User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons

Please note: To preserve context, my replies (if any) will be posted here, not on your Talk page, so add this page to your watch. Thanks. HistoryBuffEr

Hi

Hi HistoryBuffEr, I feel it is my duty to let you know that we have a 3 Revert Rule here at Wikipedia. Reverting an article more than 3 times in 24 hours is generally considered taboo, and extremely obessive reverting can result in a 24-hour block.

Best, Node 06:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, how come the others with MORE numerous reverts have not been blocked yet? Also, does the rule apply to you as well? Thanks, HistoryBuffEr 07:00, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Because I have added new content and changed existing content each time which is considered constructive, while you OTOH have simply rv'd over and over.

Node 07:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We seem to be talking in vain. Each of your posts looks almost identical to each other. Also, I don't see how putting "alleged" in every sentence is helpful when I had already put in a disclamer in the first paragraph. And I have already shown you that the term "occupation" is well settled (eg: Iraq was bombed twice on much less evidence). This and all other points are well supported by documents and history books (including Israel's). HistoryBuffEr 07:43, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Occupation of Palestine

Please take a moment to read the NPOV policy and NPOV tutorial in their entirety, whether you have read them before or not. Note the admonition that "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable." This means that people who make remarks like "NPOV schmPOV" or "Resistance is futile" in regard to NPOV disputes should work on articles that are at less risk of dispute. You should read the section about "writing for the enemy" a few times as it applies specifically to difficulties you have had.

From your comments on the VfD page, it's clear that you have not learned the techniques WP uses to resolve these disputes. We do not write up our POVs in full and then fight over which complete version is "right." Work a couple sentences at a time, so there is a chance for people to raise objections. You must consider their objections, in exchange for their consideration of yours. Think about ways to reword your changes that avoid their objections while making your point. If possible, step back from general conclusions to the underlying details. Do not change wording that is factually accurate. A statement that someone takes a particular position on a disputed question is a fact; A statement that the position is "right" is POV.

If you have any questions or comments about your understanding of NPOV dispute resolution, or about your experiences trying to modify Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you can leave them on my talk page. Please don't post a diatribe there trying to convince me that "Occupation of Palestine" is the right term. I am not on any "side" and you will only waste your time Gazpacho 16:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Large-scale edits and ad hominem comments

HistoryBuffEr, I appreciate your desire to improve Wikipedia's content, but I think the way you are going about it is counter-productive. Rather that replacing existing articles with your own significantly different versions, I strongly recommend bringing edits one at a time to Talk: pages for discussion. The is especially true for highly contentious articles, and is standard Wikipedia practice. Also, I very strongly recommend that your restrict your comments on Talk: pages to discussions of article content, rather than comments about the people making the edits. This is also standard Wikipedia practice. Thanks. Jayjg 00:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removing comments from your user talk page because you disagree with what was said is a violation of Wikipedia etiquette. See also Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if you choose not to approach it collaboratively, much of your effort will be wasted. Have you noticed that my addition of the phrase "occupation of Palestine" to the intro of Israeli-Palestinian conflict has gone unchallenged in subsequent edits? Maybe, just maybe, my advice is worth paying attention to. Gazpacho 18:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you paid attention you would have noticed that your comments have not been removed from my Talk but just moved to subpage User_talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons. I hope that reading before hurling accusations is part of the Wikipedia etiquette you cited in your sermon. HistoryBuffEr 07:27, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

You have removed comments from your talk page (i.e. this page) because they are critical, and you have announced that you do so willingly. This is a violation of Wikipedia etiquette. It is easy enough for you to find out what is and is not part of that etiquette, and all users are well-advised to do so.Gazpacho 08:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't see anything in the etiquette that suggests that a user ought not to edit their talk page. It seems to me that throwing a rule in HistoryBuffEr's face like this is not "discussing" a point with him at all. Indeed, the Wikiquette page suggests that comments on talk pages should aim to comfort, to lessen tension, not to "criticise" others. I took your advice, Gazpacho, and I will advise you in turn that the confrontational approach you have taken to HistoryBuffEr breaches the very etiquette you are promoting.Dr Zen 12:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Attitude

We don't have to agree on anything but I'd like you to know that I find your attitude towards other users and your edits in regards to Israel offensive and harmful to WP. This is an encyclopedia, not a hate forum. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Instead of replacing large portions of text with entirely different texts

HistoryBuffEr, I'm going to request again that instead of replacing large portions of text with entirely different texts, you please bring suggested changes here first for discussion. This has been perhaps the single most difficult problem with your edits ever since you joined Wikipedia. You know these pages are highly contentious at best, and contentious edits are best worked out on Talk: pages so that edit wars do not develop. I have yet to see you actually propose a change on any page before going ahead and making it, and this is, in my view, a recipe for continued strife. Jayjg 16:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It takes two to dance.

When you post in Talk what you disagree with in my edits, instead of reverting the entire article, and
When you post your edits to Talk for prior approval,

then you'll have some grounds to complain. HistoryBuffEr 18:27, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

My edits tend to be small in nature; a few words changed, or two or three sentences. Yours are wholesale replacements of entire articles with completely different texts. Wikipedia norms do not support replacing articles or sections with radically different texts, essentially completely contradicting everything that was there before, and then saying "O.K., now lets debate the new article". The existing articles have been arrived at through a long process of negotiation and compromise; you can't just pre-empt the Wikipedia discussion and debate process because you think the final product is POV, you have to work with it (and the existing editors) to produce NPOV. Jayjg 20:34, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Really? Facts are not on your side:

I had posted my objections in Talk (see "Where's the occupation" and "Democratic?") before editing a small section of 6 short sentences.
You had posted nothing in Talk before completely rewriting my much longer text.
IZAK and Viriditas had reverted the entire article (to remove my text) several times without posting anything in Talk, but you didn't complain about that, did you?

Case closed, try peddling your hypocrisy elsewhere.

HistoryBuffEr 22:54, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

While you raised objections, you didn't actually propose new text.
Rather than simply deleting your POV text this time, in the spirit of compromise I NPOV'd it instead. I did not insert my own text.
Since your text was a wholesale POV re-write and insertion, as previously mentioned, it is not surprising that those editors did so.

As I've mentioned several times, if you try working with other editors, rather than doggedly insisting on inserting and reverting radically new texts without consultation, you will find the Wikipedia process much smoother. Indeed, case closed. Jayjg 02:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

4 Reverts in one day

That's four reverts in one day on Arab anti-Semitism, HistoryBuffEr. You know this is a violation of guidelines. Jayjg 05:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Having problems with simple counting? How did 3 become 4 for you? HistoryBuffEr 05:40, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Read the edit history again; you first reverted RK, then me 3 times. Jayjg 05:42, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You read history again, I didn't revert RK, I NPOVified the article (compare to prev versions.) HistoryBuffEr 05:45, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Actually, you POVd the article, RK reverted, and then you POVd it again. Jayjg 06:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reread the above until you understand it. This discussion is over as far as I am concerned. HistoryBuffEr 06:05, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Request for comment

I doubt if I am qualified to co-sponsor this. Have you tried Alberuni, Gadykozma, Jfdwolff, or Jayjg? Susvolans 13:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Any user can certify the basis for dispute. The reason I asked you is because you were also unjustly smeared by IZAK. HistoryBuffEr 17:46, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

History, I note your RFC against IZAK. Please understand I am not taking a position in this, but I think you should be aware that, as a complainant, you are supposed to show that you personally made an effort to resolve the dispute with IZAK over his behavior before bringing the RfC.

at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~.

You need either to demonstrate ignored or rebuffed attempts by your to resolve this. It could have been something as simple as "please do not call me an anti-semite" or "Personal attacks such as calling me an anti-semite are against Wikipedia policy." Alternately, you could get two other people who have spoken to IZAK about this to certify instead of you.

You have expressed that you don't have much faith in me, but I would propose that you approach IZAK for an apology and a promise not to call you an anti-semite (if that's what he did) in the future, and then withdraw the RfC if he does so. If he does not, or continues the disputed behavior, then you are on firmer ground to make the complaint yourself. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have no desire to communicate with foaming-at-the-mouth types like IZAK, and have filed the RfC in the interest of Wikipedia. I noticed that he had smeared a number of people before and after accusing me. Many of the falsely accused may be too offended or reluctant to take action and may just leave Wikipedia instead. I personally don't need this RfC, but IZAK obviously needs an official warning as he has ignored all friendly user warnings.

I am not sure why you are suddenly for strictly applying rules. If this RfC is killed for whatever reason the reckless hurling of epithets is likely to increase. Ignoring IZAK's violations would allow someone to fight back and call him, say, a "Nazi" without repercussions.

HistoryBuffEr

History, your additional gratuitous attack on me notwithstanding, I'm telling you the way it is. If you want the behavior to stop, and your means for stopping it is to call an RfC, the RfC will fail unless it is endorsed within 48 hours by two people who have personally made an effort to correct IZAK. As of now, you have not shown yourself to be one. If you are as familiar with Wikipedia policy as you imply, you might know that Guanaco almost avoided an RfC in exactly that way. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No gratuitous attack -- I am for strictly applying rules anywhere and I welcome your conversion. My point in this case is that the rules are truly bizarre: Users should not have to communicate with someone hurling profanities at them in order for the violator to be reprimanded. HistoryBuffEr 04:40, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

Although we refer to "rules" on Wikipedia, it would probably be better if they were referred to as "protocols"--ways of doing things. What I told you about VfD is the procedure there, and what I'm telling you about regarding RfCs is the procedure in those actions. If you feel, for example, that the five-day rule in VfD should be strictly enforced, or some other modification, you should post a poll at VfD talk with several choices and see if you can come up with a consensus for a different protocol.

But as to your specific issue: "Users should not have to communicate with someone hurling profanities at them in order for the violator to be reprimanded." Even though it seems goofy sometimes, many seasoned Wikipedians will give soft answers to even obvious provocation--like asking obvious vandals to "please not vandalize Wikipedia" or even {{subst:test}}, which translates to:

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. .

This is ingrained in the Wikipedia culture, and actually works better than you might expect. You need to show that you have given someone you are complaining about a chance to mend their ways before endorsing an RfC, even if it's simply "this is offensive--please don't do it." I'll say again, if you make that effort and do not get satisfaction, you have an RfC, if you don't, you don't. Even Jimbo does not issue official unilateral repremands, though in a tiny number of very extreme cases, he has banned people, but only after all other efforts at resolution have failed. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, so far HistoryBuffer has not contacted me at all and seems to prefer to think of me as "foaming-at-the-mouth". Now what exactly is implied by such a vicious comment? IZAK 04:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Er, maybe what he's trying to say is that he dislikes you? Seriously, this has turned into a mutual fray. The winner will be (paradoxically) the one who backs off first. "A word to the wise is sufficient." --Uncle Ed 15:11, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RFC: IZAK

Please check [Requests_for_comment/IZAK]. If you agree with the complaint please add your sig to certify the basis for dispute (1 more sig is needed within 24 hours.) Thanks. HistoryBuffEr 02:43, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

Hi HBE - thanks for your message, sorry it took a while to get back on this. I agree with you on IZAK's conduct and I would support you on this. Such accusations are deeply offensive, maybe more offensive than any other personal attacks, and they destroy the very basis of co-operation on articles (which is probably what they are intended to do). However, I am not convinced of the wisdom of the way you are responding to this, because the effect may be inflammatory more than enything else. The thing is that many "supporters" of Israel genuinely believe the anti-Semitism charge. Zionists have shamelessly exploited the horrors of the Holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism for their political aims, by fanning this kind of paranoia to an extent where any fundamental criticism of the Zionist project, as well as principled condemnation of the effects of its realisation, are perceived as anti-Semitic. As reprehensible and wrong as this may be, it is a real problem. I think it is fair to say that if any group of people has got good reasons to be paranoid, it is Jews.

The articles on Israel-Palestine are very biased and obfuscatory. There is a real problem when editing the articles in question. For the sake of writing a NPOV encyclopedia we need to find a way of dealing with these issues, and so far I'm unconvinced that the way you are choosing will be effective. I've been trying to think of better ways. E-mail me if you like. - pir 11:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The fact that articles are subject to veto by anyone is a difficult problem for Wikipedia in general. I've seen this bug at work in other articles but it is most apparent in topics related to Israel.

Here, a handful of determined fanatics with plenty of time on their hands have proven that they can derail the system based on consensus and impose their viewpoint. Extremist POV unsupported by facts (and often contrary to facts) rules the area simply because many are reluctant to confront fanatics.

Even worse, (too) many extremists are admins, some even arbitrators, which makes their POV pushing even more difficult to stop or reverse.

What is the best approach to promote NPOV in this area is debatable. I understand your view that my often confrontational approach is not effective. However, I can't help noticing that many had tried gentle persuasion and "peaceful resistance" with very little effect -- when I arrived I found most articles to be almost pure propaganda.

Is managing to add in a little NPOV tidbit here and there useful, or is it counterproductive because it gives more legitimacy to a largely POV article? Can an article be made NPOV through "thousand cuts" when zealots watch every comma, or should it be completely overhauled by insisting on NPOV from start? And so on.

I am not suggesting that editorial approach is a "black and white" issue; methods can be combined. The main point here is that achieving NPOV here requires spine and keeping an eye on the ball, and determination to match the agitprop trolls on the prowl.

HistoryBuffEr 17:52, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

You might not have had me specifically in mind, but I take the above personally: the shoe fits, so I'm wearing it. I am an admin as such I've tried hard NOT to use my priviliges to impose my viewpoint. Often I fail, and I need to be reminded -- just as a dancer or hockey player needs a coach to point out errors during a performance or game. I can't simultanously 'see myself' and 'do things' -- only the great ones can 'see themselves in action'.

The 'thousand cuts' approach rarely works. Someone finally has to take the bull by the horns and do a full rewrite. Gary D. did this for Prem Rawat (no, that's not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict).

You're a thoughtful chap. I think we can work togther. That is, assuming my estimation that you really want to see ALL points of view expressed rather than the "objective truth" exalted and endorsed. --Uncle Ed 19:19, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uncle_Ed, I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote the above ("Ambi" is the arbitrator that came to mind.) Even though there's no doubt where your sympathies are, you are at least aware that some of your views are debatable and seem to be willing to be convinced otherwise. The bad news is that our articles have not even begun moving towards NPOV yet. I'll post my suggestion in the article Talk.

(PS: The "Maharaji" article is back to edit wars, proving that Wikipedia needs a major change in edit policy.). HistoryBuffEr 23:22, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

Hello

Have a look @ [1]. Apparently were sockpuppet-brothers, or some scheiße. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 22:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The guy is clearly deranged, discussing anything with him is a waste of time. HistoryBuffEr 23:46, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

Seems like your right, I just wanted to clue you in on what struck me as an amusing oddity, no suggestion it is of any importance. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 00:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, and "you guys" think Anti-Semitism is "normal", right? IZAK 00:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IZAK RfC

HistoryBuffEr, do not take it upon yourself to remove a valid notice in regard to this RfC. I engaged you on this extensively and you refuse to follow the clear guidleines at the top of the RfC. Ed Poor may well have engaged IZAK but he has not posted the evidence on the RfC, as required. I would caution you that your easy resort to sarcasm and ad hominem attacks does not comport well for someone who would bring RfCs against others. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is getting more interesting.

I have not removed anything from the RfC. You owe me an apology for this false claim.
I recall Ed_Poor warning IZAK. If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it on -- and don't expect others to do your homework.
Stating facts is not a personal attack. Pointing out your apparent bias in a discussion is not a personal attack. If you have evidence to the contrary, I am all ears.

HistoryBuffEr 19:26, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

rationale for moving the heated things over to the users' talk pages

Looking at the discussion and noticing that eventually several threads collapsed into personal attack rounds, I was trying to "lower the total mass well below critical" by moving the relevant threads to the relevant talk pages. The remaining text still includes the references for easier tracing of the whole discussion, yet remains focused on the VfD. I did it out of assuming the good faith of those who were insulting each other, letting them to cool down and discuss the things together in a slightly more "private" atmosphere (of course, one can watch any talk page, but I believe you understand what I mean). It is for the same reason that I didn't just move it over to the discussion – the threads collapsed didn't really belong together on the same page, they were more of isolated mutual labeling and POV-accusatory off-topic speech of various degrees of intensity. Hopefully I made myself more clear now. As I was trying to cool the things down, I really would like to get the responses on my talk page rather than there in order to keep the discussion farther from the conflict. Hoping for more understanding next time, BACbKA 23:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I understand and I did not think you were doing something sinister. It's just that going to user pages is much more work both for you and us, plus the context usually gets lost (which requires yet more hunting.) Unfortunately, breaking up fights usually offers just a short term relief, though your approach may prove right in this case. HistoryBuffEr 23:51, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

time will tell... I do admit I was somewhat being innovative (as in being bold), but I was really trying to bring back the participants' productivity. BACbKA 23:57, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

According to the "experts," you are my "sockpuppet"!

Nice to meet you. Alberuni 02:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alberuni

In addition to all this, it seems as though another user, HistoryBuffEr, has also appeared and begun posting "Totally Disputed" notices on various Israel-Palestine articles. (It caught my attention when he began doing this on the Holocaust denial examined article. Going over the history of this dispute, I'm suspecting that HistoryBuffEr may actually be a sock puppet of Alberuni. I may be wrong, but they do seem similar in both their intent and their criticism (attacks) on Jayg. --Modemac 20:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
RK 21:47, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC). I certify that the above descriptions are accurate. I am disturbed by the use of anti-Semitic attacks being made against Alberuni's opponents. He also seems to be working with HistoryBuffEr, as he says the exact same things on the exact same topic. More likely, Alberuni has created HistoryBuffEr as a "sockpuppet", to create a false impression of support. RK 21:47, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Heh, these paranoid Zionistas need to make up their mind whether it's the whole world that is after them or it's just one sock-puppet.

Btw, unless all those who certified dispute on your RfC have personally contacted you regarding the dispute and were rebuffed by you, you should remove those who did not from the cert list (or, better yet, first ask Cecropia to do it because she enjoyed removing users from IZAK RfC cert list.) HistoryBuffEr 03:25, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

I will follow your advice but does it really matter? They seem to be exposing their biases because they are not as shrewd as Jayjg at concealing their motive of political censorship behind a veneer of upholding Wikipedia rules. Only a few more left; Neutrality, Gadykozma, Lance6Wins and MathKnight. Should be hearing from them shortly. Alberuni 04:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your thoughts on Jews in general

Historybuff... I'm just curious. What do you think of Jewish people in general? Rickyrab 19:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think nothing of any people in general.

P.S: In light of your apparent bias, this is my last reply to you on this topic.

HistoryBuffEr 19:31, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

I see - you're apparently neutral, but you could try NPOVing your commentary on other pages a bit more. Whatever. Rickyrab 19:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not calling you a bigot - I am trying to point out that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be biased, is all. Rickyrab 19:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

Dear HistoryBuffEr,
Please find attached the motion of support I felt necessary on behalf of the current campaign against you! Thank you!

Against Tags on People. Tags are nothing, People are Everything !

Dear All,
Please refrain from putting tags on people and remain logical, civilized and without passions taking over. Bile and jugulars have no precedence over the white and gray matter :O). Tags are neither nice, nor arguments. Instead of using so much time, energy and bandwidth to wait for people and stick it on their forhead, why don't you rest, smell flowers, walk in public gardens and admire automn in this beautiful northern hemisphere :O) As an experienced editor, medical doctor, victim of Securitate, libelled/arbitrated/rfc/banned/tagged/smeared colleague, please stop ! - irismeister 23:26, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Three reverts

Please note that Wikipedia policy is that one user may only revert an article three times in one 24 hour period. Rick K 04:51, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? Are you my babysitter?

Jayjg has just reverted 2 articles 5 times each, and exceeded the 3 revert limit; how come you have not posted any notice on his Talk.

In case I have not made myself perfectly clear: Buzz off, you lame POV partisan. HistoryBuffEr 04:58, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

(Update: a notice has showed up on Jajyg's Talk, but it does not state that he exceeded the limit.) HistoryBuffEr 05:01, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

(Update 2: You reverted the Rachel Corrie to Jayjg's POV version before protecting it. Why do you consider that a "stable version"? HistoryBuffEr 05:10, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

RE: Occupation of Palestine

HistoryBuffEr hi. While I would be surprised that a Wikipedia lawyer such as yourself would not know about the three revert rule, still it would seem you don't since in the last 2 hours you have reverted Occupation of Palestine 4 times. This might be a good time to try and negotiate on the talk page. Thanks. Gadykozma 04:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted 2 times:

1. Your vandalist Redirect (by which you ignored my note that the Redirect vote had failed),

2. Jayjg's (usual) vandalist revert.

As for discussion, where have you been all this time? We have had a lot of discussions already, check /Archive1. HistoryBuffEr 04:28, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Confusion

I have answered your strange complaint on my own talk page. Now, if you want to see the history of a protected redirect, when you see the little text that says "redirected from Struggle over Palestine" just at the top, hit that link. You will now be able to view the history and edit the page if it's not protected. HTH. Gadykozma 18:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your missing talk

I assume you are looking for Talk:Occupation of Palestine or Talk:Struggle over Palestine. As for protection, next time try Wikipedia:Protection log. BTW, I accused you somewhere that you yourself moved Occupation of Palestine to Struggle over Palestine, if this is not true, I apologize. Gadykozma 20:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Someone fixed the Talk after my post to you. You should have known that the extremists were behind the lame Struggle over Palestine (btw, what's up with your siding with Zionista extremos?) HistoryBuffEr 20:24, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Proteus Reverts

Proteus has deleted discussion of his actions from his Talk. The discussion is reporoduced below to preserve history. (See Proteus Talk for full context)

Proteus: Your strange Reverts and Protects on Palestine articles

Proteus: You have reverted and protected Struggle over Palestine with this explanation "(revert to version favoured by those not breaking 3 revert rule (this redirect is now protected))".

However, you actually reverted to the version favored by those who reverted 11 times. "Jayjg" reverted the article 6 times, "IZAK" reverted the article 4 times, and "Gadykozma" reverted the article 1 time. All these 11 reverts were to the version you reverted to, as shown the article history:

05:28, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Where did original Talk go?)
05:25, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg)
05:21, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (oops, wrong redir)
05:19, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M
05:17, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (redir)
05:05, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK M
05:05, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK (Buffer's antics are deplorable)
05:01, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Redirect back to where it was)
04:57, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK
04:56, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK
04:49, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (Expand on partition, reword History)
04:44, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (redirect to article with actual content)
04:33, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Add Resolution link)
04:15, 2004 Oct 25 Gadykozma (Revert to last version by Jayjg.)
04:12, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Add link to history)
03:57, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (Revert vandalism)
03:47, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Restore)
03:35, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M
03:28, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (History, pass 2)
03:23, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (Revert vandalism)

Also, I did not break the revert rule. I was editing the article in between and trying to restore the original Talk (which was moved by the redirects).

Curiously, you have also redirected and protected the related article Occupations of Palestine, with similar history.

Could you explain your strange description and your apparently biased actions? HistoryBuffEr 19:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Copied over from HistoryBuffEr Talk for context)

I count 9 reverts or partial reverts by you in the past 24 hours (I'm not going to ignore a revert if you add some extra words to it), and only 6 by the most active of the people reverting you. The 3 revert rule applies to users, not to groups of users. As to the accusation of bias, I have never before (to my knowledge) interacted with any of the users editing that article, nor have I edited it (or, as far as I can recall, any related article), so my opinion on the situation is based solely on reviewing the page history. Proteus (Talk) 19:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting.

