User talk:Xenophrenic/Archive

Mediation
I have decided to take your case at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-07 Mark Lane (author). I would like a short statement from you-- Phoenix 15 13:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you willing to include the info if another source is found? No matter how unlikely it is that a source will be found, I can close the case if you agree-- Phoenix 15 19:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From the Mediation page located here, you will please note:
 * User:Xenophrenic is requesting a second, independent source be located to support the information User:TDC would like to insert into a Biography of a Living Person.
 * Let's try to find a second independent source that supports Scott's incorrect statement. Xenophrenic 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Got a second source?
 * Find a source other than Scott. Xenophrenic 02:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion 3: Come up with a second independent source.
 * Find a second source showing Lane produced and distributed such a film, and then you can mention it in his biography.
 * Just find a second source, Cudgel.
 * I'm sorry, I forgot the question. Could you please repeat it? Xenophrenic 08:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR
I would advise you to revert yourself at WSI, or you will be blocked. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. I would advise you to avoid inserting your own speculations and conclusions into articles, and stick to adding only verifiable sourced information, or your additions will be edited mercilessly. Xenophrenic 00:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While I have held that you have not violated the terms of the three revert rule and decided not to block you, please do not think that continually reverting is an acceptable way of editing. The Winter Soldier Investigation is a highly controversial subject and it is very important to maintain strict neutrality when writing about it; if you need guidance from neutral people, there are plenty of us about. Please take care not to become disruptive when you are editing; Wikipedia is not a contest. Sam Blacketer 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course I haven't violated WP:3RR. I also do not "continually revert," and you'll notice I have let previously reverted edits stand pending further discussion -- long before you arrived on my talk page.  It appears you have taken but a cursory glance at this situation, and shot from the hip in a predictable (and totally inappropriate) manner.  Should you find yourself with some extra time, may I recommend that you look a little further into the edits upon which you comment, and provide me with some useable guidance? Xenophrenic 00:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. In deprecating reverting as a method of editing I was commenting generally, and I would not dream of making the provocative remark "If the cap fits...". It's normally best not to assume that other editors are making accidental edits, even if you can't understand them or think their edit is unconstructive. It is perfectly good editing practice to ask politely what they meant and to revert if you do not receive a reply. Sam Blacketer 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I had to force myself to assume the other editor's edit was "accidental."  It's normally best to provide source citations, not delete them, and it is normally best to avoid inserting weasel word conclusions without a reliable source, such as "alleged."  Just a couple of polite reminders, since they were apparently overlooked when you were commenting on the above edits and reverts.  I won't be expecting a response, of course. Xenophrenic 00:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree with many of the comments above. Wikipedia does not take sides and, as it has been written, much of the wording in the Winter Soldier article seems to take the position that the claims have been proven, when they have not.  There has been a lot of work put into the project and it is admirable work, but that does not mean that Wikipedia should take sides and write the article as if every thing that is alleged is true.  If it is an allegation then the article needs to say that it is an allegation.--JobsElihu 07:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is an allegation then the article needs to say that it is an allegation? Not exactly.  If a reliable secondary or tertiary source says it is an allegation, then the article can say it is an allegation; accompanied by all necessary source citations, of course.  Xenophrenic 08:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. If something is an allegation then it needs to say that it is an allegation.  Have you ever heard of defamation laws?--JobsElihu 14:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest 3RR report
When involved in an editing dispute, it is best to avoid simply updating your version and ignoring the change made by others, which is what you seem to have done here. I do not accept your statement that you asked what JobsElihu meant and then reverted when you did not get a reply; you were in constant communication with him on his talk page and on the article talk page. Reverting after that is provocative unless you have come to an agreement, and you had not arrived at agreement.

You may not have broken the three revert rule but reverting can still become disruptive; and disruptive editing can lead to being blocked even if you do not actually break the 3RR. You have been able to collaborate with TDC to improve the sourcing of the article; you sometimes need to steel yourself to work with other people who have a different attitude. Sam Blacketer 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I wish to thank you for spending the time and effort to look into this matter. All of the advice and cautions you have provided are solid in their own right, and they are appreciated.  However, once again I must disagree with a couple of your assertions, and I hope you will hear me out on this.


 * I agree 110% that when involved in an editing dispute, it is best to avoid simply updating your version and ignoring changes made by others. A good example would be this edit by TDC.  Notice how his edit inserts dead links back into the article, deletes citations and removes punctuation, etc?  These are clear signs that he has ignored changes made by others.  His edit summary says misleadingly (here's the page #), which is another clear sign.  Now let's take the example of mine you said caused you some concern.  My edit, like TDCs, has numerous changes as well, so I direct readers to the Talk page for further explanation with this edit summary: (edits per Talk page).  Looking through the changes made in my edit, you'll see I removed a dead link that was discussed on the Talk page.  You will also see I removed the footnote pointer to that dead link.  Per discussions on the Talk page, I discovered citations and punctuation were deleted accidently by JobsElihu, so I replaced them.  Another edit summary, (a soldier is not an airman is not a sailor and is not a Marine), expressed concern with the word "soldier", so I replaced it with the more appropriate word, "serviceman."  Far from "ignoring changes made by others," I integrate my changes with them.  I think if you look closer at the edit of mine that you mentioned, you will see that you have mischaracterized it.


 * My recent edit has also removed the word "allegations" (again) from the article, per the Talk page discussion with JobsElihu. He expressed his position that he wanted that word in the article, and I in return said that's fine, as long as cited sources support it. (A fundamental Wikipedia rule.)  We have communicated several times since then about politics and the article without going back to that item, so I removed those words from the article pending source citations.  You called it provocative to revert without coming to an agreement, and again I feel you have mischaracterized my edit.  I thought I was being quite civil, and anything but provocative in our communications.  After all, every editor is already bound by the agreement that when you want to put words into an article, put the source citations in there with them.  Please revisit the edits of TDC, JobsElihu and myself on that article, and tell me which are really disruptive.  Thank you again, Xenophrenic 00:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not good enough to defend yourself against accusations of provocative editing by saying that others are being provocative. I am not able to take sides on the content of the edits. However I am concerned that you are continuing only to update your version and to disregard the fact that other editors still have problems with it.


 * Specifically you have come up to the three revert absolute limit in respect of these three edits:


 * 18:27, 12 October 2007
 * 01:29, 13 October 2007
 * 03:40, 13 October 2007


 * Yes, I have spotted that TDC also has three reverts over the last sentence in the lead paragraph. I will be informing him, but please stay away from reverting the page and continue to discuss on the talk page to try to reach consensus. The reverting on this page is excessive, whoever is doing it. Sam Blacketer 09:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

TDC removal of categories
TDC's removal of two apparently quite appropriate categories, as you present to me, which was done without consensus, seems very, very bad. Badagnani 08:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

War crimes
Can I believe my eyes that User:JobsElihu just stated that no war crimes of any sort were committed by any side during the entirety of the Vietnam War--and that no one in the world seriously believes that even one war crime was committed during that war? I'm really speechless about this. Perhaps he means that no war crimes were successfully prosecuted in the Hague? But that would be a fairly stringent interpretation, and I would guess that he wouldn't be in favor of such a world body. In any case, in comparing the verifiable actions of U.S. soldiers to the Geneva Conventions, one can certainly arrive at a consensus that the "allegations" are not allegations, but fact--no matter how many long paragraphs JobsElihu posts stating that they never happened. Badagnani 18:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

JobsElihu aka Getaway aka Keetoowah
I'm sorry you've had to deal with this abusive editor. Apparently, judging from his edit summaries and generally unhinged behavior, JobsElihu is a sockpuppet creation of Getaway (who was himself a sockpuppet of temporarily banned user Keetoowah), who apparently has created this sock account a few days after being called out for incivility here. To make a long story short, the guy has a ton of blocks for 3RR, sockpuppetry, and abusiveness, and his edit summaries are similarly unhinged. You'll also find plenty of overlap; both accounts seems obsessed with Sam Brownback. I'm going to inform the relevant admins about this, but I just wanted to give you a heads up. Cheers. --Eleemosynary 14:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this user here at WP:AN/I, but he never responded. I noted in that complaint that he demonstrated a curiously advanced knowledge of Wikipedia editing syntax and rules, for a 2-week old user.  You might want to add BballJones to the puppet list, as noted on this page.  Looking at the other user names you provided, I see a common interest in editing Jenna Bush, Clarence Thomas and various Talk Radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and Randi Rhodes.  If you initiate a RfC or RfA, let me know; I may wish to add a comment.  You should probably start with a check user as a foundation.  Good luck, Xenophrenic 21:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thread concerning you at WP:ANI
This is to inform you that I've started a discussion concerning your and TDC's actions here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
I have opened a request for arbitration that lists you as a party. You may make a statement there. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny  17:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

2007/2008
I must have meant 2008. You can re-check the source to make sure. A second pair of eyes is always good! Badagnani 22:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2
The above Request for Arbitration has now closed and the final decision is available at the above link. Both you and User:TDC are prohibited from editing pages related to the Winter Soldier Investigation. Should you violate this restriction, you may be blocked for the duration specified here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny  20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Back
I see you've returned after 12 months, and that the sanctions from Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2 have expired. Your initial edits are of a concern given the circumstances it would prudent to discuss concerns first before making edits to the Winter Soldier Investigation, I ask that you self revert and raise your concerns on the article talk page. Gnangarra 08:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the welcome! I hope the past year has treated you well, and I'd like to thank you for your efforts in attempting to sort out the tangled mess that became the above mentioned ArbCom case.  Your efforts were appreciated.


 * I do not understand your concerns, or your reference to circumstances. An admin in that case thought he saw edit warring by me, but it was  shown to be appropriate editing of BLP content after all.  My edits were to correct BLP violations, and please note that this was never refuted.  Every single edit I made still exist now, a year later.  As for the only edit warrior in that case, he violated his sanctions and is now indefinitely blocked for (what a surprise): BLP violations, edit warring and abusive sock-puppetry.


 * You asked me to raise my editing concerns on the article talk page. I always have; I always do, Gnangarra, even with my most recent edit, but it does not appear that you noticed.  Xenophrenic (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I had noticed the comment on the talk page that you had removed the text. During the recent ARBCOM elections I ask a number of the candidates what an editor needs to do in their eyes to build good standing after they had been sanctioned, they all said that sanction editors should exercise restraint and discuss first then edit. Additionally they said that editors would also benefit from broadening the areas they edit. If at any time you would like to discuss issues your welcome to drop a note on my talk page or email me, if you think a problem is arising on an article I'm happy to have an outside look. Gnangarra 05:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You asked a good question, but the candidates didn't give you a very good answer. Exercising restraint, discussing edits and broadening areas of interest are recommended for any editor to build good standing.  As for sanctioned editors in particular, they need to go beyond those standard efforts and address the behavior for which they were sanctioned, in my opinion.  It seems logical that if a certain behavior causes a loss of standing, then ceasing or reversing that behavior would be the best way to recover that standing.  This highlights the need for ArbCom to take special care to ensure the recipients of its sanctions are fully aware of why they have been sanctioned.


 * Unfortunately, that is not what happened in the above mentioned ArbCom case. The sanction against me was for edit warring, as supposedly indicated by the diffs provided by the complaining admin.  Upon closer examination of those diffs, it was shown that those edits did not constitute edit warring after all.  Those edits were required by policy, and shown to be in compliance with Wikipedia BLP.  When this was proven, the originating admin fell silent, and didn't refute.  In plain words, Gnangarra:  I wasn't edit warring, but I received sanctions for it anyway, so I just chalked it up to ArbCom being ArbCom (I hear I'm far from the only victim).  So you'll understand why I feel no motivation to change any of my editing behavior, and I wouldn't have a clue what to change if I did.  If any of the voting Arbs in that case, or the originating admin, would like to discuss this issue, they are welcome to drop a note on my talk page or email me.  Otherwise, I will just carry on and hope the new ArbCom (with its new blood this month) works to build good standing with me.  Cheers, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)