Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2/Proposed decision

a somewhat impertinent suggestion

Principle #2 is currently phrased as:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a topic. This foundational policy of Wikipedia rules out gaming of Wikipedia' consensus process by masking point of view editing as demands for sources which, when provided, are then deleted together with the information they support.

Principles should be of broad scope, it seems to me the meat of the principle should be:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a topic. This foundational policy of Wikipedia rules out deleting sources together with the information they support in order to further a point of view.

In other words, it matters not whether someone demanded sources and then deleted them ... the problem is only that he deleted them. Asking for sources is in itself a good thing. Derex 01:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

A major concern

The third remedy here says, and I quote, "Jayjg [is] reminded that Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise which operates by consensus. Masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources is inappropriate." No source is cited for this fairly serious accusation against Jayjg, and there is no evidence of of any misconduct on his part whatsoever on the evidence page.

Jayjg is an esteemed editor with a damned good record in an area that can be extremely difficult at the best of times. This makes a nasty claim that is likely to be used against him in the future, without any apparent basis at all. I strongly urge the remainder of the committee to vote this remedy down. Arbitration should not be a trial for those who haven't done anything wrong. Ambi 06:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg actually has a rather bad record according to just about everyone but the arbitrators and Jimbo, apparently, who sharply disagree. There are frequent accusations of bias (I cannot vouch for that, he may be perfectly NPOV for all I know) against him, and furthermore—and I can attest to this, although it may not pertain to the point of the remedy—he is very unfriendly and unsympathetic, always hanging around the borderline of incivility and occasionally crossing it, which is the kind of attitude that would stir up problems even on uncontroversial articles. When the arbitrators find themselves disagreeing with such a large portion of the community, they should perhaps consider that they are out of touch. I should also note that editing in a difficult area doesn't give anyone an excuse to cause trouble. Everyking 07:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have a "bad" record at all. I've only seen these so-called "frequent accusations of bias" from trolls, and one-sided editors with an agenda. As SlimVirgin has pointed out before, Jayjg is "someone who wants to see good sources when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, because it's an area that attracts endless nonsense and bad editing. I've seen Jay support people with an anti-Israel POV and good sources and I've seen him strongly oppose pro-Israel editors who don't use good sources." Very true statements, and in fact, here is a sampling of Jayjg's edits which are certainly not the edits of a "zionist pov pusher": [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] I'd like to see the trolls who make these accusations against Jayjg produce evidence of any edits they've made that aren't one-sided (anti-Israel). The beef they have with Jayjg is that he requires them to cite their sources and won't allow original research. He requires the same from anti_Palestinian/anti-Arab/anti-Muslim editors and gets the same kind of flack. If the trolls are successful with their slander campaign, and get results from arbcom just because they've made loud noises, it will chase off a lot of editors, including me. I hope the arbcom doesn't succumb to feeding the trolls, I'm so tired of trolls who waste everybody's time attacking editors, I'm just about ready to abandon Wikipedia myself. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In such situations, it is best to compare like with like. Of the 17 film listed at Category:Israeli_films, none of of them have been bombarded with requests for sources. In fact, the amount of citations in all 17 films combined is less than the one film (Divine Intervention (film)) that Jayjg and Viriditas have targeted. The difference? Divine Intervention provides a Palestinian perspective. As Fred Bauder says, "Masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources is inappropriate." - Xed 12:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence for "masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources". --Viriditas 12:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you help your case by calling Fred Bauder ignorant. (This was a response to "Please see appeal to ignorance." which Viriditas removed) - Xed 12:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And, the comment I removed had nothing to do with Mr. Bauder in any way, so why do you claim it does? I removed the comment with the edit summary, "lower the tone", in an attempt to improve civil discussion between us. It's a shame you aren't interested in civility and only appear interested in lowering the tone of the debate. --Viriditas 14:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC) [13]

I quoted Bauder, who said "Masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources is inappropriate". You then said "Please see appeal to ignorance. There is no evidence for "masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources"". - Xed 14:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I was directly referring to your argument where you claim that beacuse 17 films have not "been bombarded with requests for sources", this somehow implies that one film has been targeted due to a Palestinian perspective. I removed the comment with the edit summary, "lower the tone", in an attempt to improve civil discussion between us. Sadly, you aren't interested in civility. --Viriditas 14:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No matter how many times you repeat your claims, they still aren't true. We aren't discussing 17 films; we are discussing one. We aren't discussing requests for sources made for 17 films; we are discussing requests for sources made for one. There is no evidence that any film was "targeted", nor have you demonstrated such a claim. --Viriditas 12:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact remains - one film was singled out for incessant demands for sources. When sources were provided they were ALL removed. Case closed. - Xed 12:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In order for "one film" to be "singled out", you would have to demonstrate a concerted campaign to do so. Since it never occurred and there is no evidence for such a campaign, I can only suggest that you created it as a straw man to berate your critics and to avoid having to discuss your failure to cite accurate and balanced sources. Is there somebody or something preventing you from attributing claims made by Humbert Balsam? --Viriditas 13:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why did you remove ALL sources? - Xed 13:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already answered this question in the section below, entitled, "Viriditas and Jayjg reminded regarding NPOV". You may refer to it, if you like. --Viriditas 13:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You talked around it. Why did you remove ALL sources? - Xed 13:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've answered your question directly in the section below and didn't talk around anything. Your behavior is bordering on WP:HA. --Viriditas 14:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's harassment to ask why you removed ALL sources? Seems more like a question to me. - Xed 14:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is harassment to ask the same question nine times, in the hope that you will get a different answer. This isn't an interrogation, Xed. Are you unaware of your childish behavior on this talk page? --Viriditas 14:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

After nine times, I still haven't received answer. Still hopeful though. Maybe this year? Why did you remove ALL sources? - Xed 14:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean to say, after aksing the same question 10 times, you haven't received the answer you like. I'm sorry you don't like my answers, Xed. If you have anything new to offer or ask, let me know. --Viriditas 14:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't received any answer, that I like or don't like. Maybe this decade you'll answer why you removed ALL sources - see [14]. But probably not. - Xed 14:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly stated, I've answered your questions in the section below. I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Now, since I've addressed your questions to the best of my ability, I'll ask you to be civil and to refrain from repeating them again. Thank you. --Viriditas 14:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you made some arguments as to why you removed two sources, but not ALL SIX [15]. I won't repeat the question as it's obvious you will never answer it. - Xed 14:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I addressed why I removed all six sources in edits dated 13:20, 18 December and 14:23, 18 December 2005 at the bottom of this page. I'm afraid you already know this, but I'm repeating them for you in case you have difficulty finding them. You'll see that I specifically address your claim below where I write: "I removed two of your links because they didn't say what you claimed they did, and four were removed because they repeated rumors and rhetoric that did not accurately describe or represent the issue in a balanced manner." I then proceed to illustrate this with examples. Since I've answered your questions, there's nothing more for me to say on that topic, unless you have new questions that address a new topic. Thank you for your questions. --Viriditas 14:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If that were true, all six sources would still be absent from the article. - Xed 14:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there may be as many as four sources still in the article, however they no longer cite content that you added to the original article, as that content has either been removed or altered to reflect a NPOV. Furthermore, the article stilll requires attribution of the original claim made by Humbert Balsam, which will lead to the replacement of the four remaining sources in favor of actual, cited attribution. I recently ran across a good Palestinian website that should suffice. I'll improve the article and replace your sources when I have some free time. Thanks for the suggestion. --Viriditas 14:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not they are there, after the sentence, "Some have claimed that the Academy's decision was based on political considerations". The ones you removed [16] - Xed 15:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Since there was no "decision" by the Academy, that statement is false. Humbert Balsam's claims need to be described and attributed. There's no reason such gossip should be in the article. Since you are so interested in citing sources, Xed, why don't you track down a good source for Balsam's claim and replace the gossip with actual facts? -Viriditas 15:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My experience with this article is that when I provide sources they are all removed, see [17], and arbitration is filed against me. - Xed 15:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how you can go wrong if you are directly attributing Humbert Balsam, the primary claimant. Try it. --Viriditas 15:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC

Let me get this right. You say "I recently ran across a good Palestinian website that should suffice" for the attribution, but suggest I should put it in after YOU deleted all 6 previous references that I put in. Are you out of your mind? Do it yourself if you have the info. - Xed 15:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean, you want me to replace your cites again? I thought you would enjoy doing it yourself. Aren't you interested in improving the encyclopedia? --Viriditas 15:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If you have something to add, then add it. Don't tell me what to write. - Xed 15:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas and Jayjg reminded regarding NPOV

Anonymous user 209.212.72.19 (talk · contribs) made a series of unsourced, POV edits to Divine Intervention between 15:03-15:30 on November 1, 2005. [18]

• Jayjg attempted to NPOV the anon's unsourced additions at 18:28, on November 3. [19]
• Four minutes later, Xed reverted to the anon's unsourced POV at 18:32, November 3, with the edit summary: rv bizarre censorship. [20]
• Instead of reverting Xed's support of uncited POV wholesale, Jayjg wikified, removed some POV, and added citation requests at 18:48, 3 November 2005. [21]
• At 19:20, on November 3, Xed removed Jayjg's citation requests from the article with no mention of doing so in the edit summary, and changed the claim of one attributed author (Tariq Shadid) to "many observers" with no citation, and added a personal attack in the edit summary: remove weasel-like wording from propagandist. [22]
• At 19:56, November 3, Jayjg reverted to the previous version, which included the citation request and the proper author attribution, with the edit summary: if there are "many observers", then please provide evidence of it. So far you have one non-notable (see talk), also, please don't remove requers for citation, instead provide citations. [23]
• At 09:10, November 4, Xed reverted, removing Jayjg's citation requests and again changing the name of one attributed author to "many observers", with the edit summary: rv weasel. [24].
• At 10:24, November 4, I (Viriditas) reverted Xed's changes to Jayjg's version with the edit summary: Reverted edits by Xed to last version by Jayjg. Please do not remove citation requests. [25]

The Proposed findings of fact states: "Viriditas and Jayjg are reminded that Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise which operates by consensus. Masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources is inappropriate." I fail to see any evidence for "POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources" by either Jayjg or myself. --Viriditas 08:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Disingenuous. Jayjg in particular is notorious for POV editing. The fact is, when I provided SIX sources they were all removed [26]. This shows that the previous demand for sources was not really serious As Fred Bauder asks on Viriditas' talk page, "How come he had to provide (citations) anyway for such a notorious event that it Googles 80,000 hits. How come a article on a film which portrays the Palestinian point of view is being stripped of that point of view by you and Jayjg?". - Xed 09:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Please follow the edit history above. The "previous demand for sources" was based on your 18:32, November 3 reversion [27] to an unsourced, POV version by an anonymous user (User:209.212.72.19) [28]. Your other edits to the page were again unsourced. There remains no evidence for any "masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources", nor do I know what Mr. Bauder means by "a notorious event that...Googles 80,000 hits". For example, the first 10 hits in a Google search for "Divine Intervention + film" turns up nothing that would verify claims made by the anonymous poster or by you. What notorious event is Mr. Bauder referring to, and what does that have to do with your failure to cite accurate sources for your edits? You either didn't read the sources you posted, or you didn't care, because a close reading showed that they weren't substantiated. --Viriditas 10:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of the sources remain in the article. To recap - when I provided SIX sources they were all removed [29], showing that the previous demand for sources was not really serious. Do you understand? You removed all the sources after asking for them. That's the issue. I think I had to provide 8 sources in total. For such a small article, that's ridiculous. - Xed 10:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You failed to cite accurate sources for your edits as the edits above demonstrate and as this edit by Jayjg shows: [30]. For example, you blindly reverted to an unsourced contribution by an anonymous editor who claimed that there was a "vigorous campaign by Zionist activists to bar the movie". When asked for a source, you posted a link [31] to Al Jadid Magazine, which doesn't appear to say anything of the kind. You also claimed as fact, that the film was "based on a spontaneously declared informal policy", and you cited the BBC, but no such statement appears on that site. --Viriditas 10:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

So you removed all the sources because you disagreed with two of them? Most of the sources remain in the article. To recap - when I provided SIX sources they were ALL removed [32], showing that the previous demand for sources was not really serious. Do you understand? You removed all the sources after asking for them. That's the issue. I think I had to provide 8 sources in total. For such a small article, that's ridiculous. - Xed 10:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The two sources removed above were removed because a fact-check determined that they didn't source what you claimed they did. Moving on, the third source, namely Tariq Shadid [33] was removed in the subsequent edit due to what I perceived as a reliance on his medical credentials for authority, and a "guilt by association" argument (see WP:V) which blames "primitive tribalism" and "Zionist right-wing extremists" for denying the entry of Divine Intervention in the race for Oscar nominations. When one looks beyond the heated rhetoric, one finds that there's no evidence that such an act ever occured, and the remaining links merely serve to repeat the same allegations, claims similar to: "The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has hinted darkly that pro-Israel forces in Hollywood may have been behind the controversy." The entire claim boils down to a statement made by the film's producer, Humbert Balsam. Balsam claims that in October 2002, the executive director of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Davis Bruce, told Balsam that a film from Palestine would not be eligible to compete in the Academy Awards. According to Balsam, Bruce informed him the film could not run for best foreign language picture. However, there are no published rules which require that a country needs a particular status to qualify. Further, Academy spokesman John Pavlik has stated that the film was never submitted for Oscar contention, and as a result was never considered or rejected. In other words, there is no evidence for the claims presented, claims that have been repeated over and over again, mostly in the context of the heated rhetoric espoused by Tariq Shadid. I'm sorry, but in an encyclopedia, I prefer to stick to facts, not rumors. Should a well-sourced and balanced assessment of the controversy be presented on the article page? Yes, of course. --Viriditas 13:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

So you removed all the sources because you disagreed with two of them? Most of the sources remain in the article. To recap - when I provided SIX sources they were ALL removed [34], showing that the previous demand for sources was not really serious. Do you understand? You removed all the sources after asking for them. That's the issue. I think I had to provide 8 sources in total. For such a small article, that's ridiculous. - Xed 14:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Xed, your computer appears to be posting duplicate messages. You've spammed the exact same reply twice: [35] [36] I've addressed your questions. To recap, I removed two of your links because they didn't say what you claimed they did, and four were removed because they repeated rumors and rhetoric that did not accurately describe or represent the issue in a balanced manner. For me, the issue is not quantity but quality. Did you take issue with my preceeding comments? I support accurate and balanced content. You repeatedly inserted content which stated:

After a vigorous campaign by Zionist activists to bar the movie, the film was denied consideration by the California-based Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, based on a spontaneously declared informal policy that "The academy does not accept films from countries that are not recognized by the United Nations," and "Palestine does not have membership in the United Nations." Some have claimed that the Academy's decision was based on political consideration.

That content is not only blatantly false and misleading, but the text you present as direct quotes is attributed to the producer of the film (Humbert Balsam), not to the AMPAS. These errors occurred because you blindly reverted to an anonymous contributor without actually checking out the sources you cited. --Viriditas 14:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You removed all the sources after asking for them. That's the issue. You still haven't addressed that. - 14:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we agree to disagree. I feel that I've addressed the issue to the best of my ability. --Viriditas 14:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Dog with a bone

Yes, he removed the sources and perhaps now can't explain exactly why, but give it up. Fred Bauder 17:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Already have. - Xed 17:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I explained exactly why I removed Xed's cites in the preceeding section. They were removed because Xed's content (not even added by Xed, but Xed's reversion to an anonymous contributor) was not substantiated by two of the cites he provided, and four of the cites did not accurately reflect the content in the article and merely repeated unattributed allegations which lacked factual accuracy and were tantamount to gossip. The solution, as I have pointed out, was for Xed to cite a source attributing the claimant, Humbert Balsam. So far, Xed refuses to do so. --Viriditas 17:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas expects me to add sources when he has previously asked for sources and then removed all six of the ones I provided. Astonishing. He even says he has a source, but won't add it because he "hasn't got the time". Amazing. What dimension is he living in? He can't even get the name right. - Xed 17:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed inaccurate sources which you used to cite inaccurate content. I am quoting the website for the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy, which misspells Humbert Balsan as "Humbert Balsam" [37]. I suppose my source is wrong. --Viriditas 17:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Is that link the "good Palestinian website that should suffice" you mention above? - Xed 18:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's good, in the sense that it attempts to quote Balsan directly. I haven't found another site that did that, but I'm still looking. I would definitely use that site to attribute Balsan's comments. --Viriditas 18:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't ask if it was good. I asked if was the site you referred to above in your " website that should suffice" comment. Yes or no please. Thanks. - Xed 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't really tell who they are quoting as they are referring to Balsan in the third-person. After looking at the previous paragraphs, it looks like they are quoting an interview with Suleiman. It's very confusing (possibly a translation problem hence the misspelling of Balsan's name) which is why I'm looking for other sites and corroboration. If they are quoting Suleiman, then this should suffice. The aforementioned interview (in Kamera) does not contain this info, so I don't know who they are quoting. --Viriditas 18:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Is that a yes? - Xed 18:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I finally found it. They are quoting Keith Icove, co-president of Avatar Films. Here is the link: [38]. Phew. --Viriditas 18:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you said you "haven't found another site that did that" so the miftah site must be the one you meant above when you mentioned a "good Palestinian website that should suffice" that you had found. - Xed 18:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Miftah site doesn't source the quote. Mafhoum does, and explicitly describes it as an authorized statement of Balsan made through Icove. That's what I was looking for. Miftah does not appear to be helpful in this instance, however the Mafhoum site explains and properly attributes the origin of the quote. That's exactly what I was looking for: In an email to EI [The Electronic Intifada], Icove wrote that Balsan had authorized him to make the following statement: "As the producer of Divine Intervention, he [Balsan] asked the Academy if the film could run for best foreign language picture. The answer of the Academy was no, Palestine is not a state we recognize in our rules. --Viriditas 18:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

None the less, the miftah article was the one you were referring to. - Xed

Miftah doesn't mention that the quote was an authorized statement of Balsan's made through Icove in an email to The Electronic Intifada. I had to go to mafhoum.com to get a sourced Palestinian perspective. --Viriditas 18:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but you just "finally found" the EI article after saying "I haven't found another site that did that", so the one you mentioned above ("website that should suffice" you "recently ran across") must be miftah. - Xed 18:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As it turns out, Miftah doesn't source the quote. EI (mafhoum.com) does, and I've added it to the article. --Viriditas 19:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

But at the time, you meant the miftah article. - Xed 19:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

At the time, I had no corroborating source through miftah. Now we know that Balsan's statement was an authorized press release, which was mentioned by miftah (and other sites), but didn't explain the origin of the information like EI does. Anyhoo, I've added the link and attributed a few statements in the article. It's time for breakfast. Be seeing you... --Viriditas 19:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This source (miftah) that you "recently ran across", and you said you'll put in the article "to improve the article and replace your sources" was put into the article by me on 3 November, nearly two months ago [39]. It's still there. You wasted my time by suggesting I should put it in again, presumably so it appears twice in the article. So far you've removed 6 sources after demanding them, and then suggested I add another source which is already in the article - Xed 19:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you clearly did not source the content in question with the miftah link. You sourced a statement about Buster Keaton. I never removed that link from that article. In any case, the miftah link does not describe the origin of the quote, and has been replaced with a more credible link. And yes, your miftah link sourcing the work of Buster Keaton is still in the article. --Viriditas 19:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

References and content removed by Viriditas

The arbitration so far details that Viriditas has demanded references. After SIX reference were provided, he removed them all.

During this arbitration, Fred Bauder said to Viriditas: "Were all those references Xed dug up, just crap to be deleted? How come he had to provide them anyway for such a notorious event that it Googles 80,000 hits."

Viriditas has just now re-deleted those references I provided.