Another user reverts 6 times, and another user reverts 4 times, and you talk only about my actions.
Then you go into nitpicking over whether my edits are technically reverts or not, but fail to apply the same treatment to users with more numerous reverts.
And you talk about your lack of interaction with users when the question was your bias on article subject.

Do you want to answer the questions actually asked or not?

HistoryBuffEr 20:06, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

(Copied over from HistoryBuffEr Talk for context)

No, to be honest I'd rather not have a largely pointless discussion with you. "Additionally, when protection is due to a revert war, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the version favoured by those more closely complying with the guideline on repeated reverts." You reverted more than anyone else, so I reverted to their version, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. Proteus (Talk) 20:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are not being honest at all. I made only 2 real reverts (twice I was trying to restore Talk), but you chose the version favored by the worst violator -- Jayjg -- who had made 6 reverts.

It turned out that you also protected Occupation of Palestine, and without any notice (which caused some confusion about who did it.)

In summary, you have reverted 3 articles, all of them to one, pro-Israeli POV. Your lame excuses contrary to facts suggest that you did all this to promote your own POV. HistoryBuffEr 01:45, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

(Copied over from HistoryBuffEr Talk for context)

Oh, do give over. I only reverted one article - the others I just protected. (And there's no notices on two of them because they are redirect pages.) As to confusion as to who protected them, it's hardly my fault you aren't familiar with Wikipedia:Protecion log or Wikipedia:Protected page, both of which would tell you quite plainly who protected them. I have no desire to continue this absurd conversation, and as I've said I consider the matter at an end, so don't expect me to reply any further to your absurdities. Proteus (Talk) 08:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that you have no explanation for your highly biased actions. HistoryBuffEr 16:33, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Colonoscopy prerequisite

Manipulative dweeb versus expert witness. I laughed out loud.--Alberuni 01:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The censorship never ends

Care to vote? --Alberuni 02:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Humor

Good afternoon. Thanks for clarifying on that discussion on the Deletion Policy page. I didn't mean to come across as a humorless stick-in-the-mud. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to tell the difference between sarcasm and an intentional attack in written communications. Subtle humor just doesn't come through well and is frequently misunderstood. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. Rossami 16:29, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Hi HistoryBuffEr, I've requested mediation with you; please see WP:RFM Jayjg 16:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

As you have definitively dismissed Mediation, I have requested Arbitration with you. Jayjg 18:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank Barrier

On October 25th, HistoryBuffEr was asked to provide specific items, that may be addressed by the Wikipedia community, which he believes are factually incorrect. HistoryBuffEr has declined to do so during the intervening two weeks. Remove totallydisputed till specific, addressable items are cited. Lance6Wins 11:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This question was repeatedly asked and repeatedly answered. Read article edit history to see which facts were removed without justification or explanation. HistoryBuffEr 17:53, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Arafat - Your Blanket Reverts

Your Nov12:20-30 blanket revert of major portions of this article [2] (marked as a 'minor edit') have overwritten my changes to the illness and death section. Other changes by other contributors have presumably also been overwritten by that and your subsequent reverts. If you want to wage war about the content of the page please avail of the existing Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms, including locking the page. Due to your revert, the rest of us are currently wasting our time making changes.

If you are making your changes in the interests of factual accuracy, you will appreciate my attempt to record that Arafat's illness was first reported on Oct 25 and not Oct 28, as specified in the version you inserted.

If you feel the need to do a wholesale revert in the article again, please include my version of the Illness and Death section.

I have posted the same message to Jayjg - Rye1967 23:55, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I try to incorporate as many useful edits as I spot; your edit must have gone unnoticed among dozens of vandalisms and subsequent reverts.

Please note that my edit comment was "Updated neutral version", not "minor edit". I sometimes use the "m" checkbox to mark minor changes from my previous version, and the edit comment usually makes that clear.

As for "blanket changes" you may want to read and compare versions to see whether changes are justified or not. The overriding Wikipedia principle is not the amount of change but whether the result is neutral and informative.

HistoryBuffEr 03:52, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

P.S: I have incorporated your info, edited for brevity and will post it soon (yet another vandal attack is in progress). HistoryBuffEr 04:15, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Evidence of NPOV editing

Would you please place evidence under this heading on the evidence pages of your arbitration case which show you have made edits to Jewish, Zionist and Palestinian related topics which demonstrate NPOV editing.

If I understand the case, one of the accusations is that you engage regularly in POV editing. I will put provisional findings of fact in the proposed decision which document POV editing, but wish to offer you an opportunity to demonstrate that your editing is more balanced than it appears in the complaint. Fred Bauder 17:43, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat

Hi HistoryBuffEr, Could you explain why you removed the material I inserted about Arafat's alleged links to Munich? I provided three published sources, two secondary and one primary: a respected Arab newspaper, which I believe is regarded as Jordan's main news source; an Israeli historian (regarded as on the left and, by some in Israel, as pro-Palestinian; and as a primary source, a Palestinian who says he was the commander of the Munich operation. I feel that, in providing three disparate sources, the material should be acceptable for a Wikipedia entry. If you know of reputable sources on the other side, by all means add that, but I feel you shouldn't simply delete material like this, especially without an entry on the Talk page. I'd appreciate your views on this. Many thanks, Slim 00:03, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Arafat and Munich

Hi HistoryBuffEr, I think you archived my comment by mistake. It is a specific query about an article's content, not just a general comment, as follows: Could you explain why you removed the material I inserted about Arafat's alleged links to Munich? I provided three published sources, two secondary and one primary: a respected Arab newspaper, which I believe is regarded as Jordan's main news source; an Israeli historian (regarded as on the left and, by some in Israel, as pro-Palestinian; and as a primary source, a Palestinian who says he was the commander of the Munich operation. I feel that, in providing three disparate sources, the material should be acceptable for a Wikipedia entry. If you know of reputable sources on the other side, by all means add that, but I feel you shouldn't simply delete material like this, especially without an entry on the Talk page.

I'd appreciate hearing back from you about this. Slim 07:54, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time for someone with 750+ edits and obvious bias pretending to need an explanation of editing process. Have a nice day. HistoryBuffEr 08:16, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by editing process. I'd like to know what objection you have to the material. I feel it was properly sourced. Do you have an objection to the sources? Slim 08:51, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Viriditas 23:40, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC) (omitted sig added)

Blocking

Good morning. I just saw your comments. I had not been on Wikipedia in the ten-hour period between when you first left me a message and when you filed an RfC. It would be polite to leave more time for people to respond before filing complaints. That way Wikipedia won't get bogged down in spurrious RfCs that could have been dealt with in other ways.

I will review the edit history of the articles in question and respond shortly. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:50, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edit history of Rachel Corrie, and it appears I was wrong. You had reverted the page four times in a 26 hour period, not a 24 hour period. I apologize.

It seems you have subsequently reverted the page four times in a second 26 hour period. You must be aware that this is violating the spirit, though not the letter, of the 3RR. My advice to you would be to revert less frequently. If you continue to get as close to breaking the 3RR as possible, then it's possible another sysop will make the same innocent mistake I did. Best regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:26, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I have not "subsequently reverted the page four times in a second 26 hour period". I updated this page twice and reverted it a total of 5 times in 3 days. Even if you counted every edit as a revert that would still contradict your statement.

You should have reviewed the edit history before employing the drastic measure of blocking. And, you could have and should have asked or issued a notice before blocking and then carelessly leaving.

In view of your rash blocking and now trying to shift the blame, your action appears to be anything but an "innocent mistake".

My advice to you is to obey the letter of the rules, then we'll talk about the spirit of your using sysop privs to settle personal scores.

HistoryBuffEr 18:25, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Wow. Do you always respond to apologies in this way? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 19:06, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Of course not, I promptly accept every sincere apology without any qualifiers. HistoryBuffEr 21:14, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Bias on Arbiter candicate?

Hey, I'm not meaning to be confrontational -- I don't understand your comment on my arbitration effort. Could you let me know what kind of "stream of bias" I've been showing in my edits? I feel completely clueless as to what biases I've been showing in my edits. I'd be happy to discuss any bias you think I have, although if you'd prefer just to spell out what you mean by bias, that'd be nice too. --Improv 05:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Improv. Could have been worse :), notice I didn't call you a POV pusher. Nothing personal, it would be nice to see more evidence of evenhandedness by an AC candidate. I don't remember all the cases/details right now, but do recall many of your votes being (too predictably) one sided. If you point me to your NPOV record I'll be happy to reconsider. HistoryBuffEr 05:57, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

I guess it might be related to different philosophies on VfD? While I'm a deletionist, I am a fairly moderate one, having voted to keep significantly more often than most people who self-identify that way. If it's not related to that, I really have no clue what it might be about. I have been working on reverting Chuck F's recent edits on sight, as he's been banned from the related edits, but I believe and hope that that's proper. I guess I'm feeling a bit hurt because I pride myself on impartiality (in general in life) and I don't see how I've been partial. On Israel/Palestine in particular, I've worked on trying to be fair to both Palestinian types (dealing with Alberuni and similar) and pro-Israeli types. If you do recall where you think my bias may be, I'd be interested to hear about it, because if I agree that it's bias, I'd like to correct it. --Improv 06:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Evidence page

HistoryBuffEr, please look at this complaint and if you are doing this, please quit. Fred Bauder 12:15, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Fred. Of course it would never cross my mind to actually remove any evidence. The Viriditas' complaint is a misrepresentation, I'll post details on the Arb page. HistoryBuffEr 19:57, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

I have posted details here on the RFA page. HistoryBuffEr 21:43, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Arbitration

HistoryBuffEr, please do not move my comments on the arbitration page between you and Jayjg. If I've put them in the wrong place, the arbitrators will move them, or I will, but please don't do it yourself. Slim 07:40, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I've moved them into the right place: "Evidence about HistoryBuffEr", so I can reply to them in the right place. That's the format established by the ArbCom, not me. HistoryBuffEr 07:43, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Okay, if that's the format, then I apologize. Slim 07:55, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not the correct format, and HistoryBuffEr has violated the format by removing evidence that other users have posted. The reason he is moving comments is because they are critical of his position. He moves these comments to make it difficult to see the context of the reply, thereby making the comments impossible to understand. In fact, many of the comments that he has moved had absolutely nothing to do with him, and were in fact addressed to other users. His explanation for his actions doesn't fit the facts. Moving comments to a subsection is one thing, but moving them to sections so that arbitrators and users cannot follow the discussion in context, is another. See his current violations of format. --Viriditas 09:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR on Ariel Sharon

HistoryBuffEr,

You have violated the 3RR on the Ariel Sharon article. Here are the reverts.

[3], in which you reverted the article back to your prefered version here.
[4], in which you reverted again to your preferred version.
[5], in which you reverted and updated your preferred version. This is an update, but it is also a reversion; you undid all changes made by other users since your preferred version.
[6], in which you reverted again, calling the version you didn't like a "hagiography".

All these reverts were made within 24 hours. I have therefore blocked you for 24 hours, as is Wikipedia policy. Please take this time to cool off, and use the talk pages in the future to resolve these sorts of conflicts with other users. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:40, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

The following reply wast posted at User talk:Quadell#Your Repeated Unwarranted Blocking:

Your Repeated Unwarranted Blocking

Quadell,

You have blocked HistoryBuffEr (and any IP used by HistoryBuffEr) without any justification again.

I appreciate your close attention to my posts, but this is getting ridiculous. Despite the extensive discussion of your previous unwarranted blocking just days ago, you've made the same mistake again, only one day after the RfC closed.

I did not violate the 3RR, my posts were different.

I do not need to remind you that abusing your sysop privileges for personal disputes is a violation of rules.

Please unblock this user immediately.

HistoryBuffEr 19:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. If you insist on enforcing your own 3RR "standard" that any edit is a revert, there is plenty of work for you. Check edit history of your friends.

The blocking was warranted, as I explained above. Your edits were different, but they were all reverts.

