Misplaced Pages

User talk:JzG

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnf1982 (talk | contribs) at 09:51, 6 March 2015 (→Enough I think: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:51, 6 March 2015 by Johnf1982 (talk | contribs) (→Enough I think: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 editor is a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix and Errata Sheet.
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 4 days.
This user has been an admin for
18 years, 11 months, and 7 days.
This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

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.
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?

WP:INVOLVED

Looking at your and Collect's user contributions, and at the history of the talk page at G. Edward Griffin, I saw that you have been interacting at that highly contentious venue for some time prior to your recent close of an RfC at Template talk:Infobox officeholder where Collect was the main opposer. Besides you closed the RfC 15 minutes after your immediately previous edit. I don't believe that it is possible to read intellegently through the 2 previous RfCs which had a direct bearing on the discussion, and the actual RfC, checking out the links, and come to a learned conclusion. Besides, your closing rationale was questionably worded (what do you mean by "suck and see"????), partly struck through and ambiguously worded, so that it triggered even more controversy. As a courtesy, I offer you now to do the following: Unclose the RfC, delete your rationale and the subsequent comments thereto, and refrain from making any further comments about it, essentially returning to the status quo ante as of February 23. The section header is meant as a hint. Kraxler (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Um -- I posted here for input as to what his intentions were in the close. Why this post? If you are accusing us of tag-teaming on Griffin, I really would love to see you make the claim at AN/I. If you are accusing him of admin misconduct as WP:INVOLVED , then post at ArbCom noticeboards. Please! Collect (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This is entirely Guy's decision. He's an admin, and is held as such to the highest standards of prpriety. I'm not accusing anybody of anything, at this time. On the contrary, I'm willing to let it go, and start from the status quo ante, without prejudice. Kraxler (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
In short -- you are accusing him of being WP:INVOLVED on a template issue because he and I have both edited the same BLP page where there is absolutely no conceivable evidence that the two are related, or that our edits are related in any way whatsoever - right? And where that BLP page does not have the WP:INVOLVED template at all? I suggest you note that I have edited well over 5,500 pages, and JzG has edited over 27,000 pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You'd probably find it hard to locate any busy Wikipedian with whom I have had no interaction, after seven or more years with the mop. You're welcome to request a review of the close if you like. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Guy, may I inquire how you became aware of the existence of the RfC? It's not something one stumbles over by chance. And, how many RfCs have you closed this year, so far? Please provide links, if there are any. Kraxler (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Where do you think? . Now stop making a fool of yourself. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to quote from WP:Admin accountability: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." And now I'd like to repeat my second question: How many RfCs have you closed this year, so far? Please provide links, if there are any. Kraxler (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Your question shows clear ill-faith and is clearly vexatious as I have responded fully on the relevant Talk page - the fact that you don't like it, is your problem not mine.
At the top of the admin noticeboard is a backlog list. It exists in no small part because those admins who do from time to time decide to try and deal with the backlog, spend the next month responding to querulous demands from disappointed partisans on their Talk page.
I have next to no interest in the topic (making me an ideal closer, whether my close is itself good or bad) and I've indicated how you can proceed from here, I gave three options if memory serves, and I am pretty sure that continuing to hector me here was not one of them. Goodbye. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Kraxler WP:Admin accountability does not mean you get to interrogate people. If you want to know how many RfCs this person closed this year you can find out right here. Given your tone don't be surprised if you don't get the warmest of receptions. Chillum 22:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

RE Chillum: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions" seems to indicate that one can indeed ask questions. How to answer them is their choice, of course, I'll have to take what I can get. Besides, this is only preliminary to an ANI report that will come later today, or tomorrow. I'm not hectoring anybody, on the contrary, I was expressly asked to request a review of the close, as you can see in the first post by Guy in this section. My tone remains civil and appropriate to the occasion, I didn't invite anybody to "suck it and see" and I didn't call anybody a fool. Kraxler (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You already had a civil and prompt response. Then you went off the deep end. At that point, all bets are off. Now go and take your crusade somewhere else. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I shall certainly do so. I'm a little busy right now IRL, but I think tomorrow or on Sunday I can finish my research, and request the review of your closure, as asked for, at the appropriate venue. See you soon. Kraxler (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I hereby notify you of my request for review of your closure, see the pertaining thread at AN. Feel free to comment, if you like. Kraxler (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I had already done so before you left that note. Your summary is somewhat partisan, I note. Don't expect your words to be taken at face value, we admins are suspicious bastards. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Titles

Please make a small change to this close AT is a policy not a guideline. Using guideline is likely to be confusing once this section is archived and read in the future by editors who were not involved in the debate. -- PBS (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, well, I am old fashioned. Policy is WP:5P and a tiny handful of extensions such as WP:NLT and WP:BLP. Any rule that can be ignored with impunity isn't what I call a policy. However, I will tweak the wording. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Grey line close

Hi, Guy. Though there's no consensus to delete, would you not say that there's consensus to diligently orphan the template? That is to say, that it should be kept for the convenience of translators. I'd like to replace (most) transclusions of it, for the reasons I've mentioned at the TfD, but doing so without 'remit' is likely to be seen as disruptive. Alakzi (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I'd say there was no consensus for any wholesale action. Make a better, more focused proposal. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Alakzi (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 (talk · contribs)...

Hi, any chance you could comment on the ANI thread? It's probably not likely it will lead to a block at this point (it's entered TLDR territory) but if I could get more eyes on this guy's behaviour (over a dozen other users have weighed in on the issue on the talk pages, all of them taking my side, but none sticking around long enough to help much). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

RE: Category:Deaths from surgical complications

Please see and reply at your convenience. Thanks. Quis separabit? 15:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

fyi

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of amended RfC

There is an RfC related to paid editing on which you commented or !voted, which was just amended. See Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_Links_related_to_paid_editing Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Enough I think

Hi Jzg, I think that not is far you block the variation of company name because my mistake. It was a mistake, not was my intention save the page again and make them live. So I think that you action is too much... Thanks. Johnf1982 (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Category: