in the eyes of the community, with no justification. It implies that I'm an unreasonable user, which I am not and never have been.
I believe we are giving you the chance to show yourself to be a legitimate user. That is my intention. I am certain that none of the AC considers reversions of vandalism to count in your ruling. I personally undertake to unblock you if anyone blocks you for reverting vandalism.
Perhaps the most frustrating thing is that no one has told me what I've done wrong or, rather, no one has told me why my account of the edit histories in question is not adequate for them. Many of the cases where they accused me of misbehaving are so clearcut that really the AC should apologize for attacking me on those points. But not a peep has been uttered about what I raised.
Visit not the sins of the father on the son. I was myself not a member of that committee, and do not consider myself responsible for the decisions, whether they were right or wrong.
In essence, they ignored every point I made. I wasted my time preparing a solid case thinking I would get a fair hearing from the current committee, and have been basically told to get stuffed. How would that make you feel?
We have undertaken to look at your case again when we have some more evidence to base our actions on. If you can manage four months of good editing (and I see no reason why you cannot), your restrictions will likely be lifted. That doesn't fulfill my description of "get stuffed".
-- Sam
I don't imagine the current AC (I cannot speak for past committees, though I fully expect they would say the same) will penalise you for other people causing conflict with you.
But you did. I didn't asked to be stalked, and I was even clear about what provoked it so I can't even be blamed for being the victim of vandalism.
I believe Geni made some apt comments on this mailing list about how it
feels to be constantly blocked.
If people abuse the AC decision to block you spuriously, I expect the AC will have some very clear things to say on the matter.
But you didn't. I specifically asked you to review such a block, and no comment was made on it by any arbitrator (well, except Fred Bauder in his mailing list post, but he was recused).
I believe we are giving you the chance to show yourself to be a
legitimate user. That is my intention. I am certain that none of the AC considers reversions of vandalism to count in your ruling. I personally undertake to unblock you if anyone blocks you for reverting vandalism.
Well this reflects well on you; at least one member of the AC is willing to commit to something positive. Instead of Raul talking down to me like he owes no one a fair shake.
me on those points. But not a peep has been uttered about what I raised.
Visit not the sins of the father on the son. I was myself not a member of that committee, and do not consider myself responsible for the decisions, whether they were right or wrong.
I'm not saying you are personally responsible, but as you now are part of the AC you can take institutional responsibility, like governments do. Or if that's too much, add a "finding of fact" that the past ruling was in error.
We have undertaken to look at your case again when we have some more
evidence to base our actions on. If you can manage four months of good editing (and I see no reason why you cannot), your restrictions will likely be lifted. That doesn't fulfill my description of "get stuffed".
Well there was already quite a lot of evidence my contributions history. Maybe the third time would be the charm, but why after two crash-and-burns should I be hopeful?
Anyway, I feel like you're asking me to make a bunch of uncontroversial (frivolous?) edits (what did I say, on bunnies and flowers). Anyone can do that and it proves nothing, so yes it seems you're just telling me off for another length of time.
VV
On 2/27/06, VeryVerily veryverily@gmail.com wrote:
I don't imagine the current AC (I cannot speak for past committees, though I fully expect they would say the same) will penalise you for other people causing conflict with you.
But you did. I didn't asked to be stalked, and I was even clear about what provoked it so I can't even be blamed for being the victim of vandalism.
Sorry for any lack of context. I don't know enough to comment retrospectively. I am considering the future. The past is past.
I believe Geni made some apt comments on this mailing list about how it
feels to be constantly blocked.
If people abuse the AC decision to block you spuriously, I expect the AC will have some very clear things to say on the matter.
But you didn't. I specifically asked you to review such a block, and no comment was made on it by any arbitrator (well, except Fred Bauder in his mailing list post, but he was recused).
Sorry, I've lost you. Which block was this?
me on those points. But not a peep has been uttered about what I raised.
Visit not the sins of the father on the son. I was myself not a member of that committee, and do not consider myself responsible for the decisions, whether they were right or wrong.
I'm not saying you are personally responsible, but as you now are part of the AC you can take institutional responsibility, like governments do. Or if that's too much, add a "finding of fact" that the past ruling was in error.
I don't think that would really help anything. I will acknowlegde, though, my belief that errors were made. I don't know to what extent, but errors were made.
Well there was already quite a lot of evidence my contributions history. Maybe the third time would be the charm, but why after two crash-and-burns should I be hopeful?
The reason that we have been fairly slow in relaxing most of the restrictions is that you have hardly been contributing, so we don't know how necessary things are. I wish you luck in showing the community your good intentions, and earning trust.
Anyway, I feel like you're asking me to make a bunch of uncontroversial (frivolous?) edits (what did I say, on bunnies and flowers). Anyone can do that and it proves nothing, so yes it seems you're just telling me off for another length of time.
No-one is asking you to make uncontroversial edits. We are only asking you not to cause conflict, which is something everyone should be doing all the time. I will take into account any harassment you get.
-- Sam
But you did. I didn't asked to be stalked, and I was even clear about
what
provoked it so I can't even be blamed for being the victim of vandalism.
Sorry for any lack of context. I don't know enough to comment retrospectively. I am considering the future. The past is past.
Then let it be the past and drop the restrictions on me.
I provided all that should be needed to comment in my appeal. The last AC didn't seem to know enough, either.
I believe Geni made some apt comments on this mailing list about how it
feels to be constantly blocked.
If people abuse the AC decision to block you spuriously, I expect the AC will have some very clear things to say on the matter.
But you didn't. I specifically asked you to review such a block, and no comment was made on it by any arbitrator (well, except Fred Bauder in
his
mailing list post, but he was recused).
Sorry, I've lost you. Which block was this?
It was a major section of my appeal, entitled "Block by Neutrality". How did you miss it? This incident was the last straw that caused me to walk away.
I'm not saying you are personally responsible, but as you now are part of
the AC you can take institutional responsibility, like governments
do. Or
if that's too much, add a "finding of fact" that the past ruling was in error.
I don't think that would really help anything. I will acknowlegde, though, my belief that errors were made. I don't know to what extent, but errors were made.
Given that the past errors were the grounds for the relevant rulings, yes it matters. And yes it would help.
Well there was already quite a lot of evidence my contributions history.
Maybe the third time would be the charm, but why after two
crash-and-burns
should I be hopeful?
The reason that we have been fairly slow in relaxing most of the restrictions is that you have hardly been contributing, so we don't know how necessary things are. I wish you luck in showing the community your good intentions, and earning trust.
I don't understand this. Why is an edit made in March 2006 easier to evaulate than one made in December 2004? And if my good intentions aren't obvious to you after 1 1/2 years of intense editing, I don't see what magic you expect in the coming months.
No-one is asking you to make uncontroversial edits. We are only
asking you not to cause conflict, which is something everyone should be doing all the time. I will take into account any harassment you get.
"Causing conflict" is one of these things that mean what people decide it does in the moment. (Like, perhaps, "reverting".) And anyway I certainly *could* make nothing but uncontroversial edits for a time, anyone could, so what would that prove? The relevant material is what happened when I was not under these restrictions. In those days I was struggling to defend Wikipedia's credibility and content, as I believe I have shown.
And the past harassment was not accounted for.
If you wish to discuss how you foresee handling cases like Ruy Lopez's denial of history in the future, we could do that. But pre-emptively tethering me because you're "not sure" is just wrong. It's benefit of the doubt.
Maybe "WikiLove" is just a word people use to make themselves feel good without actually treating others any better.
But I suppose it's naive of me to think you would allow yourself to be persuaded to change your vote.
VV
I don't understand this. Why is an edit made in March 2006 easier to evaulate than one made in December 2004?
Because the people with whome you were edit warring with are under AC restrictions now.
And if my good intentions aren't
obvious to you after 1 1/2 years of intense editing, I don't see what magic you expect in the coming months.
During those 1 1/2 years you were edit warring. No one is doubtimg your good intentions anyway. What we doubt is your ability to not edit war.
No-one is asking you to make uncontroversial edits. We are only
asking you not to cause conflict, which is something everyone should be doing all the time. I will take into account any harassment you get.
"Causing conflict" is one of these things that mean what people decide it does in the moment. (Like, perhaps, "reverting".) And anyway I certainly *could* make nothing but uncontroversial edits for a time, anyone could, so what would that prove? The relevant material is what happened when I was not under these restrictions. In those days I was struggling to defend Wikipedia's credibility and content, as I believe I have shown.
Since you *could* do it then why don't you just do it? What it would prove is that you *can* edit uncontroversially. I would love to be proved wrong on this.
Theresa
And if my good intentions aren't
obvious to you after 1 1/2 years of intense editing, I don't see what
magic
you expect in the coming months.
During those 1 1/2 years you were edit warring. No one is doubtimg your good intentions anyway. What we doubt is your ability to not edit war.
You'll note I was replying to Sam Korn, who did refer to such doubts. In fact, every arbitrator seems to be telling something different, and treating it like an absolute, self-evident truth.
Since you *could* do it then why don't you just do it? What it would
prove is that you *can* edit uncontroversially. I would love to be proved wrong on this.
Huh? Any idiot can make a thousand uncontroversial copyedits. What would you be wrong about in that case?
VV
VeryVerily wrote:
Huh? Any idiot can make a thousand uncontroversial copyedits. What would you be wrong about in that case?
There _are_ people who, if all they could edit were articles on flowers and bunnies, would get into an edit war on flowers and bunnies. Now _you_ may be certain that you're not one of those people, but others may not know you as intimately as you know yourself.
As you say yourself, proving the fact would take nothing but patience and self-control. The fact that you took a one-year Wikibreak suggests you have some of those. So why not go do that? If you start doing it right now, you'll get quite a few uncontroversial copyedits done even before this thread here is over.
Besides, those uncontroversial copyedits also improve the encyclopedia. That's something you seem to care deeply about. We don't want to have an encyclopedia that's full of misspellings, do we?
There _are_ people who, if all they could edit were articles on flowers and bunnies, would get into an edit war on flowers and bunnies. Now _you_ may be certain that you're not one of those people, but others may not know you as intimately as you know yourself.
I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting this. All noted cases follow a pretty obvious theme, e.g., me preventing an attempt to deny the almost inconceivable scale of murder and death created by a communist regime. Again, if this were a Nazi denying the Holocaust I had fought, I'd be being feted as a hero on the mailing list right now, and everyone would look the other way if any "rules" were broken.
As you say yourself, proving the fact would take nothing but patience and self-control. The fact that you took a one-year Wikibreak suggests you have some of those. So why not go do that? If you start doing it
I think I've addressed this point several times. (a) The arbitrators still refuse to specify what *isn't* grounds for a block. (b) I'd be a second-class editor, and everyone I tried to work with would know it. (c) I didn't leave for a year then come back with this appeal so that nothing would change, and there remains no justification for it.
Besides, those uncontroversial copyedits also improve the encyclopedia. That's something you seem to care deeply about. We don't want to have an encyclopedia that's full of misspellings, do we?
Actually, though I did much copyediting in my day, I honestly don't care that much. It's misinformation that bothers me much more. Indeed, misspellings have an upside, as they remind the casual reader that those articles are amateurish and not credible, so when they read on Wikipedia that Pol Pot was a kindly old man cruelly smeared by the corporate media, they won't take it too seriously.
VV
On 2/28/06, VeryVerily veryverily@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting this. All noted cases follow a pretty obvious theme, e.g., me preventing an attempt to deny the almost inconceivable scale of murder and death created by a communist regime. Again, if this were a Nazi denying the Holocaust I had fought, I'd be being feted as a hero on the mailing list right now, and everyone would look the other way if any "rules" were broken.
I don't think anyone engaged in an edit war is ever feted as a hero. Also, I don't believe anyone is suggesting you are not acting in good faith. It just sounds like your way of going about your business is possibly a little confrontational...
I think I've addressed this point several times. (a) The arbitrators still refuse to specify what *isn't* grounds for a block. (b) I'd be a second-class editor, and everyone I tried to work with would know it. (c) I didn't leave for a year then come back with this appeal so that nothing would change, and there remains no justification for it.
People who don't revert others' changes without discussing them on the talk pages are second-class editors? I wish we could banish first class.
Actually, though I did much copyediting in my day, I honestly don't care that much. It's misinformation that bothers me much more. Indeed, misspellings have an upside, as they remind the casual reader that those articles are amateurish and not credible, so when they read on Wikipedia that Pol Pot was a kindly old man cruelly smeared by the corporate media, they won't take it too seriously.
At the end of the day, anyone with a particular agenda they're trying to push (whether valid or not), has to tread carefully. If there are people bent on denying that particular agenda, then doubly so. Being right isn't all that matters, after all. What else needs to be said?
Steve
I don't think anyone engaged in an edit war is ever feted as a hero.
I've seen it. You're wrong.
And, in fact, many editors did compliment me on my persistence in keeping our articles from being ruined.
Also, I don't believe anyone is suggesting you are not acting in good faith. It just sounds like your way of going about your business is possibly a little confrontational...
That is a false impression created by the way these arguments were portrayed. I was dealing with this "editor" for almost a year, and went through every community channel available to try to deal with his patterns of destruction. This is all explained in my appeal. People (many more than just me) resorted to reverting him because he was immune to argument and further discussion, and would just create new sockpuppet accounts to continue it.
People who don't revert others' changes without discussing them on the talk pages are second-class editors? I wish we could banish first class.
Again, this is ripping it out of context. An editor who is following me around and reverting all my edits does not to be talked with on every page he reverts, to explain in detail why I made each edit he probably hadn't even looked at. That is obvious.
I clearly was always responsible in using the talk pages. This too is well-documented. But there are obvious cases such as vandalism where no one bothers to go to talk, for again obvious reasons. And when a person goes on a rampage blanking large sections of articles and making the same discredited edit to a dozen articles that we've already discussed twenty times over the last year, it's clear the option of dialogue has been exhausted. Look at how many archived talk pages there are on [[Khmer Rouge]] going in circles with someone who is clearly just here to push an agenda and not interested in the facts.
At the end of the day, anyone with a particular agenda they're trying to push (whether valid or not), has to tread carefully. If there are people bent on denying that particular agenda, then doubly so. Being right isn't all that matters, after all. What else needs to be said?
It's not just a matter of being "right". There are legitimate content disputes and illegitimate ones. Writing, "bobby is gay", on the George Bush article is not legitimate and does not warrant a discussion. Call that an "agenda" if you wish. Similarly, erasing volumes of sourced material is not legitimate. If one's agenda is a devotion to accuracy and neutrality, there is no issue.
VV
On 2/28/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think anyone engaged in an edit war is ever feted as a hero.
Heh
Also, I don't believe anyone is suggesting you are not acting in good faith. It just sounds like your way of going about your business is possibly a little confrontational...
Being confrontational under certain conditions pretty much has offical aproval thses days.
People who don't revert others' changes without discussing them on the talk pages are second-class editors? I wish we could banish first class.
Would you agree to have the arbcom remedy imposed on you?
At the end of the day, anyone with a particular agenda they're trying to push (whether valid or not), has to tread carefully. If there are people bent on denying that particular agenda, then doubly so. Being right isn't all that matters, after all. What else needs to be said?
Steve
When it comes to article content being right is everything. -- geni
On 2/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Would you agree to have the arbcom remedy imposed on you?
Avoid interpersonal dispute, not edit war, and discuss reverts before making them? Sure, if you do too (and VV). One month?
Steve
On 2/28/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Would you agree to have the arbcom remedy imposed on you?
Avoid interpersonal dispute, not edit war, and discuss reverts before making them? Sure, if you do too (and VV). One month?
Steve
Nope. I deal with copyvios. I'm not ruleing out any tactic (particularly when you consider I use a very broad defintion of edit war).
-- geni
As ye olde former Arbitration Committee member, I think
1) VeryVerily is something of a dick (or, more specifically, he's rather incapable of ignoring antagonistic behavior, and quick to get antagonized). 2) The Arbitration Committee is being way too punitive and antagonistic. 3) After staying away for a year, he shouldn't have any restrictions on his edit behavior outside of those on the general community.
In other words, we should assume good faith and not engage in probation.
Obviously, lots of people are going to be watching him as if he were wearing the scarlet letter no matter what, and they'll probably find something to jump on eventually, since we all make mistakes/do things that upset another editor (e.g. Raul reverting a perfectly normal edit because it came from a friend of a troller, or any of my various bothersome edits) and then give VV enough rope to hang himself in a contentious arbitration hearing.
But it's just wrong for the ArbCom now to single him out.
My $.02.
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
As ye olde former Arbitration Committee member, I think
- VeryVerily is something of a dick (or, more specifically, he's
rather incapable of ignoring antagonistic behavior, and quick to get antagonized).
It may be true I get antagonized more easily than I should, but I don't think this earns me the d-word. Maybe you have an expanded definition.
- The Arbitration Committee is being way too punitive and antagonistic.
- After staying away for a year, he shouldn't have any restrictions
on his edit behavior outside of those on the general community.
In other words, we should assume good faith and not engage in probation.
No argument with any of this, of course.
Obviously, lots of people are going to be watching him as if he were wearing the scarlet letter no matter what, and they'll probably find something to jump on eventually, since we all make mistakes/do things that upset another editor (e.g. Raul reverting a perfectly normal edit
A point worth underscoring. Even if I were untethered, I'd fully expect to get the hawkeye and be very vulnerable to being dragged before the committee again by anyone with a beef.
