Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Wik2

message: I strongly support Wik right now. He is the victim of a concerted campaign of persecution. The real reason is that he impedes the agendas of too many POV users. On top of that, well-meaning users have started attacking him because they fail to see through the bullshit criticism spewed by the POV users who get reverted regularly (and ought to get reverted regularly). The vast majority of time we see an (rv) on the page history by Wik, he's right on. 172 00:03, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I give a mild second to the above, I find it very pleasent when I create a new page, or make an edit on a controvercial article, or what-have-you, and wik comes along and corrects my spelling ;). Once I disagreed with him, and he seemed to have been persuaded, or maybe just lost interest, but my gentle note on his talk was rewarded by a lack of revert. In summary, he does far more good than harm, but the good is ignored, and the bad shines thru like a beacon. Sam Spade 18:55, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, Wik gets into edit wars with "idiots and trolls", as you put it; he also gets into edit wars with long-term contributors and anyone he happens to disagree with, to the point where he's had to be chastised by this committee, Jimbo, and the community at large--following which he has not changed his behavior.  I never said his contributions weren't good, just his behavior. Meelar 22:58, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Nothing wrong with people who may be biased contributing evidence. Just sign what you add, and we'll examine stuff in detail and make our own judgement. Martin 14:22, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: My defense of Wik made on another page still applies here, so I'll move it here. The request for comments-related pages have turned into the Salem Wik Trials in recent weeks. 172 23:50, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 'Persecuted'? How? Can you show evidence of this 'persecution' please? If you are going to blame sockpuppets, then show evidence that I'm behind those suck puppets; otherwise these are are all lies to the community. And if you mean 'persecution' by the one time vandalizing of Wik's page, then I have to inform you that that was only done after he and several other users had vandalized MY page first.  --Cantus 02:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, and if RickK and I are ever agreeing on something, everyone ought to take notice! 172 00:21, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You could both be the same person, for all the difference I've noted. Sam Spade 00:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Please place evidence of Cantus's persecution on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2/Evidence page. Thank you. Martin 01:38, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do and stop all these lies against me. --Cantus 02:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: In defense of Wik

message: (arbitrator's hat) I just want to clarify that I have read your comments, and I didn't move them here because I was disagreeing with them, or dismissing them. However, as a rule we've tried to keep the case page free for statements from those directly involved in the case. If you have evidence to present in Wik's defence, please post it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2/Evidence. If you believe that Wik's statement fails to make key points which will help him in the case, you might want to talk to Wik and ask him to consider rephrasing his comments to explicitly make those defences. Any other questions, feel free to ask. Martin 23:00, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Wik's supporters 

message: In the discussion, Fred cites the statement on User:Wik that Wik's watchlist exceeds 10,000 pages. Fred takes this to be a symptom of Wik's combative stance.  I don't see that it indicates any such thing. It could just as easily be a product of choosing the feature "Add pages you edit to your watchlist" in user preferences. If that's the case (I don't know what settings Wik uses), then I would simply consider the statement analogous to the brag sheet type of information many other people have on their user pages. As I read it, Wik is just saying that he has edited 10,000 different pages. If choosing this setting is deemed inherently "combative", then we shouldn't be providing it as a feature. --Michael Snow 20:58, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Wik's watchlist

message: I don't know where I'm supposed to add this, and I don't have time to get too involved in this process anyway, but I just want to point out that Wik's methods of reversion aren't necessarily symmetrical, because he does not take into account intermediate revisions. In other words, regardless of how many edits have been made, and which ones he disagrees with, he has been known to revert all edits  since his last reversion. This makes progress very difficult, because even changes he agrees with have to be repeatedly remade if they were mixed in with those he does not. - IMSoP 11:15, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of thing (particularly the example) can normally go on the Evidence page - I'll move it there myself shortly, assuming it isn't already there. Thanks for that. Martin 18:21, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: This would be a good place for the community to sign a statement in support of Wik, thanking and congratulating him for fighting on behalf of encyclopedic standards, despite the most obdurate obstacles.
Signed by:
#172 12:01, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Thanking Wik"

message: There is a world of difference between 'Zionist' and 'Nazi' to slander others and using 'troll' to describe someone who is participating in trolling behaviour (defined as using those terms, and starting edit/revert wars). Wik's comments could get him a jail sentence in civil countries — if you can find a court which would sentence someone over calling someone else 'troll' I'd be quite surprised.  — Jor (Talk) 06:05, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Jor, above you called Wik a "Polish POV pushing troll". Here you are saying "Thanking someone who accuses others of being [...] POV pushers [...] s in direct violation of user policy". This seems inconsistent. Perhaps you could clarify? Martin 18:50, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Explained by using equally selective editing as you try to use to 'trap me'. If you cannot see a difference between calling someone who is actively calling for revert wars and is calling others nazis and zionists (Wik) and someone who is sick and tired of that user's accusations and is now recognising the troll for what he is (I), I must question your judgement. I am not 100% just what Wik's game is: he is no simple POV pushing troll like for example User:Gdansk, but rather Wik uses POV pushing as one of his tactics to fight his revert war games. I am no psychologist and will not speculate as to why Wik is playing these highly annoying games.  — Jor (Talk) 22:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: So your complaint is more over his accusations that other users are "Nazi POV pushers", rather than the "POV pusher" accusation in itself? Martin 22:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jor on Wik's personal attacks 

message: (copied from RfA)
Wik's response to the AC's earlier ruling has been a vandalism spree. He says he is is leaving, and I hope he is, but just in case I am formally requesting a longer ban. theresa knott 04:45, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism