Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722

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 with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: 14:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description[edit]

Since mid-March, User:Pat8722 has engaged in a revert war of the intro to libertarianism. Pat's preferred intro is strangely-worded and repetitive. Several users have responded to his complaints and discussed problems with his proposed intro. Although we have compromised with Pat by replacing words he feels create "circular definitions", he continues to revert war. Generally he reverts three times on most days, staying just within the limits of the three revert rule. A straw poll on the talk page resulted in five votes for the version Pat dislikes (User:rehpotsirhc, User:Serge Issakov, User:Cadr, User:RJII, User:Rhobite) and zero votes for Pat's version (Pat declined to vote).

This is no longer a content dispute. The debate is going nowhere, and there is a clear consensus against Pat's version of the intro.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. March 31: [1]
  2. April 3: [2]
  3. April 4: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] - 6 reverts within a few hours. Pat was blocked for this 3RR, and since then he limits himself to exactly three reverts on most days.
  4. User:William M. Connolley blocked Pat for the 3RR. WMC is uninvolved: he handles many 3RR requests, and does not edit the Libertarianism article. Despite WMC's unbiased status, Pat accused WMC of blocking him for political reasons, called him a "coward", a "liar", and "incompetent". [9]
  5. April 8: [10] [11] [12]
  6. April 10: [13] [14] [15] - three reverts within six hours
  7. April 11: [16] [17] [18] - three reverts within two hours
  8. April 15: [19] [20] [21] - three reverts in less than an hour
  9. April 17-18: [22] [23] [24]
  10. April 20: [25] [26] [27] - three reverts within an hour
  11. April 21: [28] [29] [30] - three reverts within ten minutes
  12. April 23: [31]
  13. April 25: [32] [33] [34] - three reverts in a little over an hour
  14. April 26: [35] [36] [37] - three reverts in less than a half hour
  15. April 27: [38] [39] [40] - three reverts in less than a half hour
  16. Pat also tried to modify Wikipedia:Vandalism so that "circular definitions" would be considered vandalism, which he believed would give him a license to revert endlessly at libertarianism: [41], [42]. See talk page.

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

  1. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule: "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."
  2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Talk:Libertarianism has pages and pages of people trying to explain why Pat's version is not optimal.
  2. User talk:Pat8722

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Rhobite 14:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cadr 15:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 15:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Serge 15:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. RJII 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. Saxifrage 01:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Note that I have just blocked the user for 24 hours. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This behavior is inappropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

[01]As shown on the libertarianism talk page, I am reverting a circular and false definition. Circular "defintions" are not "definitions" at all, as they are grammatical nonsense. It is disputed whether such nonsense is governed by the present wikipedia:vandalism policy, but I believed it was (and still do), so I reverted more than three times one day, as permitted under the vandalism policy. I have since discovered that there is at least one administrator (talk:knowledge seeker) who does not consider "nonsense" in the form of a circular definition to be "nonsense" under the present wikipedia:vandalism policy, so I was left with no choice but to limit my reverts to three a day, which I have done, to avoid being (unfairly) blocked by said administrator, who I believe clearly is not using a literal interpretation of the wikipedia:vandalism page, as explained on talk:vandalism page, and the talk:knowledge seeker page (knowledgeseeker does lots of reverts of his talk page, making it difficult to follow things, and hiding legitimate criticisms of himself, so you may have difficulty following the argument there).

[02]The definition I revert from, MUST be reverted from, because it is not a definition (see definition of "circular definition" at [[43]], which I again pointed out to the others at paragraph numbered [113] on the talk:libertarianism. Only rehpotsirhic responded substantively to paragraph [113], and indeed proposed a definition that is not circular. But the others would not comment on his proposed definition, and have failed to respond with other than personal insults and threats, hence no consensus could be acheived, and the bad faith of the other editors is again made manifest. Instead of responding substantively to substantive questions, Serge, in particular, makes insults, and unilaterally reverts, and now asks for mediation, when what we need is his substantive response to paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235]. Serge has apparently requested "mediation", rather than responded substantively to paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] on the talk:libertarianism, because he knows he is logically boxed in. He cannot respond to paragraph numbered [113] which requests that he "produce a sentence that you believe defines 'libertarianism' in a way that substitutes for the phrase 'the same liberty' with whatever you mean by 'the same liberty'", because he KNOWS his (he has "adopted" it) definition is circular (i.e. nonsense), and that therefore NO SUCH SUBSTITION IS RATIONALLY POSSIBLE. He doesn't respond to the question as to whether rehpotsirhic's proposed definition is the equivalent of his own (which would do much to help us achieve consensus), because that is getting too close to permitting use of a non-circular definition, which he is doing his best to prevent.

[03]The debate is ENTIRELY a content dispute, as the unanswered paragraphs show. There is absolutely no basis for alleging there is a consensus (see wikipedia:voting is evil), as a vote does NOT achieve consensus, and as my substantive concerns and questions still go unaddressed, particularly by serge, whose malice has been evidenced throughout the talk page by his ridiculous arguments that dictionaries should not be used by libertarians, by his unilateral reverts, by his claiming there is a consensus when it is obvious there isn't one, by his failure to respond substantively to substantive questions and concerns,and by his responding with insults rather than substance, and by now seeking mediation where paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] are still awaiting his response.

[04]As to the charge on this page that my proposed defintion is "strangely-worded and repetitive", that belongs on the libertarianism talk page, and has not been given an real airing there. The allegations would have to be substantive and substantiated, i.e. alleging my proposed definition "uses words in other than their dictionary sense" (pointing out the specific words), "is grammatically incorrect" (pointing out the particular rule of grammar), and must identify words alleged to be "strange" and to then show that they really are strange, etc. Mere unsubstantiated insults do nothing to help achieve a consensus and indicate the bad faith of the editors who make them.

[05]The libertarianism page is important, because young people come here for information, and they have a right to know what the word means, and they have a right, just as do I, to an answer to the questions and concerns of paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235], particularly by the persons (rhobite and serge?) who brought this dispute here, without even answering on the talk page, as required to do.

[06]As to the alleged "Evidence of disputed behavior" section above, my reverts and edits were were justified on the talk page, so there is nothing against wiki rules here by me, but by Rhobite and Serge who rfc'd this without responding to paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235].

[07]As to the "Applicable policies and guidelines", it is the others who have violated the 3RR rule by UNILATERAL reversions, FALSELY claiming consensus when there was none (see wikipedia:voting is evil), and who have violated the Wikipedia:No personal attacks rules by responding to substantive questions and comments with mere insults, most especially Serge.

[08]As to the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section, the talk:libertarianism page shows my questions have largely been sidestepped, and ignored, with rehpotsirhic making the only real effort to respond substantively in the "Discussion of Rhobite's proposed definition" section ', to paragraph [113]. But he was the only one, and that discussion is not over.pat8722 03:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by User:Dalbury[edit]

I have not been involved in editing the Libertarianism article, but I became involved on Pat8722's talk page after seeing the following posts to User talk:KillerChihuahua: [44], [45], [46], [47]. I tried to engage Pat8722 in discussion on his/her talk page, but found his/her attitude to be very combative, and his/her understanding/interpretation of Wikipedia policies to be far from consensus as I understand it. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 15:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Endorse. --Serge 19:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Combative is an understatement. Incidentally, if I have removed criticism of myself from my talk page, I would appreciate a diff showing when I did such a thing; I don't believe I have ever done this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Responses moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pat8722#Discussion of outside view by User:Dalbury
  5. JoshuaZ 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cadr 14:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Minun Spiderman 19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Gray Porpoise 01:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Saxifrage[edit]

I have only encountered Pat on his Talk page, via his comments on someone else's Talk page (probably Knowledge Seeker's, though my memory fails me on that). I will restrict my comment here to evidence of his conduct on his Talk page, however from his behaviour there and his contributions Wikipedia talk:Vandalism, as well as my review of the evidence above, I have concluded that this idiosyncratic approach to editing is systematic and problematic. (Note: I have endorsed the separate summary of the dispute above after reviewing the evidence and some of the history of the Libertarianism article.)

