This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in at proposed decision. (This case predates the creation of the workshop page. This page contains only material added after controversy arose as to the proposed decision.)

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Users who engage in diverse objectionable behavior which affects many aspects of their editing and other behavior may be banned due to their disruptive affect on the Wikipedia community. Partial remedies such as banning from a particular area of editing are appropriate only for users whose other behavior is generally acceptable. While not an accepted part of Wikipedia policy this concept has been expressd on Meta as [ "don't be a dick".

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. It has taken a long time to come to this conclusion, but the shit goes on and on. Fred Bauder Fred Bauder 16:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Wikipedia:Probation is appropriate only in cases where the user has insight into the problem which is being addressed by the remedy. Instances where the user (and their supporters) can be expected to contest any application of the remedies available under probation are inappropriate candidates for probation and are better dealt with by banning from the area affected by their editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I cannot imagine any administrator being able to ban Guy Montag from any article without a great fuss arising from him and his supporters. Fred Bauder 16:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Fred, could you say who you think the supporters are exactly, and what kind of fuss you foresee that might stop an admin from banning Guy from editing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The following is evidence that was presented against Guy Montag ( talk · contribs) on wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision. Sections of the discussion which do not pertain to Guy Montag have been removed by me. - a-n-o-n-y-m 22:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Guy Montag changes "Bethlehem is a Palestinian city in the West Bank of Palestine." to "Bethlehem is a city in the West Bank." [1]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This seems to be a reasonable edit removing surplus language. As Bethlehem is not a settlement, it is, of course, a Palestinian city. As to the usage, "West Bank of Palestine", it seems improper and awkward. The West Bank is the lands west of the Jordon River and while it makes up most of what we now call Palestine (Israel and Jordon being the names now of the rest of historical Palestine) adding Palestine to West Bank adds nothing that would aid a reader. Fred Bauder 21:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Agreed, I don't think that this is a bad edit. James F. (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Guy Montag again removes "Palestinian" as a modifier of city [2]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Again, a reasonable copyedit, refering to Talk:Nablus where, however, a more argumentative position is taken by Guy Montag within Talk:Nablus#Page_protection where he maintains that referring to Nablus as a Palestinian city is wrong, saying "Is there a "Palestine" to claim that this is a Palestinian city? No." He also challenges the accepted usage of calling the Arab residents of Palestine "Palestinians" SlimVirgin ( talk · contribs) during the debate points out, "it's not only the residents of Nablus who refer to themselves as Palestinian Arabs; most of the world does too." So it turns out that following the link Guy Montag provides leads one to extended POV argumentation by Guy Montag which attacks the general usage of referring to Palestinian towns on the West Bank as such. Fred Bauder 21:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC) He even raises the boogie man that referring to Nablus as a Palestinian city is to "prejudge the peace process." Fred Bauder 21:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Please see my comment below at point 7. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply

[3]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Revert with a rather terse comment. Would have been much better as discussion on a talk page, but not in and of itself horrendous. James F. (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[4]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Revert with argument through intimidation. Not pretty, and very much Not Good. James F. (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[5]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Another revert of the same, but this time with the statement "there is no consensus because I disagree" and directions to other arguments. Of course, a solitary disagreer is hardly proof of a lack of consensus, but this isn't that bad. Again, would have been nicer on the talk page instead... James F. (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[6]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Revert, yet again, and this time without an edit summary. Distressing. Note that this makes 4 reverts in 25 hours. James F. (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[7]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. That revert again, this time with a lucid point, well made - "it is a city under Palestinian Authority control, which is mentioned. When the conflict is over, we can put who has sovereignty over what". However, the other participants seem to think that it is not sovereignty but ethnicity and culture which the adjective is intended to apply to, suggesting that they and he disagree as to the meaning of what is being reverted over. James F. (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. James, the issue of whether to call certain cities "Palestinian cities" was a dispute between Guy and Heraclius (not only them, but mostly them) that went on at Bethlehem and Nablus. The point you make above is a good one: that they're largely arguing about sovereignty versus ethnicity. Guy is arguing the former, and saying there is no Palestinian sovereignty because there is no formal state of Palestine. Heraclius is arguing the latter, that it's a Palestinian state because it has a majority Palestinian population and because the world regards it as Palestinian. Guy's counter-argument (as I recall it) is that Amman, Jordan has a majority Palestinian population, but we don't call that a Palestinian city. There is no right or wrong here: this is a genuine and very legitimate dispute. Strictly speaking, Guy is correct. Myself, I would call them Palestinian cities because a large part of the world sees them as that. But Guy may be right that Wikipedia shouldn't simply go with the majority POV.

It might also be worth mentioning here that I've asked Yuber whether he is Heraclius, because there is a distinct similarity in editing style and the way they write. Yuber has said that he isn't Heraclius. So far as I know, Guy believes that Heraclius is Yuber, and so this may place in context Guy's continued willingness to revert Heraclius almost on sight: it's because he believes he's dealing with a user who shouldn't be editing in the first place. But as we don't have Yuber's IP address, we can't resolve it, unless Yuber and Heraclius could be asked to somehow make clear that they are two separate people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply

[8]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Yet another revert, again with a blank edit summary. In total, there have been 7 reverts of exactly the same thing against two other editors in 5 days. James F. (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

More evidence of Guy Montag's vicious reverting style can be found on this page, removing comments he doesn't agree with [9].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Also one needs only too look at the history of the Nablus page to see even more serial reverting:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[10]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[11]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[12]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[13]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[15]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[16]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[17]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[18]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[19]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[20]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[21]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[22]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[23]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[24]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[25]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[26]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[27]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[28]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[29]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[30]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[31]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[32]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[33]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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. unsigned by User:160.81.221.42

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: