Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ JzG _ JzG's "private block template"
Posted by: Miltopia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/blocked
I thought of this idea a while back and was wondering who would be the first to think of it on WP and implement it. I should've known it would be Guy Chapman, the man who considers rampant instability and self-gratifying lectures to be assets to adminship.
Just LOOK at it. He is so fucking full of himself, it's infuriating! I've never seen anyone with such gall, anyone so convinced they're entitled to play Daddy with everyone they have power over.
I could care less about Guy's sysop bit at this point; I'm more concerned about the fact that this man is raising real live children, and I say that with absolutely no humor. I hope someone drums up a policy to forbid transcluding userspace in block messages (though since the idea originated here, it'll probably never happen :-D).
Posted by: cyofee
He's neither the first nor the last bad parent.
Posted by: thekohser
Guy Chapman has personal experience with contrition??
News to me.
Posted by: Kato
Guy Chapman has personal experience with contrition??
News to me.
Guy Chapman could begin to show some "personal experience with contrition" by apologizing to erm.... all the people he has defamed / attacked / lied about on Wikipedia. Starting with http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16482. There are countless others waiting in that queue.
As oft-stated by me, Guy's performance of late makes him the single most damaging user on Wikipedia. Like SlimVirgin before him, most of the recent individual problems at Wikipedia stem from some lunatic activity on his part.
As far as I know, whole communities of people aren't demanding apologies from Charles Matthews. That's because Charles hasn't openly lied about about other contributors on a grand scale to score points in personal disputes.
Guy Chapman will be banned eventually. He lacks the wisdom to conduct himself appropriately and has been a disaster for Wikipedia. Will others show the same obnoxious pleasure at his banning that he has shown others over time? Probably.
Posted by: wikiwhistle
I this use of wiki in compliance with the GFDL? 
Posted by: Lar
Lots of people have their own custom templates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lar/test5 ... I haven't used it in ages, it seems a bit "silly" now. I prefer to just write someone a note directly.
I do not think that casting aspersions for having a block template is really all that useful. In reading over JzG's I'm not seeing the big problems that others do. Editing IS a priv, not a right, and contrition DOES work better than bluster.
Posted by: Kato
Editing IS a priv, not a right, and contrition DOES work better than bluster.
Editing is not a "privilege" - sometimes it is a necessity to correct outrageous misrepresentations foisted on the world by your site.
Whatsmore, your site states that it contains content that "anyone can edit". People like Herschelkrustofsky, Moulton and Poetlister cannot edit the site. Your administrators singled them out and prevented them from doing so via nefarious means. Ergo, the site is advertising under false premises.
Lots of people have their own custom templates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lar/test5 ... I haven't used it in ages, it seems a bit "silly" now. I prefer to just write someone a note directly.
Some templates are probably helpful such as yours, some templates are obnoxious such as JzG's. Especially if one considers the personality and obvious failings of the person lecturing others with the template.
Posted by: Proabivouac
Some templates are probably helpful such as yours, some templates are obnoxious such as JzG's. Especially if one considers the personality and obvious failings of the person lecturing others with the template.
Yes, JzG's template is high-handed ("so I have withdrawn it") and snarky ("your mileage may vary").
I find it amazing that he's even designing any block template at all, given the ongoing (?) RfC. You'd think he'd have resolved not to block anyone at all for awhile, or at least only the most obvious cases, but this template suggests that he hasn't.
Posted by: Milton Roe
Editing IS a priv, not a right, and contrition DOES work better than bluster.
Well, of course it does. Since defiance of "authority" is the one and only real sin in any society or organization. Why do you think the ancient penalties for treason and heresy were always worse than anything else (usually involving a slow and grusome death). Which murder usually did not. In fact, killing may carry no penalty at all, so long as somebody gives you the authority to drop the bombs or fire the torpedos. We merely define it as something other than murder, inasmuch as murder is unauthorized killing.
Even people tried for war crimes aren't really being tried for killing. They're tried for killing while being on the wrong side (see "losing") and having been moderately successful at it. One of the more embarassing moments at Nuremburg was when they were trying Doernitz for planning a war of aggression (he was an admiral, so what else was he supposed to do?) and for failing to pick up survivors after sub attacks--- which the Allies also never did, since this is impossible, and freely admitted as much at Doernitz's trial (dang, you made me use the 's). He got 10 years anyway, just on general principles, partly because he wasn't repentent like Spear. He would have gotten more if they'd dared. The Allies basically just figured he ought to suffer for being a really good soldier. And probably the Nazis would have shot him if he hadn't been.
Posted by: Moulton
Good post, Milton Roe.
One of the ironies in my case is that I was ushered to the exits by the allied editors of the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent design for defying their authority. The irony is that one of the mainstays of their edits is that religious arguments are an "appeal to authority" and thus not scientifically probative. What I wanna know is who set them up as authorities on the subjects of those problematic BLPs?
Posted by: Miltopia
Lar, if you're saying you don't see a difference between your block template and JzG's, then I frankly don't believe you. Your block template is professional and conveys Wikipedia expectations, values and rules. It has absolutely none of the contempt or self-gratification that Guys template does. Most of all, it's all about the "we" and the "our", implying some endorsement of the ideas it communicates by the community. Guy's template is all about Guy, and Guys victims validating Guy's authority.
Wikimedia has such a diverse potpourri of socially defective people in power. Guy to me is the epitome of the sector that needs to know he's able to condescend to other people, his peers no less. The only thing I'm unsure of is whether he believes they're truly submitting to his authority, or whether he knows and gets off on the fact that they only play along because he has the block button.
Posted by: wikiwhistle
Guys says you have to tell him before doing anything with it. I don't think that is technically GFDL, in letter or spirit.
Posted by: Lar
Lar, if you're saying you don't see a difference between your block template and JzG's, then I frankly don't believe you. Your block template is professional and conveys Wikipedia expectations, values and rules. It has absolutely none of the contempt or self-gratification that Guys template does. Most of all, it's all about the "we" and the "our", implying some endorsement of the ideas it communicates by the community. Guy's template is all about Guy, and Guys victims validating Guy's authority.
Wikimedia has such a diverse potpourri of socially defective people in power. Guy to me is the epitome of the sector that needs to know he's able to condescend to other people, his peers no less. The only thing I'm unsure of is whether he believes they're truly submitting to his authority, or whether he knows and gets off on the fact that they only play along because he has the block button.
I'm not saying I don't see a difference, I'm just saying a lot of people have them, and have had them for a while. I have to confess, I cribbed mine from Phadriel's original http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phaedriel/Test5, long long ago. I do see a wording difference between them, yes.
But I sort of think now (aligned with WP:DTTR) templates may not be the best approach except for run of the mill vandalism. An editor with some contributions deserves some explanation specific to his or her situation, I would think.
Posted by: Moulton
Templates and similar tags strike me as PaintBall, in the sense that some editors load up their blunderbusses and go looking for convenient targets.
Posted by: The Joy
"Thy edits hath offended mine eyes. Thy editing privileges shall henceforth be removed anon. If thou be stout of heart and shall abide by yon Wikipedia rules of yore, thou may ask for unblock. Thou shalt not assume yon foolish notion thou may edit thy Wikipedia as yon right as editing yon Wikipedia is verily a privilege. If thou hath cometh not to edit yon encyclopedia, thou shalt be thrown into yon Lake of Fire (see WP:BAN) and forever thou shalt be tormented by yon flames. If thou should return in ye form of sock, thou shalt be banned most violently. Thou must knoweth that BANNED MEANETH BANNED. Only thy Holy Committee of Arbitrators (WP:ARBCOM) hath ye powers to atone thy sinful nature."
Posted by: wikiwhistle
lol Joy, are you WikiDefender? You are a great rhetoritician like him.
Posted by: Miltopia
Lar, do you use your template in the block log field or just on talk pages? It's my impression that Guy's is for use in block messages, which to me is new, and I think should be forboden.
If yours is/was indeed for use in the block log, you should know that PAGENAME won't show their name, but rather the page they are trying to edit.
Posted by: Alison
Lar, do you use your template in the block log field or just on talk pages? It's my impression that Guy's is for use in block messages, which to me is new, and I think should be forboden.
If yours is/was indeed for use in the block log, you should know that PAGENAME won't show their name, but rather the page they are trying to edit.
As a matter of interest, did you know that images can be embedded in block messages?
http://e271.net/~alison/wiki/fsckyou.jpg - yes, this is real!
For the backstory to this, this image was the one that JtV used to use a lot for vandalising peoples' talk pages, hence the idea to try this. I never used it though - honest!
Posted by: Milton Roe
As a matter of interest, did you know that images can be embedded in block messages?
http://e271.net/~alison/wiki/fsckyou.jpg - yes, this is real!
For the backstory to this, this image was the one that JtV used to use a lot for vandalising peoples' talk pages, hence the idea to try this. I never used it though - honest!
Pity. I really want to be there when some little junior high student is busy adding swear words to wikis on science topics from the library computer, and all of a sudden, THAT comes up. YES!!
TEACHER! THEY'RE BEING MEAN TO ME!!!
Posted by: Lar
Lar, do you use your template in the block log field or just on talk pages? It's my impression that Guy's is for use in block messages, which to me is new, and I think should be forboden.
If yours is/was indeed for use in the block log, you should know that PAGENAME won't show their name, but rather the page they are trying to edit.
Just on talk pages, and I subst it and reedit to get round any substitution and variable problems. Note that PAGENAME there is the desired effect, it's a message TO the person and follows right after the Dear... One of the reasons I don't use it much is that it doesn't seem to actually save me any time
I didn't realise that JzG was referencing it from the block log. I put links to things in block logs but not things that would be likely to change so ya, it seems like it might not be a good idea to do that.
Posted by: Count DeMonet
Guy Chapman could begin to show some "personal experience with contrition" by apologizing to erm.... all the people he has defamed / attacked / lied about on Wikipedia. Starting with http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16482. There are countless others waiting in that queue.
Now, why does that make me think of http://hhgproject.org/entries/wowbagger.html ?
Posted by: Miltopia
Lar, do you use your template in the block log field or just on talk pages? It's my impression that Guy's is for use in block messages, which to me is new, and I think should be forboden.
If yours is/was indeed for use in the block log, you should know that PAGENAME won't show their name, but rather the page they are trying to edit.
Just on talk pages, and I subst it and reedit to get round any substitution and variable problems. Note that PAGENAME there is the desired effect, it's a message TO the person and follows right after the Dear... One of the reasons I don't use it much is that it doesn't seem to actually save me any time
I didn't realise that JzG was referencing it from the block log. I put links to things in block logs but not things that would be likely to change so ya, it seems like it might not be a good idea to do that.
I may have been hasty here - JzG has yet to use his template anywhere. Perhaps he won't now that it got some attention over here...
Anyway, I do believe that's what it was intended for. Let's assume that he IS planning to use it in the block reason" field. Good idea or bad idea? Bad idea in general to transclude userspace, or just when it's as bad as this one is?
Posted by: Lar
Lar, do you use your template in the block log field or just on talk pages? It's my impression that Guy's is for use in block messages, which to me is new, and I think should be forboden.
If yours is/was indeed for use in the block log, you should know that PAGENAME won't show their name, but rather the page they are trying to edit.
Just on talk pages, and I subst it and reedit to get round any substitution and variable problems. Note that PAGENAME there is the desired effect, it's a message TO the person and follows right after the Dear... One of the reasons I don't use it much is that it doesn't seem to actually save me any time
I didn't realise that JzG was referencing it from the block log. I put links to things in block logs but not things that would be likely to change so ya, it seems like it might not be a good idea to do that.
I may have been hasty here - JzG has yet to use his template anywhere. Perhaps he won't now that it got some attention over here...
Anyway, I do believe that's what it was intended for. Let's assume that he IS planning to use it in the block reason" field. Good idea or bad idea? Bad idea in general to transclude userspace, or just when it's as bad as this one is?
Snap answer would be bad idea as a general rule to transclude userspace (other than perhaps the space of the person being blocked to show something as an example?) into log entries, but I'd have to think more... I think generally tempates are used to allow for more than can be said in the limited text space there so that seems goodness to me... Non trivial question.