User talk:165.247.200.100

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I am working on arbitration right now Travb 02:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Evidence. You may make proposals and comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Workshop. Fred Bauder 20:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration related comments -- scratchpad draft

[edit] Encapsulated Version for the Busy Admin

Please reconsider any decision to apply a 1-year ban to an editor (this anon) with no prior blocks, bans, arbitrations or other administrative actions against him. The one charge made by Travb against this anon ("refuses to allow criticism in the article") in the original Arbitration complaint has since been recanted. Additional charges (Copyvios, Deceptive Editing, POV pushing) made by other parties against this anon have proven to be false and unfounded.

[edit] Expanded Version for the Detail Oriented Admin

I am one of the "anon editors" mentioned in the above arbitration. Specifically, I am the editor responsible for all of the November 9, 2005 edits listed under the User contributions for this proxy IP: 165.247.200.100, which was specifically named in the Request for Arbitration. Every time I log on to edit, like now, I get a different 165.247.xxx.xxx dynamic IP. I am not, however, responsible for every edit made by a 165.247.xxx.xxx dynamic IP.

While I am certainly following the progress of this arbitration, I've chosen to refrain from cluttering up the evidence and workshop pages with links, diffs and lengthy justifications for every charge made. I've seen the workload the Arb committee has, and I'd rather not add to it unnecessarily. I trust that the Administrators reviewing this arbitration case will research each of the charges appropriately. Besides, this arbitration appears to be primarily a grievance between Travb (the originator of this Request for Arbitration) and TDC (whom, according to Travb, holds an opposite POV in the article).

The Locus of Dispute claims I participated in edit warring, to which I can only plead guilty. I have indeed reverted edits and deleted content just as all editors do, and I followed the Wikipedia editing guidelines when I did so: obviously false information was removed; questionable information was copied to the Discussion page for sourcing and verification; POV content was reworded to be more balanced based on concensus. So yes, because I have reverted or deleted some content, I can be considered (by the vague definition put forth at Wikipedia:Edit war) to be edit warring -- but only because I have been put in that position by following the Wikipedia editing guidelines. I'm certainly not causing conflict for conflicts sake, and I have encouraged reasonable discussion in conjunction with my edits (just see the Talk page).

After a couple months of inactivity, I see that proposed decisions are finally being put forth by the ArbCom. As you finalize these decisions, I'd appreciate it if you would keep the following in mind:

  • Proposals for article semi-Protection are unwarranted. As noted by Dmcdevit, this is not a vandalism issue, but a disagreement between editors about article content. Semi-protection isn't really an option.
  • Concerns about enforcing sanctions on Anon editors: this is a moot issue. Let's be honest, all editors of Wikipedia, whether logged in or not, whether using a static IP or a dynamic IP, have the same ability to circumvent whatever sanctions you impose. Any editor, myself and TDC included, can easily visit the nearest public library or Internet Cafe and make edits to Wikipedia. Any editor can visit their nearest corner convenience store and pick up a disposable "25-hours of Internet Connectivity" card for $9.95 and make edits to Wikipedia for months. Imposing blocks, range blocks, semi-protects, etc., are ineffectual minor inconveniences at most, and come with the drawback of inhibiting contributions by others. It is amusing to hear TDC question, "How does one enforce the decision on the anon..." or to hear TDC assert on the evidence page, "The anon knows he immune to disciplinary action, so there is no effective way to sanction him, and he knows this." I am no more immune than TDC, and I'm sure he knows this. This is an unfortunate side effect as Wikipedia strives to remain as unrestricted and easily accessible as possible. TDCs humor aside, I do not have, nor have I ever had any intention of breaking the established rules and regulations of Wikipedia -- and that brings me to my next concern...
  • Proposal to ban 165.247.xxx for 1-year from editing Winter Soldier Investigation. This seems to me to be a little drastic for a first sanction against a Wikipedia editor. No mediation, warnings, third-party interventions or other remedies first? Unlike other parties mentioned in this RfA, I don't have dozens of prior bans, blocks and other sanctions in my past that would warrant it. I see that "Revert Parole" has also been proposed as a possible remedy instead. The stipulations of the "Revert Parole" aren't far from the guidelines I already follow when editing now, but is such a parole warranted? I've reverted some edits that introduced false content, and I've deleted some information that was unsourced, while opening dialog about it on the Discussion page -- so I'm edit warring. Any other allegations against me are unfounded, as I am sure you discovered when you checked them out...
  • Travb alleged, "Anon allows very little information critical of Winter Soldier Investigation to stay on the wikipage." False. After further review of the content that I had reverted or deleted, Travb concluded, "TDC, Not that it is worth much, but I have to agree with most of Anon's edits. If this information is not in the book, it should not be embelished by wikipedians." I encourage the Administrators reviewing this matter to ask Travb if he would like to amend his initial charge.
  • When I pressed Travb to provide for me an example to support his allegations against me in this arbitration, he ignored my requests several times and finally gave the following excuse, "I don't have an example, not because there is not one, but because I am too lazy to find one right now. I am busy building my own wikipage to make $.[1]
  • Copyright Violations. Contrary to allegations, I don't insert copyvio material, I remove it. The article presently contains no known copyvio content. Since long before this arbitration was requested, I've been working with User:Duk here to remove questionable content, with advice from Tony Sidaway here. Known copyvio issues were also addressed by User:Sasquatch here as well as by User:Calton here where Admin Duk has since declared, "This page is, for the most part, copyvio free for the first time in over a year :-) --Duk 16:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)" I have since followed up with Duk regarding any possible outstanding copyvio issues here.
  • Just a heads-up FYI for the Admins: The "edit warring" appears to coincide with particular events that spark interest in this article. During the presidential campaign season of 2004, interest was sparked because it was Vietnam-related, and thus was hit with "Swift Boat" related editing crap. Another round of edit wars commenced on the article just a few months ago as the film, "Winter Soldier" was being re-released for the first time in 35 years around the US. I'd expect another flare-up of edit warring in April when the DVD of the event (along with extra bonus footage) hits the shelves.

165.247.212.51 11:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by TDC

Just because you say the same thing over and over does not make it true. Desipite your claim that you have been working with Duk to resolve the copyvio issues, he has a slightly different take on the situation:
Wikipedia's instructions for handling copyright violations is to revert the article to a non-copyvio version, or to delete the text in question, not to edit it until it is no longer the same. This copyright violation was never properly resolved the second time it showed up and remains a problem. (Anon notes: ...which is why the text in question was later completely deleted, per Wiki's instructions.) Um, no it wasn't. DTC 18:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Um, yes it was. 165.247.214.107 19:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as my involvement in the article, I'm done. I'm sick of being vilified and called names by other administrators and long time editors who are idiots, who don't bother to read and understand Wikipedia's instructions for clearing copyright violations, who are too lazy to look at the Fucking diffs for themselves, and who believe whatever their sychophants tell them, instead of doing the work of reading the evidence and thinking for themselves. --Duk 03:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC) (Anon notes: ...I can sympathize with Duk's frustration with "other administrators and long time editors" but I fail to see what point TDC is trying to raise here.)
Busted again it seems. DTC 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Would you like me to float you a loan then? 165.247.214.107 19:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No need for a loan. Some might see this a s phyric victory, my being banned and all, but at least you wont be able to touch this article for an entire year, and some serious editors can get back in it an fix all the damage you did. DTC 20:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier case. Raul654 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked - 1 week

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. you have been block for using the puppet User:Xenophrenic who has been banned for violating the probation conditions set during the recent arbitration case Gnangarra 14:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/6/5/User_talk%7E165.247.200.100.html"