Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

"Evidences" from original request[edit]

Slrubenstein offers a link to the small mind exchange. His "Love and kisses" post can be found at [2]. This is from the last few days.

In late December he had a hostile and accusatory exchange with Jimbo in which he cryptically demanded that he wanted "justice" and generally accused Jimbo of forcing SecretLondon out, a false accusation. This was at [3].

[4] in which he calls someone a pompous wanker on February 4th.

On December 12 he removed a NPOV tag at [5], and did so again on the 13th at [6].

On February 12 he was needlessly hostile and inflammatory in discussing why a piece of news was not include on the In the News template, attributing straw men positions to those who disagreed with him and making vague accusations that the page was "controlled" by a certain kind of person: [7]. Snowspinner 21:35, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Snowspinner[edit]

November 2004[edit]

[8] is a conversation between Xed and Theresa Knott during the arbcom elections. Note the accusation of election fraud, which was directed against Theresa for agreeing with an idea that Blankfaze came up with. Note also the lack of any such attack on Blankfaze, making it clear that Xed was targetting Theresa specifically. Note also the ensuing hostility on Xed's part. Snowspinner 21:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Xed states below that "Elitist. Useless at anagrams. Poor conception of basic sexual morality", clearly as a joke. Snowspinner takes this as a serious attack." Whether that comment was meant as a joke or not is neither here nor there. Snowspinner is linking to the latter part of that exchange.Is Xed trying to imply that his accusations of election fraud were a joke? Because they didn't seem funny to anyone else at the time. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 12:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

8-15 February 2005[edit]

As Xed claims, reasonably, that arbitration has distracted him from editing, I thought I would look at the week of edits before the RFAr was filed.

In the week of February 8-February 15th, Xed contributed to four namespace articles. He added an image to Second Congo War at [9], slashed content from Israeli terrorism to revert to a version offered by a sockpuppet of Alberuni, and he moved Copyright Act of 1976 to United States Copyright Act of 1976. The image he added, at [10], is both unsourced and clearly from a newspaper and thus likely copywritten. He also added a graph to Democratic Republic of the Congo. He uploaded another image with the intention of putting it on a page when the article expanded a bit. To his credit, he identified this one as fair use. More minorly, he voted for a featured article and for several collaborations of the week.

Meanwhile, in that same week, he made the inflammatory comment about the inclusion of Arthur Miller on the In the News page at [11], made a straw man attack on Rdsmith4 when he directed Xed to the right forum for his complaints at [12], and made a general accusation against the people who maintain the page at [13]. He then attacked the "Wikiclique" at [14] and made another absurd accusation at [15]. He also made his "fuck off you little shit" comment at [16], as well as his claim about Slrubenstein's "disgusting opinions" at [17], calling him "hopelessly stupid" at [18]. He found time to call JayJG a rogue admin at [19] and to make his sarcastic "love and kisses" comment at [20], tand o rail against the general corruption of Wikipedia at [21].

Again, and this is with no arbcom case to distract him, he seems to find much more time to get into conflicts with other users than he does to provide any sort of high quality content that might militate against this. And when he does provide content, it involves reinserting the contributions of banned users. Note also the attack on Rdsmith, which takes the number of users he's attacked to around 12.

21 February 2005[edit]

  • [22]
    • Personal attack on Hyacinth, calling him a fanatic.

25 February - 4 March 2005[edit]

I've noticed the claim that Xed does good work. To be honest, I find this claim absurd. I looked at his last week of contributions. Here is what I found.

He has contributed to six articles in the last week. Of those contributions, there was a grammar fix to Edmund Dene Morel, the addition of a name to Unisex name, the addition of a graph to AIDS in Africa that he put no copyright info on ([23]) , a change of two words in [Human], and two reverts to Adolf Hitler. These reverts, certainly, were useful, but they were generic vandalism reverts of the sort that virtually anyone could perform, and dozens of other people would have. He did add, today, content to [[Azzam Azzam that was worthwhile: [24]. All of this can be found in his user history - I'm not providing diffs because, often, it's the most recent edit.

He also uploaded nine pictures. Some of them can be found at [25], [26], and [27]. None of these were uploaded with any source info. They were largely used for a sandbox draft of an article. So, perhaps we have the construction of half of an article in a semi-usable place to credit Xed for as well. Fair enough.

Those are the whole of his good contributions - additions to one article and some unsourced images. And one sandbox article.

On the other hand, he has sniped at slrubensten [28] sannse [29], Modemx [30], me [31], Theresa [32], Fred [33], and to generally rant about how this arbitration is about an offhanded comment I made about the name of his Wikiproject.

I fail to see the good contributions. Mostly I see edit wars over evidence on RFAr, an unending stream of personal attacks, and a few minor article edits. I can accept treating good edits as mitigating circumstances, but I don't this comes anywhere near the level needed to mitigate documented personal attacks against 11+ users.

1 March 2005[edit]

Evidence presented by User:Slrubenstein[edit]


My evidence concerns an exchange between myself and Xed. I initiated this exchange with a critical -- but not profane -- comment. Xed's response was disproportionate, vulgar, and aggressive.

It also involved a persistent, willful misreading of my comments. I never stated any opinion concerning tsunami relief. My comment was in a section of Xed's talk page that did not specifically mention tsunami relief. Xed claims that it "obviously" was about tsunami relief because he mentions "a banner." It is not at all obvious that "a banner" refers to tsunami relief. In fact, my comment was placed in the section "SecretLondon," the subject of which was Xed's accusation that Jimbo is a dictator who forced SecretLondon out of Wikipedia.

In any event, as I explained to Xed, my claim that he has a small, petty mind is not based on anyone's stance concerning tsunami relief, but rather his unfair and ungrounded attacks on other users. Since Xed obviously misunderstood my comment, I explained what I meant on 14:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC). His response simply ignored my explanation and again mischaracterized my views. This single exchange is evidence of Xed's inability to have a reasonable discussion. I am sorry that I said that Xed has a small, petty mind, and I further apologize for having suggested he is a moron or has a personality disorder. But I do stand by my belief that his attacks on other users was unfair and ungrounded. I should have expressed this in impersonal terms.

I take responsibility for my actions and will of course accept whatever decision the ArbCom makes. I am sure that the ArbCom will hold Xed to the same standard. I never thought that Xed was making common "newbie" mistakes. He has been an active editor for six months, and — for better or for worse — I have treated him as I would any other veteran editor.

4 February[edit]

After a lengthy exchange in which Xed poured abuse on Jimbo and blamed Jimbo for the suffering of others, Pakaran wrote the following (I mention Pakaran to provide the context),

  • 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Your treatment of Jimbo, who has spent more money on this project than the average person will see in his/her life and is now working on it more or less full-time, frankly sickens me. Pakaran 15:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I hope you get better soon. The many who suffered because Jimbo thought a banner was unnecessary may take longer to heal. -
  • 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I agreed with what Pakaran wrote -- that is, I was disgusted by the abuse Xed poured on Jimbo -- 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.

14 February[edit]

  • [14 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
    • So wanting a link to allow to the tsunami aid is evidence of a small and petty mind? Fuck off you little shit -

NOTE: I never said anything about his wanting a link to "allow to the tsunami aid."

NOTE: Xed claims below that he was either responding to my "small minded" comment in kind, or that this is a display of humour. After having read his own remarks, I still fail to see how "fuck of you little shit" is either.

No, I was talking about the email. "fuck of you little shit" was a response to your original abuse and your defence of Jimbo's "no tsunami notice on the front page" position. A position which probably caused a great deal of suffering. - 18:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I never defended Jimbo's position. Xed's confusion is evidence of his inability to distinguish between courtesy and agreement (and, conversely, disagreement and personal attacks) -- it is this inability that I think is the core problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Calling me a small-minded moron is an attack, not just a disagreement, and it deserves the response it got. Your inability to see why someone would respond to such an attack is the core of the problem. - 21:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are right. I am sorry I called you a small-minded moron. I should have said that I thought your abuse of Jimbo was ungrounded and unfair, and left it at that. I apologize for any other personal attacks against you since then, too. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

15 February[edit]

  • [15 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
    • What on earth are you talking about? When I wrote that message on your talk page, there was nothing there about "tsunami relief," so I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you really not know what I was talking about? You have a small and petty mind because of the combination of ignorance, arrogance, and meanness with which you insult Jimbo. Since this is pretty obvious to everyone else, I thought it would be obvious to you. Slrubenstein | Talk
  • [Feb 2005 (UTC)]
    • You're comment was right underneath a discussion of tsunami relief! I've no idea why you think wanting to provide relief to tsunami victims is small and petty. I've no idea why you support people whose actions in trying to prevent Wikipedia from having a donations section on the front page have caused a great deal of suffering. But I suggest you keep your disgusting opinions to yourself -
  • [15 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
    • There is no mention of tsunami relief in this section [[35]] (except for my query, posted today). There is however ample abuse of Jimbo, including blaming him for the suffering of others. Please keep your disgusting opinions to yourself. Slrubenstein | Talk
  • [15 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
    • Clearly, you missed the Ayn Rand link. Even user Pakaran, in the section below, knew what the conversation was about. Only Slrubenstein seems confused. Either you are too hopelessly stupid to work this out, or you loathe the people affected by the Tsunami for whatever racial or bigoted reason. -
  • [15 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
    • It is simply shameful that you use the suffering of others as a shield behind which you try to hide your own abusive, bullying demeanor. Slrubenstein | Talk

15 February[edit]

On February 15 Xed also sent me the following e-mail. It was an unsolicited e-mail and I believe that this should be accepted in evidence because Xed was able to e-mail me because of the "e-mail this user" link provided by Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, I did not register my e-mail for my first few years at Wikipedia precisely because I did not want any disputes on talk pages to spill over into my life outside of Wikipedia. I finally registered my e-mail a week or two ago -- and this is what I end up with. My point is that Wikipedia enables people to e-mail one another, and so Xed's e-mail should be taken as Wikipedia related behavior.

I would never ask the ArbCom to take any action based solely on an e-mail. But I include this e-mail because it further illustrates Xed's pattern of abuse already evident in his comments on various talk pages.

X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:46:13 GMT
X-Authentication-Warning: apache set sender to using -f
To: Slrubenstein <>
Subject: Cunt
From: Xed
X-Mailer: MediaWiki interuser e-mailer
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: :2005.2.15.12 (pm8)
X-PMX-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0'
It's interesting to read here:
that "North Americans generally find the word more offensive than the British and Australians; in Britain, unlike in America, "cunt" can be used as a jovial term of endearment in specific contexts"
As someone quotes on my talk page, "Thank God it was the convicts and not the puritans".
What a sycophantic cunt your are.

I did not reply to this e-mail.

NOTE: Xed claims below that he was responding to my explanation, "It is simply shameful that you use the suffering of others as a shield behind which you try to hide your own abusive, bullying demeanor," either in kind, or that this is a display of humour. After having read his own remarks, I still fail to see how "What a sycophantic cunt your are" is either. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can quote things out of context till the cows come home. The humour is a side issue. The point is you attacked me calling me a small-minded moron, but you think I should turn the other cheek and take it simply because you are an admin. 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. - 21:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I respond to this on the "talk" page. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

15 February[edit]

After learning that Ed Poor had reported Xed's abusive comments on the Admin's noticeboard, I left this message for Ed:

  • [15 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
    • I appreciate your calling attention to Xed's behavior. I added a comment on the Incidents page -- but he also sent me an e-mail that is even more insulting. I forwarded it to the list-serve and hope you will comment there too.Slrubenstein | Talk
  • [15 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
    • I sent you one insulting email after you had me blocked for no reason? Heaven forbid. Break out the Smelling salts. I'm surprised I didn't send you 3. -

NOTE: I did not have Xed blocked. I did not block him, nor did I ask or suggest to anyone to block him. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other Evidence Submitted by Slrubenstein[edit]

This is evidence of abusive behavior towards other users (besides me)

  • October 12, 2004
    • Xed sets up a bright red "Rogue admin alert" banner on his page, describing Jayjg as "imposing extremist positions, monomaniacal, destroying wiki objectivity, no understanding of admin responsibilites, protecting articles when he is involved in the dispute" [36]
  • October 13, 2004
    • Xed adds Neutrality ("vote-rigging (Florida-style election to admin), absurdly non-neutral, name, blanking pages, butt-kissing Uriah Heep, arms-seller to edit wars, ignores consensus") and JDW ("Falsely accuses users of being sockpuppets, attempts to underhandedly remove votes when disagreeing with voter") to the list. [37]

NOTE: Xed had strongly opposed Neutrality's adminship, and was only made an admin on the 13th.

Response to Accusations Against Slrubenstein[edit]

As far as I can tell, I am being accused for having made personal attacks on four occasions.

Concerning the "small, petty mind," I know that it doesn't help my case to state that I believed then, as I believe now, that this is an accurate observation. The only mitigating circumstance I can appeal to is that I made this comment after following a serious of unjustified and mean comments to Jimbo that impugned the integrity of the entire project. That said, I do admit that it was a personal attack, although I still believe a mild one.

Concerning the "moron" comments, I admit that at the time I really did think that Xed was a moron. In the first instance, I had explained that my objection to his behavior had to do with the way he was treating Jimbo, and he persistently accused me of supporting Jimbo's (fictitious) having caused suffering to tsunami victims. On 17:19, 15 Feb 2005 he wrote Either you are too hopelessly stupid to work this out, or you loathe the people affected by the Tsunami for whatever racial or bigoted reason. Perhaps I was just allowing myself to be baited, by responding to his "stupid" remark with my "moron" remark. But the fact is, at that time I really did think he was a moron, by which I mean one who suffers from a congenital cognitive deficit. I had explicitly stated several times that my comment was provoked only by his incivility towards Jimbo, not towards his disagreement with Jimbo, so the fact that he continued to interpret that as a lack of sympathy for tsunami victims seemed to be a sign of a cognitive deficit. As I have explained elsewhere, I now regret having thought that as I no longer believe he is a moron, but rather that he suffers from a personality disorder -- which does make him difficult to deal with, despite the fact that he is intelligent enough to perhaps make valuable contributions to Wikipedia.

I also recognize that Xed takes my comment about a personality disorder as a personal attack, and I regret that as well.

This all started with my objection to the way Xed was talking about Jimbo and Wikipedia. I still object to those things. But I also recognize that I expressed my objection through personal attacks rather than a reasoned argument, and I regret that. I am sorry I wrote that Xed has a small petty mind -- I should have spoken solely to what he wrote. I am also sorry I called him a moron, for the same reason. And I am sorry I suggested that he has a personality disorder, which was both unnecessary and not my place to say.

Again, I believe this to be a factual statement. Moreover, I sincerely do not believe that this is a personal atack. It was a direct response to Xed's question to Mel Etitis asking what his point is [47], after Mel Etitis had clearly made his point (namely, that Xed did not understand Mel Etitis's earlier explanation for the deletion of the Jewish Ethnocentrism page [48], [49]. I do not see how affirming Mel Etitis's point, that Xed did not understand his argument, is a "personal attack."

I do not deny having made several harsh comments on the talk pages concerning Jewish Ethnocentrism and its deletion. I admit that some of them were personal attacks, and I do regret that. I want to affirm only that these intemperate remarks expressed my frustration at some editors who seemed either not to have read any of the extensive, preceding discussion, or not to have taken it seriously. I don't offer this as an excuse, only as an explanation.

Evidence presented by User:Xed[edit]

Bad Faith Arbitration started by Snowspinner[edit]

Ostensibly about a dispute between Rubenstein and I, Snowspinner soon reveals his real real issues with me - namely he wishes to attack the Countering Systemic Bias project (WP:Bias) - a project I am involved and associated with. He states on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Proposed_decision#Systemic_bias proposed decision talk page that the term Systemic Bias is "very, very hostile term. Implicit in the name of the project is a criticism of those who have not contributed on topics related to Africa and world poverty are biased. The term "systemic bias" is associated with questions of why minorities get hired less, and why there's a corporate glass ceiling.". He provides no evidence for his bizarre claims, but this doesn't stop him from adding "I wish I could look at the systemic bias project without feeling like I'm implicitly being called a racist because I happen to edit about video games and literary theory." Presumably he wishes to punish me for his guilty feelings. Carrying on, he states "I say this only because I think it's emblematic of Xed's Wikipedia interactions." The fact that I didn't come up the name Countering Systemic Bias (see Wikipedia:CROSSBOW#The_name_of_this_thing) hasn't effected his rage towards me, and I think his irrationality in this dispute is now a cause of concern.

Starting an arbitration because of the name of a project is not enough for Snowspinner, as he has continued his attacks (see #25_February_-_4_March_2005 above. In it he denigrates the quantity and quality of my edits I've done in the last week. To be honest, I haven't felt like like editing BECAUSE of Snowspinners hostile arbitration against me, so it's certainly ironic for him to complain about the lack of edits. However, lets take his attack point by point:

  1. My 2 reverts on Adolf Hitler were to undo someone who wished to remove mention of the persecution of homosexuals [50] and removing some childish graffiti [51]
  2. The numerous pictures I uploaded were for a large article I am working on User:Xed/draft5 - "Culture of the Democratic Republic of the Congo". Strangely, Snowspinner fails to mention this. For some reason he instead says "I fail to see the good contributions." and that he sees only "a few minor article edits." In what way this article is minor he doesn't explain.
  3. I spent time creating a graph for the AIDS in Africa article. Snowspinner, instead of asking politely to provide copyright information, makes it part of his hostile arbitration against me.


Shortly after the Asian Tsunami disaster, Jimbo Wales indicated that he wanted the 'donation banner' removed from the main page, which User:Sannse did for him [52]. This was probably a result of his admiration of far-right prophetess of selfishness Ayn Rand ("He admires the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand", from Jimbo Wales). On the previous day, the Ayn Rand Institute had released a statement titled "US Should Not Help Tsunami Victims"[], a deranged tract which calls charity 'extortion' and rants about 'billions given away by Bush to help the blood-thirsty Palestinians'.

The detrimental effect of Jimbo's soulless decision to act as Benevolent Dictator and disapprove of a link to charitable donations is shown by the fact that another major website, Amazon, was sending more money (from it's users of course) than many major governments. In comparison, look at the notice at the top of this page, and indeed every Wikiedia page (as of 20 Feb 2005) - "Wikimedia needs your help in its $75,000 fund drive. See our fundraising page for details". Clearly, raising money for the largest online lunatic asylum in the world (as well as an invaluable Babylon 5 resource), is more important than raising money to alleviate the suffering of a disaster whose death-toll is probably over 200,000, with two million left homeless. Jimbo's attitude to Wikipedias response to the tsunami stands in marked contrast to Wikipedia's response to other world events - [53]. Rubenstein has since rationalized this decision as simply a normal Wikipedia conversation, "that happens every day on other pages". People were simply following orders. Quite how Rubenstein considers a decision which probably led to a great deal of suffering to be normal is beyond me, and I find myself unable to put myself in the mind of someone with so little humanity.

