Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.


In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Description[edit]

JzG is a dedicated administrator and editor who often does some very good work in helping to improve and administer Wikipedia. Unfortunately, however, he also consistently behaves in a manner — both as an editor and as an admin — which clearly and repeatedly violates several policies and guidelines, and is inappropriate and counterproductive for constructing an open content encyclopedia. Below are some examples of JzG's problematic behavior.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Incivility, personal attacks, and general rudeness[edit]

  1. Use of aggressive language to make a point ([1] and subsequent admin noticeboard complaint [2]), described as "uncivil", "pointy", and "unjustified" by Arbitrators ([3], [4], [5]), which sparked off a premature Arbitration committee (ArbCom) request [6]
  2. Uses obscene language in response to questions from another admin (Viridae) in edit summaries [7], [8]
  3. 24 hour block for incivility (per the above "fuck off" comments to Viridae) ([9])
  4. Another use of obscene language in edit comments when dismissively removing others' comments from his user talk page.[10]
  5. Still more severe incivility and personal attacks [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]
  6. When evidence of JzG's chronic incivility and personal attacks was presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, JzG responded, in part, with the following dismissive explanation:

    [17]: told Jeff to fuck right off and would cheerfully have said the same to his face. He said "No, Guy wants it escalated and wants to be a dick about it, so we'll do it. Can't fault a guy for trying." I was outraged by that remark, absolutely outraged. And that is exactly how that comment would be understood side of the pond, ask David Gerrard.[18]

  7. In edit summaries, calls editor (Cla68) "trolling" [19] and "troll" [20]
  8. Labels an admin as "WR's pet admin" to ascribe to him guilt by association. [21], [22]
  9. Removes comments querying an AFD from his talk page by three established users (AnonEMouse, Joe, and Viridae) with edit summary that says, "remove thread using Troll-B-Gon Professional 1.0" [23].
  10. Responds to comment from Rfwoolf on his talk page with "edit some articles or shut the fuck up you whining twat". [24], and calls him a "tossblanket" ([25]), and an "arsehole" ([26])
  11. Deletes Sports trainer with the deletion summary "Fuck off, Bradles01" [27]
  12. Calls a user a "cunt" - [28]
  13. Another "fuck off" ([29])
  14. Attacks editors' judgment and accuses them of being exploited by associating them with banned users ([30])
  15. Accuses editor of being a "trolling sockpuppet" ([31])
  16. Calls an editor an "idiot" in the edit summary of a lengthy talk-page rant in which he criticizes the other editor for being "impolite". [32]
  17. States on user page that editors who add fringe theories, and gives several examples, to articles are "idiots" and should be told to "Fuck off" [33].
  18. JzG to another editor on the Gary Weiss talk page: "You're sure doing a lot to give the impression that you prefer your friend Mr. Bagley to my friend Mr. Wales". [34]
  19. Deletes other editors' comments in a dismissive and uncivil manner. [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], and [41]
  20. Describes another editor as a troll [42] when asked to refactor the attacks/BLP violations made on the Matanmoreland arbitration case pages.
  21. Admonishes editor to "shut the fuck up you whiny little twat" [43]. Discussed in ANI thread here [44]
  22. Tells users "I want you to fuck off" [45]
  23. Tells user "You are not welcome here. Now fuck off" ([46] (admin only, page now deleted)), then used rollback to reinsert the abuse ([47] (admin only))
  24. Dismissive of attempts by an editor to resolve a charged situation peacefully: [48]
  25. Twice calls another editor an idiot in both the text and the edit summary "Fys is an idiot. And you can quote me on that.", " Fys, you are an idiot. And that's official.": [49], [50]
  26. A "fuck off" again: [51]
  27. Calls another editor a "worthless twat" [52]
  28. Warns editor about 3RR violation in a condescending and confrontational manner [53].
  29. Removes request from another admin to review a deletion JzG closed with the dismissive "not interested in your little digs" [54], then when the admin queries this [55], JzG misuses rollback to again remove the query [56].
  30. Posts "JzG's Terms of Service rules on his user talk page that warn, "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." (more) [57]
  31. Removes comments by Viridae from his talk page with edit summaries, "Viridae is not welcome here" [58], "Go away and stay away" [59], and "Viridae's input is *remarkably* unwelcome" [60].
  32. Insults editor and creator of an article in AfD nomination [61]
  33. Threatens editor in shouty and abusive edit summaries over "editorializing" (adding a comment in small text) [62], [63]
  34. Removes a warning with abusive edit summary [64]
  35. "Shut the fuck up" [65] on wikien-l, reprimanded [66]
  36. Sarcastic and personal language used in announcing the block of a sockpuppet account [67]
  37. Tells an editor "And another of the fringe pushers crawls out of the woodwork" and then tries to out the editor [68]. Discussed at ANI [69].
  38. Protects his talk page with the edit summary "Tedious anon twat" [70]

Personal attacks on living persons[edit]

  1. Ridicules another user's mental health and discusses confidential OTRS requests in a public forum [71]
  2. JzG calls Judd Bagley an "obsessive troll" [72], a "net.kook", "absolutely not above forgery", a "vicious, agenda-driven troll" [73], "Bagley's lunacy" [74], "his (Bagley's) vile smear campaigns" [75], "harassment meme inventor" [76], "long history of abuse by Bagley" [77], "paranoid fantasies of banned abusers" [78], "targets of his harassment" [79], "Bagley uses disinformation and harassment against anyone who does not uncritically support his company" [80], "Bagley is a vicious hatemonger" [81], "Bagley's idiocy" [82], "People like Bagley. We've heard what he has to say, we've debated it, it's baseless - a tissue of lies from beginning to end" [83], "Posting links to Bagley's blog is simply wrong. Not because of BADSITES but because it is enabling a banned troll. We should not link to the ravings of a rebuffed POV-pusher" [84], "the delusional outpourings of sociopaths" [85], and "this malicious piece of shit-stirring by Bagley" [86].
  3. Describes a living person as a "vile agenda-driven troll" in the middle of an arbitration case [87], in the full knowledge that such characterisation is wholly inappropriate (used similar language [88], redacted it after being urged to do so[89])
  4. Outed a blocked user's real life identity on a publicly available mailing list [90]
  5. Runs a personal Wiki website, advertised on his talk page, which contains, much like the sites he rails against, personal attacks ([91], [92]) and outing of Wikipedia editors ([93], [94]).

Abuse of admin privileges[edit]

General abuse[edit]
  1. Threatens editor (DanT) with a block [95] for questioning another block, detailed here [96].
  2. Misuse of rollback to remove a complaint made by an editor (TlatoSMD - blocked now but in good standing at the time) against himself ([97])
  3. Self-blocks his own account during a "wikibreak" despite policy not permitting this. [98]
  4. Makes two significant edits to a fully-protected article [99] and [100]
  5. Another significant edit to a fully protected article [101] and then extends full protection for a month [102]
  6. Is blocked for wheel warring with another admin in spite of warnings to stop [103]
  7. Deleted Talk:Short and distort (a redirect) [104] as a G5 when it was mentioned as evidence in the Matanmoreland/Sami Harris sockpuppetry investigation despite G5 not applying when there is significant contribution from other users.
  8. Admin deleted an article then said the recreation was written by him, although the two were almost identical [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110]. Adamantly asserted that the recreated version was written ab initio [111], but then back-pedalled on that assertion when faced with abundant evidence that it was an act of plagiarism. Note - this became a controversy due to JzG taking a deletion action 15 months after the article had been peaceably resolved.
  9. Reverted non-vandalism edits to an article then immediately fully protected it [112]
  10. Speedy deleted 3 articles as "vanity" (not a criteria for speedy deletion) simultaneously outing the contributor's identity in 2 of the 3 deletion logs ([113], [114], [115])
  11. Speedy deleted article for "having the wrong tone" ([116])
  12. Indefinitely blocks Zibiki Wym with the edit summary "Claims to be a banned user. Banned means banned" [117]. The user was not banned at that time. His previous account, MyWikiBiz, had been unblocked by Jimbo six days earlier [118].
  13. Blocked Privatemusings [119] while engaged in dispute with same editor and may have breached confidence by forwarding personal information about Privatemusings [120]. Discussed more here [121].
  14. Wheel-warring over the blocking of Fairchoice [122]
  15. Misuse of rollback tool to remove comments he didn't agree with [123], [124] & [125] (admin only),
  16. Edits a protected policy page to remove content he doesn't agree with in a dispute over the policy content in which he is involved [126]
  17. Speedy deleted Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg, and after it was undeleted by DRV consensus, speedy deleted it again.[127] The image was again undeleted through DRV and later moved to Commons.
Biting newbies[edit]
  1. Makes indiscriminate blocks without warning of people editing a controversial article on Oxford Round Table and its AFD discussion, mislabelling at least two good faith users as "disruptive single purpose accounts" after failing to check editing history. Several of these blocks were soon reversed as unwarranted. See AN/I discussion, where JzG admits to an "itchy trigger finger", and User talk:JzG Please review the following block. When certain of these accounts were unblocked by admin Viridae, after being exonerated by checkuser and community consensus, JzG complained to ANI accusing Viridae of "having an agenda against me" ([128]).
  2. Blocked a new user, Timjowers, indefinitely for adding links to articles, with no warnings or attempt to explain policy [129]. Castigated by numerous users ([130], [131]), yet still refused to undo his actions or apologise. Eventually unblocked over a day later with discourteous block log summary [132].
  3. Posted abusive message to a new user's talk page ([133]) after blocking the user ([134]) and deleting their dictionary definition article [135] - not a valid CSD, see [136] [admin only]), then threatened the user with further blocks if the article was reposted [137]. User never edited again.

Disruption[edit]

  1. Redirects "Turd burglar" to Gay [138] and protected the redirect ([139] - admin only). Redirect deleted by another admin as "inappropriately mocking and derisive" [140]
  2. Treats Wikipedia like a battleground [141] and tries to bait the user whose attribution rights JzG violated into taking legal action [142]
  3. Vandalises another users userpage multiple times, adding the word "infantile" to their list of interests (page temp restored to userspace): [143], [144]
  4. Removes links to Wikipedia Review even though most are linked in the appropriate context (raised on JzG's talk:[145]), diffs [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162]


Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

  1. WP:POINT
  2. WP:BITE
  3. WP:EQ
  4. WP:CIVIL
  5. WP:NPA
  6. WP:BLP
  7. WP:ADMIN (specifically, administrator conduct)
  8. WP:OUTING

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

These diffs represent just some of the attempts people have made to influence JzG's behaviour.

  1. Attempt by Cla68 to influence JzG's behavior [163]
  2. Attempts by Neil to influence JzG's behavior [164] [165] [166] [167]
  3. Attempts by GTBacchus to influence JzG's behavior [168] [169] [170] [171]
  4. Attempts by Privatemusings to influence JzG's behavior [172] [173] [174]
  5. Attempts by Messedrocker to influence JzG's behavior [175] [176] [177]
  6. Attempt by Rlevse to influence JzG's behavior [178]

Refusal to participate in dispute resolution[edit]

  1. Well-intentioned attempt by Cla68 to resolve the dispute and involve JzG in this RFC prior to activation was rudely dismissed [179]
  2. Notification of the RfC starting also rudely dismissed: [180]

Summary[edit]

