Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by Silsor
I submit that Wikipedia operates on a spirit of forgiveness, but that forgiveness requires the presence of remorse, which is not present in this case.

28 January
On January 28 I paid closer attention to the Wik/Gzornenplatz deal which I had skimmed over before. It didn't seem consistent to me that Wik would be banned but Gzornenplatz, who appeared to be the same person, was not. I asked some questions on the English Wikipedia IRC channel and was provided with links to mailing list discussions by sannse. I was on vacation at the time Wik ran his vandalbot on Wikipedia so she provided me with these links:.

After looking over some past information, including some vandalbot edits, for about a quarter of an hour I blocked Gzornenplatz with the message: Reincarnation of banned user Wik, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Missing_Wikipedians&diff=9195195&oldid=9123103 and recent discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. The logic that I considered was that Wik is banned (see the second two emails cited above), that Gzornenplatz is Wik (see ) and that bans are on persons, not accounts, so User:Gzornenplatz should also be banned.

Later, Raul654 assured me that the two accounts were in fact run by the same person: Jan 28 22:15:25       Let me state for the record that during our previous arbcom case, the arbcom compiled evidence linking gz to wik Jan 28 22:15:31       and the evidence was about as conclusive a match as we could hope for Jan 28 22:16:11       So really, the question of - Is Wik the same as Gz? is a nonstarter Jan 28 22:16:15       Yes, they are. Period. See also the discussion on the administrators' noticeboard here. silsor 22:39, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

29 January
In 172's evidence section below, he suggests that my action was taken "at random". The Gzornenplatz issue had been tickling me for a couple of weeks despite being very busy with other things, until I finally put two and two together and decided to take action.

In response to 172's suggestion below that I waited until Danny, who is apparently one of Wik's supporters, was gone until blocking Gzornenplatz: checking the relevant logs, you can see that he left after the block was put in place. To the best of my knowledge, he left because I implied that Fred Bauder was a reliable source of information regarding Wik. silsor 00:49, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Even sure, I'm sure that Danny's exit is helping to give this drive momentum. 172 00:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * According to the top of the page, "Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user." Please remove this comment too if you remove yours. silsor 01:09, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Ancient Past

 * Requests for arbitration/Wik2/Decided
 * This is the closest thing to an arbcom ruling on Wik's vandalbot, which consisted of two findings proposed by Fred Bauder that were not ruled on by anybody. These appear to have been added after the case was basically closed.


 * Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users
 * Note that Reithy is declared baned due to a November 2004 post by Jimbo, which suggests that Jimbo's banning power (Which was questioned by Jimbo in the posts regarding Wik) is in fact still operative, and thus presumably was at the time of the Wik incident.


 * and
 * The whole two months (Late May and most of June) because, well, I think reading everything that was said about Wik that month is instructive. Just scan for threads involving "Wik" and "Vandalbot." I would like to suggest, furthermore, that in addition to evidence for a Jimbo-authorized ban of Wik, there is evidence that there was community consensus to ban Wik at the time of the vandalbot attack. There was not consensus for a permanant ban, however it seemed the clear general consensus that at that time Wik was banned. Now, I understand this is a messy declaration. For instance, Mav seemed to claim Wik was not banned at and then to claim he was without the arbcom needing to rule at . However, the general consensus seems to be that he was either banned, or that a declaration of a ban was unnecessary because he had left. Again, barring any determination that this ban has been lifted, whether through a clear sense of how long he was banned for, or through an actual lifting of the ban from some source.


 * 
 * This is Gzornenplatz's first edit. It notably coincides with the start of the first arbitration case against Wik. Without block logs going back that far, it's impossible to tell whether Gzornenplatz was used to evade 24 hour blocks.


 * 
 * This is Gzornenplatz's first edit after a three month break. Posted at June 8th, it coincides with the vandalbot attack, which seems to have indisputably been during a time when Wik was banned, even if for a short period of time. This is thus ban evasion.

Wikipedia:Banning policy

 * Banning policy sets out clearly the 5 ways a user can be banned on Wikipedia, the appeals process that applies, and what the rules are for Reincarnations, jguk 23:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalbot

 * The pages User:Vandalbot and User talk:Vandalbot discuss Wik's Vandolbot activities and provide a copy of Jimbo's email banning Wik, jguk 23:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

List of banned users
To clarify Snowspinner's comments, please know that I added Wik to the list only yesterday after reading two mailing list posts by Jimbo ( and ) which seemed to state clearly that Wik is banned. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 23:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

172
This latest drive to get Gzornenplatz blocked permanently seems to be coming up at random. (Does the timing have anything to do with the sudden, unexpected, and unfortunate announcement by Danny-- his most respected and influential supporter-- to leave Wikipedia indefinitely?) No one will be helped by connecting the sanctions on Wik to Gz. As I'm sure Danny would point out if he were here, Gz is one of our best copyeditors (take a look at his past 500 edits to articles ), and he has been taking great care to follow the restrictions on his editing in recent weeks. (Even his most strident opponents will have to admit that his behavior in recent weeks has been unassailable.) 172 00:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by OneGuy
The only thing I would add is that some people on the admin board have argued that since Wik was banned indefinitely by Jimbo, Jimbo's say-so is needed to unban him. There is no evidence that Jimbo ever banned Wik indefinitely. Even though Jimbo did say that Wik should be banned indefinitely in two very old email posting, Jimbo did not ban Gzornenplatz despite being aware that Gzornenplatz is Wik. The evidence that Jimbo was aware that Gzornenplatz is Wik but did not ban him is in this quote:


 * This comment of yours is the sort of classic that I am sure is going to lead to your banning sooner rather than later. You vandalized wikipedia with a vandalbot, you have lied to my to my face on multiple occasions, and yet you still have the nerve to come here and act like a victim. You've agreed to my compromise on Pila, this is true -- but you say that the other side did not, which is transparently false. Jimbo Wales 09:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The quote shows that not only Jimbo knows that Gzornenplatz is Wik, but also note the first sentence: "This comment of yours is the sort of classic that I am sure is going to lead to your banning sooner rather than later." "Sooner rather than later"? That is sufficient evidence that Jimbo didn't think Wik/Gzornenplatz should be banned at least on 19 Dec 2004 when he wrote that sentence. What has changed since 19 Dec 2004? Why should he be banned now? OneGuy 06:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocking policy lists four reasons for permanent ban:


 * Community consensus that the user should be banned
 * Ruling by the Arbitration Committee
 * Ruling by Jimbo Wales
 * Ruling by the Wikimedia Board of Trustees (which has yet to happen)

Since the above is more than sufficient evidence that Jimbo didn't ban Gzornenplatz/Wik till 19 Dec 2004, on what basis should Gzornenplatz be banned permanently? I found no reference to Wik being banned permanently by any of the four reasons listed above OneGuy 09:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Cantus
I don't know if this qualifies as evidence, but look at this edit and tell me what motivation would User:Gzornenplatz have for suddenly removing a reference of User:Vandalbot in User:Wik's page? —Cantus… ☎   07:58, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted him, just to see if he would revert again, and he did -. Vacuum c 18:51, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, known Wik-supporters Danny and 172 also tried to cover this up. Jordi·✆ 19:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know why they are both still admins. They obviously are not impartial individuals. —Cantus… ☎   23:54, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is my intention that Wik's user pages be left alone Jimbo Wales. The person who added anything on the page clearly ignored Jimbo's wish and is the abuser in this case, not Gzornenplatz for reverting it back to Jimbo's version OneGuy 00:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that was when people were trying to allow Wik to leave in peace. Now that he has (allegedly) stabbed those people in the back by operating a vandalbot, I feel that the question is still open. It would be greatly helpful for Jimbo to clarify this issue on this page. Regarding Cantus's comment, I wouldn't go so far as to recommend desysoping; there is still a (weak) case for saying that the person who sent the e-mail merely claimed to be Wik. Vacuum c 01:39, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Only if we also assume the Vandalbot operator not only claimed to be Wik, attacked the same people Wik attacked, and also managed to perfectly spoof Wik's e-mail address and IP address. It's quite simple really: Wik = Vandalbot = Gzornenplatz. The Sock puppet tag should be added to Gzornenplatz' userpage, and the Vandalbot info put back where it belongs: User:Wik. What we have here is a small group of Wik/Gz supporters who for some reason want to keep up the illusion Wik/Gz did not heavily vandalize and threathen the project. Jordi·✆ 07:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, Jimbo's request that Wik's user page be left alone held good after the Vandalbot attack. Anarion and Vacuum - why did you add this material back onto the page when it had been not there for months, and there is an explicit request by Jimbo that the page remain blank? That material had been gone since Theresa Knott blanked it in Septemberg.  john k 20:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Answer a question with a question, eh? I added it back because it looked (and looks) like Gz/Wik removing evidence against himself, which, given the fact this RfAr case is active, is highly suspicious. Do you deny Wik's vandalbot actions are relevant here?
 * In any case I highly doubt Jimbo's notice should be considered valid, given how vandals/trolls are usually treated here. In any case Wik has not left after his vandalbot attack, so there is no need to pretend it never happened. Jordi·✆ 22:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Daeron
Last April/May John_Kenney & Wik begun a edit war on West Papua and related pages; for reasons only know to them they started a campaign to exclude the words "West Papua" from Wikipedia. Only these two people had this obsession.

Upon returning to the article last month, Gzornenplatz has resumed Wik's obsessive behaviour. There is no other reasonable explanation for his instant dedication to removing the words "West Papua".

Gzornenplatz already had Wik's extremely rare affliction, because he is Wik and has been attempting to continue his bad faith towards Wikipedia and its members.--Daeron 18:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)