Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/JzG2

Notification

JzG notified [1]. Cla68 (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of note

Before someone inevitably points out that JzG does a lot of work for the encyclopaedia etc is this arbcom ruling: [2]

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)[reply]

an early tuppence

hi folks, I may respond more fully in due course, possibly with an 'outside view', though I've clearly been in dispute with guy, so maybe there's a better place.. I'll figure it out.... In the interim, I thought I'd post a tuppence worth here, to share some thoughts and see what others think.....

My desired outcome is to draw a few lines in the sand - not to obsess over blame, or raise the temperature unduly, or even to get too stuck in the detail of the whys and wherefores of what's happened in the past.

Without digging too deeply, it's pretty clear to me that amongst some of the 60+ points raised on the RfC are some for which Guy should apologise, and I'd encourage him to be willing to share some indication of contrition, and therefore growth. Guy was kind enough, in our dispute, to say that he didn't think I was evil - well, I don't think he is either - I think he's a passionate, intelligent man who cares deeply about this project. I also frankly see Guy as someone who has caused damage to the project through some of his good faith actions. From my perspective, the best outcome of this RfC is that Guy could take a look, maybe say 'geez, I do kinda get the wrong end of the stick once in a while, and stuff up' and then the wiki will have an even better editor and admin. than right now.... I wish this process well, and hope you do too... Privatemusings (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Privatemusings, I broadly agree, but think we shouldn't hammer JzG over events that happened last year. Addhoc (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate timing

The man's father just passed away. I imagine he's under quite a lot of stress. Certainly we saw that during the Oxford Round Table saga. I'm not commenting on the merits of this RfC - let's be frank, it's been coming a long time - but as a matter of basic human courtesy, can't this wait? ~ Riana ⁂ 15:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been desirable for him to take a wikibreak given these circumstances, and if he did, then everybody else should have cooperated by leaving him alone and not re-opening old disputes. However, he did not; he kept on making controversial admin actions during this "condolence" period, so there's no reason he should be exempt from having to take some of what he continued to dish out. His defenders will make any excuse to keep him from having to answer for his own behavior; his recent actions are due to the stress of his family loss, while his older actions are ancient history that shouldn't be dug up. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is under so much stress that they are unable to participate to acceptable standards, a break is probably in their interest as much as it is in Wikipedia's. Naerii (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view JzG has acted poorly on many occasions, so let's not act like I'm trying to cover up for him. But to say "But he started it!" and "He should have known better!" does not bypass what is, in my opinion, a patent lack of common civility on the part of the initiators of this RfC. I cannot fathom how anyone could embark upon this endeavour with a clear conscience, but I guess that's not my problem. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Riana. Nice work slurring any and all who may think there are problems with guy's editing and admin-ing as monsters. An RfC is not an attack, it is an attempt to show there is a problem and resolve it when the editor insists there is not one. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, IP. I'd've taken part myself, and I have problems. And RfC isn't an attack, but sadly it mostly turns into an inquisition. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's a problem with RfC that should be fixed. But we can't stop all dispute resolution while we find a way to make it better. -Amarkov moo! 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about the timing issue also. The problem here has been pointed out above, if JzG was allowing the stress from recent events in his personal life to affect his behavior in Wikipedia, and that may be the case, then he should have taken a long wikibreak. Others have done so successfully, one example here. This editor recognized that off-wiki stress was affecting her adversely, announced she was taking break, and actually did it [3] (by the way, I'm not saying that there was any problem with Elaragirl's editing, just using her wikibreak as an example of someone who actually took one). If someone chooses not to take a break when they need to, and then behaves or continues to behave in a manner that isn't acceptable, the community's concerns need to be brought to their attention quickly, for the benefit of all concerned. Cla68 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riana, we've all known this was coming for a couple weeks. Even Guy has known it was coming. He could have asked for more time, he could have said something. Instead, he removed his advance notice from his talk page and told the poster to never post on his talk page again. When he said he was taking a wikibreak for Cannes, the preparers decided to delay posting it until after he returned. (Not that I could tell Guy was actually taking a wikibreak; he went right on being active throughout it.) As a matter of human courtesy, this could have waited if Guy actually had taken a break - but he has shown that he intends to keep right on going. This is a long standing problem; I almost started getting one of these ready around May of 2007 - but he did declare stress and take a real wikibreak then. GRBerry 13:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc's view

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This section was rapidly sent off topic into debate that adds nothing to the RfC at hand. It can therefore be conducted elsewhere should someone wish to continue it at a more appropriate forum. Viridae ^Talk 03:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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."

The point, which Addhoc appears to have missed, is that by Guy's own criteria (outing, gross personal attacks and insults towards Wiki editors and towards people identified by their real name), Guy's wiki (chapmancentral.co.uk) is as much an attack site. These are the same criteria which he used to remove any and all links to Wikipedia Review. The filers of the RFC may not share Guy's view on what constitutes an attack site. Neıl ☎ 15:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil, to be honest I'm more confused now. As I understand what you're saying, you are suggesting that JzG's conduct is significantly worse than other editors. And in the same breath your saying evidence for this includes that he has linked to a site that involves outing, gross personal attacks and insults. And still in the same breath you're saying that you are involved in a site that involves outing, gross personal attacks and insults. From where I'm standing you haven't shown that your conduct is any better. Addhoc (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has either Neil or JzG knowingly linked to outing and personal attacks on external sites, or is this just hyperbolae? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably hyperbolae. Addhoc (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Neil post on WR? Guy's site, from having looked at it, should NOT be linked from Wikipedia due to gross personal attacks there. Lawrence § t/e 17:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an editor by the username of Neil on WR, though I don't know if they are the same person. WR contributors routinely attack, insult and belittle those they have a beef with. Efforts by some WR participants have included attempts to identify the real life identities of our contributors. Some editors at WR have called our contributors almost every name in the book....little or nothing is done by the mods there to refactor those comments...therefore, if JzG's blog also does this, then they are both sites that attack our contributors.--MONGO 17:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, as two wrongs do not equal a right, neither should be considered acceptable. --John (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Addhoc (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, I didn't say either was acceptable...and I also believe neither should be linked to.--MONGO 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your views on restricting what people can link to have resoundingly failed to achieve consensus; most of the community believes that we're (mostly) responsible adults who can be trusted to follow whatever links we want without being corrupted thereby. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"WR contributors routinely attack, insult and belittle those they have a beef with." - gross generalization there, MONGO - Alison ^❤ 18:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we're a long way away from ever taking that festering dungheap seriously. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it a "festering dungheap" would only make sense if WR was monolithic. It isn't. -Amarkov moo! 18:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's monolithic. It is indeed the very model of a community of diverse elements united only by bitterness and the baser instincts. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not monolithic, why does it make sense to talk about "taking WR seriously", when WR is not one voice? -Amarkov moo! 18:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't understand your point. In my town there is a corner of a park (Speakers' Corner) where, historically, people gather at weekends and speak in public about whatever they want. It tends to attract nutters. I don't take it seriously. It is not monolithic. I don't believe that it would make any difference if it were monolithic, I would still not take it seriously. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So should your town have a BADPLACES policy where they ban anybody from linking to such a sinister Attack Park-Corner... like, perhaps, forcing the local mapmakers to leave the place out of their maps? *Dan T.* (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you've got me really confused now. What does my not taking Speakers' Corner or Wikipedia Review seriously have to do with banning anyone from linking to it? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I (apparently incorrectly) pegged you as being part of the same "camp" as the BADSITES advocates on this. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are "the BADSITES advocates" in this matter? What do they have to do with the observation that Wikipedia Review has long been a festering dungheap of ill-will, bitterness and trolling? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some do that, and some don't. And some speak out against it when they see it, if speaking out would help at all. ++Lar: t/c (a WR contributor, for why see [4] ) 18:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, I don't have the percentages but if you are in denial that some, certainly not all mind you, contributors to WR routinely do the things I mention, and that little or no effort is made by the mods there to refactor those comments, then you haven't bothered to read the comments posted there very much. I expect our contibutors to work towards Karma with each other...[5].--MONGO 18:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That statment you've linked to says that people associated with "sites hypercritical of Wikipedia" may expect to be closely monitored. That's fine. It does not logically follow that people associated with such sites are at fault for what anyone else says there. -Amarkov moo! 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point and I wasn't alluding to Alison in particular...just trying to encourage all to not use off site venues as a place to encourage those persons who do that sort of behavior. But when someone characterizes my comment as I made it as a gross generalization, then that indicates to me that they must not have been on the recieving end as much as myself and others have been. Useful critique is welcome, and I do read that website often and have tried to learn from what obstenably appear to be useful comments, but that's hard to do when SOME editors there insist on calling me an asshole etc.....I already know that, so I learn nothing!--MONGO 19:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on the "receiving end" of enough nonsense, both on and off WP. I'm featured on ED right now for using my own children as sex toys, etc, etc. I try not to let it get to me. Frankly, seeing the same old faces doing the BADSITES thing, both pro- and anti- is getting boring at this stage; both "sides" make valid points and neither listens to the other. And on we go ... - Alison ^❤ 19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison's corollary to Godwin's law: - ""As a Wikipedia discussion grows longer, the probability of a heated debate involving BADSITES or Wikipedia Review approaches one.". Folks, can we move on to the topic in hand and not get diverted on yet another pointless debate? - Alison ^❤ 19:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... we mustn't assume that an off wiki venue which has this Rfc festering (not to mention a recent RFa where they indicated that others should "vote early and often") would not be worth noting as being a potential rallying point. Nah, there surely is no malicious intent...it's a REVIEW of course.--MONGO 19:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter who has a rallying point where. Even if WR members are completely responsible for making this RfC, I fail to see the relevance to JzG's behavior. -Amarkov moo! 19:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which Wikipedia Review members are alleged to have made this RfC? Is this just a random jibe, or is there an actual accusation? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, MONGO says that the RfC was "festering" on WR, and also says that it is "a potential rallying point". I suppose if you're using some bizzare dictionary that defines words in whichever way is convenient, that doesn't mean that WR members are behind the RfC. But normal people, using normal definitions of words, would find it hard to arrive at another conclusion. -Amarkov moo! 19:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That opinion is noteworthy and a good point and I do not believe that WR sponsored this Rfc...but no doubt, that "dungheap" of a website is oftentimes used as a rallying point...a point from which a few dramaqueens masquarading as editors may (as they apparently have in the past) decide to get their sweet reward for all the horrible offenses that have befallen them, since, of course, they are not responsible for their actions in any way....it was the CABAL, surely. As far as normal, by wikipedia expectations, normal would mean those that have provided, at least some time in their editing history, some evidence that they have made some sort of substantial effort to contribute to the sum of knowledge, not just to the sum of drama.--MONGO 19:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's nice, WR is evil and all. Are you going to provide a concrete way in which that is relevant to an RfC on Guy, or are you just going to keep insisting that it is without explaining why? -Amarkov moo! 19:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the website is evil, nor do I think it's contributors are either...(aside from the ones who are dead set on stalking just for the sake of it and do nothing else it seems)...my point is that website does influence things here to a degree, some perhaps postively and some not so positively....and the fact that they have a section dedicated to the presumed evilness of JzG is not unnoticed--MONGO 20:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the question raised above - yes, the Neil on Wikipedia Review is me. Viridae, who also contributed heavily to constructing this RFC, is also a member. Cla68, who did most of the groundwork, is not (as far as I know). I don't believe I've carried out any outing, gross personal attacks or insults. There are a number of Wikipedians in good standing who are members of that forum (Lar, Alison, Amarkov, Viridae, myself, Ryan Postlethwaite, Majorly, just to name a few) - yes, there are some bad apples, too, but tarring all WR members with the same brush is plain wrong. As for this RFC, I would hope people comment on the content, and not the cotnributors - even though the contributors are all Wikipedians in good standing. An element of obfuscation and focusing on minor points was always to be expected, of course. The main thrust of this RFC is to illustrate that JzG has a long-standing history of poor conduct that is unsuitable for an administrator, and to date no efforts to change that have been successful. His initial response to this RFC does not fill me with hope that this time will be any different, but we can all AGF and monitor his conduct for improvement from here on in. Neıl ☎ 19:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you do with your spare time in addition to Wikipedia is, of course, up to you. But good grief! --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, RfCs often bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. Addhoc (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome it. Neıl ☎ 20:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Adhoc may (or may not, I don't know) be raising some valid issues, don't those issue really, really belong elsewhere? This is about JzG2's behavior. Sethie (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sethie, in case it wasn't obvious the diffs included in my outside view are taken from the evidence. Addhoc (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see the veering-off-topic stuff on the talk page than on the RFC itself. Neıl ☎ 20:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

!!! :) Of Course. And thanks AdHoc I didn't catch that. Sethie (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

back on topic

Two points - Wikipedia is not therapy was my rather hamfisted way of communicating to Guy that he had to take responsibility for his actions regardless of the personal circumstances - in other words you are there to help wikipedia noth the other way around. It was not said in bad faith. Secondly, the mentions of his blog are just there to highlight the different standards he applies to essentially the same material - vicious attacks from both sides. None of the people filing the RfC want to see a purge of BADSITES, it would just be nice if he didn't apply some massive double standards. It would probobly also be nice if he kept to his own standards and removed the offending material, not just the links - but that is entirely up to him and his conscious. Viridae ^Talk 21:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viridae, what I'm saying is that hopefully Guy can be more diplomatic, and you can be less clumsy. Addhoc (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important that a lot of people look a bit more introspectively and do some self evaluations.--MONGO 19:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what's best for wikipedia

What's best for wikipedia is for everyone who turns wikipedia into a battleground to go somewhere else. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Neıl ☎ 16:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<cough> --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose you have a foolproof method for determining who is at fault in all cases? I'd like to know about it if you do, that's something that nobody else in the world has ever come up with. -Amarkov moo! 18:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to view by Doc

Why don't we just get rid of all sanctions, then? If AGF means that we have to trust people to change their behavior appropriately without any binding action, by what logic is anyone ever blocked? -Amarkov moo! 18:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would/should Guy be exempt from our AGF and civility policies? No one is exempt. Period. Full stop. Lawrence § t/e 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shot info's comment

Re this comment by Shot info: "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)"

I am interested in getting rid of trollish, abusive, foul-mouthed, homophobic editors. His behaviour damages encyclopædia building by alienating and demoralising good contributors. If I used the language JzG so frequently uses, if I was as uncommunicative as him, if I baited and abused other editors as he does, I would rightly have been long-term blocked long ago, just as countless others have been blocked for that type of behaviour. JzG gets enormous support from other admins - often at exactly the wrong time, and Wikipedia has in my opinion acted as an enabler for his abusive behaviour. I don't want to be part of a system that tolerates or even encourages and endorses his kind of behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That commenter seems to favor witch hunts... as long as they're against the "right" people. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hold back boys...feel free to let it all out... Shot info (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself (not necessarily for any of the others involved in this RFC), my reason for opposing JzG is precisely out of my dislike of witchhunts... and all other aspects of a vindictive, punitive, guilt-by-association, Judge Dredd-ish administrator (judge, jury, and executioner), attitude, which I find JzG to exemplify, and which his supporters, even those who admit he gets a bit overzealous and uncivil at times, like him for. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shot info accusing people pursuing good faith (and demonstrably legitimate given the quantity of evidence) attempts at dispute resolution using the recognised dispute resolution process of conducting a "witch hunt" is both unhelpful and uncivil. I would appreciate it if you could refactor your statement to remove that statement, which is unecessarily inflamatory. This doesn't of course mean that I don't think your opinion on the matter is valid, just that you can express it without inciting arguments. Viridae ^Talk 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Review comment

As I see the subject of this RfC has characterised it as "laundry list of Wikipedia Review members' grudges" here, I want to put it on record that I am not a member of that site (although I understand many Wikipedians in good standing are, and I see nothing wrong with this). Furthermore I am not aware of having any sort of "grudge" against JzG; like most here I have great respect for JzG and just want to see him improve his behaviour so that we can make better and more harmonious progress on the project of building a free encyclopedia. That's all. --John (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a member of Wikipedia Review. DuncanHill (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me either. I understand how admins, and established editors, can get stressed and tired. But bad behaviors interfere with the project, and when stressed users start believing that they have license to go Dirty Harry Callahan to catch the bad guys, they need a vacation, not beatification. Unfortunately, too often that's what is happening, the bad behavior is being cheered and encouraged as badge of honor for fighting the good fight, and incivility championed as "necessary" for getting the job done around here. Well it isn't, it simply increases the level of pov editing as well as increasing the number of edit wars, filling talk pages with irrelevant finger pointing and extraneous arguments, adding to the already burdensome administrative load at wikipedia, and on and on. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the direct relevance of whether I am or am not a member of Wikipedia Review to this matter. Nevertheless, I am, and I have explained why on my nascent blog. ++Lar: t/c 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a sad indictment of the BADSITES / siege mentality that has people even feeling a need that they need to disclaim or clarify WR involvement. Whilst Addhoc, somewhat inappropriately in my view, tells Neil "an RfC may bring increased scrutiny on all concerned" (as indeed it should), one cannot be but somewhat frustrated that many have skipped right over a list of something in the order of ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY alleged infractions of various WP policies by an administrator to start attacking the motivations of those raising concerns with said behavior by "Watch out, this has WR written all over it". Achromatic (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{snotty comment retracted}} I agree with Acrhomatic that it is unfortunate, if not unexpected. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG participation

There has been quite strong participation from a whole variety of people, however JzG's participation is still lacking. Can someone who he won't ignore encourage him to aprticipate, it is for his own good - especially seeing that consenus in this RfC seems to indicate that people agree he has a problem. Viridae ^Talk 00:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why he has to participate - I'd like to think that he's reading it and thinking about, and I think he very probably is doing so, or will do so. We don't need to force him to make a public statement about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An indication that is being read is all I ask, his reponse to the notification did not exactly inspire confidence that that would happen. Viridae ^Talk 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually, it's hard not to read a page about oneself. Give him time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only wish that those friends he wouldn't ignore had been kind enough to Guy to let him know that he was heading in a difficult direction a long time ago. There have been gentle pushes in that direction from the community for a while now. I understand he was one of several editors put on moderation on wiki-en-l for over-the-top commentary (his commentary was no better or worse than that from others, I will point out); and there was the recent MfD of one of his user pages that referred to "Troll-B-Gon." In the latter case, many editors expressed the sentiment that they could live with the page, if Guy would only modify his behaviour. Risker (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think it's because people haven't wanted to but it carries a certain risk to do that. As MONGO says above it's also about looking at oneself and re-evaluate one's priorities and behaviour. You can't really force someone to do that, it needs to come from inside oneself. I've seen how things have gone downhill for the last year or so, actually ever since the article about him on ED was created. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG will be monitoring the RFC, even if he never admits it. If he chooses to participate, so much the better, but we cannot and should not force him to. I would support those editors he trusts gently encouraging him to participate, but nothing more, and no badgering. Neıl ☎ 12:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badgering rarely gets anywhere - especially in DR, so I absoloutely agree. Viridae ^Talk 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like how EconomicsGuy put it, that "it needs to come from inside oneself." That's it exactly. We can't force anyone to behave correctly. Either they do so, or else their access to participate is restricted. We all slip up now and then, but a repeated pattern of inappropriate behavior needs to be addressed and corrected. Once it is pointed out to the person whose behavior is causing concern, it's up to them to correct it and maintain it. Cla68 (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Neil, Viridae and Cla68 on this. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Guy is reading all this over...he does not have to participate, and maybe not participating will decrease the drama level for everyone...how is that a bad thing?--MONGO 19:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Nick

Using emotive words like witch hunt is hardly a civil way to characterise a good faith attempt at dispute resolution. That the RfC was being collated for 2 weeks (not the month claimed - it was ready to go a week before it was actually stated but JzG went to france for a week, meaning it was 3 weeks before it was actually posted) is simply a testament to the sheer amount of evidence of bad behaviour that had to be collated - apparently 180 diffs - which is equal to one uncivil comment, disruptive edit or abuse of administrator tools every 2 days across the period which the RfC covers. There is a problem, community consensus shows there is a problem, it is not too much of a stretch to think that people might like to know that Guy has taken the criticism on board and this behaviour is going to cease, hence my feeling that it would be nice to see Guy acknowledge the existance of the RfC more than simply erasing the mentions of it from hsi talk page while simultaneously insulting Cla68. Viridae ^Talk 11:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's always ironic that supporters of JzG and his clique keep referring to opposition as "witch hunts", when it's their side that seems patterned after McCarthyism with its constant searches for enemies to be punitive towards. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a witch-hunt, it's a request for comment as part of dispute resolution, which has been recommended to many editors by many admins at AN and ANI over a long period. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a witch hunt, why would 35+ people endorse Kirill's outside view? That view is a very strongly worded view from a sitting ArbCom member. That seems to be something to take quite seriously, not dismiss as a witch hunt. I sincerely hope JzG takes notice of this RfC and takes seriously the many folk pleading with him to take the feedback on board. Because I really would rather not see this go any further. A word to the wise should be sufficient. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Guy's behaviour improves, then it's a clear sign this RFC has effected a change, and it will have served its purpose. I believe if his behaviour prior to this RFC continues unabated, then ArbCom will need to get involved and a desysopping will take place. Would it still be a witch hunt then? I hope it will not come to that, and Guy will take note of the many comments made by Kirill and others, and make a concerted effort to improve his civility and to take more care with the admin tools. Neıl ☎ 15:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of interest, Lar, the last RfC involving an admin resulted in that admin no longer having a sysop bit. In the same manner, they were initially dismissive and had the same incivility and admin abuse issues only much milder that what was going on here. When the ArbCom case opened and was roundly accepted by the arbs, he voluntarily stepped down but the writing was largely on the wall. Just saying, is all ... - Alison ^❤ 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop undermining dispute resolution attempts

To ~~Sidaway, Doc, and whoever else~~ whoever is spouting either "witch hunt" or "go back to the encyclopedia" nonsense: Cut it out. It's off topic and unhelpful here. If you don't believe civility should be required, bring it up at Wikipedia_talk:Civility. If you don't believe in RFC as a means of dispute resolution, you can ignore the RFC or take it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. If you just want to act childish, we have chat rooms for that. There is pretty clearly a problem here. If you don't want to help, that is your choice, but get out of the way. This seems to happen every time civility concerns related to a longtime editor are brought up. If you have reasons you don't like RFC as dispute resolution, and you want to discuss it like an adult, go right ahead. But what you're doing now is childish, stupid, and disruptive. Enough. Friday (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I may not have been accurate with who was doing this (Sidaways's comment could be purely trying to lighten the mood as easily as it could be heckling), and it's pointless to name people anyway- you know who you are. Anyway, my point is, if you came to the RFC only to heckle, please don't. If you don't think user RFCs are effective, by all means propose a better alternative. But don't try to derail other people's efforts. Friday (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And posting comedy pictures to obfuscate the point and dismiss the whole thing as "drama" is so 2007. Neıl ☎ 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that picture! But yes, I agree with Friday here. ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Friday. Viridae ^Talk 20:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and civility is paramount, but Guy has had to deal with some pretty bad long term baiting and other issues as well directed at him. Yeah, we all know we shouldn't take the bait, but if someone asks repeatedly to not post to their talkpage and to stop following you around just looking to stir the pot, then that request should be honored. What Guy needs is support from others so he'll feel less isolated and less in need to respond to others in harsh terms. And yes, there are some out there who simply do have an axe to grind and Guy is their target. This of course doesn't mean I believe that the complaints here are unsubstantiated, just that in some cases, there are two sides to this situation to a degree.--MONGO 19:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody would think that when there is a request for comment, it really means request for approved comments. Moral is, if you don't like the answers, don't ask the question. Shot info (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone honestly believes that Guy's behavior isn't as bad as is claimed, that's fine. For instance, while I disagree with MONGO's comment above, I have no problem with the fact that he said it. The problem comes when people just call those who created the RfC "evil witch-hunting trolls" or something like that, instead of explaining why their concerns are wrong. -Amarkov moo! 23:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]