As the evidence listed above illustrates, JzG has behaved in an unacceptable manner for a considerable time, and continues to do so. Above, also, is a list of editors who have attempted to point out to JzG that his behavior is problematic and needs to stop, unfortunately to no avail. The purpose of this RfC, therefore, is to seek wider community input into addressing JzG's behavior with the goal being that he will stop behaving inappropriately and violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Cla68 (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neıl ☎ 11:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. Before someone inevitably points out that JzG does a lot of work for the encyclopaedia etc is this arbcom ruling: [181]
    Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. ViridaeTalk 11:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Woody (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. John254 16:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SashaNein (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. GRBerry 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC) "the goal being that he will stop behaving inappropriately and violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." - yep, that is the goal. How to get there? Dunno.[reply]
  8. Achromatic (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Except saying he wheel warred over the blocking of Fairchoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is nonsense - the admin he was "wheel warring" with was the sock master of Fairchoice. --B (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Majorly (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --EJF (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per Viridae & B. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. JzG seems to have developed quite a siege mentality. It's harmful for the encyclopedia, and I doubt it's good for him, either. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Everyking (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Wizardman 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I was planning this RfC myself, but got beaten to it. I have never seen a more abusive admin, or heard of one. (Removed for privacy) was a comparative angel. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. A frightening first contact for a new editor. Anthon01 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Prolog (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Ombudsman (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. RogueNinjatalk 19:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Vassyana (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. WNDL42 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. ~ LegoKontribsTalkM 00:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I have even filed an RFC against him Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 Uconnstud (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Sockpuppet of blocked user.[reply]
  27. Indeed. Dreadstar † 02:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Bakaman 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I have both been victim and witness to his problematic behaviour, particularly gross incivility, personal attacks, and some abuse of admin privilages. Having acknowledged my own bias, I strongly endorse the summary. Rfwoolf (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Not only is the conduct bad for the encyclopedia it continually undermines the very causes that Guy advocates. Many of these diffs get at something worse: a complete double standard for people who agree with Guy and those who disagree with him. Unfortunately, he has virtually no ability to distinguish between trolling, a good faith question or concern, and comments that are not even critical (!). --JayHenry (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Endosring based on weak "I don't like it" non-arguments used in AfDs and DRVs such as here. Seems opposed to certain types of articles regardless of individual article merits. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. This evidence speaks for itself. This is appalling - behavior like this only provokes "trolls" to greater effort to undermine us. A dose of professionalism is greatly needed here. Kelly hi! 23:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I am calling on JzG to hand in the adminship privileges. An admin should behave, not only when using the priviliges, but always. The mere intimidation of being confronted with an admin should not be combined with such behaviour patterns. I hope some friend of his can convince him to do so, I will not leave this message on his talk page, because I think he might not like me to.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Endorse for purpose of community solution to the stated behavior that builds on JzG's own somewhat contrite self-moderation and recognizes his narration of other stressful life events. What comes to mind is a recall vote. Accepting stated view of the 180 links unread, on the suspicion that about 150 of them will prove sustainable. Was compelled to comment as one who has evidence to present, though this is probably the only time I seriously disagreed with JzG. [182] John J. Bulten (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. I do not want to see JzG banned from Wikipedia -- he has usually been a good contributor, and his heart is usually in the right place. However his abuse of admin powers has been egregious. I personally have been on the receiving end of too many of his faults, and have vowed not to engage with Wikipedia again in a serious fashion until he no longer has the power to enforce his arbitrary and capricious threats. I've seen dozens of other good editors driven off Wikipedia in a similar fashion. His admin powers need to be revoked.Skybum (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Hooper (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Sadly today may have been another example of abusing said admin powers. Editing an article that was protected, not because of BLP, not because of copyright, but because his personal opinion says it should be removed. Claiming there is no consensus for its addition months ago.[183] --I Write Stuff (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Admin has abused his tools by editing through protection to blank sections of an article in an almost vandal like fashion. He removes political material simply because he doesn't agree with it---no matter what the sources/experts say on it. This is rather disgusting in my view as its enforced ignorance at its worse. To be ignorant is one thing but to impose it on others (or WP) is quite another. Worse still, he uses his admin powers to do so against core WP policies! As an involved editor he should not be acting this way. As an admin he should not be acting this way. Lastly, he misrepresents the talk page discussion, where consensus was clear regarding the material--for many months. Now there is some objection s and some changes are in the work, but at no time was there any agreement to blank the section, which he has done. He cites an essay WP:ONUS as if its a policy or guideline, or as if its relevant here, when its neither of these things. This is POV violations using admin tools in an abusive manner at its worse. Giovanni33 (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Dragon695 (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. This example strikes me as both unacceptable and unexceptional; first winding up the editor with a 'Fuck Off' on his Talk page [184]; then, after the victim remonstrates about this 'unprovoked obscenity' [185]; telling him to 'Fuck Off' again [186] and block him for a month, using the opportunity to boast about it on AN/I. (Wiser heads prevail and the User is unblocked after 45 minutes.) --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. — iridescent 01:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. See my view at the bottom of the page. I have had contact with this user and have found him to be accusatory and uncivil, and I personally believe that this user is using his position as an admin to further his own personal agendas.--Urban Rose 03:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Wow. That is pretty damning evidence for sure. I've never seen so much incivility from a user before, much less an admin. He's done a lot of good, but he's done a lot of bad too.Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I know this is a bit out of the ordinary, as this section formally should be edited by JzG, not me (especially since I have edited in other sections). However, JzG has written a response, which is located at a subpage of his user page: User:JzG/RfC. He has asked me to link it here, as he has stated he will not be editing this page, but wanted participants to be aware of it. I am sure he would verify his request to me to make this link if it becomes necessary to do so.

With respect. ++Lar: t/c 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. JzG has made some good points in his statement. I found it humble and quite moving. --John (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am somewhat concerned with the avoidance of this RfC and the broad brush with which he paints critics. However, JzG seems to understand his limitations and buttons, and appears to be taking steps to rectify the concerns (up to and including avoiding situations that will raise his hackles). The purpose of such RfCs is to get a user to understand the community's concerns and respond appropriately. Regardless of whether he participates here, he has acknowledged the concerns, explained his point of view and taken steps to correct the matter. Thus, to me, this RfC has served its purpose and JzG has acted appropriately in response. Vassyana (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm satisifed with JzG's response page and suggest it's time to wrap up this RfC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While I think that Guy's refusal to (acknolwedge that he?) read the RFC is a very bad sign, any approach to improving his behavior that he is willing to actually attempt is far more likely to succeed than one that he won't attempt. Since I've never claimed to know the route from the problem to the desired solution, I have no objections to letting him this route. GRBerry 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beautifully written. And I apologize for my country killing his ancestor. No wait, I'm only a second-third generation American, so none of my ancestors were around then. Forget it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PhilKnight (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Filll (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Spartaz Humbug! 18:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The response covers most (not all, but most) of the issues raised in the RfC in a thoughtful and productive manner. That's about all one could ask for. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Antelantalk 21:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FCYTravis (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse both Lar's summary and User:JzG/RfC. — Athaenara ✉ 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 20:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Polotet 20:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. He has made some very good and accurate comments, such as: "We're really well set up for resisting most of these, but we're really badly set up for handling the long-term determination of zealots," and "We have some users whose behaviour is vexatious to the point of tearing one's hair out, but because they ever so politely fuck with your mind, they get away with it." Some of his actions were clearly against the policies and guidelines, but considering the number of his edits and this response, which shows that he does listen and learn, I endorse the summary.--Svetovid (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Makes mistakes, and sometimes doesn't admit to them, but given the amount of fuckwittery that exists on Wikipedia, is generally a net positive. Black Kite 15:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Very clearly a net positive William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. . Thanks, SqueakBox 21:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Addhoc[edit]

While I agree that JzG could be more diplomatic, the conduct of the other parties in this dispute has been questionable:

  • the phrase "remember that Wikipedia is not therapy" is goading,
  • if someone indicates that you should stop posting on a user talk page, then consider seeking dispute resolution instead of continuing to post,
  • the assertion that JzG's blog is an attack page is slightly odd considering the filers of this RfC presumably don't consider the label applies to the Wikipedia Review.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Quite. Rudget. 14:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. More than questionable.--MONGO 16:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No doubt. While baiting doesn't excuse unproductive reactions to baiting, it is crummy behavior that should stop. This view is somewhat beside the point of the RfC, but worth endorsing nonetheless. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Majorly (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Without doubt. Orderinchaos 16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse -- Shot info (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. And sometimes, someone has to show out-and-out trolls what the shillelagh is--TheNautilus (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dorftrottel (talk) 11:35, March 5, 2008
    Comment, yes it's goading, and I know what it feels like as I've had it said to me a number of times. JzG comments towards me and others was much worse than saying that "Wikipedia is not therapy". He out-and-out attacked me and others and shut me and others up by blocking via falsely claimed numerous infractions saying I committed without any proof (at least not "transparent" proof for me to defend myself. That is frustrating and infuriating. I can handle trolls and insults, but using the "power" of the elite is more disruptive to this project. Think about that! Try putting yourselves in a non-admin's shoes. You people, all admins have so much power, and so much leeway that you can get away with those without that power could even think of. That disrupts Wikipedia and ruins the AGF of other editors and pushes the good ones away, or makes them do "bad" things. And "out-and-out trolls" seems to be subjective here. Just who are the "trolls"? I was stalked, insulted, harassed, etc. but few stepped in to help (at least not any admins, and the admins that emailed me were afraid to wheel war, or put themselves out in the open for fear of the wrath of their "fellows". How in the world does that help the "project"? Huh? It is sad and unjust! JzG (and other admins) gets away with all this for the "good of the project". I don't get this. I was always for the "good of the project" and never ever wanted to disrupt it. This is proof that there is an "elite" and something should be done about this. I know what it's like to edit controversial articles, and have insults thrown at me. But, I do not, nor do I want to ever be an admin to have the tools for an upper hand. He and his kind are pushing good editors away, and then that produces anger at the injustice and double standards. It creates more problems with sockpuppets and those who cannot defend themselves because of this. It creates a very hostile environment. It's bad enough when there are POV pushers, vandals, etc, but to have admins act like spoiled children is infuriating. Especially when one can block for the very same thing and more often than not, worse, than the admin does himself! Again, what is a "troll"? This is a serious question. Thanks. --The Smoking Nun (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should add this to the RFC itself, with some diff's? Franamax (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Endorse per MONGO and GTBacchus. The "cunt" reference above in this RfC seems an example; the comment that prompted it was a particularly vile and despicable type of baiting. Avb 22:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per GTBacchus and Avb. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weakly endorse, not sure about the exact wording, agree with the general message. Franamax (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yahel Guhan 02:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. yes. exactly. --DHeyward (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yup. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Absolutely Filll (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Calton | Talk 10:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Hans Adler (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Agree with this, along the same lines as GTBacchus.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Endorse. Addhoc, Avb, and GTBacchus particularly on the mark. — Athaenara ✉ 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Clearly the case. Black Kite 15:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. . Thanks, SqueakBox 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Naerii[edit]

The behaviour of the people presenting this RfC may, in some people's eyes, appear to be questionable but I think most people would agree that their behaviour pales in comparison to the behaviour of JzG as presented in the evidence. Whilst it would be quite easy for this to degenerate into a "Ah, but you were trolling me first!" "No I wasn't!!" match, it would be better all around if we could stick to the issue at hand with a view to resolving the issue so that everyone can move on amicably rather than using this RfC to increase tension.

Simply ignoring continued egregrious behaviour on the basis that you feel a bit sorry for him because he has to put up with trolling is really not going to get Wikipedia anywhere. And really, did trolling push him into the Turd burglar incident, or into violating page protection [187] [188]? I agree that JzG has done some valuable work for Wikipedia, but that is really no excuse to allow him to be continually rude, provocative and trollish. As it is I don't think it is in Wikipedia's best interests for him to remain as an admin, unless you really do want newbies thinking that this is how Wikipedia treats newbies? I would hope not.

