Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pat8722

There was no place to put this in the page, so I'll say it here. I'd just like to say I can feel for someone who is resolute in trying to overcome a consensus that he thinks is wrong and turn it around --I've had to do it myself. A small POV mob will often form and start filing RFC's and arbitration cases against the person to keep him from bringing new information and perspective in. But, this is not such a case. Pat8722 is not reasonable or constructive at all in his effort. I think it's clear that he doesn't understand the concepts involved, but more importantly he won't take the effort to learn them and think about them when people try to explain them. He just seems focused on getting his bizarre intro into the article. He won't entertain the idea for a minute that someone else may be able to teach him something --that he may be wrong about something. So, he makes the same arguments over and over, and reverts over and over. And, accuses others (including myself) of "vandalism" for reverting back to the coherent version of the intro. And, his grammar is horrible. RJII 19:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Pat's response section
I note that in his response not only does he not respond to this RfC on his behaviour, opting instead to argue his position on the Libertarianism article, but he also fails to include any diffs or any other citation for all the claims he makes of others' wrongdoing. He also aptly demonstrates the kind of wikilawyering (and lack of grasp of policy) and belligerent attitude that is the subject of the RfC. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 10:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I was particularly amused to see that I revert my talk page (aside from removing Pat's paragraph numbering) or that I remove comments or criticism from it, with no attempt to give any examples of when I might have engaged in such behavior. — Knowledge Seeker দ 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

See paragraphs [03] and [04] below for the diffs on your removing negative comment. As to the diff's regarding the unilateral reverts I was reverting on the Libertarianism page, now that I know what "diffs" are, I will locate them for you (likely I will not be able to do this until next week, as I only late today discovered this present page, and time committments presently limit me to pretty much Sunday's-only wikipedi-ing. Once I locate the diffs, can I trust you will both support me in obtaining the cooperation of the others in consensus-building (i.e. responding to outstanding questions) before they revert in violation wikipedia's revert policy?pat8722 02:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much every revert by all editors other than rehpotsirhic were unilateral reverts after the creation of paragraphs numbered [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] on the talk: libertarianism page, especially serge. Do a find on "serge" at this link [], for the latest such example, and then just scroll down for as many more examples as you want.pat8722 20:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of outside view by User:Dalbury
''This discussion has been moved from the project page. In his endorsement of this section, Knowledge Seeker wrote the following which prompted some responses:''
 * "...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)"
 * Of course you do it. I will provide the "diffs" if you will tell me what they are and how to do them.pat8722 16:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * [04]JoshuaZ has helped me understand diffs, so here they are: User talk:Knowledge Seeker reverts reverts my criticisms of him and reverts his apology for removing my numbering system, after I try to pin him down on whether he will block me again; he then also lies as to how long he blocked me at []


 * [05]Deletes more criticisms, including my threat to report him on the admin incident board at []pat8722 22:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Pat, I'm going to assume good faith and assume that you're simply unfamiliar with Wikipedia's customs. For your edification, those diffs are not evidence of deleting criticism, those are Knowledge Seeker removing content that you copy-pasted from your own Talk page, where it remains, and so therefore was and is redundant. It is a common practice to keep conversations all on one page so that others may follow and participate in it easily. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 08:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What was deleted removes criticism. If you had looked, you would have seen the conversation was being carried on simultaniously on both talk pages all the time, therefore it was all "copy-paste", he just deleted negative "copy-paste", so the point still stands.pat8722 02:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know the conversation was being carried on in both places and the point does not still stand. If you had read what I wrote, you'll have read "[i]t is common practice to keep conversations all on one page". You fail to assume good faith when you jump to the conclusion that the removal of the text to your place was to "hide" something and not for the simple desire to consolodate it in one place to avoid it going out-of-sync. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 07:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It is proved it wasn't a simple desire to consolidate the conversation into one place, both because of the "pick and choose" nature of the deletes, and because the conversation began, and continued, on both pages, excepting only for the selective deletions on knowledge-seekers page. So the point obviously stands. pat8722 19:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved from bottom of project page
I observe that the those participating on this page are primarily, if not exclusively, the same people previously involved in this dispute who have failed to answer the relevant questions and who respond to legitimate challenges with nothing but unfounded insults, or citations to portions of text which do not even support their positions, hence nothing positive has been produced by this RFC. As BorgHunter blocked me (above) without cause for 3rr, and without explanation on my talk page (he has since stated there I made "unilateral reversions" which I did not do, as what I was reverting was itself a "unilateral reversion" (for reason of not answering the outstanding questions on the talk page)), I will take up this dispute with BorgHunter on our talk pages, to ensure that he understands why I reverted, and will therefore not block me for repeately doing so again, consistent with all wiki policy governing reverts.

