Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

[[:|WP:RfM]]

Part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Please read the information in the "What is mediation?", before formally asking for mediation. Also, please be sure that you have followed the preliminary steps laid out in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You may also wish to consult the introductory page at Wikipedia:Mediation.

For more information

You may wish to consult the following introductory link before formally asking for mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation (what is mediation)

Requests for mediation

It is always preferable for both parties to the dispute to request mediation. If possible please agree between you to request mediation before adding a request to this page. However, if you feel unable to approach the other party or feel that a mediator is needed to get an agreement to mediation then please ask.

It's important that this page should not become a second version of Wikipedia:Conflicts between users.

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in a case. Relevant comments may be left on the Talk page, and will be read in full.

See #Archives for past requests.

Please place requests at the bottom of this section, and date your comment

VeryVerily and Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas

Request mediation with VeryVerily regarding his reversion practice on various articles including George W. Bush and Henry Kissinger. Gzornenplatz 04:46, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Second the request. Kevin Baas | talk 18:28, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

I'd be willing to give it a try. However, I strongly doubt Gz's motives. I believe he is not interested in mediation and is making this request solely to "technically" satisfy the requirement of trying mediation before initiating an arbitration request. This is analogous to his previous action of leaving me a note on my Talk page to satisfy the requirement that two people must contact a user before starting an RfC (see [1]). I offer in support of this theory his statements on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration that he believes mediation would be fruitless [2] [3]. It seems unlikely mediation can succeed when one party does not especially wish it to. V V 03:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I openly admit that I consider mediation futile, because you have previously demonstrated your complete obstinacy on this question whenever I talked to you about it (and I don't see what the interpolation of a mediator should change about it). But if you want to change your immovable stance now, great. If you don't think I wish this to succeed, what do you think I wish? I wish this question resolved, by one method or the other. If mediation does it, fine. If not, arbitration is needed. Gzornenplatz 10:14, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Once again, there's the curious claim that I am the obstinate one, but I see other obstinate people here. But the point is that mediation has little hope if one party has a vested interest in it failing, and your prediction of "futility" will be self-fulfilling. V V 19:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Once again, I have no "vested interest" in it failing, I'm just afraid it is doomed to fail because of your previously stated determination to continue reverting, which I therefore believe only an arbitration decision can end. Gzornenplatz 19:46, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

So the sooner arbitration starts, the better? So the sooner this mediation business is over and declared a failure, the better? Is that how you see it? If so, it seems you have an interest in it failing. (Recall that mediation might require that you give a little, which you have been wholly unwilling to do.) V V 19:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The sooner you stop reverting, the better. That's how I see it. I don't see what I can possibly give here, this is solely about your behaviour. I am already showing considerable restraint in reverting. Would you prefer I behave like you and reflexively revert, ensuring permanent page protection? Gzornenplatz 20:01, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

No, I am suggesting mediation is unlikely to work, because your heart won't be in it. V V 20:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And I don't think yours will be. That's why I tried arbitration right away. But it's your choice now. Do you want to try mediation anyway, or shall we let it go to arbitration? Gzornenplatz 20:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Why wouldn't my heart be in it? Do you think I want to burden the ArbCom with this frivolous scrap? V V 20:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since you say you have no problem with the wording I propose, why don't you give it a rest? I know you think you're defending a "principle" - that if a passage is preferred by editors 5-3, then it becomes forever unalterable until a further vote goes another way. That is at the very least un-wiki-like, and if you read Wikipedia:Survey guidelines, you'll see polls are non-binding, only for limited purposes, and "supposed" to be implemented much unlike they were in this case. V V 20:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is not particularly about polls (though I may remind you that in one case the vote was 20-3 against you). It's about trying to force your way by reverting, which is what is un-wiki-like here. And if you read Wikipedia:Three revert rule, you'll see that it's simply against policy. Gzornenplatz 20:24, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

As I have said a thousand times, that poll was on an unrelated issue (how much detail to have in the popularity section). As for forcing my way by reverting, that is what the other side is doing, and so I must too to keep up. Other methods have proven ineffective every time I have tried them, including enforcing the 3RR. V V 20:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ineffective for what? Any attempt of yours to install a specific version against the prevailing talk page opinion is supposed to be ineffective. The 3RR applies to everyone else too. If everyone adheres to it, and you can't get your way because you're outnumbered by people favouring a different version, then all you can do is try and convince more people of your position on the talk page. Gzornenplatz 20:42, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, Gzornenplatz favors this version:

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed and contested. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the recounts must be stopped. After this, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by some, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).

And VeryVerily favors this version:

The Florida vote, which favored Bush by a tiny margin in the initial count, was heavily contested due to concerns about flaws and irregularities in the voting process, and became the subject of a series of contentious court cases. After a U.S. Supreme Court decision in mid-December favoring Bush, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by many, though no longer contested in any legal venue. See U.S. presidential election, 2000.

