Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik/Evidence

Please place here relevant evidence in this matter (include internal wikipedia link to source). Fred Bauder 19:42, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Evidence against Wik

Emsworth

:Anthony is an obvious troll, I revert him on principle. Wik 04:11, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)]

Talk:Nick Griffin Page History: Anthony DiPierro removed the comments of three different users (himself, Jwrosenzweig and Secretlondon) without providing a reason [1]. Thereafter, he and Wik engaged in an "edit war," with Mr DiPierro consistently removing the text and Wik consistently re-inserting it. (Offered as an example of the edit wars between the users.) -- Emsworth 21:03, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Some of the articles he's blanked

RickK

First piece of evidence is just a negative -- check Wik's edits and you'll find that he rarely puts any content into his edit summaries, except for "rv". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Wik RickK

I have yet to find another user who reverts so much. From going over the list, I'd say roughly one in every five edits by Wik is a revert or a hidden revert, and with topics dealing with Poland the reverts by far outnumber his contributions. Furthermore what little he does contribute is very POV. Jo r 13:47, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

indication that he would revert Anthony DiPierro regardless of the appropriateness of Anthony's edits
The Sarah Edmonds talk page - Wik edit war and comments on his talk page concerning the edit war:

"So let me ask you, did you know that Danny's reversion was accidental at the time you reverted? -- Cyan 05:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I didn't care. I was reverting anyway. --Wik 06:07, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC) "

Wik's Talk page archive history, in which Jimbo Wales wrote him, "Well, my main suggestion, and not just to you but to anyone, is to avoid just writing 'rv' and reverting whenever you can. Generally speaking, it would be better if you made new edits that attempt to be mutually satisfactory. Yes, I know that sometimes it's difficult. But I feel that you rely too heavily on 'rv', and that it gets in the way of you ultimately getting the changes that you want. Jimbo Wales 21:29, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)"
More of his talk page archive, in which Jimbo suggested that he not revert all the time, and to use more useful edit summaries:

"I disagree that it's impossible to work with him, and I do not agree that 'rv' is sufficient. You aren't even trying, take for example Impressionism. He was making serious edits, and rather than try to accomodate his edits in the least, you just kept reverting. You wanted to add back some information that he was omitting, which is fine, but you were ALSO reverting the ENTIRETY of his changes, which is completely unfair. I think you can do better than that. Jimbo Wales 19:47, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, we just have to disagree then. Why should I repeat the edit summary I gave before? Don't you think maybe he should have accommodated my edit instead of just reverting? I agree my actions on Impressionism could have been unfair if it had been any other user than Lir - but you have to see it in context, he was on a roll of making moronic edits just to seek conflict. For a clear proof of that: he was adding an irrelevant Dutch transliteration of the Russian name of Anton Chekhov and while that edit war was still going on, he did the same thing (adding random foreign transliterations) with Fyodor Dostoevsky and Ivan Turgenev, pointlessly escalating the conflict. He is just back to his old ways. Why did you unban him anyway? Can you please publish his statement that supposedly convinced you he has changed his ways? --Wik 11:39, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)"

Discussion with Kosebamse over his philosophy of edit wars
Edit war involving Wik which caused the article at 2003 North America blackout to have to be abandoned and a new article created at 2003 U.S.-Canada Blackout.
edit war over the Richard Neustadt article
Wik's comments on why he reverted my perfectly legitimate edits on Bush dynasty. See especially " it is not my responsibility to sort out other people's edit conflicts; when I revert, the other one will notice it and ultimately re-add his content properly" and "Usually it is an ignored edit conflict, and I won't accept that, even on the risk that some content is lost"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wik/Archive_September_2003, in which he reveals his philosophy to blank articles he finds unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, rather than having to bother listing them on VfD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wik/Archive_July-August_2003: "I'm not responsible for sorting out an edit conflict which you ran into", "I'm tired of people carelessly overriding my edits. So I'm now reverting in those cases on principle"

Now, let's see how long those things remain in his archives now that they're pointed out here. RickK 05:07, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jor

Stettin edit history. After expanding the article and working together with Przepla to keep the name in the article consistent the article history clearly shows that Wik began his revisionist war. He seems to insist that current German and English names which differ from the Polish ones are removed from articles, or are prefixed by 'former'. Jo r 13:29, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Swinemünde edit history As above, Wik insists on removing info on the German/English names and insists on reverting any changes, removing info only to enforce his "former" prefix. Jo r 13:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Note also in the above that Wik calls me a "revisionist", and in the article talk page Wik calls me Cartman, which as far as I can find out is a fascist cartoon character. Jo r 13:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

SecretLondon’s counter-arguments

However:

[2] on Szczecin. It takes two, of course. My concern with this is that Darkelf as a strong POV on this issue. Of course he would like Wik banned. Secretlondon

Of course. I have yet to see contributions by Wik to the Wikipedia which do not involve revertionism: I keep hearing Wik has actual contributions, but I'm yet to see them. All I've seen of him is his love for edit wars and namecalling. I believe Wik's love for constant reverts and edit wars is detrimental to the Wikipedia as a hole, and for that reason I believe it is best if he is banned. He has proven time and time again he refuses to reason and act like a normal editor. Jo r 22:10, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) (comment edited)

Talk:Swinoujscie - where Morwen points out the German name advocates' misuse of Google. Secretlondon 13:50, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Are you implying that Google can never be used? The the "Polish name advocates" are surely misusing it as well. Jo r 13:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wik on Pila: "I made my point. The Google stats clearly prove that it is not the German name today."

And also More from Wik on Pila: "… can I ask you to unprotect Pila and defend my edit, which I have backed up with Google figures but which Nico and Darkelf, two German-revisionists, like to revert based on nothing but empty claims?" — I invite you to show where in the edit history I ever touched Pila. Jo r 13:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pakaran

Wik seems to troll just on principle. He requested de-adminship of nine en sysops, including several of the most active ones, for a variety of reasons which by and large have not been perceived as that important by anyone else (vigilante blocks of him by two people aside). He then got in a move war with Angela and various other users over where these requests should be kept.

I am on that list; in my case the concern was over 1 sentencein a slashdot post in which I called him an "idiot;" I later appologized for that remark. [3] Pakaran . 18:47, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Charles Matthews

Well, I did some work on 1920 in Germany, which is very long (49K), and had my 'cuts for length' reverted on the grounds that WP has the space (see edit history). I think this is off-putting.

Charles Matthews 14:04, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I also asked a little while back on Talk:1920 in Germany for a comment on whether this is from a PD source (it's written in a rather pompous and old-fashioned academic style). Nothing back on that - I think this means that anyone working on this page may find their efforts wasted because of later discovery of copyvio.

Charles Matthews 11:30, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I asked Wik about that as well. He said it was adapted from the Annual Register of that year. I assume that this is public domain. john 16:40, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interesting to know - I can't agree with your 'excellent' below, since this is source material, in desperate need of wikification, headings, tough editing, removal of obvious bias and so on.

Charles Matthews 19:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Szczecin once again

Szczecin once again was protected. Once again it was protected because of Wik. This time however Wik edited the page despite an effort of resolving the problem of Szczecin/Stettin name via Talk page. Despite the disclaimer pleading for not editing controversial material, and that the discussion is taking place and that current version is not endorsing any particular view. Once again Wik didn't explain why he changed. I am making efforts in order to resolve Szczecin dispute, we are even getting some progress (see Talk:Szczecin), and here comes Wik, don't even bother to discuss and edit as he want. I am very upset. Everybody else interested in Szczecin accepted my plea for not editing controversial topics, but not Wik. I acknowledge that this was another Nico/Wik edit war, but this time Nico was defending community consensus. And Nico explained reasons for his version of the article in change log. Please arbitrators, take Wik under control! Przepla 18:24, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, stop it. If it's on your preferred version, it's easy to accept a plea not to edit it. I stated my reasons long ago, there is no argument I haven't responded to. You're just repeating arguments already debunked, this tactic doesn't fly with me. --Wik 18:29, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Very well. Please show me where on Talk:Szczecin you made an arguments than in German language Szczecin is not named Stettin as was in the article prior your editing but Szczecin? (Hint for who is factually right: Szczecin is a redirect to Stettin). I won't argue with you any further about if I am POV or not. My contributions [4] are speaking for themselves. Przepla 18:54, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You acknowledged it yourself:

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I said in German both names are about equally popular. In English Szczecin is about 30 times as popular as Stettin. --Wik 17:07, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, you are naturally right.Przepla 19:40, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If the two names are equally popular in German you can't say that the one is "the German name". --Wik 19:12, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

So it seems we both err. If both names are equally popular one can not be "former German name", isn't it? (possible continuation on Talk:Szczecin.) Przepla 19:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That Szczecin is used in the German language does not make it any more German than coup-d'état is an English word. The former is of course as much a Polish name as is the latter a French phrase. Former German name is actually something else than Formerly known by its German name.
--Ruhrjung 20:32, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Evidence in favour of Wik

Lir

"Wik doesn't like Lir". --Lir

Quality Articles

He has come up with the following lists of British politicians which are not available anywhere on the internet:

The work involved in these four alone got him 5 wikis an article.

