User talk:Wik/Kosebamse discussion

Hi Wik - some work has been done about Silesia and Görlitz, and also Nico has gotten involved, so I guess it would be a good idea if you re-entered into the debate on the respective talk pages. Cheers, Kosebamse 08:16, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I still support my last versions and I'm not wasting my time with Nico. Everything has been said before. --Wik 09:13, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

But Nico and szopen have exchanged apologies, removed each other from the problem users and seem to be working together now. It's too early to say what the others who were involved say about this, but your opinion would matter very much. It takes two to tango or to fight a war, and it also takes two (or more) to make peace. Please don't stick to hostility when your opponent is willing to accept a compromise. Kosebamse 09:47, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * There's no need for a "compromise". The article was fine before Nico arrived. He just tries to get as much of his POV into it as he can get away with. He starts with some completely outrageous things, then backpedals a bit and generously suggests a "compromise". I'm not falling for that. --Wik 14:26, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Wik, it takes two to tango. Some people may find your views as outrageous as you find theirs. NPOV is about writing things that everyone can accept, however much one autor disagrees with the others. Please calm down, think it over, and give peace a chance. Kosebamse 15:34, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't accept this relativism. Nico has a pretty obvious agenda, while I am defending NPOV here as in any other place. Just look at 2002 Gujarat violence - in your view I probably should have made a compromise with LibertarianAnarchist there. But I steadfastly defended the NPOV version, and by now that person is about to be banned, as it has finally dawned on some other users that he is only interested in pushing an extreme POV, something that was clear to me from the beginning. Nico is exactly the same kind. --Wik 16:05, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Call it relativism if you like, I would call it openness. I don't want to decide about good or evil, wrong or right etc. - I just would like NPOV to prevail. As Jimbo once said, NPOV is not about an article that everybody agrees with (that would be illusory in politically charged fields), but about one that nobody disagrees with too strongly. I don't want to argue about other people's agendas - as long as people stick to the rules (no personal attacks, if I may repeat it) and cooperate, I would accept that there is a wide variety of opinions on Wikipedia. Of course there are views that are more mature, are expressed superiorly, are better backed by facts, have more followers etc. than others. But these will prevail through discussion in a climate of mutual respect, not through refusal to discuss. Kosebamse 16:46, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * "one that nobody disagrees with too strongly" is illusory too. There is no way to reconcile POV and NPOV. You still seem to refuse to recognize the fact that some people have no interest whatsoever in NPOV. --Wik 17:06, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

It may be illusory in some cases, but it is a goal that we can strive for. Nobody said it would be easy! There are indeed some who openly disrespect NPOV, and I don't want to be too lenient with these (it was my initiative that got Khranus banned this week), but there are others who just don't understand or trust NPOV, or are too much in love with their own opinions. That's o.k. to some degree, and perhaps it's not even desirable to be too neutral about one's own opinions - after all, love can motivate you to great deeds. But it is these less-than-perfect Wikipedians (AKA normal humans) who need everybody's respect, because otherwise they won't cooperate. I doubt that Wikipedia would ever have gotten off the ground had it relied only on Buddhas and Jesuses who never quarrel, or on reputable scholars who understand their field so well that they need no counterpart to write encyclopedia articles. I am convinced that Wikipedia can very often deal with strong opinions, but not with refusal to cooperate. It is not my or your or their Wikipedia, it's ours. Kosebamse 17:52, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think Nico is any more useful than Khranus. --Wik 19:06, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

How does that agree with the fact that he is now talking with one with whom whe strongly disagreed, and that they have apologized, and stopped shouting at each other on the problem users page? Many people would not have expected that from him. And many people, I guess, would not expect that you apologize and talk instead of revert, complain, revert, complain. How about proving them wrong? Can't you see that you are being given a lot of leeway? Intelligence, knowledge and motivation are very fine and valuable, but cooperation is equally important. Kosebamse 19:23, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * What should I apologize for? Cooperation with vandals is not helping the Wikipedia. --Wik 19:37, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

