Jayjg MIA Options

[Heat]

Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, someone can explain why Jayjg had previously lost his oversight bit twice before finally losing it permanently a few weeks ago? Was he ever sanctioned or warned over his use of oversight?

What's the deal with your extensive editing of the Pierre Salinger bio shortly after Slim joined WP? Is that when you guys first started bumping heads?

We didn't bump. It was entirely coincidental. I think I was editing it because he'd just died and I had followed his work somewhat in the 1980s. Unfortunately, a rather mean-spirited edit made by Slim was falsely attributed to me thanks to Jayjg's oversighting. Seems it's ok to oversight so that someone doesn't think you made a malicious edit but ok if by oversighting you attribute the malice to someone else.

Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, someone can explain why Jayjg had previously lost his oversight bit twice before finally losing it permanently a few weeks ago? Was he ever sanctioned or warned over his use of oversight?

I believe One/Cool Hand Luke has been asked this a couple of times and his answer has been "ask me on wiki" which, under the circumstance, I agree with. So far no one seems to have taken him up on it.

I'm also not sure there is any benefit to answering the question at all. It would likely not satisfy anyone (whatever the explanation, he did get it back), it can not impact on current wiki "governance" issues (since he no longer has it anyway), and might only serve to give his critics one more reason to dance on his grave, figuratively speaking. Yes, some people's curiosity might be satisfied, but it that enough reason to answer?

In any event, the people who likely have access to the information are the current arbitrators only.

From what you know, having a more "insider" view of Wikipedia's administration than most of us, do you personally feel that the issues surrounding Jayjg's abuse, or allegations of abuse, of admin privileges and his POV-pushing have been adequately, appropriately, and timely addressed by Wikipedia's governing authorities? If not, what do you think should have been done differently?

Cla, can you ask CoolHandLuke on wiki since he suggested that he'd explain why Jayjg originally lost his oversight bit if asked there?

[Kato]

Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, someone can explain why Jayjg had previously lost his oversight bit twice before finally losing it permanently a few weeks ago? Was he ever sanctioned or warned over his use of oversight?

What's the deal with your extensive editing of the Pierre Salinger bio shortly after Slim joined WP? Is that when you guys first started bumping heads?

We didn't bump. It was entirely coincidental. I think I was editing it because he'd just died and I had followed his work somewhat in the 1980s. Unfortunately, a rather mean-spirited edit made by Slim was falsely attributed to me thanks to Jayjg's oversighting. Seems it's ok to oversight so that someone doesn't think you made a malicious edit but ok if by oversighting you attribute the malice to someone else.

This is true. I remember seeing it a couple of years ago when it was first discovered. Most of this edit was actually a series of edits made by Slim Virgin. When the diffs were removed by Jayjg in June 2006, they became attributed to "Heat" (who had by that point changed his name to Formeruser).

I don't think it was malicious on Jayjg's part. It was purely to protect Slim Virgin's real life identity (for obvious reasons given the content) when Daniel Brandt was in full flow investigating Slim for starting his bio. It was accidental that Formeruser became the recipient. To be fair to Jayjg, he went to pains to protect the identity of "Heat" as well so it wasn't an example of favouritism.

[Cla68]

Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, someone can explain why Jayjg had previously lost his oversight bit twice before finally losing it permanently a few weeks ago? Was he ever sanctioned or warned over his use of oversight?

What's the deal with your extensive editing of the Pierre Salinger bio shortly after Slim joined WP? Is that when you guys first started bumping heads?

We didn't bump. It was entirely coincidental. I think I was editing it because he'd just died and I had followed his work somewhat in the 1980s. Unfortunately, a rather mean-spirited edit made by Slim was falsely attributed to me thanks to Jayjg's oversighting. Seems it's ok to oversight so that someone doesn't think you made a malicious edit but ok if by oversighting you attribute the malice to someone else.

Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, someone can explain why Jayjg had previously lost his oversight bit twice before finally losing it permanently a few weeks ago? Was he ever sanctioned or warned over his use of oversight?

I believe One/Cool Hand Luke has been asked this a couple of times and his answer has been "ask me on wiki" which, under the circumstance, I agree with. So far no one seems to have taken him up on it.

I'm also not sure there is any benefit to answering the question at all. It would likely not satisfy anyone (whatever the explanation, he did get it back), it can not impact on current wiki "governance" issues (since he no longer has it anyway), and might only serve to give his critics one more reason to dance on his grave, figuratively speaking. Yes, some people's curiosity might be satisfied, but it that enough reason to answer?

In any event, the people who likely have access to the information are the current arbitrators only.

From what you know, having a more "insider" view of Wikipedia's administration than most of us, do you personally feel that the issues surrounding Jayjg's abuse, or allegations of abuse, of admin privileges and his POV-pushing have been adequately, appropriately, and timely addressed by Wikipedia's governing authorities? If not, what do you think should have been done differently?

Cla, can you ask CoolHandLuke on wiki since he suggested that he'd explain why Jayjg originally lost his oversight bit if asked there?

Rootology beat me to it.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

What's the deal with your extensive editing of the Pierre Salinger bio shortly after Slim joined WP? Is that when you guys first started bumping heads?

We didn't bump. It was entirely coincidental. I think I was editing it because he'd just died and I had followed his work somewhat in the 1980s. Unfortunately, a rather mean-spirited edit made by Slim was falsely attributed to me thanks to Jayjg's oversighting. Seems it's ok to oversight so that someone doesn't think you made a malicious edit but ok if by oversighting you attribute the malice to someone else.

