In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

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.

  1. removes complaints from his talk page
  2. personally attacks other users
  3. ignores NPOV
  4. countless reverts, even corrected typos
  5. endless innuendo on talk pages

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.}

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.)

removes complaints from his talk page
  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
personally attacks me
  1. "removed trolling attacks"
  2. "Do not troll on my talk page or I will remove it, some admins feel you are being over zealous." (misrepresenting fact, just one user, no admin, words chosen by zer0faults himself)
  3. "Comments removed to prevent further trolling."
  4. "Removed more trolling comments"
  5. "Removed more trolling attacks."
countless reverts

WP:AN3#User:Zer0faults_reported_by_User:Mr._Tibbs_.28result:_stale.29

blocked once: User_talk:Zer0faults#3RR_violation
even corrected typos
  1. [4]

again twice after warning:

  1. [5]
  2. [6]
ignores NPOV

"France, who was later found to have ben involved in the Oil for Food Scandal." again twice after warning:

  1. [7]
  2. [8]
endless innuendo on talk pages
  1. Talk:Operation Just Cause
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
  3. Talk:Iraq War
  4. Talk:2003 Invasion of Iraq
  5. Template talk:War on Terrorism

Comments Zer0faults uses perfidious tactics to discredit me. What he wrote below ("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)[reply]

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: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#user:Zer0faults_reported_by_User:A.C3.B1oranza Añoranza 05:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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: [9]. Añoranza 22:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence presented by Mr. Tibbs

Zer0faults attempts to bait other users by being as insulting as possible, while still attempting to avoid WP:NPA. This malicious civility method Zero uses to manipulate the system is quite effective. Zero also sometimes uses this method to bully other editors or to wikilawyer things away. Below are some examples.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  3. Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism Removing warnings for vandalism or other issues from one's talk page may also be considered vandalism.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

My attempts:
  1. [47]
  2. [48]
  3. [49]
  4. [50]
  5. [51]
Deleted:
  1. [52]
  2. "Stop posting here."
  3. "Stop posting here"

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Añoranza 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Trying to reason with User:Zer0faults is like trying to lecture the deaf. Start a poll[53] and he just says its invalid and gives some cockamamie wikilawyering of WP:STRAW. Try and discuss things with him and you either get personally attacked or a non-answer.[54] Basically this user has the same behavior pattern as User:Rex071404/sockpuppets. He will argue/editwar endlessly until he gets what he wants, claim he is just correcting "POV" or "Undue weight", and berate anyone who dares to interfere. While at the same time doing everything he can to game the system.[55] -- Mr. Tibbs 04:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary


Response[edit]

I would first like to state that this user has not attempted any dispute resolution at all. I believe its a precursor to the step of a RfC.

Second I would like to note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:A.C3.B1oranza and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:A.C3.B1oranza_again which were both filed prior to this requesting administrator assistance on the users removing of the term "Operation Iraqi Freedom" from wikipedia articles. This to me seems like a bad faith attack in response to my incident report, are RfC's allowed to be filed in retaliation?

I would also like to state the 3RR report against me is listed as "stale" and no ruling was made on it, I did contest it, so I believe its inappropriate to list as some sort of evidence of wrong doing.

I will however now address the issues, however I am stating I feel this RfC is retaliatory in nature and doesnt follow the rules as the user did not attempt realistic means of dispute resolution:

