Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:VeryVerily, User:Shorne, and User:Ruy Lopez 1.1 Request urgent action against User:VeryVerily 1.2 Very Verily's modus operandi 1.3 Answer from VeryVerily requested 1.4 History destroyed 1.5 Moving to arbitration 2 Netoholic and Raul654

[edit] User:VeryVerily, User:Shorne, and User:Ruy Lopez

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Request urgent action against User:VeryVerily

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Very Verily's modus operandi

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

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

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

Quoted from Talk:Khmer Rouge:

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

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

And from User talk:Fred Bauder:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Answer from VeryVerily requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] History destroyed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Moving to arbitration

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

[edit] Netoholic and Raul654

After weeks of trying reach some sort of congenial editing relationship with Raul654, my recent efforts have failed. To quote a message that I left on his talk page:

"Raul - I would like to request, as nicely as possible, that you please stop assuming bad faith in my edits, calling me names (like troll), and showing bias against me. Your recent attitude has done nothing but make me feel very uncomfortable working here, and I don't believe that someone in such a position of respect in this community should act so uncivil.

"I spend the vast majority of my time here making very productive enhancements. At no time do I ever make any edit, or begin any discussion on IRC, with the purpose of causing strife. Unfortunately, I got off on the wrong foot with a few members here, and that has been perpetuated beyond what is called for - leading me to try and defend myself from the particularly fashionable practice of "troll-bashing". I look to you, as someone who has the respect of many users here, to help me stop this. If I make a mistake in the future, I certainly ask and welcome that it be discussed with me respectfully. I think I've shown often in the past that I am willing to make changes and come to agreement. In return for your help in stopping this, I will commit to listening more closely to those suggestions and admit fault when I don't.

"I really do think that you and a number of other members here have the wrong idea about me, being perhaps jaded by previous encounters. I hope that, with this note, you will see that I am actually a pleasant and hopefully valuable member of the community here. -- Netoholic @ 15:18, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC) "

Unfortunately, Raul654 doesn't yet seem willing to discuss his disagreements with my edits in a rational way, and instead relies on revert wars and page protection to enforce his view. While he is a member of the Arbitration Committee, I feel that outside of that role he should abide with common and civil behavior. I've previously also tried to work this out on IRC in private conversation. It's my hope that an impartial voice can somehow bring this to an end. -- Netoholic @ 06:16, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

[Comment removed by sannse (talk) 10:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)]

Netoholic: Raul has replied on his talk page. I think at this point you should continue this discussion - which appears to be a very positive one on both sides. If things do not improve and you still need help then come back to us. We will have to look carefully at this request however, to be sure that it does not interfere in any way with the current request for arbitration involving you (I'm aware that Raul has reclused himself from that discussion) -- sannse (talk) 10:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have read his responses. Frankly, when I read them, all I see is more of the same jibes and no real desire on his part to simply call all of this to an end. I really think mediated discussion outside of the Wikipedia space will do more for this. Right now, right or wrong, his comments seems to be written in order to save face with his friends here, rather than showing a true desire to work this out. I think more than just having him "treat me like any other user", I am looking for him to come further and actually work positively with me. Not saying we have to be "friends", but I would really like to get to a point where he will encourage others to take the same path. -- Netoholic @ 18:39, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

I think I finally have Netoholic pegged. Everyone thinks he's a troll out to do nothing but cause trouble. Until today, I did as well. But after talking with someone else whose judgement I trust, I've come to realize that that's not exactly the case. Later discussions with him confirmed it. Netoholic is a well intentioned user (as is evidenced by his good edits to articles) who has a complete ineptitude when it comes to interacting with other users. He's obstinant, stubborn, combative, disobedient, and totally unable to admit his mistakes. Most importantly, he ignores others when they tell him ANYTHING he disagrees with and his ignorance of the rules and customs of Wikipedia only exacerbates the situation. When he does do something obviously wrong and is reverted, he thinks it's because everyone is ganging up on him (paranoia?); he seems totally unable to grasp the idea that yes, he just might have made a mistake. So he continues edit warring ad infinitum. He's alieniated virtually anyone who has interacted with him. And that's why he has a case request before the arbcom.

