JzG: Wikipedia Review superfan Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

JzG delivers a tour d'horizon of all our latest threads, for the benefit of the ArbCom. Then Charles Matthews restates it.

[Piperdown]

JzG delivers a tour d'horizon of all our latest threads, for the benefit of the ArbCom. Then Charles Matthews restates it.

Bagley didn't edit Wikipedia to "skew" Byrne/Overstock/NSS articles. I don't think he even edited them at all. And claiming that I and dozens of other editors of those articles is Bagley is thoughtcrime - and SlimVirgin and lil 'GW had it working wonderfully (for a while).

But taggging anyone who called bullshit on Gary Weiss's activities on those articles as Bagley/Wordbomb is a great way to lie.

Bagley went to WP with COI proof.

Unfortunately for him it was proof against the inner circle itself.

So that proof (and that is all ASM is, folks, NPOV, unmitigated scientific proof, facts laid out so even an Arbcom member could figure it out) has been tarred and feathered as "harrassment" and "attacks".

When liars are proven to be liars, they shout "harrassment" and "attacks".

And that's what's been going down on Wikipedia.

Guy is, to use a phrase that David Gerard can understand, a fucking idiot.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Fri 19th October 2007, 12:58am

[LamontStormstar]

Requests for clarification 2 and 3 are basically saying they hate Wikipedia Review because it gives valid criticism.

[blissyu2]

I'd like to know since when Wikipedia Review was substantially dedicated to harassment. Since when? I'd like to see where it says in our charter that we aim to harass and harm other users, and that that is our primary function. As far as we all knew, our primary function was to criticise. If, in the course of criticising, we do some things that some such as JzG interpret as being harassment, then that is a very different thing to suggesting that that is our point of existence. I don't think that anyone here is deliberately harassing anyone from Wikipedia.

[LamontStormstar]

I'd like to know since when Wikipedia Review was substantially dedicated to harassment. Since when? I'd like to see where it says in our charter that we aim to harass and harm other users, and that that is our primary function. As far as we all knew, our primary function was to criticise. If, in the course of criticising, we do some things that some such as JzG interpret as being harassment, then that is a very different thing to suggesting that that is our point of existence. I don't think that anyone here is deliberately harassing anyone from Wikipedia.

They seem fine with harassment. What they actually hate is factual criticism.

[Jonny Cache]

JzG delivers a tour d'horizon of all our latest threads, for the benefit of the ArbCom. Then Charles Matthews restates it.

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I discover a person to be a Pathological Liar, I tend to leave off the detailed analysis of everything they say after that point.

If JzG wants to preach his ass off to his pet choir, and does not have the guts to come out and deal with real criticism of his conduct, then let him keep to his 1-ring circus arena, WP:CLOWNS-ON-UNICYCLES.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 19th October 2007, 1:58am

[WordBomb]

Bagley didn't edit Wikipedia to "skew" Byrne/Overstock/NSS articles. I don't think he even edited them at all.

Close, but not quite. My first introduction to WP was as this IP, and I tinkered with the NSS article long enough to realize it had been appropriated by another IP (which turned out to be Gary Weiss, just before he created Mantanmoreland).

I also reverted a little bit of disruptive Mantanmoralizing here. So that's the extent of my campaign.

[WhispersOfWisdom]

JzG delivers a tour d'horizon of all our latest threads, for the benefit of the ArbCom. Then Charles Matthews restates it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim...de_of_Wikipedia

I hear whispers from people around the world, that like what Daniel Brandt and WR represent.

[thekohser]

I'd like to know since when Wikipedia Review was substantially dedicated to harassment. Since when? I'd like to see where it says in our charter that we aim to harass and harm other users, and that that is our primary function. As far as we all knew, our primary function was to criticise. If, in the course of criticising, we do some things that some such as JzG interpret as being harassment, then that is a very different thing to suggesting that that is our point of existence. I don't think that anyone here is deliberately harassing anyone from Wikipedia.

Well, when I exposed that JzG had a flurry of IP edits on articles associated with women with enormous breasts, I suppose that was not exactly intended to provide constructive criticism of Guy Chapman's experience on Wikipedia. But, he hadn't listened to my constructive criticism for at least 8 or 9 months, so he really left me no choice but to drop the A-Bomb.

(Actually, it was more like a DD-Bomb.)

Greg

P.S. That still isn't harassment, though. Just using WikiScanner the same way all those Wikipediots used it to embarrass Fortune 500 companies.

