This guy is the most insane user/admin on Wikipedia. He is angry, bonkers, etc. and is able to block those on a whim using some seekrit evidence that is not known to those he blocks!

When something is posted on ANI or whatever notice board, he gets a few of the hive-mind admins to back him up, even though there are some who disagree with him. This is the "community"? Only 3 others who agree with him is enough to make this block, that only provokes the situation that much more!!???

My friend who was indef banned by him was a great human being. After being harassed online by those who use the "system" to make false claims against her and put the "spotlight" on her, she was the one punished because the others were in another country using multiple IP addresses. Yes, she was a person who was very outspoken..sometimes very blunt and used some foul language. You've probably heard this before, but anyway...I wanted to clear her name and wrote to one of the arbcom members. One who said I am the same person as a dead person! I know this is NOT true. But after reading this site, and other sites, I refuse to release the personal information to get the banners on her pages deleted, while her awards, and accolades are buried and DELETED!! (unless one digs around, that is)

Yes, she suffered no fools, and told it as she saw it. Even though she should have used better language. But this woman was dying, and there were many who knew this, but still treated her like crap.

She was helpful to others, had articles promoted to the front page, but is still treated as if she was evil. Yet this person, JzG is still around spousing his venom and has the tools to silence those to whom he feels is "not in this to write an encyclopedia". I am so saddened by this. One, because I was asked to provide my employer, with phone number and "maybe" the smear banners on her account will be removed. But, this has not happened.

I know for a FACT that the check user is wrong, because they, whoever they are, think I am the same person. Even though I've seen her in her coffin. I almost did provide my telephone number and place of employment to help resolve this in order to remove the punishment or her account. As many of her friends, family and co-workers knew she was using her time editing Wikipedia!

Why is this man still able to have an account, let alone an account with privileges to ruin and depress another person? Hell, he lost his father and that is sad. But so has this woman, and she had a terminal illness! Not just depression.... not just the flu, etc. Why are they unable to understand the double standards?

I am just sick and distraught over losing a friend, who was a WONDERFUL human being, to have her ID (known to those that knew her, and her employer too) on the top of the Google search.

Even though, thankfully, she did not use her REAL name, she did let others know judging by her emails that her family and friends have gone through. I WILL NOT divulge her real name, because she could very well be "notable" under Wikipedia's standards, and that would hurt those who loved and cared about her without her around to "WATCH" the article.

I just got back from the area of her funeral and I am so sad, and her Wikipedia page still contains false allegations, or worse, the double standards that Wikipedia management are able to get away with. Having "sock-puppets", uncivil behavior. Sigh..

Sorry, just venting. I will NOT release her real name so as to reduce the pain her family is already feeling. I know that Wikipedia is flaky, but her user ID is one that is known by family, friends and co-workers, so when looking up her name they see her Wikipedia profile that is tarnished and is like a smack in the face. Though, luckily there are other names that come up on the search that have no connection to her real life. That is a relief. I just wanted to post here because I'm so upset about her good name and will on Wikipedia, that was so much of her life after her diagnosis and she wanted to help in some way, while being so ill that she could not leave her house.

This woman was an asset, still is. Still, the Internet is full of fakes and horrible people that can hurt those in real live. JzG is one of them. He feels so sorry for himself, and others or the hierarchy do too. My friend edited controversial subjects too! Was suffering from a terminal illness that DEPRESSED her, lost a couple of other people in her live who were important to her, etc. (Saying this, because these are some of the excuses being made for JzG's behavior).

Okay, I've had one too many right now. Oh well. My friend is gone. Oh, and we worked, thought the same, had similar educations and lived in the same area, had the same ISP, not IP, but still her ID has now included mine as well as a "sock-puppet"...WTH?

Rant over. No response is necessary but please keep putting the pressure on those who have the power to use flawed information to spoil a person's reputation. Thank goodness she did not use her real name, even though she did at first. Sigh. (ILUJ, you are now home where you always wanted to be and almost made it.)

JR

(edit because of mistakes I saw. I'm sure there are more, but hey, I'm under the influence. )

<moderator note> I'm just moving this post to the Support forum for the time being as some of the details are serious, but as of yet seem rather vague.

Iamlost, I vaguely remember an argument with you and others on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Would you be willing to point out that conversation?

I've never argued on any noticeboard on Wikipedia, so I don't understand your question. Though I have read many postings on individual noticeboards trying to gather evidence and understand the dynamics. What I referred to above is an old post on one of the noticeboards, but I didn't post to it because it's in an archive, does that help?

Iamlost, please e-mail me the username in question and I will see if there is any problem with deleting the userpage and talkpage.

Newyorkbrad

Brad, deleting the article will - of course - give a very clear indication who this person was. I suggest that you find out which of those parts of the article that are untrue/unfair and have someone else remove them quietly. Then get someone else to protect the article, lest the stuff gets put back in. This is not the WP way, of course, but it is the only way I can think of that will maintain the individuals privacy and dignity.

