Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Irgendwer

consensus
Some observers use the word "consensus" in a context which is not really clear to me.

Does that mean that an editor need a broad acceptance (against majority POV) before he may do anything? I have thought that Wikipedia is no democrazy, but obviously I am de facto wrong. I would accept that but then you must rewrite the guidelines, right? --Irgendwer 15:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You've been shown this link before, but here it is again: WP:CON. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 17:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I quote from this
 * It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially NPOV. At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is POV, inaccurate, or libelous. This is not a consensus.

Why do you not work toward consensus that is pursuing a consensus that is consistent with NPOV? I have always noted that your edit is majority POV! --Irgendwer 18:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently, Irgendwer, you missed this section:


 * "Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities."


 * In other words, even if you're right, you need to convince others that you're right before editing. For better or for worse, the underlying premise in Wikipedia is that eventually, the "right answer" will be worked out.  But not through edit wars between one person and everyone else...  You have made a case for your POV, no one has found it to be compelling.  Either find a way to make it compelling (the only measure of which is finding others who agree with you), or give up for now.   But taking a short cut to circumvent the consensus practice by simply editing contrary to the current consensus view is not a reasonable way to go.


 * You are the only one who strongly believes the assertion "libertarianism is a political philosophy" is not consistent with NPOV. You need to change that, so that others agree with you, before you change the article. Until then you are simply engaging in "emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing".  --Serge 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "In other words, even if you're right, you need to convince others that you're right before editing."
 * No, this is a wrong interpreation because POV is not negotiable. This a very strong rule in Wikipedia.
 * You try to enforce your position by making a scenario of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" and you are always the Good one. --Irgendwer 19:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What part of "no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities" do you not understand? --Serge 20:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's your POV as I stated above. "biased editing" is the noble role you are giving me while you are a saint. --Irgendwer 08:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "POV is not negotiable"? If not, we're in deep trouble; how is NPOV on a contentious subject to be obtained if not by negotiated compromise among the factions?  &mdash;Tamfang 02:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see the practical problem even if I am right. But this not compulsory MY guilt. It is a result of unanswerably irrational behavior. --Irgendwer 08:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Reviewing this. One more point...  Assuming good faith here, what you don't seem to understand is that the problem with your behavior goes beyond being just a practical problem.  When there is a dispute, and you're in the minority, it is wrong (contrary to Wiki policy) to insist your POV (even if it is NPOV and everyone else just doesn't see it) be represented in the article.  You need to convince at least a few others first, then make the change.  You have been unable to do that regarding either point in dispute here.  --Serge 18:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Show me this Wiki policy. Wikipedia is no democrazy. It is Wiki policy to "Be bold in updating pages".


 * No, Wikipedia is a meritocracy, and you have spent all your credibility.
 * Consensus is the guideline that says persistently inserting your own work against the will of everyone else is against the Wikipedia way, and it's already been quoted to you above. Interestingly, the "policy" that you are referring to is also a guideline, and actually says "[if] you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references." If you're going to claim you are following WP:BOLD and "being bold", you have to follow all of it. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 00:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are not able to understand basic rules of Wikipedia. Your "rule", that a "Merito" may enforce their will is not one of Wikipedia. I am also not changing or deleting anything substantial in the text. This is only a hint for critical phrases. --Irgendwer 07:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your inability to understand English conversation is a problem. I didn't say it was a rule, I said it was a fact in response to your comment about "democracy". Look up the difference between de jure and de facto. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 09:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And I didn't say that you did say... . I explained only your error to you. --Irgendwer 11:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To point out my "error" you have to say "that I did say", otherwise there's nothing to point out. This kind of inability both to operate in English and have a civilised conversation is a problem. I'm done here. I'm sure someone will let me know when you come before the Arbitration Committee, and we can talk more then. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad Faith? On whose part?
In his response, User:Irgendwer just wrote:


 * New bad faith:
 * User:Serge_Issakov lies in his history entry to make a fine denunciation. []--Irgendwer 18:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

