Jayjg reminded
2) Jayjg is reminded to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue.
Passed 7 to 0, 01:16, 18 July 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...n/CharlotteWebb

Ahh, yes... Apparently the original plan was to send him a big chocolate cake, but they had a difficult time finding his street address on the internet.

Hey, do you think he'll actually remember?

Jayjg is high enough in the cabal to get away with murdering Jimbo Wales.

Even when they de-admin someone, all the bad things the admin did are left to stand.

Hmmm.... Maybe, but I doubt he'd do something that would carry such a high risk of exposure after the fact. After all, those ticker-tape parades do tend to reduce one's personal privacy a tad.


Whaaaa...? Are you saying they won't give User:CharlotteWebb a new and "unprejudiced" shot at an RfA, in light of this severe draconian punishment they've mercilessly meted out to Jayjg?

Surely this cannot be?

I am happy they didn't try to institute a TOR-ban. Not that I use it or anything.

They don't have to ban TOR, just block all TOR proxies.

Well, he shouldn't be a checkuser, so that should have been taken away from him, but I think there's a list of reasons a mile long why he shouldn't be checkuser that make this reason look downright flimsy. It's worth noting that the ArbCom did nothing at all to help Charlotte edit again after someone blocked all her IPs, including the non-Tor ones, despite saying she was free to edit. But I can't blame them too much for that, because Raul had already offered to unblock her non-Tor IPs and she rejected that gesture (very foolishly, in my opinion--I advised her to accept it, but I think she's long since moved on to a new account).

How does that help if the IPs are blocked?

she can always use new ips.

Not always so easy.

Gee, ArbCom completely Scootered Jayjg. CW should demand that the B/Ts address her request via the Ombudsman's Committee. She should insist that ArbCom has no authority to interpret the WMF Privacy Policy. It is worth noting that she did not initiate the ArbCom case but did initiate the Ombudsman process. It can not be argued that she waived any objection to ArbComs authority.

Not that I expected anything different from Arbcom (especially with Jayjg still on the Arbcom mailing list), but this just formalizes the embroidered "ABOVE THE LAW" merit badge that Jayjg wears. As noted, his mis-use of Checkuser is widespread, and he routinely checkuser's people who oppose him and SlimVirgin in content disputes.

Seriously, though, Jayjg is the single most abusive admin for whom we have no idea of a real identity. More works needs to be done here.

Do we even know Jayjg's location or IP address?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Granatstein ? Jew in Toronto.

Victor_Frankenstein was a mad scientist in Geneva, but I don't know if he was Jewish. (Probably not...)

All this speculation on Jayjg's identity is a bit silly, really. I mean, sure, if he's got all these fancy powers and so on, then the proper thing for him to do would be to identify himself, so as to end the speculation. But what if it turns out he's exactly what he says he is? Wouldn't we be, like, really disappointed and stuff?

Naw, can't be. Granatstein has a mainstream media career. Why does he need Wikipedia? Also, Granatstein seems to be a neoconservative and the Slimites seem to be left-liberal or socialist. Of course, Granatstein would be 68 now, so maybe he trolls WP because he's a bitter old coot. Who knows?

Well, I've been spending literally months on this question of Jayjg's secret identity, following every possible lead, assembling a complex matrix of associations, links, and common characteristics... and I'm now convinced he's the guy in the photo here.

Am I right, or am I right?

I found him in Wikipedia Commons:

Has Jayjg been to Wikimania? Perhaps there is a photo there.

What's interesting is how that ties in with various comments recently on wikien-l from those on the "clique" side, to the effect that "drama" is the most unspeakably evil thing that could happen on Wikipedia or its related forums and lists... it's supposed to be a dull, boring encyclopedia, after all. It provides the latest in the ever-changing array of justifications for suppressing so-called "attack sites"... now what's wrong with them is that they "generate drama". This ruling fits right in.

I can almost see the wheels turning in the minds of the cliqueistas... they've decided that it's politically necessary to give Jayjg at least a slap on the wrist... with a light feather, of course, since he's One Of Them and must not be seriously punished in any way, but there needs to at least be a slight hint that he might just have possibly conceivably done something that somebody might judge to be at least a little off. So they had to decide what "offense" to do this over. Not invasion of privacy, misuse of checkuser tools, unfair scuttling of an RfA... Ah... here's the thing: "generating drama". The beauty of it is that it creates a citable quote from ArbCom that might have utility in the future as a bludgeon by the clique against its enemies, like various past ArbCom rulings that have been treated as "policy" when it suits the needs of the clique. Now, whenever anybody expresses too many uppity opinions that the clique dislikes, and seems to be starting to rally some support, they'll be hit with "The ArbCom has determined that generating drama is against the policy and best interests of Wikipedia... so cut it out!"

Hmmm.... so if Shakespeare were alive today, he'd be banned from Wikipedia for sure!

You're right though, "generating drama" is about as vague and widely interpretable as you can get. At the same time, I'm not even sure we're much of an "attack site" anymore... I mean, some of the anti-MONGO material on Wikipedia these days makes ours look like it was written by Miss Manners. And compared to a year ago, we're practically a bastion of privacy protection for anons (just do a search on the word "redacted"), but you'd never get that from reading the latest from the likes of JzG and Jayjg.

Of course, there's also been a tendency lately to describe us as "boring," so I guess we're not much for "generating drama" either.

But then David Gerard will say you are just "covering your tracks":

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/076988.html

Of course, when Wikipedia engages in exactly the same sort of thing, well well well, it's all honorable and upstanding and in defense of the realm.

Thank you for noticing that, Taiwopanfob! I actually tried to raise a minor stink over that by asking Dave (via Uncyclopedia) what the deal was, but not only did I get no answer, he actually got one of the other Uncyc admins to tell me to "STFU," basically.

The truth is that we haven't really "covered our tracks" at all with respect to the incident he's referring to, and in fact the main thread on the incident is still right here where always was.

Shortly after this Mr. Sandifer joined WR in order to, well, "troll" us. Admittedly this thread is in the Tar Pit now, but this one is still out there and publicly viewable. (After that he lost interest, apparently.)

Hmm...Okay, so there was a discussion of a certain admin who might have blocked certain IP addresses and maybe these were used by a certain user....but isn't it rather odd that this whole case was, um, courtesy-blanked?

Odder that it was blanked by someone who hasn't been admin for nearly a year.

The request appears to be made by ArmedBlowfish, so that would make sense why his RfA was blanked and a few mentions of it, but Tony also blanked CharlotteWebb's RfA

Regarding the arbitration case, looks like Tony decided to only blank this statement.

There is a relevant discussion here. (diff)

The blanking of the RFA's and other material looks a hell of a lot like a "cover your tracks" situation, but poorly implemented. But WP would never stoop to such lows, of course. Honor! Integrity! Veracity! Equality! (HIVE)

In any case, "courtesy blanking" - a template and everything! - might as well be called "WP:LOOK AT THIS STUFF AS CAREFULLY AS YOU CAN - IT HAS VALUABLE INFORMATION INSIDE!"

Just who do these jokers think they are fooling? At the least such "courtesy" would be given to the oversight overlords for disposition.

and now more blanking, apparently by CharlotteWebb with the edit summary "(I never suggested blanking the whole thing, but this part is blatantly offensive (CW))" diff