Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily and Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas

Initial request and discussion at /Request

Well, now that we seem to have a forum that has been agreed to by all parties, I think we can proceed to the next step.

What I'd like from the parties involved is a concise declaration of the issue(s) that they see as in dispute and their requests for a resolution. In other words, what do you see wrong now, and what do you hope can be done about it? I'd like to think that everyone's above name-calling and those sort of shenanigans, so if you could all try to really be polite especially at this phase, I'd sure appreciate it.

Keep in mind that I don't have the background that any of you do in this situation, so any sort of subtlety or in-jokes or references to material that isn't present will be lost on me. I can't help you resolve this situation if I'm not presented with all of the information that you consider relevant.

So, a simple two or three line statement of your "problem" and a similar statement of your desired "solution" would be just peachy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:35, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * There's a whole lot of background information; a whole lot of history. It would take a long time to be anywhere near comprehensive, but me and Gzonenplatz will try to give you a representative sample.  Me and Gzonenplatz have serious qualms about VV's conduct, on numerous pages, for the past couple of months.  Many others have also expressed similiar qualms.  Let me list some of my qualms, which I think Gz shares.  Each one of them is to the highest degree that I have experienced on Wikipedia.  It is my perception that VV:


 * does not operate under good faith
 * is uncivil in dialogue, often sarcastic and derogatory
 * does not work towards consensus
 * inserts POV, both subtle and blatent
 * excises/censors important and relevant factual information, sometimes in quite generous amounts, apparently because it does not support his POV
 * without any reservation, engages in relentless revert wars, completely ignoring the 3 revert rule, often against multiple people, to protect his preferred version - often leading to pages being protected


 * That should give you an idea. Desired solution?  For VV to stop doing these things.


 * Is it appropriate to list past RfC's? The issues that concern us are broad and numerous. I hope this wasn't too much.  I didn't know how I could portray the "problem" in two or three sentences. Kevin Baas | talk 01:54, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)


 * Good faith - I assume good faith at first, then stop when users show themselves unworthy of it.
 * Civility - I believe I am civil. Blunt, sometimes, it is true, but civil.  Sarcastic, yes, in the colloquial sense, which is not uncivil.
 * Consensus - Example? I discuss the issues with those who care to.  It is true I have less patience for those up to no good (witness the return of the Richardchilton sockpuppet army).
 * Inserts POV - Uncategorically deny.
 * Excises/censors - I remove what does not belong, which is not censorship. Articles cannot be made into catch-alls nor filled with polemics.
 * Revert wars - Yes, I take this measure when other avenues fail me. Which they often do.  But tango (not an "in-joke" I trust).
 * Very Verily 08:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin's analysis, but I would simply concentrate on the one hard point VeryVerily can't deny (and indeed has admitted above) - his violation of the three-revert rule. I have lately violated it myself simply because it wasn't enforced, especially against VeryVerily. But I will stop when he stops. So I ask him to join me in a pledge to respect the rule, except where third parties violate it first. Gzornenplatz 11:36, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * No one is else bound by the rule, so I won't be either, even if Gz is. But it's the wrong rule anyhow; many of my most determined adversaries have simply created multiple accounts. Very Verily  19:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The rule is there. I agree one can't be expected to follow it if no one else is bound by it. But you can't just ignore a rule because you think "it's the wrong rule anyhow". And the rule can of course be adapted to the multiple account problem. I don't think you're honest here - you don't like the rule only because you might not be able to force your way when you're in a minority as you were on George W. Bush. Gzornenplatz 19:57, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not a "real" rule, and no multiple accounts often go undetected. And I only gave one reason it's the wrong rule.  Another is indeed that it allows a minority with the facts on their side to be overridden by sheer numbers. Very Verily  20:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * good faith:User_talk:Kevin_baas/Archive2
 * uncivil, "derogatory": Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century/Survey
 * consensus:User_talk:VeryVerily, User_talk:VeryVerily, User_talk:VeryVerily/archive, esp. the quote "there is no consensus if I disagree with it.", which demonstrates his sincere belief that everything must meet the arbitrary VV test, and his complete unwillingness to compromise is therefore justified. If every wikipedian operated the same way, nothing would ever get accomplished.  Indeed, very little gets accomplished when just one person operates this way, as has been clearly demonstrated.
 * inserts pov:Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century/Survey
 * excising: see the page history of the George W. Bush article from 23:30, 2004 Sep 9 (144.189.40.223) to 22:15, 2004 Sep 10 (Grunt), here's a diff:
 * revert wars: this is VV's first resort and primary mechanism for "resolving conflicts". The above cited revert war of VV vs. Mike Storm, Me, Gz, and Eloquence, used to push what we all agreed to be a major pov excising, against consensus, and not in good faith, is just one example of VV's typical use of revert wars as a first and often last resort. Kevin Baas | talk 15:58, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Very Verily 19:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Good faith - Thanks for supporting my point. As I explicitly stated, your behavior made it no longer possible.
 * Uncivil - Mocking these "Have you stopped beating my wife?" questions after endless intrasigence by BD and Kb seems quite reasonable to me.
 * Consensus - Boy you're really hung up on that quote, huh? Yes, when a small number of people discuss, and one disagrees strongly, I would not call that consensus.
 * Inserts POV - ?
 * Excising - Now you're being dishonest. We both read the talk page in which what happened was explained.  Several times.  This mediation process will not work if you lie.
 * Revert war - Your argument is based on two preceding falsehoods. Damn straight I revert warred with that kind of attitude.

a
Well, I've spent some time trying to sift through all of this.

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.

That being said, I don't think we should continue to make an issue of the 3-revert rule in this case. First of all, parties on both sides seem to be "guilty" of it, so while that doesn't make it OK, it at least makes it equivalent. Secondly, since the rule isn't really enforced anyway, it doesn't seem that much could come of it. My recommendation is that all parties to this issue agree to abide by the 3-revert rule against each other, as relates to this dispute. Now, I'm not saying that you need to abide by the rule all the time, or even against each other in future disputes. I'm just suggesting that perhaps you can all agree that FOR THE CURRENT DISPUTE you will abide by the 3-revert rule. Now, the alternative to this (which is equally acceptable in my opinion) is for all of you to agree to ignore each others' violations of the 3-revert rule, again, for this dispute.

So, either all agree to cut it out, or all agree to stop calling each other on it.

Now, for the rest of the issues, it becomes more complicated. Whenever people complain about "rude" behavior and it's not something "obviously rude" (like "Fuck your mother" or something), there's always going to be two sides to the issue. So, I'm going to deal with the issues raised one by one, as I see the situation.

1) Good faith. Good faith means a lot of things. I don't see any clear cut edits that show that VV operates with a lack of good faith. His claim that he assumes good faith unless he has reason not to seems to pass muster. Now, there is, of course, room for disagreement as to what constitutes "unworthiness" of the assumption of good faith.

VV, I have known many people, some admins in fact, that are very short of good faith, you are not alone. That aside, I've never thought that it was a particularly good idea. I myself am guilty of lack of assumption of good faith in the past... I like to think that there were reasons for it, and that it was justified in the long run. The problem is, and I think you'll realize this, is that it can upset other users. Now, this isn't necessarily your concern, but you can't be surprised by it.

KB and Gzorn, there are good reasons sometimes to be suspect of users. While it's not very "nice", sometimes assuming that certain people are up to no good is, in fact, the proper course of action. I'm not saying that it's pleasant, or should be widespread, but it has it's place. I'd just like you to realize that its the kind of behavior that never will (nor should) disappear completely. That being said, it IS important to try and keep an open mind and assume good faith for as long as reasonable... key word there is reasonable.

Bottom line, this is a gray area, and I don't see anything so egregious that I would consider VV to be categorically operating without good faith.

2) Civility. I have a close friend who is just about the least tactful person on Earth. This person means absolutely no malice, but her comments can sometimes seem quite cutting and biting. Keep in mind, this is with spoken language and body language... and she never comes off as malicious. It's just that the phrasing can sometimes be a bit... blunt. Think how much more difficult it is to assign motivation to a person's words without body language or demeanor... without pacing of words. When you are just reading words on a page, it can be VERY difficult at times to diving a person's mental state unless a) they are clearly raving ("OMFG! YOU ASSHOLE!") or b) very precise in their word choice ("Let me be perfectly clear as to my meaning, I'm not saying you stink, I'm saying you SMELL... as in you have the ability to use your sense of smell"). Neither case makes up the majority of Talk on Wikipedia in my opinion.

VV, it always pays to be as civil as possible, which I'm sure you realize. While sarcasm is funny to many (myself included) some people have a hard time with it and view it as hurtful. That's just people... people are all different. You may want to try keeping in mind that not everyone has the same sense of humor as you. Not everyone can see into your thoughts and recognize your lack of malice. If you try and look at your words from the point of view of a third party, you may see that they sometimes look harsher than, perhaps, you intended.

KB and Gzorn, civility is a funny thing. My generation has a very different concept of civility than the one that came before it, and I daresay the one before that as well. Even within a generation, different cultures, people, genders, etc. will have different concepts of what is civil and appropriate. When you accuse someone of being uncivil, it is likely that the following is true... you are saying that if it were you doing it, it would be uncivil, because it violates your concept of civility. Please keep in mind that just because YOU consider it to be uncivil does not always mean it is intended that way. To be sure, there are cases when it is clear a person is ATTEMPTING to be uncivil, but there is always room to sit back, reflect, and try to consider that the way you are viewing words on a page may not be the same way that the person who put those words there views them.

3) Consensus. Consensus is sort of like a compromise between many individuals. Consensus is only possible amongst a group that is willing to compromise. Obviously, compromise isn't needed if all parties are in agreement, but then, that's consensus right there. The fine line part of this issue is whether or not consensus needs to be complete. In other words, what if most people DO agree, but one doesn't? What if a few people agree but some don't?

VV, woe betide those who make statements that come back to haunt them. :) It seeems that your statement about "no consensus if I disagree" is just such a statement. Since we all make them from time to time, it's no big deal, and doesn't indicate any failure on your part any greater than the rest of us. Of course, it's always best to try to be as specific as possible in order to avoid misunderstandings.

KB and Gzorn, I read VV's comment differently than you do. To consider it a requirement that all decisions pass some sort of VV-test seems rather uncharitable. It seems to me to be a direct statement of fact, that as long as strong dissent exists, consensus hasn't been achieved. Note that this is different than working towards or against consensus. From the context of the Talk pages referenced, I see VV willing to compromise. It's worth noting that I also see you willing to compromise. I don't understand, then, why individuals who seem to be willing to compromise cannot... I am guessing that this is part of the "whole lot of history" alluded to above.

Bottom line, I think that perhaps there's more to this dispute than the recent edits regarding George Bush, et al. because I can't see the reason for the rancor between the parties based on the above links.

4) POV. I'll deal with this quickly, because it seems to me to be a simple issue (I apologize if I have misanalyzed the situation).

Inserting POV itself is not a problem, it's non-sourced POV and unbalanced POV that's the issue. NPOV is not NoPointOfView, it's NeutralPointOfView, which requires reasonable attention to all sides of an issue and proper attribution of POV to its source.

