Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irgendwer

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC).

Irgendwer (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

Irgendwer has ben engaged in edit warring and general disruptiveness on Libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism since 1 March 2006. He has made the same edit to both of these articles relentlessly and despite consensus. After being warned and subequently blocked for 3RR violations, he now games the system, making two or three reverts each twenty-four-hour period. He behaves aggressively and unreasonably on talk pages, occasionally making personal attacks against other users. He also removes warnings from his talk page.

The level of Irgendwer's proficiency in English appears to be below the basic threshold of functionality required to edit the English Wikipedia. He cannot understand simple arguments presented to him on talk pages, and makes indecipherable arguments himself. He has recently begun to try and insert large blocks of text into articles, which are similarly incoherent.

Irgendwer shares his trademark edit, country of origin, level of fluency in English, and certain expressions and turns of phrase with Alfrem (talk · contribs · logs), who was banned from Libertarianism by ArbCom for 3 months for disruptive editing. [1] However, a request for CheckUser was inconclusive.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Edit warring

Irgedwer attempts to force his change through endless, identical reverts. Here are his reverts to date on Libertarianism.

Incivility and personal attacks

On his fourth edit ever (at least on this account), Irgendwer announces that "I become angry." [2]
Irgendwer calls another user's comments silly. [3]
Irgendwer is very impressed by the ignorance of another editor and accuses him of vandalism. [4]
Irgendwer calls me a "democrat" and Talk:Libertarianism a "madhouse." [5]
Irgendwer accuses me of vandalism and misuse of my non-existent administration rights. [6]
"You only want your politics," notes Irgendwer, "by your stupid unfairness." [7]

After opening his remarks with "Your position is weak," Irgendwer wonders whether or not Rhobite has simply forgotten what he has been typing. [8]
Irgendwer accuses the editors of Libertarianism of mass vandalism "in protection" of me, a "corrupt admin" [9]
Irgendwer dispenses with pleasantries and calls me a "ninny." [10]
Irgendwer calls me a troll and comes back to his theme of my status as a corrupt administrator [11].
Irgendwer re-inserts his changes on Libertarianism with an edit summary of "remove absurd POV." [12]
Irgendwer exasperatedly puts the word "kindergarten" into an edit summary to imply that everyone else is behaving childishly.[13] Alfrem had this habit, also. [14] Hmm...
Irgendwer advises me to "be silent." [15]
As far as Irgendwer is concerned , everyone on Talk:Libertarianism except him is a troll. [16]
Irgendwer asks me if I am the "Great Dictator," perhaps rhetorically. [17]
Irgendwer invites me to answer his question whenever I get five free minutes away from my job as Dictator of Wikipedia. [18]
Irgendwer observes that Serge is "very self-absorbed." [19]
Irgendwer throws down the gauntlet and declares an "edit war" in his next summary. [20]
Irgendwer exhorts other users not to trust Serge because he is "on the crazy trip." [21]
Irgendwer begins to use edit summaries on Anarcho-Capitalism to call other user trolls through a 'troll number' that he has assigned each of them: "rev troll 1," "rev troll 3," etc. [22][23] [24][25]
Irgendwer, in his response to this very rfc, accuses me (Serge) of "bad faith". [26] How this is yet another example of Irgendwer assuming bad faith is explained here.

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Serge attempts to talk things out at length with Irgendwer [27]. Entire discussion is here.
I warn Irgendwer about 3RR before he is blocked, [28] and refer him to WP:NPA. [29]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

--rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 04:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to reason with Irgendwer, but he does not actually engage in discussion. Rather, he keeps repeating what appears to me to be mostly nonsense. --Serge 05:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is going nowhere.. I'm reasonably sure this is Alfrem. Even if it's not, the situation is exactly the same. It would be best to go to arbitration soon. Rhobite 14:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

I verify that the description above is broadly correct regarding Irgendwer's persistent reverting. --FOo 05:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this presentation. Irgendwer's participation in discussions is combative and full of non-sequitors. This editor does not appear to be working towards consensus. He has been disruptive and made negative personal remarks about other editors. Irgendwer should respect the community more by editing in a collegial manner. -Will Beback 09:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have some sympathy with the users point of view regarding libertarianism not being a political philosophy, but he is editing against a clear consensus. Cadr 14:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All true. Thanks to rehpotsirhc for getting this started. As a personal opinion, let me say that I think it's pretty clear that Irgendwer is Alfrem, who has previously been banned from editing the pages in question for just this sort of behaviour (n.b.: the ban has since worn off). When asked directly whether or not he was Alfrem, Irgendwer pointedly failed to say yes or no. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Irgendwer exhibits a sufficient lack of English as to be unable to comprehend arguments with any degree of nuance. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I am guilty. I am guilty for 1 x violating the 3RR since weeks ago. The rest is relative. "Edit warring" is no guilt. It would only be an indication of an other violation. But which one? Incivility and personal attacks? I could make a long list, too, of incivility and personal attacks against me. But who is interested in such a kindergarten(=personal attack)?

But coming to the point: The users above want to claim that political philosophy is a characterisic feature of libertarianism. I have claimed that it is not basically true according to political science (and inexact as broader meaning). Users should give evidence according to Wikipedia guidelines, or to mark it to NPOV. But they fail in it and every user fudged an own story(=personal attack) to enforce majority pov(=personal attack). So what shall I do?

I have written a complete section in the article [30] to support my point. I have wondered that nobody removed it when it must be so absurd. But just today User:Rehpotsirhc starts his first unfair attack. [31] (=personal attack) --Irgendwer 08:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New bad faith:

User:Serge_Issakov lies "accidentally" in his history entry. [[32]]--Irgendwer 18:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
again revert of whole section in bad faith. User:Rehpotsirhc lies by charging Wikipedia:No original research and is conviced "in detail" on matters about he says, "it's indecipherable". [33] --Irgendwer 23:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the same attack again [34] --Irgendwer 08:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User Rhobite removes whole section by ignoring Wikipedia:Editing policy(Perfection Not Required) [35]
User:Saxifrage trolls my user talk page in restoring old reproaches. His Forgiven and Forgotten. --Irgendwer 07:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(In this process, I skip all charges on my bad English and the "Alfrem" zombie incarnation. These incrimination is pure animosity. OK, I know, I don't own my reputation.)--Irgendwer 07:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I haven't really been watching the situation that closely. I noticed that "political philosophy" was being reverted over and over to "philosophy." It doesn't really matter to me whether it says it's political philosophy or just philosophy, so I wasn't participating in the "edit war." I looked at the talk page and there was a lot of argument over this, but I don't think anyone was providing any sources. I thought I'd help out, so I provided some sources for libertarianism as "political" philosophy and attached them to the article, and the reverting of this has sinced stopped. So, to be fair, Irgendwer seems to be respecting that the information is sourced --at least for now. This is my only knowledge of what has been going on with Irgendwer so I can't dispute or vouch for anything else that is claimed here. RJII 19:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

RJII 19:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.