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
I have only been on Wikipedia for about a week so I don't suspect that my views are going to carry much weight. However, I have spent a good bit of today reviewing some of these edit wars and some of the talk pages so I think I'll put in $.02 worth. Wik, I would say, does not act out of spite, but simply wants to contribute what he can to the wikipedia ensure that the entries he works on are correct.
The problem is he is very stubborn, refusing to even give an inch when he has decided he is correct about something. This does show a sign of immaturity in him, but I would not say that is a bannable offense. He has been in numerous edit wars with various users where both continuously revert each others edits. Wik's attitude seems to be that he'd rather completely remove the contributions that he disagrees with rather than adjusting them to be more neutral (sense that seems to be the major reasoning behind his changes). I have observed that such actions has caused other problems such as portions of articles, that had no reason to be removed, being deleted accidentally.
Obviously this situation should be dealt with in a timely fashion. I think the best answer would be a stricter policy on reversions and edit wars. There have to be consequences to dissuade users from getting into these pointless disputes. I more immediate action to address this situation would be to issue a warning from the site owner (Jimbo I believe) stating that Wik must start using other methods besides reversions for a certain amount of time to see if he can learn to be more [[diplomatic]], leastwise he would be banned if not permanently then at least temporarily.
[[User:T-Money|T-Money]]
----- Original Message ----- From: kosebamse@gmx.net To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 1:28 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wik's views
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
-- GMX Weihnachts-Special: Seychellen-Traumreise zu gewinnen!
Rentier entlaufen. Finden Sie Rudolph! Als Belohnung winken tolle Preise. http://www.gmx.net/de/cgi/specialmail/
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More! +++
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Tim the Enchanter wrote:
I have only been on Wikipedia for about a week so I don't suspect that my views are going to carry much weight.
Well, I've been on Wikipedia for over a year, & there are times when my views don't carry much weight either. ;-) But it never hurts to state them; sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised.
However, I have spent a good bit of today reviewing some of these edit wars and some of the talk pages so I think I'll put in $.02 worth. Wik, I would say, does not act out of spite, but simply wants to contribute what he can to the wikipedia ensure that the entries he works on are correct.
It is true that Wik appears sincere.
The problem is he is very stubborn, refusing to even give an inch when he has decided he is correct about something. This does show a sign of immaturity in him, but I would not say that is a bannable offense. He has been in numerous edit wars with various users where both continuously revert each others edits. Wik's attitude seems to be that he'd rather completely remove the contributions that he disagrees with rather than adjusting them to be more neutral (sense that seems to be the major reasoning behind his changes).
If this your analysis is correct (& I would agree that it is), then Wik misunderstands not only the use of article reverting, but the whole concept of the Wikipedia. Articles are written by consensus, not by the fiat of one or two authors; even when someone insists on inserting an, er, *alternative* viewpoint into an article (as a hypothetical example, let's say a user insists on inserting language into the [[Earth]] article that asserts the Earth is actually flat, & its roundness is the result of a conspiracy), further research to explain the cause of these multiple POVs can actually lead to better content (as in my hypothetical example, a section in that article on the proof of curvature by observation, &c.)
This won't be the result for every disagreement, but the possibility of this beneficial result should encourage all of us to at least *try* to reach a consensus on an article before resorting to other approaches.
And has anyone remembered that the whole point of Wikipedia is to produce something useable for an external audience? When an article is hobbled by two factions reverting each other's work routinely, it is keeping all of the information in that article -- the good, bad & mediocre -- from that audience.
Helping other people is the point of this whole excercise, *not* getting another two-bit ideology in front of the Internet. (And if that is someone's reason for contributing, then make a web page & put your opinions there. It's not that hard to do, & a lot easier to attract people to read it than you might think.)
I have observed that such actions has caused other problems such as portions of articles, that had no reason to be removed, being deleted accidentally.
And has this been brought to Wik's attention?
And then there is the concept of Wikilove. What does Wik think of it?
[snip]
[A] more immediate action to address this situation would be to issue a warning from the site owner (Jimbo I believe) stating that Wik must start using other methods besides reversions for a certain amount of time to see if he can learn to be more [[diplomatic]], leastwise he would be banned if not permanently then at least temporarily.
Jimbo has just posted that he has tried to reason with Wik, & with discouraging results. Obviously Wik isn't aware of the Golden Rule -- "He who owns the gold, makes the rule" -- & that if one disagrees with one of the few rules Jimbo insists on for Wikipedia, one should have at least carefully thought out the reasons for the disagreement.
And I'm disturbed also by his treatment of Adam/Lir. Admittedly, Adam/Lir has an unfavorable reputation from his earlier activities, but all of his contributions I've seen from Adam/Lir in recent months are not the work of a "troll" or a "vandal"; even a cursory reading of his contributions do not support the earlier reputation. To require Jimbo to intervene in order for Adam/Lir to make a single change is unconscionable.
I've said all I can think of on this point. Where do we vote to put Wik under a temporary ban?
Geoff