Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2

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: 20:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• JzG (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

Statement of the dispute

Description

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

Incivility, personal attacks, and general rudeness

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. Another "fuck off" ([28])
13. Attacks editors' judgment and accuses them of being exploited by associating them with banned users ([29])
14. Accuses editor of being a "trolling sockpuppet" ([30])
15. 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". [31]
16. 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" [32].
17. 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". [33]
18. Deletes other editors' comments in a dismissive and uncivil manner. [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], and [40]
19. Describes another editor as a troll [41] when asked to refactor the attacks/BLP violations made on the Matanmoreland arbitration case pages.
20. Admonishes editor to "shut the fuck up you whiny little twat" [42]. Discussed in ANI thread here [43]
21. Tells users "I want you to fuck off" [44]
22. Tells user "You are not welcome here. Now fuck off" ([45] (admin only, page now deleted)), then used rollback to reinsert the abuse ([46] (admin only))
23. Dismissive of attempts by an editor to resolve a charged situation peacefully: [47]
24. 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.": [48], [49]
25. A "fuck off" again: [50]
26. Calls another editor a "worthless twat" [51]
27. Warns editor about 3RR violation in a condescending and confrontational manner [52].
28. Removes request from another admin to review a deletion JzG closed with the dismissive "not interested in your little digs" [53], then when the admin queries this [54], JzG misuses rollback to again remove the query [55].
29. 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) [56]
30. Removes comments by Viridae from his talk page with edit summaries, "Viridae is not welcome here" [57], "Go away and stay away" [58], and "Viridae's input is *remarkably* unwelcome" [59].
31. Insults editor and creator of an article in AfD nomination [60]
32. Threatens editor in shouty and abusive edit summaries over "editorializing" (adding a comment in small text) [61], [62]
33. Removes a warning with abusive edit summary [63]
34. "Shut the fuck up" [64] on wikien-l, reprimanded [65]
35. Sarcastic and personal language used in announcing the block of a sockpuppet account [66]
36. Tells an editor "And another of the fringe pushers crawls out of the woodwork" and then tries to out the editor [67]. Discussed at ANI [68].
37. Protects his talk page with the edit summary "Tedious anon twat" [69]

Personal attacks on living persons

1. Ridicules another user's mental health and discusses confidential OTRS requests in a public forum [70]
2. JzG calls Judd Bagley an "obsessive troll" [71], a "net.kook", "absolutely not above forgery", a "vicious, agenda-driven troll" [72], "Bagley's lunacy" [73], "his (Bagley's) vile smear campaigns" [74], "harassment meme inventor" [75], "long history of abuse by Bagley" [76], "paranoid fantasies of banned abusers" [77], "targets of his harassment" [78], "Bagley uses disinformation and harassment against anyone who does not uncritically support his company" [79], "Bagley is a vicious hatemonger" [80], "Bagley's idiocy" [81], "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" [82], "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" [83], "the delusional outpourings of sociopaths" [84], and "this malicious piece of shit-stirring by Bagley" [85].
3. Describes a living person as a "vile agenda-driven troll" in the middle of an arbitration case [86], in the full knowledge that such characterisation is wholly inappropriate (used similar language [87], redacted it after being urged to do so[88])
4. Outed a blocked user's real life identity on a publicly available mailing list [89]
5. Runs a personal Wiki website, advertised on his talk page, which contains, much like the sites he rails against, personal attacks ([90], [91]) and outing of Wikipedia editors ([92], [93]).

Abuse of admin privileges

General abuse

1. Threatens editor (DanT) with a block [94] for questioning another block, detailed here [95].
2. Misuse of rollback to remove a complaint made by an editor (TlatoSMD - blocked now but in good standing at the time) against himself ([96])
3. Self-blocks his own account during a "wikibreak" despite policy not permitting this. [97]
4. Makes two significant edits to a fully-protected article [98] and [99]
5. Another significant edit to a fully protected article [100] and then extends full protection for a month [101]
6. Is blocked for wheel warring with another admin in spite of warnings to stop [102]
7. Deleted Talk:Short and distort (a redirect) [103] 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 [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109]. Adamantly asserted that the recreated version was written ab initio [110], 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 [111]
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 ([112], [113], [114])
11. Speedy deleted article for "having the wrong tone" ([115])
12. Indefinitely blocks Zibiki Wym with the edit summary "Claims to be a banned user. Banned means banned" [116]. The user was not banned at that time. His previous account, MyWikiBiz, had been unblocked by Jimbo six days earlier [117].
13. Blocked Privatemusings [118] while engaged in dispute with same editor and may have breached confidence by forwarding personal information about Privatemusings [119]. Discussed more here [120].
14. Wheel-warring over the blocking of Fairchoice [121]
15. Misuse of rollback tool to remove comments he didn't agree with [122], [123] & [124] (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 [125]
17. Speedy deleted Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg, and after it was undeleted by DRV consensus, speedy deleted it again.[126] The image was again undeleted through DRV and later moved to Commons.

Biting newbies

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" ([127]).
2. Blocked a new user, Timjowers, indefinitely for adding links to articles, with no warnings or attempt to explain policy [128]. Castigated by numerous users ([129], [130]), yet still refused to undo his actions or apologise. Eventually unblocked over a day later with discourteous block log summary [131].
3. Posted abusive message to a new user's talk page ([132]) after blocking the user ([133]) and deleting their dictionary definition article [134] - not a valid CSD, see [135] [admin only]), then threatened the user with further blocks if the article was reposted [136]. User never edited again.

Disruption

1. Redirects "Turd burglar" to Gay [137] and protected the redirect ([138] - admin only). Redirect deleted by another admin as "inappropriately mocking and derisive" [139]
2. Treats Wikipedia like a battleground [140] and tries to bait the user whose attribution rights JzG violated into taking legal action [141]
3. Vandalises another users userpage multiple times, adding the word "infantile" to their list of interests (page temp restored to userspace): [142], [143]
4. Removes links to Wikipedia Review even though most are linked in the appropriate context (raised on JzG's talk:[144]), diffs [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

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 [162]
2. Attempts by Neil to influence JzG's behavior [163] [164] [165] [166]
3. Attempts by GTBacchus to influence JzG's behavior [167] [168] [169] [170]
4. Attempts by Privatemusings to influence JzG's behavior [171] [172] [173]
5. Attempts by Messedrocker to influence JzG's behavior [174] [175] [176]
6. Attempt by Rlevse to influence JzG's behavior [177]

Refusal to participate in dispute resolution

1. Well-intentioned attempt by Cla68 to resolve the dispute and involve JzG in this RFC prior to activation was rudely dismissed [178]
2. Notification of the RfC starting also rudely dismissed: [179]

Summary

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

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

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

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Before someone inevitably points out that JzG does a lot of work for the encyclopaedia etc is this arbcom ruling: [180]

   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. Viridae^Talk 11:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

2. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
3. DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Woody (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
5. John254 16:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
6. SashaNein (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
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.
8. Achromatic (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
10. Majorly (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
11. --EJF (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Per Viridae & B. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
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. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Everyking (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Wizardman 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
16. I was planning this RfC myself, but got beaten to it. I have never seen a more abusive admin, or heard of one. Adam Cuerden was a comparative angel. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
17. A frightening first contact for a new editor. Anthon01 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Prolog (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Response

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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Addhoc

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)
2. More than questionable.--MONGO 16:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
4. Majorly (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Without doubt. Orderinchaos 16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Endorse -- Shot info (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
7. And sometimes, someone has to show out-and-out trolls what the shillelagh is--TheNautilus (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
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)

9. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Naerii

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 [181] [182]? 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)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Viridae^Talk 12:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
3. Neıl ☎ 15:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Discombobulator (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
5. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
7. John254 16:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
9. krimpet✽ 16:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
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 [183]. 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)

    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)

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)
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.
13. --EJF (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Jmlk17 03:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Joe 06:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Not a fan of the false dichotomy between rudeness and allowing pov-pushing nutjobs. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
18. SashaNein (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
21. Agreed, plus per Alison, Professor marginalia . — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Dlabtot (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Achromatic (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Tired of double standards. Cool Hand Luke 04:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Majorly (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
28. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
31. Everyking (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
32. Wizardman 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
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. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
34. Prolog (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
35. JzG is the most arrogant and the most ignorant editor I encountered on Wikipedia. He once page-blanked an article I started saying it violated NPOV and making other accusations [184]. However he could not substantiate any of it [185], 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 [186]. I say: get rid of him as an admin ASAP! --JaapBoBo (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

• --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Doc^g 16:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
3. --Addhoc (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
4. --MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 17:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

   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)

5. Will ^(talk) 11:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
6. funny, whatever it's for lol:) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Yeah, that's well said. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Couldn't have said it better myself. Orderinchaos 16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
9. "Won't somebody do something about the Encyclopedia?" -- Shot info (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Everyone go edit an article. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 11:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Henrik

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)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Lawrence § t/e 17:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
5. Remember Nietzsche's famous maxim regarding the abyss. *** Crotalus *** 18:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
7. - jc37 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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) Viridae^Talk 03:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
11. SashaNein (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Majorly (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Kirill Lokshin

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)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. John254 17:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Naerii (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
3. krimpet✽ 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
4. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Woody (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Lawrence § t/e 18:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
7. I also find disappointing the manner in which Guy chose to react to this RfC. Sandstein (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Wizardman 19:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
10. Well said Viridae^Talk 20:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Endorse wholeheartedly. DuncanHill (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Neıl ☎ 20:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
13. No question about it. Sethie (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Regrettably have to agree. Davewild (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Per Sandstein. EJF (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Completely agree. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Admins ought to provide more light, less heat. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
19. Itub (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
21. especially GRBerry's last comment. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
22. and definitely agree with Sandstein and GRBerry. SashaNein (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
23. - Alison ^❤ 19:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Agree with SashaNein --Kbdank71 20:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Well said, Kirill. I totally agree. Dreadstar † 01:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Dlabtot (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
27. Spot on. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
28. Agree. It's the journey not the destination. Ward20 (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Achromatic (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Very well said.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
31. True. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
33. I also commend GRBerry's remarks. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
34. Majorly (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
35. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
37. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
38. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
39. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
40. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
41. Everyking (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
42. TimidGuy (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
43. Bucketsofg 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC).
44. Excellent summary. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
45. I think GRBerry's comment especially is very insightful. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
46. Prolog (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
47. --The Smoking Nun (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
48. Carcharoth (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
50. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Lawrence Cohen

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)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Sandstein (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Basically the same as Kirill Viridae^Talk 20:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
3. EJF (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
4. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
5. SashaNein (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Dlabtot (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Majorly (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Orderinchaos 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
9. A plain version of Kirills view. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Doc

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? --Doc^g 18:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Doc^g 18:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2. --Yep, but if you are feeling stressed, consider taking a wikibreak. Addhoc (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
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)

   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)

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)

   "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)

   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)

   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)

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)

Comment by MONGO

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)

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)
2. Nicely put. My sentiment exactly. --John (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Addhoc (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
5. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 23:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

   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)

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)
7. Yes, and I have noticed that MONGO is following his own advice in recent times. EJF (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. 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)
9. SashaNein (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Well said, MONGO - Alison ^❤ 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Would definitely be a step in the right direction. GRBerry 19:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
12. It's a great start. --Kbdank71 20:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
13. 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)
14. 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)
15. Not sure i entirely agree with the wording, but I agree with the premise. Viridae^Talk 04:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Agreed. Achromatic (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
17. I couldn't have said it better, and that wasn't for lack of trying. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Let's all be nice.
19. Majorly (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
20. probably good if many of us took this to heart.--Doc^g 09:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
21. Well said. Orderinchaos 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
22. 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. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
23. This is actually policy. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 04:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
24. There's always room for greater civility. JzG does valuable work and should continue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Well said indeed. Dorftrottel (canvass) 11:26, March 5, 2008
26. 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)
27. 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)

Comment by Sethie

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)
2. Majorly (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Viridae

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) Viridae^Talk 03:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to comment below on the talk page. Viridae^Talk 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User who endorse this statement

1. Majorly (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Neıl ☎ 12:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
3. SashaNein (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Discombobulator (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Viridae^Talk 23:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Ignorning it means he stands by his actions. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Nick in response to the above by Viridae

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)

Users who endorse this statement

1. Nick (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Guy should be more civil, but others, including Viridae, should also improve their conduct. Addhoc (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jc37

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.

• 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.

• 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.

Wikipedians 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)
2. Majorly (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Comment by FT2

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)
2. Viridae^Talk 23:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I would say "was a tremendous asset", not "is", but agree for the most part. Neıl ☎ 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

   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)

4. henrik•talk 00:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
5. - Alison ^❤ 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
6. but endorse Neil's alteration SashaNein (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
9. Hear, hear. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
10. --John (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
11. --The Smoking Nun (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
12. with Neil's change. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by MastCell

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)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Addhoc (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
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)

   I agree, it is definitely refreshing to improve a non-controversial article under the radar. MastCell ^Talk 04:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   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)

3. Endorse. (Comments split into its own section) FCYTravis (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
5. Agree -- Shot info (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Mostly. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
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)

Outside view by FCYTravis

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)

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. Viridae^Talk 07:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

   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)

4. Addhoc (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
7. Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
10. Very well put. There's a far bigger underlying problem here. krimpet✽ 04:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

View by User:Anonymous Dissident

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 Dissident^Talk 07:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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)
2. --EJF (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Hiding

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)

Should be nicer

Why Guy should choose to act in the way he has is beyond us. He is a school governor and a regular churchgoer. Yet he is quite happy to call people "twats" and level all sorts of obscenities at anyone he disagrees with. He has made potentially defamatory comments against Angela Kennedy and someone we know has had a whole sequence of obscenities levelled at them "twat" etc. What is more he claims to be friends with Prof. Simon Wessely and alleges that it is Simon Wessely who has told him that he has been harassed by Ms. Kennedy (and one assumes he also mean Ms. Bryant). This is unacceptable as it brings the work of a serious scientist like Wessely into disrepute.

I am sure Guy's close relationship with Prof. Wessely is just fantasy- next he'll be saying Wessely is going to buy him a drink!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherinefionarichardson (talk • contribs) Mar 9, 2008

The community is too obsessed with civility

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)

Discussion

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.