Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Proposed decision

Could someone from the arbitration committee clarify when the temporary injunction against Yuber begins? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

It already has. →Raul654 00:47, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

In light of [1] and [2] shouldn't [3] be changed? or am I missing something? Tomer ^TALK 05:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dealt with. Thanks Tomer ^TALK 23:54, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here is a recent example: 63.70.62.84 (talk · contribs) Note his regular updates to User:Tranlen. The history of User:Tranlen will also show you a number of other open proxies he has used, including some which have been involved in turning articles into re-directs etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have a couple of concerns about the proposed decision.

1) First, the main problem with Yuber was constant reverting. The content issues were secondary to that, because sometimes his edits seemed okay and sometimes they weren't. The big issue was the frequency with which he reverted to his preferred version. He'd sometimes go on for weeks reverting to the same version, against several other editors' wishes, and often with little or no discussion on talk. The remedy that says: " ... Yuber may be banned from editing any article which relates to Islam or to the Israeli-Paletinian conflict ... This remedy is crafted to permit Yuber continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy," will not solve the problem of Yuber's reverting in those other areas.

2) Evidence against Guy Montag and Jayjg was not presented, so far as I know, and I'm not aware that they were told what the allegations were, or given the chance to mount a defense. It therefore seems unfair that there's a remedy against Guy and a caution against Jayjg. It seems particularly unfair to Jayjg, as he wasn't a party to the dispute, either as a complainant or a defendant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence is at 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. Close analysis of the edits shows a qualitative difference between Guy Montag and Jayjg, including some truly outrageous behavior by Guy Montag [4], but only a failure by Jayjg to rely on reverting more than is reasonable. Fred Bauder 20:44, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Fred. First, the link you provide to an edit of Guy's shows that he objected to this edit: "[The Israeli] settlements have continuously grown in number in the territories, despite being illegal under international law," [5] on the grounds that stating as a fact that the settlements are illegal under international law is to beg the question. While I don't agree with Guy's deletion of that and wouldn't have done it myself, it's a legitimate content dispute and not what I would call "truly outrageous behavior." (He also changed "occupied" to "conquered," which I agree is inappropriate.)

It's a lot more than inappropriate, those are fighting words, sure to inflame. Fred Bauder 21:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

The important issue is that Guy and Jayjg had no chance to review specific allegations made against them, or to mount a defense and invite others to join in that defense. While it can be argued that Guy exposed himself to scrutiny by being a party to the RfAr, Jayjg was not a party to it and filed no evidence. Although there's no punitive action against him, the negative comment will be used by others against him in the future, so he should be given the chance to know what he's accused of, review the diffs, respond, and invite others to respond on his behalf.

Yuber was discouraged and made no attempt to present evidence (I know this from his response to email when I inquired regarding evidence), evidence regarding Guy Montag is from the examples he advanced himself. Jayjg is a member of the Arbitration Committee and has ample notice of this proceeding, but I take your point. Fred Bauder 21:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your point about Jayjg's reliance on reverting: it was hard to know what to do with Yuber other than to revert his reverts. Yuber was a serial reverter and a highly disruptive editor, and there's only so much time people can spend trying to discuss issues with editors who behave like that. I spent a lot of time myself trying to reason with Yuber, including by e-mail. None of it made any difference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

The dispute resolution procedure does not rely on out reverting your opponent. Revert wars are harmful in themselves. Fred Bauder 21:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

1 - Yuber engaged in serial reverting and disgusting conduct the same as the hated user "Enviroknot", but is getting off with a much lighter sentence. Why? Could it be that he's the incestuous pet of certain not-to-be-named-because-then-they-would-call-it-a-personal-attack ArbCom members, or a sockpuppet of one of their buddies?

This case is far from settled as far as voting, but Yuber seems less disruptive than Environknot. As far as his being a pet, we don't usually throw the book at buddies. Fred Bauder 00:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yuber did engage in serial reverting, but in fairness to him, his behavior was nowhere near as bad as Enviroknot's. In fact, there is no comparison. In my experience, Yuber was always civil. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yuber's actions were calculated to annoy and irritate other people. Enviroknot was just crude and rude. Yuber also wasted alot of editing time, fixing his insertions of POV and what not. Enviroknot merely engaged in talk page pig fighting. The net result IMHO, is that Yuber wasted more time, and created more aggravation than Enviroknot.Klonimus 10:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 - I agree with SlimVirgin: the fact that other editors, up to and including Enviroknot, were reverting Yuber cannot be used against them. Yuber was a serial revert warrior, and he pushed the term "content dispute" to the limit in introducing obvious falsehoods on almost every occasion as well as violating multiple WP policies.

Everyone in a revert war is guilty of revert warring. He seems to believe his own propaganda, but he is hardly the only one. Fred Bauder 00:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree, since Yuber tended to reqire a "mop-up" crew to deal with his mix of edits and reverts, which are actions calculated to to evade the 3RR in re pure reverts. I.e Yuber would revert to his version, and then make some edits. And do this 4-6 times. Klonimus 10:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 - It is PATENTLY obvious that the user "EnviroFuck" and Anonymous IP 67.78.186.19 is really Yuber evading their temporary injunction and yet the ArbCom has ignored this.

Possibly he is, but we don't catch everything. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Fred Bauder 00:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yuber is back and evading his ban once more: IP Address 63.70.62.84.

Fred, regarding the point I made above that the main problem with Yuber was reverting, and not content, I've added some more evidence to the evidence page showing his reverting pattern on just one page, regarding just one paragraph. I've also included some diffs showing attempts to reason with him, and I've referred to e-mails he and I exchanged, which I can't reproduce without his permission, but I've quoted one sentence from one of them to give you the flavor of what I was saying to him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yuber is evading his ban again. User:Siegerz

Unless I missed something, Guy Montag does not have a finding of fact against him, but is being placed under sanction?--Tznkai 17:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision#The_Six_Day_War_example and supporting evidence Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Six Day War. Also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision#Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_example and supporting evidence Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Cave of the Patriarchs. Fred Bauder 01:04, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

While Guy's behavior may have gotten out of hand, he is by far a useful contributer to Israel related articles. At most he should be censured by ArbCom a la Jayjg for pig-fighting. Klonimus 05:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed remedy contemplates banning him only from articles where he is causing trouble. Fred Bauder 11:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

He's not causing trouble at the moment, I think he's learned his lesson. Guy isn't disruptive, but some Islamosympathist Admin's who hold contra POV's could easily abuse thier powers in blocking him from articles where he isn't causing trouble and there merely dislink his POV. He's a good and contstructive editor. Klonimus 05:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this? I have absolutely nothing to do with this arbitration. No one initiated a RFA on me, no evidence has been compiled against me, no one has even judged that my non existant case is worthy to go before arbitration. What right do you have to place phantom injunctions on me without notifying me that there

• 1.) A case against me.
• 2.)A complaint that was judged in RFA before going to the arbitration.
• 3.) Evidence entered against me.
• 4.) Giving me a right to defend myself.

This was a clear cut case of an incredibly disruptive editor, with literaly dozens of pages of evidence presented against him, and many other editors acting as witnesses, including 2 administrators, and you choose the road of moral equivalance, as though I caused the same amount of damage as that internet troll an injunction was placed on unanimously? Absolutely scandalous.Guy Montag 08:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you file an arbitration case against another user they may also complain about your behavior. As you yourself made the complaint there is no need to notify you as you can be expected to monitor the case. Evidence of your aggressive POV editing was present in the evidence presented against Yuber whether he presented it himself or not. You had and have the right to comment on the evidence which relates to you. This case is in flux and is by no mean decided. Fred Bauder 12:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

