The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

13 Pages V « < 4 5 6 7 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> New Israel/Palestine ArbCom case, Jayjg is one of the parties? No way!
Rating  3
Cla68
post Sun 3rd May 2009, 1:42pm
Post #98


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 3rd May 2009, 12:29pm) *

I am concerned about the obligatory show of "even-handedness," in that the findings of fact against G-Dett are very weakly supported by the evidence (particularly when compared to those against Jayjg,) yet the penalties proposed are equivalent (except that G-Dett cannot be deprived of checkuser, oversight, etc., since she doesn't possess these gnarly powers.) Jayjg's recidivism ought to be sufficient grounds for a permanent, unqualified banning from the project.


The thing is, G-Dett is more intelligent than 99% of regular Wikipedia editors, including myself. I don't know why she is wasting time with editing Wikipedia and humiliating Jayjg when she should be writing books, which I, for one, would be buying and reading. Banning her from the I/P articles does her a favor. If she wants to make any other subject's articles great, she should be able to do so effortlessly.

Banning editors like Jayjg, on the other hand, from the I/P articles should be no big deal. He doesn't deserve to edit them. He's a POV-pusher and an unethical internet participant. Ban him, forget about him, and let's get back to doing what we like to do, building NPOV (we try to anyway) articles about historical subjects that we find interesting.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Sun 3rd May 2009, 1:45pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Adversary
post Sun 3rd May 2009, 2:50pm
Post #99


CT (Check Troll)
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat 20th May 2006, 12:09am
Member No.: 194



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 3rd May 2009, 1:42pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 3rd May 2009, 12:29pm) *

I am concerned about the obligatory show of "even-handedness," in that the findings of fact against G-Dett are very weakly supported by the evidence (particularly when compared to those against Jayjg,) yet the penalties proposed are equivalent (except that G-Dett cannot be deprived of checkuser, oversight, etc., since she doesn't possess these gnarly powers.) Jayjg's recidivism ought to be sufficient grounds for a permanent, unqualified banning from the project.


The thing is, G-Dett is more intelligent than 99% of regular Wikipedia editors, including myself. I don't know why she is wasting time with editing Wikipedia and humiliating Jayjg when she should be writing books, which I, for one, would be buying and reading. <snip>

I´ll join the queue for those wanting to buy any book written by G-Dett.

My own favourite G-Dett-ism was during the Matanmoreland-case, when she wondered if there was any sense in her providing more evidence, or if she could rather spend her time baking bread ......for her cat laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kato
post Sun 3rd May 2009, 3:03pm
Post #100


dhd
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767



Arbitrators need to be careful when they restrict the likes of Jayjg. Having seen the Godfather style trail of revenge against those who challenged SlimVirgin last year (FT2, Lar, Charles Matthews etc), it is conceivable that a similar fate will await those arbs who vote against Jayjg.

Wily nested troublemakers can call on a flock of disciples to do the dirty work, while they themselves remove their fingerprints from the scene of the crime when the drama subsides.

Wikipedia has shown it is helpless in the face of such social manipulation and gameplaying. Expect a coordinated chorus of resistance to any restraints on Jayjg, followed by a covert operation of revenge against those who made the effort.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trenton
post Sun 3rd May 2009, 4:00pm
Post #101


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri 12th Sep 2008, 10:21pm
Member No.: 8,237



Yeah, the remedies are kinda bizarre. One side wants to introduce and use novel terminology and both side get banned. That's like banning vandals and those who revert them for "revert warring". Besides, on one side, you have an esteemed "functionary", so can you blame others for following his example? Kangaroo justice, indeed.

edit: not to mention that most of these people are first time arbcom participants, while this is Jayjg's 6th? time....

This post has been edited by trenton: Sun 3rd May 2009, 4:10pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Heat
post Sun 3rd May 2009, 7:23pm
Post #102


Tenured
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon 5th Mar 2007, 2:46am
Member No.: 1,066



Ironic statement of the year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=287681189

QUOTE

I would add to that, if this passes, get ready for some extra stress on the checkuser process... and for a general decrease in "trust" (in an area where trust is already difficult to come by), because checkuser cannot always produce a solid conclusion. If such a large number of active editors are banned from this large topic area, I predict that every "new" editor who shows up in this area will be suspected, by someone, of being a sockpuppet of one of the banned users. And quite possibly, some will be, but most won't be. It won't matter. The opportunities for neo-[[McCarthyism|McCarthyist]] hysteria on Wikipedia are mind-boggling. People will be seeing sockpuppets under every bed and around every corner. [[User:6SJ7|6SJ7]] ([[User talk:6SJ7|talk]]) 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)-


So 6SJ7 is warning that the consequence of Jay and others being sanctioned is a Mcarthyist witch hunt using CheckUser? I'm amazed 6SJ7 could say this without the least hint of irony given that that's exactly how Jayjg has been using Checkuser for years.

And do I read a suggestion there that Jayjg might sockpuppet to evade his topic ban?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Mon 4th May 2009, 12:55am
Post #103


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(trenton @ Sun 3rd May 2009, 4:00pm) *

Yeah, the remedies are kinda bizarre. One side wants to introduce and use novel terminology and both side get banned. That's like banning vandals and those who revert them for "revert warring". Besides, on one side, you have an esteemed "functionary", so can you blame others for following his example? Kangaroo justice, indeed.

edit: not to mention that most of these people are first time arbcom participants, while this is Jayjg's 6th? time....


Well, if they hadn't edit warred they would probably be ok. I think the "Palestinian side" like MeteorMaker and Nishidani are a little stunned that they won the argument, but ended up topic-banned along with the "Pro-Israel" editors. Perhaps one lesson for interested observers to take from this is that edit warring will not be looked upon nicely by this committee.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 4th May 2009, 12:56am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Mon 4th May 2009, 2:46am
Post #104


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 3rd May 2009, 5:55pm) *

Well, if they hadn't edit warred they would probably be ok. I think the "Palestinian side" like MeteorMaker and Nishidani are a little stunned that they won the argument, but ended up topic-banned along with the "Pro-Israel" editors. Perhaps one lesson for interested observers to take from this is that edit warring will not be looked upon nicely by this committee.

I haven't taken the time to review their editing style (other than to note Nishi's poetic gifts.) But I fear the possibility that no one will stand up to died-in-the-wool POV pushers like Jayjg, for fear that the mere act of objecting will convict the objector of "edit warring."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Mon 4th May 2009, 5:30am
Post #105


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Another gem;

QUOTE
Oppose Until I read this proposal I very much respected Kirill. As fellow member of the military history wikiproject I had had only positive interactions with him. Now I am sad to say that all of that respect has evaporated. This suggestion is inappropriate to the point of being offensive.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


The Jayjg-disciples act like a bunch of savages whose deity statue was just toppled off the pedestal and dragged through the mud.

This post has been edited by Tarc: Mon 4th May 2009, 5:30am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pedrito
post Wed 6th May 2009, 11:21am
Post #106


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed 5th Dec 2007, 12:44pm
Member No.: 4,042



And while this is going on... Tiamut left in disgust as the usual gang of anti-Palestinian editors piled-on to sabotage a WP:GA and WP:DYN she was working on.

I mourn this loss.

Cheers, Pedrito
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Heat
post Wed 6th May 2009, 11:46am
Post #107


Tenured
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon 5th Mar 2007, 2:46am
Member No.: 1,066



And our old friend SlimVirgin is in the middle of it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history though since she's conducting dozens of tiny edits rather than doing a major edit at once it's hard to follow. Is she actually warring with Jaakobou?

This post has been edited by Heat: Wed 6th May 2009, 11:49am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trenton
post Wed 6th May 2009, 2:43pm
Post #108


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri 12th Sep 2008, 10:21pm
Member No.: 8,237



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 3rd May 2009, 7:55pm) *

Well, if they hadn't edit warred they would probably be ok. I think the "Palestinian side" like MeteorMaker and Nishidani are a little stunned that they won the argument, but ended up topic-banned along with the "Pro-Israel" editors. Perhaps one lesson for interested observers to take from this is that edit warring will not be looked upon nicely by this committee.