- Xed 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I've replaced them with one good corroborating external links. Quality, not quantity. Of course, you were welcome to help edit the article with me, but you refused. Instead you chose to revert to a version edited by an anonymous contributor. --Viriditas 19:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite Fred Bauder saying "Were all those references Xed dug up, just crap to be deleted? How come he had to provide them anyway for such a notorious event that it Googles 80,000 hits," you chose to remove them again. - Xed 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The entire paragraph is now substantiated by one good reference from the Palestinian POV which corrorborates Balsan's statement. Although I'm not yet certain, it sounds like the source I posted was the first to break the story, having received Balsan's press release in an email from the distributor. IIRC, the LA Times didn't break the story until four days later, although I don't think we have access to archival copies of that paper. It would be nice to link to that story as well. --Viriditas 19:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Xed, for the time being I'll just move the links to external links, since the content is fully sourced by the EI footnote. --Viriditas 19:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? So you could remove them for the fourth (?) time? - Xed 20:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, because I respect your opinion. You'll find them in external links. --Viriditas 20:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Respect my opinion!!!!!? You removed the links 3 times and wasted hours of my time arguing, and then you say you "respect my opinion"! - Xed 20:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, such that you think those particular links should stay in the article. While you've been arguing, I've been working on improving this and other articles. You're welcome to jump in and help at any time. --Viriditas 20:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why then did you remove them? - Xed 20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we've covered that ground already (see above) but thank you for your question. Please notice that I've added a more substantive link and footnote now (Electronic Infitada) I don't see how those external links help the article, but you feel they should remain, so I've left them there. What the article needs is a link to the notable LA Times and Toronto Star articles. If you could track them down, that would be great. --Viriditas 20:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

His one reference is very good Xed Fred Bauder 20:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If it takes all this for one link then I wonder if it's worth it. - Xed 20:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel my time was wasted. If we can keep you on board and doing good work a little extra effort is justified. Fred Bauder 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions

On proposed remedy 5

5) Xed (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log) is banned for one year.

Is it possible for the community to see some more discussion of this proposed remedy? I would like the proposer to explain why they think hard-banning a user is a better solution than putting him on a personal attack parole. As I pointed out before (on the workshop page), I think that if we really focus on building an encyclopedia here, simply sending away our short-fused editors isn't going to help us much. — mark ✎ 23:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm still hoping to get a response to this question. Yes, Xed has left the project, so the remedy apparently will not be needed; but still, I'd like to know in general why some arbitrators would think this remedy could have been a real solution at all. — mark ✎ 10:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Xed is seen as contributing both positively and negatively. It is felt that the negative impact he makes overwhelms the positive contributions. That is what makes the situation difficult for each of us and for the Committee as a whole. Fred Bauder 10:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, but that's largely beside the point. I know the situation is difficult. I want to know why this is a proposed remedy and why some arbitrators apparently think that sending away our short-fused editors will help us building an encyclopedia. — mark ✎ 08:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess then he will be "out of our hair" Fred Bauder 14:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. However, I note that you are the only arbitrator to oppose this FoF. I would like to encourage the others to explain their position. — mark ✎ 08:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of you must think I'm a bore, but I really, really, would like to have some of the (currently four) supporters of this remedy to explain their line of thought. I do not think lightly of banning users for a year, and this proposed remedy, without any of the arbitrators explaining it, makes it look like the arbcom does. Which would be quite worrying, of course. — mark ✎ 21:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

(Still waiting.) So, MindSpillage provided a short comment on this proposed remedy. She says, among other things, "I think this is perhaps a bit long". If you think it is, why do you support it nonetheless, and subsequently vote to close the case? You could also propose a new remedy, or propose a shorter ban. This way, it looks like you don't care even if the ban would be "a bit long" (several people have indicated on /Workshop that they think a year is excessive). Or does it imply that y'all want to close some cases to reduce the workload? I have no way of knowing, because no-one is replying to my questions. — mark ✎ 08:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mark that this proposal seems extreme. Xed has been involved in writing some good articles. The issues here are involved, making neutrality and sound sources difficult to be ascertain. It seems clear that both Xed and Jayjg began this dispute with good confidence that each was neutral. The emotive issues present made clear discussion difficult. A severe ban on one user is here disproportionate, especially when the committee is clearly divided on certain points. --Gareth Hughes 16:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

On proposed FoF 4.2 (Snowspinner commended)

Another question: 4.2) Considering Xed's current parole status, Snowspinner's actions were appropriate. Can one of the supporters of this FoF explain how exactly it is appropriate for any admin to open a RFAr within 30 minutes instead of simply enforcing the parole in case of an apparent parole violation? Is there something I gravely misunderstood about either the idea of personal attack parole or the purpose of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested? — mark ✎ 23:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Was Xed under a wiki-stalking parole that I missed? Phil Sandifer 00:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't play games. It is quite clear that your Request for Arbitration wasn't mainly about the wikistalking issue. Your first warning at Xed's talk was directly related to the original request by Viriditas at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested, which he titled 'Xed parole enforcement'. You were the admin that responded to that request. Your response was to open an RFAr within 30 minutes, rather than enforcing the parole to let things cool down a bit.

Anyway, when I said 'the supporters of this FoF', I meant the arbitrators supporting this FoF. — mark ✎ 15:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The RFAr was not a response to that. Phil Sandifer 17:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it is just a coincidence then that most of the diffs you listed in the original request are the same as the ones given by Viriditas. To be precise: leaving aside the two diffs of Xed's talk after your first warning, you list seven diffs; five of these come from Viriditas' request. The other two, interestingly, constitute what looks like parole violations (are you saying that the RFAr was a response to those?). Quite frankly, Phil Sandifer, there is some sort of intellectual dishonesty to your responses which makes me feel this conversation is not bringing us anywhere. — mark ✎ 19:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was asked, via e-mail, to look at Xed's recent contributions and to suggest a course of action. I was specifically asked about wikistalking, and I was not asked by Viriditas. Phil Sandifer 19:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

(←) That clears up some things, and raises additional questions. It was Jajyg, then. But that doesn't really matter; the fact of the matter is that your response to a request, whether by email or on WP:RFAE, was to start a Request for Arbitration within 30 minutes after your first warning on the wrongdoers' talk page. Moreover, you used the diffs of Viriditas' request. (1) Don't you agree that it would have been wiser and more appropriate to ask another admin to warn Xed, concerning the history of you two? (2) So you didn't, and took it upon yourself to 'warn' Xed. Do you agree that your course of action (opening an RFAr within 30 minutes) shows that you just had your particular axe to grind? (3) More general, don't you think that starting an RFAr that quickly after the first warning is an inappropriate way of using the tools of dispute resolution that are at the disposal of the community?

(4) Just to remind the arbiters, I'm still waiting for their answer to my first two questions above. — mark ✎ 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I find your aggressive assumptions of bad faith in Jayjg and Vidiritas to be unfortunate in the extreme. Phil Sandifer 15:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

(←) Hold it — I do not see anything agressive about my questions, and I honestly don't understand what makes you think that I'm assuming bad faith of either Jajyg or Viriditas, so please make clear what you mean so that I can clarify myself. There was nothing wrong with Viriditas' request on WP:RFAE, for example — what I understood to be your response to that was wrong in my opinion. Similarly, while I don't know who sent you an email and what was in it, I never meant to assume bad faith of that person; I am only questioning your course of action. I hope you will respond to my questions. — mark ✎ 20:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

So if you are saying that I'm assuming bad faith of Jayjg and Viriditas, I presume that you mean that I am implying that their course of action was not the right one. To be clear, I wasn't. There is nothing wrong with calling the attention to dubious actions of a user who is on a parole, either by placing a request on WP:RFAE or by sending an email to an admin. On rereading the above exchange, I don't see any "agressive assumption of bad faith" and I also don't see a good reason to ignore my questions about the course of action you took. — mark ✎ 08:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, did you forget about this thread or is there another reason not to respond? — mark ✎ 11:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A few basic questions to try to focus this stuff:

Would banning Xed help Wikipedia? If so, how?

Would banning Xed hurt Wikipedia? If so, how?

Has Xed done more good than harm, or more harm than good? Does good encyclopedia work outweigh poor community interaction, or vice versa? Or do they weigh equally? How do you balance the two? Everyking 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate if the arbitrators could try to elucidate this issue. I am especially curious to know why they would choose to explicitly defend a course of action that quite clearly runs counter to the guidelines of dispute resolution. — mark ✎ 08:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As above, some of you must think I'm a bore, but I am really interested in hearing the thoughts of some arbitrators on this issue. Needless to say, if they don't think it is important enough to merit discussion, they could say so; but this way, I feel I'm being ignored. — mark ✎ 21:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

SS / EK

What a shock, you've shown up on yet another page shortly after I edited it. Phil Sandifer 03:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Does that bother you? Everyking 03:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it meant to? Phil Sandifer 03:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not particularly. Note that I did not even respond to you. What I wrote was completely independent of that. Everyking 03:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say you did. I just find it striking how often we seem to end up on the same pages. I know we didn't used to edit in the same circles. Phil Sandifer 03:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that is kinda weird. Everyking 03:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought so. With so many shared interests, it's a wonder we don't get along better. Phil Sandifer 03:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, anyway, Phil, if I've got your attention, I might as well ask: how do you feel about a year-long ban? Everyking 10:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of a reply I will make a guess based on prior experience with Snowspinner: "I don't like it; it's too lenient, it should be at least 10 years plus a public flogging." Since you are behind the case, you really need to reveal your opinion about the ban. Everyking 04:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That was a blatant personal attack. Phil Sandifer 05:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't the response I was looking for. How about answering the question? Everyking 05:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How about following the terms of your parole. Phil Sandifer 05:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you don't want to answer the question. Which raises another question: why? Everyking 05:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Because of who asked it. Phil Sandifer 05:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I could've asked the same question. I'm interested in the response too. — mark ✎ 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not feel that I am in a sufficiently unbiased position to make proclamations on whether Xed should be banned. Hence my bringing the matter to the arbcom. Phil Sandifer 15:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

<cough>. — mark ✎ 19:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. But I don't think my opinion should count particularly, or else I'd have just blocked him. Phil Sandifer 17:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, next time you don't think your opinion should count particularly, I'd advise to involve other admins instead of bringing a hasty case before a committee that trusts you. — mark ✎ 12:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

So next time I'm not 100% sure of a block I should, what, ignore it? Just do the block anyway? I took the case to the arbcom and presented it - that's the prudent thing to do here. Phil Sandifer 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If the user happens to be on a parole, and happens to violate it, you, like any admin, are entitled to block that user. And when you are not 100% sure, you talk to other admins. Don't you agree that involving other admins is a very sensible thing to do when you're dealing with a user you've had personal issues with in the past? That's what we have WP:AN for. As for the prudent thing to do, I don't know what is unclear about WP:DR or about the very first paragraph of WP:RFAR. You opened a RfAr within thirty minutes after your first interaction. I honestly can't see anything prudent about that. The fact that the arbcom trusts you doesn't put you above the dispute resolution process. It should make you more careful. At least that's how I see it. What do you think? — mark ✎ 11:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, did you forget about this thread? — mark ✎ 11:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you on this point. Phil Sandifer 17:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So you disagree that involving other admins is a very sensible thing to do when you're dealing with a user you've had personal issues with in the past? And you do think that the fact the arbcom trusts you puts you above WP:DR? Fair enough, at least it's a clear position. I do not think it is beneficial for the atmosphere of the wiki, though. — mark ✎ 19:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Going back left - no. I think that when a previously banned user returns to the exact behavior that got them banned, you don't waste time. And I don't think the arbcom trusts me - I think they look at what I say and evaluate it. But excellent straw men. Phil Sandifer 19:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Away already with the straw men, I am trying to discuss things productively; thing is, if you leave short responses like the one above you leave me no choice but to fill in the blanks. OK, it's a bit clearer now. I think we can agree to disagree on this point, but I still want to note that I don't think your way of going about in this case has been beneficial to the atmosphere here. — mark ✎ 19:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Procedural

I wonder if my understanding of the RFAr procedure is correct. The first lines of WP:RFAR read: Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. I have shown, above and in my evidence, that none of these routes was followed. So it was highly likely that Snowspinners request was rejected. Why, then, did none of the arbitrators reject the request? Why was it simply accepted 'upon hearing this matter'?

Upon reviewing all of this, I have the feeling that Snowspinner, as a self-appointed prosecutor, is 'more equal than others' to the Arbcom. This is profoundly worrying. Can one of the arbiters clarify this issue, and maybe explain something about the role of Snowspinner in all this, in order to relieve me of this worry? — mark ✎ 10:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

While I think he was hasty I appreciate the effort he is making and would recommend he become an arbitrator. He has no special role at present however. Fred Bauder 15:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I wasn't specifically inquiring as to your thoughts on the issue of Snowspinner becoming an arbitrator or not, and I know that he is not appointed to have a special role at present. I am more interested in how this particular arbitration case came about, and in the role of the prosecutor therein. To put it differently, my feeling is that this case could have been handled differently [^{added for clarity}by the arbcom] if it had been brought by a different person. I would like the arbitrators to elaborate on this, to correct me if I'm wrong, etc. I would also like to know whether or not they agree with me that there was insufficient evidence of other ways of dispute resolution having failed. — mark ✎ 21:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think another person might have waited a bit to see how Xed was doing. As it was, since we trust him, we assumed there was a serious problem and took action. Fred Bauder 01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

So that was the first part of my question. What about the rest?

Let me clarify my position a bit. I am just a normal user focusing on adding content and doing some admin tasks. Quite frankly, I hate it to be spending time in arbitration cases (even more so in pointless arbitration cases) and not being a native speaker of English I hate it even more to do exercises in diplomatic wording in order to be able to understand how things are decided here. I have nothing personal against Snowspinner, but I am seriously worried by the fact that he, as I see it (and let me oversimplify things for a moment), gets to pull strings he isn't meant to pull. I think that if the arbcom wants to be accountable, it should be more open about issues like this. It frustrates me that a 'tough guy' like Snowspinner can drive away users just because the arbcom trusts him. It worries me that the arbcom, in my perception, somehow protects this informal position of prosecutor while many perceive it as dangerous to some of the most basic rules of the wiki. I think that by allowing this 'shortcut to punishment' there is a serious risk of frustrating the way dispute resolution is intended to work. Yes, I am aware that the existence of the 'shortcut' has caused some vandals to get punished quickly. But I think the arbcom is insufficiently aware that it has also caused the prosecutor-type to become reckless, and it has opened the possibility for him to get cases accepted just because he had his personal axe to grind. I think I have shown quite clearly that this scenario has become reality in this arbitration case. Putting this misuse of the dispute resolution process to an end should, I think, be of the highest priority to the arbcom. — mark ✎ 10:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

My view is that Xed, while seemingly being a bit uncivil on occasion, is an asset to Wikipedia and banning him would be harmful to the project. I hope that the ArbCom can see this, and give him a mere reprimand or at worst a civility parole. Context and clear, broad thinking is important here. I also think that the ArbCom needs to judge cases it accepts by roughly the same criteria, instead of placing special "trust" in one individual to get things right (and should especially not confer that trust to someone who many people feel is usually wrong—perhaps they have a good reason for feeling that way?). If somebody is going to get special trust, I suggest, with tongue only slightly in cheek, that person should be me, because I have found that I am pretty accurate when it comes to predicting both outcomes and motives in these cases. Also, I think it's worth saying that if the ArbCom is going to place special trust in someone, it should be in someone who holds policy views in general accordance with those of the broader community. Everyking 01:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

An hour and forty-eight minutes from the end of your parole violation to your accusation. Nice. Phil Sandifer 03:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

None of that could possibly be an accusation against you except the last sentence, but do you deny that your policy views are somewhat unusual? I wouldn't think you would have a problem with the statement unless you disagreed with it. But that's basically beside the point of my comment. Everyking 05:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

As with the two questions above... some of you might think I'm a bore, but I just want to hear the arbcom's thoughts on some issues that, I would think, are quite central to the whole arbitration procedure. If you think that I'm simply mistaken on this, educate me. If it is pointless anyway to ask this type of questions at all, let me know (of course I wouldn't be satisfied with that). Please refer to my earlier comment (this one) for my position and for some worries and questions of mine that rose during this arbitration. — mark ✎ 21:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I urge the ArbCom to answer Mark's questions before closing this case. Everyking 23:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've given some commentary along with my votes to explain myself, if this helps. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really, actually, at least not for this particular question, which to me is a very central one. All you and Fred Bauder (the only two arbitrators to have responded up to now) have been saying is that Snowspinner was hasty. My question goes beyond that. Was Snowspinner more equal than others in this case, in that he didn't need to try enforcing a parole or follow other paths of dispute resolution before he opened a RFAr? (I'm sure I don't have to say again that he opened an RFAr out of the blue, within 30 minutes after having given a simple first warning for wikistalking.) Again, I think I expressed some of my questions and worries most clearly above, in this comment. I'm still waiting for the arbitrators to elaborate on this. — mark ✎ 19:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick answer for now: I do not personally consider Snowspinner more equal than others; I weight his word just as I would that of any other editor in good standing. (As it happens, I argue with him fairly often.) However, I don't consider it necessary to reject a case if other methods of dispute resolution have not been pursued first: only that I am permitted to and often will reject for that reason. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I expect a more extensive answer soon, then. I was not trying to be legalistic; I agree with the distinction you make. — mark ✎ 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Close the fucking case

Actually, I don't expect to get any real answers — you have not given me any reason to. Is it because the workload is too high? Then the best thing to do is just close it, obviously. Is it because I am trolling? I never heard that one before. Anyway, close the fucking case. Ban Xed for a year, so that he is 'out of our hair'. Make sure you don't give any consideration to serious questions by users like me. Just keep trusting the prosecutor-type and all will be right. Oh, and please avoid any impression that talk pages are there for a reason, and don't forget to remove the 'Comment by others'-line on the /Workshop template (but keep copying the remedies proposed by you-know-who, of course). You might as well institutionalize the prosecutor position, so that you'll never get confused questions like mine anymore. Fuck it, I have never used this kind of language before anywhere on Wikipedia. Yes, I know it won't bring me anywhere; it's all the more reason to ignore me, I suppose. I'll go on writing the encyclopedia, and I'll leave the arbcom to its work. It's good to know that I can trust your decisions, no? — mark ✎ 09:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My favorite part was when Fred said they were having trouble deciding what to do about the case—after he voted to close it. Oh, they're incorrigible. Everyking 09:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

When we have done all we can with a difficult matter it is time to quit. We have discussed this case at length; we disagree on how to handle it; we will move on. Fred Bauder 13:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

i'm not sure where i should be stating my opinion, so i'm just going to tack this on to here. I have co-operated with Xed on several articles mostly related to Congo. Wikipedia would be without Culture of the DRC (has now been tagged as a "good article", and this interesting page on Bills, and this is only what he has done on the Congo. Most of Xed's contributions deal with areas that Wikipedia desperately lacks information on (namely Africa), this area needs all the help it can get ( see here ). I think Xed should be permitted to avoid this one year ban simply based on this, we have few enough Africa contributers as it is. Perhaps you can just block Xed from using the talk pages if that's what really bothers you. His edits have been extremely credible, and a one year ban is both excessive and ridiculous. It seems to me that the case against Xed has largely been trumped up by a couple of people who for whatever reason dont like his comments. frankly, Xed may say things you dont like, but Wikipedia has much bigger fish to fry. I think Wikipedia has a vested interesting in keeping him, even if only because it is currently strongly biased towards Americans and Europeans. Xed is too valuable to be banned for a year simply because he made a couple remarks to certain admins. --Gozar 22:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Findings of Fact supporting Ban

I question whether the findings in the case provide a basis for a one-year ban (as pointed out by Fred Bauder). The following findings were unfavorable to Xed:

• 3 -- edit summary "remove weasel-like wording from propagandist"
• 5 -- edit summary "rv weasel"
• 7 -- edit summary "rv tag-team weasel"
• 10 -- edit summary "you've been caught lying. you can't review all those pages in 3 minutes!"

I am not prone to long-winded complaints. However, I find a ban on this basis quite disturbing, so I will complain at some length.

First, the 3,5,7 are essentially the same comment in a brief series of exchanges. Second one of the rules here is to avoid "weasel-words". Calling someone's language weasel-wording is not a personal attack, it is an attack on the wording, whether the characterization is justified or not. 10 contains an accusation of lying; Xed was probably mistaken in his charge. 3 contains the personal attack "propagandist".

For this (lying & propagandist) an editor with many good contributions receives a one-year ban? I generally respect the committee's work, but I think this ruling is (a) detrimental to wikipedia (b) essentially gaming of the system by the complainants (c) utterly unjustified by the official findings of facts (d) inconsistent with past punishments for similar offences. I am no Xed apologist. I have had difficulties with him in the past. I understand he was on a parole. However, this ruling based on these "findings of fact" borders, in my opinion, on absurdity.

Ultimately, the job here is to write an encyclopedia. Often, it seems to me, "civility" is more highly prized than the actual contribution to that goal. At the least, from my observation violations of "civility" are punished more draconianly than attacks on the integrity of the encylopedia such as clear pov-pushing, insertion of false information, deletion of true information, willful misinterpretation of facts, poor sourcing, etc -- all these most often done to further a point of view.

The fact is, not everyone has the same temperament. Some people get a little excitable or emotionally involved in debates. I am one of them, and I have no doubt said things worse than "weasel", when provoked. Nevertheless, I think that I have, on net, contributed quite a large amount to the good of wikipedia under my present and former names (Derex/Wolfman). My impression is that Xed has as well. Moreover, much, much worse things have been said to me than any of those attributed to Xed. I have not run off complaining to arbcom about it; the thought seems essentially ridiculous to me as a grown man. If I were to complain, the relief I would ask is that the offender be short-term blocked each time. In this way, the incivility could be stopped without silencing my antogonist's voice on matters of substance. The (successful) attempt to silence Xed's voice on substance over superficial misdemeanor's is why I think this case is "gaming the system".

While I am not defending Xed's incivility, I am arguing that it has been blown way out of proportion. If I were on the arbitration committee, I would have rejected this case with an admonition for the complainants to grow a thicker skin. Xed should have been simply given a short-term block for incivility under the previous arbitration ruling. I realize that I am not on the arbitration committee, you are. But, community opinion still ought to matter.

That's why I'd like to see the draconian one-year ban (twice the length of Snowspinner's suggestion) explicitly justified with reference to your official findings of fact. I don't believe they support the punishment. I don't believe that most reasonable and neutral observers would either. Perhaps Xed was banned for reasons other than those in the official list of factual findings. If so, the list ought to be updated. Derex 19:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion - and I'm obviously not speaking as an arbitrator, since I'm not one, so the arbcom may well have different reasons than me - it comes down to this. Before his ban, Xed produced considerably more heat than light. In fact, looking at his contributions, he produced very, very little light - he was much more involved in complaining about Wikipedia's systemic bias than he was in correcting it. When he did edit, it was generally to edit war. Upon his return, he took up the exact same pattern of behavior - widespread assumptions of bad faith, editing only to edit war, etc. And again, the number of actual contributions he was making were negligible. Xed's parole covered personal attacks only - while there were certainly personal attacks, they were only a part of a much larger and all to familiar picture. To my mind, when you come back from a ban and immediately resume the exact behavior that got you banned, you should be quickly put back on a ban - this does not need to wind itself through lesser means of dispute resolution. Phil Sandifer 17:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, a point of order

Kelly Martin has already resigned from the committee. However, this case is not yet closed. Often, arbitrators change votes in pending cases based on new discussion, evidence, or questions (at least it seems I often see strike-throughs on votes). Several members of the community have recently commented on the case, so it is not yet "dead". As Kelly is no longer on the committee and this case is not yet closed, is her vote still valid?

Yes, I am hoping to change the outcome, which I think is unjustified (see above). However, this seems to me quite a valid point. Derex 20:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly's vote is good. There is background information regarding Xed which has not been explicitly expressed. However, as the opinions were expressed in confidential forums, it is up to those who expressed those sentiments to make them explicit should they chose to. However, expressed succinctly and bluntly, Xed is considered a troll. While I agree that his past behavior was outrageous, he was not given a chance to do much in this incarnation. Fred Bauder 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, maybe he is a troll, though I don't share that opinion. But I'm not overly fond of secret courts and secret evidence. We have enough of those in real life these days. From the outside, this thing stinks. An "insider", who I've seen raise at least one ridiculous case before, complains about Xed. The only real evidence against Xed publicly provided is a few garden-variety attacks -- against the rules, but pretty small stuff. Supposedly for that, Xed is banned for a year. Now, I look at that and ask myself what's the real reason Xed was banned. No good reason is in the evidence. No good reason is the findings of fact. No good reason has been presented here, except "trust us". That's not right.

I think the majority of arbitrators voted to ban him because they don't like his style. They find him abrasive. I don't like it either. But the complainants ought to build a public case that Xed refuses to engage in good-faith dialogue, or that his style prevents it. They haven't done that. Why does his style matter if it doesn't interfere with substance? Is it really too much trouble to have one of the 700+ admins ban him for a week each time he makes a personal attack? That would fix the style problem handily, at little effort. Regardless of why the case was decided this way, I have an opinion about why it was brought. And it's not because Snowspinner is so thin-skinned that hearing the word "weasel" brings him to his knees.

I'll leave it be now. I don't want to be a "troublemaker". But, I do think one ought to speak up, when one thinks the system is being abused. It may be the case that Xed ought to be banned -- but then, the evidence of that ought to be available to the community.

I applaud you, Fred, for voting "no" after noting that there is no basis in the record for a ban. Again, I'm not defending Xed; I'm critizing the way this decision was reached. Derex 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How can "background information regarding Xed which has not been explicitly expressed" and "opinions expressed in confidential forums" be the basis for a decision against Xed? Does Wikipedia have some kind of secret Star Chamber we're not being told about?

However annoying Xed may be, he most definitely isn't a troll, and attempting to dismiss concerns about an excessive penalty by throwing that label around smack of totalitarianism. -- Danny Yee 02:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The conversations on the arbcom irc channel and the postings on the arbcom-l list are confidential. I have gone back and reviewed the mailing list postings. There was disagreement as to how to handle the matter with some considering Xed's behavior a serious problem. It was decided by the majority that he did more harm than good. If he were a simple troll there would be clear grounds for banning him, but that is not the case. I mis-spoke about when I characterized Xed as a troll above. It is not that simple, but bottom line, it is considered that he does more harm than good. Fred Bauder 04:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that Derex and Danny Yee have called some attention to this case again. I am officially on a wikibreak right now because I spent too much time in the Wikipedia namespace to my liking, lately (mostly having to do with this case). It is very disheartening to learn two weeks later that this (whatever it is precisely) apparently is the real reason no-one of the arbitrators did dare to step forward and answer my questions. I urge the arbcom to be accountable and the individual arbitrators to be honest. All this is eroding my belief in Wikipedia as a community-driven project focused on building an encyclopedia. Whoever is behind this case, settling personal scores is not what arbitration is for, at least that's how I understand it. I have repeatedly asked the arbitrators to adress my serious questions above, as of now to no avail. There cannot be a valid reason to ignore such questions. This matter is beginning to smell, and it needs to be adressed before the case is closed. — mark ✎ 10:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would disagree. This is in no way a personal matter (at least, certainly not for me - I've never come across Xed in my editing, or, at least, not that I recall). I have never been anything but honest. You have not, however, ever "asked [me] directly" - you do not appear in my talk page history, nor in my archive of email. Had you done so, I would have given you this answer many weeks ago - it is my opinion that Xed's continued presence on the wiki is not of net benefit to furthering the project; that is why I have voted to ban him. That is the sole criterion upon which the Committee bases all of its decisions.

My apologies for not doing answering your comments on this talk page, but Arbitration duties being so voluminous means that sometimes certain talk pages get overlooked. It was certainly not an attempt to "ignore" you. However, my opinion remains unchanged. Again, sorry.

James F. (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole case might as well have been conducted with no public record at all. In fact, it would have been better. Neither the evidence presented, nor the findings of fact support a one-year ban. You feel that Xed is not a net benefit to the wiki, and that is exactly the right criterion for a ban.

Maybe Xed is a drain. How are any of us to assess whether your judgement on that is sound? Here you are up for election, and down comes a decision based on private evidence in private discussions with a one-year ban. I don't know whether the decision is reasonable, how could I? It's not based on anything in the public record of this case. Accordingly, how can I assess whether it's a reasonable one?

It's up to Jimbo whether arbcom is elected or appointed and whether the proceedings are public or private. But what's the point in pretending this is public, with workshops & evidence pages & discussion pages & elections, when it's not. That's my concern. You might as well pay lip-service to a factual finding that Xed is a net loss. Further, how can Xed refute an allegation that hasn't even been made publicly in the proceedings.

I suspect you feel very put upon, as you have a high work-load & everyone's a critic. However, if you look at the decision page from an outsider's perspective, you will see it's bizarre. At the end, the complainants are commended, which seems quite unusual to me. Then Xed is banned. Neither part of this has any reasonable basis in the evidence or findings. If you at least made some small attempt in the findings to explain the basis of your actions, then maybe you wouldn't be looking at multiple pages of complaints right now. Fine, Xed is a net drain on the wiki. Say so explicitly, and say why. Otherwise, it looks to the world like he got banned for saying "weasel" to a couple insiders who disagreed with him on a content issue. Maybe you don't care what the community thinks; we shouldn't second guess. Fine, but then why have elections or any public record of the cases?

You say the workload is too high to keep up with discussion pages. That's reasonable, but why are you running for re-election if you don't have time for a proper job? That may sound personal, but it's not. You say Mark didn't email you or leave a note on your user page. Is not this the appropriate place for arbcom business? Besides, it's not that you personally didn't respond it's that no one did, at least no arbitrator who supported the ban. Yes, it's a thankless job. But, I wouldn't be on you if there had been any concern by any of the arbitrators who supported the ban about community questions, or about putting the real reason for the ban in the record. More than enough said.

To be clear, I have no stake at all in this, and don't edit any of the pages in question. Signing off this page, because this is making me grumpy in real life. Derex 22:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

James, if you read about half of the above talk page, from #Questions on, you'll see why I did get frustrated. I did not ask all arbitrators personally; that's because I expected that the arbitrators would at least be skimming the talk pages of cases they are hearing (not an unreasonable expectation, I think). I did ask the Epopt specifically on December, 24; he gave no sign of having looked into it. Also, on January, 1, I placed a notice in the 'requests for clarification' section of WP:RFAR, noting that there were several unanswered questions. This should have attracted more attention, but it didn't. When no real response came, I repeated my question in the 'requests for clarification' section. Over the weeks, I also posted various reminders on the talk page of /Proposed decion. I must say I find it difficult to accept that one only can get arbitrators to look into questions if one asks them personally. — mark ✎ 10:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And obviously, I echo Derex' questions above. He makes some valid points that I really would like to see adressed by some of the arbitrators. Frustrated as I am, I'll try not to interfere in unhelpful ways (and apologize if I did). — mark ✎ 12:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be concerned that I don't understand your frustration, Mark - now that I am aware of your questioning, I completely agree that we should have noticed and responded earlier. Again, all I can say to that is that I'm sorry.

On the matter of the talk page of the decision being the "correct" place for comments, I suppose it depends on what you're used to. It's not normally an extant page, and when it is, it's normally for intra-Committee discussions, or for moving comments that participants or others have inserted directly into the text (feel free to go through the dozens of past cases to verify this, but you'd be wasting your time ;-)). Normally comments are raised on the Workshop - that's what it's for, after all. Perhaps we should in future make such talk pages as redirects to the relevent workshop pages.

As to differing opinions of what constitutes "unreasonable expectations" of what Arbitration is, and what Arbitrators do, this is not the place for such a discussion, and it is unlikely to be a productive discussion. Suffice it to say that I spend almost all of my Wikipedia time on Arbitration - upwards of 5-10 hours a week, pretty much every week, for the past two years. Ask not what Arbitrators can do for you, yada yada yada...

On the matter at hand (yes, really! gosh), please note the fact that this case is called "Xed 2". The reason is that we'd already had dealings with Xed beforehand. Surely the findings of that are implicitly extended to this case in your minds - they are in ours? Note especially "Xed has a pattern of disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia, mainly through assumption of widespread bad faith" and "Xed has engaged in wide-ranging personal attacks on other Wikipedians". We banned Xed before, as an attempt to get him to reform; on returning, however, we find that Xed has not reformed into better behaviour, and so have moved forwards to asking Xed to wait for a while longer before contributing to the project further, in the hope that he will reform given more time.

Please don't think that we don't like constructive criticism - we seek it greatly, and it is very helpful for us to know when and how we err, or (I would hope, more commonly) fail to explain our decision making processes. Thank you for your comments here.

Now, before I collapse into bed, I will spend an hour or so sifting through the evidence of another case. Good night.

James F. (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's demoralising rereading these pages. When bullies achieve positions of power, it's downhill for everyone. - Xed 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How lovely to see that you've taken this close call to heart. Phil Sandifer 01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)