Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Summary of complaint

[edit]

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:

  • Wik vandalizes User pages constantly. Cantus

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. RickK 03:03, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know for a fact that it was Wik? I'd like to see some evidence of that before he is accused. Then we can talk about why the anonymous user went on a "vandalism spree." Then we can talk about how you reverted the page four times in 5 minutes to your own version, and then we can discuss whether you can use your sysop powers to protect a page in which you are involved in an edit war. I'd be happy if you start by proving that it was Wik. Danny 03:07, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
What?! I'm not allowed to revert vandalism to my own Talk page!? Now that is twisted logic! RickK 03:11, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's referring to your reversion and protection of User talk:Wik. I don't know what the policy is on multiple reverts and/or protection to enforce a ban; it may differ from usual reversion/protection policy. VV 03:55, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Statement by Wik

[edit]

Wik's response (summarised):

  1. I made my view clear in all disputes and answered all questions. I just don't like to repeat myself, so if people repeat an argument that I've previously replied to, I don't feel obliged to copy-and-paste my previous reply.
  2. I am perfectly willing to compromise on subjective questions, but there is no compromise between correct and incorrect, or NPOV and POV, versions.
  3. Any reversion war necessarily has two sides doing the exact same number of reverts, plus/minus one. There is no way I can be blamed unilaterally for this.
  4. You will not get me to play along with trolls and POV pushers. If you succeed in getting me banned or prohibiting me from reverting which I'd consider equivalent, then I'll simply be off.
  5. If "defamatory statements" are seriously considered, I want to complain myself (just as an example) about user Ed Poor, who called me a "pest" [1], which is no less insulting than whatever I may be accused of in this regard. He may consider it a factual statement, just as I consider my statements factual.
  6. Additionally I want to ask for a ban of User:Cantus who behaves in an utterly inacceptable way by violating the three-revert rule (see for example shnorrer), then additionally calling in sockpuppets (User:Augusta), engaging in revenge reversion of pages he otherwise has no interest in (even in the case of a clear vandalism I had reverted on Ethics, he reverted it back to the vandalized version), and spamming my talk page. Most likely User:Wik is Banned was also his sockpuppet, who did this vandalism.

Response by Cantus

[edit]

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)

arbitrator's opinions on hearing this matter

[edit]

If you are not an arbitrator do not edit below this point

  • Support. Fred Bauder 17:26, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - a one month review makes sense, either way. Martin 17:28, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - there's a clear desire for us to have another look at this. -- Camembert 17:40, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support James F. (talk) 01:22, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (just piling on) --the Epopt 22:08, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Discussion by arbitrators

[edit]

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)

Requiring clear communication and (more generally) following the dispute resolution process makes sense to me. Martin 21:59, 19 Apr 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)

Proposed principles

[edit]

Principles have been agreed upon and moved to /Decided

Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

Some findings of fact have agreed upon and moved to /Decided

Personal attacks

[edit]
  • Wik on his user page characterizes a wide variety of other users as "morons", vandals", "trolls", "Nazi POV pushers", "Zionist POV pushers" "vigilantes" and as members of a "Cabal". Some users he characterizes as "rude" or "lier", others he accuses of "deception" and "trickery". See User:Wik. We find that this is a violation of our No personal attacks policy.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:00, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Nohat 19:33, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
  3. mav 08:01, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. the Epopt 14:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Other:
  1. Abstain. Martin 19:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC) (as noted below)[reply]
  2. I agree with the sentiment, but those things aren't actually on his page any more. --Camembert 03:02, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC) I, too, abstain; to much 'micromanagement' indeed.[reply]

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)

Wik's personal attacks are vicious and malicious, and not just momentary lapses in judgment. We should take a stand against them. Nohat 19:33, 2004 May 5 (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

That's a fair point - I've changed my vote to abstain. Some of Wik's comments are clearly against guidelines. Some are fairly reasonable - surely if you find someone rude, it's reasonable to say so, if you don't shout or flood or harass? But the main reason I object to the current finding is its assymmetry, so abstention is more accurate than opposition. Martin 23:35, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wouldn't berate somebody for calling a user "rude", but calling them a "moron", and doing it not in the heat of the moment but on your user page, and then refusing to take it back, is probably a few steps up from that. Still, that stuff isn't on User:Wik any longer (I thank Wik for removing it, incidentally), so I'm not going to bang on about this. --Camembert


Remedies

[edit]

Some remedies have been agreed upon and moved to /Decided

  • Wik is required to remove his hit list of personal attacks from his user pages and to desist from making personal attacks of a similar nature.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:00, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Nohat 15:58, 2004 May 5 (UTC) user page to be blanked during ban, containing only notice that user is banned. Suggest adding "for these personal attacks, Wik shall be banned from editing for a period of one week, to be served concurrently with other bans. Reverting to previous state after the ban is over will result in another one-week editing ban."
    • Folks can edit any page, and we don't need to rule on what Wik's user page will look like while he's gone. Also, I suggest using the same enforcement as proposed below (under enforcement). Martin 18:58, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we should rule that the personal attacks shall be removed from Wik's user page and having the fact that Wik is banned clearly displayed on his user page will strenghten our appearance as a truly power-wielding group rather than a bunch of apologists for bad behavior, which I fear is the reputation we are earning. Nohat 19:33, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
  3. mav 08:01, 7 May 2004 (UTC) (personal attacks should be removed)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. the Epopt 14:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Martin 18:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC) (If we banned everyone who called another user a "troll" or a "vandal", in the current climate, we'd have nobody left. These are a minor issue, and by criticising Wik on this basis we would trivialise the seriousness of Wik's abuse of the revert facility)[reply]
    • I have to disagree. I think Wik's personal attacks on his user page are the most blatant and damaging violations of policy he has made. In fact, Jimbo has implied now, in posts both the mailing lists, that his behavior on his user page should be grounds for banning, and I agree. We need to take a stand now against personal attacks, starting with the most blatant and unrepentant. We should not tolerate malicious personal attacks become some people occasionally get a little hot under the collar and call each other names. Besides, he's not just calling people "trolls" and "vandals"; he's calling people morons and nazis. I don't think we should be apologists for that. Nohat 19:19, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
Other:
  1. I agree with the sentiment expressed by nohat, but Wik has now removed those things from his user page, so this seems irrelevant. --Camembert 03:02, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delirium 11:19, May 7, 2004 (UTC) Abstain, since the issue is now moot.
  3. James F. (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC) Agree with Camembert/Delirium.[reply]

Enforcement

[edit]
  • If Wik consistently fails to abide by any of these rulings of the arbitration committee or tries to evade them, that Wik shall be banned for 30 days, at arbitration committee's discretion.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:00, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. the Epopt 14:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC) I'd prefer three months, below.[reply]
  3. Nohat 15:58, 2004 May 5 (UTC) after 3 month ban
  4. Martin 18:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC) (I'd prefer one of the below two alternatives)[reply]
  5. mav 08:01, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Delirium 11:19, May 7, 2004 (UTC) I'm wiling to go along with this, but this seems more like just a warning than an actual ruling, since we'd have to rule again on the 30-day ban anyway. Is this actually saying anything?
  7. James F. (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Camembert 22:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC) (though I'd prefer one of the below two alternatives)[reply]
Oppose:
Other:
Note that I've moved the above to /Decided as it has a majority, but I'm leaving it here as the below proposals modify it. Presumably, if one of the below gets a majority in favour, it will supersede this one, yes? --Camembert 19:12, 20 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]
Makes sense to me. Martin 23:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually prefer the below (which might as well be a general principle). Martin

  • If Wik consistently fails to abide by, or tries to evade, any of the rulings made against him by the arbitration committee, the committee may apply an immediate ban of between one month and one year. Such bans will be at the discretion of the arbitration committee, following a motion on this page supported by four or more arbitrators.
Support:
  1. Martin 18:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nohat 19:33, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:38, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Camembert 03:02, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. mav 08:01, 7 May 2004 (UTC) (one year is way too long at this point - I consider this Wik's second, not third strike)[reply]
  2. Delirium 11:19, May 7, 2004 (UTC) I don't like the only-4-vote requirement, or the year possibility.
  3. James F. (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC) Too easy to implement such a long ban.[reply]
Other:

Ok, let's try again then. The initial warning is just a bit vague - what does "discretion" mean, exactly? Martin

  • If Wik consistently fails to abide by, or tries to evade, any of the rulings made against him by the arbitration committee, the committee may apply an immediate ban of up to one month. Such bans will be at the discretion of the arbitration committee, following a simple majority vote of the committee.
Support:
  1. Martin 20:34, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Camembert 22:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC) (up to a year would still be fine with me (especially with the change from four votes -> majority))[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2004 (UTC) (this is better)[reply]
Oppose:
Other:

Permanent ban

[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:11, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain or other:
  1. Not necessary - vandalism can already be terminated with extreme prejudice. If Wik starts trying to make bona fide edits then we can discuss. Martin 18:30, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. What Martin said. --Camembert 19:33, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Agreed. James F. (talk) 00:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Whoever is running the script is already under an indefinite if not permanent ban. Since it is plainly obvious that this is Wik, he has already chosen his own fate and has already been blocked for an indefinite time period by Tim (02:00, 17 Jun 2004, Tim Starling blocked Wik (expires indefinite) (contribs) (unblock) (vandalism) ; see block log). This is beyond the scope of the AC. If/when Wik wants to come back as a legit user then we could then vote to lift the already imposed indefinite ban. Any admin can already block vandals - they don't need our permission. --mav 23:58, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  1. We don't need to rule before the Wikipedia can exercise its right to self-defense. --the Epopt 11:53, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Revocation of editing privileges

[edit]

If any of the following options are supported, then the one with more votes will go into effect

  • One month ban: Considering Wik's disruptive behavior as a whole and his disruptive effect on Wikipedia he is banned from editing for 1 month.
Support:
  1. Nohat 22:03, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC) Though perhaps verging on a little too long.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. mav 08:01, 7 May 2004 (UTC) (too long at this point - I still have hope that Wik can be reformed. Save the longer bans for Wik3.)[reply]
  2. Delirium 11:19, May 7, 2004 (UTC) Too long.
  3. Camembert 22:15, 9 May 2004 (UTC) (I've become convinced that the above requirement to explain reversions backed up with the prospect of a ban is sufficient. I hope a ban won't be necessary)[reply]
Other:
  • Three month ban: Considering Wik's disruptive behavior as a whole and his disruptive effect on Wikipedia he is banned from editing for 3 months.
Support:
  1. the Epopt 14:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nohat 15:58, 2004 May 5 (UTC). Suggest adding "creation of sock puppet users will result in extension of ban by one month for each sock puppet"
  3. Fred Bauder 16:37, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. mav 08:01, 7 May 2004 (UTC) (too long - see above)[reply]
  2. Delirium 11:19, May 7, 2004 (UTC) Quite a bit too long.
  3. James F. (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC) Far too long - we want Wik to stay and reform, not leave.[reply]
  4. Camembert 22:15, 9 May 2004 (UTC) (see above)[reply]
Other:
  1. Martin 18:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC) - I think this is a little too long. I believe the Enforcement noted above where we provide ourselves the facility to note a further ban at our discretion, means that an initial ban of this length is not required.[reply]

Sterile disputes

[edit]

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

  1. Support Fred Bauder 14:25, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Users Wik refuses to discuss articles with

[edit]

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.

  1. Support Fred Bauder 00:17, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

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)[reply]

Explaining reverts is one thing. Refusing to communicate with those he habitually disputes with is another. But feel free to make a stab at it and try crafting a remedy. Fred Bauder 14:10, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Closure

[edit]

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)

Hasn't Jimbo effectively said that Wik is now perma-banned, in his forwarded mail to WikiEN-l? That's the impression I got...
James F. (talk) 15:06, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
True, but we need to get this on the record. Fred Bauder 12:37, Jun 17, 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)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2&oldid=431112838"