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

[Cla68]

I suspect that the ArbCom may vote on topic bans for every editor named on this list. Kirill's proposed principles appear to be a very pointed statement of what the editors in question have done wrong. Meanwhile, it appears that the last stand of Samaria and Judea continues.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 20th April 2009, 12:15am

[gomi]

I suspect that the ArbCom may vote on topic bans for every editor named on this list. Kirill's proposed principles appear to be a very pointed statement of what the editors in question have done wrong. Meanwhile, it appears that the last stand of Samaria and Judea continues.

While a topic ban on Jayjg and his minions would do Wikipedia a world of good, one has to believe that as long as he has an admin bit, oversight, and checkuser privileges, other members of his posse will spring up like golems in Prague, with his words on slips of paper in their mouths.

[EricBarbour]

Interesting. Brewcrewer, Canadian Monkey, ChrisO, Elonka, G-Dett, Jaakobou, Jayjg,
MeteorMaker, Nickhh, Nishidani, NoCal100 and Pedrito.

This list covers virtually all the Israel-POV fiddlers--
except IronDuke and the SlimMonster.

I wonder what any of this has to do with "building an encyclopedia".


This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Tue 21st April 2009, 4:35am

[gomi]

Good for Kirill Lokshin (T-C-L-K-R-D) , finally calling Jayjg on his game:

Proposed Findings of Fact
Jayjg

2.7.1) There is evidence ([129], [130]) that Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) was involved in a conspiracy to affect Wikipedia content in violation of several policies (including, but not limited to, WP:CANVASS, WP:MEAT, and WP:EW).

2.7.2) Jayjg's actions regarding the matter addressed in 2.7.1 brought (or could reasonably have brought) Wikipedia into disrepute.

Sadly, he hasn't identified any of Jayjg's pernicious and biased editing on many articles in this area, his threats of banning against other editors, and his general tilting of the playing field. I can't wait for the final "Remedy", though, which will no doubt be "Jayjg is admonished", and things will go back to the sad, sad, "normal".

[Cla68]

Good for Kirill Lokshin (T-C-L-K-R-D) , finally calling Jayjg on his game:

Proposed Findings of Fact
Jayjg

2.7.1) There is evidence ([129], [130]) that Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) was involved in a conspiracy to affect Wikipedia content in violation of several policies (including, but not limited to, WP:CANVASS, WP:MEAT, and WP:EW).

2.7.2) Jayjg's actions regarding the matter addressed in 2.7.1 brought (or could reasonably have brought) Wikipedia into disrepute.

Sadly, he hasn't identified any of Jayjg's pernicious and biased editing on many articles in this area, his threats of banning against other editors, and his general tilting of the playing field. I can't wait for the final "Remedy", though, which will no doubt be "Jayjg is admonished", and things will go back to the sad, sad, "normal".

Those are strong words by Kirill. If being allowed to participate in Wikipedia as an admin, or in any function, is important to Jayjg, I can't imagine he's too happy to be reading that.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Wed 22nd April 2009, 12:03am

[Milton Roe]

Interesting. Brewcrewer, Canadian Monkey, ChrisO, Elonka, G-Dett, Jaakobou, Jayjg,
MeteorMaker, Nickhh, Nishidani, NoCal100 and Pedrito.

This list covers virtually all the Israel-POV fiddlers--
except IronDuke and the SlimMonster.

I wonder what any of this has to do with "building an encyclopedia".

Not much. It has to do with Israel/Palestine conflict in the last couple of years. There is no single article that the first 8 editors above, plus SlimVirgin and IronDuke have edited. But only because SlimVirgin hasn't edited Second Intifada. The other 9 have.

If you use for your 10 editors:
Brewcrewer, Canadian Monkey, ChrisO, Elonka, G-Dett, Jaakobou, Jayjg, IronDuke, Nickhh, and Nishidani, you get:

#1 Second_Intifada - edited by 10 of 10 users
#2 New_antisemitism - edited by 8 of 10 users
#3 Hamas - edited by 8 of 10 users
#4 2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict - edited by 8 of 10 users
#5 Palestine - edited by 7 of 10 users
#6 Nahum_Shahaf - edited by 7 of 10 users
#7 Muhammad_al-Durrah - edited by 7 of 10 users
#8 Israeli_settlement - edited by 7 of 10 users
#9 Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy - edited by 7 of 10 users
#10 Battle_of_Jenin - edited by 7 of 10 users
#11 Rachel_Corrie - edited by 6 of 10 users
#12 Pallywood - edited by 6 of 10 users
#13 Menachem_Begin - edited by 6 of 10 users
#14 King_David_Hotel_bombing - edited by 6 of 10 users
#15 Jewish_lobby - edited by 6 of 10 users
#16 Israeli-Palestinian_conflict - edited by 6 of 10 users
#17 Israel_Shahak - edited by 6 of 10 users
#18 Hezbollah - edited by 6 of 10 users
#19 Ariel_Sharon - edited by 6 of 10 users

It drops off rather quickly after that. Second Intifada is clearly the nexis. There are only 18 articles edited by 5 users, 42 by 4 of them, 146 by 3 of them, and then an incredibly long tail of 913 articles edited by jsut 2 of them. And yet, even there, the 913 are almost entirely Jewish topics! Lists of Jewish temples and stuff. I'll give a few to give you the flavor:

#1120 Abraham_Avinu_Synagogue - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1121 Abkhazia - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1122 Abdel_Aziz_al-Rantissi - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1123 Aaron_Klein - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1124 AIDS_origins_opposed_to_scientific_consensus - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1125 9/11_conspiracy_theories - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1126 7_July_2005_London_bombings - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1127 7_(number) - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1128 2009_L'Aquila_earthquake - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1129 2008_conflict_in_Lebanon - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1130 2007_Labour_party_donation_scandal - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1131 2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1132 2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1133 2005_Sharm_el-Sheikh_attacks - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1134 2003_invasion_of_Iraq - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1135 2000_Camp_David_Summit - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1136 1982_Lebanon_War - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1137 1978_South_Lebanon_conflict - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1138 1973_Israeli_raid_on_Lebanon - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1139 1952_Beit_Jala_raid - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1140 1948_Palestine_war - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1141 1947-1948_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1142 1920_Palestine_riots - edited by 2 of 10 users
#1143 1834_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine - edited by 2 of 10 users

I think it's fairly clear that the common interest among these editors is not simply Jewish topics or even Jewish history. Rather, it's recent Middle East Israel/Palestine conflict. So it really is a recent Israel/Palestine conflict topic war. Article-banning half these people from just 20 articles would take out the core of the whole thing. Leaving everybody entirely at peace to go after exciting history like 1978 South Lebanon conflict.

[Cla68]

I'm biased of course, but I believe that this proposed remedy is long overdue.

[The Adversary]

I'm biased of course, but I believe that this proposed remedy is long overdue.

You are right, but I don´t think it will happen. (Yes, I´m pessimist.)

Incidentally, Jay has dramatically white-washed his user-page. Jayjg started editing in 2004, but if you look at the history of his user-page it looks as if he did not have a user-page before 2006. Not true: the first 1-2 years history of his user-page has been wiped clean. A pity; it was rather fascinating, as he used it just to list the articles he was edit-warring on.

[Cla68]

I'm biased of course, but I believe that this proposed remedy is long overdue.

You are right, but I don´t think it will happen. (Yes, I´m pessimist.)

Incidentally, Jay has dramatically white-washed his user-page. Jayjg started editing in 2004, but if you look at the history of his user-page it looks as if he did not have a user-page before 2006. Not true: the first 1-2 years history of his user-page has been wiped clean. A pity; it was rather fascinating, as he used it just to list the articles he was edit-warring on.

Well, his userpage looks better than mine. Perhaps I should copy his layout style. If I do, I'll credit him somewhere on the page.

By the way, Kirill is also proposing a topic ban for him, along with equivalent restrictions for seven other editors.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 27th April 2009, 5:59am

[Milton Roe]

Those are strong words by Kirill. If being allowed to participate in Wikipedia as an admin, or in any function, is important to Jayjg, I can't imagine he's too happy to be reading that.

Well, tough shit. You, Cla68, edit without being an administrator and so do I. We manage to write quite easily.

Nor should a 20 or 40 article ban bother anybody who is out to write an encyclopedia with 2.4 million articles. Clip out 40 of the articles I've been most active on, and I'd hardly even notice. I'm done with them now, and changes to them irritate me more than not! The measure of any true encyclopedist is that you can remove their 40 most edit-warred and contributed to, and discussed wikis, and they'll still be fine. It doesn't cut off their oxygen because they are whole people.

Voltaire, in his 80s, made a plea to the academe of letters to re-start the grand encyclopedia. He offered to take the letter "A". Now there's the kind of guy we should be admire.

So I refuse to bleed for the prick Jayjg. Don't topic ban him from all Israel related topics-- there are thousands. Just ban him from the 40 top articles where he's been pushing the second-intifanda and recent conflict stuff along with the Kabbal (I gave a list above). And remove his admin bit so that he can't harrass and block people. Then let him go. If he can't write, after that, he should look for a job with an Israel-lobby blog. He's misplaced on Wikipedia.

Milton

[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?

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

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 27th April 2009, 7:56am

[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?

(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.

[trenton]

Well, I see that no one has mentioned one of the most farcical "cases" involving Jayjg.

The gist of it is that Jayjg and co (the now defrocked FeloniousMonk) were out to ban this editor (PalestineRemembered). Now PalestineRemembered (PR), being new, hasn't quite got the tricks to editing Wikipedia. He makes long polemical rants on talk pages instead of sticking to making biased edits to articles like Jayjg and co, and FeloniousMonk manages to conjure up some excuses to block him for a month (first block) and two months (second block). PR returns for his welcome-blocks and makes a mistake in citing sources where he reads a book which cites a primary source and inserts material into an article citing the book's source instead of citing the book itself (incidentally something which Alan Dershowitz did as well; see the "Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair"; and in which, curiously, Jayjg was involved in defending Dershowitz's side in the article)

Now Jayjg shows up and runs a google search on the source and it turns up in a holocaust denial web site. Jayjg, being the master of deduction and logic that he is, decides that PR's source is actually the holocaust denial web site and then, without questioning PR, bans him. When PR is questioning he admits his mistake in citing sources and produces the book where he got his material from. Somewhere between the block and someone talking to PR, an arbcom case is started, and the circus begins.

Now, its obvious that when the arbcom accepted the case they expected to be rubber stamping Jayjg; when it turned out that he might be wrong, most of them ran for the hills (similar to what happened with the Cla68 case). SlimVirgin and the usual gang suit up to defend Jayjg and turn the workshop into a meandering mess; there's a nice little conversation between SlimVirgin and 6SJ7 about how PR could still be a holocaust denier and how he could still be a visitor to the holocaust denial website, they just don't know; there's a nice little insinuation by SlimVirgin (who obviously hasn't read the book) that PR got his material from the holocaust denial web site because of some verbiage that appears in the website but not in the book (execept, ooops.... it's pointed out later by someone who has read the book that that verbiage does appear in the book). Basically the usual misdirection, false accusations, innuendo, and clouding the issue that these guys are so good at.

Most of the arbs have, of course, by this time, disappeared. There is a motion to dismiss (also strangely reminiscent of the Cla68 case), since obviously the case can only be about PR's wrongdoing and not Jayjg's. Jpgordan shows up to tell PR to basically suck it up and the whole thing disappears with basically no apology from Jayjg.

Interestingly, a couple of months later, PR is back on ANI (he still hasn't quite gotten the trick of editing wikipedia properly), and who shows up wanting to "mentor" PR....? Yes, User:Avi. The same user Avi who, it would later turn out, was in Jayjg's little gang of back watchers. His little trick seems to be showing up to discussions and pretending to be uninvolved and neutral, and yet always somehow ending up supporting Jayjg's position. The same Avi who is still apparently watching Jayjg's back in the latest case without quite disclosing that he was on the same mailing list the Jayjg used to coordinate editing articles with like-minded editors.

[gomi]

Well, I see that no one has mentioned one of the most farcical "cases" involving Jayjg.

Well remembered. For those interested in the original topic as observed here on the Review, look here.

[Kato]

Au contraire.

