Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Aux02

He loves AfD, though. I realized after I voted (he notes proudly his involvement in my ArbCom case) that he was one who insisted I be properly punished for my noting on my talk page that the Koch bothers were not related to Nazi war criminals. He earlier was upset that I feel referring to Jews as having "divided loyalties" is a wee bit verging on anti-Semitism. But anyone who has a 91% "Delete" vote record at AfD seems to me to be unusual, and not a good candidate for Admin.

— Collect, J.B. Hunley for Sysop, Wikipediocracy

He must be a Jeremy Corbyn supporter. That's one of the key issues in the latest row in the British Labour party.

— Third party, J.B. Hunley for Sysop, Wikipediocracy

Collect and I get along like a house on fire - the flames roar until nothing is left :)

Well I did bring up the ArbCom case in response to the mandatory "What conflicts have you been involved in?" question. Anyway he still seems to be nursing some issues because I, and *many* others, thought that he was full of shit for saying that by noting that lots of people from The Project for a New American Century ended up in the Bush II administration and considering that was worthy of note we had become the new face of McCarthyism. He can spout off in whatever way makes him feel better but I strongly suggest he not continue to insinuate I am Antisemitic in a public forum. Other than that I have zero interest in re-hashing a years dead dispute.

I probably should have cut him some more slack back then. He had some serious family medical issues going on back then which I have regrettably learned more empathy for in the interim and I am genuinely sorry for meeting his outbursts then head on rather than more gently.

— Jbhunley, J.B. Hunley for Sysop, Wikipediocracy

I hate to say this but I had completely forgotten your existence.

Ascribing my position on AfDs to anything other than the fact that it is one of my primary criteria for any RfA is insane at best. Read my past RfA votes!

As for somehow trying to connect me with McCarthyism -- that is so far beyond the pale that it ought to be mentioned on Wikipedia at that point.

Congrats. I had totally forgotten your existence - and now your goal is to defame me? What the FUCK!

Medical issues belittled by Hunley included three major melanomas for my wife (volume of 200 cc sub-cutaneous - removal of over 2000 cc of flesh). One "poster" said my wife should die. I did not laugh at that. Sorry JB - she is still alive. I was denied any delay in order to answer thousands of words posted on the case - and was told the limit would not be extended even if my wife died. Great "empathy" now. I made a post on my talk page that the claim that Ilse Koch was related to the Koch brothers was false. For which Hunley made sure I was blocked for an extended period.

Hunley and others basically defended material saying that any Republican Jews had divided loyalty and were working for Israel. Other material was that the group proposed mass genocide of non-Jews in Israel and stuff like that. Administrator material, for sure.

He may have made a mistake in attacking me when my oppose was only based on his AfD record - which is what I generally use at RfAs.

— Collect, J.B. Hunley for Sysop, Wikipediocracy

Wow! Your personal matters and your wife's health are *yours* to disclose *not* mine. I tried to say I was sorry for not being more compassionate in the past and I commented only on what you said here. *Nothing* about your !vote - it's Wikipedia for fuck's sake! Your, nor really anyone's, fair comment is not something I would challenge there, much less here so whatever brought that screed on is all you. Nor did I connect you with McCarthyism. I said you were accusing *me* and other editors of McCarthyism.

I am glad your wife is alive, and I hope well. Your claim I ever expressed a desire otherwise is either a barefaced lie or a product of your imagination. Where I failed in compassion last time was in assuming every time you spouted BS like this you were being maliciously or manipulatively deceitful and responding based on that assumption. After this screed I no longer care the reasons for your behavior then or now.

I welcome anyone to read the discussions from that time and note any congruence between those events and your representation of them. I fear they will find there is little similarity between the two. Also, go ahead and link to this on-wiki if you feel so wronged. It would be a dick move and probably an 'outing' violation but meh pleanty of Wikipedians will read it regardless, This *is* a Wikipedia criticism site after all and geez-wiz people will see I respond negatively to people who bad mouth me. I bet they will shocked... shocked I say!

I now remember why I was not able to be particularly empathetic in the past - it is because you are quite simply an overwrought bitter asshole. Stupid of me to engage.

— Jbhunley, J.B. Hunley for Sysop, Wikipediocracy

collect wrote: Hunley and others basically defended material saying that any Republican Jews had divided loyalty and were working for Israel. Other material was that the group proposed mass genocide of non-Jews in Israel and stuff like that.

If this has any truth in it (and Mr Hunley has yet to refute it; I hope that he will), it is an extremely serious allegation which would make it problematic for him to be an admin. It is clearly antisemitism according to the internationally accepted definition. The row within the British Labour Party is about the refusal of their National Executive to accept those parts of the definition that would brand this sort of language as antisemitic, presumably because many Labour Party members want to carry on saying things like that.

— 2nd Third party, J.B. Hunley for Sysop, Wikipediocracy

I refute it utterly. I hate to use phrases like "the strongest possible terms" and would rather simply use those terms. However, at this time restraint is called for so: Again, I refute this in the strongest possible terms. Antisemitism is hideous. Those who promote it are, in my opinion, outside the pale of civil society, and those who use false accusations of it to advance their agenda are dirt. When I dealt with Collect several years ago at ArbCom I had an entire evidence section entitled Presents a view of reality not fully congruent with facts link Take from that what you will. Then he was into accusing me of McCarthyism. Now he has upped his game to accusations antisemitism in a public forum. He dares not make those claims on-wiki. He would have to prove it with diffs and he can not. Because I am not an antisemite, an antisemitic editor or a McCarthyite.

— Jbhunley, J.B. Hunley for Sysop, Wikipediocracy

The fact is I had forgotten you existed until you were the one making a "big deal" now. I opined. as I have on many RfAs, about the person's AfD stats.

Then someone accused me of doing so because I hated you when I did not even know who the hell you were! And your friend said they should get rid of "trash."

Has it occurred to you that it was you who continued holding a grudge when I did not give a damn?

Lastly, my comments about you in the distant past were on "guilt by association" and I never, ever accused you of being a friend of McCarthy.

Note that I do not know who the hell you are, have no interest in who the hell you are, and this colloquy is not in any way related to who the hell you are.

— Collect, J.B. Hunley for Sysop, Wikipediocracy

Collect,

I have not worked with MrX or any of the other participants in that case in years. If you would like to discuss things or comment on my on-wiki behavior I would be happy to engage with you on a talk page on Wikipedia. The civility norms there will help keep a lid on things; we will have diffs so we do not need to rely solely upon our years old recollections; and so anyone who is interested can follow our discussions on-wiki.

I was truely only responding to your implication of antisemitism here. At least two posters here found those accusations to be serious enough to comment on and one wanted a specific denial so I do not believe I was misreading the accusation behind your comment.

As to the other stuff, my apology for not cutting you more slack in the past was sincere. I know now more than then what a terrible ordeal that must have been for you and the unimaginable distress you must have been dealing with. If we could roll things back a bit to that apology and move on from there it would be great.

I remember the forumy (in a good way) discussions you used to host on your talk page and I enjoyed them a lot. We bumped heads, argued and even became angry but, usually, got passed it. I found the topics interesting and your commentary inciteful even when I totally disagreed. In particular I remember one that focused around some Princeton (I think) professor and his theory of 'reverse-authoritarianism'. I likely never would have been introduced to that, to me, utterly fascinating topic without your thread relating to it.

I am sorry things blew up and spun out of control so fast and for my part in that. The 'overwrought bitter asshole' comment was too far. We disagree on basic facts of our past interactions but those were years ago and I, personally, see no reason why that should define our interactions now or going forward.

I am getting a lot of blow-back at RfA for this thread so I am going to step away at a minimum until my RfA is over.

To the other forum members, I am not ignoring your questions and I will answer the still relevant ones once this all over, whatever the outcome. I hope you all enjoy the remainder of this nice Summer week... I am not entirely sure I will :)

— Jbhunley, J.B. Hunley for Sysop, Wikipediocracy

Cite your edits and note the discussion regarding labelling "Jews" in the PNAC article and list of signatories. Simple.