5) Excision/Censorship. Frankly, I don't see VV's guilt here. Perhaps I'm not reading the edit histories carefully enough, but I don't see this. If you want to link me to history diffs, I'll be more than happy to look at them, but I wasn't able to find anything on my own. (The diff you DID provide showed someone changing VV's edits, not vice versa) VV seems to have moved a significant chunk on W's military service to a separate article on the controversy, which isn't necessarily inappropriate. The other "deletions" that I see from the Sept. 9-10 timeframe were explained by VV on the Talk page as merely restorations of OTHER PEOPLES' edits. I have no reason to disbelieve this assertion, and I don't see that anyone else has questioned his veracity on this issue other than Mike Storm who gave no evidence other than a claim that it was "suspicious" given VV's supposed behavior elsewhere.

Well...

That took a long time to write, I must say. :) I'd like you all to respond to anything that you take issue with in my above missive. Let me know if you think I'm right/wrong/mistaken about any pertinent issues. Please be aware that I'm honestly trying here, but that there is a LOT of data and I still get the feeling that I haven't been made aware of all of it. That being said, at the moment I'm a little confused as to why it is (short of simple differences of opinions) why the two sides can't just come to some sort of compromise and hammer out details on each individual point of contention.

--Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:51, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the putting the time you clearly did into this. I'll surely have more to say on these topics, but I wanted to say that now. Very Verily  22:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the other points, I will just say I disagree strongly with your comments regarding the 3-revert rule. Yes, regrettably the rule is inconsistently enforced. Still, WP:3RR exists and says "chronic offenders may be subject to rulings by the Arbitration Committee". Either it's policy or it isn't, and I want clarification on that. If it is, VeryVerily, who is without a doubt a chronic offender, should be subjected to an appropriate ruling. If it isn't, the rule should be explicitly declared dead so I don't have to worry about punishment when I violate it, which regrettably I have to when it is not enforced against others. As to "parties on both sides seem to be "guilty" of it, so while that doesn't make it OK, it at least makes it equivalent", no it's not equivalent at all; I took great care not to violate it for months while seeking enforcement of the rule against VeryVerily; only when that failed, I had no choice but to violate it myself. But I have offered to follow the rule when he does; he clearly rejected this, so there is no equivalency here. Gzornenplatz 22:15, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * The reason I suggested dropping the 3RR issue is simple. I have no power to either enforce it, or clarify its status. Plain and simple, there's nothing I can do. I understand that you want clarification, I do to. This is an issue for the ArbCom and Jimbo. I understand that your position is that you have been a less egregious violator of the rule than VV. The point remains though, that just as VV was pushed past his limits (as per his claim), so were you (as per your claim). My point about equivalency was not that you were equally guilty, but that you were both "pushed past your limits". Thus, since it seems obvious that even reasonable people can be pushed past their limits and since no one seems to actually get in trouble for it, maybe you two should either a) agree to cut it out, or b) stop calling each other on it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:27, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I offered to cut it out, he refused. But I realize you can't do anything. That's why I sought arbitration right away, except they told me "try mediation first", so here we are. Maybe it helps if you personally refer this to arbitration, so this question can be finally decided. Gzornenplatz 23:31, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, here's a nice straightforward offer. VV, Gzorn is offering to abide by the 3RR, at least with respect to the issue at hand. If you are also willing to abide by the 3RR as relates to the issue currently being mediated, we have our first success in the mediation process. :) If not, then I suppose you could counteroffer on the plan b above... if neither work, I'd be willing to personally forward THIS PORTION of the mediation to arbitration... after the other issues are dealt with, of course. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:37, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid he has already refused this offer above. And plan b is out; as long as the rule stands, I will not stop calling him on it. Gzornenplatz 23:43, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Dante, I have no confidence in the above assesment and analysis. (the long post directly beneath the horizontal break) Your assesment/analysis did not demonstrate to me a thorough and accurate understanding of the situation. Instead of listing my disagreements, I'll give you some information that will help you know how much relevant information there is; the scope, in the broadest sense.

You haven't answered my question as to whether it's okay to put links to RFC's on here. Let me give you a better sense of things:


 * RFC:
 * Requests_for_comment/VeryVerily
 * Requests_for_comment/VeryVerily2
 * RFM:
 * Requests_for_mediation/Archive_10
 * RFAr:
 * WP:RFAr
 * WP:RFAr
 * WP:RFAr
 * WP:RFAr

This is by no means all-encompassing. The majority of users who have privately expressed irritation have not filed or endorsed requests. More pages are involved than are listed. Issues date back past the earliest date listed in the cited material. Kevin Baas | talk 19:00, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sorry you have no confidence in my analysis and that I don't seem to have an accurate and thorough understanding of the situation. It's not my intention to be cursory, I based my analysis thus far on the material I reviewed.


 * I didn't realize that your request about the appropriateness of RfC pages was serious. I assumed it was rhetorical, my apologies. Obviously, any relevant "evidence" relating to the current situation is welcome. Now, I'm a bit puzzled by some of the RfC and RfA links you've put up. First of all, not all even existed at the time of your request for mediation with VV. Second of all, most of the pages don't deal with you or Gzorn, so while they may show that other people object to VV's behavior, I'm not entirely certain in what manner you consider it relevant to YOUR disagreements with VV. Lastly, rather than just the GWB and Kissinger pages, it seems that you're objecting to VV's behavior across more or less the entire Wikipedia. This is fine, if you have a problem, I'd like to help mediate it, but let's just be clear. I'm willing to review any page you'd like me to look at, but the specifics that you've pointed me to thus far don't seem to back up the assertions you're making... at least not to the degree that you seem to think they do.


 * Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that you're making this up or imagining it, what I'm saying is that *I* don't see the evidence of what you're claiming. This is unsurprising regardless since I've so far been given only a few pages to examine given the apparent depth of the conflict. I'll go review the RfC and RfA pages tomorrow, but some specific pointers as to what it is that I'm supposed to be looking for (other than simply numerous instances of the above numerated behaviors) would probably be helpful.