There are a couple of posters here who claim to have more than one submarine account over on WP. Lets see if any are willing to sacrifice one on behalf of one individual?

Yes, that's all very fine and well...

But what about the emotional stress caused on these people because of the actions of JzG and other's?

Why can't this person's named be cleared and why can't her contributions to WP be allowed to exist without this issues which have nothing to do with the legacy of this deceased person?

Why is this so difficult to understand?

The emotional stress tends to vary with individual and the amount of elapsed time, but some of the passages are astonishment, surprise, outrage, disappointment, chagrin, despair, disgust, and perplexity.

I reckon it takes most people a long time to arrive at perplexity.

But perplexity has the advantage that it motivates some of us to engage in research and creative problem-solving.

My understanding of the original post was that the poster has a deceased friend whose talkpage and userpage contain allegedly unfair block/ban notices. That is what I was suggesting I (or some other admin) could be helpful with deleting, or at least part of it. If I have misunderstood the situation please let me know.

Newyorkbrad

I don't think you've misunderstood the situation... this is one of those things where I myself would tend to sympathize with WP as much as I would with the person(s) in question. Without more details about what's going on, what can you really do? If he's not going to specify who or what he's talking about, there's simply no way to be absolutely certain that it isn't some sort of elaborate hoax.

I can at least tell everyone that Mr. Iamlost didn't try to register with a free-mail account, and we haven't seen his registration IP before. Everything about him appears to be legitimate, but that really doesn't mean much, does it? I mean, if he explains the whole situation, he and the account in question could easily become targets for various dirty tricks by various people... but if someone like me were to try and intervene, say, offer to ask him for more details so I can check it out and tell everyone whether or not I think he's legitimate, that could put him in an even worse position, if there's anything the least bit fishy about his story. (Nobody should feel obliged to trust anything *I* say either, actually!)

The reason why we set up this here Support Group forum (only a month or so ago?) was so that people could post stuff like this without feeling like they absolutely have to come up with a lot of diffs and other "evidence" to support what they're saying. Maybe it's irresponsible, but then again, if things like this turn out to be true, then in many cases these are real issues that ought to be addressed. BUT in return, posters should expect that some people (mostly dyed-in-the-wool cynics, but not necessarily) won't believe them for lack of evidence.

So it's a bit of a trade-off, there.

Because, the only - ONLY - critical statements about JzG that have been allowed to remain on Wikipedia are those prefaced with "JzG is a valuable contributor/admin/BLP enforcer/OTRS helper, but..."

People need to start looking past that preface. It causes anyone on JzG's side to promptly dismiss the rest of the post at best (the worst being the blocks/bans or just horrid, horrid insults that follow). Newyorkbrad, if you're still paying attention to this thread, when JzG inevitably ends up in front of your Committee heed me on this: if you preface any comments on the case with some variation of the above, I sure hope you don't do so lightly, because those prefaces have a very real impact on how seriously people take serious criticism of JzG.

EDIT: Reviewing my post I realized I've wandered from the topic, I think... I'll leave it up but won't go further with it :-)

Not commenting on any individual here, but in general ...

I begin most of my on-wiki criticisms of good-faith contributors with some sort of acknowledgement of the user's positive contributions. I think that is only fair; we are a volunteer project, and it is appropriate to note the good as well as the bad about a given person's record, especially where the person is doing his or her best. (The alternative is to announce that someone is a "pretty worthless user," and I don't talk that way, especially when such a comment wouldn't be true.)

The hardest decisions to make aren't the blocks of throwaway accounts and bad-faith editors. They are how to tell dedicated, hard-working participants that their behavior is causing more problems than it is solving, and ultimately how to stop them from doing it if gentle words don't resolve the issue. Those of you who have moderated other forums, including this one, will know exactly what I mean.

Newyorkbrad

I agree.

And the perplexity that confronts me is how to tell the embedded power structure (be it on Wikipedia, some other Internet forum, or the government) that their exercise of power is causing more problems than it's solving.

Sorry but that's a cop-out. You've had months and months of evidence that JzG is rude, possibly mentally disturbed and makes judgements which are obviously not based on reality. What have you done?: you've chosen to ignore it.

The only solution is to take his admin. bit away and get him away from your so-called project. You know it. We know it. We can't do it, only you can.

When are you going to finally address this issue directly and solve it?

To NewYorkBrad and Somey.

I will provide as much information, as I feel comfortable, in order to straighten this out. RE: my friend's accounts on Wikipedia, and some of that which I could find in links and other pages of her contrubutions and her poor treatement from those in "command" on the project.

The only condition is that both of you have to be above the age of 35! :-), then I will provide some information, and if I feel more confortable, I may provide more. I may even provide my phone number in order to actually speak to someone who is in power, and over the age of 35-years-old, to help explain the problem, issues, and anything else that may help. This I prefer, a phone converstation, because using links, trying to find them, and then provide a statement is time-consuming, and I fear it could cause more trouble then it could ever be worth.

PLUS I would like to address the erroneous accusations when I myself tried to register an account on Wikipedia and was immediately banned as "impersonating" someone else. Totally and utterly false. And when I then asked to rename my account I was slapped with being a sockpuppet of my friend's account!, my page protected and my email blocked. Which had me seeing red, even seething so that my paranoia and distrust for Wikipedia, and other websites connected to it, skyrocketed.

I have 3 children, a spouse, and two jobs so I am very busy. (this is another reason a phone call is best for me)

[Edit to add]


How can I email you when I go to your profile and it says I cannot email you from this board? I then looked at your user page on Wikipedia, and there is no email listed.

Thanks,
I am lost, literally. lol

Judging from the photos of Newyorkbrad that have been posted here, I am reasonably sure he is over 35. Somey has often said that he is in his 40s, and he is an honourable man.

I believe NYB and I are almost exactly the same age, i.e., in the 44-48 range. In fact, he and I are both Ramones fans who probably bought their records as soon as they were released. (Am I right, NYB?) He looks older than I do, though. I could probably still pass for 37, if I dressed for it and did my hair just right...

Anyway, don't feel obliged - remember, you don't necessarily do yourself any favors by providing more details, even if we can safely assume that NYB and myself are both completely trustworthy.


You should be able to PM him (and me, natch) from here, and the board will send an e-mail notifying him that he's gotten a PM from you. The only things that would prevent that would be if he'd specifically blocked you from PM'ing him, which I wouldn't imagine he'd do, or if his PM folders are filled up, which is unlikely since we doubled the size of everyone's folders just last week...

Oh yeah, that helped relieve some of my paranoia! ;-p



Thank you. This is a very complicated issue regarding my friend. Perhaps by helping me with my recent attempt at registering a userID at Wikipedia, which first said I was an impersonator of an admin, then says I'm a sockpuppet of my deceased friend.

Also, I read somewhere that there should be a reason for a check-user to be done. I'd like to know why it was done in the first place, and how in the world it was justified to connect it to my friend as confirmed by FT2 at THAT!

BTW, I'm a woman. In addition to my 3 children and large husband -- we have 2 Great Danes, and a Rottweiler.

Now, I'm wondering if this is all worth it. But, it may affect me and mine on Wikipedia in the future, (even though I forbid my kids from using it because I think it's naughty. Yet, I know they use it anyway) so this may or will continue to add to this woman's rap sheet which is sad and incompetent on Wikipedia's part.

I guess I will PM NYB since he is an ArbCom member, but I have doubts. FT2 is an arbCom member, and it looks like he forwarded my email to the committee? But, there it is, still there, that I'm a "confirmed" sockpuppet of a dead person. *Sigh*

(I'm having problems with the quote markup here. Oops, there it is....finally worked.)

I'll think about what to do and say in later, because right now my Rotty is chewing on my arm and it's difficult to type.

If your friend was a colleague at work, and you both connect to Wikipedia from the same workplace, then you may well have the same IP. So if she was blocked, that workplace IP would be flagged and anyone else at the same workplace would also be blocked.

Since the general opinion on Wikipedia is that good behaviour can excuse bad behaviour, I think it would be best if this policy was formalized. For example, users with more than 5,000 edits may call editors with fewer edits "stupid" and editors with more than 10,000 edits may tell editors with fewer edits to "fuck off". Alternatively, the quota system could be used where every 1,000 edits entitles an editor to use one "fuck off". This scheme can be extended into real life where for example every 10,000 miles of accident few driving entitles the driver to one free speeding ticket.

In any functional hierarchy expectations for good behaviour increase as one goes up the hierarchy. Those in the hierarchy are supposed to serve as models of good behaviour for those beneath them. In Wikipedia this is reversed; some of the bad behaviour by administrators would never be tolerated by new editors. The behaviour expected of established editors and administrators should be higher than that tolerated by new editors.

That's the theory, and I believe is also the practice at many Wikimedia sites. It is not the practice on English Wikipedia, where people like David Gerard say that they have the right to checkuser anyone on a whim.

Just a note to anyone concerned that I have received a communication from Iamlost and am dealing with the situation.

Newyorkbrad

Thank you very much, Newyorkbrad. I do have a couple of other (straggling) links of concern for your consideration, which I will email you soon.

Overall, this is very kind and appreciated. It should be noted that there are plenty admins and management people who do much good work on Wikipedia, such as yourself.

