Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-14 Increasingly tense encounters

Mediation Case: 2006-07-14 Increasingly tense encounters

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

...Template:War on Terrorism

...Template talk:War on Terrorism

...Iraq War

...Talk:Iraq War

Who's involved?

...Zer0faults (talk · contribs)

What's going on?

This user first introduced himself by supporting Merecat (talk · contribs) in his RFC. After that we met on several articles where we clearly had opposing views. However, in time what was a difference of opinion has turned into a personal vendetta. Resulting in edit wars not over content but over simply reverting the other user, and [another example of this]. Example

• I make an edit,[1] Zero reverts[2]
• I make an edit,[3] Zero reverts.[4]
• I make an edit,[5] Zero reverts.[6]
• Etcetera, of course, if needed there are more examples here and on other articles.

After mediation over the deletion of several of my comments[7] apparently the onderlying grudge against me is still present. His edit summaries explaining his deletion of neutral messages I left on his talk page are certainly not helping.[8][9][10]

At this time it resulted in protecting a page and while trying to resolve our differences he has now threatened to start a RFC against me.[11] While he is free to do so I would think that a more substantial approach is warranted in light of the more than hostile atmosphere between us. Apparently following this request for mediation he has filed his RFC. I will not respond there since it misrepresents the facts and I think we need to await mediation concerning the bigger picture: the mutual hostilities.

I will add diffs, have to look for them so please be patient.

What would you like to change about that?

...Could somebody look into our encounters and offer some solution to what has become an unfortunate personal vendetta?

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...My talk page is fine.

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

The RfC has been filed. While I would be more then welcomed to participate in yet another Cabal, this users violations of WP:POINT have spread in the mean time to a template that I edit frequently and they have begun removing items I add and refusing to give a reason why. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nescio. If Nescio will state here that he is gonig to actually state his reasons for removing items and his reasons related to the Iraq War then I will withdraw the RfC in hopes another mediation cabal will help. However if he will not then I feel the RfC is the appropriate measure. Feel free to reply Nescio if you are willing to do that or not. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so its clear, this cabal was filed an hour after the RfC, Nescio seems to imply above that the RfC was filed in reponse to this. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"If Nescio will state here that he is gonig to actually state his reasons for removing items and his reasons related to the Iraq War then I will withdraw the RfC in hopes another mediation cabal will help." Please look here and you will see my explanation for including items and you will also see I ask other editors for their arguments. Second, I have no objections to anything, I merely want to know what exactly should be included and on what grounds. Clearly I have done what this user asks for, so he can withdraw his RFC. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not clearly, see you removed the 2005 Bali bombings when the explanation was already on the page. You had replied directly to the reasoning for it being on the page. Template_talk:War_on_Terrorism#Addition. Furthermore your edits in violation of WP:POINT will need to be addressed via a RfC I believe. You have been arguing both sides of the coin when conveinent including just this past two days by adding Zamboanga bombings after removing 2005 Bali bombings, an incident also by a group related to OEF-P. You want to state I have a vendetta against you, however you removed the 2005 Bali bombings stating all articles should have a sourced reason, yet you only removed the one I added. One of only 5 that are actually sourced on the talk page already, in a section you replied to and started yourself. I am tired of going around in circles with you over this, changing your views to counter any arguement, removing content then claiming its because there is no explanation ro criteria, oddly enough only removing one article, not all, and only one of 5 to be fully sourced. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You are then breaking your word. Clearly I repeatedly said I did not object to anything. Clearly you choose to ignore that and my repeated attempts to resolve the issues. The only conclusion can be that you are not interested in finding resolution but are out to pester me. When you are willing to proceed, and not mention Bali which is absolutely not against my wishes to include, feel free to try and find a solution.

As two your coin, it proves you are ijncapable of compromise. First I tried to implement your position: WOT is a US campaign supported by NATO. You objected, so I tried and accommodate what you were actually saying, WOT is a joined US and NATO campaign. Then again you object because it is a US campaign with NATO support. So if anybody was confused about what he wanted it was you. Your failure to recognize I was trying to abide by your rules proves your inability to see beyond your personal grudges against me. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Solution to what? Pester you? You remove an item I added, give no reason for it, then now say you never had an objection ... and I am pestering you? You have accused me of stalking you after I revert a page you edit in violation of WP:POINT, a page I helped create and edited first. You accuse me again of stalking you after I start editing the war on terrorism template, yet do not mention that you barely participated on it, 5 edits, before I started editing it heavily. You are the one clearly not interested in a resolution or you would have simply given a reason for removing the 2005 Bali bombing instead of ignoring my request for why, and starting to rewrite the entire template. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of playing this game with you, you obviously violate WP:POINT to try to prove some political point, and that is what the RfC addresses, you want to continue this cabal fine, but we will wait till someone takes it up first. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact you refuse to listen to my repeated explanation I do not object to Bali and it was removed in error simply proves you are only interested in harrassing me. What exactly do you want me to say. I said I do not object to Bali, I advanced arguments for including other articles, and I tried to start a debate on what exactly this template should include. Nevertheless you claim all this is me trying to prove some point. Whgat point would I prove in trying to establish a neutral basis for editing the template? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)