Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nicodemus75

Wikipedia:RFC/N75

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: 18:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC).

Nicodemus75 (talk • contribs)

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.

Description

I want to first say what this RfC is not about. This is not about Nicodemus's heartfelt, strongly-stated opinion on school articles. I am not trying to effect a change in his opinion. I also don't want this to degenerate into a snipe-fest over schools or (inclus-|delet-)ionism. I feel that reasonable adults (and everyone here is a reasonable adult, AFAICT) can come to compromise, or, at least, agree to disagree, as long as everyone involved is civil.

What is at issue is his conduct in discussion on these topics. Nicodemus's primary debate tactic is to attack anyone who disagrees with him, generally labelling them as a "deletionist" and often proceeding to make ad hominem attacks. (While it isn't a matter of bad conduct per se, please see this to see exactly what how Nicodemus uses the term "deletionist.") Often, he doesn't leave it at an implied "You're a deletionist and therefore you're wrong"; he has brought up past bad conduct in irrelevant discussions, in an attempt to smear the subject.

In general, he assumes bad faith on the part of anyone who disagrees with him, frequently accusing people of making mass AFD nominations (when even a moment's examination shows that they are not), at least once biting a newbie in the process.

All this said, I just want Nicodemus to understand that this isn't Usenet; the way to deal with people who disagree with you is not to immediately go on the attack, but instead to civilly discuss the points of contention. Wikipedia isn't split into warring factions, and acting as if it is only destroys the collegial atmosphere that allows Wikipedia to exist.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Please note that the point made in many of these diffs is a salient and (sometimes arguably) correct one; they are merely examples of incivility or of immediately assumed bad faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Schools&curid=1905106&diff=28224189&oldid=28224028 - Characterizes a request for him to explain his position as "an inquisition".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Cory_Elementary_School&diff=prev&oldid=22825812 - The best case of the conduct I am referring to. Nicodemus seems to be less interested in discussion of articles as he is "beating" those who disagree with him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Interchanges_on_Ontario_provincial_highway_401&diff=prev&oldid=28195573
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Newsweek%27s_List_of_the_1%2C000_Top_U.S._Schools&diff=prev&oldid=28056001
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Odle_Middle_School&diff=prev&oldid=27902926 - Note primarily the comment at the end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India_Today%27s_top_10_colleges_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=27715672 - Note that a mild rebuke from an editor who agreed with him with regard to keeping the article is still immediately met with an accusation of violating WP:POINT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Whitman_Middle_School_%28Seattle%2C_Washington%29&diff=prev&oldid=27240389 - Another example of bringing up past behavior, where not related to the discussion at hand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bayonne_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=26602239 - Defending biting a newbie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/High_School_tram_stop&diff=prev&oldid=26490555 - Attacking Dunc for disagreeing with him on school AFDs, in an irrelevant AFD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Forge_Road_Bible_Chapel&diff=prev&oldid=26326241 - Attacking Denni for voting on a still-open AFD for an article that had been sent to WP:CP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/British_Rail_Class_35&diff=prev&oldid=26147520 - More attacking Dunc for disagreeing with him on school AFDs, in an irrrelevant AFD.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School is my first attempt to ask Nicodemus to be civil. I later attempted to do the same in IRC, and was rebuffed, as I'm a deletionist and all deletionists are acting in bad faith. I asked Tony Sidaway to speak to speak to him on IRC (as Tony is an editor we both respect, and I didn't feel there was any risk of Tony being seen as a deletionist), and rather than moderating Nicodemus's behavior, he later yelled at me for "whining to Tony Sidaway."
Doc glasgow (talk • contribs) asked Nicodemus to moderate his conduct here. Nicodemus rebuffs this attempt.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

- A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-Doc ^ask? 20:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC) Reluctantly, see my comments below[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Supplemental Comments by Doc glasgow

(I'm putting this here because, although I'm neutral in terms of schools, it is not an 'outside' view -).

I regret certifying this, for two reasons. 1) I fear that it may turn out to be a partisan slug-fest, and I don't vote on schools debates precisely because I detest such things. 2) I'm really not interested in a 'get Nicodemus75' campaign - and the last thing I wanted was this [1]. That is why I contacted Nicodemus yesterday [2] to try to avoid this - but he wasn't listening. In fairness, Nicodemus's incivility is neither the sum nor the core of the problem that I want us to address. It is rather just one among many bad symptoms.

Schools debates are, in my opinion, futile (there is no real debate – and an inevitable outcome). Be that as it may, it seems we are doomed to have them for the moment. However, that is simply no excuse for the unpleasantness that surrounds them. It is time people on all sides, and those of us in the middle, said 'ENOUGH'. Have the tiresome debates if you must, but desist from the nastiness and pettiness that accompanies them.

I'm not really looking for the community to censure Nicodemus (he is not the only offender), much less drive him away, so much as to make it clear to all participants that this is no longer acceptable conduct.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Doc ^ask? 21:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Sean|Bla ck 01:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Tony Sidaway^t 07:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC) I don't think Nicodemus has been especially uncivil, and some of the examples I have been shown were quite well made points delivered in a mildly tetchy tone, and I said as much when presented with them. But the cumulative effect of unguarded tetchiness in the school deletion debates (which I no longer tend to participate in, for unrelated reasons) has been to lower the level of discourse. I feel that we all must play our part, and develop a more explicit code of conduct for this kind of dispute. I hope that the ongoing discussion at the talk page of WP:SCH will abandon discussion of premature action with respect to school deletions, and instead address the conduct of such debates themselves. They aren't going to go away.[reply]
-- Dottore So 12:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-- David D. [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 17:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Nicodemus has left the project: This was his final straw. He has requested me, as his friend to tell you that he will not be reading this RfC, even less replying. He says that "these partisan antics" have to stop and that he feels that he cannot participate in Wikipedia any longer. Thank you.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

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.

At first, I endorsed the original summary. I felt that some of what Nicodemus said was rash and I think some of it would have been best worded better. But, I can now see that this is by no means just Nicodemus. Most people in this debate are uncivil and sectioning out Nicodemus in my opinion is wrong in this regard - why is this not a debate about the general conduct of voters/debaters? Morover, I am appalled that this has lead to his departure from the project. On recieving the message from Nicodemus, I feel it was wrong to allow this to go ahead. Nobody should feel that shunned by the community that leaving is the only way out. He is a good contributor to Christinaity-related articles and will be sorely missed - not only by the community but by readers of the aforementioned Christian artciles.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

--Cel e stianpower ^háblame 23:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Celestianpower

If Nicodemus has chosen to leave WP, then that is highly regrettable. That he wasn't the only culprit here is true, but not really an excuse for his continuous aggression. Actually, I don't have too much sympathy for editors who are (at best) harsh and critical in their comments to their fellows, and then fly off with all the rage of the victim when they themselves are criticised. Perpetual warriors ought to have thicker skins. All N75 had to do, to avoid this, was acknowledge that his attitude might be perceived as less than civil and tone it down. I asked him to do that yesterday (as I have tried before) - but his last response was ‘fuck you all’. --Doc ^ask? 23:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or 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.