User talk:VeryVerily/ArbCom candidacy

I have just a few comments about VerilyVerily's candidacy. It's true that a lot of the edit wars VerilyVerily has been involved in have been to counter pro-Communist bias from users such as Shorne and Ruy Lopez - but at the same time, I must admit that I am not comfortable with the idea of VerilyVerily becoming a member of the committee. VerilyVerily is equally guilty of trying to add his/her own bias to pages, and does not work by consensus. Remember his/her infamous quote: "There is no consensus if I disagree with it"? I think there are other people who would be better suited for the position. VerilyVerily is also currently the subject of an ArbCom hearing, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/VeryVerily2 for details. Ce garcon 13:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That "infamous" quote is missing context and proper understanding. This was discussed in more detail at mediation, where I think Dante gave a good clear answer to this (which I quote below), which I will defer to. And of course being the subject of an ArbCom hearing does not imply guilt or wrongdoing, only that someone has brought a case. VeryVerily 00:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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.