Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:34, 13 September 2005

Yuber's injunction

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

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

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

Point of Order

In light of and shouldn't be changed? or am I missing something? Tomer 05:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

Findings so far

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 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)

User of open proxies

Is Yuber's use of open proxies to continue his edit wars of any relevance to the evidence or the decision? Jayjg 18:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there evidence of this? Fred Bauder 20:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Where would you like me to send it? Jayjg 17:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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 16:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Procedures for banning

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)

Concerns

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 16:42, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Six Day War, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Cave of the Patriarchs and Misplaced Pages: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 , 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: " settlements have continuously grown in number in the territories, despite being illegal under international law," 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 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)

Concerns

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 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)

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)

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 back again

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

More evidence

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 08:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

More Yuber sockpuppetry

Yuber is evading his ban again. User:Siegerz

Guy Montag

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)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision#The_Six_Day_War_example and supporting evidence Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Six Day War. Also Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision#Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_example and supporting evidence Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)