Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relevant article disputes[edit]

Please add to. Martin 19:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Mongolia[edit]

See:

See also discussion on user talk:Wik

Cantus argues that Mongolia is in Cental Asia (and some agree with him). Some argue that it is in East Asia. Cantus made (eg) five reverts to Mongolia on 5 May (172 three, Wik three on same day) and (eg) six to Template:Central Asia. Previously four to Mongolia on 27 April. So Cantus is making excessive reverts, but not grossly excessive. In part because people are stepping in to protect the page.

From the literature cited on Talk pages, the placement of Mongolia varies from encyclopedia to encyclopedia. So both options are possibilities. A third possibility is to list it on both.

Wikipedia:Page footers doesn't help much. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes is just informative. These pages or Talk page could be used to try to find out whether it's permissable for a country to have two different footers, which might rule out the "both" option - without that, the only guide is the Russia precedent. Otherwise, there aren't any policies to decide - it's a strict content dispute.

Discussion is taking place, (inc. by Cantus) and it looks genuine, but doesn't seem to be helping very much. Maybe some people are being convinced or partially convinced, and are thus dropping out of the debate, but other than that, no wins. A poll hasn't been tried yet - that might help. Martin 00:33, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Response: First, I was on the intention of including Mongolia only in Central Asia. Then I acknowledged that some people regarded it to be part of East Asia as well. A user had the idea to list Mongolia in both MediaWiki's, and I agreed and proceeded to add Mongolia to both. User:Wik insisted in only including Mongolia in East Asia, so he kept reverting the consensus that was reached to include it in both. In those cases I was only reverting to the agreed version. --Cantus 03:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Europe[edit]

See history.

MediaWiki talk:Europe has discussion, and the start of a poll which, in all likelihood, will generate sufficient consensus to close the matter. Seven reverts by Cantus in a day (5 May). Cantus has discussed some (not a vast amount, but not none). Martin 00:47, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I have been totally cooperative with the community in this case. I've helped create a poll to decide which entries should be included. The poll is in the works at MediaWiki talk:Europe, but as of this post, not yet opened. --Cantus 03:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit 9/11[edit]

See Talk page.

Neuromancien said "check this please". Hmm, for what, exactly? Ok, I'm going to ask Neuromancien to expand on his comments - user talk:Neuromancien Martin 00:54, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. Revision as of 18:59, 2004 May 22 was not neutral and was made by Cantus when Michael Moore receives Palme d'Or at Cannes Festival for Fahrenheit 9/11.
again it was not neutral and probably will be used to remove any contreversial thing any artist does !--Neuromancien 05:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
At 01:01, 23 May 2004 Cantus erase all quotes from page Fahrenheit 9/11.
i'm not a vandal : 1) quote is not a copyvio 2)i ask the user before rv (it seems that I was mistaken [User:Guanaco]23:36, 22 May 2004) 3) watch the relevant page others paste quotes too ! only your rv looks like censorship --Neuromancien 05:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
At 01:11, 23 May 2004 Michael Moore page was erased by an anonymous User.
I sent an alert for page Michael Moore and asked Cantus for the quotes deletation.
again you delete my link ! ( it was a short one ) when did you reply ? one week later !
He made more than one hundred posts in the same period and just moved my question without answering.
[2] (point 21 of your talk page now ) you delete also part of my answer here ( see below ) ! --Neuromancien 09:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The coincidence and my confusion came from the comparison of the posts the lack of any answer (and my further readings about vandalism and revert wars from "silent" cantus ). See here for details. i never wrote that it is in front of the section !!!!
Cantus alters ( partial deletation & paste ) my statement HERE and just add his own redirection ( to his own so labelled off-topic ) without his signature ! no more comment ! --Neuromancien 11:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
you erase ( it was not duplicate at this time ) and link to your own comment --Neuromancien 05:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


User Cantus..........................User 66.2.146.153
23:58, 23 May 2004
(17 posts)
22:00, 23 May 2004

10:11, 23 May 2004
(6 posts)
10:00, 23 May 2004

..........................09:37, 23 May 2004 Catherine Bell ( message by 66.2.146.153)

no post
08:35, 23 May 2004
08:23, 23 May 2004
06:53, 23 May 2004
(33 posts)
04:29, 23 May 2004

