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

message: 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)

message: Is this supposed to be a "fair and balanced" decision:
* IZAK is banned for 10 days  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)
thread_title: Fair and balanced

message: 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:
# 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.
# 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). 
# 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.
# 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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Alternate proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. .  The evidence of HistoryBuffEr posting as this IP is also here:         .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)
replies: text: Ummm... sorry, in what way does HistoryBuffEr admit to posting from that IP address in ? 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)
replies: text: 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. .    Further evidence is here:         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)
thread_title: More fairness

message: 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)
replies: text: I wasn't aware that non-committe members could edit this page. (Moved, see )  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. .    Further evidence is here:         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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Editing by HistoryBuffEr as 66.93.166.174 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Temporary ban 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Evidence phase complete? 

message: 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)</sup> 22:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for summary of evidence? 

message: 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 .    Can any findings be made based on evidence which is not actually present on the evidence page? Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 23:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence on evidence page? 

message: 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)</sup> 23:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of the 3RR?