User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Discretionary sanctions

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts the Arab–Israeli conflict abortion complementary and alternative medicine post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Manual of Style the Balkans or Eastern Europe articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles complementary and alternative medicine climate change discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes Falun Gong governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them pseudoscience and fringe science the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people the Troubles He should not be given alerts for those areas.

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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

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.

JzG is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

Thanks for protecting that. But is it a good idea to set the expiry just before a time when Joe Biden will likely be getting millions of views. About the worst possible time for vandalism to slip in, I would think. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suffusion of Yellow, good point. Will extend. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not actual violation of WP:IMPERSONATION or WP:SIGFORGE but in the police impersonation sense, dropping into the middle of a talk page conversation non sequitur to issue orders to the users having a discussion? As you can see it's completely deniable as it does not begin with anything like, “By the power invested in me as a Wikipedia administrator...”, and hence is not straightforwardly inappropriate conduct.

Given my recent experience bringing up what seemed like a much more clear-cut issue at ANI, I'm loathe to present something like this at a general-purpose noticeboard, so I'm hoping there's at least some way to just note it down in the right place in case there's a pattern. Thanks, ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not in any sense "impersonation". It is simply good sense and is expected of editors with a clue. Such comments are what keeps Wikipedia from wandering too far into the weeds. Hoping that a passing admin will bless good behavior and condemn bad is contrary to procedure, and is not scalable. By the way, the comment was also correct. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Can you tell me what the edit summary “lets salt this particular exchange, eh?” would have meant?

For my part, every comment I had made referred to the topic of the talk page section—the proposed article and the wording of its title—and furthermore aspects of U.S. politics relevant to the 2020 U.S. elections, which both the basepage and the proposed new article are about. That's why this didn't seem like a good-sense application of NOTFORUM, to drop in and refer to everyone's comments as “crap” (while singling just me out to ping), claim that “everyone should... refrain from theses sorts of exchanges” without any explanation of what sort of exchanges are being referred to, and then immediately leave the discussion. I also noticed that this user frequents the Parler talk page and in a spot-checking of conversations there observed what seemed to be coordination with the recently ap2-topic-banned user Bus stop, though I have not followed that whole case closely.

I mean there's a user involved in that discussion whose comments are mostly jokey distracting nonsense, but as far as I've seen he acts that way all the time, even here on Guy's talk page, without censure.

Also—I'd observe that, being an admin, you are probably much more familiar with the usernames of other admins than the rank-and-file user, and can lean on that knowledge to get a feeling that someone is or isn't an admin. But for me, at least, simply issuing orders to other users and telling them that their comments are crap is rather distinctive behavior among the proles where everything is about the Wikipedia-specific definition of civility.

But maybe I'm looking at it wrong. AGF works in mysterious ways, even in the eyes of admins I'm finding lately. Perhaps “crap” was tough love rather than another attempt by opponents of the proposed article to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.

Thanks for responding, in any case. Even if this is completely unremarkable behavior, I'd still like to know if there's any standard way of handling police-impersonation-type behavior, for future reference in clear-cut cases. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that JzG is away for a couple of days so I'll respond again but don't intend battling here, or pretty much anywhere for that matter. I don't know how familiar you are with colloquial English but "salt this particular exchange" is a perfectly innocent suggestion that the discussion should cease. In Wikipedia jargon, WP:SALT means to protect a non-existent page so it cannot be created, but in colloquial usage it just means to take action to stop something. Plain speaking is best but the various policy pages (which I'm too lazy to look up at the moment) make it clear that a newly arrived WP:SPA and WP:JIMBO himself are equal (well, that's the theory). We're supposed to judge arguments on their merits, not on their author. Again, "cut out this forum crap" is mild plain speaking. Someone unfamiliar with colloquial usage might consult a dictionary and conclude that crap = bad word but it's pretty mild in context. The claim is that the discussion involves significant exchange of opinions, and, by definition, that is "forum crap". People should stick to actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources. You are wrong about "police-impersonation-type behavior"—what you are seeing is standard procedure at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq: Ah, thank you. I was aware of WP:SALT, but not familiar with the neutral “to stop something” sense, so after seeing that in other areas this user did not always appear to have a great interest in harmony among ideologies I was taking it in more of a “Salting the earth” way and disrupting the discussion to prevent the proposed article from being created. I don't personally find calling someone's writing “crap” so mild or very plain speaking, particularly on an encyclopedia project where all we do is write all the time; but I've certainly noticed over the years that despite that, there's a great deal of latitude given to the denigration of another's words or contributions that seems exempt from civility and etiquette rules or the “support your claims” mandate of NPA; and if you say wielding the term “crap” is much more common than I've seen and is even standard procedure and compatible with “judge arguments on their merits”, I trust your experience.

Thank you very much, again, for listening and responding. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)'[reply]

Struthious Bandersnatch, while you're obviously not obligated to ping me if you're seeking general advice from an administrator about an issue, if you're going to discuss me in this much detail, I'd prefer to know so that I can try to either address it, and/or diffuse any further speculation about my motives, and characterization of me as an editor. You also could have just asked me, but I don't begrudge you seeking a third set of eyes. I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding, and that's exactly what this is. Johnuniq has pretty much hit the proverbial nail on the head, and has explained what was meant, and to what I was referring, better than I could have. I wasn't trying to shut down a legitimate proposal. In fact, I was sort of wanting to get a word in edge-wise, to voice general support for the proposal; its a notable phenomenon that's been referred to directly by reliable sources, and thus, isn't synthesis. But the discussion regarding the proposal, at that point, had sort of gone off the rails. If those types of extended political debates/discussions belong anywhere on Wikipedia, they should generally be confined to user talk pages. It's also not that there was just a bit of such an exchange (which is understandable, and expected), but that is was so extensive, and that little of it had to do with the article subject, or proposal. It was essentially the sort of discussion one would have on a forum, or a comments section on social media. As far as your comments about me... On the article talk page, you said: "LOL... I am genuinely laughing out loud... so the user above holding forth about NOTFORUM and “seemingly irreconcilable worldviews” (cue mournful violin music) is actually a dual-account editor who spends their time at the Parler article talk page testifying to the wonderful ideological diversity on the service, in the company of my recently-AP2-topic-banned old friend Bus stop, whose banning stemmed from behavior in that same talk page. Touché, monsieur! I was taken in completely by your authoritative-sounding Latin account name, but I can see now that the Classical name for the account had a different reason. You non-serious users and your wacky antics!"/tq Most of which I found a bit confusing, to be honest. And surprising, that you would characterize me like that so extensively in my first ever interaction with you, right after I said something to you about how that should be avoided. I'm not sure what constitutes a '"serious user"' in your mind, and why I'm not one. You also seem to have completely misunderstood what I was saying at Talk:Parler. I was attempting to explain, along with GorillaWarfare and a few other users, how the material in the lead was supportable by reliable sources. Nowhere did I talk about how great Parler is as a platform, and/or attempt to defend the platform's practices (or make any statement about it as company, period). You completely misunderstood the comment I quoted, which was talking about how Anti-Semitism, White Supremacy, and other insidious ideologies proliferate on the platform, without any attempt by Parler at moderating or curating such content. I wasn't talking about how wonderful that all was; I was saying that we/reliable sources weren't calling the platform/company itself any of those things, but were talking about how that sort of user-end content is commonly found on the platform. Here, on Guy's page, you also apparently imply that I was coordinating with Bus Stop in his attempt to keep such information out of the lead... Which if you actually looked at any of the exchanges there, you would see that I was saying the exact opposite. To him, and various SPAs and historically inactive users who were making the same edit request. I've certainly never "coordinated" with Bus Stop, or any other user, on anything. All of this, was right after I suggested that you shouldn't personalize disputes. You thought I was disputing the proposal (which I wasn't), and immediately started to personalize it, and make comments about me as an editor, and indirectly, as a person. I was going to let it go, and just abandon any attempt to engage on the talk page or talk about the proposal, as I found all this a bit aggressive... And I generally try to avoid any sort of interpersonal conflict with other users, especially when there is no content or policy-based issue at stake. Until I saw this. Struthious, I sincerely hope you take my advice, terse as it was. And as I said to everyone in general, take several steps back. You completely made a mountain out a mole hill here. You've misquoted me, attributed some sort of "coordination" with a banned user (guilt by association, I guess?), and here, said that you considered taking me to a noticeboard for... What? Asking that we all abide by talk page guidelines and actually discuss content? Do you not see how your reaction has led you to personalize this? You attribute POV/nefarious motives to my editing, characterize my worth as a contributor, and then seek advice as to whether you should try to seek sanctions against me. This is exactly why I mentioned you in the comment I made, because I've seen several editors ask you not to get carried away like this and say things about other editors. This is all kinda silly, but... damn. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symmachus Auxiliarus: Again, I mean... in our actual first interaction, you referred to the things I and others had written as crap. Avoiding interpersonal conflict? And yes, you said that thing about personalizing disputes—which is exactly what gave me pause in the first place, because as far as I could see I hadn't written anything personal about the editors I was interacting with. My remark about “coordination” simply referred to the fact that, in taking a glance at the Parler talk page, you and Bus stop both seemed to take the same or similar positions in several separate discussions. (Not some secret cabal thing—observing and complementing each others' arguments.)

You do not seem to be describing my behavior very accurately, nor your own for that matter. I'd agree that this all seems silly (hence “non-serious”), rather than anything like a mountain, but I am at your disposal if you would like to talk about it more. I obviously don't mind writing alot; drop by my talk page, even if you just want to cut and paste the above.

And of course, if you really, actually support the proposed article, but do not, as you say, think that some details discussed are relevant, I would invite you to come to the article talk page and talk specifics. I would humbly suggest that you do so without calling what anyone else has written “crap”, and while stating exactly what you're talking about if you're going to imply that someone might have made a personal attack or otherwise directed criticism at the person rather than the rhetoric or ideas.

And if I may make a personal request, please do not issue orders to me and for example tell me what to discuss or what not to discuss. I find it especially rude, common as it is on Wikipedia. Now that we're beyond our initial interaction, please try to persuade me of things instead. Ask me questions, criticize me, even sharply, but don't try to give me orders. I find that completely beyond the realm of collegiality. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 06:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find, actually, that Bus Stop and I were rarely, if ever in agreement. Intentionally or unintentionally, I think some of his editing had the effect of whitewashing articles related to the political right, especially those that touched on elements of the "far-right" or "alt-right"; reducing the visibility of those associations, even when that was what the subject was most notable for. As I said, whether that was intentional or not, I don't know, nor care to speculate. But often, there was no actual policy reason or established editing practice that supported those changes. If you had read our exchanges more carefully, I was usually pointing that out to him. That's why this is sort of doubly silly... I don't think you actually read our few exchanges, beyond latching onto a few words. If you had, you'd find that's what I'm doing; disagreeing. Because through all the bludgeoning, it quickly became obvious he often didn't have a compelling reason for his proposed changes, beyond that he had a preference for it. While I'm not apolitical, I actually try to be on Wikipedia; often I recognize that some editors either have a worldview that doesn't agree with what reliable sources say, believe in assorted conspiracy theories, or are occasionally actively trying to downplay certain elements that would be subject to criticism. Wikipedia is probably one of the few places where I've found this gap can be bridged to some extent, thanks to the policies formulated years ago. I try to keep what I say in article talk pages confined to that, though occasionally, I'll be overly blunt, and won't pretend (as many of us do) that everything is in good faith, or that what I mentioned aren't underlying factors that are sometimes just incompatible with how we're supposed to present information here.

I've also gotten to the point where sometimes I am terse, admittedly, whether it's because I (more or less) expect established editors to know the guidelines and roughly navigate between them, or I don't mind if it's stated bluntly to new editors who have had already had these things explained to them, or general editors who, quite frankly, know better.

I apologize for the way I worded that; it could have been phrased better. I wasn't giving an order so much as rather bluntly stating people should stay on topic, but I can see how it would be interpreted the way you took it. It was overly blunt. I apologize for that. To be perfectly honest, between so much forum-y talk, I didn't even know where to place a comment about the proposal. And that's where I dispensed with the niceties I should have observed. I should have said something like "c'mon guys", rather than "let's stop this". I actually found your exchange with Hulk somewhat... interesting. But when it interrupts regular editing processes, such as when the little bit of policy talk there is there become inseparable from the rest of it (and thus hard to reply to), or when I have to start guessing where I should format a comment so that its visible, it's a bit much. I assumed you would know I meant "crap" in the general sense of "stuff", when phrased as "forum crap". I wasn't commenting on or characterizing anyone's ideas therein as "crap", and certainly not that the proposal itself was "crap". I thought it would be clear I was referring to the off-topic exchanges about Obama dolls, and whatnot.

You have my apology for not phrasing it in a more civil way, or in a way that was immediately clear to you. But there's nothing wrong with saying it, asking that it stop, or reminding people to stick to content over contributors. You don't need to be an admin to do that, and I certainly wasn't trying to impersonate one.

I'll be more courteous in the future, as you ask. Likewise, I'd ask you to more calmly assess a situation, and not be so quick to look for a path to disciplinary action. I know that advice won't necessarily go over well, but the fact that you misinterpreted just about everything here, from my comment, to my "POV" and my editing habits (and even the reason for naming my account?), should give you pause. There's no reason to start assigning motives to everything you think you're seeing about a user. Rarely does that path lead anywhere productive.

(If it wasn't clear by the way, I can't access my previous account, so this has been my primary for some time. It wasn't meant to make anyone think anything in the name, except it was my auxiliary. And I was learning to speak Latin at the time. Badly. Though I'm literate now). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Citizen doesn't consent to lockdown fines... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only in death, nothing surprises me with that lot. Idiots misled by charlatans. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for being reasonable at the Antifa scwabble. I just want to point out that I didn't pass 1RR as Wikieditor claims and if you check the diffs you'll see I'm not lying. That being said I accept that I've played my part in the argy bargy, but I don't want to be stained by a false claim - I did not go past 1RR. Thanks again. Bacondrum (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum, you are technically correct - the best kind of correct! Except on Wikipedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 02:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, fair enough. I just wanted to make sure you knew that. Bacondrum (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should I worry about what you are up to? Not planning to leave or anything else drastic I hope? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. I hope things are going okay for you, JzG. And if they aren't, I hope they improve in the very near future. --Yamla (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long four years and it's going to be a rough period up until January, and I think I will be happier taking time off from sysopping. I am starting to sense my PTSD nagging away (thinking through the implications of the blatantly illegal unilateral withdrawal from Open Skies, followed by destroying the planes, in the context of the Flynn pardon - it is starting to look like the worst predictions of burning the house down and taking a shit on the carpet before leaving will play out). I don't need stress right now. One of my adult sons is furloughed due to being in a high risk group, the other is an Army officer whose partner is a nurse, and we are approaching Christmas, which I always dread but this year feels markedly worse. Time for a break. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]