in regards to his topic ban; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...forcement#Jayjg

Call me crazy, but when the restriction is spelled out as;



that should pretty definitively cover articles such as "Holocaust denial", "Islam and antisemitism", "Persecution of Jews", and "Unification Church antisemitism controversy".

Calling this a "wrist slap" would even be too strong of a summation; its a finger-waggle, if that.

Reader strongly urged to ignore this nonsense.

If it were me, I would have topic banned Jayjg from all Israel and Jewish related articles, because as those diffs in that ArbCom enforcement discussion show, Jayjg is either unable or unwilling to neutrally edit within those topics.

Well much of the following is wrong:

Uh... since when?

This is about the earliest stages of the Muslim conquest of the middle east, in which Muhammed drives some Jewish tribes out of Medina in the 620s AD, which had settled in central Arabia centuries earlier to escape persecution by the Romans, and which would not at that stage of history be considered Israelis/Israelites/etc. by any reasonable person.

In any case the source cited does not support the claim which Jayjg removed, regarding the reason for expelling/killing the Medinan Jews. In fact Walter Laqueur (cited in the next diff) claims it was solely for refusal to accept Islam, while other sources claim it was because some of them tried to poison Muhammed. And no, the article makes no mention of the Qu'ran (as a justification for Medina or in any other context) before or after Jayjg's edit, so I suspect the "bloodthirsty" description was actually meant for the next diff.


Certainly a poor edit ("really easy", wtf?). Whether or not this accurately describes some people's interpretation of the Qu'ran it would be a religious viewpoint, not a nationalist one. To accept this as being within the purview of the Israel–Palestine conflict would require taking for granted that the Palestinian Arabs' position regarding the "holy land" is based primarily on Islamic fundamentalism, which as far as I know is not accurate outside of Hamas.


Yes, removing this content does violate Jayjg's edit restriction. In an article about the Moonies. Go figure.

Good job MeteorMaker. You're batting .250 on facts but 1.000 preying on mid-west ignorance of the mid-east.

Coming from you, such a comment doesn't really amount to much.

So how long before Jay trips up?

Since 1978.

Thanks for playing.

If I may be pedantic, Iranians aren't Arabs.

Are Hezbollah Arabs?

Why ever did they change the name from Persia to Iran anyway - Persia is such a beautiful name it reminds me of beautiful art and and lush oases in the desert and other such things whereas Iran conjures images of Soviet era architecture (through sound alone). (this off topic post was prompted by the though that Iranians don't speak Arabic, they speak Persian/Farsi)

And America isn't really a democracy, but when people call it one anyways we know what they mean.

It's the ArbCom's fault for being imprecise. Jayjg should have been topic-banned from "Zionism-related issues" and that would have covered all potential areas of disruption.

Of course Iran is not a Arab nation. Not even close. But if the phrase "broadly interpreted" carries it's usual meaning (and in Wikipedia, especially ArbCom, you never know) the topic ban should bar his touching any article relating to Iran. Just as he would be barred from editing on US military aid to Israel. Iran is a significant player in the regional conflict between Israel and it's immediate Arab neighbors. Any editing by Jayjg relating to Iran would either be used a coat rack to hang negative material or as credibility building exercise to facilitate the same.

Well I think the implication here is that the arbcom ruling was actually too precise.

Sure, perhaps they could have just topic-banned him from all conflicts involving the modern State of Israel and any other part of the Middle East As Defined By The Bush Administration (see previous thread), plus all conflicts between Jews and Muslims in any location from 622 AD up to whatever year the real messiah is supposed to arrive... but they didn't.

In my opinion the complainant recognized the tendency of western media and audiences to paint predominantly islamic ethnic groups with the same brush (Berbers, Kurds, Pashtuns, Persians, Punjabis, Turks (?!)... all shades of "Arab" right? Go back to bed, America...) and tried to exploit it.

Highlighted for posterity:

-------------------------------------


Fair points but as far as I know he wasn't doing that. The diff cited was part of a quite surreal discussion about holocaust denial where some user wants to remove the "anti-semitism" category on the basis that "not all holocaust deniers are anti-semitic, for example Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims not to be".

Even accepting that Ahmadinejad is inherently part of the Israel–Palestine conflict (allegedly desiring to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth"), and that for these reasons maybe Jayjg shouldn't mention his name at all, you have to admit the other user did rather bait him into that tangent.

There's nothing in Jayjg's editing that says he shouldn't be allowed to edit Iraq-Israel disputes, but is perfectly fine in editing Iran-Israel disputes.

"Broadly defined" indeed. Apparently if you're well connected it means "very narrowly defined". Imagine what would have happened if someone less connected and on the "other side" had made the edits that Jayjg made. Would Jpgordan favor a careful, narrow reading of the arbcom decision, or would he call the editor a wikilawyer, tell him to shut up and get back to work before he gets banned? Hypocritical, jackass.

Avi is a rather interesting character. His little trick is to show up at discussions, pretend to be an uninvolved editor, but somehow, always support Jayjg. You'd think the wikipediots would wise up to his little act after the back-watching email, but I guess not. At least it's a little better than before when he was eager to "mentor" Jayjg's enemies without revealing his "back watching" activities.

We do have to remember that there's two sides to everything. If it weren't for all the people with opposite POVs, the Jayjg machine wouldn't need to exist.

America is a democracy by all standard definitions of the word. Republics (representative democracies) are a subset of democracies. In fact they represent all modern democracies at the national level-- there being no good way to have direct all-voter direct decissions on most topics in any nation.

That's not right. A republic means that the head of state is not a monarch. Many non-republics, including the United Kingdom, are democracies. Many republics are not democracies.

I see not much has changed when I was absent

That's a bit like saying that if there weren't so many legitimate doctors, there'd be no need for snake oil salesmen.

So you're really Bender, and this whole Yeti's son thing is a sham? I'm shocked!

Maybe there's no inconsistency here; was he adopted by a Yeti?