Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Closed on 22 Dec 2004

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statement of complaint[edit]

Note: Kevin Baas voluntarily joined this case as a party after the request was made, so the discussion below does not specifically deal with his participation.

All of the users named above have engaged in multiple revert wars recently on various pages. Each of them has appeared before the Arbitration Committee in the past or is presently under consideration by them. Requests for comment or requests for mediation have been attempted for each of these users, but their excessive reverting continues nevertheless. Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily have openly stated that they do not intend to abide by the three revert rule (see for example Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gzornenplatz).

These tactics lead to needless protection of pages, clutter page histories, flood recent changes, and interfere with the efforts of other editors. Often these revert wars are conducted without any real attempts at discussion on talk pages. Instead of negotiating over disputed changes, these users often have the attitude that they can state their position once and then enforce it, rather than debating the merits of their edits with others.

In the past month alone, these users have precipitated protection of the following pages (participants in the revert war are indicated, but the parties other than these three users generally abided by the three revert rule):

  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

Note: talk* means the talk page was not even used during the dispute that led to page protection. In many of the other instances, the discussion that did take place was inadequate or inappropriate. For those keeping score, VeryVerily is listed here 17 times, Gzornenplatz 11+ times, and Shorne (a newer participant in the revert wars on Wikipedia) 8 times.

Since October 1st, 42 of the 149 total entries on the protection log (28%) relate to these articles. And that's without counting several pages that had to be protected when several IPs believed to be User:Turrican began systematically reverting VeryVerily, or the mediation pages Bcorr protected while trying to deal with the proposed mediation between Shorne and VeryVerily. Nor does this list include various pages on which these users engaged in revert wars that did not result in page protection. Dealing with this problem would significantly reduce the number of locked pages.

I find this comment by Tuomas on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily2 insightful:

Unfortunately, his methods are very much in conflict with Wikipedia's written guidelines, and as his methods are seen as successful by a host of POV-pushers, more and more seem to follow his bad example. Wikipedia's reluctance to deal with this kind of problem pushes Wikipedia in the direction of the Usenet Newsgroups.

I think it is time to send the message to revert warriors of all POVs that this conduct is unacceptable. The vast majority of Wikipedians enforce the three revert rule against themselves through respect for community norms, willingness to engage in discussion, and ultimately by their own self-control. For those who lack these qualities, I ask the Arbitration Committee to quickly and expeditiously allow enforcement in appropriate cases. This has been largely successful in restricting similar behavior by Wik and Cantus, although unfortunately Wik was unable to abide living with the restrictions placed on him.

The case presented is very simple. It should not take the Arbitration Committee long to decide. I ask for only these things:

  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.

The proposed remedy is narrowly focused on the objectionable behavior. I ask the Arbitration Committee not to dally with broader remedies (like banning these users from certain types of articles) at this time. If revert paroles prove insufficient, such remedies can be considered at a later date. --Michael Snow 05:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Complaint by Shorne and Ruy Lopez against VeryVerily[edit]

(From the case "Users Ruy Lopez, Shorne, and VeryVerily" which has been merged with this case)

I request arbitration with User:VeryVerily for the matter described below at "VeryVerily and reversion" (entry "User:VeryVerily") and, most fully, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily. My request for mediation, now in its third day, has gone ignored by VeryVerily, who has failed to accept or decline mediation despite several requests. I believe that arbitration is the only appropriate avenue at this point, and I request quick action, as VeryVerily is riding roughshod over numerous articles.

Since there are already two other cases involving VeryVerily, it has been suggested that this one be merged with one or both of the others. I am willing to merge it with the case filed by User:Christiankavanagh, listed below.

As user Ruy Lopez added his name to the request for mediation, I have taken the liberty of listing him as a party to this request as well. Thank you for your attention. Shorne 10:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also call upon Fred Bauder to recuse himself on the grounds of a personal interest in this matter, specifically the fact that he has taken VeryVerily's part, as can be seen on the talk pages of VeryVerily and certain other users. Shorne 11:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My recusal is necessary in this case as I am a party to this matter. Many of VeryVerily's reverts involved edits which I had made which either Shorne or Ruy Lopez had reverted. I was happy to have his help in restoring work which those two POV warriors had removed, but am not happy with VeryVerily's neglect to attempt to engage in productive dialogue with them. It would probably make sense to combine this matter with Users Shorne and Fred Bauder as many of the same underlying issues are present especially with respect to the systemic point of view editing of Shorne and Ruy Lopez. Fred Bauder 11:40, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for having the integrity to recuse yourself. This matter, however, must not be combined with the one that you raised, for the issue at hand is the behaviour of VeryVerily, and nothing else. I refuse to allow anyone to cloud the issue with ad hominem attacks on me or other distractions. This is a very straightforward case, and I wish to have it treated as such. Shorne 11:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"I was happy to have his help in restoring work which those two POV warriors had removed" - the work he was happy to have restored on Great Purge was itself POV - he called the works on the Great Purge by a former intelligence officer of what a US historian calls an anti-Soviet propaganda agency "definitive" and all those who disagree with it "revisionists". Who are the POV warriors, them or us? At least Fred Bauder usually follows Wikipedia rules - "attempting to engage in productive dialogue" (even if it is just to bump Shorne from mediation to arbitration in a matter of minutes - if only the case of other users against VeryVerily happened so quickly). VeryVerily continually breaks rules he's been banned for breaking before, like keeping to the three revert rule. It gets to me only being able to revert three times, knowing he will come in and do four, and knowing any demand that he follow Wikipedia rules will happen never or a few minutes before then, but I will follow the Wikipedia rules unlike him. It's hilarious that he comes in here babbling his nonsense while he is running around every day breaking the three revert rule, while I am following all of the Wikipedia rules and guidelines that I'm aware of. Shorne and I think VeryVerily and Fred Bauder are POV (although at least Fred Bauder follows Wikipedia rules). TDC pops in once in a while and is POV as well. Aside from them, everyone else on the pages I've seen is fine. And even the problems with Fred Bauder would be fixed but for VeryVerily's antagonism. Ruy Lopez 08:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[1]. VeryVerily 10:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:VeryVerily has refused to agree to mediation, while engaging in an edit war with me over the name of the mediation subpage where I moved the request (see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily and Shorne, Ruy Lopez and User talk:Bcorr#.95 RfM).

BCorr, Chair of the Mediation Committee, 12:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See what I actually wrote, not Bcorr's distorted report. I asked with no answer what he intended by mediation. VeryVerily 18:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Statement by affected party[edit]


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


The case that I brought against VeryVerily, which Ruy Lopez subsequently joined (with my approval), was "merged" with this one. I had agreed to let it be merged with the case brought by Christiankavanagh, but evidently the "arbitration" committee (which hasn't tried to arbitrate anything; there has been no discussion at all from them, not even in response to repeated procedural questions) failed to notice this offer or simply disregarded it so that it could effectively lose my complaint in this larger and more complex one, thereby nullifying it.

Michael Snow's complaint requested only the following actions:

  1. Affirmation that the three revert rule is Wikipedia policy.
  2. A finding that each of the users named here has violated the rule repeatedly and excessively without adequately discussing matters on the appropriate talk page.
  3. A ruling that each of these users is placed on revert parole, to be enforced by 24-hour blocks for violations.

Snow specifically denied that he was requesting bans on specific types of articles, to say nothing of bans from the entire site. Yet that is the sort of action that this committee is taking. Again, I have repeatedly endorsed the position taken by Snow and asked again and again that those conditions be imposed on all of us, myself included. Shorne 01:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If unjustly banned, I will never come back.[edit]

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

Kevin Baas[edit]

I would like this to go more quickly. The sooner the better. I'm willing to accept whatever the arbitrators choose, provided that it is sufficiently punitive and applied consistently and proportionally. Kevin Baas | talk 22:55, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

So would I. This is a clear-cut case. We all admit to violations of the three-revert rule; there's no dispute of fact. With the sole exception of VeryVerily, we have also agreed to accept the decision of the arbitrators. Just make a decision and apply it fairly. (Incidentally, I have been complying with the three-revert rule, even on pages edited by VeryVerily, despite my earlier statement that I would not do so until he was forced to comply as well.) Shorne 08:08, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez[edit]

In proposed decision it says "For failing to discuss reverts, Shorne, Ruy Lopez, and Gzornenplatz are banned for one week; VeryVerily for two weeks."

  • With the exception of VeryVerily, I almost always discuss reversions. I've only had a lack-of-discussion problem with one other user: VeryVerily.
  • My introduction to VeryVerily was him going through my edit history and reverting several edits to several articles [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]. No user page discussion, no article discussion, and only a short comment in edit summaries, which after the initial batch of reversions simply became replaced by "rv, rv, rv, rv" in the days and weeks that followed. This kept happening over and over. Of course, I'm not the only one who has complained about this. With someone going through your edit history and reverting everything with not a word about it, and refusing to discuss things on article discussion pages, eventually I came to a logical conclusion that discussing this on article discussion pages was pointless as this would have to be discussed on VeryVerily's user discussion page. Which I did on October 11th, three days after he began reverting my edits by going through my edit history[[5]]. I did not receive any non-sarcastic type reply to this.
  • Since, as I stated, he never engaged in article discussions, when I saw someone discussing VeryVerily's article edits on VeryVerily's talk page, I joined in the conversation as I was editting that article as well. VeryVerily immediately removed my comment[[6]] and said "get off my talk page" in the edit summary. I also saw he was telling Shorne to not write on his talk page. I decided to not be provocative and abide by his wishes, I have not posted to his talk page since. Since he ignores article discussions, and didn't even have any edit summaries other than "rv" until this arbitration picked up steam recently, he cut off all communication between me and him. On heavily editted articles where users aside from VeryVerily are involved, although VeryVerily is involved I engage in discussion for the benefit of the other editors. When he goes through my edit history and reverts articles no one else is editting, yes, I gave up on trying to have a discussion in the article page. It takes me an hour to do six ten minute edits to a page. It take him half a minute to revert all of that with "rv, rv, rv, rv, rv, rv". Should I then waste more time asking what he meant by rv in the article discussions of all those pages, discussions which he will ignore? All of this combined with his abuse of the three revert rule, problems with other users and so forth and whatnot.
  • I feel the crux of this is he goes through my edit history, the place to discuss this is on his user talk page, and he threw me off his user page. I feel he cut off communication between us on October 25th, 2004. I thought ignoring his wishes and posting to his talk page against his will would be provocative. If this was an error in judgement, and I should be banned for a week, fine. Perhaps Wikipedia should have a guide for how to deal with completely uncooperative, rule-breaking users. Because I certainly had no idea what to do except hope the arbitrators would eventually straighten this all out. Ruy Lopez 20:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The arbitration cabal committee doesn't give a toss about any of this. They just do what they damn well feel like doing, ignoring the mountain of evidence that people like us have taken care to compile, and certainly ignoring discussion from us. At another time and place, these people would have nailed us to a cross or thrown us into a gas chamber. Shorne 20:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm being arboppressed!!!!!!!11111!12! J. Parker Stone 00:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Response by VeryVerily to complaint by Ruy Lopez and Shorne[edit]

Brief response: Ruy Lopez is an incarnation of Richardchilton. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richardchilton. This user should have been banned long ago, if only for his declarations of war and subsequent implementation, if not his vandalism, subvandalism, unilateralism, and persistent whitewashing of communist regimes. Shorne went on the attack on a huge number of articles pertaining to communism and began deleting everything unfavorable he could get his hands on, while writing flagrant POV attacks on the US on other articles. If you don't want to believe me, glance at Fred Bauder (a respected arbcom member)'s description below, which should settle the matter. I prevented these users from running wild on Wikipedia and wrecking our good articles. Not that I'm expecting gratitude. VeryVerily 03:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Correctamundo. El Ruydinista has constantly editted in rationalizations for Communist actions and weasel words like "it is alleged" for facts accepted by all except the likes of the PLP, while at the same time blatantly distorting info on articles such as Economy of the United States. J. Parker Stone 00:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators[edit]

  1. Absolutely accept. →Raul654 05:20, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Accept -- I was about to vote accept on the other two cases, but I think this case has the merit of identifying the three important combatants. Furthermore, a preliminary look at the evidence suggests that all 3 have done something worth investigating, and therefore a 3rd party request for arbitration seems wisest to me. I will vote to accept the other cases if there is any evidence in them that will not be presented in this case, but I would rather resolve this issue first. Jwrosenzweig 14:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Recuse Fred Bauder 14:50, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Accept. --Delirium 20:03, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Accept. James F. (talk) 16:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Accept. The Cunctator 05:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) Why is Kevin Baas in here?
  7. Accept -- piling on. the Epopt 04:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators "Ruy Lopez, Shorn, VeryVerily"[edit]

  1. Recuse Fred Bauder 11:40, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Merge with VV case below --the Epopt 13:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Epopt on the merge -- any evidence here should already be going to the evidence in that case. Jwrosenzweig 19:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Merge that sucker! The Cunctator 23:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Merge with VV. James F. (talk) 12:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Merge. Martin 16:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for temporary injunction[edit]

Users Shorne, VeryVerily, Gzornenplatz continue to wage wasteful edit wars pending resolution of this matter, see page history for an example of Shorne and VeryVerily at work. If you check the talk page you will find a great deal of argumentation from Shorne, but little or no checking of references provided by others or presentation of references on behalf of his own edits, while VeryVerily dispenses even with talk. For Gzornenplatz see the page history of Katowice, another example of the German names for Polish cities nonsense. Again no substantial discussion by Gzornenplatz on Talk:Katowice. Fred Bauder 14:42, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

I would support an injunction whereby those users would be subject to 24 hour blocks for violating the three revert rule while arbitration is on-going. Attempts to game the ruling would be dealt with another injunction if needed. --mav 18:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would support an injunction prohibiting them from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects while arbitration is on-going. "Having to do with German or Polish subjects" would be interpreted broadly, and any violation will enhance the penalties the Committee awards. --the Epopt 18:51, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are proposed temp. orders being voted for at /Proposed decision. Martin 02:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I, and very likely several other editors, would much appreciate it if Gzornenplatz was also blocked from all India-related articles, at least temporarily. A more detailed complaint can be found on the Evidence page, here. -- Simonides 00:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Temporary injunction[edit]

1) Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorised to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

2) Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, and VeryVerily are banned from reverting any article more than twice in one 24 hour period whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops are hereby authorised to enact 24 blocks for violations of this.

3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

Final decision[edit]


1) Contributors are expected to obey Wikipedia policies, including the three revert rule.

Accepted 7-0

2) When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum.

Accepted 7-0

3) When reverting, users are expected to give their reasons in the edit summaries.

Accepted 7-0

4) When disputing the accuracy or neutrality of an article, users are always expected to give a reason on the article's talk page.

Accepted 7-0

5) Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others.

Accepted 6-0-1

6) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Accepted 7-0

7) Although discussion is always encouraged, the Arbitration Committee does not expect users to compromise in all circumtances; doing so would serve only to support cranks and POV pushers.

Accepted 5-1

8) In cases where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.

Accepted 5-2

Findings of Fact[edit]

1) Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily have all violated the three revert rule on numerous occasions during numerous disputes. Kevin Baas has as well, but not nearly to the extent of the others. Gzornenplatz refused to follow it even after being asked by Jimbo himself.

Accepted 5-0

2) During many of those disputes, Gzornenplatz, Shorne, Ruy Lopez, and especially VeryVerily made no attempt at a dialogue.

Random sampling of non-use of talk page:

Accepted 5-0


1) For failing to discuss reverts, Shorne, Ruy Lopenz, and Gzornenplatz are banned for one week; VeryVerily for two weeks.

Accepted 5-1

2) For making personal attacks on Arbitration pages and trying to disrupt the process of Arbitration, Shorne is banned for one week.

Accepted 6-0

3) VeryVerily, Shorne, and Gzornenplatz are hereby limited to one revert per page per day (this includes any page editable on the English Wikipedia).

Accepted 6-0

4) Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily, and Ruy Lopez are required to discuss all reverts on the relevant talk page, with the goal of finding mutually acceptable compromises.

Accepted 6-0

5) If Gzornenplatz, VeryVerily, or Shorne can demonstrate good behavior (abiding by wikipedia policies and generally sociable editing habits), in 6 months, they may each request that the Arbitration Committee reduce or lift the revert parole against them.

Accepted 6-0

6) For repeated violations of the three revert rule, VeryVerily and Shorne and Gzornenplatz are placed on a 3 month general probation. If during this period they violate the other remedies passed in this case, then they can, at the discretion of the Committee, be ordered to serve the rest of their probation period banned from editing the English Wikipedia.

Accepted 5-0


1) If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page more than once per day, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours.

Accepted 5-0

2) If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page without discussing it on the relevant talk page, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours.

Accepted 5-0