| Revision as of 21:42, 22 May 2013 editSW3 5DL (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,544 edits →Attempts by certifier Malke 2010: diff← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:12, 23 May 2013 edit undoCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →Outside view by Editor 1: +Next edit → | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
| ''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. '''All''' signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to ]. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.'' | ''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. '''All''' signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to ]. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.'' | ||
| === |
===view by Collect === | ||
| There is neither doubt nor disagreement that ] is an inveterate POV-pusher with tenacious editing habits. He seeks to make sure that people know how evil the Tea Party movement is, that it is racist, bigoted, homophobic etc. Unfortunately, this runs into ] head-on. However, he has the ''right'' to delete warnings etc. from his user talk page under Misplaced Pages policy and guildelines, and that complaint does not really belong in an RfC/U. | |||
| Xeno shows his POV in such other articles as ] , on ] where he berates Arthur Rubin with a silly post , in the section "Interim remedy expected" which appears to be a bit of a noticeboard rant (Xeno appears to be a ''dramaboard regular complainant''). | |||
| ] shows my utter lack of animus here. | |||
| The proper result should be for Xenophrenic to acknowledge his problem with following ] when making edits on political pages, for him to read up on ] and not to act like Misplaced Pages is, or ought to be, a battleground of any sort, to understand that we need to look at entire articles, and not seek to add material based on any personal point of view about the topic. And lastly to recognize that ] does ''not'' mean we end up with ''perfect'' articles - it means we end up with ''collegial agreement'' to accept stuff we may not really be in love with. ] (]) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Users who endorse this summary: | Users who endorse this summary: | ||
| # ] (]) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| # | |||
| # | # | ||
| # | # | ||
| # |
# | ||
| ===Outside view by Editor 2 === | ===Outside view by Editor 2 === | ||
Revision as of 14:12, 23 May 2013
To remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 07:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC).
This matter concerns Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · logs)
Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.
Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
Desired outcome
The point of this WP:RFC/U is twofold. First, to clearly define and show, with evidence, the problems that the community indicated User:Xenophrenic demonstrates in his edits and discussions on Misplaced Pages. The second propose is for Xenophrenic to acknowledge the problems of the community and indicate a willingness to change. For any problems that are not there, all other editors should also acknowledge that. The purpose of WP:RFC/U is not to provide any penalty for Xenophrenic, as that is beyond the scope of WP:RFC/U. It is merely to help define the problem, if there is a problem. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Description
Xenophrenic's behavior has been brought up as part of the ArbCom case for Tea Party movement. However, his behavior stretches across several years and several articles related to U.S. politics. I first encountered this behavior at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in 2009. Generally speaking, he is a POV-pusher for a progressive POV. It is as though he's trying to remake Misplaced Pages into an opposition research database for Democratic Party political operatives to use, while preventing its usefulness for that purpose to members of other parties and political groups. He adds negative material to articles about conservative political figures and organizations, no matter how trivial or irrelevant it might be, or how much it employs fallacies such as guilt by association; and he removes negative content about progressive political figures and organizations. He achieves these goals by being tendentious, and by using edit warring to a limited extent (particularly the slow edit war technique, or tag teaming). Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Evidence of disputed behavior
Any Editor: Please provide any evidence here. Will work on formatting the evidence as it builds.
Evidence offered at ArbCom
Malke 2010: "Arguments over petty, silly 'news' items such as an incident in Maryland where a man claimed his outdoor barbecue grill was sabotaged by tea party members because he was an Obama supporter. Xenophrenic fought like crazy for that and anytime it got deleted, he put it right back. ... Goethean's and Xenophrenic's arguments and edit wars today are the same ones they had back in 2010. Goethean violates WP:PA and exhibits tendency towards WP:OWN. Xenophrenic violates WP:TE. The same sections, the same edits. Over and over. In the meantime, the article has not improved ..."
North8000: "The inevitable proximate finding will be that Xenophrenic primarily and Geothean secondarilyy have dominated the article via TE and prevented its Wikification. ... In each case the end result was that stayed in, and the result was determined by not by a decision but by whichever editor or set of editors was most relentless. And two editors (Xenophrenic and Goethean) have been controlling the result of the above and many other areas in the article via this method. ... Xenophrenic's large number of edits (#2 on the list) with a high proportion of those being reversals in disputes, they have more than anyone determined what is or isn't in the article. ... a look at the disputes and how they have ended up clearly shows that the dominant editing force in determining the article content on these has been Xenophrenic, backed up by Goethean at key moments."
North8000's ANI thread regarding Xenophrenic's tendentious editing:
Darkstar1st:
- Xenophrenic is the 2nd most active editor on the article with 388 edits and 449 in talk
- Xenophrenic's primary contribution to the Tea Party movement article is as a "revert-only" account. many edits are labeled as "Undo", scores more are full or partial reverts. There are a few minor content contributions, exclusively material critical of the Tea Party.
- Xenophrenic has been blocked several times for edit warring:
Applicable policies and guidelines
{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
Attempts by Phoenix and Winslow
- This contains an extended conversation between Xenophrenic and me on the Talk:Tea Party movement page on April 17-25.
- This contains an extended conversation between Xenophrenic and me on the Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion page on May 12-13. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Attempts by certifier Malke 2010
- This is a conversation with Xenophrenic on Tea Party movement talk page:
- This discussion on Xenophrenic's talk page regarding his behaviours on Arthur Rubin's talk page:
- Xenophrenic deleted part of the above conversation:
Malke 2010 (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Other attempts
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}
Response by Xenophrenic
Users who endorse this summary:
RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section
Views
This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.
view by Collect
There is neither doubt nor disagreement that User:Xenophrenic is an inveterate POV-pusher with tenacious editing habits. He seeks to make sure that people know how evil the Tea Party movement is, that it is racist, bigoted, homophobic etc. Unfortunately, this runs into WP:NPOV head-on. However, he has the right to delete warnings etc. from his user talk page under Misplaced Pages policy and guildelines, and that complaint does not really belong in an RfC/U.
Xeno shows his POV in such other articles as Fahrenheit 9/11 , on Talk:Tea Party Movement where he berates Arthur Rubin with a silly post , in the section "Interim remedy expected" which appears to be a bit of a noticeboard rant (Xeno appears to be a dramaboard regular complainant).
Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Tea_Party_movement;_looking_for_community_input shows my utter lack of animus here.
The proper result should be for Xenophrenic to acknowledge his problem with following WP:NPOV when making edits on political pages, for him to read up on Dale Carnegie and not to act like Misplaced Pages is, or ought to be, a battleground of any sort, to understand that we need to look at entire articles, and not seek to add material based on any personal point of view about the topic. And lastly to recognize that WP:CONSENSUS does not mean we end up with perfect articles - it means we end up with collegial agreement to accept stuff we may not really be in love with. Collect (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Outside view by Editor 2
Users who endorse this summary:
Outside view by Editor 3
Users who endorse this summary:
Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsements, evidence, responses, and other signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.