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[edit]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reversion Ban[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

see comments here - Xed 03:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Assume good faith[edit]

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:

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Xed marking edits as minor[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This seems untrue - the evidence listed has him contributing very little at all content-wise. Phil Sandifer 06:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Prior case involving Xed[edit]

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[edit]

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:

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

Comment by others:

Xed has not changed attitudes[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

There's an assumption by several people here that we as Arbitrators are giving undue weight to Snowspinner in this. I assure you that this isn't the case for the whole Committee; I do not give Snowspinner's word any more weight than I would any other established user. I have voted to support this remedy because I believe that Xed's pattern of failing to assume good faith and making uncivil remarks is counterproductive, and that despite his record of making content contributions in an area I know we are underdeveloped in, it is justified. Mark, he's already been on personal attack injunction from his previous case, and that hasn't helped. The ban is for the lack of understanding of the negative effects of his previous behaviors such as is evident by his continuing them. My reluctance on the length is because of his contributions in a needed area, not because I have hope that he will have better interactions in the future. Are other parties spotless here? No, of course not. But the focal point of the case to me is that Xed seems likely to continue being abrasive and confrontational. It's the sort of case we (or at least I) dread hearing and deciding because it's not simple, because we do have to weigh the consequences of keeping someone around against the consequences of banning them. After being appalled by many of the statements of his I've seen over the past year, this is the way my scale tipped. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

It seems to me that a personal attack injunction would be more on the spot to adress the problem of Xed sometimes being needlessly abrasive towards other editors. Why cut him off from contributing altogether? Will getting rid of people you don't get along with very well ever be a real solution? Frankly, I think we have more serious problems to deal with if we focus on building an encyclopedia. — mark ✎ 14:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This seems excessive. Short-term blocks by admins for specified behaviors would be better. Derex 05:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is quite personal for Snowspinner, maybe someone else should be handling this rather than him. We already know that he's prone to block people un-necessarily (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3). --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One year is a rather long ban. I agree with Derex above that short-term blocks applied as needed seem more appropriate. If our goal is harm reduction rather than punishment, the one year ban looks a bit overzealous to me. Friday (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One year seems totally out of proportion, I agree with Derex and Friday. Perhaps he should be put under formal probation from the Mentorship Committee, which was not an option in his original case. the wub "?!" 20:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that this case gets some attention now, but I'm afraid you guys are a little late... this has become a proposed remedy supported by five arbitrators and four of them have already voted to close over at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2/Proposed decision. — mark ✎ 21:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of full disclosure, I was asked to comment by Xed via e-mail. I haven't really interacted with him before. I remembered noticing him around the time of his first arbitration and actually disliked many of his opinions and actions. However I looked at this case and can honestly say I believe a one year block is excessive. I know this is late, it is a shame this case didn't get more attention earlier. In fact the only real input has been from yourself, Xed and Snowspinner. the wub "?!" 23:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time the "arbitrators" were replaced with something more suitable with consensus from the community, not an elite few of "oldbies" --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the 'elite'-label applies here, MSK (let's try to leave unhelpful rhetorics out of this), but I do think the arbcom has put too much trust in Snowspinner in this particular case. — mark ✎ 21:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the January elections are for MSK. the wub "?!" 23:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that a ban would be an overreaction in this case. A content dispute arose in a very controversial area in which the neutral path is rather difficult to see. It would be foolish to say that Xed did not make any mistakes, but would be equally foolish to say that other parties did not also make mistakes. --Gareth Hughes 22:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I am incredibly late to this process, and I have no done not nearly enough research to speak intelligently about the subject. I am discussing alternative solutions to Xed's problem with Xed. I believe the encyclopedia might be better served if Xed were placed on a strict mentorship agreement or limited to write only on articles where he has not "flown off the handle" so to speak (granting said article-ban power to all admins). I believe there is wide agreement that in addition to his incredibly disruptive actions in conflict Xed has also contributed positively to the encyclopedia. I do not intend this to be some sort of wikilawyering delaying tactic, so I do not ask for anything from the comittee untill Xed is willing to come forward, admit his mistakes, and ask for such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly dispute this assertion. My reviews of Xed's contributions have never shown anything substantially helpful. Phil Sandifer 01:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverts vandalism adds info, and, admittedly, flys off the handle way, way, way too often.
Have a look at the chunks of evidence in both this and the last case, where I go over his contributions for two weeks - the positive contributions are minimal at best. If there's a spurt of productivity I've never seen, I'd certainly like to. Phil Sandifer 01:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence[edit]

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

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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)[reply]

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

Comment by others:

see comments here - Xed 03:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]