subject:the wik user instances of support for the user's misbehavior were requested: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Wik&diff=3439565&a… this edit adds the comment: i arrived at wikipedia a few weeks ago, and have not conflicted with this user, and so my evaluation may be considered more uncolored: early upon arriving here, i perused the special database features, and found the page for highest number of edits. i thought the top users were quite impressive, until learning about the bots. i noted the wik user was not a bot, and thought, well this is an impressive editor then. i checked the user page, and there found wales's very mild attempt at talking the user down, and thus began to learn that the edit count was due to the anti-social edit-warring, and that this user was legendary for this. i have reviewed the edit history extensively, and have found this reputation to be valid. additionally, edit comments are almost entirely non-existant, with occasional outbursts of abuse and taunts. i don't recall a single usable edit comment. the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Recent_deaths&diff=3349912&a… reverts an unnecessary but harmless stylistic edit by the musicitizen user, and bears the taunt as its comment. it refers to the wik user's earlier series of unprovoked and unanswered abusive comments accompanying reversions of the same user on another matter, and conveys that further edits will be discouraged with reversions. the result of a simple query of edits per this user and the comment string "rv" is demonstrative. additionally, a few comments contain unyielding hypocrisy, such as "avoid redirect; the solution to this is to ban MusiCitizen if he refuses even to comment on the matter", and one comment suggests the cantus user "mind the three revert limit". this makes pages a mine field. users have obtained this user as a personal troll for an edit which is adverse, and presumably more will in the future. the current "wik2" arbitration committee is careening toward a result which is disjointed from the evidence presented: although the user is held to be abusive and problematic, the only immovable conclusion is to not cause offense or prevent editing, for fear of causing a departure. the comment is not a threat to be appeased; it is a refusal to admit the very issue at hand, i.e. the user's trolling and pov pushing; it is evidence that an appeal of personality is believed to be an effective stalling tactic; and it is evidence of incorrigibility. additionally, it provides evidence that an effective ban, ever elusive, may obtain in this case. action is required additionally due to the efficacy of this user's edit warring: although edit warriors generally stalemate each other, this user prevails via simple volume, and has driven off most editors from articles which have been claimed as personal preserves; this has established a pov for each of these articles which cannot be dislodged. presumably the recent departures are not the last, and yet more editors will be driven off from the entire project through this method. note: the user is not merely a pure combonation of troll, vandal, edit warrior, and pov warrior. the category is instead "mixed". there is a class of edit of the sort associated with constructive users, i.e. typographical, facts, article series, informations. this is similar to the mode of the anthony user after being warned for trolling. thus the effort will have to lose the appropriate with the profligately anti-social, the baby with the bath water. i conclude that this user may eventually plague me, and may make wikipedia unusable. due to the long-term futility of disciplinary measures in the general case due to ip technical workarounds, i recommend a code solution which reduces the fragility of the wiki contents. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/