Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nightscream

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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Example user | talk | contributions)

---

Nightscream is edit warring at Wolverine (comics). The user also refuses to engage in meaningful discussion.

Nightscream wishes to insert a long and overly detailed description of Wolverine's powers into the page. Other editors have attempted to accomodate the user's broad points where appropriate, but the user still insists on edit warring to gain his outcome. Has no interest in reaching a compromise.

(provide diffs and links)

1. Talk:Wolverine (comics)#Current Edit This is the consensus position all other editors have drafted to accomodate Nightscream's edit without unbalancing the information on the page or introducing POV statements.
2. Talk:Wolverine (comics)#Nightscream's New Edit This is Nightscream's edit which he insits on inserting, regardless of the compromise position.

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
2. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

(provide diffs and links)

1. Talk:Wolverine (comics)
2. User Talk:Nightscream

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Hiding 14:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
2. ScifiterX 15:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. SoM 17:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Pc13 10:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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 ~~~~):

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.

{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.}

So, let me get this straight. Nightscream wants to add more information to our encyclopedia, and there are other editors that don't want that information. Since noone seems to be disputing the factual basis for the information, that doesn't seem to be a problem. Some have contested the NPOV status of the additions, but I don't really see a problem and even if I did that can be fixed with editing, not blanket removal.

I suggest the initiators of this RFC re-evaluate whether they have been accommodating during this. There are plenty of solutions than simple reversion. One could edit the Nightscream's section down a bit. One could even reduce it to a summary and split it off into its own article. I for one find information about the super powers far more interesting than boring storyline information.

So, ALL of you stop edit warring, and find some balanced way of presenting this information. -- Netoholic @ 14:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am compelled to respond to this. No. That is not it at all. No he is not trying to add good objective information to the encyclopedia. He is trying to add bad information (NPOV, biased, opinion, conjecture, etc). He is trying to add the most nebulous kind of fan cruft. And people have been disputing his facts. If you look on the discussion page you can see where I specifically took apart his edit and did exactly that. Believe what you will but you are wrong. We tried to find something valid in his edit and were not able to find anything. There was a very good reason that he was blocked. His accusation that it was unfair and that he had no idea the discussion was even taking place or where it was taking place shows you just how honest and reasonable Nightscream is. Look a little closer at the dialogue. ScifiterX 22:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not appreciate your contention that a group of people advocating thier side of an argument in a discussion is the same as edit warring. We did not knowingly break the 3 revert rule. Nighscream did. We did not ignore the discussion that was going on or pretend we didn't know about it. Nightscream did. He is the one who has been breaking the rules and sticking his nose up at both the democratic process inherent in this site and those who abide by it such as yourself. ScifiterX 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Hiding talk 08:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
2. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) I really don't see why this user's behaviour is a problem. Adding detailed information about something notable that is both neutral, and uncontested as to its accuracy, is exactly what Wikipedia is about. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (not an endorsement) I've contested the accuracy all along, on the basis that Nightscream attempts a level of precision beyond what the source material can support. - SoM 19:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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