Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2

Is there anything wrong with making reverts? Of the four listed as evidence, three are repeats of a revert that seems reasonable to me and the other seems totally bona fide.

Apart from the claim about reverts, everything else seems to be about people not getting along - but I've only looked at the article contributions and not the talk pages. -- Danny Yee 01:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When one's primary contributions to the project are reverts, it suggests that one is edit warring rather than contributing, and that the dominant tone of one's actions is a hostile and adversarial one. Phil Sandifer 17:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But looking at Xed's edits as a whole doesn't suggest a dominance of reverts, or a hostile approach. There are always going to be some pages and topics that are more adversarial than others, with a higher density of reverts.

And with the conflict on South African Jews Xed's version seemed as valid to me as the alternative (I thought both versions were intruding unnecessary and tangential controversy so I've amended the article to avoid that), but Xed's at least had a citation. There are always two sides in any revert war! -- Danny Yee 22:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Xed's version included a citation to a non-notable book by an author whose publication history shows that she doesn't take a neutral stance on this issue. Furthermore, Xed's addition had nothing to do with the article in question. --Viriditas | Talk 01:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then that's a content dispute, not an excuse for arbitration. (note: above statement by viriditas was changed after I answered it - check the history) - Xed 01:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Note the above comment was added with the edit summary - edit conflict). The content you added has nothing to do with the article. --Viriditas | Talk 01:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True. And when one contributor is very often on a side of a revert war, and has been previously sanctioned for widespread assumptions of bad faith, it is somewhat problematic. Phil Sandifer 22:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter who's version is right though a revert war is a revert war and even if both sides are right then both sides are also wrong for revert warring rather then taking it to the talk page. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it's only me who's being punished. - Xed 03:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested, you're on personal attack parole. I don't see anything about you being punished for reverts on that page. --Viriditas | Talk 04:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration is punishment. - Xed 04:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the arbcom would dispute that and I disagree, arbcom is not punishment. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, they just treat it that way. Everyking 08:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having got involved with both articles cited as revert evidence, I think I'd now support 0.5 or maybe 0.75 out of 2 of Xed's reverts. But it all still looks like a dispute over content to me. And if terms like "weasel" and "tagteam" are considered sufficiently abusive to get one banned then a lot of people are in trouble. (And my girlfriend would consider that derogatory of mustelids :-) -- Danny Yee 05:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Danny Yee. Without the previous history, there's no way this would be here at arbcom. Xed can be a tremendous pain in the ass, and I was once within minutes of filing arbitration against him. I'm not shy about taking people to arbitration either; I've been involved with (and won) 4 cases. But, I just don't see this rising to more than a stern admonition to be civil and assume good faith. It probably will though, and I think that's a shame. Because unlike a lot of folks hauled before arbcom, Xed really does have a lot to offer. At the least, this should have gone through an RFC first. Derex 04:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's with making retrospective changes to arbitration decisions? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FXed_2&diff=49538235&oldid=45225680 -- Danny Yee 11:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Xed or see the bottom of this [1]. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]