Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC).

Zer0faults (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

removes complaints from his talk page
personally attacks other users
ignores NPOV
countless reverts, even corrected typos
endless innuendo on talk pages

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

removes complaints from his talk page

personally attacks me

"removed trolling attacks"
"Do not troll on my talk page or I will remove it, some admins feel you are being over zealous." (misrepresenting fact, just one user, no admin, words chosen by zer0faults himself)
"Comments removed to prevent further trolling."
"Removed more trolling comments"
"Removed more trolling attacks."

countless reverts

WP:AN3#User:Zer0faults_reported_by_User:Mr._Tibbs_.28result:_stale.29

blocked once: User_talk:Zer0faults#3RR_violation

even corrected typos

[4]

again twice after warning:

[5]
[6]

ignores NPOV

"France, who was later found to have ben involved in the Oil for Food Scandal." again twice after warning:

[7]
[8]

endless innuendo on talk pages

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia:No personal attacks
Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism Removing warnings for vandalism or other issues from one's talk page may also be considered vandalism.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

My attempts:

Deleted:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Añoranza 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to reason with User:Zer0faults is like trying to lecture the deaf. Start a poll[15] and he just says its invalid and gives some cockamamie wikilawyering of WP:STRAW. Try and discuss things with him and you either get personally attacked or a non-answer.[16] Basically this user has the same behavior pattern as User:Rex071404/sockpuppets. He will argue/editwar endlessly until he gets what he wants, claim he is just correcting "POV" or "Undue weight", and berate anyone who dares to interfere. While at the same time doing everything he can to game the system.[17] -- Mr. Tibbs 04:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

I would first like to state that this user has not attempted any dispute resolution at all. I believe its a precursor to the step of a RfC.

Second I would like to note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:A.C3.B1oranza and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:A.C3.B1oranza_again which were both filed prior to this requesting administrator assistance on the users removing of the term "Operation Iraqi Freedom" from wikipedia articles. This to me seems like a bad faith attack in response to my incident report, are RfC's allowed to be filed in retaliation?

I would also like to state the 3RR report against me is listed as "stale" and no ruling was made on it, I did contest it, so I believe its inappropriate to list as some sort of evidence of wrong doing.

I will however now address the issues, however I am stating I feel this RfC is retaliatory in nature and doesnt follow the rules as the user did not attempt realistic means of dispute resolution:

Under the section below of evidence listed as "even corrected typos" the user lists an edit but does not listed edits made after or before. If you review the first edit the user removes mention of the Oil-for-Food program from the article [18] and I add it back, its there now as I proved to the user France was involved, they insisted they were not, though the article on the program controversy states they were. As you can see here [19] its been linked and properly sourced.
These "personal attacks", are an attempt by the user to warn me, that I do not have a right to revert their edits. She said having operation names in articles was "inappropriate", for which there is no policy on this, and that me putting them back was "obscene." They then started accusing me of using a "Cold War innuendo", not sure what this is, it seemed to be from here [20] that the user was now attempting to pick a fight, and so the comments were removed again. They then told me that moving warnings, which those were not as they contained no appropriate tag, more like hostile "back off" statements, [21] was against Wiki policy. I removed the comments again, is it not seeming like trolling that this user appears on my page yet again to basically pick a fight? [22] The comments were removed and I told the user their comments were not Wiki policy warnings. They then post NPOV and NPA tags on the page [23], I removed the comments again. They seemed to consider their statements made on my page as some sort of dispute resolution, which hostile comments such as those cannot be seen as a good faith effort at dispute resolution, they did not even offer or ask for a middle ground of sorts.
I am not sure what innuendo is actually accusing me of. An admin reverted one of the articles in question as the user had moved the page, then deleted mention of the original title stating they were fixing redirects, kind of misleading when the intent was to remove mentioning of propaganda terms they later admit to.
As for violation of Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism there was never such a warning of vandalism. Unless the user wants to claim they attempted dispute resolution in the same sentence as they were accusing me of vandalism, of which of their below edits I do not believe the term vandalism is even used.
As for their attempts at dispute resolution, the first link is the one mentioned above, somehow a vandalism accusation and a dispute resolution in one. I obviously question the concept of this, as accusatory statements are not going to be taken as the accuser wants to resolve things nicely. The 5th one is a good example of the language used in this users "dispute resolution". They stated: "As you have already been blocked once you should be more careful.." [24] I take that as a threat, and oddly that conversation is not even linked to the recent events, seems like they are stretching to fill this RfC. I repeatedly asked the user to stop posting on my talk page and they always continue to do so in accusatory means and threatening tones, that they would go and now claim these as "dispute resolution" is absurd.
As for "ignores NPOV" the statement I was keeping was not originally added by me, but was eventually fully sourced and even wikilinked to the section in the appropriate article that states the so called NPOV comment. So not only is it mentioned their involvement in this article prior to my arrival, but its also mentioned in the article for Oil for Food Scandal article subsection Criminal_investigation_in_France. The two people in question were also part of the interior ministry, not as the user states "French firms". So this NPOV claim is just off base completely as I was correct and it was not a violation of NPOV but sourcing a fact mentioned in other articles here. If you look at the users original comment [25] their summary does not even state why they removed the information.
As for the 3RR that did go through, I do admit to breaking it. The other user was also found to be breaking it, however that is also not really relevant. You can see the other users block User_talk:Mr._Tibbs#Blocked_for_8_hours [26] so we both violated it.
Regarding misrepresenting facts, an admin did comment they felt she was being overzealous, unless CydeWeys is not an admin? [27]

The user that is accusing me has gone on to state the admin who reverted the article is picking their own "preffered version" [28] The admin who blocked her recently over 3RR "JDoorjam who does not know how to count to high numbers temporarily had blocked me erroneously"[29] which is pretty rude, the high number in question is 3 apparently. These kinds of rude comments are why I remove her comments, I will not be baited as this is how she responds, along with calling peoples edits "lame" and "obscene."

This user as my understanding states has been blocked for being uncivil over this very incident.[30] I may be wrong on the ruling however.

comment - putting this here because I do not know where I can fully comment yet. User:Mr. Tibbs comment above is not following the rules stated above,

"This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users."

I ask it be removed as it also contains an attack by accusing my of being a sockpuppet, something that has already been proven false. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 03:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

\'\'This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections (\"Statement of the dispute\" and \"Response\") should not edit the \"Outside Views\" section, except to endorse an outside view.\'\'

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

I support Añoranza and the fight against Imperialist propaganda! 70.87.34.82 07:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.