Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Evidence

The validity of the e-mail

This is a conversation that I know has been had in the past. I've argued previously that it needs to be considerable, and I will do so again. The reasons are twofold.

First, right now it is simply too large a loophole. A user can intimidate, threaten, and cause all of the problems of a personal attack with no fear of consequence as long as they use the private e-mail addresses that are readily available. The reason we hvae a no personal attacks policy is not some ethical judgment on personal attacks, or some desire to maintain the purity of Wikipedia. It's because personal attacks make people unable to edit. They create an environment where one does not feel safe and where one does not feel welcome. Moving the personal attacks to e-mail does not fix these fundamental problems. Personal e-mails can and do directly affect the usability of Wikipedia. As someone who has been harassed by Wikipedia users in private channels, I can attest to their toxic effect. This loophole needs to be closed.

Second, in this case, the other argument against it - the unverifiability of e-mail - may not be an issue. Since the "E-mail this user" link was employed. Thus the e-mail was submitted via the site, and presumably there is some sort of dev-checkable log of the e-mail. Snowspinner 16:58, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

A followup. I point out that the arbcom is not bound to notions of "beyond a reasonable doubt." In the event of a "He sent this harassing e-mail"/"No I didn't" dispute, it is not explicitly or, to my mind, implicitly outside the arbcom's jurisdiction to make the character judgment about who they believe. The judgment that a user can be reformed and what sanction is needed to promote that reformation is already one that the arbcom makes. This is not an unreasonable extension of that. Snowspinner 17:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

• "the arbcom does not have jurisdiction as this occured in private emails outside of WIkipedia." ?Raul654
• "It is out of our jurisdiction to arbitrate over the contents of private e-mails." Nohat
• "Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to not express their feelings privately through E-mail. That is simply out of the ArbCom's jurisdiction, just as it would be if we found out that Ed Poor liked to drown kittens." VeryVerily
• "Taking about wikipedia in a private email does not mean that the AC has the right to do anything about it." Theresa Knott

Seems like one rule for me and one rule for the admins. - XED.talk 17:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am, to be clear, asking this stance to be reconsidered. Note that the arbcom explicitly does not bind itself to precedent, and is welcome to reconsider this viewpoint at any time. I am asking them to do so. Snowspinner 17:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear. The rules are changed only when it's in the admins interest. Same old story. - XED.talk 17:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Xed comes up with some handy quotes from his previous arbitration request to argue that emails are not a matter for arbitration. I think it's worth mentioning another quote from that discussion: No, I simply believe harassing people by email is unacceptable. --Xed 19:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) --Michael Snow 17:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I stick by it by what I said. Jimbo, Benevolent Dictator, harassed Secretlondon. I, on the other hand, merely responded to Rubenstein's abuse. Unprovoked harassment from either admins or the Great Leader, is a far more serious matter. Incidentally, I'm not arguing that emails are not a matter for arbitration - I'm just pointing of the disparity the way rules are invented on the fly - they all always invented in the admin's favour. Perhaps you can point out an instance where this isn't true. The direction of Wikipedia is increasingly dictatorial, authoritarian and legalistic, a fact proved by this Rfa. - XED.talk 18:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I feel I should say something here as I am being quoted by Xed above, but before i do I want to remind everyone that I am recused from this case and am speaking as an wikipedian rather than an arbitrator. Whilst i hope that the arbitrators will take my opinion into account, I know that will give it no more weight than anyone elses. Right having said that:

I have always believed that private email communication is just that. Private. I don't believe that email falls under the juristiction of the AC. It's not a question of being able to prove or not if a user actually sent the email or it was an imposter. That, to me is irrelavent. Even if Xed did send that email, and I believe he did, it's none of our business.

You make it sound like I have denied sending the email. - XED.talk 23:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We are not in charge of the whole internet! Now I know that people are going to argue that it was sent through wikipedia email, but this service is only there so that you can allow people to email you without pasting an email adress in full view of spammers. Sending an email via wikipedia does not mean wikipedia is responsible for it or the AC should deal with it.

