Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence

The earlier talk page, associated with the 495 kb version of the evidence page in this matter has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence/Full version

Further discussion

RE: Evidence by HistoryBuffEr

Please note that:

• All the evidence has already been submitted, my presentation is complete (and was before the new format request).
• The evidence is logically organized according to subject matter; it is unlikely that this volume of evidence would be easier to follow if it was organized differently.
• Limiting evidence in cases like this one, with numerous claims and submitters, is questionable. Perhaps it would be better to ask users not to add meritless or duplicate claims (as Viriditas, Jayjg and many others have done here).
• I was recently asked to add diff links, but after I have done so (having spent a considerable amnount of time on it), I am essentially asked to remove most of them.
• The evidence format followed guidelines at the time of the RFAr. Those who want to retroactively apply the new format guideline are free to do so themselves.

HistoryBuffEr 19:57, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, while I didn't make the request you object to, I think it's reasonable. When we ask for diffs, it is so that we can assure ourselves that we are seeing the edits in contention. If you believe that volunteer editors here have time to read and evaluate over 700 diffs (admittedly, more than half of those were posted by the opposition to you in this case), I think you have a very unusual idea of the amount of free time arbitrators have. What we want are clear allegations backed up with several diffs -- choose the strongest evidence you have and organize it so that we can see the most serious allegations and the diffs which most clearly support them. Arbitration isn't (can't be, given the limitations of time) an exhaustive evaluation of every questionable edit a person has made here. It is to resolve specific and serious violations of Wikipedia policy. Given that, I think the request to provide limited narrative and less than 100 diff links is reasonable -- I recognize the amount of time everyone took compiling that initial evidence page, but it is simply too much. Were I a real judge with a legal staff, I could take that amount of evidence and then have my staffers boil it down into summary form for me. As it stands, I don't have a staff, and I'm doing the best I can, but you have to help by pre-summarizing as much as you can, so that I can focus on the best possible evidence. I do not believe that given 4 months and no other cases to arbitrate, I could adequately read half a megabyte of text and adequately evaluate over 700 diffs. Please do what you are being asked to do, or else I fear this arbitration will drag on forever and reach unfair conclusions based on the fact that arbitrators will be forced to vote on a limited understanding of the charges and evidence in this case. Jwrosenzweig 01:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig, I agree that the request makes sense in general, it's just not reasonable at this point when my presentation is complete and contains no extraneous claims or evidence.

• Evidence is necessary to support all the claims I made,
• I have not submitted minor claims or extraneous evidence,
• I have made no duplicate or meritless claims,

so, there is nothing that I would want to subtract from my presentation.

HistoryBuffEr 18:35, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

I intend to consider only the evidence you choose to present on the refactored evidence page. If you chose to present none, I will consider none. Fred Bauder 06:11, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I have presented evidence on the new evidence page. If you choose to ignore the links provided, there is nothing I can do about it.

Also, the Arbitration policy explicitly allows requests for recusal during arbitration:

"3. Users who believe Arbitrators have a conflict of interest should post an appropriate statement during the Arbitration process. The Arbitrator in question will seriously consider it and make a response."

One more time, I repeat my call for recusal.

HistoryBuffEr 18:35, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Again, there is no basis for recusal. We have never attempted to even edit the same article; we have never quarreled; before I saw your request for arbitration I had never noticed you or any edit you made. Proposals I have made or actions I have taken during the arbitration are not grounds for recusal unless they were extremely prejducial which they are not. Fred Bauder 12:04, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Fred Bauder, that you are clearly biased in this matter is more than evident. See my previous comments for evidence [1] [2] [3] [4].

You have now added more evidence of your bias and arrogance by attempting to:

• Discard my completed presentation of evidence, which takes less than 30 minutes to read, and
• Force me to dance to your kindergarten-level tune by imposing yet another ban.

Apparently, this is just your lame attempt to show off your "imperial" powers, ignore the evidence, and impose your preordained decision to severely punish HistoryBuffEr for merely colorful comments, which never negatively affected any articles (and, in many cases, helped to NPOV the contents); and evade imposition of any measures on Jayjg for his numerous violations of sysop privileges, reverts, bullying, and incessant organized POV pushing, which have served only to preserve and expand the strong bias in hundreds of articles, which matches your POV.

The good news is that other ArbCom members (aside from James F) have not rushed to join your railroad project. The bad news is that you obviously can't take the hint.

As you have shown no respect for the ArbCom, Wikipedia community or even your own reputation, my respect for your petulant directives and musings is less than zero, and I won't respond to any of them.

But, please do go on with your marsupial hanging circus, it's been a great source of amusement.

HistoryBuffEr 21:40, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Format question

Is the format I've used acceptable for the Arbitrators? Or would they prefer enter every item purely chronologically? I think the way I'm doing it is clearer, but I'm fine either way. Please let me know. Jayjg 19:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Purely chronologically would be better - he did this, I did this in response and/or incidentally would be, IMO, clearer, IYSWIM. We Arbitrators are capable enough of reading an action as in line with policy ;-)

James F. (talk) 01:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)