Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Proposed decision

message: I'm a little concerned; the findings so far seem directed mostly to examing content for POV editing; however, the evidence provided relate far more to other policy concerns, particularly persistent edit-warring as a preferred method of interacting, and also WP:POINT, bad faith edits, civility, etc. Jayjg (talk) 4 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)
:Yuber's style was also designed to annoy and get people angry. The POV warring was just his method of doing so. The edit's by revert being the most egregious example.
:See Islamofascism for an example of an article in which Yuber working in concert with other Islamosympathist editors managed to chase everyone else off and eventually get the article clobbered.
:I might also add that Guy Montag is much nicer person, and while he got into edit wars with Yuber, his general style is helpful and useful to the maintenance of Israel related articles. Yuber basicly existed for the purpose of injecting Islamic POV into wikipedia in the most disruptive way possible. Klonimus 22:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Findings so far 

message: Is Yuber's use of open proxies to continue his edit wars of any relevance to the evidence or the decision? Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there evidence of this? Fred Bauder 20:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Yes.  Where would you like me to send it? Jayjg (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User of open proxies 

message: Shouldn't these specify that the administrator should be one who is not involved in editing the article? Otherwise it seems very much open to abuse. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedures for banning 

message: :More evidence of Guy Montag's vicious reverting style can be found on this page, removing comments he doesn't agree with .  Also one needs only too look at the history of the Nablus page to see even more serial reverting (that SV ridiculously claims does not exist):
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
::That's about 25 or so reverts before the article was protected, in about 8 days.  I don't see how any sane person can say this isn't serial reverting.  Also, SV is too involved in this dispute and I don't think her opinion should be taken as totally neutral.  A simple look at the log of Yuber will show that SV has blocked Yuber 3 times  and only one other admin has blocked Yuber besides her.  Although these blocks  may have been completely neutral and warranted, SV is still too involved to be a neutral source. unsigned by User:160.81.221.42
:::If you're going to criticize people and want to be taken seriously, you'd do well to say who you are, because the suspicion is that you're Yuber. As for my neutrality, I share neither the POV of Guy nor Yuber, and dealt with Yuber largely as an admin, not an editor, as the evidence I offered makes clear. Regarding Nablus, you're right: there was too much reverting between Guy and Heraclius over the intro, and if you look at the talk page, you'll see I tried to help negotiate a compromise between them. You'll also see that when I protected the page, I didn't protect it on Guy's version. I therefore don't see that I've displayed biases here that would mean I couldn't be neutral. In any event, the point I'm making is that I feel there has been procedural unfairness in this case, because evidence was gathered against one of the participants by an arbitrator, who wrote the evidence up on a subpage, rather than on the evidence page, so that Guy didn't see it, and therefore couldn't respond to it. That's an argument about the structure of the case, and it stands or falls on its own account. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred, thanks for doing that, and I'm sorry about the extra work it's caused you. My main concern was with the subpage aspect, but it's all transparent now, and Guy can mount a defense if he wants to. Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon comments

message: I want to understand the rationale for the proceedings against me. In my view the commitee has: 
1.) violated Arbitration Committee policy because: 
*a.)I was not listed as a defendent of an RFA, but as one who initiated it.
*b.) No one has submitted a finding of fact against me. 
*c.) An arbitrator has independently submitted findings of fact in a page specifically reserved for User:Yuber, and has inserted where it cannot be found, separately from the Evidence page. 
*d.) The Arbitration committee had submitted evidence against me from parts not included against Yuber in the evidence page. 
*e.) Are in breach of RFA policy which states that 
"'The Arbitrators will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to arbitrate. The Committee sees itself as a judicial body in the style of English Common Law, rather than a proactive team of independent prosecutors."  
*d.) I was not notified of what I see as secret proceedings, independent of the actual case. 
After all of these breaches and initiation of a proceeding that I and others see as illegitmate, the commitee has added another additition to the arbitration proceedings against me for allegedly erasing evidence. The immediate question that comes to mind, is what evidence? I am not a defendent. 
The comment submitted by the anon user was not evidence submitted in a findings of fact before the arbitration members, who were supposed to decide if there is a case against me before it goes to a vote. In fact, it is a case against Yuber, a case which I initiated and submitted droves of evidence to support my position. The evidence was so overwhelming against Yuber that 7 arbitration members unanimously decided to enact an injuction against him editing, and removed a 24 hour wait period, something reserved for exceptional cases. 
The "evidence" did not go before a finding of fact, nor was it erased in the article listed as Evidence against me, but in a talk page, where an anonymous user tried to submit false information in the middle of discussion, which I consider to be a personal attack against me. 
Guy Montag 17:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification from the Committee