After much criticism from users ("I don't care if Jimbo Wales 'authorised' the banner's removal, he was deeply wrong" - User:Mark, "For the love of humanity, correct this mistake ten fold." - RaD Man) a 'donation banner' was restored to main page, which I subsequently helped edit [54]. Of note is that a current arbitrator in this case, User:Sannse, argued against restoring the banner. Sannse has chosen not to recuse herself.

Rubenstein attacks[edit]

After a discussion of these and other issues with Jimbo Wales on my Talk page, Rubenstein makes his first attack - "You have such a small, petty mind". Understandably irritated at his stupid remark, I respond in kind on his talk page. He answers back that "When I wrote the above, there was nothing here about "tsunami relief" so I do not know what you are talking about." In fact, the very sentence before his first attack reads "The many who suffered because Jimbo thought a banner was unnecessary may take longer to heal" - clearly referring to the Tsunami donation banner. Wikipedia comments written below another comment are supposed to answer the previous comment above. This is the accepted Wikipedia protocol. Despite this, Rubenstein attempts to claim he did not know what he was answering! He has continued this bizarre stance during arbitration, claiming he was referring an entirely different subject, namely my defense of user SecretLondon, who left after being receiving an abusive email from Wales. I should add that Wales recognized the inappropriateness of sending such emails from the Benevolent Dictator, and has apologized for his unprovoked attack. Rubenstein has yet to apologize for his unprovoked attacks.

He goes on to accuse me of 'meanness' - an ironic complaint given the context. He continues to repeat his attacks, eventually calling me a moron several times. Amazed at his aggressive bullying and bullet-proof sycophancy, I respond with a strongly worded email. His response in this arbitration so far indicates he is happy to give out abuse, but as an admin he expects that no one should defend themselves against him, and that they should turn the other cheek.

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.

Rubenstein has continued his pattern of abuse, now saying that I suffer from a "personality disorder" (see talk page).


User:Snowspinner set up a Requests for Arbitration despite the rules stating that Arbitration is a last step and that other avenues should be explored. As User:Danny mentions here [55] - "What I am seeing recently is a mob mentality spurred on by overzealous RC policemen, which will make it impossible to conduct successful mediations." The same appears true with the Arbitration process.

Despite recusing herself, Theresa Knott has makes several interventions in my arbitration, insinuating that my response to Rubenstein's abuse requires police action. User:Fred Bauder removed my comments, on both the Arbitration pages and my own Talk page. More seriously, Bauder, unable to maintain any balance, proceeds to block me, at 19:07 on Feb 18, after I protest at Rubensteins removal of my comments (Rubenstein places them at the bottom of the page in order to strip them of context, so as to make it seem I'm randomly rambling [56]). Whilst blocked, my user page is defaced [57].

Snowspinner has linked to an exchange between Theresa Knott and I, where I say she is "Elitist. Useless at anagrams. Poor conception of basic sexual morality", clearly as a joke. Snowspinner takes this as a serious attack. My other, serious, criticisms of her were entirely warranted - and it should be pointed out that, like the issue with the Tsunami banner, my opinion about having one page page for both Endorsements and Disendorsements eventually prevailed, after many other users disagreed with Theresa and cos tactics. Thus, the efforts to remove the Disendorsements to a separate page where they would less likely be seen, which I considered electoral fraud, were thwarted.

Essentially I'm being attacked for:

being "idiosyncratic"[edit]

Snowspinner makes claims about "uncompromising advancement of a particular and idiosyncratic view of the NPOV". He provides no evidence or details, and fails to explain why "idiosyncrasy" became a criminal offence on Wikipedia. His attack on my idiosyncracy is later revealed to be an underhand attack on the WP:Bias project - see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Proposed_decision#Systemic_bias - thus invalidating the entire arbitration.

being insufficiently sycophantic towards Jimbo Wales and admins[edit]

Arguing with Jimbo Wales, or indeed any admin, seems to be increasingly regarded as heresy on Wikipedia, whilst sycophancy is seen as obligatory. I should not be punished because I disagree with this state of affairs.

having a sense of humour[edit]

Rubenstein's problem seems to be an issue of cultural relativism brought on by blinkered academia, though a proper anthropological analysis of his way of life would be needed to confirm this. Essentially a comic figure, Rubenstein is perhaps the archetypal academic - where an enlarged belief in his own importance leaves no room for humour, or even the differences in transatlantic dispositions. Hence he finds the need to attack various people for being "morons", "simple-minded" etc. A typical example of this pompous arrogance is a recent comment to Ed Poor: "Ed, do not vandalize this page when you have done no research and do not know what you are talking about".

responding to insults like a human being[edit]

After calling me a "moron" and "small-minded", Rubenstein feigns surprise when I respond in a similar manner. Clearly, he feels he has a right to dish it out, but he feels others should turn the other cheek to his abuse. My action as not an unprovoked attack, but a response to his abuse.

Of interest is whether emails should be accepted as evidence. Attempts are being made to accept them. I have no view on the matter, and only note the double standard. I quote various users, ironically from this exchange [58]:

  • "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

spreading love[edit]

Snowspinner accuses me of writing "Love and kisses all round" to admins. I plead guilty to this heinous charge.

Misleading information on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Proposed_decision[edit]

User:Fred Bauder and others have written plenty of misleading information on the Proposed decision page, and has told me not to edit the page. (Note: as of 25 Feb, still uncorrected after several days)


From: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Proposed_decision#Status_of_donations_article:

2) After debate and a response from User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Where_is_the_donation_link.3F which favored discussion of the matter, Template:Helpout was restored. 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.

This section is inaccurate. The 'response' from Jimbo Bauder cites (jan 3) comes two days after this Helpout template was created (not, as far as I know, restored) on jan 1 [59] by User:Dbachmann. Bauders narrative gives the impression that Jimbo said "let's have a discussion" and then the template came back as a result. On the contrary, all mentions by Jimbo of the idea of a Tsunami banner were negative before the consensus of editors forced Jimbo's defenders to stand down. Two days later he posted his message.


From: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Proposed_decision#Nature_of_link_cited_by_Xed

3) The article ... 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

This is a lop-sided reading of the article, which attacks altruism itself. Quote "It is Americans' acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth. "


From: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Proposed_decision#Xed.27s_characterization_of_Wikipedia

4) User:Xed characterizes Wikipedia as largest online lunatic asylum in the world and questions the value of donations to Wikipedia ...

These would more accurately read User:Xed jokes that Wikipedia is the largest online lunatic asylum in the world , but more seriously compares the value of donations to Wikipedia ... etc


7) ... with Xed defending the sockpuppet User:Pinlighter, apparently over from Stormfront...

This is a classic example of poisoning the well, by associating me (!) with some association with Stormfront. Bauder practices the sort of thing which got User:RK blocked. Not once did I 'defend a sockpuppet', my comment was purely pointing out User:Jayjgs hypocrisy.


From: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Proposed_decision#Personal_attack_by_Xed

8) Xed followed with a personal attack on User:Slrubenstein ...

Bauder removed the context again.


9) Xed's reference to tsunami relief .. surprised Slrubenstein

Should read allegedly surprised Slrubenstein

Title Reference to tsunami relief should read Repeated attacks by Rubenstein


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).

My involvement in WP:Bias was mainly confined to initial suggestions about the project, so I can't be described as starting it. Even less can I be accused of 'maintaining' it. This piece of evidence also gives the impression that I was in some way involved with the Economy of Africa article. In fact, the history of the article confirms that I have not touched it.

Modemx (below)[edit]

As perhaps expected, this arbitration has attracted a crank. Modemx has barely edited 50 articles since September 2004, most of them on the 20 and 21st of September. The article in question is Allen Ginsberg, and the issue is Ginsberg's membership and intellectual support of NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association - a pedophile-advocacy group). Modemx in the Talk:Allen_Ginsberg repeatedly fights against any mention of Ginsbergs membership in the article. As an indicator of his expertise, he constantly refers to Ginsberg as Ginsburg. Modemx originally said in this arbtration that I "accused (him) of being a pedophile, one of the most morally repugnant accusations imaginable". After two days, he changed this to read that I accused him of "being a cheerleader for pedophiles, one of the most morally repugnant accusations imaginable" (see difference - [60]).

In fact I have done no such thing, and an examination of the Allen Ginsberg (not Ginsburg) talk page shows that I said Modemx was "cheerleading for his (Ginsberg's) position". By position I of course meant intellectual postion. Furthermore, if Modemx truly does think I'm accusing him of being a cheerleader for pedophiles, this clashes with his contention below that Ginsberg definitely was NOT a pedophile. In my judgement, whether Ginsberg was a pedophile is unknown, though I am fairly sure he was a member and supporter of NAMBLA.

Modemx also accuses me of using "doctored copy of a New York Times article and a manufactured quote out of a non-existant academic review". I'm not sure how Modemx thinks I have the time to manufacture quotes, or indeed whole articles, and put them on the internet in order to back up something I wrote - but he does. The "doctored" article he refers to is in two locations on the internet - [61] and [62]. Neither website would seem to have any reason to make the article up.

I note that all references to Ginsberg's membership of NAMBLA have been purged from the article.


With Modemxs "eight years of academic experience in this area and a Masters degree" you would think he could spell the name of Allen Ginsberg right. Or not. He makes further comments below where he continues to insist I called him a "cheerleader for pedophiles".

