User talk:JzG

Discretionary sanctions

---

Smelling pistakes

In addition to bone-deep burn scars on my left hand I now also have C7 radiculopathy, so my typing is particularly erratic right now. I have a spellcheck plugin but it can't handle larger text blocks. You're welcome to fix spelling errors without pinging me, but please don't change British to American spelling or indeed vice-versa.

---

God Jul och Gott Nytt År!

Gråbergs Gråa Sång is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

JzG! Are you still out there?

Hi JzG! I was going through some old ArbCom cases and ran into one where you had added some statements. I realized that I haven't spoken to you in quite some time, and I see that you haven't made any edits since May... That sucks! I don't want to see someone like you go! If anything, I hope that you're doing well and that you're happy and that you'll someday return here. I just wanted to leave you a message and let you know that I was thinking about you... Keep in touch. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope it goes without saying, despite the fact that I'm saying it, that many of us feel the same way. Happy new year Girth Summit _(blether) 23:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

We didn't cross paths very often lately, JzG, but we could really use you back. If you get the urge to return, please say "Yes!" Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

October JzG sighting at WP:RSN. Does my heart good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Lovely to hear from you! I have spent the past two-and-a-bit years working at incredibly high stress for a hospital. In that time I have retired around 80% of their legacy application and server estate, instituted architectural guidelines and piloted the process for demand review, reduced the measured risk burden by around 80%, instituted objective risk monitoring using Tenable, and I've just proposed (and had accepted) a plan to remediate or mitigate most of the rest. I have, in short, been busy in that there real life of which you read, and that really wasn't going to fit in with having to be nice to people who sincerely believe that Ashlii Babbit was the real victim of the "legitimate political discourse" on Jan 6 2020.

I have a week's leave. I have 28 days to take before year end, having managed I think three days off this year so far (including weekends). And because I have an offshore team and an onshore customer, my working day can be 8am to 3am.

I thought I'd drop in :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 18:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yikes, sounds like, umm..., a lot of responsibility. There will be plenty for you to do here when you are free! Johnuniq (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Glad you dropped by! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're OK - and busy, by the sounds of things! Hope you enjoy your break. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

If Guy doesn't look at Talk:Alexander technique real soon now, where Eddy is being accused of plagiarism, I may be forced to contact him on bookfarce. That would mean giving Guy my real name. He always forgets me. - Roxy the dog 16:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I try never to remember people's RW names unless they are "out" on Wikipedia. Even when they out themselves, this has led to huge problems, e.g. with a user whose identity was revealed by accident off-wiki, showing him to be the source of fact-washing his own side in Wikipedia disputes via a journalist. That ended badly for everyone. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Very happy see the little JzG! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 19:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC).

Hah! Good to see you're still around!  RasputinAXP  20:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a few months late, but welcome back! Wishing you well. starship.paint (exalt) 09:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Administrator changes

• ComplexRational
• Extraordinary Writ

Stephen

• Andrew Yong
• Dbenbenn
• DESiegel
• GlassCobra
• Joe Decker
• Nancy
• Pathoschild
• StuffOfInterest
• William Pietri
• Wwwwolf
• Xdamr

Interface administrator changes

Nihiltres

CheckUser changes

Moneytrees

• Ivanvector
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• GeneralNotability
• Moneytrees

• Guerillero
• SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Thing

Template:Thing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Final review at RSN

Hello. I noticed that you have taken part in other discussions regarding sources connected with religion at WP:RSN. As an uninvolved party, could you give a look at my closure of this RfC and either confirm it or add your own final review? Given that I opened the RfC myself, my endnote could be considered biased. Æo (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello JzG, in the rfc in question, AEO was accused of canvassing multiple editors by an editor he accused of canvassing first. Since this is the case, and since AEO reached out to you it is best for the closer to be an editor whom no one has reached out to. The closure does look really odd and POV pushing as it clearly minimized the majority views and emphasized the minority along with extrapolations of points that were not really touched on much let alone agreed upon as if to be authoritative. This is not the first time either since in the section above the same rfc the same attempt was made [1] for which I had to step in issue a correction to the summary attempt.

The fact that AEO went and closed the rfc despite him agreeing that an uninvolved editor should close these discussions [2] does raise some concerns. I will issue such a request for closure the right way at Wikipedia:Closure requests for a COMPLETELY uninvolved editor to close the RFC. It is the only fair thing to do. Thank you.Ramos1990 (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear JzG, please feel free to close the RfC as an uninvolved editor. I did not canvass anyone to the discussion, I just solicited Nillurcheier who already took part in the discussion thereabove and who expressed his will to vote in the past. I don't think that my closure endnote is odd and POV-pushing; it perfectly summarises the most salient points expressed in the discussion therebove, and in the RfC itself by the yesses, the no/buts, and the nos. On the other hand, I find Ramos1990's considerations hereabove POV and unnecessarily polemical.

For the record, my endnote is the following one:

Yes: 4; no/but: 2; no: 8. There is no consensus at this time for the step of deprecation, which has been deemed extreme in this case. The sources in question, two statistical datasets (ARDA/WRD/WCD and Pew-Templeton's Global Religious Futures), are explicitly linked to some American Christian organisations (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary), missionary projects (10/40 window), and philanthropic companies with roots in American Christianity (John Templeton Foundation; Lilly Endowment), and have been criticised for containing some systematic bias (overestimation of Christianity, underestimation of other religious and irreligious populations), and Erp «also noted [that] very few peer reviewed articles ...use the data outside of Christian mission related articles». Both of them are also old mathematical projections, "purely glassball", often misleadingly passed off as hard data from surveys (cf. Æo, NebY, Nillurcheier). It is clear from the discussion that the sources in question should never be used in place of data from censuses and statistical organisations, should be treated with a grain of salt and never accepted at face value. Even some of those who voted no and no/but agreed that «we can all agree that census data should be used where it can» (Pyrrho the Skipper) and that «in-text attribution should be required [to] ...alert the reader that there might be bias» (Blueboar). Those who voted with a clear no (cf. Foorgood, Jayron32, Ramos1990, Wareon, Dee, عبد المسيح) pointed out that some of the sources in question are published by respectable publishing houses, are listed on some academic institutions' websites, and some critical reviews underline the positive sides of them; however, Drmies «contacted one of the librarians on whose page the database was linked, pointed them to the discussion, and they told [him] they would rephrase the "recommendation" on their website – and noted of course how linking something is hardly the same as giving a wholehearted endorsement». Erp also highlighted that the datasets in question fail the CRAAP test: they (a) fail to list their sources or describe how they got their numbers in at least a few cases; (b) they are precise to single digits in cases where that is extremely unlikely to be accurate; (c) they don't give error bars.

--Æo (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that there is a recent accusation of canvassing [3] showing an actual request for a vote should be enough to make sure an completely uninvolved editor - not a requested or chosen editor by the RFC creator contacting and making a specific request - should do it. The closing request has been made an initiated already in the closure requests page [4] by the way. This is fair and ensures no editor chosen by the RFC creator closes it - guaranteeing neutrality. Not sure why he selected you and wants you to specifically close it, but certainly seems odd to come to a specific editor requesting to "confirm or add" on the closure one has written instead of staying back and not trying to influence a closure. There is an appropriate place to request closures by uninvolved editors and allow them to come to their conclusions. Also, AEO agreed that a completely uninvolved editor should do it [5].Ramos1990 (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Ramos1990, please refrain from accusing me of canvassing. I already explained that I solicited Nillurcheier because he already took part in the discussion above and wanted to express a vote. If that is canvassing, then it has the same value of what you wrote here: "Hi Foorgood: there is an RFC on it now. Since you were part of the discussion and provided great insights on it, I thought you should be notified of it". And regarding JzG, I just read previous RSN discussions having to do with religion topics and chose a user who seemed to have taken part in most of them, thus demonstrating an interest in and therefore an understanding of the topic, which could be a plus; I am not an expert on RfCs and other similar Wikipedia procedures, it is my first time opening one and I've taken part in few of them in ten years. WP:AGF and respect my efforts to contribute to what should be an encyclopedia, and I will do the same with you. Æo (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

And P.S. regarding my comment here: it did not refer to the RfC, as we were commenting on the discussion which preceded it (the RfC had not been started yet).--Æo (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Our interaction was not canvassing since we both arrived at the discussion independently (no one pinged me to join) and we both made extensive relevant contributions (which means were looking at the discussion regularly either way). That's the opposite of canvassing. But calling up multiple editors at a time like you did early on [6] who tended to side with you (their RFC votes were predictable now that I see this [7]). Is a different story. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)