User talk:JzG

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MrX (talk | contribs) at 12:22, 9 September 2020 (→‎Close challenge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.


Something odd?

I don't really know what to do about this (if there is anything to do), but I figured I'd let someone know who might have better sense. There seem to be a couple new accounts with similar names that are just thanking tons of pages: [1][2]. So there's that? Jlevi (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The specific edits are not public information it seems? Can admins see them? I remember sometimes being thanked by single-use socks to bring my attention somewhere. If we knew what the edits were, it would be easier to determine if it's harassment, covert leadership attempts, etc... —PaleoNeonate – 11:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both accounts thanked me for this edit: [3]. Jlevi (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I created a discussion at WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Empty_accounts_thanking_hundreds_of_times_for_contributing_to_controversial_pages Citing (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

A BIG thank you for (not in anyway) improving the article Is Genesis History? every small step in providing a balanced article that scans well and allows for further additions obviously helps build a better wiki, if you feel at any time that it needs rewording, do so, do not revert like an arse and lose work and such impetus that this might provide.121.99.108.78 (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the original phasing, the message is still valid though, edit and improve rather the undo and roll-back.121.99.108.78 (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The film was re-released in around 850 theaters for an anniversary showing on February 22, 2018, with a bonus scene of Wheaton College students requested a screening, all members of a creationist club touring the Ark Encounter, a creationist attraction operated by Answers in Genesis" is worse English than what it replaces, and less clear. Your other edit was reverted by Ian.thomson, not me. The talk page is at talk:Is Genesis History?. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the link to a documentary's official website removed?

In edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Greater_Good_(film)&oldid=975997130 I added an "External links" section with a link to the official website of the documentary that is the subject of the article. You reverted this edit, if I understand correctly.

  • Linking to the official website of an article's subject is helpful and common practice.
  • On a general note: Reverting an edit with "No, I don't think so, thanks" as the rationale is both unhelpful and likely to antagonize.

Unless you see a flaw in the argumentation above, please reinstate the linked revision - adding the IMDB link would be helpful too (doing so hadn't occurred to me initially).

Tabledhote (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tabledhote, because there's already one link in the article and we're not here to drive traffic to sites that seek to actively harm our readers. Oh, and it's not a documentary. It's a crockumentary. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy:

> we're not here to drive traffic to sites that seek to actively harm our readers

Your statement directly contradicts Wikipedia's commitment to a neutral point of view, and I find disconcerting that you, as an administrator, would consider this a valid argument. If a topic is considered noteworthy and therefore deserving of a Wikipedia article, there is no justification for not giving it the same treatment as other topics, especially not for reasons based on your personal opinions.

> It's a crockumentary.

See previous point.

Unless you see a flaw in the argumentation above, please reinstate the linked revision.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabledhote (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly allowed per WP:ELOFFICIAL so I have replaced it. The community has consistently allowed links to Pirate Bay, Sci-Hub, Silk Road etc. and I don't see how this is any different. SmartSE (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smartse, some people think that Wikipedia's mission does not include killing our readers. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, as Smartse has demonstrated, including official links to the topic of an article is standard policy ("Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself."). That you personally don't like what the subject says about itself is immaterial and letting personal opinions drive editing decisions is highly inappropriate, especially for a high-profile administrator. Please restore the version that includes the official link. Tabledhote (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that standard policy should be changed, See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Pre-RFC: Minor change to LINKSTOAVOID and ELOFFICIAL.
For example, look at what I did at
I deleted links to an official site. Should I have followed the "including official links to the topic of an article is standard policy" advice instead? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tabledhote, not policy, usual practice. But Wikipedia does not link to sites with malware, and antivax is worse than malware because it kills humans, not computers. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy: If it is usual practice and allowed by existing policy, disallowing it in a given situation requires a policy-based reason. It is completely inappropriate for you to justify such a deviation from something that is both customary and allowed by an official policy based on what you personally wish an existing policy should be changed to, in the future, if ever. More generally, it isn't the mandate of Wikipedia - and certainly never should be - to protect readers from access to "harmful" ideas, especially not based on your personal assessment of what readers should be protected from. The malware example is inapplicable, because it isn't a free speech issue - it's about protecting readers from harmful intent that is unrelated to the free and open exchange of ideas. Again, your personal opinions on what you perceive to be related to the largely meaningless propaganda term antivax are immaterial (and, to be clear: this applies to any topic, irrespective of anyone's personal stance toward it), and basing your admin activities on them amounts to an abuse of power. Therefore, please restore the version that includes the official link. If you're unwilling to do that, please let me know how I can officially complain about your conduct. Tabledhote (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The great SchroCat witch hunt

Hello Guy, I hope you're well. I've been struggling with your comment at AE, if I'm honest. While it is the more level-headed and benevolent of admin comments there, it is the one that gives the most sense of wanting to ignore the very obvious problem that we seem to have in IB discussions from the pro-faction side of the argument.

I do think we have a serious problem. Ritchie333, whom I much respect and admire, started the case because of one particular user who harassed, harangued, badgered and bludgeoned their way through the Sinatra RfC in order to grind those down with opposing views. This all went ignored, particularly by the four admins who I approached to step in. It continued to be ignored which allowed people carry on baiting and bullying SchroCat who, through lack of admin intervention, took it upon himself to defend. There's no point in taking it to ANI as it is an unproductive time sink, as is AN, so what alternative, other than to take on the defending yourself, is there?

Now we are starting to see people like Barkeep49 and Guerillero twisting the case to make it about SchroCat. The "ok boomer" comment was the last straw for me; it is utterly disgraceful for anyone, let alone an admin, to use such ageist, hateful language; this phrase was repeated by another user (non-admin) (Mclay1) later on in the thread. I think it's dangerous to be going down the path of sanctioning the result rather than the cause; but I'm not entirely surprised that we are, when we have people line Barkeep firmly behind the steering wheel. CassiantoTalk 07:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, thanks for the ping as this gives me a chance to write something that didn't fit at AE. There is not consensus that OK Boomer is the hateful slur you're thinking. I know you weren't previously familiar with the expression and so there could be a level of misunderstanding here. I say this having helped write the lead and contributed to the sourcing on this topic. Some feel like you have been writing that it is a slur but that is by no means the only interpretation of the phrase. Clearly you don't care for me, but I know you are a top notch content person and so I thought a chance for you to reexamine the sources/context of the phrase might help here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, oh, sorry, I had no idea we need a consensus to determine if something is "offensive" or not? And from an admin, too. Stunning.
It's filthy, ageist language. Ageist language like that in real life is not tolerated. In the workplace, for example, would see someone wind up in a an employment tribunal. I don't know why this place is any different. There's even a reliable source on the matter saying it's ageist. Once again, you're talking out of your rear end. CassiantoTalk 13:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And there are reliable sources saying it's not. But your position is held by some and I see you have thought about it so I certainly won't try to change your view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, as far as I can see, everyone there is sincerely trying to improve the encyclopaedia but at least one and probably three or more people have become excessively vested in a specific content outcome. This could escalate into the Infobox Wars Round 3,728 or everyone could calm the fuck down. In my view these disputes are a massive festival of lameness. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#I-82-I, but "OK Boomer" is definitely a slur.
The sad part are the sources that freely admit that it is a slur but claim the the older generation deserves it:
" 'OK boomer' is also just the right amount of dismissive, and yes, it does feel good to be dismissive of yet another person... the boomer generation, who enjoyed a thriving economy, had an easier time buying homes as well as better chances of finding and keeping their jobs – and somehow tricked themselves into believing this was largely the result of superior life skills rather than the good fortune of being born at the right time in history. So go ahead, treat yourself to an 'OK boomer' every time you truly feel the need to. You’ve earned it by being hit by (depending on whether you’re a millennial or a Gen Z'er) a crippling global recession, or some of the scariest moments in contemporary politics happening in your formative years."[4]
--Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it's "deserved," my experience with "OK boomer" is that it's more a dismissive comment than a slur - I would consider it just about as offensive as an older person telling a 20-something "shut it, kid." GeneralNotability (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability, "shut it kid" would earn someone a block, certainly at the fingertips of one of our more overzealous admins. I'm minded of the time SchroCat went to someone's talk page, with whom he was in disagreement about one of England's greatest playwrights, Noel Coward, and he was blocked within two minutes for entitling the thread "Coward". The admin assumed bad faith and blocked him, not realising it was Sir Noel's surname. If we can block for that, then we can block for an intended slur. Why isn't anyone blocking Geurillio? Because he's an admin and he's exempt from the rules. CassiantoTalk 18:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, I don't think it would. But I refer the hon. gentleman to my earlier response: people should calm the fuck down. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, don't think it would, what? Warrant a block? Maybe not from you, but that's not what I said. People should "calm the fuck down", I agree. And admins should do their f**king job, and practice what they preach. That way, there'd be no need for people to "calm the fuck down". CassiantoTalk 21:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon, meh, I read it as a satirical comment, but whatevs. Technically I am a boomer. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, I didn't see the original comment, but replying "ok boomer" is a bit like a male editor replying "ok sweetheart" to a woman. It's dismissive, based on identity rather than on the content of the editor's position. SarahSV (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sarah. That is poor decorum, at the very least. El_C 21:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, then inevitably, they'll be an admonishment at the very least, for Guerillero and the other Mclay1? CassiantoTalk 22:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done so. El_C 22:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, here's the original comment by Cassianto. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lepricavark, what of it? CassiantoTalk 22:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin:, would Sam have said, "ok sweetheart"? GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or "Whatever, Jew"? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon, "ok boomer" is just as bad as that, I agree. The only difference being is that religion is a choice and age is not. So it's as bad as a racist slur, as race, like age, cannot be changed. It's now an established fact; ageist comments are accepted around here, it just depends on who says it and who it's directed at. I have no idea how old Guerillero is, but assuming they're a millennial, if I were to call them a spotty-faced little erk, I would expect to be blocked. The laughable thing is, Guerillero has no idea how old I am; there's at least four decades that separate me from the baby boom years post WWII. But prejudice can also be perceived, not just based upon fact. CassiantoTalk 06:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I grew up in a time when people stood strong against insensitive words, insults, if you will, that were meant to hurt one's feelings, or put a dent in one's ego. Resistance, rejection and growing thicker skin helped move us beyond the hurtful words. Of course, times have changed. It's evolution, but in many instances our feelings have become far more vulnerable to hurtful words, and we express more emotion when feeling offended. We will continue to grow as human beings but there will always be the basic functions (the biology) inherent in all living beings that contribute instinctually to natural selection, building herd immunities and survival of the fittest. I dealt with a lot of name calling as a child, and one of the things that helped me was a very simple children's rhyme, Sticks and Stones - just a little piece of history I wanted to share. Atsme Talk 📧 14:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, no, definitely not as bad. "OK boomer" may originally have been intended as an ageist slur, but it has basically come to mean "yeah, whatever". Guy (help! - typo?) 21:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being a boomer meself, didn't think it was a slur, and ok sounds positive enough. Perhaps just in this town a bit of good-humoured slagging is commonplace. Guess that's just a Boomer's Story, goes off to put on gramophone. . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get off my lawn, you damn kids! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not by coincidence, had just been reminded of reading City c. 1960, SF in which gramps grumbles at a robotic lawnmower. Imagine that! . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AE closure

Guy, with all due respect, what the heck [5]? @Guerillero and Barkeep49:, myself, and possibly others spent hours reading through diffs and had more or less agree on sanctions or warnings for people besides I-82-I. Closing the discussion just because that user was blocked was not appropriate; please reverse the closure, or alternatively implement the other sanctions that were being discussed. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, I refer the hon. gentleman to my reply above. I-82-I is an unambiguous idiot and can GTFO. The rest are sincere and good people who need to find something more important to do. If you want to raise a separate AE against any specific editor you are free to do so. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with anything? A half dozen administrators were discussing sanctions against multiple users; nuking that discussion is not just a supervote, it's bloody disrespectful of your colleagues. I ask you again to allow that conversation to continue; else my options are either implementing those sanctions myself under DS, or asking for review of your actions at AN, and I'm less keen on either of those. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, you're free to request review of the logged sanction an/or the close. WP:AN is second on the left down the hall. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying I am not free to implement the sanctions I discussed with the other administrators? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)x2 Thanks for posting this Vanamonde because I was sitting here thinking largely the same thing. Guy I agree that I-82 needed sanctions. The fact that they edited under multiple accounts while logged out suggests that DS was definitely called for (which was not where I started). However, I agree with Vanamonde that this AE was broader than that and your close is not an accurate reflection of the discussion of a bunch of administrators. If Guy won't reconsider (and I hope he will), I think, Vanamonde, that the correct thing is to simply add a close beneath that which reflects the broader discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You would probably be wise not to without a discussion with other administrators first Vanamonde. I cant recall the situation, but arbcom made it clear that if an AE report has been closed as no action (against a specific editor). It counts as an enforcement action - so not subject to unilateral overturning without explicit consensus to do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If what OID is saying is true - and I wonder because at best it's a pocket no action as opposed to an explicit finding of no action - then I think ARCA is, as I have throughout, the best venue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go. I would suggest reading the outcomes there first before taking action that may be regretted. Relevant section is "6.1) Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened." Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the facts here are materially different - there was discussion and it is the closer acting without consensus. But that's probably best for ARCA to decide. Assuming JzG really is saying he won't reconsider the close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) That's kind of my point, though. Guy's closure ignores all other editors. It isn't even clear whether he's overruling us (in which case he's obliged to explain himself, per the expectations outlined here, and would be subject to review at ARCA) or not (in which case the other editors are subject to DS like always). Vanamonde (Talk) 22:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its really irrelevant at this point. Its been closed by an uninvolved admin who has indicated they are not going to reverse it. You cant re-open it. You need to take it to ARCA. The FoF in the relevant AE Arbcom case makes that clear. Its to prevent wheel-warring and admins arguing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. The disagreement isn't about the editor mentioned in Guy's closure, but all the other editors he ignored. At the very least he is obligated to say whether his closure assessed the discussion of their conduct or not, because that is currently ambiguous, and determines whether they are subject to DS from other admins for their recent conduct. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"At this point". Open a request at ARCA and make the argument there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought ARCA the right venue as soon as I got involved. But I agreed to give AE an earnest effort. And so I don't think going there now is our only option. We do have the option of asking Guy to clarify his close and if he is closing as no sanction to reconsider. He's a reasonable guy and reasonable people can act reasonably without escalating this into something even bigger than it already is (OVER INFOBOXES! INFOBOXES I TELL YOU). Sorry, not sorry for the caps there.. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But let me make this clear: I think that specific FoF in that arbcom case is one of the stupidest ideas ever thought up by arbcom. It rewards first mover's and enables those admins (of which I dont consider Guy one btw) who like to don the jackboots to stomp around with relative impunity, as very people can be bothered to appeal at ARCA. But it is what they have decreed and take my above posts as a *warning* to yourself. You are free to ignore it if you wish. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, I did not ignore them. I just don't consider them to be the same class of problem (see below). I would be up for a sitewide RfC or another RFAR or whatever. But seriously, can people not find something better to do? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, honestly, I have no opinion on that. I have no patience with infobox warriors, and every sympathy with anyone who wants to tackle them, but I don't think a thread about an obvious bad actor should morph into sanctions against good faith editors, and I really do think de-escalation would be more profitable here. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your closure perpetuates an unhealthy environment in which myself and others are needlessly subjected to unwarranted and unsubstantiated attacks and accusations. Please reconsider. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to get into another extended discusison of behavior, so let me just say that "editing in good faith" and "engaging in sanctionable conduct" are very much not mutually exclusive, and it's very obviously the case here because Talk:Frank Sinatra was a disaster before I-82-I even showed up. I disagree that walking away would be the most helpful thing, and at least two of my colleagues agree with me. So, I would ask you again to explicitly clarify your closing statement ; were you assessing the entire discussion, or just the parts that pertain to I-82-I? If it's the former, I think we have no option but to go to ARCA, because as others have pointed out the wording if not the spirit of a previous ARBCOM ruling may prevent me from enacting the sanctions Guerillero, Barkeep, and I agreed on. If it's the latter, then I fully intend to enact those sanctions, but we do can save the trip to ARCA. You may have implied this clarification above already, but we've had so many replies here that it's best to be explicit. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, I understand, but I would hope that de-escalation could be tried before we wield the cudgels. I may be being naive here of course. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, yes, I think you're being naive; de-escalation has been attempted with some of this crowd (both "sides" of this crowd) before, and hasn't come to anything. Had this situation come to my attention before I-82-I showed up, I would have proposed the same action. I hold you in great esteem as an administrator, but your continued refusal to answer my request for clarification does not reflect well on you. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, I feel like I got a pretty clear answer below.
JzG, I don't think AN is the right place to review this close. I have, as I said, thought ARCA to be the correct place. Filing out the appeal there brings me no joy and in fact I'm a bit sad doing so. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, I still don't see an explicit response regarding the others, but if you're reading it as a closure that covers the actions of all editors, AN isn't very useful because Guy isn't required by policy to respect consensus. ARCA would be the only way to go. If he doesn't clarify to the contrary, and nobody else goes there in the meantime, I can file a request when I next have the time. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, I agree that this reply is more ambiguous than I would have preferred. But I do indeed read it as Guy saying that there was closed with no sanction against other editors. I am in the process of filing the ARCA paperwork now, so you'll probably have a notification diff waiting you soonish. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, no, I did not address the other editors. Deliberately. In case it was not obvious, I do not care if anyone wants to spin out the discussion of the others, I have a rapidly worsening C7 radiculopathy and I am now in too much pain to think about this in more detail. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry to hear about your pain. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that too. I see Barkeep has filed an ARCA request, and I will be commenting there, but I will note for the record here that the outcome I'm looking for is being able to implement the consensus of admins at AE, and nothing more. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my colleagues above.  I don't see your closure reflecting the consensus of admins --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm the fellow who recommended at the AE case, that the AE case be closed, after the I-28-I discovery. I say your closing of the case, was the correct move :) GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Cassianto doesn't attack you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the authority to either keep close or reopen the said-AE report. I can only give my opinion on JzG's closure. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, if you defend someone enough times, you become just as culpable as they are. Lev!vich 00:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, that is either a comment which needs to be stricken as a PA because it's directed at GoodDay but really about someone else or so meaningless because it's directed at JzG (I too am culpable of doing a close which needs to be rethought every now and again) that I don't know why you'd write it. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was directed at GD and was about GD, not someone else, although it was a general statement that's equally applicable to all of us (and certainly critical, but not an attack?). Approving of this close is approving of the unaddressed behaviors remaining unaddressed. To use a hyperbolic analogy, if a police officer lets a criminal go enough times, at some point, the officer starts to share responsibility for the criminal's crimes. If the mayor repeatedly gives the officer a medal for letting the criminal go, then at some point, the mayor shares in that responsibility, too. What we're talking about here aren't "crimes" and admins aren't police officers, but in the wiki world, if admins (plural) decline to take action enough times over the same behavior, their inaction eventually becomes if not endorsement of that behavior, at least some responsibility for it. Other editors who repeatedly approve of the admins' (plural) inaction are also endorsing the underlying behavior. GD knows how much I respect him, a topic I've waxed eloquent about on multiple prior occasions, but that doesn't mean I always agree with him and on this occasion, I agree with Lep, that GD's opinions would change if he were the target of the complained-of behavior, and GD responded saying he doesn't have the authority to do anything about Lep's complaint. My reply is that GD's repeated approval of inaction over the same behavior is fairly seen as endorsing that behavior or sharing responsibility for it. I hope this long worded explanation clarified what I meant? Lev!vich 18:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does. But you still have GoodDay down as supporting behavior, from unknown editors, which you analogized to crimes and behavior which GoodDay needs to, in your opinion, take responsibility for. Maybe not quite aspersions but awfully close. As seen below with Cassianto and you this guilt by association piece is not really productive. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "unknown editors" are SchroCat and Cassianto and it's not "guilt by association", it's "guilt by repeated support". Lev!vich 20:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, if you get reported for anything to do with infoboxes usage? I would oppose your being blocked. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, true. So in the interests of balance, that makes you as culpable as those who you supported, like the sock who was described as "a productive editor". CassiantoTalk 19:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you're referring to I-82, they're not a "sock", they were blocked for disruptive logged out editing. Also I did not describe them as "a productive editor" and I'm not sure who you're quoting there, as I don't see anyone at else describing them that way, either. I think you're referring to HAL333, who called them a "constructive editor", and of course that was before I-82 was blocked for logged out editing. Also, my whole analogy/point is about criminals who are let go, whereas I-82 was caught and blocked. Also also, you don't see me complaining about I-82's block. You don't even see me complaining that SchroCat, who also edited while logged out to further the dispute after scrambling their password while their conduct was under review just like I-82, was not blocked. And that's because SchroCat's logged-out edits weren't as disruptive as I-82's. So no, in the interests of balance, I am not as culpable as I-82 for their disruptive logged-out editing, because I do not support it. However, in the interests of balance, I suppose I am culpable for SchroCat's logged-out editing, as I do support admin inaction in that case. Lev!vich 20:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, oh how bullying of me to call them a sock. I shall go and wash my mouth out with soap and water. Let me rephrase that: They "retired", then (deliberately) edited, knowing they were logged out, in order to behave as disruptively as possible in order to avoid scrutiny. There, I said it. Now, shall I report me for "incivility" or will you? CassiantoTalk 20:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You go ahead. :-) Lev!vich 20:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, while I strongly disagree with you here, I respect you a great deal on the basis of our prior interactions and I have no desire to argue with you, at least not while I am in my present frame of mind. But I do hope you'll consider that your opinion might be different if you had been on the receiving end of the attacks that have been directed against myself and HAL. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that nobody (around the infobox debates) be blocked. I have been through a 1-year ban from the project (2013-14) concerning other areas & so do know what can happen to any editor or editors, when emotions get too high on either side. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lepricavark, diff please. CassiantoTalk 19:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I'm indeed flattered that you find it difficult to talk about nothing else than me, you do seem to be a little obsessed about me, LEPRICAVARK. Might I suggest you find something else to do? Go for a walk, take up chess, bake some cakes, paint some water colours of nearby beauty spots - anything! There's more to life than me, you know. The birds are singing, the Sunday roast is cooking, and another bottle of red is airing in the study. Must dash. CassiantoTalk 19:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say I was rather surprised by the abrupt close against consensus. While I suppose technically permissible there was an interesting passage in OIDs link above. Specifically the part about consensus. Are you sure you do not want to reconsider? Also it would not be a violation of WP:WHEEL. From what I can tell wheel would be the third admin action. Something like admin A blocks user X, admin B unblocks user X, and then if admin Bs action was reverted that would be wheel warring. Finally if you want to get technical the close only pertained to I-82-I, since nothing in the close either let off or sanctioned other users and the original AE report was only for I-82-I. So from what I can tell it was not dismissing an enforcement request against the others and this does not appear to apply. PackMecEng (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think JzG has been ambiguous in whether their close only pertained to I-82 or applied to everyone but ultimately I read don't think a thread about an obvious bad actor should morph into sanctions against good faith editors, and I really do think de-escalation would be more profitable here. as meaning it was closed with no sanction against anyone else. As such, as someone who is conservative in tool use and respectful of the decisions of colleagues, I would not add to the closing with any consensus against others (which, if it applied only to I-82 would not be against DS wording or scope). Ironically this means that JzG's attempt to de-escalate will ultimately lead to a new escalation as I would then feel no choice but to go to ARCA. I therefore remain hopeful that JzG will either reverse their close or make clear that other sysops are free to close non-I-82 elements of that AE thread. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I can see where you are coming from, I was just going by the official close at AE. Specifically I-82-I has been blocked for sockpuppetry due to logged-out editing while under scrutiny. Based on this and the discussion below, I-82-I is further subject to an indefinite topic ban from the subject of infoboxes. This applies to the person using the I-82-I account, and precludes WP:CLEANSTART. I do believe that point 4 from the case I linked would be a good guideline in that. Ultimately I think you are right though. PackMecEng (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49, that is exactly the sense of my close. As always, anyone is free to request review at AN, or revert, but my rationale above goes to the heart of my views about this. We can and should get rid of obvious bad faith actors. We can and should help obvious good-faith actors to de-escalate their conflicts. We should try that first, and then, if that fails, we should look at sanctions - at least for things like infoboxes, where reasonable people can and do differ. Pushing conspiracy theories or fringe bullshit would be a different matter of course. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I approve of Guy's closure. We have already lost two editors. Can't we just move on and not lose any more? We are beating a dead horse at this point. ~ HAL333 20:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed :) GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Appeal

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#2020 Infobox Arbitration Enforcement and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Angel Dressed Demon

In Greek, it is called "Αγγελοφορεμενος Δαιμονας", search it on Google and you will see that it exists and it is not something I made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerolandteam385 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zerolandteam385, I did. I am not saying you made it up, only that it does not appear to pass our standards of notability. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bodo-Kachari peoples

@JzG: is it possible to move Bodo-Kachari people (current) to Bodo-Kachari peoples as originally requested [6]. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close challenge

Please don't unilaterally reopen closed RfCs. As an admin, you should know to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. - MrX 🖋 11:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrX: Per WP:BADNAC, "inappropriate early closures may either be reopened by an uninvolved administrator." --Mhhossein talk 12:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, the close was challenged at the admin board, and is clearly a WP:BADNAC. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That pertains to deletion discussions, requires an eplanation, and requires that the NAC actually be bad. Please read the linked material. - MrX 🖋 12:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=977536821"