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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

...sheesh

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.

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.

JzG's main point seems to be :



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 :



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?

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

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...

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.

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

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...

Titties ! Yay!!!

I thought that was a picture of Selina.

My bad.

Now he's started suppressing links to WR from various old talk threads and such, despite failing to get any ArbCom support for it.

Good old Guy, back on a vengeance trip, I dare you to reinstate the links and see what happens, after all policy isn't on his side.

I am shocked — shocked I tell you …

Jonny

I noticed in my watchlist. JzG was one of the most dedicated admins i know, but I don't see the point in removing every link to this site, sure it's a attack site in some parts, so remove that, but don't remove everything.

Just exactly what parts would you consider "attacks."

mainly slimvirgin posts, etc

How so?

you call them attacks, I call them exposures of conflicts of interest that are attacked on WP by those conflicted.

ever read those P. Salinger edits?

Ever been asked "who do you think you are?" like the Mangoe was (and who can know the Mango?)

Ever been called a sockpuppet in an edit summary? Only to have your return question not only blanked by the Queen, but delete/restore oversighted by her Crummy court jester?

Ever seen someone double vote with a sock, then magically get off on some sort of random statute of limitations clause reserved for Friends of Jimmy? (Jimmy, you're starting to remind me of Ricky G. from "The Office").

Ask sparkzilla about how he was outed and "attacked" on WP sometime. Ironically, Slim participated in that with full on bloodlust. As she did in pursuing the identitites of anyone who crossed her wikiwarpath.

Willbeback talks about fending off POV editors. WTF does he think Slim, Jay, and Gary are?

NPOV depends on how far up your virtual friends' asses you are.

Jaranda seem pretty nice. I know it sets him up to be whipsawed between our insistence of the honest and fair use of language and the WPers who doubtlessly watch his every word on this site and insist on a code word meaning of "attack." But Piperdown is right. Inquiring into real life identifying information concerning an influential authority on WP is in no way an "attack."

In Mammoriam

Jonny

"Massdebater" is the funniest word yet. Perfect for mass collaborative discussions in the dysfunctional social networking community.

I keep busting my little gray cells trying to think of a cuter acronym for your Dysfunctional Social Networking Community, 'cause DSNC just ain't cachey enuff for me, but I can't seem to come up with one.

Oh well, I'll keep at it — Where There's A Will There's A Way (WTAWTAW) …

Jonny

I'd just like to go on record mentioning that Mr. JzG has
always been kind to me, and I don't believe his removal
of links is vengeful, but rather motivated by a desire to
protect the feelings of his fellow editors, not a hatred of
y'all. (Note that he also advocates keeping the channels
of communication open.)

My opinion on pornography is here....

Oh... my... God. AB, you can't be this stupid, can you? Or, is this an elaborate satire you're playing out on us?

JzG is nearly completely driven, to the very core of his soul, by vengeance. It's the only reason he comes on Wikipedia each day (even after "retiring"), other than to flaunt his supposed wealth of knowledge. What other type of personality would be motivated to toy around with other users by zapping them with his "Troll-B-Gon"?

As for keeping the channels of communication open, Guy Chapman is on record in a few places saying that he willfully ignores (or reads and elects to non-respond to) e-mails that are politely written but disagree with his point of view.

If I were a sysop on this board, I would block you for your statement above, because it's pure gibberish. We don't need any more gibberish on this site.

Greg

I call it responding in kind.

I entered Wikipedia on the basis of a promise that it still advertizes, that it would be possible to fix its errors. I operated under my own name and according to the guidelines of good scholarship. I created many articles that were missing and I improved every article that I worked on right up until I encountered impassable obstacles in the attitudes of "editors" whose ignorance of the relevant methods, practices, and subject matters would be evident to anyone who had assimilated even as much education as I acquired in high school, much less college, much less grad school.

I found myself being abused, attacked, and harassed by "editors" who operated under names like Banno, FeloniousMonk, Gwernol, JustZisGuy, KillerChihuahua, and SlimVirgin. The utterance and publication of their outright lies is maintained to this day in the pages and files of Wikipedia.

Who the hell are these people? I have a right to know.

Jon Awbrey

The vibes I get from Monsieur JzG are generally positive.

When it comes to the subconscious mind, I don't think its
a matter of intelligence versus stupidity, but rather good
intuition versus bad intuition.



Appears to be a joke, and anyway he's not an admin
anymore. Sort of in the spirit of RfC 3514.

Anyway, I told him I didn't think WP should drag the
names / pseudonyms of banned users through the dirt
on top of Google, and he agreed with me.



{{{{{Jonny Cache}}}}}

{{↑BABBLE↑}}

For the record, we don't block people here for gibberish. If someone routinely posts gibberish, that may be construed as trolling, which may result in being given a special forum of one's own for the posting of troll material. But, we have an anti-censorship policy in general.

Being high on propoxyphene is trolling???

== How be a good wikipeida admin. ==
In more general terms, one can also enjoy the pain of others by:

# [[WP:TROLL]]Baiting and using intensifiers in commentary (such words as ''terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, good,'' and so forth, and exclamation marks).
# [[WP:IGNORE|Wack the hammer down and pwn someone]].
# [[WP:DICK]] Striving to a jackass and a dickhead
# [[WP:SOCK]] Accepting that any one not a Jenuine JIMBO JUICE JERK is a SOCK and must be bitten hard
# [[WP:CONSENSUS]] Acknowledging one principles, its our way or no way]].
# [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes]] WE BRAKE FOR NO ONE, We fuck with every one.
# [[Ethic of reciprocity]] FUCK'em before before they can have a say.
# [[Active listening]] Listening takes time from caring for my new vandal fighing bot coding.
# [[Wikipedia:WikiLawyering]] LAW, WE DON"T NEED LAW and STINKING LAWYERS We are the LAW.
# Ban early, as a first resort. Ban all and ban as many as you can. Consider a user to the object of some wikipwnage using [[WP:DICK]] and [[WP:IGNORE |ALL RULEZ]].

Try to use standard welcome/warning messages... TROLLER, IDOIT, YOU MUST BE SOCK OF <ENTER NAME OF ALL PURPOSE SOCK> or the ole wiki favorite...YOUR A SOCK AND YOUR BANNED SUCKER!!!

Consciously choose your agenda POV, strive to be a true cultist of the Wiki by fostering hate, anger, of those who don't believe in our GOD, JIMBO, and the Holy Wiki. Devote much time and resources, as to be all consuming in your life as an wikiadmin, that task is to builda mound of BULLSHIT so FOUL and So high, that it should stink to high heaven.

And you don't realize that he's only nice to you because he wants a look at your... boobs?

Anyway, I should never have taught JzG the meaning of the word "redacted," by redacting the names of those half-dozen or so Wikipedia admins who had been identified on this website. At this point I might as well just put them all back, and hey, guess what! They'll have JzG to thank for that!

What a fucking asshole!

Psychomagnetic indicators suggest that is not correct....

Someone on Monsieur JzG's website moved my talk page
to 'Free blowjobs', and Monsieur JzG stopped that person....

Anyway, any one who thinks I will consent to having
pictures of my breasts posted online in very mistaken.

It's a good thing we have good old-fashioned obviousness, then!


Your point being...? Just because he's a jerk doesn't mean he's an idiot. Remember, his interest in boobs is strictly for scientific research purposes only. After all, he's a Wikipedian!

Anyway, don't worry - this thread has enough soft-core porn in it already. Maybe even too much, crazy though that may sound... I mean, what were those things up there, cantaloupes? Casaba melons? Sheez.

I have no reason to believe Monsieur JzG would disrespect me in that
manner.



Point being that he has opposed treating me as a sexual object....



Will you pretty please redact the pornography?

Regardless of whether I believe that is or isn't the case (and since I am not sure who you even are, it is completely up in the air), you are stretching that action waaay too far if you think it alone is evidence he doesn't objectify you.

I don't go around assuming men objectify me until proven otherwise....

Nonetheless, it would seem to be some sort of evidence to the
contrary.

At least we're clear about the fact that it's all about you.

Jonny

Oh jeez, now you're doing it too! You don't redact pornographic imagery, you remove and/or delete pornographic imagery. Redaction is an editorial term that refers specifically to textual content, unless you're using some weird-ass bastardized form of it that applies to everything.

Anyway, it isn't pornographic unless the naughty bits are actually exposed, again going by a strict interpretation of the term. To be honest, I would tend to think that the contrast between the two photographs does tend to indicate a certain moral laxity on JzG's part.

I'd prefer to use the word "depravity," but I'm trying to keep the discussion from descending into a total farce here.

Admittedly, that may not be working.

Do I have some reason that I do not know about to believe that he
objectifies other women?



See Diana E.H. Russell's What is pornography?

What do the photos have to do with JzG?