User talk:JzG/Archive 108

Request

Greetings JzG.

Someone had told to me that you are good at judging the sock puppetry cases. Would you like to handle one of my case? Which might be very easy, though it has been mishandled twice.

Inform if you are free. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I might have been once upon a time, but these days I am just a nasty suspicious bastard. I don't mind having a look if you link me to the current discussion. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhanzhao and I put it up for review at Incidents#Mishandling of an SPI. I am just putting the major evidence below, as the SPI and ANI had been bludgeoned by the editor.

Note that Zhanzhao had admitted to have grasped WP:SOCK#LEGIT in his own words,[1] when he was blocked for evading his block. Since 2010 he was abusing these accounts for socking. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? Drop it. Negative CheckUser plus others commenting that it's unlikely. Go with edit warring if you want to address this. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

IP block

He's quite obviously not Enchev; Enchev can't put together a single sentence. As for blocking someone for "contributing heat"—well, I quite doubt that's something you apply universally. Alakzi (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

For some values of "obviously". This is an IP that appears out of nowhere and pitches into a battle on entirely the wrong side. They can wait a couple of days until the reliable sources catch up, and then it won't be a problem. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for replying. Alakzi (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of closure statement of discussion at Talk:International Space Station that you have closed

Can you help check this edit by the OP that started the discussion in the first place, which deleted your closure statement and claimed that there is "no consensus"? I think he is not discussing in a constructive manner, and such deletion is inappropriate by any means.

Should this go to ANI? I fear that flame wars may start again very soon.... Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JzG. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep.
Message added 07:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A request for clarification... NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A spammer writes...

Hello, this is Jimmy Swan of RumBum Records, I manage music producer and video director The Siren (Kaisi Berick). Please undelete this artists page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Siren_(musician) because clients and journalists use it when gathering info about him for their events or write-ups. This individual invented a genre of music called epicstep. We here at the label are documenting in real time the growth and life of this artist from the beginning to the end. I had to sign in to add that he won the hard rock battle of the bands, headlined SXSW music and film fest, won the first ever music video production contest by reverbnation and 360 magazine, and just got nominated for best pop single of the year at the 25th Annual LA Music Awards. --User:Thisisepicstep

Wikipedia is not part of your PR. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Raben Group

The backstory is that this article was too PR-ish so there was an agreement to start afresh. There's plenty of evidence for notability in the mainstream press as you can see on the talk page. (I think you can see it, anyway -- it's been a long time since I gave up the bit.) The sources aren't there yet because the article was only restarted a day or two ago in a go-slow mode to keep controversy tamped down.

I don't actually care about the subject but feel a little bad that I was the one who suggested WP:TNT, and now the article has gotten deleted. So if you could undelete the article it would salve my conscience... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll do that if you can suggest one decent non-PR source to add, since the article as I nuked it had nothing independent (hence A7: it stated that the firm exists and based that solely on its own website). Guy (Help!) 08:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, the article in its WP:TNT'd form had no credible indication of notability. There was a list of sources being discussed on the talk page. Here is one mention. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Worth bearing in mind

You are good at dealing with problem editors so I don't expect to disagree with enacting a sanction (even as an interim measure) in this instance, but the proposal was only discussed for 48 hours. If the type of editing alleged has been going on for a year, it may warrant being extended to indefinite with a minimum time within which he cannot appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I would entirely agree if it was at a venue more measured than ANI, but ANI was where it was at. Sadly the discussion of conduct was already massively overwhelmed by forays into the long grass.

I am perfectly happy, as I said in the close, to consider an appeal (either for lifting or for extension) focused tightly on the specific issue. That has definite merit. Another extended parade of the usual suspects, probably not so much. Feel free to vacate it, start a separate discussion, or whatever you feel best. I trust your judgment. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This must be about JzG's closure of the ANI about User:Ret.Prof's topic ban. That editor has been appealing unsuccessfully at many, many places. His persistence after so much negative feedback will have come to the attention to any admin who follows the various boards. Whenever I've noticed him in the past, he is valiantly defending his minority position. Unclear to me whether further review is truly deserved. Though future reform seems unlikely, the ban is only for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That was my thought: give the guy a wake-up call and push him to at least try editing somewhere he doesn't have quite such an obvious bee in his bonnet. Otherwise, it's a case of the effort involved vastly outweighing the value of his contributions (which appears at this point to be pretty close to zero, in fact). Guy (Help!) 15:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I've logged it at WP:RESTRICT with this entry which copies much of your wording. The possible extension I was thinking of may be a tighter variation of ROPE, but having reflected on it, I think what you've given him is the rare combination of being both effective and efficient. In the circumstances, I wouldn't vacate it (even if I had the sysop rights bundle to be able to do so technically). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• I must say that it does seem poor form to vote in support of a topic ban, and to enforce that topic ban yourself, when consensus wasn't clear. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Meh. The more I read the debate, the more obvious it was that this was the inevitable end. Read his talk page. He rails against "anti-fringe" editors. He does not grok WP:NPOV. I'm not in any way involved in the dispute, I have no opinion on whether he is bringing genuinely new knowledge "too soon" or is simply a crackpot, and I have said I am content for the close to be vacated or appealed if anyone thinks it should be. I think there has been altogether enough of this, but if everyone wants to spin out the fun for a while longer, far be it from me to stop them. I think the best thing for everybody is for him to edit elsewhere and build up some kind of reputation outside this area. I acknowledge that others may have different views. I think that's probably all I have to say about it, really: I have done what I have done, and am happy for others to carry it forward, or not. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• I recommend reopening the ANI thread, remove the ban temporarily, and let the arbitration request play out. The net result will be stronger. Jehochman ^Talk 17:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Or review the close at AN, with a focus on the specifics. That will be less of a drama fest. You are more than welcome to do either, seriously I am not in the least bit precious about this. I see a problem, I see a solution, I am not pretending that I am omniscient in either my understanding of the problem, or the best solution. I am done with this: I have done the thing, I have said that I am happy for it to be reviewed, reverted, revised or whatever, and I am leaving it to others to do what they think best. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman ^Talk 00:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Scope of Ret.Prof ban

Just for clarification, is the ban from the article itself, or also from the subject, broadly construed? I ask this because it is certainly possible for individuals to tendentiously edit related articles to give unwarranted support to fringe theories related to that topic in other articles. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I will clarify on his talk. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You might also indicate whether WP:SOAPBOX and similar potentially problematic behavior might apply regarding user of user page and user talk page, as well. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Meh. In his own user space? Nobody cares. Let me know if it spreads beyond that. Trying to stop people venting in their own user space only ever escalates things, and letting them vent can be cathartic. Just as long as it doesn't stray into attacks or threats. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Casein geology

		Casein Geology Barnstar
		You have received the casein geology barnstar for your great work on the composition of the moon![2]

Bishonen | talk 23:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Thank you, I will cherish it always. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

When we were working with 4-H kids teaching them how to be good exhibitors, one of the things we taught them was that everybody in the show ring doesn't get a blue ribbon just for showing up. A simple way to put it - credit is due where credit is earned. Oh, and accuracy matters. Atsme☯^Consult 14:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, accuracy is important. But I'm not going to discuss the obvious context here. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

New proposal

pls see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ban Chealer from Wikipedia altogether -- Moxy (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

www.robertankony.com

Hi Guy. You added this domain to the spam blacklist. Can you please take a look at the external links at War, remove the link if you see fit, or add the page to the article exemption list? I came across this when I was prevented from reverting the article blanking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)