Request For Comment JzG2, Is Mr. Guy Chapman (aka, JzG) going away? Options

[Amarkov]

JzG's response contains the usual wild reductions of complex issues, typical blurring of reality to score points against "enemies", pleas for forgiveness, feeble excuses etc etc.

The bottom line is he lost control and has lied continuously to bully his way out of self inflicted mess after self inflicted mess.

And underlying this is the fact that I am in my mid-40s, married, with children aged 11 and 13; any readers of this comment who are themselves parents of teenaged or grown children will probably understand the temptation to behave like a parent when people behave like your kids.

If JzG speaks to his kids the way he speaks to people on Wikipedia, he is in deep trouble.

He insists that telling people to "fuck off" is just fine in Britain. I suppose he could be living in some strange town, but I think it's much more likely that he's just isolated from reality.

[Kato]

He insists that telling people to "fuck off" is just fine in Britain. I suppose he could be living in some strange town, but I think it's much more likely that he's just isolated from reality.

I can see what he's saying there and he's part correct, but it isn't any excuse for the onslaught of mischaracterisations, half-truths and outright lies he offloads on his victims. And besides, when was the last time Charles Matthews told someone to "fuck off" on Wikipedia?

JzG just isn't experienced, he's not smart, he's totally unreconstructed, he's in the wrong game, he's caused untold problems to Wikipedia.

(PS. Note how he steers clear of the usual "Judd Bagley is a vicious troll who is attacking me" theme. No doubt even JzG has realized that he got it completely wrong as usual. An apology to the appropriate party(s) would be nice?)

[The Joy]

And Newyorkbrad wonders why I and others here don't try to fix things "on wiki."

With administrators like JzG, who needs enemies on Wikipedia?

[Proabivouac]

He insists that telling people to "fuck off" is just fine in Britain. I suppose he could be living in some strange town, but I think it's much more likely that he's just isolated from reality.

It is as it is in America: perfectly acceptable when out drinking with friends, unacceptable in a civilized discourse with strangers.

It's true that "cunt" doesn't carry the same level of offense in the UK as it does in the States, but I would guess this to be more a taboo induced by American feminist sociopolitical hysteria (why is "dick" less bad?) than a sign of British laxity. It is certainly rude.

No doubt even JzG has realized that he got it completely wrong as usual. An apology to the appropriate party(s) would be nice?)

Why should he apologize, when the Arbitrators won't?

Anyhow, this just leapt out at me from JzG's response.:

"If I think that a user does not understand what they are doing wrong, then I may block them with no expiry time, because the disruption will only cease when a human has reviewed their response and noted that they understand the problem.

But

I have not commented there, and have no intention of reading it.

By JzG's own logic, he should be blocked indefinitely.

[Kato]

By JzG's own logic, he should be blocked indefinitely.

By the sheer scale of his misbehavior, he should be blocked indefinitely. This year, JzG became the user who has caused the most problems on Wikipedia. He overtook a number of previous holders of that position. The litany of JzG's antics, that range from merely telling others to "fuck off", to standing on the rooftops and goading the media when all the while being wrong, is extraordinary. JzG's outrageous nonsense over the last 18 months continues to cause massive problems as evidenced by the Amorrow business recently.

He lost all credibility (and marbles) long ago, and it was downhill from there on. Thankfully for us critics, he was someone of such ignorance and hubris he managed to take Wikipedia down with him.

[Aloft]

"If I think that a user does not understand what they are doing wrong, then I may block them with no expiry time, because the disruption will only cease when a human has reviewed their response and noted that they understand the problem.

But

I have not commented there, and have no intention of reading it.

By JzG's own logic, he should be blocked indefinitely.

Indeed. Hypocrisy is nothing new for JzG, obviously. He's defending Wikipedia from thousands of banned trolls. You can't expect him to play by his own rules when faced with that kind of challenge.

[Viridae]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...or_comment/JzG2

It is starting now?

Ah, Guy has finally replied - however, he's too much of a chickenshit to post his own reply, so he got Lar to do it for him. What a fucking pussy. Too bad his claims toward improved behavior are totally disclaimed by his dipshit behavior just yesterday, where, in response to a question from Dan Tobias, he created the the page [[User Jzg/Lines]], where he called Dan a "troll" 100 times. Nice work, jackass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/RfC

Can you be more specific with that one please? No such page, nor has [[User:Jzg/Lines]] ever existed.

Edit: yes it did: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=20080325141252

This post has been edited by Viridae: Thu 27th March 2008, 4:57am

[Somey]

Too bad his claims toward improved behavior are totally disclaimed by his dipshit behavior just yesterday, where, in response to a question from Dan Tobias, he created the the page [[User Jzg/Lines]], where he called Dan a "troll" 100 times.

Luckily, Dan's got a thick skin - thicker than JzG's, certainly. I doubt he'll respond with anything beyond casual amusement, unless of course JzG "top-posted" it.

[dtobias]

Luckily, Dan's got a thick skin - thicker than JzG's, certainly. I doubt he'll respond with anything beyond casual amusement, unless of course JzG "top-posted" it.

Or set up a .com domain to host it when it belongs properly in .org or .info.

[Viridae]

Too bad his claims toward improved behavior are totally disclaimed by his dipshit behavior just yesterday, where, in response to a question from Dan Tobias, he created the the page [[User Jzg/Lines]], where he called Dan a "troll" 100 times.

Luckily, Dan's got a thick skin - thicker than JzG's, certainly. I doubt he'll respond with anything beyond casual amusement, unless of course JzG "top-posted" it.

Wuts top posting?

[dtobias]

Wuts top posting?

http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/top-posting.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

[Moulton]

Those quoted snippets from JzG come across as arrogant, in the sense of hubris in a flawed character in a Greek tragedy.

It's not a hard prediction to make, that JzG will undergo a shreklisch drama parallel in structure to a classic Greek tragedy.

As to when he will sing the dithyramb is anyone's guess.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Thu 27th March 2008, 12:59pm

[dtobias]

that JzG will undergo a shreklisch drama

I liked Shrek.

[badlydrawnjeff]

So when is this getting moved to ArbCom, exactly?

[Bob Boy]

Well, here's a little more hypocrisy for you - Guy has previously used the power of the block button in an attempt to force a user to participate in a Request for Comment. Maybe it would appropriate if someone turned this around and blocked him until he agreed to participate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BenH#RfC_2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...or_comment/BenH

[Bob Boy]

So when is this getting moved to ArbCom, exactly?

If it did go to ArbCom, how do you think the accept/reject votes would go? It sounds like Kirill and FT2, at least, have had enough of Guy.

[cyofee]

This has already gone to ArbCom. They are supposed to look into his behavior, among other things, in the 9/11 case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...eories/Workshop

[Piperdown]

arbcom isn't going to do a damn thing about JzG. He, like Weiss, is useful to Jimbo in that he is either useful to, or can't be made an example of due to its repercussions against Jimbo's Jedi's.

and Arbcom is Jimbo. The spineless weasels on it pretending to be independent of jimbo are blowing smoke up the asses of honest wikipedians.

it was a mistake to take Mantanmoreland up to Arbcom, as the community should have been able to ban him before that even happened, and the same with JzG.

If you are going to take abusive Friends of Gerard/Slim/Thatch/Jayyg/etc to arbcom, you are wasting your time and Wikipedia's time. Take it to the commmunity, ban them if a vast majority or WP'ians chime in to ban them, and let a Ban Review sort it out if compromised assholes try to unban them.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Thu 27th March 2008, 4:52pm

[Bob Boy]

Interesting take on ignoring RfC's from the Abu badali arbitration case...Abu badali also did not reply on the RfC page, he replied elsewhere...and gave pretty much the exact same reasons for doing so that Guy does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...sts_for_comment

(Note that Newyorkbrad is the one criticizing him for not responding on the RfC page.) Unlike Guy's RfC page, Abu badali's RfC really was chock-full of lies, trolling, and attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ment/Abu_badali

Despite the justifications given by Abu badali, the ArbComm still overwhelmingly determined that Abu badali had "ignored and completely failed to respond to the RfC". It also affirmed the importance of RfCs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ion#RfC_ignored
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...sts_for_comment

Also see this comment by Newyorkbrad concerning ignoring the RfC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=142029075

This post has been edited by Bob Boy: Thu 27th March 2008, 5:07pm

[dogbiscuit]

JzG has taken the hint that he needs to acknowledge the problems. His odd way on his user talk sub-page is actually a pretty big climb down. I'm all for saving face if it achieves a solution, and not a great one for kicking someone when they are down (except if they are in the process of getting up to start attacking again!). I do think it is inappropriate that he pretends that the RFC does not exist but responds to it. Bonkers, really, but so be it. I think that is because he knows it is indefensible.

He has said, begrudgingly, that there is a case to answer, and begrudgingly he has said he is trying to reform, and indeed, he even admits it is his problem, although somewhat qualified.

They should record that on the RFC as a one last chance. Then the next time he is over the mark, which most people will assume will be very soon, he will have nowhere to go, but more importantly, his apologists should have nowhere to go - and it is they who are the bigger problem.

I was rather pleased though, that Guy has picked up the feedback loop issue of IRC. As Greg picked up - the best way to solve a feedback loop is to disconnect it at the Jimbo!

I hadn't noticed this before. Guy is more aware than we give him credit for.