Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: MaliceAforethought

From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Mon Apr 27 04:16:12 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:16:12 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Preliminary draft for "West Bank - Judea and
Samaria" case
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30904262016t2ff54170m6b9927173e6a09cd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3f797b9a0904262004u2dd5a927nc2a438057f5c379d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904262016t2ff54170m6b9927173e6a09cd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904262116l5fa0381cwb15b5b120590e2ce@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm recused in this case and have not reviewed the evidence in any detail at
> all, so I have?**NO** comments on the merits of the proposed findings or the
> remedies against individual editors.

<snip>

One probably merits wider discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop#Jayjg_stripped_of_status_and_privileges

I've commented there.

Separate subthread to allow Brad to continue to contribute on the
other subthread.

Carcharoth
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 05:14:15 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:14:15 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Preliminary draft for "West Bank - Judea and
Samaria" case
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a0904262123m4d9da2cmca12ab230a5e6b91@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3f797b9a0904262004u2dd5a927nc2a438057f5c379d@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0904262114q686d950ehfefd67c8b78ba8f7@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904262120y93b433bt2c896afb4223e4d5@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262123m4d9da2cmca12ab230a5e6b91@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0904262214h13627d79ka06dac0e721d4225@mail.gmail.com>

As another point, I will send an email to AUSC to please be observant of any
changes in pattern of Jayjg's use of CU and OS/hide revision tools effective
immediately. On a quick look over the last few months, I do not see
anything in his CU/OS/Suppression logs that raises concerns; however, after
others have had an opportunity to consider, it may be appropriate to ask
them to assess whether or not his use of tools overall, or in the area of
dispute, is within expectations.

Risker

2009/4/27 Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com>

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> Just thought of something else. As an editor approaches their
>> "target", it is possible that other editors will start to throw up
>> borderline Good Article delisting nominations and FARs (Featured
>> Article reviews).
>
>
> Well, as the remedy is written, it doesn't require that the content stay at
> that level -- merely that it be promoted. I'm not sure if that's the best
> way of doing it, but it does eliminate the FAR problem.
>
>
>> I think the only way this will work is to make it
>> vague. Tell the editors concerned that after a suitable period of work
>> done on featured content, they should write to the Arbitration
>> Committee to ask for relief from their sanctions. At that point, we
>> should discuss whether the sanctions should be lifted, not before.
>> Anything else allows gaming of the remedy from both ends.
>
>
> I'm concerned that people won't take the remedy seriously unless we give
> them a firm number; they'll just assume that we'll refuse them regardless.
>
> Plus, if we let someone back with 8 FAs but don't let another editor back
> until they have 10, we'll hear no end of complaints about favoritism.
>
> Kirill
>
> _______________________________________________
> arbcom-l mailing list
> arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
>
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 05:30:15 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:30:15 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Request for specific observation (sent to AUSC)
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0904262230o7b93684ct19726e6d7bf338da@mail.gmail.com>

Forwarded as it's pretty well impossible to send to both lists at once.

Risker

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com>
Date: 2009/4/27
Subject: Request for specific observation
To: arbcom-audit-en at lists.wikimedia.org


This is to advise you that a current CU/OS permission holder, Jayjg, is
currently a party in an RFAR, and the drafting arbitrator has proposed that
Jayjg be stripped of his CU and OS
tools<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop#Jayjg_stripped_of_status_and_privileges>as
one of the remedies in the case.

I respectfully request that the subcommittee monitor any checkuser,
oversight or revision hiding actions by Jayjg until such time as a final
decision on this issue has been made by the Arbitration Committee. I do not
anticipate that he will abuse the tools in any way; however, I believe this
is an example of an unforeseen but likely reasonable task for the
subcommittee to carry out.

A copy of this email will be forwarded to Arbcom-L, as there seems to be
some difficulty in sending to both lists at once. Please feel free to make
any inquiries to Arbcom that you feel would be appropriate.

Thanks,

Risker
----------
From avi.wiki at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 05:31:35 2009
From: avi.wiki at gmail.com (Avi)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:31:35 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Concerns regarding Judea and Samaria Arbcom case
Message-ID: <27ee9bfb0904262231w172def3co6eee3f2d2711d7e2@mail.gmail.com>

I am beginning to be very concerned that the ArbCom case on J/S is becoming
a farce and a way to scapegoat/vendetta Jay. The term "Functionaries" did
not even exist until recently, and Jay has contributed greatly in all areas
of wiki, both in front and behind the scenes. No one can deny he engaged in
edit warring, together with Pedrito, Mackan, G-Dett, NoCal, etc. What should
be a discussion of that edit warrioring, together with appropriate
protections of the project (temporary topic bans, 1RR implementations,
stricter guidelines), is being improperly sidetracked, in my opinion, by an
e-mail that should have very little relevance to begin with.

Is ArbCom aware that this case is becoming less of a way to handle Judea and
Samaria and appearing, at least to me, as more and more a kangaroo court? Is
it possible to receive an explanation, from the proposing arbitrator, or
ArbCom as a whole, as to why one particular editor is being singled out way
above and beyond others?

Thank you for your time and patience,

--Avi
----
en:User:Avraham
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 05:44:58 2009
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:44:58 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Concerns regarding Judea and Samaria Arbcom case
In-Reply-To: <27ee9bfb0904262231w172def3co6eee3f2d2711d7e2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27ee9bfb0904262231w172def3co6eee3f2d2711d7e2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0904262244m61317be9oc344e29dde0a03cf@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Avi <avi.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am beginning to be very concerned that the ArbCom case on J/S is becoming
> a farce and a way to scapegoat/vendetta Jay. The term "Functionaries" did
> not even exist until recently, and Jay has contributed greatly in all areas
> of wiki, both in front and behind the scenes. No one can deny he engaged in
> edit warring, together with Pedrito, Mackan, G-Dett, NoCal, etc. What should
> be a discussion of that edit warrioring, together with appropriate
> protections of the project (temporary topic bans, 1RR implementations,
> stricter guidelines), is being improperly sidetracked, in my opinion, by an
> e-mail that should have very little relevance to begin with.


The email is admittedly of fairly limited relevance except as historical
background. It is not the substantive reason for the remedies regarding
Jayjg, in any case; those are based on his unseemly conduct in *this*
dispute, including both the extensive edit-warring and the inappropriate
remarks.

Is ArbCom aware that this case is becoming less of a way to handle Judea and
> Samaria and appearing, at least to me, as more and more a kangaroo court? Is
> it possible to receive an explanation, from the proposing arbitrator, or
> ArbCom as a whole, as to why one particular editor is being singled out way
> above and beyond others?


Jayjg, being a functionary (and I use the term here as shorthand for "senior
trusted user" -- that we've introduced a new name doesn't change the fact
that this "position" has existed for years), is expected to act as a
suitable example to other users and to uphold the goals and policies of the
project in his editing. Instead, he's engaged in the sort of disgraceful
behavior that we might expect from a single-purpose POV-pusher account.
Acting in that manner is incompatible with retaining the position he holds.

