Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin

Note to admins reviewing any of my admin actions (expand to read).

I am often busy in that "real life" of which you may have read.

Blocks are the most serious things we can do: they prevent users from interacting with Wikipedia. Block reviews are urgent. Unless I say otherwise in the block message on the user's talk page, I am happy for any uninvolved admin to unblock a user I have blocked, provided that there is good evidence that the problem that caused the block will not be repeated. All I ask is that you leave a courtesy note here and/or on WP:ANI, and that you are open to re-blocking if I believe the problem is not resolved - in other words, you can undo the block, but if I strongly feel that the issue is still live, you re-block and we take it to the admin boards. The same applies in spades to blocks with talk page access revoked. You are free to restore talk page access of a user for whom I have revoked it, unless it's been imposed or restored following debate on the admin boards.

User:DGG also has my permission to undelete or unprotect any article I have deleted and/or salted, with the same request to leave a courtesy note, and I'll rarely complain if any uninvolved admin does this either, but there's usually much less urgency about an undeletion so I would prefer to discuss it first - or ask DGG, two heads are always better than one. I may well add others in time, DGG is just one person with whom I frequently interact whose judgment I trust implicitly.

Any WP:BLP issue which requires you to undo an admin action of mine, go right ahead, but please post it immediately on WP:AN or WP:ANI for review.

The usual definition of uninvolved applies: you're not currently in an argument with me, you're not part of the original dispute or an editor of the affected article... you know. Apply WP:CLUE. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory disclaimer
I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?

WOT Services part 3

Troll with the ever changing Nepalese IP re-inserted a passage you removed, designating his/her monologues as a "discussion". Diff. Strange, isn't it. Best, WeatherFug (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.36.252.1.178 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odd how the anon is prepared to do absolutely anything to include this content other than provide reliable independent sources. Which is the only thing that will work. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. You taught me some valuable lessons. Hope I wasn't the only one. Respectfully, WeatherFug (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin

The 1RR per week restriction has expired. Callanecc imposed it on February 10th for one month; we're beyond that now. In that context, I'd encourage consideration of whether RAN's reverts today should be allowed to stand. I've already informed him that he has exceeded 3RR at this point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


ANI followup

Like we need yet another venue for this
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

So are you going to start treating editors respectfully per WP:ADMINACCT or not? NE Ent 02:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, JzG, have you stopped beating your wife? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NE Ent: please post diffs when you make a accusation. Thank you. I don't know why you think Guy was being rude. . Jehochman Talk 05:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put my hands up to being sarcastic, rude even, short, firm to the point of bluntness. There are only three people I have encountered on Wikipedia who I do not respect as people, one is banned indefinitely, one rarely edits and one I avoid. Some people think that challenging their ideas is disrespectful. They are nice people but lousy Wikipedians. A few people stalk me from time to time looking to cause drama and rake up grudges. I don't bear grudges, I find this behaviour hard to understand, I've had endless arguments with Andy Mabbett, and I think he's a prince of a bloke, Dan Tobias and I gave had stand up fights on Wikipedia, but we follow each other on social media and I find his comments often thought provoking.
Wikipedia is text based and the accusations fly thick and fast, few people bother to ask why something was done, preferring to fill in their own narrative. Did the IP at ANI react to rejection of their text by discussion here or on the talk page? No. After reinserting it until I stopped them, they ran to the drama board. I'd happily have coached them on sourcing if they'd asked, as would others at the article talk page. But no.
apparently I am supposed to show a respectful response to vexatious arguments from people pushing a POV. Perhaps it's time for another wikibreak, because this is supposed to be a hobby, not the Spanish Inquisition. Guy (Help!) 06:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are. In a recent principle, arbcom explained: "Administrators are expected to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. This requirement is not lessened by perceived or actual shortcomings in the conduct of others." NE Ent 11:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I respect people as people. That does not mean that I treat all claims or statements as inherently correct or equally deserving of consideration, but all edits and all ideas are always open to question, and that is as it must be.
Some people think that challenging their belief in something, is disrespectful. They are wrong.
And now I think it's probably best to leave it since comments by others in threads where you're involved, plus Jehochman's point above, are leading me to question whether you are an honest broker in disputes with admins. I have no desire to start becoming cynical about your motives, so let's leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Did the IP at ANI react to rejection of their text by discussion here or on the talk page? No. After reinserting it until I..." That is not a fair assertion. I did bring it to the talk page. Regardless, the issue is closed in my view. You are on the talk page now. I do not want to post on a 'drama board' as you say. Its clear that as an admin you have plenty of critics. Naturally, in your duties you run into people who will never view your administrative contributions as valid. Just because some of those users do not present things in a fair way, does not excuse you to lower the bar. As I have observed above and on other pages, some of the rhetoric you use could be a bit more accurate. The name calling accusations directed at yourself are just too pedantic for me. It only contributes to the drama atmosphere. We all say things sometimes. Lets just try to maintain a modicum of accuracy in rhetoric. I'll politely ask you not to misrepresent things like above. I think for my own use of the site, I would rather wait and see if you can give any future sources a fair shake. Anything less would be unfair to you, and as someone who is appealing for fairness - you get the idea.36.252.1.157 (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions on TP

I thought the purpose of discussions on TP was to work things out. You explain your position (which I disagree with), and I explain my position (which you disagree with). During that exchange there may be an editor who can come up with a solution that appeases both sides. That's usually how it works, isn't it? At least that has been my experience at all but one article. On what grounds would such a discussion cause an ArbCom? I have not made any disruptive edits on the article. Atsme☯Consult 01:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's you stating your belief as fact and me pointing out where you are wrong and what the consequences may be if you continue asserting your incorrect view as fact. The issue is that you will not accept the answer "no" and instead adopt the standard POV-pusher technique of keep asking until you get an answer you like, or have driven everyone else away.
It is time to start breaking the logjam. As a first move, I am asking for independent review of some of your preferred sources, starting with geoengineeringwatch (see WP:RSN). Then, if you continue to refuse to start and RfC proposing your changes, I will start the RfC myself. It is long past time you dropped your crusade and I ahve had enough of patiently explaining it to you. Guy (Help!) 07:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your ANI close

Hi JzG. Your abrupt close of this ANI thread suppresses a legitimate and serious discussion about an editor's conduct. I think it's particularly faulty to close it as querulous, since the OP presented diffs, examples and clam explanations. While I doubt that you will reopen the thread, or actually intervene to address the reported issues, I at least want to go on record as strongly objecting to the close. Collect's battleground behavior which includes misrepresentation, edit warring, refusal to respond to legitimate questions, filibustering, false analogies, forum shopping, and personal attacks is damaging to the project. While I don't think that ANI is particularly well equipped to deal with it, the editors demoralized by his conduct should at least be able to present their evidence and have it objectively reviewed by uninvolved users. - MrX 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start an RFC. This is not an obvious quick-action case, and that is the only kind that can be fixed on ANI. Long experience indicates that ANI only makes things worse. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and respect your view. RFC/U no longer exists, so I will explore other avenues of resolution.- MrX 16:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a battleground if there are two or more persons in dispute. It would behoove the lot of you well if you all (including Collect) disengaged. You file an arbcom case and it is going to go south on the lot of you.--MONGO 16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, pretty much. The issue with the ANI request is that it was not so much a request for review as a rallying cry to attract supporters, at least to my eyes. That is never a good idea, especially at that venue. I hadn't spotted RFC/U was shut down (though I can see why), but this still needs picking apart: content issues via RFC and AFD, conduct issues via DR. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey MONGO: You stay classy!- MrX 18:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=651814454

Leave a Reply