Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Jayjg _ Messianic Jayjgism
Posted by: Jonny Cache
I'm needling this thread for keeping track of developments on the Jayjg «http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087744.html» front.
BYOP …
Jonny 
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Here is the copy with address list from Gmane —
Give me a minute to format mo bettah —
QUOTE
Subj: Messianic Judaism
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:57:57 -0500
From: jayjg <jayjg99-…@public.gmane.org>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l-…@public.gmane.org>
To:
aviwiki-…@public.gmane.org,
"Pinchas Cohen" <PinchasC-…@public.gmane.org>,
"English Wikipedia" <wikien-l-…@public.gmane.org>,
"Beit Or" <beitor06-…@public.gmane.org>,
"Humus Sapiens" <humus.sapiens-…@public.gmane.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english
Someone has conveniently deleted all the criticism from the lead, in violation of [[WP:LEAD]].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messianic_Judaism&diff=175803950&oldid=175525305
I'm planning to go in tonight and do some re-adding and tagging. Will you be able to watch my back?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l-…@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 20th December 2007, 1:20pm) 
BYOP...
"Bring Your Own Pun"?
I'd still like to know what he's got on his back that makes it so worth watching. Is he getting a tattoo? I'd have to assume it's not a flogging of some kind.
Ooh, maybe leeches! I haaaate leeches...
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
Who has this email? I want the extended headers. There might be an originating IP address in it.
Posted by: Moulton
The irony is that he stabbed himself in the back.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 20th December 2007, 2:43pm)
The irony is that he stabbed himself in the back.
Doran has their chests covered.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 20th December 2007, 1:43pm)
Who has this email? I want the extended headers. There might be an originating IP address in it.
It was sent to wikien-l by mistake, so I don't think you'd see anything like that in there...?
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 20th December 2007, 2:43pm)
Who has this email? I want the extended headers. There might be an originating IP address in it.
Here's the raw source view of the Gmane copy, but I'm not on the list, so I don't know if this is all.
QUOTE
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: jayjg <jayjg99-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english
Subject: Messianic Judaism
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:57:57 -0500
Lines: 14
Approved: news@gmane.org
Message-ID: <6a8d9d700712200757j53c534e5m3c44be8966a7e7b8@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1198166324 4116 80.91.229.12 (20 Dec 2007 15:58:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:58:44 +0000 (UTC)
To: aviwiki-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, "Pinchas Cohen" <PinchasC-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
"English Wikipedia" <wikien-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
"Beit Or" <beitor06-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, "Humus Sapiens" <humus.sapiens-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Original-X-From: wikien-l-bounces-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org Thu Dec 20 16:58:54 2007
Return-path: <wikien-l-bounces-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>
Envelope-to: gslwe-wikien-l-700-Uylq5CNFT+jYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org
Original-Received: from lists.wikimedia.org ([91.198.174.5])
by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1J5NnG-0005RC-HU
for gslwe-wikien-l-700-Uylq5CNFT+jYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:58:42 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42259 helo=lily.knams.wikimedia.org)
by lily.knams.wikimedia.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <wikien-l-bounces-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>)
id 1J5Nmj-0002WA-OS; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:58:12 +0000
Original-Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.232]:31727)
by lily.knams.wikimedia.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <jayjg99-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>) id 1J5Nme-0002Vy-0O
for wikien-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:58:06 +0000
Original-Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id h27so31556wxd.3
for <wikien-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>;
Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:58:03 -0800 (PST)
Original-Received: by 10.142.144.16 with SMTP id r16mr107298wfd.97.1198166277735;
Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:57:57 -0800 (PST)
Original-Received: by 10.142.105.18 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:57:57 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
X-BeenThere: wikien-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: English Wikipedia <wikien-l.lists.wikimedia.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,
<mailto:wikien-l-request-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l>
List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,
<mailto:wikien-l-request-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Original-Sender: wikien-l-bounces-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
Errors-To: wikien-l-bounces-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english:87568
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/87568>
Someone has conveniently deleted all the criticism from the lead, in violation of [[WP:LEAD]].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messianic_Judaism&diff=175803950&oldid=175525305
I'm planning to go in tonight and do some re-adding and tagging. Will you be able to watch my back?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Posted by: Rootology
Ha ha ha, Jay you stupid fuck.
To: aviwiki@gmail.com, "Pinchas Cohen" <PinchasC@gmail.com>,
"English Wikipedia" <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>,
"Beit Or" <beitor06@gmail.com>, "Humus Sapiens" <humus.sapiens@gmail.com>
Ha ha ha ha!
I'll just add that the fact he needs "backup" from a bannable offense, canvassing, shows that whatever his position is in this case is crap and likely in violation of other policies.
Has anyone called bullshit on Wikipedia yet?
What on earth? Why are his contributions out of order?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Jayjg
Posted by: Derktar
It's pretty quiet on this issue at the wiki-en l at the momment, except for a few comments, including a few nice jabs at Jayjg courtesy of Doc.
Posted by: Samuel Culper Sr.
QUOTE(Rootology @ Thu 20th December 2007, 8:14pm)
What on earth? Why are his contributions out of order?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Jayjg
Ummm... because those are different days??? You lost me.
Posted by: Rootology
QUOTE(Samuel Culper Sr. @ Thu 20th December 2007, 12:19pm)
QUOTE(Rootology @ Thu 20th December 2007, 8:14pm)
What on earth? Why are his contributions out of order?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Jayjg
Ummm... because those are different days??? You lost me.
Huh, it was actually displaying out of order for me, as in 3:10 to 3:22 to 3:10. But now it's not. Weird!
I wonder what the significance of his oddball bursts of editing are. Probably just trying to garner attention, since people were ignoring his irrelevant role.
Posted by: Saltimbanco
Let's see, now, based Jayjg's admission that the message was erroneously sent to the mailing list, but was instead intended for a select group of recipients (did anyone tell Jimbo about this email list, or was it one of those secret ones that he doesn't know anything about?), how does it fare when considered according to Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing?
Someone conveniently made a table there of different aspects to consider and what would make an action tend to be "disruptive canvassing" as opposed to a "friendly notice."
So, Scale: limited is friendly; massive is disruptive. I'd say he gets "friendly" on that, although see below regarding intent versus action.
Message: neutral is friendly; biased is disruptive. Lean toward "disruptive," because he stated his editing intent and asked for support rather than just asking for people to see what they think.
Audience: nonpartisan is friendly; partisan is disruptive. Ah, oops! The term given for this is, "Votestacking."
Transparency: open is friendly; secret is disruptive. Well, do we judge intent or action? If action, then it was just a friendly open reminder to the whole mailing list; if intent, the term given is "Stealth Canvassing."
So what comes next? The, "Ha ha! I wasn't thinking; isolated instance; won't ever happen again!" position, or the "The Cossacks are practically at my door, and of course I have to do do all I can to defend (mainstream) Judaism, and of course I must do it in secret!" defense? Or will we just see "doc" get banned, and insta-ban for anyone else who ever mentions the matter again.
Posted by: Saltimbanco
I can't wait to see Jimbo's "concern" expressed: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087147.html
Posted by: Aloft
Oh man, classic.
Don't worry JayJG, we've got your back.
Posted by: dogbiscuit
I note that AVI replies, but does not declare his interest in the list (perhaps he is unaware at this point).
QUOTE
Whether it was inappropriately sent or not, the aticle _was_ evicerated
after months of discussion.
--Avi
The
Posted by: tarantino
QUOTE
Here is the copy with address list from Gmane —
Subj: Messianic Judaism
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:57:57 -0500
From: jayjg <jayjg99-…@public.gmane.org>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l-…@public.gmane.org>
To:
aviwiki-…@public.gmane.org,
"Pinchas Cohen" <PinchasC-…@public.gmane.org>,
"English Wikipedia" <wikien-l-…@public.gmane.org>,
"Beit Or" <beitor06-…@public.gmane.org>,
"Humus Sapiens" <humus.sapiens-…@public.gmane.org>
Subj: Messianic Judaism
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:57:57 -0500
From: jayjg <jayjg99-…@public.gmane.org>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l-…@public.gmane.org>
To:
aviwiki-…@public.gmane.org,
"Pinchas Cohen" <PinchasC-…@public.gmane.org>,
"English Wikipedia" <wikien-l-…@public.gmane.org>,
"Beit Or" <beitor06-…@public.gmane.org>,
"Humus Sapiens" <humus.sapiens-…@public.gmane.org>
Beit Or used to be known as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Pecher.
He abandoned that account after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency, The same thing that Proabivouac did with his previous account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Beit_Or
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Proabivouac&page=
Note the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pecher&oldid=148192904#Come_back on Pecher's talk page is from Matt57.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Matt57&page=
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Rootology @ Thu 20th December 2007, 8:14pm)
What on earth? Why are his contributions out of order?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Jayjg
That got me at first, but it's just because he has a bot posting his edits at the same time each day. If you want to see weird edits check out the first two edits in his http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Jayjg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Human_Atrocities&diff=prev&oldid=11012037, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=10990734.
Posted by: Aloft
Something else to think about... His stated intent to edit the article "tonight" would break from his odd editing pattern of the past few days.
Were these edits going to be made with another account?
Posted by: dtobias
After looking at the diff involved, I don't necessarily disagree with Jayjg about the problematic nature of the edit, doing fairly massive removals of critical stuff from the article with a very misleading edit summary. It's just his method of combatting it, by canvassing "privately" (except when he slips up and posts it to a public list) among his friends so they "have his back" when he reverts, that's problematic.
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Aloft @ Thu 20th December 2007, 11:41pm)
Something else to think about... His stated intent to edit the article "tonight" would break from his odd editing pattern of the past few days.
Were these edits going to be made with another account?
His recent edits have been between 03:10 and 03:20 UTC which is I think 22:10-22:20 Toronto time.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 20th December 2007, 11:53pm)
After looking at the diff involved, I don't necessarily disagree with Jayjg about the problematic nature of the edit, doing fairly massive removals of critical stuff from the article with a very misleading edit summary. It's just his method of combatting it, by canvassing "privately" (except when he slips up and posts it to a public list) among his friends so they "have his back" when he reverts, that's problematic.
Why would there be things to be discussed about articles that cannot be said in public?
Posted by: Aloft
QUOTE(jorge @ Thu 20th December 2007, 6:01pm)
His recent edits have been between 03:10 and 03:20 UTC which is I think 22:10-22:20 Toronto time.
You're right, I was thinking 3PM.Posted by: Rootology
QUOTE(Aloft @ Thu 20th December 2007, 3:41pm)
Something else to think about... His stated intent to edit the article "tonight" would break from his odd editing pattern of the past few days.
Were these edits going to be made with another account?
Everyone should monitor all articles related to the named editors, and review recent related POV edits that are pro-Israeli. Bet you $5 Jay's been here all along socking up a future admin account.
$10 says he just tipped his hand and we can ferret out which based on this by cross-referencing it all. Unless he oversights. Which if he does, he's 10x screwed now.
Posted by: dtobias
QUOTE(jorge @ Thu 20th December 2007, 7:01pm)
Why would there be things to be discussed about articles that cannot be said in public?
There aren't... as I said, he went about it in all the wrong way, and possibly symptomatic of a greater problem... who knows how much of this back-channel stuff is going on. He should have pointed out the problem with the article above-board on its talk page or other on-wiki channels. However, his concern itself seems valid.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(tarantino @ Thu 20th December 2007, 10:41pm)
The same thing that Proabivouac did with his previous account.
You might begin with a new account, too, if you had that anti-semitic psychopath attacking your RWI all over Wikipedia. It's just one of very many examples of how anyone can turn Wikipedia into an attack machine against anyone at any time, with the acquiescence (or not, depending on your connections) of the management. That flame-war environment, not anything happening over here, is the main reason the community generally has been moving towards pseudonymity. When I started, believe it or not, the username policy suggested one's real name as the best one to use. That turned out to be very very bad advice.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 20th December 2007, 7:29pm)
QUOTE(jorge @ Thu 20th December 2007, 7:01pm)
Why would there be things to be discussed about articles that cannot be said in public?
There aren't... as I said, he went about it in all the wrong way, and possibly symptomatic of a greater problem... who knows how much of this back-channel stuff is going on. He should have pointed out the problem with the article above-board on its talk page or other on-wiki channels. However, his concern itself seems valid.If there is that much back-channel going on for coordinated editing of individual articles, imagine how much back-channel must be going on for coordinating the Kafkaesque pogroms and purges via the RfC route, etc.
Posted by: Rootology
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Thu 20th December 2007, 4:32pm)
You might begin with a new account, too, if you had that anti-semitic psychopath attacking your RWI all over Wikipedia. It's just one of very many examples of how anyone can turn Wikipedia into an attack machine against anyone at any time, with the acquiescence (or not, depending on your connections) of the management. That flame-war environment, not anything happening over here, is the main reason the community generally has been moving towards pseudonymity. When I started, believe it or not, the username policy suggested one's real name as the best one to use. That turned out to be very very bad advice.
The constant, endless, never-ending and ridiculous quest to ferret out 'banned' users doesn't help either. They did that to you when you went to the Proabivouac name and didn't announce it in public, but you did it as well helping MONGO, Tom Harrison, and the rest of the Team America trolls collect absurd collections of blown up evidence against that Six/Seven guy after he routinely stopped them via policy.
If that lunacy can even infect someone that was screwed as you were to go and drive people off of Wikipedia like that, then things are extra shitty on Wikipedia.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 20th December 2007, 11:53pm)
It's just his method of combatting it, by canvassing "privately" (except when he slips up and posts it to a public list) among his friends so they "have his back" when he reverts, that's problematic.
That method is a completely predictable feature of the current system for resolving content disputes. Everybody does it on all sides, and everybody knows it.
ScienceApologist hits the nail on the head:
QUOTE
"What my allies say I should have done was find other editors to help revert him back and thus avoid 3RR. I think that this is esentially [[WP:MEAT|meatpuppetry]] and effectively a way that is also opposed to Wikipedia policies and guidelines."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScienceApologist&diff=139553289&oldid=139539241
As one of those allies, I admit that that's exactly what I was suggesting - there's really no other way. His response gave me occasion to reflect on just how hypocritical the system had become, a system the quality control (to the extent there is any) of which relies very substantially on a practice and psychology that's formally condemned.
As for Jayjg, I can't speak to all of Wikipedia's Judaism-related articles, but on those which also involve Islam, the POV pushing from the Muslim corner is relentless. I won't say that I think Jayjg neutral, but if I had to choose between his versions and the typical alternatives, his are at least coherent and informative.
Posted by: Moulton
In multi-player non-zero sum games, players routinely form and dissolve alliances.
Politics makes for strange and revolving bedfellows.
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 21st December 2007, 12:40am)
As for Jayjg, I can't speak to all of Wikipedia's Judaism-related articles, but on those which also involve Islam, the POV pushing from the Muslim corner is relentless. I won't say that I think Jayjg neutral, but if I had to choose between his versions and the typical alternatives, his are at least coherent and informative.
Jayjg's edits always favour the Jewish or pro-Israeli position. Thttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847287501&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull "the importance that the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia has in shaping opinion".
The major problem here is that sanctions are vastly greater on editors who oppose people pushing an Israeli POV than those who are doing it.
Jimbo Wales certainly does care about what the Israeli lobby could say about his project. Is he concerned about what Palestinian or Muslim groups might say- no.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(Rootology @ Fri 21st December 2007, 12:37am)
…you did it as well helping MONGO, Tom Harrison, and the rest of the Team America trolls collect absurd collections of blown up evidence against that Six/Seven guy after he routinely stopped them via policy.
I have nothing at all against NuclearUmpf/SevenOfDiamonds except that he was taking the piss by denying who he was, and calling other people liars for seeing the obvious. He seemed to me a productive and capable editor whose negative history with MONGO drove him to seek a rematch on the noticeboards.
QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 21st December 2007, 1:00am)
Jimbo Wales certainly does care about what the Israeli lobby could say about his project. Is he concerned about what Palestinian or Muslim groups might say- no.
I hate to break this to you, but when Muslim groups have a major influence on Wikipedia, you can kiss the project goodbye. Not all worldviews are equally rational, or, if you prefer, not all are equally compatible with the values of Western academic scholarship.
Posted by: Moulton
There's more irony here than one might appreciate.
One can purchase, for example, the Catholic Encyclopedia. There are probably comparable encyclopedias for Judaism and other religious perspectives.
What you have on Wikipedia is a site dominated not by the collegial or academic or scholarly or scientific perspective, but one dominated by the Machiavellian perspective.
To my mind, that's as big a disaster as having Wikipedia in the hands of those favoring an Islamic perspective.
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 21st December 2007, 1:11am)
QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 21st December 2007, 1:00am)
Jimbo Wales certainly does care about what the Israeli lobby could say about his project. Is he concerned about what Palestinian or Muslim groups might say- no.
I hate to break this to you, but when Muslim groups have a major influence on Wikipedia, you can kiss the project goodbye. Not all worldviews are equally rational, or, if you prefer, not all are equally compatible with the values of Western academic scholarship.
I don't want ANY groups to have a major influence on wikipedia. My point is Wales has allowed rampant POV pushing by pro-Israeli editors because he probably has a pro Israeli viewpoint as the majority of Americans do. He couldn't care less if Palestinian groups complain about the bias but he certainly would care if Israeli lobbying groups started slagging off his project as their voice is much greater and more influential in the US than any Palestinian or Human Rights groups.
Posted by: Timp
QUOTE(dtobias @ Fri 21st December 2007, 12:29am)
QUOTE(jorge @ Thu 20th December 2007, 7:01pm)
Why would there be things to be discussed about articles that cannot be said in public?
There aren't... as I said, he went about it in all the wrong way, and possibly symptomatic of a greater problem... who knows how much of this back-channel stuff is going on. He should have pointed out the problem with the article above-board on its talk page or other on-wiki channels. However, his concern itself seems valid.
There were five edits there -- Jayjg attributed them all to ChristTrekker, but actually s/he only edited the picture. I don't know if the other edits were good or bad, but I think the edit summaries were correct.
Posted by: Aloft
QUOTE(Timp @ Thu 20th December 2007, 7:46pm)
There were five edits there -- Jayjg attributed them all to ChristTrekker, but actually s/he only edited the picture.
There were five? I'm not sure I follow; Do you mean to say that some edits were oversighted, causing multiple edits to be attributed to ChristTrekker?Posted by: Jonny Cache
What do members of the Wikipeanut Gallery learn about Wikipediot Society when they see an Elite Henchman like Jayjg get away with high crimes and misdemeanors on a routine basis any one instance of which would get the ordinary Wikipeon banned for life?
Jonny
Posted by: msharma
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 21st December 2007, 1:11am)
QUOTE(Rootology @ Fri 21st December 2007, 12:37am)
…you did it as well helping MONGO, Tom Harrison, and the rest of the Team America trolls collect absurd collections of blown up evidence against that Six/Seven guy after he routinely stopped them via policy.
I have nothing at all against NuclearUmpf/SevenOfDiamonds except that he was taking the piss by denying who he was, and calling other people liars for seeing the obvious. He seemed to me a productive and capable editor whose negative history with MONGO drove him to seek a rematch on the noticeboards.
QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 21st December 2007, 1:00am)
Jimbo Wales certainly does care about what the Israeli lobby could say about his project. Is he concerned about what Palestinian or Muslim groups might say- no.
I hate to break this to you, but when Muslim groups have a major influence on Wikipedia, you can kiss the project goodbye. Not all worldviews are equally rational, or, if you prefer, not all are equally compatible with the values of Western academic scholarship.
For a moment there, WR looked just like WP: some ignoramus making dark statements about something he doesn't know a damn thing about.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(msharma @ Fri 21st December 2007, 5:03am)
For a moment there, WR looked just like WP: some ignoramus making dark statements about something he doesn't know a damn thing about.
Excuse me?
Posted by: Amarkov
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 20th December 2007, 7:32pm)
What do members of the Wikipeanut Gallery learn about Wikipediot Society when they see an Elite Henchman like Jayjg get away with high crimes and misdemeanors on a routine basis any one instance of which would get the ordinary Wikipeon banned for life?
Jonny
As you've said; they learn that people sufficiently dedicated to the clique can obtain Rank, and this Rank will give them power to abuse people they don't like. This is really quite an effective way to run a Mafia; punishment and reward structures are combined into one thing!
Except Wikipedia's supposed to not be evil, isn't it?
Posted by: Rootology
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Thu 20th December 2007, 5:11pm)
I hate to break this to you, but when Muslim groups have a major influence on Wikipedia, you can kiss the project goodbye. Not all worldviews are equally rational, or, if you prefer, not all are equally compatible with the values of Western academic scholarship.
It's OK for some to have influence, but not others? You gotta be kidding me.
Posted by: LamontStormstar
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Thu 20th December 2007, 10:21pm)
Except Wikipedia's supposed to not be evil, isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
text search for evil doesn't come up.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Thu 20th December 2007, 5:11pm)
Not all worldviews are equally rational, or, if you prefer, not all are equally compatible with the values of Western academic scholarship.
Hmmm, sounds like a perfect description of http://wikipedia.org/.
Jonny
Posted by: Amarkov
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Thu 20th December 2007, 9:34pm)
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Thu 20th December 2007, 10:21pm)
Except Wikipedia's supposed to not be evil, isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
text search for evil doesn't come up.
Wikipedia is explicitly not democratic, nor bureaucratic, nor anarchist. It's hardly a coincidence that "authoritarian" didn't make the list.
Posted by: LamontStormstar
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Thu 20th December 2007, 10:39pm)
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Thu 20th December 2007, 9:34pm)
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Thu 20th December 2007, 10:21pm)
Except Wikipedia's supposed to not be evil, isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
text search for evil doesn't come up.
Wikipedia is explicitly not democratic, nor bureaucratic, nor anarchist. It's hardly a coincidence that "authoritarian" didn't make the list.
Communism also didn't make the list.
Posted by: Amarkov
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Thu 20th December 2007, 9:49pm)
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Thu 20th December 2007, 10:39pm)
Wikipedia is explicitly not democratic, nor bureaucratic, nor anarchist. It's hardly a coincidence that "authoritarian" didn't make the list.
Communism also didn't make the list.
Communism isn't really a social structure; remember, the ultimate goal of communism is an anarchist society. And to the degree that you equate information on Wikipedia with a market, it really is supposed to be communism.
Posted by: msharma
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 21st December 2007, 5:08am)
QUOTE(msharma @ Fri 21st December 2007, 5:03am)
For a moment there, WR looked just like WP: some ignoramus making dark statements about something he doesn't know a damn thing about.
Excuse me?
You heard.
You presumably haven't the vaguest idea either what POV-pushers of one kind or another do in these battleground articles, or you are perfectly happy with the belief that one group of religious fanatics are by nature less likely to be amenable to reason than another. Either way, my response stands.
Its passive observers who eviscerate NPOV by this kind of attitude that gift Jay and other such POV-pushers immunity.
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 21st December 2007, 1:17am)
One can purchase, for example, the Catholic Encyclopedia. There are probably comparable encyclopedias for Judaism and other religious perspectives.
Don't ever quote the Encyclopaedia Judaica on Wikipedia. That's one of the key pieces of evidence for proving you're a Runcorn sock.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 20th December 2007, 10:32pm)
What do members of the Wikipeanut Gallery learn about Wikipediot Society when they see an Elite Henchman like Jayjg get away with high crimes and misdemeanors on a routine basis any one instance of which would get the ordinary Wikipeon banned for life?
Jonny
Jonny
Cowabonga, Buffalo Bob! Jerking ropes come in all lengths. Some are a very short leash. Some are so long one can wander the earth with them. It just goes to show that some jerks are jerkier than others.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 21st December 2007, 9:32am)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 20th December 2007, 10:32pm)
What do members of the Wikipeanut Gallery learn about Wikipediot Society when they see an Elite Henchman like Jayjg get away with high crimes and misdemeanors on a routine basis any one instance of which would get the ordinary Wikipeon banned for life?
Jonny
Cowabonga, Buffalo Bob! Jerking ropes come in all lengths. Some are a very short leash. Some are so long one can wander the earth with them. It just goes to show that some jerks are jerkier than others.
Hey, waddaya know, this Socratic bit really does work!
Okay, then, next question —
Given that we are talking about people who can generate 10,000 e-mauls wrangling over the ins-&-outs of the Spoiler Warning Apostasy — not to be confused with the Expiry Date Apoplexy — what does the stunned and stunning silence on the Wikienlist over this NOTABLE (NOT-ABLE?) violation of loudly touted (tooted?) Wikipedian Articles Of Faith tell us?
Jon Awbrey
Posted by: Moulton
To paraphrase Wittgenstein, that which cannot be responded to in words must be passed over with a mere grimace.
Posted by: Timp
Does Jayjg still have checkuser access? It seems unbelievable that he would.
Of course it's one thing to say that this type of emaling is strictly allowed since there's nothing one can do about it. It's quite another to have someone with checkuser access become so flagrant that they're accidentally sending emails to the wikipedia mailing list.
I thought I recently saw Florence talk about making changes to checkuser access. I think I would support opening it up to all admins.... otherwise, this is absurd.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Timp @ Fri 21st December 2007, 11:09am)
Of course it's one thing to say that this type of emaling is strictly allowed since there's nothing one can do about it.
What R U sayin !?
ALL Wikipediot rules are about things that they cannot do anything about except ban the people who do them.
Any non-cabal peon who engaged in that kind of WP:CANVARSE and WP:MEATPUPPET activity would be blasted for it and everyone there knows it.
Jonny
Posted by: tarantino
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 20th December 2007, 7:36pm)
Subj: Messianic Judaism
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:57:57 -0500
From: jayjg <jayjg99-…@public.gmane.org>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l-…@public.gmane.org>
To:
aviwiki-…@public.gmane.org,
"Pinchas Cohen" <PinchasC-…@public.gmane.org>,
"English Wikipedia" <wikien-l-…@public.gmane.org>,
"Beit Or" <beitor06-…@public.gmane.org>,
"Humus Sapiens" <humus.sapiens-…@public.gmane.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english
Someone has conveniently deleted all the criticism from the lead, in violation of [[WP:LEAD]].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messianic_Judaism&diff=175803950&oldid=175525305
I'm planning to go in tonight and do some re-adding and tagging. Will you be able to watch my back?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l-…@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Humus_sapiens had stopped editing 19 September 2007, when he was knee-deep in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Allegations_of_apartheid/Evidence#Diametrically-opposed_positions_and_non-policy-based_block_voting. He was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20071220235959&limit=50&target=Humus+sapiens 5 hours prior to Jayjg's accidental email to wikien-l 20 December 2007.
QUOTE
# 20:43, 20 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Israeli-Palestinian conflict‎ (Reverted edits by 217.54.3.38 to version 179185981 by Sm8900 (rv POV))
# 20:42, 20 December 2007 (hist) (diff) m Jewish lobby‎ (Reverted edits by 71.130.195.120 (talk) to last version by Keith D) (top)
# 10:56, 20 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Maabarah children.jpg‎ (added source, removing tag) (top)
# 10:49, 20 December 2007 (hist) (diff) User:Humus sapiens/monobook.js‎ (top)
# 10:49, 20 December 2007 (hist) (diff) User:Humus sapiens/monobook.js‎
# 10:48, 20 December 2007 (hist) (diff) User:Humus sapiens/monobook.js‎
# 21:36, 19 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Humus sapiens‎ (break)
# 21:33, 19 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Emmanuelm‎ (→Israel, Palestine and the United Nations - new section)
# 21:23, 19 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jew Watch‎ (→Request for Comment: Wording to describe JewWatch as antisemitic)
# 21:18, 19 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jew Watch‎ (→More on the mysterious reliable source quotation)
# 02:07, 15 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Holy Land‎ (→Judaism - for NPOV, adding more material here as well. Basing on Religious significance of Jerusalem#Jerusalem in Judaism)
# 02:01, 15 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Holy Land‎ (→Islam - NPOVified the latet edit, basing on Religious significance of Jerusalem)
# 01:46, 15 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Religious significance of Jerusalem‎ (→Notes - rm graffiti)
# 20:42, 20 December 2007 (hist) (diff) m Jewish lobby‎ (Reverted edits by 71.130.195.120 (talk) to last version by Keith D) (top)
# 10:56, 20 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Maabarah children.jpg‎ (added source, removing tag) (top)
# 10:49, 20 December 2007 (hist) (diff) User:Humus sapiens/monobook.js‎ (top)
# 10:49, 20 December 2007 (hist) (diff) User:Humus sapiens/monobook.js‎
# 10:48, 20 December 2007 (hist) (diff) User:Humus sapiens/monobook.js‎
# 21:36, 19 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Humus sapiens‎ (break)
# 21:33, 19 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Emmanuelm‎ (→Israel, Palestine and the United Nations - new section)
# 21:23, 19 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jew Watch‎ (→Request for Comment: Wording to describe JewWatch as antisemitic)
# 21:18, 19 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jew Watch‎ (→More on the mysterious reliable source quotation)
# 02:07, 15 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Holy Land‎ (→Judaism - for NPOV, adding more material here as well. Basing on Religious significance of Jerusalem#Jerusalem in Judaism)
# 02:01, 15 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Holy Land‎ (→Islam - NPOVified the latet edit, basing on Religious significance of Jerusalem)
# 01:46, 15 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Religious significance of Jerusalem‎ (→Notes - rm graffiti)
Posted by: guy
Humus Sapiens may be sympathetic to Jayjg but he's no out and out meatpuppet, still less sockpuppet. He supported RachelBrown when she was driven out by the Poetlister controversy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RachelBrown&diff=prev&oldid=32674734
Posted by: Moulton
That would explain the use of E-Mail.
When calling up the inactive reserves, one has to use off-Wiki call-up channels.
Posted by: Yehudi
Humus Sapiens has his POV, as many do, but he's more reasonable than many others.
Posted by: tarantino
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg&diff=179886433&oldid=179879994) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg&diff=179879994&oldid=179756170) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg&oldid=179879994 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayjg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayjg | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jayjg) (13,830 bytes) (statement noted, archived) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg&action=edit&undoafter=179756170&undo=179879994)
QUOTE
Recent events
Good evening. You currently occupy positions of elevated trust, including the oversight and checkuser functions which rely upon extreme levels of community trust, as well as access to the Arbitration Committee's private mailing lists as an ex-member. On multiple occasions there have been credible questions raised over various actions undertaken by you. For example, you've recently returned after a lengthy hiatus, which you began during http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Allegations_of_apartheid in which you were a party. In addition, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087744.html sent through the public mailing list just a few days ago has proven to be quite controversial. In view of this, I would like to confirm you still retain the exceptional trust the aforementioned accesses require, which was determined some years ago. Would you be willing to stand for reconfirmation of community trust for these positions? --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hemlock_Martinis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hemlock_Martinis) 08:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Good evening. You currently occupy positions of elevated trust, including the oversight and checkuser functions which rely upon extreme levels of community trust, as well as access to the Arbitration Committee's private mailing lists as an ex-member. On multiple occasions there have been credible questions raised over various actions undertaken by you. For example, you've recently returned after a lengthy hiatus, which you began during http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Allegations_of_apartheid in which you were a party. In addition, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087744.html sent through the public mailing list just a few days ago has proven to be quite controversial. In view of this, I would like to confirm you still retain the exceptional trust the aforementioned accesses require, which was determined some years ago. Would you be willing to stand for reconfirmation of community trust for these positions? --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hemlock_Martinis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hemlock_Martinis) 08:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Posted by: guy
But the community doesn't vote for checkuser or oversight, at least not on English Wikipedia.