Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reversion Ban

1) User:Xed is forbidden from reverting any other contributor's edits for the duration of this arbcom case

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I have reviewed Xed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recent contributions and find no need for a temporary injunction. Fred Bauder 19:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. see comments here - Xed 03:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Assume good faith

1) To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on any wiki, including Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Principle, not a finding of fact. Fred Bauder 03:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• My mistake, I've moved to correct location. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. User:Snowspinner has indeed demonstrated failure to assume good faith by starting this arbitration. - Xed 03:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking in general that both of you seem to have had issues with assuming that the other is acting in good faith. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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. That he assumes everyone who does not agree with him to be The Enemy is a problem, however. Phil Sandifer 21:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Xed marking edits as minor

1) Xed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) marks all edits as minor edits [1]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Not sure what this is about, but it makes it harder for folks to monitor his edits. Fred Bauder 04:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Had it on by default. Is this a major issue? Has anyone been banned for it? - Xed 04:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It is strongly discourged unless the changes qualify as minor and yes it is a major issue if it is done in an attempt to hide major edits especially if they're something that is disputed. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Raul If done in an attempt to knowingly disguise edits then it ceases to just be a minor issue and becomes a larger issue of trying to be deceptive. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

knowingly disguise edits - is this what someone is claiming? Considering I had it on by default, it seems both bad faith and ridiculously petty to claim I'm being deceptive. - Xed 11:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I was speaking theoretically, I didn't mean to say that that was what you were doing I was just giving a what if scenario. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

Xed initiated and continues to contribute to the important WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Prior case involving Xed

Xed was previously involved in an arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed closed 9 March 2005 which resulted in a ban of three months and standard personal attack parole for one year. The interchange between Xed and Slrubenstein in February, 2005 was considered at that time Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed#Remedies. The decision in that case provides "For the period of the personal attack parole, Xed may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator who feels a given edit or edit summary includes or constitutes a personal attack."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Previous ruling against Xed

Xed was, in the previous arbitration case, banned for persistant assumption of bad faith and put on personal attack parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Cut and dry. Phil Sandifer 20:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Xed has not changed attitudes

Xed has, since his return, violated his personal attack parole, continued in his assumptions of bad faith, and expressed a lack of understanding that his previous behavior was problematic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Final part follows from his appalling response and continued defense of his personal attack against Slrubenstein. Rest follows from my evidence. Phil Sandifer 20:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Xed banned

For continuing assumptions of bad faith and a general failure to change his behavior, Xed is banned for X months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Where X equals something the arbcom likes. Phil Sandifer 06:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Based on the evidence already provided, I would like to ask for an injunction barring Xed from any reverts. Phil Sandifer 22:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree and have proposed an injunction above. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. see comments here - Xed 03:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There appears to be an edit warring issue there as well as the incivility in the edit summaries, I think Civility and Edit summaries should be added to proposed principles for this since both seem to be relevant issues as well as probably findings of fact in regards to these principles. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

In hundreds of other instances these would be ignored, but since Snowspinner has decided to target me, every minor indiscretion is punishment-worthy - Xed 03:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should post evidence of this since as of yet there is nothing on the evidence page. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The arbcom and interested editors are helped quite a bit in understanding what's going on if they have diffs to look at so they know what has happened and what's going on. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they are. But admins support Snowspinner no matter what the evidence, so I would rather not waste too much of my time - Xed 03:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Not true Fred Bauder 03:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Very funny. - Xed 04:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Without going into any detail at all and being intentionally vague I will say that this is not true. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No, please. Go into detail. - Xed 05:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

When someone asks me to believe something that contradicts all the evidence I know of, I'm gonna need a really good reason. "Trust me on this" is just not going to suffice. Everyking 09:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your general stance on the arbcom but I can understand where your coming from. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

As I recall, my outside view on Snowspinner's most recent RfC was quite critical of him, and several admins supported it; other admins' critical outside views got even more support. Now can we stop wasting everyone's time with the bickering and baseless criticisms? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I see he was not banned for doing what he did. In fact, nothing happened at all. Imagine if I had done what he did. I would have been banned for 6 months, if not more. As numerous editors have attested, Snowspinner abuses his powers, and is never held responsible. - Xed 00:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)