Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/GzornenplatzBlock

The following requests were posted on the Talk pages of at least three arbitrators, User:The Cunctator, User:The Epopt and User:Jdforrester, and have had no effect. As any editor can see, the reverter in question - User:Gzornenplatz - has already been arbitrated for reverting against consensus and without discussion but continues his behaviour, and for some reason the arbitrators named don't feel like doing much to apply their rulings, so I am posting this request here again. -- Simonides 00:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) PS Please also see this page and protect that too.


 * Hello, I originally posted this (slightly modified) comment on 23rd December on the Talk pages of User:The Epopt and one other arbitrator. There seems to have been little or no effect (ie perhaps a 24 hr block was placed but the reverts continue), so I am requesting you or any other arbitrator to take some long-term action that will prevent Gzornenplatz's constant hijacking of Wikipedia pages to prove a point (see the post with links for more detail.) -- Simonides 02:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, according to this remedy (i.e. the fourth) in the recently closed arbitration case against Gzornenplatz et al., the arbitrated editors are required to discuss pages before making reverts to them, or risk being banned. As you will notice from these links, mentioned before on the evidence page, Gzornenplatz - while restricting himself to one revert a day - has in fact continued to revert without discussion for a number of consensus-arrived image-articles during and after arbitration, effectively making 20-30 reverts a day every few days, and causing other editors (ie me and a couple of others) a lot of uneccessary, time-wasting work over the past 2 months; if this could be stopped as soon as possible, it would be much appreciated. -- Simonides
 * 


 * I discussed this with Neutrality (an arbitrator) on IRC, who told me that a separate block could be applied for each infraction. I count 56 clear infractions of the arbcom ruling on those image pages, for a total block time of 56 days according to the arbcom ruling.  I welcome other comments from Gzornenplatz, interested users or arbitrators before applying this measure. silsor 01:27, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * What is the infraction? This is one and the same issue covering many pages so the discussion hardly needs to be repeated on each talk page. I have discussed it long ago on Talk:India, where my objection has not been refuted. Simonides is plain lying that his position is consensus-arrived (see for example John Kenney's comment that I am "clearly right" on the issue). (As I said before to the deaf ears of the arbitrators, the whole arbitration ruling is based on this fallacy - I have always discussed every issue, I'm just not repeating the same point on dozens of talk pages when one and the same issue affects many articles, like the issue of the former German names of the Polish cities etc.) Gzornenplatz 01:43, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the opposite of what the arbitrator told me, so I'm waiting for further comments from others. silsor 01:47, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are going by number of reverts after arbitration, Gzornenplatz reverted these pages once again after I requested protection, so instead of 2x28=56 reverts since arbitration, he has made 3x28=84 reverts. -- Simonides 03:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Not 2*28, some were reverted 3 times while others were reverted 1 time after arbitration. silsor 03:25, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Blocked Gzornenplatz for 24 hours as per arbcom decision. silsor 18:40, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

 * Silsor: thanks for entering the discussion. Let's break this down to keep it simple.


 * 1) Since Gzornenplatz has accused me of "plain lying" may I remind him that it's an ad hominem and yet another infraction?
 * 2) Since he pretends to be completely honest, may I ask why he links to just one comment that backs him up, posted about two weeks after the actual consensus discussion, and ignores all comments directed against his actions?
 * 3) Since he claims there was no consensus, may I ask why his edits have been reverted by User:Poccil (see ) and on various other pages, also by User:Hemanshu, User:Kunjan1029 and User:Nichalp?
 * 4) Since he claims that the current consensus map is POV, why doesn't he try to correct it by creating a new map that is NPOV which he should present for consensus, as other editors did? Does he agree
 * 5) That the CIA map is even more incorrect and POV than the current map?
 * 6) If the current map is POV and without consensus, why doesn't he also revert the other image on the article Image:IndiaTest.png which was created well before I was an editor on the article and uses the same colours and similar wording, and which reached consensus earlier?
 * 7) If the image has not reached consensus, why does there seem to be agreement on the current map among several users, and why was he requested not to revert images by User:Kunjan1029 and User:Ashwatham on this page?
 * 8) If he thinks the CIA version is the consensus version, how come there is consensus against it here - again, before I entered the debate on this article?
 * 9) If he has in fact "discussed" the issue, why are there so many requests for him to return to the Talk page and a gleeful comment by User:Ankur that he should "(be) kicked out for good" because he "has no regard for consensus" on the Evidence page?
 * I think a satisfactory answer to each of these questions would resolve this issue quickly, but I also think the above user will show little inclination to "repeat" himself again and continue to revert and/or be banned. -- Simonides 02:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (If this discussion's going to continue, at least learn to spell consensus, please). Mark1 08:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Terribly sorry. 3 am is not a recommended time for typography. -- Simonides 08:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Administrators have common sense discretion when it comes to enforcement. Sum up 3 and 28 or 2 and 28 if you want to be sticklers; but such draconian measures are utterly unfair without warning. Gzornenplatz has made more valuable contributions than most admin. I rarely (if ever) see instances where he is in the wrong, at least when it comes to encyclopedic integrity, when he is reverting. Block him for a day with a warning. But give him another chance while he gains a better understanding of the restraints imposed on his editing... If he is blocked for such an unreasonable span of time, I will look into whether or not it's in my discretion as another admin to unblock him because he did not have a fair warning. 172 08:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I did just this, he is blocked for 24 hours. silsor 13:16, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Obfuscation
You haven't answered my question: What was my infraction? Are you seriously saying I have to repeat the same point on 28 talk pages if the issue is one and the same? I have explained the matter previously on Talk:India and unless anyone demonstrates how Simonides' version is NOT clearly POV - depicting as it does the international border according to the Indian government view, whereas the world is generally neutral on the territorial dispute between India and Pakistan - I will continue to revert those images to Morwen's original versions which show the de facto line of control and is thus perfectly neutral. Gzornenplatz 03:25, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have missed the question before. I am not saying you need to repeat the same point on 28 talk pages.  You may have set out your point of view in the past, but the issue of blocking is that as far as I can tell you are not attempting to discuss the issue or reach a compromise, or are even willing to do so at all.  According to Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, "If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page without discussing it on the relevant talk page, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours."  I take your constant and continuing reverting of these articles to be in violation of this.  Due to the scale of the reverting I felt you should get a longer time out, but after requesting clarification from the arbitration committee a 24 hour block was decided on.  If you attempt to continue this line of conversation with right-or-wrong arguments from the Pakistan-India territory debate I will simply ignore them; I am only interested in the Wikipedia community side of this dispute. silsor 03:53, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I also cite from the same page, "Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily, and Ruy Lopez are required to discuss all reverts on the relavant[sic] talk page, with the goal of finding mutually acceptable compromises." silsor 03:56, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * "As far as you can tell" is obviously not good enough, then. I am perfectly willing to discuss. The other side isn't, as the point I made long ago has not been refuted. What exactly do you want me to do, short of just letting Simonides have his way? There is no room for a compromise between POV and NPOV. Gzornenplatz 04:22, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you're asking, "what exactly I want you to do" is to abide by the spirit of the arbcom's decision, which is to actively seek a solution to the problem, which you are not. If you did, you wouldn't get any more "not good enough" judgment calls from me. silsor 04:49, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * And how exactly can you "actively seek a solution to a problem" with a blatant POV pusher? Since you don't want to get into the issue at hand, let me give you a simple example. If some article included some calculation to the effect that 2+2=4 and someone kept reverting this to 2+2=6, how exactly would you go about seeking a compromise there? "Well, let's agree on 2+2=5"? The facts here are just as indisputable, whether you want to ignore it or not. So what more can one do than point out the error and revert? Gzornenplatz 05:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I can see this is going nowhere, so I'll just give you some advice: if you characterise your disputes as black-and-white and deal with them the same way, and if you treat arbitration as a technical measure that simply restricts how many times in a day you can revert, you will most likely end up banned, not blocked. silsor 05:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I can see this is going nowhere, so as long as you refuse to accept that some disputes are indeed black and white, I'll just ask 172, who offered his help, to unblock me next time you block me. Gzornenplatz 06:00, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Gplatz, the way to "actively seek a solution" is by proposing what it is that you want. You claim that the map Simonides is endorsing is POV, but your solution to it seems to be that you will simply replace it by another POV (that of the CIA). That is just crazy. imho (and that of several other editors), the map that Simonides has been endorsing is perfectly NPOV; it clearly highlights the different parts of the region, and mentions which parts are administered by which country.


