To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 07:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC).
![]() | Despite what others have stated here, the purpose of RFC/U is to have a discussion regarding a particular user and to try and arrive at some sort of voluntary solution. It is not an opportunity to repeatedly attack that person, nor is it appropriate to drag political or philosophical disagreements into content disputes. Unfortunately it is all to clear that all these things are present in this RFC. Even the request for closure contained divisive statements. This whole process looks more like two "camps" pitted against one another than a rational discussion of one users's behavior.
|
This matter concerns Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs · logs)
Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. ALL signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
The point of this WP:RFC/U is twofold. First, to clearly define and show, with evidence, the problems that the community indicated User:Xenophrenic demonstrates in his edits and discussions on Wikipedia. The second propose is for Xenophrenic to acknowledge the problems of the community and indicate a willingness to change. For any problems that are not there, all other editors should also acknowledge that. The purpose of WP:RFC/U is not to provide any penalty for Xenophrenic, as that is beyond the scope of WP:RFC/U. It is merely to help define the problem, if there is a problem. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 07:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Xenophrenic's behavior has been brought up as part of the ArbCom case for Tea Party movement. However, his behavior stretches across several years and several articles related to U.S. politics. I first encountered this behavior at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in 2009. Generally speaking, he is a POV-pusher for a progressive POV. It is as though he's trying to remake Wikipedia into an opposition research database for Democratic Party political operatives to use, while preventing its usefulness for that purpose to members of other parties and political groups. He adds negative material to articles about conservative political figures and organizations, no matter how trivial or irrelevant it might be, or how much it employs fallacies such as guilt by association; and he removes negative content about progressive political figures and organizations. He achieves these goals by being tendentious, and by using edit warring to a limited extent (particularly the slow edit war technique, or tag teaming). Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 07:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Any Editor: Please provide any evidence here. Will work on formatting the evidence as it builds.
Note: This evidence only covers the past 79 days of Xenophrenic's editing at Wikipedia (March 9 to May 27). It is presented as a representative sample of Xenophrenic's editing at Wikipedia, dating back four years to 2009, when I first encountered him at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and at articles related to Ward Churchill. This particular 79-day period comes at a time when Xenophrenic already knew he was under scrutiny due to a conduct-based thread at WP:ANI, as well as the ArbCom investigation regarding the Tea Party movement article. One would think that with both community-based and ArbCom-based spotlights shining on him, Xenophrenic would be on his best behavior during this 79-day period. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 17:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I note that below, User:Casprings has cited an ANI thread in which "there was no community support [for a topic ban] or much problem seen with Xenophrenic's editing." That ANI thread was limited to Tea Party movement and was dated February 26, 2013. Also, Casprings has claimed that Xenophrenic is a party to the ArbCom proceeding. That is a false statement, since Xenophrenic is not listed among the named parties. [14] I will focus on Xenophrenic's efforts on Tea Party movement (a conservative political organization) and related pages since February 26, 2013 as well as his efforts on unrelated articles under the U.S. politics umbrella. The latter inquiry may go back a lot farther than February 26, 2013 since those articles were beyond the scope of the ANI thread. — Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 23:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Xenophrenic has been editwarring and POV-pushing in favor of a progressive POV on a broad range of articles related to U.S. politics, beyond his involvement in Tea Party movement and related articles. This involved removing negative content and terminology about progressive organizations and public figures, while adding negative content and terminology about conservative organizations and public figures:
Malke 2010: "Arguments over petty, silly 'news' items such as an incident in Maryland where a man claimed his outdoor barbecue grill was sabotaged by tea party members because he was an Obama supporter. Xenophrenic fought like crazy for that and anytime it got deleted, he put it right back. ... Goethean's and Xenophrenic's arguments and edit wars today are the same ones they had back in 2010. Goethean violates WP:PA and exhibits tendency towards WP:OWN. Xenophrenic violates WP:TE. The same sections, the same edits. Over and over. In the meantime, the article has not improved ..."
North8000: "The inevitable proximate finding will be that Xenophrenic primarily and Geothean secondarilyy have dominated the article via TE and prevented its Wikification. ... In each case the end result was that [disputed content] stayed in, and the result was determined by not by a decision but by whichever editor or set of editors was most relentless. And two editors (Xenophrenic and Goethean) have been controlling the result of the above and many other areas in the article via this method. ... Xenophrenic's large number of edits (#2 on the list) with a high proportion of those being reversals in disputes, they have more than anyone determined what is or isn't in the article. ... a look at the disputes and how they have ended up clearly shows that the dominant editing force in determining the article content on these has been Xenophrenic, backed up by Goethean at key moments."
