Looks like JzG is back editing after his release from the asylum:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JzG

He's off to a smashing start as well, he wheel warred over material that was removed by consensus from a contentious article, banned the user (who was correct, according to the talk page for that article) he was wheel warring with indef. from wikipedia, and then banned a whole group of of other editors indef. from wikipedia that weren't doing anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:St_Chris...ege_of_Medicine

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...al:Log&user=JzG

Isn't it nice to have him back? He really just adds so much to the project!

I am guessing he has restarted his "work" because he now knows the Arbcom is not going to sanction him.

Perhaps that important thing that was going to keep him busy till September isn't quite so important now that ArbCom has dropped the ball. The nice thing about Guy is he has no issue with ensuring that his deceptions are as transparent as a transparent thing. Bless.

You aren't serious, are you?

I was convinced that Wikipedia was severely broken, but not to that extent, if they let him go on his merry way the only word to describe it will be "irreparable".

This could be one of the most arrogant actions I've ever seen. Even if he's completely right, he shouldn't just come down there like the gestapo without notifying anyone about the situation first. This article he's dealing with has arbcom restrictions so by not even bringing it to their attention is totally giving ArbCom the finger.

I assuming JzG is in regular communication with members of Arbcom.

Not to bring some facts into the "bash JzG" party, but... he was *enforcing* those ArbCom restrictions, and has properly logged that on the appropriate page.

Indeed, and ParallelUni (who may or may not be behind those accounts) is not on JzG's good side in anyway.

He wasn't enforcing an Arbcom decision, he was enforcing his own will. if you look at the Arbcom case here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.../St_Christopher

It says:


This obviously shows that the first step would be a page ban for one week, not an indef. ban from all of wikipedia. His response was way outside the remedies decided upon by Arbcom. You'll also notice he didn't bother to put his actions up on the Arbcom Enforcement board for review by others (who would have most likely found that he was being abusive)

Also note that the group of accounts he indef. banned from wikipedia had stopped editing the SCIMD article or were editing within the rules, which is an obvious abuse of administrative powers.

You'll also notice here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

That he decided to revert the article, where he is involved in wheel warring, to his preferred version from quite some time ago, not the version multiple editors on the talk page, including another administrator had agreed upon. If this isn't blatant OWN and POV-pushing, I don't know what is.

Also if you look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...al:Log&user=JzG

You'll see that he deleted two articles, three directs, and an image on the subject for no good reason. The two articles he deleted were edited by several users and were included in Wikiproject Senegal by one of the leads on that project. Can this been seen as anything other than being vindictive and pushing his own agenda?

Also, to "The Joy", do you honestly believe his past grudge with a banned editor which was never proven to be any of the individuals involved in the current editing of this article is appropriate justification for his blatant POV pushing, wheek warring, violating of consensus editing, and abusive use of his tools and power in this manner? If so, then honestly, you're no different than any of the other stooges that allow him to get away with murder and destroy Wikipedia bit by bit. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing that justifies his past or present behavior in any way.

I never said his behavior was justified. Given ParallelUni's backhanded attacks against his sister, JzG should allow other neutral administrators to deal with the topic and editors if they are doing anything wrong whether or not they are related to ParallelUni. Indef. blocking is definitely too much in any case. Focusing on one topic is not a crime. It is discouraged, but not a problem as long as the rules are followed and we could have a whole forum dedicated to how WP rules never work anyway.

I should clarify and emphasize I was not implying he was justified, I meant that I am not surprised he is doing this. He's JzG. Rules do not bother him. I've been on this forum so long watching JzG's actions that I am no longer shocked by anything he does. Unfortunately, this might make me look like I applaud his actions which is never my intent. If JzG went and deleted the main page and redirected it to a porn site, everyone would be shocked and appalled, but I would just say "Well, it's JzG! What did you except? Rules do not bother him!"

Forgive me then, I misconstrued your post to mean other than what you were implying.

I'd appreciate if someone could bring all of this to the attention of someone on Wikipedia that can do something about his behavior as well as add this to the Arbitration case against him.

I would so so myself, but I was banned some time ago, and while I loathe Wikipedia to its very core of corruption, croneyism, and blatant disregard for all things right in this world, I would not violate the policies of their site. I would expect one, even if they strongly disagreed with me, to respect the rules and policies on my website as well. I'm sure those here understand that.

User:Bstone has started a thread on AN/I about JzG's behavior. I think Bstone is losing.

A little OT, but I see Beam has chosen to interject himself, as he does on nearly every contentious thread.

It was only four short months ago that he created his user page in article space with this text -

and then was confused as to why it was about to be deleted.

Given that Guy is charging around into all the most contentious discussions, and generally is back to behaving like a giant rampaging penis, do you think that he has gotten an unofficial heads-up from the ArbCom that nothing will happen to him as a result of the case?

(By the way, the story that goes with that picture is here)

"Rules don't bother him". And nor do they bother numerous others. Take Giano. Banned 45 times and always unblocked, regardless of his agressive arrogance and rude insulting ultra-superior attittude to all other editors, in fact just like Guy. My view is that there are just so many Wikipedia rules and regulations that the aggressive and conspiratorial creeps will always be able to manipulate them to have you banned forever if they despise you, whilst others who, like Giano, are far worse, but remain playing on Wikipedia because they have a small band of supporters. Ths sort of thing is widespread. You're either in a cabal or you're not. It is a form of anarchy.

Yes, take Giano. Failed in his ArbCom bid in part because you created a bunch of socks to take him out. Naughty! Want to tell us again about manipulating the rules?

Every child quickly learns that one employs the rules to make clever moves that win the game for themselves and block the options of the opponent. There aren't that many rules in Chess or Checkers or Go. Nor is it considered cheating to use the rules to advantage yourself and disadvantage your opponent. Why should that be any different in The Encyclopdia Game?

Maybe that was just an awesome fake-out to cover someone's reincarnation?