Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza

Comment by Cyde Weys
I haven't looked at Anoranza's edits in detail, but I do agree with him that, in the interests of neutrality, we refer to events by their colloquial names rather than their propaganda names. Notice how 2003 invasion of Iraq isn't located at Operation Iraqi Liberation. Besides being chosen for propaganda purposes, the military opreational names are not used by other countries involved in the conflict and will be almost totally unknown in countries other than the United States. Someone from Australia might reasonably be expected to find Iraq War or 2003 invasion of Iraq. The articles are already located at these appropriately neutral names, so they should be referred to correctly from other articles as well. -- Cyde↔Weys 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by ericg
I have interacted with Añoranza once, on the AC-130 talk page. Having observed the discussion and watched the user constantly assume bad faith, I posted a single, neutral comment asking the user to at least consider working with other users and to assume good faith. I pointed out that the comments seemed like attacks. In the last example an automated revert, flagged by VandalProof, earned another revert from Añoranza, with an edit summary reading "revert, please stop misleading and offensive edit summaries and do not delete neutrality warnings". Offensive edit summaries? ericg &#9992; 16:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Move requested
As this is mainly about two users, one of whom already has a Request for comments page, I ask for this name to be changed to avoid the misleading impression that a single user's alleged wrongdoing are discussed. Añoranza 17:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I don't think Añoranza's proposed move is a good idea. Ideogram filed the RFA as "Añoranza", and the ArbCom voted to accept it on that basis.  Añoranza is certainly free to argue that Zer0 is the villian in this story, and the ArbCom can decide to issue some kind of sanction against Zer0 if they agree, but I don't think there's any basis to change an RFA once it's accepted.  TheronJ 18:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The name is misleading, just look at the RFC. There are other cases where the name was chosen after more than one user involved. Añoranza 20:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You should have brought it up in the initial application. Oppose. NSLE 20:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Obviously but this is not just about me and Anoranza, some of it may stem from the RFC, at least my involvement, however most of the people presenting evidence here have interactions with Anoranza outside of my RFC. Most of this users own evidence also seems to be unrelated to the RFC. -- zero faults   ' '' 20:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is all about Añoranza and the discord being spread by inflexibility shown by user. &larr; ΣcoPhreek  OIF  23:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)