Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Proposed decision

Three things concern me about these findings so far.

Firstly, I don't know how feasible it is to request that a party cite a reference for every single edit. That wasn't feasible in Lance's case, wasn't feasible in Rex's case, and it's particularly not feasible here. Perhaps for every disputed edit - but even this, in my view, should be a last resort.

Secondly, and more worrying, is the recent tendency to tar uses with the same brush when the severity of their offences is vastly different. Jayjg appears to have broken some rules, but HistoryBuffer has repeatedly violated them without the slightest concern, and has shown complete contempt for the principle of neutrality in this area. While Jayjg may need some reprimand or sanction, it's vastly unfair, after acknowledging (as this does) that he edits in good faith and is quite capable of editing neutrally, to turn around and apply the exact same sanctions to both him and HistoryBuffer. What sort of message does this send to editors interested in maintaining a neutral point of view in these controversial areas? It seems like the message this is sending is "stay away - or you'll pay the price".

Thirdly, I'm a little concerned about the equality involved here. The Committee just closed a case concerning Lance6Wins, who was remarkably similar to HistoryBuffer in his inability to edit neutrally, but from the complete opposite of the political spectrum. The only difference between the two was that Lance6Wins, unlike HistoryBuffer, was not also personally abusive. Yet Lance6Wins was permanently banned from editing articles related to Middle Eastern issues, while the arguably worse HistoryBuffer is not even receiving a temporary complete ban from the topic. This doesn't seem to me to be awfully fair. Ambi 07:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response to Ambi

You say "I don't know how feasible it is to request that a party cite a reference for every single edit." It is for any edit there is authority for. It is not for edits for which there is no authority anyone could cite. My thought is that the standard requested is the obligation of any Wikipedia editor, especially those editing in controversial areas. There are thousands of written resources available in this area to draw from. Jayjg, however courteous he is and however much careful attention he may pay to detail, is a dedicated edit warrior. Ihe alleged inequity in the decision is illusory. Jayjg, a competent, if biased editor, will be able to easily cite authority for any edit he wants to make; HistoryBuffEr will probably have great difficulty without openly drawing on overtly anti-Zionist sources which under the terms of decision can be "outed" and he certainly will not be able to made the extensive POV revisions he is in the habit of making. Lance6Wins, if he wishes, can petition to be included under the same rules in the unlikely event this proposal should become our decision, but again would probably have great difficulty citing sources other than overtly Zionist material.

We deliberately chose to not be bound by precedent in order to learn from experience. I am trying to move forward in what is a continuing search for less onerous remedies which rely less on banning and more on finding ways that allow continued participation but under restrictions which steer the user into following policy. Fred Bauder 12:31, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. Your own findings of fact make a specific note that Jayjg is quite capable of neutral editing, whereas there is no such finding for HistoryBuffer - yet when you're sanctioning them, this suddenly becomes an "illusory" difference. This also seems to fly in the face of past attempts to use sanctions only as a last resort. I'm not disagreeing that Jayjg has not edited neutrally at times, but I think the same, based on my experience, could be said of just about anyone caught up in a dispute with the likes of someone like HistoryBuffer. Hitting Jayjg with the same penalty - when I challenge anyone to find behaviour from him that is anywhere near as incendiary, repeated and without the addition of good faith edits - that is clearly illustrated in HistoryBuffer's own contributions. In this way, if this decision passes, it may well be the most heavy-handed decision I've ever seen from this Committee.

As to my bringing up Lance6Wins, I understand that the Committee doesn't necessarily follow precedent, which is why I didn't state that. It just seems a little strange if one punishment is being applied to one editor, and then a week after that case is closed, someone from the other end of the ideological spectrum who is arguably worse gets a more lenient sentence. Ambi 01:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neither of them is being punished. Both of them are simply required to edit one discrete fact at a time and provide a reference. A requirement which Jayjg will easily meet while HistoryBuffEr will probably have trouble with. The types of rewrites of the entire article HistoryBuffEr does can only be met with reversions. Discrete facts may or may not be acceptable additions, that is they may add a different point of view, but will not necessarily change the tone of the entire article. The Lance6Wins decision is under re-examination by Jimbo and the commitee. Fred Bauder 04:43, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

However see the proposed remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Proposed decision, a similar case where you will see we still following the Lance6wins precedent. Let's wait and see whether other arbitrators will consider what I have proposed. Otherwise this would probably fall back to that precedent. Fred Bauder 22:17, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Decision Proposal

Even though Jayjg clearly would have less difficulty than HistoryBuffEr adhering to these decisions since he already operates this way (with sources and small insertions at a time), I believe to impose severe restrictions on Jayjg for one year would be un-just, defamatory, and unwarranted.

These two have not equally violated POV. For Jayjg, the only finding against him is that he removed the “Totally Disputed” notice from an article after HistoryBuffEr who placed it there refused to discuss in the Talk page what exactly he disputed. And as for the edit war with Alberuni, Jayjg is very good about discussion in Talk. See what Mustafaa, respected by all parties (he had 41 supporters and 0 opposers for adminship)[1], said to Alberuni about edit wars with Jayjg (quoting from Alberuni's talk page):

Look, Alberuni, I sympathise with your intentions, and I've had to fight ignorant pro-Zionist or anti-Muslim editors before. But the fact is that you simply don't engage your opponents most of the time, and add comments guaranteed to fan edit wars. I can understand you getting into edit wars with bigots like "Pename" or some others that I won't name just yet, but it is entirely possible to calmly and rationally discuss edits with people like Jayjg or Zora, even when their POV is diametrically opposed to yours or mine, and it is your own highly emotional editing methods that seem to be the main cause of those edit wars' continuation. - Mustafaa 03:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) [2]

Surely Jayjg's “offense” isn’t worthy of a one-year restriction. I don’t think HB and Jayjg should be lumped together, at least the vote on this should be separate for each one. --MPerel 18:05, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable. As mentioned earlier, Jayjg already somewhat does this (though not for each edit), and HistoryBuffEr will be banned for 60 days.--Josiah 16:51, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

The HB violations clearly outweigh those by Jayjg. I am appalled by the proposal to put them on the same bench. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair and balanced

Is this supposed to be a "fair and balanced" decision:

• IZAK is banned for 10 days [3] for egregious and unwarranted smears of anti-Semitism against at least 5 users, but HistoryBuffEr is banned for 30 days for "discourtesies", such as: "Mom didn't get you a dictionary yet?".
• In addition, HistoryBuffEr is banned for 30 days for "personal attacks", while Jayjg who repeatedly called editors vandals and even today bullies all to submit to his approval is not banned at all.
• HistoryBuffEr is banned for 2 x 30 days for decorum, while Jayjg, who repeatedly abused sysop privileges gets no penalty whatsoever.
• Jayjg, who has a long history of inserting/defending extremist POV, and is leading the group which blocks NPOV from any and all of "their" articles, is treated equally in respect to editing ban as HistoryBuffEr, who has a record of mostly NPOV editing with solid references. Has anyone even looked at the evidence of POV editing for both parties?

I could go on, but this is more than enough for me. HistoryBuffEr 03:53, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Jayjg's not the witch here.Dr Zen 12:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Voting has begun?

I think it is rather disturbing that the case has apparently been moved into the "Voting" stage. To begin with, many older cases, including many with no action, have not moved into voting yet. As well, it is clear that the evidence page is still active; I haven't even started my response to HistoryBuffEr, and HistoryBuffEr has in at least a couple of places left "More to come..." statements. Why was this case moved along so precipitously? While I do not object to moving the case along, it would only be reasonable to warn the participants so they could finish their cases before reading the evidence and voting began. Jayjg 20:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I second this request. HistoryBuffEr 22:11, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Request for recusal

• The fact that Fred Bauder and James F. have voted without waiting for Jayjg to respond to evidence suggests that they may not be inclined towards fairness and full justice.
• Comparison of their votes to the evidence here and votes in a similar case (see comment "Fair and balanced?" above) suggests that Fred Bauder and James F. may not be impartial arbiters in this case.

I respectfully ask both Fred Bauder and James F. to recuse themselves from this case. HistoryBuffEr 22:11, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

No basis exists for my recusal. Fred Bauder 22:38, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Recusal would have to be based on prior interactions, not on unfavorable rulings in this case. Fred Bauder 22:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

What about the apparent bias displayed here and elsewhere:

• Your admitted bias in treating violations of decorum as far more serious than sysop abuse.
• Your POV bias in treating far more serious personal attacks much more leniently in another case [4].
• Your presentation of unproven "sock puppet" speculations as proven POV edits, because you can't find solid evidence of HistoryBuffEr's POV edits.
• Your submission of measly one case of Jayjg's POV notice removal (and a ref to another case), ignoring numerous examples of Jayjgs POV edits in evidence. This presents hundreds of Jayjg's POV edits as equal in scale to HistoryBuffEr's.
• Your complete omission of NPOV editing by HistoryBuffEr, despite many examples (see also [5]).
• Your presentation of "Failure to discuss controversial edits" by HistoryBuffEr, while completely omitting much more numerous failures to discuss controversial edits by Jayjg. Worse yet, there is not a single case in evidence of Jayjg submitting his controversial edits to discussion, while there is plenty of evidence of HistoryBuffEr doing just that.
• Your submission of "personal attacks" by HistoryBuffEr, while completely omitting "persoanl attacks" by Jayjg.
• Your presentation of "Discourtesy" by HistoryBuffEr, while completely omitting much more numerous discourtesies by Jayjg.
• Your complete omission of numerous cases of Jayjg's abuse of sysop privileges.