Would this version be acceptable to both of you?

The Florida vote was heavily disputed. While initially favoring Bush by a tiny margin in the initial count, a manual recount was begun in several counties due to concerns about flaws and irregularities in the voting process. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing; after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the recounts must be stopped, Gore conceded the election. See U.S. presidential election, 2000.

[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]14:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

~~This is incorrect. The version I favor is the one you state above that Gz favors.~~ V V 03:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're right. Fixed. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, both VV and Rex prefer the version purported to be favored by VV. The version purported to be favored by Gz is favored by Neutrality, Gz, Iainscott, StellarFury, and Lyellin. (See Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_11#Disputed_election_results_paragraph_-_building_consensus_2 for evidence.)

This is not at all about what version of the article I prefer (I agree in part with VeryVerily's), it is strictly about his behaviour. No matter how right his version may be, he can't just keep reverting (and without even an edit summary!) to force his way when most people favour different versions, as the polls have shown. This will just lead to constant page protections. Gzornenplatz 15:29, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Nobody can stop VV from reverting except himself, ArbCom, and Jimbo. That's not what mediation is for. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Yes, except that when I requested arbitration, they rejected it, saying mediation has not been tried first! I know mediation is futile here, I'm just playing along with the bureaucratic rigmarole. Gzornenplatz 16:12, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    - I'd prefer if mediation is actually given a chance here, rather than dismissed. Let's wait for VV to respond, and see if he would like to go through mediation. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      - Now you're contradicting yourself. You just said this is not what mediation is for. Gzornenplatz 16:51, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

To date, I have seldom agreed with Neutrality, but on this point he is correct - when he states: "I'd prefer if mediation is actually given a chance here...". Gzornenplatz's comment of "I'm just playing along with the bureaucratic rigmarole" is totally out of line an anathema to collegial editing. Rex071404 03:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the end, it's your call. If you both still wish to proceed with mediation, do either of you have any preferences for a mediator? Ambi 06:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are a number of mediators who should be recused, as they have already been involved, attempting to negotiate/mediate informally. Beyond that, I currently don't have criteria. I'll list them when i have more time. Beyond this, i'd be happy with whatever gz and vv are happy with. Kevin Baas | talk 20:51, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Take your pick:

Angela
Anthere
Bcorr
Cimon Avaro
Dante Alighieri
Ed Poor
llywrch
moink
sannse
Stevertigo
TUF-KAT

Hmmmm, I haven't seen cimon, dante, llywch, or moink. How 'bout one of those, with preference in alphabetical order? Kevin Baas | talk 00:52, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

I have no preference. Gzornenplatz 11:16, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

BCorr is willing to mediate
I am willing to mediate this dispute if I am an acceptable choice. Kevin and VeryVerily, please indicate if I am an acceptable choice. If not, please indicate specifically who would be, and we can begin.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Bcorr, nothing personal: I want someone completely new to the dispute to mediate, to get a fresh perspective. Thanks for offering. If I had to pick a specific mediator, I'd go with Cimon, because he's first in alphabetical order. (btw, you failed to mention Gzornenplatz, who initiated this RfM.) Kevin Baas | talk 14:29, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty frivolous reason to reject someone's offer to mediate. V V 16:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for offering. I don't have a problem with you as a choice, or indeed with most of the other ones named. My misgiving remains that Gz has no interest in mediation, wishing only to pretend to do it to induce arbitration, and so he will not actually try to make it work. V V 14:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I said I have no preference, I'm OK with Bcorr or anyone else. Let's just get on with it. Gzornenplatz 14:33, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've asked Cimon Avaro to let you know if that's possible. And BTW, I did leave Gzornenplatz a note, but since he'd already said above that he had no preference, I didn't think it was necessary to mention him by name. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 15:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer the first available mediator among those I have listed. Kevin Baas | talk 00:43, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

I've now asked Dante (he's next on your list). Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 19:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this request even still "active"? Gzornenplatz has posted an RFAr all the while. And the conflicts on the two articles noted have largely settled down. V V 23:27, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We're just trying to do our due diligence with this case, and so far, no one has said that it should be ended, and there is still the outstanding request from Kevin, If you decline mediation, or Kevin and Gzorenplatz say that mediation has ended, we would be happy to archive the case BCorr|Брайен 00:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri is willing to mediate
I'm certainly willing to offer my services. It DOES seem from my brief review of the above that my services may no longer be required, as it doesn't seem to ME that this is an active issue. Nevertheless, should I be wrong, I'm ready to take up the issue assuming I'm acceptable to all parties. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 05:44, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Who's even involved in this now? Gzornenplatz, who initiated it, has had no input here in weeks. V V 09:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To answer the implicit question, there has been a new flare-up, but the issue that started this has died down. To be sure, mediation might not be uncalled for in the newest case, especially since I perceive stalking behavior in Gzornenplatz which has its roots in the above-noted conflict, but the phony claims of "consensus", so pivotal to Gz and Kb's righteousness attacks on me before and thus the justification for arbitration against me (Gz's actual goal), can't possibly be appealed to in the latest conflict. V V 10:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What further "input" should I have had in the last weeks? I'm waiting for mediation to start. And the issue, which is your behaviour, has not at all died down. This was never about the content of any particular article. Gzornenplatz 12:06, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Let the mediation (which is not about article content) go on! Kevin Baas | talk 13:21, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

Fine. My only reservation is that I don't know much about Dante Alighieri. I have seen the name around here for quite some time, but don't really remember in what context. Perhaps I should ask DA if he/she has any predispositions towards any of us coming into this? V V 00:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, rather than waiting until you ask, I'll just jump the gun and answer. :) I have no predispositions to any of the parties. In fact, the only name I recognize is yours, Verily, and only because you've made enough edits that your name pops up often enough that I've run across it. Hope that lays your mind to rest. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:36, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Not entirely, but it will suffice. I hope you understand why I have to ask and don't take it the wrong way; many people here do know me (or the other parties), and I don't know this till they materialize somewhere and talk about me, positively or negatively. In any case, I recall now we had a small conversation on User talk about whether some user was a sockpuppet of Michael or not. V V 23:37, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This sounds like all three parties agree to mediation, and that it isn't conditional on VeryVerily's reservations about Dante. I encourage VV to ask Dante Alighieri (Dante's talk page) any questions, and to move forward with mediation immediately. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 13:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mediation Begins?

It seems as though Mediation is about to proceed. Given that, I've found it helpful in the past for the parties involved to list methods that they are comfortable with using to achieve mediation, as well as times that they are available.

I prefer something real-time as it is easiest for me to communicate that way. The downside is, of course, that everyone needs to be available at the same time. IRC or an instant messenger client chat room would be the way to go if that is what is desired.

Alternatively, there's the pseudo-realtime of Wikipedia. Edit conflicts aside, people can post relatively quickly in response to each other but it does allow more time for reflection and does not NEED everyone there all the time. The Wikipedia mediation bulletin board is also an option, and in some ways preferable as there's no chance of edit conflicts or editing of other users' words accidently or otherwise.

Thirdly, there's email. This is my least preferred as it can take ages and ages (OK, hours and hours) to have a straightforward conversation and minimizes the ability for quick response.

I'm open to other suggestions, but let's start with these as that's all I can think of at the moment. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:36, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

This is a matter of Wikipedia so there is no other place to do this but here on Wikipedia. Gzornenplatz 17:48, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

A bizarre argument. If we're arguing over who owns a car, do the legal proceedings have to take place in the car? V V 23:40, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A bizarre analogy. A dispute over a car would be a legal matter, and the only place to deal with it would be in a court of law. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved on Wikipedia. Gzornenplatz 23:52, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

An incorrect analysis. And an empirically wrong claim, as many disputes are resolved off-site. V V 23:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A great exaggeration. And the fact that some disputes are discussed off-site doesn't make it any more proper. I'm not going to discuss off-site where no records are left, which would just invite lies and misrepresentations later if mediation fails. If it fails, I want it to be clear for everyone to see who was at fault. Gzornenplatz 00:07, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'm opposed to anything real-time. Sorry. I have no opinion between the other suggested methods. V V 23:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about the message board? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:45, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've yet to hear from Kevin, but what do you two (VV and Gzorn) think about the message boards? Neutrality thoughtfully included a link above. This has the advantage of not being realtime and also leaves a "paper trail" so to speak. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:45, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what's the advantage there compared to a wiki page. I have no confidence that threads there will not be deleted. Gzornenplatz 18:21, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Well, to my knowledge only the Chair(s) of the Mediation Committee have the ability to delete threads... So, I suppose it comes down to whether you trust them or not; but if you don't trust the MC, why are you participating in Mediation? I could give you my word that I'll make sure that the thread doesn't get deleted... would that help? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:01, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know the Mediation Committee enough, but judging from the nonsense I've seen from the Arbitration Committee, I don't think I should blindly trust this committee either. And that's precisely why I want a completely open process, so that I don't have to trust it. As I said earlier, I don't expect mediation to achieve much here, I'm just participating in it because it seems to be a required step in the process leading to arbitration, which I'm afraid will be required here (though I would be happy to be proven wrong on this). Gzornenplatz 09:15, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm off to Reno for the weekend (back Monday Oct. 11), hopefully people will be able to some sort of consensus. For the record, I still suggest either the 'pedia or else the Mediation bulletin board. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:01, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Unless you see an advantage to the bulletin board, I don't see the point in trying to adapt to Gz's objections. Very Verily 09:21, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let me clue VV in on "the point in trying to ~~address~~ adapt to Gz's objections.": The current step in the mediation process is: reach consensus on a medium for mediation that addresses the concerns of all parties involved. Since Gz is an involved party, the point of trying to "adapt to [his] objections" is to complete this step in the process.

I would also prefer transparency, for reasons more of having a record and the principle of it than trust. I'd also prefer a medium that is quick, because I don't want this dispute to drag out. My last experience with mediation went at a snail's pace when it went at all, leaving the dispute unresolved for a long time. I would like to resolve this dispute in a timely manner.

BTW, if I'm gone for some time, Gz can represent me. I'm going to be at a Wedding over the weekend. Thanks. Kevin Baas | talk 17:31, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

Are you just being deliberately dense? Can you really not understand a simple English sentence? Very Verily 22:41, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as Gz is objecting to thse use of the message boards, I suggest that a page be created with which the mediation process can be started. I think that creating a subpage here, /VeryVerily and Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas (and possibly moving this lengthy discussion there) would be a good start whilst Dante and Kevin are away. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:03, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)

Neutrality and libel about Jehovah's Witnesses

In this article, many people insist that Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) are non-Christians and controversy based on their faith, but I think this is a libel to JWs, because they say they are Christians. (See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses) In this case,

Should we precede nuetrality rather than libel?
Should JWs controvert what is a Christianity with those who think JWs is non-Christians like Mormonism_and_Christianity?
Should we decide by majority even if it is libel?

Please answer and mediate. Rantaro 05:30, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And please mediate with Wesley.Rantaro 00:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have left a response on the Talk page Rantaro mentioned. -- llywrch 05:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wesley has declined mediation on this issue with Rantaro. His explanation is as follows:

Llywrch, I think that Rantaro requested mediation because it was his experience in the Japanese Wikipedia that JW's were banned by administrators who disagreed with them, and he saw that I was an administrator who was disagreeing with him. As I have no intention of banning anyone, I don't see any need for a formal mediation process at this time. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise if other reasons are put forward though.

If this is the entire point of conflict, then I consider this matter resolved. -- llywrch 18:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request mediation with User:VeryVerily

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

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

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? Very Verily 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. Very Verily 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)

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)

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)

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? Very Verily 05:27, 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)

Archived and ongoing cases

Gene Poole and Gzornenplatz, Samboy
- Mediation declined. See Archive 9 for details.

Slrubenstein and Darrien
- Matter resolved. See Archive 9 for details.

Rorschach567 and Michael Rawdon
- Mediation underway with Danny. See Archive 8 for the request.

Herschelkrustofsky and DJSupreme23
- Archived as Herschelkrustofsky no longer accepting mediation, and the case is already at arbitration.

AndyL and WHEELER
- Archived as AndyL is away until September 15.

Simonides and Jayjg, RK, Humus sapiens + others.
- Simonides has retracted his request for mediation. See Archive 8 for details.

Lance6Wins and Zero0000
- See Archive 9 for details.

bcrowell and eclecticology
- Matter resolved. Moved discussion to subpage /Bcrowell and Eclecticology - S V

Rex071404 and Gamaliel
- Archived to to allow for the request at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rex071404 to have time to defuse this conflict by bringing in a broader range of editors. See Archive 9 for details. -- BCorr|Брайен 16:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404 and Neutrality
- Mediation declined, see Archive 9 for details.

Guanaco and Cantus
- Mediation declined, see Archive 9 for details.

K1 and refdoc
- Mediation declined. See Archive 8 for details.

Johnleemk and Drbalaji md
- Mediation inactive. Dr Bajali has not edited Wikipedia since 14 Jun 2004. See Archive 9 for details.

Zestauferov and Jayjg
- Mediation declined. See Archive 10 for details.

RK and DanKeshet (and/or Zero0000
- Mediation inactive. See Archive 10 for details.

Halibutt (and others) and CVA
- Mediation successful. See Archive 10 for details.

User:Stirling Newberry and User:Terjepetersen
- Mediation inactive. See Archive 10 for details.

Rex071404 and Nysus
- Ongoing discussion occuring at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rex071404 and Nysus

User:Adraeus and User:Nunh-huh
- Mediation declined. See Archive 10 for details.

User:Kizzle and User:Rex071404
- The disputants are working things out on their own. See Archive 10 for details.

User:Vbs and User:PedroPVZ
- Mediation declined. See Archive 10 for details.

User:Snowspinner and User:orthogonal
- Archived as this is now being considered at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration after the mediation had become inactive.

User:VeryVerily and User:christiankavanagh
- Mediation declined. See Archive 10 for details.

"Antonio Fun Martin" and User:Tverbeek
- Archived to to allow for the request at Wikipedia:Requests for comment to have time to defuse this conflict by bringing in a broader range of editors. See Archive 10 for details.