Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 01:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:46, 29 August 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.

Contents

[edit] Involved parties


Añoranza has edited hundreds of Wikipedia articles removing "propaganda terms" and apparently will not rest until they are all gone. He quickly assumes anyone opposing him is engaged in a personal attack. He never accepts no for an answer and always has to have the last word.

[edit] Requests for comment

[edit] Statement by Añoranza

Ideogram's first edit at my talk page was informing me about this request for arbitration.
NSLE blocked me with an absurd summary, then for "evading a block", committed by anonymous IPs signing with my name. Checkuser showed they were unrelated to me. I am very glad an admin behaving like NSLE who never apologized for what he did to me got desysopped.
The countless misdeeds of Zer0faults are noted at his RFC case and started well before the operation name disagreement. As an illustration, of his last 1000 edits more than 5% were at the administrator's noticeboard. I find his continued attempts to discredit me by misrepresenting facts extremely tyring and note that jointly writing an encyclopedia is not about wasting each other's time.
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", "intolerable troll", "POV pusher" and whatnot without any penalty. As to the admins who allegedly all agree about my naughtiness, please note this: [1]. I see that some people have hot feelings about their military, however, official 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. Añoranza 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Zer0faults

After noticing Anoranza attempting to remove operation names from Wikipedia, I filled an incident report. [2] I was hoping to find out if this was permitted action and to seek clarity. THe whoelsale removal of the term Operation Iraqi Freedom from wikipedia seemed to be a form of censorship, it was also never discussed prior to the action. I filed a second one after it seemed the first wave had ceased and a second had begun, this is after reverting some of the edits and tellnig the user I feel they are doing something they should not. During this time User:Cyde had stated Anoranza edits were overzealous. [3] Another debate took place in that incident report. After the user became aware of the two incident reports they filed a RfC against me. This user has also filed an RFCU against me since then [4] and a 3RR violation report, where I was stopped an anon user from creating a redirect that had not been discussed. [5] The anon aol user has since been banned and continued to evade their block afterwards. I have tried to resolve the RfC with this user [6] but they became hostile and ceased to participate. Myself an admin have asked Anoranza to participate in a discussion regarding the oepration names [7] however they have not yet and continue to cite a guideline that is focused on titles, as proof articles should not contain operation names. I am personally at my wits end, this user does not seem to want to take advice, or even find middleground. I have offered numerous starting points for a compromise, however they have not even taken then into consideration it seems. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:NSLE

User talk:NSLE/Archive 12#Warning for personal attack - shows the user's incivility, as well as unco-operativeness, despite a logical and clear defense of my actions by both Gmaxwell and Ian13. This edit summary shows more of the above. I had blocked Anoranza for personal attacks and incivility for a week (during which the desysopping incident occured), after a complaint had been made to WP:ANI. This user has made absolutely no attempt to get along with others. While I admit "intollerable troll" was incivil on my part, this user needs to stop assuming bad faith.

The way I see it, there are two parts to this request.

  1. The user's constant assumptions of bad faith and incivility.
  2. The user's refusal to co-operate and insistence on making his non-constructive edits.

NSLE 09:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Haizum

Since the editor in question has cited me (disingenuously) in his/her defensive reponse[8], I believe I have a right to comment. Any attempt to question this editor's intent on his/her talk page, or even an article talk page results in bombastic NPA and AGF warning templates and unenforcable blocking threats. Attempting to remove these unwarranted templates has resulted in the reversion of the cleanup and the addition of more templates. This user then weaponized an Incident Report against me[9] that was quickly deleted by an Administrator [10]. The links to my talk page history are as follows: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] -- Haizum 00:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Ecophreek

Actually I have no idea what to write, any disagreement with this user and it immediately starts posting NPA tags everywhere, then when you remove them it gives you empty warnings, that it can't back up because there were no personal attacks to begin with. This was translated into "POV Pusher" which is somehow an "attack", "trolling behaviour" was translated as an "attack", "rvt vandalism by blocked user" was translated into an "attack",... you begin to get the picture? This user is on a "holy crusade" and any infidels in it's way are to be dealt with in an incivil and uncompromising fashion. Once it gets on your nerves so bad by constantly changing your userpage to add crap and useless threats and you DO get a little incivil it starts bemoaning your incivility. Frankly, I'm just tired of the stuff this user starts up. It's day just isn't complete unless it manages to tick someone off. IMHO it should be like it is with English (British) vs English (American) vs et al. Whatever country the subject is dealing with, the article should be in that language, if it's about American operations, it should use American Operation names. (Actually both should be in the article.) If it was written by an American, then the American usage should apply. It's really simple, however this user refuses to reach a compromise. I can guarantee that the discussion the user is involved in below is going nowhere, if it's agenda is not met or the consensus reached does not agree with it's goals it will continue in the same vein it is currently engaged in. And when shown the WikiProject MILHIST guideline/proposal so that it could join in the discussion instead started posting selected parts of it as it's new mantra as you can see above in it's statement as "official policy" when it is no such thing. This has been explained over and over ad nauseum to no effect. That's really all I have to say on the matter, except for the fact that statements like "I am very glad an admin behaving like NSLE who never apologized for what he did to me got desysopped." is typical, even though the user is suddenly pushing the POV that what happened to NSLE was in direct correlation to it rather than what actually happened.← ΣcoPhreek 07:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm no longer interested in this process, I'm removing all articles from my watchlist and plan on avoiding Anoranza to the best of my ability, they can do what they want since in the end it really doesn't matter anyway. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Kirill Lokshin

First, a minor clarification: the "policy" Añoranza refers to is (a) just a WikiProject guideline, with explicit warnings about not applying it blindly and (b) in reference to article titles.

