Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence/Full version

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg | Evidence

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayjg (talk | contribs) at 11:38, 19 November 2004 (→Examples of POV:Submitted by Jayjg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please choose an appropriate header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

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] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please voice your objections on the talk page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others.

Obstinacy

Wow, I'm opening the evidence session! What an honor. Anyway, my main complaint about HistoryBuffEr is that he is extremely obstinant. He believes he can force his views on others, no matter how badly he is outnumbered. For a month now the entire Israeli-Palestinian section was in arms about how to properly address the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and in particular what title would the page have. HistoryBuffEr's preferred title is Occupation of Palestine which a number of people on the "other side" felt uncomfortable with. I worked very hard to reach a compromise about the title for the proposed page, Occupation of the Palestinian territories and managed to get many of the parties involved to agree on it. See this section and below. HistoryBuffEr knew about these negotiations and chose not to participate. When finally confronted with a direct question, he rejected the compromise in his usual rude manner: [2]

(start HistoryBuffEr quote)

OK, guys, now tell us, each of you, loud and clear:

Will you ever accept a title which includes terms used by most of the world (implicitly neutral) to describe the subject:

  • Israel,
  • Occupation and
  • Palestine?

(P.S: If you are convinced that the entire world is POV, then you have a problem much bigger than Palestine.) HistoryBuffEr

(end HistoryBuffEr quote) Gady 15:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He has added the {{totallydisputed}} tag to Israeli West Bank barrier. He has been asked, repeatedly, to provide specific items that are factually incorrect. To date, he has refused to provide a single example, yet insists that the tag remain and repeatly reattaches it to the page. Lance6Wins 17:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interests and contribution

I took the liberty to review his last 250 contributions. They were all related to the middle east this way or the other (he edit-warred a bit on Wikipedia:Deletion policy and tried to suggest changes to the policy on the talk page, but those are obviously related to recent VfDs on such pages, and he participated in discussions about deletions of the terrorist categories). The vast majority of his main space editing was on these 5 pages mentioned in the Request (Occupation of Palestine, Rachel Corrie, Yasser Arafat etc), so I presume they were all reverted or would be reverted soon. In other words, this is not a general contributor that also edit wars on some pages. It is a user that does nothing but edit warring. Gady 15:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bullying

  • He submitted a meritless RfC against Proteus, which didn't receive two endorsements and was (if I understand things correctly) deleted. I suggest that it be undeleted and brought as evidence. Gady 15:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Also harrassed Proteus on his Talk: page, inserting large amounts of text [3], then after Proteus deleted it [4] insisted on re-inserting it [5]. Proteus deleted it again [6], and HistoryBuffEr inserted it (and more) again [7]. Jayjg 21:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bullying edit comments

  1. 17:40, 18 Oct 2004 (hist) m Operation Days of Penitence (Restore. Jayjg this is a warning: If you have issues bring them to Talk.)
  2. 17:47, 18 Oct 2004 (hist) m Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Restore Evenets. Jayjg this is a warning: Post your issues to Talk first.)
  3. 18:08, 18 Oct 2004 (hist) m Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Events - Restore. Jayjg, 3rd warning: Instead of mindlessly reverting, post objections to Talk.)
  4. 18:45, 18 Oct 2004 (hist) m Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Events - Restore. Jayjg, 4th warning: Instead of mindlessly reverting, post objections to Talk.)
  5. 23:33, 19 Oct 2004 (hist) Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Events - Final edit; post any objections in Talk. (note to Jayjg: you've already have 4 warnings on this article))
  6. 02:01, 20 Oct 2004 (hist) Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Events - Restore. Jayjg, 6th warning: Instead of mindlessly reverting, post objections to Talk.)
  7. 02:16, 20 Oct 2004 (hist) Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Events - Restore. Jayjg, 7th warning: Instead of mindlessly reverting, post objections to Talk.)
  8. 02:25, 20 Oct 2004 (hist) m Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Events - Restore NPOV. Jayjg, 8th ad Final warning: Instead of mindlessly reverting, post objections to Talk.)
  9. 04:42, 24 Oct 2004 (hist) Talk:Operation Days of Penitence (Jayjg, 4 reverts warning)
  10. 18:35, 24 Oct 2004 (hist) m Holocaust denial examined (Restore NPOV note; Modemac: Final warning, you've already been warned about your abuse of sysop privs.)
  11. 03:49, 7 Nov 2004 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (4 reverts will look good on your Arbitration rap-sheet)
  12. 17:36, 7 Nov 2004 (hist) m Israeli West Bank barrier (Restore "TotallyDisputed". Suggest reading comprehension classes for reverters. Removing this notice can get you banned.)
  13. 03:26, 8 Nov 2004 (hist) m Occupation of Palestine (Rv stubborn vandal Yoshiah who again ignores clear instruction not to redirect.)

Abusive edit summaries

  1. 05:24, 14 Nov 2004 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (Revert Viriditas the POV pusher (My posts below were extensive edits, this is my 1st revert))
  2. 20:47, 13 Nov 2004 (hist) m Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Viriditas, your endless POV pushing is pathetic)
  3. 06:15, 11 Nov 2004 (hist) m Israeli West Bank barrier (RV persistent vandal Jewbacca)
  4. 03:07, 11 Nov 2004 (hist) m Israeli West Bank barrier (Jayjg's troops consistently ignore Talk so: Last Warning, do NOT remove the Disputed notice)
  5. 02:59, 11 Nov 2004 (hist) m Munich Massacre (Jewbacca, mindless RV does not answer questions posed to you in Talk)
  6. 00:05, 11 Nov 2004 (hist) Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Minor update (Consensus for Jayjg and his little helpers apparently means: their POV))
  7. 23:47, 10 Nov 2004 (hist) Munich Massacre (More NPOV (see Talk, revert grunts))
  8. 03:26, 8 Nov 2004 (hist) m Occupation of Palestine (Rv stubborn vandal Yoshiah who again ignores clear instruction not to redirect.)
  9. 17:36, 7 Nov 2004 (hist) m Israeli West Bank barrier (Restore "TotallyDisputed". Suggest reading comprehension classes for reverters. Removing this notice can get you banned.)
  10. 03:41, 7 Nov 2004 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (Replace version pushed by Arafat's enemies)
  11. 03:38, 7 Nov 2004 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (Restore version not written by the pro-Israeli propaganda mill)
  12. 22:06, 4 Nov 2004 (hist) Occupation of Palestine (rv Zionist extremist)
  13. 02:39, 2 Nov 2004 (hist) Yasser Arafat (Jag, take your godly mission against Arafat elsewhere, the Bio must be NPOV)
  14. 18:47, 1 Nov 2004 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (Loser Jag must be on a mission from god, he's reverted this article 21 times in 2 days.)
  15. 18:29, 1 Nov 2004 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (Update (heh, sneaky Lance6Loser reverted a vandal not to the latest version, but to his POV))
  16. 08:42, 1 Nov 2004 (hist) Yasser Arafat (Revise POV added by Arafat's enemies (Sharon's bio is by his lovers, must be same POV pushers!))
  17. 08:08, 1 Nov 2004 (hist) m Zionism (External links - There are TWO sides to NPOV, Humus doltius patheticus)
  18. 04:31, 1 Nov 2004 (hist) History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (The war for Palestine - Rv POV pusher)
  19. 02:35, 1 Nov 2004 (hist) m Ariel Sharon (Heh, Sharon's bio written by his lovers, Arafat's by his enemies; looks like same POV pushers!)
  20. 02:01, 1 Nov 2004 (hist) m Ariel Sharon (Here comes NPOV again (interesting, Zionistas think that war crimes are his career, hmm, not a bad idea))
  21. 06:19, 31 Oct 2004 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (RV Zionist dolt)
  22. 06:18, 31 Oct 2004 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (Biography - Arafat's Bio be written by his enemies, the ultra extremist Zionists, is POV isn't it?)
  23. 18:52, 25 Oct 2004 (hist) m Israeli West Bank barrier (Rstopre TotallyDisputed. Check history: Several factual corrections were made but reverted by propagandists without explanation.)
  24. 05:20, 25 Oct 2004 (hist) Occupation of Palestine (What's up, Zionistas? You lost the Redirect Vote)
  25. 04:35, 24 Oct 2004 (hist) m Rachel Corrie (Mom didn't get you a dictionary yet?)
  26. 04:32, 24 Oct 2004 (hist) m Operation Days of Penitence (Keep banging your head, zealot)
  27. 04:32, 24 Oct 2004 (hist) m Rachel Corrie (Keep banging your head, zealot)
  28. 04:31, 24 Oct 2004 (hist) m Operation Days of Penitence (Jayjg, this is Wikipedia, take your POV zealotry to your place of worship)
  29. 04:28, 24 Oct 2004 (hist) m Rachel Corrie (Jayjg, this is Wikipedia, take your POV zealotry to your place of worship.)
  30. 21:35, 23 Oct 2004 (hist) m Rachel Corrie (Restore expanded article vandalized by MathKnight. Post actual objections in Talk (other than that your POV is hurt))
  31. 19:38, 22 Oct 2004 (hist) Rachel Corrie (Intro - Surprise, surprise, the ultra-ultra-Ortodox POV pusher Jayjg is still pushing his POV)
  32. 04:32, 22 Oct 2004 (hist) m Rachel Corrie (Corrie's death - Replace editor's speculations with what witness said. Ambi, do you have an actual objection or are reverting out of spite as always?)
  33. 04:17, 22 Oct 2004 (hist) Rachel Corrie (Corrie's death - If you actually read the artiicle, instead of clicking around like a rubber chicken, you would have seen the link right above.)
  34. 01:53, 22 Oct 2004 (hist) Talk:Operation Days of Penitence (Discussion of objections - Reply to the hopelessly mired in fantasy world agitprop hack "Jayjg")
  35. 19:27, 21 Oct 2004 (hist) m Rachel Corrie (Intro - Jayjg: Your propaganda blaming everyone but Israel is POV, prove your allegations in Talk first.)
  36. 18:15, 21 Oct 2004 (hist) m Rachel Corrie (Restore NPOV intro; (Propaganda reverter Jayjg is on the roll again -- post your objections in Talk, pal))
  37. 18:18, 19 Oct 2004 (hist) m Operation Days of Penitence (Events - edit out MathKnight's POV propaganda)
  38. 17:43, 19 Oct 2004 (hist) m Operation Days of Penitence (Events - Fix MathKnight's childish POV edit)
  39. 04:44, 29 Sep 2004 (hist) Struggle over Palestine (Current status - Restore passage vandalized by a Zionist hack)
  40. 04:40, 29 Sep 2004 (hist) Struggle over Palestine (Current status - Restore passage vandalized by a Zionist hack)
  41. 03:16, 29 Sep 2004 (hist) Talk:Struggle over Palestine (Losing NPOV marbles to bullies)
  42. 07:15, 28 Sep 2004 (hist) m User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons (archive sermons)
  43. 05:25, 26 Sep 2004 (hist) Israeli-Palestinian conflict ("Road Map" for Peace - NPOV Jayjg's and Ambi's propaganda reverts)
  44. 05:04, 26 Sep 2004 (hist) Talk:Israel (Jayjg, Wikipedia is not your private sandbox)
  45. 04:48, 26 Sep 2004 (hist) Talk:Israel (Jayjg, Wikipedia is not your private sandbox)
  46. 04:02, 26 Sep 2004 (hist) Arab-Israeli conflict (History - NPOV Jayjg's propaganda)

Here's a listing of HistoryBuffEr's recent editing dispute on the Holocaust denial examined article. A summary of the situation appears to be: HistoryBuffEr took a disliking to one statement in the article that notes Holocaust deniers using the term "Zionist" to describe their opponents. He removed that statement a few times and it was promptly reverted; after which he then slapped a "Totally Disputed" header on the article. One point in HistoryBuffEr's favor: After the "Zionist" statment was modified slightly to state "Zionist collaborators", HistoryBuffEr acknowledged this and left the article alone. No further trouble has ensued since then. --Modemac 18:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  1. (cur) (last) 18:04, 24 Oct 2004 Modemac (Thank you for your help, MtB)
  2. (cur) (last) 16:56, 24 Oct 2004 MtB m (Fleshing out of term "Zionist" to dissolve dispute)
  3. (cur) (last) 14:35, 24 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore **NPOV** note; Modemac: Final warning, you've already been warned about your abuse of sysop privs.)
  4. (cur) (last) 08:10, 24 Oct 2004 Modemac (You're the only person who disputes the "Zionist" term, HistoryBuffEr. How about discussing it on the Talk page?)
  5. (cur) (last) 00:16, 24 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Add **NPOV**, the stament about usage of term "Zonist" is still disputed.)
  6. (cur) (last) 22:40, 23 Oct 2004 205.188.114.43 (Methods used by Holocaust deniers)
  7. (cur) (last) 22:34, 23 Oct 2004 205.188.114.43 (Evidence that gas chambers were used for killing)
  8. (cur) (last) 22:30, 23 Oct 2004 205.188.114.43 (Evidence that gas chambers were used for killing)
  9. (cur) (last) 11:28, 15 Oct 2004 Modemac
  10. (cur) (last) 16:15, 14 Oct 2004 Modemac (This page is temporarily protected)
  11. (cur) (last) 15:36, 14 Oct 2004 Modemac (Removed "Disputed" notice, and this page will be temporarily protected. Discussion to ensue.)
  12. (cur) (last) 14:03, 14 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (restore **TotallyDisputed**; Second Warning: Removing Disputed notice can get you banned.)
  13. (cur) (last) 13:59, 14 Oct 2004 RK (Reverting false claim made by person who is making anti-Semitic ad homenim attacks against Wikipedia users.)
  14. (cur) (last) 13:48, 14 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (restore **TotallyDisputed** -- Note: Removing Disputed notice can get you banned.)
  15. (cur) (last) 05:15, 14 Oct 2004 Modemac (A disagreement over one sentence isn't enough to have the entire article declared "totally disputed")
  16. (cur) (last) 03:48, 14 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (add **TotallyDisputed**, see Talk)
  17. (cur) (last) 00:55, 14 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg)
  18. (cur) (last) 00:41, 14 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Flawed and dishonest methods of deniers - Remove unsubstantiated assertion which tries to smear anyone using term "Zionist")
  19. (cur) (last) 22:44, 13 Oct 2004 Jayjg (Flawed and dishonest methods of deniers - clarifying usage of the terms)
  20. (cur) (last) 19:40, 13 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Flawed and dishonest methods of deniers - "Zionist" is not an "anti-Semitic term.")
(Changed {{NPOV}} to **NPOV** and {{TotallyDisputed}} to **TotallyDisputed** to prevent an actual NPOV warning from appearing in this article)

Complete re-writes of stable articles and disregard of previous editors and Talk: pages

HistoryBuffEr first appeared on Wikipedia on 13 Sep. 2004, as IP 66.93.166.174, when he replaced the Israel-Palestinian conflict article with an entirely new POV version [8], and the Arab-Israeli conflict article with a similarly new POV version [9]. These were not newly created articles requiring extensive re-writes, but rather articles which had been around for two years and three years respectively, having been through extensive editing processes by many editors, with extensive Talk: pages as well. On the Arab-Israeli conflict article, he made a number of other attempts to insert his own new article, but was reverted by a number of editors. He also inserted an NPOV notice, though he refused to state his objections in Talk: In fact, throughout this time his only contributions on the Talk: page were to falsely accuse an editor of breaking the 3 revert rule (while insulting and threatening him) [10], and to insert various other insults and complaints when the NPOV notice was removed[11] [12] [13].

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page he made a number of subsequent attempts to insert various changes, all without any attempt to even edit the Talk: page. However, his real focus was on creating a POV fork of the Israel-Palestinian conflict page, which he did as Occupation of Palestine. Later the name was changed to Israeli occupation of Palestine; more on that below.

On 6 Oct. 2004 HistoryBuffEr made substantial changes to Israeli West Bank barrier [14] and inserted a NPOV notice, though he had not put any POV complaints in Talk:. After bring reverted a couple of times, he moved on to other articles. However, he returned on 24 Oct. 2004, this time inserting a TotallyDisputed notice. After having this reverted by other editors, and being challenged to state a complain in Talk:, he finally on 26 Oct. 2004 gave a brief summary of what he considered "NPOV" [15]. Though challenged by several editors to explain what he meant [16], he refused to respond in any meaningful way. On 7 Nov. 2004 another editor removed the notice, but he insisted in inserting it, though challenged by a number of editors to explain his complaints [17]. Instead he simply inserted the notice 9 more times over the next few days, though challenged by a number of editors to produce substantive complaints. Finally on 11 Nov. 2004 he returned to his usual behaviour of substantially re-writing articles without previous discussion in Talk:, [18]. Another edit war ensued, and when the article was finally protected he deigned to comment on the Talk: page [19], though again the comments did not address specific changes he made, but rather broadly justified his behaviour instead. As is typical, he insisted his readers had to analyze the changes themselves to understand the reasoning behind HistoryBuffEr's edits, since he felt he had no obligation to explain them, or as he put it "When I pointed to the article history, many pretended not to know how to read and kept insisting that everything be laid out for them here on a silver platter. Now that the article is protected in a more NPOV version, take time to read the article and see some points of dispute (no, I will not read and analyze the article for you). Have a nice day."

On 13 Oct. 2004 HistoryBuffEr repeated his edit pattern on the History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, making highly controversial edits [20] but refusing to engage in Talk: discussion, and finally inserting a TotallyDisputed notice. In the case of this article Jmabel was able to finally draw him into Talk: discussions, though he pointedly would respond only to Jmabel, and to no-one else.

The pattern was repeated again on 18 Oct. 2004 on the Sabra and Shatila massacre article, in which he continually pushed for essentially a complete POV re-write of the article [21] and [22], entering only 4 minor and often insulting [23] edits on the Talk: page, most of them concerning a proposed edit of another editor, but consistently refusing to discuss the literally dozens of changes he was attempting to make. He also insisted that others use the Talk: pages to dispute his changes, rather than him using the Talk: pages to propose them in the first place. The article was protected on 20 Oct. 2004, and unprotected on 8 Nov. 2004. From then until 13 Nov. 2004 he reverted to his version 15 more times, while still refusing to use the Talk: page, using both his Username and his old IP of 66.93.166.174 [24], while ironically (and falsely) accusing other editors of using anonymous IPs. While reverting he continued to insist in edit summaries that others had to post objections to his edits in Talk: [25].

On 21 Oct. 2004 HistoryBuffEr turned to Rachel Corrie, repeating the same pattern of complete re-writes [26] to [27] unaccompanied by any activity on the Talk: page. His sole Talk: comment was another insulting statement justifying his actions [28] after the page was protected.

During this time the Occupation of Palestine issue came to the fore again (my thanks for Gadykozma for creating most of this complicated summary). As mentioned above, HistoryBuffEr created it as a POV fork of Israel-Palestinian conflict; note the first first version [29] is recreated here: [30]. It was put on VfD on 20:33, 14 Sep 2004. Here is the original complaint. On 13:12, 21 Sep 2004, while the VfD was on, the page was moved to Israeli occupation of Palestine and a new Occupation of Palestine page was created to discuss all occupations of Palestine in the past. See the original version, the VfD at the time and the tally at the time. An argument broke over when to stop the VfD and how to interpret the results. No side gave in, but after a while it seemed as if consensus was reached since as the VfD stabilized roughly on 09:43, 24 Sep 2004. Israeli occupation of Palestine stabilized on a redirect on 00:09, 24 Sep 2004 after a relatively short edit war; and work on the historically oriented page continued. On 15:20, 5 Oct 2004, a piece from Occupation of Palestine was copied into a new article Political status of Palestine. On 21:25, 22 Oct 2004, it was suggested that the (historically oriented) Occupation of Palestine be renamed. A discussion ensued as to the most appropriate name. On 01:45, 25 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr grew tired of the process, and decided to take matters into his own hands, copying and pasting all the historic occupations into a new page called Occupations of Palestine, replacing the previous contents of the page with a his draft for a new page and archiving all the discussion of the historical occupations page here. Faced with resistance from a number of editors, he continued to attempt to force his changes. All previous discussion and consensus in Talk: was ignored.

Next up on 30 Oct. 2004 was Yasser Arafat, where History Buffer attempted another complete re-write [31]. Despite repeated invitations to the Talk: page, and dozens of disputed edits, HistoryBuffEr failed to make a single comment there, though he did manage to make a number of abusive edit summaries (see Abusive edit summaries section).

Next on the agenda on 31 Oct. 2004 was Ariel Sharon, another reasonably stable article which had an active Talk: page introducing consensus changes at a slow pace into the article. Ignoring that process, HistoryBuffEr again inserted substantial changes [32] into the article with again no proposals or comments in Talk:, despite invitations to bring suggested changes there.

Since the Request for Arbitration HistoryBuffEr has modified his behaviour, but only in the most superficial way. On 10 Nov. 2004 at 5:00am he posted a general objection to a number of items in the Munich Massacre article [33] and announced that he had NPOVd it, which involved a major re-write [34], insisting again that any objections to his changes had to be posted in Talk: (rather than listing the specific changes, and allowing them to achieve consensus first). While he did respond to comments in Talk:, he still clearly believed that as long as he was responding in Talk:, his version should stand, and that the onus was on objectors to "prove" that his changes should be removed [35]. He also again accused editors of using anonymous ids. After several edit wars with a number of editors, each time insisting on inserting his new version, Quadell was good enough to offer to write a NPOV version, as a disinterested third party. After agreeing not to revert Quadell's version [36], he proceeded to revert to a version considerably different from Quadell's version [37], and, in fact, identical to his own pre-Quadell version, [38] claiming "There was no agreement, the so-called compromise version is almost identical to POV version)."

In summary, HistoryBuffEr has shown a complete and utter disdain for any previous consensus that has been reached on generally stable articles, referring to previous editors in insulting terms (e.g. "Arafat haters" or "Sharon lovers"). As well, he shows disdain for the process of reaching consensus in Talk:, preferring instead to force major controversial edits on articles, refusing to propose any first in Talk:, ignoring invitations to come to Talk:, and insisting that if anyone disagrees with his dozens of edits they should bring their objections to Talk:, thus reversing the normal onus of responsibility. Even if the latter didn't contravene Wikipedia norms, the changes to the articles are often so great, involving moves, extensive re-writes, additions, and deletions, that it is extremely difficult for subsequent editors to tell any more what has been changed and what has been left. Jayjg 23:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note by MPerel

HistoryBuffEr repeatedly replaces articles with his own completely rewritten version, wiping out the work of previous editors. You won't find his name on the Talk pages either, he feels no need for consensus with others. I'm going to start documenting with ongoing examples. --MPerel 17:53, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC):

Yasser Arafat page, last stable version by Flockmeal:
03:30, 13 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Updated neutral version)[39][40]

Additional Note by MPerel

I'd like to direct attention to HistoryBuffEr's response on his talk page to Rye1967 under subsection "Arafat - Your Blanket Reverts" [41]. Rye1967 said his changes and that of others were continually getting overwritten by HistoryBuffErs "minor" edits, which were in actually complete article replacements. Here is HistoryBuffEr's telling answer:

"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)"

Note that "the" neutral version in HistoryBuffEr's view is his OWN version only. And HE decides which edits by other editors are useful enough to incorporate into HIS neutral version. And no matter that there have been hundreds of edits by thirty editors talking it out in the talk page, he disregards all other editor's work and makes a "minor" edit to "THE" neutral version (his own, of course) and wholesale replaces the existing article, erasing the work of all other editors, usually labeling it "Updated Neutral Version". He's wasting the time and trying the patience of many, many people. He doesn't seem to understand the word "consensus". MPerel 11:02, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Evidence against HistoryBuffEr by Viriditas

Policy and guideline violations

Neutral point of view

HistoryBuffEr has a history of refusing to follow NPOV. He has referred to NPOV in deprecating terms (NPOV schmPOV and Resistance is futile, also see Gazpacho's comments) and he is very proud of continually violating NPOV, so much so, that he talks about his justification for becoming a POV pusher on his user talk page, which is quoted below. --Viriditas 01:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Begin quote:

Once a partisan creates a POV titled article s/he has framed the issue and trying to NPOV it within the article is a battle already lost. POV titled articles should be Redirected to an NPOV article (or Deleted), but those same partisans are likely to block that. As everyone has veto power here, what is "neutral" is decided by the most determined -- usually the extremists. NPOV for most here means, of course, their own POV. In short:
The commandment #1 here is: "Zealots shall inherit Wikipedia", so the choice is: become one or give up.
HistoryBuffEr 17:58, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC) [42]

End quote.

Israeli occupation of Palestine
  1. HistoryBuffEr objects to the use of disclaimers like "alleged". [43]
Examples of POV:Submitted by Jayjg
  • On 31 Oct 2004, in reaction to a Forbes magazine estimate of Arafat's worth at $300 million (a number considerably lower than most other estimates), HistoryBuffEr (in an attempt to poison the well) insisted on describing Forbes magazine as "pro-Israel" [44] without any source describing them that way (and thus at least justifying pointing out that some people describe them as such). Instead, he felt that his own evaluation of their articles was enough for him to describe them "pro-Israel". He continued to use this designation until [45], then, on 15 Nov 2004 (in reaction to the critique here) he instead started to add the proviso "which frequently publishes pro-Israel opinions" based on a single opinion piece written in Forbes in 2001[46]. This is part of a consistent pattern of designating any sources he does not agree with as either "pro-Israeli" or simply "Israeli". Jayjg 20:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • He has continually referred to Israeli settlements to "occupation colonies", from his very first edits here [47], and persisted in that usage throughout. "Occupation colonies" is a POV neologism essentially invented by HistoryBuffEr; Google gets under a dozen hits for its usage in this way, and most of them from Wikipedia Talk: pages debating the issue with HistoryBuffEr. On the other hand "Israeli settlement" is the Wikipedia name of the article on the subject, and the term (singular and plural) gets over 200,000 Google hits. Nevertheless, even when articles have used the direct wikilink to Israeli settlements article, he has insisted on changing them to the unlinked phrase "occupation colonies" [48]. Sometime he goes even farther; as part of one of his typical huge re-writes of Yasser Arafat on 31 Oct 2004 [49] he changed the sentence in the late 1970s numerous leftist Palestinian organizations appeared which carried out further attacks both within Israel and outside of it. to In the late 1970s several neew leftist organizations appeared and carried out attacks on Israel and Israel's occupation colonies. This change was even more objectionable than his other "occupation colonies" changes, as not only was this POV, but it was simply wrong. The attacks were carried out against cities in Israel (e.g. Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ma'alot - see, for example, Ma'alot massacre), and against targets in foreign countries (e.g. in Athens, Greece); none of the targets during this time were Israeli settlements, unless his implication was that Tel Aviv is also an "occupation colony", which I would think would be even more POV. His latest massive re-writes of 17 Nov 2004 still contain this material [50], even though he has seen the comments about the error both on the relevant Talk: page (Talk:Yasser_Arafat#Occupation_colonies.3F) and here on this page.
  • He claimed that The main reason for the second Palestinian uprising (intifada) was that Israel completely failed to live up to the Oslo Accords peace agreement. While in Oslo Israel agreed to freeze the occupation colonies ("settlements"), in reality the colonies were more than doubled. [51]. Aside from the entirely POV nature of this claim, in fact, the Oslo Accords do not even refer to Israeli settlements; as the Wikipedia article points out Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, Israeli settlements in the area, security and borders were deliberately excluded from the Accords and determined as not prejudged.
  • In a section describing Yasser Arafat's early life, a paragraph describing his claims to be from the al Husseini had remained in the article essentially untouched since 14 Jan 2004, stating At birth, his name was Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat Al Qudua Al Husseini. Claims that he was related to the Jerusalem Husseini clan through his mother (an Abul Saoud), which previously appeared on this page, are shown false given that the Husseini clan designation comes from his father's side. Aburish further explains that Arafat was "unrelated to the real Husseini notables of Jerusalem" (Ibid, p. 9) and explains that "The young Arafat sought to establish his Palestinian credentials and promote his eventual claim to leadership... [and] could not afford to admit any facts which might reduce his Palestinian identity. ...Arafat insistently perpetuated the legend that he had been born in Jerusalem and was related to the important Husseini clan of that city." (Ibid, p. 8) [52] On 31 Oct. 2004 HistoryBuffEr decided that the information needed to be "NPOVd", and proceeded to change it to Claims that Arafat was related to the Jerusalem Husseini clan through his mother have been disputed by Said Aburish, a Christian Lebanese journalist based in London (and holder of an American passport) who is highly critical of Arafat. In a biography written without Arafat's assistance (Arafat: From Defender to Dictator, Bloomsbury Publishing, 1998), Aburish claims that "Arafat insistently perpetuated the legend that he had been born in Jerusalem and was related to the important Husseini clan of that city."[53] In fact, Aburish is not a "Christian Lebanese journalist" but rather a famous Palestinian author and biographer who I am almost certain is Muslim. On 1 Nov. 2004 it was pointed out in Talk: that these claims were false: [54] [55]. While HistoryBuffEr (as usual) did not respond in Talk:, his subsequent edit on 1 Nov. 2004 deleted the information provided by Arafat's biographer Aburish entirely under the edit comment "Revise POV added by Arafat's enemies (Sharon's bio is by his lovers, must be same POV pushers!)" [56], thus clearly indicating that if he can't discount any information which might reflect negatively on Arafat then he will suppress it entirely. Every subsequent edit of his has deleted this information.

Personal attacks

HistoryBuffer's edit history reflects a basic inability to respect other editors, one of the key policies of wikipedia; disrespect leads to personal attacks, incivility, and continued violations of the basic principles of Wikipedia etiquette, all of which continue to occur.

HistoryBuffEr's edit history is replete with rude, belittling, judgmental comments, personal attacks, and lies. Many users have observed HistoryBuffEr's policy-violating behavior, including AAAAA, Gazpacho, GeneralPatton, and Modemac.

It could be argued that the consensus of the Wikipedia community is such, that it is safe to say that HistoryBuffEr's record of personal attacks are fully substantitaed on Wikipedia.

Ambi
  1. HistoryBuffEr threatens to harass Ambi:To "Ambi" the sophomoric redirector (and other potential agitpop troops)...Harassment is counderpoductive, as the same tactic can be used on your favored POV article(s), and facts will not be cowed no matter how shrill you get.If you have an intelligent suggestion or edit please be our guest. Otherwise you'll serve only as an amusement here. HistoryBuffEr 03:44, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC) [57]
  2. Accuses Ambi of "vandalism" in the edit summary for implementing the consensus to redirect. [58]
Jayjg
  1. The Zionist extremist and Palestine denier Jayjg keeps reverting any attempt to correct the false implication that anyone using the term "Zionist" is/could be a Holocaust denier, without supplying any evidence for the assertion. HistoryBuffEr 07:48, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC) [59]
  2. ...If you have issues discuss them here; and keep your bullying tactics for extremists like yourself.HistoryBuffEr 03:50, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC) [60]
Struggle over Palestine
  1. We have a handful of pro-Israeli extremists here holding entire sections of Wikipedia hostage to their whims. ...does not mean anything to these crybabies -- they want articles titled and written exactly as they say, or else this gang will incessantly mutilate, delete, redirect or revert articles until they get their way. HistoryBuffEr17:16, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC) [61]

Revert wars considered harmful

Template:NPOV and Template:TotallyDisputed

Many editors have observed HistoryBuffEr's strategy which focuses on instigating revert wars by adding NPOV and TotallyDisputed headers to any article about Arabs, Israel, Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, or Terrorism. Modemac was one of the first people to notice HistoryBuffEr's tactics:

I also see by your Wikipedia contribution that you've added "Totally Disputed" headers to several other articles having to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict. This suggests that you are less interested in adding NPOV to this article (or the others) than declaring everyone else on Wikipedia to be wrong because they don't agree with you. Please go over this on your Talk page, so that we can come to a resolution. --Modemac 09:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)[62]

HistoryBuffEr has engaged in tactical template abuse, in a concerted effort to thwart already existing consensus on any page that attempts to present a topic in NPOV terms. His strategy consists of starting revert wars by adding the "NPOV" or "TotallyDisputed" header to any page that presents both sides of an issue, usually concerning Arabs, Israelis, or issues related to Jews. The templates explicitly direct users to "See the article's talk page for more information." However, when asked to bring his disputes to Talk like the template says to do, HistoryBuffEr either refuses, or he chooses to post personal attacks instead. Eventually, this tactic leads to an edit/revert war, and finally page protection. This strategy seems to benefit HistoryBuffEr, as there is a 50% chance that the page will be protected with his POV edits in place of the previous consensus version that existed.

Arab-Israeli conflict

HistoryBuffEr added the TotallyDisputed header four times to Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead of discussing his dispute on talk like the template intends the user to do, HistoryBuffEr chose to use the Talk page to launch a campaign of personal attacks against Jayjg. The page was eventually protected after HistoryBuffEr and Alberuni engaed in an edit war.

  • 11:57, 13 Oct 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [63]
  • 07:55, 13 Oct 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [64]
  • 07:38, 13 Oct 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [65]
  • 16:52, 12 Oct 2004] - Add TotallyDisputed template [66]
Holocaust denial examined

HistoryBuffEr added the template header five times on Holocaust denial examined. The TotallyDisputed header was added three times and the NPOV header twice. HistoryBuffEr was the only person who had an objection, and yet he refused to address or discuss his objection to the word "Zionism" on Talk. Five users -- GeneralPatton, Modemac, Uncle Ed, RK, and MtB -- asked HistoryBuffEr to stop engaging in personal attacks and edit wars, and eventually the page was protected due to HistoryBuffEr's continued edits.

  1. 08:35, 24 Oct 2004 - Add NPOV template [67]
  2. 18:16, 23 Oct 2004 - Add NPOV template [68]
  3. 08:03, 14 Oct 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [69]
  4. 07:48, 14 Oct 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [70]
  5. 21:48, 13 Oct 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [71]
Israeli West Bank barrier

HistoryBuffEr changed the template header on Israeli West Bank barrier a total of fifteen* times. He added "TotallyDisputed" eleven times, and "NPOV" four times. HistoryBuffEr refused to discuss what he considered "disputed" on the Talk page, in opposition to the stated intention of the template. HistoryBuffEr was asked by Lance6Wins, Jayjg, Anton Adelson, and MathKnight for his reasons, but HistoryBuffEr refused to provide them. Instead, HistoryBuffEr chose to engage in a revert war (with his friend Alberuni) until the page was protected (by chance) to his version, which currently violates consensus.

  1. 22:24, 10 Nov 2004 - Add NPOV template [72]
  2. 21:13, 10 Nov 2004 - Add NPOV template [73]
  3. 20:19, 10 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [74]
  4. 20:15, 10 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDipsuted template [75]
  5. 17:07, 10 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [76]
  6. 22:57, 8 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [77]
  7. 22:48, 8 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [78]
  8. 21:18, 8 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [79]
  9. 07:36, 7 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [80]
  10. 7:08, 7 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [81]
  11. 06:28, 7 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [82]
  12. 08:52, 25 Oct 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [83]
  13. 18:18, 23 Oct 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [84]
  14. 18:50, 5 Oct 2004 - Add NPOV template [85]
  15. 17:48, 5 Oct 2004] - Add NPOV template [86]
Three revert rule policy

HistoryBuffEr has refused to adhere to the policy of the three revert rule, even when it has been explained to him by an admin. Lacking remorse for engaging in deceptive edit summaries, HistoryBuffEr continues to deny that these edits are reverts. --Viriditas 09:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arabs and anti-Semitism

HistoryBuffEr violated the three revert rule on Arabs and anti-Semitism by reverting the page at least four times in 24 hours. He also engaged in deceptive edit summaries to hide his reverts.

  1. 19:33, 4 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [87]
  2. 19:27, 4 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [88]
  3. 19:07, 4 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [89]
  4. 16:39, 4 Oct 2004 - Revert of RK [90]
Yasser Arafat

HistoryBuffErviolated the three revert rule on Yasser Arafat by reverting the page at least four times in 24 hours. He also engaged in deceptive edit summaries to hide his reverts.

  1. 23:18, 12 Nov 2004 - Revert of 24.81.198.191 [91]
  2. 09:33, 13 Nov 2004 - Revert of 195.7.55.146 [92]
  3. 18:17, 13 Nov 2004 - Revert of 218.208.238.131 [93]
  4. 19:24, 13 Nov 2004 - Revert of Viriditas [94]
Operation Days of Penitence

HistoryBuffEr violated the three revert rule on Operation Days of Penitence by reverting the page at least six times in 24 hours with deceptive edit summaries.

  1. 19:03, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Reithy [95]
  2. 18:38, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [96]
  3. 18:32, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [97]
  4. 18:31, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [98]
  5. 18:23, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [99]
  6. 11:57, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [100]
Sabra and Shatila Massacre

HistoryBuffEr violated the three revert rule on Sabra and Shatila Massacre by reverting the page at least four times in 24 hours. He also engaged in deceptive edit summaries to hide his reverts.

  1. 10:45, 11 Nov 2004 - Reverted 216.155.74.28 [101]
  2. 20:16, 10 Nov 2004 - Reverted Whosyourjudas [102]
  3. 14:05, 10 Nov 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [103]
  4. 13:22, 10 Nov 2004 - Reverted Viriditas [104]

Let's be fair.

Jayjg has refused to adhere to the policy of the three revert rule, even though he is an admin and ought to be familiar with this basic policy. As one of dozens of examples, he violated the three revert rule on Yasser Arafat by reverting the page at least four times, and used deceptive edit summaries (falsely claiming he was reverting vandalism) to escape the charge. —No-One Jones (m) 18:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  1. (cur) (last) 04:40, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Update Camp David)
  2. (cur) (last) 04:21, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m
  3. (cur) (last) 04:19, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Revise Lebanese claim)
  4. (cur) (last) 04:11, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m
  5. (cur) (last) 04:04, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m
  6. (cur) (last) 02:47, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m
  7. (cur) (last) 02:46, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore vandalized page)
  8. (cur) (last) 02:43, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m (remove vandalism and other minor edits)
  9. (cur) (last) 02:39, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Jag, take your godly mission against Arafat elsewhere, the Bio must be NPOV)
  10. (cur) (last) 01:41, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m (Fix link and vandalism)
  11. (cur) (last) 01:30, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Rephrase PA vote)
  12. (cur) (last) 00:55, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m (remove dead links and vandalism)
  13. (cur) (last) 00:52, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (RV vandal JAg)
  14. (cur) (last) 00:48, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg (remove vandalism; fix some links; remove current event item)
  15. (cur) (last) 00:47, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Remove one rumor)
True, in response to the same behaviour on the part of HistoryBuffEr, using minor edits to evade the technical charge of a revert. But please note that my earliest edits and a number of edits through the process were attempts to NPOV the material, not simple reverts, but HistoryBuffEr's response was simply to revert to his own version. And in my view at that point HistoryBuffEr's efforts were indeed vandalism. Jayjg 18:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mirv, while I agree Jayjg was not setting an example as he should, HistoryBuffEr was worse. Here is a typical example (quoting Proteus [105]):

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.

You can guess yourself who the "most active of the the people reverting you" was...

It would be a good idea to avoid changing titles after they are already referred to it in Response section below. HistoryBuffEr 06:33, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by User:IZAK

Hi everyone, I am User:IZAK. This is not about "edits" that I am disputing, as I have not focused on minor edits by User:HistoryBuffEr. What I am opposed to is User:HistoryBuffEr's mocking, degrading, and negative attitude on Wikipedia and to the State of Israel, Jews, and Zionism related articles, which simply put amounts to Anti-Semitism for lack of any other clearer definition. I hope this matter will receive the serious attention it deserves. Thank you. IZAK 15:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Furthermore, by reading HistoryBuffer's own words you will see that he has repeatedly violated the three things he has accused others of doing in the past:

  1. Avoid Profanity
  2. No Personal attacks
  3. Wikipedia etiquette
  • See:

(HistoryBuffEr | talk | contributions)

  • See:

Talk:Occupation of Palestine:

  1. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#Democratic?: "...Not to mention the fact that a country that treats its minorities as dirt cannot be called democratic at all. HistoryBuffEr 07:12, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)"
  2. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#Losing NPOV marbles to bullies: "We have a handful of pro-Israeli extremists here holding entire sections of Wikipedia hostage to their whims. ...does not mean anything to these crybabies -- they want articles titled and written exactly as they say, or else this gang will incessantly mutilate, delete, redirect or revert articles until they get their way."
  3. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#Instead of replacing large portions of text with entirely different text: "...Case closed, try peddling your hypocrisy elsewhere. HistoryBuffEr 22:55, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)"
  4. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#NPOV or Zionist extremist POV?: "...My point is: Views of some extremists are here presented as views of (all or most) Israelis, which is both inaccurate and POV. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)...And because this highly POV version was written by the resident Zionists they should disqualify themselves from further editing of this article and limit themselves to suggestions in Talk in the interest of Wikipedia. HistoryBuffEr 06:37, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)"
  5. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#Maps and what they mean: "...Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a geographical society, any map they post is inherently political. HistoryBuffEr 19:43, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)...Judea was never a purely geo term, as it means "where Jews live". Using this ancient ethnicity based term today is inherently political. HistoryBuffEr 20:28, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)"
  6. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#A problematic phrase: Israel is also disputed by some, so what about terms "Israel" and "Israeli areas", aren't these terms POV as well? HistoryBuffEr 19:47, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)...(In what sense is the term "Israel" disputed? --Uncle Ed 19:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC).) Ever heard of "Hamas" et al? HistoryBuffEr
  7. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#Will the real NPOV please stand up: "...Stating that terms Palestine/Palestinians are disputed in the very first sentence but omitting that Israel is also disputed is neither fair nor it represents all sides...Object violently" implies that most Arabs and their allies are attacking Israel, which is not true...It mimicks a favorite canard of Zionist extremists who call anyone supporting the Palestinian cause an Arab-lover or a Jew-hater. It is not mirrored with "Jews and their allies", but with "Israel and their allies". "Arabs" is an ethno/racial term so a fair mirror term should be "Jews", not "Israel"....HistoryBuffEr 18:58, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)"
  8. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#"Palestinian": "I've taken a break from this article to let others move the article towards a neutral POV, or at least some consensus (meaning text acceptable to those outside of the pro-Israel extremist gang who have made a joke of this article), but I haven't seen any major outside edits and the gang keeps littering on and on...HistoryBuffEr 03:20, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)"

Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict:

  1. Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict#Jayjg, 3 strikes -- you're out: "Jayjg, you've been already told that Wikipedia is not your private sandbox and that no one needs your permission to edit here. Now you have (again) shown your immaturity by repeated reverts with no good reason (other than that NPOV edits obviously hurt your pro-Israeli POV). You should be aware that you have violated Wikipedia's policy of "No 3 reverts within 24 hours". If you do not grow up and leave this page alone I'll have no choice but to refer you to adult supervision. HistoryBuffEr 05:42, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)"

Talk:Israel:

  1. Talk:Israel#"Jayjg": Who are you?: "Who do you think you are to repeatedly revert my edits without any reason? And why did you remove the NPOV notice? If you have issues discuss them here; and keep your bullying tactics for extremists like yourself. HistoryBuffEr 03:50, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)"
  2. Talk:Israel#Jayjg, Wikipedia is not your private sandbox: Jayjg, despite what your mom may have told you, this and other Israel related pages are NOT your personal property. And no one needs your permission to edit this or any other page on Wikipedia. So, instead of whining ask mom to get you your very own private sandbox where you can dictate who can do what. Meanwhile, leave Wikipedia editing to adults. HistoryBuffEr 04:48, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)(I encourage you to restrict your comments to discussions of proposed edits, rather than the continued ad hominem statements. Jayjg 04:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC).) Have you learned to read yet? I said that no one needs your approval to edit. Now, go back to reading "Pet Goat" and leave this page alone. HistoryBuffEr 05:04, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)."