That other users do not have similar remedies drafted regarding them is due
simply to the fact that they do not hold any positions of elevated trust to
begin with, and thus there is nothing to strip them of. Certainly, Jayjg is
not the only one to engaged in the sort of conduct that we expect a
functionary to avoid; it's just that he's the only one to actually have been
a functionary while doing so.

Kirill
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 05:52:54 2009
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:52:54 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Concerns regarding Judea and Samaria Arbcom case
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a0904262244m61317be9oc344e29dde0a03cf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27ee9bfb0904262231w172def3co6eee3f2d2711d7e2@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262244m61317be9oc344e29dde0a03cf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0904262252m434720c6j3f176db3cdcee8da@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Avi <avi.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am beginning to be very concerned that the ArbCom case on J/S is
>> becoming a farce and a way to scapegoat/vendetta Jay. The term
>> "Functionaries" did not even exist until recently, and Jay has contributed
>> greatly in all areas of wiki, both in front and behind the scenes. No one
>> can deny he engaged in edit warring, together with Pedrito, Mackan, G-Dett,
>> NoCal, etc. What should be a discussion of that edit warrioring, together
>> with appropriate protections of the project (temporary topic bans, 1RR
>> implementations, stricter guidelines), is being improperly sidetracked, in
>> my opinion, by an e-mail that should have very little relevance to begin
>> with.
>
>
> The email is admittedly of fairly limited relevance except as historical
> background. It is not the substantive reason for the remedies regarding
> Jayjg, in any case; those are based on his unseemly conduct in *this*
> dispute, including both the extensive edit-warring and the inappropriate
> remarks.
>

To avoid any doubts on the matter, I've struck the email-related findings.

Kirill
----------
From avi.wiki at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 05:56:03 2009
From: avi.wiki at gmail.com (Avi)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:56:03 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Concerns regarding Judea and Samaria Arbcom case
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a0904262244m61317be9oc344e29dde0a03cf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27ee9bfb0904262231w172def3co6eee3f2d2711d7e2@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262244m61317be9oc344e29dde0a03cf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <27ee9bfb0904262256ld04d8bfp67ed53dd2afaae52@mail.gmail.com>

Kirill, perhaps I am mistaken, and please correct me if I am, but isn't
ArbCom supposed to be neutral until they start analyzing the evidence.
Again, I am not on ArbCom, heve never been on ArbCom, and do not plan to run
for ArbCom anytime soon, but having a member of the tribunal, or even the
responsible clerk, saying "he's engaged in the sort of disgraceful behavior
that we might expect from a single-purpose POV-pusher account" implies to me
a lack of the impartiality required to successfully adjudicate this case.

Forgive me if you feel I have personally attacked you, that is not my
purpose at all. I do not disagree that those of us afforded more
"privileges" as it were (though cleaning up Grawp and other sockpuppet
effluvia is a weird definition of privilege, if I may say so myself )
need to act more responsibly. But I would hope that ArbCom takes EVERYTHING
into account; including the co-ordinated attempts by wikipedia editors to
bring down Jay (there is an entire section on WR dedicated to him), natural
human frustrations, etc. into account, and not predefine the outcome, as can
be implied from an arbitrators calling him a disgrace before the case is
even under deliberation.

Thank you for your quick response and explanation, Kirill, and once again,
my apologies if I have come across as pedantic and/or preachy, where I
solely mean to be concerned. Overall, writing the legalese in these cases is
a thankles, boring, and tedious job, and I simultaneously appreciate your
efforts and am releived that I don't have to do something like that

--Avi
----
en:User:Avraham
----------
From avi.wiki at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 05:58:26 2009
From: avi.wiki at gmail.com (Avi)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:58:26 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Concerns regarding Judea and Samaria Arbcom case
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a0904262252m434720c6j3f176db3cdcee8da@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27ee9bfb0904262231w172def3co6eee3f2d2711d7e2@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262244m61317be9oc344e29dde0a03cf@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262252m434720c6j3f176db3cdcee8da@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <27ee9bfb0904262258r462ae645kd18642c4cf3de1b5@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you for clarifying that; it is much appreciated. I will now go back to
my corner and try to keep my big mouth shut

--Avi
----
en:User:Avraham

pub 3072D/F80E29F9 1/30/2009 Avi (Wikimedia-related key) <avi.wiki at gmail.com
>
Primary key fingerprint: 167C 063F 7981 A1F6 71EC ABAA 0D62 B019 F80E
29F9


On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> To avoid any doubts on the matter, I've struck the email-related findings.
>
> Kirill
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 06:01:36 2009
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:01:36 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Concerns regarding Judea and Samaria Arbcom case
In-Reply-To: <27ee9bfb0904262256ld04d8bfp67ed53dd2afaae52@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27ee9bfb0904262231w172def3co6eee3f2d2711d7e2@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262244m61317be9oc344e29dde0a03cf@mail.gmail.com>
<27ee9bfb0904262256ld04d8bfp67ed53dd2afaae52@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0904262301w589901d8i9dafbba89b4165f3@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Avi <avi.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Kirill, perhaps I am mistaken, and please correct me if I am, but isn't
> ArbCom supposed to be neutral until they start analyzing the evidence.
> Again, I am not on ArbCom, heve never been on ArbCom, and do not plan to run
> for ArbCom anytime soon, but having a member of the tribunal, or even the
> responsible clerk, saying "he's engaged in the sort of disgraceful behavior
> that we might expect from a single-purpose POV-pusher account" implies to me
> a lack of the impartiality required to successfully adjudicate this case.


Well, it's an opinion that I've arrived at after looking at the evidence; I
can hardly avoid forming one after having spent two weeks rummaging through
diffs and preparing findings, I think.

(Keep in mind that, by definition, the drafting arbitrator will have gone
through the case *before* anything is put up for voting.)

Kirill
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 06:01:58 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:01:58 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Request for specific observation (sent to AUSC)
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0904262230o7b93684ct19726e6d7bf338da@mail.gmail.com>
References: <eb45e7c0904262230o7b93684ct19726e6d7bf338da@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904262301i195afeb6p7aa54a61f4edb356@mail.gmail.com>

Should we advise him that the audit committee has been asked to
monitor his use of the tools?

Should we inform him that the audit committee has been asked to
_audit_ his use of the tools?

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Forwarded as it's pretty well impossible to send to both lists at once.
>
> Risker
>
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 06:05:40 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:05:40 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Concerns regarding Judea and Samaria Arbcom case
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a0904262252m434720c6j3f176db3cdcee8da@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27ee9bfb0904262231w172def3co6eee3f2d2711d7e2@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262244m61317be9oc344e29dde0a03cf@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262252m434720c6j3f176db3cdcee8da@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904262305i57dba1cam9bb0fd14b837981e@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Kirill Lokshin
<kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Avi <avi.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am beginning to be very concerned that the ArbCom case on J/S is
>>> becoming a farce and a way to scapegoat/vendetta Jay. The term
>>> "Functionaries" did not even exist until recently, and Jay has contributed
>>> greatly in all areas of wiki, both in front and behind the scenes. No one
>>> can deny he engaged in edit warring, together with Pedrito, Mackan, G-Dett,
>>> NoCal, etc. What should be a discussion of that edit warrioring, together
>>> with appropriate protections of the project (temporary topic bans, 1RR
>>> implementations, stricter guidelines), is being improperly sidetracked, in
>>> my opinion, by an e-mail that should have very little relevance to begin
>>> with.
>>
>> The email is admittedly of fairly limited relevance except as historical
>> background. ?It is not the substantive reason for the remedies regarding
>> Jayjg, in any case; those are based on his unseemly conduct in *this*
>> dispute, including both the extensive edit-warring and the inappropriate
>> remarks.
>
> To avoid any doubts on the matter, I've struck the email-related findings.

I believe that finding is necessary. It's value is reduced because it
is historical, and we can be clear about that in our comments to the
FoF, but not including it as a FoF is very close to white-washing.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 06:12:37 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:12:37 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Request for specific observation (sent to AUSC)
In-Reply-To: <deea21830904262301i195afeb6p7aa54a61f4edb356@mail.gmail.com>
References: <eb45e7c0904262230o7b93684ct19726e6d7bf338da@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904262301i195afeb6p7aa54a61f4edb356@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0904262312t2f81f2f6i329d8795a980db5e@mail.gmail.com>

I think it would be fair to tell him that the audit committee has been asked
to monitor his use of tools as a precaution only, and that we do not in any
way anticipate a problem. I did take a look at his logs before I sent the
email, and I didn't see anything overtly problematic going back several
months, so I'm not sure if an actual audit is required here.

Per Kirill's exchange (separate thread) with Avi, the issue isn't abuse of
tools, it's behaviour incompatible with the trust required for advanced
permissions that is at question.

Risker

2009/4/27 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>

> Should we advise him that the audit committee has been asked to
> monitor his use of the tools?
>
> Should we inform him that the audit committee has been asked to
> _audit_ his use of the tools?
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Forwarded as it's pretty well impossible to send to both lists at once.
> >
> > Risker
----------
From roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com Mon Apr 27 06:14:12 2009
From: roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:14:12 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Request for specific observation (sent to AUSC)
In-Reply-To: <deea21830904262301i195afeb6p7aa54a61f4edb356@mail.gmail.com>
References: <eb45e7c0904262230o7b93684ct19726e6d7bf338da@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904262301i195afeb6p7aa54a61f4edb356@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49F54D34.3000509@gmail.com>

My 2/100:

Yes, to the first. This should be routine in this situation (ie
Functionary under cloud automatically monitored til the case resolves)

No, to the second. IMV, it sounds alarming. We should only advise that,
in my view, AFTER the RfAr passes.


Roger



John Vandenberg wrote:
> Should we advise him that the audit committee has been asked to
> monitor his use of the tools?
>
> Should we inform him that the audit committee has been asked to
> _audit_ his use of the tools?
-----------
From casliber01 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 06:25:12 2009
From: casliber01 at yahoo.com (Cas Liber)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Concerns regarding Judea and Samaria Arbcom case
In-Reply-To: <deea21830904262305i57dba1cam9bb0fd14b837981e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27ee9bfb0904262231w172def3co6eee3f2d2711d7e2@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262244m61317be9oc344e29dde0a03cf@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262252m434720c6j3f176db3cdcee8da@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904262305i57dba1cam9bb0fd14b837981e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <274008.87424.qm@web62003.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


I think?the particular email where he asks about watching his back is pretty damning stuff really. It can't be ignored.
Cas


----- Original Message ----
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 4:05:40 PM
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Concerns regarding Judea and Samaria Arbcom case

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Kirill Lokshin
<kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Avi <avi.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am beginning to be very concerned that the ArbCom case on J/S is
>>> becoming a farce and a way to scapegoat/vendetta Jay. The term
>>> "Functionaries" did not even exist until recently, and Jay has contributed
>>> greatly in all areas of wiki, both in front and behind the scenes. No one
>>> can deny he engaged in edit warring, together with Pedrito, Mackan, G-Dett,
>>> NoCal, etc. What should be a discussion of that edit warrioring, together
>>> with appropriate protections of the project (temporary topic bans, 1RR
>>> implementations, stricter guidelines), is being improperly sidetracked, in
>>> my opinion, by an e-mail that should have very little relevance to begin
>>> with.
>>
>> The email is admittedly of fairly limited relevance except as historical
>> background. ?It is not the substantive reason for the remedies regarding
>> Jayjg, in any case; those are based on his unseemly conduct in *this*
>> dispute, including both the extensive edit-warring and the inappropriate
>> remarks.
>
> To avoid any doubts on the matter, I've struck the email-related findings.

I believe that finding is necessary.? It's value is reduced because it
is historical, and we can be clear about that in our comments to the
FoF, but not including it as a FoF is very close to white-washing.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 07:57:01 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:57:01 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Concerns regarding Judea and Samaria Arbcom case
In-Reply-To: <274008.87424.qm@web62003.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <27ee9bfb0904262231w172def3co6eee3f2d2711d7e2@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262244m61317be9oc344e29dde0a03cf@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262252m434720c6j3f176db3cdcee8da@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904262305i57dba1cam9bb0fd14b837981e@mail.gmail.com>
<274008.87424.qm@web62003.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904270057w77d07f56jfd27d37a58067651@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Cas Liber <casliber01 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I think?the particular email where he asks about watching his back is pretty damning stuff really. It can't be ignored.

I was going to expand on my thoughts here, but thought it better to
post it onwiki as it revolves around Avi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop#the_email

--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 15:39:18 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:39:18 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Request for specific observation (sent to AUSC)
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0904270833k4543f44ej25671c219d6b1c46@mail.gmail.com>
References: <eb45e7c0904262230o7b93684ct19726e6d7bf338da@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904262301i195afeb6p7aa54a61f4edb356@mail.gmail.com>
<49F54D34.3000509@gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0904270833k4543f44ej25671c219d6b1c46@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0904270839m73cb58bfj28f71df14fe3352a@mail.gmail.com>

I agree that advising him is the correct way to handle the situation.
This will be routine so we need to make it clear that is the case
here.

Sydney

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone else wish to comment on whether or not we should advise Jayjg
> that his use of Checkuser and Oversight/Revision hiding tools will be
> monitored for the duration of this case?
>
> I'll email him in about 10 hours (approx. 0100 hours UTC) unless there are
> any objections.
>
> Risker
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 15:39:57 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:39:57 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Preliminary draft for "West Bank - Judea and
Samaria" case
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0904262214h13627d79ka06dac0e721d4225@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3f797b9a0904262004u2dd5a927nc2a438057f5c379d@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0904262114q686d950ehfefd67c8b78ba8f7@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904262120y93b433bt2c896afb4223e4d5@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262123m4d9da2cmca12ab230a5e6b91@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0904262214h13627d79ka06dac0e721d4225@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0904270839k43ce86d9g74a4db946a27de9b@mail.gmail.com>

Just to note that an anonymous IP (Comcast, Seattle Washington) has now
posted an email from Lar (who has been broadly supportive of the proposals,
including those relating to Jayjg), which implies that Lar himself is known
to canvass. I am inclined to ask a clerk to delete as it is personal
communication, but I do not think any of the committee members should do so.
Thoughts?

Diff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=286455717

Risker
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Mon Apr 27 15:59:48 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:59:48 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Preliminary draft for "West Bank - Judea and
Samaria" case
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0904270839k43ce86d9g74a4db946a27de9b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3f797b9a0904262004u2dd5a927nc2a438057f5c379d@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0904262114q686d950ehfefd67c8b78ba8f7@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904262120y93b433bt2c896afb4223e4d5@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262123m4d9da2cmca12ab230a5e6b91@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0904262214h13627d79ka06dac0e721d4225@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0904270839k43ce86d9g74a4db946a27de9b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904270859l5785c827h4d790b2dbfcbd076@mail.gmail.com>

And Lar has responded. Missing the point entirely.

I don't care how hard-working Herby is (I don't even know who Herby
is), the point is that when this sort of thing takes place, it's not
just the person doing the canvassing that gets hurt. In other words,
Lar has done a great dis-service to both himself and whoever else he
has canvassed for (in this case, Herby).

I'm drawing a distinction here between back-channel communications
telling people that a discussion is taking place because you want to
talk about a particular issue or incident (that happens on this list,
though maybe it shouldn't) and actively e-mailing individuals and
asking them to vote in support of someone if the RFA nomination is
accepted (yes, I know it says "consider", but it is clear what he is
asking).

I do wonder what else will fall out of the woodwork now.

Carcharoth

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to note that an anonymous IP (Comcast, Seattle Washington) has now
> posted an email from Lar (who has been broadly supportive of the proposals,
> including those relating to Jayjg), which implies that Lar himself is known
> to canvass.? I am inclined to ask a clerk to delete as it is personal
> communication, but I do not think any of the committee members should do so.
> Thoughts?
>
> Diff:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=286455717
>
> Risker
----------
From lar at voyager.net Mon Apr 27 16:22:16 2009
From: lar at voyager.net (Larry Pieniazek)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:22:16 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Regarding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop#Jayjg
Message-ID: <03c201c9c754$5af8e0d0$32664109@svl.ibm.com>

Dear ArbCom:

Since this has been introduced in evidence by an anon, I want to formally
acknowledge it. Yes it was sent by me. And I stand behind it, as I said on
the thread...

LMK if you want to know who I bcced it to, I have that information as well.
Obviously one of those people leads (through however many links) to the anon
98.203.142.239

Larry Pieniazek
Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Pieniazek [mailto:lar at voyager.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 8:01 AM
> Subject: Calling in a favour
>
> Hi there!
>
> To a BCC list as I'[m not sure you all know each other's
> email... Or maybe it's because this is an odd request,
> normally I don't canvass quite this blatantly and I don't
> want you to know how many people I mailed
>
> Please watchlist
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/
> Herbythyme and consider supporting it if you agree he's be a
> good candidate, as soon as it's practical after acceptance,
> it would be much appreciated. Herby might get some opposes
> from those who are rigid about RfA qualifications, but he's a
> CU on 3 other wikis and desperately wants to help maintain
> the thankless en:wp spam blacklist which is horrificially
> backlogged. I trust him implicitly, need I say more?
>
> PS no comment on whether I might do this again for my steward
> candidacy
>
> Larry Pieniazek
> Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com
>
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 17:19:45 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:19:45 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Preliminary draft for "West Bank - Judea and
Samaria" case
In-Reply-To: <206791b10904270859l5785c827h4d790b2dbfcbd076@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3f797b9a0904262004u2dd5a927nc2a438057f5c379d@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0904262114q686d950ehfefd67c8b78ba8f7@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904262120y93b433bt2c896afb4223e4d5@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262123m4d9da2cmca12ab230a5e6b91@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0904262214h13627d79ka06dac0e721d4225@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0904270839k43ce86d9g74a4db946a27de9b@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904270859l5785c827h4d790b2dbfcbd076@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904271019w2c6a0d4ew65c56b48c4b6ad40@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> And Lar has responded. Missing the point entirely.
>
> I don't care how hard-working Herby is (I don't even know who Herby
> is), the point is that when this sort of thing takes place, it's not
> just the person doing the canvassing that gets hurt. In other words,
> Lar has done a great dis-service to both himself and whoever else he
> has canvassed for (in this case, Herby).
>
> I'm drawing a distinction here between back-channel communications
> telling people that a discussion is taking place because you want to
> talk about a particular issue or incident (that happens on this list,
> though maybe it shouldn't) and actively e-mailing individuals and
> asking them to vote in support of someone if the RFA nomination is
> accepted (yes, I know it says "consider", but it is clear what he is
> asking).
>
> I do wonder what else will fall out of the woodwork now.

Allow me to show you..

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/SB_Johnny_(checkuser)

Jayjg's second edit to Commons is to oppose a checkuser:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Jayjg&limit=2

He cites this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FC68-FM-SV%2FEvidence&diff=229405978&oldid=227987422

Which is Cla68 showing MONGO, FeloniousMonk, Orangemarlin, and
SlimVirgin all voting oppose. The last three came out of nowhere:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=FeloniousMonk&limit=5
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Orangemarlin&limit=1
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080819&target=SlimVirgin&limit=2

On Aug 2, 2008, Lar sent a similar email to an undisclosed recipient
list, after 8 oppose votes were added. I was one of the recipients.
I didnt inquire who the recipient list was. After looking into the
situation, I voted support . I was and am an admin on Commons, and
was active there at the time. I got in contact with Durova soon
after, and also with SB Johnny. By this stage mediation was not
possible.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Jayvdb&namespace=&year=2008&month=8

--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 23:13:42 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:13:42 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Concerns regarding Judea and Samaria Arbcom case
In-Reply-To: <deea21830904270057w77d07f56jfd27d37a58067651@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27ee9bfb0904262231w172def3co6eee3f2d2711d7e2@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262244m61317be9oc344e29dde0a03cf@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0904262252m434720c6j3f176db3cdcee8da@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904262305i57dba1cam9bb0fd14b837981e@mail.gmail.com>
<274008.87424.qm@web62003.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<deea21830904270057w77d07f56jfd27d37a58067651@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904271613q6082c7a3g2d84f7d1c7022714@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 5:57 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Cas Liber <casliber01 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think?the particular email where he asks about watching his back is pretty damning stuff really. It can't be ignored.
>
> I was going to expand on my thoughts here, but thought it better to
> post it onwiki as it revolves around Avi.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop#the_email

Avraham has sent me another email from Jayjg in September, similar to
the one that went to WikiEn-l. There is one aspect of it that I am
clarifying; once that is done, I will forward it on or ask him to send
it to this list.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 23:24:52 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:24:52 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Antisemite at Goy
In-Reply-To: <27ee9bfb0904270731o2f83e557nf23e458f704d0d99@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6a8d9d700809101959k20ddd1efx7fe0bc042d87ff1@mail.gmail.com>
<27ee9bfb0904270731o2f83e557nf23e458f704d0d99@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904271624l39258c8ciee3adf9b883d276b@mail.gmail.com>

We need to consider this as private evidence. I have had a detailed
discussion with Avi about this content issue, and how this was handled
onwiki, but I would like another arb to take a look - a fresh set of
eyes - before I give my views on it.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Avi <avi.wiki at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:31 AM
Subject: Fwd: Antisemite at Goy
To: John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>


I'll look and see if I can find any other unlabeled ones, although I
likely deleted most everything that is that old.

--Avi
----
en:User:Avraham

pub 3072D/F80E29F9 1/30/2009 Avi (Wikimedia-related key) <avi.wiki at gmail.com>
? Primary key fingerprint: 167C 063F 7981 A1F6 71EC ?ABAA 0D62 B019 F80E 29F9


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Subject: Antisemite at Goy
To: "Avraham, Avi" <avi.wiki at gmail.com>


Hi Avi,

I'm battling an antisemite at the Goy article; he's trying to prove,
using dubious Original Research, that the word more or less means
cattle. Could you take a look?

Thanks,

Jay
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 02:00:54 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:00:54 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Regarding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop#Jayjg
In-Reply-To: <03c201c9c754$5af8e0d0$32664109@svl.ibm.com>
References: <03c201c9c754$5af8e0d0$32664109@svl.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904271900n59092072tf295913269d8314f@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Larry Pieniazek <lar at voyager.net> wrote:
> Dear ArbCom:
>
> Since this has been introduced in evidence by an anon, I want to formally
> acknowledge it. Yes it was sent by me. And I stand behind it, as I said on
> the thread...
>
> LMK if you want to know who I bcced it to, I have that information as well.
> Obviously one of those people leads (through however many links) to the anon
> 98.203.142.239

Avi has run a check on this IP with summary "Request from another CU involved"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CheckUser/Log?cuSearchType=initiator&cuSearch=Avraham&offset=2009042716&limit=3

Should we inquire whether he found anything useful? I dont want ask
him atm as I have a few other emails to respond to him first, and they
need to be answered first.

However I can ask in a few hours, after a meeting, when I have more
time to catch up with my comms with him and ask about the CU results
nicely and in a way that dont have an appearance of being an audit.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 17:17:13 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:17:13 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Notification of Audit Subcommittee monitoring
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0904281017u429c9f60u8fa98edbbf085fcd@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jayjg,

As you may be aware, a remedy has been put forward at the West Bank - Judea
and Samaria arbitration case that proposes to remove your access to
checkuser and oversight tools. As this is a most unusual situation, the
Arbitration Committee has requested that the Audit Subcommittee monitor your
use of these advanced tools until a decision has been finalized in this
matter. The Committee does not in any way anticipate inappropriate use of
the tools, and this measure is being taken as a precaution only. If you have
any questions or concerns about this, please contact the Committee at the
Arbcom-L mailing list.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Risker

Note: A copy of this message will be forwarded to the Audit Subcommittee;
direct cc is not possible for technical reasons.
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 18:19:28 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 04:19:28 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Antisemite at Goy
In-Reply-To: <deea21830904271624l39258c8ciee3adf9b883d276b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6a8d9d700809101959k20ddd1efx7fe0bc042d87ff1@mail.gmail.com>
<27ee9bfb0904270731o2f83e557nf23e458f704d0d99@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904271624l39258c8ciee3adf9b883d276b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904291119l7eac4f92s6b663ff2ee5b3938@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:24 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> We need to consider this as private evidence. ?I have had a detailed
> discussion with Avi about this content issue, and how this was handled
> onwiki, but I would like another arb to take a look - a fresh set of
> eyes - before I give my views on it.

Due to the underwhelming response here, here is my analysis ... ;-)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbcom-en/wiki/Case:West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Evidence/Goy

It is important to note that Avi, after the Messianic Judaism email,
told jaygj that doesnt want any more of those emails.

Despite that, Jaygj emails Avi about [[Goy]], who does not
participate, asking him to back him up in a content issue.

To me it is quite obvious that a few familiar faces swoop in to defend
Jayjg after he makes the edits he tells Avi he is going to make, and I
think it is reasonable to assume those other editors also learnt of
this via private comms.

One major difference in this case is that the edits by jaygj on this
article are much less defensible that the Messianic Judaism
canvassing. In the case of Goy, he is removing reasonable content.
Maybe it should be removed, maybe it should be kept and improved;
maybe it should have been given less weight. What definitely should
have occurred was a nice scholarly discussion about it, and a trip to
the library maybe.

Instead the anons are called antisemetic and accused of OR and UNDUE
and every possible wikisin. Meanwhile, back in reality, these anons
are adding material from two sources that are typically in the home
bookshelf of lay Bible scholars. Both of my parents(separated) have
both texts. Strong's numbers are included in almost every other bible
reference work, for cross referencing purposes. Old PD books are
*republished* with Strong's numbers added. All of the for-profit
computer Bible tools that I have seen have Strong's numbers in them.

i.e. it doesnt take an antisemetic to be adding this material to
Wikipedia - any bible scholar could be saying to themselves "hmm, this
article doesnt mention the lesser known meanings of the word - I will
add them to the page as my good deed for the day".

What erks me the most is that this particular content issue has been
going on for a very long time. And nobody decided that there should
be a decent discussion about it, or go looking for sources, or asking
about whether the Protocols makes this "cattle" aspect notable, or a
FAQ on the talk pages to answer why it isnt appropriate.

As a final emotive blurb - removing this translation as "OR" _is_ OR.
It is Jaygj who is deciding that this translation of the word isnt
appropriate; it is cited to two notable sources; he and the other
editors are doing the OR by deciding that only the accepted Jewish
meanings are going to be included. At no time are any counter
argument given using sources that indicate that this isnt an
appropriate translation. There are no other Hebrew-English lexicons
referenced in the article. I havent read all of the talk page.

And to top it all off ....

on the talk page: "'Anyway, what is your usual account? Jayjg (talk)
03:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)"

----

Now the problem is that adding this as evidence publicly may clue Jay
into the fact that Avi has informed us about the email - that is, if
nobody else was emailed at the same time. I dont want to put Avi into
a bad situation for having taken the very bold step of coming forward
with evidence.

However I do think it is appropriate to ask Jay to let us know if he
emailed anyone else about Goy, or failing that, to ask the admins to
covered his arse whether they received any private comms. about it.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From jayjg99 at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 16:00:15 2009
From: jayjg99 at gmail.com (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:00:15 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Your (John's) note re: the Workshop
Message-ID: <6a8d9d700904300900y2371fab5rcf8d6a59299f657e@mail.gmail.com>

Hi John,

Someone was kind enough to let me know that you had dropped a note on my
Talk page yesterday. As you're a member of the arbcom, and this is in
relation to an active case, I've ccd the list for their (and your)
convenience. In strictest confidence, I'm dealing with a family health
issue, and facing real-life deadlines for the next few months that are
occupying my time - that's what that notification at the top of my Talk:
page is about.

Regarding your concern that my lack of participation in the Workshop "is
very unusual to say the least", I'm not sure it is. I don't recall ever
participating in *any* workshops, not when I was an arbitrator, nor
afterward. They generally appeared to be more Roman circus or honey pot than
reasoned place for discussion; filled with partisans lining up in
predictable ways, lots of proposals that never have a chance of actually
being incorporated into a decision, and awful and outrageous statements that
would not be allowed anywhere else on Wikipedia. I've now looked briefly at
the West Bank - Judea/Samaria workshop, and honestly, many of the statements
there are angry, mean-spirited and/or overtly vindictive, and it's hard for
me to read them without feeling stressed and depressed. Over the past five
years I have put many thousands of hours of volunteer time into Wikipedia,
in a variety of roles (editor, administrator, arbitrator, CU, oversighter),
to the detriment of both my personal and professional life. I was aware of
the vitriol and, frankly, outright lies being liberally spread about me on
Wikipedia Review; to see that replicated in miniature on Wikipedia, and
taken seriously, is extremely distressing, and I don't like reading it
unless I absolutely have to.

Anyway, is there anything specific you or the committee would like to know?
I'll be happy to provide additional information. You also mentioned "a
collaborative process" in which you'd like me to participate. I'm all for
collaboration, glad to assist it in any way I can.

Regards,

Jay
----------
From avi.wiki at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 17:26:21 2009
From: avi.wiki at gmail.com (Avi)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:26:21 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Suspicion raised about participant in Judea/Samaria RfAr
Message-ID: <27ee9bfb0904301026ye5cc494y93bfcf53c2ac7808@mail.gmail.com>

With permission from Brewcrewer, I am forwarding this to ArbCom as it
relates to the Jay RfaR.

I don't see direct evidence of disruption; I've pulled near all-nighters on
Wikipedia before, and I told that to Crewer.

On the other hand, I do not think a "private" CU would be out of the
question, as if the accusation is true, THIS would be evidence of an
off-wiki conspiracy to edit in violation of wikipedia's principles, which
would be ironic in light of the weight given to just that point in this
RfAR.

UNODIR, I may run a CU request, and only release information should there be
an issue. I do not want people thinking that they can run to the nearest CU
for any possible infraction, but preventing potential disruption is the
charge given to CU's.

--Avi
----
en:User:Avraham

pub 3072D/F80E29F9 1/30/2009 Avi (Wikimedia-related key) <avi.wiki at gmail.com
>
Primary key fingerprint: 167C 063F 7981 A1F6 71EC ABAA 0D62 B019 F80E
29F9


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brewcrewer <brewcrew9v9 at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Subject: question
To: Avraham <avi.wiki at gmail.com>


User:Tiamut is editing consistently for the last 21 hours. She isn't just
reverting vandalism which doesn't require much brainpower, but she's heavily
involved in discussions and article building. Based on this, I think that
the account is really a role account that is used by multiple editors. My
first question is, is that allowed? Secondly, if it isn't allowed how would
I resolve this? Thanks, BCer

--
This e-mail was sent by user "Brewcrewer" on the English Wikipedia to user
"Avraham". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation
cannot be held responsible for its contents.
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 17:30:03 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 03:30:03 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Suspicion raised about participant in Judea/Samaria
RfAr
In-Reply-To: <27ee9bfb0904301026ye5cc494y93bfcf53c2ac7808@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27ee9bfb0904301026ye5cc494y93bfcf53c2ac7808@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904301030u7d83d114n72331deb9617668b@mail.gmail.com>

Avi,

There has been a recent discussion on AN about this type of editing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Ethics_of_sharing_an_account

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 17:33:01 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:33:01 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Suspicion raised about participant in Judea/Samaria
RfAr
In-Reply-To: <27ee9bfb0904301026ye5cc494y93bfcf53c2ac7808@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27ee9bfb0904301026ye5cc494y93bfcf53c2ac7808@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0904301033l4a63639fuf17b44466a957083@mail.gmail.com>

Many of us have done long stretches of editing so I don't think this
is a good reason for doing a check if it is the only reason. So, I
would discourage conspiracy theories which this seems like it is to
me.

Sydney

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Avi <avi.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> With permission from Brewcrewer, I am forwarding this to ArbCom as it
> relates to the Jay RfaR.
>
> I don't see direct evidence of disruption; I've pulled near all-nighters on
> Wikipedia before, and I told that to Crewer.
>
> On the other hand, I do not think a "private" CU would be out of the
> question, as if the accusation is true, THIS would be evidence of an
> off-wiki conspiracy to edit in violation of wikipedia's principles, which
> would be ironic in light of the weight given to just that point in this
> RfAR.
>
> UNODIR, I may run a CU request, and only release information should there be
> an issue. I do not want people thinking that they can run to the nearest CU
> for any possible infraction, but preventing potential disruption is the
> charge given to CU's.
>
> --Avi
----------
From avi.wiki at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 17:33:34 2009
From: avi.wiki at gmail.com (Avi)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:33:34 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Suspicion raised about participant in Judea/Samaria
RfAr
In-Reply-To: <deea21830904301030u7d83d114n72331deb9617668b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27ee9bfb0904301026ye5cc494y93bfcf53c2ac7808@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904301030u7d83d114n72331deb9617668b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <27ee9bfb0904301033y90b5c4te164410af3d376d3@mail.gmail.com>

There is no harrassment here, as the suspicion was raised in private, which
I have always believed is acceptable and not a form of
harrassment/conspiracy. To ensure that propriety is maintained, I informed
ArbCom prior to making any checks (which I haven't done just yet) since I
may be viewed as not being completely impartial on this case. As a matter of
fact, according to the discussion, SamKorn /ran/ a check on Russavia based
the accusation.

--Avi
----
en:User:Avraham
----------
From avi.wiki at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 17:35:29 2009
From: avi.wiki at gmail.com (Avi)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:35:29 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Suspicion raised about participant in Judea/Samaria
RfAr
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0904301033l4a63639fuf17b44466a957083@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27ee9bfb0904301026ye5cc494y93bfcf53c2ac7808@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0904301033l4a63639fuf17b44466a957083@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <27ee9bfb0904301035g2dd379b0x936c26a063e37f4a@mail.gmail.com>

That is what I told Brewer; but, as I said, the potential downside if the
disruption accusation is true is severe, and while I do not want to foster
the environment that has every editor and their cousin-in-law running
directly to a CU for a check, a "quiet" check may not be inappropriate, in
my opinion, which is why I asked for feedback from y'all.

--Avi
----
en:User:Avraham

pub 3072D/F80E29F9 1/30/2009 Avi (Wikimedia-related key) <avi.wiki at gmail.com
>
Primary key fingerprint: 167C 063F 7981 A1F6 71EC ABAA 0D62 B019 F80E
29F9


On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:33 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:

> Many of us have done long stretches of editing so I don't think this
> is a good reason for doing a check if it is the only reason. So, I
> would discourage conspiracy theories which this seems like it is to
> me.
>
> Sydney
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 17:39:09 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 03:39:09 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Suspicion raised about participant in Judea/Samaria
RfAr
In-Reply-To: <27ee9bfb0904301033y90b5c4te164410af3d376d3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27ee9bfb0904301026ye5cc494y93bfcf53c2ac7808@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904301030u7d83d114n72331deb9617668b@mail.gmail.com>
<27ee9bfb0904301033y90b5c4te164410af3d376d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904301039l238bfd42ve420a7bb6337eb46@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Avi <avi.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is no harrassment here, as the suspicion was raised in private, which
> I have always believed is acceptable and not a form of
> harrassment/conspiracy. To ensure that propriety is maintained, I informed
> ArbCom prior to making any checks (which I haven't done just yet) since I
> may be view

Posted by: Sololol

Thanks for all this. Maybe I'm a hardliner when it comes to off-wiki canvassing but it strikes me as a serious offense, if only because it sways decisions whilst remaining virtually undetectable and exhibits a contempt of due process (not that the process doesn't deserve some contempt). Jayjg got nailed once for this in 2007 and suffered zero repercussions (I think?) and now we have him doing the same thing a year later (and still involved with similar folks in 2010). He's not even right on the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goy&diff=prev&oldid=237638280: goy was used occasionally as a reference to groups of animals in old Hebrew. So what? "Parliament" can mean a group of rooks and isn't a slur against legislative bodies (a bit insulting to the rooks, though). Now I know why they never banned Nocal's group; they simply don't care. These people have been pulling this shit for years, yelling "Anti-Semite!" over innocuous edits.

Posted by: RMHED

You mean you actually bothered to read all that blather!

Why, for fecks sake?

Posted by: Cla68

A few things:

- Jayjg's assertion, "I can't participate in the ArbCom workshop because it makes me depressed" is kind of hypocritical. He didn't seem to consider how he might be making others feel when he accused them of being anti-Semitic, reverted their edits without discussion, and shamelessly asked his friends by email to back him up if any edit wars broke out. What a solipcistic, self-centered, selfish, narcissistic, attitude.

- The ArbCom should have made a clearer finding on Jayjg's behavior, such as, "Based on private and other evidence, Jayjg is found to have inappropriately used off-wiki canvassing, and has otherwise violated the NPOV policy, which conduct is not in keeping of standards expected of Wikipedia functionaries." I guess that finding would have contributed further to Jayjg's depression, but it would have sent a clear message to the other pro-Israel POV warriors, and perhaps would have helped rein-in some of their behavior.

- Asking someone by email to look at an article and see what they think about it, and leaving it at that, may not be inappropriate canvassing. Telling someone, "Could someone please go and revert so-and-so in the New Antisemitism article, I've already used two reverts today", or, "I'm about to go revert some information I don't approve of from such-and-such article. Can you guys back me up?", is inappropriate.

Posted by: RMHED

Oh dear Cla, do you really care about this crap?

Turn off your 'puter and give your wifey some attention.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I'm going to go on record again to point out that Wikipedia's policy on canvassing is utterly stupid, and exists mainly as a way to accuse anyone they want of breaking it at any time. Virtually everyone on Wikipedia has engaged in canvassing, and many people do it on a regular basis. The only time the rule is enforced is when the canvassing amounts to opposing the Will of the Cabal, or is otherwise contra-HPOV. As much as I dislike jayjg, I think nailing him to the cross for "canvassing" lacks moral virtue.

Posted by: RMHED

Now if only we could think of a way of "nailing him to the cross" that is morally virtuous. Oh what a warmly smug feeling that would engender.

Posted by: Wikifan

Man Jay is getting hammered. Honestly his flaws are no less different than Malik or Zero00 (however you spell his/her name) who POV-push on a regular basis but remain immune because of their admin status.

Posted by: Jagärdu

I guess this is the, "my dog ate my homework" of excuses when you don't want to participate in an arbitration that involves you. Good to know.

Posted by: Sololol

Like most Wikipedians, current and former, I'm a bit of a masochist.

Posted by: The Adversary

Oh, la, la.

I know Tiamut; they can check her as much as they like: it is only one (great!) gal who edit with that account.

On the other hand...Slimmy also had some all-nighters....and when that was raised as an issue, I cannot recall Brewcrewer (or Avi!) asking for CU of her...
An "oversight", I´m sure

Posted by: Wikifan

who are you?

Posted by: The Adversary

One who is old enough to be your mother.
And are you allowed to stay up this late, all alone with a computer?

Tsk, tsk, tsk,

Posted by: Wikifan

I'm not on the East Coast, tsk tsk.

Posted by: bi-winning

Her name is Tsk, tsk, tsk, fucker.

Posted by: Wikifan

and who are you? I have no problem advertising my username here but some editors prefer to remain anonymous. why is this? i wonder how many admins or influential editors hide behind these handles...

Posted by: Abd

This is kind of a theme.

So, Risker is "inclined to ask a clerk," but doesn't think any committee member should actually do the deletion.

In other words, avoid the appearance of any involvement, while actually being involved, by asking a clerk to do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=286455717 is the edit Risker mentions, at 15:31, 27 April 2009. That section was closed with an unsigned collapse box. With some effort I found http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop&diff=286499906&oldid=286499268 at 19:50, 27 April 2009.

Hmwith may have been responding to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=286471197. (The action of collapse may have been completely appropriate, but not signing it was an error. If this action had been canvassed by an arb, there would be a more serious process error, the point being that if collapse was needed, particularly to discourage further action, it should have been done immediately, by Risker, presumably as the one first noticing the problem edit, very quickly.

But the accusation here was of ArbComm specially protecting Lar. So she wanted to avoid that appearance, hence her desire to ask a clerk to do with. Whether she did that or not, I can't tell. But that she wanted to is the point. Avoidance of allowing the reality to be visible. ArbComm does not trust the community it serves.

Or does it serve the community? That's a whole schizoid situation, is it the community or the project that ArbComm serves?

Posted by: Jagärdu

As you do, or did your parents really name you Wikifan12345?

Posted by: radek

I've said the same thing before on several occasions.

Moreover it's also interesting how the "canvassing" policy actually came about:

It was originally just an anti-spam policy designed to prevent people from posting UNWANTED notices on other people's talk pages. Then some AfD didn't go the way that some guy wanted so in a fit of righteous sour grapes he went to WP:SPAM and changed it (n language that is characteristic of half-illiterate high school kids and nutzoids with axes to grind) to prohibit the posting of WANTED or RELEVANT notices. Then someone more sophisticated noticed that this was a perfect tool to get somebody they were in a dispute with at the time sanctioned (or threatened with sanctioned), quickly cleaned up the horrible language, "wikified" it, split it off into a separate policy, and then used it to go after whoever was their target. Viola, another idiotic, ill thought out, anti-common sense, Wikipedia policy is born.

Posted by: Sololol

That makes it pretty similar to most policies. Canvassing is like the 3-RR rule, once you have the evidence there's very little wiggle room. The 2007 email was clearly canvassing and they did nothing. This 2008 one wasn't even the reason they cracked down on him. I think most editors try to act in accordance with the rules and don't canvass but you are a gray-haired saber tooth in the wiki-world with far more experience. Common use of canvassing would certainly explain their otherwise baffling apathy.

To avoid any backlash from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hro%C3%B0gar The Adversary has chosen to hide their editing name. Perfectly sensible. (Also, what does it matter?)

Posted by: Wikifan

read my response again and you'll find out.

Posted by: Malik Shabazz

Boo hoo, boo hoo.

Malik gets to skate because he's an admin but Jay gets hammered because... Wait a minute. Isn't Jayjg an admin too?

Epic fail.

Posted by: Wikifan

Sarcasm...your greatest trait. Why should Jay be held to a standard Malik is not? Jay is being targeted plain and simple.

Posted by: Sololol

I'm just going to leave this right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Helloooooooooooo, mama!

Posted by: Jagärdu

Jayjg "targeted"? What nonsense. The guy has been getting away with murder for years. From the sound of your crying about this one would think that Wikipedia is thoroughly pro-Palestinian, which is of course not remotely true.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

Perspective (T-H-L-K-D)

Posted by: Wikifan

nothing to do with israe/pal. I'm not very familiar with j's backstory, but i know malik along with other admins who will remain unmentioned *cough*chrisO*cough* (or former) who should have lost their tools long ago for battleground behavior.

it seems the rules do not apply fairly. jay is getting sandbagged.

Posted by: Malik Shabazz

As you wrote, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Jayjg. Let me just say that I learned from the best -- and he was on the "opposite side" of the Israel-Palestine debate.

(Also, you do realize that these email messages are more than two years old, don't you?)

Posted by: Wikifan

i know jayjg is subject to a disproportionate amount of criticism. i care less about j's status on the israeli-palestine field. plenty of admins on the fence admins exist (philknight, the late ChrisO, etc..) that i don't personally see a problem with and moderate fairly.

but you malik are totally one-sided when it comes to admin. i hate to say this but you are nableezy's bitch even if you don't realize it.

Posted by: Malik Shabazz

You don't know what you're talking about, Wikifan. Not about me, not about nableezy, not about Jayjg. Let's just leave it at that.

Posted by: Shalom

Back on topic. The most astonishing quotation from the whole TL;DR (=too long, DID read) thread for me was this gem from jayjg:

Note that the time-stamp indicates 16:00 UTC but 12:00 local time for the sender. This supports speculation that Jayjg lives in the Eastern United States time zone as April 30 would have been in Daylight Saving Time which is UTC-4. This is the same time zone where I live. I checked the time-stamp on the messages sent by other individuals on the Arbcom list, and this confirms that two times are recorded: UTC on the first line, and sender's time zone on the third line. The time zone's of senders with a known real world location are broadly consistent with what I knew, but a few may have lived in places other than what I remembered. Someone who is bored could easily derive the timezones where each email writer was located by using this simple method.

Jayjg wrote in response to this message left on his talkpage by Jayvdb a.k.a. John Vandenberg:


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg&oldid=287055902

I'm unable to locate "that notification at the talk of my Talk: page." If he's referring to that yellow box where he warns users not to engage in "harassment", it was there two weeks earlier.

Posted by: Shalom

I could say exactly the same words for myself (refer to my signature, which refers to a different formulation by another writer). Except, I would need to transpose the words "Wikipedia" and "Wikipedia Review" for my own case. Don't forget that Wikipedia Review members (not only those who also have linked accounts on Wikipedia) engaged in misrepresentations about what I did in the infamous "False statements at RFA" thread. The idea that my googlebomb prank was "harassment" by any reasonable definition of the word "harassment" in comparison of what I actually did, is ludicrous. Dictionary.com gives for "harassment":

1. to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.
2. to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid.

Elements of this definition include: (1) making the victim aware of the action against him, such that the victim feels discomfort or unpleasantness; and (2) "persistently" or "repeated"; and (3) attack, in the sense of attempting to do damage or cause discomfort or unpleasantness.

What I did fails the definition of harassment because (1) the target of the Googlebomb, to the best of my knowledge, NEVER to this day knew that the Googlebomb existed; (2) although I opposed a policy decision by that individual using an appropriate opinion article in my student newspaper, I made no other attempt to make him feel uncomfortable, and I remain on good terms with him despite not seeing him for more than a year. This fails the persistence test, and means the Googlebomb, even had he known about it, was a one-off fluke; and (3) I didn't make a serious attempt to notify others either, and even if some did know, what did they care that I set up a scheme by which you could type an obscure word on Google and land on this individual's biography webpage? This fails the "attack" test.

To play Devil's advocate: I did make about twelve edits to Wikipedia, and a few blog edits outside Wikipedia, to set up the Googlebomb. If you consider that "repeated", so be it. The definition for me is not the repetitive process to set up the Googlebomb, but the repetition of attacking the target. I did not attack the target at all, but if you would suppose that I did, I did so once only. If you wish to consider an attack, I did set up an attack page on Geocities with the man's name, photo and a link to further the Googlebomb. I never showed this webpage to anyone; I deleted it some months later, and the individuals who called what I did harassment were unaware of it at the time I made that statement, thus they were probably not relying on its existence to prove harassment. (A dead link to that old page exists in one of my earliest logged edits to Wikipedia.)

Why this matters to me:

1. Iridescent, in the "hypocrisy forever" thread on his/her talkpage dated January 31, 2009 or near then, wrote that I engaged in campaigns of harassment against both Wikipedia editors and real life individuals. That last phrase was a bald lie, more egregious and more offensive than all of his/her other lies combined. I never harassed anyone in real life. It didn't happen.

2. Iridescent's statement is most likely predicated on the Googlebomb incident. That's only one individual, but I'll let it pass that he/she allowed a discrepancy between single and plural.

3. The Googlebomb incident was not "harassment" by any reasonable definition, per above.

Therefore, Iridescent made a false statement, and a very angering one at that. If I made a baseless accusation that another editor engaged in a campaign of harassment against real life individuals, would I be blocked for it? I certainly might be...people have been blocked for less.

I reread the "False statements at RFA" thread, and I thought this pointed response to the "harassment" question was missing because I asked if Googlebombing in general was harassment, but I neglected to cite a definition of harassment to compare against. Anything said in private space, not made known to the target, is not harassment by my understanding of the definition. It may be a not-nice thing to do. So is lying about what a person didn't do.

Posted by: Heat

Jayjg disappears for long stretches whenever he gets in trouble. I guess he must have a big family.