Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Heat

Jayjg hasn't edited since April 8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jayjg Now while he stopped editing around the beginning of Passover he hasn't resumed editing since its end.

Has Jayjg decided to run to ground until the West Bank Arbcomm case is over (Jay has a habit of disappearing when he's under ArbComm scrutiny)

Posted by: dtobias

Will the cops take a Missing Person Report on this basis?

Posted by: Son of a Yeti

Why didn't anyone told me? I didn't know Wikipedia was already a better place!

Posted by: gomi

Jay has a habit of lobbying the Arbcom on the special-sooper-sekrit ArbCom mailing list so furiously that he has no time for mere editing.

Posted by: Somey

Maybe he's in mourning for the recently-deceased author http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._G._Ballard&diff=284839802&oldid=284369826?

Posted by: EricBarbour

A guy like that probably has no idea who Ballard was.

Safe bet, he's "hiding" from Arbcom (meaning: frantically manipulating people
behind the scenes, as shitrain http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23112).

Posted by: Heat

Hm. Jayjg disappears and two weeks later J. G. Ballard dies. Coincidence?

Posted by: Heat

No wonder he's in hiding:

Question: If Jayjg is slapped with a ban on editing Israel related topics will he use his knowledge of CheckUser to create a sock that can evade detection?

Posted by: pedrito

Shouldn't we assume he's using a sock now? It's kind of hard to assume that he could go cold-turkey just like that... It shouldn't be too hard to correlate his ostrich-esque wiki-breaks against the activity of other accounts on his favourite articles.

Anybody with the time and skills for such an analysis?

Cheers, Pedrito

Posted by: Alex

Knowledge of checkuser is fairly meaningless really. It's no secret how it works, and any random Joe can set up a wiki and see what the output is like. There's no way he'll be able to sock without being caught though, because if he did primarily to edit Israel articles, a Jayjg-like editor would stand out too much.

Posted by: gomi

I think it is a mistake to assume that Jayjg is a wiki-obsessive like SlimVirgin or others. He is vastly more disciplined that virtually any other editor on Wikipedia, covers his tracks pretty well, and does his polticking in the background, via email.

While there is no specific evidence that Jayjg is paid to edit Wikipedia, he is a different sort of beast than those we normally deal with. He is much, much more interested in maintaining his long-term ability to influence his articles of interest than he is in the other dramas of the community.



There is already a small legion of distinct editors, like IronDuke, who will do whatever Jay tells them to do. If Jay were banned, the ranks of such distinct editors would swelll. Jay doesn't need to sock.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Questioning_the_lead

I'm wondering about trying to bring some neutrality to the Messianic Judaism article at this point

I wonder who will watch my back?

Posted by: Milton Roe

You go, Yeshua, me boy. Keep your Matzos dry. But if you're going in, we don't wanna hear any lama sabachthanis. You know the local Sanhedrin there on en.wiki plays for keeps.

Posted by: EricBarbour

You's a funny funny guy.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

There have been plenty of Jayjg-like editors standing out for years at those articles.


(Reads further along in thread)


Like he said.

Posted by: Son of a Yeti

If I understand you correctly, you're saying his a voice of an Israeli organization, possibly even a government one?

Posted by: EricBarbour

Jay certainly spends a lot of time making Wiki articles look Israel-friendly.
Many people doubt he would willingly do this for mere amusement.

Posted by: gomi

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence of any kind regarding Jayjg, his identity, or his affiliations. My comment should be read thusly: given a longitudinal study of his editing habits, his involvement in wiki-politics, his on-wiki associates, and other incidental evidence, Jayjg presents a profile very different from (e.g.) SlimVirgin, JzG, Ryulong, MONGO, or other assorted wiki-obsessives. His skill in manipulating people without crossing clear lines, his studied use of threats, his willingness and ability to act through others (both admin and regular editors), his astonishing skill at gaming the system, and -- perhaps most importantly -- his willingness to simply disappear from the conversation for long periods, would seem to indicate someone of a more professional nature than most wiki editors (who seem to have escaped from the Island of Misfit Toys or something).

But just so no one accuses me of slinging any slurs: I am not accusing Jayjg of being an "agent" of any organization. Whether or not he acts like one is a matter for well-informed individuals to conclude on their own.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

I'm not commenting on this specific case, editor, or matter, but former arbitrators were removed from the ArbCom mailing list three months ago.

Posted by: gomi

As I understand it, however, there remains a distinct list containing both current and former Arbcom members. True? And even if this were not the case, I'm sure the email addresses of all the current Arbcom members are well-known to Jayjg.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

Yes, along with checkusers and oversighters.

Posted by: Lar

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AC#functionaries-en (who is on it is public knowledge)

ObDisclaimer - that includes me.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I agree with this assessment from this high level of gamesmanship subject to two significant lapses. First, his completely amateurish commitment to the "Allegations of Apartheid"series of articles and second, his miscalculation of the reaction his attack on CharlotteWeb would bring followed by his SlimVirgin like defense on wikien-l .

Posted by: Son of a Yeti

I'm not accusing you of anything. You simply changed my perception of Jayjg.

However I cannot promise I will not watch his future input for any signs of this. I'm not anti-Israeli but I prefer when governments are lobbied by private persons, not the other way.

Posted by: trenton

well, whoever volunteers is sure to become a bureaucrat and checkuser too just like the last http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avraham

Posted by: Heat

Kirill has proceeded to the voting stage with his proposals intact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Proposed_decision

Posted by: Viridae

Wow, thats going to be interesting. Lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth on the workshop, but this arbcom seems to be far harder on repeat offenders than the previous incarnation (see also jpgordon's particular brand of wailing and gnashing of teeth)

Posted by: EricBarbour

Amazing. That is one hard-assed Russian.
I must assume that Jay is frantically emailing all and sundry, begging for help. Perhaps he will finally pester Jimbo for special treatment one time too many, and (hey presto) the vote will be unanimous.

Posted by: Cla68

Jayjg is toast. The question now is, how does Wikipedia keep another Jayjg from happening again? SV\HFO, do you have an opinion on the issue?

Posted by: JohnA

Why would you want SV to comment? She's definitely part of the problem and not the solution.

Posted by: Son of a Yeti

I fully agree. Especially if the account was simply an emanation of some Israeli sponsored group, as I suspected (on a hunch only, with no evidence).

Why would they need an account which is so obviously biased? They can always create several new ones.

Posted by: Cla68

If Jayjg is an Israeli-sponsored account, then that nation is truly a lost cause.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Hence the Humour …

Ja Ja

Posted by: KimvdLinde

It is not yet sure all the arbitrators will follow suit. I can see these fail with one vote.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

I'm guessing it's not so much Missing In Action as Knitting In Progress.

Ja Ja

Posted by: Saltimbanco

What fun!

Kiril's resolutions may indeed yet fall short, but I think there is a sea-change going on here.

Jayjg is almost certainly employed by an organization dedicated to promoting and defending Israel, but I think it is likely that he has successfully completed his assignment with regard to Wikipedia: Israel's legitimate fear, early on in the history of Wikipedia, was that it would become a broadly accepted and anti-Israeli information source. This could be countered in either of two ways: first, by making it pro-Israeli rather than anti-Israeli; or second, by keeping Wikipedia from becoming a broadly accepted information source. And I think clause two has been accomplished.

There will no doubt be ongoing pro-Israeli propaganda efforts at Wikipedia, but I think that the bigger guns have decided that there are more pressing issues at this point. Within a few weeks Jayjg will be working on setting a rationale by which Americans might think that an Israeli attack on Iran is a good thing or arguing that Israel's foreign minister isn't really a violent racist in spite of him being a violent racist. Or any number of other initiatives.

It's too bad Wikipedia's credibility was essentially allowed to collapse before the Jayjg problem, which has been obvious for several years, was addressed. In all likelihood, Jimbo made some sort of an exchange to promote and protect Jayjg. And he's gotten what he deserves for it!

Posted by: EricBarbour

Thing is, they did a terrible job of this. It took years, and has resulted in considerable embarrassment for Zionist groups such as CAMERA, simply by being suspected of supporting Jay and Co. whether such support was real or not.

If I had to do this, I would have just paid some starving Indian or Pakistani students to run proxy servers with scripts to auto-vandalize Wikipedia articles. Probably would have been cheaper and quicker. In all likelihood, Jay and his little butt-buddies decided to whitewash Israel all by themselves, then found out later that someone would support them.....they still act like amateurs!

This has been http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12612 for a looong time.

Depends on the Arbcom. If the kosher boys figure out how to get a couple people onto Arbcom, they might have a chance. But their reputation is in tatters, and the Gaza attacks in January have done immeasurable harm to Israel's reputation. The usual "you're an antisemite, you're a Holocaust denier" crap is not very effective anymore*. So it would be a superhuman job.

Wanna make sure it doesn't happen again?
Encourage Arabs to edit en-wiki.

*(Except when used against cowardly Washington politicians...)

Posted by: Heat

I'm sorry, I do have to object to the use of phrases like "kosher boy". I'm not sure what you mean but if you're saying anyone who is Jewish (or even anyone who is a religious Jew who keeps kosher) shouldn't be on ArbComm then you're completely off base, particularly when you consider that the guy writing Jayjg's sentence is a "kosher boy" named Kirill Lokshin.

Posted by: EricBarbour

You're misunderstanding me. Jews ought to be welcome on Arbcom, along with everyone else -- as long as they're not the Jayjg variety of sociopathic liars.

There are Arab Wikipedians who would run a similar POV scam, if they had adequate support. Ever been to Saudi Arabia? I have. If you try to bring a map or book showing or talking about Israel into that country, the airport censors (of which they have many) will black out all mention of Israel with large black permanent markers. Along with unclad women and other things that conservative Muslims find horrifying. Imagine what a group of Saudis, supported by their government, would do to en-wiki, given half a chance.....

I suspect the only way to keep Jayjg scandals from happening again would be to have a balance of Arabs and Jews on Arbcom.

(Sometimes I wonder what's going on in the http://ar.wikipedia.org/. Thanks to the magic of Google Translate, you can read http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Far.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D8%25A5%25D8%25B3%25D8%25B1%25D8%25A7%25D8%25A6%25D9%258A%25D9%2584&sl=ar&tl=en. You be the judge.)

Posted by: Eva Destruction

That actually doesn't look too bad to me, I have to say (albeit through the Google Translate filter). I suspect that the odd-looking "War of 1948 (the war of occupation)" title isn't POV-pushing, but just a recognition of the fact that this is the name a lot of Arabic-speakers will know it by.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

Occam's razor. Never assume shadowy conspiracy when things can be explained by garden variety friends helping friends. Jayjg was a prominent Wikipedian in Wikipedia's early days, and from what I can tell didn't rock the boat much. Jimbo generally seems strongly inclined to be friendly with such people, and he also seems strongly inclined to do favours to people he's friendly with. It's much more interesting to imagine that Jimbo's made some behind the scenes deal with a global political lobby, but it's also a completely unnecessary assumption.

(Incidentally, the failure to follow Occam's razor is probably the thing that frustrates me most about Wikipedia criticism around here. Mostly, it manifests itself in the tendency to ascribe everything that is wrong with Wikipedia to the workings of some shadowy cabal, when the truth is usually both duller and extremely obvious. But I've whined about this before.)

(Also - and this is going to sound weaselly, but it's the truth - I've never followed Jayjg's editing at all, so I have no idea whether or not he's the problem he's being made out to be. Certainly people around here seem pretty unanimous on that point, but I didn't want this post to be interpreted as my joining in that unanimity, when in fact I'm quite cheerfully ignorant on the question.)

Posted by: The Adversary

Don´t know anything about Jimbo doing some deal, but appointing Jayjg for arb.com, in front of other candidates who had received more votes (like Mirv) surely don´t count as Jimbo´s finest moment. And http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=20049210#Arb_Com_appointments. If has also been discussed http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20150&st=0&p=125712&#entry125712.

Posted by: Cla68

Jayjg was an effective administrator when he wasn't busy trying to save Israel.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Since Israel has many many thermonuclear weapons, WTF do they need Jayjg for? That's the problem with all these really bad, bad WP admins: they're essentially narcissists. Really.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Yep, if anyone ever needs a quote that shows Jimbo's high-handedness and love of buttsnorkeling, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=20049210#Arb_Com_appointments would be ideal.
Nice work, Jimmy-poo. Instead of a "mobocracy", you have an idiocracy.

Posted by: WikiWatch

Maybe Jayjg is at this conference?

"Wikipedia editors say 'problematic' coverage of Israel reflects discourse"

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1082777.html

Posted by: Shalom

Hamas has many many Qassam rockets. WTF do they need Nishidani/PalestineRemembered/whoever for? That's the problem with all these really, really bad WR regulars: they're essentially making false and irrelevant points. Really.

Posted by: Cla68

I assume that Eli Hacohen is the IP involved in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Holocaust_denial.3F. Actually, I've found myself that information in Wikipedia that puts Iran in a bad light usually disappears immediately.

Anyway, I wonder if any of the Wikiproject Israel editors are attending that conference.

Posted by: Milton Roe

You compare a Qassam to a nuclear weapon? Israel has so many extra levels of offense and defense that its only real problem is paying for it all. So far, the US has never seriously considered not helping to foot the bill. All this set in stone long before Wikipedia.

Posted by: Saltimbanco

Occam's Razor leads me to conclude that you are an ill-mannered idiot based on these comments. Although, admittedly, it would be much more interesting to speculate that you would comment on something you claim to know very little about -- discounting the opinions of others with whom, based apparently on hardly any evidence, you disagree -- because you're part of some shadowy cabal or a global political lobby.

Naaaah! Much more likely that you're just an ill-mannered idiot. But thanks anyway for playing!

Posted by: gomi

I don't think anyone is saying here that Israel shouldn't be allowed to influence public opinion. Nor, for that matter, should the Palestinians generally or Hamas in particular. We can, however, disagree with -- or even detest -- the means they use to influence opinion. Secret lobbying of U.S. legislators by foreign governments (even allied ones) is reprehensible, and often illegal. Terrorism, as a form of public influence, is detestable and usually counter-productive.

The issue here is not support for Israel or Palestine. That conflict and attendant debate long predates Wikipedia, the Internet, and very nearly the stored-program digital computer. Intelligent and well-informed minds disagree on nearly every aspect of it.

The issue is whether Wikipedia, putatively an "encyclopedia" and therefore by implication "neutral" or unbiased, should be used as a vehicle for the propaganda of either side in this or any conflict. An important secondary issue is the use of power within the arcane wiki-society to protect and promulgate this propaganda.

The underlying Wikipedia situation here is no different than Northern Ireland, the Armenian genocide, Sri Lanka, the Thai monarchy, or (no doubt) countless domains of conflict of which I am unaware. What distinguishes it is the extreme power wielded by one partisan in the Israel/Palestine conflict area, and the skill with which he uses that power to ban opponents, amass minions, and stifle debate.

I am pleased that Jayjg may get a mild comeuppance in the current RFAR, but if he doesn't lose his admin bits altogether, I am doubtful that much will change.

Posted by: gomi

Moderator's note: Please use this thread to discuss Jayjg, Wikipedia, and his adminship, not the Middle East. If you want to have a general discussion, move it to the Politics forum.

Posted by: Heat

Jayjg has earned (and I do mean *earned*) himself an I/P topic ban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Proposed_decision#Jayjg_restricted deciding vote was none other than former ally FloNight.

The loss of his privileges seems to be more of a battle. There are now two proposals - both would strip him of his functionary tools but one thanks him for his "years of service". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Proposed_decision#Jayjg_stripped_of_status_and_privileges

Proposal A has 3 votes, proposal B has 4 votes (Kirill has voted for both) so 6 arbs in total are voting for a proposal that would strip Jayjg. So one more arb needs to comes on board for Jay to lose his supertools (assuming John Vandenberg and Rlevse, who have voted for A, give B a nod as their second choice).

Posted by: Doc glasgow

In an attempt to get the community to make its views clear to arbcom, I've launched the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Impeachment_of_Functionaries

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Since, as Gomi has noted, Jayjg's activity at WP was all about a highly disciplined and monomaniacal crusade to OWN those articles, does he have any reason to remain at the project?

Posted by: Shalom

Yes, his work on synagogues is not nearly as controversial.

Posted by: gomi

I think this will be a telling test of jay's character. If he comes back and beavers away at synagogue articles, while maintaining his low level of administrative activity, that will say that he is more of a wiki-addict than we suspected; if he comes back and begins a flurry of blocks, bans, and checkuser results related to his (now forbidden) I/P articles, that will prove his widely-known POV, and likely continue to cause drama; and if he goes away entirely, that will demonstrate that he was using the synagogue articles as protective coloration for his more pointed activities.

Posted by: Shalom

He could go away entirely for any reason. He might relocate to a place without computers. Who knows?

Posted by: Rhindle

He might go to Hollywood and try to be a movie star!

Posted by: written by he who wrote it

He could have been killed or abducted by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Saucer_Men. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor.

Posted by: Heat

So what are the odds Jay will wriggle out of this one?

Posted by: The Joy

Since when do Arbitrators listen to all the rabble on the talk pages? Judges don't ask the audience for help in the sentencing.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

Yeah! And then we can ask him if he's stopped beating his wife!

Posted by: Heat

The threshold for a majority crept up from 7 to 8 so it looked like Jay may get away but thanks to Risker there is now again a majority of arbs in favor of giving Jay a topic ban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Proposed_decision#Jayjg_restricted

Question now is will an editor who has now warned, cautioned, advised, reminded by ArbComm several times over misdeeds before finally being slapped with sanctions still be able to be said to be a "trusted user" in "good standing" who has the confidence of the community needed to wield tools such as CU and oversight, let alone the banhammer?

Maybe not, Casliber has regained his cojones after sitting on the fence for a few days and there are now seven arbs in favor of stripping Jay of his functionary status http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Proposed_decision#Jayjg_stripped_of_status_and_privileges_2 One more and he's toast.

ADDENDUM: And http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FWest_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria%2FProposed_decision&diff=288914520&oldid=288898192. Goodbye Jay!

Posted by: Cla68

He needs to admit that he was wrong, apologize, and promise to do better. If he doesn't do this, then he'll need to still be continually watched, because it means that he doesn't think that he has done anything wrong. That doesn't mean he needs to be "Wikihounded", it just means that an eye needs to be kept on him.

Posted by: Heat

Jay has been caught before and he's never admitted that he war wrong, apologized or promised to mend his ways - not even in response to various Arbcom rulings "reminding" or "admonishing" him. If he had the ability to take responsibility it wouldn't have come to this.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Have you taken a good look at Jayjg's first two edits in Jan 2003?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Human_Atrocities&diff=prev&oldid=11012037

He's clearly a sock from some previous editor, weighing on some article on attrocities (one suspects it had a few Israeli ones). He suggests speedy deletion under VfD. Not a virgin editor. His second is to "explain" that sockpuppets can be merely alternate accounts, and not returns of banned users. Which is to say, that's what his Jayjg account is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=10990734


His previous personna before Jan 2003 is the key to his identity. He doesn't make another Jayjg edit for 17 months till June 2004. Then the deluge of pro-Israel POV pushing begins with a huge edit rate. So who was he in those 17 months, and who before Jan 2003. We simply need to scan some likely middle East and Jewish edit wars in 2001 and 2002 to guess. WP was a simpler place then-- there werent' that many characters. User:RK gets my vote as Jayjg clone, though I don't think they're the same person.

Jayjg still hasn't edited since April 8, BTW. My guess is he's moved back to his pre-2003 other username.

Posted by: EricBarbour

I dunno, RK is the best candidate I've seen yet. He's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RK&diff=178110&oldid=137759 as anyone else on WP.
And he's just as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RK/A_Liberal_Defense_of_Zionism&action=history with people, and delete things he doesn't like, as Jay ever was.

Posted by: Kevin

Those edits are from March 2005, and some database issue has knocked them back into 2003. Check the signature timestamps of the edits either side. I think his first Jayjg edit was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=4104022 from June 2004.

Posted by: No one of consequence

Right. This has come up before, although I don't remember the explanation.

Posted by: Rhindle

It would also be good to consider how many edits could have been oversighted for whatever reason.

Posted by: Kato

Correct. There some massive oversight of early Jayjg edits which explains why Milton is misreading the results now. I think Wordbomb had some info on it after he made a datadump of the whole site a couple of years ago.

It was discussed before and can be found in the WR archives somewhere.

Posted by: Somey

This thread has some of it, from August 2007. I believe there's more of the same in other threads, at least two of which have been tarpitted because they contained a bit too much speculation as to his identity.

I, for one, am still willing to believe that Mr. Jayjg isn't being paid or employed (or whatever) by the Israeli lobby or some other pro-Israeli group, and that the evidence we have of tag-teaming and such are indicative only of the cooperation of like-minded people. But given what we know, I don't think it's "crazy" to believe otherwise - "somewhat fanciful" might be a better term for it, if one is just going to dismiss it as improbable.

Most likely, he's just some guy in his early 20's who combines the three characteristics required: staunch pro-Israel advocacy, internet addiction (and plenty of free time to feed it), and most importantly the kind of raw cleverness, intelligence, and self-discipline necessary to restrict himself to that one topic area (to avoid making enemies needlessly, or for that matter, unwanted friends). The first two things are very common, the last is extremely unusual for a long-term Wiki-addict.

Posted by: No one of consequence

I'm confused, are you concerned about edits by Jayjg that were oversighted (by himself or others) or edits by other people that were oversighted by Jayjg. My recollection is that there was some controversy over the latter, and that an earlier incarnation of Arbcom gave him a pass on it (much to the annoyance of some of the developers, if I recall correctly).

Posted by: Milton Roe

Ah. I should have been tipped off by the LOOONG pause and the fact that the first edits are so close to the beginning of a new year. Obviously a malfunctioning-server timestamp problem. Synchronicitously, of the very sort that was just being discussed in another thread.

Yep, golly, all his early edits have been oversighted. I wonder who would do THAT for him?

Posted by: gomi

Somey, you never struck me as someone who believes in unicorns. What you're describing is at least as rare. Not to mention 20-somethings. I would say this particular scenario, while remotely possible, is highly unlikely.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

If memory serves, Jayjg was something of a trailblazer in both categories. There was some cover-up of Jayjg's early exploits, and then I believe he put these same techniques to use in the famed SlimVirgin/Lockerbie caper.

If there are any flawed details in either of our recollections, I'm sure that some WR stalwarts will come forward to set the record straight.

Posted by: 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.

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.

Posted by: Nerd

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

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: 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?

Posted by: No one of consequence

Yes.

Posted by: Milton Roe

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?

Posted by: One

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

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

In udder weirds —

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

Ja Ja

Posted by: No one of consequence

On-wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=153482725. The off-wiki evidence is hosted http://plzdontshoot.us/svpuppetry.html. 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.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

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

Posted by: Somey

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.

Posted by: No one of consequence

Ask nicely.



If true, that was very decent of him.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=10976&view=findpost&p=38885 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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: 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?

Posted by: No one of consequence

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.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Maybe, but if so, he oversighted it.

Posted by: tarantino

What's the deal with your http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre_Salinger&offset=20041106000000&action=history shortly after Slim joined WP? Is that when you guys first started bumping heads?

Posted by: Viridae

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.

Posted by: Milton Roe

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.

Posted by: sbrown

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

Posted by: Milton Roe

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.

Posted by: Cla68

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?

Posted by: Heat

We didn't bump. It was entirely coincidental. I think I was editing it because he'd just died and I had followed his work somewhat in the 1980s. Unfortunately, a rather mean-spirited edit made by Slim was falsely attributed to me thanks to Jayjg's oversighting. Seems it's ok to oversight so that someone doesn't think you made a malicious edit but ok if by oversighting you attribute the malice to someone else.



Cla, can you ask CoolHandLuke on wiki since he suggested that he'd explain why Jayjg originally lost his oversight bit if asked there?

Posted by: Kato

This is true. I remember seeing it a couple of years ago when it was first discovered. Most of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre_Salinger&diff=7042978&oldid=7025884 was actually a series of edits made by Slim Virgin. When the diffs were removed by Jayjg in June 2006, they became attributed to "Heat" (who had by that point changed his name to Formeruser).

I don't think it was malicious on Jayjg's part. It was purely to protect Slim Virgin's real life identity (for obvious reasons given the content) when Daniel Brandt was in full flow investigating Slim for starting his bio. It was accidental that Formeruser became the recipient. To be fair to Jayjg, he went to pains to protect the identity of "Heat" as well so it wasn't an example of favouritism.

Posted by: Cla68

Rootology http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACool_Hand_Luke&diff=294567940&oldid=293711006

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Jeez. Obviously, he wasn't particularly concerned about protecting Salinger's reputation. Fortunately, the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre_Salinger&oldid=293787012 shows significant improvement.

Posted by: No one of consequence

Hey, next time ask me a hard one!

I'm not sure what to do with the question about his admin status. All his admin actions are transparently reviewable by anyone, so if there was a case to be made for overt misuse of admin tools, someone would have made it by now, or added it to the recent case. This case is, as far as I can remember, the first time someone has been sanctioned for misuse of the aura of the administrator position. I think that is a good development, and I think we are moving toward eventually being able to desysop people for "conduct unbecoming an admin", even if we aren't quite there yet. And, to be completely honest, all the Arab/Israel/Palestine/Etc drama bores me, so I have not followed it and could not give you a coherent opinion of Jayjg's editing practices.

Regarding checkuser and oversight, there has definitely been a lack of transparency in reviewing complaints against them, and not only with respect to Jayjg. I think there was a feeling that since checkuser and oversight can generally not be publicly discussed, that there should also not be public discussion of checkusers and oversighters.

And there is really no way to know what sort of internal discussions were held regarding checkuser, oversight, or even admin, because there was no transparency.

I think these things are changing, primarily because the people on Arbcom now seem to have a different relationship to the project, and to each other, than the Arbcoms of 3 and 4 years ago did. I think it is possible to have a reasonably well-informed discussion of checkuser and oversight issues without disclosing the actual confidential matters, at least in many cases.

Posted by: Heat

I don't think his oversight of SV's edits was informed by malicious intent towards me - I think he just didn't think, or care, about the possible consequences of his actions.

Posted by: No one of consequence

They are some of the earliest uses of the oversight tool. It would be hard for anyone at that point to have a real grasp of the problem of misattribution.

Posted by: One

scratch that

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Do you have a working definition for these terms or is it all covered by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it?