Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xed

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC).

(Xed | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

User:Xed has been making frivolous Requests for arbitration and Votes for deletion pages and has engaged in personal attacks.

Description

User:Xed placed User:Jimbo Wales on Requests for Arbitration for sending an e-mail to User:Secretlondon that made that user quit Wikipedia. All of the arbitrators rejected the request as frivolous. Next Xed listed User:GeneralPatton, User:Jfdwolff, User:Pir, & User:WhisperToMe on requests for arbitration, and that also got rejected. Besides engaging in personal attacks on the arbitration page, he also engaged in attacks in User talk:WhisperToMe, User:Jwrosenzweig and Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. He has also broken the three revert rule.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration (The edits involving the 2nd nomination: [1],[2],[3], [4],[5] - 1st nomination post: [6])
Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks ([7]) and on User talk:WhisperToMe ([8] and [9])
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion ([10])
User talk:Jwrosenzweig ([11])
History of September 11, 2001 attacks [12]

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

On Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration - Removal of RFAr for Jimbo Wales ([13]) after a long string of comments
On Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration - Rejections of his other rfar ([14])

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

WhisperToMe 22:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Emsworth 21:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Austin Hair 23:14, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
NTOW. ("No trolls on Wikipedia") [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rick K 03:07, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
JFW | T@lk 07:10, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Johnleemk | Talk 07:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
David Gerard 11:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 21:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Anárion|Anárion]] 22:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg 00:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mike H 01:00, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Common-or-garden troll, and not a good one either. —No-One Jones ^(mail) 01:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Slowking Man 06:15, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
BCorr|Брайен 20:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Snowspinner 21:13, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

I find this witch-hunt to be a little tiresome, as it has consisted so far mainly of my concerns about Jimbo Wales harassment of another user not being taken seriously and being characterised as frivolous.

But first, its worth pointing out again that I was blocked for a week, and THEN this Requests For Comment article was created, leaving me unable to defend myself. As user User:Orthogonal mentions in the Talk page of this article, "it is fundamentally unfair to make formal allegations against a user, and to allow others to comment on or endorse those allegations, while the individual charged is unable to respond … therefore, in the interest of fundamental fairness, I ask that either the RfC be declared invalid without prejudice to plaintiff or defendant or that the user be unbanned forthwith in order to be able to answer the allegations against him"

This course of action was not taken, making the validity of this 'trial' dubious at best.

As another user says on the Talk page, "It sure looks like another Salem trial from where I'm standing"

Now, lets look at the description of this dispute: "User:Xed placed User:Jimbo Wales on Requests for Arbitration for sending an e-mail to User:Secretlondon that made that user quit Wikipedia. All of the arbitrators rejected the request as frivolous."

What crime have I undertaken here? Jimbo Wales has accepted sending an email to secretlondon that made her quit Wikipedia. I found this kind of harassment unacceptable, especially coming from a 'benign dictator'. It degrades Wikipedia. And yet, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN I was told that I was simply being frivolous by bringing this up. AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. It's certainly not frivolous, and it cuts to heart of what I thought Wikipedia was about.

The other 'defence' of Jimbos behaviour was that since he was dictator, he could do what he wanted (including harassment of other users), they had no jurisdiction over him, and therefore my request was invalid. As the vote came to an end, with the most of the voters on the matter believing they had no jurisdiction, Jimbo emails me saying - "I will obey any decisions of the arbitration committee," How convenient - he accepts the view of the arbitration committee when he knows that they don't believe they have jurisdiction! Down the rabbit hole.

OK, lets move on to the next part of the witch-hunt: "Next Xed listed User:GeneralPatton, User:Jfdwolff, User:Pir, & User:WhisperToMe on requests for arbitration, and that also got rejected."

During the debate on Jimbos email harassment, these 4 users had called me a 'sockpuppet'. None of them provided any evidence, or even any suggestions on who they think I am (perhaps I'm a figment of their imagination...). Of course, people get accused of things all the time, but when 4 different (?) people accuse me of the same thing I have to take issue. The absurdity of their claims is shown by one the above users actually emailing today and asking me if I would vote on one of the items in Votes for Deletion! Clearly, I'm only a sockpuppet when it suits them.

The other accusations, as Rex071404 says below, amount to accusing me of jaywalking. Whats the witch hunt punishment for that? Drowning or burning?

--Xed 18:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

Rex071404

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

If this user is causing managerial mayhem to the Wiki, that accusation should stand alone and be dealt with.

As to the "3-revert rule" - that's been broken so many times on this Wiki - for good and for ill - that it diminishes the severity of the main accusation to bundle this in. It's like charging someone for bank robbery and jaywalking at the same time [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 05:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

orthogonal

Holding an RfC while the defendant is banned and thus unable to effectively contribute to his own defense is fundamentally unfair. Regardless of the merit of the substantive claims in this RfC, it should at the very least be put on hold until such time as the defendant is unbanned. -- orthogonal 21:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

-- orthogonal 21:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Snowspinner 22:44, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC) (Or, at least, the RfC should not be deleted or removed until Xed returns)
Snowspinner, I'm glad you agree. Perhaps you could prevail upon the sysop who blocked Xed to unblock him? Or unblock him yourself? As it's also not quite fair that this RfC hang out here for all to see while Xed is unable to respond. -- orthogonal 22:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Snowspinner was the sysop who placed the block that is in effect right now. And I intend for Xed to place his own defense. WhisperToMe 23:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have prevailed upon myself, but my pleas appear to fall on deaf ears. The block was not out of line - Xed is a new account and was making disruptive edits, and it was a second offense block. The RfC isn't going anywhere, and when Xed returns (Sunday) it will be waiting for him. That said, if it would make you feel better, I have his e-mail address and can contact him asking for a response, and post it on his behalf. Snowspinner 04:39, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that this RfC should be suspended until the user is able to return. However, I believe that this should only be a suspension, rather than a dismissal, and that the clock be restarted on the RfC when Xed returns. I believe this will actually present an additional 24 hours for the defendent. Geogre 18:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Acegikmo1

Xed's nominations on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration were not in violation of the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy.
The content Xed added to September 11, 2001 attacks violated no Wikipedia policies.
Xed's edit to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion was to make a point. Since this happened only once and on one page, no response is necessary.
Xed's repeated personal attacks were a violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. However, Xed's personal attacks were not serious or focused enough to warrent any punishment.

Regardless of the sincerity of Xed's edits, I believe that the creation of this RFC page was wholly unnecessary. Xed's violation of a single Wikipedia policy and several objectionable edits that were non-violations constitute the whole of this dispute. The lack of recent activity on this page do not lend weight to its legitimacy as a valid attempt for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Instead, it seems that Xed has been singled out because some do not like the content of his edits. I conclude that this very RFC listing is more detrimental to Wikipedia than any of Xed's actions. Acegikmo1 04:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

User:Acegikmo1
Xed 08:41, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe

(relating to Acegikmo1's comment) Which is why Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point was proposed. WhisperToMe 04:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.