In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 06:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
User:Pedant17 has persisted in edit warring to Friedrich Nietzsche despite a clear consensus against his position.
Desired outcome
That this behavior cease.
Description
Since September 2006, Pedant17 has waged an ongoing campaign to remove all reference to Nietzsche's being German from the article Friedrich Nietzsche. There was a debate over how to characterize his nationality in July/August 2007, with the eventual consensus being that he should be called a German; this discussion included User:Skomorokh, User:RJC, User:Pedant17, User:Cesar Tort, User:BCST2001, User:Chef aka Pangloss, and (most recently) User:Fixer1234. Pedant17 has refused to accept this consensus, denied waging such a campaign, and every month has been re-attempting this change. He has recently begun claiming that other editors' refusal to continue this argument with him is evidence that his view is the consensus position.
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.)
- The edits in question are [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
- The consensus was formed at Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche#Nationality. Pedant17 initially engaged in constructive discussion [18] [19] [20] [21] through September 2007. When User:RJC objected in revision edit summaries that Pedant17 continued to pursue this change without offering arguments on the article talk page [22] [23], Pedant17 began posting longer and longer essays on the matter to Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche [24] [25].
- Pedant17's edit summaries for the last five changes to Friedrich Nietzsche noted above make reference to the fact that no one has answered his essays on the talk page [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]
Applicable policies and guidelines
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
- There was a private discussion between User:Pedant17 and User:RJC on their respective talk pages [31] [32] [33].
- User:BCST2001 pointed to consensus against Pedant17's edits and their disruptive nature in reversion edit summaries [34] [35]. User:RJC left a new message to the same effect on Pedant17's talk page [36] and in a subsequent reversion edit summary [37].
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
- Postmodern Beatnik ( talk) 18:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC) - For what it is worth, the reason I never engaged in the discussion is that I believed it had been adequately worked through on the talk page by the time I became aware of the dispute. If I had taken part in the discussion, I would have been on the side of labeling Nietzsche a German philosopher. Regardless, this is a clear case of edit warring.
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.
{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.}
Briefly:
The alleged edit-warring seems to refer to a principled and consistent desire to reflect the contemporary state-of-play on the matter of highlighting Nietzsche's Germanness in the lead of his biographical article.
The alleged "clear consensus" on this matter seems unclear in the light of this RFC. The talk-page has for many months reflected the view that highlighting Nietzsche's Germanness may mislead. I welcome the sudden influx of comment there since my last edit of the article.
The alleged "ongoing campaign to remove all reference to Nietzsche's being German from the article" does not exist. On the contrary, I have acknowledged that we can in some senses regard Nietzsche as "German" (whatever that may mean) and I encourage the discussion (to which I have contributed) on his German characteristics and I welcome the analysis of his place in some sort of tradition of "German philosophy". My comments have confined themselves to questioning the exact nature of "Germanness' in this context and to trying to avoid undue emphasis and prominence on a glib characterization as "German" -- especially in the lead sentence.
WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPT and WP:EDITWAR all make reference to the need for discussion on the talk-page of an article as a primary means of resolving differences and working towards consensus. I have consistently and intensively used the Talk-page for these purposes, answering points and proffering analogies. In personal communication and in edit-summaries I have tried to steer debate back to the Talk-page. I have allowed ample periods (up to several weeks at a time) for responses to appear on the talk-page after the frequent and swift reversions of my edits to the lead (and, recently, of my edits elsewhere in the article). For several months and until the last couple of days, nobody apart from myself contributed to the discussion on the Talk-page under the heading "Nationality".
I have experienced some frustration in the face of lack of addressing the issues, repeated unjustified assertions/speculation about the topic and about my actions, and even suggestions that people do not take my points seriously and "that everyone has become tired of speaking with [me] about this on the talk page".
I see my case as strong and well-supported by the evidence; and I find my actions in full accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Users who endorse this summary:
-- Pedant17 ( talk) 01:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In content disagreements, it's usually preferable to seek dispute resolution, for example article request for comment, instead of engaging in protracted talk page arguments or edit warring.
Users who endorse this summary:
- Addhoc ( talk) 20:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- ImperfectlyInformed | { talk - contribs} 02:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
In reviewing the description, the response, and certain other relevant circumstances in this RfC, I think both parties (particularly the party who has opened this Rfc and kept quoting consensus in their description) should consider refamiliarizing themselves with the WP:CONS policy. I find there is no clear consensus, and as per the policy, one of the dispute resolution processes should have been sought once negotiation failed, preferrably request-for-comment-on-article-content-disputes, or mediation. In such a situation (of a content dispute), opening this Rfc on the concerned editor was not a preferrable solution, particularly when the edits (primarily from the content dispute) are on this article alone, and appear to be the only evidence against the editor.
I am of the opinion that there is not enough for a case against the concerned editor, and suggest that both parties:
- seek informal or formal mediation on the matter instead, and;
- cease any further editing to the article that is relevant to this content dispute.
Users who endorse this summary:
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.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 06:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
User:Pedant17 has persisted in edit warring to Friedrich Nietzsche despite a clear consensus against his position.
Desired outcome
That this behavior cease.
Description
Since September 2006, Pedant17 has waged an ongoing campaign to remove all reference to Nietzsche's being German from the article Friedrich Nietzsche. There was a debate over how to characterize his nationality in July/August 2007, with the eventual consensus being that he should be called a German; this discussion included User:Skomorokh, User:RJC, User:Pedant17, User:Cesar Tort, User:BCST2001, User:Chef aka Pangloss, and (most recently) User:Fixer1234. Pedant17 has refused to accept this consensus, denied waging such a campaign, and every month has been re-attempting this change. He has recently begun claiming that other editors' refusal to continue this argument with him is evidence that his view is the consensus position.
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.)
- The edits in question are [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
- The consensus was formed at Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche#Nationality. Pedant17 initially engaged in constructive discussion [18] [19] [20] [21] through September 2007. When User:RJC objected in revision edit summaries that Pedant17 continued to pursue this change without offering arguments on the article talk page [22] [23], Pedant17 began posting longer and longer essays on the matter to Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche [24] [25].
- Pedant17's edit summaries for the last five changes to Friedrich Nietzsche noted above make reference to the fact that no one has answered his essays on the talk page [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]
Applicable policies and guidelines
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
- There was a private discussion between User:Pedant17 and User:RJC on their respective talk pages [31] [32] [33].
- User:BCST2001 pointed to consensus against Pedant17's edits and their disruptive nature in reversion edit summaries [34] [35]. User:RJC left a new message to the same effect on Pedant17's talk page [36] and in a subsequent reversion edit summary [37].
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
- Postmodern Beatnik ( talk) 18:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC) - For what it is worth, the reason I never engaged in the discussion is that I believed it had been adequately worked through on the talk page by the time I became aware of the dispute. If I had taken part in the discussion, I would have been on the side of labeling Nietzsche a German philosopher. Regardless, this is a clear case of edit warring.
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.
{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.}
Briefly:
The alleged edit-warring seems to refer to a principled and consistent desire to reflect the contemporary state-of-play on the matter of highlighting Nietzsche's Germanness in the lead of his biographical article.
The alleged "clear consensus" on this matter seems unclear in the light of this RFC. The talk-page has for many months reflected the view that highlighting Nietzsche's Germanness may mislead. I welcome the sudden influx of comment there since my last edit of the article.
The alleged "ongoing campaign to remove all reference to Nietzsche's being German from the article" does not exist. On the contrary, I have acknowledged that we can in some senses regard Nietzsche as "German" (whatever that may mean) and I encourage the discussion (to which I have contributed) on his German characteristics and I welcome the analysis of his place in some sort of tradition of "German philosophy". My comments have confined themselves to questioning the exact nature of "Germanness' in this context and to trying to avoid undue emphasis and prominence on a glib characterization as "German" -- especially in the lead sentence.
WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPT and WP:EDITWAR all make reference to the need for discussion on the talk-page of an article as a primary means of resolving differences and working towards consensus. I have consistently and intensively used the Talk-page for these purposes, answering points and proffering analogies. In personal communication and in edit-summaries I have tried to steer debate back to the Talk-page. I have allowed ample periods (up to several weeks at a time) for responses to appear on the talk-page after the frequent and swift reversions of my edits to the lead (and, recently, of my edits elsewhere in the article). For several months and until the last couple of days, nobody apart from myself contributed to the discussion on the Talk-page under the heading "Nationality".
I have experienced some frustration in the face of lack of addressing the issues, repeated unjustified assertions/speculation about the topic and about my actions, and even suggestions that people do not take my points seriously and "that everyone has become tired of speaking with [me] about this on the talk page".
I see my case as strong and well-supported by the evidence; and I find my actions in full accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Users who endorse this summary:
-- Pedant17 ( talk) 01:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In content disagreements, it's usually preferable to seek dispute resolution, for example article request for comment, instead of engaging in protracted talk page arguments or edit warring.
Users who endorse this summary:
- Addhoc ( talk) 20:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- ImperfectlyInformed | { talk - contribs} 02:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
In reviewing the description, the response, and certain other relevant circumstances in this RfC, I think both parties (particularly the party who has opened this Rfc and kept quoting consensus in their description) should consider refamiliarizing themselves with the WP:CONS policy. I find there is no clear consensus, and as per the policy, one of the dispute resolution processes should have been sought once negotiation failed, preferrably request-for-comment-on-article-content-disputes, or mediation. In such a situation (of a content dispute), opening this Rfc on the concerned editor was not a preferrable solution, particularly when the edits (primarily from the content dispute) are on this article alone, and appear to be the only evidence against the editor.
I am of the opinion that there is not enough for a case against the concerned editor, and suggest that both parties:
- seek informal or formal mediation on the matter instead, and;
- cease any further editing to the article that is relevant to this content dispute.
Users who endorse this summary:
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.