Although there is a seemingly constant debate about [[User:Wik]]'s conduct, people do not seem to care too much about the consequences of tolerating his behavior. I would like to raise some concerns.
It is not particularly easy to analyse Wik's contributions, as he rarely comments his edits and does a great number of minor changes. It is however obvious that he has a tendency to get involved in reversion wars, is generally unwilling to discuss his views, frequently uses words like "vandals" and "trolls", and refuses to talk to people whom he has declared as such. I had a long conversation with him over a few days (see [[User talk:Wik]], where all the following quotations are taken from) and would like to report my impressions, because I believe that some of the more distressing points about Wik are not too obvious but should be discussed.
Wik: "There is no way to reconcile POV and NPOV". When we discussed this, he has made it clear that he sees it as his right to decide what "the NPOV version" of an article is, and to engage in reversion wars to "defend" it. Wik: "As far as I know NPOV is the community norm, and I am its staunchest defender. And this inevitably (and regrettably) involves getting into edit wars. What is the alternative, just leaving the POV version there?" He refuses to accept that reversion wars create unstable articles, while NPOV measures create stable articles. He refuses to enter conversation with his adversaries and has stated his goal of continuing reversion wars to victory. Wik: "Edit wars aren't endless, at some point one side gives up." Behind this attitude is apparently his conviction that respecting other's views is somehow "POV relativism", as he likes to call it. He also seems to believe that a gradual improvement of an article should not be pursued once he has unilaterally declared what "the NPOV version" is.
Wik has a list of users he doesn't like and with whom he refuses to discuss anything and whom he calls "vandals and trolls" rather frequently. He does not accept the hard-and-fast policy of "no personal attacks" and insists that his use of such vocabulary is purely descriptive. Wik: "I'm always talking, except with those people where it would be wasted time. I'm using the terms vandals and trolls exactly where appropriate."
When some articles where he had been engaged in reversion wars were protected, and others started discussing them, bridging their differences and working on a compromise, Wik outright refused to ever participate in this approach but stated his freedom of reverting any result of their work. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, he wrote: "It is a fundamental misconception to think that edit wars can be solved by protecting the page and telling the people to discuss." This seems to be related to his condescending view of people who disagree with him, as he maintains that once having declared his opinions, further talk would be useless, even while others were now actively debating points that had been the subject of his reversions before.
Wik's attitude towards his fellow Wikipedians is often rather reckless, and he demonstrates disrespect of many of Wikipedia's very foundations (NPOV, cooperation, policies, respect for others, Wikiquette). He has often been told (by Jimbo Wales, Stan Shebs, and Angela to name only a few) that his conduct is not acceptable but I can see no tendency of his to change his ways. Although one may try talking to him, my experience with him makes me believe that he is unwilling to accept advice. He has even declared his will to "make [Wikipedia] less lame or be banned in the attempt". Given that by saying "lame" he seems to refer to our fundamental dogmas, I see little hope that he can be convinced to become more collegial. I do not think that we should set a precedent by continuing to tolerate such conduct.
Kosebamse