Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wik


 * (Wik | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
Despite earlier warnings and arbitration Wik continues to delight in revert wars, accusing others of vandalism, lying, POV pushing, and general rude and hostile behaviour.


 * Description:
 * Wik is still up to his old tricks, as his edit history clearly shows. For reference see Requests_for_arbitration/Wik and linked pages.
 * New behaviour is an edit war to remove content from Quickpolls following Wik's creation of a quickpoll regarding user:Jor, in response to 19 consecutive reverts by Jor. These reverts were all of an anon who was doing highly questionable edits, and maybe vandalism. Jor later admitted that he acted wrongly in making those 19 reverts. By the time Wik started the Quickpoll there was no edit war as discussion was on talk page.


 * Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links):
 * Edit war on Quickpolls to remove info:
 * ,, , , , , ,.
 * one edit summary was "read the Quickpolls policy, numbnut"
 * Some of these edits were removing a vote by user:Cribnotes, who Wik thought was ineligible to vote. See user talk:Cribnotes. This was explained in edit summaries (eg "rm invalid vote")
 * Other edits were to remove a non-quickpoll Jor tried to start on the quickpoll page in order to prevent a political dispute from spilling over.
 * Another edit was in response to an apparent failure by Jor to properly merge edit conflicts, but in turn deleted info.
 * All edits by Wik deleted info.
 * User:Wik - the very existence of this page is an example of Wik's belief that some articles need daily reversion.


 * Applicable policies:


 * Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):


 * Users certifying the basis for this dispute:
 * &mdash; Jor (Talk) 19:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Cribnotes 05:48, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Other users who endorse this summary:
 * Branddobbe 21:45, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

A response
''This is a response to the allegations above written by an involved user who thinks that the dispute is unjustified. It is not a summary.''

The "prosecution" have notably failed to provide any evidence of any attempts by them to resolve the dispute on quickpolls peacefully. Further, an attempt by MyRedDice to resolve the edit war by moving discussion to Talk and marking invalid votes was immediately successful. This demonstrates a basic failure to follow the dispute resolution procedure.

Accordingly, this RfC is invalid. It should never have been created, and it should be immediately removed. As Jor did not exactly cover himself in glory over the episode, he should reconsider the merits of throwing stones.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Martin 02:30, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Comment 1: This page, along so many other User:Wik-haters' pages in the past, seems to be motivated by trolling and/or POV-pushing more than anything else. Wik has made mistakes, but only the most outspoken Wik-haters (and there are few) could suggest that those mistakes haven't been born out of a passion to make WP into a more professional, quality encyclopedia, not a venue for fiction and inane POV bullshit. And he's often not even concerned with POV, but standardizing the organization, structure, and terminology of WP articles - standards that certain users just fail to grasp. Yet, Wik has made more quality contributions to WP in ten minutes than many of the users who launch continuous ad hominem attacks on him have made since coming here. In my time on WP, almost every sysop on WP has acted in a less than fair way at some time or other. Wik's often been the one who stood up to trolling, bearing the burden for those unwilling. For this he often falls subject to an ad hominem attack fest. But we should be thanking him, allowing the regular lynch mobs. This page reflects WP at its worst. Too bad so many people waste his time. 172 02:04, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment 2: Apologies for editing as a new user, but last edits introduced a very warped view. By adding more (and removing one apparent wrong link) I hope to have clarified the matter as a 3rd party should see it! 211.162.63.171 02:40, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment 3: As noted above, Wik deleted my vote in a quickpoll without explanation. (The validity of my vote was later discussed and settled on my usertalk page.) Whether my vote was valid or not, I do not believe it was appropriate for Wik to tamper with a quickpoll regarding his conduct. If he believed my vote was invalid, he should have posted a note below my vote and requested an admin's intervention. Instead, he took it upon himself to delete my vote. I believe this conduct warrants some sort of reprisal. My two cents... Cribnotes 05:49, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment 4: User Wik is maybe the most visible example of a behavior that both in the short and long run is detrimential for the accuracy and neutrality of Wikipedia. It doesn't matter in how many cases Wik's reverts restores truth, or the world view dominant in Wikipedia, if he fails to persuade and contribute in the consensus decision-making. The problem is not solved by any actions specifically directed against Wik. Wikipedia must find solutions that hamper this kind of unwanted behavior. /Tuomas 08:26, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Sock puppets
Wik is using the sock puppets puppet User:Augustin and User:Augusta (or at least Augustin) to get around the three-revert rule. RickK 09:07, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * If someone wants the arbitration committtee to investigate this, add to Requests for arbitration/Wik2. Martin 18:16, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User page vandalizing
Wik and Cantus (the latter through the use of sock puppets as well) vandalized each other's user pages and talk pages several times in a short period of time; the actions left Cantus banned but not Wik. See Quickpoll.