The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Banned by JzG... again.
SmashTheState
post Wed 8th August 2012, 5:07am
Post #1


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue 10th Feb 2009, 6:25am
Member No.: 10,230

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



As some of you might remember, I was banned some time ago by JzG, ostensibly for edits I had made (and cited) on the Ayn Rand Wikipedia article. At the time, JzG followed up the ban by nominating an article I had written for deletion, then mocking me on my user page to speak up if I had any objections.

Thanks in part to the ruckus kicked up here on WR, he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and had the ban removed by another administrator.

Well, it seems JzG has a long memory (and a total disregard for the truth). He's now claiming that my unbanning was just an oversight, a temporary measure, and he's now reinstating the ban. I haven't edited more than a dozen articles in the last year, and all of the edits have been very minor. You can imagine my surprise when I logged on this evening to discover I was being accused of sockpuppeting on the basis that this fellow and I edited six of the same articles several years ago, and we both use the term "neckbeards."

Some of the invective used against me would be hilarious if it wasn't being used as the basis for censoring me off of Wikipedia:

"We don't want you, we don't need, you, so quit already! Stop wasting all of our time disrupting Wikipedia. I guarantee, everyone else on this board will agree with me, you are not helping the encyclopedia."

"...my longstanding observation is that an anarchist isn't really someone who doesn't believe in rules so much as someone who is too lazy to work within them to form a consensus around his way of thinking ... it's far easier, after all, to just smash things up and declare moral victory. We need fewer people like that on Wikipedia, thanks."

And our lying friend JzG hath decreed that no checkuser is necessary, he has psychically determined that I must be this fellow, and so he waves his little magic wand and makes me disappear.

It's like something right out of Kafka.

[Edit: Just noticed that there's a whole forum dedicated to our friend JzG. If an editor could move this article there, it'd be appreciated.]

This post has been edited by SmashTheState: Wed 8th August 2012, 5:12am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Wed 8th August 2012, 5:44am
Post #2


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Soc...s/SmashTheState

So, you and another guy used the term "neckbeard" and everyone thinks you are both the same person? unsure.gif

The conversation on the sock report is... surreal. wacko.gif frustrated.gif

QUOTE
CU can't be used to prove a negative, however in this case I'd say it is unlikely they are socks. That said - if they wish to be unblocked & remain that way, they should both keep in mind that the project holds a dim view of meatpuppetry, incivility & disruptive editing practices. --Versageek 1:24 am, Today (UTC−4)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=506341697
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SmashTheState
post Wed 8th August 2012, 7:42am
Post #3


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue 10th Feb 2009, 6:25am
Member No.: 10,230

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Just a quick note that my request to be unblocked was declined. The reason given is that there was "consensus" that I be blocked, and that "we don't act upon unblock requests that discuss other people's behaviour instead of their own." So admin are free to block anyone they wish for any or no reason, and it is not permitted to question this. I haven't been around Wikipedia for a year or so. I had no idea the place had become such a madhouse of corruption.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eppur si muove
post Wed 8th August 2012, 8:32am
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri 28th Nov 2008, 10:50pm
Member No.: 9,171



QUOTE(SmashTheState @ Wed 8th August 2012, 8:42am) *

Just a quick note that my request to be unblocked was declined. The reason given is that there was "consensus" that I be blocked, and that "we don't act upon unblock requests that discuss other people's behaviour instead of their own." So admin are free to block anyone they wish for any or no reason, and it is not permitted to question this. I haven't been around Wikipedia for a year or so. I had no idea the place had become such a madhouse of corruption.

It looks like you have now been unblocked but various people are complaining. Nice user page.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SmashTheState
post Wed 8th August 2012, 8:48am
Post #5


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue 10th Feb 2009, 6:25am
Member No.: 10,230

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Wed 8th August 2012, 4:32am) *

It looks like you have now been unblocked but various people are complaining. Nice user page.


Doesn't matter, I'm done with Wikipedia. I've made my last edit, gotten into my last argument with a crazed aspie on an authority trip. I'm put in mind of a passage from Thoreau's Civil Disobedience:

"I have paid no poll-tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated me as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up. I wondered that it should have concluded at length that this was the best use it could put me to, and had never thought to avail itself of my services in some way. I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through, before they could get to be as free as I was. I did not for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax. They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it."

These Wikipedia fanatics assume that everyone is as anxious to be part of their circle jerk as they are, and falsely believe that kicking someone out is the most terrible punishment which can be inflicted on a person. My only regret is that I wasted as much time and effort as I did on Wikipedia. I started on Wikipedia because a blatantly libellous biography about me had sat for months without anyone caring, but when some people came along and started making it factual and cited, the same people who hadn't given a shit about my article before cried 'NPOV' and 'vanity' and 'not notable.' In retrospect, I should just have had my lawyer send a letter to Jimbo's fart-catchers and forgotten all about Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Wed 8th August 2012, 12:07pm
Post #6


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...3ASmashTheState:

QUOTE
Apologies for overcomplicating the block record - my previous unblock was based on the Check User clearing the sockpuppetry charge, but others have pointed out that the editor needs to agree to be civil before an unblock would be appropriate.


This is the problem with Wikipedia. They use blocks as reeducation. "Conform your beliefs, behavior, and personality to our standards or you'll never be unblocked." They don't allow users to be themselves. They want users to be "civil". They want you to change your personality, but they should allow you to be yourself. They shouldn't shove "civility" down your throat. Instead of forcing users to change, Wikipedians ought be become more tolerant and accept the presence of people that they dislike.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SmashTheState
post Wed 8th August 2012, 1:32pm
Post #7


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue 10th Feb 2009, 6:25am
Member No.: 10,230

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



And of course, Guy is now gloating that he's finally gotten his revenge. His little toady even helpfully notes that the administrator who slapped his peepee last time is no longer active, so he can do as he pleases. I haven't given a shit about Wikipedia in over a year, and they're acting like they just caught Dillinger. There is some scary mental illness going on. Guy seems like he might actually be psychotic and disconnected from reality.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Wed 8th August 2012, 3:47pm
Post #8


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SmashTheState @ Wed 8th August 2012, 9:32am) *

And of course, Guy is now gloating that he's finally gotten his revenge.


He isn't gloating. You hurt your case by mischaracterizing what he said. You know admin read Wikipedia Review, and if they see things like that then the negative characterization of you wins out. You have to watch what you say. Otherwise, you come off as hostile and combative, and that allows them to justify getting rid of you.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SmashTheState
post Sun 12th August 2012, 5:09pm
Post #9


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue 10th Feb 2009, 6:25am
Member No.: 10,230

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 8th August 2012, 11:47am) *

He isn't gloating. You hurt your case by mischaracterizing what he said. You know admin read Wikipedia Review, and if they see things like that then the negative characterization of you wins out. You have to watch what you say. Otherwise, you come off as hostile and combative, and that allows them to justify getting rid of you.


I think "gloating" is a perfectly accurate way to describe what he's doing there. The last time he did this to me, he banned me from Wikipedia and then immediately nominated an article I had done for deletion - then invited me to participate in the deletion discussion, knowing I couldn't. That's a form of gloating. This time he's treating me like a naughty child, condescendingly proclaiming that I need a long sit in the corner with gum on my nose, this despite the claim from Wikipedia that blocks are not used as punishment.

As for worrying about what other Wikipedia administrators think, I don't give a flying fuck at a tumbling bagel. It's abundantly clear that Wikipedia is a complete failure on every level. The statistics show that the number of active participants is dropping dramatically, while at the same time a growing percentage of edits are dedicated to nothing more than Wikipedia's abstruse inner bureaucracy. If at any time Wikipedia really was "the encyclopedia anyone can edit," it no longer is, and has not been for some time. Wikipedia is an authoritarian exercise in dystopian Objectivist politics with a cast of characters consisting of thumb-fingered incompetents with serious personality disorders who express their hostility at their inability to function in the real world through the sadistic application of arbitrary oppression over a medium which spares them the usual real-world repercussions of such obnoxious, antisocial behaviour.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Sun 12th August 2012, 6:29pm
Post #10


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SmashTheState @ Sun 12th August 2012, 1:09pm) *
I think "gloating" is a perfectly accurate way to describe what he's doing there. The last time he did this to me, he banned me from Wikipedia and then immediately nominated an article I had done for deletion - then invited me to participate in the deletion discussion, knowing I couldn't. That's a form of gloating.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=268976783:

QUOTE
AfD nomination of [[Solidarity unionism]]. ([[WP:TW|TW]])


Actually, the message was automatically left on your talk page via Twinkle (WP:TW). The message wasn't a form of "gloating".
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
-DS-
post Tue 14th August 2012, 4:10pm
Post #11


Ethernaut
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun 23rd Jan 2011, 3:44pm
Member No.: 39,458



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sun 12th August 2012, 8:29pm) *

QUOTE(SmashTheState @ Sun 12th August 2012, 1:09pm) *
I think "gloating" is a perfectly accurate way to describe what he's doing there. The last time he did this to me, he banned me from Wikipedia and then immediately nominated an article I had done for deletion - then invited me to participate in the deletion discussion, knowing I couldn't. That's a form of gloating.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=268976783:

QUOTE
AfD nomination of [[Solidarity unionism]]. ([[WP:TW|TW]])


Actually, the message was automatically left on your talk page via Twinkle (WP:TW). The message wasn't a form of "gloating".


I'd disagree. He clearly nominated that article in an attempt to taunt SmashTheState.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Wed 15th August 2012, 3:14pm
Post #12


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sun 12th August 2012, 2:29pm) *


Actually, the message was automatically left on your talk page via Twinkle (WP:TW). The message wasn't a form of "gloating".



Exactly. It is comments like his that make criticism fail. He should go to the other site. They love people like that who overreact in hysterical ways. After all, most of their users fit that model.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Thu 16th August 2012, 6:59pm
Post #13


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



JzG is still around, still banning people? That's incredible. I thought for sure he'd been banned himself by now, or at least desysopped, or that he'd quit the project in a fit of pique.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th 11 17, 10:09pm