Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Nescio 2

I really think that this RFC is overboard. I stepped in to the article based on an RFC that had been filed, and in most cases, found Nescio's stance to be more compelling. I see a little less belligerence on the side of Nescio in this debate compared to the other participants, with said user often even signing with "Respectfully" (without any evidence of sarcasm). I see Nescio referring to GATXER as "my fellow editor" right before GATXER sarcastically calls them "the great Nescio" and right after GATXER calls them a "moonbat" and an "idiot". I see little to no evidence of Nescio ignoring mediation. What this summary describes, for example, as Nescio ignoring Addhoc, I see Addhoc making a suggestion and then later changing it to a request that the users simply "compromise" (while, meanwhile, Nescio is doing their best to remain calm while GATXER yells). What I see here is a legitimate difference of opinion, and honestly, I think it's somewhat poor form to take this difference of opinion to a request for comment on the user themself.

"He admits that his section contains original research and unsupported syndication, but he insists on keeping it." -- I would like to see a source on this one. I assume that you meant synthesis, not syndication. -- Rei 15:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that GATXER was unreasonable. I can commend Nescio for not losing his temper, however I've never said that he was uncivil.  I stand by all my comments.  The evidence you ask for is already in the Evidence section under number 4.  You're correct, I meant synthesis.  Isaac Pankonin 00:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll put it here for your convenience. I asked him, "So in other words, you don't dispute that this section violates WP:SYN?"  In his answer, he said that both my section and his section violate WP:OR.  So in essence there is a consensus with everybody on the talk page that the section is original research.  Then he reverted twice after I removed it.  Why would he do that?  Isaac Pankonin 03:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Could it be that you "forgot" to delete a particular section? More to the point I offered to keep both sections: you refused. Then I said with OR in mind we should remove both sections. For some reason only one section was removed. Maybe I merely want you to be consistent when invoking WP:OR and WP:RS.


 * As an aside, since you feel the GATXER example is inappropriate does that mean you will removce it from your list of "problems?" Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 13:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference is that there was consensus that the first sentence of your section was OR, but there was no consensus that the Supremacy section was OR. There still isn't.  I recently supported removing it because the whole idea that it's illegal is a fringe argument, and it doesn't need to be represented.  You made no attempt to abide by the policy, while I went to a library an hour away to look at a book that was cited by another editor.  When I found that it was wrong, I admitted it and removed the material.  Then I spent hours looking for another source.  I found one that is reliable according to WP:RS.  (It was published by a newspaper with editorial oversight.  You argue that it was self-published because I also provided a convenience link in the same citation to the author's blog that had the exact same text.)  On the other hand, your section has been the same since you wrote it.  Your argument that I was doing the same thing is entirely baseless.  Isaac Pankonin 23:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rei, I represented my case badly when I first created the page. I think it's more convincing now.  Isaac Pankonin 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the RfC advocacy by Addhoc
In the interests of full disclosure, I was an informal mediator for a disagreement between Gaxter and Nescio. Regarding the advocacy of this RfC, I would comment the view that George W. Bush is a criminal is a widely held view that doesn't in any way suggest the editor holds views which are so extreme that s/he should be banned from editing. Also, if you were to ban editors critical of George W. Bush, then it would follow you would also have to ban his supporters, a point missed by the filers of this RfC. Addhoc 17:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take that out. Isaac Pankonin 22:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I really have no problem with him having those opinions. But it's been difficult to work with him.  Also, the dispute was not just between him and GATXER.  There were at least two other editors who disagreed with him, and he simply kept reverting.  I'm not defending GATXER in the least.  All I'm saying is that Nescio's behavior, while not as overt as GATXER, is essentially the same.  It's not obvious from his comments, but when you look at his actions, you'll see what I mean.  I suggest going through the whole history of Iraq Resolution, starting with the first diff I listed.  Isaac Pankonin 23:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)