Case Opened on February 17, 2005

Case Closed on 9 March 2005

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

The parties

Snowspinner, Slrubenstein, and Modemx petitioners

v.

Xed, respondent

Statement of complaint

Please limit your statement to 500 words

As presented in request (may be partially or completely replaced)

Xed has been a problem user of various intensities for some time. His edits in general show a tendency towards an uncompromising advancement of a particular and idiosyncratic view of the NPOV policy that Jimbo has indirectly indicated is erroneous, and his advocacy of this view has been excessive and deliberately inflammatory.

Far worse than his questionable grasp of NPOV, however, are his tendency towards personal attacks and other statements designed to make editing WIkipedia less comfortable for people. He has, as has been documented by User:Slrubenstein on the listserv, engaged in particularly vicious personal attacks via private e-mail to Wikipedia contributors, seemingly designed to intimidate them on Wikipedia. Upon being blocked for telling Slrubenstein to "fuck off" and calling him a "little shit," and subsequently being unblocked, Xed posted "Love and kisses all around" to the Administrator's Noticeboard where this discussion had taken place.

I believe, in this case, that mediation would be fruitless because of a combination of the damaging effects of such comments as "fuck off you little shit" and his e-mail to Slrubenstein and the increasingly large disruption that he has taken to causing. Snowspinner 18:18, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Here is part of what Snowspinner is aluding to, an exchange on my talk page: [1] (all the remarks are dated).

Does Neutrality want me to provide the date of or text from Xed's e-mail to me? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm asking for arbitration regarding "uncompromising advancement," being "deliberately inflammatory," and "vicious personal attacks." Snowspinner 22:01, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to second and add to this complaint "not being nice to newbies" and "deliberate manufacture and falsification of sources." Look at the Allen Ginsburg article and the Talk page. Xed used a doctored copy of a New York Times article and a manufactured quote out of a non-existant academic review to support his outrageous contention that Allen Ginsburg was a pedophile. Because of my attempts to correct the article, Xed accused me of being a cheerleader for pedophiles, one of the most morally repugnant accusations imaginable. Censure of Xed would say to a new contributor like myself that Xed isn't representative of the Wikipedia community. With people like him around, you can't blame Wikipedia's critics, because on first impression Xed or someone like him is the Wikipedia community. --Modemx 18:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Statement by affected party

Please limit your statement to 500 words

(Original responses to the request, which are intermingled with requests by the petitioners are at the top of the talk page of this project page)

My statement and evidence are on the /Evidence page. XED.talk 20:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Preliminary decision

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/2/0)

Recuse, Xed has made many personal attacks against me and campaigned vigorously (to the point of outright lying about me) against me becoming an arbitrator. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Recuse. Neutrality^talk 21:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Accept Fred Bauder 21:41, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Accept - David Gerard 23:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Accept, and will note that I will be hearing both sides of the argument here. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 00:56, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
You do that in all cases Grunt Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 07:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm just choosing to make explicit note of that here as I sense that accusations of bias will fly if I don't. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 15:08, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
Accept sannse (talk) 10:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Accept. Ambi 13:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Accept. Nohat 07:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

No personal attacks

1) No personal attacks.

Passed 8-0.

Civility

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.

Passed 8-0.

Provocation

4) When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.

Passed 6-2.

Good behaviour does not excuse bad behaviour

5) Good work on Wikipedia does not constitute an excuse for bad or abusive behaviour on Wikipedia. (Although many editors feel it has mitigatory value.)

Passed 7-0.

Do not retaliate to personal attacks

6) Wikipedia editors must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

Passed 6-0.

Assume good faith

7) Assume good faith. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.

Passed 6-0.

Findings of Fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

Xed's attack on Jimbo Wales

1) It is the assertion of User:Xed that User:Jimbo Wales, founder and chief financial supporter of Wikipedia, due to his allegiance to the principles of objectivism as exemplified by by writings of Ayn Rand is opposed to solicitations of voluntary contributions of funds to be applied to relief of the victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. In support of his assertion he cites [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1311135/posts "U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims"] an article posted on [www.freerepublic.com/home.htm the conservative website FreeRepublic.com] (which was originally posted by the Ayn Rand Institute) and the change of a box soliciting donations from its position as a banner at the top of the Main page (Template:Helpout) to the In the news section of the Main page, see Xed's post to Jimbo's talk page and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#Background

Passed 8-0.

Status of donations article

2) After debate Template:Helpout was restored. Jimmy Wales' response, made later, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Where_is_the_donation_link.3F favored discussion of the matter. 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.

Passed 8-0.

Nature of link cited by Xed

3) The article [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1311135/posts "U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims"] which Xed describes as "a deranged tract which calls charity 'extortion' and rants about 'billions given away by Bush to help the blood-thirsty Palestinians'" 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

Passed 6-0-2.

Xed's characterization of Wikipedia

4) User:Xed characterizes Wikipedia as largest online lunatic asylum in the world and questions the value of donations to Wikipedia as compared to donations to tsunami victims asserting that less prominant placement of a link to donations was "a decision which probably led to a great deal of suffering" see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#Background

Passed 8-0.

Exchange with and regarding Jimmy Wales

5) Earlier there had been an exchange of posts concerning User:Secretlondon between User:Jimmy Wales and User:Xed on User talk:Xed: [2], [3], [4], then User:Pakaran weighed in [5] [6]. At this point the question of the donation box on the Main page comes up [7] [8]. More continues [9] (noting a clarification by the Ayn Rand Institute)

Passed 8-0.

Personal attack by Slrubenstein

6) Following the edit [10] User:Slrubenstein posted the following personal attack, "You have such a small, petty mind." See this edit: [11] for the state of the article at that point.

Passed 8-0.

Dispute on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism

7) In the meantime a dispute developed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism involving User:Xed with Xed defending the sockpuppet User:Pinlighter, apparently over from Stormfront, and attacking User:Jayjg, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Evidence/VfD. This resulted in a serious of hostile posts on User talk:Xed with an exchange of personal attacks and insults by User:Mel Etitis and User:Slrubenstein. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Evidence/Exchange.

Passed 8-0.

Personal attack by Xed

8) Xed followed with a personal attack on User:Slrubenstein on User_talk:Slrubenstein "So wanting a link to allow to the tsunami aid is evidence of a small and petty mind? Fuck off you little shit"

Passed 8-0.

Reference to tsunami relief

9) Xed's reference to tsunami relief (which Xed had been discussing on other pages) [12] [13] surprised Slrubenstein [14] who explained his meaning, "You have a small and petty mind because of the combination of ignorance, arrogance, and meanness with which you insult Jimbo." Slrubenstein elaborated further "You moron, etc" [15] comment: "maybe he really is a moron?"

Passed 8-0.

Xed's contributions

11) Xed was responsible for starting and maintaining WikiProject Countering systemic bias, a project which has significantly improved the quality of innumerable articles within Wikipedia (see e.g. Economy of Africa).

Passed 8-0.

Personal attacks by Slrubenstein during arbitration

12) During arbitration User:Slrubenstein has on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Proposed decision continued to engage in personal attacks "I really did think he was a moron, by which I mean that he suffers from a congenital cognitive deficit", "personality disorder"

Passed 8-0.

Xed's wide-ranging personal attacks

13) Xed has engaged in wide-ranging personal attacks on other Wikipedians: for example Jayjg [16] [17] [18] [19], Slrubenstein [20] [21] [22] [23] Hyacinth [24], Modemx [25], Neutrality [26], Jfdwolff [27], Ed Poor [28] [29], and Viriditas [30] [31] [32] [33] [34].

Passed 8-0.

Xed's disruptive assumption of widespread bad faith

14) Xed has a pattern of disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia, mainly through assumption of widespread bad faith [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. [42], [43], [44], including spurious claims of personal attack ([45]; [46] in response to [47]).

Passed 6-0.

Remedies

Xed: personal attack parole

1) Xed is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.

Passed 8-0.

Xed is banned for a pattern of personal attacks and assumption of bad faith

4) For a continuing pattern of personal attacks and disruptive assumption of bad faith, which is unlikely to be resolved sooner, Xed is banned for three months.

Passed 5-0-1.

Slrubenstein caution to avoid personal attacks

5) Slrubenstein is strongly cautioned to avoid even the appearance of a personal attack, even when provoked. Personal attacks even in response are considered unbecoming behaviour for a Wikipedia editor~~, particularly an academic expert.~~

Passed 7-0.

Enforcement

Xed's personal attack parole

1) 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.

Passed 6-0.