Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Heimstern

[edit] TDC and Xenophrenic have engaged in extensive edit warring

I will seek to show that TDC and Xenophrenic have edit warred extensively over a number of articles. I will also explain what role I have played in all this, in case the arbitrators wish to consider my actions as well.

[edit] At Vietnam Veterans Against the War

[edit] At Mark Lane (author)

Aftermath: An IP claiming to be TDC reported Xenophrenic for gaming the three-revert rule. I processed this report and determined that both parties were clearly edit warring and determined to block both. I originally planned to block both for 24 hours [3]; however, upon seeing TDC's extensive block log, I determined that a longer block was necessary and blocked him for one week ([4], [5]) and Xenophrenic for 24 hours [6]. TDC later informed me about the previous Winter Soldier arbitration case and the checkuser report suggesting that Xenophrenic is same person the anonymous editor sanctioned in that case. This information led me to believe that Xenophrenic's history of edit warring was every bit as long as TDC's, so I blocked Xenophrenic again with a block timed to last exactly as long as TDC's. About a day later, he was unblocked by an admin observing that the ArbCom remedies had expired and that a 3RR block should be twenty-four hours long. I expressed my disagreement with this admin's reasoning in a reply on my talk page, but did not reblock to avoid a wheel war. Instead, I unblocked TDC, believing it to be the most equitable thing to do. Xenophrenic continued to contest my block reasons, which I continued to defend, in a thread which I was particularly keen to archive soon.

[edit] At Winter Soldier Investigation

Aftermath: The article was protected as a result of the edit war.

[edit] At Winter Soldier Investigation, zweiter Teil

Aftermath: Xenophrenic reported TDC for a three-revert rule violation. TDC was blocked as a result of this. When I saw this, I was concerned that the treatment was not equitable, and left the blocking admin a note to that effect. After mulling it over a bit, though, I decided this needed to go the next level, and began a thread at the incidents noticeboard. The blocking admin unblocked TDC to allow this discussion, which in turn led to this arbitration case.

[edit] Not the first time

In a previous arbitration case, TDC and an anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx were sanctioned for edit warring at Winter Soldier Investigation. This checkuser case says that Xenophrenic is likely the same person as 165.247.xxx, which would seem to be corroborated by Xenophrenic's modus operandi of edit warring with TDC. Although Xenophrenic denies being this anon, I find it highly unlikely a different person would show up with the same modus operandi and receive a "likely" checkuser result. This does not necessarily indicate abusive sockpuppetry, as it would be acceptable for the anon to create an account. But it does suggest that Xenophrenic, like TDC, should be treated as an editor with a history of edit warring who has been sanctioned by the committee in the past.

[edit] Evidence presented by Sam Blacketer

[edit] Xenophrenic edits provocatively

Please note User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 101-200#How about a little more info?, User talk:Xenophrenic#3RR, User talk:Sam Blacketer#Winter Soldier Investigation Talk Page and User talk:Xenophrenic#Latest 3RR report for an exchange which shows the response of Xenophrenic when the issue of his edit-warring with TDC was brought up.

[edit] Xenophrenic has few edits outside this subject

Xenophrenic's contributions show article space edits to Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the Winter Soldier Investigation it organised, Mark Lane (author) who worked for them, and almost no other subjects.

[edit] TDC frequently reverts without explanation

Taking recent edits to Winter Soldier Investigation, there are reverts by TDC as follows:

Although TDC did edit the talk page, he did not explain his reverts. Nor did he attempt to discuss with Xenophrenic.

[edit] TDC appears to obey the letter of the three revert rule

Although TDC frequently reverts, he is very careful to have only three reverts at the most within any 24 hour period. (Although this has not been enough to prevent his being blocked for 'gaming the system')

[edit] Evidence presented by Xenophrenic

[edit] TDC has used Sock Puppetry allegations and Checkuser "Fishing" to harass and intimidate

  • When I began editing earlier this year, TDC requested and received a Checkuser after I had made only a half-dozen edits on a single article. He falsely or mistakenly claimed the pretense of a violation of ArbCom parole, when there was no violation. He cited a similar manner of editing, when those edits only restored text from other editors that TDC had deleted. I hadn't even made an original contribution of my own yet. The Checkuser came back as only "likely," but TDC apparently thought this justified spamming my user and talk pages with tags and harassment: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] He addresses me as Rob or Anon during this spam. Here TDC claims my account has been confirmed as a Sock Puppet to avoid sanctions. There has never been such a confirmation. There has never been a Sock Puppet check requested, and there has never been any evidence presented showing abusive use of multiple accounts.
  • In August, TDC launched another attack via this CheckUser request, claiming Xenophrenic is user Reddi. As in the previous request, TDC alleges an ArbCom sanction violation when there is none. As before, TDC starts in with the harassment, and even edits out references to Rob or Anon, and now replaces them with Mr. Redding! As in the previous attempt, no Sock Puppet check was requested, and there was never any evidence presented to show abusive use of multiple accounts.
  • The harassment continues, and the fishing continues with this gem. The attack page was deleted, and the administrators remarked, "serves no purpose but to disparage; very poor taste; Screams WP:AGF issues, and possibly WP:POINT as well; This is just inflamatory." Nothing more was done.
  • Dlabtot also crossed editing paths with TDC, and was subjected to false accusations of Sock Puppetry without evidence of abusive conduct. Dlabtot was cleared by admins, but TDC pressed on, requesting that Dlabtot enable Wiki-email. After declining to enable his email, twice, and explaining that he did not wish to be contacted, TDC searched out his email through other sources and contacted him anyway. This is intimidation, in my opinion.

Conclusions: TDC uses frivolous Sock puppetry allegations and CheckUser requests to harass editors that stand in his way. Even if all CU requests came back "Absolutely Confirmed," there is still no abuse of process, violation of rules or evasion of sanctions involved here.

[edit] Evidence of edit warring and disruptive editing practice

[edit] TDC makes up false citations

Just one example: this slanderous insertion into a Biography of a Living Person was false. The citation given by TDC was false. I looked at that page in the book TDC cited, and it said nothing related to TDC's edit, so I reverted it. I verified with TDC several times that he had the correct page number, correct edition, correct book and he confirmed he did. He even offered to photocopy it "and upload it for all to evaluate." I have the book, and it is obvious TDC lied about seeing the page he cites. I am still waiting for that uploaded photocopy.

[edit] TDC takes quotes out of context to deceptively alter or reverse their meaning

One example: TDC claimed his source, Tucker, indicated a membership of "around 7000". The source is searchable online through Google Books, there is no mention of that number, and I pointed out he was in error. He recanted, and tried passing off this quote as from Tucker:

Its leaders claimed a membership of several thousand, although it was not clear how many reported members really held active membership, how many were government infiltrators and how many had seen service in Vietnam pg 476 Tucker. here

When I looked up his "quote," I found it had been modified from the actual wording in the book, substantially altering the meaning:

By the time of the organization's dissolution in 1973, VVAW leaders claimed a membership of several thousand, although it was not clear how many reported members really held active membership, how many were government infiltrators and how many had seen service in Vietnam

By leaving off the first part of the sentence, TDC obscures the fact that Tucker was talking about the group in 1973 when they were breaking up, allowing TDC to falsely infer Tucker was speaking about "peak membership" numbers several years earlier. This form of deception is frequent with TDC, and it makes it difficult to maintain an assumption of good faith. He has even carried this practice of deceit here, to this ArbCom:

  • At this ArbCom, TDC misquotes me and claims I personally attacked him. He removed the part of the quote that puts it into context, and shows I was attacking not him, but his source I had discovered, which is known for doctoring and misrepresentation.
  • And at this ArbCom, TDC misrepresents a partial quote as being from me. TDC didn't even use the required ellipsis to indicate there was more to the quote - the clerk had to do it. TDC leaves out the original signature, and leaves out the part that indicates the quote was in response to urging by AllyUnion and JamesMLane to start editing controversial articles with a logged in account. If you read the conversationsin full, and in context, you see the experiment mentioned wasn't to disrupt Wikipedia, but to test perceived prejudice against IP users. You will also find there were several students from a classroom editing using a shared Earthlink router, and apparently "Rob" had special safety concerns after this: Rob, dont be stupid, if that is possible. I used an advanced IP trace. I know your name home adress and telphone number. All the anons are you. TDC 06:21, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response; Counters; Rebuttals

[edit] (Rebuttal to Heimstern, Evidence section:) Xenophrenic has engaged in extensive edit warring

The only evidence brought against me in support of this charge are these 36 edits presented by Heimstern as simple reverts. Most of these edits dealt with information on the WP:BLP about Mark Lane, or with the sections of other articles in which he was involved. There was a lot of defamatory information, misrepresentation and falsification cleared out of these articles by these edits, as detailed in the edit summaries, talk pages and mediation (formal and informal) discussions. In contrast to the charge of "edit warring," those 36 edits represent legitimate edits in three articles over a four month period. Please see:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier_2/Evidence/Editing_Conduct

[edit] (Rebuttal to Heimstern, Evidence section:) Not the first time

Regarding Xenophrenic "likely" being editor 165.247.xxx, Heimstern states:

This does not necessarily indicate abusive sockpuppetry, as it would be acceptable for the anon to create an account. But it does suggest that Xenophrenic, like TDC, should be treated as an editor with a history of edit warring who has been sanctioned by the committee in the past.

Am I to interpret that to mean since TDC has a history of being on the wrong side of:

Just to add insult to the situation, while under simultaneous sanctions from the Winter Soldier ArbCom & Depleted Uranium ArbCom, TDC still edit wars. And again. And yet again. This from just a cursory glance at the histories I've been going through. When his edit warring prompted an admin to ask, "Aren't you on revert parole?", multi-sanctioned TDC replied: So block me for a day, you know I am. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The 165.247.xxx IP user, by contrast, was sanctioned once and respected the sanction (even amidst screams from the rabble that "you can't enforce it, and he knows it!!"). That deserves what treatment, in your opinion? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Response to Blacketer, Evidence section:) Xenophrenic has few edits outside this subject

Xenophrenic has few edits. Period. Not even a couple hundred article edits yet, and at this rate, there won't be many more forthcoming very soon. That was already noted here. By contrast, Reddi would have link-spammed the bejeebers out of many talk pages by now, and the IP user would be edit warring across a couple dozen Vietnam-related articles while stuffing them with Copyright protected material. Big shoes to fill, I know. I don't see Reddi or the IP anywhere in the history of the Lane article; home of my most heated, but productive editing exchange. Quirky. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forthcoming

A lot more from Xenophrenic coming soon.

[edit] Evidence presented by Gnangarra

[edit] TDC misrepresenting the conditions of a previous arbcom decision

I came into this situation between TDC and Xeno from a WP:RFPP for Xenophrenics user page[22] lodged by TDC on 16th Feb 2007[23], The reason given was that Xeno was a sock of an editor subject to arbcom sanctions. For this reason I gave the initial block of xeno for 1 week, then extended it to indef as a sock puppetblock log of Xeno. After discussions via email with Xeno I looked into the arbcom case and its resolutions. The arbcom casediff said specifically that both TDC and the IP were banned from editing Winter Soldier Investigation for 1 year commencing 3rd Feb 2006 and finishing 3rd Feb 2007. Xeno was a new editor who had not edited the winter soldier article, he had only edited the Vietnam Veterans Against the War article. We encourage IP editors to create accounts and from the article edit histories I saw no edits were Xeno edits had been supported by an IP address. from all of this Xeno had not violated WP:SOCK nor had he violated any arbcom ruling. Under these circumstances I unblocked Xeno with the comment (believe User isnt a sockpuppet, there has been more than 12 months between Arbcom case and the checkuser case).

When I unblocked Xeno I left this message with TDC, in short a bit of AGF and a request not to argue while I look into the situation. I also contacted an experienced admin Longhair over the issue asking for advice and guidence[24], he supported my position of unblocking and recommended that I keep an eye on the situation. During the next couple of weeks no major issues developed and my watching of them became secondary to other RL events.

In September I was contacted via email from Xeno who asked for assistance after a block was extended based apparently on the same Arbcom case. Looking at the situation I found the 3RR block warranted (though Xeno didnt) and a 24 hour block was fair. it was the extension based on the expired arbcom decision that wasnt reasonable both because of the timing and the application of the extension. I unblocked Xeno account and left a note for Heimstern, I had checked Heimsterns recent edits and noted he hadnt edited for over 3 hours, I didnt think it was reasonable to leave Xeno blocked for any further time[25]. After leaving Heimtern a note about what I did and why[26], he responded that he thought unblocking was a mistake but wasnt going to revert and that he will also unblock TDC[27], something I didnt think of checking at the time. Gnangarra 14:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I note TDC comment below and the text of the arbcom decision in Feb 07 has the section Banned from Winter Soldier Investigation[28]. What ever the reason for the misunderstanding of the Arbcom decision TDC used the arbcom decision to argue that it didnt apply to his actions in Feb[29]. The difference between the my unblocks of TDC on the 16th and Xeno on the 20th was resolving the issue of whether Xeno had been a sock puppet. Gnangarra 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by TDC

[edit] Xenophrenic is the anon user from the First Arbitration

The checkuser request on Xenophrenic returned with a “likely” result, and considering the focus and behavior of Xenophrenic, its certainly the same user. Every other user on the recent WP:ANI who chimed in on this subject came to the same conclusion.

[edit] Xenophrenic is a sockpuppet of another user

Xenophrenic’s links to the anon from the prior arbitration, and comments made when editing from the IP’s make me believe that he is actually a sockpuppet of another user. I originally thought it was Reddi, but the checkuser turned out to be unrelated (although another editor did find merit in this at ANI). While editing as the Anon IP, this provocative and revealing comment was made:

...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...

– Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation/Archive 2, #VVAW and WSI articles

Xenophrenic is also able to make timely appearances at the disputed articles, even after several days or even weeks of little or no activity from his account, and is able to revert an edit he does not like quickly ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34]).

Reviewing this evidence would seem to indicate that he has another account he regularly edits with and monitors these articles from.

[edit] Xenophrenic has violated Wikipedia’s policy on Copyright

Xenophrenics long abuse of Copyvio material is both well documented[35], extensive [36] [37], [38], [39][40], [41],[42] and has continued with this new account. This issue was never dealt with in the first arbitration, as I was unfamiliar with the methodology to do so.

A large section from an article was removed based on the fact that it did not come from the sources referenced in the article, but from a website, which was not attributed or cited, all of which was laid out in talk ([43]). When the material was removed and replaced with a short summary ([44]), Xenophrenic reverted the edit ([45]), after which Chaser asked me not to edit the material again, and instead take it to the notice board ([46]); which I did ([47]). The editor who looked over it said he would not touch it unless he had a copy of the book that the material supposedly came from [48]

Xenophrenic copyvios should have been reason enough to block him the very first time he reinserted them after being told not to.

[edit] Xenophrenic has edit warred with multiple users

Although it would seem that this dispute is only between Xenophreic, his anon IP’s and myself, Xenophrenic and his IP’s have edit warred with multiple users, on multiple articles.

  • With SEWilco on VVAW: [49]

[50]

[edit] Xenophrenic has violated WP:CIVL

  • Any ArbCom dealing with the edit warring issues here is going to have to address these frivolous charges, resolve them, and get them out of the way before we get to the nitty-gritty of the real problem here. Warm up to that, please.[80]
  • Really? Please educate, lecture and enlighten me as to why it is inappropriate to educate, lecture and enlighten you. I'll just pull up a chair here and listen...[81]
  • Bored? Got some time to kill? Feel free to exercise your keyboard in the space below. This space is reserved for a variety of activities! Tell a joke. Give a lecture. Attack someone while telling them not to attack someone! Remind someone that they must only comment on edits and not the editors, then comment about them! Tell them what to do and what not to do. Grab your wikicop hat and baton, and beat them over the head! Quote rules to them while you break those very rules, then smile sagely as you impart words of wisdom on your underlings. Spice things up a bit by taking someones edit, cutting it up, then yell at them when they try to put it back together again. Use your imagination. Pick a favorite sentence and repeat it over and over again. Use cut & paste if needed! Then repeat it again! When there is too much seriousness, have some wacky fun![82]

[edit] Xenophrenic has continually not assumed good faith

  • When I filed the first checkuser on Xenophrenic, his response to the Admin was: "...There is Likely a mistake being made here, or possibly something more mischievous?..." (Requests for CheckUser/Case/Xenophrenic)
  • There is nothing wrong with Jpgordon's judgement; he looked at whatever info was available to him and made the determination of only "likely." It shows a total lack of judgement, on the other hand, to take that same info and act upon it as if it read "confirmed." Let's hope it is an isolated incident, and not something that demonstrates a history requiring more preventative measures. Xenophrenic 06:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC) ([83])
  • Another "too busy to check" admin breezes through... ([84])

[edit] Xenophrenic has engaged in personal attacks

  • Maybe if you email the Freep-heads, they will doctor up a photocopy for you. I'd suggest reading sources yourself; less likely to come back and bite you in the ass.[85]

[edit] Xenophrenic has engaged Disruptive editing

One of Xenophrenic’s worst habits is modifying editors comments and using them to support his arguments, when they clearly dont, this makes the talk page generally unrepresentative of individuals thoughts, and amounts to disrputive editing. Examples: [86], [87], [88]

Xenophrenic also goads users when he feels he has a WP:POINT to make, belittle an individual, or just rub in a past mistake: [89], [90], [91]

[edit] Misuse Sockpuppetry Accusations

Xenophrenic ‘s claim that I have harassed users and gone on fishing expeditions using checkuser are without merit. James Salsman has used at least 45 sockpuupets [92][93], to continue editing Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LossIsNotMore, and all user accounts I presented there fit his pattern of editing. In one case, User:Peter Cheung, he appropriated the identity of an individual to use on Wikipedia, a cardiologist in Texas named Peter Cheung who was not pleasantly surprised when he discovered this. I have apologized to both user:Dlabtot and user:Starkrm for accusing them of being sockpuppets.

[edit] TDC miss representing the conditions of a previous arbcom decision

I did misrepresent the previous arbcom case, but this was not intentional because the previous case was so confusing that it was later clarified as several other users and members of the Arbitration Committee did not understand the final disposition either [94].

Despite Gnangarra claims above, my interpretation of the decision was apparrently so popular, that it was used three time to block me[95]:

  1. on June 21, 2007 when Chaser blocked me citing the case
  2. on February 8, 2007 William M. Connolley blocked me citing the case
  3. and yes even Gnangarra, who has accused me of misrepresenting the Arbcom case, cited it when blocking me on February 16, 2007

The finality of the section of the Arbcom decision that Gnangarra alleges that I have been misrepresenting, has only been cleared up in September of this year by Thatcher and NYBrad. [96]. And think about it, had I been intentionally misrepresenting the Arbcom decision, wouldn’t I be the one whining the loudest when that misrepresented decision was being used on me not once, not twice, but three separate times?

[edit] Evidence presented by Dlabtot

[edit] TDC repeatedly fails to assume good faith

TDC's certainty about those he suspects of sockpuppetry is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Multiple diffs have already been provided by others. A request for checkuser confirmation that I was not a sockpuppet was not sufficient - TDC continued to badger me via email to prove myself. That is the antithesis of assuming good faith. His apology after I responded to his email was not an admission that his behavior was contrary to Wikipedia policies but rather a simple admission that the Request for Checkuser was correct after all. I don't believe TDC thinks he did anything wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TDC does not respect WP:CIVIL

diff Dlabtot (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TDC inappropriately edits other's talk page comments

In this case, changing the wording, and meaning, of a Request for Comment. diff I realize that WP:TALK is a guideline, not a policy, but it does say: Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Which seems particularly applicable to a Request for Comment. Dlabtot (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TDC engages in edit-warring across multiple articles

Depleted Uranium: diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff Orlando Letelier - diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff These are current edit wars, not old ones. Dlabtot (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.