Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nescio 2

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 10:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC).

Nescio (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 are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

I would like Nescio to take other people's opinion into account while he is editing and stop pushing his point of view. If that's not possible, I don't think he should be allowed to edit Wikipedia.

Description

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

Nescio has pushed his POV on a number of articles related to President Bush. ~~He feels that the President is a criminal, and he tries to slant articles' POV that way.~~ He ignores discussion when it goes against him. He only applies WP policies when it would be to the advantage of his perspective. On talk pages, instead of arguing against what people actually write, he states what he believes their positions are and presents an argument against that statement. During an RFC, he edited neutral questions to include information that slants them to his perspective (loaded questions - there's complaints about him doing this before in his first RFC).

See also his first RFC, which was never resolved.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. WP:DR WP:OWN: Nescio was in an edit war with several other editors over a period of a month and a half before I started working on the article.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

2. WP:CON: I requested a WP:Third opinion for a disputed phrase. Third opinion agreed with me. I removed the disputed text. Nescio reverted.

[35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

3. WP:NPOV WP:RFC: We had an RFC for the article. I wrote some questions for people to answer. Nescio changed the questions to support his point of view.

[40] [41] [42] [43] [44]

4. WP:OR WP:CON WP:GAME: When I added a section that explains the Iraq Resolution is legal under US law, he countered by adding statements whose sources never mentioned the resolution, the Iraq invasion, or the UN Charter (the basic idea that they convey is that under international law, a country can't violate international law. I don't really disagree with that, but they don't belong in this article).[45][46] I removed them, because they were clearly WP:SYN. He reverted, saying it was reasonable because one of my sources that involved the Vienna Conventions would be irrelevant as well.[47] I thought he was offering a deal, so I removed everything that mentioned Vienna.[48] Then he removed the entire section because it wasn't adequately sourced.[49][50] I re-added the section and supplied a source with a new introductory sentence.[51] Then he re-added his response without any changes.[52] I moved part of it to another section and removed the rest, explaining that they don't belong in the article.[53] He added it again, this time in a new section directly underneath the section it was arguing against.[54]

At that point, I decided to get an RFC on the article, because I couldn't continue this way (on this issue and some others). Two editors responded. Both said the first sentence in his new section violates policy (Rei's response is confusing, because he first says he agrees with Nescio and then says that the first sentence is bad).[55][56][57] Nescio then admitted that he was aware his additions violated WP:OR.[58] He also said it's "reasonable" to ignore WP:OR for the sake of WP:NPOV (cherry-picking policies is in conflict with WP:GAME).[59] At this point, there was essentially a consensus, because everybody on the page agreed that the first sentence was OR. I removed the first sentence in the section. He reverted without comment.[60]

5. WP:GAME: When pro-Bush statements are added, he insists on more stringent rules than the community. In WP:RS, the community accepts newspapers with editorial oversight. He wouldn't accept anything other than a "proper legal source".

[61] [62] [63] [64]

6. WP:V WP:TPG: He treats as an undisputed fact that the President stated that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, but he never provides a source.

[65] [66] [67] [68]

7. WP:TPG (Misrepresenting others): On talk pages, instead of arguing against what a person wrote, he makes a statement of what he thinks the other person believes and argues against his own statement.

[69] [70] [71] [72] [73]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

[74] [75] [76] Mediation between Nescio and GATXER. They were both subsequently blocked for edit warring.
[77] Page protection Jul. 12 to Aug. 6
[78] [79] Third opinion
[80] RFC

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Isaac Pankonin 10:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to support this RFC thinking it might be premature, but then Nescio made a post where he is trying to rewrite history. So I had to read the ENTIRE history of the page with all of his edits to respond. Reading the entire history and his edits convinced me to endorse this RFC. Note, I came to this article due to an RFC about 2 weeks ago.Balloonman 01:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this because when I was new to wiki (still don't know all official procedures, I edit very part time), Nescio kept on taking out pertinent information. I was all about rewriting information and including claims that disputed the claims I wanted to disput. According to the "Movement to Impeach..." page, George Bush made up the WMD threat. I accurately posted President Clinton's 1998 State of the Union Address stating Clinton's accusation of WMD in Iraq, a post Nescio himself agrees was cited properly. He purposely kept on deleting it, yet kept the allegations of "making up" the threat. My compromise was to keep both, that there has been evidence of both and let the reader decide. Nescio tried to move towards an approach of quelling dissent to his POV. I tried to be fair, but he seems to be using this site as his own POV propaganda site by violating WP:SOAP. Arnabdas 17:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Isaac's Response to Rei's view

Rei's view centers around the way I presented #1 in the "evidence" section above when I started this RFC. I only included Nescio's conflict with GATXER at first. I was not defending GATXER. It takes two to fight, and Nescio showed that he was a willing participant. However, the edit war they were involved in goes back 23 days before GATXER joined it. I count at least 3 other users (Garric [81], one unique anonymous IP who tried to tone down the language,[82] and 3 IP's that were probably the same anon user[83][84][85]) who disagreed with Nescio and removed his additions, and nobody else took Nescio's side (There was one anon IP 84.87.61.22 [86], which looks a lot like Special:Contributions/Nescio). Nescio payed no attention to them other than reverting on sight.

After Nescio received a 10 hour block for this, he posted on AN/I disputing the block.[87] Jpgordon agreed with the block. Jersey Devil said he was involved but did not instigate it. To be sure, GATXER initiated the PA incidents on the talk page. However, what was not addressed is that Nescio was the only participant of the edit war that was involved from the beginning to the end, from May 30 to July 12 - a month and a half! How could GAXTER start it if he wasn't there yet? The truth is that Nescio started it, he continued it for a month and a half, and he only stopped when the page was protected. Yes, GATXER was wrong for his personal attacks. But that doesn't change the fact that Nescio's behavior was wrong as well. Isaac Pankonin 02:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

View by GATXER

I think it comes down to this question. Should a editor who refers to George Bush as the "Fuhr" be editting pages about George Bush? I tried to say no. I did somethings that were wrong. I was new to Winki and didnt know how to handle a editor pushing his POV on pages. IMHO EDitor N uses the system to bully other editors to give up.When he took me to a meditor he was in meditation with about 5 other people.

When Med failed to change my mind he took me to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents....when that failed he said I was staking him. Of course that was a lie.Hes on about every Bush page you can think of so anyone who goes to those pages is in his mind salking him. When that failed he said I was using a sockpuppet even though that IP is in New Mexico and Im in IL.

Keep in mind that in the meditation I Had with Editor N....no one on the page agreed with his editds yet he kept making the same edits.

Did I make mistakes that I had to say im sorry about? Sure. That doesnt change the fact that Editor N pushes his POV on Bush pages. Anyone looking at his Conb can see he is on some sort of mission.

Again the question remains: Should a editor who refers to George Bush as the "Fuhr" be editting pages about George Bush? GATXER 23:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]