Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Jayjg

questions to candidate go on main page. Other discussion, such as questions to other questioners do not belong on the main page.

Question for Marsden

Logically, what would be the point in doing so, since you've already blatantly declared that you don't have an open mind? Tom e r^TALK 04:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point would be to sway the opinions of some of the many other editors at Wikipedia who share my opinion of Jayjg but whose minds you might describe as "less closed." Marsden 14:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone considers taking your views into account, they might want to know that you've specifically talked about "beat[ing] [Jay] into submission," [1] that you have a history of being blocked for disruption and personal attacks, [2] including attacking Fred Bauder during an arbcom case, [3] [4] and that you support and even solicit help from known trolls, including the banned User:Zephram Stark and the Jew-obsessed Disruptive Apartheid Editor. [5] People can judge for themselves whether you're approaching this situation with clean hands.

What I know about the pages Jayjg monitors is this: right-wing pro-Israel editors read the Arab-Israeli pages and have a screaming fit because they believe their POV isn't fully represented. Left-wing pro-Palestinian editors have exactly the same reaction to the same words, except of course they see pro-Israeli bias. Based on this, I'd say Jayjg is getting things just about right in one of Wikipedia's most contentious areas. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that anyone who is considering supporting Jayjg's candidacy should take a good look at the history of his "participation" in the Israeli-occupied territories article and the reaction of a broad range of editors to it. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Also, a simple look at the history of the Moroccan Wall edits, from September 23 to October 7, gives an idea of how Jayjg and his usual "revert posse" obstruct the improvement of Wikipedia: [13]. Marsden 20:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

another set of questions for Jayjg

Jayjg, since this is your candidate statement page, perhaps you can weigh in as to how you wish it to be utilized by people asking questions and making other comments. Marsden posted a question to you the candidate [14]. And some other editors, including SlimVirgin, have posted critical comments about Marsden [15]. Marsden replied to SlimVirgin with more diffs [16], and SlimVirgin deleted Mardens' post [17]. Since SlimVirgin seemed to be deleting comments not directed at the candidate, I deleted all the side comments and moved them to talk [18]. However, SlimVirgin reinserted them, calling my deletion "trolling" [19]. Since SlimVirgin was reinserting side comments, I inserted my own [20]. However, SlimVirgin deleted that one calling it trolling [21]. It would appear that SlimVirgin can make side comments to Marsden and Unbehagen, but no one can make side comments to SlimVirgin. Given that, would you prefer that (1) your candidate page have no side comments and only questions directed at you or (2) that anyone can post a side comment to anyone or (3) let SlimVirgin decide on a case by case basis? FuelWagon 22:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Unbehagen

reply not from candidate removed from main page by —Charles P. (Mirv) @ 23:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC). The original question has been copied here for context.[reply]

Why do you think you attract so much criticism as being an editor who agressively pushes pro-Israeli POV? How would you deal in situations where you are asked to arbitrate in disputes regarding this particular area of special interest for you? Unbehagen 12:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Fallacy of many questions and Begging the question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal originally posted to SV's talk page: I'm terribly sorry but jayg was recently officially censured for edit warring over POV issues in the Yuber Arbitration case by the very arb com he is nominated for. Looks like controversy to me. It's not begging the question if it is a real issue. ie asking a proven wife beater is he has stopped beating is wife is valid enquiry not begging the question. Unbehagen 23:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a page/diff/URL for this official censure? FuelWagon 20:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unbehagen, as I said below, it's not true that the Arbcom censured Jayjg for "edit warring over POV issues". In fact they never said his edits were POV or even incorrect, as Fred Bauder made clear here. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to quote the ruling of the arb comm: "Jayjg is reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission and is advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts"? and point out that it was made in the context of an ongoing POV between pro/anti Istraeli advocates. Stands for itself really. Unbehagen 23:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred corrected Xed, who also was going around misinterpreting the finding the same way you are doing, implying Jayjg's edits were POV. Fred said, "There was no finding that the reverts he [Jayjg] was doing were bad" (i.e., it wasn't Jayjg's edits that were POV). The context was Yuber's POV edit warring with many editors, in which Yuber received a one year probation, and Fred made it clear the finding regarding Jayjg was to encourage him to use the dispute resolution process (the preferable way of dealing with a POV editor--Yuber) instead of reverting Yuber's POV edits. Bottom line, Jayjg was *not* warned for POV edits. On the other hand, Yuber was put on probation for POV edits. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why he needed "reminding" that edit-warring is bad then? If he had never edit-warred, why tell him it was a bad thing? (unsigned by Grace Note)

It wasn't clear to me why he needed "reminding" either. Why don't you give me some examples from the Yuber case that represent edit-warring the arbcom was referring to in their warning? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the lateness of the reply. No, I won't supply examples of anything. Jay's not on trial here and even if he was, I leave that sort of thing to those with absolutely nothing better to do. I am talking to you editor to editor, person to person. You don't demand proofs of people you have a conversation with. If you don't think he has editwarred, fine; I'm not pushing the point with you. I think he has a long track record of it, as a cursory scan of his contributions would illustrate. You might well think he has in every instance been correct but I think it's rather disingenuous to suggest he has never editwarred. But what the hell, if that's your view, it's your view. -- Grace Note

page protection, 23:14, November 30, 2005

I have checked over the history of the article and see a little revert war involving what I consider personal attacks. I am protecting the page for today. I don't see the harm in taking 24 hours to cool off and really think about what is a constructive comment and what isn't. I urge people commenting on these pages to stick to comments concerning Jayjg's compliance with, or violation of, core policies when making edits to articles, and his willingness or lack of willingness to explain himself — and not make his personal views themselves an issue. My belief is that personal views are irrelevant unless they lead to violations of policy. That being the case, there is no need to discuss personal views, only violations of polcies. That's is just my opinion. But whether people share it or not, this page must not become a venue for personal attacks against other editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are the consequences of accusing someone of trolling without support, as SlimVirgin did to me? Marsden 19:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to that is "It depends". If you're an admin accusing a non-admin of trolling, then it is simply reporting an observation or stating an opinion. If you're a non-admin accusing an admin of trolling, then it can qualify as "hurtful remarks" and may get you a block. I have some diffs, if you'd like to see. FuelWagon 20:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why Marsden and Fuelwagon should rephrase their questions

Both FuelWagon and Marsden make the mistake of engaging Jayjg in content questions. Both editors have a long history on the pages they describe, and as the editor trying to find the correct balance Jayjg has naturally become the lightening rod of their criticism, as is the sad reality on controversial pages.

However, this is the ArbCom election. Jayjg has recused himself in the past from issues where he has been a party, and is likely to continue doing this in line with Arbcom policy. The questions from FuelWagon and Marsden then suddenly become academic. In my experience Jayjg has a better track record than several other candidates when it comes to dealing with difficult articles where NPOV is nigh impossible.

I therefore suggest FuelWagon and Marsden rephrase their questions to deal with Jayjg's future functioning as a member of the Arbcom. He has been a member for several months. There is no evidence that Jay's hard work on the Middle East-related articles has been of any influence on his functioning as an Arbcom member. Unless such evidence can be advanced, they are advised to retract their posts. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Marsden

I dispute your characterization of my question, Jfdwolff. It is not my differences on content matters with Jayjg that my question addresses, but rather the manner with which he has promoted his prefered content. If someone resorts to uncivil and disruptive behavior in promoting his POV when acting as no more than an editor, why should he be trusted to act as an arbitrator? I could also post details of his abuse of his authority as an administrator.

In my experience, as bourne out by the history I have provided, Jayjg has some serious character issues that prevent any confidence that he will not abuse any authority he is given in order to advance his personal point of view. It may be that the mix of other arbitrators that he has served with has so far prevented his misbehavior, but in any case Wikipedia would be foolish to appoint an arbitrator who has demonstrated himself to be willing to promote his point of view in uncivil and disruptive ways, with no more than the hope that other administrators will keep him in line. If Jayjg is reappointed and an opportunity arises where he can promote his point of view by abusing his ArbCom authority, no formal process exists in Wikipedia to stop him. The time to stop him is now, as he stands for reappointment.

If there have been other members of the Arbitration Committee who are even worse than Jayjg, that is disgraceful. I am not aware of any such situation, but I hope and expect that you, Jdfwolff, will do whatever you reasonably can do to keep the offending arbitrators from being re-appointed.

In summary, I will not be rephrasing my question nor my background comments to it. Character matters, and Jayjg's character is correctly gauged by looking at all of his behavior, and not just his behavior in the position for which he stands for reappointment. A thief who has served as a bank president without incident is still a thief.

Marsden 21:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained why Jay cannot "abuse authority" as an Arbcom member. There are ample safeguards for that. If the internal climate of the Arbcom were to loosen those safeguards, Jimbo Wales has the authority to dismiss the Arbcom and issue new elections. One thing is for sure: incivility is not something one could level against Jayjg, and the "disruption" you characterise is rather low on the Richter scale of Wikipedia disruption. Wikipedia has a long record of editors disagreeing on POV issues still supporting each other in other decisions, and I do think it is a shame that your have been letting your editorial disagreement with Jayjg inform this statement you have made. JFW | T@lk 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is nothing more for us to say about this beyond that we disagree. Marsden 22:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Fuelwagon

My questions are one of "practice what you preach". Jayjg has performed a number of edits that I've witnessed that appear to be against standard wikipedia policy, and it seems quite relevant to me to find out how he justifies his editing behaviour. For example, when I inserted a verbatim quote from a notable source on the Terrorism article, Jayjg reverted me. My edit seems perfectly in line with policy, and his reason given at the time does not explain his actions. In the Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, I added a verbatim quote from a public letter ([22]), and again, Jayjg reverted me. and in Historical persecution by Jews, Jayjg deleted a massive amount of text containing URL's, which seems to be in direct opposition to arbcom precedent as explained in the first bullet here, which states:

It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.

