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)

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)

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)

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)

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)