Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily

(VeryVerily | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct.

Description:

VeryVerily reverted Augusto Pinochet and History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953) nearly 50 times. This was done in an edit war with User:172, who's actions have been listed separately on Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions, as well as on a separate RfC page

Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links):

[1] Revert war on Soviet Union article
[2] Revert war on Augusto Pinochet

Applicable policies:

Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version, specifically the policy against more than 3 reverts in a day.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):

Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~~~~):

Other users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Nat Kraus e 07:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC) With reservations, given that 172 apparently thinks of VV's efforts to resolve the conflict as "tattling to teacher". Still, I just can't condone this many reverts, and I don't think it improves the situation.[reply]
fvw 02:50, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

(Quick version): I do not like edit wars, and agree that they are Very Bad. But 172 is an exception. I have seen how he reverts almost on sight any edit which displeases him in the smallest way, showing no respect for others' work or other viewpoints. He is personally abusive and rude to many, and I have seen again and again how he has scared off many potentially useful contributors with his tactics (cf. Don't bite the newbies). Many more meek users, who favor slow discussion and consensus building, bless their souls, just back away and let him have his way rather than fight. This is not what Wiki is, and 172 is a menace to this community.

My first few encounters I was shocked by his behavior, erasing huge edits of mine over one or two words he disliked. And I finally did walk away. But our paths continued to cross, and I learned more and more that (a) there is no way of having one's contributions not annihilated other than fighting and (b) all the Wikipedia rules combined have been wholly ineffective in ending his behavior.

In the Augusto Pinochet article, several editors had collaborated on an intro which incorporated all of our concerns. We were making real headway on a tricky and delicate issue. But then 172 showed up, erased all our work on the intro, and wrote his own. He did not propose it in Talk and then discuss it, he did not engage in a dialog over possible changes, no, he just imposed it. And four or five others users pointed out problems and made modifications, and he reverted them all. Not one word would he allow changed. He then went from page to page calling me and others trolls and vandals, POV pushers, etc., in addition to crude personal abuse I won't repeat.

I stood up to him, fighting back reverts with reverts, because it's the only thing that's ever worked. I don't regret this decision. He was putting misinformation in the article and acting with complete disregard for community rules and standards and procedures, and nothing and no one was stopping him.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

V V 02:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC) (I wrote it.)[reply]
Sam [Spade] 02:53, 22 May 2004 (UTC) (altho I don't entirely endorse the "I don't regret this decision" comment. It seems likely to me there was a better answer, like maybe listing 172 of RfC.)[reply]
- I should add to above that RfC pages is one of the things I tried - in fact, on two different ones I voiced these same concerns. Nothing came of it. V V 05:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrjung 08:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC) (It obviously describes VV's position) What's lacking, however, is the understanding of how VV's fighting back contributes to the detoriated social climate that he describes, the general barbaization of debate and contributions, including VV's own abusive remarks and actions directed against other contributors, which is bound to cause harm to wikipedia of the same magnitude as that caused by 172. Hence I do both agree with VV's summary and support strong measures against this kind of behavior which he is only yet another representative of.[reply]
Atemperman 23:58, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC) I wouldn't go as far as Ruhrjung in his disapproval of VV's behavior; what's troubling is that no one has offered an alternative (that hadn't already been tried) to what VV did. I'm sure there's a better one out there, and I wish I could think of it.

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Looking at the articles I see:

that the History of the Soviet Union fight proximately started after this edit by VV. I find no fault with this edit - it was described as "rework p for bias" and did so, though there's useful material which the edit removed - a combination of material in both paragraphs seems to be better than either of the versions the revert war is being faught over. 172 then used a minor edit to revert it - not a good initial step when you should know that the change is likely to be controversial. The more remote origin appears to be this edit. I'm not much impressed by that edit - it seems to be more to try to advance a particular viewpoint held by 172 than to be neutral.
that the history of the Augusto Pinochet dispute goes back to this set of revisions, where the history shows some reluctance by some parties to recognise the now well documented US support for Pinochet in his rise to power and ample reason to accept that the US supported the coup, with those opposing the mention not apparently willing or able to effectively counter the cited reasons for that view. US support for Pinochet seems significant enough to merit an early mention. The proximate cause for the edit war appears to be this edit in which 172 undid an apparently discussed compromise. After a, comparatively, brief edit war the page was protected. On unprotection the edit ware promptly resumed. While I see merit in the desire to include the US aspect early , I don't see much merit in the removal of the longer introductory material and see even less in using an edit war to overturn a reasonably discussed possible resolution instead of further discussing the matter and presenting evidence to support different views. As with the history article I see minor edits being used by 172 for edits 172 clearly should have known were controversial.
overall, I'm unimpresed by 172s reluctance to discuss things instead of using edit wars in what appears to be effectively virtual bullying to get 172's way. While it's clear that the conduct of both is highly reprehensible, the comparative lack of respect for the use of discussion and use of minor edits for significant edits causes me to more greatly disfavor 172 in this pair of disputes.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

(The above was written by User:Jamesday, who presumably endorses it. V V 05:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC))[reply]
Sam [Spade] 05:33, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.