Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Nicodemus75

Please remove this from the "evidence". It was a reply to a comment made by me. I suggested expanding speedy deletes, and he cited a resonable concern. I was the person who went off-topic (away from the specific AFD), not him. His concern was a common, well accepted one. Surely, we're not confusing disputes over policy with personal attacks. Since, no explanation was given why this evidence was given, I'm going to assume it was just a mistake. --Rob 06:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Removed. I can't see any incivility there at all, and I'm so not much bothered by going off-topic in AFDs as going off topic to attack people in AFDs. I can only imagine it was a cut and paste error, and I am sorry for including a clear good-faith comment (one which I can't even figure out a possible bad-faith reasoning for, let alone likely bad-faith reason). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

On the other items of evidence, I would suggest, if its not to late, somebody should comb through the vast school AFD logs, and picking picking better cases. To me, they fall into two distinct classes:
 * Case #1: Both parties culpable:  Two people, have repeated sparring matches, and swap incivility.  Picking one person's response-to-a-response-to-a-response........ is somewhat arbitrary.  I think, WP:NPA rule should not be a sheild to be uncivil.  That is, it shouldn't be used so that somebody can attack somebody (or violate another wikipedia policy), and then hide behind NPA to avoid a response.  I don't wish to cite specific examples, as I don't wish to get even more personal, or re-dredge old wounds even more.  Rather, I think one should simply look at the AFDs, and find better examples, dropping the worse ones (I prefer the person who added them, to be the one to replace them)
 * Case #2: Somebody bites a newbies, or is the first to be uncivil in an exchange:  This is entirely separate, and the only thing worth discussing here.  I've also occasionally "bitten newbies", and its just wrong.  No excuses.  This is what really stops progress in the "school debates", as we don't get enough new people to partipate, as they're scared off.  Only people with "thick skin", who are ultra-determined stay in.

Note: I'm not saying "Case #2" is a valid (or invalid) case, I am just saying, its the only one worth talking about *if* we're only going to have an RFC of one user. --Rob 11:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind, this RFC is being pressed after requests for Nicodemus to merely apologize and desist. Heck, I wouldn't have pressed it he had apologized alone. He hasn't been the only user people have asked to tone down the incivility; he's just made a particularly obnoxious and destructive habit of ignoring or counterattacking against such requests. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would have declined to certify this had Nicodemus merely aknowledged that his words might be seen as uncivil, and indicated that he would tone it down in future. However, when I invited him to do so, he declined. Doc &#91;&#91;User talk:Doc glasgow&#124;&lt;sup&gt;ask?&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I would not have posted it under those circumstances. After I posted it and made him aware, he contacted me on IRC (and said a number of rash things, unfortunately), but the offer I made then stands: if he apologizes, privately or publically, and stops being uncivil, I will personally speedily delete this and to hell with process. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My comments aren't really a broadside against filing the RFC in general. I appreciate, you made some requests.  I'm saying, please look at what its focussed on.  In some (not all) of the evidence examples, Nicodemus75 is making a rude response to something as bad, or arugably worse.  In those cases, its necessary to take action on both sides, or no sides (that action doesn't have to be an RFC but must be something).  Now, obviously, we don't want to rehash each sub-dispute.  So, what I simply suggest, is keep the RFC, keep the clearer cases, drop the two-sided evidence examples, and perhaps replace them with one's with clearer examples.  Basically, I'm saying, if you throw to much stuff in this RFC, it won't send any clear message.  And given Nicodemus75's unfortunate, apparent, decision to leave, the message is the only thing that counts.   --Rob 11:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for Doc G or anyone who endorsed, but my only intended message is to ask Nicodemus to be civil I wasn't hoping to send some broader message, because I prefer to send specific, personal messages. I hope he spends a day or so to cool off, then comes back and reads this with a sober eye. If he doesn't come back, as far as I'm concerned, this was an unfortunate waste. :/ - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Then, lets get rid of everything except what you just said here, on the main RFC page (e.g. focus on willingness to talk about issues, without dredging all the cases).  Why list all 11 diffs, if that's not really the issue?  I think, no matter how well intentioned you are, an RFC page is always going to be taken negatively, and every extraneous word just makes it worse.  I hope he does come back to read the RFC, and I hope when he does, its all about a willingness to talk things out, and not a list of his part in some two-way bickering matches (which is what several of the items listed are). --Rob 12:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Because when I said to him merely what I said here, it was rebuffed. I am illustrating a trend and asking people who are not involved to support me when I say, "Please, just be civil, okay?" I made a point of showing this list to multiple people before making this RFC, to make sure I wasn't picking on him unduly. I tried to talk to him, on Wikipedia and on IRC. I found that he was uncivil and prone to immediate attack or counterattack, even when simultaneously asking multiple people to stop similar behavior. I've done everything I can to make sure that this isn't harassment or vindictive persecution.


 * Understand that I am reluctant to file this RFC, and eager to forgive the past and wipe my hands of this, but I do also feel that this situation has been forced. Incivility is still a problem, and unrepetent incivility doubly so. - A Man In Bl☭ck (conspire | past ops) 12:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Nicodemus has succumbed to a growing frustration with editors who are perceived as being blanket deletionists, as evidenced by consistently voting against schools. The exchange cited above involving me is I think a displaced irritation arising from my belief that schools are inherently unnotable and my votes to delete as such. He thus interpreted my comment in bad faith. (Full disclosure: Nicodemus had earlier called for my censure (here.) There is a problem of civility, yes, but the matter does not strike me as that serious.  When major differences emerge in points of view, it is natural to expect that the language grows rather heated. Dottore So 11:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That diff is an example of rebuffing a calm request to assume good faith. Part of the problem is attacking people who politely request that he not attack people. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * When major differences emerge in points of view, it is natural to expect that the language grows rather heated. Not so. Ad hominem arguments ought to be unacceptable. Civility, and WP:FAITH should be non-negotiable. Deal with the issues, don't attack the character of the person. --Doc &#91;&#91;User talk:Doc glasgow&#124;&lt;sup&gt;ask?&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)