And of course the hawkeye problem is doubled with this restriction, as a menu of pretexts is open. "I see you removed a deleted category; someone else once added that, so it's a revert; 24-hour block." That is the point the arbs refuse to comment on. In the absence of condemnation of past abuses of the ruling, airy assertions about how "reason" will be applied in the future aren't very reassuring.
VV
On 2/28/06, VeryVerily veryverily@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
As ye olde former Arbitration Committee member, I think
- VeryVerily is something of a dick (or, more specifically, he's
rather incapable of ignoring antagonistic behavior, and quick to get antagonized).
It may be true I get antagonized more easily than I should, but I don't think this earns me the d-word. Maybe you have an expanded definition.
See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
It's not just that you get antagonized, it's that you engage in wheedling lawyerly arguments when you're riled up. Believe me, I'm on your side here, but you need to just stop making your arguments over and over. Bringing up your point once suffices. (Or it doesn't, but repeating it won't help, either.)
Yes, it's mindblowingly frustrating to be in your position (I often am, myself) but you still have to be the better person. The trick is to mollifying petty autocrats is to be unpredictable in your responses to antagonism--sometimes contesting, sometimes walking away, ideally finding points of agreement. I find simply cataloguing attacks on me (with anything I did to provoke it) and providing no other response to be both satisfying and a good way to break cycles of criticism.
Look for the points of agreement.
Recognize that what most people are looking for is a sense of contrition for driving them crazy.
Because you have driven people crazy, and you're kind of doing so now.
On 2/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Would you agree to have the arbcom remedy imposed on you?
Avoid interpersonal dispute, not edit war, and discuss reverts before making them? Sure, if you do too (and VV). One month?
Steve
Nope. I deal with copyvios. I'm not ruleing out any tactic (particularly when you consider I use a very broad defintion of edit war).
You'd just have to not deal with copyvios for a month. Couldn't you do that?
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Would you agree to have the arbcom remedy imposed on you?
Avoid interpersonal dispute, not edit war, and discuss reverts before making them? Sure, if you do too (and VV). One month?
Steve
Nope. I deal with copyvios. I'm not ruleing out any tactic (particularly when you consider I use a very broad defintion of edit war).
You'd just have to not deal with copyvios for a month. Couldn't you do that?
I could. I'm not going to. We are short staffed in that area already and I'm testing a new account.
-- geni
VeryVerily wrote:
if this were a Nazi denying the Holocaust I had fought, I'd be being feted as a hero on the mailing list right now, and everyone would look the other way if any "rules" were broken.
Hmm. Does Godwin's Law apply now? :-)
I'm going to make some observations. VeryVerily, please understand it is *not* *you* I am talking about here. (I've never interacted with you; I haven't looked at your edit history; I don't know what kind of editor you are.)
There are some editors who are: (1) extremely knowledgeable about a significant subject area, (2) passionate about that subject and about improving the Encyclopedia, but (3) in the end, sadly, unable to participate in the project. Their participation is impossible because they are simply incapable of working within the structure which Wikipedia has set up, where partisans on opposite sides of a contentious issue (partisans who, in real life, might well want to be killing each other), work together cooperatively to craft an NPOV article. You need more than just knowledge and passion to conduct that mission: you also need things like diplomacy and humility and patience, and not everyone possesses all of those skills.
It takes two to make an edit war. If you are engaged in an edit war, no matter how Right your cause is, no matter how True your facts are, no matter how Wrong your opponents are, you are partially at fault.
Wikipedia *can* *not* afford too many edit wars. They are ridiculously expensive and destructive and timeconsuming. They take up everybody's time (especially the beleaguered arbitrators), they discourage other editors from participating, they leave the contested articles unreadable for long periods of time. Even after the cases are arbitrated, the toll continues, because the aggrieved parties can never accept the results, and continue to appeal their cases by posting long, overwrought messages to Jimbo's talk page and the like.
For example, there's an article [[Palestinian exodus]] describing the flight of Palestinians from what is now Israel after the 1948 war. It appears to have been edited primarily by people sympathetic to the Palestinian side of that conflict, and reads (to me, at least) with a pretty significant POV bias. There's an editor by the name of Zeq who has been trying to fix it, which ought to be a laudable cause, because it (probably) does need fixing. But he hasn't been able to do it dispassionately, and he ended up getting banned from editing that article.
On several counts, I believe he is in the right. The article is biased, and his opponents have worked to keep it that way. But the difference is that his opponents appear to have done better at playing by Wikipedia's rules than he has, which is why he has been banned and they haven't, and their view (for now) prevails. This is very sad, very wrong, and not how the Encyclopedia is supposed to work. But until an editor comes along who is knowledgeable and passionate about the Israeli side of that conflict, *and* who is able to edit a contentious Wikipedia article dispassionately and diplomatically, the lopsidedness is likely to remain.
And of course that's hardly the only example; this pattern recurs all the time. There's ample documentation of the problem; there's ample help available in the form of lists of suggestions for editors who want to learn how to work more effectively within Wikipedia's environment; I'm certainly not the first to be pointing any of this out. But, of course, one of the traits of the problematic editors is that they don't have enough self-reflection to realize that they're the ones those lists of suggestions are aimed at, and they don't have the disposition necessary to actually adopt and apply the suggestions.
It's all too easy for outside observers to recognize when one of these disputative situations has cropped up, which is one reason that the aggrieved parties often feel they're being discriminated or conspired against. The same hallmarks ought to make it easy for the participants to recognize themselves as well -- if only they could. I was going to describe some of the hallmarks here, but they'd break the flow of an already too-long message, and VeryVerily would think I was talking about him, so I'll list them somewhere else.
The bottom line, however, is that *it is possible to edit a Wikipedia article on even a highly contentious subject without having all these horrible problems*. If you are having these problems, *you are doing something wrong*. You can't blame it on your opponents or on "the system"; *you are part of the problem*. You are going to have to change your attitude and the way you work on Wikipedia.
