Jayjg MIA Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I can see how that would create a crisis for someone as doggedly incognito as Jayjg. Do the plebians have that option as well?

Speaking as a functionary, I will say that the number of Jayjg's own edits that have been oversighted is extremely small, and there is no evidence of abuse.

What possible reason would there be for his own edits to be oversighted? What's he trying to hide?

In a couple of cases he accidentally edited while logged out, which is a routine reason for oversight. I can't say anything about other cases but they are reasonable and within policy.

[No one of consequence]

Speaking as a functionary, I will say that the number of Jayjg's own edits that have been oversighted is extremely small, and there is no evidence of abuse.

What possible reason would there be for his own edits to be oversighted? What's he trying to hide?

In a couple of cases he accidentally edited while logged out, which is a routine reason for oversight. I can't say anything about other cases but they are reasonable and within policy.

I can see how that would create a crisis for someone as doggedly incognito as Jayjg. Do the plebians have that option as well?

Yes.

[Milton Roe]

In a couple of cases he accidentally edited while logged out, which is a routine reason for oversight. I can't say anything about other cases but they are reasonable and within policy.

I can see how that would create a crisis for someone as doggedly incognito as Jayjg. Do the plebians have that option as well?

Yes.

Okay, so how is it exercised? Do you have to go crying to the oversight sysop every time you do it? By email, presumably? Or maybe let your IP edits build up for a month each time, so as not to bug them too much?

[One]

Well, speaking for myself and not as a "functionary", I recall that Wordbomb got hold of some data dumps and deduced that someone had erased a lot of edits by SlimVirgin. There was a hue and cry on Wikipedia, Wikipedia Review, and IRC (where I was when it broke). I probably shouldn't say more because I don't remember what parts were told to me in which fora, and I don't want to inadvertently break a confidence. I'm sure the whole story is there waiting to be re-linked to.

Wait, when exactly did this break? Can someone pinpoint a date?

[Jon Awbrey]

In a couple of cases he accidentally edited while logged out, which is a routine reason for oversight. I can't say anything about other cases but they are reasonable and within policy.

In udder weirds —

Trust Us, We're Always Transparent (WP:TUWAT)

Ja Ja

[No one of consequence]

Well, speaking for myself and not as a "functionary", I recall that Wordbomb got hold of some data dumps and deduced that someone had erased a lot of edits by SlimVirgin. There was a hue and cry on Wikipedia, Wikipedia Review, and IRC (where I was when it broke). I probably shouldn't say more because I don't remember what parts were told to me in which fora, and I don't want to inadvertently break a confidence. I'm sure the whole story is there waiting to be re-linked to.

Wait, when exactly did this break? Can someone pinpoint a date?

On-wiki here. The off-wiki evidence is hosted here. Oddly, the link back to Wordbomb's blog is a dead link, I wonder if he removed a post and if so, why. Part of the dispute on-wiki was over SlimVirgin's sockpuppet Sweet Blue Water (drastically overblown, IMO) and part of the dispute was on the use of oversight. Check the arbcom-L archives for discussion around that time.

[Newyorkbrad]

Check the arbcom-L archives for discussion around that time.

I did quite a double-take when I read that sentence here, until I remembered whom you were talking to.

[Somey]

On-wiki here. The off-wiki evidence is hosted here. Oddly, the link back to Wordbomb's blog is a dead link, I wonder if he removed a post and if so, why. Part of the dispute on-wiki was over SlimVirgin's sockpuppet Sweet Blue Water (drastically overblown, IMO) and part of the dispute was on the use of oversight. Check the arbcom-L archives for discussion around that time.

The initial WR discussion of Mr. Wordbomb's database dumps and the oversighted Slimv edits is in the One SlimVirgin Question Answered thread, which was about three weeks before the AN/I thread. I may be mistaken, but AFAIK he removed some of the SlimVirgin (but not Gary Weiss, natch) material from AntiSocial.net, perhaps as part of some sort of truce deal - that would have been about 8 months ago, IIRC.

[No one of consequence]

In a couple of cases he accidentally edited while logged out, which is a routine reason for oversight. I can't say anything about other cases but they are reasonable and within policy.

I can see how that would create a crisis for someone as doggedly incognito as Jayjg. Do the plebians have that option as well?

Yes.

Okay, so how is it exercised? Do you have to go crying to the oversight sysop every time you do it? By email, presumably? Or maybe let your IP edits build up for a month each time, so as not to bug them too much?

Ask nicely.

I may be mistaken, but AFAIK he removed some of the SlimVirgin (but not Gary Weiss, natch) material from AntiSocial.net, perhaps as part of some sort of truce deal - that would have been about 8 months ago, IIRC.

If true, that was very decent of him.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

This 2-year-old post asserts that the Lockerbie oversights were one of the very first uses of the oversight capability. There are some links to deleted WP edits -- maybe an admin can reveal what is there, unless those, too, have been oversighted.

[Random832]

I am not saying that I would if I could, but I would like to note that it is difficult to correlate the url a diff had while it was visible to the one it has while deleted, since the latter is accessed by timestamp rather than revision id.

[Heat]

Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, someone can explain why Jayjg had previously lost his oversight bit twice before finally losing it permanently a few weeks ago? Was he ever sanctioned or warned over his use of oversight?

[No one of consequence]

Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, someone can explain why Jayjg had previously lost his oversight bit twice before finally losing it permanently a few weeks ago? Was he ever sanctioned or warned over his use of oversight?

I believe One/Cool Hand Luke has been asked this a couple of times and his answer has been "ask me on wiki" which, under the circumstance, I agree with. So far no one seems to have taken him up on it.

I'm also not sure there is any benefit to answering the question at all. It would likely not satisfy anyone (whatever the explanation, he did get it back), it can not impact on current wiki "governance" issues (since he no longer has it anyway), and might only serve to give his critics one more reason to dance on his grave, figuratively speaking. Yes, some people's curiosity might be satisfied, but it that enough reason to answer?

In any event, the people who likely have access to the information are the current arbitrators only.

[Milton Roe]

Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, someone can explain why Jayjg had previously lost his oversight bit twice before finally losing it permanently a few weeks ago? Was he ever sanctioned or warned over his use of oversight?

Maybe, but if so, he oversighted it.

[tarantino]

Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, someone can explain why Jayjg had previously lost his oversight bit twice before finally losing it permanently a few weeks ago? Was he ever sanctioned or warned over his use of oversight?

What's the deal with your extensive editing of the Pierre Salinger bio shortly after Slim joined WP? Is that when you guys first started bumping heads?

[Viridae]

Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, someone can explain why Jayjg had previously lost his oversight bit twice before finally losing it permanently a few weeks ago? Was he ever sanctioned or warned over his use of oversight?

I believe One/Cool Hand Luke has been asked this a couple of times and his answer has been "ask me on wiki" which, under the circumstance, I agree with. So far no one seems to have taken him up on it.

I'm also not sure there is any benefit to answering the question at all. It would likely not satisfy anyone (whatever the explanation, he did get it back), it can not impact on current wiki "governance" issues (since he no longer has it anyway), and might only serve to give his critics one more reason to dance on his grave, figuratively speaking. Yes, some people's curiosity might be satisfied, but it that enough reason to answer?

In any event, the people who likely have access to the information are the current arbitrators only.

I'm more interested in who thought it was a good idea to give it back again. One incident of abuse that leads to a high level tool like that being removed is breaking trust. To have it removed repeatedly is beyond ridiculous.

[Milton Roe]

I'm more interested in who thought it was a good idea to give it back again. One incident of abuse that leads to a high level tool like that being removed is breaking trust. To have it removed repeatedly is beyond ridiculous.

That's Wikipedia-- beyond ridiculous. Sometimes that's why we can only describe: it's beyond ridicule.

In Jayjg's case, though, see the "I'm in with Jimbo" made-man syndrome. Went on for many years. Moreover, if our little blue-Jay is really female and Jimbo was doing er, HER, then this would be even more neatly explained.

[sbrown]

Moreover, if our little blue-Jay is really female and Jimbo was doing er, HER, then this would be even more neatly explained.

Did I see once that Jayjg was Canadian? Cant find it now. If so we know what Jimbo thinks of Canadians.

[Milton Roe]

Moreover, if our little blue-Jay is really female and Jimbo was doing er, HER, then this would be even more neatly explained.

Did I see once that Jayjg was Canadian? Cant find it now. If so we know what Jimbo thinks of Canadians.

He seems to speak French and there was a suggestion of Canadian editing which I can't remember (probably something subject related). The presumption is that (s)he might be French-Canadian.

However, from the general editing pattern, I really doubt he's a woman. Though he could well have no family life and/or be gay. There's something vaguely testosterone-ish about maniacal creation of stubs about synogogues, which are organization/things; whereas there's something vaguely "feminine/gay" about maniacal creation of stubs about living people. Something to do with shared outlook on life.

Besides, I don't think we've seen much radical Israeli POV pushing from women. It's possibly too militaristic and the Palastinians are not entirely undeserving of empathy. The Israeli women who hate Palestinians have more conservative family things to do than edit Wikipedia-- the Israeli POV thing is mostly American, and done by people who don't have much better to do than talk politics or anarchy. Testosterone.

"Stereotyper" Milt
Writing with characteristically muscular style since 2008.

[Cla68]

Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, someone can explain why Jayjg had previously lost his oversight bit twice before finally losing it permanently a few weeks ago? Was he ever sanctioned or warned over his use of oversight?

I believe One/Cool Hand Luke has been asked this a couple of times and his answer has been "ask me on wiki" which, under the circumstance, I agree with. So far no one seems to have taken him up on it.

I'm also not sure there is any benefit to answering the question at all. It would likely not satisfy anyone (whatever the explanation, he did get it back), it can not impact on current wiki "governance" issues (since he no longer has it anyway), and might only serve to give his critics one more reason to dance on his grave, figuratively speaking. Yes, some people's curiosity might be satisfied, but it that enough reason to answer?

In any event, the people who likely have access to the information are the current arbitrators only.

From what you know, having a more "insider" view of Wikipedia's administration than most of us, do you personally feel that the issues surrounding Jayjg's abuse, or allegations of abuse, of admin privileges and his POV-pushing have been adequately, appropriately, and timely addressed by Wikipedia's governing authorities? If not, what do you think should have been done differently?