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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> WP Admin Tells Conroy to "Shut the F*ck Up", ...oh, that JzG !! (plagiarising Gerard to boot!)
Piperdown
post Fri 7th December 2007, 5:05am
Post #1


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995



QUOTE

[WikiEN-l] Coordination on Secret/private lists
Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman at spamcop.net
Thu Dec 6 13:23:03 UTC 2007

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 01:10:34 -0500, "Alec Conroy"
<alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:

>I know this horse is sorta dead, but since peopel are still engaging
>in the post-mortem, I thought I should chime in.

No, I think you should shut the fuck up.



http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/086958.html


Yes, folks, this is one of the most active WP admins out there. When he's not running away from his Wikihome in a snit, until called back by Daddy Jimbo for super sekret missions. Plus WP has really good articles on titties.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Fri 7th December 2007, 5:11am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Fri 7th December 2007, 5:18am
Post #2


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



No, it's just his religion again. St. Fu is JzG's patron saint.

Jonny cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Proabivouac
post Fri 7th December 2007, 5:20am
Post #3


Bane of all wikiland
*******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined: Thu 23rd Aug 2007, 8:25am
Member No.: 2,647

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



It doesn't really bother me that JzG writs this way. What does bother me is that other editors are arbitrarily taken to task for ill-defined, and often lesser, "incivilities." (talking back to an administrator, opposing an RfA, etc.) Supposedly, we're reluctant to lay down hard and fast rules (e.g., no dirty words, no attacks on ethnicities, etc.) because this would allow others to "game the system" (which outside Wikipedia is called "following the law.") Examples like JzG's show that the real reason to avoid clarifying the rules is that, were they clear, it'd be more difficult, or at least more embarrassing, to enforce them unequally: a "no dirty words" provision would seem a no-brainer for a civility policy, but one which would lead to JzG getting blocked rather frequently.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Fri 7th December 2007, 5:20am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Fri 7th December 2007, 5:36am
Post #4


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 7th December 2007, 1:20am) *

It doesn't really bother me that JzG writes this way. What does bother me is that other editors are arbitrarily taken to task for ill-defined, and often lesser, "incivilities." (talking back to an administrator, opposing an RfA, etc.) Supposedly, we're reluctant to lay down hard and fast rules (e.g., no dirty words, no attacks on ethnicities, etc.) because this would allow others to "game the system" (which outside Wikipedia is called "following the law.") Examples like JzG's show that the real reason to avoid clarifying the rules is that, were they clear, it'd be more difficult, or at least more embarrassing, to enforce them unequally: a "no dirty words" provision would seem a no-brainer for a civility policy, but one which would lead to JzG getting blocked rather frequently.


There's more to it than that.

The number of Norms that a Ganglord can get away with violating is a measure of his or her Status in the Gang.

Notice that I said «Norms» not «Rules». A norm does not have to be written down on a policy page somewhere. What matters is that the WikiPeanut Gallery watching the exhibition of behavior can see just how far the Ganglord is allowed to deviate from what the average Wikipeon can get away with, and this tells them just how Rank that Ganglord is.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 7th December 2007, 5:40am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Amarkov
post Fri 7th December 2007, 5:52am
Post #5


Über Member
*****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 27th Oct 2007, 1:02am
From: Figure it out and get a cookie
Member No.: 3,635

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 6th December 2007, 9:36pm) *

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 7th December 2007, 1:20am) *

It doesn't really bother me that JzG writes this way. What does bother me is that other editors are arbitrarily taken to task for ill-defined, and often lesser, "incivilities." (talking back to an administrator, opposing an RfA, etc.) Supposedly, we're reluctant to lay down hard and fast rules (e.g., no dirty words, no attacks on ethnicities, etc.) because this would allow others to "game the system" (which outside Wikipedia is called "following the law.") Examples like JzG's show that the real reason to avoid clarifying the rules is that, were they clear, it'd be more difficult, or at least more embarrassing, to enforce them unequally: a "no dirty words" provision would seem a no-brainer for a civility policy, but one which would lead to JzG getting blocked rather frequently.


There's more to it than that.

The number of Norms that a Ganglord can get away with violating is a measure of his or her Status in the Gang.

Notice that I said «Norms» not «Rules». A norm does not have to be written down on a policy page somewhere. What matters is that the WikiPeanut Gallery watching the exhibition of behavior can see just how far the Ganglord is allowed to deviate from what the average Wikipeon can get away with, and this tells them just how Rank that Ganglord is.

Jon Awbrey


Gangs, though, are actually willing to admit that there is a power structure that gives people at the top power to ignore norms. Wikipedia doesn't do that, so nobody is allowed to communicate that idea. Unless, of course, the Wikisheviks have been particulary divided and some Wikitrotskies need to be removed.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Fri 7th December 2007, 6:00am
Post #6


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Amarkov @ Fri 7th December 2007, 1:52am) *

Gangs, though, are actually willing to admit that there is a power structure that gives people at the top power to ignore norms. Wikipedia doesn't do that, so nobody is allowed to communicate that idea. Unless, of course, the Wikisheviks have been particulary divided and some Wikitrotskies need to be removed.


See my note on the Deliberately Unreflective Framework (DUF).

Jon Awbrey
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sun 14th August 2011, 7:33pm
Post #7


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Piperdown @ Fri 7th December 2007, 1:05am) *

QUOTE

[WikiEN-l] Coordination on Secret/private lists
Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman at spamcop.net
Thu Dec 6 13:23:03 UTC 2007

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 01:10:34 -0500, "Alec Conroy"
<alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:

>I know this horse is sorta dead, but since peopel are still engaging
>in the post-mortem, I thought I should chime in.

No, I think you should shut the fuck up.



http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/086958.html



Looks like JzG drove another one off the project.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sun 14th August 2011, 11:12pm
Post #8


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 14th August 2011, 12:33pm) *

Looks like JzG drove another one off the project.

Shit, he would've made a great interview subject. How to contact him......?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 15th August 2011, 2:04pm
Post #9


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 14th August 2011, 7:12pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 14th August 2011, 12:33pm) *

Looks like JzG drove another one off the project.

Shit, he would've made a great interview subject. How to contact him......?


alecmconroy at gmail.com
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
victim of censorship
post Mon 15th August 2011, 4:06pm
Post #10


Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,148
Joined: Tue 6th Jan 2009, 8:33am
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Fri 7th December 2007, 12:36am) *

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 7th December 2007, 1:20am) *

It doesn't really bother me that JzG writes this way. What does bother me is that other editors are arbitrarily taken to task for ill-defined, and often lesser, "incivilities." (talking back to an administrator, opposing an RfA, etc.) Supposedly, we're reluctant to lay down hard and fast rules (e.g., no dirty words, no attacks on ethnicities, etc.) because this would allow others to "game the system" (which outside Wikipedia is called "following the law.") Examples like JzG's show that the real reason to avoid clarifying the rules is that, were they clear, it'd be more difficult, or at least more embarrassing, to enforce them unequally: a "no dirty words" provision would seem a no-brainer for a civility policy, but one which would lead to JzG getting blocked rather frequently.


There's more to it than that.

The number of Norms that a Ganglord can get away with violating is a measure of his or her Status in the Gang.

Notice that I said «Norms» not «Rules». A norm does not have to be written down on a policy page somewhere. What matters is that the WikiPeanut Gallery watching the exhibition of behavior can see just how far the Ganglord is allowed to deviate from what the average Wikipeon can get away with, and this tells them just how Rank that Ganglord is.

Jon Awbrey

A look inside Wikipedia, I bet you can pick out Goethean..(Bowser and the rats).... As well as
Jimbo (bill)... and the rest of the notable wikigang members...



This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Mon 15th August 2011, 4:12pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Mon 15th August 2011, 8:27pm
Post #11


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 15th August 2011, 7:04am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 14th August 2011, 7:12pm) *

Shit, he would've made a great interview subject. How to contact him......?
alecmconroy at gmail.com

I tried that, and variations of it. All my messages were returned. Yes, it appears that he has killed his email.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Mon 15th August 2011, 10:11pm
Post #12


Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I don't particularly understand the mindset of "flaming out" of a site and scrambling your password; my style is more to gradually have my interests shift elsewhere until I hardly ever participate any more (my activity on both WP and WR has been rather minimal for ages now), but not actually delete, block, or deactivate my account; I might happen to feel like popping back in at some point, and have no wish to burn my bridges. But to each his/her/its own.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Tue 16th August 2011, 6:10am
Post #13


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 15th August 2011, 8:27pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 15th August 2011, 7:04am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 14th August 2011, 7:12pm) *

Shit, he would've made a great interview subject. How to contact him......?
alecmconroy at gmail.com

I tried that, and variations of it. All my messages were returned. Yes, it appears that he has killed his email.


If I remember right, this Wikipedia participant was active in helping kill the BADSITES policy proposal. I don't see any comments from him on the BADSITES' talk page, however, so I don't remember in which discussion forums he was active.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 16th August 2011, 6:11am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 16th August 2011, 1:30pm
Post #14


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 15th August 2011, 6:11pm) *

I don't particularly understand the mindset of "flaming out" of a site and scrambling your password; my style is more to gradually have my interests shift elsewhere until I hardly ever participate any more (my activity on both WP and WR has been rather minimal for ages now), but not actually delete, block, or deactivate my account; I might happen to feel like popping back in at some point, and have no wish to burn my bridges. But to each his/her/its own.


Dan, you must not have become addicted to either WP or WR. Conroy was likely addicted. Cold turkey denial of access is sometimes the best way to stop for such a victim.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Tue 16th August 2011, 10:27pm
Post #15


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 16th August 2011, 6:30am) *
Dan, you must not have become addicted to either WP or WR. Conroy was likely addicted. Cold turkey denial of access is sometimes the best way to stop for such a victim.

Agreed, and I wish I could contact some actual Wiki-addicts in order to get their comments.
When they disappear, they really disappear.
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: 28th 11 14, 11:56pm