Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2/Evidence/Editing Conduct

On the claim of edit warring by Xenophrenic

I stand accused of edit warring extensively across several articles. I propose that I have not "edit warred," but instead, have merely edited in an environment of opposing opinions, and have followed the editing policies and guidelines while doing so. The guideline, which has recently been made policy, against edit warring makes very clear it is addressing a behavior and an attitude, and not a simple measure of the number of reverts to a page. The only person, to date, to provide evidence alleging that I have edit warred is Heimstern. His evidence? A simple measure of the number of reverts to three pages in a specific time period. I hope I am not misinterpreting this, but:


 * "Edit warring is the underlying behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time." -- WP:Edit war

Heimstern lists 36 edits of mine, made over many months and across several articles, and labels each of them: Xenophrenic reverts. (He lists 37, actually, but the last edit is a duplicate he has been made aware of, but refuses to correct.) He has stripped the edits of their dates, summaries and any context, and displayed them simply as proof. I believe Heimstern has looked only at an edit history listing, and not my behavior, and then formed his incorrect conclusion. I have raised this concern with Heimstern on the evidence talk page, where I explained that many of those edits were made to remove violations of WP:BLP. Heimstern admitted that he saw "...no BLP issue in the reverts in question.", so I described for him in detail several of those violations. He has been curiously silent on that issue ever since.

I hope to prove to the Arbitrators that my editing behavior has been well within both the letter and the spirit of the Wikipedia editing policies. I have copied Heimstern's evidence into the space below, and also reinstated some information that Heimstern considered unimportant (like edit summaries stating, "Removed incomplete source per BLP instructions"). Please take a moment to review my edits with an eye toward my behavior when I made them.

At Vietnam Veterans Against the War

 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (Yes, WP:CITE does say that. Now please do not delete valid citations.)
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (Nicosia citing a source does not preclude others from going to that same source; Fonda was a primary fundraiser, Lane was not, and your source is peppered with other errors)
 * TDC once again adds Mark Lane and removes the source (consecutive edits)
 * Xenophrenic reverts (That source says he contributed fund-raising talents, does not say primary funder)
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (That source says he contributed fund-raising talents, does not say primary funder; added $75,000)

My four preceding edits reinstated source citations I had previously added to the article. TDC deleted these citations (and replaced them with "citation needed" tags), claiming that I couldn't possibly have reviewed 37 year old sources by myself. He also insinuated that I had pulled those citations from source-lists in other books. What kind of logic is that? In violation of WP:AGF, he implied I was lying. As Admin Chaser was informally mediating for us at the time, I immediately forwarded source information to him and requested that he intervene, which he did. It is my opinion that TDC's actions of deleting valid citations, failing to assume good faith, and misstating published information constitutes poor editing practice. Conversely, I sought third party intervention immediately, reconfirmed my sources in the edit summaries, and only reinstated my edits four times over a five day period. I thought I handled it well, despite being called a liar. Xenophrenic 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (Undid revision 153156923 by TDC (talk))

The preceding edit was a simple (Undo) revert, fully justified. TDC deleted about 25% of the article, claiming it was stolen from this three year old website, in violation of copyright. It wasn't, as TDC now knows. Chaser intervened here, too, and told TDC to stop deleting material and use the proper channels instead. TDC submitted it to WP:Copyvio, and they found the content to be cited to published sources and closed the issue. I feel this was a reasonable editing on my part. Xenophrenic 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The real aftermath: There hasn't been a sterile revert or major deletion to the article since the above edits in August. Chaser and Xenophrenic have both made several content edits since then without serious disagreement.

At Mark Lane (author)

 * TDC partially reverts an addition of content by Xenophrenic
 * Xenophrenic reverts (non-vets were present at WSI, but not as producers and organizers after the split between CCI and WSI; made wording clearer)
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (How about you research it, instead of asking me)
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (Again you are confusing CCI with WSI; see talk page for more) this edit by TDC

The preceding three edits of mine, and TDC's corresponding edits, if you look closely, are not straight reverts. We were each juggling the wording around within two sentences, and trying different permutations based on our edit summary feedback. Just tweaking a word or two in an effort to clear up confusion seemed harmless enough, but I still thought it best to open discussions on the talk page here. Please note that I initiated every discussion on that page, and I believe I showed generally good editing behavior. However, TDC showed "confrontational editing" by showing up to revert my first ever edit to this article. This only hours after my edits, and on an article that hadn't been edited for a month. Xenophrenic 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Xenophrenic reverts (partial revert of unsourced material and replaced deleted citation; see talk page) this edit by TDC
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (reverted per talk page)
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (expanded citation description; possible BLP violation?)

The preceding three edits of mine were done primarily to remove unsourced and misrepresented information from this biography of a living person. The changes were numerous enough that I described them in detail on the talk page. Twice. By contrast, TDC's preceding reverts were done without so much as an edit summary, and without a word on the talk page. Xenophrenic 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (If you aren't sure why, you could always check the talk page)
 * TDC again reverts the wording "Ultimately, the WSI was an event..."
 * Xenophrenic reverts (Content and sources are missing without explanation after latest edit; replacing them.) this edit by TDC
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic "expands", restoring some of his wording in the process (expanded section)
 * TDC reverts to the wording "key figure"
 * Xenophrenic reverts (removed redundancies and inaccuracies. Remember, this is a BLP; getting better)

The preceding edits were listed by Heimstern without identifying qualities, except to call them "reverts." If the Arbitrators would look closely, you will see they are only partial reverts, combined with new content that has either been agreed upon, or is being proposed. Heimstern does not mention that these edits are accompanied by extensive discussion on the talk page here. He doesn't mention that what was once a single sentence in a biography is at this point a full headinged section several paragraphs long, with both editors commenting "getting better" in the summaries. I did hold firm on reverting obvious violations of the WP:BLP policy; everything from poorly sourced insertions to egregious falsehoods. Material indicating "Fonda was his girlfriend," to "Lane filmed and distributed a film" of an event, to "he was a key figure in several events." I believe I was editing properly, and with the right attitude. If an Arbitrator sees this differently, I would appreciate the feedback. Xenophrenic 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts ''(You should check Hunt & Nicosia; see talk)

''
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (reverting to restore material deleted without explanation)
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (He was involved in initial org of CCIs Wash DC event, until the split. Rm'ing foreign word per talk, other changes per talk)
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (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)

The preceding four edits were primarily to remove the BLP violations (Lane filmed something; Was a key figure in several...; reattributing Nicosia quotes to Ensign...). In one edit, I did restore some information that was deleted contrary to talk page discussions, and we briefly disagreed about using "claimed" versus "discovered" and "Department of Defense" wording, but settled on using the sources wording. WP:BLP is brutal in its suggested enforcement, suggesting that poor quality material just be removed, even without discussing it when that material is contentious. I still tried to explain the reasoning behind any such removals. Xenophrenic 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Xenophrenic reverts (Removed incomplete source per BLP instructions; tag needs accompanying talk page explanation) TDC's addition of a dispute tag and content: ,
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (Checked Stacewicz, no mention of Lane, removed. Checked tag, no detail of explanation of tag on Talk, removed.)
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (restored content that was deleted without explanation)

The preceding three edits of mine were almost complete, unabashed justified reverts. In those three edits alone, TDC (1) inserted libelous false information cited to an incorrect source. A source, it later turns out, he never even saw. (2) TDC also inserted words into a blockquote, making it falsely appear that it was one large continuous quote. (3) TDC also inserted material cited only to, "B.G. Burkett. Stolen Valor", with no page number to this 700 page volume. (4) TDC also reinserted the false information that Lane filmed, and distributed a film of the WSI event. All this was not only in violation of WP:BLP, but it flew in the face of simple editing decency. Was any of this "contentious" material? In TDC's view, he had just inserted material that implied this living person had traveled overseas to meet with the enemy during wartime; filmed a controversial event, and distributed that film; and received a critical book review (with only the critical part quoted) — so you tell me. Not only was I not edit warring, proper editing behavior demanded that I remove that material. I did. I also removed a "disputed" tag TDC had placed at the top of the whole article because he didn't supply the required explanation on the talk page. I asked him in the edit summaries to provide his reasons for the tag, and when that failed, I even created an outline on the talk page for him to fill in. Xenophrenic 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Aftermath (Heimstern's version): 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 ; however, upon seeing TDC's extensive block log, I determined that a longer block was necessary and blocked him for one week and Xenophrenic for 24 hours . 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.

The real aftermath: TDC tried to report Xenophrenic for "gaming the 3RR" since the rule wasn't technically violated. Heimstern determined that TDC was edit warring and Xenophrenic should also be blocked for repeatedly removing gross violations of WP:BLP from the article as instructed by that policy. Xenophrenic notified Heimstern of his mistake via email; it was ignored. Xenophrenic also notified Heimstern of his mistake via his talk page (which he was particularily eager to archive), and the Unblock request. Heimstern determined that Xenophrenic's edit war history was every bit as long as TDC's 2 RfCs, 2 ArbComs with sanction violations, more than a dozen prior blocks, Vandalism in progress listings and failed mediations. To this day, Heimstern still claims he doesn't understand the BLP violation issues here.

At Winter Soldier Investigation

 * TDC reverts an earlier edit by Xenophrenic (re-adds "allegations of", removed by Xenophrenic here)
 * Xenophrenic reverts and adds a source (source says they gathered to tell what they saw or did, not what they 'allegedly' saw or did; what sense would there be in that)
 * Xenophrenic reverts again after his edit is reverted (Undid revision 163829162 by JobsElihu (talk))
 * TDC reverts

In the preceding two edits of mine, I restore a citation that was mistakenly deleted (repeatedly, because of TDC's and Jobs' blind-reverts). This is also an attempt by TDC to insert the words "allegedly" and "allegations" into the article lede, despite it being contrary to what the source conveys. I tried to explain this in my edit summaries. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Xenophrenic restores the source removed by TDC (added missing citations)

In the one edit above, Heimstern incorrectly describes the sources I added as having been previously removed by TDC. Certainly something TDC would do, but not this time. Heimstern may want to portray this edit as a revert, but it is merely the original addition of much needed source citations. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Xenophrenic reverts (edits per Talk page) this edit by TDC with some changes and says it's "per talk page"
 * TDC reverts (back to "the veterans" and "not extensively covered")
 * Xenophrenic reverts (Edits made as detailed on the talk page) (back to "honorably discharged servicemen" and "largely unmentioned")
 * Xenophrenic reverts to this wording again (partial revert and corrected spelling) after it was changed by Badagnani (note from Xeno: Badagnani didn't "change" anything, this was a simple revert) here
 * TDC wholesale reverts several of Xenophrenic's edits, for example, returning to the "veterans" and "not extensively covered" wording
 * Xenophrenic reverts (discussion of changes has been ongoing, and you are certainly invited to join them)
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (rv deletion of good edits; this is a controversial topic; we discuss, come to concensus, then we make changes, we don't ram them through without any talk)
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (Undid revision 164507622 by TDC (talk) per Talk)
 * Xenophrenic reverts again (Undid revision 164543103 by JobsElihu (talk) rv; rm unsourced inf. on living person) after a revert by JobsElihu
 * TDC reverts to "not extensively covered" again

In the preceding seven edits of mine, implemented over four days, we tried to resolve several content issues that I itemized here on the talk page. Several of the issues were WP:BLP related, concerning Hubbard, Smith and Lane, and were easily sorted out. Other issues were not so easy, and the discussion began to falter. Not wanting it to degrade any further, I went to WP:Protect and begged to have the page temporarily protected. In an effort to portray me as part of the problem, instead of part of the solution, Heimstern will come to this ArbCom and describe the same situation thusly:


 * Aftermath (Heimstern's version): The article was protected as a result of the edit war.

The real aftermath: With TDC, JobsElihu, Badagnani and myself all having reverted within the past 48 hours, and discussions stalling out on the talk page, I went to WP:Protect to seek a remedy. I requested and received a one week protection on the article to motivate us to discuss and reach consensus. This is reasonable editing behavior, is it not? With an itemized list of editing conflicts to resolve, we managed to hammer out solutions to many of the issues. The use of the word "alleged" in the article remains a sticking point, with Xenophrenic and Badagnani on one side of the issue and TDC on the other. (JobsElihu had sided with TDC, but ceased editing after another editor alleged he was a sock of a banned user.) When the protection was lifted, the changes were implemented, and editing conflicts ceased for the most part until the brief flare-up weeks later, as mentioned just below. Throughout the editing disagreements, I always kept discussions going, sought compromise, and respected the WP:3RR. I think I have behaved well within the Wikipedia editing guidelines, but I do see room for improvement. I have since voluntarily imposed a mandatory "discussion" requirement to all my reverts (before this ArbCom case was requested), and I am working on not being so eager to revert a bad edit just because it needs to be reverted.

At Winter Soldier Investigation, zweiter Teil

 * TDC makes an edit, apparently against "POV"
 * Xenophrenic reverts (Undid revision 169671062 by TDC (talk) per talk)
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (Undid revision 169875169 by TDC (talk))
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenophrenic reverts (Undid revision 169904073 by TDC (talk))
 * TDC reverts
 * Xenohphrenic reverts(Undid revision 169931198 by TDC (talk) Per talk)

The preceding four reverts of mine are all identical, and are explained here on the talk page, as noted in the edit summaries. TDC asserted a film debuted at the Cannes Film festival. This is false. TDC further asserts his claim is backed up by the source he provided. This, too, is false. Hence the removal of that information. Since then, TDC has responded on talk and provided sources that indicate the film didn't debut, but was reviewed at Cannes. I inserted that modified information. (Note: TDC also tried to slip in his "allege" words again, without consensus. They were removed pending further discussion.)


 * Aftermath (Heimstern's version): 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.

The real aftermath: Xenophrenic (actual report) reported TDC for 3RR violations on multiple articles during his same editing spree. TDC was blocked for a week as a result of this. Heimstern was concerned that this mechanical, preventative block on an editor that had just violated 3RR on multiple articles at the same time might not have been equitable. He sent a note to the blocking admin encouraging equal treatment for Xenophrenic, who had not violated 3RR; wasn't even involved in TDC's other article edit wars. The blocking admin removed all blocks.