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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> JzG, Simon Wessely, and claims of 'harassment'
wikiwhistle
post Tue 11th March 2008, 2:12am
Post #21


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined: Mon 26th Nov 2007, 2:17pm
Member No.: 3,953



His and many people's position on ME, rightly or wrongly, is that of a large sector of the medical establishment.

It is not defamatory to say something that already is some proffessional's, and some of the public's impression of a syndrome and those who believe in it.

I know those who believe in ME are not witches smile.gif but bear with me for the analogy- a wiccan was called 'satan's gran' in a British paper and tried to claim this was defamation as wiccans do not worship satan. She failed to succeed as she was told that this is already the view of wiccans held by a lot of the public, hence her/their reputation is not being lessened. This was a few years ago now though, wiccans may be more accepted nowadays so maybe she would have succeeded, were it more recent.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kato
post Tue 11th March 2008, 2:37am
Post #22


dhd
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767



Again, I haven't a clue what you're talking about here, wikiwhistle. This is what I'm talking about. Here are JzG's comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...0#Simon_Wessely
QUOTE(JzG)
Heads-up: User:Angela Kennedy has arrived and set up her stall over at the talk page for Simon Wessely. Kennedy has a visceral hatred for Wessely, and is one half of the noxious One Click Group website, see Wesselygate. This individual should under no circumstances be allowed to edit the article if it is unprotected, and should probably be topic-banned from the talk page and all ME / CFS articles as well. User:Jfdwolff will probably need a lot of help over there, vicious ad-hominem is the stock in trade of this particular bunch. Check the history of the Wessely article before Jimbo's deletion last year to see the One-Click mob's style, and their version of "neutral" point of view. One-Click's first neutral comment on the subject of Simon Wessely will probably be delivered by flying pig sometime in the third millennium of the Hades ice age, shortly after the heat death of the universe. OTRS volunteers should be on the lookout, as Wessely has had to complain several times over biased editing by members of minority patient activist groups bitterly opposed on principle to Wessely's ideas on palliative treatment for ME/CFS, a subject on which he is one of the most published experts in Europe. Kennedy proposes citations form the Countess of Mar and from Malcolm Hooper. Hooper, especially, is speaking well out of his field, he has no qualifications or accepted expertise in the subject, and his comments have been excluded by consensus from the article on that basis. (Guy) 21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angela Kennedy
post Tue 11th March 2008, 4:42pm
Post #23


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 8:05am
Member No.: 3,293

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I enclose below the emails from Jim Wales to me about my ban (with slight editing to protect persons who have not given me permission to make their names public). I have no compunction about making these emails public (as I feel I have nothing to lose). They put my 'permanent ban' into context apart from any so-called 'legal threats'.

One problem I want to address in particular is the claim JzG made that I have 'personally harassed Wessely in real life', as this is libellous. I have done no such thing, and this is the most defamatory claim he has made. To use Wikiwhistle's analogy, if the Wiccan had been libelled as having ritually sacrificed children when she didn't, her case for libel would be pretty strong, even if the 'the public' think she 'worships Satan'...!

While I was with One Click (I left in April 2006 because of family reasons, and the group's trajectory of campaigning is no longer my own) we did have some bumpy rides, and our style of campaigning was highly adversarial - and this was our intention, for good reasons as we saw them - but there are always at least two sides to every story. The links Neil has put up, for example, are out of context, inevitably. I could put other links ad nauseum that present that context etc. But I'm not here to promote One Click, of course, or revisit old disagreements.

Re Neil's comments, there are a couple of points I’d like to add: Firstly, I have no emotional feelings of ‘dislike’ for Simon Wessely (what OTHER people may feel about him is not my business). It is possible to take an adversarial position (politically, academically, legally) to someone, without having any emotional feelings towards them. And even if I do have an emotional investment in advocating for my daughter, for example, this does not preclude rational debate per se, which is all I and others wish to do, without ad hominem attack. This does not just apply to a forum such as Wikipedia, but to all public forums.

Best Wishes
Angela
----------------------------------------------------


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales@wikia.com>
To: "Angela Kennedy" <angela.kennedy@virgin.net>
Cc: <mgodwin@wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: False allegations of 'harassment' on Wikipedia itself by Guy Chapman

Angela Kennedy wrote:
> In fact, I have not been advised of any ALLEGED reasons for 'banning',
> although I was advised that my 'legal threats' (even though I dispute
> that I even made legal threats) were the reason I was blocked from
> editing. The reason for the 'ban' have not been made apparent to me.

Under the traditions of Wikipedia which extend back to the beginning, I
am entrusted to ban any users who I think are not helpful to the
project, for any reason that I deem sufficient. Editing Wikipedia is
not a right, it is a privilege, and it is one that, in your case, has
been permanently revoked.

I wish you no ill will, but I am unable to countenance any further
disruption of our project.

> While, as the head of your organisation, you are perfectly at liberty to
> ban me, my right not be libelled and defamed is equal. The reason that
> this matters is because of potential damage to my good name and
> reputation in the real world, caused by false allegations or
> insinuations on Wikipedia, a public domain.

As I have already done, I will endeavor to remove information which is
in fact libelous of you, though I have seen nothing of the sort yet.
Additionally, I am often willing, strictly as a courtesy, to go further
and remove information which may be making you unhappy in some way.

The particular statement you have been concernd with today has been blanked.

Please go in peace.

--Jimbo

--------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales@wikia.com>
To: "Angela Kennedy" <angela.kennedy@virgin.net>
Cc: <mgodwin@wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Further defamatory comments by Guy Chapman made today

Angela Kennedy wrote:
> Regarding the permanent ban: does this extend to my children and my
> children's children?

It extends to anyone acting on your behalf or on behalf of your
organization.

--Jimbo

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales@wikia.com>
To: "Angela Kennedy" <angela.kennedy@virgin.net>; "Mike Godwin" <mgodwin@wikimedia.org>; "JzG" <guy.chapman@chapmancentral.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: Further defamatory comments by Guy Chapman made today

Angela,

Strictly as a courtesy to you in the interests of resolving this
amicably, I have deleted the page in question.

Please know that you, "********" and everyone associated with you and
your organization are permanently banned from editing Wikipedia under
any circumstances.

--Jimbo


Angela Kennedy wrote:
>
> Dear Mr Wales,
>
> Further to my email to you this afternoon, Guy Chapman has been making
> further defamatory comments about me, and in the context of a hidden
> process in which I am apparently being discussed in possibly defamatory
> and/or libellous terms.
>
> In posts he has made on MEAgenda's talk page, Guy Chapman has said the
> following:
>
> Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. I have barely touched the
> Wessely article in months, and had never heard of him prior to ****
> posting of their blatantly defamatory article way back. *You
> need to draw a distinction between what Angela Kennedy says, and
> what might be regarded as truth by anybody with both feet on the
> ground.* *You know abut two thirds of the story, but the other third
> is not going to be discussed openly because it is the subject of
> private communications between certain individuals and the Wikimedia
> Foundation and its representatives.* For the record, I dod not
> contact Prof. Wessely about this, he contacted me, and he did so I
> think because he did not want to bother Jimmy. He was very polite
> and stated his case calmly. Up to now, you have also stated your
> case calmly. I hope you'll go back to that. *Guy
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG>* (Help!
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/help>) 14:14, 20 October 2007
> (UTC)
>
>
> * Don't get too stressed, please, I'm looking to sort this out. I
> don't think you are the problem. *Since I am one of Angela
> Kennedy's past targets they seem to think I might have some
> influence.* We'll see what can be done; in the mean time do please
> stay calm. Thanks. *Guy
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG>* (Help!
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/help>) 14:10, 20 October
> 2007 (UTC)
>
> Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MEagenda
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MEagenda> "
>
>
> Again, Guy Chapman is making defamatory comments that might potentially
> also be considered libellous.
>
> Questions that immediately spring to mind are:
>
> 1. In what context has he ever been a 'target' of 'mine'? I have never
> harassed Guy Chapman in any way. I have had a very few encounters with
> him and others publicly on the Simon Wessely talk page in 2006. That is
> the sum of my direct engagement with him. Indeed, I remind you of your
> undertaking to remove comments made by him and others, against myself
> and **** in 2006, from the Simon Wessely talkpage, because of
> their defamatory nature. I do have copies of our correspondence.
>
> 2. His claim that *"You need to draw a distinction between what Angela
> Kennedy says, and what might be regarded as truth by anybody with both
> feet on the ground. "* is an insult implying that I am untruthful as
> well as unreasonable.
>
> 3. I am most worried that there is an apparent secret process by which
> Guy Chapman and others, both within Wikipedia and possibly outside of
> Wikipedia, are potentially discussing me in terms in which Guy Chapman
> can use to bring my name further into disrepute in the way he has done
> above (by casting aspersions on my truthfulness and reasonableness) by
> innuendo: *You need to draw a distinction between what Angela Kennedy
> says, and what might be regarded as truth by anybody with both feet on
> the ground.* *You know abut two thirds of the story, but the other third
> is not going to be discussed openly because it is the subject of private
> communications between certain individuals and the Wikimedia Foundation
> and its representatives.*
> * *
> In the circumstances, I must now ask you to provide me an answer to this
> question: what claims are being made about me within correspondence
> between Wikipedia editors, Admins, other "certain individuals" and the
> Wikimedia Foundation and its representatives".
> * *
> While demonstrably libellous and defamatory comments against me are in
> situ in Wikipedia, I reserve the right to pursue action, to ensure my
> good name and reputation is not continued to be brought into disrepute,
> by those publishing on Wikipedia, or elsewhere.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Angela Kennedy
-----------------------------------------------------------------







User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Neil
post Tue 11th March 2008, 5:36pm
Post #24


Awesome member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu 14th Feb 2008, 1:56am
From: UK
Member No.: 4,822

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Tue 11th March 2008, 4:42pm) *

The links Neil has put up, for example, are out of context, inevitably. I could put other links ad nauseum that present that context etc. But I'm not here to promote One Click, of course, or revisit old disagreements.


Angela, I deliberately avoiding giving the links any context, at all.

Re your other comment, your dislike of Wessely may well be academic or political, not emotional, yes.

How is the legal challenge against the NICE guidelines going? I tried to find an update on its progress but had no luck.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angela Kennedy
post Thu 13th March 2008, 3:36pm
Post #25


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 8:05am
Member No.: 3,293

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Neil @ Tue 11th March 2008, 5:36pm) *


How is the legal challenge against the NICE guidelines going? I tried to find an update on its progress but had no luck.


Neil,

The latest update is here:

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php...d=2228#newspost

Reproduced here:

http://meagenda.wordpress.com/category/nice-cfsme-guideline/

I have no privy to developments as I am no longer with the group and their trajectory of campaigning is different to mine now.

My daughter did attempt to bring her own JR action against NICE, but was not granted Legal Aid because of the One Click action. But, even though I was previously involved, through One Click, in informing NICE about the problems of the proposed guideline during the consultation process, my daughter’s attempted JR action was taken in her own right, completely independent to the One Click JR action.

Hope this gives you the info you are seeking

Best wishes

Angela
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kato
post Thu 13th March 2008, 4:19pm
Post #26


dhd
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767



I don't understand how it is acceptable on the encyclopedia "anyone can edit" that someone can be blocked without breaking any "rules", for merely having a point of view that though mainstream and well documented, differed from JzG's.

And for the editor to then be mischaracterized as a "crank" and have their real name smeared by the sins of other people, after back room dealings between JzG, Jimbo Wales and a controversial government appointed figure.

And Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with that?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angela Kennedy
post Mon 14th April 2008, 9:00pm
Post #27


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 8:05am
Member No.: 3,293

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



An Update:

From JzG’s response to his RfC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/RfC


“I have had a fair bit of personal and on-wiki stress. This has included the group who consider Simon Wessely (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) to be the Antichrist and are still attacking me on and off wiki more than two years after I refactored their attack article…”

And from his talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/RfC

“This is for the very sound reason that I have not only discussed such harassment in great detail with some of them, but I have also been harassed on and off Wikipedia for actions taken here which were unequivocally in support of policy (see Wesselygate for example; I am still being harassed over two years after I tried to tone down a blatant hatchet job which Jimbo himself finally deleted).”

I think it’s probably very important, in light of his comments and in the circumstances, for me to clarify that I have NOT, in any way, been ‘harassing’ JzG- particularly the British legal of definition of the term. Obviously in the way he libelled me about ‘personally harassing’ Simon Wessely, I do wonder whether when he uses the term ‘harassment’ he actually means “someone objected on a public forum to my behaviour“ (such as here on WR).

Obviously I would argue his ’spin’ on the whole debacle on the Simon Wessely page and talk page is a misrepresentation. It is of concern that he has used this issue as a straw man in what I see as an attempt to excuse his conduct in his response to the RfC. Terms like ‘attack article’ are emotive and inaccurate, for example. Crucially, Jimbo Wales did not delete a ‘blatant hatchet job’ article - but JzG and JFW’s own comments, and this was in response to my objections.

I could go on at length to correct the discrepancies- though this may be too tedious for other readers. I am, however, concerned about the way JzG keeps using Wikipedia to build up critics, of his behaviour on the Simon Wessely article and talk pages, as straw men, because of the continuing potentially damaging effects on my good name following his various instances of defamation of me since September.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 15th April 2008, 7:02pm
Post #28


Member
*********

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



QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Mon 14th April 2008, 5:00pm) *

...I do wonder whether when he <JzG> uses the term ‘harassment’ he actually means “someone objected on a public forum to my behaviour“ (such as here on WR).

...I am, however, concerned about the way JzG keeps using Wikipedia to build up critics, of his behaviour on the Simon Wessely article and talk pages, as straw men, because of the continuing potentially damaging effects on my good name following his various instances of defamation of me since September.


When Guy Chapman says "harassment", that is exactly what he actually means -- "someone objected on a public forum to my behavior". Nothing more.

Word of advice -- don't concern yourself about how Guy Chapman is defaming you. If anybody actually notices his statements somewhere and confronts you about them, it will be a perfect opportunity for you to showcase how deranged JzG is as a Wikipedia administrator, and therefore you'll come out looking spotless.

If you need ammunition to cast JzG in the appropriate light, we have an armory of sorts.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angela Kennedy
post Tue 15th April 2008, 8:25pm
Post #29


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 8:05am
Member No.: 3,293

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Hi thekohser,

QUOTE

When Guy Chapman says "harassment", that is exactly what he actually means -- "someone objected on a public forum to my behavior". Nothing more.

Word of advice -- don't concern yourself about how Guy Chapman is defaming you. If anybody actually notices his statements somewhere and confronts you about them, it will be a perfect opportunity for you to showcase how deranged JzG is as a Wikipedia administrator, and therefore you'll come out looking spotless.


Yes- actually that's a good point. My problem has been the potential 'real -world' effect on my credibility as one of Simon Wessely's (legitimate) critics (not just him though) and an advocate for my daughter. There is a whole history of some serious ad hominem/straw man attacks on the ME/CFS community, of which this is just one of the latest examples.

But looking at JzG's history (which has taken me a while) - I do now see what you mean. I'm certainly in a position to defend myself in real world terms now by showcasing the problems you've all highlighted, if necessary (i.e. someone tries to use his comments in a real-world context.).


QUOTE


If you need ammunition to cast JzG in the appropriate light, we have an armory of sorts.



Yes - oh dear... I shouldn't laugh...


Thanks everyone for putting it all in context. That's been actually pretty helpful.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kato
post Tue 15th April 2008, 8:35pm
Post #30


dhd
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767



I don't think there is any denying that JzG took a lot of hassle from CFS advocates after he started trying to referee Wessely's biography.

However, JzG being JzG just decided this was all too much for him, and started banning anyone who showed up and was critical of Wessely. Given that Wessely is a controversial figure, critics are hardly difficult to find.

It was the manner of it, and the outrageous slurs that he threw in, that look really ugly.

This situation needs to be revisted away from Jzg's appalling misrepresentations. There is plenty of evidence of him lying about people and doing this kind of thing elsewhere. And it looks like a repeat performance here.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Tue 15th April 2008, 11:13pm
Post #31


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



Now he called me somebody who acts like "an obsessive trolling idiot", and Cla68 "an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel", and told both of us to go away from his talk page.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
UseOnceAndDestroy
post Tue 15th April 2008, 11:28pm
Post #32


Über Member
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri 7th Dec 2007, 3:43pm
Member No.: 4,073



QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 16th April 2008, 12:13am) *

Now he called me somebody who acts like "an obsessive trolling idiot", and Cla68 "an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel", and told both of us to go away from his talk page.


Glad to see that RFC wasn't futile at all, and made a world of difference to his behaviour.

When's the next one?

This post has been edited by UseOnceAndDestroy: Tue 15th April 2008, 11:55pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tarantino
post Tue 15th April 2008, 11:37pm
Post #33


the Dude abides
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,440
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 11:41pm
Member No.: 2,143



QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 15th April 2008, 11:13pm) *

Now he called me somebody who acts like "an obsessive trolling idiot", and Cla68 "an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel", and told both of us to go away from his talk page.


... and no admin has the cajones to even issue a warning. Maybe Messedrocker would have at one time, but he's pretty much given up.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Tue 15th April 2008, 11:53pm
Post #34


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



More evidence of the absence of a functional conflict resolution protocol.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Wed 16th April 2008, 12:46am
Post #35


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



Well, at least I got a good user page header out of it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Proabivouac
post Wed 16th April 2008, 12:52am
Post #36


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



Good heavens, this deserves quoting in full:
QUOTE(JzG)

Now go away and never post here ever again under any circumstances, because while Dan and often behaves like an obsessive trolling idiot, I consider you an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel based on your steadfast refusal to assume anything other than outright malice form all involved in that list, your refusal to accept any interpreation other than your own ludicrous conspirtacy theory, and your going to the press with something you had been told many times was wrong, by people who had absolutely no reason to lie, and presenting your sick, twisted little fantasy as truth, thus prolonging the drama. An d worst of all, you have the effrontery to come here and accuse me of COI while demanding that I put back in the utter bullshit that you fed Metz, so that your lies are preserved forever in Wikipedia as a pretence of truth. No. No chance whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=205888178


A very mild warning from Lar:
QUOTE(Lar)

Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=next&oldid=205867347 this], calling people "spiteful shit-stirring weasels" may not be the most effective approach, regardless of what you may think of them. It just plays into their hands, doesn't it? Hope that's helpful advice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=205908503


Guy may not need to be blocked - he didn't call anyone a "gnome-like stalker", after all…

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=205664462
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=205667029

…but he sure needs to be desysoped. Amazing that this is who Wikipedia puts forth to represent the project. If he thinks the Register is bad, wait until they're dealing with the New York Times quoting this "senior Wikipedia administrator."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Wed 16th April 2008, 12:56am
Post #37


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



TweedleDan and TweedleDum

He left off a second name in "Dan and often behaves like..."

Any clue who he meant to name as Dan's brother in idiotic trolling?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Proabivouac
post Wed 16th April 2008, 12:57am
Post #38


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



QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 15th April 2008, 11:13pm) *

Now he called me somebody who acts like "an obsessive trolling idiot", and Cla68 "an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel", and told both of us to go away from his talk page.

Moderators, might we consider branching off this post and the reactions to it to a separate JzG thread? JzG is practically demanding to be desysoped at this point. We shouldn't want his evident contempt for his colleagues and the complaints put forth in his RfC to be overlooked.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Wed 16th April 2008, 1:04am
Post #39


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



See Stage 4 (Alienation and Scapegoating) in this WR Op-Ed.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wikiwhistle
post Wed 16th April 2008, 1:35am
Post #40


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined: Mon 26th Nov 2007, 2:17pm
Member No.: 3,953



QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 16th April 2008, 1:56am) *

TweedleDan and TweedleDum

He left off a second name in "Dan and often behaves like..."

Any clue who he meant to name as Dan's brother in idiotic trolling?


Or it could be

"While Dan (eats babies) and often behaves like..."

i.e he deleted another insult he added first, but forgot to take out the 'and'
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >
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: 23rd 11 14, 1:12pm