User talk:JzG

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)

---

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This editor is a Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix, Free Errata Sheet, and Author's Signature.

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 Wikipedia for 19 years, 10 months, and 29 days.

This user has been an admin for
18 years, 6 months, and 2 days.

This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

This user believes WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.

• In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
• My activity level is 53mKo (milli-Koavfs).
• Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
• My Last.fm profile
• vGuyUK on X | SceptiGuy on X

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. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

---

RfC and other closes

I am am making a good faith best efforts attempt to close backlogged RfCs and other debates from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. These are mainly backlogged because there is no obvious consensus, so any close will undoubtedly annoy someone. I invite review of any such close on WP:ANI, where there are many more watchers than my talk page. I am happy to provide clarification of anything either here or on ANI, please ping me if it's at ANI - that exempts you from the ANI notice, IMO, and I prefer a ping to a talk page notice as the latter tends to spread discussion to multiple venues, which is a nightmare. Feel free to use "email this user" if I am not responding to a request (but remember I live in UTC, soon to be UTC-1). Guy (Help!) 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

---

and stale

Please reconsider

Please reconsider your close on Andreas Lubitz, instead of an AN request I'd rather ask for you to reconsider it seems more reasonable. Both WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME state "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified" and "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role". I've mentioned this in the DRV. RoySmith believed that AN is more appropriate. There was a guideline based policy for retaining the information which leads me to believe no consensus was formed, your closing statement stated so itself. Please reconsider. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I already did. I concluded much the same second time (and it would be amazing if I did not, human cognitive bias being what it is). Try asking someone else. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Reasonable enough, would you object if I ask DGG to reclose the discussion? (I haven't pinged him do not know if he is interested). Or simple yet reopening discussion with your permission. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Recruiting a specific admin who has already expressed an opinion? Bad idea. I trust DGG implicitly, but recruiting him by name is likely to backfire. The backlog list works on the "cab rank" principle, use that maybe.. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The only way I would be able to close this decision is if I closed against my own opinion, recognizing that the consensus was opposed to my view. I have done that a number of times, usually in the hope of making it clear that the matter had been settled decisively. In this case I think JzG's close was wrong, and subsequent publications have demonstrated so; therefore of course I cannot close a disputed discussion in support of my own view. JzG, is you didn't notice, he as a person was the subject of a first page NYT story last week. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I can reopen it if there are no objections, the best way would be go through AN for a random uninvolved editor. A few more source could be added to the discussion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I intensely dislike the "keep asking until you get the answer you like" approach to Wikipedia articles. I can't stop you, but my recommendation is to wait a couple of months and see if any kind of historical perspective begins to develop out there in the real world. Either way, I'd rather not know about it, so I think we are done, yes? Guy (Help!) 21:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I am trying to do, I feel the answer could be better addressed given sources provided. I understand where you are coming from. In someways I agree, and you are definitely not alone in your views. Some editors believe that having articles on perpetrators of heinous crimes in someway glorifies their actions. On the contrary I feel the opposite is true, the only way to prevent something such as this going forward is to understand it which requires documentation. It is especially true when the event is current, more sources can be provided with greater detail due to sheer interest and input from multiple editors. After several months of expansion we can look at the article and see if it has stood the test of time, logically I feel this is more efficient. Anyways, I hope we agree on somethings, if you don't mind can you or DGG remove full protection from the redirect I am going to reopen discussion. I'll leave you out of it going forward as requested. Sorry for any troubles. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I cannotdo it, being involved.JZG can if he wants, as he originally placed it. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Moved per RoySmith request, I feel that you are a reasonable and rational person, given this here is my logical breakdown why the most vital time to retain this article is now not three month down the road. Currently this person is receiving intense continuous coverage participating editors are most likely to expand this article when the event is ongoing, so the true growth potential is maximized now. The optimal way to handle this is expansion for the current year and reevaluation in the future. I hope you agree, but I will gladly listen to opposition. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You had an RFC, and an AFD and a DRV and still you want to keep beating this dead horse. Guy's advise is wise and sensible and we will have a much clearer basis to establish a clear consensus after some intervening time. Have you read the essay about dropping the stick? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Spartaz have I been unreasonable about this? I chose not to AN this because that's always a mess, plus Guy personal bias is understandable. If he truly disagrees then I will drop it for now, but I certainly did point out legitimate reasons did I not? I did not make a big stink of this talking to the editor directly engaging him in discussion with reasonable approach is how we should operate. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you are being unreasonable. At what point will you accept that community process has gone against you? Seriously? If you are to be a successful editor you have to learn that process doesn't always go your way but you seem unable to accept this when it happens. Its got nothing to do with right or wrong, just the amount of disruption that re-arguing the same case causes by drawing in other editors to a subject that is already closed. If you carry on then at some point someone is going to start questioning whether you are a net negative - and this would be a real shame because you are keen and energetic and trying to do what you think is right. Its just that occasionally you have to accept that process doesn't give you the right answer - sometimes not even half the time.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Spartaz I am very active right now so I'll respond quickly, I do not believe in bias on Wikipedia, it is very clear to me that is person is notable. If you think I am sticking this I would gladly AN, but I think that Guy is an editor whose bluntness I respect. For example he believes that Global warming skepticism is in fact Global Warming denialism and he is correct here, but has not made the appropriate argument to favor this change, I feel that I could change this throughout Wikipedia with help. The same is with you, your closure of Allied Wallet is in fact correct canvassing did indeed have an affect I've overturned it in your favor, I hope you understand that now is the time to have an article for progressive expansion. Let me know if I am wrong. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

you are wrong. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay I am going to clarify for both Spartaz and Guy because of this comment. I believe I am correct based on policy which is why I am pursuing this, a simple "you are wrong" doesn't cut the muster, but more specifically, I have only participated once in this discussion and was not involved the in the original merge discussion. I did not bring this to DRV, so I'd like to give this a shot. I thought this way would waste less time for everyone. It has not worked out, I will revisit in the future ... for the first time. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You are going to pursue it because you did not get the answer you wanted and will not accept any clarification that does not move you towards the answer you want. You won't accept "no", you won't accept "wait", you won't drop the stick. Feel free to continue pursuing your crusade, but leave me out of it please. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your POV edits on Mohs surgery

Mohs Surgery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I will grant you that Hoxsey practiced quackery in that he promoted unproven or fraudulent medical practices, but if he was well-known as a quack, you would have lots of references calling him that. We should not call people quacks in Wikipedia's voice. If you are caught up in some crusade to right wrongs using Wikipedia, you can change it again and say something to the effect of "Harry Hoxsey, called a quack by x[citation] , . . . ". We expose quacks on Wikipedia with cited facts, not name-calling. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively you could try considering why on earth we would allow the grossly non-neutral term "lay cancer specialist" to stand, which is what I fixed. The technical term for a "lay cancer specialist" is: quack. We have an article on Hoxsey therapy which describes this quackery. It was already linked fomr the Mohs article. It says in the lede: "The sale or marketing of the Hoxsey Method was banned in the United States by the FDA on September 21, 1960 as a "worthless and discredited" remedy and a form of quackery." Guy (Help!) 23:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Well I didn't let the term "lay cancer specialist" stand, I undid your first edit and changed it to "uncredentialed lay cancer cure promoter" here. You changed it to "medically unqualified cancer quack" and then after undoing that, I just took out any kind of description of him and moved the focus to what he did with this edit. It is safer to call an action, method or product quackery then calling a person a quack. By the way the reference above doesn't use the word quack or quackery. That would justify taking the word "quackery" out of the article. I'm not gonna. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

But that's not neutral either. He was a cancer quack. A fraud, a charlatan, a predator on the sick and desperate. And despite that, people are still selling his quack treatment and (possibly worse) black salve. When a treatment is actually banned as fraudulent, there is not much scope for residual doubt. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can see that. I guess it is a question of where to draw the line. I just today noticed the Arbitration Committee thing below, so it looks like there will be plenty of discussion about where that line should be. I am happy with the way it is now and am also happy to have your view on it. Thanks for taking the time to give it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. The ArbCom thing is unlikely to change anything, we already have policies and previous arbitrations that cover this field, it's just that Wikipedia is crap at dealing with civil POV-pushers. I made a note on the Mohs talk page. My main problem is that I can't work out whether we should even discuss Hoxsey, since the explanation of why they are different and Hoxsey is fraudulent while Mohs is not, takes so long that the reader is likely to lose the will to live before reaching the end. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Administrators behaving inappropriately and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1candidate (talk • contribs)

