User talk:JzG/Archive 154

This is an archive of past discussions about User:JzG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 150

←

Archive 152

→

3X close

You're in a little bit of untested waters there with that close. It doesn't look like the policy re: WP:3X has been followed exactly, since the sock blocks were based AFAICT on behavioral evidence, not CU evidence, and if the required notification was provided on AN by a CU I missed it. Additionally, although 3X is clearly a reason not to open one of these threads if the appropriate steps have been followed, it's not clear that it's a reason to close one when discussion is ongoing and experienced users have opposed. Might be better to consider letting this one play out for a while. GMG ^talk 15:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but that wasn't the question. If an editor is blocked, they should appeal the block, not evade it. Blocks and bans are technically identical, if there are false positives per WP:DUCK they need to appeal them, not indicate intent to evade. If the IPs are not HBH then HBH needs to appeal the block or dispute the claims. We don't need a Vote For Banning, that's just toxic. A serial block evader is de-facto banned, if HBH is not block evading then HBH needs to clear his name. See my point? Guy (Help!) 15:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on HBH either way. My only issue is that you effectively unilaterally CBANNED a user via close at ANI, citing a policy which says a user can be unilaterally CBANNED through CU evidence and a notification at AN. You couldn't even close the thread at ANI with a consensus for a CBAN at this point, even if it was unanimous, since it hasn't been 24 hours yet. I mean, if you want to try to IAR your way to a CBAN, then you should at least be explicit about it, because that's basically what you're doing. I don't care one bit if they're banned or not, only that we shouldn't do it out of process. GMG ^talk 15:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Uh, on that note, it was rather—urgent, perhaps?! And not a snowflake in sight ;) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No I didn't. I pointed out that we don't need a Vote For Banning, any serial block evader is de-facto banned because no admin is likely to unblock. In other words, the request is unnecessary and if the user wants to edit they have to appeal the block and probably convince people the IPs were not him. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

And so...what?..you decided that if they do appeal the block all they need to do is convince one admin, and actually don't need to appeal to the community at all, because even though there was a CBAN discussion that was supposed to run at least 24 hours before reaching a consensus according to policy (and had overall support), you decided...nah. Where the heck does that put the admin who replies to an unblock request? They either grant it, because you decided to unilaterally override policy, and put their neck on the line for your IAR, or they decide that he needs to appeal to the community even though he's not actually banned. There's...no combination of policy here that supports your close. GMG ^talk 18:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

So people can get on with something more productive than a vote for banning. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously an effective strategy, since 16 hours later, we have three ongoing discussions instead of zero. GMG ^talk 11:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

But at least the hateful rhetoric has stopped. So there's that. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Think about it this way, there are worse things than a few hours worth of hateful rhetoric at ANI. For example, some of these editors may have instead been working on professional wrestling articles, and so are in every way better off bickering at a noticeboard instead. :P GMG ^talk 13:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, so go back and look at the discussion. You have good-faith users in good standing opposing the ban, and rhetoric such as "toxic" and "asshat". Now consider the possible scenarios:

Majority vote to ban: Socks / IPs continue to be blocked and edits reverted. Account remains blocked. Higher bar to appeal if the user is actually innocent or productive, as at least some good faith users seem to think. Wikipedia:List of banned users no longer exists, so there is no other change I can see.

Do nothing (i.e. my close, status quo ante). Socks / IPs continue to be blocked and edits reverted. Account remains blocked. User is de facto banned due to sockpuppetry.

No consensus. Again,status quo ante.

No to ban. Would result in an end to the IP blocking and might result in unblock if he appeals. But he hasn't, and the majority was for a ban.

So, what do we gain from an explicit ban rather than a de facto ban, in your view? Why is this important to you, please? Guy (Help!) 13:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I was just mostly switching gears to friendly banter. No hard feelings and all that. If anything, the one advantage to three of the four of those, is that we won't have the discussion again any time soon because it reached some conclusion. Your close doesn't really act as a barrier there if someone decides to revisit the issue in a few weeks. Other than that, just the fact that we could have already wrapped the thing up conclusively several hours ago, and you could be off deleting these articles I'm sending to CAT:G11, instead of arguing over policy and expediency. GMG ^talk 13:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be right, but actually it is settled right up to the point that he appeals his indefinite block. That's the only thing that will change the current status. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

False titleholders

Hello Guy, I remember you were involved in this case. I see that a new user has been making similar contributions...two were reverted (one by me) and he requested recreation of an article on the alleged new titleholder. I believe user is probably another reincaration of previous users who were involved in the same articles. Could you please check this out? I'm travelling and won't be able to be too involved in this. Many thanks, Maragm (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, banhammer wielded. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Greg J. Marchand edit - Predatory Journal vs. Predatory Meeting

