Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Wik2

Comments

I strongly support Wik right now. He is the victim of a concerted campaign of persecution. The real reason is that he impedes the agendas of too many POV users. On top of that, well-meaning users have started attacking him because they fail to see through the bullshit criticism spewed by the POV users who get reverted regularly (and ought to get reverted regularly). The vast majority of time we see an (rv) on the page history by Wik, he's right on. 172 00:03, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have had only one run-in with Wik, and it was not very pleasant. HOWEVER, I do tend to frequent Recent Changes every day, and Wik is always there, plugging away with all the little changes that are so important to improving the quality of the encyclopedia, like typos, links, NPOV, etc., while so many other people are pontificating about new rules and regulations. In the long run, it is Wik's actions that really make for a quality encyclopedia, and not some place where people can post crap just because they can. His changes, even in controversial subjects like a certain Baltic sea port that has changed hands numerous times in the past few hundred years, are always well thought out, even if they are not to everyone's liking. His insistence on reverting bullshit (and the Empire of Atlantium will never have a say on whether the metric calendar is incorporated anywhere) is commendable. He has kept within the boundaries imposed on him, though I doubt anyone else would be so good. And he has continued to help, despite the fact that people really do tend to gang up on him. As such, I call on Wik to be a little more communicative, and I call on everyone else to leave him alone and let him continue to be the top-notch contributor that he is. Danny 18:34, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I give a mild second to the above, I find it very pleasent when I create a new page, or make an edit on a controvercial article, or what-have-you, and wik comes along and corrects my spelling ;). Once I disagreed with him, and he seemed to have been persuaded, or maybe just lost interest, but my gentle note on his talk was rewarded by a lack of revert. In summary, he does far more good than harm, but the good is ignored, and the bad shines thru like a beacon. Sam Spade 18:55, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with the sentiment of the above, if not the tone. My problem is not with Wik's contributions; rather, it's the tone he gives to the rest of the encyclopedia. I've seen his tactics and excess suspicion--in edit wars and out of them--drive off good contributors. Also, I feel that his user page (listing "Articles needing daily reversion" and "To be reverted upon unprotection") is conunterproductive, not to mention destroying the spirit of the 3 revert rule. Rather than that rule (or his parole status) encouraging him to discuss things with fellow editors, it has simply turned his revert wars into drawn-out battles. Given the problems Wik has with others, I would suggest one or both of the following:

1. Allow him one revert per day, followed by which he must propose compromises if he wishes to continue editing that article.
2. A temp-ban whenever he engages in any sort of personal abuse (i.e. "User X is a troll", "User X has mental problems", "User X is a POV pusher", etc.)

Yours, Meelar 20:01, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I maintain that Wik is a high quality contributor whose main fault is that he cares too much and gets into stupid edit wars with idiots and trolls. My personal response to provocateurs is to ignore them and let them keep their POV and nonsense. If acted out of instinct I would undeniably be like Wik. People are undeniably trying to provoke him at the moment as they know he is on probation. If I was him I would feel persecuted at this point.

It seems that if Wik does something there are some who will automatically be sympathetic to the other side without looking at the issue. I believe that the loss of Wik would be a great loss to the Wikipedia. However if I was being treated as badly as he is I would have left by now.

I expect that the "witch hunters" will succeed in ducking their witch - but at what cost to the project? Secretlondon 22:45, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Wik gets into edit wars with "idiots and trolls", as you put it; he also gets into edit wars with long-term contributors and anyone he happens to disagree with, to the point where he's had to be chastised by this committee, Jimbo, and the community at large--following which he has not changed his behavior. I never said his contributions weren't good, just his behavior. Meelar 22:58, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would like to note that I may be biased in contributing to the evidence page, as I have protected several articles in Wik's editwars, - have tried to discuss his behavior with him for more than half a year now, with little progress, - have not hidden my opinion that Wik's behavior is destructive; and would like to state that after his insults and false accusations against me [1] I am beginning to lose my respect for him. Furthermore, I would like to note that although Wik's opponents apparently try to misuse this inquiry to instigate a sort of witchhunt, there is still a genuine community interest in maintaining standards of behavior which Wik constantly ignores. Kosebamse 06:35, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with people who may be biased contributing evidence. Just sign what you add, and we'll examine stuff in detail and make our own judgement. Martin 14:22, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does anybody have an example of where Wik changed his position after engaging in discussion with other editors? I don't know of any myself. People of good intent have wasted a huge amount of time trying to negotiate compromises with him, or even to figure out why he's silently reverting something, time that could have been used to add new content instead. Stan 15:38, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In defense of Wik

My defense of Wik made on another page still applies here, so I'll move it here. The request for comments-related pages have turned into the Salem Wik Trials in recent weeks. 172 23:50, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This page, along so many other User:Wik-haters' pages in the past, seems to be motivated by trolling and/or POV-pushing more than anything else. Wik has made mistakes, but only the most outspoken Wik-haters (and there are few) could suggest that those mistakes haven't been born out of a passion to make WP into a more professional, quality encyclopedia, not a venue for fiction and inane POV bullshit. And he's often not even concerned with POV, but standardizing the organization, structure, and terminology of WP articles - standards that certain users just fail to grasp. Yet, Wik has made more quality contributions to WP in ten minutes than many of the users who launch continuous ad hominem attacks on him have made since coming here. In my time on WP, almost every sysop on WP has acted in a less than fair way at some time or other. Wik's often been the one who stood up to trolling, bearing the burden for those unwilling. For this he often falls subject to an ad hominem attack fest. But we should be thanking him, allowing the regular lynch mobs. This page reflects WP at its worst. Too bad so many people waste his time. 172 02:04, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do have to say that Wik is currently being persecuted by User:Cantus and several of his sock puppets and anon accounts, and Cantus should be blocked as well. RickK 00:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

'Persecuted'? How? Can you show evidence of this 'persecution' please? If you are going to blame sockpuppets, then show evidence that I'm behind those suck puppets; otherwise these are are all lies to the community. And if you mean 'persecution' by the one time vandalizing of Wik's page, then I have to inform you that that was only done after he and several other users had vandalized MY page first. [2] --Cantus 02:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and if RickK and I are ever agreeing on something, everyone ought to take notice! 172 00:21, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You could both be the same person, for all the difference I've noted. Sam Spade 00:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please place evidence of Cantus's persecution on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2/Evidence page. Thank you. Martin 01:38, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please do and stop all these lies against me. --Cantus 02:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Proposal

Wik may be a serious pain sometimes, yes, but I believe it is EXACTLY the open nature of this encyclopedia which makes the presence of chronically pedantic editors, like Wik, actually a NECESSITY in order to prevent this place from being turned into a garbage can. Since Wik won't respect "unofficial" rules, proclaim a decree that Wik should discuss any reverts on the Talk page when at least two (non-sock puppet) editors ask him to. -- Dissident 01:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you supply the evidence, we'll supply a decree. However, we need information on why we should act more than we need advice on how we should act. If you believe Wik has failed to discuss reverts, please demonstrate that on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2/Evidence.

To Wik's supporters

(arbitrator's hat) I just want to clarify that I have read your comments, and I didn't move them here because I was disagreeing with them, or dismissing them. However, as a rule we've tried to keep the case page free for statements from those directly involved in the case. If you have evidence to present in Wik's defence, please post it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2/Evidence. If you believe that Wik's statement fails to make key points which will help him in the case, you might want to talk to Wik and ask him to consider rephrasing his comments to explicitly make those defences. Any other questions, feel free to ask. Martin 23:00, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Wik's watchlist

In the discussion, Fred cites the statement on User:Wik that Wik's watchlist exceeds 10,000 pages. Fred takes this to be a symptom of Wik's combative stance. I don't see that it indicates any such thing. It could just as easily be a product of choosing the feature "Add pages you edit to your watchlist" in user preferences. If that's the case (I don't know what settings Wik uses), then I would simply consider the statement analogous to the brag sheet type of information many other people have on their user pages. As I read it, Wik is just saying that he has edited 10,000 different pages. If choosing this setting is deemed inherently "combative", then we shouldn't be providing it as a feature. --Michael Snow 20:58, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment on Proposed remedy

I'd just like to say that I don't feel a one-month ban on reverts is productive. Again, nobody is doubting that Wik is a valued contributor, and such a remedy seems punitive. Rather, a strict injunction to compromise and discuss things with others might work better. Just my 2 cents--I don't want to lose an editor. Meelar 22:58, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

re Personal attacks - I agree with Martin here. Singling out Wik would be asymmetrical and unfair to him. Other people have been just as rude, if not ruder. Danny 00:16, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, obviously I agree with you here. Martin 01:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

re Revert wars - In some instances, it may be necessary to revert. There is a limit to how much one can discuss calmly with people intent on pushing a POV. In fact, some of the issues under discussion (e.g. Gdansk) have been the subject of debate for at least two and a half years. A status quo was reached after arduous debates, and the other people violated it. Wik attempted to restore it. Does this mean that we simply discuss and rehash the same old issues ad nauseum. That process has already driven some fine contributors away. Danny 00:16, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree in part: common practice clearly shows that reverts are part and parcel of Wikipedia life. The issue is repeated reverts in a short space of time, and reverts without adequate discussion.

There may be content disputes where neither discussion nor reverts solves the dispute. That doesn't invalidate a rule that says "discuss your reverts", though. Martin 01:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

re one month ban on reverts - I protest this strongly. The revert rule is not an end in itself. It would seem to me that maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia's content is at least, if not more, important than sitting with an abacus and counting reverts. Are we losing sight of the primary goal--building an encyclopedia--so as to keep as many troublemakers and POV peddlers on board as possible? At the same time, I call on Wik to be more amenable to discussions with other users and offer myself as an intermediary when possible. Danny 00:16, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, actually I disagree with that remedy too. Watch this (well, that) space. Martin 01:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So did others, regardless of whether it was Cantus (himself a problem user, who reverted repeatedly, avoided a ban, and made personal attacks, calling me the "Nazi admin" and "fatso") or Nico. It is unjust to single Wik out for this. (anon)

We'll also be ruling on Cantus and Nico, I expect. We can only rule on cases that are brought to our attention, however. Martin 01:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reversion

I don't know where I'm supposed to add this, and I don't have time to get too involved in this process anyway, but I just want to point out that Wik's methods of reversion aren't necessarily symmetrical, because he does not take into account intermediate revisions. In other words, regardless of how many edits have been made, and which ones he disagrees with, he has been known to revert all edits since his last reversion. This makes progress very difficult, because even changes he agrees with have to be repeatedly remade if they were mixed in with those he does not. - IMSoP 11:15, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(Example: "I'm indifferent on those minor changes, but as you made them on top of Anthony's version, I had to revert them. --Wik 23:11, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)", from Talk:Atlantium)

This kind of thing (particularly the example) can normally go on the Evidence page - I'll move it there myself shortly, assuming it isn't already there. Thanks for that. Martin 18:21, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Discussion continued from Village pump

Moved from the Pump by IMSoP 13:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) Original heading: Wik's increasingly crackpot behaviour

This user's abuse of community standards appears to have finally passed into the realm of the twilight zone. Over recent days he/she has:

1. Published on his/her user page a public incitement to other users to implement wholesale reversion of targeted articles on his/her behalf as a way of circumventing daily reversion limits. This is nothing less than orchestrated vandalism by proxy.

2. Published on his/her user page a hit list of users "who need to be banned" - ie, anyone who has had the temerity to challenge Wik's incessant POV-pushing and abuse of community standards and procedures.

3. Published on his/her user page a hit list of "unsuitable sysops" - ie, anyone who has had the temerity to challenge Wik's incessant POV-pushing and abuse of community standards and procedures.

Is there an established procedure for users behaving inappropriately to be put on notice?

--Gene_poole 10:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Hi, kettle. It's me, Gene Poole, the pot. You're black!" --User:Wik

Wik's trolling is under discussion at RFA again: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2/Evidence. Hopefully this time he will get more than just a little slap on the wrist. — Jor (Talk) 10:45, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone actually know whether it's a he or a she?--Gene_poole 10:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think that as long as Wik's list is in his own userspace and he does not use profanities, there should be no objection to that. Wik, as anybody else, is entitled to his own opinions. Przepla 10:54, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We should draw the line at personal attacks. Calling someone a nazi or zionist is unacceptable. — Jor (Talk) 12:22, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not when they are defamatory, and not when they threaten the integrity of Wikipedia and advocate the abuse of its community standards.--Gene_poole 10:57, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh come on! Threaten the integrity of Wikipedia? I think you are giving Wik far too much status. If Wik wants to "incite" people to revert so what? Nobody will actually do it. Likewise with his "users who should be banned" or "sysops", no one will take the slightest notice. All Wik achieves by publishing this stuff is make himself look foolish. If you don't like what he puts on his user page, there is a very simple solution. Don't read it. theresa knott 11:30, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik is trolling. Trolling is against Wikipedia policy. Ergo, Wik is in violation of policy and should be dealt with. — Jor (Talk) 12:22, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Had he put the stuff on you talk page I'd be inclined to agree. But I don't consider personal opinions, on users own pages trolling. Lot's of other users do it. Do we have a policy on this? theresa knott 13:24, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If we have a policy that applies it is Wikipedia:No personal attacks which is rather strongly worded. Fred Bauder 13:50, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Fred, i just read it. It's pretty clear. Yet plenty of people do put their opinion of other users on their own pages. I agree however that terms like "moron" are unnacceptable.theresa knott 14:36, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh I noticed it, Theresa, and was rather hurt by it. I seem not to have made the A Team. Alas, my name is not included in the List of Sysops Who Must be Banned. Maybe next week. I live in hope. Tannin

LOL (<pouts> I'm not on either list <stamps foot> 's'not fair!) theresa knott 12:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I actually find Wik's user page rather sad; obviously this is a person with some serious issues - however, I also believe principles are important and ought to be maintained. Look at the volume of time, energy and bandwidth Wik's trolling and POV-pushing have caused to be wasted in the the restoration of damaged articles. Remember, this is an individual with a history of POV-pushing, a 10,000 article watchlist and an abusive temperament; clearly Wik thinks (and I use the term loosely) big. If a single crackpot on a crusade can tie up so many resources so easily, imagine the damage two or three could do.--Gene_poole 12:18, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are we discussing user page or edits here? I feel that he sgould be allowed tp out pretty much whatever he likes on his user page. as for his edits, is he under arbitration at the moment?theresa knott 12:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The problem with Wik is that because he is not just a troll but a Polish POV pushing troll, he has strong supporters. — Jor (Talk) 12:22, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to consider your own position here.If he has strong supporters then that in itself should tell you something (BTW I know nothing of you, or your problems with wik but there are usually two sides to every argument)theresa knott 13:13, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It tells me that he is pushing a popular POV, or has many sockpuppets (as proven). — Jor (Talk) 15:38, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I object to calling Wik, Polish POV pushing troll. As far as we know his nationality and sex are unknown and should not be relevant to us. Moreover, I wouldn't consider his Sealand edit wars a Polish POV pushing. Only fraction of Wik's activity is taking place on Polish-German relations related pages. I shown my dislike to Wik's on my own user page, and I think that behaviour should not be discussed here. If Wik wants to destroy his own creditability, let him. Przepla 13:37, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Jor was implying that Wik was Polish. I read it that he meant wik pushed a Polish POV'.theresa knott 14:36, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. I do not know nor care if Wik is Polish, German, Greek, or Marsian — a troll is a troll is a troll. — Jor (Talk) 15:38, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik is not a Polish POV pusher. In fact he is going on a perfectly neutral way, turning against extremists from both sides; see this edit. I (as one of the persons who once demanded a ban on Wik) had some time of thinking about the whole matter. When I tried to mediate in an article six months ago, Wik just stepped in, ignored the discussion and reverted, and I really hated him for doing that. I thought that by talking to Nico it should be possible as well to gain a compromise. That was quite naive to think. In the meantime I gave up, and six months later people are still discussing with Nico. Nico did not learn any lesson, he did not deviate a millimetre from his extremist views, and he is still ignoring every compromise. So what to do now? Talking to Nico does not help, but reverting him doesn't either (because he will revert exactly three times on the next day).
My conclusion is that Wik's behaviour is a result of missing content arbitration. I would love to have an arbitrator saying: "I hereby rule that this city is to be called X and not Y." As long as extreme minorities are allowed to write their POV into the articles, it is not a sufficient solution to say: "Make WikiLove and WikiPeace with them and everything will go well." (I know that I am saying the exact opposite of what I used to say six months ago.) I want to have fun in editing Wikipedia, and so I am now staying out of every potential conflict. Thereby I accept that people like Jor and Nico damage Wikipedia, and that is not the best solution either. The truth is that I don't know any solution.
But I won't sign a resolution of support for Wik either. I still don't understand his rudeness against Angela, Martin or Antonio, and some of the people on his list are really great Wikipedians. I think noone should be allowed to have a list of morons on his user page. Wik should be forced to remove it. -- Baldhur 15:18, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Baldhur - either explain exactly what you mean with your comment 'people like Jor and Nico damage Wikipedia', or refrain from making such trolling comments ever again. Do not group me with trouble users unless you can proof it. The only "crime" you could possibly accuse me of is that I do not always agree with Wik's reactionary POV, and that I can actually think for myself. Using English names for former German and now Polish cities is not a 'Nazi POV', as you and other Wik-like users keep claiming. Unlike some users, I am perfectly willing to reason with users who refrain from using ad hominem attacks: after Wik finally stopped reverting the article on Swinemunde for example I could perform my edits there, and move the renaming to Swinouscie to its own paragraph. The point is, Wik and some other trolls will try and force their version on an article, and blatanty will revert any edit which deviates from their own POV. — Jor (Talk) 15:38, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In defense of Wik

I've dealt with Cantus and Jor before, though not nearly as often as Wik (thankfully), and I totally concur with 100% of Wik's assessment of the situation. Those two make it impossible for Wik to do anything else other than automatically revert them and deliberately provoke edit wars. They were doing it to me in the few times that I had crossed paths with either of them, and they are consistently and systematically managing to entrap Wik in this bullshit. Their combination of provoking Wik while chronically abusing of the community info pages (the quickpolls, request for comments pages, and now the request for arbitration pages) is their modus operandi for getting their way in revision wars.

Worse, a significant number of users are hoodwinked by tricks repeatedly. These red herring behavioral inquiries allow them to attract a random assemblage of users who've had a bad day, and then get them to start sniping at Wik, the person singled out someone for abuse over and over again. More often than perhaps anyone, Wik deals with the brunt of these displays of Wikipedia users at their worst.

Users who don't often work on the history and politics articles, which are the source of the lion's share of edit wars, often don't realize this, but this really is commonplace practice that you encounter if you work in this area regularly. This sounds idiotic on the surface, but it really does work. It does work from the standpoint of Jor and his German nationalist POVing (Jor is the more sophisticated of the pair) and for Cantus (I haven't figured out 'what his deal' is yet). After starting work on this site a year-and-a-half ago, I've seen so many other users who don't have the facts and the reasonable arguments needed to hold their own in serious discussions on the talk pages prevail on so many occasions because they play these exact same games as Jor and Cantus.

I admit Wik has made mistakes but only the most outspoken Wik-haters (and there are many) could suggest that those errors were motivated by anything other than a desire to build a usable, quality sourcebook, not an inchoate collection of asinine rants, POV fiction, and utter bullshit. Wik's language may be harsh, but he's just telling it like it is. You can never fault him for not being honest and straightforward. On many occasions, he has been the person who stood up to trolls while everyone else was afraid to take these people on.

As admins, we all should be ashamed of ourselves for letting Wik bear so much of the burden of making Wikipedia a usable encyclopedia with that sticks to templates and coherent organizational principles. But instead of receiving recognition of his contributions, Wik has to go through a witch mob.

The most bizarre thing about this page is that amid the ad hominems, which just fall short of Wik eating babies, arbitrators aren't even mentioning that Wik has contributed more to Wikipedia in a single hour than Cantus and Jor put together in their entire time on Wikipedia. Wik should be entitled to a measure of benefit of the doubt that he has not been receiving. Once again, users are hastily making judgments and pointing figures at Wik. 172 11:55, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you always support Wik 100%, as you are a Wik-like user who also delights in personal attacks and revert was. Little surprise there. Fortunately, unlike Wik, you do not engage in calling others 'nazis' (although you come close with your 'German POV pusher, waah' rant). What is your point here? That because you disagree with some other's perceived POV that Wik is allowed to revert blankly, insult, and generally behave in trolling behaviour? — Jor (Talk) 12:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This isn't about POV. This is about following the naming conventions. Whenever this region of Europe is brought up in students' papers, e.g., I could care less about whether German spellings or Polish spellings were used whenever. But an encyclopedia is built on a coherent organization, and it needs to stick with that organization, even if it comes at the cost of occasionally using a less commonly used term or name. 172 12:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A brief reply:

I'm amazed that you seem to claim the arbitrators are making "ad hominems, which just fall short of Wik eating babies". Fred says Wik has a "combative stance". I say that he "has, in some instances, reverted pages with little or no attempt at discussion". Is it really fair to compare such comments with calling Wik a baby eater? We've been asked to arbitrate this case, and we're discussing the matter plainly, honestly, and calmly.

Martin, this sounds like a horrible misunderstanding. I was referring to the people who usually file these kinds of complaints. When I was lamenting the lack of support for Wik, I was criticizing the adminiship as a whole (not singling out the arbiters) for not being understanding enough and coming to his support when his interests coincided with those of the encyclopedia (which is almost always the case). Sorry about that. 172 19:45, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, regarding why I'm being so critical of the community as a whole, often, the admins and other constructive users enter an ongoing edit war completely uninformed about the personal dynamics of the dispute and make hasty judgments based on superficial 'behavioral complaints,' not the substance of the matter. They often don't realize that the vast majority of his revert wars were with POV-pushers, users who didn't even know what they were doing, and other users with whom almost everyone else feared crossing paths.

I've even failed too often to find the time to back Wik up in his thankless work to maintain naming conventions. I'm often afraid to stand up to the users Wik puts in their place; and I'm hardly regarded as one of the site's more passive users. Thanks especially to my recent run-ins with VeryVerily, I now have a good idea about what Wik's going through. So many well-meaning but unsuspecting users are regularly hoodwinked by skilled POV pushers who put up a charade of being open-minded and "civil." But then they repeat the same red herring arguments over and over again, just among different users. After a while, it becomes impossible to respond to all these "behavioral" charges, which just keep building up.

Frankly, Wik's revert wars are not part of the problem, but rather part of the cure. I'd still like to see stronger statements of support from everyone involved in mediating or arbitrating these conflicts. 172 19:45, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So according to you having an editor accuse others of being nazis, zionists, cabal members, insane, etc. is a good thing for Wikipedia? I doubt many people will agree with that. — Jor (Talk) 22:12, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172: arbitrators aren't even mentioning that Wik has contributed more to Wikipedia...

Fourth finding of fact, from the previous case, recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik:

The above three findings nothwithstanding, we do acknowledge that Wik has been a long-time and prolific contributor to Wikipedia, and that a great many of his edits that did not involve edit wars constitute valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. - Accepted 7-2, with one de facto abstention.

If you are under the impression that the arbitrators are somehow unaware or uncaring of Wik's contributions to Wikipedia, I hope this will put your mind at ease on the matter. Martin 18:37, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In this case, I should have stated "admins in general," as opposed to the arbitrators. This was most likely a slip up, probably a case of 'cognitive dissidence' due to the title of the page. 172 19:45, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, 172, thanks for clearing that up - you're right, it was a horrible misunderstanding - I must have mentally run a couple of sentences together. My apologies. Martin 22:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Thanking Wik"

This would be a good place for the community to sign a statement in support of Wik, thanking and congratulating him for fighting on behalf of encyclopedic standards, despite the most obdurate obstacles.

Signed by:

1. 172 12:01, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. Danny 12:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not signed by:

1. Cantus 02:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I will provide a more limited form of thanks for random useful edits such as the recent update on Wikipedia and spelling corrections all over (I think he touched Kevin and Kell, my pet article, once or twice) in the form of this notice. - Fennec 23:27, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Jor on Wik's personal attacks

There is a world of difference between 'Zionist' and 'Nazi' to slander others and using 'troll' to describe someone who is participating in trolling behaviour (defined as using those terms, and starting edit/revert wars). Wik's comments could get him a jail sentence in civil countries — if you can find a court which would sentence someone over calling someone else 'troll' I'd be quite surprised. — Jor (Talk) 06:05, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) Thanking someone who accuses others of being nazis, zionists, POV pushers, or generally insane is not something which belongs in the Wikipedia, as it is in direct violation of user policy. — Jor (Talk) 12:24, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jor, above you called Wik a "Polish POV pushing troll". Here you are saying "Thanking someone who accuses others of being [...] POV pushers [...] s in direct violation of user policy". This seems inconsistent. Perhaps you could clarify? Martin 18:50, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Explained by using equally selective editing as you try to use to 'trap me'. If you cannot see a difference between calling someone who is actively calling for revert wars and is calling others nazis and zionists (Wik) and someone who is sick and tired of that user's accusations and is now recognising the troll for what he is (I), I must question your judgement. I am not 100% just what Wik's game is: he is no simple POV pushing troll like for example User:Gdansk, but rather Wik uses POV pushing as one of his tactics to fight his revert war games. I am no psychologist and will not speculate as to why Wik is playing these highly annoying games. — Jor (Talk) 22:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So your complaint is more over his accusations that other users are "Nazi POV pushers", rather than the "POV pusher" accusation in itself? Martin 22:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More discussion continued from Village Pump

Moved from the Pump by Michael Snow 23:46, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC) Original heading: Wik's hate list

I know this is a drastic move, but look at Wik's hate list on his page. He calls many wikipedians morons and rude and he keeps adding new names as time goes by. This is bad and its bad for newcomers that see that. They might think that this IS a website made by morons and inmatures.

I know he has the right to do whatever he wants with his page but as I said, hes getting into borderline offensive and also calling names could be bad for would be wikipedians: They might get discouraged to visit us again.

Do we, as sysups, have the right to erase that list and protect his page so that he, who is not a sysup, can not insult us or call us names anymore? Shall we??

I ask this because I want to respect my rights as sysup and I dont want to commit something against the rules.

Thanks, and God bless you!

Antonio Wik's impossible fantasy Martin

I tend to think this is much ado about nothing. We all know Wik is cranky and doesn't really like most people. Is it really so harmful to anything except the pride of those he doesn't like that he does this? I find the arguments about what would-be wikipedians might think to be fairly unconvincing - it's unlikely they'll even look at Wik's user page in the first place, and I think one realizes pretty quickly that he's a curmudgeon, and to take his opinions of other wikipedians with at least a grain of salt. At any rate, Antonio, I have to say that your own behavior on wik's user page has not been to your credit. It would be justifiable, I think, to remove references to people as "Nazi POV pushers" and possibly as "morons'. It's not justifiable for you to add your own descriptions of yourself, and so forth. The shenanigans on Wik's user page have for the most part been much closer to vandalism than to proper activities. At any rate, I think Wik has the absolute right to make whatever list he wants on his user page. The "avoid personal attacks" guideline could arguably be said to apply only to talk page discussions, I think. And it's absolutely ridiculous to protect Wik's user page on a version he doesn't like and not allow him to edit his own user page. john 23:25, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No sooner is the topic archived then it is back! Could those interested in Wik's lists, or censoring them, please keep it at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2#Discussion continued from Village pump or his talk page. Thanks. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:30, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For now, Wik has declined to have the page protected, but I agree with john that we cannot possibly protect Wik's user page on anything other than his preferred version. The arbitration committee may have the authority to tell him to take down the list, but the rest of us shouldn't mess with it (we don't even have a policy consensus for Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks). Besides, almost anyone looking at these lists already knows Wik and most of the people on the list, so it's not like anyone will suddenly change their minds about who is a moron. --Michael Snow 23:46, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not too long ago I was one of those would-be Wikipedians, and I ran across Wik early on. ‘’Very’’ soon after discovering Wikipedia I had not only seen Wik’s user page (and all that it entails) but had placed Wik on my personal watch list. I’ve tracked his edits (and those of two sock puppets), noticing not only the edit wars but also the many positive edits he makes on a daily basis. His almost complete disregard for community rules and the opinions of others is so blatant that “Wik” could be used as a verb. I tested his temperament by sending him an e-mail politely asking why he was constantly reverting a redirect. He surprised me by agreeing that the redirect should point the opposite of what he had been reverting to. I’ve found that I often agree with the substance of his remarks on talk pages, but not the tone, with the desired result of his actions, but not the actions themselves. Even when I disagree with him, he usually presents a valid viewpoint that is worthy of consideration. All in all, Wik’s unusual User page did not scare me away from the Wikipedia. It scared me away from Wik. ‘’Because’’ it was so blatant, I was able to decide early on that this was a user I didn’t care to get to know too well. Additionally, the way that the community has handled the situation impressed me with how seriously it considers punitive action. Any random vandal is quickly dealt with, but Wik’s edits were very rarely pure vandalism. I viewed this as a test of tolerance, and I was pleasantly surprised at how it was handled. Don’t worry about Wik’s User page scaring people off – if anything it will make them scramble to find out how to use all the options the Wikipedia offers, as it did me. Oh, and Wik, don’t worry – Nico is on my watchlist, too.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 08:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Proposed Remedies

As far as I can tell, all you have agreed on so far is that Wik is guilty of the following three things:

• making this comment: "If you continue to revert random edits of mine (and vandalize my talk page) without explanation, I will revert random edits of yours." - perhaps not an appropriate comment, but compared to some things said in the various edit wars this is rather mild. He hasn't carried out the threat, or at least I have't seen anyone accuse Wik of making random edits.

• creating a sock puppet - but with the qualification that he only used it to revert another sock puppet. This means that he broke the 3 revert rule. However, your previous remedy mentioned a 24 hour ban for breaking that rule, not a 3 month long one. Also the 3 revert rule was ignored by a number of people, and most of them have gotten away with it. Now that quickpolls are not an option there doesn't even seem to be a way to enforce this rule. Anyone who's watched the edit wars in the last month knows that the 3 revert rule, or rather it's enforcement, turned out to be a complete joke. Doesn't it seem a little out of proportion to ban a user for 3 months for breaking the 3 revert rule once or twice on a single article, while there are others who break the rule on multiple articles, repeatedly, and get no punishment whatsoever?

• reverting Papua (disambiguation) without leaving a comment on the talk page - this one seems to be nothing more than a technicality. A conversation between Wik, Tannin, and Daeron started on talk Papua (Indonesian province) 2 days before Daeron created the disambiguation page, and 6 days before Wik reverted. Both Daeron and Tannin knew the reasons why Wik reverted. If reverting a number of related pages without copying your talk pages posts to all of them is reason enough for a 3 month ban then there are probably quite a few users we won't be seeing for a while once the arbitration panel enforces this rule consistently.

This: "Each time Wik reverts an article he must state why in the edit summary and to back up that reasoning on the talk page for that article/content page" should probably be changed to something more reasonable and practical, such as "post reasons for the revert once, then respond to any substantial new arguments made by the other side before reverting again."

My personal opinion: I wonder how many of those complaining about "Wik's disruptive behavior as a whole and his disruptive effect on Wikipedia" have actually read the articles that are being reverted and tried to sort out all the controversial issues. Some people seem to be looking at this from an organizational point of view (cluttering up the page history is bad, conflicts are bad, etc.) while mostly ignoring changes made to the actual content. With the single exception of insisting on using the word 'pretend,' in the Atlantium article I can't really think of any reverts he has done that I disagree with. I'm sure Jor, Nico, Cantus and a number of others have a different opinion. What worries me more, however, is the rather large number of people who seem to care more about the 'process' - compromise, give, make pretty page history - rather than the quality of the actual article. --Voodoo 07:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

You forgot about Wik's personal attack list and calls for edit wars, and his general anti-social behaviour. Wik would be a valuable asset to the Wikipedia if he were the only editor, unfortunately he seems unable and unwilling to distinguish between editors he disagrees with and actual vandals, and responds to both with extreme hostility which is in direct violation of several policies. Comments like "moron", "zionist" and "nazi" are unacceptable. My €0,02. Anárion 08:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Well he has removed the lists from his talk page, so that's one problem solved. theresa knott 11:47, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes. i would like to note that this is a sign of good will on Wik's part! Anárion 11:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Since when is it an insult to call someone a "Zionist"? Many people are proud to be Zionists. He also did not call Jor and Nico Nazis, but "Nazi POV pushers". This is rather harsh (I would call them "German expellee POV pushers"), and perhaps out of bounds, but is not the same as calling someone a Nazi. And, as Theresa points out, Wik removed the list. john 05:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about it, but at the moment the votes on that issue are 2:2. I have no problem with requiring civility from editors, and I think posting that list was a mistake, but again, such a policy would have to be clearly stated, and applied uniformly to all editors. --Voodoo 18:51, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Wik didn't just use his Augustin/Augustine sock puppets to revert the Augusta sock puppet (controlled by Nico), but also to (in at least one case) revert Cantus, on an article that the Augusta sock puppet had yet to edit. The ban is not solely for breaking the three revert rule, but (in part) for breaking and evading an arbitration ruling, and (in part) other stuff. But yes, three months is, in my opinion, too long. Recall, however, that this is the second time Wik has come before us, for very similar complaints.

Regards the ruling to discuss reverts, my intention wasn't that Wik should have to give his reasons for reverting on the Talk page "each time". Rather, he must give a brief reason in the edit summary ("rv - biased, see Talk") and that reasoning must be backed up. But yes, it could be read as requiring Wik to repeat himself like crazy, and we'll have to fix that.

I frequently see Wik explain himself, at least to begin with, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. john 05:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

So do I. The ruling simply requires that Wik always explains his reverts. On various occasions he has not done so, and this has caused problems. Martin 00:59, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Regards Papua (disambiguation) - possibly a technicality, but clearly Wik could have stated in his edit summary "rv - see Talk:Papua (Indonesian province)" or something similar, which is scarcely some hideous requirement, and would have helped bystanders. As far as I'm concerned, that's all we're asking him to do. Martin 18:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)~

And Daeron is not to be asked to do the same thing? john 05:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Am I too understand that Wik, who used a sockpuppet to combat to users who used sockpuppets, is getting a one week ban, while only one of those users (Cantus, who used the sockpuppet after evading several bans) is only getting a one day ban, while the other, Nico, is off scott free? Sounds fair to me [sic] ... Danny 03:04, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

The proposal is that Wik, who used a sockpuppet to evade an arbitration committee ruling, is to be banned for one week, while Cantus, who made sockpuppets to evade a quickpoll ban, and Nico, who made a sockpuppet to precipitate an edit war, are to be banned for a day. Whether these things will come to pass, we don't yet know. --Camembert

I see the Cantus ban as an additional one day ban - the first day ban (and a bit) having already been implemented via a range block. Martin 19:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

The week ban is for trying to evade an arbitration committee ruling. We can't allow that. Quickpolls are much less formal and, IMO, evading them isn't nearly as serious. --mav 02:41, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the first arbitration ruling: "We rule that Wik shall be placed on probation for a period of three months. If during that time period Wik reverts the same page more than three times on the same day, he may be given a 24 hour "timeout" ban, at sysop's judgement. This measure is intended to be in addition to any wider policy that the community may decide to apply.

Seems like you are retroactively increasing the penalty from 24 hours to a week. --Voodoo 02:49, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Voodoo. How is using a sock puppet to evade the ruling any different from reverting an extra time on his own account (especially since Wik quickly admitted that it was a sockpuppet)? A one day ban would seem fair to me, but given that this very situation was envisioned in the original arbitration, I'm not sure why this needs to be increased.

Furthermore, beyond the use of the sockpuppet, I'm confused about what Wik has done which is particularly different or worse than what numerous other users do. For instance, he is to be punished for threatening retaliatory reversions that he did not actually carry out (I know he has done so in the past)? We're punishing people now for what they say they're going to do? And he's still reverting, at a slower pace, without explaining himself? Firstly, when I've looked into Wik's frequent edit wars, I've usually pretty quickly understood Wik's position (sometimes because he's laid it out, sometimes because it's bloody obvious). Yes, Wik makes little effort to continue to discuss matters once he's become convinced that he's arguing with a troll, and doesn't generally seek to find a compromise. But I have to say, that when I've actually tried discussing some of these things with people like Daeron and Cantus, it's been worse than useless. With Daeron, at least, who is considerate enough to be a very slow edit warrior, conversation seems so far to be utterly useless, and simply reverting his edits seems to be the best way to proceed, at least until someone else involves themselves in the discussion.

At any rate, my main concern here is that Wik is being held to standards that other people are not. Wik has made a lot of enemies with his, er, caustic style of interaction with others, and there's a lot of people who don't like him and would like to see him gone. But since he's been limited to the three reverts a day (which, as far as I can tell, he's more or less adhered to, with the exception of this incident with the sock puppet), I don't see that his reversions have been particularly worse than anyone else's. Cantus has certainly done a great deal of reversion, and has not really suffered any punishment for it. That people complain about Wik a lot doesn't mean that he is actually more disruptive than other people, at least now that he's been put on the hard three revert rule probation (which I agree is a good idea for Wik, and which I think probably should be extended indefinitely).

Finally, as Voodoo pointed out, I wonder at the precedence being put on process over substance. Nobody is willing to look into the substantive issues involved. Wik is worse for edit warring over ten articles in which he's right than his various opponents are for each editing warring over one article in which they're wrong. What kind of system is that? I think that structural requirements to keep Wik from getting out of control with the edit warring are a good idea, but I think that those problems were largely taken care of by the first arbitration. I think this arbitration is more the result of a lot of people screaming loudly in the hopes of getting rid of Wik than it is that his behavior is substantively all that disruptive. Clearly, he should be banned for a day (or two) for use of the sockpuppet, but I don't see anything else that necessarily requires action. john 05:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, recall that Wik used his Augustin/Augustine sock puppets to make excessive numbers of reverts over several different articles. Further, he did so via sock puppet accounts, and in the case of Cantus we decided that doing that was worth a doubling of the ban period from one day to two days. Several violations plus extra for doing so via sock puppets is worth a week's ban, in my view. I accept that this is a matter of judgement, though. I hope you will not consider the gap between two days and one week to be the difference between justice and injustice.

If you have any evidence that Cantus has been engaging in excessive reverts, please place it on the /Evidence page. Since Wik has made counter-allegations against Cantus, this is probably within our jurisdiction. I vaguely intend to try to get Cantus placed under an identical parole to Wik, but I need to examine his record more closely first.

I understand your concern that we are dealing with issues of process, not of correctness. However, clearly the arbitration committee was not selected for its knowledge of Papuan affairs, for example. Where we to try to consider the reality of English language usage relating to Austalasian geography for ourselves, it would (A) take forever and (B) probably reach the wrong conclusion. I can only suggest that, where you feel Wik is correct, you back him up with reverts and discussion to that effect, and encourage others to do likewise. Martin 13:28, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Martin. Given your explanation, I would agree that a week is not necessarily excessive. But the original calls for a three month ban were, I think, entirely ridiculous given the nature of the offense. I'm glad to see you've backed off from that. As to content, I understand that the arbitration committee is not a panel of experts to adjudicate content. On the other hand, I generally think that figuring out how the content is to be set up resolves disputes much more effectively than external mechanisms (I'd also add that I'm certainly nowhere near an expert on the subject of Papua - what little I know I've learned in the process of involving myself in the dispute. But that's neither here nor there.) And what's upsetting isn't so much that you're not adjudicating content, as it is that the question of who is right or wrong in an edit dispute does not seem to be a valid part of the process at all. As to Cantus, I agree that a similar parole to Wik's would be a fine idea. See Template:Europe, Template:East Asia, Template:Central Asia for examples. john 22:02, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I think you've hit on a key point - that often the best way to fix a dispute is to fix the content. There are lots of possible approaches here, and I'd encourage you to make suggestions and edit our policy pages, and convince people - and try to find a way to a better Wikipedia. Don't give up, ok? Martin 22:22, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

9 April?

According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, this matter was accepted on 9 April. Isn't there a deadline on debate in the committee? -- Emsworth 23:44, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

As Wik shows little sign of moderating his behavior in the forseeable future, is indeed defiant, there is little expectation that our jurisdiction over his behavior would end. Fred Bauder 00:23, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

No, there isn't a deadline on debate in the committee. We should, however, have this cleared up quite soon. --Camembert

I agree that it would be nice if the committee could make whatever rulings it can agree to, and issue its decision. I note that there is so far unanimous support for the requirement that Wik explain reverts in his edit summaries, but he has not begun to do this. Apparently the ruling must be finalized before we can know whether Wik plans to comply (and whether we shall move on to Wik3). --Michael Snow 17:08, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm planning to finalise this in the next day or two (unless one of the other arbitrators gets there before me, of course). I'm just hanging back a bit in case any of the other arbs want to make any final objections or points. --Camembert

"congrats"

I see you have achieved the result you wanted. Congratulations. Secretlondon 02:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

The result I desired most was no "Wik2" at all. Not because he left, but because he didn't cause any problems - or those problems he caused were too trivial to be within our remit as a committee - or even because nobody cared any more. Not to be, sadly.

We may well have made a mistake, misapplying policies, or just applying them with poor judgement. Or the community's policies may be stupid, and applying them led to the wrong result. I'm not perfect. We're not perfect. The community isn't perfect.

I can only offer my word that this wasn't some foreordained outcome, or that we secretly aimed to drive Wik away (just as I said earlier that we weren't afraid of that result). I agonised over this case, and I'm sure others did too. Maybe we were wrong in the end, but not though lack of desire to get it right. Martin 22:53, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

(copied from RfA) Wik's response to the AC's earlier ruling has been a vandalism spree. He says he is is leaving, and I hope he is, but just in case I am formally requesting a longer ban. theresa knott 04:45, 29 May 2004 (UTC)