Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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 voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by User:Zer0faults

[edit] Retaliatory RfC & RFCU

After filing two AN/I report to find out if a users actions were legit and asking an admin to tell them to stop so it can be discussed, they filed an RfC against me in retaliation the next day. They have since filed an RFCU after that accusing me of being a sockpuppet.

[edit] Inability to discuss

  1. This user refuses at times to answer questions regarding their actions. In relation to the above debate, I attempted to find out what this users view was in general. Question: So do you feel all operation names should be removed from Wikipedia? [6] This question was removed numerous times on the basis of "removed rhetorical question that is in no way helpful" [7][8] After the other user seconded my question, it was removed again [9]. This users comments are in the dif as to why they keep removing my simple question.
  2. On the RfC talk page, for the RfC they filed against me. I asked the user what would resolve this situation for them [10] they then replied in a hostile manner [11] offered another proposal [12] another hostile reply [13] and then Anoranza tells off the person attempting to be a neutral 3rd party [14]
  3. After being directed to WP:MILHIST over there massive changes to articles, they began participating in the discussion [15] then when they were asked to prove their claims,[16] they decided to open a new discussion elsewhere. [17] They were asked by participants in the previous discussion to return to it, and refused. [18]
  4. After placing numerous articles up for moves. Ones that are all contested. This user has taken to removing everyone comments opposing that move. [19][20][21]

[edit] Insults

  1. This user after getting into a dispute with another user posted this to their talk page [22] then told the user "I encourage you to take the middle monkey as an example, not only the other two"
  2. Calling the above user ignorant [23]
  3. Stating "I really doubt someone intelligent enough to find the button to edit wikipedia discussions could be stupid enough to argue on your level without bad intentions" [24] Violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF
  4. After I had posted a compliment to a users page, Anoranza felt their edits were not good and said "No wonder someone like Zer0faults is happy with you" [25]
  5. User went to the page of User:NSLE to remove comments made in their name, and left the summary stating "Stroke out comment by blocked IP vandal pretending to be me in order to throw mud on me. Happy you got desysopped as you deserve"[26]
  6. After telling the user to please cite a source for a statement they were defending. I was told "Don't be bitchy" [27]

[edit] Comments Counter to Evidence by Anoranza

  • The below is in regard to Anoranza comments about me below where they state "His tactics to spread discussions to third users' talk pages have already led to complaints by others" and presents the following evidence:
    1. [28] - However fails to note User:Nescio is actually the one who started that discussion. [29]
    2. [30] - This user did not complain, and further complained about Anoranza [31]
    3. [32] - Another user not complaining, and replied happily. [33]
      • [34] - Related to above, yet listed seperate for some reason.
    4. [35] - User not complaining and actually stating they feel Anoranza edits are out of line [36]
      • [37] - This is the same as the above, yet listed seperatly for some reason.
    5. [38] - Another user not complaining, its just me telling mboverload not to take the NPA tag too badly, it really was the 4th or so Anoranza had given out that night.
    6. [39] - Another user not complaining. I also did not start that thread as can be seen. [40]
    7. [41] - Anoranza started this discussion actually I am just clarifying.
    8. [42] - Anoranza actually made a comment about me, so I responded. They stated I was obstructive. [43]
  • The following is in response to the new claim I revert this user wherever they go.
    1. [44] - If you look at the example I am actually reverting to a more fuller explanation. This user does not want the explanation of operation names mentioned for some reason.
      • [45] - Related to above.
    2. [46] - 10 days had passed since the user put the move tag at the top of the page. The tag says to remove it after a few days if no concensus.
    3. [47] - This dif speaks for itself [48] clear violation of WP:POINT.
    4. [49] - 10 days had passed since the user put the move tag at the top of the page. The tag says to remove it after a few days if no concensus.
      • [50] - Related to the above.
    5. [51] - User wants to move an article to something it does not adequatley cover. Moving the US operation to the general UN operation.
      • [52] - Related to the above.
    6. [53] - Another article that the move tag was on for over 10 days. Anoranza puts it back however.
    7. [54] - Myself and 2 other users have all opposed this, no users have been in favor, tag was up for 10 days.
  • The following is in response to Anoranza's claim "Zer0faults thinks he is above consensus"
    1. [55] - No where does it state I will not adhere to a concensus, its just criticism of the one built. Its also from May 8th, well before any relevant incident. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anoranza's Claim I Do Not Understand Policy

