View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Mar 21, 2019 5:54 pm




Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Guy Chapman (JzG) 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2036
Reply with quote
Taking six minutes out of your life to press a mouse button 64 times simply to erase the talk page of the Daily Mail columnist you claim not to have even known was who he so obviously was when you indefinitely blocked him as a first offence, that has to the the perfect time to start Guy's thread here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

What a slimy piece of shit he really is. The very pinnacle of the evolution of the Wikipedian, so unafraid of anyone being able to stop him being all he can be, he happily lets people know who he is in real life.


Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:18 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2036
Reply with quote
Quote:
If you're looking for religions that sexually abuse children, Islam is nowhere near the top of the list......Guy (Help!) 08:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
A window into the mind of Mr Chapman.

Said on Jimmy Wales' talk page too, no less.

I do hope Peter Hitchens isn't reading......


Sat Aug 25, 2018 12:35 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2036
Reply with quote
There's more!
Quote:
Turning up with an American flag to a fascist rally does sort of suggest you might be down with the whole fascist thing, after all.
Is this, like, official Wikipedia policy?


Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:01 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2036
Reply with quote
Cross posting.....

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 6437#p6437

Basically, Guy believes supporting Trump means you are too stupid/evil to edit Wikipedia, but opposing gay marriage is just a mere difference of political opinion.

It rare to find a Wikipedia Administrator who is such a fuckwit he is bound to enrage people on the left and right, but here he is, and he has survived on Wikipedia for fourteen years, without anyone ever pointing to him and saying, 'hey, who let this fucker in?'.

He claims his politics are "centre-left by current UK standards" and that he has does have "conservative friends". So he is basically Tony Blair. And you have to admit, it fits. Guy is absolutely that sort of cunt.

Not that Blair ever tried to ban the Mail, knowing as he did how many of its readers voted for him (a historical fact Guy is no doubt most displeased is a historical fact).


Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:24 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2036
Reply with quote
People have been looking at Guy Chapman's contentious essay about who is worthy of editing Wikipedia in entirely the wrong way (namely asking their fellow Wikipedians, "is this contentious" and expecting them not to lie).

The best way to look at Guy's essay, is to point out how it shows Guy himself simply isn't committed enough to objective fact, to be a fit and proper Wikipedian. And therefore, if this is the standard they are aspiring to, they are going to fall well short of building a compendium of objective fact.
Quote:
If you believe the government should do nothing to mitigate climate change, I will respectfully disagree.
If all you can do here is respectfully disagree, then you are clearly not taking the threat of climate change seriously. It is universally acknowledged among scientists that government action (with the caveat that it has to be sound and effective action) is an absolute necessity, and it needs to have happened yesterday. No time there for respectful disagreement.......
Quote:
If you believe that policies that make rich people richer will improve the lot of everyone through Trickle-down economics, I will respectfully disagree.
There is more than enough simple economic data out there now to prove this theory is bunk, and yet you are still only prepared to respectfully disagree?
Quote:
If you believe that abortion should be illegal, I will respectfully disagree.
The mere fact you didn't put any qualifiers to this statement at all, suggests that what you think is merely going to be a case of respectful disagreement, would be seen by the vast majority as wholly offensive.
Quote:
If you believe that socialised healthcare is evil I will respectfully disagree
Really? Someone says something as daft as that (seriously, who uses "evil" to describe any kind of healthcare system?), and you're still only prepared to respectfully disagree?
Quote:
If you believe that the people should have the right to own automatic weapons, I will respectfully disagree
Wow. So even when there's not a shred of evidence that this would be a good idea, and a shit ton of evidence that it is bad, you still can't condemn it as outright lunacy?
Quote:
If you believe that faith has a role in guiding government, I will respectfully disagree
As any self-respecting atheist would tell you, there is no room for disagreement here at all. It has no role, period. End of debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise is perhaps not an atheist, but agnostic.
Quote:
If you believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, I will respectfully disagree
The Supreme Court thinks it is a settled matter of civil rights, so how can you even begin to entertain it as merely an area where one can respectfully disagree? What other hard won civil rights are you not so sure about?
Quote:
If you believe that a person should not choose to change the presenting gender of their body, I will respectfully disagree
Since the medical need for people to be able to make this choice is well established, it seems odd you still seem to think it is up for debate.
Quote:
If you believe that God created the universe I will respectfully disagree
Again, this is not exactly what any self-respecting atheist would say about the nature of this so called debate. There is no debate.
Quote:
If you believe that God guided the speciation of the planet, I will respectfully disagree
Now you're just trying to sound like an idiot......
Quote:
If you believe that private prisons are a good idea, I will respectfully disagree
Interesting that you see potential for compromise on such a fundamental issue as what should motivate governments when denying people their basic human rights.
Quote:
If you believe that capital punishment is acceptable, I will respectfully disagree
Capital punishment is and always will be an avoidable source of miscarriages of justice of the worst possible kind. And yet they you still think even that is an issue up for debate?

Overall, this paints a picture of a Wikipedia that will be tied up in useless 'good faith' debates about shit that every normal decent human being, certainly all subject experts, would think are settled issues of either fact or basic human morality. For rational people, these are the crazies who should not be let within a million miles of Wikipedia. Neither should Guy, for thinking they should.

Guy's essay merely reveals him as someone who either lacks the courage of his convictions, or doesn't have the right convictions. I am unsure which, as I can see him being too scared to reveal his true beliefs, but I can also see him being stupid enough to hold these views too.

Wikipedia has but two choices - go fully down the road Guy has hinted at and declare all non-thinkers as excimunnicado, but just do it properly, not in the half-measured way Guy has, or it can be respectful of everybody's right to edit, even those who think the things Guy thinks makes them incompetent.


Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:09 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2036
Reply with quote
Another brilliant example of Guy not having the courage of his convictions......
Quote:
Trump appears to believe that his ignorance is better than other people's knowledge.

21:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Appears to? He does. That is an example of these indisputable facts you keep obsessing about, you dumb fuck. It still doesn't explain how someone who supports him isn't competent to edit Wikipedia.

The bloke is just a real sad case....
Quote:
Can you imagine Barack Obama lying about the crowds at his inauguration?
On what planet is this the test of who was the better President? Pick real examples of what Obama did that was evil, and ask yourself what Trump would have done (regardless of why). You might surprise yourself. Or more likely, continue to delude yourself.


Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:48 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1284
Reply with quote
Crossposted from the political-bias thread for good measure:
Quote:

Classic Guy Chapman bullshit. You can spot the "real insiders" just by the keep/delete votes--the suck-ups will fight to keep this crap.

Guy thinks "his reality" is the only one and he has contempt for all other "realities". Pity he's such a shrieking numbnut with a limited intellect. If he's so damn smart, why is he working for Dell Computers UK as an office drone, and serving as an unpaid volunteer admin (and posting ranting screeds) on Wikipedia? And THIS part, damn....
Quote:
f you believe the government should do nothing to mitigate climate change, I will respectfully disagree
If you believe that climate change is a hoax, you are objectively wrong and not competent to edit climate change articles
If you believe that policies that make rich people richer will improve the lot of everyone through Trickle-down economics, I will respectfully disagree
If you believe that unfettered free markets are the only way to run a country, you are objectively wrong
If you believe that abortion should be illegal, I will respectfully disagree
If you believe in abstinence-only sex education, you are objectively wrong and probably not competent to edit in that area
If you believe that socialised healthcare is evil I will respectfully disagree

Guy does not "respectfully disagree" with anyone. If a conservative tries to edit Wikipedia content, Guy non-respectfully blocks and humiliates them. If they say it in public, he goes on his pathetic blog and embarrasses himself. (Or he DID, until he pulled it down in 2017.) Fucking liar.

Even though I tend to agree with him on his political and other positions, Mr. Chapman is a loose ranting screw and should not have control over anything. Dammit.


Also posted elsewhere; his long and ugly history of fighting with people on Usenet. Go to Google Groups and search on "Guy Chapman". Incredible but it happened.


Thu Oct 18, 2018 5:30 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:55 am
Posts: 22
Reply with quote
Never interacted with him, except on AN where he supported banning me. But prior to that I read a lot about him off Wiki. He's supposed to be one of the worst administrators and Wikipedians in general.


Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:27 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2036
Reply with quote
Jeez.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =873980935

"Statements of fact" they may well be. But for the purposes of examining whether this WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR is acting correctly and within policy, let's consider a few other important facts.....

1. Where are the diffs? (By default, these are personal attacks when you don't present the proof alongside the allegation)

2. What is the context? If this wasn't a discussion in a proper venue about these specific charges (and it is not), then proof or no proof, it is a violation of the rule against casting aspersions

3. Why the escalation? Even if you did have proof of these allegations, what could you have possibly thought would happen when you turned up to express your wondering that they might be doing something even worse? Without even telling people what caused you to wonder? Since that is an allegation nobody would admit to doing, the reason can only have been to taunt or provoke the accused. The fact they took the bait, seems to prove this was the motive.

4. Is this acceptable Administrator conduct?
Quote:
Please do not post on my talk page ever again. Also, do not edit comments by others as you did here. As if it were not blindingly obvious, the judgment of what's a personal attack versus what's a legitimate admin observation on user conduct is not something that can be left to the subject of the comment. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to be arbiter of whether an admin's comment on your edits is a personal attack or a valid comment on problematic editing. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Accused persons don't get to be the arbiter, but they do have the right to have charges brought against them in a proper manner at an appropriate venue. Shooing them away from your talk page when they come to object to your failure to do so as if you are somehow the victim, is of course, utterly inappropriate under all the rules that govern Administrator accountability and good judgement.

But hey, (uninvolved) Wikipedians, you just keep letting him get away with it. You be you. Policy schmolicy......


Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:11 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2036
Reply with quote
Quote:
A fascinating example of Stephen Miller's writing style. The lack of empathy in the White House is pretty chilling. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Chapman thinks he has empathy? Wowsers. At least now they can't claim to be unaware of the impact of their Wikipedia activities.


Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:31 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 12 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.