Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2

Case Opened on 17:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration, and report violations of remedies at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Requests for comment

 * There have been no Requests for Comment regarding any party to date. Below-linked is other steps in the Dispute Resolution process related to this dispute:
 * Request for Arbitration (first case).
 * Mediation Cabal case.
 * Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents discussion.

Statement by TDC
I don’t believe that this arbitration is warranted. I proposed several remedies over at ANI that would end any editing conflicts on the articles mentioned above, dead in their tracks. I also do not think this is warranted because the other editor involved, user:Xenophrenic, is a sockpuuet of another user (yet to be clearly determined who that user is but obviously a sockpuppet), and no one, except for him naturally, disagrees with that. Holding me to the same level of scrutiny as a disruptive WP:SPA, and unconditionally providing that SPA with a forum is madness.

I also do not believe that ArbCom has the authority at this time to hear this case as there has been no consensus to file. After reviewing the ANI posting, the opinion was not to take this to arbitration, but to find another avenue to settle this issue.

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Xenophrenic
I came here all fired up with a statement to defend myself against charges of edit warring. Now I see by the statements of three other involved parties that edit warring isn't the real issue. Heimstern suggests the edit warring issue wouldn't require ArbCom attention, if not for a more "complex" issue. Chaser also suggests the edit warring isn't an ArbCom issue, but alludes to an "other bad blood" issue. TDC also feels the edit warring doesn't warrant ArbCom attention, saying he could easily stop the wars "dead in their tracks," but he mentions another issue instead.

My turn now. I'm am going to agree with the other three parties that this issue of edit warring doesn't rise to the level requiring ArbCom attention. Heimstern says we, "have been edit warring for quite some time at various articles," when in fact we have not. At the VVAW article, we each made about 20 competing edits over a two month period, then Chaser intervened, mediated, edited and built consensus, and neither TDC nor I have returned to that article in the past month. On the Lane article, we made about 30 competing edits each, and spent a lot of time on the talk page itemizing and hashing out every conflict we had. We resolved the issues (with some help from the Mediation Cabal on the last issue), and neither TDC nor I have returned to that article in the past month. TDC and I are presently editing the WSI article, and discussing some of our conflicts on the talk page, but it's been a bumpy road. I have requested and received a week long page protectionand also a 3RR editing block when I felt there was too much reverting and too little consensus-building. Progress is slowly being made.

The real issue: TDC's persistent accusations of sock puppetry and related harassment. This is a serious user conduct issue. Since I first started editing here, TDC has accused me of being an IP-user in an old ArbCom case, or a sock puppet of that user. He has also accused me of being User:Reddi, or a sock puppet of Reddi. He has also accused me of being a sock puppet of some yet to be revealed person known only to him. On talk page discussions, he disruptively refers to me as Anon or Reddi or Rob or Mr. Redding or anything other than my editing name. He even created an attack page containing insults and offering monetary rewards to Wikipedians that provide him with more fodder for his accusation tirade. Several Administrators immediately admonished TDC and speedy-deleted his creation. I mean, come on! Now other users are coming out of the woodwork, claiming they, too, are being falsely accused of sock puppetry by TDC during editing disputes with him. There is much more, but based on the above information alone I am urging the ArbCom to accept this case. Please have TDC present all of his sock puppet conspiracies for your review, determine their merit, and then explain how they justify his harassment and edit warring. I believe such a review would go a long way toward quelling current or future conflicts.

Xenophrenic 23:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Heimstern
TDC and Xenophrenic have been edit warring for quite some time at various articles: Winter Soldier Investigation, Mark Lane (author) and Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The edit warring lasted for days at times, for example, in late August and early September at Mark Lane (author). The first arbitration case on this topic concerned TDC and an anonymous editor known as 165.247.xxx; this checkuser request suggests that Xenophrenic is likely the same as the anonymous editor in this case. After seeing a recent three-revert rule report against TDC, I brought this to the incident noticeboard in the hopes of pursuing a community sanction, but the discussion has been unproductive. Several allegations and denials make this case complex: TDC accuses Xenophrenic of being a sockpuppet, which Xenophrenic denies. Xenophrenic, furthermore, denies being the same editor as the anon in the original arbitration case, though few others seem to believe him. In short: I feel this case is too complex for community sanctions and that the Committee should determine a proper solution to this problem.

Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept to consider the behavior of everyone involved. Kirill 03:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. I think an in depth review of the situation is needed. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Decorum
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited.  Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Editorial process
2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The dispute centers around the Winter Soldier Investigation and related topics.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

TDC and Xenophrenic
2) and  have engaged in sustained edit-warring on topics involved in this dispute.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

TDC restricted
1) is subject to an editing restriction for one year.  He is prohibited from editing any page related in any way to the Winter Soldier Investigation, broadly interpreted.  Should he do so, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Xenophrenic restricted
2) is subject to an editing restriction for one year.  He is prohibited from editing any page related in any way to the Winter Soldier Investigation, broadly interpreted.  Should he do so, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
1.1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2.

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
 * 1) User:TDC edited Talk:Phoenix Program‎, . Blocked for 48 hours. —  Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reduced to 24 hours for first offense and reasonable misunderstanding as to scope. Thatcher 20:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)