Wik comes up with a list of British Attorney Generals using Who Was Who, Keesing's Record of World Events, Annual Register and others. [5]

John Kenney

Well, let me note a number of lists I started that Wik has filled out, as for instance [12], [13],

I'd also note that, in most edit conflicts involving wik that I've followed, as at, for instance, Gdansk, Wik is essentially in the right. And there's all the copyediting. Wik can certainly be difficult to deal with, but I think he also contributes a great deal to Wikipedia. And those articles on years in German history are excellent. john 19:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maximus Rex

Here are some pages that the article history indicates that Wik is the original contributor.

Since the "new article flag" appears only in Recent changes, and is not stored in the database, there is to my knowledge no easy way to determine what pages a user has created. Maximus Rex 01:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

John

Some further notices. Wik has just aided in turning links to Danzig into pipes to Gdansk, since the former page is no longer a redirect, but a disambiguation page. He's also frequently done a good job making corrections to additions I've made to lists of incumbents. john 06:20, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dori

Wik is great at fixing many little things, too many to list here. For a taste look at User:Wik/Articles. He also creates original content, such as Timeline of Albanian history from 1994 for example. Dori | Talk 02:31, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Cimon avaro

Having spoken in a manner that might be coloured as against Wik before, let me offer an example that IMO illustrates both the best and worst features of Wik at a very few glances. Protecting a page from pernicious POV insertion, but doing it with more industry than consideration or communication. Please note that his action is hardly in a political or personal knowledge based motivation, but truely to protect the integrity of wikipedia:

Viktor Klimenko

-- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:25, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Evidence relating to Wik's complaints

Action against Anthony DiPierro "for being a blatant troll" is considered seperately (currently at wikipedia:requests for arbitration

Regards blocking, I append the relevant sections of the block log:

06:02, 17 Feb 2004 Hephaestos unblocked "Wik"

04:44, 17 Feb 2004 Hephaestos blocked "Wik" (repeated and unceasing inability to cooperate with the community since at least October 2003)

04:40, 17 Feb 2004 John Kenney unblocked "#1795" (unblocking Wik, so should unblock this as well, I guess)

04:38, 17 Feb 2004 John Kenney unblocked "Wik" (giving him another chance - he's not a vandal)

03:30, 17 Feb 2004 RickK blocked "Wik" (Once again vandalizing just for the sake of reverting Antony DiPierro)

09:19, Feb 16, 2004 Secretlondon unblocked "#1775" (unblocking Wik - blocked without discussion)

09:19, Feb 16, 2004 Secretlondon unblocked "Wik" (unblocking Wik - blocked without discussion)

04:29, 16 Feb 2004 RickK blocked "Wik" (Blanking of pages without discussion, reversion of pages only because Anthony DiPierro edited them, too many other problems to merit keeping him around)

02:09, Feb 14, 2004 Delirium unblocked "Wik" (It's been over 24 hours since the temporary block.)

02:20, Feb 13, 2004 Tim Starling blocked "Wik" (voluntary mutual ban of Wik and Anthony, after edit war on VfD)

02:20, Feb 13, 2004 Tim Starling blocked "Anthony DiPierro" (voluntary mutual ban of Wik and Anthony, after edit war on VfD)

20:35, 12 Feb 2004 Jamesday unblocked "Wik" (Implementing view of 4 in IRC that unilateralblock was inappropriate.)

20:33, Feb 12, 2004 Secretlondon unblocked "Wik" (people should not be blocked because you object to thier non-US politics)

20:25, 12 Feb 2004 Ed Poor blocked "Wik" (Edit wars)

06:49, Feb 4, 2004 Delirium unblocked "Wik" (blocked by a sysop exceeding his authority)

06:41, 4 Feb 2004 Hephaestos blocked "Wik" (for incessant edit wars for no discernable reson)

Martin 21:58, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)