[Derktar]

The baseless allegations of sockpuppetry by [[User:SlimVirgin]] are currently repeated on WR. The assertion of SV's real world identity, as promoted by ASM, is stated as fact on WR.

That's right Guy, at no time has SV ever used sockpuppets...

...sheesh

[Somey]

Well, when I exposed that JzG had a flurry of IP edits on articles associated with women with enormous breasts, I suppose that was not exactly intended to provide constructive criticism of Guy Chapman's experience on Wikipedia. But, he hadn't listened to my constructive criticism for at least 8 or 9 months, so he really left me no choice but to drop the A-Bomb.

If the WP folks can't figure out that JzG is pissed over our noticing and commenting on his boobs-related edits, then they're even more reality-challenged than I thought they were.

Disclaimer: I, personally, have a certain fondness for well-formed, attractive boobs. Does this make me a hypocrite? Probably, but at least I'm not trying to impose my boobs-related beliefs on the rest of the world.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

If the WP folks can't figure out that JzG is pissed over our noticing and commenting on his boobs-related edits, then they're even more reality-challenged than I thought they were.

Disclaimer: I, personally, have a certain fondness for well-formed, attractive boobs. Does this make me a hypocrite? Probably, but at least I'm not trying to impose my boobs-related beliefs on the rest of the world.

Hi, JzG, and welcome to my neighborhood. Now that I have your attention, I'm going to address a few remarks to your dissertation on the Requests for Arbitration page.

1. You say that pro-LaRouche activists are pursuing a campaign against User:Cberlet on this site. To my knowledge, I am the only pro-LaRouche activist that posts here. Everyone else that comments on the behavior of Cberlet is simply sickened by the fact that he pursues mulitiple campaigns of flagrant POV-pushing, with the blessing and protection of senior editors such as yourself.

2. You say that I am pursuing a campaign of harassment and outing against SlimVirgin, alleging sockpuppetry. Well, at least you got the part right about "alleging sockpuppetry." Allow me to remind you that Wikipedia has a policy against sockpuppetry, and that SlimVirgin has banned legions of opponents in content disputes by the simple tactic of alleging that they are, or have, sockpuppets. "But wait!" I seem to hear you say. "It's an 'alternate account'!" Yeah, right.

Now, I can't speak for the others who contribute their views to this site, but I don't give a rat's ass whether Wikipedia permits linking to this site, or not. It makes no difference. Wikipedia creates a culture of Google-ferrets, and if Wikipedia editors begin to detect the slightest whiff of corruption on the part of the admins and arbs, they will find this site with a few mouse clicks, link or no link.

You attempt, in your dissertation, to depict this site as a gang of hooligans that are mercilessly stalking and harassing the meek and altruistic Wikipedians like Cberlet and SlimVirgin. In fact, we are simply doing your job for you. To paraphrase John Adams, if Wikipedia were a project of laws, not men, both Cberlet and SlimVirgin would have been banned long ago, on the basis of WP:NOT. But because they have ingratiated themselves with the in-group, they may violate policy with each breath that they take, and if someone has the effrontery to point this out, this is depicted (in your dissertation) as harassment. This may strike some of us as hypocritical.

[blissyu2]

I don't think that LaRouche has been mentioned much here, at least not in a way that tries to pass judgement as to whether LaRouche was a good person or not. The only mention has been as to whether Wikipedia has reported on it accurately.

[the fieryangel]

JzG's main point seems to be :

While assuming good faith, then, we should recognise that WR,in its current state, is dangerous and inimical to the process of building an encyclopaedia - as with any link to offsite blog posts, aggravation, harassment, outing, attacks and other behaviour unacceptable within the framework of Wikipedia, links to WR are likely to be pernicious and corrosive, and (most importantly) not at all likely to actually result in improvements to content.

Laying aside the obligatory snarky remarks about JzG's retirement....

Now, I fail to see how AGF can be invoked at all in this discussion, because they seem to be assuming pretty much the opposite...But what it boils down to is that since WB posts both here and at ASM, then WR=ASM.

That's not something that follows automatically.

For the record, I have been impressed that WB does not just go off posting things that he suspects, but actually wades through huge datadump files to get proof that they actually are true.

JzG had to write that tome full of the semi-colons, subordinate clauses and doubtful rhetoric because he doesn't have any proof: he only has what he would like to see. However, that doesn't stop him from calling this dense soup of doublespeak the truth, but only through a rather hypnotic repetition of phrases like "clear and evident", "significant and serious concern", and the obligatory "good faith"....

However, the entire issue is best summed up in this phrase :

Old may be taken as prior to the acceptance date of the attack sites arbitration, a date at which it may be reasonably expected that the community pulled its collective socks up in respect of external harassment.

Now, is he referring to the total number of sockpuppets controlled by individual community (ie Cabal) members? Or is he admitting that there exist "collective socks" with which all community members can edit?

One can only wonder at this point...

Maybe we can swipe his IPod and find out?

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Fri 19th October 2007, 8:35am

[thekohser]

Well, when I exposed that JzG had a flurry of IP edits on articles associated with women with enormous breasts, I suppose that was not exactly intended to provide constructive criticism of Guy Chapman's experience on Wikipedia. But, he hadn't listened to my constructive criticism for at least 8 or 9 months, so he really left me no choice but to drop the A-Bomb.

If the WP folks can't figure out that JzG is pissed over our noticing and commenting on his boobs-related edits, then they're even more reality-challenged than I thought they were.

Disclaimer: I, personally, have a certain fondness for well-formed, attractive boobs. Does this make me a hypocrite? Probably, but at least I'm not trying to impose my boobs-related beliefs on the rest of the world.

I would have a similar disclaimer, regarding attractive, non-blonde, up-and-coming models from other countries.

I don't think I've ever resorted to an IP address to do my hot model editing, though. Guy Chapman has. And therein lies the rub.

(Sorry, couldn't help myself on that last double entendre.)

Besides, which would cause your wife more humiliation -- that you're attracted to someone like Carolina Ardohain:




...or someone like one of Guy Chapman's favorites, Letha Weapons?




With evidence like that, I'll put my WikiScanner or WikiDashboard edits up against JzG's any time.

Greg

[the fieryangel]

Besides, which would cause your wife more humiliation -- that you're attracted to someone like Carolina Ardohain:




...or someone like one of Guy Chapman's favorites, Letha Weapons?

Well, Greg, it's like that old "tuna" (no pun intended, really!) commercial :

You edit articles about models who have good taste.

JzG edits articles about models who taste good...

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Fri 19th October 2007, 1:18pm

[blissyu2]

Besides, which would cause your wife more humiliation -- that you're attracted to someone like Carolina Ardohain:




...or someone like one of Guy Chapman's favorites, Letha Weapons?




With evidence like that, I'll put my WikiScanner or WikiDashboard edits up against JzG's any time.

Greg

Look, some people like the old plastic surgery gone wild thing. If they didn't, then plastic surgeons would go out of business. Letha Weapons paid for it, so I'd like to hope that at least a few people appreciate her investment.

Is JzG married? I am not convinced that all women despise men looking at pornography anyway. Some do, but some enjoy looking at it themselves. Just so long as they can look at some hot guys. "Look but don't touch". It really depends on the relationship.

I can write an essay on why pornography is okay if you'd like, but anyway I guess it all gets down to personal opinion.

[guy]

Carolina Ardohain:

Come off it - that's another Runcorn sock, isn't it?

[the fieryangel]

Is JzG married? I am not convinced that all women despise men looking at pornography anyway. Some do, but some enjoy looking at it themselves. Just so long as they can look at some hot guys. "Look but don't touch". It really depends on the relationship.

I can write an essay on why pornography is okay if you'd like, but anyway I guess it all gets down to personal opinion.

JzG is married....and also a "pillar of his Church" according to his own site...

Anyway, if you want to know what women really think of men watching porn, read this. This is probably one of the best descriptions of how women view men who watch porn.

The short answer is that, intellectually, women can understand why men do that, but it stills freaks them out bigtime...

In a way, a guy who is renting a porn video is courteously having his selfish sex on his own time so he won't bother you with it. And "selfish" isn't a bad thing here. It's also selfish to take a hot bath and read a book by yourself, but it's important to do that every now and then.

And besides, if you had a choice between your guy renting a video and renting a person, which would you choose?

Now that I've cleared up that little misunderstanding for all time, here's what men don't understand about porn: women do take it personally. When a woman sees your porn rental, she is likely to conclude that that is what you want. The sex act in question, the level of communication, the inflated porn body, all of it. In all likelihood she doesn't see the woman on the box as a convenient avatar of general woman-ness, she sees her as tangible proof that what the owner of said box really, truly wants is a nineteen-year-old emacaited blonde with enormous fake breasts and a deep desire to take it up the ass.

This is why a gentleman is very, very careful about leaving his porn lying around the house.

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Fri 19th October 2007, 10:18pm

[Piperdown]

Titties ! Yay!!!