Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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

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

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



The above user has been disruptive to the colaborative spirit of Wikipedia and quite honestly highly uncivil. Their block log under NBGPWS speaks for itself and their continued disruption under their new name. After their name change, many editors in previous disputes thought the user would turn over a new leaf, however the disruption continued as noted below.

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

WP:POINT / WP:3RR / WP:VANDAL (possible)

 * 
 * NBGPWS decided to spam a noticeboard that he did not agree with, adding material obviously not in line with the conspiracy theory angle of the noticeboard. He began adding an article on homosexual acts repeatedly as noted above. He was blocked for the behaviour by Luna Santin who cited 3RR violation, disruption and WP:POINT violation. User has since admitted to violating WP:POINT  I and others regarded this incident as vandalism.

WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA

 * "deletionists" / "deletionist hit squad" -
 * "Wiki Stalinists" -
 * "Moron" -
 * "WHAT???? If you think THAT'S an attack, You need more (or less) Byron!" -
 * Note: Byron reffering to The Byron Technique, "a sexual technique in which two male homosexual partners are involved"
 * ''"There is NO justification to remove the numerous reviews! Acting out in bitterness over the disasterous election results, huh?" -
 * "Back to the 'Conspiracy Theories'! What's with you guys? Thank g_d you have your own club!" -
 * "Wiki RepubliCon Cabal" & "FREEPER SCUM DEATH MERCHANTS !" -
 * Note this dif is provided below for proof of AGF as well.
 * "You're already on probation. I'd hate to see you get banned. I know that you're very upset and bitter over the humiliating election losses, but you don't need take it out on me."
 * This was actually posted in reponse to me alerting them and others of the RfC filing.

WP:AGF

 * "so the Wiki RepubliCon Cabal who deleted his entry SOLELY because it reflected VERY badly on the (mostly) Conservatives bloggers, Freepers and Scamdy Posters"

Disruption / Threats

 * "You'll be hearing a LOT more about what some feel is your intentional misuse of BLP, beatty. A LOT more."
 * Comment repeated
 * "As much as your OWN behavior and justification for it helped you LAST TIME, huh? LOL!"
 * "If I desire your feedback, I'll post to YOUR user page!"
 * User was blocked for the above series of comments by MONGO, stated reason of disruption.
 * "Nuclear, you CAN'T just post your comments at the top, the page goes in time order, repost them where they belong, at or near the bottom of the page. You know better than that! ANI nex time you do it"
 * "You're currently on probation for the exact sort of behavior you're exhibiting here, and did on the Votergate talk page, as well. You might consider changing that behavior before you get banned"
 * This is in response to the below WP:C violation when I asked the user for proof the producers released the movie for download on YouTube.
 * "You're already on probation. I'd hate to see you get banned. I know that you're very upset and bitter over the humiliating election losses, but you don't need take it out on me."
 * Note: This is posted above under WP:CIVIL, however its also an off the cuff threat.

WP:C

 * 
 * User contended as noted above that producers released the video for public download on YouTube. When asked for proof, none was presented and instead the link was readded.

Spamming

 * " I just discovered you were Zer0Faults too! Zer0faults has abandoned that account and opened a new account"
 * User spammed this in about 3 different places, before posting here they spammed it on my talk page twice, purposeful disruption. Dif's of previous posts, note the edit summaries:

Other

 * Accusations:
 * - "HD was NOT produced by HBO. One must question why nuclear insists on repeatedly inserting false info into the article"
 * Note: at no point did I ever write it was.
 * Vote stacking:
 * "ANOTHER politically motivated AfD! ... No wonder they want to delete it." -
 * "The actions of these editors are all laid out right here. Votergate featured Andy Stepehenson who was the subject of a bitter AfD."
 * Note 11/12/06: THis section on votestacking is not about giving notice, which is permitted, its about the bias notive given as can be read from the quotes above. Giving notice is permitted, especially when giving it to a fairly wide varfiety of users, which I attempted to do in this RfC, and done in a neutral manner, which my message to each user was. However the above statement is far from neutral.

WP:NOT

 * Soapbox:
 * "March to CNN for Anti-War Tribunal"
 * Warning given for it -
 * Battleground: Posting of comments from political hotbed forums.
 * 
 * Attempting to import off wiki arguements and general drama into Wikipedia space.
 * 
 * This actually takes place on this RfC page, continuing to bring up those outside forums turning this into an extension of the battleground there.
 * - "Is it just me, or do many of the 'losers' seem much more combative yet more morose than usual since Weds? I won't let them bring me down though!"
 * Comments like this show the political divisive nature of this user, and the general baiting of replies. --Nuclear Zer0 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:U

 * NBGPWS = NeoConsBegoneProtestWarriorsSuck
 * Proof of acronym -
 * Also uses the name PWS (Protest Warriors Suck) on DemocraticWarrior.com

Typical and Recent example of FAAFA behavior
FAAFA puts a talk sub-page up for deletion. FAAFA disagrees with all the keeps. He proceeds to disrupt it with comments and edit wars with NuclearZer0 on the MfD page (in this example, he proceeded to cut and paste an entire AfD from another article to this one and also reverts it's move to the talk page, and there are many other examples). He complains about NuclearZer0 on the admin board. He and NuclearZer0 are banned from editing the MfD. Since it's a snowball keep, another admin closes the MfD to stop the edit war. FAAFA complains about the closing admin on the admin noticeboard and continues the disruption there. And so it goes. This is a pattern that is repeated over and over ad nauseum. --Tbeatty 07:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here he creates an enemies list under the guise of 'Friends' and 'Special Friends' (i.e. enemies). Since he left out the 'Super Friends', in a moment of levity, I created the Aquaman account so he could have a Super Friends section for his enemies list. He complains below about being 'baited' after he created an enemies list. for easy review of the 'baiting.'--Tbeatty 05:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:POINT
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:NOT
 * WP:NOT
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:C
 * WP:U
 * WP:VANDAL (possible)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links) The dispute has ranged a long period of time with multiple users.
 * Attempting to ask user not to turn Wikipedia into a battleground They responded by then attacking me and further attacking the other person, an admin had to step in to tell them they were out of line.
 * I attempted to hold out an olive branch twice since this user has changed names, they requested a deleted article on AN/I and I pointed them to where they can find it, even though I voted to originally delete the article in question.
 * In another olive branch attempt I tried to help them beef up an article that was on AfD they soon after continued to argue with me on the AfD, even though I was voting in their favor  and then went on to make accusations such as There is NO justification to remove the numerous reviews! Acting out in bitterness over the disasterous election results, huh? and HD was NOT produced by HBO. One must question why nuclear insists on repeatedly inserting false info into the article, which I never actually wrote HBO was the producers, this is a mistake they made by reading the dif wrong. So for even attempting to hold out an olive branch I have been with with animosity and accusations.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * After many attempts to help this user, giving them content for an article, showing them how to find Wikipedia caches etc. They have dwindled the patience I had with them after assuming the new name, would be a new leaf turned over. --Nuclear Zer0 21:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * F.A.A.F.A. has exhausted the patience of the community with his continued disruption.  Even on this RfC, his first response is to spam his section with a bunch of cut-and-paste comments from an ArbCom decision unrelated to him or this RfC.  I have tried to get him to stop disrupting articles and Wiki forums by moving his comments to more appropriate places such as talk pages only to be attacked.  His purpose here on Wikipedia seems only to engage in conflict and not to engage in building the encyclopedia.  He has been the subject of a number of ANI requests from a number of different editors under both his old name  and his current moniker.  I believe that F.A.A.F.A should receive a community ban for exhausting our patience.  --Tbeatty 23:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not picking sides here as I know that there might be some baiting issues here, but not to the extent that FAAFA has done with a reposting to an arbcom proceeding that has no bearing on the case here, aside from baiting as well. The fact that I was the last person to block the former account held by FAAFA, namely NBGPWS and what I see as more evidence of a lack of restraint as posted by Tbeatty above, indicates that little was learned from my very fair unblocking of this editor. If the problems here persist, then I recommend an arbcom proceeding.--MONGO 08:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Crockspot 15:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Rogue 9 21:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ruthfulbarbarity 04:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Response

 * Note : I only had a few minute available to post a response, and I had this documentation handy. I thought it relevent for readers to see documentation of the accuser's own recent behavior, and Admin's determination that such behavior was serious enough that  Arbcom placed him on formal probation. - I'll respond with more content soon. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * User Nuclear Zer0 is currently on probation from Arbcom under his last user name. Here is his own record. I encourage Admins to look at the multiple violations of his probation terms in his discussion of the AfD for Votergate. -Votergate AfD discussion - F.A.A.F.A. 22:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE : Full list of Arbcom documentation redacted:

NuclearUmp/Zer0faults Arbitration

NuclearUmp/Zer0faults RfC

Note : I feel that Nuclear has misrepresented some of my edits. For instance I removed and refactored my inappropriate comment 'Freeper Death Merchants' shortly after I made it, as can be plainly seen here. NU archived my original comment, but not the removal. One might ask if those are the actions of someone who wants to present an accurate portrayal of what really happened. my own refactor - F.A.A.F.A.

Incident one - 'Conspiracy noticeboard'. I admited to a violation of POINT, and my allegation that this board has never been solely related to 'conspiracy cruft' as their listing of 'worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden', 'Hacking Democracy' and improper nomination of radical author Kathleen Christison has been proven out. Even when I did nominate a 'conspiracy', 'The Clinton Chronicles', a board member immediately removed it. Another member did restore it. - F.A.A.F.A. 09:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Note regarding Crockspot's comments; Considering the insulting diatribe posted by said user against me on another board (SEE) only two day ago,  his more measured, but still insulting tone and claims of innocence posted here ring hollow. - F.A.A.F.A. 09:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Note regarding user Tbeatty : Said user willfully and knowingly created a sock puppet solely to taunt and bait me, and even admitted to it. Tbeatty's baiting sock puppet - F.A.A.F.A. 09:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Response: 1) To allege that my comments to TWO editors, on articles we share a common interest is 'votestacking' is absurd. This is a much smaller number than the accuser notified of this RfC, and I did not ask the editors I contacted for any specfic action. 2) I filed an ANI on CU, as I believed (and still do) that the personal insults and possible meatpuppety going on there were so egregious that it should be brought to the attention of Admins. The editor in question clearly baited BenBurch, as he called him out by name, and said he 'knew' he read CU. Rather than this incident being an attempt by me to 'import off Wiki Drama', I contend that this was a case of a Wiki editor purposely baiting and attacking another Wiki editor, (and me as well) off Wiki, in a venue where he knew there was no NPA policy, and meatpuppety, on a forum where Meatpuppetry regarding Wiki issues has been documented in the past. - F.A.A.F.A. 18:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Updated Reponse Nov 21
Evidence shows that my behavior has improved dramatically since I was blocked under my last user name. In the 23 days since I've returned, I have not recieved any type of disciplinary action. I don't even think I have been warned with a warning template of any kind. (have to check that) I have even reached across the aisle as an act of good faith to editors who want me sanctioned or banned. I specifically complimented Ruthbar on his scholarly work on the Ken Jewitt article, and have worked hamoniously with NU, who brought this RfC against me. Crockspot and I also worked together well on the Mike Stark article that I created, which I applauded him for. As an act of goodnatured lighthearted fun, meant to reach out, I left a couple messages from 'Michael Moore' in the user space of another 'wise acre' editor who I KNEW would appreciate them. Other editors not even related to this action, but wanting to see me banned or sanctioned complained of vandalism to an Admin, but the recipient welcomed my friendly and playful act, like I knew he would. see Mort's response to my friendly act My behavior has improved, and continues to. I have 5 or 6 editors watching me like a hawk, waiting to complain at the slightest infraction, and there hasn't been one since I returned from the block which helped me change my behavior for the better. It's time to MoveOn! Respectfully and Congenially, ` F.A.A.F.A. 10:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of BenBurch
NuclearZero, you are one of the most cranky and difficult to get along with persons who edit this encyclopedia, and that is based not so much on my dealings with you, but exchanges with others I have observed. I have half a mind to open a similar proceeding about you, but I don't take such matters as lightly as you obviously do. I have no doubt in my mind that your interest in this matter is motivated by personal revenge and not any consideration of the good of the project. And, as you were banned here once, what the heck are you doing back here? You ought to leave now if you have any regard for the rules of this place. BenBurch 23:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) BenBurch 23:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) 194.8.192.4 18:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Travb (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Editor has changed his editing behavior dramatically. Travb (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of Derex
There's no doubt that FAAFA has acted poorly in the past, as he has acknowledged before. However, after MONGO's intervention in the matter a couple weeks back, FAAFA has acted in good spirit as far as I have seen. Some of the material above occurred while FAAFA was blocked and was being actively baited, and most of the rest occurred before that. I'd have no problem with an RFC based on material since then. However, RFC is not an exercise in punishing someone for old transgressions. It's an exercise in correcting on-going problems. As such, I'd like to see evidence on what FAAFA has done lately, not what he did under an old name. If the filer would like to sort out any such items, then we could have a productive discussion on correcting possible on-going behavioral problems. He has no blocks recorded under his current name, for example.

As to the filing of this RFC, it doesn't matter a whole lot who does it, and it should be discussed on its own merits. However, I think it's worth noting that NuclearZer0 is an enormously tendentious editor, has persisted since his arbcom probation, has willfully and repeatedly baited FAAFA, and IMO is filing this out of a personal motive unconnected with improving Wikipedia. None of that's an excuse for any problems by FAAFA, however context is important when commenting on the totality of a dispute. Derex 00:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:


 * 1) Travb, thankfully both editors,  NuclearZer0 and FAAFA  seem to be radically changing their edit behavior and are much more civil and comprimising. (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (Update: 15:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)))
 * 2) Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 15:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) SalvNaut 16:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree with the above statement, per my section on the discussion page of this RFC. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of Che Nuevara
This RfC is part of a larger and far more complex issue currently going on at Talk:Democratic Underground.

Several months ago there was a dispute over the external links section of the page. I came in to mediate the dispute, and eventually a rough consensus was built on some, but not all, of the links. The involved parties agreed to defer to my judgment until a more amenable solution could be found.

As I recall, FAAFA was not involved in the discussion at the time, but came later, as a number of people not involved in the original discussion were drawn to the article by a variety of means (it was a topic of significant discussion at my RfA, among other things).

Recently it seems that things have taken a turn for the worse. Personal attacks of all shapes and sizes seem to be startlingly common now. It also seems that the fight over this article has surfaced on outside, as was evidenced on the recent WP:PAIN post.

A cursory glance at the DU talk page ought to convince anybody that this issue is far more complicated than just the behavior of FAAFA. There are many people involved in this dispute, most of whom have acted in ways not particularly civil or reasonable. FAAFA is by no means the only editor acting in this manner. (It bears noting that Nuclear, the one bringing this RfC, has been remarkably quiet in this dispute recently.)

Thus I believe that this RfC is disingenuous to what is actually going on here. There are a number of issues here; the actions of many editors on this page are unfortunate and perhaps even reprehensible, but to levy an RfC against one editor of the many involved in this dispute is a problem. It seems to me to be a bad idea in that it a) does not address the entire problem, b) takes incidents out of context, and c) attempts to hold one editor accountable for a dispute while giving the others involved a by.

I'm by no means saying that FAAFA ought to continue the way he has been acting in this dispute. But I don't think this is the way to go about this. An RfC regarding this dispute would have to include the behavior of almost all the editors involved in the DU dispute.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Che Nuevara  02:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) JBKramer 15:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC). The lot of them are here for their very important political wars.
 * 3) Gamaliel 18:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Doesn't look like anyone has clean hands in this dispute.
 * 4) Travb (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5)  Electric  Eye  ( talk ) 03:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of User:Crockspot
NBGPWS/FAAFA is chronically disruptive and uncivil. I don't think he means to be, I just don't think he can help himself, and I don't think he "gets" what the project is about. While he has attacked me personally too many times to count, I don't think I've ever reported him for it. He's not important enough to me to expend the energy, though I must admit that I get some small sadistic pleasure watching him dig his own grave. I may have poked him back a time or two in response, just to see how predictible he is. He seems to believe that some of us are his enemies, but he doesn't appear to realize that he is his own worst enemy. There are a couple of editors that I have clashed with almost regularly (BenBurch being one in the past, not so much now), but I don't consider them "enemies", and I hope they don't either. But FAAFA seems to be on some sort of take-no-prisoners jihad against contributors, as opposed to content. The entertainment value he had been providing is now far outweighed by the general disruption and administrative headaches he is causing, such as this inappropriate complaint against another editor for comments made on a blog. His response to this RfC is typically inappropriate, coming from left field, and attacking the initiator. - Crockspot 05:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --MONGO 08:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Junglecat 18:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --[[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo  19:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) --Dman727 19:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) --Rogue 9 22:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) --Ruthfulbarbarity 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) --Tbeatty 06:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) --There are clearly to some extent, faults on both sides, however this rant is completely unacceptable. Addhoc 19:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) --Rosicrucian 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) -- I thought from the comments above that the issue might be fixed, but reviewing FAAFA's recent talk page contributions makes it plain that it is not. It may be time to escalate this. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of Durova
It is not a good sign when the entire response to a request for comment is an ad hominem attack on the user who opened it. I would have been more impressed to have seen the ArbCom case linked and summarized in a sentence or two and and the bulk of the space devoted to the substance of the accusations. My username also appears in the response with the allegation that the notice to my user talk page constitutes spamming. The notice was reasonable: I am an administrator who responded to FAAFA's request at a relevant request at WP:PAIN. Had FAAFA complied with the noticeboard requirements and provided the appropriate evidence I might have acted, but this editor showed more interest in debating site policy than in following directions. Durova Charg e! 07:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I am pleased to see a revised response. Also, as the administrator who responded to the noticeboard complaint, I did not conclude that it was inappropriate - merely insufficiently documented.  Had FAAFA provided supporting evidence of similar behavior at Wikipedia I might have intervened. WP:PAIN has specific rules and procedures.  Durova Charg e!  18:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Crockspot 14:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Rogue 9 22:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo  23:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Ruthfulbarbarity 04:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of JBKramer regarding edit summaries
Editors MUST use edit summaries for non-minor edits to the project namespace. Editors SHOULD use edit summaries for all other edits.


 * 1) JBKramer 18:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Especially in articles that are the subject of disputes. Addhoc 19:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Though its not an issue here --Nuclear Zer0 19:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4)  Che Nuevara  20:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5)  Electric  Eye  ( talk ) 03:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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