Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2/Proposed decision

message: 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)
thread_title:  a somewhat impertinent suggestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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":              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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Why did you remove ALL sources? - Xed 13:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, you didn't. You talked around it. Why did you remove ALL sources? - Xed 13:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It's harassment to ask why you removed ALL sources? Seems more like a question to me. - Xed 14:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: No, you made some arguments as to why you removed two sources, but not ALL SIX . I won't repeat the question as it's obvious you will never answer it. - Xed 14:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text: If that were true, all six sources would still be absent from the article. - Xed 14:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Not they are there, after the sentence, "Some have claimed that the Academy's decision was based on political considerations". The ones you removed  - Xed 15:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: My experience with this article is that when I provide sources they are all removed, see , and arbitration is filed against me. - Xed 15:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: If you have something to add, then add it. Don't tell me what to write. - Xed 15:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A major concern

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Why? So you could remove them for the fourth (?) time? - Xed 20:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because I respect your opinion.  You'll find them in external links. --Viriditas 20:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Why then did you remove them? - Xed 20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: If it takes all this for one link then I wonder if it's worth it. - Xed 20:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  References and content removed by Viriditas 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Thank you for responding, but that's largely beside the point. I know the situation is difficult. I want to know why this is a proposed remedy and why some arbitrators apparently think that sending away our short-fused editors will help us building an encyclopedia. — mark ✎ 08:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess then he will be "out of our hair" Fred Bauder 14:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Interesting. However, I note that you are the only arbitrator to oppose this FoF. I would like to encourage the others to explain their position. — mark ✎ 08:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Mark that this proposal seems extreme. Xed has been involved in writing some good articles. The issues here are involved, making neutrality and sound sources difficult to be ascertain. It seems clear that both Xed and Jayjg began this dispute with good confidence that each was neutral. The emotive issues present made clear discussion difficult. A severe ban on one user is here disproportionate, especially when the committee is clearly divided on certain points. --Gareth Hughes 16:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On proposed remedy 5

message: :What a shock, you've shown up on yet another page shortly after I edited it. Phil Sandifer 03:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that bother you? Everyking 03:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it meant to? Phil Sandifer 03:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, that is kinda weird. Everyking 03:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That was a blatant personal attack. Phil Sandifer 05:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't the response I was looking for. How about answering the question? Everyking 05:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about following the terms of your parole. Phil Sandifer 05:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you don't want to answer the question. Which raises another question: why? Everyking 05:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of who asked it. Phil Sandifer 05:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I could've asked the same question. I'm interested in the response too. — mark ✎ 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: <cough>. — mark ✎ 19:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah. But I don't think my opinion should count particularly, or else I'd have just blocked him. Phil Sandifer 17:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, next time you don't think your opinion should count particularly, I'd advise to involve other admins instead of bringing a hasty case before a committee that trusts you. — mark ✎ 12:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So next time I'm not 100% sure of a block I should, what, ignore it? Just do the block anyway? I took the case to the arbcom and presented it - that's the prudent thing to do here. Phil Sandifer 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If the user happens to be on a parole, and happens to violate it, you, like any admin, are entitled to block that user. And when you are not 100% sure, you talk to other admins. Don't you agree that involving other admins is a very sensible thing to do when you're dealing with a user you've had personal issues with in the past? That's what we have WP:AN for. As for the prudent thing to do, I don't know what is unclear about WP:DR or about the very first paragraph of WP:RFAR. You opened a RfAr within thirty minutes after your first interaction. I honestly can't see anything prudent about that. The fact that the arbcom trusts you doesn't put you above the dispute resolution process. It should make you more careful. At least that's how I see it. What do you think? — mark ✎ 11:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, did you forget about this thread? — mark ✎ 11:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you on this point. Phil Sandifer 17:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: So you disagree that involving other admins is a very sensible thing to do when you're dealing with a user you've had personal issues with in the past? And you do think that the fact the arbcom trusts you puts you above WP:DR? Fair enough, at least it's a clear position. I do not think it is beneficial for the atmosphere of the wiki, though. — mark ✎ 19:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Away already with the straw men, I am trying to discuss things productively; thing is, if  you leave short responses like the one above you leave me no choice but to fill in the blanks. OK, it's a bit clearer now. I think we can agree to disagree on this point, but I still want to note that I don't think your way of going about in this case has been beneficial to the atmosphere here. — mark ✎ 19:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SS / EK

message: Actually, I don't expect to get any real answers — you have not given me any reason to. Is it because the workload is too high? Then the best thing to do is just close it, obviously. Is it because I am trolling? I never heard that one before. Anyway, close the fucking case. Ban Xed for a year, so that he is 'out of our hair'. Make sure you don't give any consideration to serious questions by users like me. Just keep trusting the prosecutor-type and all will be right. Oh, and please avoid any impression that talk pages are there for a reason, and don't forget to remove the 'Comment by others'-line on the /Workshop template (but keep copying the remedies proposed by you-know-who, of course). You might as well institutionalize the prosecutor position, so that you'll never get confused questions like mine anymore. Fuck it, I have never used this kind of language before anywhere on Wikipedia. Yes, I know it won't bring me anywhere; it's all the more reason to ignore me, I suppose. I'll go on writing the encyclopedia, and I'll leave the arbcom to its work. It's good to know that I can trust your decisions, no? — mark ✎ 09:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My favorite part was when Fred said they were having trouble deciding what to do about the case—after he voted to close it. Oh, they're incorrigible. Everyking 09:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When we have done all we can with a difficult matter it is time to quit. We have discussed this case at length; we disagree on how to handle it; we will move on. Fred Bauder 13:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close the fucking case 

message: I question whether the findings in the case provide a basis for a one-year ban (as pointed out by Fred Bauder).  The following findings were unfavorable to Xed:
*3 -- edit summary "remove weasel-like wording from propagandist"
*5 -- edit summary "rv weasel"
*7 -- edit summary "rv tag-team weasel"
*10 -- edit summary "you've been caught lying. you can't review all those pages in 3 minutes!" 
I am not prone to long-winded complaints.  However, I find a ban on this basis quite disturbing, so I will complain at some length.
First, the 3,5,7 are essentially the same comment in a brief series of exchanges.  Second one of the rules here is to avoid "weasel-words".  Calling someone's language weasel-wording is not a personal attack, it is an attack on the wording, whether the characterization is justified or not.  10 contains an accusation of lying;  Xed was probably mistaken in his charge. 3 contains the personal attack "propagandist".
For this (lying & propagandist) an editor with many good contributions receives a one-year ban?  I generally respect the committee's work, but I think this ruling is (a) detrimental to wikipedia (b) essentially gaming of the system by the complainants (c) utterly unjustified by the official findings of facts (d) inconsistent with past punishments for similar offences.  I am no Xed apologist.  I have had difficulties with him in the past.  I understand he was on a parole.  However, this ruling based on these "findings of fact" borders, in my opinion, on absurdity.
Ultimately, the job here is to write an encyclopedia.  Often, it seems to me,  "civility" is more highly prized than the actual contribution to that goal.  At the least, from my observation violations of "civility" are punished more draconianly than attacks on the integrity of the encylopedia such as clear pov-pushing, insertion of false information, deletion of true information, willful misinterpretation of facts, poor sourcing, etc -- all these most often done to further a point of view.
The fact is, not everyone has the same temperament.  Some people get a little excitable or emotionally involved in debates.  I am one of them, and I have no doubt said things worse than "weasel", when provoked.  Nevertheless, I think that I have, on net, contributed quite a large amount to the good of wikipedia under my present and former names (Derex/Wolfman).  My impression is that Xed has as well.  Moreover, much, much worse things have been said to me than any of those attributed to Xed.  I have not run off complaining to arbcom about it; the thought seems essentially ridiculous to me as a grown man.  If I were to complain, the relief I would ask is that the offender be short-term blocked each time.  In this way, the incivility could be stopped without silencing my antogonist's voice on matters of substance.  The (successful) attempt to silence Xed's voice on substance over superficial misdemeanor's is why I think this case is "gaming the system". 
While I am not defending Xed's incivility, I am arguing that it has been blown way out of proportion.  If I were on the arbitration committee, I would have rejected this case with an admonition for the complainants to grow a thicker skin.  Xed should have been simply given a short-term block for incivility under the previous arbitration ruling.  I realize that I am not on the arbitration committee, you are.  But, community opinion still ought to matter.
That's why I'd like to see the draconian one-year ban (twice the length of Snowspinner's suggestion) explicitly justified with reference to your official findings of fact.  I don't believe they support the punishment.  I don't believe that most reasonable and neutral observers would either.  Perhaps Xed was banned for reasons other than those in the official list of factual findings.  If so, the list ought to be updated. Derex 19:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion - and I'm obviously not speaking as an arbitrator, since I'm not one, so the arbcom may well have different reasons than me - it comes down to this. Before his ban, Xed produced considerably more heat than light. In fact, looking at his contributions, he produced very, very little light - he was much more involved in complaining about Wikipedia's systemic bias than he was in correcting it. When he did edit, it was generally to edit war. Upon his return, he took up the exact same pattern of behavior - widespread assumptions of bad faith, editing only to edit war, etc. And again, the number of actual contributions he was making were negligible. Xed's parole covered personal attacks only - while there were certainly personal attacks, they were only a part of a much larger and all to familiar picture. To my mind, when you come back from a ban and immediately resume the exact behavior that got you banned, you should be quickly put back on a ban - this does not need to wind itself through lesser means of dispute resolution. Phil Sandifer 17:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Findings of Fact supporting Ban