Open main menu

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 Wikipedia. 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)


Wikipedia Administrator.svgThis user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)
Editor - lapis matter ii.jpgThis editor is a
Grandmaster Editor First-Class
and is entitled to display this Mithril Editor Star with the Neutronium Superstar hologram.
Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svgThis user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time.
21.2This user has 21.2 centijimbos.
Rouge-Admin JollyRoger.svgThis user is a
Rouge admin
.
Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 15 years and 26 days.
Wikipedia Administrator.svgThis user has been an admin for
13 years, 7 months, and 29 days.
NoQuacks.pngThis user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.
Police man ganson.svgThis user is one of the 532 left-wing thought police who aggressively force their biased perspective on the rest of the world.
Dailymail logo lookalike.pngThis user hates the Daily Mail and thinks any publication that claims "using Facebook causes cancer" is about as trustworthy as Jimmy Savile in the Cheltenham Ladies' College.
Hangman-5.png This user believes WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.
Admin statistics
Action Count
Edits 116155
Edits+Deleted 124973
Pages deleted 16588
Revisions deleted 423
Logs/Events deleted 3
Pages restored 319
Pages protected 1473
Pages unprotected 45
Protections modified 102
Users blocked 2336
Users reblocked 62
Users unblocked 110
User rights modified 9
Users created 5
Abuse filters modified 27

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

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.

On politics See User:JzG/Politics for a statement of my views.

Contents

Spam

{{duses}} produces an insource search and a Linksearch search. The former is flaky in my experience but does have the benefit of focusing on mainspace. {{Link summary}} is the canonical search but produces a lot of extraneous items such as links on other wikis that are not always useful when managing non-spam bad sources. {{deprecated publisher}} and {{deprecated journal}} help with fake journals.

The elephant

Predatory open access publishing

These publishers are on Beall's list, feel free to suggest others with DOI roots I can work on.

Also generally shite:

Vanity press

An on-demand print house, masquerading as an academic publisher:

Spam

Web hosts

Citation spamming and Vanispamcruftisement

Multiple additions of citations to the same author from predatory and other journals, by multiple editors with no history other than adding that material (i.e. probable citation spamming):

Shitty sources

The Media Bias Chart is widely referenced in reliable sources. It appears to be accepted as broadly correct.

It has two axes: partisanship and reliability. In Wikipedia terms, the following seems to be true:

  • Hyper-partisan sources are not reliable for unattributed statements of fact. This includes the likes of The Intercept, Mother Jones, HuffPos, Slate, National Review, Reason, Weekly Standard. These sources are always open to challenge and should be removed if challenged and only reintroduced if there is consensus.
  • Unreliable sources are unreliable, and also usually highly partisan. Only the National Inquirer seems to publish bollocks pretty much regardless of its political angle.

As a principle I would have zero problem with the following:

  • Sources in the green box (AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, WSJ, WaPo, FT etc. are generally considered reliable for factual statements because they clearly distinguish them from editorial. They are generally acceptable for editorial when attributed with a few qualified exceptions such as the WSJ's inexplicable promotion of climate change denialism, which qualifies for exclusion under WP:FRINGE.
  • Sources in the yellow box are generally reliable for reports of fact but require care and attribution for statements of opinion. The position on the axes matters. CNN is more reliable than the Washington Times or HuffPo (equal quality but less bias), Slate is more reliable than Washington Examiner (equal bias but better quality). There is internal variability. Rachel Maddow is pretty scrupulous about fact-checking, but much of MSNBC is just unsourced opinion and should no be cited.
  • Sources in the orange box - "extreme / unfair interpretations" - should not be used unless there is a compelling reason and consensus on Talk among editors of multiple ideological viewpoints.
  • Sources in the red box - "nonsense, damaging to public discourse" - should be blacklisted. That is massively controversial right now, because it includes a handful of liberal sites that most liberal editors know not to use (Palmer Report, Wonkette, Bipartisan report, Occupy Democrats) and virtually all the conservative outlets popular with MAGA types, including InfoWars, WND, Blaze, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Daily Caller.

Note that Alternet is in the same box as the NY Post, Daily Mail and Daily Wire here. I agree with that. Neither are appropriate sources and both could be blacklisted: nothing of value would be lost. In fact I would also include Daily Kos, Second Nexus, OAN and Fox News. It's highly unlikely that any of these would be the sole source for any genuinely significant fact.

Also sites with no evidence of WP:RS:

Red box sources

Egregious fake news and other "fuck no" violations

58 links, sources in 2 articles including self-source as of 08:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
2,292 links as of 08:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
910 links as of 08:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Think-tankery

We should never source anything directly to a think-tank, their function is policy-based evidence making and is the absolute antithesis of everything Wikipedia stands for.

Fake universities

Unofficially official and personal pages

Woo

Um

Gunwanking