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)[reply]

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

This editor is a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix and Free Errata Sheet.

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

This user is a
Rouge admin.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 11 months, and 21 days.

This user has been an admin for
18 years, 6 months, and 24 days.

This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

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?

False ad hominem attacks

Hi Jzg, your explanation some time ago that I made proposals as a supporter of Sathya Sai Baba to make his sleight of hand tricks seem like miracles is hilariously wrong. Just google my name if you do not believe me. Have a good pentecost if you celebrate it. Andries (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already realised my error there: I was mixing up my partisans. It remans a fact that you are a partisan and should not be making the edits you do. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shugden socks

Please see Bushranger's talk page. Bush seems busy in real life. These 3 accounts are the same person, in order from newest to oldest:

Prasangika37
Essence37 - obvious sock.
March22nd Heicth (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I lack the specific knowledge of the individual POV-pushers to work on that. See WP:SPI for likely help on the socks. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awards Section on Banc_De_Binary

Hey JzG. I wasn't sure if you were aware that the article is fully protected and the only edits that should be made are those with consensus. I see some discussion about the awards section on the talk page but I didn't really see an edit request. I just wanted to make sure that you were just enacting what was discussed on the talk page or if not if you were aware that it was fully protected. Thanks!--v/r - T P 00:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing promotional cruft is uncontroversial, other than with the tiny minority of POV-pushers. "Awards" sections are almost always promotional, and this one definitely was. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but the policy says that admins should only edit through full protection to enact consensus. It's not a big deal, it just shouldn't really happen. Folks were already talking about removing it anyway, so I wont make a big deal of it, I just wasn't sure if you know it was fully protected.--v/r - TP 01:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I've been away for a few days and haven't reviewed all the discussion, I believe that there was a clear consensus of non-conflicted editors that the Awards section was cruft and warranted removal. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just so. And while WP:NPOV is policy, WP:WAITUNTILEVERYONEAGREESBEFOREREMOVINGOBVIOUSPUFFERY is not. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, JzG. I have come here on the instructions at User:JzG/help that you linked from the administrative thread and I hope this request is not forum-shopping or a wall of text. I am concerned that I and BDBJack are being attacked because we are politely requesting basic policy compliance in the Banc De Binary article (and apparently because of past conflict in this area, in re of which the Board of Banc De Binary has asked me to post a statement at my userpage). For instance, our first correction request was to correctly reflect our legal identity in the first sentence of the article, based on a primary source we provided, and this request has been pending 68 days without positive answer despite our vigilant attempts to obtain the correction. (Yesterday editors finally trumpeted their apparently independent discovery of a primary source essentially identical to the one we originally posted, and consensus about the protected edit request was announced, but the correction has still not happened.) I also believe, though I have been both supported and contradicted on this point, that much of the poorly sourced information constitutes an attack page and has been designed to reflect poorly on the Banc De Binary principals, particularly 50% owner Oren Laurent, by attempting to exempt the information from biographical protection because it is perceived as corporate information (although the biography policy requires small businesses to be judged on a case-by-case basis).

Following the instructions of an administrator OTRS volunteer and of the administrator informal mediator, I posted a complete list of concerns so as to facilitate discussion, as concisely as possible. In the administrative thread, it has now been proposed that BDBJack and I be blocked or banned because of this alleged disruption, and as a compliance officer for Banc De Binary I take this proposal seriously. My request is that you review my behavior and BDBJack's behavior sufficiently to determine if we have committed some violation, and advise us how to correct any such violation. Incidentally, I respect your choice to delete the awards section, as I have not had a strong opinion either way about the section. In fact, the poor sourcing of the awards section is reflective of the poor sourcing throughout the rest of the article, and I would not think it ill if you took a broadsword to it. BDBIsrael (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done OTRS work until recently, I wrote the standard advice you were given. What you need to remember is that while we encourage you to raise your concerns and request changes, we are under no obligation to make those changes or accept your concerns as valid. I do not think I am the first to have made this point, and there is no chance that you will persuade me to intervene on your behalf. I'm here to ensure the article complies with policy, and I'm afraid that an article which complies with policy is not going to please you very much, because your view of your business is badly out of line with the independent view. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JzG. We are in agreement except for your concerns about our motives. We recognize that you and Wikipedia are under no obligation, and have not insisted at any point to our knowledge that anyone is under such obligation, and we would in fact be pleased if the article started complying with policy. We have only asked for compliance with policies all along, such as stating correctly what our legal identity is as demonstrated by independent sources. I'm glad that we are otherwise in agreement. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]