User talk:JzG/wp-stuff

A temporary subpage for Wikipedia stuff.

Phantorg.net links

When you get a chance, can you take a look at this? This isn't earth-shatteringly important but I would like this resolved in the case of my, IMO weak, conflict of interest here. Graham87 15:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold

Why are you deleting referenced material? Grant | Talk 09:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• For the reason stated on the talk page: the reference is inadequate. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

==Deletion Review for Sigrid Regina Trarbach-Nazario==

(moved from talk page, as per user request) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sigrid Regina Trarbach-Nazario. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billn4q2 (talk • contribs)

please don't threaten

Wikipedia is not in any need of people coming here to pursue crusades or ideological agendas. If you carry on as you are, then your editing career may be short and turbulent.

I am not on a crusade. The article in question is so poorly written and an attack piece. A neutrally worded one would state the facts and state the controversy, that's all. An attack piece keeps on going on saying how bad the film is. I am firmly against what you call POV. I am for NPOV. NPOV is NOT blind support of the film. Fairchoice (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course its fine to label Guy a criminal but threaten you? well.... Thanks, SqueakBox 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• It wasn't a threat, anyway, it was a statement of fact based on long experience. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One of your blocks

Hello Guy. I didn't see that anyone had directly notified you of this, but your indefinite block of Fairchoice (talk · contribs) was undone by User:Archtransit, who shortened it to 48 hours. Just as a heads-up and courtesy notification. There has been some discussion at User Talk:Archtransit, but I wasn't sure if you'd noted it. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

holocaustresearchproject.org

FYI, in case you have further relevant info or would like to comment on this site you recently recommended blacklisting, there is a request to unblacklist here. You can find further conversation about it at Talk:Abraham_Gancwajch#Blacklisted_hyperlink. Thanks! --MPerel 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the rest was obvious.

...please don't exacerbate the drama by throwing accusations like that around. If you think he's a meatpuppet and tendentious troll posting on behalf of a banned editor, by all means open a bloody thread on that, get a bit of consensus, and ban him. Or ban him and take it yourself to AN for review. OK? Or just wait two weeks for the ArbCom to pronounce on it. I'm going around reverting people reinstating edits of sockpuppets of banned editors, but I'm doing it politely, to minimise drama. You try it as well. Relata refero (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm serious. Do get right on it, do it right, and I'll be backing you up, I assure you. Relata refero (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand. I am collecting diffs, since it needs to stick. I am convinced, following numerous comments from people who have much deeper knowledge of Ilena Rosenthal than I do, that Anthon01 is Anthony Zaffuto, and that his presence and editing is therefore a violation of an ArbCom ban. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucy/Lwach...

I really wish you'd asked around before implementing an indef block on this basis. This makes my resolution work at the Brahma Kumaris article that much more difficult (everyone there, including myself, already knew Lwachowski = Lucy, and I was prepared to accept that so long that they didn't use any *other* accounts it would not be a violation of WP:SOCK) - if you look at the reason for the indef block, it was a usernameblock, which implicitly implies the person can start a new account. Sockpuppetry has been a problem previously but I think common sense should have applied in this case. Note that in saying this I'm not defending the particular actions of the person that may have led to them copping a 48-hour block on unrelated articles. Orderinchaos 02:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Commented on User talk:Orderinchaos. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries - and thanks. I'll wait till tomorrow morning (Australian time) to do it though, as after looking at the situation in more detail, the 48 hour block was in fact quite justified. To be honest the improved behaviour at BK had led to me watching the user's contributions less, so I didn't even see this other matter unfolding. As for courtesy - true, it's kind of sad that good faith discussion seems to have fallen by the wayside on the Wiki. I mean, just look at the current state of AN/I - its main purpose these days seems to be a boxing ring for non-administrators to fight each other. Orderinchaos 10:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Guy, I mailed you during my block and so you have my comments. I am not entirely stupid and unreasonable. I have faced and come through some clearly and highly unreasonable conditions. I am hear to learn and, as in good child psychology, an individual learns better through reasonable discussion rather than beatings and punishment. If I have a fault I admit to, it is that I do not back off when faced with obviously unreasonable behaviour rather than run to an admin to fix it for me. But if you look closely at my off-POV conflicts, you will actually see that a high proportion of well-formatted citations and general technical (linking and formatting) work.

I do edit fringe subjects where passions are high and individuals have their own personal interests. One would have to be highly naive to suggest the wiki was not full of jockeying and "skillful play", some being better at it than others. But, honestly, look again at my work. Again, if I have another fault, it is that right or wrong I play it very straight and some individuals are not used to that.

But, I can reason if given credence. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Is G___ K_____ back?

There's some very familiar about this "brand-new" user. --Calton | Talk 04:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quack quack. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Harassment link

Since you have some background and experience in dealing with offsite harassment (ie your essay). Would you have look at this situation. All the relevent links are provided. A few users seem to be attempting to advance an agenda and pursue a campaign after it has been appropriately investigated. Much appreciated.--Hu12 (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fork of a fork

Question: should VigilancePrime's fork of a fork be included in this MFD? --Calton | Talk 13:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• It should be deleted with fire, and then we should stamp on the ashes of the bytes. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• • That is nuts. Is this damn article going to proliferate across the userpages of everyone who wants it kept? ^Avruchtalk 23:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Likely; they show no sign of accepting consensus. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• The one I found, above, I stumbled over. After reading the comments here, I decided to go looking:

• User:Aditya Kabir/Sandbox 4
• User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 1
• User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 2
• User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 3

--Calton | Talk 01:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• He doesn't give up easily: User:VigilancePrime/Sandbox. Not the long wikilawyering notice preceding the text itself. --Calton | Talk 05:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Deletions have been undone by PeaceNT (who seems to have taken the other side in this debate, interesting since she closed the most recent related DRV). ^Avruchtalk 17:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I replied

Keeper | 76 23:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree

I don't think you're being fair. My "restaurant" comment was a bit snarky, but the "mirror" suggestion was a legitimate point and I don't think you're right to call it "unhelpful". You also haven't acknowledged my other contributions, such as adding instructions for hiding images to the FAQ. In any event, I believe it is extrememly inappropriate to remove others' comments from the talk page that aren't out-and-out vandalism. I suggest perhaps that you are inflaming matters even more by doing so. You have good intentions, but perhaps you might want to focus your energies on a less controversial subject.—Chowbok ☠ 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you didn't feel this was worth responding to. I've combined this with a couple related complaints at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Heavy-handed admin behavior at Muhammad, FYI.—Chowbok ☠ 02:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note the time stamps and check to see what timezone the UK is in. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I note that you were actively editing for over an hour after my initial post, does that count?—Chowbok ☠ 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Pages Within Userspace Deleted Without Warning

(Moved from talk page per user request)

I would like to inquire why three pages within userspace attached to my username have been deleted without warning and without any discussion. I'm referring to the following three pages:

• User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 1
• User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 2
• User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 3

These were not copies of the deleted "Adult-child sex" article, but instead mostly drafts constructed by a number of editors within userspace. Although some parts of these pages incorporated information that was present within the deleted article just mentioned, the majority of text was original, and these drafts went a long way to demonstrate what the ACS article could potentially be. There is no reason to delete editors' hard work, especially if material in question has not yet been discussed by the community at large.

From what I can tell, you were the deleting admin. Thus, I would like to courteously request that you restore these three pages, at least until proper Wikipedia proceedings can be carried out to determine whether or not these drafts should remain within the project's userspace. There are venues for deleting pages such as these, but speedy deletion without any warning is definitely not the appropriate approach to take.

Thank you in advance, ~ Homologeo (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:ANI. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

warning

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --PeaceNT (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh christ. PeaceNT, do not template the regulars. FCYTravis (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Sanity has left the building, at least in respect of this particular subject. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please leave Wikipedia

You appear to have an ounce of common sense. Please be advised that this is explicitly against the policy WP:IDIOT, which states that rationality and similar displays of intelligent are strictly forbidden. Any further violations may result in you being blocked indefinitely. Thank you. Will ^(talk) 19:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC) This is your final warning. The next time you show that you have a brain, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Will ^(talk) 22:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment at MfD

Guy,

I noticed you had posted just below me at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex. However, I wasn't sure if you were responding to me or not since I don't think I was making a legalistic argument about WP:CSD#G4. It's not a big deal but I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying. BTW, I think we are in general agreement on the topic at hand. Cheers. Ronnotel (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, it was a response to 12noon. I only just noticed this comment, feel free to fix it, I'm shutting down for the night and tomorrow is the funeral, so that's me done for a bit. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samiharris

As Lar explicitly stated, this investigation is still ongoing, and several respected CUs have indicated that they are afraid something fishy may be at work here. Please leave the notice in place until a CU consensus has been reached, as is usual for sockpuppetry investigations, so others are aware of the discussion. krimpet✽ 18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, you have it the wrong way round. CU has come back inconclusive, and we are talking here about a request made by a now blocked sock of a banned user, so sensitive handling and AGF are demanded. Guy (Help!) 18:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Out pour the WR-related adminstrators. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And out pour the OMGBadsites brigade. Guy, I disagree with you on many things, but its out of principle. If we are to claim the high road, we better be acting on the high road, and I don't like what I'm seeing. Because one group is acting horribly, that does not give WP editors the right to act horribly in return. I was hoping that instead of blocking the accounts as WP:Ducks, I posted it on ANI for technical discussion, and instead got the usual red herrings, misdirection, and accusations.

I originally came here to let you know I restored a section of the AN discussion that you accidentally removed, but I saw this comment, and figured to reply. SirFozzie (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere this has less than nothing to do with BADSITES. But banned users have no entitlement to disrupt Wikipedia. Rather the opposite, in fact. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I have a bit of overreach, I just wish that up till GWH's recent comment there was more discussion on the technical merits of what was found (and wouldn't you find it curious if one account who is widely believed to be connected with another account had only edited from open proxies, to possibly defeat that kind of connection being made), and not focusing on the original creator.. especially when a checkuser specifically states: "However, as I said, the request is otherwise valid. If the devil tells you your fly is opened, don't you zip up anyway? I can't think of a good reason to ignore policy violations based on how many enemies one has. In any event, the technical check here was inconclusive so I suggest taking it to AN/I to get some uninvolved admins to apply the duck test." That is what I've done. Anyway, time to take a break and do some non-WP stuff.. have a good evening, ok? SirFozzie (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, it doesn't help your rep much to be seen to be promoting Bagley's latest attack meme when you're involved with Wikipedia Review. It looks poor, mate. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

DAMNIT, Guy.. (and yes, I am pissed..) How many freaking times do I have to state that A)I didn't approve of the tactics supposedly used to gather the information, and B) Stated so in a thread that was my last post to WR? I hope it's just a case of you missing the numerous times I've said that.. (INCLUDING THE FREAKING DISCUSSION THAT'S ONGOING).. SirFozzie (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you want direct proof, Take a look for yourself. Now it IS time I step away from the computer before I say something I really would regret. SirFozzie (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fozzie, you got mail. I think we should be friends. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful input at the RfC

The solution you are proposing seems be gathering support, save for #4, and (perhaps) the harshness of #3. Would you consider refactoring the proposal, sans #4, and perhaps with #3 reworked? Regards, Bellwether ^B_C 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it didn't work

Thanks for stepping in. I had hoped that a few kind words would set this person on the right path, but it doesn't look like such a good idea in retrospect. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Really?

I suppose it's purely academic, but do you really think arbcom would desysop Archtransit based on just some RFC? I'm not sure they would.. if they were of a mind to do it, why isn't it already done? Friday (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody asked, I guess. If you went there with that series of bad blocks and that evidence, you'd likely see a desysop. Look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend, and there was another one where bad blocks were an issue, but I can't recall it offhand. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jrichardstevens

[1]

I don't see disruption here at all -- his comments are far above the median comments on AfD. Will you reconsider this? - Revolving Bugbear 23:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

When you get a moment, I'd appreciate an explanation for your decision to block me (particularly without discussing it with me first). The page I commented on CLEARLY invites participation from new and old users alike, and I did not think any of my comments were disruptive. I identified myself, I specifically addressed the comments that referred to people in my position (academia) and thought I was VERY clear why I thought the page was unhelpful for scholars and not worth the fight currently raging over there. I have no stake in that fight, but I shudder to think that anyone who other than those piling on to the "pro-keep" side of the argument appears to be blocked without being approached per wiki protocol.

I can't speak for others, but amidst that particular fight I think you want people like me (academics without an attachment to either side of the fight) to weigh in with their perspective. I never commented on the actual page because I thought it beneath me. The talk page is a raging mess. I found the delete discussion early on and saw an opportunity to weigh in as one in a profession being invoked int he third person. You know, sourcing. Jrichardstevens (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• How foolish of me not to realise that what we really need on an article that has sparked complaints and real-world legal action, is more single-purpose accounts. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Except I am not a single-purpose account, something that can easily be established by reading my contribution log. Have you? You've been asked to in several places by several editors whose opinions you should respect (even as you continue to show disrespect to me). My point was to draw attention to the fact that YOUR directions on YOUR delete page appear to invite outside participation. And then YOU blocked a large number of them as disruptive single purpose accounts. I don't know anyone else involved in these discussions, but I feel fairly certain that my comments were not disruptive and I am not a single-purpose account and you you CONTINUE to claim otherwise. Please explain. Jrichardstevens (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, one last comment for the record. My only two contributions to the AfD were to delete. I have from the beginning agreed with YOU that the article was created by an outside person for the purpose of discussing the controversy. Which is WHY I weighed in as a academic who objected to this treatment (and agreed with your assessment). And that somehow led you to block me. It just occurred to me when I reread your above comment that you seem to have been under the impression that I was either a) against the delete (I was for the delete) or b) for the preservation of the controversy thread only, and not the event's page (which would be precisely backwards of what I've argued for). I identified myself as an academic who found the page problematic in order to provide YOU support for your argument to delete it as causing more harm than good. Anyway, this should be the last you hear from me. Just wanted you to understand precisely why I made the decisions I did and precisely why I feel so incredibly wronged by your decisions and follow-up comments. Thank you for the apology posted on my talk page. I hope things get better for you. Jrichardstevens (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Randy Richards Article

The article [2] contained nearly 20 citations, and at least 2 meaningful secondary sources WITH independent verification for notability. What more could anyone want? Malakai Joe (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• You to go away? That would be good. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who contacted me. You go away first. Malakai Joe (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Richards, Special:DeletedContributions/Malakai Joe and special:contributions/Malakai Joe tell us everything we need to know here. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Malakai Joe has requested to be unblocked and I am having a hard time figuring out why he was blocked. Yes, he has basically only worked on Randy Richards, a now-deleted NN article, and tried to get it undeleted in various ways. However, I see no indication of any actual disruptive behaviour that would warrant an immediate, indefinite block under either our blocking policy or accepted practice. Instead, a first glance at his contributions indicates to me that he has edited in good faith, if perhaps a little misguided. In the spirit of WP:BITE, if nothing else, I recommend unblocking him. Sandstein (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse this. Single-purpose alone is not a reason for a block; we must show that they are sock or meatpuppets as well or that they have edited disruptively. I don't think your response above is entirely in keeping with the best principles of Wikipedia discourse. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

His behaviour has been disruptive. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of cold fusion

A discussion about an article that you nominated was closed with the wrong closing decision based on the opinions given. Please revisit the above link to review the article in question, the opinions given, and the original deletion decision (in page history). Apologies, and thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

SPA blocks

Guy, I'm concerned about your blocks of these apparent SPAs. The bar here is way too low -- many of these users are not acting disruptively and are not even acting particularly meat-puppety, whether or not they came because of off-wiki discussions. I think these blocks need to be looked over again. With all due respect, this isn't how we should be dealing with SPAs. - Revolving Bugbear 21:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but my concern is more that some of these are not even SPAs! I've sent Guy several e-mails with no response. I will post the bulk of my points here, but there is a lot here that went very wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review the following blocks