Pat has shown a persistent and deliberate ignorance of policy and insists on using his own definitions of words to assert that everyone else is failing to comply with policy. He has justified persistent removal of warnings from his Talk page by calling them "piling on" and "nonsense". In particular, he has tried to use the tactic of asserting something is nonsense to bring it under the jurisdiction of Wikipedia:Vandalism, despite statements [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] that neither his definition of nonsense or his interpretation [53] of the vandalism policy are legitimate.

Some further notes from reviewing his contribs to his Talk page:

He has demonstrated a tendency for bullying. [54] [55] [56]

He has a strange habit of moving around and modifying Talk comments to add paragraph numbers and arbitrary "reference points". As a result, he confuses his Talk page. Note how the insertion of text that is meaninful only to Pat makes it difficult to understand exactly who said what in response to what.

He has an even stranger belief that there are "nonsense advocates" at work at Wikipedia[57] which is a variant of the WP:CABAL I had not yet encountered. (Note that you have to scroll to the bottom of the diff to see his additions among his efforts to enforce his paragraph-numbering scheme.)

He insists that the burden of proof that warnings placed on his talk page are legitimate is on the shoulders of those who revert his removal of them. [58] [59] [60]

— Saxifrage ✎ 02:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Endorse That's hilarious. RJII 02:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 14:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The talk page refactoring is annoying since it requires going through many difs to just follow what is going on. JoshuaZ 18:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Dozenist[edit]

Usually, the articles on which I spend my time are dental articles which, to no surprise, are relatively constant and free of edit wars. Thus, I was surprised to run into pat8722 in the Temporomandibular joint disorder (TMD) article and the abrasive tone he brought into the conversation.

First of all, he removed from the article the mention of a form of TMD treatment, saying that it made no sense and that the treatment is "bizarre". I interpreted these comments to be based on lack of knowledge of different forms of TMD since most dentists and oral/maxillofacial surgeons know this AND because this is the sort of stuff I have learned in class. As such, I went ahead to find a reference for the form of treatment and inserted into the article.

Then, he stated on the talk page that my assumptions were wrong and he was aware of the form of treatment. Thus, his reason for removing from the article the mention of this form of treatment was because it "lacked context", and he expected me personally to add further context.

What transpired afterwards was a conversation filled with frustration because I continued to offer to explain the different causes of TMD and why various different treatments are offered to fix TMD, but I received only hostility and statements claiming I am ignorant on this topic.

pat8722 has characterized my responses as false assumptions and mindless insults. I truly believe he thinks this because he has a basic misconception of TMD rooted in his comparison of the tmd to a dislocated shoulder when tmd refers to a variety of disorders of the jaw, including arthritis.

In spite of all this, the most problematic part I found was his abrasive attitude, which really discouraged me from trying to help contribute to the article. - Dozenist talk 19:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 19:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC) - Pat8722 recently called my edit to remove information cited to a demonstrably unreliable source "vandalism" at the Temporomandibular joint disorder talk page referenced above. He seems to habitually violate WP:AGF, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV etc. etc.[reply]
  2. David Ruben Talk 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC) - Revert war engaged re converting a list of single symptoms into a shorter list of grouped symptoms, see 20:07, 23 July 2006 edit. Personal attack as to my credibility/knowledge with subsequent edit summary comment of "Shame on you", and when I complained to user, this response on my user page (my multiple objections to that posting given here).[reply]
    • Comment For what it's worth, I find Pat8722's attack on David Ruben's professional credibility to be one of the most disgusting personal attacks I've seen on Wikipedia by a regularly contributing, registered user since I signed up. Though I would not trust my own judgment on the matter given my small history of interaction with Pat8722, I sincerely believe that such an attack deserves a permanent ban, a year block at least. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Arbiteroftruth[edit]

As said by Saxifrage earlier, Pat8722 has shown to be a bit incivil in certain situations, and has gamed the system a bit to serve his own agenda. He has also rejected consensus, which is also not good for harmony. This is not a good thing to do on Wikipedia. While I admit that I have, in the very beginning of my Wikilife here, have done some 3 reverts myself, I am past that stage and I can see the bad thing with that.

With Pat, I think we should give him a stern warning on this, and if he starts doing it again, start banning him. Arbiteroftruth 00:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pat8722&oldid=1149982793"