User talk:Jayjg/Archive 17

Block

It appears you forgot to leave a message on Jeremygbyrne's talk page. He might be a little confused when he returns.Timothy Usher 22:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again to Timothy (now that I can edit here again). Jayjg, it took you a little over twenty minutes from Timothy's request to block me, although policy suggests caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith and warns that blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions should be treated especially carefully regardless of the reasoning for the block (and aren't most people given at least some kind of right of reply in equivocal cases like this?) In contrast, it took you over nine hours from Timothy's request to let me know what had happened, although policy on "How to block" instructs blocking admins to notifying users of blocks on their talk pages so others won't expect the blocked user to respond to talkpage contacts. Could you please have a look at this explanation? I feel that the record shows I didn't violate 3RR. Thanks for your careful consideration of this matter.  JEREMY 10:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy, it's nice to see you out of the box. You'd violated under any interpretation, as rewording with same intent is simply gaming the system, but as it stands, even if the four reverts were completely unrelated, they'd still count. This is being discussed and debated now on Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule.Timothy Usher 11:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording with the same intent, now. Again with the bad faith accusations. To quote the discussion page you directed me to, The spirit of the 3RR has always been "the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars". So, why did you request that I be blocked (and indeed Jayjg, why did you block me?) over six hours after my last edit to the article?  JEREMY 11:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, reading further in talk:3RR, how could you make a cogent analysis and recommendations like these, argue consistently for sanity in the 3RR interpretation policy, and then make this "maximal interpretation"-based complaint against me? I was entirely unfamiliar with the particular piece of jurisprudence in question (having last read the policy, several times in fact, two days prior to the 18-April changes — as you may know, given you used that direction to me in your complaint), and would have responded positively to some kind of pointer to it. That might have been a good way to get me to stop what I assume you must have seen as ongoing disruptive editing — although given you'd left it six hours anyway, what was the hurry? Unlike the case under discussion on talk:3RR, I didn't have "the rule explained to [me] again just days before [I] was blocked", so I'm not sure why you, Jayjg, felt it necessary to do this without discussion. I also note your (Jayjg's) statement that "The interpretation that has always existed and been enforced is that any reverts count, and 3 as a "reasonable" upper limit (though not an entitlement) was promoted by Jimbo and voted on by a large consensus." Jayjg, did you see me, four hours later, as just another good example of the problem, to be speedily blocked without warning?  JEREMY 12:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even under the minimal interpretation, rewording of the very same passage to the same effect counts. The question is, whether it would count had you reverted an unrelated section of the article. Apparantly, despite my spirited argument on Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule, the answer is yes, though I doubt this will ever be consistently applied (and I suspect that may be exactly the point).Timothy Usher 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it took less than two hours to send me the block notice; my apologies — I often have trouble with the way wikipedia time-stamps stuff. However, I stand by my accusation that you (Jayjg) treated me with contempt barely appropriate to a newcomer repeat vandal, and suggest that you need to recuse yourself in these circumstances, given how frequently you and I are in content conflicts over controversial material.  JEREMY 03:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was technically 3RR (I now realise). And yes, you blocked me. But you did it without warning, the opportunity to retract the revert in question (which I certainly would have, under the circumstances) or to stop editing the article (which I did when offered the opportunity). I'm not insinuating there's something irregular, I'm reporting my perceptions. If those perceptions are in error, I apologise. However, the essence of effective cooperation is anticipating the reaction of others in order to minimise misunderstandings like this. In future, please exercise more discretion.  JEREMY 07:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for acknowledging that; it was indeed the first time I'd been blocked for anything.  JEREMY 08:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would like your input on...

A new template, called Template:White American that was created today and was propagated across several topics on American ethnic groups. It does not sit well with me, but I'd like more people to weigh in. --Leifern 23:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An old AfD

You commented in the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopping encylopedia. I have started an AfD of a related article at wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopperpedia. Your comments there would be appreciated. Graham talk 10:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadinejad

I thought your point concerning WP:NOR was well-taken. However, this is an uphill struggle. --Mantanmoreland 15:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THX

Hi! Thanx for moving my username from ArthurNorbert to NorbertArthur, how it should be. Cheers, Arthur 12 June 2006

WP:RS

The impetus for the mailing list archives section of WP:RS originally derived from an attempt to exclude h-antisemtism from Wikipedia, and perhaps not surprisingly arose in the [Martin Niemöller] and Martin Luther related pages. You may be interested in this newly created WP:RS section] and the related discussions. You may also note where there is the familiar and false claim to be representing “the consensus.” Collegially, Doright 18:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at International criminal law

You seem to think that the ICC isn't part of international criminal law in your recent edits to crime of apartheid. Strange stuff from my perspective. Anyways, I'll try to tighten up both articles when I get some time. --Ben Houston 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's next on my list to source. I have started some preliminary work -- there are many great ones in Google Scholar. --Ben Houston 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte

Could you check if Brasoveanul (talk · contribs) is a sock of Bonny? Very similar behavior, thanks. —Khoikhoi 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Bonaparte recently got into an edit war as GDP with a certain user, and then in Brasoveanul's 2nd edit he makes a comment to him. —Khoikhoi 00:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this comment makes it the most obvious. —Khoikhoi 06:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I guess I'll ask someone to block him then. —Khoikhoi 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways

Is there a reason the ArbCom is not touching any pages other than the proposed decision? --SPUI (T - C) 01:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

west bank barrier

The following section is nither NPOV nor meets WP:RS. I am unable to fix it since a trigerhappy admin banned me from that article. can you fix it:

"Apartheid wall" is a controversial derogatory political epithet sometimes used to describe the barrier. Some opponents of the barrier argue it prompotes apartheid in that its extension into the West Bank isolates Palestinian communities and consolidates the annexation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlements. The barrier, it is argued, is part of a "long-term policy of occupation, discrimination and expulsion," which effectively constitutes a feature of Israeli apartheid, ^[1] a term used as an analogy for South African apartheid.

Thanks,Zeq 05:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

since when a claim by an ISM book is either {{WP:RS]] or WP:NPOV (the book is also self published)

and why, because of one wimsical admin I can no longer edit an article that I have nither disruprted nor engage in any other violation of ? Zeq 06:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AmericanPatriot29

user:JJstroker/user:Jerry Jones keeps returning, and keeps adding images with incorrect license tags. Not to mention his other "contributions". I've blocked several puppets, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jerry Jones, but they keep coming. Could you please checkuser the accounts, in case it helps solve future problems? Thanks, -Will Beback 05:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hello Jayjg,

I have a request. Could you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Some_evidences_that_the_article_is_still_disputed

The question is whether "Jewish Encyclopedia" could be cited in wikipedia (Pecher argues that it is outdated). Your input is appreciated.

Thanks,--Aminz 09:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Jayjg. The story is that on Dhimmi article, Pecher thinks the article is both factual and neutral and wants to remove the disputed tags. However several arguments (at Dhimmi) has been made to show the article is not undisputed (using JE). Pecher believes JE is outdated and can not be cited in wikipedia. So, "all" those arguments simply go away. For example, JE states that there were "enlightened" conversions to Islam, Gacs gives a couple of reasons for that, fine, someone else may give other reasons but this at least shows that all conversions to Islam were not either forced or because of the situation of Dhimmi's in Muslim lands. Can you please somehow explain to me how this contradiction could be explained? --Aminz 23:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:IronDuke

Jayg, what is the justification for protecting the pages that IronDuke has asked you to, without any comment? He claims "sock", but provides no proof. I and others should be able to edit anonymouosly if we want, isn't that one of the central pillars of Wikipedia? -- BlindVenetian 17:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still Irate

Hi Jayjg. It seems that User:Irate has been using the IP address 84.9.193.34 recently. The discussion today at Talk:Liverpool#Image bears all the hallmarks of his previous behaviour, while this comment is too much of a coincidence. What do you think? --RFBailey 22:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a speedy response! --RFBailey 22:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Thanks for your help. No rush but when you get a sec, can you sprotect CUPE? Thanks. IronDuke 03:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ghirlandajo

has seen fit to start making threats over a user dispute at Oleg. I have done my best to be reasonable but his trollism and pattern of vandalism (see also Oleg of Novgorod) is driving me to distraction (to the minimal extent it's possible to be upset by virtual interactions with people I've never met). Your counsel and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes to RfC or similar proceeding,, I will certainly put my two cents in. As it stands, believe me, I will avoid further conversation with him to the greatest extent possible, and certainly limit it to article-related topics. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He picks yet another fight...[1]

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JE Citations

any thoughts? --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Judiaam

If you are around, perhaps you would like to comment on this: [2] Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocking of user:Socafan

This user has contacted me disputing the block. Can you review it please and post evidence of sockpuppetry? I'm not convinced myself. Is there any chance this is just a new user who got caught up in the argument at talk:circumcision? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK well since you are not sure, and the checkuser result is inconclusive, and Socofan is currently behaving like a wronged user rather than a sockpuppeter I've undone your block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you violated the blocking policy: Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages. That way, other editors will be aware that the user is blocked, and will not expect responses to talk page comments. Furthermore, as you did not present any evidence supporting your accusation, I moot this apparently common practice at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser#Enforcement of policies and Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#presenting evidence to support an accusation. I hope this will turn the whole unpleasant incident into something helpful in bettering the project. Happy editing in the future, and please try to be nice to Dabljuh. Socafan 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZimZum? Is that you? Tom e r ^talk 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do something fruitful rather than making more unsubstantiated accusations. As I saw, the block against the user you named was removed as in his case no evidence had been presented either. Socafan 23:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks removed. Stop reposting it! Socafan 23:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to open an RfC re: User:Socafan? Tom e r ^talk 06:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even more Irate

He's moved to the 84.9.211.x range: see here. --RFBailey 14:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: sorry for the hassle! --RFBailey 17:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is him as well..... --RFBailey 22:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Briangotts

Oh, nice, the guy abuses rollback button, calls me vandal and troll without providing a single diff, refuses to substantiate his position in any meaningful way... And yet not a word of reproach for him? Talk about problem admins then... RfA procedures should clearly be revised if we have admins who seem not to know that rollback is for fighting vandalism, seem to be unaware that such things as edit summaries exist, and mark most of their postings as "minor". When he arrived here with his delations, I hoped that you would help to compensate Brian's obvious lack of experience in disputes and admin space by a helpful advice, but now I see that you seem to encourage him for further confrontation. Sigh... --Vandal and troll ^-трёп- 19:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

I thought your condensation of this contentious page was good. It still has repetition and needs work. At parts it reads as if it were written by the Iranian Foreign Ministry. You might want to take a look at the latest revert by user Liftam. This user insists on deleting descriptions of the individuals who contest the translations. I can't touch (3RR).--Mantanmoreland 15:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I wonder if too much space is devoted to the whole translation issue?--Mantanmoreland 16:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I yanked the Holocaust stuff out of the Israel section. Basically this all started when some editors were screaming that MA was in the anti-Semitic people category and there was no reference to his anti-Semitism. So it was added. Then they started picking at what was added, and in the process built up the "translation" business to much more than it really is. Now they're pushing to get rid of the category. It just goes on and on.--Mantanmoreland 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that in my mini-rewrite I moved his comments on the Holocaust down to the anti-Semitism section. It has nothing to do with Israel, as you point out.--Mantanmoreland 00:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for this [3]

btw, how do I get a fair hearing since Tony-Sidaway is both the prosecutor, judge and exceusioner that decided how to interpret ArbCom rulling and since then no other admin is diligiant enough to take a look (excpet the 3-4 that told him he was way overreacting) Zeq 18:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of section title: "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism"

Please take a look [4]. --Doright 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Nadir

User:Pecher's remarkable work on this article is coming under ridiculous attack. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's no longer permissible to portray Muhammad "in a negative light." Funny, the authors of all those hadiths didn't seem to think it was so negative. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When it rains...

And now this mishugas...

[5]

-Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVD+R/W's RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which ended with the result of (74/0/0). If there is anything I can help with feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything I am doing wrong, please point that out as well. I look forward to working with you in the future.

Highest regards, DVD+ R/W 02:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation?

Jayjg, I am curious as to whether there is some mediation process between users. Every day I attempt to clear things up with Netscott, and every day he comes around to start things up again. It honestly seems to me as if he has a running list of people he'd like to drive off of Wikipedia, the last one was FairNBalanced, I defended FNB against a proposed indefinite ban, and now he's latched onto me. He acts as if he is the sole arbitrer of good faith, and by some arcane and indefeasable calculus, he's concluded (or at least claims) that I don't have it.Timothy Usher 11:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

FYI -- and in response to comments made by yourself and another editor -- I boiled down the section of this article (see my most recent edit) on the overblown "translation issue" re his remarks on Israel. Over time it had become made ever-lengthier by POV-pushers, thereby giving undue weight to a minor semantic quibble. I also condensed the article generally.--Mantanmoreland 15:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

Why use talk page ?

weeeks and weeks of attempts to reason and compromise with homey blatent violation of almost every wikipedia policy have lead no where so I wonder why use talk page at all ? do you think he get convinced by any argument. He knows very well that what he did was a clear violation of WP:Not and he used material that violates WP:RS. Zeq 03:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More sock attacks

I just created a number of new articles on the members of the Portland Seven. They are under attack by the sock, again. The articles are Patrice Lumumba Ford, Habis Abdulla al Saoub, Ahmed Bilal, Muhammad Bilal, October Lewis, and Jeffrey Battle (and CUPE again). IronDuke 15:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

Thanks for voting!
Hello Jayjg/Archive 17, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli propaganda

Hi Jay: Meet the new Category:Israeli propaganda. All the best, IZAK 08:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you can verify my translation

Talk:Gaza_beach_blast#Haaretz_exact_wording

Tnx, Zeq 12:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to the block

I had just written up an extensive 3RR notice on Ulritz for his reverts on Zionist political violence, when your notice showed up about his edits on Qana shelling. I would suggest examining what other mischief this user has been up to on other articles. Here's additional material, in case it's needed later:

Previous version reverted to 14:25, 15 June 2006
1st revert 07:12, 16 June 2006
2nd revert: 13:01, 16 June 2006
3rd revert: 14:29, 16 June 2006
4th revert: 04:16, 17 June 2006
5th revert: 09:07, 17 June 2006

New tactic: repeatedly adding "{{fact}}" after the word "used":

Time report made: 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Ulritz was warned on his talk page previously for possible 3RR violation, during his first round of reverts on Zionist political violence. Has ignored the extensive discussion on the article's talk page and repeatedly re-inserted "{{fact}}" after the word "used", contending that "Zionist terrorism" is only "regarded" as a political epithet by supporters of Israel. Was asked on the article talk page to desist from edit warring.

Additional background: Appears particularly knowledgeable of Wikipedia editing for a new user: first edit (on April 25) was to place the German coat of arms on his user page; second was to place the coat of arms and flag of Prussia on his talk page; third edit was a revert. Marks most edits, even when responding to talk pages, as "minor". Principally only edits articles involving Germany, WWII, and Israel. Attempted to slip a claim into The Holocaust article that "some elements, including the figures, are disputed" with a link to Holocaust denial-- over which he likewise edit-warred, claiming "it's a good idea to present all POV ". --Leflyman^Talk 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight

This issue has been resolved. :) --Brion 17:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

83.91.187.9 at Mahmoud Ahmedinejad

Also I do believe that he has violated 3RR, in addition to his edits being over-the-top POV pushing. He may additionally be a sockpuppet of another editor. I am fairly new to the administrative procedures but I think something needs to be done about this editor. --Mantanmoreland 23:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE; Blocking and arbitration request

I'd be happy to discuss this with you off-channel, such as on IRC or through email. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[6]

What ever occured with the nakba mediation ?

best, Zeq 15:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This photo

This is a dishonest edit: [7]

the caption on the actual photo is correct - this is part of the wall on the green line but whoever put into the article wants to Push a POV that this is a wall Israel placed between palestinians areas (where in fact it is between Israel and the west bank.

It is very unfair to ban me from that article. The ban was not for good cause and other than the admins who expressed to Tony that the ban was not warrented no one seems to review the whole ban and hopefully undo Tony one sided and wrong action.

btw, Tony promised that he will review Homey edits. I am sure if he would have done that he would see how POV pushing they were and my attempts were a good faith attempt to NPOV homey's POV pushing. This is not what anyone should be banned for. Zeq 15:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Israelwall.jpg - original caption mention the green line.

the editor was notified on his bad faith edit but this is his reply: [8] Zeq 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Hi Jay,

You have demonstrated to me many times your ability to find the NPOV "golden path".

Wonder what do you think of this: [9] ? Zeq 19:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny socks

Would you mind doing a checkuser on User:Sonofzion and User:216.249.5.164? Considering the subjects and the extensive knowledge of WP processes of these 'new' editors, I suspect that they are socks of HOTR being used to skirt a 48 block. FeloniousMonk 22:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. FeloniousMonk 22:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezer is harassing me by trying to delete real articles

Sadly, Elizer is again engaging in harassment of me, this time by trying to delete real Wikipedia articles on real organizations. The claim he made on the Shefa Network page is false and disingenuous. The Shefa Network is a very real group, and in fact is already larger than many organizations that Wikipedia already has many articles on.

