Further evidence[edit]

I have not presented all available evidence of edit warring by the parties of this case, but it looks to me like I'm at or maybe even past my word limit. If the committee wishes to read more of this evidence, let me know and I'll add it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may need to gather up the remainder of your evidence, at least as it pertains to me. While my editing practices are far from perfect, preliminary review of what you have presented thus far leads me to believe you will fall short of substantiating your claim that I "frequently engaged in sustained edit-warring." I would appreciate it if you could lay all of your concerns on the table for a complete airing, regardless of space constraints. If I am going to learn anything from this process, I think it would be best if you aren't holding anything back. TIA, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant enough for prime time: Background on Xenophrenic[edit]

I did not come to Wikipedia as a clueless newbie. I have edited on several Fan and Gamer wikis; less structured and more hormone-driven editing than here due to the youthful demographic, but I do have basic editing skills. I've been communicating online since the days when Compuserve was king, and their Forums on a multitude of topics were the premier repository of publicly accessible information. Yes, odds are I am older than you. I live on the West Coast, USA; I'm a political moderate; university educated; married, and my family will not stand for me spending too much free time on this project.

I am impressed with Wikipedia. It pops up with increasing frequency through all aspects of my everyday computer usage, whether browsing, conducting research or doing queries. I have found it exceptionally useful on numerous occasions, but I have never been motivated enough to "give back" to the project as an editor until recently. Through a confluence of events, I became interested enough to make edits to the VVAW article. Ironically, after reviewing talk page discussions about the article, my first inclination was to edit from a position counter to one of the Earthlink editors, since I thought I disagreed with the quality of some of the content s/he provided. After creating an account and making a couple false starts at trying to edit, I shelved the task until I could do more research. When I eventually did return, and after discovering it wasn't the Earthlink users content I had trouble with, I selected this account name and made an edit. An easy one: I took out a couple unsourced sentences that were directly counter to the information I had just read in the talk pages. I had taken the plunge! Then I realized there was more unsourced content, and content that had been disputed, etc. It would be a few more weeks of research, source collection and talk page review before I would edit again, but edit I did.

The preceding is not pointless narrative. It is in response to several questions asked of me in public and private, and also in response to several assertions made in relation to this case. It isn't exactly Evidence Page material, so I stuck it here for now. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Heimstern's evidence; Mark Lane (author)[edit]

Note in advance: this is not a case being made against Heimstern. I will be questioning several actions by Heimstern, but only as part of my defense. While I disagree with his methods, when all is said and done, I still believe he was trying to act in the best interests of the Wikipedia project.

Heimstern has listed 17 nondescript edits, and labeled them simply as "Xenophrenic reverts." He followed that with an "Aftermath" summary stating he blocked me for edit warring. Just reading it made me feel like apologizing, but it also confused me. I know I have never intentionally "edit warred," and I find it hard to believe I could have done so accidently. But 17 reverts in a row? I checked the dates and found they were actually 17 reverts over 17 days, with other edits interspersed. That made me feel better, but that was still a considerable number of reverts. I looked closer at the omitted Edit Summaries for clues as to why I had made those reverts. (Bold emphasis mine):

  • (removed redundancies and inaccuracies. Remember, this is a BLP; getting better)
  • (you have inserted a false cite to Ensign quotes; they don't exist there; quit hiding the fact antiwar orgs sponsored these events, you can't escape it)
  • (Removed incomplete source per BLP instructions; tag needs accompanying talk page explanation) (undo)
  • (Checked Stacewicz, no mention of Lane, removed. Checked tag, no detail of explanation of tag on Talk, removed.)

This article is a WP:BLP. The subsection of this BLP edited by TDC and Xenophrenic can be considered contentious, so special care must be taken. This also accounts for the higher number of reverts:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles...

— WP:BLP

I also looked at the last three ten reverts I made just before Heimstern blocked my account for edit warring. All three ten of them were reverting previously described violations of BLP, several at a time, along with minor edits tucked in with them. I had pointed this out on my request for unblocking and also Heimstern's talk page, but he has yet to acknowledge his error. Of the 17 reverts of mine Heimstern strings together, most, 14 of 17 in whole or in part, address severe BLP issues. Against advisement, I even tried to discuss these issues with TDC on the talk page. I think Heimstern is of the opinion, "It takes two to tango" when it comes to edit warring. I disagree. It is possible one side could be "warring" while the other side is bending over backward to edit responsibly. I was the first to open discussion on the talk page, and I encouraged TDC to join. When a dispute tag was repeatedly added to the article without explanation of the dispute, (over and over again), I even created a section and outline for him to explain why. I did everything but take dictation and fill in the blanks for him. I maintained an assumption of good faith, even after TDC got busted when he told me a bald-faced lie about his claimed reliable source.

Heimstern, I will be taking your allegation that I "frequently engaged in sustained edit-warring" very seriously. While I can't stress this enough: This isn't a case about you, it will be necessary for me, in my defense, to express my feelings that:

I will be carefully going through each of the diffs you provided thus far and trying to determine if they were proper under editing policy and guidelines, or if I inadvertently overstepped the boundaries in my zeal to improve those articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have little to say to this except that your claims that I am being misleading and unfair are exaggerated. As for diffs without edit summaries or dates: the arbitrators are easily intelligent enough to read these in the edits, and so it hardly seemed necessary to me. The rant on my userpage was not, in fact, targeted at you; rather, the situation with you and TDC was simply the last straw that caused me to go on this rant (it would never have happened had there not been similar situations beforehand). As for the links to the 3RR report and the archived talk page discussion, I simply grabbed the first links I could find (these are peripheral to my main point, and I wasn't really expecting these parts to scrutinzed closely, anyway), with no intention of telling the exact story, just the gist. I used these links primarily as an explanation of my own actions. At any rate, it is the diffs that I mean as the bulk of my evidence, and it is these that I hope the arbitrators will closely scrutinise. I will also add that I still see no BLP issue in the reverts in question. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is it, Heimstern? Did you leave out the information that disproves your point because you figure the Arbitrators are "intelligent enough" to scrutinize it on their own? Or did you leave out the information that disproves your point because you were NOT expecting the Arbitrators to scrutinize your information? You have said both in your paragraph above. It doesn't matter; I understand you will present just the evidence necessary to support your position, and in the best possible light. I think every party will, to some extent. All I am saying is don't take it personally when I shine a light on the information you have omitted. I can't depend on the Arbitrators looking it up for themselves any more than I can depend on Administrators to actually look into an edit just because it is labeled "Removed incomplete source per BLP instructions." If the point you are trying to make is, "Xenophrenic frequently engages in sustained edit warring, and should receive sanctions as if he has been sanctioned by ArbCom before," then facts that counter you are anything but peripheral to your point. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following material has been inserted, reinserted (or reverted back into existence) in the Mark Lane (author) article in violation of WP:BLP. Most of this is discussed on the article talk page, but I will describe some of them again for you here:
  • Lane collaboration with VVAW did not end with his involvement in the Detroit Winter Soldier hearings in Detroit, he later joined forces with VVAW again, when he along with Fonda and Mike Hunter of VVAW traveled to Paris in March of 1971 where they met with representatives of the North Vietnamese government. (ref)Richard Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers: An Oral History of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, New York: Twayne Publishers,pg 284(/ref) This citation was discovered to be intentionally fabricated. Removed repeatedly in reverts: 15, 16, 17
  • Lane filmed the event and arranged for its distribution keeping a low profile during the actual hearings, relieving those were worried about his sinking reputation. (ref) By Wilbur Scott. Politics of Readjustment: Vietnam veterans since the war, pg 19(/ref) or disguised as Origins of The International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies which also references Scott. This information is false, and the source(s) (all traced back to Scott) is unreliable and of poor quality. Confirmed through this mediation. Removed repeatedly in reverts: 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17
  • So, a split occurred and the work of organizing national hearings proceeded along two parallel tracks. We at CCI set our sights on a December event in Washington, DC, while the WSI's new organizers continued with the original plan to hold its hearings in Detroit. Fonda had insisted on this obscure venue because she saw it, mechanistically in my opinion, as a way to reach out to blue-collar America. These three sentences were repeatedly inserted into an existing quotation and made to appear as an unbroken continuation of that quote. The words are from the same source, but several paragraphs later. here Removed repeatedly in reverts: 15, 16, 17
  • (ref)B.G. Burkett. Stolen Valor (/ref) Criticisms of Lane's work cited to a 700+ page book with no page number, edition, etc. Noted on talk page; reverted until information provided. Removed in revert 15
  • (Fonda) was Lane's "girlfriend at the time ..." This is a false conclusion or entry not supported by any of the cited sources. Removed in revert: 8
  • Sheehan's book review "...revealed that at least 4 of those interviewed by Lane for the books had either misrepresented their military service, deserted from the military before they were deployed to Vietnam, or had never been in the military at all." This statement is false and misleading, as explained on the talk page. Removed repeatedly in revert: 5, 6, 7 and partially in 8
  • This link has existed as a "source" in the article since before my first visit: Book Review of 'Conversations With Americans' . While it does have a copy of the book review attached, it also has a preface of libelous attacks on Lane preceding it. It was addressed first in revert 6, and removed in subsequent reverts -- replaced with a direct citation to the newspaper article, minus the smears on Lane.

(More in a few... Xenophrenic (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

To clarify: I expect the arbitrators to closely scrutinise the diffs I've given. But things such as 3RR reports seem to me to be side issues, as what matters is the edit war that led to the 3RR report. That's why I said I wasn't expecting them to be scrutinised. I have not deliberately left out any important information, and certainly am not omitting information because I want the Arbs not to see it. However, it is perfectly possible that I am ignorant of important information, or that I'm deeming information to be unimportant that you feel is important. People will always disagree on what is important, and of course there's no way for me to know every last detail of this case. That's why you are free to add whatever important things you think I've omitted in your section. I can tell you that I have added the evidence I consider important to the case and have not deliberately omitted info just because I think it damages my point. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for attempting to clarify. You can see where the confusion arose: You provided links to edits, reports, and conversations as evidence. With no special instructions from you to the Arbitrators as to which evidence they should scrutinize, and which evidence they could gloss over, you stated they might do either. I understand you feel some of your evidence "matters," and some of the evidence is merely "side issues," but on the evidence page, it is all presented with apparent equal weight and no special delineation. I would rather the Arbitrators scrutinize all evidence in thorough detail, regardless. In a perfect world, I would rather all parties present complete evidence rather than leave stuff out as side issue information that doesn't matter, while assuming the Arbitrators will feel the same way about it. With that said, I have the following special requests to make of you:
(1) Would it be too much to ask of you to re-insert my discussion comments in to your talk page archive, at least while you have linked to that discussion as evidence, and until this arbitration case is closed? I feel it will soon matter.
(2) Could you please delete the last two links under your evidence header: At Winter Soldier Investigation, zweiter Teil? They are duplicates of your 6th and 7th links under your At Winter Soldier Investigation header. I am sure the duplication is accidental, but you will understand that I feel this is more misleading evidence presentation.
(3) Your 9th link under the WSI header is described as, "Xenophrenic reverts to this wording again after it was changed by Badagnani here." Badagnani did not make any changes in that edit. It was a simple full revert by Badagnani, and should be described that way, rather than imply s/he had made actual changes to the article. Could this be corrected?
(4) You linked to an initial first draft of a report I filed at WP:3RR, stating: "Xenophrenic reported TDC for a three-revert rule violation." The actual full report, before you noticed it (I believe), actually contained two reports about TDC. Could I request that you either correct the link to display the actual report, or alternatively, correct your description to reflect you are linking to half the report?
(5) Finally, could I ask you to please clarify and expand upon the reasoning behind your block of Xenophrenic that you cited here. I am please that you went "through the history of the article carefully," but as I have done so also, I am confused as to your finding that Xenophrenic was guilty of edit warring. I understand "blocking" to be a preventative action, not a punative action, but then I am not an Administrator. The statements you make when dealing with blocks, "I was concerned that the treatment was not equitable" and "Instead, I unblocked TDC, believing it to be the most equitable thing to do", indicate to me that you view blocking as a punishment to be meted out "equitably," instead of mechanically to stop warring. Anyway, I am trying to locate the specific edits I made that support your "block for edit warring." Was it my reverts of gross WP:BLP violations, my removal of challenged material that was unsourced, or a combination of both? Your help in identifying the specific edits supporting that block would be greatly appreciated. They don't appear to be listed among the diffs you provided on your evidence page. Xenophrenic 22:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic as the Anon[edit]

Thanks to Chasers inadvertent cc’ing me on an email to Xenophrenic (which he still has not apologized for, but a fortunate mistake none the less for me), I can present additional evidence that Xenophrenic is the anon user from the prior arbitration case. Although one is a homtail account and the other is a yahoo account, the email address of the anon from the prior Arbcom and Xenophrenic are nearly identical and fairly peculiar in their choice of names. The names, by the way, are also what led me to suspect user:Reddi as the puppeteer. If any of the arbiters would like a private email, with the evidence, let me know. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More