message: I want to understand the rationale for the proceedings against me. In my view the commitee has: 
1.) violated Arbitration Committee policy because: 
*a.)I was not listed as a defendent of an RFA, but as one who initiated it.
:You initiated a proceeding against another user, thus becoming a party to the proceeding. Yuber also made a complaint against you, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Statement_by_Yuber. On what basis in fairness or reason could you have the right to make a complaint against him and he have no right to make a complaint against you? Fred Bauder 19:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The following finding of facts concern you: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision#The_Six_Day_War_example, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision#Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_example, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision#Guy_Montag, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision#Use_of_Palestinian and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision#Deletion_of_evidence_by_Guy_Montag. Fred Bauder 19:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence is intended for use with respect to all matters raised by this case. The pages which contain a detailed analysis of the editing history of articles Yuber edited: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Saudi Arabia, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Six Day War, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Cave of the Patriarchs and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Jizya were always linked from the findings of fact which involved those article; however they were linked in this matter detailed analysis. I have now changed the coding so the link is explicit. Fred Bauder 19:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The evidence against you was found in the edit history of the articles which contained the edits Yuber made which you referred us to. Fred Bauder 19:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yuber complained of your behavior in an arbitration request which was accepted by the Arbitration Committee Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Arbitrators.27_opinions_on_hearing_this_matter_.284.2F0.2F0.2F0.29. (On your side Ambi was willing to accept the case only with respect to edits by Yuber). Fred Bauder 19:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I presumed you knew that you would necessarily be involved in the case as you initiated it and Yuber made a complaint against you in the request. At any rate, you have full notice now. Fred Bauder 19:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Guy only got notice of this case, when I mentioned it to him. User:Klonimus
Why would I initiate a case, knowing that even though I submit incredible amounts of evidence against an abusive editor, I would get the same punishment as him for minor alleged infractions? Especially since they have no bearing on why I submitted to arbitrate in the first place? 
I wish to remind the committee that I submitted this case because Yuber was making dozens of articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict unbearable to edit. It became so unbearable that I took it upon myself, at the request and with the cooperation of several other editors, to compile evidence to get him banned from wikipedia, as he was ruining the spirit of cooperation we had before his arrival. I was motivated not because of his pov, but because of his non cooperative behavior, with the fact that he would revert at the slightest rewording of his pov sentences, that he couldn't cooperate with people in talk, and would arrive weeks later to revert an article improved on, to one that fit his world views. He was responsible for vandalism in Qana, where he would revert my entire article because he didn't like the title, to Queantra, where he would copy  pov excepts from UN reports and virtually replace the page with them.
My editorial behavior doesn't even fall near the same catagory as Yuber, because if it did, I would have had an injunction on me too. Yet, I am defending myself because the committee has found that it is just to equate a punishment between the antithesis of a wikipedia editor, Yuber, and me, who is a specialist in his field, which happens to be Jewish Nationalism. Guy Montag 19:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You are a party since a complaint was made against you. You had the right to submit evidence against Yuber as did anyone else. Yuber or anyone else had the right to submit evidence against you. It was put in the wrong place, but in addition to it being evidence it is generally not acceptable to remove others comments from a talk page. Fred Bauder 19:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A formal complaint against Guy Montag was never made, and he was never notified by the ArbCom, that he was subject ot possible sanction. This is Kafkaesque. People being found guilty of crimes which are unknown to them. Klonimus 02:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You made a good case against Yuber which was acted on. However Yuber also made a case against you, which while not as strong is well founded. Fred Bauder 19:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Probation would be much less onerous for you. Fred Bauder 22:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not with Guy getting blocked by arabist admins at the drop of a hat. Think about the implications. Klonimus 02:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't perceive a group of "arabist admins." If they exist and act in an unfair way please bring it to the attention of the community. Fred Bauder 14:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The evidence eventually came to my attention and has now been posted on the /Evidence page. Links which show repeated reversion by use of any reference to a city as "Palestinian" is not false information nor a personal attack against you. It is simply a record of what you have done. Fred Bauder 19:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: Personally, I think that Fred Bauder's personal animus for Guy, prevents him from ajudicating this case in an impartial manner. It's clear to me that Fred disagree's with Guy's politics, and I beleive that this clouds his judgement to a material degree. Fred Bauder should therefore recuse himself.
This is evidenced by his proposals to punish and block Guy, while admiting that the case against Guy is weak and proposing Sanctions against Guy without notifiying him. Fred's interpreting Guy's use of the term  "Conqured terrortories" (standard term used by the israeli goverment) as POV insertion worthy of sanction and then his later backtracking, are to me signs of insupressable bias and ignorance that prevent impartial adjudication by Fred Bauder. Fred Bauder should therefore recuse himself.
Guy has a long history of making useful and positive contributions to wikipedia. Yuber has a long history of distructive edit/revert wars on wikipedia. Whereas no one defends Yuber's egregious actions, several people (Myself and Slim Virgin) have defended Guy and made strong arguments on his behalf. While edit warring is lame, Yuber's use of anon proxies to bypass his blocks so as to continue edit warring are much worse. To draw a false moral equivalence is shameful. Fred Bauder should therefore recuse himself.  Klonimus 06:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Klonimus. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I am just posting here because Slimvirgin has asked me to.  I don't think I have to give my view on this whole matter, as Fred Bauder has certainly shown neutrality in this case, and the requests of Klonimus and Humus Sapiens that he should recuse himself should not be taken seriously. Yuber(talk) 23:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to concur with Fred on this one. When you make an open declaration of POV, then that shows that when an opposition to that POV is presented (such as by Yuber) that there will be hostility. That has been proven through Guy's involvement in the various edit and revert wars. I would highly recommend that Fred should NOT recuse himself from this case. -a.n.o.n.y.m   t 01:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I think Fred Bauder ought to recuse himself 

