Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2/Evidence

Xed's Counterclaims
I would hope that, if Xed intends to argue that I am bullying, he could find some evidence of action on my part instead of merely trying to tar me with the insults and invective other have thrown at me. Phil Sandifer 14:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if one wanted to start, one could point to this very arbitration case. And then one could go on to mention the many, many other arbitration cases you've raised. And then one could get into administrative actions and general tone of dialogue. And one could keep going for a while. Everyking 01:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And yet, mysteriously, one never does. Phil Sandifer 01:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How much of it do you actually deny? You can't deny this arbitration case. And I can point you to the two arb cases you started against me. Isn't that evidence? And the two content related arb cases you've been trying to push through recently. That's the stuff that's easiest to present, sure, but you know there's mountains more of the same kind of thing that could be presented if somebody wanted to go looking. Everyking 03:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that this case and the webcomics case, along with the two cases against you, were all accepted suggests that there is a lack of problem with my actions. Phil Sandifer 03:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that just means the ArbCom has a problem too. Which brings me back around the original question: why present evidence against you if there's so much reason to believe the committee is already heavily biased in favor of you? It's a no-win situation. Everyking 03:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's basis to say that the committee is biased in favor of me - the bulk of the evidence presented against me was by John Gohde, who's evidence mostly consisted of personal attacks. Netoholic managed to scrounge up some edits to other people's user pages... Lir had a block to complain about... there was a bit of stuff in the Anthony case... but nobody has ever assembled a body of evidence of abusive behavior on my part. The only block-related evidence I can find that's been submitted was by Lir. You have caught yourself in a Catch-22 - nobody submits evidence against me because the arbcom has never been willing to sanction me, and they've been unwilling to sanction me because nobody has presented them with a shred of evidence. Barely a shred of User:Mirv/Snowy or User:Orthogonal/Snowspinner has ever been presented as evidence. Absent any presentation of evidence, ever, how was the arbcom supposed to rule against me? Phil Sandifer 04:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's some evidence: Snowspinner tried to use this conversation on WP:AN/I to get me blocked. If that's not bullying, there's no such thing as bullying. Everyking 12:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He doesn't stop digging does he? His bullying (here) is beyond parody now. As User:Nandesuka said, "Snowspinner's complete disregard for the responsibility that goes along with those powers is unsettling, and shows a contempt for consensus-building." - Xed 12:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad faith?
(the discussion below was taking place in my evidence; I'm moving it to talk for clarity) &mdash; mark &#9998; 20:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The are plenty more contradictions like that. For instance, Snowspinner complains of "bad faith" repeatedly, both in his original statements and on this page, and supplies plenty of supposed examples. Then he says, on the workshop page, "I actually tend to think Xed does edit in good faith". He doesn't even believe what he's saying, and just uses his powers as a means to bully. It really is Milgram experiment stuff, and it's not surprising so many serious editors find his actions distasteful. - Xed 19:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you edit in good faith. I think you assume bad faith in others. Phil Sandifer 19:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that won't wash. You included in your Bad Faith allegations that I changed Côte d'Ivoire articles as an assumption of bad faith. You make it up as you go along. - Xed 19:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No - the Ivory Coast was an example of edit warring. But I did not accuse it of being bad faith. Just incivil, aggressive, and without consensus. Phil Sandifer 19:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it's in your list below (Other assumptions of bad faith). You'll have trouble denying that. Mark mentions another contradiction - saying "you're doing some great work in the article namespace" and then denigrating that work in the "evidence". Xed 20:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed - the initial comment that you were doing good work was based on an insufficient review of the evidence. I assumed you were without looking. I apologize - I was clearly wrong on that count. As for the inclusion of the Ivory Coast, the relevent edit is your claim to do it to gain the upper hand. Phil Sandifer 20:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)