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 01:33, 16 January 2015 editDave Dial (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,118 edits →Overriding a community decision?: ??????????????????????????← Previous edit Revision as of 01:36, 16 January 2015 edit undoA1candidate (talk | contribs)15,335 edits →WP:AE: new sectionNext edit →
Line 136: Line 136:
::::::There is nothing to discuss. If you have a problem with the process that deleted the article, the appropriate thing to do is to challenge it in a deletion review. I've put in a new thread at ], which you can peruse. ] — ] 00:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC) ::::::There is nothing to discuss. If you have a problem with the process that deleted the article, the appropriate thing to do is to challenge it in a deletion review. I've put in a new thread at ], which you can peruse. ] — ] 00:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, you do NOT get to unilaterally override the community. The result was "delete", not "delete until admin JzG sees a thread on Jimbos Talk page. ] (]) 01:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Excuse me, you do NOT get to unilaterally override the community. The result was "delete", not "delete until admin JzG sees a thread on Jimbos Talk page. ] (]) 01:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

== WP:AE ==

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Revision as of 01:36, 16 January 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 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 18 days.
This user has been an admin for
18 years, 11 months, and 21 days.
This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.
Archiving icon
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?

Discretionary sanctions notification

Just a formality and because it is (AFAIK) a necessity for enforcement of sanctions; I know you know about this:

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33

--Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 13:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Guess what? Involved editors are not allowed to issue DS notifications. I think you may be on the way to bannination, I certainly hope so. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I don't think thats true, could you point me to where it says only uninvolved editors may notify? (This affects some other areas I am involved in is why I am poking my nose here) Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts says "Any editor" FYIGaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Not that it particularly matters; Guy has participated in AE-related proceedings at some point in the past year.

I'm going to have to remember this quote somewhere for the future: "Wikipedians do not want to cite what the number 1 blog of world writes about them---it is kind of disturbing" NW (Talk) 20:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Notification: filing concerning you at WP:AE

Hi Guy, I've asked at WP:AE that you be warned for misrepresenting scientific consensus re acupuncture's efficacy, as you did here and have numerous other times:

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#User:_JzG (diff)

--Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 13:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your hubris is exceeded only by your chutzpah. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
A few years ago, people expected the level of craziness around here would improve after a few years. After seeing this, it seems pretty clear that nothing has changed or things have worsened - I don't know which it is though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Ncmvocalist: I wouldn't say crazy, but it is illogical to assert a consensus when you have only sources that show a significant view -- let alone when those sources are contradicted by equally good sources. This is NPOV 101. I think we are seeing confirmation bias, cf. what Feynman said about it being so easy to fool one's self. Nobody is immune to that, and here we plainly have a situation where editors can't meet the burden of evidence, yet persist in asserting their stance. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 22:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
So you keep assereting. Meanwhile, anatomy books ocntinue not to include meridians or acupoints. You are in denial, and you are taking the piss. Go away. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
If by "go away" you really mean I am unwelcome here, no problemo, but I've never been a dick toward you and am not starting now. I gotta say: you keep conflating TCM ideas with efficacy, but they're not equivalent. There's no reason that acu can't be effective just because there's no literal qi or meridians. The "mechanism" for eclipses used to be that a serpent swallowed the sun or moon, but they could still predict eclipses. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Your lack of self-awareness is duly noted. I will be sure to double-check my understanding of the scientific consensus with Edzard next time I see him. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought "WTF? WP:DTTR!" too when I got templated, but: . .... You KNOW Ernst??? Golly, I'll be glad to quit worrying about finding sources, knowing that now that you can just ask the dude. :-) We'll need a new template for that: {{GuysaidErnstsaid |date= |topicarea= |consensus=}} --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 11:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
That would be a great idea if only I subscribed to the fallacy of appeal to authority, which I don't. I do, however, have a ready way of finding useful and pertinent information. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
It must be fun to know him, he seems like quite a character, a fine mind. The fact that the objects of his ire are not infrequently academics (there's even the word, quackademics) -- as opposed to off-the-grid quacks -- says to me that there's a big slice of mainstream POV that hasn't yet come around. .... But this AE thing is less than useful and I am sorry I brought it up there. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Middle 8:, what you've described is not what I was referring to as craziness. One example of craziness is that an administrator (who also acts for arbcom) seems to have focused his comment on JzG's "incivility" in-reply to your remarkably inappropriate invocation of discretionary sanctions here, and did not even bother to address concerns of tendentious editing. I have noticed this type of thing happening in earlier years and it was becoming less common, but it is mind-boggling that such a foolish approach is adopted even now. Until the source of the issue which is enabling and promoting this type of approach is found, little can be done. Is it the community, arbcom, Jimbo...? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, agree that the obsession with "incivility" is nuts. Why? Why fiddle with process while content burns.... why arguing about stuff when the stakes are so low.... --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

AE request closed

The result of this AE request, filed against you by Middle 8, is that both parties are to be warned. Accordingly, you are hereby warned to adhere to the standards of decorum expected of editors, especially those working in controversial topic areas; this includes abiding by the maxim of commenting on content, not on contributors. Further, you are warned not to invoke your status as an administrator during disputes—as I'm sure you are well aware, when discussing content, administrators are just any other editor, an their additional privileges are irrelevant. Bringing up yo administrator status can cause confusion as to which capacity your are acting in, and could potentially have a chilling effect on the willingness of non-administrators to engage with you in content discussions. Should you fail to adhere to this warning, there is a high probability that you will face substantive sanctions in the future. This warning will be logged as a discretionary sanction at the appropriate page, as will the warning to Middle 8. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The "chilling effect" is the vexatious attempt by Middle8 to gain an advantage in a content dispute through use of AE. There was no "incivility", merely terseness. Infinite patience with vexatious requests is an unreasonable demand. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Typical Lunatic Charlatan tactic, and an over the top warning. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, quite. The cited examples of "incivility" were actually just me pointing out Middle8's involvement with acupuncture is a COI and that he cannot possibly judge the neutrality of his edits. If we're not allowed to point out these obvious facts, how the fuck are we supposed to control POV-pushing? However, the very next time he abuses processs, he'll be in front of ArbCom. On past evidence it won't take long. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is fine, but we are rapidly running out of uninvolved admins. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Request attention to Page Xenoglossy

JzG (Guy), a while ago you had the page Xenoglossy semi-protected. I believe you protected it in a wrong version. Now it is open and I want to return it to it's original shape before Oct 28, 2014 with all details of the cases and correct referencing. I don't like the fact that you side with disruptive editors who has eliminated most of the references on this page. I don't know how to solve my problem with you. Should I leave a message on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? 74.195.244.87 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

you were the problem then, and it sounds very much as if you still are. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
How can I be the problem where I cite correctly to the valid references while other users erase major parts of the document and you side with them. You have to really spend more time in investigating who is right. You should not apply your personal taste to the matter. Just comply with Misplaced Pages policy. I referred to the valid references. Actually the same reference that was on the page. I did not add any new reference. Who is your supervisor? I have to talk to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.244.87 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
In your opinion. And nobody else appears to agree. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Polite request

Guy, your mission as "quack buster" is well established, and you can believe me when I say it is not my intention to get in your way. I just ask that you please respect your position as admin and stop with the unnecessary insults and intimidation you have initiated against me on Griffin. If you will read the results of the ongoing Survey at Griffin Talk, you will see that I am not the only one who believes the changes are warranted. As you already acknowledged on the article's TP, you don't have a dog in this fight, so how do you explain your behavior and recent personal attacks and intimidation toward me? My only goal for Griffin is to expand the article per WP:PAG. I have every intention of adhering to DS, as well as to WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE, and expect the same from every other editor who collaborates with me in making Griffin a better article. It was because of my adherence to BLP policy and NPOV that I initially changed the lede, and it is still the reason I want to continue my work improving and expanding the article. No article in WP deserves to be a COATRACK, I don't care who you are, or what your motivations are for doing so. What's right is right, and getting the article right is our obligation as editors. If you and the others who are so set against me improving and expanding Griffin would simply AGF and allow me to work without the constant intimidation and insults, I believe you will be pleasantly surprised at the outcome. Jytdog has actually been quite helpful at times, and I maintain faith that we can achieve the desired result which will appease both sides without sacrifice. The problem seems to stem from the mistaken belief that I am somehow pushing a POV which favors CAM. That is absolutely NOT TRUE. I am bringing to WP the knowledge and experience of a 30+ year career as a successful publisher/writer/television producer, so please afford me the same respect I have afforded you. I thank you kindly for your consideration in this matter, and apologize if I have inadvertently caused you to acquire the wrong impression. Atsme☯ 18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Griffin is a conspiracy theorist, that's not our problem to fix. Of all the low-lifes in the world, the cancer quack is probably the worst, and you're right, that does not in any way endear him to me, but that is not an isolated item: he is a perfect example of crank magnetism at work. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Overriding a community decision?

That should not've been restored. Please see the closing of the deletion discussion, which was done by a panel of three administrators. Please explain why you have overridden consensus to delete the text of that article. RGloucester — ☎ 00:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We routinely restore history for DRV, and that is what I am proposing. If the case cannot be made at DRV, then the Draft gets nuked, and nobody dies. Right now we have a situation which I find baffling, and so does Jimbo, and the result for the encyclopaedia is currently no change, since the redirect is still in place and protected. The history is visible for checking the completeness of merging or potentially requesting review. I do not recall taking any prior part in any of this debate, I am viewing things on their face and assuming good faith of all concerned. I am also a deletionist and have zero tolerance for fringe views, so I don't think I am ideologically biased here. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Your personal opinion and bafflement is irrelevant. A panel of three administrators decided to delete the article, and it should remain deleted unless a deletion review finds otherwise. No one has filed such a review. Please restore the deletion, as per community consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 00:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
And the article is deleted, it's a redirect. The history is there if people want to see it. Remember WP:NBD and also note that nothing has changed as far as the content and the reader is concerned. I'm happy to let anyone else override it, I won't war, but the present situation seems to me to be defensible, not dismissive of existing consensus, and to allow thoughtful debate to continue while removing the complaint that the deleted history was visible only to a subgroup of editors. Do feel free to take it to the boards, I am happy to let others review it and will take it on the chin if people think it was a terrible idea. I was just being respectful to a view that seemed to me to be reasonable. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus was to "delete and redirect". The present article is not deleted. It remains, visible in the history. Consensus was to delete the text. You have not challenged that consensus in a review, and hence the consensus should be sustained. This was out-of-line, and I shall request an immediate overturning of this action. RGloucester — ☎ 00:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no wish to pick a fight with you. Maybe discuss this on user talk:Jimbo Wales? Guy (Help!) 00:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing to discuss. If you have a problem with the process that deleted the article, the appropriate thing to do is to challenge it in a deletion review. I've put in a new thread at WP:AN, which you can peruse. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, you do NOT get to unilaterally override the community. The result was "delete", not "delete until admin JzG sees a thread on Jimbos Talk page. Dave Dial (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:AE

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Category: