Wordbomb drops Allegations of Jayjgheid bomb, ...you tease! Options

Yo Word - http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=309

Es'plain!

That looks like it could be GW Jr., lol.

(IMG:http://antisocialmedia.net/jayjg.jpg)
So, if he has Jayjg's pic then I'm guessing Word knows Jayjg's full name? Amirite?

(IMG:http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/poodle3.gif) That pic doesn't look like someone in his 40s! (But he does look a little bit like a poodle.)

That pic doesn't look like someone in his 40s! (But he does look a little bit like a poodle.)

if the W-B could mention if that's supposed to be an old picture or recent, that would still leave jajyg's WP-cred in the air, until then.

AGF, and all ;-)


By the way, just why is jayjg not editing WP, but vomiting all over the mailing list every day?

And where is that "transparency" that jimbo was going to provide WP'ians on the Jajyg oversight scandal? Perhaps he meant only the super sekret WP'ians would get transparency.

At a guess I'd say late 20s early 30s.

At a guess I'd say late 20s early 30s.

weiss once posted pictures of bagley's wedding to his byrne-attack-blog when he was obviously younger than now. let's wait and see if this picture is recent before deciding if jajyg pulled an essjay.

If you mean wikien-l, I haven't seen Jayjg there in a while. Not to be confused with JzG, who's all over the place... but not as much the last couple of days. Putting a bunch of people, including me and probably him, on moderation seems to have cramped the style of some of the regulars there.

Meet the Metz, Greet the Mets...hey it is 1969 deja vu all over again? funny name for an email thread.

The bomb dropped in this post by "Anthony"?

Friends, Wikipedians, lend me your database.
For I have come not to bury Jayjg, but to prove that he did some bad bad things with the project

Anthony mentions that WordB is not the only sleuth who knows what Jayjg The Coy did:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/087102.html

Anthony wikimail at inbox.org
Sat Dec 8 12:23:20 UTC 2007

On Dec 7, 2007 11:34 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2007 3:44 PM, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> > If mapped out in outline, the line of argument seems to go:
> >
> > 1) Bagley claims that [list various claims of his, such as that the
> > Weiss article is non-NPOV]
> > 2) Bagley is a sociopathic, evil harasser.
> > 3) Therefore, the claims in (1) are all false.
> > 4) Thus, anybody who repeats the claims should be dismissed out of
> > hand.
> >
> > This does not follow logically.
> >
>
> So that we're clear on this, I agree that this does not follow logically.
>
> However, IMHO, Bagley's claims are false, for reasons unrelated to him being
> a sociopathic, evil harrasser.
>
They're definitely not *all* false. Many of his claims have checked
out. Bagley isn't the only one with old copies of the database.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

Yo Word - http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=309

Es'plain!

That looks like it could be GW Jr., lol.

Sorry I hadn't seen this. No time to explain now, but I've told Jorge and if he is inclined, he may recount what I told him (the facts, not the theory yet, please). Gotta go...

Yo Word - http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=309

Es'plain!

That looks like it could be GW Jr., lol.

Sorry I hadn't seen this. No time to explain now, but I've told Jorge and if he is inclined, he may recount what I told him (the facts, not the theory yet, please). Gotta go...

no worries, your batting average on these things is much better than the Durova Line (0.100 - and it is another coincidence that I did edit the "Mendoza Line" on WP!!) so we'll AssumeGoodSleuthing on your part.

You're good, Word. You are very very good. [Robert DeNiro in "Analyze This" impression here]

He looks a bit like a young Elliot Gould with humungeous chipmunk cheeks.

Yo Word - http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=309

Es'plain!

That looks like it could be GW Jr., lol.

I'm back. That image is the one Jayjg uses with his gmail account...the same thing SV was doing when her image was found.

I won't be commenting on how it is that I came to receive email recently from Jayjg.

Yo Word - http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=309

Es'plain!

That looks like it could be GW Jr., lol.

I'm back. That image is the one Jayjg uses with his gmail account...the same thing SV was doing when her image was found.

I won't be commenting on how it is that I came to receive email recently from Jayjg.

Anyone on the mailing list has received email from Jay and can see that picture. I say no way that's really Jay.

Fleshier than I'd imagined Jayjg; less miserable-looking.

Among Wikipedians, I expect that a pretty reliable indicator of how maliciously they approached the project could be developed from how carefully they concealed their true identity. Whatever else may be said of SlimVirgin, for example, she was, at least initially, not very scrupulous about concealing links to her true identity. This paints her as an amateur who belatedly realized she was getting into something that could become serious.

Jayjg, on the other hand, had from the very beginning been very protective of his identity. This is consistent with someone who approached the project with the expectation of causing havoc.

I think there are two possibilities for the alleged photo of Jayjg: either it is deliberately a completely false lead; or (more likely, I think) he has essentially been retired, either because Wikipedia, having become widely recognized as a joke, is no longer considered a potential threat to the interests of his handlers, or because the Hasbara Fellowship program has taken over, and now the cover is being laid that he's "just your typical Wikipedia editor," and there's no reason to pay him any mind. In the latter case, it probably is Jay, but from long ago enough that he wouldn't be recognizable from it.

And where is that "transparency" that jimbo was going to provide WP'ians on the Jajyg oversight scandal? Perhaps he meant only the super sekret WP'ians would get transparency.

This would be another of Jimbo's flip-flops, unfulfilled promises, or lies (WP:FFUPL). He's executed a long string of these over the past few years. I just might have to start a list of them here.

Greg

Jayjg, on the other hand, had from the very beginning been very protective of his identity. This is consistent with someone who approached the project with the expectation of causing havoc.

Concealing your identity means you are a bad guy. Huh. That's a widely held Wikipedia Review fallacy™ which grew out of disgust at the two-speed system where many anonymous admins treat people who've edited in their real names abusively.

I'm careful with my identity online, because I've seen egregious abuse before Wikipedia came on the scene.

One example: Once when I escalated a management complaint to one of the big computer manufacturers - from my work email, about a private laptop worth 3.5k which the company LOST when I sent it to a distant repair site for repairs, and didn't replace for 6 months - and had no serious plans to do so. Action on replacing my machine was taken, and the person at fault was reprimanded. That person complained to MY management (my company had no relationship to the computer - it was private) about ME to the MY top chief. This was completely unappropriate, and I could have sued, but couldn't be bothered. I reported this to their management, and they shrugged their shoulders and said "we are restructuring, and she's moving to X". It was bad enough to have to deal with embarassment at work. I was in the right, but that's a bit difficult to "push up" the food chain, when your manager got a call asking to tell you to not make problems with X company.

I've seen people on chat boards look up people's employers and complain about them, in the course of petty online arguments or small-time power struggles in normal group dynamics.

At this point, I use only gmail for private communications. The world is full of whack jobs. I trust selectively.

Concealing your identity doesn't imply a lack of good intentions on your side. It implies cognizance that other people can abuse your openness. Why is this new information? To me it is common sense, if you've been hanging on the net for long enough.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Well JayJG are probably his real initials so I'm not sure we can say he has gone to great lengths to conceal his identity.

Concealing your identity means you are a bad guy. Huh. That's a widely held Wikipedia Review fallacy™ which grew out of disgust at the two-speed system where many anonymous admins treat people who've edited in their real names abusively.

When you had the issue with the computer, it was inherently a conflict: the computer company and its employees had failed to meet the standards that you believed yourself entitled to.

Some people, before encountering Wikipedia, imagine that creating an encyclopedia is not inherently an adversarial undertaking; others do not. I am confident that a lot of the time the difference is for a reason.

Personally, I think it's more accurate to say that their constant harping on the terrible-ness of "cyberstalking" and "harassment" from "trolls" is meant to have a dual purpose: First, to demonize critics, and second, to retroactively justify the anonymity of the high-level WP admins who have taken advantage of it all along. (That's aside from the fact that it's a classic narcissist tactic to blame others in such a way as to cover up your own failings, using dehumanizing terminology whenever possible.)

Still, I wouldn't say it was all that suspicious that someone who knew he was going to edit articles on Judaism exclusively, as Jayjg has, would want to remain anonymous - as DL says, there are whack-jobs out there, including numerous anti-semitic ones. In this particular case, though, the person in question has loooonnng since gone too far, and has used the aforementioned terrible-ness as a shield for POV-pushing and system-gaming waaaay too often.

There is a difference, though, between wanting to remain anonymous and covering virtually every step that you take. As this site and Daniel Brandt have demonstrated, most people leave a pretty identifiable trail if they are active online for very long. Not so Jayjg, even if he is a "Jay J. G."

Jayjg did not approach editing Jewish topics in a normal manner, in any case. By "normal manner," I mean with the expectation that, while some might disagree with you and while you might run into some hateful nutjobs, you would be making honest, accurate contributions to the project, and on a balanced playing field, your position would win out by convincing the undecideds. Jayjg never approached Wikipedia that way; from the very beginning he took it for granted that he was in a dirty fight, and that he would be fighting dirty.