It turns out that JzG is up to his old tricks in the quieter environment of the Spam Blacklist.

Apparently, last month, he unilaterally placed a couple of legitimate links on the "Spam blacklist" to enforce some content dispute he was involved in over Cold Fusion.

Funnily enough, he did this shortly after I theorized here:




Some well respected spam supervisor bod picked him up on it (He actually wrote several scathing posts to JzG):

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


and sums up


JzG responds in the way only he knows how:


So JzG is doing this all over again. Abd's assessment of JzG here could be applied to a dozen conflicts initiated by JzG in the past, word-for-word. Surely this berserker should be banned by now?

We need an Awbreyesque label for this abusive practice of sniffing out pseudospam above and beyond the call of dooty.

I propose we call it Naked Fart Smelling.

User:Abd may be many things, but "well respected" is unlikely to be one of them; this is the guy whose main purpose on Wikipedia has been to try to legitimize cabal-rule by introducing trade-union style "I speak for all my friends" block voting and to write insanely long rants that make FT2 look like a model of brevity and clarity. (Read his talkpage, this post, or any of these to get a feel for him.)

I have been watching this unfold.

Chiastory


One can learn a lot about how an Origami was originally folded by carefully watching it unfold.

As Wiki tragicomedy goes, Guy's involvement in the Cold Fusion moshpit is moderately interesting.

Abd's summing-up of Mr. Angry's performance is here; the associated talkpage, complete with a nice Guy whine is here. Abd's reply is rather long-winded - all he needed to say was "In short, JzG, you screwed up", which he did.

Imagine the drama if JzG went temporarily insane® and blocked Abd for his impertinence. I'll pay someone money if they can engineer that.

This is rather old news now.

JzG's general attitude, in this and other issues, is "I'm right. I'm always right. It's blatantly obvious I'm right, and anybody with the slightest bit of common sense can see that clearly. Hence, it shouldn't even be a matter for debate. Anybody attempting to debate me on this must be a troll, a POV pusher, or an idiot, and all people like that should be banned. It's frustrating that occasionally somebody who's too much of a vested contributor to ban will have the temerity to debate me on things like this, which forces a useless and time-wasting discussion to start; the proper way to deal with this is to close discussion as soon as possible and then delete or archive it so it doesn't erupt again. It's even better if discussion can be forestalled before it even has a chance to start; I just need to sweep in, do a mass purge of the offending links, add it to the blacklist, block the users who were adding the link, and make a brief announcement after it's a fait accompli."

...... illustrated perfectly in the overrated movie Good Morning Vietnam, when the irritating Robin Williams character says to JzG a rather anal officer "You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history".

At least Abd is honest.


This is charming.


This appears to be a case of one crazy bastard versus another.....
the cold-fusion dispute is turning into yet another Objectivism War.
Best not to take sides.

(But it's still okay to downgrade Guy. He always deserves abuse.)

Welcome to Wikipedia.

The term SPAM has a technical and even a legal definition, referring to unsolicited mass mailings or postings.

The term SPAM does not refer to the isolated posting of references to sources of information about whose relevance to the topic at hand reasonable people might tend to have a variety of opinions.

As always, Wikipediots use words any ole way they damn well please and then wikipontificate against all the uncleansed souls who decline to wash their own brains in Jimbo's patent pending Brand Of Identity-Disputed Powdered Instant Softdrink (BOIDPIS).

Jon

In my opinion this you demand the impossible.

Or maybe you've simply misspelled "temporary sane"?

I'd written temporarily insane bracket r close-bracket, which the board translated into the Robin-the-Boy-Wonder symbol.
insane(r ).
That's better.

Yep the Lewis Strauss/Ayn Rand syndrome, which we've discussed before. Strauss, persecutor of Oppenheimer. If you disagreed with a Strauss position, he would repeat his argument, assuming you'd misheard or were just stupid. If you continued to disagree after that, he'd assume you were a traitor. Rand was much the same, except with less patience.

More on the issue. I haven't formed an opinion on this yet.

JzG seems to be resurfacing with a vengeance. He's everywhere on that admins noticeboard. It must be that time of year.

I predict bad things on the horizon. Most of all for JzG himself.

How long before JzG storms off again in a fit of pique, pens some nasty delusional attacks against his "enemies", sulks for a couple of weeks, before returning to start the cycle all over again?

And when we say "start the cycle all over again," in JzG's case we mean it literally.

I hate you so much right now.

Classic JzG:



Has JzG's outrageous hypocrisy and lack of self awareness ever been more obvious? He managed accuse the bloke of asserting "bad faith and personalising the dispute" - while repeatedly assuming bad faith and personalising the dispute.

JzG is a Wikipedia legend.


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


Oh and JzG's talk page charm is back as well.

He deletes Abd's query on his talk page with:


JzG must be the Worst Wikipedian in history?

JzG. His mind beats time like clockwork.

I like the way he tries to restructure reality on & with his talkpage. He follows the same agenda time after time. And why not? Why change something if it works? Here is a breakdown of the latest spasm. Hmm. Breakdown. Prophetic word, perhaps? Date of excerpt is Monday 16 February; times are UTC .......

[1] 21:47. Standard complainant (Abd) makes standard complaint.
[2] 22:09. Guy replies. Complete with not-so-veiled threat.
[3] 22:11. Guy makes quick correction, justifying whatever Wiki shit he's on about a bit more.
[4] 22:52. Abd replies. Long-winded, but gets his point across. Returns the threat, but with more panache.
[5] 23:05. Guy says to himself "fuck it" and deletes the entire thread. Edit summary : "Go away, you are beiong (sic) tiresome". Heh!

Actually, I'm pleased to see the real Guy is "bouncing back". He must be finally getting over that stuff with his old dad. Good. I predict much JzG-based fun over the coming weeks and months (if he lasts that long). You go, Guy!

An Epistemological Nightmare

Fringe areas, where scientific research is still underway — and where credentialed experts are still developing (and falsifying) a variety of alternative and competing theories — are problematic for a project like Wikipedia, which seeks to present "the sum of all knowledge".

Where the science remains unsettled, what the public needs is a presentation of the process by which professional scientists, academics, and researchers address the as-yet unresolved questions about incompletely understood phenomena.

It is especially in these fringe and frontier areas where the public is well served by focusing on the epistemological methods of rigorous scientific analysis.

If Wikipedia reflected the protocols of the Scientific Method, the edit wars of JzG would be less of a circus and more like an academic conference.

But there is negligible evidence that WikiCulture is grounded in academic processes. On the contrary, there is copious evidence that WikiCulture is grounded in lunatic political drama of the sort that predictably bedevils woefully unscientific cultures.

The issue is a moron?

----------------
Now playing: Kathleen Edwards - Back to Me
via FoxyTunes



He also has accused Abd of having a "hobby horse", and of beating dead horses. A dead hobby horse, maybe?

See Also

• Necrozoophilia

Ja Ja

Redirects to Zoosadism, a word I'd never heard before.

Has Cade Metz done a piece yet on Wikipedia's most famous bouncer-goon-loosecannon-psycho admin?

There's years of hilarious material and abuse of everything that Wikpedia is supposed to be about.

There needs to be a list ranking (not just the Dick award) of the ongoing top ten Most-Abusive/Least-Beneficial-to-Wikipedia Admins.

Jossi's out
Slim's doing her bi-annual lay low til the shit dies down routine, this time donning full hairshirt
JayJG's in between laying low between schiessesturms, getting his posse' "back" in order
JzG's back to his flaming, outrageous embarrassment of WP

So what's the Standings/Rankings of Admins who most deserve to be desysopped?

Don't know FT2 very well, do you?

The phrase TL;DR was invented because of Abd

No need to vote on this.

After a few more weeks of today's Abd war,
Guy will win first place by acclimation.



Have you seen Abd's talk page today? Every day he looks more and more like
a "good" version of FT2--similar verbal diarrhea, but far more honest.

And his battle with Hu12 is reaching a new level of hysterics.
If this keeps up, Abd will deserve some kind of award for standing up to the cabal.

I need to start a new thread about Hu12.
He's a real prize--a hyper-censor and "silencer", using the spam list as a club.
Plus a first-class wikilawyer and word-twister.
Totally intolerant of criticism, uses admin tools in a pathetic ham-fisted way.
Mebbe he needs to take a page from Guy's Book Of Non-Negotiation,
and just throw childish tantrums instead.

(And now he's attracting the wrong kind of attention.)

Jossi has been accused of extensive sockpuppetry by will beback

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...on#Prem_Rawat_2

☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼

Because he's used to the noon-day sun?

J☼N

A cowardly allusion, but apt. Perhaps if he took that helmet off his brain might cool toward sanity.

What a vision. I always wondered where Tim Burton got the idea for Dr. Finkelstein. Good pose, that. Makes JzG look very thoughtful. Is he in the process of procrastination, or acclimation, though?

Is this JzG admitting to a Conflict of Interest over the whole Cold Fusion matter, anyway? The dispute is around the article of Martin Fleischmann (T-H-L-K-D) - JzG edit warring and refusing to accept linked papers written by Fleischmann, and then blacklisting sites that contain links.

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



JzG has flouted just about every other policy in his disastrous WP career. Why not this one as well?

Is this a professorial chair?

Ask JzG. He just wrote the article tonight, presumably to make some further gains in his edit war.

Hu12's a corrupt little scum bag. He was exposed as such during the Overstock.com-Gerard banscam.

Judd created an account (something he had to do everytime he needed to present a much-needed WP:POINT) to ask Hu12 how it was that he and Gerard came to the conclusion that there was supposedly a team of Overstock.com spammers that had to be banned from WP.

Hu12 could offer nothing to back up his claim.

He/she is a dishonest admin, along with Gerard, and their lies have gone unchallenged since.

Jzg is the Eric Cartman of Wikipedia.

And Jimbo keeps his Cheesy Poofs coming.

Oh my god, they banned Kenny! The bastards!

----------------
Now playing: The Last Vegas - I'm Bad
via FoxyTunes

(I'm not an admin or "supervisor," just an editor with some clarity and persistence. I've said many times I don't need admin tools and if I had them I'd be tempted to use them, the only thing that would be useful in my "meta" work -- i.e., on process -- would be the ability to see deleted contributions.)

After trying unsuccessfully to resolve this through lesser means (I'm a firm believer in WP:DR, which actually works if used with care and caution), after JzG MfD'd the evidence page I'd presented in an RfAr he'd filed, and it was practically demanded I file an RfC, though I'd have continued efforts short of that, I did it. And there is, as some have noticed, an outcry to ban me. WP:DGAF. If I can't follow WP procedure and policy, as it was intended and written, because some admin has a following dedicated to protecting him from the consequences of his actions, please, block me or ban me, I will be grateful. But I don't think it's going to happen. See, this case appears to be right on track to go to ArbComm, it made the required stop at RfC, and the principles are so clear that response has been limited to the lame "He didn't do anything wrong," as if violating fundamental admin policy isn't wrong, or, "he did the wrong thing but it was for a good cause," (when, in fact, there has never been a determination that these actions were good, rather, some haven't been challenged yet, more than the first step in WP:DR, precisely to avoid disruption), and "Abd is a [fill in the incivility and irrelevancy]," which is a well-known argument practically guaranteed to fail outside of the riots at AN and AN/I. I could be blocked and banned immediately, and this train would still make it to ArbComm. All the work has been done.

There is no need for pile-on or supportive comments, and, indeed, please do not go to the RfC and add irrelevancies there. It is only about failure to recuse when involved. That's why it will succeed. Let his side bring up all the irrelevancies they want, they will only hasten the day of reckoning. (But if someone has new evidence to present on that specific issue, not already presented, sure, but please keep the focus, and, I'd suggest, any examples of failure to recuse should be recent, not before January of this year, when it should have become clear to him that there was a problem.) There is only one response that might protect JzG's admin bit, I've been begging for it for months: someone he trusts points out to him that admission of error is a sign of maturity, it endears the one admitting to the community, the first time it's done, it completely defuses the issue, because, remember, Wikipedia does not punish (it appears that he has broken that principle as well, but never mind), and, so, would he please write "My bad. Admins should not use tools where they are involved. I won't do that again." It would all go away. Unless he does it again.

Oh, please, please, I beg of you — say "delegatable" not "delegable".

I don't care if it is a popular barbarism among pseudo-sophisticates, it is still a barbarism, and it sounds like something a turkey would say:

Delegobble, gobble, gobble

Ja Ja

No, it was invented so that lazy editors who have no respect for the time put into writing by others, but still want to say something, no matter if it is totally useless. Six billion people didn't read it. Now, if a piece of writing is intended as polemic, and the reader thinks there might be something there, a comment of "tl;dr, please explain succinctly," would be just fine. But just tl;dr alone is usually an uncivil way of saying, "Your opinions and experience are worthless, please stop expressing them, I'm not interested and nobody else will be, because my interests are what's important, and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot or POV pusher like you."

If I leave a warning on your Talk page, and it is tl;dr, you have a crackerjack defense. If I leave a long comment and you don't want to read it, don't read it. Deleting or ignoring it is just fine. Obviously, it wasn't for you, I imagined that you might want to discuss the matter, but it's your choice. If I write a long response to your comment on my Talk page, and you reply with tl;dr, I will toss you out and throw your boots after you. Guests have responsibilities, there are limits to hospitality. You are not required to respond or even pay attention, but you should at least not insult the host who has taken your appearance as an invitation to discuss, and has invested his time in it. Basic courtesy.

Abd, in the nicest possible way, a suggestion: It's quite possible your writing is not "tl", but rather "tdtr" (to difficult to read). The reason being the cramming of several trains-of-thought into a single paragraph (see above), AND sometimes doing the same in single sentences.

I do this all the time myself, which is the reason I have to continually try to keep out of that trap.

Try splitting the above into double the number of natural paragraphs, and do the same for the couple of monster-sentences, and see what you have left. I think you'll get far fewer complaints about people falling asleep while reading your writing.

IOW, it's not that you don't have anything to say. It's that people take one broad overlook at the way you're saying it, and don't dare go into the swamp.

Thanks, Milton. Sure, except I don't have time. I do work on improving formatting and separation of specific topics, it's a never-ending battle, in fact. However, I'm not writing for everyone, but only for those who are interested. It's not polemic, and I'm not trying to convince people of what they are not ready to understand. I gave a report and my thoughts, that's all, people are quite welcome to skip it, I'm not offended in the least.

You've said this many times in many places, but I must ask, Abd: if one ignores something you've written because it is too long, how can I continue discussion? It may save you time to write in this manner, but (whilst probably not your intent) your verbosity appears to be intended to disenfranchise people from debating with you. This is especially true when you follow up with "you don't have to read this if you don't want to".

It isn't that people aren't interested in what you have to say, it's just that you write so much that it is intimidating.

Various people are attributed as having said something very like the following. Whoever it was, it illustrates the problem well, I suspect:

"My apologies for the length of this message. I did not have the time to make it shorter."

I believe Mark Twain said something along those lines

Mark Twain. Ah! I see that Fritz already wrote that....

Look, if what I write is too long, don't read it! This is not just me writing here, there are others, and nobody has any obligation to read every post. It takes me much longer to write what I write than it would take for a normal reader to read it. And if I don't have time to cut it down, which can take a lot of time, what's the harm? There will be no quiz tomorrow. A long post does not inhibit discussion, except maybe of that particular post, and it creates no presumption of being right if it is ignored. Wikipedia needs to learn this lesson, in fact, for editors with a lot to say, who are even cogent, are not infrequently blocked, banned, or their comments are removed on this phony tl;dr argument. Nothing wrong with tl;dr itself, so why is there something wrong with tl? If it's bad, delete it. If it clutters up a talk page, collapse it and see what happens. Just don't edit war over trivialities, or even over something important!

B. Pascal gets historical precidence!

I used to program in Pascal, but I prefer Perl now.

For a while the people who programmed in Perl went on to program in Wolfowitz, a much harder language.

Say, what do you think of this new Ubamatu operating system? It's supposed to do everything for everybody and be free for 95% of them.