User talk:JzG/Archive 143

Your comment on Jimbo's talk page

Hi, your comment "It feels very much as if the world has collectively decided that being peaceful and tolerant and inclusive is much less fun than hurling shit at each other." has been archived but I wanted to say that I think that a lot of people feel like they've just awoken to a reality that they've been used and tricked by the corporate and political establishment over the past decades. Whether its true or not, that's how a lot of them feel, so it naturally pisses them off. I know Brits who especially got pissed off when they saw migrants creating danger and mayhem by jumping on lorries and pouring in to Britain from the so-called "jungle" in Calais. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The jungle was a non-issue. People are fleeing Syria because we bombed the shit out of it. I have a lot of sympathy with them, and very little with the tabloids that whipped up hysteria. My middle name is my mother's family name, André. One of my forebears was John André. Virtually nobody in the UK ids 100% indigenous, and immigration has been the lifeblood of these islands - and the US - for centuries. And of course through all of that time a vocifeorus minority has decried this as the end of civilisation as we know it. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"Virtually nobody in the UK ids 100% indigenous" I have got to that stage in my life where you become interested in your past. After doing some amateur geneology work, I have fairly conclusively gone back as far as I can on one side which shows my family has never gone far from our South-East London roots. Except for when one of my great-great-granddad's was in the workhouse in Penge. (Being in the workhouse in Lewisham was a common theme for him, his, children and grandchildren at one point). I was hoping for some exotic forebears, but it turns out I am about as common English as you can get. (If you knew my actual surname, this wouldnt be a surprise.)

Of course on the other side I ended up in Prussia, moustaches and all from the archive photo's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Prussia, likewise. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Two of us? Does that rate a template yet? :D Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

How about a usercategory. Oh, wait, the Category police wont like that. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have popcorn ready for when people spot this. At the time I commented, all MP's user cats were redlinks. Now they are blue. And it wasnt me. It looks like the category police are about to run into the wikignome's headlong. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It started yesterday. they edited my talk page first, and then have been turning my redcats blue. It pisses me off. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, people have been telling me I'm in a category all by myself for decades. Apparently, I'm in five categories all by myself. I'm okay with the bluelinks, by the way. I just kinda feel a little lonely. It sure would be nice if some of my fellow abusive, mean, petty wikipedians would join me in some, hint hint. And not to sidetrack the conversation: I have an ancestor named "Rolf the Three-legged". No kidding. Unfortunately for my ego, it was a reference to his opponent's inability to knock him down in a fist fight. That's pretty much 60% of what I know about my own genealogy, though my father could go on for days about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

As User:Roxy the dog is very well aware, the reason that redlinkd user catefories are being turned blue is that redlinked categories show up in Special:WantedCategories. Editors engaged in category maintenance rely on that page to identify errors in categorisation, and fix the redlinks, because per WP:REDNOT Either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist.
The creation of intentionally redlinked categories impedes that work by cluttering the list with entries which cannot be cleared. This doens't just clutter the active list: Special:WantedCategories takes only 5,000 categories, so these perma-redlinks displace off the lst other redlinked categories which need fixing.
There is ongoing discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request_for_comment_on_our_proposed_policy_for_users_remaining_in_redlinked_categories, where Roxy the dog's contribution to the debate was to state that I just want the outcome here to really really annoy Rathfelder[1]. It is sad to see an editor who not shows wilfully disrupts maintenance of the category system, but openly states their reason for doing as a personal desire to annoy an editor engaged in that maintenance. That is a outright WP:POINTiness, which belongs in a dysfunctional kindergarten rather than in a collaborative encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

BHG, I just want to say that I'm not at all unhappy about this. This is what I wanted when I opened the RfC in which you and I butted heads so much. This is the desired outcome: allowing editors who want and use these categories to use them to find like-minded editors. I've already added three pages to my watchlist as a result of this categories going blue, even with the category redirects you've implemented in a lot of them. I've already gotten a 'feel' for one other user whom I know very little about thanks to their use of these categories. The 'super' category containing them is also exactly to my preference.

I expect that, if things keep going the way they are going, I will remove myself from a number of the categories on my page and request deletion of them (provided no other editors begin using them), in favor of using more populated categories indicating very similar ideas. I think one of the benefits of permitting these types of categories would be exactly this: encouraging users not to create new categories to indicate their propensity for lightheartedness, but to use existing ones, which can -over time- drastically reduce the overall number of such categories. In fact, if someone like yourself were to suggest a guideline change such that humorous or irrelevant user categories that substantially mirror existing categories may be speedily deleted and user pages removed from them, I would be quite vocal in my support (as well as my previously mentioned support for removing inappropriate red-linked categories from user pages). I suspect however, that existing policies would permit such steps without modification. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just read that entire RFC. I am now even more confused as to if I should make a usercat Wikipedians of Prussian descent. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If the RfC fails: No, it'll get deleted. If the RfC passes: It's up to you. For what it's worth, the RfC seems somewhat more likely to pass than fail. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Inez Jasper

Because her basic notability claim, and the overall structure of a properly written article, are going to be the same no matter what, there's absolutely no way that any article could possibly be written about her that entirely avoids being at least somewhat similar to Earflaps's first version. I can accept that the original article cannot be simply recreated as is, but I substantially rewrote the article more than enough to justify my version of the article being kept. Given that the substance of what there is to say about her remains the same as the first version, the standard of newness would be completely unattainable if even rewriting the whole damn thing still wasn't enough. What am I supposed to do exactly, give alternate original research names to the awards she won so that they're not even the same words as Earflaps used? Erase the standard discography tables so that they don't resemble the first version, even though they're simply standard formatting that all discography lists are expected to use? Give her a different birthdate and an imaginary stage name so that they're not even "copying" the first version?

There's no possible way to make the article even one iota more different from Earflaps's version than I already did, and I am not going to keep jumping through hoops of guessing how much more different you still want it to be. I'm more than willing to take this to ANI or DRV if I have to, because I'm done trying to guess how much more work I would have to do to satisfy your special secret expectations. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

So don't create it. It was paid for spam. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Re:David's capacity to mentor

Hey, could you elaborate on what problems you think he has demonstrated?

I noticed a lot of what looked like IDHT on the ANI thread, but never having interacted with him before I've been assuming good faith and offering to help with the mentoring, mostly (1) because I trust MjolnirPants's judgement more than my own gut in this case (his involvement with the case is longer than mine) and (2) as a way to get the ANI thread closed sooner (which has, for other reasons, begun to become very draining for me).

But I trust your judgement about as much as MP's, so I'm very interested in hearing whatever problems you have with David being a mentor. I don't want to wind up having to clean up a mess created by my co-mentor as well as the mentee, and opening another ANI thread a month from now about how my mentee isn't taking my advice because it conflicts with the (bad, if your assertion is correct) advice of my co-mentor.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey you two. I magically know whenever my name is mentioned, so I showed up here to make an ass out of myself. (Joking, of course. I'm a stalker, I admit). I just want to say that I've interacted with David a few times in the past. Curiously, I've been advised by numerous people that he is intractable in his opinions and an outspoken fringe supporter, but my experience has been quite the opposite (on the second count at least; I can't really speak to the first). My first interaction consisted of me convincing him that he was entirely wrong about something, and I have to admit that he was far more gracious than I in that discussion. I'm too lazy to find diffs, but I will if either of you want some. Subsequent interactions have been short and congenial. So I too, am curious about this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If we're talking about intractibility, Ctrl+F "disruptive" or "I don't think" on the ANI thread, which makes me kinda want to believe what people have told you at least on that point. The I think much time might have been saved in the case if more diffs were provided in the filing, rather than expecting us to try and figure out exactly what Hijiri88 contends is "disruptive" in the collapsed TLDR tangent also struck me as somewhat ... POINTy? LAWYERish? I dunno how to describe it. But unless I see some specific instances of prior disruption on his part, I have to assume good faith, and (largely thanks to the canvassing, hounding and seemingly random trolling, I'll admit) I don't think there will be a consensus for a TBAN even with my !vote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Show me diffs, please, it would please me no end to be proven wrong here. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm still too lazy to dig up diffs, but this thread shows our discussion. I admit with some shame that I was being more confrontational than necessary, due to having just weathered a long, protracted battle of a discussion with two editors who were insisting that the sources were wrong (seriously, they contended that philosophy textbooks were wrong about philosophy because some martial artist on youtube disagreed with them), or that sources meant the opposite of what they said. Also, in re-familiarizing myself with the discussion, it is clear that it was predominantly the other editor who did the work of convincing David, not myself. But still. He came in with the express intention of defending a position (because it supported an argument he made against you), and left the thread accepting that he had been wrong. That's worth something. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I wasn't expecting to comment on David again, but for those not familiar with when the disruptive behavior came to a head, there is also the AE case where they were topic banned. I'd also be concerned about them mentoring someone in an area of conflict. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I too was TBANned (by ArbCom), but the disruption that led to said ban was almost two years ago, I haven't violated the ban once, and I plan on appealing soon. The area from which I am banned ("Japanese culture") is also niche enough that some random editor who seems most interested in the alt right, social media, and early Christianity is unlikely to want to discuss it with me. It's a significant hindrance to me since it covers pretty much everything I learned in college, the first thing I think of when I wake up and the last thing I think of before I go to sleep, and most of the Wikipedia articles I read, but this is almost certainly not the case with the potential mentee; I don't think simply being subject to a TBAN is any indication of an inability to mentor (it would be an interesting project to find out how many editors with access to the admin tools are subject to at least one editing restriction of some kind, but that's kinda outside the scope of this discussion).

David's TBAN was put in place last July, he immediately violated it and was blocked for a month, but beyond that his block log is clear. The fact that a ban was placed and within a week he had been blocked for violating it is enough to convince me that JzG might very well be right about his capacity to be a mentor, but I wonder if the disruption might have ceased following the expiration of the block. Seven months is ... well, it's not that long (my block history is checkered at best, but my last block was a year ago), but I'd want to see more recent evidence if shooting down David's mentoring option means the ANI mess drags on longer.

If Endercase were editing in a DS area it would be different. We could just ask AE to ban him, and -- AE being as it is not a "discussion" -- it would be significantly easier to ignore the canvassed editors and the wikistalkers who showed up because they don't like me or you or anyone else.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Shit. I didn't notice until now (again, taking AGF to dangerous levels) but David was blocked for a month in August, and then disappeared until late January. Seven months may be a long time, but two certainly isn't. It's peripheral, but his first edit to the ANI thread accused me of not assuming good faith, which is ironic since if I hadn't been assuming good faith too much, I would have noticed earlier that he had been canvassed, and that his edit history makes his capacity to mentor somewhat questionable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• To be very clear, I have very little opinion on David's ability to mentor another editor, though it does seem to be working thus far, as the mentored editor has offered me a quite profuse apology (more profuse than necessary, IMHO). Which is not to say that he's not grooming a new civil POV pusher, of course. As I said, I have had limited positive interaction with him, yet heard a number of negative things about him from editors whose judgement I trust (including you, Guy). Also, though I'm aware that there's a good chance he has or will see this regardless of whether we ping him or not, I'm a little uncomfortable discussing someone 'behind their back', so I think I'm going to bow out for now. I've already said my piece, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

GiveWell

Hello. I notice that GiveWell was deleted as promotional. Was that a WP:PROD? I don't find anything at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GiveWell. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The deletion was marked for CSD Advert. However, I disagree that this meets CSD criteria, and should have gone through a PROD process. Can this be restored for now? Shaded0 (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

From my own experience there should be enough to create an article at Givewell. Articles can be recreated, especially if they were deleted for being promotional. That doesn't mean the subject isn't notable, just that the way it was presented is not acceptable. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Feel free to rewrite, I am sure this is not too hard to do from sources, but the contents of that article was an advert paid for by an undisclosed payment and I couldn't tell easily how far back the problem went. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"the contents of that article was an advert paid for by an undisclosed payment" What is your source on this? Jess (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Guy: Can you elaborate on the undisclosed payment claim? If true, I'd be glad to do the work to root out any edits coming from such a source. GiveWell is a significant organization in the nonprofit space with lots of positive and negative outside sourcing material available. The org certainly warrants an article on wikipedia, and there's no reason to speedily delete just because it's difficult to unentangle potential paid advert edits. — Eric Herboso 02:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

After reviewing Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Vipul.27s_paid_editing_enterprise, I believe that saying the "article was an advert paid for by an undisclosed payment" is incorrect. Certainly portions of the article were edited by paid editors, but these were disclosed as such and were not paid for by the organization itself, but only by a third party. Given that this is the case, it should be relatively easy for someone to go in and distinguish between the paid edits and the non-paid edits. — Eric Herboso 03:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

GiveWell has been covered dozens of times in major newspapers (NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, etc.) and influences the donations of many millions of dollars annually. Obviously promotional material should be removed and NPOV is key, but there's no way the article should be deleted. It's impossible to assess this without seeing what the article looked like. Jess (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It still exists in the Google cache. Looks pretty promotional to me - language like "Unlike any other charity evaluators...", a huge percentage of the references being to GiveWell's own page, the infobox location listing a phone number and contact person, and so on. It reads like a company's website rather than a Wikipedia entry. --tronvillain (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the article should have lost some of the unnecessary material but without deleting the entire thing. I definitely think the use of speedy deletion was unjustified (if that's really what happened). The main points of the article were sufficiently covered by reliable secondary sources to prevent this. It can be moved to AFD for better discussion, or reinstated with edits, to address this in a more productive way. K.Bog 00:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with Kbog on this. The cached version seems that it would be easier to remediate from the existing article rather then completely deleting and recreating the article. Definitely not CSD. Shaded0 (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'd totally reconstruct a new article based on this one if no one else did, though a lot would need to be cut. - - tronvillain (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

GiveWell has had some issues in the distant past of astroturfing (I used to work at MetaFilter, there were issues there) and a total rewrite of this page would not be a bad thing. Jessamyn (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Since this topic spawned on the COI page, it's probably worth reviewing since Givewell's page is under discussion. Under the circumstances (and being previously unaware of this), I'd probably instead suggest rewrite (per Guy's comment above on undisclosed payments). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Vipul.27s_paid_editing_enterprise Shaded0 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a discussion of this deletion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#GiveWell. Should we raise this deletion on WP:DRV? — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've put up a DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 9 - — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• (same post as at DRV) That article had become a bloated, terrible mess (really a webhost for the organization) and TNT was needed. If it were restored and moved to draft space I would be willing to revise it back to something like a WP article and move it to mainspace again. That would also be useful for the history with regard to the paid editing that has happened (diffs) Let me know Guy. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• For the record I support Guy's decision to delete the page. When nothing of value remains it is better to start afresh. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

am just looking for the most efficient way to solve the problem. I will recreate the article tomorrow but this would be easier and faster. And as I said, the diffs would be valuable for the current ANI about the paid editing - I want the focus to remain on that, not this. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that restoring the article and doing drastic pruning of the sections with puffery is faster than recreating the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to FIXIT than go through a lot of drama. If Guy won't undelete and draftify, then I will just create it. Either way is not too hard there are plenty of refs. Jytdog (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Nolo as legal source

Regarding [2] I didn't want to just revert you, but indicate that Nolo (publisher) is probably a reliable source. I don't see it having been discussed at RSN. - Bri (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It has been extensively refspammed. Guy (Help!) 01:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Timeline of Twitter

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Timeline of Twitter. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Further contentious editing by User:D.H.110

Hi, I'm posting here for advice because you participated in the ANI discussion regarding contentious editing by User:D.H.110, and posted a discretionary sanctions alert on their page (which they removed but then restored). The ANI discussion got archived without formal resolution, but the contentious editing has continued, including this gender-related POV edit (made yesterday). I'm not sure what can or should be done going forward. Funcrunch (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

May I recommend amending the ban to gender-related controversies per the language of the discretionary sanctions? Could also alert the user to the WP:ARBSEX discretionary sanctions. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The editor has already violated your topic ban. Either they didn't see your talk page notice or they don't care. Funcrunch (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Now they're selectively editing other editors' warnings on their talk page (examples: 1, 2). I doubt this is going to help their (second) unblock appeal... Funcrunch (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)