Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Proposed remedies

1) Winter Soldier Investigation shall be protected but may be edited by administrators. A template shall be created and used showing that status and a page created listing articles in this status. It may be briefly unprotected from time to time to test whether it remains the focus of edit warriors.

Fred, a while back there was a proposed policy to protect pages only from anon editors. What happened to this, and if this is now a policy, would this not be more appropriate. TDC 18:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Semi-Protection policy specifies that it is to be used in cases of vandalism. This is not a vandalism case, so it was probably shelved as a proposed remedy. 165.247.202.116 23:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

I'm utterly shocked that at this stage no sanctions have been proposed against any party to prevent them engaging in endless edit warring of this kind. The locus of the dispute wasn't so much an article as one or two particular editors. Indeed when one of those editors was blocks all edit warring ceased. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with Tony Sidaway.Travb 18:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Tony, your outrage might not fall on deaf ears had you not been so selective with your sanctioning of users. TDC 14:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Blocking isn't a punishment, it's a tool. When I blocked you, the edit wars stopped. I'd like to see sanctions. Protecting the page would be saying, in effect,that because two editors can't behave in a civilized manner everybody else has to suffer. I'm not happy with that prospect. My guess is that you'll think that your edit warring has achieved a worthwhile object. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Tony, had you blocked the other offending party with the same zeal and vigor that you have focused on me the edit war would have ended as well. Your selective enforcement of sanctioning, and your refusal to even address this issue with me, makes me believe that this RfArb is all the more necessary. And before you tell me that nothing could have been done to sanction the other party, you could have easily placed the pager under partial protection. TDC 17:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Request, Statement of Fact

I am requesting that the arbitration committee in its statements of fact, come to a determination as to the identity of the EarthLink anon. Specificaly, is the anon who is part of the RfArb the same individual who has been editing this article since at least July of 2004. Is it reasonable to assume that all contributions to this specific article whose IP address begins with the prefix “209” or “165” (as documented in part here) can be attributed to the same individual. TDC 17:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how we are going to do this a practical matter or what purpose it would serve. We have no way of stopping them anyway. We can ban a user, but setting up a game of whack a mole accomplishes nothing. Fred Bauder 21:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. One of the common themes from the anon, is that it is someone else who is behind the insertion of copyvio, and he is innocent. TDC 21:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotection

Semiprotection is now available on Wikipedia and is operating well on many articles--on George W. Bush it has pushed vandalism-related edits (including vandalism reverts) down from 60-70% to 20-30% of all edits to the article. Semiprotection would stop all anon edits by the Earthlink editor, removing TDC's excuse for edit warring on this article. If he continues to edit war on other articles this can be addressed by administrator action as in the past. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering that I will be banned from editing this article for one year, your point is moot and I will not be involved in editing the article. DTC 16:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Statement of Fact

Why no statement on the continual copyvio's in the article? This is, after all, one of the biggest areas of dispute. DTC 16:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did mention that, in opposing the protection+working version proposal. Charles Matthews 17:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Guess I did not see that. DTC 17:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Edit Ban

Does this extend to talk as well? DTC 18:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Not currently. You can use the talk page to find a consensus version, that someone else can add. Dmcdevit·t 19:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

How does one enforce the decision on the anon, besides using a range block that will potentially effect hundreds of users? DTC 16:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As one would against any other anon in a dynamic IP. If it eveades the block/ban, range blocks may be an option, but more likely short blocks, alerting the RC patrollers, and semi-protection. There's really not great options for dynamic IPs, as I'm sure anyone who deals with AOL vandalism will tell you. Dmcdevit·t 23:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A nit in the proposed decision?

Under:

Parole violations

2) If TDC or the anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx (using whatever account or IP address) performs more than one content in any 24 hour period, or fails to discuss a content revert, any administrator may, at his or her discretion, block the violator for up to one week.

I believe there's a missing "revert" there. "...performs more than one content REVERT in any 24 hour period..."

Hope that helps. I hereby give explicit permission that this entire comment may be stricken whether there is or isn't actually a nit there. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon's Comments from Raul's and Charles' Pages, as Annotated by TDC

  • As a point of interest, I believe it was in extremely bad form for the Anon to have attempted to have a discussion with an arbiter about the RfArb outside of the proper venue. DTC 22:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I guess so. And you, me and Duk discussing the copyvio issues brought up on the evidence page here on Duk's talk page was in bad form. And you and Fred discussing on your talk page about how long this might take, and Fred's opinions that he's not as interested in this case as he is in others was in bad form. And... oh, stop it already. I know you want to paint me in the worst possible light -- but quit trying to create larcenous intent where there is none. Please? 165.247.202.116 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon's comment at this Arbitration Case

Howdy, Raul654. Regarding your comment about remedy 3.1:

Unfortunately, given the nature of Internet access, absolute enforcement of editing bans (on logged-in users as well as anon users) is not possible. I can, however, give you my word that I will respect any sanctions imposed by the ArbComm, and I will not attempt in any way to circumvent them. That is the best I can do. I'm one of the anons mentioned in this case, and identified as 165.247.200.100.

No, as documented here, you are the only anon who has been disruptive on this article (and others) see tracking the Earthlink Anon. DTC 23:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No, as documented there, I am one of several anons editing the article. And where exactly is the disruption in there? 165.247.202.116 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I do have concerns of my own about the appropriateness of proposed remedy 3.1. Ban editing of an article for a year by an editor that has no prior administrative actions against him? Past precident certainly doesn't support such a penalty. (I reviewed each of the cases listed at this link.)

This is ridiculous. This particular anon has been blocked for his violation of the 3RR on many occasions, including 15 Rv’s on another article in one day. DTC 18:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect, TDC. Care to link to the "many occassions" this anon has been blocked? I didn't think so. 165.247.214.107 20:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
User 172 blocked you on at least 4 occasions for 3RR vios. DTC 20:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No, s/he has not. In fact, our paths have never crossed, unless it was under a name other than 172. Links, please? 165.247.202.116 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Remedy 3.0 carries the exact same proposed penalty for an editor that has a long history of edit warring resulting in dozens of previous administrative actions (blocks, arbitrations, etc.)?
Not “dozens”, more like 9, and very few in the past 12 months. DTC 18:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I was including all of the RfCs, Mediations (failed or not), warnings from Admins, etc. 165.247.202.116 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Remedy 3.1 proposes to ban an editor before exhausting more applicable dispute resolution procedures? I have yet to be engaged in mediation with other editors of this article. If you'll review the Discussion page for this article, you'll easily see that I have encouraged dialog with every edit. When agreement isn't possible, however, an appointed neutral third partys input may be the solution - why is this not a proposed remedy instead?
Anyone who takes even a cursory look at the talk page will see that several editors have labored to no end for you to cool you editing practices down. All met no with no luck, they either gave up of left. DTC 18:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking. I see discussions, and edits that resulted from those discussions. That is my editing practice, and anyone that checks the Talk page can see that. Perhaps they "gave up and left" because of you? Nice try. 165.247.214.107 20:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • When I raised questions about proposed remedy 3.1 with another Arbitor (Charles Matthews), I was told "I've only been an ArbCom member for a few days, so you'll understand that my grasp of details is still fragile, and my answers are tentative." [1] This was just yesterday, AFTER voting in support of remedy 3.1! Awww, c'mon guys. If you don't have a grasp of the details, please don't vote. I understand that you just went through a major shuffling of ArbComm staff, and I realize that your workload must be huge and you probably feel a sense of urgency to close ongoing cases as quickly as possible - but please don't let the chaos corrupt the process.
I am sure Charles Matthews has a good enough grasp of this process. DTC 18:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I am sure Charles Matthews has a good grasp of this process as well, and I never said otherwise. My comment was about details, and merely echoed his words. But you just go right ahead, TDC, and keep trying to stir up shit like that. 165.247.202.116 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Finally, why exactly (in a nutshell) has Remedy 3.1 been proposed? The originator of this arbitration case, User:Travb, concludes this on the Evidence page: "Anon refuses to allow critisism of Winter Soldier Investigation, depsite repeated attempts of myself and others to add critism, Anon refuses to allow this information in, causing revert wars." Travb has since, after more serious review, recanted this conclusion and found himself in agreement with my edits. Perhaps copyright violation issues are the reason for 3.1? No, they have long since been resolved with the help of other Administrators. When I asked Charles Matthews if copyvio issues had anything to do with the remedy 3.1 proposed editing ban, he responded "No, I don't think the copyright question is a major part of that." So can you clarify for me, please, why it's even on the table?
Travb agrees with some of the content of your edits on “ONE VERY SPECIFIC ISSUE”, not with your behavior, which has been the issue all along. Although you quote Travb from November 29th, he has more recent and more relevant comments:
Anon the only difference between yourself and this person was the direction of the pet ideology (yours is left, his is on the right). This person had the same refusal to accept any criticism that falls outside of his own POV as you do, and he probably has the same tired transparent justifications as you have used.Travb 12:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice try, TDC. I quote Travb from 26 November 2005 [2]
No you dont, you quoted him from the 29th of November:
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. That said, I am concerned that anon is nitpiking criticism out of existence, as you have attempted to do with the entire article TDC. Again, at this point because both of your continual stubborness and unwillingness to play nice with others (I guess you both missed that day in kindergarden) it is now, ultimately, up to the arbitors to decide. Travb 15:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
To clarify November 29th comes before December 30th. DTC 20:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, that is YOU quoting Travb, not me. When I quoted him, I took it from here. And you are correct when you say he was concerned with my behavior. Specifically, my behavior of refusing: to allow critisism of Winter Soldier Investigation, despite repeated attempts of myself and others to add critism. It was upsetting behavior to him. How dare I edit and delete critical content added by TDC?? How dare I then edit and delete the same critical content added by Travb?!? It was so frustrating to him that he came here and opened an RfArb and declared, The Anon won't allow information critical of Winter Soldier Investigation to stay on the wikipage, and it causes edit warring!!! And guess what? After hounding him to actually LOOK CLOSELY at the content he and TDC were warring over, he discovered most of it was false, embellished or not even in the book you cited! Wait, even worse, some of it was even plagiarized by TDC! Damn my "behavior" for not allowing false information and plagiarized information into an article, and damn me for "nit picking" the embellishments out of the article. Demanding accuracy and truthfulness in the content may be "tired and transparent" reasons to edit content, but they will never wear out. 165.247.202.116 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your consideration of the above points would be greatly appreciated, in light of Admins proposing to close this case now. I know this is late in the process, but I honestly didn't think bans and such would even be an issue with regard to my editing rights until just a couple days ago when you all started voting. I saw nothing discussed here or elsewhere that indicated I would be up for such sanctioning. I noticed that you have yet to vote for case closure. Thanks in advance, 165.247.202.64

And in case you need further clarification Rob: When asked if Travb agreed with the above statement you made, his answer was no. DTC 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. Travb was speaking about the statement I made. 165.247.202.116 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This RfArb has been open for more than two months. I find it ridiculous that the Anon is now employing these delay tactics, when he was well informed of the proceedings since the beginning of them. DTC 18:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
TDC, perhaps you should take your comments above to the Arb Talk pages, rather than clutter Raul's page with them. My comment here was a specific note to Raul about application and enforcement of a particular remedy. 165.247.214.107 20:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I prefer to leave them here. Raul is currently opposed to closing the RfArb until he looks into your comments, I just want to make sure he gets the whole story. DTC 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to clutter this page with this pointless conversation, but as I have learned, this anon’s factually challenged statements cannot go unanswered. DTC 20:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, User:TDC asked me to comment here and at User talk:Charles Matthews#Additional Info. I will participate only if this conversation is moved to the right place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier, and if I have something usefully to add. And I sincerely hope that arbitrator actions are based on evidence there, and not private or semi-private conversations that occur elsewhere.--Duk 21:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My view on this mess:
Travb has since seen progress with some issues but still sees a unwillingness to comprimise from both parties. Travb still feels that ultimatly, arbitration is the only way to resolve this issue. Travb 05:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Facts, please, Travb. There is nothing from you on the evidence page indicating this new assertion of yours, so could you please elaborate a little? Thanks, 165.247.202.116 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Who has historically comprimised?
Of the two of you, I have only seen comprimise from 165.247.202.196.
What is so pathetic is no matter how much is comprimised, TDC finds another thing he dislikes about the article.
I moved several of the quotes to wikiquote.org, and that wasn't enough for TDC, we took out all of the exact quotes, which TDC wasted all of his time finding, but was too lazy to modify, and none of this was good enough for TDC.
As I argue above, TDC is trying to make this historical fact of the Winter Soldier Investigation disappear from wikipedia. I have seen no comprimise at all from TDC....
Lets finally see some comprimise from TDC, as we have from 165.247.202.196.-- Travb 04:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [3]

[edit] Additional Info

Greetings, Charles Matthews -

I noticed your comment on the Winter Soldier Investigation Arbitration page here regarding copyvios. A set of links covering the work done to remove all known violations from the article can be found here among other notes. Until the past 48 hours, I'd considered my involvement in that Arb case to be peripheral at most -- but with the new chatter about "banning the anon for a year" and what not, I must admit to being somewhat baffled. 165.247.212.51 12:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, copyvio is taken very seriously. There are people around who are specialists in it. Perhaps User:Gdr or User:Jareth could help on this. It is really much better to have some neutral person looking into copyright questions. What is being raised is a per-article ban. Charles Matthews 12:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I would like to comment on this point, User:duk who also works on Copyvio issues gave up on this because of the conduct of the anon. See below for details. DTC 17:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if you see below for details, you'll find that User:Duk gave up not because of the anon, but because long time users and even Admins were jumping down his throat just because he was doing his job. Duk had to hand-hold them as he educated some of them on why derivative work was in violation of Wikipedia copyright rules. Duk had to undergo namecalling, accusations of POV pushing, etc., just because he was addressing an old copyvio issue. Duk doesn't like the anon, and suspects the anon had something to do with the initial introduction of the copyvio material, but he certainly didn't roll over because of the anon. Duk washed his hands of the mess because the very people he works with, "administrators and long time editors" were unjustly fighting with him, and he was fed up with it. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Duk) So please quit misrepresenting statements, TDC. 165.247.202.116 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you've posted what is below (profanity, abuse of others and so on) on my talk page. This seems to be about others, as well as the IP editor. If you think this is good evidence, it belongs on the Evidence page of the case. Charles Matthews 17:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You are correct in your assessment that this is about editors other than the anon, Charles. 165.247.202.116 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Its a moot point, the Arbcom has already reached a decision, and I believe that all relevant information was taken into account, including Duk's comments, who also presented a statement. I only add it here because I am sick and tired of the Anon attempting to wiggle out of his culpability. DTC 17:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I take copyvio very seriously as well, but there shouldn't be any copyvio issues involving that article at this time. All known issues were addressed some time ago. I'm not a specialist, so I addressed any issue that even appeared even remotely questionable, just to be on the safe side. Is the per-article ban of one year being raised because of some new copyvio issues? I'm listed as one of the "anon parties" in that arbitration, so you can understand my concern. 165.247.212.51 19:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
Busted again it seems. DTC 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you didn't intent to, but you left out something, TDC: Per Wikipedias's instructions, the text in question was deleted and the paragraph was re-written from knowledge and memory of the facts. It is similar to previous content, as you would expect, but is in no way a copyvio, identical, derivative or otherwise. 165.247.202.116 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've only been an ArbCom member for a few days, so you'll understand that my grasp of details is still fragile, and my answers are tentative. Yes, what stands currently on the Proposed Decision page is a year ban from the one article. No, I don't think the copyright question is a major part of that. Charles Matthews 19:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Copyvio issues

Hi, User:TDC pointed me to this discussion, a couple of things;

  1. I'd like to apologize for the quote above, I wrote it in a moment of anger on my own user page. It is not acceptable language on Wikipedia. I'm sorry and will try never to write anything like that again.
  2. This discussions should be happening on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier pages (IMO). If it is moved there I will participate.

--Duk 21:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize this is not your favorite topic to deal with, but your input is relevant to the outcome of the RfArb.

Namely, the anon continues to state that with regard to the Winter Soldier Investigation article you have certified it as copyvio clean [4] [5]. DTC 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Or more accurately, this anon continues to state that known copyvio issues have been addressed, as we've been working to clear up the copyios for several months now. I can't state with certainty that it is "copyvio clean," as we've both discovered new questionable material after we thought it was all cleared out. I can say that all known issues have been addressed thus far. I hope there are no additional violations lurking in the text, and I hope you would point them out if you knew of any. It would be great to finally lay that issue to rest. But TDC is right, perhaps a word from you on the Arb page would help move things along. 165.247.214.107 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It has been moved. [6] DTC 21:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Duk. I see you've dropped a note here and offered to participate. Would you mind giving a brief statement on the points I put forth in the links provided by TDC above (and also copied to here)? Primarily, your current understanding of the copyvio situation with the WSI article. The most appropriate place for the statement would be on the evidence page, I believe. Thanks again, 165.247.202.248 09:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi anon, I responded at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision, since that is where the conversation was moved, but didn't comment on the article's current copyvio situation since I don't know what it is.
As far as removing copyvios from the article; I did it once, I did it right, and I'm not going to do it again. What I know is that afterwards, a bunch were re-added. I haven't been following the article very much since. --Duk 20:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
A bunch were re-added? Or you mean a bunch were newly discovered? If you recall, you identified a questionable paragraph. I rewrote the paragraph, but you said that wasn't good enough because it could be considered derivative, so you reverted the article to a version prior to that paragraph being added. You also deleted the the corresponding edit histories for good measure. Then the remainder of the article was built back up from Talk page notes; the remaining edit histories; similar segments in related articles; old temp sandboxes, etc. Finally, that rewritten article was merged with the old version to which you reverted to create an article that had similar format, frame and structure, and some of the same content as previous recent versions [7]. With the offending copyvio paragraph completely removed. Now we are both in agreement that after this point, we started discovering new copyvio issues in the article, right? A few words here, or a fragment of a sentence there? While we agree that new copyvio issues surfaced, we have a drastically different way of saying so...
  • Your version, "The Anon intentionally inserted copyvio content into the article after I removed it!"
  • My version, "Poppycock - I didn't know it was copyvio and neither did you, or you would have pointed it out. And you never "removed it." It was coincidentally swept out of the article along with your identified copyvio paragraph when you did your big rollback revert of the article, and it made its way back into the article during the article rebuild. Intentional copyvio insertion - give me a break. What purpose would that serve? 165.247.202.116 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Duk, you say "What I know is that afterwards, a bunch were re-added." Would it also be fair to say that you know that afterwards, a bunch were addressed? (I know others like Sasquatch, etc., didn't address them properly with their morphing and all, but I'm asking about my deletions and edits, not theirs.) 165.247.202.116 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Both the anon and TDC asked me (Duk) to comment here.

  1. (from above): I do have concerns of my own about the appropriateness of proposed remedy 3.1. Ban editing of an article for a year by an editor that has no prior administrative actions against him? The editor you are talking about edits anonymously specifically to avoid administrative actions against him/her and has admitted to having a registered account. S/he has haunted this article long before TDC ever edited it, going back well over a year, but claims that this earlier earthlink ip is a different person.
    False. Please provide a link to the statement by this editor that indicates s/he edits anonymously to avoid administrative actions. If this is nothing more than an unsubstantiated personal attack based on faulty assumptions, then I respectfully request that you retract it. (Please note that you can circumvent administrative actions as easily as I can, so let's not kid ourselves. And I wouldn't step up to defend myself against this crap if my intentions were to "avoid administrative actions." Apologize, please.) 165.247.202.116 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    Amendment, please add to my statement above; "in my opinion, based on article history".
    Also, are you still asserting that the earthlink IP who stalked this article and inserted copyright violations, long before TDC ever edited it, is a different individual than yourself? --Duk 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    Asked and answered. Again, my apologies. As I mentioned above I assumed you were the anon who initially inserted this copvio (you both have EarthLink ip's)--Duk 05:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    It is actually much worse than that, this is some kind of game or experiment.
    "RE: my not logging in under my registered psuedonym - please don't let that be a distraction from the real issues here. Almost 2 years ago there was an argument that resulted in a challenge to me, which then resulted in a little experiment, which is presently ongoing. I beg you to humor me on this. On a Wikipedia that claims anyone (even the unregistered) may contribute, and prides itself on the content of articles, not the contributors of them, this should not be an issue. I will continue to remain not logged in, while reserving my logging in for voting and other procedural matters as required. Rest assured that TDC would still make his misrepresentations of me even if I were logged in - his sleights really have nothing to with his confusing multiple unregistered editors, but in the interest of polite discussion I figured I'd leave him that egress. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)"[8]“
    Rob must have a regular account, as the prior passage suggests, it’s the only way he would be able to monitor the articles as closely as he has. DTC 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. (from anon): I take copyvio very seriously as well, but there shouldn't be any copyvio issues involving that article at this time. All known issues were addressed some time ago. Copyvios are just a symptom, dysfunctional behavior is the main problem here. As far as the current article; I know that copyvios were re-inserted after I removed them, and that other admins had similar experiences going back more than a year- see article history around Oct.1 2004. This was before TDC even started editing the article. Again, the current earthlink ip claims that this old earthlink ip was a different individual.
    1) Are there copyvio issues with the article now, or not? 2) Please provide links and diffs to show copyvios "were re-inserted after you removed them." My contention is that we found OTHER copyvios after you addressed SOME, and we were forced to address the newly discovered ones as well. And we did. And yes, you already know Earthlink editors from more than a year ago are different people. 165.247.202.116 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    1) Are there copyvio issues with the article now, or not?
    I don't know. I am sure, however, that copyvios were re-inserted after I cleared them (see evidence link below).
    You don't know if any outstanding copyvios exist or not? Let me rephrase to a simple Yes or No question: Do you know of any outstanding copyvio issues with the article? As for the link below, I've reviewed it. You again make the same allegation, and you again fail to provide a link actually showing someone re-insterting copyvio material after you have identified and removed it. 165.247.202.116 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    I most certianly did provid a link. To the exact version where the example copyvio was re-added. Go read it again. Also, for your convenience, here is the diff. --Duk 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    The link you provided is to an exact version that does not contain the copyvio you identified and removed. Here is the copyvio paragraph you identified. This paragraph exists no where in the article to which you just linked:
    Another revelation of the Winter Soldier Investigation was that servicemen participating in these illegal missions into neutral countries were required to never reveal information on their location or activities. As verified by news investigations conducted by Detroit Free Press and others, they removed all U.S. related accouterments from their garments and identification and had instructions not to reveal their true identity if caught. On some missions the servicemen toted Russian-made weaponry and wore the uniforms used by their North Vietnamese enemy. The Pentagon would continue to deny any knowledge of such operations for another several months.
    You've just demonstrated that you didn't read and understand the evidence page. --Duk 21:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    2) Please provide links and diffs to show copyvios "were re-inserted after you removed them."
    See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Duk
    Ok, I reviewed that link. At that link, I see you making the same assertion that copyvios "were re-inserted after you removed them," but again you fail to give a link showing where. Link, please? 165.247.202.116 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    I most certianly did provid a link. To the exact version where the example copyvio was re-added. Go read it again. Also, for your convenience, here is the diff. --Duk 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    No, you most certainly did not. You linked to the rebuilt version of the article that most certainly DOES NOT have the copyvio paragraph you identified and removed. It's not there, Duk. Go read it again. 165.247.202.116 09:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    You've just demonstrated that you didn't read and understand the evidence page.--Duk 21:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, it is there. Just to humor you I went back and carefully looked at the links- you restored nearly the identical section (Dewey Canyon Operation revealed) that I removed as a copyvio. If any arbitrator is reading this, please look read the evidence. This is one of the anon's tactics; repeat a lie enough and people will believe it. --Duk 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    Also, are you still asserting that the earthlink IP who re-inserted copyright violations, after they were removed by other administrators, before TDC ever edited the article, is a different individual than yourself?--Duk 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    Please provide a link showing an Earthlink IP editor re-inserted copyright violations after they were removed by other administrators. I didn't know of Wikipedia in 2004, so those aren't my edits, but I'm curious to see what you are talking about. I learned of Wikipedia the same way many others here have: It's listed as one of many Online Resources available among the study aides for a poli-sci course (for research, of course - choosing to edit was purely my decision). 165.247.202.116 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    It is in deleted history, but thanks for answering the question- you deny a ton of earthlink ip edits.
    In the deleted history - oh, how convenient. I've used Wikipedia for less than a year, so yes, obviously I deny any edits made before I began editing here.
    Also, what about that edit you made that TDC points out; "RE: my not logging in under my registered psuedonym - please don't let that be a distraction from the real issues here. Almost 2 years ago there was an argument that resulted in a challenge to me, which then resulted in a little experiment, which is presently ongoing. I beg you to humor me on this. On a Wikipedia that claims anyone (even the unregistered) may contribute, and prides itself on the content of articles, not the contributors of them, this should not be an issue. I will continue to remain not logged in, while reserving my logging in for voting and other procedural matters as required. Rest assured that TDC would still make his misrepresentations of me even if I were logged in - his sleights really have nothing to with his confusing multiple unregistered editors, but in the interest of polite discussion I figured I'd leave him that egress. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)"[9]--Duk 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, if that was to me, I don't follow. What is the question? 165.247.202.116 09:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
As documented here the similarities are far too overwhelming to be a mere coinicidence. All Earthlink IP's, all coming from the same local switching server, all having the same interests in article topics, all editing with the same style. DTC 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Taking this argument to the talk pages of arbitrators, outside of the RFA, is a bad faith attempt to undermine the process (IMO). --Duk 17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, I guess so. And you, me and TDC discussing the copyvio issues you brought up on the evidence page here on your talk page was in bad faith. And TDC and Fred discussing on TDCs talk page about how long this might take, and Fred's opinions that he's not as interested in this case as he is in others was in bad faith. And... oh, stop it already. I know you and I got off on the wrong foot, and you are trying to paint me in the worst possible light -- but quit trying to create larcenous intent where there is none. Please? 165.247.202.116 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    Were these other conversations you mention intended to sway the votes of arbitrators on the proposed solutions? I don't think so. --Duk 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    Were these other conversations intended to affect the overall outcome of this Arbitration? I know so. 165.247.202.116 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, I only asked Ed how long this would take so I would not feel as if I had this Sword of Damocles over my head for months. No other comments were made, and all relevant information was kept on the pages related to this RfArb. DTC 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Few Comments on this

To quote Rob, an Earthlink anon:

"RE: my not logging in under my registered psuedonym - please don't let that be a distraction from the real issues here. Almost 2 years ago there was an argument that resulted in a challenge to me, which then resulted in a little experiment, which is presently ongoing. I beg you to humor me on this. On a Wikipedia that claims anyone (even the unregistered) may contribute, and prides itself on the content of articles, not the contributors of them, this should not be an issue. I will continue to remain not logged in, while reserving my logging in for voting and other procedural matters as required. Rest assured that TDC would still make his misrepresentations of me even if I were logged in - his sleights really have nothing to with his confusing multiple unregistered editors, but in the interest of polite discussion I figured I'd leave him that egress. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)"[10]

Rob, this game you are playing not funny. You continualy tiwst all of our statements to make it appear as if we support your contentions, when it is clear that we don't. You demand evidence of your copyvio, and when given it, you just say "what, I dont see anything, be more specific". Its infuriating, to say the least, and if it is part of your "experiment", then please fill us in on when you plan to wrap it up, and hat the results were. I, for one, and tired of bieng a lab rat. DTC 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nearly ready to close

I've asked Fred Bauder to confirm that this case is ready to close. This is a request to other clerks to hold back from closing until he responds--which will most likely be on my user talk page. --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon tactics

I'd just like to point out that above is a classic example of the anon's tactics, some of the hallmarks; 1) endless circumlocution and obfuscation, the anon argues and quibbles in complicated ways to drag the talk page into a hopeless mess, this is a strategy (IMO) 2) Redirecting the argument; instead of addressing almost two years of endless revert wars, anon attempts to deflect the conversation onto trivial and petty copyvio arguments. No one on the evidence page disputes that the page has had a copyvio problem. Looking at the history shows that it goes back to before TDC edited there. 3) Anon is the only party to this dispute that hasn't bothered make a statement on the evidence page. Instead, s/he goes to people's user pages with a puppy eye who me? look, trying to sway favor. The main point is that the anon isn't interested in a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute.

I hope all arbitrators can acknowledge that the anon is the only party to this dispute that hasn't bothered make a statement on the evidence page, and is the only party here to not make a good faith attempt at the dispute resolution process. --Duk 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that this sums it up as well as anything I have had to say on the subject. I have wasted quite a bit of time on this, time I could have been using editing other articles, and would love to see it come to an end. I also have no problem bieng barred from editing this article. Time to close, and move on. Ten Dead Chickens 17:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Duk, I believe that is a very unfair and incorrect characterization of me. How much more uncomplicated could I be when I told you (how many times now? 8?) that I am NOT the editor that introduced copyvio material to the article two years ago. And my name is not Rob, no matter how many times you and TDC insist that it is. I have edited on Wikipedia LESS THAN A YEAR. What part of that is complicated, obfuscated or unclear to you? I've heard the arguments that all the anons use Earthlink ISP, and all are from the same geographic region, and all seem to edit against TDC. I don't know how to argue against that, so I'm not going to try. I've already requested that a checkuser be run on myself. I've already explained that the connections I use are dynamic proxies (that means many people use) and some of the computers I sit at are public (that means many people use) and Wikipedia is listed as an online resource in class materials (that means many people use). I don't know what else to do, and I can't prove a negative.
You are correct, Duk, that I haven't made a statement on the evidence page. Until a couple days ago, there was no reason for me to do so. Travb's complaint against me had long been resolved; he stated that he now agreed with the edits of mine that were the basis of his inclusion of me in his RfArb complaint. Your primary concern, in regard to this article, is copyvio issues, correct? Well, pardon me for deflecting "the conversation onto trivial and petty copyvio arguments," but you dragged me into them, and I don't consider them petty. I have worked with you non-stop for months to make sure all copyvio issues were resolved to your satisfaction. I have pestered you on your Talk page to PLEASE verify that all copyvio issues were indeed resolved, despite your whining that your feelings were hurt by other mean old Admins, and you didn't want to deal with the article anymore. I'm sorry you consider them petty, but copyvio issues are serious issues to me - even moreso when you falsely accuse me of "intentionally inserting" them into an article.
Travb's issues with me were unfounded, and eventually resolved. Duk's copyvio issues were addressed per his requirements, and to the best of my knowledge no longer exist, and I've been persistent in asking him to verify this fact -- despite his exclamations that he doesn't want to revisit the article ever again. TDC's issues ... well, TDC and I are destined to always have some sort of disagreement. I always try to engage him in conversation, which he has called pointless. I welcome any third-party intervention such as mediation, even though people such as Tony Sidaway and Theresa Knott have tried it with him without result. It doesn't surprise me that TDC doesn't mind being banned from an article, as long as he can drag opposing editors down with him.
Duk made an appeal above to the Arbitrators, so let me do likewise. I hope all of the Arbitrators that have voted on sanctions based on unrefuted allegations posted by Travb, Duk and TDC will take a moment to reconsider. I respect this process, and it is not my intent to delay it. I feel an extra day in this two month process to review a whole missing side of this issue is not unreasonable to request, especially when penalties like 1-year bans are being proposed. 165.247.213.10 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel your pain about the slim possibility of mistaken identity. But you've always had the power to prevent it simply by editing Winter Soldier Investigation while logged in. Oh, wait, now you get to do just that, while TDC can't. Looks like you got away with it. Way to go cowboy. --Duk 22:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I don't understand. Please explain to me how my logging in with a user name on an Earthlink IP would prevent you from making the same mistakes? Checkuser much? And of course TDC can. Nice try, parrrdner. 165.247.212.88 22:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess thats all the more reason to scrutinize any editor who takes up Rob's crusade. Ten Dead Chickens 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Winter_Soldier_Proposed_decision_6fb0.html"