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:

[Cla68]

I think that POV checkusers are especially demoralizing to opposing editors in a way that POV admins are not.

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.

It sounds like you all agreed that Jayjg was violating the NPOV policy. Why didn't you make a finding of this?

[One]

I think that POV checkusers are especially demoralizing to opposing editors in a way that POV admins are not.

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.

It sounds like you all agreed that Jayjg was violating the NPOV policy. Why didn't you make a finding of this?

I'm sorry, I may overstating what we found. The opinion was built on a backbone of edit warring.

I was taking POV warriors as the example because of CharlotteWebb's theory that POV warriors are acceptable checkusers. In spite of CharlotteWebb's personal experience that there's actually an inverse relationship between dishonesty and theft, I think it's reasonable to assume that Wikipedians who bend editing rules to advance a POV might seem more likely to bend checkuser rules to advance a POV. The stakes are higher with checkuser though.

Anyhow, this thread has gone on too long. My only purpose was to emphasize that there was not a secret agreement based on non-public evidence. The vote happened in plain sight for the reasons expressed.

Just like every other committee on earth, the resulting decisions aren't necessarily logically consistent; they are what the plurality found reasonable.

I have nothing else to say here.

This post has been edited by One:

[gomi]

Anyhow, this thread has gone on too long. My only purpose was to emphasize that there was not a secret agreement based on non-public evidence. The vote happened in plain sight for the reasons expressed.

But the evidence regarding checkuser, oversight, and deletion use still isn't in plain sight, and what we have is your representation as an ArbCom member that there was no secret agreement.

Just like every other committee on earth, the resulting decisions aren't necessarily logically consistent;

You are a member of a court that gives kangaroos a bad name.

Now, if you had published, for example, a log of all pages Jayjg had made oversights or deletions on, and a log of all Wikipedia usernames he had checkusered (along with timestamps) -- both pieces of information that would contain nothing confidential -- there would be some evidence on which to evaluate your claim. As it is, you have made another in a long line of unsubstantiated claims by Wikipedia potentates, aimed at convincing people that there's "Nothing to see here, move along". It's all very insular, and no one but a cultist would buy it.

I have nothing else to say here.

No doubt. Like Slim, the conversation closes when the questions become uncomfortable.

[Lar]

I have nothing else to say here.

No doubt. Like Slim, the conversation closes when the questions become uncomfortable.

I think that's rather an unfair comparison. Even if you only made it for rhetorical effect.

If you beat up those working for change because they aren't getting there fast enough or getting there in precisely the way you'd prefer... who is left?

[One]

If you beat up those working for change because they aren't getting there fast enough or getting there in precisely the way you'd prefer... who is left?

Why do you think he wants change? He seems to want his vision of 2005 to last forever. To Gomi, Jayjg is an unstoppably powerful overlord, and arbitrators are still his toadies as witnessed by "only" stripping him of his rights and position (an event he repeatedly predicted would not happen).

Anyhow, I don't have to comment here, and so I won't. I think it's unfair to Wikipedians who are not here; might even cause them to conclude that I'm WR's representative. If anyone wants to ask me about ArbCom cases, you can find me on Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by One:

[Snowey]

Anyhow, I don't have to comment here, and so I won't.

"Prolific edit warring" and "repeated and extensive edit warring." What's the difference, Luke?

Edit: If he refuses to answer for this contradiction, could someone who doesn't mind logging into Wikipedia ask him in his userspace?

This post has been edited by Snowey:

[Heat]

Anyhow, I don't have to comment here, and so I won't.

"Prolific edit warring" and "repeated and extensive edit warring." What's the difference, Luke?

Edit: If he refuses to answer for this contradiction, could someone who doesn't mind logging into Wikipedia ask him in his userspace?

Also ask him about Jay's earlier loss of oversight (see my earlier post).

[cyofee]

Anyhow, I don't have to comment here, and so I won't.

"Prolific edit warring" and "repeated and extensive edit warring." What's the difference, Luke?

Edit: If he refuses to answer for this contradiction, could someone who doesn't mind logging into Wikipedia ask him in his userspace?

Also ask him about Jay's earlier loss of oversight (see my earlier post).

I would like to second this question. Did he temporarily lose oversight, what were the reasons for that, and were they true?

If you don't wish to reveal that information, or don't have access to them, please say so.