Hello! Just saw you made an edit on a page I wrote. I wanted to discuss it with you. I thought when I wrote the article I was very careful to cite that the important events happened at the conference, which was noteable and verifyable via google. I did not mention the predatory journal that some of the conference presentations were later published in. I even went as far as to find a copy of the presentation from other sources and cite that. My mistake was, as I see now, including the DOI from the predatory journal article, even though my citation doesn't link to the journal and the text does not mention the journal at all. I would like to ask you to undo your edit, and perform the edit that really needed to be done instead, which is to remove the incorrect DOI number. My intention was to reference the meeting, not the predatory journal that later published some of the presentations. Thank You!! GuinnessFreak (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

DOI 10.4172 is OMICS Group. We should not cite this company. Not only is it unreliable and predatory, they have also employed people to spam Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes! I 100% agree and have now have apologized twice for accidentally putting a DOI that routes back to one of their predatory journals. My intention was to cite the event that happened at that meeting, not the predatory journal. I am in 100% agreement that OMIC journals are horrible journals we should never cite. We can agree there was nothing predatory or inappropriate about an author presenting his work at a meeting, and the fact that it was later re-published in a non-reputable predatory journal is completely separate from this event. Please consider re-do-ing your edit to remove the erroneous DOI, instead of the original edit you performed which removed the entire mention of the noteable event that occurred in Barcelona, as well as removing the citation which linked to a bonafide secondary source holding a copy of the original presentation. (I think we threw out the baby with the bathwater!!) GuinnessFreak (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Meetings are not normally acceptable sources. Only peer-reviewed publications qualify. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The WW2 ArbCom case

If you thought the aces were problematic--they have an equivalent on land, namely the tank commanders. Can't remember what they were called by the mythographers and hagiographers...Panzer ace, I think. Yes. And I see that the mythographers won out there, with the result that we have an article on a term that did not exist at the time, basically arguing for the superiority of ze Germans when it came to tank battlers, based on highly questionable sourcing. I suppose Coffman gave up there, just like I did. Note how the lead has what one might call decent historiography (since the term is only used by those looking for a clean Wehrmacht, if I may paint with a broad brush), while the bottom part of the article treats it as a historical term and a good occasion to note kills. And that's one of the problems: a lot of these editors play fast and loose with RS and, like amateur History Channel adepts, can't tell historiography from history. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I wish I had the energy to help. Maybe when I finish my building project. This crap needs to die. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

When you are done with the building project, I can use your help with the shed. And the pool. And the back deck. And the roof by the front door. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This is my fusebox. The rest of the project is every bit as complicated. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha, that's hilarious. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Worth AFD

Hi Guy! Just as a heads up, this was a mistake - you should never relist an AfD if you were the nominator, as by definition you are involved. I can't see that there is anything we can do to fix it now, but it is worth avoiding in the future. - Bilby (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it's never an error to prolong a contentious AfD for more consensus. In fact the debate has improved markedly since it was relisted. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The specific rule is:

"Sometime after seven days have passed, someone will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (The "someone" must not be you, the nominator. However, if you want to see how it's done, refer to the next section.)"

As you were the nominator, you can't relist the AfD. It especially doesn't help if you are arguing that since relisting the debate has "improved remarkably", because it gives the impression that you extended the AfD in order to give time for more delete votes, whether or not that was the case. - Bilby (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:IAR. The debate was a mess due to the input od a SPA and his hosiery drawer, it is much better now.. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, this would be a very poor use of IAR. There's nothing to be done, but it was a mistake worth avoiding in the future. - Bilby (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. And now we are done. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Your beta-propeller phytase edit and predatory journal

You removed my edit on the basis of it being sourced from a "predatory journal". At the moment the article is broken and has images and tables with no sources.

If you go and download the sequences of 1H6L and compare them to the sequences presented in the "predatory" study I've cited (e.g. in PyMol or some other similar program), you will find these fingerprint sequences in this image of 1H6L I have made. I would argue that the information in the journal is correct.

I also have no ties with any of the people whose studies I've cited in the article about beta-propeller phytases I've written. Do you have any objections to my edits other than Wikipedia's auto recognization of this article being "predatory"? If so, I think this source should be added back as it also freely available and not behind a paywall, but also because identifying motifs in protein superfamilies is essential for their study. This same study is also cited in other beta-propeller studies too, some of which are still cited in the article, but you didn't remove. Keministi (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have completed removal of the Fan paper, as it is in a junk journal. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Uh huh... good arguments. I assure you though, the info in the sudy is not junk even if the journal is not up to standards. I'm not gonna argue, researchers will be able to find the study if they are writing about BPPs. Keministi (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added this pic for deletion based on the journal so it can't be used elsewhere. I'm mentioning this in case you have the ability remove it. Keministi (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt what you say. One of the problems with junk journals is that they tend to attract people from countries under-represented in the literature, especially authors who are sincere but not necessarily sophisticated. We are not qualified to judge what is good and what is bad, we rely on academic peer review as a quality gate run by people who are qualified, and we know that this does not happen in predatory journals, so we don't have much option but to exclude them because we can't be the ones to decide what is valid and what is not. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I am genuinely sorry for being so cocky. Keministi (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, you have nothing to reproach yourself for. Most people are blissfully unaware of the pernicious nature of predatory publishing, and better off for being so. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Moar Sox Comment

Looks like the Peter Middlebrook sock nest is still spawning. User:Polska3312 active here. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Pernimius

Per [1], Pernimius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might need some clarification regarding topic bans. I am avoiding all interaction with him per his request. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Harrasment

Hello JzG, can this discussion be closed/archive? The user has been harassing me for a while now and keep tagging me. The page they wanted to remove was removed after I requested for it to be deleted, but the user still accuses and harass me. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Bodog

I saw it was deleted a few months ago and the note said to check a COI discussion on Tony Ahn. So I did and it says his firm or whatever claims to have edited the page. I'm a little unclear on why that means Bodog should have been deleted. It had over 700 edits and the article was created 13 years ago. Enigma^msg 03:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Not looked at it previously, but while it was around for a while, most of the edits seem to be either spammers or people trying to tone down the spam. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

edel eht rof reraelc si rotcod kniht I !!!

i am laughing SO hard. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Stuck left arrow key. Amusing! Guy (Help!) 08:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Brings to mind an album by one of my favorite musical duos. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User:FactChecker18

FactChecker18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I see that you recently blocked FactChecker18 for WP:NOTHERE. I know that this editor conducted a brief but intense edit war on one article (Shmuly Yanklowitz). S/he then asked about these edits at both the The house and the help desk, and at both was advised to engage on the article talk page. Then duly posted to th4e talk page of that article. Very shortly after that, the block was imposed. I don't know what reasons you may have had for blocking, beyond the edit war. But it seems unfortunate that when we advise an editor to stop warring and engage on the talk page, and the editor complies, that a block follows right after. You may want to revisit this matter in light of nthis sequence. I am in no sense an advocate for FactChecker18, I am simply calling your attention to the sequence, and asking if there were other reasons i might not know about. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed the edits, plus the logged-out edit after the 3RR warning, the language, and the username, which implies a Warrior for Truth™. This was their first edit: [2], and that is all they have ever tried to do on Wikipedia. Usernames implying WP:RGW plus single-minded edit warring on a WP:BLP does not seem to me like someone that will be helpful to have around. Guy (Help!) 07:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Fellowcraft (Band/Music Artist)

JzG - I noticed that you deleted Fellowcraft, my band's Wiki page for violation of unambiguous promotion or advertising. I am terribly sorry about that and would be more than happy to take out any language that was/is related to advertising. This was/is my first wiki-page and I was unaware that my language was like that on the page. is there any way that you might be willing to restore the page, wherein I could perform a re-write to take out the ambiguous language? I am more than happy to do so, as I would love to maintain this wiki for us, as a history of our band. Thank you very much for the consideration.--Jonnyryanmac (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you begin with Draft:Fellowcraft and ask for independent review. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

German war effort arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of MS Research Australia Article

JzG - I noticed that you deleted a previous article about MS Research Australia (in Sep 2016) for failing to "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Wiki says that if you're recreating the previously deleted page, to get in touch with the user who deleted it, so here I am! I have a new article about the organisation to upload that uses neutral, non-promotional language, is well-referenced, and demonstrates the significance of the subject. Thanks for your time. AZPascoe (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you start with Draft:MS Research Australia and submit for independent review. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that's brilliant. I'll do that. Cheers. AZPascoe (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web

This edit violates 3RR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intellectual_Dark_Web&type=revision&diff=841528272&oldid=841517246&diffmode=source

I request you self-revert. Marteau (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It wold help if people didn't keep trying to crowbar in crappy sources when talk clearly shows no consensus to include them. You should have self-reverted, per that discussion. We could always try RfC? Guy (Help!) 18:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy, if I may, I think you're getting rather axe-grindy and even a bit disruptive on this article, and you're provoking Marteau unnecessarily. To be clear, their behavior ain't great either, but I believe you're more likely to listen to reason, if for no other reason than that you hold a mop and have dealt with similar situations in the past. I suggest you take a 24 hour breather. I can hold the fort against the cruft during your absence. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Meh, you may be right. It pisses me off that fans of these hubristic asshats are determined to include lengthy self-congratulatory screeds by IDW mmbers but have failed to find even one proer, weighty, independent source that even says what it is. I have read a lot about this now, the truth is, Eric Weinstein's brother got pissed off when his whitesplaining was mocked and debunked, and Eric formed this group of antisocial injustice warriors to fight against "political correctness", aka treating people with respect. They have a massive platform, yet they claim to be suppressed and silenced. The are not part of academic discourse, not because of any sinister conspiracy but because their ideas are facile and obviously wrong. They operate in broadcast-only media, and claim to be part of a "conversation". And thanks to them, the alt-right gets to play the "both sides" card. So yes, I find the intellectually dishonest dark we to be less than compelling. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Though...when you start a comment with "It pisses me off that..." that might be a sign that you're getting too emotionally invested. The editors you describe are on a crusade. You don't need to crusade back. Just hold the fort until they go away. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)