Having said that, there are situations where emails can be used in evidence. If user A emails user B and says "I going to vandalise Wikipedia" and B chooses to tell people about that email and later on the AC need to determine if A is a good faith editor, then the email is evidence that he is not. I have no sympathy for A he shouldn't have been so stupid as to go blabbing his mouth off. The key difference between this hypothetical situation and the real situation above is that here, the crime (for want of a better word) is being committed on Wikipedia. Sending an abusive email to someone is commiting a crime (I really do need to find a better word) on the internet.

As a longstanding member of wikipedia I have received my fair share of abusive emails. Anyone who ever blocks vandals will get an abusive email now and then. I always deal with them in the same way. I delete the email and kill file the sender. I don't even read the whole email, as soon as it's clear it's abusive it gets delt with. This stategy makes it impossible to harrass me via email, because after the first one I never see any more. Other things that people can do are to take their emails off their user profiles so that no one can ever email them, complain to the senders isp or complain to the police if it's serious enough. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your analysis ignores the fact that I was attacked on Wikipedia first, not via email, and yet I am the one having to defend myself. Are you suggesting my email requires police action? Imprisonment perhaps? Someone has suggested complaining to my ISP - all because I chose to respond to Rubenstein's abuse. And yet I have never suggested complaining to Ohio University about Rubenstein using his time to attack people by going around calling them "small-minded morons" on the internet. Such courses of action are idiotic- XED.talk 23:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In an arbitration case everyone's behaviour is assesed, not just yours. I am not suggesting you email requires police action, I am suggesting that your email should be delt with by deletion and killfiling you. All i am saying is that, in a hypothetical case, where an email was so abusive or harrasing that the recipient felt threatened they'd be better off calling the police than coming to the AC. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bauder

Bauder has removed my comments 3 times now. The first time was clearly a deliberate provocation. The second deletion made the problem worse. The second deletion was reversed after Rubenstein told him to - illustrating my the point I made above about one rule (invented on the fly) for admins and one for the rest of us. If Bauder is unable to maintain a balanced approach he should recuse himself. - XED.talk 15:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rubenstein has just moved my comments, stripping them of context. I put them back into their correct positions - XED.talk 16:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have made changes only for the space in which I present evidence to support my case. If I do not want to include something as evidence, then I will delete it. If Xed believes it is important evidence, by all means he should post it -- but in the space for evidence of his choosing. Not mine. I claim no control over his space. For him to claim control over my space is just another example of his small minded bullying. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have already indicated on Bauder's talk page that you "do not mind Xed writing comments in my evidence section". My comments have been removed 3 times by Bauder and moved twice by you. I am keeping a count as evidence of your obfuscation and bullying - XED.talk 18:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now Rubenstein moved them 3 times in a desperate attempt to remove the context- XED.talk

5 times in a desperate attempt to remove the context- XED.talk

After removing my comments 3 times, Bauder has threatened to block me. He has shown he is unable to maintain a balanced approach, and both he and Rubenstein have resorted to bullying tactics. - XED.talk

Xed please read the instructions at the top of the page "Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section." It's very clear that you are not allwed to edit other peoples sections. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rubenstein indicated he does "not mind Xed writing comments in my evidence section". I put those comments in after he made that statement. Now he wishes to move my comments so it seems like I'm randomly rambling rather than responding to his specific comments. This is not only deceptive, but bullying - XED.talk 19:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What a child. The policy is, I choose what evidence to include in my section. My message to Fred was an assertion of my choice to include stuff you had written. Now there is stuff you have written that I choose to exclude. There is no contradiction or inconsistency or double-standard her; the principle is simple -- I choose what goes in my section. My choices are not deceptive, and they certainly are not bullying, because I leave you free to edit your own section as you please. Yet you wish to deny me the very right you enjoy. For you to claim the right to choose what goes in my section is just one more example of your bullying behavior. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Xed - whatever Slrubenstein said about this - I want to make it clear that I, as an arbitrator, do not want you to edit in his section of the evidence. This is part of the usual practice for these pages and makes things a lot easier in understanding the evidence and who is saying what. If you want to quote parts of what Slr has said, that's fine - but do so in your own section. Most importantly: if any of the arbitrators refactor the evidence page - please to not revert it. We do so often when we feel it will help us and other arbitrators in our work. -- sannse (talk) 20:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Exchange between Slrubenstein and Xed

As evidence I presented an e-mail Xed sent to me (through the Wikipedia link) in which he writes, "What a sycophantic cunt your are." I responded that I felt this was a wholly disproportionate and inappropriate response to my initial comment that Xed is "small minded" for being so abusive to others. Xed replied, "You have failed to explain why I should just sit back and take your abuse, so the only conclusion one can make is that you regard yourself as having greater rights." My response is too lengthy and indirect to include as "evidence," so I am placing it here. This also should provide Xed a place to respond to me without violating policy:

Then you lack imagination and sense. Fortunately, this can be overcome with practice. Here is one way you could have reacted to my calling you small-minded: you could have said, "you are right -- I disagree strongly with Jimbo, but there is no need to attack him personally" (a response which would have demonstrated that you actually aren't so small-minded). And even if you did not decide that I was right -- even if you are convinced that your behavior is not small-minded -- you could have responded this way: "Slrubenstein, you are out of line. Maybe you don't understand the context. Jimbo refuses to allow a banner inviting people to donate to tsunami-relief" I would still take issue with your view, and would explain why -- but at least this alternate response invites dialogue. The reason you are small-minded is because your mind cannot imagine or comprehend either of these two possible responses. You make it clear that you view any criticism as the worst form of abuse, to which you will only retaliate in kind -- except you have no sense of proportion ("Fuck off you little shit" is not proportionate to "small-minded"), which itself is just more evidence of small-mindedness (well, more specifically, insecurity and hysteria). I do not think I have more rights than anyone else. And I have never done anything to infringe on your rights. I do believe I have the right to express my views. And believe it or not, I think you have the right to express your views too. But I do not think you have the right to bully other people. And alas, this is all you seem to be: a bully.Slrubenstein | Talk 23:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, I am beginning to think that Xed really is not a moron, but rather suffers from a personality disorder. This would explain his inflated perceptions of being attacked, as well as his inability to understand simple things. For example, after I added more information to my evidence, he wrote:

Please note that Rubenstein has changed his story during this arbitration. He originally claims: After reading an exchange in which Xed poured abuse on Jimbo and blamed Jimbo for the suffering of others, I wrote "You have such a small, petty mind." on Xed's talk page.

This was changed to: I agreed with what Pakaran wrote, and did not like the way Xed dismissed Pakaran's comment, so I wrote, "You have such a small, petty mind." on Xed's talk page.

As often happens with the guilty, Rubenstein's story changes with the wind. Watch out for further changes.

Of course, I haven't changed my story at all -- I have simply provided more detail to illustrate the story. My "claim" that I told Xed that he is small-minded was in response to all the abuse he poured on Jimbo. Xed doesn't understand how this could be, when -- he claims -- the discussion was about some banner. But Pakaran's statement clearly reveals that Xed knew that he was being criticized for his abusive behavior.

Xed's misperceptions are rampant: he thinks that to accuse him of "abusing" Jimbo is to criticize him for "arguing" with Jimbo -- abuse and argument are clearly different, although if I am right about Xed's personality disorder, perhaps he actually perceives any disagreement as abuse. It might also account for his thinking he was "defending" Secretlondon when all he was doing was abusing Jimbo (his so-called defense has not one word of defense, it is all attack).

Indeed, it might explain the very abuse against Jimbo. Note that according to Xed's own account of the banner incident -- I mean, what is objective fact -- Jimbo did nothing wrong. He expressed an opinion; one editor made a change because he agreed with Jimbo; other editors expressed their disagreement; the change was reverted. Clearly, if Jimbo were a dictator, there would be no record of the discussion and the change would not have been reverted. All that happened here is what happens every day on other pages being edited. It is only through the lense of Xed's paranoia that he sees some evil plot Slrubenstein | Talk 00:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I guess I need to be clearer. I recognize that "moron" is a personal attack and although I did think it was true at the time, I do not any more and regret it, and apologize. But when I call attention to Xed's personality disorder it is not as a personal attack -- indeed, I think it is a mitigating factor explaining some of his actions. I say this not as an attack, but with sympathy for him. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is now clear that Xed takes my comment concerning a personality disorder as a personal attack rather than as a sympathetic comment. For this I am sorry. It was not meant to be a personal attack, and if that is how it is being understood, I withdraw it, and apologize. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Xed should remove this false complaint.

Xed comments, "Rubenstein, perhaps in a sign of desperation, starts creating straw men to bolster his threadbare argument by claiming I thought him writing "Actually, I'd say you just made the point for him." was a personal attack.

Where have I said that you thought I was making a personal attack when I wrote that you were making Mel's point for him? You should remove this accusation of desperation and creating straw-men.Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Altered and expanded - XED.talk 21:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. it must be my mental illness. - XED.talk 22:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stop it

Both of you, please stop edit warring on this page - it is not helping your case at all. Xed: if Slrubenstein wants to remove his comments from this talk page, then let him. If you want to enter them into the evidence, then you can do so by providing diffs in your section of the evidence page, they will be read. Slrubenstein: you are removing comments made by Xed as well as your own - this is not acceptable either. You are also using rollback in a personal dispute, which is rude and unnecessary. I suggest that if either of you find you are getting into an edit war on any arbitration page then you stop. Ask an arbitrator for an opinion and assistance. -- sannse (talk) 13:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rubensteins removal of my comments on this page is just another example of his bullying and abuse, to add to:

1. Calling me small minded
2. Calling me a moron (repeatedly)
3. Calling me mentally ill ("suffering from a personailty disorder")
4. Calling me mentally retarded ("he suffers from a congenital cognitive deficit"). Bizarrely he withdrew his "moron" statement saying "I no longer believe he is a moron", but soon came up with "congenital cognitive deficit" - which virtually means the same thing.

I wish I could say I'm surprised. I'm not. However, I am disappointed. - XED.talk 13:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have not removed any of my remarks concerning items 1-4, above. Nor is it my intention to remove anything Xed wrote. The only remark I am trying to remove is one I deleted as soon as I wrote it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contributions

I don't know if this amounts to Evidence directly relevant to this particular Arbitration case, so I'll post here for now. I just want to say that I am puzzled by Snowspinner's analysis of User:Xed's contributions of last week (in his Evidence section). It escapes me how an analysis of one week's contributions of any user that has an arbitration filed against him could be put forward as 'evidence' that the user doesn't do good work at all.

Clearly, not all of Xed's contributions are 'good' in the sense the arbitrators mean in Proposed_decision#Xed's contributions — there is enough evidence showing that User:Xed has been rude and uncivil at times. But the present statement by User:Snowspinner strikes me as nothing more than a nasty hit below the belt. — mark ✎ 20:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dont like the language "nasty hit below the belt" but I do agree with the overall point you are making. I'd hate for people to go through my contributions looking for weeks where I didn't make any decent edits, I'm sure they'd find plenty of qualifying weeks. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, I did not go looking for weeks. I picked the most recent week. When Xed raised a sensible objection to that, I picked the week before arbitration. I have submitted as evidence every week that I've looked at. There was no effort made to pick a week that particularly supported my claim that Xed doesn't do much good. Snowspinner 14:55, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you did anything of the sort. All I am saying is that a week is a very short period of time. Too short, I believe, to give a true representation of a contibutor's good edits. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 18:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner refers sneeringly to this article I was writing - User:Xed/draft5 - as a "minor article edit" and goes on to say "I fail to see the good contributions", and that it is "absurd" to claim that I do any good work. In fact, to write some of the article I had to go to a specialist library (SOAS) to get some of the information, since information of that nature is not readily available on the internet. This is more than most people would do, yet Snowspinner just sneers at it all. For this reason, I really can't be fucking bothered anymore. - XED.talk 18:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)