Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JJay


 * RFC brenneman style


 * JJay (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) (Make sure you don't confuse JJay with Jayjg, Essjay, or Sj, as happens every once in a while.)

Statement of the dispute
I've had a long series of run-ins with JJay, and having his talk page on my watch list shows that I'm not alone. While his net positive benefit to the encyclopedia is open to debate, the amount of time otherwise sensible members spend in discussion with him regarding how he edits is not. - brenneman  02:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing his behavior Name It and Frame It? makes other editors frustrated and less willing to add content if its just going to be removed by someone without comment. FGT2 19:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * JJay's talk
 * User_talk:JJay
 * Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Aaron_Brenneman_%28second_nomination%29
 * Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Aaron_Brenneman_%28second_nomination%29
 * On an article talk page posted Jan 21, JJay never replies, but continues his reverting and drive to remove the the content up until today with a merge tag. He has left no reason for a merge, start no discussion for a merge, and has failed to reply to the concerns of other editors.

This section is actually a composite of two user's input (see history) since I hate the "make a bald claim and then we vote on it" format of a normal RfC. But I'm flexible. - brenneman  07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Desired outcome of this request for comment
That JJay
 * 1) Increases the civility that he extends to other users,
 * 2) Cease agressively refactoring his talk page
 * 3) Insert source material into articles when requested to do so
 * 4) Apply reversion less agressively
 * 5) Contributes to the content

Incivility

 * Older items
 * "designed to intimidate,"
 * "distorted summaries"
 * "Yeah, whatever"
 * Going through his talk page history is interesting and full of incivility. He removes questions over and over again from his talk page.


 * Newer items
 * He gets into a dispute with a user then goes through that users history removing additions like a table of contents. How does JJay know the table of contents is a copyright violation? Is he really concerned about a copyright violation of the description added by someone he disagrees with? Or did he do it to cause trouble?
 * Add something here...

Afd participation
There's no requirement for people to edit an article before they participate in the afd, nor is there a rule that they must add sources to the article that they present in a deletion discussion. However, at some stage continued refusal to perform these same actions amounts to disruption.
 * Older - Not adding references/editing article


 * 1) Articles for deletion/Freebord
 * 2) Articles for deletion/Cary Towne Center
 * 3) Articles for deletion/List of Songs Containing the word Fuck in a Prominent Position
 * 4) Votes keep, but fails to add sources/proof of his claims. (AfD by Abrustoo)
 * 5) Another keep vote without proof (AfD by Abrustoo)
 * 6) Votes to a keep an unaccredited school which is a PO Box and fails to add sourcing. (AfD by Abrustoo)
 * 7) Votes keep, no sourcing (AfD by Abrustoo)
 * 8) Votes keep and attacks AfD nom Abrustoo (Thus, his votes look like a vendetta)
 * 9) JJay's source claims were cited as the reason for keeping Newport University (California) (an unaccredited "law school"). JJay has never added a single source to the article even though the afd was closed in November. On the other hand he has removed a notability tag.


 * "Keep needs sources" arguments


 * 1) Articles for deletion/Celebrities who have been involved in incidents resulting in death

Reverting
Frequent use of reversion in lieu of discussion
 * Older
 * Nude_beach
 * Recent
 * Trifecta
 * Ongoing content dispute involving
 * Revision as of 18:36, 22 January: Kim Bruning rv *3. if you are a conscientious, non-gaming editor: once things are on talk, KEEP IT THERE. Note that you misunderstand the purpose of the wording
 * Revision as of 18:52, 22 January: JJay rmv cat "basic information"- the Five Pillars is basic information- this is an essay with a weak spin on the five pillars
 * Revision as of 19:24, 22: Demi The essay tag here isn't terribly useful; no special tag is really needed
 * Revision as of 19:58, 22 January:JJay rv back to me- I agree the essay tag is not too useful BUT the page name says policy and this is not policy- hence needs tag for clarification
 * Extended discussion at User_talk:JJay
 * Polling is not a substitute for discussion
 * Name It and Frame It?
 * Removes a list and when good points are brought up he stops communicating and has added a merge tag even today. In all over 9 reverts.
 * 2000 Summer Olympics medals per capita
 * Darlene Love - in particuler her JJay grouses about his edits being reverted w/o commentary. Examples of JJay's rversions w/o commentary?
 * Removal of a college he claims its accredited, but offers no evidence or discussion. A edit war continues.a
 * Reverts notice about this RfC

Misc

 * 1) Amnesty for the Communards
 * 2)  + request for sources on JJ's talk
 * 3) List of ...for Dummies books (talk, AfD1, AfD2)
 * 4) Trying to remove the a helpful unaccredited list citing copyright violiation, but knowningly wants to keep a known copy right violation.
 * 5) Removes degree mill list citing copyright conerns. He was told it was not a copyright violation and continues to remove it.
 * 6) Adds a merge tag and with no discussion and a week later it is removed. He readds it.
 * 7) User talk page - purposeful obfuscation of other editor's concerns.
 * 8)  Needless removal of links
 * 9) One of his few edits concerns an article recently started by a person involved in the RfC. JJay removed content and added tags  He added a source tag when the article had sources, and incorrectly said "our article on Nostradamus says he's not Jewish" and removed the claim. Contrary to JJay's claim, the Nostradamus article says his "family had originally been Jewish."

Behavior that's positive

 * Writing article...
 * Providing sources...

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
 * 1)  brenneman  07:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (Do I really need to sign here? It seems silly.)
 * 2) FGT2 05:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * 1) JJay's inclusion standards are low, which is fine, but fail to respect policy and guidelines, which is not.  Being essentially a lone voice calling keep in some cases is beyond quixotic, I think. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Arbustoo 05:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' '' 

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view from KazakhPol
The diffs provided under the section on incivility seem to be a joke. Other than the second diff provided, I hardly see any evidence that he has broken a Wikipedia policy. RFCs are not the place to complain about how a user votes on AFDs. Instead of policy violations I see frequent editing disputes in which this editor has at least usually kept a level head. KazakhPol 04:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
 * 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Up to a point, yes. JJay is not, in my experience, rude, but his devotion to articles whose merits elude in some cases quite large numbers of editors can cause him to be abrasive at times. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I quite honestly see very little here that could be considered even borderline material. All that I can really suggest here is that perhaps he should discuss a little bit more, to keep situations like this from boiling up.  I seen no substantive policy violations here - only content disputes.  --Haemo 06:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Outside view from badlydrawnjeff
Nothing against Aaron or anyone else, but deletionists are not held to this same type of standard as Wikipedians of an inclusionist stripe are. Someone suggests keeping an article without adding sources or providing a good enough argument every so often, and they're raked over the coals or considered dangerous. Meanwhile, people consistently abandon those same guidelines and provide crap arguments to delete, and no one questions them. JJay's a useful contributor to these discussions and is really no better or worse than anyone else. The double standard that inclusionists are held to, in my mind, cancels out some of the excesses that JJay may occasionally use in these discussions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
 * 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Guy (Help!) 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorsing in so far as AfD is very broken and there are problems in both ends in AfDs. That does not however excuse JJay. JoshuaZ 07:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside view from Arbustoo
JJay has a long history of revert wars and causing disturbances. I could careless about how he votes as long as it is justified, and not a reaction to particular editors. Badlydrawnjeff and KazakhPol's, are correct in their assertion of his voting, but their responses concern only one aspect of this RfC. My concern here isn’t afd voting.

However, his failure to add content and the continuous reverting without discussion is problematic. He has a clear past of refusal to compromise and concede error despite clear lapses in logic.

This user has no doubt chased away valuable contributors by frustrating newcomers and longtime contributors like myself. It is more important to attract discussion than it is to delete/keep articles of debatable importance. JJay has proved he is guilty of WP:TE. If he is not revert warring he is removing links, making pointless edits, and removing more links. 

JJay is not a valuable article contributor. Putting his afd voting to the side, his edits are more often combative than anything valuable. As a result, it is safe to conclude he is trying to provoke a reaction or an agenda.

A good example is:


 * 1) JJay removes two links critical of young earth creationism.
 * 2) It gets reverted back and JJay reverts again.
 * 3) Another editor puts the positive links as references, which properly sources claims. This means if JJay still believes the links should go he'll have to remove all links. However, he doesn't revert any more. This means either his opinion changed, which is unlikely as you can see he cites the policy and removes links at a later date, or he doesn't want to remove positive reviews.

JJay is the sole editor why I have stepped away from wikipedia. I am a busy person and have insight (I'll be general as I'm not here to impress) into much of what I edit. His behavior is at the least annoying, and at most a purposeful reaction. I have no doubt he is a child or an immature adult striking out at users and/or article subjects. If JJay were a new user I doubt he’d be given this latitude.

If wikipedia wishes to attract and retain experts, who have daily lives, people like JJay should be discouraged from edit warring and WP:TE. People who have busy lives and deal with more important things in the day are not going to go to the extent of battling childishness to edit wikipedia. They simply walk away and spend their time elsewhere. Arbustoo 05:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * JJay clearly knows about this RfC, but doesn't want to address the issues. Arbustoo 17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * JJay is back editting. See this trival edit and his removal of the RfC. Arbustoo 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
 * 1) POV pushing by external links is a subtle and thus very dangerous form of POV pushing. JoshuaZ 07:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment not endorsement - I don't see how you're an "outside view", considering that you feature prominently in several of the disputes featured above. --Haemo 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)