But he did not complain about me. He did not even submit any evidence. The bulk of the work and the case revolved around Yuber's aggressive non cooperative editing, which I documented in literally 40 articles. You choose 3 cases against Yuber out more than 3 dozen to equivicate that I was just as noncooperative with other users, as distruptive, and as aggressive as he was? That is pure baloney. You took things out of context, when Yuber became increasingly intrasingent toward any user who disagreed with him, he would revert the page to his version. He started simultaneous edit wars in 3 pages at the same time. Pages had to be constantly locked because of him. I was but one of the half dozen editors that presented evidence and narration against him in the RFA, and my edits came out because he was regarded as a troll, who needed to be constantly monitored. Giving us both equivalent rulings is tantamount to sentencing me for self defense. Guy Montag 18:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching C-Span the other day and the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations gave a press conference. He spoke of the "conquest" by Israel of the West Bank and of Jerusalem just as you did in your point of view editing. I was surprised and am now a bit more understanding of your point of view because if Israeli leaders use this language it is to be expected that those who support Israel might also. Nevertheless, in an international context, a Wikipedia context, where any Palestinian with internet access has a button before him, "edit this page," inserting such a point of view is very disruptive. Fred Bauder 12:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

You mentioned that "conquered" is a fighting word? On what basis, because I have never heard of it being described as so by any editor. Are you guys even going to discuss this or should I just silently sit through this show trial?Guy Montag

Not only has this been a consensus word for more than 2 years, but the only problems that arrive are from anon trolls who insert pov, and disregard wiki policy. I have had almost no problems with long time editors, Palestinian, Arabist, or Arab, who are aware of wiki policy. He had a problem with it because he was a disruptive non cooperative editor. Guy Montag 18:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He could improve, but so could you, should you chose to. Fred Bauder 02:16, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

I can improve what? You haven't proved a damned thing yet. You mentioned that conquered is a "fighting word". On what basis? And on what basis are you equating the overwhelming vandalism committed by Yuber with my nearly clean record?Guy Montag 02:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a "nearly clean record" but a record of aggressive point of view editing. FYI, the rest of the world, including all experts in international law, considers Israel an occupying power (not that they could have avoided it). Fred Bauder 02:43, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

That is your pov and you are certainly entitled to hold it, but my job is to neutralize wording that would sound as taking a side, which is against npov policies. I have done this in nearly every article I edited, from Greek military junta of 1967-1974 to Qana, I have done nothing more then neutralize pov wording. It is not up to wikipedia to state disputed claims as facts. Not only are you wrong that the rest of the world including all experts in international law consider Israel an occupying power, but you have absolutely no way of proving such an assertion. In fact, there are competing international legal theories and international law does not have a clear cut definition. If it did, there wouldn't be so many international disputes over land claims, from Kashmir to the Falkland Islands. Whether Israel is an "occupying power" is up to the reader to decide, not for us to shove it down their throats with pov wording. Guy Montag 03:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV does not contemplate neutralized wording, but a fair rendition of all significant points of view regarding disputed information. So both the international legal viewpoint and the Israeli viewpoint ought to be fairly represented. Fred Bauder 03:20, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

In no article did I erase viewpoint in disputed information. You show one case, out of context, where Yuber delibereately tried to insert inflammatory information in in places where they do not belong. It is my policy to instead of having duplicated sentences about the international law dispute in several articles to instead link them to International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict.Guy Montag 03:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As it has been pointed out here by various editors, almost everyone's problem with Yuber was not the quality of his edits but his behavior. I've had my share of disagreements with Guy but I've never had a reason to question his good faith and his willingness to seek compromises to make WP better. Based on that, I strongly object to equating these two cases. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a bystander who has seen many of these events unfold, I can say that Guy was just as agressive as Yuber (if not more). Those who agree with his viewpoint will ofcourse beg to differ, and I have nothing against any of them. But one of the more disturbing events was when Guy allied himself with abusive sockpuppet user:Enviroknot (a.k.a a 1000 different names) in order to team up on Yuber and anyone who did not challenge Yuber's view and calling their edits "bad faith" edits or anything along those lines. One only needs to see enviroknot's and his sockpuppets' edit history to see the type of edits he made. Unfortunately allying with enviro in that case was for me a very negative influence on Guy's reputation. Aside from that I have nothing against Guy. On the articles I have worked with Yuber on, I noticed his agression was far less than that of enviroknot/sockpuppets and a few other users. a-n-o-n-y-m 04:03, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have very little to do with enviroknot. I know very little of his case, and the only information to me that mattered was that he could be used to stop Yuber's constant vandalism. After enviro became more belligerent, and even Islamophobic, I ceased all contact with him. As for being aggressive, it is my right, as it is ever wikipedian's right, to push valid information from my pov as long as it follows wiki policy. Guy Montag 05:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy is probation which requires that an administrator find that his editing in a particular article is disruptive. If he disrupts less articles then Yuber the administrators will ban him from fewer articles. If he disrupts no articles, he will be banned from no articles. Fred Bauder 03:41, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is that no evidence has been produced against Guy, and I can see no findings of fact against him. If Yuber had wanted to present evidence, he could have done so, but he chose not to. The other problem I have with it is that only one admin needs to decide that Guy's editing is disruptive, whereas in the recent case against Gabrielsimon, it was decided that three admins had to be involved, so there's an inconsistency right there; yet arguably it's harder to see whether Guy might be POV pushing unreasonably, because you'd have to know something about the mideast conflict to be able to judge that, whereas it was easy to see when Gabriel was being disruptive. Fred, would you reconsider at least that issue: the number of admins that have to be involved? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:27, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Fred's failure to notince this inconsistency, suggests to me a pattern of subtle bias. I don't think Fred would be so concerned with Guy's POV (and even though guy has an obvious POV, so did Yuber. And yuber was disruptive, whereas Guy was not) if he didn't disagree with it. Klonimus 18:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a problem with administrators with relationship to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, indeed with respect to all articles which involved the Middle East and its history and culture. There is a tendency for both sides to engage in systemic point of view editing and administrators are involved in it. We need to work on this, but as many of those involved are valued editors and administrators meat axe remedies are inappropriate. Obviously a degree of sophistication is needed to tell whether Guy Montag is engaged in POV editing and reverting. Trying to insert the Israeli government position into an article (or even Israeli public opinion) is not observable by someone not familiar with those positions. Of course, those viewpoints belong in many articles, but alongside other opinions not to the exclusion of them. The nature of Yuber's editing is much more obvious. So with respect to administrators banning Guy Montag from articles under his prohibition, should it eventually pass, administrators who do this need to know what they are doing (and probably be ready to take a lot of flak). Do I disagree with the rightist nationalist point of view, yes. I sympathize with it, but ultimately disagree. Fred Bauder 19:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For evidence, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision#The_Six_Day_War_example and supporting evidence Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Six Day War. Also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision#Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_example and supporting evidence Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Cave of the Patriarchs. Fred Bauder 01:04, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

The Gabrielsimon case involved a general ban; Wikipedia:Probation involves only bans from a single article. Fred Bauder 15:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Fred. The Six Day war example you wrote up on the proposed decision page shows only that Guy changed territories "occupied" in 1967 to territories "conquered," which can't be a reason for probation, because it's arguably more NPOV to avoid the word "occupation." I'm not arguing that myself, but I'm saying it's arguable, and the Israeli government has used the word "conquered," so it's not a POV term pulled out of thin air.

The other diffs refer to pages written by you i.e. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Six Day War and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Cave of the Patriarchs, which are not listed with the other evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence, or on the proposed decision page. This gets back to the point that there appears to be procedural unfairness here, in that you are, as it were, acting in lieu of Yuber, as a witness as well as an arbitrator, by providing evidence that he chose not to provide; and then writing it up on pages separate from the evidence page, so that Guy, had he been checking the evidence and proposed decision pages, would not have seen it, and so it's evidence that hasn't been challenged or placed in context.

Regarding the issue of only one admin being needed to decide there's disruption in Guy's case, and yet three to decide there's disruption from Gabrielsimon, I take your point about Gabriel's situation involving a general ban and Guy's involving only page restrictions. Even so, specialist knowledge is required to judge whether Guy's edits are justified, and they may seem POV only to certain groups of people, whereas Gabriel's disruption was sadly self-evident. So it's Guy's situation that requires the safeguard of multiple admins, if anyone's does.

Another issue is that Guy might not have brought this case had he thought he'd suffer the same penalty as Yuber on evidence he had no chance to counter. There was a long discussion on the mailing list about this, with some editors saying people were discouraged from approaching the arbcom because of this kind of ruling. Arbcom members replied that, if there were any cases where there seemed to be unfair equivalence, they wanted to hear about them. Well, here is one such case. I think it may stem from a misunderstanding that the problem with Yuber was POV pushing, and so you've made an effort to see who else was doing the same. But the problem with Yuber wasn't primarily POV pushing. He was no worse a POV pusher than several others on the various sides, or barely so. What singled Yuber out was his constant serial reverting. If anyone else had been equally responsible for the chaos that followed, and if the main issue were POV pushing, the trouble would be continuing today, because the same POVs are being pushed on the same pages, but that level of disruption only began when Yuber started editing, and it stopped when he stopped. (I know that EnviroKainKabong caused a lot of trouble too, but Yuber was doing the same reverting thing in the absence of the sockpuppets.)

The issue with Guy's editing is that he asks other editors to be extremely precise in their use of terms, sometimes too precise (e.g. by wanting to avoid the word "occupation," because it isn't legally defined and because one side disputes it). But in his defense, he asks for sources, provides them himself if asked to, is prepared to engage in debate with people so long as they debate intelligently, and when he loses an argument, he does back down and move on, in my experience. Yuber very rarely did any of these things. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerent occupation is defined at http://lawofwar.org/Occupation.htm Fred Bauder 17:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of what exactly counts as an occupation in law is a complex one, Fred. The U.S. claims not to be an occupying power in Iraq, and yet it seems quite clear that it is; and it has also (as I recall) accepted some of the legal responsibilities toward the civilian populace that come with being identified as an occupying power, yet continues to insist the occupation is over. My point was not to agree or disagree with Guy, but just to emphasize that there's more than one POV, though that Israel is an occupying power is the majority POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SV is speaking with a bias as usual. All one needs to do is look at the history of the Nablus page and the Bethlehem page to see evidence of Guy Montag's serial reverting. Even when opposed by multiple users and IP's, Guy Montag still reverts again and again and again. Guy Montag is a vicious, disruptive editor that has shown he is not willing to cooperate on anything and he should be banned as Yuber. He has reverted no less than 10 times on the bethlehem page. He also says that there is no consensus when he doesn't agree, showing that he lacks a fundamental understanding of how wiki works. Even when opposed by multiple editors he will not back down. He is a crusader for the far-right. It would be ludicrous to follow SV's suggestion and not have him banned.

Here is but a short list of a recent edit war over Bethlehem, Guy Montag not a serial reverter, what a ridiculous statement!

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13] unsigned by User:160.81.221.42

And what would my bias be exactly? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, someone is listening. Guy Montag 05:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Montag (talk · contribs) on his user page presents himself as an advocate for "the nationalist right wing in Israel." He has functioned in that role as an editor, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Six Day War and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Cave of the Patriarchs. In the first example he insists on use of "conquered" to describe the status of the West Bank; in the second he insists on use of "Judea" as describing the location of the Cave of the Patriarchs. He does not merely insist that the Right Wing Nationalist viewpoint be included but that the Palestinian viewpoint be replaced by Nationalist language and reverts to that end, often without comment. When he does comment he puts up a smokescreen of removing POV while simultaneously editing in a POV manner. He does pay attention to Jayjg and other editors and, when reined in, accepts compromise, but that is after engaging aggressively in struggles to impose the Nationalist viewpoint. It is this aggressive behavior which forms the basis for my recommendation that he be placed on Wikipedia:Probation. If he is reasonably responsible in his editing I would not expect him to be banned from any articles. If he continues a pattern of aggressive POV editing, probation might bite. Fred Bauder 12:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not happy with these proceedings, I will do my best to show that my views were miscontrued.

• I use neutral wording to describe the status of disputed territory. Describing the territories as "occupied" preempts the so called peace process, is inherently pov in the fact that it takes only the Palestinian narrative and doesn't take in the wider points of view in the world relating to their status. Instead, I use neutral wording to describe Israeli control of the territories, and refer readers to the detailed analysis of it in the international law and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

• I inserted Judea inside the cave of the patriarchs article because it is a Jewish related article, and Judea is the historical land where it was located. Readers have an interest in understanding the wider connection between the importance of the cave of the patriarchs and the geography it is located in. You have also miscontrued how I wrote the sentence. I used "the Judean part of what is collectively known by the world as the West Bank." When Jayjg had an objection, I edited it and immediately reached consensus with him over the sentence. Finally, I do not need to be "reined" in. As far as I am concered, I am an editor in good standing, I discuss issues in talk, I ask for sources, and give them when asked.

• I have rarely inserted pov in articles, instead I had to consistently remove wording that overwhelmingly takes a Palestinian narrative with my understanding of neutral wording. Rarely, has my conversion of blatanly pov words into neutral ones caused any objections. Guy Montag 16:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete any evidence. The proper place to link evidence is the Evidence page against me. This page does not exist. Guy Montag 23:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for saying so, but that's rather Billy Bunter-esque. "I didn't delete any evidence, and anyway, it was on the wrong page".

James F. (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted an anonymous's comments, but you cannot consider it evidence, as including me in this arbitration is dubiously legitimate. I requested arbitration against Yuber, not myself. I think I will email you about my objections to this hearing. Guy Montag 00:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James, Guy shouldn't have deleted the anon's post, but he didn't know he was deleting evidence. There was no case set up against him, the anon posted using an open proxy, and he posted it on a talk page. In my view, it's unfair to suggest Guy was attempting to delete evidence. I'm surprised too that the anon's material has been admitted into evidence, given that this is someone posting using an open proxy, who doesn't want us to know who he is, and doesn't want us to be able to trace his IP address. That suggests to me that it may be Yuber, and that the reason he's hiding his IP address is in case we find out which other accounts he's using to edit with.

The suspicion is that Yuber is now posting as Heraclius. Heraclius is the editor Guy most often reverted, particularly on Nablus, and I believe, Bethlehem, which are now both being considered in evidence against Guy. But if Heraclius is Yuber, he should not have been editing because he was under a tempban, and any editor therefore had the right to revert him. If, knowing this, Yuber is now posting evidence against Guy, using an open proxy, and using Guy's reverting against Heraclius (i.e. Yuber) as evidence, then what we have is a tangled web of shenanigans almost amounting to entrapment, tracing back to Yuber, who refuses to submit any evidence in his own name. If this is what's happening, it's clearly unfair.

Fred has argued persuasively that the context in which Yuber was reverting had to be considered, which is why Guy's editing was examined. Now that Guy's reverting is being looked at, the context in which that was happening must also be considered, and that context is (at least in part) that Guy believed Heraclius was Yuber i.e. a tempbanned editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon comments

More evidence of Guy Montag's vicious reverting style can be found on this page, removing comments he doesn't agree with [14]. 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):

• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• [29]
• [30]
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• [38]

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 [39] 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)[reply]

As to writing up evidence on a subpage, in each instance which concerns a specific article in the proposed findings of fact there is the link to the subpage is the very first words in the finding, "detailed analysis". I created those subpages as the other arbitrators were complaining that I was putting too much detail in the finding of fact. However creating a subpage for detailed analysis does create a question of whether everyone could find it. That is why I then moved to the /workshop page for that sort of detailed analysis. I have added new sections to the proposed decision page and clarified the links. I hope that will be sufficient to put Guy Montag on notice. He has plenty to time to make whatever response he chooses to these findings of fact and proposed remedies, including undertaking to edit in a less disruptive point of view way. Fred Bauder 13:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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." [40]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

He made a counterstatement, but he did not submit an RFA, nor did he submit any evidence. In fact, you stated that he refused to submit evidence. You should have thrown out his complaint then and there. It was a statement by him in a case opened against him, nothing more. If he wanted to make a complaint, he could have initiated an RFA, but he did not. Instead, the committee took it upon themselves to, as I see it, go beyond the scope of this case, and initiate a case against me while violating procedural policy. Guy Montag 19:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• b.) No one has submitted a finding of fact against me.

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)[reply]

These were not submitted in the initial RFA against me, but against Yuber, while the last two are a result of the Committee going beyond their scope of duties and submitting evidence which has nothing to do with Yuber (Palestinian evidence) or would not have been submitted in the first place (deletion of "evidence") if the committee arbitrated in the case of Yuber, instead of arbitrarily including me in the decision.Guy Montag 19:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

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)[reply]

Nontheless, the evidence page overwhelmingly included evidence to be submitted against Yuber, nowhere did it include evidence against me, hence I had no reason to believe that I was a defending party.Guy Montag 19:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Guy's interpretation is resonable. Guy is trying to improve and enhance wikipedia, not play wiki-lawyer games with the ArbCom. Klonimus 02:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• d.) The Arbitration committee had submitted evidence against me from parts not included against Yuber in the evidence page.

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)[reply]

Yet, I had no idea that I was a defendent in a case I made. Guy Montag 19:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 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." [41]

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)[reply]

Then why was I not notified that I was to be included in the arbitration. I was under the impression that only Yuber was to be a part of this case, as he submitted no evidence, and his statements were backed up by no facts, nor were they in a seperate RFA.

Interestingly enough, Ambi, examined the evidence, and found that only Yuber is worthy of arbitration. You and Grunt examined the evidence on June 5th, but did not return later to change your opinion after droves of other evidence was submitted against Yuber. Please explain. Guy Montag 19:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• d.) I was not notified of what I see as secret proceedings, independent of the actual case.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yuber did not make an official complaint, he simply made a counter statement. I always thought that the committee needed evidence to be submitted in an RFA by those who initiate a claim before they accept a case in which the defendent counter accusses (like you had any doubt that he wouldn't) those who initiated the proceedings. Yuber neither submitted any evidence, nor initiated a seperate RFA, as is the norm when two different people accuse each other. Arbitrator Ambi noted that Yuber submitted no evidence against me. Was this overlooked by the committee?Guy Montag 19:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

I believed that the anon user was Yuber, who has an injunction against editing, and that his statements were personal attacks against me, as they are summarized outside context.Guy Montag 19:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

What was his case? Where is the evidence he submitted? Why does an exceptional case that I compiled against Yuber equal in consequence against me, when I have shown that Yuber is overwhelmingly more responsible. You are giving Yuber, who was found disruptive enough to have an injuction placed on him immediately, the same punishment as you are giving me, which I find incredibly unjust. It is to this which I most object.Guy Montag 19:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probation would be much less onerous for you. Fred Bauder 22:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

Guy Montag 17:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Than allow me to put it in context. I found a page that needed factual and npov improvement. Among the actions taken was a general rewrite of the article, as I had in different articles I found lacking.

I reorganized the article and changed it to a standard used in all city articles. Among changes I made, was changing Palestinian city, to large Palestinian population, because it was my view that this would prejudge ownership before the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis was over.

But I also added, geography, demographics, and expanded the history. User Heraclius, who I suspected before and still do that he is a sockpuppet of Yuber, initiated an edit war over my rewrite, as he had in several other places for example Imam al-hams, where I rewrote the pov article. He has already mentioned many times that he does not wish to cooperate with me. After I found that Heraclius would not discuss, the page was locked by Slimvirgin. During the lockdown, I engaged in active discussion with other members to reach a consensus. And a consensus has been reached, and I uphold this consensus. In Bethlehem, I merely expanded the same rationale we used to reach consensus in Nablus and applied it to Bethlehem. Guy Montag 19:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I concur with Klonimus. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Guy Montag has made an open declaration of his intent to edit in a POV way. He has carried out that intent. The findings of fact show that. He has shown absolutely no intent to edit in any other way. While I have never supported the Zionist project I have never opposed it either. Other than the prejudice I harbor toward any disruptive POV editor I don't have any strong feelings about Guy Montag or his point of view. Fred Bauder 13:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such intent. I merely mentioned on my user page that I am here to represent Jewish nationalist thought where it is missing, misapplied or slandered, which in no way constitutes an intent to break wikipedia policy. I made my intentions public as a sign of good will toward other users. I have no reason to edit in any other way, I am professional in my field, that is Jewish nationalism, and it is my right to insert relevent information from my pov into articles as long as they conform to wikipedia policy, and they almost always do.

I am still waiting for an answer as to why Ambi, who after more evidence was presented, accepted arbitration against Yuber only, while you made a preliminary decision on June 5th and did not change it after more evidence was presented.Guy Montag 23:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My specific question to you is did you make these edits? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to being the following people:

• 62.252.0.6 (talk · contribs)
• 62.252.0.7 (talk · contribs)
• 62.253.64.15 (talk · contribs)
• 69.217.199.179 (talk · contribs)
• 212.175.113.52 (talk · contribs)
• 217.121.64.74 (talk · contribs)
• 69.209.207.148 (talk · contribs)
• 69.209.226.32 (talk · contribs)
• 69.216.244.52 (talk · contribs)
• 69.217.196.142 (talk · contribs)
• 69.209.224.210 (talk · contribs)
• Heraclius (talk · contribs)
• 63.70.62.84 (talk · contribs)
• 63.70.62.84 (talk · contribs)
• 63.70.62.84 (talk · contribs)
• 68.236.178.91 (talk · contribs)
• 68.236.178.91 (talk · contribs)
• 218.188.23.162 (talk · contribs)
• 68.236.84.4 (talk · contribs)
• 218.2.115.130 (talk · contribs)
• 68.236.84.4 (talk · contribs)
• 212.138.47.21 (talk · contribs)
• 202.83.175.156 (talk · contribs)
• Cragmont (talk · contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) 01:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please quit jerking us around Fred Bauder 02:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that no jerking of any kind is taking place here. Is the list of random IP's and users too large? If you want, you can select a few that you want me to admit to and I'd be happy to do it. Yuber^(talk) 02:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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) (I forgot to sign in, Yuber is still an abusive troll, even if you agree with his POV.)[reply]

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)[reply]

His attittude didn't change, but his behavior and actions progessively worsened, until it became unbearable to work with him and an arbitration hearing had to be filed. Guy Montag 18:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I protest bieng placed under the same restrictions as Yuber. Whatever case was for one reason or another compiled against me (under shady reasons) does not weigh heavily enough to warrant the same restrictions as they do on Yuber, who I don't believe should ever edit on wikipedia again. May I mention that it is not because of his pov, but because he is simply not a nice person and impossible to work with.Guy Montag 03:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the section called "Use of sockpuppets by Yuber," members are voting either to oppose or to abstain from voting about the issue, but there is no support section. I'm assuming this is a mistake? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should Yuber edit under any account other than Yuber (or other than incidental edits as an anonymous ip) he may be briefly banned, up to a week in the case of repeated violations. Edits by suspected sockpuppets of Yuber may be removed by any user without comment.

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 00:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

3. ➥the Epopt 05:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

They make a fuss because there is something wrong with the committee's decision making process, and your unwillingness to answer simple questions. Why did Ambi believe that this case pertained only to Yuber when more evidence was presented, but you made a preliminary decision, and did not change it after more evidence was presented? Why am I being subjected to the same punishment as Yuber? You are only weakening the legitimacy of the committee by going through such unjust actions. Guy Montag 21:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuber is deliberately and admittedly making false statements in order to expediate his case. Above he admits to being guilty of sockpuppetry by specifically admitting to being certain user and IP accounts, while in the same admission he has contradicted these statements by suggesting that the users are actually other people. He is making a mockery of the arbitration process. In the past, he has admitted to having no concern for any rule of law on Wikipedia due to his ability to use open proxies. In a real arbitration court, lying to the court is a crime called perjury. Without punishing perjury, no tribunal, court, or arbitration process can succeed. Yuber is too dishonest for an arbitation hearing and should recieve the maximum sentence. --Zeno of Elea 06:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it is perjury, certainly an unpleasant response. If he wants to edit he needs to pick one account and quit fooling around. That we may have trouble blocking him is true, but certainly anything he posts can be removed if that is the route he choses.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [42] 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)[reply]

I´m not sure where to report this (or if indeed it should be reported) but FYI: user Guy Montag is active as of today (11 Oct) on article Zionist terrorism. Regards, Huldra 12:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Read Fred Bauder 14:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]