Jayjg defrocked -

The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia

Editorials Help Search Members Calendar

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy > The ArbCom-L Leaks

Jayjg defrocked

Options

Sololol	Post #22
Bell the Cat Group: Contributors Posts: 193 Joined: Member No.: 50,538	Thanks for all this. Maybe I'm a hardliner when it comes to off-wiki canvassing but it strikes me as a serious offense, if only because it sways decisions whilst remaining virtually undetectable and exhibits a contempt of due process (not that the process doesn't deserve some contempt). Jayjg got nailed once for this in 2007 and suffered zero repercussions (I think?) and now we have him doing the same thing a year later (and still involved with similar folks in 2010). He's not even right on the issue: goy was used occasionally as a reference to groups of animals in old Hebrew. So what? "Parliament" can mean a group of rooks and isn't a slur against legislative bodies (a bit insulting to the rooks, though). Now I know why they never banned Nocal's group; they simply don't care. These people have been pulling this shit for years, yelling "Anti-Semite!" over innocuous edits.

RMHED	Post #23
Ãœber Member Group: Regulars Posts: 936 Joined: Member No.: 11,716	QUOTE(Sololol @ Wed 29th June 2011, 11:23pm) Thanks for all this. Maybe I'm a hardliner when it comes to off-wiki canvassing but it strikes me as a serious offense, if only because it sways decisions whilst remaining virtually undetectable and exhibits a contempt of due process (not that the process doesn't deserve some contempt). Jayjg got nailed once for this in 2007 and suffered zero repercussions (I think?) and now we have him doing the same thing a year later (and still involved with similar folks in 2010). He's not even right on the issue: goy was used occasionally as a reference to groups of animals in old Hebrew. So what? "Parliament" can mean a group of rooks and isn't a slur against legislative bodies (a bit insulting to the rooks, though). Now I know why they never banned Nocal's group; they simply don't care. These people have been pulling this shit for years, yelling "Anti-Semite!" over innocuous edits. You mean you actually bothered to read all that blather! Why, for fecks sake?

Cla68	Post #24
Postmaster Group: Regulars Posts: 1,763 Joined: Member No.: 5,761	A few things: - Jayjg's assertion, "I can't participate in the ArbCom workshop because it makes me depressed" is kind of hypocritical. He didn't seem to consider how he might be making others feel when he accused them of being anti-Semitic, reverted their edits without discussion, and shamelessly asked his friends by email to back him up if any edit wars broke out. What a solipcistic, self-centered, selfish, narcissistic, attitude. - The ArbCom should have made a clearer finding on Jayjg's behavior, such as, "Based on private and other evidence, Jayjg is found to have inappropriately used off-wiki canvassing, and has otherwise violated the NPOV policy, which conduct is not in keeping of standards expected of Wikipedia functionaries." I guess that finding would have contributed further to Jayjg's depression, but it would have sent a clear message to the other pro-Israel POV warriors, and perhaps would have helped rein-in some of their behavior. - Asking someone by email to look at an article and see what they think about it, and leaving it at that, may not be inappropriate canvassing. Telling someone, "Could someone please go and revert so-and-so in the New Antisemitism article, I've already used two reverts today", or, "I'm about to go revert some information I don't approve of from such-and-such article. Can you guys back me up?", is inappropriate. This post has been edited by Cla68:

RMHED	Post #25
Ãœber Member Group: Regulars Posts: 936 Joined: Member No.: 11,716	QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 29th June 2011, 11:55pm) A few things: - Jayjg's assertion, "I can't participate in the ArbCom workshop because it makes me depressed" is kind of hypocritical. He didn't seem to consider how he might be making others feel when he accused them of being anti-Semitic, reverted their edits without discussion, and shamelessly asked his friends by email to back him up if any edit wars broke out. What a solipcistic, self-centered, selfish, narcissistic, attitude. - The ArbCom should have made a clearer finding on Jayjg's behavior, such as, "Based on private and other evidence, Jayjg is found to have inappropriately used off-wiki canvassing, and has otherwise violated the NPOV policy, which conduct is not in keeping of standards expected of Wikipedia functionaries." I guess that finding would have contributed further to Jayjg's depression, but it would have sent a clear message to the other pro-Israel POV warriors, and perhaps would have helped rein-in some of their behavior. - Asking someone by email to look at an article and see what they think about it, and leaving it at that, may not be inappropriate canvassing. Telling someone, "Could someone please go and revert so-and-so in the New Antisemitism article, I've already used two reverts today", or, "I'm about to go revert some information I don't approve of from such-and-such article. Can you guys back me up?", is inappropriate. Oh dear Cla, do you really care about this crap? Turn off your 'puter and give your wifey some attention.

Kelly Martin	Post #26
Bring back the guttersnipes! Group: Regulars Posts: 3,270 Joined: From: EN61bw Member No.: 6,696	I'm going to go on record again to point out that Wikipedia's policy on canvassing is utterly stupid, and exists mainly as a way to accuse anyone they want of breaking it at any time. Virtually everyone on Wikipedia has engaged in canvassing, and many people do it on a regular basis. The only time the rule is enforced is when the canvassing amounts to opposing the Will of the Cabal, or is otherwise contra-HPOV. As much as I dislike jayjg, I think nailing him to the cross for "canvassing" lacks moral virtue.

RMHED	Post #27
Ãœber Member Group: Regulars Posts: 936 Joined: Member No.: 11,716	QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 30th June 2011, 12:10am) I'm going to go on record again to point out that Wikipedia's policy on canvassing is utterly stupid, and exists mainly as a way to accuse anyone they want of breaking it at any time. Virtually everyone on Wikipedia has engaged in canvassing, and many people do it on a regular basis. The only time the rule is enforced is when the canvassing amounts to opposing the Will of the Cabal, or is otherwise contra-HPOV. As much as I dislike jayjg, I think nailing him to the cross for "canvassing" lacks moral virtue. Now if only we could think of a way of "nailing him to the cross" that is morally virtuous. Oh what a warmly smug feeling that would engender.

Wikifan	Post #28
Member Group: Contributors Posts: 204 Joined: Member No.: 26,203	Man Jay is getting hammered. Honestly his flaws are no less different than Malik or Zero00 (however you spell his/her name) who POV-push on a regular basis but remain immune because of their admin status.

JagÃ¤rdu	Post #29
Member Group: Contributors Posts: 149 Joined: Member No.: 22,114	QUOTE(Jayjg) In strictest confidence, I'm dealing with a family health issue, and facing real-life deadlines for the next few months that are occupying my time - that's what that notification at the top of my Talk: page is about. I guess this is the, "my dog ate my homework" of excuses when you don't want to participate in an arbitration that involves you. Good to know. This post has been edited by JagÃ¤rdu:

Sololol	Post #30
Bell the Cat Group: Contributors Posts: 193 Joined: Member No.: 50,538	QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 29th June 2011, 6:34pm) You mean you actually bothered to read all that blather! Why, for fecks sake? Like most Wikipedians, current and former, I'm a bit of a masochist.

The Adversary	Post #31
CT (Check Troll) Group: Regulars Posts: 801 Joined: Member No.: 194	QUOTE From: avi.wiki at gmail.com (Avi) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:26:21 -0400 Subject: [arbcom-l] Suspicion raised about participant in Judea/Samaria RfAr Message-ID: <27ee9bfb0904301026ye5cc494y93bfcf53c2ac7808@mail.gmail.com> With permission from Brewcrewer, I am forwarding this to ArbCom as it relates to the Jay RfaR. I don't see direct evidence of disruption; I've pulled near all-nighters on Wikipedia before, and I told that to Crewer. On the other hand, I do not think a "private" CU would be out of the question, as if the accusation is true, THIS would be evidence of an off-wiki conspiracy to edit in violation of wikipedia's principles, which would be ironic in light of the weight given to just that point in this RfAR. UNODIR, I may run a CU request, and only release information should there be an issue. I do not want people thinking that they can run to the nearest CU for any possible infraction, but preventing potential disruption is the charge given to CU's. --Avi ---- en:User:Avraham ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brewcrewer <brewcrew9v9 at gmail.com> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:55 PM Subject: question To: Avraham <avi.wiki at gmail.com> User:Tiamut is editing consistently for the last 21 hours. She isn't just reverting vandalism which doesn't require much brainpower, but she's heavily involved in discussions and article building. Based on this, I think that the account is really a role account that is used by multiple editors. My first question is, is that allowed? Secondly, if it isn't allowed how would I resolve this? Thanks, BCer Oh, la, la. I know Tiamut; they can check her as much as they like: it is only one (great!) gal who edit with that account. On the other hand...Slimmy also had some all-nighters....and when that was raised as an issue, I cannot recall Brewcrewer (or Avi!) asking for CU of her... An "oversight", IÂ´m sure (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Wikifan	Post #32
Member Group: Contributors Posts: 204 Joined: Member No.: 26,203	QUOTE(The Adversary @ Thu 30th June 2011, 12:05am) QUOTE From: avi.wiki at gmail.com (Avi) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:26:21 -0400 Subject: [arbcom-l] Suspicion raised about participant in Judea/Samaria RfAr Message-ID: <27ee9bfb0904301026ye5cc494y93bfcf53c2ac7808@mail.gmail.com> With permission from Brewcrewer, I am forwarding this to ArbCom as it relates to the Jay RfaR. I don't see direct evidence of disruption; I've pulled near all-nighters on Wikipedia before, and I told that to Crewer. On the other hand, I do not think a "private" CU would be out of the question, as if the accusation is true, THIS would be evidence of an off-wiki conspiracy to edit in violation of wikipedia's principles, which would be ironic in light of the weight given to just that point in this RfAR. UNODIR, I may run a CU request, and only release information should there be an issue. I do not want people thinking that they can run to the nearest CU for any possible infraction, but preventing potential disruption is the charge given to CU's. --Avi ---- en:User:Avraham ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brewcrewer <brewcrew9v9 at gmail.com> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:55 PM Subject: question To: Avraham <avi.wiki at gmail.com> User:Tiamut is editing consistently for the last 21 hours. She isn't just reverting vandalism which doesn't require much brainpower, but she's heavily involved in discussions and article building. Based on this, I think that the account is really a role account that is used by multiple editors. My first question is, is that allowed? Secondly, if it isn't allowed how would I resolve this? Thanks, BCer Oh, la, la. I know Tiamut; they can check her as much as they like: it is only one (great!) gal who edit with that account. On the other hand...Slimmy also had some all-nighters....and when that was raised as an issue, I cannot recall Brewcrewer (or Avi!) asking for CU of her... An "oversight", IÂ´m sure (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) who are you?

