Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Merecat (talk | contribs) at 05:13, 13 April 2006 (→Response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 03:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC).

• Merecat (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.

On Rationales to impeach George W. Bush there is a dispute over contents and alleged POV. Despite repeated requests to discuss his edits he keeps asserting things, adding tags, deleting contents, all this in a very disruptive way. Nomen Nescio 04:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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.}

He claims the article is POV and deletes and adds inormation, but refuses to explain his edits. He added verify tag when in fact he is also complaining about the numerous references. He keeps objecting to the style of references while that is the current policy on wikipedia. He has now started making personal attacks on my person. Nomen Nescio 04:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Uncivil behaviour, accusations and personal attacks.
2. Add clean-up tag to Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, but then fails to explain why, and refuses to even discuss how to improve the perceived POV. And later he again tags it without any explanation.
3. Started edit war redirecting pages on Rationales to impeach George W. Bush corrected here and on Plame affair.
4. Adding verify tag to well-sourced article.
5. Added tag complaining about reference style, although the article uses the new style adopted by wikipedia.Although the subject had already been dismissed by other on other pages: (User talk:Merecat, Talk:Killian documents, Misplaced Pages:Village pump (assistance), Misplaced Pages:Village pump (all), Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive35)
6. Added tag alleging factual inaccuracy while the multitude of references show otherwise.
7. Makes edit contrary to historical facts.
8. Trying to insert "partisan" as his way of NPOV.
9. Deletes reference to Center for Constitutional Rights without substantiating his claims of POV.
10. Deletes on sight without realizing that although the page is from commondreams, the original articles were from The Nation, FindLaw, Associated Press and The Progressive.

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. WP:CIVIL for making uncalled for remarks
2. WP:DISRUPT for adding unwarranted tags, engaging in edit warring, deleting sourced material and inserting POV.
3. WP:NPA making personal attacks
4. WP:VAND
5. WP:DR failing to discuss dispited edits
6. WP:NPOV deleting facts and inserting clearly POV words like "partisan."

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. See entire talk page:
2. Asked about tag, no response.
3. Asked about edit, no response.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

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.

If you read this you will see that Nescio is up to no good in that he is trying to use this RFC to beat me into silence. Please take note that my position is supported by admin User:Spangineer (read this for details) or see this for the diff. Also, more than 4 days ago, on the talk page of the disputed article, I asked Nescio for mediation to solve some of our interpersonal differences. See my offer here. He has not responded yet. I ask that this complaint by Nescio be remanded to mediation. I also ask that a checkuser be performed against Nescio to see if he was the one who posted this false allegation against me. I have asked home four times if these edits were done by him, but he refuses to answer.

As for Nescio's allegation that I do not respond on talk, I categorically deny that and offer this proof: As of just now (05:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)), I have 69 edits to Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (see edit tool stats here) and 139 edits to Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (see edit tool stats here). This is almost 2 to 1 talk page edits to article edits on the page in dispute. On the other hand, Nescio himself has 122 edits to Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (see edit tool stats here) but only 115 edits to Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (see edit tool stats here). I strongly object to Nescio's action with this RFC and suggest that he is the one doing wrong here.

Merecat 04:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

{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.

{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:

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.