message: This is all getting very repetitive.  Recently people have been adding loads of IP addresses and usernames onto the evidence page that they think are me.  I guess it's somehow up to me to prove that I'm not any of those addresses.  I have no idea how to do this, and even if I did, it would probably take an amount of time that I simply don't have.  Slimvirgin has just suggested I should admit to being all of the people I am accused of being in order to expedite this case.   I am willing to do this, since it seems the other participant in this case is just stalling for time.  Can one of the arbcom members please give me an idea of what needs to happen in order to close this seemingly never-ending case and get the probation started?Yuber(talk) 01:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not have to admit to anything you did not do. All IP addresses listed against you are not definite, they are only suspect. In the past few days SlimVirgin and I have dismissed several sockpuppets that were initially alleged of being you. The same type of dismissal may come for the IP addresses listed. Also SlimVirgin is not forcing you to admit, she was just asking you. I am sure that someone on the arbcom committee can give you a rough estimate of the time it will take. I am hoping that it will be closed soon and have a fair ruling that is balanced between both participants. - a.n.o.n.y.m   t 01:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point is to edit as Yuber and no other. If you did that we could wrap this up. Most of the uproar is about suspected sockpuppet editing. If you were doing it, quit. If you were not lets put on our thinking caps and see how to establish what was going on. Fred Bauder 01:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your case would have been over by now, Yuber, but then a proposal was made to put Guy on parole too, which meant he had to be given time to mount a defense. The context in which he was editing is relevant, and your alleged use of open proxies was part of that context. I think you should admit to it, because I think you did use some or all of the ones I listed. But you should only admit to things you actually did. If everyone would just be honest, the arbcom could reach a decision. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My specific question to you is did you make these edits? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I admit to being the following people:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
*
* 
* 
*
* 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Yes I did make those edits.  Yes I have violated injunction, been very evil, and so on.  No I will not do it anymore.  Is anything else needed?Yuber(talk) 01:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You're playing games; we've already ruled out some of these IP addresses. My question again is did you make these edits? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so now we have established that I have access to hundreds of different hi-speed proxy servers and the ability to switch locations from Britain to Illinois in a matter of seconds.  I also have the ability to edit 24/7 since I don't need sleep and I have nothing to do during the weekdays (if you check all the edit histories of those IP's).  This effectively means that I can already beat the system since I am such a masterful user of the internet ; ), but anyways...  My final admission of guilt has been given and it has been proven again and again that I am a disruptive editor who requires probation.  The point here is that whether or not I'm a bad editor has no effect on Guy Montag being a bad editor.  He has indeed reverted many times against users such as Mustafaa, Cberlet, Zero0000, and Palmiro, unless you want to prove that they are me as well, and hey, I'll admit to being them, but I doubt they'll be so happy.  Since we have now solved this problem, can we get on with closing this case? Yuber(talk) 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: See this is why Yuber is so annoying to work with, he knows that his stunts piss people off. He's ultimatly not about making serious contributions to WP, but about jerking the chain of people trying to work on articles related to Islam or the Middle east. I think that if fred takes a close look at the evidence he will see that that any editor accused of innaproprate behavior, shows no evidence of it outside the context of dealing with Yuber. Ultimatly Yuber is a subtle troll, and should be dealt with as such. Klonimus 06:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: about the above rant, what are the chances that some anon user turns up and points his/her finger at Yuber. Reasoning points to a user who has a personal bias against Yuber. That user is urged to log in rather than make anonymous comments on an RFA page. Nevertheless it is clear that Yuber's attitude has changed after the arbcom started, perhaps because he felt victimized. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 03:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it's interesting that the only two users Yuber actually listed are Heraclius and Cragmont...I rather doubt he's Cragmont, but Heraclius...are you Yuber?! Tomer TALK 03:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the answer is "no", do you have any idea why Yuber might be trying to make trouble for you as well?  Tomer TALK 03:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, the abovelisted 69.2* IPs are categorically not Yuber, unless he has the ability to pick exactly which IP addy he's going to use...something I rather highly doubt...  Tomer TALK 03:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What must be done in order to close this case?

message: With all due respect, but is this committee out of its gourd? I have done nothing to justify this draconian ban.Guy Montag 02:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Probation does not seem practical in your case. How could any administrator employ it when you (and your supporters) make such a fuss. Fred Bauder 14:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Now your trying to ban me for 3 months

message: Fred, could you say what you mean, please, by "Probation seems unworkable in this case due to solidarity with him by other editors in this area," and "How could any administrator employ [probation] when you (and your supporters) make such a fuss"? It would be helpful if you could say who the supporters are, and what kind of fuss you foresee that might make probation unworkable. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Guy Montag engages in aggressive point of view editing accompanied by edit warring with respect to an article he ought to be placed on probation without a great hue and cry arising. Fred Bauder 12:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You proposed a three-month ban because the probation was unworkable due to the "fuss" from his "supporters". But now both the ban and probation have been upheld, meaning Guy has been punished more than Yuber. In any event, there's no indication that a hue and cry would have arisen, and even if it had, how could it have interfered with probation? I've just left a note for James, so rather than repeat all my points here, I'll just give you the link.  I have a lot of respect for the amount of work you do for the arbcom, Fred, and for the quality of it, but I honestly feel that something went wrong in this case, perhaps because of Guy's strong POV and the fact that it's generally regarded as unacceptable. I think it may have blinded people to the sequence of events and the structure of the case. I don't know whether there's any way to address what happened now that the case has closed. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't want to get into a fight with you about this, Fred, but it seems to me at least, like your attempt to play fair with all sides has put you in the position of giving the aggressor equal play at the gentlemen's table.  Sometimes you have to call a spade what it is.  In this case, sadly, your attempts to play good guy to all sides of the dispute is, in the view of the rest of us, playing you for the fool.  Tomer TALK 12:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Fred Bauder 14:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guy's supporters

message: Is there a place to appeal this decision? This the most blatant example of an unjust decision I have yet seen, and I am not saying this because I am the target of this decision, but because I ended up having a stiffer punishment placed upon me than the original target of the committee.
Guy Montag 00:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Guy on this, it's odd that he gets punished more severly than the abusive user who started this whole process. Klonimus 02:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Appeal