| Revision as of 21:38, 11 July 2007 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,078 edits →Friendly Reminder: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:39, 11 July 2007 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,078 edits Removing comment with Troll-B-Gon 1.0 ProfessionalNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| <!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-7 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:JzG/Archive-{{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}}-{{CURRENTYEAR}}--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | <!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-7 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:JzG/Archive-{{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}}-{{CURRENTYEAR}}--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | ||
| == Read this == | |||
| == Need advice for removals at ] == | |||
| ⚫ | If you have come here to troll, then kindly ever so nicely pretty please fuck off. If you want to contact me I suggest you send email. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Two accounts want to remove/have been removing material that criticizes a presidential canidate. {{vandal|Sbowers3}} and {{vandal|Eseymour}} main activity is removing negative material and adding positive material to the article. Most recently they have even removed comments made by the subject. ] 18:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == I hope you stick around == | |||
| I see you're feeling a bit disenchanted with WP. I don't know exactly what it is that has brought this upon you, but I want to let you know that I appreciate your work and contributions to the cause. I don't think of myself as a "Wikipedian", I use WP as a most frequent reference and I'm an occasional editor. From my experience on WP, I've come to value your opinions and respect your contributions at all levels. I can only imagine the difficulties and challenges an Admin must face and for suffering that alone, you would have my respect. But I respect your fairness, your firm though even handedness, and dedication to making WP better. You and I have been part of a couple debates that got heated and I think we will never agree on the nature of some of them, nonetheless, it hasn't negatively impacted my respect for you. I thank you and hope you stick around and retain your adminship. Misplaced Pages is better with you here and doing far more than your share in keeping the place clean. --] 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Frustrations == | |||
| When you take decisive action, you are guaranteed almost every time to have someone start beating you over the head about it, citing policy this and policy that, often with a healthy does of self-righteousness. The problem is that the many editors who agree with your philosophy generally, or at least respect your integrity and good faith, do not post to your defence or help ward off the sanctiminious gripers. I hope you return: you are one of the best admins here and the place needs that touch of grouchy middle-age to provide honesty and consistency. Editors like me have been remiss in not rising to your defence with more commitment. ] 12:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Arrogant, High-handed or Condescending == | |||
| In every exchange we've had, your comments have been arrogant, high-handed or condescending. | |||
| I hope the rest does you some good. ] 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Lotta interesting follow-up on my discussion page. ] 17:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == myg0t == | |||
| I've relisted myg0t on ] and added a proposed article to be re-created. Thought I'd let you know since you closed the last one. --] 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Mostly away-ness == | |||
| The lack of your contributions has made itself noticeable. I for one hope your present state of disillusionment is a temporary state and your hiatus a short one. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Another Merkey harassment thread== | |||
| Hi JzG, per the messages above, I'm not certain that you're around anymore, but if you are… | |||
| Merkey gets pushback when he should, just like any other editor. We don't need these SCOX trolls about; see .] 11:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] on ] again == | |||
| This category is again nominated for discussion at user categories for discussion. Since you contributed to ], you may wish to say something in ], which was started on ] ]. This is a courtesy notice I'll be leaving for everyone who contributed in the last UCFD nomination and not in the current one. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Friendly Reminder == | |||
| Earlier this year, ] '''censored''' my userpage and then '''locked/protected''' it from editing, citing ]. This lasted a week until I could find an admin with a spine (in this case Jossi) to unlock it<br /> | |||
| I had simply posted purely '''constructive criticism''' about Misplaced Pages, which is allowed by ]. But the self-righteous ] decided that even though I had shown him ] and jusitified my actions, he simply ignored me.<br /> | |||
| And now I see that he has gone and done some ] on his userpage, and his isn't even really ''constructive criticism about Misplaced Pages'' like mine was.<br /> | |||
| Following his <u>own</u> rules (which were wrong), his userpage should be '''blanked''', and if he tries to put it back or give a defense, '''locked'''.<br /> | |||
| So now ] should either | |||
| * 1) Admit that his actions were wrong, admit that constructive criticism is allowed on userpages, and '''appologise''' for censoring me and locking my page and for not listening to my defence, | |||
| :or | |||
| * 2) Hold that he was correct, and thereby have to follow his own rules, and take his comments off his userpage for ] rules.<br /> | |||
| Ladies and gentleman, we shall see.<br /> | |||
| For those interested in the incident, you can see ] | |||
| <br />] 15:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What you're describing isn't a new phenomenon. Guy often takes action against other editors and then goes and does the exact same thing, if not worse. Welcome to the club. I don't want Guy to leave permanently as he's a good editor and I respect that; I just hope that this time away from the project allows him to reconsider his role as a very influential Wikipedian. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 15:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Granted he was in all likelihood more of an asset than a liability. But after he made two personal attacks against me (once a 'Tossblanket' and another an 'asshole'), after censorship as mentioned above, his ultra-bias for deletionism and anti-inclussionism, the difficulties I have experienced in trying to reason with him, etc I can see problems related to abuse of power, and unadminly behaviour. If you try reason with him and cite wikipolicy he'll say "stop wikilawyernig", or he'll accuse you of not being a good editor, or a user with few edits, or he'll say "stop beating a dead horse" -- and other strawman tactics etc to leave you rather frustrated. Instead of an admin I can trust and respect, he's one that I've had to stay completely away from. If he does come back, let's hope he sticks to being the 'asset' admin, and not the 'liability' one. ] 15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whatever issues that exist between admin Guy and other editors, will be eventually dealt in a civil manner and with mutual compromise. I don't know him well, but in a short exchange, he displayed polite manners and a disposition to take action. Hopefully, he'll realize he is indeed an asset to WP and not alone in his views. ] 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And in light of my comment it seems, you, ] have reverted his userpage to an earlier date. Nonetheless you will find he still has a section that could count as being a 'soapbox'. I've noted your comments above. ] 17:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * One consequence of being a busy admin: I now edit mainspace almost as infrequently as Rfwoolf, although I probably do enough stuff elsewhere to balance that. I don't suppose anybody will be taken in by Rfwoolf's partial retelling of the story above, missing out as he does his persistent re-creation of a deleted article, but I thank him for a perfect example of the kind of crap I am so heartily sick of. Rfwoolf, once upon a time you did a wrong thing and got called on it. Fucking ''get over it'', man! Is your life really so devoid of meaning and value that trolling someone who called you on breaking the rules - and ''months'' ago at that - is the best use you can think of for your time? Have you ever put even half as much effort into an article as you did into your self-righteous bullshit screed you linked above? There's a bright future for you in the complaints division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, where you will find many kindred souls. Belgium. Just... Belgium, man. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You are diverting the issue. The issue I raised above discusses your censoring and locking my userpage. The issue you retaliated with was the recreation of an article. Perhaps you would like to drag out another straw man tactic? ] 18:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ** I rest my case ] 18:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***Guy, I'm sure you're aware that your comment is, quite simply, a direct ]. I'm not saying that your blanking of the userpage was not justified, but your response to Rfwoolf here most certainly is not. Please try to keep a cool head. -- ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **He can rest that case all he wants. While I would have used less colorful language, I think that is a largely apt response to ]'s whining. The problem, ], is that you're trying to wrap yourself self-righteously in policy against someone who has a bloody huge amount of credibility and a proven track-record of solid and substantial contribution to the project when the substance of your grievance seems to relate to the recreation of an article on anal stretching. You gotta be kidding me! ] 18:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::So you agree the personal attack and colorful language was out of line? Perhaps unadminly? <br /> | |||
| :::Furthermore the "substance" of my grievance as you put it, was '''not''' the recreation of an article on anal stretching. In fact if you're literate (which you are) you can easily tell it's about censoring and locking a userpage for constructive criticism on Misplaced Pages. You can read my words again if you like ] 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **:Holy over sized butt plug...is that what the root of this is about?--] 18:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***: I'm equally bewildered. I can't remember what articles I was editting 7 months ago. As the saying goes, by their fruits. -- ] 19:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::So you agree the personal attack and colorful language was out of line? Perhaps unadminly? <br /> | |||
| :::Furthermore the "substance" of my grievance as you put it, was '''not''' the recreation of an article on anal stretching. In fact if you're literate (which you are) you can easily tell it's about censoring and locking a userpage for constructive criticism on Misplaced Pages. You can read my words again if you like ] 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***LOL. God, the humanity. ] 18:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You're missing a slight problem. It was not the unsupported action you imply; many people ''agreed'' with the decision. -] <small>]</small> 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::1) Assuming they did agree, then should ] be allowed to go and do the same thing? On his own page? ... 2) The admin Jossi disagreed. Constructive criticism on userpages are allowed, according to ]. I even cited this with ] at the time, he practically ignored me. So it's one of those situations, if JzG was right '''then''' then he must follow his own rules. If JzG was wrong '''then''', then your last statement is kinda wonky. ] 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Okay, so two people disagree, one of whom is you. I still don't understand why you think that's bad. And you might have had some sucess on that first point if that was what you want, but you've destroyed all credibility you have by going "OMG HE ABUSIVE!". So nobody's likely to do anything controversial that you agree with now. -] <small>]</small> 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It wasn't exactly constructive criticism; it was whinging about a deletion decision that you disagreed with. I wouldn't have blanked your page, and if I'd seen it brought up 7 months ago when it actually happened you might have had my half-hearted support. But rehashing the issue now, 7 months later, can only seem like dredging up ancient history to kick a valued admin/contributor while he's down in a totally non-productive fashion. This sort of thing generally falls under ], or even ] - while you may have some sort of a point, and you may be even be right in some technical sense, people are unlikely to take you seriously as you seem to motivated primarily by your grudge against Guy, over a minor incident 7 months ago, and your need to play "gotcha!". ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm confused. Here you seem to have something rather constructive to say, yet on the AN/I you archived the thread, what I think was rather prematurely, and a personal attack was made. That said, I appreciate that '''some''' (although not many) wikipedians made some attempt to remain impartial in this debate without detracting from the actual debate and using foul play. Thank you to those. ] 19:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I archived the thread because AN/I is not the complaints department, because no urgent admin intervention seemed necessary, and because discussion is already raging here. The post will serve its stated purpose of attracting any passersby on AN/I who wish to comment here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Sounds reasonable, if not for the issue of the personal attack. Thank-you for a rational response. ] 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: MastCell, I think by now that anybody who cares will have recognised that Woolf's absurd seven-month grudge is utterly ludicrous and his complaint baseless, here's what I removed from his user page : . I think that it's reasonable to describe that as ], if only to avoid the more accurate description, which would be "blatant trolling". Looking at Woolf's contributions I would say that it's either an alternate account, a sockpuppet of a banned troll, or someone who thinks Misplaced Pages is MySpace. Waste of time trying rational debate with this one, I'd say. Looks like his anal stretching was successful, though, since he seems to have got his entire head up there by now... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I've read what you removed, and it looked pretty harmless. Did it really justify a WP:SOAP removal? That's a judgement call, but I would personally say no, especially since it was on a user page. But I might also add, you conveniently leave out the part where you and his user page when he restored his complaint. Was this really appropriate? After all, it wasn't as if he went so far as to call someone a , which I think we'd all agree is a transgression worthy of revert/protection, maybe even blocking. Wouldn't you agree? ] 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: One grudge-bearer defending another. Do feel free to find another page to troll. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: When I find another admin calling someone a whining twat or a sweaty cunt, I'll be sure to "troll" their page as well. ] 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (deindent) I agree. JzG has a general statement on his user page while you had a specific one on yours. I see no problem with what he has, but I see problems with what you had. Further pursuance of this will look even more like ] than it has so far. Please desist and try to find something more useful to do. --] 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Let it be known that many of the comments I've made here are only to defend myself, or respond, not to further make a point. Therefore, while I '''will desist''' as you say, I do not take likely to personal attacks, nor attempts to twist my words and sidestep the issue by importing separate incidents and trying to connect them, in an attempt to discredit me. ] 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :* Blatantly false, since you were the one to bring up your fatuous complaint here seven months or so after it was dead and buried. Your self-justifying whining will never obscure the fact that you reposted deleted contents, engaged in personal attacks and egregious trolling when it was removed again, disrupted the project, and have never shown any evidence, before or since, of editing sufficiently meritorious to offset your trolling. Your complaint is baseless and your continued pursuit of it is vexatious to the point of trolling. You have, however, provided a perfect example of the kind of worthless tripe that is becoming the norm. Now go away and take your tiny mind with you. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Guy, that is your second ] against Rfwoolf. ''Please'' stop, retract/strike that statement, and/or disengage for a while to cool off. -- ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have to say that choosing a moment when Guy is clearly suffering from Wikiburnout to play "gotcha!" and bring up a 7-month-old issue that was minor even at the time seems... unconstructive, to say the least. Guy is apparently not inclined to apologize for something that happened 7 months ago, particularly in the context in which Rwoolf has brought it up, and I can't say I blame him. This thread is serving only to escalate things and kick Guy when he's down (to judge by his userpage statement), with the predictable result that he tells Rwoolf to get lost, with the predictable result that Rwoolf points to ''new'' personal attacks... Let's drop it. This is the best possible option for all involved. The alternative is to pursue ], but even there the first step is to disengage for a little while. Come on now. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::He didn't tell him to "get lost" - he told him to "fuck off" and called him a "whining twat". Tell me, does ''politely bringing up an old conflict'' in any way justify being called a "whining twat"? When is the patience with this habitually attacking and uncivil admin going to finally run out? Jeez, we all get frustrated, but nothing justifies scathing attacks such as these. Come on, people. ] 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I simply don't agree. Someone whose asinine complaint centers around Anal Stretching and who has engaged in self-righteous policy-mongering more than invites a harsh response. From another user, yes, I would agree that the language is harsh. But this is Guy, and he draws a lot of water. By refocusing the debate on Guy, we risk losing a great admin while validating the actions of someone who has, over several months, done nothing demonstrably close to Guy's contributions. Enough is enough. Let's keep perspective here. ] 21:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You know, I've seen this at least half a dozen times with JzG: he calls another editor vicious names and people come to his defense ''blaming the other editor'' for inflaming JzG. Has it really come to this, where we routinely rationalize repeated violations of one of the ] by a single user? There are thousands of admins on Misplaced Pages - why is it that they can all deal with other editors without resorting to scathing attacks, but this one admin cannot or will not? Give me a break. Either treat these violations as you would any other editor, or change the policy pages to reflect the uneven enforcement of this pillar. How about: "Once you are an admin with 10,000 edits, you may call any other editor a worthless twat or sweaty cunt without retribution."? As ridiculous as that sounds, that's exactly what seems to be advocated here. ] 21:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If Jimbo himself begs us to treat him like any other user (except for OFFICE actions), we should give no other editor special treatment. Misplaced Pages is an equal community. No one should get preferential treatment, no longer how long they've been with the project. Period. All this pussyfooting and brown-nosing is making the whole project look pathetic. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I suggest you review ]. Woolf is trolling, plain and simple. ATren is also a grudge-bearer, also trolling. They have both pursued their grudges for months after they were dead, they both need to ]. you can read this in the history because I'm about to wipe this whole pile of shit clean. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:39, 11 July 2007
 | |
| Misplaced Pages ads | file info – show another – #270 |
 | Guy is away, somewhat disillusioned. He will be back. Probably. |
| This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JzG/Archive-Jan-2025. Some may be manually archived earlier than that, if no further action is required or productive debate is at an end. |
Guy Chapman? He's just zis Guy, you know? More about me
If you need urgent admin help please go to the incident noticeboard. To stop a vandal, try the vandal intervention page. For general help why not try the help desk? If you need me personally and it's urgent you may email me, I read all messages even if I do not reply. If next time I log on is soon enough, click this link to start a new conversation.
Terms of Service
By posting on this page you accept the JzG Terms of Service. I endeavour to satisfy good-faith requests to the best of my ability, but if you act like a dick, I will call you a dick. If you act like a troll, I will probably ignore you and may tell you to fuck off. If you want something from me, your best bet is not to demand it on pain of shopping me to ArbCom, because that way is pretty much guaranteed to piss me off to the extent that I will do whatever I can to thwart your plans. This page may contain trolling. Some of it might even be from me, but never assume trolling where a misplaced sense of humour might explain things. I can be provoked, it's not even terribly difficult. You may find, if you provoke me enough, that I will do something I later regret. Only remember, you may regret it more. I am a middle-aged surly bastard who spends his working day wrestling spammers and beating Windows with a stick, but I am capable of seeing good in the most improbable people if they don't go out of their way to make me do otherwise. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This user posts using a British sense of humour and does not repress those instantaneous motions of merriment.
Read this
If you have come here to troll, then kindly ever so nicely pretty please fuck off. If you want to contact me I suggest you send email. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)