The material that was on this page, in the amount of 495kb, has been moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence/Full version. It is requested that those who wish to present evidence in this matter summarize their presentation following the structure and size limits of this page. Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to 1000 words and 100 diffs.
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; 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.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to 1000 words and 100 diffs.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
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 cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The detailed evidence presented amply supports statements from the Request for Arbitration against Jayjg and more:
Jayjg claims that the evidence presented 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 18:21, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC))
Let's review the Jayjg's Statement of complaint (bold emphasis added) in light of the: evidence against HistoryBuffEr, evidence in response to complaints and evidence against Jayjg:
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 18:21, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC))
HistoryBuffEr has repeatedly substantially re-written or completely replaced articles with his own POV versions, in a way that makes it extremely difficult to compare to previous versions. He generally refuses to use the Talk: pages to discuss his new articles, while insisting that other editors must post any objections to his new articles in Talk: pages. Instead he often uses Talk: pages and edit summaries to abuse other editors. These actions inevitably incite edit wars, and HistoryBuffEr has repeatedly violated the 3 Revert Rule to support his new articles. He has also furthered his edit warring by inserting totallydisputed and POV templates in articles which he hasn't completely re-written, while refusing to discuss the issues he has with the articles. These actions even continued throughout the arbitration process, including on the evidence pages themselves. Finally, on the articles in question I have generally not added much original information at all, and the small number of edits I have made have been sourced and NPOV. The evidence presented here by me and others supports this summary.
21:43, Nov 28, 2004
HistoryBuffEr deleted from Yasser Arafat a large amount of fully referenced material about the 1972 Black September attack on the Munich Olympics in which 11 Israeli athletes died. [174] He ignored requests for an explanation on Talk:Yasser Arafat and on his own talk page. He reverted four times in just over 24 hours.
08:16, Nov 29, 2004
When asked why he was deleting, HistoryBuffEr initially did not respond, but then did respond with: "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)." [179]
8:32, Nov 29, 2004
When asked again, he replied: "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", 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)" [180]
[189]The dispute exists only in your extremist head. Even your Fuehrer admits it, so get over it. HistoryBuffEr 01:53, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
The material that was on this page, in the amount of 495kb, has been moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence/Full version. It is requested that those who wish to present evidence in this matter summarize their presentation following the structure and size limits of this page. Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to 1000 words and 100 diffs.
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; 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.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to 1000 words and 100 diffs.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
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 cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The detailed evidence presented amply supports statements from the Request for Arbitration against Jayjg and more:
Jayjg claims that the evidence presented 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 18:21, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC))
Let's review the Jayjg's Statement of complaint (bold emphasis added) in light of the: evidence against HistoryBuffEr, evidence in response to complaints and evidence against Jayjg:
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 18:21, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC))
HistoryBuffEr has repeatedly substantially re-written or completely replaced articles with his own POV versions, in a way that makes it extremely difficult to compare to previous versions. He generally refuses to use the Talk: pages to discuss his new articles, while insisting that other editors must post any objections to his new articles in Talk: pages. Instead he often uses Talk: pages and edit summaries to abuse other editors. These actions inevitably incite edit wars, and HistoryBuffEr has repeatedly violated the 3 Revert Rule to support his new articles. He has also furthered his edit warring by inserting totallydisputed and POV templates in articles which he hasn't completely re-written, while refusing to discuss the issues he has with the articles. These actions even continued throughout the arbitration process, including on the evidence pages themselves. Finally, on the articles in question I have generally not added much original information at all, and the small number of edits I have made have been sourced and NPOV. The evidence presented here by me and others supports this summary.
21:43, Nov 28, 2004
HistoryBuffEr deleted from Yasser Arafat a large amount of fully referenced material about the 1972 Black September attack on the Munich Olympics in which 11 Israeli athletes died. [174] He ignored requests for an explanation on Talk:Yasser Arafat and on his own talk page. He reverted four times in just over 24 hours.
08:16, Nov 29, 2004
When asked why he was deleting, HistoryBuffEr initially did not respond, but then did respond with: "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)." [179]
8:32, Nov 29, 2004
When asked again, he replied: "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", 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)" [180]
[189]The dispute exists only in your extremist head. Even your Fuehrer admits it, so get over it. HistoryBuffEr 01:53, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)