Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gzornenplatz

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:04, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Description

[edit]

Gzornenplatz has engaged in frequent edit wars on many pages, including Nagaland and George W. Bush. He has refused, on various notes, to discuss these edits with his edit war counterparts, and has therefore disrupted the Wikipedia (by forcing protection on several articles on which he edit warred). I am, therefore, most respectfully requesting your comments.

Additionally, as I added on October 5, 2004 (around 20:38, UTC), he made a personal attack on Sam Spade's request for adminship, and have therefore modified the diffs and policies involved to include that.

As of 21:38, 6 Oct, 2004, he has also deleted my (Simonides') request for page protection on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection and replaced it with a request to unprotect the page though the current debate on the Talk page is not yet resolved. I believe I called this vandalism, but it may simply be a very bad breach of Wikiquette.

As of 7 Oct, 2004, User:Gzornenplatz has hit four reverts on an article without making use of the Talk page, for the third time in four days, this time on India where a discussion was ongoing.

As of 8 Oct, 2004, this user continues to make reverts on image pages, and continues to make false claims about his behaviour, mostly recently on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, e.g.: he states that he explained his reverts on Talk:India when in fact he joined the discussion a day after it started, and well after the article was protected, and only about 20 mins before posting that claim on the former page. Further, this user never co-operates or contributes in any way to the articles/images that he criticizes, effectively using constant reverts as an MO to get his POV enforced without any editorial effort on his part.

As of 23:12, 11 Oct 2004, this user continues to revert the following images which have reached consensus among other users: India - Nagaland , India - Numbered, and has stated he will no longer engage in further discussion at Talk:India.

As of 18 Oct, 2004, this user has returned to edit warring on India despite consensus on the Talk page among other users, and despite an abritation request (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Gzornenplatz.2C_Kevin_Baas.2C_Shorne.2C_VeryVerily) commenced against him and other users for the same behaviour.

Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. India 3 reverts again, more rude remarks, once again no use of the Talk page despite a request.
  2. [1] - many reverts on Empire of Atlantium
  3. India - Nagaland , India - Numbered - constant reverts, no attempts at offering own version, has ceased previous, frugal discussion.
  4. [2] - four reverts within seven hours, no attempts at discussion despite requests.
  5. deletion of Protection Request, replaced with unprotect request while page unresolved
  6. Another breach of 3 revert rule within a 24 hour period, resulting in 2nd page protection of Nagaland
  7. (20:38, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)) - [3] (personal attack on User:Sam Spade on his request for adminship)
  8. (20:21, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)) - [4] (six reverts [and one de facto revert] between 09:42, 4 Oct 2004 and 15:54, 4 Oct 2004 on Pila, now protected)
  9. [5], [6], [7], [8] (four reverts between 23:32, 2 Oct 2004 and 20:40, 3 Oct 2004 on Nagaland, now protected) - no use of the Talk page until protection enforced
  10. [9] (seven reverts between 21:18, 2 Oct 2004 and 18:19, 3 Oct 2004 on Empire of Atlantium, now protected)
  11. [10] (seven reverts between 18:17, 2 Oct 2004 and 21:33, 2 Oct 2004; two reverts [related to the previous] between 19:13, 1 Oct 2004 and 20:28, 1 Oct 2004 at [11] and [12]; six reverts between 13:32, 28 Sept 2004 and 20:40, 28 Sept 2004; at George W. Bush; protected then unprotected as a result of the first war, still protected due to the most recent war)
  12. [13] (three reverts between 22:35, 30 Sept 2004 and 01:13, 1 Oct 2004; three reverts between 05:39, 28 Sept 2004 and 08:50, 28 Sept 2004; three reverts between 00:36, 18 Sept 2004 and 03:45, 18 Sept 2004 on List of island nations)
  13. [14] (six reverts between 10:16, 27 Sept 2004 and 18:56, 28 Sept 2004; five reverts between 05:24, 23 Sept 2004 and 05:00, 24 Sept 2004; several partial and complete reverts [three, to be specific] between 04:54, 22 Sept 2004 and 10:43, 22 Sept 2004 at Template:Sep11)
  14. [15] (five reverts between 04:07, 22 Sept 2004 and 06:37, 23 Sept 2004 on Enclave, now protected)
  15. [16] (five reverts between 17:54, 1 Sept 2004 and 18:39, 1 Sept 2004 on Henry Kissinger)
  16. [17] (three reverts between 09:31, 29 Aug 2004 and 14:03, 30 Aug 2004; reversions of likely wrong removals by User:Gene Poole, so may not be applicable as "edit wars"; on Sealand)
  17. Piła: [18] (six reverts on October 4 which lead to the page being protected), immediately after the protection has been lifted on October 11 another 21 reverts (which lead to the page being protected again).
  18. Bystrzyca Klodzka: [19] 5 reverts on Oct. 14, without taking part in the discussion or justifying the edits
  19. Poznań ([20]) - four reverts in a row, the page now protected
  20. Toruń ([21]) attempts to insert the disputed version and concealing it as a minor change (no comments on the talk page whatsoever).
  21. [22] - personal remarks and signs of incivility
  22. Attempted to initiate yet another edit war on Sealand [23]. Ignored talk page statement supporting retention of deleted content and reverted without comment [24].
  23. Started a revert war over the disputed version (see: Talk:Pila, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Names issues, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/German names, Talk:Gdansk, edit summaries of the pages in question) despite being asked (and here) several times to participate in the discussion. The pages affected: Hel, Poland, Legnica, Grudziądz, Katowice, Bydgoszcz, Gorzów Wielkopolski, Gdansk, Elblag, Klodzko, Kolobrzeg, Torun, Olsztyn, Lidzbark Warminski, Malbork, Opole, Puck, Poland, Rumia, Slupsk (hidden as minor), Sopot, Walbrzych, Wyrzysk, Zielona Góra
These are really shameless lies by Halibutt. I have discussed this over and over, and it's Halibutt who just refuses to acknowledge elementary facts. Also, how do you figure who starts an edit war? If it's the first who reverts, then Halibutt started them. Gzornenplatz 22:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Also, you might've discussed it over and over again, but why the heck not on the talk pages of the articles you were constantly reverting? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]
Because it's one and the same issue. Why would I repeat that a hundred times? And I am just as "constantly reverting" those articles as you, obviously. Gzornenplatz 23:03, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
1) Because you were asked to 2) because in several cases even your disputed methodology shows that you're wrong 3) Because I declined to play your revert game. Perhaps it would be better to wait until you're banned just like in the German wiki and then revert. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 04:54, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
1) Well, I don't have to repeat something a hundred times for no good reason. 2) Then raise the issue in those cases. So far you have shown only one. 3) I'm not banned in the German wiki, I was merely blocked without process by a rogue partisan sysop. Don't get any hopes here. Gzornenplatz 11:18, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Comment in reference to 16 above: Use of the phrase "likely wrong removals" relating to my edits of the Sealand article is incorrect. I have almost completely re-written this article, and in so doing I have extensively added - not removed - valid content. Gzornenplatz has added no valid content at all, but instead has instituted edit warring by repeatedly deleting valid content or introducing prolific unneccessary instances of scare quotes. --Gene_poole 22:05, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  1. Just plain nasty remarks (for example [25]) about User:Daeron in the discussions over Papua. Absolutely counterproductive in a situation where except for Gzornenplatz people seem to be moving (with difficulty) toward consensus on how we can proceed. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:42, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Applicable policies

[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Three revert rule
  2. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
  3. Wikipedia:Wikiquette (not really a policy, I suppose)
  4. Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. (22:24, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)) - [26] (removal of Sam Spade's request for Gzornenplatz to remove the "troll" reference on RFA; refusal to follow "no personal attacks")
  2. [27], history edit summaries (Nagaland),
  3. [28], [29] (George W. Bush)
  4. Talk:List of island nations, various pieces of evidence that Australia is, in fact, an island nation
  5. Template_talk:Sep11
  6. Talk:Enclave
  7. Talk:Katowice - Gzornenplatz failed to respond to my questions and objections (5 days old now). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. ugen64 02:04, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC) - I warned Gzornenplatz about the personal attack, and pleaded with him to stop the revert wars at George W. Bush and Nagaland. However, his remarks were to the extent of "if the other user doesn't stop, I won't either." This is, incidentally, in contrast with some other users, who have unilaterally (and most respectably) stopped editing a controversial page that they were previously edit warring on, to take a breath and try to come up with a consensus.
  2. GeneralPatton 02:11, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. VV 02:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) It's only fair to add however that the 3RR still (contrary to name) merely has the status of a guideline.
  4. Sam [Spade] 22:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) Personal attacks make the wiki a less pleasent place to be a volunteer. Deleting my complaint on his talk page only compounds the insult.
  5. -- Simonides 20:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) - a rude user who ritually avoids mutual work or discussion on an article, or Wikipedia protocol, and prefers reverts to constructive/ correctional editing.

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:11, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
  2. Mike H 06:25, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:54, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  4. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Space Cadet 19:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response

[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

I would be all too happy to follow the three-revert rule, provided it is enforced against everyone. I did follow it for months, only to see that nothing happened to those who don't, such as VeryVerily and Gene Poole. The description above is false, it is not me who has refused to discuss things. On Template:Sep11, for example, I explained my edit, I responded to comments by others, but my opponent in the edit war, VeryVerily, did not explain his edits in the slightest. On Nagaland, Simonides, without doing the slightest to explain his edit (i.e. he didn't say what he thought was wrong about the map which he insisted on describing as inaccurate), instead asked me to prove a negative (when I said there is nothing wrong with it, he said "prove it")! Gzornenplatz 02:38, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC) Ugen64 is now on a strange crusade against me. The supposed "personal attack" is my stated opinion that Sam Spade is a troll. The same opinion of course has been expressed in an even stronger way by sysop RickK, which Ugen apparently doesn't mind. Gzornenplatz 20:53, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. VV 06:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) Mostly agree. I stopped following the 3RR in April when it was not enforced against 172 while I was complying with it, and that was when we had quickpolls to enforce it! Gz's assessment of Nagaland seems sound; I don't know what the hell Simonides was on about. Of course we part on T:Sep11 (where (a) his edit was absurd and (b) I knew from experience all the discussion in the world wouldn't stop his edit warring - I guess part of this complaint), and he didn't try to defend the others.
  2. Ambi 12:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) I have my differences with Gz, but most of the others are at least as guilty, if not more so, and it seems things have only descended this far due to the lack of enforcement of the 3-revert rule. The rest of the evidence here is appears to be a bit of a stretch.
  3. If "SamSpade" is involved I am with Gzornenplatz. Thank you. IZAK 22:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. 172 18:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Outside view

[edit]

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.

It is never proper to engage in edit wars and Gzornenplatz shows a history of doing just that, so I do not disagree with the main complaint. That being said, other users have exacerbated the problem by themselves participating in edit wars with Gzornenplatz. Frustration is no call for exhibiting the same behaviour as what Gzornenplatz is being accused of.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Netoholic @ 02:28, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
  2. —No-One Jones (m) 12:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Michael Snow 22:19, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) I removed User:Davidcannon from the statement regarding Nagaland above, as it's hardly fair to lump him in based on a single revert that preceded the main edit war between Simonides and Gzornenplatz. Otherwise I agree that it generally takes two to edit war. Since some of the recurring participants say they would abide by it if it were enforced, I think it might be time to reconsider enforcing the 3-revert limit with 24-hour blocks.
    • Although I would have in the day, I would certainly oppose such a measure now. It will never be done impartially, and anyway the 3RR just gives the game to the majority (mob) with little incentive to accommodate other views (not to mention sockpuppet armies). VV 00:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Samboy 22:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) As an aside, I need to point out that User:Gene Poole is undergoing arbitration against me right now; this does not excuse Gzornenplatz's behavior, of course.
  5. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:48, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
  6. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:37, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
  7. 172 23:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Though I think the statement above is a bit too hard on Gzornenplatz. The people who created this page are really the champion edit warriors; Gzornenplatz is hardly a match is them.)
  8. Tuomas 11:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) Wikipedia's ways of handling disruptive users don't work very well, and this is just yet another example of how indulgence for 172 led to increased problems with VV, that in turn lead to further increased problems with even more. It's soon time to find a good solution to the problem. /Tuomas 11:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Excuse me, what have I had to do with this? I am a professional historian who mainly writes articles, and I have had little to do with this mess. Yes, in the Spring I got into a dispute with the user whom you mentioned above about the Pinochet article, but I found that it wasn't worth my time to try to improve that article; since then I have not crossed paths with that user. I object to you drawing that association between that user and me. 172 01:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Obviously also academics are capable of inducing contempt for wikipedia:civilty in less experienced users. And when the damage is done, it's done. I'm sorry to have had to single out a particular academic here. /Tuomas 04:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    I think Tuomas makes a brilliant point RE: the issue of rogue admins. IMO this is the single greatest danger to the project, for just the reasons he mentions. Sam [Spade] 22:41, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Temporary injuntion by the arbitration committee

[edit]

1) Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorised to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

2) Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, and VeryVerily are banned from reverting any article more than twice in one 24 hour period whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops are hereby authorised to enact 24 blocks for violations of this.

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. --mav 11:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gzornenplatz&oldid=1138660584"