Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Statement by Socafan
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)
[edit] Statement by Circeus
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)
[edit] Statement by Rangeley
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)
[edit] Comment by tbeatty
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)
[edit] Comment by Mrdthree
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)