I think you may have fired the WP:FOOTGUN. I do love the idea that calling you an acupuncture apologist is a personal attack, though - as a skeptic I would be mildly offended if anyone accused me of promoting acupuncture, but most quackery shills are proud of it, or at least no so ashamed of it that they would complain about being identified as a proponent. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

e/c Further to your comments at the initial assessment of A1c's problems with you, the only block I ever had was for using the phrase "Advocate of Ayurveda" as "Personal attacks or harrassment". sheesh. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Um. Advice please. should I post the following at the above request - ..."Does Arbcom now have their new supply of proven effective aboriginal hunting boomerangs, or do they still rely on those kiddies ones made of balsa that have so little effect?" -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep the humour level down. The goal should be to get sanctions in place which would allow us to immediately block editors that insert pseudoscience advocacy. Without that, this will go on forever.—Kww(talk) 15:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have always found that not being involved at drama boards is good. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Kww, sorry for the reality check, but yes it will go on forever. Arbcom will never pass sanctions prohibiting pseudoscience advocacy. You just have to take a deep breath, maintain your composure, and try to limit the damage while staying within the rules of the Wikipedia Game. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Boris, why do you have to depress me so? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 04:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Existing sanctions are sufficient, but the only people who understand the problem and are motivated to pursue them are automatically dismissed as "involved". Callenecc was very helpful at G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) recently, that's the first time for a while that I have seen anything other than unambiguous zealotry picked up at all. We have never dealt well, as a project, with civil POV-pushing. Our policies penalise those who are wound up to breaking point by endless querulous demands, rather than those making the demands. This has always been the case. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

For info, when Olive uses the term "allopathy" I normally counter by using the term "real medicine" -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

DING DING DING! Congratulations! Your service award has advanced!

Richard is thrilled to be the bell ringer for this occasion

This editor is a Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix, Free Errata Sheet, and Author's Signature.

I just check X!'s tool and you have crossed the 78,000 edit line. Along with your 10 years of service you are now a Master Editor IV (or Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia) and may now display your new service award.

Congratulations again! (Please continue to enjoy the drama while occasionally making an encyclopedia.)

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

BLow me! I never noticed. Thank you for that. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

TV infobox again

Hi, Guy. I'm sorry to bother you with this, but after that protracted infobox discussion that ended at [1], the agreed-upon wording was "third-party source required." In fact, User:AussieLegend appeared to agree to that when he left it in his edits of [2] and going forward.

But then, today, he unilaterally removed that wording [3], and when I pointed this out, he included different phrasing to reflect his own personal position [4] rather than the one we all agreed to.

I've restored the agreed-upon version, [5], but judging from his past behavior and this unseemly tactic now, I'm wondering if, to quell things before they escalate, you might reiterate to him that wording was agreed upon as of March 22 and to please not change it? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Technically, I think you're both wrong, but you're less wrong. This [6] is the actual position, and it is not specific to this infobox parameter, it actually covers any statement on Wikipedia that may be subject to challenge or controversy. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Cool. I appreciate your being the calm, mediating force, and I also appreciate the wording you've inserted. Thank you for taking the time, and again, I'm sorry this came up again. With sincere regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi JzG

Remember[7]? I am amazed that I mentioned his name after like 20 days, somewhere in middle of a long message, in relation to sock puppetry related to the topic ban in discussion.[8] It was like 1 hour and I would see him over there, trying to claim that I am deceiving("promise") by pointing to his 6 years of violation of multiple accounts policy,[9] and pursuing "vendetta against" him. Even though it is a global fact that he is under this editor restriction for his 6 years of violation of the policy and he should accept it. His last 50 contributions can also speak a lot. He is wiki hounding for over 62 days(2 months), I believe that some some strict action is required here, like last warning.(also check this) OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)