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

[Kelly Martin]

Why did he object to your appointment?

No specific reason was given that I can remember. The log file in question may still be on a hard drive somewhere but I'm not sure where.

[Cla68]

I still wonder how Jayjg got chosen; at the time he was appointed he was then subject to ArbCom sanctions. It's as if Jimbo just conveniently ignored his history.

A side note: Jayjg objected (on arbcom-l) to my appointment to the ArbCom.

He was "supported and recommended" by sitting arbcom members. Who recommended him? I have my suspicions, but I can't verify them.

It probably didn't hurt that Wales and Jayjg hold many of the same opinions on certain Middle Eastern issues.

Why did he object to your appointment?

Was Morven on the ArbCom at that time? I'm still wondering about his action here. I guess I should just go ask him about it.

[zvook]

I still wonder how Jayjg got chosen; at the time he was appointed he was then subject to ArbCom sanctions. It's as if Jimbo just conveniently ignored his history.

I'm quite curious about Wales' ideas about "reputation effects", which according to Grep's photobucket he has been speaking about since at least 2003, and which he further refers to in his extraordinary (and yet par for the course) recent Hot Press interview (scroll down). In practice, this seems to pan out in this wise: one attains, for whatever reason, Jimbo's approval. You are now a trusted user. You can then recommend others, who immediately become likewise trusted. It is akin to being "made" in the mafia, and it's very difficult to become un-"made". Made users can have undisclosed socks, block users they dispute with, protect pages they edit, etc., since all is obv. "for the good of the encyclopedia" since they are (or have at one point been designated as) "trusted". Protests against trusted users are trolling. On the occasions when they are undeniably caught in a bind, the matter will when possible be looked at in private, and explanations that would otherwise be laughed at are entertained seriously. An in-crowd is created, and the notion of focusing on the content issues rather than the personalities is undermined.

There isn't any reference to this reputation thing that I can find on Wikipedia's pages, apart from a brief mention on the "Why get an account" page ("logging in under a pseudonym lets you build trust and respect through a history of good edits"). And yet the idea seems to have permeated through the old #wikipedia-admins crowd and various arbcoms, presumably through Wales himself? Would appreciate if people like Kelly have anything to say on this, and links to previous discussions on WR, if any, are as always appreciated.

Edit: looks like the talk was in 2006 not 2003

This post has been edited by zvook: Thu 21st May 2009, 7:35pm

[Kelly Martin]

Was Morven on the ArbCom at that time?

Morven was not on the ArbCom back in the summer of 2005 when my appointment was being discussed.

I'm quite curious about Wales' ideas about "reputation effects", which according to Grep's photobucket he has been speaking about since at least 2003, and which he further refers to in his extraordinary (and yet par for the course) recent Hot Press interview (scroll down). In practice, this seems to pan out in this wise: one attains, for whatever reason, Jimbo's approval. You are now a trusted user. You can then recommend others, who immediately become likewise trusted. It is akin to being "made" in the mafia, and it's very difficult to become un-"made". Made users can have undisclosed socks, block users they dispute with, protect pages they edit, etc., since all is obv. "for the good of the encyclopedia" since they are (or have at one point been designated as) "trusted". Protests against trusted users are trolling. On the occasions when they are undeniably caught in a bind, the matter will when possible be looked at in private, and explanations that would otherwise be laughed at are entertained seriously. An in-crowd is created, and the notion of focusing on the content issues rather than the personalities is undermined.

This is an absolutely accurate representation of one of the major social dynamics within Wikipedia. There are multiple levels inside that, too; I was never admitted to the middle or inner circles of Jimbo's trust, for example.

[Heat]

So Jayjg's been gone for some time now. When does he officially become a missing person?

[Kelly Martin]

So Jayjg's been gone for some time now. When does he officially become a missing person?

You will first have to demonstrate that Jayjg was, in fact, a person.

[Casliber]

So Jayjg's been gone for some time now. When does he officially become a missing person?

You will first have to demonstrate that Jayjg was, in fact, a person.

meaning....?

[EricBarbour]

meaning....?

.....the bastard is so secretive, even his admin friends know nothing about him personally.
Everyone (and I mean everyone, even Brandt) who has tried to identify him has given up
in complete disgust. He's one of wiki-lala-land's biggest mysteries.

Now, unless Tarantino would care to weigh in, there it sits.

[KimvdLinde]

Come on, the people behind JayJG are already ready to start editing as soon as checkusering does not result in good answers anymore. Cue three months and a bit after the last edit.

[Heat]

Kelly's point raises another question - what sort of organization entrusts senior permissions to a user about whom it knows nothing about?

[Milton Roe]

Kelly's point raises another question - what sort of organization entrusts senior permissions to a user about whom it knows nothing about?

A damned irresponsible one. Practically the definition of Wikipedia.

[Tarc]

There really is very little style or flair to Jayjg's editing, it has always come across as the sort of stale prose one finds in press releases or advocacy papers. Likely just a middling AIPAC flunky.

[Tarc]

Only a matter of time before someone got caught, first out of the gate is Nocal100 for socking.

A little surprising as he had been racking up the DYK's lately, presumably to get back into good graces, as proscribed by arbcom.

This post has been edited by Tarc: Thu 18th June 2009, 2:08pm

[Cla68]

Only a matter of time before someone got caught, first out of the gate is Nocal100 for socking.

A little surprising as he had been racking up the DYK's lately, presumably to get back into good graces, as proscribed by arbcom.

Canadian Monkey, Jayjg, and Nishidani all stopped editing around the time of the Committee's proposed decision. Unfortunately, G-Dett has also.

[nableezy]

Only a matter of time before someone got caught, first out of the gate is Nocal100 for socking.

A little surprising as he had been racking up the DYK's lately, presumably to get back into good graces, as proscribed by arbcom.

Canadian Monkey, Jayjg, and Nishidani all stopped editing around the time of the Committee's proposed decision. Unfortunately, G-Dett has also.

So has Nickhh for the most part (at least on articles since Jaakabou's antics at The Independent page). I could see CM not having anything at all to offer now that he cannot play the national hero but not so much the rest of them. No surprise about NoCal, he probably has another 20 accounts waiting for the current checkuser data to go stale

This post has been edited by nableezy: Sat 20th June 2009, 4:43am

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Only a matter of time before someone got caught, first out of the gate is Nocal100 for socking.

A little surprising as he had been racking up the DYK's lately, presumably to get back into good graces, as proscribed by arbcom.

Here we have SlimVirgin demanding a sockpuppetry investigation of LuvGoldStar (T-C-L-K-R-D) , on the grounds of incorrect POV. At the end of the page she makes so bold as to say " it doesn't really doesn't matter who is behind the account."

[sbrown]

At the end of the page she makes so bold as to say " it doesn't really doesn't matter who is behind the account."

Fred Bauder once said in one of the many deleted Rfcs on slimvirgin

"Tsunami Butler was properly blocked as a sockpuppet. Such determinations are not based on checkuser but on aggressive editing which fits the same pattern as a banned user. Obviously a different person may be involved; the violation is mirroring the behavior of the banned editor."

So you can ban anyone you dont like as a sockpuppet whether or not they are. But we knew that.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

And in a somewhat related matter, there is an AfD for "Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League," which seems reminiscent of the whole "allegations of apartheid" charade.

[Cla68]

And in a somewhat related matter, there is an AfD for "Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League," which seems reminiscent of the whole "allegations of apartheid" charade.

Splitting-off an article like that can be a POV-fork sometimes, like Jossi did to try to remove criticism form the Rawat article, but it is sometimes the right thing to do to keep a section from taking up undue space in an article, like what I did by splitting this article from Taro Aso. As long as the main article prominently links to it and adequeately summarizes the branch article, I don't think there's a problem.

[EricBarbour]

Only a matter of time before someone got caught, first out of the gate is Nocal100 for socking.

Comical. The Mad Bitch shows up to complain on his socks' talk page about editing an article
dealing with an Israeli outpost. 3 hours later, Jpgordon swoops in and indef-blocks.
So predictable.

Did I or did I not tell you that she'd get her admin bits back, and disappear from WR?
She went right back to the same ol' dirt-shoveling, back-stabbing, and meatpuppeting.

And that AFD has some amusing crap.....

* Nagle, I find it troubling but interesting that you seem to want to take down only the separate criticism pages of organizations and individuals that defend Israel and Jews. By your standards, it is fine to separate out Criticism of Osama bin Laden in order that Osama bin Laden's page is protected from being overwhelmed by criticism, but it is not legitimate to separate out criticisms that threaten to overwhelm the page of the Anti-Defamation League. I know what it is like to take a stand and then feel that you have to defend it. It is an emotional thing. When criticized, we tend to act defensively, often without thinking an issue through. But please stop and think whether this position truly represents the ethical and moral standards by which you want to be known.Historicist (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. --John Nagle (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 21st June 2009, 11:04pm