Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults
I find it disturbing that someone who made the first edit just two and a half months ago has already been blocked 4 times for revert wars and aggressive behaviour and invests such a tremendous amount of his editing on conflicts. Please help to find a way to make this a fruitful editor or to reduce the amount of time others need to deal with the conflicts. Socafan 22:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
My involvement is practically accidental, after I protected the Template:War on Terrorism page from an ogoing revert war. I have also suggested (although only to Zer0fault), that War on Terrorism be rewritten completely, due to the massive amount of {{fact}} tags. However no matter who might be right or wrong, this conflict does appear to be a sterile standoff between the two users and very little constructive editing (but a LOT of arguing) has come out of it. Circeus 02:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
This has gone on for some time, with Nescio frequently accusing Zer0faults of stalking, or going around just to revert his edits. This comes from a failure to assume good faith, Zer0, like me, has edited and reverted things that he saw as incorrect or wrong. Frequently Nescio has engaged in revert wars over content disputes, though he has indeed settled the one for the Iraq War, which is a credit to him and worth noting (though not before several months of it.) As Zer0 pointed out, a lot of what Nescio has done has been editing to make a point, such as adding every terrorist event to the template. When this is reverted, it is a legitimate revert, not one out of some vendetta. ~Rangeley (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no history with Zer0 but Nescio is part of a crowd that is known for their POV against the Bush administration and its policies. They always seem to be suspicious of those that disagree with their POV or try to make articles more NPOV. To wit, when they were trying to get a user banned for life, Nescio became suspicious and paranoid of many users [1][2] simply because they disagreed with him. This current RfAr is not surprising as the quest to ban/censure/intimidate those that don't want one-sided POV articles (or those that oppose the constant creation of one-sided articles to highlight a specific POV as is the case here). --Tbeatty 23:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
And with regards to Nescio's request #4 "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." - I think this illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what an Encylcopedia is on Nomen's part and is telling about his own view on edits. His use of religion articles as an example of something that isn't fact checked is absolutely wrong. The encyclopedia articles on religion is about the religion, not the religious views themselves. The facts about the religion are easily fact checked (or ommitted if they can't be fact checked). Nescio appears to believe that the article should be espousing the religious view. This is inherently POV and is clearly not allowed but is consistent with the way Nescio edits articles. Nescio injects political POV into articles in much the same way he seems to claim that religious POV is espoused (i.e. without facts and taken on belief). In the latest conflict, Zarqawi PSYOP program, Nescio apparently believes that this is inherently an anti-Bush administration piece and therefore should be allowed to have "religious views" (i.e. anti-Bush administration) espoused in the article and taken on faith. It should be obvious that every article should be NPOV and fact-checked. The committee should find that articles are about their subjects, and are not the subject themselves. Articles should be NPOV and fact-checked for every claim and statement made. Wikipedia is not the place for original research or for vouching for particular theories or points of view. --Tbeatty 09:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the only action is probation for Zer0. There doesn't seem to be an end date. Is this by design or an oversight?--Tbeatty 06:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I have interacted with Zerofaults and Nescio 2-3 times. I think that these WOT-related sites are all highly disputed sites and the tone of people at these sites relatively more elevated. I think this may be unavoidable and that users who post at these sites tend to push boundaries. Zerofaults seems to be able to keep his discussion within the rules and has the motivation to make people aware of POV issues at these sites. It is a good contribution to Wikipedia to ensure that sites have awareness of NPOV issues. I have had no issues with Zerofaults (probably less likely to). I have had one issue with user Nescio; he edited and rewrote a comment I posted on a straw poll at the Iraq war discussion board without notifying me. [3][4]. Mrdthree 03:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Request for clarification Dec 2006[edit]
Zer0faults, now editing as NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is under probation and may be banned from articles he disrupts. A complaint was filed at WP:AE alleging disruption at September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (with a related discussion here). I looked into the situation, and found an edit war over the insertion of an external link. I counted 18 insertions of the link by 5 editors (11 by NuclearUmpf) and 17 removals by 7 editors over 7 days, with no attempts made to follow any dispute resolution process (third opinion, RFC or mediation). There was extensive discussion on the talk page but it was fruitless, as it revolved around whether the link met the external link policy, rather than what seems to me the more important issue of even if it does, should it be included as a matter of editorial judgement. I offered an opinion on the link, and declined to enforce NuclearUmpf's probation, as he was only one of twelve people involved in an edit war, including at least one admin, none of whom sought help through the dispute resolution process (I left open the possibility of future action if Nuclear continues to fight the issue after DR). [5] (One other uninvolved editor has also offered an opinion on the link [6].) My judgement has been called into question by two editors, one of whom said (in email) "You have effectively taken the power and credibility from the arbcomm, saying their rulings mean nothing." I request a review by the arbitration committee. Thatcher131 14:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that I twice asked Tom Harrison to discuss the issue on the talk page, and was twice ignored. On the third time I went to ask I found his talk page protected and made an AN/I post requesting someone ask Tom to participate in the discussion. I am also the one who started the discussion on the talk page after witnessing the link being removed without a reason being given. The link was originally provided by user Lovelight from what I had seen. So while I did not pull in a third party or goto RfC, I was the one who attempting to discuss the issue and frame the debate for it to be discussed. Some of my reverts are reverting people who did not even leave edit summaries, like Tom Harrison, who did not give a reason ever in his edit summary for why it should be removed. If I am to be punished for "edit warring", then tis only fair that Tom Harrison, RX Strangelove and all other users participating receive the same punishment for also participating, and perhaps a greater for not even attempting to discuss the issue, where I at least did that. I would also like to note that RX filed his complaint in retaliation for me asking on AN/I for someone to get Tom to participate, the complaint was made the same day, an hour after my AN/I post which did not even mention them, showing its in bad faith. I would also like to point out that I did work with one user who was open to discussion, that being PTR, who myself and them felt that narrowing the link to the specific day of the 9/11 attacks would be a fair middleground, and it was done and Lovelight was asked to agree and they did. --Nuclear
