Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nescio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: 12:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

Nescio (talk • contribs • logs)

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

1 Statement of the dispute
2 Response
3 Outside view
4 Discussion

[edit] 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.

[edit] Description

Nescio has frequently engaged in violations of WP:POINT to the detrement of the articles he edits. The user has seen fit to argue two sides of the same coin, often in attempts to prove some unspecified point. The user has argued that the Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism, and then argued it is not part of the war on terrorism in other articles. They have done the same regarding NATO, at times argunig its a solely NATO operation, then arguing NATO is not involved. One of the latest incidents involves flooding a template with tons of terrorist attacks because they disagreed with one of the items added to it. This has gone on to ther incidents that will be shown below.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] Iraq War Related Evidence

The below evidence is to show the contradictory nature of this user edits in violation of WP:POINT. They remove "Part of the War on Terrorism" from the Iraq War article, yet add Iraq War related items to the War on Terrorism template. They even added Iraq War related items to the template and still remove the Iraq War from the template itself. the WP:POINT section specifically shows them adding tons of material stating apparently all terrorism is included after an item was added they did not agree with.

Adding template to Iraq War items:

Zarqawi PSYOP program

[1] - feel free to explain your edit on talk page, as it stands it is policy in the Iraq war to implicate him in more than he actually did
[2] - apparently you are saying Iraq is not part of WOT
[3] - you yourself claim Iraq is part of WOT, make up your mind please

Downing Street memo

Contradictory edits to the template

Removing Iraq War from the WOT template

[7]
[8]
[9] - Zero makes unwarranted edits

Adding Iraq War related items to WOT template

[10]
[11]

Related contradicting edits

Removing "Part of War on Terrorism" from Iraq War article

WP:POINT violation

Adding a flood of terrorist incidents to the WOT template

[15]
[16]
[17] - appartently everything should be listed
[18] - apparently all terrorism is included

Removing 2005 Bali bombings from WOT template

[19] - more accurate
[20] - rvv observe 3RR, apparently you mistake me for a fool: try and compromise instead of this bullying

[edit] Evidence related to NATO/NATO article

Below are edits that obviously contradict eachother. I have added some of the summaries so you can see these edits are being done in violation of WP:POINT. The user is disrupting the page in attempt to state a point, arguing in one location NATO is not part of the War on Terrorism, then arguing on another page that its entirely a NATO operation, then even stating its a US campaign supported by some NATO countries.

Removing WOT Template from NATO page

[21]
[22] - not a NATO operation, US campaign and nothing else
[23]
[24] - by your own admission it is a US war since only Bush gets to decide what is part of it, or are you now saying that all parties involved have a say, in that case, all parties see Iraq as not part of ..)

Stating its solely NATO operation in War on Terrorism article

[25] - No need to mention the US, it is a member of NATO
[26]
[27] - are you saying it is a US campaign with some assistance (supported by NATO members) in certain parts of it?)
[28] - make up your mind, NATO is either a prime contributor (which it is not) or it is supporting the US which you veto

Adding its some of NATO, but not all to War on Terrorism article.

[29] - apparently it is a US campaign in which NATO participates, see tag regarding grammatical error
[30]

[edit] Secondary Evidence related to WOT template

This requires some explanation. User removes the 2005 Bali bombings which were carried out by Jeemah Islamiyah, a group being fought in OEF-P. They however add the Zamboanga bombings which were carried out by Abu Sayyaf, another group being fought in OEF-P. During this whole time they do not remove 2002 Bali bombings which was also carried out by Jeemah Islamiyah.

Removes 2005 Bali bombings from WOT template, leaves 2002 Bali bombings.

[31]
[32]

Adds Zamboanga bombings to WOT template.

[edit] Wikipedia:WOT related evidence

The user appeared on the poll that was attempting to determine if users felt the Iraq War was part of the War on Terrorism. After arguing on the page for some time over the justification of the war being wrong,[37] they were pointed to the header that explained the poll was not attempting to place blame or justify anything, simply state if the war was launched as part of the War on Terrorism.[38] From there they proceeded with the following actions:

Adding and removing of information from the header, changing what the poll was addressing, 18+ ppl voted at this point.

[39][40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]

Removal of their comments in protest even though people have replied to them. Makes the page unreadable, obvious disruption. 20+ comments being removed.

[58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

WP:POINT

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

There is no mediation point for this, the user refuses to discuss their reasons at all. When asked if they would answer [70] they replied [71] Asked again [72] they replied [73] Asked again [74] They replied [75] Asked again, never replied to [76] Asked, never replied to [77] Asked on user page [78] user deleted [79] Asked again on their talk page [80] again deleted [81]
This user has even resorted to lying during a Mediation Cabal. They stated their removal of the 2005 Bali bombing article from the War on Terrorism template was by accident [82] however they stated no the template talk page that it was done on purpose. [83] They have now resorted to stating they just felt it was a minor event and not a major one [84] even though they deleted the item instead of moving it to "related events" section on the template, both times that they removed it. This switch in arguement is repeated on the talk page here, first stating it was an error [85] then now stating it was because they felt it wasnt a main event. [86]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
~Rangeley (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Esaborio 04:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

--Mmx1 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

{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:

[edit] 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.