 * Also, I'm uncertain (since you've declined to offer specifics as to your disagreements with my analysis) whether you don't feel that the evidence supports my conclusions or if you don't feel that I've read the evidence. If you wouldn't mind, letting me know precisely where I've gone wrong in your opinion could be helpful.


 * In closing, I'd just like to offer some advice that statements like "The majority of users who have privately expressed irritation have not filed or endorsed requests" are completely unverifiable and really have no place in this discussion. Anyone who has a problem with VV is welcome to comment on Wikipedia in the appropriate forum and you are free to point me to them. I'm not chastising you, just pointing out that the statement is rather pointless as it can have no bearing on the issue at hand.


 * --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:31, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. First let me say that the statement "The majority of users who have privately expressed irritation have not filed or endorsed requests" is verifiable, and is indicative of the consensus interpretation of VV's conduct, and the extent to which it has been percieved as disruptive, which is relevant to the mediation, and helps to put VV's rhetoric in perspective - rhetoric which he will likely use in the mediation process.


 * Perhaps I misunderstood you, when you used the word "privately", I assumed that you meant people had confided in you privately, which would, of course, be unverifiable.


 * So there's a specific disagreement I have with what you have just said. I had earlier declined to state my disagreements because I did not want to arouse emotions and create a conflict, as that would be obstructive of the goal of resolving the present conflict.  It is with these reservations that I shall state my disagreements, as you have requested, as plainly and respectfully as possible.


 * Before this, though, let me answer some of your questions: Yes, it is VV's conduct throughout the entire wikipedia taht me and Gz are concerned about. As Gz has stated, he wants to narrow the focus to a more manageable, specific and concrete scope - the GWB pages and revert wars - in hopes that this might expediate the process.  I am concerned that the real depth of the problem will not be grasped if it's extent is not represented.


 * Gz originally filed an arbitration request against VV, which I joined, and that request was rejected and sent down to the mediation level. As I understand, mediation is between or among users, whereas arbitration concerns a specific user.  This might explain the "I'm not entirely certain in what manner you consider it relevant to YOUR disagreements with VV...".  And let me also respond to this matter by saying that they are relevant to MY disagreements with VV because they are the SAME disagreements I have with VV.  I also brought them to your attention to demonstrate that my disagreements are not idiosyncratic or pathological, but that my interpretations of VV's conduct - you must form you own interpretation in this process - is shared by many who have had experiences with him in the past, or are currently engaged with him.  In other words, I provide this as evidence; witnesses; corroborators.


 * This makes sense. As you can see above, I opined that it might illustrate that other users have similar problems, which you have confirmed was your intent.


 * Firstly, let me say that I agree w/Gz's response regarding reverts.


 * I'll be referring that portion of this matter to the AC following conclusion of mediation.


 * Regarding good faith - certainly people have different thresholds. I don't have a threshold: I assume good faith indefinitely and unconditionally.  To say that VV's threshold of "unworthiness" is not altogether or in principle unreasonable, is to assume first that he has a threshold, and that such a statement is therefore meaningfull.  However, on the page Talk:Project for the New American Century/Survey, you will notice that on first encounter with Bryan Derkson, he has assumed bad faith.  I can think of no position more diametrically opposed to "assume good faith", and to say that the antithesis of "assume good faith" is still assuming good faith is to say that one can never not assume good faith, which is reducto ad absurdum.  I disagree with this.


 * VV asserted that he had a threshold of unworthiness. Since he made such an assertion and you didn't seem to directly contradict him, I took him at his word... I assumed good faith. Now, reading this link that you've provided previously as evidence of his inserting POV into articles and his incivility, I see the referenced interaction between Bryan and VV. Nothing in the Talk: page leads me to believe this is a first encounter, but I will accept your information that it is such a first encounter. Given that, it does seem that VV failed to assume good faith in that case.


 * Civility - what is this?!? To do is to be.  You are making excuses for behavior that is simply against policy.  If something appears to be uncivil that is still against policy, regardless of the "deeper meaning" one chooses to see in it.  The rule is not there to protect against people being intentionally rude, on principle, but to protect against the gestation of conflict enforced by people appearing to be rude regardless of their underlying intention.  It is the gestation of conflict and it's obstructiveness in practice, not in principle or the abstract, that the rule is meant to avoid.


 * I don't see myself as making excuses for behavior that is against policy. I apologize if you see it that way. My point was that civility is a social construct and a subjective one at that. If you were intending to point out that he has violated policy on account of his incivility, I was unaware of your intent. Your assertion that VV "is uncivil in dialogue, often sarcastic and derogatory" did not seem to me to be anything more than a generalized complaint regarding his attitude, which I attempted to comment on in my initial analysis. Given that it seems you are claiming he violated policy on account of said behavior, that requires a different analysis. First of all, I disagree fundamentally with your statement that "if something appears to be uncivil that is still against policy" even if it was not intended as such. I do not read the policies of Wikipedia to support such a statement. I would not accept as valid an assertion that someone has violated policy simply because they were thought to be uncivil when they were in fact misunderstood. Keep in mind that I'm not making a claim that this is the case with VV. I'm making a larger point about the policy in general.


 * As far as how my interpretation of policy applies to VV, this is my take. VV does engage in sarcastic and blunt comments, as he admits. I would go further and assert that he does so with less regard for his opponents than is perhaps prudent. It always pays to concern onesself with the possible effects that ones words might have on others.


