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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Due to its ridiculous size and disorganization this material was removed from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence and placed here. If you wish your evidence to be considered please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence and following the instructions there restate your evidence.

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.


Evidence against HistoryBuffEr by Jayjg[edit]

Bullying[edit]

Bullying edit comments[edit]

  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.)

Harrassing people on their Talk: pages[edit]

  • Harrassed Proteus on his Talk: page, inserting large amounts of text [2], then after Proteus deleted it [3] insisted on re-inserting it [4]. Proteus deleted it again [5], and HistoryBuffEr inserted it (and more) again [6].
  • Harrassed SlimVirgin on his Talk: page, inserting text [7] and, although SlimVirgin deleted it twice [8] [9], insisted on re-inserting it: [10] [11]

Abusive edit summaries[edit]

  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)

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

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 [12], and the Arab-Israeli conflict article with a similarly new POV version [13]. 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) [14], and to insert various other insults and complaints when the NPOV notice was removed[15] [16] [17].

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 2 Oct. 2004 HistoryBuffEr turned his attention to George W. Bush, typically attempting a major POV re-write of the article [18]. The edits were largely a smear job against Bush, adding sentences referring to his National Guard service as an attempt "to avoid serving in the Vietnam War", stating that he received " below average grades" on his Harvard M.B.A., noting his 1976 arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol, stating that "after a period of heavy drinking and drug abuse" he "allegedly" became a born-again Christian in 1986, stating that his daughters "were arrested in 2003 and cited for underage drinking" etc. As would become typical, he insisted that other editors post their objections to his major changes in Talk:, while not proposing or supporting any of his own changes in Talk:. However, the George W. Bush is defended by a large number of editors on both sides, and his edits were rapidly reverted. As VeryVerily stated in his summary "rv pov rewrite; major rewrites like this are bound to be reverted unless they can be justified, start small if you're serious". His later attempts to insert his article were met with a similar response from Wolfman "rv anon. agree with VV below : "pov rewrite; major rewrites like this are bound to be reverted unless they can be justified, start small if you're serious", will restore Pehrs' edit momentarily." Recognizing that the other editors on the article vastly out-numbered him, he turned his attentions to less well defended articles.

On 6 Oct. 2004 HistoryBuffEr made substantial changes to Israeli West Bank barrier [19] and inserted a NPOV notice, though he had not put any POV complaints in Talk:. After being 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" [20]. Though challenged by several editors to explain what he meant [21], he refused to respond in any meaningful way. On 7 Nov. 2004 another editor removed the notice, but HistoryBuffEr insisted in re-inserting it, though challenged by a number of editors to explain his complaints [22]. Instead he simply re-inserted the notice 9 more times over the next few days, though again being 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: [23]. Another edit war ensued, and when the article was finally protected he deigned to comment on the Talk: page [24], though again the comments did not address specific changes he made, but rather broadly justified his behaviour instead. As is typical, HistoryBuffEr insisted his readers had to analyze the changes themselves to understand the reasoning behind his 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 [25] but refusing to engage in Talk: discussion, and finally inserting a TotallyDisputed notice. In the case of this article User: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 [26] and [27], entering only 4 minor and often insulting [28] 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 (e.g. "Events - Final edit; post any objections in Talk. (note to Jayjg: you've already have 4 warnings on this article)". 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 [29], while ironically (and falsely) accusing other editors of using anonymous IPs. While reverting he continued to insist in his edit summaries that others had to post objections to his edits in Talk: [30].

On 21 Oct. 2004 HistoryBuffEr turned to Rachel Corrie, repeating the same pattern of complete re-writes [31] to [32] unaccompanied by any activity on the Talk: page. His sole Talk: comment was another insulting statement justifying his actions [33] 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 [34] is recreated here: [35]. 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 discussions and consensus in Talk: were completely ignored.

Next up on 30 Oct. 2004 was Yasser Arafat, where History Buffer attempted another complete re-write [36]. 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. As part of his now familiar pattern, HistoryBuffEr ignored that process, and again inserted substantial changes [37] into the article with again no proposals or comments in Talk:, despite invitations to bring suggested changes there. As usual, an edit war ensued, with HistoryBuffEr making abusive edit summaries (referring to those opposing as "Zionistas" etc.), insisting that his version was the NPOV one, that those opposing his edits must explain why in Talk:, etc. The article was protected from 9 Nov 2004 to 28 Nov 2004. As soon as the article was unprotected, he resumed his behaviour, 6 times inserting major changes (e.g. [38] accompanied with edit summaries of "The more neutral version", "The more neutral version, replacing the wholesale replacement by Viriditas", "Restore the neutral version (no objections about it have been made yet)", "The more neutral bio is back, post objections in Talk (haven't seen any yet), "Restore the neutral version, to which NO objections have been made", and "Updated neutral bio (still no objections in Talk)".

As seen above, since the Request for Arbitration HistoryBuffEr's behaviour changed very little. In some cases he has modified his behaviour, but only in the most superficial way. For example, on 10 Nov. 2004 at 5:00am he posted a general objection to a number of items in the Munich Massacre article [39] and announced that he had NPOVd it, which involved another major re-write [40], 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 [41]. 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 [42], he proceeded to revert to a version considerably different from Quadell's version [43], and, in fact, identical to his own pre-Quadell version, [44] 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)

Evidence against HistoryBuffEr by Viriditas[edit]

Policy and guideline violations[edit]

Neutral point of view[edit]

HistoryBuffEr has a history of refusing to follow NPOV. Many users have observed this breach of policy.

Gazpacho[edit]
...people who make remarks like "NPOV schmPOV" or "Resistance is futile" in regard to NPOV disputes should work on articles that are at less risk of dispute. You should read the section about "writing for the enemy" a few times as it applies specifically to difficulties you have had...From your comments on the VfD page, it's clear that you have not learned the techniques WP uses to resolve these disputes. We do not write up our POVs in full and then fight over which complete version is "right." Work a couple sentences at a time, so there is a chance for people to raise objections. You must consider their objections, in exchange for their consideration of yours. Think about ways to reword your changes that avoid their objections while making your point. If possible, step back from general conclusions to the underlying details. Do not change wording that is factually accurate. A statement that someone takes a particular position on a disputed question is a fact; A statement that the position is "right" is POV....Gazpacho 16:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) [45]
HistoryBuffEr[edit]

As Gazpacho pointed out, HistoryBuffEr has referred to NPOV in deprecating terms (NPOV schmPOV and Resistance is futile. HistoryBuffEr even discusses his justification for becoming a POV pusher on his user talk page, which is quoted below:

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) [46]
Xtra[edit]
i like how HistoryBuffEr continually puts up highly POV edits that have no factual basis and then complains when other users call him an anti-semite. I am starting to think that IZAK was entirely justified calling HistoryBuffer such. Xtra 09:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) [47]
Israeli occupation of Palestine[edit]
  1. HistoryBuffEr objects to the use of disclaimers like "alleged". [48]
Examples of POV:Submitted by Jayjg[edit]
  • As a general pattern, HistoryBuffEr inserts negative information into biographies of people he disapproves of, while removing negative information from biographies of people he approves of and adding positive information instead. Thus on George W. Bush he inserted information about Bush and his daughters drug and/or alcohol use, Bush's "below average" marks in MBA school, etc. [49]. On Ariel Sharon he insisted on putting Sharon in the Category "Jewish terrorists", a category which did not exist [50], and inserted information stating that Eli Hobeika was going to testify against Sharon before Hobeika was murdered [51] (implying Sharon had him killed), though this was unfounded speculation [52], a fact HistoryBuffEr was well aware of from his many edits of Sabra and Shatila massacre containing this very link, e.g. [53]. In this and all subsequent edits in the Ariel Sharon article he also insisted that around 2750 Palestinians were killed in the Sabra and Shatila massacre, though he knew from the Sabra and Shatila massacre article that exact numbers were unknown and estimates varied from 460-3500, since his own edits to Sabra and Shatila massacre article listed the full range of estimates [54]. He also claimed that Sharon used "violence to force Palestinians into submission", and removed information about Sharon's popular support [55]. However, on Yasser Arafat he removed information that Arafat was procuring weapons by 1946, that he served in the Egyptian army, that Palestinian fedayeen blew up international airliners in Jordan precipitating martial law and Black September, the well attested links between Arafat and the Black September group, any negative statements regarding Arafat's widely criticized financial dealings, etc., while inserting various pieces of information intended to make Arafat's opponents (e.g. Jordan, Israel) look bad [56].
  • 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" [57] 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 [58], 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[59]. 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 [60], 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" [61]. Sometime he goes even farther; as part of one of his typical huge re-writes of Yasser Arafat on 31 Oct 2004 [62] 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 19 Nov 2004 still contain this material [63], 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 has now added the "proviso" (for which Israel uses the term "settlements"), falsely claiming there was an "agreement" on the Talk: page to do so (no other editors on the page agreed to this), and failing to recognize that "settlements" is the term the entire world (except HistoryBuffEr) uses. Jayjg 16:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 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. [64]. 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.
  • Similarly, HistoryBuffEr consistently removes any references to the Israeli Defense Forces or "IDF", even when they are direct links to the Wikipedia Israel Defense Forces article. Instead he insists on using unlinked euphemisms such as "Israeli military" or "military" or "Israeli army". Here is one example where he made a series of edits essentially for that purpose alone: [65] In another case, he changed "Israeli Defense forces" to "Israeli Terrorist Forces" 16 times in one article [66], and then reverted to it [67].
  • 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) [68] 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."[69] 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: [70] [71]. 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!)" [72], 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[edit]

HistoryBuffer's edit history reflects a basic inability to respect other editors, one of the key policies of wikipedia that facillitates collaboration. HistoryBuffEr's continued disrespect for editors leads to personal attacks, incivility, and continued violations of Wikipedia etiquette, violations which continue to occur even on this very page.

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, Xtra, MtB, and Modemac.

Warnings[edit]

HistoryBuffEr has been repeatedly warned about his personal attacks against users.

GeneralPatton[edit]

HistoryBuffEr, its about time you start playing nice with everyone else or pay the consequences (arbitration). GeneralPatton 02:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) [73]

Jayjg[edit]

...I very strongly recommend that your restrict your comments on Talk: pages to discussions of article content, rather than comments about the people making the edits. This is also standard Wikipedia practice. Thanks. Jayjg 00:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) [74]

MtB[edit]

...I'd like to point out that you yourself use the term "Zionistas" as a type of insult. Would you prefer that the Wikipedia be updated to reflect your personal terminology? As in "Heh, these paranoid Zionistas need to make up their mind whether it's the whole world that is after them or it's just one sock-puppet. [75] (See also Sock puppet Goldberg)

Uncle Ed[edit]

First six words marked up with strikeout, because it's a personal remark. Buff, I want to work with you, not "take action" against you (see long comment on my talk page). --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)[76]

Attacks against individual users and groups[edit]
Ambi[edit]
  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) [77]
  2. Uses the edit summary box to attack Ambi and accuse her of posting "propaganda" [78]
  3. Uses the edit summary box to attack Ambi and accuse her of "vandalism" for implementing the consensus to redirect. [79]
Calton[edit]
  1. Your interest in Power Rangers Turbo characters [80] explains your level of discourse. As you spend plenty of time in Wikipedia:Sandbox, I suggest you stay there until you grow up beyond snotty remarks. This is my last reply to you. [81]
Jayjg[edit]
  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. [82]
  2. Treated Jayjg with disrespect and was extremely rude in response to Jayjg's good faith attempt to communicate with HistoryBuffEr about his reverts and replacement of articles.[83]
  3. ...If you have issues discuss them here; and keep your bullying tactics for extremists like yourself. [84]
  4. ...Zionist dolt [85]
  5. ...Zionist extremeist [86]
  6. ...clueless dweeb [87] (though HistoryBuffEr subsequently states he was referring to Wikipedia editors in general, it is clear from the context he was referring to Jayjg, and possibly Jmabel as well).
  7. Loser Jag must be on a mission from god... [88]
  8. Mom didn't get you a dictionary yet? [89]
  9. ultra-ultra-Ortodox POV pusher [90]
  10. zealot [91]
  11. Jayjg, this is Wikipedia, take your POV zealotry to your place of worship [92]
  12. propaganda [93] [94] [95]
  13. Propaganda reverter Jayjg is on the roll again [96]
  14. pro-Israeli propaganda hack [97]
  15. hopelessly mired in fantasy world agitprop hack "Jayjg" [98]
  16. The dispute exists only in your extremist head. Even your Fuehrer admits it, so get over it. [99]
  17. Attacks and accuses Jayjg of "vandalism" and of being a "vandal" three times [100] [101] [102]
  18. ...Jayjg has reached a new level, level way beyond Holocaust deniers. Thanks for so obviously undermining yourself and your sick cause. [103]
  19. Your comprehension is even worse than I thought. "Above this post" means the POST ABOVE. I am through with babysitting you. [104]
  20. Jayjg still fails to see fault in any of his numerous transgressions... [105]
Jewbacca[edit]
  1. ...persistent vandal [106] (See also Sock puppet Goldberg)
MathKnight[edit]
  1. illiterate [107]
  2. Accuses MathKnight of vandalism, twice [108] [109]
  3. And find MathKnight there under Jayjg's POV pushing troops [110]
Modemac[edit]
  1. Modemac: Final warning, you've already been warned about your abuse of sysop privs [111]
Neutrality[edit]
  1. Another "neutral" meber of Jayjg's POV pushing troops [112]
Proteus[edit]
  1. indicative of your inability to face reality [113]
  2. your apparently biased actions [114]
  3. You are not being honest at all [115]
  4. Your lame excuses [116]
  5. Thanks for confirming that you have no explanation for your highly biased actions [117]

(See also: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Proteus, currently deleted)

Occupation/Struggle over Palestine[edit]
  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. [118]
  2. What's up, Zionistas? You lost the Redirect Vote [119]
Quadell[edit]
  1. You are not an impartial editor. Case closed as far as I am concerned...You do not seem to understand what "compromise" means [120]
RickK[edit]
  1. In case I have not made myself perfectly clear: Buzz off, you lame POV partisan [121]
SlimVirgin[edit]
  1. Your continued weaseling out of posting well documented facts (based on Israel's own documents) about ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, while insisting on posting undocumented rumors about Arafat, tells us all we need to know about your POV and your methods. Case closed. [122]
Viriditas[edit]
  1. Accusation of "vandalism" and "Zionist hack", not once but twice. [123] [124]
  2. Yet another one of the Jayjg's POV pushing troops [125]
Yoshiah[edit]
  1. ...stubborn vandal [126]
  2. Accuses Yoshiah of "vandalism" [127]

Vandalism[edit]

History BuffEr engages in vandalism.

Jabalia[edit]
  • 06:49, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • HistoryBuffEr changes "Israel Defense Forces" to Israel Terrorist Forces a total of sixteen times in one edit. [128]
  • 07:35, Oct 17. 2004 (UTC)

Edit/Revert wars considered harmful[edit]

Wholesale replacement of articles/refusal to discuss changes[edit]

HistoryBuffEr engages in edit wars by replacing entire articles that many editors have worked hard to create. HistoryBuffEr replaces these articles with his own, highly-biased version (which frequently deletes any references to competing views). HistoryBuffer challenges editors to post their objections to his replacement version on the talk page instead of collaborating with editors on the talk page to produce a article through consensus. Many users have commented on HistoryBuffEr's breach of wikiquette, and total disrespect for the hard work of other editors:

Chuck Adams[edit]
HBE, you might have better luck if you try revising a paragraph at a time. At the very most, a section. Replacing the entire article wholesale is not constructive, regardless of the merits of your particular version. Is that a point you can agree on? Chuck Adams 18:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) [130]
Calton[edit]
And HistoryBuffEr? Nobody died and left you in charge of things. You got a problem with entries, then do what everyone else does and go through the process instead of being Mr. Unilateral. Otherwise you should get yourself a blog and then you write whatever you please. Calton 07:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) [131]
And as long we're discussing words whose meanings you seem to be unclear on, let me ask if you understand the meaning of unilateral: in what way is your edit history NOT a trail of unilateral edits? --Calton 05:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) [132]
Jayjg[edit]
HistoryBuffEr, I appreciate your desire to improve Wikipedia's content, but I think the way you are going about it is counter-productive. Rather that replacing existing articles with your own significantly different versions, I strongly recommend bringing edits one at a time to Talk: pages for discussion. The is especially true for highly contentious articles, and is standard Wikipedia practice. Also, I very strongly recommend that your restrict your comments on Talk: pages to discussions of article content, rather than comments about the people making the edits. This is also standard Wikipedia practice. Thanks. Jayjg 00:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) [133]
MPerel[edit]
No, you haven't discussed or attempted consensus on this page, and your version is certainly not neutral. It's just another wholesale replacement of what other editors have worked hard to come to agreement. You even keep deleting the bibliography. You can't just keep replacing the entire article with your own ethnocentric POV version and then ask for discussion afterward. Even the previous version before yours by Alberuni is questionable because it has too many changes without discussion and consensus first, not to mention POV, but his was the last version by an editor who participates (albeit with too many personal attacks) on the talk page. [134]
SlimVirgin[edit]
  1. HistoryBuffEr, could you explain why you removed the material I inserted about Arafat's alleged links to Munich? I provided three published sources, two secondary and one primary: a respected Arab newspaper, which I believe is regarded as Jordan's main news source; an Israeli historian (regarded as on the left and, by some in Israel, as pro-Palestinian; and as a primary source, a Palestinian who says he was the commander of the Munich operation. I feel that, in providing three disparate sources, the material should be acceptable for a Wikipedia entry. If you know of reputable sources on the other side, by all means add that, but I feel you shouldn't simply delete material like this, especially without an entry on the Talk page. [135]
  2. HistoryBuffEr, you have removed my material again without an explanation, so I have reverted to the last edit by Jayjg. Please explain your objections rather than removing carefully researched material without explanation. [136]
Ta bu shi da yu[edit]
Now I checked the talk page. The first comment from HistoryBuffEr was a threat of desysoping of Jayjg for reverting! good grief. Then I looked down the list and I see a section where Michael Snow pleaded for discussion to take place, with a flat refusal by HistoryBuffEr to talk about the changes with Jayjg "as he seems to be on some kind of a "godly mission", I've given up on talks with him." Then there are two sections where he's asked to respond on the talk page. The first time he responds is to Quadell on 04:30, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC). I note that the first change was done on 2 November... [137]
Er. That page was deleted (don't know why!) I've restored it, moved it and deleted the redirect (mainly cause I wanted access to my info). Try [138]. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:NPOV and Template:TotallyDisputed[edit]

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)[139]

Regarding HistoryBuffEr's tactics of repeatedly inserting the NPOV notice in the Holocaust denial examined article, User MtB wrote:

...please read the Wikipedia help pages on what the NPOV tag actually means and where it should be used -- the article necessarily has a POV in because of its titling. Actual rebuttals should either be in an article on Holocaust denial or as "however"s in the article body itself. --MtB 20:59, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) [140]

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.

User Modemac commented on the page protection that resulted from HistoryBuffEr's behavior on Holocaust denial examined:

Please be aware that this page was not protected because of flagrant POV violations throughout the course of the entire text, but rather because of HistoryBuffEr's antagonism and repeated actions over one very minor point of the article... --Modemac 08:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) [141]
Arab-Israeli conflict[edit]

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 [142]
  • 07:55, 13 Oct 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [143]
  • 07:38, 13 Oct 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [144]
  • 16:52, 12 Oct 2004] - Add TotallyDisputed template [145]
Holocaust denial examined[edit]

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[146], 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.[147]

  1. 08:35, 24 Oct 2004 - Add NPOV template [148]
  2. 18:16, 23 Oct 2004 - Add NPOV template [149]
  3. 08:03, 14 Oct 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [150]
  4. 07:48, 14 Oct 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [151]
  5. 21:48, 13 Oct 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [152]
Israeli West Bank barrier[edit]

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 [153]
  2. 21:13, 10 Nov 2004 - Add NPOV template [154]
  3. 20:19, 10 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [155]
  4. 20:15, 10 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDipsuted template [156]
  5. 17:07, 10 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [157]
  6. 22:57, 8 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [158]
  7. 22:48, 8 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [159]
  8. 21:18, 8 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [160]
  9. 07:36, 7 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [161]
  10. 7:08, 7 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [162]
  11. 06:28, 7 Nov 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [163]
  12. 08:52, 25 Oct 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [164]
  13. 18:18, 23 Oct 2004 - Add TotallyDisputed template [165]
  14. 18:50, 5 Oct 2004 - Add NPOV template [166]
  15. 17:48, 5 Oct 2004] - Add NPOV template [167]
Deceptive edit summaries[edit]

HistoryBuffer engages in deceptive edit summaries in order to mask his reverts. According to Wikipedia:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version, all reverts should be noted and added to the edit summary, either as "revert" or "rv". It goes on to say that, reverts are not appropriate if a newer version is no better than the older version. You should save reverts for cases where the new version is actively worse. Regardless, we strongly recommend against heated revert wars. HistoryBuffEr fails to adhere to these informal guidelines.

Rachel Corrie[edit]
  1. Revert of MPerel 23:10, 29 Nov 2004 Rachel Corrie (Restore the neutral version (no objections about it have been made yet)) [168]
  2. Revert of Viriditas 18:56, 29 Nov 2004 Rachel Corrie (Updated neutral version (See also + cat)) [169]
  3. Revert of Jayjg 08:19, 29 Nov 2004 Rachel Corrie (The more detailed and neutral version) [170]
  4. Revert of Jayjg 21:42, 28 Nov 2004 Rachel Corrie (Restore the neutral version (those proposing Talk should take their own advice)) [171]
  5. Revert of MathKnight 04:47, 28 Nov 2004 Rachel Corrie (Restore the more detailed and neutral version) [172]
  6. Revert of MathKnight 20:17, 27 Nov 2004 Rachel Corrie (Restore the neutral version, post objections in talk) [173]
  7. Revert of Neutrality 19:51, 27 Nov 2004 Rachel Corrie (Updated more detailed and neutral version) [174]
Sabra and Shatila Massacre[edit]
  1. Revert of Viriditas 05:08, 10 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (More NPOV + fixes) [175]
  2. Revert of Jayjg 03:26, 10 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore more detailed and NPOV version (most issues already discussed in Talk))[176]
  3. Revert of Jayjg 22:44, 9 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore the more detailed and NPOV version) [177]
  4. Revert of Jayjg (See subsection Verified sock puppets) 19:08, 9 Nov 2004 66.93.166.174 (Update, rephrase, NPOV (Heh, Jayjg is now reverting from an anon IP)) [178]
  5. Revert of 212.179.212.71 06:38, 9 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Events - Update + restore UN quote) [179]
Ariel Sharon[edit]
  1. Revert of MPerel 23:11, 29 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Restore the neutral version (no objections about it have been made yet)) [180]
  2. Revert of Viriditas 18:39, 29 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The more neutral version, replacing the wholesale replacement by Viriditas) [181]
  3. Revert of 207.90.102.130 08:21, 29 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The more neutral version) [182]
Three revert rule policy[edit]

HistoryBuffEr has refused to adhere to the policy of the three revert rule, even when it has been explained to him by an admin. HistoryBuffEr continues to deny that these edits are reverts, and he continues to engage in deceptive edit summaries, by falsely claiming "vandalism" as a reason for pushing his POV-reverts on to pages that have reached consensus. User Golbez recently made note of HistoryBuffEr's deceptive revert tactics on Talk:Yasser Arafat when he wrote:

... you have reverted the article three times in 24 hours, and contrary to what you say, it was not over vandalism. If you continue to revert the article, it may be protected, and not perhaps on the copy you want. Respect the Three revert rule at all times. The mere fact that the other version has more reverters than you is a sign of consensus. So please respect their choices as much as you would like them you respect yours. What you need to do is justify your edits here, rather than overwrite the article repeatedly. --Golbez 20:21, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)[183]
Arabs and anti-Semitism[edit]

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 [184]
  2. 19:27, 4 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [185]
  3. 19:07, 4 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [186]
  4. 16:39, 4 Oct 2004 - Revert of RK [187]
Yasser Arafat[edit]

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 [188]
  2. 09:33, 13 Nov 2004 - Revert of 195.7.55.146 [189]
  3. 18:17, 13 Nov 2004 - Revert of 218.208.238.131 [190]
  4. 19:24, 13 Nov 2004 - Revert of Viriditas [191]
Rachel Corrie[edit]

HistoryBuffEr violated the three revert rule on Rachel Corrie by reverting the page at least four times in 24 hours with deceptive edit summaries.

  1. 04:32, 22 Oct 2004 - Reverted Ambi [192]
  2. 04:17, 22 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [193]
  3. 19:27, 21 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [194]
  4. 18:15, 21 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [195]
Operation Days of Penitence[edit]

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 [196]
  2. 18:38, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [197]
  3. 18:32, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [198]
  4. 18:31, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [199]
  5. 18:23, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [200]
  6. 11:57, 23 Oct 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [201]
Sabra and Shatila Massacre[edit]

HistoryBuffEr violated the three revert rule on Sabra and Shatila Massacre by reverting the page at least five times in 24 hours. He also engaged in deceptive edit summaries to hide his reverts, and used his logged-out account, 66.93.166.174, which he failed to mention or note in his response on this arbitration page. (See subsection Verified sock puppets).

  1. 05:08, 10 Nov 2004 - Reverted Viriditas [202]
  2. 03:26, 10 Nov 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [203]
  3. 22:44, 9 Nov 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [204]
  4. 19:08, 9 Nov 2004 - Reverted Jayjg [205]
  5. 06:38, 9 Nov 2004 - Reverted 212.179.212.71 [206]
Sock puppet hypothesis[edit]
|--66.93.166.174
|   |  
|   --HistoryBuffEr
|       |
|       --4.232.123.136
Alleged sock puppets[edit]

HistoryBuffEr first alluded to the use of a sock puppet in October of 2004, when he wrote:

Heh, these paranoid Zionistas need to make up their mind whether it's the whole world that is after them or it's just one sock-puppet HistoryBuffEr 03:25, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC) [207]

More recently, HistoryBuffEr has allegedly started using at least five sock puppets on Yasser Arafat. Notice the stock HistoryBuffEr terms, "restore npov" and "vandalism" and the usual accusations. The other signs that the sock puppet may be HistoryBuffEr, was the wholesale replacement of the article, a reversion to the version he personally wrote, and changing the content slightly by adding a single word. [208]


General bush[edit]

Yasser Arafat

User:General bush has made one edit in which he reverted Jayjg and replaced the consensus version of the article with HistoryBuffEr's wholesale replacement. Even more interesting is the fact that HistoryBuffEr's confirmed sock puppet, 66.93.166.174, has made eleven edits to the George W. Bush page, all of which were reverted because HistoryBuffEr rewrote the article and replaced it with a wholesale replacement.

  1. 05:26, 2 Dec 2004 (hist) Yasser Arafat (a) [209]
BillGoldberg[edit]

AIPAC

  1. 04:59, 20 Nov 2004 BillGoldberg [210]

Yasser Arafat

  1. 02:52, 20 Nov 2004 BillGoldberg [211]
Goldberg[edit]

AIPAC

  1. 17:57, 3 Dec 2004 Goldberg (add lines vandalized by anti-semitic and anti-african american Likud thugs) [212]
  2. 02:57, 26 Nov 2004 Goldberg (repost vandalized portion) [213]

Yasser Arafat

  1. 18:31, 3 Dec 2004 Goldberg (rm jewbacca's wholesale vandalism) [214]
  2. 17:46, 3 Dec 2004 Goldberg (npov version - remove anti-semitic version) [215]
  3. 13:05, 20 Nov 2004 Goldberg (back to last npov before the vandalism by jewbacca) [216]
  4. 10:51, 20 Nov 2004 Goldberg (restore npov after jewbacca's vandalism) [217]
  5. 06:46, 20 Nov 2004 Goldberg(restore the neutral version) [218]

See also:

FamilyFord car4less[edit]

Yasser Arafat

Same edit style as "Goldberg" and same reversions to HistoryBuffEr's "version". Please note the careless violation of the three revert rule, and the use of the term "vandalism", a common accusation by HistoryBuffEr.

  1. 00:53, 4 Dec 2004 FamilyFord car4less (rv sock puppet vandal Slimey/Viriditas/Jewbacca=same jerk, different alias) [219]
  2. 00:47, 4 Dec 2004 FamilyFord car4less (rv sock puppet vandal Slimey/Viriditas) [220]
  3. 00:33, 4 Dec 2004 FamilyFord car4less (Viriditas vandalism) [221]
  4. 00:09, 4 Dec 2004 FamilyFord car4less (rv Slimey vandalism) [222]
  5. 00:00, 4 Dec 2004 FamilyFord car4less (this is one is more neutral) [223]
131.107.71.94[edit]

Yasser Arafat

Same edit style as Goldberg and FamilyFord car4less; Same reversions to HistoryBuffEr's "version".

  1. 02:45, 4 Dec 2004 131.107.71.94 (rv sock puppet vandal Slimey/Viriditas/Jewbacca=same jerk, different alias) [224]


Verified sock puppet[edit]
66.93.166.174[edit]

User:66.93.166.174 is one of HistoryBuffEr's accounts. While it is quite normal for users to post with their IP address when they are accidentally logged-out, HistoryBuffEr has instead opted to lie about his identity and violate policy.

Sock puppet timeline (in progress)

Sabra and Shatila Massacre

HistoryBuffEr has used his logged-out IP (66.93.166.174) to violate the three revert rule. In one instance, he violated the three revert rule on Sabra and Shatila Massacre by reverting three times with his main account, and then logging out and eventually reverting the page a combined total of *five times* in a 24 hour period. Also note the standard deceptive edit summaries, none listing the reversion as a "revert".

  1. 05:08, 10 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (More NPOV + fixes) [229]
  2. 03:26, 10 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore more detailed and NPOV version (most issues already discussed in Talk))[230]
  3. 22:44, 9 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore the more detailed and NPOV version) [231]
  4. 19:08, 9 Nov 2004 66.93.166.174 (Update, rephrase, NPOV (Heh, Jayjg is now reverting from an anon IP)) [232]
  5. 06:38, 9 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Events - Update + restore UN quote) [233]
Evidence[edit]

Compare edit summaries:

sysop privs

  • 09:32, 2 Oct 2004 66.93.166.174 (VeryVerily: Don't abuse sysop privs, if you have objections, substantiate them in Talk.) [234]
  • 18:35, 24 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore {{NPOV}} note; Modemac: Final warning, you've already been warned about your abuse of sysop privs.) [235]

POV pushing, post your objections in talk

  • 16:36, 2 Oct 2004 66.93.166.174 (Quit POV pushing, this is not a fan club page, post your objections in Talk) [236]
  • 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Post your objections in Talk) [237]
  • 20:47, 13 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Viriditas, your endless POV pushing is pathetic) [238]
Other IP Addresses[edit]
4.232.123.136[edit]

After HistoryBuffEr was blocked, he came back to Quadell's page to complain under this IP. [239]

Violation of Arbitration procedures[edit]

According to the guidelines on this very page, 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.

Apparently, in addition to the policy violations listed above, HistoryBuffEr is unable to follow the simple guidelines of this arbitration. HistoryBuffEr has been removing diff links to evidence I have added in this section and he has been replacing them with non-diff links. HistoryBuffEr's edits are in direct violation of the posted guideline, ...to not remove evidence presented by others. The question must be asked: why is HistoryBuffEr editing the evidence presented by other users when the guidelines for this arbitration clearly state that this is not allowed?

Ambi[edit]

HistoryBuffEr removed the diff link to the evidence I provided. [240]

Jayjg[edit]

HistoryBuffEr removed the diff link to the evidence I provided. [241]

MtB[edit]

HistoryBuffEr removed the diff link to the evidence I provided. [242]

Notes to Viriditas from HistoryBuffEr[edit]

  • 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)
  • Viriditas, can I ask you for a favor to stop changing your titles after I have already replied to them. Thank you. HistoryBuffEr 04:47, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
  • Viriditas, can I ask you for a favor to include links to the relevant Talk section, rather than just snippets out of context. I've fixed one or two links to include context, but it would save everyone time if you abided by the basic principles of fairness. HistoryBuffEr 06:05, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

Evidence against HistoryBuffEr by Gadykozma[edit]

Obstinacy[edit]

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: [243]

(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)

Interests and contribution[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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)

Evidence against HistoryBuffEr by Lance6Wins[edit]

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)

Evidence against HistoryBuffEr by Modemac[edit]

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)

Evidence against HistoryBuffEr by MPerel[edit]

Article replacements[edit]

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)[244][245]

Additional Note by MPerel[edit]

I'd like to direct attention to HistoryBuffEr's response on his talk page to Rye1967 under subsection "Arafat - Your Blanket Reverts" [246]. 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)

Comment about HistoryBuffEr's Numbers by MPerel[edit]

Meanwhile, here are some interesting numbers that demonstrate HistoryBuffEr’s posting pattern during the same date range he gives, July 15 – Nov 10 (except his posting doesn’t start until Sept 13). Note the ratio between article posts and talk page posts: 

               Yasser Arafat:  HB made 52 posts (52 in article, 0 in Talk) 
                Ariel Sharon:  HB made 18 posts (18 in article, 0 in Talk)
               Rachel Corrie:  HB made 36 posts (34 in article, 2 in Talk)
 Operation Days of Penitence:  HB made 37 posts (32 in article, 5 in Talk)
  Sabra and Shatila Massacre:  HB made 26 posts (21 in article, 5 in Talk)
   Israeli West Bank barrier:  HB made 18 posts (14 in article, 4 in Talk)
                      Israel:  HB made 10 posts ( 7 in article, 3 in Talk)

In the above articles alone, HB made 197 posts (178 in article pages, 19 in Talk pages). The majority of the 178 article posts were complete unilateral article replacements without consensus. Of the sparse 19 talk page comments:

8 were personal threats and abusive comments directed toward Jayjg [247][248][249][250][251][252][253][254],
2 were other miscellaneous insults[255][256],
4 were evasions of requests to explain why HistoryBuffEr added “totallydisputed” to the article, in which he insisted instead that others read through article edit history instead of discussing on the talk page with others what he specifically disputed[257][258][259][260],

and finally,

5 were some actual discussion, albeit peppered with insults, hostility, and contempt[261][262][263][264][265]

Evidence against HistoryBuffEr by SlimVirgin[edit]

In support of user:Jayjg, I would like to submit this evidence regarding HistoryBuffEr's approach to editing disputes. Based on my limited experience with him, I feel HistoryBuffEr is unwilling to discuss edits and has difficulty being courteous to people he disagrees with.

I recently edited the article on Yasser Arafat. I believe it was the first time I had edited this article. I had not previously come into contact with HistoryBuffEr. There was a sentence in the article indicating that Arafat knew nothing in advance about the 1972 Black September attack on the Munich Olympics. I was aware of some information indicating that Arafat may have sanctioned the attack. The information came from the autobiography of the Palestinian commander of the operation. I provided a quote from this man and a citation. I backed it up with a reference to a 1972 Jordanian newspaper article containing a purported statement from this commander, and I added a third reference to a book written by an Israeli academic, Professor Benny Morris, who made a similar claim. The section I added was written in a factual tone. See here [266] I also wrote on Talk:Yasser Arafat explaining that I had done this. [267]

HistoryBuffEr reverted to the previous version, [268] with the words "restore the neutral version." I asked him why on Talk:Yasser Arafat. [269] He ignored me. I repeated the inquiry on User Talk:HistoryBuffEr. He deleted my question from his Talk page. Jayjg restored my edit to the article [270], asking HistoryBuffEr to discuss it on the Talk page. HistoryBuffEr reverted it a second time [271], saying his was the "shorter and more neutral version."

I restored it again. [272] HistoryBuffEr reverted it for a third time. [273] User:MPerel restored it, and HistoryBuffEr reverted it for a fourth time, just outside the 24-hour period. [274]

I placed another enquiry on his Talk page, and he replied [275]

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

I asked him again on Talk:Yasser Arafat to state his objections, and he replied: [276]

"When your repeated posts are ignored it's a hint to rethink your argument. As you keep recycling the same trash here and on my user talk, here are more clues:
"In view of your 750+ edits, your "question" on "removed" material is obvious trolling and will be ignored.
"Your assertion that 1 unsubstantiated rumor printed in a newspaper counts as 2 "disparate" sources is laughable.
"Your presentation of Morris, who advocates ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and calls them "a very sick society" [24] , as "pro-Palestinian" is worse than a bad joke.
"Have a nice day, and stop spamming and reverting my user page. HistoryBuffEr 18:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

There were a few more similar exchanges in a slightly less aggressive tone, which can be seen here [277] under the heading "Arafat and Munich." I know that there are strong feelings over this issue, and HistoryBuffEr has every right to make his views known. I would have been happy to discuss his objections; find more citations; seek a compromise, and so on. However, his attitude was that he was completely right and I was completely wrong, and he made no effort to be polite. I would also like to add that, based on what I've seen, Jayjg does remain civil and tries to discuss the issues. Slim 07:18, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Evidence against HistoryBuffEr by User:IZAK[edit]

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." [278]
  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..." [279]
  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..." [280]
  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." [281]

Evidence against HistoryBuffEr by MathKnight[edit]

Evidences gathered by User:MathKnight:

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

Yasser Arafat[edit]

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[edit]

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

Operation Days of Penitence[edit]

"The dispute exists only in your extremist head. Even your Fuehrer admits it, so get over it. HistoryBuffEr 01:53, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)" [282]

Rachel Corrie[edit]

Abusive edit summary:

"Revision as of 19:51, 27 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Talk | contribs) Updated more detailed and neutral version"

[283]

Notice that serveral paragraphs were erased.

The article was under protection until 03:15, 26 Nov 2004 , after a revert-war involving HistoryBuffEr. In the Talk page he failed to explain why he deleted entire paragraphs and didn't responded on that although he was asked to that by Jayjg.

Evidence against HistoryBuffEr by Ta bu shi da yu[edit]

Rachel Corrie[edit]

  • 14:06, 2 Nov 2004
    • Updates information, edit history is "Updated NPOV version". [284]
  • 14:18, 2 Nov 2004
    • Objected to by Jayjg, who reverts. [285]
  • 14:21, 2 Nov 2004
  • 14:25, 2 Nov 2004
  • 14:31, 2 Nov 2004
  • 14:39, 2 Nov 2004
  • 14:41, 2 Nov 2004
    • Protection notice added [290]

. . time goes by... .

  • 13:15, 26 Nov 2004
    • Protection notice removed. [291]
  • 05:51, 28 Nov 2004
    • Again makes the same change!!!! [292]
  • 06:06, 28 Nov 2004
    • Reverted by MathKnight. [293]
  • 06:17, 28 Nov 2004
    • HistoryBuffEr reverts Mathknight's revert. [294]
  • 06:24, 28 Nov 2004
    • revert by MathKnight. [295]
  • 14:47, 28 Nov 2004
  • 15:46, 28 Nov 2004
  • 07:42, 29 Nov 2004
  • 08:37, 29 Nov 2004
  • 18:19, 29 Nov 2004
  • 20:21, 29 Nov 2004
    • Viriditas reverts - OK, you know that there's a problem when this user reverts. Though I've disagreed with him/her, I respect their neutral POV. [301]
  • 04:56, 30 Nov 2004
  • 05:00, 30 Nov 2004
    • Another user, MPerel, reverts HBE. [303]
  • 09:10, 30 Nov 2004
  • 09:17, 30 Nov 2004
    • Jayjg does final revert in history. [305]

Ariel Sharon[edit]

  • 16:51, 2 Nov 2004
    • This is the version that keeps being reverted to. [306]
  • 18:21, 29 Nov 2004
    • Reverts with edit summary "The more neutral version". I note that he added the following: "for some Israelis), even though Israel was ultimately defeated and its image of invincibility was destroyed forever by this war." How is this neutral? [307]
  • 20:25, 29 Nov 2004
    • Viriditas reverts back, requesting changes be discussed on the talk page first. [308]
  • 04:39, 30 Nov 2004
    • HistoryBuffEr reverts back. [309]
  • 04:48, 30 Nov 2004
    • MPerel reverts him back. [310]
  • 09:11, 30 Nov 2004
    • HistoryBuffEr reverts back. His edit summary is "Restore the neutral version (no objections about it have been made yet)". Yet two people have reverted him, these I would assume are valid objections! [311]
  • 09:18, 30 Nov 2004
    • Jayjg reverts him back. Edit summary: "Please propose complete re-writes in Talk: first" [312]
  • 14:26, 2 Dec 2004
    • Wk muriithi wikifies some links. [313]
  • 18:35, 2 Dec 2004
    • HistoryBuffEr reverts. This time Wk murithi's wikifications are lost. They are not put back by HistoryBuffEr. [314]
  • 18:43, 2 Dec 2004
    • Viriditas reverts to Wk murithi's changes. Edit summary: "Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Wk muriithi. Please propose major changes in talk." [315]
  • 18:59, 2 Dec 2004
    • HistoryBuffEr reverts again. He again loses wikifications changes by Wk muriithi! His edit summary is "Restore the neutral version, to which NO objections have been made". Again, I ask the question that if several editors are reverting your changes then shouldn't these be counted as objections? I also ask that if you have been asked several times to take to the talk page, shouldn't you discuss and come to some sort of consensus before reverting? [316]
  • 16:15, 3 Dec 2004
    • HistoryBuffEr does a simultaneous revert and update of the section "early years". (see the following comparison of his old revert and his new revert/edit: [317]) This is most certainly still a revert. I posit that the edit summary is misleading as it says "Updated neutral bio (still no objections in Talk)". There is no mention that he has edited the page from his old copy. [318]
  • 16:35, 3 Dec 2004
    • Viriditas reverts. Loses additional information in the early years section. However, it restores to the version where everyone has asked HistoryBuffEr to discuss on the talk page. Edit summary is "Revert edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Ferkelparade. We arenot required to fallaciously "prove" a negative. You are, however, required to discuss your proposed changes on talk." [319]
  • 16:46, 3 Dec 2004
    • HistoryBuffEr reverts to his bio change version. Edit summary is "The NPOV version with no objections to it replaces the POV hagiography" yet it still contains the non-neutral sentence "even though Israel was ultimately defeated and its image of invincibility was destroyed forever by this war" [320]
  • 18:33, 3 Dec 2004
    • MPerel reverts with edit summary "HistoryBuffEr, stop replacing articles with your personal version"

Israeli West Bank barrier[edit]

I shall provide evidence of massive revert war, and constant attempt to readd a totallydisputed tag. All discussion by HistoryBuffEr seems to have been done through unclear edit summaries, with little or no proper discussion on the talk page.

  • 13:48, 6 Oct 2004
    • Makes several modifications [321]:
      • Adds NPOV tag. This is not justfied on the talk page.
      • Adds "Because it intrudes deeply into the territory of the future Palestinian state and causes extreme hardship to most Palestinians, this wall is opposed by most of the world community." to the lead section.
      • Replaces "Opponents prefer to call it a "wall," with Apartheid wall being a common derogatory name for it." with "Most of the world, including the International Court of Justice and the U.N. General Assembly call it a "wall," with Apartheid wall being a common derogatory name for it." (I support this change)
  • 13:59, 6 Oct 2004
  • 14:50, 6 Oct 2004
    • Reverts back to his version. No discussion on talk page. [323]
  • 15:04, 6 Oct 2004
    • Jayjg reverts edits. Edit summary: (HistoryBuffEr, please bring your controversial edits to Talk: for discussion first) [324]

...numerous edits...

  • 14:18, 24 Oct 2004
    • Adds totallydisputed tag. Edit summary is "Restore {{TotallyDisputed}}; Facts are still misstated despite evidence provided, and POV is pervasive." No discussion of what the facts are on the talk page. [325]
  • Talk page: 06:19, 26 Oct 2004
    • Lance6Wins request information about what is totally disputed. [326]
  • Talk page: 02:47, 27 Oct 2004
    • HistoryBuffEr's response: "I have already pointed out that factual edits were reverted (see history.) In short: the wall route description is contrary to facts, and the Israeli official statement which contradicts what the article says has been removed" [327]
  • See rest of history or Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier to see how this discussion went.
  • 04:33, 26 Oct 2004
    • Lance6Wins changes to NPOV tag. Edit summary: "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." [328]
  • 04:52, 26 Oct 2004
    • HistoryBuffEr changes NPOV tag to totallydisputed (or reverts, whichever you prefer)[329] No response on talk page at all. HistoryBuffEr evidently expected editors to trawl through the edit history of the page to see what is disputed. Please note that I have (it's painful), and maybe I'm just unobservant but I can't see what is factually incorrect or POV terribly easily!
  • 02:28, 8 Nov 2004
    • Readds the totallydisputed tag. [330] The edit history is "Restore "TotallyDisputed" (see the article history and Talk for reasons. Stop removing this notice until it is explicitly agreed that all issues were fixed)"
  • Talk 16:53, 8 Nov 2004
    • HistoryBuffEr provides the following response [331]:
    • What's all this pretending about? From the Article history:
    1. 04:50, 2004 Oct 6 HistoryBuffEr (Restore {npov} notice + Npov intro)
    2. 03:59, 2004 Oct 6 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Iridium77)
    3. 03:48, 2004 Oct 6 HistoryBuffEr (Add (npov) notice + NPOVify intro)
    HistoryBuffEr 06:53, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
  • 02:50, 8 Nov 2004
    • MathKnight removes the totallydisputed tag. [332] Edit summary is "HistoryBuffEr, your ignoring of the Talk page is really anoying. Read the talk page and act as requested before adding dispute without telling why"
  • Talk 07:04, 8 Nov 2004
    • MathKnight asks waht HistoryBuffEr is disputing in the "Remove Totally Disputed till Specific Items are Cited" section. He says "You again failed to present specific terms. No one understand what are you talking about and your refusal to cite the requested data is highly suspicious. You are continuing your bad conduct, and it is not productive for anyone, to say the least." [333]
  • 03:08, 8 Nov 2004
    • Places totallydisputed tag back again. [334] Edit summary: "Restore "TotallyDisputed" (see the article history and Talk for reasons. Stop removing this notice until it is explicitly agreed that all issues were fixed"
  • 03:32, 8 Nov 2004
    • Jayjg removes/reverts totallydisputed tag [335] Edit summary: "Still don't see any of HistoryBuffEr's disputed items in Talk:" Note: I agree with this assessment. I can't see the items either.
  • 03:36, 8 Nov 2004
    • Removes the tag again, this time makes a personal threat. The edit summary says "Restore "TotallyDisputed". Suggest reading comprehension classes for reverters. Removing this notice can get you banned." [336]
  • 18:20, 8 Nov 2004
    • Jewbacca removes/reverts tag. [337] Edit summary: "discuss your disputes with the article in Talk, with specific points from the article. We're waiting"
  • 17:18, 9 Nov 2004
    • HistoryBuffEr removes totallydisputed tag again [338]
  • 17:32, 9 Nov 2004
    • Jewbacca removes tag [339] Edit summary "No, not until you raise the issues on the talk page as requested."
  • 18:48, 9 Nov 2004
    • HistoryBuffEr places tag back into article. [340]
  • 18:50, 9 Nov 2004
    • Jewbacca removes tag, edit summary: "Revert -- what do you dispute about it? Put it on the talk page" [341]
  • 18:57, 9 Nov 2004
    • Reverts. Edit summary is "Restore "TotallyDisputed" (Can't you read?)" (commentary: this is too much! there is nothing to read! that's the problem!!!!) [342]
  • 19:02, 9 Nov 2004
    • Reverted by Jewbacca. Edit summary "Revert -- you've been invited to the talk page and you refuse"[343]
  • 13:07, 11 Nov 2004
    • HistoryBuffEr reverts, also makes a comment in the edit summary I consider to be a personal attack: "Jayjg's troops consistently ignore Talk so: Last Warning, do NOT remove the Disputed notice" Jayjg's troops? Last Warning? Or he'll do what exactly?! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • 13:13, 11 Nov 2004
    • Jewbacca reverts. Edit summary is "There you go again. There are at least 2 invites in the TALK page that you cite for you to list your disputes. List them!" (this is inaccurate, there have been a lot more than that!) [344]
  • 16:15, 11 Nov 2004
    • HistoryBuffEr reverts Jewbacca, makes a personal attack (calls him a "vandal"). Edit summary: "RV persistent vandal Jewbacca" [345]
  • 16:17, 11 Nov 2004
    • Jewbacca reverts. Edit summary "We're simply waiting for you to list your objections clearly in the sections waiting for you in the talk page. Is that too much to ask?" [346]
  • 16:19, 11 Nov 2004
    • HistoryBuffEr reverts again. [347]
  • 16:20, 11 Nov 2004
    • Jewbacca removes tag again. Edit summary "Removed disputed notice. There are invitations in Talk: to HistoryBuffEr to list the items he disputes (since he adds the disputed notice), but they are still blank." [348]
  • 17:13, 11 Nov 2004
    • Semi-revert. Only changes the lead section this time. Calls it a "Intro - Neutral rewrite" in edit summary. Also this time adds the NPOV tag. (commentary: you might notice that this was added before, but HBE quickly replaced it with a totallydisputed) [349]
  • 17:43, 11 Nov 2004
    • Jewbacca reverts, edit summary is "revert -- read the Talk page.. It has been agreed to use the neutral term barrier, rather than Wall throughout" [350]
  • 18:24, 11 Nov 2004
    • Last revert by HistoryBuffEr. [351]

Evidence against HistoryBuffEr by Yoshiah ap[edit]

  • Please also note that even in this RfA HistoryBuffEr uses a personal attack against Jayjg in his section against him entitled "Jayjg the Rollback robot".--Josiah 07:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Additional views by others[edit]

172's views[edit]

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)

Gazpacho's views[edit]

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)

Humus Sapiens's views[edit]

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)

Jmabel's views[edit]

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)

Josiah's views[edit]

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)

MathKnight's views[edit]

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)

MPerel's views[edit]

The core problem leading to this arbitration is that HistoryBuffEr shows no evidence that he is willing to engage civilly with editors who do not endorse his particular POV. The bigger issue has more to do with attitude than POV, however.

Contrary to HistoryBuffEr’s allegations that any editor who opposes his continued attempts to force his wholesale rewrites is part of “Jayjg’s POV pushing club” [352], the 18 editors he lists do not represent a monolithic point of view. Not only do the alleged members of HB’s list have diverse views, all demonstrate good track records in working with opponents of their respective diverse points of view to create NPOV articles. The main thing the 18 editors have in common with each other is that all have been involved in articles in which HistoryBuffEr is involved and have confronted his misbehavior in one way or another.

HistoryBuffEr seems to want to portray himself as the victim of some cabal led by Jayjg, but the truth is that he has chosen to alienate himself by behaving uncivilly and by refusing to engage in the Wikipedia consensus process like everyone else. He has effectively disrupted every article in which he participates, and this appears to be his main goal. --MPerel 00:39, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Quadell's views[edit]

On several talk pages with ongoing edit wars, notably Talk:Rachel Corrie and Talk:Sabra and Shatila Massacre, I have come in as an uninvolved editor and attempted to work out a mutually satisfactory solution. Of course many editors had participated in edit wars, many were biased, and many acted stubbornly at times. Still, in all but one case, I found that with enough patience and wikiquette, I could make progress toward compromise. HistoryBuffEr is consistently uncivil, belligerent, unyielding, offensive, and demeaning. I did my best to work with HistoryBuffEr and assume the best about him, and if there were any possibility of him becoming a productive member of the Wikipedia community, I believe I would have seen a glimpse of it. I conclude that he has no interest in ever honoring the guidelines of Wikipedia to any extent.

SlimVirgin's views[edit]

In the time I have been editing this article (Yasser Arafat), HistoryBuffEr has not made a single encyclopedic contribution, POV or NPOV. What I mean by that is that he has not provided a single piece of information. All he has done is delete large sections of facts, which were properly referenced to academic books and explained in historical context. He has been personally abusive to at least four other editors, and has used several sockpuppets. I have yet to see a single factual contribution from him, whether it's one I agree with or disagree with. Jayjg has been extremely patient and civil in the face of it. It's absurd to draw any kind of comparison between these two editors. [353]

Ta bu shi da yu's views[edit]

I note that HistoryBuffEr continuously reverts, even after protection of pages has been lifted. I also note that he has consistently refused to talk to certain people like Jayjg to come to some sort of consensus. It's bad that I have to say this about him, because the guy knows his stuff, but he keeps reverting. I also note that he got blocked and got very upset about it, and filed a request for arbitration from an anonymous IP address while still blocked. However, Quadell was fully justified in blocking him because one of the edits (disputed by HistoryBuffEr) was not merely an edit, it was a revert and an edit where he added material! See [354] for a diff between his versions and [355] for the actual change itself. Personally, I'd like to see a ban from reverting, or a decision that he be forced to justify every revert on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Response to Evidence about HistoryBuffEr[edit]

Evidence of NPOV editing by HistoryBuffEr[edit]

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. [356] 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, [357]. 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[edit]

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"[edit]

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"[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

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.

