User:Snowspinner/Clerk/VeryVerily

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clerk's notes for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily

Note: This page is in my userspace, not in the Wikipedia namespace. Arbitrators should feel free to refactor it to make it more useful to them. Other desired changes should be noted on the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Summary of case

User:VeryVerily, in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, was put on a probation where he could make only one revert a day, and had to explain all reverts. He was allowed to appeal after six months, and has done so. The specific terms of the appeal were that he may appeal if he "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."

[edit] VeryVerily's Evidence

VeryVerily has opted to present evidence on one point only - that the original ruling was unjust. He has declined to appeal under the six month clause, instead asking for a revisiting and reversal of the original case. Almost all of his evidence was presented in the initial requesting of the case.

[edit] Evidence of abiding by Wikipedia's policies

He argues that the 3RR was only a guideline at the time of his violation over a year ago.

[edit] Evidence of generally sociable editing habits

He cites an October, 2004 comment by Dante Alleghri, who served as mediator prior to the arbcom case, that noted that VV's position was generally a sympathetic one. [1]

[edit] Other evidence

VeryVerily asserts that his edit warring with User:Turrican, which took place in October of 2004, was due to Turrican's being a "vandal stalker" whose actions he describes as "lunacy." [2] is a sample bit of vandalism on the part of Turrican. He also claims his edit wars with Turrican were justified because Turrican's only reason for reverting was the fact that the edits he was reverting were made by VeryVerily.

He similarly accuses his edit wars with User:Ruy Lopez of being justified by the fact that Ruy Lopez was, in his words, "wrecking the encyclopedia."

[edit] Recommendation

This seems to be the whole of VV's case. Let me know if there are sections of the evidence you'd like information on, but by and by, this is probably ready to rule on.

[edit] Additional notes

In January, the block log suggests two blocks for violations of his parole - one lifted by JayJG on January 7th, and another on January 8th/9th that was lifted and reinstated.

Links would be useful. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what to link - a lot of the problem is that there's just not much evidence that's been presented. My impression was that the arbcom did not take the case to consider the actions of Turican and Ruy Lopez. Honestly, I'm hoping VV comes through with some better evidence soon. There's just... not a case that's been made yet. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I am appalled by this "summary". I simply can't believe what I have just read. What is wrong with you? Did you read anything I wrote?

Theresa Knott excised the following line from Snowspinner, perhaps wisely: Furthermore, the tendency towards accusation and seeing those who disagree with him as trolls and vandals is troubling in the extreme.

Troubling in the extreme? I laid out a thorough case. Is it coincidence that several users are prosecuting a case against "Ruy Lopez"? Did you read his RfC? His RfAr? Anything?

Those who disagree with him as trolls and vandals? If you're going to make judgements like this, at least refer to things I actually said. I did not call anyone a troll anywhere in my defense. Since you (and possibly the AC?) didn't bother to read it, you can use the "search" feature on most modern browsers to verify the only one use of the word troll is in reference to Tim Starling calling Ruy Lopez a troll. (Does that trouble you?)

Those who disagree with him as trolls and vandals? The only person I called a vandal was Turrican, though I referred to an edit of Ruy Lopez's two years ago as "vandalism", and noted Jimbo Wales called his edits vandalism (is that "troubling in the extreme"?). Again, the search feature will verify this. As for Turrican, I suppose you think his edits represent a "disagreement" about whether obscenities, personal attacks, and Nazi flags belong on my user page or not. Since you probably didn't even look at the diff, here is the text of Turrican's many versions of my user page I "disagree with" included for you, free of charge:

Okay, I am not really interested in this anymore. You are a disgusting, lying, hypocritical Nazi who tries to rewrite history and then claims it is POV. I sincerely hope that one day you suffer a death as violent as the one your country brought to so many people in the rest of the world. Rest assured that you will not enjoy Wikipedia in the next time.

Fuck you VV, Fuck you.

Image:Naziswastika.png

Troubling in the extreme? Not much evidence? I don't know what clerking is meant for, but I can see you've failed. You got even all the main points of my appeal completely wrong, and omitted others. I wrote up a solid case, and I urge the ArbComm to bypass this disgrace of a summary and read me directly. VeryVerily 08:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What about your case did I misunderstand. I read it, and what I saw was that you were flat-out contesting a decision made a year and a half ago on year-and-a-half old evidence. Are you not doing that? Phil Sandifer 08:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I most certainly am! I would not have contested if you said that in your summary, but you did not. Instead there's the business about "trolls" you invented out of wholecloth. VeryVerily 08:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, there is not and will not be evidence of "reform" as (a) I could no more provide it than a wrongly convicted thief could meet a condition of returning the stolen goods, and (b) I stopped editing as a result of this persecution and have not edited any articles in over a year. As I clearly stated, I am appealing in hoping the new AC will do their job; I am not invoking the "six month" clause, as it is nonsensical inasmuch as it presumes my guilt. VeryVerily 08:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest (here, for lack of a better place) that this case be considered somewhat in tandem with the "Ruy Lopez" one. Although I documented examples of his misbehavior on my own, there is much additional relevant data in the other case which underscores my (obvious) point. VeryVerily 08:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will change the "trolls and vandals" wording that you seem to object to in order to better reflect your exact words. Sorry for the miscommunication. I was more focused on capturing the spirit of your argument than the word, which I thought "trolls" did. Phil Sandifer 08:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it's just one example. How about these points?:

(a) I am not appealing under the six-month clause; I am appealing in the hope the AC is better than it was. Maybe this will clarify.

(b) It is not because Turrican is a "vandal" or a "troll" that I felt free to revert him; it is because the edits in question were nothing more than reverts of me for no reason other than they were made by me, as per the threat that he made and I directly quoted. I do not auto-revert anyone, not even vandals, although others do.

(c) It is not about whether Ruy Lopez "provoked" edit wars, it has to do with the fact that he was wrecking the encyclopedia; again, this was recognized by many other users, including Jimbo Wales (Adam Carr summarized this well). Towards the end he was "tag-team reverting" with Shorne in order to increase his opponents' revert count.

(d) I did not offer evidence for "reform", will not, and cannot, for reasons I hope are clear by now.

(e) Well I could tear apart the comment deleted by Theresa Knott, but perhaps that's a dead horse now, so I'll stop here. VeryVerily 09:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made some more changes. Phil Sandifer 09:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Even so, you've eliminated a lot, such as the long behavioral problems with Ruy Lopez's sockpuppets, the poor handling by the ArbComm which created this mess, Shorne, etc., as well as the evidence for each of these. And your comment about "troubling in the extreme" bodes ill for your attitude. At any rate, if my evidence seems "sparse" to you, recall that the entire foundation of the AC's judgement was the edit history of six articles (and that despite my explanations they did not even adjust this "finding" in the slightest). VeryVerily 13:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common sense?

I notice Snowspinner refers to "common sense" on his user page, regardless of specific policy. Is it not "common sense" that if one is being stalked by a vandal auto-reverter one does not need to engage in a "discussion" on every page he auto-reverts? VeryVerily 18:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be outside my role as a clerk to comment. Phil Sandifer 18:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
If you say so. I really have no idea what clerks are supposed to do anyway, but you did make comments of your own before (before TK deleted them). VeryVerily 03:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC) (P.s., my coment about "lunacy" is taken a bit out of context.)
And TK clearly indicated such comments were inappropriate. Phil Sandifer 03:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
"I really have no idea what clerks are supposed to do" - allow me to clarify for you. When you hand us crap like this, their job is to help us make sense of it. Raul654 22:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)