New Israel/Palestine ArbCom case, Jayjg is one of the parties? No way! Options Rating

[Cla68]

It appears that this request for arbitration concerning the use of POV geographical terms for disputed territory in the Israel/Palestine area will be accepted. If G-Dett's statement is correct, and I believe that it is, I think she'll be making a strong case in her evidence section that at least some of the pro-Israel POV-pushers are acting in bad faith. It appears to me that the pro-Israel editors will try to focus on labeling MeteorMaker as the Bozo.

If G-Dett makes her case, and I believe she will, I hope that ArbCom will put their foot down and hand out some topic bans, if not more severe sanctions if necessary. Although I'm sure that not all of the pro-Palestinian editors are blameless, the continuous, arrogant POV pushing by the pro-Israel editors, including one in particular who is still enjoys high-level admin privileges for some reason, is greatly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility and I hope something finally gets done about it.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Very interesting. Typically, Jayjg has not yet deigned to respond. FT2's comments seem remarkably sane, but he may yet warm to the subject.

[Milton Roe]

It appears that this request for arbitration concerning the use of POV geographical terms for disputed territory in the Israel/Palestine area will be accepted. If G-Dett's statement is correct, and I believe that it is, I think she'll be making a strong case in her evidence section that at least some of the pro-Israel POV-pushers are acting in bad faith. It appears to me that the pro-Israel editors will try to focus on labeling MeteorMaker as the Bozo.

If G-Dett makes her case, and I believe she will, I hope that ArbCom will put their foot down and hand out some topic bans, if not more severe sanctions if necessary. Although I'm sure that not all of the pro-Palestinian editors are blameless, the continuous, arrogant POV pushing by the pro-Israel editors, including one in particular who is still enjoys high-level admin privileges for some reason, is greatly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility and I hope something finally gets done about it.

The very idea of a topic-ban on Jayjg on Middle-East political matters boggles the mind. Is there anything else he knows about? Can one imagine him writing about a tenth of the subjects that encyclopedists like Neutrality or EveryKing or even Charles Matthews have handled? I think the following would happen to him:

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)

There would be nothing left but ash.

[Cla68]

It appears that this request for arbitration concerning the use of POV geographical terms for disputed territory in the Israel/Palestine area will be accepted. If G-Dett's statement is correct, and I believe that it is, I think she'll be making a strong case in her evidence section that at least some of the pro-Israel POV-pushers are acting in bad faith. It appears to me that the pro-Israel editors will try to focus on labeling MeteorMaker as the Bozo.

If G-Dett makes her case, and I believe she will, I hope that ArbCom will put their foot down and hand out some topic bans, if not more severe sanctions if necessary. Although I'm sure that not all of the pro-Palestinian editors are blameless, the continuous, arrogant POV pushing by the pro-Israel editors, including one in particular who is still enjoys high-level admin privileges for some reason, is greatly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility and I hope something finally gets done about it.

The very idea of a topic-ban on Jayjg on Middle-East political matters boggles the mind. Is there anything else he knows about? Can one imagine him writing about a tenth of the subjects that encyclopedists like Neutrality or EveryKing or even Charles Matthews have handled? I think the following would happen to him:

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)

There would be nothing left but ash.

I doubt that anyone who edits Wikipedia is completely free of bias, including me, but those that knowingly pursue an agenda, especially admins, I believe should be kicked out of their areas of interest as soon as their agendas are discovered, and that includes participation in the article talk pages. I can't think of anything more insidious than Wikipedia admins pushing POV, i.e. using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes, especially admins with checkuser and oversight privileges.

In the past, ArbCom hasn't done very well at dealing with POV-pushing "established" editors or admins. Remember the first Rawat case where the committee praised Jossi for his "use of restraint"? Good grief. Hopefully, times have changed.

A hopeful sign that things have changed is the recent ScienceApologist (SA) case. I understand that some here support SA's efforts to keep fringe-science advocates from pushing their pet theories in Wikipedia. I, however, thought that he should have been more willing to compromise. The Committee apparently felt the same way.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[gomi]

Jayjg's M.O., which I believe he will use in this case, is to go radio-silent, refusing to comment on or provide "evidence" in the RFAR, while furiously lobbying behind the scenes, through the ArbCom mailing list and other channels.

I think the odds of Jayjg being topic-banned, despite his obvious partisan position on the subject, are slim and none. Or should I say, SlimVirgin and none. It would not surprise me if Slim weighs in to carry water for J.

Jay's meatpuppets, notably IronDuke (T-C-L-K-R-D) will, as usual, proxy for him, both in the RFAR and on articles.

[Deacon]

I look very much forward to seeing how this case progresses. Does anyone known btw why NYB and FayssalF recused?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I doubt that anyone who edits Wikipedia is completely free of bias, including me, but those that knowingly pursue an agenda, especially admins, I believe should be kicked out of their areas of interest as soon as their agendas are discovered, and that includes participation in the article talk pages. I can't think of anything more insidious than Wikipedia admins pushing POV, i.e. using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes, especially admins with checkuser and oversight privileges.

Me neither.

[the fieryangel]

I don't know why anybody bothers to even follow these arbcom cases. Nothing will change over there, ever.

[Dzonatas]

*me adds reply about the conflict of ArbCom case on Palestine-Israel conflict and the Wikipedia Hasbara Fellowship*

[LamontStormstar]

I remember people speculated Jayjg has now been socking instead of just using meatpuppets. Are any socks of him known yet?

[Dzonatas]

I think it is hard to dismiss the fact that Israel has taken more control of the West Bank. The Likud party has even stated that it intend not to allow Arabs into the seized West Bank settlements. Some pro-Israel wikipedians might have attempted to preemptively call those West Bank areas in such a Israel-specific manner.

Those who are against the Likud movement choice of words most likely are being called "anti-semitic," since the pro-Israel group will argue about self-determination. The name-calling is probably much worse than that and undoubtedly for much more vague reasons.

There is much news about the Gaza war being taken online. In such shadow of events, it also cannot be easily dismissed that those Wikipedia pages about the West Bank are part of the conflict being taken online.

As pointed out in an earlier thread, Hasbara is less about the truth and is more out to win public opinion. A preemptive tactic could be seen as complicit with WP:V if it has public support -- even if sources state the truth otherwise. That probability of complicity is high unless WP:V is rewritten to be more distinct.

Whatever decision made about this case is going to reverberate and be a re-beaten path for time to come, as some earlier cases have shown to exist. Given the current adminship and how they are strongly corner-stoned on the current version of WP:V, these wikipedians will try to say they are uninvolved but in reality they are very well involved even if they aren't pro-Israel, as there is unacknowledged shared ideology in the shades of WP:V.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas:

[Milton Roe]

Those who are against the Likud movement choice of words most likely are being called "anti-semitic," since the pro-Israel group will argue about self-determination. The name-calling is probably much worse than that and undoubtedly for much more vague reasons.

Curious about whether or not within Israel, are the various parties in the heat of disagreement about policy always accusing each other of being anti-semitic and being self-hating Jews? Or is this just an American thing?

[Dzonatas]

Curious about whether or not within Israel, are the various parties in the heat of disagreement about policy always accusing each other of being anti-semitic and being self-hating Jews? Or is this just an American thing?

In disagreement with each other where it is not seen as anti-semitic then the term "anti-Zionist" has been used. It is against Israeli law to be anti-semitic. Such law makes those that aren't 100% pro-Israel to be labeled as anti-semitic, so you can guess that there is a peer pressure, by the existence of such law, to never be caught not being pro-Israel (criminally). To avoid being seen as a criminal, it may lead some to accuse others as being anti-semitic by any means in order to show they follow the law. The U.S. Constitution's Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion is often not respected by those that hold that Israeli law above US law, but that disrespect is aimed at individuals. Such individuals that are American have no such peer pressure since there is no equivalent US law, but under accusation these Americans find out what it means when other Americans have said, "they hate us for our Freedoms."

[CharlotteWebb]

I look very much forward to seeing how this case progresses. Does anyone known btw why NYB and FayssalF recused?

For opposite reasons, if that makes any sense.
Integrity and self-awareness are the common thread.

[Deacon]

I look very much forward to seeing how this case progresses. Does anyone known btw why NYB and FayssalF recused?

For opposite reasons, if that makes any sense.
Integrity and self-awareness are the common thread.

That's what I thought. Good on them, that's very respectable.

[Dzonatas]

From the Likud Party's charter:

Most notably, in regards to the ArbCom case:

Settlements

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

And more:

Self-Rule

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.

And more:

Declaration of a State

A unilateral Palestinian declaration of the establishment of a Palestinian state will constitute a fundamental and substantive violation of the agreements with the State of Israel and the scuttling of the Oslo and Wye accords. The government will adopt immediate stringent measures in the event of such a declaration.

Read more:
http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

This post has been edited by Dzonatas:

[Cla68]

Just as I thought would happen, G-Dett and others are taking Jayjg and the other pro-Israel POV pushers to the cleaners. So much so, that one of them has exited the debate.

Unless Jayjg and his buddies can come up with some credible defense, I expect to see him and at least one or two others getting some topic bans.

[Proabivouac]

I'd given this some thought over the past few days.

First, I see no problem with using the term "Palestine" to mean the area which includes Israel as well as the West Bank and Gaza - it's the only term we have. The notion floated in Arbitration, that to use "Palestine" to include Israel would be unacceptably biased, is a straw man.

The West Bank is the current standard term for the entirety of the territories between Israel and Jordan; to replace it with "Judea and Samaria" is indeed reminiscent of settler rhetoric.

However, the use of Judea and Samaria on their own to designate (respectively) subregions of the West Bank is no more biased than the use of "Palestine" to mean the whole region. Something like "the northern West Bank region of Samaria" is descriptive and informative.

Characterizing them as "biblical terms", as has been uncritically accepted here, is wildly wrong. These are Latin toponyms - none of the Bible was written in Latin - used during the Roman Empire long after the books of the Tanakh (in which the Romans didn't believe anyhow) were written. Judea was the name of a Roman province before it was merged with what is now Gaza and changed to Syria Palaestina after the suppression of the Jewish revolt. Even in Hebrew, where their forms are quite different, they had no sacred connotation, but were associated with the ethnic groups which lived there (and whose descendants still do.)

Weren't these terms in use as recently as the British mandate? Are there Arabic terms for these subregions besides calques of "Northern/Southern West Bank?" Has anyone bothered to find out?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[EricBarbour]

I don't know why anybody bothers to even follow these arbcom cases. Nothing will change over there, ever.

Agreed. Jayjg has too much support. Too much rot inside.

Jay could call the sun "Moon" if he desired, and get someone to make it stick.

[LamontStormstar]

Jayjg did WTC.

PS: This is not about any group, this is just about Jayjg.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar:

[Tarc]

I don't know why anybody bothers to even follow these arbcom cases. Nothing will change over there, ever.

At most it gets rid of Jay's little sock monkeys that get called on to do the real brunt of the dirty work, many of which have already fallen away, such as Urthogie, Zeq, and Humus sapiens. Hopefully this case will notch a few more.

Sooner or later, the King will have no Subjects.

[gomi]

I'd given this some thought over the past few days.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

At last! Peace in our time!

[Cla68]

Ouch.

By the way, it looks like Jaakobou has been designated as the goon for this case.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[EricBarbour]

Amazing, simply beyond belief.

G-Dett must have some kind of supernatural Jew-proof flame barrier.
Perhaps she's got an overcoat made of pork chops?

And just who the hell is Nickhh (T-C-L-K-R-D) ? He spends a lot of time
complaining about edit warring (when he isn't making threats anyway).
Look at his contributions page for some real fun. He likes to get into it
with Jaakobou, IronDuke and Elonka.
And he's been accused of being a "Hezbollah operative"....

[It's the blimp, Frank]

G-Dett must have some kind of supernatural Jew-proof flame barrier.
Perhaps she's got an overcoat made of pork chops?

There is no evidence that any of these characters is Jewish. We can reliably conclude from their opinions that they are Zionists, and there is no known Zionist repellent except perhaps the Torah.

[Milton Roe]

G-Dett must have some kind of supernatural Jew-proof flame barrier.
Perhaps she's got an overcoat made of pork chops?

There is no evidence that any of these characters is Jewish. We can reliably conclude from their opinions that they are Zionists, and there is no known Zionist repellent except perhaps the Torah.

Somebody inform Likud, in that case. I suspect it may come as a shock to some of them. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Many of the early Zionists were of the leftist-vaguely-atheistic Jewish sort, ala Einstein. But Irsael has its share of the "G-d Gave Us The Land, And Here's His Title Deed With Glowing Signature If You Don't Believe It" types. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

Okay, leave out the glowing signature. Provinance of "deed" is in question. God's Office was contacted for this segment, but has not returned calls in time for our deadline. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

[Tarc]

And he's been accused of being a "Hezbollah operative"....

Well, hell, being accused of terrorist complicity is just a rite of passage for some of us.

[Rhindle]

G-dett appears to be a front runner for next year's "Cojones de latón" award.

[Doc glasgow]

Wikipedia has a Zionist/Israeli bias controlled by a Zionist Israeli clique? Is this news?

Biased articles are ten a penny here. Take, for instance Sabeel, a liberal Christian group of liberation theologians pledged to stand with Arab Christians for non-violent Justice in Palestine and Israel, and opposed to Zionism (whether Jewish or Christian). The article is a hatchet job, stringing together negative comments from a bunch of Zionists, many of them utterly ill-informed or unnotable.

And who'd want to be a Messianic Jewish Wikipedian? That article might as well be redirected to [[evil]].

Ot take this

"Jerusalem is the capital[iii] of Israel and its largest city[2] in both population and area,[3] with a population of 747,600 residents over an area of 125.1 square kilometres (48.3 sq mi) if disputed East Jerusalem is included."

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? I mean not according to the UN, or most Western states, but let's not mention that until paragraph nine. "Disputed East Jerusalem"? - you mean illegally occupied territory? This designation is disputed ONLY by Israel, but let's not mention that.

"In the wake of United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 (passed in 1980), most foreign embassies moved out of Jerusalem, although some countries, such as the United States, still own land in the city and pledge to return their embassies once political agreements warrant the move.[16]"

Why is the "although" justified? Of course, if there is a solution and an agreement about capitals then other nations will recognise it. It does not take away from 478.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Wikipedia has a Zionist/Israeli bias controlled by a Zionist Israeli clique? Is this news?

Nope. The clique, which includes a former member of the arbcom with checkuser powers etc., has heretofore been unassailable. What is newsworthy is that the clique is apparently now being assailed.

G-dett appears to be a front runner for next year's "Cojones de latón" award.

Absolutely.

[Dzonatas]

There is no evidence that any of these characters is Jewish. We can reliably conclude from their opinions that they are Zionists, and there is no known Zionist repellent except perhaps the Torah.

... Many of the early Zionists were of the leftist-vaguely-atheistic Jewish sort, ala Einstein. ...

Early Zionists were secular, but Jewish Zionist adopted a strong religious position... Torah vs. Talmud... so people didn't choose to be leftist in the event.

A reminder about secular Zionist:
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Zionism

And he's been accused of being a "Hezbollah operative"....

EU has taken Hezbollah off their "terrorist" list in the last few days. Pro-Israel groups are in a uproar over it and further claimed the Brits have been taken over by Islamic extremist.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas:

[Cla68]

Jayjg has presented some evidence, responded to on the talk page. He also seems to have gotten some more help in trying to label MeteorMaker as the bozo, as I predicted would happen.

[EuroSceptic]

Jayjg has presented some evidence, responded to on the talk page. He also seems to have gotten some more help in trying to label MeteorMaker as the bozo, as I predicted would happen.

I would call JayJG's "evidence" more framing, and trying to save his sorry ass. I think nothing will stand when people have dismantled it.

[Cla68]

Jayjg has presented some evidence, responded to on the talk page. He also seems to have gotten some more help in trying to label MeteorMaker as the bozo, as I predicted would happen.

I would call JayJG's "evidence" more framing, and trying to save his sorry ass. I think nothing will stand when people have dismantled it.

And they are effectively dismantling it.

[Milton Roe]

Jayjg has presented some evidence, responded to on the talk page. He also seems to have gotten some more help in trying to label MeteorMaker as the bozo, as I predicted would happen.

I would call JayJG's "evidence" more framing, and trying to save his sorry ass. I think nothing will stand when people have dismantled it.

And they are effectively dismantling it.

I like it. We don't call it the Battle of Volgograd, do we? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Not a difficult point to understand.

[EricBarbour]

That's typical Jay. He waits till the first storm blows over, then hammers his
opponent with a mountain of half-assed "evidence". In this case, all the small
edits to articles, changing "Judea and Samaria" to "West Bank".

Plus support from his usual butt-snorkels. JoshuaZ, as usual, spews ad-hominem
arguments that mean little or nothing.

Meteor disregarded the statement and asked Elonka to verify whether the original English article included the text Jayjg has just told him was not included.[389]. This behavior shows an incredible lack of good faith on Meteor's part in apparently assuming that when in doubt Jayjg had lied about the source's content.

Of course the bastard lied. He's done it before.

It's a little different this time, they're not getting the usual automatic approvals
and the usual falling-to-the-knees obeisance.

Can't remember that last RFA that had so much, um, filler.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I couldn't help but think of Wikipedia today when I read the letter of resignation by Chas Freeman, a highly intelligent and capable public servant who quit rather than face endless slander by the Neocons and the Likudniks. He was appointed, and confirmed, to be the head of the National Intelligence Council.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors. (Reliable Source)

Sound familiar?

And this humorous comment brings to mind some of the better people who have bailed from Wikipedia:

When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.”

[Cla68]

I couldn't help but think of Wikipedia today when I read the letter of resignation by Chas Freeman, a highly intelligent and capable public servant who quit rather than face endless slander by the Neocons and the Likudniks. He was appointed, and confirmed, to be the head of the National Intelligence Council.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors. (Reliable Source)

Sound familiar?

And this humorous comment brings to mind some of the better people who have bailed from Wikipedia:

When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.”

I just added that Freeman quote to the Israel Lobby article. I'm interested in seeing how long it stays. After adding the quote, I checked the article's history and saw that Jayjg had edited it within the past month.

[Milton Roe]

I couldn't help but think of Wikipedia today when I read the letter of resignation by Chas Freeman, a highly intelligent and capable public servant who quit rather than face endless slander by the Neocons and the Likudniks. He was appointed, and confirmed, to be the head of the National Intelligence Council.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors. (Reliable Source)

Sound familiar?

Yeah, sounds like vintage Milton Roe. I think I've been labeled as an anti-Semite for it. But as has been pointed out, that's just a right of passage for political truth-sayers in America.

Now where's my photo of Obama in a kippah?

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/obamarmulke.gif)

[Rhindle]

This looks pretty damning.

[Cla68]

This looks pretty damning.

Mackan really outdid himself with that evidence section. It looks to me like CJCurrie should weigh in with his own experiences dealing with Jayjg.

By the way, it lasted about three hours.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

By the way, it lasted about three hours.

Don't give up just yet. If there's one Reliable Sourceâ„¢ that will make Wikipediots prostrate themselves in in a attitude of abject propitiation, it's the Wall Street Journal.

[Cla68]

By the way, it lasted about three hours.

Don't give up just yet. If there's one Reliable Sourceâ„¢ that will make Wikipediots prostrate themselves in in a attitude of abject propitiation, it's the Wall Street Journal.

I already readded it using the WSJ source. It was the second item in the Google search after I noticed the revert, took me all of about 1 minute to replace it in the article.

My question is, why didn't GHCool try to find a better source for the quote rather than just revert it? Another thing, since the quote was from an open letter by Freeman, the source doesn't matter, because the letter is verifiable in and of itself. I used a political blog as a source for an open letter by a whistleblower in an article, and it was accepted at the FA forum because the letter itself was really the source, not the blog. So, GHCool was not being very helpful in his actions. Why?

[Lar]

My question is, why didn't GHCool try to find a better source for the quote rather than just revert it? Another thing, since the quote was from an open letter by Freeman, the source doesn't matter, because the letter is verifiable in and of itself. I used a political blog as a source for an open letter by a whistleblower in an article, and it was accepted at the FA forum because the letter itself was really the source, not the blog. So, GHCool was not being very helpful in his actions. Why?

Completely unrelatedly...

User:GHCool makes interesting reading. As do the user's contributions, and this page User:GHcool/Views. I'd also point you to this edit for another example of quote removal. There is a discussion on the talk page: Talk:Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Long_blockquotes_in_references that may have some bearing as well.

[Cla68]

My question is, why didn't GHCool try to find a better source for the quote rather than just revert it? Another thing, since the quote was from an open letter by Freeman, the source doesn't matter, because the letter is verifiable in and of itself. I used a political blog as a source for an open letter by a whistleblower in an article, and it was accepted at the FA forum because the letter itself was really the source, not the blog. So, GHCool was not being very helpful in his actions. Why?

Completely unrelatedly...

User:GHCool makes interesting reading. As do the user's contributions, and this page User:GHcool/Views. I'd also point you to this edit for another example of quote removal. There is a discussion on the talk page: Talk:Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Long_blockquotes_in_references that may have some bearing as well.

Actually, I agree with his removing that long block quote. It was too long. Although, on second thought, it might have been more helpful if he had tried to shorten it instead of removing it altogether.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Milton Roe]

By the way, it lasted about three hours.

Don't give up just yet. If there's one Reliable Sourceâ„¢ that will make Wikipediots prostrate themselves in in a attitude of abject propitiation, it's the Wall Street Journal.

I already readded it using the WSJ source. It was the second item in the Google search after I noticed the revert, took me all of about 1 minute to replace it in the article.

My question is, why didn't GHCool try to find a better source for the quote rather than just revert it? Another thing, since the quote was from an open letter by Freeman, the source doesn't matter, because the letter is verifiable in and of itself. I used a political blog as a source for an open letter by a whistleblower in an article, and it was accepted at the FA forum because the letter itself was really the source, not the blog. So, GHCool was not being very helpful in his actions. Why?

Why? Umm, if you don't want to do a thing, or want to do a thing, one reason's as good as another. Is why.

GHcool's an Ashkenazi Jew living in LA and a member of Wikiproject Israel, according to his userpage. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) He's going to be about as able to have a dispassionate political viewpoint on the subject of the Israel lobby as our friend Klein/Jeruselem21.

GHcool's Kabbal Kount is 20. Which is getting up there (though I expected better, given his background).

Articles edited by SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Jpgordon, and GHcool:

#1 Zionist_political_violence - edited by 4 of 4 users
#2 Zionism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#3 Yasser_Arafat - edited by 4 of 4 users
#4 September_11_attacks - edited by 4 of 4 users
#5 Self-hating_Jew - edited by 4 of 4 users
#6 Palestinian_refugee - edited by 4 of 4 users
#7 Palestinian_people - edited by 4 of 4 users
#8 Norman_Finkelstein - edited by 4 of 4 users
#9 Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni - edited by 4 of 4 users
#10 Jerusalem - edited by 4 of 4 users
#11 Israel,_Palestinians,_and_the_United_Nations - edited by 4 of 4 users
#12 Israel - edited by 4 of 4 users
#13 Holocaust_denial - edited by 4 of 4 users
#14 Hamas - edited by 4 of 4 users
#15 David_Irving - edited by 4 of 4 users
#16 David_Duke - edited by 4 of 4 users
#17 Benny_Morris - edited by 4 of 4 users
#18 Arab–Israeli_conflict - edited by 4 of 4 users
#19 Antisemitism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#20 Anti-Zionism - edited by 4 of 4 users

If we leave Jpgordon off, we get an impressive 58 articles. Pretty much a smorgasbord of Israeli lobby topics.

#1 Zionist_political_violence - edited by 3 of 3 users
#2 Zionism - edited by 3 of 3 users
#3 Yom_Kippur_War - edited by 3 of 3 users
#4 Yasser_Arafat - edited by 3 of 3 users
#5 Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy - edited by 3 of 3 users
#6 United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242 - edited by 3 of 3 users
#7 The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy - edited by 3 of 3 users
#8 Syria - edited by 3 of 3 users
#9 Suha_Arafat - edited by 3 of 3 users
#10 Steven_Emerson - edited by 3 of 3 users
#11 Six-Day_War - edited by 3 of 3 users
#12 September_11_attacks - edited by 3 of 3 users
#13 Self-hating_Jew - edited by 3 of 3 users
#14 Pallywood - edited by 3 of 3 users
#15 Palestinian_refugee - edited by 3 of 3 users
#16 Palestinian_political_violence - edited by 3 of 3 users
#17 Palestinian_people - edited by 3 of 3 users
#18 Palestine_Peace_Not_Apartheid - edited by 3 of 3 users
#19 Palestine_Liberation_Organization - edited by 3 of 3 users
#20 Norman_Finkelstein - edited by 3 of 3 users
#21 Monotheism - edited by 3 of 3 users
#22 Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni - edited by 3 of 3 users
#23 Mitchell_Bard - edited by 3 of 3 users
#24 Military_and_economic_aid_in_the_2006_Lebanon_War - edited by 3 of 3 users
#25 Media_coverage_of_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict - edited by 3 of 3 users
#26 Mary_Phagan_and_Leo_Frank - edited by 3 of 3 users
#27 Jimmy_Carter - edited by 3 of 3 users
#28 Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands - edited by 3 of 3 users
#29 Jerusalem - edited by 3 of 3 users
#30 Israeli_settlement - edited by 3 of 3 users
#31 Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States - edited by 3 of 3 users
#32 Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy - edited by 3 of 3 users
#33 Israel,_Palestinians,_and_the_United_Nations - edited by 3 of 3 users
#34 Israel - edited by 3 of 3 users
#35 Islamophobia - edited by 3 of 3 users
#36 Islamic_terrorism - edited by 3 of 3 users
#37 Islam_and_antisemitism - edited by 3 of 3 users
#38 International_Conference_to_Review_the_Global_Vision_of_the_Holocaust - edited by 3 of 3 users
#39 Ilan_Pappé - edited by 3 of 3 users
#40 HonestReporting - edited by 3 of 3 users
#41 Holocaust_denial - edited by 3 of 3 users
#42 Hezbollah - edited by 3 of 3 users
#43 Hamas - edited by 3 of 3 users
#44 Edward_Said - edited by 3 of 3 users
#45 Declaration_of_Independence_(Israel) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#46 David_Irving - edited by 3 of 3 users
#47 David_Duke - edited by 3 of 3 users
#48 Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky - edited by 3 of 3 users
#49 Bernard_Lewis - edited by 3 of 3 users
#50 Benny_Morris - edited by 3 of 3 users
#51 Arab–Israeli_conflict - edited by 3 of 3 users
#52 Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world - edited by 3 of 3 users
#53 Antisemitism - edited by 3 of 3 users
#54 Anti-Zionism - edited by 3 of 3 users
#55 Animal_rights_and_the_Holocaust - edited by 3 of 3 users
#56 Akbar_Hashemi_Rafsanjani - edited by 3 of 3 users
#57 1994_AMIA_bombing - edited by 3 of 3 users
#58 1948_Arab–Israeli_War - edited by 3 of 3 users

My question is, why didn't GHCool try to find a better source for the quote rather than just revert it? Another thing, since the quote was from an open letter by Freeman, the source doesn't matter, because the letter is verifiable in and of itself. I used a political blog as a source for an open letter by a whistleblower in an article, and it was accepted at the FA forum because the letter itself was really the source, not the blog. So, GHCool was not being very helpful in his actions. Why?

Completely unrelatedly...

User:GHCool makes interesting reading. As do the user's contributions, and this page User:GHcool/Views. I'd also point you to this edit for another example of quote removal. There is a discussion on the talk page: Talk:Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Long_blockquotes_in_references that may have some bearing as well.

"Completely unrelatedly... " (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Cla68]

Why? Umm, if you don't want to do a thing, or want to do a thing, one reason's as good as another. Is why.

GHcool's an Ashkenazi Jew living in LA and a member of Wikiproject Israel, according to his userpage. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) He's going to be about as able to have a dispassionate political viewpoint on the subject of the Israel lobby as our friend Klein/Jeruselem21.

"Completely unrelatedly... " (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

That's good analysis. Bringing this back around to how this relates to this case, it seems that many, if not most, of the active Israeli history editors believe that POV editing is fine. IronDuke, who appears to be one of them, here and here seems to advocate POV editing as a good approach. He appeared taken aback when I reminded him that Wikipedia expects its editors to edit in a way that it appears that they're not taking a side. Perhaps some of the "pro-Palestinian" editors are just as bad, but so far, in this case, they're not looking half as mendacious and deceitful as Jayjg and his friends.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

IronDuke, who appears to be one of them, here and here seems to advocate POV editing as a good approach.

ID is also a big booster of the practice of using Wikipedia as a megaphone for defamation.

[Milton Roe]

Why? Umm, if you don't want to do a thing, or want to do a thing, one reason's as good as another. Is why.

GHcool's an Ashkenazi Jew living in LA and a member of Wikiproject Israel, according to his userpage. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) He's going to be about as able to have a dispassionate political viewpoint on the subject of the Israel lobby as our friend Klein/Jeruselem21.

"Completely unrelatedly... " (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

That's good analysis. Bringing this back around to how this relates to this case, it seems that many, if not most, of the active Israeli history editors believe that POV editing is fine. IronDuke, who appears to be one of them, here and here seems to advocate POV editing as a good approach. He appeared taken aback when I reminded him that Wikipedia expects its editors to edit in a way that it appears that they're not taking a side. Perhaps some of the "pro-Palestinian" editors are just as bad, but so far, in this case, they're not looking half as mendacious and deceitful as Jayjg and his friends.

Sometimes non-POV editing is just about impossible. But there's a way around that, too. The disallowed "POV fork" only happens when a WP article doesn't reference and do a summary somewhere of the anti-view. But that's not hard to fix. Example: WP has an article on Medical Abortion, but it also has articles on Abortion debate and one each for Pro-life and Pro-choice. People of both stripes are allowed to go and put their best arguments there, and each side leaves the other more-or-less alone to do so. The same could happen in Middle East politics (and to some extend has, of course) but many of the zealots on both sides absolutely cannot stand to do it completely.

The weird thing about WP is that many "bias" problems have been solved already, in the way we do it with the formal advocate/trial/political system (where bias is acknowledged, taken for granted, and we simply move on to give everybody a say). When it comes to politics and religion (and the Middle heat is a hotbed of both, of course), WP breaks down under deletionists who really can't allow that.

[Cla68]

Sometimes non-POV editing is just about impossible. But there's a way around that, too. The disallowed "POV fork" only happens when a WP article doesn't reference and do a summary somewhere of the anti-view. But that's not hard to fix. Example: WP has an article on Medical Abortion, but it also has articles on Abortion debate and one each for Pro-life and Pro-choice. People of both stripes are allowed to go and put their best arguments there, and each side leaves the other more-or-less alone to do so. The same could happen in Middle East politics (and to some extend has, of course) but many of the zealots on both sides absolutely cannot stand to do it completely.

The weird thing about WP is that many "bias" problems have been solved already, in the way we do it with the formal advocate/trial/political system (where bias is acknowledged, taken for granted, and we simply move on to give everybody a say). When it comes to politics and religion (and the Middle heat is a hotbed of both, of course), WP breaks down under deletionists who really can't allow that.

I remember on the talk page for the "Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" article some editors were arguing over the true casualty count and trying to discredit each other's sources. I suggested that they just give all the opinions- (this person) says this many were killed, but (this person) says this many were killed. If I remember right, they ignored me and kept arguing. I guess they didn't want an NPOV presentation, they wanted their own POV to win.

[Mackan]

That's good analysis.

It may be petty, but I'll always respect GHcool for his comment here.

Does the quote belong in the article? I don't know, my feeling is that Wikipedia tends to overuse these types of quotations. "Did he just say that! Let's add it to an article." Not that it's clear cut, of course.

[Cla68]

That's good analysis.

It may be petty, but I'll always respect GHcool for his comment here.

Does the quote belong in the article? I don't know, my feeling is that Wikipedia tends to overuse these types of quotations. "Did he just say that! Let's add it to an article." Not that it's clear cut, of course.

I thought it was an appropriate quote, because it appeared to summarize the views of those critical of that lobby and was given by a notable mover and shaker in Washington politics. GHCool subsequently added a rebuttal from a Washington Post editorial. I'm a long time reader of the Post and like and respect it a lot (I like the Washington Times also). I think the Post took Freeman to task was because his criticism of the Israel Lobby was also an indirect attack on Obama for not standing up to that lobby. The Post's editorial staff couldn't let that go unchallenged because they really like Obama.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I think the Post took Freeman to task was because his criticism of the Israel Lobby was also an indirect attack on Obama for not standing up to that lobby. The Post's editorial staff couldn't let that go unchallenged because they really like Obama.

I beg to differ. I think the Post took Freeman to task because they hate what he stands for. Katherine Graham's daughter, Lally Weymouth, has a long time association with the Israeli Right.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I just added that Freeman quote to the Israel Lobby article. I'm interested in seeing how long it stays.

Here is an editorial from the L.A. Times which discusses the question of the "Israel Lobby."

[Milton Roe]

I just added that Freeman quote to the Israel Lobby article. I'm interested in seeing how long it stays.

Here is an editorial from the L.A. Times which discusses the question of the "Israel Lobby."

Which contains this daring quote:

Our opinion is this: Israel is America's friend and ally. It deserves to exist safely within secure borders. We hope it will continue to prosper as a refuge for Jews and a vibrant democracy in the region (alongside an equally democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza). But we do not believe that Israel should be immune from criticism or that there is room for only one point of view in our government.

All that is fine so far as it goes. But the real question is why all US candidates for president are now required, on pain of being opposed to the point of loss, to pledge their undying support for the "existence" of Israel, including all but promising to help Israel attack threatening countries, and continuing US monetary support for Israel. Israel is a county with several hundred nuclear weapons, a fact that I never heard once in the presidential debates. It can take care of itself, and should start doing so. If it wants to blow up a reactor in Iran (for example), it should go ahead and do it, as it did with the one in Iraq in 1981, which the US finished off in 1991. If it can't do it without US help, perhaps it shouldn't do it at all. It's time that Israel, if it wants to be a grown-up country, should support itself fully.

You want a metaphor for modern Israel? It's the nice Jewish boy who stays on and on in mom's appartment in NYC, because it's cheap. He's got a nice car in the basement. He makes money with various part time jobs. But he's too cheap to move out, and expects her to cook and provide unwavering support, while he plays.

Except, he's past 60 years old now, and "mom" is about 220. One wonders if he's waiting for the old yenta to die so he can inherit all she has, including the place on rent control. But she refuses to.

You don't like this metaphor? Too bad. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Feel free to come up with your own.

[Dzonatas]

Consider how Freeman became appointed AND confirmed to National Security Head, you'd think he would be in such a position to be able to protect himself. If the only option he had was to step down, for which the neocons and Israel Lobby claimed as a 'win' on their side, I think it actually shows that Israel Lobby is a national security threat. By Freeman stepping down there is nothing the Israel Lobby can do to now change an image of them being a national security threat except to try to get Freeman back in office.

As for the neocons, Obama seems to have already release documentation that could potential support evidence for a 'military coup'-like movement to plan an 'executive assassination'. I can't wait until the details of such plan are revealed more. Rove seems to know something about this movement... if you find that weak-link interesting.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

As for the neocons, Obama seems to have already release documentation that could potential support evidence for a 'military coup'-like movement to plan an 'executive assassination'.

There are striking parallels here to the American Liberty League back in the 1930s.

[Dzonatas]

There are striking parallels here to the American Liberty League back in the 1930s.

I recommend to watch Valkyrie, based on a true events, despite the bad press it received. After you watch the movie, do consider that those that survived that Nuremberg trials were held in prison, and upon their release they were eventually assassinated. The notes at the end of the movie may come as a surprise to some, and I don't doubt that the onslaught of bad press was to make sure that people don't learn about such notes.

I would say more, but this is not the thread for it.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas:

[Milton Roe]

Consider how Freeman became appointed AND confirmed to National Security Head, you'd think he would be in such a position to be able to protect himself. If the only option he had was to step down, for which the neocons and Israel Lobby claimed as a 'win' on their side, I think it actually shows that Israel Lobby is a national security threat. By Freeman stepping down there is nothing the Israel Lobby can do to now change an image of them being a national security threat except to try to get Freeman back in office.

Like they care about their "image" more than they care about being politically-feared? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Not.

Some time ago there was a commentator who opined that the Jews had too much power in the media. The network boss, who was Jewish, had him fired for the comment. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Now, I don't think there's any human alive who is THAT completely lacking in a sense of irony. But the issue was not about image or truth, but about making sure the fear remains. At any price.

[Dzonatas]

Like they care about their "image" more than they care about being politically-feared? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Not.

Some time ago there was a commentator who opined that the Jews had too much power in the media. The network boss, who was Jewish, had him fired for the comment. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Now, I don't think there's any human alive who is THAT completely lacking in a sense of irony. But the issue was not about image or truth, but about making sure the fear remains. At any price.

Hasbara antagonists often use a debate method to accuse their opponents of the very nature of what the antagonist has done or about to do before their opponents accuse the antagonist of such tactic. It puts the opponent on the defensive to prove that the accusation made by the antagonist is not true. Too often, other people that haven't been fully expose to the entire debate will also have to prove to themselves that the antagonists made a false accusation, but most likely there is no motive or sense to need such proof until the opponent speaks up over the accusation. When the opponent points out (tells others) exactly how the antagonist made a false accusation, the antagonists then brings up any kind of secondary accusation, conflated with demagoguery, at the opponent. As long as the first accusation is not proven false, the secondary accusation will appear true to the events for others to personally witness. The chances for the opponent to state that the secondary accusation is also false and not appear frivolous or desperate in manner is low. It is because of this low chance that the Hasbara antagonist will attempt such tactic. The worst the antagonist has to do is remove himself/herself from debate if the opponents succeeds. The tactic is to win public opinion, not to debate truth, which it avoids or further delays.

With Freeman, he removed himself before the antagonist removed themselves. He removed any chance of being accused of demagoguery. The only 'win' the neocons and Israel Lobby got was to get him out of office, but they didn't 'win' any more public opinion or fear.

Freemen new this very well, as noted in his letter:

In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

Earlier in his letter he pointed out how the accusations were made about him when really it was attempts for the antagonists to further control the office (already quoted here on WR):

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

It seems obvious that Freeman's first and only act of National Intelligence was to make any accusation at him moot and to point out exactly the Hasbara tactic noted above before it is fully used on him.

Fear at any price? Note how Freeman points out 'special irony':

I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel.

LOL

[Cla68]

I suspect that the ArbCom may vote on topic bans for every editor named on this list. Kirill's proposed principles appear to be a very pointed statement of what the editors in question have done wrong. Meanwhile, it appears that the last stand of Samaria and Judea continues.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[gomi]

I suspect that the ArbCom may vote on topic bans for every editor named on this list. Kirill's proposed principles appear to be a very pointed statement of what the editors in question have done wrong. Meanwhile, it appears that the last stand of Samaria and Judea continues.

While a topic ban on Jayjg and his minions would do Wikipedia a world of good, one has to believe that as long as he has an admin bit, oversight, and checkuser privileges, other members of his posse will spring up like golems in Prague, with his words on slips of paper in their mouths.

[EricBarbour]

Interesting. Brewcrewer, Canadian Monkey, ChrisO, Elonka, G-Dett, Jaakobou, Jayjg,
MeteorMaker, Nickhh, Nishidani, NoCal100 and Pedrito.

This list covers virtually all the Israel-POV fiddlers--
except IronDuke and the SlimMonster.

I wonder what any of this has to do with "building an encyclopedia".


This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[gomi]

Good for Kirill Lokshin (T-C-L-K-R-D) , finally calling Jayjg on his game:

Proposed Findings of Fact
Jayjg

2.7.1) There is evidence ([129], [130]) that Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) was involved in a conspiracy to affect Wikipedia content in violation of several policies (including, but not limited to, WP:CANVASS, WP:MEAT, and WP:EW).

2.7.2) Jayjg's actions regarding the matter addressed in 2.7.1 brought (or could reasonably have brought) Wikipedia into disrepute.

Sadly, he hasn't identified any of Jayjg's pernicious and biased editing on many articles in this area, his threats of banning against other editors, and his general tilting of the playing field. I can't wait for the final "Remedy", though, which will no doubt be "Jayjg is admonished", and things will go back to the sad, sad, "normal".

[Cla68]

Good for Kirill Lokshin (T-C-L-K-R-D) , finally calling Jayjg on his game:

Proposed Findings of Fact
Jayjg

2.7.1) There is evidence ([129], [130]) that Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) was involved in a conspiracy to affect Wikipedia content in violation of several policies (including, but not limited to, WP:CANVASS, WP:MEAT, and WP:EW).

2.7.2) Jayjg's actions regarding the matter addressed in 2.7.1 brought (or could reasonably have brought) Wikipedia into disrepute.

Sadly, he hasn't identified any of Jayjg's pernicious and biased editing on many articles in this area, his threats of banning against other editors, and his general tilting of the playing field. I can't wait for the final "Remedy", though, which will no doubt be "Jayjg is admonished", and things will go back to the sad, sad, "normal".

Those are strong words by Kirill. If being allowed to participate in Wikipedia as an admin, or in any function, is important to Jayjg, I can't imagine he's too happy to be reading that.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Milton Roe]

Interesting. Brewcrewer, Canadian Monkey, ChrisO, Elonka, G-Dett, Jaakobou, Jayjg,
MeteorMaker, Nickhh, Nishidani, NoCal100 and Pedrito.

This list covers virtually all the Israel-POV fiddlers--
except IronDuke and the SlimMonster.

I wonder what any of this has to do with "building an encyclopedia".

Not much. It has to do with Israel/Palestine conflict in the last couple of years. There is no single article that the first 8 editors above, plus SlimVirgin and IronDuke have edited. But only because SlimVirgin hasn't edited Second Intifada. The other 9 have.

If you use for your 10 editors:
Brewcrewer, Canadian Monkey, ChrisO, Elonka, G-Dett, Jaakobou, Jayjg, IronDuke, Nickhh, and Nishidani, you get:

#1 Second_Intifada - edited by 10 of 10 users
#2 New_antisemitism - edited by 8 of 10 users
#3 Hamas - edited by 8 of 10 users
#4 2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict - edited by 8 of 10 users
#5 Palestine - edited by 7 of 10 users
#6 Nahum_Shahaf - edited by 7 of 10 users
#7 Muhammad_al-Durrah - edited by 7 of 10 users
#8 Israeli_settlement - edited by 7 of 10 users
#9 Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy - edited by 7 of 10 users
#10 Battle_of_Jenin - edited by 7 of 10 users
#11 Rachel_Corrie - edited by 6 of 10 users
#12 Pallywood - edited by 6 of 10 users
#13 Menachem_Begin - edited by 6 of 10 users
#14 King_David_Hotel_bombing - edited by 6 of 10 users
#15 Jewish_lobby - edited by 6 of 10 users
#16 Israeli-Palestinian_conflict - edited by 6 of 10 users
#17 Israel_Shahak - edited by 6 of 10 users
#18 Hezbollah - edited by 6 of 10 users
#19 Ariel_Sharon - edited by 6 of 10 users

It drops off rather quickly after that. Second Intifada is clearly the nexis. There are only 18 articles edited by 5 users, 42 by 4 of them, 146 by 3 of them, and then an incredibly long tail of 913 articles edited by jsut 2 of them. And yet, even there, the 913 are almost entirely Jewish topics! Lists of Jewish temples and stuff. I'll give a few to give you the flavor:

#1120 Abraham_Avinu_Synagogue - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1121 Abkhazia - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1122 Abdel_Aziz_al-Rantissi - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1123 Aaron_Klein - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1124 AIDS_origins_opposed_to_scientific_consensus - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1125 9/11_conspiracy_theories - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1126 7_July_2005_London_bombings - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1127 7_(number) - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1128 2009_L'Aquila_earthquake - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1129 2008_conflict_in_Lebanon - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1130 2007_Labour_party_donation_scandal - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1131 2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1132 2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1133 2005_Sharm_el-Sheikh_attacks - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1134 2003_invasion_of_Iraq - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1135 2000_Camp_David_Summit - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1136 1982_Lebanon_War - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1137 1978_South_Lebanon_conflict - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1138 1973_Israeli_raid_on_Lebanon - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1139 1952_Beit_Jala_raid - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1140 1948_Palestine_war - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1141 1947-1948_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1142 1920_Palestine_riots - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1143 1834_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine - edited by 2 of 10 users

I think it's fairly clear that the common interest among these editors is not simply Jewish topics or even Jewish history. Rather, it's recent Middle East Israel/Palestine conflict. So it really is a recent Israel/Palestine conflict topic war. Article-banning half these people from just 20 articles would take out the core of the whole thing. Leaving everybody entirely at peace to go after exciting history like 1978 South Lebanon conflict. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Cla68]

I'm biased of course, but I believe that this proposed remedy is long overdue.

[The Adversary]

I'm biased of course, but I believe that this proposed remedy is long overdue.

You are right, but I don´t think it will happen. (Yes, I´m pessimist.)

Incidentally, Jay has dramatically white-washed his user-page. Jayjg started editing in 2004, but if you look at the history of his user-page it looks as if he did not have a user-page before 2006. Not true: the first 1-2 years history of his user-page has been wiped clean. A pity; it was rather fascinating, as he used it just to list the articles he was edit-warring on. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Cla68]

I'm biased of course, but I believe that this proposed remedy is long overdue.

You are right, but I don´t think it will happen. (Yes, I´m pessimist.)

Incidentally, Jay has dramatically white-washed his user-page. Jayjg started editing in 2004, but if you look at the history of his user-page it looks as if he did not have a user-page before 2006. Not true: the first 1-2 years history of his user-page has been wiped clean. A pity; it was rather fascinating, as he used it just to list the articles he was edit-warring on. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Well, his userpage looks better than mine. Perhaps I should copy his layout style. If I do, I'll credit him somewhere on the page.

By the way, Kirill is also proposing a topic ban for him, along with equivalent restrictions for seven other editors.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Milton Roe]

Those are strong words by Kirill. If being allowed to participate in Wikipedia as an admin, or in any function, is important to Jayjg, I can't imagine he's too happy to be reading that.

Well, tough shit. You, Cla68, edit without being an administrator and so do I. We manage to write quite easily.

Nor should a 20 or 40 article ban bother anybody who is out to write an encyclopedia with 2.4 million articles. Clip out 40 of the articles I've been most active on, and I'd hardly even notice. I'm done with them now, and changes to them irritate me more than not! The measure of any true encyclopedist is that you can remove their 40 most edit-warred and contributed to, and discussed wikis, and they'll still be fine. It doesn't cut off their oxygen because they are whole people.

Voltaire, in his 80s, made a plea to the academe of letters to re-start the grand encyclopedia. He offered to take the letter "A". Now there's the kind of guy we should be admire.

So I refuse to bleed for the prick Jayjg. Don't topic ban him from all Israel related topics-- there are thousands. Just ban him from the 40 top articles where he's been pushing the second-intifanda and recent conflict stuff along with the Kabbal (I gave a list above). And remove his admin bit so that he can't harrass and block people. Then let him go. If he can't write, after that, he should look for a job with an Israel-lobby blog. He's misplaced on Wikipedia.

Milton

[EricBarbour]

Jayjg restricted
4) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Oppose -- Absurdly unfair and unjustified by the evidence. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009

Jayjg stripped of status and privileges
11) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) is stripped of his status and privileges as a Wikipedia functionary; namely:
( a ) His access to the CheckUser tool and the checkuser-l mailing list;
( b ) His access to the Oversight tool and the oversight-l mailing list; and
( c ) His access to the functionaries-en mailing list.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Harsh, but we simply cannot have functionaries comporting themselves in this manner. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the theory that functionaries should be exemplars in the community—like admins, but held to a higher standard? Cool Hand Luke 03:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's it; this is more or less explicitly stated as #Functionaries above. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
To Cla68: that is my understanding of this. This is not desysopping, but removing the more "privileged" and "trusted" tools and access areas. Incidentally, access to some of these tools and mailing lists is much over-rated. But appearances are important. There is also a way back to these tools via ArbCom elections and CU/OS elections. Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Just a question, this proposed remedy does not remove all admin privileges? Cla68 (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose -- Absolutely ridiculous. If this is a serious proposal, the proposer should recuse himself from the case. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2009

Is this 6SJ7 thing a sockpuppet, Jay's attorney, or simply an animated carbuncle
on Jay's ass which has evolved to the point of operating a computer? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

(And how dare the carbuncle name itself after a vacuum tube?....)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Heat]

Jayjg restricted
4) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Oppose -- Absurdly unfair and unjustified by the evidence. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009

Jayjg stripped of status and privileges
11) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) is stripped of his status and privileges as a Wikipedia functionary; namely:
( a ) His access to the CheckUser tool and the checkuser-l mailing list;
( b ) His access to the Oversight tool and the oversight-l mailing list; and
( c ) His access to the functionaries-en mailing list.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Harsh, but we simply cannot have functionaries comporting themselves in this manner. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the theory that functionaries should be exemplars in the community—like admins, but held to a higher standard? Cool Hand Luke 03:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's it; this is more or less explicitly stated as #Functionaries above. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
To Cla68: that is my understanding of this. This is not desysopping, but removing the more "privileged" and "trusted" tools and access areas. Incidentally, access to some of these tools and mailing lists is much over-rated. But appearances are important. There is also a way back to these tools via ArbCom elections and CU/OS elections. Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Just a question, this proposed remedy does not remove all admin privileges? Cla68 (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose -- Absolutely ridiculous. If this is a serious proposal, the proposer should recuse himself from the case. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2009

Is this 6SJ7 thing a sockpuppet, Jay's attorney, or simply an animated carbuncle
on Jay's ass which has evolved to the point of operating a computer? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

(And how dare the carbuncle name itself after a vacuum tube?....)

6SJ7 is a Jayjg meatpuppet. Kirill is the ArbComm's point person in this case so his proposals are serious and could well come to pass assuming that they are the result of discussion among Arbs and not just a trial balloon.

Interesting that SlimVirgin hasn't come to Jay's defence.

I also found this response by Ynhockey interesting:

Oppose—I'm not sure if anyone here has noticed, but Jayjg hasn't been editing much in the past couple weeks, because of this arbitration case. If this proposed remedy passes (or indeed the one about the tools), it is likely that Jayjg will never edit again, or edit very little. Therefore, in effect, ArbCom would be driving away one of the best and most serious editors on all of Wikipedia, because he let a few not-so-serious editors who have made little to no worthwhile contributions to the project, get the best of him. These kinds of actions already drove away SlimVirgin, another excellent editor, and will probably drive away Jayjg. Who will replace these editors, may I ask? Who will write the featured content, make maintenance edits, and do administrative work? Also it's clear that most of the parties up for sanctioning have few significant contributions, and mostly just a long block log, and therefore could easily start over from a different IP range with a new username. This is much less practical for Jayjg, who has a solid reputation for writing good articles and making high-quality edits.
In addition, let's be serious for a second. An indefinite topic ban for what offense exactly? Being a 'party member' in a series of arbitration cases? The only actual evidence that was presented were a few edit-wars, where Jayjg did not even violate any policies per se. Maybe some of the actions were not appropriate, but actual restrictions seem to be completely unwarranted. ArbCom should issue a warning at the most, and leave it up to WP:AE if any clearly inappropriate behavior continues. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So basically Jay's habit of running and hiding when he's in trouble should be rewarded?

Hockey raises an interesting question - is Jayjg indeed one of the "best" editors on Wikipedia? No, this is absolute nonsense. Until a year or so ago when Jay started writing articles on synagogues almost all his editing on wikipedia consisted of reverts or partial reverts or other attempts to remove material. Aside from his politically motivated series of dubious "apartheid" articles (Allegations of French apartheid etc) designed to normalize "Israeli apartheid", he created only a handful of articles - mostly stubs. Jay's never been much of a producer of content, his role as an editor has been as a political policeman and ideological edit warrior. I think the only reason he started writing articles on synagogues a year or so ago was because he was stung be just this criticism - that for all his years on wikipedia he had no concrete output, content-wise.

[trenton]

Well, I see that no one has mentioned one of the most farcical "cases" involving Jayjg.

The gist of it is that Jayjg and co (the now defrocked FeloniousMonk) were out to ban this editor (PalestineRemembered). Now PalestineRemembered (PR), being new, hasn't quite got the tricks to editing Wikipedia. He makes long polemical rants on talk pages instead of sticking to making biased edits to articles like Jayjg and co, and FeloniousMonk manages to conjure up some excuses to block him for a month (first block) and two months (second block). PR returns for his welcome-blocks and makes a mistake in citing sources where he reads a book which cites a primary source and inserts material into an article citing the book's source instead of citing the book itself (incidentally something which Alan Dershowitz did as well; see the "Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair"; and in which, curiously, Jayjg was involved in defending Dershowitz's side in the article)

Now Jayjg shows up and runs a google search on the source and it turns up in a holocaust denial web site. Jayjg, being the master of deduction and logic that he is, decides that PR's source is actually the holocaust denial web site and then, without questioning PR, bans him. When PR is questioning he admits his mistake in citing sources and produces the book where he got his material from. Somewhere between the block and someone talking to PR, an arbcom case is started, and the circus begins.

Now, its obvious that when the arbcom accepted the case they expected to be rubber stamping Jayjg; when it turned out that he might be wrong, most of them ran for the hills (similar to what happened with the Cla68 case). SlimVirgin and the usual gang suit up to defend Jayjg and turn the workshop into a meandering mess; there's a nice little conversation between SlimVirgin and 6SJ7 about how PR could still be a holocaust denier and how he could still be a visitor to the holocaust denial website, they just don't know; there's a nice little insinuation by SlimVirgin (who obviously hasn't read the book) that PR got his material from the holocaust denial web site because of some verbiage that appears in the website but not in the book (execept, ooops.... it's pointed out later by someone who has read the book that that verbiage does appear in the book). Basically the usual misdirection, false accusations, innuendo, and clouding the issue that these guys are so good at.

Most of the arbs have, of course, by this time, disappeared. There is a motion to dismiss (also strangely reminiscent of the Cla68 case), since obviously the case can only be about PR's wrongdoing and not Jayjg's. Jpgordan shows up to tell PR to basically suck it up and the whole thing disappears with basically no apology from Jayjg.

Interestingly, a couple of months later, PR is back on ANI (he still hasn't quite gotten the trick of editing wikipedia properly), and who shows up wanting to "mentor" PR....? Yes, User:Avi. The same user Avi who, it would later turn out, was in Jayjg's little gang of back watchers. His little trick seems to be showing up to discussions and pretending to be uninvolved and neutral, and yet always somehow ending up supporting Jayjg's position. The same Avi who is still apparently watching Jayjg's back in the latest case without quite disclosing that he was on the same mailing list the Jayjg used to coordinate editing articles with like-minded editors.

[gomi]

Well, I see that no one has mentioned one of the most farcical "cases" involving Jayjg.

Well remembered. For those interested in the original topic as observed here on the Review, look here.

[Kato]

Au contraire.

I think that this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid was the most farcical case involving Jayjg. This was when Jayjg and cronies, furious at not being able to remove their hated Israel and Apartheid article, conspire to create a whole series of controversial articles on every nation on the planet "and allegations of Apartheid". Swamping deletion debates with coordinated cronies to keep each and every one of the offending articles. Essentially setting light to half of Wikipedia in their fury.

This act was perhaps the most disruptive WP:POINT escapade in the site's history. And Jayjg got away with it.

SlimVirgin and the usual gang suit up to defend Jayjg and turn the workshop into a meandering mess; there's a nice little conversation between SlimVirgin and 6SJ7 about how PR could still be a holocaust denier and how he could still be a visitor to the holocaust denial website, they just don't know; there's a nice little insinuation by SlimVirgin (who obviously hasn't read the book) that PR got his material from the holocaust denial web site because of some verbiage that appears in the website but not in the book (execept, ooops.... it's pointed out later by someone who has read the book that that verbiage does appear in the book). Basically the usual misdirection, false accusations, innuendo, and clouding the issue that these guys are so good at.

Here's a great quote. Having conceded that PalestineRemembered didn't get the cite from a Holocaust denial site and that the allegation was false, Slim notes that PalestineRemembered going to such as site is "not beyond the bounds of real possibility"! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

The point is that PalestineRemembered has edited in such a way that his taking material from a Holocaust denial site is not beyond the bounds of real possibility, given his obsession with "Zionists."

Marvellous. It's like Witch-Trials never happened.

[Cla68]

Jpgordan shows up to tell PR to basically suck it up and the whole thing disappears with basically no apology from Jayjg.

Those were indeed dark times. Note that JPGordon showed up recently to strenuously object to the proposed sanctions on Jayjg.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[The Joy]

Shouldn't opposes have detailed rationales than just statements like "too draconian" or "too stupid?"

While input from community members is welcomed, there is no policy saying arbitrators have to listen or take into account comments from non-arbitrators (save Jimbo, perhaps).

So, Jpgordon and 6SJ7 are wasting their time. If Kirill is seriously considering these sanctions, then he must have some ample support from other arbitrators.

Jayjg's days are numbered, but will that really change anything? His POV cabal is still strong and, while losing Jayjg's technical powers will be a loss, they'll still have their power.

[tarantino]

Is this 6SJ7 thing a sockpuppet, Jay's attorney, or simply an animated carbuncle
on Jay's ass which has evolved to the point of operating a computer?

6SJ7 has been known to edit from a law office in the NY area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=26405917

He's made about 4000 edits. There's 115 articles in common between him and Jayjg, almost all relating to Israeli, Jewish or Middle Eastern topics.

They've both voted in 13 RFAs and disagreed once, in what was 6SJ7's first vote ever.

More telling though is in the 33 AFDs that they both have voted in, they never disagreed. I didn't check any of the other XFDs.

[Cla68]

Shouldn't opposes have detailed rationales than just statements like "too draconian" or "too stupid?"

While input from community members is welcomed, there is no policy saying arbitrators have to listen or take into account comments from non-arbitrators (save Jimbo, perhaps).

So, Jpgordon and 6SJ7 are wasting their time. If Kirill is seriously considering these sanctions, then he must have some ample support from other arbitrators.

Jayjg's days are numbered, but will that really change anything? His POV cabal is still strong and, while losing Jayjg's technical powers will be a loss, they'll still have their power.

Well, I hope that the next book written on Wikipedia's history by Andrew Lih or whoever addresses the years 2005-2009(?) when a few cabals led by admins basically had a free hand to do what they wanted to in certain topic areas. If Wikipedia is able to find and implement a lasting solution to the cabalism and "vested, but problematic contributor" problems, then this chapter in Wikipedia history should deserve some historical perspective and analysis.

Anyway, if these proposed sanctions on Jayjg do pass, I wonder if that would help quell the problems that the "pro-Israel" cabal has been causing to Wikipedia? I haven't checked closely, but it appears that the FeloniousMonk desysopp was effective at correcting the ID-cab's behavior, or at least toned it down to an acceptable level, as far as I'm aware.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[KimvdLinde]

I'm biased of course, but I believe that this proposed remedy is long overdue.

Agreed, long overdue!

[Warui desu]

Shouldn't opposes have detailed rationales than just statements like "too draconian" or "too stupid?"

They should, if wikipedia was actually about rational debate and not about the number of "me too!"'s posting.

[EricBarbour]

Well, I hope that the next book written on Wikipedia's history by Andrew Lih or whoever addresses the years 2005-2009(?) when a few cabals led by admins basically had a free hand to do what they wanted to in certain topic areas.

Whoever writes such a book will have plenty to write about. The Israel gang is only the most obvious and egregious abuser of NPOV.

Don't forget the bestiality gang, the pedophilia gang (which has been little documented), and the various gangs focusing on fancruft subjects (Simpsons, Futurama, South Park, Star Trek, Stargate, etc.)....plus a number of disputes over ethnic-related articles (Armenian vs. Azeri, Serbs vs. everyone else, on and on).

There was a recent WR thread about the bizarre edit scene surrounding Barry Manilow.
It doesn't even scratch the surface of the crazy.

[The Adversary]

Well, I see that no one has mentioned one of the most farcical "cases" involving Jayjg.

Well remembered. For those interested in the original topic as observed here on the Review, look here.

Oh yes. And note that the person who got PalestineRemembered off the hook, by showing that he indeed had quoted from a book, and not from some neo-Nazi web-site, was one of the few editors in WP´s I-P region at the time who actually read books: Zero0000. Name sounds familiar? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) No wonder they disliked him, for the same reason they disliked KimvdL: they revealed their lies (In Kim´s case: the lies of Guy M.)

[Kato]

The "evidence"* at this case is a riot.

Evidence presented by Coppertwig

Unwelcome statements about editors

Scott MacDonald: "POV pushing", "articles distorted by him" [591]
G-Dett: "tricked", "donning his Humpty Dumpty mask", "giant egg", "doesn't know what the idiomatic phrase 'what is today' means" [600], "transgression", "shell game" [601], "editorial dishonesty" [602]

"Giant egg"? Is that a personal attack?

This statement by DocGlasgow is deemed inappropriate because it calls Jayjg a "POV pusher". If that were the case, then Jayjg and SlimV would have been banned long ago as barely a day went past without them making that accusation of others.

*"Evidence" at Wikipedia Arbitration sessions really just means numerous interferers showing up and poisoning the well with any assertions they can get away with.

[Eva Destruction]

[size=4]
G-Dett: "tricked", "donning his Humpty Dumpty mask", "giant egg", "doesn't know what the idiomatic phrase 'what is today' means" [600], "transgression", "shell game" [601], "editorial dishonesty" [602]

"Giant egg"? Is that a personal attack?

If anyone's going to play a shell game surely a giant egg is most qualified?

[KimvdLinde]

Oh yes. And note that the person who got PalestineRemembered off the hook, by showing that he indeed had quoted from a book, and not from some neo-Nazi web-site, was one of the few editors in WP´s I-P region at the time who actually read books: Zero0000. Name sounds familiar? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) No wonder they disliked him, for the same reason they disliked KimvdL: they revealed their lies (In Kim´s case: the lies of Guy M.)

Yeah, JayJG and SlimVirgin were the main reasons I was gone from Wikipedia for a long time. I am now back, but limit myself to a few fields with little if no issues, parrots and horse mainly......

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Au contraire.

I think that this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid was the most farcical case involving Jayjg. This was when Jayjg and cronies, furious at not being able to remove their hated Israel and Apartheid article, conspire to create a whole series of controversial articles on every nation on the planet "and allegations of Apartheid". Swamping deletion debates with coordinated cronies to keep each and every one of the offending articles. Essentially setting light to half of Wikipedia in their fury.

This act was perhaps the most disruptive WP:POINT escapade in the site's history. And Jayjg got away with it.

SlimVirgin and the usual gang suit up to defend Jayjg and turn the workshop into a meandering mess; there's a nice little conversation between SlimVirgin and 6SJ7 about how PR could still be a holocaust denier and how he could still be a visitor to the holocaust denial website, they just don't know; there's a nice little insinuation by SlimVirgin (who obviously hasn't read the book) that PR got his material from the holocaust denial web site because of some verbiage that appears in the website but not in the book (execept, ooops.... it's pointed out later by someone who has read the book that that verbiage does appear in the book). Basically the usual misdirection, false accusations, innuendo, and clouding the issue that these guys are so good at.

Here's a great quote. Having conceded that PalestineRemembered didn't get the cite from a Holocaust denial site and that the allegation was false, Slim notes that PalestineRemembered going to such as site is "not beyond the bounds of real possibility"! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

The point is that PalestineRemembered has edited in such a way that his taking material from a Holocaust denial site is not beyond the bounds of real possibility, given his obsession with "Zionists."

Marvellous. It's like Witch-Trials never happened.

Good times. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[The Adversary]

Here's a great quote. Having conceded that PalestineRemembered didn't get the cite from a Holocaust denial site and that the allegation was false, Slim notes that PalestineRemembered going to such as site is "not beyond the bounds of real possibility"! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

The point is that PalestineRemembered has edited in such a way that his taking material from a Holocaust denial site is not beyond the bounds of real possibility, given his obsession with "Zionists."

Marvellous. It's like Witch-Trials never happened.

Good times. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Anyone remember "Alice in Wonderland"; where the Queen punish you for the sins you might commit? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Kato]

Anyone remember "Alice in Wonderland"; where the Queen punish you for the sins you might commit? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Watch your tongue, you Giant Egg.

[Kato]

More comedy here from that old PalestineRemembered arbitration case.

So Jayjg went to the Admins noticeboard to publicly make a false allegation about PalestineR sourcing Holocaust Denial websites. Then people complained vociferously about the allegation. But according to Slim, it's actually their fault, not Jayjg's:

I believe in being responsible and using common sense. What a responsible admin would have done in this case is quietly e-mail Jay and point out to him that there was evidence that PR had taken the material from a legit source.

[Lar]

More comedy here from that old PalestineRemembered arbitration case.

So Jayjg went to the Admins noticeboard to publicly make a false allegation about PalestineR sourcing Holocaust Denial websites. Then people complained vociferously about the allegation. But according to Slim, it's actually their fault, not Jayjg's:

I believe in being responsible and using common sense. What a responsible admin would have done in this case is quietly e-mail Jay and point out to him that there was evidence that PR had taken the material from a legit source.

I could be mistaken but I believe that both SV and Jayjg have been sanctioned, or at least cautioned, (I can dig up cites if it's important) for doing things publicly (rather than first emailing or otherwise quietly contacting someone).

Perhaps it is faulty logic but does that mean SV therefore is not a responsible admin under her own definition?

[The Adversary]

More comedy here from that old PalestineRemembered arbitration case.

So Jayjg went to the Admins noticeboard to publicly make a false allegation about PalestineR sourcing Holocaust Denial websites. Then people complained vociferously about the allegation. But according to Slim, it's actually their fault, not Jayjg's:

I believe in being responsible and using common sense. What a responsible admin would have done in this case is quietly e-mail Jay and point out to him that there was evidence that PR had taken the material from a legit source.

I could be mistaken but I believe that both SV and Jayjg have been sanctioned, or at least cautioned, (I can dig up cites if it's important) for doing things publicly (rather than first emailing or otherwise quietly contacting someone).

Perhaps it is faulty logic but does that mean SV therefore is not a responsible admin under her own definition?

Cough, cough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ests#October_08

The Committee reminds the users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct.

[Heat]

An arb has noticed Jayjg's "lack of participation" in his own ArbComm case

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=286022545

Hi Jay, I would like to see you participate in the Workshop of the West Bank case, or some indication of why you are unable to do so, privately if need be. There are some proposals that affect you, and your lack of participation, without an explanation that I am aware of, is very unusual to say the least. You were in the thick of this West Bank mess when it happened; now we are trying to sort this out in what should be a collaborative process, and your absence would be unfortunate. It is good that you have submitted evidence, but it is also important to share your views on how you receive the evidence submitted by others, and the resulting proposals. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] ^{'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''}</span> 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you hear the sound of drums?

And on the workshop page itself, it appears that Kirill's proposals have some support where it counts http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=286872461



This post has been edited by Heat:

[Milton Roe]

An arb has noticed Jayjg's "lack of participation" in his own ArbComm case

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=286022545

Hi Jay, I would like to see you participate in the Workshop of the West Bank case, or some indication of why you are unable to do so, privately if need be. There are some proposals that affect you, and your lack of participation, without an explanation that I am aware of, is very unusual to say the least. You were in the thick of this West Bank mess when it happened; now we are trying to sort this out in what should be a collaborative process, and your absence would be unfortunate. It is good that you have submitted evidence, but it is also important to share your views on how you receive the evidence submitted by others, and the resulting proposals. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] ^{'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''}</span> 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you hear the sound of drums?

In the WP Kangaroo Kourt of the Vigilante Kommittee, one is supposed to act as one's own counsel if one can't find anybody who is willing to do it. There's no pool of public defenders that the Kourt can appoint for you if there's nobody left of your side who has any credibility. Which is the case, here.

I'd shed more tears if Jayjg hadn't abused this very system himself many a time. What goes around, tends to come around. The fickle finger of wiki power has put the writing up on the wall about this sort of thing for some time, and Jay hasn't translated it.

Let me help:

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSBONE. This is the interpretation: MENE: fate and abuse have numbered the days of your Kabal and brought it to an end. TEKEL: you have been weighed on the scales of Arbcom and found wanting: PERES-BONE, your advocacy gig is divided and given to supporters of Shimon Peres and David Shankbone.

Not much time left, bub.

[Heat]

Voting has begun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...oposed_decision

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I am concerned about the obligatory show of "even-handedness," in that the findings of fact against G-Dett are very weakly supported by the evidence (particularly when compared to those against Jayjg,) yet the penalties proposed are equivalent (except that G-Dett cannot be deprived of checkuser, oversight, etc., since she doesn't possess these gnarly powers.) Jayjg's recidivism ought to be sufficient grounds for a permanent, unqualified banning from the project.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The fickle finger of wiki power has put the writing up on the wall about this sort of thing for some time, and Jay hasn't translated it.

See Heinrich Heine's commentary.

[Cla68]

I am concerned about the obligatory show of "even-handedness," in that the findings of fact against G-Dett are very weakly supported by the evidence (particularly when compared to those against Jayjg,) yet the penalties proposed are equivalent (except that G-Dett cannot be deprived of checkuser, oversight, etc., since she doesn't possess these gnarly powers.) Jayjg's recidivism ought to be sufficient grounds for a permanent, unqualified banning from the project.

The thing is, G-Dett is more intelligent than 99% of regular Wikipedia editors, including myself. I don't know why she is wasting time with editing Wikipedia and humiliating Jayjg when she should be writing books, which I, for one, would be buying and reading. Banning her from the I/P articles does her a favor. If she wants to make any other subject's articles great, she should be able to do so effortlessly.

Banning editors like Jayjg, on the other hand, from the I/P articles should be no big deal. He doesn't deserve to edit them. He's a POV-pusher and an unethical internet participant. Ban him, forget about him, and let's get back to doing what we like to do, building NPOV (we try to anyway) articles about historical subjects that we find interesting.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[The Adversary]

I am concerned about the obligatory show of "even-handedness," in that the findings of fact against G-Dett are very weakly supported by the evidence (particularly when compared to those against Jayjg,) yet the penalties proposed are equivalent (except that G-Dett cannot be deprived of checkuser, oversight, etc., since she doesn't possess these gnarly powers.) Jayjg's recidivism ought to be sufficient grounds for a permanent, unqualified banning from the project.

The thing is, G-Dett is more intelligent than 99% of regular Wikipedia editors, including myself. I don't know why she is wasting time with editing Wikipedia and humiliating Jayjg when she should be writing books, which I, for one, would be buying and reading. <snip>

I´ll join the queue for those wanting to buy any book written by G-Dett.

My own favourite G-Dett-ism was during the Matanmoreland-case, when she wondered if there was any sense in her providing more evidence, or if she could rather spend her time baking bread ......for her cat (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Kato]

Arbitrators need to be careful when they restrict the likes of Jayjg. Having seen the Godfather style trail of revenge against those who challenged SlimVirgin last year (FT2, Lar, Charles Matthews etc), it is conceivable that a similar fate will await those arbs who vote against Jayjg.

Wily nested troublemakers can call on a flock of disciples to do the dirty work, while they themselves remove their fingerprints from the scene of the crime when the drama subsides.

Wikipedia has shown it is helpless in the face of such social manipulation and gameplaying. Expect a coordinated chorus of resistance to any restraints on Jayjg, followed by a covert operation of revenge against those who made the effort.

[trenton]

Yeah, the remedies are kinda bizarre. One side wants to introduce and use novel terminology and both side get banned. That's like banning vandals and those who revert them for "revert warring". Besides, on one side, you have an esteemed "functionary", so can you blame others for following his example? Kangaroo justice, indeed.

edit: not to mention that most of these people are first time arbcom participants, while this is Jayjg's 6th? time....

This post has been edited by trenton:

[Heat]

Ironic statement of the year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=287681189

I would add to that, if this passes, get ready for some extra stress on the checkuser process... and for a general decrease in "trust" (in an area where trust is already difficult to come by), because checkuser cannot always produce a solid conclusion. If such a large number of active editors are banned from this large topic area, I predict that every "new" editor who shows up in this area will be suspected, by someone, of being a sockpuppet of one of the banned users. And quite possibly, some will be, but most won't be. It won't matter. The opportunities for neo-[[McCarthyism|McCarthyist]] hysteria on Wikipedia are mind-boggling. People will be seeing sockpuppets under every bed and around every corner. [[User:6SJ7|6SJ7]] ([[User talk:6SJ7|talk]]) 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)-

So 6SJ7 is warning that the consequence of Jay and others being sanctioned is a Mcarthyist witch hunt using CheckUser? I'm amazed 6SJ7 could say this without the least hint of irony given that that's exactly how Jayjg has been using Checkuser for years.

And do I read a suggestion there that Jayjg might sockpuppet to evade his topic ban?

[Cla68]

Yeah, the remedies are kinda bizarre. One side wants to introduce and use novel terminology and both side get banned. That's like banning vandals and those who revert them for "revert warring". Besides, on one side, you have an esteemed "functionary", so can you blame others for following his example? Kangaroo justice, indeed.

edit: not to mention that most of these people are first time arbcom participants, while this is Jayjg's 6th? time....

Well, if they hadn't edit warred they would probably be ok. I think the "Palestinian side" like MeteorMaker and Nishidani are a little stunned that they won the argument, but ended up topic-banned along with the "Pro-Israel" editors. Perhaps one lesson for interested observers to take from this is that edit warring will not be looked upon nicely by this committee.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Well, if they hadn't edit warred they would probably be ok. I think the "Palestinian side" like MeteorMaker and Nishidani are a little stunned that they won the argument, but ended up topic-banned along with the "Pro-Israel" editors. Perhaps one lesson for interested observers to take from this is that edit warring will not be looked upon nicely by this committee.

I haven't taken the time to review their editing style (other than to note Nishi's poetic gifts.) But I fear the possibility that no one will stand up to died-in-the-wool POV pushers like Jayjg, for fear that the mere act of objecting will convict the objector of "edit warring."

[Tarc]

Another gem;

Oppose Until I read this proposal I very much respected Kirill. As fellow member of the military history wikiproject I had had only positive interactions with him. Now I am sad to say that all of that respect has evaporated. This suggestion is inappropriate to the point of being offensive.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Jayjg-disciples act like a bunch of savages whose deity statue was just toppled off the pedestal and dragged through the mud.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[pedrito]

And while this is going on... Tiamut left in disgust as the usual gang of anti-Palestinian editors piled-on to sabotage a WP:GA and WP:DYN she was working on.

I mourn this loss.

Cheers, Pedrito

[Heat]

And our old friend SlimVirgin is in the middle of it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history though since she's conducting dozens of tiny edits rather than doing a major edit at once it's hard to follow. Is she actually warring with Jaakobou?

This post has been edited by Heat:

[trenton]

Well, if they hadn't edit warred they would probably be ok. I think the "Palestinian side" like MeteorMaker and Nishidani are a little stunned that they won the argument, but ended up topic-banned along with the "Pro-Israel" editors. Perhaps one lesson for interested observers to take from this is that edit warring will not be looked upon nicely by this committee.

Yes, but what exactly do you do if you don't edit war? The other side will have the article the way it wants, and they can talk indefinitely. Try to find consensus? They have a large enough group of editors so that you won't find consensus that the earth is not flat. Take it to arbcom? They'll reject the case because everybody's talking and there's no edit warring. Is it any wonder that some people snap and act rude and edit war?

[pedrito]

Well, if they hadn't edit warred they would probably be ok. I think the "Palestinian side" like MeteorMaker and Nishidani are a little stunned that they won the argument, but ended up topic-banned along with the "Pro-Israel" editors. Perhaps one lesson for interested observers to take from this is that edit warring will not be looked upon nicely by this committee.

Have they really "won the argument"? There are no findings regarding [[WP:NCGN]] or stone-walling, so there's been nothing won by everybody getting banned.

Cheers, Pedrito

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Well, if they hadn't edit warred they would probably be ok. I think the "Palestinian side" like MeteorMaker and Nishidani are a little stunned that they won the argument, but ended up topic-banned along with the "Pro-Israel" editors. Perhaps one lesson for interested observers to take from this is that edit warring will not be looked upon nicely by this committee.

Yes, but what exactly do you do if you don't edit war? The other side will have the article the way it wants, and they can talk indefinitely. Try to find consensus? They have a large enough group of editors so that you won't find consensus that the earth is not flat. Take it to arbcom? They'll reject the case because everybody's talking and there's no edit warring. Is it any wonder that some people snap and act rude and edit war?

Uh-huh - that's exactly the process that wikipedia encourages, in the absence of named expert authority with a final say on content.

[gomi]

Yes, but what exactly do you do if you don't edit war? The other side ... can talk indefinitely. Try to find consensus? ... You won't find consensus that the earth is not flat.

Uh-huh - that's exactly the process that wikipedia encourages, in the absence of named expert authority with a final say on content.

More accurately, a systematic lack of authorities, and ways to identify them, combined with an elevation of amateurs to an equal status with experts, and then a lack of process by which even learned people can reach and protect a consensus from eroding.

As has been said before: "Wikipedia is a system that ensures that twenty idiots and one expert are indistinguishable from twenty-one idiots". It's a crude, infantile parody of an academic peer-review system, with results similar to what you would get if you gave a pound of flour, some eggs, milk, and oil to a toddler and told them to make pancakes.

[GlassBeadGame]

As has been said before: "Wikipedia is a system that ensures that twenty idiots and one expert are indistinguishable from twenty-one idiots".

This is a brilliant aphorism and is completely true in relation to any outside observer. It does leave out the subjective experience of the one expert, who can of course tell the difference. This accounts for much of heartbreak of Wikipedia.

[Jon Awbrey]

As has been said before: "Wikipedia is a system that ensures that twenty idiots and one expert are indistinguishable from twenty-one idiots".

This is a brilliant aphorism and is completely true in relation to any outside observer. It does leave out the subjective experience of the one expert, who can of course tell the difference. This accounts for much of heartbreak of Wikipedia.

If you keep in mind the adage about wine and sewage, I think you will find that it's more like this:

"Wikipedia is a system that ensures that twenty experts and one idiot are indistinguishable from twenty-one idiots"

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[No one of consequence]

If you keep in mind the adage about wine and sewage, I think you will find that it's more like this:

"Wikipedia is a system that ensures that twenty experts and one idiot are indistinguishable from twenty-one idiots"

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Does Wikipedia even have twenty experts?

[The Joy]

If you keep in mind the adage about wine and sewage, I think you will find that it's more like this:

"Wikipedia is a system that ensures that twenty experts and one idiot are indistinguishable from twenty-one idiots"

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Does Wikipedia even have twenty experts?

If it does, they are all banned, I imagine. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[trenton]

If you keep in mind the adage about wine and sewage, I think you will find that it's more like this:

"Wikipedia is a system that ensures that twenty experts and one idiot are indistinguishable from twenty-one idiots"

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Does Wikipedia even have twenty experts?

If it does, they are all banned, I imagine. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

They did have this one theology professor, though....

[Cla68]

Well, if they hadn't edit warred they would probably be ok. I think the "Palestinian side" like MeteorMaker and Nishidani are a little stunned that they won the argument, but ended up topic-banned along with the "Pro-Israel" editors. Perhaps one lesson for interested observers to take from this is that edit warring will not be looked upon nicely by this committee.

Have they really "won the argument"? There are no findings regarding [[WP:NCGN]] or stone-walling, so there's been nothing won by everybody getting banned.

Cheers, Pedrito

As far as ArbCom is concerned, you're right, they are not stating implicitly or explicitly that you won the argument.

Well, if they hadn't edit warred they would probably be ok. I think the "Palestinian side" like MeteorMaker and Nishidani are a little stunned that they won the argument, but ended up topic-banned along with the "Pro-Israel" editors. Perhaps one lesson for interested observers to take from this is that edit warring will not be looked upon nicely by this committee.

Yes, but what exactly do you do if you don't edit war? The other side will have the article the way it wants, and they can talk indefinitely. Try to find consensus? They have a large enough group of editors so that you won't find consensus that the earth is not flat. Take it to arbcom? They'll reject the case because everybody's talking and there's no edit warring. Is it any wonder that some people snap and act rude and edit war?

That's the nature of a wiki. Sometimes you can't win even if you're right. Edit warring is not the answer. I recently lost an argument here about mentioning the Nazis in the lead for the Martin Luther article. Me and several others don't believe that the Nazis should be mentioned in the intro. Unfortunately, there are enough editors opposing my view to keep me from declaring consensus and removing it. Me and the few editors that take my side could start edit warring, but that's against the rules. So, I/we lose. That's the wiki.

There are other ways I could address this, I could file an RfC (which I might do), go to one of the content noticeboards, or request mediation. One or all of those might work, or they might not. Anyway, that's the within-the-rules process. If I don't like it, I can leave. Or, I can secretly recruit a bunch of like-minded people to come and support me. That's against the rules. If I get caught doing that, however, I deserve to be banned. Catching people doing that is kind of difficult, isn't it? As you can see, Wikipedia has some glaring weaknesses.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Casliber]

Unfortunately arbcom cannot rule on content, so like many of these type of debates, we get left with a vacuum. I really hope that everyone gets involved in building a consensus on the appropriate terminology to use, which has started on the WP:IPCOLL page.

see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...placename_usage

Cas

[KimvdLinde]

Unfortunately arbcom cannot rule on content, so like many of these type of debates, we get left with a vacuum. I really hope that everyone gets involved in building a consensus on the appropriate terminology to use, which has started on the WP:IPCOLL page.

see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...placename_usage

Cas

Well, the current ruling is very narrow on editwarring, and ignores the rest of the problems such as stonewalling etc, which can be sanctioned as well. However, it is painfully obvious that the ArbCom once again will just go with a braod brush and refuses to look into the details. if they would to the latter, the ruling would become dramatically different.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Unfortunately arbcom cannot rule on content, so like many of these type of debates, we get left with a vacuum.

The arbcom has been ruling on content for years, just not openly. They sanction the content they prefer by means of double standards in how they treat editors.

[Heat]

The proposal(s) to strip Jay of his functionary status seems to have hit a wall with one arb backsliding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._and_privileges

I'm kind of hoping Jay isn't stripped. The absurdity of having a "Functionary" who is clearly not a "trusted user" (not trusted enough to edit the topic area that has been the focus of 80% or so of his "work") and has been found by the ArbComm to be a relentless POV pusher and edit warrior just lays bare the ridiculousness of Wikipedia's power structure and the fact that it's not based on merit or trust but on a combination of cliqueishness, manipulation and sinicure.

This post has been edited by Heat:

[Jon Awbrey]

sinicure

Acupuncture?

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

Unfortunately arbcom cannot rule on content, so like many of these type of debates, we get left with a vacuum.

The arbcom has been ruling on content for years, just not openly. They sanction the content they prefer by means of double standards in how they treat editors.

{{citation needed}}

[gomi]

The proposal(s) to strip Jay of his functionary status seems to have hit a wall with one arb backsliding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._and_privilegesI'm kind of hoping Jay isn't stripped. The absurdity of having a "Functionary" who is clearly not a "trusted user" ... lays bare the ridiculousness of Wikipedia's power structure ...

It now appears inevitable that Jayjg will retain the tools and trappings of power. My advice to the ArbCom members who vote against him on this: watch your backs! Jayjg has a long memory, and will, eventually, use any available opportunity to slip a stiletto into anyone who opposes him.

[Jon Awbrey]

The proposal(s) to strip Jay of his functionary status seems to have hit a wall with one arb backsliding WP:Refarb/West Bank — Judea and Samaria/Proposed decision#Jayjg stripped of status and privileges. I'm kind of hoping Jay isn't stripped. The absurdity of having a "Functionary" who is clearly not a "trusted user" … lays bare the ridiculousness of Wikipedia's power structure …

It now appears inevitable that Jayjg will retain the tools and trappings of power. My advice to the ArbCom members who vote against him on this: watch your backs! Jayjg has a long memory, and will, eventually, use any available opportunity to slip a stiletto into anyone who opposes him.

Your line, Mr. Rains …

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Milton Roe]

The proposal(s) to strip Jay of his functionary status seems to have hit a wall with one arb backsliding WP:Refarb/West Bank — Judea and Samaria/Proposed decision#Jayjg stripped of status and privileges. I'm kind of hoping Jay isn't stripped. The absurdity of having a "Functionary" who is clearly not a "trusted user" … lays bare the ridiculousness of Wikipedia's power structure …

It now appears inevitable that Jayjg will retain the tools and trappings of power. My advice to the ArbCom members who vote against him on this: watch your backs! Jayjg has a long memory, and will, eventually, use any available opportunity to slip a stiletto into anyone who opposes him.

Your line, Mr. Rains …

I am shocked, simply shocked.

Round up the usual whipping-goys.

[EricBarbour]

I have been thinking about this, especially given Wikipedia:Functionary's appearance, which tells me we're really moving into uncharted territory. As such, it is (possibly) not a given that the proposal is in line with community wishes (although likely). Maybe this is worth a separate RfC and is more apt for the community to decide than us. Still mulling over it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(IMG:http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj408/kamaze144/puppets-laugh.gif)

[TungstenCarbide]

The proposal(s) to strip Jay of his functionary status seems to have hit a wall with one arb backsliding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._and_privilegesI'm kind of hoping Jay isn't stripped. The absurdity of having a "Functionary" who is clearly not a "trusted user" ... lays bare the ridiculousness of Wikipedia's power structure ...

It now appears inevitable that Jayjg will retain the tools and trappings of power. My advice to the ArbCom members who vote against him on this: watch your backs! Jayjg has a long memory, and will, eventually, use any available opportunity to slip a stiletto into anyone who opposes him.

Either that or it'll be a group of seemingly unrelated people who do it on his behalf.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I'm kind of hoping Jay isn't stripped. The absurdity of having a "Functionary" who is clearly not a "trusted user" (not trusted enough to edit the topic area that has been the focus of 80% or so of his "work") and has been found by the ArbComm to be a relentless POV pusher and edit warrior just lays bare the ridiculousness of Wikipedia's power structure and the fact that it's not based on merit or trust but on a combination of cliqueishness, manipulation and sinicure.

That would be cool. It might hopefully function in a manner similar to the way that Captain Kirk would use a simple paradox to cause the shut-down of some super-computer that was running amok and threatening to destroy the universe.

Unfortunately arbcom cannot rule on content, so like many of these type of debates, we get left with a vacuum.

The arbcom has been ruling on content for years, just not openly. They sanction the content they prefer by means of double standards in how they treat editors.

{{citation needed}}

As a prime example, take a look at the Nobs01 and others arbcom case, examine the basic points, and then see what happens when you get to the remedies.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

SlimVirgin has emerged from the shadows to offer a new enforcement approach, which would consist of a sort of "NPOV committee." The proposal is being well received, although I can imagine that it might create new avenues of Cabalism. Wasting no time, SV has moved to enshrine it as policy.

[Milton Roe]

SlimVirgin has emerged from the shadows to offer a new enforcement approach, which would consist of a sort of "NPOV committee." The proposal is being well received, although I can imagine that it might create new avenues of Cabalism. Wasting no time, SV has moved to enshrine it as policy.

The idea would be that each dispute area would have its own group of uninvolved, experienced editors to enforce neutrality.

.

She volunteers to be on the animal use and rights committee, just to make sure they stick to a neutral non-human-centered view. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

When I saw Jayjg slipping out of this last fiasco, I was much reminded of that classic World of Warcraft episode on South Park, which features the gamer who has advanced to a level not previously thought possible, and is now immune even to site administration. Even "admins" can do nothing to him.

"How could it happen?" the MMORPG makers wonder. Answer: "He's been playing all the time, for years. He HAS NO LIFE."

"But, but.... How can we kill that which has no life?" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Good question.

Some people suggest actually quitting the game and not playing it, since it's rigged against people who DO have a life. This is rejected.

Finally they locate the Sword of a Thousand Truths, a weapon of unimaginable power, stored on a 1 GB flashdrive in some accountant's drawer.

Hey, ArbCom! If you can locate such a thing in the desk of some accountant at WP (look in Danny's old desk, maybe), you might actually be able to deal with Jayjg and SlimVirgin. Otherwise, I see continued epic überpwnage in your future. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

SlimVirgin has emerged from the shadows to offer a new enforcement approach, which would consist of a sort of "NPOV committee." The proposal is being well received, although I can imagine that it might create new avenues of Cabalism. Wasting no time, SV has moved to enshrine it as policy.

I note at least one player has mentioned full protection for pages. If its done right, this could be an antidote for the "anyone can edit" dogma. Big "if", obviously.

[written by he who wrote it]

SlimVirgin has emerged from the shadows to offer a new enforcement approach, which would consist of a sort of "NPOV committee." The proposal is being well received, although I can imagine that it might create new avenues of Cabalism.

That is not difficult. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) In fact it would be hard to imagine how such a committee would not become simply another battleground between the factions, with both sides scheming to get their allies in and their opponents out.

[Milton Roe]

SlimVirgin has emerged from the shadows to offer a new enforcement approach, which would consist of a sort of "NPOV committee." The proposal is being well received, although I can imagine that it might create new avenues of Cabalism.

That is not difficult. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) In fact it would be hard to imagine how such a committee would not become simply another battleground between the factions, with both sides scheming to get their allies in and their opponents out.

On the other hand, it's a good mechanism to get the recursive ironies of this stupid NPOV idea out in the open. Finally, we'll have some NPOV committee toiling away to reach a group conscensus opinion (see POV) about what (or where) the NPOV officially is on some subject. Somebody is bound to notice the meta-problem. They haven't yet, but I still hold out hopes that some of these people will "get it" (finally) when the stinker of a contradiction is held right in front of their noses and they are forced to take a good snort.

Oh, they'll try to be clever, like trying to pretend that figuring out factural NPOV policy is an ordinary meta-policy decission, like how many hyperlinks should ideally be in a sentence. The problem is, that that won't work, because this is NOT a meta-problem with wiki policy. This committee is going to have to deal with epistemology and factual contect about the real world-- the very thing that ArbCom has (probably wisely) stayed away from, until now, like it was a hot potato. Which it is.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) I expect hilarity if they do it.

[Cedric]

Oh, they'll try to be clever, like trying to pretend that figuring out factural NPOV policy is an ordinary meta-policy decission, like how many hyperlinks should ideally be in a sentence. The problem is, that that won't work, because this is NOT a meta-problem with wiki policy. This committee is going to have to deal with epistemology and factual contect about the real world-- the very thing that ArbCom has (probably wisely) stayed away from, until now, like it was a hot potato. Which it is.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) I expect hilarity if they do it.

Not only that, but the whole proposal seems to be a way for Stroynaya to worm her way back into the Cabal and to create a new power base for herself "on wiki", or to try to, anyway. Either way, drama appears to be guaranteed.

(IMG:http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/5743/willferrell5.jpg)

"It's drama gold, I tells ya!"

[Heat]

I was wondering about SV's work on the Exodus from Lydda article and her warring with pro-Israel editor Jaakobou http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=288564782

"Could it be that SV is actually moving away from her pro-Israel pushing POV of the past?" I wondered, thinking perhaps the criticism here of her enablement of extremists like Zeq had hit home.

And then I saw her proposals at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...oposed_decision

Is it too cynical to think that SV decided to, for the first time, take action against pro-Israel POV pushers as a mechanism to recast herself as "neutral" in the I/P topic area so that she could make a last minute intervention in an attempt to save Jayjg from a topic ban (or worse?)

This reminds me of her last minute intervention in the Mantanmoreland case where she generated enough confusion to save Mantanmoreland from ArbCom imposed sanctions. Of course, that didn't end so well. SV's reasonable doubt argument fell apart days later when Checkuser proved Mantanmoreland was indeed a sockpuppeteer (a revelation that destroyed what was left of SV's credibility for some time). I wonder if SV manages to save Jay's bacon this time the whole thing will come crashing down again?

This proposal seems like nothing more than an attempt to get her buddies off the hook and create an unworkable mechanism. Talking about neutrality in the I/P realm is an absurdity as no one who attempts to act neutrally on those pages is viewed as such by both sides, at least not for very long and indeed, Jayjg and his cohorts have long insisted that all they are trying to do is defend NPOV - a falsehood SV has long supported.

[EricBarbour]

Is it too cynical to think that SV decided to, for the first time, take action against pro-Israel POV pushers as a mechanism to recast herself as "neutral" in the I/P topic area so that she could make a last minute intervention in an attempt to save Jayjg from a topic ban (or worse?)

Nothing new there---classic back-office political manipulation.

Please remember: this is all just a game to her.

Not real, therefore she can do anything, no matter how sleazy or untoward.
SV is literally a character from a (bad) soap opera. She probably thinks she's
"glamorous", like Joan Collins or somesuch.....

[Herschelkrustofsky]

She probably thinks she's "glamorous", like Joan Collins or somesuch.....

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/BlueGirl.svg/60px-BlueGirl.svg.png)

[Snowey]

Risker talked some sense into Calisber, so it's 7-0 for stripping Jay of his tools. It's a shame they're not stripping him of his sysop bit, too.

[Heat]

Risker talked some sense into Calisber, so it's 7-0 for stripping Jay of his tools. It's a shame they're not stripping him of his sysop bit, too.

Who is going to be number 8? (8 votes are needed for the proposal to pass)

[The Adversary]

Risker talked some sense into Calisber, so it's 7-0 for stripping Jay of his tools. It's a shame they're not stripping him of his sysop bit, too.

Who is going to be number 8? (8 votes are needed for the proposal to pass)

Done!
#8: Roger Davis

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Dang! This makes WP perceptibly more credible. Do you think the Review deserves any share of the credit?

[Casliber]

Dang! This makes WP perceptibly more credible. Do you think the Review deserves any share of the credit?

Hmm I don't think so....Risker's phrasing clinched it for me really. Can't comment for others.
Cas

[Heat]

Ding-dong the witch is dead.

This post has been edited by Heat:

[EricBarbour]

This makes WP perceptibly more credible.

Um.......no. If this had happened 3 years ago, maybe.

Do you think the Review deserves any share of the credit?

Possibly, but don't wait for Arbcommers to admit it.....

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Milton Roe]

Ding-dong the witch is dead.

Not quite, as he hasn't been desysopped. What good is censuring somebody for outrageous editwarring going to do if you leave him with the basic tool which allows edit warriors to get away with edit warring without being summarily blocked for it (or else rescued immediately). Yes, admins can block admins, but they rarely do, as much drama ensues. If you're a protected admin, you admin friends will do it, even if you've been on the wrong end of previous sanctions.

In Jayjg case, he's been protected from (non-mistake) blocks by rescues from David Gerard, SlimVirgin, and.... Essjay. They couldn't let him stay blocked for even a few hours. I can't see the stink he made on backchannel, but nothing else accounts for this level of game-protection. He was an admin at the time (though not long), but had been weakened by the first of his many ArbCom disputes for edit-warring in Jewish-related articles. Gaming from the beginning. This goes back to 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=User%3AJayjg

[Heat]

Gaming from the beginning. This goes back to 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=User%3AJayjg

Not a bad run for an edit warrior and POV pusher.

[Milton Roe]

Gaming from the beginning. This goes back to 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=User%3AJayjg

Not a bad run for an edit warrior and POV pusher.

It's not the blocks you see. It's the ones you DON'T see because they weren't made, since he was an ADMIN all that time, since the end of 2004. Any plain-editor doing that through that time, would have been an oilslick on the highway by now.

Become an admin early and often. That's the way to game WP if you're gunna do it. And make sure you get about four more other admins traveling in a wolf pack with you. It works for lots of animals!

[Cla68]

Gaming from the beginning. This goes back to 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=User%3AJayjg

Not a bad run for an edit warrior and POV pusher.

The case will be closed in another few days. To be fair, it's not just the pro-Israel editors causing trouble in those articles. A couple of months ago I added a paragraph to the article on the most recent Israel/Palestine war about allegations that Iran was using Hamas as a proxy army to terrorize Israel and the evidence of this was the recent seizures of arms shipments from Iran to the Gaza strip. I think I cited the New York Times. My edit was reverted by someone, not a party to this case, within a few minutes.

I guess there are some areas in Wikipedia where it's just a complete waste of time to get involved to any extent at all. Yes, I know some of you would say that any involvement at all anywhere in Wikipedia is a waste of time.

[Snowey]

Sam Blacketer arrives to tank Jay's well-deserved sanctions. He also voted for topic banning G-Dett but against the same for Jay. Seems he's convinced Vassyana to switch votes, too. Can he peel away two more votes?

After a great deal of consideration, I move to opposition. I have deeply conflicted feeling about this remedy and the supporting findings. I agree with the underlying principles driving this remedy. Regardless, I am also deeply concerned with issues of presentation and impression. Jayjg has not misused the tools and I do not believe a small "thank you" appended at the end will be sufficient to correct misconceptions to the contrary. While an acknowledgement regarding misconduct in relation to the various administrative roles is a great principle to communicate, I cannot help but feel that the various misunderstandings of the intended message (which vary in substance, rationale, and perspective) must be considered. For these and other reasons (this is already long), I feel this remedy would be counterproductive to our intended goals.

What a steaming pile of bullshit.

This post has been edited by Snowey:

[Heat]

Sam Blacketer arrives to tank Jay's well-deserved sanctions. He also voted for topic banning G-Dett but against the same for Jay. Seems he's convinced Vassyana to switch votes, too. Can he peel away two more votes?

Not much time. With enough votes to close this should be over in less than 24 hours.

[gomi]

Sam Blacketer arrives to tank Jay's well-deserved sanctions. He also voted for topic banning G-Dett but against the same for Jay. Seems he's convinced Vassyana to switch votes, too. Can he peel away two more votes?

Well, Vassyana has always been a quivering pile of indecision. It is still 9-2 to sanction Jay, and I think that a 7-5 vote to sanction him, thus failing because of ArbCom's arcane voting system, would destroy any remaining shreds of confidence in the ArbCom, if there are any.

To be fair, it's not just the pro-Israel editors causing trouble in those articles. A couple of months ago I added a paragraph ... I cited the New York Times. My edit was reverted ... within a few minutes. ... Yes, I know some of you would say that any involvement at all anywhere in Wikipedia is a waste of time.

To be really fair, no one is claiming that the pro-Israel partisan editors are worse than the pro-Palestinian editors in their editing. Both of them are a pox on the truth. The issue here is that one side is protected by an ultra-powerful WP admin/checkuser/oversighter, and the other isn't. Said admin has never been reticent in using the tools of the WP trade to push his partisan agenda.

And yes, we have well established that Wikipedia is at its (cough) best in the accumulation of easily-sourced yet non-controversial facts about trivial subjects. I use it all the time to find out what actor was in which episode of random television programs. It's not as good as IMDB, but it is pretty good for that. For any subject beyond trivia, Wikipedia varies from bad to merely questionable.

I know that you and others do much work on (mostly) non-controversial areas of military history, and it is a shame that little one reads there can be trusted -- not because of lack of hard work on your part -- but because of the ultimate bankruptcy of the Wikipedia model, a state to which Jayjg and his ilk have contributed much.

[Milton Roe]

Sam Blacketer arrives to tank Jay's well-deserved sanctions. He also voted for topic banning G-Dett but against the same for Jay. Seems he's convinced Vassyana to switch votes, too. Can he peel away two more votes?

Well, Vassyana has always been a quivering pile of indecision. It is still 9-2 to sanction Jay, and I think that a 7-5 vote to sanction him, thus failing because of ArbCom's arcane voting system, would destroy any remaining shreds of confidence in the ArbCom, if there are any.

Strange. Blacketer is by no means part of the Israeli POV Kabbal: his Kabbal score with Jayjg, Slim, and Jpgordon is an uninteresting 12:

#1 World_War_I - edited by 4 of 4 users
#2 Saddam_Hussein - edited by 4 of 4 users
#3 Racism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#4 Martin_Luther - edited by 4 of 4 users
#5 Lebanon - edited by 4 of 4 users
#6 Jesse_Jackson - edited by 4 of 4 users
#7 Holocaust_denial - edited by 4 of 4 users
#8 George_Galloway - edited by 4 of 4 users
#9 Christianity - edited by 4 of 4 users
#10 British_National_Party - edited by 4 of 4 users
#11 Auschwitz_concentration_camp - edited by 4 of 4 users
#12 Adolf_Hitler - edited by 4 of 4 users


So what's going on with him? Anybody know him?

[Saltimbanco]

After a great deal of consideration, I move to opposition. I have deeply conflicted feeling about this remedy and the supporting findings. I agree with the underlying principles driving this remedy. Regardless, I am also deeply concerned with issues of presentation and impression. Jayjg has not misused the tools and I do not believe a small "thank you" appended at the end will be sufficient to correct misconceptions to the contrary. While an acknowledgement regarding misconduct in relation to the various administrative roles is a great principle to communicate, I cannot help but feel that the various misunderstandings of the intended message (which vary in substance, rationale, and perspective) must be considered. For these and other reasons (this is already long), I feel this remedy would be counterproductive to our intended goals.

Hee hee hee!

The "but he didn't misuse the functionary tools!" argument is more than a bit like defending a daycare employee from being fired after he has been convicted of a violent sex crime, on the basis that the crime did not involve children.

[thekohser]

So what's going on with him? Anybody know him?

Of course we know him, Milton.

He probably still hopes that I'm as sick as a parrot.

[Milton Roe]

So what's going on with him? Anybody know him?

Of course we know him, Milton.

He probably still hopes that I'm as sick as a parrot.

Ah, thanks. Deep in the closet like Jayjg. Amazing and short climb to power. One smells personal connections in the UK ala FT2. Maybe Blacketer's real name is Paul Sinclair, hey?

I should use the "search" function of this board more, but (as you all know) it sucks, so I've neglected it more than I should have.

[The Adversary]

Seriously, Prob needs a new hobby:
"If you sanction any of these innocent people, I will out the pseudonymous members of your committee."

and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/67.170.104.86

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Snowey]

Ding dong.

[Tarc]

Ding dong.

The proverbial ink isn't even dry yet, and out comes the "poor Jayjg" protests,
as well as the charge that it was an antisemitic plot finally coming to fruition.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[Heat]

Ding dong.

The proverbial ink isn't even dry yet, and out comes the "poor Jayjg" protests,
as well as the charge that it was an antisemitic plot finally coming to fruition.

The Jewish Arbs who voted for Jay's defenestration are self-hating Jews, no doubt. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[written by he who wrote it]

Ding dong.

The proverbial ink isn't even dry yet, and out comes the "poor Jayjg" protests,
as well as the charge that it was an antisemitic plot finally coming to fruition.

Uncle Leo lives.

[Heat]

Ding dong.

The proverbial ink isn't even dry yet, and out comes the "poor Jayjg" protests,
as well as the charge that it was an antisemitic plot finally coming to fruition.

Uncle Leo lives.

SV's opportunism is quite striking. She's now opposing pro-Israel editors, outing one sockpuppet of an editor banned in the CAMERA scandal, and expressed sympathy on the RFA's talk page with Nishdani over his banning without saying a word about Jayjg. As with her decision to shill for Proabivouac even after he outed her longtime friend Crum it appears that her "friendships" are entirely opportunistic and tactical and she's quite happy to see a friend thrown under a bus if they are no longer of use to her.

[trenton]

rights removed (request)

SV's opportunism is quite striking. She's now opposing pro-Israel editors, outing one sockpuppet of an editor banned in the CAMERA scandal, and expressed sympathy on the RFA's talk page with Nishdani over his banning without saying a word about Jayjg. As with her decision to shill for Proabivouac even after he outed her longtime friend Crum it appears that her "friendships" are entirely opportunistic and tactical and she's quite happy to see a friend thrown under a bus if they are no longer of use to her.

Well, you gotta build up your credibility and political capital before you can spend it...

[Herschelkrustofsky]

So what is Jayjg's next move? His patented formula seems like it will need to be revised now.

SV's opportunism is quite striking. She's now opposing pro-Israel editors, outing one sockpuppet of an editor banned in the CAMERA scandal

CAMERA has come to mind lately because of Obama administration Svengali Larry Summers has a long-standing relationship with that organization, and argued back in 2004 that a faculty-led drive pushing Harvard to divest from Israel-linked companies was "anti-Semitic."

[CharlotteWebb]

The "but he didn't misuse the functionary tools!" argument is more than a bit like defending a daycare employee from being fired after he has been convicted of a violent sex crime, on the basis that the crime did not involve children.

Well I don't see the basis for that comparison, but I will say you have unusual taste in hyperbole. Thankfully so do I, though I've been trying my damnedest not to comment on this, I really have.

My analogy would be that the Daily Planet ((IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/Wiki.png/25px-Wiki.png)) didn't like his Spin Doctoring, so they took away his x-ray vision.

Could be that somebody back there is invoking the Aleman v. Cook County as an exception to the autrefois acquit defense, or just has a Pocket Full of Kryptonite (but at least his right to remain silent still applies).

Or they could be that they are laundering some evidence that they are not allowed to describe. All I can say is it was bound to happen eventually. I'm sure there are pundits who expect me to put on that party dress, fire up the bong, and dance on his grave (maybe even undergo an RFA to commemorate this event but I'm not like that).

I'll probably get a couple cat-calls over this crap though, just you watch.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Mr. Mystery]

The "but he didn't misuse the functionary tools!" argument is more than a bit like defending a daycare employee from being fired after he has been convicted of a violent sex crime, on the basis that the crime did not involve children.

Well I don't see the basis for that comparison, but I will say you have unusual taste in hyperbole. Thankfully so do I, though I've been trying my damnedest not to comment on this, I really have.

My analogy would be that the Daily Planet ((IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/Wiki.png/25px-Wiki.png)) didn't like his Spin Doctoring, so they took away his x-ray vision.

Could be that somebody back there is invoking the Aleman v. Cook County as an exception to the autrefois acquit defense, or just has a pocket full of kryptonite (but at least his right to remain silent still applies).

Or they could be that they are laundering some evidence that they are not allowed to describe. All I can say is it was bound to happen eventually. I'm sure there are pundits who expect me to put on that party dress, fire up the bong, and dance on his grave (maybe even undergo an RFA to commemorate this event but I'm not like that).

I'll probably get a couple cat-calls over this crap though, just you watch.

I always did admire your fortitude after Jay casually used CU tools to torpedo your RFA. His CU access should have been removed then, in my opinion.

[The Joy]

rights removed (request)

Play him off, Keyboard Cat!

[The Adversary]

So, finally, finally over.
Ok, I have mixed feelings about this case. First, about the presumed issue; the naming:

A few weeks ago I met, well, lets say; "an European acquaintance of mine, with a very good knowledge about European mass-media, but with little knowledge about Wikipedia". Mentioning WP, I told him that the "high priests" of WP were now considering to allow the names Judea/Samaria as a substitute for the "West Bank".

He went absolutely speechless. (A rather rare occurence!) In the European media, Judea/Samaria is never used, except as to explain that this is the language of the "extreme right-wing Israeli settler-movement". Meteormaker documented it in excruciating detail.

Good Lord. Next: some new gang bands up on WP, and we will have an arb.com about whether the Pope is Catholic?

And about the "verdicts": it has been a development against edit-warring for some time. It started really with the 100% rule against wheel warring, now it has "spread" to normal editing. This has not been a rule set in stone (earlier). The claim that people are being punished by a retroactive law has some credence.

Lastly, I feel, what is the point of this? I see arb.com as a dozen big elephants, strong, but mostly a bit slow moving. In the end they moved a few...matches.

Why? Because they do not want to set down principles, they only punish individuals, who are... anonymous! Oh, the irony! Does anyone think NoCal or CanadianMonkey were their first accounts? And does anyone really think that they will not come back, indeed, are not back already?

These "13 to the dozen" ignorant "mob"-accounts are not punished at all by arb.com. The fact that Tundrabuggy has been allowed to run around harassing/disrupting the project for a year, only underscores this. (And s/he was *only* caught because of an email to Slim). Those who are punished by topic-bans are the "unique" voices, like G-Dett, or Nishidani. If they tried to "do a Tundrabuggy" they would be recognized long before anyone managed to type "verbal chandeliers".

Ok, ok: arb.com did move one significant piece of lumber; Jayjg. Now; the interesting thing is: will he come back socking? If so; he is far too experienced to do a silly Tundrabuggy-mistake. I think he possibly could come back, unnoticed. His "voice" is so close to the "13 to the dozen" accounts, just with more persistence that most. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Snowey]

Play him off, Keyboard Cat!

More like this, ja? And we're the cameraman.

Also, I still can't figure out why his sysop bit wasn't included in the privileges he was stripped of.

[The Joy]

Play him off, Keyboard Cat!

More like this, ja? And we're the cameraman.

Also, I still can't figure out why his sysop bit wasn't included in the privileges he was stripped of.

Was there any evidence of him misusing his admin tools or threatening to misuse them? As far as I know, you can be a complete jerk and despicable human being on Wikipedia, but as long as you don't misuse the tools, they'll never be taken away. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[written by he who wrote it]

Good Lord. Next: some new gang bands up on WP, and we will have an arb.com about whether the Pope is Catholic?

Specifically, should he be called "Catholic", or are "Romanist", "Papist", and "incense-huffing Vaticanite" acceptable neutral terms? The former is the overwhelming consensus of those who write English, the latter (okay, maybe not the last (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) are used only by a handful of extremists.

[trenton]

according to this, while Mr. Jayjg has not been editing, he seems to have been pretty active on the oversight front....

[Casliber]

So, finally, finally over.
Ok, I have mixed feelings about this case. First, about the presumed issue; the naming:

A few weeks ago I met, well, lets say; "an European acquaintance of mine, with a very good knowledge about European mass-media, but with little knowledge about Wikipedia". Mentioning WP, I told him that the "high priests" of WP were now considering to allow the names Judea/Samaria as a substitute for the "West Bank".

He went absolutely speechless. (A rather rare occurence!) In the European media, Judea/Samaria is never used, except as to explain that this is the language of the "extreme right-wing Israeli settler-movement". Meteormaker documented it in excruciating detail.

Good Lord. Next: some new gang bands up on WP, and we will have an arb.com about whether the Pope is Catholic?

And about the "verdicts": it has been a development against edit-warring for some time. It started really with the 100% rule against wheel warring, now it has "spread" to normal editing. This has not been a rule set in stone (earlier). The claim that people are being punished by a retroactive law has some credence.

Lastly, I feel, what is the point of this? I see arb.com as a dozen big elephants, strong, but mostly a bit slow moving. In the end they moved a few...matches.

Why? Because they do not want to set down principles, they only punish individuals, who are... anonymous! Oh, the irony! Does anyone think NoCal or CanadianMonkey were their first accounts? And does anyone really think that they will not come back, indeed, are not back already?

These "13 to the dozen" ignorant "mob"-accounts are not punished at all by arb.com. The fact that Tundrabuggy has been allowed to run around harassing/disrupting the project for a year, only underscores this. (And s/he was *only* caught because of an email to Slim). Those who are punished by topic-bans are the "unique" voices, like G-Dett, or Nishidani. If they tried to "do a Tundrabuggy" they would be recognized long before anyone managed to type "verbal chandeliers".

Ok, ok: arb.com did move one significant piece of lumber; Jayjg. Now; the interesting thing is: will he come back socking? If so; he is far too experienced to do a silly Tundrabuggy-mistake. I think he possibly could come back, unnoticed. His "voice" is so close to the "13 to the dozen" accounts, just with more persistence that most. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Arbcom can't rule on content, but we can highlight the necessity for the community to come to a consensus on the name. This was why I introduced a remedy 13.1 to push for that over the following two months.
Cas

[Herschelkrustofsky]

according to this, while Mr. Jayjg has not been editing, he seems to have been pretty active on the oversight front....

This evokes memories of Ollie North (T-H-L-K-D) and Fawn Hall (T-H-L-K-D), up late at night with the shredding machine.

[Saltimbanco]

I think the underlying story here is that Hasbara, Inc. has bigger fish to fry than Wikipedia right now. Jayjg (and, incidentally, a host of other pro-Israel editors) showed up around mid-2004, when Wikipedia was approaching its 15 minutes of fame period. Now that Wikipedia has been made into a joke rather than a serious information source (thanks in no small part to the efforts of Jayjg and others), what's the point of putting much effort into controlling its content? So I suspect that whatever cover had been provided for Jayjg to allow him not only to get away with but to thrive with his blatant propaganda effort has dissipated. He'll probably move on to promoting a "pre-emptive" attack on Iran somewhere.

[Eppur si muove]

It's interesting looking at the talk pages for those sentenced. Nishidani (T-C-L-K-R-D) has received the most expressions of support or sympathy and all the pro-Palestinian editors have some. JayJG (T-C-L-K-R-D) has recieved some comments but the likes of NoCal100 (T-C-L-K-R-D) none.

Of course some people may think it pointless saying anything to an attack sockpuppet .

Ding dong.

The proverbial ink isn't even dry yet, and out comes the "poor Jayjg" protests,
as well as the charge that it was an antisemitic plot finally coming to fruition.

Look CeedJee and Schosha are so incapable of acknowledging that they may have contributed to why they are blocked. You can hardly expect them to understand oen fo their friends being blocked.

[CharlotteWebb]

I always did admire your fortitude after Jay casually used CU tools to torpedo your RFA. His CU access should have been removed then, in my opinion.

Well I didn't want to say anything that might be construed as an attempt to influence the outcome of this case, because as far as I knew it had nothing to do with the 2007 [1] allegations of checkuser apartheid.

In response to certain recent arbcom decisions one often hears such post-modern aphorisms as "well, they finally got Capone for tax evasion" which really begs the question regarding the ethical basis of prohibition (or income tax for that matter) but I digress.

according to this, while Mr. Jayjg has not been editing, he seems to have been pretty active on the oversight front....

Perhaps this is part of the hypothetical laundered evidence to which I alluded above. That is, if citing specific examples of abuse is verboten, if some kind of policy or non-disclosure agreement governing cloak'n'dagger access levels prohibits this, arbcom might feel the need to issue this type of sanction ex nihilo or for unrelated reasons [2]. But I'm not really sure about that as there are no previous similar decisions to compare this to, as I understand this is the first time such access has been involuntarily removed [3].

I doubt they're still worked up over the torpedo incident, in fact I hope they aren't. They did mention my name but as context for his "avoid generating drama" sanction. I had half a mind to reach in there and prune that crap from Jayjg's arbcomography as enumerated in FoF #8, mostly because it's meaningless and fuck-all to do with Israel, Palestine, beer, or the price of firewalls in the PRC.

I mean sure I was devastated at the time, but I don't think it has adversely affected me in the long-term and once again I didn't want to be seen as being "petty and vindictive", contributing to his demise, etc. On the other hand I remembered that hardly anybody reads the FoFs before concocting sanctions anyway so I'd only be drawing more attention to it (Streisand effect?).

While I'd suppose that the result was probably in the community's best interest I cannot be entirely sure how and why it came about. Thus I don't certainly don't see the "transparency in arbcom" panacea reaching its hyped and heralded level of fruition.

Jay is not my worst enemy on Wikipedia (though he may be his own), but even if he was he'd still deserve a fair trial, and this lacks the appearance of that. I don't dispute the presence of evidence supporting a topic ban of some scope or duration, but if you read the rest it says his super-user bits were removed due to conduct which was "unbecoming of his position [as oversight and checkuser]" even while unrelated to it.[2]

At face value this makes me uneasy as I've always felt users should be sanctioned in no other capacity than the one in which they misbehaved. Anything beyond that would actually reduce accountability by encouraging the exclusive use of top-secret incognito accounts for non-"custodial" tasks (content editing in particular) once the perceived risk of being desysopped (or whatever) for no pertinent reason becomes too great.

However I'm not prepared to take this at face value, as experienced readers will recall prior situations in which he used both checkuser and oversight inappropriately, plus there seems to be some evidence that he had continued to use these tools despite no longer editing. I guess if the wheel's still spinning but the hamster's dead, the CSCWEM precedent could reasonably apply, and this strongly would suggest he is/was using a new account pursuant to the previous paragraph.

Good for him, maybe he can edit something uncontroversial yet still within his areas of interest, such as Crash, Empire of the Sun, and new articles about every synagogue in the western hemisphere, etc. In fact I wish him well, but still I implore the committee to refactor this case so that it reflects/clarifies the actual reasons for their rather landmark decision, lest anyone draw naïve conclusions.[2]

[1] The year, not the number of... never mind...
[2] such as garden-variety edit-warring or a rhetorical fixation with beer.
[3] well, on the English Wikipedia anyway.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[tarantino]

... as I understand this is the first time such access has been involuntarily removed.

A week ago, arbcom removed the checkuser and oversight rights of Redux, UninvitedCompany and The Epopt because of their inactivity.

[CharlotteWebb]

A week ago, arbcom removed the checkuser and oversight rights of Redux, UninvitedCompany and The Epopt because of their inactivity.

Hmm... coincidence? I will say that's a poor reason to remove it. But once again we never know the whole story.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[No one of consequence]

A week ago, arbcom removed the checkuser and oversight rights of Redux, UninvitedCompany and The Epopt because of their inactivity.

Hmm... coincidence? I will say that's a poor reason to remove it. But once again we never know the whole story.

No, that's really all there was. Basically, there is a slight but non-zero security risk created when people have the tools, and access to the logs and the confidential mailing lists, but don't intend to use them. It is my understanding that all three users were contacted and asked whether they intended to become active again soon, and none of them did.

according to this, while Mr. Jayjg has not been editing, he seems to have been pretty active on the oversight front....

This evokes memories of Ollie North (T-H-L-K-D) and Fawn Hall (T-H-L-K-D), up late at night with the shredding machine.

Nope.

[gomi]

according to this, while Mr. Jayjg has not been editing, he seems to have been pretty active on the oversight front....

This evokes memories of Ollie North (T-H-L-K-D) and Fawn Hall (T-H-L-K-D), up late at night with the shredding machine.

Nope.

156 deletions and oversights while under the cloud of a negative ArbCom decision, the logs of which are unavailable to the general public, and while the user in question was silent on the subject and not otherwise editing Wikipedia?

I would say that the presumption of innocence does not apply, at least to any normally-skeptical person.

[No one of consequence]

according to this, while Mr. Jayjg has not been editing, he seems to have been pretty active on the oversight front....

This evokes memories of Ollie North (T-H-L-K-D) and Fawn Hall (T-H-L-K-D), up late at night with the shredding machine.

Nope.

156 deletions and oversights while under the cloud of a negative ArbCom decision, the logs of which are unavailable to the general public, and while the user in question was silent on the subject and not otherwise editing Wikipedia?

I would say that the presumption of innocence does not apply, at least to any normally-skeptical person.

I'm not presuming anything.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

No One of Consequence has slightly better-than-average access. But you must forgive the rest of us for speculating a bit.

[One]

156 deletions and oversights while under the cloud of a negative ArbCom decision, the logs of which are unavailable to the general public, and while the user in question was silent on the subject and not otherwise editing Wikipedia?

I would say that the presumption of innocence does not apply, at least to any normally-skeptical person.

This is precisely why I was reluctant to vote for these findings. He hasn't been doing anything nefarious with the superbits in the recent past. Period. I tried to make that emphatically clear; his removal was simply for the activity you see on Wikipedia. Just as we would desysop an admin for prolific edit warring--even if they never misused the tools--we believe that functionaries should be held to a higher standard. Higher than regular admins, even.

His recent oversights were legitimate; removing the sort of things that can damage non-editor innocent victims. For his work in this area, I and the committee thanked him.

Incidentally, when he quit editing on Wikipedia, he also stopped sending messages in any forum that I am aware of. He was not engaging in a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign. He really was busy with real life.

I'm tired of these conspiracy theories. Please come up with some actual critique. Thanks.

This post has been edited by One:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Well, he is an inveterate POV pusher and bully. That requires no conspiracy theory and I think it's beyond dispute.

[EricBarbour]

Jay is not my worst enemy on Wikipedia (though he may be his own), but even if he was he'd still deserve a fair trial, and this lacks the appearance of that.

You might ask G-Dett, or PalestineRemembered, if Jay gave them a "fair trial".
And don't forget this.

[gomi]

I'm tired of these conspiracy theories. Please come up with some actual critique. Thanks.

OK, how about this: the lack of transparency of all of the "superpowers" given to Wikipedia's uber-admins, combined with the poor choice in who they are given to, leads reasonable people to conclude that the potential for abuse exists. Relying on the unsupported representations of those within that same cabal of uber-admins that no abuse in taking place at the moment does nothing to diminish the problem.

The idea, the mere concept that -- after such a long, long history of misuse of admin powers by the likes of Jayjg, MONGO, Ryulong, SlimVirgin and many others -- that these representations should be trusted is an insult to the intelligence of every Wikipedia editor and observer, as is "thanking" Jayjg for his "years of service" blocking innocent editors, edit-warring, and generally being an asshole.

[Snowey]

Just as we would desysop an admin for prolific edit warring--even if they never misused the tools----we believe that functionaries should be held to a higher standard. Higher than regular admins, even.

So you'll be de-sysop'ing Jay immediately, then?

[One]

Relying on the unsupported representations of those within that same cabal of uber-admins that no abuse in taking place at the moment does nothing to diminish the problem.

Ah yes, the uber-admin cabal. The disagreements we might appear to have are actually clever ploys.

Meet the new cabal, same as the old cabal.

This post has been edited by One:

[gomi]

Meet the new cabal, same as the old cabal.

Sorry, but what part of "You cannot fix a structural problem with staffing changes" do you not understand?

[Cedric]

Meet the new cabal, same as the old cabal.

Sorry, but what part of "You cannot fix a structural problem with staffing changes" do you not understand?

None of it, evidently. But then, that is not just CHL's/One's weakness, but one which is rather common on Wikipedia. It is a significant factor in the ongoing process of Wikipedia's self-destruction.

[One]

Sorry, but what part of "You cannot fix a structural problem with staffing changes" do you not understand?

I'm sorry if that's your point. Your fixation with the personalities who banned you is much more noticeable.

[CharlotteWebb]

No, that's really all there was. Basically, there is a slight but non-zero security risk created when people have the tools, and access to the logs and the confidential mailing lists, but don't intend to use them. It is my understanding that all three users were contacted and asked whether they intended to become active again soon, and none of them did.

Well if you mean they responded in the negative, I'd say it was voluntary. But a failure to respond at all would be more ambiguous.

Just as we would desysop an admin for prolific edit warring--even if they never misused the tools--we believe that functionaries should be held to a higher standard. Higher than regular admins, even.

Do you mean you believe this, or is it written down somewhere?

So is this the real reason that so many admins appear uninterested in editing content (i.e. that many of them in fact use other accounts for that) or would this theory be too optimistic?

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[One]

Just as we would desysop an admin for prolific edit warring--even if they never misused the tools--we believe that functionaries should be held to a higher standard. Higher than regular admins, even.

Do you mean you believe this, or is it written down somewhere?

Apparently, a supermajority of the committee believes it, and signed a principle as such. Would you prefer we not hold them to higher standards than other users? Why?

[GlassBeadGame]

Just as we would desysop an admin for prolific edit warring--even if they never misused the tools--we believe that functionaries should be held to a higher standard. Higher than regular admins, even.

Do you mean you believe this, or is it written down somewhere?

Apparently, a supermajority of the committee believes it, and signed a principle as such. Would you prefer we not hold them to higher standards than other users? Why?

I always thought it odd that ArbCom "opinions" are structured like this when ArbCom asserts that the cases have "no precedential value." It seems to me to be as valuable as the paper it is not written on.

[Jon Awbrey]

Sorry, but what part of "You cannot fix a structural problem with staffing changes" do you not understand?

I'm sorry if that's your point. Your fixation with the personalities who banned you is much more noticeable.

Using the term "personality" in a very loose sense, of course.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Lar]

I always thought it odd that ArbCom "opinions" are structured like this when ArbCom asserts that the cases have "no precedential value." It seems to me to be as valuable as the paper it is not written on.

While I am not keen on trappings, in general, and don't want ArbCom taking on all the trappings of a legal system, I think there would be value in striking down the "no precedent set" notion and switching to a precedent based system.

[CharlotteWebb]

Apparently, a supermajority of the committee believes it, and signed a principle as such. Would you prefer we not hold them to higher standards than other users? Why?

Well that's a loaded question. Not a higher set of standards, just a wider set. And of course each standard should be applied with the same rigor to all user-conduct governed by it. This does not mean they should be mixed, matched, or multiplied.

I'm just saying that sanctions which do not address the problem are punitive and unhelpful, and that it is disingenuous to cite regular ol' edits on a regular ol' page as a reason to remove extra user-rights. That kind of nonsense only reinforces the "big deal" fallacy.

Arbcom would have everyone believe Jay's checkuser and oversight tools were removed for a small set of flippant comments and trivial edit-warring which weren't even serious enough to earn a block. However some of us suspect this is a false front for more severe (and above all, more pertinent) misconduct which has not been cited.

Once again I do not disagree with the result per se but I encourage the committee to publish a more detailed reason for it. It's rather a quantum leap of precedent as it stands now, and I'm more worried about the future context in which it may be cited.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[One]

I'm just saying that sanctions which do not address the problem are punitive and unhelpful, and that it is disingenuous to cite regular ol' edits on a regular ol' page as a reason to remove extra user-rights. That kind of nonsense only reinforces the "big deal" fallacy.

Nonsense. Adminship would be less of a big deal if it weren't almost indestructible. ArbCom wants to hold functionaries to a higher standard. With an existing method to remove the tools, the community should be more comfortable with the existence of privileges, no matter who holds them.

Honestly, why should borderline POV warriors have checkuser? Can you articulate a reason? I get that they're regular ol' edits, but doesn't the mere existence of such POV checkusers deter those of opposing ideologies--even the checkuser does not use the extra tools to advance his or her cause? Doesn't it send a signal that POV wars are normal, and sometimes even commendable (depending on one's POV)? If you don't see a problem with this, I can't help you.

Adminship should not be like tenure, and checkuser rights certainly should not be.

Once again I do not disagree with the result per se but I encourage the committee to publish a more detailed reason for it. It's rather a quantum leap of precedent as it stands now, and I'm more worried about the future context in which it may be cited.

It's all there. I'm sorry you don't believe it. This would probably only be cited for removing advance rights--you notice that we implicitly found the conduct within permissible bounds for an admin, but not for a functionary.

This post has been edited by One:

[Snowey]

Just as we would desysop an admin for prolific edit warring--even if they never misused the tools----we believe that functionaries should be held to a higher standard. Higher than regular admins, even.

So you'll be de-sysop'ing Jay immediately, then?

Perhaps you missed this, so I'll ask again: why does Jayjg, who "has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring" (your words), still have his sysop bit?

[One]

I didn't miss it. As I said above, we implicitly found his conduct within permissible bounds for an admin, but not for the higher standard we expect of CUs. There was almost consensus around this point, and that would not have been true of desysop.

This post has been edited by One:

[CharlotteWebb]

With an existing method to remove the tools, the community should be more comfortable with the existence of privileges, no matter who holds them.

That's great but you're off to a rather nebulous start in terms of establishing the conditions under which checkuser/oversight should be removed.

Honestly, why should borderline POV warriors have checkuser? Can you articulate a reason? I get that they're regular ol' edits, but doesn't the mere existence of such POV checkusers deter those of opposing ideologies--even the checkuser does not use the extra tools to advance his or her cause?

Ideally, no.

But this is all hearsay due to the secrecy of everything having to do with checkuser, particularly in cases where somebody suspects inappropriate use of checkuser but can't get anyone to confirm or deny that it was used at all. Some people will erroneously feel paranoid or complacent based on speculation or ritualized assurance that nobody is out to get them, just as they would if these tools are held by somebody who have no opposing POVs or even common topics of interest, only a personal grudge (or for any number of other reasons which could disqualify potentially anyone).

If I were to say "Jay should not have checkuser", it would be entirely on the basis that he has abused it in the past. This has nothing to do with his content editing or his debating style, which are the only reasons cited in the arbcom case. Once again I advise you to refactor this case so that evidence supports the result rather than begging the question.

Doesn't it send a signal that POV wars are normal, and sometimes even commendable (depending on one's POV)? If you don't see a problem with this, I can't help you.

Well if problems associated with his POV/editing can still exist in spite of the topic ban you've got more work to do, eh Luke?

It's all there. I'm sorry you don't believe it. This would probably only be cited for removing advance rights--you notice that we implicitly found the conduct within permissible bounds for an admin, but not for a functionary.

I can't wrap my mind around this distinction. What is the basis for it? Clearly not cause-and-effect.

[One]

Well if problems associated with his POV/editing can still exist in spite of the topic ban you've got more work to do, eh Luke?

Some people find it incongruous to have a topic banned admin--supposedly the topic ban would indicate that the individual doesn't fully have the community's trust. I doubt that, but I would not support any sitting checkuser with a topic ban, as you apparently would. These positions are very high profile, and they should exemplify best practices. I think that POV checkusers are especially demoralizing to opposing editors in a way that POV admins are not.

So how about that as a standard? If we apply a topic ban, then the user should not be a functionary. I would apply that across the board. Reasonable start?

I did not base my votes on Jayjg's previously-examined conduct, but that does not mean that I would have voted differently in the past. I would have generally imposed a more sanctions if I had been on ArbCom. I'm not slighting your case or any others, but I looked primarily to his present conduct.

The reasons individual arbitrators voted might vary, but I can report that there was no behind-the-scenes agreement that Jayjg be removed him for any particular X. The prior cases were an important part of the complete decision, but there was no off-site evidence or agreement by arbitrators. You're looking at the thing we agreed upon; there's nothing else. I signed them simply because I don't think seasoned POV warriors should have advanced tools. Maybe some others voted for private reasons, but I'm not aware of them, nor do I necessarily agree with them.


You seem to believe that the only reason for removing tools is misuse of those particular tools. I think you're wrong both descriptively and normatively. There's nothing else I can say.

This post has been edited by One:

[Heat]

I didn't miss it. As I said above, we implicitly found his conduct within permissible bounds for an admin, but not for the higher standard we expect of CUs. There was almost consensus around this point, and that would not have been true of desysop.

Some time ago Thatcher referred to past questionable use by Jayjg of his oversight tool. While ArbComm may not have formally considered Jayjg's record with either O/S or CheckUser when deciding to remove those bits it would be more transparent if you could at least tell us whether any problems in Jayjg's use of those bits has been found in the past. If CU and O/S users are to be held to a higher standard than certainly they should be subject to the same transparency as other users and if there have been problems with their use of these tools this should be disclosed at the time along with any sanctions (or conversely, findings clearing individuals of wrongdoing).

Records indicate that in 2006 Jayjg twice lost his oversight bit temporarily. An explanation of this would have been nice at the time - it's not too late for one now.

[One]

Records indicate that in 2006 Jayjg twice lost his oversight bit temporarily. An explanation of this would have been nice at the time - it's not too late for one now.

Ask me on Wikipedia.

[CharlotteWebb]

Can you please explain what kind of rubric you use to decide that certain edits are acceptable for a regular user but not acceptable for an admin (or are acceptable for a regular user or an admin, but not acceptable for an oversighter or a checkusererer).

Maybe you can also draft a policy to this effect to see how people really feel about the extended implications of this.

I suspect the response would be that it works well as a device to remove Jayjg but fits less comfortably in the general case (not in those words of course).

Thanks.

("You" can be plural as used above, if anyone other member of arbcom would like to explain the multi-tier editing model.)

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[One]

Maybe you can also draft a policy to this effect to see how people really feel about the extended implications of this.

If you feel strongly about it, you should do it. Would make a good first draft for the community/committee anyway.

We don't really have a rubric as we're acting in a vacuum of policy. I could articulate standards that I find sensible, but I would only be speaking for myself. We take checkuser and oversight seriously because the community does not manage them directly, so we should be cautious about who is allowed to hold the privileges.

At any rate, I doubt many people would agree with you that POV warriors are acceptable checkusers.

[CharlotteWebb]

If you feel strongly about it, you should do it. Would make a good first draft for the community/committee anyway.

Eh, no (see WP:POINT).

At any rate, I doubt many people would agree with you that POV warriors are acceptable checkusers.

I didn't say that, exactly. I only said that I wouldn't consider the same behavior to somehow be more tolerable when exhibited by users of a lower level in the absence of logical relationship.

And by that I mean demoting people (or refusing to promote them) won't make them less able or less likely to edit-war. The notion that we'd even consider this approach suggests a greater need to improve existing policies/doctrines related to edit-warring.

[Heat]

Records indicate that in 2006 Jayjg twice lost his oversight bit temporarily. An explanation of this would have been nice at the time - it's not too late for one now.

Ask me on Wikipedia.

I can't. I've been banned thanks, largely, to Jayjg's past efforts.

[One]

At any rate, I doubt many people would agree with you that POV warriors are acceptable checkusers.

I didn't say that, exactly. I only said that I wouldn't consider the same behavior to somehow be more tolerable when exhibited by users of a lower level in the absence of logical relationship.

Ordinary editors are not expected to be good examples to others. They also generally don't have access to private information that might belong to ideological opponents. You still haven't explained what's objectionable about holding users who have higher positions of trust to generally higher standards. What's your doomsday scenario here? What terrible consequences will follow?

And by that I mean demoting people (or refusing to promote them) won't make them less able or less likely to edit-war. The notion that we'd even consider this approach suggests a greater need to improve existing policies/doctrines related to edit-warring.

Why do you think that's the point? That's not it at all. Considering how gnarly these ethnic wars are, a case can be made that he's not a particularly malicious warrior (although plenty here would disagree). My primary concern is not whether low-level POV warring occurs with this specific user, but rather the signal that having such a checkuser sends the community.

These are our highest volunteer positions. Allowing edit warriors to hold them sends a signal that certain POV campaigns are OK. It would also (as I've said several times) tend to demoralize ideological opponents, make them suspicious of the project, and thereby tend to drive them away.

We try to do things in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Having checkusers trusted by users of all ideologies is good for the encyclopedia--I really think so. Therefore, POV warriors ought not be checkusers. There are others who can fill that role while better maintaining universal trust.

This post has been edited by One:

[EricBarbour]

These are our highest volunteer positions. Allowing edit warriors to hold them sends a signal that certain POV campaigns are OK. It would also (as I've said several times) tend to demoralize ideological opponents, make them suspicious of the project, and thereby tend to drive them away.

Well, I must admit, you're walking the walk lately.

You've still got a helluva lot of fecal matter to clean up.......

[gomi]

We try to do things in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Having checkusers trusted by users of all ideologies is good for the encyclopedia--I really think so. Therefore, POV warriors ought not be checkusers. There are others who can fill that role while better maintaining universal trust.

Please explain to me why this principle does not apply to admins, as well as checkusers? Admins have the power to indefinitely ban editors, there is plenty of evidence of that having been done, and nothing drives more editors away from Wikipedia than unfair blocks and bans. Ryulong get his bits cut off, yet Jayjg remains an admin, and SlimVirgin will soon be one again, without so much as a new RFA. Do you make this shit up as you go along?

[CharlotteWebb]

Ordinary editors are not expected to be good examples to others. They also generally don't have access to private information that might belong to ideological opponents.

Well, we all have ideological opponents. The usual difference is most of them don't know who they are.

Why do you think that's the point? That's not it at all. Considering how gnarly these ethnic wars are, a case can be made that he's not a particularly malicious warrior (although plenty here would disagree). My primary concern is not whether low-level POV warring occurs with this specific user, but rather the signal that having such a checkuser sends the community.

So the exact same edits would all be kosher perfectly fine if he was using a different account and nobody knew it was Jayjg? This gets more interesting by the hour.

No, seriously I don't care who's sending smoke-signals to whom. I know this also contradicts your views on BLP, but reducing the appearance of a problem does not decrease its severity.

[One]

We try to do things in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Having checkusers trusted by users of all ideologies is good for the encyclopedia--I really think so. Therefore, POV warriors ought not be checkusers. There are others who can fill that role while better maintaining universal trust.

Please explain to me why this principle does not apply to admins, as well as checkusers? Admins have the power to indefinitely ban editors, there is plenty of evidence of that having been done, and nothing drives more editors away from Wikipedia than unfair blocks and bans. Ryulong get his bits cut off, yet Jayjg remains an admin, and SlimVirgin will soon be one again, without so much as a new RFA. Do you make this shit up as you go along?

The acts of admins can be reviewed by 1000 others; they don't need to be universally trusted in the same way as every individual with access to the CU log. Checkusers are in our hands alone, and I think we should be more careful with who holds these rare bits. If admins block people, we often hear about it. If users are deterred from contributing due to a CU, we might not.

Compromises aren't always logically consistent, but this one doesn't seem insane to me.

So the exact same edits would all be kosher perfectly fine if he was using a different account and nobody knew it was Jayjg? This gets more interesting by the hour.

No, I suspect he would be topic banned. The topic ban addresses his POV warring, the removal of advance bits addresses the issue of trust.

I know this also contradicts your views on BLP...

That's news to me. Care to explain?

This post has been edited by One:

[Milton Roe]

Records indicate that in 2006 Jayjg twice lost his oversight bit temporarily. An explanation of this would have been nice at the time - it's not too late for one now.

Ask me on Wikipedia.

I can't. I've been banned thanks, largely, to Jayjg's past efforts.

Snap!

[The Joy]

I think, One, we are confused as to why you do not think of administrators like Jayjg as a problem to the project. Even if Jayjg does not use his tools to enforce his POV or uses them in such a way as to get caught, he still has the social power that comes with being an administrator and a long-time vested contributor with many allies. You can look in Jayjg's editor folder here at the Review for some cases and evidence of his misbehavior.

If Jayjg was a police officer in the real world and he shot someone with a taser in a malicious act, he would no longer be a police officer. Period. There would be no "Oh, he didn't shoot someone with a gun or beat someone to death with a baton, so let's let him still be a police officer but take away the taser." Are you suggesting that making Jayjg a Barney Fife* will keep him in check?

*

One major comedic source is Barney's lack of ability with a firearm. After numerous misfires (usually a Colt or Smith & Wesson M&P .38 caliber revolver), Andy restricts Barney to carrying only a single bullet in his shirt pocket, "in case of an emergency." The bullet always seems to find its way back into the pistol, where, predictably, it is accidentally discharged. The accidental discharge of Barney's pistol becomes a running gag: Barney gives a lecture on gun safety and either fires his pistol in his holster, or else he closes the gun and it goes off!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Fife

[CharlotteWebb]

No, I suspect he would be topic banned. The topic ban addresses his POV warring, the removal of advance bits addresses the issue of trust.

If edit-warring and talk-page trolling were the only problem, but he complies with the topic ban and stops doing these things, I'd say the problem is solved, for what "issue of trust" remains?

I know I have friends I trust not to lie to me plus ones I trust not to steal from me, but they tend not to be the same people.

I think there's more to this than meets the eye.

I know this also contradicts your views on BLP...

That's news to me. Care to explain?

Well, the parallel seems clear to me.

Google rankings are kinda the whole reason that Wikipedia BLP policy even matters.

Outtatha sight, outtatha mind, undatharug, same old.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[CharlotteWebb]

Even if Jayjg does not use his tools to enforce his POV or uses them in such a way as to get caught, he still has the social power that comes with being an administrator and a long-time vested contributor with many allies.

Ah the big-deal delusion again. The community takes adminship at collectors' value rather than blue-book (face) value.

What is "social power" exactly, and how do you avoid getting it on you?

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[One]

I know I have friends I trust not to lie to me plus ones I trust not to steal from me, but they tend not to be the same people.

Really?

*backs nervously away from CharlotteWebb*

[Cla68]

I think that POV checkusers are especially demoralizing to opposing editors in a way that POV admins are not.

I signed them simply because I don't think seasoned POV warriors should have advanced tools. Maybe some others voted for private reasons, but I'm not aware of them, nor do I necessarily agree with them.

It sounds like you all agreed that Jayjg was violating the NPOV policy. Why didn't you make a finding of this?

[One]

I think that POV checkusers are especially demoralizing to opposing editors in a way that POV admins are not.

I signed them simply because I don't think seasoned POV warriors should have advanced tools. Maybe some others voted for private reasons, but I'm not aware of them, nor do I necessarily agree with them.

It sounds like you all agreed that Jayjg was violating the NPOV policy. Why didn't you make a finding of this?

I'm sorry, I may overstating what we found. The opinion was built on a backbone of edit warring.

I was taking POV warriors as the example because of CharlotteWebb's theory that POV warriors are acceptable checkusers. In spite of CharlotteWebb's personal experience that there's actually an inverse relationship between dishonesty and theft, I think it's reasonable to assume that Wikipedians who bend editing rules to advance a POV might seem more likely to bend checkuser rules to advance a POV. The stakes are higher with checkuser though.

Anyhow, this thread has gone on too long. My only purpose was to emphasize that there was not a secret agreement based on non-public evidence. The vote happened in plain sight for the reasons expressed.

Just like every other committee on earth, the resulting decisions aren't necessarily logically consistent; they are what the plurality found reasonable.

I have nothing else to say here.

This post has been edited by One:

[Cla68]

I think that POV checkusers are especially demoralizing to opposing editors in a way that POV admins are not.

I signed them simply because I don't think seasoned POV warriors should have advanced tools. Maybe some others voted for private reasons, but I'm not aware of them, nor do I necessarily agree with them.

It sounds like you all agreed that Jayjg was violating the NPOV policy. Why didn't you make a finding of this?

I'm sorry, I may overstating what we found. The opinion was built on a backbone of edit warring.

I was taking POV warriors as the example because of CharlotteWebb's theory that POV warriors are acceptable checkusers. In spite of CharlotteWebb's personal experience that there's actually an inverse correlation between dishonesty and theft, I think it's reasonable to assume that Wikipedians who bends editing rules to advance a POV might seem more likely to bend checkuser rules to advance a POV. The stakes are higher with checkuser though.

Kelly Martin astutely pointed out in a post here or elsewhere that POV-pushing editors don't feel that they're doing anything wrong, because their cause is so noble to them that the ends justify the means. So, I think you're right that Checkuser is at great risk of abuse by such people, but so are any of the other admin privileges.

I understand that the decision in this case was built on edit warring. If you all had found violations of NPOV, then I think the sanctions should have been harsher, because violation of NPOV, in my opinion, is more serious than violating edit-warring.

[No one of consequence]

But this is all hearsay due to the secrecy of everything having to do with checkuser, particularly in cases where somebody suspects inappropriate use of checkuser but can't get anyone to confirm or deny that it was used at all. Some people will erroneously feel paranoid or complacent based on speculation or ritualized assurance that nobody is out to get them, just as they would if these tools are held by somebody who have no opposing POVs or even common topics of interest, only a personal grudge (or for any number of other reasons which could disqualify potentially anyone).

See [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee]].

[CharlotteWebb]

In spite of CharlotteWebb's personal experience that there's actually an inverse relationship between dishonesty and theft,

I like how you twist everything I say to make me sound stupid (aside from the pitfall of trusting anybody for any reason, I suppose I walked into that one myself).

Nobody is really "honest" per se, but the best of us do pick certain areas in which to try harder at the expense of other areas.

Ideally everyone finds a moral niche in which people trust them, but otherwise life goes on.

[The Joy]

I think that POV checkusers are especially demoralizing to opposing editors in a way that POV admins are not.

I signed them simply because I don't think seasoned POV warriors should have advanced tools. Maybe some others voted for private reasons, but I'm not aware of them, nor do I necessarily agree with them.

It sounds like you all agreed that Jayjg was violating the NPOV policy. Why didn't you make a finding of this?

I'm sorry, I may overstating what we found. The opinion was built on a backbone of edit warring.

I was taking POV warriors as the example because of CharlotteWebb's theory that POV warriors are acceptable checkusers. In spite of CharlotteWebb's personal experience that there's actually an inverse relationship between dishonesty and theft, I think it's reasonable to assume that Wikipedians who bend editing rules to advance a POV might seem more likely to bend checkuser rules to advance a POV. The stakes are higher with checkuser though.

Anyhow, this thread has gone on too long. My only purpose was to emphasize that there was not a secret agreement based on non-public evidence. The vote happened in plain sight for the reasons expressed.

Just like every other committee on earth, the resulting decisions aren't necessarily logically consistent; they are what the plurality found reasonable.

I have nothing else to say here.

Running away now, are we?

[Snowey]

I didn't miss it. As I said above, we implicitly found his conduct within permissible bounds for an admin, but not for the higher standard we expect of CUs.

You just said, and I quote, "we would desysop an admin for prolific edit warring even if they never misused the tools." The Arbitration Committee just unanimously found that, and I quote, "Jayjg has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring."

Is there some difference between "prolific edit warring" and "repeated and extensive edit warring" that I've missed?

[gomi]

Anyhow, this thread has gone on too long. My only purpose was to emphasize that there was not a secret agreement based on non-public evidence. The vote happened in plain sight for the reasons expressed.

But the evidence regarding checkuser, oversight, and deletion use still isn't in plain sight, and what we have is your representation as an ArbCom member that there was no secret agreement.

Just like every other committee on earth, the resulting decisions aren't necessarily logically consistent;

You are a member of a court that gives kangaroos a bad name.

Now, if you had published, for example, a log of all pages Jayjg had made oversights or deletions on, and a log of all Wikipedia usernames he had checkusered (along with timestamps) -- both pieces of information that would contain nothing confidential -- there would be some evidence on which to evaluate your claim. As it is, you have made another in a long line of unsubstantiated claims by Wikipedia potentates, aimed at convincing people that there's "Nothing to see here, move along". It's all very insular, and no one but a cultist would buy it.

I have nothing else to say here.

No doubt. Like Slim, the conversation closes when the questions become uncomfortable.

[Lar]

I have nothing else to say here.

No doubt. Like Slim, the conversation closes when the questions become uncomfortable.

I think that's rather an unfair comparison. Even if you only made it for rhetorical effect.

If you beat up those working for change because they aren't getting there fast enough or getting there in precisely the way you'd prefer... who is left?

[One]

If you beat up those working for change because they aren't getting there fast enough or getting there in precisely the way you'd prefer... who is left?

Why do you think he wants change? He seems to want his vision of 2005 to last forever. To Gomi, Jayjg is an unstoppably powerful overlord, and arbitrators are still his toadies as witnessed by "only" stripping him of his rights and position (an event he repeatedly predicted would not happen).

Anyhow, I don't have to comment here, and so I won't. I think it's unfair to Wikipedians who are not here; might even cause them to conclude that I'm WR's representative. If anyone wants to ask me about ArbCom cases, you can find me on Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by One:

[Lar]

If you beat up those working for change because they aren't getting there fast enough or getting there in precisely the way you'd prefer... who is left?

Why do you think he wants change? He seems to want his vision of 2005 to last forever. To Gomi, Jayjg is an unstoppably powerful overlord, and arbitrators are still his toadies as witnessed by "only" stripping him of his rights and position (an event he repeatedly predicted would not happen).

Anyhow, I don't have to comment here, and so I won't. I think it's unfair to Wikipedians who are not here; might even cause them to conclude that I'm WR's representative. If anyone wants to ask me about ArbCom cases, you can find me on Wikipedia.

Nod.

Oh, BTW... obviously we're plotting together...

"Member No.: 4,284"
"Member No.: 4,290"

Plus I own a fedora and you own some LEGO. AMIRITE?

[Snowey]

Anyhow, I don't have to comment here, and so I won't.

"Prolific edit warring" and "repeated and extensive edit warring." What's the difference, Luke?

Edit: If he refuses to answer for this contradiction, could someone who doesn't mind logging into Wikipedia ask him in his userspace?

This post has been edited by Snowey:

[Heat]

Anyhow, I don't have to comment here, and so I won't.

"Prolific edit warring" and "repeated and extensive edit warring." What's the difference, Luke?

Edit: If he refuses to answer for this contradiction, could someone who doesn't mind logging into Wikipedia ask him in his userspace?

Also ask him about Jay's earlier loss of oversight (see my earlier post).

[cyofee]

Anyhow, I don't have to comment here, and so I won't.

"Prolific edit warring" and "repeated and extensive edit warring." What's the difference, Luke?

Edit: If he refuses to answer for this contradiction, could someone who doesn't mind logging into Wikipedia ask him in his userspace?

Also ask him about Jay's earlier loss of oversight (see my earlier post).

I would like to second this question. Did he temporarily lose oversight, what were the reasons for that, and were they true?

If you don't wish to reveal that information, or don't have access to them, please say so.

[gomi]

Why do you think he wants change? He seems to want his vision of 2005 to last forever. To Gomi, Jayjg is an unstoppably powerful overlord, and arbitrators are still his toadies as witnessed by "only" stripping him of his rights and position (an event he repeatedly predicted would not happen).

I was glad to see I am wrong about Jayjg's sanctions, but they are far from anything representing reform of Wikipedia. I have always described Wikipedia as being very much like a post-apocalyptic warlord society, in which those on the "in" can suddenly turn on those who are caught unawares, and this appears to be the case. Jayjg needed to get thrown under the bus, so that's what happened. The reason I see Wikipedia as being essentially the same as in 2005 is because Wikipedia is essentially the same as in 2005. There have been no meaningful structural changes in how the WP society operates: no new checks and balances, no meaningful reform of the admin class, just a few hangings to focus the remaining minions on acceptable behaviour. Sure, we have some new Arbcom members who, at first glance, appear to be slightly less corrupt and/or incompetent than their predecessors, but in a year or two they will be gone and nothing will be different.

Anyhow, I don't have to comment here, and so I won't. I think it's unfair to Wikipedians who are not here; might even cause them to conclude that I'm WR's representative. If anyone wants to ask me about ArbCom cases, you can find me on Wikipedia.

Funnily enough, you don't have a problem coming here with pronouncements that Arbcom Has Done The Right Thing ™, but when asked questions about it, you scuttle off to Wikipedia, where if the same questions were asked the questioner would be inevitably banned for "incivility" or some other made-up excuse. These are the kinds of behaviours that make me think I should join Jon Awbrey's camp.

If you beat up those working for change because they aren't getting there fast enough or getting there in precisely the way you'd prefer... who is left?

You'll need to let me know how this case, or Cool Hand Luke's participation in it, represents "change". I see no policy created, and I see no impediment to similar and ongoing abuse.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that Jayjg and the rest of the POV crew on the Israel-Palestine articles got their comeuppance, I think it was long overdue and well-deserved. On the other hand, I find Luke's self-congratulatory tone to be depressing. They barely. barely did the right thing, and now he wants a Nobel Prize and a free pass here at the Review. Ain't gonna happen.

[Kato]

The reason I see Wikipedia as being essentially the same as in 2005 is because Wikipedia is essentially the same as in 2005.

I'm not so sure.

A big difference seems to be that power seekers now need to have proved themselves over years to get ahead, rather than months. Back in 2005, it was possible for someone to become a powerful Wikipedio on the back of a few edits and some regular interference on important pages. Nowdays, Checkusers, Arbitrators (and the like) need to have had a clean record for a long period, and are scrutinised by 100s on their ascent. I don't think a Jayjg figure, who was obviously inappropriate, could suddenly rise to such a powerful position anymore.

[trenton]

Anyhow, I don't have to comment here, and so I won't.

"Prolific edit warring" and "repeated and extensive edit warring." What's the difference, Luke?

Edit: If he refuses to answer for this contradiction, could someone who doesn't mind logging into Wikipedia ask him in his userspace?

or why one editor gets about ten "reminders", "warnings", and "admonishments" while others don't get any.....

or why one editor gets to edit war for years, while others make about four reverts and get treated the same....

or why one editor who pushes a fringe view gets treated the same as those who try to bring some measure of objectivity and neutrality to articles....

or why an editor who is supposed to be a "role model" is given more leeway and allowed to behave worse than regular editors...

or just accept that a kangaroo court does whatever it feels like without regard to reason.

Back in 2005, it was possible for someone to become a powerful Wikipedio on the back of a few edits and some regular interference on important pages.

Don't forget sucking up to the god-king on IRC. It certainly worked for Kelly Martin, Essjay, and Jayjg, none of whom were "elected".

[Heat]

If people feel that the Arbcomm erred by allowing Jayjg to keep his admin bit despite his long history of admonishments and that the same principle of being an "editor in good standing" and "reputable" should apply to adminship then open an RFC on whether or not Jayjg should keep his bit.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

See latest post, here: Leading Wikipedia editor David Shankbone on Israeli government sponored daisychain.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Kelly Martin]

Don't forget sucking up to the god-king on IRC. It certainly worked for Kelly Martin, Essjay, and Jayjg, none of whom were "elected".

The first time I spoke with Jimbo, on IRC or elsewise, was when he informed me that he was considering appointing me to the ArbCom. I have never "sucked up" to Jimbo, or, in fact, anyone; it's just not in my nature to suck up.

I still wonder how Jayjg got chosen; at the time he was appointed he was then subject to ArbCom sanctions. It's as if Jimbo just conveniently ignored his history.

A side note: Jayjg objected (on arbcom-l) to my appointment to the ArbCom.

[written by he who wrote it]

I still wonder how Jayjg got chosen; at the time he was appointed he was then subject to ArbCom sanctions. It's as if Jimbo just conveniently ignored his history.

A side note: Jayjg objected (on arbcom-l) to my appointment to the ArbCom.

He was "supported and recommended" by sitting arbcom members. Who recommended him? I have my suspicions, but I can't verify them.

It probably didn't hurt that Wales and Jayjg hold many of the same opinions on certain Middle Eastern issues.

Why did he object to your appointment?