Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

Case Opened on 10:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Requests for comment

Statement by User:Nescio

This user made a special request therefore I bring this case to ArbCom.[1][2]

From opposing views to vendetta: Over the past months I have had numerous unpleasant encounters with this user after becoming aware of him was when he supported Merecat (talk · contribs) in his RFC (a banned user that coincidentally had similar editing and debating techniques). Evidently our perception of reality is different. That is allowed. However, in time, what was a difference of opinion has turned into a vendetta aimed at my person. Resulting in edit wars not over content but over simply reverting the other user, and another example of this.

Describing behaviour: This user has a very aggressive, hostile, uncooperative and in general a disruptive style of editing. He arrives at an article, starts deleting everything he sees as wrong, even sourced material.[3] When asked to justify he responds with statements (i.e. violation of WP:POINT, WP:RS, WP:OR, et cetera) but never with a full explanation substantiating his claims. When his argument is said to be flawed he simply restates the same argument while reverting.[4][5][6](rv, will fix wapo link in next edit, again please provide the information requested on the talk page. Thank you[7] oddly enough he reverts but has yet to make a serious comment on my arguments[8][9] and here restating his assertions while not responding to my rebuttal[10]). When asked to answer a direct question he reverts and simply restates his assertion.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Finally, still not having answered any question, he says he will no longer discuss since the other party is being disruptive (or something to that extend). He demands evidence to restore what he redacts out, but then refuses to read the sources provided. To quote another editor:

And this is part of the problem Nescio is having with you, Zer0, you do not read cites that are provided for you.. [18]

This obstructive way of editing can only be interpreted as Zero having appointed himself as "the decider." He has ruled on the matter (see his mantra in the edit summaries[19]) and as such nobody has the right to edit contrary to his ruling. Therefore his refusal to discuss, despite my repeated rebuttal of his verdict.[20][21][22] Personally I thought no editor was more equal than another, apparently not. The fact this user aggressively claims sole authority on what does and does nort belong in Wikipedia suggest he has not understood WP:OWN and WP:POINT, although he refers to it often enough.

Suddenly our encounters became very inflamed as he and another user removed my coments from a page. Although I might have chosen a better place to comment, they aggressively denied me the right to reinstate those comments. Resulting in the first mediation case.

Examples of his behaviour and comments:

  1. War on Terror stated that this was a campaign by the US, NATO and allies. I changed it into the US, supported by NATO and allies, since Zero had advocated it is a US campaign in which NATO provides assistance. He objected to this edit and reverted. Evidently he felt that it was a joined campaign so I removed the US from the sentence as stating US and NATO is a tautology. Again he objected and reverted. Evidently he did mean to say US supported by NATO. He refers to this as me contradicting myself, while in fact the change in stance was his. I pointed out he was making a grammatical error in his reasoning. Also he removes text he disagrees with,[23] I restore it with tags,[24] yet he deletes it again.[25]
  2. Template:War on Terrorism he keeps removing extraordinary rendition, unitary executive theory, and other terrorist attacks. He removes them because I fail to provide sources. In the case of UET I referred him to:
    • unitary executive theory (1 the position taken by adherents of the "unitary executive" theory, and advocated by John Yoo in particular, holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers cannot be restrained by any law, national or international.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] 2 The NSA warrantless domestic surveillance program is another example of the Bush administration's application of its interpretation of executive power,[34] ) Even though this theory is about inherent war powers, and the only war the US is fighting is WOT (unless we include the war on drugs, war on poverty, et cetera), I fail to understand how UET is not about WOT. In the words of Zero that violates WP:OR, meaning that when an article states 1 a dog has four legs, 2 animals with four legs are called quadrupeds, 3 dogs are animals, we are not allowed to conclude dogs are quadrupeds. Just like we are not allowed to take the ddefinition of a war of aggression (which is a war crime) as any war 1 not out of self-defense, 2 not authorised by the UN, and then see if the invasion of Iraq violates that definition. Of course, when there are multiple interpretations we call it OR to pick one of those. These examples do not have multiple interpretations. Contrary to popuylar believe any response that is not related to an acute and imminent threat simply is NOT self-defense.
    • signing statement (1 Some critics note that this statement specifically refers to a unitary executive theory, under which the Commander-in-Chief has broad authority to use his discretion in interpreting and applying the law. As a result, it is argued, the President has with the signing statement to the McCain Detainee Amendment reserved the right to waive the "torture ban", effectively re-writing the law passed by Congress[35][36])
    • NSA warrantless surveillance controversy (1 The Bush administration argues that the program is in fact legal on the grounds that FISA is an unconstitutional violation of the President's "inherent powers" and/or that FISA was implicitly overridden by other acts of Congress, 2 However, the authorization granted by President Bush to the NSA apparently uses neither FISC approval nor the one-year foreign surveillance authority granted by FISA. Instead, the administration argues that the power was granted by the Constitution and by a statutory exemption, as is advocated by the Unitary Executive theory using the interpretation of John Yoo et al.)
    • and the multitude of references, following claims of inherent war powers, in those articles to support including UET in the template,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] which Zero is unable to find.
    To illustrate the silly argument to refuse on account of OR, I inserted in this request what the articles said although Zero could not find it, which resulted in his reply that I must provide a source if I want to include it. In other words, he orders me to quote the relevant text from the articles, but is unwilling to read it himself. As to extraordinary rendition, since this is a new concept initiated as part of WOT to render suspected terrorist (or was it Enron, or Abramoff?), and clearly separate from rendition, his objection is rather odious and not substantiated with any argument other then "provide evidence," while failing to show evidence this form of rendition existed prior to 9-11.
  3. Zarqawi PSYOP program I am trying to describe this program, but again this user follows me around and massively deletes part of the article.history[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] Again I reinsert the relevant parts[61] and ask him to explain.[62] Nevertheless he prefers to edit war over my edits.[63][64] He is so focussed on reverting me, he is even reverting my correction to the WaPo link.[65] The article is about an alleged PSYOP program that, among other things, is aimed at the US public. I inserted some background information regarding PSYOP programs aimed at the US public (which this program apparently does) and the relevant legalities. Again, he advocates violation of OR and blindly deletes without addressing my arguments for inclusion. He has now started asserting the program is not aimed at the US public, although the article mentions it several times(?).[66] A quick glance at the edit history shows that while I am trying to improve the article (i.e. incorporating the sources, rewording, making better summaries) the primary contributions by this user consist of reverting me.

These are some very good examples of how this editor 1 follows me around (dare I say it resembles stalking?) and blindly reverts my edits on sight,[67] 2 removes all information he thinks is uncomfartable to the Bush administration and therefore POV. Fortunately, there are other editors who are capable of discussing and can refrain from aggressive editing.[68]

Uncivil remarks While continuing his hostile behaviour he started making unusual comments on my person -although, unfortunatelly, following the months of him attacking me I also made some harsh remarks- and edit summaries that are uncivil and misrepresenting the edits.

  • Turns out I was accused of being an editor that was previously banned name User:Merecat. I was accused by User talk:RyanFreisling and by User:Nescio and neither will return to apologize I am sure.[69] Incorrect statement, nevertheless, still found on his page.
  • removed pests comments. Yes you are now a pest for constantly posting on this page the results of a RFC that showed I was not a sockpuppet. Please stop posting here[70]
  • rm non contructive comments. Again do not post here while mediation is proceeding, your comments are agitating the situation[71]
  • rv. vandalism[72]
  • rm comments by AGF violator and NPA violator, cease posting here please, your comments are mean and unwarranted[73]
  • Following the numerous edit wars, in which he apparently is not to blame, he has chosen to file a RFC against me, asserting I, (that is, not he!?) am violating WP:POINT. In light of his own behaviour in the edit war he describes, it would be interesting to see how he would call his edits.

