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. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
Venues for discussion
1) Until the conclusion of this case, Añoranza is prohibited from starting general discussions regarding operational names on any Wikipedia talk: page where such discussions are not already occurring.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Nonsense
Fred Bauder 16:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, no, I can see he is forum shopping. I see only 3 open now with somewhat different sets of users commenting. I think the diverse perspectives are useful. Fred Bauder 20:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nonsense
Fred Bauder 16:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Somewhat heavy-handed, but in my opinion necessary to prevent him from starting a meatball:ForestFire, as he has been doing with great alacrity this morning. I've tried to word it narrowly, so as not to prevent him from filing single-article move requests if he finds it necessary; it could potentially be expanded to cover this as well (and perhaps to include all involved parties, to be fair; but Añoranza is the only one to do this so far). Kirill Lokshin 15:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree with this. This discussion started off by taking place on numerous talk pages, a discussion for each page this user edited removing operation names. Anoranza was asked by Kirill Lokshin to discuss it at the MILHIST location instead of seperated disjointed discussions. They participated there for some time, then decided they no longer wanted to and instead started discussions in other locations. I am afraid this may turn into venue shopping, where this user will pose the questions in locations until they feel its gonig in their direction. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Revert warring over (N)POV templates
1) Until the conclusion of this case, Añoranza ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is to stop revert-warring over the inclusion of POV warning tags on any article, and should not re-add the tag(s) if they are removed. Añoranza should aslo be warned for revert warring.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
-
Añoranza (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) has been revert-warring (see recent contribs), even admitting to
possibly violating
WP:POINT. This has to stop until a decision can be made on this, as this is getting really disruptive. He has also
accused the removal of it as "vandalism", which is borderline.
NSLE 20:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- As long as some call certain operation names propaganda while others say they are ok there is a POV-dispute, and this needs to be noted. Removing POV-warnings is vandalism, and I did not "admit possibly violating POINT", I wrote it is a pretext to remove them claiming I was violating POINT, which I was not.
Añoranza 22:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, removing NPOV-tags is not vandalism unless it is done twice in 24 hours, and the policy states "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." I was accused of vandalism by Añoranza (and incivilly quoted the policy [1]) after reverting the tag but once. -- Habap 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- As long as some call certain operation names propaganda while others say they are ok there is a POV-dispute, and this needs to be noted. Removing POV-warnings is vandalism, and I did not "admit possibly violating POINT", I wrote it is a pretext to remove them claiming I was violating POINT, which I was not.
Añoranza 22:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
Añoranza (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) has been revert-warring (see recent contribs), even admitting to
possibly violating
WP:POINT. This has to stop until a decision can be made on this, as this is getting really disruptive. He has also
accused the removal of it as "vandalism", which is borderline.
NSLE 20:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Rename this to a neutral name like Requests for arbitration/Añoranza Zer0faults Haizum NSLE Ecophreek
as more than one user is accused of wrongdoings here. In particular, Zer0faults is the only here who had a request for comments case before this case was filed. Añoranza 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- We do not ordinarily do this. If the other parties are at fault we'll jump right on them. Fred Bauder 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
I disagree, all parties listed are having a problem with you and your unwillingness to reach consensus and compromise. ← ΣcoPhreek OIF 22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)- There is a certified case against Zer0faults, he has been blocked twice, and Cyde specifically suggested an arbitration case about Haizum due to his repeated personal attacks. [2] You had your share, too, removing POV-tags, telling me "God, would you please just go the fuck away?" [3] and calling my edits vandalism and POV-pushing (correcting links that was). Añoranza 22:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, since no one said we couldn't thread then, how is stating what I did state in my comment constitute a personal attack? It didn't, it wasn't even incivil, it's called frustration with empty threats. ← ΣcoPhreek OIF 00:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)- As you may agree, calling users who correct links they are vandals and POV-pushers is not exactly civil, nor is
"God, would you please just go the fuck away?"
Añoranza 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You're really hung up on that phrase aren't you? I said it, I linked to it, you linked to it, and now, you've linked to it yet again. It's done, move on, at the most I was incivil, at the very least I was tired of your corruption of my talk page (11 additions in 3 days that had to be removed because of bogusness (I know, not a word)). Oh, and I don't agree, the "corrections" you were doing was vandalism, I said it then and I still think it is. And you ARE (emphasis mine) pushing your POV on how the articles should be worded and the phrases that should be used. When WP:NPOV clearly states that on controversial topic both sides should be listed and presented neutrally. which is what I tried to do here and which you rejected outright.- Are you trying to say that Requests for arbitration/Añoranza is a propaganda term? Haizum 12:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- As you may agree, calling users who correct links they are vandals and POV-pushers is not exactly civil, nor is
"God, would you please just go the fuck away?"
Añoranza 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Disagree for the reasons previously stated: (1) this RFA was accepted as written, and it would be inappropriate to change it now that the ArbCom has already voted to accept and (2) as I read ArbCom policy, the ArbCom can impose sanctions on any party, including Zer0Faults in this case, whether or not he is in the name of the RFA. TheronJ 22:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree as per TheronJ and previous comments on the talk page this idea started. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait for consensus being built at Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Words to avoid
as this is the main part of the current conflict and as this already worked at United States invasion of Panama as well as Iraq War and 2003 invasion of Iraq, even though Zer0faults explained then why he has the right to ignore consensus: [4]. Añoranza 22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- This has escalated beyond a purely content-based issue; and it's not clear that you will accept any consensus that may be formed, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 22:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree if you hadn't spent the better part of your time back today reverting said articles to how you believed they should read first. Show's a double standard to me. Plus, why is it you feel the right to strike out other's comments ? ←
ΣcoPhreek
OIF 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I started the discussion at the appropriate page
Wikipedia:Naming conventions and listed the articles at
Wikipedia:Requested moves - where Zer0faults' wikistalking immediately continued, posting comments everywhere although Requested moves clearly is the wrong place for this. If you insist on personally attacking me by implying I did not follow consensus I would like to see anything supporting your claim and I would like to tell you that one user has explicilty explained that he is above consensus:
Zer0faults
here.
