See also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wik,
Case closed
This Arbitration involved accusations against User:Wik levied by a number of other Wikipedians. Voting on proposals can be found at the bottom of this page, with a summary of the decision, reached on 9 May 2004, at /Decided. For the evidence, see /Evidence. Some matters were not fully decided when events overtook the discussion, and Wik left.
Complaint (summarized): The prior arbitration ruling has "added a time delay between reverts." However, Wik fails to "calmly discuss matters on the talk page and seek compromises," has an "inability to discuss with his opponents," and sometimes "unilaterally declares some version of an article NPOV" and defends it by reversion.
The following users have requested the arbitration committee review the case of Wik based on later behavior:
On May 23, Wik went on a vandalism spree, even though he had been banned for seven days beginning with May 20. First using the account of User:(Wik), then a variety of anonymous IDs, he first began making edits to his own Talk page, then to the Request for Comments page, and then, when he was blocked from editing and his Talk page protected because he was not allowed to make edits, he began vandalizing my Talk page. I unblocked him and reverted his block to 7 days beginning on May 23 because he has not lived up to the requirements of his blocking. Rick K 03:03, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
user:(Wik) is a known and admitted sock puppet of Wik, so I believe that Danny's request for proof has already been met.
As Wik appears to have actually left (as far as I can tell), I don't believe there's anything to be gained from formally investigating this. People will look at Wik's behaviour and come to their own judgements on the matter. Martin 00:16, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Wik's response (summarised):
I am NOT Augusta and have NEVER used Augusta as a sockpuppet or as a user in Wikipedia. Admins who can see who's who, please come forward. -- Cantus 21:54, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If you are not an arbitrator do not edit below this point
I have looked at the history of the antinomy article and the edit war Wik engaged in over the wording and placement of the phrasing of the language over confusion of antinomy with antimony. Wik's reasoning was that such information should not be within the article, but in a note at the bottom. Whether there is or ought to be such a convention I am not sure. At any rate, assisted in this nonsense by Anthony, he engaged in an edit war, desisting only when User:Angela happened to agree with him. No discussion on the article talk page. Insight into his point was obtained only by looking at a comment on his user page under "articles needing daily reversion". Fred Bauder 21:28, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
I note on his user page he has a watchlist of 10,000 articles. This is a symptom of his combative stance. Perhaps we could limit his watchlist, if encouraging a less confrontive stance doesn't work. Fred Bauder 21:28, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
I wonder what our actual policy is regarding communicating about or justifying reversion. "[A revert] is not the advised action when dealing with edits that were made in good faith - indeed, we strongly recommend against it." ( Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version) Further recommending, 'Instead, have a look at our advice on staying cool when the editing gets hot.' There, the first tip is "If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and in your discussion on the Talk pages take the time to provide good reasons why your way is better." So we have a "strong recommendation" against using reversion in the case of edits made in good faith and a "tip" that providing good reasons for your edit on the articles talk page may help avoid disputes.
Perhaps we should look to our dispute resolution policy. Redirected from Wikipedia:Edit wars in progress looking at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution it contains in the first paragraph the following request, "Please do not engage in edit wars with other users; this is not a helpful method of dispute resolution and does nothing to improve Wikipedia. Instead, follow the process outlined here to resolve disagreements and prevent them from turning into serious disputes." After suggestions that users avoid conflict, be respectful and edit from a NPOV, there is the following explicit language: "The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question."
There is more, but I think this points at a solution to the problem presented in the instant case (this case): We should make a finding that Wik has not followed the Wikpedia policy for dispute resolution and in our decree require that he do so in the future. Addressing his aggressive editing, should he continue to engage in it, we should require that he clearly communicate on either the talk page of the article or on the user page of the other editor his reasoning or the basis for his reversion or other aggressive change. He raises the issue of only having to do this once, which has some reason, but I think requiring periodic explanations so long as the dispute continues is better.
While addressing first the requirement for clear communication, we should also be clear that we expect him to follow the rest of the dispute resolution policy. Fred Bauder 11:26, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
Wik's call for help on Recent Changes [2] is interesting. It give insight into his feelings of helplessness when dealing with other aggressive users such as Cantus. Rather than putting that notice on Recent Changes what should he have done? One rather obvious thing as he and Cantus are both involved in this case would be to have requested relief here. We have asked him specifically, "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". Actually he has done so, but we have not addressed the relief he requested regarding Cantus, banning for violations of the three revert rule. He give the example of [3] Schnorrer, but we don't know what edit war prompted the plea on Recent Changes. Although looking at User:Cantus I find Cantus's revert list. I have looked at these in the past. These are the same sort of sterile, six of one, half a dozen of the other, disputes that Wik is prone to engage in. What I suggest is that we ban Cantus and Wik from editing any of the articles on Cantus's hit list:
Articles needing frequent monitoring
To be reverted upon unprotection
Wik's complaint against Uncle Ed. See post by Jimbo
[4] and Ed's response in that thread
[5] Seems rather mild. I don't think any action is required.
Fred Bauder 14:19, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
Principles have been agreed upon and moved to /Decided
Some findings of fact have agreed upon and moved to /Decided
Well, true, but it would be completely asymmetric to single out Wik for criticism here: I've seen Jor (on this page) call Wik a "troll", and similar comments have been made by others. I think getting into this kind of thing is just micro-management, at this stage - if Wikipedians generally start being more polite and respectful of each other, it would be a different case, but this doesn't seem wildly outside common practice to me. Were it not for the other issues, I doubt the rudeness here would have got as far as us. Martin 23:50, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Seeing as Wik has now deleted those comments from his user page this might seem an academic point, but I don't think it's right to vote against this finding. Those comments are clearly personal attacks. If, for whatever reason, you don't think they should be considered, then I'd ask you to abstain rather than vote against - by opposing this you are, it seems to me, saying that calling somebody a moron does not break Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- Camembert
Some remedies have been agreed upon and moved to /Decided
I'd actually prefer the below (which might as well be a general principle). Martin
Ok, let's try again then. The initial warning is just a bit vague - what does "discretion" mean, exactly? Martin
As Wik has both threatened and apparently carried through with a vandalism script which affects Wikipedia he is banned for an indefinite period. Any edits he makes should be reverted. Any new articles, deleted.
If any of the following options are supported, then the one with more votes will go into effect
Both Wik and Cantus are prohibited from editing certain pages where they (and a few others) have engaged in sterile revert wars where little or no significant information is at issue. While this list may be expanded it includes the following articles (taken from User:Cantus):
Articles needing frequent monitoring
To be reverted upon unprotection
Based on Wik's statement, "I already said I'm not dealing with Cantus, neither directly nor by proxy.", see [6] Wik is banned from editing any article he is engaged in a edit war with Cantus (or any other user he decides he will not discuss matters with) for a period of one year.
Isn't this just a logical consequence of the ruling above to explain his reverts? Better to edit that ruling, if it is not clear, surely? Martin 11:01, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
I move that this case be closed. Martin 00:17, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Seconded (needed?). James F. (talk) 00:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Needed? Who knows... If I don't get any vetos, I'll consider it closed and edit appropriately. Bolder than thou. :) - Martin 00:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, I'm happy for it to be closed. -- Camembert
We still have to consider the matter of the vandal bot. Fred Bauder 14:56, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
Yes - close the case. We do not at all have to consider the vandal bot (see above). -- mav 00:21, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wik,
Case closed
This Arbitration involved accusations against User:Wik levied by a number of other Wikipedians. Voting on proposals can be found at the bottom of this page, with a summary of the decision, reached on 9 May 2004, at /Decided. For the evidence, see /Evidence. Some matters were not fully decided when events overtook the discussion, and Wik left.
Complaint (summarized): The prior arbitration ruling has "added a time delay between reverts." However, Wik fails to "calmly discuss matters on the talk page and seek compromises," has an "inability to discuss with his opponents," and sometimes "unilaterally declares some version of an article NPOV" and defends it by reversion.
The following users have requested the arbitration committee review the case of Wik based on later behavior:
On May 23, Wik went on a vandalism spree, even though he had been banned for seven days beginning with May 20. First using the account of User:(Wik), then a variety of anonymous IDs, he first began making edits to his own Talk page, then to the Request for Comments page, and then, when he was blocked from editing and his Talk page protected because he was not allowed to make edits, he began vandalizing my Talk page. I unblocked him and reverted his block to 7 days beginning on May 23 because he has not lived up to the requirements of his blocking. Rick K 03:03, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
user:(Wik) is a known and admitted sock puppet of Wik, so I believe that Danny's request for proof has already been met.
As Wik appears to have actually left (as far as I can tell), I don't believe there's anything to be gained from formally investigating this. People will look at Wik's behaviour and come to their own judgements on the matter. Martin 00:16, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Wik's response (summarised):
I am NOT Augusta and have NEVER used Augusta as a sockpuppet or as a user in Wikipedia. Admins who can see who's who, please come forward. -- Cantus 21:54, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If you are not an arbitrator do not edit below this point
I have looked at the history of the antinomy article and the edit war Wik engaged in over the wording and placement of the phrasing of the language over confusion of antinomy with antimony. Wik's reasoning was that such information should not be within the article, but in a note at the bottom. Whether there is or ought to be such a convention I am not sure. At any rate, assisted in this nonsense by Anthony, he engaged in an edit war, desisting only when User:Angela happened to agree with him. No discussion on the article talk page. Insight into his point was obtained only by looking at a comment on his user page under "articles needing daily reversion". Fred Bauder 21:28, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
I note on his user page he has a watchlist of 10,000 articles. This is a symptom of his combative stance. Perhaps we could limit his watchlist, if encouraging a less confrontive stance doesn't work. Fred Bauder 21:28, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
I wonder what our actual policy is regarding communicating about or justifying reversion. "[A revert] is not the advised action when dealing with edits that were made in good faith - indeed, we strongly recommend against it." ( Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version) Further recommending, 'Instead, have a look at our advice on staying cool when the editing gets hot.' There, the first tip is "If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and in your discussion on the Talk pages take the time to provide good reasons why your way is better." So we have a "strong recommendation" against using reversion in the case of edits made in good faith and a "tip" that providing good reasons for your edit on the articles talk page may help avoid disputes.
Perhaps we should look to our dispute resolution policy. Redirected from Wikipedia:Edit wars in progress looking at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution it contains in the first paragraph the following request, "Please do not engage in edit wars with other users; this is not a helpful method of dispute resolution and does nothing to improve Wikipedia. Instead, follow the process outlined here to resolve disagreements and prevent them from turning into serious disputes." After suggestions that users avoid conflict, be respectful and edit from a NPOV, there is the following explicit language: "The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question."
There is more, but I think this points at a solution to the problem presented in the instant case (this case): We should make a finding that Wik has not followed the Wikpedia policy for dispute resolution and in our decree require that he do so in the future. Addressing his aggressive editing, should he continue to engage in it, we should require that he clearly communicate on either the talk page of the article or on the user page of the other editor his reasoning or the basis for his reversion or other aggressive change. He raises the issue of only having to do this once, which has some reason, but I think requiring periodic explanations so long as the dispute continues is better.
While addressing first the requirement for clear communication, we should also be clear that we expect him to follow the rest of the dispute resolution policy. Fred Bauder 11:26, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
Wik's call for help on Recent Changes [2] is interesting. It give insight into his feelings of helplessness when dealing with other aggressive users such as Cantus. Rather than putting that notice on Recent Changes what should he have done? One rather obvious thing as he and Cantus are both involved in this case would be to have requested relief here. We have asked him specifically, "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". Actually he has done so, but we have not addressed the relief he requested regarding Cantus, banning for violations of the three revert rule. He give the example of [3] Schnorrer, but we don't know what edit war prompted the plea on Recent Changes. Although looking at User:Cantus I find Cantus's revert list. I have looked at these in the past. These are the same sort of sterile, six of one, half a dozen of the other, disputes that Wik is prone to engage in. What I suggest is that we ban Cantus and Wik from editing any of the articles on Cantus's hit list:
Articles needing frequent monitoring
To be reverted upon unprotection
Wik's complaint against Uncle Ed. See post by Jimbo
[4] and Ed's response in that thread
[5] Seems rather mild. I don't think any action is required.
Fred Bauder 14:19, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
Principles have been agreed upon and moved to /Decided
Some findings of fact have agreed upon and moved to /Decided
Well, true, but it would be completely asymmetric to single out Wik for criticism here: I've seen Jor (on this page) call Wik a "troll", and similar comments have been made by others. I think getting into this kind of thing is just micro-management, at this stage - if Wikipedians generally start being more polite and respectful of each other, it would be a different case, but this doesn't seem wildly outside common practice to me. Were it not for the other issues, I doubt the rudeness here would have got as far as us. Martin 23:50, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Seeing as Wik has now deleted those comments from his user page this might seem an academic point, but I don't think it's right to vote against this finding. Those comments are clearly personal attacks. If, for whatever reason, you don't think they should be considered, then I'd ask you to abstain rather than vote against - by opposing this you are, it seems to me, saying that calling somebody a moron does not break Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- Camembert
Some remedies have been agreed upon and moved to /Decided
I'd actually prefer the below (which might as well be a general principle). Martin
Ok, let's try again then. The initial warning is just a bit vague - what does "discretion" mean, exactly? Martin
As Wik has both threatened and apparently carried through with a vandalism script which affects Wikipedia he is banned for an indefinite period. Any edits he makes should be reverted. Any new articles, deleted.
If any of the following options are supported, then the one with more votes will go into effect
Both Wik and Cantus are prohibited from editing certain pages where they (and a few others) have engaged in sterile revert wars where little or no significant information is at issue. While this list may be expanded it includes the following articles (taken from User:Cantus):
Articles needing frequent monitoring
To be reverted upon unprotection
Based on Wik's statement, "I already said I'm not dealing with Cantus, neither directly nor by proxy.", see [6] Wik is banned from editing any article he is engaged in a edit war with Cantus (or any other user he decides he will not discuss matters with) for a period of one year.
Isn't this just a logical consequence of the ruling above to explain his reverts? Better to edit that ruling, if it is not clear, surely? Martin 11:01, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
I move that this case be closed. Martin 00:17, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Seconded (needed?). James F. (talk) 00:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Needed? Who knows... If I don't get any vetos, I'll consider it closed and edit appropriately. Bolder than thou. :) - Martin 00:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, I'm happy for it to be closed. -- Camembert
We still have to consider the matter of the vandal bot. Fred Bauder 14:56, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
Yes - close the case. We do not at all have to consider the vandal bot (see above). -- mav 00:21, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)