01:46, 23 May 2004
(12 posts)
01:13, 23 May 2004

..........................01:12, 23 May 2004 (hist) Michael Moore ( same pattern & fast edit as clone see 4 Sock puppets)

..........................01:11, 23 May 2004 (hist) Michael Moore ( fast edit profanities)
..........................01:11, 23 May 2004 Michael Moore (vandalism erase full page)

no post
01:01, 23 May 2004
(47 posts)
19:22, 22 May 2004

Once again coincidence is not an evidence but I hope Cantus will stop erasing contributions so quickly or at least will answer "ridiculous" question next time... sorry for all this waste of time.(bis)
--Neuromancien 07:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
[3] you destroy half of my answer ten minutes after i wrote it ! --Neuromancien 09:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop editing and deleting my words ( smart ) , use show preview for your own posts and answer question next time when you delete and i will not complain anymore CQFD 'I give up ! --Neuromancien 05:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)'

Response: I've removed all my replies to this user. I've had enough. Please don't ask me to put them back in. I won't waste any more time with these ridiculous claims. --Cantus 06:20, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

so easy ! --Neuromancien 04:24, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Schnorrer[edit]

See also Shnorrer, and Talk:Schnorrer

So there's a poll taking place. Hasn't quite followed wikipedia:polling guidelines, but not hideous. Four reverts on 27 Apr by Cantus. Obviously there was the sock puppet thing earlier, which turned out to be Nico. Big war over a tiny dispute... is that actually a problem, though? Martin 01:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Again, I've been totally cooperative with the community here, using the Talk page to try to reach an agreement over what version should be used. --Cantus 03:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Pinochet[edit]

After heavy investigation, I have determined that this is a mess. If anyone who knows about it cares, they can expand on that. Martin 00:16, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response: I've been using the Talk page extensively in this case. --Cantus 03:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty[edit]

See:

What little discussion there is seems to be on User_talk:Cantus#Titles. Martin 15:19, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Martin 15:19, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Other users convinced me I was wrong in my changes and I stopped making them very quickly. --Cantus 03:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true - you continued at it in various ways for several days. You gave up only because there were a large number of people who just reverted you. My problem with Cantus is that on a number of subjects that have clearly gone through a long process to arrive at a consensus (the royalty pages, but also the various mediawiki pages with lists of countries), he simply comes in, makes major changes, and reverts attempts to return to the earlier listing. Frequently, what support he offers comes from referring people to pages which he himself has already altered to mean what he wants them to mean. See his recent attempts to claim that Oceania does not include Australia, for instance (at, I believe MediaWiki talk:Pacific Islands, but don't quote me on that. And, as far as I can tell, these kinds of edits, and the revert wars that follow, are practically Cantus's entire contribution to Wikipedia (Correct me if I'm wrong on that, of course). john k 20:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh... I won't even bother with this guy. Hate seems to come out of his skin pores. Completely misleading comments, totally unconstructive. --Cantus 03:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, quit it, I don't hate you, I'm contemptuous of you, there's a big difference. I don't hate anybody on wikipedia, that'd be pointless. As to my comments, perhaps some of them were unconstructive, and I have not made a secret of my (poor) opinion of you as a wikipedia editor. But I would like to see a response to the fact that you change articles, and then cite unsupported stuff that you yourself wrote to justify changes to other articles. This is exactly what you did at MediaWiki talk:Pacific Islands. You cited Template:Continent, which you yourself had changed to say that Australia was not part of Oceania to prove that Australia should not be listed as part of Oceania on Template:Pacific Islands. That's just completely dishonest. john k 04:33, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment of Wik[edit]

Eg vandalism of Wik's user page on two occasions:

See:

In retaliation for Wik doing the same to User:Cantus, it seems. Cantus says "see this earlier edit".

And there was the 12 Apr harassment on user talk the arbcom noted previously (inc. while temp-banned).

Cantus doesn't appear to have edited the pages like user talk:Wik/Talk that Wik objected to. There's a dodgy removal of one of 172's comments on user talk:Wik on 16 Apr. Also, there was the 11 Apr edit war with Wik and Danny on user talk:Wik - 15 reverts.

Wik's alleged a greater amount of harassment than I'm seeing so far, probably due to incorrectly believing that Augusta was Cantus.

Some unpleasant edit summaries, including:

  • "Ban Wik for a FUCKING year" on Central Asia
  • "Does Wik have a life? Are you jobless? Girlfriendless? Or are you just plain pathetic to be here all day?" on East Asia
  • ...

Martin 01:37, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I'm guilty of the removal of User:172's message from User:Wik's Talk page, which I thought was unfair and uncalled for. The other edits were me trying to add some formatting to Wik's Talk page, which seemed to be a big mess. Wik obviously didn't like this.

User:Wik claims that Augusta reverted on the Ethics article. The fact is Nico was Augusta, and he has confessed. --Cantus 03:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding criticism[edit]

As a third party, what you did at User_talk:Wik comes dangerously close to censorship. I suggest you either desist or explain yourself when you make these kinds of edits. -- Dissident 23:54, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cantus removed this in a minor edit, with no edit summary. Dissident is referring to the removal of 172's comment noted above. Martin

Response: See above. --Cantus 03:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Also [6] (this was a byproduct of the temp-ban and edit war over Wik's user talk page, above). Martin 01:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Response: According to User:Danny, I am allowed to remove messages from my Talk page. Many other users seem to agree. I was actually banned by Danny because he was removing my comments from his Talk page and I was reverting to put my comments back in. He stated there that users should be allowed to remove content they disliked from their Talk pages. I was just following an admin's advice. --Cantus 03:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets[edit]

Some were used and admitted earlier (eg "kiw", etc). But there've been allegations since - eg user:Quagga. I've asked Cantus on his user talk page, but Quagga and Cantus deny that there's any connection.

Neuromancien asks "is User Nico (a ghost or a clone ?)". Cantus denies that (see below) - not seen any evidence yet that they are the same person.

Martin 12:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

i just observe that Cantus wrote User:Nico not User:Nico as usual and i watch Page Nico he is obviously not a fair user or at least he vanished ( just trace his last comments ... ) I never say it was Cantus himself. --Neuromancien 12:44, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I'm simply not User:Quagga. The only other sockpuppet that's not listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2/Evidence#Regarding_Wik's_complaints which was me was User:Hoytter. --Cantus 03:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Since Cantus has elsewhere asked me to JUST SUPPORT HIM FOR ONCE, or some such, I'll note that User:Quagga would appear to be the new name of User:Dagestan, and thus, presumably, not Cantus. User:Nico is certainly not Cantus. Nico is basically interested in the question of German expellees from Central Europe. As far as I'm aware, Cantus has no particular interest in this issue. I would, however, note that Cantus has sockpuppeted from various anonymous IP addresses, using them to make comments on his own banning and referring to himself in the third person. john k 06:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I would note further that Hoytter and 66.2.146.153 had the same "patterns" (three speed re-edit in mins on the same page , one unique connection just after 01:00 AM for resp. 24 & 23 May 2004 ). ( see Fahrenteit 9/11 section's history : Cantus also obviously used "fast re-edit" more than "show preview" )--Neuromancien 04:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*sigh* --Cantus 01:02, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Inappropriate blocks[edit]

172 also didn't like [my formatting of Wik's talk page] and banned me for 3 days over this formatting to Wik's Talk page. User:RickK subsequently banned my whole IP range. I opened two requests over at Wikipedia:Requests for review of administrative actions because of this unfair action. --Cantus 03:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and rude statements in edit summaries[edit]

Cantus has also made personal attacks and rude statements in his edit summaries.

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] are just a few examples of this. This also is not an appropriate use of the edit summary, as it does not explain what the edit was. Guanaco 04:34, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Oh my god... paranoid *and* sensitive. You should see the edit summaries of certain admins. --Cantus 09:03, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

In conclusion[edit]

Evidence strongly shows that it is very likely that you can accuse me of excessive reverts, but not of refusing to discuss with the community to attempt to resolve these issue and reach consensus. --Cantus 03:54, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

While it is undoubtedly true that Cantus may in certain circumstances be willing to discuss matters with others, it is also accurate to suggest that in some cases he has prevented others from doing the same by deleting comments (as noted in the above "Hiding Criticism" section). -- Emsworth 00:46, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus/Evidence&oldid=431098648"