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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Temporary injunction[edit]

I have to ask: Why are Shorne and VeryVerily being restricted from German and Polish articles? As far as I know, Gzornenplatz is the only editor whose activity in that area has been troublesome. —No-One Jones (m) 02:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it won't hurt much being restricted from an area one isn't editing anyway. The real question is, why aren't they restricted from the area they are editing in? It would seem that either the arbitrators haven't done the slightest investigation yet, if they think everyone here is involved in German/Polish articles, or else, they're biased against me. In any case, they haven't bothered to even respond to my earlier note about this. Gzornenplatz 02:16, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
I proposed a temporary order that would restrict Shorne and VeryVerily from editing articles related to the Cold War and communism while arbitration is ongoing. Note that temporary orders are designed to be made fast, and thus only a quick look at the evidence is made. Also note that if mistakes are made in one or more temporary orders, they are fixed quickly. --mav 13:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Raul's "findings of fact"[edit]

Is Raul going to substantiate his claims?

  1. Where have I not attempted dialogue?
    Numerous times on the German/polish articles. I have cited 3 examples in the ruling. →Raul654 09:06, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
    I have very much attempted dialogue on this topic. Maybe you're incapable of recognizing that this was one and the same issue covering 60 articles? And that maybe it would make no sense to use 60 separate talk pages to discuss this? Hmmm? See Talk:Pila for example. By the way, three different people have so far proposed compromises on this issue, and I have accepted all of them. The other side hasn't, yet it is not in arbitration. Gzornenplatz 12:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. As to the accuracy disputes, they were all the same case, so I can hardly be expected to include the same explanation on 100 talk pages. The standard accuracy template was not very useful for that, so I've now created a specialized one. In any case, I had discussed the issue with the affected user (JohnArmagh) long ago. It's interesting to note that people who knowingly add inaccurate data to Wikipedia will never be censured by this committee, but people who point this out are treated as troublemakers. No arbitrator ever bothered to ask me what's up with those accuracy notices. They just assume bad faith.
    Just because other people break the rules does not make it OK for you to do it. Furthermore, if you are tagging 100 articles as POV disputed, something is seriously wrong and it probably has nothing to do with the articles. →Raul654 09:06, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
    What's seriously wrong is your failure to recognize once again that this is one and the same issue. One user, JohnArmagh, created those 100 pages with inaccurate data. I can't be expected to explain this on 100 talk pages. I have explained it elsewhere. Gzornenplatz 12:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  3. As to Jimbo, he never made it clear that he demanded anything from me in his role as god-king; I didn't know one is supposed to blindly follow his mere suggestions. I don't think it's acceptable to "nicely ask" someone to do something, and if it's not done, to block him. In that case he should have said right away "do this or you will be blocked". This is of course his right, even if his demand is completely unreasonable, and I think it is unreasonable to demand from one user to follow the 3RR while it is not equally enforced against anyone else, which is why I respectfully did not follow his "advice". I would have if I had known it was a demand. So, I protest against my not following the 3RR being treated any differently than those of the other parties, just because Jimbo for whatever reason did not ask them to follow the rule.
    See above, re: "Just because other people break the rules does not make it OK for you to do it" →Raul654 09:06, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
    I didn't say it does. I said when other people break the rules and are not held accountable for it it makes it OK for me to do it too. Ask yourself, if the government would no longer pursue any case of tax evasion, and would cover the resulting shortfall in revenue by raising the rates for the remaining honest taxpayers, how many people would go on paying taxes? Would you? Gzornenplatz 12:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  4. It should be a relevant finding of fact that I carefully followed the rule for months and only started to disregard it when I (1) noticed that others (such as VeryVerily) disregard it routinely and (2) that despite my protests to this very committee nothing was done against it; on the contrary, my cases were dismissed as frivolous - and yet here and now I'm accused of the same thing I was protesting against months ago! It may be noted in particular, that my complaint against VeryVerily regarding his reverting combined with his total refusal of dialogue (which I'm falsely accused of now!) on Template:Sep11 was dismissed as frivolous by Jwrosenzweig and Raul, with Fred Bauder even suggesting that VeryVerily would have a case against me there, even though that template has now settled, after a wider debate has taken place, exactly on my version! So my edit then (which I had well explained at the time) has been fully vindicated, and thus VeryVerily's behaviour then must be especially condemned (he was reverting ten times within hours, without once editing the talk page). I'm still waiting for the apology from the three arbitrators. Despite that, I have never emulated this behaviour, i.e. not explaining a revert at all. I have discussed and justified everything. VeryVerily routinely flat-out refuses to discuss (see Shorne's constant pleas for him to "raise his dispute on the talk page"). This is an important difference that should be noted. Gzornenplatz 04:49, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Connections between evidence and rulings[edit]

I'm afraid that I must partly agree with the sentiment that the rulings and proposals are being a little sloppy with the evidence. For example:

  • VeryVerily has no significant history of involvement in German vs. Polish disputes, unlike Gzornenplatz. The closest thing resembling this was the protection of East Germany and Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies a while back, which happened because Turrican was auto-reverting all of VeryVerily's work at the time. It has nothing to do with the naming dispute pursued by Gzornenplatz, and I quite specifically didn't include it in the evidence because the Turrican case is a separate matter. So anyway, like Mirv I don't see the point of applying this particular injunction to VeryVerily.
  • Contrary to the current proposed finding of fact, I'm not aware of any evidence that Ruy Lopez has violated the three revert rule. Indeed, if I had found any such evidence, I would have made a point of including Ruy Lopez in the case I originally brought, as I was quite well aware that he was closely involved with Shorne in many of the disputes where Shorne and VeryVerily were violating the rule. It would be more appropriate to address the practice Shorne and Ruy Lopez have adopted of tag-team reverting against VeryVerily, with little attempt at negotiation or sincere discussion, knowing that VeryVerily was under considerable pressure to stop his excessive reverting.

I hope the arbitrators will take these points into consideration. --Michael Snow 21:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By my count, this makes Michael Snow the sixth person to point this out on the relevant talk pages. VeryVerily 21:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Of course, "Ruy Lopez" just creates new accounts if the old one accumulated baggage. VeryVerily 21:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Is the "finding of fact" that I "made no attempt at dialogue" based on the same quality of research that held that I had any role at all in the German/Polish naming edit wars? VeryVerily 21:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have now added 6 seperate examples of disputes wherein you did not use the talk page - 4 of them in the last 9 days. . →Raul654 09:13, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Ah, he speaks at last to one of us little people! Perhaps if you stick around you can tell me why I'm still banned from German/Polish subjects. Without being rude. VeryVerily 09:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) I should probably be more calm about this. VeryVerily 10:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(post edit conflict with Raul above)

Finally, some specifics to refute point by point! Of course, this all needs to be looked at against the background that by the time many of those disputes started, Shorne was already well-established as a troublemaker and Ruy Lopez as a sockpuppet of an old enemy of Wikipedia:

  • VV/ Lopez - October 24-25, Opposition to U.S. foreign policy
    • The IP in question is that of Turrican. He vandalized my user page with swastikas and obscenities and a wish that I would die, several times. In fact, I asked the ArbCom for help; the request is still sitting unattended. He stated on my user page that he would revert all of my edits as part of his grudge against me, which he began doing, including both content changes and grammatical fixes. This article is one victim. The notion that I should enter into a "dialogue" in every case of his persistent vandalism is absurd. Ruy Lopez later joined in the reverting, with no justification.
  • VV/Shorne - History of Modern Greece - Nov 16 dispute
    • Also a dispute with Turrican. Shorne was a latecomer. There was a dialogue in the edit summaries and then on the talk page. Both Aris Kataris and I made airtight points. In fact, this was a clearcut case.
  • VV - Great Purge - Nov 13 dispute
    • Why am I the only one listed, when Shorne and Ruy Lopez were also involved? Oh, why bother.... Anyway, these were basically cases of me getting involved when I saw that others were already carefully explaining their positions in the edit summaries and the talk pages, and Shorne kept reverting, so I lent a hand so that he wouldn't just "win" by force. I only interfered sporadically. Also, Turrican was involved in the usual way.
  • Ruy Lopez/Shorne/VV - Communist state - Nov 9 dispute
    • You forgot Gzornenplatz (though not on Nov 9). The comments above apply here too, except for that last dispute, where Ruy Lopez made an obviously unacceptable edit. He knows NPOV well enough to know better. I see no point in entering dialogue with those who make such edits (another recent example [1]).
  • Shorne/VV - Human rights in the United States - Nov 9 dispute
    • This is a trickier one. I already voiced my objections to the text long ago. To help work it out, Gazpacho created a sandbox for working out an acceptable version of a section. That was going fine, until Shorne simply reverted all the edits I made to the sandbox, declared the process finished, and insisted that that version in the article was the end result. Obviously, I didn't stand for this.

Hopefully this will put these accusations to rest. VeryVerily 09:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) (updates VeryVerily 09:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC))

You are missing the point - I was not listing dispute participants, I was listing participants who never touched the talk page during those disputes. So, on Great purge, for example, all the disputants except you used the talk page (which is why you are the only one listed). Reverting without using the talk page is not helpful in the least. That is what the whole point of the "Does not discuss reverts on talk page" finding of fact and will be the basis for whatever remedy the arbcom chooses to adopt. →Raul654 16:49, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Fine, so let's take that as the start point. I explained my reasoning above already, but let me repeat that in some cases other users were already making the relevant points in Talk better than I could, but were being crushed by Shorne's reverting anyway, a situation I sought to address. And I repeat that there is such a thing as a manifestly unacceptable edit, such as adding the CIA to the terrorist organizations category, or putting "corporate media control" all over articles. VeryVerily 04:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Considering the Federal Reserve reports on American equity ownership, whereas the wealthiest 1% of Americans own over 40% of corporations, including media corporations, whereas 50.1% ownership of a media corporation is in fact owned and controlled by millionaires, I think it is quite relevant that the controlling source of this information is from millionaires. In other words, we are getting the perspective of the wealthiest 1% of Americans, a very small and different minority. Ruy Lopez 11:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More findings of fact[edit]

Please also collect the following as findings of fact (no attempt at a dialogue):

  • VeryVerily, Henry Kissinger. Shorne, on the other hand, conducted a negotiation, which VeryVerily unilaterally rejected, and later a vote, which VeryVerily also unilaterally rejected.
  • VeryVerily, Khmer Rouge. Pages and pages of discussion by Shorne; only an occasional non-substantive comment from VeryVerily and a number of other users.
I would like to point out the complete falicy of this above statement. For the changes being made, see: [[2]]
I have been working on this page, attempting to find some sort of solution that would satisfy all involved. Shorne has been unilaterally deleting information without providing any sources. As Shorne is responsible for the changes, he is responsible for providing any documention. He has not done so, while I and others have provided documentation showing that facts presented on the page to be true.
In fact, the contributor Shorne has begun lying in the talk page.
You plainly did make these changes; unless someone is using your user name for edits that you don't approve of, which seems unlikely to the point of being ludicrous. GuloGuloGulo 23:41, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
Many of those deletions were made by Ruy Lopez. I merely restored them, along with other changes that VeryVerily repeatedly rolled back without discussing them. Shorne 03:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Restoring deletions is the same thing as deleting. These logic games willfully avoid the dispute and are useless. GuloGuloGulo 22:20, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not playing games. It is true that I restored material that VeryVerily deleted en masse. Why shouldn't I? Should he be allowed to get his way by dint of an unexplained deletion? Shorne 00:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, it is not true. VV restored material that you deleted en masse. It's right in the article history. Why the disinformation? GuloGuloGulo 07:26, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
This was the end of the dialog from Shorne.
How can work be accomplished when these sorts of lies keep appearing? I've had to spend more time dealing with Shorne's unsupported, undocumented, and downright malicious edits and dishonest behavior than with writing articles. This is a ridiculous situation.
VV is not a POV saint. He's frustrating, occasionally does stupid things, and is sometimes difficult to work with. But, he is also honest, hard working, and, as far as I can tell, believes in the mission of Wikipedia.
I've argued against VV with Shorne to find a solution on the Talk:Henry_Kissinger page and against Shorne with VV to find a solution on the Khmer Rouge page. As such, I find myself in a better position than many others to make this statement. Shorne has not acted with good faith in his dealings with the Wikipedia community. Stargoat 14:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There was nothing else to say. I did not make the changes alleged. There are only so many times that I'm willing to say it. Shorne 15:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Reverting right and left without discussing anything is consonant with the mission of Wikipedia? Shorne 15:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is nonsense. It was I who initiated negotiations twice on Henry Kissinger. We even achieved a consensus twice, yet VeryVerily kept reverting it all the same. As for Khmer Rouge, you're lying through your teeth. I provided all the data. You and the others never discussed anything. That's why practically everything of substance in the archives (which are extensive) is signed Shorne or Ruy Lopez. It's all there for everyone to see. I don't know why you insist on telling bald-faced lies when the evidence contradicts them. Shorne 15:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just to show what a shameless liar Stargoat is, as if more proof were needed, he just now reverted a large set of changes to Khmer Rouge that Ruy Lopez made a few hours ago. Stargoat's edit summary: "rv: undiscussed deletions. Please refer to talk page". Yet he wrote nothing on the talk page! Ruy Lopez and I wrote a couple of pages of text on the talk page just a few hours ago. And we're expected to fall for Stargoat's brazen lies? Shorne 15:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • VeryVerily, List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945. Shorne discussed his work extensively and reasonably with various other editors on the talk page. VeryVerily repeatedly reverted material, deleted references, and inserted "alleged" about incidents that the US government has admitted (I documented a number of these). Shorne's repeated calls of "RAISE YOUR DISPUTE ON THE TALK PAGE" were ignored. Even when other people asked VeryVerily to discuss his changes, he refused to do so.
    • Once again, VeryVerily reverted this article just now, without discussion. Shorne 05:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • VeryVerily, United States. As many as nine reversions in a single twenty-four-hour period. Many people have complained.
  • VeryVerily, History of Italy. Would not engage in discussion on talk page, despite efforts of Joy and Shorne. Reverted page as many as seven times in one day (Nov 12).
  • VeryVerily, South Korea. Repeated attempts by Ce garçon, Shorne, and others to engage him in discussion were met with more and more reversions over a period of weeks.
  • VeryVerily, George W. Bush. Numerous unilateral reversions.

Finding of fact #1[edit]

This is biased. It fails to mention several salient points:

  • VeryVerily alone has shown open disdain for the three-revert rule and has stated repeatedly that he considers himself exempt from it. All other participants in this dispute have repeatedly endorsed the
  • Gzornenplatz and Shorne said quite clearly that they would not comply with the three-revert rule in articles on which VeryVerily did not comply with it. Shorne changed his mind shortly thereafter and has since upheld the three-revert rule consistently on all articles, even those trampled underfoot by VeryVerily.
  • VeryVerily, on the other hand, has continued his merry reversions, as many as nine times in a single day in the case of United States. He even violated the arbitration committee's temporary injunction restricting multiple reversions and had to be banned temporarily.
  • Shorne repeatedly called for a temporary injunction requiring the parties to this dispute to engage in discussion after the second reversion by anyone.
  • Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, and Shorne have repeatedly called for the three-revert rule to be enforced across the board.

I ask that this proposed finding of fact be revised to include this important information. Shorne 04:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not up to you to suggest or determine findings of fact. If there is information you would like us to know, put it on the evidence page (in the format the arbcom recently decreed), and cite the specific page diffs to support it. We will draw our own conclusions. →Raul654 05:26, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
This stuff is on the evidence page. You keep ignoring it. Typical. You're just using this committee as a bully pulpit for pushing your own personal agenda. Shorne 05:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No - we're not ignoring the evidence page - you simply haven't put even a modicum of effort into making your case. You have made no real effort to convince anyone; you speak at them, not to them.
At best, what you describe above is implied on the evidence page in the form of incoherent, uncorroborated accusations. As a matter of fact, virtually all the "evidence" (and I use the term loosely) on that page could be written off as exactly that - a diatribe of first-person accuastions and counter-accuastions with no evidentiary support (with, for the record, Michael Snow's evidence being the exception). In short, it's worthless to us (the arbitration committee) as a resource because you have not made any effort to present your case coherently.
So, if the arbitrators are not deciding the facts as you think they should, perhaps in the future you should put more effort into making and supporting your case and less effort into conspiracy theories and complaints about how biased and unfair the process is. Consider this my last word on the subject. →Raul654 06:08, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
What crap! The goddam data are right there. What else could you want? Obviously I've wasted my time casting pearls before swine. Shorne 06:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily is removing my comments[edit]

VeryVerily has removed my comments from this page twice. I know that he can't control his penchant for destructive behaviour, but please do not allow him to do this. Shorne 09:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Write your own comments; do not scribble all over mine. I copied your responses out to separate them once, but I'm not going to do it again and again. VeryVerily 10:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please notice how impossible VeryVerily is being. Shorne 10:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just attach a diff of the revert where this happens, so we can easily look both at what you said, and whether it should have been reverted. Thanks. Martin 18:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yet more findings of fact[edit]

  • VV/Shorne - History of Modern Greece - Nov 16 dispute
    • Also a dispute with Turrican. Shorne was a latecomer. There was a dialogue in the edit summaries and then on the talk page. Both Aris Kataris and I made airtight points. In fact, this was a clearcut case. VeryVerily
Shorne has discussed the matter with others on that talk page and elsewhere. It is VeryVerily who refuses to join the discussion, despite my repeated edit summaries of "RAISE YOUR DISPUTE ON THE TALK PAGE". I therefore want my name taken off the list of those who "made no attempt at a dialogue". That would be only VeryVerily. Shorne 04:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
VeryVerily deleted the above comment of mine. Shorne 04:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • VV - Great Purge - Nov 13 dispute
    • Why am I the only one listed, when Shorne and Ruy Lopez were also involved? Oh, why bother.... Anyway, these were basically cases of me getting involved when I saw that others were already carefully explaining their positions in the edit summaries and the talk pages, and Shorne kept reverting, so I lent a hand so that he wouldn't just "win" by force. I only interfered sporadically. Also, Turrican was involved in the usual way. VeryVerily
As usual, Ruy Lopez and Shorne conducted discussion on the talk page; VeryVerily did not. Shorne 05:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Ruy Lopez/Shorne/VV - Communist state - Nov 9 dispute
    • You forgot Gzornenplatz (though not on Nov 9). The comments above apply here too, except for that last dispute, where Ruy Lopez made an obviously unacceptable edit. He knows NPOV well enough to know better. I see no point in entering dialogue with those who make such edits (another recent example [3]). VeryVerily
Ruy Lopez and Shorne have conducted extensive discussion on Communist state. Check the archives as well as the current talk page. Shorne 04:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Shorne/VV - Human rights in the United States - Nov 9 dispute
    • This is a trickier one. I already voiced my objections to the text long ago. To help work it out, Gazpacho created a sandbox for working out an acceptable version of a section. That was going fine, until Shorne simply reverted all the edits I made to the sandbox, declared the process finished, and insisted that that version in the article was the end result. Obviously, I didn't stand for this. VeryVerily
This is distorted. See the talk page. I carefully worked out a compromise in a sandbox with Gazpacho. There is extensive discussion by me on the talk page. VeryVerily, without discussing anything, came along and reverted our agreement time and again. He is still doing so, to the present day. I keep restoring the text, since there has been no dispute, and stating "RAISE YOUR DISPUTE ON THE TALK PAGE". VeryVerily never has done so. Therefore I want my name to be removed from the list of those who "made no attempt at a dialogue". For this article, that would be only VeryVerily. Shorne 04:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is anyone at all fooled by this "RAISE YOUR DISPUTE ON THE TALK PAGE" nonsense? I'm just curious, it seems completely transparent to me, but maybe the arbitrators are confused on this point too. VeryVerily 04:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is indeed a transparent request for discussion. I must have posted a few hundred of them by now, but you have never responded, except with more mindless reversions and such. Shorne 04:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Once again, VeryVerily reverted this article just now, without discussion. Astoundingly hypocritical of him. Shorne 05:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

findings of fact[edit]

Findings of fact says:

"During many of those disputes...Ruy Lopez, and VeryVerily made no attempt at a dialogue."

My comments on this are firstly that, barring discussion of VeryVerily for a moment, I always attempt dialogue with other users when I have a dispute. The only user I could theoretically be accused of not attempting dialogue with is VeryVerily. So I would like it noted that I have only a possible failure at discussion with one user, a user who it seems has failures with many more people. I think VeryVerily's disregard of dialogue is much more widespread to me, and linked to many more users, so I don't think I should be put at the same level as he is with this.

My introduction to VeryVerily was he went through my edit history and reverted all of my recent changes. No talk page comments, no discussion page comments, not even edit page summaries, just "rv", "rv", "rv", "rv" in article after article. I see many users have complained about this. I don't know if there are any rules about this but only VeryVerily seems to do this on a wide scale and it is very annoying. I attempted to engage in discussions in article pages but VeryVerily always ignored them (within the past week or two as this arbitration moved along he has engaged in discussion a bit more, mostly with others).

One thing to consider is a time consideration. If I spent 10 minutes editting an article, and edit 6 articles, it takes me an hour to do all of that editting. It takes VeryVerily less than 30 seconds to revert all of that. What am I being asked to do, when someone goes through my edit history and reverts everything with a simple "rv", go to the discussion in all of those articles and say "You went through my edit history and reverted everything with rv, I just wanted to mention that in this articles discussion". When someone is engaged in that kind of behavior, it seems less about the article, and more about you. It is not an article dispute as discussion would be necessary, it is a personal vendetta. In light of this, tacking on my hour of work to his 30 seconds needed to wreck all that work, another however many minutes of fruitless posts to discussions seems pointless. I guess I will do this if Arb. says it's necessary but in light of what I said it seems silly.

What seems to make more sense when someone does this is to post to their talk page instead of the article discussion page, yes? My last post to his talk page[4] was removed with the comment "get off my talk page". Discussing his edit history reversion of me (which he does to others) on the discussion pages of those articles seems a waste of time (mine, not his, he is already hours ahead of me in wasting my time with his quick reverts). He doesn't seem to want me to post to his discussion page either, he says to get off of his talk page. So I really don't know what to do about this.

If you look over recent history, with the point I mentioned about where to discuss this - it seems when he goes through my edit history and reverts everything, the place to discuss this is his user page. But he says I should "get off of [his] talk page".

So blaming me for not wanting to discuss things with the sole user I have had a problem with on this, who tells me I am not welcome to discuss his reversions of me on multiple pages on his talk page - I just don't know what to do. I'm not sure what I should have done. I haven't posted to his discussion page since he said that - should I have ignored what he asked and attempted to have a discussion on his talk page after he threw me off of it? That would seem like I am trying to get into a fight with him it seems. I consider that noted edit by VeryVerily his attempt to close off any discussion with me, and I think if I had repeatedly written to his talk page against his wishes it would have made things worse. Should I have ignored his request, am I in error in getting off of his talk page as requested? I don't know, but I think I have only had discussion problems with this one user and he shut the discussion down. Other users who work on the same pages I often do like Fred Bauder do engage in discussion, and with others involved as well I have come to a consensus on various pages when he uses NPOV language and sources information. This is unlike VeryVerily where some of our arguments about a sentence goes back for months. I feel Fred Bauder does not always write from NPOV language, at least from my perspective, but at least he discusses things, follows the rules and sometimes, like water dripping on a stone, accepts a change. And most importantly adds references to things, which I have been very happy with. But that's just shown as a contrast - I probably go back and forth with VeryVerily and Fred Bauder the most, but Fred Bauder engages in discussion and follows Wikipedia rules while VeryVerily rejects my desire for discussion and breaks the rules. And I feel I attempted to engage in dialogue until VeryVerily threw me off his discussion page. Ruy Lopez 10:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I second this. It is very unfair and foolish of the arbitration committee to say "no discussion was held" and conclude that each side is equally at fault. Everyone knows that VeryVerily does not engage in discussion. I, too, have been greeted with "get off my talk page" and deletion of my comments when I attempted to post anything to VeryVerily's talk page. Mine, by contrast, contains everything that anyone (including VeryVerily) has ever written. There just isn't any way to discuss anything with VeryVerily, and I don't appreciate being given half of the blame. Shorne 10:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A huge amount of Hanpuk, I mean, Ruy Lopez's recent joke of a case hinges on this erased Talk comment. But it wasn't addressed to me; it was an attack on me meant for other users on my talk page, and I'm clearly referred to in the third person. It cannot be claimed to be an attempt to communicate with me, not that his idea of "talk" has been impressive over the last year anyway. VeryVerily 12:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

veryverily injunction[edit]

VeryVerily, who despite an injunction against editting Cold War articles by the arbitrators, editted the History of South Korea article about the Gwangju massacre, which was very much a Cold War issue. At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Evidence he said:

I certainly did not and do not regard History of South Korea as being a "Cold War" article. This is a stretch by any count. And it goes without saying that I did not destroy anything. VeryVerily 11:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have a feeling he is going to be intepreting the injunction as being a very limited one. A Google search of Gwangju and "Cold War" yields 459 results. Gwangju was very much a Cold War incident - most of the government justifications for it, government justification for its own dictatorship and US support for the dictatorship were all in a Cold War context. But more broadly than this specifically, I think VeryVerily is interpreting this injunction as he desires to do so. He seems to be rationalizing how his edits are not Cold War related. Ruy Lopez 12:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By contrast, I felt that that article did indeed fall within the scope of the injunction, so I confined my comments to the talk page.
VeryVerily has also violated injunction #2 again by reverting Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements three times in less than two (to say nothing of twenty-four) hours. Shorne 12:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If my interpretation of the injunction is wrong and VeryVerily's is right, please let me know so that I can expand the range of articles that I edit. Shorne 12:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is up to the admin reviewing the edit to determine if it falls under the injunction. Speaking purely as a user, and not as an ArbCom member, I would say that any edit made to any article that deals with a divided Korea most certainly pertains to Communism (which is covered by the injunction). The relationship to the Cold War is much less clear. --mav 17:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


These proposals are absolute insanity. I have been reverting trolling, vandalism, and flagrant POV pushing. I have responded to all the specific charges made against me. (And Ruy Lopez will simply create a new account.) VeryVerily 08:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And Michael Snow, who started this, did not ask for more than revert parole. Are you going to lay specific charges against me and give me the opportunity to defend myself or not? I responded to Raul's accusations. VeryVerily

Also this has a bit of an ex post facto ring to it. The 3RR was never treated as a rule before, not under quickpolls (where not even the 24-hour ban was enforced against any opponent of mine), and not since. If you wish to declare it is an actual rule, as Jimbo is trying to do, then do that. VeryVerily 08:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was unaware of any of the cases. The 3RR has consistently had an uncertain status, and if it in the past ever "suddenly" became policy, I was not made aware. Jimbo's recent effort to make it policy suggests strongly that this never happened.
Thanks for adding point #7. I gave a couple of examples of how these two users (Shorne and Ruy Lopez) make clearly unacceptable edits, which of course makes their work in general consistently suspect and makes it clear endless negotation is a pointless drain of time and energy. I have lots more examples if anyone cares. Also, look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richardchilton. VeryVerily 09:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3RR is policy. What Jimbo wants to do is add teeth to that policy by specifying enforcement. --mav 20:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Exactly. Until now, only the arbcom could punish people for violations of it (which we have done in the past). The purpose of the current ammedment is to give the admins the power to punish for it as well. However, just because there was no punishment specified does not mean that one could violate the rule with impunity. →Raul654 22:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Well, that is by no means the impression editors are given, which still gives it an ex post facto ring. In my long conflict with 172 I saw no evidence that 3RR was even considered as a factor. Every quickpoll on 172's excessive reverting went firmly his way, and the present arbitration vis-a-vis him is as well. VeryVerily 22:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I will back this up with an example of another user's impression: these are Dante Alighieri's comments on it in mediation: I'd like to start off with this "3-revert rule". Now, as we all know, this "rule" is inconsistently enforced at best. It's more of a courtesy issue than anything. I understand that all parties are hesitant (and in this case, unwilling) to stay within the 3-revert rule themselves when they see others violating it. VeryVerily 00:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What's more, I just noticed that the 3RR is in Category:Wikipedia semi-policy. I think all those who have stated that this "rule" was of uncertain status clearly have the facts and history on their side. VeryVerily 03:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Gzorzenplatz (incorrectly) tagged it as semi-policy a couple weeks ago. I have fixed it. →Raul654 03:38, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
It wasn't incorrect at a time when the arbitrators (including you) refused complaints about violations of this rule as "frivolous". Gzornenplatz 03:42, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, well then that was a bad example, but the other points still hold. VeryVerily 04:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To clarify, I knew that Lir and Avala were in arbitration, but knew next to nothing about the cases, let alone these specific rulings. VeryVerily 09:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How do you reconcile proposed principle #7 with (e.g.) remedy #5? Does vandalism not exist? Do edit summaries not often suffice? Are you seriously thinking through these rulings? (And I'm not even referring to the lack of cases of alleged wrongdoing by me I haven't already rebutted.) VeryVerily 12:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Those proposals are raving lunacy. I have responded to Raul's allegations (above on this page), all of which are clearly false, and obviously he can not defend them (nor any of the other arbitrators). Also I have to again point out the whole Orwellianism of the Arbitration Committee's behaviour: when I months ago brought a case complaining about VV's reverting a page ten times within in an hour without making any comment on the talk page - i.e. the very things I am accused of now (violating the 3RR and not attempting dialogue) - my case was refused as "frivolous"! And now, although I never refused dialogue and only violated the 3RR in response to the lack of enforcement of the rule against others, I am now to be banned for two months! Gzornenplatz 17:22, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely: this is raving lunacy and yet more proof of corruption on the part of Thinkpol the arbitration committee. Like Gzornenplatz, I have never refused dialogue and have only violated the 3RR in response to the lack of enforcement against VeryVerily, yet the kangaroo court of corrupt, self-serving, unresponsive arbitrators has decided to ban me—just like VeryVerily, who has overtly rejected the 3RR and other rules. In addition, I am to be banned for pointing out the corruption, tendentiousness, unaccountability, unresponsiveness, and dishonesty of the arbitration committee.
Furthermore, I would like to point out here that no one on the arbitration committee has addressed the reams of evidence that I have brought or my refutation of their outrageously dishonest charges against me. That shows how they operate: as tyrants and thought police. Shorne 18:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rubbish in my watchlist[edit]

Somehow If I am blocked, you will be sued. and If you block me without first talking to me on my talk page--more than once--It constitutes discrimination and I WILL sue not only the user who blocks me but also the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been warned! got onto my watchlist. I had nothing to do with these. I assume that someone is attempting either to impersonate or to harass me. Shorne 20:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If someone moves a page that is on your watchlist to a new location, the new location is added to your watchlist (and the old one stays). If someone then moves that new location back to the old one, both will be on your watchlist, and you will probably be none the wiser about it. →Raul654 20:58, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

"Good behaviour"[edit]

From the "proposed decision": "If Gzornenplatz, VeryVerily, or Shorne can demonstrate good behavior (abiding by wikipedia policies and generally sociable editing habits), in 6 months, they may request that the arbcom reduce or lift the revert parole against him."

This, like the rest of the "proposed decision", utterly fails to take into account the differences in behaviour between Shorne and VeryVerily (I'm leaving out Gzornenplatz because I haven't seen enough of his behaviour to pass judgement) that have already been demonstrated here. Unfairly, the blame is put equally on the shoulders of the two parties when it is Shorne who has made substantially all of the attempts at holding a discussion and VeryVerily who has rejected them; when it is Shorne who has been upholding the three-revert rule scrupulously for weeks (and only ever violated it when VeryVerily did) and VeryVerily who to this day refuses to recognise it as a rule or consider himself bound by it. Shorne 21:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is why VV is proposed to be banned for twice as long as you for not discussing things (1 week instead of 2). --mav 17:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Good behavior" - another demeaning comment. I have been engaging in very good behavior: heavy and consistent editing, article writing, maintenance tasks, enforcing NPOV, and fighting trolls. I imagine I have done far more to make Wikipedia a viable resource than the vast majority of my detractors. The only substantive charge is violating a rule that was never officially made a rule being punished retroactively, and the charge I rebutted of not adequately discussing my reverts. I suppose you can't accept that lack of passion about the content does not make you a better human being than me. VeryVerily 23:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am not going to comment on VeryVerily's "very good behavior"; doing so would be almost anticlimactic. I agree, however, that the comment is demeaning. I'll add another adjective: condescending. Shorne 23:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More corruption by the "arbitrators"[edit]

Am I the only one to notice that the arbitrators sat around for more than a month without doing anything at all on this case, then suddenly put up a very suppressive "proposed decision" just hours after Gzornenplatz, VeryVerily, and I spoke out against the candidacies of some of them for reëlection? Shorne 23:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There was no connection - I was about to go on a weekend holiday and another ArbCom member happened to be on IRC at the same time. We looked at the evidence again and worked on the proposed items. I didn't even know about your complaints (neither am I running). --mav 17:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for injunction against Gzornenplatz, reposted from main request page[edit]

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 00:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We are very close to closing this case - at which point Gzornenplatz will be banned for at least 2 months. --mav 17:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I want to say that I find what I'm reading to be much too harsh. These are all people who have devoted their time and energy to the project; even if they fight, surely they do more good than harm and don't deserve to be treated like this. A two month ban? Who would endure something like that, anyway? A person would most likely either start a new account or just leave forever. Everyking 01:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I shall leave forever if banned unjustly—and I certainly consider any ban of me under the circumstances unjust. I haven't even called for VeryVerily to be banned (though some days I'm tempted); I just think that he should be forced to enter into productive, rational discussion of his disagreements. The person who brought the original complaint, Michael Snow, also wanted merely enforcement of the three-revert rule and the principle that disputes should be worked out in discussion. Shorne 04:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The bans are for causing a great deal of disruption in the community. --mav 17:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the community will be worse off with them gone. I think they've done more good than harm. Everyking 18:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It would be redundant to state that I don't believe I've caused much disruption (e.g., protection of pages that are under attack is de rigueur whether defended by a single user or not), and even if you disdain my approach in a handful of conflicts, I have toiled here long hours on much else. VeryVerily 22:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Everyking. That really needed to be said. This is a big slap in the face after fifteen months of intense contribution to and participation in Wikipedia. VeryVerily 04:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) Alas I don't think the arbs are even looking at these talk pages. VeryVerily 06:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, we read it. --mav 17:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The fact that I'm enjoined still from German/Polish topics is strong evidence to the contrary. VeryVerily 04:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We noticed that. But you didn't seem to mind at the time since you don't edit in that area anyway. If you really do want to edit in that area, then say so and we will fix it. However, we will likely close the case soon and thus the temp order will be gone anyway. --mav 08:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I didn't raise the noise that Shorne did, but that does not mean it was not an "obvious mistake", nor that it might have caused me problems (interestingly, Michael Snow gave two examples of such articles I had edited). VeryVerily 09:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's strong evidence of their tyrannical behaviour, utterly divorced from reality, to say nothing of responsibility. Shorne 08:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Two things. First of all, I want to clarify (not just related to this case, but in a general sense) who can enforce the ArbCom's decisions. Just as it is "inappropriate" for an Admin involved in a revert war to protect a page, I consider it inappropriate for an Admin who is a party in an Arbitration matter to enforce the ArbCom's ruling with respect to said matter. Now the question arises of who is "a party"... I mediated between several of the participants in this matter. Does that make me a party? Does this mean that I should avoid personally enforcing the ArbCom decision? I would like this cleared up.

Secondly, I want to voice my displeasure in the two month bans that have the stated explanation "For repeated violation of the three revert rule". While it is unquestioned that the parties have violated the 3RR countless times and in flagrant disregard for the "rule", the rule has NEVER been consistently enforced, and certainly not with this degree of force. I believe that the primary reason that the parties were engaging in the violation of the 3RR was because it was tacitly accepted. Therefore, to ban them for 2 months as a remedy seems extreme. Banning them for even a week would serve the purpose of alerting people that violating the 3RR will now result in a ban. If, as you seem to indicate, there is a larger reason for the length of the ban (being terribly disruptive and contrary) than the explanation for the ban should say so. As a Mediator and specifically one who mediated with these parties on these issues, I am officially opposed to a ban of such severe length with the sole justification of their violations of the 3RR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:01, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I am opposed to any ban of me. There is no need: I have said from the beginning that I only want the 3RR to be enforced, and indeed I have scrupulously complied with it for many weeks, even while VeryVerily goes on claiming to this day that it need not be respected (at least by him). Shorne 04:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Repeat violations of the 3RR to the extent that these users have engaged has been very disruptive. But 'disruptive' is a highly subjective term, thus we point to violations of specific rules and policies. I at least, also want to make clear to the community that the 3RR will be enforced more severely from now on. Enough is enough and I feel we need to send a clear signal to the community that this behavior is not acceptable. --mav 19:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, what an authority you are. The community will learn, one way or another, won't it? If you ask me, the community needs to send a signal to the arbitration committee that rulings of this sort aren't acceptable. Banning good contributors for two months for such a thing is a much greater disruption than anything they've done. Hopefully things will change with the upcoming election. Everyking 04:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What I have learnt from this little escapade is that the arbitration committee needs to be replaced completely, perhaps even with a different sort of structure. They repeatedly fail to enforce such rules as do exist, even when people like me clamour to have the rules enforced; then, when their bankruptcy is thoroughly exposed, they propose two-month bans—in an attempt to cover their own nakedness. (And longer bans for those who have had the temerity to criticise the arbitration committee!) They didn't do their job; we're made into the scapegoat. Nothing good will result from these proposed bans; they are wholly negative and fill absolutely no constructive function.
I thank Everyking for his contributions. It's clear that there's at least one candidate eminently qualified for the arbitration committee. Shorne 05:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dante, your argument appears to be that it is ok to behave inappropriately on Wikipedia, provided that you think you can get away with it, or other people are getting away with it. I would take the opposite viewpoint. Good contributors behave appropriately, regardless of what the consequences would be if they did not. Good contributors behave appropriately, regardless of how others are behaving. Martin 21:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Martin, while I'm normally inclined to view you as a reasonable person, this gross distortion of my position disturbs me greatly. There is absolutely NOTHING that I've said or written that implies that I condone the behavior of G, KB, S, and VV. Frankly, I'm offended that you'd even imagine that I would, given my position in mediating this dispute. I wholeheartedly agree that "good people" do "good things" regardless of the situations, this is almost a tautology. My point is NOT that they should "get away with it", but about the MANNER in which they are being sanctioned. It is wholly inappropriate, in my opinion, to read the 3RR as it stands (or rather, stood) to require or even justify month long bans in this case. I refer you to the principles of ex post facto, nulla poena sine lege, and nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali. If it wasn't the situation BEFORE THIS CASE that the penalty for these acts was this severe, it should not be so until AFTER this case. You shouldn't invent punishments after the fact. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:54, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig on #5[edit]

I obviously consider the 1RR parole obscenely excessive, although I'm glad Jwr agrees on the excessiveness of the bans, which are uncalled for at any length. But ruling #5 is particularly bizarre. I revert a considerable amount of vandalism and "subvandalism". It's surely ridiculous to clutter up Talk pages with "justifications" of why "Bush is gay" should be reverted. I worry now that not even Jwrosenzweig has sufficiently thought through these votes. VeryVerily 01:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mav and I discussed making an exception for vandalism. However, given the particularly liberal definition of vandalism that you and others involved in this case have chosen to use, making an exception of vandalism would have been an invitation for abuse. Thus, no exception. If you see obvious vandalism, report it on vandalism in progress. →Raul654 09:05, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
And you think this is good for Wikipedia? Recall that I provided an explanation for every single instance you listed of supposed "misbehavior". VeryVerily 16:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bans for the three revert rule[edit]

Since the Arbitration Committee seems to have stalled again on this case, perhaps it's not too late for my input to catch the train before it leaves the station. Along with Dante Alighieri and Jwrosenzweig, I find two-month bans excessive here, even in response to the excessive reversion that was going on. While I realized that bans were a possibity in bringing this case, I avoided asking for any and did not anticipate that such lengthy bans would be contemplated, especially considering that the longest bans previously authorized for three revert rule violations were 24 hours. I still think based on the statements of the parties that revert paroles would have sufficed, and that given the new policy for enforcing the three revert rule, the effort to "send a message" by punishing past violators is unnecessary. Personally, I would rather have the Arbitration Committee declare an amnesty for past revert wars, while simultaneously asserting that future violations will be dealt with more severely. This would take advantage of the opportunity the new enforcement policy provides to make a clean break from the past - for everyone, arbitrators, admins, and editors all around. --Michael Snow 06:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hrmm... that's worth considering... →Raul654 06:13, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Michael has managed to come up with even more good reasons to oppose the lengthy bans and I join him in his opinions. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:33, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Michael, Dante, you convinced me. I've changed my vote for the the 2 month ban to a 3 month probation. I hope the other ArbCom members will vote the same way. --mav 18:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

La(te)?st appeal[edit]

Several users - including one I didn't even know (Everyking) - have, both here and elsewhere, surfaced of their own initiative to state the obvious, that these "remedies" are wholly out of hand - including a penalty sixty times greater than any ever previously announced or enacted for my supposed crime. Perhaps you should heed the thoughtful words of these experienced users over whatever groupthink haunts the arbcom IRC channel.

A curious irony is that the arbs themselves have gotten a taste of what I have experienced from Shorne: the relentless personal attacks, the constant disruption, and the what can only be called trolling. And this is how he acts to people with authority over him. How do you think he treats common editors he disagrees with? How fruitful do you think "dialogue" with him has been? (I ask because I now strongly suspect the arbs have not examined the history of this conflict.)

Similarly, an arbitrator judging me now (Mav) has experience with "Ruy Lopez", and even once asked for my help [5] to stop one of his numerous efforts to ruin his "favorite" article (Khmer Rouge). Of course, we wasted endless hours arguing these points, quoting citations, filling talk pages - only to have him disappear each time and then resurface weeks or months later with a new account to try it all again. To scorn me for not "discussing" over and over again his unending stream of garbage is lunacy.

To repeat the equal lunacy of the "finding of fact" that I should be in dialogue with Turrican, a vandal who proudly announced his intent to revert all my edits, would be redundant. Yet there sits that finding, damning me for not cheerfully taking abuse no self-respecting editor would take.

Indeed I have refuted point by point these thoughtless "findings of fact". As someone once said on de about Gz, it's been as fruitful as talking to my cat - as these accusations stand defiantly unaltered, with never so much as a peep from the arbs.

I should note that the focus hitherto has been on the outrageous and extended bans, but they serve as a lightning rod only as being the most offensive of the "remedies". All the restrictions on me are offensive and wrong, for largely the same reasons. So are the humiliating and pointless "temporary" injunctions I have been compelled to labor under, but in spite of which I have continued to do good and useful work to improve Wikipedia, as I have from the beginning.

Treating a top-notch contributor like a common criminal is perhaps most offensive of all. I hope the election changes these attitudes. In any case, it would be a dereliction of your duty and a betrayal of our trust to impose these rulings. VeryVerily 08:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV pushing by Ruy Lopez[edit]

It is probably too late now, since there is already a motion to close this case, but I would like the Arbitration Committee members review the edit history of Economy of the United States. I find Ruy Lopez's edits to be just pure POV-pushing that also disturbs normal page maintenance. See how he blindly reverted corrections to (defunct) external links and changes to category names that was discussed weeks before in cfd-page. Of course, "discussion" with him in talk page does not lead to anything. Note also that he broke the three revert rule on Dec 15th. I urge the arbitrators to consider his actions in Wikipedia more closely before closing this case; otherwise we will see more of his disturbive edits in future, I'm afraid. jni 11:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are quite correct about Ruy Lopez. He has been doing this for almost a year with his many accounts. An amusing twist on this is that Shorne also does this while simultaneously accusing others of it. See, e.g., [6], where he reverts away an interwiki tag (and minor changes) in order to revert back the inflated death toll, and in the edit summary accuses me (who had restored from that version) of "irresponsibly reverting". Will any of this matter to our "judges"? Hmph. VeryVerily 18:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A mistake?[edit]

If I may observe:

Remedy 5: 5) Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily, and Ruy Lopez are required to discuss all reverts on the relavant talk page, with the goal of finding mutually acceptable compromises.

Enforcement 2: 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.

Ruy Lopez is required to discuss his reverts (as the rest), but he may not be banned for violating the remedy. Maybe it's a casual omission, which occurred because Ruy Lopez was included in the case later? At least I can't see any explanation for the difference between Ruy Lopez and the rest in this particular point. Boraczek 13:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just because we have not said what to do if/when Ruy Lopez violates the order, does not mean that nothing should be done. We have just said exactly what to do if the others violate the ruling. Ruy still can not violate the ruling - we just have not said what exactly should be done if he does. --01:43, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Closed? Temp. Inj. over?[edit]

I noticed that there have been 4 close votes, the threshold, and that on WP:RFAr the case is listed as closed. However, the main arb page still says "case open" at the top, and I have not been notified on my user talk page that the case is closed and the temp. inj "whilst arb. is ongoing" is thus expired. Kevin Baas | talk 21:54, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Yes the case is closed and the temp orders have now expired. I've made note of the case's status. --mav 01:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)