Wikipedia:Requests for comment/205.240.227.15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Anon user is a self described Cuban counter revolutionary, who edits from an anti-Castro point of view. Claims his edits are "merely a penance for my youthful support of Castro in the mountains." [1] The user has made some valuable edits, but has shown no interest in ending his anti-castro campaign, or following NPOV policy --In fact, he takes offense from being asked to stop.

[edit] Description

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

Evidence goes back ONLY to mid-January, these type of edits have gone since 15 September [2]. Repeated insertion of anti-Castro propaganda
  • Many statements are compleate fabrications, others are insertion of pov statement/commentary, and yet others are accusations from Cuban dissident websites.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Section blanking.[3] [4]
  2. Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications. [5]* [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] hostile editing:([12]* [13]*) ([14], [15]) ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]*)
  3. Misrepresenting source [22]
  4. Vandalism [23], [24]
  5. 3RR violation (Adminnotice)* (Block [25])
*Has occured since the creation of this RFC.
Many of these examples are re-insertions of material previously removed.

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. NPOV
  2. Not a Soapbox
  3. Edit Summary
  4. Reliable sources
  5. No original research

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [26] User:Doc glasgow regarding vandalism.
  2. [27] User:El_C regarding 3RR.
  3. [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] User:Splash, User:Curps, User:Pathoschild, regarding vandalism (recreation of a deleted anti-Castro article)
  4. [34] User:OwenX regarding vandalism
  5. [35] User:Jossi regarding vandalism
  6. [36] User:Master Jay regarding vandalism
  7. [37] User:Lbmixpro regarding vandalism
  8. [38] User:Shanel regarding vandalism
  9. [39], [40] User:Colle regarding vandalism, 3RR

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Jay(Reply) 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 04:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 05:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. ComputerJoe 22:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

The categories of “charges” have been changed and additional “charges” have been added. What originally was:

1. Section blanking.[3] [4] 2. Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] hostile editing:([11], [12]) ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) 3. Lying about content of source [18]

which were addressed (see below) has now become: 1. Section blanking.[3] [4] 2. Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications. [5]* [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] hostile editing:([12]* [13]*) ([14], [15]) ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]*) 3. Misrepresenting source [22] 4. Vandalism [23], [24]

El Jigüe 2-13-06

Now a whole horde of new charges are presented, involving, against the rules, apparently every left wing critic of mine. Just so everybody sees it here is aware of the POV tilt of your political kilt you have just erased the notation that Arnold August, a person you cite at length. is a prominent member of the Canadian Communist Party. Well he did better than Ray Bradbury for whom you diligently remove everything that mentions him at every opportunity. In this list I notice a few "editors" who are quite polemic.

  1. [41] User:Doc glasgow regarding vandalism.
  2. [42] User:El_C regarding 3RR.
  3. [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] User:Splash, User:Curps, User:Pathoschild, regarding vandalism (recreation of a deleted anti-Castro article)
  4. [49] User:OwenX regarding vandalism
  5. [50] User:Jossi regarding vandalism
  6. [51] User:Master Jay regarding vandalism
  7. [52] User:Lbmixpro regarding vandalism
  8. [53] User:Shanel regarding vandalism
  9. [54] User:Colle regarding vandalism


Apparently spurious charges seem insufficient, thus now some charges include inserts that I did not write such as in charge


I suggest each interested person read each item in detail and evaluate it independently. As to "Lying about content of source" I suggest you read the citation completely. El Jigüe 2-11-06

addressing charge 24

addressing charge 23, it would seem that rephrasing a previous statement has become "Vandalism"

addressing charge 22, this seems to a repeat of charge 18 that on addition of additional charges became charge 19. It would appear that the accuser has not read the source completely.

addressing charges 20, 21 it seems that the accuser is setting up her/his own criteria for acceptance of sources.

Addressing charge 19 (was 18 but another charge was added) "Vandalism (attack on other editors)" "although some claim that the full extent of these gains may be exaggerated [55]."The citation in question is taken from [56] see page 10 (of web document quoted) under heading Case study 3- Cuba: towards a national organic regime. First paragraph of section starts: "Cuba has been often cited as an example of the first country to attempt a nation wide conversion to organic agriculture. These claims may be an exaggeration, but the Cuban experience..." my italics

Addressing point 18. "Vandalism (attack on other editors)" My comment itself seems suffice, since it was merely restating previous point in more circumspect language:

"In Cuba political police are generally referred to as La Seguridad del Estado. One could readily infer that all reference to this agency is so discomforting to some Cuban government supporters that it is being systematically erased here."

Address point 17 and previous "# Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications.". The inserted content seems self-explanatory:

Point 17a " This output is dazzling and often quite spectacular and scholarly; however, all written material published in Cuba is censored by Seguridad del Estado and other means. Material by dissident authors in Cuba has to be smuggled out and presented on line by Cubans living in exile. These repressive actions of the Cuban government have drawn much international condemnation e.g Ray Bradbury Fahrenheit 451 author ‘[57] [58] [59]."

17b merely an insert of address Web site discussed

17c The intent was to demonstrate that in the US even writings by Generals in Castro's security forces are available in bookstores" [60] carry 2000 titles on Cuba. Books in stock at Borders in the US include a volume by a retired Castro General and former head of Cuba's Counter-Intelligence Unit (1976-1982) Fabian Escalante [61]. Escalante, who more recently has denied a novel theory on the John F. Kennedy assassination [62], was also a judge in the trial of executed a former Castro escopetero and African War Hero General Arnaldo Ochoa Sánchez [63]."

Addressing item 16 charge "# Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications." This was a deletion done to prepare a revision in a section I had initiated which is " ===Present State of Cuban Literature=== " the revision was placed immediately in several consecutive edits:

Addressing charge 15 ""# Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications." " This was a reinsertion of a previously bowdlerized section and the reinsertion reads: " ===Present State of Cuban Literature=== + Cuban authors continue to produce large amounts of government supported printed and electronic work inside the Island. Cuba also has a large number of booths at bookfairs in Latin America. A good number of U.S university presses continually present scholarly volumes on various Cuban topics. Authors both pro- and against the present Cuban government present their views in the US. Amazon.com (directed by Jeff Bezos who was raised by a Cuban family) currently lists 6,026 titles dealing with Cuba; Barnesandnoble.com lists 3,126. Borders book stores carry 1,991 titles on Cuba in stock."

Charge 14 "# Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications." This charge is puzzling since the contested editing by the accused varies considerably such as changes in the definition of Guajiro. However the heart of the matter seems to be a reinsertion into "===Present State of Cuban Literature===" to read: "Despite continual state repression [64], literature is very much alive in Cuba [65] These repressive actions of the Cuban government have drawn much international condemnation e.g Ray Bradbury Fahrenheit 451 author [66]."

Charge 13 "# Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications." appears to be reinsertion of: "==Present State of Cuban Literature== Despite continual state repression, literature is very much alive in Cuba [67] Cuban authors continue to produce prolific printed and electronic work inside and especially outside of the island."

Charge 12 "# Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications." relates to the mention of Vladimir Roca and reads: "comments on the present legalities follow. However, Cuba is ruled by a one party authoritarian system, which will ignore these very controlling rules if they believe the survival of Communist state is threatened. The most famous recent instance is the Vladimiro Roca et al petition [68], where even Vladimiro's status as son of a founder of the Cuban Communist, was not enough to fully protect him."

Charge 11 "# Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications." is an earlier version of charge 12

Charge 10 "# Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications." is the mention former Soviet and present Chinese bases in Cuba " The USSR long after the Missile Crisis had bases in Cuba (e.g. at Bejucal and Bahia Honda), and the Chinese government still maintains a large electronic surveilance presence especially at a base in Havana Province."

Charge 9 "# Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications." is the mention of the apparent defection (checked from two reliable sources) of the son of Vladimir Roca. This insertion reads: " Supporters of the Cuban government will compare the human rights record to the authoritarian rule under the previous US backed regime of Fulgencio Batista, and they argue that the overall current situation would of been far better if it not for U.S. sanctions. They also argue that the electoral system in Cuba today is more democratic than the in most western nations, where the corporate elite hold much political clout. However, these arguments have become even less convincing since the son of Ramiro Valdez, a former high Cuban State Security official now works for US funded Radio Marti."

Charge 8 "# Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications." refers to a tactful restatement of a previous contributors comments on repression in Cuba and reads: "In Cuba political police are generally referred to as La Seguridad del Estado. One could readily infer that all reference to this agency is so discomforting to some Cuban government supporters that it is being systematically erased here."

Charge 7 "# Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications." refers to insertion of mention of a European art exhibit of propaganda art and states: ". Cuban propaganda print art is of the highest quality [69]."

Charge 6 "# Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications." relates to a modification of a tabulation of battle causalities which reads: "At Guisa the still fighting Batista army lost perhaps 200 men, while in the armored train (shades of Trotsky) that Guevara attacked the demoralized Batista army only offered token resistance. Later wars when Castro changed to regular USSR style military tactics caused his forces to have far higher losses. During the Bay of Pigs Invasion Castro's losses were very high, Triay (2001 p. 110) mentions 4,000 casualities; Lynch (p. 148 50X or about 5,000) (as statistics only comparible to Soviet loss ratios at the beginning of WWII). Other sources indicate over 2,200 casualties [70]. In one air attack alone Castro forces suffered 1800 casualities caught on an open causeway in civilian buses and hit by napalm (and thus mostly horribly dead) [71][72] [73]. Thus over 2,000 militia died defending Castro at the Bay of Pigs; and perhaps ten fold that again Cubans were lost in the War in Angola. These statistics are comparable to Soviet loss ratios at the beginning of WWII, and reflect the Eastern Block training these militia were receiving. Despite the fact that he was not involved in the fighting at the Bay of Pigs, the victorious government declared Guevara "a Cuban citizen by birth"; he divorced his Peruvian wife, Hilda Gadea, and married a member of the 26th of July movement, Aleida March.[›]"

Charge 5 "# Anti Castro pov and/or fabrications." is merely the addition of link to a section of another contributor who describes of censorship in Cuba

Charges 3 and 4 "# Section blanking." are merely interrupted editing of a section I introduced. Why I would want to deleted a section that I introduced and wrote, and then promptly rewrote is not explained by accuser.

Charge 2 "Evidence goes back ONLY to mid-January, these type of edits have gone since 15 September [2]. Repeated insertion of anti-Castro propaganda" * Many statements are compleate (sic) fabrications, others are insertion of pov statement/commentary, and yet others are accusations from Cuban dissident websites." Apparently the accuser believes that Cuba "dissidents" do not offer insight and only pro-Castro authors offer valuable information. " Apparently my accuser neglects to visit the web sites used which commonly also include Cuban government web sites.


Charge 1 is most puzzling I merely describe my background which should contribute, not detract, from the discussion. Here I am accused of holding a number of political opinions against Castro. This charge reads: "Anon user is a self described Cuban counter revolutionary, who edits from an anti-Castro point of view. Claims his edits are "merely a penance for my youthful support of Castro in the mountains." [1] The user has made some valuable edits, but has shown no interest in ending his anti-castro campaign, or following NPOV policy --In fact, he takes offense from being asked to stop." It is noted that my accuser aggressively promotes Castro and his "works" commonly without citation.


I have not addressed the question of sound agronomic practice which would seem to indicate that "organic" production cannot long sustained high rates of crop production without good sources of nitrogen, phosphate, potassium and minor essential elements.

Thank you for your kind attention

Sincerely

El Jigüe 2-12-06


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. El Jigüe 2-11-06

[edit] Colle's Comment regarding greenpeace reference

At best, he is taking that of context. The edit makes it seem as if organic farming in Cuba is an unknown state secret, that people can speculate on. Greenpeace is talking about ecological theory, and using Cuba as a base, because it is the BEST example of nation-wide organic farming on the planet! The sentance prior to his quote states, "Without a doubt, the largest-scale and most-studied example of an economically driven shift to organic farming methods is that of Cuba."--Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk 04:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

One might prefer to see statistically tested sustained yield data rather than ecological theory. At present there seems little mention of that. BTW Sentence is spelled with an “e” not an “a” in the penultimate syllable. El Jigüe 2-11-06

[edit] Blanking

The majority of the time blanking is a form of vandalism. However, it would have helped if you actually edited the section instead of blank, then recreate. It would make it easier for the counter vandalism unit to distinguish between a bold edit and straight vandalism.

[edit] Outside view by McClenon

I see evidence of strong POV pushing on both sides. The editor in question has a strong POV against Fidel Castro. So do I. Fourteen-year-old boys should not have to worry about whether the city that they live in will exist the next day because a small-time dictator invited a great power to bring (now-outlawed) intermediate-range missiles into his country. (That does not mean that I am biased. Everyone has a POV.) Many of the passages that the editor altered do appear to me to have been biased in favor of Castro. I have not reviewed all of the edits in question, but some of the edits that are called vandalism are content disputes. However, the editor's response to this RfC provides more than enough proof of the violations of civility that are one of the issues.

I would advise the editor in question of this article to try to change his behavior in two respects. First, create a signed-in identity. Anonymous edits on controversial topics (and Castro is a controversial figure) are often seen as vandalism, even if they are not. Second, read the Wikipedia guidelines on civility and avoiding personal attacks.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 16:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Outside view

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

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

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.