The Instability in Jimmy's Stables, ....he is -not- happy with the W-R Options

[Piperdown]

Jimmy's got a real problem on the W-P and he's making it worse.

This whipsaw action below sees Jimmy in tense spirits about the goings-on surrounding his current unstable stable of jockeys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=166368171

Somebody that knows Jimmy in the real world wake him up to the nutters he currently has running his baby. Get yourself some better eager beaver volunteers, Jimbo. Seriously. Try and do some mental health screening of some sort before handing the wikikeys over for once.

[Jonny Cache]

Maybe I missed something, but was it about this?

Jonny

[Derktar]

(sentence reduced to a week)

Now Jimbo fancies himself as the High Judge! Move over Fred...

Aren't blocks supposed to be preventative not punitive?

This post has been edited by Derktar: Tue 23rd October 2007, 5:36am

[everyking]

These days, I breathe a sigh of relief every time I click "edit this page" and an edit screen, not a block message comes up.

[Kato]

This is part of Der Jimbo's get tough policy. His "No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight." policy. Which amounts to simply banning editors with different points of view than other editors. Or banning people who ask awkward questions.

Der Jimbo spent his younger years reading Ayn Rand, when he should have been reading Isaiah Berlin.

[Berlin] acknowledged that the use of force was sometimes necessary and justified; but he also reminded his readers that violence has particularly volatile and unpredictable consequences, and tends to spiral out of control, leading to terrible destruction and suffering, and undermining the noble goals it seeks to achieve. He also stressed the dangers of paternalistic, or otherwise humiliating and disempowering, attempts to institute reform or achieve improvement, which had a tendency to inspire a backlash of hatred and resistance.

Speaking of Berlin, St. Tobias -- never one to use a subtle analogy when an overblown one will do -- compared Der Jimbo's new Robocop policy to the East German Stasi shooting dissidents at the Berlin Wall. This led to Durova's reminiscences of breaking down The Wall for the German People whilst whistling Wind of Change. Der Jimbo then attacked St. Tobias as Durova picked up the pieces on the Wiki-En list.

"I can remember
Standing
By the wall
And the guns
Shot above our heads
And we kissed
As though nothing could fall
And the shame
Was on the other side
Oh we can beat them
For ever and ever
Then we can be Heroes
Just for one day"

[Robster]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/083849.html

Quoth Mr. Tobias to Mr. Wales last Saturday night:

Am I one of those you think should go away and find a different hobby?

The Unclothed God-King has, thus far, failed to issue a public reply that I can find.

[SqueakBox]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/083849.html

Quoth Mr. Tobias to Mr. Wales last Saturday night:

Am I one of those you think should go away and find a different hobby?

The Unclothed God-King has, thus far, failed to issue a public reply that I can find.

Err...wikipedia is not a hobby of Jimbo's, Squeak Box

[blissyu2]

Maybe I missed something, but was it about this?

Jonny

Based on this and this, I'd say a big fat yes.

Ombudsman, you are not allowed to link to harassment agianst other editors. [[WP:HARASS]] applies. The harassment to which you linked was by a banned editor. Banned editors may not contribute to Wikipedia, in person or by proxy. This is also policy. Please do not restore that link. You also restored a talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=165890921

This is completely unacceptable. There is an ongoing campaign of personal harassment against the subject of that article, and at least two of the editors whose comments your restored are banned by Jimbo. The comments they made, especially the comments on that page, are a major reason for the ban

It seems that quoting to Wikipedia Review is bad. Especially to a post describing JzG, especially one written by The Kohser who is banned from Wikipedia for doing exactly what Jimbo Wales asked him to do. That's "harassment by a banned user", that is. Except that it does nothing more than discuss what JzG did wrong, and doesn't ask anyone to harass him, or seek to contact him or anything like that. But that is just wikispeak for "I don't want anyone to know how bad I am, you are banned for doing it".

And the talk page he restored had something to do with a User:Angela Kennedy. I'm not sure who she is, but it seems that JzG is pretty peeved about her.

[Jonny Cache]

Maybe I missed something, but was it about this?

Jonny

Based on this and this, I'd say a big fat yes.

Ombudsman, you are not allowed to link to harassment agianst other editors. [[WP:HARASS]] applies. The harassment to which you linked was by a banned editor. Banned editors may not contribute to Wikipedia, in person or by proxy. This is also policy. Please do not restore that link. You also restored a talk page: Talk:Simon Wessely&diff=prev&oldid=165890921

This is completely unacceptable. There is an ongoing campaign of personal harassment against the subject of that article, and at least two of the editors whose comments your restored are banned by Jimbo. The comments they made, especially the comments on that page, are a major reason for the ban

It seems that quoting to Wikipedia Review is bad. Especially to a post describing JzG, especially one written by The Kohser who is banned from Wikipedia for doing exactly what Jimbo Wales asked him to do. That's "harassment by a banned user", that is. Except that it does nothing more than discuss what JzG did wrong, and doesn't ask anyone to harass him, or seek to contact him or anything like that. But that is just wikispeak for "I don't want anyone to know how bad I am, you are banned for doing it".

And the talk page he restored had something to do with a User:Angela Kennedy. I'm not sure who she is, but it seems that JzG is pretty peeved about her.

Finally A Policy With Teeth !!!

Banned editors may not
contribute to Wikipedia,
in person or by proxy.

Consider the consequences —

All quotations of all remarks by all persons who have been banned from Wikipedia must now be deleted from Wikipedia.

Indeed, since a person's deeds and works are a person's proxies in this boardroom and on this stage that all the world calls The World, all mention of persons who have been banned from Wikipedia must now be expunged from Wikipedia.

The genius of JzG has favoured the world with the big boob, er, boon of an immediote solution to every last one of those wikipesky wikiproblems about Biographies of Livid Persons.

FAQ. How To Opt Out Of Your Wikipedia Biograspy —

• Step 1. Become an editor — hey, anyone can!
• Step 2. Get yerself banned — how hard is that?
• Step 3. Poof, you disappear in cloud of dust and a hearty —

Hi-Ho …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 24th October 2007, 5:44am

[Daniel Brandt]

Is it my imagination, or has JzG trimmed his moustache in this latest pic?

[Somey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=166126077

'BADSITES is a dead duck...

Apparently, dead ducks are now de facto policy on Wikipedia. No wonder!

...there are a few active WR posters who post gigabytes of junk every time a link is removed from anywahere.

And it's always nice to see he hasn't lost his flair for irrational hyperbole and sinister exaggeration.

What I'm working on is in response to several long and incredibly detailed discussions about harasment, the way harassers, stalkers and abusers "spread the meme" and suck in new, unsuspecting victims...

This concerns me - it's clearly written by someone who is seriously self-deluded. He's removing links to this website, plain and simple. No more, no less, and he's doing it for personal reasons, because he knows we think he's a jerk. He doesn't like it when people call him a jerk. There's nothing more to it than that.

Again, it's waaaay too early for JzG to return to Wikipedia, and of course, everyone would be better off if he'd never returned at all.

...and ways we can make sure that we only have to have each drama once.

Amazing, the irony in that statement! Absolutely amazing!

[blissyu2]

JzG is just upset that he can't post here. Actually he can, but he feels that he wouldn't be given a decent chance. I'd like to see him post.

[everyking]

JzG is just upset that he can't post here. Actually he can, but he feels that he wouldn't be given a decent chance. I'd like to see him post.

Honestly, I wouldn't, and there's not many people I'd say that about. I just don't think he has anything at all worthwhile to say. He's not just wrong, he's arrogantly and obnoxiously wrong, and I think he'd be unbearable.

[LamontStormstar]

JzG is just upset that he can't post here. Actually he can, but he feels that he wouldn't be given a decent chance. I'd like to see him post.

As of late, JzG and MONGO seem to really hate WR for some reason. JzG himself went around criticizing wikipedia a lot, and he even complains of posts here criticizing wikipedia, but he's never come here to say anything.

Why is JzG so angry?

[Jonny Cache]

User rant:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=166126077

BADSITES is a dead duck …

Apparently, dead ducks are now de facto policy on Wikipedia. No wonder!

Yep, BADSITES is old helmet, er, hat —

Word ↑ is Ill Will Users Vicariously Umbrageous (WP:IWUVU) —

I'm thinking this one is here to stay. What is the sound of 1 finger crossing?

there are a few active WR posters who post gigabytes of junk every time a link is removed from anywahere.

And it's always nice to see he hasn't lost his flair for irrational hyperbole and sinister exaggeration.

What's the poor boy to do? We've cornered the market on rational hyperbole and benevolent exaggeration.

What I'm working on is in response to several long and incredibly detailed discussions about harasment, the way harassers, stalkers, and abusers "spread the meme" and suck in new, unsuspecting victims …

This is a clear violation of WP:ASR.

Jonny

[thekohser]

And the talk page he restored had something to do with a User:Angela Kennedy. I'm not sure who she is, but it seems that JzG is pretty peeved about her.

The Angela Kennedy edit that got her banned is very telling, indeed.

I suspect that the User:Angela Kennedy is actually in real life this Angela Kennedy. Perhaps legal or legislative repercussions will be in store. Who knows?

Angela Kennedy would be welcome to vent here, right? I'll send an e-mail to the Canadian politician, to see if she's a "match" for the Wikipedia account.

Greg

[thekohser]

Why is JzG so angry?

In my opinion, I think JzG is angry for two main reasons.

A. His sister drank herself to death (which is of course no laughing matter).

B. I discovered that he made edits on big-boob subjects like [[Letha Weapons]].



The second reason, in itself, is actually a relatively minor laughing matter. Inevitably, though, it has cast a shadow of unprofessionalism on all of Guy Chapman's other work. Too bad for him. Of course, I would have had no reason to investigate those busty anonymous IP edits of Guy Chapman's had two conditions not already been in place:

1. The culture of Wikipedia had turned Virgil Griffith's Wikiscanner into a tool to "incriminate self-serving corporations" -- even though the vast majority of corporate edits are either helpful to Wikipedia's "sum of human knowledge" about the company; or edits are directed at unrelated topics, like Mork & Mindy or bubble gum. That culture motivated me to find a way to use Wikiscanner to embarrass Wikipedia.

2. The persistant and unfair battle that JzG waged against the concept of paid editing (literally censoring my attempts to have reasoned, logical discussions with other Wikipedians who favored a "full disclosure" solution) motivated me to embarrass him personally.

Mission accomplished?

Greg

[LamontStormstar]

2. The persistant and unfair battle that JzG waged against the concept of paid editing (literally censoring my attempts to have reasoned, logical discussions with other Wikipedians who favored a "full disclosure" solution) motivated me to embarrass him personally.

I believe JzG thinks paid editing compromises what little integrity wikipedia has. However, he is only going after you, who don't have any power there. I've read things on many places on how Jayjg definitely and SlimVirgin very likely are paid editing and groups like the Hasbaro Fellowships and Gary Weiss are behind paying wikipedia admins to edit and to give them favors on wikipedia. JzG needs to target these people, although if he did then he'd end up being treated like karmafist.

I hope JzG reads that statement of mine i just made.


This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Wed 24th October 2007, 2:14pm

[blissyu2]

Just for the record, I got along pretty darn well with JzG while I was on Wikipedia. This of course doesn't mean I'll automatically defend him, but as a person we got along well.

[blissyu2]

And the talk page he restored had something to do with a User:Angela Kennedy. I'm not sure who she is, but it seems that JzG is pretty peeved about her.

The Angela Kennedy edit that got her banned is very telling, indeed.

I suspect that the User:Angela Kennedy is actually in real life this Angela Kennedy. Perhaps legal or legislative repercussions will be in store. Who knows?

Angela Kennedy would be welcome to vent here, right? I'll send an e-mail to the Canadian politician, to see if she's a "match" for the Wikipedia account.

Greg

Of course Angela Kennedy would be welcome here, and I am sure she will come. The only question is that when she comes will it be the real Angela Kennedy, or an imposter? And for that matter is the Angela Kennedy on Wikipedia the same one as the politician? It does list on her Wikipedia page that she opposes same-sex marriage, so that will offend at least one person here, but hopefully she is open minded enough to listen to people based on arguments not on what they are.

As for the edit, it is a clear implied legal threat. Or, rather, it is legal advice. It is indeed saying what she believes is the legal standing of certain things that were said, calling them libel.

Now, its one thing for them to decide that legal threats are bad, and to ban people based on legal threats. But that's actually not a legal threat. She is not suggesting that she will take legal action. Rather, she is suggesting that Guy may have done something illegal.

But perhaps that is wikilawyering, or rules lawyering and it all amounts to the same thing.

Yes, it all amounts to her being wronged, and because she complained about being wronged, she got banned.

Never appeal a ban. Never complain that something that they did to hurt you wasn't reasonable. Instead, she should have apologised and said sorry and that she'd never do it again. Then she'd be fine.

It is an interesting case though. But did she make any other claims of having legal knowledge? I mean she isn't actually a lawyer, but her career would have put her in touch with some of the finer points of the law, so I would suggest that she probably knows what she is talking about.