| |
|
  |
 JzG up to his old tricks on the Spam Blacklist |
|
|
| Moulton |
 Tue 17th February 2009, 12:58pm
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
An Epistemological NightmareFringe areas, where scientific research is still underway — and where credentialed experts are still developing (and falsifying) a variety of alternative and competing theories — are problematic for a project like Wikipedia, which seeks to present "the sum of all knowledge". Where the science remains unsettled, what the public needs is a presentation of the process by which professional scientists, academics, and researchers address the as-yet unresolved questions about incompletely understood phenomena. It is especially in these fringe and frontier areas where the public is well served by focusing on the epistemological methods of rigorous scientific analysis. If Wikipedia reflected the protocols of the Scientific Method, the edit wars of JzG would be less of a circus and more like an academic conference. But there is negligible evidence that WikiCulture is grounded in academic processes. On the contrary, there is copious evidence that WikiCulture is grounded in lunatic political drama of the sort that predictably bedevils woefully unscientific cultures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
Tue 17th February 2009, 8:37pm
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Tue 17th February 2009, 10:04am)  Jossi's out
Slim's doing her bi-annual lay low til the shit dies down routine, this time donning full hairshirt
JayJG's in between laying low between schiessesturms, getting his posse' "back" in order
JzG's back to his flaming, outrageous embarrassment of WP No need to vote on this. After a few more weeks of today's Abd war, Guy will win first place by acclimation.  Have you seen Abd's talk page today? Every day he looks more and more like a "good" version of FT2--similar verbal diarrhea, but far more honest. And his battle with Hu12 is reaching a new level of hysterics. If this keeps up, Abd will deserve some kind of award for standing up to the cabal. I need to start a new thread about Hu12. He's a real prize--a hyper-censor and "silencer", using the spam list as a club. Plus a first-class wikilawyer and word-twister. Totally intolerant of criticism, uses admin tools in a pathetic ham-fisted way. Mebbe he needs to take a page from Guy's Book Of Non-Negotiation, and just throw childish tantrums instead.  (And now he's attracting the wrong kind of attention.) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Piperdown |
Wed 18th February 2009, 2:27am
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 17th February 2009, 8:37pm) And his battle with Hu12 is reaching a new level of hysterics. If this keeps up, Abd will deserve some kind of award for standing up to the cabal. I need to start a new thread about Hu12. He's a real prize--a hyper-censor and "silencer", using the spam list as a club. Plus a first-class wikilawyer and word-twister. Totally intolerant of criticism, uses admin tools in a pathetic ham-fisted way. Mebbe he needs to take a page from Guy's Book Of Non-Negotiation, and just throw childish tantrums instead. (And now he's attracting the wrong kind of attention.) Hu12's a corrupt little scum bag. He was exposed as such during the Overstock.com-Gerard banscam. Judd created an account (something he had to do everytime he needed to present a much-needed WP:POINT) to ask Hu12 how it was that he and Gerard came to the conclusion that there was supposedly a team of Overstock.com spammers that had to be banned from WP. Hu12 could offer nothing to back up his claim. He/she is a dishonest admin, along with Gerard, and their lies have gone unchallenged since. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
Wed 8th April 2009, 1:51pm
|
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
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 15th February 2009, 7:13am)
So JzG is doing this all over again. Abd's assessment of JzG here could be applied to a dozen conflicts initiated by JzG in the past, word-for-word. Surely this berserker should be banned by now?
(I'm not an admin or "supervisor," just an editor with some clarity and persistence. I've said many times I don't need admin tools and if I had them I'd be tempted to use them, the only thing that would be useful in my "meta" work -- i.e., on process -- would be the ability to see deleted contributions.) After trying unsuccessfully to resolve this through lesser means (I'm a firm believer in WP:DR, which actually works if used with care and caution), after JzG MfD'd the evidence page I'd presented in an RfAr he'd filed, and it was practically demanded I file an RfC, though I'd have continued efforts short of that, I did it. And there is, as some have noticed, an outcry to ban me. WP:DGAF. If I can't follow WP procedure and policy, as it was intended and written, because some admin has a following dedicated to protecting him from the consequences of his actions, please, block me or ban me, I will be grateful. But I don't think it's going to happen. See, this case appears to be right on track to go to ArbComm, it made the required stop at RfC, and the principles are so clear that response has been limited to the lame "He didn't do anything wrong," as if violating fundamental admin policy isn't wrong, or, "he did the wrong thing but it was for a good cause," (when, in fact, there has never been a determination that these actions were good, rather, some haven't been challenged yet, more than the first step in WP:DR, precisely to avoid disruption), and "Abd is a [fill in the incivility and irrelevancy]," which is a well-known argument practically guaranteed to fail outside of the riots at AN and AN/I. I could be blocked and banned immediately, and this train would still make it to ArbComm. All the work has been done. There is no need for pile-on or supportive comments, and, indeed, please do not go to the RfC and add irrelevancies there. It is only about failure to recuse when involved. That's why it will succeed. Let his side bring up all the irrelevancies they want, they will only hasten the day of reckoning. (But if someone has new evidence to present on that specific issue, not already presented, sure, but please keep the focus, and, I'd suggest, any examples of failure to recuse should be recent, not before January of this year, when it should have become clear to him that there was a problem.) There is only one response that might protect JzG's admin bit, I've been begging for it for months: someone he trusts points out to him that admission of error is a sign of maturity, it endears the one admitting to the community, the first time it's done, it completely defuses the issue, because, remember, Wikipedia does not punish (it appears that he has broken that principle as well, but never mind), and, so, would he please write "My bad. Admins should not use tools where they are involved. I won't do that again." It would all go away. Unless he does it again. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
Wed 8th April 2009, 2:02pm
|
τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,739
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
Oh, please, please, I beg of you — say "delegatable" not "delegable". I don't care if it is a popular barbarism among pseudo-sophisticates, it is still a barbarism, and it sounds like something a turkey would say: Delegobble, gobble, gobble  Ja Ja  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