You could apologize for calling people vandals without hesitation or second thought, for example. Or in general, for being confrontational when there would have been other ways. I know it can be hard to stay cool and assume good faith when confronted with people writing garbage or being aggressive. But as you might learn from how people tend to deal with you, it does not help much to always insist on being right. Sometimes you could just try to forgive and forget, even if you are convinced that you have been wronged. That way you would probably gain a lot of respect without making much fuss. Kosebamse 19:53, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC) And by the way, I'm going to bed now. But lets talk tomorrow. Goodnight. Kosebamse 20:12, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * You might as well apologize for accusing me of things I don't do. It's not me who's throwing around the word "vandal" liberally. Those I do call vandals are ones I have no doubt about. I can't help it if other people take longer until they come to the same conclusion. Assuming good faith is what you do in the beginning when you meet someone - then, however, when you deal with that person for a while you see someone's good or bad faith and you don't have to assume anything anymore. Apparently you just haven't followed the goings-on at Silesia and elsewhere long enough to know what Nico has been up to. I'm here to write an encyclopaedia, not to be respected by those who have other goals. --Wik 11:39, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * "Assuming good faith"? Wik you rarely assume that initially from what I have observed in your edits ...  IMO, you don't assume anything, but label ppl quickly as "vandals" when thier edits don't fit into your POV (as your repeated rv's, edit wars, and the otherwise uncompromising POV edits show) ... since my inital interactions with you, i've watched some of your edits and see a cycle ... [no need to reply as it will be a denial and probably an attack on me; so save the space] Sincerely, reddi


 * Note to others: See Talk:August 2003 where both Ann O'nyme and Jtdirl have agreed that Reddi's "homicide bombing" nonsense amounted to vandalism. Reddi is clearly a vandal, much like Nico promoting his political views in conscious violation of NPOV policy. --Wik 13:28, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * "homicide bombing" has alternate meanings which you (and others [among which is Jtdirl [who is antiUS]]) refuse to accept ... it was 1st used to describe a fundementalist christian bomber that killed ppl in the US and has that meaning. As to labeling me a vandal, see the vandal page on that account (and how quick wik was to label me as such). reddi

Wik, after all it's your decision how you want to treat others, but please don't complain if Wikipedians judge you by your social skills as well as the quality of your work. Did you ever wonder why so many highly gifted and productive people are never discussed at problem users while you are a seemingly constant topic there? Did you ever consider that this might be because people view you as a tad uncompromising, or less than cooperative, or self-righteous? Did it ever dawn on you that you might gain everybody's respect by showing a mature attitude when confronted with immature behavior? It's not that I particularly like working with people who are problematic to work with. But I highly respect those who have reformed their ways. Do you know the story of the prodigal son? Try to apply it to Nico, or to Lir, who was once banned, was allowed to return, and by now has gained the respect of those who formerly criticised him fiercely, like Jtdirl.

I think that have said everything that I can say about all this. Initially I started this talk because I tried to convince you that your cooperation on Silesia and Görlitz would be highly desirable so that everybody can agree on a compromise and the war be declared ended. Given the attituide that you defend so doggedly, I am afraid it will be difficult to find peace there. But please don't act annoyed if work is going on there without you, and things are agreed upon in a way that you don't like. I am rather certain that people will have a clear opinion of you if get involved in another reversion war. Kosebamse 14:02, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Highly gifted and productive people are routinely listed on Problem users. Anyone can put any frivolous complaint there, so what? People are entitled to their opinions. Yes, I am uncompromising toward vandals and trolls. No one has everybody's respect, that's an impossible thing. I know I have the respect of those people whose respect I care about. I am quite ready to welcome anyone who has reformed his ways, but I haven't seen it from Nico or Lir. Feel free to work with Nico if you are so inclined, I will see what you come up with. But of course I don't have to accept any "compromise" you agree with him, and am free to edit those articles. Remember if I "get involved" in a reversion war, there must be someone else involved too. --Wik 14:34, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Don't imagine for a moment that you're so gifted and productive that WP really needs you. I would have see you leave than have you discourage dozens of other good contributors by your behavior. Stan 16:30, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Good contributors are discouraged by the ridiculous tolerance of vandals and trolls here. --Wik 16:35, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Then please be discouraged and go away. As a bonus, you'll have the advantage of feeling superior to that lame Wikipedia that tolerates all those "vandals and trolls". Stan 16:41, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I am discouraged, but I'll try to make it less lame or be banned in the attempt. "Wikipedia" is just what the users make of it, there's no inherent lameness to it, it's just a certain minority of users that is lame. --Wik 17:32, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * You're not the first editor who's decided to save Wikipedia unilaterally and singlehandedly; but all have failed. They either give up, or get themselves banned and their edits mass-reverted, or they learn to work with the rest of the community (this last is unfortunately rare). I've been working in large-scale net-based projects for a little over 20 years, and your approach always fails. Maybe you're so arrogant as to think you can beat the odds somehow; but are you intelligent enough to learn from others' experiences? Stan 18:39, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about unilaterally? I'm hardly the only one who thinks there should be a stricter policy against vandals and trolls. Just ask those who now clean up all the articles Khranus edited. And that one was banned relatively quickly. He would have lasted much longer if he didn't refuse to talk to Jimbo, or if he didn't insult people as much, etc. Yet some people are more busy complaining about "self-righteous" users than about vandalism... --Wik 19:26, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