The original cause of the dispute here—that Añoranza had not been willing to discuss the issues with using operational names—seems to have been resolved, since he has joined the ongoing discussion regarding a guideline for their use. While there may indeed be a potential case here based on civility and general behavior issues, I suspect that this affair can be concluded more-or-less amicably if the underlying content dispute is resolved. I would therefore ask that the Committee allow more time for discussion—and possibly Mediation—before allowing this request to proceed. Kirill Lokshin 11:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Habap

Having just been accused of vandalism by Añoranza, I feel compelled to add my name to the list of complainants. I did not remove a dispute tag twice (as the quoted description of types of vandalism states). Importantly, the policy states "Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism".

Añoranza is quoting a proposed project guideline as Wikipedia policy, which is very deceptive. His edit summaries have been sometimes POV and other times deceptive. I think WP:POINT may be a good read for him. --Habap 04:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Ideogram

My attention was drawn to this case by this. Upon examining the RFC I noted a long threaded conversation in defiance of basic RFC policy. In response I created the talk page and posted this. You can also see Anoranza's initial response there.

You can see all the ensuing discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Zer0faults.

My initial impression of Zer0faults was positive, so I posted this to the project page.

I observed that the threaded discussion was continuing, so I posted this.

I also noted that the primary participants seemed to be Zer0faults and Anoranza, so I posted this.

I thought I would drop a comment on User:Gorgonzilla's talk page, and found Anoranza and Zer0faults already there. So I posted this.

In response I received this.

At this point I got curious, so I looked into Anoranza's edit history. I found it very disturbing. Ideogram 14:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Mmx1

I became involved when I notice wholesale edits to several of the pages on my watchlist by Anoranza, which have been described above - wholesale edits that were carried out to enforce his POV with little regard for the impact on encyclopedic content - sometimes bordering on the absurd. One sentence after his edits read "invaded Grenada in what is known as the Invasion of Grenada". Any attempt to undo his edits is immediately labeled vandalism, and the only substantive response he gives on many talk pages is the same line "operational names are a form of propaganda and is unacceptable". The user has been unwilling to address encyclopedic issues of context nor in many cases to suggest alternative names that would better indicate the subject at hand. He has gone so far as to remove operational names when both it and a generic name are used for the sake of clarity. The quality of this encyclopedia is suffering as a result of his one-man crusade of censoring Military names. --Mmx1 01:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

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

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

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

[edit] Principles

[edit] Operational codenames

1) The use of operational codenames for battles or wars is discouraged by the guidelines developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#Naming_conventions, "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name." Note that this refers explicitly to article titles, only implicitly to links to articles.

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith

2) Wikipedia:Assume good faith requires a user to extend good faith to other users on the basis that they are doing their best to improve Wikipedia.

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy

3) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to other users and to avoid personal attacks. This requirement is especially relevant when there is conflict, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Facts on the ground

5) When a dispute arises efforts should be directed towards resolving the dispute by discussion, negotiation, if necessary, use of the dispute resolution procedures. It is counterproductive to attempt to create "facts on the ground" by making changes on a large number of articles or engaging in edit warring. Illegitimate means are no more effective than legitimate ones and create a great deal more disruption.

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Disruption

6) It is commendable to identify a problem and initiate discussion regarding it; however, it is disruption to embark on an extensive and aggressive campaign to impose a solution. This includes campaigns of tagging either in articles or on the pages of those who oppose the changes.

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Links

7.1) In articles, especially when used as a link, a neutral point of view designation of an event is preferable.

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ban for disruption

8) Users who disrupt Wikipedia by edit warring or other unduly aggressive activities may be briefly banned. Repeated offenses may result in more lengthy bans. In extreme cases they may be banned for lengthy periods, even indefinitely.

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Substitution of operational codenames

1) Añoranza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has in a number of instances, including links within articles, substituted neutral terms for American operational codenames "(avoid propaganda terms, please)". Changes include Operation Iraqi Freedom to the Iraq war [16]. In one instance operational names in parentheses were removed, Operation Urgent Fury and Operation Just Cause, [17]; in another they were substituted, Operation Just Cause to US invasion of Panama, [18]. His actions have involved only a few operational codenames; however, they were being used in a large number of articles.

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Añoranza response to resistance

2.1) When Añoranza began removing operational codenames from articles and substituting neutral links he did so in many articles without engaging in negotiation with other editors of the articles he edited. When he was reverted, he repeatedly restored his version.

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] POV-statement

3) Añoranza has added, and when removed, restored Template:POV-statement to a number of articles [19]. This tag creates a link "neutrality disputed" which pipes to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The usage guideline for this tag suggests that it be used "to signify that just that statement may not be entirely without bias." That is it is to be used for specific lines or statements. It is also suggested that users not overdo use of the tag.

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A subtle point

4) Añoranza's use of the edit summary "No propaganda terms, please", while polite in form, implies intent to use propaganda terms, a violation of assume good faith. Likewise accusing Añoranza of having some agenda other than removal of what is arguably biased terminology is also a violation of assume good faith.

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 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.

[edit] Añoranza banned

2) Añoranza is banned for one week for disrupting Wikipedia by engaging in an aggressive campaign regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames.

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Negotiation

3) The principals in this matter are encouraged to enter into good faith negotiations regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames for which there are neutral alternative names in common use.

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Enforcement

[edit] 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.