If you need more, feel free to ask.

HistoryBuffEr 00:27, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I would like to request that the 30 day block not be used. Both editors have valuable contributions for Wikipedia. It would be inadvisable to stop them from editing Arab-Israeli articles, and it would be also not advisable to block them for 30 days from edits. I feel that this will just inflame matters. Instead, I would like arbcom to find the following before taking those sort of actions:

1. Any reverts done must have a brief summary in the talk page for each revert, unless it is a clear case of vandalism. "Vandalism" will not include POV edits. Vandalism will be things like swearing in the article, random text added or patent nonsense added. I will request this because I've noticed use of the edit summary for discussion, which is not its purpose.
2. Once the 3rd revert occurs both parties must tell another admin so that we can see if they can work things out (whether that be through page locking, a block of the page, or a judicious edit).
3. The use of language by both parties must be modified somewhat. When provoked, we would ask them to take a small break and come back. We ask that they don't incite conflict further by responding in a personal way to perceieved attacks. We recognise that this can be difficult to do at times, but continuous attacks will result in some form of forced mediation.
4. If reverts are made, both parties must place the word "Revert" at the start of the edit summary. This will make it clearer that they are reverting.
5. If reverts are made, additional changes must not be made in the revert itself. Reverts must be made and then additional edits must be made in the reverted copy. When revert+edits were made many people missed this fact and assumed that a straight reversion had been made. In the confusion edits were lost several times. I propose this decision be made to stop this sort of confusion amongst other editors, and to also assist administrators in enforcing the three revert rule.

Ta bu shi da yu 11:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are trying to deal with the revert issue, which isn't even addressed by this proposed decision. The proposed 30 day block is for incivility, and is quite light compared to RK's recent four month ban for a lesser degree of incivility. Jayjg 18:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Point 3: "The use of language by both parties must be modified somewhat. When provoked, we would ask them to take a small break and come back. We ask that they don't incite conflict further by responding in a personal way to perceieved attacks. We recognise that this can be difficult to do at times, but continuous attacks will result in some form of forced mediation." Don't know what happened with RK, I am only commenting on this arbitration. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand, and I think your advice is good, but frankly there is little, if anything, in my language that requires modification, which cannot be said for HistoryBuffEr. Continuing egregious violations of Wikipedia's civility policies do require some serious consequences, or we might as well just delete the policy pages. Jayjg 00:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lesser degree of incivility by RK?

Here is only part of RK's "higher degree of civility" [6]:

1. 02:45, 3 Sep 2004 Talk:Anti-Defamation League (Cadr is clearly pushing grossly anti-Semitic views.)
2. 02:43, 3 Sep 2004 Anti-Defamation League (ADL hater on the loose?)
3. 02:41, 3 Sep 2004 Talk:Anti-Defamation League (Revert anti-Semitic edits by Cadr. He has gove over-the-edge by saying that the word "anti-Semitic" is inherently POV.)
4. 21:39, 31 Aug 2004 Talk:Jew (Removing anti-Semitic Nazi attacks by an admitted anti-Semite. These people are out of control.)
5. 14:13, 11 Aug 2004 Anti-Defamation League (Removing blatant, old-fashioned Jew-baiting, using Ariel Sharon's quote as a reason to make an attack on all Jews. For shame.)
6. 14:01, 11 Aug 2004 The Passion of the Christ (Revert deliberate lies by Jayjg. Sysops, please be cautious of people lying about the Jewish community.)
7. 16:27, 5 Aug 2004 Relationship between segments of Judaism (Revert due to vandalism. Jayjg is inserting deliberate lies about both Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews in order to slander them. This issue is now up for Sysop action.)
8. 16:24, 5 Aug 2004 Relationship between segments of Judaism (Jayjg, I cannot let you replace facts with ultra-Orthodox paranoid and propaganda.)
9. 00:01, 4 Aug 2004 Relationship between segments of Judaism (VANDALISM ALERT. Jayjg is writing totally false hatespeech about Reform Jews. He also is making accusations about edits which no one is even making. Hatred of non-Orthodox Jews does not justify fraud)
10. 23:55, 3 Aug 2004 Talk:Relationship between segments of Judaism (Lengthy quotes, balance - Response to Jayjg, who is printing hatespeech about non-Orthodox Jews, and is lying about words that I simply never wrote.)
11. 23:43, 3 Aug 2004 Relationship between segments of Judaism (Jayjg, stop forging quotes from Reform Jews at once. Your attempts to fraudulent positions border on vandalism. Cut it out.)
12. 14:04, 3 Aug 2004 Relationship between segments of Judaism (Reform views - Jayjyg, stop your hateful liesa bout Reform Jews. How dare you try to incite hatred against Jews. We will have to remove your false claims/)
13. 17:21, 27 Jul 2004 Islamophobia (See discussion. John Ball is reverting all content not written by him, and pursing an anti-Jewish bias to push his political beliefs.)
14. 04:35, 18 Jul 2004 Talk:Zionism (Please ignore Bk0's anti-Semitic Bible conspiracy theories.)
15. 04:19, 18 Jul 2004 Talk:Israel Shahak (Sysops, please stop Zero's ad homenim personal attacks and anti-Semitic Jew bashing.)
16. 03:01, 18 Jul 2004 Talk:Israel Shahak (Responding to Dan's anti-Semitic canards)
17. 19:42, 13 Jul 2004 Anti-Semitism (VANDALISM ALERT. Simonides is out of control. He keeps deleting other people's text, and inserting Muslim and Christian apologetics.)
18. 13:31, 12 Jul 2004 Talk:Anti-Zionism (More strawman attacks on Jews. This is turning into classic Jew-baiting. Stop this.)
19. 00:58, 3 Jul 2004 Talk:Anti-Semitism (Why is this article still protected? The only problem is Simonides and his anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.)
20. 00:58, 24 Jun 2004 Talk:Anti-Semitism (About the clearly anti-Semitic vandalism by Simonides.)
21. 00:54, 24 Jun 2004 Anti-Semitism (Sysops, an anti-semite has started a revert edit war, and keeps deleting sources which back up claims in this article.)
22. 00:50, 24 Jun 2004 Anti-Semitism (Adding more sources. Simonides, stop your thinly veiled anti-Semitism. Your anti-Jewish agenda on Wikipedia is a violation of our NPOV policy. Also, stop deleting sources.)
23. 15:45, 12 Apr 2004 Talk:Palestinian views of the peace process (Refuting bald-faced lies and personal attacks. Sysops, PLEASE stop the pro-Arab Israel bashing and personal attacks)
24. 15:10, 12 Apr 2004 Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 8 (Chicago, PLEASE check the Wiki-En list., MNH claims to be a Nazi, and has a history of making threats. Don't fall for his shtick. This is no joke.)
25. 14:36, 12 Apr 2004 Palestinian views of the peace process (VANDALISM ALERT. Martin has been warned about his one man campaign of censorship. Please speak to him about his non-stop vandalism and hatred of Israel.)
26. 18:11, 27 Mar 2004 Talk:Palestinian views of the peace process (Please help stop Martin's anti-Israeli vandalism. He has no right to unilaterally censor information to push his Arab cause.)
27. 14:02, 25 Jan 2004 Palestinian views of the peace process (Removing vast amount of censorship by Martin Harper. (Advocated of anti-Semitic postings should not be censoring this article.))
28. 14:17, 11 Jan 2004 Palestinian views of the peace process (Reverting censorship based on hatred of Israel. Action on the Wiki-En list has been taken. Censoring user has a long history of personal attacks.)
29. 14:15, 11 Jan 2004 Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Reverting anti-Israeli, left-wing censorship and POV violations. Martin, your actions have been reported.)
30. 13:49, 11 Jan 2004 Palestinian views of the peace process (Reverting censorship based on hatred of Israel. Action on the Wiki-En list has been taken. Censoring user has a long history of personal attacks.)
31. 01:12, 11 Jan 2004 User talk:RK (fuck you sick Nazi bastards - repeated insults from Martine deleted. Martins' behavior is spiraling out of control. Response to Adam Carr's attack on me.)
32. 15:18, 2 Jan 2004 History of anti-Semitism (Um, some out and out Jew-haters are calling us "Jewish supremacists" in the comment lines. We shouldn't allow edits on this article from anti-Semites.)
33. 15:28, 6 Dec 2003 Peter Singer (Danny, get control over youself. We are talking about fucking animals and murdering babies and old people. Are your edits a joke, or are you serious...?)
34. 02:27, 25 Nov 2003 Talk:Zionism (Zeroooo, please stop slanderous lies. Control your rage. I will alert Sysops to your violation of Wikipedia protocol and libel.)
35. 14:32, 10 Oct 2003 User talk:RK (Toby Bartels is a bald faced liar. That's just pathetic,)
36. 23:54, 1 Oct 2003 Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (While you are harassing me and slandering Catholics and Jews, this page will be blanked. What is so hard to understand about this?)
37. 23:43, 1 Oct 2003 Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (While censorship, Jew-baiting and Catholic bashing is being practiced, this page WILL be blanked.)
38. 23:42, 1 Oct 2003 Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (Removing Stevertigo's offtopic rants about the USA and the State of Israel. His hatred of Israel has nothing to do with Christian-Jewish relations)
39. 21:22, 1 Oct 2003 User talk:RK (reverting vandalism by Martin. Stop the Jew-baiting. Your actions have been reported.)
40. 16:41, 1 Oct 2003 User talk:RK (Stop writing on my page, Stevertigo and Martin. Your anti-Semitic harassment has been noted, and sent to the WikiEn list. )
41. 16:17, 1 Oct 2003 Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (WARNING. Anti-Semitic racists have vandalized this page and protected it.)
42. 14:35, 1 Oct 2003 Christian-Jewish reconciliation (Removing bald-faced anti-Semitic lie. Guys, these attacks on Jews are NOT funny.)
43. 13:55, 1 Oct 2003 Christian-Jewish reconciliation (Sysop alert. Stevertigo and Martin and newuser are adding anti-Semitic rants, with no basis in facts, solely to attack Jews. )
44. 00:24, 1 Oct 2003 Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation ( Please stop your anti-Semitic Jew-bating. I really have enough of your hatred and contempt towards Jews.)
45. 00:20, 1 Oct 2003 Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (VANDALISM ALERT. Martin (MyRedDice) is editing out comments he doesn't like. He also is encouraging anti-Catholic bashing and anti-Semitic slander.)
46. 00:09, 1 Oct 2003 User talk:RK (Stevertigo, stop your outrageous anti-Semitic slander.)
47. 20:51, 30 Sep 2003 Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (Responding to anti-Semitic distribe and anti-Catholic pompous arrogance.)
48. 23:22, 25 Sep 2003 Mel Gibson (Reverting vandalism by a clearly anti-Semitic user. He claims that it is "racist" to describe Mel Gibson's beliefs, and the beliefs of his father. )
49. 20:49, 18 Sep 2003 Modern Islamic philosophy (Removing anti-American and anti-Jewish diatribes by our anonymous idiot, who is trying to push his POV on all Islam related articles. For shame.)
50. 00:11, 24 Aug 2003 Wikipedia:Community case RK (Seriously, I truly believe that we are dealing with mentally ill people. Stop this sick, sick harassment and hatespeech. You really do need to see a therapist.)
51. 23:59, 23 Aug 2003 Wikipedia:Community case RK (Six pages about banning are not enough? Fuck off, you sicko.)
52. 23:50, 23 Aug 2003 Wikipedia:Community case RK (The fact that there are now six pages about banning me is a clear sign of very sick, violent hatred. EoT, Martin, everyone else..see a fucking therapist. There is something seriously wrong with you.)
53. 19:11, 21 Aug 2003 Talk:Creationism/Archive 6 (Response to Netesq's baldfaced fabrications, and fundamentalist deceptive math tricks. LOL!)
54. 16:42, 20 Aug 2003 Wikipedia:Community case RK (This page is not about RK. It was a series of hatespeech, lies and slander from EntMootsofTrolls, who honestly has some sort of mental illness. His diatribes have been movedback to his page,.)
55. 02:36, 13 Aug 2003 Zionism and racism (What about this is contested and NPOV disputed? Unless you admit that you are a Jew-hating antisemite, what is to fear from studying history?)
56. 02:32, 13 Aug 2003 Wikipedia:Community case RK (Please stop the blatant anti-Semites from banning me for the sin of discussing history. This non-stop and bald-faced anti-Semitism is horrific. )
57. 01:45, 8 Aug 2003 User talk:172 (Restoring slander, abuse and lies. 172 can try to ban me, if he wishes. But man, his outrageous anger is just really out of control.)
58. 15:19, 7 Aug 2003 User talk:RK (I am shocked to see you so stupid, and so confused. You have thus shot your own credibility in the foot. Goodbye, 172)
59. 23:08, 6 Aug 2003 Talk:Qibya massacre (Murdering ONLY 24 Jews is not enough to constitute terrorism? By what Nazi like standards do you operate? Please cease and desist in your hatespeech.)
60. 14:48, 6 Aug 2003 User talk:RK (172, the problem is that Jtdirl labels most Jews and many Christians as racist bigots; so what does this tell you?)
61. 14:38, 3 Jul 2003 Talk:Anti-Semitism (Sysops, please awar: MArtin (MyRedDice) is censoring and deleting other user's Talk discussion. I am concerned about his attempt to hide his repeated acts of Jew-baiting.)
62. ....
63. 02:38, 27 Aug 2004 Talk:Jew (Can we ban the Nazi troll? It is a violation of Wikipedia policy for such abuse to continue.)
64. 22:30, 26 Aug 2004 Talk:Jew (NO PERSONAL ATTACKS POLICY. Removing more Nazi hatespeech against Jews. Sysops, please ban this person.)
65. 00:25, 25 Jun 2004 Talk:Zionism (ZW must be immediately banned. This is no joke. Legal action may need to be taken. NO JOKE.)
66. 01:11, 2 Dec 2003 Talk:Dating the Bible ( stupid clueless fuck ?!?! Please ban this user.)
67. 23:31, 1 Sep 2003 Talk:Near sacrifice of Isaac (Rednblu admits rabidly anti-Semitic views: He believes that Jews are willing to sacrifice (murder) gentiles. Good job! Saves us the time of spending weeks trying to ban you.)
68. 16:02, 21 Aug 2003 User:EntmootsOfTrolls/Ban RK (VANDALISM ALERT. Seriously, Sysops. This man appears to be mentally ill; this is no joke. Please ban him. He is totally out of control, and is raving like a demented lunatic. I )
69. 02:34, 13 Aug 2003 Talk:Zionism and racism (The above is a classic case of bald-faced anti-Semitism. Wiki Sysops, please ban this blatant and open antisemite. )
70. ...

(Posted by: HistoryBuffEr 07:57, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC))

More fairness

Fred Bauder has now added new charges based on unproven speculations by the out-of-control Viriditas that all posts from a shared IP belong to HistoryBuffEr.

Please reply to my request for recusal above. HistoryBuffEr 21:01, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

I think this whole issue can be resolved by a developer checking the IP addresses the contributions were posted from and compare to posts by HistoryBuffEr around the same time. IMO, I think this is a bit of a storm in a teacup. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please see Occam's Razor. The sock puppet hypothesis contains the least number of unproven assumptions. The 66.93.166.174 address may very well be a shared or pooled, dial-up account, however it is my informed opinion that all of the posts in question by 66.93.166.174 have been made by HistoryBuffEr. Please address this point. A developer is not needed in this instance, since HistoryBuffEr has admitted to posting with this IP address. [7]. The evidence of HistoryBuffEr posting as this IP is also here: [8] [9] [10] [11] .The point under discussion is why HistoryBuffEr continues to claim that some of the posts made by 66.93.166.174 were not authored by him. Those posts were made by a person who writes like HistoryBuffEr, uses the same vocabulary as HistoryBuffEr, and posts wholesale replacement of articles like HistoryBuffEr. Fred Bauder has referenced these posts in this case, and yet, HistoryBuffEr continues to call these allegations, "unproven speculations". I find this quite strange. Please address this point as well. Both of these points have nothing to do with the need for a developer, but the need to carefully review the posts in question. Further, there is a great deal more evidence (in progress on the evidence page) that HistoryBuffEr is using sock puppets, including other primary, registered accounts. If true, this would cast doubt on his repeated claims that his first post to Wikipedia was on September 14, 2004. If you accept the sock puppet hypothesis, then we already know his claim is false, as 66.93.166.174 made his first post on September 13, 2004. This is not a storm in a teacup, but in my opinion, the tip of the iceberg. If you are sincerely interested in helping reslove this problem, then a developer should be asked to cull the IP addresses from suspected and alleged HistoryBuffEr accounts, like Cab88, BillGoldberg, Goldberg, General_bush, and FamilyFord car4less. There are many more accounts and IPs under consideration, but that would be a good start. --Viriditas 22:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ummm... sorry, in what way does HistoryBuffEr admit to posting from that IP address in [12]? All this is still totally unsubstantiated. My post on the arbcom evidence page shows how easily an anonymous user could impersonate HistoryBuffEr to cause him problems. HistoryBuffEr might have caused problems with other areas of his editing, but until I can get firm proof that he has used the IP address in question for editing as a "sock puppet" (since when have anonymous users been sock puppets?!) then I feel that this evidence is totally unwarranted and uncalled for. Perhaps you could read assume good faith? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please read the link again. HistoryBuffEr has admitted to posting from 66.93.166.174, specifically when he wrote: You'll see, for example, that I made posts without logging on yesterday, only to object to the block, because I could not post while logged on. I signed all those posts with my user-id. [13]. Further evidence is here: [14] [15] [16] [17] There is no evidence of impersonation, or other users using that IP, and the evidence is quite clear. As for 66.93.166.174 being a sock puppet, that is another issue altogether, which I will explain in detail in this response and in the evidence section tonight. In the interim, I suggest you read and understand, Occam's Razor. There is a great deal of difference between assuming good faith and being uncritically gullible. The edits in question by 66.93.166.174 belong to HistoryBuffEr, and that is an informed opinion based on reviewing his edits, comparing and contrasting the style and vocabulary of 66.93.166.174, and taking into account HistoryBuffEr's admitted complicity.--Viriditas 07:09, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Editing by HistoryBuffEr as 66.93.166.174