So, giving notices of violations is for Jayjg bullying? As giving notices is required by the rules, Jayjg is suggesting that he is above the rules and thus no one should bother him about the rules. Also note that Jayjg calls this bullying, but in the section below complains several times about being called a bully.

Here is the context for notices: So, giving notices of violations is for Jayjg bullying? As giving notices is required by the rules, Jayjg is suggesting that he is above the rules and thus no one should bother him about the rules. Also note that Jayjg calls this bullying, but in the section below complains several times about being called a bully.

Here is the context for specific notices:

  • 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.)
A fair warning to the persistent reverter Jayjg, who himself insists on discussing changes in Talk.
  • 17:47, 18 Oct 2004 (hist) m Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Restore Evenets. Jayjg this is a warning: Post your issues to Talk first.)
Same as above.
  • 18:08, 18 Oct 2004 (hist) m Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Events - Restore. Jayjg, 3rd warning: Instead of mindlessly reverting, post objections to Talk.)
Same as above.
  • 18:45, 18 Oct 2004 (hist) m Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Events - Restore. Jayjg, 4th warning: Instead of mindlessly reverting, post objections to Talk.)
Same as above.
  • 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))
Same as above.
  • 02:01, 20 Oct 2004 (hist) Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Events - Restore. Jayjg, 6th warning: Instead of mindlessly reverting, post objections to Talk.)
Same as above.
  • 02:16, 20 Oct 2004 (hist) Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Events - Restore. Jayjg, 7th warning: Instead of mindlessly reverting, post objections to Talk.)
Same as above.
  • 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.)
Same as above.
  • 04:42, 24 Oct 2004 (hist) Talk:Operation Days of Penitence (Jayjg, 4 reverts warning)
Same as above.
  • 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.)
A fair warning to the persistent reverter Modemac, who abused sysop privs by protecting the page he edited and reverted. See the article Talk and history.
  • 03:49, 7 Nov 2004 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (4 reverts will look good on your Arbitration rap-sheet)
A fair warning to Jayjg, who had violated the 3-reverts rule, after requesting mediation, and was apparently heading into Arbitration.
  • 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.)
A fair warning to persistent removers of NPOV notice, who insisted they did not see any dispute (!?) despite plenty of evidence, see the article history and discussion.
  • 03:26, 8 Nov 2004 (hist) m Occupation of Palestine (Rv stubborn vandal Yoshiah who again ignores clear instruction not to redirect.)
A fair notice to the persistent reverter Yoshiah, who repeatedly and without consensus redirected an article which consisted of "Please do not redirect until consensus is reached...", see the article Yoshiah reverted and the article history.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 07:02, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC); updated: 08:24, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC))

RE: Modemac: "Abusive edit summaries"[edit]

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. (See more below).

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.

Abusive comments? Here is the context which the abusive sysop Modemac omitted:

  • 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))
What is abusive about stating facts and caling Viriditas, the endless reverter, "the POV pusher", which is amply supported by the evidence?
  • 20:47, 13 Nov 2004 (hist) m Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Viriditas, your endless POV pushing is pathetic)
A fair comment on Viriditas' endless reverts. See also above.
  • 06:15, 11 Nov 2004 (hist) m Israeli West Bank barrier (RV persistent vandal Jewbacca)
A fair retort to Jewbacca, who reverted and removed NPOV notice 9 times, see the article history.
  • 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)
A fair warning to persistent removers of NPOV notice, who insisted they did not see any dispute (!?) despite plenty of evidence.
  • 02:59, 11 Nov 2004 (hist) m Munich Massacre (Jewbacca, mindless RV does not answer questions posed to you in Talk)
A fair comment to Jewbacca, who repeatedly reverted even after HistoryBuffEr posted objections in Talk. Jewbacca at first joined the Talk, but when she could not provide a counterpoint, she stopped responding (see discussion), and went back to reverting (see article history).
  • 00:05, 11 Nov 2004 (hist) Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Minor update (Consensus for Jayjg and his little helpers apparently means: their POV))
Nothing abusive about stating the obvious.
  • 23:47, 10 Nov 2004 (hist) Munich Massacre (More NPOV (see Talk, revert grunts))
Stating the obvious. See article history.
  • 03:26, 8 Nov 2004 (hist) m Occupation of Palestine (Rv stubborn vandal Yoshiah who again ignores clear instruction not to redirect.)
Already listed and explained in the above section (the troops running out of ammo?)
  • 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.)
Already listed and explained in the above section (heh, recycling complaints again)
  • 03:41, 7 Nov 2004 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (Replace version pushed by Arafat's enemies)
A statement of fact about Jayjg, who kept insisting on inserting unsourced POV rumors and petty accusations.
  • 03:38, 7 Nov 2004 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (Restore version not written by the pro-Israeli propaganda mill)
A fair description of Jayjg and his helpers, who kept insisting on inserting unsourced POV rumors and petty accusations.
  • 22:06, 4 Nov 2004 (hist) Occupation of Palestine (rv Zionist extremist)
A fair description of Jayjg, who denies both occupation and Palestine. (See also "Jayjg' Extreme POV" below.)
  • 02:39, 2 Nov 2004 (hist) Yasser Arafat (Jag, take your godly mission against Arafat elsewhere, the Bio must be NPOV)
A fair description of Jayjg's incessant reverts and pushing of unfounded POV smears.
  • 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.)
Same as above.
  • 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))
A fair description of Lance6Wins who sneakily claimed "revert vandalism", but actually reverted far back, to his POV of course.
  • 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!))
A fair description of Jayjg's pushing of unfounded POV smears against Arafat, but blocking NPOV unfavorable to Sharon.
  • 08:08, 1 Nov 2004 (hist) m Zionism (External links - There are TWO sides to NPOV, Humus doltius patheticus)
This humorous comment was understood as such and well received: Humus finally stopped his incessant reverts after this.
  • 04:31, 1 Nov 2004 (hist) History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (The war for Palestine - Rv POV pusher)
That Jayjg is a "POV pusher" is amply supported by the evidence.
  • 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!)
A fair description of Jayjg's pushing of unfounded POV smears against Arafat, but blocking NPOV unfavorable to Sharon.
  • 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))
Heh, Jayjg kept burying Sharon's major accomplishments in "Sabra and Shatila" under "Career".
  • 06:19, 31 Oct 2004 (hist) m Yasser Arafat (RV Zionist dolt)
Comment made after umpteen successive reverts by Jayjg calling HistoryBuffEr's edits "vandalism".
  • 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?)
Again, a fair description of Jayjg's endless pushing of unfounded POV smears against Arafat.
  • 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.)
A statement of fact and a fair notice (hmm, recycling similar complaints again)
  • 05:20, 25 Oct 2004 (hist) Occupation of Palestine (What's up, Zionistas? You lost the Redirect Vote)
This article was placed on a VfD by the Israel-only troops; they lost on the vote, but kept redirecting it anyway.
  • 04:35, 24 Oct 2004 (hist) m Rachel Corrie (Mom didn't get you a dictionary yet?)
Heh, Jayjg inserted an "a" into "flutist", which is a dictionary word (and used in Corrie's original bio). Jayjg did this just to skirt the 3-reverts rule, see "Jayjg the Rollback robot/Rachel Corrie" below.
  • 04:32, 24 Oct 2004 (hist) m Operation Days of Penitence (Keep banging your head, zealot)
Comment made after Jayjg reverted 6 times in 30 mins and ignored notice in Talk.
  • 04:32, 24 Oct 2004 (hist) m Rachel Corrie (Keep banging your head, zealot)
Comment made after Jayjg reverted 5 times in 30 mins and ignored notices.
  • 04:31, 24 Oct 2004 (hist) m Operation Days of Penitence (Jayjg, this is Wikipedia, take your POV zealotry to your place of worship)
Same comment as for the similar item above.
  • 04:28, 24 Oct 2004 (hist) m Rachel Corrie (Jayjg, this is Wikipedia, take your POV zealotry to your place of worship.)
Same comment as for the similar item above.
  • 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))
A fair comment: I greatly expanded the article adding new info, but MathKnight just reverted it.
  • 19:38, 22 Oct 2004 (hist) Rachel Corrie (Intro - Surprise, surprise, the ultra-ultra-Ortodox POV pusher Jayjg is still pushing his POV)
Same comment as for the similar item above.
  • 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?)
What's abusive about chiding an abuser? I replaced an unsourced opinion with the actual witness quote, but Ambi just came in out of blue and reverted without an explanation or justification.
  • 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.)
What's abusive about chiding an abuser? Jayjg kept asking for a source, but it was right there next to the statement.
  • 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")
A fair description of Jayjg's denial of facts in discussion.
  • 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.)
Nothing abusive about stating the facts. The credit for the "Talk" line goes to Jayjg.
  • 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))
Same as above.
  • 18:18, 19 Oct 2004 (hist) m Operation Days of Penitence (Events - edit out MathKnight's POV propaganda)
A statement of fact.
  • 17:43, 19 Oct 2004 (hist) m Operation Days of Penitence (Events - Fix MathKnight's childish POV edit)
A statement of fact: MathKnight made a POV edit wih spelling errors, with the edit comment (ta da): "correct grammer".
  • 04:44, 29 Sep 2004 (hist) Struggle over Palestine (Current status - Restore passage vandalized by a Zionist hack)
A statement of fact. I kept writing, they kept redirecting, thus destroying the article.
  • 04:40, 29 Sep 2004 (hist) Struggle over Palestine (Current status - Restore passage vandalized by a Zionist hack)
Same as above.
  • 03:16, 29 Sep 2004 (hist) Talk:Struggle over Palestine (Losing NPOV marbles to bullies)
Hmm, didn't they call HistoryBuffEr a "bully" in the title above?
  • 07:15, 28 Sep 2004 (hist) m User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons (archive sermons)
And? Feel free to post there the sermon how HistoryBuffEr should mainting HistoryBuffEr's user pages. (A hillarious aside: Gazpacho had submitted that page to a VfD!)
  • 05:25, 26 Sep 2004 (hist) Israeli-Palestinian conflict ("Road Map" for Peace - NPOV Jayjg's and Ambi's propaganda reverts)
A statement of fact (Jayjg and Ambi kept removing factual and NPOV statements.)
  • 05:04, 26 Sep 2004 (hist) Talk:Israel (Jayjg, Wikipedia is not your private sandbox)
A pretty good advice, Jayjg the bully should take it to heart.
  • 04:48, 26 Sep 2004 (hist) Talk:Israel (Jayjg, Wikipedia is not your private sandbox)
Same as above. (same complaint recycled again)
  • 04:02, 26 Sep 2004 (hist) Arab-Israeli conflict (History - NPOV Jayjg's propaganda)
A statement of fact (Jayjg kept removing factual and NPOV statements.)

(By: HistoryBuffEr 22:03, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC), updated: 08:30, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC))

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

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[edit]

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 3 times, and is reverting this and other articles even after his post here, but does not mention his wholesale replacements.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 06:52, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC), updated: 07:50, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC))

RE: Additional note by MPerel[edit]

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

  1. 19:35, 2004 Nov 22 MPerel (Revert HistoryBuffEr's wholesale replacement to Jayjg) diff
  2. 17:02, 2004 Nov 22 Mperel m (fixed picture link and Suha reference vandalized by 66.68.252.119)
  3. 20:19, 2004 Nov 18 MPerel (consensus first, not wholesale article replacement HistoryBuffEr) diff
  4. 06:35, 2004 Nov 15 MPerel Yasser Arafat (Revert HistoryBuffEr's wholesale replacement to previous version by Alberuni) diff
  5. 00:20, 2004 Nov 13 MPerel m Yasser Arafat (Fatah and the PLO - spelling)
  6. 00:13, 2004 Nov 13 MPerel m Yasser Arafat (Early life - italicize magazine reference)
  7. 00:10, 2004 Nov 13 MPerel Yasser Arafat (revert vandalism)
  8. 23:11, 2004 Nov 12 MPerel m Yasser Arafat (Early life - fix run-on, spelling, grammar)
  9. 22:32, 2004 Nov 12 MPerel Yasser Arafat (simpler and more accurate. Israel supporters and Palestinians weren't his only opponents.)
  10. 01:16, 2004 Nov 12 MPerel Yasser Arafat (Bibliography)
  11. 01:04, 2004 Nov 2 MPerel m Yasser Arafat (grammar)
  12. 00:28, 2004 Nov 2 MPerel 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 also complained to Jayjg about Jayjg's reverts replacing his edit, 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); updated: 07:50, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC))

RE: HistoryBuffEr's Numbers by MPerel[edit]

Hmm, why did MPerel "forget" the stats for other articles by HistoryBuffEr:

54 posts in Talk
18 posts to the article
27 posts in Talk
11 posts to the article
21 posts in Talk
10 posts to the article

... it should be clear by now that MPerel has tried to paint a distorted picture.

MPerel's editorial comments about HistoryBuffEr's discussions should be considered equally "fair", particularly considering MPerel's frequent, and still ongoing, reverts of HistoryBuffEr.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 01:50, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC))

RE: Viriditas Template:NPOV and Template:TotallyDisputed[edit]

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[edit]

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").

NOTE: Viriditas has removed without notice the sentence to which the above reply referred. The original comment is restored below for context:

"Adamant refusal to adhere to Neutral point of view policy"
HistoryBuffEr has a history of refusing to follow NPOV and he is very proud of it, so much so, that he talks about his justification for becoming a POV pusher on his user talk page. --Viriditas 01:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)..."


(By: HistoryBuffEr 22:03, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC), updated: 02:24, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC))

RE: "Zealots shall inherit Wikipedia"[edit]

This reply (see [358]) was to a call for help in a case of revert warring. This reply, and the subsequent HistoryBuffEr's article Talk page post [359], were apparently humorous replies (on further reflection, given the evidence around here: I was only half-joking.)

RE: Israeli occupation of Palestine[edit]
  • HistoryBuffEr objects to the use of disclaimers like "alleged" [360]
Rightfully so in this case.

RE: Examples of POV:Submitted by Jayjg[edit]

  • 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 [361]. 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.

Actually, this Jayjg's insisting on including the unsourced Israeli intelligence chief's and "Forbes"' rumors of Arafat's extraordinary wealth, is just one of many examples of Jayjg's POV pushing of completely unsubstantiated rumors.

  • Controversy about Arafat's birth date/place.

This is yet another example of Jayjg's POV pushing to fill the Arafat's bio with any and all accusations he can find, that are relevant only to his POV, and of little, if any relevance, to Wikipedia readers.

  • 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 the readers' perspective: What's the big deal? Bush also claims to be a Texan, and many ridicule that claim, but the 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.

  • "Israeli settlements" vs "occupation colonies".
Reasonable people agree (see one discussion here) that the term "occupation colonies" is worthy of inclusion, at least as a POV of the other side. Jayjg misunderstands NPOV, as explained in "Evidence about Jayjg", and insists on excluding POVs he opposes.
See also this:
"My dictionary has for colony "a body of settlers living in a new territory but subject to control by the parent state". How does this not apply to the settlers in the West Bank? If Israel was occupying the West Bank, was there not an "occupation"? Calling them "settlements" implies they are no more than ordinary townships. It has a particular connotation of newness, implying that the settlements are built in otherwise virgin territory. NPOV means "all points of view" not "the point of view of whoever shouts loudest". HistoryBuffEr's edit of the Black September hostage crisis is correct. If it is disputed how the hostages died, we must write only that they died. It is impossible that any page on Israeli subjects can ever be NPOV if POV patrollers on both sides continue to seek to impose their views. But neither side ought to pretend that it is actually trying to restore neutrality, not HistoryBuffEr nor his opponents. Dr Zen 01:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)"
  • HistoryBuffEr's explanation of reasons for the second Palestinian uprising are supported by quotes of Arafat and many analysts (besides common sense.) If Jayjg disagrees he should quote opposing statements, rather than presenting his POV opinion as the truth.
  • "Israeli Defense Forces" vs "Israeli military".
Actually, "Israeli military" or "army" is a neutral term. "Defense Forces" is the term used by Israel; as those "Defense Forces" are mostly described in articles as attacking, in that context "Defense" sounds like a POV euphemism.
If Jayjg's argument is that we should use the term which the party itself uses, then we would be obliged to also call Palestinian militants "freedom fighters". HistoryBuffEr 06:43, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
And, if Jayjg is arguing for use of terms which "everyone uses", that rule would also apply to terms which everyone uses but Jayjg opposes, such as "occupation" or "Palestine".
Of course, whatever the approach, it must be applied evenly across the board.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 07:49, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC), updated: 06:43, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC))

RE: Viriditas and Jayjg: Personal attacks[edit]

RE: Viriditas: "Personal attacks"[edit]

Most comments by HistoryBuffEr listed above, when read in context, are simple statements of facts and not personal attacks.

The comments that appear to be inappropriate do not show context, they were usually preceded by a provocation ("vandal" comments or constant unexplained reverts ...) by the recipient.

Viriditas here just repeated most of the complaints already posted (and responded to) above.

As there are already duplicates among those comments, this is just more spam, and an obvious desperate attempt by Viriditas, the Jayjg's POV pushing "community" member, to make the complaint pile look much bigger.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 19:09, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC); updated: 08:37, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC))

Jayjg and Viriditas Praise personal attacks[edit]

Jayjg and Viriditas have a rather flexible definition of what are "personal attacks" and whether they are harmful. So flexible that they will praise personal attacks by someone supporting their POV.

Here is one example, their recent post to User talk:Calton:

"Bravo"
"Your comments on the Yasser Arafat page were quite apropos. Please stick around. --Viriditas 07:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)"
"Seconded. Between the unilateral changes and the Zionist conspiracy hysteria, it's been almost unbearable. Jayjg 15:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

Let's see the post they are applauding and encouraging: From discussion Who is wasting time here?:

"... Alberuni, screaming WOLF WOLF WOLF over practically every edit isn't doing your cause ANY good. You've pretty much blown your credibility with me, and any dispute you bring up gets NO benefit of the doubt at this point.
"And HistoryBuffEr? Nobody died and left you in charge of things. You got a problem with entries, then do what everyone else does and go through the process instead of being Mr. Unilateral. Otherwise you should get yourself a blog and then you write whatever you please. --Calton 07:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You make it sound as if everyone else is saintly following the process, when most here are actually constantly reverting.
(P.S: I hope you realize the irony of your dictate to be humble)
HistoryBuffEr 22:59, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
And what irony would that be? Do you even know what that word means?
And as long we're discussing words whose meanings you seem to be unclear on, let me ask if you understand the meaning of unilateral: in what way is your edit history NOT a trail of unilateral edits? --Calton 05:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

Even more interesting, when HistoryBuffEr replied to this personal attack in kind, [362], Jayjg did not post "Bravo" to HistoryBuffEr's user page, but posted again to User talk:Calton. You'd think that given his numerous complaints about personal attacks here, Jayjg would retract his praise of personal attacks. Read on:

"By the way, given HB's latest comments to you, you might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence Jayjg 19:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

(By: HistoryBuffEr 05:02, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC))

As the person in question, I resent the claim that my criticism of HistoryBuffEr is being characterized as a personal attack. I further resent HistoryBuffEr's dismissive tone and subsequent misrepresentation of myself regarding my meaning, my intentions, motivations, editing history and so-called biases: doing all of that to paint me as a liar is just as much (and probably more so) of a personal attack than anything I wrote, so HistoryBuffEr's use of my words in this context is at best ironic, at worst hypocritical. --Calton 04:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RE Viriditas and Jayjg: Three revert rule policy[edit]

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[edit]

  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[edit]

  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 Evercat.

Operation Days of Penitence[edit]

  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 [363]

Sabra and Shatila Massacre[edit]

  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.)

RE: Jayjg's claim re Proteus[edit]

The 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 top revert violator in that case (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.
  • Proteus' biased actions in this case were the main subject of the RfC against Proteus; all evidence of this RfC has been deleted without explanation. See Proteus talk for some comments leading to the RfC (if they are still there, Proteus has repeatedly deleted them.)

(By: HistoryBuffEr 22:03, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC), updated 20:11, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC))

RE: Viriditas: Sock puppet[edit]

Just how low can Viriditas go? In addition to (unfairly and without notice) removing comments to which I had already replied, Viriditas is now showing signs of conspiracy paranoia, as well as poor understanding of some basic concepts.

  • What is so special about anon comments? Even if they were identical that would prove nothing, but they don't even match the comments compared to.
  • What is so unique about "wholesale replacement"? Viriditas did "wholesale replacements" hundreds of times with her reverts.
  • Even funnier is the claim "the version he personally wrote". Besides the fact that Viriditas cannot possibly know who personally wrote it, Viriditas apparently does not know that an article can be copied and pasted.
  • As for "changing the content slightly by adding a single word", that's actually the modus operandi of Jayjg, as seen below, not of HistoryBuffEr.

As for sock-puppets, HistoryBuffEr does not and has neither the need nor desire to play these silly games.

And the evidence below (there is much more) shows exactly the opposite: the number of anon IP reverts in favor of Jayjg's POV has dramatically increased since this RfAr started.

P.S: For reasons stated above, I will no longer reply to any complaint by Viriditas.

Yasser Arafat[edit]

Recent history (chronologically, irrelevant edits removed):

  • 04:47, 2004 Nov 17 HistoryBuffEr (The Neutral version is back, see Talk)
  • 04:51, 2004 Nov 17 Jayjg (Please gain consensus for major changes in Talk: first before making wholesale changes)
  • 04:54, 2004 Nov 17 Alberuni (HisstoryBuffEr's version is excellent, concise and NPOV,; I added the death info and photo at intro)
  • 05:12, 2004 Nov 17 Viriditas m (Revert to Jayjg's version. Alberuni, that's six reverts from you in less than 24 hours.)
  • 05:18, 2004 Nov 17 HistoryBuffEr (Neutral version with latest NPOV edits added)
  • 05:22, 2004 Nov 17 MPerel (sigh...wholesale replacement won't every fly HB)
  • ...
  • 07:44, 2004 Nov 17 HistoryBuffEr (Fresh from the press: Updated Neutral Version (MPerel, take your own advice))
  • 07:53, 2004 Nov 17 194.106.155.105 (rv)
  • ...
  • 06:28, 2004 Nov 18 HistoryBuffEr (Restore Neutral version (already explained in Talk))
  • 09:02, 2004 Nov 18 64.160.151.6 (rv to calton)
  • 09:45, 2004 Nov 18 HistoryBuffEr m (RV anon IP)
  • 10:05, 2004 Nov 18 4.63.120.102 (reverting historybuffer edits)
  • 12:27, 2004 Nov 18 Lothario-- (Illness and death - added information regarding Arafat's death)
  • 16:16, 2004 Nov 18 Alberuni (rv Lothario and anon edits to HostoryBuffEr cogent version)
  • 18:27, 2004 Nov 18 Jayjg m (restoring consensus version; please bring suggested changes to Talk:)
  • 20:06, 2004 Nov 18 205.202.110.253 (Jordan)
  • 20:10, 2004 Nov 18 HistoryBuffEr (Rv anon vandal: Restore Neutral version until consensus of all (not just anti-Arafat) editors is reached)
  • 20:19, 2004 Nov 18 MPerel (consensus first, not wholesale article replacement HistoryBuffEr)

...

  • 09:44, 2004 Nov 19 HistoryBuffEr (NOIV version: Removed repetitious "occupation" from "colonies" and added Israeli POV term per agreement in Talk)
  • 09:49, 2004 Nov 19 4.63.120.102 (rv vandalism by historybuffer to alkivar)
  • ...
  • 03:06, 2004 Nov 20 Jewbacca
  • 03:32, 2004 Nov 20 HistoryBuffEr (Restore Neutral version)
  • 03:47, 2004 Nov 20 69.59.178.228
  • 04:00, 2004 Nov 20 Alberuni (rv mute anon to HistoryBuffEr version)
  • 08:12, 2004 Nov 20 200.39.200.132
  • 09:03, 2004 Nov 20 RickK m (Reverted edits by 200.39.200.132 to last version by Alberuni)
  • 13:53, 2004 Nov 20 69.59.178.228 (NPOV)
  • 16:46, 2004 Nov 20 Goldberg m (restore the neutral version)
  • 17:50, 2004 Nov 20 Jewbacca
  • 18:29, 2004 Nov 20 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (commons link to Yasser Arafat)
  • 19:02, 2004 Nov 20 64.12.117.8 (Palestinian authority)
  • 19:05, 2004 Nov 20 Evercat m (Reverted edits by 64.12.117.8 to last version by Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason)
  • 20:51, 2004 Nov 20 Goldberg m (restore npov after jewbacca's vandalism)
  • 22:23, 2004 Nov 20 Viriditas m (Reverted edits by Goldberg to last version by Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason)
  • 23:05, 2004 Nov 20 Goldberg (back to last npov before the vandalism by jewbacca)
  • 23:07, 2004 Nov 20 Jewbacca (Quit calling it vandalism. That sentence is already covered in the Death section of the article and the hospital he died at does not belong in the intro.)

Sabra and Shatila Massacre[edit]

Recent history (chronologically):

  1. 22:44, 2004 Nov 9 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore the more detailed and NPOV version)
  2. 23:48, 2004 Nov 9 Jayjg (Please bring proposed changes to Talk:)
  3. 03:26, 2004 Nov 10 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore more detailed and NPOV version (most issues already discussed in Talk))
  4. 03:33, 2004 Nov 10 Viriditas m (Revert changes by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg. Please bring proposed changes to Talk)
  5. 05:08, 2004 Nov 10 HistoryBuffEr (More NPOV + fixes)
  6. 07:05, 2004 Nov 10 Viriditas m (Revert changes by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Viriditas. Bring changes to Talk.)
  7. 23:22, 2004 Nov 10 HistoryBuffEr (Minor update (NPOV version); Changes already discussed. Funny, Viriditas suggests Talk but never participated there.)
  8. 23:30, 2004 Nov 10 Jayjg (please suggest changes in Talk: and let them achieve consensus)
  9. 00:05, 2004 Nov 11 HistoryBuffEr (Minor update (Consensus for Jayjg and his little helpers apparently means: their POV))
  10. 02:34, 2004 Nov 11 216.155.74.28 (rv)
  11. 03:31, 2004 Nov 11 Whosyourjudas m (External links - Please help out by clicking here to fix someone else's Wiki syntax)
  12. 06:16, 2004 Nov 11 HistoryBuffEr m (Netral version, see Talk for Summary)
  13. 09:01, 2004 Nov 11 216.155.74.28 (rv)
  14. 16:50, 2004 Nov 11 Alberuni (rv anon censor)
  15. 16:52, 2004 Nov 11 Jayjg (The talk: page beckons you)
  16. 17:30, 2004 Nov 11 Alberuni (rv Jayjg Zionist POV garbage)
  17. 18:03, 2004 Nov 11 Jayjg
  18. 18:05, 2004 Nov 11 Alberuni
  19. 18:09, 2004 Nov 11 Jayjg (Talk: page)
  20. 19:16, 2004 Nov 11 Alberuni
  21. 20:25, 2004 Nov 11 216.155.74.28 (rv)
  22. 20:45, 2004 Nov 11 HistoryBuffEr m (Jewbacca, posting from anon IP, has already made 3 reverts today)
  23. 21:19, 2004 Nov 11 Viriditas m (Reverted changes by HistoryBuffEr to last version by 216.155.74.28. Bring your changes to Talk)
  24. 08:13, 2004 Nov 12 HistoryBuffEr (Restore neutral version)
  25. 08:19, 2004 Nov 12 61.11.126.8 (revert)
  26. 08:27, 2004 Nov 12 HistoryBuffEr (Anon IP vandal)
  27. 14:53, 2004 Nov 12 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by 61.11.126.8)
  28. 20:35, 2004 Nov 12 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore neutral version)
  29. 09:36, 2004 Nov 13 Viriditas m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg. Please bring controversial edits to talk and help Quadell create a compromise version. Thank you.)
  30. 10:41, 2004 Nov 13 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore neutral version)
  31. 10:47, 2004 Nov 13 Viriditas m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Viriditas. You have been invited to Talk to help Quadell create a compromise version.)
  32. 20:47, 2004 Nov 13 HistoryBuffEr m (Viriditas, your endless POV pushing is pathetic)
  33. 20:53, 2004 Nov 13 Viriditas m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Viriditas. You have been invited to Talk to help Quadell create a compromise version. Please stop making deceptive edit summaries to disguise reverts)
  34. 22:26, 2004 Nov 13 HistoryBuffEr (Restore neutral version. Viriditas, do as you say and post objections in Talk)
  35. 23:21, 2004 Nov 13 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Viriditas)
  36. 02:47, 2004 Nov 16 HistoryBuffEr (Restore neutral version)
  37. 03:14, 2004 Nov 16 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg)
  38. 04:09, 2004 Nov 16 Alberuni (Restore NPOV version)
  39. 04:19, 2004 Nov 16 67.181.181.78 (Nice try, Alberuni, HistoryBuffEr's wholesale replacement isn't The NPOV version)
  40. 05:52, 2004 Nov 16 Alberuni (Restore NPOV version)
  41. 05:56, 2004 Nov 16 69.26.195.134
  42. 06:18, 2004 Nov 16 Alberuni (Restore NPOV)
  43. 06:21, 2004 Nov 16 69.26.195.134 (rv to npov)
  44. 13:12, 2004 Nov 16 Alberuni (NPOV disputed)
  45. 00:40, 2004 Nov 17 HistoryBuffEr (Restore neutral version)
  46. 01:56, 2004 Nov 17 69.59.178.228 (NPOV)
  47. 05:56, 2004 Nov 17 Alberuni (rv anon)
  48. 06:40, 2004 Nov 17 194.106.155.105 (npov)
  49. 06:55, 2004 Nov 17 HistoryBuffEr m (The neutral version)
  50. 07:02, 2004 Nov 17 194.106.155.105 (the neutral version)
  51. 07:39, 2004 Nov 17 HistoryBuffEr m (The neutral version)
  52. 07:44, 2004 Nov 17 69.59.178.228 (NPOV)
  53. 20:18, 2004 Nov 18 HistoryBuffEr (Rv anon IP, Restore Neutral Version)
  54. 20:46, 2004 Nov 18 4.63.120.102 (Rv)
  55. 09:45, 2004 Nov 19 HistoryBuffEr (NPOV version)
  56. 09:52, 2004 Nov 19 4.63.120.102 (rv)
  57. 03:33, 2004 Nov 20 HistoryBuffEr (The Neutral version)
  58. 03:48, 2004 Nov 20 69.59.178.228
  59. 04:04, 2004 Nov 20 Alberuni (rv mute anon to HistoryBuffEr version)
  60. 08:17, 2004 Nov 20 200.39.200.132
  61. 16:00, 2004 Nov 20 Alberuni (rv anon mute)
  62. 00:12, 2004 Nov 21 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by 200.39.200.132)

(By: HistoryBuffEr 02:20, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC))

RE: Viriditas Alleged Violation of Arbitration procedures[edit]

In short: the Viriditas' complaint misrepresents facts.

  • No evidence was removed by HistoryBuffEr, the 3 links changed point to same evidence:
change]: Compare evidence before  and after.
  • The links just add the context required to evaluate the evidence
  • The link changes were made with notice to Viriditas (and others) on this RFA page.
  • There was no objection by anyone for 10 days

On the other hand:

  • Viriditas Actually removed without notice his posts, such as [364], to which HistoryBuffEr had already replied
  • Viriditas Kept renaming and rearranging sections (eg: [365], [366], [367]) to which HistoryBuffEr had already replied, even after being asked not to do so
  • Viriditas Moved HistoryBuffEr's notices to Viriditas out of Viriditas' section into a whole new section (?!) [368] stating "Move out of my section -- Do NOT edit my evidence"! [369]
  • At the same time, Viriditas moved responses to evidence about Jayjg out from where they were and belong ("Response to evidence about Jayjg") [370], and into HistoryBuffEr's evidence section! [371]

As the evidence shows, the Viriditas's claim that HistoryBuffEr removed evidence is false. Moreover, the evidence shows that:

  • Viriditas actually removed contents to which replies had already been made,
  • Viriditas renamed and rearragned sections to which replies had already been made, and
  • Viriditas moved posts of others to places where they do not belong.

Viriditas should be asked to refrain from further changing contents, titles and order to which replies have already been made, and to return the comments moved to where they were. Also, because:

  • Viriditas has misrepresented the evidence to the AC, and
  • Viriditas falsely claims that "This is only one example of HistoryBuffEr's efforts to subvert the arbitration process." [372]

some sort of censure of Viriditas is required to avoid wasting everyone's time on false claims of Viriditas in the future.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 21:40, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC); updated 00:35, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC))

P.S: Now that Jayjg has moved SlimVirgin's evidence back to where HistoryBuffEr had moved it before [373], let's see whether Viriditas will also file a complaint against Jayjg for this terrible "Violation of Arbitration procedures" (see more Viriditas musings in my Talk.)

RE: Evidence submitted by IZAK[edit]

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[edit]

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)

RE: Evidence regarding HistoryBuffEr's editing by SlimVirgin[edit]

SlimVirgin presents an inaccurate record here, which is not surprising as that user name is on the Jayjg's community list below.

Basically, SlimVirgin added another half a page of unsubstantiated rumors to Yasser Arafat. Jayjg, as usual, had no objection to another batch of undocumented smears against Arafat [374], and even invited SlimVirgin to help on other articles [375]. SlimVirgin, a user with 750+ edits, claimed to be mystified that the material was removed during a revert to a more neutral version. This claim was obvious trolling and it was ignored.

SlimVirgin then started spamming HistoryBuffEr's user Talk with essentially the same question, 4 times. The first post was ignored for same reasons, but it was archived [376], not deleted as SlimVirgin claims (see also history and archive.) This claim of deletion is obviously dishonest, as shown by SlimVirgin's own comment in the next message [377] "I think you archived my comment by mistake".

SlimVirgin then posted the same question under a new title again. HistoryBuffEr replied to that post [378], pointing out SlimVirgin's "obvious bias" and "pretending to need an explanation of editing process". SlimVirgin replied to that [379] "I'm not sure what you mean by editing process. I'd like to know what objection you have to the material..."

SlimVirgin then reverted the article and posted the same question in article Talk again [380], claiming that the material was "removed" and that was the reason for her revert. Of course, SlimVirgin's repeated reverts "removed" much more HistoryBuffEr's material, so this claim by the experienced user SlimVirgin is at best disingenuos.

The story continues next day. HistoryBuffEr archived the discussion of the previous day (see [381] and [382].) Less than 30 minutes later, SlimVirgin went to HistoryBuffEr's user Talk and reverted the user talk archiving!

Two minutes later, HistoryBuffEr posted a reply to SlimVirgin's questions at article Talk [383], and asked SlimVirgin to "stop spamming and reverting my user page."

HistoryBuffEr then removed the duplicate user Talk post (stating "Remove SlimVirgin spam"), but SlimVirgin then reverted it again 20 minutes later! Here is history:

  1. 00:03, 2004 Nov 29 SlimVirgin (Yasser Arafat) diff
  2. 07:01, 2004 Nov 29 HistoryBuffEr m (archive - Yasser Arafat) diff
  3. 07:54, 2004 Nov 29 SlimVirgin diff
  4. 08:16, 2004 Nov 29 HistoryBuffEr (Arafat and Munich) diff
  5. 08:51, 2004 Nov 29 SlimVirgin diff
  6. 17:29, 2004 Nov 29 HistoryBuffEr (archive - Arafat and Munich) diff
  7. 17:57, 2004 Nov 29 SlimVirgin diff
  8. 18:05, 2004 Nov 29 HistoryBuffEr m (Remove SlimVirgin spam) diff
  9. 18:25, 2004 Nov 29 SlimVirgin diff
  10. 18:27, 2004 Nov 29 HistoryBuffEr m (Remove SlimVirgin spam again) diff

Finally, SlimVirgin calmed down and went to reply to HistoryBuffEr's post in article Talk [384], to which HistoryBuffEr replied (a reply curiously missing from SlimVirgin's complaint):

"There is nothing NPOV or "correctly sourced" or useful to readers about your adding another half a page of unsubstantiated rumors and speculations about the already mentioned fact that Israel considered Arafat a terrorist.
Why don't you for a change try some NPOV editing using substantiated facts: You could start with adding to the dozens of articles about Israel and Palestine the well documented info (by Morris and others) about ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
HistoryBuffEr 20:10, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)"

SlimVirgin's reply showed no NPOV attitude, HistoryBuffEr pointed that out and the discussion ended there.

And, to clear up the issue of SlimVirgin's POV and role in the community, Jayjg later asked SlimVirgin to "keep an eye" on the Yasser Arafat article [385].

(By: HistoryBuffEr 09:12, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC))

Update:

On December 4, SlimVirgin placed [386] on user page of User:FamilyFord_car4less this unwarranted smear against HistoryBuffEr:

"Presumed sockpuppet for HistoryBuffEr"

This statement is false and a personal attack. SlimVirgin was asked to remove that comment 3 times, but SlimVirgin simply deleted the request all 3 times (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), without removing her offensive comment.

(Updated: HistoryBuffEr 21:44, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC))

RE: Evidence by Ta bu shi da yu[edit]

Ta bu shi da yu's evidence about supposed revert violations by HistoryBuffEr is actually already listed below as evidence of revert violations by Jayjg.

As for Ta bu shi da yu's support of Quadell's two blocks of HistoryBuffEr: Both blocks were made in clear in violation of rules. Even Quadell admitted that his first blocking was wrong, and two sysops posted that his second block was wrong as well.

Ta bu shi da yu also failed to note the much more numerous reverts by Jayjg, and that HistoryBuffEr has frequently disussed changes in Talk, while Jayjg has not.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 05:13, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC))

RE: Additional views by others[edit]

RE: 172[edit]

172 argues that Jayjg's insistence on "settlements" is preferable to "occupation colonies", because the former is a "generally accepted term". Perhaps, but:

  • Neutrality requires that other reasonable POVs be also included.
  • "Occupation colonies" is a reasonable term because there is clearly an occupation, and "colonies" is also a generally accepted term for places inhabited by occupiers/colonizers.
  • Last but not least: Most of my efforts here could be described as trying to convince others to accept generally accepted terms (such as "occupation"), so I find it encouraging that my basic argument is now validated by 172's use of it :)

RE: Jmabel[edit]

Jmabel was very helpful in defusing some situations, but I have to disagree with equating Jayjg and HistoryBuffEr as extreme partisans equally at fault. In fact, in many cases edit wars usually ended after Jmabel's suggestions to Jayjg to state what he accepts or does not accept made Jayjg go edit (or, more frequently, revert) other articles for a while.

Jayjg has shown strong bias throughout his career here. I (HistoryBuffEr) have shown persistence (which may have been excessive at times) but, as someone not associated with either party (Israel or Palestinians) I take strong exception to suggestions of bias (and comparing me to someone as extremely and obviously biased as Jayjg is way out of bounds.)

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


RE: Josiah's views[edit]

Josiah has mistakenly placed his opinion under "Others". He is not an uninvolved editor as he frequently reverted to Jayjg 's POV and sided with Jayjg on edits and discussions; here is one history excerpt:

  1. 17:51, 2004 Oct 19 MathKnight (Events - last two paragraphs are boldly POV , use talk page for
  2. 18:18, 2004 Oct 19 HistoryBuffEr m (Events - edit out MathKnight's POV propaganda)
  3. 18:30, 2004 Oct 19 Josiah (revert)
  4. ...
  5. 13:45, 2004 Oct 24 80.179.80.171 (reverted biased vandalism)
  6. 13:48, 2004 Oct 24 Xed (socks belong on your feet)
  7. 16:47, 2004 Oct 24 Josiah (you ought to wear them; your edit stinks)
  8. 17:03, 2004 Oct 24 Style m (Bias removed and details reincorporated)
  9. 18:58, 2004 Oct 24 Josiah (deceptive "minor" edit reverted)

Anyway, Josiah's opinion, which implies that what he calls Jayjg's politeness justifies and outweighs Jayjg's incessant (and worse than impolite) reverts and persistent obstruction of NPOV, is questionable. Not to mention that Josiah apparently sees no problem with Jayjg's reverts and Jayjg's bossing everyone around with his edit comments, and frequently calling fair edits "vandalism".

Most Josiah's opinions are not supported, and many are even contrary to evidence already presented here. See "Evidence about Jayjg" and "Response to evidence about HistoryBuffEr" for some examples.


(By: HistoryBuffEr 03:24, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC))

  • When I posted there, I was under the impression that the area was for anyone who had not already added information. If I was incorrect, I apologize. I do not deny that I made those comments - since then, you will notice, I have completely stopped from such remarks. The constant verbal attacks from HistoryBuffEr and Alberuni had effected my judgement in things. Since then, I have cut off virtually all communication with Alberuni, and only speak with HistoryBuffEr when it is required.--Josiah 01:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RE: Quadell's views[edit]

Quadell has mistakenly placed his opinion under "Others". He is not an uninvolved editor as he reverted to Jayjg's POV, and has worked to advance Jayjg's POV in his recent edits and discussions.

First, Quadell had offered to fashion a compromise version of Munich Massacre, see [387]. However his "compromise" version turned out to be anything but, it was nearly identical to the Jayjg's POV version in most disputed areas. Quadell left in all the highly questionable but unsourced opinions (such as: "stunning and embarassing incompetence", "one of the worst planned acts in the history", etc), left in more than 10 refs to terrorists, etc. The Quadell's "compromise" was questioned (see [388] and rejected by 3 editors; Jayjg's team, of course, warmly welcomed it, see [389].

Pleased with his assistance, Jayjg invited Quadell to help on other articles (see preceding link), and Quadell obliged.

Quadell then started a "compromise" version of Sabra and Shatila massacre. However, Quadell's first revision "Attempted Compromise" did not look any more promising than his previous attempt on Munich Massacre, see Compromise attempt discussion. Quadell here again started from Jayjg's POV version and left in all questionable items. During the discussion HistoryBuffEr asked Quadell why he hasn't also asked Jayjg's side to justify their edits and to observe his requests. Quadell did not reply. He then posted a Poll on compromise version but no one replied, indicating that Quadell's work on this article was not enthusiastically received.

(Update: In another rather amusing attempt to distort facts, Viriditas has, apparently after reading this, added a vote to this poll, see the diff.)
(Update 2: In another rather amusing attempt to distort facts, Jayjg has, apparently after reading this, added his vote to this poll, too, see diff)
(Update 3: As if to dispel any doubts on where he stands, after these 2 votes Quadell now claims he has a unanimous agreement! See [390])
(Update 4: To further clear up the matter, Quadell subsequently abused his sysop privs [391] and blocked HistoryBuffEr for 24 hours, citing a non-existent "violation of 3RR".)

Quadell then moved to Talk:Rachel Corrie and began questioning HistoryBuffEr, by copy/pasting Jayjg's question from Talk (?!), see [392]. HistoryBuffEr answered Quadell's questions and Quadell accepted the answers. However, Quadell ignored requests to also question Jayjg's POV side about their version, see: Quadell's questions to other editors

It should be apparent now that the reason Quadell is angry at HistoryBuffEr is simple: Quadell's silence and inaction on HistoryBuffEr's calls to be evenhanded have exposed Quadell's claim of impartiality as not credible.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 04:49, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC); updated: 18:44, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC))

RE: Others[edit]

Other "Additonal views of others" appearing above have been recently needlessly duplicated/moved in from other evidence sections by Jayjg. They are not impartial editors but actively involved in the case and thus do not belong here. More importantly, responses to them have been already made under their original titles and order, so these views should be moved back where they were. HistoryBuffEr 05:42, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Conclusion[edit]

Let's review the Jayjg's Statement of complaint (bold emphasis added) in light of the evidence:

  • "HistoryBuffEr has consistently insisted on completely re-writing stable articles in a highly POV way, in particular and most recently the Yasser Arafat, Ariel Sharon, Rachel Corrie, Sabra and Shatila massacre, articles, but others as well, including Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Arab-Israeli conflict." (Jayjg 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)).
As the evidence above shows, it is actually Jayjg who is advancing extremist POV on Wikipedia, which he treats as his private sandbox. Just like with Jayjg's disingenuous RfM, which he admitted was intended to impose his POV on HistoryBuffEr, Jayjg is essentially asking the ArbCom to help him get his way on article edits.
HistoryBuffEr 19:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
  • "Most significantly, in spite of dozens or perhaps hundreds of contested edits on these pages, HistoryBuffEr has refused to discuss any of them on the relevant Talk: pages, and in most cases has never even edited the Talk: pages, ignoring many invitations and requests to do so, as the edit histories of the article pages and Talk: pages show. As you will note, he generally ignores the Talk: pages on the articles, except to occasionally bully other editors with unspecified "warnings" and threats of "bannings", and refuses to discuss the changes he wishes to make to article content." (Jayjg 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)).
This is a breathtaking passage, consisting of nothing but dishonest editorializing:
  • HistoryBuffEr has more Talk posts than Jayjg (relative to their total posts.)
  • Where are the examples where HistoryBuffEr refused to discussed edits? (Jayjg's requests for everyone to submit edits to his preapproval do no count as invitation to discussion.)
  • Where are the examples of HistoryBuffEr "ignoring Talk pages"?
  • Where are the examples of HistoryBuffEr "bullying with warnings and threatening with bannings on Talk pages"? Fair warnings of 3RR and NPOV violations are not bullying but required by rules.
HistoryBuffEr 19:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
  • "He has also attempted to bully other editors by forcing ends to votes on VfD, in contravention of policy, even when these policies were explained to him by longstanding editors like user Cecropia." (Jayjg 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)).
Another bald lie by Jayjg:
  • As shown in the evidence above, it was actually Jayjg and his band bullying others to force consensus where there wasn't one. I simply pointed out that we should follow the rules which state that VfD lasts for 5 days.
  • Cecropia, who was arguing otherwise (and biased because of voting in the VfD), soon ceased objecting.
HistoryBuffEr 19:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
  • "These activities are a long-standing pattern with him, present from his very first edits on Wikipedia as IP 66.93.166.174." (Jayjg 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)).
Yet more "solid" evidence. Where is the proof that these edits were made by HistoryBuffEr?
HistoryBuffEr 19:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
  • "As a simple example of his POV, he has insisted that the only NPOV way of describing Israeli settlements (the generally accepted term) is as "occupation colonies", going so far as to removing direct links to the Israeli settlements Wikipedia article. Finally, on the few articles where he does use the Talk: pages, his comments are often highly abusive, violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies ..." (Jayjg 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)).
Yet another string of misrepresentations by Jayjg:
  • I did not insist on "occupation colonies" as the only way, just argued that it is more neutral. And, in a recent discussion, Gornez, who does not like the term either, agreed that the term was acceptable to include.
  • If this is a "simple example of POV because it is a generally accepted term", what about Jayjg's refusal to accept the generally accepted term "occupation of Palestine"?
  • And what is the crime of "going so far" if replacing the term necessarily replaced a wikilink?
  • Again, where are examples of HistoryBuffEr's "highly abusive comments on Talk pages" prior to Jayjg stating this? There are none, and Jayjg is guilty of yet another false accusation.
HistoryBuffEr 19:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
  • "... as are his edit summaries, referring to user Jayjg as "user Jag loser" and "user Jag vandal" and "ultra-ultra-Ortodox POV pusher Jayjg", user Lance6wins as "sneaky Lance6Loser", user Gadykozma as "vandal Gadykozma", user Humus Sapiens as "Humus doltius patheticus", user Ambi as "sophomoric redirector" and a "zealot", and in general referring to editors he disagrees with as "dolt", pest", "zealot", "childish", "agitprop troops", "Zionist dolt", "Zionist extremist", "Zionist hack", "Zionistas", and no doubt other names. He has refused mediation on this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Jayjg_and_HistoryBuffEr." (Jayjg 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)).
I have indeed used those terms, but as explained in the detailed reply above, context should be noted. Almost all of these were replies to incessant provocations by Jayjg and his troops, and many of these are merely descriptive of Jayjg and his POV pushing team.
HistoryBuffEr 05:44, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Apparently, most of the statements by Jayjg in his request grossly misrepresent the actual record. True, some of my edit comments were "colorful" and not curteous, but Jayjg's numerous revert "slaps", "vandal" calls and bullying to submit changes for his preapproval were far less polite or curteous.

Note that nearly all complaints are (greatly exaggerated) claims of discourtesy, and that none of the few POV editing related claims have been shown to be "highly POV" as claimed. On the contrary, all HistoryBuffEr's edits are fairly reasonable: most are clearly NPOV; those that appear debatable are acceptable as presentations of POV of the other side or at least fair points for debate.

So, the question is whether maintaining decorum in the back-rooms of Wikipedia takes precedence over the readers needs: the neutrality and content of articles.

As little as I have accomplished, it is far more than was accomplished in the area until I started contributing. Many had tried polite and gentle persuasion to advance NPOV in Israel related articles, but most articles were still full of unadulterated pro-Israel propaganda when I arrived. Now, at least some articles have either been revised to NPOV version, or have started moving towards NPOV. Compare these articles before and after I got involved:

Neither NPOV nor balance of editors in the area will be achieved by banning for decorum violations those attempting to fix highly biased articles, while excusing extremist POV pushers because they appear more polite (while being very rude in their actions.) As long as Jayjg and his POV pushing team are allowed free reign in Israel related articles, history suggests that few editors will want to waste their time and patience on futile attempts to NPOV these articles.

By: HistoryBuffEr 19:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Evidence against Jayjg[edit]

Introduction[edit]

Probably the best way to introduce Jayjg is to use his own words (from Jayjg's user page, 19:56, 7 Nov 2004 [393], 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[edit]

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[edit]

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) diff

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

"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 Israel Jayjg (RV POV edits; please bring suggested changes to Talk:) [394]
...
  • 20:58, 2004 Oct 18 Christ Jayjg (rv: Please bring major changes to Talk: first before entering them.) [395]
...
...
...
...
...
...

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 (evidence below).

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 diff and then posts:

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

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

  1. 15:20, 2004 Oct 21 Terrapin (revert. NPOV edits include statements like "bloody invasion". LMFAO!) [401]
  2. 15:26, 2004 Oct 21 Xed (130 dead is not bloody? oh I see, they're only sand niggers) [402]
  3. 15:33, 2004 Oct 21 Terrapin (rvt. Ridiculous, taking User to Arbitration. Casualties already stated, no one will question the POV of this user.) [403]
  4. 15:39, 2004 Oct 21 Xed (rv - finding humor in mass murder is bizarre) [404]
  5. 15:45, 2004 Oct 21 Terrapin (I'm laughing at YOU, not any world event. "bloody invasion" still counts as NPOV? Take it to arbitration, boy!) [405]
  6. 15:54, 2004 Oct 21 Xed (three reverts (the maximum) from the 'humorist') [406]
  7. 16:00, 2004 Oct 21 Jayjg (POV and factually incorrect insertions removed, and Xed you are at 3 reverts) [407]
  8. ...

Finally, Jayjg replies in Talk with obfuscation and no evidence [408], and then ignores this and other Talk discussions and simply reverts the article again diff.

Sabra and Shatila Massacre[edit]

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[edit]
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.

"The request for middle ground is posted above but Jayig has always ignored such requests. check the history of Nazarene Judaism to see how he blatently disregarded all initial requests for an explanation and waited until the fire was kindled before comming to the table. I will re-iterate the statement one more time though. Jayig, if you think fact should be removed, please copy and paste the disputed item to this talk page and state your sources providing the contradiction you have found. This is the usual civil way rather than the slash and burn approach which always rubs someone the wrong way. Zestauferov 21:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)"
  • Comments by another editor [409]
  1. 16:01, 2004 Nov 16 (hist) Alberuni NGO Monitor (Jayjg continues biased editing without justification in Talk) [410]
  2. 13:34, 2004 Nov 16 (hist) Alberuni Al-Aqsa Intifada (Jayjg abuses admin rollback, reverts without bothering to Talk) [411]
  3. 13:27, 2004 Nov 16 (hist) Alberuni Arab-Israeli conflict (Jayjg reverts without bothering to Talk) [412]
  4. 17:37, 2004 Nov 11 (hist) Alberuni Talk:Sabra and Shatila Massacre (Jayjg uses Talk pages to obstruct NPOV edits in articles) [413]
"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)"

(updated: HistoryBuffEr 04:50, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC))

Jayjg the Defender of "stable" articles[edit]

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 how "constitutional", a factually wrong claim, sat in Israel for 16 months, until HistoryBuffEr removed it.
  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[edit]

Jayjg actually does not mind major changes as long as they conform to his POV. Two of many examples:

This article evolved from the initial neutral version, which unambiguously referred to the Israeli occupation twice ("territories occupied by Israel", "Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip") to the Jayjg defended heavily pro-Israel version, which refers to "disputed territories" and, among other things, does not even mention articles about the occupation.
Started as a disambig page, and evolved into the Jayjg defended sanitized version which talked only about the "peace process" and did not even mention the word "occupation".

The story is quite different when changes do not match Jayjg's POV:

"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)"
Maariv version of FBI investigation:
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) ...

(updated: HistoryBuffEr 04:50, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC))

Evidence submitted by CheeseDreams:

Exhibited similar behaviour in reverting to and then protecting the "stable version" of Cultural and historical background of Jesus (the protection previous to the current one about 3 or 4 weeks ago), which was in fact one of the sides of an edit war (the side his own view on the talk page supported) which was later corrected by RickK to a neutral version. (Submitted by:CheeseDreams 03:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC))

"Wholesale changes" by Jayjg[edit]

While claiming to defend "stable" articles and complaining about "wholesale changes" by others, Jayjg applies a different standard to his own "wholesale changes". And, while demanding explanations from everyone, Jayjg won't explain his changes. One example [415] diff:

"I have considerably expanded the theology section, and in particular pointed out where the "Netzarim" movement's theology agrees with and disagrees with those of other faiths. I have also included its claim that the movement is recognized as an Orthodox Jewish group. Jayjg 02:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Could you detail here the points you want to include so that they may be added to the cleaned up format please?Zestauferov 02:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The format was already cleaned up, and the points are clearly in the article. Jayjg 02:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Jayuig what is the meaning of your edit dated 02:46, 27 Aug 2004 are you deliberately trying to provoke by ignoring all protest in this talk page from 02:13, 27 Aug 2004 which you have obviously seen?Zestauferov 02:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No protest remains; please list any that do. Jayjg 02:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I accepted the state that the article was following the last perio of discussion on 22:29, 26 Aug 2004 and made a series of easily traceable minor changes so that you or anyuone else could follow what protests were remaining. You have just covered it up again. I will take the time to go through your edits again later.Zestauferov 03:04, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wholesale reverts and major changes are not the same as "easily traceable minor changes". Since you have continually insisted that all changes should be discussed here before entering them, then you should model that behaviour by doing so. Anything else would be hypocritical. Jayjg 13:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)"
Jayjg the Defender of Consensus[edit]

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.

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

"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. Given the overwhelming majority of pro-Israel editors in the area, even a true consensus is likely to serve primarily their POV. But the criteria for a good article is not how many editors like it, but whether it serves the needs of the readers.

(Submitted by: HistoryBuffEr 04:33, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC), updated: 04:50, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC))

Jayjg the Defender of NPOV?[edit]

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 Two sides of POV[edit]

In controversial articles, NPOV means: present both sides fairly.

However, Jayjg's definition of NPOV appears to be: push his POV on both sides. Examples of Jayjg's hypocrisy are dime a dozen, here are just a few:

Jayjg insists on keeping in Yasser Arafat every little rumor against him, no matter how minor or unsubstantiated. At the same time, he insists on removing from Ariel Sharon anything he perceives as unfavorable to Sharon, no matter how important or substantiated.
E.g: Jayjg insists on not only keeping an unsubstianted rumor of an FBI investigation of some 30 year old claim, but he even insists on that rumor having a separate section and title! Even though this unsubstantiated POV rumor has no place in an NPOV article, HistoryBuffEr just moved it to "Recent news", but Jayjg soon moved it back to a separate section, stating he was doing "more NPOVing."
At the same time, Jayjg kept burying the info about one major part of Sharon's history, his link to the Sabra and Shatila Massacre, in a couple of fragmented mentions under "Political carrer", and resisted attempts to organize the info in one place by repeated reverts.
And, while fighting to remove a (sourced) attribution of POV but unsourced claims about Arafat's supposed wealth (see prev link), Jayjg insisted on replacing a sourced quote about Sharon's "personal responsibility" with his unsourced opinion "indirect responsibility" [416].
Also, Jayjg fought hard to keep in Ariel Sharon such "NPOV" statements as "many foreign observers regard Sharon as a war hero", and to keep out that some considered him a "terrorist".
At the same time, Jayjg has fought to keep in Yasser Arafat as many references to Arafat as a "terrorist" as possible.
Jayjg insists on keeping statements such as "Zionist is often used as a derogatory term" in a number of articles, and has reverted attempts to make such statements NPOV, (see [417] and "RE: Modemac: "Abusive edit summaries"" above).
On the other hand, Jayjg removed from Goy the only reference statement that the term is sometimes used as a derogatory term, see [418], but later stating [419] "It can certainly be used in a derogatory fashion. So can almost any word. A good example is "Jew", which has often been used that way."
  • Occupation vs. Occupation:
Jayjg has tried to delete or redirect any title connecting Israel with "occupation", stating "POV title".
But Jayjg somehow sees no POV issues with titles Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan and Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt, even though these territories are actually occupied by Israel.
Jayjg argued here that the term "ultra-Orthodox" (used by some to describe Jayjg) be removed because "all branches consider themselves Orthodox"; this was ultimately removed.
However, Jayjg then argued here that another Orthodox branch be termed as not Orthodox and even as not Jewish (stating: "all Jewish movements reject Jesus in any way, shape, or form." [420])
In the words of his opponent this was Jayjg's "attempt to decide for the international Jewish community what is and isn't Judaism." [421]
  • Violence vs. Violence:
Jayjg has voted to Delete articles on Palestinian fatalities vote to Delete, Palestinians killed by Israelis vote to Delete and many similar ones.
At the same time, he has voted to Keep the myriad of articles on Israeli fatalities, such as Violence against Israelis vote to Keep.
  • Terrorist vs Terrorist:
Jayjg voted to Keep Category:Terrorists stating "Anyone who deliberately targets civilians for political purposes is a terrorist."
On the other hand, Jayjg voted to Delete Category:Jewish terrorist organizations.
He claimed this was based on a principle, but that principle somehow did not apply to, eg: Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Middle East terrorists, which Jayjg did not vote to delete.

(Updated: HistoryBuffEr 04:50, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC))

Jayjg's Extreme POV[edit]

  • 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" and claims [422]:
"Use of the terms "occupied" and "Palestinian territories are far too POV. More neutral language like "control" and "West Bank and Gaza" should be used. Jayjg 03:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

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[edit]

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.

In another example:

"... Jayjg has been reverting a lot of what I write, despite the fact that I am citing many academic sources. The problems I am having with Jayjg are seven-fold:
* (A) Jay demands that I offer multiple citations for every point I make, which is a demand that no one else on Wikipedia has to follow. However, I do comply, offering multiple citations, often from peer-reviewed academic journals. Yet Jay offers zero sources for his own edits! He never does, yet he doesn't see this how unfair this is.
* (B) Jay demands that I offer quotes to justify my edits, but the second I add quotes he deletes them, claiming that they are unnecessary and that I should paraphrase them. But when I do that he demands again that I add quotes to prove myself...He does this over and over, and it is now verging on harassment. He seems to be doing this to avoid dealing with quotes that he finds uncomfortable.
...
* (E) Every time Jay sees a citation from an Orthodox Jew who has a point of view that differs from his preconceptions, he claims that they are really not Orthodox. He then makes ad homenim attacks, claiming that they are really "Conservative" or "Reform". Note that withing Orthodox Judaism, the charge that someone is really "Conservative" or "Reform" is a charge of heresy, and is widely sued within Orthodoxy as an ad homenim attack to delegitimize someone.
* (F) Jay never offers any citations to rebut any points; he simply makes up charges off the top of his head, such as "Well, no one else agrees with Professor Marc Shapiro", even when the position of Professor Shapiro is the mainstream position held by most of the academic community on this point. Jay makes these grand statements with no citations whatsoever, despite a massive amount of counter-citations to the contrary.
...
I feel like I am being bullied by someone who is unread on these issues, and who is contemptuous of any source that is not from an ultra-Orthodox rabbi. RK 14:53, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)"

The Jayjg's "scrupulousness" goes so far to prevent inclusion of even resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly as "irrelevant" [423]:

"Israeli settlement "illegality" in Israel woman's death":
"It's irrelevant what the UNGA feels about them, since the UNGA is not a body which sets or rules on International law, and its resolutions have no binding force. Jayjg 21:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's not "irrelevant" - it's an expression of most of the world's governments' opinions. - Mustafaa 22:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

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 plain deception and disservice to Wikipedia readers.

(Updated: 04:50, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC))

Jayjg's POV pushing[edit]

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 these points are already supported by examples above, here is more evidence.

Occupation of Palestine[edit]

(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 [424] to leave "occupation" in some title.
  • However, he still removes the term "occupation" or adds modifiers, such as "what Hamas views as the Israeli occupation" here. One has to wonder whether he considers the pro-Israel editors who do not object to the term "occupation" to be Hamas members.

This story is not over. The article is now just a disambig page, and Jayjg and his group have repeatedly reverted and redirected [425] even a blank skeleton with only section titles. From history (chronologically):

  1. 02:20, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (Move ancient occupations to "Occupations of Palestine"; create Tabula Rasa)
  2. 02:44, 2004 Oct 25 Gadykozma (Well, if we are back at step 1, let's return there) diff
  3. 02:44, 2004 Oct 25 Gadykozma m (typo)
  4. 02:56, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr m (rv, Gadykozma, again: There was a VfD, and Redirect was NOT approved)
  5. 03:09, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (Brief History of Palestine - first draft)
  6. 03:23, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg m (Revert vandalism) diff
  7. 03:28, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (History, pass 2)
  8. 03:35, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg m diff
  9. 03:47, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore)
  10. 03:57, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg m (Revert vandalism) diff
  11. 04:12, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr m (Add link to history)
  12. 04:15, 2004 Oct 25 Gadykozma (Revert to last version by Jayjg.) diff
  13. 04:33, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr m (Add Resolution link)
  14. 04:44, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg m (redirect to article with actual content) diff

Apparently, Jayjg simply will not accept anything that is not written by himself or his troops. Even after a strongly pro-Israel (but open-minded) editor Ed Poor suggested a reasonable approach to NPOV the article by including and describing all POVs (see [[426]]), Jayjg responded only with obstructionist sophistry, dismissing the U.N. with "U.N. votes do not reflect how people feel generally; they rather reflect how a tiny percentage of their country's elites vote (usually for political purposes)". (The U.N. is, of course, cool when it supports his POV, such as in the Partition resolution.)

Given history, it is unlikely that Jayjg will change his stripes and stop blocking the inclusion of the majority POV into this and related articles.

Israeli West Bank barrier[edit]

This case is easy to follow because Jayjg, contrary to his practice, explained some reverts. From history (chronological, 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, 15 Aug 2004 Jayjg (Miscellaneous) diff
  9. 16:42, 15 Aug 2004 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, 15 Aug 2004 Jayjg (Miscellaneous - Let's call a Security barrier a security barrier, and leave the politics out of it) diff REVERT to
  11. 16:51, 15 Aug 2004 Pir (Miscellaneous - "fence" and "wall" are entirely descriptive, not political ; "security barrier" is controversial ; see talk page)
  12. 17:04, 15 Aug 2004 Jayjg (On the contrary, Fence and Wall are at the heart of a political debate, security barrier is neutral) diff REVERT to
  13. 17:08, 15 Aug 2004 Pir (Miscellaneous - please use talk page before rv.)
  14. 17:11, 15 Aug 2004 Jayjg (Miscellaneous - It is a Separation barrier; see Talk:) diff REVERT to
  15. 08:56, 16 Aug 2004 Mintguy m (Reverted edits by Jayjg to last version by Pir)
  16. 15:54, 16 Aug 2004 Jayjg (RV: to original; see Talk:) diff REVERT to
  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 [427] 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) [428] 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) [429]
  2. 03:59, 2004 Oct 6 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Iridium77) [430]
  3. 04:50, 2004 Oct 6 HistoryBuffEr (Restore {npov} notice + Npov intro) [431]
  4. 05:04, 2004 Oct 6 Jayjg (HistoryBuffEr, please bring your controversial edits to Talk: for discussion first) [432]

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.) [433]
  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.) [434]
  3. 18:52, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr m (Rstopre {TotallyDisputed}. Check history: Several factual corrections were made but reverted by propagandists without explanation.) [435]
  4. 11:20, 2004 Nov 7 Lance6Wins [436]
  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)) [437]
  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) [438]
  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) [439]
  8. 17:32, 2004 Nov 7 Jayjg m (Still don't see any of HistoryBuffEr's disputed items in Talk:) [440]
  9. 17:36, 2004 Nov 7 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore "TotallyDisputed". Suggest reading comprehension classes for reverters. Removing this notice can get you banned.) [441]

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!!!)

(Updated: HistoryBuffEr 04:50, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC))

Jayjg and the Community[edit]

Jayjg's view of the Wikipedia community mirrors his view of reverts and sysop privileges: it is just another tool useful for his POV pushing.

Jayjg's community building activities consist largely of recruiting like-minded editors to protect his "sovereign" territory within Wikipedia, covering some 400 articles.

Jayjg's community[edit]

The Jayjg's limited definition of community is obvious from his calls for help:

1. To Viriditas:
2. To MathKnight:
3. To IZAK:
4. To Humus sapiens:
5. To Terrapin
6. To Yoshiah ap:
7. To Lance6Wins
  • RfC ("I have opened a RfC concerning Alberuni...") [486]
  • Yasser Arafat article ("Please keep an eye on the Yasser Arafat article if you can...") [487]
  • Yasser Arafat article ("... his own unique anti-Israel version filled with nonsense and error. Just helping control his vandalism would be enough. ") [488]
8. To Jewbacca:
9. To SlimVirgin
10. To RK:
11. To Neutrality:
12. To Quadell:
13. To MPerel:
14. To Modemac:
15. To Gadykozma:
16. To Ambi
17. To RickK
  • Dr. Zen ("...He seems to feel free to wade in calling others "POV-warriors"...")
  • 3 revert rule ("The versions of the articles were different, so the 3 revert rule was not broken....")

Many of the above responded as expected, and some have joined Jayjg's POV pushing club full time.

Jayjg's community at work[edit]

Jayjg's "community" members alert each other of intrusions and work together to fend off "intruders". Jayjg keeps a a To-Do list of articles "currently under POV attack" on his user page [512], and keeps it up-to-date [513]:

  1. ...
  2. 14:24, 2004 Oct 20 Jayjg (State terrorism under siege now, Jew and Zionism being given a breather from POVing) [514]
  3. 22:35, 2004 Oct 21 Jayjg (disgusting politicization of poor Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar's tragic death) [515]
  4. 04:07, 2004 Oct 22 Jayjg (Another poor child being used for propaganda purposes) [516]
  5. 05:31, 2004 Oct 22 Jayjg (I'm hoping I jumped the gun here, but I've been fooled before) [517]
  6. 22:19, 2004 Oct 24 Jayjg (sigh. Zionist Revisionism.) [518]
  7. 00:52, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg (more dishonest tactics) [519]
  8. 16:11, 2004 Oct 27 Jayjg (Dore Gold now being POVd) [520]
  9. 19:57, 2004 Oct 27 Jayjg (Israel, PLO) [521]
  10. 15:03, 2004 Oct 29 Jayjg (Medical Aid for Palestinians) [522]
  11. 05:43, 2004 Oct 31 Jayjg (Yassir Arafat) [523]
  12. 03:11, 2004 Nov 1 Jayjg (sigh. Now Sharon is being attacked) [524]
  13. 11:25, 2004 Nov 2 Jayjg (Update list) [525]
  14. 03:55, 2004 Nov 4 Jayjg (Sigh.) [526]
  15. 18:10, 2004 Nov 11 Mirv (some you missed) [527]
  16. ...

The troops then dutifully report to Jayjg and/or update the list when another "property" comes under siege, as in these examples:

They then work closely together to neutralize "POV attacks".

  • They promptly revert edits made by editors not on their preapproved list (evidence below).
  • When Jayjg (or another warrior) runs out of reverts, others jump in with their reverts; as in these, few of many, examples:
  1. 02:18, 20 Oct 2004 Jayjg (Please see totals links below; multiple numbers provided from various sources) [540]
  2. 02:25, 20 Oct 2004 Alberuni (If you have issues take it to Talk)
  3. 02:28, 20 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by Jayjg) [541]
  4. 02:38, 20 Oct 2004 Alberuni (I'm waiting to see your comments in Talk first before you force your POV edits again)
  5. 02:41, 20 Oct 2004 Jayjg (The objections were listed in Talk: before you made your revert; perhaps you should have checked there first) [542]
  6. 02:44, 20 Oct 2004 Alberuni (2:38 revert was before your 2:40 comments, perhaps you should learn to read the time)
  7. 03:33, 20 Oct 2004 Viriditas m (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by Jayjg. Your version is not neutral, Alberuni.) [543]
  1. 18:03, 2004 Oct 18 Jayjg m (HistoryBuffEr, you have made a large series of significant edits; please propose them in Talk: first, as other editors are doing) diff
  2. 18:08, 2004 Oct 18 HistoryBuffEr m (Events - Restore. Jayjg, 3rd warning: Instead of mindlessly reverting, post objections to Talk.)
  3. 18:34, 2004 Oct 18 Jayjg m (HistoryBuffEr you have misunderstood; *you# have made a large number of changes without any discussion; please propose them in Talk: first, and please stop threatening other editors) diff
  4. 18:45, 2004 Oct 18 HistoryBuffEr m (Events - Restore. Jayjg, 4th warning: Instead of mindlessly reverting, post objections to Talk.)
  5. 20:03, 2004 Oct 18 MathKnight (reverted vandalism, HistBuff, this is not your first time, use the Talk page before such abbusive edits) diff
--
  1. 01:58, 2004 Oct 20 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg) diff
  2. 02:01, 2004 Oct 20 HistoryBuffEr (Events - Restore. Jayjg, 6th warning: Instead of mindlessly reverting, post objections to Talk.)
  3. 02:03, 2004 Oct 20 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg) diff
  4. 02:16, 2004 Oct 20 HistoryBuffEr (Events - Restore. Jayjg, 7th warning: Instead of mindlessly reverting, post objections to Talk.)
  5. 02:21, 2004 Oct 20 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg) diff
  6. 02:25, 2004 Oct 20 HistoryBuffEr m (Events - Restore NPOV. Jayjg, 8th ad Final warning: Instead of mindlessly reverting, post objections to Talk.)
  7. 03:21, 2004 Oct 20 Viriditas m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg. You are supposed to discuss these edits on talk before changing the page.) diff
---
  1. 21:59, 2004 Nov 9 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by 66.93.166.174 to last version by Jayjg) diff
  2. 22:44, 2004 Nov 9 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore the more detailed and NPOV version)
  3. 23:48, 2004 Nov 9 Jayjg (Please bring proposed changes to Talk:) diff
  4. 03:26, 2004 Nov 10 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore more detailed and NPOV version (most issues already discussed in Talk))
  5. 03:33, 2004 Nov 10 Viriditas m (Revert changes by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg. Please bring proposed changes to Talk) diff
(Interestingly, Viriditas here replaced the article with his leader's user page :)
  1. 03:09, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (Brief History of Palestine - first draft)
  2. 03:23, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg m (Revert vandalism) diff
  3. 03:28, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (History, pass 2)
  4. 03:35, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg m diff
  5. 03:47, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore)
  6. 03:57, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg m (Revert vandalism) diff
  7. 04:12, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr m (Add link to history)
  8. 04:15, 2004 Oct 25 Gadykozma (Revert to last version by Jayjg.) diff
  1. 02:55, 4 Nov 2004 Jayjg (removed nonsense) diff
  2. 03:00, 4 Nov 2004 Blankfaze (Reverted edits by Jayjg to last version by Blankfaze)
  3. 03:01, 4 Nov 2004 Jayjg (Reverted edits by Blankfaze to last version by Jayjg) diff
  4. 03:02, 4 Nov 2004 Blankfaze m (Reverted edits by Jayjg to last version by Blankfaze)
  5. 03:05, 4 Nov 2004 Viriditas m (Reverted edits by Blankfaze to last version by Jayjg) diff
--
  1. 03:16, 8 Nov 2004 Jayjg diff
  2. 16:48, 8 Nov 2004 Ed Poor (Criticism - I'm not sure why so many contributors want to censor Jato Sam & his "illegal acts of war... atrocities" criticism. Putting it in the article does NOT endorse the JATO view.)
  3. 17:12, 8 Nov 2004 Jayjg (The issue is not with endorsing JAO's views; the issue is that the views are about Israel, not Gold. See Talk:) diff
  4. 17:27, 8 Nov 2004 Alberuni (When Ed Poor diagrees with you, maybe you should reassess your POV)
  5. 18:08, 8 Nov 2004 Josiah (rv) diff
  1. 03:40, 2004 Oct 22 Jayjg (Corrie's death - restoring deleted information) diff
  2. 04:02, 2004 Oct 22 HistoryBuffEr m (Corrie's death - Replace editor speculations by the actual witness statement)
  3. 04:06, 2004 Oct 22 HistoryBuffEr (Responsibility for Corrie's death - update one claim, add calls for investigation)
  4. 04:11, 2004 Oct 22 Jayjg (Corrie's death - eyewitness statements would be linked or quoted, of course) diff
  5. 04:17, 2004 Oct 22 HistoryBuffEr (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.)
  6. 04:21, 2004 Oct 22 Ambi m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg) diff
  1. 20:07, 7 Nov 2004 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by Jayjg) diff
  2. 20:18, 7 Nov 2004 Alberuni (rv Jayjg again)
  3. 20:32, 7 Nov 2004 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by Jayjg) diff
  4. 20:44, 7 Nov 2004 Alberuni (rv Jayjg again)
  5. 20:45, 7 Nov 2004 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by Jayjg) diff
  6. 20:50, 7 Nov 2004 Alberuni (edits to delete inaccuracies)
  7. 21:59, 7 Nov 2004 Josiah (rv) diff
  1. 03:33, 16 Nov 2004 Jayjg m (restoring censored information) diff
  2. 03:40, 16 Nov 2004 Alberuni (Delete Jayjg POV well poisoning)
  3. 03:46, 16 Nov 2004 69.26.195.134 diff
  4. 04:01, 16 Nov 2004 Xed (anonymous IPs seem to follow Jayjg et al around like a bad smell)
  5. 04:27, 16 Nov 2004 MPerel (Revert vandalism) diff
  1. 20:56, 19 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Style to last version by Jayjg) diff
  2. 00:32, 20 Oct 2004 Alberuni (rv Jayjg desperate censorship efforts to last version by Style)
  3. 01:58, 20 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by Jayjg) diff
  4. 02:04, 20 Oct 2004 Alberuni (They are objectively known as Israeli Occupied Territories, deleting reference to Occupied Territories is just Zionist POV pushing)
  5. 02:05, 20 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by Jayjg) diff
  6. 02:18, 20 Oct 2004 Alberuni (Pushy)
  7. 16:48, 20 Oct 2004 Terrapin (revert to NPOV version (jayg)) diff
  • When all of them run out of reverts, Jayjg often:
  • Makes a minor change and continues reverting, or
  • Breaks the 3RR rule without even token changes, or
  • Receives help in reverting from anonymous IPs (see the "RE: Sock puppets" section above).

The Jayjg's "community" works together around the clock on:

This apparently cliquish behavior is of questionable utility to Wikipedia, which could not survive for long without the true spirit of community.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 23:15, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC); updated: 04:50, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC))

Jayjg the Polite[edit]

Some here have praised Jayjg as polite and respectful. As we shall see, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and even then it is just skin deep.

While loudly complaining about any perceived slight towards himself, Jayjg does not mind doing the same, or worse, to others. Jayjg is polite as long as he gets his way. However, pretty much anytime his opinions or edits are less than warmly welcomed, which happens often unless he is chatting with his troops, he is quick to kick up the dust and:

  • Cry foul and quote policies on personal attacks over nothing, even after he attacked someone,
  • Bully other editors to submit changes to his approval,
  • Keep slapping editors with endless reverts,
  • Call fair edits opposing his POV "vandalism", and when all else fails
  • Keep pushing with Requests for Comments, Mediation or Arbitration, until he gets his way.

Jayjg the Shrinking Violet[edit]

That Jayjg considers any criticism a "personal attack" is obvious from this item on his list What is ad hominem:

  • "I am afraid to say that sadly it is your understanding of Lashon Ha-Ra that is obviously flawed. ...
I hope this helps you understand what kinds of comments are "ad hominem" Jayjg 19:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

But later, Jayjg does not mind using what he defines as "personal attack" against others, as in these examples:

  • "The editor in question does not yet appear to understand how to collaborate on creating a NPOV article ... Jayjg 14:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)" [544]
  • "Only in the view of someone who had no knowledge of the Holocaust and a wildly biased view of the Israeli-Arab conflice. Jayjg 03:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)" [545]

There are many other examples that Jayjg has no problems with personal attacks, as long as he is delivering them. One example (from this long discussion) concludes as follows:

"Hmm. I'm failing to see the connection with the actual topic at hand, which is what should be done with the Occupation of Palestine article. If a thorough review of the Ad hominem and Poisoning the well articles don't help, perhaps you and Xed should set up a separate page for the purpose of stalking and criticizing me, and leave this one to the relevant discussion. Just a friendly suggestion. Jayjg 22:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Tell us more about "ad hominem", please. Starting with your first post you've repeatedly impugned my integrity and motivation, with no evidence (actually, contrary to the evidence). I've refused to dignify your personal attacks, and will continue to do so. HistoryBuffEr 23:29, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)"

This same Jayjg that falsely accused others of stalking (see preceding post) later opened an RfC complaining of being falsely accused of stalking. And the icing on the cake was that Jayjg then posted his own false accusation in that same RfC [546]:

"As HistoryBuffEr has been directly involved in a number of the disputes with Alberuni, supporting Alberuni in every case, I strongly disagree that this is an "Outside view", and suggest that it be moved to a more appropriate section. Jayjg 14:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)"
Ironic that Jayjg posts a false accusation in his RfC complaining about false accusations. I was not involved in any disputes with Alberuni, much less "supporting him in every case". The only "involvement" I recall is that Alberuni once endorsed my view in some Talk, I don't think I even replied to that. HistoryBuffEr 17:27, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)"

In that RfC, 9 editors agreed that Jayjg provoked the behavior he was complaining about.

Jayjg complains above that HistoryBuffEr's warnings about Jayjg's excessive reverts are "bullying". Jayjg, of course, would never do something like that. A recent post to Jayjg's User Talk [547]:

"In an edit summary, you wrote:
... that's 4 reverts here; will you go for 5, Alberuni?
I regard this as a taunt, which is a form of teasing. If I were interested in "building a case", I would count this against you. More importantly, if YOU are trying to build a case, then it behooves you to re-read Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks and adhere to it.
If another user makes more than 3 identical reverts, there are better ways of dealing with this than to taunt them publicly. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 16:29, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)"

Not to mention the Jayjg's endless bullying of other editors to submit changes for his preapproval.

Jayjg complains about "POV pusher", "extremist", etc. as "abusive" comments. Of course, Jayjg himself never says anything abusive, he prefers to give out compliments (cited above and elsewhere) such as: [you are] "wildly biased", "hopelessly POV source", [you] "do not understand", "have no knowledge", etc.

Not to mention the Jayjg's endless abuse of hundreds of editors by undoing all their hard work with reverts, which many consider the worst possible insult.

And, Jayjg apparently thinks that his calling regular edits "vandalism" is not abusive at all.

Jayjg's View of Vandalism[edit]

For Jayjg there is plain old vandalism, which he usually ignores, and there is real vandalism which gets much more attention (and appropriate comments), as in these examples:

  • 15:45, 2004 Jul 19 Jayjg m Anti-Zionism (RV vandalism) diff
Actually, Jayjg here reverted an addition opposing his POV and containing no vandalism, see the diff (see also diff)
  • 22:08, 2004 Jul 21 Jayjg Anti-Zionism (Extremists - RV vandalism. See Talk:) diff
Again, Jayjg just reverted an edit opposing his POV and containing no vandalism, see the diff
  • 05:42, 2004 Aug 26 Jayjg Menachem Mendel Schneerson (Rv: vandalism to last version by RK) diff
Yet again, Jayjg reverted an edit opposing his POV and containing no vandalism, see diff, comments [548] and [549].
  • 04:22, 2004 Oct 24 Jayjg m Operation Days of Penitence (Revert vandalism) diff
And again, Jayjg reverted an edit opposing his POV and containing no vandalism, see the diff
  • 03:23, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg m Struggle over Palestine (Revert vandalism) diff
Of course, Jayjg reverted an edit opposing his POV and containing no vandalism, see the diff
  • 03:57, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg m Struggle over Palestine (Revert vandalism) diff
Actually, Jayjg just reverted again a fair edit opposing his POV and containing no vandalism, see the diff
  • 02:01, 2004 Oct 28 Jayjg m Medical Aid for Palestinians (revert vandalism) diff
Again, Jayjg just reverted an edit opposing his POV and containing no vandalism, see the diff
  • 14:47, 2004 Oct 29 Jayjg m Palestinian Youth Association for Leadership and Rights Activation (revert vandalism) diff
And again, Jayjg just reverted a fair edit opposing his POV and containing no vandalism, see the diff
  • 14:49, 2004 Oct 29 Jayjg m Medical Aid for Palestinians (revert vandalism) diff
Surprise, Jayjg reverted again an edit opposing his POV, containing no vandalism, see the diff
  • 19:07, 2004 Nov 1 Jayjg m Yasser Arafat (Actually, unlike HistoryBuffEr, I haven't reverted this article, though I've continued to edit and remove vandalism as it occurs) diff
Heh, yet another revert by Jayjg of a fair edit opposing his POV and containing no vandalism, see the diff.
  • 22:39, 2004 Nov 1 Jayjg User:Jayjg/YA (Current copy of article being vandalized) [550]
Yep, the article "being vandalized" [551] means, of course, "being edited by the others".
  • 00:48, 2004 Nov 2 Jayjg Yasser Arafat (remove vandalism; fix some links; remove current event item) diff
Can't be, Jayjg reverted again a fair edit opposing his POV and containing no vandalism, see the diff.
  • 00:55, 2004 Nov 2 Jayjg m Yasser Arafat (remove dead links and vandalism) diff
Ditto, Jayjg reverted again a fair edit opposing his POV and containing no vandalism, see the diff.
  • 01:41, 2004 Nov 2 Jayjg m Yasser Arafat (Fix link and vandalism) diff
Like a broken record, Jayjg reverted again a fair edit opposing his POV and containing no vandalism, see the diff.
  • 02:43, 2004 Nov 2 Jayjg m Yasser Arafat (remove vandalism and other minor edits) diff
Of course, Jayjg reverted again an edit opposing his POV and containing no vandalism, see the diff

And while Jayjg kept claiming he was cleaning up vandalism while actually reverting to push his POV, Jayjg somehow never found time for any of the numerous true vandalist edits of this article during his daily watch. That had to be done by others:

  • 12:30, 29 Oct 2004 *drew m (rv vandalism) diff
  • ...
  • 23:39, 12 Nov 2004 Cvaneg m (vandalism fix) diff
  • 19:46, 13 Nov 2004 Irate m (revert vanalism) diff
  • 21:58, 13 Nov 2004 Caesura m (removing vandalism) diff
  • 04:17, 14 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr ((sigh, yet another vandal) Updates: Fix lost link + quote + illness, add quote, rephrase "Forbes" etc, wikify + typos) diff
  • 18:11, 16 Nov 2004 Alberuni (rv opinionated vandal) diff
  • 10:50, 16 Nov 2004 Solitude m (rv vandalism) diff

(By: HistoryBuffEr 05:13, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC))

Jayjg the Sysop[edit]

Many admins intervene to mediate and calm down disputes, address both parties and propose ways to resolve disputes. Jayjg does not seem to belong to that club.

The admin Jayjg actually spends most time in the trenches of edit wars and tends to use his sysop position as a weapon, as will be shown below.

And when Jayjg jumps in with a "compromise" offer what he offers is usually, you guessed it, his POV version, as in these examples:

  • Interceding between Jewbacca and Zero on Israel, Jayjg says "how about this for a compromise?" in this edit.
However, the term "compromise" here is actually a cruel joke, as it is just a revert to Jewbacca, his POV version (which has "disputed" in front of "territories".)
Here Jayjg announces a "compromise" between RK and Cadr in this edit. His "compromise", while less egregiously POV than RK's version, replaces perfectly NPOV "which it considers" and "what it views as" with still POV terms "generally viewed as" and "incidents" (which favor Jayj'g POV).

And just like Jayjg uses his admin prestige to promote his POV, he uses his admin privileges for reversions and protections in support of his POV.

Jayjg the Rollback robot[edit]

About 1,000 of all Jayjg's posts (18% of total) are reverts. Because of Jayjg's frequent use of misleading edit descriptions the actual number may be much higher.

Reverts make 40% of Jayjg's article posts. Since becoming a sysop, Jayjg has doubled the revert rate to avg 53% of edits; this is not due to aggressive vandal cleanups, read on. And on the day Jayjg requested mediation in this matter (November 4), 88% of his article edits were reverts (!?)

Jayjg treats "Rollback" as a handy POV pushing tool. Since gaining the "Rollback" button option, Jayjg has used it only in 24% of reverts on anonymous IPs and 76% of the time against edits of established users.

Jayjg has reverted hundreds of articles and editors (using "rollback" without description on at least 150 of each). Here is a sampling of articles and editors reverted:

Jayjg Does not explain Reverts[edit]

As seen above, Jayjg rarely explaines reverts in edit description. Morever, Jayjg refuses to explain reverts even when specifically asked. Here is an example showing Jayjg's standard evasion and obstructionism at work discussion last reply diff:

"Jayjg, you kept reverting my additions to 1982 Invasion of Lebanon without explanation and then hypocritically complained that I didn't explain my counter-reverts in talk. So now I have. Now it's your turn. Kindly explain the reasoning behind each one of your reverts. If you cannot give understandable reasons for your reverts, then I can only conclude they were a POV tactic to waste my time and any further such reverts on that page (and perhaps others) will have to be ignored. Thanks. --style 17:06, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Hi style. I don't respond to threats. If you have any requests you wish to make of me, please do so. Jayjg 17:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, perhaps you don't understand English. The above is not a threat. It's a request.
I'll state it more clearly: Please explain why you reverted my changes to 1982 Invasion of Lebanon 4 times. --style 17:57, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Unlike your 4 deliberate reverts, I reverted only 3 times. The issue wasn't clarity, it was Wikiquette; "If you cannot give understandable reasons for your reverts, then I can only conclude they were a POV tactic to waste my time and any further such reverts on that page (and perhaps others) will have to be ignored." is a threat. Also, I'm rather tired of people who believe they can ignore Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and I'm not inclined to respond to any who do. "Jayjg, perhaps you don't understand English." is a violation of both of those rules. If you have any civil requests you with to make of me, please do so. Jayjg 18:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
He asked Please explain why you reverted my changes to 1982 Invasion of Lebanon 4 times. - Xed 18:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're not style. Jayjg 18:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Xed. That's exactly right. --style 18:13, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Xed is not you. Jayjg 18:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How many times do I have to ask you? Please explain why you reverted my changes to 1982 Invasion of Lebanon 4 times. Pretty please with pink ribbons on top! --style 18:16, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
I can't do that, but I can certainly explain why I reverted your changes 3 times. Jayjg 18:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ok, go ahead, thanks. --style 18:19, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Actually, I'll have to wait until you explain your completely POV re-write of the article without any discussion whatsoever in Talk:, and you and Xed show some good faith by not continually reverting any edits I make, all of which are explained. As it is, there's little point in me getting involved on that page. Jayjg 18:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So, in other words, you can't explain your 4 reverts even though you vociferously complained that I didn't explain my reverts. Why am I not surprised? --style 18:36, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Actually, I can explain my objections to your POV insertions, and why I reverted your POV insertions 3 times, but I'm not going to get further involved in that page until I see some good faith, as I have other places on Wikipedia where I can spend my time more profitably. Jayjg 19:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

Another example, discussion reply diff:

"Hi Jayjg. Why did you revert my edits to a new section of Ten commandments without explanation? The new section that I repositioned and shortened was largely a badly written rehash of something covered in the "Introduction" (which I reworded as "Overview"). I have citations to back up everything I put in. ???? Fire Star 18:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You do? Wonderful, please propose the changes in Talk: first, providing citations, so people can respond, rather than making wholesale edits and then saying "justify why my changes shouldn't be there". Unfortunately, as it stands, you have reversed the burden of proof, a common failing on Wikipedia. Jayjg 19:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) ..."

Jayjg and Revert rules[edit]

Jayjg does not let the rules get in the way of his mission and has often violated the 3-reverts max rule.

Worse yet, in hundreds of reverts Jayjg regularly flouts the rules by adding a redundant letter or word, replacing a word with a synonym, etc. after 3 reverts, and then merrily continues the charade: "Three Reverts, Cheat, Rinse, Repeat.", as in this example [552]:

"Hi Rick. The versions of the articles were different, so the 3 revert rule was not broken. Jayjg 04:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

Jayjg often ignores warnings and keeps reverting until the article is protected, as in this example:

"Knock it off with the reverts, JG. Thanks. -SV 19:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, somebody had to knock it off, and Im glad its protected now. I suggest doing the Yasser Arafat/Draft thing, and choosing two moderate editors (people who refrain from reverts) to reconstruct the article. Thanks. -SV 19:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

Here are some examples of Jayjg breaking the Three revert rule:

Dore Gold: 4 reverts in 18 hrs[edit]

From chronological history:

  1. 03:10, 29 Oct 2004 Jayjg (Removing nonsense. This article is about Gold, not the JCPA (which is linked), nor about JOA's views on Israel) diff REVERT to
  2. 03:32, 29 Oct 2004 Blankfaze m (revert unnecessary removal of a LOT of useful, good information)
  3. 14:53, 29 Oct 2004 Jayjg (Removing nonsense; this article is about Gold, not about the linked JCPA (where the information is found), or about JAO views of Israel) diff REVERT to
  4. 20:38, 29 Oct 2004 Blankfaze m (Reverted edits by Jayjg to last version by Blankfaze)
  5. 20:40, 29 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (Please review discussions in Talk:) diff REVERT to
  6. 20:54, 29 Oct 2004 Alberuni (rv Jayjg whitewash to Blankfaze accurate version)
  7. 22:05, 29 Oct 2004 Jayjg (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by Jayjg) diff REVERT to

There is no difference between Jayjg's first and last version.

Hasbara: 4 reverts in 21 hours[edit]

From history, chronologically (sock-puppets removed):

  1. 18:48, 11 Nov 2004 Alberuni (added IZAK's edits)
  2. 18:49, 11 Nov 2004 Jayjg diff REVERT to
  3. 19:11, 11 Nov 2004 Alberuni
  4. 19:22, 11 Nov 2004 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by Jayjg) diff
  5. 19:22, 11 Nov 2004 Alberuni
  6. 19:24, 11 Nov 2004 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by Jayjg) diff
  7. ...
  8. 08:32, 12 Nov 2004 Mikkalai m (Reverted edits by 61.11.126.8 to last version by Mikkalai)
  9. 16:22, 12 Nov 2004 Jayjg diff REVERT to

There is no difference between Jayjg's first and last version above.

(NB: There were 6 more reverts by sock-puppets (216.155.74.28, 61.11.126.8) to Jayjg's version between parts 1 and 2 above.)

Historicity of Jesus: 4 reverts in 2+ hours[edit]

From history, chronologically:

  1. 22:06, 20 Jul 2004 DLR (Defence of Jesus - rv major POV)
  2. 19:09, 21 Jul 2004 Jayjg (Historicity of Jesus - Christ is a claim)
  3. 19:16, 21 Jul 2004 Mkmcconn m (Reverted edits by Jayjg to last version by DLR)
  4. 19:22, 21 Jul 2004 Jayjg (RV: Sorry, Christ is a NPOV claim; see Talk:) diff
  5. 19:26, 21 Jul 2004 Mkmcconn m (Reverted edits by Jayjg to last version by Mkmcconn)
  6. 19:43, 21 Jul 2004 Jayjg (RV: NPOV) diff
  7. 19:55, 21 Jul 2004 Mkmcconn m (Reverted edits by Jayjg to last version by Mkmcconn)
  8. 20:04, 21 Jul 2004 Jayjg m (RV: POV material) diff
  9. 20:55, 21 Jul 2004 DLR (rv to standard naming conventions to make NPOV)
  10. 21:28, 21 Jul 2004 Jayjg (RV to NPOV and standard naming) diff

There is no difference between Jayjg's first and last version.

Israeli West Bank barrier: 4+ reverts in 23 hours[edit]

From history, chronologically:

  1. 16:36, 15 Aug 2004 Jayjg (Miscellaneous) diff
  2. 16:42, 15 Aug 2004 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)
  3. 16:47, 15 Aug 2004 Jayjg (Miscellaneous - Let's call a Security barrier a security barrier, and leave the politics out of it) diff REVERT to
  4. 16:51, 15 Aug 2004 Pir (Miscellaneous - "fence" and "wall" are entirely descriptive, not political ; "security barrier" is controversial ; see talk page)
  5. 17:04, 15 Aug 2004 Jayjg (On the contrary, Fence and Wall are at the heart of a political debate, security barrier is neutral) diff REVERT to
  6. 17:08, 15 Aug 2004 Pir (Miscellaneous - please use talk page before rv.)
  7. 17:11, 15 Aug 2004 Jayjg (Miscellaneous - It is a Separation barrier; see Talk:) diff REVERT to
  8. 08:56, 16 Aug 2004 Mintguy m (Reverted edits by Jayjg to last version by Pir)
  9. 15:54, 16 Aug 2004 Jayjg (RV: to original; see Talk:) diff REVERT to

There is no difference between Jayjg's first and last version above.

(NB: There were more reverts by Jayjg before and after, but only 100% reverts have been listed above.)

The Passion of the Christ: 5 reverts in 14+ hours[edit]

From history, chronologically:

  1. 03:08, 11 Aug 2004 Jayjg m (RV POV material, deletions) diff
  2. 14:01, 11 Aug 2004 RK (Revert deliberate lies by Jayjg. Sysops, please be cautious of people lying about the Jewish community.)
  3. 14:54, 11 Aug 2004 Jayjg (RV to original: this is not my text RK, I'm just restoring the material you deleted) diff REVERT to
  4. 15:12, 11 Aug 2004 RK (Jayjg, stop reverting every single one of my edits.)
  5. 15:25, 11 Aug 2004 Jayjg (RK, I'd like to see you discuss your proposed changes on the Talk: page please before making wholesale changes.) diff REVERT to
  6. 15:33, 11 Aug 2004 RK (Jayjg, stop reverting every single one of my edits. One more revert by you and will could get a one-day ban.)
  7. 16:26, 11 Aug 2004 Jayjg (Please discuss your proposed edits in Talk: *before* making wholesale revisions) diff REVERT to
  8. 17:09, 11 Aug 2004 RK (Jayjg, stop reverting every single one of my edits. One more revert by you and will could get a one-day ban.)
  9. 17:34, 11 Aug 2004 Jayjg (RK, please bring wholesale edits to Talk: first before making changes.) diff REVERT to
  10. 01:40, 12 Aug 2004 Zero0000 (Protected. It looks like you guys need a rest.)

There is no difference between Jayjg's first and last version above.

List of terrorist incidents: 4 reverts in 15 hrs[edit]

From chronological history (minus extraneous lines):

  1. 02:25, 20 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by 64.136.27.226) diff
  2. 02:27, 20 Oct 2004 Alberuni (If you have issues take it to Talk, don't delete relevant material to suit your POV)
  3. 02:42, 20 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by Jayjg) diff
  4. 05:02, 20 Oct 2004 Style
  5. 13:42, 20 Oct 2004 Terrapin (revert to jayg (official state actions are not terrorism))
  6. 14:00, 20 Oct 2004 Alberuni (You may need to read the article on State Terrorism)
  7. 15:49, 20 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by Terrapin) diff
  8. 15:53, 20 Oct 2004 Alberuni (The following is a timeline of acts and failed attempts that can be considered terrorism. You can call it collateral damage jayjg)
  9. 16:17, 20 Oct 2004 Terrapin (revert. Collateral damage is NOT Terrorism (lord...). How do I request arbitration? jayg?)
  10. 16:20, 20 Oct 2004 Alberuni (Israelis massacre children and terrorize refugees but you want to excuse it first because states don;t commit terrorism and now because you want to label it collateral damage, it is terrorism, sorry)
  11. 16:26, 20 Oct 2004 Terrapin (reverting. NPOV spamming by user. Admin's lock page.)
  12. 17:19, 20 Oct 2004 Alberuni (Why do you think Israelis killing 31 refugee children is not terrorism? Are you some kind of Zionist?)
  13. 17:39, 20 Oct 2004 Jayjg (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by Terrapin) diff

The diff between Jayjg's first and last version is 0.

To be fair, Jayjg reverted the last revert afterwards, but it shows his "revert first, think later" approach.

Anti-Semitism: 4 reverts in 2+ hours[edit]

From chronological history:

  1. 20:55, 9 Jul 2004 Jayjg (Whoops Simonides, you'll have to take it to TALK: The section indeed expresses on widely held POV of what anti-Semitism is.) diff REVERT to
  2. 21:12, 9 Jul 2004 Simonides (Revert. It has already been taken to TALK.)
  3. 21:19, 9 Jul 2004 Jayjg diff REVERT to
  4. 21:24, 9 Jul 2004 Michael Snow m (removing template to be deleted) diff
  5. 21:36, 9 Jul 2004 Simonides m
  6. 22:42, 9 Jul 2004 Jayjg (Revert to previous. Simonides, you can't keep deleting ideas that don't agree with your POV. Please refer to Wikipedia's NPOV pages.) diff REVERT to
  7. 23:00, 9 Jul 2004 Simonides (Jayjg; the material is still under discussion. Do not revert until the discussion is over.)
  8. 23:16, 9 Jul 2004 Jayjg (Simonides; the material is already in there and still under discussion. Do not revert until the discussion is over. Please review NPOV as well.) diff REVERT to

The diff between Jayjg's first and last version is only the template tag removed by Michael Snow in between.

Rachel Corrie: 5 (or 6) reverts in 30 mins[edit]

From history, chronologically:

  1. 13:31, 23 Oct 2004 MathKnight m (Cause of death - grammer, typos)
  2. 21:35, 23 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Restore expanded article vandalized by MathKnight. Post actual objections in Talk (other than that your POV is hurt))
  3. 04:14, 24 Oct 2004 Jayjg (restoring earlier NPOV version; please propose changes in Talk:) diff
  4. 04:20, 24 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Update and expand)
  5. 04:23, 24 Oct 2004 Jayjg (Restoring NPOV version; please propose changes in Talk:) diff
  6. 04:28, 24 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Jayjg, this is Wikipedia, take your POV zealotry to your place of worship.)
  7. 04:31, 24 Oct 2004 Jayjg (Restoring earlier NPOV version; please propose changes in Talk:) diff
  8. 04:32, 24 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Keep banging your head, zealot)
  9. 04:33, 24 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (the word is flautist) diff
  10. 04:35, 24 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Mom didn't get you a dictionary yet?)
  11. 04:38, 24 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (NPOV) diff
In this revert, Jayjg pasted a wrong article (juggling too many articles?). Whosyourjudas then fixed it, but Jayjg still reverted it again.
  1. 04:42, 24 Oct 2004 Whosyourjudas (rv replacement with text Operation Days of Penitence)
  2. 04:45, 24 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (oops, minor editor glitch; returning to earlier version.) [553]

After 5 reverts, Jayjg was warned, but he claimed that his versions were different, so they were not reverts. However, the diff between his first and last version shows only 1 letter ("a") was inserted into "flutist" in revert #4. Note that "flutist" is a perfectly valid dictionary word (this explains the HB's dictionary comment above.)

Compare that to the result of HistoryBuffEr edits during the same period.

Another editor had also warned Jayjg on his user Talk page:

"Please note that Wikipedia policy only allows a user to revert an article 3 times in one 24 hour period. RickK 04:52, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)"
Ariel Sharon: 8 reverts in 1 hour 15 mins[edit]
  1. 04:03, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (NPOV version)
  2. 04:53, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m (Revert POV insertions; please bring suggested changes to Talk:) diff
  3. 05:01, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (NPOV update)
  4. 05:04, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m diff
  5. 05:05, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Another update)
  6. 05:10, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m diff
  7. 05:23, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Rephrase Sharon-French incident)
  8. 05:24, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m (fix numbers) diff
  9. 05:43, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Reword another claim)
  10. 05:49, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m (added wikilinks) diff
  11. 05:53, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Rephrase Intifada cause)
  12. 05:54, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m (more links) diff
  13. 06:00, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Sharon and Palestinians)
  14. 06:04, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m (links again) diff
  15. 06:07, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Format)
  16. 06:08, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m (grammar error) diff

Most Jayjg's "edits" above hide reverts, with mostly link brackets added and then removed. Eg: this diff here shows a complete revert; the diff from his previous version is just one letter "a" added, and one link removed.

Compare the result of Jayjg's 8 "edit" session with the result of HistoryBuffEr's edits in the same period.

Arab-Israeli conflict: 6 reverts in 9 hours[edit]

From history, chronologically:

  1. 15:42, 13 Oct 2004 Jayjg ({Totally disputed} says) diff
  2. 17:38, 13 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr m ({Totally disputed}, see Talk pages.) diff
  3. 17:48, 13 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (Nope, you still haven't raised any objections on the Talk: page. Why don't you raise some?) diff
  4. 17:55, 13 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (restore {TotallyDisputed}) diff
  5. 18:02, 13 Oct 2004 Jayjg (still no dispute on the Talk: page) diff
  6. 21:57, 13 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (add {TotallyDisputed}) diff
  7. 23:41, 13 Oct 2004 Alberuni (The US and Israel are allied against Iraq and the Palestinians) diff
  8. 02:03, 14 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by HistoryBuffEr) diff
  9. 02:22, 14 Oct 2004 Alberuni (Rv deletions by Jayjg, you need to justify deletions from articles remember?) diff
  10. 03:02, 14 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (History - no, actually, you need to justify major changes to a stable article, whether insertions or deletions) diff
  11. 03:05, 14 Oct 2004 Alberuni (Jayjg means that everyone else must justify their edits to him, he only has to justify himself to God - go to Talk page nit) diff
  12. 03:06, 14 Oct 2004 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Alberuni to last version by Jayjg) diff
  13. 03:11, 14 Oct 2004 Mirv ({protected})

Note that the diff between Jayjg's first and last revert is only 2 redundant changes: one word "involved" added, and "attributed to" removed somewhere along the way.

(Updated: 21:51, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC))

Jayjg the Rogue Sysop[edit]

It looks like there is no end to Jayjg's means to justify his ends. Besides repeatedly ignoring the 3-reverts-max rule, Jayjg does not shy away even from offenses that call for an immediate ban or even de-sysopping, such as abusing sysop privs to win edit wars/push his POV.

