Recently, JzG wrote this essay in his personal site, which calls me a "long-time gadfly" who "ably assisted" abuse. I've written a response to it in my own site.

It was a nice rebuttal, I'd recommend putting a link to it in your signature.

Rebuttal = an argument between two butts.

Jonny "Lord of the Gadflies" Cache

Well, at least JzG didn't try to publish this pack of lies on Wikipedia...

Here in particular, referring to Wikipedia Review:

I'd agree that we're mostly "intelligent people," at least. But... Grima Wormtongue? That analogy isn't just inaccurate, it's immature and, well, moronic. Not that such things are unexpected from him, of course.


Uh-huh... riiiiight... Gee whiz, ol' Chappy, maybe "as far as you can see, those who originally believed it" are now completely cowed into submission by near-constant ban threats from... you? And apparently he's never heard of private IP proxies, either. He really should learn about things like that.

My guess would be that there is no "rebuttal evidence" other than one or two CheckUser attempts. As for "credible evidence of real-world identity," I'll believe that when I see it - but ooh, wait! I'll never see it, will I?

Hmm... Sorry Dan, I seem to have ignored your essay completely. I did read it, though... Very well-written! Mr. Chapman didn't even bother to use a spell-checker, apparently... (Oh, btw, the phrase "any attempts to make this point get shouted out" should probably read "shouted down" instead.)

Well you certainly write better that JzG does. I'm not certain a point by point rebuttal, following his structure was worth your effort. Remember he is just a windbag of waining relevance even on WP.

I'm fond of that Twilight Zone episode too.

I can see it now: Captain of the HMS Gadfly

Dan, one paragraph of yours especially resonated with me, as it applied to how I feel the idea of banning "paid editing" within Wikipedia (or even external to Wikipedia, but then copied there) was "shouted down" rather than achieved consensus:



Yes, I was a jerk. But, it was mostly after I began to feel that the "debate" had already turned into a "shouting down".

I wonder if a fair poll about paid editing on Wikipedia were ever done, what would be the outcome? Hmm, somebody came close, with a sloppy MSNBC poll. Is 57% opposed to paid editing "consensus"? Is there any chance that, had the issue been framed in a more neutral way (GFDL content created off-wiki, vetted by a team of non-paid volunteers before adding to Wikipedia, etc., etc.), even more than 39% would have supported the idea of paid editing?

And, still, there is the Reward Board, and now the $20,000 paid illustrations project. We get closer and closer to my original position, but JzG so poisoned the well, there is no hope for me any more. Thanks, JzG. You "saved" your encyclopedia from paid editing.

Greg

"A valiant if not pitiable effort". No progress will ever be made as long as people are rewarded, as JzG frequently is, for stuffing their fingers in their ears and shouting "YOU ARE WRONG YOU ARE WRONG" until hoarse.

Well written Dan.

I especially appreciated the literary allusions and academic analogies.

Great answer, particularly the memes.

You know, I've always wondered what a gad fly was...

Well, anyways... If he calls you names. Just throw it in his face that he's the number one contributor to the ANI, per Wikidashboard.

I don't know any good nicknames for someone who has such a huge negative focus. You pick.

ps: You are hardly someone I think it is wise to pick a fight with.

Socrates was famously called a gadfly.

Anyone who thinks for themselves and questions authority is likely to be labeled an annoying gadfly.

And then they voted to force him to kill himself, didn't they?

Let's hope they give you a "Hemlock Martini" not just hemlock and water.

Socrates could have easily exercised the option to vanish.

But he elected to finish the drama, which is why we remember it.

Jesus also elected to finish the drama, and his story is similarly remembered today.

Galileo, likewise. And there are many other less celebrated cases in every generation.

Speaking truth to power has always been a dangerous occupation.

And it remains so, even in the age of the Internet and Web 2.0.

The technology evolves, but human systems ofttimes remain anachronistic in the extreme.

Unfortunately, Durova sees herself in the role of the martyr here.

All the more reason for FeloniousMonk, OrangeMarlin, ConfuciusOrnis, Odd Nature, and KillerChihuahua to hold a public prayer vigil to collectively pray for her soul.

I think they are more of the inclination to burn effigies of her enemies, than pray for her soul. But color me cynical.

An interesting thing about the above list is how the radical new ideas of the persecuted person of each case ultimately became part of the basis of the entrenched institution that persecuted the next person on the list. The ideas of Socrates became part of the Greco-Roman culture that was involved in the persecution of Jesus (and other early Christian martyrs); then the Christian establishment persecuted Galileo; and Galileo's ideas became part of the modern scientific establishment that has done its own pesecutions.

Well I think you achieved with the above the level of insight you often seem to strive for but just fall short of reaching. Nicely done, Tobias.

Gadfly?

Maybe he meant Barfly?