Well, I hope that people will put aside their personal grudges long enough to consider the evidence provided here objectively with the aim of doing the best possible thing for Wikipedia. Naerii (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. ViridaeTalk 12:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The "Turd burglar" incident alone should be enough - Wikipedia is not for the promotion of hate language. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neıl ☎ 15:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Discombobulator (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wikipedia editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own. -Amarkov moo! 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John254 16:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Unfortunately, yes. The behavior here is unacceptable and someone like this would fail RFA in a *heartbeat*. Lawrence § t/e 16:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. krimpet✽ 16:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. If this is gonna enable some sort of a "JzG is evil" witchhunt, I don't want to play. I have a lot of admiration for JzG and what he's done over the years. He's often been the one that has stepped up and done the hard block that others shirked, the stubbification of a BLP violating article that others didn't want to, the removal of Amorrow originated stalky stuff, and so forth. But the concerns raised ought to be looked at, and either validated or put to rest. JzG maybe could consider changing his approach in some areas, don't we all agree? I sincerely believe it's possible to do without reducing his effectiveness. We shouldn't give free passes to anyone. But we should also weigh the many many many good things he's done against the issues. As for WR being an "attack site", maybe so, maybe not, but see [189]. Oh as for Tony's summary, color me confused. I'm sometimes not very bright so I don't get what point is being made. That we SHOULD take this seriously? that we shouldn't? I've used that image myself to stand in for "this is serious but let's not take it too seriously", see User:Lar/Accountability ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Though you know your mind best : ) - I wonder if you would move this comment to a separate "view", since it seems to be more and less than the view above. - jc37 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Speaking as one who often admires Guy's courage and fortitude, and as a former fan of "Rude Kid" in Viz, per Lar I would not wish this to become a witch hunt against a hard-working editor whose heart is in the right place. If this can be taken as a warning that such a long record of abusive language is not satisfactory, and a reminder that admins are expected to model good behaviour, I am all for it. I really hope it can. --John (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Too often I see such framed in terms of a false choice between allowing poor article content or allowing bullying and abuse from admins and other editors. It is completely unnecessary to behave like this simply to clean up content. On the other hand, acting like this does always detract from the project, if for no other reason than the resulting RFC and RFARB soap operas are huge time sinks.[reply]
  13. --EJF (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Jmlk17 03:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Joe 06:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Not a fan of the false dichotomy between rudeness and allowing pov-pushing nutjobs. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. SashaNein (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Agreed. Guy does some absolutely amazing work here. He was particularly active on dealing with Amorrow in the past where, frankly, other admins knew what was going on but didn't have the fortitude to block him. But yes, there is a problem here. I've seen editors in good standing being blocked for saying "sod off" to others. There's a huge double standard at work here, and I believe the rules that govern our behaviour on here should apply evenly to all - Alison ❤ 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Agreed, per Alison, Professor marginalia and DuncanHill above. Rude, uncivil behavior creates a hostile environment that makes for a much poorer project - especially when Admins act badly, it reflects poorly on all of us. There's no need for it. Dreadstar † 01:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Agreed, plus per Alison, Professor marginalia . — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Dlabtot (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Achromatic (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Tired of double standards. Cool Hand Luke 04:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Majorly (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I'd have more sympathy if JzG were even-handed, but he abuses policy to engage in POV-pushing of his own. THF (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Everyking (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Wizardman 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Agree per Professor marginalia, Rocksanddirt, Alison's and Cool Hand Luke's comments on double standards, and also THF's comment about POV pushing. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Prolog (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. JzG... <personal attacks redacted> once page-blanked an article I started saying it violated NPOV and making other accusations [190]. However he could not substantiate any of it [191], nor did he try. It turns out he hardly knew anything about the subject. This did not stop him from insulting me at my talk page [192]. I say: get rid of him as an admin ASAP! --JaapBoBo (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. RogueNinjatalk 19:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. WNDL42 (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Bakaman 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Yup. KrakatoaKatie 03:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. I believe that admins should be held to a higher standard than the "common editor". Not the opposite. Regards, Huldra (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. --JayHenry (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Good point. Kelly hi! 23:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Ombudsman (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Well-balanced. John J. Bulten (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. --Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. hmwithτ 14:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 15:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Per Alison. Also, I think his defending of other abrasive editors, for doing things like him, is setting a bad example. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The[edit]


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Docg 16:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Addhoc (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 17:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Says everything that needs to be said. Now, what was that thing we were supposed to build? EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Will (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. funny, whatever it's for lol:) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yeah, that's well said. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Couldn't have said it better myself. Orderinchaos 16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "Won't somebody do something about the Encyclopedia?" -- Shot info (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Everyone go edit an article. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Even though I'm allergic to cats. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Our cat is pregnant again I'm afraid. Avb 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cats are always right (even though they make me sneeze too). So is Avb it seems, this is getting depressing. Franamax (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cats rule. Dogs not so much. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. SqueakBox like cats. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Cats rule. Dogs drool. KrakatoaKatie 03:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Why not? :) – Luna Santin (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Endorsing once again for good measure. Avb 22:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Endorse wholeheartedly. Although this is the English WP, you've got to admire the highly compact Lolcat language for what would amount to ~1000 English words in direct translation. For example, the Lolcat translation of this entire current comment would be simply "!Z KaT". John J. Bulten (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Moar drama plz. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This can be taken two ways. If it's taken as unwarranted self-importance (leading to the thinly veiled threat on JzG's talk page to ban people who cross him), then I endorse. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 01:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Henrik[edit]

Guy has been a fabulous asset to this encyclopedia, hardworking, dedicated and obviously wants the best for this project. Unfortunately, he's burned out. Guy has done more than maybe a handful of other admins in keeping real trolls, pov-pushers, anti-science and nationalistic editors at bay for many many months. After enduring and combating that for so long, it is not surprising that his good faith is badly bruised. After seeing so much very skilled disruptive behavior, it is not easy to tell friend from foe, to tell a genuine grievance from trolling. But we need our admins to be more calm, more willing to ignore insults and more skilled in defusing conflicts.

I wish we could find a way to keep our best users without burning them out, but for now I think the best we can do is to tell Guy the truth: You need a break. I urge you to ignore all the silliness on Wikipedia and remember that it is just some website. Take a long, well deserved vacation, go out and be with your family. In a few years, no one will remember any of the conflicts but the amazing collection of free culture Wikipedia represents is forever. (Note: some of these thoughts were adapted from my userpage) henrik•talk 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Lawrence § t/e 17:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As I said on the talk page, a break would be the best thing for him and Wikipedia. It'd be great if he could take a vacation and come back in a month or two with a fresh mind and a calmer attitude. Naerii (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Guy has done more than just about any other admin to the keep trolls at bay, and now should consider taking a wikibreak, because of elevated stress levels. Addhoc (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Guy does do a massive amount of great work for the 'pedia, and has its best interests in mind. Unfortunately at this point it just seems like he really needs to step back and cool off, as his behavior has become very erratic and counterproductive as of late. :( krimpet✽ 18:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Remember Nietzsche's famous maxim regarding the abyss. *** Crotalus *** 18:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. - jc37 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yep, looks like classic volunteer burnout in someone who does have a kind and generous heart in him . Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Noone is denying the work put in by Guy, and noone denies that overall he is driven by good faith (ie a want for the best for the encyclopedia) ViridaeTalk 03:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This might work. If it does, great. My main thoughts are below in #Outside view by Kirill Lokshin. (I don't know if the third sentence of the first paragraph is true, so offer no opinion on it.) GRBerry 14:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SashaNein (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Majorly (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Vassyana (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. —Random832 13:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. This echos my basic editing philosophy on my user page. Everyone needs to look at their own 'big picture'. - KrakatoaKatie 03:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. He was absolutely a good user once upon a time. In reading his RFA it's evident that he was once a modest person, with a sense of humor -- Just zig Guy, you know! -- and a user page. A bit gruff, but able to see the sincerity of other viewpoints; it's too bad we can't get that Guy back. --JayHenry (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. No opinion on third sentence. John J. Bulten (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. WaltonOne 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Irpen 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. hmwithτ 14:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Administrators are, for better or worse, viewed as the face of the project by outsiders, and as role models by newer editors. It's vitally important, therefore, that they comport themselves with an appropriate level of decorum, and avoid acting in a manner that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. JzG has, unfortunately, fallen far short of what I would consider to be minimally acceptable conduct in this regard; the habitual, pointless profanity, threats, and insults which he levels at other editors are, to put it simply, utterly unacceptable.

JzG's contributions to the project are not in doubt. He may well be tolerated—as many other surly editors are—on their basis alone. But administrators must be held to a higher standard of conduct; and if JzG is unable or unwilling, for whatever reason, to meet this standard, then he should step down and carry on in a less prominent role. Kirill 17:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. John254 17:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Naerii (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. krimpet✽ 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Woody (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Lawrence § t/e 18:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I also find disappointing the manner in which Guy chose to react to this RfC. Sandstein (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 19:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Sandstein's diff. We cannot tolerate people who are serially abusive on the project, no matter what their other positive characteristics are. One does not somehow 'cancel out' the other. --John (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Well said ViridaeTalk 20:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Endorse wholeheartedly. DuncanHill (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neıl ☎ 20:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. No question about it. Sethie (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Regrettably have to agree. Davewild (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per Sandstein. EJF (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Completely agree. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Admins ought to provide more light, less heat. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I absolutely disagree with John; in fact, I think a "net effect on the project" analysis to be entirely appropriate, and it is a variant of that analysis that I use, for instance, in adjudging candidates for adminship. It is, though, in any case, as this view seems to suggest, quite clear that the net effect on the project of JzG's being an admin (and, perhaps, an editor, although we need not reach that issue here) is negative (and, IMHO, nearly as clear that, even as many have much admiration for Guy's editing, he no longer enjoys the support of the community for his retention of the bit). Joe 06:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Itub (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. When I began editing in 2006, I did consider Guy a role model worthy of respect. I even asked, when my job was bringing me to his hometown, to meet with him. In early 2007, I began to grow concerned over his incivility. I thought about opening a discussion with him. While thinking about this, he declared a wikibreak due to family stress, and I put the idea on the shelf. Unfortunately, despite multiple short wikibreaks over the past several months, Guy's civility and ability to interact with other editors has continued to deteriorate. I'd be happy to have the Guy of 2006 as an administrator, but the Guy of late 2007 early 2008 is not a good administrator for the project. Will a week or two of wikibreak help? I doubt it; Guy's taken at least three that I know of while the downhill trend was underway. Will a long (months long) wikibreak help? Maybe. Maybe Guy just needs to refocus his efforts away from the battles that he has been choosing to fight. I am more confident in the identification of the problem than I am in my knowing the right solution to it. GRBerry 14:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. especially GRBerry's last comment. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. and definitely agree with Sandstein and GRBerry. SashaNein (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. - Alison ❤ 19:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Agree with SashaNein --Kbdank71 20:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Well said, Kirill. I totally agree. Dreadstar † 01:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Dlabtot (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Spot on. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Agree. It's the journey not the destination. Ward20 (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Achromatic (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Very well said.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. True. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. But maybe not forever. It might be the best thing in the world for him to lose the admin account or tools for a while, and have to edit WP politely, as an ordinary powerless editor who can't get away with this crap. See how long he lasts at that. If not indef-blocked by somebody else for incivility after some months of this, maybe he'll have learned something and can be re-empowered. SBHarris 04:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I also commend GRBerry's remarks. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Majorly (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. With reluctance, after taking a second look at the evidence. User appears to be a loose cannon and should not be considered a community role model. Cool Hand Luke 15:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Everyking (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. TimidGuy (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Bucketsofg 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  44. Excellent summary. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I think GRBerry's comment especially is very insightful. — xDanielx T/C\R 07:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Prolog (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. --The Smoking Nun (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Carcharoth (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Endorse the substance: the best thing that could come out of all this is some serious self-reflection and a decision to make changes. I'm not sure whether Kirill's flat tone is the most effective way to encourage that. Then again, I'm not sure it isn't. It may strike a proper balance by honestly recognizing the concerns of editors who are rightly offended and who can't all be dismissed as trolls or other kinds of reprobates. Noroton (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Good editor, problematic admin. Drop the mop and back slowly away from the horse carcass.--Father Goose (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message. - 12:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. I absolutely agree with this well balanced view. The evidence presented in the opening statement and description of the dispute is utterly damning. We are presented with an extensive list of diffs of behaviour which illustrates an appalling and longstanding pattern of rudeness, incivility, verbal abuse and personal attacks directed to all classes of user by Guy. This is perhaps the major issue, but the misuse of admin tools, the disruptive editing and general newbie biting is also highly disturbing. I completely agree with Kirill in his conclusion that, as things stand, I don't think it is in Wikipedia's best interests for Guy to retain his adminship. --Cactus.man ✍ 21:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Admins should be example for others. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 03:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. WNDL42 (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Agree 100%. Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Agree entirely. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Yes, exactly. --JayHenry (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Absolutely. Nesodak (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. To the point and in my view correct. Everyone, even admins, are allowed a few slip ups though. Kwsn-pub (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Reluctantly. Guy was an asset to the encyclopedia, and a staunch defender— and he still could be if he realized he now has a half-ton chip on his shoulder and got rid of it. — Coren (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Brilliantine (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Agree. Nsk92 (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. John J. Bulten (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Yes. Skybum (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. If only I'd read this before posting #Thoughts from AGK; it's exactly what I was getting at, although Kirill is not gifted with the Ability to Ramble as I am :) Endorse, in the hope that Guy will take heed of this stern message, and adjust his ways. Anthøny 18:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. --Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Irpen 21:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. hmwithτ 14:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. While I think this is just another, of hundreds, slap on the wrist, I do support the step down and carry on in a less prominent role part. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 15:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Kralizec! (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Role models, indeed. Please look to Herostratus and Alison for example of admins who can be polite, but firm with POV pushers without resorting to unnecessary ugliness. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. — iridescent 01:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. --Urban Rose 04:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Giovanni33 (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Sadly, whatever change he thinks he's made is not enough. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Hooper (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. For the good of the future of Wikipedia as a whole, I must endorse this position. The duel standard is confusing to new editors who are treated more harshly than the admin role models. The future of Wikipedia depends on attracting good new editors who are willing to abide by Wikipedia standards and policies. Wikipedia is going through a natural evolution to a more civil (e.g. less marginalizing of groups by name calling) working environment as is almost every place else in the world. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Endorse. The better option, by far, would be for Guy to modify his language. Sometimes are admins are too tolerant. I've been glad seeing Guy arrive on the scene. But the unnecessary, harsh language is not acceptable. Jd2718 (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Lawrence Cohen[edit]

Guy is a fantastic editor and admin who does good hard work. However, his tone, language, swearing, and general unpleasant tone in some situations is beyond unacceptable. Admins are held to a higher standard. Guy needs to immediately, simply put, not do those things on-Wiki. It's just not appropriate. Otherwise, he's a fine admin. But the swearing, and nastiness, which no one can dispute has occurred for a very very long period of time, and appears to continue to occur, does nothing but dramatically lower the discourse. If Guy is willing to vow here that he'll knock that all off--and in no uncertain terms--then this RFC will be a success and can be closed. If he will not agree to stop, then we have a major problem and he needs to not be an admin. Lawrence § t/e 17:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Sandstein (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Basically the same as Kirill ViridaeTalk 20:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. EJF (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SashaNein (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dlabtot (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Majorly (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Orderinchaos 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. A plain version of Kirills view. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Agree but with the exception about to be formulated by Franamax some 90 minutes from now. Avb 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agree except Guy doesn't have to avow anything here, he just has to read and assimilate. Franamax (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes - this behavior needs to stop. Kelly hi! 23:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Doc[edit]

No witchhunts, no humiliating demands for "vows", nothing that would prevent Guy doing his work. Guy keep it up. Just reflect on what's here, we know you and we trust you to know what to do to keep us happy. Now, can we get back to whatever it was we had to do? --Docg 18:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Docg 18:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Yep, but if you are feeling stressed, consider taking a wikibreak. Addhoc (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If it were not for the hard, painstaking work that Guy has put into this project, it's entirely possible that there would no longer be a project here, he's spent a considerable amount of time fixing biographies and working out amicable resolutions with people who could quite legitimately have sued the Foundation and some of the contributors into the ground a dozen times over. It's only natural that some of the people will be upset along the way (many rightly so, others, if they are, it's because they're on the wrong project) and it's fair to say that Guy has accumulated his fair share of his detractors. It's all very well listing all the various mistakes, errors and comments (many of which are meant are intended to be humourous) some people find unacceptable, but I notice the person who lodged this Request for Comment hasn't listed the thousands of administrative and editorial contributions which more than balance out these errors and demonstrate what a competent, friendly and general all round good egg that Guy normally is. I understand Guy's had a hard time of late, so in light of that and the excellent contributions which far and away out weigh any complaints listed here, I move that we get on with task at hand, and that's writing a first rate encyclopedia. Nick (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Though you know your mind best : ) - I wonder if you would move this comment to a separate "view", since it seems to be more and less than the view above. - jc37 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Time to remember that we are here to edit an encyclopedia not engage in an experiment in social interaction. If admins like JzG are "stressed" it's because he doesn't receive the support from the system that he and editors interested in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia need. It's time to start wondering why we put up with the socks, the IPs, the edit warriors, the COI wackos, the woo-pushers and everybody out there who think that Wikpedia is just about being nice to each other....and ignore the crap editing, poor sourcing, conflicts of interest, spamming, POV pushing and all those things we see time and time again. It's time for the community to take a step back, and remember what we are here for, and if what we are here for isn't editing an encyclopedia, then off to MySpace you go. This RfC is just the start of a witch-hunt. But since Wikipedia seems to be interested in getting rid of editors that actually do something, it is not surprising... Shot info (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Time to remember that we are here to edit an encyclopedia not engage in an experiment in social interaction" --I would endorse such a statment a thousand times if I could. This is why the project is not at optimum efficiency, and this is why this RfC was absolutely necessary.SashaNein (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with most everything else though. Seems like after his initial statement he does a complete 180 and smashes the first sentence to bits. SashaNein (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy is good people but even good people need a break once in a while to take care of themselves. Everything that was here will still be here when you return. Also, full support for what Shot info says above. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Of the comments here, this is the closest to what I'd write were I to do a full comment. Expanding: Guy is a tremendously good editor who deals with some of the worst shite to be blown in by the high-speed fans. One can certainly understand his need to vent now and again, and one can also see that it's at those times that the folks who tend to act as his detractors seem to surface the most. I can't blame him for lashing out now and again; heaven knows there have been any number of times on here that I've had the urge to use my more entertaining vocabulary to tell someone off, and that was before I got the admin bit and watching from the sidelines. Guy needs to tone that down, though, I agree, as that's part of the problem being shown above. But if we drive him off, the handling of tendentious editors, POV pushers, trolls, and other malcontents who stir up the shite will be passed off to other editors, and it won't take long before we're all back here again. Guy, take what you get from this page, digest it down, and keep it in mind as you keep doing the good work here. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ha! Avb missed this one. Agree and per Tony Fox. Franamax (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Me too! But I am here now. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Tony Fox's comment above is also very relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Calton | Talk 10:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Filll (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Eusebeus (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Endorse. — Athaenara ✉ 11:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Guy is willing to make harsh edits that are necessary --Enric Naval (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MONGO[edit]

JzG, you can do even more good by being nice. Clean up those edit summaries and other comments from here forward. You can be blunt and still be nice....its just a website.--MONGO 19:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. My point exactly, although my endorsement of another view has more words. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nicely put. My sentiment exactly. --John (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Addhoc (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Though I think we might note that, as an internationally renowned reference, Wikipedia is a bit more than "just a website" : ) - jc37 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 23:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And may I just add that I'm extremely pleased to see that MONGO himself has learned this and is passing on the good advice. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Hopefully it can happen. I notice that MONGO himself has made enormous strides in this regard in the past few months. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I have noticed that MONGO is following his own advice in recent times. EJF (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Oh dear, maybe not. EJF (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. For once, MONGO has said something that I find nothing therein to disagree with... while it doesn't encompass all the things regarding JzG I have a problem with, it's completely accurate as far as it goes, and I have no problem endorsing it. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SashaNein (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Well said, MONGO - Alison ❤ 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Would definitely be a step in the right direction. GRBerry 19:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. It's a great start. --Kbdank71 20:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I was actually going to come up with a statement similar to this, but I think that this comment is perfect: JzG is a good admin and does great work, but there are legitimate concerns here, and with some cleaning up of his behavior, he can be even better. However, I do agree with Jc37 above. Acalamari 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Great commment, particularly coming from MONGO, who has, as others have mentioned, very much followed his own advice in this regard in recent months - an action which has stood him in better stead with a number of editors (including myself) who had been critical in the past. I think this RfC shows that, while many have severe problems with JzG's editing behavior, all we want is for that behavior to change so that the good stuff Guy does is not drowned out by the bad. Simply listening to MONGO's straight-to-the-point advice might well be enough to address the main issues.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Not sure i entirely agree with the wording, but I agree with the premise. ViridaeTalk 04:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Agreed. Achromatic (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I couldn't have said it better, and that wasn't for lack of trying. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Let's all be nice.[reply]
  18. Majorly (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. probably good if many of us took this to heart.--Docg 09:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Well said. Orderinchaos 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Thanks for recognizing that JzG needs to take more than a few steps back from the project, MONGO. There's been far too much circling of the wagons when criticisms have surfaced in the past. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. This is actually policy. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 04:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. There's always room for greater civility. JzG does valuable work and should continue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Well said indeed. Dorftrottel (canvass) 11:26, March 5, 2008
  25. In a collaborative project, incivility is ultimately self-punishing. Agree with many or all of the endosement comments above as well. MastCell Talk 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Agreed, but I'd add, "Valuable Wikipedian, take this advice seriously, for the benefit of the project and yourself." Noroton (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. There is no need to give ammunition to those would would disrupt the project with wikilawyering. Jehochman Talk 20:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I think you're hands-down the best admin on the project, but filing off some of the rough edges would help keep you out of trouble. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Avb 22:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Agree. Avb is pre-stalking my edits here! It's that daylight-savings thing, I'm sure. Franamax (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Nicer edit summaries. More blocks. --DHeyward (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. As I think you should be listening to MONGO, Guy, even if not to others commenting on this page. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Vassyana (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. —Random832 15:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. In a context where civil becomes a weapon overriding content, Guy, it's worth doing all you can to avoid giving others ammunition. Your contributions mean you should be cut some slack, an effort to attain politeness will make you even more effective, in my opinion. .. dave souza, talk 16:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. KrakatoaKatie 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Guy doesn't need to step down, he just needs to tone it down. --Pixelface (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Hear Hear. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  41. Yup. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Endorse. — Athaenara ✉ 11:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Excellent advice. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. John J. Bulten (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. If not "nice" at least less bossy. --Irpen 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. You just know MONGO must be right when even I agree with him. Black Kite 15:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Constructive advice! --Dragon695 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sethie[edit]

Whenever I saw the name JzG2, I would breathe a sigh of relief. Time after time I saw good edits and received a lot of help from those three letters and a number.

Looking at the diffs above, there clearly is another thing happening here... and I am not clear why he is still an admin, given the outings, personal attacks, and sheer quantity of violations of wiki policies. I think what is needed is an absolute zero tolerance for any further behavior or he looses his admin status.

We ban users for a lot less.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Sethie (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Majorly (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. We ban users for a lot less. I've also seen the reprehensible behaviours of this admin and been aghast that it is accepted. JzG should have been de-admin-ed and banned a long time ago for even a fraction of the above. That much said, banning him now is a little late, and I believe that a "demotion" to non-admin editor (takes care of the abuse of power problem) would be sufficient with a probation-like period of a year or two. No need to ban now. If he can correct the abusiveness, then let him stay. If not, then we can block him later. And I also agree with below that many take civility too far... banter is not uncivil, and there's nothing wrong with a little pick and poke now and then, like fencing. But JzG has gone far and above those and there must be some repurcussion for it otherwise it's open season for everyone else ("Well, the admins talk like this/harass others/use obscene language/make personal attacks..."). • VigilancePrime • • • 21:12 (UTC) 12 Mar '08
  5. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 15:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse but only because "looses" has a different meaning than the perhaps intended "loses". Would be interested in the endorsement-seeking version of VigilancePrime's comments. John J. Bulten (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Viridae[edit]

This RfC has attracted some serious attention, with the consenus indicating that there is a problem with JzG's behaviour. It is to his detriment that he continues to ignore this attempt at dispute resolution. I hereby encourage people who he will listen to to encourage him to participate in the RfC. (I know this is also on the talk page but noone reads those on RfCs) ViridaeTalk 03:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment below on the talk page. ViridaeTalk 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User who endorse this statement
  1. Majorly (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neıl ☎ 12:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SashaNein (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Discombobulator (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ViridaeTalk 23:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ignorning it means he stands by his actions. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. He's rather clearly ignoring it: as recently as today, he called a user an "idiot". Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nick in response to the above by Viridae[edit]

A complete and utter waste of time, stop the witch hunt first, the consensus is that Guy should start being a little more civil, so we close this utterly pointless Request for burning at the stake. You're never going to get anybody to take part in an RfC that's been plotted over for the best part of a month by people who are coming bloody close to being banned for the endless shit they stir up or who otherwise have scores to settle with the subject. Nick (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement
  1. Nick (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Guy should be more civil, but others, including Viridae, should also improve their conduct. Addhoc (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse. — Athaenara ✉ 11:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jc37[edit]

As I read all of the various views and comments above, I start to think I'll affix my name to them, then at the end, they do an about-face, and make some demand or arbitrary accusation. So I'm going to quote parts of a few of the above as my "view" (though slightly but mercilessly edited):

Key concerns:

  1. WP:AGF
  2. WP:BITE
  3. WP:CIVIL
  4. WP:EQ
  5. WP:NPA

(and how they related to other policy/guideline pages, and Wikipedia in general)

  • This arbcom ruling
    Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.
  • Whilst it would be quite easy for this to degenerate into a "Ah, but you were trolling me first!" "No I wasn't!!" match, simply ignoring continued egregrious behaviour on the basis that you feel a bit sorry for him because he has to put up with trolling is really not going to get Wikipedia anywhere. I agree that JzG has done some valuable work for Wikipedia, but that is really no excuse to allow him to be continually rude, provocative and trollish.
  • If this is gonna enable some sort of a "JzG is evil" witchhunt, I don't want to play. I have a lot of admiration for JzG and what he's done over the years. He's often been the one that has stepped up and done the hard block (or the hard work), that others have shirked, and so forth. But the concerns raised ought to be looked at, and either validated or put to rest. JzG maybe could consider changing his approach in some areas, don't we all agree? I sincerely believe it's possible to do without reducing his effectiveness. We shouldn't give free passes to anyone. But we should also weigh the many many many good things he's done against the issues at hand.
  • If it were not for the hard, painstaking work that Guy has put into this project, it's entirely possible that there would no longer be a project here, he's spent a considerable amount of time fixing biographies and working out amicable resolutions with people who could quite legitimately have sued the Foundation and some of the contributors into the ground a dozen times over. It's only natural that some of the people will be upset along the way (many rightly so, others, if they are, it's because they're on the wrong project) and it's fair to say that Guy has accumulated his fair share of his detractors. It's all very well listing all the various mistakes, errors and comments (many of which are meant are intended to be humourous) some people find unacceptable, but I notice the person who lodged this Request for Comment hasn't listed the thousands of administrative and editorial contributions which demonstrate what a competent, friendly and general all round good egg that Guy normally is.
  • JzG, you can do even more good by being nice. Clean up those edit summaries and other comments from here forward. You can be blunt and still be nice.
  • Guy has been a fabulous asset to this encyclopedia, hardworking, dedicated and obviously wants the best for this project. Unfortunately, he's burned out. Guy has done more than maybe a handful of other admins in keeping real trolls, pov-pushers, anti-science and nationalistic editors at bay for many many months. After enduring and combating that for so long, it is not surprising that his good faith is badly bruised. After seeing so much very skilled disruptive behavior, it is not easy to tell friend from foe, to tell a genuine grievance from trolling. But we need our admins to be more calm, more willing to ignore insults and more skilled in defusing conflicts. I wish we could find a way to keep our best users without burning them out, but for now I think the best we can do is to tell Guy the truth: You need a break. I urge you to ignore all the silliness on Wikipedia and remember that it is just some website. Take a long, well deserved vacation, go out and be with your family.

Users who endorse the above comments

  1. All-in-all, I think he could use a well-deserved break. - jc37 20:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Majorly (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse to a point. A break would do him good, but the good he's done is not an excuse for this behavior. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A fine collation. John J. Bulten (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In the context of what is covered here, there should be no privileged group of editors, and there probably shouldn't be in any wider context, either.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FT2[edit]

Many of the above come to the same conclusion and themes, in many slightly different tones. Guy is a tremendous asset to the project; his painstakingly hard work is in no small measure responsible for some strengths of the project today, and he has put all he has into it. Sadly time and stress - both on and offsite - have seemingly taken their toll. He also joined Wikipedia in an era when all you had to do was IAR and act for the best of the project because you "knew what needed doing" (a philosophy that has been left behind somewhat as it emerged that everyone who did that "knew" differently leading to major confrontations). Speaking openly and frankly has not helped him, since sometimes his open and frank is felt as blunt and confrontational. The responses to that coupled with his choice of work in difficult areas of the wiki, have created stress that he has accepted, but has also has rebounced upon him, and created many on- and off-wiki enemies who now follow his steps looking for the next thing wrong. This is an almost impossible position to be in. The best bet would be as many have commented - a complete change, by means of wikibreak, and a different role or approach in the project, to shed some of the issues, lose some of the tensions.

Adminship in 2008 is not what it was in 2006. Standards are higher and as role models, I endorse Kirill's words and those of many others here, there are bottom lines and this mode of interaction falls below them. Something must change. I hope it will be positive.

So if I am echoing only what others write, why a separate comment?

Mostly because this has been on my mind in other ways; namely, the number of excellent content writers or problem solvers who are great themselves but have a difficult mode of interaction and are also damaging over time, to the wider social sense. What about such users. We would like to keep them all – but not at the cost of turning Wikipedia back to an era where anyone could be sworn at or blocked, if the swearer or blocker was sufficiently "established", au fait, or had enough friends. Not at the cost of a double standard, or an atmosphere suited to the back yard rather than collaborative creation of knowledge. That was never okay, and leaving that era behind, I'm glad.

There is a more generic problem of good editors who cannot shed that approach, or stress and burn. Part of it is natural (sad) cycle and probably unavoidable. We need those people, because we're here to write content. We also must ultimately remove problematic editors (fairly). But not at the cost of keeping them "no matter what they do", and driving away all but an established circle or the same old names; we need to be graceful and warm to all - not just some - and users need to see that professionalism in those they edit with, whether directed at them or at others. Otherwise we lose the next generation instead, and ultimately our future.

How do we handle this, in the cases where we feel it could be avoided or helped, in a way that doesn't merely ignore, approve or enable long-term destructive behaviors too?

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ViridaeTalk 23:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would say "was a tremendous asset", not "is", but agree for the most part. Neıl ☎ 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wish to swap is for was, or was for is... you may well be right. I won't dispute which of those is the more faithful tense. It's more the generic concern that I highlight here, of which JzG is just one. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. henrik•talk 00:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. - Alison ❤ 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. but endorse Neil's alteration SashaNein (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse both in this specific instance and also in terms of the general concern. Well stated. TimidGuy (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I think this general concern is going to be an issue for some time to come, especially based on the knock off this witch-hunt comments from some folks. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Hear, hear. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --John (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --The Smoking Nun (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. with Neil's change. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Vassyana (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Long-winded statement, but agree, I guess. Kelly hi! 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Endorse the idea and difficulty of a "generation gap" without endorsing Neil's irrelevant potshot. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. hmwithτ 14:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Sensible. Dragon695 (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by MastCell[edit]

When I started on this project, Guy was a clear and resounding voice of common sense who was willing to take on the really tough tasks. For every iffy or questionable administrative action listed above, I could list a number of times where Guy cut a difficult Gordian knot with a bold if slightly outside-of-policy action which few or no other admins were willing to undertake.

So what's happened and why are we here? I'm actually not interested in making excuses for Guy, nor in assessing blame. Mostly, it's depressing. We have someone with an extremely high level of clue and dedication to the project and a willingness to shoulder its more thankless but necessary burdens. That's the kind of volunteer that this project is built on. I don't think I'm alone in saying that in many ways Guy was a role model for me when I started here.

Is it inevitable that a few years on this project, dealing with its problems, politics, detractors, certifiable cases, and so forth, will turn such an editor irretrievably grouchy and uncivil? What sort of outlets are appropriate for admins who deal with all of the negative stuff that Wikipedia attracts? Is it realistic to expect human, fallible admins to absorb an infinitely renewable amount of negativity and respond with indefatigable commitment to WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc? Is it humanly possible, having had an assumption of good faith abused in 49 consecutive cases, to still honestly assume good faith in the 50th case? Are the options right now as dichotomous as "tough love" vs. "continued enabling"? Are rhetorical questions useless and self-indulgent?

The volume of response from established editors at this RfC makes it clear that a significant portion of the community has a problem with Guy's approach at present. I don't think that point is arguable. I'm interested in the larger question, though - is it inevitable that someone with Guy's commitment to the project, common sense, and boldness will be burned out to the point where this RfC ensues? If so, I think that's really bad news for the long-term prospects of this project; volunteers like Guy are not an easily renewable resource. If it's not inevitable, then I'm curious what could be done differently, either from here on or in future cases, to support editors who are dealing with these issues and to keep them on the straight and narrow. MastCell Talk 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Addhoc (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse that these are extremely valid and useful questions to be asking, and that they may well apply to more editors than just Guy. We used to have things like Esperanza created to give support, not that it necessarily worked as intended. But regardless, I don't think Esperanza was ever Guy's style anyway. I have to wonder if the way to tranquility isn't to spend some time editing content from time to time so as to remember why we are here. I find it recharges my batteries something wonderful. ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it is definitely refreshing to improve a non-controversial article under the radar. MastCell Talk 04:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse. There are broader issues that need to be adressed and Guy's troubles here for the last year or so are as much a symptom of a greater problem as an issue that needs to be adressed individually. I hope this RfC can serve as a starting point for that discussion and not merely as a prelude to an ArbCom case. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse. (Comments split into its own section) FCYTravis (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse I don't see eye-to-eye with JzG on some SPOV issues, dealing with lack of positive, *nonpartisan* feedback, battle damage and fatigue are important WP issues. JzG may see himself as dealing with either chronic problems or be arriving on a scene as the relief & salvage team where Civ and AGF have already broken down badly.--TheNautilus (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree -- Shot info (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mostly. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. After thinking this over for more than a day, I can't see a conclusion here to endorse. I do, however, strongly endorse asking these questions, and trying to think of solutions that would at least reduce the risks of falling off the rails. GRBerry 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse from a fellow burnout. Trolls, sockpuppets, and ne'er-do-wells are shown infinite patience, but established and productive editors get zero support. No wonder some of us get crusty and cynical. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Endorse this very thoughtful summary. Raises more questions than it answers, still one of the best. Franamax (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This is an outstanding summary of the issues and gets my full hearted support. The trolls, sockpuppets, POV-warriors, and others demand, if not whine, about how they're treated, while those who do the real work, like JzG get crapped on. ENOUGH. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Knowing the alliances seen in the bringer of this RFC to signatories above and to groups outside of Wikipedia bent on unseating JzG, it's good to see some perspective and sanity brought to this sad affair. The man's father just died. Kick anyone when they're down much Cla68? Odd nature (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Let's not lose a valuable resource like JzG here. --Filll (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Vassyana (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Well-said, Mastcell. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Fully agree, any fool can be polite, even me, but cluefullness and a willingness to do the tough work are a rare resource to be cherished. .. dave souza, talk 16:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. You view borders on depressing. Why? Because it's very true. hmwithτ 14:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Perhaps it's the same problem that policemen have; they start out polite, willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and protect the weak; after a while they get jaded; they become sarcastic and rude, take the attitude that everyone's as bad as each other and they're going to knock heads together no matter what. --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Major Bonkers is correct: it is a bit like policemen.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Endorse, WP:CIVIL is being currently abused to try to avoid deserved sanctions --Enric Naval (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by FCYTravis[edit]

I believe Guy has seen far too much of the dark side of the Wiki. But someone has to do it. If not Guy, who? And will we be having the same conversation about this hypothetical person, a year down the road?

Where does the blame stop and the understanding begin, for those who take on the jobs that nobody else wants? Like dealing with angry people who have been libeled with awful, false Wikipedia biographies, or endlessly beating back attempts to push nationalist/corporate/whatever POV into articles. The stuff that Guy did all the time. The stuff that *has* to be done for this project to succeed in the long term.

Being an active administrator in the ugly side of the encyclopedia is a stressful, time-consuming task that demands discretion, good judgment, patience, the ability to ignore abuse - and copious quantities of clue. I don't know why anyone would want to do it - and if nobody does it, this encyclopedia fails.

Is persistent incivility unacceptable? Yes, of course. I agree that Guy's got to get a handle on that. Guy, if you need a break, take one...

But this is a problem that goes far deeper than Guy's super-elevated Wikistress level. This project has outgrown itself.

There is no support structure for those who fight for integrity, balance, respect and fairness in the encyclopedia - and I've seen Guy in action doing just that too many times to list here. The authority (or lack thereof) behind OTRS actions is left hanging in space. We expect super-human qualities from our administrators and then are surprised when they fall short.

We don't teach administrators conflict resolution skills. We don't properly empower administrators to deal with a lot of the really ugly stuff. We hold "anyone can edit" to be sacred, then expect admins to cheerfully clean up the ungodly mess that too often gets left behind. We don't give admins the skillset and the mindset and the titanium-plated armor it takes to deal with the firehose of crap. We don't even give them an understanding of the project mission, policies and structure.

No, we just flip a bit and say, "Here you go, you're an admin. Don't fuck it up."