Guy, about the following ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is it just me... permalink

I agree with B that this is overkill. Except for three of them, I agree in principle with these blocks (I don't agree with the lengths, though the Oxford Round Table situation needed sorting out). However, some of these accounts are new (only 2-5 edits), and probably arrived here to take part in the AfD, but, if handled correctly (a stern warning, for example), could learn their lessons and (in time, after learning how things work around here) contribute to Wikipedia. They could be, for example, American or Oxford academics, who, if properly guided and introduced to Wikipedia, could really provide some good contributions - this at least argues for a warning and guidance, rather then being labelled SPAs after only 2-5 edits (sockpuppets excepted, if you can identify them).

One of the three accounts that are, in my opinion, examples of collateral damage is: Special:Contributions/Amelia9mm.

I also looked at this thread from your talk page:

• [3] (Revolving Bugbear raises concerns)
• [4] (the account holder also objects to the block)
• [5] (your reply)

I'd urge you again to look at:

• Special:Contributions/Jrichardstevens
• Special:Contributions/Amelia9mm

These are as far from being single-purpose accounts as it is possible to be (remember that the Oxford Round Table article was created on 13:10, 9 December 2007):

Jrichardstevens: Account created 4 November 2005

Eight innocuous edits to unrelated articles over a period of around two years. Not the greatest of contributions, but the potential is there for someone who was interested enough to register an account to (one day) start contributing more. Indeed, the foray into Wikipedia namespace showed someone who might well have started contributing more. But given his reaction to the block you placed, that may no longer happen.

Amelia9mm: Account created 25 May 2007

Two minor edits to the article in question. Absolutely no reason to block.

If you look at the account creation dates for the accounts listed in that ANI thread, you will see that all the accounts, except three, were created in the period from December 2007 to February 2008. Two of those are the ones I've mentioned above. The other one is Drstones:

• Special:Contributions/Drstones
• Account created August 2006.

And indeed, when we look closer, we see that the initial edits of this account are fine:

• [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]

And from later:

• [12], [13], [14]

And then you go and say the following in the block log "Disruptive single purpose account"!! Do you have any idea how frustrating it is when I see that sort of thing happen? I understand fully that you were acting out of concerns that this conflict, which includes an off-wiki legal case, was being brought on-wiki, but that doesn't mean you or we have to suspend judgment on these issues. This is clearly not a single-purpose account, regardless of whether it was disruptive or not.

I think you owe all three of these accounts an apology, and I think you should apologise in the ANI thread as well. I am incensed that blocks like this are still being handed out, and that the SPA (single-purpose account) label is being abused like this.

And there is more.

Look at the sequence of events in the ANI thread:

• Gb posts at 17:08, 8 February 2008 - with an initial query
• JzG posts at 17:50, 8 February 2008 - long list of alleged SPAs
• Relata refaro posts at 18:17, 8 February 2008 - a brief agreement
• JzG blocks 15 of the accounts between 19:46 and 19:48

What does that brief timescale (less than 3 hours), bad blocks, bad advice, and small amount of input remind you of? It reminds me of the recent MatthewHoffman arbitration case. The difference here is that the objections to some of these blocks are slowly but surely arriving, and as far as I can see, you have provided no justification for your incorrect labelling of three of these accounts as "single-purpose accounts".

Oh, and there are actually 17 accounts listed there: Franknfair was blocked earlier for legal threats (so why did you list that account as one to be blocked??), but Coligny seems to have slipped through the cracks - looks like you forgot to block him at all. That is not the mark of someone doing a careful and thorough job. Getting things this badly wrong is not good.

I'm left asking myself - was I the only one to bother reviewing all the accounts that you (Guy) blocked? How can ANI be so bad at doing a review like that? Why did you (Guy) take a single reply in that thread, after it had been up for three hours, as an OK to indefinitely block the lot of them?

