Messianic Jayjgism, What Rough Beast? Options

[jorge]

Something else to think about... His stated intent to edit the article "tonight" would break from his odd editing pattern of the past few days.

Were these edits going to be made with another account?

His recent edits have been between 03:10 and 03:20 UTC which is I think 22:10-22:20 Toronto time.

After looking at the diff involved, I don't necessarily disagree with Jayjg about the problematic nature of the edit, doing fairly massive removals of critical stuff from the article with a very misleading edit summary. It's just his method of combatting it, by canvassing "privately" (except when he slips up and posts it to a public list) among his friends so they "have his back" when he reverts, that's problematic.

Why would there be things to be discussed about articles that cannot be said in public?

[Aloft]

His recent edits have been between 03:10 and 03:20 UTC which is I think 22:10-22:20 Toronto time.

You're right, I was thinking 3PM.

[Rootology]

Something else to think about... His stated intent to edit the article "tonight" would break from his odd editing pattern of the past few days.

Were these edits going to be made with another account?

Everyone should monitor all articles related to the named editors, and review recent related POV edits that are pro-Israeli. Bet you $5 Jay's been here all along socking up a future admin account.

$10 says he just tipped his hand and we can ferret out which based on this by cross-referencing it all. Unless he oversights. Which if he does, he's 10x screwed now.

[dtobias]

Why would there be things to be discussed about articles that cannot be said in public?

There aren't... as I said, he went about it in all the wrong way, and possibly symptomatic of a greater problem... who knows how much of this back-channel stuff is going on. He should have pointed out the problem with the article above-board on its talk page or other on-wiki channels. However, his concern itself seems valid.

[Proabivouac]

The same thing that Proabivouac did with his previous account.

You might begin with a new account, too, if you had that anti-semitic psychopath attacking your RWI all over Wikipedia. It's just one of very many examples of how anyone can turn Wikipedia into an attack machine against anyone at any time, with the acquiescence (or not, depending on your connections) of the management. That flame-war environment, not anything happening over here, is the main reason the community generally has been moving towards pseudonymity. When I started, believe it or not, the username policy suggested one's real name as the best one to use. That turned out to be very very bad advice.

[Moulton]

Why would there be things to be discussed about articles that cannot be said in public?

There aren't... as I said, he went about it in all the wrong way, and possibly symptomatic of a greater problem... who knows how much of this back-channel stuff is going on. He should have pointed out the problem with the article above-board on its talk page or other on-wiki channels. However, his concern itself seems valid.

If there is that much back-channel going on for coordinated editing of individual articles, imagine how much back-channel must be going on for coordinating the Kafkaesque pogroms and purges via the RfC route, etc.

[Rootology]

You might begin with a new account, too, if you had that anti-semitic psychopath attacking your RWI all over Wikipedia. It's just one of very many examples of how anyone can turn Wikipedia into an attack machine against anyone at any time, with the acquiescence (or not, depending on your connections) of the management. That flame-war environment, not anything happening over here, is the main reason the community generally has been moving towards pseudonymity. When I started, believe it or not, the username policy suggested one's real name as the best one to use. That turned out to be very very bad advice.

The constant, endless, never-ending and ridiculous quest to ferret out 'banned' users doesn't help either. They did that to you when you went to the Proabivouac name and didn't announce it in public, but you did it as well helping MONGO, Tom Harrison, and the rest of the Team America trolls collect absurd collections of blown up evidence against that Six/Seven guy after he routinely stopped them via policy.

If that lunacy can even infect someone that was screwed as you were to go and drive people off of Wikipedia like that, then things are extra shitty on Wikipedia.

[Proabivouac]

It's just his method of combatting it, by canvassing "privately" (except when he slips up and posts it to a public list) among his friends so they "have his back" when he reverts, that's problematic.

That method is a completely predictable feature of the current system for resolving content disputes. Everybody does it on all sides, and everybody knows it.

ScienceApologist hits the nail on the head:

"What my allies say I should have done was find other editors to help revert him back and thus avoid 3RR. I think that this is esentially [[WP:MEAT|meatpuppetry]] and effectively a way that is also opposed to Wikipedia policies and guidelines."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=139539241

As one of those allies, I admit that that's exactly what I was suggesting - there's really no other way. His response gave me occasion to reflect on just how hypocritical the system had become, a system the quality control (to the extent there is any) of which relies very substantially on a practice and psychology that's formally condemned.

As for Jayjg, I can't speak to all of Wikipedia's Judaism-related articles, but on those which also involve Islam, the POV pushing from the Muslim corner is relentless. I won't say that I think Jayjg neutral, but if I had to choose between his versions and the typical alternatives, his are at least coherent and informative.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Fri 21st December 2007, 12:46am

[Moulton]

In multi-player non-zero sum games, players routinely form and dissolve alliances.

Politics makes for strange and revolving bedfellows.

[jorge]

As for Jayjg, I can't speak to all of Wikipedia's Judaism-related articles, but on those which also involve Islam, the POV pushing from the Muslim corner is relentless. I won't say that I think Jayjg neutral, but if I had to choose between his versions and the typical alternatives, his are at least coherent and informative.

Jayjg's edits always favour the Jewish or pro-Israeli position. The Israeli Foreign Ministry acknowledges "the importance that the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia has in shaping opinion".

The major problem here is that sanctions are vastly greater on editors who oppose people pushing an Israeli POV than those who are doing it.

Jimbo Wales certainly does care about what the Israeli lobby could say about his project. Is he concerned about what Palestinian or Muslim groups might say- no.

[Proabivouac]

…you did it as well helping MONGO, Tom Harrison, and the rest of the Team America trolls collect absurd collections of blown up evidence against that Six/Seven guy after he routinely stopped them via policy.

I have nothing at all against NuclearUmpf/SevenOfDiamonds except that he was taking the piss by denying who he was, and calling other people liars for seeing the obvious. He seemed to me a productive and capable editor whose negative history with MONGO drove him to seek a rematch on the noticeboards.

Jimbo Wales certainly does care about what the Israeli lobby could say about his project. Is he concerned about what Palestinian or Muslim groups might say- no.

I hate to break this to you, but when Muslim groups have a major influence on Wikipedia, you can kiss the project goodbye. Not all worldviews are equally rational, or, if you prefer, not all are equally compatible with the values of Western academic scholarship.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Fri 21st December 2007, 1:10am

[Moulton]

There's more irony here than one might appreciate.

One can purchase, for example, the Catholic Encyclopedia. There are probably comparable encyclopedias for Judaism and other religious perspectives.

What you have on Wikipedia is a site dominated not by the collegial or academic or scholarly or scientific perspective, but one dominated by the Machiavellian perspective.

To my mind, that's as big a disaster as having Wikipedia in the hands of those favoring an Islamic perspective.

[jorge]

Jimbo Wales certainly does care about what the Israeli lobby could say about his project. Is he concerned about what Palestinian or Muslim groups might say- no.

I hate to break this to you, but when Muslim groups have a major influence on Wikipedia, you can kiss the project goodbye. Not all worldviews are equally rational, or, if you prefer, not all are equally compatible with the values of Western academic scholarship.

I don't want ANY groups to have a major influence on wikipedia. My point is Wales has allowed rampant POV pushing by pro-Israeli editors because he probably has a pro Israeli viewpoint as the majority of Americans do. He couldn't care less if Palestinian groups complain about the bias but he certainly would care if Israeli lobbying groups started slagging off his project as their voice is much greater and more influential in the US than any Palestinian or Human Rights groups.

[Timp]

Why would there be things to be discussed about articles that cannot be said in public?

There aren't... as I said, he went about it in all the wrong way, and possibly symptomatic of a greater problem... who knows how much of this back-channel stuff is going on. He should have pointed out the problem with the article above-board on its talk page or other on-wiki channels. However, his concern itself seems valid.

There were five edits there -- Jayjg attributed them all to ChristTrekker, but actually s/he only edited the picture. I don't know if the other edits were good or bad, but I think the edit summaries were correct.

[Aloft]

There were five edits there -- Jayjg attributed them all to ChristTrekker, but actually s/he only edited the picture.

There were five? I'm not sure I follow; Do you mean to say that some edits were oversighted, causing multiple edits to be attributed to ChristTrekker?

[Jonny Cache]

What do members of the Wikipeanut Gallery learn about Wikipediot Society when they see an Elite Henchman like Jayjg get away with high crimes and misdemeanors on a routine basis any one instance of which would get the ordinary Wikipeon banned for life?

Jonny

[msharma]

…you did it as well helping MONGO, Tom Harrison, and the rest of the Team America trolls collect absurd collections of blown up evidence against that Six/Seven guy after he routinely stopped them via policy.

I have nothing at all against NuclearUmpf/SevenOfDiamonds except that he was taking the piss by denying who he was, and calling other people liars for seeing the obvious. He seemed to me a productive and capable editor whose negative history with MONGO drove him to seek a rematch on the noticeboards.

Jimbo Wales certainly does care about what the Israeli lobby could say about his project. Is he concerned about what Palestinian or Muslim groups might say- no.

I hate to break this to you, but when Muslim groups have a major influence on Wikipedia, you can kiss the project goodbye. Not all worldviews are equally rational, or, if you prefer, not all are equally compatible with the values of Western academic scholarship.

For a moment there, WR looked just like WP: some ignoramus making dark statements about something he doesn't know a damn thing about.

[Proabivouac]

For a moment there, WR looked just like WP: some ignoramus making dark statements about something he doesn't know a damn thing about.

Excuse me?

[Amarkov]

What do members of the Wikipeanut Gallery learn about Wikipediot Society when they see an Elite Henchman like Jayjg get away with high crimes and misdemeanors on a routine basis any one instance of which would get the ordinary Wikipeon banned for life?

Jonny

As you've said; they learn that people sufficiently dedicated to the clique can obtain Rank, and this Rank will give them power to abuse people they don't like. This is really quite an effective way to run a Mafia; punishment and reward structures are combined into one thing!

Except Wikipedia's supposed to not be evil, isn't it?

[Rootology]

I hate to break this to you, but when Muslim groups have a major influence on Wikipedia, you can kiss the project goodbye. Not all worldviews are equally rational, or, if you prefer, not all are equally compatible with the values of Western academic scholarship.

It's OK for some to have influence, but not others? You gotta be kidding me.