Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/VeryVerily/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please choose an appropriate header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

It is extremely important in order that your submitted evidence be considered by the Arbitrators that when you cite evidence to provide a link to the exact edit which displays the transaction, links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please voice your objections on the talk page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others.

Bryan's participation

I'm the one who stepped in and protected Project for a New American Century a month ago when the edit war this request is based on was occurring, and I stuck around in the article's talk page attempting to help work out the dispute as an "outsider" who didn't know much about the subject. I eventually wound up joining the arbitration request (at the time the request page had the following guideline on it: "Users may join in the Complaint by seconding the Complaint or elaborating on it, but by doing so they implicitly respresent that they wish to be a party to the case and are thus subject to counterclaims which they may have to respond to." This has since been removed, so I have no idea what my status is any more). Anyway, I tried to start a survey, and kept a running commentary of how I felt it was going. It's wound up at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/VeryVerily, having been moved around a lot in various reorganizations of the RfA pages. The survey itself is at Talk:Project for the New American Century/Survey and the discussion of what questions would be on the survey was moved to Talk:Project for the New American Century/Survey/Archive when it started. I feel that VeryVerily did whatever he could to sabotage the survey; he spent the time leading up to the survey complaining that the questions were "fraudulent" without adequately explaining why or providing any useful suggestions for questions of his own (here's the questions he did propose: [2]), and then once the survey was running he repeatedly inserted lots of non-vote complaints into the voting sections in direct contravention of the survey guidelines (this history range covers the low-intensity edit war that ensued as I tried to keep moving his comments down into the "discussion" section of the survey: [3]). Bryan 23:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apparently VV was unimpressed by the results of the survey. He continues to force his version without discussion or taking other opinions into account. [4] [5] [6], too many diffs, here's the history (offest by 50):[7] Kevin Baas | talk 23:08, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

Other revert warring

For the record, here are links to the nine nearly identical reverts made by User:VeryVerily in under 24 hours on United States:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

VV removed this list when I posted it previously, claiming there was no valid 3-revert rule anymore. ~leif ☺ _HELO 10:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Case closed?

(copied from main discussion page, in case that's being ignored Very Verily 10:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Can we be done with this? The situation has looong since sorted itself out. With the help of other editors, we worked it all out and all is well and settled. As I stated at the outset, it was premature to bug a mediator over a content conflict barely four days old, it was absurdly premature to drag this to arbitration only days later, and it was absurd to accept it on the grounds that I believed it was premature to bug a mediator. These content disputes usually sort themselves out after due time and due attention. Let's shut this case down, it's a big enough distraction having to deal with the other one. Very Verily 09:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)