Yes, but what exactly do you do if you don't edit war? The other side will have the article the way it wants, and they can talk indefinitely. Try to find consensus? They have a large enough group of editors so that you won't find consensus that the earth is not flat. Take it to arbcom? They'll reject the case because everybody's talking and there's no edit warring. Is it any wonder that some people snap and act rude and edit war?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pedrito
post Wed 6th May 2009, 3:00pm
Post #109


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed 5th Dec 2007, 12:44pm
Member No.: 4,042



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 4th May 2009, 2:55am) *

Well, if they hadn't edit warred they would probably be ok. I think the "Palestinian side" like MeteorMaker and Nishidani are a little stunned that they won the argument, but ended up topic-banned along with the "Pro-Israel" editors. Perhaps one lesson for interested observers to take from this is that edit warring will not be looked upon nicely by this committee.


Have they really "won the argument"? There are no findings regarding [[WP:NCGN]] or stone-walling, so there's been nothing won by everybody getting banned.

Cheers, Pedrito
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
UseOnceAndDestroy
post Wed 6th May 2009, 3:40pm
Post #110


Über Member
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri 7th Dec 2007, 3:43pm
Member No.: 4,073



QUOTE(trenton @ Wed 6th May 2009, 3:43pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 3rd May 2009, 7:55pm) *

Well, if they hadn't edit warred they would probably be ok. I think the "Palestinian side" like MeteorMaker and Nishidani are a little stunned that they won the argument, but ended up topic-banned along with the "Pro-Israel" editors. Perhaps one lesson for interested observers to take from this is that edit warring will not be looked upon nicely by this committee.


Yes, but what exactly do you do if you don't edit war? The other side will have the article the way it wants, and they can talk indefinitely. Try to find consensus? They have a large enough group of editors so that you won't find consensus that the earth is not flat. Take it to arbcom? They'll reject the case because everybody's talking and there's no edit warring. Is it any wonder that some people snap and act rude and edit war?

Uh-huh - that's exactly the process that wikipedia encourages, in the absence of named expert authority with a final say on content.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Wed 6th May 2009, 5:11pm
Post #111


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Wed 6th May 2009, 8:40am) *
QUOTE(trenton @ Wed 6th May 2009, 3:43pm) *
Yes, but what exactly do you do if you don't edit war? The other side ... can talk indefinitely. Try to find consensus? ... You won't find consensus that the earth is not flat.
Uh-huh - that's exactly the process that wikipedia encourages, in the absence of named expert authority with a final say on content.

More accurately, a systematic lack of authorities, and ways to identify them, combined with an elevation of amateurs to an equal status with experts, and then a lack of process by which even learned people can reach and protect a consensus from eroding.

As has been said before: "Wikipedia is a system that ensures that twenty idiots and one expert are indistinguishable from twenty-one idiots". It's a crude, infantile parody of an academic peer-review system, with results similar to what you would get if you gave a pound of flour, some eggs, milk, and oil to a toddler and told them to make pancakes.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 6th May 2009, 5:55pm
Post #112


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 6th May 2009, 11:11am) *


As has been said before: "Wikipedia is a system that ensures that twenty idiots and one expert are indistinguishable from twenty-one idiots".


This is a brilliant aphorism and is completely true in relation to any outside observer. It does leave out the subjective experience of the one expert, who can of course tell the difference. This accounts for much of heartbreak of Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Wed 6th May 2009, 6:06pm
Post #113


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 6th May 2009, 1:55pm) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 6th May 2009, 11:11am) *

As has been said before: "Wikipedia is a system that ensures that twenty idiots and one expert are indistinguishable from twenty-one idiots".


This is a brilliant aphorism and is completely true in relation to any outside observer. It does leave out the subjective experience of the one expert, who can of course tell the difference. This accounts for much of heartbreak of Wikipedia.


