Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/VeryVerily

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

It is my opinion that there is no excuse for the kind of revert war that was demonstrated here, regardless of the conduct of the other user involved. Use RfC, ViP, Peer Review, IRC, or any number of means beyond mindless reverting. Snowspinner 02:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure you understand how long this has been going on for, and how many lesser remedies I have tried. VV 08:39, 22 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In his support, it is easy to be caught up in the heat of the moment, and when one see's an admin behavong in a certain way, it can seem to be more acceptable than it might otherwise have been. Sam [Spade] 03:06, 22 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]
50 reverts, I think, is beyond defense, honestly. Snowspinner 03:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Passive aggression[edit]

I started off with Talk:Augusto Pinochet. I will soon chronicle all his slanders against me so that people stop falling for these attacks and finally let me get back to work. 172 07:36, 23 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't get it. This just doesn't seem damning at all. VV 09:03, 23 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/172[edit]

  1. VV 05:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC) 172 is a singular menace who does not belong on a community-oriented, consensus-based, neutrality-driven Wiki project. See my summary at my RFC page.Reply[reply]

Talk:Augusto Pinochet[edit] I'm not saying you're 172's friend. I'm saying his friends started swarming. As an intellectual you should recognize this as the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. I'm aware of your general feelings about 172 and me, although I still don't feel I understand them completely despite our first conversation. VV 20:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] It doesn't. But he told Viajero that it did, and gently asked him to "facilitate the process of unprotecting the page and putting up the winning version of the intro". Viajero fell for it (because he wanted to?) and gave 172 his unprotection and new intro. Hence, sleaze. VV 14:52, 20 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] As now all can see, 172 has adopted a new form of utter sleaze to get his way. VV 14:37, 20 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] Re that last part: My impression is that Eloquence seems to basically agree with 172's interpretation of the Chile events, but is also aware of 172's obnoxious, recalcitrant, and anti-Wiki behavior, and does recognize the need for NPOV. VV 12:37, 20 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] VV I did not say this. I said that some were buddies of 172, and they were. You are falling for 172 smear tricks. VV 09:24, 20 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] Typical. Offer nothing and call it a "gesture of compromise". Who is 172 trying to fool? Well, my gesture of compromise is the wording I wrote. VV 00:46, 20 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] To recap, we the then-editors of this page did reach a delicate consensus before the swarming started (first 172, then his friends). And 172 is the king of personal attacks; just look around. VV 22:53, 19 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] The poll is utterly meaningless, which is why I did not even take part. 172 recruited his ideological allies to vote, and they did. (With similar canvassing we could garner votes of our own, but no matter.) There are only one or two users I find it sad to see caring so little about NPOV, but the results change nothing. I already know about Wikipedia's strong political bias and don't need a poll to remind me. As has been pointed out, a similar poll on whether to include Criticisms of Mother Teresa would also probably go the wrong way. And Cadr is quite correct that most of those people have not participated in the discussion; statements such as "I didn't even know this was disputed" indicate, uh..., unawareness of what is going on here. VV 21:21, 19 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] Who am I attacking? And saying I "should present more compelling arguments" supports my supposition that you were not aware of the talk of these issues, because if so you would have seen the thousands and thousands of words arguing these very points. - VV 23:20, 18 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] By "consensus" version I mean what we, several parties collaborating, had worked out together to come up with before 172 showed up and began attacking this article. That had basically reached a consensus. 172's subsequent attacks I suppose could be taken as anti-consensus, but of course he has dismissed that process utterly as "partisan bickering", so consensus does not seem on his mind anyway. At any rate, this is and remains a straightforward neutrality issue. - VV 06:40, 18 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] The second sandox is just 172's personal one. This sandbox process appears to be changing nothing. We already developed a consensus version on the article itself (which is not obviously worse to me than the sandbox v.), and 172 refused to accept a word of it. Now that we're working with sandboxes, the same is taking place on those. - VV 01:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] 172's characterization of himself as the only one to offer a compromise is absurd. At least five users worked through numerous drafts of the intro to find one which pleased (or at least didn't offend) everyone. This includes me; I made several edits and re-edits in hopes of accommodating all concerns raised. By contrast, 172 is not willing to alter so much as one word of his intro paragraph; his only compromise is to add a 1 to his deceptive intro, where a reader can follow a link to a (poorly worded) "footnote" at the bottom of the page. Of course, if anyone's been reading this far, they already know this to be true. - VV 22:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] Is this lighthearted self-parody, or do you mean this seriously? - VV 05:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] ??? How is anything I've said a "personal attack"? I have been summarizing 172's behavioral patterns using his own words. Curiously, no one seems interested when 172 calls me a "right-wing" "chauvinist U.S. nationalist" who acts on "emotional" whims and lives in a "fantasy world", or when he called me RickK's "little bitch" or said my edits were "bullshit" and "gibberish". I guess those aren't personal attacks, but instead the thoughtful reflections of a "professional historian". Sure, there are no double standards here. Anyway, what is there to disagree with in my analysis of 172's behavior? And, we are at consensus, not counting 172, who has essentially opted out of that process. As for your recent proposal, I don't like "US-backed government" for two reasons: (1) it implies somehow that the US was propping it up, and that it would have collapsed without it, and (2) mentioning the US, a foreign nation, however involved in the Chile issue they were, as the first and only modifier describing the government, gives it undue prominence; why mention this aspect among all of them? Anyway, we have a perfectly good intro already, which we both worked on to find an agreeable version. 172 has no substantive objection to it except for it was not written solely by his own hand. -- VV 09:32, 14 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] 172 is correct that Michael's suggestion is where we were weeks ago before his involvement, which is why things were fine and 172 is the sole problem user on this page. We did go through the named process, and did come up with an intro that satisfied the various parties (172 dismisses this consensus-building as "partisan bickering" which he could "care less" about). But 172 will have none of it. His version must stand unaltered, and (to quote from above) if you don't like it "you'll just have to bear it", "take it or leave it". 172 is simply not interested in the Wiki process. It is because of people like him completely convinced that they are right and that there is no need to adjust to anyone else's concerns that Wikipedia has so many edit wars. There is no working with someone who insists on sole authorship; that is why the edit box warns "edited mercilessly". People like that should shape up or leave. 172 knows perfectly well he is adding "unproven" claims, but he just plays semantic games with everyone who takes time out to explain it to him. That is why I regard this as trolling, he's being inflammatory and provoking response. -- VV 01:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] Of course it implies this. 172 knows this perfectly well. He just wants us to say it again and again in multiple forums (we even had this discussion in Wikipedia:Requests for protection). -- VV 11:35, 10 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A particularly comical example of this is in Talk:Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War/Archive_1 under the rule under section 6, where 172 declared "proof" that I was "trolling" because I did not respond to his comment within thirty-one minutes! Anyway, 172 is playing dumb here; if he really had reread the comments, he would have seen the extensive discussion on this point, the most reason one involving him, Cadr, and me. But what trolls do is post inflammatory content to provoke more and more responses. That's why he wants me to keep repeating myself. -- VV 11:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] Incidentally, I forgot to mention that I'm happy (as I indicated before by not reverting) to accept your super-short intro as a stop-gap measure until 172 stops trolling we figure something out. -- VV 01:25, 10 May 2004 (UTC) I had, you'll note, accepted this stop-gap measure, but 172 continued to revert to his version anyway, in fact reverted once just to revert. Thus, alas, I concluded this idea was DOA. -- VV 23:09, 7 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surely you've seen the weeks' worth of discussion, and how little fruit it's brought with 172, who dismisses all criticisms and says it's "too bad" if you don't like his version. I and several other users have worked out consensus versions of the intro, but 172 will only tolerate his own. I do consider this trolling; he is deliberately adding inflammatory misinformation over several users' wishes, knowing it will provoke a response; that is virtually the definition. -- VV 00:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] I have never been uncivil, and I'm not denying engaging in revert wars. I will do so with people like 172 who would otherwise stomp on anyone who doesn't. I do not consider it childish to defend the encyclopedia against personally abusive, anti-consensus, uncivil pushers of misinformation. -- VV 00:08, 4 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] Getting 172 to be civil = getting pig to sing. -- VV 23:13, 3 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see the point of having a new poll; it will simply turn into another ideological head count, and I for one would not accept any result that the article should push a controversial POV. The neutrality guidelines are clear on this point. 172's trolling (pushing controversial, inflammatory content) should be seen for what it is and not taken seriously. You (Eloquence) have already put much effort into trying to explain the rules to 172 above; I doubt it will bear much more fruit than my efforts, but it's all we can really do for this dispute. -- VV 21:47, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is this comment directed at me? If so, I was referring to the earlier protection of this article (by Raul654), where it was frozen on 172's version, which he was pushing against several other users. Nobody cried foul about the choice of version then. I should note 172 has done this before, try to convince admins to revert to his version on protected pages (User talk:Flockmeal). -- VV 05:52, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The last time it was protected was on 172's version, which was opposed to nearly all other parties. I don't remember this being an issue then. -- VV 05:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) I see plenty of evidence here for discontent with your unilateral stance, which is to push the leftwing mythology with poor writing. -- VV 04:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) Just in case anyone thinks there is a substantive dialog taking place here, this is the full extent of the changes to the intro which 172 has "accepted" during this entire affair. That's right, a single superscripted 1 at the end. Quite the compromise! -- VV There is absolutely nothing wrong with the intro before 172 started trolling. The "wordiness" was a red herring; an article this length can afford a few dozen words in the intro, in complete sentences (you know, with verbs). The only questionable part was that relating to the US and the coup; this already has a gigantic section, and we do not need to take sides in the intro. The footnote is particularly ridiculous, when there is an article which says the same thing. The version we'd worked out gives a clear, concise, neutral description of Pincohet's rise, rule, fall, and perceived legacy. A new version of the short note about the US has been put in; the reader can read more later about it in the extensive coverage. -- VV 02:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) (This comment was added after edit conflict with Ruhrjung.) I think the situation is similar to before: Everyone is willing to discuss it and work constructively, except 172, who insists his intro and his alone is the only possible one. Otherwise, something close to a delicate consensus had been painstakingly reached between the partisans throughout several weeks. It's not clear whether 172 will bother to continue harassing (trolling?) this article against everyone else (his repeated promises to leave forever notwithstanding); he may have felt he "won" by gaining the protection. Anyway, see the discussion above for details. -- VV 06:26, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC) (de-indenting) You have not addressed the 172 behavior issue, still. I'm glad we agree on keeping this article on focus. Your opinions of the US's motives (and others') are your own and I assume you realize that; I have my own opinions, too (were we in a position to install a Japan-style gov't?), but I'm not putting them in the intro. These are complex subjects, and to fully elaborate requires lots of detail, including the documents you noted, which could be an article of its own, in fact its own encyclopedia. That's why almost anything stated in a short intro on, recall, the man Pinochet will be troublesome unless it leaves a lot of room for all POVs. My final note is that documents from 1970 may talk about the future, but they're written before it and so do not prove what policies actually came to pass. -- VV 23:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be dodging the question of the appropriateness of 172's unilateralness and abusiveness. Yes, I wholly concede that the CIA under orders of Nixon sought ways to overthrow Allende in 1970. There is nothing to indicate they wanted what happened in 1973 to occur, nor even less that they had anything to do with it. Indeed, they may have been happier waiting for the next election and trying to sink Allende then. Yes, I do take the CIA's word for it, and at any rate flatly contradicting them in the intro is a violation of NPOV. Next, when saying the US "supported" Pinochet after he came to power, we have to be very careful what we mean. It does not mean they supported everything he did or agreed with all of his actions. We arguably "support" Taiwan right now, but that does not mean we sign off on all their policies. By saying things like "the US supported the right-wing military dictator of Chile", one is deliberately blurring important distinctions as to what was and what was not supported and why and how and under what conditions, and thus painting the US as the evil boogeyman (obviously the goal). If we just stick to the undisputed facts, such as the CIA section of the article mostly does, we should be okay. -- VV 22:02, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The intelligence community surveyed the documents recently and concluded the US "did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency" (see ref in text). At any rate, it was an attempt to balance all sides; in fact that sentence was a revised version (not by me) of a compromise, as I feel the involvement or not of the US can be relegated to the gigantic discussion section below. If you have better wording you should try it out; at least we're talking about it. That doesn't mean 172's bully tactics and contempt and disrespect for consensus are A-okay. -- VV 19:28, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My last write of the intro was designed to balance all these concerns, and I think it does so fairly well. As Ed mentions, the CIA discussion is now the largest section in the article! This is just a case of 172 being out of control; I assume you've noted his contempt for consensus comments above. -- VV 02:40, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"US-backed" does not mean what 172 wants to claim, nor is it accurate even in a broad sense, nor could any sense it might claim to be accurate in justify putting a reference to the US in the intro. This has all been discussed, with the agreement to not have it, and 172 knows this. Of course, he is disrespecting process and neutrality because of personal vendettas and ideological warring. -- VV 01:07, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Translation: "I'm 172, only my opinion matters. The method of using the Talk pages to discuss an article, hash out an agreement, and reach a consensus doesn't apply to me. Neutrality is immaterial, as my opinion should be stated in the intro, no matter how many other POVs there are. Anyone who alters such edits or disagrees is a POV-pushing troll." -- VV 21:28, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think you'll find 172 will be the only one involved who favors continued protection, as he is using it as a blunt tool to push his own POV with no respect for Wikipedia's policies. The reverts in recent history have all been by or because of him. -- VV 02:33, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) I have put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for protection. You can add your voice there. Basically, 172 got the page protected by lying. -- VV 02:07, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) I see this page is protected now, on account of basically one user (172) who has no interest in neutrality and is trying to reinsert highly disputed assertions into the intro against a litany of users who are trying to actually work on the article and make it fair. 172 has not defended his actions here, nor shown awareness of the long conversation we've already had on this page. -- VV 01:36, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User talk:Snowspinner[edit] Hey Snowspinner, I understand your concerns about the three-revert rule, but you may not know my history with it. I did stick to the rule for a while in my dealings with 172, and he never did. The quickpoll system in force, I tried to use that to bring up one of 172's more egregious revert attacks (five in ~one hour against two users, trying to erase a week's worth of edits) - and the community shrugged it off. 172 does not consider himself bound by this rule - or any rule - and my edits and efforts will simply be destroyed if I do not do battle. I hope you realize I really have tried everything I can think of - RfC pages, 3rd party interventions, long, long, long attempts to talk to him on Talk and User talk pages - and nothing but reverting back has worked. 172 lacks basic respect for others and the Wiki process, and the community lacks the will and coherence to control him. VV 06:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:Eloquence[edit] Well, I saw no indication 172 was getting the discussion on track, and time has borne this out. To me attacking 172's behavior is not a personal attack (e.g., saying "172 keeps inappropriately reverting the article"). Calling me a "little bitch" or an "ignorant fuck" is. Anyway, you might have noticed there are RfC pages on us now, and the threat of arbitration. Perhaps you will chime in; I hope at least you can validate my claims about 172's conduct, whatever your other sentiments. VV 23:39, 22 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] I'd still like to know what you meant by that [1], in particular singling me out given the context. Whatever else I've done (in desperation from community inaction), I have not stooped to 172's level or even near in this regard. VV 22:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply] I'll try to be brief. First, you are wrong about what I "subconsciously" know; I disagree very strongly with your perspective on the coup, but I don't want to dwell on that here, as that's what the Talk page discussion was for. (I should perhaps note that 172 himself once conceded that the U.S. could not have prevented the coup if they wanted to.) I do not desire to "avoid the Wikipedia bureaucracy"; I tried it out, over and over in many ways, and have little to show for it. By not "adopting 172's methods", I would have been doomed to eternal capitulation, watching my efforts reverted away because I nobly refused to "play his game", and thus became "the victim". No thanks. I don't write on Wikipedia so I can watch my work disappear into the page history. I tried the high road on Red Scare, and I will not be fooled again. It seems silly I should need an alliance to enforce clear NPOV standards, but I do have a good rapport with several users who understand what's going on. But alliances are tricky matters, and many don't have time to rescue others. As for whether 172 is trolling or just a bully, I can't say for sure, but given his past stalking behavior, the fact that he showed up at this article suggests he's here to make trouble. -- VV 05:09, 7 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the risk of spreading the debate here, US-backed is not very ambiguous, and even if it's tolerated as a "catch-all", then UK-backed or whatever would also be appropriate. Putting it in the beginning of the intro is POV-pushing, as it gives the US prominence in an article on a Chilean politician when many feel the US is barely relevant. Anyway, moving on, you've missed the point of the rapist/victim example; I didn't say "accused rapist". But at any rate, I'll give a concrete example rather than pursue the made-up one: I quickpolled 172 for five reverts on Red Scare some time ago, he made a retaliatory quickpoll, cutting and pasting my language in another spurt of I'm-copying-you adolescence, even though I'd only made three reverts. He broke the rule, I didn't, yet people in the name of "impartiality" were voting the same way on both polls. You see my point? Re Pinochet, 172 was not being reasonable; he was erasing the product of weeks of delicate negotiations just because he could, and refusing to change even one word, allowing only a superscripted 1 to muddy his God-given intro. You know; you were there. I'm starting to think that Adam Carr's characterization of him as a sophisticated vandal may be right on [2]. -- VV 23:55, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I know you agree with 172's POV, but it is a POV, and there are others. You know the policy. Anyway, 172's intransigence would be unacceptable even if he were right. The footnote approach is a joke; why use it when you can simply say what you have to say, unless of course it's to make sure not word of 172's godly intro is changed? And it still pushes a POV. Polls are problematic for the reasons noted, and a judge would have to be "impartial", but what would that mean? Protesting having no opinion initially, but then issuing one later? (Though I concede its value, impartiality is a suspect notion; should one be "impartial" between a rapist and his victim?) Compromise is also tricky notion when it's compromise that got the intro the rest of us developed but 172 refuses to allow. We'd be stuck with an infinite regress of compromises, with anyone sufficiently obnoxious being able to hold the community hostage. I guess I'm at a loss to know what to do; Wikipedia simply does not have the "legal" structure to deal with the likes of 172. -- VV 20:50, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound cynical, but being the innocent party has never helped me before, but direct action has. I've basically given up on not being equal revert-wise (though I don't see myself as rude), although I held off on the Civil War war so as to not be the first to make a fourth revert. There's not really anything to vote on in the intro; his version pushes a POV, while mine does not. Your analogy with Mother Teresa suits this case. -- VV 05:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Will nothing be done about this rogue? He's back at it again, trolling Pinochet, an article in which you also have a stake and have tried to deal with him on. -- VV 00:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned before about being willing to intervene vis-a-vis 172's abuses. I think you can see this is such a case, whatever opinions you may have. Refer also to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for more on this case. -- VV 21:34, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User talk:Ed Poor[edit]

Hey Ed Poor, you might want to refer to the extensive discussion about this meaningless and irrelevant "poll" if you haven't been checked lately. And anyway, as you and Michael Snow both pointed out, the poll binds nothing, and, of course, it is tainted by 172's campaigning. VV 12:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for review of administrative actions[edit]

One major difference between my "rollback" and 172's is that his last one was done after the page was protected, which I as a non-admin could not equal. If this was intentional, it would be his fourth violation of protection policy (that I know of!), but I conjecture it was not, since for one it was before the msg:protected went up. (I think reverting would be appropriate since admins should not have extra personal dispute power.) Since "admin rollback" is marked as minor it seems it should not be used for run of the mill content disputes, but this may not be policy. Also, Snowspinner, you missed the edit war at Joseph Stalin! I urge users to see for themselves the nature of the edits which 172 felt he should use ~50 reverts, without comment, to prevent me from making. VV 08:26, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


VeryVerily reappeared after an absence for a day, and right away upon return he reverted work mostly by Eloquence, who made progress toward unprotecting Augusto Pinochet and expanding the intro without my involvement even, for the most part. He also provoked an edit war on My Lai Massacre, which I had been trying to prevent by linking both the VC and NLF to the article. He even reverted an entire section I had added to History of Chile, an article he had never even touched before, without comment, thus provoking an edit war. And watch him turn around after I make these comments and play the victim. The only thing this user does on Wikipedia is pick fights with me (likely because of severe psychological problems, I am beginning to believe). I mean, just look at his user history. He hardly does anything else. 172 07:35, 28 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I have said several times, I think both you and VeryVerily engage in terrible editing practices, and that neither one of those justifies the other one editing the same way (As the examples of Wik and Cantus should be showing you). Frankly, as bad as everything you've just said makes VV look, accusing him of having severe psychological problems on top of it just makes you look bad too. Snowspinner 14:07, 28 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree my editing practices have not shown Zen-like patience, but I'm asking people to consider them in the context of several months of 172's attacks on me. VV 21:18, 28 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Copied from User talk:Michael Snow:) 172 cut and pasted this note several places (with variations); I'll post a short defense here. Eloquence's work built off on 172's version and incorporated nearly everything I found objectionable; I attempted a new rewrite based on the sandbox, created for this purpose. The My Lai Massacre battle is over the same "common names" policy issue which was discussed and resolved months ago when "HectorRodriguez" was pushing it. The new section in History of Chile was laced with large-scale, emotive POV (e.g., "perhaps the most brutal and large-scale repression in Latin American history") with no balance, and was anyway long and out of scope for this article. It is true I've responded to 172's escalation with escalation of my own (e.g., reverting with no/little comment), which perhaps reflects less well on me. But, like I've said, being the "victim" hasn't done much to help me, whereas 172 has gotten off scot-free with his tactics for a long time, and now, thus, I'm in some cases willing to match them. (I don't know how much faith to put in this arbitration process, either, although I should perhaps give it a chance to work.) VV 08:23, 28 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]