Misplaced Pages

User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:21, 1 October 2015 editUbcule (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,935 edits →Closure of Administrator's Noticeboard request← Previous edit Revision as of 20:21, 1 October 2015 edit undoBrustopher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,111 edits →BLP discretionary sanctions: new sectionTag: contentious topics alertNext edit →
Line 140: Line 140:
If I give you an extension to 1000 words, would you be able to cut 300 words to get down to it? --] | ] 18:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC) If I give you an extension to 1000 words, would you be able to cut 300 words to get down to it? --] | ] 18:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
: I will have a go, sure. I can move some to Workshop, perhaps. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC) : I will have a go, sure. I can move some to Workshop, perhaps. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

== BLP discretionary sanctions ==

{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''

'''Please carefully read this information:'''

The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ].

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->] (]) 20:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:21, 1 October 2015

Note to admins reviewing any of my admin actions (expand to read).

I am often busy in that "real life" of which you may have read.

Blocks are the most serious things we can do: they prevent users from interacting with Misplaced Pages. Block reviews are urgent. Unless I say otherwise in the block message on the user's talk page, I am happy for any uninvolved admin to unblock a user I have blocked, provided that there is good evidence that the problem that caused the block will not be repeated. All I ask is that you leave a courtesy note here and/or on WP:ANI, and that you are open to re-blocking if I believe the problem is not resolved - in other words, you can undo the block, but if I strongly feel that the issue is still live, you re-block and we take it to the admin boards. The same applies in spades to blocks with talk page access revoked. You are free to restore talk page access of a user for whom I have revoked it, unless it's been imposed or restored following debate on the admin boards.

User:DGG also has my permission to undelete or unprotect any article I have deleted and/or salted, with the same request to leave a courtesy note, and I'll rarely complain if any uninvolved admin does this either, but there's usually much less urgency about an undeletion so I would prefer to discuss it first - or ask DGG, two heads are always better than one. I may well add others in time, DGG is just one person with whom I frequently interact whose judgment I trust implicitly.

Any WP:BLP issue which requires you to undo an admin action of mine, go right ahead, but please post it immediately on WP:AN or WP:ANI for review.

The usual definition of uninvolved applies: you're not currently in an argument with me, you're not part of the original dispute or an editor of the affected article... you know. Apply WP:CLUE. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This user is an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify)
This user has been editing Misplaced Pages for more than ten years.
This editor is a Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix, Errata Sheet, and Author's Signature.
This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time.
This user is a
Rouge admin.
This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 20 years, 4 months, and 5 days.
This user has been an admin for
18 years, 11 months, and 8 days.
This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.
This user believes WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.

— - Robert A. Heinlein
Obligatory disclaimer
I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?

About me

JzG reacting to yet another drama

I am in my early fifties, British, have been married for over quarter of a century to the world's most tolerant woman, and have two adult children. I am an amateur baritone and professional nerd. I do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry. I sometimes, to my chagrin, mention that I have been an admin for a long time: some people think this is me invoking admin status in order to subdue dissent, actually it's just me as a middle aged parent of young adults saying "oh no, not this shit again". I am British, I have the British sense of humour (correctly spelled) and I absolutely do not have an accent, since I went to a thousand-year-old school. Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC and other closes

I am am making a good faith best efforts attempt to close backlogged RfCs and other debates from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. These are mainly backlogged because there is no obvious consensus, so any close will undoubtedly annoy someone. I invite review of any such close on WP:ANI, where there are many more watchers than my talk page. I am happy to provide clarification of anything either here or on ANI, please ping me if it's at ANI - that exempts you from the ANI notice, IMO, and I prefer a ping to a talk page notice as the latter tends to spread discussion to multiple venues, which is a nightmare. Feel free to use "email this user" if I am not responding to a request (but remember I live in UTC, soon to be UTC-1). Guy (Help!) 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes

You are spot on here.

Unfortunately it seems there's a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going around with regard to what is and is not WP:RS in that arena.

Good job, and good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps also consider the amount of weight given to Conspiracy theories at the much larger article, the WP:GA rated page, September 11 attacks. — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
There we have the benefit of historical perspective. I am confident that in ten years time - if "clockgate" is remembered at all - the racists will get a bad press overall. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, I mean I haven't look into the talk page history at September 11 attacks -- but there were probably some interesting back-and-forth to successfully keep out the batshit-crazy stuff, right? — Cirt (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Many. These articles were worse than e-cigs, GMOs and global warming put together, back in the day. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Yup...and thanks to assholes like me and many other editors (who aren't assholes like DHeyward, Tom harrison, JzG and Acroterion to name a few), CT batshit-crazy stuff in 9/11 articles is virtually zero.--MONGO 17:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Crop circle wibble

It was an ignorant comment made somewhat aggressively by an IP user, but none of those are reasons to immediately WP:REFACTOR a comment away, least of all by hatting it equally aggressively as "wibble" and then re-hatting and archiving it when another editor objected to you doing so. --McGeddon (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It is entirely worthless to the improvement of the article. Some random IP wandering past and bitching that we still follow reality-based sources is a thing we can and should ignore. I have no idea why you would want to give any prominence to the ravings of cranks. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
No objection to someone like the "saucer nests" guy being hatted, but this IP was laying out a clear objection to the fact that the scientific consensus for hoaxing was sourced only to Skepdic. There was some wibbly posturing around it (which made me ignore it as the old "ahh, only 'most' scientists, so there is not a consensus!" thing at first glance), but it's a fair question. If we can swap in a stronger source, that improves the article, informs our readers and reduces the scope for future wibbling; if no stronger sources exist, we can explain WP:PARITY and have a useful archive thread to point at next time. --McGeddon (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Clear, but specious, and non-actionable, and clearly stated from under a tinfoil hat. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, and now you're repeatedly rehatting it with your "wibble" jibe in the archives despite WP:REFACTOR's clear "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Even if you are genuinely baffled by me disagreeing with your refactoring, it should stay unrefactored. --McGeddon (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth would you want to preserve that tinfoil hattery? I find your attitude to this worthless trolling comment to be utterly inexplicable. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Why?

I just don't get it. Each time I try to clear the detritus out of the fountain, you come rollerskating down the sidewalk and dump another pile of fresh-raked leaves right back in. Please - upload a bit of audio of one of your best performances so we can be happy again. I've got too much freaking work to do to waste time toasting stale bread. My time on WP is far more pleasant when I'm not forced to butt heads with those I truly do like and admire but the sentiment is beginning to wane. I don't want that to happen any more than you do, so do us both a favor and save the hogwash for the hogs. Atsme 21:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Heh! You are, I think, missing the point. In arbitration cases you get some people who claim that user X is the spawn of Satan, some people claiming that they are Mother Teresa and Gandhi rolled into one, and some people who say, yes, this person has some issues, and a strong POV, but it is not material to this case and here's why. I think you need to be removed from that case. Arbitration cases are bruising and horrible for the parties, and frankly I don't think you need or deserve this one which will be particularly long and full of angry mastodons. As I have said before, I like you. I don't think much of your mate DrChrissy, but that's another matter. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
"Mate"?...followed by a big Scooby Doo "Huh?" The translation for mate in American English is the same as what biologists consider them. Where humans are concerned, a mate is thought of as one's significant other. While I think DrChrissy is a delightful person, (1) we've never met and (2) our purposeful interactions on WP are/have been limited to TP fun-puns via text, some collaborative editing on a few animal articles, and some random intersecting at the occasional AN/I and/or RfC. Just want to make that very clear. I'm not sure if you realize it but some of your innuendos (well intentioned or not) can be far more damaging to my reputation than any case at ArbCom. Merciful Minerva!! 🙀 Atsme 18:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Cereologists

I put something on the talk page of Crop circle for the matter. -- Andrewaskew (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit counts

Earlier at ArbCom you mentioned it would be nice to have a list of edit counts to measure involvement. I put together some tables here. I'm not 100% sure if or how I'll be including it yet, but I won't be getting my evidence section up until this weekend probably. Feel free to reference it in the meantime though or let me know if you think anything should be changed/added that could potentially be useful. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Great stuff, thanks. That is quite illuminating. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Guy, what did you use to illuminate? A flashlight? . Great work, KOA - thank you for devoting the time to get that done. It should prove extremely helpful for those of us with overpopulated memories that lack any semblance of organization. Atsme 18:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What topic ban?

What topic ban are you referring to in your comment? --DHeyward (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Closure of Administrator's Noticeboard request

I note that you closed my request on the Administrator's Noticeboard.

With respect, this closure may have been technically correct according to the rules- and the request may have been better placed elsewhere- but it wasn't particularly helpful.

I'd noticed vast amounts of what (in all probability) was misinformation and/or nonsense vandalism being added to several articles and was looking for a way to track down and fix it myself, or have someone better-placed do it.

You closed the request because it the vandalism wasn't ongoing right now. Unfortunately, this doesn't remove the drivel that's already likely been added to several articles. It's clear that some of the vandalising edits had been there for a long time and had become "baked in", i.e. become a part of the article with less chance of being spotted, and harder to remove as subsequent changes were built around them in the intervening months.

Given that the vandalism mentioned above took place over many months, it's quite possible that this will be ongoing in future. Given the use of dynamic IPs, it makes tracing all edits to all articles carried out by this person manually tedious and slow, especially since- as I mentioned- subsequent edits have been made that reduce the possibility of simple reversion without destroying legitimate content by others.

I'd hoped that I'd either receive some helpful suggestions (tools, techniques) to combat this, or that administrators might have access to tools or powers that made this task easier for you than for me. Instead, I got no real acknowledgement of the problem I was trying to fix, nor any attempt to provide some pointers before the request was closed. This was disappointing.

Ubcule (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your point - I would suggest you repost to WP:COIN. This does not require admin action (and a non-admin may have better tools for helping). ANI is a drama pit and best suited to straightforward things - we could semiprotect or block, but we don't do cleanup, really, at least not from ANI. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response; as I said, I wasn't 100% sure that ANI was the ideal place for it- though I did search elsewhere beforehand- but I'd assumed someone would say "thanks, but that question would be more appropriately asked (wherever)" if it wasn't.
I'm not clear why it belongs on COIN though, as I can't see the clear-cut "Conflict of Interest" that would suggest it goes there..? Ubcule (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
That's just one place I go to find editors adept at rolling back large-scale twaddle. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I'll take a look at that when I have time. All the best! Ubcule (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Evidence size

If I give you an extension to 1000 words, would you be able to cut 300 words to get down to it? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I will have a go, sure. I can move some to Workshop, perhaps. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33Brustopher (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Category: