Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

There has been disagreement over what "any admin" means, and both sides have a point

 * April 12, 2007 Will Beback notes that "When the ArbCom chooses to say "any uninvolved admin" they do so. When they say "any admin" that's what they mean." Dmcdevit, in his original request for this arbitration, holds another view.
 * ArbCom has previously specified that an administrator enforcing a probation remedy must be uninvolved (e.g. Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2, and at other times they haven't. What does it mean when ArbCom doesn't use the term "uninvolved"?
 * Blocking policy states clearly that "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited." If an involved admin blocks someone for probation violations, how can we tell that it's for probation violation and not to gain an advantage? Can we expect an involved admin to be sufficiently neutral?

Evidence presented by Zeq
If you want to know about Zero editing in wikipedia from only one diff see this:  - notice how he remove sourced content, remove facts that are not according to his POV and makes a PA in edit while edit warring and reverting.

Zero's violations have been wilfull - after he has been warned many times
The pattern has going on for years but bahaviour continue to this day.

2004 :  This request comes after user:Jimbo Wales stated on the Wikipedia mailing list (WikiEN-l) on Tue, 21 Sep 2004 : "It is for the arbcom to be decided, but based on the content of this email, it is clear to me that zero should be desysopped.[4]"

The e-mail from Wikipedia mailing list, Jimbo refers to this email by Zero0000 on WikiEN-L:

>Rick wrote(and Jimbo reliped): "> Jimmy, you need to know the whole history of the case."


 * "In order to know if Lance should have been blocked by someone, yes, I would need to know the full history of the case. But we have a cardinal rule, that goes all the way back to the existence of sysop powers in the first place, that they must never be used in a dispute over content that we are personally involved in."


 * "If you think we get silly complaints now about sysop abuse, just imagine what it would be like if we let sysops win arguments over content by blocking people who disagree."


 * "--Jimbo"

"we have a cardinal rule"..."never be used in a dispute over content that we are personally involved in." Clearly sysop is a privilege and a trust. Zero0000 has violated that trust. Lance6Wins 19:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

2006 : user:Zero0000 has been violating many Wikipedia policies (both as admin and as editor). Zero has been specifically advised by user::Fred Bauder not to apply probation ban as the first measure of dispute resolution against a user under probation:

":He(Zeq) is certainly a zionist, but as to redeeming features I would disagree. My dialog with him dates from his arbitration case, Requests for arbitration/Zeq, and I have found him willing to discuss matters in a reasonable way. That does not mean that I consider him to now be engaged in optimal editing. The link to the article was not good today, so I can't comment on that. I think you assume too much. You say, 'Of course he knows it is nonsense'. I think that, in fact, he does not know it is nonsense. But I do think he might listen to and understand a patient explanation presented in a courteous way. Now it may be that he will just get worse and probation, Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq, will have to be more and more vigorously enforced, but my hope is that he will gradually improve in his behavior. Keep in mind that 'He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing.' If that is necessary, please ask for it. Fred Bauder 13:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)"

Key word here is "ask": "If that is necessary, please ask for it". Zeq 05:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

user:Zero0000 behavior as an admin follows a natural progression from his Modus Operandi as an editor
user:Zero0000 cares deeply about getting his way in many content disputes.

Zero is a very intelligent and articulate person - he is often very convincing. When his amazing intelegence is not enough to gain the upper hand he resorts to edit-wars and even using his admin tools (rollbacks, block) as a method to get the article to reflect his wish.

Not sais as follows: "'Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda…an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view'."

The evidence will show that user:Zero0000 uses wikipedia as a vehicle for propeganda and that he continusly violates Wikipedia basic policy of WP:NPOV.

The evidence used is very recent.

In fact some of it is his edits from the days after  this arbitration process has already started.

Evidence of Zero's editing and violation of several key policies
A typical Zero edit from two days ago: –long massive changes all over the article. Zero is involved in long stream of edit wars in this article (Zeq never edited this article ) [[user:Zero0000] argument for the change is by discredit those who oppose him: "restore…no good case made to remove it" – This edit comes after edit war of months. While the edit war has been raging on – From Nov 2006 until April 11, 2007 (i.e. for over 4 months) Zero has not touched the article talk page. . He just edit-war and edit-war – here are the last few rounds of that war:

edit-war
,,  , ,  – similar reverts , – Continued edit war over POV tag and using the word terror. – more reverts

NPOV violation
–NPOV violation, Zero is using words from"Wikipedia words to avoid" and edit-war to keep them in.

Removal of sourced info
– massive changes, removal of what Zero's deem "un-sourced info" without using talk at all. (policy is to place such text on talk)

- removal of noted historians Milstein and Pail while adding a link to a propeganda web site.

, - removal of Human Rights Watch report, making changes to the text in a way that decouple the killings of jews from those who killed them, changing the NPOV word "some" to POV assertion "many" and trying to create a racial distinction about the victims idenity.

Use of questionalble and unreliable sources - prefering only his own POV
– restored his preferred version that includes large text from a source described as "No author is stated" (line 20 of article).

This last edit got a reply from other editors with these words: "'This is an encyclopedia, not a leaflet, no good reason has been given'"

Zero response is to revert to his prefered version:  (null edit showing it is 100% revert)

In the edit Zero's makes use of words from a propaganda pamphlet by extremists – he does this to prove his own assertion that the article subject is a terrorist organization (Zero edit war to remove the " " from the word  terrorist).

reminder: NPOV means presenting both sides. Zero violates NPOV by pushing outside the other side POV (rejecting them as onesided unrailable sources) and keeping his own POV.

Just few days later he argues against using the words of massacre victims side: "It should go without saying that organizations with a very strong motivation in presenting only one side of the case are not reliable sources. The Jewish community of Hebron is an obvious example." To apear nuetral Zero adds this :"We should avoid publications of the Arab community of Hebron too" - knowing very well that, in this case, there are no relevant publications from the prepatrator side.

When it does fit his POV, Zero  does quote  the words of those who are "very strong motivation in presenting only one side" - example: - it include "Victoms of Deir Yassisn massacre".

Why Jewish victims of Hebron massacre are not a good source (according to Zero) while Arab victims of Deir-Yasin massacre  are  a good source (according to Zero).

Zero often use one-sided Palestinian sources such as Miftah, Nad-PLO, which generate anti-Israel propeganda: ,, and others with  "very strong motivation" as long as they fit his POV.

So it is clear from this example that the issue for Zero is not the quality or impartiality of the source but only if the source fit his prefered POV.

This is Zero in a nut shell: A combination of extreme intelligence, able to argue both sides of the same argument in order to get his POV (and remove the opposing POV) - However, if that "logic" fails he uses massive reverts and edit war to get the article just the way Zero wanted it to be.

Zero's comments below (about "flat earth etc...")
I am not going into content dispute with Zero on my understanding of the ha'aretz article he removed. This kind of discussion could/should have been appropriate in the article talk page (after I made a single edit that Zero did not agree with). Instead, Zero choose to write this on my talk page:

Use of Original Research and misleading info in edit summaries - to justify Zero's removal of WP:RS material
The removal by Zero of the quote from Haaretz prompted me to restore the quote  - the one single edit that caused Zero to ban me.

Zero justified removal of the quote, because (in his view) Haaretz was quoting sources that are not reliable and make use of his own Original Reaserach as well: ,


 * note: Zero uses use of WP:OR: ,
 * note other removal of WP:RS:, , - Zero justify his edit-war it by calling the 1929 news-papar headline "yellow Journalism", "histerical headline"  and "hysterical junk journalism"

Other editors have noticed that Zero's claim about "Ha'aretz" is a false claim. Here is user:Yonatan reply to Zero:

 "'(regarding) sourced statement previously removed - please note that Haaretz is making this claim and not only the protestors - Haaretz can hardly be claimed as pro-Israel and it is a reliable source"

I would suggest that ArbCom would read the source: and see forthemself how Zero delibertly confuse the background given by Ha'aretz (a respactable source) which say: "in 1929, following an Arab pogrom that killed 67 Jews and drove the rest of the Jewish community out of the city. " and the "demand (that property be returned)" made by protestors. Also note that despite Zero's argument below Ha'aretz clearly indicate that survivers from the Pog'rom(massacre) took part in the rally.

On a personal note I must say that politicaly I regularly participate in demonstration (by PeaceNow) demanding that Israel kick the settlers out of Hebron. Still, I find Zero's attempts to re-write the 1929 history of Hebron (by removing the Jewish victims side, by removing news papers clips from 1929) very one-sided and non encyclopedic. Zeq 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional Evidence regarding edit-war and removal of WP:RS sources
Zero's edit patterns are not an isolated incident. In fact he is part (or the leader) of a tag team involve in edit-wars.

Removal of sources, Edit-war
- removal of source (Ynet)

- typical POV edit by Zero: remove the source.

– Making the WP:LEAD POV by removing balance.

– refused mediation

– edit war

– Making the WP:LEAD POV by removing balance.

- edit war - edit war

- edit war same edit as above.

- slim restore (she later self revert to avoid 3RR but others (including myself) restore.

- zero remove as part of the edit war

- slim restore

- El-C join the edit war on Zero's side

- slim tries a compromise

Zero and El-C slowly remove critism from the lead section over several edits and slim responds:

- Slim to Zero: "This is not fair. The lead …must be balanced" !!!"

At this point Zero is OUT due to WP:3RR but his tag-team continue the war

– el C continue the edit war

– slim revert

– el c 2nd revert

Zero is back from 3RR and continue to remove sources, offering to replace a WP:RS source with his Original Reaserach ??

zero wait for 2 days and remove again:

– Krigman add news link about checkpoints

– Zero counter with use of links to propaganda sources (fromoccupiedpalestine.org) !!!

On May 9 Zero decide to remove it again:

- Zero object to include a quote from a father of a victim.

– slim restore the paragraph.

– zero removes

– slim restore

– zero remove

– zeq rv to slim

month later Zero remove one of the paragraphs and "win" the edit-war:

Zero's edit war on Folke_Bernadotte
another article that was never edited by Zeq.

– Revert. Removal of sourced data which was previously added by editor user:SlimVirgin

- Reverted data which was added by editor user:SlimVirgin

– Removal of sourced info

– edit war removal of same info as above

, – edit war removal of same words and sourced data.

,,  – 3 similar reverts per day

, , – all 3 edit include more or less similar removal of the same sourced data, addition of Zero's own words all are repeated part of an ongoing edit war

– edit war Removal of sourced material added by user Homus sapiens.

– edit war Removal of the same words and sources as in the line above. This edit is interesting since Zero remove the source showing that the count refused to help Jews in WW-2 and include him in the category of those who helped the jews in WW-2. This is the similar pattern of how slowly Zero is uing Wikipedia to re-write history.

Without getting into a line by line edit the clear pattern of recent edit war by [[user:Zero0000] during January is clear in this article as well: . Like many edit wars in which [[user:Zero0000]] participates this one ended only when user:Jayjg protected the article (citing: long term edit war


 * note: additional evidence (hundreds of diffs) regarding violations of other key policies NPA, AGF as well as evidence regarding editwar over tens of articles is available - among them will be this use of admin tools to revert a good faith edit which was well sourced:. Zeq 06:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Zero
I do not have very much to add to what is written on the parent page. Please read there my personal description of what I did and why. I will only make a few comments in addition.


 * 1) I admit that it would have been better to seek the involvement of another admin, and that my failure to do so was poor judgement.
 * 2) I strongly believe that a ban against Zeq for his behavior was justified with a large margin of error (leaving aside the issue of who was to enforce the ban).
 * 3) I absolutely deny any suggestion that I behaved in bad faith.
 * 4) I absolutely deny having used my admin powers to gain advantage in a "content dispute".  This one needs some explanation, so here goes.  Something is not a "content dispute" just because it involves the text of an article.  If that were so, it would be a "content dispute" to revert someone repeatedly adding "poopoo" to an article.  To me a content dispute is when there is disagreement between good-faith editors (defined generously) over what an article should contain.  I have been involved in many such disputes, and nobody who regularly edits in the mideast section can claim otherwise.  However, between these categories there is the situation where someone continually adds something that any reasonable person can see is a violation of the rules, and this violation has been explained.  At some degree of severity it upgrades from a "content dispute" to a "law enforcement task".  Of course there is no sharp boundary, and the "assume good faith" rule tells us to err on the side of caution.  But, when an editor with a long history of continual rule violation and article disruption starts adding outrageous material that he can't possibly believe satisfies the rules, the correct classification is clear.  This was not a content dispute and not a boundary case either.
 * 5) I trust that the ArbCom will distinguish between the question of what the text "any administrator" meant in Zeq's ArbCom ruling, and the question of what (mis)interprettation might have been made in good faith.  These are very different questions.  The initiator Dmcdevit is in a good position to answer the first question, having been one of the admins who wrote it, but that answer has no actual bearing on the second question.

--Zerotalk 12:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not find many of Dmcdevit's assertions at all reasonable. Take for example "Zero0000 used his admin rollback on good faith edits". Who says they were good-faith edits? Does Dmcdevit even understand the issues involved there? Take the insertion "The massacre was part of the Jewish-Arab 1929 riots sparked by the incitement of Amin Husseieni the grand mufti of Jerusalem." Zeq knows perfectly well this is highly disputed and only claimed by a minority of sources, but he inserted it as a plain fact without giving a source at all. Obvious violation of NPOV, RS and CITE. I repeat: Zeq is not a newbie who needs educating about the editing rules, he is a very experienced editor who knows exactly what is allowed and what isn't allowed. He broke the rules on purpose and I undid the damage. It was a perfectly reasonable action to take. --Zerotalk 05:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Or take "two minutes after reverting the article to his preferred version". What a prejudicial way to put it! I reverted the article to a version that didn't include the blatant rule violation that had just been inserted. Removing it was my duty. Then I told Zeq he wasn't allowed to do it again (though I should have gotten another admin to take that role). For all his assertions about good faith, it looks to me that Dmcdevit is not giving me any presumption of good faith whatever. --Zerotalk 05:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit continues to misrepresent me. I never said "'obvious' violations of NPOV are therefore bad faith", and would never say that because I don't believe it. Every day I see obvious violations of NPOV and fix them myself or discuss with the editor concerned why they are not NPOV. The real points are: (a) Even if Zeq's edit was made in perfect good faith, I was still perfectly entitled to remove it on the grounds of rule violation. (b) I didn't take the time to explain it to him in detail because I knew it would be a waste of time, based on years of experience with Zeq. On the [parent page] (my point 5), I gave a detailed example of what it means to explain things to Zeq. That incident cost me a whole afternoon in the library, which is not unusual for me, and Zeq totally ignored everything that was said. And I was supposed to go through that again? It is all so easy to cherry pick this or that incident and ignore both my record and the context. --Zerotalk 08:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Do I really have to give Zeq an assumption of good faith despite evidence to the contrary over several years, over multiple bans and blocks, endless attempts by multiple editors to try to reason with him, plead with him, beg him to please oh please behave correctly? Well, no I don't. WP:AGF states: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary" (bold in original). What can I say? --Zerotalk 03:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It is also a serious injustice to look at just one article and count my edits there as if that tells the whole story. The issue at the core of this dispute extends over a whole set of articles. I did what I did as the culmination of an extended process, not on the basis of a single edit or a few edits to one article. It is not right to focus on how light the straw was without considering why the camel's back was already so close to breaking. --Zerotalk 08:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I took Dmcdevit's word for it when he wrote "He made not a single edit to the article's talk page before this arbitration case", even though I was surprised. I should have known better. What about this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? And guess what, these seem to show me discussing disputes politely with good faith editors! Can't be me, must be a different Zero! --Zerotalk 02:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq's comments
Here we have, right on this page, a lovely lesson on what good faith means in Zeq's case. Above he quoted a recent edit of mine as follows: "It should go without saying that organizations with a very strong motivation in presenting only one side of the case are not reliable sources. The Jewish community of Hebron is an obvious example." Kindly look at what I wrote and see that in the very next sentence I included the Arab community of Hebron in the same category. Zeq deliberately truncated the quotation to make me look like a bigot. This is how he always operates. Who is going to do something about this malicious attack? --Zerotalk 11:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To ArbCom, please consider this example as an explicit charge against Zeq. Also note that his "reply" is yet another lie.  The modern settlers of Hebron (the people who run the web site I dispute the reliability of) are not the vicitims of the 1929 massacre. --Zerotalk 03:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And, though it is a side issue, in the same edit I offered to bring the original English text of the British report that someone wanted to cite in Hebrew translation to the Jewish community of Hebron. That was a very generous offer since the document consists of thousands of pages on microfiche without an index.  Seems my contribution to Wikipedia is truly shameful, I recommend immediate execution. --Zerotalk 11:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Zeq's first language is not English, perhaps he can be forgiven for not understanding the writing in Haaretz. Newspapers (and most other professional writers) don't say "according to.." in every sentence when they recount what someone claims. They would consider that bad writing and instead assume their readers can infer it from context. Take the following (made-up but plausible) article in the NYT: "(Palo Alto, Apr 21). The President of the Flat Earth Society of California announced today that he had new proof that the Earth is not round. NASA's photos of the Earth from outer space were all faked.  The President said that the proof will be given to the media shortly." Are we allowed this: "NASA's photos of the Earth from outer space were all faked. (NYT, Apr 21, 2007)"? It's an exact quote. Now read Haaretz again. As supporting evidence, note that (1) a verification by Haaretz that the Hebron settlers hold title on pre-1929 properties they had not already occupied would be a major story and not the topic of a throw-away sentence in the middle of a demonstration report. (2) Haaretz, and everyone familiar with the history, knows that "drove the rest of the Jewish community out of the city" is simply not true. After the massacre was over, the British authorities carried out an orderly evacuation. Ergo, Haaretz is not trying to teach us history but just reporting what the settlers said they were demonstrating about. --Zerotalk 05:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Isarig is also making this claim (below) and is also wrong. --Zerotalk 13:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso's comments
Thanks to Amoruso for providing some comic relief to these otherwise unpleasant proceedings. He cites this edit as a "threat" under the heading "abuse of administrator power". And what was the threat? To make an RFAR case against him! Something every editor is perfectly entitled to do! And the reason? Repeated mass deletion of well sourced material. Note the four peer-reviewed academic sources and two key primary sources given for the material he blanked. The latter, incidentally, Amoruso had been claiming to be quoting from himself, but when he realised I had caught him he had to admit he was just copying from his favorite trashy propaganda book. Oh, and just in case you think Amoruso was himself citing good sources in his mass-deletion edit, be advised that the first two sources simply do not contain what he claims (an Amoruso specialty), the third is a book written by one of Bernadotte's murderers and panned even by his own colleagues, and the fourth is a book by a travel guide writer at that time under heavy discussion on the talk page. The most amazing thing is that Amoruso thought it was to his advantage to bring up this shameful example of his own behavior. Well, it is time to follow through on that "threat". Amoruso, I'm going to make an ArbCom case against you and that's a promise. --Zerotalk 01:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero0000's history

 * Requests_for_arbitration/Lance6wins
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Lance6wins: "User Zero0000, frustrated by the inaction of the Arbitration Committee with respect to the editing of user Lance6wins while engaged in an editing dispute with Lance6wins improperly threatened him and blocked him."
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Lance6wins: "User Zero0000 will have administrator privileges suspended for two weeks. Following that time, Zero000 will be on probation for a period of two months..."


 * Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq: "Ian Pitchford, Zero0000 and the others involved in this dispute have engaged in extensive edit warring."
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq: "Ian Pitchford, Zero0000 and the others who were involved in this dispute are cautioned to use the procedures in Resolving disputes."

Zero0000 was involved in a content dispute with Zeq

 * 1929 Hebron massacre edit war
 * The following are content reverts by Zero0000 to 1929 Hebron massacre&mdash;every one of his edits to the article since March 22, 2007
 * 
 * None of the edits he reverts are clear vandalism or made in bad-faith, and claiming such is a serious assumption of bad faith.


 * Prior dispute reolution
 * Zero0000 was a party to Requests for arbitration/Zeq and was found to have edit warred. He had evidence presented against him by Zeq (which included edit wrring with him more than a year ago) and offered evidence against Zeq. He is not a neutral party.

Zero0000 used his admin tools while involved

 * Banning Zeq while involved
 * Zero0000 banned Zeq from 1929 Hebron massacre two minutes after reverting the article to his preferred version . He failed to post to the ban for review at WP:AN or to log the action at Requests for arbitration/Zeq as required by Requests for arbitration/Zeq.


 * Blocking Zeq while involved
 * Zero0000 later blocks Zeq 48 hours for editing 1929 Hebron massacre.


 * Misuse of vandal rollback
 * Zero0000 used his admin rollback on good faith edits, providing no revert rationale.


 * His reasoning
 * As you can see from his evidence above above, Zero0000 seems to think that "obvious" violations of NPOV are therefore bad faith and should be dealt with as vandalism. Apparently the other editor "knows exactly what is allowed and what isn't allowed. He broke the rules on purpose." That is the unwarranted assumption of bad faith that suggests to me that Zero0000 cannot tell the difference between a content edit he disagrees with and bad faith. If NPOV were that simple our job would be much easier, wouldn't it?

Zero0000 has engaged in edit warring

 * Recent edit warring at 1929 Hebron massacre
 * Zero0000 was an equal party to the recent edit war at 1929 Hebron massacre:
 * 


 * Zero0000 made no attempt at discussion or dispute resolution
 * Despite the prior arbitration warning for edit warring and lack of dispute resolution, Zero0000 engaged in edit warring with no attempt at discussion whatsoever. He made not a single edit to the article's talk page before this arbitration case, despite many reverts . His first communication with Zeq is his notice of banning him after several reverts of him.

Zeq's history

 * Requests for arbitration/Zeq
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq: " and, with others, have repeatedly edit warred, disrupting editing on both and "
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq: "Zeq has removed well sourced material from Palestinian exodus"
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq: "Zeq has engaged in sustained aggressive point of view editing of 1948 Arab-Israeli War"
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq: "Zeq is banned indefinitely from 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus, and is placed on Probation."
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq: "Zeq and Heptor are cautioned to avoid using propagandistic sources."
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq: "Zeq is cautioned to avoid removing information backed by reliable scholarly sources."
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq: "Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article"


 * Post-arbitration
 * Six independent blocks following the arbitration ruling
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq: Zeq has been banned from the following articles following arbitraion, in accrdance with probation: Hafrada, Israeli apartheid (phrase), Israeli West Bank barrier, Apartheid (disambiguation), Operation Summer Rains, Metula Farms, Iranian involvement in Lebanon, 1929 Hebron massacre

Zeq edit wars
Zeq, as demonstrated by the continual enforcement of his probation, has continued edit warring after his arbitration case. This is just a few examples of the recent edit warring; the block and ban logs are ample evidence of the persistence of it over the last year since the first arbitration case.
 * 1929 Hebron massacre
 * April 9:, , ; April 5: , ,
 * Allegations of Israeli apartheid
 * March 24:, , ,
 * Mohammad Amin al-Husayni
 * January 28: (calls another editor a vandal in the summary) ,
 * February 3:, ,
 * February 11-14:, , ,
 * March 30:, , , ,

Zeq's recalcitrance
The article bans have proven insufficient and the probation has proven ineffective. The evidence demonstrates his incorrigibility.

Zero's personal attacks
In many cases, Zero0000 has responded to me in negative rude way as in here  and here  and here  and far worse stuff. This seemed peculiar I believe to other users: Amoruso 14:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero's Edit-warring
Here is a list of his edits each of them is an edit war with other editors, each is a removal of well sourced info: Removal of a news paper from 1929 with the headline "massacre of Jewish women and children in Hebron" similar removal of well sourced photo Zero in edit war with me...  Zero in edit war with user Isarig. Zero started another edit-war this time with Humus Sapiens. 

Zero "won" the edit-war and the image was only restored by user Humus Sapiens days later:

and more: and again. At that point Zero was fully in battle mode and in the middle of his edit war with 2-3 editors. Zero continued the edit war: Zero continued the edit-war:  This is when Zeq made the single edit ->:. When Zeq made the single edit (restored a WP:RS deleted by Zero) this immidiately caused Zero to threaten him and ban him (improperly).

Of course this happened in many articles, here's one of his "best" - yes, it's just one article and all of this is his definition of WP:AGF and civility it seems:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * reason : "junk"
 * 
 * 
 * 

Zero Abusing his adminstrator power
This did not only happen to Zeq. Look here: I've received an apparent threat from User Zero0000 here He has said he will ban me because of a content dispute and accused me of vandalism, and not for the first time. Zero has been contiuously incivil to me, and has blanked sourced material for months. I've already asked him to remain civil in the past but he always continues with the same approach. He even did while he I was new to wikipedia in a content dispute with me after his edit-warring on article Palestinian exodus where he kept removing well sourced material.

I've previously presented the following instances of his violations towards]] me

Amoruso 13:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

More violations by Zero
Zero has the audacity to continue with his violations while the Arbitration takes place. This user needs to be kicked out of wikipedia ASAP.

Just the recent examples only in the last week(!):


 * Damage to a person's WP:BLP name with no justification, I want to assume WP:AGF but one could perhaps construe this as pure vandalism?:


 * Removal of sourced material with his usual "strange" summaries:


 * Continuous removal of sourced material: lying about it and after admitting that he too thought it was WP:RS (of course we need his Majesty's approval for all sources as he believes he WP:OWN all articles on wikipedia:


 * Mass removal of sourced material - some from highest academics and scholars - with no use of talk page/dispute resolution which he never engages in:

Amoruso 04:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Zero0000 above lied and said I admitted something I never did, trying to distort and confuse the reader. He also includes this accusation of Vandalism - Zero0000 above tried to protect this note of his as legitimate even though he accused me of vandalism in a content dispute.... - unbelievable. Amoruso 04:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mackan79
While I wasn't involved in the Hebron Massacre article, I've edited with Zero for some time on Wikipedia, and would like to offer a few thoughts. Primarily, I agree with Sjakkalle that there was real confusion here about Zeq's previous arbcom ruling. I'll address that briefly below, but would also like to address Dmc's evidence of edit warring, which I think misses a few important points.

Edit warring
In discussing Zero's editing, Dmc provides a list of Zero's edits on that page, adding that Zero made "no attempt at discussion or dispute resolution." If you look at the edits in order, however, this seems to miss the very clear explanations in Zero's edit summaries. Looking through these, I see four important points.
 * In fact, Zero explained very clearly in the edit summaries why he was removing material.
 * Only after doing so, and when the material was reverted without any response or explanation, did he ever revert without further explaining himself.
 * When Zeq showed up, Zeq immediately reverted Zero with an entirely nonresponsive summary. Assuming good faith with Zeq here would depend on whether we think he was unable to comprehend Zero's edit summary, and second whether we think Zeq believed Zero had removed the sentence on the basis that Haaretz was not a reliable source.  I'm not sure either assumption is plausible.
 * If we're talking about when Zero might have initiated dispute resolution, it's also not entirely clear. The first dispute was with Isarig, after which Zero left.  Two weeks later, it began and ended rather quickly with Zeq.  For a lot of reasons, I think dispute resolution in the Middle East section generally just doesn't happen that quickly.

Admin tools
Regarding the use of admin tools, I don't have much to add to Sjakkalle or my previous comment. For one thing, I think it's important to note the specific nature of Zeq's editing, including both the tendentious style and the problems using English. These are relevant, because I think together they suggest that a decision very well could have been made to address this as in the LaRouche situation, whether this was ultimately intended or not. Mackan79 20:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero's contribution to Wikipedia
Zero must be one of the most knowledgeable and thorough editors I've had the pleasure to collaborate with. Unlike Zeq (and a few others), whose knowledge base is limited to a handful of dubious propaganda websites and perhaps a book or two, Zero does a thorough research and provides information from a wide variety of published material of the highest quality. Zero's work is the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia such a good source of information, rather than a political pamphlet, of which there are plenty around.

Zero's offenses are minor, at best
Perhaps this is not the Wikipedia way of doing things, but if bans were enforced automatically by the software (this is the 21st century, you know), this whole case wouldn't have even existed, because Zeq wouldn't have been able to edit an article he's not allowed to in the first place. I appreciate the importance of administrators not being involved when using their authority; however, there is no doubt that Zeq violated his probation, so an unbiased administrator is as good as a biased one in calling this case -- even a robot would come to the same conclusion -- that Zeq violated his probation. Failing to carry out a sanction against Zeq would have been a violation of a binding ArbCom decision, even if Zero was arguably not the right person to carry it out.

As for edit warring, I think it would be safe to say that a significant part of the activity going on in Wikipedia's Middle East articles constitutes edit warring, and it involves sysops and mere mortals alike. Wikipedia ought to beef up her policies to counter this widespread problem.

Evidence presented by John254
(as Dmcdevit has become a participant in this request for arbitration by initiating the request, he is subject to findings regarding his administrative conduct)

Dmcdevit inappropriately blocked my account
For at least several months prior to January 14, 2007, Vandalism defined "official policy vandalism" as follows: "Deleting or altering part of a Wikipedia official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus. Improving or clarifying policy wording in line with the clear existing consensus is not vandalism."Now, on January 18, Azer Red deleted the "official policy vandalism" section with no prior discussion, and no explanation whatsoever beyond "revert to my revison and cleanup further". Correctly identifying this entirely unexplained removal of the "official policy vandalism" section as "official policy vandalism" itself, I reverted Azer Red's edits with javascript rollback, and issued an appropriate warning to him, using a template specifically designed for this very situation. Azer Red then restored his edits, and reported this situation on WP:ANI. Dmcdevit saw this report. Did he block Azer Red for "official policy vandalism"? No! He abrogated the policy, treated the situation as a "content dispute", and blocked me for "incivility, edit warring, inappropriate use of javascript rollback for good faith edits, and disruptive, improper use of vandalism warnings". Kim Bruning later explained this situation by stating that "The particular section of the vandalism policy you're quoting looks a tad wonky..." .

Dmcdevit blocked my account while he was engaged in a content dispute with me
Please see Dmcdevit's comments on Wikipedia talk:Polling is not a substitute for discussion on January 1, 2007, my response on January 5, 2007, Dmcdevit's response to my comments on January 9, 2007 , and Dmcdevit's placement of an inappropriate block on my account on January 18, 2007.

Dmcdevit improperly blocked Amoruso for reverting edits by a sockpuppet of a banned user
On December 10, 2006, Dmcdevit blocked Amoruso due to a "3RR on Masada and incivility". I informed Dmcdevit that Amoruso was reverting edits by a sockpuppet of a banned user, and was thus entitled to an exception to the three-revert rule, as described in my WP:ANI post. Not only did Dmcdevit refuse to unblock Amoruso, who was still blocked at the time due to Crzrussian's mistaken extension of the block after being asked to reverse his unblocking, Dmcdevit never responded to my comment on his talk page at all. While Dmcdevit's initial block of Amoruso might be excusable on the grounds that Dmcdevit was unaware that Amoruso was reverting edits by a sockpuppet of a banned user, Dmcdevit's refusal to reverse his block once I informed him that it was improper, or even to discuss my objections to the block, cannot so easily be excused. John254 23:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on what Dmcdevit knew (he couldn't have known that I knew that this was a sockpuppet), I have to say that Dmcdevit acted accordingly to the rules on this one and not improperly. Amoruso 04:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Alithien
Hello. I work mainly on wp:fr. I have had some strong "content disputes" with Zero (in the sense he gives here above) but it is clear that he is a contributor of very high value for wikipedia. His contributions are sourced from the top scholars working on the subjects he deals with. He always argues and explains by giving precise and clear facts and sources to defend his points. From my point of view, the problem in the current dispute is that Zeq lacks knowledge about these subjects and only wants to defend a point of view without having any material of quality to do so. I think Zeq should be "advised" to stop editing these articles until he can buy and read books developping the arguments he wants to defend. I am sure that Zero could give him references and therefore Zeq could dialogue on these articles having arguments and interesting information supported by strong material. Hope this helps. Alithien 22:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero0000's abuse of WP policies
Zero0000 appears to feel that as an administrator and a long-time contributor, he is above the law, and can flount WP policy whenever it suits him. recently, he was enagaged in an edit war, repeatedly removing sourced criticism of UNRWA, and violating WP:BLP by libelling the journalist whose opinion of UNRWA he did not like. He was the subject of a reprot on ANI for this behavior and was cautioned by several adminstrators that his behaviour is unaccpetable.

Zero0000's POV pushing
Prior to improperly blocking Zeq for edits made to the 1929 Hebron massacre page, Zero0000 was edit warrign to push his POV on that page, by removing well sourced content, and misrepresenting the source. Specifically, he was falsely claiming that a statement made by the cited source (Ha'aretz, one of Israel most relaible papers) was a quote made by demonstartors at an event covered by Ha'aretz.

In his section above, referign to my comments here, we see a claer example of Zero0000's POV-pushing. In his example, heavy-handed and unlikely as it is (a typical real example would in fact attribute every sentence to the speaker in some manner ) - it is still clear that it is a quote- coming after a speaker was introduced, and sandwiched between two directly attributed statements. In contrast, The Ha'aretz reference which he vandalized with a misleading edit summary mentioned no speaker, provided no quote, and is quite clearly the journalistic opinion of the reporter. To justify his example, Zero0000 relies on original research as to what would be a "major story" worthy of an Ha'aretz article, or as to what their journalists know or should know, but using this kind of  OR to push his POV into the article is exactly why he is in arbitration. Isarig 15:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero0000
The evidence I present is weak. Essentially, I edited with Zero on a contentious page, never saw (or knew he possessed) admin tools, and watched how he was treated as a fair editor by both sides.

From roughly mid-December 2006 through mid-January 2007 I edited Folke Bernadotte alongside Zero0000 and Mackan79, with SlimVirgin, Isarig and Amoruso and others opposed, and during those few weeks Zero0000 did not use admin tools (I was unaware he was an admin), and was treated with a certain deference that seemed to be due to not to a simple assumption of good faith, but an assumption of good faith based on prior experience. I refer in particular to the content of the following three talk-page sections: Talk:Folke Bernadotte, Talk:Folke Bernadotte, and Talk:Folke Bernadotte. Zero0000 has earned respect while editing in one of the most difficult areas in Wikipedia. Even while charges of bad faith, personal attack, edit warring, etc, were flying in both directions, we find comments such as: this bit of praise from SV, this piece of confidence in Zero's ability to find sources and summarize them, and the promised work delivered, and input from opposing editors solicited.

Admin advantage?
I take seriously Zero's claim that he was not seeking an admin-advantage in blocking Zeq. Perhaps he could be accused of an over-literal reading of a small difference in ArbCom texts? Zero's claim not to have sought advantage is supported by his behavior on myriad other articles, and should be accepted.

Zeq and Bad Faith
To offer 2 cents here, my occasional path-crossing with Zeq has been nothing but an experience in aggravation and frustration. The pinnacle of this was the mediation process for BLP concerns in Inayat Bunglawala. Once a mediated compromise was reached (no easy process), I thought all was good, and that perhaps Zeq had turned a corner. Alas, no. Other editors reverted the compromise version, , and via the watchlist I noted Zeq's revert, and ASSUMED that he was restoring the mediated version. Happened to look at the article a few weeks later, and noticed that what was reverted to was Zeq's preferred version, not the mediated one.

Zeq's Frequent Attempts to Malign Others
Another issue to bring up is this user's frequent attacks and baseless accusations made upon those he is in disagreement with. We have his stalking accusation of me and my response

And, far more seriously IMO, his accusation of racism against Zero;

"Zero's refusal to engae in mediation with me - this is most likley based on discrimination." Zeq's talk page

which earned a 2-day ban to kick this recent arbitration off.


 * Both of these instances directly relate to the matter at hand, which is Zero's actions in regards to Zeq's editing. Zeq has show a consistent, unwavering pattern of doing whatever he deems necessary to ensure his POV is heard above all others in the Wikipedia.  Whether it is aggressive editing, attacking those he disagrees with, or flat-out deception and distortion.  Based on this long, long history, it is not at all reasonable to expect an admin to try to engage Zeq in constructive dialog. Tarc 05:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.