Comment from non-committee member: this is totally unfair and proves nothing. I'm (Ta bu shi da yu) not a huge fan of HistoryBuffEr, but I find this to be totally unnecessary unless it can be proven by a developer who has access to IP addresses associated with edits. I ask you to consider that HistoryBuffEr is pretty unpopular in some quarters and there is nothing stopping other users from impersonating him from an anonymous IP address. HistoryBuffEr 05:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that non-committe members could edit this page. (Moved, see [18]) I don't understand why you have posted this comment since your objection has already been answered on the appropriate discussion page. The IP in question is already linked to HistoryBuffEr, and therefore, there is no need for a developer to link him to it (The identifying refs are on the discussion page and at the bottom of this response). Additionally, the edits in question are standard HistoryBuffEr edits and do not deviate from his edit history in any way. Please read and understand Occam's Razor. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone has impersonated HistoryBuffEr at any time, nor are the edits in question malicious or defamatory. The only reason HistoryBuffEr has denied making the edit in question (and not other edits by the same IP) is because there is one edit in particular that demonstrates his dishonesty: he claimed to be a new user, when he wasn't - and that makes him a sock puppet. Lastly, why do you, Ta bu shi da yu, sign your comment with HistoryBuffEr's name? Anyone can read the history of the page and see that you made the edit, just as anyone can read the edits by 66.93.166.174 and see that he has posted as HistoryBuffEr, more recently to evade Quadell's ban. Even if you gave HistoryBuffEr your password and allowed him to use your account to make that edit as an "example", the both of you would still be duplicitous. The facts are crystal-clear: A developer is not necessarily required in this instance since HistoryBuffEr has already admitted to posting from 66.93.166.174: You'll see, for example, that I made posts without logging on yesterday, only to object to the block, because I could not post while logged on. I signed all those posts with my user-id. [19]. Further evidence is here: [20] [21] [22] [23] There is no evidence of impersonation, or other users using that IP, nor is there any evidence that the IP in question has open proxy ports, so I fail to see your point. --Viriditas 06:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My signing as HistoryBuffEr highlights my point exactly. If I can do it and impersonate him (I admittedly was lazy and used two edits) but, how do you know whether he has been impersonated by others or not? Seriously, it's not hard to impersonate his style. And I'm editing this page because I see no reason why the arbcom has decided to bring this into consideration without firm evidence! Really, it's quite silly. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you think that HistoryBuffEr has been impersonated, then you have the burden of proof. I have examined all 1,148 of his edits. To date, he has never expressed any complaint about being impersonated, nor has any comment on any talk page been associated or suspected of being an impersonation, and yes, I have read them all. You are failing to use Occam's Razor. Additionally, you have not described any instance where an alleged impersonation may have taken place. Your objection (while in good faith) is a red herring. Contrary to what you claim, the evidence is quite firm, and you should take this discussion to the appropriate discussion page (You may copy and paste these comments over there if you like). This page should be used for proposed decisions by the arbitrators. --Viriditas 06:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Moved, see [24])

More Fred Bauder

Thanks, Fred Bauder. In reply to my reasonable and substantiated objections above [25], you have:

• Removed your vote [26] for editing ban which applies equally to both parties;
• Added a new ban "Violation of editing restrictions" to apply only to HistoryBuffEr;
• Added a new item "Original research by HistoryBuffEr" [27], instead of removing the speculative items "Editing by HistoryBuffEr as 66.93.166.174" and "Failure to discuss controversial edits", currently disputed by two users;
• Failed to add any of the numerous and undisputed items showing:

• Jayjg's incivility,
• Jayjg's POV editing,
• Jayjg's failure to discuss controversial edits,
• Jayjg's abuses of sysop privileges.

• ... etc.

These actions clearly remove any doubt about your strong bias against me and in favor of Jayjg.

Moreover, your vindictive action in response to reasonable objections suggests that your continued presiding over this case could undermine credibility of any decision reached. I repeat my call for your recusal. HistoryBuffEr 18:17, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

I'll get around to Jayjg, but the more I look at the evidence regarding you the less impressed I get. I would like to see a balance of editors in this area, but going hog wild as you have is not acceptable. Fred Bauder 18:37, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I have nothing to worry about if my edits are fairly compared to Jayjg's voluminous history of organized POV pushing and sysop abuse.

To make it perfectly clear: my concern is not bans imposed against me, but the fairness of decision.

I promise to fully accept any ban on me, even an indefinite one, as long as it is fair compared to other cases, and as long as Jayjg is also banned for his violations.

However, the proposed decisions currently appear far from promising in the fairness department.

HistoryBuffEr 20:26, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean by "fairness". The Committee's job is to prevent damage done to the Wikipedia through internal action by the editors; it is not to punish people for past mis-deeds, but to attempt to correct the workflow to prevent such things happening again. If we ban someone, it is because we (regretfully) see no alternative means of preventing said damage. If we need to ban 20% of the editors, so be it - we do not judge people on the views they hold, but upon the manner of their conduct and our belief in their susceptibility to change this.

If we end up banning (or whatever) one person in a perceived conflict for longer than another, this should not be seen to be because we find the former less at fault, or favour their viewpoint, but because we feel that such a level of counter-action will be sufficient to stem the flow of anti-NPOV work.

James F. (talk) 00:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That fairness means nothing to you speaks volumes, you are essentialy claiming a carte blanche for the ArbCom to do anything they please, with no rules or accountability. And your carpet bombing approach is more likely to destroy than preserve the commnunity. HistoryBuffEr 01:24, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

Lovely invective. That it means nothing in this context, however, and that the Arbitration Committee has, within limits, carte blanche through the Arbitration Policy, yet more so, has been repeatedly noted. "Carpet bombing" the decisions may or may not be, but we will not change our mind through your pleading for fairness, much rather constructive comments as to the future.

James F. (talk) 03:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Temporary ban

Does that include Talk: pages? User talk: pages? VfDs and related pages? Why, for example, is the ban not restricted to articles relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict? Also, how long would this "temporary" ban last; several weeks? 2 or 3 months? Finally, on what is this ban based? Jayjg 21:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr seems to be too busy to get his evidence in order. Fred Bauder 22:16, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Um, OK, but I'm not. I've already contributed some, and anticipate completion by the end of the weekend, if not sooner. Jayjg 00:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Evidence phase complete?

It appears that the evidence phase of the Arbitration is complete. Would this be the time to move the case into the Voting phase? Jayjg 21:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Happy New ArbCom

The good news is that the new AC is ready to roll. The bad news is that some are apparently too eager.

• Unlike Ambi, who wisely asked and recused herself, Ben starts the new year on the wrong foot of neutrality. This should have been obvious: Neutrality is explicitly named in evidence as a player on Jayjg's POV pushing team and should recuse himself.
• David Gerard, among other things, stated that "[Jayjg]'s been acting in an exemplary fashion", appears to be biased in favor of Jayjg and should consider recusing himself, too.
• My well substantiated request for recusal of Fred Bauder is still outstanding.

There'll be plenty of impartial arbs left to vote.

Another issue is the votes of the departed AC James F. and what constitutes voting majority now. Most proposed decisions were endorsed by only 2 of 7 previous arbs. Carrying over the 2 votes but not carrying over the total number of arbs does not look right. HistoryBuffEr 22:51, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Request for summary of evidence?

Item 19. Request for summary of evidence?

What is this "summary of evidence" the arbitrators are asking for, and insisting I haven't provided? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Proposed_decision#Request_for_summary_of_evidence As far as I can tell I've provided more than one. Is there an example somewhere? It's certainly not on the new evidence page format, which was implemented after this arbitration started, and in which format I willingly re-wrote my evidence after completing my evidence in the old format. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence on evidence page?

HistoryBuffEr has refused to present evidence in the requested format on the new evidence page, and at least one arbitrator has stated that he will not consider any evidence not presented on the new evidence page [28]. Can any findings be made based on evidence which is not actually present on the evidence page? Jayjg | (Talk) 23:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Violation of the 3RR?

Regarding my violations of the 3RR, I note that the actual examples given are from not long after I joined Wikipedia, when I was not familiar with all the rules of editing. I also note that these events occurred long before HistoryBuffEr joined Wikipedia and came into conflict with me (and many other editors). Is evidence from long before the conflict in question considered valid, particularly when it is not relevant to the conflict? Jayjg | (Talk) 23:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)