Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2

Comment by partially involved Chaser

I think we may be able to dodge arbitration here. TDC was happy to go to 1RR in the ANI thread (with conditions), and Xenophrenic just added a voluntary editing restriction to his own userpage [1]. These two have no shortage of other bad blood, but I think earlier steps in dispute resolution, like article RFCs, might benefit the situation more than arbitration if we aleady have the 1RR editing restriction in place.--chaser - t 07:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Travb

Xenophrenic in Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Xenophrenic the administrator said that it is "likely" that you are the same editor. So TDCs argument seems to have some validity. You certainly write a lot like the anon.

User:TDC has been through a lot of Arbcoms so he knows the restrictive conditions they can put on an editor. This time around you two will be banned forever from these articles, do you want this Xenophrenic? Is this your goal?

The anon was suicidally stubborn too, you also seem to share this trait.Travb (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Travb, I have seen the several CheckUser requests, including one that came back "likely". I don't know what TDC's argument is yet, unless it is "I think you are someone else, therefore I am allowed to edit war, harass and deserve a lighter level of scrutiny than you." It is hard to tell from just a brief opening statement. I have faith any sanctions issued by the ArbCom will be appropriate to their findings. I don't believe this is the location for these discussions, but if the case is accepted I am sure we'll talk later. Cheers, Xenophrenic 08:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Gnangarra

I have chosen to comment here after receiving a request on 10th Novemeber 2007 from TDC via email for information on Xenophrenic and the block in February 2007

I was involved with issues between these users in February 2007 and again September 2007. I want to clarify a point being discussed above the Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Xenophrenic, I agree that the CU says likely on 5th February 2007. The case was relisted on the 3rd August 2007 at which time it was closed as being a duplicate of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Reddi this one was tagged as unrelated on the 9th August 2007 diff by User:Mackensen, and closed as such.

Secondly the Arbcom ruling that TDC has been referring to had a parole period of 1 year from the Feb 11, 2006, to me that means that the 1R parole finished on 11th February 2007. yet TDC was still saying that Xenophrenic is subject to that arbcom ruling in August 2007diff. Even in September after the CU returned a conclusive unrelated the arbcom ruling was being quoted as the reason for extending the block period diff. Gnangarra 13:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I was involved as an administrator and sometimes "referee" in what I perceived as unabashed warfare over the Winter Soldier article two years ago. To the best of my knowledge I haven't encountered TDC since then.

TDC appears to have served out his article ban on that article and returned without changing his modus operandi, this time with one User:Xenophrenic taking the place of his former anonymous adversary. We've banned editors from Wikipedia for less. Time to consider sterner measures for TDC, and perhaps also to revisit this article, which has historically had big problems (including, at one point, extensive copyright infringement) not attributable solely to TDC.

A glance at TDC's user page shows that he remains unashamedly partisan and continues to abuse Wikipedia resources to advance (not merely to disclose, in the interests of neutral point of view) his political point of view. Does Wikipedia need the services of such self-proclaimed and proudly biased editors? --Tony Sidaway 18:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the problem of copyright infringement on that article was not a result of TDC's edits in any way. I gave it solely as an example of severe problems that have plagued the article, to justify looking at the state of the article itself, in relation to Wikipedia's policies, rather than simply the behavior of any one person or group who have edited it. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO

Simply put, there are articles on this website that are polarizing, and oftentimes attract those with widely divergent viewpoints. TDC has chosen to edit articles of this nature and has had to contend at times with those using multiple accounts to evade 3RR. There is no evidence that TDC has used sock accounts, however. TDC has, (though there is no currently binding arbcom remedy that he do so), told us he intends to follow a self imposed 1RR on the Winter Soldier and other articles[2], and I expect he will follow through with that promise....As TDC has stated, he expects that Xenophremic's accounts should be identified, and since checkuser has indicated that Xenophrenic is using sockpuppets to evade a previous ruling, then I concur that the main fault here lies with the sockpuppeteer. As far as banning editors because they hold strong political opinions?...of course not...especially not if they continue to provide us with reliable sources to back up their arguments, and TDC does this routinely.--MONGO 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Abe.Froman

Another dust-up over Winter Soldier involving TDC. Not a surprise. Another huge waste of time marked by pages and pages of comments. Will someone please play parent and give both stubborn editors a time-out so others can get on with useful editing? Abe Froman 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)