This is true. I remember seeing it a couple of years ago when it was first discovered. Most of this edit was actually a series of edits made by Slim Virgin. When the diffs were removed by Jayjg in June 2006, they became attributed to "Heat" (who had by that point changed his name to Formeruser).

I don't think it was malicious on Jayjg's part. It was purely to protect Slim Virgin's real life identity (for obvious reasons given the content) when Daniel Brandt was in full flow investigating Slim for starting his bio. It was accidental that Formeruser became the recipient. To be fair to Jayjg, he went to pains to protect the identity of "Heat" as well so it wasn't an example of favouritism.

Jeez. Obviously, he wasn't particularly concerned about protecting Salinger's reputation. Fortunately, the most recent version of the bio shows significant improvement.

[No one of consequence]

Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, someone can explain why Jayjg had previously lost his oversight bit twice before finally losing it permanently a few weeks ago? Was he ever sanctioned or warned over his use of oversight?

I believe One/Cool Hand Luke has been asked this a couple of times and his answer has been "ask me on wiki" which, under the circumstance, I agree with. So far no one seems to have taken him up on it.

I'm also not sure there is any benefit to answering the question at all. It would likely not satisfy anyone (whatever the explanation, he did get it back), it can not impact on current wiki "governance" issues (since he no longer has it anyway), and might only serve to give his critics one more reason to dance on his grave, figuratively speaking. Yes, some people's curiosity might be satisfied, but it that enough reason to answer?

In any event, the people who likely have access to the information are the current arbitrators only.

From what you know, having a more "insider" view of Wikipedia's administration than most of us, do you personally feel that the issues surrounding Jayjg's abuse, or allegations of abuse, of admin privileges and his POV-pushing have been adequately, appropriately, and timely addressed by Wikipedia's governing authorities? If not, what do you think should have been done differently?

Hey, next time ask me a hard one!

I'm not sure what to do with the question about his admin status. All his admin actions are transparently reviewable by anyone, so if there was a case to be made for overt misuse of admin tools, someone would have made it by now, or added it to the recent case. This case is, as far as I can remember, the first time someone has been sanctioned for misuse of the aura of the administrator position. I think that is a good development, and I think we are moving toward eventually being able to desysop people for "conduct unbecoming an admin", even if we aren't quite there yet. And, to be completely honest, all the Arab/Israel/Palestine/Etc drama bores me, so I have not followed it and could not give you a coherent opinion of Jayjg's editing practices.

Regarding checkuser and oversight, there has definitely been a lack of transparency in reviewing complaints against them, and not only with respect to Jayjg. I think there was a feeling that since checkuser and oversight can generally not be publicly discussed, that there should also not be public discussion of checkusers and oversighters.

And there is really no way to know what sort of internal discussions were held regarding checkuser, oversight, or even admin, because there was no transparency.

I think these things are changing, primarily because the people on Arbcom now seem to have a different relationship to the project, and to each other, than the Arbcoms of 3 and 4 years ago did. I think it is possible to have a reasonably well-informed discussion of checkuser and oversight issues without disclosing the actual confidential matters, at least in many cases.

[Heat]

Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, someone can explain why Jayjg had previously lost his oversight bit twice before finally losing it permanently a few weeks ago? Was he ever sanctioned or warned over his use of oversight?

What's the deal with your extensive editing of the Pierre Salinger bio shortly after Slim joined WP? Is that when you guys first started bumping heads?

We didn't bump. It was entirely coincidental. I think I was editing it because he'd just died and I had followed his work somewhat in the 1980s. Unfortunately, a rather mean-spirited edit made by Slim was falsely attributed to me thanks to Jayjg's oversighting. Seems it's ok to oversight so that someone doesn't think you made a malicious edit but ok if by oversighting you attribute the malice to someone else.

This is true. I remember seeing it a couple of years ago when it was first discovered. Most of this edit was actually a series of edits made by Slim Virgin. When the diffs were removed by Jayjg in June 2006, they became attributed to "Heat" (who had by that point changed his name to Formeruser).

I don't think it was malicious on Jayjg's part. It was purely to protect Slim Virgin's real life identity (for obvious reasons given the content) when Daniel Brandt was in full flow investigating Slim for starting his bio. It was accidental that Formeruser became the recipient. To be fair to Jayjg, he went to pains to protect the identity of "Heat" as well so it wasn't an example of favouritism.

I don't think his oversight of SV's edits was informed by malicious intent towards me - I think he just didn't think, or care, about the possible consequences of his actions.

[No one of consequence]

I don't think it was malicious on Jayjg's part. It was purely to protect Slim Virgin's real life identity (for obvious reasons given the content) when Daniel Brandt was in full flow investigating Slim for starting his bio. It was accidental that Formeruser became the recipient. To be fair to Jayjg, he went to pains to protect the identity of "Heat" as well so it wasn't an example of favouritism.

I don't think his oversight of SV's edits was informed by malicious intent towards me - I think he just didn't think, or care, about the possible consequences of his actions.

They are some of the earliest uses of the oversight tool. It would be hard for anyone at that point to have a real grasp of the problem of misattribution.

[One]

scratch that

This post has been edited by One: Sat 6th June 2009, 5:56am

[CharlotteWebb]

This case is, as far as I can remember, the first time someone has been sanctioned for misuse of the aura of the administrator position. I think that is a good development, and I think we are moving toward eventually being able to desysop people for "conduct unbecoming an admin", even if we aren't quite there yet.

Do you have a working definition for these terms or is it all covered by WP:POTTERSTEWART?