Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nico

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've tried countless times - yet to no effect. I don't want Nico to get banned or anything, I simply want someone to explain a few things to him, maybe he'll finally listen.Halibutt 18:15, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Ok, a list of violations of netiquette and wikipedia behaviour. These are just a few examples from the top of my head.

And many, many more... Halibutt 01:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico, the fact that you don't agree with certain proposals does not make them invalid. Others do and they have the same right to express their views as you or me. And User:Gdansk was not banned because of his constructive proposal.Halibutt

Not disputing Halibutt, I would like to add that I perceive Nico to have shapen up considerably since his first appearence on wikipedia. It was worse. In my opinion much worse. This might indicate that Nico has chances to be socialized into the wikipedia community. Regarding "evidence" of his aptness, I perceive this maybe to be out of scope in the context of Halibutt's request for comments. --Ruhrjung 10:11, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are perfectly right. Nico's behaviour was much worse before and there is some improvement, especially in his views (he no longer objects the Treaty of Versailles (see [15]).

Nor I have seen him complaining about Potsdam conference lately ([16]). However, the style of his edits and lack of netiquette is still an issue.Halibutt 10:23, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well I must admit that I'm fed up with constant struggligng with Nico and attempting to reason with him in hope he will listen. He is not willing to listen instead forcing his biased nationalist POV. Thanks to his unwillingness to listen and even participate on Talk, we have constant edit wars on Expulsion of Germans after World War II because if he is reverting without regard, everyone else see no sense in disscussion on Talk either. When some real discussion takes place it is by changing the article and reasoning in change summary. Ironically, this caused consensus of Nico, Ruhrjung and me simply reverted by someone that followed the trend.

I won't elaborate on Nico's inability to maintain NPOV, ignoring questions and childish behaviour - others said enough. He is just disheartening other, more sensible users, preventing them from contributing. Perhaps it is his policy for his adversaries.

Ruhrjung: I agree that Nico may be improving, but for now he is simply an obstacle to contributing something sensible in Polish-German themes. I'd vote for banning him for 3 months - just enough time for Poland enter the EU and resolving some Poland-German issues. Perhaps this will cool down emotions of Expellees and Nico's too. Really, yours and Jor's presence is enough to represent German POV and correcting Polish POVs if need be.

Let's give the serious people the chance to do something sensible!


Yours -- Forseti 12:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While I must admit Nico is holding a strong German POV, I do not perceive him to be hostile, and with the exception of the Danzig/Gdańsk naming dispute his edits are no worse than those of certain other users, who are pushing a Polish POV. What should change in his behaviour is an end to unilateral page moves, but for the most part his edits are — in my opinion — quite valid, if from a German POV. And as this is an international Wikipedia where the Polish POV is overrepresented Nico's edits can help establish a good NPOV version. — Jor (Talk) 19:42, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Expand and summarize: Nico has many good edits to his name, and is undoing a lot of damage done by POV pushers. He just should try and deal with sensitive issues… more sensitively. — Jor (Talk) 19:44, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Apparently, Mr. von Zernichow's major problem is that he can't make a distinction between propaganda, political doctrine and facts. Some revisionists may argue that Gdańsk or Kalinigrad are still part of Germany and are called Danzig or Königsberg but it doesn't change the fact that they are not. His other problem is his inability to cooperate, and especially to accept a view different from his own. I'm sure he could still be a valuable contributor if only he focused more on facts than on wording (that should be left leave to someone with a better undertanding of the "NPOV policy"). --Kpalion 19:59, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While I consider many of his views extremist, it would be wrong to label Nico a vandal. I've noted a trend of improvement in his behavior, that I'd like to see continue rather than taking any punitive action at this time. Additionally, he and User:Wik share the blame for the edit wars between them, and thus should share any punishment equally. Mkweise 23:01, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Nico is certainly not the only one responsible for Polish-German edit wars. --Kpalion 23:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

All right then, I believe we all agree that this should be considered a warning, or rather a friendly advice. The only problem is this: does Nico know it and does he care?Halibutt 23:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since apparently Nico decided not to change his ways, I decided to send him the following letter to his Talk page.

Request for comment

[edit]

Nico, forgive my curiosity, but are you totally unable to cite your sources? I've asked you to do so several times, yet to no effect. Also, many people asked you countless times to use the discussion page instead of starting a revert war. To no effect.

What's the problem then? Do you think we are a bunch of liars who want to foul the rest of the World? Or maybe you believe that all those who question your version of history were fouled themselves? If you think that it's something wrong with us rather than with the articles - just give us a hint as to what is wrong and what should be improved. It seems to me that you started a holy war to defend the one and only truth. Am I correct?

Anyway, the community agreed here that nobody wants you to be banned since some (perhaps even the majority) of your contributions are good and wikipedia really needs your knowledge. Do you want us to change our minds?

A sign of good will would be more than enough. Just try to drop in to the talk page and answer some questions others ask you. Join the discussion. Please.

Sincerely, Halibutt

I hope that it helps or at least attracts his attention to any of the discussion pages he constantly ignores. Otherwise, I'd have to admit that I've done all I could and that he better be banned. I'm really sorry to say this, but I'm loosing hope in him. Especially after what he wrote here (apparently as a response to this letter).

Does anyone have any ideas as to what one can do in order to force Nico to cooperate rather than fight? Halibutt 01:48, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IMO if Wikipedia would have selective page protection (protect specific pages from specific users), it could be solution. Nico usualy has some pet (now Erika Steinbach) he cares about, and if that pet would be taken away, he may find something useful. (Or another pet.) 81.27.192.19 19:12, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does hardly make Nico more cooperative. Such a step would only promote un-cooperative personas to multiply by division. Unless (until) the wiki-software is changed in order to emphasize focus on the proposed text-edits rather than which account stands behind a proposal, we will have to learn the complicated craft to teach contributors like Nico (and Gdansk, not to forget!) the advantages of adherence to wikispirit and wikiquette. --Ruhrjung 21:36, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nico&oldid=58705021"