Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pat8722

message: 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)

message: 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. — Saxifrage ✎ 10:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment on Pat's response section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Some context