 * Also, the de-facto line of control is exactly that - a line of control. It is not a border unless accepted to be one by all concerned countries, in this case India, China and Pakistan. None of them have accepted it to be a border, and it is crazy to insist that it is one. What you are trying to do is to solve someone's "POV" (most people seem to think it is npov, though) by imposing your POV on it. The map that Simonides is trying to push does not even claim that the whole region belongs to India - it shows what regions are controlled by who, and leaves it at that. This is in keeping with your own statement that the world at large is neutral about it. If you still think it is pov, you can always mention exactly what it is that you want, rather than constantly trying to impose a CIA version of it. It looks as if there is abundant consensus that the CIA version is as POV as an Indian version or a Pakistani version or a Chinese version. --ashwatha 22:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What is this absurd talk about the CIA? The map simply shows the de facto boundary. What does that have to do with the CIA? I don't care what map the CIA uses at all. The de facto border is not "another POV", it is an objective reality. The version you endorse is clearly POV as it endorses only the Indian claim and goes directly contrary to the Pakistani claim, since the border (the thick line) includes all of Kashmir within India. The colouring does not change this fact. You give the impression that the territory rightly belongs to India, and merely happens to be "presently administered" by Pakistan. That's just as POV as would be doing the opposite and depicting all of Kashmir as within Pakistan's boundaries and labeling the Indian-controlled part as "administered by India". My (that is, Morwen's original) version chooses the obvious NPOV path of doing neither of the two POV options, and just using the de facto line of control, which endorses neither country's claim. Nowhere is it implied that that line is a universally recognized border (if you want, you can label it as "Line of Control"). Gzornenplatz 23:48, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason I (and other editors above) mentioned the CIA was that Morwen's map is identical to the one that is published in the CIA world book. If the CIA had nothing to do with your opinions, I apologize for mentioning it.


 * However, my objections to what you say above still stand. The primary objection to Morwen's map is that it implies that Wiki endorses the areas under Indian, Chinese and Pakistani control as belonging to those countries respectively. That is an idea that is neither accepted nor endorsed by any of the aforementioned countries.
 * India and Pakistan both claim the entire region of Jammu and Kashmir.
 * China claims a portion.
 * Other countries, if they choose to be neutral, would just say that the whole area is disputed and would not accept or endorse Morwen's map.


 * As a result, Morwen's map represents an idea that might become accepted sometime in the future, but at the moment is considered invalid by everyone involved. If you feel strongly about the thick black line in the map, a possible solution might be to have that line in a different color so as not to take a stance on to which country that region "rightfully" belongs. If that is acceptable to you, it can be put up at Talk:India for comments from other editors.--ashwatha 03:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's have the line of control in a different colour, then. It's unacceptable to depict one side's claim in a manner that makes it seem like endorsing that side's view. So, in any case, the border between Kashmir and (the rest of) Pakistan must be depicted in the same way as the border between Kashmir and (the rest of) India. Gzornenplatz 07:09, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * As I have remarked before on more than one Talk page, this is a typical frivolous reply from a time-wasting non-editor. Anyone can see from the relevant images that the current "border" that the above user is uncomfortable with is clearly much thinner than the normal country borders on the same image, and this difference has been applied consistently, so there is absolutely no endorsement of any "side's view" - ie after Gplatz sees that s/he cannot force his POV (and the argument Ashwatha made has been made before on all the Talk pages I linked to, so s/he has no excuse to pretend that s/he didn't see them), s/he looks for another way to extend his revert-warring, this time conceding to a suggestion some one else had to make for him (may I repeat that s/he has never actually attempted to correct and display an image of his/her own that others might comment and agree on, unlike other image editors on the article.) IMO the images should be protected temporarily and/or and the above user or other IP address s/he uses should be blocked. (They were reverted again by an anon IP on 6 Jan.) Also, if the non-editor wants to see the issue resolved, s/he should offer an image of his own for comment instead of trying to force other editors to meet his/her demands. -- Simonides 18:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Simonides, I am not trying to force anyone to meet my demands. I am perfectly happy with the image that you are endorsing, which is why I have not offered an alternative image for editors to comment. I said above that I think your map is perfectly npov; I only said that Gplatz can make that suggestion if he is interested, rather than continually reverting without discussion. Jesus, I am on your side here.

Sorry, I was confused about whether you were talking about me or Gplatz. My Apologies.--ashwatha 03:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)