Zer020:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC) - I would also like to apologize to Thatcher131 for any angry emails they may have gotten in response to this issue, as they have been nothing but fair handed in my opinion and I have always stated I would follow their decisions. I would also like to point out that neither RX nor Tom has attempted, since protection was removed, to seek a form of mediation. If this issue was so big to them that they had to revert constantly without summaries etc, wouldn't they have attempting some mediation by now? --Nuclear
Zer020:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)- You're only responsible for what you write. I just feel that with multiple editors questioning me I would like a reality check. Thatcher131 21:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- First time I've noticed proposal for link in question was around memorial. Notion reoccurred last month. As seen through discussions, my opinion about the link is as of valid, valuable, and well cited resource. Especially if we are talking about final, well focused and narrowed version. I'd say that arguments were made clear and that continuous removal of link without proper response wasn't all right… …from more than one perspective I'm afraid. Lovelight 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're only responsible for what you write. I just feel that with multiple editors questioning me I would like a reality check. Thatcher131 21:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Request for clarification Jan 07[edit]
I need some help. For the past few months I have been just about the only admin to respond to complaints at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. There have been two complaints filed against NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly Zer0faults, under probation at the above case. I have taken no action on these complaints, for various reasons. My judgement has been called into question multiple times. No other admins have weighed in at WP:AE. Last month I posted a request for arbitrator review that sat on the page here for a week before it was archived without response.
Generally, I would say that the people filing the complaints believe NuclearUmpf is continuing the disruptive behavior for which he was placed on probation.
- In this case I declined to enforce probation against Nuclear Umpf in which he was one participant in an edit war involving 12 editors in total.
- In the current complaint I have declined to enforce the probation following brief edit wars over tagging two images as disputed, and over a post to a user subpage being used as a noticeboard (3 reverts in 26 hours) in which there was no attempt to talk with Nuclear prior to posting the complaint at WP:AE.
Perhaps my understanding of probation is at fault. I would appreciate a review. Thatcher131 14:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Our system of probation does not contemplate one user, even an arbitration clerk, being responsible for enforcing arbitration remedies. An administrator is expected to use their discretion when enforcing remedies. If you do not enforce a remedy, that is fine. Just let things take their course. Either the community will live with the consequences or a new remedy will have to be fashioned, after a new request is made. Fred Bauder 05:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Fred. I don't watch the enforcement page because I'm a clerk, but because I think it's important and almost no one else does it (I was there even before I was even promoted to admin). Thatcher131 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your work is greatly appreciated. Fred Bauder 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Fred. I don't watch the enforcement page because I'm a clerk, but because I think it's important and almost no one else does it (I was there even before I was even promoted to admin). Thatcher131 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Question to Arbcom[edit]
I have had a Arbcom case against me in the past. I am now, I believe being harrassed based on it. Any dispute with a user, meaning disagreement involves a user threatening an Arbcom hearing against me. There is a page for enforcement that lets people complain about those who have had hearings, where do those who feel they are being harrassed because of them, have to go to be heard? Is there an equal place where Arbcom will here their points? --NuclearZer0 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- These kinds of disputes should be handled through the normal mediation process first. If you have specific examples of harassment, please take them to WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB for resolution. The past ruling against you by the Arbitration Committee does not give them original jurisdiction over all disputes or complaints raised by you in the future. --causa sui talk 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Lord knows NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults can be a pain in the ass, and an edit warrior. But I can list off the top of my head three instances where the first thing an editor did when he saw an edit by Nuclear that he didn't like was to either threaten him with arbitration, or post a complaint to Arbitration enforcement. I'm not aware that being on probation relieves other editors of the expectation that they will at least make a good faith attempt to discuss a disputed edit before applying for sanctions. When an editor reverts Nuclear's edits with the edit summary "Suggest that he's violating the Arbcom ruling for the 4th or 5th time," and it's the first time Nuclear has been reverted at that page, and no prior (or subsequent) discussion was attempted, its hard not to see that as creating a corrosive environment for him. Since the arbitration committee places enforcement of its decrees in the hands of the admins at large, I do not expect they will take any concrete action here. But I don't know what to do either. Thatcher131 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)