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons:

  1. "...The user archives any critical remarks and newcomer guidance to this page in violation of Talk etiquette. The user was notified that this is a violation and moved the notification to this page. The user continues to engage in uncivil behavior and other etiquette/policy violations, and his summary rejection of criticism makes any progress on these problems impossible. Delete. Gazpacho 04:53, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis:

  1. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis#This VfD has expired: (HistoryBuffer tries to close off a vote that goes against him.): "...Notwithstanding HistoryBuffEr's strange math, a VfD is live and can continue being voted on until an admin gets around to ruling on consensus. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

User:HistoryBuffEr:

  1. User:HistoryBuffEr: (Negative Attitude): "Leave rants and unsolicited advice messages here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons&action=edit&section=new).

Thanks. HistoryBuffEr 06:01, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

User talk:HistoryBuffEr:

  1. User talk:HistoryBuffEr: (More negatives): "...General Rants and Unsolicited Advices will be promptly moved to subpage User_talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons. If your message is of this type, please post it directly there..."

User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons:

  1. User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons#Hi: "...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)"
  2. User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons#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) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons"."

Arab anti-Semitism:

  1. HistoryBuffer attempts to remove: "Genuine anti-Semitism exists in the Arab world." [106]
  2. HistoryBuffer attemtps to insert: "This article is about views of some Arabs considered by some Jews or their supporters to be anti-Semitic. Most Arabs dispute anti-Semitism charges, stating that their views are merely reciprocal to Jewish hostility towards Arabs, and based solely on Israel's Occupation of Palestine and neighboring lands and Israel's oppression of Palestinians. Some Jews and their supporters consider any opposition to the existence of the State of Israel and any criticism of Israel's actions to be anti-Semitic. Moderates on all sides point to the need to separate legitimate criticism from irrational hatred..." [107]
  3. History tries to insert: "...This article discusses Jewish allegations of anti-Semitism within the Arab world. These allegations are disputed by Arabs, stating that the only cause for hostility towards Israel is Israel's Occupation of Palestine and Israel's hostility towards Palestinians and Arabs...Some people claim that the Palestinian Authority's hostility to Israel constitutes anti-Semitism in itself; others regard this claim as absurd, noting that hostility to an enemy nation need not imply hostility to the associated ethnicity..." [108]
  4. HistoryBuffer tries to delete: "...Articles in many official Arab government newspapers (notably those of the Palestinian Authority, Libya and Saudi Arabia) claim that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an infamous anti-Semitic forgery, reflects actual facts, and thus points to an international Jewish conspiracy to take over the world... Zionist conspiracy theories regarding the (September 11, 2001 attacks) Across the Arab world, a fair number of Arab media outlets, some government-sponsored (such as those of Libya and Saudi Arabia, and some of those of the Palestinian Authority),...and therefore believed that people perceived to be enemies of the Arabs must really be to blame; many others disagreed. After Al Qaeda acknowledged their role publicly, these claims lost credibility, and came to be widely seen as a conspiracy theory." [109]


Evidences against HistoryBuffEr by MathKnight

Evidences gathered by User:MathKnight:

Notes: I added bolding to some words. Italic text is my comments.

Yasser Arafat

User:HistoryBuffEr is constantly vandalizing the article and inserting biased false information. I ask anyone who sees his changes to revert to the previous version.

Examples of HisBuf's vandalism:

  • In September of 1972 the Palestinian group Black September kidnapped 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games; all hostages and most hostage takers were eventually killed. Try to whitewash the fact that the kidnappers slaughtered the 11 athlets.
  • The Fatah movement continued to launch attacks against Israeli targets. In the late 1970s several new leftist organizations were formed in Palestine and carried out attacks on Israel and Israeli occupation colonies. Israel claimed that Arafat was in ultimate control over these organizations, but Arafat denied responsibility for acts of other groups. Highly biased and POV term.
  • Israel claimed that the PLO had played an important part in the Lebanese Civil War. Some Lebanese Christians claimed that the PLO was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Lebanese citizens killed by Israel. Unbased accusation. And again, trying to cover PLO involvement in the Lebanese violence.
  • During this invasion Israeli army killed about 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinians and helped the Christian Phalangist militia massacre in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps about 2,750 Palestinian refugees, mostly civilians. Ariel Sharon, Israeli Minister of Defense at the time, was found by the Israeli Kahan Commission "personally responsible" for the massacre and was dismissed from his post; he is now Prime Minister of Israel. Full of lies and missinformation:
  1. Israel did not helped the Christian Phalangists in Sabra and Chatila. HisBuff accuses the IDF in direct involvement, which is, of course - a brute lie.
  2. The Kahan committee found Sharon "indirectly responsible" and blamed him in not anticipating that the Phalangists will massacre the Palestinians. It never said Sharon was involved in that, or that took active part in the massacre.
  3. Since HisBuff caught lying on this, I dispute the casualties toll he brings and the assertion the most were civilians.
  • However, Israel made no visible attempts to live up to either the Oslo or the Wye River agreements; to the contrary, Israel steadily expanded its occupation, doubled the population in occupation colonies and kept obstructing Palestinian self-rule. Again, the incitement and POV terming.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Yasser_Arafat&oldid=7444584)

Israeli West Bank Barrier

HistoryBuffer puts "Total Dispute" and refuse to say why, see Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#HistoryBuffEr_adds_TotallyDisputed.

Operation Days of Penitence

"The dispute exists only in your extremist head. Even your Fuehrer admits it, so get over it. HistoryBuffEr 01:53, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)" [110]

Additional views by others

The dispute between Jayjg and HistoryBuffEr has gotten quite heated, and seen a number of repeated revisions. However, this case should not result in heavy-handed sanctions. Since Wiki lacks a system for drafting editorial policies, along with a system for editorial arbitration, disputes on topcis as controversial as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are inevitably going to escalate to the level of the one between Jayjg and HistoryBuffE, as we are dealing with a mix of frequent editors whose worldviews diverge so sharply. So this case should be seen within the framework of systemic problems on Wiki as a whole, as opposed to the personalities.

While I haven't been following each item of the dispute as closely as some other editors, I have noticed some distinctions between the two, though. From what I've seen, Jayjg seems to do a better job of sticking with generally accepted term (e.g., HistoryBuffEr has favored the terms "occupation colonies" as opposed to the standard "Israeli settlements"). Jayjg's reasoning is also much easier to follow on the talk pages. HistoryBuffEr's comments in his edit summaries and on the talk pages, though, are often ad hominem.172 18:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would generally agree with 172. I think HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg are both generally good contributors to Wikipedia with very strong views on this subject matter; I would hope that someone can work out a way to mediate this, because I think with more of an effort by both of them to reach consensus they would both have a lot valuable to contribute.

In my view, HistoryBuffEr has had more of a tendency towards ad hominem attacks (although nothing compared to Alberuni) and a little less willingness to do the legwork of finding citations to back up his points. I think the other issues above border on trivial: HistoryBuffEr has very occasionally violated the 3-revert rule, but so has Jayjg. Neither does it habitually. I think HistoryBuffEr is in a tough position, his view being in the definite minority of Wikipedia editors actively working on Israel/Palestine issues; it's not surprising that more overt anger comes from the less represented side. I have seen both of these individuals (and both sides more generally) dig in their heels, demanding impossible levels of proof (e.g. Jayjg's reactions to John Harbo on the Sabra and Shatila massacre). Neither ever seems to come forward with any facts that are inconvenient to their own politics. Both have a tendency to want to produce a one-sided article, rejecting sources cited by the other side as somehow not worthy of citation.

We have a case here of two representative (but not unique) examples of generally strong contributors who feel enough of a stake in this matter that they are generally functioning as advocates (or even partisans) rather than striving for balance.

I would really like to urge the involvement of a moderator in this. I've tried informally moderating some of these matters, being somewhere between their political views, but I haven't made much progress and frankly I'm not mainly here on Wikipedia to be a moderator, and this has been over subject matter I don't have that much interest in working on: I got pulled into this via various tangents out of Jewish ethnicity and diaspora history and out of various things relating to the broader currents of the Peace Movement and left politics.

I think both parties have occasionally overstepped the lines (HistoryBuffEr more than Jayjg, but I've seen a lot worse). I would hope that instead of approaching this as a matter requiring punishment in any direction, this will be approached as a matter requiring some serious mediation about the articles in this subject-matter area. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:01, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, you yourself recognized the issues with John Harbo's claims. Once he provided some evidence that it wasn't just an anonymous Internet IP address editor making some un-sourced claim, I quickly accepted it and even inserted it. Jayjg 17:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not true. Far from "quickly accepted and even inserted". Jayjg never stated that he accepted it fought it for days and even repeatedly reverted my version which originally added the statement. From history:
  • 06:45, 2004 Nov 9 HistoryBuffEr (Events - Add Harbo's stmt) diff
The Harbo's statement was not in any previous version. This was, of course, repeatedly reverted by Jayjg as usual. After 3 reverts, 15+ hours later Jayjg finally restored the statement, claiming credit for adding it:
  • 22:08, 2004 Nov 9 Jayjg (Events - Add Harbo reference as per Talk:) diff
HistoryBuffEr 01:06, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
Last time I checked, your name wasn't Jmabel. --Viriditas 02:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since my previous remarks appear in evidence for this case, I will note that some (but not all) aspects of how I interpreted talk page etiquette, as they applied to HistoryBuffEr's actions, were incorrect. In particular, it has come to my attention that at least one other user archives comments immediately. The way I chose to resolve that dispute (i.e. by VfDing the archive page) was also quite improper. Gazpacho 10:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User HistoryBuffEr took uncooperative attitude towards other users from the start with communication blackhole User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons. Then it turned from bad to worse: ad homs, name calling, edit wars, higly offensive edits and hate speech. (one example out of hundreds) ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User HistoryBuffEr caused so far nothing but troubles. He is constantly refusing to use the talk except for personal attacks and blaming Wikipedia to be a part of a Zionist consiperacy. Using flammable terms ("occupation colonies"), refusing to cooperate with others and filling article with missinformation (in some cases - even bold lies) and propoganda. Because of his behaivor, it is very unlikely that his vandalism edits are "innocent mistakes" and come from a good will. He came here with hugh load of hate, and should be cooled-down for a while. MathKnight 10:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User Jayjg is used as a tool by others engaging in POV edit wars. See [User_talk:Jayjg&oldid=7473301#Thanks] and User_talk:Jayjg#help? and User_talk:Jayjg#Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion. - Amgine 03:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Josiah's views

Most of what I would say has been said already. While Jayjg, as well as HistoryBuffEr, has broken the revert rule and could be said to be a POV pusher at times, there are 2 major differences: I would say that literally half of HistoryBuffEr's contain blatantly demeaning insults in the edit summaries, and very rarely cooperates in the talk pages. Jayjg, on the other hand, is not known to insult others, and is willing to work via talk pages, though it may take some time to arrive to a compromise. For example, Jayjg and I had out own little edit wars on various pages related to Karaite Judaism, but he was willing to discuss it, and after a good amount of work we have arrived to compromises that are suitable for both of us. You won't find HistoryBuffEr willing to do that.--Josiah 21:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response to Evidence about HistoryBuffEr

Evidence of NPOV editing by HistoryBuffEr

I have requested HistoryBuffEr, or anyone else, to place evidence under this heading which shows HistoryBuffEr has made edits to Jewish, Zionist and Palestinian related topics which demonstrate NPOV editing. Fred Bauder 17:36, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Of course I consider most of my edits to be NPOV. Due to the immense amount of propaganda in the Israel-Palestine area, and the considerable number of reverters of my edits, I have not had time to venture outside of this tar pit.

If "NPOV" in this context means "edits in favor of the POV of those reverting me", consider that:

  • The opposition is working around the clock and are simply too numerous for me to beat them to it,
  • All my posts make a fraction of posts by just one member of the POV pushing team,
  • Most of the POV pushers in question have rather extreme views,
  • There aren't any comparable extremists from the other side (something like an "Islamic Jihad" advocate) posting in the area.

Considering all this, it would be better to take into account:

  • Statements left in, and
  • Edits that survived the extremist cuts.

In every article I worked on there are many statements favored by POV pushers which are of questionable neutrality and/or veracity which I left untouched. That makes for plenty of implicit-by-omission "favoring the opposition POV."

Also, several of my edits have somehow survived the avalanche of extremist revert troops. The bad news is that those were mostly either simple facts/numbers or cases of mistaken identity, as in these examples:

Israel

  • 19:11, 2004 Sep 20 HistoryBuffEr m (Politics) diff
This edit removed "constitutional" from "constitutional parliamentary republic". It is interesting to note that this obviously wrong fact remained in the article for 16 months, despite dozens of supposedly informed Israeli citizens working on it.

Zionism

  • 23:50, 13 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr Zionism and the Arabs - add numbers diff
Replaced "majority" with "overwhelming majority (95% in 1880)"

History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

  • 03:27, 13 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr (intro: redo resident numbers per Encarta) diff
Replaced "Muslims, Jews and Christians inhabitated the area" in 2 edits with "Palestinian Arabs (about 95%, mostly Muslims, some Christians), and Jews (about 5%)"

Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

  • 04:43, 24 Sep 2004 HistoryBuffEr (American views of the peace process - add figures, veto power) diff
  • 06:37, 24 Sep 2004 4.232.126.224 "Road Map" for Peace - add compliance para diff
  • 03:42, 26 Sep 2004 HistoryBuffEr "Road Map" for Peace - readability fixes diff
  • 03:45, 26 Sep 2004 Ambi Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by 4.232.126.224 diff
Amusing how above Ambi promptly reverted HistoryBuffEr's minor edit, not realizing that she reverted just minor tweaks to a version HistoryBuffEr posted while logged off :)
Of course, the agitprop troops promptly joined the revert fest on edits labelled HistoryBuffEr, leaving the anon IP edit largely alone, except for Jayjg (who else) stubbornly insisting on replacing "not dismantled any major occupation settlements" with "dismantled only minor post-March 2001 settlements."

There are several more examples of this kind, but I do not want all those edits to get the treatment regularly applied to edits known to be by "HistoryBuffEr".

Last but not least, I consider my versions of several articles to be much more neutral and useful to readers than versions before my edits. For example, compare these versions (the current one is usually the pro-Israel POV version):

Sample passage:
""Following a highly controversial visit by Ariel Sharon to the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound and the violence which followed, the so-called Second Palestinian Intifada (2000-present)began."
Same event passage:
""On 2000-09-28, Ariel Sharon made a controversial visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount compound considered sacred by both Muslims and Jews. [111] Palestinians considered this visit provocative; Arafat described it as a "dangerous step", but Sharon insisted that he had come with a "message of peace". Soon after Sharon left, Palestinian demonstrations turned into violence. This event marked the beginning of the Second Palestinian uprising, which has claimed thousands of victims and continues to this day."

(By: HistoryBuffEr 06:18, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC); updated 22:14, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC))

I find your examples quite unsatisfactory, first I need specific edits which demonstrate NPOV editing, "diffs", in this format, [112]. Also I am not just asking for sound edits, but edits which demonstate your ability and inclination to allow well-founded information unfavorable to "your side" to remain in the article and be fairly presented. As well as any possible instances where you have in your researchs located information unfavorable to "your side" and included them in the article. Fred Bauder 13:44, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Umm, Fred, you have missed some important points:
  • There is no such thing as "my side". I am not associated with either party. This is not a case of a pro-Palestinian extremist battling moderates but the opposite: a neutral party trying to balance the agitprop of pro-Israel extremists.
  • I already mentioned that I left in plenty of unfounded and unfair claims, in some cases entire articles save for a word or two. So, your question whether I ever allowed "well-founded information fairly presented" is both redundant and implicitly insulting.
  • As for posting info favorable to the "other side", most info I post is from neutral sources (UN, ICRC) or mainstream press. I recall some of my info/sources used by POV pushers (will try to find it). Also note the big picture: most articles are already chock-full of pro-Israel extremist info and sources and there is little need to add to it.
  • As for the diffs: the versions to compare are too far apart in history to select "Compare" and the current version changes all the time, so the diff is unpredictable. Besides, the ultimate proof of whether an article is fair and readable is the entire article itself, not the diffs. I'll try to get Here are some diffs, anyway.
HistoryBuffEr 19:38, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC); updated HistoryBuffEr 05:52, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC))

Note by Gady

HistoryBuffEr, there was a little mess in the attribution. All the obstinacy complaint up to and including your quote is by me (Gady, I've added my signature retrospectively), only the last three lines are by Lance6Wins. I suggest you reword your reply. Gady 22:31, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice your sig. I've revised the section below. HistoryBuffEr 03:30, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

RE: Gadykozma and Lance6Wins: "Obstinacy"

Gadykozma is the only one from the Jayjg's "me too" group to begin moving towards NPOV (after nearly 2 months of my "sermons") and that is commendable. However, his suggestion that any compromise he proposes is automatically NPOV and that I am being unreasonable is a bit far-fetched. In fact, I have not rejected his idea; because "the devil is in the details" I consider this a work in progress.

As for the evidence Gadykozma submitted, he forgot to include the context and to explain what is rude about my question ("Will you ever accept a title which includes terms used by most of the world (implicitly neutral) to describe the subject?".) For context, I'll just quote the first reply to my supposedly "rude" question:

"That's a darn good question, and to show you how seriously I take it I'm going to take the whole weekend to reflect on it. See you all Monday! --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 19:59, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)"

Next, Lance6Wins, who removed the "Disputed" notice twice from an article disputed by several editors, now has the gall to not only bring up his outrageous behavior to light here, but tries to present it as someone else's violation.

Not to mention that ArbCom considers Lance6Wins far from being an impartial witness (AC quote: "[Lance6Wins] takes a partisan perspective somewhat similar to that taken by the commentator Daniel Pipes.")

(By: HistoryBuffEr 01:13, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC))

RE: Gadykozma: "Interests and contribution"

Gadykozma complains that contributions of HistoryBuffEr are limited in scope. Besides failing to note the context -- the much more numerous (5,000+) posts of Jayjg are limited in scope, too -- Gadykozma sounds like an arsonist complaining of someone constantly putting out fires.

If Gadykozma, Jayjg and the rest of their closely knit group were more open-minded, other editors would not have had to spend nearly 2 months to convince them that the plain and obvious fact of Israeli occupation should be presented as such.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 22:03, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC))

RE: Gadykozma and Jayjg: "Bullying"

Gadykozma suggests that the RfC against Proteus was meritless, but does not state why. In fact the RfC was fully justified (Proteus reverted and then protected article(s), used misleading explanation, then tried to conceal complaints about that, and then called the complainant a "troll"). Several RfC voters agreed that various Proteus' actions were inappropriate. The reason the RfC was not certified is simple: cert requires that 2 users warn the subject prior to opening the RfC, and it turned out only one did so. Why this RfC was deleted instead of archived is a mystery; it should be undeleted for the record and future reference.

Jayjg cites HistoryBuffEr's comments in the case above as "harassment". The explanation above, reading the comments in context and taking into account the WP policy advising against removing criticism, amply prove that Jayjg's biased editorializing is just that.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 22:03, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC))

RE: Jayjg: Bullying edit comments

Amusing to see the bully Jayjg whining about comments which he regularly uses against other users. The only diff here is the word "warning" -- and issuing a warning is required by the RfC rules.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 07:02, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC))

RE: Modemac: "Abusive edit summaries"

Modemac submits a number of entries without any context: what was said or done before, what's behind the titles. Modemac has supplied neither links for context nor an explanation why he considers all those entries abusive. (This reply will be expanded later).

Interestingly, Modemac also brings up Holocaust denial examined, where he abused his sysop privileges by protecting the article he edited and reverted, and repeatedly removing the "Disputed" notice (see history) even though the dispute was clearly described in Talk and was not resolved.

In Holocaust denial examined, HistoryBuffEr tried to correct the statement which created an (incorrect and biased) impression that anyone using term Zionist is or might be a Holocaust denier, but Jayjg reverted the correction twice and then Modemac took over with 3 more reverts. Jayjg and Modemac finally gave up on their POV pushing when MtB joined the fray on the side of NPOV.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 22:03, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC), updated: 00:32, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC))

RE: Jayjg: "Complete re-writes of stable articles ..."

Jayjg's complaint about HistoryBuffEr's "complete re-writes of stable articles" is one of the most important issues to be settled here, because Jayjg incessantly insists to all editors, day in and day out, that his opinion of what Wikipedia edit policy should be overrides the actual Wikipedia edit policy.

Jayjg's claims that HistoryBuffEr "disregards previous editors and Talk: pages" and "promotes his POV" contradict facts and are actually main points of the complaint against Jayjg himself.

These issues are covered in more detail in "Evidence about Jayjg" below. (soon to come)

(By: HistoryBuffEr 22:03, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC))

Jayjg, as evidence in his own accusations, has a severe problem allowing anything which does not suit his own POV. I've been told he is a SysOp, which is truely appalling, and he has threatened to have be banned. His Idea of consensus is whatever suit him and fits his POV, and reverts anyone who dares suggest anything else regardless of the Talk page. I would not use anything he has to say as evidence.
Please note this last comment was by the anonymous IP editor 195.7.55.146. 195.7.55.146, can you show where and when I have threatened to have you banned? You've made this accusation more than once, but I haven't seen any evidence for it. Jayjg 15:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RE: MPerel

MPerel complains about HistoryBuffEr "completely replacing articles". Welcome to Wikipedia, MPerel: The editing standard on Wikipedia is not how much is replaced but whether the result is neutral and useful to readers.

Also interesting to note which version MPerel considers "stable", and that MPerel apparently "overlooked" the much more frequent acts of "completely replacing articles" by the other side.

Also interesting to note (see below) that even MPerel himself reverted Yasser Arafat twice, but does not complain about that.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 06:52, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC), updated: 06:37, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC))

RE: Additional note by MPerel

Here is MPerel's entire contrib history to Yasser Arafat:

  1. 06:35, 2004 Nov 15 (hist) Yasser Arafat (Revert HistoryBuffEr's wholesale replacement to previous version by Alberuni)
  2. 00:20, 2004 Nov 13 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (Fatah and the PLO - spelling)
  3. 00:13, 2004 Nov 13 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (Early life - italicize magazine reference)
  4. 00:10, 2004 Nov 13 (hist) Yasser Arafat (revert vandalism)
  5. 23:11, 2004 Nov 12 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (Early life - fix run-on, spelling, grammar)
  6. 22:32, 2004 Nov 12 (hist) Yasser Arafat (simpler and more accurate. Israel supporters and Palestinians weren't his only opponents.)
  7. 01:16, 2004 Nov 12 (hist) Yasser Arafat (Bibliography)
  8. 01:04, 2004 Nov 2 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (grammar)
  9. 00:28, 2004 Nov 2 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (External links - Removed dead links again)

If any of these valuable contributions got lost, please state which ones.

The other editor that MPerel mentioned, who complained to both Jayjg and HistoryBuffEr about his edit being lost, had essentially just one date change in the illness timeline, which is a detail that should have been posted into the "Illness and Death" article, rather than overwhelming the main article. (His changes were incorporated anyway, rephrased for brevity.)

(By: HistoryBuffEr 06:37, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC))

RE: Viriditas Template:NPOV and Template:TotallyDisputed

The fact that Viriditas, Jayjg, Lance6Wins, Modemac and other agitprop troops:

  • Not only constantly remove edits they dislike, but also
  • Keep shamelessly removing even the notice that a dispute exists, and on top of it
  • Have the chutzpah to call this a HistoryBuffEr's violation

should boggle any decent mind.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 06:48, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC))

RE: Viriditas and Jayjg: Neutral point of view policy

Here, Viriditas submits just unfounded opinions, editorials and flat misrepresentations of out-of-context tidbits, and even claims to be able to peer into someone's mind (Viriditas: "he is very proud of continually violating NPOV").

(By: HistoryBuffEr 22:03, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC))

Examples of POV:Submitted by Jayjg

  • Jayjg: [HistoryBuffEr] "Insists on describing Forbes magazine as "pro-Israel" without any source"
Interesting objection, the source link is right there within the sentence (and the source is "Forbes" itself :), see [113]. Also note that I was already asked and answered this same objection by Jayjg before. Also, I have (slightly) rephrased the claim before this objection was posted here.
  • Controversy about Arafat's birth date/place.
  • The PBS and other sources describe Aburish as a "journalist, author, and a lobbyist for Saddam" (see also Marsh Agency and many other sources.)
  • For "Christian", see this and his book "Aburish, Said K.; The Forgotten Faithful: The Christians of the Holy Land; Great Britain; Quartet Books; 1993."
  • He was indeed born in Palestine (near Jerusalem) but because he spent plenty of time in Lebanon some sources apparently thought he was Lebanese. Also note that some (I saw one ref) confuse him for a Muslim.

So, now in addition to half a page on the little relevant Arafat birthplace controversy we'd now have to expand it with the controversy about who is Aburish, right? Looking at it from readers' perspective: What's the big deal? Bush also claims to be a Texan, and many ridicule that claim, but article on Bush does not spend half a page on it, does it?

My solution was: Give the claim space according to relevance, ie: Note the controversy and move on. Case closed.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 07:49, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC))

RE Viriditas and Jayjg: Three revert rule policy

The evidence submitted by Viriditas does not show a violaton of the 3-reverts rule. Viriditas' opinion that some edits are reverts is unsupported by facts. Here is the missing context and facts (nb: some Viriditas times and order below don't look right.)

Arabs and anti-Semitism

  1. 19:33, 4 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg
Preceding History entry: Jayjg: (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg)
  1. 19:27, 4 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg
Preceding History entry: Jayjg: (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg)
  1. 19:07, 4 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg
Preceding History entry: Jayjg: (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by RK)
  1. 16:39, 4 Oct 2004 - Reverted RJ
Not a revert. Edit description: (NPOVify this propaganda page, pass 1)

Yasser Arafat

  1. 23:18, 12 Nov 2004 - Revert of 24.81.198.191
Not a revert. Preceded by numerous anon reverts/vandalism. Edit description: (Updated neutral version)
  1. 09:33, 13 Nov 2004 - Revert of 195.7.55.146
Not a revert. Preceded by numerous anon reverts/vandalism. Edit description: (Updated neutral version)
  1. 18:17, 13 Nov 2004 - Revert of 218.208.238.131
Not a revert. Preceded by numerous anon reverts/vandalism. Edit description: (sigh, yet another vandal) Updates: Fix lost link + quote + illness, add quote, rephrase "Forbes" etc, wikify + typos
  1. 19:24, 13 Nov 2004 - Revert of Viriditas
Not a revert, this is actually a revert by Viriditas. (I did revert this Viriditas' revert later)

Operation Days of Penitence

  1. 19:03, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Reithy
Not a revert. Reith: (militant really is a terrorist is it not?); HistoryBuffEr: (Rephrase + wikify)
  1. 18:38, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg
Yep. Jayjg reverted 1st with: (Please propose major changes in Talk:); HistoryBuffEr reverted with: (Do as you say)
  1. 18:32, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg
Same as above. Jayjg reverted 1st, HistoryBuffEr reverted back.
  1. 18:31, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg
Same as above. Jayjg reverted 1st, HistoryBuffEr reverted back.
  1. 18:23, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg
Not a revert. Jayjg reverted with: (Revert vandalism); HistoryBuffEr edited with: (wikify +)
  1. 11:57, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg
Not a revert. Jayjg reverted before this entry; HistoryBuffEr edited and added info: (Intro - + - Events - Reword intro)

P.S: Actually, Jayjg here made 6 reverts here in less than 1 hour, see warning [114]

Sabra and Shatila Massacre

  1. 10:45, 11 Nov 2004 - Reverted 216.155.74.28
Not a revert. Preceded by Jayjg's and anon IP reverts. This IP was later blocked for repeat vandalism.
  1. 20:16, 10 Nov 2004 - Reverted Whosyourjudas
Not a revert. This entry was preceded by the same anon IP vandal revert as above.
  1. 14:05, 10 Nov 2004 - Reverted Jayjg
Yes. Jayjg reverted 1st, HistoryBuffEr reverted back.
  1. 13:22, 10 Nov 2004 - Reverted Viriditas
Yes. Viriditas reverted 1st, HistoryBuffEr reverted with (Minor update (NPOV version); Changes already discussed. Funny, Viriditas suggests Talk but never participated there.)

Next claim by Jayjg that Proteus thought HistoryBuffEr reverted Yasser Arafat most is interesting considering that:

  • Whether by straight count or by Proteus' "standard", Jayjg was the worst revert violator (Proteus' biased count notwithstanding.)
  • The Proteus' "standard", whereby he can decide that an extensive edit is not a "true" edit is just his opinion; even if it were official policy Proteus abused it here: He somehow counted all my extensive edits as reverts but conveniently forgot to apply that "standard" to Jayjg's reverts which were not edits at all (just deceptively labelled as such). Obviously, this was just an excuse for Proteus' biased revert/protect action (this was subject of Proteus RfC.)

(By: HistoryBuffEr 22:03, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC), updated 02:00, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC))

RE: Evidence submitted by IZAK

IZAK piles on his now standard doze of spam (already discussed elsewhere): heaps of out-of-context cut'n'paste, accompanied by his amusing interpretations, all in bold letters, of course.

IZAK's spamming and unwarranted Anti-Semitist smears against several users are subjects of the still pending Request for Comments and Arbitration case.

After IZAK toned down his personal attacks for a while I decided not to post evidence of his previous behavior to his ArbCom case. However, IZAK's renewed Anti-Semitist charge here leaves no choice but to submit this proof of his apparent incorrigibility.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 22:03, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC))

RE: Evidence submitted by MathKnight

I don't see a need to comment on MathKnight's obviously half-baked and biased interpretations. I'll just note that his claim that there was no sign of dispute over Israeli West Bank barrier is laughable, as the link he supplied (Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier) and article history show.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 09:12, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC))

You just proved my point. MathKnight 19:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evidence about Jayjg

Introduction

Probably the best way to introduce Jayjg is to use his own words (from Jayjg's user page, 19:56, 7 Nov 2004, bold emphasis added):

"Wikipedia is regularly inundated with POV warriors ... refusing to propose changes on Talk: pages. When pushed, they continually revert to their re-write, insisting that all who disagree must justify any disagreements in Talk:, rather than themselves justifying their POV changes. If you can finally pin them down in Talk:, they insist that you provide evidence for every statement of fact you make, and when you do, they insist that all your sources are "unreliable" or "biased".
"One of my important roles on Wikipedia is to protect Wikipedia from these POV warriors until they understand what NPOV is ... or leave..."

Jayjg apparently places all the blame on others and presents himself as a misunderstood defender of Wikipedia on a mission to drive out the "infidels" besieging Wikipedia and NPOV. These bold claims are entirely bald, as the evidence below will show.

(Submitted by: HistoryBuffEr 23:28, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC))

Jayjg's Mission

Jayjg's claim that he is on a mission sounds fair: he has made 5644 posts in 115 days (July 15 - Nov 10). That's on average 50 posts a day (this has risen to 82 posts a day in November.) His top 10 subjects (28.7% of total posts) are:

  • 4.7% (268) Jew
  • 3.9% (219) Yasser Arafat
  • 2.9% (162) Anti-Zionism
  • 2.8% (156) Israel
  • 2.8% (159) Occupation of Palestine (incl. redirect)
  • 2.2% (125) Anti-Semitism
  • 2.1% (121) Israeli West Bank barrier
  • 2.1% (116) Nazarene
  • 1.9% (105) Relationships between Jewish religious movements
  • 1.8% (101) Jesus
  • 1.5% (87) Dore Gold

Only about 0.8% (45) posts were to articles unrelated to Israel/Judaism (from 1987, through Foreskin and Poo, to Wikipedia).

Of course, many editors specialize, but few claim, as Jayjg does, to "defend Wikipedia" by working on a tiny fraction of it. However, the fact that over 90% of Jayjg's posts are on topics related to those above shows that Jayjg's actual mission is limited to the area of his personal interest.

A narrowly focused editor can still be very useful by helping create neutral and good articles in his area, and promoting principles of NPOV, good editing practices and cooperation. While some of Jayjg's acts and contributions are certainly useful, many are not and are even contrary to some fundamental principles of Wikipedia.

(Because of the high post volume, most evidence is limited to representative excerpts.)

(Submitted by: HistoryBuffEr 23:28, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC))

Jayjg's View of NPOV

Probably the best definition of Jayjg's view of what NPOV means are his own words:

  • 14:49, 2004 Jun 30 Jayjg Zionism (No NPOV without discussion in the talk page)

That was not just a beginner's flop, Jayjg keeps repeating this mantra over and over, such as in this example

"Here is the place to propose significant changes to this page. Please proceed. Jayjg 16:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

And this is not just an idle claim, Jayjg persistently reverts edits made without his approval. Even though he most often reverts without description, more than 100 reverts specifically mention his "policy":

  • 02:36, 2004 Sep 26 Jayjg Israel (RV POV edits; please bring suggested changes to Talk:)
...
  • 20:58, 2004 Oct 18 Jayjg Christ (rv: Please bring major changes to Talk: first before entering them.)
...
  • 03:17, 2004 Oct 27 Jayjg Israel (sigh. Talk: page first please)
...
  • 04:18, 2004 Nov 2 Jayjg Rachel Corrie (Huh. Still no proposed changes in Talk: What a surprise.)
...

Apparently, for Jayjg NPOV means only what is approved by Jayjg.

This is completely contrary to the Wikipedia edit policy, which allows anyone, even non-logged users, to edit without preapproval, and even encourages everyone to "be bold".

If Jayjg disagrees with the open-editing policy, he should start a debate about it, rather than single-handedly imposing on everyone his personal view which contradicts the official policy.

Not to mention that Jayjg apparently considers himself exempt from his "policy" and has never submitted his edits for anyone's approval.

This is not just an academic issue, Jayjg patrols the WP corridors day in and day out and strictly enforces his edit "policy". This Jayjg's treatment of Wikipedia as his own private sandbox naturally leads to numerous and seemingly endless disputes with other editors; Jayjg has been involved in several disputes with editors (RfCs, mediations and arbitrations.)

Most of these disputes are counterproductive and a waste of everyone's time, which could be better spent on writing and improving articles. Not to mention that the bad feelings build up and linger, making editors lose interest, stay away from the pit-bull Jayjg's range, or even leave altogether. Which, incidentally, is stated as the goal on the Jayjg's mission statement above (to rephrase: "Jayjg's way or highway".)

Jayjg's Pre-approval policy at work

The unsuspecting editors who submit to Jayjg's "NPOV" examination soon find themselves either submitted to a virtual colonoscopy, or see their presentation and arguments completely disregarded as if they were never made, or both, as in these examples:

History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

In this example, Jayjg strenuosly opposed any changes to apparently biased but unsubstantiated pro-Israel claims, see Dispute.

Jayjg then turned around and insisted on proof of one claim he considered unfavorable to Israel, see Israel didn't allow Arabs who fled to return. He cited only one highly biased pro-Israeli website (which, for example, claims that "The Jews created the refugee problem by expelling the Palestinians" is a "myth".)

In the end, after 2 other editors in the debate agreed on an interim neutral wording until a solid source is found, Jayjg ignored this and simply reinserted the disputed number diff.

Operation Days of Penitence

From article history and Talk:Operation Days of Penitence:

Here, among other examples of Jayjg's obstinacy on this article, HistoryBuffEr, after reverts by Jayjg and his troops, explains changes under Discussion of objections and then posts:

  • 04:00, 21 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Events - NPOV edit, see explanation in Talk (post objections, if any, there))

However, the agitprops (Terrapin, MathKnight and Jayjg) promptly begin another revert-fest (with Xed on the other side.)

Finally, Jayjg replies in Talk with obfuscation and no evidence, and then ignores this and other Talk discussions and simply reverts the article again diff.

Sabra and Shatila Massacre

From article history and Talk:Sabra and Shatila Massacre:

First, John E posts a minor claim that 2 reporters got into the camp the day before and observed removal of bodies.

  1. 08:31, 2004 Oct 5 John E diff

Jayjg promptly reverts him, without explanation or justification.

  1. 15:43, 2004 Oct 5 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by John E to last version by Jayjg) diff

Of course, if there was an issue with the edit, Jayjg should have mentioned it, especially seeing a new user-id, but this is Jayjg, he simply reverts it and that's it.

John E then posts a question to Talk and debate ensues, see Norwegian observers. In short: John E wonders why Jayjg removed his post, then explains that he is the journalist who was there and says the info was also published in the official commission report. Jayjg replies that "any additions need to be attributed", even though John E just did that.

True, ideally everything should be 100% verified, but this article has several unsourced claims, many of them important. But those are fine because they jibe with Jayjg's POV, even if they are (as some have shown to be) contrary to facts. And this claim is apparently minor, sourced and NPOV.

However, Jayjg persists and insists on more proofs; others join in and the discussion goes on for days. After 25 days and agreement by other editors, John E asks Jayjg for approval again and Jayjg finally relents.

Also, note this Talk exchange:

Jmabel asks Jayjg a question:
"Jayjg, are there any of HistoryBuffEr's edits that you consider acceptable?" -- Jmabel | Talk 07:19, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC).
Jayjg replies:
"I'm sure there are, but I can't even tell what edits he's made ..." Jayjg 16:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC).

Note that this is in reply to HistoryBuffEr's post Summary of HistoryBuffEr's edits! Apparently, either

  • Jayjg is disingenious, or
  • He keeps reverting HistoryBuffEr's edits without even knowing what they are.

Jayjg also keeps reverting HistoryBuffEr's edits even after stating above that he is sure some are acceptable.

(Submitted by: HistoryBuffEr 23:28, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC))

Jayjg is Exempt from his pre-approval policy
I keep posting the neutral version (the one not written solely by Arafat's enemies). I try to incorporate as many useful edits as I can spot, but due to many reverts and vandalist edits it is hard to keep track of each and every real post. Please post here:
1. Important additions that are missing from this version, and
2. Any objections you may have.
Some diffs in this version are (in random order)
...
  • Etc. Please post what other changes need to be explained.
HistoryBuffEr 06:08, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Jayjg did not reply at all and just kept reverting this article.

  • Comments by another editor [115]
  1. 16:01, 2004 Nov 16 (hist) Alberuni NGO Monitor (Jayjg continues biased editing without justification in Talk)
  2. 13:34, 2004 Nov 16 (hist) Alberuni Al-Aqsa Intifada (Jayjg abuses admin rollback, reverts without bothering to Talk)
  3. 13:27, 2004 Nov 16 (hist) Alberuni Arab-Israeli conflict (Jayjg reverts without bothering to Talk)
  4. 17:37, 2004 Nov 11 (hist) Alberuni Talk:Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Jayjg uses Talk pages to obstruct NPOV edits in articles)
"Jayjg made 60 edits, almost every single one intended to insert his pro-Israeli POV, to this article over the past week since Yasser Arafat was reported ill. Then he turns around and demands that others bring their suggested changes to Talk before he will accept them! His hypocrisy is astounding. Jayjg seems to think his POV is fact and others need to explain their edits to him. --Alberuni 16:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

Jayjg the Defender of "stable" articles

Jayjg insists he is defending "stable" articles agreed to by others (see Jayjg's complaint "Complete re-writes of stable articles" above).

There are many problems with that argument:

  1. It is contrary to principles of NPOV.
  1. If a lie sits there for years, it is still a lie. And how many editors have approved (or overlooked) it is also irrelevant. One simple proof is the above example of "constitution" claim sitting in Israel for 16 months.
  2. It assumes that a previous version is always better. If that were the case, we could protect all articles and go home.
  1. Worse yet, Jayjg's claim is completely false:
  1. Many articles have had major changes, but Jayjg did not revert any of those matching his POV.
  2. The "consensus" he claims to be defending is actually just his POV.

The evidence here (and elsewhere) shows that these Jayjg's claims are just a lame cover for his POV pushing.

Jayjg the Defender of Stable
  • Comment to Jayjg by another editor: [117]
"Arafat survived a plane crash in the Libyan desert in_1992":
"Why is that missing from this article? What about the Israeli air raid on Tunis that almost killed him in 1985? What about the 1968 Israeli attack on PLO in Jordan, the siege of Beirut, the Israelis assassinating his deputy Abu Jihad in Tunis in 1988, bombing his offices in Gaza and Ramallah 2001, 2002, de facto house arrest by Sharon since then, etc? Lots of important facts missing or glossed over but impressive detail from Aburish concerning irrelevant details about Husseini clan allegations, EU and US accountants review of PA financial dealings, and many other accusations made popular by Israeli propagandandists. This article needs more NPOV fact details and less National Enquirer Hebrew edition speculation. --Alberuni 04:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)"
If the FBI was going to charge Arafat for crimes that were committed in Sudan 30 years ago, I think they would have done so by now. Maariv is an Israeli newspaper and not a reliable source for information about Arafat and the FBI. The blatant smear campaign was deleted from Wikipedia. If a neutral source (preferably the FBI itself; not speculation by right-wing partisans like World Net Daily, Free Republic, and Israel Insider) for this information can be found, I'd like to see it. --Alberuni 21:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, you returned this false material to the text without discussing in Talk. --Alberuni 19:09, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whoops, wasn't that information present in the article for months before you deleted it? Perhaps the discussion should have come before the arbitrary deletion. Jayjg 20:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So, in other words, you have no evidence to support the claim. You are just preserving false information on principle. Your double standards are amazing. When you want to edit the article, you feel as though you have every right to do so without bringing your proposed changes to Talk. When anyone else edits the article, you claim they must bring edits to Talk for YOUR approval first. So where is the reliable information to support this claim about Arafat and the FBI? --Alberuni 21:29, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) ...
Jayjg the Defender of Consensus

Jayjg claims to defend "consensus versions". The problem with this claim is that:

  • The version he defends is usually produced by editors who share his POV, and
  • Jayjg defines consensus as whatever fits his POV pushing needs.

Here are some of many examples of Jayjg's shifting view of consensus.

On Occupation of Palestine (see Occupation of Palestine/Archive1), Jayjg insisted that there was a consensus even though many disagreed about it:

"If you're trying to impose your will and disregard the vote, I may have to report this to the, er, authorities here. Please don't make me do this; I'd rather work with you then see you get admonished, or worse, banned. --Uncle Ed 15:48, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)"
"The consensus was quite clear Ed; get rid of the content, either by pure delete or by re-direct ... Jayjg 15:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)"
"Excuse me, there was not a clear consensus to "get rid of the content" ... -- Jmabel 17:48, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)"

It was determined that there was no consensus, but that did not stop Jayjg from continuing to "get rid" of both the article and the content for almost two months.

HistoryBuffEr, I'm afraid there are a number of inaccuracies in your statement above:
  • Ed's comment was directed at me [118] (Gady), not at Jayjg. He later saw need to clarify this comment [119].
  • Jayjg was not "explained" there was no consensus. In fact there was a hot debate what are the results of that VfD and how abiding they are, featuring Ed, Jmabel, SimonP, Jayjg, Ambi, Cercopia, and many others, and Jayjg was not in the minority. There is really no way to understand this issue completely without reading the VfD and the comments on the relevant talk page in full (its history is here).
Gady 14:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Gady, I did not suggest what you said, that's just your reading; the lines before and after are for context, and to show that many indeed disagreed about the existence of consensus.
Also, (1) You were on Jayjg's side, and (2) You were both in the minority, otherwise your view surely would have been implemented by now (2 months later).
HistoryBuffEr 22:42, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

But later, Jayjg redefines consensus to get his way on a different matter. From [Requesting Consensus Vote on Jayjg Edits:

"Should the following Jayjg edit to this article be accepted? Yes or No."...
"You have fundamentally misunderstood what consensus is, which is "General agreement or accord" Voting does not produce consensus. Jayjg 17:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)" ...

Jayjg continues obfuscating like this and essentially blocks the vote and consensus.

Of course, even if Jayjg was scrupulous about consensus, that would not make much difference. The criteria for a good article is not how many editors like it but whether it serves the needs of the readers. Given the overwhelming majority of pro-Israel editors in the area, any consensus is likely to serve primarily their view.

(Submitted by: HistoryBuffEr 04:33, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC), updated: 09:42, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC))

Jayjg the Defender of NPOV?

Jayjg claims that his mission is "defense of NPOV". Jayjg's bias on subjects he works on is obvious and needs no elaboration. The question is whether his bias interferes with the Wikipedia's principle of NPOV and editing process.

There are many editors with obvious bias who still strive to be fair, and yield when presented with counterfacts or opinions. The evidence below will show that Jayjg is not one of them:

  • Jayjg holds extreme views,
  • All he strives for is promoting his POV, not fairness, and
  • He rarely yields to opposing facts or opinions.

This makes his claim of "defending NPOV" sound hollow.

Jayjg's Extreme POV

  • Jayjg insisted for 2 months that there is no such thing as "occupation of Palestine".
  • He denied there is occupation and removed the term from all Israel related articles (unless, of course, the title refers to "Occupation by Jordan" or "by Syria").
  • He kept denying occupation regardless of what anyone else said. He denied even Sharon's admission of occupation, saying he meant something different.
  • Jayjg still denies there is such thing as Palestine. He calls it "disputed territories".

Jayjg insists that the obvious title Occupation of Palestine is POV and that the euphemism Israeli-Palestinian conflict is NPOV. Of course, using euphemisms to hide plain facts is egregiously POV (see Jimbo Wales).

Jayjg, the "defender of NPOV", also thinks it is not POV that what neutral parties call Invasion of Lebanon is titled as Operation Peace for Galilee, or Invasion of Jenin as Operation Defensive Shield, etc.

Jayjg's hypocrisy on what is NPOV is staggering; most articles he defends look like straight from Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four: War is Peace.

All in all, it is fair to say that someone who has views that are

holds extreme views.

Jayjg the Fair and Scrupulous

Jayjg presents himself below as a "scrupulous editor." That is equivalent to calling a robber scrupulous for carefully protecting his loot.

Like Jayjg's other claims, this is just a cover for blocking any info unfavorable to his POV. He asks for "NPOV sources" for even simple and widely known facts if they disfavor his POV, while ignoring requests to substantiate even major statements that favor his POV.

See Hasbara is propaganda for one of many examples where Jayjg stubbornly resists categorization unfavorable to his POV even when presented with a list of 7 Israeli sources. Jayjg, as usual, presents no evidence to support his POV and just engages in sophistry. That's not scrupulousness but plain obstructionism.

Because most articles already favor his POV, Jayjg's "scrupulousness" comes in handy -- it serves to obstruct any changes and preserve the status quo. As in the "Maariv rumor" example above, when someone removes an unfounded rumor favoring Jayjg's POV, he'll restore it saying that the remover has to prove his case first. Priceless.

Jayjg also keeps removing "Disputed" notices from articles with long standing unresolved disputes. That's neither scrupulous nor fair, it is deception and disservice to Wikipedia readers.

Jayjg's POV pushing

NPOV requires presenting all sides, and presenting them fairly. However, Jayjg relentlessly

  • Blocks presentation of views he dislikes (as his POV is rather extreme that includes many views),
  • Reverts edits no matter how minor or unimportant, and
  • Rarely yields to opposing facts or views, regardless of how often or how many editors challenge him.

Jayjg unreasonable and extreme POV pushing leads to protracted debates, edit wars and user disputes, which rarely serve Wikipedia or its readers, and give pleasure to no one except, perhaps, to Jayjg.

While that may be already clear from example above, here is more evidence.

Occupation of Palestine

Due to numerous redirects and moves of this and related articles and Talk pages by Jayjg's partisans, the evidence is scattered in many places; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine, Talk:Israeli occupation of Palestine, Talk:Occupation of Palestine, Talk:Struggle over Palestine (and more.)

Jayjg has fought this title and article for nearly two months, obstructing consensus and preventing creation of a neutral version.

  • As soon as the article was created he redirected and reverted it 3 times and then protected it.
  • Jayjg then submitted it to a Vote for Deletion.
  • When his attempts to impose his POV as consensus failed, he and his troops (many of them appearing to defend him here) continued redirecting and renaming the article.
  • After nearly 2 months of endless discussions, and creation of dozens of articles to water down the subject and diffuse the blame (such as Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan) he reluctantly agreed [120] to leave "occupation" in some title.
  • This story is not over. The article is now just a disambig page, and Jayjg and his group have repeatedly reverted even a blank skeleton with only section titles. Apparently, Jayjg simply will not accept anything that is not written by himself or his troops. And, given history, it is unlikely that Jayjg will suddenly change his stripes and stop denying obvious facts.
Israeli West Bank barrier

This case is easy to follow because Jayjg, contrary to his practice, explained some reverts. From Chronological History (irrelevant edits omitted):

Jayjg starts by insisting on categorizing the Separation Wall+Fence+Barrier as a Barrier only, and reverts 3 different users to his POV 9 times in 2 days (with 5 reverts on day one):

  1. 04:37, 2004 Aug 15 Jayjg (Miscellaneous - Part of the separation barrier category, not walls)
  2. 05:49, 2004 Aug 15 Style m (Let's call a wall a wall.)
  3. 09:07, 2004 Aug 15 MathKnight (but it it is not a wall, only less than 5% are concrete walls)
  4. 09:24, 2004 Aug 15 Pir (Miscellaneous - are those 5% not a wall?)
  5. 15:53, 2004 Aug 15 Jayjg (Perhaps, but 95% is fence. Belongs in Security Barrier or Fence category; see relevant Wikipedia articles.)
  6. 16:09, 2004 Aug 15 Pir (It's both a fence and a wall)
  7. 16:28, 2004 Aug 15 Jayjg (It's mostly fence)
  8. 16:36, 2004 Aug 15 Jayjg (Miscellaneous)
  9. 16:42, 2004 Aug 15 Pir (Let's call a fence and a wall a fence and a wall ; Sharon has been PM for 3.9% of his life, but he's still in the category:Israeli PM)
  10. 16:47, 2004 Aug 15 Jayjg (Miscellaneous - Let's call a Security barrier a security barrier, and leave the politics out of it)
  11. 16:51, 2004 Aug 15 Pir (Miscellaneous - "fence" and "wall" are entirely descriptive, not political ; "security barrier" is controversial ; see talk page)
  12. 17:04, 2004 Aug 15 Jayjg (On the contrary, Fence and Wall are at the heart of a political debate, security barrier is neutral)
  13. 17:08, 2004 Aug 15 Pir (Miscellaneous - please use talk page before rv.)
  14. 17:11, 2004 Aug 15 Jayjg (Miscellaneous - It is a Separation barrier; see Talk:)
  15. 08:56, 2004 Aug 16 Mintguy m (Reverted edits by Jayjg to last version by Pir)
  16. 15:54, 2004 Aug 16 Jayjg (RV: to original; see Talk:)
  17. 16:58, 2004 Aug 16 Mintguy m (Reverted edits by Jayjg to last version by Mintguy)
  18. 17:47, 2004 Aug 16 Jayjg (Rv edits by Mintguy to last edit by Jayjg. Come join the discussion in Talk:, Mintguy, your perspective would be welcome.)
  19. 18:17, 2004 Aug 16 Mintguy m (Reverted edits by Jayjg to last version by Mintguy)
  20. 18:44, 2004 Aug 16 Jayjg m (Remove inappropriate category links)
  21. 04:10, 2004 Aug 17 Stargoat m (rv to mintguy edition)
  22. 17:19, 2004 Aug 17 Pir (Miscellaneous - NPOV clarification)
Here, Pir (known as a moderate) gives up, omits word "separation" and even adds a disclaimer [121] that mentioning "wall" or "fence" does not imply it is a "wall" or "fence". Jayjg has now won his POV war through persistent reverts, and adds a final stab by removing the only remaining mention of "separation wall" (calling it "redundant"):
  1. 18:17, 2004 Aug 17 Jayjg (See also - Remove redundant link (a re-direct to Separation barrier))

Later, HistoryBuffEr added neutral info to the intro (that it's called "wall" by most and "barrier" by Israel, that it diverges from the Green line in many places, that an Israeli official stated that it was never intended and will not follow the Green line, and that it causes hardship to Palestinians) [122] and the NPOV notice for the rest, but Jayjg promptly reverts this (twice) and even removes the "disputed" notice:

  1. 03:48, 2004 Oct 6 HistoryBuffEr (Add (npov) notice + NPOVify intro)
  2. 03:59, 2004 Oct 6 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Iridium77)
  3. 04:50, 2004 Oct 6 HistoryBuffEr (Restore {npov} notice + Npov intro)
  4. 05:04, 2004 Oct 6 Jayjg (HistoryBuffEr, please bring your controversial edits to Talk: for discussion first)

HistoryBuffEr then restored only the NPOV notice, but Jayjg and his collaborators reverted and removed the notice 4 times, despite being pointed to areas of dispute and warned not to remove the notice:

  1. 04:18, 2004 Oct 24 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore {TotallyDisputed}; Facts are still misstated despite evidence provided, and POV is pervasive.)
  2. 18:33, 2004 Oct 25 Lance6Wins (Revert totally disputed tag to NPOV tag. No indication in Talk of any new factual distpute. Please indicate in Talk which items if any are factually disputed.)
  3. 18:52, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr m (Rstopre {TotallyDisputed}. Check history: Several factual corrections were made but reverted by propagandists without explanation.)
  4. 11:20, 2004 Nov 7 Lance6Wins
  5. 16:28, 2004 Nov 7 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore "TotallyDisputed" (see the article history and Talk for reasons. Stop removing this notice until it is explicitly agreed that all issues were fixed))
  6. 16:50, 2004 Nov 7 MathKnight (HistoryBuffEr, your ignoring of the Talk page is really anoying. Read the talk page and act as requested before adding dispute without telling why)
  7. 17:08, 2004 Nov 7 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore "TotallyDisputed" (see the article history and Talk for reasons. Stop removing this notice until it is explicitly agreed that all issues were fixed)
  8. 17:32, 2004 Nov 7 Jayjg m (Still don't see any of HistoryBuffEr's disputed items in Talk:)
  9. 17:36, 2004 Nov 7 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore "TotallyDisputed". Suggest reading comprehension classes for reverters. Removing this notice can get you banned.)

Note how Jayjg keeps asking HistoryBuffEr to submit changes for his pre-approval, but he never does the same. Also compare this to his user page complaint that it is actually others who request justification of edits.

P.S: The "disputed" notice has been repeatedly removed from this article by Jayjg and many of his defenders here after this, despite the fact that NPOV material is still omitted. (The article is currently protected with the "Disputed" notice in, but they still claim not to see dispute anywhere and are asking for proof that dispute exists!!!)

(Submited by: HistoryBuffEr 09:42, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC))

...

Response to Evidence about Jayjg

Evidence of NPOV editing by Jayjg

I have requested Jayjg, or anyone else, to place evidence under this heading which shows Jayjg has made edits to Jewish, Zionist and Palestinian related topics which demonstrate NPOV editing. Fred Bauder 17:36, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, I honestly don't understand your request. Most edits that most people do conform with the neutrality policy. Are you looking for examples where Jayjg edited something against his own opinion? Gady 03:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am looking for examples where he either let something stand or added something which while adverse to "his viewpoint" was nevertheless significant information supported by reputable authority. As you say, most editors do this routinely. Fred Bauder 12:19, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Fred, there are literally, hundreds. When I have some more time I will add them. --Viriditas 13:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of NPOV editing by Jayjg provided by Jayjg

Anti-Zionism

Even though I was a strong proponent of the notion that many people think some forms of anti-Zionism are anti-Semitism [123], including a belief that the Catholic church in some way espoused this view, I nevertheless removed a quote inserted by Lance6wins as anon proporting to be from the Catholic Church stating that the Church opposes anti-Semitism as anti-Zionism [124] [125] because the article description did not make it clear that it truly was an official position of the Church, and in any event it seemed to be entered to promote a POV. In fact, as it turned out, it was not the official position of the Church at all, but rather a position statement made by a specific Catholic-Jewish working group, and as such, of questionable significance.