He attempts, valiantly, to claim that I have said that Ginsberg was a pedophile and that therefore when I say he was supporting his position I am saying that Modemx is a cheerleader for pedophiles. However, this argument falls down rapidly as I have never stated that Ginsberg was a pedophile.

Ironically, he accuses me of backpeddling (when I have done no such thing), whereas he was the one who originally claimed I had called him a pedophile. He also fails to back up claims that I used a doctored copy of a New York Times article.

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

The remedy is unfair since I am generally critical of the admin system, therefore admins are likely to find excuses to "temp-ban" me. The whole of my arbitration is unjust, and as Snowspinner reveals here - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Proposed_decision#Systemic_bias - it was started due to a hostility towards the Systemic Bias project. Additionally, no mention has been made of Ed Poors provocative block on me in the Proposed decision section, which everyone agrees was unjust - see User_talk:Theresa_knott#Unilateral_block - 15:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other Evidence Submitted by Slrubenstein[edit]

Rubenstein's submits as 'evidence' a few accurate character assessments I have made during my time on Wikipedia.

  • October 12, 2004
    • Xed sets up a bright red "Rogue admin alert" banner on his page, describing Jayjg as "imposing extremist positions, monomaniacal, destroying wiki objectivity, no understanding of admin responsibilites, protecting articles when he is involved in the dispute" [63]

My assessment of Jayjg as a rogue admin has been proven on a number of occasions. He considers himself as exempt to the various rules on Wikipedia, whilst telling others to follow them. I believe more Requests for Comment have been made against him than any other user.

Here's an example of his methods (below and [64]). More examples upon request:

"Jayjg, you kept reverting my additions to 1982 Invasion of Lebanon without explanation and then hypocritically complained that I didn't explain my counter-reverts in talk. So now I have. Now it's your turn. Kindly explain the reasoning behind each one of your reverts. If you cannot give understandable reasons for your reverts, then I can only conclude they were a POV tactic to waste my time and any further such reverts on that page (and perhaps others) will have to be ignored. Thanks. --style 17:06, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Hi style. I don't respond to threats. If you have any requests you wish to make of me, please do so. Jayjg 17:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, perhaps you don't understand English. The above is not a threat. It's a request.
I'll state it more clearly: Please explain why you reverted my changes to 1982 Invasion of Lebanon 4 times. --style 17:57, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Unlike your 4 deliberate reverts, I reverted only 3 times. The issue wasn't clarity, it was Wikiquette; "If you cannot give understandable reasons for your reverts, then I can only conclude they were a POV tactic to waste my time and any further such reverts on that page (and perhaps others) will have to be ignored." is a threat. Also, I'm rather tired of people who believe they can ignore Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and I'm not inclined to respond to any who do. "Jayjg, perhaps you don't understand English." is a violation of both of those rules. If you have any civil requests you with to make of me, please do so. Jayjg 18:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
He asked Please explain why you reverted my changes to 1982 Invasion of Lebanon 4 times. - Xed 18:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're not style. Jayjg 18:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Xed. That's exactly right. --style 18:13, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Xed is not you. Jayjg 18:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How many times do I have to ask you? Please explain why you reverted my changes to 1982 Invasion of Lebanon 4 times. Pretty please with pink ribbons on top! --style 18:16, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
I can't do that, but I can certainly explain why I reverted your changes 3 times. Jayjg 18:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ok, go ahead, thanks. --style 18:19, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Actually, I'll have to wait until you explain your completely POV re-write of the article without any discussion whatsoever in Talk:, and you and Xed show some good faith by not continually reverting any edits I make, all of which are explained. As it is, there's little point in me getting involved on that page. Jayjg 18:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So, in other words, you can't explain your 4 reverts even though you vociferously complained that I didn't explain my reverts. Why am I not surprised? --style 18:36, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Actually, I can explain my objections to your POV insertions, and why I reverted your POV insertions 3 times, but I'm not going to get further involved in that page until I see some good faith, as I have other places on Wikipedia where I can spend my time more profitably. Jayjg 19:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

  • October 13, 2004
    • Xed adds Neutrality ("vote-rigging (Florida-style election to admin), absurdly non-neutral, name, blanking pages, butt-kissing Uriah Heep, arms-seller to edit wars, ignores consensus") and JDW ("Falsely accuses users of being sockpuppets, attempts to underhandedly remove votes when disagreeing with with voter") to the list. [65]

Neutraliy's vote was highly suspect. He also promised to make his signature Neutrality (hopefully) after many objections to his confusing name. He has since reverted to just Neutrailty. Another accurate assessment.

  • October 13, 2004
    • Xed tells Jayjg "You're talking shit as usual... You are full of bizarre conspiracies" [66] and calls Jayjg a "bullshitter" [67]

See above for Jayjg's bullshitting.

  • November 6, 2004

Ed Poor claimed that "all terrorists are Islamic". A claim he subsequently very reluctantly withdrew. No doubt this led to antipathy towards me, which explains his recent block of me.

  • November 12, 2004

Yes, Viriditas lied repeatedly. Habitually.

"Response to Accusations Against Slrubenstein"[edit]

Rubenstein, perhaps in a sign of desperation, starts creating straw men to bolster his threadbare argument. He claims that him writing "Actually, I'd say you just made the point for him." was a major plank in the evidence against him, whereas the more pertinent quotes are where he calls me a moron (repeatedly), claims I am both mentally ill ("suffering from a personailty disorder") and mentally retarded ("cognitive defect")

Summary of attacks by Rubenstein[edit]

Rubensteins personal attacks include:

  1. Small minded
  2. 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.

Evidence from --Modemx 05:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)[edit]

Forgive me if I'm adding this to the wrong place, as I'm a fairly new contributor. I would like to second and add to this complaint "Incivility towards new Wikimedia Contributors" (i.e. the being nice to newbies principle) 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, the first I'd ever edited, 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.

Response to Xed's comments[edit]

With eight years of academic experience in this area and a Masters degree, most people call me professor, Xed calls me a crank. Well, he's welcome to his opinion, but a reasonable objective person wouldn't call a professor a crank for trying to relay facts within his field of expertise. I'm still a newbie and I do make spelling and grammar errors like everyone else, but I did try to correct the Ginsberg page because the assertions that were presented there are in no reputable reference work or biography about Ginsberg. For example, neither Encylopedia Britannica, nor Encarta discusses anything that Xed placed in the article, nor do any of the biographies written about Ginsberg after his death.

I wasn't the only one had concerns about this. Ginsberg isn't around to defend himself, so somebody has to, and some of us care about writers and feel a responsibility to be the voice for those who have passed on. However, I wasn't the one who finally corrected the article. I left in frustration when I realized Xed could revert rings around me and there was no way I could correct it and make it stick. Others in the Wikipedia community fixed it, that is what let me know that there's a difference between the Wikipedia community and the way Xed acted in this incident.

Xed accused me of being a cheerleader for "[Ginsberg's] position," and his whole point was that Ginsberg was an advocate of pedophilia. Most people can figure out the implication. An implication like that is especially incendiary, and carries much darker implications. Now Xed is trying to actively backpedal from his original position. Most people aren't so stupid that his mincing words about what he said is compelling. Equating me as a cheerleader for an evil position, reverting my edits, using his practiced Wikipedia skills against a newbie like me, essentially attempting to bully me out of pursuing the truth, should have predictable results. Ask yourself how many newbies have been bullied off Wikipedia with similair tactics. Now ask yourself whether that should stand.

Selective use of Arbitration Policies[edit]

Xed correctly pointed out on my chat page that my response to him should have been in its own section. Again, I'm new at this. However, he ignored the additional requirement as posted in the header of this page that comments posted in the incorrect sections should be left to be moved by the arbitrators. Instead, he reverted my comments entirely. This is well keeping with his pattern of behavior in the incident in question. - Modemx

I learnt from Rubenstein - 22:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for illustrating my point, Xed (see header).

I'm not sure you understand. - 23:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, he mentions "[Modemx] also fails to back up claims that I used a doctored copy of a New York Times article," yet my evidence was in the comments he reverted. As I mentioned before he reverted my comments, a person cannot make comments to a reporter over lunch in New York when he is in Israel. The New York Times does not allow reprints of their articles to be posted on the web, so this is already a dubious source. So you have a physical impossibility combined with a dubious source of information supporting an assertion that is already in question. Do you really need to take that much farther? --Modemx 22:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's your comment I reverted because you posted in the wrong section:
I've also found 75 references on the Internet that Ginsberg was the founder and president of NAMBLA, all of which are lies. The reference is completely made up, and by mentioning it you took responsibility for it. The New York Times article was indicated to me as a doctored version of the original, since Ginsberg was in Israel and couldn't have made the comments to the reporter at a lunch he couldn't have been physically present at.
So, you have failed to back it up, other than saying "it was indicated to me". Why do think these versions - [70] and [71] - are doctored? - 23:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Now that my head has cooled down a bit, I'm just going to have a copy of the article sent to me, and we'll see. --Modemx 05:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Xed, didn't we already go through the whole "only edit in your section," issue? That rule applies equally to both of us. I'm going to respect the policy stated at the top of the page and let the arbitrators do their thing and resequence before posting any more comments. If, that is, they find it at all necessary. --Modemx 23:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, at this point, I don't think there is any benefit in doing so in terms of giving this page clarity. However, this has certainly drawn my attention to some of the problems we need to address in this case -- sannse (talk) 15:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So noted, thanks for your comments. My feedback is concluded. --Modemx 05:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)