 * I agree with this take. Let me clarify my legal/ethical/philosophical standpoint as concerns interpretation of policy/the first para in your response.  The usage of the word/concept "intention" I disagree with in principle.  This is pure speculation, and is completely irrelevant to the effect, which is the only thing that has any bearing on the actual course of events.  I do not buy into the popular myth of good and evil - I do not think that anyone is ever thinking about how they can be "evil" - and therefore I cannot accept as valid any judgement based on speculation of intent, or even the idea that judgements should be respective of such artificial considerations. Kevin Baas | talk 20:04, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)


 * But one need not even go so far, for the depth of VV's uncivilty stretches beneath the surface - beyond the layer which you pacifistically excuse, in a misinterpretation of the prudential role, to the point of reducing the rule to absurdity. I disagree with this.


 * Consensus - the point is that VV does not compromise. Am I understood?


 * I understand that you are asserting this to be true. VV asserts it to be false. I viewed the evidence and VV claimed to be willing to discuss the specifics of every disputed sentence and come to consensus. This appears to be a willingness to compromise.


 * I still hold that VV does not compromise. What VV "claims" is completely irrelevant, as is his willing or lack thereof to discuss (as discussion does not neccessarily involve compromise), as is his stated interpretation of "coming to consensus", which does not involve compromise.


 * If he was willing to compromise, then he wouldn't revert war all of the time. Pages wouldn't be protected seven times in a row.  I have dealt with many other people who have completely different views as me, and we were able to reach a compromise rather quickly.  I have dealt with VV for a long time, and my experience with him stands in stark contrast with my experience with users that are willing to compromise.  Let me assure you that it is not by an unwillingness to compromise on my part.  Here's an example of me reaching a compromise w/Silverback: Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century, and you can see on the PNAC survey page that our views are about as different as they get.  Here's another example: Talk:United_States_Republican_Party on an issue that is potentially very heated. (Notice the difference in timestamp between the first and the last post.)  From my experience on wiki, VV is by far the most uncompromising user I've ever encountered.  Kevin Baas | talk 20:04, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)


 * POV - me and GZ are both very familiar with the NPOV policy, and I am in fact offended that you would think me so ignorant or uncritical as to not understand what NPOV means. If you take another look at the Talk:Project for the New American Century/Survey page, you'll see in the disputed section that I am well aware of the neutrality of such statements as "some critics argue..."  or "supporters say...", that I brought it up (see Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century/Survey/Archive), and that that in fact constitutes part of the npov dispute against VV - that he does not apply the NPOV rule that you have tacitly accused me of not understanding. Which begs the question why you used it to defend him.  I disagree with this.


 * I am sorry that you were offended. I don't think of you as ignorant on uncritical. My reason for the reduction of the POV claim was as follows. You asserted that VV "inserts POV, both subtle and blatent", a claim which VV promptly categorically denied. The evidence offered for the claim was the talk page on the Project for New American Century. I freely admit that I cannot parse what the hell is going on on that page. It seems to be a survey... except that VV seems to claim it isn't an honest survey. Aside from that, I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to form my own opinion on the issue.... which I honestly don't need to be doing anyway. BOTH versions of the of the paragraph contain primary POV language in my opinion, which means that neither belong in the Wikipedia in their current form. Assuming that VV supports the second paragraph (which I'm not certain is true, given his objections to the survey), this would indicate that he was voting to add POV material to the Wikipedia... which you did also by supporting the previous paragraph. Regardless, since this is a SURVEY and not actual article edits, that still would not constitute adding POV material to the 'pedia. I'm hesitant to speculate further on this evidence until I can get some clarification on everyone's preferred language and the objection to the survey.


 * Given that the only evidence offered did not seem to back up your assertion, I assumed that since you seemed like a rather intelligent person and (based on an assumption of good faith) I assumed you weren't attempting to pull a fast one, I thought that perhaps the root of the problem was a misunderstanding of the policy on NPOV. I suppose this could constitute a "tacit accusation" of misunderstanding the NPOV, and I'm sorry if you took offense at that. Furthrmore, I'm uncertain why you refer to my analysis as a "defense" of VV as regardless of my personal opinion on ANY matters in this mediation, there is no judge or jury, nor advocates for the participants. My role is to facilitate discussion between the parties, so I am attempting to show each of you the other's point of view. I understand that this could sometimes appear to be a sort of advocacy, but please recognize that this is necessary for me to have any role in mediation other than "here, you two talk until it's all worked out".


 * Excising/censorship. - Judge by actions, not rhetoric. There's many more instances that I can cite if this is really an issue.


 * Well, if you'd like to cite more, that would enable me to examine them. I am unable to examine evidence that is not brought to my attention. I do not have the benefit of the wealth of background knowledge that you all have in this issue, I am limited to seeing what is put before me.


 * I'll get to this. Kevin Baas | talk 20:04, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)


 * Whew! That's enough writting for a while. Kevin Baas | talk 19:38, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)


 * Minor correction there: I don't want to concentrate on the GWB page, but on VV's revert violations in general, which extend to many different pages. But aside from that, his behaviour on Talk:Project for the New American Century/Survey is also revealing: the vote there goes 10-1 against him, but he dismisses that because he considers himself "the only sane participant". Gzornenplatz 20:04, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * In closing, I would like to make a number of obvservations. First of all, you seem to be focusing on mediation as a sort of pseudo-arbitration, as if I will make some sort of decision that will either help or hurt your position. My role is solely as a mediator. All I do is try and help you two (three) understand each other's points of view, objections, and desired resolutions. I try to help you reach some sort of understanding or agreement in order to minimize future conflict. If you are unhappy with the concept of mediation, you are free to withdraw and I will immediately forward the matter to arbitration. This is a completely acceptable position to take. While I would hope that the matter could be resolved via mediation, not all disputes can be. Second of all, please remember that I do not have the background that you do in this dispute. I simply don't have the body of knowledge that you all bring to the table. Things that are obvious or self-evident to you may not be so to me. Also, please realize that any failings in my analysis are likely to be a result of misunderstanding or incomplete information on my part and are honestly not a result of any sort of agenda on my part.