Well, Wik, it's neither your Wikipedia nor your NPOV, it's ours, if that word means anything to you. If you think there's no way to reconcile POV with NPOV, I wonder how you think NPOV is reached? By survival of the most reckless? That's not how Wikipedia works, nor how it should work. But if you feel so far above community norms, you might be better off with a project of your own; after all, its GFDL, so you're free to copy whatever you like from here and make an encyclopedia of your own. And as for reversion wars and somebody else getting involved, that's exactly what I said above: it takes two to tango, and while there are indeed highly respected Wikipedians who have, regrettably, gotten involved in such wars, I don't know of any who have made it a hobby. Kosebamse 18:56, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * NPOV is reached by discussion between users who accept this principle. Nico's history conclusively proves that he doesn't. And the vast majority of edit wars I am in are with this kind of users, where discussion is pointless: LibertarianAnarchist (who is about to be banned), Lir (who has been banned before multiple times), and Nico. 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? I would prefer if repeat POV offenders could be banned, or if there were another procedure to settle such disputes, but that's not the case, so edit wars are the only alternative. I don't enjoy them; if I'm more involved in them than others it must be because I have greater patience. --Wik 19:26, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

Wik, one word on farewell. NPOV is reached by discussion and consensus, not by unilateral declaration. It's neither your NPOV nor mine, nor theirs, it's ours. Whatever arguments you'll find to defend any kind of POV supremacism, they are not in line with the spirit or policies of Wikipedia. Same goes for refusal to assume good faith and forgive people who are willing to admit mistakes and reform their ways. Good luck on your crusade.Kosebamse 22:29, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Repetition of previous arguments that have already been replied to, combined with an Eric-Cartman-style "I'm going home", is a sure sign that someone has lost an argument. I don't want to repeat my answers, but: 1) I have always assumed good faith - right until someone has proven my assumption either right or wrong. 2) Neither Nico nor Lir have admitted to their mistakes (if you have seen such please point me to it) nor otherwise shown that they have reformed. Also, I have on many occasions submitted to other views when they convinced me or when it was a subjective matter (not a matter of hard fact) and I was outnumbered. So what are you talking about with "POV supremacism"? --Wik 22:42, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

From problem users
the following copied from problem users


 * I am sorry to note that Wik seems totally unwilling to accept the right of other users to disagree with him, instead explicitly states that he will revert anything done by those Wikipedians he likes to call vandals and trolls, even if these have demonstrably refrained from uncooperative behavior. I had a lenghty discussion with him about this which I recommend everybody to study (see User talk:Wik), and it is my impression that his idea of cooperation is seriously flawed at a very fundamental level. Kosebamse 13:33, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Please do demonstrate how they have demonstrably refrained from uncooperative behaviour. That should be interesting. --Wik 13:55, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned at the very beginning of our talk on 15 November, Nico has in the past week returned to discussion on Silesia and agreed with szopen on a compromise text; they have also exchanged apologies on their talk pages. Also, he agreed with SpaceCadet on Baldhurs compromise text on Görlitz. You however insisted on calling him a vandal and said he were not "any more useful than Khranus" who was banned last week. All this is on your talk page, see this version. With Lir, it's a long story that reaches far back behind the beginnings of your (and my) Wikipedia engagement. When he was allowed to return this summer, he has demonstrated a collegial attitude and has gained the respect of his former adversaries. The mere fact that he was engaged in reversion wars (with you, mostly) does not speak against his overall good standing (that fact would not even speak so strongly against you, had you not made reversionism a long standing habit, starting on your second day on Wikipedia, and had you not repeatedly argued that your POV = NPOV, which you claimed to "staunchly defend"). Yet you included Lir in your statements about "this kind of users, where discussion is pointless". Again, all of this (and, sadly, much more) is on your talk page. As said page tells much more about your attitudes than I ever could I would like to repeat my suggestion that our fellow Wikipedians should make their judgement by reading it. Kosebamse 15:56, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Indeed, then they will see how you fail to substantiate your allegation (which you basically repeat here) of my "POV supremacism". You'd have to adopt a total POV relativism (in which case there would be no such thing as NPOV) to accuse me of that. If I were to go to the article Earth and write that it is flat, and another reverts it, would you also say it's a dispute between two equally valid POVs, which should be debated until there's a compromise? You are clearly unfamiliar with the subject of Silesia if you don't see how Nico's edits there were just as ludicrous. And the fact that he backpedals whenever he sees he doesn't get away with his more extreme POV, doesn't mean that he now accepts the NPOV principle. If this needed any more proof, he tried today to change the article Kaliningrad to begin with the name Königsberg! Anyone with some minimum knowledge about those matters sees that he is here not to make a better encyclopaedia, but to push extreme German-nationalist views that are on the fringe even within Germany. As to Lir, I note that you apparently think that "a collegial attitude" consists of reverting a page even when everyone tells you you're wrong (ask Daniel Quinlan about Lir's behaviour on Second Industrial Revolution). As to your "reversionism" charge, a cursory look at my edit history will disprove that; edit wars make up only a small part of over 7,000 edits; I also don't see how I was involved in any on my second day. Furthermore, most of the edit wars were with a small group of problem users where talk was futile, including Nico and Lir. Why do you think I don't have edit wars with generally respected users? Please tell me exactly where I argued that "my POV = NPOV". Maybe you think it isn't NPOV to revert Nico's inclusion of 10 German links (out of 15) on Silesia, a Polish region, or his listing of the German-reactionary Landsmannschaft Schlesien as the first link, or his putting the German name before the Polish, or to remove Lir's irrelevant Dutch transliteration of Anton Chekhov, or Lir's blatantly wrong punctuation, or Lir's noting someone's death before his birth, or Lir's claim that there is no evidence of water on the Moon, contradicted by the same article? I guess that was all just "my POV"? --Wik 16:49, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * I will answer you on your talk page in order to keep this page readable. Kosebamse 17:35, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

-- end of copied text---


 * Wik, I'll answer you bit by bit, and would suggest that you put your reply at the bottom so as to keep this readble.Kosebamse


 * Now that you've divided it up, I'll also answer point by point. --Wik


 * Wik, I have left you some more answers below. As I won't have the time for much more debate, I'll leave it at this. I am sure you will enjoy the chance of having the final word. While it does not look like you will change your views, you have done Wikipedia a favor with your extreme attitudes, as there is now a policy under discussion to make clear when reversions are acceptable. I do wonder whether you will waste as much as a thought on respecting it, however. Kosebamse 20:18, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Such a policy would require the setting up of another mechanism of settling disputes, and I would be the first to welcome that. So, yes, if I help bring that about, it is just further vindication of my conduct. Otherwise people would continue to act like you recommend and just let the Nicos and Lirs have their way for the sake of peace. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

''Indeed, then they will see how you fail to substantiate your allegation (which you basically repeat here) of my "POV supremacism". You'd have to adopt a total POV relativism (in which case there would be no such thing as NPOV) to accuse me of that.''


 * My issue with you is your belief that NPOV can be approached by bullying instead of discussion. I have never doubted that your opinion in many matters is valuable. However, you regularly defend it by reversion wars instead of argument, and you conveniently label your adversaries as vandals, trolls, and whatnot, only to avoid talking with them.Kosebamse


 * That is simply not true. 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. Do you think those don't exist? I mean, if you want to take someone seriously who proclaims on his user page that he is "the world's foremost authority. I yearn for the aliens from New Zimbabwe to come and once again declare me their leader" then that's your business, but you'll have to accept that others beg to differ. --Wik 03:29, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)


 * I have never denied that there are vandals and trolls, but I do deny your right to decide on your own (except in obvious cases) who is and who isn't, and where it's "exactly appropriate" to call someone vandal or troll in clear violation of hard-and-fast policy (see No personal attacks). If your judgement were backed by uncontroversial facts or community consensus, your use of such words might be accepted, but it is not, as you may see from the enormous amount of controversy that you create. And that controversy is not created by those whom you attack that uncivilly and deny the right to be spoken to, but by ordinary Wikipedians like me. Kosebamse


 * Everyone decides that for himself. I don't want to decide it for you. But I'll say what I think, and act accordingly. Again, it's not a personal attack. It is my view of those people's contributions. Would you prefer if I say "this person's edits are vandalism" instead of "this person is a vandal"? --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

If I were to go to the article Earth and write that it is flat, and another reverts it, would you also say it's a dispute between two equally valid POVs, which should be debated until there's a compromise?


 * This kind of argument is in itself invalid, and if you wish, I will look up for you what exactly this logical fallacy is called.Kosebamse


 * I don't care what it's called, just tell me why it's invalid. I think it fits perfectly. --Wik


 * As I can't find what kind of logical fallacy this is, I'll retract my above statement. To answer your question, I would not say any such ridiculous thing, but would apply the idea of NPOV and mention somewhere that while some people actually think that the earth is flat, this idea is far from accepted science. Done. There's not a compromise then but a better article in terms of NPOV, and any future flat-earther would have no reason to change it. NPOV creates stable articles. Reversionism creates unstable articles, leading to fruitless edit wars. (see Flat earth, by the way.) Kosebamse


 * So you would accommodate any crackpot by including a statement "some people believe ". You're sacrificing the quality of the encyclopaedia for the sake of harmony. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

You are clearly unfamiliar with the subject of Silesia if you don't see how Nico's edits there were just as ludicrous.


 * I am indeed not familiar with that subject, and never claimed to be. And for that very reason I have explicitly stated my neutrality in matters of content when I asked Nico and you to return to discussion. I protected these pages to end the reversion wars in the hope that you would return to discussion.Kosebamse


 * Then you shouldn't express opinions on Nico's behaviour, nor indeed interfere at all in that article. It is a fundamental misconception to think that edit wars can be solved by protecting the page and telling the people to discuss. If both sides were reasonable they wouldn't go to an edit war to begin with. If one side is not interested in NPOV, then no amount of discussion will solve this. --Wik


 * Neither will any amount of counter-force. It is a fundamental misconception to think that controversy can be ended by force. A page protection is a temporary measure to give the hotheads time to cool off. Edit wars are indeed sometimes not solved that way, but sometimes they are. And regarding Nico, I don't need specific knowledge of a subject to judge people's behavior. Kosebamse


 * Of course it can be ended by force. Edit wars aren't endless, at some point one side gives up. Let me quote from this post by Erik:
 * To say that the other side should simply let it rest for a few days and come back later is idiotic if you're dealing with a regular who will be just as willing to do blanket reverts three days later as he is today. Edit wars are not purely a symptom of heightened emotions, they are a symptom of fundamental differences in beliefs and an unwillingness to bridge them through NPOV.
 * And that was precisely the case with Nico, who wouldn't agree to any NPOV version. And if you knew enough about the subject, you would have seen that he is the POV pusher. Without him there would never have been a problem on Silesia. Most edit wars are not between two POVs, but between POV and NPOV. Articles are normally in a state of NPOV, and the conflict erupts when one person comes along with an intent to push a POV, and others defend the NPOV version. This happened with Nico pushing his German-nationalist views on Silesia, Erwin Komenda's granddaughter trying to promote Komenda's name on Porsche etc., or LibertarianAnarchist pushing his Hindu-extremist views on 2002 Gujarat violence. But to you I guess that's all relative. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

''And the fact that he backpedals whenever he sees he doesn't get away with his more extreme POV, doesn't mean that he now accepts the NPOV principle. If this needed any more proof, he tried today to change the article Kaliningrad to begin with the name Königsberg!''


 * But he has returned to cooperative behavior, however reluctantly, and apologized, and talked with his adversaries, which I highly respect, and which fact you have refused to comment throughout our conversation. I can only speculate that discussing it would make you risk accepting that he is not the vandal and troll that you like to call him.Kosebamse


 * No he hasn't. He always "talked", but to no constructive effect. He won't agree to any NPOV version. The talk archives are overflowing; the problems here are not caused by a shortage of talk. --Wik


 * It takes two to make peace. He did make peace with szopen, which fact you have conveniently ignored ever since I mentioned it. He might even had made peace with you had you not stubbornly refused to talk. And the problems here are caused by a shortage of cooperation, common sense, mutual respect, and humbleness. Kosebamse


 * What happened was that Szopen, apparently tired of the fighting, decided to accept Nico's latest version. Of course Nico made peace then. It is exactly the strategy I described before: he starts with the most extreme POV version, then offers a watered-down version as a "compromise". Some fall for that, some don't. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Anyone with some minimum knowledge about those matters sees that he is here not to make a better encyclopaedia, but to push extreme German-nationalist views that are on the fringe even within Germany.


 * As I said, I don't want to argue about the contents of that article, as it's your behavior that I find problematic.Kosebamse


 * The behaviour can not be separated from the substance, unless you think everyone is obliged to waste his time going in endless circles with people who won't give up their POV, thus allowing the latter to win by just tiring everyone else out. --Wik


 * You are defending my actions here: I did interrupt your fruitless wars to avoid the endless circles. And if behavior could not be separated from the substance, we would not be talking here, because you are by far the most discussed problem user on Wikipedia and remarkably unwilling to accept other opinions than your own. So why do we talk here? Because it can be separated. And as for people who won't give up their POV, you might wish to look into a mirror. (There are others, however, who don't give it up either, but have the common sense and the humbleness to realise that they should not label their POV NPOV only to bully everyone else with it). Kosebamse


 * Obviously you (and others) do separate it, but it makes no sense. It's just more of your relativism. "Stop fighting, I don't care who's right or wrong." This is no way to solve a conflict. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

As to Lir, I note that you apparently think that "a collegial attitude" consists of reverting a page even when everyone tells you you're wrong (ask Daniel Quinlan about Lir's behaviour on Second Industrial Revolution).


 * I have never claimed that Lir is a perfect Wikipedian. But he is one who admitted his errors and returned to cooperation, however difficult it may sometimes be to work with him. I would like to repeat my mentioning of the prodigal son story and I would be interested to learn what you think of it.Kosebamse


 * He admitted his errors? Where? I have never seen that, although I repeatedly asked for it. The prodigal son story doesn't apply. --Wik


 * We have Jimbo Wales' word that he has admitted his errors and asked for pardon, and no reason whatsoever to doubt it. Kosebamse


 * I am not convinced. In the same statement of Jimbo where he says "I feel comfortable with his sincerity" he notes that Lir told him directly that he wasn't Pizza Puzzle. Later he admitted it. I don't know what Jimbo is thinking, but Lir is making a fool out of him. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

As to your "reversionism" charge, a cursory look at my edit history wil disprove that; edit wars make up only a small part of over 7,000 edits; I also don't see how I was involved in any on my second day.


 * Your first edit was on 11. September, and the first reversion (at least the first that is marked as such in the commentary) was your ninth edit overall, on 12 September. On 14 September you reverted the same page thrice within 8 minutes. I did not bother to count all your reversion wars, but they have been a constant topic of discussion for weeks now. And your edit wars make up a large proportion of all those that have occurred in those weeks. You may also wish to consider that a majority of Wikipedians, even the highly productive ones, don't editwar at all and revert only in cases ob obvious vandalism.Kosebamse


 * You didn't look right; my first edit was on July 16. And I wouldn't call three reversions an edit war. If others don't editwar, that means they let a POV stand when they see one or they correct it only once and leave it alone when the other person reverts it. Is this better behaviour? I don't think so. I suppose people avoid edit wars precisely to avoid being indiscriminately blamed for it, regardless of whether they are vandalizing or removing vandalism. For example, everyone agrees now that LibertarianAnarchist is a vandal, and many people have occasionally reverted his stuff. But no one as much as I. I guess it's consensus now to say that was the right thing. --Wik


 * You are correct about the dates (however, when I looked, and looked carefully, Wikipedia gave me your first edit on 11. September 2003, and when I looked again yesterday, there was an edit "16:51, 25 Feb 2002 Soren Kierkegaard (moved to "Søren_Kierkegaard")" listed under your name, which I don't believe to be correct; so I think there may be some database weirdness going on). And as to behavior, yes, it is indeed better to abstain from reverionism. If something is corrected and reverted, it comes to the attention of many via recent changes, and there is a good chance that some obviously inferior POV will be removed, or NPOVed. So you won't get your hands dirty by re-reverting, and the holder of the other POV will see that there is not only one opposing him. However, this requires trusting the community and being able to accept that something you don't like will nevertheless stay for a while. Or even for a long while, in which case you would have to reconsider your views, because they might after all be even not as good as the other's. I am afraid that these ideas and you exist on two different planets. Your fundamental misconception is the idea that there is one and only one truth (or one and only one ideal version of an article), which has only waited for you to create or discover it so you can defend it against the "vandals and trolls". In assuming this, you are overestimating your role and your abilities, to put it mildly. Kosebamse


 * Seeing that not only one is opposing him doesn't stop a vandal. In most of the edit wars I was in, I was not the only one. So the only question is, should vandalism be reverted (as often as necessary) or should it be left standing for a long time? Apparently you prefer to let it stand just to avoid the evil of an edit war. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Furthermore, most of the edit wars were with a small group of problem users where talk was futile, including Nico and Lir.


 * Did you ever consider following the advice given at Wikiquette and Staying cool when the editing gets hot? I have found the suggestions given there highly helpful, especially the idea of going away from a problem page for a while. Accepting them does however include the idea of admitting the possibility of error on one's own side, or even more, of being not in error but letting things calm down nevertheless. Did you ever consider one of these possibilities? (And furthermore, did you ever consider accepting the explicit policy of No personal attacks? Given your abundant use of words like "vandal" and "troll" I wonder whether you have even read it.)Kosebamse


 * I'm not getting into an edit war when I'm not positive I'm right. Going away doesn't solve anything. Again, I use the words vandal and troll where appropriate; they are not meant as attacks but as accurate descriptions. Unlike Nico, who calls pretty much everyone who opposes him a vandal. Just look at today's edit history of Silesia. So take your lecture about personal attacks to where it actually belongs. --Wik


 * You are using these words in clear violation of hard-and-fast policy. And your "accurate descriptions" might be taken a little more seriously were you at all willing to discuss them instead of repeating them ad nauseam. And as for your reversionist attitude, see about your fundamental misconception that I have outlined repeatedly. Kosebamse


 * I have actually discussed them ad nauseam. If it's not clear to you, then it's once again because you don't understand the substance. What you have outlined is a misconception of your own. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Why do you think I don't have edit wars with generally respected users?


 * I wonder why you think that I believe this. In fact, while I have been well aware of your numerous conflicts, I have often not bothered looking into the details so I don't really know what you quarrel about so passionately. And it is not that important anyway, it's your attitude that I find problematic: not what you write, but how you treat your fellow Wikipedians.Kosebamse


 * You misunderstood that. It is a fact I don't have edit wars with respected users. So I asked why, do you think, is that so? It was a rhetorical question. The answer of course is because I only have serious edit wars with unquestionable problem users, where talk is futile and the edit war well justified. --Wik


 * Edit wars are almost never justified. Some exceptions may exist for true/obvious vandalism (for which there is, by the way, a definition that does not at all coincide with your idea of vandalism). It is, furthermore, well accepted that edit wars never serve to improve an article. They do however serve the needs of the ego of somebody who can't live with the idea of diversity. Kosebamse


 * Blatant disregard of NPOV is a form of vandalism and not "diversity". --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Please tell me exactly where I argued that "my POV = NPOV".


 * On this talk page, you wrote: "I steadfastly defended the NPOV version". By this you imply that you know what "the NPOV version" is, and that it's up to you to defend it. You don't admit the possibility that your opinion is just another point of view, or that NPOV is an ideal to approach, not a fixed version of an article that only waited for you to discover and defend it.Kosebamse


 * Yes, sometimes I know what the NPOV version is. Call me arrogant, but if someone says 2+2=4 and the other 2+2=6 then I know what the NPOV version is, and I don't like people who are ignorant about the subject stepping in, asking both sides to discuss the matter, and getting impressed when the second person offers a compromise of 2+2=5. --Wik


 * Is earth flat? No it's not, but there are some who think it's not, so let them have their way, mention it somewhere, and go on with the work. Alternative: start an edit war, make somebody with a similarly belligerent attitude happy for fighting with him, waste everybody's time, clutter the edit history, and make people dislike you. One way is useful and does not harm anybody, the other satisfies you ego. Kosebamse


 * Adding irrelevant nonsense is very much harming the integrity of the encyclopaedia. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, you wrote "There is no way to reconcile POV and NPOV", again implying that you know what NPOV is, while it is the others whose opinion is unworthy.Kosebamse


 * See above. Yes, some people's opinion is unworthy. --Wik


 * And the world has waited for you to discover it? Kosebamse


 * I'm not the only one to discover it, anyone who isn't a total relativist discovers it. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * Furthermore you wrote "Yes, I am uncompromising toward vandals and trolls", implying not only that you have a right to call your fellow Wikipedians such, but deriving a right to bully them from your subjective judgement of them.Kosebamse


 * See above. Are you suggesting there is no such thing as vandals and trolls, or that those words should not be used by anyone at all? --Wik


 * See also above. They should be used with extreme caution. Khranus was quite probably a troll, but even he might have acted in good faith,as there are people who believe all that incredible junk. What do you gain by calling him a troll? Wikipedia has one useless conflict more and your ego is satisfied. Great. Kosebamse


 * I do use the terms with extreme caution. When I use them, I mean it. Of course, your mileage may vary. But who are you to tell me my opinion is unworthy? --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, you wrote "What is the alternative, just leaving the POV version there? I would prefer if repeat POV offenders could be banned", again implying that there is a "POV version" (and consequently, a NPOV version) and that it's up to you to decide which one is which.Kosebamse


 * Yes, of course there is a POV version and an NPOV version. If you think it's all relative, why would we even use the terms? NPOV is not meant to be simply the majority's decision, even though in practice things may have to be settled in a democratic way. So I can very well decide (for me) what NPOV is; others may disagree, in which case there should be some democratic decision. But as yet there is no efficient mechanism in place for such decisions. And I don't editwar when I see the majority has a different view, no matter how sure I am that I am right. I only do so when I'm reasonably sure that my version would also be chosen in a vote over the alternatives. I did give up on some articles where I could not find sufficient support, though I still think my view in those cases is the correct one. --Wik


 * Fundamental misunderstanding. NPOV is not a majority decision, nor a compromise. It is a version of a text that nobody disagrees with so strongly that he feels the need to change it. And NPOV is an ideal that is in reality only approached gradually. By reversion wars you make this approaching impossible and make sure that the fighting never ends. Kosebamse


 * Well, by that view of NPOV, there couldn't be anything said about many things, because there are often two wholly irreconcilable views so that some will always disagree. Just take the ROM/FYROM thing - there will never be a title for that article that nobody disagrees with. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * All of this convinces me that you refuse to accept that the opinions of others may be just as valid as yours, and that you reserve a right not only to deride your fellow Wikipedians as "vandals and trolls" but also to decide which version of an article is "the NPOV version" which you then "staunchly defend". Such an idea is not compatible with the very foundational principles of Wikipedia: openness, tolerance, mutual respect, cooperation.Kosebamse


 * See above. --Wik

''Maybe you think it isn't NPOV to revert Nico's inclusion of 10 German links (out of 15) on Silesia, a Polish region, or his listing of the German-reactionary Landsmannschaft Schlesien as the first link, or his putting the German name before the Polish, or to remove Lir's irrelevant Dutch transliteration of Anton Chekhov, or Lir's blatantly wrong punctuation, or Lir's noting someone's death before his birth, or Lir's claim that there is no evidence of water on the Moon, contradicted by the same article? I guess that was all just "my POV"''


 * No, it isn't NPOV. There are of course better and worse versions of every article, and some are outright ludicrous, but while yours may be better, it is a community-based, iterative approach that leads to an improvement of an article, not your declaration of "the NPOV version" and your reckless attitude in defending it. That is what I mean by "POV supremacism": your idea that you have the right to violate community norms (Wikiquette, policies, openness, discussion) because of your conviction that you alone know what is best for Wikipedia.Kosebamse


 * "Community-based, iterative approach"? Sounds nice, but vandals don't care about that. Will you just tell me what I should do when I make a correction and it is reverted and the other person can not be convinced by discussion? Either there is a mechanism for settling the question, or there is an edit war. There can always be only one version of the article in place. If I'm convinced it is the wrong one, I'll change it. How is that reckless? I don't see how I violate any community norm. I haven't heard of a community norm to leave errors in place. --Wik


 * I described the mechanism for settling the question above. That mechanism demands that you sometimes accept that you are probably right, but nevertheless don't start a war. Your behavior is reckless in ignoring the right of other users to read an uncluttered edit history, in ignoring the possibility that you might be wrong, and in assuming you know your thing so well that you are above discussing it, and in making it impossible to actually improve an article, to point only out a few. Kosebamse


 * "Don't start a war" doesn't settle anything. It just lets every persistent POV pusher have his way. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * I am under the impression that you fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Did you ever wonder why banning users is a rarely employed last resort measure on Wikipedia? Because tolerance works so well. It is even extended to the intolerant. Think about it. Kosebamse 19:14, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Quite obviously this tolerance does not work well. Khranus should have been banned on his second day based on his edits. Ditto for LibertarianAnarchist. Too much time is wasted dealing with this kind of users. --Wik 03:29, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't. See User:Chiramabi's recent entry into userdom. -- Cyan 03:34, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * What about Chiramabi? --Wik 03:40, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

He started as a pure edit warrior, but we were able to get him to stop by attempting to communicate with him in a non-confrontational manner. In general, tolerance helps us move people towards a collaborative mindset. The object of the game is to try to get people to integrate well into Wikipedia's culture, as several people attempted with Khranus. He was banned only after repeated failure of our attempts, and that's as it should be. -- Cyan 03:47, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please note that Wik deleted my answer; you may find it in the page history. I will just say, that according to Silesia today, caius2ga came in and ignored the compromise, and used very hard words against both me and szopen ("Nazi"). Although we had consensus for our new version, caius2ga continued to revert to his own version, which in my opinion is nothing but vandalism. RickK have brought his name to the attention of the mailing list, and will see if others feel that his behavior justifies a ban. The article was btw. protected at my request. -- Sincerely, Nico 04:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Wik, as this is getting somewhat time-consuming, I'll answer you later, probably tomorrow. Kosebamse 12:47, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)