North8000's ANI thread regarding Xenophrenic's tendentious editing: [81]
Darkstar1st:
Xenophrenic is attempting to insert "anti-immigration" into the Tea Party movement article as well as the term "nativism." Part of that discussion then lead to the following exchange:
North8000 comments on Xenophrenic’s use of “anti-immigration” instead of the relevant “anti-illegal immigration.” [85]
Malke responds here: [86] and here: [87]
Xenophrenic replies: [88]
Malke responds: [89]
Xenophrenic replies: [90]
Malke responds: [91] Xeno [92]
Malke responds and corrects part of her edit [93]
Xenophrenic misinterprets Malke’s correction [94]
Malke explains [95]
Xenophrenic insists [96]
Arthur Rubin then commented that the exchange was an example of Xenophrenic’s tendentious editing: [97] “. . . I should add that now there is strong evidence toward Xenophrenic's tendentious editing in intentionally disregarding the obvious meaning of Malke's comments (in the "anti-immigration" section) in favor of an absurd interpretation. . . Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Xenophrenic then edit warred in response: [98] and again [99] and again [100]. [101]
Xenophrenic then went to Arthur Rubin’s talk page: [102] Not satisfied, he went to ANI: [103]
{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, 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.)
Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.
I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to comment at this RFC/U. After reading the "Desired outcome" statement, I hoped this would be a great opportunity for some self-reflection and personal growth and improvement. The sheer volume of "evidence" produced at this page encouraged me that there would certainly be plenty of information I could use to help me make some constructive changes. So I dove in...
As I began to read through the compiled evidence, however, a disturbing trend started to emerge. I started seeing discrepancies in the "evidence" - it wasn't supporting what was being said about me. I decided to review every single diff and compare what was supposedly being shown with what was actually being shown. The contrast was startling.
The discrepancies in the evidence were numerous, so many that I decided to make some brief notes about each item of evidence. Sometimes they were little issues, like claiming "you reverted 3 times in 10 hours" when it was over 3 days, or "you removed a reliable source because it was critical" when I had only removed a redundant copy, but left the original intact. Other times there were gross distortions of truth. Since I am not allowed to comment in the evidence section here, I've copied the evidence to a sandbox and added comments in green text, located here. I invite interested editors to review the evidence along with my associated comments, both sides of the story as it were, and come to your own informed determination. Does the evidence show tendentious editing, POV-pushing and severe problematic behavior, or does it show good faith editing toward a neutral point of view along with normal interactions, disagreements and discussions?
My summary observations:
Xenophrenic ( talk) 18:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.
There is neither doubt nor disagreement that User:Xenophrenic is an inveterate POV-pusher with tenacious editing habits. He seeks to make sure that people know how evil the Tea Party movement is, that it is racist, bigoted, homophobic etc. Unfortunately, this runs into WP:NPOV head-on. However, he has the right to delete warnings etc. from his user talk page under Wikipedia policy and guildelines, and that complaint does not really belong in an RfC/U.
Xenophrenic shows his POV in such other articles as Fahrenheit 9/11 [109], on Talk:Tea Party movement where he berates Arthur Rubin with a silly post [110], [111] in the section "Interim remedy expected" which appears to be a bit of a noticeboard rant (Xeno appears to be a dramaboard regular complainant).
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Tea_Party_movement;_looking_for_community_input shows my utter lack of animus here.
The proper result should be for Xenophrenic to acknowledge his problem with following WP:NPOV when making edits on political pages, for him to read up on Dale Carnegie and not to act like Wikipedia is, or ought to be, a battleground of any sort, to understand that we need to look at entire articles, and not seek to add material based on any personal point of view about the topic. And lastly to recognize that WP:CONSENSUS does not mean we end up with perfect articles - it means we end up with collegial agreement to accept stuff we may not really be in love with. Collect ( talk) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I've had an immense amount of interaction with and observation of Xenophrenic. For reasons which I will explain, I LIKE them, but I am also blunt and direct in a hopefully friendly way. These are just my opinions drawn from all of this; feel free to discount or ignore them. I say it as half complaint and half admiration that I consider them to be the most relentless, prolific, effective POV'er with-a-purpose of anyone I've had the occasion to observe in Wikipedia. The efforts I've seen have always been towards the same end of the political spectrum. IMHO they are the person who most comes to mind as the ultimate expert at achieving goals through tendentious editing. The one unique area that comes to mind when I say "relentless", is that this even extends to refactoring, relabeling and rearranging talk page items. The reason I like them is because they seem to have no meanness or nastiness in them, which in my book makes them several levels better than a whole lot of cleverly nasty and harmful people that I routinely see in Wikipedia. Xenophrenic does not "go after" people, they don't try to mis-use Wikipedian systems to "get" people, and are seldom or never really nasty in conversations. I think that this is a part of why they are so effective at doing what I describe above. In them I have also seen glimpses of a desire to prioritize creating quality in articles which gives me hope. I am participating here to help in some leaning on Xenophrenic to modify the behavior in question. This is NOT NOT to get action taken against them. Again, the above is my opinions drawn from history. Feel free to discount or ignore my opinions. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 18:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
There was no community support or much problem seen with user:Xenophrenic editing. There is an ongoing arbitration case in which many editors involved in the WP:RFC/U, including user:Xenophrenic, user: Malke 2010, user:Arthur Rubin, and user:North8000, are parties to. Editors should understand the full nature of this dispute by reviewing the interactions of the editors involved in this dispute. For example, one should should fully review the effort to look for community comment on the Tea Party Movement and the arbitration case the editors are involved in. Casprings ( talk) 18:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
The evidence provided on the Tea Party movement, has already been examined by the Arbitration Committee. As of now, the draft finding of fact for User:Xenophrenic is:
This summary is mostly correct.
Users who endorse this summary:
Unproductive commentary, violates RfC/U guidelines
|
---|
Comments on this summary:
|
The remaining, non-tea party evidence, are examples of good-faith content disputes. There is little or no evidence of a long term problem with edit waring. This is fully shown by user:Xenophrenic, here.
Users who endorse this summary:
I was struck by the first piece of evidence provided by the certifiers above regarding "POV-pushing on other articles related to U.S. politics":
So Xenophrenic removed from a WP:BLP two incarnations of a statement which was unsourced, had a somewhat disparaging tone towards the subject, and was advancing a theory. Insofar (in over a month) none of the editors concerned with the removal of these edits have provided sources for that content. Furthermore, the same certifier berated Xenophrenic [114] for supposedly writing with a POV in between the " Huffington Post and MSNBC". In that paradigm, the certifiers of this RfC/U seem to expect Wikipedia to be Written with a POV resembling WorldNetDaily if not Conservapedia, given how they've managed to state their own views about a couple of US politicians ("most hated") in this very RfC/U... 5.12.68.204 ( talk) 13:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Note 1: "Most hated" was removed [115] [116] after my initial view was posted. 5.12.68.204 ( talk) 16:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Note 2: The certifer has further modified his original statement without changing the timestamp [117] [118]. 5.12.68.204 ( talk) 17:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I see this as by and large being overspill from the stalled Arbcom case on the TPm article. Since I withdrew from the largely partisan "moderated discussion" there, Xenophrenic is basically the lone voice arguing for an NPOV reflecting all points of view found in RS, whereas others have consistently and relentlessly argued to exclude any and all reliably sourced material that could be seen as exposing a negative aspect of the TPm. I don't see that Xenophrenic's behavior has exceeded the general scope of editor interaction on the contentious topic on the moderated discussion page, and since the Arbcom case is pending, I don't see the point of filling this RFC/U now.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I'd like address this from a different angle, if I may. Judging by both the evidence presented against Xeno and his explanations -- What jumps out at me are two things.
Since Xeno would like this RfC to initiate some self-reflection and personal growth and improvement within himself, perhaps he should answer a simple question.
This process originated from the Tea Party Movement, so let's stay there:
Have you made a legitimate effort to improve TPM in both appearance and readability, as an article and more importantly, as an encyclopedic account -- Or, have you focused like a laser on just the controversies section for the purpose of giving negatives their place and most importantly, to prevent a whitewashing of said negatives?
Pretty sure everyone can tell which answer I'd accept as being an honest, self-reflection on Xeno's part.
Herein lies the problem. Xeno's active everyday on Wikipedia. I'm sure most would see this as a good thing. But, how many potential editors are dissuaded by his unsavory behavior? Me being one. †TE† Talk 00:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Here Xenophrenic requested i be topic banned at ANI, but gave no reason, nor difs, even after being asked by an admin [119]. Much like his efforts to stop this rfc/u, Xenophrenic attempts to game the system by using a barrage of edits/actions and walls of text to overwhelm/silence editors who oppose his pov. Darkstar1st ( talk) 07:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Unproductive commentary, violates RfC/U guidelines
|
---|
Comments on this summary:
|
The certifiers' evidence contains:
The purported reliable source [124], which reads more like a trashing political pamphlet to me, does not even contain the putative quote from Weiner that it was supposed to support. It does contain some other quotes from Weiner, but nothing resembling the text added to Wikipedia. 5.12.68.204 ( talk) 12:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
When there are forums about general behavior, examples can be used to deceive or inform. I consider it immensely important to determine which it is, and all too often this never happens on forums about general behavior. "Deceive" is done by cherrypicking exceptions (sometimes deceptively out of context, or with a spun description). and then essentially implying that the exceptions "show" that the false assertion is true. The "inform" case is when they are used to reinforce an accurate assertion. There are ways to tell them apart. One is by the assessed sincerity and/or established credibility (or lack thereof) of the "asserter". Another is by close objective analysis a large quantity of evidence. A good test is what direction does it go as you objectively look closer and closer and at more examples. Does it go towards bearing out the assertions, or towards showing them to be groundless? This RFC/U should be unhurried and thorough to take the "closer and closer" look. IMHO, this is a case where the evidence informs and supports the general assertions and concerns about behavior expressed. A huge volume of evidence was presented. And IMHO the closer and more thorough the look, the more it supports the expressed concerns. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 21:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I actually posted this at the talkpage first but then realized it is an ouside view that could and should be posted here.
Lots of accusations were made against the RFC/U's subject, Xenophrenic, but the evidence at the project page is little to non, not standing up to the slightest scrutiny. As I pointed out in my endorsing of Xenophrenic's view (Response 1 by Xenophrenic), the examples given by PW are ridiculous, in part false, mostly wrongly declared and not convincing at all as one could take any editor's edits to the same scrutiny and tilt it against them if one chooses so, but that doesn't make them true and only stick if one doesn't take the time to check the accusations made and the links that supposed to back them up. Also blunt accusations were made here on this talk w/o back-up in form of diffs or otherwise which makes me think this is more of a "witch hunt" than a proper RFC/U. Maybe there are some merits to it but so far they were not presented. What was presented are mere opinionated accusations. Unless the addressed points are corrected and true proof of the alleged improper tendency of the subject is added as evidence, this RFC/U has no merit and should be closed rather sooner than later and marked as frivolous and disrupting as it, so far, only used up plenty of time, w/o real cause so far, that could've been used to make constructive edits in article space by all involved/commenting parties, incl. myself. RFC/U's are not there to pick a "random" user editing against ones own point of view in an article where they have a dispute. (Of course I'm talking about the Tea Party which basically triggered the user to file this RFC/U). Also I have to note that almost every endorsement "against" Xenophrenic is made by editors opposed to Xenophrenic's point of view at the Tea party pages/discussions and were canvassed by the initiator. Thank you for those who are truly listening and thinking it thru. TMCk ( talk) 04:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
The evidence further contains:
What Xenophrenic did was to revert the deletion from the lead of the word "controversial" as describing the works of Lewy about genocide. There is a large section in the article detailing how Lewy basically denies that the Armenian genocide took place [126]. If those works of Lewy are not controversial, then how comes Wikipedia has an article called Armenian genocide, when the allegedly uncontroversial works of Lewy say it was not a "real" genocide? (See quote in the article.) 5.12.68.204 ( talk) 21:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Xenophrenic is making interpretations of talk page comments which are unsupportable by anyone who understands basic English. The "evidence" section at #Evidence of tendentious editing, edit-warring, and disruption provides clear indication that Xenophrenic is (1) intentionally misinterpreting Malke 2010's and my comments; (2) incapable of understanding the comments, or (3) intentionally making disruptive comments which he/she knows to be false.
(under construction)
Based on a conversation with Xenophrenic on the talk page I will now begin developing this here. No endorsements are requested. If somebody with expertise knows that I've misplaced this please advise.
With respect to the nature of evidence, I divide the expressed concerns into two categories:
Here is a 1-week-1-article sampler (2/18/13 to 2/24/13) (this is 1/174th of Xenophrenic's approx 174 weeks at the one (TPM) article), and so very very roughly multiply this by 174 to get a rough indicator of the Xenophrenic's history at this one article. Again, being Type 1 items, where the issue is the forest, not individual trees, there is no claim that each of these individually is bad.
- - End of 1-article-1-week sample - -
(under construction, I am still researching the editing/editor sequence on each)
Here is a list (going from memory to start) of the issues at the tPM article where there was difference of opinion where Xenophrenic was actively involved and where it was not resolved in talk. The questions that I will work on is which way did it end up, and how did it end up that way? (Lets say circa April 2013)
Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.
I'll start with Xenophrenic's disruptive editing, adding questionable material in a unproductive way as a means to have Brietbart's notable "challenge" removed.
Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina backed up his colleagues, telling the Hendersonville (N.C.) Times-News that he too heard slurs. "It was the most horrible display of protesting I have ever seen in my life ... It breaks your heart that the way they display their anger is to spit on a member and use that kind of language," Shuler said. Three weeks later, after the issue of whether the N-word was used had turned into a political battle, Shuler changed his story and told the Associated Press that he heard slurs used against Barney Frank, but not Cleaver.
Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO who was also present during the protest, corroborated Lewis', Carson's, Cleaver's and Shuler's version of events during a later debate with Breitbart by saying, "I watched them spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word."
One of Representative Anthony Weiner’s staffers reported a stream of hostile encounters with tea partiers roaming the halls of Congress. In addition to mockery, protesters left a couple of notes behind. According to the New York Daily News, one letter "asked what Rahm Emanuel did with Weiner in the shower, in a reference to the mess around ex-Rep Eric Massa. It was signed with a swastika, the staffer said. The other note called the congressman "Schlomo Weiner."
The term "teabagger" was used after a protester was photographed with a placard using "tea bag" as a verb. Those opposed to the movement started using the sexually-charged term "teabagger" shortly thereafter.[33][34] It is routinely used as a derogatory term to refer to conservative protestors.[35] The New York Times explicitly states "teabagger, a derogatory name for attendees of Tea Parties, probably coined in allusion to a sexual practice".[36]
This is true as we know it, right? Non-controversial. NPOV. Accurately presented. That was before Xenoprenic swooped in.
Here's what this section looks like today after Xenophrenic and possibly others who made it through Xeno's approval process focused on providing NPOV-balance:
The term teabagger was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites. Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers. Shortly thereafter, however, others outside the movement began to use the term mockingly, alluding to the sexual connotation of the term when referring to Tea Party protesters. Most conservatives do not, for the most part, use the term with its double entendre meaning; rather it seems the political left has adopted the joke.[197][198][199] It has been used by several media outlets to humorously refer to Tea Party-affiliated protestors.[200] Some conservatives have advocated that the non-vulgar meaning of the word be reclaimed.[199] Grant Barrett, co-host of the A Way with Words radio program, has listed teabagger as a 2009 buzzword meaning, "a derogatory name for attendees of Tea Parties, probably coined in allusion to a sexual practice".[201]
Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsements, evidence, responses, and other signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.
To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 07:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC).
![]() | Despite what others have stated here, the purpose of RFC/U is to have a discussion regarding a particular user and to try and arrive at some sort of voluntary solution. It is not an opportunity to repeatedly attack that person, nor is it appropriate to drag political or philosophical disagreements into content disputes. Unfortunately it is all to clear that all these things are present in this RFC. Even the request for closure contained divisive statements. This whole process looks more like two "camps" pitted against one another than a rational discussion of one users's behavior.
|
This matter concerns Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs · logs)
Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. ALL signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
The point of this WP:RFC/U is twofold. First, to clearly define and show, with evidence, the problems that the community indicated User:Xenophrenic demonstrates in his edits and discussions on Wikipedia. The second propose is for Xenophrenic to acknowledge the problems of the community and indicate a willingness to change. For any problems that are not there, all other editors should also acknowledge that. The purpose of WP:RFC/U is not to provide any penalty for Xenophrenic, as that is beyond the scope of WP:RFC/U. It is merely to help define the problem, if there is a problem. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 07:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Xenophrenic's behavior has been brought up as part of the ArbCom case for Tea Party movement. However, his behavior stretches across several years and several articles related to U.S. politics. I first encountered this behavior at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in 2009. Generally speaking, he is a POV-pusher for a progressive POV. It is as though he's trying to remake Wikipedia into an opposition research database for Democratic Party political operatives to use, while preventing its usefulness for that purpose to members of other parties and political groups. He adds negative material to articles about conservative political figures and organizations, no matter how trivial or irrelevant it might be, or how much it employs fallacies such as guilt by association; and he removes negative content about progressive political figures and organizations. He achieves these goals by being tendentious, and by using edit warring to a limited extent (particularly the slow edit war technique, or tag teaming). Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 07:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Any Editor: Please provide any evidence here. Will work on formatting the evidence as it builds.
Note: This evidence only covers the past 79 days of Xenophrenic's editing at Wikipedia (March 9 to May 27). It is presented as a representative sample of Xenophrenic's editing at Wikipedia, dating back four years to 2009, when I first encountered him at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and at articles related to Ward Churchill. This particular 79-day period comes at a time when Xenophrenic already knew he was under scrutiny due to a conduct-based thread at WP:ANI, as well as the ArbCom investigation regarding the Tea Party movement article. One would think that with both community-based and ArbCom-based spotlights shining on him, Xenophrenic would be on his best behavior during this 79-day period. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 17:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I note that below, User:Casprings has cited an ANI thread in which "there was no community support [for a topic ban] or much problem seen with Xenophrenic's editing." That ANI thread was limited to Tea Party movement and was dated February 26, 2013. Also, Casprings has claimed that Xenophrenic is a party to the ArbCom proceeding. That is a false statement, since Xenophrenic is not listed among the named parties. [14] I will focus on Xenophrenic's efforts on Tea Party movement (a conservative political organization) and related pages since February 26, 2013 as well as his efforts on unrelated articles under the U.S. politics umbrella. The latter inquiry may go back a lot farther than February 26, 2013 since those articles were beyond the scope of the ANI thread. — Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 23:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Xenophrenic has been editwarring and POV-pushing in favor of a progressive POV on a broad range of articles related to U.S. politics, beyond his involvement in Tea Party movement and related articles. This involved removing negative content and terminology about progressive organizations and public figures, while adding negative content and terminology about conservative organizations and public figures:
Malke 2010: "Arguments over petty, silly 'news' items such as an incident in Maryland where a man claimed his outdoor barbecue grill was sabotaged by tea party members because he was an Obama supporter. Xenophrenic fought like crazy for that and anytime it got deleted, he put it right back. ... Goethean's and Xenophrenic's arguments and edit wars today are the same ones they had back in 2010. Goethean violates WP:PA and exhibits tendency towards WP:OWN. Xenophrenic violates WP:TE. The same sections, the same edits. Over and over. In the meantime, the article has not improved ..."
North8000: "The inevitable proximate finding will be that Xenophrenic primarily and Geothean secondarilyy have dominated the article via TE and prevented its Wikification. ... In each case the end result was that [disputed content] stayed in, and the result was determined by not by a decision but by whichever editor or set of editors was most relentless. And two editors (Xenophrenic and Goethean) have been controlling the result of the above and many other areas in the article via this method. ... Xenophrenic's large number of edits (#2 on the list) with a high proportion of those being reversals in disputes, they have more than anyone determined what is or isn't in the article. ... a look at the disputes and how they have ended up clearly shows that the dominant editing force in determining the article content on these has been Xenophrenic, backed up by Goethean at key moments."
North8000's ANI thread regarding Xenophrenic's tendentious editing: [81]
Darkstar1st:
Xenophrenic is attempting to insert "anti-immigration" into the Tea Party movement article as well as the term "nativism." Part of that discussion then lead to the following exchange:
North8000 comments on Xenophrenic’s use of “anti-immigration” instead of the relevant “anti-illegal immigration.” [85]
Malke responds here: [86] and here: [87]
Xenophrenic replies: [88]
Malke responds: [89]
Xenophrenic replies: [90]
Malke responds: [91] Xeno [92]
Malke responds and corrects part of her edit [93]
Xenophrenic misinterprets Malke’s correction [94]
Malke explains [95]
Xenophrenic insists [96]
Arthur Rubin then commented that the exchange was an example of Xenophrenic’s tendentious editing: [97] “. . . I should add that now there is strong evidence toward Xenophrenic's tendentious editing in intentionally disregarding the obvious meaning of Malke's comments (in the "anti-immigration" section) in favor of an absurd interpretation. . . Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Xenophrenic then edit warred in response: [98] and again [99] and again [100]. [101]
Xenophrenic then went to Arthur Rubin’s talk page: [102] Not satisfied, he went to ANI: [103]
{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, 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.)
Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.
I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to comment at this RFC/U. After reading the "Desired outcome" statement, I hoped this would be a great opportunity for some self-reflection and personal growth and improvement. The sheer volume of "evidence" produced at this page encouraged me that there would certainly be plenty of information I could use to help me make some constructive changes. So I dove in...
As I began to read through the compiled evidence, however, a disturbing trend started to emerge. I started seeing discrepancies in the "evidence" - it wasn't supporting what was being said about me. I decided to review every single diff and compare what was supposedly being shown with what was actually being shown. The contrast was startling.
The discrepancies in the evidence were numerous, so many that I decided to make some brief notes about each item of evidence. Sometimes they were little issues, like claiming "you reverted 3 times in 10 hours" when it was over 3 days, or "you removed a reliable source because it was critical" when I had only removed a redundant copy, but left the original intact. Other times there were gross distortions of truth. Since I am not allowed to comment in the evidence section here, I've copied the evidence to a sandbox and added comments in green text, located here. I invite interested editors to review the evidence along with my associated comments, both sides of the story as it were, and come to your own informed determination. Does the evidence show tendentious editing, POV-pushing and severe problematic behavior, or does it show good faith editing toward a neutral point of view along with normal interactions, disagreements and discussions?
My summary observations:
Xenophrenic ( talk) 18:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.
There is neither doubt nor disagreement that User:Xenophrenic is an inveterate POV-pusher with tenacious editing habits. He seeks to make sure that people know how evil the Tea Party movement is, that it is racist, bigoted, homophobic etc. Unfortunately, this runs into WP:NPOV head-on. However, he has the right to delete warnings etc. from his user talk page under Wikipedia policy and guildelines, and that complaint does not really belong in an RfC/U.
Xenophrenic shows his POV in such other articles as Fahrenheit 9/11 [109], on Talk:Tea Party movement where he berates Arthur Rubin with a silly post [110], [111] in the section "Interim remedy expected" which appears to be a bit of a noticeboard rant (Xeno appears to be a dramaboard regular complainant).
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Tea_Party_movement;_looking_for_community_input shows my utter lack of animus here.
The proper result should be for Xenophrenic to acknowledge his problem with following WP:NPOV when making edits on political pages, for him to read up on Dale Carnegie and not to act like Wikipedia is, or ought to be, a battleground of any sort, to understand that we need to look at entire articles, and not seek to add material based on any personal point of view about the topic. And lastly to recognize that WP:CONSENSUS does not mean we end up with perfect articles - it means we end up with collegial agreement to accept stuff we may not really be in love with. Collect ( talk) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I've had an immense amount of interaction with and observation of Xenophrenic. For reasons which I will explain, I LIKE them, but I am also blunt and direct in a hopefully friendly way. These are just my opinions drawn from all of this; feel free to discount or ignore them. I say it as half complaint and half admiration that I consider them to be the most relentless, prolific, effective POV'er with-a-purpose of anyone I've had the occasion to observe in Wikipedia. The efforts I've seen have always been towards the same end of the political spectrum. IMHO they are the person who most comes to mind as the ultimate expert at achieving goals through tendentious editing. The one unique area that comes to mind when I say "relentless", is that this even extends to refactoring, relabeling and rearranging talk page items. The reason I like them is because they seem to have no meanness or nastiness in them, which in my book makes them several levels better than a whole lot of cleverly nasty and harmful people that I routinely see in Wikipedia. Xenophrenic does not "go after" people, they don't try to mis-use Wikipedian systems to "get" people, and are seldom or never really nasty in conversations. I think that this is a part of why they are so effective at doing what I describe above. In them I have also seen glimpses of a desire to prioritize creating quality in articles which gives me hope. I am participating here to help in some leaning on Xenophrenic to modify the behavior in question. This is NOT NOT to get action taken against them. Again, the above is my opinions drawn from history. Feel free to discount or ignore my opinions. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 18:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
There was no community support or much problem seen with user:Xenophrenic editing. There is an ongoing arbitration case in which many editors involved in the WP:RFC/U, including user:Xenophrenic, user: Malke 2010, user:Arthur Rubin, and user:North8000, are parties to. Editors should understand the full nature of this dispute by reviewing the interactions of the editors involved in this dispute. For example, one should should fully review the effort to look for community comment on the Tea Party Movement and the arbitration case the editors are involved in. Casprings ( talk) 18:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
The evidence provided on the Tea Party movement, has already been examined by the Arbitration Committee. As of now, the draft finding of fact for User:Xenophrenic is:
This summary is mostly correct.
Users who endorse this summary:
Unproductive commentary, violates RfC/U guidelines
|
---|
Comments on this summary:
|
The remaining, non-tea party evidence, are examples of good-faith content disputes. There is little or no evidence of a long term problem with edit waring. This is fully shown by user:Xenophrenic, here.
Users who endorse this summary:
I was struck by the first piece of evidence provided by the certifiers above regarding "POV-pushing on other articles related to U.S. politics":
So Xenophrenic removed from a WP:BLP two incarnations of a statement which was unsourced, had a somewhat disparaging tone towards the subject, and was advancing a theory. Insofar (in over a month) none of the editors concerned with the removal of these edits have provided sources for that content. Furthermore, the same certifier berated Xenophrenic [114] for supposedly writing with a POV in between the " Huffington Post and MSNBC". In that paradigm, the certifiers of this RfC/U seem to expect Wikipedia to be Written with a POV resembling WorldNetDaily if not Conservapedia, given how they've managed to state their own views about a couple of US politicians ("most hated") in this very RfC/U... 5.12.68.204 ( talk) 13:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Note 1: "Most hated" was removed [115] [116] after my initial view was posted. 5.12.68.204 ( talk) 16:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Note 2: The certifer has further modified his original statement without changing the timestamp [117] [118]. 5.12.68.204 ( talk) 17:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I see this as by and large being overspill from the stalled Arbcom case on the TPm article. Since I withdrew from the largely partisan "moderated discussion" there, Xenophrenic is basically the lone voice arguing for an NPOV reflecting all points of view found in RS, whereas others have consistently and relentlessly argued to exclude any and all reliably sourced material that could be seen as exposing a negative aspect of the TPm. I don't see that Xenophrenic's behavior has exceeded the general scope of editor interaction on the contentious topic on the moderated discussion page, and since the Arbcom case is pending, I don't see the point of filling this RFC/U now.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I'd like address this from a different angle, if I may. Judging by both the evidence presented against Xeno and his explanations -- What jumps out at me are two things.
Since Xeno would like this RfC to initiate some self-reflection and personal growth and improvement within himself, perhaps he should answer a simple question.
This process originated from the Tea Party Movement, so let's stay there:
Have you made a legitimate effort to improve TPM in both appearance and readability, as an article and more importantly, as an encyclopedic account -- Or, have you focused like a laser on just the controversies section for the purpose of giving negatives their place and most importantly, to prevent a whitewashing of said negatives?
Pretty sure everyone can tell which answer I'd accept as being an honest, self-reflection on Xeno's part.
Herein lies the problem. Xeno's active everyday on Wikipedia. I'm sure most would see this as a good thing. But, how many potential editors are dissuaded by his unsavory behavior? Me being one. †TE† Talk 00:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Here Xenophrenic requested i be topic banned at ANI, but gave no reason, nor difs, even after being asked by an admin [119]. Much like his efforts to stop this rfc/u, Xenophrenic attempts to game the system by using a barrage of edits/actions and walls of text to overwhelm/silence editors who oppose his pov. Darkstar1st ( talk) 07:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Unproductive commentary, violates RfC/U guidelines
|
---|
Comments on this summary:
|
The certifiers' evidence contains:
The purported reliable source [124], which reads more like a trashing political pamphlet to me, does not even contain the putative quote from Weiner that it was supposed to support. It does contain some other quotes from Weiner, but nothing resembling the text added to Wikipedia. 5.12.68.204 ( talk) 12:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
When there are forums about general behavior, examples can be used to deceive or inform. I consider it immensely important to determine which it is, and all too often this never happens on forums about general behavior. "Deceive" is done by cherrypicking exceptions (sometimes deceptively out of context, or with a spun description). and then essentially implying that the exceptions "show" that the false assertion is true. The "inform" case is when they are used to reinforce an accurate assertion. There are ways to tell them apart. One is by the assessed sincerity and/or established credibility (or lack thereof) of the "asserter". Another is by close objective analysis a large quantity of evidence. A good test is what direction does it go as you objectively look closer and closer and at more examples. Does it go towards bearing out the assertions, or towards showing them to be groundless? This RFC/U should be unhurried and thorough to take the "closer and closer" look. IMHO, this is a case where the evidence informs and supports the general assertions and concerns about behavior expressed. A huge volume of evidence was presented. And IMHO the closer and more thorough the look, the more it supports the expressed concerns. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 21:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I actually posted this at the talkpage first but then realized it is an ouside view that could and should be posted here.
Lots of accusations were made against the RFC/U's subject, Xenophrenic, but the evidence at the project page is little to non, not standing up to the slightest scrutiny. As I pointed out in my endorsing of Xenophrenic's view (Response 1 by Xenophrenic), the examples given by PW are ridiculous, in part false, mostly wrongly declared and not convincing at all as one could take any editor's edits to the same scrutiny and tilt it against them if one chooses so, but that doesn't make them true and only stick if one doesn't take the time to check the accusations made and the links that supposed to back them up. Also blunt accusations were made here on this talk w/o back-up in form of diffs or otherwise which makes me think this is more of a "witch hunt" than a proper RFC/U. Maybe there are some merits to it but so far they were not presented. What was presented are mere opinionated accusations. Unless the addressed points are corrected and true proof of the alleged improper tendency of the subject is added as evidence, this RFC/U has no merit and should be closed rather sooner than later and marked as frivolous and disrupting as it, so far, only used up plenty of time, w/o real cause so far, that could've been used to make constructive edits in article space by all involved/commenting parties, incl. myself. RFC/U's are not there to pick a "random" user editing against ones own point of view in an article where they have a dispute. (Of course I'm talking about the Tea Party which basically triggered the user to file this RFC/U). Also I have to note that almost every endorsement "against" Xenophrenic is made by editors opposed to Xenophrenic's point of view at the Tea party pages/discussions and were canvassed by the initiator. Thank you for those who are truly listening and thinking it thru. TMCk ( talk) 04:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
The evidence further contains:
What Xenophrenic did was to revert the deletion from the lead of the word "controversial" as describing the works of Lewy about genocide. There is a large section in the article detailing how Lewy basically denies that the Armenian genocide took place [126]. If those works of Lewy are not controversial, then how comes Wikipedia has an article called Armenian genocide, when the allegedly uncontroversial works of Lewy say it was not a "real" genocide? (See quote in the article.) 5.12.68.204 ( talk) 21:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Xenophrenic is making interpretations of talk page comments which are unsupportable by anyone who understands basic English. The "evidence" section at #Evidence of tendentious editing, edit-warring, and disruption provides clear indication that Xenophrenic is (1) intentionally misinterpreting Malke 2010's and my comments; (2) incapable of understanding the comments, or (3) intentionally making disruptive comments which he/she knows to be false.
(under construction)
Based on a conversation with Xenophrenic on the talk page I will now begin developing this here. No endorsements are requested. If somebody with expertise knows that I've misplaced this please advise.
With respect to the nature of evidence, I divide the expressed concerns into two categories:
Here is a 1-week-1-article sampler (2/18/13 to 2/24/13) (this is 1/174th of Xenophrenic's approx 174 weeks at the one (TPM) article), and so very very roughly multiply this by 174 to get a rough indicator of the Xenophrenic's history at this one article. Again, being Type 1 items, where the issue is the forest, not individual trees, there is no claim that each of these individually is bad.
- - End of 1-article-1-week sample - -
(under construction, I am still researching the editing/editor sequence on each)
Here is a list (going from memory to start) of the issues at the tPM article where there was difference of opinion where Xenophrenic was actively involved and where it was not resolved in talk. The questions that I will work on is which way did it end up, and how did it end up that way? (Lets say circa April 2013)
Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.
I'll start with Xenophrenic's disruptive editing, adding questionable material in a unproductive way as a means to have Brietbart's notable "challenge" removed.
Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina backed up his colleagues, telling the Hendersonville (N.C.) Times-News that he too heard slurs. "It was the most horrible display of protesting I have ever seen in my life ... It breaks your heart that the way they display their anger is to spit on a member and use that kind of language," Shuler said. Three weeks later, after the issue of whether the N-word was used had turned into a political battle, Shuler changed his story and told the Associated Press that he heard slurs used against Barney Frank, but not Cleaver.
Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO who was also present during the protest, corroborated Lewis', Carson's, Cleaver's and Shuler's version of events during a later debate with Breitbart by saying, "I watched them spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word."
One of Representative Anthony Weiner’s staffers reported a stream of hostile encounters with tea partiers roaming the halls of Congress. In addition to mockery, protesters left a couple of notes behind. According to the New York Daily News, one letter "asked what Rahm Emanuel did with Weiner in the shower, in a reference to the mess around ex-Rep Eric Massa. It was signed with a swastika, the staffer said. The other note called the congressman "Schlomo Weiner."
The term "teabagger" was used after a protester was photographed with a placard using "tea bag" as a verb. Those opposed to the movement started using the sexually-charged term "teabagger" shortly thereafter.[33][34] It is routinely used as a derogatory term to refer to conservative protestors.[35] The New York Times explicitly states "teabagger, a derogatory name for attendees of Tea Parties, probably coined in allusion to a sexual practice".[36]
This is true as we know it, right? Non-controversial. NPOV. Accurately presented. That was before Xenoprenic swooped in.
Here's what this section looks like today after Xenophrenic and possibly others who made it through Xeno's approval process focused on providing NPOV-balance:
The term teabagger was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites. Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers. Shortly thereafter, however, others outside the movement began to use the term mockingly, alluding to the sexual connotation of the term when referring to Tea Party protesters. Most conservatives do not, for the most part, use the term with its double entendre meaning; rather it seems the political left has adopted the joke.[197][198][199] It has been used by several media outlets to humorously refer to Tea Party-affiliated protestors.[200] Some conservatives have advocated that the non-vulgar meaning of the word be reclaimed.[199] Grant Barrett, co-host of the A Way with Words radio program, has listed teabagger as a 2009 buzzword meaning, "a derogatory name for attendees of Tea Parties, probably coined in allusion to a sexual practice".[201]
Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsements, evidence, responses, and other signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.