Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Proposed decision

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

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)

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. "

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

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.

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.

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

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)

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)

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.

• 19:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You have such a small, petty mind.

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

• 17:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You moron ...

• 20:45, 16 Feb 2005
  • Uh-duh, I am speaking for myself (in the edit summary, I wrote "maybe he really is a moron?)

Concerning the "small, petty mind," I know that it doesn't help my case to state that I believed then, as I believe now, that this is an accurate observation. The only mitigating circumstance I can appeal to is that I made this comment after following a serious of unjustified and mean comments to Jimbo that impugned the integrity of the entire project. That said, I do admit that it was a personal attack, although I still believe a mild one.

Concerning the "moron" comments, I admit that at the time I really did think that Xed was a moron. In the first instance, I had explained that my objection to his behavior had to do with the way he was treating Jimbo, and he persistently accused me of supporting Jimbo's (fictitious) having caused suffering to tsunami victims. On 17:19, 15 Feb 2005 he wrote Either you are too hopelessly stupid to work this out, or you loathe the people affected by the Tsunami for whatever racial or bigoted reason. Perhaps I was just allowing myself to be baited, by responding to his "stupid" remark with my "moron" remark. But the fact is, at that time I really did think he was a moron, by which I mean that he suffers from a congenital cognitive deficit. I had explicitly stated several times that my comment was provoked only by his incivility towards Jimbo, not towards his disagreement with Jimbo, so the fact that he continued to interpret that as a lack of sympathy for tsunami victims seemed to be a sign of a cognitive deficit. As I have explained elsewhere, I now regret having thought that as I now believe he suffers from a personality disorder -- which does make him difficult to deal with, despite the fact that he is intelligent enough to perhaps make valuable contributions to Wikipedia.

I know that it doesn't help my case to state that I believed then, as I believe now, that this is an accurate observation (as I have explained elsewhere, I no longer believe he is a moron). The only mitigating circumstance I can appeal to is that I made this comment after following a serious of unjustified and mean comments to Jimbo that impugned the integrity of the entire project. That said, I do admit that it was a personal attack, although I still believe a mild one.

• 22:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'd say you just made the point for him.

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?