Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000

message: === Statement by Thatcher131 ===
Admin Zero0000, while in a content dispute and revert war with Zeq and others at 1929 Hebron massacre   , banned him from the article under the terms of his probation .  The ban was not posted to the admins' noticeboard, which would have given the community a chance to review it.  Zeq continued to edit the article and so Zero blocked him .  After reviewing the situation, I felt that the ban and block were improper, due to Zero's involvement in the content dispute.  I unblocked Zeq, and after reviewing the article history, re-applied the ban as an uninvolved admin  .  Subsequently, admin  reblocked Zeq for incivility (accusing Zero of discrimination) .
I agree with Dmcdevit that arbitration language such as "may be banned by any admin from any page he disrupts" does not trump the very clear warning in the blocking policy not to block to gain advantage in a content dispute.  Whether Zero genuinely believe the "any admin" language absolves him or is just wikilawyering would require a mind reader.  Certainly Zero sees no fault in his actions.   
I have not personally dealt with Zeq before, but there are 8 previous complaints against him in the archives of the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
On the other hand Zero now agrees not to use bocks or bans against Zeq in the future  so maybe this case is moot (with respect to Zero). Thatcher131 02:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Response to Thatcher131 on the Will Beback issue) I agree with you that in this particular case, and in probation cases in general, any admin enforcing the remedies ought to be be uninvolved. Hence, I also agree with Dmcdevit when he is deeply concerned over Zero's actions here. My reason for my original statement here is that a dilligent administrator in good standing (Will Beback) made a sincere statement on what his interpretation of "any admin" means, and while I don't really agree with it, I still find that interpretation to be at least plausible. Unless this is settled one way or another I can envision more disputes in similar situations, and I think we should get a clarification on that to settle this once in for all. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: constant and rude...
and rude
  reason : "junk"
reason :"junk"
POV pushing and lies or unsourced well poisoning :
and rude
and rude
 
Amoruso 11:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Another example of Zero0000's lies and abuse of WP. The book has been accurately described by non involved users invited for comment as a perfect WP:RS . Zero0000 really should finally face his violations, as his status as an administrator makes a travesty of wikipedia. Amoruso 12:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Since writing my statement, Amoruso (blocked in the past by both myself and Dmcdevit) has added a statement directly above my own. It provides many diffs but virtually zero context into the allegations he makes. That is, we observe edits and comments in isolation. Crucially, it dosen't help that this is a user who often promotes fringe, ahistorical views as mainstream scholarship. El_C 15:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read Amoruso's highly assumptive response to the above, and I see no reason to retract anything I said thus far. I also read Zeq's point that Zero has also exceeded the word limit — it's true. I suppose I didn't notice it due to his less spacious pargarpah structure. El_C 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-party statements before the case was accepted

message: Admin Zero0000, while in a content dispute and revert war with Zeq and others at 1929 Hebron massacre   , banned him from the article under the terms of his probation .  The ban was not posted to the admins' noticeboard, which would have given the community a chance to review it.  Zeq continued to edit the article and so Zero blocked him .  After reviewing the situation, I felt that the ban and block were improper, due to Zero's involvement in the content dispute.  I unblocked Zeq, and after reviewing the article history, re-applied the ban as an uninvolved admin  .  Subsequently, admin  reblocked Zeq for incivility (accusing Zero of discrimination) .
I agree with Dmcdevit that arbitration language such as "may be banned by any admin from any page he disrupts" does not trump the very clear warning in the blocking policy not to block to gain advantage in a content dispute.  Whether Zero genuinely believe the "any admin" language absolves him or is just wikilawyering would require a mind reader.  Certainly Zero sees no fault in his actions.   
I have not personally dealt with Zeq before, but there are 8 previous complaints against him in the archives of the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
On the other hand Zero now agrees not to use bocks or bans against Zeq in the future  so maybe this case is moot (with respect to Zero). Thatcher131 02:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Thatcher131 

message: I was involved in the early stages of the enforcement of Zeq's probation.  I should be able to submit some relevant evidence on Zeq's conduct under probation, which was unusual. --Tony Sidaway 13:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 