  1. Under the section below of evidence listed as "even corrected typos" the user lists an edit but does not listed edits made after or before. If you review the first edit the user removes mention of the Oil-for-Food program from the article [56] and I add it back, its there now as I proved to the user France was involved, they insisted they were not, though the article on the program controversy states they were. As you can see here [57] its been linked and properly sourced.
  2. These "personal attacks", are an attempt by the user to warn me, that I do not have a right to revert their edits. She said having operation names in articles was "inappropriate", for which there is no policy on this, and that me putting them back was "obscene." They then started accusing me of using a "Cold War innuendo", not sure what this is, it seemed to be from here [58] that the user was now attempting to pick a fight, and so the comments were removed again. They then told me that moving warnings, which those were not as they contained no appropriate tag, more like hostile "back off" statements, [59] was against Wiki policy. I removed the comments again, is it not seeming like trolling that this user appears on my page yet again to basically pick a fight? [60] The comments were removed and I told the user their comments were not Wiki policy warnings. They then post NPOV and NPA tags on the page [61], I removed the comments again. They seemed to consider their statements made on my page as some sort of dispute resolution, which hostile comments such as those cannot be seen as a good faith effort at dispute resolution, they did not even offer or ask for a middle ground of sorts.
  3. I am not sure what innuendo is actually accusing me of. An admin reverted one of the articles in question as the user had moved the page, then deleted mention of the original title stating they were fixing redirects, kind of misleading when the intent was to remove mentioning of propaganda terms they later admit to.
  4. As for violation of Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism there was never such a warning of vandalism. Unless the user wants to claim they attempted dispute resolution in the same sentence as they were accusing me of vandalism, of which of their below edits I do not believe the term vandalism is even used.
  5. As for their attempts at dispute resolution, the first link is the one mentioned above, somehow a vandalism accusation and a dispute resolution in one. I obviously question the concept of this, as accusatory statements are not going to be taken as the accuser wants to resolve things nicely. The 5th one is a good example of the language used in this users "dispute resolution". They stated: "As you have already been blocked once you should be more careful.." [62] I take that as a threat, and oddly that conversation is not even linked to the recent events, seems like they are stretching to fill this RfC. I repeatedly asked the user to stop posting on my talk page and they always continue to do so in accusatory means and threatening tones, that they would go and now claim these as "dispute resolution" is absurd.
  6. As for "ignores NPOV" the statement I was keeping was not originally added by me, but was eventually fully sourced and even wikilinked to the section in the appropriate article that states the so called NPOV comment. So not only is it mentioned their involvement in this article prior to my arrival, but its also mentioned in the article for Oil for Food Scandal article subsection Criminal_investigation_in_France. The two people in question were also part of the interior ministry, not as the user states "French firms". So this NPOV claim is just off base completely as I was correct and it was not a violation of NPOV but sourcing a fact mentioned in other articles here. If you look at the users original comment [63] their summary does not even state why they removed the information.
  7. As for the 3RR that did go through, I do admit to breaking it. The other user was also found to be breaking it, however that is also not really relevant. You can see the other users block User_talk:Mr._Tibbs#Blocked_for_8_hours [64] so we both violated it.
  8. Regarding misrepresenting facts, an admin did comment they felt she was being overzealous, unless CydeWeys is not an admin? [65]


The user that is accusing me has gone on to state the admin who reverted the article is picking their own "preffered version" [66] The admin who blocked her recently over 3RR "JDoorjam who does not know how to count to high numbers temporarily had blocked me erroneously"[67] which is pretty rude, the high number in question is 3 apparently. These kinds of rude comments are why I remove her comments, I will not be baited as this is how she responds, along with calling peoples edits "lame" and "obscene."

This user as my understanding states has been blocked for being uncivil over this very incident.[68] I may be wrong on the ruling however.


Regarding Mr. Tibbs

comment - putting this here because I do not know where I can fully comment yet. User:Mr. Tibbs comment above is not following the rules stated above,

"This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users."

