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 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Rick K 00:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Fourth finding of fact, from the previous case, recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik:
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)
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)
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:
Not signed by:
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)
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)
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
As far as I can tell, all you have agreed on so far is that Wik is guilty of the following three things:
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)
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.
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)~
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I see you have achieved the result you wanted. Congratulations. Secretlondon 02:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
(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)
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 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Rick K 00:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Fourth finding of fact, from the previous case, recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik:
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)
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)
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:
Not signed by:
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)
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)
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
As far as I can tell, all you have agreed on so far is that Wik is guilty of the following three things:
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)
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.
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)~
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I see you have achieved the result you wanted. Congratulations. Secretlondon 02:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
(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)