If you keep in mind the adage about wine and sewage, I think you will find that it's more like this:

"Wikipedia is a system that ensures that twenty experts and one idiot are indistinguishable from twenty-one idiots"

Ja Ja boing.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
No one of consequence
post Wed 6th May 2009, 6:31pm
Post #114


I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri 23rd Feb 2007, 2:34am
Member No.: 1,010

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 6th May 2009, 6:06pm) *

If you keep in mind the adage about wine and sewage, I think you will find that it's more like this:

"Wikipedia is a system that ensures that twenty experts and one idiot are indistinguishable from twenty-one idiots"

Ja Ja boing.gif


Does Wikipedia even have twenty experts?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Wed 6th May 2009, 6:52pm
Post #115


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 6th May 2009, 2:31pm) *
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 6th May 2009, 6:06pm) *
If you keep in mind the adage about wine and sewage, I think you will find that it's more like this:

"Wikipedia is a system that ensures that twenty experts and one idiot are indistinguishable from twenty-one idiots"

Ja Ja boing.gif


Does Wikipedia even have twenty experts?


If it does, they are all banned, I imagine. dry.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trenton
post Wed 6th May 2009, 10:29pm
Post #116


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri 12th Sep 2008, 10:21pm
Member No.: 8,237



QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 6th May 2009, 1:52pm) *
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 6th May 2009, 2:31pm) *
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 6th May 2009, 6:06pm) *
If you keep in mind the adage about wine and sewage, I think you will find that it's more like this:

"Wikipedia is a system that ensures that twenty experts and one idiot are indistinguishable from twenty-one idiots"

Ja Ja boing.gif
Does Wikipedia even have twenty experts?
If it does, they are all banned, I imagine. dry.gif


They did have this one theology professor, though....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Thu 7th May 2009, 12:33am
Post #117


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(pedrito @ Wed 6th May 2009, 3:00pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 4th May 2009, 2:55am) *

Well, if they hadn't edit warred they would probably be ok. I think the "Palestinian side" like MeteorMaker and Nishidani are a little stunned that they won the argument, but ended up topic-banned along with the "Pro-Israel" editors. Perhaps one lesson for interested observers to take from this is that edit warring will not be looked upon nicely by this committee.


Have they really "won the argument"? There are no findings regarding [[WP:NCGN]] or stone-walling, so there's been nothing won by everybody getting banned.

Cheers, Pedrito


As far as ArbCom is concerned, you're right, they are not stating implicitly or explicitly that you won the argument.

QUOTE(trenton @ Wed 6th May 2009, 2:43pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 3rd May 2009, 7:55pm) *

Well, if they hadn't edit warred they would probably be ok. I think the "Palestinian side" like MeteorMaker and Nishidani are a little stunned that they won the argument, but ended up topic-banned along with the "Pro-Israel" editors. Perhaps one lesson for interested observers to take from this is that edit warring will not be looked upon nicely by this committee.


Yes, but what exactly do you do if you don't edit war? The other side will have the article the way it wants, and they can talk indefinitely. Try to find consensus? They have a large enough group of editors so that you won't find consensus that the earth is not flat. Take it to arbcom? They'll reject the case because everybody's talking and there's no edit warring. Is it any wonder that some people snap and act rude and edit war?


That's the nature of a wiki. Sometimes you can't win even if you're right. Edit warring is not the answer. I recently lost an argument here about mentioning the Nazis in the lead for the Martin Luther article. Me and several others don't believe that the Nazis should be mentioned in the intro. Unfortunately, there are enough editors opposing my view to keep me from declaring consensus and removing it. Me and the few editors that take my side could start edit warring, but that's against the rules. So, I/we lose. That's the wiki.

There are other ways I could address this, I could file an RfC (which I might do), go to one of the content noticeboards, or request mediation. One or all of those might work, or they might not. Anyway, that's the within-the-rules process. If I don't like it, I can leave. Or, I can secretly recruit a bunch of like-minded people to come and support me. That's against the rules. If I get caught doing that, however, I deserve to be banned. Catching people doing that is kind of difficult, isn't it? As you can see, Wikipedia has some glaring weaknesses.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 7th May 2009, 12:38am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

13 Pages V « < 4 5 6 7 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th 12 14, 8:29am