I ask it be removed as it also contains an attack by accusing my of being a sockpuppet, something that has already been proven false. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User Mr. Tibbs is attempting to bias people before their arrival here by accusing me further of being a banned user that was proven in the RFCU that I was not. This user is attempting to gather a witchhunt by pulling the people who did not like merecat into this RfC though its already been proven I am not merecat [69] --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is in violation of the policy regarding RfC's "To request other users to comment on an issue, add a link to the Talk page for the article, a brief neutral statement of the issue, and the date. " Calling me a sockpuppet is far from neutral. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Tibbs remarks are further proof of selective editing. In his example, which is different thent his dispute he is arguing over symantics. He wants to use the term "casus belli" in the Iraq War article. The definition is reasons given for war in a declaration of war, however Mr. Tibbs goes on to state that no declaration of war exists. He then wants to use the term, but not in its strict definition, but in meaning "reason for gonig to war", removing the total need of a declaration of war at all. Anyway I attempted mediation with this user: [70] which they call "gaming the system." The mediator made his comments regarding the issue stating I was making the best compromise [71] Mr. Tibbs then asks another user, an admin to state their opinion. The admin in question is was User:CBDunkerson and gave his opinion here [72] stating that the term casus belli should not be used. Mr. Tibbs then rejected that and asked other users to give feedback, one of them being User:Nescio [73]. Nescio then moved the comment to the Iraq War article and stated his opinion [74] which states there was numerous "rationales" and quoted a study. I supported this statement Nescio posted and even offered an olive branch in supporting a statement noting WMD's was the most publicized of all [75] This was never taken into account however by Mr. Tibbs. As you see this users accusations are false, I have tried numerous times alone to find a middle ground with him, however he refuses to budge from his opinion. He even started a poll that goes against Straw Poll guidelines as he did not achieve a concensus on the questions, this led CBDunkerson to post on the Iraq page stating: The term should not be used again as Mr. Tibbs put its use in the poll he created [76] He commented again later after me and another user refused to vote in protest fo the questions being unfair and not addressing our issues [77]. The worst part is that this issue is unrelated to the current RfC and Mr. Tibbs is attempting to tack it in because of the failed RFCU against me and because he was blocked for 3RR while attempting to get me blocked. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The certifying user has advocated the complete reversion of my work instead of editing or working with me, their summary of them advocating this was "Don't bother" [78] --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After Mr. Tibbs found out about the RFCU proving I am not merecat he posted the following on the below users talk page calling me a bad editor and now stating it does not matter if I am a sockpuppet or not.[79] I would like this to be considered as an RfC is suppose to be a place where the users can discuss a middle ground or work something out, however Mr. Tibbs is posting messages on talk pages insulting me, not the proper steps to take when wanting to work with someone. It seems people think a RfC is a means of punishment, another reason this should be closed, it has bad faith participation all over it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Mr. Tibbs has now went and pasted the RfC information into articles which are not in contention, simply ones I have edited in the past. The list of articles that are not even mentioned above is Operation Enduring Freedom Scholars for 9/11 Truth Movement to Impeach George Bush and NSA Electronic Surveillance Program I think its obvious by now this is an intimidation tactic as these are articles where votes were cast. This user did not post the message on GunBound or Graffitti or other articles I have had considerable work on and contributed to. This bias selection only proves the certifying users motives in attempting to turn this into a witch hunt. In 2 days if I do not receive admin attention to this RfC I will be removing the response section and letting this turn into a attack session as Mr. Tibbs seems to want. I point to his previous mentions of my RfC by calling me merecat, and his comments on Gorgonzilla's page also noted above showing this user does not want something to be worked out. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding User:Gorgonzilla

Comment - User:Gorgonzilla is yet another user not speaking about this current dispute between me and Anoranza, nor are they even stating something Anoranza is stating in their complaint, so I am not sure what exactly they are certifying. Furthermore they are engaging in a personal attack as this user is aware of the RFCU that stated I was not a sockpuppet. I would like the entire RfC thrown out as none of the users certifying it are engaged in the current dispute nor showing proof of dispute resolution as required. It says "at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem" This has not been met here. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This user has once again accused me of things that are unsubstantiated. They accused me of suppressing their statements, however I even notified the user on their talk page [80] that they were posting in the wrong place. As its stated above I do not know where they are suppose to put thei replies, however I knew it was not here. This is turning into a fiasco as people are breaking rules then accusing my of "wikilawyering" and "suppression" when its pointed out to them. I could have simply reverted the page since they did put it in the wrong place. But I went ahead and informed them they made a mistake, if I was attempting to supress their comments would I have alerted them of it? If noone wants to stand by the rules and anyone attempting to ask they are enforced is mocked, what is the point of having them? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After alerting the above user of the ruling I received the following as a comment [81] basically attacking me and even attempting to justify their accusations by stating merecat changed ISPs. I think I have sufficiently proven I am not merecat and this users constant accusations show their unwillingness to even discuss the matter. They even went on to call me "obnoxious" and a "POV peddler" and stated my approach to this RfC, which they now have no reason to certify as they are not involved in this dispute, ".. makes it clear that it is only a matter of time before the matter gets to Arbcon". This is even further proof this user is not here to resolve a dispute in the first place, but to attack my standing. I still request an admin to look at the certifying user Mr. Tibbs as him reasons have been proven wrong, and they do not relate to this dispute which is based around the removal of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and "Operation Just Cause" from articles, which is all Anoranza's information points to, these two users are attempting to make other issues into this dispute, which it is not. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above user has now injected himself into the discussion regarding "operation just cause",[82] I feel this may be a baiting attempt to insert himself into this current dispute. I have ceased discussion on that page till this RfC is looked at, as I will not be baited into online confrontations. It should be noted this user has never edited a page that I have edited, until this moment, today after finding out the new RFCU, noted above, showed I was not merecat. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


General Comments

Comment - To prove the crew wrong of their accusations, I requested a Checkuser on my own against Merecat, and the results are in Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Merecat. I would like the bottom comment removed, and the above certification remove as well as Mr. Tibbs comment removed as they are all on false basis. That leaves this RfC without a certifying user as well, another reason for it to be closed. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Removed below comments as the user is banned for being behind an open proxy and being a zombie computer, block log here --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Addressed Mr. Tibbs selective quoting above here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults/Illustrating my point Please do not comment in this space as its an extension of my response, a section that is not to be commented in. I just did not want to make this page look bad.

Comment - Another RFCU placed against me Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/70.87.34.82.

Comment - Anoranza has started to post this RfC on pages in a negative manner [83] & [84] This violates the rules on spreading information about this RfC. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anoranza has now begun removing items from this section. [85] --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anoranza removing attempts to settle a dispute from their talk page, this is the same exact activity they are saying I should not have done ... [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anoranza has now filed a 3RR violation against me for reverting a vandal, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#user:Zer0faults_reported_by_User:A.C3.B1oranza the user had been banned by one admin, avoided the block and the page had to be s-protected to avoid there vandalism and violations of WP:NPA and WP:OWN. Considering she would have had to see the WP:OWN, and their WP:NPA comments in their summary to gather their information. I believe this was a bad faith report. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rangeley 02:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rmt2m 15:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I concur. I appreciate it if we could just address the matter at hand, and not try to fight old wars which are not relevant to the scope of this matter. Morton devonshire 19:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have reviewed this thoroughly. Logic compels me to agree. Haizum 05:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ← ΣcoPhreek contribstalk→ 07:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mrdthree 07:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Aeon 03:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Statement by TheronJ

I don't see anything that should be fixed by anything more serious than everyone taking a deep breath and stepping back. Añoranza, Mr. Tibbs, and Zer0Fault all could have behaved more civilly, but I'm not willing to point fingers at anyone, with the following quasi-exceptions.

  1. In general, the edit trail seems to show classic escalation. I sympathize with both sides, but I note that either Zer0Fault or Añoranza could have responded to the other civilly, and that if either one had, (1) the dispute probably wouldn't have gotten here, and (2) the carefully civil editor would end up looking a lot better when things got to this stage, but both editors ended up using some pretty harsh tone. I'm sure they're both great editors, and look forward to their future contributions to the encyclopedia.
  2. Zer0Fault obviously did edit his own talk page to remove Añoranza's various comments calling Zer0Fault's edits "obscene." See, e.g., [92]. I don't know of any policy that prevents someone from doing that to non-admins, and it seems to be a relatively common practice.
  3. Zer0Fault also referred to Añoranza's repeated attempts to post notes on Zer0Fault's talk page calling ZF's reverts "obscene" as "trolling." I think "trolling's" overused, but if calling someone a troll when they don't think they are is a violation of WP:CIVIL, there are a lot of people going to be in trouble.
  4. Ultimately, this dispute seems fairly silly. Apparently, Añoranza sees using US names for military operations (e.g., "Operation Iraqi Freedom" instead of "the Iraq War") as propoganda, but ZF doesn't. [93]. Both sides could have handled this better, but I don't see any evidence that anyone tried dispute resolution. Posting notes on ZF's page calling him "obscene" doesn't qualify AFAIC. If there's a spot anywhere where anyone on either side proposed mediation, posted an RFC, or did anything other than snipe at each other, I sure can't see it. (Nomen does deserve credit for his "truce" suggestion, though - good on you![94])
  5. I may be missing some of the meatier examples of bad behavior or dispute resolution -- if there's something more substantial that I missed, I apologize. TheronJ 22:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Update: As MrTibbs points out, I did miss some links that are related to dispute resolution. There were various straw polls relating to (1) whether the "war on terrorism" category should be included in the terrorism infobox,(here) and (here), (2) whether the single or predominant causus belli for the war in Iraq was Saddam's alleged WMD. (here), and Zer0Faults also asked for mediation here. With regard to the straw polls, 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.
  7. I tend to stand by my original recommendation - both sides need to take a breath and try to reach a consensus. Yes, ZF said some stuff that's a little sharp, but it was usually in response to an accusation that he was a sockpuppet, obscene, or both. ZF, Gorgonzilla, and Nomen all seem willing to start over, which is great. That would be my recommendation for everyone else.TheronJ 16:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Gorgonzilla 23:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I am willing to accept that maybe Zer0faults is getting a raw deal after giving honest support to an editor that subsequently turned out to be a nerdowell blocked for good cause. I still think that there is an unfortunate history of insisting on POV positions, in particular the idea that the name of the article on the US invasion of Panama should be 'Operation just cause' strikes me as so ridiclous that I don't see how anyone could hold it in good faith. Perhaps that is because I am not a US citizen. The point is though that I don't think anyone who is not a US citizen would see the US centric point of view here and wikipedia is not meant to be according to one national point of view. -- Gorgonzilla 23:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this statement, and apologize for some of the uncivil things I have said. I have made peace with Nescio already and today user Gorgonzilla. I hope in time, Mr. Tibbs and me can bury the hatchet as they say. I think me and Gorgonzilla have broke the numbering, or maybe just me ... --zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nscheffey(T/C)
    I strongly agree that there are no real problems here. A bit of sharp language, but no serious content disputes that I can see. This bickering has only resulted in a general degradation of clarity and readibility, and has become a distraction from improving what should be a great article. Does anyone seriously think the civility issues discussed here are a major problem? If someone could tell me in a single sentence what (biased/unbiased) information is being (injected in/removed from) the article I would listen. Otherwise I think this RFC is a waste of time and effort.Nscheffey(T/C) 10:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The drama in the Comment section below is getting out of control. Zer0faults and Mr. Tibbs are enacting their own personal dispute. There is no progress being made toward the article, and no real civility issues that anyone has seen fit to recognize. This argument is a distracting and pointless detour from writing an encyclopedia. Both of these users need to calm down. If there are no content disputes, and no serious user behavior issues, this disagreement should end. How can we achieve this? Perhaps this page needs more input from impartial Wikipedians to ease the tension. Nscheffey(T/C) 10:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agreed. Haizum 04:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agreed, me, too. This whole bickering argument seems crazy and irritating to me. The thing I don't like is the way several editors are gathering together to harass one editor Zer0faults. Also, Mr. Tibbs said this: Zer0faults attempts to bait other users by being as insulting as possible, while still attempting to avoid WP:NPA. How do you do that? This statement doesn't make sense to me. If you are civil then how are you also rude? How can one complain about the civility of another while complaining that they are not civil at the same time? Silliness if you ask me. Please, to the filers of this complaint, Play nice. This is mean bullying stuff and it has no place here at an encyclopedia. Thanks. PatriotFirst 10:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Ideogram

I have started a discussion on the talk page of this article. So far my impression is that Zer0faults is capable of negotiating in good faith. I will update this statement as it progresses.

This threaded discussion is an abuse of the RfC process and is completely unacceptable. I quote:

All of you, shut the hell up, and make sure you get a good night's sleep, a good meal, and a nice shower before you come back here.

Geez. Ideogram 14:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Ideogram 13:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gorgonzilla 15:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC) And don't take it to my user talk page either.[reply]
  3. Haizum 04:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorsed with the caveat that I should get to comment in my comment section, since that's the only place I'm allowed to write. I probably shouldn't have responded in the middle of the threaded discussion, though, since it seems to have fed the flames. TheronJ 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion[edit]

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.

More