Añoranza 01:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wow talk about misrepresentation. That quote is from May8th in regard to a poll created without consideration for the opposing sides view. It also does not say that I will not adhere to the concensus, its just my critisism of it. This is exactly the situation people are reffering to in their complaints of mistating their views. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Considering that you abandoned the earlier discussion in favor of starting one on another page (and not mentioning the ongoing one there, to boot), I think it's fair to wonder if you might not do the same should the new ones not go your way (as seems to be the case so far). Kirill Lokshin 01:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I started the discussion at the appropriate page
Wikipedia:Naming conventions and listed the articles at
Wikipedia:Requested moves - where Zer0faults' wikistalking immediately continued, posting comments everywhere although Requested moves clearly is the wrong place for this. If you insist on personally attacking me by implying I did not follow consensus I would like to see anything supporting your claim and I would like to tell you that one user has explicilty explained that he is above consensus:
Zer0faults
here.
Añoranza 01:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- This would not work;
Añoranza (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) has been going around talk pages to drum up support. That is internal campaigning/internal spamming.
NSLE 01:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, this user just moves the debate whenever they see a concensus building against them. They participated in the MILHIST page, I think it should be kept there at most. --
zero faults
|sockpuppets| 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- First you tell me the military history project can only make guidelines and assume bad faith when I mistake it for a policy, then you complain when I go to where the policies are made. Furthermore, I see no reason to continue a discussion where ad hominem attacks are directed at me and whose results are later called useless anyway "because it's only a guideline". Calling others "vandal" again is a personal attack. There is nothing wrong about telling others about an arbitration case when they have been involved in the conflict that lead to it.
Añoranza 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- The other pages are guidelines too, as the {{
style-guideline}} tag at the top might suggest; I see no reason why you keep trying to move the discussion to different places.
Kirill Lokshin 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Añoranza, you can't hide behind WP:AGF any time someone questions your actions; WP:AGF protects edits, not general conduct. Haizum 12:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- The other pages are guidelines too, as the {{
style-guideline}} tag at the top might suggest; I see no reason why you keep trying to move the discussion to different places.
Kirill Lokshin 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- First you tell me the military history project can only make guidelines and assume bad faith when I mistake it for a policy, then you complain when I go to where the policies are made. Furthermore, I see no reason to continue a discussion where ad hominem attacks are directed at me and whose results are later called useless anyway "because it's only a guideline". Calling others "vandal" again is a personal attack. There is nothing wrong about telling others about an arbitration case when they have been involved in the conflict that lead to it.
Añoranza 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, this user just moves the debate whenever they see a concensus building against them. They participated in the MILHIST page, I think it should be kept there at most. --
zero faults
|sockpuppets| 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- If you think that there are examples of you working to build consensus on those pages, Añoranza, I think it would be appropriate to put them into evidence with specific links, but I don't think waiting for a consensus would really help clarify the issues here. TheronJ 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Añoranza prohibited from changing comments
1) Añoranza is prohibited from removing, striking out, or modifying in any other way comments made by other users on these arbitration pages.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Please do not strike out anything placed here by another user (If necessary we will do it). this, while cynical, and perhaps a violation of assume good faith, is not a personal attack. Fred Bauder 20:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- This is getting ridiculous.
Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Personal attacks are to be stroken out immediately. Añoranza 00:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with this proposal! There are no personal attacks on this page! They are merely observations based upon user's actions and diatribes. ← ΣcoPhreek OIF 00:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)- "Diatribes" is incivil, and coming from a user who uses the f-word when talking to me I cannot take it serious. Personal attacks can be deleted on sight.
Añoranza 01:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Incivility does not equate to personal attacks. The two are very different. Also, quote the text from
WP:RPA,
Removal of other's comments on a page that is NOT your talk page can be seen as vandalism. NSLE 01:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)This is not official policy. A clear consensus did not emerge from a discussion and vote on the talk page. "The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI (emphasis original). It is left up to individuals to decide whether to apply it themselves, and if they do they may find themselves held accountable for questionable uses.
Diatribe #2 is not incivil, it is not a personal attack, it is not anything but an observation, why can you not seperate observations from personal attacks upon your person. You bitterly denounce the use of operational names, therfore it is a diatribe. I don't know how to make this any clearer, observations of actions are different than personal attacks and should not be confused as such. ← ΣcoPhreek OIF 05:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer to strike out, that is more showing than just removing. Users who prefer to keep incivil remarks "may find themselves held accountable for questionable uses." Diatribe is a derogatory term, entirely unnecessary and incivil.
Añoranza 16:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Diatribe is not derogatory unless you have a mindset that makes everything derogatory in which case there is really no point having a discussion since I could say the sky was blue and you would take it as an insult. You imagine things were there are none. I don't even dislike you or what you're doing, I just dislike single editors deciding that their beliefs are the correct beliefs and everyone else is wrong, then go about changing Wiki to meet their personal agenda without discussion or consensus, that is wrong. If you would stop your POV pushing until consensus was reached I'd disappear from your life and this arbcom. If final consensus reached was in favor of your POV there would be no more action from me, obviously though if consensus is against you, you take the argument somewhere else. ← ΣcoPhreek OIF 20:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)- Diatribe: "a bitter and abusive speech or writing" Of course that is not derogatory to someone who tells others to
"go the fuck away". Thanks for telling me that you "do not even dislike" me. How could anyone dislike a casual acquaintance consisting of some comments on an internet project? "obviously though if consensus is against you, you take the argument somewhere else." again violates
Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
Añoranza 14:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
And you link to the statement yet again, is that the only thing you have? Everyone here knows I said it, like I said above move on, sheesh. As for Diatribe, that's why I chose definition #2... Pay attention. Words can have more than one meaning, stop picking the one that meets your needs. Especially when the person saying it tells you which definition they mean. As for WP:AGF this is ArbCom the point where people assume good faith about a user is usually over once the user is brought to ArbCom, that's why it has been brought to ArbCom, people are tired of assuming good faith on a user who tries to push their agenda despite people being apposed to said agenda. You can only do so many things to people and scream WP:AGF! WP:AGF! WP:AGF! so long before it loses it's value. Kinda like crying "Wolf!"← Σc o Phreek Is Useless Nostalgia→ 15:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Incivility does not equate to personal attacks. The two are very different. Also, quote the text from
WP:RPA,
- "Diatribes" is incivil, and coming from a user who uses the f-word when talking to me I cannot take it serious. Personal attacks can be deleted on sight.
Añoranza 01:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agree - I think editing other users comments, especially removing them from a RFA or RFC is intolerable. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is getting ridiculous.
Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Añoranza, it isn't for you to decide what a personal attack is, that's why comments need to remain as they are, so if there is a violation, someone with the authority to do something about it can actually see comments in question. How obvious is that? Haizum 11:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
All parties blocked who continue personal attacks
1) All parties get warned in case of any further personal attack. In case of continued personal attacks after warning the user gets blocked, first for 24h, climbing upwards for any further abuse. Añoranza 00:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Please be courteous Fred Bauder 18:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
Reject: who would make that judgement-call? You, not possible, everything is a personal attack to you. If you could find someone not associated with you, totally impartial, then maybe.← Σc o Phreek Is Useless Nostalgia→ 23:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)- Of course normal users cannot decide about blocks. Arbitrators can.
Añoranza 14:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Then why have you threatened to block multiple users (myself included) if you "cannot decide about blocks?" Haizum 11:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Reject: This is redundant. Wikipedia already has rules in place to deal with personal attacks. This is like suggesting that Wikipedia allow anyone to edit -- it already does. Haizum 12:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of course normal users cannot decide about blocks. Arbitrators can.
Añoranza 14:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Reject - Redundant, rules already in place to handle this. Considering users own interpretation of NPA is in question, allowing them to decide would not be proper. Existing channels for NPA violations exist. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed final decision Information
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 16:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 18:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 18:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Framing a content dispute as a behavior dispute
4) Framing a dispute which, at bottom, is about content as a behavior dispute does not, however many behavior problems might exist, change its essential nature. It will be treated as a content dispute.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 13:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 13:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Links
7) In articles, especially when used as a link, a NPOV designation of an event is preferable to a propagandistic operational codename.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 13:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Can the wording be amended to include the point about "neutral alternative names in common use" from remedy 3? Or is this meant to hold even when no such names can be found? Kirill Lokshin 17:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- By "propagandistic", do you mean (1) to imply that all codenames are propagandistic or (2) to limit this ruling to only those codenames that are, in fact, propagandistic? Thanks, TheronJ 22:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 13:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Substitution of operational codenames
1) Añoranza ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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 [5]. In one instance operational names in parentheses were removed, Operation Urgent Fury and Operation Just Cause, [6]; in another they were substituted, Operation Just Cause to US invasion of Panama, [7]. His actions have involved only a few operational codenames; however, they were being used in a large number of articles.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 16:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Añoranza response to resistance
2) When Añoranza began removing propagandistic 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 20:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Personal attacks by Ecophreek
3} Ecophreek ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has directed personal attacks at Añoranza [8].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed
Fred Bauder 16:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Distinctions without a difference. Fred Bauder 03:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Proposed
Fred Bauder 16:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
Disagree, it was not a personal attack, it was incivil. ← Σc o Phreek→ 21:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)There is a major difference, I was incivil by responding to multiple vandalizations of my talkpage (you did get the 11 postings in 3 days of baseless "warnings" on my page right?) and was tired of the constant bombardment. I've said I was wrong for doing so. I was peronally attacked on my user page again, and again, and again, over a period of three days, with threats of blocking (by a person with no authority to do so), had my userpage vandalized by unauthorized templates, etc... Until now, I haven't complained or whined about this. But if you're going to call it a personal attack (my statement) then you need to do some more work and get all of Anoranza's trespasses listed here not just spend time debunking everybody else. ← Σc o Phreek→ 21:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There also a discussion somewhere, unfortunately I can no longer find it, between admins where it was decided that the use of the F-word in and of itself was not to be considered an attack when used out of context ( that's f-d up, vs you're F-d up) The discussion was pretty long but brought to a close by Jimbo Wales himself stating it was not an attack or improper to use. I also took it to mean that "go the F away" would be preferable to "would you go away, you f-head" (there may not be a difference, in which case I apologise, but that's just my 2 cents) ← Σc o Phreek→ 21:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
-
WP:NPA defines
"profanity directed at another contributor" as a personal attack. I would define "God, would you please go the fuck away" an an obscenity, not profanity, but apparently the
common usage of the term has expanded to include stuff like that.
TheronJ 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, by strictest etymology, "God would you please go the fuck away" is both obscene and profane. Thatcher131 14:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-
WP:NPA defines
"profanity directed at another contributor" as a personal attack. I would define "God, would you please go the fuck away" an an obscenity, not profanity, but apparently the
common usage of the term has expanded to include stuff like that.
TheronJ 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
POV-statement
4) Añoranza has added, and when removed, restored Template:POV-statement to a number of articles [9]. 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 17:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Discussions of Añoranza's behavior by administrators
5) Añoranza's behavior was reported and discussed on the Administrator's noticeboard/Incident at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive108#User:A.C3.B1oranza and shortly thereafter at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive108#User:A.C3.B1oranza_again.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 17:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Arrival of Añoranza
6) Añoranza began editing on the English Wikipedia in early May. His initial posts concerned an ip block on the Spanish Wikipedia [10].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Discussions regarding use of operational names
7) In addition to discussions on administrative notice boards, there are other venues where the question of the use of operation names is under discussion Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Propaganda_terms, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Using_operational_names and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Military_conflicts_and_operational_names.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Añoranza has made personal attacks
8) Añoranza has been discourteous and made personal attacks [11].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 18:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Blocked for a week as an "Intolerable troll"
9) NSLE ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Añoranza for a week on June 8, 2006 as an "Intolerable troll" giving as an "official" reason "CIV, NPA, revert warring, NPOV vio, WP:NOT censored vio." [12]. Añoranza considered this a personal attack and has repeatedly demanded an apology and taunted NSLE after he was desyopped User_talk:NSLE/Archive_12#Warning_for_personal_attack.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 20:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
A subtle point
10) 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 21:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults
11) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 21:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
The role of Haizum
12) Haizum ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive108#User:A.C3.B1oranza, taking a view contrary to Añoranza, referring to his changes as benefiting an "anti-American agenda". Añoranza's complaints about Haisum Haisum's comment on Añoranza, "This user doesn't care about military history or historic accuracy; the only operational titles being changed are those of the United States military. This is nothing but rabid anti-Americanism, and it's pretty disgusting that you continue to enable it. Haizum 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)". Haizum attempts to explain this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Añoranza/Evidence#Objection:_Blatant_Misquoting_Found_on_This_Page but his explanation appears to be doubletalk.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Notes Fred Bauder 21:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Proposed Fred Bauder 03:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it is pretty clear that you said, in effect, that Añoranza had an "anti-American agenda" and described his position as "nothing but rabid anti-Americanism". You put words together which claim you were referring to someone else but when I look at the edits I can see that they don't correspond to what you say.
Fred Bauder 03:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- If I may interject, that still isn't double talk. My comments were directed toward another editor, not Añoranza. Yes, they were about Añoranza, but they were not too him. I will make that clarification. Haizum 03:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Objection: How is my comment "doubletalk?" How is my comment an "attempt?" Añoranza claims that I said he was disgusting and anti-American, and it's obvious that I didn't. You even said "referring to his changes as benefiting an 'anti-American agenda,'" which may have been not AGF, but good faith is the reason we are here today questioning Añoranza's edit history. Haizum 21:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I also object to completely inadequate links you provide which contrast my comments with Añoranza's comments. How about the spam on my talk page? How about the block threats? How about the false accusations of personal attacks? You are treating the position of one user equally to that of the misconduct of another user. That simply isn't objective enough for this workshop. Haizum 21:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Struck by Haizum 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
The role of Zer0faults
13) Zer0faults ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has played a central role in this dispute, initiating the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [13], following up with a second report 8 hours later [14]. The initial complaint cited edits to the following articles:
- This user is going to each article that has the term "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in it and removed the term stating "no propaganda terms" or has added POV tags to any use of the term. This user has done this on the following articles Jeffrey Chessani [15], Haditha killings [16], David Kay [17], Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. [18], Martin Dempsey [19], even Get Fuzzy [20]
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed
Fred Bauder 13:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Takes 2 to edit war. Fred Bauder 03:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Proposed
Fred Bauder 13:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Objection: This statement is projecting the alleged systematic and unilateral editing misconduct of one user (Añoranza) onto another (Zer0faults).
Haizum 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting comment, Takes 2 to edit war. Why? Because we are trying to decide if Añoranza's edit history is appropriate or misconduct. If it is misconduct, then clearly reversion of that conduct is appropriate; if it is appropriate conduct, then reversion is edit warring. Therefore, in saying, "Takes 2 to edit war," you have taken sides with the latter.
Haizum 03:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that this point does necessarily imply misconduct. It's just a factual statement that Zer0faults is a central figure in this dispute (which seems fairly obvious to me).
Kirill Lokshin 03:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Healthy skepticism. I just wanted to be sure that the finding wasn't implying misconduct on the part of Zer0faults. Now, having challenged the finding, it appears that Fred Bauder has taken sides. I understand the AGF principle here, but what else can I make of "Takes 2 to edit war?" That implies that no misconduct has taken place (aside from the warring itself).
Haizum 04:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think we should just wait and see what the role of Anoranza turns out to be before we make any judgements. I do however find it amusing that he wrote "takes 2 to edit war" that would seemingly negate anyone from removing vandalism constantly if we took everything to be black and white. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 09:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Healthy skepticism. I just wanted to be sure that the finding wasn't implying misconduct on the part of Zer0faults. Now, having challenged the finding, it appears that Fred Bauder has taken sides. I understand the AGF principle here, but what else can I make of "Takes 2 to edit war?" That implies that no misconduct has taken place (aside from the warring itself).
Haizum 04:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that this point does necessarily imply misconduct. It's just a factual statement that Zer0faults is a central figure in this dispute (which seems fairly obvious to me).
Kirill Lokshin 03:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting comment, Takes 2 to edit war. Why? Because we are trying to decide if Añoranza's edit history is appropriate or misconduct. If it is misconduct, then clearly reversion of that conduct is appropriate; if it is appropriate conduct, then reversion is edit warring. Therefore, in saying, "Takes 2 to edit war," you have taken sides with the latter.
Haizum 03:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Objection: This statement is projecting the alleged systematic and unilateral editing misconduct of one user (Añoranza) onto another (Zer0faults).
Haizum 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Añoranza commended
1) Añoranza is commended for bringing the problem of use of propagandistic operational codenames to the attention of the Wikipedia community.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Añoranza banned
2) Añoranza is banned for one week for disrupting Wikipedia by engaging in an aggressive campaign regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Negotiaton
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Edits to Jeffrey Chessani
Initial edit by Añoranza June 8, 2006 changing Operation Iraqi Freedom to "the Iraq war" with the comment, "please no propaganda names" [21]. Reverted 2 minutes later by Looper5920 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without comment [22]. Restored 3 hours later with the comment "revert propaganda name" [23]. Reverted 15 minutes later by Zer0faults with the comment, "removed inconsistent editing, OIF is already established term on page. Please follow established naming convention." [24] (Operation Iraqi Freedom was used in another place on the page). Restored by Añoranza 3 hours later [25].10 minutes later Zer0faults reverts with the comment, "RV edits inconsistent with page. Perhaps you should read the entire article and see why reverting one instance of the name does not make sense." [26]. 5 hours later Añoranza restored, also removing the pipe to Operation Just Cause, 1989 Invasion of Panama, replacing it with a direct link to "the US invasion of Panama", commenting, "replaced propaganda terms" [27] (both redirect to United States invasion of Panama). 5 minutes Zer0faults later reverts, "per previously cited reason." [28]. 3 minutes later Joshdboz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed piping and, in error, commented "change all names to respective article titles without piping" (both redirected to actual title) [29]. After avoiding one redirect he reverted himself leaving the article with two links to Operation Just Cause, one to Operation Iraqi Freedom and one to Iraq War [30]. There were no further changes until an edit June 27, 2006 by Ecophreek ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), "During his military career he has participated in Operation Just Cause (1989 Invasion of Panama), the 1991 Gulf War, and most recently the Iraq War (Operation Iraqi Freedom)." [31]. This combines one instance of a link to an operational codename, Operation Just Cause, (which redirects to United States invasion of Panama) followed by 1989 Invasion of Panama in parentheses with a link to Iraq War followed by the operational codename, Operation Iraqi Freedom, in parentheses.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- By Fred Bauder 14:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
Venues for discussion
1) Until the conclusion of this case, Añoranza is prohibited from starting general discussions regarding operational names on any Wikipedia talk: page where such discussions are not already occurring.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Nonsense
Fred Bauder 16:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, no, I can see he is forum shopping. I see only 3 open now with somewhat different sets of users commenting. I think the diverse perspectives are useful. Fred Bauder 20:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nonsense
Fred Bauder 16:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Somewhat heavy-handed, but in my opinion necessary to prevent him from starting a meatball:ForestFire, as he has been doing with great alacrity this morning. I've tried to word it narrowly, so as not to prevent him from filing single-article move requests if he finds it necessary; it could potentially be expanded to cover this as well (and perhaps to include all involved parties, to be fair; but Añoranza is the only one to do this so far). Kirill Lokshin 15:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree with this. This discussion started off by taking place on numerous talk pages, a discussion for each page this user edited removing operation names. Anoranza was asked by Kirill Lokshin to discuss it at the MILHIST location instead of seperated disjointed discussions. They participated there for some time, then decided they no longer wanted to and instead started discussions in other locations. I am afraid this may turn into venue shopping, where this user will pose the questions in locations until they feel its gonig in their direction. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Revert warring over (N)POV templates
1) Until the conclusion of this case, Añoranza ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is to stop revert-warring over the inclusion of POV warning tags on any article, and should not re-add the tag(s) if they are removed. Añoranza should aslo be warned for revert warring.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
-
Añoranza (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) has been revert-warring (see recent contribs), even admitting to
possibly violating
WP:POINT. This has to stop until a decision can be made on this, as this is getting really disruptive. He has also
accused the removal of it as "vandalism", which is borderline.
NSLE 20:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- As long as some call certain operation names propaganda while others say they are ok there is a POV-dispute, and this needs to be noted. Removing POV-warnings is vandalism, and I did not "admit possibly violating POINT", I wrote it is a pretext to remove them claiming I was violating POINT, which I was not.
Añoranza 22:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, removing NPOV-tags is not vandalism unless it is done twice in 24 hours, and the policy states "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." I was accused of vandalism by Añoranza (and incivilly quoted the policy [1]) after reverting the tag but once. -- Habap 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- As long as some call certain operation names propaganda while others say they are ok there is a POV-dispute, and this needs to be noted. Removing POV-warnings is vandalism, and I did not "admit possibly violating POINT", I wrote it is a pretext to remove them claiming I was violating POINT, which I was not.
Añoranza 22:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
Añoranza (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) has been revert-warring (see recent contribs), even admitting to
possibly violating
WP:POINT. This has to stop until a decision can be made on this, as this is getting really disruptive. He has also
accused the removal of it as "vandalism", which is borderline.
NSLE 20:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Rename this to a neutral name like Requests for arbitration/Añoranza Zer0faults Haizum NSLE Ecophreek
as more than one user is accused of wrongdoings here. In particular, Zer0faults is the only here who had a request for comments case before this case was filed. Añoranza 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- We do not ordinarily do this. If the other parties are at fault we'll jump right on them. Fred Bauder 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
I disagree, all parties listed are having a problem with you and your unwillingness to reach consensus and compromise. ← ΣcoPhreek OIF 22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)- There is a certified case against Zer0faults, he has been blocked twice, and Cyde specifically suggested an arbitration case about Haizum due to his repeated personal attacks. [2] You had your share, too, removing POV-tags, telling me "God, would you please just go the fuck away?" [3] and calling my edits vandalism and POV-pushing (correcting links that was). Añoranza 22:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, since no one said we couldn't thread then, how is stating what I did state in my comment constitute a personal attack? It didn't, it wasn't even incivil, it's called frustration with empty threats. ← ΣcoPhreek OIF 00:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)- As you may agree, calling users who correct links they are vandals and POV-pushers is not exactly civil, nor is
"God, would you please just go the fuck away?"
Añoranza 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You're really hung up on that phrase aren't you? I said it, I linked to it, you linked to it, and now, you've linked to it yet again. It's done, move on, at the most I was incivil, at the very least I was tired of your corruption of my talk page (11 additions in 3 days that had to be removed because of bogusness (I know, not a word)). Oh, and I don't agree, the "corrections" you were doing was vandalism, I said it then and I still think it is. And you ARE (emphasis mine) pushing your POV on how the articles should be worded and the phrases that should be used. When WP:NPOV clearly states that on controversial topic both sides should be listed and presented neutrally. which is what I tried to do here and which you rejected outright.- Are you trying to say that Requests for arbitration/Añoranza is a propaganda term? Haizum 12:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- As you may agree, calling users who correct links they are vandals and POV-pushers is not exactly civil, nor is
"God, would you please just go the fuck away?"
Añoranza 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Disagree for the reasons previously stated: (1) this RFA was accepted as written, and it would be inappropriate to change it now that the ArbCom has already voted to accept and (2) as I read ArbCom policy, the ArbCom can impose sanctions on any party, including Zer0Faults in this case, whether or not he is in the name of the RFA. TheronJ 22:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree as per TheronJ and previous comments on the talk page this idea started. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait for consensus being built at Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Words to avoid
as this is the main part of the current conflict and as this already worked at United States invasion of Panama as well as Iraq War and 2003 invasion of Iraq, even though Zer0faults explained then why he has the right to ignore consensus: [4]. Añoranza 22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- This has escalated beyond a purely content-based issue; and it's not clear that you will accept any consensus that may be formed, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 22:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree if you hadn't spent the better part of your time back today reverting said articles to how you believed they should read first. Show's a double standard to me. Plus, why is it you feel the right to strike out other's comments ? ←
ΣcoPhreek
OIF 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I started the discussion at the appropriate page
Wikipedia:Naming conventions and listed the articles at
Wikipedia:Requested moves - where Zer0faults' wikistalking immediately continued, posting comments everywhere although Requested moves clearly is the wrong place for this. If you insist on personally attacking me by implying I did not follow consensus I would like to see anything supporting your claim and I would like to tell you that one user has explicilty explained that he is above consensus:
Zer0faults
here.
Añoranza 01:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wow talk about misrepresentation. That quote is from May8th in regard to a poll created without consideration for the opposing sides view. It also does not say that I will not adhere to the concensus, its just my critisism of it. This is exactly the situation people are reffering to in their complaints of mistating their views. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Considering that you abandoned the earlier discussion in favor of starting one on another page (and not mentioning the ongoing one there, to boot), I think it's fair to wonder if you might not do the same should the new ones not go your way (as seems to be the case so far). Kirill Lokshin 01:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I started the discussion at the appropriate page
Wikipedia:Naming conventions and listed the articles at
Wikipedia:Requested moves - where Zer0faults' wikistalking immediately continued, posting comments everywhere although Requested moves clearly is the wrong place for this. If you insist on personally attacking me by implying I did not follow consensus I would like to see anything supporting your claim and I would like to tell you that one user has explicilty explained that he is above consensus:
Zer0faults
here.
Añoranza 01:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- This would not work;
Añoranza (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) has been going around talk pages to drum up support. That is internal campaigning/internal spamming.
NSLE 01:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, this user just moves the debate whenever they see a concensus building against them. They participated in the MILHIST page, I think it should be kept there at most. --
zero faults
|sockpuppets| 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- First you tell me the military history project can only make guidelines and assume bad faith when I mistake it for a policy, then you complain when I go to where the policies are made. Furthermore, I see no reason to continue a discussion where ad hominem attacks are directed at me and whose results are later called useless anyway "because it's only a guideline". Calling others "vandal" again is a personal attack. There is nothing wrong about telling others about an arbitration case when they have been involved in the conflict that lead to it.
Añoranza 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- The other pages are guidelines too, as the {{
style-guideline}} tag at the top might suggest; I see no reason why you keep trying to move the discussion to different places.
Kirill Lokshin 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Añoranza, you can't hide behind WP:AGF any time someone questions your actions; WP:AGF protects edits, not general conduct. Haizum 12:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- The other pages are guidelines too, as the {{
style-guideline}} tag at the top might suggest; I see no reason why you keep trying to move the discussion to different places.
Kirill Lokshin 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- First you tell me the military history project can only make guidelines and assume bad faith when I mistake it for a policy, then you complain when I go to where the policies are made. Furthermore, I see no reason to continue a discussion where ad hominem attacks are directed at me and whose results are later called useless anyway "because it's only a guideline". Calling others "vandal" again is a personal attack. There is nothing wrong about telling others about an arbitration case when they have been involved in the conflict that lead to it.
Añoranza 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, this user just moves the debate whenever they see a concensus building against them. They participated in the MILHIST page, I think it should be kept there at most. --
zero faults
|sockpuppets| 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- If you think that there are examples of you working to build consensus on those pages, Añoranza, I think it would be appropriate to put them into evidence with specific links, but I don't think waiting for a consensus would really help clarify the issues here. TheronJ 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Añoranza prohibited from changing comments
1) Añoranza is prohibited from removing, striking out, or modifying in any other way comments made by other users on these arbitration pages.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Please do not strike out anything placed here by another user (If necessary we will do it). this, while cynical, and perhaps a violation of assume good faith, is not a personal attack. Fred Bauder 20:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- This is getting ridiculous.
Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Personal attacks are to be stroken out immediately. Añoranza 00:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with this proposal! There are no personal attacks on this page! They are merely observations based upon user's actions and diatribes. ← ΣcoPhreek OIF 00:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)- "Diatribes" is incivil, and coming from a user who uses the f-word when talking to me I cannot take it serious. Personal attacks can be deleted on sight.
Añoranza 01:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Incivility does not equate to personal attacks. The two are very different. Also, quote the text from
WP:RPA,
Removal of other's comments on a page that is NOT your talk page can be seen as vandalism. NSLE 01:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)This is not official policy. A clear consensus did not emerge from a discussion and vote on the talk page. "The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI (emphasis original). It is left up to individuals to decide whether to apply it themselves, and if they do they may find themselves held accountable for questionable uses.
Diatribe #2 is not incivil, it is not a personal attack, it is not anything but an observation, why can you not seperate observations from personal attacks upon your person. You bitterly denounce the use of operational names, therfore it is a diatribe. I don't know how to make this any clearer, observations of actions are different than personal attacks and should not be confused as such. ← ΣcoPhreek OIF 05:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer to strike out, that is more showing than just removing. Users who prefer to keep incivil remarks "may find themselves held accountable for questionable uses." Diatribe is a derogatory term, entirely unnecessary and incivil.
Añoranza 16:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Diatribe is not derogatory unless you have a mindset that makes everything derogatory in which case there is really no point having a discussion since I could say the sky was blue and you would take it as an insult. You imagine things were there are none. I don't even dislike you or what you're doing, I just dislike single editors deciding that their beliefs are the correct beliefs and everyone else is wrong, then go about changing Wiki to meet their personal agenda without discussion or consensus, that is wrong. If you would stop your POV pushing until consensus was reached I'd disappear from your life and this arbcom. If final consensus reached was in favor of your POV there would be no more action from me, obviously though if consensus is against you, you take the argument somewhere else. ← ΣcoPhreek OIF 20:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)- Diatribe: "a bitter and abusive speech or writing" Of course that is not derogatory to someone who tells others to
"go the fuck away". Thanks for telling me that you "do not even dislike" me. How could anyone dislike a casual acquaintance consisting of some comments on an internet project? "obviously though if consensus is against you, you take the argument somewhere else." again violates
Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
Añoranza 14:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
And you link to the statement yet again, is that the only thing you have? Everyone here knows I said it, like I said above move on, sheesh. As for Diatribe, that's why I chose definition #2... Pay attention. Words can have more than one meaning, stop picking the one that meets your needs. Especially when the person saying it tells you which definition they mean. As for WP:AGF this is ArbCom the point where people assume good faith about a user is usually over once the user is brought to ArbCom, that's why it has been brought to ArbCom, people are tired of assuming good faith on a user who tries to push their agenda despite people being apposed to said agenda. You can only do so many things to people and scream WP:AGF! WP:AGF! WP:AGF! so long before it loses it's value. Kinda like crying "Wolf!"← Σc o Phreek Is Useless Nostalgia→ 15:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Incivility does not equate to personal attacks. The two are very different. Also, quote the text from
WP:RPA,
- "Diatribes" is incivil, and coming from a user who uses the f-word when talking to me I cannot take it serious. Personal attacks can be deleted on sight.
Añoranza 01:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agree - I think editing other users comments, especially removing them from a RFA or RFC is intolerable. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is getting ridiculous.
Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Añoranza, it isn't for you to decide what a personal attack is, that's why comments need to remain as they are, so if there is a violation, someone with the authority to do something about it can actually see comments in question. How obvious is that? Haizum 11:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
All parties blocked who continue personal attacks
1) All parties get warned in case of any further personal attack. In case of continued personal attacks after warning the user gets blocked, first for 24h, climbing upwards for any further abuse. Añoranza 00:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Please be courteous Fred Bauder 18:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
Reject: who would make that judgement-call? You, not possible, everything is a personal attack to you. If you could find someone not associated with you, totally impartial, then maybe.← Σc o Phreek Is Useless Nostalgia→ 23:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)- Of course normal users cannot decide about blocks. Arbitrators can.
Añoranza 14:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Then why have you threatened to block multiple users (myself included) if you "cannot decide about blocks?" Haizum 11:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Reject: This is redundant. Wikipedia already has rules in place to deal with personal attacks. This is like suggesting that Wikipedia allow anyone to edit -- it already does. Haizum 12:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of course normal users cannot decide about blocks. Arbitrators can.
Añoranza 14:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Reject - Redundant, rules already in place to handle this. Considering users own interpretation of NPA is in question, allowing them to decide would not be proper. Existing channels for NPA violations exist. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed final decision Information
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 16:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 18:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 18:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Framing a content dispute as a behavior dispute
4) Framing a dispute which, at bottom, is about content as a behavior dispute does not, however many behavior problems might exist, change its essential nature. It will be treated as a content dispute.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 13:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 13:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Links
7) In articles, especially when used as a link, a NPOV designation of an event is preferable to a propagandistic operational codename.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 13:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Can the wording be amended to include the point about "neutral alternative names in common use" from remedy 3? Or is this meant to hold even when no such names can be found? Kirill Lokshin 17:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- By "propagandistic", do you mean (1) to imply that all codenames are propagandistic or (2) to limit this ruling to only those codenames that are, in fact, propagandistic? Thanks, TheronJ 22:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 13:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Substitution of operational codenames
1) Añoranza ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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 [5]. In one instance operational names in parentheses were removed, Operation Urgent Fury and Operation Just Cause, [6]; in another they were substituted, Operation Just Cause to US invasion of Panama, [7]. His actions have involved only a few operational codenames; however, they were being used in a large number of articles.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 16:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Añoranza response to resistance
2) When Añoranza began removing propagandistic 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 20:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Personal attacks by Ecophreek
3} Ecophreek ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has directed personal attacks at Añoranza [8].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed
Fred Bauder 16:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Distinctions without a difference. Fred Bauder 03:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Proposed
Fred Bauder 16:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
Disagree, it was not a personal attack, it was incivil. ← Σc o Phreek→ 21:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)There is a major difference, I was incivil by responding to multiple vandalizations of my talkpage (you did get the 11 postings in 3 days of baseless "warnings" on my page right?) and was tired of the constant bombardment. I've said I was wrong for doing so. I was peronally attacked on my user page again, and again, and again, over a period of three days, with threats of blocking (by a person with no authority to do so), had my userpage vandalized by unauthorized templates, etc... Until now, I haven't complained or whined about this. But if you're going to call it a personal attack (my statement) then you need to do some more work and get all of Anoranza's trespasses listed here not just spend time debunking everybody else. ← Σc o Phreek→ 21:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There also a discussion somewhere, unfortunately I can no longer find it, between admins where it was decided that the use of the F-word in and of itself was not to be considered an attack when used out of context ( that's f-d up, vs you're F-d up) The discussion was pretty long but brought to a close by Jimbo Wales himself stating it was not an attack or improper to use. I also took it to mean that "go the F away" would be preferable to "would you go away, you f-head" (there may not be a difference, in which case I apologise, but that's just my 2 cents) ← Σc o Phreek→ 21:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
-
WP:NPA defines
"profanity directed at another contributor" as a personal attack. I would define "God, would you please go the fuck away" an an obscenity, not profanity, but apparently the
common usage of the term has expanded to include stuff like that.
TheronJ 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, by strictest etymology, "God would you please go the fuck away" is both obscene and profane. Thatcher131 14:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-
WP:NPA defines
"profanity directed at another contributor" as a personal attack. I would define "God, would you please go the fuck away" an an obscenity, not profanity, but apparently the
common usage of the term has expanded to include stuff like that.
TheronJ 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
POV-statement
4) Añoranza has added, and when removed, restored Template:POV-statement to a number of articles [9]. 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 17:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Discussions of Añoranza's behavior by administrators
5) Añoranza's behavior was reported and discussed on the Administrator's noticeboard/Incident at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive108#User:A.C3.B1oranza and shortly thereafter at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive108#User:A.C3.B1oranza_again.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 17:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Arrival of Añoranza
6) Añoranza began editing on the English Wikipedia in early May. His initial posts concerned an ip block on the Spanish Wikipedia [10].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Discussions regarding use of operational names
7) In addition to discussions on administrative notice boards, there are other venues where the question of the use of operation names is under discussion Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Propaganda_terms, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Using_operational_names and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Military_conflicts_and_operational_names.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Añoranza has made personal attacks
8) Añoranza has been discourteous and made personal attacks [11].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 18:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Blocked for a week as an "Intolerable troll"
9) NSLE ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Añoranza for a week on June 8, 2006 as an "Intolerable troll" giving as an "official" reason "CIV, NPA, revert warring, NPOV vio, WP:NOT censored vio." [12]. Añoranza considered this a personal attack and has repeatedly demanded an apology and taunted NSLE after he was desyopped User_talk:NSLE/Archive_12#Warning_for_personal_attack.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 20:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
A subtle point
10) 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 21:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults
11) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 21:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
The role of Haizum
12) Haizum ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive108#User:A.C3.B1oranza, taking a view contrary to Añoranza, referring to his changes as benefiting an "anti-American agenda". Añoranza's complaints about Haisum Haisum's comment on Añoranza, "This user doesn't care about military history or historic accuracy; the only operational titles being changed are those of the United States military. This is nothing but rabid anti-Americanism, and it's pretty disgusting that you continue to enable it. Haizum 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)". Haizum attempts to explain this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Añoranza/Evidence#Objection:_Blatant_Misquoting_Found_on_This_Page but his explanation appears to be doubletalk.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Notes Fred Bauder 21:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Proposed Fred Bauder 03:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it is pretty clear that you said, in effect, that Añoranza had an "anti-American agenda" and described his position as "nothing but rabid anti-Americanism". You put words together which claim you were referring to someone else but when I look at the edits I can see that they don't correspond to what you say.
Fred Bauder 03:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- If I may interject, that still isn't double talk. My comments were directed toward another editor, not Añoranza. Yes, they were about Añoranza, but they were not too him. I will make that clarification. Haizum 03:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Objection: How is my comment "doubletalk?" How is my comment an "attempt?" Añoranza claims that I said he was disgusting and anti-American, and it's obvious that I didn't. You even said "referring to his changes as benefiting an 'anti-American agenda,'" which may have been not AGF, but good faith is the reason we are here today questioning Añoranza's edit history. Haizum 21:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I also object to completely inadequate links you provide which contrast my comments with Añoranza's comments. How about the spam on my talk page? How about the block threats? How about the false accusations of personal attacks? You are treating the position of one user equally to that of the misconduct of another user. That simply isn't objective enough for this workshop. Haizum 21:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Struck by Haizum 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
The role of Zer0faults
13) Zer0faults ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has played a central role in this dispute, initiating the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [13], following up with a second report 8 hours later [14]. The initial complaint cited edits to the following articles:
- This user is going to each article that has the term "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in it and removed the term stating "no propaganda terms" or has added POV tags to any use of the term. This user has done this on the following articles Jeffrey Chessani [15], Haditha killings [16], David Kay [17], Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. [18], Martin Dempsey [19], even Get Fuzzy [20]
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed
Fred Bauder 13:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Takes 2 to edit war. Fred Bauder 03:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Proposed
Fred Bauder 13:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Objection: This statement is projecting the alleged systematic and unilateral editing misconduct of one user (Añoranza) onto another (Zer0faults).
Haizum 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting comment, Takes 2 to edit war. Why? Because we are trying to decide if Añoranza's edit history is appropriate or misconduct. If it is misconduct, then clearly reversion of that conduct is appropriate; if it is appropriate conduct, then reversion is edit warring. Therefore, in saying, "Takes 2 to edit war," you have taken sides with the latter.
Haizum 03:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that this point does necessarily imply misconduct. It's just a factual statement that Zer0faults is a central figure in this dispute (which seems fairly obvious to me).
Kirill Lokshin 03:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Healthy skepticism. I just wanted to be sure that the finding wasn't implying misconduct on the part of Zer0faults. Now, having challenged the finding, it appears that Fred Bauder has taken sides. I understand the AGF principle here, but what else can I make of "Takes 2 to edit war?" That implies that no misconduct has taken place (aside from the warring itself).
Haizum 04:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think we should just wait and see what the role of Anoranza turns out to be before we make any judgements. I do however find it amusing that he wrote "takes 2 to edit war" that would seemingly negate anyone from removing vandalism constantly if we took everything to be black and white. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 09:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Healthy skepticism. I just wanted to be sure that the finding wasn't implying misconduct on the part of Zer0faults. Now, having challenged the finding, it appears that Fred Bauder has taken sides. I understand the AGF principle here, but what else can I make of "Takes 2 to edit war?" That implies that no misconduct has taken place (aside from the warring itself).
Haizum 04:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that this point does necessarily imply misconduct. It's just a factual statement that Zer0faults is a central figure in this dispute (which seems fairly obvious to me).
Kirill Lokshin 03:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting comment, Takes 2 to edit war. Why? Because we are trying to decide if Añoranza's edit history is appropriate or misconduct. If it is misconduct, then clearly reversion of that conduct is appropriate; if it is appropriate conduct, then reversion is edit warring. Therefore, in saying, "Takes 2 to edit war," you have taken sides with the latter.
Haizum 03:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Objection: This statement is projecting the alleged systematic and unilateral editing misconduct of one user (Añoranza) onto another (Zer0faults).
Haizum 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Añoranza commended
1) Añoranza is commended for bringing the problem of use of propagandistic operational codenames to the attention of the Wikipedia community.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Añoranza banned
2) Añoranza is banned for one week for disrupting Wikipedia by engaging in an aggressive campaign regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Negotiaton
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Edits to Jeffrey Chessani
Initial edit by Añoranza June 8, 2006 changing Operation Iraqi Freedom to "the Iraq war" with the comment, "please no propaganda names" [21]. Reverted 2 minutes later by Looper5920 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without comment [22]. Restored 3 hours later with the comment "revert propaganda name" [23]. Reverted 15 minutes later by Zer0faults with the comment, "removed inconsistent editing, OIF is already established term on page. Please follow established naming convention." [24] (Operation Iraqi Freedom was used in another place on the page). Restored by Añoranza 3 hours later [25].10 minutes later Zer0faults reverts with the comment, "RV edits inconsistent with page. Perhaps you should read the entire article and see why reverting one instance of the name does not make sense." [26]. 5 hours later Añoranza restored, also removing the pipe to Operation Just Cause, 1989 Invasion of Panama, replacing it with a direct link to "the US invasion of Panama", commenting, "replaced propaganda terms" [27] (both redirect to United States invasion of Panama). 5 minutes Zer0faults later reverts, "per previously cited reason." [28]. 3 minutes later Joshdboz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed piping and, in error, commented "change all names to respective article titles without piping" (both redirected to actual title) [29]. After avoiding one redirect he reverted himself leaving the article with two links to Operation Just Cause, one to Operation Iraqi Freedom and one to Iraq War [30]. There were no further changes until an edit June 27, 2006 by Ecophreek ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), "During his military career he has participated in Operation Just Cause (1989 Invasion of Panama), the 1991 Gulf War, and most recently the Iraq War (Operation Iraqi Freedom)." [31]. This combines one instance of a link to an operational codename, Operation Just Cause, (which redirects to United States invasion of Panama) followed by 1989 Invasion of Panama in parentheses with a link to Iraq War followed by the operational codename, Operation Iraqi Freedom, in parentheses.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- By Fred Bauder 14:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: