| |
Third RfC, Third strike? |
|
|
| Cla68 |
Mon 6th April 2009, 3:29am
|
Postmaster
      
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs

|
QUOTE(Alex @ Mon 6th April 2009, 3:18am)  QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 6th April 2009, 4:06am)  A third RfC has been dropped on JzG. I haven't read through it yet. He tried to MFD it, incredibly unsuccessfully, earlier today. God knows why. Perhaps Jechochman, since he has an account here, could come by and explain why he's opposing the RfC so vehemently. I haven't finished reviewing the entire thing and looked at all of the diffs and links, but it seems at first glance that the RfC's primary editor's reasoning has some merit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cla68 |
Mon 6th April 2009, 5:54am
|
Postmaster
      
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs

|
QUOTE(Son of a Yeti @ Mon 6th April 2009, 5:31am)  QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 5th April 2009, 8:29pm)  Perhaps Jechochman, since he has an account here, could come by and explain why he's opposing the RfC so vehemently. I haven't finished reviewing the entire thing and looked at all of the diffs and links, but it seems at first glance that the RfC's primary editor's reasoning has some merit.
I'm really saddened by the number of sycophants Guy managed to gather as his retinue. I believe Guy is the most deleterious admin Wikipedia has (at least since SV has been sent to WR). Well, note that when he tried to MfD the RfC, hardly anyone supported him. Slightly more than a year go in this situation, FeloniousMonk, MONGO, Jossi, Jayjg, Mantanmoreland, ElinorD, Crum375, and a few others would probably have all shown up within a few minutes of each other to support its deletion. This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 6th April 2009, 5:55am
|
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
Mon 6th April 2009, 7:45am
|

blah
        
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs

|
As I said in the MZMcBride desysop thread, this is classic Guy: QUOTE JzG blocked 5 IPs for "block evasion", stating or implying that the edits were by Jed Rothwell, even though two of them are from the wrong geographical area and were unsigned; Jed Rothwell consistently signs his edits. QUOTE Focus of present RfC The most serious incidents reported in this RfC, which is confined to use of tools while involved, took place in December of 2008, with extension into January. JzG since became quite inactive. This RfC, though, is not based on a judgment of JzG's actions overall, but only the specific issue of use of tools while involved, which, in the absence of any acknowledgment of the problem, can be expected to continue. Nevertheless, a review of his related contributions in the specific field of concern, here, show a continuation of prior behavior, and the conflicts exacerbated by the prior behavior continued. Here, though, instead of merely insulting a webmaster or making tendentious -- and later unsupported -- claims of copyright violation, he blacklisted and blocked, much more quietly. The specific issues of the blacklisting and blocks have not been addressed with caution in any neutral forum, and, once gain, this RfC has attempted to avoid the issue of whether JzG was "right" or "wrong," i.e., whether or not some particular action -- or even all actions -- would be later supported or stand. The issue here is extremely simple. Is use of tools while involved acceptable behavior? If it is not acceptable, how do we address it? Gentle reminders have not worked. It is literally a miracle. He isn't getting the usual ass-snorkeling from the usual fellow creeps. What a strange sight. Even Durova has turned. I hope this new, less-corrupt Arbcom goes after Jayjg next. If they do, and make it stick, it's party time. This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 6th April 2009, 7:59am
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Angela Kennedy |
Tue 7th April 2009, 5:53pm
|

Senior Member
   
Group: Contributors
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 8:05am
Member No.: 3,293
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs

|
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG..._comment.2FJzG3QUOTE You are a complete waste of my limited time. I am seriously wondering if you are on the autistic spectrum, your obsession with this is beyond any rational explanation. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice.  Accuse someone of having a neurological condition because his actions are "beyond any rational explanation?" WTF? Or does autism spectrum = insanity in Guy's world? But also - this is funny: QUOTE Incidentally, my friend who worked with Fleischmann is a world class expert on electrochemistry with a publicaiton list as long as your arm, an endowed chair at a British university, a worldwide lecture schedule and a standard undergraduate text to his name. And he thinks it's not fusion. And he wrote one of the control systems for one of Fleischmann's original experiments. Beware the appeal to authority. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
My italics. Or am I missing something here? Is Guy being hilariously ironic or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| UseOnceAndDestroy |
Tue 7th April 2009, 6:08pm
|
Über Member
    
Group: Moderators
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri 7th Dec 2007, 3:43pm
Member No.: 4,073

|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 6th April 2009, 4:06am)  A third RfC has been dropped on JzG. I haven't read through it yet. Spring has sprung, must be time for another JzG RFC. Since last year's was just so effective, right? Next year, could you guys put some jokes in the statement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sarcasticidealist |
Tue 7th April 2009, 6:18pm
|

Head exploded.
     
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs

|
QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Tue 7th April 2009, 2:53pm)  QUOTE Incidentally, my friend who worked with Fleischmann is a world class expert on electrochemistry with a publicaiton list as long as your arm, an endowed chair at a British university, a worldwide lecture schedule and a standard undergraduate text to his name. And he thinks it's not fusion. And he wrote one of the control systems for one of Fleischmann's original experiments. Beware the appeal to authority. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
My italics. Or am I missing something here? Is Guy being hilariously ironic or something? You didn't link to the original occurrence, but my assumption would be that that was posted in response to an appeal to authority from the other side, in order to demonstrate the tit for tat nature of these things. Is that not the case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Angela Kennedy |
Tue 7th April 2009, 10:49pm
|

Senior Member
   
Group: Contributors
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 8:05am
Member No.: 3,293
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs

|
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 7th April 2009, 7:18pm)  QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Tue 7th April 2009, 2:53pm)  QUOTE Incidentally, my friend who worked with Fleischmann is a world class expert on electrochemistry with a publicaiton list as long as your arm, an endowed chair at a British university, a worldwide lecture schedule and a standard undergraduate text to his name. And he thinks it's not fusion. And he wrote one of the control systems for one of Fleischmann's original experiments. Beware the appeal to authority. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
My italics. Or am I missing something here? Is Guy being hilariously ironic or something? You didn't link to the original occurrence, but my assumption would be that that was posted in response to an appeal to authority from the other side, in order to demonstrate the tit for tat nature of these things. Is that not the case? To be honest I couldn't find the context, hence my asking. It's not being represented as a response of that sort on the RFC as far as I can see though, rather as a reliance on his friend's opinion and status. The problem with Guy Chapman is I've see him accuse people of partisanship while he engages in blatant partisanship. I've see him use ad hominem ad infinitum himself while accusing others of same. And I have seen him use appeals to authority, red herrings, straw men etc. etc. So no, I wouldn't presume without question that he was attempting to illustrate the problems of appeals to authority rather than just playing trumps, that other favourite game of wikipedia stalwarts, especially given his apparent abuse of his 'admin tools' to advance his own POV (not the first time either.) However, if the context can be found to show he was actually just illustrating the problem of appeal to authority, rather than invoking it himself to advance POV, I'll certainly stand corrected on this particular point. The 'autistic spectrum' accusation speaks volumes. What next: 'retards' and 'spazzes'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
Wed 8th April 2009, 3:48am
|
Postmaster
      
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs

|
Please, no tl;dr comments. If it's too long for you, then don't read it, period, and I and the rest of the world don't need to know that you are one of the billions of people who did not read it. But suit yourself.
Actually, I've got ADHD, not autism. As to the RfC being useless, well, that is probably going to depend on ArbComm. Last May or so, RfC 2 ended with "go to ArbComm," but nobody did, until JzG was added to an arbitration in September, where he was reprimanded, but no sanctions. He did, in fact, change his behavior. No FUCK OFF any more, etc. However, it's possible that he converted getting mad into getting even. But in drafting the RfC, I avoided all of this complication. The RfC asks three simple questions: was he involved with the article on cold fusion? did he use his tools with respect to the article or related pages? and is this a violation of policy? If you look through the smoke at the RfC, nobody is really disagreeing with Yes on all questions. Rather, those defending him are excusing the actions on a claim that the community supported the actions themselves. Now, that argument could be dismantled, it actually isn't true. But that, then, gets into content issues. I'm not going there, not yet.
Instead, the RfC was designed to address a clear black and white issue, one on which there is a lot of precedent, administrative recusal, and it shows just about exactly what would be in an ArbComm filing, the work has been done. Sometimes "involvement" can be unclear, but not in this case. The precedent is that if he can't admit the problem, he'll lose his admin bit, even if tons of editors pile on to defend him. Maybe he'll do it, I've been trying to get friends of his to help him see the issue for three months now, but he's blown everyone off, as far as can be seen. The "virtual cabal" is trying to turn the attention on me, but I don't think they realize what they are up against. WP:DGAF, my mantra. I've done everything I could to rescue JzG from his own intransigence, except that I'm not willing to sacrifice the project to save him. If I should happen to go down in flames, well, maybe I'll have helped editors whose contributions I'll never personally see. But I don't expect that. I did my homework.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |