Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Xenophrenic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

More concrete evidence?

The RfC/U states "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." Diffs of such behavior should be presented. Having a generic call for "Any Editor: Please provide any evidence here. Will work on formatting the evidence as it builds." is not an appropriate substitute. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but I'm here just help give Xenophrenic a nudge to change their behavior a little. The 10 day snapshot from one article that I was forced to build at ANI (which someone linked here) give a really good glimpse. The nature of the behavior is the sum of the parts, not any individual really bad items. What would you want......a list of their last 1,000 edits, and notes showing that 90% are relentlessly towards tilting articles towards one particular end of the political spectrum? Would Xenophrenic want someone to make that effort? My own hope is just saying enough here to convince Xenophrenic to change a bit, NOT enough to get them in trouble. Unless someone forces the latter by declaring that any input without the latter is illegitimate. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a quote from WP:TE: "Thus a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed." As the WP:TE policy confirms, looking at a diff of a single edit by Xeno isn't going to prove anything. Looking, with enormous patience and diligence, through 100 diffs of 100 different edits by Xeno might adequately convey what he's doing. Four different editors have given summaries of Xeno's behavior, or endorsed such summaries, and found that behavior to be problematic. Xeno, rather than participating, is attempting to get the RfC/U deleted by edit-warring it into the "Candidates" section rather than the "Certified" section. This is actually a pretty good example of his editing style. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

With the risk of sounding pedantic, proving that a pattern of edits exists requires listing some sample edits from said pattern. Your presentation of evidence against Xenophrenic was found by Arbitrators to be lacking substance. Simply copying your assertions from there over here--which is what the bulk of the evidence presented insofar consists of--isn't likely to convince many uninvolved editors either. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

@5.12.68.204 - Thanks for asking for evidence. Looking at the responses that follow from North and P&W, it doesn't appear likely we're going to see any. There is a tendency to cite the WP:TE essay as a free pass to cast aspersions without having to produce substantiation. They misrepresent it as a license to not have to cite even a single "biased edit". They conveniently overlook the fact that the essay also defines tendentious editing as "not conforming to the neutral point of view" policy, which, if it is actually occurring, can always be demonstrated through the citation of diffs.

@North - Tell me something, if I wanted you to change your behavior of repeatedly beating your wife, but you denied doing it, how productive do you think my nudging you to change your behavior "just a little" would be? Would you stop beating your wife if I said that I otherwise liked you? Would you stop beating your wife if I said I thought your repeated wife beatings were "not a big deal"? What would be the best way to get you to stop beating your wife; behavior that you deny?

@P&W - Please understand that editing toward NPOV and against your personal POV is not tendentious editing. Disagreeing with your personal POV is not against policy. Yes, 4 editors, all presently on the same side in an ongoing content dispute, have have all whispered the same allegations without substantiation. (Yes, I've looked closely at the few diffs on the RFC/U page.) That doesn't make them any more true than the thousands of whispered allegations against McCain. If you'd like to participate in collaborative editing instead of POV editing, I highly recommend it and would welcome that. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a most experienced editor has offered some practical advice regarding evidence and the advice was well received, at least in theory [1]. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

@Xeno: Is it your position that you are "editing toward NPOV and against [my] personal POV"? Really? Where is it, on the political spectrum, that you would suppose NPOV resides in an article such as Tea Party movement? Somewhere between Huffington Post and MSNBC? Please be specific. If you truly believe that you are "editing toward NPOV," then certainly you should be able to come up with a point on the political spectrum and describe it accurately, as your personal goal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

P&W, to answer your first question, yes, I do edit toward WP:NPOV, and sometimes that means against your POV. Sometimes it is minor, such as removing unsourced fluffy language calling Palin one of the most popular leaders of the Tea Party movement. Other times it is more substantial, such as when you replace anti-immigration descriptions with anti-illegal-immigration descriptions, or astroturf with grassroots. A more neutral treatment of this content would be to adhere to what reliable sources say, that there are components of each and not just one to the exclusion of the other. As for the rest of your questions regarding spectrums and HuffPo and MSNBC, you have lost me - I really can't make out what you are asking. Perhaps rephrase? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

So what becomes of this...

... Punitive blocks, topic ban, some type of probation?

Not sure what Xeno has been up to lately, but from what I experienced he's definitely tenacious in his POV-pushing. Personally, I don't have a problem with people having their own opinions and such -- But, editors around here should at least try to temper those views in the name of NPOV. The next time I witness Xeno doing this will be the first. No joke. †TE†Talk 18:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In other venues, I've suggested a topic ban from all articles related to U.S. politics, broadly construed; I've also suggested that Xeno could get this topic ban lifted after a suitable period (six months to a year) of productive editing on other types of articles. Malke has also suggested the involvement of a mentor. And I've also indicated that Xeno could participate in this RfC/U, admit that his behavior is problematic, and resolve to change. Furthermore, I've indicated that I would welcome that resolution of this matter, and that it would make such a topic ban unnecessary. I think Xeno is capable of being a very productive editor. He simply needs to check his progressive bias at the door, give up his tendentious behavior, and work as part of a team of colleagues. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hiya, Mookie! Dusting off the ol' TE?

P&W, thank you for the kind words. I think you have the potential to be a very productive editor, too. If you are willing to make an attempt at working collaboratively instead of competitively, I think that would be awesome. In the meantime, it has been suggested by WhatamIdoing that I politely request that you try to explain their concerns to me again. Can we try that? I can't make heads or tails out of huge 216 edit, 18 user diffs like this that you gave as examples. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you may have a blind spot regarding your own behavior, Xeno? You've been blocked for editwarring three times. User:WhatamIdoing has confirmed that this RfC/U is appropriate, and moved it back to "Certified" herself. User:NE Ent and User:Nyttend have both indicated, in the WP:ANI thread that you started, that these concerns are legitimately stated. On the Project page itself, North8000, Malke 2010, Arthur Rubin, Collect, ThinkEnemies, and Nathan Johnson have all indicated support for various versions of "Xenophrenic is a tendentious editor." Now here's something else that should make you stop and think long and hard. Yes, I canvassed, and you've been very diligent about tracking down my canvassing efforts. So certainly you're aware I was also very careful to canvass two people who were on your side in these content disputes: Ubikwit and TFD. Judging from his edits on your User Talk page, TMCk is also well aware of this RfC/U. And none of these three editors is stepping in here to defend you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Blind spot regarding my behavior? Nobody knows me as well as I do, and I'm quite self-aware of many flaws and imperfections. If you wish to make a good faith effort at affecting a positive behavioral change in a person, you will need to indicate an actual behavior problem as well as a solution. A couple of contrasting examples:

• It's been said that sometimes my posts are unnecessarily long, and appear to be "walls of text" that need to be written more concisely. That turns out to be a legitimate assessment, and in response I've been working on improvement in that area. (You may not see it yet, but then you can't see the rough-drafts of my posts before I trim them down and click the 'Save page' button -- trust me, there is improvement.)
• It's been said that I "seek to make sure that people know how evil the Tea Party movement is, that it is racist, bigoted, homophobic etc." That is not a legitimate assessment, and in response I ignore it, or if repeated enough, I press people for substantiation - much to their frustration, because they can't.

No, P&W, I do not have a blind spot regarding my behavior. I will, however, turn a blind eye toward false and unsubstantiated characterizations of my behavior - or relentlessly press for substantiation, depending. That's why your comments about how many editors you can get to say "Me too!" (or how many I can get to do the same) aren't relevant to me for this discussion. No amount of "Me too!" exclamations in unison will turn a false accusation into a fact. On one hand, you claim this is a good faith effort to improve behavior, yet on the other hand, you feel that other editors should "defend" me against your effort? Interesting. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

One thing I remember, not so fondly, of Xeno's edit warring ways was his ability to circumvent 3RR. There would always be some IP out of nowhere on unprotected pages (Like the IP above 5.12.68.204 (talk · contribs)) who would step in on Xeno's behalf. On protected pages you would get a named user who just happened to be at the right place, right time (Geolanz (talk · contribs)) [2][3]. Xeno is calculated and intelligent, so far as I can tell, physical evidence like IP addresses would lead nowhere. But come on, ending talk page comments with "Regards, signpost" is uniquely Xeno [4][5]. More like a trademark if you check his user page (and that's just what's left standing as Xeno opts to delete instead of archive). †TE†Talk 02:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Mmh. Going down to your level, this IP's edits must be yours? Using any other accounts? Maybe meanwhile you're gone for quite some time? Like those questions and accusations? If not maybe don't make them yourself... wink-wink.TMCk (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Intriguing. I suggest you look into it as the aforementioned possible socks. †TE†Talk 03:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Given that even administrators easily throw around such poorly supported accusations, TE can be forgiven for not knowing that "Regards, <signature>" is a standard idiom in written English communication. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Alright, IP address. I'd love to see your examples of wikipedians who sign their posts "Regards, ~~ ~~." Use my talk page if you feel secluded. †TE†Talk 06:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC) As you can read in this article, it's a common business practice. After it became evident to me that Wikipedians don't follow business communication standards much, I stopped using that closing a while back. (Scant) correlation does not imply causation. Wikipedia talk pages are not searchable from Google, so I have no idea how to provide you with the information you desire about the frequency of the expression in communication between Wikipedia editors. Maybe someone at the WP:Help desk can help you with that. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC) I've managed to use the internal advanced search feature to find for example: "So are we sure about having our own template. Would we have AARTalk and Turtles tagged on the talk page? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)" "Support – the Pareto principle seems to apply based on the gathered data. Hence, I think it's a good approach. The brevity of the listed pages will make them easy to individually re-create (or to roll back the redirect) in the event that an editor wants to expand on a particular entry. The only minor drawback to this approach may be that the redirect will only be linked to the matching list page, rather than the specific entry in the list. Implementing the latter would require more coding and testing, which may not be worth the effort. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)" "I'd say G7 stops when another editor than the creator has worked on the article in any way that improved it (e.g. not tagging, vandalism reverting, category adding etc.). Personally, I would also exclude any page from G7 that had any other editors and that exists for a few months. Regards SoWhy 16:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)" "Quale, Here is the first sentence of Verifiability, followed by two questions that are just for you. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." 1) In your own words, what is the meaning of the first sentence? 2) Again in your own words, how do you think the meaning would change if North8000 had his or her way. Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)" "An extremely sensible summary of the situation. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)" Sincerely, 5.12.68.204 (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Classic overcompensation. I do appreciate the effort, IP address. †TE†Talk 11:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC) I use "regards" myself, TE. Please drop it, and focus on the purpose of this inquiry. I'm going to hat this. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC) (EC)Alrighty then. This serves as a distraction and for that I apologize. It may have been the IP operator's original intention for all I know. Collapsed. †TE†Talk 18:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please be careful with your interpretations of others' words. I made no comment on the merits of the RFCU nor said anything about the legitimacy of the concerns of its originators; all I said was that the procedural requirements of the RFC process had been met and that the page therefore didn't qualify for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That's correct, I said you indicated the "concerns are legitimately stated." I did not say you indicated the "concerns are legitimate," nor did I intend to misrepresent what you said. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean now; I apologise for misunderstanding and complaining as a result. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, more concrete evidence

I'm starting to assemble some diffs in the project mainspace. This only goes back to April 19 (37 days) April 1 (55 days) and virtually ignored Tea Party movement and related pages, which is the current centerpiece of Xenophrenic's editing; it includes only one incident from those pages. Instead, it focuses on other articles related to U.S. politics. I will expand it in the morning. Please bear in mind that this only covers the past 37 55 days of Xenophrenic's edits. The allegation against Xenophrenic is that this represents a pattern of behavior going back at least four years. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Going through those diffs definitely bring back bad memories. Hopefully, your efforts won't be for not and real change can occur. Knock on wood. †TE†Talk 01:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In light of his previous contributions to this page, and his extended efforts to get this RfC/U deleted after several previously uninvolved editors told him that deletion wasn't going to happen, I am not optimistic. At one point above, Xenophrenic used the analogy of a wife-beater and in effect, he compared himself to a wife-beater. I am saddened to observe that it's a fairly accurate comparison in some ways. Like a wife-beater, he's deep in denial. When presented with incontrovertible, comprehensive proof, he's probably going to blame the victim — and in fact, has already laid the foundation for such a defense with his "I'm editing toward NPOV, and against your POV" statements. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll include samples of discussions that are recurring since they are the best examples of tendentious editing. And ThinkEnemies, if you have examples and suggestions it would be appreciated. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

All my examples are from so long ago, Malke. I wouldn't know where to begin. I think the larger issue at hand is Xeno's modus operandi of tenacious editing, POV-pushing and perpetual edit warring seems to have gone unchecked which has undoubtedly been bad for the project. †TE†Talk 16:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Going off memory of my first encounter with Xeno was on Susan Roesgen. After I had the article protected for 3 days in a content dispute, Xeno came right back to renew the edit war, while also removing the BLP Dispute tag. That was especially tenacious, IMO. (Xeno used these intermittent edits as an excuse to reinsert his preferred version of the content dispute.) †TE†Talk 16:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

After CNN decided to part ways Susan Roesgen and removed her bio from their website, Xeno found an archived version to use. That was just weird. †TE†Talk 17:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I do remember that. He fought like crazy. It's okay if it's old since he's still exhibiting the behaviours. If he'd changed and wasn't doing those things anymore, then they wouldn't be useful. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Remember McAllister and Cynthia Tucker's "quote"? It came back here, again: [6]. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's the Lenny McAllister discussion that you were involved in [7]. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Going back in time, I'm glad the nightmares have stopped. ;-) †TE†Talk 19:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The kicker here, the icing on the cake, is that this particular 79-day period of representative evidence 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. 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. I notice also that one of Xenophrenic's two amicus editors, User:Casprings, has cited the following sentences from a proposed finding at ArbCom: "Xenophrenic was blocked in 2011 for breaking community sanctions on Tea Party movement, and was blocked twice in 2007 and once in 2013 for edit warring on other articles. Xenophrenic has made 573 edits to the talkpage. There was no community support for a topic ban, Xenophrenic is not named as a party, and there is little evidence presented in the case to point to sanctions."

