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



Then proceeds to:

# 23:41, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ (→Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Loony: a novella of epic proportions: reply)
# 23:22, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ (→User:Doc glasgow: comments)
# 23:17, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Loony: a novella of epic proportions‎ (→The Loony: a novella of epic proportions: Delete)
# 23:10, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard‎ (→Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Troll-B-Gon: reply)
# 23:05, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ (→Image of a document: sp)
# 23:05, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ (→Image of a document: reply)
# 23:02, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ (→Skeptic's dictionary: reply)
# 22:59, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ (Protected Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: block evading abusive user [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 22:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)))
# 22:58, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ (Reverted edits by 72.76.82.238 (talk) to last version by Jossi)
# 22:58, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:JzG‎ (→RS/N: thanks for alerting me to your block evasion.) (top)
# 17:08, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ (→Image of a document: enough)
# 17:07, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:72.76.9.74‎ (blocked) (top)
# 16:54, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman‎ (→Vicki Iseman: Delete)
# 16:52, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ (→User:Doc glasgow: reply)
# 16:48, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ (→Is this how administrators are supposed to use their deletion powers?: reply)
# 16:39, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard‎ (→Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Troll-B-Gon: feh)
# 16:39, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User:JzG/Uninformed wingnut drivel‎ (not needed in userspace) (top)
# 14:20, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:JzG‎ (→You surprise me...: reply)
# 14:19, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:JzG‎ (→Kimberly Williamson Butler)
# 14:17, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:JzG‎ (→IRL busy: new section)

This guy is not taking any time off from WP, regardless of what his dramaqueen lies say on his dramapage. So go ahead with the JzG RFC already, and do what should have been done a long time ago. Terminate his admin privvies with extreme prejudice and let him free his mind of his WP burden and retire in peace for once and for all with a nice indef block.

This dossier couldn't be more clear that a loose cannon has had the run of the place and turned his and many others' little corners of WP into a toxic superfund site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cla68/RfC/Sandbox

Go ahead, make Jimbo's day. Per his email to "Nathan", Jimbo does have a soopersekret silent problem with it too. Consider it his blessing to do what you must for the lovefest procession that is Wikipedia. Be bold.

Cla68 informed JzG of the request for comment as per procedure. JzG merely deleted it and wrote to Cla68 "Go away and never post here ever again. You are not welcome".

might as well have written, "WP, please indef me please - put me out of my Wikimisery".

We can afford to give it a few days and if he continues to edit as he is now then the RfC will be listed. There is no point in rushing it through and have him cry that he couldnt defend himself because he was away. If you want this reolved it has to be resolved properly.

you're being way too nice to someone who wouldn't do the same for you. Fwiw. Good luck with the RFC, there's not been many more straightforward cases like this, I would believe.

JzG has already spoken his piece, now it's time for the rest of Wikipedia to read the diffs, and address the problem as they would with any other editor who has done these things.

No, you should post it. JzG is always in the process of retiring or being otherwise unavailable, yet somehow manages to participate enough to fill up this RfC.

I don't know why the Crutfbane section was removed…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=193257758
…it shows that JzG violates the very rule he pushed so hard for ArbCom to impose upon a resistant community:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ckpuppet_policy
(thanks to Newyorkbrad for initiating this discussion)

Perhaps it was feared that this quote…

…would remind us of the sympathy we're supposed to feel for JzG, and undermine the RfC?

But most of us at WR (it seems) do feel some sympathy for Guy. He obviously is unstable, and not only due to recent events (though that couldn't have helped.)

It's not that he's a bad person - he isn't - or that he means badly - he doesn't - but that he no longer has any business operating as an administrator on Wikipedia.

Maybe it should be written into WP:SOCK, or an amendment to that effect added to ArbCom's horrible sentence three?

And he was using it long before his recent loss.

If he's that unstable, he should keep away from the project…just as he keeps saying he's going to do ("retired".) It's not that Guy should be punished or condemned. He should be graciously thanked for his years of hard work, awarded a barnstar and removed for the good of the project.

W-R.

Where honest discussions about Wikipedians and what they have done, occur for all other Wikipedians to read.

Just say "no" to soopersekreting and Jayjg "You got my back?" off-WP collusive canvassing.

oh, almost forgot. My first "exposure" to Cannes was that was a-place-in-France-where-the-topless-ladies-dance...on the beach. Then I got past the age of 8 and learned it was a film festival mecca, among other arts.

"Per contributions" and the IP Exposer Tool that Kohser used, I'd say JzG is there for the toplessness. You go, guy!. May a dozen Bratwurst Stuffed German Speedos block your view and force you back on to Bomis.com where you're more comfortable. Whether Bomis means "Boobs in volume" or not, I can't say. My latin is rusty.


JzG promoting the "Cultural Mores" of Wikipedia for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Bomistan


That picture makes me literally roflmao...

Exactly, that's why it is so important to go by the book, don't wanna blow a slam dunk like this on a technicality. If he keeps editing then it's clear that it is good to go.



Piperdown, I thought about this and when I think the nude beach from EuroTrip is more like it. Also lol at Hipocrite coming back for the millionth time.

Yes you are probobly right, but it doesn't cost us much/anything to hold off from posting it till he gets back from this trip. Its not going to go away, no matter how much JzG wishes it would. Cla68 is a man of integrity.

Looks like a another sockpuppet participating in "discussions internal to the project."

I was surprised to see a message from Hipocrite; for someone who wants nothing to do with the encyclopedia, he's red hot at checking up on people using his name and making sure they do not.

Welcome, Neil, to the Wikipedia Review!

Thanks. I think someone else already welcomed me on another thread, so thanks to them, too.

Because it's a f*ing weak argument. He didn't post to the RFAR under a different name, he just forgot to switch logins. There was no "Evidence presented by Cruftbane", there was no indication (other than to someone who read the history) that it was anyone other than JzG, and there was no lack of indication that it was JzG. There's plenty of actual material; there's no need to muddy the waters with such an easily-attacked argument. If that _were_ present in the RFC, his supporters would focus on it as an example of how we're "grasping at straws"



Too long with no activity and it will be deleted under the bogus "G10: no-accountability zone" rule for evidence pages. Taking bets on who pushes the button.

I don't think that'll happen (and if it does, I'll be the first to unpush it). I'm still digging up diffs from the past 12 months, and have yet to trawl wikien-l properly, so any delay just offers opportunity to further improve and refine things.

FWIW, there is already more than sufficient to make the case. Perhaps a more appropriate, kindly approach, is to simply note that there are other offences to be taken into account, and assuming that some sort of sanction is proposed, that those are wiped clean at the same time. One of WPs failings is an elephantine memory for past sins, and the danger is that too thorough a job will just fail under the appearance of being a vendetta rather than thoroughness. In fact, I would suggest a major pruning on the main page, with the detail accessible in an appendix of some sort, it would look far less vindictive.

It is also worth being clear as to why this is being done. WP has a duty of care to its participants (and I see that as affecting both Guy and his targets). If WP was UK based they might get into some legal difficulties, especially with admins, as volunteers can fall under employment law.

There seems to be strong consensus here that Guy needs to take an enforced break both to protect his targets and to protect himself. His friends do him a dis-service by encouraging him to believe that he is acting appropriately - s bit of cruel to be kind would be appropriate.

No, that's when he slipped up and broadcast it. He'd been participating in "discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates" long before this, giving no indication that he's JzG (WP:CSD is policy):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=164691591
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=164692923
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=164698270

and innumerable deletion debates, which while not policy pages, are certainly "discussions internal to the project."

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

His goal was to avoid scrutiny or trolling - choose your term, in this context they mean the same thing - he wanted to be able to edit without people knowing that he's JzG. Which, in itself, I find completely understandable…except that's a consideration he's made a point of principle to deny others, to the point of initiating an arbitration case to change the rules so that others can't do exactly what he himself was doing with Cruftbane.

Perhaps about 1-2 screens of the strongest stuff should be in the RfC, with a sub page for additional evidence. One thing I liked about Mantanmoreland's RfC is that the Cool Hand Luke summary was very terse and convincing, even though it referenced tons of previous (and expanding) research at SirFozzie's.

As others have said, only the strongest, hardest-to-dismiss stuff should be above the RfC's dotted line. Older stuff, wikien-l, and the like should be cataloged in subpages for those unconvinced of his systematically poor judgment, but we don't want to give supporters any excuses to nitpick.

sorry, i needed a cheeriupper and that does it for me. gratuitous selfquoting-abuse.

If JzG is "away" at Cannes, why is he still editing?

Cannes means Cannes!

Because he's addicted and suffering from an obsessive disorder that Wikipedia has refused to address?

Karwynn, Rootology and co. tried this "RfC in userspace" gag... they got bullied from people crying "harassment", the RFC was deleted because it got ugly, and then they wee hounded with straw men and eventually banned (Rootology for BS "harassment", Karwynn for unrelated sockpuppetry). Don't get smug just yet.

Maybe he intended to announce he was going to spend a week in "the can" though I'd expect him to say something more typically British like "the loo" or more typically Chapmanian, like "the shi*ter."

That may be starting to happen, unfortunately.

And is it just me or is Jehochman maybe trying to get Cla68 to back off with promises of power?

Raymond Arritt has already made it clear he doesn't aprove of the RfC
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...G.2FTroll-B-Gon

"And some have made it clear where they want that hatchet to be buried.[Link to RfC]"

I like the response from Mike R: "OMG using the dispute resolution process!"

As if there were something sinister and disreputable about wanting an administrator removed.

All these excuses for him have become just stupid. Why must I "respect" JzG's style of declaring things trolling for no better reason than disliking them?



I think he honestly believes he is good at thwacking sockpuppets. Considering where he's learned most of his skills, though, it is likely that there will be many more sockpuppets on the wrong side.

Or am I mixing up accusations with truth?

He says he's good at thwacking them. Any administrator is good at thwacking them, just as any non-administrator is incapable of it - you just press a button. The more relevant ability is accurately identifying them with their sockmasters.

In Jehoch's defense, he has renounced his allegiance to Durova...

Well, of course he would! But only after he defended her until the evidence was so overwhelming.

Not to be political, but whenever a country's leader does something stupid, his party will distance itself from him/her. Jehochman is no different. Now, we should ask if Jehochman denounced Durova for popularity reasons or because he really felt she did wrong?

But that's another topic!

I've never seen any allegiance between Jehochman and JzG though. Yet, all these Cabalist characters do tend to stick together. Will Jehochman be willing to defend JzG, in sickness and in health, until overwhelming community disgust in JzG's actions do they part? I doubt he would say "I do." My original concern was that Jehochman was trying to lure Cla away from the JzG RFC. But he more likely is concerned about Cla and the Mantanmoreland saga than Cla vs. JzG.

Can we rule out the simplest explanation, that he saw what happened to Cla68's RfA and felt that, in retrospect, he'd gotten a raw deal?

I don't think we can rule that out. I don't think Jehoch's often on the right side of things, but he's shown himself more capable of introspection than the average wikizombie.

My impression is that Jehochman's main motive is to stick around. He's ascended by doing favors for various influential cliques, such as Elonka's. However, he doesn't let personal loyalty get in the way of a necessary escape, as seen in the Durova affair. He probably feels burned by hitching his wagon too tightly to Durova's and Elonka's respective stars, and may be concluding that the appearance of independent or at least non-clueless thought is required to maintain a position of respect within the community. He almost got desysoped, which would have been a personal and possibly professional disaster for him. To the extent that he's learned to put a moistened finger to the wind, Jehochman may yet become a good leading (or whatever comes after leading) indicator of where things are headed.

The doubly-removed JzG, not only "retired" but even purportedly on vacation from this retirement, continues to edit away:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JzG

Well, clearly JzG is an honest person (AGF, right?) and he is in Cannes. So someone should checkuser to ensure that the editing is from Cannes. If it isn't, some nefarious individual has clearly hijacked his account and is impersonating him to bring him into disrepute.

A temporary block would be in order until the owner of the account can be verified.

Own up, which one of you is it?

Are JzG's fawning, Jimbo-requested edits on the Rachel Marsden article going to be added to the RfC?

Nope, controversial and muddy the water.

Agreed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._and_guidelines

Uh-oh!

Well perhaps they will consider the implications of JzG's behaviour and realise that it is doing Wikipedia absolutely no good to continue to allow his trolling on the basis that other people are trolling him..


Then again...

Look! This RfC is really about attack sites too! Why deal with the actual issues, when we can spend our time arguing back and forth about whether or not criticizing JzG is a WR harassment meme?

I archived that BADSITES discussion, it spiralled rapidly off topic.