What puzzles me -- and this is a question I've often pondered -- why are the terms of administrators unlimited, unlike ArbCom membership? I believe having term limits would help reduce the burn-out rate which can contribute to bad behavior and faith of those with the power tools. Of course, I have more...but don't have the time right now, and don't believe this is the place to address these issues neither. : )

Thanks again, Mr Brad.

(Oh, btw, I don't have 2 Great Danes, but do have everything else I wrote up there. Although my husband isn't very big, just semi-athletic. lol)

It varies from Wiki to Wiki. On some they have to be re-appointed annually. I expect the argument would be that you can't do it on WP because there would be three or four extra RfAs starting every day.

I would think the more important goals should be, making desysoping much, much easier (including temporary desysoping, like a block) - look at JzG, for example, you've some sixty people asking him to turn in the tools, but it makes no difference - and hindering administrators from operating as a class, say, by prohibiting administrators from voting on RfAs or desysoppings, prohibiting administrators from also being arbitrators, mediators or checkusers, etc., and most of all, putting an end to the admins IRC.

I agree. Perhaps limited terms can be extended on a case-by-case basis for good behavior/actions without going through this process that does nothing but waste time?

Most of the administrators are not a problem. If a large number of complaints are received about an administrator then that administrator should automatically have to go through an annual RfA.

All administrators should have to write one FA/year (or equivalent creative effort) to keep their buttons. This would be a royal pain in the ass to administer but well worth it.

Mod Note: Moved back to this forum from the Support Group forum.

One needs to question the motivations of an administrator who only wants to do administrative tasks.

Some of the power of administrators should be transferred to leaders of work groups. The leader of a work group could serve as a final arbitrator on article content disputes within the scope of his work group. I get annoyed by administrators who's expertise is in say comic books officiating articles in subjects they know nothing about.

Oh, I think it is far simpler: one needs to question the motives of anyone who volunteers for a thankless task.

However, I am more than comfortable with admins only admins.

Being a computer person, it is obligatory to talk in analogies, and my analogy is why do people insist on promoting programmers into being managers on the basis of being good programmers? My original career path was entirely based on being good at one thing qualified me to take on an entirely different task - I would claim it to be one of the classic British diseases of the 80s and 90s (and suspect it still to be the case today).

There are clearly many different roles in writing Wikipedia: big on framework, useless at detail; the copyeditor; the formatter; the moderator, conflict resolutionist, if you like; the policeman; the guy on the help desk; the second line support help desk who knows what he is talking about; the techie who can resolve issues with the engine from a writer's perspective. The traditional editor who does not write but knows what he wants written - a project manager.

One of the daft things about Wikipedia is that it pretends that there is one role: the editor, and it pretends that an admin is an editor who can do a few more editing tasks. Sanger's version at least recognises that there are some different tasks with different skills.

On the other hand, programmers tend to be dismissive of managers who can't write a line of code. Pointy-haired, and all that. You have to wonder why the labourers over at wikipedia don't revolt against "janitors" who don't demonstrate much ability to write a line of an article.

If they were real editors, with a professional imperative to get it right...now that'd be different...

A problem with Wikipedia is it pretends there is no hierarchy, and the typical editor is totally opposed to the creation of any hierarchy. But in reality, there does exist a hierarchy and those who have assumed senior positions in the hierarchy typically have no expertise with the construction of an encyclopaedia, no expertise as an editor in the real world, or even any real expertise in the areas in which they edit. Wikipedia needs to grow up and have a formal hierarchy. The way any rational organization would go about creating the hierarchy would be through a hierarchy of subject area experts. This hierarchy can be democratically elected and does not need to be imposed. Wikipedia editors are capable of recognizing experts within the areas in which they edit.

The real problem is that it's also easy to recognize the non-experts, but not so easy to figure out what to do with them.

That is because Wikipedia does not have a method of resolving disputes over content. For Wikipedia to resolve content disputes it would have to recognize some editors as subject area experts. Wikipedia instead resolves disputes based upon editor behaviour. Since disputes are resolved based upon behaviour and not content it enables non experts to obtain the senior positions in the hierarchy.

And in this case 'editor behavior' amounts to Wiki gamesmanship vis-a-vis the hodgepodge of WP:RULES and the insidious Spammish Inquisition known as the RfC.

Yes. Gamesmanship would be irrelevant, the expert(s) would make a decision on who's viewpoint is correct. If the expert(s) do not know who's viewpoint is correct then both viewpoints deserve equal billing. RFC's attract people who know nothing about the article's subject matter. They can only declare a winner of the dispute based on editor behaviour and whether or not Wikipedia polices were followed.

I agree with all of the above



What would that solve? Presumably there is significant collusion happening there, but removing the channel would make it all completely undercover, with no chance of *any* whistleblowing, as it were. If a group of admins are acting in concert, there's nothing to stop them doing so through completely backchannel means, after all...

f