Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nicholas Cimini

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, not different disputes. 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: 17:06, 20 July 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC).

• (Example user | talk | contributions)

This dispute has been resolved and Nicholas Cimini was not proven guilty of the following accusations:

Mr Cimini has openly run a revert war over his insertion of material which violates basic NPOV. He has lied on the talk page about the reason for the dispute, openly, and self-admittedly engaged in personal attacks, and shown naked contempt for the rules and norms of the wikicommunity.

Description

Nicholas Cimini has: violated NPOV, run a revert war despite repeated calls for consensus and explanations as to why his POV material is unacceptable, engaged in personal attacks and accusations of censorship. Admitted to personal attacks.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

1. [1] Self-admitted personal attack.
2. [2] [3][4]

[5] [6] Note how the section was originally the inflamatory "the very idea". The user has made no material change to the insertion desite repeated pleas on the talk page to engage in NPOV writing, and citations of why his material is POV.

1. [7] Personal attacks and open threat to vandalise page if his POV material is not inserted.

1. [8] Following through on threat to vandalize page.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

Wikipedia:Cite sources

Violations of Guidelines

The following are not policies but are guidelines:

1. Don't disrupt wikipedia to prove a point.

   No trolling.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [9] A call for consensus - including strong agreement with the user that the article needs a critical reaction section. User however, has demanded that his POV, without alteration, be accepted or else. Stirling Newberry 17:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. [10] User was informed of specific problems with his material. He has refused to alter it in any way, and instead has continued to revert and engage in personal attacks.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Stirling Newberry 17:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. ~~~~ 15:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Hyacinth 15:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{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.}

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

Contrary to the utterances of Mr Newbury the debated material has actually been re-edited by myself on several occasions, in an attempt to make it more neutral. (Please see the history page of the debated article). However Mr Newbury is seemingly unable to come to a consensus on the matter and he has repeatedly censored my contributions without fully explicating his rationale (Check out the discussion page). The "postmodern music" article is terribly one-sided at the moment and i have been trying to provide a valuable corrective to the page, and despite several stylistic problems throughout the article Mr Newbury is only seeking to delete material that doesn't conform to his POV.--Nicholas 17:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It disappoints me that Mr Newbury has not given an accurate portrayal of this dispute. For a true reflection of the issues please see the history page and discussion page in their actual contexts. Many of the accusations that he makes against me could very easily be applied to Mr Newbury himself. He has not been constructive. Choosing to ignore the content of the disputed material he seemingly prefers to focus on “verbiage” (in his own terms). He has insulted me with personal attacks, on more than one occasion. He seems to believe that he has ownership over the disputed article. He refuses to make purposeful edits, and he refuses to discuss the content of debated issues, preferring instead to delete any and all of the material which contradicts with his POV. --Nicholas 12:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It disappoints me even further to find that Mr Newbury is trying to rally support in his

witch hunt against me [[11]]. I no longer have any interest in contributing toward the debated article as it's clear that certain people are either unable or unwilling to co-operate. It really is a shame that Mr Newbury could not contribute toward the improvement of the article by working on a critical section!--Nicholas 15:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Can someone tell me, how do I delete this page?--Nicholas 10:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're supposed to delete it. I'm not sure what the procedure is, but it would probably look better if you just waited for someone else to process / archive / delete it, rather than doing it yourself. Flammifer 11:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose so--Nicholas 12:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is probably not a fully-ripe dispute. There really hasn't been complete intransigence yet, on either side. I disagree with the POV of Nicholas, and with the creation of a pure-criticism section. However, it's clear that the Postmodern music article needs some serious work, including critical voices. The concerns of Nicholas are legitimate, and he appears to be acting in good faith, but the real issue is how his concerns should be addressed. If someone would step forward and do a rewrite that includes the kind of criticisms advanced by Nicholas, I think the issue would disappear.

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

1. COGDEN 22:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC) (In the interest of full disclosure, I have been a significant contributor to the article, in the past).

This RfC has been created more than 48 hours ago, about a dispute only between Nicholas and Stirling. ~Ril~ added himself more than 48 hours afterwards, and doesn't seem to have been involved in the dispute at all - I see no pages (articles or talk pages) ~Ril~ and Nicholas have both edited these last couple of days. Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Flammifer 15:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree with Flammifer. I would also add that the "personal attacks" are simply disagreements between editors; they quite mild, and seem no worse than the things said to Nicholas. Also, deleting short sections from an article when another editor wants to keep them in is not vandalism. -Ril-'s certification isn't valid, because there's no evidence that he was involved in the same dispute, or that he tried and failed to resolve it. The 48 hours have passed. Need I say more? Ann Heneghan 11:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this RfC, I suggested that mediation would be an appropriate remedy. I posted an entry on the talk page of Nicholas suggesting mediation. (My thinking had been both that a mediator might help resolve POV issues and that a mediator would counsel the user in question about incivility and trolling.) He answered that he is no longer interested in Postmodern music. Perhaps this issue will go away.

I do agree that the article needs revision, including acknowledging that there are different POVs as to whether there is such a phase as Postmodernism at all. Robert McClenon 11:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that someone tried to provide the second endorsing signature to this article but was confused by the instructions and signed not just with four tildes but four No-Wikified tildes. This is an understandable newbie error in view of the details of the markup and the signing instructions. Since this makes the second signature invalid, I have moved this RfC back to candidate RfCs. It needs another valid signature, possibly from the user who tried to sign it. Robert McClenon 15:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have 7000+ edits. I am not a newbie. I understand the instructions. This is my normal signature ~~~~ 10:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:-Ril- signs like that, and says about his signature, "I'm keeping it unless the arbitration committee ban it. Learn to cope." (See his user page.) However, the question is not whether or not it's a real signature, but whether it's a valid certification. -Ril-, according to the rules, if you are one of the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute", you have to provide diffs to show that you tried and failed to resolve the dispute, either through messages to the talk page of the article which led to the dispute, or through messages to Nicholas Cimini's talk page. And, the dispute has to be the same dispute as the one that Stirling Newberry is speaking of. If you merely agree with Stirling Newberry, but cannot produce evidence that you and Stirling both tried and failed to resolve the same dispute with Nicholas Cimini, then you should remove your signature from "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" and move it to "Other users who endorse this summary". However, even if you don't do that, your certification is still invalid, regardless of the number of edits you have. If you haven't tried to resolve the same dispute, then no matter where you sign, this isn't a valid RfC. Ann Heneghan 10:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.