The Adversary	Post #33
CT (Check Troll) Group: Regulars Posts: 801 Joined: Member No.: 194	QUOTE(Wikifan @ Thu 30th June 2011, 12:15am) QUOTE(The Adversary @ Thu 30th June 2011, 12:05am) <snip> who are you? One who is old enough to be your mother. And are you allowed to stay up this late, all alone with a computer? Tsk, tsk, tsk,

Wikifan	Post #34
Member Group: Contributors Posts: 204 Joined: Member No.: 26,203	QUOTE(The Adversary @ Thu 30th June 2011, 12:19am) QUOTE(Wikifan @ Thu 30th June 2011, 12:15am) QUOTE(The Adversary @ Thu 30th June 2011, 12:05am) <snip> who are you? One who is old enough to be your mother. And are you allowed to stay up this late, all alone with a computer? Tsk, tsk, tsk, I'm not on the East Coast, tsk tsk.

bi-winning	Post #35
New Member Group: Contributors Posts: 23 Joined: Member No.: 45,540	QUOTE(Wikifan @ Wed 29th June 2011, 4:42pm) QUOTE(The Adversary @ Thu 30th June 2011, 12:19am) One who is old enough to be your mother. And are you allowed to stay up this late, all alone with a computer? Tsk, tsk, tsk, I'm not on the East Coast, tsk tsk. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Her name is Tsk, tsk, tsk, fucker.

Wikifan	Post #36
Member Group: Contributors Posts: 204 Joined: Member No.: 26,203	QUOTE(bi-winning @ Thu 30th June 2011, 12:51am) QUOTE(Wikifan @ Wed 29th June 2011, 4:42pm) QUOTE(The Adversary @ Thu 30th June 2011, 12:19am) One who is old enough to be your mother. And are you allowed to stay up this late, all alone with a computer? Tsk, tsk, tsk, I'm not on the East Coast, tsk tsk. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Her name is Tsk, tsk, tsk, fucker. and who are you? I have no problem advertising my username here but some editors prefer to remain anonymous. why is this? i wonder how many admins or influential editors hide behind these handles...

Abd	Post #37
Postmaster Group: Regulars Posts: 1,919 Joined: From: Northampton, MA, USA Member No.: 9,019	This is kind of a theme. QUOTE From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:39:57 -0400 Subject: [arbcom-l] Preliminary draft for "West Bank - Judea and Samaria" case Just to note that an anonymous IP (Comcast, Seattle Washington) has now posted an email from Lar (who has been broadly supportive of the proposals, including those relating to Jayjg), which implies that Lar himself is known to canvass. I am inclined to ask a clerk to delete as it is personal communication, but I do not think any of the committee members should do so. Thoughts? So, Risker is "inclined to ask a clerk," but doesn't think any committee member should actually do the deletion. In other words, avoid the appearance of any involvement, while actually being involved, by asking a clerk to do it. Here is the edit Risker mentions, at 15:31, 27 April 2009. That section was closed with an unsigned collapse box. With some effort I found the close by Hmwith at 19:50, 27 April 2009. Hmwith may have been responding to a request by Tznkai.. (The action of collapse may have been completely appropriate, but not signing it was an error. If this action had been canvassed by an arb, there would be a more serious process error, the point being that if collapse was needed, particularly to discourage further action, it should have been done immediately, by Risker, presumably as the one first noticing the problem edit, very quickly. But the accusation here was of ArbComm specially protecting Lar. So she wanted to avoid that appearance, hence her desire to ask a clerk to do with. Whether she did that or not, I can't tell. But that she wanted to is the point. Avoidance of allowing the reality to be visible. ArbComm does not trust the community it serves. Or does it serve the community? That's a whole schizoid situation, is it the community or the project that ArbComm serves?

JagÃ¤rdu	Post #38
Member Group: Contributors Posts: 149 Joined: Member No.: 22,114	QUOTE(Wikifan @ Thu 30th June 2011, 1:06am) and who are you? I have no problem advertising my username here but some editors prefer to remain anonymous... As you do, or did your parents really name you Wikifan12345?

radek	Post #39
Ãœber Member Group: Regulars Posts: 699 Joined: Member No.: 15,651	QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 29th June 2011, 6:10pm) I'm going to go on record again to point out that Wikipedia's policy on canvassing is utterly stupid, and exists mainly as a way to accuse anyone they want of breaking it at any time. Virtually everyone on Wikipedia has engaged in canvassing, and many people do it on a regular basis. The only time the rule is enforced is when the canvassing amounts to opposing the Will of the Cabal, or is otherwise contra-HPOV. As much as I dislike jayjg, I think nailing him to the cross for "canvassing" lacks moral virtue. I've said the same thing before on several occasions. Moreover it's also interesting how the "canvassing" policy actually came about: It was originally just an anti-spam policy designed to prevent people from posting UNWANTED notices on other people's talk pages. Then some AfD didn't go the way that some guy wanted so in a fit of righteous sour grapes he went to WP:SPAM and changed it (n language that is characteristic of half-illiterate high school kids and nutzoids with axes to grind) to prohibit the posting of WANTED or RELEVANT notices. Then someone more sophisticated noticed that this was a perfect tool to get somebody they were in a dispute with at the time sanctioned (or threatened with sanctioned), quickly cleaned up the horrible language, "wikified" it, split it off into a separate policy, and then used it to go after whoever was their target. Viola, another idiotic, ill thought out, anti-common sense, Wikipedia policy is born.

Sololol	Post #40
Bell the Cat Group: Contributors Posts: 193 Joined: Member No.: 50,538	QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 29th June 2011, 7:10pm) I'm going to go on record again to point out that Wikipedia's policy on canvassing is utterly stupid, and exists mainly as a way to accuse anyone they want of breaking it at any time. Virtually everyone on Wikipedia has engaged in canvassing, and many people do it on a regular basis. The only time the rule is enforced is when the canvassing amounts to opposing the Will of the Cabal, or is otherwise contra-HPOV. As much as I dislike jayjg, I think nailing him to the cross for "canvassing" lacks moral virtue. That makes it pretty similar to most policies. Canvassing is like the 3-RR rule, once you have the evidence there's very little wiggle room. The 2007 email was clearly canvassing and they did nothing. This 2008 one wasn't even the reason they cracked down on him. I think most editors try to act in accordance with the rules and don't canvass but you are a gray-haired saber tooth in the wiki-world with far more experience. Common use of canvassing would certainly explain their otherwise baffling apathy. QUOTE(Wikifan @ Wed 29th June 2011, 9:06pm) and who are you? I have no problem advertising my username here but some editors prefer to remain anonymous. why is this? i wonder how many admins or influential editors hide behind these handles... To avoid any backlash from the repressive Danish government The Adversary has chosen to hide their editing name. Perfectly sensible. (Also, what does it matter?) This post has been edited by Sololol:

« Next Oldest · The ArbCom-L Leaks · Next Newest »

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members:

Display Mode: Standard · Switch to: Linear+ · Switch to: Outline

Track this topic · Email this topic · Print this topic · Subscribe to this forum

Lo-Fi Version

Time is now:

FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)