Wikipedia Sucks!

How tedious.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1024314261

It can no longer be denied that, even in the opinion of Wikipedia editors who matter (long serving established editors who generally tow the CNN line regarding what's good and bad), the Administrator they call JzG, real name Guy Chapman, is an utter wanker.

In Wikipedia speak, he is generally unhelpful to their mission. His habit of stating his opinions as fact, of speaking in generalities and talking about editors rather than content, he needlessly inflames talk page discussions of an already controversial area. Not for nothing, are these sort of behaviours theoretically discouraged, since, most importantly, nobody gets paid to participate in Wikipedia.

Less acknowledged is that he probably does this deliberately. He probably likes arguing on Wikipedia, and not just about Trump, but any topic he has strong feelings over. Which is quite a few.

The central charge is proven, beyond doubt. Chapman more often than not sees Wikipedia talk pages as forums, general debate chambers, rather than areas to discuss specific improvements to articles. And where he does at least appear to be doing the latter, his manner is decidedly unhelpful, for the aforementioned reasons.

So, what's to be done?

Nothing, of course. The same lame excuses are being trotted out.....

* Chapman is right, so fuck you, Enemy of Wikipedia!
* Chapman is not the only offender, if we had to deal with him, we'd have to deal with everyone
* You always have the option of just ignoring Chapman

The first is excuse is just plain wrong, not even largely because it'sbeing directed at people who are clearly operating under the misguided belief that Wikipedia works and is worth investing time and effort to improve content. But Wikipedia is full of wankers who have never let being wrong stand in their way. It comes from not paying the workforce, or having any kind of meaningful performance review.

It's the second and third excuses that are really toxic. Chapman is an Administrator, so if he is allowed to be this much of a twat, it follows that others, people who are not held to the "higher standard" that role expects of holders, can basically be trolls. Which would probably please Chapman, who would no doubt relish the chance to argue with them and block them.

And as anyone can see, ignoring Chapman isn't really possible. He inserts himself randomly into debates, sometimes in a manner so incomprehensible or potentially insulting, it does demand a response if only to ascertain his purpose. As an Administrator, his intent needs to be established, not least in case he is trying, and failing, to signal that he intends to act in some Administrative capacity.

That's the privilege that comes with being an Administrator. People aren't meant to ignore you. They're entitled to assume your random presence is for some higher constructive purpose, and whatever it might be, certainly not the general stoking of conflict for personal gratification.

1/2

Hard to see it any other way though. He wants his opinion to be heard. He wants a reaction, or at the very least, immediate acceptance of his truthiness. It doesn't particularly matter what that reaction is if its contrary, it doesn't change his opinion that his is the undeniable truth, but he will engage in battle to assert his truth against the deniers. No room for nuance or reflection. Not even really reading sometimes.

In other words, he has many of the traits of a troll. An adrenaline junkey. Fighting the Good Fight.

So why no action?

In large part, because previous inaction reinforces the need to take no action. Why warn him now, for things he has been allowed together way with for years? Why warn him at all, when it's so clear it would be ignored.

It's do nothing, or take the route of escalating, applying a topic ban or even a temporary block until he states, in his own words, that accepts certain tenets of Wikipedia, such as comment on the content not the contributor, and seek permanent resolutions not perpetual conflict.

The truth is, people are scared of Chapman. They're not only scared of him or one of his sycophants blocking them for trying to act to reign him in, they're scared of Chapman reacting to any attempted escalation by lighting them up as some kind of racist Nazi Trump apologist, if they dare to try and restrict his unfettered freedom to use Wikipedia talk pages as some kind of therapy room.

You can see why people have that fear. Labelling opponents, lumping them in with some kind of imagined mob out to get him or Wikipedia, is his most cherished toxic behaviour. How ironic it would be, if he genuinely believes there is a conspiracy at work. He likely doesn't, which makes it even worse.

Nobody can criticise people who are genuinely mentally ill from doing crazy shit. Although Chapman certainly does seem to try. Crazy to think he's the problem, right? It's the Nazi's, I tells ya! They're right there, right in front of you! Yes, that sweet women Admin whi has edited Wikipedia for years, never once being accused of being a Nazi, and vehement in her personal belief Trump is a very bad guy. Very clever, Princess! Not fooling Agent Chapman and his Perpetual Exceptional Nazi Inquiry Squad (PENIS). Nailed her. Hard.

In short, Chapman probably has a death wish. He probably wants to end his unbearable existence, where he apparently cannot abide the fact so many other people are just plain idiots or Nazis, here, there and everywhere. So he is probably trying to find someone who is so annoyed by his arrogant buffoonery, they track him down and blow his head off. If only to make him shut the fuck up. Tedious bore that he is.

A martyrdom.

I guess for now, a living martyrdom facilitated by the weak willed Wikishits, will have to suffice.

For what little it matters, remember that he honed his rotten little act on Usenet:

Lives in Reading, UK, as of 2017 (previously south London). He is believed to be employed by Dell Computers UK.

He has frequently been accused of being a homophobe, anti-Catholic, and misogynist, and somehow manages to deny all of it. Friend of David Gerard and Tony Sidaway, and like them, Guy was a Usenet pest from the early 2000s until 2011. Examples, mostly found in uk.rec.cycling and a few other groups in the 2008-2011 timeframe: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Guy liked to troll bicycling-related newsgroups, posting unrelated material -- and stirring up animosity. He occasionally used the pseudonym "Lou Knee". And in spite of his obvious trolling and abuse, he had a retinue of supporters. Guy dislikes homeopathy[9] and "quack" medicine in general, and has edited Wikipedia articles such as Luc Montagnier and Stanislaw Burzynski to reflect his hatred.

Quote from a 2010 Usenet post:

"He likes to wallow in shit, then raise an almighty protest that he's covered in shit. It's terrible that all the shit sticks to him, when all he does is lie down in it, roll around in it, throw it up in the air and give it a good stir whenever an opportunity arises."
"He does it all with an apparent cast-iron faith in his hard-done-by innocence. Apparently, if you throw shit up in the air then stand around looking aggrieved, it's someone else's fault if it lands on you."
"He'd feel picked on if he got stung after giving a wasps nest a good prodding with a pointy stick. He'd then go and find another wasps nest to prod just to prove how blameless he is."
"I can only assume there's something wrong with him - some fundamental inability to recognise cause and effect, maybe. Some disjoint where he thinks that being annoying proves he is important. It's almost indistinguishable from troll behaviour, but altogether more strange mainly because it's his own doorstep he craps on, his own pool his pisses in (proudly and publicly, before complaining about the turd that's floating in the deep end)." (sic)

"Ian Smith - On Guy Chapman - 19 October 2009 "

From another Usenet thread in November 2008:

"Absolutely typical. Someone posts an entirely valid criticism of Chapman, yet because the regulars love him for the motorist-hating cunt that he is, they all jump to his defence. It's like a cult or something. Scary."
"I honestly think that someone could post irrefutable evidence that Crapman was a paedophile/murderer/other serious criminal, and the regulars would simply repeat their routine of "Go away, we don't care, he's our anti-motorist idol and he can do no wrong"."
"There's loyalty, and there's deeply disturbing, sickening sycophancy. Regulars: if Crapman told you to jump under a bus, would you? The answer is probably "yes" (especially since buses are "safe", not being cars, and that means that a bus couldn't possibly injure anyone, or if it did then it would be the fault of a nearby car driver)."

Plus the summary of his Wiki career (this is only partial)

"Lunacy" is the only way to concisely describe Guy's Wikipedia "work". He started editing under his old username "Just_zis_Guy,_you_know" in August 2004, and edited very little other than bicycle-related articles. His RFA was in January 2006, and was rubberstamped by his friends in the "cabal". Many of the "Oppose" and "Neutral" voters were pressured to change their votes; a typical pattern with "true Wikipedia insiders". Bizarre and ironic statements like this were posted:

"Very Strong Support Just zis Guy, you know? is one of the best contributor, a very calm, friendly person. I believe he will be a very good admin. I trust him and we need him. Many times he helped me by being such a nice person. I'm happy that I can vote for him wholeheartly. Bonaparte talk 07:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)" (sic)

Despite being intensely disliked by hundreds of insider Wikipedians, and having been involved in uncounted numbers of editwars, Chapman manages to stay around year after year. Innumerable complaints about him can be found in AN/I and other noticeboards -- too many to list. The Wikipedia Review subforum about Guy is the longest of all "Notable Users" fora.

Per: "JzG has a history of disappearing as soon as strong criticism comes his way. ViridaeTalk 22:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC) "

Desysopped at his own request September 2007, resysopped one month later.

Desysopped on Meta Nov 2009, resysopped March 2010.

RFC 1, June 2006, censored.

RFC 2, March 2008.

RFC 3, April 2009.

Tried to mass-delete userpages in the past, last pulled this on Abd (no success).

Has outed WP users.

Won the WR DICK of Distinction award in 2008 [10].

Sometimes blocks users for no apparent reason [11].

Guy has become a close friend and reliable supporter of Wikipedia skeptics, which includes some of Wikipedia's worst insiders. See David Gorski, Smallbones, Georgewilliamherbert, David Gerard, Tony Sidaway, BADSITES, Gary Weiss for examples.

JzG has a history of disappearing as soon as strong criticism comes his way.

Yup.

He has made precisely one post to that AE report, early on.

The criticism is continuing to flow in, and its sharp and on point, but the coward is nowhere to be seen. Only his sycophants, with such well argued points that only go to show Wikipedia really needs to implement some sort of minimal IQ test......

some of his justifications make sense—for instance, the comparison of the modern Republican Party to a cult, where absolute fealty to an infallible Leader supersedes any coherent public policy or core principles to the extent that the party didn't even bother to draft a platform in 2020, is a prominent, reliably-sourced viewpoint. 

The irony of these Wikishits harping on about misinformation efforts and right wing talking points and efforts to rewrite history, while apparently not even remembering what the ACTUAL leader of the Republican Party was saying on Jan 6th, is ironic in the supreme.

Chapman stands silent, but is probably looking, stroking his cock, pleased as punch to see the effect his inflammatory assholery has on the "community", forcing other people to actually have to pretend that giving a platform to his sort of outright trolling is really what people thought Wikipedia talk pages would be all about.

There are plenty of online forums where people can go, if they seriously believe that millions of Americans have indeed joined a Nazi death cult, or at least willingly voted for it, and would do so again, and that is really the only thing to be said when posed with questions like, why was our last peaceful transition of power, not so peaceful? And what can a neutral encyclopedia do to explain these events for future generations?

Wikipedia is not that place.

Wikipedia is a place where a statement like "The Republican Party has become a cult" is only ever going to be presented as an opinion, to be weighted accordingly. No amount of weight, can make it a Wikipedia fact, or make contrary opinions untrue. The only thing that can make it a Wikipedia fact, is if Chapman's trollery forces everyone who doesn't agree with his nonsense, off of Wikipedia. Hence why he does it.

The culture of Wikipedia is fundamentally broken. It's bullies like Chapman who drive away people that actually want to build a encyclopedia. It gets so tedious dealing with loudmouths like him because you have to struggle over every word.

sammywalker wrote: ↑

Sat May 22, 2021 4:39 pm

The culture of Wikipedia is fundamentally broken. It's bullies like Chapman who drive away people that actually want to build a encyclopedia. It gets so tedious dealing with loudmouths like him because you have to struggle over every word.

Heh.

Just for the record in response to pseudo-Jake above (hi, pseudo-Jake), JzG is not currently an admin (he returned his "tool" on 6 Jan or thereabouts as I recall). I know this because one of his last actions was to strip my talk page access via a clever entrapment move which he deleted from the visible record seconds before applying the gag.

One month after returning from an indeff, Major Pants has not been asked to keep a low profile, I see. As I recall, I was permanently banned from AE for showing how Cirt (Sagecandor, at the time) was misrepresenting people. I guess Mr. Pants is cut from a different cloth than the rest of us. Fast fashion fabrics ...

Just a reminder.....the WR Guy Chapman section goes back to October 2006. He's quit so many times by now (and returned, because the fuckheads LIKE HIM), I've given up keeping track. Possibly 20 times he has pulled this--maybe more.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44

sashi wrote: ↑

Sat May 22, 2021 6:08 pm

Just for the record in response to pseudo-Jake above (hi, pseudo-Jake), JzG is not currently an admin (he returned his "tool" on 6 Jan or thereabouts as I recall). I

Come now, my dear Sashi, you know as well as I, that an Admin who has merely voluntarily given up his Admin powers, is still an Admin. Both in terms of cultural standing, and indeed his power to actually use his tools, which he can have restored almost instantly.

One of the many reasons Jake sold out and just stopped being a Wilipedia critic of course, someon who takes the time to document the daily abuses of a bastard like Chapman, is because, just like Chapman, he considers the use of Wikipedia as a battle front against the Trumpettes, as A-OK.

What a scumbag he is. Better wash your hands after dealing with him.

Tedious......

It would be wise for JzG (and all editors commenting on controversial topics) to focus on what reliable sources say and how best to improve the article instead of spouting opinions like a political pundit. As JzG is well aware, there are plenty of opportunities for all of us to opine on social media, but here on Wikipedia, we should strive to conduct ourselves as encyclopedia editors and not as activists. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Look how scared they are.

That's a lot of words, and a lot of deflection, away from the apparent central finding. Chapman has done wrong. And he has done it knowingly.

Add that finding to his previous record, and questions have to be asked. How the fuck is he still an Administrator? As in, he is not currently an Administrator only by personal choice.

Cutting to the chase, even with a seemingly slightly condemnatory outcome here, the actual outcome is familiar. Nothing is going to be done. Not even a formal warning. And even that post will be watered down in any formal closure, assuming anyone is going to be brave enough to even write one.

How ironic, given the cautious manner of this quasi formal finding, that Cullen himself is someone who quite happily insults Jimmy Wales, fearing absolutely no consequences, least of all a question of the form, is that how a Wikipedia Administrator is meant to behave?

Which rather shows where the power lies on Wikipedia right now.

Jimmy is fair game. Chapman is to be handled with kid gloves.

Why? Because Jimmy isn't the sort of person to react to criticism by calling someone a racist Nazi apologist in a high profile venue. Not even when they obviously are.
Jimmy takes the high road. He has always said this is to be the defining value of a Wikipedia Administrator. This is why he lost the civil war between him and Bishonen back in the day, that psycho bitch and her sycophants having rather different ideas about what class looks like.

When Jimmy Wales makes you look like you're the one that lacks class and intellect, you surely know you're not fit to be a Wikipedia Administrator. How ironic that this applies to both Chapman and Cullen, people who, to the ignorant volunteer masses and their Bishonen warlord, are seen in high regard.

Drain the swap, Jimmy, drain the swamp.