Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The chief complaints logged against Wik appear to be:

  1. Lack of discussion
  2. Stubbornness/inflexibility
  3. Defamatory statements

Question to complainants: do you believe there any other grounds for serious complaint against Wik, that you believe the arbitration committee should investigate? If so, please add to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2

Question to Wik: Are there any counter-complaints you wish to make in relation to this case? If so, please add to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2

Articles in question[edit]

Complainants have cited the articles listed on Wik's home page. These articles are:

Other examples below.

Failure to discuss?[edit]

Please add signed comments regarding whether Wik discussed these articles at any point:

I've added an example to give you an idea of what I'm after, but it's probably not accurate. --Martin

  • Papua (disambiguation)--Wik and User:Daeron engaged in a revert war, with Wik reverting three times in 11 minutes. It's currently listed as "Needing daily reversion". When I arrived at the page, neither had edited the talk page. Meelar 00:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have since explained my part in that unfortunate exchange, see talk page. I thank Meelar for his input there.Daeron 08:51, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • West Papua Wik's first edit on 18Apr came three days after I had already addressed that issue on the discussion page 15/Apr. He then return 24/Apr and started first of 6 reverts --Daeron
  • The following precis of the discussion page for this entry is enlightening.
    • WIK: Daeron is obviously too blinded by his POV to work on this article ..... I will continue to revert any Daeron-based versions of this article.
    • STAN: Looks like your reversion deleted all of Tannin's last round of changes too.
    • TANNIN: Daeron's POV is something he has taken the trouble to document with a great deal of hard evidence ..... If you disagree with his claims, please provide us with some evidence to discredit his view.
    • WIK: Can't you read?
  • That's it. Can't you read? Wik has not seen fit to make any other comment on an article that has been entirely rewritten since his original complaint — by me, not by Daeron — but he continues to revert. Tannin 11:43, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • West Papuan Genocide Wik moved to Attacks in West New Guinea and now two copies exist, the updated one being West Papuan Genocide. Anyone who reads the various Human Rights Reports will find they have ALL included the name "West Papua" irrespective of whichever name Indonesia uses that month for the country. There is utterly no reason for Wik to suddenly use the old Dutch name old "West New Guinea", instead of one of the many names Indonesia has used or it's correct name "West Papua". There is no reason to belittle the article by replacing "Genocide" with "Attacks in". Wik refuses rational discussion on any of these issues. --Daeron
Can someone leave a link to the one-sentence explanation he left on his user page? I can't seem to find it. Nohat 16:09, 2004 Apr 17 (UTC)
"Anthony keeps adding unnecessary link to Karl Schnörrer"
  • Wik habitually reverts articles instead of improving them. While this may be justified in cases of vandalism, he does the same when there is only a difference of opinion or without any good reason whatsoever. See Ken Saro-Wiwa. User:Dirtbiscuit did some expanding of that article [3], which Wik reverted [4] without further explanation. When Dirtbiscuit politely asked Wik to explain, Wik, instead of apologizing replied: "You can't just rewrite an article completely and disregard the previous version as long as your version is longer" [5]. Kosebamse
  • While not unique to wik, it does seem to be a nasty habit of his to revert the good along with what he perceives as bad. He will revert your edit simply because he dislikes a single small portion of it, rather than taking the time to fix what he sees as the problem. Another example of this is documented on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. Wik added a middle name and month of birth to Sarah Edmonds, and wikied Houston, Texas [6]. Danny, presumably by accident, removed these details [7]. Several other edits followed [8], which Wik simply reverted [9]. An edit war ensued [10], with wik and Danny reverting each other back and forth. Comments by wik included "rv (Danny ignored edit conflict)" and "I am not obliged to repeat a correct edit I made", along with his usual "rv". Now, granted, this was in December 2003, but I present it because the behavior seems to be continuing even after the initial arbitration (per Kosebase's example above). anthony (see warning)
    • More recent examples (after the prior ruling) would be helpful here. Martin 00:55, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • In this edit to Pat Metheny Group Wik wiped almost the entire content of an article into which a new user had put a lot of work. When asked about his motives, Wik replied that "(...)This has to be rewritten in a neutral way or it has to go.", however he had made no attempt to improve that article or to discuss it with its authors. Kosebamse 06:13, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I second that. (I came here from the Pat Metheny Group article, prepared to file this same complaint.) I would stress to the committee that this behavior of Wik's is far more destructive than the two-sided edit wars. Please take note. Cribcage 06:53, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • at Erika Steinbach, where a long-lasting discussion was carried out on the talk-page, did Wik in seemingly total ignorance of the discussion make[11] (and revert to[12]) his own version[13], which doesn't facilitate the concensus-shaping process. --user:Ruhrjung
  • On April 25, Wik got into another revert war with Gene Poole over Empire of Atlantium. I mistakenly blocked him, but unblocked him when I realized that I had misread the dates on the blocks. He did three reverts in 24 hours, not four. However, I did protect the page because of the revert war. Note that this is not done due to my dislike of Wik -- I think the article should be deleted, but the VfD listing of the article was voted down. Note that Wik has a list of articles called "To be reverted upon unprotection" on his User page. RickK 04:35, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Stubbornness?[edit]

Please add evidence of stubbornness or (just as important) flexibility here.

Personally, I'm particularly interested in any evidence that Wik has edited pages in defiance of a genuine consensus, as that has been alleged, or that Wik has not edited pages to go along with a genuine consensus. Martin 20:25, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Surely he is allowed to edit his own user pages? Anything else? Secretlondon 22:47, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • His edits to Atlantium are not quite in defiance of a consensus, but are in defiance of a 14-4 (78%) majority. anthony (see warning) 02:08, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Wik maintains on his user page a standing call for reversion of all the pages he's warring over [14]. Kosebamse 06:31, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Defamatory statements and rudeness[edit]

Please add evidence of any defamatory statements and rudeness here

  • This edit to Requests for adminship. Yes, Jor was also wrong in this case; however, I'd remind the committee that Jor does not have a history of this type of thing, while Wik does. Meelar 20:18, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • More like this on the Quickpolls page from the same time: this edit and followup. Wik insists on libelling me as a liar or POV pusher. — Jor (Talk) 03:15, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Also this edit, again to RfA. In a different part of the same edition of the page, he says of User:Calmypal: "User says about himself: "He is currently King of the Sovereign Nation of Paxania, a micronation contained within his own home." We don't need more of this type. --Wik 19:22, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)"
  • Wik is calling me a 'total moron' in his User page. Now this doesn't bother me, really, but it is a proof on his lack of community vision. See User:Wik --Cantus 02:37, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • This edit to Rfa. Wik is accusing me of being "an ugly German-nationalist POV pusher and out-and-out liar", being an 'Alex Plank' (whatever that means), and goes on to accuse me of behaviour I welcome anyone to prove I have (hint: I do not). — Jor (Talk) 15:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • If you believe that story that Hcheney presented last time as an obvious last-ditch attempt to secure his nomination, then I would say you've crossed the line from "assuming good faith" into "gullibility". [15] --H CHENEY 02:03, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Threat to Dmn "If you continue to revert random edits of mine (and vandalize my talk page) without explanation, I will revert random edits of yours."[16] The only Revert Dmn did was to un-do th 7th 'revert' which Wik did to West Papuan Genocide.Daeron 16:06, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • In listing Dmn on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, Wik made an additional statement along similar lines - [17]. I did not investigate whether Dmn made such reverts, or whether Wik acted on his statement. --Michael Snow 21:03, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • User:Wik, a long series of insults to people he has begun reverting on sight. Exmples are 'Nazi POV pusher', 'insane', 'cabal' etc.. This follows his call for revert wars list, where further insults appear. — Jor (Talk) 22:27, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Revert war[edit]

Wik is currently participating in a revert war with Cantus all over Wikipedia. Whatever article the one edits, the other reverts. This is unacceptable behavior and should require immediate action to be taken against both. RickK 03:05, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please ban us both, permanently. --Cantus 03:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Wik's complaints[edit]

Please add evidence regarding Wik's complaint against Cantus here.