Conclusion There are more examples, but I think this will suffice to show that Zero has an obstructive way of contributing. Instead of AGF, and trying to find consensus through debate, he simply deletes/reverts all he disagrees with, especially my edits, aggtressively demanding others to disprove his point. This means he repeatedly refuses to read the evidence provided unless people quote the relevant text, apparently because he is prohibited from reading articles himself. What we have at the moment is the two of us edit warring while we should be discussing. I admit I can't resist reverting his edits when I find he has reverted mine. Since no debate is possible I do the easiest thing (stupid, I know) and continue the edit war. At this moment on every article I edit Zero steps in and deletes my contribution. While I acknowledge people have diffent views, his style of reverting my edits on sight is exceedingly annoying, violates WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, and certainly does not result in improving Wikipedia. In the hope somebody can end this silly game I reluctantly file this request.

My specific requests from ArbCom are:

  1. To determine the nature of the conflict, and if it is agreed Zero has directed his efforts towards undoing mine, to offer a solution stopping the personal harrasment.
  2. To determine whether this editor is reverting/rewriting/deleting my edits in an attempt to improve Wikipedia by fighting POV (apparently mine), or, whether his blind "corrections" of my edits (edit warring) are based upon 1 antagonising me and 2 removing views from Wikipedia he thinks should not be made public (i.e. censoring), 3 stalking-like behaviour.
  3. To determine whether or not editors making massive changes to an article[74], and subsequently only contribute that article by reverting my efforts, should discuss prior to those edits or whether it is acceptable that those wishing to retain the original version are the sole party that should justify their edit.
    As minor and least important points
  4. To determine whether this user is correct in objecting to biased sources, even though policy allows it. And whether sources need to be fact-checked, and if so to rule that every article not based in fact is deleted, with the result that i.e. religion related articles are removed as they inherently are not fact-checked as religion is about a believe in something in the absense of facts supporting that view. In other words, are biased and opiniated sources allowed if we identify them as such?[75]
  5. To state whether comparing a definition (i.e. war of aggression, war crime) with the known facts (was Iraq invaded out of self-defense? did the UN support the invasion?) and concluding the two are (not) compatible is a violation of WP:OR.

If needed I will provide more evidence/diffs of his behaviour, but there is so much (miles and miles and miles of articles, diffs and comments) it would hinder those trying to understand the conflict. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by User:Zer0faults

Mediation Attempts

User left out dispute resolution located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nescio. They have protested their involvement here and presented no evidence to dispute any of the claims.

Misuse of RFAr postings?

I was under the impression that RFAr notifications were to get out to users involved, not every article the user mentions, furthermore if they are posted, they are to be done in a neutral manner. Nescio's posts on pages accuses me of harrassment and is clearly made to bias the reader, stating "Apparently mediation does not result in improvement of the harrasment I endure"

Furthermore 4 of those users are not listed above, 3 of them people who took part in the previous RfC on me but are unrelated to these incidents.

Requesting RFAr?

As for me requesting it, if you look at the dif they provide [87] their threat is located right above it, attempting to use the RFAr threat to get me to stop editing the Zarqawi program.

Refusal to provide Sources

Unitary Executive Theory - I have asked this user to provide sources stating Unitary Executive Theory is part of the WOT directly: [88] What they reply with is their reasoning, ie. original research [89]

I tried to explain that Unitary Executive theory and Extraordinary Rendition have existed before the WOT, and to provide a link stating they are part of it: [90] There reply is that "kidnapping is part of the WOT" [91] but never give a source.

The article on Unitary Executive Theory relates itself to inherent war powers, Nescio then draws the line stating the only war the US is involved in is the War on Terrorism, so this must be in place, currently and related to the WOT. No source draws this line, if one does he could have simply supplied one. Oddly enough none of his sources that he did produce state the UET is related to the WOT. They link NSA surveillance program, but only 3 actually mention the WOT, and none in connection with UET.

Information Operations Roadmap - User states "reverts but has yet to make a serious comment on my arguments" and offers [92] as proof. However none of this actually addresses the following posted: [93] [94] They still have yet to show a source stating there is a link between the Information Operations Roadmap and the Zarqawi PSYOPS program. There latest attempts to include the roadmap even state the program is not part of it: [95] They are basically linknig a random document to the article they created to fatten its contents, a document they admit is not connected.


Smith-Mundt Act - This carried onto the Smith-Mundt Act, a law stating the US government cannot conduct psyops on its citizens. They are adding this mention, without a reason. By adding only one law they are creating a bias where it seems that is being violated. I back this up with the following:

  • They remove a quote when they revert stating the "US Home Audience" is not actually meaning to target civilians.
  • They add the Smith-Mundt Act to the see also section, though there is no evidence the program targets civilians.
  • They add select quotes, leaving out "It is ingrained in U.S.: You don't psyop Americans. We just don't do it," a quote by the commander of the PSYOPS programs in Iraq
  • They left out the explanation of it hitting the US "When we provided stuff, it was all in Arabic," and aimed at the Iraqi and Arab media"
  • The article specifically states "does not specifically state that U.S. citizens were being targeted by the effort,"

Signing Statements - Again the users proof above does not link signing statements to the WOT, it links them to torture, which then may link to extraordinary rendition, however no court has found torture took place as a result of extraordinary rendition. Furthermore that would link signing statements to Extraordinary Rendition, not directly to the WOT. Unless this user is stating that torturing people is a main concept of the War on Terror.

NSA Surveillance Program - I stopped arguing over this long ago, its even in my proposed template overhaul of WOT template: User:Zer0faults/WOT_Template2


Lack of sources continued

When asked on the WOT template page to provide a source for linking unitary executive theory and Bybee memo to the template

  • [96] - "please provide ruling. Also remove Bybee again since you did not even attempt to give a reason for it.)"

They replied with:

  • [97] - "(Hamdan v Rumsfeld)"

I looked up the document to find out its 158 pages long. I asked them to provide a page number that is most relevant [98] and was told [99] I asked again for a page number since the link they posted had nothing to do with Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld [100] I was told I was being uncivil [101] I explained to them that 158 page document is not a source if you cannot even cite a page in it [102] I told them I would leave it to the end of the day however for them to provide a source. He then told me I am violating WP:AGF and WP:OWN, yet still refusing to give a page number, now telling me to look in the newyorker, however that doesnt mention Hamdan is tied to UET. I explained this to them and gave a quote of what it does say. [103] They then went on to state its about signing statements and inherent authority, so now at this stage Nescio is no longer claiming Hamdan vs Rumsfeld is linked. They went on to call the US justice system a Kangaroo court and at that point I stopped responding [104]. He has still yet to provide a source that says UET is part of WOT, only his own conclusions which are a violation of WP:OR.


Misrepresentation of who is reverting

If you actually view the history of the Zarqawi program page you can see I have been editing behind Nescio and not reverting. However the first edit nescio makes is always a revert, then continues to make smaller edits to the article, with lacking summaries:

  • Revert on July 17th - [105] - "the massive removal of info and misrepresentation of the original articles is to difficult to undo so I rv"
  • Revert on July 18th - [106] - "rv revert that was done in several edits, please every thing you censor is relevant and sourced, you may have another POV, but Wikipedia is not about redacting out information that is uncomfortable"
  • Revert on July 18th - [107] - "v massive deletion, arguments are flawed so please address the rebuttal before reverting again, warring is silly when you can also try and justify your objections."
  • Revert on July 19th - [108] - "restored original version while awaiting debate, please Zero discussion is so much nicer than edit warring"
  • Revert on July 19th - [109] - "estored work in progress per talk, als rm POV tag, AFAIK there should no longer be a problem, Zero has promised to first start justifying his edit and to stop making statements"
  • Revert on July 20th - [110] - "do not blindly reevert, you have to explain massive edits, second you even reverted my correction of the WqaPo link, WP:AGF"
  • Revert on July 20th - [111] - "restored attempt at creating a serious page, Zero please first jusrify massively rewriting, as huge changes without first trying to discuss is highly "frowned upon""
  • Revert on July 21st - [112] - "restored work in progress, corrected Salon misrepresentation, removed biography"
  • Revert on July 21st - [113] - "restored non-POV version"
  • Revert on July 21st - [114] - "restored info deleted by "the decider" which he had not noticed was taken from Newsweek, and again restarting attempt to improve while Zero only contributes by reverting"

So as can be seen the reverting is not one sided. Furthermore this users edit summaries normally consist of one word when they are not reverting, such as "clarfiying" "expanded" "example" "tweak" etc. Not very informative to other editors, where all of my edits are fully summarized to explain what and why edits are happening. You can see them on the history page [115].

Failure to understand WP:RS

User keeps attempting to add quotes from a self published, non notable article from a non expert in the field of terrorism or even law enforcement. Nescio has been told that this source fails WP:RS by 3 different users and continues to insert quotes by that writer, stating bias sources are allowed ... failing to address the issue of it being self published, not peer reviewd, not from a journalist, not even from a expert in the field.

  • TheronJ telling Nescio is fails WP:RS [116]
  • Morton Devonshire telling Nescio it fails WP:RS [117]
  • Myself telling Nescio it fails WP:RS [118] [119]

Nescio does not even attempt to address the arguement, instead he attempts to change the reason to bias or other reason: *Telling Morton bias sources are allowed - [120]

  • Telling Morton that the New York Times does not fact check, evidence is Judith Miller - [121]
  • Nescio again not addressing WP:RS, attempting to limit arguement to bias - [122]

I revert without explanation

The claim that I revert "but never with a full explanation substantiating his claims", I show the following original edits, all fully summarized:

  • [123] removed information clearinghouse source. Bias source, as per VP:RS bias sources should not be used as sole sources for information
  • [124] Please do not remove factual information, your editorial is more suspect then the Washington Post
  • [125]
  • [126] readded quote that explains the "Home Audience" its directly in the source, please be careful of selective quoting
Note this edit is actually jsut adding a space, I noticed I forgot an edit summary on the prior edit, so I created a line break and added the summary for the last one.
  • [127] Program - removed portion already in header, its redundant
NoteIts stated almost word for word in the header.
  • [128] removed Agencee France quote as its about an unrelated program as well as Rumsfeld document, against I ask you to supply a source stating this PSYOP is part of that roadmap, thank you.'
  • [129] removed quote as its already mentioned in header in same detail, actually more clearer since it explains home audience, be careful of selective quoting
Note Contained a selective quote from Washington Post without the trailing information of specifying the program did not target civilians etc.
  • [130] removed program section, its covered in header. sources were not about this program and quote is covered in header
  • [131] Removed WOT as again its more directly linked to Iraq War, removed Smith Mundt Act, again please prove this program violates this act, no OR please
  • [132] rm Roadmap, please provide a source stating these two events are linked

As pointed out above this user still has not provided a source linking Operations Information Roadmap and Zarqawi PSYOP program, not an article that even mentions Smith-Mundt Act.

Nescio's violations of WP:POINT

Adds items to War on Terrorism template, stating Iraq War is part of War on Terrorism:

  • Zarqawi PSYOP Program: [133] [134] [135]
  • Downing Street Memo: [136] [137] [138]

User removes Iraq War from template: [139] [140] [141] User removed "Part of War on Terrorism" from the Iraq War page: [142] [143] [144] How can the Iraq War not be part of the War on Terrorism, but all its sub events be part of it? This user goes on to remove the War on Terrorism template from the NATO page: [145] [146][147] [148] Then states NATO is the sole participant in the WOT: [149] [150] [151] [152] They claim this was a grammar issue, however it was pointed out numerous times on the War on Terrorism talk page to this user that some campaigns are US only, some are NATO without US, some are NATO with US and some dont involve NATO at all: [153] [154] [155] This concludes with them stating they will edit other articles to reflect somethnig I did not state: [156] in violation of WP:POINT, do not disrupt other articles to prove a point. After much of this happened the user felt it was necessary to flood the War on Terrorism template with numerous unrelated terrorist acts after I added the Chechen rebel leader, since someone added the Chechen War. The edit summaries are included to show the WP:POINT violation, instead of voicing concern no the talk page about hsi addition, he simply flooded the template being highly disruptive:

  • [157]
  • [158]
  • [159] - appartently everything should be listed
  • [160] - apparently all terrorism is included

Wikipedia:WOT WP:POINT Violations

The user appeared on the poll that was attempting to determine if users felt the Iraq War was part of the War on Terrorism. After arguing on the page for some time over the justification of the war being wrong,[161] they were pointed to the header that explained the poll was not attempting to place blame or justify anything, simply state if the war was launched as part of the War on Terrorism.[162] From there they proceeded with the following actions:

Adding and removing of information from the header, changing what the poll was addressing, 18+ ppl voted at this point.

  • [163][164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181]

Removal of their comments in protest even though people have replied to them. Makes the page unreadable, obvious disruption. 20+ comments being removed.

  • [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193]


Constantly Changing Arguements

The following takes place during a Mediation Cabal. They stated their removal of the 2005 Bali bombing article from the War on Terrorism template was by accident [194] however they stated no the template talk page that it was done on purpose. [195] They have now resorted to stating they just felt it was a minor event and not a major one [196] even though they deleted the item instead of moving it to "related events" section on the template, both times that they removed it. This switch in arguement is repeated on the talk page here, first stating it was an error [197] then now stating it was because they felt it wasnt a main event. [198]

AGF

This user states I violate WP:AGF, however they refuse to actually show an example. I will show some of the things they have said to me in volation of WP:AGF:

  • [199] - "The fact you are unable to resist pestering me yet again, proves you are not interested in any mediation. Stop harrassing me and await the procedure or admit you have something against me personally"
    • I keep trying to explain to this user I do not have a personal problem with them, I just want them to source their material and prove links exist, however whenever I ask for source I get told I am attacking and pestering them.
  • [200] - "Since you are reporting me, can you also report yourself as vandal for refusing to read the evidence I provide and then rv my edits on account of there being no evidence"
    • There was a 3RR report this comment is in response to. The outcome was a block.
  • [201] - "you are now trolling since the entire explanation can be found on the article about UET, signing statement, et cetera. The fact you fail to read them but still claim UET is not being used proves you are only being a dick"
    • This is in response to me asking them to provide sources. I would like to point out that "War on Terror" is not located in the article for unitary executive theory at all, except in the "see also" section.
  • [202] - "Then continues ignoring several clear questions showing he is wrong and appears to have developed an addiction to edit warring."
  • [203] - "but you might look into it more and discover there is a campaign against me by two editors and the 3RR report surely is part of that"
    • After being blocked for violating 3RR
  • [204] - "False, you removed my comment on the votestacking in that poll as a personal attack."
    • They advertised their RFC in a MFD vote, I removed it because it seemed like link spamming, it was added back with an explanation by a 3rd party and I left it.
  • [205] - "All in all his behaviour highly similar to that of a disruptive troll that is stalking me."
    • This is actually stated while asking a user to mediate the conflict ... what a way to start mediation.

Closing Statement

This user has a habit of stating I have a personal problem with them and I "stalk them", however these accusations appear when they are asked to provide sources, which they seem to not want to do. I have said before I think nescio is a good editor, however my opinion is starting to change. I have asked this user to cease inserting original research into articles and they have just continued to do so. I have removed alot from the Zarqawi PSYOP program page and I added some. The article in the condition Nescio wants to keep it is 50% quotes and introductions to quotes. Its also highly POV as it states quotes but not their follow up information, as highlighted above.

Furthermore I never said a bias article cannot be used, I said a bias article should not be the only source for information. Finally in relation to the Zarqawi program article I want to state that 25% of the quotes on the page in the version Nescio wants to keep come from a non expert who wrote an editorial for a site that cannot be confirmed to reliable or verifiable. The article in question is an editorial that is self published as Michel Chossudovsky, the person being quoted, runs the website. Its the responcibility of authors to verify their sources.

In closing from Nescio' statements above he fails to grasp the concept of OR. He wants to take a law, interpret it and make a statement of fact from it, without requiring a source that supports it. To state the invasion of Iraq is a war crime he draws the following links with original research (1) that his understanding of the law is correct (2) he is aware of all treaties, rulings, etc that would alter that law (3) that a case has been made to a court that its a war crime by an appropriate prosecutor (4) that its been ruled on by a competant court, or at least that the arguement has been heard by a court with appropriate jurisdiction. Its not for us wikipedians, especially those without degrees in international law, to look at a document as complex as the geneva convention and decide for a fact that a certain war is a war crime, especially when we may not even be aware of alternate rulings, laws, limitations etc. But that is Nescio's style, he uses logic statements to attempt to make information into facts, however that is in violation of the basic principle of WP:OR. To counter his arguement, to state the Iraq War was a "war of agression" is to say that the US did not attack Iraq out of self defense, which there is no 100% proof of, so it cannot be a fact, he keeps arguing the UN did not support it, however the UN does not have to support it if its a war of self defense. As you can see the situation is highly complex and I am not even a lawyer, neither is Nescio which goes to show why we should not be drawing our own conclusions. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

  • Accept, to look at both parties. Dmcdevit·t 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. - SimonP 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. James F. (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, despite the request on this page being far too long. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Negotiation in good faith

1) Users are expected to negotiate in good faith should a dispute arise. Repetitive assertions, circular logic, and references to inapplicable policies or guidelines are not acceptable.

Pass 6-1 at 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Banning for disruption

2) Users who repeatedly disrupt the editing of an articles or set of articles by edit warring or other disruptive tactics may be banned from those articles, in extreme cases from the site.

Pass 6-1 at 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy

3) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This becomes even more important when disputes arise.

Pass 7-0 at 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Journalists and published authors

4) Articles by established journalists and published authors may sometimes be judged by the reputation of the author rather than the venue they are published in, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_reliability.

Pass 6-0 at 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

See also

5) Internal links in a "See also" section need only be of related interest.

Pass 6-1 at 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) Zer0faults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in editwarring and other disruptive editing [206]. His activities were opposed by Nescio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who seems to have abandoned the site.

Pass 6-1 at 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC):

Zer0faults has removed sourced information

3) Zer0faults has removed well sourced information [207] and [208].

Pass 6-1 at 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Failure to negotiate in good faith

4) Zer0faults fails to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], and [215].

Pass 6-1 at 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mutual discourtesy

5) Zer0faults and Nescio have engaged in mutual discourtesy [216].

Pass 6-1 at 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring over See also section

8) A number of the disputes between Zer0faults and Nescio were over inclusion of an internal link in the "See also" section of articles [217].

Pass 7-0 at 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is now a re-direct

10) Other editors have turned the contentious article Zarqawi PSYOP program into a re-direct to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which contains a paragraph on the subject in this section.

Pass 6-0 at 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Zer0faults placed on Probation

1) Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Log of blocks and bans.

Pass 6-1 at 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults&oldid=1144178426"