You are now making edits while under a temporary block, not logging in in order to circumvent the block you are under. This is in violation of the rules. If you continue to do so, your account will be blocked until 24 hours after your most recent illegal edit. Please wait until your block has expired to make any further edits. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 19:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, Quadell was quite correct in blocking you for 24 hours. You reverted and edited. This is still counted as a revert because you edited from an old revision of the page. You might want to think about this and stop reverting!!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, here goes

(discussion began and continued at Ta bu shi da yu Talk)

Firstly, you did violate the 3RR. You may not edit an old copy of a page and then add new material and expect that we won't call it a revert. Second, I have readded your material. Evidently those who reverted you didn't see the changes to the biography. I can see why, because you'd been reverting them continuously over a period of several days. Thirdly, whether you disendorsed me or not I couldn't give a damn as I've withdrawn from the arbitration vote anyway. Fourthy, provide evidence of Ambi and Mirv not supporting the second block please. Ambi did actually did finally support the block. See [7] on Quadell's page. So that's two admins who agree with Quadell's second decision. Fifthly, I have provided evidence on your arbcom evidence page that details how you do use the edit summary to engage in discussion. This needs to stop immediately and you need to immediately start using the talk pages to justify your edits. Sixthly, the edit [8] you gave me is for 15:56, 24 Oct 2004, however the edits that caused you to be blocked are:

18:35, 2 Dec 2004
- You revert. You lose Wk murithi's wikifications. You do not put them back. [9]
18:43, 2 Dec 2004
- Viriditas reverts to Wk murithi's changes. Edit summary: "Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Wk muriithi. Please propose major changes in talk." [10]
18:59, 2 Dec 2004
- You revert again. You again lose wikification changes by Wk muriithi. Your edit summary is "Restore the neutral version, to which NO objections have been made". [11]
16:15, 3 Dec 2004
- You do a simultaneous revert and update of the section "early years". (see the following comparison of his old revert and his new revert/edit: [12]) This is most certainly still a revert. I posit that the edit summary is misleading as it says "Updated neutral bio (still no objections in Talk)". There is no mention that you have edited the page from an old copy of the page. [13]
16:46, 3 Dec 2004
- You revert to your bio change version. Your edit summary is "The NPOV version with no objections to it replaces the POV hagiography" yet it still contains the non-neutral sentence "even though Israel was ultimately defeated and its image of invincibility was destroyed forever by this war" [14] You have not discussed this edit!

This is 4 reverts under 24 hours. You get blocked for violation of the 3RR.

With regards to Jayjg, some of the reverts I see aren't good, very true. However, some of the reverts I saw were reverts where several users were reverting yourself because you refused to use the talk page correctly. I can't see why it was so hard to use it to detail the reasons your edits should stay! But it's a good point that Jayjg has been reverting too much also. You'll note I didn't block your originally, I simply enforced the block that is already in place.

I am going to place a note on Jayjg's page asking him to pursue a different course of action next time he feels the urge to revert more than three times. I suggest you also to also take a different course of action next time you feel like reverting. My advise for you is to: use the talk page to explain detailed changes. Don't rely on the edit summary to explain changes. That's not the purpose of this. Try to come a compromise on contentious issues. Put up an RFC or request for page protection if revert wars are ongoing. Stop making personal attacks and giving warnings (I've seen you do this a few times). Stop reverting!!!!

HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, P.S. The edit you gave me for the 3RR page is part of "Arguments in opposition" of a proposed amendment by Eloquence, added on March 14. This is not part of the 3RR policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: response to blocking

Look, it's unfortunate that you seem to have been one of the first to get blocked for violation of the 3RR. If you check, I have asked Jayjg to also cease reverting. I really do try to be impartial, and I'm sorry that you feel that I'm biased against you. I certainly have nothing personal against you, and I said that you have plenty of information to impart to us in my views on the evidence page.

With regards to the evidence page, there are a few things I would request. I maintain that you haven't been using the talk page nearly enough. Would you agree with me to use it more when you get stuck in tricky edit situations? It wasn't clear to me why you were reverting on Israeli West Bank barrier, and I feel I'm relatively impartial on this matter. If you had posted stuff on the discussion forum while the reverts were ongoing, things might have turned out differently. I hate to say this, but I'm still in the dark about a few of those edits. I think this tells you how unclear and volatile things were getting, and why everyone was getting hot under the collar. But I digress. I am going to oppose your 30 day blocks because I think this is a silly decision (for the record, I'm going to object to Jayjg's blocks also). What I will request is that:

Any reverts done must have a brief summary in the talk page for each revert, unless it is a clear case of vandalism. "Vandalism" will not include POV edits. Vandalism will be things like swearing in the article, random text added or patent nonsense added. I will request this because I've noticed you use the edit summary for discussion, which is not its purpose.
Once the 3rd revert occurs either you tell me or another admin of your choice so that we can see if we can work things out (whether that be through page locking, a block of the page, or a judicious edit).
Your use of language be modified somewhat. When provoked, please take a small break and come back. Please don't incite conflict further by responding in a personal way to perceieved attacks. I realise that this can be difficult, but I really feel that this would be a very good idea, especially as you do tend to edit contentious articles (which I fully support, by the way, so long as you modify a few of your editing practices).
If you make a revert, place the word "Revert" at the start of the edit summary. This will make it clearer that you are reverting.
If you must revert, do not make additional changes in the revert. Please revert and then make your edit in the reverted copy. I found that when you did a revert+edit many people missed this and assumed that you just reverted. Clearly they were mistaken. In the confusion your edits were lost several times. I have since readded them, as I found the biography info quite excellent (though I found some of things that you reverted back into the article to be quite POV, but I'm getting sidetracked here).

I feel that this is a much better and fairer remedy than blocking you for an extended period of time. I think that we will lose an valuable editor if we block you, and I am totally against the block. What do you say about this?

I agree that it would be best to get clarification of the 3RR, and I will make an ammendment to the 3RR, once I work out how this should best be done. If you would be able to suggest things, that would be great.

With regards to User:FamilyFord_car4less. Your assurance that this is not your sock puppet is quite good enough for me. I will place "HistoryBuffEr assures me that this is not his account on the user page." If you would prefer no text, I am happy to do this also. I'm sorry if either myself or another admin has not assumed good faith on this matter. With all the confusion, I might or might not have agreed with the sock puppet assertion. If I have (and my memory can be somewhat hazy at times) then you have my full and unreserved apology.

I hope that I have come to some sort of fair resolution with you over these issues. If there are any other issues I'm not an ogre (though I can be quite direct at times, sometimes this borders on rudeness: my problem I need to work out), and I'm quite willing to listen to your complaints and respond as best I can, and in a manner that is fair to yourself and other parties.

Ta bu shi da yu 22:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your arbitration, proposed decision

I have messaged Fred Bauer about his proposed 30 day blocks. I have an alternative proposal, only I am not part of the arbcom so am unsure whether I should add to the proposed decision. However, so you are aware of what I would suggest in your arbitration, this is what I've requested:

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

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

Ta bu shi da yu 23:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Your proposal makes sense. I'd accept any decision that is fair to both sides. HistoryBuffEr 02:19, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

OK, I have asked Fred for his comment. I'm going to put this on the talk page also. I hope that you understand now that I have nothing personal against you when I enforced the block, and though I respect Jayjg quite a bit I have respectfully disagreed with him over the matter of blocking you. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gah!

Just saw your next message on my page. This whole issue is getting bigger than Ben Hur! Look, give me a chance to catch up with what's happening here... it's getting a little hectic and I'm on my lunch break at the moment. - 02:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfA

Concerning my request for arbitration iwth CheeseDreams -- what are you talking about? Snowspinner mentions the process at RfC, and I mention both RfC and RfM. When you claim that I haven't mentioned any attempts at mediation, what do you mean? What else is there? Slrubenstein

Snowspinner specifically stated "This was not a formal mediation process".
Your RfC has just been opened, and

You are incorrect, the RfC was made December 2; there has been considerable discussion, and no resolution nor any sign of resolution. The RfC is considered closed because there is no second endorsement. This avenue has been exhausted.

Your mediation hasn't started yet.

You are wrong. I requested mediation on Nov. 14 and it started Nov. 22. It ended unsuccesfully with one person dropping out from mediation and the other saying she would not accept mediation and wanted arbitration.

HistoryBuffEr 19:06, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Next time, read my complaint before you comment on it, and base your own complaint on facts. Slrubenstein

That's an interesting interpretation of facts.

If your RfC was not certified that means that 2 users did not warn and fail in their attempts, as required. As there were many complainants, not just one, it sounds like a failure on your part to follow the dispute resolutions rules.

You do not understand the rules. What rule are you claiming I did not follow? Be specific. Slrubenstein

According to [15], CD objected to the mediator because of bias, but CD did not ask for arbitration. If one party objects to a mediatior, then the mediation hasn't even started.

QED. HistoryBuffEr 20:20, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

CD has raised the issue of arbitration elsewhere, several times. Your last sentence is simply illogical and wrong -- one can object to the mediatior after the mediation started which is exactly what happened. Slrubenstein

Sock puppets

I totally agree with you that the sock puppet bit of your arbcom decision needs to be removed immediately. I have posted to the page to prove my point. Check the page. I will be leaving a message on the arbcom members talk pages. This is not on, and I'll be fighting for you on this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, replied on your Talk. HistoryBuffEr 07:59, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

I've been trying quite hard to reduce the arbcom's decision, mainly because I feel that you would take my suggestions to heart and change some of the ways you edit. However, I only have so much influence, and in fact I think its next to nothing. Just want you to know that. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Evidence in arbitration case

I was just looking at some of the evidence you present. Almost none of it includes diffs to the edits you are referring to. Here is the language from the top of the evidence page for your reference:

It is extremely important in order that your submitted evidence be considered by the Arbitrators that when you cite evidence to provide a link to the exact edit which displays the transaction, links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [16].

Fred Bauder 22:30, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll add diff links when I get a chance. HistoryBuffEr

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence

Due to its disorganization and unmanageable length, I have moved the material from the evidence page, 495 kb, to a new location and set up a new page. Please summarize your evidence at the new page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence, putting your evidence in a separate section, following the date and time format and limiting your presentation to no more than 1000 words and 100 diffs. Fred Bauder 13:17, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Will reply on the Evidence talk page. HistoryBuffEr 19:21, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Something you noted

I note that you remarked on the manner in which certain cases were quickly ignored, but others taken up with relish. So, I pose the question,

If an active arbitrator admitted that they are a right wing POV warrier who has, in real life, even acted in such a way as to have been suspended from practicing law, are they fit to continue in their post and meet out judgements on others.

Wikipedia:Current surveys/FrBaArbQuality

CheeseDreams 01:29, 2004 Dec 18 (omitted sig added)

Request for Arbitration

Following the various tos-and-fros on WP:VIP, I have made a request for arbitration. You are one of a handful of users in the "Various" request. Sockatume 21:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request withdrawn; turns out that the user accused of being a sockpuppet has been blocked, therefore resolving the issue. Sockatume 22:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note:

I also have problems involving user: Veriditas. I'd suggest ignoring him, although he and user: Jewbacca have launched a campaign, re: arbitration, and the operant idea with such things is 'fighting like hell.' I find these people distracting and annoying. Sorry you had to deal with them. Auto movil 04:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling

The case against you has closed. It is the decision of the Arbitration Committee that you are to be banned for sixty days ending 17 March 2005. You are also prohibited for a period of one year from editing any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict except in the following manner: each edit shall involve insertion or removal of one discrete piece of information which shall be referenced either by comment or footnote to a specific page in a book published in English and readily available in libraries or by purchase. References to URLs are acceptable only if the site is in English and the information referenced is readily located by consulting the webpage. You shall be placed on personal attack parole for three months; if you make an edit which an administrator judges to be a personal attack you may be banned for up to three days. All information added by you to Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles must be adequately referenced, and you may not remove adequately referenced information from Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles, and you also may not revert edits which are purely organisational. For further details, please consult the Committee's final decision. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:47, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 04:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]