Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements/VeryVerily

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] VeryVerily

[edit] Support

  • Support Very is pretty good user and quite capable of compromise--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 08:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - because I feel sorry for him - Xed 19:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 05:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A hopeless candidacy -- but actually, I suspect he'd rise to the occasion if elected. Cribcage 17:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  • Strongly oppose. I was appalled to see this name on the list of candidates. His self-nomination is a sick joke. There could not possibly be a worse candidate than someone, currently the object of four cases before the arbitration committee, who openly disdains the rules (especially the three-revert rule), refuses time and time again to enter into discussion, and repeatedly reverts everything that does not suit his POV. Shorne 04:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC
  • Oppose. This user has been banned previously, and has been repeatedly breaking the Wikipedia: Three revert rule recently which is one of the reason arbitrators have placed a temporary order banning him Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision from editting certain articles within this last week. The administrators are currently discipling him, I would think a vote for him is in effect saying the arbitrators are currently wrong for asking him to adhere to the three revert rule and the like. I ask that you please investigate this user's history before supporting him. Ruy Lopez 06:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Ruy Lopez is a sockpuppet of Richardchilton/Hanpuk/etc. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richardchilton. VeryVerily 10:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Even if that were true, it would be of no significance. Shorne 03:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Also, re this supposed previous ban for 3RR violation: During the quickpolls process which once existed (where rapid blocking decisions were made by vote), I was judged blocked by one sysop and hours later unblocked by another as more votes came in. When the vote completed, I was well below the banning threshold. If I recall, Ruy Lopez was using the account Venceremos at the time. VeryVerily 19:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. VeryVerily is openly defiant of Wikipedia policy. An edit warrior like VV should not be given this kind of responsibility. --Ce garcon 10:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In the strongest possible terms. El_C 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, fox in the henhouse. Fred Bauder 20:37, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Edited Henry Kissenger article (despite talk page concensus otherwise) to make the intro seem as if concerns raised about Kissinger were normal political concerns rather than those of Crimes against Humanity. CheeseDreams 23:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Have you even read the article? Half the damn thing is about the accusations you note. VeryVerily 10:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Josiah 22:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Do I know you? VeryVerily 10:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sarge Baldy 20:13, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose Been following his discussions; good contributor and glad to have him around, but simply waayyyyy too partisan for the arbitration committee. --Bletch 13:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Check out Talk:Human rights in the United States#Review of edit history of this article, and the subsection under it. Also disagrees with the weasel words article [1], which I think shows poor judgement. Revert happy, often refuses to use talk page, in no way would he be a good arbitrator!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - can't even follow wikipedia's own 3RR rule example. --Rebroad 22:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Has contributed usefully on occasion, but cannot restrain himself from revert-wars or petty US-flag-waving. I cannot believe he would be a fair arbitrator. Gazpacho 22:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. LegCircus 15:37, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Currently involved in yet another long-standing revert campaign on the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism pages in which his ratio of reverts vs. attempts to discuss on talk page are appalling, Arb Com for VV would be a disaster. Kev 22:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, Kev is POV-pushing, that's the problem, but "long-standing revert campaign"? I made one edit to Anarcho-capitalism on Dec 6 (day of Kev's comment) after not having touched it since Sep 12. Even then, it was a pretty minor edit, with the last major flare-up being in March, nine months ago. It's all in the page history. Some campaign! VeryVerily 06:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • History speaks for itself, and any wikireader can see that your revert wars on that page (and so many others) has gone on for more than a year. Oh, and your latest "one minor edit" is not an edit at all, but a series of reversions, as the page history shows. Kev 10:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • To clarify for any would-be passer-by, by the pretty minor edit I was referring to Sep 12; the Dec 6 was a considerable edit defending against Kev's controversial and unjustified changes. VeryVerily 17:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Marginally oppose. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 00:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004_Candidate_statements_Endorsements_VeryVerily_40f0.html"