Then we wring our hands, shake our heads and wonder when the ones who plunge themselves into the dirty work, get burned out. FCYTravis (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. To a certain extent I agree, but on the other hand Guy has always been terse and uncivil at times, at a level above what I consider reasonable. Other people I know that deal with the dark side of wikipedia (not naming names, they can step forward if they wish) do so while managing to retain some composure. When it gets too much they take a break, step back and do something else. Guy, despite having had it suggested time and time again, has not taken the advice of those around him and stepped back from the edge. He has consequently shuffled ever closer. I tend to think this is as much Guy's personal failing as that of the project. Sme people reach the point where the project si doing more for them than they are for the project, and that is not the way this works. ViridaeTalk 07:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I concur...I don't think Guy is burned out, but I do think he needs our support and our thanks for taking a stand where so many others wouldn't or couldn't.--MONGO 07:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree: Making somebody the fall guy for the failings of the Wikipedia machine isn't the answer. Shot info (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse but better to know yourself when to take a small break than to become burned out before it happens. Wikipedia's well-being does not rest on one person's shoulders and everything will stil be here when you come back as I have stated in a previous comment above. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Addhoc (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Absolutely spot on. This is not about Guy at all, it's about what to do about the endemic problem, so I hope the points raised here live on beyond whatever this RfC arrives at. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I would also encourage all the administrators who've commented on this to do a few of those hard actions each day to relieve the stresses all around. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. There are a disproportionate number of admins who start to act like JzG currently is. We need to do a better job of stopping burnout, before it gets to the point we're at here. -Amarkov moo! 02:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Heartily endorse this. There is a greater problem here than the behaviour of one person. It behoves us to address the root cause of what has happened here. --John (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Very well put. There's a far bigger underlying problem here. krimpet✽ 04:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agree with all of it. And now that we've all wrung our hands, I have absolutely no expectation that anything constructive will be built on this observation. What is anybody here going to do about this? Noroton (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Echo Noroton and others. Unless we want all those fighting for the integrity of Wikipedia ending up with peptic ulcer and other [strike popular imagery unsupported by empirical assessment] stress-related issues, the framework needs to be addressed. Guy's overreactions are a symptom of something larger. Dorftrottel (criticise) 18:15, March 7, 2008
  13. And per Dorftrottel's comments (except that the link between stress and peptic ulcer disease is tenuous at best).Struck my misguided nitpicking - suffice to say I agree with the view and with Dorftrottel's comments. MastCell Talk 18:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Definitely, this is a symptom of a larger disease that the community has inflicted upon itself. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Concur with MONGO. Avb 22:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Per MONGO. Franamax (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 04:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Per Mongo. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. MONGO says it right and to the point. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Another balanced and fair summary of the issue. Nice to see there's still some sane and brave Admins left who are not cowed by the tactics of the WikipediaReview crowd. Odd nature (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Vassyana (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. In the idiom of the Wire's Omar: Indeed. Antelan talk 16:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Well put. The project increasingly looks like a way to burn out those doing the most valuable mop and broom work. ... dave souza, talk 16:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. "There is no support structure for those who fight for integrity, balance, respect and fairness in the encyclopedia." Well put. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. The lack of a 'continuing education/skills building' program for admins seems to be large gap in the project. There are very few professions that allow their members to 'get their degree/certification/whatever' and then say "we will stand by this forever and you never have to learn another thing." TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. If other people, perhaps more uniformly pleasant people (unlike, well, me), were to deal with these areas, I have no doubt that the incidence of the kind of conduct here would be reduced. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening. To really stretch an anology, It would be great if we had a situation where effectively the local sheriff could call in the consulting psychologist and social worker as required to deal with problem editors. But we don't seem to have that situation at present, so we basically leave most of the dirty work for the sheriffs, like Guy, who after a while are inevitably a bit hardened. I'm not at all sure that desysoping this individual would not be a net loss to the project. It would be great if we had continuing education as well, but that don't seem to exist yet either. Maybe the system has failed this admin, and as a result the admin has performed less than wonderfully. I can't agree to finding fault with him under those conditions, however. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Raymond Arritt[edit]

I'm gonna keep this short and to the point:

  • Guy has the cojones to take on the disagreeable cases that most admins won't touch. It's easy to complain about his indiscretions, but I don't see others jumping in to take over the tough stuff.
  • Nevertheless, it would be in everyone's interest for Guy to file off some of the rough edges so that he stays out of trouble.

Users who endorse this view:

  1. Avb 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Franamax (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --MONGO 08:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is cojones gender neutral? Wouldn't sisu be more appropriate? Anyway, broadly concur. Addhoc (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. yes, and I would add (as I've done) for the admins who are here to do some of those difficult admin tasks so JzG doesn't feel like he has to. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Civility is too easy to enforce which makes admins who enforce NPOV (amongst other policies) rather weak on the ground. Some effort by admins to become more informed rather than involved is needed. Shot info (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 04:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sort of endorse. Point 1 is good. Point 2, I don't care about. Guy is doing the job we need done.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. There is dirty work that needs to be done around here. And someone has to do it.--Filll (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agree, though of course change is easier said than done and I fully support the point that NPOV is the target, civility is a way to achieve targets. .. dave souza, talk 16:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I've always been impressed by JzG's willingness to tackle difficult issues others won't even touch, and by his ability to so concisely, effectively, and rationally. We can't replace users like that easily -- they don't exactly come in cereal boxes. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by User:Anonymous Dissident[edit]

I have had very little interaction with Guy during my time here on enwp, but I have seen. I have seen the good work, the good administration. But I have also seen the bad, most prominently what I consider to be trollish comments and incivil behaviour. However, I am in the same mind as Henrik; I don't think his actions constitute a slow and painful wikisuicide or anything like that, but a burning out. I urge Guy to take a break, with the belief and hope that, following this rest, he will either 1. come back relieved and ready to leave the problems identified behind or 2. not to come back at all, depending on his own wishes and preference. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse the above
  1. Yep, also there is the option of taking a break, then spending more time editing articles. Addhoc (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --EJF (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by User:Hiding[edit]

Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. Hiding T 23:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

  1. More or less. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Stating the obvious, but yes. Neıl ☎ 15:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GRBerry 03:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is undoubtedly correct, though the devil is in the details and interpretation. MastCell Talk 03:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse. DuncanHill (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:ScienceApologist[edit]

Seeing as there isn't even a decent definition for what civility is, it's ironic that this community has become as obsessed with it as they are. I have noticed that most of the people arguing for civility are not as intelligent as many who either ignore the civility policies or those who point out their problems. The cult of the amateur rears its head most often in discussions of civility because people who should not be editing the encyclopedia for content don't like it when they find their contributions changed/reverted/disputed. They find such activity uncivil despite it being the name-of-the-game for reference work editing. The perceived "incivil" comments in edit summaries and on talk-pages are often just pointing out the obvious idiocy of many of the editors at this so-called "encyclopedia". ScienceApologist (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary
  2. Indeed and "civil" is almost always in the eye of the offended, not the policy. Shot info (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with this. I am mostly concerned about the abuse of his admin powers. RogueNinjatalk 19:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It is used as a tool by POV warriors to cause admins to block or ban individuals for "behavior" but not for WP:VERIFY, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Absolutely. And the words f*ck and c*nt are less offensive in some societies, and some cultures and some countries than in others. We are frantically worried about civility here, and forget WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and WP:TE and WP:DE and WP:RS and all kinds of other policies because they are too hard to administer compared to CIVIL.--Filll (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just encountered a nice example where asking us to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD and disagreeing with those who want to redefined LEAD and NPOV and FRINGE is viewed as unCIVIL and a personal attack. Take a look at [193], [194], [195] for example. This is why the CIVIL-only policy that we try to use just fails us, badly. Because CIVIL is such a powerful and easy weapon, that no other policy can stand up to it, including RS and NPOV etc. --Filll (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I wholeheartedly endorse WP:SPADE and I don't see it as incompatible with WP:NPA. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not kabuki dance around each other's feelings. Last month I reverted an edit that gave no summary and that removed a good amount of an article, and I called this reverting "vandalism." And I received a complaint that I shouldn't call a long term editor's contributions vandalism. As if I need to pour through a user's history for five minutes every time I revert such behavior? As if it was my problem that a long term editor was vandalizing an article? To paraphrase the exaggeration so often said about most other policies: WP:CIVIL isn't a suicide pact. -- Kendrick7talk 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I support this version of WP:SPADE. For some reason, this essay has undergone a process of being completely watered down over the past several weeks, to the point of saying the exact opposite of what it once did. -- Kendrick7talk 16:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Definitely true. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes. In professional business politeness pays off, and it's a worthwhile approach anyway, but civility as a policy is too easy to game. Common sense is needed in assessing claims of incivility, and at the end of the day good content is the aim, not enforced niceness. .. dave souza, talk 17:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Although I often criticize other users for civility at WQA, there have been really no personal threats or attacks against other editors. When one needs to be blunt, clear and to-the-point, one needs to do so in a manner that isn't all rosy, with a smile or with rainbows gleaming in the background. Civility should be followed in all circumstances, but I can understand that after having to deal with editors who retaliate with sockpuppets, threats, phone calls, etc., that the fine edges that once held up an administrator can begin to wear down after a while. seicer | talk | contribs 17:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. There are times that civility is taken way too seriously, people spending too much time asking for apologies, holding grudges, or complaining about misreadings of tone. But there must be some standards and the Cult of the Amateur works both ways. Though certainly we all have different professional experiences, in mine Guy's incredible arrogance and hostility would never be tolerated. To me, his attitude is among the most amateurish things on Wikipedia. --JayHenry (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes. Sceptre (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Indeed. Claims of incivility have become a trump card in hands of somebody who is losing an argument on factual basis but manages to politely spew nonsense.--Svetovid (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Orangemarlin[edit]

To paraphrase a few lines from Colonel Jessup in A Few Good Men, Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by admins with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Orangemarlin? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the trolls and you curse me. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that trolls and POV warriors banning, while tragic, probably saved this project. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves articles. You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up some admin tools and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. OK... I agree with the sentiment if not the example. Odd nature (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. You cannot just wikilove trolls to death. Sorry, but it just cannot be done.--Filll (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is your point that, like Colonel Jessup, Guy has become so obsessed with his self-righteousness that he's lost sight of the fact that he's now doing more harm than good? The point of the movie was to criticize Jessup. The movie is perhaps a better analogy than you intended -- sticking with this metaphor, the problem is indeed that Guy is no longer doing anything about the Communists, but he is killing off other marines. --JayHenry (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We all know that the Colonel was dragged away to jail; people like Mr. Spitzer get their just rewards. :) 82.114.121.2 (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:GTBacchus[edit]

There is an idea, popular among some editors, that in order to block/ban trolls and POV-pushers, it is somehow necessary to be a dick. There is no evidence for this assertion, and there is ample evidence against it. The essay WP:SPADE is destructive, and encourages pathologically poor dispute resolution.

Some comments in this RfC take the tack that, since JzG is doing good work against bad guys, that he should be given a pass as far as his demeanor and behavior. These comments seem to miss the point that JzG would be more effective against trolls and POV-pushers by taking a different approach to dispute resolution. We don't ask our editors to be civil just for fun; we ask them to be civil because that is the most effective way to work in a collaborative environment. As a purely practical consideration, editors should deal with "bad guys" in a less "good guy"/"bad guy" manner. There are better ways of defending the Wiki against trolls and POV-pushers than by engaging in name-calling and combativeness.

If there is a problem with the community being obsessed with civility, as some editors claim above, it is that people take an oversimplified notion of it. People understand it as a rule, that can have exceptions or be broken, and not as a practical observation that pissing people off doesn't help. If people use WP:CIVIL as a hammer to try to gain an edge in POV disputes, that's not civility. Civility is actually respecting the other person, and actually trying to let each perspective be heard fairly. Actual civility works, however badly a page such as WP:CIVIL may be abused.

