Jayjg strongly urged to be careful Options

[Tarc]

in regards to his topic ban; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...forcement#Jayjg

Call me crazy, but when the restriction is spelled out as;

"For the purposes of editing restrictions in this case, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as it was defined in the Palestine-Israel articles case, encompassing the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, as well as any edits on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project"

that should pretty definitively cover articles such as "Holocaust denial", "Islam and antisemitism", "Persecution of Jews", and "Unification Church antisemitism controversy". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Calling this a "wrist slap" would even be too strong of a summation; its a finger-waggle, if that.

[Shalom]

Reader strongly urged to ignore this nonsense.

[Cla68]

If it were me, I would have topic banned Jayjg from all Israel and Jewish related articles, because as those diffs in that ArbCom enforcement discussion show, Jayjg is either unable or unwilling to neutrally edit within those topics.

[CharlotteWebb]

Well much of the following is wrong:

Granted, Ahmadinejad isn't Arab, but this is not the place for unnecessary sophistry. Jayjg clearly understands that the Iran-Israel conflict is a subset of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Uh... since when?

Contentious edit to the Persecution of Jews article, section Muslim and Arab antisemitism that makes the Qu'ran appear more bloodthirsty.

This is about the earliest stages of the Muslim conquest of the middle east, in which Muhammed drives some Jewish tribes out of Medina in the 620s AD, which had settled in central Arabia centuries earlier to escape persecution by the Romans, and which would not at that stage of history be considered Israelis/Israelites/etc. by any reasonable person.

In any case the source cited does not support the claim which Jayjg removed, regarding the reason for expelling/killing the Medinan Jews. In fact Walter Laqueur (cited in the next diff) claims it was solely for refusal to accept Islam, while other sources claim it was because some of them tried to poison Muhammed. And no, the article makes no mention of the Qu'ran (as a justification for Medina or in any other context) before or after Jayjg's edit, so I suspect the "bloodthirsty" description was actually meant for the next diff.

More of the same, with an explicitly modern context: "The Muslim holy text defined the Arab and Muslim attitude towards Jews to this day, especially in the periods when Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise. [...] It is really easy to find quotations stating that jihad (holy war) is the sacred duty of every Muslim, that Jews and Christians should be killed, and that this fight should continue until only the Muslim religion is left. Al-Baqara says about the Jews, slay them (the sons of apes and pigs) whenever you catch them."

Certainly a poor edit ("really easy", wtf?). Whether or not this accurately describes some people's interpretation of the Qu'ran it would be a religious viewpoint, not a nationalist one. To accept this as being within the purview of the Israel–Palestine conflict would require taking for granted that the Palestinian Arabs' position regarding the "holy land" is based primarily on Islamic fundamentalism, which as far as I know is not accurate outside of Hamas.

Jayg removes "The church-owned Washington Times newspaper has been accused of having a pro-Israel bias" plus a large number of quotations, including:
[...]
"Lind writes that the most supportive members of Likud in the Republican Party are southern Christian fundamentalists. “The religious right believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidise Jewish settlements in the occupied territories,” says Lind."
[...]

Yes, removing this content does violate Jayjg's edit restriction. In an article about the Moonies. Go figure.

Good job MeteorMaker. You're batting .250 on facts but 1.000 preying on mid-west ignorance of the mid-east.

[Tarc]

Reader strongly urged to ignore this nonsense.

Coming from you, such a comment doesn't really amount to much.

[Heat]

So how long before Jay trips up?

[Saltimbanco]

Well much of the following is wrong:

Granted, Ahmadinejad isn't Arab, but this is not the place for unnecessary sophistry. Jayjg clearly understands that the Iran-Israel conflict is a subset of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Uh... since when?

Since 1978.

Thanks for playing.

[Heat]

Well much of the following is wrong:

Granted, Ahmadinejad isn't Arab, but this is not the place for unnecessary sophistry. Jayjg clearly understands that the Iran-Israel conflict is a subset of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Uh... since when?

Since 1978.

Thanks for playing.

If I may be pedantic, Iranians aren't Arabs.

[Saltimbanco]

If I may be pedantic, Iranians aren't Arabs.

Are Hezbollah Arabs?

[Viridae]

Well much of the following is wrong:

Granted, Ahmadinejad isn't Arab, but this is not the place for unnecessary sophistry. Jayjg clearly understands that the Iran-Israel conflict is a subset of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Uh... since when?

Since 1978.

Thanks for playing.

If I may be pedantic, Iranians aren't Arabs.

Why ever did they change the name from Persia to Iran anyway - Persia is such a beautiful name it reminds me of beautiful art and and lush oases in the desert and other such things whereas Iran conjures images of Soviet era architecture (through sound alone). (this off topic post was prompted by the though that Iranians don't speak Arabic, they speak Persian/Farsi)

[Tarc]

Well much of the following is wrong:

Granted, Ahmadinejad isn't Arab, but this is not the place for unnecessary sophistry. Jayjg clearly understands that the Iran-Israel conflict is a subset of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Uh... since when?

Since 1978.

Thanks for playing.

If I may be pedantic, Iranians aren't Arabs.

And America isn't really a democracy, but when people call it one anyways we know what they mean.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Well much of the following is wrong:

Granted, Ahmadinejad isn't Arab, but this is not the place for unnecessary sophistry. Jayjg clearly understands that the Iran-Israel conflict is a subset of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Uh... since when?

Since 1978.

Thanks for playing.

If I may be pedantic, Iranians aren't Arabs.

It's the ArbCom's fault for being imprecise. Jayjg should have been topic-banned from "Zionism-related issues" and that would have covered all potential areas of disruption.

[GlassBeadGame]

Of course Iran is not a Arab nation. Not even close. But if the phrase "broadly interpreted" carries it's usual meaning (and in Wikipedia, especially ArbCom, you never know) the topic ban should bar his touching any article relating to Iran. Just as he would be barred from editing on US military aid to Israel. Iran is a significant player in the regional conflict between Israel and it's immediate Arab neighbors. Any editing by Jayjg relating to Iran would either be used a coat rack to hang negative material or as credibility building exercise to facilitate the same.

[CharlotteWebb]

It's the ArbCom's fault for being imprecise. Jayjg should have been topic-banned from "Zionism-related issues" and that would have covered all potential areas of disruption.

Well I think the implication here is that the arbcom ruling was actually too precise.

Sure, perhaps they could have just topic-banned him from all conflicts involving the modern State of Israel and any other part of the Middle East As Defined By The Bush Administration (see previous thread), plus all conflicts between Jews and Muslims in any location from 622 AD up to whatever year the real messiah is supposed to arrive... but they didn't.

In my opinion the complainant recognized the tendency of western media and audiences to paint predominantly islamic ethnic groups with the same brush (Berbers, Kurds, Pashtuns, Persians, Punjabis, Turks (?!)... all shades of "Arab" right? Go back to bed, America...) and tried to exploit it.

Highlighted for posterity:

I noticed during the Iraq war that US commentators sometimes found it difficult to distinguish between Islam and the Arabian Middle East, even though most Muslims live well outside that region. And many pundits seemed to falsely assume that Afghanis and Iranians were Arabs. The largest population of Muslims can be found in Indonesia.

-------------------------------------

Iran is a significant player in the regional conflict between Israel and it's immediate Arab neighbors. Any editing by Jayjg relating to Iran would either be used a coat rack to hang negative material or as credibility building exercise to facilitate the same.

Fair points but as far as I know he wasn't doing that. The diff cited was part of a quite surreal discussion about holocaust denial where some user wants to remove the "anti-semitism" category on the basis that "not all holocaust deniers are anti-semitic, for example Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims not to be".

Ahmadinejad has stated that he is not antisemitic and is clearly a holocaust denier. I believe that his "not antisemitic" statement is absurd. However, it's apparently a valid source on Wikipedia's Juan Cole page. I will use that as my source. Jwh335 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to review WP:NOR. Just because Ahmadinejad says he's not antisemitic, it doesn't mean Holocaust denial isn't antisemitic. Please find reliable sources which state "Holocaust denial is not antisemitic". Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Even accepting that Ahmadinejad is inherently part of the Israel–Palestine conflict (allegedly desiring to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth"), and that for these reasons maybe Jayjg shouldn't mention his name at all, you have to admit the other user did rather bait him into that tangent.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[trenton]

There's nothing in Jayjg's editing that says he shouldn't be allowed to edit Iraq-Israel disputes, but is perfectly fine in editing Iran-Israel disputes.

"Broadly defined" indeed. Apparently if you're well connected it means "very narrowly defined". Imagine what would have happened if someone less connected and on the "other side" had made the edits that Jayjg made. Would Jpgordan favor a careful, narrow reading of the arbcom decision, or would he call the editor a wikilawyer, tell him to shut up and get back to work before he gets banned? Hypocritical, jackass.

Avi is a rather interesting character. His little trick is to show up at discussions, pretend to be an uninvolved editor, but somehow, always support Jayjg. You'd think the wikipediots would wise up to his little act after the back-watching email, but I guess not. At least it's a little better than before when he was eager to "mentor" Jayjg's enemies without revealing his "back watching" activities.

[Appleby]

We do have to remember that there's two sides to everything. If it weren't for all the people with opposite POVs, the Jayjg machine wouldn't need to exist.

[Milton Roe]

Well much of the following is wrong:

Granted, Ahmadinejad isn't Arab, but this is not the place for unnecessary sophistry. Jayjg clearly understands that the Iran-Israel conflict is a subset of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Uh... since when?

Since 1978.

Thanks for playing.

If I may be pedantic, Iranians aren't Arabs.

And America isn't really a democracy, but when people call it one anyways we know what they mean.

America is a democracy by all standard definitions of the word. Republics (representative democracies) are a subset of democracies. In fact they represent all modern democracies at the national level-- there being no good way to have direct all-voter direct decissions on most topics in any nation.

[Appleby]

America is a democracy by all standard definitions of the word. Republics (representative democracies) are a subset of democracies.

That's not right. A republic means that the head of state is not a monarch. Many non-republics, including the United Kingdom, are democracies. Many republics are not democracies.

[Son of a Yeti]

I see not much has changed when I was absent (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[Saltimbanco]

We do have to remember that there's two sides to everything. If it weren't for all the people with opposite POVs, the Jayjg machine wouldn't need to exist.

That's a bit like saying that if there weren't so many legitimate doctors, there'd be no need for snake oil salesmen.