The Shefa Network already has several hundred members, they have their own journal, their own website, they have already had two major conferences, and two more conferences are planned soon. Yet Eliezer and a friend of his is deleting an article in bad faith. As a very clear sign of his bad faith, Eliezer has refused to even discuss the issue on the article's discussion page, despite the fact that I am trying to engage in civil discourse. Eliezer and his friend haven't even tried to see if the group exists!

Note the timestamps; they tried to delete the article within minutes of its creation. They obviously didn't even try to read the group's official website, or read its academic journal. They certainly never went to any of Shefa's conferences! They also never joined Shefa's e-mail list and asked anyone about the group. Look, attempting to delete a page without even trying to ascertain the facts is clearly against Wikipedia policy. And doing so while refusing to engage in dialogue is editing in bad faith, by definition.

If someone somehow still doubts that this organization exists, I can arrange for an interview with its founder, or its journal editor, webmaster, and members of this organization who have been to Shefa's academic conferences. Since Eliezer and his friend refuse to respond to this offer, it is obvious that they are trying to censor based on bad faith. RK 14:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neturei Karta

Please defend those links on the talk page there. --Daniel575 14:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism

Dear Jayjg! I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Please put it on your watchlist, and please add relevant AfD's as you find them. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JS

Your javascript monobook seems to have MediaWiki PHP code in it. Doesn't that just give an error message?Voice-of-All 08:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dependng on your browser, errors will either opo-up, or silently occur in javascript console. The oversight PHP will fail immediatly, since it is serverside, and JS is a client-side, and a different language (though they all stem form C). Likely your console says that "<?php" is not a valid command. You'll have to remove all of that in order for the JS to work.Voice-of-All 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic POV in Judaism article

Messianic POV in Judaism article Hi Jay: Kindly see Talk:Judaism for some debates about POV issues concerning the article. Thank you. IZAK 04:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pisgat Ze'ev

It seems some people can't leave this Israeli settlement issue alone. Please see edit war going on at Pisgat Ze'ev. Thank you, Yoninah 05:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defining majority/minority on NPOV

You may recall our very brief discussion a month ago about explicitly stating what majority means on NPOV. I was wondering if you might comment on this. I actually paraphrase some of the wording you made in this edit so I thought you would support my suggested addition. Thanks, Marskell 16:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

glad to see admins acting normal

I stumbled upon Jesus through RC. Good to see you self-reverted from a non-trivial article change due to the article being protected. Kevin_b_er 01:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Original Research

Hello. You just deleted a huge amount of work that I put into a page here, "Sabbath", citing the "Original Research" clause as the reason. However, every single entry I made I cited my sources. Is it possible that I did not cite them correctly? You even deleted the links that I inserted into the external links section. I was quite professional in my approach and said nothing POV. Can you tell me why you deleted all of my entries so that next time I can enter them correctly?

Thank you for your time and for your assistance in this matter.

Sincere Regards,

Kimberlie Currier, Ph.D. (Song Of The Forest)

Some category namings

Hi Jay: Please see:

Thank you. IZAK 04:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP address

Jayjg, I use dynamic IPs, so that will explain why my IPs up to now have been associated with vandalism/sockpuppetry. However, my IPs changed now, so don't worry. -- Sunholm (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOVing the lead in israeli apartheid

Israeli apartheid is a term used by those who oppose israel's being the homeland of the Jewish people. The proponents of using this term claim that there is a analogy between Israel's policy toward Palestinians (inside Israel and in the Palestinian territories) and the apartheid regimen policy toward blacks while opponents of using the term point out that it is not accurate historically and that even critics of Israel's policies should not be using a term that is offensive and used as justification for attacks on Israel's right to exist with a goal of turnning Israel to a country rulled by Palestinians.

The accusation is often found on webs sites of all ranges of new anti-Semites – from neo-Nazis to extreme left.

See :

http://www.mideastweb.org/israel_apartheid.htm

http://www.zionism-israel.com/issues/Apartheid.html

http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000117.html

see example:

The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by those opposed to the LGBT rights movement, especially conservative Christians and other social conservatives in the United States, to describe what they see as the attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider traditional morality. The term is considered offensive by many,[1], particularly those who see the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.[2][3] Zeq 09:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists

Sorry, the only change I saw was for Zuckerman so I cut and paste that into my changes when I had an edit conflict. Missed the others. Will revert and try to integrate my changes. Homey 21:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zuckerman

According to Mortimer Zuckerman as well as his business interests he is editor in chief of US News & World Report and "occasionally appears on The McLaughlin Group and writes columns for U.S. News & World Report and the New York Daily News". Of course, whoever added Zuckerman to the list is more interested in what he owns than in whether or not he writes a column.Homey 21:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hi, Jayjg, just show you a link to A.Khalil's user talk. There seems to be some talk about you being biased and such. This is just to inform you in case you don't know :D --Terrancommander 13:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alebrouni is back

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.219.190.156

wtf???

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_28#Category:People_killed_by_order_of_Muhammad Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Green Footballs and Rachel Corrie

Hi. We're currently having a dispute about the status of the Rachel Corrie section on the Little Green Footballs page. One user believes that in the Rachel Corrie section, the article should spend some time to detail why Charles Johnson is unqualified to give an opinion about her death. [10] While I agree about Johnson's relative lack of qualifications, ultimately, inserting such in the article seems to constitute original research to me. There is discussion of this matter on the talk page, here: [11].

I'm asking for help not in your function as administrator, everything has remained very civil there, but rather as an experienced editor with some expertise in what constitutes original research. I was wondering if you could take a look, and give your opinion perhaps. Thank you. Bibigon 19:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support for my recent RfA, which I'm quite happy to announce has passed with a consensus of 67 supporting, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. I'm glad I meet your criteria. Most of all, I'm glad you took the time to evaluate my candidacy, as I believe that's what keeps RfA running smoothly, and I'll be working hard to justify the vote of confidence you've placed in me. Please let me know at my talk page if you have any comments on my performance as an admin. Thanks! TheProject 02:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"reliable and scholarly sources"

How can ArbCom rulling which is not about a specific user be enforced ?

I am referying to this: Talk:Israeli_apartheid#Chris_McGreal___WP:RS Zeq 15:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I wanted to add that apart from non WP:RS sources used in this article, there is pleanty of OR which is based on the way facts are presented. An article by Moshe Dayan in June 67 can not be cited to claim that israel partice apartheid. similarly much of the ILA/JNF "data" is refuted by Camera report. Zeq 19:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, Do you think using chris Mcgreal false info confirm with WP:RS and the above rulling ? Zeq 18:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the policies of the project are going to be enforced on this article ? If I misunderstand the policy please explain - I want to understand . Zeq 06:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More original research -- Israeli Apartheid Division

Hi. Sorry to bother you again, but since you were so helpful at conveying to another editor the true nature of original research with the LGF article, I was wondering if you could help out again. This is time, it's about the Israeli Apartheid article, and specifically, the section about accusations that Israel practices apartheid.

I believe the entire text from "As part of its land development efforts" to "the bill was narrowly defeated when it came to a vote" is original research. It cites its sources, but it cites them for the facts of the argument, not for the argument itself. Right now, it is just a well sourced argument being made by Wikipedia editors themselves it seems to me. The origins of the chain of reasoning remain unsourced in the article, which leads to my original research questions.

If you could take a look and comment, I'd be much obliged. Thank you. Bibigon 18:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both the BBC and the Guardian articles cited refer explicitly make mentions of apartheid in regard to Israel's land policy. Homey 19:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

I think a potentially very disruptive template is on verge of being kept. If you have time, please take a look at this TfD discussion. [12] Regards. 172 | Talk 21:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Oops... thanks for pointing that out. I don't know how I could have missed it. --Ian Pitchford 07:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endless X-American discussions

I would intensely appreciate you commenting and explaining Wikipedia's NOR policies here [13]. Arniep is once again questioning what was so clearly explained on the British Jews page. Cheers, Mad Jack 15:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

Request for locking of page or block of user

Hi, hope you can help. I have been editing the Colchester Royal Grammar School page for a while and it has recently been edited by a user who has made several changes that I have reverted, as can be seen in the history page. [14]. I have asked him repeatedly for discussion about his edits but he has refused and continues to revert my edits. I have pointed him towards wikipedia policy concerning their edits but he has ignored these. Can you please help resolve this situation. Thanks Pluke 07:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thank you

Thank you!

Thank you, Dr. Jay, for your support in my RfA. I appreciate your trust and support, and I will do my best to further help this great encyclopædia and community of ours. If there is anything that you feel I can do to help, please let me know. -- Avi 02:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Zionism

Hello, Jay. Would you mind moving Religious Zionist Movement to Religious Zionism over the redirect? See the talk page for reasons and consensus, but I think it's a fairly obvious move anyway. Thanks, DLand ^TALK 14:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --DLand ^TALK 20:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

recent edit

Jay,

While this edit is a good one: [15] it does no go far enough. In an article in whcih not wp:RS sources are used to show that israel is anapartheid state, the false in thse arguments need to be countered - but not just by people who say "calling israel an apartheid state" is offensive.

The real NPOV will show that every claim 9such as the land claims) is pure false. That sources reported it are no wp:rs (see arbcom decision).

Also to use , at the start odf the aryicle quotes fromMoshe Dayan is rediculus. it was 40 years ago and problems and solutions were different. In any case to NPOV Dayan words (which need to go way down in the article) the correct answer is not to use someone who sais that dayan "solution" is bad but to show that the anmalogy of bantustan is complety false. Zeq 17:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-American nonsense

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Irish-Americans, a test case. Arniep 19:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please retract your inaccurate claim

Jay, on my talk page you claimed that I'd been involved in edit-warring on Israeli apartheid. I've made precisely eleven edits to the article in question over a period of four days (diffs for you to look at: [16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22], [23],[24],[25],[26]). Do you consider making minor copyedits to fix typos etc, removing a grossly POV and possibly libellous claim (which nobody has tried to restore), and adding an unopposed category and some unopposed historical background to be "edit warring?" Particularly since nobody has objected to or reverted any of the changes I made? I expect a retraction of your claim. -- ChrisO 23:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it three times, thus reverting three different editors, is edit-warring. That is what I was referring to. Would you prefer "move-warred"? I haven't seen that phrase used on Wikipedia before. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, move-warring is the more accurate term (I've certainly seen that before). But WP:3RR applies in this as in other cases of editing conflicts, and you'll note that I've certainly not gone beyond the 3 reversion limit. -- ChrisO 00:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I haven't accused you of violating 3RR. I've changed the comment to "move-warred". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Apartheid arbitration

The move/revert war issue for Israeli Apartheid has been referred to arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid --John Nagle 00:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Iraq

It seems like someone is editing out my reference to the 1969 lynchings in Iraq and replacing it with a skewed pro-Baathist view on post-1963 Iraqi Jewish history. As the lynchings were the most important events in post-1963 Iraqi history, I wanted to see if other people could also keep an eye on this article, to prevent such whitewashing--Lastexpofan 06:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Village pump

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Please help me to find the answer to my questions. Thanks.--AndriyK 13:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

west bank barrier

Can you revert these POV edits: [27]. Zeq 14:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help on the Talmud article

We need your help on the Talmud article. Our self-styled "Talmud Defender" is on a tear, deleting every single reference and quotation about historical study of the Talmud. He mass-reverts eevery single source offered, he deletes every quote.

I cannot defend this article from his vandalism alone. We need a group of people to protecxt this page. "Talmud Defender" refuses to cite his sources, deletes all sources and quotes that make him uncomfortable. (Not surprisingly, although he may consider himself Orthodox, I now suspect that he has no actual education in this subject. Even the statements in Artscroll books are considered too liberal for him!) This non-stop deletion of sources, and replacement with unsourced claims, is precisely the sort of problem that Wikipedia is most vunerable to. Without a group of people actively trying to follow official Wikipedia policy, the article will continue to be damaged by him. RK 23:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Apartheid (disambiguation)]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arniep

The guy just won't stop, will he? Now he's created Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Rules for lists of X-Americans, knowing full well we don't have "Rules". Cheers... Mad Jack 16:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RfA!

Thanks for voting!
Hello Jayjg/Archive 17, and thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I'm pleased to announce that it passed with a final tally of (96/0/0). I was overwhelmed by all of the nice comments and votes of confidence from everyone. Thanks again, and see you around! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political Correctness

Hi, I know it is a sinkhole. I know it is a lot to ask. But could you poke into Political Correctness and see if you can play some sort of reasonable voice role?--Cberlet 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not missing something. In the meantime someone else reverted it back to a more reasonable NPOV version. It is complicated. There is a lot of attention in cyberspace to the claims of Michael Lind, Pat Buchanan, and others. This material deserves to be mentioned (but needs better cites), but it recently was made the lead. See this hellzapopin version. Prior to that, the page had been edited in a very sloppy way to totally bury and misrepresent the views of those who are skeptical of the concept of PC. What I am trying to accomplish is a relatively NPOV lead; stressing the dominant view that takes PC seriously, but also pointing out that there is no such movement, and that left intellectuals challenge the whole idea. This is hard when the page is repeatedly rewritten by editors who totally buy into the most doctrinaire right-wing discussions about the deadly threat of PC on WESTERN CIVILZATION AS WE KNOW IT. It might help to see the tit-for-tat here on the Cultural Marxism page--which is related--and subject to a heated debate.

African Americans

Can a person only be put on an African American list if they are quoted as saying they are African American?75.3.49.50 18:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add an article that talks about the Constitution of Palestine

Just as the one that talks abt the Constitution of Lebanon. Robin Hood 1212 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr

A request for arbitration regarding your behavior has been filed. BlackKneeHighMarionette 05:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Hanina

As a arbiter in Wikipedia I hope you will read the words of the Palestinian writer Hanina here: [28]especially the part about History which is where Wikipedia takes part. Best Zeq 10:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Back again. Hope all is well with you and yours. BYT 10:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for outing the "North Carolina Vandal"'s latest IP ranges (4.136.xxx) -- that's going to make it a lot easier for us to fight him. I've been meaning to put in a checkuser request for a while now. He's been a terrific headache for over a year. Antandrus (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

apratheid wall - again

there was a VFD for it but still it is back: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apartheid_%28disambiguation%29&diff=63004532&oldid=62983469. Zeq 06:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stupid question

How do I get the Userbox column and the Babel column on my user page to show up as two separate columns, one next to the other? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS!!! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accused of sockpuppetry: User:Hauke and User:Chrisjj2

...both are tango dancing friends of mine. Hauke lives in Rostock and Chris in the UK. I strongly doubt that there could be any checkuser evidence that they are me, because I use Deutsche Telekom, Berlin. Admin User:Pschemp claims she has evidence for this [29]. Could you re-check and release Hauke, Chris and me from these sock puppet accusations? Thanks a lot. - best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid just told me the request was filed this morning: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tobias Conradi -- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm

Can we do anything about Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Rules for lists of X-Americans? NikkoSilver has now added a bit in their "rules" where essentially anyone with any "foo" ancestry should be listed. Of course, it's basically just a group of Wikipedia editors, and the "rules" they are voting on can not override the basic policy, and of course I am going to be reverting them on the individual pages as much as I can under 3rr - but I am only one guy. Mad Jack 01:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kennedy

I've added a section dealing with his virulent (even for the day) anti-Semitism. If you have any additional info, please feel free to add. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks are trying to chip away at it, too... Why people rush to defend this monster is beyond my ken. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done about all I can on this. Rjensen continues to whitewash. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther and Antisemitism

Do you have an opinion about the proper title for the [section]? CTSWyneken has reverted the title back to the euphemistic, "Luther and the Jews." The section is and has always been about Luther's antisemitism. Amusingly, an editor is now rushing to add some new text to the section that they think is non-antisemitic (actually it is) in an attempt to support CTSWyneken's reversion of the title back to the euphemistic, "Luther and the Jews." What say you? What is the proper title? "Luther and Antisemitism?" "Luther and the Jews?" "Luther and ____?" --Doright 21:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has been dealt with before. "Luther and the Jews" is the more inclusive of the two titles facilitating more material. The editor makes reference to my inclusion of material in this section to make a point or to support continuing to label it "Luther and the Jews". This is not accurate. I added the material to balance it. The editor is quick to jump to conclusions. The title should be reverted back to the title agreed upon within past months.--Drboisclair 23:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PETA

Jay, would you mind commenting here? It's to do with whether PETA can be used as a source in its own article. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg

Hi Jay: Could you please take a look Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sheynhertz-Unbayg. Editors of Hebrew and Yiddish pages have come across User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg's work over the years. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt in the current RfC. Your views would be appreciated as this appears to be a cultural miscommunication too. Thank you IZAK 04:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for yeshivas

Hi again Jay: An important discussion is taking place at Talk:Telshe yeshiva that concerns issues relating to naming conventions for yeshivas. Your comments and observations at Talk:Telshe yeshiva would be very helpful. Perhaps it should become part of a broader discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Naming conventions for yeshivas. Best wishes, IZAK 06:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Clarity

A few days ago on the Talk:International Academic Friends of Israel, I asked you about how you ended up helping with the editing on that article. Specifically I asked:

"[...] I am puzzled as to how Jayjg noticed this article though, it is a new article and there is no talk on either user talk pages relevant to this article? Can you clarify? Thanks. --Ben Houston 19:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

You replied with:

"[...] P.S. In case you weren't aware, not only does Wikipedia have a Recent changes list, but every Wikipeda contributor has a contributions list that is publicly available for viewing. For example, here's yours. I hope that's helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

The above response doesn't actually address my question, it just makes a suggestion as to how it could have happened. My curiousity was unfortunately only further hightened since I know you hold youself to be honest in your dealings even if we do have often different viewpoints. Could you state exactly how you came about to that article? --Ben Houston 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

volunteering for IDF

Service in the IDF is compulsory. To say one served in an elite unit one must volunteer for does not change the fact that one's induction into the service was mandatory. Take an American example. If I were involuntarily "drafted" into the US Army in 1973, I could be sent to Viet Nam. After being sent there, I could volunteer for Army Ranger service. This does not change the fact that I would have been compulsorily drafted into service. Do you have any articles defining the subject's service in the IDF? I think it is important to mention that IDF service is compulsory when stating that one "served in the israeli military." Especially when using language like "elite". ... aa:talk 21:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely what point is served by saying he was a member of an "elite unit"? What I was trying to do was clarify that his service was no different than the service of thousands of other people who serve in the IDF. Much like somebody who was drafted into the Viet Nam war was no different than the thousands of others who served. You might consider stating that "after compulsory induction into the IDF, so-and-so served with elite unit such-and-such." Otherwise, it sounds like cheerleading. However, after reading your contributions and the talk on this page, I have no stomach for being involved in the ... jewish intifada herein. I was simply wandering through a trajectory of articles, found this particular article lacking, and decided to clarify a couple of points. Do what you will, I won't edit it again. ... aa:talk 22:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do I need to present to you?

National military service is compulsory for Jewish and Druze men, and Jewish women, over the age of 18, although exemptions may be made on religious, physical or psychological grounds (see Profile 21). Men in the Haredi community may choose to be exempt while enrolled in Yeshivas, a practice that is a source of tension [1], though some yeshiva programs like Hesder provide opportunities for service.

What are the chances he was the one non-compulsory member of the IDF? ... aa:talk 23:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when it was enacted, and it would be original research to make assumptions even if I did. I suggest you check your own facts. It seems to me that his service was most likely compulsory, and circumstantial evidence seems to point that way as well. Again, I would ask you why "elite" service is more important than the fact that it was non-voluntary (at least initially). ... aa:talk 23:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may choose to justify it to yourself that way, I guess. xoxo, ... aa:talk 23:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for protecting List of religions. Dealing with that revert-war was getting very frustrating. I'm curious; you're an admin, do you feel I was justified in citing the "clear vandalism" exception to 3RR, or should I have refrained from reverting? I'd like to know exactly what to do if/when that anon gets a new account and gets up to his old tricks again. Cheers, Kasreyn 00:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian occupation of Lebanon

Which resistance, no one in Lebanon called anti-Syrians resistants. In Lebanon, the enemy is Israel not Syria. I was in Lebanon last year and didn't hear the vword "resistance" used for the "Ceder Revolution".

Jerry Jones

I am unblocking Jerry Jones so he can participate in the dialog at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jerry_Jones_and_CongressRecords. Please join this conversation. Fred Bauder 11:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gill Langley

Jay, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gill Langley? It was nominated for deletion 34 minutes after I created it, apparently on the grounds that it fails WP:BIO. However, there are good third-party sources, all listed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD for Ehud Olmert and Iran

Hi Jay, You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehud Olmert and Iran, which is an unencyclopedic response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. GabrielF 02:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop demonizing the PA

I wonder why low issues in other country are not addressed this way. Robin Hood 1212 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshivah of Flatbush re-protect

User:Voice of All just unprotected Yeshivah of Flatbush, and the same vandal went right back at it. Please re-protect it until the vandal loses interest in this enterprise. Thanks, DLand ^TALK 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You rejected the case against JzG. Unfortunately, you did not present any reason for this. JzG removed a POV-tag twice, Phil warned him for abusing admin power: I think most, though not all of the problems with Socafan's additions are in the quality of his writing, not the content. He's not really adding any material that shouldn't be cited... ... it's very, very bad to protect a page to a preferred version. (Note "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." and "The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one." "Note also that the protection policy does not support page protection to enforce BLP, and that protecting a page to deal with a user who has recently brought an arbcom case against you is TERRIBLE practice. He goes on with tendentious editing and aggressive behaviour towards me, even after he apologized. Even though I would like you to recuse as an arbitrator in this case because as can be seen above you had abusively blocked me once, too, I would like to know what you suggest for dispute resolution.? Socafan 00:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polling

You wrote: "Kim van der Linde (who thought "the only right title for the article is Israeli apartheid" [41]) and User:HOTR (who created the article [42]) had started a number of confusing polls bogged down by wikilawyering on various talk pages, user pages, central pages, and who knows where else, about this and related articles;"

Which polls did I start Jay?Homey 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, you added or participated. So did I start any polls Jayjg? If I merely participated in them then why don't you list the dozens of others who also participated? Why is it so important for you to single Kim and me out (and to couple us) that you have to torture your words to do so? If I didn't start any polls you shouldn't be mentioning me at all. If all I did was participate then you shouldn't be singling me out. Homey 04:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yukirat (talk · contribs)

I understand that you deal with "disruptive apartheid editors." Well this person (User:Yukirat) is a very racist person who is constantly attempting to poison the article White (people) with his hate and prejudice. Please have a look at this person. --69.19.179.25 08:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello, Jayjg. Since you posted recently at WP:AN/I about Giovanni33 and his puppets, I wonder if you'd mind if I give you a list of all suspects. I'm including Deuteronomy2000, simply because others thought, briefly, that he was Giovanni. I never thought so at any stage, and I'm experienced with Gio's puppetry. That suspicion came from someone who knew about Gio's history of puppetry but had no prior encounter with him, and led to the brief tagging of the user page. I asked the two people who were tagging the page to stop, and they stopped.

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BelindaGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) found by Morven to be the same as Giovanni. They originally pretended to have no connection. After the usercheck, he said she was his wife.
Freethinker99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) see this and this
Kecik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MikaM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
FionaS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
RTS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NPOV77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HK30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mercury2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Professor33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NeoOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (seems to have edited from Professor33's IP)
67.114.45.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently appeared at Christianity, with similar POV to Giovanni. Did some edit warring. IP seems to come from same area. Too early for me to make a clear judgment based on linguistic or behavioural evidence, but it's a possibility.
Deuteronomy2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (not connected to Giovanni, as far as I'm concerned, but was suspected by people who had less experience of Gio's puppetry than I have)

Note on IPs

Giovanni33 acknowledges 64.121.40.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BelindaGong acknowledged 38.114.145.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BelindaGong denied editing from 38.114.145.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), although it's very similar, and reverted to a Giovanni version.
MikaM acknowledged 69.107.7.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Edits with the same POV came from 69.106.243.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 69.107.21.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and later from 4.243.109.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (continuing a conversation as Mika), and 4.243.158.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). On one occasion, Mika made two reverts as MikaM, and then three reverts were made from 69.107.21.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), all within 90 minutes. When I asked Mika was it his/her IP (based on the fact that it was very similar to an acknowledged one), s/he refused to answer. (Now on Archive 24 of the Christianity talk page.)
Kecik made three reverts on 14 February, and then an 208.54.15.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made another one a few minutes later. I wondered was it Kecik, logging off in order to revert with impunity. I asked him on his talk page, and he ignored the question for three months. Then on 14 May, 66.2.31.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed stuff from Kecik's talk page, and put "I do not remember" underneath my question. Kecik has edited since then, so presumably would have reacted if that IP had just been impersonating him.
On 17 February, the account 68.6.73.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started supporting Giovanni (first six edits ever made from that IP), and showing familiarity with the background — not like someone who had just discovered Wikipedia.
HK30 acknowledged 206.61.48.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Professor33 acknowledged 207.47.40.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and then later that IP edited (for format) a section where NeoOne was debating Str1977, and edited NeoOne's user page.
When NPOV77 was blocked, another, unrelated user e-mailed me to complain of collateral damage, and gave me his IP. Since that's not public knowledge on Wikipedia, I'd rather e-mail it to you in private. All these IPs seem to be geographically close to Giovanni's. The Giovanni, Belinda, HK30, and Professor IPs seem to be static. Mika seems to edit from dynamic IPs.

I'd appreciate anything you can do to investigate what's going on here, though I understand that some accounts that were abandoned or blocked a long, long time ago may not yield any information. This has been going on since the end of January, with multiple new users registering, and then supporting Giovanni, following him to pages they'd be unlikely to find by chance, voting for what he wanted, using similar language, having geographically-close IPs, showing immediate knowledge of how to do a full page revert, reverting aggressively, showing little or no interest in editing other articles, etc. I'd be grateful if something could be done to put a stop to it. It has been very bad for the whole wiki-environment, as users with no history of edit warring (despite having disagreed with other editors in the past) found their own reverts were doubling after he and his puppets appeared. Contrary to what he claims, we do not have a history of having people checked because they disagree with the Christian POV. There have been many who disagreed and were not suspected or checked. Some of the suspects could be friends or colleagues, with no interest in Wikipedia, but who joined and revert in order to do a favour for Giovanni. Linguistically, there is evidence not just of coming from the same area, but of being the same user, or at the very least, of being controlled by the same user. The strongest matches, linguistically, are Professor33 and HK30 (some of whose edits have been deleted from the history but are still available to admins). I never analysed BelindaGong's language, because the puppetry was exposed through the usercheck, and I haven't yet been able to make a judgment about 67.114.45.132. And, as I say, I have never suspected Deuteronomy2000, though other editors have.

Can you help to sort out this mess? Many thanks. AnnH ♫ 19:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ann. Many of these editors cannot be checked, but some still can. As before, Professor33 is likely a sockpuppet of Giovanni33, and NeoOne is without doubt a sockpuppet of Professor33. Kecik and MikaM could be sockpuppets of Giovanni33, but the CheckUser evidence is inconclusive. Deuteronomy2000 is a sockpuppet of a different editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that. Should NeoOne be blocked, and if so, is it inappropriate for me to do so, being involved at the Christianity article? You'll notice that I tagged the NeoOne userpage, and that he responded with this. Professor was warned by an administrator here to stay away from articles that Giovanni had been editing. I always knew that MikaM and Kecik were editing from different IPs from that used by Giovanni, but that they were geographically close. Based on the IP information that I have (since many of these puppets made edits while not logged on, and then acknowledged them), I would say that, from an IP point of view, NPOV77, HK30, and Mercury2001 are possible, but that it's not conclusive. However, it rises to much higher than just "possible" when combined with other evidence (new users following Giovanni to pages they wouldn't be likely to find by chance and voting, reverting with confidence from the very start, showing no interest in editing Wikipedia apart from reverting to Giovanni, having strong linguistic similarities, etc. I don't think anyone could look at Kecik's contributions and think he was at Wikipedia for any other purpose than to ensure that Giovanni gets more than one vote and more than three reverts per day. AnnH ♫ 22:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine

Can you please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Palestine#Eretz_Israel. —Aiden 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intersting tool

[30] Zeq

alberuni

someone removed the sprotection to allow Alebruni http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.1.182.215 Zeq 05:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Encylopedia

The same editor who once asked you to comment on the reliability of the Jewish Encylopedia is again insisting that it is a reliable source. May ask you to comment on this subject once again? The discussion is taking place here. Pecher ^Talk 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a comment on the very same subject. Pecher's recent post states that the issue of Jewish Encyclopedia is long before settled down. In his first comment, he refered to your comment as an evidence. May I ask you to comment on this subject once again? Thanks --Aminz 20:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzhak Ben Yisrael

Hey. I got Yitzhak Ben Yisrael at somewhat comprehensible shape. I still need to find specific citations, but the further reading section contains links to some pertinent material. Have a look if you get a chance. All the best, El_C 20:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:KBuck

Knowing your history with Jamaissur, you may wish to keep an eye on this user who has re-appeared recently. They seem to be trying the same guilt by association or innuendo technique.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=KBuck

Mtiedemann 09:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing redirect pages

Were you aware of the effect of these edits: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Evidence#Jayjg_making_non-admin_moves_impossible? Fred Bauder 12:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I thought, putting "redirect" in small letters. Be mindful that doing so results in requiring deletion of the page before the page may be moved back by ordinary users. You yourself voted to ban someone for a month for doing this, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK/Proposed_decision#AndriyK_banned. Fred Bauder 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hi Jay, I just wanted to make sure you had seen the latest Vrba comments. I've answered, but feel free to weigh in if you disagree. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Luther Page Revert

Jay, your revert to the Martin Luther page was not entirely unexpected, but I must respectfully disagree with your reasons for doing so. First, the version that was revised and replaced was rewritten by one editor who, without prior discussion, took it upon herself to rewrite the section. The revision that was today put in its place was offered on the discussion page, for discussion, for a week. Like any Wiki user who cares enough about the section, you could easily monitor the talk page via the "watch" function. Your choice not to do so is no legitimate reason to revert the text. You could easily have offered your specific objections to the revert, rather than what appear to me to be vague and general assertions. So, the concern I have is that you took this action based on faulty assumptions: 1) That Slim's rewriting reflected consensus; 2) That the revision was somehow not made available for discussion; 3) That it was difficult to follow the proposed change. Each of these reasons is incorrect. If you wish to offer specific comments as to why you believe the revised form of this section is incorrect, or how it does not in fact reflect Slim's agreement that we identify people, please feel free to offer these remarks on the discussion page. Otherwise, your page revert was truly unjustified and inappropriate. Thanks. Ptmccain 22:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther Talk Page

Dear Jay:

Would you archive this page? I'm on a wiki break from the Luther and the Jews issue and do not want to give the impression that I've returned to it by archiving the material. In addition, Doright has been known to undo my archiving. Thanks! --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already taken care of.Ptmccain 00:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fintor

Hi Jayjg. I did see the request. Sorry about the delay, but for some reason Wikipedia won't let me email you - probably because an office server gives me a non-unique profile (or something like that). I have just moved jobs and so my previous email address on Wiki was arriving at the great cyberspace beyond, but not at my p.c. - but I have now corrected things, so please email me and I'll respond. Regards, Fintor 05:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Hamikdash article

Hi Jay: Please read the attached request I received . Thank you. IZAK 07:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need administrator help in Temple in Jerusalem

Hi Izak,

A user by the name of Biblical1 has completely rewritten the Temple in Jerusalem article multiple times, presenting some rather speculatve views of a few contemporary thinkers as objective fact and scholarly consensus. At this point, would it be possible for you or some other administrator to freeze the page and guide a discussion on the Talk page? Thanks, --Shirahadasha 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shirahadasha: Thanks for contacting me. I am not an admin, but I will bring your message to the attention of others who may be able to help you. It is also very ironic and sad that on the eve of Tisha B'Av that this needs to be dealt with. Sincerely, IZAK 07:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims

Hello. Could you please give me your mind about listing victims of massacres in the articles ? eg here : talk:Passover massacre. Thank you :-) Alithien 11:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantilla:Usuario_nazi

Nazio-Wiki: http://www.nrg.co.il/online/10/ART1/455/605.html

Socks

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of CrazyInSane - quite interesting, quite interesting indeed... Guettarda 23:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I just sent you an email. JoshuaZ 03:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I also just sent you an email.--Facts@mt.org

User:CrazyInSane

FYI, I have decided to indefinitely block User:CrazyInSane and have posted a report as such to WP:ANI. JoshuaZ 16:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Vrba

Thank you for informing me about the featured article nomination of the Rudolf Vrba article. I hope it gets promoted to featured status. Congrats on a such a great article!! Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 05:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Bergerons

This user left an unblock template on his talk page stating that you've blocked him as a sock of someone else, when he was not around wikipedia at the time of the offenses of the original account. The only thing I have on him is the articles he edits are similar to the content of the original account's talk page. I've declined his request, so you may want to look into this. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 10:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Vrba

Your input on

Hi Jay. Could I get your general input on the possibility of a future name for the current Israeli-Arab Middle East conflict (Gaza and Lebanon, See Roof Term Header down bottom). I'd appreciate if you comment on the name I've suggested generally, even if we don't adopt it. Evolver of Borg 06:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for checkuser, deferred to you

Mackensen defers the following request for checkuser to you, if you are not already aware. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Eliade -- Kevin_b_er 07:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

original research

jaybot (it's affectionate, already!): i know you have a special interest in this issue, so i felt you ought to know that Nineteen Eighty-Four seems to be pullulating, not to say purulent, with it. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

Checkuser followup query

Thanks for doing the checkuser job on User:Spanked. If I'm to take action on this sockpuppet, I'll need to know who is the puppetmaster - if it's User:AI that will need to be noted on the relevant arbitration page. Could you state which editor is behind the User:Spanked account? -- ChrisO 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of movement

Dear sir, this article has been protected for quite some time. I can't say I'm knowledgeable of the Zephram Stark situation and don't want to step on your toes, but I was wondering if we could unlock it. Thanks, CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arb case:Kehrli

I have been waiting patiently for some response by the committee regarding this arbitration case Kehrli. I do not mean to solicit but it seems necessary or even helpful to bring this to the attention of the committee members directly.

Thank you--Nick Y. 18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arb request extensively updated, including input by another editor and recent threats and administrator impersonation.--Nick Y. 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello Jayj : - ) Thank you for helping sort out the sock/meatpuppets related to WordBomb. It was obvious to me that they were not all WordBomb so I started marking my blocks as sock/meatpuppet. Good to have it backed up by you and Fred. Take care, FloNight ^talk 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs - Veriability

Could you explain why blogs are somehow unreliable sources of opinion? I cannot see how this conclusion can be drawn. I also can't see how Jihad Watch is unreliable. Wikipedia refers to the site's owner as a scholar and author. Isnt discounting Spencer because he runs a blog prejudicial - not to mention stupid? This is the argument made on the The Guardian page. Tchadienne 18:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you concede that Robert Spencer falls under the category of reliable? Tchadienne 18:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jeff_jarvis/2006/08/making_war_look_worse.html Zeq 06:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked User:ExHomey

I blocked this account for imposter/username problems among other issues such as abusive socpuppets. See AN/I: [31] ExHomey opened a RFAr then reverted it. Please comment on whether this account should stay blocked if it is determined to be the "real" Homey. --FloNight ^talk 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Jayjg, I have an interesting question for you. I've seen you around on Wikipedia quite a bit, and respect your opinion. As such, I'd like to know what you think about the following diffs: [32], [33], [34] and [35] from the same FAC, and [36]. I'm asking because you opposed User:Ambuj.Saxena's RfA for issues that to me appear very similar to what I have been doing constantly to scores of FACs for over a year. Thus, my question is: if I were to stand for adminship today, after seeing this evidence and knowing that I fully stand behind these edits, would you support? I have no desire to continue as an admin if you or others who I respect feel that I should not hold the position. Thanks for your help. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 07:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Jay, Arab Israeli conflict has gotten very short, and very bad. What do you think should be done about this? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanked

Any news on the Spanked checkuser, i.e. who was the puppetmaster in this case? -- ChrisO 22:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyInSane

I'm going to file the earlier mentioned RfC later tonight. In the meantime, his first action getting back from the block seems to be to remove sockpuppet tags: [37]. JoshuaZ 23:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ, please investigate matters before concluding. User:Darwiner111 is not a sockpuppet of myself, it is my former username that was transferred to User:CrazyInSane, contributions and all. It is the same user. For evidences see User talk:Darwiner111— ^`CRAZY`(IN)`SANE^` 00:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rv on WIAFA

hi jayig, just thought i'd let you know there is a heated flamewar between some users in FA-related pages, so i'd like it to settle down before editing pages as a result of it. so i reverted your edit to a pre-debate situation until it all calms down. Zzzzz 11:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CrazyInSane

It might be helpful if you could make some sort of formal confirmation that Jordain was CrazyInSane (there wasn't ever a checkuser request for it, so I don't have any dif to point to other than your changing the tags). JoshuaZ 21:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Bogus"

Dear Jayjg. I asked on talk: New anti-Semitism why you used the word "bogus" in relation to me. I would be grateful for an answer to that when you have time. Thank you. Itsmejudith 23:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help wanted

I need some assistance and I'm not sure where to go for it, so I thought I'd ask you. There's something of a dispute going on over at Gisele Bündchen. New editor "Andnanso", who has not edited any other articles, repeatedly adds the same dubious fact to the article. Each time, I revert the page and politely refer him to the Talk page, where I ask him to provide a source. He doesn't respond to messages or talk page discussion, and never uses an edit summary, so he is basically impossible to communicate with. He has provided a source on one occasion, which was a reference to a Portuguese Flash site, so I have no idea where on this site the fact might be supported, not least because I don't speak Portuguese. If this carries on for much longer then I'll be violating 3RR. I'm not sure of the correct course of action here. His actions don't seem worthy of a ban, and protecting the article over one sentence is surely unnecessary. Do I just keep reverting until he gets bored? Any advice or intervention gladly accepted. Thanks for your time. Soo 13:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Ford

After a period of quiet, the POV-pushing in this article has resumed.[38]--Mantanmoreland 22:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza

I have added links to a number of primary, secondary and tertiary sources used to create the content that is in dispute. Please review and reconsider your vote for arbitration.

Carbonate 00:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas TALK page

What's up Jay? You're moving comments around, where did you get that right? I'm sorry, but if I wrote my comment somewhere, you leave it there. If you mix up adding a personal comment & moving them, it is normal that i reverse you. Don't call me vandal when you're engaging in very strange behaviour. I can't see where you've added your personal comment, I just see that you moved the whole text! Tazmaniacs 14:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netzarim

I am very curious to know the justification for removing edits regarding other Netzarim organizations in existence other than those already noted in the existing articles, as well as edits regarding Essene organizations of the modern variety (since they too are already listed I see no problem in offering information about more self described orthodox ones.) In fact, a book title was also removed regarding both topics. I sincerely request that such arbitrary removal of legitimate edits cease or I will request arbitration in the matter. If you feel that there is a better way for me to edit and state the facts I presented please notify me. Thank you. Essenenetzarim 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the suggested changes. I appreciate your past and future help in ensuring Wikipedia only contains high-quality information.יונה בן צוי 16:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal

This case has been closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SoCalJustice

Hi Jayjg,

I suspect SoCalJustice isn't a sockpuppet of Dervish Tsaddik. I've come across someone using that username on the internet before I was into wikipedia, and looking at the edits made by SoCalJustice, they do have an opposite POV to Dervish, but they don't seem to be a straw man. How strong is the evidence against SoCalJustice? Thanks, Andjam 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the evidence is incontrovertible, then should the straw man be moved so that if the real SoCalJustice wants to contribute, (s)he can do so? Thanks, Andjam 14:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came across SoCalJustice at the weblog Little Green Footballs, a pro-war-on-terror, pro-Israel blog. Googling for him/her has shown that the person has posted on several different blogs. I doubt very much that all those blog postings would be by a sock puppet of Dervish. Thinking a bit more on the topic, if the SoCalJustice on wikipedia is a bad-faith impersonation, then I'd anticipate a renaming as a common courtesy, regardless of whether or not SoCalJustice expects to post here (I guess I could try contacting the real SoCalJustice if you wish...) Thanks, Andjam 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking location of IPs

Hi, Jay. I asked you here to see what you could do to unravel some of the Giovanni33 mess. As you know, there is strong linguistic evidence linking Giovanni to his suspected puppets, including BelindaGong — strongest of all in the case of HK30 and Professor33. While I do think it's quite likely that Belinda Gong exists as a real person, married to Giovanni, I'm not convinced that she made all the edits that were posted from the User:BelindaGong account. In any case, it's irrelevant, because even if she did, it was a violation of the policy, which they were both informed of. She made her first revert to his version less than half an hour after he had been sent a warning that he had reached the maximum number of reverts, and she made five reverts to his version in just over four hours, and followed him to other pages, voting, reverting, and otherwise supporting him, while they pretended not to know each other.

From the very start, both Belinda and Giovanni would make some edits while logged off, and later acknowledge them, so we knew their IP addresses. KHM03 thought (as did everyone else) that Belinda could be a sock, and I wrote here on his talk page that I didn't think so. I originally looked up addresses in Lacnic/whois and got Princeton NJ for 64.121.40.153 (Giovanni), though the same search now says Herndon Virginia, and Washington DC for 38.114.145.148 (Belinda). It seems that Giovanni was reading the messages to KM03 at the time.

Giovanni recently asked Danny here for some resolution which would clear his name and allow his wife and friend (the one he forgot he was logged on as when he signed a post denying any conncetion to any of the new users who supported him[39]) to be allowed to edit again. He mentioned my mistake about Belinda's location (which was just in an informal message to KHM03, not claiming expertise, and not used to make any important decisions) as evidence that I don't know what I'm talking about, and that I make "false claims, both out of ignorance, and out deception." He suspects that the accused puppets "may actually be closer to [his] detractors area." In connection to my message in January to KHM03, Giovanni writes on his own talk page: "I found that quite funny at the time because I knew for a fact she didn't know what she was talking about."

I pointed out (on his talk page) that finding it funny at the time was not to his credit, and he replied:

So you admit you don't have a lot of knowledge on tracking IPs. You admit drawing false conclusions, of being mistaken regarding the geographical location of said IPs as they relate to me in the past (the first time you aditted that). Yet, today you still insist that, as part of your regular argument, these alleged accounts suspected of being my puppets, are all "geographicall close." Are you now retracting that statement? It is not clear. On one hand you continually assert with complete confidence the statement 'they are all in your area,' no qualifications, even--yet your creditiblity in making such determination is lacking, and you now admit you really don't know--do you? . . . Your interpreation that I thought it was "funny," for instance does not mean I was "laughing." On the contrary, I was cringing, as I do when confronted with most of your reasoning. Its not a laughing matter. So "funny" in this context carries the other accepted meaning of the word, per the dictionary, "strangely or suspiciously odd; curious; Tricky or deceitful." In fairness, I will assume good faith and say that you may not be trying to be deceitful, however, shoddy thinking, false reasoning, and a certain zealousness in terms of pushing for your POV, results in a great distortion of truth, and has the effect to deceive."

I acknowledge without hesitation that I don't have a great understanding of IP evidence. I think now that the website I was using was showing the locations for the headquarters of the ISP, rather than for the person using it. Several months after my mistake in thinking Belinda was not near Giovanni, another administrator told me of this website for finding locations, and another told me of dnstuff.com. Both of those sites place Giovanni's IP and Belinda's IP in the California area, and Giovanni freely links his user page to his friendster profile, which says he's in California.

I know in the case of a usercheck, the admin does not make the IP address public, except occasionally if someone is logging off to evade 3RR. However, In many cases, Giovanni or one of the puppets made a talk page post while accidentally logged off, and then logged on and changed the signature, or acknowledge publicly on a Wikipedia page that the edit was his. Giovanni's IP is 64.121.40.153. Belinda's is 38.114.145.148. HK30's IP address is 206.61.48.22, and checkuser determined that that HK30 was also Mercury2001. Professor33's IP address is 207.47.40.19, and checkuser established that Professor33 is also NeoOne. Kecik edited from 66.2.31.12, and MikaM edited from 69.107.7.138 and 4.243.109.12 (and from IPs that were similar to those two).

Since I obtained NPOV's IP address not through looking at publicly-available page histories that show users posting something when logged off and then logging on to change the signature, but through receiving an e-mail from another user who was affected by the block, it may not be appropriate to post it here. I know you have that address, as I included it in the report that was sent to the ArbCom mailing list, but just to make it easier, I'll e-mail it to you again. What I'm asking, if you have time, is that you would check if those addresses are geographically close, and if they are (or even if they are not!) that you'd post a short note on Danny's page and/or on Giovanni's page. Since you have checkuser access, and since that privilege is only granted to those who are considered to have integrity and to have an understanding of IPs, I think it would help if you could confirm it. I don't necessarily mean that they are all a ten-minute walk away from his home. In the case of some accounts, they reverted to his version around the time that he was editing; in the case of others, there would be a gap of two hours or more. But if he's telling the truth about Freethinker and Belinda, we know that he has, in the past, used other people to make edits for him, so it wouldn't be that crazy to think that someone he knows in real life logs on from a different address and reverts for him.

A recent addition is CleanSocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who appeared out of the blue on 1 August (not near a time that Giovanni was editing), removed the tags from three of Giovanni's suspected puppets, and was blocked and tagged by Freakofnurture within four minutes of registering. Giovanni denies any connection to this account.

Discussion about Giovanni has been reactivated here.

Thanks. AnnH ♫ 13:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi back

"would you mind e-mailing me?" do you mean via this? I don't know your email. Gzuckier 18:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on recall

Given the nature of Wikipedia, good admins tend to piss people off; particularly POV pushers, policy violaters, sockpuppeteers, etc. It's only if you completely abdicate your admin responsibilities (fly under the radar, avoid any controversy, don't block any editors, don't get involved in heated AN discussions etc.) that you end up pleasing everyone. There is already a process for recalling administrators - it's called the Arbitration Committee. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used to think this too, but the more I've thought about it the less I think it's actually accurate. Let's say if Sarah were to stand for adminship again, as an example of a very active, very well known and, sadly, very trolled, admin. Would she get a bunch of oppose votes? Probably. Say, maybe even 30 oppose votes. But she would also get close to 300 support votes so she'd still pass with flying colours. Currently we have a system which assumes that the community is capable of deciding whether someone should be an admin as long as he isn't actually an admin and that as soon as he becomes one the community becomes incapable of a fair evaluation. I'm just not convinced that's really true. Haukur 02:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar from Ann

I award this **Barnstar of Diligence** to Jayjg for the time and trouble involved in confirming a serious case of sockpuppetry. AnnH ♫ 21:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jay. Before I go on a wikibreak, I want to say a big thank you for all your help in detecting the Christianity sockpuppeteer. I know that usercheck is a tedious process, and I think we probably don't thank our volunteers enough for all the time they spend at this. I hope that we manage to find an appropriate solution quickly in this matter, so that I can devote the rest of August to writing assignments. Oh, and I didn't dare to put the barnstar directly on your user page myself, as it might mess up the format. Thanks again for all your hard work. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thanks so much for voting, Jayjg!

Thanks so much for your support vote on my request for adminship! With a final vote count of (82/5/0), it succeeded, and I'm now an administrator! I am thrilled with the overwhelming positive support from the community, and sincerely thank you once again for taking your time to voice your opinion. Feel free to contact me with any comments/suggestions in the future!
—Mets501 (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yas121

I think you should know, before considering unblocking this user, that he added a highly speculative BBC article regarding support within Israel for the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to the current events page with the edit summary "fprmatting." It may have been an honest mistake, but it seems to fit his past behavior. Regards, Republitarian 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, what exactly is "fprmatting"? Like I said I only copied pasted from BBC News summary of the story. Yas121 23:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldom's RFA thanks

Thank you for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (53/2/1). I've spent the day trying out the new tools, and trying not to mess things up too badly :). I was quite thrilled with all the support, both from the people I see around every day, as well as many users who I didn't know from before, yet wrote such wonderful things about me. I look forward to helping to serve all of you, and the project. Let me know if there's anything I can help you with. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet tag

Jay, if User:Mantanmoreland can change the sockpuppet tag on User:Lastexit to a alternative account tag, then so can I. Ex-Homey 03:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your harassment of me is irrelevent to how I am tagged. He was confirmed to be engaging in sockpuppetry by checkuser and his sockpuppet edited the same articles and voted in the same AFD as he did. If he has the chose to tag lastexit as an "alternative account" then I have the same right.Ex-Homey 03:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, as you well know, check user did not return a finding of "confirmed" in regards to Sonofzion so your tagging is inappropriate.

Jay, Mantanmoreland/Lastexit has set a precedent - if you don't like it then revert the tag on his accounts. Otherwise, the precedent stands. You have been involved in content disputes with me and are in a conflict of status. Do not abuse your status. Ex-Homey 03:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he has set no precedents then why doesn't the tag on user:lastexit read "abusive sockpuppet"?Ex-Homey 03:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not abuse your authority to gain advantage in content disputes. Any reasonable person would say you are in a conflict of interest, particularly in your use of checkuser, a right you have conditionally and which can be taken away at any time. Ex-Homey 03:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Jay, given that you did not block HOTR or do anything at all, in fact, upon the checkuser result on Sonofzion you know very well that the results were not conclusive. Your actions betray this. Ex-Homey 04:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so but you need to stop acting when you are in a conflict of interest. If Fred Bauder agrees that the tags should say sock puppet and not alternate user I'll live with that but it is not your decision or that of your friends. For once abide by the spirit of the rules rather than dismissing challenges to your arbitrary abuse of authority as "wikilawyering". Ex-Homey 04:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gruenwald

Thanks for adding that additional material to Gruenwald. It's really starting to shape up into a good article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Iraq again

There has been another vandalism of the part of this article on the post-1969 era. I don't really want to turn it into a situation where the article is regularly reverted back and forth and I realize that Ba'athists do not consider the incident a lynching, but I can't think of any other term that describes the incident. To make it NPOV should I say that the ba'athists consider the incident to have been retaliation for spying for Israel (despite the fact that from what I've read, some of the victims were even anti-Israel)? I'm worried that saying that would serve to obscure how this incident marked a difference between the treatment of Jews by the Qassem government and by the later Ba'athist regime and why the small post-1953 community left in the late 1960s and early 1970s

^ Peace under fire : Israel/Palestine and the International Solidarity Movement, ed. Josie Sandercock, et al. New York: Verso, 2004, p. 192

[1] Peace under fire : Israel/Palestine and the International Solidarity Movement, ed. Josie Sandercock, et al. New York: Verso, 2004, p. 192

[1]