Wik insists on saying I have used Augusta as a sockpuppet, and the fact is I have not. Admins may prove this by checking user IPs. --Cantus 22:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One accusation is sock puppetry by Cantus. I attach relevant sections of the wikipedia:block log. They may also serve for evidence of evasion of a legitimate, quickpoll-backed, ban. Martin

  • 04:21, 13 Apr 2004 Danny blocked "RevertRobot" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Cantus sockpuppet)
  • 04:20, 13 Apr 2004 Hephaestos blocked "RevertRobot" with an expiry time of indefinite (trolling)
  • 03:37, 12 Apr 2004 Fennec blocked "200.83.176.0/20" with an expiry time of 23 hours ((clarification) Abuse from User:Cantus, who used various IP addresses in this range to evade bans and blocks.)
  • 03:02, 12 Apr 2004 Fennec blocked "200.83.176.0/20" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Sock puppets and anon IPs of Cantus. See Quickpolls. Go away.)
  • 03:01, Apr 12, 2004 Bcorr blocked "200.83.186.0/24" with an expiry time of 4 hours (Cantus)
  • 02:59, 12 Apr 2004 Fennec blocked "User:Jimbo-Wales" with an expiry time of infinite (likely Sock puppet of User:Cantus, discussed at Quickpolls, delibrately confusing name choice)
  • 02:59, Apr 12, 2004 Bcorr blocked "Jimbo-Wales" with an expiry time of indefinite (User:Cantussockpuppet with deliberately confusing name)
  • 02:58, Apr 12, 2004 Tim Starling blocked "Jimbo-Wales" with an expiry time of 24 hours (imposter)
  • 02:57, 12 Apr 2004 RickK blocked "Jimbo-Wales" with an expiry time of indefinite (troll)
  • 02:56, 12 Apr 2004 Fennec blocked "200.83.183.15" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Sock puppet/anon IP of User:Cantus, discussed at Quickpolls.)
  • 02:54, Apr 12, 2004 Bcorr blocked "200.83.183.0/24" with an expiry time of 4 hours (repeated reversion of Wikipedia:Quickpolls)
  • 02:53, 12 Apr 2004 RickK blocked "200.83.183.15" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Cantus)
  • 02:50, 12 Apr 2004 Fennec blocked "200.83.185.253" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Sock puppet of User:Cantus, discussed at Quickpolls)
  • 02:50, 12 Apr 2004 RickK blocked "200.83.185.253" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Cantus)
  • 02:49, 12 Apr 2004 Fennec blocked "200.83.183.14" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Sock puppet/anon IP of User:Cantus, discussed at Quickpolls)
  • 02:48, 12 Apr 2004 RickK blocked "200.83.183.14" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Cantus)
  • 02:46, 12 Apr 2004 Fennec blocked "200.83.185.248" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Sock puppet/anon IP of User:Cantus, discussed at Quickpolls)
  • 02:45, 12 Apr 2004 RickK blocked "200.83.185.248" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Cantus)
  • 02:35, 12 Apr 2004 Fennec blocked "Serax" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Sock puppet of User:Cantus, discussed at Quickpolls)
  • 02:25, 12 Apr 2004 Danny blocked "200.83.183.10" with an expiry time of 24 hours (same)
  • 02:23, 12 Apr 2004 Danny blocked "200.83.182.245" with an expiry time of 48 hours (cantus banned for 24 hours as of recent wikipoll)
  • 01:11, 12 Apr 2004 Danny blocked "Kiw" with an expiry time of 24 hours (QuickPoll: vandalism and trolling)
  • 01:11, 12 Apr 2004 Danny blocked "Wikified" with an expiry time of 24 hours (QuickPoll: vandalism and trolling)
  • 01:11, 12 Apr 2004 Danny blocked "Cantus2" with an expiry time of 24 hours (QuickPoll: vandalism and trolling)
  • 01:11, 12 Apr 2004 Danny blocked "Cantus" with an expiry time of 24 hours (QuickPoll: vandalism and trolling)

Additional accusations are User:Augusta (alleged by Wik and RickK) and User:Wik is Banned (alleged by Wik). Martin

All of the aboved mentioned users were me, except Augusta. --Cantus 02:21, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification. Martin 17:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Alright, I was Augusta, joking a little with Wik. Behaving really stubborn and annoying in articles I cares about and engaging in unpleasant attacks on me, he certainly deserved it. I thought he might learn something about himself. But I guess it perhaps was stupid anyway Nico 22:04, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Nico. Martin 00:28, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Augusta/in/ine[edit]

Courtesy Tim Starling. If you want to match these up to edits in the database, you have to set your timezone to -6:56 or -6:57.

xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (actual IP not published for privacy reasons):

  • Augustin - [11/Apr/2004:01:56:36 -0700]
  • Augustine - [11/Apr/2004:06:53:28 -0700]
  • Wik - [11/Apr/2004:15:22:53 -0700]

yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy (actual IP not published for privacy reasons):

  • Nico - [11/Apr/2004:05:40:15 -0700]
  • Augusta - [11/Apr/2004:06:19:19 -0700]

The IP addresses in question do not appear to be proxies. Martin 22:49, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik clarified on his Talk page:

Augustin and Augustine were (rather obvious) sockpuppets I used only after Cantus used his Augusta sockpuppet to get around the 3-revert limit and sysops wouldn't do anything about that. I have only used them to revert those articles Augusta had reverted. I was hoping that sysops would then step in and ban all sockpuppets. --Wik 23:06, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Martin 23:09, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have only used them to revert those articles Augusta had reverted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Schnorrer&action=history&limit=250&offset=0

That doesn't appear to be true. Martin 01:20, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you're talking about the first two Augustin edits there, I could have made them just as well as Wik. Remember I wasn't banned and I had done only one revert in the previous 24 hours. So I had made exactly three reverts (one as Wik, two as Augustin) when Augusta stepped in, apparently Cantus circumventing the 3-revert limit (as Cantus had just done 3 reverts), and only then did I likewise continue reverting. --Wik 02:42, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Sock puppets everywhere[edit]

OK, we've all had our bit of amusement over the warring sock puppets now. Shouldn't these escapades be reason enough to ban all the puppets and puppeteers forever? Wik and all his little friends are just not getting the message. Stan 05:32, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not psychic... give us some user names? Martin 21:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I just mean all the ones already listed on this page. Edit wars are bad enough, but edit wars with sock puppets are a ridiculous waste of everybody's time, and I don't understand why this sort of nonsense is now being taken in stride. Stan 23:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Martin 21:25, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hate list[edit]

Half of User:Wik's page now is crude personal attacks on Wikipedia contributors, including several longstanding and respected ones. This is out of control. (Though the all-too-familiar "FOX POV" bit amused me.) -- VV 07:24, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps his entire user page should be moved to WP:BJAODN ;-) Anárion 08:29, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Its not a hate list - it's just a pretty tame NPOV description of the sorry state of affairs here. A small cabal insists that it is their right to persecute users who are trying to write an encyclopedia, generating increasingly pompous and legalistic justifications for thier outrageous behavior. They need to stop trolling, and get back to writing. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 21:39, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if I call you Troll, or should I stick to Mr. Troll? -- VV 08:01, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You can call me whatever gives you the most pleasure, I would want you to call me nothing else. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 15:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets[edit]

As wik has admitted to creating sock puppets to hide his reversions, in blatant defiance of the arbitration committee's ruling, I believe he should be banned for a month. Any action short of a complete ban for a significant period of time will send wik, and every one else for that matter, the message that the arbitration committee's rulings may be ignored without penalty. anthony (see warning) 23:38, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Recentchanges[edit]

Wik attempted to place a "Rampage Alert" on the top of Special:Recentchanges requesting that Cantus be blocked. [18] -Fennec 21:44, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • wik defended the spurious insertion with two reverts, then ceased. Badanedwa 04:41, May 14, 2004 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2/Evidence&oldid=431112855"