Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg

Case Closed as of 16 January 2005

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statement of complaint

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. 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. 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. These activities are a long-standing pattern with him, present from his very first edits on Wikipedia as IP 66.93.166.174[1]. 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, 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)

Complaint against Jayjg

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, weekday or weekend, 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".)

For example:

• On Occupation of Palestine and many related articles, Jayjg has tried VfDs and redirections to prevent any article having "occupation" in the title from ever seeing the light of the day in wikipedia. He also keeps removing the word "occupation" (and derived terms) from any article related to Palestine. Same applies to the term "Palestine" itself: Jayjg insists on wording "disputed territories".

• Jayjg insists on adding to Yasser Arafat unconfirmed rumours and smears against Arafat, even though they are based on only one Israeli right-wing source, and confirmed by no one (he recently reverted this article 7 times in minutes.)

HistoryBuffEr fails to mention that it was he himself who was counter-reverting each time. How many people does it take to tango? -Zero 12:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Three people for a tango. CheeseDreams 03:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Conversely, Jayjg insists on removing from Ariel Sharon straight quotation from Kahan Commission, merely because he considers it damaging to Sharon. Jayjg keeps insisting on his POV reverts to this article despite the fact that most of these issues were discussed in the article Talk page and he was unable to substantiate either of his POV actions.

• Jayjg insists on removing from Operation Days of Penitence, among other things, a statement that Annan condemned the Israeli attack, a quote from a Palestinian civilian which sums up the operation, quotes from analysts, etc. On the other hand, he insists on a statement that most Palestinian victims were combatants, without providing any evidence, and so on. Jayjg keeps insisting on his POV reverts to this article despite the fact that these issues were discussed in the article Talk page and he was unable to substantiate either of his POV actions.

• On History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, despite extensive discussion and agreement on precise wording of statements re refugee negotiations between Israel and Arabs, Jayjg simply went into the article and put back the same disputed number, confirmed by no one and supplied by only one right wing pro-Israeli web site.

I could go on and on, but it should be obvious by now that Jayjg is extremely biased on the subject of Israel and is unwilling to tolerate even a hint of 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. Not surprisingly, he obviously does not consider himself subject to his "rule" as has never submitted his changes for pre-approval by anyone.

As Jayjg is unwilling or unable to even consider NPOV as a basis for articles he keeps watch over, he should be barred from editing or reverting Israel/Palestine related articles for an extended period of time, at least until he shows clear signs of willingness to obey the most fundamental rule of Wikipedia -- Neutral Point of View.

Also:

• 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 more reverts than any other sysop.
• Jayjg has gone so far to even remove the "NPOV" notice from disputed articles several times.
• Jayjg has also abused his sysop privileges by reverting and then protecting articles.

As a sysop, Jayjg owes it to the Wikipedia community not to abuse his position, and to act as an example of proper behavior. As Jayjg has shown to be anything but a shining example to follow and has abused the convenience of sysop rights and tools, Jayjg amply deserves to be asked to surrender his sysop privileges, if not permanently then at least for an extended period of time.

HistoryBuffEr 04:46, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

P.S: As for dispute resolution attempts:

• Jayjg was repeatedly criticized by the community for behavior described above on several RfCs.
• Jayjg has recently requested mediation, but as he openly stated that the purpose of his RfM was not to negotiate but to merely impose his POV on me, any mediation would be obviously fruitless and I consider his insincere request for mediation invalid.

Preliminary decision

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

1. Accept -- I will want to see diffs on the evidence page to establish more definitively what has been said in what context, but there is obviously a dispute to arbitrate here. Jwrosenzweig 19:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Accept Fred Bauder 19:59, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
3. Accept. Also sounds like an temporary injunction is called for. →Raul654 21:41, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
4. Issue preliminary injunction, merge with Jayjg case above, and accept. --the Epopt 05:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing Jayjg (4/0/0/0)

1. Send them both to their rooms without supper. Issue preliminary injunction and merge with HistoryBuffEr case below. --the Epopt 05:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Accept and merge as The Epopt suggests. Fred Bauder 13:55, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
3. Accept and merge, though honestly I assumed accepting the case brought by Jayjg implied that we would look into his conduct also -- I don't see why we needed a separate vote for this. Jwrosenzweig 15:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. Accept and merge. Let's get this one rolling. The Cunctator 20:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Final decision

Principles

Personal attacks

1) No personal attacks.

Passed 8-0.

NPOV

2) Wikipedia editors are expected to edit from a neutral point of view.

Passed 8-0.

Application of NPOV policy to articles which relate to situations where there is serious conflict

3) The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible.

Passed 8-0.

Wikiquette

4) Wikipedia editors are required to maintain a minimum level of courtesy toward one another, see Wikiquette, Civility and Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement.

Passed 8-0.

Content of articles

5) While the content of articles is the province of Wikipedia editors, a number of Wikipedia policies relate to content in peripheral ways, for example, it is desirable to limit reversions and to provide adequate references for material included in articles. See Reversions, Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Check your facts, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability

Passed 8-0.