Regarding Anoranza's claim - [56]

In all 3RR cases the person with the allegation against them gets to defend themself, and so that is what I was doing. Just so its noted I did not say I did not break 3RR, I stated I did it to stop vandalism and the removing of sourced facts. Unfortunatly the admin stated breaking 3RR is just that, no matter if its right or wrong, and I agreed and accepted to the penalty. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

User has started to add tags for POV-statement to mentions of operations names when the vote on the talk page goes against them. [57] --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Started adding POV tags to Operation Power Pack after consensus to move went against such move. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 17:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Habap

[edit] User participates in edit-warring

User Añoranza participated in an edit war over Lockheed_AC-130, violating the three-revert rule.[58] --Habap 20:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User does not assume good faith

When I reverted his changes and NPOV tags (once)[59], Añoranza accused me of vandalism.[60] Note that I only reverted his tags once and the next sentence in the policy he selectively quoted to me is Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. One might also feel that the condescending nature of simply quoting policy and stating "Don't do it" might violate WP:CIVIL or even WP:BITE if I were unfamiliar with policy.

Oddly, he cited the revert by Mboverload and mine, making me wonder if he thought the 2 reverts were by the same person.[61] --Habap 20:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User mis-represents comments by others

User stated that others agreed with him, linking to Looper's talk page as reference when no one there appears to have agreed with him and Looper himself made no comments in that thread.[62] --Habap 20:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

He has now asked me to remove this comment.[63] Since both I and those who wrote there felt he was misrepresenting the comments, I am unwilling to remove this comment. --Habap 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Ideogram

[edit] POV pushing

Edit history shows hundreds of deletions of "propaganda terms" across Wikipedia.

[edit] Failure to assume good faith

Accused of personal attacks: Ecophreek, Haizum: filed notice at WP:ANI, filed RFC against Zer0faults, NSLE: taunting, many others, see edit history.

[edit] Difficult interactions

Ideogram 12:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Kirill Lokshin

[edit] Refusal to participate in constructive discussion

Añoranza persistently removes comments made by other users on his talk page, preventing a coherent discussion: [64] [65] [66]

Refuses to return to the existing discussion, citing a "messy page" and unspecified "ad hominem attacks"

[edit] Venue shopping

Añoranza starts discussions on unrelated policy pages after participants in an earlier discussion disagree with him:

[edit] Misrepresentation

[edit] Status and content of guidelines

Añoranza claims that a WikiProject guideline about article titles is a policy forbidding the use of certain terms in article text: [67] [68] [69] [70]

Note also that he continues to claim, in his evidence below, that the guideline in question discusses what he calls "propaganda names"; the actual text of the guideline makes no mention of "propaganda".

[edit] Claims about personal attacks

Añoranza has persistently characterized any comments critical of him as personal attacks, and has stricken them out or removed them: [71] [72] [73]

[edit] Tendentious editing

A brief glance at Special:Contributions/Añoranza will show that his activity consists almost exclusively of removing operational names from articles and complaining about their use. A brief selection of examples:

Complaints about use as titles:

Removals of use in text:

[edit] Unabated edit-warring

Añoranza's presentation of diffs for "wikistalking" shows the scope of the edit war he is engaged in. This continues even while arbitration has begun: [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]

[edit] Campaigning

Añoranza selectively invites participants from an earlier discussion to comment on the ones he has just started: [79] [80] [81] [82]

[edit] Evidence presented by Añoranza

[edit] Attempts to find a fruitful solution

Discussion started at appropriate pages: Wikipedia: Naming Conventions (after I had been told the military history project can only give guidelines), Wikipedia:Words to avoid (after having been told Naming Conventions only hold for article titles, not text in articles), Wikipedia: Requested moves (after practically no one had participated in the discussion at the talk pages of the articles when I had requested the moves but forgotten to list them at requested moves). Añoranza 23:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Successful cases with actual attempts for consensus rather than ad hominem attacks

Guideline policy is to avoid propaganda names as article titles, and the explanation as well as the mere policy of NPOV clearly show they should be avoided if possible altogether. Note that in the cases of United States invasion of Panama, 2003 invasion of Iraq and Iraq War, consensus could be found and I contributed to it and it went the neutral way I had supported. Añoranza 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rushing to Arbitration without prior attempt to resolve dispute

Ideogram's first edit at my talk page was informing me about this request for arbitration. I had filed a request for comments on Zer0faults that got certified but nothing happened. Añoranza 23:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking by Zer0faults

Already provided evidence regarding Zer0faults at the statement when the case started and at his RFC.
Here is more: His continued efforts to revert me wherever possible [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123], even restoring typos [124] (again twice after having been warned: [125] [126]) and to discredit me with derogatory and misleading comments,[127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] even addressing me at third users' talk pages, [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] come down to Wiki-stalking. His tactics to spread discussions to third users' talk pages have already led to complaints by others, e.g. [140].Añoranza 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zer0faults thinks he is above consensus

[141] Añoranza 23:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert warring by Zer0faults

Already blocked three times for 3RR violation, even while this case was ongoing: [142] [143] [144] [145] Defense for violation in the last case shows he does not understand the policy or again thinks he is above it. Añoranza 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of POV-tags in spite of ongoing discussions

NSLE and others repeatedly remove POV-tags [146] from articles although there is an ongoing general discussion as well as on the articles themselves. The only article where a consensus has yet been built was United States invasion of Panama, which had been moved from the propagandistic "Operation Just Cause" as I had suggested. Añoranza 15:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks against me by multiple users

Several users personally attacked me when I noted the obviously propagandistic nature of military operation names like "operation just cause", "operation iraqi freedom" or "operation peace for galilee" that should be avoided for the sake of neutrality. I even got blocked for a 3RR violation that was none by an admin who was in a conflict of interest. He never apologized either and instead invited others to block me. For the sarcastic comment that he should learn to count I got a whole week block while others could vandalize my user page, call me "rabid anti-American", "disgusting" (all three Haizum), "intolerable troll" (NSLE), "ass clown" (Looper5920) and tell me "go the fuck away" (Ecophreek) without any consequence. Añoranza 20:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double standards used by admins when blocking

Both admins who blocked me used double standards and never apologized for what they did. I got blocked for a whole week for a single sarcastic comment about admin JDoorjam who was in a conflict of interest [147] [148] when he blocked me for a 3RR violation that was none. When shown he was wrong instead of apologizing he invited others to block me. [149] [150] I do find that unacceptable, admins should not act like that, they should set an example.
NSLE, who has since been desysopped, blocked with an absurd and baseless summary: "per ANI, civility, personal attacks, revert warring, NPOV vio, WP:NOT censored vio" and did not even apologize for blocking me for the comments made by anonymous IPs [151] [152] designed to throw mud at me. They were so stupid that no one could honestly believe they would come from a blocked editor: "You can\'t stop me, I will edit without logging in." Furthermore, one of the IPs had posted at other pages "I support Añoranza and the fight against Imperialist propaganda." Checkuser showed they were unrelated to me. The repeated personal attacks against me have not yet lead to a single block, not even in the extreme cases cited above. Añoranza 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Sasquatch

I only have a couple of very brief things to mention, my experience with the user has been very short but has given me some opinions.

