Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alberuni

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC).

(Alberuni | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

Alberuni has made many ad hominem statements on Talk: page and has violated some primary Wikipedia rules, including (but certainly not limited to) Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Description

Alberuni has made many ad hominem statements on Talk: page and has violated some primary Wikipedia rules, including (but certainly not limited to) Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. In a number of cases he has knowingly made false statements about people's actions, in particular accusing Jayjg of re-directing articles which he was aware Jayjg never re-directed, or of "stalking" him to pages which Jayjg had been editing before he had ever edited them. Though various editors have requested he cease this behaviour, and instead reserve the Talk: pages for discussions of article content, and work collegially in editing articles, instead he has ignored these requests and defended his actions.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

Abusive Talk: page comments

Jayjg you have not made your case, why do you persist in your petty edit war: You backtracked on your mocking claim (a) above that this human rights organization is partisan even though you complained that it was too hard for you to bother reading their annual report to find evidence that they investigate abuses impartially. Yet, you persist in trying to neutralize their legitimacy simply because your Zionist POV is offended that a human rights organization is critical of Israelis for their atrocities against Palestinians. You know, when teh Nazis were oppressing the Jews, I'm sure there were complicit apologists like you complaining that the Red Cross is partisan and can't be trusted. As an aside, is your life so utterly meaningless that the best you can do is follow my Wikipedia activity to in oreder to take slim satisfaction in trying to annoy me with your reverts, deletes, and POV edits of my pages. Why don't you leave me alone, you annoying little Jayjgboy? Alberuni 01:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)[1]
...Your POV pushing is outrageous and reprehensible and you do this all the time, day in and day out like some traumatized Holocaust survivor. Except when you are editing pages to promote your views of circumcision(+) and Jesus(-). You seem to think your view is the only authorized view and no one else has a right to an opinion. You refuse to discuss issues and just keep pushing your POV. You have no more authority than anyone else Jayjg. You need help Jayjg, serious mental help from a competent Jewish psychiatrist, like your father. Alberuni 01:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) [2]
Someone thinks he is defending Israel by distorting history and/or he thinks his virulent Zionist POV is God's truth and objectivity is a threat to the Jewish state. I support HistoryBuffER. This article needs a big POV warning. I can't believe someone has the gall to insert completely biased and inflammatory language and then remove the POV warning. Such chutzpah! Alberuni 04:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) [3]
If the logic of including Israelis in the OT has nothing to do with the Israeli occupation of the OT then why don't you include the numbers of Israelis living in the USA, Europe, Asia, Africa, etc? Please do not begin your ad hominem attacks by accusing me (or others with whom you disagree) of turning these pages into a venue for promoting political agendas. I won't return the charges although it is quite clear that you suffer severe biases and a conceited arrogance that you need to check at the door. You are not an objective arbiter of objectivity. Your brand of extremism is easily recognized. You are POV incarnate. Alberuni 01:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) [4]
...Whatever wrongs you think have been done to the "Jewish nation," spewing Zionist propaganda throughout Wikipedia pages only serves to perpetuate negative stereotypes about the "Jews". You should heed your own advice - although I doubt you (plural) have the ability to perceive your arrogance and deep bias. And so the conflict continues. Alberuni 01:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) [5]
...Do you consider your continuous hasbara campaign to be in Wikipedia's best interest? Why don't you go edit some articles about issues unrelated to Israel and the Jews, for a change? Too much to ask? Alberuni 05:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)[6]
...I'm sure you can offer some official justification to erase Israel's bloody culpability and paint Israel in as rosy a light as possible. It's not an ad hominem attack, just an observation of your pattern. Alberuni 05:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)[7]
...Yes, I thought it was well known that the Phalangists were armed and supervised by the IDF, the IDF was responsible for the safety of the refugees, and the IDF allowed them to be massacred by proxy. Maybe you need a long rest? Alberuni 06:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) [8]
...The continuous effort to edit, delete, obstruct, manipulate, minimize and whitewash Israeli crimes is a glaring example of a political bias being foisted on Wikipedia by advocates of Zionism. Alberuni 15:17, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)[9]
...Excuse me if I don't bother to answer your "challenges" in the future. If you request information or wish to engage in sincere open-minded dialogue, I might respond. Condescension, patronizing arrogance, and narrow-minded Zionist POV pushing will go unanswered. Alberuni 14:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) [10]
Jayjg please refrain from stalking and unnecessary edits: I know Wikipedia is a collaborative effort but you are making edits that add no significant value or new information apparently just so you can "have the last word". Control issues should be checked. Alberuni 05:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) [11]
After we had our Talk/Israel disagreements over whether Palestinians should have their demographic existence in OT recognized as much as the Israelis who live in the OT, you came to the Hamas page and made a series of totally unnecessary reversions to my edits, reversions to your reversions, etc regarding Israel's assassination yesterday and Hamas goals. Your edits added nothing and were, in fact, awkwardly worded and poorly composed. You made them out of simple spiteful editorial bias, to erase my work. You always want the final word and the article must fit your pro-Israeli POV. I suspect you are hoping to drive people away from Wikipedia who don't share your narrow views. It is immature and destructive behavior. I will continue working on various pages and hope for you to mature. Alberuni 06:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)[12]
The territories are not considered merely "disputed" by anyone except those with the POV of militant Israelis who hope to annex more Arab land to the Jewish state. To the rest of the world, the territories are recognized as Occupied Territories because they are militarily occupied by Israel even though Israel has no legal claim to the land. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic to see the hypocrisy and self-serving mendacity of Zionists decrying the legitimacy of UN territorial dispute adjudication when it was the UN that created the modern state of Israel in the first place. Alberuni 15:26, 10 Oct 2004 UTC)[13]
You have not improved. Your edits reflect a narrow-minded, virulently Zionist POV. You are not amenable to NPOV edits that offend your Zionist sensibilities. You stalk my history of contributions looking to revert edits with which you disagree. Your tone is condescending and patronizing. Interacting with you is far and away the worst part of my Wikipedia experience to date. Alberuni 01:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) [14]
There is little point in discussing issues with a dishonest pro-Israeli propagandist. The reason why Israelis prefer "disputed" to "occupied" is well-known by anyone who has been following the issue [15]. Alberuni 02:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) [16]
"Confusing"? Like the legal status of the Occupied Territories is "confusing and disputed" to you? It's always someone else's fault, isn't it? Try to keep up. Alberuni 03:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Now you are disagreeing yourself. "The legal status of them confusing and disputed, which is why "disputed" is the best term. Jayjg 14:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)" I'll just leave you two alone. Alberuni 04:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)[17]
This article disagrees with your interpretations of international law Jayjg: [18] Why don't you address the issue instead of categorically regurgitating Zionist propaganda as if it was fact? By the way, when did you stop claiming that "there is no such thing as a Palestinian?" Are you able to keep up with this confusing comment? Alberuni 04:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) [19]
Please stop telling me what to do. You are extremely arrogant and condescending. I was responding to your off-topic anti-Arab hasbara propaganda about Jewish wealth that was accumulated in Arab countries but that you credit to colonial powers.The point is that Jews, many of them wealthy, lived in Arab countries alongside their fellow Arabs until the Euro-American Zionist creation of the Jewish state on Palestinian land created a conflict between Arabs and Jews that made Arab Jews unwelcome in the land they lived on for 1000s of years. You want to have it both ways, always. YOU are the one who is not discussing your reverts. Why the gratuitous slap at the UN and UNRWA? Why compare Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were absorbed by Israel to Palestinian refugees who were dispossessed by the creation of Israel? It's totally irrelevant and petty. What makes you think you own these pages? Why are alternative, let alone opposing, points of view edited out? These are relevant questions for a Talk page. Alberuni 02:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) [20]
Your gratuitous reversions of comparison between UN aid to victims of Israel and refugees to Israel is irrelevant. Please stop your childish reversions until this is resolved. Alberuni 04:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)[21]
I have provided a reason, you are just not listening, as usual. The comparison between UN aid to victims of Israel and refugees to Israel is irrelevant. What is its relevance to Jewish refugees? Alberuni 04:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)[22]
They are not corrolary cases. Israel confiscated the land of Palestinians for the use of Jewish refugees. Palestinians did not receive the Arab Jews' land when they immigrated to Israel. Palestinians remained refugees. Jews were absorbed by the new country built on Palestinian land. This line looks more like a petty complaint that the Jews did not get money from UNRWA aid "unlike the Palestinians" - as if the Palestinians got the better deal. Is there any use discussing issues with you? Alberuni 05:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)[23]
There is no reason, not even for your beloved Jewish state, why Palestinian refugees should have been displaced from their homeland and forced to be absorbed by Arab, European, American or other countries. The article does not reflect those facts. The article makes a swipe at UNRWA as if to say that Jewish refugees with a country to settle were more industrious than Palestinians who were kicked out of their country to make way for those very same Jews. It's your typical Zionist propaganda. Do you ever look in the mirror and question why you are the way you are? Alberuni 05:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) [24]
OK Jayjg, tell me again that you are not stalking my edits to promote your Zionist POV. Alberuni 01:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)[25]
Stalking my edits again like a vulture? Human rights organizations like the Red Cross also seemed very partisan to the Nazis, for obvious reasons. Alberuni 04:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) [26]
What kind of organism perceives human rights to be a partisan issue? Do you consider B'Tselem partisan? Amnesty International? Human Rights Watch? Yet, to you, Al-Mezan must be partisan because they are located in a refugee camp created by your beloved Jewish state. Alberuni 05:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) [27]
Al-Mezan refers to "Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)" so I created a page to reference it. Jayjg immediately redirected it, then listed it for deletion. The reason he is hounding me is because we argued over whether Hamas being labelled a terrorist organization is NPOV on the Hamas talk page and we argued about other issues on Arab-Israeli, israel, and other pages. He got so offended that he went on a passive/aggressive witch-hunt against me. Jayjg began looking up all my edits and page creations and began undermining the ones that offend his Zionist perspective. His behavior is ridiculously abusive. I try to take him to the Talk page but he just bull-headedly assumes that his view is the only valid view. It is nearly impossible to communicate with him. I noticed that User:Blankfaze previously noticed his abusive behavior too. I am learning about the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution procedures and have started instituting them. Alberuni 19:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)[28]
The grossly Zionist POV editors are still disputing the very existence of the Palestinian people let alone the illegal Israeli occupation. Yet, Wikipedia hosts long diatribes about Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan and Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt. You guys need to wake up!! Wikipedia has become an Israeli textbook on issues of the Mideast because Zionists are systematically pushing their extremist POV down Wikipedians' throats and no one has the balls to stand up to them. Alberuni 17:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) [29]
Thanks for the patronizing advice. You should follow it too, OK? Alberuni 20:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) [30]
At least you are honest about your pro-Israel Wikipedia editing. That's refreshing. And our communication on the Jewish refugees Talk page was civil, wasn't it? You accepted my minor NPOV edits in an open-minded manner despite the very deep-seated pro-Israel POV throughout your subject matter. So if there is nothing wrong with being a Zionist propagandist, then why is pointing out pro-Isreali bias considered hate speech? Regarding your kind thoughts for the surviving Palestinians in diaspora and, I'm sure also those who have been killed (some today!) to make living space for the more important refugees, the circle closes as I'm reminded of similar cheery advice from a bygone era; "werk macht frei". Alberuni 06:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) [31]
Hello! Now we are getting to the crux of the problem. You, and you are not alone, see all Palestinians as "terrorists" and so, of course, it is acceptable to gun them all down in self-defense. That's the logic that makes possible Jenin, Jabalia, Auschwitz and Buchenwald. Alberuni 06:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) [32]
I see. You consider my pointing out the difference between Judaism the religion and Zionism the nationalist political ideology as "uncivilized". I think this says more about you and your work on manipulating content in Wikipedia than it does about me. Alberuni 14:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) [33]
I'm having problems dealing with a biased administrator User:Jayjg. See history and Talk page at Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights for an example. He follows me around, reverts many edits dealing with the Mideast, redirects pages and nominates pages for Votes for deletion in an effort to promote his Zionist POV on Wikipedia pages. What can be done about admins who abuse Wikipedia NPOV policy and harass other Wikipedians? Alberuni 17:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)[34]
You can see that Jayjg is stalking my edits on multiple pages, even to your Talk page. He redirected Occupied Palestinian Territories without even bothering to discuss it on the Talk page. He has systematically tried to revert many of my edits and new page creations of the past 24 hours for purely political purposes. Is this the way Wikipedia administrators are suppose to behave? Alberuni 01:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) [35]
Your description of manipulative passive/aggressive behavior is accurate, in my opinion. Some people are like insects. It's better to just ignore them as in WP Dispute Resolution step 1. "Avoidance: The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place." Alberuni 15:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) [36]
...Instead of constantly butting your head against the revert button like it's the Wailing Wall, why don't you "improve" it with your usual Zionist POV slant? Alberuni 03:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) [37]
Of course, that's the official hasbara line from Tel Aviv central office... Alberuni 03:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) [38]
You don't make those kind of edits, do you? Rubs you the wrong way? Alberuni 03:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) [39]
Are you sure that Israel was not involved in any way with the US war on Iraq and Afghanistan? You would think that Israel would be a better ally and stand up with the US in its time of need. Why wouldn't Israel marshal its resources to help the USA, its best friend in the world to attack Iraq, Israel's declared enemy with whom they were in a state of war? It really is a big mystery, isn't it Jayjg? Makes you wonder what good they are after all the $100 billion we've given them (er "you all").....I wonder why...... Alberuni 03:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)[40]

Alberuni continues to violate the policies

Here is his response, with clear violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith highlighted:

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.

Some final notes:

I listed Occupied Palestinian Territories for deletion before Neutrality turned it into a re-direct; I'm not sure why Alberuni still resists following the fairly brief edit history of that page.
Alberuni's original version of Dunam was both POV and incomplete. My edit was NPOV but also incomplete. Neither was "inaccurate". Alberuni's subsequent edit incorporated my information, and added his own original information in a NPOV manner, thus showing that he both agreed with my information, and realized his original was POV.
RfC is not about getting people banned (as Alberuni has claimed more than once), but rather is a request for third party, neutral comment on a dispute. Alberuni refuses to acknowledge this.
Alberuni's response essentially boils down to "I shouldn't have done it, but Jayjg was so terrible that he made me do it"; hardly a recognition of any sort of responsibility for upholding Wikipedia rules. Jayjg 19:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Abusive edit summaries

05:36, 27 Sep 2004 (hist) Talk:Hamas (Jayjg please refrain from stalking and unnecessary edits)
02:45, 11 Oct 2004 (hist) Current events (rv to include unpleasant facts of invasion and slaughter of children censored by Mateo SA)
00:18, 12 Oct 2004 (hist) Hamas (rv Zionist POV edits by Jayjg. You are ignoring Talk page discussion and inserting your POV)
01:03, 12 Oct 2004 (hist) Jewish refugees (rv Jayjg systematic Zionist POV attacks on all my edits, come and get it)
01:07, 12 Oct 2004 (hist) Occupied Palestinian Territories (rv Zionist campaign to deny Israeli occupation; take your case to Talk pages)
01:26, 12 Oct 2004 (hist) Jabalia (You are trying to insert your insidious Zionist POV by equating all Palestinians with Palestinian militants and assuming that all Israelis are civilians)
05:54, 12 Oct 2004 (hist) USS Liberty incident (delete apologist garbage)
06:21, 12 Oct 2004 (hist) Israel (rv edits by Zionist smeg)
06:18, 12 Oct 2004 (hist) Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights (rv Jayjg Ziovandalism)
15:51, 13 Oct 2004 (hist) Al Mezan Center for Human Rights (Until you can produce evidence that they are not partisan, keep your biased edits to yourself.)
00:57, 14 Oct 2004 (hist) Al Mezan Center for Human Rights (Rv edits by the partisan Zionist POV pusher Jayjg to NPOV version, You are ignoring Talk pages again Jayjg)
01:03, 14 Oct 2004 (hist) Talk:Al Mezan Center for Human Rights (Jayjg you have not made your case, why do you persist in your petty edit war)
03:02, 14 Oct 2004 (hist) Hasbara (Anti-Israel - You know, not everything in the world is divided into pro-Israel and anti-Israel, geez what a mindset)
03:05, 14 Oct 2004 (hist) Arab-Israeli conflict (Jayjg means that everyone else must justify their edits to him, he only has to justify himself to God - go to Talk page nit)
05:40, 14 Oct 2004 (hist) Dunam (Dunam is the measure currently in use, Jayjg's insufferably heavy handed stalking and inaccurate edits corrected again)

Making False claims: Re-directing pages

(Alberuni accused Jayjg several times to several users of redirecting the Occupied Palestinian Territories article, even after being told that Jayjg did not do so, as the edit history shows: [41])

...He follows me around, reverts many edits dealing with the Mideast, redirects pages and nominates pages for Votes for deletion in an effort to promote his Zionist POV on Wikipedia pages...Alberuni 17:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)[42]
...He follows me around, reverts many edits dealing with the Mideast, redirects pages and nominates pages for Votes for deletion in an effort to promote his Zionist POV on Wikipedia pages... Alberuni 17:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) [43]
....He redirected Occupied Palestinian Territories without even bothering to discuss it on the Talk page... Alberuni 01:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) [44]
...Al-Mezan refers to "Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)" so I created a page to reference it. Jayjg immediately redirected it, then listed it for deletion... Alberuni 19:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)[45]

Making False claims: Stalking

(Alberuni accused Jayjg several times to several users of stalking him, particularly on the Hamas article, even though Jayjg edited the Hamas page weeks before Alberuni ever did so, and had even been doing so earlier in the day before Alberuni's first edit to the article, as the edit history shows: [46])

Jayjg please refrain from stalking and unnecessary edits - I know Wikipedia is a collaborative effort but you are making edits that add no significant value or new information apparently just so you can "have the last word". Control issues should be checked. Alberuni 05:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, as I've requested several times now, please focus on the articles themselves, rather than on ad hominem statements regarding me. I will also point out that the charge of "stalking" is laughable, given that I was editing this page (and therefore it was on my watchlist) before you even joined Wikipedia, and that my most recent edits on Sept. 26 also precede your first edits to the page. If there is any "stalking" going on, it's obviously not by me. Jayjg 05:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

After we had our Talk/Israel disagreements over whether Palestinians should have their demographic existence in OT recognized as much as the Israelis who live in the OT, you came to the Hamas page and made a series of totally unnecessary reversions to my edits, reversions to your reversions, etc regarding Israel's assassination yesterday and Hamas goals. Your edits added nothing and were, in fact, awkwardly worded and poorly composed. You made them out of simple spiteful editorial bias, to erase my work. You always want the final word and the article must fit your pro-Israeli POV. I suspect you are hoping to drive people away from Wikipedia who don't share your narrow views. It is immature and destructive behavior. I will continue working on various pages and hope for you to mature. Alberuni 06:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look at the history of the edits on the page; I had edited the article twice on Sep 26 before you appeared (for the very first time) and made your edits. I then returned to the page a few hours later and continued to edit it, incorporating the NPOV material that you brought to the page, while excluding the highly POV changes you inserted. I also have not changed subseqent NPOV edits you have made; my only concern here is maintaining NPOV. In any event, I again strongly encourage you to restrict your comments to discussing the article contents, rather than continually and rather incessantly making ad hominem and poisoning the well comments about me. Jayjg 14:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) [47]

Making False claims: Holocaust denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Jew&diff=6804184&oldid=6803813 -- Jmabel | Talk 18:58, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Oh please, your hypocrisy is astounding. I am not making Holocaust denial claims. I am just quoting others in an attempt to add an "NPOV balance"; the same way Jayjg and his gang claim to be adding NPOV balance when they insert quotes from articles disputing Israeli responsibility for Muhammad al-Durrah's murder and delete evidence of the pattern of Israeli atrocities that resulted in Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar's murder. To quote Jayjg, we're not pushing a POV, we're "just reporting who says what". For you to attack me for using their tactics while not confronting them in the same way is pure hypocrisy. --Alberuni 19:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- Well, you are quite the one to talk about hypocrisy in this. Are you saying that what Jayjg did in Muhammad al-Durrah was right? No, you are saying it is wrong, but then you are going and doing essentially the same thing. Have I defended Jayjg's edits in Muhammad al-Durrah? No, quite the opposite, as anyone can see by examining Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah. As for Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar, I've never even looked at that article and it's the first time I remember hearing that name in my life. To be honest, I'm not going to follow it up in the immediate future, because I'm finding this whole argument a massive distraction and I'm trying not to broaden the already excessive drain on my time: I'm not going to be sucked into actively working on every contentious article in Wikipedia.

- Editing the article Jew should not be matter of "confronting" someone's edits on some other, tangentially related article. It should be a matter of producing a good article on the topic at hand. As I've said before, I totally reject the tactic of retaliatory bad-faith edits, and I'm really amazed that you seem to be defending it as appropriate conduct. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:44, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

You've made a number of good edits today, Alberuni. If you continue in this vein we should have no trouble working together on articles in the future. Jayjg 17:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) [48]
I thought the vast majority of your edits on the article today were also good. Thanks for making them. Jayjg 15:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) [49]
When you have trouble with a user, whether it's a sysop or not, the best way to procede is to first try your best to assume good faith in the user. Don't accuse people of things like stalking you, and don't use inflamatory language (like "Why not call it Ziopedia?"). If you're sure there's a problem, try to talk it over with the person on his or her talk page, in as non-confrontational a way as possible. If this doesn't work, you can request mediation. I hope this helps! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)[50]
I've been pleading with Alberuni to work co-operatively, and to talk things over with me on my Talk: page, and even been very positive about some of his edits, but as yet to no avail. Jayjg 20:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)[51]
Alberuni, your many ad hominem statements towards me on Talk: pages over the past couple of weeks have violated some primary Wikipedia rules, including (but certainly not limited to) Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. In a number of cases you have knowingly made false statements about my actions, in particular accusing me of re-directing articles which you are aware I have never re-directed. Though I have generally ignored these violations, at times I have requested that you cease this behaviour, and instead reserve the Talk: pages for discussions of article content (not me), and work collegially with me in editing articles. I have even complimented you on some of your edits, in an attempt to defuse the situation. However, so far you have rejected my requests (as well as those of other editors) to cease these personal attacks. I am requesting again that you indicate to me clearly and without qualification that you will follow Wikipedia norms regarding etiquette. I am placing this note on your Talk: page to indicate to you how seriously I take this. Respectfully, Jayjg 21:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)[52]
Again, I'll have to ask you to please stop your barrage of personal attacks on WP users. This is counterproductive to both your political cause (whatever it is) and the collaborative spirit of WP. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)[53]
I was just about to suggest to you two to use the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution when I noticed it mentioned on the talk page of the Al-Mezan article already. Alberuni, you still seem to be a bit nervous when talking to Jayjg, and you keep using much more unnecessary (IMHO) labeling epithets and other rhetoric instead of proving your case. To have you two working together, you both have to keep it down. Don't feel insulted by Jayjg's tracing your other edits – while I haven't yet read your full edit history, judging by just what you've said around this article and the ones immediately linked in from here, it seems you are frustrated with what you perceive as a pro-Israeli WP bias, but this seems to result in extremely POV and sometimes insulting remarks (to my personal perception, and I don't feel any animousity towards anybody who keeps contributing and doesn't just troll). It is no surprise that, having seen such remarks, other editors that want to achieve NPOV, will re-trace your history of edits (and Jayjg's as well, and mine, and whoever else's). Try not to take it as if it were in the real world, where a detective is spying on every part of your private life – WP is inherently fully open, there is no private life here, and you don't own anything but the "deltas" on the history lists, as you certainly understand. Instead of taking somebody tracing your edits personally, try to reform – for a good start, how about going over this page and replacing your own POV remarks with NPOV ones, and maybe even crossing out or removing some of the things you said here? You have just addressed the open source nature of the Wiki, having others tracing your edits is part of the game you have to accept to play. And if you reformulate stronger expressions, remove them, or even ask someone's pardon. Don't start right with the ones you had addressed to Jayjg, try working on a couple of others. This is just a suggestion – if I were you, I'd feel much better repairing the damage done by the strong emotions and unjust (in many editors' eyes) labels stuck; the reason is that in real life I have gotten into similar situations that you seem to have gotten yourself into here, and repairing the damage was always the key to the cure. If right now you feel you can't do it w/o getting angry or stressed, just relax and get to a completely different topic (my original "Relax" advice at the top of the talk still applies – you've got several more days to think things over...) If you feel the topic is too hot for you, well, you've said what you've said here and you are ready to accept the vote outcome, so maybe just ignore the article until the vote is over, and work on the other issues meanwhile... Good luck – I'm off to get some sleep... BACbKA 22:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)[54]

...and many others.

Alberuni's comment on this RfC to Blankfaze

User:Jayjg, the notorious Zionist POV pusher, has been stalking me all over Wikipedia reverting and deleting most of my work because he can't stand to see NPOV edits to pages related to Israel. He is extremely biased, as you well know. Now he is trying to get me banned so he can continue to censor Wikipedia without having to worry about maintaining a NPOV. I'd appreciate your support. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alberuni. Thanks. Alberuni 15:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) [55]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

I am Humus sapiens, certifying the basis for this dispute and can provide more evidence if needed. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I Jayjg certify the basis for this dispute. Jayjg 14:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The summary above is factually correct (though of course not unbiased). It shows that Alberuni needs to cease making personal attacks, refrain from constant accusations, and use the talk pages appropriately. (This does not mean that I support Jayjg's positions, edits, or attitude.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:50, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Quadell's statement above (though I generally agree with Jayjg). It would be a shame for Alberuni to be banned with his knowledge on many things, but his manner of conduct is unacceptable. --Josiah 02:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users agreeing with the above summary

I check Talk:Al Mezan Center for Human Rights to see what's the riot is all about and I understood. User:Jayjg raised a legitimate issue to be discussed, but instead of getting a proper reply, he was verbally attacked by User:Alberuni instead of giving a strsight answer to his questions. After User:Quadell try to meddiate, Alberuni did answered one of Jayge questions but it is lost in a black sea of inflammatory attacks againsst Jayjg. He didn't even give civility or discussion-to-the-point a chance. The article itself, which was created User:Alberuni may be a copy right infringement. MathKnight 18:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I certify the basis of this dispute. I first became aware of the personal attacks made by User:Alberuni on VfD/Occupied Palestinian Territories. On this VfD, Alberuni, rabidly attacked anyone with a different POV and called them names. Alberuni then went on a POV edit war, going so far as to make malicious categorizations. Alberuni's interactions with User:Jayjg have been abusive, and have consisted of nothing but personal attacks. Alberuni seems incapable of recognizing his own bad behavior, and instead, he continues to blame Jayjg. In response to this RfC, and the collective concerns raised about Alberuni's behavior towards Jayjg (and others), Alberuni has issued a threat against Wikipedia: If Jayjg succeeds in his campaign to ultimately ban me from Wikipedia, then this destructive process will only accelerate. I find Alberuni's response highly disturbing. We are not trying to ban Alberuni. We are trying to get him to adhere to Wikiquette, and many users have asked him to be civil. Alberuni refuses to do this, and as one can see, he continues to make threats. --Viriditas 20:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I also certify that the above is correct. In addition to all this, it seems as though another user, HistoryBuffEr, has also appeared and begun posting "Totally Disputed" notices on various Israel-Palestine articles. (It caught my attention when he began doing this on the Holocaust denial examined article. Going over the history of this dispute, I'm suspecting that HistoryBuffEr may actually be a sock puppet of Alberuni. I may be wrong, but they do seem similar in both their intent and their criticism (attacks) on Jayg. --Modemac 20:13, 14 Oct 2004 Update, 10/15/04: My statement that HistoryBuffEr may be a sock puppet of Alberuni may indeed be wrong, but I will stand by my general statement regarding the actions above and HistoryBuffEr's actions. --Modemac 08:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)(UTC)
RK 21:47, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC). I certify that the above descriptions are accurate. I am disturbed by the use of anti-Semitic attacks being made against Alberuni's opponents. He also seems to be working with HistoryBuffEr, as he says the exact same things on the exact same topic. More likely, Alberuni has created HistoryBuffEr as a "sockpuppet", to create a false impression of support. RK 21:47, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
--Josiah 22:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) I also certify that the basis of this dispute is factually accurate. --Josiah 22:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed with the above. As of now, User:Alberuni has been at Wikipedia about ONE MONTH (in this "incarnation"). He "arrived" on 15 Sept 2004, (see his edit summaries at contributions). In the span of a mere four weeks he has written some informative things. BUT, when it gets to the Israel/Zionism/Judaism-Palestine/Arab/Islam issues he instinctively aims to paint Israel and Zionism articles (and any editor he deems associated with them in ways that enrage him) in very negative and destructive POVs. His main focus has been as acting as an apologist for a pro-Arab and pro-Islam extremism POV (but goes ballistic if anyone sees things differently, see his antagonism to Israeli Hasbara deeming it "propaganda"). See his contributions in edit summaries and histories for September 11, 2001 attacks, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaida, Wadih el-Hage, Maktab al-Khadamat, and Osama bin Laden. Also for Black Hawk Down, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Osama bin Laden Fatwa: Text of Fatwa Urging Jihad Against Americans - 1998, Osama tapes, Yaser Esam Hamdi, Islamism, Hamas etc., all major terrorism and terrorist/s topics and escapades that seem to hold his interest, some of which (i.e. the Wikipedia articles) he initiated (as if it were a contest for today's FBI ten most wanted fugitives.) IZAK 04:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ambi 08:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Alburuni's criticism of Israel and Zionism is rather POV, as would be a Zionist's praise of Israel. NPOV is an attempt to tell the truth, not a distorted opinion of the truth. Moreover, this criticism has anti-Semitic overtones. (If I have a POV here, it's a Jewish POV, and, of course, Jews are usually aware of antisemitism.) Rickyrab 19:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Seems clear that at least some of those quotes overstep the bounds. Shane King 04:37, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
I also certify that the above is factually correct, though maybe not presented in an unbiased manner. - Mark Dingemanse (talk) 08:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would like to agree with the above statement. I have only been reading Alburuni's comments for about an hour and am quite surprised with the high level of bias he seems to display. Seems certainly anti-Israel, if not anti-semetic altogether. Oberiko 18:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm trying to steer a neutral course between Pename and Alberuni in the Muhammad article and finding it tough going. Alberuni deletes anything he deems critical of Muhammad with summaries like "Islamophobic Orientalist BS". Name calling and unwillingness to tolerate the existence of viewpoints not his own. Zora 17:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

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 ~~~~):

Alberuni 16:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Xed 22:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've had people (not Jayjg) follow me and revert my edits, too. Very frustrating. --style 05:58, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

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 (sign with ~~~~):

HistoryBuffEr 08:14, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC).
see "Endorsement challenge" in "Discussion" below
—No-One Jones ^(m) 13:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) Maybe not the summary, but the suggested behavior is spot-on.
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.
- One can't really note something which has not happened; I haven't attempted to "interfere" with any process. Jayjg 19:02, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Note: Jayjg suggested that HistoryBuffer's vote be 'disqualified', simply for opposing him. According to Jayjg's logic, anyone who opposes him shouldn't count. He also questioned whether my vote counts. This is typical of his methods. He has also accused me, without providing a shred of evidence, of starting WP:Bias to make a "socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism" to "minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks". This breaks all the rules he has charged Alberuni of breaking, such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and in a much worse way.- Xed 08:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - An unsurpisingly deceptive and false comment. I stated that HisoryBuffEr should disqualify himself, not that he should be "disqualified". In addition, I did not question whether your vote counts, I suggested you should disqualify yourself as well. And this is an RfC about Alberuni, not me. Jayjg 18:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      - The above shows the tragic self-deception that afflicts Jayjg. If he didn't go around suggesting people disqualify themselves maybe he wouldn't cause so much animosity. -- Xed 18:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
Actually, Alberuni should know better than to make major POV controversial changes to existing pages without getting concensus first; failure to do so invites swift reversion from any number of editors who have worked hard to get "high-emotion" pages into a negotiatied NPOV stasis. HistoryBuffEr, the author of the "Outside view", even moreso, since as far as I can tell that is the only kind of change HistoryBuffEr has ever made to a Wikipedia article, aside from listing a series of articles as "totally disputed" without actually raising disputes on the relevant talk pages. Jayjg 05:28, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Excellent, spot-on summary.--style 05:54, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
CheeseDreams 01:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)

Just a short comment on Jihad - Pename has had a RFC filed on himself also. I feel that though Alberuni shouldn't have retaliated, he was being sorely tried by Pename. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Endorsement challenge

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)

Well, I'm involved in none of the disputes with Alberuni, and I fully endorse and agree with this summary. So if you have a problem with it, just pretend I'm the author. blankfaze | (беседа!) 15:55, 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)

You're right. What I should have said was "As HistoryBuffEr has been directly involved in a number of disputes with me, showing the same behaviour as Alberuni and often worse in many cases, he should disqualify himself from having an 'Outside view'" Jayjg 19:02, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, if everyone who has ever disagreed with you and everyone who has ever supported you is not an outsider, then we'd have very few Wikipedians left (and most of those probably have no interest in this RfC.) So, common sense suggests that only those directly involved be fully disqualified (the rest can be challenged for bias). HistoryBuffEr 19:15, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

The issue is not whether they agreed with me or supported me, but whether they have exhibited the exact same behaviour towards me, in contravention of Wikipedia's policies. Not surprisingly, the 3 other Wikipedians who have done so had a great interest in this page, and all should have disqualified themselves. That still leaves several hundred (several thousand?) Wikipedians who are quite qualified to view the facts and make reasonably impartial judgements. Jayjg 19:52, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If your concern is impartiality, how come you are not challenging any of your supporters who were directly involved to disqualify themselves? HistoryBuffEr 20:19, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Which of "my supporters" do you feel were involved in the same disputes with Alberuni and why? Jayjg 20:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm waiting for User:IZAK and User:Lance6Wins to chime in. Alberuni 20:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They were involved in the articles themselves, but how were they involved in our specific conflict? I remind you, the conflict raised here concerns violations of Wikiquette. Were you violating these policies with them as well? Were they complaining about it? Jayjg 21:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vote challenge

This is not [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jayjg]]. This is not the place to debate Jayjg's faults. Alberuni should be judged according to his own conduct. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:50, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, three of the four "outside views" are guilty of the exact same conduct as Alberuni (one to a lesser extent), both off this page and on it, indicating to me a profound misunderstanding of and/or disregard for Wikipedia norms, and the RfC purpose and process. Jayjg 18:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start RfC's against everyone who criticizes your behavior. Alberuni 18:56, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, that would make no sense. I have no issue with people who criticize my behaviour, but I do have an issue with people who violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I also have a strong issue with people who violate Wikipedia:NPOV, but given that those complaining the loudest about it here are also some of its worst violaters, there's hardly a point in raising that issue. Jayjg 19:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quadell, while I agree with the principle, see Requests_for_comment/IZAK (and other RfCs) indicating that it has become common to bring out all sides of dispute in an RfC. HistoryBuffEr 19:05, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Endorse two summaries?

Can a voter endorse two different summaries? Jayjg 22:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, if the voter feels both are accurate. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:13, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword

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)