Despite what IngSoc, er, ArbCom says, AntiSocialMedia.net is hardly about "outing" Wikipedia editors. It is, however, about shining a bright light on hypocrisy and abuse of social media, with Gary Weiss and SlimVirgin held up as poster children of same.

While I've made no attempt to "out" editors for sport on ASM, I'm wrestling with my conscience right now, and the desire to make an exception when it comes to Guy Chapman, who proved himself (as JzG) such a sonofabitch to me during the early days of the BADSITES debacle.

See, I figured out the account the (supposedly retired) fellow is currently using (and indeed, started using almost a year ago) and am so tempted to stick my leg out and trip him as he skips by, because few deserve it more.

But then I think about how much the dude already hates his life, and conclude that as long as he keeps to himself, I should just let him go do his thing.

Though I can predict what the consensus will be, I'm still curious to know what the thinking is around here on the topic of outing-for-sport, particularly when it comes to a real prince like Sir Guy.

Hey where did ColScott's post go?

Well since the identity of Gamaliel, who was a far nicer editor than JzG was on his best medicated day, was exposed, I think it's rank hypocrisy to not do the same here. The only person I could think of who could deserve it more would probably be Tony Sidaway.

that would be the SECOND post that vanished
wtf
?

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Wikipedia

According to Guy's own words Wikipedia can be a cesspool and of all the abuse he alleges he has been subject to, why he would remain there is beyond me.

I have deleted three comments now that had completely unacceptable language. Somey or any other staff/mod is free to disagree with me but I felt that those comments would degenerate this thread into a free-for-all.

I believe in free speech as much as the next person but please, use a little common sense.

Well since the identity of Gamaliel, who was a far nicer editor than JzG was on his best medicated day, was exposed, I think it's rank hypocrisy to not do the same here.

Of course we should delete posts. "Because I don't like it" doesn't factor into it. There are many reasons why moderators and staff should delete posts.

Don't mistake my deletion of your comments as being on Ryulong's side, either (as some might interpret it). I'm on my own side but I think about the forum first - that's my job.

Wikipedia doesn't allow free expression. We do - up to a point. Your statement "just because you delete a comment, you are like them" is flawed.

Hmmm... To be fair, I'm fairly certain we weren't the ones who exposed User:Gamaliel's identity. I think he actually did most of it himself on his own userpage, and the revisions in question weren't oversighted before Daniel Brandt got around to checking them out and putting them up on the Hivemind page. I could be slightly wrong about the particulars, though...

Anyway, I'd redacted his name from WR, but then (as I recall) he started using it in WikiEN-L postings, which sort of renders the whole issue rather moot as far as I'm concerned. Also, he never requested that we remove it, and of course Joseph gets a little, uh, cranky when people act nice towards Gamaliel. And who can blame him, after all?

You should never delete posts. We are all adults here. Except Squeakbox.

Is JzG's new account making waves on policy pages or AN/I...?

The fish gotta swim,
the bird gotta fly,
and despite his best efforts, Guy gotta be Guy, Guy, Guy.

Oops, I meant Gaillimh, not Gamaliel. But I think my point still stands.

No...if that were the case, this would be a much easier decision.

I can see what he's trying to be, and in a vacuum I'd think it's great: he's trying to be what Jimbo likely had in mind when the term "editor" was coined. He's actually trying to improve WP editorially.

But as they say:


Well, I say that. Or just did.

Point being: he's trying to keep his head down and "edit," but I see his nature poking through because, well, it's his nature.

Well in that case I'd say hold back unless JzG reverts back to his old ways. But then again I never had dealings with Guy like you and many others had so I'm not an aficionado on Guy's abuses and wrongdoings.

What's your level of certainty, if I might ask? Even if he is getting involved in the business end of things, I should think you'd want to be at least, I dunno, 80 to 90 percent certain. As it is, you'd want to be 100 percent certain if all he's doing is touch-up work and the occasional new paragraph or two.

By that logic, what reason do you have for holding back on JzG? He's been a prick in the Arb Com case and probably deserves it. On top of that, you've been penalised for something you didn't do, so why not do it?

Isn't antisocialmedia.net a complaint site and not an attack site, like this one site that complained about best buy's geek squad?

For JzG going back on a new account after supposedly quittting, is JzG doing anything abusive related for it like double voting on wikipedia's "not a vote" voting places such as AFD, or did he just want to go back under a new name?

Plus, think of his wife: doesn't she have a right to know that her husband is spending every waking minute on the internet editing articles about big bust models?

Personally, if I were living in the UK, I'd wear a helmet even if I wasn't on a bicycle.

At the risk of sounding silly, the answer is...Karma. Or however you define the universal balance sheet. Exposing Gary Weiss and [Name Redacted] has made the world a better place. Exposing Guy's new ID may or may not do the same.

What's your level of certainty, if I might ask? Even if he is getting involved in the business end of things, I should think you'd want to be at least, I dunno, 80 to 90 percent certain. As it is, you'd want to be 100 percent certain if all he's doing is touch-up work and the occasional new paragraph or two.

Maybe they violated NPOV XYZ ARACADABRA?

By deleting posts you are just like the WIKI: JAGOFFS

You should never delete posts. We are all adults here. Except Squeakbox.

Why? The rate of violent crime, especially shooting, is much lower than in the USA.

Yes, but the roads are narrower. Much better to stay on the pavement, Squeak Box

I have three trains running on this same thought:

1.) He has already gone public. He has a web site using his real name. There is no "almost pregnant" here. Many people wish they had never chosen their current path. Some things can be changed, some things can never be changed. A geographic cure might help him for a while, but wherever he goes.........there he is!

2.) Sockpuppets are actually allowed and used at WP. I believe many real live people use one or more sockpuppets, with the support of WP policy and guidelines.

3.) If a convicted war criminal is living in South America, would his victims have a right to know where he lives?

If WR is NOT to be known as an "Outing site" then by all means, let someone else do the deed... someday.

A miracle is required to make a change in someone that is hurtful and a true blue real sociopath.
Without a miracle, I believe JzG will resurface as himself, someday. I can always pray for a miracle, however.

I'm still waiting for the part where you say "In conclusion..."

This is an open letter to a small group of people. You know who you are.

I closed down the JzG account on Wikipedia of my own free will, and asked for the sysop bit to be removed as a security measure. I'd be happier iof the account was blocked. It will not be used again, I think.

You, the people to whom this is addressed, are banned from Wikipedia, usually not due to any action on my part. A banned user may not edit Wikipedia. At all. Under any account. Jason Gastrich, Jonathan Barber, Gregory Kohs, Judd Bagley, Don Murphy - you are banned not because of anything I did, but because of what you did. Which was, in the main, self-promotion.

I am not banned. I can edit whenever I like, either anonymously or using accounts. And - get this - nobody cares. I am just some middle-aged guy from England. Nobody in their right mind would give a damn whether I edit Wikipedia or not. What difference does it make to the world if I choose to walk away from the whole sorry bunch of you and create the occasional article on some obscure but worthy topic in which I have no vested interest? Do you honestly think the world gives a damn? I sure as hell don't. But I do think it's worth volunteering the occasional hour to document obscure but important topics. So I will probably be around Wikipedia - under one name or another - for a while.

The nthing is, though, that if I want to return to the JzG account and get the sysop bit back, all I have to do is ask. That's it. And the reason I don't is not because you are a bunch of shameless elf-promoting [very bad word]s who make life a misery for those around you - althogh that is certainly true - but because I can no longer be arsed to clean up the crap you leave behind you.

There are a thousand more admins, at least some of whom are prepared to clean up the crap you leave behind you.

And that's an end of it, really, because ultimately the problem is not me, it's you. I've walked away from the lot of you - despite your apparent desire to pursue me - but Wikipedia's collective memory, of which I was a very small and insignificant part, remembers you and why you were banned.

So, if you think you've found one of my other accounts, congratulations, award yourself a putty medal and share your joy with all your friends. That, plus a couple of bucks, will get you a cup of coffee. I am no longer invested in Wikipedia, and accounts mean nothing to me. Find one, I'll make another. I am allowed to because unlike you I am not banned, and I can do it because unlike you I am not here to promote myself, but instead to build a great encyclopaedia. For values of great that are not intimately tied to my own vested interests.

Any time you're in England be sure to look me up, I will buy you that coffee.

Guy

Any time you're in England be sure to look me up, I will buy you that coffee.

Guy

I seem to have broken Guy's brain.

First, a review:

A few days ago I spoted, through no special effort, what appeared to be an alternate account of Guy Chapman's.

Had it happened six weeks ago I'd have acknowledged and moved on, as I do frequently when I pick up on these things.

But JzG, who called AntiSocialMedia.net "a tissue of lies"(!?), has gained a special status, shared by a select, conscience-deficient few who are actively misleading others about ASM. This proud fraternity includes Guy Chapman, David Gerard, Gary Weiss, [Name Q. Redacted], Fred Bauder, and a few others.

Based on some good input from this group and my own determination to do no unnecessary harm, I opted to keep the account name to myself.

Well, all you trainspotters, I can attest that the Karma train just keeps on a rollin', as manifest by this strange screed appearing on Guy's website after he apparently found this thread:

Well I gotta go...I'm heading to the North Pole to do some PR consulting with the short-statured workers there. I suppose that makes me an "elf-promoting [very bad word]."

All that aside, I'm glad I made the decision I did, because it's clear zat Guy is not well.

Guy: I sincerely hope you beat whatever you're battling; and that when you do, you'll try to be kinder to others.

I guess that I have, through Wikipedia Review, made a few exceptions to the rule on outing, in cases where they did a lot of harm and were public figures, whose identity was already well known. I am still very much against the idea in principle though.

But if we take it case by case:

Essjay - was relevant because without knowing his real identity, we didn't know for sure that the qualifications were fake.

SlimVirgin - is relevant only in terms of whether or not she is a spy or secret agent

I'm still waiting for the part where you say "In conclusion..."

A banned user may not edit Wikipedia. At all. Under any account.

ColScott, as JzG is the one who last nominated your bio for deletion, he would seem to the last person you should blame for its existence.

Looking at Guy's home website/wiki, I'd say he had a serious addiction problem. Rather than get the drug on the streets, he's decided to grow his own.

It's telling that he does not run his own wiki in the manner of Wikipedia, but instead controls content by controlling registration and an iron fist over content. This, I think, is a good definition of irony.

I don't think its Wikipedia's perennial vandal problem that has got to Mr Chapman - rather the effort-to-reward ratio was becoming rather high. Rather than ask a serious question of himself about why he is trying to feed a habit, he is externalizing the high effort/reward problem to others.

Also, and this bit is going to hurt Guy's ego but its true - nobody cares about whether Guy is "in the project" or not. The MMORPG of world history continues quite happily without him, and as long as people like him feel the need to dose themselves up with fatuous claims about participation in producing a "Great Encyclopedia" and pay money to the Foundation to keep it running, then Wikipedia will continue to suck time out of people's lives and give less and less in return.

Guy thinks he's somehow important, but he's not. He thinks we want to stalk him, but no we don't. In a year's time, no-one will remember the JzG account because other suckers/addicts will have arrived to take their place at their desks at the Ministry of Truth, and we're all invited to watch.