It's too bad when a passionate and knowledgeable but disputative editor can't be perfectly accommodated. But the process of trying to accommodate disputative editors does not scale -- Arbcon is under increasing amounts of pressure as more and more aggrieved editors demand their right to be heard, and it's only going to get worse as the numbers of editors increase.
Steve Summit [[en:User:Ummit]]
if this were a Nazi denying the Holocaust I had fought, I'd be being feted as a hero on the mailing list right now, and everyone would look the other way if any "rules" were broken.
Hmm. Does Godwin's Law apply now? :-)
Well not in the current form, as I'm not comparing anyone to Nazis. There have, however, been several high-profile cases of admitted Nazis editing here, and the rules were generally suspended in favor of simply getting rid of them and reverting all their edits. Stalinists don't get that treatment, though.
unable to participate in the project. Their participation is impossible because they are simply incapable of working within the structure which Wikipedia has set up, where partisans on opposite sides of a contentious issue (partisans who, in real life, might well want to be killing each other), work together cooperatively to craft an NPOV article. You need more than just
When dealing with others in a contentious issue who are cooperative, I've never had a problem. There are those such as Ruy Lopez who are not interested in cooperating or NPOV and just wreck articles. I spent many hours trying to talk to him until realizing that doesn't work.
In point of fact, this ideal is not very common. Most partisans in a contentious issue have trouble cooperating. But as long as they're somewhat reasonable, we can usually slog through anyway. (There may even a flurry of edit warring in the middle.)
It takes two to make an edit war. If you are engaged in an edit war, no matter how Right your cause is, no matter how True your facts are, no matter how Wrong your opponents are, you are partially at fault.
My point is that the denial of murder of millions is emotional enough in the case of Nazism that people will overlook this and regard what they think as Right and True (that the Holocaust happened) as Right and True enough to not require observation of norms of cooperation and compromise, but when it comes to communist regimes deniers are treated like just another editor.
I never said that I did break any community rules in dealing with these deniers of history. Rather, I noted that, even if I skirted them, there is a double standard.
Wikipedia *can* *not* afford too many edit wars. They are ridiculously expensive and destructive and timeconsuming. They take up everybody's time (especially the beleaguered arbitrators), they discourage other editors from participating, they leave the contested articles unreadable for long periods of time.
I'm not sure it's that dire. I've seen edit wars go on, and then things get sorted out and the article is better than it was before. You can still argue that edit wars are bad, but dragging on for months is pretty uncommon.
The bottom line, however, is that *it is possible to edit a Wikipedia article on even a highly contentious subject without having all these horrible problems*. If you are having these problems, *you are doing something wrong*.
I don't think so. Anyone's who's gotten involved in the [[Khmer Rouge]] article can see what's up. He's been a problem for ALL of us.
Some people have a note on their user page such as, "This page has been vandalized 56 times." Are both parties equally to blame? Is this a confession of what a bad user he or she must be? I think almost everyone would say no, some are here up to no good.
In general, I believe the ArbComm needs to come down a lot harder on those who are not here with good intentions, not putting valid content into articles, and not contributing to the encyclopedia than they do, and much softer on those who are dealing with such people and tick over some revert count now and then out of sheer frustration.
The Palestinian Exodus case sounds like a bad and sad one. I expect your prognosis is a bit too optimistic and utopian, but I can't say for sure.
It's too bad when a passionate and knowledgeable but disputative editor can't be perfectly accommodated. But the process of trying to accommodate disputative editors does not scale -- Arbcon is under increasing amounts of pressure as more and more aggrieved editors demand their right to be heard, and it's only going to get worse as the numbers of editors increase.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. But I don't think it's quite the way you've spun it. Ruy Lopez was allowed to function here for two years with no administrative sanction to speak of. If anyone is disputative, he was. The ArbComm should have distinguished better between attackers and defenders, and have no excuse not to have. I think you need to too.
(One more comment: I may well have stayed if my only restriction was, say, a 1RR with a timeout in a few months. Then I would at least be able to guess when I might be blocked and could still do counter-vandalism and the like. This approach makes some sense if they really think a user reverts too much. But they took the road they did, despite all my explanations, which, in the end, were for nothing. Maybe it's my fault for having misplaced faith in the users on the committee and wasting my time appealing to them.)
VV
On 2/28/06, VeryVerily veryverily@gmail.com wrote:
Since you *could* do it then why don't you just do it? What it would prove is that you *can* edit uncontroversially. I would love to be proved wrong on this.
Huh? Any idiot can make a thousand uncontroversial copyedits. What would you be wrong about in that case?
I'd just like to point out that "edit uncontroversially" turned into "uncontroversial copyedits" here - two totally different things. The vast majority of Wikipedians spend most of their time making uncontroversial edits on subjects far more interesting and varied than bunnies and flowers. And they don't have to just be "copyedits" (ie, spelling and punctuation) either...
Steve
I'd just like to point out that "edit uncontroversially" turned into "uncontroversial copyedits" here - two totally different things. The
It didn't "turn into" that. I gave the latter as an example of the former.
But there is a point here, that maybe they're not so different, to wit:
vast majority of Wikipedians spend most of their time making uncontroversial edits on subjects far more interesting and varied than
(Actually, so did I, but this is overlooked.)
bunnies and flowers. And they don't have to just be "copyedits" (ie, spelling and punctuation) either...
Don't be so sure. I've been amazed by what people are willing to fight over around here. The most seemingly innocuous edit may be deemed provocative by someone. I'm reminded of [[User:Ark30inf]] and Arkansas, or that [[DNA]] mess, and a few experiences of my own.
With conflicting, vague, and possible out-of-my-control requirements - no "interpersonal disputes", no "causing conflict", etc. - copyediting may be all that's safe.
Or not even that. Last time I was being stalked, my simple attempt to fix the capitalization in an article "provoked" an edit war, as the user was simply reverting all my edits (my restoring of such edits was then offered by the AC as proof of my bad behavior).
VV
On 2/28/06, VeryVerily veryverily@gmail.com wrote:
Don't be so sure. I've been amazed by what people are willing to fight over around here. The most seemingly innocuous edit may be deemed provocative by someone. I'm reminded of [[User:Ark30inf]] and Arkansas, or that [[DNA]] mess, and a few experiences of my own.
Yes, some people do fight over silly things. But most people don't.
With conflicting, vague, and possible out-of-my-control requirements - no "interpersonal disputes", no "causing conflict", etc. - copyediting may be all that's safe.
That's a pretty pessimistic view of life. I avoid conflicts on Wikipedia, and yet I've tackled some pretty contentious tasks, like rewording most policy documents, deleting some policies, and edited on a couple of controversial articles. Sometimes, you have to accept that to avoid a dispute, you just have to let someone else have their way for a while. Or wait two weeks and try again :)
Or not even that. Last time I was being stalked, my simple attempt to fix the capitalization in an article "provoked" an edit war, as the user was simply reverting all my edits (my restoring of such edits was then offered by the AC as proof of my bad behavior).
What do you want us to say? Edit wars are bad. If someone acts like a [[WP:DICK]], then get help - don't risk being mistaken for one.
Steve
With conflicting, vague, and possible out-of-my-control requirements - no "interpersonal disputes", no "causing conflict", etc. - copyediting may be all that's safe.
That's a pretty pessimistic view of life. I avoid conflicts on Wikipedia, and yet I've tackled some pretty contentious tasks, like rewording most policy documents, deleting some policies, and edited on a couple of controversial articles.
The point is I can run afoul of these "rules" despite my best efforts. I can't speak to your edit history.
Sometimes, you have to accept that to avoid a dispute, you just have to let someone else have their way for a while. Or wait two weeks and try again :)
Given that community norms have changed in the last two years, I'd be likely to do a lot more of that were I allowed to stay under acceptable conditions.
Or not even that. Last time I was being stalked, my simple attempt to fix the capitalization in an article "provoked" an edit war, as the user was simply reverting all my edits (my restoring of such edits was then offered by the AC as proof of my bad behavior).
What do you want us to say? Edit wars are bad. If someone acts like a [[WP:DICK]], then get help - don't risk being mistaken for one.
Read my appeal. I went to the ArbComm asking for help. They diddled and dawdled, and then ignored me, and eventually at least seemed to decide that I was at fault, presumably because they never really looked at the case.
I wasn't worried about being mistaken for anything, as it was a fairly simple situation to explain. Persistent vandals have been around almost from the beginning.
VV
On 2/27/06, VeryVerily veryverily@gmail.com wrote:
Then let it be the past and drop the restrictions on me.
If you can show that the restrictions are now misplaced, I agree.
It was a major section of my appeal, entitled "Block by Neutrality". How did you miss it? This incident was the last straw that caused me to walk away.
Sorry, it was confusing whether you were referring to a more recent block. I think the issue is that we need convincing that you will not edit war in future. I fully expect reason to be applied to the restrictions.
I don't think that would really help anything. I will acknowlegde, though, my belief that errors were made. I don't know to what extent, but errors were made.
Given that the past errors were the grounds for the relevant rulings, yes it matters. And yes it would help.
You seem in misapprehension as to why the restrictions are lifted. It is not on account of the previous rulings' being in error, even if they were.
I don't understand this. Why is an edit made in March 2006 easier to evaulate than one made in December 2004? And if my good intentions aren't obvious to you after 1 1/2 years of intense editing, I don't see what magic you expect in the coming months.
Context. I don't know the history as well as I know the history of current conflicts.
"Causing conflict" is one of these things that mean what people decide it does in the moment. (Like, perhaps, "reverting".) And anyway I certainly *could* make nothing but uncontroversial edits for a time, anyone could, so what would that prove? The relevant material is what happened when I was not under these restrictions. In those days I was struggling to defend Wikipedia's credibility and content, as I believe I have shown.
Clearly you did not read the bit where I said "no-one is asking you to make uncontroversial edits". We are asking you not to edit war and not to, by your actions, provoke conflict. That applies whether or not the restrictions are in place.
And the past harassment was not accounted for.
I don't live in the past.
If you wish to discuss how you foresee handling cases like Ruy Lopez's denial of history in the future, we could do that. But pre-emptively tethering me because you're "not sure" is just wrong. It's benefit of the doubt.
Yes. We are giving you the chance to show that the restrictions *are* (present tense, not past tense) unnecessary.
But I suppose it's naive of me to think you would allow yourself to be persuaded to change your vote.
You can persuade me by your actions.
-- Sam
Sorry, it was confusing whether you were referring to a more recent block. I think the issue is that we need convincing that you will not edit war in future. I fully expect reason to be applied to the restrictions.
But reason wasn't in the past, which is why you should take advantage of the opportunity to clarify them. And I specifically asked the ArbComm to, and they did not. So prima facie it seems it will be as it was, and not reasonable.
You seem in misapprehension as to why the restrictions are lifted. It is not on account of the previous rulings' being in error, even if they were.
Then tell me why, because everyone gives a different answer. Raul says it's because the 3RR would do the job. TK says it's because she was partly persuaded by my reasoning.
And as I've made clear the lifting of this restriction was irrelevant.
I don't understand this. Why is an edit made in March 2006 easier to evaulate than one made in December 2004? And if my good intentions aren't obvious to you after 1 1/2 years of intense editing, I don't see what magic you expect in the coming months.
Context. I don't know the history as well as I know the history of current conflicts.
Why not? In both cases all you have is the presented edit histories in front of you.
"Causing conflict" is one of these things that mean what people decide it does in the moment. (Like, perhaps, "reverting".) And anyway I certainly *could* make nothing but uncontroversial edits for a time, anyone could, so what would that prove? The relevant material is what happened when I was not under these restrictions. In those days I was struggling to defend Wikipedia's credibility and content, as I believe I have shown.
Clearly you did not read the bit where I said "no-one is asking you to make uncontroversial edits". We are asking you not to edit war and not to, by your actions, provoke conflict. That applies whether or not the restrictions are in place.
You are wrong about what I read. You clearly did not understand my comment, which is that regardless of your intent one could trivially satisfy your requirement by making dumb edits. This would prove nothing but my willingness to play along with your game.
And the past harassment was not accounted for.
I don't live in the past.
But your job is to judge it.
Yes. We are giving you the chance to show that the restrictions *are* (present tense, not past tense) unnecessary.
If the past is irrelevant, why I am I assumed guilty until proven innocent? New users are not put through this meat grinder, so why me?
But I suppose it's naive of me to think you would allow yourself to be persuaded to change your vote.
You can persuade me by your actions.
If you want to change your vote, you'd better hurry. Not much time for my actions.
VV
On 2/28/06, VeryVerily veryverily@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand this. Why is an edit made in March 2006 easier to evaulate than one made in December 2004? And if my good intentions aren't obvious to you after 1 1/2 years of intense editing, I don't see what magic you expect in the coming months.
Context. I don't know the history as well as I know the history of current conflicts.
Why not? In both cases all you have is the presented edit histories in front of you.
I happen to look at matters through my first hand appreciation of them. It is clearly impossible to do this here.
I don't live in the past.
But your job is to judge it.
No. My job is to decide what is in Wikipedia's best interests.
Yes. We are giving you the chance to show that the restrictions *are* (present tense, not past tense) unnecessary.
If the past is irrelevant, why I am I assumed guilty until proven innocent? New users are not put through this meat grinder, so why me?
To be fair, you have been found "guilty", whether that was right or wrong. We're looking at the future.
But I suppose it's naive of me to think you would allow yourself to be persuaded to change your vote.
You can persuade me by your actions.
If you want to change your vote, you'd better hurry. Not much time for my actions.
I believe we said four months.
-- Sam
On 2/28/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Context. I don't know the history as well as I know the history of current conflicts.
Why not? In both cases all you have is the presented edit histories in front of you.
I happen to look at matters through my first hand appreciation of them. It is clearly impossible to do this here.
Generally arbitrators recuse themselves in cases they experience firsthand. I think the default is that they *haven't* seen the case before, in any detail.
I don't live in the past.
But your job is to judge it.
No. My job is to decide what is in Wikipedia's best interests.
By looking at the evidence, which consists of what occured in the past. Don't play word games.
Yes. We are giving you the chance to show that the restrictions *are* (present tense, not past tense) unnecessary.
If the past is irrelevant, why I am I assumed guilty until proven innocent? New users are not put through this meat grinder, so why me?
To be fair, you have been found "guilty", whether that was right or wrong. We're looking at the future.
But that's the past. If you're unwilling to consider how appropriate the last decision was, why rely on it to make me prima facie deserving of restriction?
Indeed, I have been very, very patient with all of you. Many users would be screaming in your ear right now, and not without cause. I was mistreated badly once, condemned and banned without due cause. You might do me the courtesy of cutting me some slack now on account of this.
If you want to change your vote, you'd better hurry. Not much time for my actions.
I believe we said four months.
Not the vote I was referring to. Obviously.
VV
On Feb 28, 2006, at 1:40 PM, VeryVerily wrote:
Indeed, I have been very, very patient with all of you. Many users would be screaming in your ear right now, and not without cause. I was mistreated badly once, condemned and banned without due cause. You might do me the courtesy of cutting me some slack now on account of this.
I was going to wait for the case to actually wrap up to comment, since I clerked it, but this is frankly beyond the pale, and since the case is going to go to closed any time now, I'll comment.
I went into the evidence page expecting the request to overturn the ruling to be cut and dry. It was a long time ago, I hadn't heard anything of you in months, I figured you must be being sensible and that it would be an easy matter of summing up your contributions.
I was FLOORED to see that your sole grounds of appeal was that year- old evidence and decisions were a great travesty, and wrote a summary that was an unsubtle hint that providing some of the evidence that the arbcom was asking for would be a good idea. I left a note on your talk page to that effect. You basically told me to go fuck myself, though to your credit you were somewhat more civil than that.
Here's the problem - regardless of the previous case, you were, when you edited Wikipedia, one of the most committed revert warriors in existence. You and 172 still have an all-time record for the size of a revert war. And how were you sanctioned for your 40RR violation? You weren't. You avoided any sanction for being one of the worst of the worst in terms of edit warring until the case you're appealing. And the arbcom, not being stupid, is well aware of that.
So basically you're splitting year-old hairs and ignoring the fact that if that case wasn't the one that brought you down, another case would have, because there were easily a dozen that could have been made.
And yet all you had to do - ALL you had to do - was present some evidence that you were sorry, that you'd mellowed out in the last year, that you could work with others. The arbcom told you that after the first case, I told you that during your appeal, and the arbcom is telling you that again right now. And instead you presented yourself as the same old vicious bulldog ready to attack anything and anybody that stood in his way. You bungled the evidence presentation in this case in an epic manner, and turned sympathetic people against you in doing it.
-Phil
On 2/28/06, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, I have been very, very patient with all of you. Many users would be screaming in your ear right now, and not without cause. I was mistreated badly once, condemned and banned without due cause. You might do me the courtesy of cutting me some slack now on account of this.
I was going to wait for the case to actually wrap up to comment, since I clerked it, but this is frankly beyond the pale, and since the case is going to go to closed any time now, I'll comment.
Put yourself in my shoes and try to imagine how frustrating this experience must be for me.
I was FLOORED to see that your sole grounds of appeal was that year- old evidence and decisions were a great travesty, and wrote a summary that was an unsubtle hint that providing some of the evidence that the arbcom was asking for would be a good idea. I left a note on your talk page to that effect. You basically told me to go fuck myself, though to your credit you were somewhat more civil than that.
I told you that your summary completely missed the points I was trying to make. Which it did. And you put words in my mouth I never said, and seemed to deny that a vandal was a vandal. I don't even know what clerking was supposed to be for, but you didn't really do much in the end. I feel it was you who was attacking me, and I was not uncivil at all.
Here's the problem - regardless of the previous case, you were, when you edited Wikipedia, one of the most committed revert warriors in existence. You and 172 still have an all-time record for the size of a revert war. And how were you sanctioned for your 40RR violation?
This has been brought up before. That happend on *one* article, after months of frustration, and a long time ago when Wikipedia was much more of an anarchy. The enforcement then in existence was quickpolls, which voted against sanctioning me. The situation was resolved and over, community rules evolved, and nothing like that has happened since. I didn't expect double jeopardy.
I could have raised all these points had the AC actually brought them up. But instead they listed cases involving clear stalking and the like.
Remember their allegation was not just reverting but reverting *without adequate discussion*. And that was not the case in the May 2004 conflict anymore than it was in the later disputes. So it *can't* be relevant to the current case.
So basically you're splitting year-old hairs and ignoring the fact that if that case wasn't the one that brought you down, another case would have, because there were easily a dozen that could have been made.
A dozen? Pretty much anyone with a beef with me tried to use adminstrative sanctions against me. One conflict went to mediation (which was favorable to me), one was brought to arbitration but then resolved, one was the one in questin, and, well, that may be about it.
telling you that again right now. And instead you presented yourself as the same old vicious bulldog ready to attack anything and anybody that stood in his way.
? This is an absurd characterization.
You bungled the evidence presentation in this case in an epic manner, and turned sympathetic people against you in doing it.
Now you're way off base.
VV
"VeryVerily" wrote
Indeed, I have been very, very patient with all of you. Many users would be screaming in your ear right now, and not without cause. I was mistreated badly once, condemned and banned without due cause.
Well, your approach to the case has been both original and counter-productive. I suppose originality has something going for it.
With any luck, the rest of this thread will indicate how mistreated you have been. It seems to be going that way.
Charles
On 2/28/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"VeryVerily" wrote
Indeed, I have been very, very patient with all of you. Many users would be screaming in your ear right now, and not without cause. I was mistreated badly once, condemned and banned without due cause.
I admit that last comment of mine, which is no doubt going to be quoted back to me again and again, was a bit drastic. But it does reflect that I feel I've been trying to do things the way everyone wants and working very hard and for naught.
Well, your approach to the case has been both original and counter-productive. I suppose originality has something going for it.
You never liked me anyway. My comment about Wikipedia referencing itself on [[Talk:Local ring]] was sound though.
With any luck, the rest of this thread will indicate how mistreated you have been. It seems to be going that way.
I don't think treating people well gets enough weight in the ArbComm. They too much prioritize expediency over the human virtues.
VV
I am recused on VeryVerily's case as I have had trouble with the same aggressive point of view editors he is butting heads with, editors dedicated to whitewashing the history of totalitarian Communist activities. VeryVerily ought to be able to edit provided he is reasonably courteous, offers information from reliable references and does not engage in sterile edit warring. Sterile edit warring is reverting just to make a point. He ought to be judged by his current behavior, not events which occurred in 2004. Arbitrators who feel that a strong conservative point of view ought not to be expressed should have recused themselves.
Fred
On Feb 26, 2006, at 8:52 PM, VeryVerily wrote:
So please anyone who has time take a look and comment. I was a huge contributor before, and I see so much that needs to be done and want to pitch in. But they'd have me edit as a second-class editor deprived of legitimacy and vulnerable to arbitrary blocking. With no justification for making me one.
Thanks if you're still reading,
VV
"Fred Bauder" wrote
. Arbitrators who feel that a strong conservative point of view ought not to be expressed should have recused themselves.
Indeed, they clearly have a difficulty with NPOV, and probably should recuse themselves from many cases. If not leave the project.
But fortunately the ArbCom is not subject to any sort of jury-selection process, in which opinions held are taken to be disabling. I hope I never see the day.
Charles
On 2/27/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: VeryVerily ought to be able to edit provided he is
reasonably courteous, offers information from reliable references and does not engage in sterile edit warring.
No one is stopping him from editing. All that is being required is that he discuss reverts on the talk page.
He ought to be judged by his current behavior, not events which occurred in 2004.
How can we do that? He left Wikipedia for a year. His current edits are mostly to AC pages.
Arbitrators who feel
that a strong conservative point of view ought not to be expressed should have recused themselves.
I don't believe there are any arbitrators who feel that.
Theresa
On 2/27/06, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: VeryVerily ought to be able to edit provided he is
reasonably courteous, offers information from reliable references and does not engage in sterile edit warring.
No one is stopping him from editing. All that is being required is that he discuss reverts on the talk page.
The big problems with the "fine print" here have already been pointed out by me several times. Again, why did I leave for a year?
And this means the appeal did nothing.
He ought to be judged by his current
behavior, not events which occurred in 2004.
How can we do that? He left Wikipedia for a year. His current edits are mostly to AC pages.
Voluntarily leaving for a year itself is considerable restraint. Moreover, you could at least restrict yourself to events at the end of 2004 which I spent my time responding to.
You're asking me to jump through hoops. Yes instead of editing in areas of my interest I could edit on flowers and bunnies for four months and "prove" not getting into conflict. But why not just say a year-plus is enough and let me "try again"?
Arbitrators who feel
that a strong conservative point of view ought not to be expressed should have recused themselves.
I don't believe there are any arbitrators who feel that.
Your statements on your talk page that even reverting stalker vandalism or someone engaging in mass deletion is not acceptable suggests a problem. This is standard behavior for most editors. I think most admins would not hesitate to use "rollback" on someone following them around and reverting their edits, or otherwise vandalizing pages. So why the double standard?
And I did go through procedure, asking for the ArbComm's help with the stalker, and they not only did not provide it, but later said that the situation was resolved "in light of" me being banned.
VV