Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Zer0faults

Give it a break
I'm not about to read every last word of this dispute, but my first impression is that Zer0Fault being able to make peace with everyone but Mr. Tibbs reflects badly on Mr. Tibbs. This by no means is a license to Zer0Fault for more incivility and failure to assume good faith, however. Ideogram 12:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The complaint stands, the evidence is there. Añoranza 12:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So what exactly do you see as a useful means of mediating this situation? What would bring this to a close for you? -- zero faults   ' '' 12:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just stop all those obstructive actions you are known to engage in from the past: revert warring, refusal to accept consensus, POV, endless innuendo, incivility, refusal to discuss issues on your talk page. Añoranza 13:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to not be looking for a middle ground, instead some sort of admittance of guilt in some manner. I offer a compromise, how about you and Mr. Tibbs agree to a (1) revert rule, self imposed. I will only revert an article that either of you have edited once maximum, and the two of you collectively onl y have (1) revert against one of my edits? I think that will solve revert warring. As for uncivil behaviour, how about we only reply to eachothers comments with sources? This would stop innuendo and also stop uncivil comments as all comments would then be directly related to the facts of the discussion. As for POV I do not think we will ever reach amid point as we both think eachother is doing it. As for concensus I make this offer. I will abide by Straw Poll results when they are more then 80% in opposition of me, and the polls are done according to the guidlines which means the questions have to be arrived at by a real concensus, meaning both sides have to agree the questions are appropriate. Fair enough? Did I miss anything? -- zero faults   ' '' 13:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. You want to sum up the reverts of others in order to be able to spread your POV? Just stop reverting, if you argue well on the talk pages others will edit the way you favour. You have to resist reverting if you are in a minority, not only if there is an 80% majority against you. You missed the point of incivility, endless innuendo, and refusal to discuss issues on your talk page. Añoranza 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about (1) revert a day each? I think that addresses the issue of summing up reverts. What number do you propose then instead of 80% since you agree with the portion about how Straw Polls are to be handled? As for being uncivil, I suggested whenever we reply to eachother we do it with sources, that also addresses innuendo. As for my talk page, I can remove discussions from it if I feel they will not be productive, just like you removed Sasquatches comments today when you logged on. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I already told you which number is the correct one for stopping to revert: 50%. If there is disagreement and you are in the minority, use talk instead of reverts. Your innuendo will certainly not improve if you provide sources for useless analogies like the cold war one. Añoranza 14:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just looking at this page (I'm NOT going to rehash old evidence) I see Zer0fault asking you to offer a compromise. Your response is going to be my first impression of you. Ideogram 12:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Zer0fault's offer is a good one. I'm not saying you have to accept it, but the least you could do is make a counter-offer. Ideogram 13:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing discussions from your own talk pages, while not against Wikipedia policy, is usually confrontational.

Añoranza, if you refuse to negotiate in good faith and continue to fail to assume good faith, your posts here will be used against you in a possible future RfC against you. I suggest you take a break and try to cool off. Zer0fault, you can help by not responding if Añoranza posts again. Ideogram 14:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What you write about "Removing discussion from talk page" shows how well the perfidious tactics by Zer0faults work. Many many many editors remove comments from their talk pages, and there was no warning or any such thing at all in what I removed, so it is in no way confrontational as he implied and you were made to believe.
 * I have the impression you are not unbiased. I have provided a fair amount of evidence indicating Zer0faults has no good faith, and your supporting of such a ridiculous consensus as he suggested disturbs me. I suggest you take a break yourself. Añoranza 14:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Haizum 05:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment to "Statement by TheronJ"
I think you are shortchanging this entire situation, Theron. Dispute resolution was attempted. Multiple polls were started first by User:De mortuis... and then one by me. All that we get is "Oh thats invalid because WP:STRAW says polls are not binding!". And so theres still an off-and-on edit war regarding some of the pages on Template:War on Terrorism. Mediation was also attempted. That didn't go anywhere either. But this is just the edit-warring/NPOV issues. Theres more to it than that. The general sarcastic and malicious statements directed at anyone who dares confront Zer0faults regarding the NPOV issues is more disturbing to me. What am I to think of an editor who says things like this: "If you feel you do not need to respond to me, then you failed here, and on the talk page. Also, well this is a message for Kevin Baas, so unless he is you? you aren't being addressed here. Good bye Mr Tibbs. I would make a sad face, but I dont think there are wikiemotes." on a regular basis (see my evidence section for more examples)? I don't think this dispute is silly at all. This issue has caused one article to be protected for a week (2003 Invasion of Iraq) numerous previous attempts at dispute resolution, (polls, mediation, pages-on-pages of "dialog") multiple incident reports and 3RR violations and last but not least, this RfC itself. No, I think this situation is about as serious as it gets. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not htink you get to make comments here. Anyway your multiples are (2) and have nothing to do with Anoranza amazingly. Also one of the 3RR violations was ruled stale. So its just (1) 3RR that you were also blocked for. Also reporting an sockpuppet making comments on my RfC is not against the rules, that sockpuppet was labeled as one by the way, its in my response section if you would check it. Also your poll was invalid, 2 users told you and an admin, what more do you need? I think this is proof that you are the one poeple cannot talk to, after the two users the poll is suppose to pursuade tell you the questions are wrong and an admin, you continue it anyway. How can you classify that as dispute resolution? The people you are trying to resolve th dispute with are telling you the questions are unfair and you tell them, to stop wikilawyering. I think your "proof" up there shows how much Mr. Tibbs has attempted dispute resolution. My response sections points out the admins comments, and other users and the cabal. But the worst part is, Mr. Tibbs, your situation is not related to this situation with Anoranza, no matter how much you put it on this page, stop trying to inject yourself into this RfC. I point out that all Anoranza's evidence is focused on two articles, so Mr. Tibbs plasters the page with quotes in an attempt to spread it beyond that. It doesn't however. -- zero faults  undefined  10:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore one of the incident reports isnt even mine and some are Mr. Tibbs attempting to get someone to look at his 3RR violation that was ruled stale. The two incident reports relevant to this discussion have already been mentioned, its the ones about Anoranza. Me asking if an admin can remove an anon comment, from an IP that has been tagged a "zombie machine" is not an incident report against anyone. I am happy some people see what this discussion is about and do not accept Mr. Tibbs attempting to divert it. -- zero faults  undefined  10:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And last, the edit war is over now that people took my advice and did in fact remove all mention of war rationales from the overview, you would see that is one of my suggestions in the cabal. The page has not been subject to an edit war since. -- zero faults  undefined  10:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "But the worst part is, Mr. Tibbs, your situation is not related to this situation with Anoranza, no matter how much you put it on this page, stop trying to inject yourself into this RfC." And here we go again with the wikilawyering. Am I the only one who finds it disagreeable that someone tries to redefine the statement of dispute to the co-signer of an RfC? Am I the only one who thinks its disturbing that when say uninvolved User:GofG tried to get Zero to tone it down a bit Zero then goes and makes some very odd insinuations about GofG? Maybe I'm just thin-skinned but when I see those sort of things happening, I tend to think badly of it. Theron, you're kind of missing the pages and pages of dialogue on all the articles related to this dispute but I'm glad you said this: "With respect, I don't think it's wikilawyering for Zer0Faults to continue to argue his point even after turning out to be in the minority - it's pretty clear that straw polls aren't supposed to be used to shut the minority up." Because thats really the crux of the problem here. Zer0 feels that control of content should go to whoever can argue/editwar the longest. And I think that control of content should go to the consensus. -- Mr. Tibbs 08:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is real simple, you are not a building a concensus. You were attempting to use Straw Polls to determine your point by building a poll that did not address the other side at all. Your poll was flawed as the people arguing the other side told you, as the admin told you. That is why (1) Straw Polls are a guideline, not a policy (2) By the rules of the straw poll, you are suppose to build a concensus on the questions. There I go wikilawyering, explaining to you how straw polls work, maybe if you read up on them instead of tried to use them to build a "fake" concensus, since the concensus you are building isnt even addressing the issue. Furthermore the whole issue on Iraq War is over and the overview I reccomended in the cabal is in fact in place, it turns out other users agreed with me, rationales in the overview was not necessary and made it bloated. You say I am edit warring yet the cabal went against you, the admin you asked to intervene went against you, nescio's post that you asked him to make even was something I agreed with, I even tried before the last poll to find middlegrounds with people before editing that article you are the only one disagreeing with me. You have been the only one that has not even been willing to budge in any respect.
 * Finally, none of Anoranza's evidence has anything to do with you or Iraq War article. Stop trying to insert yourself into this. Worst part is I offered you an olive branch to address your concerns User_talk:Mr._Tibbs and you ignore it, proving just why you are here, to escalate this situation and agitate it, not to resolve it. -- zero faults  undefined  10:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "proving just why you are here, to escalate this situation and agitate it, not to resolve it." Right, thats why I've abstained from editing the articles on which you created conflict for over a week now. I've abstained from editing those articles because I knew you would editwar just like you did in the past with numerous other editors and I preferred to keep the article history clean of that. Which is why the "overview I reccomended in the cabal is in fact in place" because I cared more about avoiding editwarring than the article's integrity. And that avoidance is exactly what you want because it gives you control of the content, which is why whenever someone confronts you about the editwarring/NPOV/consensus issues, you go on the offensive just like you are now, and that creates the NPA/civility/gaming the system issues. -- Mr. Tibbs 10:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you like to state here then what your issues are and how we can address them in this RfC? This way we can all move forward. What are you looking to get from this is kind of what I am asking. -- zero faults  undefined  10:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just stated the issues and the issues are also in the statement of dispute of this RfC. Which I co-signed. -- Mr. Tibbs 10:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But by agreeing you see a problem, so what do you feel can resolve the dispute? You assert you are part of it and so I think your input as to how to resolve it is important. How do you feel this can be resolved, lets work to a middle ground. -- zero faults  undefined  10:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What can resolve the dispute? Simple, stop doing the bad things listed in the statement of dispute on this RfC. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that speaks volumes. You claim im inserting POV and starting edit wars. You claim the concensus is against my edits, yet since you stopped editting the article another user has put it the way I thought it should be and noone has changed it. If concensus was in your favor, if everyone felt otherwise, wouldnt someone have edited it by now? THis also proves how off base your survey was, it didnt address the issue and that is why you have this disconnect between your survey votes and actual user edits. If people thought I was a "bad editor" as you like to call me, or that I was inserting POV, they would be here saying it, or changing the edits. The fact that since you stopped participating the page has stayed the same proves it was not me causing the edit war, proves concensus was not on your side. I cannot stop what I was not doing, you simply want an admission of guilt, something you can take to arbcom, but I will not give you that cause I dispute everything up there, and have disputed all your quotes as some of them take place right after you or Anoranza has insulted the quality of my work. -- zero faults  undefined  10:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "The fact that since you stopped participating the page has stayed the same proves it was not me causing the edit war, proves concensus was not on your side." So you think because people chose not to edit war with you that means you're right? So by that logic because I haven't edited the article in over a week means I think the article is fine as is. I guess that illustrates the problem here, you really have a "Might Makes Right" attitude when it comes to control of content. The current version doesn't even meet Lead section much less all the POV issues you were pushing that lead to this poll having to be made. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not put words in my mouth. I see you plan to use some wikilawyering to change the intro that everyone seems fine with? Its almost amuzing, you say people do not want to edit war with me ... where are these people? Wouldn't they be here complaining about edit warring with me? YOu are the only one here it seems, the only one who was fighting over that intro, yet you keep claiming its me. THe fact of the matter is, since you stopped reverting it, there has been no issue over it, making the issue solely yours, noone has even complained on the discussion page about it. At what point do you look around and wonder if you are the only one "warring" over the intro? Also we have discussed your poll quite a bit, maybe if you did not manipulate the topic it would not have come out that way. Noone questions WMD was a main reason, as most of the votes point out, there was other reasons, and so we have Undue Weight, there I go wikilawyering again. Can you explain to me why you can link wiki pages and when I do it I am wikilawyering? Do you only follow the guidelines that work in your favor? Also the lead follows the format of most other war articles on this scale. May I ask now for you to answer on the RfC page since you bring it up, can you show me the page where the community got together to vote on the questions for that poll, to form a concensus as noted on the Straw Polls page? -- zero faults   ' '' 10:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "where are these people?" They're in this poll: But of course according to you that poll is invalid, as is my involvement in this RfC, my edits, everything I say, and of course you think the same applies to User:Añoranza and anyone else who dares to question your ownership of any article that you touch. But lets just cut to the quick. Are you saying that you have not done any of the things listed in the statement of dispute? -- Mr. Tibbs 07:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering you are not answering my question about the poll, I will not answer any questions by you. This RfC is not your personal attack section, I think you are confused as to why its here. I already explained whats wrong with your poll, it speaks volumes that you refuse to address that issue. -- zero faults   ' '' 11:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nscheffey, I will not be posting here anymore. Its not even appropriate. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If I can summarize, it seems like Mr. Tibbs wants two things from Zer0faults: (1) that Zer0faults respond more civilly, and (2) that Zerofaults stop making edits to pages where he's in the minority.

As I discussed above, the first is a fair request (even though most of the examples involve Zer0faults responding to people who were themselves being uncivil to him, civility is always a good idea), and ZF seems to agree to be more civil even when provoked, so good for him/her. (I only wish Anoranza would agree to be more civil in response). On the other hand, IMHO, Mr. Tibbs is just wrong about the second point -- it's actually contrary to wiki policy to try to shut up a minority view, and it's certainly not wikilawyering for ZF to point that out. TheronJ 13:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between continuing to stand to a minority position and the endless innuendo and reverts Zer0faults engages in. Just look at the zillions of times he brought up the Cold War as a defense for propaganda terms as titles of other articles. You can refute him time and again, he would not stop. Añoranza 13:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Cold War arguement was not originally made by me. Its also a correct analogy as the name Cold War originated from a US official, not a news paper reporter as some seem to maintain. Its also noted in the Cold War article that the name came from Bernard Baruch who used the term in both a speech and again in front of the Senate before the reported used it. This analogy was to counter the arguement made by someone else that reporters make up the most popular terms, that user was Mr. Tibbs Since I have proven him wrong, its turned into the "Cold War analogy". I have offered a middle ground on this pages talk page, hopefully one can be reached. --  zero faults   ' '' 13:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh my god, again. No! I never claimed that the term cold war was made up by a reporter. Cold war does not favor any side, and it is commonly used, unlike Operation Iraqi Freedom (that is why the article is named Iraq War), and Operation Just Cause (that is why consensus is to rename it to Invasion of Panama, but your reverts led to the article being blocked for more than a week). However, you used that "analogy" again and again to defend propaganda names where they are inaproppriate. Stop it now! Añoranza 14:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I want to point out something, I can easily use this to justify a RFCU since I just said Mr. Tibbs said it was by a reporter and you responded by saying "No! I never claimed that the term cold war was made up by a reporter". However I will just take this to mean you did not read the commend carefully. Please do so next time, thank you. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The "No!" refers to the pain in my neck caused by your umpteenth inappropriate use of the cold war analogy. Interesting that you have nothing else to reply. Añoranza 14:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - :Zer0faults uses perfidious tactics to discredit me. What he wrote above ("Añoranza was blocked for being uncivil for this very incident") is misleading. Even though he knows this, he denied me to counter it right after where he wrote it. I got blocked for the cynical comment that an admin who blocked me for a 3RR violation that was none should learn to count. This was related to this case in so far as it was one of the many cases where Zer0faults engaged in revert warring. I find the above comment hard to believe to be accidentally misleading as Zer0faults followed the case. Añoranza 12:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The same tactics were again used when writing I had filed a 3RR complaint when he had reverted a vandal. The four reverts were about a content dispute where others agreed with the one Zer0faults fought with: Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR Añoranza 05:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And again, misrepresenting facts: "Perhaps this user will participate in the discussion on the page, instead of selectively quoting an ongoing talk." when I quoted an established policy which could be clearly seen from the link I provided: . Añoranza 22:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy is "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)." Which obviously deals with article titles, not operation names in article bodies. Hence why you are selectively quoting, and incorrectly doing so as you are misrepresenting the situation. Please read the discussion on the talk page as I have asked you to do and an admin has as well. -- zero faults   ' '' 22:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You did misrepresent facts in order to discredit me as you wrote I had selectively quoted an ongoing talk although I had quoted an established policy, as the link I provided clearly shows. Your perfidious tactics continue with the repeated claim that admins allegedly support your complaints. Several have already told you they agree with me about this. So are you "selectively quoting an ongoing talk" maybe? Añoranza 22:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I admit, it was an established policy of a wikigroup, not an ongoing discussion, I see instead of seeing this as a mistake, as the facts of the matter were you were still quoting the wrong thing, you see it as an attack. My apologies then if that is how you viewed it, perhaps now you will see the quote is wrong for the situation and cease using it, as well as participate in the discussion on the talk page of WP:MILHIST. Also an admin did tell you to look at the WP:MILHIST page and User:Cyde did call your edits overzealous, I have linked the latter already. Misrepresenting facts indeed. -- zero faults   ' '' 22:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You also do not get to comment here btw, you are continuing to make a "disendorsement" section which is against the rules. I think whole section should be removed considering there should be no comment section. -- zero faults   ' '' 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You were well aware of the fact that what you did was a misrepresentation of facts as you had already seen the link before. Furthermore, you did selectively refer to users who support you although you know of several cases where I got confirmed that what I did was entirely ok and helpful in terms of NPOV. Where do you think should it be written if a user continues abuses after an RFC has been filed if not here? Añoranza 22:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I specifically said "Please read the discussion on the talk page as I have asked you to do and an admin has as well", I never said they supported me. Stop misrepresenting the facts. -- zero faults   ' '' 22:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In your evidence section. That is what it is there for. Perhaps you should reread the RfC guidelines and rules etc before continuing. There is a layout, follow it. -- zero faults   ' '' 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You did selectively refer to others who supported you, knowing many support my positionm this is misleading. Añoranza 22:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please point out where I said this user supported me? A dif would be appropriate. -- zero faults   ' '' 22:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As your question is again a rhetorical one and misses the point I see no reason to reply. Añoranza 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not, I would like an answer, you said "You did selectively refer to others who supported you", I would like to know where. Feel free not to reply if you think this is also a "rhetorical question". -- zero faults   ' '' 23:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Further abuse
Continues to use third users' talk pages for fighting with me. Deletes move and neutrality tags   and even asks why he should not after he has been repeatedly told. Añoranza 13:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Goes in your evidence section. You also forgot to mention your removal of my comments from a Wikipedia page regarding the articles you want to move . Also none of those are neutrality tags. They are move tags there were up for over 10 days with no concensus to move. I even offered to leave them up for another 3 days. They left that out however. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you notice you and your follower were the only ones who abused that page for talk and even posted the same misleading stuff five (sic!) times? Añoranza 15:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you did not delete peoples comments from a page they are allowed to comment on, I would not have had to added them (5) times ... Anyway your evidence goes on the main page as stated. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * *yawn* Haizum 15:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You wrote the same text five times even though the page intro section says where discussion should take place and you even reverted when it got reduced to a reasonable size. Añoranza 04:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)