Casprings then posts the view that "This summery is correct." This admits that Xenophrenic has been blocked four times for editwarring, in addition to the many, many times he has editwarred (in my opinion) without being blocked for it. Casprings also acknowledges that Xenophrenic is not named as a party at ArbCom, and further admits that the proposed finding of "no sanctions" is limited to the narrow range of evidence presented at ArbCom, which does not address any editing at all beyond pages related to Tea Party movement. In fact, I'd suggest that editors presenting evidence against him at ArbCom haven't been very diligent. The histories of the TPm pages are rich with examples of Xenophrenic's generally tendentious, battleground behavior that have not been presented in the ArbCom evidence. Furthermore, the "no community support for a topic ban" occurred on February 26, and was again limited to a tiny fraction of the available evidence at that time: a few diffs, out of the many that were available, at the TPm article. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Phonenix and Winslow: Regarding Xenophrenic's behaviours while under ANI/ArbCom scrutiny, yes that's quite the kicker. If you have diffs that will show better evidence for ArbCom, I'd appreciate you posting them as I will certainly post them on the Workshop page. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I second that request for better evidence. The "evidence" produced to date doesn't support your allegations about my behavior. In fact, when you look closer at your evidence, it shows proper editing behavior, which probably explains why there has been no need to change behavior, even "while under ANI/ArbCom scrutiny". Xenophrenic (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Tag Team Question

One of the rules that User:Xenophrenic is said to have violated is the rule against tag team editing. However, tag team editing involves collusion by two or more editors. The RFC doesn't state who is the collaborator or meatpuppet of Xenophrenic. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The most stringent definition of "tag teaming" (organized collusion) is the one you just cited; I don't believe that such is the case here. At the opposite end of the spectrum, persons with viewpoints opposite of Xenophrenic's have been accused of tag teaming for merely having the same view. However, at the TPM article, roughly speaking, the pattern has been that whenever extra help is needed to make sure that Xenophrenic dominated the result on the article page, usually Goethean stepped in to do that. North8000 (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as well as a few others whom I'd never seen on the article before. There's quite the interesting thread on the talk page about the tobacco bits. I couldn't believe how rapidly the tag-teams assembled there and quickly drove the issue off the point and into multiple sub-threads that devolved into tendentious time-sinks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a recent editwar over a "sandbox" page called Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Perceptions of the Tea Party. In that one, Xenophrenic's tag team partner was User:Ubikwit. The really sad, depressing, intimidating thing about trying to gently steer toward NPOV in Wikipedia political articles is that wherever Xenophrenic goes, whatever article he decides to parachute into and start editing, there's probably at least one candidate willing to be his next tag team partner. It's been like this for years. Changing it is going to take an enormous amount of work. There has to be a fundamental change in Wikipedia culture. The policies are there, they just need to be enforced. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the way I saw that was as you and Collect tag-teaming Xenophrenic and trying to justify the edits you wanted to push through by falsely claiming that there was consensus for the edits, implying that I was in agreement with the edits insofar as I had been active in the related discussion on the Talk page, where you failed to bring up the nature of the radical and illogical reordering of the subsections.

Accordingly, my revert (w/substantial edit summary) of your falsely asserted consensus version was not a POV push carried out in collusion with Xenophrenic, but a defense of the more neutral version in the form it had been moved over from the main article against the rapid edits an reverts made by you and Collect against Xenophreic with the implication that I was in consensus with the edits, which would obviously was not (and is not) the case.

It should be pointed out that in your edit to the moderated discussion of 15:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC), you state

(creating the article, Perceptions of the Tea Party; I'm not 100% sure about that title, but let's proceed with what we've got)

and

This is based on a paragraph text that was proposed by Xenophrenic several days ago, and I've added this phrase at the end: "... as well as examinations of news media coverage."

The content of those statements/proposed edits would seem to amount to a belated recognition of the merit of all of the above-raised points.

I other words, the placement of the mention of the media coverage aspect at the end of the paragraph would seem to recognize that such is the logically ordering, and therefore that the reordering of the media coverage subsection to the position of first subsection is illogical (i.e., before introducing the material (incidents) being covered, etc.), because that subsection should come at the end of the subarticle.

And you call into question the title of the subarticle, yet persist in keeping that title and moving the article into mainspace before having sorted the problem out.

Is that perhaps aimed at maintaining some semblance of progress in the moderated discussion?

I fail to see a basis for your accusing me of POV pushing (in collusion with Xenophrenic) on the basis of the foregoing, especially in light of the fact that you presently tend to agree with the key points (and implicitly they're reflection of a NPOV) that I had been raising in the discussion even prior to the edits reversing the order, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please restrict your arguments to actual real facts. I find your personal aspersions to be about as unhelpful here as any I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and about as far removed from fact as any I have seen on Wikipedia. Please read and abide by WP:NPA amd WP:CONSENSUS. Note consensus is not the same as unanimity, nor does any editor have "veto power" over consensus as long as Wikipedia policies are not violated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What is your hyperbole about "aspersions" about? This has been discussed at length, so it is somewhat surprising that P&W would accuse me of being engaged in a tag-team with Xenophrenic, when it was in fact as I described above. What part of the "actual real facts" do you dispute? And what is your insinuation about WP:NPA in relation to? No need to be cryptic or use innuendo.

Here are the diffs of your consecutive reverts performed occurring between two edits (one being the final revert) by P&W [8][9][10][11]

Note that I only have one revert to your two reverts. I would suggest that if you want to start accusing editors of violating WP:NPA, you level your warnings at P&W, not me. My response, detailing your editing history in relation to the accusations, is simply a recounting of the facts.

And for the record, it was this edit [12] by P&W that would seem to have started the edit war, as he appeals to a non-existent "current state of consensus" in the edit summary (Since Xeno insists on chronological order I suppose the best way to represent current state of consensus is to bury this section at the bottom of the article)--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The content of those statements/proposed edits would seem to amount to a belated recognition of the merit of all of the above-raised points. Ummm, no. Sorry. I think you're reading way too much into the arrangement of the phrases. I don't feel that the arrangement of the phrases in a summary paragraph in the parent article is all that important. What's important is the arrangement of the sections in the spin-off article that's being summarized, and the content of those sections. I'd rather not rehash the argument over the arrangement of those sections, but as you can plainly see from the Moderated Discussion page, that sectional arrangement really does have consensus — not just once, but twice: [13] [14]

That second link, by the way, was an effort to accommodate your concerns about the word "Alleged" in the section header, Ubikwit. And we had been talking about it for several days. For further enlightenment please see the anecdotal evidence article, as well as this sentence from WP:TAGTEAM: "Tag team members will often revert changes, even if they are made based on talkpage consensus, and instead insist that consensus isn't clear yet, and more talking needs to happen on the talk page." I feel that even though you and I disagree in a lot of content and sourcing matters, we can work together and should work together. Hence the compromise I've tried to work out on the word "alleged." Some of the more heinous examples of bigoted behavior by a few Tea Party members ended up right at the top of the article, Ubikwit, because I am able to work with you. I just don't feel the same way about Xenophrenic after all that he's done. He needs to change his behavior. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

P&W and Collect and North8000 have it right about Xenophrenic's behaviours. He's aggressively pushed his POV, but he modulated that behaviour much better several years ago. Now he seems to behave as someone who believes he is not subject to consequences. And this is what has brought about this RfC/U. As regards the ArbCom being stalled. None of us knows the internal machinations of Wikipedia and what other cases are occupying them. And none of us can say for sure how things will go there. In the meantime, we have to edit with Xenophrenic. We are stuck with someone who will initiate an edit-war without any fear of consequences. Someone who will make scathing personal attacks and confound consensus because "I don't ivote." He has even argued with Silk Tork about policy. Xenophrenic argues with him on his talk page. What chance do any of us have?

Regarding Ubikwit's making personal comments, he's already got an interaction ban with Evildoer. He's already banned from another article. He appears to have transferred his disruption to Tea Party movement. Most of you have probably noticed that he's got quite the fixation on me. Check the ArbCom workshop page, the moderated discussion page, and the old ANI where he started all this. I'm thinking of asking for an interaction ban. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I see a lot of unsubstantiated characterizations immediately above. Par for the course around here. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

I just want to acknowledge that I received a request by User:Phoenix and Winslow to comment on User:Xenophrenic's editing based on my experiences. I've been fairly busy lately but I'll try to review all the material sometime soon and potentially comment. I also took note that this RfC/U was expanded recently with detailed content added by Phoenix and Winslow and matching response content by Xenophrenic, with specific reference diffs; good to see that it has matured into something that permits direct examination of the underlying facts and a chance to better evaluate the conclusions drawn therefrom. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

What's needed is comments from uninvolved editors. Oddly enough, I might just be the closest thing to one around here. How'd that happen? †TE†Talk 02:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You appear to have had content disputes with Xenophrenic while you were using the MookieG account. MookieG's edit summaries alone [15] addressed Xenophrenic several times by name and some of those were clearly reverts, for example [16] [17] [18]. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Never claimed I was uninvolved, IP address. I might be the closest thing to being uninvolved due to my extended hiatus. And you need look no further than my current account to see content disputes with Xeno. Many of them, I'd assume. If you'd like to continue this on Requests for comment/ThinkEnemies, be my guest. This page is Requests for comment/Xenophrenic, from what I can tell. †TE†Talk 12:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

discussion about comment 2 from North8000 (moved from project page)

It is completely unsurprising that a prominent member of one side of the content disputes of which this RFC is a part thinks that this RFC should remain open indefinitely or until his side gets the votes that it needs. — goethean 00:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, why don't you address the view instead of falsely impugning the person who expressed it? But, more to the point (and how your comment missed it):T he more thorough the review, the more accurate the results. Thoroughness refutes incorrect assertions and reinforces correct ones. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• 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. --North8000

North, since the goal of this RFC/U is to get me to change alleged behavior expressed, and I'm obviously having difficulty seeing that behavior, would you mind pointing to the evidence that you feel best illuminates your concern? I see that you didn't provide specific evidence in your Views/Comments on the main page, so I assume you are referring to evidence provided by another editor. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, The one time that I spent several hours collecting evidence is when I was forced to at the ANI, which what an approx 10 day snapshot of your actions at the TPM article. That has been incorporated here via linking by somebody else. Other that that, so far what I've done is stated that I have hand an immense amount of interaction with and observation of you and just given my good faith honest summary drawn from it. Also I have hopefully established that bear no ill will towards you (I actually LIKE you) but am also very blunt about what I see, particularly when I have had an immense amount of observation to be confident that I know enough to be correct. I am hoping that I have some credibility. Beyond the hours I spent on that 10 day one article sampler, I have not gathered and presented additional evidence. If you want me to "point to" evidence, it would be to what has already been presented in the RFC/U, which is pretty substantial. If you want to push me into spending more hours gathering and presenting more evidence, I will reluctantly do so, and it will further reinforce what I said. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

North, your several hours spent finding evidence resulted in a total of 4 'examples'. One of those wasn't even about me, and concerned an entirely different editor (which I feel speaks volumes about the care you put into this compilation of "evidence"). After closer scrutiny, it turned out your remaining 3 examples didn't support your assertions either; not even "generally". In fact, they confirmed that I edited properly, engaged editors in dicussion on the matters, adhered to policy, and even implemented compromise. Please be clear that I am not denying that you "feel" the way that you do, nor am I denying that you and I "disagreed" with each other in those examples. My concern is that you have taken your personal feelings, and our disagreements, and unjustly extrapolated that into an unsupported charge of "extreme tendentious" behavior and "nastiness". Regarding you "liking" me, I would trade that in without hesitation for some simple respect. In the meantime, I must take you up on your offer to produce evidence that actually supports your mischaracterization of me. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

IMHO that's not accurate. IMHO that 1-article-10 day sampler I produced (which was linked in this FC/U) indicated relentless TE towards a particular political bias. North8000 (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, North? Removing a sentence that claimed the first Tea Party of the Movement was a Ron Paul campaign fundraiser moneybomb event back in 2007, when it had nothing to do with the Tea Party movement subject of our article? What political bias is that, exactly? Returning a deleted percentage to go along with a numeric count is political bias? If we can get back to seriousness, I eagerly await that new evidence you said you would produce. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment on my (Arthur Rubin's) participation here

About 2 days ago, I lost contact with Wikipedia through normal DNS means. I'm using an open proxy to edit here, but it mangles any URLs, so I can't edit any section with diffs (other than with {{diff}}) or references. I have a specific example of Xenophrenic's tendentious editing which hasn't yet been mentioned here, but I can't figure out how to present it at this time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Either post it as a mal-formed diff "xxx dot xxx number 123567897" which anyone here would remedy, or email it to another poster who would doubtless post it properly, I suspect. Collect (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes Arthur, email your link to anyone of us, we will get it up there. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears I was wrong. It was given as a specific example by the certifiers. I can go into more detail, and make it a specific claim, as X and U seem to think it was mal-formed on my part and a personal attack against X, even though anyone in his right (or even left) mind should be able to see it was a comment on X's edits in the "moderated discussion". Neither of us was meeting the requirements of the moderated discussion, but X would have been considered to have violated 3RR on the talk page if there weren't a colorable claim that there was a personal attack, and should have been so considered, as the claim was clearly faulty. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Arthur, please go into more detail.

• You made an accusation that fellow "tendentious editors are intentionally misconstruing your !vote", yet you provide no evidence that ever happened.
• You accused a fellow editor of reverting a correction", yet you provide no evidence that ever happened.
• You accused a fellow editor of "tendentious editing in intentionally disregarding the obvious meaning" of another editor's comments, yet you provide no evidence that ever happened.

None of that happened during a "moderated discussion", as you wrongly allege. There was never a 3RR violation, as you wrongly allege. Each of those charges remain unsubstantiated to this day (although you have belatedly retracted one of them; thank you). Per What Is A Personal Atack, when you comment on another editor's behavior without providing evidence (see bullet-point 6), that is an unacceptable personal attack; your attempt to wikilawyer about "edits" notwithstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

A few questions for Xenophrenic‎

I have a few questions for Xeno. I hope he will answer them. I know he likes to interleave his answers so I'll put a signature at the end of each question.

• As I understand it, during the period that we are currently reviewing, you were reverting other people's edits on about 16-18 different articles. Roughly 12-16 different editors were involved. And it's your position that you were the only one editing toward NPOV, and all those other people were POV-pushing. So you were obeying Wikipedia policy, and all those other people were violating policy. Is that a fair summary of your response in this RfC/U? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I like to post my responses right after the comments (marked by a signature) to which I am responding; standard Talk page format. If you had made this a single post with a single signature, I would still respond at the end of it, but I would quote portions of it as I responded. Since you segmented your comment into parts each with their own signature, I can respond to each individually without the need to quote you. I appreciate you doing that.

I haven't said that I am the only one editing toward a neutral POV. I said that my edits do not show the problematic behavior other editors claim they do. In cases where my edits affect POV, I contend that my edits attempt to move that POV towards a neutral middle, and not closer to a POV extreme. Just because a bit of information appears to be negative or positive (i.e.; he was convicted of murder; he won the election in a record-breaking landslide) doesn't make it POV. A big part of NPOV editing is conveying accurate information in a non-judgemental, disinterested tone. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't said that I am the only one editing toward a neutral POV. No, you haven't said it, but I think it's a reasonable summary of what you've said. I posted dozens of diffs highlighting your interaction with a fairly large group of editors, scattered over more than a dozen articles; and out of that entire group, it's reasonable to characterize your defense as, "I'm the only one editing toward NPOV, and all those other people are POV-pushing."
• Just because a bit of information appears to be negative or positive (i.e.; he was convicted of murder; he won the election in a record-breaking landslide) doesn't make it POV. When a larger and larger portion of an article is devoted to negative information about an article's subject, it tends more and more toward a negative POV. My position is that your edits consistently, almost without exception, add negative information and spin to articles about conservative persons and organizations, and remove negative information and spin to articles about progressive persons and organizations. And I'm getting a lot of support for that position. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not a reasonable summary. The reasonable summary would be, "In cases where my edits affect POV, I contend that my edits attempt to move that POV towards a neutral middle, and not closer to a POV extreme."

Information in our articles should be conveyed in a balanced, proportionate manner that reflects appropriate weight as established by reliable sources. You are correct that I add and remove information. You are also correct that I edit articles about conservatives, progressives, liberals, etc. You previously charged that I "POV" these articles with my edits, that I slant them - an accusation that is false, and for which you've provided zero evidence to substantiate. Are you now changing your complaint to instead say that when I'm busying myself removing unbalancing POV material from articles to promote NPOV, I should focus more on conservative articles than I now do? And conversely, when I'm adding neutral or "positive" information to articles to establish NPOV, I need to spend more time doing that on conservative articles instead of other articles? (By the way, please note that every single example you say shows me "adding" negative info to articles is actually "reverting the removal" of said info.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I see. So you're acknowledging that you do a lot of reverting. Thanks for that. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverting? So do I and plenty of other editors, including you.TMCk (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you do. But me? Not nearly as much. The overwhelming majority of my mainspace edits are not reverts, and I encourage you to prove otherwise, if you can. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless it comes down to articles where you have a strong POV like the UGG bot articles i.E. where you recently reverted (after some time had past) to you preferred version against consensus while ignoring a previous warning by an admin not to do so again. Want the link? Just ask me although it wouldn't be in you favor.TMCk (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• I asked you this question several days ago and you pretended that you didn't know what I was talking about, so I'll rephrase. Since you are claiming that you are "editing toward NPOV," you must have an idea of where NPOV is, so to speak. Would you please identify one or more periodicals and/or websites, which we have cited as sources in the discussions about Tea Party movement and the "Perceptions" spin-off article, that you believe to be the closest to NPOV? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you start off your question by accusing me of pretending? If I don't understand what you've said, I'll say so and request that you rephrase. What purpose would it serve to "pretend"? Now that you have rephrased, I see more clearly why I didn't get what you were saying. NPOV is a Wikipedia construct that guides our editing of articles; it isn't applied to sources. Asking me to identify a source closest to NPOV is nonsensical to me. Sources are used based on their accuracy and reliability, often with little regard for whether they have a neutral take on the subject. The policy is: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sources are used based on their accuracy and reliability, often with little regard for whether they have a neutral take on the subject. I will take greater care to adopt precisely the terms you are using so that you can no longer pretend to not understand what I'm asking: So you finally acknowledge that some sources do have a neutral take on these subjects. In your opinion, which periodicals and websites most frequently exhibit a neutral take on these political subjects? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"pretend to not understand" again? What purpose would that serve?

And no, I made no such acknowledgement. Asking me to identify a source closest to NPOV is nonsensical to me. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• It makes a great deal of sense to a lot of people, because it would geolocate your perception of where NPOV is: is it closer to the worldview of Rachel Maddow, or Glenn Beck? Closer to the political stance of The Huffington Post, or The National Review? You claim that you're pushing articles in the direction of NPOV. Surely you must have some idea where that goal is located, and you've been dodging this issue for quite a long time. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Several weeks ago at Talk:Tea Party movement, I cited and linked the following in-depth, academic, peer-reviewed study: [19] You indicated at the time that you did not have the time to read it. Have you had a chance to read it yet? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've read it. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• That peer-reviewed study, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that "Wikipedia's political entries lean Democrat, on average, and tend to be biased. Both of these traits diminish over time ... [but the] evidence further points to persistence of bias in many articles. ... Overall, the many new articles with different views lead to NPOV across Wikipedia's political articles, but not necessarily a NPOV within each article or topic." (pp.3-4.) Given this type of environment — where political articles tend to lean in favor of the Democratic Party, and where this bias tends to persist in many articles — how did you find roughly 12-16 Republican POV-pushers to revert? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept the false pretext of your question. First, you've misquoted out of context, leaving out the text that says articles that "lean Democrat" was in Wikipedia's early years, and that more recently the articles "lack much slant" and have less bias. Second, I don't find Republican POV-pushers. I have articles on watchlists. When edits are made to those articles, I often review them. Dozens or even hundreds of productive edits may pass before I make an edit, and when I review an edit that is problematic, I fix it if I can. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• ... that more recently the articles "lack much slant" and have less bias. "Less bias" is not "zero bias," and the overall finding of "less bias" is due more to addition of new articles, than to any correction of the pro-Democrat bias in existing articles. Correction of the pro-Democrat bias in existing articles is what this is about. You appear to be reverting every such effort you encounter, and it frequently leads to an editwar. In light of the findings of the NBER study, how is it that you've encountered 12-16 Republican POV-pushers? And in light of those findings, do you think it's possible that they're the ones who are editing toward NPOV, by attempting to correct the pro-Democrat bias that still exists? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"You appear to be reverting every such effort you encounter" -- incorrect. Every effort to correct NPOV problems I leave untouched. The efforts I do revert are the non-neutral editing efforts, as shown in the 16 articles you've noted as examples. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

About the peer-reviewed study:
I've not read the whole thing (as of now), just the abstract which states:
"Analyzing a decade of Wikipedia’s articles on US politics, we examine which aspects of collective intelligence leads to a neutral point of view. Our null hypothesis builds on Linus’ Law, often expressed as "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." We find a tendency toward more neutrality in Wikipedia articles on average, but only mixed support for Linus’ Law. The evidence is consistent with a narrow interpretation of Linus’ Law at best, namely, the amount of attention received by an article shapes its neutrality. However, the majority of articles receive little attention, and most articles change only mildly from their initial slant. The arrival of new articles accounts for the tendency of Wikipedia to become more neutral on average."
Could it be that you again cherry-picked some quotes that further advance your point of view? Just asking and wondering what this actually has to do with Xenophrenic‎'s edits and the RFC/U.TMCk (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Could it be that you again cherry-picked some quotes that further advance your point of view? No, what I quoted is what the NBER published report says. Read it. Pages 3 and 4, like I said. Here's the link again. [20] Your assumption of bad faith is duly noted. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Guess you got it back wards somehow and since I didn't cherry pick any quotes at all [why do you have to lie when it is so obvious?] you might just actually mean that the abstract doesn't serve you well as your cherry-picked quotes are by now confirmed as to be taken out of context. You keep on advancing your personal agenda with again and again false distractions proofed to be false. Again, I urge you to file a RFC/U on yourself since as have seen so far, your allegations mostly fit your own editing rather than others.TMCk (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Context is everything. The entire sentence reads; Greenstein and Zhu (2012) show that in its earliest years, Wikipedia’s political entries lean Democrat, on average, and tend to be biased. Both of these traits diminish over time...There is a 90% decline in bias between the 2002 vintage and 2010 vintage articles. According to the study, the articles where the bias tends to persist are only those that have been rarely edited since creation. It later goes on to say that of the political articles that are not NPOV today, half lean Democrat and half lean Republican. The study found that the more editors who edit an article, the closer to NPOV it will be (pg 18 Wikipedia’s [political] articles appear to be centered close to a middle point, on average). For example, biographies tend to lean Republican while civil rights articles tend to lean Democrat etc. Interestingly it found that the bias of the editor is statistically insignificant regarding an articles POV. Basically, the study supports that Xenophrenic's political bias is irrelevant as long as other editors are contributing to a page. If Xenophrenic is politically biased towards the Democrats (I haven't seen enough of his edits to know) then surely your own Republican bias is a counter. Is he tendentious? From what I have seen in the evidence, no more so than any of his opponents. Additionally, if we exclude Xenophrenic's BLP deletions which can be a grey area, all the evidence given regarding his edit-warring behavior is linked to the Talk page, can discussions on the Talk page be classified as edit-warring? Wayne (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

