Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by removed as it deals with the prior case. Fred Bauder 17:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

7 November
No doubt, Xed has at times assumed bad faith on the side of other editors and it is also quite clear that Xed has had difficulty to stay cool when the editing gets hot; I will leave it to others to provide evidence for that. I was utterly surprised, however, to learn that seven examples of this behaviour have been considered enough of a reason to start another RFAr against Xed. We have more editors with a 'short fuse' on Wikipedia, who nonetheless are doing great work. I do not believe that the best way to deal with such passionate, but at times thorny editors is to submit them to arbitration whenever they get out of line a bit. Snowspinner, as shown below, does seem to believe that. In short, my stance on the matter can be worded as follows: while it may be true that Xed's conduct in some isolated cases has been against the rules of the wiki, I feel that Snowspinners' attitude (especially his self-appointed prosecutorship) goes against the spirit of it. This is not how an admin should behave if we want to keep Wikipedia a nice and productive place. &mdash; mark &#9998; 10:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 00:58, 7 November Snowspinner comes by at Xed's talk to warn him about Wikistalking. This looks like any old admin warning someone misbehaving, but I think, given previous friction (to say the least!) between Snowspinner and Xed, that Snowspinner would have done better to ask another admin to do this, especially because nobody asked Snowspinner specifically to jump onto this. Xed's irritated response is to draw attention to this by mirroring part of Snowspinner's warning.
 * 11:57, 6 November Background: Xed has come to Snowspinner's attention because of a request for parole enforcement by . asks a question about it, but before anyone answers Snowspinner places his first warning on User talk:Xed. Again, given that SEWilco had expressed interest, there was no need for Snowspinner to do this. I think Snowspinner is too trigger-happy here.
 * 01:03, 7 November Snowspinner reacts by taking Xed's response as a denial and asks Xed to explain his behavior.
 * 01:04, 7 November Xed's only response is 'stop stalking me'.
 * 01:09, 7 November After Xed says 'stop stalking me', Snowspinner tells him completely out of the blue: I am requesting a reopening of the arbcom case against you. Take good note. This is the first exchange between Xed and Snowspinner since many months. It is only twenty minutes after the first warning, and it is the third thing Snowspinner says. To anyone who sees this conversation enfolding, it must come as a complete surprise. In any case, it is disappointing to see that this is the way Snowspinner choses to act when responding to a request of admin enforcement. Again, there was no need for Snowspinner to enact this request.
 * 01:23, 7 November Snowspinner sets up a new RFAr unilaterally. In other words, within thirty minutes after the first heated exchange between Xed and an 'enforcing' admin, a new Request for Arbitration is live. Now, remember that we are still looking at the first response by any admin to a request by Viriditas at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested, a request that contained seven diffs of reverts and snappish edit summaries. I think this is ludicrous.

I want to leave it at this for now, because my time is limited and I hate being busy with sorry things like this instead of contributing to our encyclopedia. But I want to note that it is equally interesting to look at the way Snowspinner characterizes Xed's behaviour, and at Snowspinner perception of Xed's contributions to the project. This diff is especially telling in that respect. I hope that the ArbCom will look in depth into these matters. I also hope that the ArbCom will explain how it can be that a Request for Arbitration that was started unilaterally by an enforcing admin within an hour after the first warning was accepted 'upon hearing this matter'. Lastly, I hope that the ArbCom will pay especially close attention to the role of Snowspinner in all this. &mdash; mark &#9998; 10:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner assuming bad faith

 * (12 November 2005) When one's primary contributions to the project are reverts, it suggests that one is edit warring rather than contributing, and that the dominant tone of one's actions is a hostile and adversarial one. This is as clear as they come. In response to someone who suggests that the issue seems to be about people not getting along, heap up all the "primary contributions" of one editor and call them "edit warring" without any further consideration.
 * (4 December 2005) I actually tend to think Xed does edit in good faith - he sincerely sees a problem with Wikipedia's coverage of non-European countries and wants to fix it. Snowspinner apparently has changed his opinion. He is of course fully entitled to do so, but I think it would be appropriate for him to admit that his current view (or, as he chooses to put it, the view he tends to hold) doesn't mesh at all with some of his earlier statements. More importantly however, I would be interested in seeing Snowspinner assess the relation between his 'other/former view' (or should I call it the view he holds when when the view he tends to hold has a day off?) and the way this particular arbitration was brought about. The hurry in which it happened and Snowspinner's initial characterization of Xed's behaviour shows, I think, that the subtle difference he recognizes now ('editing in good faith and assuming good faith in others)',  didn't play a role at all then. Does that matter anything now that the request has been opened? I doubt it, but still I would like the arbitrators to adress the fact that Snowspinner apparently is someone who (as I said before) holds the opinion that the best way to deal with passionate, but at times thorny editors is to submit them to arbitration (better yet, ban them outright) whenever they get out of line a bit. &mdash; mark &#9998; 21:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Snowspinner's evidence

 * Below, in the section 'continued lack of good contributions', Snowspinner tells us that "Xed's contributions to the project remain minimal at best." Xed, in his response to Snowspinner below, cites some evidence to the contrary so I think I won't add to that (aside from noting that I think it is simply a case of sham deafness to call, e.g., Culture of DRC 'a minimal contribution at best'). I simply want to counter Snowspinner's statement with one of his own (admittedly rare) compliments to Xed: this diff, where Snowspinner tells Xed: "you're doing some great work in the article namespace". Make of this what you want. &mdash; mark &#9998; 19:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (exchange between Xed and Snowspinner on this issue moved to talk) &mdash; mark &#9998; 20:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I probably should add that I don't think we need to cite "Xed's supposed value to the encyclopedia ... as a mitigating circumstance" in this Arbitration. I simply think that this Arbitration shouldn't have been here at all, not because Xed is doing good work, but because it was started within thirty minutes after a first exchange, on the basis of seven diffs, by an admin who evidently has just his particular axe to grind. Please also note that only four of these seven diffs (the ones with the heated edit summaries like 'weasel' and 'propagandist') constitued possible parole violations. It probably would have been possible to block Xed for parole violation (after warning him), but I am really curious to know which admin (aside from Snowspinner) would have considered "requesting a reopening of the arbcom case" in this particular case. &mdash; mark &#9998; 20:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Slrubenstein's evidence

 * I do not think that Slrubenstein's evidence (above) is relevant at all to the case at hand. It has been brought up and acted upon in the previous arbitration case against Xed. Everyone can re-read Requests for arbitration/Xed/Evidence, and there's no need to duplicate its contents here. &mdash; mark &#9998; 08:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring

 * At the time of the case's submission, over half of his last 30 article edits are reverts.
 * Incivil edit summaries: "rv weasel tag team", "rv censorship" "rv weasel" , and "remove weasel-like wording from propagandist".

Wikistalking

 * Xed has also been wikistalking JayJG, going to articles that JayJG edits that Xed has never edited before, and beginning edit wars with JayJG, then pointing to the caution against edit warring against JayJG when JayJG reverts these changes. If JayJG goes to another editor to ask for support or further input, Xed accuses them of being a "tag team." See and  for an example.
 * When asked about this, Xed accused me of assuming bad faith in bringing up wikistalking . When I apologized and asked for an explanation of the behavior, I was wholly blown off.

Other assumptions of bad faith

 * Bad faith assumed of Ed Poor.
 * Accusation of "lying" when a user makes several edits in three minutes
 * Complete blanking of an article as "unsourced"
 * Changing 150 articles away from using Ivory Coast to give his preferred version "the upper hand"
 * Admins don't "want to build an encyclopedia at all"
 * "It's obvious where the propaganda is coming from"
 * "Weasel tag-team in effect"
 * "The out-sourced edit warring continues"
 * "It's clear he's using you and others as proxy edit-warriors"
 * "JayJG's shocking behavior"
 * "even attempting to out-source your edit warring"
 * Again with "out-sourced edit warring"
 * "Your response indicates some sort of personal attack against me"
 * Deliberate altering of quotes to provide a desired effect in evidence - the quote below about believing I'm wrong is, in full, "I find it difficult to take seriously the possibility that a belief of mine is wrong while simultaneously holding the belief." Which is to say that when I believe something, I also believe I am right to believe it - this is a relatively non-controversial poposition, despite Xed's creative quoting. To his credit, he revised the quote after the evidence was posted. The original version is.

Alan Dershowitz
Following Jimbo's invitation to admins to fix the Alan Dershowitz article, Xed began a particularly gruesome display of bad faith, immediately assuming that Alan Dershowitz himself was both responsible for the complaint and that he had vandalized the article, and further made changes lacking consensus to policy pages, in violation of WP:POINT, removing references to No legal threats. Perhaps it was Dershowitz, but the immediate assumption and subsequent writing off of all criticism of the article is disheartening.

Disruption:

Bad faith:.