 * --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:27, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * One more thing I forgot to mention. A lot of the pages that you've referenced have changed since I initially viewed them. Please remember that since Wikipedia is dynamic and not static, just because a page has content NOW does not mean that it did when I looked at it before. Thanks. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:29, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

One more thing: Gz initially filed this request. I don't want to hold up the process that he is concerned with against his will. Kevin Baas | talk 20:22, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

b
VV, I have received replies from both Gzorn and KB regarding my initial analysis, but (other than your short comment of appreciation) nothing from you. It will be difficult for me to facilitate communication between all parties if I do not know your opinion on my take of things.

--Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:27, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * I apologize for that. I have been distracted by other considerations and, while I have been following the discussion here, I have not gone so far as to assemble my thoughts into a coherent reply.  I will add a few comments now however:


 * First, I think that your long initial summary is fairly accurate, and that it largely vindicates my assertions. This of course I would expect from any impartial analysis, as my statements were truthful and not hard to verify.  The claims that I "excise" or "censor" and that I "insert POV" have, as you correctly observe, not been substantiated.  Kb's example of excision on George W. Bush has been again exposed as dishonest, although perhaps you would not phrase it that way.


 * As I would say that KB's claims of excision have not been substantiated, so would I say that your claim that his position was "dishonest" is similarly unsubstatiated.


 * Very Verily Okay, then, it's wrong. Its dishonesty I think follows from Kb's presumed familiarity with the Talk conversation.


 * Good faith - I have little to add here. My Wikipedia experience has shown me that many users who come to this site simply are up to no good, and I will not pretend this is not the case.  There is also a continuum, including users who want to "spin" text in a way favorable to them, conscious that they are doing so.  And so on.  I also feel users take advantage or abuse Wikipedia venues, such as (aha) surveys.  I see AssumeGoodFaith as instructing to give the benefit of the doubt - but long experience generally makes this unnecessary, as I become familiar enough with a user to know what they are up to.  Okay, that's not little.


 * VV, while I do understand the frustration that comes from dealing with those few users who are here with the sole purpose of making life difficult for everyone else, I cannot go so far as to paint as broad a segment as you do with one brush. It seems to me that there is a significant difference between someone who stirs up controversy for its own sake, and someone who stirs up controversy as a consequence of their sincere beliefs. I would be the first to join you in denouncing those Users of the first type (check my history with User:Triton if you're in the mood for a laugh). However, it seems that you are perhaps overzealous in your attitude towards those of the second type. Is it possible that you are (unconsciously) conflating the two types? It seems that you have an assumption of bad faith for many people who seem to ME to be sincere in their beliefs. It IS possible for a person to sincerely hold beliefs that are counter to "mainstream" beliefs (or your personal beliefs) and to work towards goals associated with those beliefs but still be deserving of good faith.


 * Very Verily I'm not sure what you mean here. I have said that there are degrees of acting in bad faith. Different degrees warrant different reactions. Someone with sincerely held controversial beliefs must accept that their beliefs will not be promoted on and perhaps be marginalized on Wikipedia, tough medicine though that may be. However convinced you (hypothetically) are that the world is run by reptilian humanoids, this view simply cannot be given much bandwidth here. Similarly for less extreme cases (though not as much).


 * DA- I suppose it's that you appear to ascribe certain motives to edits. This seems to be upsetting people. An example from the PNAC talk page "Kb's reason for wanting the whole sense is to spin a deceptive theory as to what the "transformation" refers to, but the part I quoted was the part most frequently quoted. This is another trick." Now, it's quite one thing to say "I think KB has an ulterior motive" but another to use your language. You are phrasing your words in such a way as to imply knowledge of KB's mental state... this is rarely a good practice. This is similar to the point I will make below on civility.


 * Very Verily I don't think people's mental states are really all that opaque, even on the Internet.  In this case, little speculation is required, as Kb spelled out line by line his (faulty) reasoning.  One could of course argue that alluding to inferred mental states is bad form, another matter. Very Verily  08:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Civility - I don't believe I am uncivil. My sarcasm does not take the form of personal attacks, only attacks on content.  I suppose feelings can be hurt by this, but the editorial process demands it.  Submit content, expect it to be reviewed unflinchingly.  (On provocation I may have said too mean things, I don't recall, but if indeed I was provoked it's hard to feel bad about it.)


 * I think your self-analysis here is a little lacking. While you don't go around hurling personal attacks like some users I've witnessed in the past, you do use phrases that really do seem like personal attacks more often than I would consider prudent. But that's just my opinion. As I stated previously, civility is a social construct, and a subjective one. Since this is the case, it might pay for you to "tone down" your language a bit and observe any change in the reaction of others. It is possible that (despite your intent) you are making people feel attacked. This is rarely, if ever, productive.


 * Very Verily Your point is noted. But I am curious of a specific you're actually referring to, here, since I feel rather in the dark.


 * DA - A snippet from the PNAC page: "Kb is giving me a lecture on critical thinking. How absurd."


 * A snippet from an archive of KB's talk page: "I'm sorry, but given your history I am not presently assuming good faith but rather that you have an agenda and seek to manipulate Wikipedia policies to further it... In any case, it is not proper to use the 'pedia as a forum for shocking the reader with heavy rhetoric."


 * Just two examples, but I think this sort of language is more widespread. This ties in with your good faith position. The best way I can think of describing it is "combative". Now, I understand that you may not be intending to be rude, but it seems evident that some users are believing you to be rude.


 * Very Verily So, some response is in order.  First, I have been subject to considerable provocation and "refrained" (I did not strike back for being called a "little bitch" by 172 (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/172) or an "ignorant fuck" by Danny (former chair, what a joke)), but that is not where Kb is going with his line.  The first example is a good one:  Kb presumes that he can lecture me in critical thinking (not the first patronizing tone), and I mock the effort; this I regard as pretty one-to-one.  And borderline civil in context.  The second example spoke to my assumptions (given the evidence); I don't know how what I said could be improved upon. Very Verily  08:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * -(KB. edit conflict)- I do not and will not believe that the editorial process demands incivility. I have found, on the contrary, that the editorial process tends to be much more fluent and effective where incivility is lacking.  It is my understanding that this is the raison d'etre for the policy against it.


 * I don't think being provoked is an excuse. I have been provoked many times, but have refrained.  If I would not have refrained, I would have felt bad, as I would be contributing to a divisive and unproductive discussion.  Kevin Baas | talk 00:23, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)


 * POV - The PNAC business is comical. Version 2 I offered as a compromise, which was then placed as "my version" on this poll.  The process of creating the poll was compromised, with (for instance) Shorne repeatedly erasing my comments objecting to it, and with Bryan writing and starting it unilaterally.  If specific objections were raised to the text, I would listen, but instead CK started reverting me, provoking the present conflict, and a poll was started in lieu of discussion.  I'm not sure how much this bears on this mediation.


 * I'm still not sure what's going on on that page, and I've read it over a whole bunch of times. This seems to me to be a case where everyone who's invested in it might just want to walk away for a bit and let disinterested 3rd parties hash it out for awhile.


 * Very Verily The problem with that is that "the mob" hates the PNAC and will demolish it if no one defends encyclopedic standards. When I came along utter garbage had been on that page untouched for five months.


 * -(KB. edit conflict)- The poll does not, nor has it ever, said whose version was whose. VV voted for version 2.  I recall comments being moved, but not erased.  And in anycase, I don't think comments objecting to an article or discussion are of any use.  If you don't want to discuss, don't discuss, but don't infringe on other people's rights to discuss.  Someone has to start an article - I don't consider the fact that someone started an article to be an objection to it.  Choosing the content of the survey was an open process, in strict accordance with the wikipedia guidelines that Bryan asked everyone to read.


 * Specific objections had been raised to the text by multiple users long before CK became involved. These users attempted to discuss the matter.  CK also raised specific objections, and attempted to discuss the matter.  When these methods had been tried and tried and there seemed to be no progress in the dispute, it was decided that a non-binding survey might be useful for everyone to get an idea on how people felt on the matter. Kevin Baas | talk 00:23, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)


 * 3RR - The three revert rule is something like trial by fire. Yes, it provides a mechanism to keep reverts under control and "resolve" an issue in the short run, but is arbitrary, easily subverted, and does little to help Wikipedia towards NPOV and encyclopedic standards.  This is especially true when a numerical minority is in the right, as is often the case on political articles, where Wikipedia's biases come into play.  I make little effort to recruit "allies" here, since I regard the force of my ideas and judgement to stand on its own, but would have to if Wikipedia slid into democracy and mob (and sockpuppet) rule.  (Since I only have one account, I am no match for the Richardchilton series.)  In short, 3RR is, I think, the wrong rule, with the extant system of "protecting" disputed pages better.  Incidentally, this matter is already in arbitration, so submitting it again would be redundant.


 * Redundant or not, I'm submitting it because it is an aspect of this RfM that was unable to be resolved. This should not be construed to reflect negatively on either VV, KB, or Gzorn. The failure here is mine.


 * Very Verily I wasn't clear it was over. (?)


 * DA - My interpretation of the above comments was that Gzorn and KB had given up hope for mediation on the 3RR issue.


 * Saying that I do not compromise is verifiably false.


 * What about saying that you do not compromise with KB and Gzorn? This is a more limited statement and seems to me to be closer to the truth. Now, don't get me wrong, it takes two to compromise, I get that. I'm just asking for a direct statement from you that you are willing to compromise with KB and Gzorn over the disputed issues in the relevant articles. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:07, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is verifiably true that a significant number of users find your willingness to compromise to fall far short of a respectable and conducive level threshold that they consider appropriate. Kevin Baas | talk 00:23, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)


 * Very Verily I'll do you one better. I have compromised with both. See, e.g., . But days after that was reached he went back reverting to the version I opposed. I made other efforts on other issues with less luck. So needless to say I don't hold much hope for future negotiations, but I do not think it's for lack of willingness to try. Very Verily  00:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * DA - What about it KB, this seems to be evidence of a willingness to compromise, at least with Gzorn.


 * Firstly, Gz took the initiative to try to reach a compromise with VV, after VV endlessly reverted a consensus (which led to a page protection) that was reached in order to unprotect the page, which was protected because of his earlier revert war with everyone else, where he replaced the version of a disputed paragraph (so disputed that it had led to an earlier page protection due to a revert war) that was agreed upon by vote to be a stop-gap version, with his version.


 * However, this compromise was not reached among the community of the parties concerned, and did not override the stop-gap consensus. The compromise, in any case, needed to be discussed on talk first, esp. because the paragraph was intensely disputed.  Thus, the compromise was de facto not accepted as a stop-gap override.  Gz understood and respected the reasoning for this.  VV did not, and continued to endlessly revert, leading to yet another page protection.


 * There's a pattern here, and it's not VV's willingness to find a compromise between two points of view; not VV's realizing that he can't have everything just the way he likes it regardless of the way anyone else likes it; not VV's understanding the neccessary logic of "cooperation". Kevin Baas | talk 20:33, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)


 * Needless to say, I do not agree with Kb's version of events. His constant cries that a chunk of text had been fixed by "consensus" were repeatedly and with long explanation rejected by me.  Yet these were his (and Gz's) grounds for reverting every edit I attempted to make to improve the article, behavior I obviously find unacceptable. Very Verily  04:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * At any rate, those are my thoughts as of now. I will look over the conversation here again and may have more to say. Very Verily  23:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * (Posted after edit conflict with below. Very Verily 23:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Given that he has posted numerous times to the Wikipedia in the interim, I cannot conclude that this conversation has gone unnoticed. Therefore, at 22:44, 21 Oct 2004 (precisely one week after his above comment) I will declare this mediation dead if further progress has not been made before that time. I will then personally forward this issue in its entirety to the Arbitration Committee. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:41, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Some thoughts for all parties
As I've been reading the relevant talk pages and this page as well, I've come to realize that part of the problem is that both parties seem to consider the other side as composed of insincere, hopeless idealogues who are hell-bent on getting their POV across, policy and truth be damned. Now, contrarily, both sides consider themselves to be paragons of neutrality, holding the tide against the dark forces of (left- or right-wing, take your pick) fanatical propagandists. Sure, I'm using hyperbole here... but you know what? Reading some of the comments that you've all left on Talk: pages let's me realize that I'm not stretching the truth here by much. Now, I ask you, what's more likely? That both sides are right, that one side is right and the other wrong, or that both sides are being slightly melodramatic. I mean, this is Wikipedia... I cannot take seriously the assertion that any parties to this mediation are somehow engaged in a conspiracy to revise history and brainwash the masses through the subtle (or not so subtle) manipulation of Wikipedia articles. Thoughts?

--Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:07, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

I certainly do not think this of VV. Kevin Baas | talk 00:24, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)


 * Sorry, in all this reading, I've been misremembering some comments by Shorne and Ruy on their disputes with VV as yours and Gzorns. My fault. :( --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:03, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Further thoughts...

It seems that KB is focusing on this as more of a conduct dispute and VV is focusing on it as a content dispute. I see VV saying, "look, I'm trying to end up with a NPOV article and I'm willing to compromise". I see KB saying, "regardless of what you're trying to accomplish, your actions are unacceptable."

Is this a fair assessment? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:24, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am concerned with what he is trying to accomplish, and I don't think his actions are conducive to ending up with a NPOV article or compromising, although he certainly seems to believe that they are. Kevin Baas | talk 20:33, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)


 * I feel I tried all the "usual" approaches, but these two were stubborn. In some cases, there was no willingness to compromise or discuss.  So it just turned into a fight.  I think I can write NPOV material in my sleep, but certain users have another goals in mind.  Fighting is a substandard alternative, but if one cares about the content here, then yes it is better than having the article made biased and my writings annihilated. Very Verily  04:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week, VV. Shall I give up waiting for the "more later" as referenced in your edit summary? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:26, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I can't think of anything I forgot to mention yet, as my response was somewhat thorough. Perhaps I should add replies to the comments above.  Let me look. Very Verily  04:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Common Ground?
It honestly seems to me as if all parties to this dispute are interested in an NPOV article. I don't see anyone attempting to "pull a fast one" and advance an agenda. That being said, this SHOULD be enough common ground for you all to come to some sort of agreement, not just on CONTENT, but on PROCESS. Laying all the rhetoric aside, none of you strike me as unreasonable to the extent that you cannot realize that value of coming together and reaching a positive conclusion to this issue. I mean, no one WANTS to fight. Everyone wants a better Wikipedia. Is anyone willing to offer some sort of olive brance? Would anyone care to suggest reasonable ways in which someone might make a first step towards reconciliation?

--Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:56, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I believe this take is just too rosy. People with the best of intentions still fight, and I don't have as positive an assessment of Kb as you seem to, and that goes double for Gz.  Kb thinks his own POV is the only one, and makes crazy, often bizarre, arguments to "prove" that his POV is right (look at the bogus reasoning on the PNAC survey, or this downright bizarre assertion that the meanings of English words must satisfy some sort of entropy criteria and statisticians' abstraction).  He also assumes bad faith, contrary to claims, referring to this as a "censorship edit" on User talk:Wolfman.  He is also downright rude sometimes and refuses to discuss matters; see my description at . Now I'm not saying more positive interactions couldn't become possible, but in all of the above I don't see sufficient consideration being paid to other users' behavior; rather, it is merely mostly refutable accusations about me.  That could contribute to the impression that there is lots of good faith waiting to be exploited. Very Verily  10:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about we all follow the wikipedia guidelines and policies? Kevin Baas | talk 19:12, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

I promise to faithfully follow the wikipedia guidelines and policies. Kevin Baas | talk 18:05, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)


 * How about NPOV? Very Verily 23:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well? Kb, are you willing to follow NPOV? How about you VV, willing to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:19, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * It was something of a rhetorical question, as my assertion is that Kb is not doing so - though of course he will claim he is. I also do feel I stick pretty closely to Wikipedia rules (but see conversation re 3RR above).  I also feel sticking to the rules isn't really going to help, as these are content disputes on which guidelines and policies are silent.  I realize this is a negative rather than constructive response, but it is my reaction. Very Verily  00:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd asked if this was primarily a content dispute, but it seems that it's not.. at least from KB and Gzorn's POV. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:05, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

-

Mediation Failed
Well, it's been over two weeks, I haven't heard from anyone, and all parties seem to be aggressively pursuing Arbitration. I'm declaring this mediation failed. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:36, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the disappointing result. I'm absolutely not pursuing arbitration (except against Turrican, an unrelated case), but I have had my Wikipedia time sucked away dealing with it.  The 3RR part of the conflict may soon be a non-issue, as the present poll is leaning heavily towards implementing the temp-ban system of enforcement.  Thanks for all your effort, and bug Michael Snow if you're interested in who started the only active arbitration. Very Verily  19:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)