What is needed here is input by those who 1) know basic grammar, 2) follow wiki policy as to what "achieving consensus" means (i.e. NOT a vote) 3) cite actual relevant facts and correlate the actual facts to actual policy in a rational, reasoned approach  4) make no insults 5) have no political or personal connections to any of the people or their associates who have previously contributed to these arguments.  What good is RFC if nobody responds?pat8722 16:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Part of the developing outcome of this RfC is a bulk of evidence that shows your understanding of policy is considerably faulty. Besides, you have no authority to dictate terms to everyone else even if you understood policy.
 * By the way, you should read No personal attacks and then look at the discrepancy between it, your point (4), and your point (1). &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 08:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But the whole point (see my response at Requests for comment/Pat8722 is that there has been NO EVIDENCE that I do not understand wikipedia policy or that I have violated it. There have been only violations of wiki policy by others (not responding before reverting, personal insults against me, bullying and "piling on" by admins/admin cronies who don't even read the Libertarian talk pages to see what is actually going on). It is not a personal attack to allege others need to know grammar, it is just a sorry fact that needs to be addressed, as it is part of what causes us to have no definition of libertarianism on the libertarianism page.  The grammar issues have got to be resolved, and we can then move on to the other problems that correction of the non-sensical grammar will make particularly manifest in some of the strange things that have been posted there as purported definitions.


 * First off, there is no policy against not responding before reverting or what you have termed "piling on" by anyone. Right there you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of policy. Nobody needs more evidence than that, and you've said things of that kind multiple times already.
 * As for your insistence that you alone understand grammar, you'll just have to give that up. If you are the only one who thinks there's a problem with the grammar and everyone else disagrees with you, then what "everyone else" believes to be clear grammar wins. End of story. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 08:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence I do not understand wiki policy. I was blocked by Borghunter for alleged "unilateral reversions", so what does that term mean, if not reverting without explanation? It must mean something, as I was blocked for allegedly doing it. So it appears, just based on the most recent stated reason for blocking me, that responding on talk pages is required or an admin may block you for "unilateral reversion" if you don't. I always responded before reverting. The reverters of my edits violated the guidelines at Help:Revertingi.e., "Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism" (my edits were not vandalism) and Consensus which states "the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues" and "Wikipedia works by building consensus."As my edits are not vandalism, they cannot be unilaterally reverted, as that is not "consensus building". The reason given by the others for reverting me was that "consensus" had been reached, but that was just "pretending", as my unanswered paragraphs at paragraphs numbered [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] on the talk: libertarianism page prove (see wikipedia: voting is evil). Wikipolicy supports my assertions that the others violate wiki policy by failing to respond to  paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235], before reverting, because wiki policy clearly states "the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues" (see [[Wikipedia:Consensus).  As I stated at paragraph number [02] at Requests_for_comment/Pat8722 "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."  Hence, under wiki policy, a good faith effort at acheiving consensus requires a response to paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235], and without consensus, I do not violate 3rr by making my daily three good faith reverts.  These reverts serve to encourage the others to engage in consensus building by encouraging them to respond to paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235].  There is no other way to encourage them to engage in consensus building, other than for na admin to block them for unilaterally reverting me (doing so under 3rr under the clause which says "Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others".)  If wikipedia guidelines are followed, my daily 3rr's will result in the others engaging in consensus building, or going elsewhere were they will do less harm, which is exactly how wikipedia is intended to work.  The grammar issue, if there is one, will be made manifest/resolved when they respond to paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235], as they are required to do under the consensus building policy.pat8722 19:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I also just noticed the following sentence on my talk page "A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to the article Libertarianism. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the meditaion, and indicate an agreement to mediate within fourteen days. Please review the request at Requests for mediation, and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation or contact a member of the Mediation Committee." Is this the mediation referred to, or is there something else somewhere? I couldn't find anything when I did a search for "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#"pat8722 02:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To answer your second question, you are looking for the page Requests for mediation. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 08:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything there about mediation relative to these issues, so I will need further direction on how to locate where the particular mediation page is.pat8722 19:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

=Some context= Not sure if this really fits into the RfC but it may be of interest to some of the other participants here. Let me state openly that I also argued against Pat8722's changes to the definition of Libertarianism, early on and before most of the others became involved. I ceased participating due to a combination of frustration at Pat's behaviour and having less time for editing Wikipedia due to offline matters. Prior to this, I had a similar experience with pat at Talk: Timothy McVeigh, after I raised the question of whether McVeigh ought to be categorised as a Libertarian. I'm mentioning this here not in an effort to reopen that debate (in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, I'm happy to accept the consensus on that and any other issue), but because Pat's behaviour on that thread was very similar to his behaviour on the Libertarian thread that is being discussed here. Additionally, it may be of interest to note that Pat's initial editing of the definition of libertarianism to remove all mention of non-initiation of force occured after I argued on the McVeigh thread that McVeigh violated NIOF by blowing up innocent civilians, and was thus acting inconsistently with a major tenet of libertarian theory. Again, the issue here is not whether my opinions on McVeigh are correct, I am raising this because it speaks volumes about Pat's behaviour, which does need to be addressed. --Matthew Humphreys 17:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)