Original work and neologisms

6) Wikipedia is not the place for publishing original work or development of Neologisms, Wikipedia:No original research.

Passed 8-0.

Three revert rule

7) Contributors are expected to obey Wikipedia policies, including the three revert rule.

Passed 8-0.

What is a revert

8) The term "revert" as used in Wikipedia policy is intended to include both absolute reverts (that is, where versions differ not at all) as well as edits to versions that are only very slightly different).

Passed 7-0-1.

Attempting to avoid claims of reversion

9) Attempting to avoid being accused of reversion by making very minor edits that are then edited out again, whilst not expressly forbidden, is in bad faith and against the spirit of policy, and a violation of Wikiquette.

Passed 7-0-1.

Ownership of articles

10) No person or group has the right to control content of Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

Passed 8-0.

Usability of evidence presented in arbitration cases

11) In order for the arbitrators to be able to decide a case based on evidence, the evidence to be presented by the parties must be brief and well organized, focusing on the principle issues involved with adequate references to examples of the behavior complained of.

Passed 7-0.

Staying cool when the editing gets hot

12) When editing on highly conflicted topics, editors should not allow themselves to be goaded into ill-considered edits and policy violations. Administrators in particular have a responsibility to set an example by staying cool when the editing gets hot.

Passed 6-0.

Findings of fact

The conflict

1) The state of Israel and the Zionist movement are engaged in a protracted conflict with the Palestinian people and other Islamic nations, hereafter refered to as the "conflict"

Passed 8-0.

Information about the conflict

2) Information about and characterization of the conflict are themselves part of the conflict, see Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Hasbara.

Passed 8-0.

History of disputes about the conflict

3) There is a long history of disputes regarding the content of Wikipedia articles concerning the conflict.

Passed 8-0.

Disputes regarding language

4) In a number of instances there have been protracted struggles over the language used to characterize various matters, for example, while many others characterise the West Bank and Gaza as the "occupied territories" this is hotly disputed by partisans of Israel who advance other language such as "disputed territories". At times the NPOV policy is honored, for example, in the article West Bank which contains the following language: "The West Bank is considered by the United Nations as occupied by Israel, though some Israelis and various other groups prefer to refer to it as "disputed" rather than "occupied" territory." at other times it is not and protracted edit wars sometimes result over inclusion of one point of view or exclusion of another.

Passed 8-0.

History of NPOV policy enforcement

5) Enforcement of the NPOV policy has been lacking in this area and over an extended period POV editing has been engaged in by a number of editors, not only the two before us in this matter.

Passed 7-0.

Current status of articles regarding the conflict

6) In many instances one side or the other has "won", while Wikipedia has lost, as articles which contain a mix of information favorable to one side or the other remain and protracted edit wars continue.

Passed 7-0.

Editing by HistoryBuffEr as 66.93.166.174

7) A number of the edits by User:66.93.166.174 can be identified as being by HistoryBuffEr (signed HistoryBuffEr), (signed HistoryBuffEr), post by 66.93.166.174 signature by HistoryBuffEr Earlier edits are consistent with HistoryBuffEr's POV and editing pattern, see [2], [3] and [4]. See also page histories to see proximity and similarity of edits by HistoryBuffEr and 66.93.166.174. Although HistoryBuffEr claims the ip address 66.93.166.174 is a "shared account" there is no evidence of any editor with an editing style different from HistoryBuffEr editing using that ip; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that all edits by 66.93.166.174 were made by the person who edits using HistoryBuffEr.

Passed 7-0.

Personal attacks by HistoryBuffEr

8) HistoryBuffEr has engaged in personal attacks on Jayjg, see [5], [6], [7] , [8], [9] and [10]

Passed 7-0.

NPOV editing by Jayjg

10) Jayjg also makes edits from a neutral point of view and often significantly contributes to the accuracy of information included in Wikipedia articles, for example see this example of NPOV edit, which removes a link to site which draws an unjustified pro-Zionist conclusion, see [11] and Jayjg's explanation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Evidence#Anti-Zionism; see also [12]. For an example of editing material added by HistoryBuffEr which clarified the nature of the information, see [13] and his explanation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Evidence#Yasser_Arafat_4. At times he has negotiated with other editors on "his side" such as Lance6wins regarding the accuracy of pro-Zionist material [14], [15]

Passed 7-0.

Point of view editing by HistoryBuffEr

11) HistoryBuffEr has made point of view edits to articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, see this edit of September 21, 2004 which ignited a brief edit war with Jayjg. This edit, repeatedly inserted, contains this language, "Palestine Jews then declared independent State of Israel in 1948, in violation of the U.N. Partition resolution, and began killing, expelling and terrorizing the indigenous Arab population, ethnically cleansing about 870,000 (about 80%) of native Arab population (see Palestinian Exodus)." In one revert, the comment, "NPOV Jayjg's propaganda)" was added [16]. Additional examples include [17], and [18].

Passed 7-0.

Extensive rewriting by HistoryBuffEr

12) HistoryBuffEr has frequently made edits which involve extensive rewriting of articles which relate to the conflict, see [19] and [20]. These edits, due to their complexity and numerous instances of included POV material, result in edit wars which are not easily resolved. See [21] for a brief discussion on this point by Jayjg and HistoryBuffEr.

Passed 7-0.

Failure to discuss controversial edits

13) Despite, as User:66.93.166.174, making a complete and very POV revision of the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict on September 13, 2004 ([22]) HistoryBuffEr failed to enter any dialogue on Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He followed the same pattern with respect to Arab-Israeli conflict ([23]), responding to Jayjg's request to talk with insults meanwhile insisting that a disputed notice remain at the head of the article despite his failure to discuss the issues.

Passed 7-0.

Original work by HistoryBuffEr

14) HistoryBuffEr has inserted into the article Yassir Arafat [24], and other articles, [25], the novel phrase, "occupation colonies", which is meant to desribe Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. When quieried regarding the use of this phrase he responded, not with references to its use in published work, but with argumentation regarding its propriety, see [26]. Googling for this phrase produces a few hits, one [27] a reprint of Wikipedia's article on a China Daily forum; a second use at [28] on http://www.miftah.org/ a Palestinian information site; the third, possibly independant, use of the phrase would not load (There are, of course, a few hits on Wikipedia pages).

Passed 7-0.

Discourtesy by HistoryBuffEr

15) HistoryBuffEr has engaged in discourteous behavior toward others in his editing conflicts with them, see [29]. [30] and [31].

Passed 7-0.

Negotiations by the parties

16) The parties, together with partisans for their general point of view and assisted at times by informal mediators such as Ed Poor, have engaged in extensive negotiations regarding the structuring of articles concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, see Talk:Occupation of Palestine. These negotiations while difficult, have sometimes been successful.

Passed 7-0.

Violations of reverting guidelines by Jayjg

17) Jayjg has violated the general community guidelines on Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version which evolved into the Three-Revert Rule on several occasions directly, including 4 reverts in 144 minutes on Anti-Semitism between 20:55, 9 Jul 2004 and 23:16, 9 Jul 2004, and, similarly, 4 reverts in 129 minutes to Historicity of Jesus between 19:09, 21 Jul 2004 and 21:28, 21 Jul 2004, and repeatedly on Dore Gold in the month and half over which the article has existed.

Passed 7-0.

State of the evidence

18) The principals in this matter have been very verbose in their presentation of evidence, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence/Full version, expanding their presentation to the point that it is unwieldly, confusing and essentially unusable by the Arbitrators.

Passed 6-0.

Request for summary of evidence

19) A request has been made by the arbitrators for a summary of the evidence in this matter at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence. Neither of the principals have HistoryBuffEr has not been forthcoming with a[n adequate] summary.

Passed 6-0.

Remedies

HistoryBuffEr banned for personal attacks

1) HistoryBuffEr is banned for 30 days for making personal attacks.

Passed 7-0.

HistoryBuffEr banned for discourtesy

2) HistoryBuffEr is banned for 30 days for discourtesy.

Passed 7-0.

Editing restrictions

3) HistoryBuffEr is prohibited for a period of one year from editing any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict except in the following manner: each edit shall involve insertion or removal of one discrete piece of information which shall be referenced either by comment or footnote to a specific page in a book published in English and readily available in libraries or by purchase. References to URLs are acceptable only if the site is in English and the information referenced is readily located by consulting the webpage.

Passed 6-0.

Remedies in the case of dispute

4) For the period of editing restrictions in the event information is disputed, the source of the information may be included in the article as may conflicting information.

Passed 7-0.

Prohibition against removal of referenced information

5) For the period of editing restrictions neither HistoryBuffEr nor Jayjg may remove any adequately referenced information from any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Doing so may result in a 24-hour block imposed by any administrator. In the case of Jayjg, unblocking himself will be severely dealt with.

Passed 7-0.

Reorganization of articles

6) For the period of editing restrictions reorganizations of articles which do not involve addition or removal of information may be done by either party. The other party may not revert, nor may the initiator of the reorganization restore the reorganization should a third party revert.

Passed 7-0.

Personal attack parole for HistoryBuffEr

7) HistoryBuffEr is placed on standard personal attack parole for three months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to three days, and the parole shall be reset.

Passed 7-0.

Enforcement

Edits unsupported by authority

1) For the period of editing restrictions edits by either HistoryBuffEr or Jayjg which are not referenced may be removed by any user. In the event the reference given does not support an edit made by either of them it may be removed after notification to them and an explanation made on the talk page of the article.

Passed 6-0-1.

Violation of editing restrictions

2) For the period of editing restrictions, edits by HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg which violate them may be removed by any user. Repeat violations may be sanctioned by an adminstrator by a short ban (up to one day for intial violations, up to a week for repeat violations).

Passed 6-0.