←

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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (Help!) 09:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! It's about time! ;-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major fumble, what a putz. I was distracted by coffee. Jeez. A dozen years at this and I can still make schoolboy mistakes. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] —PaleoNeonate – 12:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like Guy (Help!) 12:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTDT. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[2] —PaleoNeonate – 13:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gave a little spitshine to User:JzG/Predatory. I hope you don't mind. A link to WP:CRAPWATCH would be nice, but I'll let you add that if you feel it's useful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am banned from Jimbo's talkpage (he has a habit of doing that with people who say things he doesnt want to hear) I will reply here: There is only one reason *not* to blank on request, and thats when the blanking is being done to make it difficult to see archived material - for its own sake. The entire point of blanking is to make material more difficult and harder to view. But there has to be a legitimate reason to do so, sensitive material, BLP concerns etc that do not rise to the level of requiring revision deletion. If there is any legitimate argument for blanking, then there is no reason not to do so. If the sole reason to blank is just 'I dont like this visible because it says things I dont agree with' that is not a good enough reason to deliberately obfuscate and hide (further) legitimate discource between editors. Its farcial anyway in that any editor who has navigated to an archived AFD is not going to be put off by a 'this page has been blanked'. Any editor can link directly to the diff. They can quote the entire thing if they want or print it on a t-shirt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked in the email response team. Do not underestimate the extent to which people can be upset with and obsessed by AfD debates they think paint them in an unfavourable light. Don't be evil. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to add that "just to shut them the hell up" also seems like a completely logical reason to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. For multiple values of "them", not all of which are editors. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Them? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear: I am not in favour of, or against blanking in this case. However you wanted a reason not to blank - and the only one applicable is transparancy - hiding stuff for the sake of hiding stuff is not really in the spirit of things. (I also think you two both know me well enough to know I am quite happy to be first in line to remove material from sight where there is a genuine concern). Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. My perspective here is as a former OTRS agent. When you get closer to the interaction between Wikpedia and the real world, I think you develop a default position of hiding stuff that even one reader finds personally hurtful, unless there's a compelling reason to the contrary. The history is still there, after all. And if it turns out to be gaming the system then it is basically WP:ROPE territory. A lot of the opposition seemed focused on MH, which is a terrible reason to enforce visibility of possibly offensive content about someone else. And I say that as one who agrees 100% with every word of Orangemike's statement. This is a transparently bogus journal. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while 'just to make them shut up' may lead to a quiet life in the short term (and one I have used in the past), absent any corrective measures, it is essentially rewarding bad behaviour which will come back to bite you later. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen calls for MH's desysopping (indeffing, actually, but with desysopping as a second, and possibly more reasonable choice) in at least three places. So I'll take a little medium-term quiet (the short-term quiet is already taken care of) while things proceed with all the dignity and grace for which the drama machine here on WP is so well known for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic Guy, but I would like to know if you had any response to your request for an explanation for MH's behaviour, or at least to know why he appears to be falling on his sword over it? This is not a request for details of any reply to you, just if there was one. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice it to say that I am no clearer as to his motivations. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My thinking is along the lines of "imagine if he'd involved himself with the other Hitchens brother recently." -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, there's only one? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Do no harm" is a good stance to take; however in practice it needs to be counterbalanced with "hell hath no fury like a Wikipedia community scorned". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (3rd nomination). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious as to your decision to move the page. I note you started the 3rd nomination to delete the article and mentioned about refactoring the article for the charity. As far as my quick scan go, only 1 admin (sort of) agreed. Fast forward to the community site ban, which you have also raised the same point again, and once again, I counted only 1 admin agreed with you.

If the community voted over and over again (3 times in a row, ignoring the first nomination) to keep the status quo - changing it today would seem like you are short-cutting the nomination process, and overriding the community's decision because you wanted the refactoring.

Besides that, the article is not all about the (defunct) charity. The fact that she had her own talk show on TV, wrote a book, etc. had nothing to with the said charity, and preceded the founding of the organization.

I would like to understand your thoughts on this matter. --Cahk (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about he ractivities connected to the charity, only. There are no sources about anything else. Per WP:BLP1E, if we're writing about the event, then title it after the event. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E was explicitly brought up more than several times, and each time the argument did not succeed (which would otherwise result in the article being deleted). Of the 14 citations, 2,4,5,7,8,9,10,11 are not related to the felony case at hand. Assuming Wikipedia is still a consensus-building community, then why are the views of the others not valued? The 3rd nomination (which you started) failed to delete the article. Refactoring without any discussion (or even as much as a talk page note) would appear as though one person is overriding the discussion of the many editors involved. --Cahk (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JzG, I noticed that you used revision deletion to hide entries in GorillaWarfare's block log and your own block log – both of which involved an admin blocking oneself. I know that it's somewhat mortifying to have this in your log forever, but a line that says

• 09:42, August 25, 2018 (Username or IP removed) (log details removed) (edit summary removed)

is arguably more confusing to the community and will probably lead to more questions in the future. If it were unredacted instead, anyone looking at the block log can look at the reason for unblocking and immediately deduce that it was an erroneous entry.

Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction is the relevant policy here, which states that Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the move and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper. Essentially, it is not common practice to redact block logs for mistakes like this, and for these reasons, I think the block log entries should be unredacted. Mz7 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous blocks are erroneous. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they're not something that should be hidden from the community. In the past, many editors have requested that their own erroneous block log entries be redacted, and we have consistently denied these requests as both unnecessary and reducing transparency. I don't see why an exception is justified here. Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was unnecessary (and actually distracted from the point I was trying to bring to light). Again, apologies for that. Humanengr (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]