Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wik

The following text went from a request to some form of discussion, which we don't want, thanks. Summarised at Requests for arbitration/Wik2.Martin 17:09, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
I would like to request the User:Wik case to be reopened based on his continuing damaging behaviour. Jimbo Wales' email is not present on his user page so I request this here. &mdash; Jor (Talk) 19:31, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I second that request. As evidence I cite the history of Atlantium and Wik's user page. Wik presently has a list of "articles needing daily reversion". On Atlantium, he writes: "Anthony, Gene Poole, Bryan Derksen, IMSoP, and Eloquence insist on wording that suggests Atlantium has a serious claim to being a state" which is inaccurate, but that's not the point. The point is that Wik's behavior hasn't changed one bit. Instead of calmly discussing matters on the talk page and seeking compromises, he has simply added a time delay between reverts, even in cases where the consensus is dead set against him.

I propose a more drastic measure. Ban Wik from reverting articles altogether. If he violates that rule, a 24 hour ban can be applied by any sysop. Reverting should also include "replacing a new version with a slightly rearranged older one", as Wik has tried this on Jerusalem to circumvent the three-revert-rule.--Eloquence* 11:41, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Eloquence's request. I am sorry to note that Wik's views have indeed remained unchanged ever since he appeared on Wikipedia, despite an enormous amount of discussion about him and with him. Although much could also be said about his habitual rudeness, the crucial point is his inability to discuss with his opponents and most of all his idea that it is his right to unilaterally declare some version of an article "the NPOV version", which he then defnds by reversion wars instead of trying to achieve a version acceptable to everyone. He thus refuses one of our foundational concepts, namely, NPOV. For over half a year now, the Wikipedia community has tried to convince him, with no success whatsoever. I would like to express my regret that such a gifted and devoted user as Wik demonstrates such a lamentable lack of social skills. However, despite all his useful contributions, we should make it absolutely clear to him that continued violation of Wikilove and NPOV is not acceptable. Kosebamse 13:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * This is once again so "out there" that I wonder if it's even worthwhile to respond at all. But, for the benefit not of Kosebamse (whose mind is set up) but neutral observers:
 * 1) "habitual rudeness" - beg your pardon? I did not call anyone a "pest" as the esteemed developer Ed Poor called me, not to mention the loads of abuse that sysops like Hephaestos or Stan Shebs heaped upon me. But I am rude! (shaking head). I challenge anyone to make a list of rude statements by me, and I will outweigh them by a greater number of rude statements against me.
 * 2) Inability to discuss? Another lie. I made my view clear in all disputes. 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.
 * 3) Reversion wars? Do you forget that any reversion war necessarily has two sides doing the exact same number of reverts, plus/minus one? Yet you defend people doing 20 reverts in an hour as long as they're not Wik.
 * 4) I violate NPOV? What, by such outrageous claims of mine like that the present name of Gdansk is Gdansk? Or that Jerusalem's status is disputed? Or that Atlantium is not a state? Well, I don't know in what parallel universe you live where the opposite is true, but in my universe certain facts are indeed facts.
 * 5) My views have remain unchanged? Yeah, and? So have yours. I guess you're just right and I'm wrong eh? Or what else is so offensive about the fact I'm not bending my views to yours?
 * 6) 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. It's the committee's choice whether it wants serious contributors or people like Jor and Uriber. I'd bide my time until (inevitably) saner governance will be in place. --Wik 14:49, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid you are missing my points, so let me clarify. Regarding rudeness, your challenge misses the point, as it is irrelevant who exactly stars being rude; what counts is not to respond aggressively towards an aggressor in order to avoid wars in the first place. - Regarding inability to discuss, you habitually revert instead of discussing differences of opinion (like in the case discussed here), and while you might call this "making your view clear", it's far from being cooperative or NPOV-oriented. - Regarding reversion wars, I don't defend any reversion warrior; quite the contrary, I accuse every reversionist of failing to act cooperatively, and consequently have blocked many reverted pages as an educational measure; and I find it extremely sad that a talented Wikipedian like you wastes his and everyone elses's time with such infantile behavior. - Regarding NPOV, you violate NPOV by insisting