User talk:JzG

This user is a member of the Wikipedia Ultra Secret Inner Inner Cabal, a cabal so secret that not only am I not allowed to know who the other members are, I am not even allowed to know if there are any other members, and if I ever did find out that anyone else was a member I would have to kill them immediately. You can contact WUSIIC on #wikipedia-ultra-secret-inner-inner-cabal on Freenode. As a courtesy you are requested to kill yourself afterwards.

R       E       T       I       R       E        D

This user is tired of silly drama on Wikipedia.
If you are going to be a dick, please be a giant dick, so we can ban you quickly and save time. Thank you so much.

My crap Stuff and nonsense This editor is a Tutnum of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, and Chewed Broken Pencil. This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify) This user has a userpage on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. 15,000+This user has made over 15,000 contributions to Wikipedia Smert' spamionem! This user is a member of WikiProject Spam. BEngThis user has a Bachelor of Engineering degree. Cary says: Ignore All Dramas. Reading December 2024 24 Tuesday 1:23 pm UTC Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout. Content of Wikipedia, December 2007citation needed

I check in most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets. You can find me on facebook: my profile. Please include your WP username if sending a friend request.

Dispute resolution, Bible style - and actually an excellent model on Wikipedia as well.

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

— Matthew 18:15

Please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.

the internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

---

• Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
• Really bored? Visit my website: http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
• Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing - read it now.

---

---

Note to self

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747

John Bambenek DRV

When I saw yesterday that JB was once more at DRV, I came to your talk page to entreat you not to close it speedily or, at the very least, not to partake of the (relatively light-hearted, I admit) sarcasm with which you have closed at least two previous DRVs, but I concluded that you would refrain from such dickishness and so offered no note; I was distressed, then, to see that you had to go down that road again. Your comment was, as ever, gratuitous, and I continue to be surprised at your willingness to deride a living person (or to speculate about the nominator's being that person), your being so often situated on the hardline extreme of BLP construction. Even if it is reasonable, AGF's not being a suicide pact, for us to assume that a user whose first edits are to DRV is a single-purpose editor who has some interest in JB's having an article, we needn't to be obnoxious in dismissing that user, particularly where he/she, whatever his/her motives, is willing to make an effort to offer us a draft that means to comply with our guidelines (we don't, after all, refuse an article simply because we do not like its creator or because we think him/her to be interested only in self-aggrandizement; we not infrequently keep articles that began as self-promoting biographies where there exist sufficient sources toward notability). Your brusque style is prized by many in the community, to be sure, but your desire to be clueful and sensible needn't to lead you to be sarcastic; at the very least I hope you will hold back the unnecessary "Bye, John"-type comment when next the issue arrives at DRV. Joe 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The guy is playing a game. We know who it is, he knows we know. The sockpuppet is tagged, as many of his sockpuppets are. If he cared, I'm sure he would write to OTRS, but actually he makes it so blindingly obvious that I'm absolutely sure he is sharing the joke. And I am quite serious about that. "Bye, John" is absolutely not an attack or anything else, it's a friendly wave to a long-standing "adversary" whose efforts these days lack any evidence of the earlier malice. It's also a low-key reminder that we have not forgotten. If you want to look for problems, look at the banned users list, where he is listed by full name. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

you need to warn an editor

Hello, you put a resolved tag on the request to put an user under WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE discretionary sanctions at Mucoid plaque [1]. Howeverm you didn't add anything to User_talk:Heelop. You should leave him the Template:Pseudoscience enforcement standard message (the arbcom case requires that such a warning is given) and tell him what sanction you are placing (topic ban, whatever). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fair point. I left a note. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I also added an entry to the log of notifications, as it appears to be required. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick explanation

You recently endorsed an AFD close for Assyrian Christian Stele. I'm obviously not understanding something, so hopefully you can help. Why does a lack of sources not matter in this case? Someone basically made a name for an object that no published source has ever used, and yet that doesn't seem to matter. Why does WP:RS and WP:OR not apply (or why do some people just seem to not care about it)? I'm not trying to be a dick with this, I honestly don't understand how something that is without question an OR violation gets continually overlooked and/or approved by people. Otebig (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Good question. The reason was that the AfD debate was correctly (IMO) interpreted by the closer. I share your concern about the lack of sources, but redirects are cheap so the only bar they usually need to pass is being a likely search term and not being obviously crass, offensive or demeaning to the subject. I hope this is reasonably consistent with policy. After a few weeks, when the dust has settled, the redirect can be considered in isolation, but what the AfD delivered was not to have the article at Assyrian_Christian_Stele which I think is correct and addressed the concerns at nomination, at least to a first approximation. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Trash

Thanks for trying to keep WP from being a venue for hate speech.--Elvey (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• No problem, not one of the more obvious or blatant ones, but insidious I think. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

ADM

He's now pledged to be a good boy. I put the unblock on hold for you to evaluate this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• He emailed me, the essence of his comment was that he would be a much nicer mission poster if unblocked. You can colour me unconvinced, but I am happy to leave it to the judgement of others. I diagnose a dangerous mix of youth and unfortunate views. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:SmashTheState

Hey, Guy. I (and it appears a few other folks) am a little unsure about your block of this guy. While his editorial slant is decidedly strong towards the political views he puts forward, I'm not certain that he's done anything that could be considered blockworthy at this point. If being outspoken and surly about one's views was blockable, we'd have about a dozen editors unblocked, I think. Looking at his edits, there's no real edit-warring or heavy POV-pushing in articles that I can see, though I may just be missing it. Could you take another look and perhaps reconsider? (Not to mention that it'd forestall the inevitable drama somewhat.) Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I know SmashTheState in real life. He is a well intentioned but strong speaking fellow. And I know that he is laughing long and hard that someone would find his username offensive. The guy lives and breathes political anarchism in the extreme. That his quest to free the minds of others from the tyranny of the state is being seen as offensive would make him either laugh, or bemoan the way you've all been brainwashed. (Not that I agree with his political stance, finding the whole anarchy point of view a little adolescent.) Anyway, please reconsider your block, which seems more than a little goofy. Or hell, block me too. For giggles. --Nik (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's not that he's outspoken and surly (I am both), the problem is that his content edits are polemical, and his interactions with others appear to be those of the picket line. His eighth edit was to add Category:Wikipedia culture to Kangaroo court, [2], and that seems to be representative of his behaviour consistently from there on; and his content edits are of similarly confrontational nature, for example, Rand was a psychopath, scarcely calculated to ease tensions on a particularly contentious article. Do we really need rock-hurling activists? Hence no expiry: I don't think a short period will fix the issue. I consider adding polemic to articles to be a serious problem, much more so than polemic directed against users. I think I explained this in the block message. But, Nik, iof you can have a word with him and get him to make some sort of comment indicating that he recognises that Wikipedia is not Usenet, then I am sure it will be no problem. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

So he called Ayn Rand a psychopath. Tactless, yes. But he did provide a reference. I'll be the first to admit that SmashTheState does not play well with others. While Wikipedia might not be Usenet, I think if we lock out contentious writers, this place becomes dull. (Sorry, duller. If I read one more article about an irrelevant third string cartoon character, I will scream.) Yes, the obnoxious people stir up a hornet's nest and create more work for admins. But the alternative is a barren wasteland where we all agree. Your argument for blocking him strikes me as far too broad -- his username is "problematic"? Come on. That's quite a stretch -- and one loaded with political bias. (And I say that neither wanting the state smashed or unsmashed.) Don't ask me to talk SmashTheState off the ledge. That won't work. But if you folks doused him in honey instead of spraying him with repellent, you'd find he'd make a good ally. So long as you're willing to allow the occasional psychopathic Ayn Rand statement. (She was, at the very least, pretty humourless.) --Nik (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, it's not tactless, it's a clumsy, polemical, agenda-drive edit that is representative of his style in articles generally. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Could you also please take into account the fact that he has no previous blocks, starting off at indef is a bit steep under the circumstances. Couldn't we start the bidding a little lower?--Misarxist (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't mean forever, it means that passage of time won't fix the problem, it needs human interaction. I think I have made this clear. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've heard grumblings, Guy, that your defense of Ayn Rand is politically motivated, in that the founder of Wikipedia is a big Ayn Rand supporter. The suggestion is that this block is an effort on your part to gain some status. I don't know if I buy it, but thought I'd put the question to you. Care to comment? --Nik (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)