He is referencing my edit comment, "which was a wipeout of the libertarianism intro", because the edit I referenced was indeed not a wipeout of the intro. But it is User:Irgendwer who is engaging in bad faith here, not me. If you look at this diff,, you will see how easy it is to mistake that particular edit to be a wipeout of the intro. At least, that's the mistake I made. There was no intent to decieve, and hence not a lie. It was an honest mistake, for which I apologize. But this episode exemplifies User:Irgendwer's approach, assuming bad faith when no such assumption is warranted. --Serge 19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah sure? but he does not actually engage in discussion - A pure lie! I have answered all of your's posts. Maybe you are not aware. But I am no clairvoyant and no therapist. --Irgendwer 19:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "A pure lie"? You are assuming bad faith again!  We apparently disagree on the meaning of, "actually engage in discussion". Note in this particular exchange you are ignoring the point I just made - that you assumed bad faith on my part. Instead, you pull in a non-sequitor quote from something I said elsewhere, and write about that, with no reference to 'this discussion beyond the vague comment, "Ah sure?" .  Perhaps you believe you are engaged in this discussion, but I don't think so. --Serge 19:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you doing? Is but he does not actually engage in discussion - this is from your charge here - not assuming bad faith? I would accept your excuse but directly after your excuse you put new blame on me. --Irgendwer 20:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, saying "he does not actually engage in discussion" does not assume bad faith, it's simply a statement of what I believe to be fact. I don't know the reason for your lack of engagement, and can only specultate that it might be bad faith.  But it could also just be some kind of innocent communication problem.  Perhaps a mental defect?  Maybe you're a Turing machine. I have no way of knowing.   As another example of your inability to engage in discussion, you write, "I would accept your excuse but directly after your excuse you put new blame on me".  What excuse?  What do you mean by, "but directly after your excuse"?   Where do you feel I put new blame on you?  Again, perhaps you feel you are engaged in this discussion, but to me it's not even a discussion. --Serge 21:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it is no discussion. It is a kindergarten. My statements about you are by the same right what I believe to be fact as the other way round. You become a troll more and more. --Irgendwer 00:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Q.E.D. (Can anyone comprehend what Irgendwer means here?)  --Serge 18:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Irgendwer, calling other editors "trolls" or other names is not helpful. It's best to avoid all negative personal remarks. -Will Beback 19:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So as regards content, you agree in secret. --Irgendwer 20:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From Internet troll: "Often, a person will post a sincere message about which he is emotionally sensitive. Skillful trolls know that an easy way to upset him is to falsely claim that he is a 'troll.'" --Serge 20:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You should quote the whole section but this is currently your troll method. You search only for a fine denunciation. --Irgendwer 20:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

continued disruption
Irgendwer is now engaged in revert war regarding a poorly written POV essay-like section that he keeps trying to add to the Libertarianism article, and others (including myself) keep reverting. Sometimes he games the 3RR rule, sometimes he only does one revert per 24 hours, but this particular revert battle has been going on for almost a month, and dominates the page's edit history. Can we add this to the RFC, or do we need to start a new one? And what does it take for someone to take action against him? --Serge 18:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It can be added to this RfC because their conduct is what is generally up for comment.
 * Taking action would require some official enforcement, such as might come from an ArbCom case. That might be necessary since they are unwilling to listen to any disagreement. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * a poorly written POV essay-like section


 * So what? You may call a lot of content in Wikipedia like this when you feel defensive. I need some constructive critic on the talk page. What is POV in your mind? But you have already avowed to revert in bad faith. You are the troll. --Irgendwer 11:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please try to stay on-topic here? This RfC is not about the article, it's about you. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

While Irgendwer's disruptive changes continue on the Libertarianism page, he now has started making changes here: Consensus decision-making. He put in a "citation needed" tag to support claim in that article that consensus methods may be appropriate when "trust is low". Fair enough. So I did some research and found a citation, which I inserted and removed his tag. He then commented out the reference and re-inserted the "citation needed" tag, claiming without basis that the citation was "is no useful evidence for this issue". Since then I've reverted and added a second reference. As if the claim even needs a citation in the first place! Who doesn't understand how consensus building can be appropriate in situations where trust is low? Does that mean it's always successful? No. So what? --Serge 18:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

now what?
What is the next step here? What does it take to get action to be taken? --Serge 18:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)