Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nixer

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 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC).

Nixer (talk · contribs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Nixer is engaged in revert wars across multiple articles, with multiple editors and has repeated violated WP:3RR. Although he engages in dialogue, there appears to be no attempt at consensus building. He has been blocked no fewer than 10 times for WP:3RR violations. He appears to have the potential to be a valuable contributor.

Description

At least the following articles appear to be the crux of the problem:

Comparative military ranks of World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Basque language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Proto-Indo-European language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For Comparative military ranks of World War II he apparently nominated it for AfD in bad faith.

I am creating this RfC now (while I have time), but will not submit it until Nixer comes off of his block so that there is not time to "pile on" while he can not respond.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

WP:3RR
WP:POINT (AfD nomination)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

The talk pages are rife with examples of dialogue. At least no one can argue that Nixer does not engage in dialogue.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

After a review of the evidence provided, I see sufficient evidence of sockpuppetry to avoid the 3rr blocks. ALKIVAR™ 04:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

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.}

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

Outside view

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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{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 ~~~~):

Discussion

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.