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.

[EricBarbour]

Jayjg restricted
4) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Oppose -- Absurdly unfair and unjustified by the evidence. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009

Jayjg stripped of status and privileges
11) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) is stripped of his status and privileges as a Wikipedia functionary; namely:
( a ) His access to the CheckUser tool and the checkuser-l mailing list;
( b ) His access to the Oversight tool and the oversight-l mailing list; and
( c ) His access to the functionaries-en mailing list.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Harsh, but we simply cannot have functionaries comporting themselves in this manner. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the theory that functionaries should be exemplars in the community—like admins, but held to a higher standard? Cool Hand Luke 03:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's it; this is more or less explicitly stated as #Functionaries above. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
To Cla68: that is my understanding of this. This is not desysopping, but removing the more "privileged" and "trusted" tools and access areas. Incidentally, access to some of these tools and mailing lists is much over-rated. But appearances are important. There is also a way back to these tools via ArbCom elections and CU/OS elections. Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Just a question, this proposed remedy does not remove all admin privileges? Cla68 (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose -- Absolutely ridiculous. If this is a serious proposal, the proposer should recuse himself from the case. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2009

Is this 6SJ7 thing a sockpuppet, Jay's attorney, or simply an animated carbuncle
on Jay's ass which has evolved to the point of operating a computer? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

(And how dare the carbuncle name itself after a vacuum tube?....)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Heat]

Jayjg restricted
4) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Oppose -- Absurdly unfair and unjustified by the evidence. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009

Jayjg stripped of status and privileges
11) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) is stripped of his status and privileges as a Wikipedia functionary; namely:
( a ) His access to the CheckUser tool and the checkuser-l mailing list;
( b ) His access to the Oversight tool and the oversight-l mailing list; and
( c ) His access to the functionaries-en mailing list.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Harsh, but we simply cannot have functionaries comporting themselves in this manner. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the theory that functionaries should be exemplars in the community—like admins, but held to a higher standard? Cool Hand Luke 03:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's it; this is more or less explicitly stated as #Functionaries above. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
To Cla68: that is my understanding of this. This is not desysopping, but removing the more "privileged" and "trusted" tools and access areas. Incidentally, access to some of these tools and mailing lists is much over-rated. But appearances are important. There is also a way back to these tools via ArbCom elections and CU/OS elections. Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Just a question, this proposed remedy does not remove all admin privileges? Cla68 (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose -- Absolutely ridiculous. If this is a serious proposal, the proposer should recuse himself from the case. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2009

Is this 6SJ7 thing a sockpuppet, Jay's attorney, or simply an animated carbuncle
on Jay's ass which has evolved to the point of operating a computer? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

(And how dare the carbuncle name itself after a vacuum tube?....)

6SJ7 is a Jayjg meatpuppet. Kirill is the ArbComm's point person in this case so his proposals are serious and could well come to pass assuming that they are the result of discussion among Arbs and not just a trial balloon.

Interesting that SlimVirgin hasn't come to Jay's defence.

I also found this response by Ynhockey interesting:

Oppose—I'm not sure if anyone here has noticed, but Jayjg hasn't been editing much in the past couple weeks, because of this arbitration case. If this proposed remedy passes (or indeed the one about the tools), it is likely that Jayjg will never edit again, or edit very little. Therefore, in effect, ArbCom would be driving away one of the best and most serious editors on all of Wikipedia, because he let a few not-so-serious editors who have made little to no worthwhile contributions to the project, get the best of him. These kinds of actions already drove away SlimVirgin, another excellent editor, and will probably drive away Jayjg. Who will replace these editors, may I ask? Who will write the featured content, make maintenance edits, and do administrative work? Also it's clear that most of the parties up for sanctioning have few significant contributions, and mostly just a long block log, and therefore could easily start over from a different IP range with a new username. This is much less practical for Jayjg, who has a solid reputation for writing good articles and making high-quality edits.
In addition, let's be serious for a second. An indefinite topic ban for what offense exactly? Being a 'party member' in a series of arbitration cases? The only actual evidence that was presented were a few edit-wars, where Jayjg did not even violate any policies per se. Maybe some of the actions were not appropriate, but actual restrictions seem to be completely unwarranted. ArbCom should issue a warning at the most, and leave it up to WP:AE if any clearly inappropriate behavior continues. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So basically Jay's habit of running and hiding when he's in trouble should be rewarded?

Hockey raises an interesting question - is Jayjg indeed one of the "best" editors on Wikipedia? No, this is absolute nonsense. Until a year or so ago when Jay started writing articles on synagogues almost all his editing on wikipedia consisted of reverts or partial reverts or other attempts to remove material. Aside from his politically motivated series of dubious "apartheid" articles (Allegations of French apartheid etc) designed to normalize "Israeli apartheid", he created only a handful of articles - mostly stubs. Jay's never been much of a producer of content, his role as an editor has been as a political policeman and ideological edit warrior. I think the only reason he started writing articles on synagogues a year or so ago was because he was stung be just this criticism - that for all his years on wikipedia he had no concrete output, content-wise.