that "a NPOV version" of this or that article already exists and deserves reversion instead of discussion, thus making any real improvement impossible. - Regarding your views, I'd like to clarify that I don't care what you think about Gdansk or any other factual matter; I am however worried that you have refused to adopt the Wiki way ever since you appeared here. - Regarding educational measures directed at you, I am quite convinced that the arbitration committee and the vast majority of Wikipedians would be extremely happy if you used your talents to improve articles instead of making so-called "trolls and vandals" happy by fighting them; and if you crave "saner governance", my best advice is to go to Wikinfo where, lacking a NPOV policy, your views might be more welcome, or to make a fork of your own to govern at will. Kosebamse 16:37, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Just what is the "Wiki way" if someone makes a false claim and is completely impervious to arguments? I violate NPOV by insisting that an NPOV version already exists?? So, Kosebamse says if a version exists that says 2+2=4, and someone comes along insisting that 2+2=6, I am not to revert but to talk and finally agree on the compromise 2+2=5! That's what he calls NPOV, apparently. Well in this case I'm gladly a violator. You must really live in a parallel universe, when, of all things, you accuse me of NPOV violations. I don't know anyone who is stricter about NPOV than myself. "Saner governance" obviously means taking the opposite direction as Wikinfo, and adopting a zero-tolerance policy for POV pushers (Jor, Nico, Uriber), self-promoters (Gene Poole, Daniel C. Boyer), and trolls (Lir, Anthony), and, although that would take care of most conflicts, there should additionally be a panel of experts making binding decisions on the remaining cases of disputed content. It is absolutely grotesque how much time is wasted here on "Polish-German" disputes that don't exist at all in the real world; anyone just needs to look on any current English-language map of Poland to see what the name of Gdansk is, for example. But there are dozens of meddlers who instead of doing the first thing to actually look who's right in the substance, have nothing better to do in such cases than to exhort people to "talk", protect pages randomly (and thus often on flatly wrong versions), and complain about reverts, ignoring the fact that there is no way to convince a POV pusher of NPOV - it can not be done. I could fill thousands of talk pages with Uriber without ever coming to an agreement, but what's the point? So, sooner or later those truths will dawn on enough people here, and it is just a matter of time until the saner governance will be adopted. Forking, of course, will only work in case of extreme misrule. Otherwise, even if a fork were established whose policies would be considered superior by a majority of Wikipedians, the switch would not occur for the same reason that most Windows users do not switch to Linux even when realizing it is a better OS per se (a kind of prisoner's dilemma situation, the benefit arises only if most people switch, so it would have to be coordinated which seems impossible with such a large number of individuals involved). --Wik 17:21, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Alright Wik, all your arguments and evasions have been here before and I see little point in repeating discussions that we have already had for more than half a year. Fact is, the arbitration committee has made a decision about you in order to make you rethink your behavior. You have obviously failed to accept its message, as demonstrated by the call for reversion wars on your user page, and repeatedly violated its letter, leading to 24 hour bans. Eloquence has requested stiffer measures against you, and it is the committee's job to make further decisions. For the record, I would like to note my impression that you have not changed a bit and therefore probably need more convincing arguments to change your ways. I support Eloquence's request. Kosebamse 12:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Alright Kosebamse, you just continue lying and not reading what I said. First of all, what have I "evaded"? Apparently until I agree with whatever you say, it's an "evasion". But indeed, we have had enough discussion before, and it was always you who ultimately left, when you were out of arguments, while I answered everything perfectly rationally. But everyone can judge that for themselves. I just repeat: there is no "convincing" here (unless by good arguments, which you haven't provided yet). The committee can permanently ban me or it can't. Measures such as prohibiting all reversions I will consider a permanent ban. It is the committee's choice to trade a prolific contributor for a bunch of POV pushers who would then have free rein. --Wik 16:43, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Note: continued at User talk:Kosebamse

I'll be moving some of the detailed accusations to the evidence page, now this has been accepted. Martin 21:07, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)