Since early August 2004 circumcision related articles on Wikipedia have been the subject of edit wars between anti-circumcision zealots such as Walabio, Dan Blackham, and others, and the pro-circumcision zealot Robert Brookes (and his many sockpuppets), with unfortunates like Theresa Knott caught in the middle. Part of this war spilled over into other articles, including Council of Jerusalem, which Truthbomber turned into an anti-circumcision screed [126]. After a bit of a tussle with the anti-circumcision activists I was able to edit it back into a NPOV version [127], one good enough that the author of the POV insertions actually congratulated me on it: [128]. Now, as might be expected, I'm pro-circumcision myself; however, when I followed the editors back to circumcision related articles, what I also found was some wildly pro-circumcision edits entered by Robert Brookes. Thus on Ridged band I removed his attempts to poison the well regarding studies by opponents of circumcision [129], removed ridiculous provisos regarding anti-circumcision sources [130], and resisted further attempts to impugn the medical integrity of anti-circumcision activists [131]. I then made similar edits to the Smegma article, removing pro-circumcision POV [132] and ridiculous provisos [133], and similarly for the Foreskin and Penis articles: [134] [135].

Medical Aid for Palestinians, UNICEF, and others

Alberuni insisted that every mention of the NGO Monitor project had to be accompanied by the phrase "published by Israeli Ambassador Dore Gold", in his words, because readers have a right to know where the accusations of partisanship against humanitarian organizations come from; they come from partisan and extremist Zionists. Dore Gold is Israel's former Ambassador to the U.N., and now president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, an Israeli non-profit public policy institute which has been in existence for over 30 years. NGO Monitor is one of a dozen or so projects of the JCPA. I objected strongly to including this "warning" on a number of grounds, including a) that it was poisoning the well, b) that Gold was neither the spokesman for the project nor the author of its papers, but happened to be its publisher because he was president of the JCPA, c) that it was not Wikipedia standard to always list the names of publishers of journals etc., d) that anyone could find out this information simply by clicking on the link provided, e) that it deliberately and falsely insinuated that Gold was currently employed by the Israel government (as an ambassador), and f) that it was ridiculously unwieldy, because if NGO Monitor happened to be listed in 50 Wikipedia articles, then as soon as someone else became president of the JCPA, those 50 articles would all have to be updated to list the new publisher's name. Our vigorous debate on the subject is found here (among other places): Talk:Medical_Aid_for_Palestinians#The_difference_between_.22poisoning_the_well.22_and_NPOV. After reverting the information many times, and without changing my opinion, I nevertheless allowed the information to stand in this article and all others, with the proviso that it accurately describe him as former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dore Gold [136][137]. Jayjg 19:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Orthodox Judaism

I have been accused of promoting an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish perspective by several editors, and HistoryBuffEr has described me as "the ultra-ultra-Ortodox POV pusher Jayjg". However, when the Orthodox contributer Ezra Wax tried to re-write part of the Orthodox Judaism article from a purely Orthodox POV [138], I reverted [139] his changes, noting that regardless of our beliefs, we all have to adhere to NPOV.

Yasser Arafat
  • The Yasser Arafat article originally had this statement concerning his wife near the beginning of his biography: Arafat married late in life to a Palestinian Christian, Mrs. Suha Arafat. They have a single child, a daughter. His wife and daughter live in Paris, France. Mrs. Suha Arafat recently became a French citizen. Arafat's support of Suha has been claimed to be extravagant by some media. I refactored the information into three sections (based on the generally chronological nature of the article) as this In 1990 Arafat married Suha Tawil, a Palestinian Catholic more than 30 years younger than him who worked for the PLO in Tunis, and converted to Islam before marrying him. [140] and this In July 1995 he had a daughter Zawha. and this After the start of the Second Intifada, Arafat's wife moved to live with her mother and daughter in Paris, France, where she still resides., sourcing my information, and removing entirely the unsourced information claiming criticism of Arafat's "extravagant" support for Suha's lifestyle.[141] However, my proposals for these edits in the Talk: page were rejected by Alberuni. Though Alberuni often rejects any edits I make "on principle" (because of his assumption that my edits are always part of some grand and concerted hasbara campaign), his stated concern in this instance was that Her age is irrelevant and simply reflects your POV attempts at describing Arafat in a negative light whenever possible. I pointed out that there is nothing inherently negative about marrying someone much younger than you [142], and that this was an interesting fact often commented on in the press. Other editors have said much the same thing on this topic, stating 34 years is an important gap and is worthy of note I believe... I am not sure how it could be seen a smear, I think it reflects well on both of them that they didn't let age (or religion) get in the way of getting married. [143], nevertheless I removed this information lest someone might interpret the information negatively. [144]
  • In a section on persistent accusations of Yasser Arafat's financial dealings, HistoryBuffer replaced the existing section with this [145]. I replaced his edit with this: [146]. Each claimed in my version is fully sourced, NPOVd, and accurately summarized, as the links show. Note in particular the way HistoryBuffEr summarizes the source he brings, for example, regarding an EU investigation [147] proportedly of Arafat's finances, HistoryBuffEr summarizes it as saying "An investigation by European Union of claims of financial improprieties also found no improprieties." In fact, the investigation was not of Arafat's finances, but of whether or not EU money was being used to fund terror. However, while it found no evidence that the EU funds were misused this way, it did (and this was the relevant part) insist on "deepening reform in the PA and improving its financial management and audit capacities" as "the best preventive strategy against the misuse of funds and corruption in the PA", and made further funding contingent on these reforms. The wording of my paragraph echoed the report itself. Similarly, HistoryBuffEr summarized a CBS news report on Arafat's finances [148] this way: "However, as Arafat lives frugally and has no known major possessions, these claims appear to be based solely on Arafat's control over Palestinian public-funds." While the statement about him living frugally was correct (and thus I left it in the article), the second half of the sentence was a POV editorial. In fact, what the article said was Arafat has always lived modestly, which you can't say about his wife, Suha. According to Israeli officials, she gets $100,000 a month from Arafat out of the Palestinian budget, and lives lavishly in Paris on this allowance. He also uses the money to bolster his own standing. Both Israeli and U.S. sources say those recent outpourings of support at Arafat's compound were "rent-a-rallies," and that Arafat has spent millions to support terrorists and purchase weapons. I summarized this as "Arafat appears to use his wealth to improve his standing and influence; he has always lived frugally, and continues to do so." More importantly, what CBS actually found was that Arafat's own finance ministry had hired accountants who discovered that Arafat had funelled $1 billion into secret accounts, going into great detail about corruption; I briefly summarized this and quoted the people in question. Similarly, when Forbes listed Arafat sixth on its 2003 list of wealthiest "Kings, Queens and Despots", HistoryBuffEr insisted on describing Forbes as "strongly pro-Israel", an entirely POV and unsourced claim which I removed. Jayjg 20:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Err... If an investigation is set up to investigate if something is true, and it transpires that it is not true, then the relevant part of the investigation is that the claims were not true. Furthermore, if you bothered to read the full report, it's in PDF format on the EU website, you find in detail where the EU money goes. Furthermore, while the investigation was requested by the E.U, it was the IMF who did the auditing.
  • An anonymous editor speculated that Yasser Arafat was homosexual, based on claims made in a book written by Ion Pacepa, the head of Romanian intelligence under Ceausescu. I reverted the claim when inserted by an anonymous user [149] because there were no reasonable sources confirming it [150]. I later confirmed that the claims were indeed made in his book "Red Horizons" [151], and that commentators were now speculating that Arafat had AIDS [152], I nevertheless did not enter the information into the article, as I felt it was highly speculative, poorly attested, and more of a smear than an important contention regarding Arafat. Jayjg 20:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • On 14 Nov 2002, as the article was being written, this sentence was inserted: Because of Lebanon's weak central government, the PLO was able to operate virtually as an independent state (called Fatahland by the Israelis). The PLO then began to use this territory to launch artillery strikes and infiltrate militants against Israeli civilian targets - for instance, for the Maalot High School Massacre of 1974. [153]. It survived unchanged until 9 Sep. 2004 when an anonymous editor removed the part about the Ma'alot Massacre [154]. It survived in this form until 6 Oct. 2004 when Irishpunktom changed the final "Israeli civilians" to "Israelis" [155] Though I had edited this section before and since, and had disputed other items entered by this editor, I let the changes stand. On 28 Oct. 2004 an anonymous editor added the sentence These attacks occurred in the context of far more destructive Isreali attacks on Lebanon; sometimes retaliatory, often not.. Though unsourced and POV, I let this stand as well. On 31 Oct. HistoryBuffEr modified the statement to Because of Lebanon's weak central government, the PLO was able to operate virtually as an independent state (called "Fatahland" by Israel). The PLO then began launching artillery and guerilla strikes on Israel from there. These PLO attacks occurred at the time of far more destructive Isreali attacks on Lebanon, some of which were retaliatory, but most were offensive. [156] Later that day I finally removed the unsourced claims about the numbers and natures of the attacks, replacing the text with this: Because of Lebanon's weak central government, the PLO was able to operate virtually as an independent state (called "Fatahland" by Israel). The PLO then began launching artillery and terrorist strikes on Israel from there; Israel responded with far more destructive Isreali attacks on Lebanon. [157] (still leaving in the unsourced claim that Israel responded with "far more destructive attacks"). I then NPOVd myself, changing the controversial "terrorist" to "attacks on Israeli civilians",[158], since attacks like the Maalot massacre and others were on civilian (not military) targets. I also brought this change to the Talk: page [159] However, when Alberuni brought evidence that the attacks were on military targets as well [160], I immediately changed the section to use the exact wording found in his source [161], so that it now read Because of Lebanon's weak central government, the PLO was able to operate virtually as an independent state (called "Fatahland" by Israel). Palestinian fighters mounted intermittent cross-border attacks against civilian and military targets in Israel from there; Israel responded with far more destructive attacks on Lebanon. Jayjg 21:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of NPOV editing by Jayjg provided by MPerel

Yasser Arafat

I can post a few examples. On the Arafat page, Jayjg changed the POV version "He was a guerrilla leader, regarded as a resistance fighter (or freedom fighter) by Palestinians and their supporters but as a terrorist by Israel." to the NPOV version "He was a guerrilla leader, regarded as a resistance fighter (or freedom fighter) by supporters but as a terrorist by critics." The previous version was incorrect and POV since it presumed that all Palestinian supporters considered Arafat a freedom fighter and that only Israel viewed him as a terrorist. Jayjg's version changed it to NPOV by stating supporters viewed him as x and critics viewed him as y. [162] The version of the sentence as it stands now is slightly different but still NPOV: "As a guerrilla and a Fatah leader, he was regarded as a freedom fighter by supporters, but a terrorist or collaborator by his opponents." HistoryBuffEr completely removes this sentence as part of his repeated wholesale replacement of the Arafat article with his version. MPerel 10:17, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

User:Jayjg Talk Page

Submitted by MPerel

User:Jayjg Talk Page Revisited

Why not post the complete list for context:

Articles under attack in this way:

Other articles being ruthlessly POVd

Articles created solely for the purpose of promoting a political POV

(Added by HistoryBuffEr 06:51, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC))

I believe the last line on the list was not added by jayjg, but by omeone critical of him - Xed 23:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
yep, Mirv put it there, and Jayjg responded, "True enough" [164], and kept the articles listed on his own user page, which demonstrates how truly NPOV Jayjg is. MPerel 00:06, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
If he was NPOV he would have put similar articles on his page himself. - Xed 00:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of NPOV editing by Jayjg provided by Viriditas

Al-Aqsa Intifada
  • 11:40, 8 Nov 2004 - Jayjg reverted to a pro-Palestinian editor's NPOV version. [165]
  • 18:20, 9 Oct 2004 - Jayjg NPOV's a pro-Israel editor's version, and changes the word "terrorist" to "members". [166]
Hamas
  • 16:58, 28 Sep 2004 Jayjg NPOV's a pro-Israel editor's version, and provides an example of confusion on the part of the Israeli govt. [167]
Israel Shahak
  • 08:38, 9 Nov 2004 - Jayjg removed an unattributed POV claim that he may have agreed with. Alberuni agreed with his decision. [168]
    • Yes, I agreed with the sentiment expressed by the edit itself, but its primary problem was that it was vague and unsourced, and secondarily I wasn't sure of its relevance. Jayjg 23:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of NPOV editing by Jayjg provided by Gadykozma

Deir Yassin and Struggle over Palestine

Here is a typical example when HistoryBuffEr is not around Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Archive2. Basically we disagreed whether the Irgun and the Lehi were terrorist organizations, and how to represent this in the article. After some more information by Zero, he let the formulation I suggested stand. Here is another example I already mentioned above, less explicitly. He was willing to give up his "no occupation in title" previous position to get a compromise [169].

Unsolicited comment of Mustafaa regarding Jayjg's NPOV editing (provided by Jayjg)

Mustafaa is an admittedly pro-Palestinian editor who is always careful to adhere to the Wikipedia:NPOV policy. In the past he and I have differed on many items regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, though we have always managed to reach an accomodation. In a comment on 15 Nov he states "In my experience, there are a whole lot more pro-Zionist zealots on Wikipedia trying to filter out alternative Arab perspectives than there are Israel bashers..." [170]. In a later comment to me on that page, he clarified that he did not consider me to be one of the editors he had mentioned, and stated that, in fact, "while your POV is obvious, you are notably scrupulous in your editing." [171]. Jayjg 23:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Heh, "NPOV" at work. The balancing "while your POV is obvious" preceding the "scrupulous" part is missing. Also, Mustafaa is "an admittedly pro-Palestinian editor", while the balancing "he is not an Israel basher" is omitted. HistoryBuffEr 06:43, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
Um, the link was right there, and I wasn't criticizing Mustafaa. I've added the text, if you think it's important. However, it is not; everyone has a POV, and mine is obvious from my many comments in Talk: pages. Mustafaa's point is that my editing of the article content doesn't reflect that POV, which is exactly what Wikipedia demands for NPOV. Jayjg 20:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Evidence/Full_version&oldid=7643341"