New Israel/Palestine ArbCom case, Jayjg is one of the parties? No way! Options Rating

[Cla68]

It appears that this request for arbitration concerning the use of POV geographical terms for disputed territory in the Israel/Palestine area will be accepted. If G-Dett's statement is correct, and I believe that it is, I think she'll be making a strong case in her evidence section that at least some of the pro-Israel POV-pushers are acting in bad faith. It appears to me that the pro-Israel editors will try to focus on labeling MeteorMaker as the Bozo.

If G-Dett makes her case, and I believe she will, I hope that ArbCom will put their foot down and hand out some topic bans, if not more severe sanctions if necessary. Although I'm sure that not all of the pro-Palestinian editors are blameless, the continuous, arrogant POV pushing by the pro-Israel editors, including one in particular who is still enjoys high-level admin privileges for some reason, is greatly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility and I hope something finally gets done about it.

[One]

Well if problems associated with his POV/editing can still exist in spite of the topic ban you've got more work to do, eh Luke?

Some people find it incongruous to have a topic banned admin--supposedly the topic ban would indicate that the individual doesn't fully have the community's trust. I doubt that, but I would not support any sitting checkuser with a topic ban, as you apparently would. These positions are very high profile, and they should exemplify best practices. I think that POV checkusers are especially demoralizing to opposing editors in a way that POV admins are not.

So how about that as a standard? If we apply a topic ban, then the user should not be a functionary. I would apply that across the board. Reasonable start?

I did not base my votes on Jayjg's previously-examined conduct, but that does not mean that I would have voted differently in the past. I would have generally imposed a more sanctions if I had been on ArbCom. I'm not slighting your case or any others, but I looked primarily to his present conduct.

The reasons individual arbitrators voted might vary, but I can report that there was no behind-the-scenes agreement that Jayjg be removed him for any particular X. The prior cases were an important part of the complete decision, but there was no off-site evidence or agreement by arbitrators. You're looking at the thing we agreed upon; there's nothing else. I signed them simply because I don't think seasoned POV warriors should have advanced tools. Maybe some others voted for private reasons, but I'm not aware of them, nor do I necessarily agree with them.


You seem to believe that the only reason for removing tools is misuse of those particular tools. I think you're wrong both descriptively and normatively. There's nothing else I can say.

This post has been edited by One:

[CharlotteWebb]

Can you please explain what kind of rubric you use to decide that certain edits are acceptable for a regular user but not acceptable for an admin (or are acceptable for a regular user or an admin, but not acceptable for an oversighter or a checkusererer).

Maybe you can also draft a policy to this effect to see how people really feel about the extended implications of this.

I suspect the response would be that it works well as a device to remove Jayjg but fits less comfortably in the general case (not in those words of course).

Thanks.

("You" can be plural as used above, if anyone other member of arbcom would like to explain the multi-tier editing model.)

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[One]

Maybe you can also draft a policy to this effect to see how people really feel about the extended implications of this.

If you feel strongly about it, you should do it. Would make a good first draft for the community/committee anyway.

We don't really have a rubric as we're acting in a vacuum of policy. I could articulate standards that I find sensible, but I would only be speaking for myself. We take checkuser and oversight seriously because the community does not manage them directly, so we should be cautious about who is allowed to hold the privileges.

At any rate, I doubt many people would agree with you that POV warriors are acceptable checkusers.

[CharlotteWebb]

If you feel strongly about it, you should do it. Would make a good first draft for the community/committee anyway.

Eh, no (see WP:POINT).

At any rate, I doubt many people would agree with you that POV warriors are acceptable checkusers.

I didn't say that, exactly. I only said that I wouldn't consider the same behavior to somehow be more tolerable when exhibited by users of a lower level in the absence of logical relationship.

And by that I mean demoting people (or refusing to promote them) won't make them less able or less likely to edit-war. The notion that we'd even consider this approach suggests a greater need to improve existing policies/doctrines related to edit-warring.

[One]

At any rate, I doubt many people would agree with you that POV warriors are acceptable checkusers.

I didn't say that, exactly. I only said that I wouldn't consider the same behavior to somehow be more tolerable when exhibited by users of a lower level in the absence of logical relationship.

Ordinary editors are not expected to be good examples to others. They also generally don't have access to private information that might belong to ideological opponents. You still haven't explained what's objectionable about holding users who have higher positions of trust to generally higher standards. What's your doomsday scenario here? What terrible consequences will follow?

And by that I mean demoting people (or refusing to promote them) won't make them less able or less likely to edit-war. The notion that we'd even consider this approach suggests a greater need to improve existing policies/doctrines related to edit-warring.

Why do you think that's the point? That's not it at all. Considering how gnarly these ethnic wars are, a case can be made that he's not a particularly malicious warrior (although plenty here would disagree). My primary concern is not whether low-level POV warring occurs with this specific user, but rather the signal that having such a checkuser sends the community.

These are our highest volunteer positions. Allowing edit warriors to hold them sends a signal that certain POV campaigns are OK. It would also (as I've said several times) tend to demoralize ideological opponents, make them suspicious of the project, and thereby tend to drive them away.

We try to do things in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Having checkusers trusted by users of all ideologies is good for the encyclopedia--I really think so. Therefore, POV warriors ought not be checkusers. There are others who can fill that role while better maintaining universal trust.

This post has been edited by One:

[gomi]

We try to do things in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Having checkusers trusted by users of all ideologies is good for the encyclopedia--I really think so. Therefore, POV warriors ought not be checkusers. There are others who can fill that role while better maintaining universal trust.

Please explain to me why this principle does not apply to admins, as well as checkusers? Admins have the power to indefinitely ban editors, there is plenty of evidence of that having been done, and nothing drives more editors away from Wikipedia than unfair blocks and bans. Ryulong get his bits cut off, yet Jayjg remains an admin, and SlimVirgin will soon be one again, without so much as a new RFA. Do you make this shit up as you go along?

[One]

We try to do things in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Having checkusers trusted by users of all ideologies is good for the encyclopedia--I really think so. Therefore, POV warriors ought not be checkusers. There are others who can fill that role while better maintaining universal trust.

Please explain to me why this principle does not apply to admins, as well as checkusers? Admins have the power to indefinitely ban editors, there is plenty of evidence of that having been done, and nothing drives more editors away from Wikipedia than unfair blocks and bans. Ryulong get his bits cut off, yet Jayjg remains an admin, and SlimVirgin will soon be one again, without so much as a new RFA. Do you make this shit up as you go along?

The acts of admins can be reviewed by 1000 others; they don't need to be universally trusted in the same way as every individual with access to the CU log. Checkusers are in our hands alone, and I think we should be more careful with who holds these rare bits. If admins block people, we often hear about it. If users are deterred from contributing due to a CU, we might not.

Compromises aren't always logically consistent, but this one doesn't seem insane to me.

So the exact same edits would all be kosher perfectly fine if he was using a different account and nobody knew it was Jayjg? This gets more interesting by the hour.

No, I suspect he would be topic banned. The topic ban addresses his POV warring, the removal of advance bits addresses the issue of trust.

I know this also contradicts your views on BLP...

That's news to me. Care to explain?

This post has been edited by One:

[CharlotteWebb]

No, I suspect he would be topic banned. The topic ban addresses his POV warring, the removal of advance bits addresses the issue of trust.

If edit-warring and talk-page trolling were the only problem, but he complies with the topic ban and stops doing these things, I'd say the problem is solved, for what "issue of trust" remains?

I know I have friends I trust not to lie to me plus ones I trust not to steal from me, but they tend not to be the same people.

I think there's more to this than meets the eye.

I know this also contradicts your views on BLP...

That's news to me. Care to explain?

Well, the parallel seems clear to me.

Google rankings are kinda the whole reason that Wikipedia BLP policy even matters.

Outtatha sight, outtatha mind, undatharug, same old.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[One]

I know I have friends I trust not to lie to me plus ones I trust not to steal from me, but they tend not to be the same people.

Really?

*backs nervously away from CharlotteWebb*