[edit] Relatively combative attitude

Añoranza has shown me only a very combative attitude when editting. Mainly this which troubles me for two reasons, first, it is titled "JDoorjam who does not know how to count to high numbers temporarily had blocked me erroneously" which is obviously a personal attack and saying "Your behaviour is unacceptable. Añoranza 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)" to an admin who had just unblocked him which is rather rude. He also continued to refuse to apologise for anything he said which probably isn't conducive to community growth.

[edit] Evidence presented by User:TheronJ

I think that Añoranza has the makings of a good editor, and I actually think that he's mostly right that descriptive names are usually preferable to operation names when describing military operations, but IMHO, he has an almost total lack of civility and willingness to work for a consensus around his view. Some examples follow.

  1. After Anoranza and Zer0 began reverting one another, Anoranza filed an RFC.[153] That was fine, but IMHO, Anoranza didn't listen to or engage anyone who disagreed with him/her, so the RFC was unproductive - the end result was that Zer0 agreed to be more civil and Anoranza kept up a stream of personal attacks against Zer0[154] and others.[155]
  2. Although everyone on the RFC except the two complainants basically said "both sides should chill and work it out," Anoranza didn't even attempt to resolve his/her issues with Zero, but got defensive instead. E.g. [156]. This is particularly disappointing since Zer0 tried to deescalate, and was successful in the case of at least two other users.[157]
  3. Also, striking out other another user's statements in the comment section[158] is uncivil and uncool.
  4. Anoranza's interactions with Zer0 are unproductive, because Anoranza basically wants Zer0 to agree with him or shut up. The idea that Anoranza could believe that the statement "your frequent reverts are obscene"[159] constitutes an attempt to resolve his dispute with Zer0 (note 14, here) is telling. TheronJ 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:NSLE

[edit] Incivility/Assumptions of bad faith

[160] - This edit summary shows the user's incivility, even going as far as to edit an old version of my talk page just to get his point that he wasn't the anon across. User_talk:NSLE/Archive_12#Warning_for_personal_attack - the accusation in full

[edit] Añoranza has resorted to selective internal spamming

Añoranza has resorted to selective internal spamming: [161][162][163][164][165] in an attempt to make consensus at Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Words to avoid turn in his favour.

[edit] Añoranza has revert-warred over POV templates

Añoranza has revert-warred against multiple users over POV dispute templates: [166][167][168]

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Haizum

[edit] Weaponized ANI: Deleted by Admin

[169] [170].

[edit] Unwarranted Blocking Threats and General Spam

[171] [172] [173] [174] [175]

[edit] Objection: Blatant Misquoting Found on This Page

Añoranza created the following link in this section[176]:

"rabid anti-American", "disgusting"

If you follow the link it is clear that I am not directing my comments toward Añoranza (they were about Añoranza, not to Añoranza), but another user. It is also clear that I said certain behavior was that of anti-Americanism and that it was disgusting to tolerate it. I did not say anyone was an anti-American, and I did not say anyone was disgusting. I will leave my professional psychological opinion out of this, but it should disturb objective editors that, time and time again, the obvious meaning of such statements have been completely disregarded only to be morphed into 'personal attacks.' Haizum 03:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:JohnDBuell

[edit] Misuse of talk pages

The user inappropriately deleted/moved comments, then later redeleted comments related to the page about the comedy troupe, the Capitol Steps. An edit war over the name of the 1989 Invasion of Panama was nearly started there, and I tried to take steps to avert it. I submit the following as evidence:

  • [177] - includes my initial statement. Zerofaults had no reply at all to me.
  • [178] - user moved my comments and answered, which I felt was inappropriate to the discussion.
  • [179] - my talk page, with the moved comment. My current talk page has the user's reply.
  • [180] - my restoration of my own comments, with my take on the edit war (quoting a Hitchhiker's Guide phrase that the user apparently took immediate offense to (I have no idea why, it's not truly vulgar)), as the very next revision was:
  • [181] - final deletion of the entire discussion
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_A%C3%B1oranza_Evidence_5168.html"