message: I noticed the relevant thread on the noticeboard, and I have registered a disagreement on what the term "any admin" means in arbitration terminology. At Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 we have one admin in good standing saying that "When the ArbCom chooses to say "any uninvolved admin" they do so. When they say "any admin" that's what they mean." So I think reasonable minds might differ on this, and think that ArbCom should clarify this to prevent further confusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Response to Thatcher131 on the Will Beback issue) I agree with you that in this particular case, and in probation cases in general, any admin enforcing the remedies ought to be be uninvolved. Hence, I also agree with Dmcdevit when he is deeply concerned over Zero's actions here. My reason for my original statement here is that a dilligent administrator in good standing (Will Beback) made a sincere statement on what his interpretation of "any admin" means, and while I don't really agree with it, I still find that interpretation to be at least plausible. Unless this is settled one way or another I can envision more disputes in similar situations, and I think we should get a clarification on that to settle this once in for all. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by uninvolved user Sjakkalle 

message: From my experience with Zero0000, there is no doubt that he often abused his adminstrator status, that he has absolute zero (...) disregard to WP policies, and that he should face some sort of permanent ban for his behaivour, which is evident in this case. This is just a small summary of his violations in wikipedia that I've noticed in the past, and which he should be held liable for. 
false allegations of vandalism :
incivility and non AGF:
warned me on content dispute with me (!)
attacking me. I didn't respond.
his blanking of sourced material under different pretexts:
:constant and rude...
and rude
  reason : "junk"
reason :"junk"
POV pushing and lies or unsourced well poisoning :
and rude
and rude
 
Amoruso 11:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example of Zero0000's lies and abuse of WP. The book has been accurately described by non involved users invited for comment as a perfect WP:RS . Zero0000 really should finally face his violations, as his status as an administrator makes a travesty of wikipedia. Amoruso 12:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commment by uninvolved user Amoruso 

message: Although we've yet to reach the 5-block limit, I do not believe that Zeq's arbitration remedies have proven effective, overall (i.e. beyond locally), and like Dmcdecit, I strongly feel that his conduct should be reexamined. With respect to Zero's role, I have argued that it was a mistake for him to block Zeq, but I disagreed with Dmcdevit that this warrants desysoping; Sjakkalle's comment above further reinforces that notion, I think. El_C 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since writing my statement, Amoruso (blocked in the past by both myself and Dmcdevit) has added a statement directly above my own. It provides many diffs but virtually zero context into the allegations he makes. That is, we observe edits and comments in isolation. Crucially, it dosen't help that this is a user who often promotes fringe, ahistorical views as mainstream scholarship. El_C 15:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read Amoruso's highly assumptive response to the above, and I see no reason to retract anything I said thus far. I also read Zeq's point that Zero has also exceeded the word limit — it's true. I suppose I didn't notice it due to his less spacious pargarpah structure. El_C 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by ElC

message: Regarding Amoruso's statement, I would hope these issues will be dealt with separately, as (having seen much of their interaction) I don't think they can be effectively addressed here.  I agree with El_C's adendum above.  I mostly wanted to respond to Sjakkalle's statement.  As I said on AN/I, when I encountered Zeq's Arbcom ruling some weeks ago via AiOa, I want to make clear that I shared Zero's reading, for two reasons. 1. It seemed quite clear the intent of the ruling was to go beyond the general "probation" policy, and 2. If it wasn't, then the "any admin" language wouldn't have made sense.  Having raised this on AN/I, Dmc suggested the language is often used by Arbcom with the "uninvolved" caveat retained by implication, but I frankly find this surprising, and would like to see examples.  Currently, we have two: first, Will Beback stating that when ArbCom says "any admin," that's what they mean, and second the WP:Probation policy itself, which states the exception.  Clearly then, the idea that this is self-explanatory is not universal.  Ultimately, I think to hold Zero responsible for reading this ruling as stating that any admin could enforce it, "with good cause," is simply the wrong action at the wrong time. Mackan79 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Mackan79