Jayjg's deletion of this material seems in direct opposition to this precedent by arbcom. So, these aren't simply questions of content, these are questions of how Jayjg's editing behaviour appears to be in direct opposition to wikipedia policy and precedent, and asking Jayjg to explain his behaviour.

and since everyone is into making suggestions, I suggest that you consider this to bo sufficient evidence to show you have no justification for demanding my questions be retracted otherwise. FuelWagon 21:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply to you the same way as I did to Marsden above. Wikipedia has a fine track record of editors who disagree on issues still supporting each other in other areas. It is more than just a shame that disagreements have prompted you to come out in such a way against a fellow editor. These issues can be dealt with a normal conflict resolution process, and not on this election. To repeat my question: do you have any evidence that Jayjg as an arbcom member has abused his position or voted on cases he himself had a stake in? JFW | T@lk 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting argument. Basically, you're telling me that Jayjg could be violating wikipedia policies as an editor, for example, showing a distinct pro-Israel bias by deleting a block of text containing well-referenced material in direct violation of arbcom precedent, but that means nothing as to how he might vote as a member of arbcom. So, if a Supreme Court nominee published a number of newspaper articles that were advocating for the complete outlawing of, say, abortion, we should ignore those articles, and focus specifically on his decisions as a judge? That's a nice way to filter out that which reflects poorly on Jayjg. Here's a question for you, then: if a candidate has never been on arbcom, exactly how would we determine how neutral the candidate would be but to look at his editing behaviour? Your argument is essentially cherry picking what you like, and telling us to ignore everything else that we see. Oh, and by the way, JFW, would you consider yourself to have a pro-Israel bias as an editor? Because that would put your campaigning for Jayjg in a certain context. Or should we all ignore questions such as that as well? FuelWagon 16:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

question from slimvirgin

LMAO!!!! "you edit some of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia: those about the Arab-Israeli conflict, anti-Semitism, Zionism, and related areas. This means you’re used to dealing with conflict, because the nationalist, pro-Israeli editors feel their POV is under-represented, while the pro-Palestinian editors look at the same article but see the opposite, so neither "side" is ever happy and you’re stuck in the middle. " Please review the section on begging the question!

This is hysterical.

"Have you stopped beating your wife" has become "what is it to be the only one of an under represented minority who deals fairly with the issues"? Unbehagen 11:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, out of curiosity, have you ever had a significant content dispute with Jayjg? You know, have you ever found that Jayjg and you disagreed on what should go into a particular article? Because I can find a litany of edits by you and Jayjg that show the two of you tag-teaming in direct support of one another, but I can't find any such history that shows you ever disagreed on any significant content issue. With evidence to support that you and Jayjg are a tag-team, and with absolutely no evidence to show you ever acted in opposition to one another, would it be fair to say that you might be advocating for Jayjg here because you're as biased as he is, and keeping someone on arbcom who is as biased as your are would be directly beneficial to you? How do you respond to both you and Jayjg deleting a large block of text from the History of Persecution by Jews that contained numerous references and source, which would appear to be in direct opposition to precedent established by arbcom? That both you and Jayjg act as a tag-team, directly reverting in support of each other, enforcing your version of edits that a lot of poeple consider to be NPOV violations? FuelWagon 16:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there such an effort to keep Jayjg from being accountable?

He doesn't answer questions that attempt to bring him to account for his past behavior; fine.

But now I've been threatened with blocking and had my question deleted (while being accused, again, of "trolling") for trying to bring him to account for avoiding questions.

Does anyone else think this is peculiar? Does anyone participating in the ring of protection want to explain himself?

Marsden 21:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from candidate statement page

This is not an RfC, nor a place to harass or treat Jay with incivility. If you have a legitimate question, please ask it. Removed content follows:

questions from FuelWagon

questions posted FuelWagon 22:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism and POV

On the Terrorism talk page, you stated: "Being described in a Dictionary of Philosophers as a critic of American policy does not make one an expert on terrorism. Chomsky's opinions have no relevance to an article on terrorism to begin with, but adding gratuitous and irrelevant flattery only compounds the error." Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC) [23] This comment was in line with this revert on the Terrorism article with the edit summary: "being cited in a Philosophy Dictionary as a critic of American policy does not make you an expert on terrorism - removing gratuitous flattery, we have a link for his name if people care", where you deleted the Dictionary of Philosopher's quote.

But if you read the URL, it doesn't say Chomsky was "a" critic of "American" policy, it says Chomsky was "one of the most influential left-wing critics of American foreign policy". And Chomsky also happens to be a senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies. (1) Given that, how would you characterize your revert and your description of Chomsky's being described as one of the most influential critics of American foreign policy as "gratuitous and irrelevant flattery"?

Occupied Territories and POV

The "Courage to Refuse" group signed a letter [24] in which they state their intention to refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories. (2) If the Courage to Refuse group uses the term Occupied Territories in their letter, why did you change it to "west bank" and "gaza strip" here, with the edit summary "remove POV pushing"? The letter by the group uses the term "Occupied" or "occupation" a total of five times, and uses the term "gaza strip" zero times. (3) Would you generally consider quoting a group or using their words to be POV pushing? (4) If not, why did you call using the words from the group's letter to be POV pushing?

More recently, I added a verbatim quote from the group's letter, using their words to describe themselves, and again, you revert the edit. (5) If the group calls themselves reservists who have served in the "occupied territories", and if they say what they are being ordered to do is to "occupy" palestinian land, then how is using their words to describe them POV pushing? (6) Would this have anything to do with your personal dislike for the term "occupied territories"?

Historical persecution by Jews and POV

The Historical persecution by Jews article contained a block of text concerning itself with contemporary history and contemporary persecution by Jews against non-Jews, and was critical of the modern state of Israel. The block of text contained four URL's for verifiability of it's content. You removed that content here. (7) Would you say this (and the Courage to Refuse article) reflects a bias to be a pro-Jewish or pro-Israel editor?

SlimVirgin, tag teaming

Given the following set of diffs which appear to show you and SlimVirgin tag teaming on exactly the same articles:

This article shows Jayjg tag teaming with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin

The Refusal_to_serve_in_the_Israeli_military article shows SlimVirgin tag teaming with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin

The Historical persecution by Jews, renamed Ancient historical persecution of non-Jews by Jews to avoid criticism of the modern state of Israel shows tag teaming by SlimVirgin with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with

(8) Would you consider questions by SlimVirgin [25], and your immediate reply to her questions [26] to be more of the same "tag teaming"?

Oh, over here, SlimVirgin deletes a massive block of text with the edit summary "revert vandalism, tidied intro, added link". Would you consider the deletion of a block of text containing valid references to be "vandalism" or a "content dispute". Would you consider her edit summary saying "revert vandalism" to be misleading, portraying a content dispute as simple vandalism? Or would you agree with her defintion that attempts to reinsert a block of text containing numerous URL's is vandalism? If SlimVirgin were brought before arbcom and this edit summary were submitted as evidence to show she is violating NPOV, would you as a member of arbcom "find facts" that her edit summary was misleading or not? Since 3RR does not apply to reverts against vandalism, would you say this edit would have counted towards 3RR? Or was SlimVirgin simply reverting vandalism?

campaign questions

(9) Based on the fact that you only answered questions by editors who congratulate you in their questions, would you say that reflects an inability to deal directly with criticism?

Your opposition to quoting Noam Chomsky

In the Terrorism article, I made a number of edits to insert the following text into the article:

Institute for Policy Studies scholar Noam Chomsky has described the U.S as "a leading terrorist state." After President Bush declared a "War on Terrorism," Chomsky stated:

The U.S. is officially committed to what is called “low–intensity warfare.” [...] If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of “terrorism” in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same. [27]

The list of edits by me are [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

Could you point to anything in the above block of text that you would consider a violation of wikipedia policy?

I ask because my edits were opposed by Carbonite, Jayjg, and SlimVirgin. And I can find nothing wrong with the text that I inserted.

The Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark has a summary of dispute that states:

Zephram Stark, and nobody else, has persistently claimed that there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong with the (Terrorism) article's introduction. Despite receiving no support whatsoever and overwhelming opposition, he has stubbornly continued repeating the same complaints and frequently making low-quality changes agreed to by nobody except himself. With his thick-headedness he is single-handedly holding this article hostage.

The RfC was endorsed by a number of editors including Jayjg, Carbonite, and SlimVirgin.

Given that the "summary of dispute" uses the term "thick-headedness", which could be considered a violation of No Personal Attacks, why did you endorse such a summary without requesting the NPA be removed?

Given that you endorse the summary that blames Zephram Stark, and nobody else for single-handedly holding the Terrorism article hostage, how do you explain that a number of endorsers of this RfC resisted my addition of a verbatim quote from Noam Chomsky with a URL to verify its accuracy, and an explanation as to why he is a notable source? Could it be that some of the other editors opposing Zaphram Stark were taking "ownership" of the article, and it wasn't entirely Zephram Stark's "thick-headedness" that was "single-handedly" holding the article "hostage"? Could other editors have been contributing negatively to the dispute?

Personally, I found the opposition to my short quotation to be odd, and reported it on the RfC against Zaphram Stark here. Is there anything in that outside comment that was incorrect? Do you believe I misrepresented what happened on the Terrorism article when I attempted to insert a verbatim quote by Noam Chomsky with a URL to verify? Do you believe that your opposition to my quote (and SlimVirgin, Carbonite, et al) was justified?

Question from Marsden

In my extensive experience with you, you have promoted and defended your POV with regard to matters related to Israel in ways that have been belligerent and contemptuous of the possibility that you are strongly biased in what you consider a neutral point of view. I do not know whether this is deliberate on your part or due to an honest blindspot in your thinking such that you are simply incapable of recognizing that yours is only one point of view among many, and that it is often completely biased. In any case, I consider your attitude to be a disqualifying characteristic for any sort of general arbitration function, and I intend, barring an unforeseen explanation from you, to campaign vigorously against your candidacy here.

In particular, I direct you to your activity in the Israeli-occupied territories article, and the reaction of other editors to it ([37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]), and to the history of the Moroccan Wall edits from September 23 to October 7, in which you and a few editors who are often found supporting your positions in editing disputes obstructed the improvement of the article for over two weeks ([44]).

I honestly cannot think of anything you could say in any reasonable amount of time to change my mind about you, but given that I am going to recommend that people oppose your candidacy, is there any sort of rebuttal you'd like to make to my characterization above of your behavior on Wikipedia?

Marsden 01:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up Question from Marsden

Jayjg, what do you think of US President Bush's "press conferences" in which he takes questions only from pre-selected journalists who have cleared their questions beforehand with his staff? Do you think that sort of behavior is consistent with a person in authority being responsive to and answerable to his community? Marsden 13:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using "civil" as an excuse to delete criticism

There is nothing in wikipedia's requirement to be civil that prohibits valid criticism of an editor's behaviour. If anyone can poitn to specific words or sentences that are specifically "uncivil" in my questions to Jayjg, then point them out so that I can fix them. Do not use one word or phrase that you think is "uncivil" as an excuse to delete the entire list of otherwise valid questions. FuelWagon 00:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for "criticisms", content-disputes, or for demonstrating the fallacy of many questions. --Viriditas 00:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The last thing Wikipedia needs is for anyone to suggest that someone running for a position on its highest "governing" body might not be suited for the position. Discrimination at any level must not be tolerated. Marsden 00:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for not understanding the difference between a personal attack and a question. A legitimate question would not "suggest" anything. --Viriditas 01:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read slowly, Viriditas: I was blocked because Raul654 claimed that my question was a personal attack. This does not make it so. And why would you imagine that it is up to you to decide what is and what is not a legitimate question? Marsden 01:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked according to WP:NPA. Legitimate questions don't suggest, they inquire. --Viriditas 01:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Which of the examples at WP:NPA do you think any of my questions matched? And why would you imagine that it is up to you to decide what is and what is not a legitimate question? I guess I'd be naive to think that a legitimate question in this venue would be one that addresses a candidate's suitability to be on ArbCom, as all of my questions did. Marsden 02:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a URL to the wikipedia policy that you refer to. I assume you are deleting my questions based on some sort of policy that supports your assertion that This is not the place for "criticisms", etc. Please provide a pointer to that policy. Otherwise, I believe bulk deletion of valid content with references counts as simple vandalism. FuelWagon 00:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to arbcom precedent: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject"

Then post a simple question or two about or related to the candidate minus your content-dispute and fallacies. This is not an RfC against Jayjg. Candidates are limited to less than 300 words in their statement. It doesn't make any sense for you to hijack the page with a scrolling screed of disputes that would be impossible for any candidate to adequately answer or address in any timely fashion. --Viriditas 01:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to any policy that restricts users to "a simple question or two". Otherwise, I will assume you are enforcing your own rules. FuelWagon 01:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Must compliment candidate?

Wow, do the arbcom election policies say that all quesitons to candidates must compliment the candidate? Because I just realized that a couple of people's questions to Jayjg have been deleted, and the ones that remain are questions like Jfdwolff, which start out "Jayjg, my compliments on your hard ArbCom work so far.". Is this the sort of questioning that policy requires? FuelWagon 00:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still unfamiliar with WP:CIV. Refactor your questions and show some respect for your fellow editors. --Viriditas 01:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Respect doesn't mean "do not criticize". You are overreaching with your application of WP:CIV. If there is a specific rule from WP:CIV that you think is violated in a specific spot, cite both and I'll fix it. Otherwise, you're suppressing valid criticism with countless URL's to support said criticism. FuelWagon 01:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please refactor your question(s) down to a brief statement or paragraph out of respect for the candidate and to other editors. There's no need to post "countless URL's" or support your "criticism". This isn't an RfC. If you insist on posting evidence, a simple solution is to move your original comment to your user space (something like /arbcomcand/evidence1) and link to it with a "see evidence for diffs" ref; problem solved. --Viriditas 02:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is polite to thank people for their involvement, and in the case of Jayjg I felt this was appropriate. I'm actually quite puzzled by your observation - what the hell could be wrong for thanking someone deservedly for hard work for our community? ArbComm work is a time-consuming effort, and that alone was deserving of my thanks. You should not project your disagreements with Jayjg on other editors. JFW | T@lk 04:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the answer: Wikipedia:No terms of endearment. JFW | T@lk 20:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the short version

I've posted shorter versions of my questions to Jayjg. I do not believe these versions contain any examples of trolling, personal attacks, or nonsense. I also think they are now short enough that Jayjg can find time in his busy schedule to answer them. FuelWagon 03:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're more of the same, in my view. They are content disputes. They have little to do with Jayjg's suitability as a member of the ArbComm. And they - again - sound like an RFC. I have little doubt that these will be removed for the same reasons as your previous posts. JFW | T@lk 04:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:-Ril-

(moved from the project page)

Several questions by other authors that appear critical of you have been removed by several well known administrators. Does this indicate that you are part of a clique/cabal?

The questions involved appear to be indicative of several disputes. Would you say you are a controversial figure in wikipedia?

Question from FuelWagon

(moved from project page)

All these reverts

Jayjg, your candidate statement page has had questions and comments deleted by SlimVirgin, SlimVirgin, SlimVirgin, SlimVirgin, Raul654, Raul654, Viriditas, Viriditas, Viriditas, Viriditas. These three editors have described the text they've deleted as "personal attacks", "nonsense", "trolling", among other things. Could you point to a specific example of each? i.e. a specific example of "personal attack", "nonsense", and "trolling" in the deleted questions so that an uninvolved editor can know that these editors weren't simply deleting text because it was critical of you? FuelWagon 03:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Occupied Territories and POV

The "Courage to Refuse" group signed a letter [45] in which they state their intention to refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories. The group uses the term "occupied territorites" or "occupation" five times in their letter. They never user the phrase "gaza strip". Given that, how can you explain your edit here, which changed "occupied territories" to "gaza strip"? Your edit summary was "remove POV pushing". How does quoting a source and using their language, qualify as POV pushing? Do you have a personal dislike for the term "Occupied Territories"? FuelWagon 03:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Persecution by Jews and POV

In the Historical persecution by Jews article, you deleted a block of text critical of the modern state of Israel here. Given that this text contained numerous URL's as references, and given that arbcom precendent states here that It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view., how do you explain your edit when it appears to be in direct opposition to arbcom precedence? FuelWagon 03:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tag teaming

In the Wikipedia:Requests for comment article, it appears that Jayjg is tag teaming with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin

The Refusal_to_serve_in_the_Israeli_military article shows SlimVirgin is tag teaming with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin

The Historical persecution by Jews, renamed Ancient historical persecution of non-Jews by Jews to avoid criticism of the modern state of Israel, shows tag teaming by SlimVirgin with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with

Would you consider questions by SlimVirgin [46], and your immediate reply to her questions [47] to be more of the same "tag teaming"?

Does this have any relation to Arbcoms ruling on 9 October 2005, that said "Jayjg is reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission and is advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts"? FuelWagon 04:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Ruy Lopez

(moved from project page) My question is similar to Unbehagen's, of all the great candidates on Wikipedia, why should one like yourself who pushes a Zionist POV on the Israel/Palestine pages be rewarded by going onto ArbCom? You would have never have survived an election, which is why you were appointed instead. You wouldn't be able to survive an election this time either, but since Jimbo says there will be no election perhaps you'll make it back again. Ruy Lopez 22:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like FuelWagon and Marsden, Ruy Lopez is simply making a statement here, not even specifically at Jayjg but about the whole election process. If you feel the election is farcial, it may be time to start your own Wikipedia fork, or spend more time at Anarchopedia. JFW | T@lk 16:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This tactic of the fallacy of many questions has actually backfired quite badly for Marsden and Unbehagen; I think Jay's answers strengthen his case. I suppose Ruy should be glad his question was moved here. JFW | T@lk 16:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"This tactic of the fallacy of many questions has actually backfired quite badly for Marsden and Unbehagen;" I actually resent thisquite badly. my comment was an in good faith attempt to airn an important issue. Please show a little respect and civility. Thanks. i note that jayg did not actually attempt to answer me but instead resorted to an ad hominem attack. Unbehagen 16:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a pot-kettle coming on with regards to the ad hominem. Your question contained all the words necessary for a veiled attack, and you made no attempt to distance yourself from critical questioners who claimed to speak in your name. There are different ways of phrasing things like "being an editor who agressively pushes pro-Israeli POV". I also note your anti-Jayjg activity in your edit history. JFW | T@lk 17:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then I am afraid that I have to call into question your impartiality. If my edit history shows a pattern of behaviour which is anti POV then this reflect well on me I think. Please note that it was the Arb Comm, not me, who found as a matter of fact that jayg edit wars on pro-Israel POV issues (incidentally not with me either - on that occasion). Am I not allowed to cite facts as determined by the arb comm now without being accused of bias or personal attack? Unbehagen 17:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unbehagen, it's not true that the Arbcom found that "jayjg edit wars on pro-Israel POV issues". In fact they never said his edits were POV or even incorrect, as Fred Bauder makes clear here. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You did not quote the ArbCom (and the link is easy to find, as all Jayjg's detractors have been quick to spread that particular finding to their chums). You thought it to be necessary to enunciate the view of some anonymous critics; you could have chosen much more unbiased phraseology in doing so. I did not in fact accuse you of anything. I simply observed that you asked rhetorical questions, but I agree fully with Jayjg's assessment that you are simply out to cause bother rather than actually promote a transparent election. You can call me biased all you like, but I call your approach low-grade harassment that is destructive to the process. JFW | T@lk 18:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I simply observed that you asked rhetorical questions," As I have pointed out this was incorrect. Unbehagen 18:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your intentions, Unbehagen, an opposition like this can only help the candidate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An adequate answer qwould have helped him more I think. But then you're now trying to cook the issue by saying "we are winning" to try to convince others that this is so. Please stop it. It's contrary to the spirit of WP. Unbehagen 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entitled to making observations as much as you are, and you are free to disagree with me. In any case, Jayjg gave substantial evidence that your intentions may not have been as neutral as you claim, and in my interpretation this type of intention backfired with this kind of response. It was not meant as a personal attack, and I am certainly entitled to my perceptions. JFW | T@lk 19:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I am certainly entitled to my perceptions" of course you are. Even if they do depart from WP policy of assume good faith. So I will leave you to contemplate your own personal opinions and thank you for sharing them with us in an erudite, if wholly uinsolicited, fashion. Unbehagen 19:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.. JFW | T@lk 20:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But you just took great pains to expalin that you are only dealing with your own opinion - not "evidence". Are YOU trying to make a point perhaps? Unbehagen 23:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should the questions page note deleted questions?

SlimVirgin was insistent that it be noted that I had copied the questions that jguk had posed for all candidates (I have since deleted those questions as added by me, and jguk has added them back himself; I guess this is a significant difference to Slim). In light of this, it would seem to be appropriate to note the many questions that have been directed to Jayjg but deleted by others.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Marsden 19:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Whilst I am flattered that Marsden appreciates my questions so much, I'm somewhat surprised the whole brouhaha wasn't resolved by Marsden asking the questions in his own name. I imagine what got other editors' goats was claiming the questions were asked of Jayjg by someone who had not placed those questions there.

I have now placed my questions on the more recent candidate statements, so that now every candidate has been asked them. Whilst I would, of course, welcome having them answered, I note that all the questions asked of candidates are voluntary - it is up to each candidate whether or not they choose to answer them - and similarly it is up to those reading the answers (or noting refusals to answer) to decide what import, if any, they have, jguk 19:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem would not have been addressed by my posing the questions in my own name, jguk. Jayjg apparently feels he will be seen as justified in declining to respond to questions that I ask. Marsden 19:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's his decision. It doesn't stop your right to ask a small number of reasonable questions. Whether people agree with Jayjg's refusal to answer any questions raised by yourself (or indeed anyone else) and whether that influences their views on his suitability as an Arbitrator is entirely up to them, jguk 19:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is reasonable, but not necessarily true, given that several editors have taken it upon themselves to delete questions directed to Jayjg that they don't like, leaving no direct trace of the questions having been asked. Hence this section. Marsden 19:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that every user who had a question removed was asked to reword it so that it wasn't a thinly veiled personal attack. No questions were deleted on the basis that an editor "didn't like" the question. Are vandals blocked because an admin doesn't like the vandalism? No, it's because vandalism is not allowed, and neither are personal attacks. Carbonite | Talk 19:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just seen Marsden's latest question [48]. I don't think any reasonable editor would see this as being a reasonable question. Marsden, surely you can tell the difference between a question such as "What line of work are you in?", which to my mind would be a reasonable question (it offers useful background knowledge about a candidate and his real-life experices), and your question, which, as Carbonite rightly states is a thinly veiled personal attack. Marsden, I don't know whether your other questions reflect genuine concerns you have about Jayjg's suitability as an Arbitrator or not - but if your last attempt is anything to go by, I am not surprised people have deemed them so inappropriate that they should be deleted, jguk 20:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Jguk, would you think it mattered at all if someone on ArbCom was paid by an organization in order to promote a particular agenda? Would this at least be something that editors of Wikipedia, who one day could have an issue before ArbCom, should want to know? If Jayjg's employment has nothing at all to do with his participation on Wikipedia, that should be awfully easy for him to declare quite clearly. Instead, SlimVirgin is doing handstands to disguise that he has even been asked about it. Marsden 00:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marsden was rightly blocked for that outrageous insinuation. The sound of the grinding of axes was deafening. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could hardly hear it over the Pots calling the Kettles Black. Unbehagen 23:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to slrubinstein

Marsden: you have every right to criticize any Wikipedian, as long as you are not making personal attacks. But this is not the place. The title of this section is "question from Marsden" but I see no question. I do not want to get involved in the debate over you and personal attacks, at least not right now. But I believe that the comment you are making here belongs on the talk page, not here. Let us use this page for raising questions we want Jayjg to answer, and the talk page for discussion of Jayjg's candidacy. This is precisely what the talk page is for. I will not move your comments myself, right now. I urge you to do the right thing, and move this discussion to the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

SLR --

????

Did anyone else here have the impression that various people are campaigning to be on the Arbitration Committee, and that the purpose of these pages was to allow that whether or not they should be on ArbCom could be investigated? And yet some of you claim that this is not the place for criticism? I guess if Saddam Hussein were a candidate, he could note that he ran a mid-sized nation for over a decade, and that when he left his office, the nation immediately fell into chaos. And then it would be inappropriate for anyone to bring up the matter of his using mustard gas on the Kurds in Iraq, or starting two wars that he lost.

My comment belongs exactly where it is, and I suggest that you do the right thing, SLR, and leave it there. Sorry.

Marsden 00:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to restore my question to Jayjg

Barring any reasonable arguments -- that would be "arguments," as opposed to "assertions" -- that my questions about the relation of Jayjg's employment to his participation in Wikipedia really do violate any policy, I'm going to restore them. Jayjg is of course not obligated to respond, but I don't think any good reason can be given for hiding the fact that he has been asked the question.

I have filed an RfAr against SlimVirgin for her block of me for this edit.

Marsden 19:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a real question, Marsden. It's a vicious personal attack and if you post it again, you're likely to be blocked again. If you want to ask: "Are you paid to edit Wikipedia?", ask it, without the sarcastic commentary and closed questions. Otherwise, it will deleted again, and please note that you can't intimidate admins by threatening them with dispute resolution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you assert that it is a "vicious personal attack?" If we assume good faith of Jayjg, then why would any direct question about the circumstances under which he participates in Wikipedia be a personal attack at all? Isn't it just a matter of transparency?

The commentary I gave is factual, and it is not sarcastic (other than the humorous comment about whether his firm is hiring, but I hope no one takes that as any sort of barb), and what is wrong with a closed questions, which only the first of my questions was, in any case? There is no limitation on Jayjg's elaboration of any of his responses, and I, unlike others, have not removed any information from Jayjg's candidate questions page, nor do I have any intention to do so.

I never intend to intimidate anyone, Slim; I only intend to get them to work within the rules.

Marsden 19:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait until tomorrow evening for an argument that my question violates any policy, and then restore it. Unbehagen has added a variation of my question, which SlimVirgin has, inconsistently, indicated she will not revert, but, given that I asked the question first and provided background information to it, I'm still going to restore my question if all indications continue to be that it was not a violation of any Wikipedia policy at all. Marsden 21:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unbehagen has asked an open question, which will get you your answer, if it's an answer you want. If you restore your sordid "questions" now, you'll simply be confirming that you're here only to cause trouble. You could try editing the encyclopedia one day, Marsden. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you understand what open and closed questions are, Slim? Marsden 21:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from project page because it's not a question): People reading this should know that any question other than very softball ones to make JayJG look good and get elected are being erased. I've been told by JayJG's election campaigners that just telling people this is a "personal attack" on JayJG that they will have an admin ban me for. Anyhow, while not conceding that hardball questions can't be asked here, I think people should know that the hardball questions are in the talk page of this page, and you can also see them in this page's history, which JayJG's election campaigners keep deleting. And I will not tolerate deletion of this. I should note I am not a lone nut with a grudge against JayJG, many people have issues with this, just look through the history or go to the discussion. Ruy Lopez 23:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No argument having been made

I'm going to restore my questions in about an hour. Marsden 00:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here it goes. Perhaps my last words on Wikipedia: My faith is good. Marsden 01:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Marsden

A couple of days ago I advised Marsden to move his comment to the talk page. He has neither followed my advice, nor responded to my reasoning. So I am removing it to the talk page. I have removed the following from the candidate statement page because this is not a question, it is a criticism (asking if the candidate can rebut the criticism is not a real question, it is just hiding an exclamation point behind a fake question mark. As a matter of fact, Marsden labels his comment a "characterization" and I think it verges on character-assassination, i.e., a personal attack. Marsden has been blocked for this in the past. I hesitate to block him now, on the one hand because I want to see if he has learned his lesson, on the other hand, because I do not think he will — and if blocking him temporarily doesn't make a difference, I do not know what will. Marsden's comments follow:

Question from Marsden

In my extensive experience with you, you have promoted and defended your POV with regard to matters related to Israel in ways that have been belligerent and contemptuous of the possibility that you are strongly biased in what you consider a neutral point of view. I do not know whether this is deliberate on your part or due to an honest blindspot in your thinking such that you are simply incapable of recognizing that yours is only one point of view among many, and that it is often completely biased. In any case, I consider your attitude to be a disqualifying characteristic for any sort of general arbitration function, and I intend, barring an unforeseen explanation from you, to campaign vigorously against your candidacy here.

In particular, I direct you to your activity in the Israeli-occupied territories article, and the reaction of other editors to it ([49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]), and to the history of the Moroccan Wall edits from September 23 to October 7, in which you and a few editors who are often found supporting your positions in editing disputes obstructed the improvement of the article for over two weeks ([56]).

I honestly cannot think of anything you could say in any reasonable amount of time to change my mind about you, but given that I am going to recommend that people oppose your candidacy, is there any sort of rebuttal you'd like to make to my characterization above of your behavior on Wikipedia?

Marsden 01:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marsden you have made around 300 article edits, of which the majority are reverts. You have been blocked ~~four~~ five times by ~~four~~ five different administrators for trolling, disruption, and "vicious and mean-spirited attacks,"[57] which you've made against several editors, including Fred Bauder over an Arbitration Committee case you weren't even involved in. You have said that I am "evil"[58], that I should "get used to having a stick held over [my] head"[59] because your role here is to "beat [me] into submission".[60] You'll therefore understand why I suspect your assessment in these matters is less than neutral, and why I don't bother answering your thinly veiled attacks cloaked in the guise of questions. Real questions on the subject of your attacks have already been answered, and I won't be responding to you any further. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for at least not completely ignoring my criticism of your behavior, Jayjg. I don't think, however, that I've ever said that my role here was to hold a stick over your head or to beat you into submission; it is more that that has seemed to be the only way to get you off of a POV position that you have decided to promote. Nor have I made any attacks against Fred Bauder, regardless of how you may characterize my comments to him. Marsden 01:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marsden: you have every right to criticize any Wikipedian, as long as you are not making personal attacks. But this is not the place. The title of this section is "question from Marsden" but I see no question. I do not want to get involved in the debate over you and personal attacks, at least not right now. But I believe that the comment you are making here belongs on the talk page, not here. Let us use this page for raising questions we want Jayjg to answer, and the talk page for discussion of Jayjg's candidacy. This is precisely what the talk page is for. I will not move your comments myself, right now. I urge you to do the right thing, and move this discussion to the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clear to anyone, that someone who states "I honestly cannot think of anything you could say in any reasonable amount of time to change my mind about you" is not someone who is sincere in asking a genuine question. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Zordrac

Support - not sure where to put this, but Jayjg has impressed me as possibly the best and most unbiased administrator on Wikipedia. His actions in questioning admins who were using bully boy tactics to try to push through obviously wrong decisions, both in difficult POV disputes and in RFAs is to be commended. I do not think that I have ever been as impressed by an administrator, and I am confident that Jayjg would help to make the Arbitration Committee truly neutral, especially when accusations are made against administrators, and would help to stop admins being "untouchable" and increase accountability for Wikipedia. I will vote a big time support for Jayjg. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from project page

Question From Ruy Lopez

My question is similar to Unbehagen's, of all the great candidates on Wikipedia, why should one like yourself who pushes a Zionist POV on the Israel/Palestine pages be rewarded by going onto ArbCom? You would have never have survived an election, which is why you were appointed instead. You wouldn't be able to survive an election this time either, but since Jimbo says there will be no election perhaps you'll make it back again. Ruy Lopez 22:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I should note this question has been removed multiple times. Ruy Lopez 21:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because it's a rhetorical question that only reveals your intentions but does not actually solicit any information from the candidate. JFW | T@lk 17:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]