Case Opened on 15:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 17:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Amended on 02:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) 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 evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Snowspinner (talk · contribs)

Nominal defendant

Xed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Xed was the subject of a previous arbcom case on these issues Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed, and was banned for 3 months following it. He has returned, as has the behavior.

Statement by Snowspinner

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Simply put, Xed is back, and Xed is a problem. Over half of his last 30 article edits are reverts, with edit summaries such as "rv weasel tag team" [1], "rv censorship" [2] "rv weasel" [3], and "remove weasel-like wording from propagandist" [4].

He has also been wikistalking JayJG, going to articles that JayJG edits that Xed has never edited before, and beginning edit wars with JayJG, then pointing to the caution against edit warring against JayJG when JayJG reverts these changes. If JayJG goes to another editor to ask for support or further input, Xed accuses them of being a "tag team." See [5] and [6] for an example. When asked about this, Xed accused me of assuming bad faith in bringing up wikistalking [7]. When I apologized and asked for an explanation of the behavior, I was wholly blown off [8].

Xed is also making widespread assumptions of bad faith again, as in [9].

I remind the arbcom that Xed was previously sanctioned for "a continuing pattern of personal attacks and disruptive assumption of bad faith" with a three month block. That the bad faith continues seems clear - whether accusing people of being weasels, a tag-team, propagandists, stalkers, or implying that they're anti-Muslim constitutes personal attacks is a more open question, but I think it is a valid one.

Statement by Xed

Previous block - many admins felt this was unfair and unreasonable.
Weasels - Several editors were indeed inserting "weasel phrases" into articles.
Jayjg has been warned about edit-warring (see [10]). In a clear attempt to get around this, he outsources his edit warring.
Ed Poor has indeed said that "all terrorists are islamic", so it's hardly bad faith to bring that up.
Snowspinner has a long record of using his admin powers to bully other users and settle personal scores, as many valuable editors will attest. This RFC is just another example of the pattern.

- Xed 18:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

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

Recuse. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 04:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Note that a personal attack parole remains in effect for Xed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[reply]
Accept ➥the Epopt 04:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. →Raul654 04:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Neutrality^talk 04:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unrecuse. - SimonP 16:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Principles

No personal attacks

1) Wikipedia:No personal attacks requires users to refrain from personal attacks. There is no exception for instances when a user may be provoked by inappropriate behavior.

Passed 8-0

Neutral point of view

2) 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.

Passed 8-0

Use reliable sources

3) Wikipedia:Reliable sources requires that a cited source contain the information for which it is the cited source.

Passed 8-0

Scrutiny is part of parole

4) A user on parole must expect that his or her actions will be subject to closer-than-normal scrutiny. Such attention is an innate aspect of parole.

Passed 8-0

Findings of fact

Divine Intervention (film)

1) One issue raised by Snowspinner is Xed's editing and comments relating to Divine Intervention (film) which concerns a man who lives in East Jersusalem. His girlfriend lives in the West Bank city of Ramallah. The viewpoint presented is of life under Israeli occupation.

Passed 8-0

Editing issues

1.1) An early issue was whether the word "occupation" could be used in the article with 209.212.72.19 inserting the word [11] and removed by Jayjg [12] and A second issue concerned the movie not being considered for an Academy Award [13], information by 209.212.72.19, removed by Jayjg [14] with the comment "rv massive unsource POVing"; Xed reverted [15] with the comment "rv bizarre censorship".

Passed 7-0

Personal attack by Xed

3) Xed then reverted [16] with the comment, "remove weasel-like wording from propagandist".

Passed 8-0

Jayjg insists

4) Again Jayjg insists on a specific reference [17] with the comment "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 request for citation, instead provide citations".

Passed 8-0

Revert warring by Xed

5) Rather than supplying a reference Xed reverted [18] with the comment "rv weasel"

Passed 8-0

Viriditas joins the edit war

6) Viriditas then joined the edit war [19] with the comment "Reverted edits by Xed to last version by Jayjg. Please do not remove citation requests."

Passed 8-0

Xed continues with personal attacks

7) Xed then reverted [20] with the comment "rv weasel tag-team".

Passed 8-0

Xed provides references

8) Xed provides references [21]

Passed 8-0

References and content removed by Viriditas

9) Viriditas removes content and references [22] [23] with the comment "After reviewing your citations and observing that they do not claim what you say they claim, I have removed the citation request as well as the disputed content; rm superfluous content and links" and "rm opinion by "Tariq Shadid". If he's not a film critic, I fail to see the relevance of a MD."

Passed 8-0

Xed makes another personal attack

10) Xed restores [24] with the comment "you've been caught lying. you can't review all those pages in 3 minutes!" In actuality, 9 minutes had elapsed between the sources being provided and being removed.

Passed 8-0

Jayjg makes a valid point

11) Addressing the matter of a "vigorous campaign by Zionist activists to bar the movie", Jayjg points out the inadequacy of the cited source [25] with the comment 'link does not refer to any "vigorous campaign" or any "zionist activists"'.

Passed 8-0

Further work by Viriditas

12) Veriditas has continued to work with the article and has substantially improved it while maintaining a reasonably courteous relationship with Xed. See edits of 19 Dec and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Proposed_decision#Dog_with_a_bone.

Passed 7-0

Remedies

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 warned regarding personal attacks

1) Xed, who remains on personal attack parole, is reminded to avoid personal attacks even in the face of extreme provocation.

Passed 8-0

Xed warned regarding citing unreliable sources

2) Xed is warned regarding use of a source such as this one which does not support the information it is cited in support of.

Passed 8-0

Viriditas commended

3.1) Viriditas is commended for continuing to work with the article substantially improving it while maintaining a courteous attitude toward the difficult user Xed.

Passed 8-0

Addendum:

Xed placed on indefinite personal attack parole

4) For continued personal attacks, Xed is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. If, in the judgement of any sysop, Xed has breached this ruling, he may be briefly blocked should he make personal attacks, for up to a month in the case of repeat offenses.

Passed 5-0 02:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans

Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

04:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Xed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 24 hours (violation of personal-attack parole)
- 15:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Jimbo_Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked Xed (He asked nicely)
23:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC) InShaneee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Xed with an expiry time of 48 hours (personal attacks, harrassment, trolling)
15:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Xed with an expiry time of 1 week (Persistent trolling, abuse of user page to continue trolling)
- Retrospectively added here when I realised he was on personal attack parole,as the behavior involved personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway 16:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 16:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Jimbo_Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked Xed (he asked nicely)
14:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Cyde (talk · contribs) blocked Xed (talk · contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Long-term disruption, personal attacks, etc. Shows little hope for reform)
14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Freakofnurture (talk · contribs) blocked Xed (talk · contribs) with an expiry time of 10 days ‎ (restore previous block plus extra time, Jimbo unblocked you, then you thank him with this?)
- 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Freakofnurture (talk · contribs) unblocked "Xed (talk · contribs)" ‎ (unblock to change duration as per Cyde)
14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Freakofnurture (talk · contribs) blocked Xed (talk · contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Long-term disruption, personal attacks, etc. Shows little hope for reform)
- 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) unblocked "Xed (talk · contribs)" ‎ (Since this was for a personal attack on me, I would like to give him one last chance. This is the third time and last time I unblock him.)
23:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) blocked Xed (talk · contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (useless trolling)
05:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) tagged User:Xed with "This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. See the block log." and "Category:Wikipedia users indefinitely blocked prior to or during May 2006" (probably related to {{subst:indefblock}}) in this edit (indef block notice) and changed "May" to "July" in this edit 05:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (date)[reply]
16:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Jesse Viviano (talk · contribs) tagged User:Xed with {{Banned user}} in this edit (Got community banned.)