In my dealings with him, I've made two distinct acts of good faith - I unprotected the arbcom template he had been making outragous edits to (with the understanding that he would not edit it, but would discuss on the RFA talk page) and I asked Blankfaze to stop reverting him on the speedy deletion candidates. In return, he burned me by editing the arbcom template with the same outragous edit, and then later in IRC he started ignoring me while we were discussing the issue.

I don't think a mediator is needed so much as someone like Ed who can tutor him on how to behave properly on Wikipedia and instruct him in the finer points of knowing when you are wrong. →Raul654 05:46, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

[Comment removed by sannse (talk) 23:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)]

I think it's apparent that a mediator is needed. Raul654 accuses me of making "outrageous" edits, which is not the case, and also complains that I choose not to speak with him in IRC, which is because I want to wait for a mediator. Unfortunately, Raul654 believes I need a "tutor" of some sort, but I get by pretty well on most ever other sort of interaction I involve myself in. I want this to work out, because I think that if I can come to good terms with Raul654, other users will not perpetuate the incorrect assumption that I am here only to make trouble. I hope someone will be willing to sit in with us. -- Netoholic @ 06:06, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

It seems that the discussion on your talk pages isn't going to solve this. Raul - I understand that you feel a mentor would be of more help than a mediator, but what are your thoughts on trying mediation? If you do agree to give mediation a go, which mediators would be acceptable to you? Netoholic - do you have any preferences as to mediator? -- sannse (talk) 23:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no preferences as far as mediator. I would like to begin as soon as possible, if Raul654 accepts. -- Netoholic @ 23:26, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on the matter. Because I have been burned twice to date (while showing my good faith), I want to see *action* on the part of Netoholic to convince me that he is willing to change. After discussion with Sannse, I have decided that I am willing to mediate, provided that (a) after I unprotect Template:ArbCommOpenTasks, Netoholic stops attempting to edit it, and that (b) that Netoholic admit (on this page) that he made a mistake when he tried to add a policy to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion which obviously did not have consensus, and that he exacerbated the problem by edit warring with those of us who later removed it (because it lacked consensus). →Raul654 18:56, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

I'll not edit the ArbCom task list for the time being, though I still think my addition was both helpful and consistent and I will continue to discuss on the talk page. I believe, though that it is unfair to insist that I admit that I did anything wrong with the CSD page, since that action (and subsequent retaliation) is explicitely part of this mediation. Would you be so quick to admit that you excacerbated the situation by reverting me and by providing no discussion other than snide edit summaries? This situation is exactly why I called for mediation – if either one of us were eager to admit wrong-doing, then this would not be needed. I simply ask that you join me in mediation, so that both of us can reach an understanding. -- Netoholic @ 23:36, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

I am not looking to waste my time in mediation with someone who cannot be reasoned with, or who I think is not editing in good faith. To date, you have not done one single thing to convince that either is true of you; on the other hand, every time you have had an opportunity to show me (and the rest of the community) that you are not a troll, you have shot yourself squarely in the foot. You yourself say that you want this mediation to be successful so you can show the other people in this community that you are not a troll (despite all the evidence you have given to them to believe it). In other words, you need this to be successful a lot more than I do. Now, I said above that you are incapable of admitting a mistake. In this case, it is obvious to ANYONE who actually knows how Wikipedia works (which, as I said before, you don't) that 3-2 is not consensus, and that means we DON'T add such policies. You added it, you were wrong, and you refuse to admit it. By not admitting it, you are showing that you cannot be reasoned with, and until you convince me otherwise, I don't feel like wasting my time trying to mediate. →Raul654 00:58, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I think this attempt has come to an end. Thanks to both for your time in discussing this. I want to say that, having spent time discussing this in detail with each of you, I have full confidence in the good intent of you both. I hope you will see that of each other in time. -- sannse (talk) 01:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)