Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Workshop
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
[edit] Motions and requests by the parties
[edit] Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Premature close
1) Compending that, as of July 23, User:Nescio appears to have gone on wikibreak, it seems pertinent to propose a closure of the case as it appears he will likely not participate in it. Circeus 19:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Case is about ZerOfaults, not Nescio. Fred Bauder 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- But Nescio brought the case. Without him, nothing can proceed anyway. Circeus 01:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Plenty of links to evidence in the original request. Fred Bauder 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- How can you advocate a case where my evidence does not serve an equal purpose anymore? I have showed and the community agreed apparently that the article was inappropriate and poorly sourced. Nescio engaged in an edit war with the community, myself, Morton, and others to keep the article he started, he manufactured evidence and used sites that fail WP:RS. Now for me pointing this out I am the only one to suffer a penalty since he has up and left after seeing the community agree it should be a redirect? Did I editwar? if you mean there was a back and forth yes, I kept removing WP:OR and items that failed WP:RS items from the article and statements that went with it. However my reward for copyediting an article that the apparently again the community felt was not properly sourced and better as a mention in the other article is a possible block/ban or penalty? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Plenty of links to evidence in the original request. Fred Bauder 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- But Nescio brought the case. Without him, nothing can proceed anyway. Circeus 01:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Since I'm not a party to the case, I'll respond to Zer0 down here. This isn't just about the PSYOP article, or at least, it shouldn't be. You, Nescio, and others went at it on Template:War on Terrorism, War on Terrorism, and Iraq War articles as well and at times got all three articles locked because of the edit warring. The PSYOP program article was just the point where both you and Nescio hit a wall and submitted RFCs or ArbCom cases against each other. Also, as one of the people that voted for merger, OR and RS were not the only reason for supporting the merger. There was some of both, but the article did contain sourcing from the Washington Post and Rolling Stone, so there were some reliable sources and supported content. I voted for the merger because it was basically a string of quotes from the Washington Post article and didn't add anything new to what was already covered in the Zarqawi article. --Bobblehead 14:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I didnt say the whole page was WP:OR. I said the inclusion of the Smith Mundt Act was, considering not a single source even mentioned it. Further the addition of the Information Operations Roadmap, as again not mentioned in a single source about the Zarqwi PSYOP program. I would liek to point out the concensus was in favor of me and Rangely when a straw poll was taken, the vote was 24-3, the 3 oddly were Anoranza, Nescio and Mr. Tibbs, the only 3 certifying users on my RfC. See the pattern? As for War on Terrorism template I again just asked Nescio for sources and at one point began listing sources on the talk page for all my additions as per his request, though he never linked any of his items with the WOT directly. As for the WOT page itself, me and Rangely did a complete rewrite removing the largely unsourced criticism section and the page has not been the victim of an edit war since Nescio left. All edit wars ended when Nescio left oddly. --User:Zer0faults 01:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is, you removed not just the connection of the propaganda campaign to a violation of the Smith Mundt Act (which IMHO was appropriate), you also removed referenced material from reliable sources (George Washington University, Agence France Presse, and WaPo) showing the US was aware of impacts propaganda campaigns in Iraq have on the domestic audience.[1] I would also disagree that the WoT has not been the victim of edit wars since Nescio left. The intensity of the conflict has definitely decreased, but there is definitely conflicts of opinion that continue on the article. --Bobblehead 03:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I didnt say the whole page was WP:OR. I said the inclusion of the Smith Mundt Act was, considering not a single source even mentioned it. Further the addition of the Information Operations Roadmap, as again not mentioned in a single source about the Zarqwi PSYOP program. I would liek to point out the concensus was in favor of me and Rangely when a straw poll was taken, the vote was 24-3, the 3 oddly were Anoranza, Nescio and Mr. Tibbs, the only 3 certifying users on my RfC. See the pattern? As for War on Terrorism template I again just asked Nescio for sources and at one point began listing sources on the talk page for all my additions as per his request, though he never linked any of his items with the WOT directly. As for the WOT page itself, me and Rangely did a complete rewrite removing the largely unsourced criticism section and the page has not been the victim of an edit war since Nescio left. All edit wars ended when Nescio left oddly. --User:Zer0faults 01:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since I'm not a party to the case, I'll respond to Zer0 down here. This isn't just about the PSYOP article, or at least, it shouldn't be. You, Nescio, and others went at it on Template:War on Terrorism, War on Terrorism, and Iraq War articles as well and at times got all three articles locked because of the edit warring. The PSYOP program article was just the point where both you and Nescio hit a wall and submitted RFCs or ArbCom cases against each other. Also, as one of the people that voted for merger, OR and RS were not the only reason for supporting the merger. There was some of both, but the article did contain sourcing from the Washington Post and Rolling Stone, so there were some reliable sources and supported content. I voted for the merger because it was basically a string of quotes from the Washington Post article and didn't add anything new to what was already covered in the Zarqawi article. --Bobblehead 14:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The article does not suffer from edit wars, people discuss things on the talk page now, now that Nescio is not making whatever edits he feels like then tellnig people to use the talk page when they want to remove them or change them. Further if you read through the difs I attempted to add numerous tiems the quote from the officers and the wapo article itself stating it did not target domestic audience, simply leaked into it. Nescio removed the mention of the material not evem being in english, removed the material of the soldier stating that they do not target domestic audience and even removed the quote from the WAPO article stating the program did not target the domestic audience, but due to international news adn technology some bled into US markets. This is the problem with WP:OR and selective quoting that caused the back and forth. Nescio would not allow anythnig that differed from his view. I insierted information relating to Zarqawi's background, his arrest for attempting to over throw the government, the bomb making, the Radisson Hotel bombing, the Afghan training camp etc. All of it removed by Nescio to keep his quote from an editorial that Zarqawi was a nobody. He even removed that Zarqawi was wanted by the Iraqi government. Please do not tell me that article was clearly not bias. Also the sources were not removed, the information was removed because it was redundant with the header and the beginning of that section itself. He was saynig the same thing over and over simpyl to inflate the article, it was 75% quotes at one point. --User:Zer0faults 14:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just to highlite a point that the article was misleading, Bobblehead in his above dif as proof doesnt even realize that only a single line of text is actually about the Zarqawi PSYOP program. The Informations Operations Roadmap was never proven to be part of the Zarqawi PSYOP program, Nescio simply assumed it was. Just like Nescio added the Smith-Mundt Act as a way to accuse the US breaking a law, however never showed a single article that mentioned both the act and the Zarqawi program, that is the definition of WP:OR, he is the only one linking them, this is even beyond synthesis of published material, cause he is just making a link off the top of his head. --User:Zer0faults 14:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm aware that only a sentence in that diff actually mentions the Zarqawi program. However, the Washington Post article, which was about the Zarqawi program, identified it as a propaganda campaign thus it would not be exempt from the bleed over effect identified in the George Washington University and Agence France Presse sources. So rather than the information roadmap being part of the Zarqawi program, the Zarqawi program was part of the information roadmap. Did Nescio write it in a POV manner, you betcha. I don't think there's anyone denying that Nescio had a POV and tended to include that POV into his editting. There are just better ways to make an article NPOV than outright deleting POV and having edit wars over it. It's also curious that you'd complain about Nescio deleting your entries when most of your edits were outright deletion of his. That's just how edit wars work. Two editors with different viewpoints removing content that they don't agree with and/or adding content that they agree with. --Bobblehead 15:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Those articles are not about general PSYOPS programs they are about the Informations Operations Roadmap, this is the exact problem with vioalting WP:OR it causes confusing. Those two articles cannot be connected to this program as they talk about something totally different. YOu state "the Zarqawi program was part of the information roadmap" yet there is no proof of this, had Nescio provided such proof it would have ended, would you like to present some proof of this? If not I dont not see what the issue is, there is no source that mentions both programs that was ever presented or located. And no source states that the roadmap is all inclusive either, so we cannot just add the Zarqawi program to the list. Hence its OR violation for us to do that, just because we think it is, doesnt mean we can throw OR to the wind. --User:Zer0faults 15:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm aware that only a sentence in that diff actually mentions the Zarqawi program. However, the Washington Post article, which was about the Zarqawi program, identified it as a propaganda campaign thus it would not be exempt from the bleed over effect identified in the George Washington University and Agence France Presse sources. So rather than the information roadmap being part of the Zarqawi program, the Zarqawi program was part of the information roadmap. Did Nescio write it in a POV manner, you betcha. I don't think there's anyone denying that Nescio had a POV and tended to include that POV into his editting. There are just better ways to make an article NPOV than outright deleting POV and having edit wars over it. It's also curious that you'd complain about Nescio deleting your entries when most of your edits were outright deletion of his. That's just how edit wars work. Two editors with different viewpoints removing content that they don't agree with and/or adding content that they agree with. --Bobblehead 15:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions
[edit] Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Questions to the parties
[edit] Proposed final decision
[edit] Proposed principles
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Negotiation in good faith
1) Users are expected to negotiate in good faith should a dispute arise. Repetitive assertions, circular logic, and references to inapplicable policies or guidelines are not acceptable.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Banning for disruption
2) Users who repeatedly disrupt the editing of an articles or set of articles by edit waring or other disruptive tactics may be banned from those articles, in extreme cases from the site.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Courtesy
3) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This becomes even more important when disputes arise.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 15:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Journalists and published authors
4) Articles by established journalists and published authors may sometimes be judged by the reputation of the author rather than the venue they are published in, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_reliability.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- You are basically saying that a blog by a journalist, something that has no editorial oversight is then acceptable. The authors "organization" is a self published blog. The items that are not from him are taken from other websites. This was shown on the talk page about the author. The authors article even shows they are the creator of the site, and the article is self published to the site, and only that site. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
[edit] See also
5) Internal links in a "See also" section need only be of related interest.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 13:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- The see also section should not be a place to wage accusations either. Smith-Mudt Act is an act of legislations by the US Government that states PSYOPs cannot be conducted on the domestic population. Nescio tried to argue that this operation did that through WP:OR, upon failnig to prove that they inserted the Smith-Mundt portion in to the article. When I asked for a person or source maknig an accusations against this PSYOP program donig that they never provided one. I removed the information placed into the article as well as the accompanying see also entry. Again I state, adding terrorist organizations to the see also section of GreenPeace would be more inline with POV and an accusation. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Proposed findings of fact
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Locus of dispute
1) Zer0faults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in editwarring and other disruptive editing [2]. His activities were opposed by Nescio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who seems to have abandoned the site.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Tendentious editing by Zer0faults
2) Zer0faults has engaged in tendentious editing [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Zer0faults has removed sourced information
2) Zer0faults has removed well sourced information [11] and [12].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- I am not sure if you read the evidence or actually looked at the dif, but the "well sourced information" is redundant with the first paragraph of the section. The information on the Smith-Mundt Act is completely WP:OR. While its sourced its actually not relevant, I wrote a whole section on this in my evidence section. Nescio failed to provide a single source that links Smith Mundt to Zarqawi Psyop Program. Its inclusion is highly POV as the act is an accusation without any of the sources actually making such an accusation of violations of domestic PSYOP programs. Please review my evidence again. This is the prime idea behind WP:OR and this article. To inflate it to be a working article he just started inserting random information with no logical links being drawn in sources. Its as if I added a large section on terrorism to the Hiroshima bombing section and sourced it. It would still be WP:OR because its inclusion on that page is attempting to draw a link sources do not support. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
[edit] Failure to negotiate in good faith
4) Zer0faults fails to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Mutual discourtesy
5) Zer0faults and Nescio have engaged in mutual discourtesy [20].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 15:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Overly strict interpretation of Reliable sources
6) Zer0faults has adopted an overly strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources [21], [22], and [23].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 19:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- I disagree that the Chossudovsky piece is a reliable source on this issue. If ArbCom is going to declare the article a reliable source, I request that the committee members take a close look at the article in question and the reasons I set out in the original suggestion[24]that we remove it. Thanks, TheronJ 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, pretty poor. Fred Bauder 18:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree that the Chossudovsky piece is a reliable source on this issue. If ArbCom is going to declare the article a reliable source, I request that the committee members take a close look at the article in question and the reasons I set out in the original suggestion[24]that we remove it. Thanks, TheronJ 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Original research by Nescio
7) Nescio has engaged in original reasearch [25].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nato is deeply involved in Afghanistan. Fred Bauder 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Proposed Fred Bauder 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Editing by Nescio
8) An examination of the evidence of improper editing by Nescio presented by Zer0faults Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_.7Bzer0faults.7D shows it to be generally satisfactory.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- I showed he called me a dick, a troll, a vandal, then proceeded to state Nato was not part of WOT, then state somewhere else it was, then state on a 3rd location it wasnt. How is this proper? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
[edit] Edit warring over See also section
9) A number of the disputes Zer0faults engaged in were over inclusion of an internal link in the "See also" section of articles [26].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 13:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- As I stated below, information related to Smith-Mudt link was never provided by Nescio. Its the same as adding terrorism to a page on WW2, no sources, just adding a see also section to terrorism. I have to draw some sort of feasible link to show accusations or some source calling the events terrorism. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Proposed 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] Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Zer0faults placed on probation
1) Zer0faults is placed on probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Proposed enforcement
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Enforcement by block
1) Should Zer0faults violate any ban imposed under this decision they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 13:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
[edit] Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
[edit] General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
