User talk:Jayjg/Disruptive Apartheid editor

This user, who has used many different IPs and userids, has spent a couple of months trying to force some text into the Apartheid article against a strong consensus. Having not gotten his way there, he has targetted me and a couple of other editors, making many personal comments about their alleged ethnicities and political beliefs. He is now reverting me apparently solely for the purpose of reverting me, e.g.. An RfAR would be a lengthy procedure, and unlikely to be particularly effective, given the individual's constant use of differing IP addresses. Unsure how to proceed at this point. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 16:33 (UTC) So you think an immediate RfAR is the way to go? Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)
 * I'll throw in my two cents worth. An RfAr (woof!) could allow us to revert this guy on sight, without engaging in an utterly pointless discussion about it -- utterly pointless because he seems incapable of understanding basic principles such as "consensus". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 5 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)
 * Revert his idiocy, remove his personal attacks, and see what he does. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 16:46 (UTC)


 * Isn't this the same editor who was trolling the David Irving and Anti-Defamation League talk pages a few weeks/months ago with different IP addresses and user names, and who became very abusive? He seemed first and foremost to be an Irving supporter. If he's doing nothing but make disruptive edits, perhaps he can be blocked for disruption for short periods until he either learns or leaves. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 17:03 (UTC)

I guess we can see where your POV is. However, a NPOV editor is not "first and foremost" anything, and definitely not "trolling" or an "idiot" (unless you say so?). Please refrain from personal opinion, mischaracterization, and repeated personal attacks, Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks. How hypocritical can you get? 69.218.25.180 8 July 2005 15:30 (UTC) Yes, it's the same editor. He uses Ameritech Electronic Commerce in the 69.xxx range, where xxx is a number between 209 and 222. He's used at least 30 IP addresses, and at least 11 different userids. Blocking him is tedious because he simply reboots, gets a new IP address, and continues editing. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)
 * You're not a person, just a series of numbers. Tomer TALK  July 8, 2005 17:48 (UTC)
 * I was just going through my talk-page history to find some of the comments. I remember he got pretty abusive, and I think I blocked him for it, as did several others, and he did eventually get fed up and stayed away for awhile. The arbcom could ban him, but he'll still be able to come back. I wonder whether it would make more sense just to keep blocking him until he gets bored again. He's made no useful edits that I'm aware of. All he does is disrupt, introduce POV, and leave snarky comments on talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 17:36 (UTC)

See how easy redacting comments from an abusive user is? Snowspinner July 5, 2005 18:00 (UTC)


 * No need to look far for a valid reason to block:   are the latest violations of WP:NPA.


 * Exactly, he's been doing this for weeks. Anon, I don't know where you get the idea that you've broken no rules. You constantly violate WP:NOR (by inserting your own idiosyncratic views of what's relevant), WP:NPOV (by trying to introduce tiny-minority views), and WP:NPA whenever you're thwarted, added to which there's the sockpuppetry. You're eminently blockable. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 17:56 (UTC)

Wikipedia is open to all editors. Do not ban this IP address without a valid reason. 1) There have been unjustified personal attacks made upon me from the beginning. WP:NPA, perhaps those editors should be blocked. 2) The Googletest needs to be applied consistently henceforth on a constant basis, especially by those that are administrators. The WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies apply both ways. The constant idiosyncratic views on Wikipedia are apparent when the same few POV editors revert and censor others over and over, they have the exact same editing style and POV, they protect articles from NPOV and improvement, and they communicate to avoid the 3 revert rule. That's dishonesty.69.218.25.180 8 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)


 * It's all coming back now. This was the one who created User:FuckSlimVirgin and who left this message for me. I think he was also editing as, though he denied it, and I recalling he was vandalizing Chameleon's page at one point using different IP addresses. SlimVirgin (talk)  July 5, 2005 18:52 (UTC)

--SHAME ON YOU. SlimVirgin, you cannot back that accusation up, and stop making unsubstantiated personal attacks. You are really digging really low now. Kindly stop defamation that you cannot back up. Whoever that person was, their actions are unacceptable, but one can see that controversy seems to follow you and Jayjg around.
 * To be fair, was actually banned User:Alberuni, who felt he had found a kindred spirit. Jayjg (talk)  5 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)

Perhaps a conciliatory approach would be more effective here. Jayjg has a reputation as a difficult contributor who often aggravates things with his hostile approaches. It is not hard for me to imagine that he may have been marginalized and radicalized as a result of a conflict with Jay. Perhaps we should let bygones be bygones and focus on agreeable resolution. Everyking 5 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)


 * JayJG has a reputation as a contributor who brings needed sanity to topics that are continually overrun by trolls and POV-pushing lunatics like this one. That this gives him a reputation for difficulty speaks more of the people who complain than it does of Jay. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 18:46 (UTC)
 * As usual, we disagree. To his credit, I suppose his reputation is at least a little better than yours. Everyking 5 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)


 * This constant support for trolls and attacks on editors trying to deal with them is getting really tiresome, Everyking. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 18:52 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, you are the troll. Takes one to know one.  It gets tedious for others to deal with you.  You are divisive and controversy follows you.  You are part of a little POV pushing team that jealously guards and restricts input.  It's flat out dishonest.  If you and Jayjg would stop censoring other contributors for one day and let others get involved, then you won't create so much animosity.69.209.239.161
 * I got tired a long time ago. Everyking 5 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)
 * His conflict is not with me, but with a dozen Wikipedia editors. No doubt they're all to blame for not being "conciliatory" enough. Jayjg (talk)  5 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
 * Yah. The mostly-now-archived discussion started back on May 2, when I removed a change the anon had made and explained why. From the very start, many editors have tried to get this guy to understand both the correctness of my deletion of his edit (which, certainly, is a fair subject for discussion), as well as the consensus nature of article development on Wikipedia. The anon seems to believe that pointing out that he's on the short side of an overwhelming majority of editors (some long-time editors of the article, others brought in through WP:RFC) is a personal attack; that he's right and everyone else is wrong and therefore his change must go in; etc, etc. We've done all the recommended conflict resolution steps; a survey is running right now at Talk:Apartheid, but it's pretty clear that the anon will not abide by the findings of the survey. Everyking is wrong here; we've given this guy lots of opportunity, many of us have tried to explain our positions -- but he explicitly discards any arguments he disagrees with, and states his own position over and over again. Someone else referred to it as crapflooding; I don't think it's really that -- I don't get a sense that the guy is trolling. But we're pretty frustrated. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 5 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)
 * I have only recently become involved in the discussion on Talk:Apartheid by invitation, and have been denigrated elsewhere by this anon, for doing so. If s/he has any concept of consensus, s/he clearly has no interest in abiding thereby, and the same goes with WP:NPA, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.  I'm not frustrated with this anon, I'm conflusterpated as how it can be possible that we have, collectively, engaged in troll-feeding for this long.  None of his (I'm going to now go ahead and assume the anon is a guy, henceforth, because without wanting to sound too incredibly sexist, I've never met a woman who's so pig-headed as this anon, when it comes to this kind of issue) arguments have changed from day one of the discussion, even after (literally) dozens of refutations of each and every single point he tries to make to back the purported legitimacy of his edit.  This has long since spread from Apartheid to other articles, mostly related to Israel, where he has engaged in the same unproductive activities:  making unsupportable claims and additions to articles that clearly back some POV, then making personal attacks and wild accusations on the talk pages.  Not only are his edits useless, they're wasting the time of valuable wikipedians, who have to go clean up behind him.  Tomer TALK  July 5, 2005 22:57 (UTC)

Right, so since this guy is a personal attack making troll nut, I'm trying something new. He's blocked for 24 hours for disruption as of now. I've left a note on his talk page. But since SBC DSL lets you have a new IP address by unplugging your modem, there's not a lot of point in the actual technical measure of a block, so instead, I'm just going to roll back his edits for 24 hours regardless of content. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 19:28 (UTC)
 * Please stop the personal attacks and wild accusations, and pushing POV via reverts of legitmate contributions. That's called censorship.69.218.25.180 8 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)


 * Of course, he's now using . Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)


 * Of course he is. But the nice thing about a "manual block" like this is that it transfers to new IPs effortlessly. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 20:44 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours for block evasion. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 20:37 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I still don't get it. Why dosen't Everyking try to do something himself as per conciliation. He seems fond of the approach so long as he dosen't need to do any of the actual conciliatory work. Which is getting tiresome. El_C 5 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I encourage Everyking to actually do some work in the areas he's so quick to criticize others for - his criticisms would carry much more weight did they not continually come from the sidelines, and I think the lesson in the abject stupidity of certain elements of our userbase would be instructive. I know, for example, that I never truly appreciated RickK until I tried Newpages patrol. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 23:23 (UTC)
 * These criticisms you speak of are mild encouragements toward consensus and civility when I see people turning towards solutions that I see as possibly (not definitely, because often I haven't fully reviewed them) too harsh. They are emphatically not implications that I could do any better&mdash;in many cases I am quite sure that I couldn't. Everyking 5 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to remove this comment just so I can put it on BJAODN. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 23:34 (UTC)
 * I think that you must "fully review them," or please refrain from jumping to conlcusions, Everyking. Thanks. El_C 5 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)
 * I don't think I jump to conclusions. Often I don't even draw conclusions about these things. Everyking 6 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)
 * Please don't play with semantics, James. I am speaking of your reaction and its inherent leaning. El_C 6 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)


 * Everyking needs to cease all the backseat driving and take the wheel, for once. RickK departure underscores some of the deep concerns I have for Wikipedia. And the encyclopedia is much worse off without him. El_C 5 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)


 * Not really. There are plenty of other admins who are willing to throw their weight around rather than try more constructive approaches, as we're seeing here. -- Grace Note.


 * If this came to the arbcom, we would almost certainly say something like "the admins don't need us to tell them how to deal with abusive IPs." - David Gerard 5 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)


 * This is a serious and ongoing problem. Everyking's comments are useless.  It is he who, his claims to the contrary notwithstanding, is jumping to utterly unsupportable conclusions.  My conclusion:  Everyking monitors this page all day long, which is why he has so little time to investigate the problems he so flagrantly and uninformedly comments on, all day long.  Nothing he has said thus far in this discussion (nor in any other in which I've seen him involved today) is even remotely relevant, and not worthy of a split second's regard.  If he thinks he doesn't jump to conclusions, then I have to jump to the conclusion that he simply doesn't think at all.  That said, David Gerard is correct.  If Everyking's silly suggestion that this should be brought to ArbCom were actually followed, ArbCom would probably ban everyone for a week.  This is a clearcut case of violation of at least a dozen WP policies.  This troll's edits need to be reverted on sight.  Jayjg and SlimVirgin both blocked him today, Jayjg did so on, I believe he said 19 IP addresses and sockpuppets before Jay believed he'd quit for the night, after he'd told him that he was going to take 24 hours "off" whether he liked it or not.  The troll has stopped crapflooding this page, to use Bcrowell's neologism, but is back hard at work with his personal attacks and unmitigated stupidity at Talk:Apartheid, now as  at the very least.  I'm tempted to nominate myself for a speedy RfA just so I can get keep this troll under the bridge.  Tomer TALK  July 6, 2005 08:41 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in squelching legitimate discussion, and so I fully support User:JohanL's vote in favor of this anonymous troll's positions, as expressed on Talk:Apartheid, eventhough I fundamentally disagree with his rationale. That said, User:Molloy appears to be a vandalistic sockpuppet of the said anon, and it's astonishing that this vandalistic edit has yet to be challenged by anyone.  The edsum is a blatant lie, the [This] poll is a ripoff of the poll at Talk:Apartheid, and serves no useful purpose whatsoever.  Tomer TALK  July 6, 2005 09:02 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, it appears my assumption that Molloy was a sockpuppet of this troll was in error. I had not thought it possible, but it appears Molloy is even more malicious.  This doesn't change the fact that the edsum of  is a lie, and that the edit constitutes nothing short of rampant vandalism.  I've invited Molloy to undo it at Talk:Anti-Defamation League. Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  July 6, 2005 09:15 (UTC)
 * Upon even further review, I have retracted my accusations not only of sockpuppetry, but of lying and vandalism as well . It appears that aside from some political and prejudicial views of Molloy's which I find highly objectionable, s/he is actually only guilty (at least in this case) of really..."bad" archiving and using a talk page to make a point.  Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  July 6, 2005 13:35 (UTC)
 * I strongly refute that claim, I am not his, nor anyone elses sockpuppet. I suggest Tomer produce some sort of evidence before throwing around vile accusations. Molloy 6 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Molloy's his own breed of Nazi (or, since he insists that only members of the NSDAP can be called Nazis, I'll just call him a notsi.) He does share an obsession with Jews and Jewish-related topics with the anon, but they're not the same guy. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 6 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)
 * I concur. Molloy is a unique New Zealand based Jew-bashing neo-Nazi, he's not our American Jew-bashing anon. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 6 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

I concur, jayjg is a Jewish supremacist and propagandist, and although American domiciled, he's a Zionist through and through. Meanwhile, within hours he was editing (and reverting) again as. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 6 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)
 * above WP:NPA violation courtesy of . Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  July 8, 2005 17:20 (UTC)


 * /shrug. So we extend the block 24 hours, and this time when you see him doing it from another IP, revert him as a blocked user as soon as you see it. Or drop me a line and I'll do it. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 15:20 (UTC)

I have created a page which lists all this users Userids and IP address. You will find it at User:Jayjg/Jews did Apartheid editor. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 8 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)

Possible reincarnations
Strike these out once they're either added to the developing RfAr or shown by CheckUser to be other editors unassociated with this disruptive quasianon. Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 05:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * - Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 05:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we have another disruptive apartheid editor in our midst. This user is engaging in edit wars in White (people), and making ridiculous accusations in Talk:White (people). All he's doing is just deleting contents he doesn't like in the article. Probably a sockpuppet of. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 08:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible this is someone else?
Some of the attack names look similar to those used by a notorious banned troll and sockpuppeteer... 68.39.174.238 01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it possible who is someone else? And which notorious banned troll are you talking about? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)