Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by {zer0faults}

WP:POINT Violations

Iraq War/NATO & Template:War on Terror

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

• Zarqawi PSYOP Program: [2] [3] [4]
• Downing Street Memo: [5] [6] [7]

User removes Iraq War from template: [8] [9] [10]

User removed "Part of War on Terrorism" from the Iraq War page: [11] [12] [13]

This user goes on to remove the War on Terrorism template from the NATO page: [14] [15][16] [17]

Then states NATO is the sole participant in the WOT: [18] [19] [20] [21]

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: [22] [23] [24]

This concludes with them stating they will edit other articles to reflect somethnig I did not state: [25] 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: [26]

• [27]
• [28] - appartently everything should be listed
• [29] - apparently all terrorism is included

How can NATO not be involved yet be the sole participant, and how can a program directly related to Iraq War be part of the WOT but not the war itself?

Wikipedia:WOT

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,[30] 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.[31]

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

• [32][33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

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

• [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

Violations of WP:AGF

• [63] - "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"

• [64] - "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.
• [65] - "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"
• [66] - "Then continues ignoring several clear questions showing he is wrong and appears to have developed an addiction to edit warring."
• [67] - "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"
• [68] - "False, you removed my comment on the votestacking in that poll as a personal attack."
• [69] - "All in all his behaviour highly similar to that of a disruptive troll that is stalking me."

Unexplained Reverting

User often reverts instead of editing, doesnt state what they have an objection to.

• Revert on July 17th - [70] - "the massive removal of info and misrepresentation of the original articles is to difficult to undo so I rv"
• Revert on July 18th - [71] - "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 - [72] - "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 - [73] - "restored original version while awaiting debate, please Zero discussion is so much nicer than edit warring"
• Revert on July 19th - [74] - "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 - [75] - "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 - [76] - "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 - [77] - "restored work in progress, corrected Salon misrepresentation, removed biography"
• Revert on July 21st - [78] - "restored non-POV version"
• Revert on July 22nd - [79] - "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"
• Revert on July 22nd - [80] - "restored work in progress"

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 [81].

Evidence presented by Cyde Weys

Zer0faults uses faulty reasoning

Zer0faults seems to think that AFDs are about trying to divine the reasoning behind why a nomination was made rather than actually examining anything relevant to the article itself, such as notability.[82] He even goes so far as to say he might "vote" differently with a different nominator, but since he thinks my nomination was done in bad faith, he's going to spite me by "voting" keep. I believe this demonstrates faulty reasoning in regards to Wikipedia policies. It probably also demonstrates a lack of WP:AGF, but I'm not one to go around accusing people of acting in bad faith. --Cyde Weys 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.