 * Note, although I do think many of the previous edits are disruptive and/or showing bad faith, and certainly not examples of the kind of co-operative and loving editing that we should encourage, I would like to put in a bit of a kind word for Xed here and simply say that it is not in and of itself bad faith to surmise based on the unusual sequence of events here that Dershowitz or one of his staff might have been involved in the edits. It's perfectly fine, too, of course to question my decision of how to proceed in this case, many good people have, and they have some valid points of course.  I have never really understood why Xed is so abrasive, and I do encourage him to take a more friendly approach.--Jimbo Wales 21:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Continued lack of good contributions

 * As with the previous arbitration case, I see that Xed's supposed value to the encyclopedia is being cited as a mitigating circumstance. To his credit, he has accumulated 200 article edits in the month of November (Out of 350 since his return).
 * The bulk of these were made on November 12th, and consisted of his contribution to a longstanding edit war, as he went to multiple pages and changed all references to Ivory Coast to Côte d'Ivoire. Note that there was no consensus to do this - it's been a conflict that spans talk pages and the mailing list - and it amounted to aroud 150 contributions to an edit war in a two hour period, spread over different pages, and making a massive mess for people to clean up should the consensus go against Xed's position.
 * Aside from Novemeber 12, his edits consist of
 * 4 additions of external links
 * 16 copyedits
 * 8 edits involving the removal of content (Not a perjorative claim - some of this removal was absolutely correct)
 * 31 reverts (Note that some of his edits were double-counted. For instance removal of copyvio was a copyedit and removal of content)
 * The following content-adding edits
 * Two sentences to South African Jews at
 * An image to Culture of the Democratic Republic of Congo at
 * The creation of a redirect at Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference
 * In short, Xed's contributions to the project remain minimal at best.

Response to Xed's evidence
It is perhaps telling that Xed's evidence of my abusiveness consists of a link to evidence compiled by another user. That evidence is all well over a year old, and consists only of five diffs. The sole complaint was that I raised arbitration against User:Avala. I have trouble seeing how raising an arbcom case that led to sanctions against its subject can possibly be a violation of any policy. Phil Sandifer 16:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

On the SLRubenstein evidence
I was actually considering pointing out that Xed has already recieved sanction for that exchange, and that it was beside the point, but Xed's flatly unapologetic response and implication that being called a "cunt" is the natural consequence of a given opinion makes it clear to me that absolutely nothing has changed since the last arbcom case. Phil Sandifer 17:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring
User:Jayjg has been sanctioned by the Arbitration people for edit-warring. In the articles mentioned, he was out-sourcing his edit-warring to other users. Despite this, there is no arbitration against Jayjg. Instead, it has been made part of the argument against me. The difference between Jayjg and myself is that he is a member of the arbitration committee. Snowspinner will have to examine his own conscience to find out why he singled out me.

Wikistalking
Editing 3 or 4 articles doesn't constitute wikistalking. No one would take any notice in other cases. Again, Snowspinner will have to examine his own conscience to find out why he singled me out.

Other assumptions of bad faith
It's not bad faith to call someone who has stated "All terrorists are Islamic" as unlikely to provide much balance to a group studying Islam. It's not bad faith to call a liar a liar when he claims to have read half a dozen articles in a couple of minutes. It is bad faith to single out an editor to bully them repeatedly.

Alan Dershowitz
It's not an assumption of bad faith if it's true. Ask Jimbo whether it was Dershowitz. - Xed 21:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Continued lack of good contributions
This is a regular feature of Snowspinners discourse. Denigrating editors and discouraging them from editing. Then complaining they aren't editing much. In the case of Ivory Coast and Côte d'Ivoire, the vast majority of internal links already directed to Côte d'Ivoire. Snowspinner characterises the thankless task of making the links consistent (taking 2 hours) as edit warring - showing his continued bad faith. Snowspinner also mentions a "recent mailing list discussion", whatever that is. Am I expected to know about these discussions? Is it mandatory for editors to follow them? If so, that policy should be made more explicit. (Update: )

Snowspinner chooses to look at my edits from 1st Nov onwards. The day before, the 31st October, I uploaded 10 images, and added most of them to the Culture of DRC article. These images were not easy to come by. Obtaining them involved making enquiries around the world, and having a CD sent to me by transatlantic post, and then carefully selecting relevant images. They weren't simply copied from another website, or simple to get hold of. In the same week as adding those images, I edited the Bills article — this article, like the Culture of DRC one, was also based on lots of research and getting several books out of a library to obtain and collate information. I prefer to add things to the available knowledge on the internet, not just rely on info which is already on the internet. Please bear this in mind when Snowpinner says "Xed's contributions to the project remain minimal at best."

Bullying
Snowspinner is a long record of bullying and reckless behaviour. This arbitration is but one example of many. Quotes from various users are presented below. (Update: Snowspinner has ignored these comments in his evidence, showing his indifference to other editors. He has also used this arbitration in order to bully another user on the WP:AN/I page. In a recent comment of his, he makes the case for his infallibility - "I find it difficult to take seriously the possibility that a belief of mine is wrong while simultaneously holding the belief")


 * "purposely disruptive" User:Fvw


 * find his actions "..incompatible with the position of an admin" User:Mikkalai


 * actions … "serve only to stifle debate and slap perfectly good editors in the face" User:Splash


 * "Snowspinners astonishing presumption sought to short-circtuit that whole process in an entirely unacceptable manner." User:Fawcett5


 * "disruptive of Wikipedia, and they were disrespectful of many fellow editors" User:Paul_August


 * "Time for Snowspinner to hand in his badge" ... "He just likes to throw his weight around. It's disgraceful that the arbcom are out in force to defend him" "He abused (his powers) to bully other users"  User:Grace Note


 * "I hope Snowspinner realizes how much the community finds his actions distasteful." User:Andrevan


 * "Snowspinner's complete disregard for the responsibility that goes along with those powers is unsettling, and shows a contempt for consensus-building." User:Nandesuka


 * "indisputably of line and disruptive" User:Nickptar


 * "They are defining 'disruptive behaviour' as "anything Snowspinner doesn't like"" User:Dr Zen


 * "believe yourself to be above all others, including other admins" User:Everyking

One user has compiled an account of Snowspinner's typical behavior – see User:Orthogonal/Snowspinner. In that case Snowspinner was bullying and harassing a user simply because they didn't vote for him as arbitrator - an illustration of Snowspinner's disrespectful, disruptive and petty behavior, and his inability to keep his personal feelings out of conflicts.

Response to Rubenstein from Xed
Rubenstein's Deus Ex Machina contribution is odd. The evidence is about 10 months old. What relevance has it to this case? None.Then why was it submitted? A desperation to see me punished? An attempt to add some spice to the lacklustre current case about me? I don't know. The background to his evidence is that Jimbo Wales, during the Asian tsunami, refused to have a banner on the top of Wikipedia's main page with links to charities collecting for the disaster appeal. An argument ensued with maybe a dozen Wikipedians - most of whom (myself included) wanted a banner to appear. Jimbo Wales, after several days of argument, succumbed to reason and allowed the banner. Wikipedia is a popular site. The lack of a banner for several days must have lead to suffering. Not having a banner was morally indefensible. Rubenstein chose to defend the morally indefensible. He will have to live with that. But again, his evidence is from a previous arbitration, and has no place here - Xed 11:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I have four responses:
 * "Then why was it submitted?" In order to supplement Snowspinner's evidence, to show that Xed's behavior reflects a more general pattern of behavior.
 * Rubenstein never "chose to defend the morally indefensible." Rubenstein did fault Xed for personal attacks against Jimbo.  Everyone has a right to disagree with anyone, including Jimbo.  My point is, Xed only knows how to disagree in the most viscious, bullying way.
 * Even if Rubenstein were defending a morally indefensible act – hypothetically – then Xed's response, posting "Fuck off you little shit" and then using the Wikipedia e-mail link to e-mail me "What a sycophantic cunt your are" are entirely inappropriate and disproportionate responses. In fact, they are further evidence of Xed's inclination to personal attacks and bullying.
 * This section is labeled "Response to Rubenstein from Xed." The appropriate response from Xed would have been this: "I am sorry I called you a "little shit" and a "cunt."  I do not think you understood the context of my comments to Jimbo.  I am angry because I care about Tsunami victims and I believe some people are trying to thwart my attempts to help them.  Now that you know this, I hope you can see why I was so upset when you said I have a small mind." to which I would have responded "Xed, thank you for explaining it to me, and of course I accept your apology.  Moreover, I owe you an apology for my remark on your talk page, which I do regret.  Be that as it may, I really think that no matter how impassioned you are, and no matter how noble your intentions, you do yourself a disservice when you make personal attacks.  With all due respect, I think you will be more effective if you continue to argue your point without saying "fuck you" or "what a sycophantic cunt you are" to people."  That Xed did not respond in this way, but only intensified his personal attacks against me, is to me evidence that Xed is a bully.  I have had my own conflicts with Snowspinner, but in this case, I sympathize with him. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)