Civility doesn't mean "wikiloving trolls to death", as one user describes it above. Civility means dealing with them effectively and professionally, without flying off the handle and engaging in name-calling. Note that traffic cops don't hand you a ticket with, "and on a personal note, you're a real turd," nor would doing so make them better cops. It seems that some are arguing for the right to call the guy a turd while handing him a ticket. Bad idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Yes - thank you! DuncanHill (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have a lot of sympathy with Guy, and I think this RFC was probably a bad idea. But based on my own experience with following policies (CIV and AGF) against what seemed to be my better judgement I absolutely agree with GTBacchus.--Hans Adler (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I could not make heads or tails of this RFC, but definitely agree with the sound professional principles articulated by GTBacchus. Ameriquedialectics 01:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I hope JzG is reading this one. Ward20 (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dead on.--Father Goose (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GRBerry 02:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Very VERY well put. I don't agree about Spade, because it says the opposite of how people usually use it. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Absoloutely ViridaeTalk 05:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I believe WP:SPADE is often used as an excuse to be a dick, but that a misuse of the essay, rather than a natural consequence of the principle. I otherwise strongly agree. Vassyana (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Well said. --John (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 100% right. SashaNein (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Well said. TimidGuy (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Dlabtot (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I agree with all of this, particularly the statement that WP:CIVIL is not a weapon. MastCell Talk 20:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. This RfC is sprawling further and further away from the issue at hand, but I would still like to voice my support on this one. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Says it better than I could. —Random832 15:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Agree per Vassyana. Well put, there GTB, as always. Dreadstar † 17:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. the false dichotomy of rudeness v. allowance of pov-pushing-nutters always has bothered me, to the point that based on JzG's response to this effort, I'm likely done with en.wikipedia for the time being. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I've been lurking around Wikipedia for some time now, not quite taking the plunge, mainly because of the behavior I've observed here. Up to now I've seen little understanding from the "important" people that being nice isn't a sign of being soft, it's a sign of understanding what works when a large group of people try to work together. I am really glad that someone has made this point so clearly. And yes, it's still possible to "call a spade" and be nice about it. Maybe I'll stay around and pitch in now. --Maegara (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. This... is perhaps one of the best summaries of the nature of the problem I've ever read. Dr. eXtreme 12:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Absolutely. EJF (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Thank you. Nicely said. Agreed.(olive (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  27. Indeed. Sandstein (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. This is a good summary. Doesn't mean a whole RfC was warranted, of course... but it is true that JzG could be a better admin if he tried to behave more professionally when dealing with trolls, vandals, and other cranks. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Excellent summary. Incivility is short-sighted, and creates more problems than it solves. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I'm so glad someone recognizes this and gives it a voice. It's not necessary to call people 'idiots' or 'trolls' to be an effective and valuable admin. KrakatoaKatie 04:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong endorse. Goes right to one of the, if not the, root of the problem. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Agree in general, but my experience with some traffic cops is very different from yours (they are insulting at times). --Itub (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong endorse. Not only is this absolutely right, I'll go one step farther. It encourages trolls to have those who protect Wikipedia get angry and lash out: in a lot of cases, that's what they want. Mangojuicetalk 20:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Very true, although you still know exactly what the cops are thinking from the way they say "Sir" like it's an insult. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Yes. Civility is one of the things that keeps Wikipedia working, and cannot be dismissed. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strongly support this view. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strongly support. These uncivil editors actually create much of the trolls and POV pushing which is launched against themselves. The uncivil editors are uncivil to everyone who disagrees with them, creating animosity and hatred, pushing normal people to be uncivil, and push newbies, frustrated by what appears to be a hopeless situation, to break rules and create sockpuppets. After looking at their uncivil edits, it is no mystery that editors like MONGO and JzG are magnets for trolls and POV pushing. Trav (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very Well Said, Trav. While I have no problem with friendly banter and minor back-and-forth, the severity of incivility is what breeds more and worse problems. You said it best. • VigilancePrime • • • 04:08 (UTC) 27 Mar '08
  40. Strong Support, and very well said.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. This is the best point made in the whole RfC. Declaring war on "trolls" is ineffective - it's far more effective to be dispassionate and professional. Kelly hi! 23:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Brilliantine (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Very well put. Nsk92 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strongly support. Maybe we should nominate WP:SPADE for deletion, in fact. WaltonOne 21:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's currently undergoing rewrites, and it's been nominated for merging with WP:NOSPADE. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. hmwithτ 14:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 15:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. AMEN! Again, look at Alison and Herostratus, who both regularly deal with some of the most problematic areas of Wikipedia (North Ireland/Pedophilia). A little civility can go a long way, even with SPAs. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Uconnstud[edit]

*JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

It's funny how i am not the only one who has this opinion of JzG. [196] This is the net and its really not that serious. Although he may think I have no clue. [197]. More than a 2 dozen people thinks he has no clue. [198] . Since I was raised well, I don't speak to people in a harsh manner [199]. Clearly I'll enjoy my week, month, year, and life and knowing that I do not have to tell people to "fuck off" [200].

In gist, he needs a year off of wikipedia to work on his personal life because he is clearly burned out!
He should at the very least get removed as an admin.


My story with him: I was told by and admin to refile [201] the report so it wasn't a retaliation. I filed two reports on AN/I one againt the admin [202] and the other against the two users [203] But if you look at the one against the two users I simply walked away since I was told I was forum shopping. The first report wasn't archived so I questioned a few thigns to which I was told by the admin who blocked me that "you've come here to bitch about being reverted" I asked why is it ok to use youtube on one thing but not another [204] and then he stated that i was going to get a kick in my arse [205] I know we are all human but that isn't a way to talk to someone. I even spoke on his talk page that I wasn't going to dwell on it [206] . Its strange in that I was blocked after I stopped asking question and removed what I deemed to be an angry comment (please see this also) [207] and stated that it was WP:DRC at 22:12, 14 March 2008 and was blocked 22:15, 14 March 2008 although my last comment on AN/I was at 21:57, 14 March 2008 which was only a question on general youtube policy [208] and 4 minutes before that ,21:53, 14 March 2008 , I said even if i disagree i won't push it [209] . I guess this also brings up the question why is JzG allowed to ignore WP:DRC and restore a comment on my talk page (not once but twice [210] and [211] that I removed and then blocked me for it after I questioned it [212] under the guise of something [213] that I had already walked away from 20 minutes prior. [214]

He continued to violate WP:EQ by changing the title of incidents on AN/I that he already archived from Jaysweet User:colfer2 to Uconnstud complaining [215]

  1. even gone so far as to threaten me [216]]
  2. In violation of WP:EQ writes to me in a demeaning manner [217]
  3. In violation of WP:EQ writes to me in a profane manner [218]
  4. Has a history of harrassment of others [219] WP:Harassment and WP:WHEEL
  5. There has already been three other cases filed against him, but the outcome of 2 i'm unsure of [220] this one is a huge one [221]
  6. blocked me for refiling a 3RR [222] and stated that I was blocked as a result of my refiling it in retaliation [223] even though another admin told me specifically to refile it. [224] on 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ignored wikipolicy about removing comments [225] and restored a comment on my page without my permission in violation of WP:DRC

In violation of

  1. WP:NPA
  2. WP:CIVIL
  3. WP:OWN
  4. WP:EQ
  5. WP:DRC
  6. WP:Harassment
  7. WP:Stalk
  8. [226] Violation of Admin conduct


  1. [227] He had archived a report I made and I asked him a question. He simply reverted it.
  2. [228] I stated that I would walk away from the situation.
  3. [229] I stated all I wanted was a reply
  4. [230] I questioned wiki policy on youtube links and a few seconds later was blocked.
  5. [231] I told him I wasn't going to dwell on a situation. I had moved on.

Uconnstud (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse the above

Uconnstud (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Struck contribution of sockpuppet of blocked user. MastCell Talk 16:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Random832[edit]

I'm worried about this: "I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases." - it seems to me that JzG knows he's burned out, would like to take a break, but feels obligated to stay active - I would like to ask whoever is asking him to stay on to consider letting him take a break in peace. —Random832 13:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

  1. Agreed. Are those "specific cases" things that other people could help with? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think many of us are compelled (or addicted) to varying degrees to participate in Wikipedia but for most of us it isn't a negative addiction, i.e. it doesn't cause undue problems for ourselves or others. If, however, an editor's heavy involvement in the project is causing trouble for the editor and/or others, then the editor in question needs to take a break but, may have difficulty pulling themselves away. If so, whatever we can do to help the editor step away for awhile should be considered. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by user:Sbharris[edit]

As a long-time contributor who was once a newbie who got bitten (by Essjay), I have vowed to keep a watch on admins who violate WP:BITE a lot. Here is one. The evidence is above. I'm worried that we're all focused on WP:CIVIL,WP:NPA, and WP:EQ, which are becoming misleading red herrings, when there are far worse abuses documented above, including various admin abuses related to fairness and abuse of editorial powers in favor of POVs which reasonable people can debate (no invocations of Godwin's law, please), as well as WP:OWN, WP:DRC, WP:AGF, harassment, stalking, and other unpleasantness. All of this would be sufficient for harsh action even if he'd been unfailing polite on each occassion. "I'm reverting your TALK page and blocking you indefinitely, even though I'm sure you're otherwise a nice guy and probably mean well," is really just as damaging to the work of WP, even if it might be a little puzzling and perhaps a bit less anger-provoking to the target. I once had a elderly businessman swear to me that you could do all kinds of horrible things to employees and competitors, so long as you were nice about it, and not angry. Perhaps he was right, but it's not germane here except as an odd explanation for what people think is within acceptable parameters of nasty behavior, from polite people ("Hello, ma'am. As you can see, this is a pistol. Would you please give me your jewelry and all will be well, and have a nice day.")

Thus, I suggest an acid test in all this, for those who think CIVIL is THE issue in the matter. Go through the complaints above, and simply delete the ones that have ONLY to do with incivility, and for those that are mixed incivility and another issue, pretend that they were carried out with utmost courtesy. From what I can see, what's left is still damning (but try it, and your milage may vary). I think JzG needs a break from the power of the tools. I'm sure he means well and is a nice guy otherwise, and perhaps has done mighty deeds for WP in the past. But his present standard of behavior --- even if served up to the victims with utmost politeness and good manners!--- cannot be allowed to continue. Pleasantly Yours, SBHarris 11:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

  1. Agree. But I sincerely hope the behavior does change. Ward20 (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This very much reflects my own concerns with this RfC. CIV is just the easiest thing to see, but not the major problem at all. I'm tempted to say this is the best opinion yet, but don't want to downgrade the others. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JzG's abuse of admin tools concerns me just as much, if not more, as the incivility. Cla68 (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. misleading red herrings - absolutely. Dlabtot (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Well put. --Itub (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, on reflexion I think this is a very good statement. DuncanHill (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SashaNein (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I agree. His use of "naughty language" from time to time is not really a big deal in itself, but the general attitude he puts into his exercise of admin powers is a concern to me. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree. Nsk92 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Agree - and unfortunately, the abuse of tools appears to continue - today's content edit of locked article [232] TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Filll[edit]

I have seen many on this RfC page trot out that old saw, "well Guy will scare off newbies and other contributors". It is true that some might be dissuaded from being Wikipedians or continuing to be Wikipedians if someone tells them their idea is lousy, or if they see an expletive.

However, we always forget that if an editor has to deal with legions of coddled trolls and POV warriors, they can get disgusted and quit too. And it has happened repeatedly. Look at the WP:Expert Rebellion essay and look at Raymond Arritt's Expert Withdrawl pages. But somehow, instead of responding to try to develop better methods to deal with a hostile editing environment because of coddling assorted malcontents, we have a large contingent of editors who want to do more coddling. This group of editors that favors coddling often are the same group that wants to continually broaden the definition of unCIVIL to a ridiculous extent. There are consequences for coddling. It is not something without its own costs, and this should not be forgotten.

I will also point out that as time has gone on, we have developed a larger and stronger contingent of deletionists as well on Wikipedia. They are increasingly aggressive in deleting material, sometimes within seconds of it appearing. Newbies particularly are likely to be bitten by this.

What do you think is more discouraging for a newbie, to see an admin like Guy say someone has a boneheaded argument, or to work hard on a new article they are excited about, only to have someone immediately delete it with no explanation? And guess what? We do not worry much about deletionists and their effect on driving away editors and giving us a bad image.

How many newbies even understand what an AfD is or a speedy or what to do in response? How many newbies know what a DRV is? How many newbies know you can undelete deleted material? I have talked to many who are heartbroken afterwords. Many who get disgusted and quit. I suffered the same thing when I started; I had no idea what I was doing. It seemed like a bureaucratic maze and I did not know where to turn. And I worked on things, and then they disappeared, right in the middle of the work.

Yet, we actually have a culture that at least in part, celebrates deletionists. We have a culture that at least in part, promotes the coddling of malcontents. Both of these will have an effect on the culture and atmosphere here, and both likely drive away their share of editors. Both give us a bad image.

So how do they compare to someone like Guy who sometimes calls a SPADE a SPADE? Well we do not know. But the politically correct group here on Wikipedia is glad to make assumptions about things they do not know, and parrot unproven nonsense that someone else said. I am therefore asking you to think for yourself instead of repeating some stale argument that has no data or evidence supporting it. I do not find it particularly convincing, and you should be embarassed dragging such foolishness out here to demonstrate "how awful Guy is".--Filll (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

  1. I'll sign on to the part about deletionists. Someone deleted nearly the whole Parapsychology article out from under me when I had just got here, demanding sources- and the people who put the information in were long gone. I gave the sources, then they demanded page numbers. I gave the page numbers....... Most people wouldn't. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Piotrus[edit]

I have been on the receiving sharp end of JzG uncivil comments in the past, heck, in our first interactions on ANI, when both of us were admins, he removed my thread as trolling :) So yes, he has problems with WP:NPA/WP:AGF and such. But on the other hand I have been in many cases impressed by his judgment - he can cut through wikilawyering crap and highlight the important points. I would love to see him moderate himself more - but his uncanny insight should also be recognized. In the end, I believe that his frankness is better for this project than a ton of pointless and politicized wikilawyering. He threads on people's feelings, yes, but he is an asset to this project, and I believe his intentions are good - it's the execution that is lacking. JzG, please, moderate yourself a little - think before you write - remember many editors don't have thick skin and they should not be forced to grow one - and all will be fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

  1. You know, in what is supposedly a "Request for comment" about JzG, there are some positive comments, but they're strikingly different from the negative ones in their lack of detail. Why doesn't someone line up some diffs to show people Guy's good judgment, effective dispute-resolution skills, and excellent work? I suspect that a lot of people here aren't familiar with his work outside of troll-fighting - I admit that I'm unfamiliar. Would it be inappropriate for someone to say something less vague about the Good Work that Guy does? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, these things are supposed to teach people. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Endorse Piotrus, GTBacchus, and Martinphi. John J. Bulten (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment by User:Justin Eiler[edit]

As someone who has both been the victim of, and the aggressor in, hasty and uncivil actions, I fear I must concur with the previous arbitration ruling. An otherwise excellent editor and admin who repeatedly violates basic policy is a loose canon, and loose canons by their very nature do damage to the project. At this point, it's not a case of "weighing the costs and benefits"--damaging Wikipedia is damaging Wikipedia. I cannot see any resolution to this situation that does not involve (at the very least) Guy's voluntary dis-adminship that would restore a measure of trust to those who interact with him.

And I do mean "voluntary." Guy being forced to dis-admin would mean the trolls won--and yes, there are some trolls who have participated in this RfC.

That being said, I've had to also look at my own record ... and I cannot look at it with any pleasure. Like Guy, I have the best of intentions. perhaps like Guy, I frequently get too wrapped up in maintenance to contribute to the project. Wikipedia needs traffic cops--but it needs contributors even more.

It's no wonder my RfA failed. Frankly, I look at all the things that Guy is accused of (and mentally tally how many of them I'm guilty of myself), and I'm not sure I'm all that good a contributor. Justin Eiler (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Poor Durova. Not in the same category, I don't think. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Hiding[edit]

Since ScienceApologist asserts that we are too obsessed with civility and that there is no clear definition of civility, let's just clarify this if we can. I assert that, whatever the provocation, there is no excuse for calling someone a cunt. I can think of no wriggle room in any combination of policies in which we should allow one user to call another user a cunt. Now I can swear alongside the best of them. I can bandy about the word cunt in the workplace and amongst my friends with abandon, because that's acceptable. On Wikipedia I do not believe it is acceptable. I do not, no, I simply can not believe it in any way improves the encyclopedia. I do not believe any hostility does, but I think personally targeted abusive language is the worst thing we can do on Wikipedia. It creates a hostile environment, something we simply do not want. Wikipedia is not your work place. Wikipedia is not your pub or your social club. Wikipedia is not fight club, it is not your grandstand. Everyone, I don't care who they are, has the right not to be called a cunt. Administrators are trusted people. They need to earn trust and they need to maintain that trust. I do not believe calling someone a cunt respects the trust that has been placed in an administrator. Any administrator who calls another user a cunt needs to review what is going on in their head, and develop better techniques to stop themselves calling someone a cunt. I believe if such administrators cannot do that, then the community will have to at some point step in and decide whether it wants to allow people who call other users a cunt to edit Wikipedia. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Calling someone a cunt appears to me to be an abuse of that privilege. Hiding T 12:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this summary

  1. Well said. DuncanHill (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SashaNein (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is certainly true. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Civility being only one issue. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Pomte 03:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. One narrow aspect of the issues at play, but nevertheless, completely correct. Dlabtot (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WaltonOne 11:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. We might not be able to define WP:CIVIL-ity, but we know rudeness when we see it. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As Major Bonkers said, we do not have to have a definition of something to know when it happens. But, of course, being able to identify instances of incivility is a type of definition: it is called an Ostensive definition.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 15:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Vassyana[edit]

The purpose of an conduct-orientated RfC is to gauge the sense of the community and have the subject of the RfC respond appropriately. At this point, people are repeating the same things and periodically devolving into side discussions and sniping. We've pretty much tread out the community's feel for the situation. We all know what supporters have to say, what detractors have to say and what people who do not properly fall into either "camp" have to say. JzG has posted a response that addresses the main issues that were raised, which includes details of substantive steps being taken to alleviate and/or remove the situations leading to such undesirable patterns. Put down the stick, let go of that grudge and find something else to do. The purpose of an RfC has been served. At this point, we should simply take hope in the honesty of the reponse and give JzG time to see if his response is sufficient to correct the issues at hand. This RfC should be closed, having served its purpose, and we should all find more productive things to do than continue to gripe or debate here. Vassyana (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Hallelujah and amen. MastCell Talk 17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse David in DC (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Kbdank71 20:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Itub (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Time to close it down. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Hiding T 18:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Captain Nemo III[edit]

Please forgive me if making edits here are inappropriate. I am copying my edit from the talk page to this page.
I do have something to say about JzG due to a recent action by him and I hope this is the appropriate forum.
I was banned indef by JzG [233] and labelled a "SCOX troll". My account was accused of being a "disruptive Single Purpose account". What did I do to get this sanction? I brought a violation of a ban to the attention of the administrators. [234] Jeff Merkey was editing again, so I asked for enforcement of the Merkey's ban, in what I believed was the appropriate place to ask for action. I was given no warning of any action against me, no opportunity to discuss it beforehand. His assertions that I am an "SCOX Troll" [strange that he should use Merkey's own phrase?] is false and that my account is disruptive or single purpose are all false [235] (as evidenced by the fact that I was able to get another administrator to remove the block that JzG imposed)
I need to state right now that, while I am aware of the issues surrounding Merkey and WP, I have stayed out of them. I have never trolled Jeff (here or elsewhere) and Jeff has never accused me of trolling him.
Nevertheless, after a polite and brief discussion of Mr Merkey's ban evasion on ANI, which resulted in an IP block and further extention of his one year ban, JzG swung by and blocked me indef.
A real life comparison would be this: Someone witnesses a robbery in progress, reports it to the police. Some police come by, arrest the perps and leave. Then another cop comes by, asks no questions about what is going on, shoots the witness and drives off. Is this the type of cop you want in your city?
I attempted to engage JzG in a discussion of my ban, but he did not respond. Apparently, JzG does not believe in the WP:AGF policy, or perhaps he thinks it only applies to others in the WP community? Perhaps JzG needs to read his own pages. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/help is this:

If you feel an admin has done you wrong, try talking to them. Nicely. We are only human, we are janitors not policemen, and we are not paid for what we do. Almost all admins are reachable by email. Visit their user page and click the "email this user" link. Leave a message on their user Talk page.

In light of the lack of any response from JzG to my email to him, his suggestion looks pretty hypocritical. Based on the comments above, one would conclude that JzG believes that the rules should be rigorously enforced except where his own actions are concerned. It appears that he feels the rules don't apply to him and, given the length of time this appears to have been going on, other admins have been enabling this attitude.
JzG claims to have blocked 1200 users. How many of these were unwarranted and just left people upset with WP? People who never get their editing ability back?
JzG clearly has a hair trigger. Sometimes this is necessary, but a responsible admin/sysop should be prepared to discuss and remedy his/her own actions. In my case, JzG showed that he is not.
JzG showed contempt towards me and, by not responding in the normal manner to this action, he shows contempt towards the WP community. Much has been made of the loss of his father, which I am am sure is devastating -- but it is his problem and he must not be allowed to make it the community's problem. If he cannot use his admin powers responsibly at this time, then he should relinquish those powers until he can. Would JzG grant the same level of deference to someone who was suffering a similar level of stress? Based on my own experience and what I read here, the answer is clearly no.
My proposal is that JzG should lose his sysop/admin authority until such time as he can show that he can use those powers in a more judicious maner. Captain Nemo III (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. RfC's are to give the person another chance. But this is a good example of the problem, as far as I can tell. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. That this behaviour is continuing is sad. -- Naerii 15:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. He seems to reflexively block anybody he's not familiar with who shows up in any contentious area. Some of them may be good blocks, but an awful lot are bad, and he shows no remorse whatsoever. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I was just about ready to endorse the opinion that this RfC had run its course and should be closed, but Guy's bizarre block of Captain Nemo III suggests that he has learnt nothing. DuncanHill (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is troubling - I'd got the impression before that JzG had a certain "blind spot" when it comes to Merkey, but didn't think it went as far as using admin tools. --Random832 (contribs) 14:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Just to give JzG the benefit of the doubt, I read through Captain Nemo's edit history. I encourage anyone else who has their doubts to do the same. JzG's claim that Captain Nemo III had a disruptive single-purpose account is absolutely, categorically, and in every way false. The fact that he continues to act in this shoot-first-ask-questions-never fashion is further indication of the need for decisive disciplinary action.Skybum (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A troubling episode which, given its very recent timing, may indicate that this RfC has not worked. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Guy has learned nothing. SashaNein (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I would advise JzG to be very careful in his use of admin tools so as to not repeat again what appears to have happened here which is an incorrect block of another editor. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Very worrying.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I thought this RfC could be closed, but this recent incident shows that nothing changed. So, I do not think that JzG will change his behavior. It is time to request for arbitration. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. My first encounter with JzG was when he blocked someone indefinitely for talking for too much, after that person raised an issue of NPOV at the WP:ANI. That person, by the way, should be unblocked. JzG doesn't think about the damage he's doing to WP's reputation. He has a far-ranging influence because he interacts with newbies so much, and those people go on to tell people about how bad WP is. Plus, he has a thinly-veiled threat that he'll ban you if you cross him on his talk page. If he openly breaks rules, what does he do non-openly? He's a damaging distraction, and it's sad that we have to spend so much time dealing with it. Plus, he doesn't seem to actually contribute, just destroy. If his behavior remains obnoxious after he loses his admin privileges, he should be banned. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 02:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from AGK[edit]

I'm going to go ahead and blank this, as I find it a paraphrase of #Outside view by Kirill Lokshin, which I had previously not reviewed, prior to the posting of this statement. Kirill's thoughts are, for me, bang on, and reflect exactly what I was trying to say (unfortunately, my responses tend to be rather long and rambling :). Anthøny 11:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view from Walton[edit]

JzG is undoubtedly a controversial admin. "Controversial" does not always equate to "bad", and people who work in certain contentious areas (as he does) cannot avoid attracting some criticism and controversy; it goes with the territory. However, I think many of his actions and comments, as cited in this RfC, are miles over the line.

For an editor, his behaviour is acceptable; for an admin, it is not. The reason for this is that an unjustified block, or an unjustified speedy deletion, can drive a user away. The evidence presented just above by User:Captain Nemo III demonstrates what can happen when he is too quick to block. I am worried that he sees Wikipedia as a battleground against trolls, rather than as a collegial environment. In the end, contributors are our most important resource, and we need to be slow to block, and careful not to drive away new users. An aggressive block can be intimidating for a new user.

He admits to having performed controversial indef-blocks of established users. In my view, such a block should never be performed without gaining consensus from the community at ANI or another appropriate forum. Vandals and legal-threateners should be blocked on sight, but an established user needs to have a chance to defend themselves, and should not be blocked based on one admin's impulse. We cannot afford to throw away contributors.

I do not question the quality of his contributions to the encyclopedia, and I would not want him to leave. I also sympathise with the personal stress in his life. But I advise that he takes a wikibreak, or at least abstains from performing controversial admin actions for some time. I do not propose any disciplinary sanctions, nor do I expect that any will be taken.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. SashaNein (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Outside view from Dusti[edit]

JzG has certainly had his fill as an admin and has done some great work for Wikipedia as an Administrator. Every now and then users tend to mess up and make mistakes. Admin's do it too. We are all human and are entitled to that get out of jail free card. Now, while I'm not condoning his actions, blocks, ect. because some of them are questionable, I feel that he needs a break. I suggest that he be given a stern, let's take a vacation and come back when your feeling better (i.e. anywhere from a week to a year). Don't strip him from the tools yet...Give him a last chance to revert his wrongs. Dustispeak and be heard! 19:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary
  1. As suggested...Dustispeak and be heard! 19:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by Urban Rose[edit]

This user has been very uncivil towards me and accusatory as well, and on top of that has practically admitted to using his position as an admin to further his own personal agendas. I didn't realize the extent of his behavior until I saw this page. I don't believe that someone who has done the things that he has done deserves to have the tools. Everyone makes mistakes (I am no exception), but his behavior has no excuse:

  1. Implies in a comment that Urban Rose is somehow partially involved in the "Grawp" vandalism [236]
  2. Repetitively uses rollback to remove comments by Urban Rose from his talk page [237] [238]
  3. Closes a deletion review citing "just no" as one of the reasons [239] then afterwards admits on his talk page that he closed the review for personal feelings he has against the article's subject [240].

I strongly believe that his admin rights should be revoked.--Urban Rose 03:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary
  1. His behavior during this incident has been very unacceptable. After proclamations like this, I have no further trust that JzG can be a competent administrator. SashaNein (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view from TreasuryTag[edit]

I made my point elsewhere and it is linked to above; make of it what you will! —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary[edit]

Proceeded to ArbCom.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2&oldid=1144623470"