See above. Greenstein and Zhu have indicated that although the pro-Democrat bias has been reduced, it still exists; and it's been reduced mainly by the addition of articles that are more NPOV, rather than correcting the existing pro-Democrat bias in existing articles. The particular article we're primarily focused on, Tea Party movement, has been here since 2009 and it's been a mess. And no, I don't have a pro-Republican bias. If you take a look at the Moderated Discussion page, I've been going both ways. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are not Republican I apologize. I took my cue from an article where you have been edit-warring against consensus for three years to remove any mention that a convicted criminal was a prominent political figure in the Republican Party at the time of his arrest. I guess I shouldn't make assumptions on such limited evidence. Wayne (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The criminal allegations had absolutely nothing to do with his political affiliation or activities and, like these other articles we're dealing with here, it shouldn't have been used as an opposition research trivia drawer. Nobody who was accused in the main group of allegations — child prostitution, kidnapping, murder, Satanic rituals, drug trafficking — was ever arrested based on those allegations. The grand jury ruled that they were a "carefully crafted hoax." All but two of the accusers recanted, those two were charged with perjury, one of the two was found mentally unfit to stand trial (having already gone to prison on other felony charges), and the one remaining accuser did go to prison on a perjury charge for several years. "Edit-warring against consensus" was two against one, and I was eventually vindicated because your favorite source was found to be unreliable at WP:RSN; and then a couple of ArbCom members, User:Nuclear_Warfare and User:FloNight, came in and stubbed the article, removing your enormous pile of BLP violations. Nice job cherry-picking the facts there, Wayne, to present a badly distorted version of events. You tell half-truths, then I provide the other half of the truth and expose you as what you really are. It's what I've learned to expect from you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

What has any of that to do with that particular edit? It was and is still not a BLP violation and the consensus for that particular edit was every other editor not just the two you had the dispute with. The article was stubbed two years ago and you are still reverting the "Republican" mention in 2013 despite being the only one who has a problem with it. It is not opposition research trivia as, virtually without exception, every newspaper report and book mentions it. Wayne (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And absolutely none of this colloquy is relevant to this RfC/U. Find another playground for name-calling <g>. Nor is this the place to resume years-old disputes. Collect (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

... despite being the only one who has a problem with it. I count nine different editors, including a current ArbCom member (one of the two who stubbed the article), who have edited that article since the last time I worked on it in March, and none of them — I repeat, absolutely none of them — has restored the political affiliation that you insisted on including, Wayne. Evidently I'm not the only one who has a problem with it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I only reply here as it goes to the reliability and quality of the accusations you make against anyone. I never added the edit and it was in the article for a year after it was stubbed with no complaints from any of the articles editors, who included your beloved ArbCom member who stubbed the article. You then reverted it twice in two weeks. That none of the pages editors restored it a third time is irrelevant as it was taken to the Talk page for discussion several hours after your second revert in March 2013 where two editors accused you of censorship. I suggested the compromise of moving mention from the lead to the article body which you rejected so it remains unresolved with you the ONLY editor who has indicated that they have a problem with it. Think about it...two different takes on the same edit... you haven't lied regarding the revert but the added context changes everything. You will always have problems with editors such as Xenophrenic if you are not open to collaboration or compromise when there is a disagreement. Wayne (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the excerpt above. The less seen, more Xeno-dominated articles suffer from less NPOV, or more POV, if you will. †TE†Talk 01:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

TE, that the above excerpt doesn't mention any specific editor(s).So could you please pinpoint some "Xeno-dominated" articles (which "...suffer from less NPOV, or more POV,..." b/c of Xenophrenic's edits)? I might have missed them as I didn't see (or remember?) such in article's I have on my watch list. Thanks, TMCk (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure, on occasions I see an edit by the RFC's subject that seems to have some POV in it but when checking the article and sourcing it usually turns out to be a legit correction of content.TMCk (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why should I do that? My opinions are based on a long history, one I'm not about to dig into. You claim to have done your research on Xeno? Are you in denial? Just look at his very latest article EDIT.

Bush defenders, really? Oh, but there's a movie review from CNN that used the phrase. Gee whiz, guess Xeno can claim RS now, eh? Let's ignore the NPOV and LEAD violations. Unless Christopher Hitchens, Ed Koch, Joe Scarborough and Daryn Kagan are well-established "Bush defenders." Maybe it was the Iraq War Vet and amputee who said he "agree[s] with the President 100%." Xeno must've been referring to him. When's Bushdefenders Day again? †TE†Talk 05:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw that edit long before it was introduced a "evidence". I myself would've reverted the previous unsorced POV edit but would've left out the "Bush defenders". Even so properly sourced, it is/would be just serve as a silly reason to edit war over it. For onces I support PW's latest edit that didn't introduce the previous POV and left out the challenged "Bush defenders". Still, there was nothing wrong with the previous sourced content.TMCk (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"Bush defenders" was wrong. Clear violations there. Even if content in the body said... "the critics of the critics of Moore say they're only being critical of him because they're hopeless Bush defenders." It's still not established. †TE†Talk 02:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinions, TE. I only press you for evidence when you try to pass your opinions off as fact. Looking at that edit you linked: Yes, "Bush defenders", as the cited sources stated. The film attacks Bush, so it stands to reason that Bush defenders would be the first to criticize it - it's not a controversial statement. Yes, the CNN piece is a reliable source, and no, it's not a "review". There were no NPOV or LEAD violations. The sentence summarized the article content properly. Yes, Ed Koch is a Bush supporter, endorser, and "defender" (it says so in his BLP). The Hitchens and Scarborough commentators are already covered in the sentence, and Kagan and Damon didn't criticize the film for factual accuracy. I don't know when Bushdefender's Day is. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I only press you for evidence when you try to pass your opinions off as fact. It's a fact, and there are a lot of people signing on beneath it. Take note of how many people have endorsed various iterations of "Xenophrenic is a tendentious editor." Trying to dismiss this fact as an opinion is, in fact, your opinion.
• ... it stands to reason that Bush defenders would be the first to criticize it - it's not a controversial statement. It is an unneeded and inflammatory pejorative as the first person who reverted you indicated in his edit summary [21] — he described it as a "loaded" term — and it does not belong in an encyclopedia article. It comes from the entertainment section, not a news article, not a peer-reviewed scholastic journal, even though it may not technically be a "movie review." And adding the term to an encyclopedia article is completely unnecessary. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if I ceded that cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies is a RS, you still are wrong about NPOV and LEAD. Stands to reason is not a policy, especially to go against the content of the article. There is no mention of Bush defenders. No argument for it at all. You say Ed Koch supported Bush in 2004, thus a Bush defender. I disagree. That's just asinine. If we applied this criteria to all politics-related articles it would amount to vandalism. Oh, but I see an unsourced sentence in Ed Koch's BLP says he once appeared in a documentary "defending Bush" and "blasting Michael Moore." Well, I guess now he's a Moore-blaster. Quick, get it in the lead. SMH. O-2, Xeno. †TE†Talk 13:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is a real case against this user it still has to be made and presented.

• Note for context: The RFC/U was started May 22.

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) 04:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors who push the same POV as Xenophrenic, in a similarly tendentious manner, are very likely to claim he hasn't done anything wrong, and that nothing has been proven. In fact, the evidence against Xenophrenic is overwhelming. I said at the beginning of this proceeding that it was being done for two purposes. The first purpose was to present evidence that Xenophrenic's behavior creates problems for the Community. That purpose has been fulfilled abundantly. The second purpose was to convince him that his behavior does cause these problems, and that he must resolve to change this behavior. And for the second purpose, this RfC/U has been a miserable failure. Considering the huge amount of evidence presented, it comes as no surprise that I made a mistake here and there. But it's clear that Xenophrenic got into more than a dozen content disputes with more than a dozen different people, on more than a dozen different articles, in about two and a half months; and that his habitual response to such situations was editwarring. Most damaging to Xenophrenic, all of this occurred when he knew there were two different spotlights pointed at him (ArbCom, and the community's via the February 26 ANI), and anyone would expect him to be on his best behavior during this period. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I stopped reading after your first sentence where you accuse me of having "the same POV" (whatever this really is) as the RFC's subject. Back it up or redact it Mr. PW. I'm really getting tired of your lies. No back-up for MY claim? Oh yes I have. Just check your recent edits at Ugg boots trademark disputes where you made false claims to edit war back content that was against consensus and you were even warned for doing so at the article's talk page where your edits incl. the one in question was discussed. But keep diggn' you hole Mr. It's your choice to make.TMCk (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm really starting to believe that after we're through examining Xenophrenic's behavioral issues, we should look into yours. The term to describe your issues is Wikihounding. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free(or better said: I double-dare you) to file such complain any time at any venture if you'd like to embarrass yourself a bit more by spreading lies and plenty of hot air. You don't have any proof now (or you would've posted it) and you won't in the future. But I know your venting just hot air and never will follow your own words. I've said that before: Start digging your own grave if you wish so", but despite repeated accusations w/o any kind of back-up your comments like this are simply lies and an attempt of thouing mud in hope that it sticks, true or not. A more honest approach would do you well and maybe over time you might even be able to become a trusted editor, tho I really doubt it so far.TMCk (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Save your time. Nothing will ever be done. †TE†Talk 15:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

What has to be done in your opinion? (Opinion seems all you have since you never back-up accusations you make.)TMCk (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right; in order for something to be done, you must first produce evidence that something needs to be done. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It has become evident that there is some truth to "Xenophrenic's behavior creates problems" for some in the Community, in the same way that Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines create problems for those same individuals. Closer examination of P&W's "evidence" revealed he made not just "a mistake here and there", but in every example he provided, to varying degrees. The fact that my behavior remains constant, even while under review, is a strong indicator that you have not made what I can consider a persuasive argument for change.

You've recently claimed that you are just trying to get me to change what you see as problematic editing behavior (but is more accurately described as "behavior that you find problematic to your kind of editing), but that's not the true reason for this RfC/U. As you admitted in your original canvass message, you wanted to get me banned from the Tea Party article, and politics articles in general, and this RfC was just a necessary stepping-stone you needed to get out of the way before pressing for a ban. Granted, you did add that "And it is altogether possible that during the course of all these discussions, Xeno may accept that his behavior is unacceptable, and change his behavior without a topic ban at all", but I suspect you knew if you didn't present actionable evidence, then no change would occur. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence against Xeno. Some specific claims, which I consider adequately supported by evidence, are:

1. X has never made an edit against the "liberal" position or for the "conservative" position on any of the articles in question.

   Some of those may be have been editing toward WP:NPOV.

   This would probably be considered a single WP:NPOV violation, but even if this is established by consensus, it wouldn't, in itself, be a reason for significant sanctions. However, it relates to other points here and elsewhere in this RfC.

2. X has removed comments to this effect on multiple talk pages, claiming that they are "personal attacks".
3. X has either intentionally, or through incompetence, claimed that editors complaining about his edits were making "personal attacks",
4. X has intentionally, or through incompetence, misinterpreted comments by other editors as to the desired or acceptable state of articles. In some cases, one could make a point toward X's statements about other editors being libelous.

   If someone asks me to redact the last sentence, accurately quoting Wikipedia policy, I'll probably do so. I don't see it as problematic, either as to accuracy, nor as a violation of WP:NLT.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Like I've pointed out in my initial comment when I started that thread (and it still stands): "If there is a real case against this user it still has to be made and presented."
  If there are "real" problems to Xenophrenic's edits they still need to be presented.;;"
  Extreme views presented by editors who are in a content dispute with the subjects of this RFC/U and most have at least in part or whole a one sided POV, not even really close to a NPOV of view, should be disregarded on sight. The only "non-proof" so far are opinions that are not backed up by diffs or any other proof in this matter. There is just the usual mud-slinging going on as we know from content disputes on many politically related articles. Nothing special to the Tea Parties articles and content. W/o the Tea Party('s) articles this RFC/U wouldn't even exist. Everything presented so far is nothing more than an excuse to get one editor (one that is not following the "main bias" for the Tea) out of the way. The initial canvassing note (besides others) posted by the RFC/u initiator at user Malke's talk page shows the initiator's intention when following his others (non-neutral) canvasing notes, his posts here and on the evidence page and when checking out it edit history , especially in regards to UGG boots where he was a a SPA for quite some time.TMCk (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic's response to summary by ThinkEnemies

Originally posted under Users who endorse this [ThinkEnemies'] summary. Moved per guidelines. †TE†Talk 16:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

1. "a venue to disparage his political opposition" -- I had to chuckle at that; do politicians really come to Wikipedia to do battle? I'm not one of them. And of course you can't provide substantiation, because no amount of time or patience could turn fallacy into fact. I compromise all the time when there is merit to be found on both sides of a disagreement; however, more often than not, Wikipedia policy is one of the "sides", and doesn't allow for compromise in many circumstances. To your specific question: I answer C) None of the above, as that is a nonsensical either/or construct. Yes, I edit to improve the TPm article, and that includes adding original encyclopedic content [22], improving existing content, and also removing or undoing POV efforts including "whitewashing". You see that as "unsavory behavior"? I'm sure some editors have been disuaded, or if not, topic banned or site banned. I frankly haven't "focused like a laser" anywhere on the article lately; it has severe deficiencies, but lack of comprehensive reliable sources has made significant improvement difficult. It's still basically one big mash-up of news stories. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A comment on this comment:

Xeno seems quite proud of this diff. The second sentence is so excellent I decided to read its supporting refs.

"While not uniformly so, the Tea Party movement tends to be anti-government, anti-spending, anti-Obama, pro-Constitution, anti-tax, pro-patriot ideology, anti-immigration and anti-compromise politics. After the 2012 elections, many local Tea Party factions have shifted their focus to state nullification of the health care law, and protesting the United Nations Agenda 21."[23][24][25][26]

Sourced to four NYT articles, first two do not support this statement at all. Maybe they were intended for the previous sentence. An innocent error, I'm sure.

Source #3 makes this case:

These people are part of a significant undercurrent within the Tea Party movement that has less in common with the Republican Party than with the Patriot movement, a brand of politics historically associated with libertarians, militia groups, anti-immigration advocates and those who argue for the abolition of the Federal Reserve.

Tea Party gatherings are full of people who say they would do away with the Federal Reserve, the federal income tax and countless agencies, not to mention bailouts and stimulus packages. Nor is it unusual to hear calls to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. A remarkable number say this despite having recently lost jobs or health coverage. Some of the prescriptions they are debating — secession, tax boycotts, states “nullifying” federal laws, forming citizen militias — are outside the mainstream, too

Tea Party events have become a magnet for other groups and causes — including gun rights activists, anti-tax crusaders, libertarians, militia organizers, the “birthers” who doubt President Obama’s citizenship, Lyndon LaRouche supporters and proponents of the sovereign states movement.

Source #4 rather flippantly says this:

With the U.S. midterm elections five weeks away, the Tea Party movement is already the big winner of 2010. This anti-government, grass-roots Republican offshoot has rattled the party establishment — making the former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, the party’s most prominent 2012 presidential possibility — and has dominated the debate this campaign season.

The governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, a non-movement conservative, has embraced the Tea Party’s general anti-immigration posture; he actually endorsed changing the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to bar citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants.

The Tea Party agenda is not well defined, though it is anti-government, anti-spending, anti-immigration and anti-compromise politics. In a United States beset by a 9.6 percent unemployment rate and plenty of anxiety and anger, there is a receptive audience.

So, in Xeno's world finding an author who tried his hardest to make the case because certain groups have sent recruiters to TEA Party events, or because anything resembling a libertarian message must acquire their historic associations -- The TEA Party's agenda is anti-government, anti-spending, anti-Obama, pro-Constitution, anti-tax, pro-patriot ideology, anti-immigration and anti-compromise?

Maybe it was the 4th source that gave Xeno the green light to label the TEA Party as holding all of these highly-controversial positions without attribution?

Xeno believes this proves him to be a considerate and compromising, NPOV editor. Really? †TE†Talk 17:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A comment on the above comment on my previous comment:

• first two do not support this statement at all ... An innocent error, I'm sure.

Or perhaps you didn't read them. The 1st supports the shift of focus (see Agenda 21); the second supports the anti-Obama and anti-Washington description, and they both support the "not uniformly" description that they aren't 100% anything across the movement.

• Xeno believes this proves him to be a considerate and compromising, NPOV editor. Really?

No, perhaps you didn't read correctly. That diff was provided after my statement that I add original content, as in all the agenda stuff from the various TP organizations. The sentence you are quibbling about is addressed far more thoroughly in other diffs. Is it your intent to turn this into a content discussion page now? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A comment on the above comment on the previous comment about the original comment on the views expressed by ThinkEnemies

Alright, so the UN thing, which isn't controversial and probably not even notable in this case, is sourced. And the TEA Party wanted Obama to lose reelection, so they're anti-Obama. Got it. But that's not especially controversial, either. Now is it? If you wanted me to look past that sentence to see the good stuff you added, I don't know what to tell you. I started from the top and am not the least bit shocked that you would add something like: [T]he Tea Party movement tends to be anti-government, anti-spending, anti-Obama, pro-Constitution, anti-tax, pro-patriot ideology, anti-immigration and anti-compromise politics.

I believe your POV-pushing is one of the reasons we're here. †TE†Talk 20:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No, we're here because a few editors presently in content disputes with me in Tea Party-related discussions allege I am POV-pushing. If by that you mean "pushing the POV toward the neutral middle", then we may find some agreement. Otherwise, what we have is a situation where information from reliable sources is coming into conflict with the "POVs" of a group of editors, and rather than evaluate the information on it's merits, the group opts to disparage those who present that sourced information in an article as "POV-pushing". Xenophrenic (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well then, don't mind me. I'm just here to help. †TE†Talk 20:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Judging by the above exchange:

• I truly feel Xeno doesn't understand the error of his ways. I doubt any mentor would want such a project, and if they did, I don't believe they would find a willing student in Xeno. †TE†Talk 13:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Hypocrisy Are there really two editors here, who have defended Xeno's editing style, actually plotting a RfC on Arzel (right-wing Xenophrenic)? That is hilarious. I bet it works, too. †TE†Talk 02:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC) They already tried it and it failed miserably. The person who started it actually withdrew it. But that's off-topic. Let's focus. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC) I've been focusing on a little stub if you want to help out. Sorry to say, I believe you're getting railroaded here. †TE†Talk 02:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close RFC/U

Per RFC rules per closing an RFC/U, I motion that this RFC/U is closed.Casprings (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It has not run the usual course of time, so your desires shall be unmet. Collect (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Per the rules, "RfC/Us which are closed by agreement require a motion to close; this motion should be visible on the talk page of the RfC/U." In my opinion, there is a total lack of evidence for anything here. This RFC/U is the problem, not the user. There is no time limit given to motion to close this RFC/U.Casprings (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Alas -- there are a large number who clearly demur -- saying that they must be erring in seeing evidence is not really gonna help you a lot. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

@Casprings: the closure has to be "by agreement." There is no such agreement. Personally, I am not interested in any such agreement. I want this discussion to run its course. For example, Xenophrenic argued that he's editing toward NPOV in all of his editwars, so he must have a pretty good idea about where NPOV is located on the political spectrum, but when I ask him for that information, I'm being stonewalled. It's not constructive. Nor is it constructive to close this discussion early. We have at least eight different editors endorsing various versions of "Xenophrenic is a tendentious editor," and four or five endorsing various versions of "No, he isn't." In your opinion, "there is a total lack of evidence" but clearly there are eight editors who agree that the evidence herein is sufficient. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

yes there are certainly alot of editors with heavy involvement that think there is a problem. Not so much from uninvolved editors that look at this RFC/U. I suspect that this effort will fail, unless it draws some attention from uninvolved editors. That said, there is nothing wrong with starting the conversation. Editors can either support or not support this motion, per policy.Casprings (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• What's the rush?

From what I can tell, Xeno and P&W worked especially hard on evidence presented for this RfC. I'm sure both of them would prefer at least the tiniest form of acknowledgement from admins. †TE†Talk 13:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sure P&W would like this to go on. Not sure Xeno. He might think it is a bit of a waste of time.

I guess you missed the more likely possibility which is that the expressed concerns are valid, and the more thorough the review, the more that valid concerns get confirmed and invalid ones get refuted. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

What Is the Purpose of This RFC/U Anyway?

I haven't researched the editing of the Tea Party Movement and so cannot comment on whether User:Xenophrenic has been a tendentious editor. I don't want to research the editing, because I know that I do not have a neutral point of view and so should stay out of it. However, I don't know what the purpose of this RFC/U is in the first place. I won't comment on whether it should be closed because I don't know what is accomplishes.

In 2005 through 2008, when the ArbCom was functional, a user conduct RFC was the last step prior to an RfAr (Request for Arbitration) to request that the ArbCom site-ban a user who engaged in personal attacks or was malicious. Since 2010, such users are banned by administrative consensus rather than by the ArbCom. The ArbCom is currently dysfunctional, in that it handles only a small number of cases involving contentious areas, and is backlogged on that small number of cases. It doesn't appear that anyone is actually requesting that Xenophrenic be site-banned. There was an RfAr in progress concerning the Tea Party Movement, but it has been suspended to allow mediation. It appears that this RFC/U is nothing but an opportunity for right-wing editors and left-wing editors to argue about a left-wing editor. What is being requested anyway, other than useless comments about a left-wing editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is Phoenix and Winslow's explanation of the purpose of the RFCU. I will not summarize his words, since anything I say will be misconstrued as a personal attack. — goethean 17:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, I'm not the sort of person who would misconstrue "anything you say" as a personal attack. That would be Xenophrenic. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing like dismissing another editor with a personal attack on another editor.Casprings (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) X is a "left-wing editor", as you call it, who is unable to accept the possibility that a "right-wing editor" may be acting in good faith. In other words, "if you disagree, you're an enemy". That is (one of the) basic problems. I think that many of his article edits are severely biased, but I'm not going to present (more) evidence on than has already been presented. I will present a finding with some evidence (pretty much already presented) that he cannot understand the possibility of a good-faith editor who does not agree that his POV is NPOV. I thought, at first, it would be possible to get him to realize that. Now, I'm not sure.

To Goethean. As you note, I didn't certify. However, now I'm leaning toward that as a desirable outcome, but I think it would have to be extended to an interaction ban with any editor, currently involved or not, who X perceives to be a "right-wing editor". Even if he really was editing with NPOV, the interactions are damaging to Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This RFC/U is however useless at this point as far as having Xenophrenic topic-banned from the Tea Party Movement or interaction-banned from interaction with right-wing editors, because those are functions of the ArbCom, but the arbitration proceeding has been suspended while mediation is in progress. In any event, the case against Xenophrenic is already documented in the suspended RfAr. This RFC/U appears to be just another forum for editors who dislike each other to continue to rant about each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, no. The community is also capable of imposing a topic ban, an interaction ban, a complete site ban, or a block of any length, up to and including indefinite. I don't feel that a block would be appropriate in this case. One other thing — I don't believe "mediation" is really accurate; "moderation" is a better descriptive term in the weird Wikipedia dialect. The usual Wikipedia mediation process is not involved. Instead we have an ArbCom member as a moderator for all editing proposals. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the largest purpose is establish (or refute) that the behavior is occurring. And (ideally) lead to self-changes by Xenophrenic. So far I have seen immense evidence on the "establish" side and mostly just swipes at the process and participants by the "refute" side. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The idea that this RFC will lead to changes by Xenophrenic strikes me as naïve. User conduct RFCs are not an implement for editors changing their behavior. In a perfect world, they might be, but in a perfect world, we wouldn't have problematic editors. I restate my view that this RFC/U is just a vehicle for editors who dislike each other to argue with each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right that I am naive and wear rose colored glasses. But sometimes it works out which maybe makes it less so. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you have seen cases where an RFC/U results in a user improving their behavior. I have not. An RFC/U is, in my experience, a very late stage in trying to get the attention of a problematical editor, after reason has failed, and is the last step before arbitration. In this case arbitration is already in progress but on hold. This RFC/U is, in my opinion, just another attempt by critics of Xenophrenic to dump on him, and by Xenophrenic to dump on his critics, not a serious attempt, except by the maybe naïve North8000, to improve Xenophrenic. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, that leads to the other bigger purpose. IMHO, when you get to questions of general behavior, where there is so much latitude to mislead, IMHO there are only 2 venues where there is real presentation of and analysis of evidence.....RFC/U and Arbcom. And so without a thorough gathering and analysis of evidence at RFC/U, I attach zero credibility/confidence to what happens at wp:an and wp:ani. It becomes a merely a question of which side has a the bigger / more active wiki-savvy posse. The one side that needs to deceive in order to prevail can usually do so if they have the bigger posse. North8000 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

This RfC/U isn't really going anywhere, since Xenophrenic is denying that he has a problem and he has attracted a team of "defense attorneys." After adding some more evidence of his disruptive behavior, [27] I started a thread at WP:ANI to seek a topic ban. I am not celebrating. I was hoping that he would acknowledge that he has a problem, and resolve to improve his behavior. So, unfortunately this is necessary to protect these articles. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Closed until this is finished. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you don't open it again or WP:boomerang is almost bound to come into effect. There is a solid audit trail of your forum shopping, edit warring and tendencious editing that could also be cited. Please assemble the following words to make a coherent sentence: Pot, kettle, calling, black ----Snowded ^TALK 00:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Alleged evidence for violation of WP:DISRUPT

Here, User:Phoenix and Winslow has linked to a talk page archive which would take 31 pages to print on my printer. No indication of which of Xenophrenic's 79 edits to that talk page are supposed to have been disruptive. It looks like altogether, there are about 271 comments on the talk page. Does User:Phoenix and Winslow expect readers of this RFC to examine each of these 271 edits, or are we just supposed to take his word for it that Xenophrenic is a disruptive editor who deserves to be topic banned? The standards for what is thought to pass for evidence here are becoming laughable. — goethean 15:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a titanic amount of very well-documented evidence, with pinpoint-specific diffs, that you have chosen to ignore, instead focusing on what you perceive to be technical issues with a tiny minority of the evidence. Would you care to start addressing the vast majority of evidence that you haven't found any fault with, Counselor? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you answer my question. — goethean 16:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

See below.North8000 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

@Goethean The overall concern is unusually extensive and relentless POV'ing work. And generally that is the sum of an immense amount of actions which individually might be no big deal. So I consider the approach of defending any individual edit as "not proof" and then saying that pointing to a large amount of edits as illegitimate "because you didn't give me an individual edit" to be an unsound maneuver to discredit the folks with the concerns. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well, you have often claimed the right to make accusations of tendentious editing against fellow editors without providing any evidence whatsoever. So it is completely understandable that you see the presented evidence as more than sufficient when it comes to making accusations against editors on the other side of the content dispute. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, a non-functional ARBCOM has failed to enforce Wikipedia's rules and to admonish you for your repeated and flagrant violations of WP:NPA. — goethean 16:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you just made a bunch of accusations (some buried as false implied premises) without evidence, and wrong ones at that so I guess YOU are claiming that right.North8000 (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No point in arguing Goethean, the evidence model and form of argument in use is straight out of Fox News; no surprise really. The scary thing is that I think they are being genuine ----Snowded ^TALK 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, hold up. Are you now DENYING that you have often claimed the right to make accusations of tendentious editing against fellow editors without providing any evidence whatsoever? Because that would be truly interesting, given this. — goethean 17:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I know that you are trying to be manipulative with manipulative wording, but there are still some valid things worth discussing there which I will do in a separate section. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a very simple question that you refuse to answer. That fact is more revealing than your reams of rhetoric. — goethean 18:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you just did it several times, and nothing is happening to you, so I guess that there is the "right" to some degree. For me, when it is to just "lean" on the individual to correct their behavior, my standards are two levels higher than yours. I'd have to be correct, and have seen enough to know it's correct. And if it were are a part of calling for sanctions on the individual, my standard would be three levels higher than yours....the previous 2 plus evidence. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, we all know how your standards are so much higher than all of the other Wikipedia editors! We all know that you alone are above the petty squabbling and partisan politics! You are doubly above it, and triply above it! How about this: when you are ready to talk like a real human being talking to another human being rather than typing reams of nonsensical rhetoric, you let me know. — goethean 19:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, but that straw man is is not what I said. I said that my standards are higher than yours in the area under discussion. North8000 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It was parody, not a straw man. — goethean 20:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikilawyering by Xeno's dream team of "defense attorneys." I am not optimistic. The goal was to convince Xeno that his behavior is problematic, and that he needs to make a change. Accordingly, I am respectfully requesting that the "defense lawyers" either respond to the entire body of evidence one line at a time, rather than nitpicking one or two links and ignoring the rest, or allow Xenophrenic to address the evidence himself. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that this RFC, like your ANI thread, is not going the way you like. But calling people names, badgering respondents, and attempting to dictate how they respond to your lack of evidence is not going to change anything. And simply pointing out the fact that your "evidence" is extremely underwhelming is not wikilawyering. — goethean 18:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well then,I suppose that it's going to continue exactly like this until the sands in the RfC/U hourglass run out, and then it's TPM II at ArbCom on July 1. See you there, Counselor. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that as a solution. IMHO we need to ignore the people trying to set the curtains on fire and do a thorough and fair job HERE. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

In sum, you suggest to ignore and dismiss those who you disagree with and assume that you(and those you agree with) are correct.Casprings (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No, what I actually said is one line up, and bears little or no resemblance to what you just wrote. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Casprings, that seems to be an accurate logical inference. — goethean 21:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not constructive, and is clearly becoming disruptive. You have already indicated through your behavior here that you want this to be a completely fruitless endeavor, to be resolved eventually by ArbCom. Have it your way. Let's see what they think of the evidence, and of your disruptive approach to this dispute resolution process. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Casprings made indeed a factual observation that is clear to anyone w/o a partisan agenda that supposed to be left together with guns and knifes at WP's doorstep.TMCk (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  It's obvious to anyone who has actually read even the small amount of evidence presented that Casprings is mistaken. I decline to assert that he is lying. Regardless of whether he is mistaken, his comments are not helpful. It would be better to convince X that at least some of his comments are non-constructive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Casprings isn't the only one. There are several participants here who are defying reality, and seeking to enable Xenophrenic to continue doing what he's doing. ArbCom will reconvene on July 1. It won't be that long. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

How funny and predictable. Everyone who doesn't share you POV is "defying reality". Maybe your own "reality" needs some touch-ups"?TMCk (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

North8000's evidence

• We have some sort of time traveler here who can respond (and refute?) before you actually post:[28]TMCk (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why did you put this out of sequence at the top of the section? You're not making any sense regarding the sequence of events and false assertion that "time travel" is required....it's all very simple and in the thread. After you made the insult I said in response: "Statistics 101: Knowing only what you know so far, if there were "Z" instances in a 1 week sampler, what is your best guess at the number for 174 weeks? Answer: Z x 174. Low degree of accuracy-reliability due to an only 1 week sample with unestablished representativeness, which is why I emphasized "rough" many times."
• After that others were trying to set up a straw man that the contents of the above comment was a cornerstone of the evidence. I said that it was only a response to your insult, and not even in the evidence.

• I'm not getting pulled into engaging further on this. North8000 (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Out of sequence??? You said:
  "I said at the very beginning that it would be for a very very rough idea.....that all of that material is just 1 of the 176 weeks at the one article; emphasizing that the the other 175 weeks are not included. The math point on this talk page was only to refute the insult made by TMCK, it is not even a part of the evidence presentation. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)"
  So you falsely claimed to refute a comment I didn't make yet. It's as simple as that.TMCk (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not getting pulled into engaging further on this, even by mis-statements. But I think I see where the confusion is. My very first comment on the talk page in this areas was vaguely about scaling up, recognizing that it was just a one week sampler out of 176 weeks. My more mathematical comment (the one some folks were trying to erroneously dissect and misrepresent) was a response to your insult and was after your insult. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You are dissembling. The math is part of your evidence. It appears that you now recognize that your math is completely untenable, and so you want to claim that it is not part of your evidence (as well as whining that references to it are "insults"). I suggest that you either stand by your comments or retract them rather than trying to wiggle out of the rhetorically. — goethean 14:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I stand by all of them. I'm not getting pulled into engaging further on this, even by mis-statements. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a 7-day-1-article sampler 2/18/13 to 2/24/13) (1/174th of Xenophrenic's approx 1220 days 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. (Emphasis mine)

"Multiply this by 174"? What does that even mean? — goethean 22:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant that this sampler is for just one week out of Xenophrenic's 174 weeks at the one article. I was still building it and subsequently changed days to weeks to simplify. A very rough first guess at the whole picture would be to multiply my 1-week list by 174. North8000 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That ridiculous math is idiotic and not even the slightest scientific.TMCk (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Statistics 101: Knowing only what you know so far, if there were "Z" instances in a 1 week sampler, what is your best guess at the number for 174 weeks? Answer: Z x 174. Low degree of accuracy-reliability due to an only 1 week sample with unestablished representativeness, which is why I emphasized "rough" many times. But I spent probably 5 hours just putting together that one week.....not sure I'm ready to do more weeks. North8000 (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Low degree of accuracy

Probably approaching nil. — goethean 23:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as an expert statistician, the error estimate would be more-or-less +/- 3 times the square root of the number of observations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it your opinion as an expert statistician that North8000's methodology is a fair way to judge the quality of an editor's contributions to an article? — goethean 16:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

My answer would be no (on the statistics related comment), which is why it is just a talk page addressing of an insult, and is not a part of the evidence. North8000 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? You think that your own methodology is not a fair way to judge the quality of an editor's contributions to an article? — goethean 16:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

C'mon, you gotta be better at reading a sentence than that. I'll add bolding to help: My answer would be no (on the statistics related comment), which is why it is just a talk page addressing of an insult, and is not a part of the evidence. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• In regards to the alleged "insult": We have some sort of time traveler here who can respond (and refute?) before you actually post:[29]TMCk (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did you put this into the middle of another thread? You're not making any sense regarding the sequence of events and false assertion that "time travel" is required....it's all very simple and in the thread. After you made the insult I said in response: "Statistics 101: Knowing only what you know so far, if there were "Z" instances in a 1 week sampler, what is your best guess at the number for 174 weeks? Answer: Z x 174. Low degree of accuracy-reliability due to an only 1 week sample with unestablished representativeness, which is why I emphasized "rough" many times."

After that others were trying to set up a straw man that the contents of the above comment was a cornerstone of the evidence. I said that it was only a response to your insult, and not even in the evidence.

I'm not getting pulled into engaging further on this. North8000 (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Got it......except that I was directly quoting from the evidence that you provided. And now you are saying that the methodology which you suggested in your evidence is not a fair way to judge an editor's contributions to an article. — goethean 18:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If anyone — anyone at all — can make any kind of sense out of what North8000 is trying to say here and here, I would appreciate them explaining it to me like I am a small child. Because as far as I can see, he is dissembling. — goethean 18:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It might be reasonable to extrapolate from a random sample, but not from an atypical sample. If sixteen edits in a week was typical, over the course of 174 weeks you'd expect 2784 edits to the article. If I'm reading Arthur's comment right, the error estimate would be ±158 (3x √2784). In reality, Xenophrenic has 397 edits to the article over about 159 weeks (which amounts to 2.5 edits per week). So we're looking at 15 standard errors (assuming that we're talking about standard errors here) away from the estimate. Guettarda (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that it matters (see below) but you have 2 significant errors. One you omitted the talk page. And two these were just the edits illustrating the point, not all edits. North8000 (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I made a mistake? And what was that - taking you at your word? You clearly said "at the one (TPM) article". The fact that you conflated both the article and the talk page makes your comment even more misleading. But, in the interest of AGF, I'll assume that you meant "article and talk page". That gives us a total of 983 edits (or still, only 1/3 the number of edits that your "representative sample" would indicate). That moves the needle from 2.5 edits a week to 2.8. You, on the other hand have 1375 edits to the talk page and 195 edits to the article in (about) 136 weeks. That gives you a total of 1570 edits (or 1.6x as many as Xenophrenic), in a substantially shorter period of time. That's 5.8 edits per page per week for you.

As for the second bit, no, they were not "edits illustrating the point". Your selection would only be "illustrative" if the true number of edits was somewhere close to your extrapolation. Had the true number been anywhere above ~2100, then maybe your claim would be "illustrative". But it's nowhere near that - your example is, instead, entirely misleading. Guettarda (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I said at the very beginning that it would be for a very very rough idea.....that all of that material is just 1 of the 176 weeks at the one article; emphasizing that the the other 175 weeks are not included. The math point on this talk page was only to refute the insult made by TMCK, it is not even a part of the evidence presentation. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What alleged insult are you referring to? Please delight me.TMCk (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• We have some sort of time traveler here who can respond (and refute?) before you actually post:[30]TMCk (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

But it doesn't give a "rough idea" of Xenophrenic's editing. Your rough claim is that he made over 2700 edits to the "page" (two pages, but hey, I suppose that's "roughly" one page, in your style of "math"). And the point is that you didn't need to estimate - his actual number of edits was extremely easy to verify.

The truth, of course, is that Xenophrenic was the third most prolific contributor to those pages, behind both you (with 1570 edits) and Malke 2010 (with 1632).

Of course, when it boils down, that isn't even the worst problem with your "evidence" - even a cursory glance shows that you referenced the same edit twice, with a different summary. In addition, in one case you're attributing motive to his addition of a single word, "resolving", to an existing comment of his is "Working to get Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party event removed from article". Other "evidence" of yours includes an example of X removing unsourced SYNTH ("perhaps the first tea party event") from the article. "Perhaps" doesn't come from the source, it's a pure editorial speculation - as you well know, removing unsourced speculation from articles is one of the most basic tenets of article writing.

Which leads me to one last point - given that you're a party to the arbcomm case, you probably don't count as someone "not directly involved in the dispute". Which means you shouldn't be editing the "views" section at all (except to endorse other people's statements). In fact, all three of your contributions should probably be moved to the talk page, or incorporated into the statement of the dispute. Guettarda (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

First on the small items. You never said where the duplication was but I found and fixed it. And that small edit was a tweak on another edit made minutes before so I combined them into one.

Again, you are mostly discussing a talk page comment of mine which was refuting the insult and which is not a part of the evidence. And I'm not talking about number of edits.....there is nothing per se wrong with active editing....even less so on the talk page. Also your arguments miss a key point that I started with......there is NO claim that every item is individually problematic or without a possible claim of validity. The concerns expressed are a "forest, not each individual tree" situation. Finally, the RFC/U is about the overall pattern, not about any one article or Arbcom case about any one article. I started with the the TPM article because it is the one where I've have the most extensive observation. And I don't know what you're talking about "move to the talk page because not directly involved in the dispute". Both involved and uninvolved are on the RFC/U page. I think that the top ("involved") is just for the people who started the case, but I'd be happy to move my evidence up there if folks prefer. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but it does give a rough idea of Xenophernic's questionable (in North8000's opinion) edits. If you compare that to all of Xeno's edits in that week, it gives a reasonable estimate of a lower bound of the percentage of Xeno's edits which North considers questionable, and it is reasonable to extrapolate that to all of Xeno's edits. As for insults made to North, it's quite clear to me that Xeno's gang supporters are intending to insult North, rather than dealing with the problems he is discussing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It sounds your position is that making an edit which North8000 considers to be questionable constitutes a behavioral problem. Is that the case? Because everything that he has brought up seems to be content disputes. Xeno thinks x, North8000 thinks y, multiply that times 174, therefore Xenophrenic needs to be topic-banned. That seems like the argument here. — goethean 19:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with North on (a random sample) of y (only if my !vote were to count as a vote or as an action I might take, would I go through the whole list). And we don't know what Xeno thinks; we only know what he writes. And what he writes is disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, disrupting the ability of particular groups of editors to impose their agenda on Wikipedia articles is not necessarily a bad thing. — goethean 19:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And the "gang" language is quite astonishingly hypocritical considering that it comes from someone who is part of a group of editors who maintain nearly perfect solidarity in terms of working together to promote a particular political agenda in Wikipedia articles. — goethean 19:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see your point. We can disagree as to which groups of editors are acting contrary to Wikipedia policies.

(ec) I decline to reply to the lies in that last added paragraph. If corrected to remove the lies, leaving only a few misstatements, I might reply to the (potential) grain of truth. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If G wants to be constructive, I'll accept redaction from G's mistake (and violation of Wikipedia policies) of 19:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC). — Arthur Rubin (talk)

So Rubin's implicit claim, in saying that I have lied, is that he has never been part of a group of editors who have worked together to impose a political agenda on Wikipedia articles. — goethean 20:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would prefer to say that I have been part of an (informal) group of editors who have worked together to remove a political agenda imposed on Wikipedia articles. However, even that would be incorrect, as I have not been involved in any coordination of edits, until recently, in regard Xeno's and your efforts to impose a political agenda on Wikipedia articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"You never said where the duplication was but I found and fixed it". That's the problem with identifying specific errors in generally substandard writing: people fix precisely the problem you identified, fix none of the larger issues, and then expect a pat on the back.

"Again, you are mostly discussing a talk page comment of mine which was refuting the insult". I'm not sure what you were reading, but obviously not my comment. I was discussing your "evidence" section: the fact that the bit you put in bold is entirely false, the fact that your wall of diffs don't actually show what you claim they show, and the fact that your section appears to violate the RFC guidelines).

You claim that it's only as a whole that the "forest" is apparent, and you say that the "forest" can be seen by extrapolating from your links. The problem is that (a) you are taking a small copse in a thinly-wooded field and saying "look at this forest", and (b) on closer examination of your wall of diffs, it turns out that the trees upon which you are crafting your forest are, in fact, not trees.

"Both involved and uninvolved are on the RFC/U page. I think that the top ("involved") is just for the people who started the case, but I'd be happy to move my evidence up there if folks prefer". It's pretty simple - you [Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Rules|are allowed to]] add a view (which is reserved for uninvolved editors; "here's what I think of the situation presented"), or an endorsement. Your post is none of the above. Guettarda (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You are basically saying put in opinions and not evidence. An evidence is what you and everyone against the FCC/U is demanding......I'm beginning to see the picture.

Evidence (along with genuine analysis of it) is the thing most useful towards an accurate picture/result. North8000 (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So far the RFC/u for the most contains only opinion and no factual evidence (the few mid-factual examples do not make a case). Also, North, I'm still waiting for a response where you name me as making an alleged insult you then responded to with your flowed math example.TMCk (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you can honestly say that. Please explain why, for example, X's misinterpretation of Malke's comments could be (a) honest or (b) helpful. As for North's week, representative or not, if you don't think it's evidence of an unfortunate pattern on X's part, you look at each of the diffs and say why it is not part of a disruptive pattern. On the face of it, they are disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

North has presented no evidence of disruption. He has shown that X is on one side of a content dispute and that North doesn't like the side that X has taken; nothing more. There is not a single policy that North has shown X to have violated. It seems that members of the "gang", to use Rubin's terminology, are conflating disruption of their agenda with disruption of Wikipedia. As far as the back-and-forth with Malke goes, I can't figure out what the violation is supposed to have been, and no one has taken the time to explain it clearly. — goethean 18:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As for North's week, representative or not, if you don't think it's evidence of an unfortunate pattern on X's part, you look at each of the diffs and say why it is not part of a disruptive pattern.

Sure --- prove your innocence. Why don't you just throw him in a river and see if he floats? — goethean 18:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not commenting either way on disruption, but I never said disruption. My comments were focused on Tendentious editing / extensive and relentless POV'ing work. Also aggressive refactoring and modification of talk pages. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing focus

Per Wikichecker:

Xenophrenic's top pages:

1. Talk:Tea Party movement[WP] (586)
2. Tea Party movement[WP] (397)
3. Tea Party protests[WP] (309)
4. Bill Maher[WP] (308)
5. Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now[WP] (181)
6. Stop Online Piracy Act[WP] (169)Susan Roesgen[WP] (162)Coffee Party USA[WP] (140)
7. Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation[WP] (138)
8. Winter Soldier Investigation[WP] (124)
9. Chuck E. Cheese's[WP] (117)
10. Talk:Tea Party protests[WP] (116)
11. Karrine Steffans[WP] (115)
12. Pat Tillman[WP] (105)
13. ATF gunwalking scandal[WP] (103)
14. Talk:Coffee Party USA[WP] (103)
15. PROTECT IP Act[WP] (101)
16. Nudity[WP] (100)

Out of 8550 edits in mainspace, more than 25% are to a relative handful of articles, primarily political in nature. Although such edits as adding

A group of naturists on a nude beach

definitely show a non-political POV there. But even some of his edits there are appreciably political in nature (reverting removal of an Abu Ghreib image, etc.) His (or her) edits tend to run in clumpsm with a number of big clumps being decidedly aimed at particular political interests. I trust this clears up any confusion as to numbers of edits in any area. Collect (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• My Eyes!!! You should warn people before causing temporary blindness. †TE†Talk 17:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Chuck E. Cheese!!!????? Malke 2010 (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Xenophrenic, can you come up with some middle ground to resolve this?

Xenophrenic, the posse attacking the RFC/U isn't doing you any favors. The evidence is immense and growing, and a fair analysis of it shows that at least some of the expressed concerns are accurate. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the sniping at the evidence is just that. Can you come up with some middle ground to resolve this? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The more I read comments from Xeno's defense team, or more it appears their decision was already made prior to RfC. Which is fine, my mind was made up. I'm not pretending to be impartial, though. They should just come out and admit it. They say the proof isn't there, they're not convinced. Problem is they can't be convinced. Regardless of a preponderance of evidence. †TE†Talk 19:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I see. So because we don't accept North8000's frankly bullshit evidence and agree that Xenophrenic should be topic-banned, you accuse me of acting in bad faith. How...instructive. I haven't read through your evidence yet because it is convoluted and I really doubt, given the amazingly poor quality of evidence presented so far, that there will be anything even mildly persuasive. — goethean 19:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

False preconceived notions of a topic-ban if you admit bad behavior on Xeno's part probably makes impartial judgement difficult, does it not? †TE†Talk 20:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. What was I thinking? We're all here just having a friendly chat! Nobody's out to get anyone...where would I get that idea? Silly me! — goethean 20:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about friendly chat, but a freudian slip was clearly evident. †TE†Talk 20:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@Goethean, Your description is wrong in numerous ways. Almost every time you write here you mis-characterize towards a particular end. For me your credibility is very low. Here goes for this one:

1. It's not just "North's evidence". Mine is just a fraction of the immense amount given.
2. By any measure, it's not "bullshit". It's a lot of careful factual work.
3. Nobody is proposing sanctions, much less the most extreme one that you said. This section is the opposite, asking Xenophrenic to come up with some idea, without saying anything about what it should be.

North8000 (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

North, you have failed miserably to show that Xenophrenic violated any Wikipedia policy. Your evidence does show that Xenophrenic and you are on opposite sides of a content dispute, and that you don't like the side of the content dispute that Xenophrenic has taken. With this lack of evidence, you have repeatedly accused an editor of violating WP:TE. But why am I surprised? You have explicitly claimed the right to accuse editors of violating WP:TE without presenting any evidence whatsoever, which should itself qualify under Wikipedia guidelines as a personal attack.

For me your credibility is very low.

It makes me so sad to hear that. Your credibility for me is actually negative. That is, when you make a claim, the opposite is more likely than not to be true. — goethean 20:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same mis-statements and mis-characterizations over and over and over, including jamming them into places that don't even relate to them. They have been said many many times, and it's clear who actually and ostensibly does and doesn't believe them. Time to stop driving this page into a wall of repetition. And look at the title of the section ("Xenophrenic, can you come up with some middle ground to resolve this") that you just introduced "topic ban" into! North8000 (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What he is actually doing is refuting repeated bogus claims over and over since they pop up here over and over again. And in regards who actually introduced a "topic ban", check PW's edits including but not limited to Malke's talk page (check ANI too). PW made clear what he's expecting by this RFC/U, no matter how ridiculous his expectations are.TMCk (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you're keeping such careful track of every word I post on every page, certainly you are well aware that I have repeatedly said the following:

1. Xenophrenic could look at all of this evidence and admit that he really does have a problem.
2. Xenophrenic could then resolve to change and improve his behavior.
3. I would welcome such a resolution of this matter.
4. It would make any further action, including a topic ban, unnecessary.

Why haven't you acknowledged any of these statements, and instead only focused (repeatedly) on my mention of a topic ban as a last resort? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

@TMC, your "topic ban" post completely missed what I actually said to Goethean. I thought it was pretty simple but since apparently not I will recap it in even shorter and more direct form. Which is that Goethean introduced "topic ban" into a section titled "Xenophrenic, can you come up with some middle ground to resolve this?" North8000 (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Argh. You can keep playing yourself if you wish but not me.TMCk (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on RfC

It's my contention this entire process is a ploy by administrators to occupy your time and keep you off the mainspace (where they were forced to intervene). Thoughts? †TE†Talk 01:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you now blaming admins for this so far failed RFC/U or did I misunderstood your comment? Can you please clarify a bit what your intention is? I truly don't want to misconstrue your comment so far.TMCk (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Also I don't think admins would be very pleased with your (perceived ?) accusation and would be more likely not to get involved in this matter.TMCk (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've always been skeptical of the process. I'm still trying to make sense of your thinly-veiled threat. Why so touchy? †TE†Talk 01:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Just checked AN/I to see if I was listed. What does that say sensitivities around here? SMH †TE†Talk 01:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So, (just as usual?), you try to keep it vague instead of clarifying? Don't expect an answer to hot air then.TMCk (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What was so vague about my contention? I'm not blaming anyone for anything. I was just making an observation. †TE†Talk 03:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you look into the history (which is always accessible, if not conveniently) you'll see that RFC is anything but a conspiracy by "administrators" to "keep you off...mainspace". As long as you don't do anything blockable there's nothing an admin can do that any other editor can't.

The problem with RFC is that it's supposed to be a conversation, an opportunity to involve outside voices to see if they can convince the editor that their behaviour is problematic. This RFC failed long ago - there's no conversation between X and editors who feel he should change his ways. The creation of an evidence section is an abuse of the process, and the fact that you and North continued to build these "evidence" sections after I pointed out that they are inappropriate shows how far this has strayed beyond the bounds of normal behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very short on processes which are more thorough and somewhat evidenced based on broader questions (e.g. general behavioral topics on an editor) It only has two (arbcom and RFC/U) True, RFC/U does not include action, which is I think the cause of your (ThinkEnemies) comment. But I think that it is just a matter that the usual processes do not lead to correction of the situation rather than the causes that you postulated. North8000 (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Presentation of Evidence

Guettarda has, in my opinion, correctly, moved a considerable amount of additional "evidence" from the RFC page to the RFC talk page. I have a comment. On the one hand, North8000 states that the purpose of this RFC is to persuade Xenophrenic to change his editing behavior. That is an honorable if naive and quixotic objective. The lines are already drawn, and it is possible noble if unrealistic to think that you want someone to change his style. On the other hand, North8000 and Think Enemies are using the Views section of the RFC to dump on additional evidence. Is their real objective, as they state, to persuade Xenophrenic to change his editing behavior, in which case they should be less confrontational, or is there real objective to continue to add evidence when the case goes to arbitration, in which case they should not claim that their objective is to persuade him to be more flexible? They are inflexibly piling on evidence, and they expect him to respond by being more flexible. It doesn't follow Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That was improper refactoring, and the talk page isn't the place for evidence. The format is not even suitable for development of it organized, correct fully developed with links etc. The folks that keep saying "the evidence is not enough to show anything" are the ones forcing production of more evidence. North8000 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If the evidence is not appropriate for the main RfC page (which I doubt), it should be moved to a subpage, rather than the talk page. However, North8000, not being one of the principals of the RfC, is unqualified to speak of the purpose.... And, one rational approach to the false claim that insufficient evidence has been provided that X has been a troublemaker is to provide more evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the talk page isn't for "evidence" - it's for unproductive stuff that doesn't belong in the main RFC. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to simply delete it, rather than move it.

The point of an RFC is to convince an editor to voluntarily make changes. Xenophrenic has not contributed to the discussion in a week (despite remaining active on Wikipedia). The only way to move forward here is to convince Xenophrenic to re-engage. I'm no communication expert, but it seems pretty clear that dumping a whole pile of fresh accusations isn't a going to build the sort of environment that would encourage re-engagement. On the contrary, it make for an increasingly hostile environment; it seems like these edits actively reduce the probability of Xenophrenic re-engaging. Guettarda (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't matter whether they are considered "fresh accusations" or "more evidence of the same behavior". If North8000 really believes that continuing inflexibly to pile on evidence will persuade Xenophrenic to change his behavior and be more flexible, then he has a different interpretation of human nature or of the world than I do. The attitude that continuing to pile on evidence will voluntarily persuade Xenophrenic to change is what I see as the reverse of reality. However, North8000 is free to put a strange interpretation on reality. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage on some mis-statements in your post. But there are two useful things to point out. My work has been to add evidence supporting concerns already expressed, not add "fresh accusations". Second, if Xeonphrenic won't participate, I suppose different people have different ideas for "plan B". Speaking only for myself, I think that one "Plan B" is that seeing the concerns spotlighted and overwhelmingly evidenced might itself cause Xenophrenic to improve (or stay improved) in those areas even if they do not discuss it. North8000 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you believe that Xenophrenic even read what you're posting?

The simple point is this - the path forward from an RFC/U include mediation (which is already ongoing for the tea party article) or arbitration. The existing case seemed to find more problems with your behaviour than with any other editor; bringing a fresh case would just piss off the arbs. Frankly, if my behaviour was about to be dissected by the arbcomm, I'd be very hesitant to do what you're doing here. Guettarda (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that I can find even one phrase in your post that isn't mixed up or the reverse of reality. I am disengaging on this thread. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for disengaging from the weird claim that continuing to pile on evidence of problematical editing by Xenophrenic was likely to persuade him to change his behavior. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

First, it was expressed hope, not a "claim". Second, my disengaging is is obviously from the exchange (as there is no real exchange going on, just an attempt to continuously fire "volleys" as your last post repeated) not from such a hope. North8000 (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"Teabagger" discussion on article talk page ongoing

Since there has been "evidence" presented on a passage in the TPm article currently under discussion, those of you who haven't noticed that discussion may be interested Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Edit_request_-_dubious_phrase_in_Use_of_term_.22teabagger.22_section. This diff would seem to be somewhat pertinent.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Now it's gone. Any other concerns? †TE†Talk 05:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What happens after this? Request/idea

It looks like Xenophrenic is no longer participating here. I know that there was an wp:ani (probably s/b wp:an) opened and the closed due to this RFC/U being open. But I have a request / suggestion that when this RFC/U is finished that any wp:ani / wp:an possibilities be put on hold for at least 2 months to see if the subject behavior improves or, if it has already improved, that it stays improved. That would be the ideal resolution. I am optimistic about at least some degree of improvement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm still participating. I've been waiting for the second wave of "evidence" additions to be completed before I spent any time reviewing it or commenting, and the tweaking & adding has gone on for several days. I've also been a bit busy this past week. I reviewed the first batch of diffs and examples with the expectation that I might find some information that I could use to implement improvement in the way I do things. I naively thought that was the goal of this RfC/U, but after reviewing the preliminary discussions between the filers, and witnessing the filing of yet another ANI, and the "just wait until July 1" attitude showing eagernesss for more ArbCom proceedings, it is clear that the intent has always been banning. With that in mind, I'll be reviewing these latest additions not only to see if they can demonstrate inappropriate behavior where the last batch of evidence failed, but also with a thoroughness I feel would be beneficial in more formal venues after this. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I have 3-4 reasons why I've invested the time here that I have, and none of them are to seek sanctions (much less banning) against you. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

After briefly looking at some of your additional evidence, North, I'm not optimistic. "Working to get the 'Big Tobacco founded the TPM' statements in." Seriously? I can't even tell you what those statements are, as I never studied that material in detail -- are you sure I wasn't just "working" to revert one of DS1 & Arthur's pointy, massive deletions of longstanding Koch content that had nothing to do with Tobacco? (Hint: read my comment and the associated edit I spoke of, carefully, before responding.) "Xenophrenic relabeled the section header to use the title to assert the opposite." Seriously? Are you sure I didn't just expand the header from "Weasel Wording" to a header more descriptive of the discussion, more inclusive and absolutely NOT opposite: "Weasel words versus accurate descriptions"? (Hint: read the before and after headers, and the discussion in that section, more carefully, before responding.) These are examples not of problematic editing behavior, but recommended behavior. I hope those aren't representative of all of your "additional evidence", or I'm not going to find much of use. I can't review the new stuff in detail right at this moment, but I'll get to it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking for myself. I'm only here to help. While we have you, Xenophrenic. I'd like to ask:

• Why you re-hired Susan Roesgen to CNN in June, 2010, when CNN declined to renew her contract in July, 2009, and removed her bio from their website? Presumably, she still works there today thanks to your archive work.
• Also, why did you remove Rep. Carson's own account of hearing racial slurs as he was walking down the steps with Rep. Lewis and his chief of staff, 33 minutes after announcing you were reviewing the audio clip?

The very clip in which Carson said: "[I]t was just the three of us walking down the steps — ‘kill the bill’, ‘kill the bill’…n - word fifteen times."

Did you decide his own words, just minutes later, were somehow inaccurate? †TE†Talk 21:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't work for CNN, and can't hire or fire their employees. I'm not privy to when her last day of employment was, or when her contract ended, only that it wasn't renewed. At the time of that edit I replaced the deadlink bio page with an archived version not to indicate that she still worked there, but because it was the most recent bio page we had on her. That bio page was still live at the CNN site through mid-April, 2010. If you'll look at the edit summary, you can see that I was asking for her last day of employment. Hope that helps. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Her bio being removed by CNN didn't do it for you? †TE†Talk 21:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that would have been OR on my part, and the bio was still there just a few weeks prior. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Is proclaiming what you don't know a sufficent reason to revert these previous edits? [31][32][33] †TE†Talk 21:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

re: Carson, no, I don't believe I considered his words inaccurate. I didn't convey that with my edit summary, anyway. Just going by memory here, but my edits probably were not based upon a single source. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There's much you don't convey in your edit summaries. I'm asking about your actual edit, focusing on why you removed material that was in the audio you said was under your review. †TE†Talk 21:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I'm not sure if you really don't get it but (from my angle at least) the core of the concerns is what I described as "Type 1" which was (bolding added)

• "When the concern (essentially immense and relentless POV'ing work / TE) exists in the sum total of actions Where any one of them treated singly is no big deal.. So saying that saying that an an individual edit is defensible or is not a big deal does not invalidate that. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• So, in sum, you can't find anything wrong but really don't like the way he edits.Casprings (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Such ridiculous comments are not helping anybody or anything. North8000 (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The only comments that are ridiculous on their face that I see are those of North8000. The characterization of all disagreeing comments as "ridiculous" or "contrary to reality" or whatever is rigid and extreme. If I were in the position of Xenophrenic, I would agree with him that your objective obviously is to seek either a topic ban, or probably a site ban, by the ArbCom. However, I am required by Wikipedia policy to assume good faith that North8000 actually is piling on the evidence against Xenophrenic in order to make him into a more flexible editor (by being an inflexible editor on this RFC/U). The idea that continuing gathering of evidence will actually suddenly change someone's personality is weird. I have not researched the editing history of Xenophrenic on the Tea Party Movement, because I know that I will not be neutral. However, I see blatant evidence of tendentious editing by one editor -- User:North8000, who is using this RFC/U as a soapbox. An RFC/U against North8000 is not necessary, only because this RFC/U speaks for itself against North8000. I have difficulty believing, as does Xenophrenic, that North8000 is really trying to persuade Xenophrenic to become a flexible editor in article space, unlike North8000, who is an extremely inflexible editor in Wikipedia space. Since I am required to assume good faith, I have to assume that North8000 doesn't understand the real world and human beings. (On the Internet, no one recognizes sarcasm. I know. I know.) But my two alternate hypotheses are that North8000 is being vindictive (forbidden by the assumption of assuming good faith) or that his whole view of the purpose of this RFC/U is in an alternate reality. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

When the concern (essentially immense and relentless POV'ing work / TE) exists in the sum total of actions Where any one of them treated singly is no big deal.

Is this like an actual Wikipedia policy that you are quoting, or is this something that you have made up? — goethean 01:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia policy about tendentious editing. He has made a good case that Xenophrenic is a tendentious editor in article space. He has made an even stronger case that North8000 is a tendentious editor in RFC space. It isn't about whether there is Wikipedia policy, or whether he is making things up. My point is that his continuing to pile on the evidence of tendentious editing is not likely to have the productive effect that he claims to be seeking. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

IMO Geothean, Casprings and Robert McClenon are just continuously "brawling" here and throwing punches rather than discussing, including a barrage of misstatements regarding me. . Robert McClenon's description is clearly contrary to reality in many ways.....a look at the start of this section will make several of them obvious. I am not getting pulled into that type of behavior/exchange. I'm very willing to discuss with Xenophrenic who, incidentally, does not engage in such behaviors which is why I've said many times that I like them. North8000 (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I will take that response as confirmation that you are making things up rather than quoting a Wikipedia policy. — goethean 03:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

He is following a North8000 policy of dumping on Xenophrenic. My point is not to throw punches, but to point out that North8000 continuing to brawl and throw punches is not likely to help an already polarized editing situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Without responding to more misrepresenations-punches, there are a few things worth clarifying .....areas where anyone who has not taken the time to really review this may be genuinely mistaken. My work has been evidence building on an RFC/U started by others. Solid evidence building and solid analysis of it is central to avoiding the immense amount of unfairness/crap against people in Wikipedia, most notably at wp:an / wp:ani's on topics of general behavior. My efforts are not to get sanctions against Xenophrenic. For example.... The one area which this could realistically occur is wp:an/wp:ani, and I have argued against the one that was opened on Xenophrenic, and this thread started with a request that nobody open any in the near future. Further, IMO there is TWO possibilities where this RFC/U can lead to an improvement:

1. For Xenophrenic to address it directly here. Maybe there is a graceful way, sidestepping any conclusion or admissions, and just talking about about the future. I.E. whether the areas of concern were actually happenning or not, that they won't in the future.
2. For it to improve without Xenophrenic addressing it directly here. This is a very realistic possibility. (Actually, it probably has already occurred, but would need two months to see if it "stays")

If either occurs, a two month "wait and see" period would somewhat bear it out and the whole thing would be over. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Closure

This RFC/U was opened a month ago, and discussion has become inactive for some time now, so I respectfully request an uninvolved admin or senior editor to measure the consensus and close it. In my opinion, this was a failed exercise. The purpose of WP:RFC/U is to present evidence that an editor has a behavior problem, and convince him to voluntarily recognize that he has a problem, and resolve to improve his behavior. From the beginning, it was made clear that a central part of the behavior problem was tendentious editing, where each individual edit may be seen as possibly defensible, but the cumulative effect of these edits — the "totality of circumstances" — indicates that the editor is POV-pushing. Sadly, the editor in question and his team of "defense Wikilawyers" set about defending each and every individual edit, never acknowledging that it was the cumulative effect of all those edits that was the problem. This case is scheduled to go back to ArbCom on July 1. Please measure consensus and close this failed attempt at a community based solution. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• The request for closure has been made at the appropriate board here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought you were topic banned on anything Tea Party related for personal attacks (and there are a lot of those in this paragraph) ----Snowded ^TALK 19:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support However, why the need to question the good faith of others in your request?Casprings (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support but not the various attacks in the request ----Snowded ^TALK 19:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.