User talk:JzG/Archive 120

Statement length at arbitration case request

Hi, JzG. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Only because of the comment around the list of participants, which is a significant meta-question. If that has been taken on board then that block can go. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Woland2k

User:Woland2k has asked for their block to be lifted, writing "I'm not here to write only this one article (and I will not submit this draft anymore), in the past I corrected some other articles as well and my intention was to participate in many different article discussions becoming much more active on wikipedia. So I will bring value to the wikipedia community and especially since I was educated on many aspects of creating artilcle I feel that this experience could make me a much better contributor. Please consider unblocking my account so I can demonstrate my good intentions." Since the repeated submission of the AFC was the original reason for the block, perhaps it could be lifted. I have put the unblock request on hold pending your comments. Karl Dickman ^talk 07:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Comment: I too suggest to lift his ban, In my opinion giving him indefinite ban is not fair, but consider giving him second chance he may contribute to existing articles instead of the draft he created without improving. Hope you re-consider either lifting it or reducing the lengthy ban would benefit him and the community. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 15:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Ask at WP:ANI, I don't object if others agree but I'd want other admins' input. I am between meetings in Texas right now, not on my usual UK time zone. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_for_Reguyla.2FKumioko

Can you please sign your post properly? Saves us from wondering who was the ghost. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you had an extra tilde, I put an unsigned template there. HighInBC 23:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Thanks. Didn't want to do it myself or else I'd probably get, "NeilN forged a signature!" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Carly Fiorina

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:07, 6 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)

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)

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)

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)

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?" [1] 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)

See the notice at the top re British English. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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.

Brustopher (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Mate, I wrote the standard response to BLP subjects at OTRS and I was fighting to protect BLPs before WP:BLP was even written. Please don't treat me like some clueless n00b. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not treating you as a hopeless noob. You need to notify someone of sanctions if you intend to bring them to WP:AE. Given your current actions (the whole implying Hari is a serial liar, who's trumped up claims of harassment against herself), I believe this is an option which needs to be kept open. Brustopher (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

And now you are putting words into my mouth. Hari's problem is that she apparently believes her own PR: I am certain she sincerely believes she has been harassed, just as she sincerely believed when she wriote her article on air travel that aircraft cabins were pressurised to greater than sea level pressure. There is an enormous difference between being confident in your belief about something, and that thing being true. It would be vastly more compelling if she were simply to acknowledge her gaffes, correct them and move on. My biggest problem with people like Hari is that they abuse the results of science (chemical analysis, careful tests of toxicity and so on), using them to confer apparent legitimacy on their statements, but they entirely lack the essential scientific attribute of being prepared to admit when you're wrong. I am an engineer not a scientist, but I try really hard to swallow my pride and admit when I'm wrong. When pride is pretty much your brand, that's a lot more difficult, but it's also a lot more important. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, for some reason I thought "trumped up" meant exaggerated as opposed to fabricated. Bad wording on my part. Brustopher (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's all good. I am confident we will come to a point of violent agreement in the end, or at least grudging mutual respect. Your determination to be fair does you credit, and I freely acknowledge that I have no time for vainglorious promoters of claptrap, so the angels are probably more on your side than mine. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to say I do like this gritted teeth violent agreement idea. But I seriously need to stop getting so easily outraged over Wikipedia stuff, and dial down the jerkiness a bit. To clarify, I don't think anyone's up to any foul play on purpose here. In fact the worst thing included in the article (a false claim that Hari thinks Baking Soda is dangerous) seems to have been the result of an editor trying to cut down on a massive rant an IP was trying to include without paying close attention to what was written in the source. But I 'do' think the generally negative attitude of the editors working on the article, allowed for the claim to remain in the article without being questioned. There seems to be a general viewpoint amongst editors that Hari has done bad things and must be held accountable for these bad things. This is correct to an extent, but I think due to the general disdain with which Hari is held people are going above and beyond what is appropriate to highlight her worst moments/aspects. Brustopher (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sure you are right. I certainly am more inclined to correct an edit with a POV I recognise and oppose, in all areas related to pseudoscience, quackery, crank ideas, fringe nonsense and - well, pretty much everything else on my watchlist. And that makes me a bad man, and I feel a bit guilty for it. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browserstack

Hi, yesterday's concern was raised regarding not enough citations, which we resolved. We even fixed the tone of the article, even initially inspiration was Twitter article at wikipedia. Now, article has been deleted all together and even the editor's account has been blocked. Not entirely sure, what's wrong. I see one of the citations is unacceptable, which can be remove. Is there anything else we need to do, to get it undeleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.41.208 (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Block evading IP blocked. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Your Kim Davis disruption

Guy, did you see my comment about your talk page behavior? I am truly surprised that you would do this. On Wikipedia, we act according to consensus. Please reply now to the objection I and others have posted to your out-of-consensus direction you are trying to take the discussion. If it is possible, please try to undo the damage. Prhartcom (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis

This poll that you started is way out of process to the point of being disruptive, given that we are currently running a move request to determine if the article should be renamed. You also framed the question in a non-neutral manner. I am very concerned that you are acting in both the role of admin and editor on this topic, which is shocking considering that you are currently involved in an Arbcom case for the same inappropriate conduct (WP:INVOLVED).

Please close this new discussion that you started, and wait for the move request to conclude before start another overlapping discussion. Please don't continue to use your admin privileges on this, or any of the related articles. Thank you.- MrX 15:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Some concerns I have about your conduct

Hi JzG. You deleted both my request and Prhartcom's request about what I view as disruptive conduct and involvement by you at talk:Kim Davis (county clerk). I am asking you to please justify your use of admin tools in closing an RfC and a two AfDs on this subject; voting in another RfC; and then creating another overlapping RfC in what seems to be an attempt to sidestep a current move request discussion. I find this troubling, and combined with some other conduct that I've observed, your conduct is really starting to concern me.

Are you willing to discuss this here, in accordance with WP:ADMINACCT?- MrX 17:42, 9 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)

Like I say above, despite being wrapped in tinfoil it suggested a reasonable and actionable question - why are we quoting Skepdic when mainstream sources presumably say the same thing? (I replaced it with a simple BBC source very easily.)

Shunting a tinfoil-phrased post to archives and mockingly hatting it as "wibble" might successfully scare off a lone, irredeemable troll who would otherwise have wasted our time by arguing the toss but taken it no further. But doing the same to anybody either side of that - a potentially productive editor who was arriving at Wikipedia in the wrong tone of voice, or a rabid loon who is even now writing a 5000-word blog post about their proof that the Wikipedia Skeptic Cabal shuts down and conceals legitimate questions - can only harm the project. --McGeddon (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Mc Kevitt

Consensus was clear to delete there, so you should have deleted it rather than userfying. Because it is userfied, it now meets criteria U5 of speedy deletion, but because there was consensus to delete, it should have been normally deleted instead. --TL22 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BITE. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - MrX 23:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)