Note that two of the blocks have already been lifted: Jrichardstevens and Nomoskedasticity, but one of the blocks, the most unjustified of the lot, had a block review declined! See the next bit below.

I've been following this on and off all day, along with e-mailing several people to ask them to review your blocks, but the last straw was the following hideously unfair review process, where the reviewing admin is not being independent, and is just accepting without question what you (the blocking admin) say:

• [15] (unblock request)
• [16] (Trusilver answers)
• [17] (asks you for a reason)
• [18] (you supply reason)
• [19] (Trusilver declines unblock request)

You said: "A group of people have brought an off-wiki dispute to Wikipedia, this dispute includes real-world legal action and has prompted complaints to the Foundation. This user is one of a group of single purpose accounts with no history outside this subject. I blocked the lot."

Trusilver accepted that reason without so much as a murmur, and went back and declined the unblock request. It is clear that Trusilver looked at the edit history in question, so why didn't he point out to you that your claim of "accounts with no history outside this subject" was patently wrong?

Please look at the account creation date and look at the two edits this account made to the article. If you have other evidence (eg. checkuser) then you need to actually say this.

I am cross-posting this to ANI, with some pointed questions about the whole incident, as the unfair decline of the unblock request for Amelia9mm was the last straw for me. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread is here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing this whole thing I'm fully in agreement with JzG's actions, although one or two may need to be adjusted as appropriate. I think we have to realise here that there are users who benefit and contribute to and help the encyclopaedia, and users who waste time and abuse the privileges accorded to them. Eight edits two years ago is hardly "history". Orderinchaos 01:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I will note here that Orderinchaos has agreed at ANI that Amelia99m and Jrichardstevens should have been unblocked (and now have been), and that I have agreed that Drstones should remain blocked. I still strongly object to the way Guy handled this. Carcharoth (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'll be happy to reconsider any and all of them after the AfD, dependent on whether it closes as keep or delete. These are single purpose accounts who have brought an off-wiki fight (with attendant legal action and OTRS complaints) to Wikipedia. We don't need to provide them wth a forum for their off-wiki fight, and we don't need to service their slugging match. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you still insisting that Amelia9mm and Jrichardstevens are single-purpose accounts? You seem to have a stock reply to some block queries ("These are single purpose accounts who have brought an off-wiki fight to Wikipedia.") without actually engaging with new concerns that have been raised. As I said at ANI, I support your actions to limit the disruption being caused at that article and AfD, but you failed to block one of the accounts you listed, you failed to leave a block notice on an account's talk page, and you failed to respond to the concerns people were raising that some of these accounts were not SPAs. I don't know how many accounts you block each day, but do you think you could possibly take the time to review some of them a little more thoroughly? Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:OrionClemens

Hi JzG, I notice you blocked this user indefinitely as a disruptive SPA. He's requested to be unblocked and I am inclined to grant it as he has not been seriously or frequently disruptive, but I have high respect for you and I just wanted to run it by you before unblocking in case there is something else I should know. Stifle (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is one of a series of single purpose accounts who have brought an off-wiki fight to Wikipedia. We don't need that. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI Viridae has unblocked him. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• And a bunch of others. Viridae has stated on Wikipedia Review that xe has an agenda against me, that means Viridae should absolutely not under any circumstances at all ever be the one to undo any of my admin actions. Especially when there is no clear consensus for doing so, which there isn't in the case of the obvious SPAs in the ORT case. I am trying to make a habit of not posting to Wikipedia while spitting mad, so will leave it at that. Knowing my penchant for colourful language, I think you can probably fill in the blanks. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy of Vegan Reich

I just noticed your speedy deleted Vegan Reich back in December for not saying why it was notable. Vegan Reich were in fact very notable, complete idiots, but notable. They started the hardline movement within straight edge, a movement that has gained some media attention. One of the guest drummers for Vegan Reich on one of their EPs was Andy Hurley, who is now the drummer for Fall Out Boy (whose notability needs no argument, as much as I wish that weren't the case). Although I personally think Vegan Reich were total idiots and should be forgotten, they unfortunately won't be and they do at least deserve a page. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up (Sporadicals, SPAs, Sleeper Socks)

Would you be interested in commenting on this? Carcharoth (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN#User:Fairchoice, User:Archtransit, User:JzG, blah blah blah ...

Just an FYI, you may wish to review the above thread, in which you are being remarked on. AGK (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was just getting around to this, but I got sidetracked by an AfD. Seems you've already been notified. - Revolving Bugbear 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I watch that page anyway. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Round table

Renommed - even reading the AFD made my head hurt. Will ^(talk) 16:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Kindness, Yes, Kindness and the Wisdom of It

You are right Guy (the Undiplomatic Englishman), "tempers get frayed..." and we should just extricate ourselves from it... be "...wiser out of the experience." I don't know many things with regards the existing organizational culture of Wiki. But like any democratic and progressive communities, what keeps it alive is because its community members always focus on the "goal" and are not restrained by any supposed bureaucratic rules that would disrupt an evolving process. It is the engendered "Freedom" whether in thought or action that makes it a successful system. But naturally, as is the consequence of this "Freedom", comes conflict. Which is also normal in any given system.

What would cause the undoing of the system? When we place ourselves over and above the end-goal. Or when we uphold the supposed postulates and rules (whether self-made or system-imposed) over and above the entire equation or product. Or...when we simply dip into the fray without any consideration of its merits or circumstances, instinctively prompted by our natural supposition that we know better than others or that our solution would render the best results to it. This, I think, has always been the undoing of many great causes...historically.

This is just an opinion. If you think it's contradictory to what you believe in, or a violation of another yet-to-be-discovered Wiki rule/statute, then by all means, delete it, and simply dismiss it from your psyche.Hotridge (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I came across your statement randomly, but isn't that covered by This policy? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You have email

What the topic says, Guy. SirFozzie (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Feels good to be on the same side on this one..

I'm surprised that Sussexman and Robert I weren't linked (the ArbCom wasn't deleted at that time), but yeah.. twice blocked for legal threats I was shocked when ONiH asked me to look at that deleted ArbCom case and see what it said.. how the bloody 'ell did he know about it?..SirFozzie (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I just never had the time or the energy to deal with that particular problem, plus being a centre-left Brit made it hard if not impossible for me to do it without inviting unwelcome accusations of perosnal political bias, so I'm glad someone else has got them bang to rights. As for being on the same side, I think we always were, in our own ways :-) Guy (Help!) 20:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay! :) - Alison ^❤ 20:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we have all been a bit shocked. As a former radical turned centre-rightist Brit in middle age (quite unlike Lauder et al) I do feel somewhat in the middle. And if I am openly critical of SFs actions I don't feel I am on other than on the same side either, as it happens. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How did I know about it? Simple. When VK inadvertantly stepped on that landmine by restoring the GLF article, I tried to find the AfDs/deletion review to go with my request to protect the redirect. So, what Wikipedia-space pages link to that article? These ones. Now doesn't the fourth one down immediately leap out at you? Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-06/Arbitration report told me everything I needed to know, and I knew that ArbCom case was the clincher. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland ArbCom stuff regarding emails

I made this suggestion, and wonder if you would be amenable? No content, no addys, no headers, just the dates and times. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• This will take me some time but I have no objection. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will see if CoolHandLuke is happy to run it (or indeed if events have superseded it). LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, if you could mail them to me I'll forward them to CHL. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

I don't know if this is right, but could you look at Talk:Martha Nussbaum#Images etc.? Message from the subject has been posted on the talkpage in the last 24, and I thought someone familiar with OTRS should have a quick look. Relata refero (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have mailed Mrs Ferziger Nagorsky as she suggested (Ticket#2008021610002155) and also replied on the talk page. Guy, you are still welcome to have a look at it, but I hope the matter will be settled when her confirmation mail is in. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any straightforward way to alert the entire set of volunteers to something like this? Relata refero (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OTRS people? Mail otrs-en-l, it's moderated but should get through - or mail Cary and ask him to pass it on. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Relata refero (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this look like any banned user you know?

Immediately diving into internal debates and his latest is an attempt to get the AMA and Esperanza unlocked so he can alter the closing essay. Looks like a previous editor but I have no idea whom. Any ideas? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, I only know one person who obsesses about that, and that person has far worse command of English than this. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

oxfordRT AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table (re-nomination) please could you ask someone uninvolved to close this soon? in my experience, the longer AfDs overrun, the harder they are to decide upon- plus everyone can be put out of their misery/suspense. :) Merkinsmum 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Another train-wreck. I think we should simply nuke it, but I'm not getting invoilved any further at this point. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom evidence comments

I'm among a group of editors who think that some of your comments were inappropriate. Please consider revising. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Name calling completely out of line. Cool Hand Luke 19:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bravo

[20] Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Extremely well said. Hopefully some eyes are opened. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems I am a part of a group of editors who think some of your comments are appropriate. While i was surprised to hear of your centre-left views the other day surely my lack of insight into your political views shows that you are not being a POV warrior at all. The thing i most like about having wiped my user page history is that people don't make assumptions that Squeak belives this, opposes that or whatever in real life. Long live the NPOV warrior. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is one reason I use a redlinked user page. People are free to infer what they like about me from my edits; unlike some editors whose bias is self-evident, I hope mine is not but am completely open to the possibility that it is, and will state it where I think it's relevant.

Don't get me wrong, most of Wikipedia is not a battleground. But bits of it are, and the battle lines are very deep and no-man's-land is full of unexploded ordnance. We really do need more admins who are prepared to stand up and be counted. WP:NPOV is consensus, and when someone is egregiously violating it, they need to be stopped there and then, without a majority vote of AGF types. Unblock comes with a sincere commitment to learn and reform. If they realise the problem, sure, let them edit again and congratulate them on learning the hard way. Wikipedia is the university of life, school of hard knocks and the like. We can be blunt without being disrespectful - people have (sometimes wilfully) misunderstood a lot of what I've said in the past. Occasional trolling is normal, forgivable, and of no lasting consequence. We should trust each other sufficiently that we can accept at face value a comment that we were being unhelpful. I'm often unhelpful. Often I am far too heavy-handed. But very often I am not.

I'm thinking that perhaps we should have teams: skilled investigators, people capable of making a call, people with the warm fuzzy gene to mollify and pick up the pieces. An incident team to deal with an incident, each member bringing their own skills, because only the superhuman can get it right alone. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd nominate you for a Raul's Common Sense Brick except you already have one. Do you still accept barnstars?

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For this diff. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, Stifle. I would not want to overdramatise it, much of Wikipedia is completely free of lunatics, but that means that many Wikipedians never come across them and do not realise what a problem they are. Only a very few are in active denial, it's mostly I think that people never get involved in the hard cases so don't realise how much harder and more vicious they have become. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad article

I went to sleep for a while and the thread about the threats seems to have gone from ANI and the archives, or I can't find it. Could you possibly link me to it, or tell me what was decided? I do hope they put this article on probation or something. Email me if you prefer. Merkinsmum 11:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Overjoyed

You recently blocked Overjoyed (talk · contribs). LaSylphide (talk · contribs) has been caught up in the autoblock. Normally, I'd just lift the block but I'm a little dubious here. Could you please take a look and let me know if you think this is an unrelated account or if they are the same editor? I don't want to prejudice you by explaining why I think they may be the same person. --Yamla (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Behaviour looks different to me, on the face of it, but I'd not let that override a good hunch fomr someone who knows the MO of an abusive user. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for dispensing with "Overjoyed". My dilemma now is whether to revert his many changes or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The above was moved by another editor, with my permission. Meanwhile, please note the rant by the blocked user "Overjoyed" and what I consider to be a reasonable response. [21] I would like to point out that there are some similar editing patterns between him and his alleged sockpuppet, "LaSylphide". [22] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I also note with some amusement his defense of his other self [23] which is typical sockpuppet behavior. The senior citizens' home is a new one. Usually it's a sibling or a roommate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Allerca

Remember that mess? It's gotten weirder. See these links [24] [25] and Ashera. FCYTravis (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)