Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Fred Bauder has written plenty of misleading information on the Proposed decision page, and has told me not to edit the page

Contents

[edit] 2

From: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Proposed_decision#Status_of_donations_article:

2) After debate and a response from User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Where_is_the_donation_link.3F which favored discussion of the matter, Template:Helpout was restored. Although no longer linked from the In the news section of the Main page the article Donations_for_victims_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake which is linked to from a number of Wikipedia pages has been developed by Wikipedia editors.

This section is inaccurate. The 'response' from Jimbo Bauder cites (jan 3) comes two days after this Helpout template was created (not, as far as I know, restored) on jan 1 [1] by User:Dbachmann. Bauders narrative gives the impression that Jimbo said "let's have a discussion" and then the template came back as a result. On the contrary, all mentions by Jimbo of the idea of a Tsunami banner were negative before the consensus of editors forced Jimbo's defenders to stand down. Two days later he posted his message. (Note: Bauder has updated this section, though it is still written in a misleading manner)

[edit] 3

From: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Proposed_decision#Nature_of_link_cited_by_Xed

3) The article ... addresses the use of government funds, not voluntary contributions and is thus irrelevant to solicitation through links from Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#Background

This is a lop-sided reading of the article, which attacks altruism itself. Quote "It is Americans' acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth. "

[edit] 4

From: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Proposed_decision#Xed.27s_characterization_of_Wikipedia

4) User:Xed characterizes Wikipedia as largest online lunatic asylum in the world and questions the value of donations to Wikipedia ...

These would more accurately read User:Xed jokes that Wikipedia is the largest online lunatic asylum in the world , but more seriously compares the value of donations to Wikipedia ... etc

[edit] 7

7) ... with Xed defending the sockpuppet User:Pinlighter, apparently over from Stormfront...

This is a classic example of poisoning the well, by associating me (!) with some association with Stormfront. Bauder practices the sort of thing which got User:RK blocked. Not once did I 'defend a sockpuppet', my comment was purely pointing out User:Jayjgs hypocrisy.

[edit] 8

From: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Proposed_decision#Personal_attack_by_Xed

8) Xed followed with a personal attack on User:Slrubenstein ...

Bauder removed the context again.

[edit] 9

9) Xed's reference to tsunami relief .. surprised Slrubenstein

Should read allegedly surprised Slrubenstein

Title Reference to tsunami relief should read Repeated attacks by Rubenstein

[edit] Jimmy Wales vs. User:Jimmy Wales

You might want to check what's on the latter page. That's not the user name Jimbo uses. --Michael Snow 23:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What's your point? - XED.talk 11:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh I see - XED.talk 12:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, Fred fixed it in one spot, but there are still several more. --Michael Snow 17:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Systemic bias

That I am putting this on a talk page instead of as evidence should indicate the importance I give it. I just wanted to note that, although the contributions to, for instance, Economy of Africa were great, I am still not that big a fan of the systemic bias project (And this is what I meant by the idiosyncratic view of NPOV). Systemic bias is a very, very hostile term. Implicit in the name of the project is a criticism of those who have not contributed on topics related to Africa and world poverty are biased. The term "systemic bias" is associated with questions of why minorities get hired less, and why there's a corporate glass ceiling.

I appreciate the contributions on these issues from Xed. But I wish that he had not begun his time on Wikipedia by framing his contributions in such a hostile way. I wish I could look at the systemic bias project without feeling like I'm implicitly being called a racist because I happen to edit about video games and literary theory. And I don't think I'm the only one to be... put off by it.

I say this only because I think it's emblematic of Xed's Wikipedia interactions. Needless divisiveness and offensiveness in pursuit of noble goals. Snowspinner 14:23, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand systemic bias. You'll find nothing about questions of why minorities (minorities where?) "get hired less, and why there's a corporate glass ceiling" in the project. Neither is the project about Africa or world poverty, it's simply about subjects which aren't adequately covered. And neither are you being forced to write about subjects other than video games. If you can show me where I've ever written, or implied, that writing about video games was racist then please let me know.
Your original charge of me having an "idiosyncratic view of NPOV" now appears to be an unspecific attack on a project which you have misread. Considering such motivations, the rest of your charges can likewise be discarded. - XED.talk 14:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
An interesting line of reasoning, to be sure. My point was never against the intent of the project. It was against the naming of it, and against the hostile tone that you have just so aptly demonstrated. Representing under-represented topics is great. I'm glad you're doing work on these topics. It's important work. But to suggest, as your project does and as your continual hostility does, that those who are not doing this work are bad, and your wholesale dismissal of people for disagreeing with you - that's a problem. So, yes, thank you for your work on these subjects. However, if you can't learn to do that work in a way that does not horribly alienate and offend people, well, I have to say, I don't think you are a positive addition to the project. And that, in the end, is the core of my complaint. The fact that any good work you do is overshadowed by the cloud of hostility and hysterical accusation that you bring with you. Snowspinner 17:25, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
If you can show me where I've ever written, or implied, that writing about video games was racist then please let me know. It seems it is you who is being hostile by bringing up this arbitration. - XED.talk 17:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Snowspinner, I'm surprised that you have the feeling that systemic bias is a hostile term. Certainly, bias (in the sense of prepossessedness) is a hostile term in a project aiming at NPOV — but 'systemic bias' is just an adequate description of a phenomenon we encounter at Wikipedia, mainly due to the demographics of its user base. If you read the project pages, you will find that it aims to reach its goal only in constructive ways and not by implicitly criticizing any contributor to Wikipedia. To quote from CSB Project details:
Wikipedia has a number of systemic biases, mostly deriving from the demographics of our participant base, the heavy bias towards online research, and the (generally commendable) tendency to "write what you know".
Systemic bias is not to be confused with systematic bias. The latter just means "thoroughgoing bias". Systemic bias means that there are structural reasons why Wikipedia gives certain topics much better coverage than others, and as a consequence, it should not be seen as the "fault" of any individual editor, or any individual article.
Pretty clear, I think. I do not see any 'needless divisiveness and offensiveness' here, really. — mark ✎ 14:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I react strongly to the bias. It is a hostile term. It's a needlessly hostile term, from a needlessly hostile user. Were it just that, I'd leave it as a term that kind of annoys me. There are other terms that kind of annoy me - I think wikiquette is one of the most worthless neologisms ever, with the possible exception of sie/hir. But this term, in Xed's case, is compounded by a continual hostility of which this is only a minor mark. My point - and, again, this is why I declined to put this as evidence, is that even in what I agree is Xed's best accomplishment, his underlying hostility towards the project and its users is clear. Snowspinner 17:25, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
"A needlessly hostile term from a needlessly hostile user". The name was suggested by User:Jmabel, not me. I originally wanted to call it Crossbow or something, to make it sound less dry. - XED.talk 17:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. See Wikipedia:CROSSBOW, in particular the end of the page. — mark ✎ 23:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This largely supports my point - the SB in CROSSBOW was for systemic bias. Snowspinner 23:59, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why this would support your point, your point being that the notion of systemic bias is a 'needless hostile term from a needless hostile user'. I pointed out that it is just an adequate characterization of a problem of Wikipedia. In fact, I don't see any other notion that might fit as adequately as this one. Do you? Why disregard the possibility that Xed chose it because it's just that — the most adequate term?
Still, I can see another point you want to make: the point that Xed in your eyes is a hostile user. Well then, the only point I am trying to make here is that that opinion is not supported by dragging in the Countering Systemic Bias project. — mark ✎ 02:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This whole arbitration seems to be about a name you don't like. I note you haven't suggested another one. This amounts to no more than an attack. - XED.talk 01:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No. The arbitration is about the stream of abuse you hurl at anybody who disagrees with you, and your belligerance in ascribing viewpoints that they do not hold to them. Your response to a point that I very deliberately did not put forth as evidence or as a claim for arbitration with claims that the entire arbitration is invalid and about a name you don't like are emblematic of this. You are incapable of taking disagreement in any way that does not involve dramatically and viciously escelating the situation. That's why I think you're a problem user - no other reason. Snowspinner 04:40, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Systemic bias is an accurate and well-chosen description of the problem, I would say. Given the meaning of "systemic" (not systematic), I read no hostility into it. - Mustafaa 20:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rubenstein's response

I have added the following to my "evidence" although perhaps it belongs here:

As far as I can tell, I am being accused for having made personal attacks on four occasions.

(You called him a moron twice too Fred Bauder 14:08, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC))

As I state on the "evidence" page, I am sorry that I called Xed a moron, and said that he has a small, petty mind. As I also state on that page, it is now clear to me that another comment about his mental state was taken as a personal attack. Since that was not my intention, I take it back, with my apologies.

Again, I believe this to be a factual statement. However, I sincerely do not believe that this is a personal atack. It was a direct response to Xed's question to Mel Etitis asking what his point is [2], after Mel Etitis had clearly made his point (namely, that Xed did not understand Mel Ititis's earlier explanation for the deletion of the Jewish Ethnocentrism page [3], [4]. I do not see how affirming Mel Etitis's point, that Xed did not understand his argument, is a "personal attack."

I do not deny having made several harsh comments on the talk pages concerning Jewish Ethnocentrism and its deletion. I admit that some of them were personal attacks, and I do regret that. I want to affirm only that these intemperate remarks expressed my frustration at some editors who seemed either not to have read any of the extensive, preceding discussion, or not to have taken it seriously. I don't offer this as an excuse, only as an explanation. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where have I said that you saying "Actually, I'd say you just made the point for him" was a personal attack? - XED.talk 19:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? Where have I said that you said this was a personal attack?

[edit] moved from Arbitrator's notice board

Concerning the accusation that I have persisted in attacks, there is one thing that Xed and members of the ArbCom do not seem to understand. When I mention my having called Xed a moron -- meaning, that he has a cognitive deficit [5] it was in the context of explaining why I had said it and expressing my regret that I had said it while admitting that I had made a personal attack in the past. This was not intended to be a "new" personal attack, just an admission of an old one. If there is anything in my wording that suggests otherwise, I regret it and would change it. As to the other element (concerning a personality disorder), I do not consider this an attack and did not want it to be interpreted as an attack -- but if that is how the ArbCom understands it, so be it. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Truth is not a defense?

Please, let's not go there. If an avowed Nazi is trashing Nazi-related pages to push a Nazi POV, calling him a Nazi absolutely needs to be a fair and allowable comment, even if it is "personal". Some situations may call for a person to ignore all rules, even Godwin's law and No personal attacks. I think a decision endorsing this particular principle would be too chilling to the general atmosphere of free speech on Wikipedia.

Objectively true statements should be allowed, even if they reflect negatively on individual editors. The harm the No personal attacks policy seeks to prevent is primarily in the tone and rhetoric being used. I am reminded of Wik's objections to Alex Plank's adminship - calling attention to whether his Aspergers might cause problems in that role would have been fair, making remarks about a "lunatic asylum" was not.

What this should really get at, I believe, is that the vast majority of personal attacks, including those in this case, are simply invective with no way of being proven one way or the other. Saying that somebody has a "small, petty mind" or is a "moron" is lightyears away from an assertion that is provably true or false, and in fact this is much of what makes these personal attacks so indefensible. --Michael Snow 22:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most people who are characterized as "fascists" or "nazis" here would dispute the label. An "avowed Nazi" is a different case as would be an "avowed Maoist" or an "avowed Marxist-Leninist", especially if they openly proclaim "liquidation" of a social class or ethnic group as their goal. But that is always the square circle and does not appear in actual users. Fred Bauder 22:48, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

If this discussion is in some way a response to anything I have written -- I was only pointing out that I believed the things I have said to be true. I wouldn't want anything I said to be compared to calling an avowed Nazi a Nazi. I'm asking only that my intention be considered as a mitigating factor and not as a "defense" -- because I do think there is a difference between what I said (even considered as a "personal attack") and "fuck you you little shit." The only serious concern I have with the arbitration process is that it seems to consider all instances (or possible instances) of "personal attacks" to be comparable. I believe you can look at a comment in context and acknowledge mitigating circumstances, or proportionality, without suggesting that it was not a personal attack, and without suggesting that you think it is entirely excusable. In any event I did not mean to claim that the "truth" of my comments is a valid defense. I am sorry what I wrote was interpreted this way.
I still maintain that it is wrong to construe my admission that calling Xed a moron was a personal attack, along with my statement that I now regret having said it constitutes a new personal attack during arbitration.
Moreover, I still maintain that my statement, "Actually, I'd say you just made the point for him" is both true, and not a personal attack. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More Findings

Will there be findings about the personal attacks against JayJG, Ed Poor, Viriditas, and JDW that SLRubenstein submitted on behalf of another user? Snowspinner 22:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ha, I read that as St.Rubenstein at first. I thought the Pope was getting senile. As for your question - I don't know, but perhaps there will be action against people who start arbitrations against people because they don't like the name of a project - XED.talk 22:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed findings

I'd like to ask for some more findings of fact. Specifically, I would like it noted in the decision that, based on evidence presented by Slrubenstein and by me, Xed has made personal attacks against Jayjg, Ed Poor, Viriditas, JDW, Theresa Knott, Hyacinth, Modemx, and Neutrality. I would also like to suggest that, combined with the documented attacks against Jimbo and Slrubenstein, this probably merits an actual ban. Snowspinner 20:18, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to note that, if Slrubenstein's comments about Xed's mental health were being considered actionable personal attacks, I would hope Xed's claim that I have a guilt complex in his evidence section (First chunk - the part that mentions me by name) is similarly actionable. (Which is at least 11 users he's made personal attacks against, for anyone counting at home.) I further consider his insistence that I started this arbitration over an objection to his project name to be a personal attack, as it is definitely an untrue statement designed to cause offense and to denigrate me. Snowspinner 20:35, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Snowspinner calls in the mob. Light the torches! Most of what you call attacks are actually accurate assessments. Rather than ban me, I would propose that an admin who starts an Arbitration because he doesn't like the name of a project be de-sysopped (though I see you've already been de-sysopped in the last couple of days...) - XED.talk 20:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Which would all be well and good, if only I had done that. Snowspinner 20:35, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
You can't take it back now. Also, can you tell me where I've written, or implied, that writing about video games is racist - XED.talk 20:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good contributions

In an attempt to probe the claim that Xed makes positive contributions, I've added a general overview of his last week of edits. They come down to a handful of minor changes, one article contribution, some unsourced photos, and a bunch of aggressive edit warring and personal attacks. Snowspinner 18:50, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

My response to this attack in the second paragraph of this - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#Bad_Faith_Arbitration_started_by_Snowspinner.
Also, I would ask Snowspinner for the third (or fourth?) time if he could tell me where I've written, or implied, that writing about video games is racist - XED.talk 19:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My point when I made the comment that you are so fixated on was that the "countering systemic bias" rhetoric, particularly when applied to things like your desire to remove Arthur Miller's death from In the News, creates a climate of open hostility towards any contributors not offering enough "unbiased" content. Your demeanor and rhetoric has continually suggested that you think less of people who do not edit on the topics you feel are underrepreesented. That was and is my objection. Any attempts to claim, as you continually do, that this arbitration is about anything other than the continual hostility you direct towards your fellow editors are distortions of the most offensive kind. Snowspinner 19:48, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Do I have to ask 5 times? - XED.talk 20:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You can keep asking, but at this point it's about as relevent as my asking where you've said I prefer purple cows to green ones.
Not really. You said " I wish I could look at the systemic bias project without feeling like I'm implicitly being called a racist because I happen to edit about video games and literary theory". Where have I, or anyone, implicitly called you a racist for editing video game articles? In fact you also said, bizarrely, "The term "systemic bias" is associated with questions of why minorities get hired less, and why there's a corporate glass ceiling." You haven't explained that either. - XED.talk 20:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The former is implicit in your demeanor towards other content such as Babylon 5, the Superbowl, and American playwrights. If I am wrong and you think video games are substantially different from those, I apologize, though I confess to having no understanding of your standards in that case. As for the latter, it's fairly well noted in Systemic bias, particularly where it says "One might refer, for example, to the systemic bias of a particular institution in devaluing contributions by women or ethnic minorities." Snowspinner 20:41, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
And? - XED.talk 20:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added another section, tracking Xed's contributions in the week before the arbcom decision. This is to respond to Xed's claim that the arbcom case has been distracting him from good edits. I've also edited the first section to respond to some of Xed's replies. Snowspinner 20:15, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

(Cross-posting the below comments from Talk:Evidence, I had not seen the above discussion yet. — mark ✎ 22:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC))

I just want to say that I am puzzled by Snowspinner's analysis of User:Xed's contributions of last week (in his Evidence section). It escapes me how an analysis of one week's contributions of any user that has an arbitration filed against him could be put forward as 'evidence' that the user doesn't do good work at all.

Clearly, not all of Xed's contributions are 'good' in the sense the arbitrators mean in Proposed_decision#Xed's contributions — there is enough evidence showing that User:Xed has been rude and uncivil at times. But the present statement by User:Snowspinner strikes me as nothing more than a nasty hit below the belt. — mark ✎ 20:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As the principle in the case says - while good edits are not an excuse for bad behavior, they are a mitigating factor. Snowspinner's challenging the perception that Xed makes a high proportion of good edits is fully relavant to the case. →Raul654 22:49, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching this unfold from the sidelines, but Mark's comments have prompted me to make a brief contribution to the discussion. Xed appears to me to have been instrumental in improving our coverage of topics Wikipedia was (and is) very patchy on, by his setting up of and work for WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. I know this has been noted already but it's an important consideration for those who see him as nothing more than a troll or a disruptive editor. While some users' only experience of Xed may have been a dispute with him, others who have seen his work (including myself) regard him as someone who has done genuinely good work for Wikipedia, punctuated by instances of incivility. Xed is, on balance, a valuable contributor, and I sincerely hope he doesn't get banned, though if I was him I would in future try to stick to adding new articles and fresh content and keep out of disputes as much as possible. — Trilobite (Talk) 10:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner refers sneeringly to this article I was writing - User:Xed/draft5 - as a "minor article edit" and goes on to say "I fail to see the good contributions", and that it is "absurd" to claim that I do any good work. In fact, to write some of the article I had to go to a specialist library (SOAS) to get some of the information, since information of that nature is not readily available on the internet. This is more than most people would do, yet Snowspinner just sneers at it all. For this reason, I really can't be fucking bothered anymore. - XED.talk 18:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I must agree with Trilobite. User:Xed/draft5 alone would convince me that Xed was doing excellent work. - Mustafaa 20:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Xed_Proposed_decision_9d40.html"