Note that I insisted that labelling "Jews" in any article, and especially where one person wanted a section on divided loyalty, was, and remains wrong. Note further that I have opined a lot on many BLP discussions regarding labelling people for religion and ethnicity.

I oppose such labels and have done so for years.

"So far other editors see a "conceivable need for the infamous "table"." So, there is a place to discuss the specifics of inclusion above. Signing the 'Statement of Principals' is a strong tie of association. The 25 Signatories are referred to collectively in the press regularly and individuals are often referred to as one of the 25 Signatories when discussed in the press. If you see a weak association please discuss it above. General complaints have been addressed multiple times. Specific addressable concerns about individuals will move the discussion forward. Jbh (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "

(My post on BLP/N) Under no circumstances should Wikipedia promote the famed "dual loyalty" slurs. Using on any BLP (Scooter Libby BLP for example) such sources as " 32. Cf. Ron Kampeas, "Libby Jewish? Some Wonder How Neo-con’s Faith Impacts Leak Scandal", Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), November 2, 2005; rpt. in Ron Kampeas, "Did Libby's Jewishness Impact the CIA Leak Scandal?" Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), November 6, 2005; updated November 7, 2005; both accessed July 16, 2007., neoconservatism is an episode, an important and interesting one, in the intellectual and political history of Jewish America, and it is impudent to call anyone who mentions this a bigot. Schoenfeld suggests that only racist crackpots ever query the commitment of senior Washington officials, but it was Jack Straw, himself a descendant of Jewish immigrants, who said of Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff: "It's a toss-up whether Libby is working for the Israelis or the Americans on any given day.", and the like are improper accusations of having Jewishness being the defining political characteristics of living persons. Your mileage may clearly vary, of course. And I do regard any edit which makes such associations to be violative of BLP, and I suggest that your view is not supported by WP:BLP policy. To call a person a "member" of a group requires a strong source for such "membership". Collect (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ge_W._Bush

A "Keep" voter wrote "The article is highly referenced with a plethora of high quality sources which use the term members. The signatories of the two "letters" are grouped together in multiple RS. There is no question of OR. Collect claims the sourcing is bad because of lewrockwell. That source is used for nothing and there is discussion on the talk page to delete it. He does not address the multiple sources from highly respected academic presses like Cambridge University Press, Routledge, Sage, State University of New York Press and Texas A&M University Press. When the "guilty" are "associated" by multiple high quality sources it is not a BLP violation. That is assuming there is even anything to be "guilty of" which I do not concede. As to your aunt's neighbor I am sorry to hear that but such touching anecdotes carry no weight here. They serve only as a rhetorical device to change a rational discussion into an emotional one."

My reponse - which someone thinks called him a "McCarthyite" -- was: "Your assertion that I only find lewrockwell to be a problem is incorrect and inapt, and seems more of an ad hom attack on me than a defense of the article. And I note that you only assert "associated with" and not "membership" here -- and in the 50s anyone "'associated' with the CPUSA" was therefore a "communist" which is precisely where I find this sort of SYNTH leads without a doubt. If you find my distaste for McCarthyism to be "emotional" - damn straight it is emotional for anyone who knew people whose lives were destroyed. "Touching anecdote" is not the case here - and I find such dismissiveness of McCarthyism as "touching anecdotes" to be quite offensive. Tell me when someone makes a "touching anecdote" by destroying someone you know that it is just a mere "touching anecdote." By that argument, Hiroshima is a mere "touching anecdote". If one is willing to destroy others, then such people would not give a damn. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "

So much for taking umbrage at me "attacking" anyone at all.

Note the overwhelming consensus what that the article grossly violated WP:SYNTH, etc.

Not even close.

Did I msquote your AfD statements?

Oh - one of the "sources" was https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/mic ... onspiracy/

A wonderful source which remained in the article for far too long due to some of its supporters. I suggest the supporters of the article" were more than a gram politically motivated?

— Collect, J.B. Hunley for Sysop, Wikipediocracy