Anti-Zionism: Edited, Reverted, then Protected[edit]

Jayjg edited, reverted and than protected this article (chronological history)

  1. 17:55, 14 Jul 2004 Mustafaa (Arab anti-Zionism - note Zero's points)
  2. 18:22, 14 Jul 2004 Jayjg (Arab anti-Zionism - as per talk)
  3. 20:22, 14 Jul 2004 Simonides m (Defining anti-Zionism - - removed arbitrary sentence)
  4. 20:59, 14 Jul 2004 Jayjg (RV: Don't start this nonsense here too, Simonides. Take it to talk, propose an alternative, but stop with the arbitrary deletes.) diff
  5. 21:01, 14 Jul 2004 Jayjg (Avoiding another Simonides revert war)
  6. 21:02, 14 Jul 2004 Jayjg protected diff.
Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Edited, Reverted, then Protected[edit]

Jayjg edited, reverted and than protected this article (chronological history):

  1. 16:52, 2004 Sep 13 Jayjg (Al-Aqsa Intifada - balance on Arafat)
  2. 16:55, 2004 Sep 13 66.93.166.174
  3. 16:57, 2004 Sep 13 66.93.166.174
  4. 17:02, 2004 Sep 13 Jayjg m (RV: anonymous edits to version by Jayjg)
  5. 17:06, 2004 Sep 13 66.93.166.174
  6. 17:36, 2004 Sep 13 Jayjg (RV: vandalism to last version by Jayjg. If you dispute any of this article, please bring your suggested changes to Talk:)
  7. 17:48, 2004 Sep 13 66.93.166.174
  8. 17:55, 2004 Sep 13 Jayjg (This article needs a little rest; please create a userid and come to Talk:) protected diff

Jayjg was warned about this by two admins:

"I'm going to unprotect both of these pages, for two reasons. 1) You shouldn't have protected them, as you were involved in the disputes, and were doing revert and protects... Snowspinner 20:23, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)"
"Again, I ask you to please not protect pages when you are one of the parties to the dispute. -- Jmabel 01:05, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)"
Cultural and historical background of Jesus: Reverted, then Protected[edit]

Jayjg reverted and than protected this article (chronological history):

  1. 23:09, 2004 Nov 2 Slrubenstein (which part of "see talk" don't you understand?)
  2. 23:35, 2004 Nov 2 CheeseDreams (Which part of NPOV do you not understand. See talk. N.b. you (and now I) have reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours which is heavily frowned upon.)
  3. 02:15, 2004 Nov 3 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by CheeseDreams to last version by Slrubenstein) diff
  4. 02:38, 2004 Nov 3 Jayjg (Protecting stable version) revert and protect diff
  5. 09:22, 2004 Nov 3 Mirv (sysops should not take sides in edit wars. Reverting to last pre-edit war version (10:57, 30 Oct 2004).)

Note: This case was a subject of another Requests for arbitration against Jayjg. The case was rejected, probably because ArbCom was unaware of Jayjg's history. The two arbs who commented said that one violation was insufficient to accept (Fred Bauder commented: "while there was no basis for reverting before protecting, and doing so violated policy, it was an isolated event not a pattern of wrongful actions.")

Mordechai Vanunu: Protected a "non-stable" version[edit]

As seen above, Jayjg tends to revert versions that disfavor his POV and then protects them, calling them "stable", but he has never reverted a version that matched his POV, even when it was pushed by the worst violator of rules. From (chronological history, where Dbachmann ultimately reversed Jayjg's biased protect:

  1. 13:36, 14 Nov 2004 Deuxmachina m (not so, you have failed to point out any specific issues. Your version is riddled with POV language. Remove it and you might have some credibility.)
  2. 13:37, 14 Nov 2004 Xed (rv vandalism from Jumboweenie/Jumbodick/Deuxmachina (uses the same wording in edit summaries))
  3. 13:39, 14 Nov 2004 Deuxmachina m (you don't own this page, it is on a controversial subject, can't you look at the comments on its bias on Talk and know that it's time to act. Your reverts are unacceptable.)
  4. 13:41, 14 Nov 2004 Xed
  5. 13:48, 14 Nov 2004 Deuxmachina m (Xed unexplained revert a breach of wikipedia rules)
  6. 13:54, 14 Nov 2004 Xed (rv vandalism from Jumboweenie/Jumbodick/Deuxmachina/Rohbite (uses the same wording in edit summaries), who is putting in phrases like "mad-left Jewish students" and comparing Vanunu to Eichmann etc)
  7. 13:59, 14 Nov 2004 Deuxmachina m (deleted those inappropriate words, but why couldn't you have done it? You just insist on your version of this article as if you own it. that's not the right approach imho.)
  8. 14:01, 14 Nov 2004 Jayjg (protected) [554]
  9. 15:47, 14 Nov 2004 Dbachmann (I agree it was blocked at an unhappy moment (as protested by Xed who was asking for protection in the first place)) [555]
  10. 15:48, 14 Nov 2004 Dbachmann m ("protected") [556]

(Updated: HistoryBuffEr 04:50, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC))

Additional views by others[edit]

Mirv's views[edit]

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 Revert diff
  3. (cur) (last) 04:19, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Revise Lebanese claim)
  4. (cur) (last) 04:11, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m Revert diff
  5. (cur) (last) 04:04, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m
  6. (cur) (last) 02:47, 2 Nov 2004 Jayjg m Revert diff
  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) Revert diff
  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) Revert diff
  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) Revert diff
  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) Revert diff
  15. (cur) (last) 00:47, 2 Nov 2004 HistoryBuffEr m (Remove one rumor)

Amgine's views[edit]

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

Alberuni's views[edit]

Jayjg regularly violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. His main activity in Wikipedia is a concerted effort to impose an extremist Zionist point of view on many articles related to Judaism, Zionism, Israel, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The neutral point of view policy is easily misunderstood. The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from just a single unbiased, "objective" point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct.

Jayjg relentlessly and consistently makes edits that state, imply, and insinuate that his extremist pro-Israeli point of view is objective fact. He is sugary sweet and cooperative with his Zionist allies but he is viciously obstinant, rude, snide, bullying and abusive against those who disagree with his offensive and bigoted Jewish supremacist ideology; including editors like HistoryBuffEr, Tareq, Dr Zen, Xed, One Guy, myself and others who believe strongly in human equality and human rights (anti-Zionists) and who are not intimidated by Jayjg’s aggressive and biased editing.

Jayjg’s User page exemplifies his combative, partisan approach to editing. The comments on his User page reflect Jayjg’s perspective that his views represent an objective reality and the views of those who disagree with him should be excluded.

Jayjg’s user page attitude is also displayed in his editing. Jayjg likes to frame issues categorically and according to Jayjg’s outlook, the Arab-Israeli conflict and all criticism of Israel and Zionism is Palestinian, Arab or anti-Semitic in origin. Jayjg apparently cannot understand that opposition to Israel’s racist and militarist policies come from many other sources, including ethical North Americans and Jews, among others. Therefore when someone makes an edit such as “Critics contend that Sharon is a terrorist,” Jayjg insists on editing it as “Arabs consider Sharon a terrorist…” or “Critics, particularly in the Arab world, consider Sharon a terrorist.” Even though evidence is provided that Israelis and North Americans also refer to Sharon as a terrorist, Jayjg insists on his POV that characterization of Sharon as a terrorist is primarily an Arab perspective.

Jayjg expends great effort to racialize and delegitimize moral and ethical opposition to immoral Zionist policies by human rights-minded groups from every nation, race, and religion, including Jews who are not Zionists. When non-Palestinian and non-Arab groups are cited, such as Israel Shahak, Jews Against the Occupation and Noam Chomsky, for their anti-Zionist opinions, Jayjg works particularly hard at smearing and belittling their opinions; poisoning the well.

Evidence of partisan bias and violation of NPOV is available on perusal of almost any edit by Jayjg. They are far too numerous to mention in detail and continue from his first activity 7000 edits ago until today. It should be recognized, without necessarily forgiving the behavior, that the frustration generated by Jayjg's tactics (which amount to little more than vandalism in many cases) drives otherwise productive and well-meaning editors to violate the three-revert rule and Wikiquette norms. Untold numbers of Wikipedia editors and potential contributors abandon the project rather than deal with the abuse by this eitor and his allies. And after all, that is their intention, as stated on Jayjg's user page.

A few examples of his misleading, deceptive and abusive edits are available in articles associated with these Talk pages. The Talk pages themselves record Jayjg's endless sophistry and obstructionist tactics:

1) The General Assembly resolution says "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours" should be allowed back. Returning home is predicated on wishing to live at peace, and Israelis see no evidence that Palestinian refugees wish to live at peace with them. 2) In any event General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. 3) The actual refugees wishing to "return home" number only a small fraction of the total number of Palestinians now classed as refugees, at most 10%; the other over 90% cannot be said to be returning. Jayjg 20:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)”

Particularly egregious and suspicious are his edits to the article Zionist Revisionism.

  • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zionist Revisionism: VfD failed but unknown vandals attempted to rename and then delete the contents of the article. Gadykozma left Wikipedia for a permanent vacation shortly after the incident.
  • Zionist Revisionism : Jayjg improperly redirected this page to Revisionist Zionism without discussing on the Talk page. The evidence for his redirect is found on his User history (01:45, 5 Dec 2004 (hist) Zionist revisionism (Pointing article to proper place; POV original research essays can go on blogs)), yet somehow evidence of this improper redirect is not found on the page history. [558]

Jayjg refuses to recognize or admit his abuse of process and incessant violations of the NPOV standard. "...frankly there is little, if anything, in my language that requires modification," [Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Proposed_decision#Alternate_proposal]. Because he is unable to admit to mistakes or a misguided approach to editing, I believe there is zero chance for his rehabilitation. --Alberuni 06:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments of 13 editors about Jayjg[edit]

"I'm willing to concede that not everyone agrees. You on the other hand seem to only want your POV, but worse of all you won't even admit its presence. At least I'm telling you. MShonle 20:14, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)"
"Your questionable status as an NPOV warrior
I can't believe you claim to an NPOV warrior when it is very obvious that you systematically edit and revert pages that dare to criticise the policies of the Israeli government. You are obviously as Zionist POV warrior and could at least admit it. Kingal86 20:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

From "Outside view" in RfC filed by Jayjg:

This appears to be one of those "Live by the sword, die by the sword" situations.
While Alberuni is certainly outspoken (to put it mildly), there is no doubt that Jayjg well deserves most of the criticism.
Alberuni should certainly tone down his loud rhetoric, but Jayjg should also tone down his loud actions. While Jayjg "speaks softly" that does not mean much -- reverts are "a slap in the face", and :Jayjg slaps many and slaps often. Worse yet, Jayjg delivers these "silent" insults without adequate explanation, and quite often without any justification. Moreover, Jayjg regularly requests anyone making changes to "propose them in Talk first", but he himself never does so. These are clearly provocations that can be infuriating, and while :Alberuni loses points for taking the bait, Jayjg loses points for complaining about fights he provoked.
My verdict is that:
  • Alberuni should avoid personal references in his rhetoric, and
  • Jayjg should cease his incessant unexplained and unjustified reverts.
Users who endorse this summary:
  1. HistoryBuffEr 08:14, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC).
  2. —No-One Jones (m) 13:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) Maybe not the summary, but the suggested behavior is spot-on.
  3. Xed 14:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) Verdict makes sense. I can also confirm Jayjg relentless POV edits, and his stalking. As I have mentioned elsewhere - Jayjg's methods include sounding reasonable on Talk pages whilst pushing extremist views on the actual pages. He frequently resorts to quoting various Wikipedia rules whilst ignoring the central tenet of Wikipedia: NPOV. Note that Jayjg is trying to interfere with process above.
  4. Good summary. While Alberuni is not really responding appropriately, with personal attacks and general rudeness, he has a right to be upset. Jayjg is a POV-pusher and a troll. Trying to make articles NPOV when Jayjg is on a mission to install pro-Israel and pro-Jewish points of view is frustrating, to say the least. blankfaze | (беседа!) 15:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. POV should have no unneccessary place in Wikipedia outside of the discussion pages. (Yes, I endorse both this outsider summary and the anti-Alburuni summary, because Alberuni is behaving badly, and Jayjg should know better than to react excessively to Alburuni.)Rickyrab 20:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Excellent, spot-on summary.--style 05:54, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
  7. CheeseDreams 01:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. Although I think this page is about one user and so I endorsed the anti-Alberuni summary, the reality is that both sides are heavily at fault, and this captures that well. I feel I have to endorse this one too. Shane King 04:39, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  9. I believe that Jayig is using the open-edit Wikipedia system to try to change history. He is clearly fighting what he seems to consider anti-americanism - but hey! Wikipedia was not made to be pro-american too! The truth is the truth. if Israel is the vilain-country in the MidEast, why does Jayig change the articles of other users? I also noticed that some people in Wikipedia use to change others´ articles to promote their own world views. I will not take off the reason from a guy who´s valid articles have been changed, only because he is short-tempered. Jaying should be put under discussion. Fabio Burch 22:48, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
"I am not sure if I agree with the "live by the sword, die by the sword" statement completely. I do agree that Jayjg does regularly request persons making changes to "propose them in Talk first", and doesn't always do so himself, and I do think that whomever wrote this is partly correct about it, I don't think it is as bad as the author describes it, and I absolutely do not think it is an adequete comparison.--Josiah 02:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)"
"I feel as though User:Jayjg is on a witchhunt against me, pursuing me throughout Wikipedia, making unnecessary, innaccurate, and worst of all, extremely POV edits to many many articles on which I have labored with a very NPOV approach. On the Talk pages, I have expressed an anti-Zionist POV (for instance, I wrote that "Islamism is to Islam as Zionism is to Judaism" meaning that both are extremist ideologies of religious nationalism) and this has apparently infuriated Jayjg, among others, who are extremely ardent Zionists. To punish me for expressing opinions with which he disagrees, Jayjg has pursued an abusive approach of stalking my edits on Palestinian-related pages and quickly reverting or altering most of them at every opportunity, usually without justification or explanation. I believe he does this to harass me and drive me out of Wikipedia for reasons unrelated to the actual edits themselves. I have never had this experience with other Wikipedians on any other subject so I believe it is unusual and reflects a problem with Jayjg - not with my edits.
I admit that I mistakenly accused Jayjg of redirecting Occupied Palestinian Territories, when I later realized that action was taken by User:Neutrality just before Jayjg listed it for deletion. I regret that error. I also admit that Jayjg's constant needling harassment has caused me to "lose my cool" and resort to uncivil langauge. I regret that too. I tried to avoid conflict with Jayjg and ignore him but he continues to pursue me to ridiculous lengths. For instance he felt compelled to edit an article I created about a simple land measure Dunam - and his edit was even inaccurate! Jayjg mockingly edited out a descriptor of the Jabalia-based Palestinian human rights organization Al Mezan Center for Human Rights as non-partisan because, in his opinion, it focuses too much on Israeli atrocities and not enough on investigating Palestinian abuses! Jayjg at times appears to have difficulty recognizing that his own narrow opinions are not NPOV. At other times, Jayjg appears aware of the difference but chooses nevertheless to promote his opinion as fact.
I am prepared to tone down my comments on Talk pages and edit summaries but I cannot countenance Jayjg's incessant abuse. I intend to continue my editing in as unbiased a fashion as possible. This doesn't seem to be a problem until an edit is made to a Mideast-related page at which point Jayjg descends and acts as if he owns the page. I fear that Wikipedia's objectivity in controversial areas is being compromised as pages become dominated by gangs of aggressive partisan ideologues and NPOV editors suffer harassment from individuals like Jayjg who relentlessly push their extremist POV, refusing to honestly discuss issues, compromise, or consider the damage done by their deep-seated biases. If Jayjg succeeds in his campaign to ultimately ban me from Wikipedia, then this destructive process will only accelerate.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
  1. Alberuni 16:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Xed 22:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. I've had people (not Jayjg) follow me and revert my edits, too. Very frustrating. --style 05:58, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)"

Simonides's RfM[edit]

From Simonides and Jayjg, RK, Humus sapiens & others complaint diff:

"In the following articles, the users above have persistently engaged in 1) propaganda - ie either inserting wrong, unverified or unverifiable material that heavily promotes one POV, or providing only material that asserts one POV and ignores the other; 2) spamming the article rather than contributing, ie filling them with quotes and links which, again, only uncritically promote a POV; and on the article Talk pages, they have engaged in 3) protracted discussions in which they a) stubbornly refuse to accept errors of fact or reasoning; b) slander with baseless accusations of anti-Semitism and other charges, or of "censorship" when in fact a discussion has been requested or when material was in fact removed, because it was superfluous, unverifiable or factually incorrect and shown to be so; c) distort the sequence or nature of events in edit wars and discussions to conjure up further slanderous or unreasonable accusations, particularly ironic since they begin accusing me of actions they are guilty of:
Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Modern anti-Semitism (a now completely junk article), PLO and Hamas (which was voted for deletion), Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (the latter is now relatively stable) and perhaps other assorted articles.
Apart from their encounters with me, described above, what these users have in common is a) a heightened sensitivity to any disagreement on Middle-Eastern political and ethnic issues, to which they pretend to have exclusive or superior knowledge when in fact they cannot or do not back up a great deal of what they type; b) a tendency to present or promote common right-wing and/or pro-Zionist (but usually not Zionist itself) cliches and propaganda.
As will be noticed on the Talk pages, I have shown my irritability on several occasions, but in my defense I must point out that 1) some of the propaganda and slander is particularly malicious, not just with respect to myself but larger bodies of people; 2) the users are overwhelmingly persistent and tend to resort to a "pack mentality", grouping together to refute facts or arguments that are quite uncontroversial or self-evident, making it impossible to spend any spare time available on articles that need attention; 3) I am not the only person who has confronted the same people with similar issues. They make editing on Wikipedia, otherwise a pleasure, an odious and exhausting experience. -- Simonides 23:49, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

Zestauferov's RfM[edit]

From Zestauferov and Jayjg complaint diff:

"The problem is that Jayig does not understand the orthodox Jewish system. The information in the article was all accepted by him except for one phrase. He objected to having the Netzarim classified as a subset of orthodox Judaism as they are and prefered to call them Messianic Jews which they are not. There is not a single orthodox Judaic authority which denounces the Netzarim as non-Judaic. I have asked him to name one and he has not. I did a lot of researchon the question and the facts which were presented were accurate. The challenge came from Jayig and the burden is thus sqarely on his shoulders to proove that the orthodox Jewish community denounce the Netzarim as Non-Jews (he claims they are non-jews rather than apostates, but I would even accept a denunciation of the netzarim as apostates as enough basis to re-phrase. However it should not be rephrased as Messianic-Jews because they simply are not.) Zestauferov 04:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

Xed's RfM[edit]

From Xed and Jayjg complaint diff:

"User Jayjg, in relation to the WP:Bias project, has claimed that I "don't oppose systemic bias, you're just looking for a socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism." (from User_talk:Jayjg#Rogue admin?). As well as being blatantly untrue, it belittles all the effort I, and others, have put into the project. Jayjg has also claimed that the project grew out of "attempts to minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks." (from User_talk:Jayjg#Systemic_bias). He has provided no evidence for either assertion, even after I requested this EIGHT times. Instead, he ignores the question, or cites irrelevant information. I request a full apology. The rules broken include Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. My preferred mediator is User:Ed_Poor --- Xed 11:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

(By: HistoryBuffEr 04:50, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC))

Conclusion[edit]

The evidence above amply supports statements from the "Request for Arbitration against Jayjg" [563] and more:

  • Jayjg is an extraordinarily tenacious pusher of pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian POV, to the exclusion of practically any statement not added or approved by himself or his group of like-minded compatriots. Hour after hour, day after day, Jayjg keeps reverting any attempt to NPOV any article related to Israel or Palestine, with almost never providing any explanation, justification, or reasoned objection to such edits (aside from regularly calling fair edits "vandalism".)
  • Jayjg is extremely biased on the subject of Israel and is unwilling to tolerate NPOV in any Israel related articles. Jayjg's discourse with NPOV editors consists largely of stubbornly reverting them and asking them to "propose changes in Talk first" for his approval. However, he does not consider himself subject to his "rule", as has never submitted his changes for pre-approval by anyone.
  • Jayjg has gone so far to even remove the "NPOV" notice from disputed articles several times.
  • Jayjg has turned his POV pushing into an organized around-the-clock effort; he leads a team of POV pushers which makes it nearly impossible to achieve any semblance of NPOV in the 400 articles which he and his team treat as their property.
  • Jayjg has been involved in numerous disputes with many editors.
  • Jayjg has on numerous occasions violated the "3-reverts max" rule; his access to the "Rollback" button has made his POV pushing much easier --- too easy: Jayjg has reverted without explanation hundreds of established users.
  • Jayjg has also abused his sysop privileges by reverting and then protecting articles.

Jayjg claims that the evidence above is not representative of his work. However, he and his team have presented every case where Jayjg's edits appear to be less than his typical extreme POV pushing, and all those examples amount to just a handful of edits.

The evidence shows that much of Jayjg's work is concentrated on producing and preserving biased articles. And his organized POV pushing and frequent user disputes undermine the spirit of community of Wikipedia. As Jayjg is very active in one visible segment of Wikipedia, the goals of Wikipedia are likely to suffer without some modification of Jayjg's behavior, which has not changed appreciably since the start of this RFAr.

1. As Jayjg is still unwilling (or unable) to adhere to NPOV, his editing privileges in Israel related articles should be restricted for an extended period of time. Jayjg should be ordered to follow his own oft repeated mantra and "Propose changes in Talk first". Each and every one of those changes should be approved before being applied, by at least one editor who has no history of promoting Jayjg's POV.

2. Jayjg also deserves a ban for offensive behavior, which he seems to have no intention to discontinue: calling fair edits "vandalism", reverting without an explanation or justification, and bullying editors to submit changes to his preapproval.

3. As a prolific reverter and violator of 3RR, Jayjg should be banned like every 3RR violator, and placed in the "No reverts (except for true vandalism)" status for an extended period.

4. Last but not least, Jayjg has abused sysop rights and tools, but has rarely used his position for noble ends, such as mediating disputes. His admin privileges should be revoked, or at least suspended for an extended period of time.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 04:56, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC))

Response to Evidence about Jayjg[edit]

Evidence of NPOV editing by Jayjg[edit]

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[edit]

Anti-Zionism[edit]

Even though I was a strong proponent of the notion that many people think some forms of anti-Zionism are anti-Semitism [564], including a belief that the Catholic church in some way espoused this view, I nevertheless removed a quote inserted by User:Lance6Wins (using an anonymous IP) proporting to be from the Catholic Church, stating that the Church opposes anti-Semitism as anti-Zionism [565] [566] 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.

Ariel Sharon[edit]

Regarding the death toll in the Sabra and Shatila massacre, an anonymous editor insisted that the number should be stated at the low end of estimates (460-800), because those numbers were given by what he/she considered as reputable sources. I countered that Palestinian sources quoted numbers of 3,000 or more, and that we should just give the range of estimates and quote the numbers [567]. In fact, 460 is not even the lowest number quoted by sources; a letter from the head of the Red Cross delegation to the Lebanese Minister of Defense, cited in the Kahan Commission report as "exhibit 153", stated that Red Cross representatives had counted 328 bodies. Some pro-Israeli sources quote the figures that way, for example "Estimates of the number of dead vary from 328 (Red Cross) to 800 (Israeli military sources)." [568] However, because the Kahan Commission had noted that the lowest estimate (328) did not include all the bodies, I felt it was best to leave it out of the summary entirely. And in fact, that is exactly what I had done a few days before: [569], quoting estimates of 460-3,500, which is what the original anonymous commenter was objecting to.

Circumcision related articles[edit]

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 [570]. After a bit of a tussle with the anti-circumcision activists I was able to edit it back into a NPOV version [571], one good enough that the author of the POV insertions actually congratulated me on it: [572]. 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 [573], removed ridiculous provisos regarding anti-circumcision sources [574], and resisted further attempts to impugn the medical integrity of anti-circumcision activists [575]. I then made similar edits to the Smegma article, removing pro-circumcision POV [576] and ridiculous provisos [577], and similarly for the Foreskin and Penis articles: [578] [579].

Israeli settlement[edit]

On 26 Sep 2004 in the Israeli settlement article an anonymous pro-Israel editor changed all references from "East Jerusalem" to "east Jerusalem"[580], in order to promote the idea that the city was one indivisible unit (the Israeli position), rather than distinct cities of West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem (the Palestinian position). I changed the references back to East Jerusalem, and even changed links to Jerusalem to point instead to East Jerusalem, noting that while they might now be one combined city, one cannot ignore the fact that for decades they were not.[581]

Medical Aid for Palestinians, UNICEF, and others[edit]

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.[582] 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 [583][584].

Orthodox Judaism and Jew[edit]
  • I have been accused of promoting an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish perspective by several editors, including User:RK, who described me as an "ultra-Orthodox Jew" with "ultra-Orthodox bias", and even stated that I was "contemptuous of any source that is not from an ultra-Orthodox rabbi". HistoryBuffEr himself has also 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 [585], I reverted [586] his changes, noting that regardless of our beliefs, we all have to adhere to NPOV.
  • Similarly, user Zestauferov insisted on promoting an Orthodox POV in articles [587], stating that "ANYTHING EXCEPT ORTHODOX JUDAISM IS APOSTASY. ANY HALAKHICLY LEGAL JEWS SHOULD COME OUT OF APOSTASY AND MAKE TESHUVAH BACK TO ORTHODOXY. ALL HALAKHIKLY NON-LEGAL JEWS SHOULD STOP DECEIVING THEMSELVES BY BELIEVING THAT THEY ARE JEWS." [588] However, in the Jew article I insisted that things could not be stated only from the Orthodox point of view [589], and that the Reform position needed to be heard as well, because "The Reform movement is huge, important international Jewish religious movement, with a couple of million members, hundreds of synagogues, day schools, seminaries, etc.; its voice needs to be heard, regardless of whether or not you agree with it..." [590]
  • Similarly, Orthodox user IZAK insisted on inserting the view into the Jew article that assimilation and intermarriage were a "Silent Holocaust", which is a view expressed by a number of Orthodox Rabbis, but often considered offensive by non-Orthodox Jews. However, I removed the insertion [591], arguing strongly that even though Orthodox Rabbis held this view, that didn't make it particularly important, or worth mentioning in this article [592].
Yasser Arafat[edit]
  • 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. [593] 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.[594] 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 [595], 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. [596], nevertheless I removed this information lest someone might interpret the information negatively. [597]
  • On 1 Nov 2004 User:Lance6Wins inserted the claim that Yasser Arafat had brandished a pistol at the U.N., based on a BBC article he brought as a source.[598] I pointed out that the claim was most likely false, and should be removed, and even brought a link from a generally pro-Israeli source in order to convince him that this was the case. [599]
  • In a section on persistent accusations of Yasser Arafat's financial dealings, HistoryBuffer replaced the existing section with this [600]. I replaced his edit with this: [601]. 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 [602] 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 [603] 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.", note, leaving out the various anonymous accusations about Arafat's wife and his support of her. 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 [604] because there were no reasonable sources confirming it [605]. I later confirmed that the claims were indeed made in his book "Red Horizons" [606], and that commentators were now speculating that Arafat had AIDS [607], 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. [608]. It survived unchanged until 9 Sep. 2004 when an anonymous editor removed the part about the Ma'alot Massacre [609]. It survived in this form until 6 Oct. 2004 when Irishpunktom changed the final "Israeli civilians" to "Israelis" [610] 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. [611] 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. [612] (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",[613], since attacks like the Maalot massacre and others were on civilian (not military) targets. I also brought this change to the Talk: page [614] However, when Alberuni brought evidence that the attacks were on military targets as well [615], I immediately changed the section to use the exact wording found in his source [616], 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[edit]

Yasser Arafat[edit]

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. [617] 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)

Editing extremely POV articles to just POV is not evidence of NPOV editing. This is a very good example. It's not "NPOV" at all. How about "As a guerrilla and a Fatah leader, he was regarded as a freedom fighter by supporters, but a terrorist or collaborator by his opponents, but as a statesman he is regarded by many as the Father of the Palestinian nation." Arafat was not a guerrilla for many years. Would you have kicked off the Menachem Begin article by saying "As a guerrilla and a leader of Irgun, Menachem Begin was regarded as a freedom fighter by supporters, but a terrorist by his opponents"? Indeed not. The Begin article denies Irgun even were terrorists and rightly notes as Begin's greatest achievement the peace with Egypt (although someone couldn't help noting the "achievement" of "neutralising" the Egyptian army).Dr Zen 04:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A better example would be the Ariel Sharon article, Arafat's counterpart, and also the subject of edit wars by the same editors. And indeed, the Sharon article contains quite similar language in its opening paragraph, though actually even more critical: "Sharon is a controversial figure both inside and outside Israel, attracting diverse and often polar views. Many Israelis and supporters of Israel regard Sharon as a strong leader battling terrorism. However, critics, particularly in the Arab world, refer to him as "the Butcher of Beirut" and have sought his prosecution as a war criminal. A number of Israelis and foreign observers believe that his recent efforts have been damaging to the peace process." Jayjg 17:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
User:Jayjg Talk Page[edit]

Submitted by MPerel

Response by HistoryBuffEr[edit]

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" [619], 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)
Since it's his own page representing himself, he has complete control to remove it if he wants, and yet he has kept it there. That's because he operates with fairness and evenhandedness, and while he has his own perspective on things, he does not push for only one side (his side) to be represented as some editors do. MPerel 23:39, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
I note that the extra line was added after this arbitration had begun.Dr Zen 04:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of NPOV editing by Jayjg provided by Viriditas[edit]

Al-Aqsa Intifada[edit]
  • 11:40, 8 Nov 2004 - Jayjg reverted to a pro-Palestinian editor's NPOV version. [620]
  • 18:20, 9 Oct 2004 - Jayjg NPOV's a pro-Israel editor's version, and changes the word "terrorist" to "members". [621]
Hamas[edit]
  • 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. [622]
Israel Shahak[edit]
  • 08:38, 9 Nov 2004 - Jayjg removed an unattributed POV claim that he may have agreed with. Alberuni agreed with his decision. [623]
    • 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[edit]

Deir Yassin and Struggle over Palestine[edit]

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 [624].

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

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..." [625]. 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." [626]. 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)


Response to HistoryBuffEr's case against Jayjg by Jayjg[edit]

I'm going to try to respond briefly to HistoryBuffEr's case, partly because in my view his case consists mostly of claims without evidence that are in any event not Wikipedia policy violations, and partly because the evidence page is already well over 400K long, I suspect a record for any arbitration case.

My overall contention regarding HistoryBuffEr's case against me is that he has painstakingly gone through my 8,000 or so edits looking for any "dirt" he could find, and then presented it in a selective, misleading and sometimes false way under the principle of "if you throw enough dirt, some of it will stick". Thus in HistoryBuffEr's first section he selectively highlights and edits my user page statement, in order to create the impression that it states something it does not; it is more interesting to note what he expurgates from my user page than what he leaves in. HistoryBuffEr removes the following highlighted sections: "POV warriors who decide that what the project really needs is for someone to come along and re-write all articles of interest to them from their own POV, which they believe is the "TRUTH". These POV warriors ignore all previous Talk: which has painstakingly arrived at NPOV articles through a process of negotiation among proponents of multiple POVs. When thwarted in their efforts, they typically resort to grave breaches of Wikiquette, frequently attacking those who oppose them, etc." He similarly removes this section: "until they understand what NPOV is, become familiar with Wikipedia norms, and either decide they can actually work within the Wikipedia paradigm, etc." In fact, my user page, which, frankly, was created in response to actions by User:HistoryBuffEr and User:Alberuni, is about supporting Wikipedia norms and policies, particularly around NPOV, civility, Wikiquette, and respect for other editors, something every Wikipedia editor should do. HistoryBuffEr then goes on to say "Jayjg apparently places all the blame on others and presents himself as a misunderstood defender of Wikipedia and NPOV on a mission to drive out the "infidels" besieging Wikipedia." Thus HistoryBuffEr's selective editing and subsequent editorializing attempts to portray my issue as a religious "mission" to defend Wikipedia against "infidels", rather than an attempt to uphold Wikipedia policies of civility, respect, and NPOV. This is also reflected in his statements describing me as an "ultra-ultra-Ortodox POV pusher" [627], saying "Loser Jag must be on a mission from god..." [628], describing me as a "zealot" [629], and saying "Jayjg, this is Wikipedia, take your POV zealotry to your place of worship" [630].

HistoryBuffEr then opens his second section of evidence (titled "Jayjg's Mission") by saying "Jayjg's claim that he is on a mission sounds fair..." Of course, HistoryBuffEr provides no evidence that I have claimed to be "on a mission", for the simple reason that I have never done so; rather it was HistoryBuffEr himself who claimed I was on a "mission" one paragraph earlier. Thus his claims for me soon become, in his mind, my own claims for myself. These simple examples are typical of the way HistoryBuffEr's descriptions of me and my statements are at variance with reality, and how he has substituted his own created version of me for what I actually do and say.

In the rest my response, I will rebut one of his claims in a detailed way, merely as a further example of the nature of our conflict, but will not go into endless detail about each one of his claims. I will also give some brief summary responses to his other complaints.

Regarding one of HistoryBuffEr's first claims about my "pre-approval policy" in relation to the History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, HistoryBuffEr states

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.

This is, I think, a good place to analyze the nature of the disputes between HistoryBuffEr and me, the way he acts during debate, and his subsequent view of what happened vs. reality. On 13 Oct 2004 HistoryBuffEr made some highly POV changes to the article [631], inserting claims such as that Zionists "in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population" and "The Israeli terror acts created about 750,000 Palestinian refugees". After revert wars with several users, including IZAK, Humus Sapiens, MathKnight, and Modemac, HistoryBuffEr, as was typical, inserted the "TotallyDisputed" tag into the article, and threatened anyone who removed it with being banned.[632] User Jmabel then stepped in as a neutral party, attempting to defuse the conflict, while noting that "Most to the point, it appears that the note came from HistoryBuffEr, and he is threatening other people with disciplinary action for removing it, but he has not given the required notice here on the talk page of what he is disputing." [633] Note that I had never edited the article before that myself; however, once Jmabel was involved, I did engage in the discussion on the Talk: page. The debates on that page were effectively between HistoryBuffEr and me, with User:Jmabel attempting to act as a neutral third party to produce a compromise NPOV version. Jmabel's assistance was particularly needed because after I made 4 edits on the Talk: page, HistoryBuffEr described me as an "extreme extremist" and refused to address me directly [634]; instead HistoryBuffEr rather pointedly addressed his comments to Jmabel only, with the words "reply to Jmabel" appended to nearly every subsequent edit summary. [635] HistoryBuffEr also misattributed beliefs to me; for example, when I stated "You misrepresent the views of Morris, whose research in any event has been discredited." [636], HistoryBuffEr interpreted that as me saying Morris is a "self-hating Jew", stating "Even though he (Morris) is still advocating in favor of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (!?!), he has now apparently become yet another self-hating Jew for the ultra-ultra-Ortodox Jayjg. Thanks for the laugh." [637] Note the disconnect between what I have actually said, and how HistoryBuffEr interprets it. This would become characteristic of our discussions, and indeed of this evidence page against me. Note as well the personal attack, describing me as "the ultra-ultra-Ortodox Jayjg"; this too would become characteristic of his dealings with me (and others).

The specific area of contention HistoryBuffEr raises in his evidence page was a debate about Israeli offers to repatriate 100,000 Palestinian refugees in 1949 [638]. When challenged I brought evidence of the claim [639], which HistoryBuffEr then rejected a coming from a "biased" source. [640] I then brought several other references to this claim, including references from two pro-Palestinian sites, one pro-Israeli site, and a site which held the actual text of the offer as made to the Palestine Conciliation Commission. [641] HistoryBuffEr then accepted the reference [642], and the discussion turned to how many refugees actually did return [643]. The source I brought listed the number as 35,000. I suggested the wording "Several thousand (and perhaps as many as 35,000 [644]) Arab refugees had already been allowed to return by the time this proposal was made and rejected." [645]. While the "moderator" of the discussion, User:Jmabel accepted the wording,[646], naturally HistoryBuffEr did not, again claiming the source was "biased". [647] HistoryBuffEr, as part of his argument not to include the number 35,000, then brought his own source citing the 35,000 number, which he himself quoted as stating "This number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway." [648] The paper he cited was written in May, 1998 by Joseph Alpher and Khalil Shikaki of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University [649] Aside from the fact that it was published at Harvard, one of the authors, Khalil Shikaki, is a distinguished Palestinian academic teaching at An-Najah National University in Nablus (you can read his bio here [650]); one would imagine that this would be enough to convince HistoryBuffEr that the source was not biased. Moreoever, the source itself noted that Israel claimed the number was significantly higher, at 40,000-50,000. Yet, amazingly, when I inserted the 35,000 claim using the exact same wording the article used, and which HistoryBuffEr himself quoted [651], HistoryBuffEr reverted it because he felt it was "creating a wrong impression"[652] What is fascinating about HistoryBuffer's reconstruction of events is that he complains that I "cited only one highly biased pro-Israeli website", totally ignoring the fact that I actually quoted the un-biased site which he himself brought as evidence!

The rest of my responses will be brief.

In the same section HistoryBuffEr, under "Sabra and Shatila Massacre", complains that when I say "I can't even tell what edits he has made" I am either "disingenuous" or reverting edits "without even knowing what they are." I'm surprised he even has to ask; obviously I don't know what the edits are, since his post facto "summary" [653] is nearly useless in understanding the specifics of the multitude of edits HistoryBuffEr made, effectively a complete re-write, as this diff [654] shows.

In HistoryBuffEr's section titled "Wholesale changes by Jayjg" he states

"While claiming to defend "stable" articles and complaining about "wholesale changes" by others, Jayjg applies a different standard to his own "wholesale changes". And, while demanding explanations from everyone, Jayjg won't explain his changes. One example [655] etc."

Yet the actual history of the Talk: page shows a huge series of detailed explanations of my changes and reasoning: [656] [657] [658] [659] [660] [661] [662] [663] [664] [665] [666] [667] [668] [669] [670] [671] [672] [673] [674] [675] [676] [677] [678] [679] [680]

In fact, the level of detail that Zestauferov was asking for regarding my edits was so great that at one point a third editor Ignignot stated "Zestauferov you're asking for an unreasonable amount of information - this is a free encyclopedia, not a thesis dissertation." [681]

In HistoryBuffEr's section titled "Jayjg's Two sides of POV", he states

"On the other hand, Jayjg removed from Goy the only mention that the term is sometimes used as a derogatory term, see [682]"

Amazingly, when you look at my edit, you will note it actually concludes with the phrase "its use in English is usually considered derogatory." Again, a significant disconnect between what I actually do and what HistoryBuffEr imagines I do. Subsequent to my stating this in the defence, HistoryBuffEr modified [683] his statement to read

On the other hand, Jayjg removed from Goy the only reference statement that the term is sometimes used as a derogatory term, see [684], but later stating [685] "It can certainly be used in a derogatory fashion. So can almost any word. A good example is "Jew", which has often been used that way."

Amazingly, he still fails to note that my edits included the phrase "its use in English is usually considered derogatory." Not even "sometimes", but "usually", and the diff he himself produces as evidence [686] is quite clear about that.

As well, in the subsection there titled "Terrorist vs. Terrorist" HistoryBuffEr states

Jayjg voted to Keep (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion&diff=6552241&oldid=6552062) Category:Terrorists stating "Anyone who deliberately targets civilians for political purposes is a terrorist." On the other hand, Jayjg voted to Delete (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion&diff=6937846&oldid=6937836) Category:Jewish terrorist organizations.

He claimed this was based on a principle, but that principle somehow did not apply to, eg: Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Middle East terrorists, which Jayjg did not vote to delete.

Thus HistoryBuffEr tries to make it seem incriminating that I voted to delete "Jewish terrorist organizations". In fact, I did vote to delete all lists of terrorist organization categories, including "Category:Palestinian terrorist organizations" "Category:Islamic terrorist organizations", [687] which in all of HistoryBuffEr's exhaustive analysis of my edits he somehow failed to note. The "inconsistency" HistoryBuffEr claims I have exhibited is not inconsistent at all; I was against lists of terrorist organizations, since they tend to be more subjective and the groups often fulfill multiple purposes, but felt that individual terrorists, whose status could be ascertained by specific actions against civilians, could be identified. Thus I also did not vote to delete any categories of individual terrorists, including "American terrorists" and "Canadian terrorists". Again, HistoryBuffEr presents evidence in a highly selective or distorted way in order to show a pattern that is not there.

In HistoryBuffEr's section titled "Jayjg the Fair and Scrupulous", he states that "Jayjg presents himself below as a "scrupulous editor."" In fact, it was the pro-Palestinian editor Mustafaa who said I was "notably scrupulous" in my editing, not me, and I have presented it as such, Mustafaa's claim. As well, HistoryBuffEr presents a statement from User:RK complaining about my behaviour, when, in fact, User:RK was eventually banned for his behaviour in that and similar disputes. Even more surpisingly, he includes RK in his lists of my "troops" in the section just below; is RK one of my detractors, or is he one of my troops? In that same section, he characterizes my compliments to User:Quadell for attempting to act as a neutral third party in editing the articles as a "call for help" to my "community". He even includes as a negative example my statement to Quadell that I was also drawing in a pro-Palestinian editor to help Quadell edit and resolve conflicts!

In HistoryBuffEr's section titled "Jayjg the Rogue Sysop", on my first day as a sysop I did indeed protect a page that I had previously reverted after an anonymous IP replaced the page several times with a new POV version. This was an error, as I was informed that sysops could not protect pages they were involved in. A couple of months later, after seeing an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for Page Protection, I reverted a page which I was not involved in and had never seen before to what I assumed was a pre edit-war version before protecting. While reverting to a pre edit-war version is allowed (and in fact, that was what was eventually done with the article), I discovered after the fact that the version I reverted to was, in fact, not the pre edit-war version but simply another version; the fact that Wikipedia was even slower than its usual unbearably slow self that day was the reason I didn't check to make sure, as just inserting the {{protected}} template took 20 minutes. Hardly a pattern of abuse. As for the rest of the "evidence", a couple of weeks after that I again saw an entry on the Wikipedia:Requests for Page Protection page, went to the page in question (which I had never edited or even seen before), and (based on my earlier experience) was now scrupulous in protecting the existing version, regardless of what it was. Yet somehow this too was the wrong version, and in HistoryBuffEr's view, indicative of being a "rogue sysop". And finally, according to HistoryBuffEr, I somehow abused my sysop powers three months before I actually became a sysop.

In HistoryBuffEr's section titled "Jayjg the Rollback robot" he complains about the number of reverts I do, and provides a small number of examples he thinks are unreasonable. What he might not realize is that I have close to 800 articles on my watchlist, often articles that are poorly watched and thus easily vandalized. On a typical day I go through most changes on this list, and do find a great deal of vandalism. Just today, in the few minutes I've had on Wikipedia to do this kind of maintenance work, I found these edits [688] [689] [690] [691] [692], all of which I reverted. Five newbie experiments or simple vandalism of articles is actually lower than average for one day.

In addition, HistoryBuffEr brings some surprising charges; for example, he complains that I "Keep pushing with Requests for Comments, Mediation or Arbitration, until he gets his way", yet brought meritless RfCs and RfARs against the admins Proteus and Quadell. As well, he complained that I would make minor changes to an article, then claim that it was not a revert, to avoid the three revert rule. Yet after making this complaint about me HistoryBuffEr was actually banned for 24 hours on December 3, 2004 for doing exactly that.

As well, in HistoryBuffEr's section titled "Jayjg's view of NPOV" he states "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"." In fact, he has used the "be bold" policy as a defence for his actions on several occasions. Yet he is also aware of the section in "Be bold" which states the following (and I think it bears repeating, as it quite specifically mentions the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an area where one should be particularly cautious):

==...but don't be reckless==

New users in particular are often entranced by the openness of Wikipedia and dive right in. That's a good thing. But please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Abortion. In many such cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be akin to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily.

If you encounter an article on a controversial subject that you would like to edit, first read the comments on the talk page and view the Page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is.

If you are an experienced wiki-ist, you will probably have a good sense what will be accepted edits, and which edits should be discussed first.

If you are new to wikipedia, or unsure how others will view your proposals, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, you should either:

  1. If the material in question is a sentence or so in length, copy it to the Talk page and list your objections there.
  2. If the material is longer than a sentence, list your objections on the Talk page but leave the main article as it is.

Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed. But always move large deletions to Talk and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page.

Also, show respect for consensus. Avoid making major changes to an article if a vote (or poll) is currently in progress about whether those changes should be made, especially if there is no clear consensus shown by the vote.

Finally, and perhaps not surpisingly, even HistoryBuffEr's case against me is filled with abusive terminology, calling 17 other editors my "agitprops", "troops", "agitprop troops", "extremists" and "Jayjg's POV pushing club", calling me a "Shrinking Violet", "Rollback Robot" and a "Rogue Sysop", talking about my "hypocrisy" and claiming my views are "To the right of Ariel Sharon", stating that I am "scrupulous" in the way that a "robber" is "scrupulous for carefully protecting his loot". The focus, as is frequently the case, is on the individual, not on the edits. It is unclear whether HistoryBuffEr does not realize these are personal attacks, or simply does not care; either way, it indicates that he either lacks either the ability or knowledge required to modify his behaviour in the future so as to respect Wikipedia's civility policies.

HistoryBuffEr consistently tries to characterize the conflict between him and me as one of my feeling I "own" articles, and insisting everyone needs approval from me to edit them. However, this is a typical distortion of my true feelings. In fact, I have a great deal of respect for Wikipedia norms and policies (including Civility and NPOV), as well as for the hard work that previous editors have put into creating and NPOVing articles, and act on that. And it is precisely these norms, policies, and previous editors for which HistoryBuffEr has shown no respect, and continues to show no respect.

Response to HistoryBuffEr's case against Jayjg by Gadykozma[edit]

In re:

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)"

HistoryBuffEr, I'm afraid there are a number of inaccuracies in your statement above:

  • Ed's comment was directed at me [693] (Gady), not at Jayjg. He later saw need to clarify this comment [694].
  • 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)

Response to Additional views by others[edit]

Response to Alberuni's views[edit]

While I can find little of substance to respond to in Alberuni's lengthy litany of complaints, I will briefly respond to some of the more explicitly documented charges. To begin with, regarding my use of websites that Alberuni does not approve of, I have explained to him a number of times that Google doesn't seem to exclude the sites he finds so objectionable, so they keep coming up in my Google searches for information. I actually don't know much about the sites. As well, bringing these sites as evidence on Talk: pages is quite different from bringing them as evidence on article pages, and Alberuni has not brought evidence of me doing the latter.

Regarding my comment on the VfD for Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar, I don't even understand Alberuni's complaint. I don't approve of creating articles for political purposes, and I expressed that, without voting. Hard to see what his objection is.

Regarding Zionist Revisionism, User:Mikkalai moved the contents to Israeli-Palestinian history denial, and it was User:Gadykozma himself who insisted the article should be a re-direct, since the term "Zionist Revisionism" is actually an alternative way of saying "Revisionist Zionism", which was the philosophy of Zeev Jabotinsky and his followers, an entirely different topic, as a quick Google search will conclusively show.[695] Moreover, the article was created by Alberuni for political purposes, and as an attack on me. As Gadykozma pointed out "The problem is that there is no such thing as "Zionist revisionism". Nobody refers to himself as such nor do people refer to others as such (outside this dispute). The sole purpose of this title is to equate Jayjg's views with Holocaust denial." [696] And, as I subsequently noted, they are not even my views, but rather what Alberuni imagines my views to be.[697] The fact that Alberuni consistently referred to my actions (among others) as those of "Zionist Revisionists" confirms Gadykozma's assertion that "This title is nothing but a personal attack against Jayjg." [698]

Regarding the Lynching article, on 20 Nov 2004 Alberuni decided to delete information about lynchings in the West Bank and Gaza [699] that had been in the article for over two years, since 18 Sep 2003.[700] An edit war soon developed between Alberuni and several editors who thought the information should be retained. To help put an end to the war, I actually brought six unimpeachable links describing the killings as lynchings, three from notable Human Rights organizations Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B'Tselem, two from prominent news organizations, the B.B.C. and The Guardian (perhaps the most pro-Palestinian mainstream English language newspaper), and finally a pro-Palestinian website "From Occupied Palestine" [701], and quoted directly from those sources.[702] Of course within minutes Alberuni removed all the new information, with the edit comment "rv Jayjg Zio POV" [703]

Regarding the image on Israeli West Bank barrier, my contention was that showing only a concrete section of the barrier, and the most formidable section of it at that, was not representative when over 90% of the barrier was wire fence, and less than 10% concrete wall; in my view such an unrepresentative image was therefore creating a POV. I compared this to having "an article which described the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and which had as its only image a picture of a dead Palestinian child".[704] The people I was debating this with on the pro-Palestinian side were User:Zero0000 [705] and User:Stargoat [706]. Zero0000 admitted that the pillbox in the original image made it unrepresentative, and suggested that we use two images instead, one of a wire fence portion and one of a concrete wall portion [707]. Zero0000 took a new picture of a concrete wall portion near Abu Dis [708] and stated we now needed a picture of wire fence so we could include both images. I found several images of the fence on the internet [709], and Zero0000 was able to secure copyright release for one. [710] I thanked him for this [711], and Stargoat said "Way to go" [712]. Thus the conflict was resolved. To me this appears to be a textbook example of opposite sides working together to produce NPOV; the fact that 5 months later Alberuni characterizes this dispute as "Jayjg argues that a picture of the Israeli Wall “is not representative” – without providing evidence. He deletes it over the objection of other editors." is telling.

Finally, Alberuni characterizes my statement "...frankly there is little, if anything, in my language that requires modification," as a response to (in his view) my "abuse of process and incessant violations of the NPOV standard." In fact, this statement was made specifically in regard to violations of Wikipedia's civility rules, as the full edit in context shows. [713] The kind of misleading "evidence" provided by Alberuni in this and the Israeli West Bank barrier comment (above) typefies Alberuni's approach to me, my edits, and my Talk: page comments. In general his response also contains the kind of rhetoric and personal attacks (e.g. "his extremist Zionist point of view", "his extremist pro-Israeli view", "his offensive and bigoted Jewish supremacist ideology") that typefies his responses to editors he disagrees with in general, and me in particular, as his Request for Comment and Request for Arbitration show.

Response to Amgine's views[edit]

Interestingly enough, User:Amgine actually complimented me on my contributions to the so-called "POV edit wars" in which I was allegedly being used as a "tool", stating "I have responded to your critiques. Please continue to contribute on this article!" [714] and "I have responded to your further critiques. Thanks again for your input!" [715]. And in a bizarre turn of events, a week and a half after making this complaint here, Amgine actually tried to recruit me back to the article in question to help resolve differences between editors there[716]. Jayjg 21:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Response to CheeseDream's views[edit]

Response by Viriditas[edit]

Weren't you part of that edit war? I seem to remember reading something about you imposing your views on the stable, consensus-driven version of Cultural and historical background of Jesus. Interestingly, HistoryBuffEr has engaged in the same tactics as you have -- by attacking stable articles and replacing the content of those articles without consensus. You may find it odd, but I actually agree with the content changes you helped implement, but your strategy of antagonizing editors is no different from that of HistoryBuffEr, nor is it helpful. Again, I find myself agreeing with most of your edits, however your tactics leave much to be desired. Civility and respect is not too much to ask. Robert Merkel, Rhobite, Wetman, IZAK, Josiah, Dante Alighieri, and more users than you can shake a stick at have all taken you to task for your your incivility and basic lack of respect for other editors, and their contributions to Wikipedia. Personally, I don't have a problem with your edits because I agree with almost 90% of what you write, however, your behavior on Wikipedia is divisive and does not encourage or promote collaboration with editors who have different views than your own. --Viriditas 04:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response by Jayjg[edit]

Contrary to CheeseDream's implication, I had neither edited that article, nor its Talk: pages, nor even seen that article before it was requested for protection on the Request for Protection page. I was not a party to any dispute at all on that page. Jayjg 04:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Response to Jmabel's views[edit]

Jmabel has himself recognized the issues with John Harbo's claims. As he pointed out "The (perverse) problem is that we really have no way currently to accommodate someone coming forward like this with (presumably valid, but previously unpublished) eyewitness"[717]. Once he provided some evidence that it wasn't just an anonymous Internet IP address editor making some un-sourced claim, I quickly accepted his claim[718] and even inserted it[719] after the article was unprotected[720], when it became clear the original poster wasn't going to put it in himself. Jayjg 17:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr's response to Jayjg's response to Jmabel's views[edit]

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)

Response to Mirv's views[edit]

Response by Jayjg[edit]

True, in response to the same behaviour on the part of HistoryBuffEr, I did use 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. Other editors have said much the same; to quote SlimVirgin again, "HistoryBuffEr is, in my view, a vandal pure and simple, and reverting his vandalism should therefore not count against any other editor." and "In the time I have been editing this article (Yasser Arafat), HistoryBuffEr has not made a single encyclopedic contribution, POV or NPOV. What I mean by that is that he has not provided a single piece of information. All he has done is delete large sections of facts, which were properly referenced to academic books and explained in historical context. He has been personally abusive to at least four other editors, and has used several sockpuppets. I have yet to see a single factual contribution from him, whether it's one I agree with or disagree with."


Response by Gadykozma[edit]

Mirv, while I agree Jayjg was not setting an example as he should, HistoryBuffEr was worse. Here is a typical example (quoting Proteus [721]):

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...


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Evidence/Full_version&oldid=431104618"