I think that this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid was the most farcical case involving Jayjg. This was when Jayjg and cronies, furious at not being able to remove their hated Israel and Apartheid article, conspire to create a whole series of controversial articles on every nation on the planet "and allegations of Apartheid". Swamping deletion debates with coordinated cronies to keep each and every one of the offending articles. Essentially setting light to half of Wikipedia in their fury.

This act was perhaps the most disruptive WP:POINT escapade in the site's history. And Jayjg got away with it.

SlimVirgin and the usual gang suit up to defend Jayjg and turn the workshop into a meandering mess; there's a nice little conversation between SlimVirgin and 6SJ7 about how PR could still be a holocaust denier and how he could still be a visitor to the holocaust denial website, they just don't know; there's a nice little insinuation by SlimVirgin (who obviously hasn't read the book) that PR got his material from the holocaust denial web site because of some verbiage that appears in the website but not in the book (execept, ooops.... it's pointed out later by someone who has read the book that that verbiage does appear in the book). Basically the usual misdirection, false accusations, innuendo, and clouding the issue that these guys are so good at.

Here's a great quote. Having conceded that PalestineRemembered didn't get the cite from a Holocaust denial site and that the allegation was false, Slim notes that PalestineRemembered going to such as site is "not beyond the bounds of real possibility"!

The point is that PalestineRemembered has edited in such a way that his taking material from a Holocaust denial site is not beyond the bounds of real possibility, given his obsession with "Zionists."

Marvellous. It's like Witch-Trials never happened.

[Cla68]

Jpgordan shows up to tell PR to basically suck it up and the whole thing disappears with basically no apology from Jayjg.

Those were indeed dark times. Note that JPGordon showed up recently to strenuously object to the proposed sanctions on Jayjg.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 27th April 2009, 11:43pm

[The Joy]

Shouldn't opposes have detailed rationales than just statements like "too draconian" or "too stupid?"

While input from community members is welcomed, there is no policy saying arbitrators have to listen or take into account comments from non-arbitrators (save Jimbo, perhaps).

So, Jpgordon and 6SJ7 are wasting their time. If Kirill is seriously considering these sanctions, then he must have some ample support from other arbitrators.

Jayjg's days are numbered, but will that really change anything? His POV cabal is still strong and, while losing Jayjg's technical powers will be a loss, they'll still have their power.

[tarantino]

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?

6SJ7 has been known to edit from a law office in the NY area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=26405917

He's made about 4000 edits. There's 115 articles in common between him and Jayjg, almost all relating to Israeli, Jewish or Middle Eastern topics.

They've both voted in 13 RFAs and disagreed once, in what was 6SJ7's first vote ever.

More telling though is in the 33 AFDs that they both have voted in, they never disagreed. I didn't check any of the other XFDs.

[Cla68]

Shouldn't opposes have detailed rationales than just statements like "too draconian" or "too stupid?"

While input from community members is welcomed, there is no policy saying arbitrators have to listen or take into account comments from non-arbitrators (save Jimbo, perhaps).

So, Jpgordon and 6SJ7 are wasting their time. If Kirill is seriously considering these sanctions, then he must have some ample support from other arbitrators.

Jayjg's days are numbered, but will that really change anything? His POV cabal is still strong and, while losing Jayjg's technical powers will be a loss, they'll still have their power.

Well, I hope that the next book written on Wikipedia's history by Andrew Lih or whoever addresses the years 2005-2009(?) when a few cabals led by admins basically had a free hand to do what they wanted to in certain topic areas. If Wikipedia is able to find and implement a lasting solution to the cabalism and "vested, but problematic contributor" problems, then this chapter in Wikipedia history should deserve some historical perspective and analysis.

Anyway, if these proposed sanctions on Jayjg do pass, I wonder if that would help quell the problems that the "pro-Israel" cabal has been causing to Wikipedia? I haven't checked closely, but it appears that the FeloniousMonk desysopp was effective at correcting the ID-cab's behavior, or at least toned it down to an acceptable level, as far as I'm aware.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 28th April 2009, 12:12am

[KimvdLinde]

I'm biased of course, but I believe that this proposed remedy is long overdue.

Agreed, long overdue!