Ah, that is indeed a good thought, and probably right.

I don't see why it is all that necessary that SlimVirgin and Jayjg live near each other to be friends. Heck, they can be "friends" enough simply by finding common cause on Wikipedia.

It's not, nor was I intending to state that it was. Clearly, (first name redacted) and Jay are friends, regardless of their respective locations.

My point is that there is almost certainly some off-wiki communication going on between Jayjg and SlimVirgin, quite probably in real time. The way they coordinate their attacks almost suggests that either a) they live in the same household or B) they are one and the same user.

I can't wait until someone invents the internet so I can finally have conversations with people outside my own household.

It's just a matter of time before someone manages to come up with it...

In the meantime, I'm holding on to my Smith-Corona stock, just in case.

Hey, as I said, I'm not ruling that out as a possibility. My posts in this thread were nothing but speculation, and not very good speculation at that.

Yes, users can coordinate efforts in real time across the internet.

It doesn't matter if he is paid or not, the fact is he fights hard to maintain libellous comments on the lead paragraph of the persons he wants to defame, but then he strangely removes sourced material on pretext of BLP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=130661670

An editor added sourced info to Bernanke article, resulting in a prolonged edit warring by Jayjg, with threats of getting him blocked. I don't fully understand why this information about Bernanke being Jewish had to be suppressed by these admins, without involving some conspiracy theories into the equation!

I can understand deleting the info from people who might be controversial and therefore whose Jewishness might be embarrassing (Paul Wolfowitz was a recent example), but I'd have thought Bernanke is a good guy.

Frankly I don't care who (or where) Jayjg is, or even how old he is (though I do find it hard to believe he's in his mid-40's, as opposed to his mid-teens). But crap like this, where he tries to equate the results of their own unique talent for pissing people off on WP with arguments that rape victims "deserve what they get" for "dressing provocatively," are quite simply disgusting.

Has he no shame whatsoever?

He should really apologize for that, and not just to rape victims - I mean to everybody.

I was way too bleary-eyed to follow the mass of indirections and bassackward insults last night, but I thought he was accusing his opponents of making analogous arguments — still, I may have missed 1 or 3 twists of the knife.

Jonny

That's not how I read it... He was responding to this comment:


...at which point he equated that with arguments about rape victims somehow "deserving it." And without the slightest hesitation, I might add.

Again, absolutely despicable.

Just saw it, and replied. I'm furious that he would dare say something that vile. I'm done with that list, I think.

Right - well put!

Mind you, I don't think he was trying to offend you per se - the offense is to rape victims, for trivializing their pain. Now, if he had simply accused you of simply having a "blame the victim mentality," and left it at that, then that would have been perfectly acceptable, civility-wise. If he really wanted a proper analogy, though, I might have used something like "blaming Enron employees who have just lost their pensions for having taken that job in the first place," or maybe "blaming me for the virus that just infected my computer because I happen to use Windows 98 with no service packs, or for that matter, an anti-virus program."

Of course, the reality is more like "blaming someone for not sympathizing with the accuser after his accusations have been proven false and his questionable motives exposed." But that's a whole 'nother topic...

Isn't Jayjg "Guy" on Wikipedia - and therefore the biker guy we've all seen pictures of?

Jayjg is Jayjg on Wikipedia. It may be possible that he is a sockpuppet of another established editor, or vice verse, but it is rather unlikely.

That Guy (as opposed to this Guy) is JzG = Just zis Guy

Apparently, Mr. Jayjg also likes to trivialize the pain of those who can't refrain from offending decent-minded people and shooting themselves in the foot. As he says, "it's a quite valid analogy," so... there. Nyah, nyah, nyah.

He also poses this question:

Gee, I dunno! Maybe this universe?

This is getting funny, he is still doing it, this time blocking the person after coming close to losing the edit war!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e=User:Wolfowit

I think his behavior has something to do with the conspiracy theories around the control of federal reserve.

Given that his name is "Ben Shalom Bernanke", maybe they should delete his middle name!

I know I keep harping on this, but why do these people always mess around with the Brandt article simultaneously with pissing off Jayjg?

Is this some sort of "rite of passing"? Maybe a "cleansing ritual"? They should just delete that thing. I'll bet fewer people would be pissed off...

On:

Deletion_review#Allegations_of_American_apartheid



WTF?

It's "Allegations of American Apartheid," not "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid." We don't even know if Jayjg is American, and in fact, there are good reasons to believe he's from Canada.

Even if he is American, segregation and racism in the American South don't really conflict with the right-wing pro-Israeli and pro-Zionist stances he generally seems to take, and besides, coming down on the side of the left in this case could very well be an image-reclamation move for him.

That's what I suspect.

FaAfA

Jayjg was involved in a very strange exchange that might shed some light on his identity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=148204258

Jayjg was involved in a very strange exchange that might shed some light on his identity. Check out the histories of these pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayjg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lot...the_Hill_People

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=148204258

Something like what? Your link was to some corporate website. -- LOTHAR

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=148131987
Yeah, but then you go and do something like this. By the way, in AfD discussions the only "Delete" counts as "Delete". Anyway, if you want to keep battling, then there's little point in dialog. If you change your mind (and ways), let me know. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 05:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC


Here's the weird thing. The first comment seems completely apropos of nothing since the history doens't show Jay's posted any corporate website link on Lothar's page. His "something like what" question is worded as a direct response to "Yeah, but then you go and do something like this" but if you look at the times the answer is actually posted several minutes before the question!

My guess is that Jay originally posted his 5:52 comment several minutes earlier. He tried to copy and paste a diff but the copy didn't hold and he accidentally posted the url for "some corporate website". Lothar asks Jay what the corporate website has to do with anything and Jay OVERSIGHTS his earlier comment and then reposts it with the correct url in place.

Pasting the wrong URL is a common mistake but why not just re-edit your post or make a new post saying "oops, pasted in the wrong url, I really meant this one"? You use oversight for one of three reasons according to WP:OVERSIGHT:

1 Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
2 Removal of potentially libellous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or B) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
3 Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.

We know what he oversighted was a link to a corporate website so 2 and 3 are out. He must have oversighted it because he feared that the link could give away personal information about himself.

My guess is that Jay was multitasking and was doing job-related work at the same time as he was editing wikipedia. Instead of pasting a wikipedia diff he accidentally pastes a url to his employer or some company he does business with. When he's informed of his mistake he panics, oversights his old post and substitutes a new one and then blanks his own talk page without comment.

How can we find out what the oversighted edit is? Can we get a dump? Lothar used the link, can someone contact him and ask him what it was?

Damn, how many "Allegations of Apartheid" articles are there on that crazy-ass site, anyway?

Apparently this guy, User:Lothar_of_the_Hill_People, who may or may not have once been a member of Lothar_and_the_Hand_People, has been doing a lot of work on some of these articles, including trying to get a few of them deleted, like Allegations_of_French_Apartheid (which he tried to move to "Social Exclusion in France," but was reverted by Jayjg), Allegations_of_Brazilian_Apartheid, and Allegations_of_Saudi_Arabian_Apartheid.

I had no idea! I mean, now that I've seen what's going on, I think I see the game Jayjg is playing - he's actually trying to ensure that as many of these articles exist as possible, so as to dilute the impact of the article he probably really, really, really wants to get rid of: Allegations_of_Israeli_Apartheid, which to his great chagrin keeps surviving various AfD attempts.

I'm guessing that he figures that if every country in the world has an "Allegations of Apartheid" article, then anyone looking at the Israeli one will think, "baaah, that's no big deal, every country has one"? Or maybe he figures that the longer this goes on, the more ridiculous it will all look (and let's face it, it does look pretty ridiculous), and the greater the chance that he can get the entire class of articles deleted all at once....?

Why is this not reported in the media? This should be treated as a scandal, in my opinion, or at least a VERY good example of Wikipedia gamesmanship potentially causing serious distortions in the historical record.

Ah, I get you.

Why not reported in the media? Because in theory it could be a coincidence.

Well: the story is like this: Homey (a user somewhat critical of Israeli policies) started the [[Israeli Apartheid]] article last spring, and all hell broke loose. After countless AfD which did not produce the wanted result, the "compromise" was that the article was moved to "Allegation about Israeli Apartheid". (Actually, the story goes even further back, to a general "Apartheid" article which had a country-section which mentioned Israel (among others)...it got deleted..without an consensus, but the bluff was that the country-sections should go into another article...which they all did.....EXCEPT the Israeli section....)

However, some of the most fanatical of Israel´s supporters were not happy with only a move (to "Allegations of.."), so they have for the last months been making thousands (literally!) of edits in 100% violation of [[WP:POINT]]. Especially Urthogie and Jayjg, but also
other familiar pro-Israeli editors (and by that I mean editors who hardly edits on anything but Israel/Middle East) ..suddenly developing an interest in "allegations of apartheid" in Cuba, USA, France, or wherever.

It is all a ploy to make Israel look like *any other state.* Nothing special about Israeli policies, right? (The fact that there are thousands of articles and tens, if not hundreds, of books using the word "apartheid" about Israel´ policies towards the Arabs/Palestinians, (including by two Nobel Peace Price winners;Tutu and Carter) ...Israel´s policies is somehow "counted" as the same as a nobody mentioning the word "apartheid" in connection with ANY other country.

I think the gang was a bit surprised to see to opposition to the France article (there are a lot of French people on WP) ...much easier with smaller countries. So we should NOT expect articles about, say: [[Allegations about apartheid in Germany]], [[Allegations about apartheid in Holland]], or [[Allegations about apartheid in Sweden]] --there are just too many German, Dutch and Swedish people on English Wikipedia ---but stay tuned for: [[Allegations about apartheid in Mauritania]], [[Allegations about apartheid in Burkina Faso]], and [[Allegations about apartheid in Turkmenistan]]

And the articles are all soooooo bad, an example; Jay started Allegations_of_Saudi_Arabian_apartheid on 6 April 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=120794646
...and it was 90% a direct copy of the [[Sex segregation]] article at that time!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...61#Saudi_Arabia

Good points!

They need an "Allegations of Wikipedia Apartheid" article on the hundreds of people unfairly banned. ;-)

Likely that the article is some kind of payback for Carter's comparison of the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories as "Apartheid." Sort of like "oh yeah cracker, look at your own backyard." Carter's treatment by the "New Anti-Semitism Smear Team" has been pretty brutal. The problem is that Carter would be the last person to defend American racism. This particular criticism of America is a perfect fit for a Canadian Zionist.

So User:Lothar of the Hill People just needs to check his browser history (assuming he clicked on the link) and share the results?

It's amazing how Jayjg is able to get away with his massive disruptions of Wikipedia.

This wikien-l posting makes sense. Not just in terms of the "Hasbara" but also consider:

• Jayjg recent abuse of CheckUser powers.
• Jayjg uncommonly close and protracted collaboration with SlimVirgin.
• Mounting evidence that SlimVirgin was at least at one time engaged in covert intelligence activities.
• Jayjg use of oversight powers to obscure the identity of SlimVirgin and the nature of her editing activities.
• Jayjg reluctance to provided identifying information (left ArbCom when this was at issue) to the foundation. We have no confirmation that he has complied with the foundations CheckUser identity/age disclosure policy.
• The announced practice of at one least organization (Hasbara Foundation) to interject POV in an organized fashion, into topics consistent with Jayjg editing patterns.

I think it would only be due diligence for WMF to make this inquiry. I also think that the foundation should make public the fact that Jayjg's name, address, employment and age have been confirmed (although not reveal the information). What is at issue her is not merely POV pushing in articles. We need to assure that Jayjg does not use his CheckUser powers to make private information available to agencies and actors who can use that information to stifle dissent on and off Wikipedia.

Given the little to nil on-wiki communications between Jimbo and Jay in the early days, it's clear they have an off-Wiki relationship of some sort, be it business or professional. This is why.

This is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ced_information

How long did/does this restriction stand on Jay? I wonder if people know about this.

Check this out:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ust/078542.html



He's not the only one either. It seems that virtually everyone is asking Jayjg to leave.

As long as Jimbo will continue to be his fluffer, this will never happen. Truthfully, it's past time for Jimbo to leave as well.

Jay's now gone hog wild refactoring the Chinese Apartheid AfD, despite that being a big no-no on policy. Why doesn't someone just ban him and get it over with? Fucking go to war on-Wiki against him people, and stand UP to him. I know a lot of senior Wikipedians are reading this. Fuck Jay: just end this. Take a stand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...rtheid#Comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...inese_apartheid

Be a mensch!

Where is the evidence that this is why Jayjg left ArbComm? Since CheckUser permissions are given by ArbComm and can be revoked by it why would they not enforce the id requirement for CheckUser if they were insisting upon it for ArbComm?

On the afd for Allegations of Chinese apartheid, an article which Jayjg contrived, he writes:


So in order to ensure that his hated Israel apartheid article is eventually deleted (or at least that it is obscured by scores of other competing "apartheid" articles), he is spending literally hours working on these other articles. And having the bravado to describe them as approaching "Wikipedia's best work" for good measure.

He's boldly taking the piss now. It is hard to know whether to despair at Jayjg's extraordinary Machiavellian machinations, or stand back and admire his sheer gall. Only today Jimbo backed Jayjg, so presumably Jimbo approves of this kind of bullshit as well. Jayjg's Best Work, an account of this bizarre apartheid saga, must surely warrant a chapter in Wikipedia:The real story, a book waiting to be written.

This amazes me and makes me think that Jayjg is just some kid. Proliferating a number of [[Xcountry Apartheid]] articles to counter an accusation by a former US President of the same by Israel seems to smack of Lee Atwater and the Young Republicans. It a good yuck and all, but not a serious approach.

Completely surreal. There is a book just waiting to be written. I can't help but wonder whether Jayjg's tactic of making a series of articles just creates more traffic to all of them and raising their awareness in general.

I don't get involved for two reasons:

1. I do think that Jayjg isn't thinking this through and is just making things worse for himself and raising the traffic on the article he appears to dislike so much. This centralized discussion tactic is a non-starter and a waste of time for all involved.

2. Jayjg is impervious to reason, he flames everyone who disagrees with him and continues on his track. He's out of control but really what can you do about it? I for one don't want the mental anguish that comes with trying to talk with him about his behavior.

As they say in the military, it is completely FUBAR and likely to continue as so for the forseeable future.

This is an odd argument. This argument is like defending a charge of theft by making an extensive list of things I did not steal.

It is suspicious. Also, his name might be Andrew Blum, see [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dnL00TdmLY&eurl=]
here[/url]. Why would he lie about his location? Maybe [url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slimvirgin]
a spy[/url].



I have been to Zion. It's nice.

Rogers is a giant ISP, covering most of Ontario (except some little pockets in the east which is Cogeco territory which will eventually be assimilated by the Borg Rogers).

Those geolocation tools (specifically regarding Rogers ISPs) can be wrong. Geolocating to Toronto could mean anywhere in the Greater Toronto area. In fact, there area a few IP ranges which are nowhere near Toronto, which geolocate to Toronto. I remember having one IP address in the past which geolocated to Toronto (and I live nowhere near there).

I wonder why Jayjg hasn't commented in the Chinese apartheid DRV yet...

Welcome.. Ampersand...

Thanks!

Also, what in the world is a co-closure? I've never seen that done before.

Jayjg is apparently on a wikibreak.

After his last post to WikiEN-l, he's probably contemplating his position in the wikiverse.
> - Jayjg's time here has come to a close and he should give it up or go
> into hiding.

LOL! We have all "established" this, have we?


His last contrib at WP was 4 days ago at 00:07, 4 August 2007 UTC, his longest absence for quite some time.

Of the "Allegations of Apartheid" -articles which remains, googeling gives the fowllowing:
"Israeli apartheid" 167,000

"Brazilian apartheid" 420

"French apartheid" 328

"Saudi Arabian apartheid" 257

...however, most of the Brazilian, French and Saudi-Arabian hits are to....you guessed it: Wikipedia or WP clones.

And Jay argues they are all the same?

He has to, he's only on Wikipedia to defend Israel.