WP Admin Tells Conroy to "Shut the F*ck Up", ...oh, that JzG !! (plagiarising Gerard to boot!) Options

[Piperdown]

[WikiEN-l] Coordination on Secret/private lists
Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman at spamcop.net
Thu Dec 6 13:23:03 UTC 2007

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 01:10:34 -0500, "Alec Conroy"
<alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:

>I know this horse is sorta dead, but since peopel are still engaging
>in the post-mortem, I thought I should chime in.

No, I think you should shut the fuck up.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/086958.html


Yes, folks, this is one of the most active WP admins out there. When he's not running away from his Wikihome in a snit, until called back by Daddy Jimbo for super sekret missions. Plus WP has really good articles on titties.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Proabivouac]

It doesn't really bother me that JzG writs this way. What does bother me is that other editors are arbitrarily taken to task for ill-defined, and often lesser, "incivilities." (talking back to an administrator, opposing an RfA, etc.) Supposedly, we're reluctant to lay down hard and fast rules (e.g., no dirty words, no attacks on ethnicities, etc.) because this would allow others to "game the system" (which outside Wikipedia is called "following the law.") Examples like JzG's show that the real reason to avoid clarifying the rules is that, were they clear, it'd be more difficult, or at least more embarrassing, to enforce them unequally: a "no dirty words" provision would seem a no-brainer for a civility policy, but one which would lead to JzG getting blocked rather frequently.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Jonny Cache]

It doesn't really bother me that JzG writes this way. What does bother me is that other editors are arbitrarily taken to task for ill-defined, and often lesser, "incivilities." (talking back to an administrator, opposing an RfA, etc.) Supposedly, we're reluctant to lay down hard and fast rules (e.g., no dirty words, no attacks on ethnicities, etc.) because this would allow others to "game the system" (which outside Wikipedia is called "following the law.") Examples like JzG's show that the real reason to avoid clarifying the rules is that, were they clear, it'd be more difficult, or at least more embarrassing, to enforce them unequally: a "no dirty words" provision would seem a no-brainer for a civility policy, but one which would lead to JzG getting blocked rather frequently.

There's more to it than that.

The number of Norms that a Ganglord can get away with violating is a measure of his or her Status in the Gang.

Notice that I said «Norms» not «Rules». A norm does not have to be written down on a policy page somewhere. What matters is that the WikiPeanut Gallery watching the exhibition of behavior can see just how far the Ganglord is allowed to deviate from what the average Wikipeon can get away with, and this tells them just how Rank that Ganglord is.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: