Wikipedia martyr Guy Chapman continues to be an inflammtory wanker, Wikipedia's excuses remain the same....

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Wikipedia martyr Guy Chapman continues to be an inflammtory wanker, Wikipedia's excuses remain the same....

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Sun May 23, 2021 1:02 pm

Wikipediocracy is of course home to wankers like Wikipedia Administrator Ritchie333, who often jokingly deploy terms like "ANI flu" to describe the tendency of Wikipedianas who find themselves in hot water, choosing to suddenly and quite uncharacteristically, find other things to do with their spare time.

No such mockery directed at Chapman, despite it being blindingly obvious he has contracted a bad case of AE flu here.

That may be literally the only reason he temporarily resigned his Admin permissions. It makes it far harder to accuse him of dodging his responsibility to be available for questioning in situations like this, which, be in no doubt, is a quasi-official disciplinary hearing, conducted for and on behalf of ARBCOM.

Which rather ignores the problem that even without the technical rank of Admin, he is still socially seen an an Admin.

How very Wikipedia, that only a formal finding that Chapman is no longer fit to be an Administrator, and therefore any request for his tools back should be considered "under a cloud", will persuade people that his comments as a non-Admin Admin, should not be read as carrying the gravitas of an Admin.

Chapman is deliberaltey hiding. Chapman knows that as long as there is no formal warning here, his ability to request his tools back, is likely unimpeded.

It is in that light, that the true cowardice of Cullen's finding, is to be seen.

Cullen has the power to directly influence the chances of Chapman getting his Admin rights back, should he request them. And he has chosen not to exercise that power. Not even against a person who has shown, as a matter of routine, a willingness to ignore any lesser act of disciplinary correction, such as yet more mildly condemnatory words from his peers.

Cullen imagines he is Chapman's peer. He is not. Chiefly because he lacks the balls.

It's Wikipedia governance, post Rule By Jimmy.

It is and will remain the case that those most adept at using aggression when needed, and hiding when needed, will succeed in the long run. And this is not necessarily male trait thing either, if we are believing that Bishonen is a woman.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Wikipedia martyr Guy Chapman continues to be an inflammtory wanker, Wikipedia's excuses remain the same....

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon May 24, 2021 8:07 pm

Sheer, total, cowardice.
.....while some of JzG's commentary could certainly be toned down and better focused on how to best write articles rather than impugning the motives of other editors, I think he's neither the only nor the worst offender on those things in the topic area....Calling other editors names because they disagree is not acceptable behavior, and failing anything else, at some point action will need to be taken on that......As to this request, I would say to treat it as a warning, not just to JzG but to everyone involved in the area, that the name calling, bickering, and tangents into subjects unrelated to improving articles must stop, or it will need to be stopped. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
It's absolutely killing them, trying to avoid the elephant in the room.

On any measure you care to use, Chapman is the single most senior, respected and influential Wikishit currently gobbing off in a highly unproductive manner on these talk pages, for the sole purpose that it suits his ends, which, given his giant ego, are of course believed by him to be in perfect alignment with Wikipedia's goals.

It's a very simple disciplinary concept. Identify the biggest, meanest, loudest, stinkiest bully in the place, and just punch him in the face, and see if the behaviour of the crowd changes for the better.

Usually works.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikipedia martyr Guy Chapman continues to be an inflammtory wanker, Wikipedia's excuses remain the same....

Post by ericbarbour » Tue May 25, 2021 1:44 am

.....while some of JzG's commentary could certainly be toned down and better focused on how to best write articles rather than impugning the motives of other editors, I think he's neither the only nor the worst offender on those things in the topic area....Calling other editors names because they disagree is not acceptable behavior, and failing anything else, at some point action will need to be taken on that......As to this request, I would say to treat it as a warning, not just to JzG but to everyone involved in the area, that the name calling, bickering, and tangents into subjects unrelated to improving articles must stop, or it will need to be stopped. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
This is Seraphimblade.
https://www.guru.com/freelancers/todd-m-allen
https://barghesthowl.tripod.com/

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Wikipedia martyr Guy Chapman continues to be an inflammtory wanker, Wikipedia's excuses remain the same....

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Fri May 28, 2021 7:35 pm

Pathetic.
@JzG: Please use article talk pages to discuss improvements to the articles, and not as a WP:FORUM for general discussion or off-topic inflamatory remarks. (Noting JzG was not the only editor engaging in forum-y behavior) ~Awilley (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Will undoubtedly be completely and totally ignored.

And why even make such a note?

Either a Wikipedia Administrator is meant to lead by example, or they can get away with being just as bad as the rest of the scum.

It says everything about Wikipedia that there is the official response to the complaint, and then there's lots more hidden away in a friendly aww gee shucks I wish I didn't have to do this to you type note to Chapman himself, as if the contents of one wasn't related to the other......
Hey, I just closed this. When you get back I hope you'll take a few minutes to read over some of the feedback there. Not all of it was helpful obviously, but the common thread I noticed is that nearly everybody, including the people defending you, wants you to modify your approach. Because multiple people there had noted that others on the article's talk page were behaving poorly, I took some time the other day to look at it and collapse some of the worst of it. I found that it was most often your own comments that typically sent the discussion spinning off the rails. (Inedible Hulk was second worst, joining in each time.) I don't need to preach to you about what article talk pages are for. You know. But please consider whether you have a "blind spot" when it comes to this subject. ~Awilley (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
So now we can see the narrative that everyone was at it, wasn't quite right, and this idea the report being filed against Chapman himself was not warranted, also isn't quite right. But that's not for the official record, apparently, which merely notes others were doing it too. Equal blame all round, is the not so accidental implication of the official, as is the lack of any mention that Chapman is a de facto Admin.

At least the prick hasn't edited for over a week. A nice rest for all those who have had to put up with his off topic inflammatory remarks.

He will of course be sitting at home, considering his blind spots. Not. This is the literal Guy who write the essay, if you voted for Trump, you're not competent to edit Wikipedia. His blindspot is anything he has strong views on, which of course encompasses much more than just Trump.

I wonder what NewYorkBrad makes of all this. Probably doesn't care. Probably doesn't give the tiniest little shit that he previously dismissed an Arbitration Case against Chapman because, in his words......
In voting to decline a previous case request against JzG in June, I urged him to remain civil even in difficult situations. It is good that in both of the recent disputed discussions, he appears to have done so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
And so it seems proven, JzG is incapable of remaining civil, which of course, is all about maintaining a calm environment, a cooperative environment, a respectful environment. In other words, don't be a fire starting prick.

Maybe Midsize Jake, forum Administrator of Wikipediocracy, where NewYorkBrad is given full freedom to post his random thoughts, will seek some sort of clarification?

No?

No Jake?

Didn't think so. You sell out motherfucker.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikipedia martyr Guy Chapman continues to be an inflammtory wanker, Wikipedia's excuses remain the same....

Post by ericbarbour » Fri May 28, 2021 9:58 pm

:shrug: :flamingbanana: :D

We know DAMN well Jake is reading this forum. Now if he'd just man up and explain himself......

User avatar
Cla68
Sucks
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:18 pm
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Wikipedia martyr Guy Chapman continues to be an inflammtory wanker, Wikipedia's excuses remain the same....

Post by Cla68 » Sat May 29, 2021 3:07 am

I don't know how to find anything on Wikipedia anymore so I can't find the Request for Comment I helped author on him back around 2008-9. He got torn apart in that RfC and it calmed him down for awhile, perhaps a year or so. Of course, he ended up reverting to his previous behavior again, because he can't help himself.

When Jordan Peterson says, "Fix yourself first before trying to fix the world," people like JzG is exactly who he's talking about. Some kind of trauma, insecurity, mommy or daddy issues, or feelings of failure have turned him into an obsessed online activist. The fact that he is a lefty who apparently is also homophobic and addicted to porn (he used to edit Wikipedia porn articles under a sock account) is evidence of some kind of mental health problems. Political activism, especially of the authoritarian, my-way-or-the-highway type seems to attract miserable people with deep-seated psychological issues.

It's unfortunate for JzG the the Internet came around. Without it, he would probably be out riding his bicycle 3-4 days a week (in spite of the dreadful weather in the UK) instead of trying to establish an Orwellian, leftist, totalitarian government on the world by way of the web. Physical fitness generally helps to keep people more mentally balanced (an exception would be ultra-marathoner James Heilman/Doc James, but that's a separate subject).

Believe me, in spite of being able to to flout Wikipedia's rules with near-impunity, the Guy is miserable. Whatever issues he's trying to assuage with online activism and venting obviously remain unresolved and are incessantly tormenting him. He's like the Nazi Brown Shirts who had a good time terrorizing the Jews on Kristallnacht, only to find a week later that they still weren't happy and content.

My father, who was a clinical psychologist, told me that people who are obsessively authoritarian on everything often have incurable psychological trauma and/or issues. In real life, we have mechanisms for compartmentalizing people like that so they don't annoy us too much. It wouldn't necessarily help JzG to be banned from Wikipedia, because he would just find another forum to bloviate on, but maybe it might help him a little. Otherwise, I could care less. He's one of the reasons why Wikipedia has a credibility problem.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Wikipedia martyr Guy Chapman continues to be an inflammtory wanker, Wikipedia's excuses remain the same....

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Sat May 29, 2021 9:31 pm

Definitely some kind of deep seated issue, that's for damn sure. My money is on an unfulfilled career goal. At least Doc James is an actual Doctor, but we can see from his Wikipedia addiction, that for some people, sometimes being a mediocre cog in a field you clearly think you excel at, is just not enough.

James can't be Chief Medical Officer of the World, but he can be for Wikipedia, which in his view, is kinda the same thing. Chapman can't be World President, but he can be, well, maybe the Wikipedia Secretary of State. Because let's have it right, he wouldn't win a fight with Queen Bishonen. He is Wikipedia Cabinet level at best. Which probably only makes him even more unhappy and prone to starting fires on Wikipedia.

What makes me laugh is, what does he think he is achieving? If the sort of mid level crap he gets involved in influenced enough of the people enough of the time, the Daily Mail would have gone out of business, to take one very good example. But it's in rude health, and has only gone from strength to strength.

I've never been more convinced that this is because people can see what the ring leaders do, what they stand for, which must then just piss Chapman off even more.

He still hasn't edited. Perhaps he really has reached the end of his rope, to use one of Wikipedia's many sick metaphors. If so, good.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikipedia martyr Guy Chapman continues to be an inflammtory wanker, Wikipedia's excuses remain the same....

Post by ericbarbour » Sat May 29, 2021 9:43 pm

Cla68 wrote:
Sat May 29, 2021 3:07 am
I don't know how to find anything on Wikipedia anymore so I can't find the Request for Comment I helped author on him back around 2008-9. He got torn apart in that RfC and it calmed him down for awhile, perhaps a year or so. Of course, he ended up reverting to his previous behavior again, because he can't help himself.
Dude: you can't find Guy's first RFC from 2006, for good reason: BECAUSE IT WAS BLANKED OUT COMPLETELY. Still not sure what it was about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omment/JzG

Remember kids; Wikipedia is "NOTCENSORED".....their greatest lie.

I think you're talking about the second one from 2008? Despite a LOT of people commenting on Guy's crazy behaviour, Arbcom chose to do nothing. A year later Abd took him to Arbcom AGAIN--which also led to nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... mment/JzG2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... G#Remedies

Post Reply