Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Statement of the dispute[edit]

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[edit]

The point of this WP:RFC/U is twofold. First, to clearly define and show, with evidence, the problems that the community indicated User:Xenophrenic demonstrates in his edits and discussions on Wikipedia. The second propose is for Xenophrenic to acknowledge the problems of the community and indicate a willingness to change. For any problems that are not there, all other editors should also acknowledge that. The purpose of WP:RFC/U is not to provide any penalty for Xenophrenic, as that is beyond the scope of WP:RFC/U. It is merely to help define the problem, if there is a problem. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Description[edit]

Xenophrenic's behavior has been brought up as part of the ArbCom case for Tea Party movement. However, his behavior stretches across several years and several articles related to U.S. politics. I first encountered this behavior at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in 2009. Generally speaking, he is a POV-pusher for a progressive POV. It is as though he's trying to remake Wikipedia into an opposition research database for Democratic Party political operatives to use, while preventing its usefulness for that purpose to members of other parties and political groups. He adds negative material to articles about conservative political figures and organizations, no matter how trivial or irrelevant it might be, or how much it employs fallacies such as guilt by association; and he removes negative content about progressive political figures and organizations. He achieves these goals by being tendentious, and by using edit warring to a limited extent (particularly the slow edit war technique, or tag teaming). Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Any Editor: Please provide any evidence here. Will work on formatting the evidence as it builds.

Attempting to get this RfC/U deleted[edit]

  • Editwarring on the UserList page at WP:RfC/U, trying to move his own RfC/U from "Certified" to "Candidates": [1] [2] — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I contend that this is not editwarring, but two reasonable edits that move the listing out of the "Certified" category because the RfC/U had not met the minimum requirements after 48 hours. Note that I did not delete or delist the RfC/U, as I could have, but instead left it intact and requested that an uninvolved admin delete it as non-compliant. Also note that I did not oppose the re-certifying of the RfC/U listing when WhatamIdoing waived the minimum requirements as "not strictly necessary" and took responsibility for certifying it herself.
I contend that this is a single effort to either remove the noncompliant RfC/U or have it refiled properly, because the way it was initially crafted made it impossible for me to form a reasonable response. Please note this was made clear in my very first posts at both ANI and WhatamIdoing's Talk page,[14] as shown in the diffs provided immediately above. Also note that as soon as WhatamIdoing instructed Phoenix and Winslow on how to present the necessary evidence, and he began doing so, I withdrew my request to have the RfC/U deleted. I believe I conducted myself reasonably in this matter.

POV-pushing on Tea Party movement and related pages[edit]

I note that below, User:Casprings has cited an ANI thread in which "there was no community support [for a topic ban] or much problem seen with Xenophrenic's editing." That ANI thread was limited to Tea Party movement and was dated February 26, 2013. Also, Casprings has claimed that Xenophrenic is a party to the ArbCom proceeding. That is a false statement, since Xenophrenic is not listed among the named parties. [15] I will focus on Xenophrenic's efforts on Tea Party movement (a conservative political organization) and related pages since February 26, 2013 as well as his efforts on unrelated articles under the U.S. politics umbrella. The latter inquiry may go back a lot farther than February 26, 2013 since those articles were beyond the scope of the ANI thread. — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Xenophrenic was editwarring in a derogatory comment on the Talk:Tea Party movement page, above my pre-existing post. [16] [17] [18] [19] (In the first of these four diffs, he also interleaved a false accusation against me, claiming that I was "misinterpreting" policy.) This comment was posted in boldface, in an effort to "prove" that the section of WP:RS he was quoting was more important than the one I was quoting. I moved his comment to the bottom of the thread per WP:TALK and asked him politely, on his User Talk page, to add any remarks at the bottom of the thread or immediately below the post he was responding to, and cited the WP:TALK policy. He removed the request, and restored the derogatory comments at the top of the thread. [20] — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This description of events is partially inaccurate. After watching a discussion become increasingly muddled, I made a good faith effort to return focus to the discussion by highlighting at the top of the thread relevant sections from the policies we were discussing. I put them immediately below the linked policies in the header, and they were in boldface only to differentiate them from editor's comments. There was no "derogatory comment" - as a quick examination the 4 diffs provided just above will show. I did firmly note that the policies under discussion should not be misapplied, and I did (in the first diff) indicate to Phoenix and Winslow that he was misinterpreting several policies. This was based on statements from him such as: I said that according to Wikipedia policy, one peer-reviewed journal or book and one major new organization are equally reliable. And when we have lots more of them saying "grass-roots" than the ones that say something else, we call that the "majority opinion" per WP:WEIGHT and treat it accordingly. In retrospect, there is one thing I wish I had done differently - after he indicated his disapproval by relocating my post, I should have engaged him rather than simply move it back.
  • In late March and early April, two questions dominated discussion on the Talk page: whether the section describing the Tea Party's agenda should contain the phrase "opposed to illegal immigration" rather than the word "anti-immigration," and whether the lede sentence should include the word "grass-roots" as a descriptive term regarding the Tea Party. In my opinion, there was a consensus of editors supporting both changes, but consensus wasn't overwhelming. Around the second week of April, the article was locked due to an editwar about a different proposed edit, and discussion moved to a moderated discussion subpage. Xenophrenic refused for several days to participate in the moderated discussion, instead choosing to argue persistently and tenaciously against consensus in what amounted to an empty room: the original Talk page. Arguing against consensus is disruptive. Evidence of this behavior can be found in one of the Talk page's archives. [21] — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Two questions did dominate the discussions in March/April, but not the ones described by Phoenix and Winslow. The questions were: 1) Should "anti-immigration" be used as a description of the Tea Party movement (regardless of whether they are also anti-illegal-immigration [22]-- my edit included both), and 2) should the lede sentence of the article contain the "grassroots" description without also mentioning the "Astroturf" description. Phoenix and Winslow, misunderstanding how consensus works, declared that 6 "votes" opposing inclusion of "anti-immigration", and 2 votes saying it could only be included with caveats, equaled "consensus" to delete it, despite 19 editors commenting on the matter and the weight of superior arguments for inclusion. Also, I never "refused" to join the moderated discussion; I joined it immediately when I could contribute to it. While there was spirited disagreement and extensive discussions, there was no inappropriate behavior here.
  • Xenophrenic went so far as to editwar in a sandbox-type subpage of the moderated discussion page, then entitled, "Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party." Here we see three identical reverts within 10 hours and 10 minutes: [23] [24] [25] Collect and I felt that we had consensus for a rearrangement of the article based on WP:WEIGHT, placing anecdotal evidence at the bottom of the article, and professional analysis from neutral secondary sources (regarding media coverage of those incidents) at the top of the article. Xenophrenic attempted to restore the original arrangement with anecdotal evidence at the top. Xenophrenic was also trying to editwar in a much longer quote from the Washington Post ombudsman, and other negative content, to put a more negative spin on three of the incidents. [26] [27] [28] Xenophrenic was later identified by SilkTork (an ArbCom member) as one of four editors who were editwarring on that page, but he was not blocked for it. — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This description is inaccurate. Those three reverts were performed over 3 days (not 10 hours), and they were not identical. The 3rd diff shows an edit intended only to fix a (WHO) tag as this comparison shows: [29], but apparently it also undid Collect's revert from just 2 minutes prior, somehow. But to address Phoenix and Winslow's main point that I reverted his edit, yes, I did. He described his edit 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). Since this was a Moderated Discussion conducted by SilkTork, and since consensus was not established, I reverted his edit with the following suggestion: ("current state of consensus"? I don't see where this shuffling has even been raised for discussion; please let our moderator determine consensus). Asking that we wait for SilkTork to confirm where the consensus decision stood was a reasonable step, and I don't see that as problematic behavior. You've provided three diffs you claim show me adding content for negative spin; closer inspection shows I was returning content removed to create an unbalanced positive spin. Regarding me not being blocked over your edit war with me, of course I wasn't. I disengaged, declined to edit further, and notified SilkTork of the editwar here. That is proper editing behavior.
  • Just a few days later, SilkTork placed a warning in red print below one of Xenophrenic's posts on the moderated discussion page, warning him that his comments were straying into editors' conduct rather than suggested article content. [30] This came a few days after SilkTork had admonished everyone on the page that comments had to focus on suggested article content, and avoid any discussion of editors' conduct; violators of this new rule would be warned, then blocked. — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Eight days later, SilkTork did indeed place a warning under our comments. My comment:
No, P&W, I did not miss Alexander's remark about the video prevalent on YouTube and conservative websites ... the spitting video. And I didn't miss the part about Breitbart offering to give money to a black organization if a TPer would simply cough up self-incrimination video. Perhaps you don't realize this same discussion has been had time and again (see the archives). Your personal opinion on the matter is not at all new. Let's stick with what reliable sources say. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
SilkTork's comment:
Wandering into unnecessary personal comments now. Stay on task. If in doubt if mentioning another editor might be seen as unnecessary, then either reword - leaving out the mention of the other editor, or approach me for clarification. SilkTork 09:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Interested editors should read what I was responding to, as well as these two comments, and form their own evaluation of the situation. You'll need to ask SilkTork if he was singling out just me for a warning, or also Phoenix and Winslow for his two personal comments just prior ("Xeno: ... Perhaps you missed this part of Alexander's article" and "Xeno and Ubikwit would be outraged at such an implication...").

POV-pushing on other articles related to U.S. politics[edit]

Xenophrenic has been editwarring and POV-pushing in favor of a progressive POV on a broad range of articles related to U.S. politics, beyond his involvement in Tea Party movement and related articles. This involved removing negative content and terminology about progressive organizations and public figures, while adding negative content and terminology about conservative organizations and public figures:

Some of my edits may indeed add or remove positive or negative material, but I contend those edits are in favor of a Neutral POV. Please look closely at each of the following examples.
  • Alan Grayson — Editwarred out [31] [32] a "however" statement in article mainspace by User:HangingCurve, explaining the circumstances of the return to Congress of Grayson, who is possibly the most hated Democratic member of the House besides Nancy Pelosi. The appropriate solution would have been a "citation needed" tag. Portions of such statements can be very easily sourced, for example in the very Democrat-friendly Huffington Post [33] as well as local Florida TV stations. [34] All other elements of the "however" statement would have been easily sourced at Politico and in the decision by the editorial board of the Orlando Sentinel to endorse neither candidate in that race. [35] [36] All of this was one Google search away. Clearly such observations were made by notable media sources that were either neutral and reliable, or friendly to Grayson. Simply editwarring the observation out twice tends to support the argument that Xenophrenic is pushing a POV. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
These two edits are neither editwarring nor POV, as they only removed the new unsourced assertions of fact from that BLP. Adding a "citation needed" tag is an inappropriate response for new unsourced content added to a WP:BLP which is juxtaposed ("however") against existing cited content. Even the sources from your one Google search don't support the VI content additions. Please note that my edits retained the non-controversial portions of the edits from HangingCurve, while his edits reverted my reference formatting. This is appropriate editing behavior. N.B.; Hatred of certain politicians should not factor into Wikipedia editing.
Look closer and you'll see that the "quotation" I removed from those articles did not actually exist in the cited source. Further, the cited source is a non-reliable opinion piece in a low-grade tabloid. Leaving that content in the article would not only be POV, but would be a BLP policy violation.
  • Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, James O'Keefe and Talk:James O'Keefe — editwarring to restore the unsourced word "deceptively," or "deceptive," in multiple mainspace locations as a descriptive term to describe the video productions of a living person. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] This living person posted videos on the Internet that apparently showed volunteers for a progressive organization telling a pimp and a prostitute how to conceal prostitution activities and avoid paying taxes. These videos triggered a cutoff of federal funding for ACORN and a sharp decrease in private donations, eventually leading to its bankruptcy. The word "deceptively," to the best of my knowledge is completely unsourced with regard to the ACORN videos. That word was used only in an opinion column by Michael Gerson of The Washington Post, and in an article on a small website called "The Blaze," discussing a completely unrelated undercover video by O'Keefe, involving Ron Schiller, president of the NPR Foundation. Xenophrenic, in the article mainspace, characterized ALL of O'Keefe's videos as "deceptive" without citing any sources, and claimed on the article Talk page that this "deceptive" nature was a "proven fact" rather than just what two sources (one an opinion column, the other a small website) had said about one video. [46] In this large, detailed edit to the James O'Keefe mainspace, Xenophrenic sought to minimize the huge impact O'Keefe's videos have had on ACORN, NPR and other subjects of his undercover investigations, removing a huge amount of very well-sourced material, [47] as well as removing a "citation needed" tag after the word "deceptive" (see above). [48] In this edit, Xenophrenic carefully removed an indication of the ideologies and political affiliations of O'Keefe's detractors. [49] In this edit, Xenophrenic redundantly identified the videos as "selectively edited." [50] — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
In this section, you provide a block of 7 diffs, and then 5 more individual diffs, taken from 3 related articles. Your characterization of these edits does not hold up under scrutiny. What you describe as 'editwarring' in many of the examples on this RFC/U frequently turn out to be the undoing of drive-by POV one time edits like this: [51]. The deceptive nature of O'Keefe's work has been repeatedly discussed and confirmed on all three articles, like this thread started on Raul654's Talk page, producing numerous sources, contrary to your "unsourced" assertion. The diff showing me "removing a huge amount of very well-sourced material" absolutely does not; even the editor whos edit I reverted says it was duplicated refs and headers I reverted out, not substantial content: details here. Look closely at the diff described as "Xenophrenic carefully removed an indication of the ideologies and political affiliations of O'Keefe's detractors" -- No I did not, I reverted an edit that changed this:
Investigations by both legal authorities and journalists have found O'Keefe...
into this POV, unsourced gem:
Investigations by his ideological opponents including both government officials and left-wing journalists have found O'Keefe...
Left-wing journalists indeed. Phoenix and Winslow's description of my edit says more about POV than my edit does. These 12 edits do not indicate problematic editing behavior.
  • ATF gunwalking scandal — in one of the biggest scandals of the Obama Administration, Xenophrenic slow-motion editwarred the description of ATF "gunwalking" operations from "2009 to 2011," making the time frame "2006 to 2011" to include three years under the previous Republican President [52] [53], without any explanatory information. This is in the lede sentence of the article. Under Bush, the ATF tried three very small, limited operations with several safeguards in place, such as placing RF transmitters (radio tracking devices) inside the guns. One of these three operations did not actually involve gunwalking per se but instead used more conventional law enforcement methods. When things started going wrong, the ATF wisely shut down all three of these operations despite the fact that they had resulted in some arrests; one of the three operations lasted just two weeks. Under Obama, the decision was made to start a new, and enormously larger gunwalking operation without those safeguards. The operations during the Bush years were questionable. During the Obama years, resurrecting the idea of gunwalking from its well-deserved grave, enlarging it exponentially and taking away the safeguards — after all that had gone wrong previously — was a lot worse than questionable. It was reckless, and notable, neutral commentators have said so. The result was that three times as many automatic and semi-automatic weapons were acquired by criminal cartels under the Obama Administration than under the Bush Administration. Furthermore, the weapons acquired by the cartels during the Obama years tended to be a lot more deadly, including .50-caliber sniper rifles. Xenophrenic's edit effectively concealed these important distinctions. — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The above description of these two edits is inaccurate. Both edits are simple reverts of an IP's repeated attempts to change a reliably sourced date from 2006 to 2009, with regard to how long "gunwalking" has been going on. The IP expressed this POV: The scandal began in 2009. They are pretending it began in 2006 to make it appear that Bush was involved because Obama is in fear of being impeached. My edits returned the article to NPOV status; Phoenix and Winslow's additional 200+ word essay comparing the various programs notwithstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • David Stannard — Editwarred out some negative material about an author whose principal work, American Holocaust, accuses the U.S. government of committing genocide against Native Americans. The same revert three times in 8 hours, 17 minutes. [54] [55] [56] [57] Xenophrenic claims it's unsourced, but another editor on the Talk page, User:TheTimesAreAChanging, arguing in favor of its inclusion, provided some fairly convincing proof: [58] Here's Xenophrenic, being tendentious with said editor on the article's Talk page: [59] Said editor's response: "You are a POV-pushing vandal." [60] [61] It's entirely academic because the whole passage was removed shortly thereafter as a WP:SYNTH violation, but it highlights the Xenophrenic philosophy. Rather than revert the whole mess as a SYNTH violation, he kept the positive SYNTH, and removed the negative SYNTH. — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The above description of events is grossly inaccurate. Comparison of the article content between my first edit to remove the unsourced synthesis and my final edit show [62] that Phoenix and Winslow's claim about removing negative and keeping positive synth is 100% false. A quick review of the article Talk page shows the "being tendentious" characterization as inaccurate, too. I'll admit I grew terse in my communication after the above mentioned editor followed me to this BLP, and then assaulted me with comments like "User:Xenophrenic clearly never heard of WP:NPOV", "You are a POV-pushing vandal", and "I doubt he read either book". But I remained civil and communicative nonetheless, which is the opposite of "problematic editing behavior."
  • D. L. Hughley — Editwarring to remove information [63] [64] about a stand-up comic, who frequently relies on social and political commentary from a left-wing perspective as part of his comedy routine. The information was that Hughley was eliminated in Week 5 of Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 16), and the excuse used in the edit summary was that it was unsourced. (Is this really negative information? Wouldn't a "citation needed" tag have been sufficient?) — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Is this really an example of problematic editing? I removed an unsourced/unencyclopedic sentence from a BLP. Mentioning his participation in Dancing with the Stars is fine, but details such as what songs he danced to, what he was wearing, or what rounds he progressed through appear trivial to me - moreso with the available link to the Dancing article already present. "Hughley made it farther than other comedians on previous seasons" seemed unnecessary. It was unsourced, so I couldn't review a source for encyclopedic content. (And my removal of that flattering content from the article crosses your theory that I would only remove negative material.) I don't see this screaming for behavior change, and I doubt I'll start using CN tags in BLPs.
Again, that description of events does not hold up to scrutiny. What you described as editwarring to ensure FAIR is described as one thing rather than another never happened. Look at my edit summaries for each of the above diffs and note how every last one says I was returning cited, sourced content in place of unsourced content introduced by the above editors. Now look at the article Talk page and you'll see the same thing in our discussion. The other editor was going on and on about subjective versus objective, leaning this way or the other, buzzwords versus critical, exceptional, self-serving, etc., and I kept reminding him that I was just taking out the unsourced and replacing it with sourced content. I'm a very source-oriented person when editing. Also, there was never any "tendentiousness" on the Talk page, and none of your diffs show me removing a citation, as you claimed. Should I assume you meant to link to an edit of mine from over a year ago? We can discuss that if you'd like, but nothing you've presented here so far indicates problematic behavior on the FAIR article.
  • Farenheit 9/11 and Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy — Removing a source citation to an article that criticized an anti-war documentary, and slow-motion editwarring the article content to first identify "Bush supporters" or "Bush defenders" as sources of the criticism: [73] [74] [75] Also reducing "many disputes" about the accuracy of the film to "a dispute": [76] — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Your description is somewhat inaccurate. I didn't remove a cite to a critical article, I removed a redundant citation - the article is still there, and heavily cited. I also wasn't slow-motion editwarring; once again an editor was removing sourced content, and inserting unsourced content. The CNN reliable source says, The film won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival -- the festival's highest honor -- but has come under attack from Bush defenders and some commentators. So does the article. Note that I encouraged the introduction of additional sources to support different wording: "If more 'sources' of criticism exist, please add". I don't see problematic behavior here.
  • Guenter Lewy — Reverted the removal of the word "controversial" to describe the author's works in the lede paragraph. [77] In several of his works, Lewy has generally been critical of anti-war activists and authors, describing some opponents to the Vietnam War as a "war crime industry." This is a very small example of adding negative content to articles about persons and organizations he perceives as conservative. — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
What you like to describe as adding negative content to conservative subjects is in reality adding negative content to negative subjects. This doesn't rise to even a "very small example" of problematic behavior. The "controversial" description was returned to the lead summary because he has several controversial works listed in the body of the article.
  • John Kerry — Putting some positive spin, and removing sourced negative content, in the biography of the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee and current secretary of state. [78] — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect characterization of the single edit. No sourced content was removed, only unsourced, and what has been described as "positive spin" is either the removal of text that says he is "white", or addition of text from the cited sources, neither of which is problematic behavior as the edit moves the article closer to NPOV.
  • Organizing for Action — Another example of removing negative information about a progressive organization. The article cited Politico.com to link OFA, the progressive organization arising from Barack Obama's re-election campaign, to big-money Obama donors such as George Soros and several multi-billion-dollar corporations. This link belies OFA's claim to being a grass-roots movement. However, Politico only said "linked to"; the Wikipedia article said "donations from" ... the appropriate solution would have been a "citation needed" tag, or simply editing those two little words to correctly reflect exactly what the source says. Instead, Xenophrenic deleted the entire sentence as well as the source citation. [79] In this diff, Xenophrenic removed negative, perfectly well-sourced information about OFA and replaced it with information that had a more positive spin, by cherry-picking which portion of the source (a government watchdog group called Sunlight Foundation) would be used. [80] And in this diff, Xenophrenic toned down an accusation by Republican Mitch McConnell (well sourced in another government watchdog group, Public Integrity), and inserted a lengthy positive-spin quote by OFA chairman Jim Messina in front of the McConnell material, sourcing it to an op-ed column by Messina on the CNN website. [81] — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This is another example of gross mischaracterization of events. I removed text that was completely unsupported by the Politico source with that first edit. Changing two words to "linked to" would be equally unsupported by the source (those words aren't in the source either). The appropriate solution would be to examine the existing reliable sources for related information, which I did, and I saw that the Politico source was outdated and no longer valid. With the second diff, I again removed content that was unsupported by the cited source (no "complained", no "donors", no "amount they had contributed") and replaced it with actual content from the same source. With the third diff I "toned down" what McConnell said by using actual words from the source, instead of words (and wikilinks) not supported by the source. This moved the article closer to NPOV, and that is not problematic behavior.
  • Tom Smith (Pennsylvania politician) — Editwarring with an IP editor, 96.245.12.5, to ensure that the neutral term "then clarified" was replaced by the more negative "attempted to walk back," [82] in the biography about a pro-life Democratic politician who switched to the Republican Party. The "attempted to walk back" terminology was only used by one source: a left-leaning, local Pennsylvania website called "Politics PA." — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
You describe as "editwarring" the one revert of a single-edit drive-by IP. That is not editwarring, and certainly not problematic behavior. You also describe "then clarified" verbiage as more neutral than "attempted to walk back" when it is actually totally different. According to the reliable sources, not just Politics PA, Smith did not attempt to clarify (i.e.; say the same thing more clearly), but instead attempted to backtrack and say something different. Using the phrase "then clarified" would introduce POV, rather than be more neutral.[83][84][85]
  • Zero Dark Thirty — altered content to state that "some Republicans charged that the filmmakers were given access to classified materials[.]" Original content was "other critics charged ..." [86] A far more accurate representation of what the source said would be just one Republican (Rep. Peter King), after a very similar charge that was first being made by a non-partisan military man: "Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said earlier this year that it was 'time to stop talking' after remarkably accurate accounts appeared in US newspapers in the days immediately following the operation. 'We have gotten to a point where we are close to jeopardising the precision capability that we have,' he warned." [87] Xenophrenic's version cherry-picked what the source said, to make it sound like a politically-motivated attack that had no foundation in facts. Also, Xeno removed source citations for opinion columns by notable writers, such as Naomi Wolf and Glenn Greenwald, who were critical of the film. [88]— Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Another incorrect characterization of edits. You have the "original content" and the "altered content" swapped. My edit reverted a mistaken edit summarized as (Removed politically partisan identification of some critics of the torture scenes)—— this text had nothing to do with critics of the torture scenes. The text in question is a summary statement of content in the body of the article: In addition, Republicans suggested that the filmmakers were given improper access to classified materials, which they denied. [89] It has been in the lead for many months without the need for a redundant source until this editor tagged it as needing one: [90] and one was added by this IP editor: [91] Your Admiral Mullen isn't speaking about the filmmakers at all, but about leaks to newspapers just days after the operation - something obvious to anyone who reads the Guardian source you linked. You further grossly misrepresent reality when you state, "Xenophrenic's version cherry-picked what the source said..."; wrong. The long-standing text in the lead summarizes the "Allegations of improper access to classified information" in the body of the article, and the reference presently appended to that text is just there as a source for King's allegation. Your last misleading assertion is that I removed opinion cites critical of the film; and...? An IP editor had appended those opinion sources to the lead sentence as reference citations for fact; I reverted him. It says so right in the edit summary. The critical opinions are still in the article in the appropriate section. Each edit you've listed is an article improvement, and illustrates non-problematic behavior.

Evidence offered at ArbCom re: Tea Party movement[edit]

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 ..."

No diffs; no evidence. Just baseless accusations without substantiation. Also, a total mischaracterization of the content in question.

North8000: "The inevitable proximate finding will be that Xenophrenic primarily and Geothean secondarilyy have dominated the article via TE and prevented its Wikification. ... In each case the end result was that [disputed content] stayed in, and the result was determined by not by a decision but by whichever editor or set of editors was most relentless. And two editors (Xenophrenic and Goethean) have been controlling the result of the above and many other areas in the article via this method. ... Xenophrenic's large number of edits (#2 on the list) with a high proportion of those being reversals in disputes, they have more than anyone determined what is or isn't in the article. ... a look at the disputes and how they have ended up clearly shows that the dominant editing force in determining the article content on these has been Xenophrenic, backed up by Goethean at key moments."

No diffs; no evidence. Just baseless accusations without substantiation. As of July, 2013, North8000 has failed to produce evidence supporting his accusations.

North8000's ANI thread regarding Xenophrenic's tendentious editing: [92]

Xenophrenic's response to North8000's thread (and Arthur Ruben's attempted support for North's examples). Each of North's "examples", after closer inspection, was disproven and refuted. After extensive examination and discussion of each diff provided by North8000 as examples of "bad" behavior, Arthur Rubin eventually concludes only 1 "is bad", and when pressed to show how that last 1 example allegedly showed bad behavior, no further response was forthcoming. When I pressed North to either finally produce evidence to prove his charges or retract his accusations, he decides he doesn't want to discuss it, and apparently never intended to prove his baseless accusations:
  • I'd be willing to say that it (and everything involving anybody accusing anybody of anything) is old news to leave behind and not discuss further. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[93]
  • What I had in mind is taking it only to the point of showing that what I said was not unreasonable, not to the point of proven, and I can stop work on it if we're there now. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC) [94]
North8000 has not raised any evidence of problematic behavior to this date.

Darkstar1st:

  • Xenophrenic is the 2nd most active editor on the article with 388 edits [95] and 449 in talk [96]
  • 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:[97]

Evidence of tendentious editing, edit-warring, and disruption[edit]

Xenophrenic is attempting to insert "anti-immigration" into the Tea Party movement article as well as the term "nativism." Part of that discussion then lead to the following exchange:

That mistates the situation. I was objecting to the removal of the long-standing and reliably sourced "anti-immigration" description, and I never suggested inserting "nativism". (I've only uttered the word twice in the history of the article Talk pages.)

North8000 comments on Xenophrenic’s use of “anti-immigration” instead of the relevant “anti-illegal immigration.” [98]

Malke responds here: [99] and here: [100]

Xenophrenic replies: [101]

Malke responds: [102]

Xenophrenic replies: [103]

Malke responds: [104] Xeno [105]

Malke responds and corrects part of her edit [106]

Xenophrenic misinterprets Malke’s correction [107]

There was no misinterpretation of the correction; I merely noted that you made the correction stealthily, without noting it, which caused confusion in the responses. Examine the diff, please.

Malke explains [108]

Xenophrenic insists [109]

Yes, I did politely insist, and always will. If you'll examine the diff, here is what I said: You edited your comment after I responded to it, and without indicating that you had edited it. That is what caused the confusion. Per WP:REDACT, please refrain from doing that.

Arthur Rubin then commented that the exchange was an example of Xenophrenic’s tendentious editing: [110] “. . . I should add that now there is strong evidence toward Xenophrenic's tendentious editing in intentionally disregarding the obvious meaning of Malke's comments (in the "anti-immigration" section) in favor of an absurd interpretation. . .Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic then edit warred in response:[111] and again [112] and again [113]. [114]

That is not an accurate description of events. I redacted a personal attack, and you, Malke, revert-warred with me to reinsert his personal attack. Again. And again.

Xenophrenic then went to Arthur Rubin’s talk page: [115] Not satisfied, he went to ANI: [116]

The ANI request is here: Interim Remedy Requested
Arthur Rubin subsequently self-redacted his personal attack here: [117] which was fine; even the included snark didn't bother me.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(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[edit]

That is a diff spanning 200+ Talk page comments about many content disputes involving many editors. This diff shows no "evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" mentioned above. Could you provide a diff to that specific discussion, please?
That is a diff spanning 45+ Talk page comments about content disputes involving many editors. This diff shows no "evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" mentioned above. Could you provide a diff to that specific discussion, please?

Attempts by certifier Malke 2010[edit]

  • This is a conversation with Xenophrenic on Tea Party movement talk page: [120]
I agree 100% - that is indeed a conversation. But it does not show "evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" mentioned above as the reason for this RfC. What you linked was a discussion over a content dispute where you insisted the Tea Party supports the current immigration reform proposals.
  • This discussion on Xenophrenic's talk page regarding his behaviours on Arthur Rubin's talk page: [121]
That is not a diff to an unresolved dispute. If you'll examine that discussion more closely, you'll see that you accused me of "breaking up your comments" and "frequent personal attacks" and "incivil comments". Now continue reading; see where I said I would immediately redact any uncivil or personal attack that you point out to me? See where I said I would respond to your comments in any custom manner of your choosing? Do you consider this an unresolved dispute requiring an RfC/U?
  • Xenophrenic deleted part of the above conversation: [122]

Malke 2010 (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I reverted you. Shall we tell the readers why? I had just made this request: Malke, I respectfully request that you not visit my Talk page again. I don't feel that your most recent interactions here are promoting a collaborative editing environment. You responded by again posting unconstructive comments to my Talk page, so I reverted you.

Other attempts[edit]

Additional evidence[edit]

Evidence by North8000[edit]

(under construction)

Based on a conversation with Xenophrenic on the talk page I will now begin developing this here. No endorsements are requested. If somebody with expertise knows that I've misplaced this please advise.

With respect to the nature of evidence, I divide the expressed concerns into two categories:

  • Type 1 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. And of course, one can come up with some supporting reason for every edit or removal of that edit; individually these are no exception. In short, where the forest is the problem, but not necessarily each individual tree taken separately.
  • Type 2 Where individual instances themselves are not right, or a small group taken together exceeds that threshold. Different persons have expressed difference concerns in this area. My concerns in this area are aggressive refactoring of talk pages and similar such as relabeling sections, doing so after others have already post4d there, modifying comments (with no striking or other indication) that others have already responded to making their response look bad or silly, chopping up other people's posts, rearranging etc.


Type 1...One-week-one-article sample[edit]

Here is a 1-week-1-article sampler (2/18/13 to 2/24/13) (this is 1/174th of Xenophrenic's approx 174 weeks at the one (TPM) article), and so very very roughly multiply this by 174 to get a rough indicator of the Xenophrenic's history at this one article. Again, being Type 1 items, where the issue is the forest, not individual trees, there is no claim that each of these individually is bad.

  • Warring to put a NYT definition of the TPM article as including "anti-immigration" in and in as the first sentence in the "Agenda" section:
  • 2/24/13 9:11 (Article page) Moving the "anti-immigration" claim statement to the top of the "Agenda" section: [123]
  • Working at and aggressive editing to remove a 1 sentence longstanding mention of Ron Paul's 2007 Tea Party event.


  • 2/18/13 19:47 (article page) Removed "perhaps the first tea party event" preface from the Ron Paul's 2007 Tea Party event (presumably in prep for the deletion of the entire item which they subsequently did) [124] North8000 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 2/18/13 19:50 (article page) Removed longstanding mention of Ron Paul's 2007 Tea Party event. Not in edit summary, it mentioned another longstanding item also removed. [125]
  • 2/18/13 19:50 (talk) Working to get mention of the Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party event removed [126]
  • 2/18/13 21:51 (talk page) Deprecated 2 section headings over existing material (to non-headings), one of them on new referencing to support inclusion of Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party in article. Challenged the new reference and said the event should still be removed from the article [127]
  • 2/18/13 22:14 (talk) Working to get the Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party event removed. [128]
  • 2/19/13 18:08 (talk page) Working to get Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party event removed from article. Renamed section, Eliminated section header over someone else's comments to "move" them into the renamed section, rearranged talk page material by others, and +comment. [129]
  • 2/19/13 18:25 (talk page) Added new heading above existing multi-editor thread to imply that if it was candidate campaign-related is is not TPM, i.e. to work to get the Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party event removed [130]
  • 2/20/13 4:35 Working to get Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party event removed from article. 1/2 of it is IMHO deliberately missing the obvious point. [131]
  • 2/20/13 4:48 Working to get Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party event removed from article. [132]
  • 2/21/13 17:37 Working to get Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party event removed from article. Also deprecated headings over two existing threads. [133]
  • 2/21/13 18:14 Working to get Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party event removed from article. [134]
  • 2/21/13 18:25 Working to get Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party event removed from article.[135]
  • 2/22/13 17:52, 17:58 Working to get Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party event removed from article. Major scrambling and refactoring of the talk page. Disassembled threads, separated other's posts from what the were responding to, shifted many items between section. (edit and tweak to the edit) [136] [137]


  • Misc additional items within in the 1 article 1 week sample
  • 2/18/13 20:01/02 (talk) Working to get the "Big Tobacco founded the TPM" statements in. (edit with correction) [138],[139]
Seriously? I can't even tell you what those statements are, as I never studied that material in detail, and never edited it. Your second diff is useless, as it covers 500 diffs over 6 months. Look more carefully at the one good diff you provided and you'll see I was "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, before accusing.) These are examples not of problematic editing behavior, they are actually recommended behavior.
  • 2/18/13 19:56 A person speaking on racial issues was already identified as a Republican and a TPM supporter, Xenophrenic added TPM "speaker" to the description. [140]
  • 2/23/13 17:51 Removed IMO an excellent description paragraph of the TPM by what sounds like a good source. [141]
  • 2/24/13 09:11 Adds in polled support of a law, defining the law by it's least popular element. [142]

- - End of 1-article-1-week sample - -

Results-based evidence & analysis[edit]

(under construction, I am still researching the editing/editor sequence on each)

Here is a list (going from memory to start) of the issues at the tPM article where there was difference of opinion where Xenophrenic was actively involved and where it was not resolved in talk. The questions that I will work on is which way did it end up, and how did it end up that way? (Lets say circa April 2013)

  • Twitter tweet Remove vs. keep coverage that TP'er made a racist twitter tweet. (Xenophrenic wanted/worked to keep) There was no decision, and it ended up KEPT via persistent editing. Further, a twitter tweet ended up re-described as "posting on a web site". It also ended up that the accusation remained and the accused person's response and the TPM response were deleted. I scanned through 2011 and newer and found these:
That is inaccurate and deceptive on several levels. You aren't fooling anyone by attempting to minimize the significance of the content by describing it as a "Twitter tweet". The actual content you have repeatedly tried to purge as "trivia" is: Several State and Local politicians cancelled scheduled appearances at a Tea Party rally after the organizer, an Ohio Tea Party leader, while at a major protest at the nation's capitol, called Hispanics "spics" and declared that he wished he had his gun. Xenophrenic did not want/work to keep these examples, as you are fully aware, so why try to deceive readers now? As explained to you years ago: If we can rewrite the article so that the content of the "Reception" and "Controversies" is better conveyed, and without the need for these individual examples, that would be a good solution. Pushing a personal POV by selectively deleting sections is not a solution. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • [143] 1/4/11 18:43 (Re)inserted it in article page. Note timing, article on 24HR 1RR restriction
  • [144] 1/5/11 18:05 (Re)inserted it in article page. Note timing, article on 24HR 1RR restriction
  • [145] 1/7/11 6:17 (Re)inserted it in article page. Note timing, article on 24HR 1RR restriction
  • [146] 1/8/11 8:15 (Re)inserted it in article page. Note timing, article on 24HR 1RR restriction
  • [147] 1/9/11 8:46, (Re)inserted it in article page Note timing, article on 24HR 1RR restriction
  • [148] 1/10/11 19:02 (Re)inserted it in article page. Note timing, article on 24HR 1RR restriction
  • [149] 5/13/11 22:23, (Re)inserted it in article page
  • [150] 11/22/11 19:00. Changed description to call "tweeting" "posted on a web site" and removed where it said that it was a tweet. (tweet is what the sources said) This is the final edit that "decided" that a tweet would be called "posting on a web site".
  • [151] 8/15/12 10:47, (Re)inserted it in article page.
  • [152] 8/18/12 17:10, (Re)inserted it in article page Final edit that "decided" it would be in.
  • [153] 8/18/12 21:40. Left the bad sounding part but removed the person's response and the TPM response. This is the final edit that "decided" that the accused person's response and the TPM response would be left out.
That is pure deception, North8000. Note that I had inserted an "In use" tag before that "final edit", as you mislabel it, and I was continuing to edit that section when you ignored the In Use tag and removed content, including TPM responses. After your purge, I could no longer edit that section without breaking the 1RR so I untagged the section. Were you assuming no one would check the diffs and see your deception?
  • Cut BBQ grille line Remove vs. keep that somebody implied that it was a TP'er that cut a BBQ grille line. (Xenophrenic worked/wanted to keep) There was no decision, and it ended KEPT via persistent editing. Further, the "grille" was removed and "screened in porch" (which I didn't see in any of the sources) was substituted.
  • Remove Tea Party event from Tea Party article. move vs. keep a mention of Ron Paul's 2007 Tea Party event. (Xenophrenic worked/wanted to remove) There was no decision, and it ended up REMOVED via persistent editing. What finally "clinched" it was a "one two punch" by Xenophrenic and Goethen, two complete deletions of mentions of the event 19:50 and 20:39 on Feb 18th 2013 by Xenophrenic and Goethean respectively. [154], [155] 8/15/12 10:47.
  • Somebody said that somebody in the crowd said something racist Remove vs. keep that somebody alleged that some unknown person(s) in the crowd said something racist at a large TP event. (Xenophrenic worked/wanted to keep) There was no decision, and it ended up KEPT via persistent editing.
  • Ron Paul Isolationist Remove vs. keep the statement that implied that Ron Paul is an isolationist. (Xenophrenic worked/wanted to keep) There was no decision, and it ended up KEPT via persistent editing. (In article space this was done mostly by Geothen and a now-banned editor; Xenophrenic was mostly in talk)

Type 2 (where the items are also individually problematic)[edit]

  • At zero Dark Thirty Someone created a section to express concern about weasel words. Xenophrenic relabeled the section header to use the title to assert the opposite: [156]
Seriously mischaracterized situation, North8000. I just expanded the header from "Weasel Wording" to a header more neutral and descriptive of the discussion, more inclusive and absolutely NOT opposite, like: "Weasel words versus accurate descriptions"? These are examples not of problematic editing behavior, but recommended behavior.
  • In the above 7 day 1 article sample alone, there were 5 improper aggressive refactorings of the talk page (some of them major scramblings) to pursue their goals. Even in the edit summaries alone (NOT counting talk page comments) there were three warnings ( 2/19/13 17:21, 2/21/13 23:48. 2/22/13 18:06) and yet they persisted.
  • At the ANI in my 1 week sampler, aggressively & repetitively inserting and reinserting their posts inside of my post.
  • Here's one that I just found today (aggressive refactoring) when looking at earlier interactions Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive156#User:Xenophrenic_reported_by_User:Box2112_.28Result:_stale.29 with related discussion at accusations of gaming Wiki-policies to push POV in articles. To be nice I struck a comment explicitly saying that I did so because it was overly harsh. I didn't notice it until today, but Xenophrenic then edited MY own comment adding a striking note making it appear that I said that my comment was unsubstantiated. Since it's in the archives, I am reluctant to fix it now. North8000 (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.

Evidence by ThinkEnemies[edit]

I'll start with Xenophrenic's disruptive editing, adding questionable material in a unproductive way as a means to have Brietbart's notable "challenge" removed.

Xeno stated: [157] My opinion has been the same throughout: If Breitbart's assertion that slurs never happened, and are just an intricately planned fabrication on the part of Pelosi+Congressional Black Caucus+Media, then every significant and relevant detail needs to be included. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:56 pm, 22 July 2010, Thursday (2 years, 10 months, 14 days ago) (UTC−5) (But this only confirmed what I already knew, and have known for some time)
I employed WP:XENODONTLIKEIT. [158][159][160].
Xeno didn't approve like he had months prior: [161][162][163]
Xeno was quite flexible here, as noted in the link above (and demonstrated in the edit history and Talk page). I was okay with the Breitbart content being omitted. I was also okay with the Breitbart content being included, as long as it was the complete content as conveyed by reliable sources, and not a POV version created by selective omission. As I said in your above link: By "POV version", I mean stripped of Breitbart's conspiracy theories, Trumka's refutation and the AP's fact-checking of his use of the wrong video as proof. What you refer to as "disruptive" editing is actually editing toward a neutral point of view, as required by policy. I do not disagree that it may have disrupted your editing attempts.
Next, I decided to go a different route in 9 edits. This angered Xeno because I actually used the sources to paint an accurate picture and removed that goofy Breitbart wasn't there meme (Neither was Cleaver, Shuler and Trumka. But that comes later). Xeno decided he better steer the reader back into his false narrative. Xeno was forced to look at this reference. It shows a video of only Carson, Lewis, and campaign manager taking their faithful journey. Also has a transcript of the Carson interview immediately after the racial slurs might have occurred, and audio. Nice, right?
Anyways, Xeno responded with this: "Source specifies he wasn't at protest; minor wording changes to conform to cited source." What Xeno did was add that Breitbart wasn't there and expanded the quote from AP via Guardian (no transcript or audio) from weeks later. Placed it above my quote from Washington Times on the day of the event (transcript with audio) and combined the sources. Not a big deal on its face. Just an innocent mistake.
No mistake at all. My edit incorporated what the reliable sources conveyed, and also your Washington Times piece by the MRC/Breitbart Opinion columnist - with YouTube clip/Audio clip. You were supposed to show evidence of inappropriate behavior - where is it?
I separated the quotes and refs into chronological order. "If we want to keep this, it must stay with the source of origin. He said it more than 3 weeks after previous quotes"
Xeno swapped refs and combined quotes under the guise of another edit. "'mislabeled' is in the source; ajc may be needed when citing Breitbart for factual matters is challenged"
I swapped and separated them back. "revert unexplained edit and/or dishonest edit summary by Xenophrenic. I explained why the Carson quote belongs with source and after previously dated quotes"
Xeno, who knows about the 5 videos of Carson, Lewis the other guy walking down the stairs with no audible slurs, decides Carson initially lied about it happening "down the steps", and instead was telling the truth weeks later that it happened across the street where no cameras were present. Swapping and combining the refs, of course.
I made no such decision that Carson "initially lied", and I note that you fail to produce evidence showing where I made such a ridiculous claim. Please do not attempt to mislead the reader. What you call "swapping and combining the refs" is actually editing to convey reliably sourced content from multiple sources, rather than selectively choosing some content while intentionally omitting clarifying or contradicting content.
  • Why is all of this important? Well, just look at the articles now. This was Xeno still in check. An editor who clearly knew about Cleaver, Shuler and Trumka not being there. Xeno has had years of being unchecked to manipulate refs and content (quite effectively) while attacking the Tea Party on everything he can, mind you. This is just a a peek, like yesterday's edit.

Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina backed up his colleagues, telling the Hendersonville (N.C.) Times-News that he too heard slurs. "It was the most horrible display of protesting I have ever seen in my life ... It breaks your heart that the way they display their anger is to spit on a member and use that kind of language," Shuler said. Three weeks later, after the issue of whether the N-word was used had turned into a political battle, Shuler changed his story and told the Associated Press that he heard slurs used against Barney Frank, but not Cleaver.

That is indeed a "peek" at content from a TP article, minus the references. References are important, ThinkEnemies. That "peek" appears to solidly convey what reliable sources convey. What is this supposedly "evidence" of? I've never "attacked the Tea Party", and I note that you fail to produce evidence showing even one instance where I have done so. I know what reliable sources say, and the only "attacking" I've done is to attack attempts to misrepresent what those sources say -- as your links above show.
If you'll look at the cited sources closer, TE, you'll see there was no "intellectual dishonesty". You have failed to read that same AP reporter's follow-up report - not a "correction" - wherein he states that Shuler changed his story, through his PR rep. Your opinion piece in the WSJ doesn't convey that fact. When your personal opinion of what happened differs from what reliable sources say happened, we as Wikipedia editors are supposed to convey what the reliable sources say. That's what I did here.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO who was also present during the protest, corroborated Lewis', Carson's, Cleaver's and Shuler's version of events during a later debate with Breitbart by saying, "I watched them spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word."

  • Disruptive. UNDUE. Not-even-notable. Plus, Xeno himself knows Trumka is talking out of his ass. At least that's what Xeno said:
"You think Trumka is talking out his ass when he claims he personally heard the slurs ... I suspect as much, too!"
Please do not misquote me, TE. I do not "know" if Trumka was being truthful or not about what he witnessed, which is why his words are attributed to him. I do personally suspect he didn't see the exact events reported by Lewis, Cleaver, et al., and only saw that same general behavior while he was there - but we don't put my personal opinions into Wikipedia articles. Breitbart and Trumka squared off with each other, on video, and exchanged statements on the matter -- I find it odd that you would consider only Trumka's half of the exchange to be "UNDUE" or non-notable. There was nothing "disruptive" or problematic about that editing behavior.

One of Representative Anthony Weiner’s staffers reported a stream of hostile encounters with tea partiers roaming the halls of Congress. In addition to mockery, protesters left a couple of notes behind. According to the New York Daily News, one letter "asked what Rahm Emanuel did with Weiner in the shower, in a reference to the mess around ex-Rep Eric Massa. It was signed with a swastika, the staffer said. The other note called the congressman "Schlomo Weiner."

  • Again, WTF!?! Do I even have to explain what's wrong with this? And people wonder why Wikipedia is troll-bait. Why in the world would this be here? Not to mention, look at the leftwing blogs Xeno added throughout his diff. This isn't NPOV editing, it's not even moderately biased. It's blatant POV-pushing. Establishing a narrative by means of source and quote mining, being intellectually dishonest to the point of disruption. Wasting everyone's time who respect Wikipedia and strive to improve the quality of articles presented. †TE†Talk 17:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you do have to explain what is wrong with that. There are no leftwing blogs, just a report by Washington D.C.-based reporters covering the health care votes. The reliable source was conveying the tenor of the protests, and those were examples they gave juxtaposed against the "we would never use a slur at a protest" narrative being pushed during the weeks immediately following that event. There was no quote-mining; that unflattering information was actually the basis of the news piece. You'll note it didn't appear on the broader TPm article, but it was very relevant in the context of that particular "protest" in that Protests article. There was nothing improper in that editing behavior.

Xenophrenic's guide to teabagging[edit]

The term "teabagger" was used after a protester was photographed with a placard using "tea bag" as a verb. Those opposed to the movement started using the sexually-charged term "teabagger" shortly thereafter.[33][34] It is routinely used as a derogatory term to refer to conservative protestors.[35] The New York Times explicitly states "teabagger, a derogatory name for attendees of Tea Parties, probably coined in allusion to a sexual practice".[36]

This is true as we know it, right? Non-controversial. NPOV. Accurately presented. That was before Xenoprenic swooped in.

No, that is not true, NPOV, or accurate as the reliable sources know it. And that is why I made edits to that content - to bring it in line with the cited sources. You really should not let "as we know it" guide your editing. Policy requires that we edit "as the reliable sources know it". My edits brought our article content in line with what the reliable sources said, which is not problematic editing ... except to you, for some reason.
  • First goal: Expand the rationale to denigrate Tea Partiers as teabaggers. It wasn't just a kid with a sign, it was also the Tea Bag DC campaign. Done I'd actually support that.
  • Second goal: Scrub that it was those who opposed the movement -- who referred to Tea Partiers as teabaggers. It was just "some."  Done Whitewashing.
  • Third goal: Try to convince the reader that media opposition who called Tea Partiers, teabaggers, did so humorously, not in a derogatory or disparaging way at all. Done Whitewashing.
  • Fourth goal: Try to make the white racist's "nigger rationalization." That's what some of those people call themselves and embrace it. Well, one guy did. Xeno will later call him "some." Done Pathetic, POV-pushing and not-notable.
  • Fifth goal: Drive this false narrative home through further strengthening of falsehoods: Conservatives initially embraced this term and most don't use it with its sexual connotations. Done Completely fabricated nonsense.
The above characterizations are inaccurate, as is immediately evident when the text below is compared to the cited sources. Just because you find it hard to believe that TPers used the words "teabagger" and "tea bag" on their signs, in their memos, on their websites, and supporters like Breitbart started a campaign to reclaim the word for the movement -- that's no reason to get upset at the reliable sources reporting those facts.

Here's what this section looks like today after Xenophrenic and possibly others who made it through Xeno's approval process focused on providing NPOV-balance:

The term teabagger was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites. Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers. Shortly thereafter, however, others outside the movement began to use the term mockingly, alluding to the sexual connotation of the term when referring to Tea Party protesters. Most conservatives do not, for the most part, use the term with its double entendre meaning; rather it seems the political left has adopted the joke.[197][198][199] It has been used by several media outlets to humorously refer to Tea Party-affiliated protestors.[200] Some conservatives have advocated that the non-vulgar meaning of the word be reclaimed.[199] Grant Barrett, co-host of the A Way with Words radio program, has listed teabagger as a 2009 buzzword meaning, "a derogatory name for attendees of Tea Parties, probably coined in allusion to a sexual practice".[201]

  • Note: Xenophrenic has influenced the entire article in this same abhorrent way. And some defend him gaming the system. †TE†Talk 13:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I have edited to convey what reliable sources say, rather than your method of editing according to what is allegedly "true as we know it", to use your words. Hopefully, I have influenced the entire article in this same way. I think it is a shame that you find that abhorrent.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xenophrenic/Response

Leave a Reply