User talk:JzG/Archive 189

Archive 185

←

Archive 187

Archive 188

Archive 189

Archive 190

Archive 191

→

Archive 195

Good Humour Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		🦘🪃. Discussion closing comments often need to be serious, but sometimes a little humour helps. The second emoji hasn't hit mainstream support yet, but it is in Unicode 13 ;-). —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Strange behavior by IP

• 2A01:119F:317:EA00:2D6C:9E5C:B5BF:A8EC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Note the post to my talk page. I have no idea what this IP is on about. I have never even heard of that Wiki before this. LTA? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Reported at AIAV, requested semi on my talk page at RFPP.

2A01:119F:31B:5D00:7107:FC20:3B3F:FEBC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2A01:119F:317:EA00:2D6C:9E5C:B5BF:A8EC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Check out the /64 on ...A8EC. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

...and the IPs are blocked for a week. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Given this do you have thoughts on this? I did a massive amount of filtering sources and writing the new version of the article. At the very least I believe it deserves an AfD. - Scarpy (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe#Request for comment: on the notability of the CTMU in 2020 with sources published after 2006 and "unredirect" of this page to Christopher Langan --Guy Macon (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. - Scarpy (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Someone is trying to edit war a bizarre redirect for "Trump virus" (referring to SARS-CoV-2) at the List of eponymously named diseases article. The IP user has had multiple reverts by multiple users with multiple warnings on their talk page and persists in doing this. Just FYI. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Two unrelated questions of procedure

Guy, I figure you might be a good sounding board for two questions I have, neither of which are related but since I'm here...

The first is my "indef-lite" idea that I've proposed a few times. My initial idea had been something like a block/ban that had no time limit but also wasn't meant to be onerous to reverse. We effectively do have something like this for inappropriate user names and I think an admin is free to indef a user with a comment that "it can be appealed any time and all they have to do is X to address the original concern". But on their log it still shows as an indef. I suspect I'm not the only one who sees any indef on an editor's record as "one step away from off the island". Would it make sense to have a different term for blocks/tbans that are meant to be "until corrected" vs something else? An example was given on my talk page of two different indef behaviors [[1]], one where we might never want the person back, the other we might look at as "one time dumb mistake". Anyway, I thought I would get your take on the question.

The other question relates to the SashiRolls discussion but again is a somewhat generic question. More than once I've seen cases where it looks like an admin made a questionable consensus call. Per my example here [[2]] I'm thinking in part of cases where things seem to come down to a numeric vote and an admin comes in and says for example 55%=consensus. As in my example my rule of thumb is 2/3rds is where I say numerical consensus. Less than 1/3rd = means consensus against, 1/3rd to 2/3rds = no consensus, over 2/3rds= consensus for. I would hope that most editors would agree that 55% for is not "consensus for" (assuming good argument on both sides etc). My problem in such a case is, by the numbers, it's almost impossible to overturn such a bad close. Reviews are so often not about "was the closing logic good" but instead, "did I agree with the closing outcome". So in my 55% case the Against side feels this should have been a no-consensus and they open a review. During the review perhaps some of those who voted For will agree the close was bad but enough say "happy with it" and we get say 50/50 good/bad close. Since it's no consensus it sticks. Would it be better if in such a case there needs to be a "consensus the close was good" rather than "consensus the close was bad"? If there isn't a consensus to support the close then the discussion is reopened and a different admin (or panel) gets to close it. Take a deletion discussion. If the closing is contested on grounds that "closed as consensus but was not consensus" then the review discussion could have three outcomes. A consensus to uphold the close (2/3rds) would cement the close. A consensus to reverse (2/3rds say it was bad) would then change the closing to what ever the 2/3rds said it should have been. A no-consensus would simply reopen the discussion for a period of time and then require a different editor/admin to close it. I think such a system would avoid the double jeopardy we have now where a bad call is exceedingly difficult to overturn since it takes a solid consensus to overturn a disputed consensus call. Is that reasonable? What problems would it cause that I just haven't thought of?

Thanks Springee (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Springee, the second is easier IMO. Any close that counts a slim majority of votes rather than explicitly referencing quality of argument or a supermajority, should be queried with the closing admin (with a request for a more complete rationale) and if that is unsatisfactory then it should be taken to AN and reviewed. The review should focus on whether the closure accurately reflects consensus, being the clear majority of policy-based argument. If the appeal fails, then your appeals can go to Jimbo or I guess ArbCom, but I don't think they want that job.

I do not like mob justice at ANI. In my view there should be at least an ECP level franchise for banning discussions, especially at AN, and at an AN appeal I would prefer it if the peanut gallery kept away. Warring parties in ethnic conflicts, for example, do precisely nothing to aid mature deliberation.

So that's probably not what you want to hear, but it is how I think it is supposed to work, and it should definitely work better than it does. Votes for banning is a bad idea, as is votes for not-banning a popular but disruptive user. And AN appeals of ANI bans should run for at least a week IMO and be subject to a minimum level of input. Feel free to suggest that as an RfC, I will support it. I will also support extending the ANI discussion time for a ban to one week provided the user can be blocked or (in the case of TBANs) temporarily TBANned in the interim - consider it like being held on remand - if there is clear evidence of an urgent problem. Banning discussions should be about people who have substantial contributions to the project, but who cause more trouble than they are worth. We don't need them for spammers and idiots, so there should be a base assumption that we are dealing with someone who is editing in good faith. AE actually does a half decent job of this most of the time.

As to the first... I think that is not fixable. Indefinite is a time, not a severity. I think actually we should be making more use of partial blocks, so a block from mainspace for a disruptive editor would be better than an indef in the kind of case you allude to, IMO. I am not convinced that Alice would ever be much of an asset, but we would almost certainly indef Bob and revoke TPA and then immediately have a ban discussion because fuck Nazis and list him as banned, whereas Alice would be blocked and I would hlpe not banned (because hurt angry people are what they are) so an appeal via the normal routes should succeed.

All of which is a bit naive I know. I think it's a reasonable subject for debate and possibly a central RfC on ban handling. Guy (help!) 20:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. I figured with our normal philosophical disagreements your take would be useful. I agree that consensus isn't based on counting votes but in practice it often does come down to numbers assuming both sides have sound policy based arguments or we are dealing with something that is more subjective etc. I agree that and AN review of a closing should focus on if the close accurately reflects consensus but sadly these things often devolve into re-litigating the original question. While I didn't intend this question to be specifically about RS's cban (the other example in my head was an AFD) I do agree with the idea that a cban should have higher standards than we saw with SR. I think the minimum duration and perhaps something like a higher level of consensus (not sure how to define that) should be a requirement. I think your idea of a limited tban during the discussion makes some sense. Perhaps it could be something like an uninvolved admin could implement a scope/limited block/ban during the discussion which would be superseded by the ANI result. It seems unlikely but if the result is "no ban/block" then the temporary block should be lifted with a note stating this should not be considered a prior block. I know something we look at an editor's record and if we see lots of lines we assume they are a trouble maker (probably true in most cases).

I'm reading your reply to the indef-lite idea as not likely to happen.

So long as I'm here I figured I will leave one other unrelated comment. In this case I want to pick a bone with something you said here [[3]]. The issue here is comment about insufficiently concerned about repeating dog whistles etc. The core problem with claims of dog whistle is always that the person making the claim is assigning a motivation to actions/ideas that by the very definition of a dog whistle must be ambiguous and must have a ostensibly non-racist purpose. Someone who is for freedom of speech may be for letting the Klan speak in public. The Klan may support that person because he helps the Klan get their message out. That doesn't mean they support the Klan's message. I appreciate that in cases like Tucker Carlson you are saying that you don't know if he is personally racist, only that he says things that racists like. That is a very fair assessment. The problem is the next part where you seem to be saying if he isn't racist he shouldn't say things that racists like. It's part of ugly politics that logically legitimate concerns would get smeared not by the merit of the concern by by who likes the outcome. It's like dismissing the legitimate concerns raised by BLM protesters because there was looting after the march. Sadly in politics and public discussions we often prefer the soundbite that is emotionally satisfying vs the discussion in depth. If you can get any sort of "racist" (or climate change denier or ____phobe etc) label to stick we no longer need to worry about a person's opinions or arguments. (Disclaimer, I don't listen/watch Carlson, never have. I felt the John Stewart roast of his CNN show years back was great) Springee (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Springee, actually I don't think that describing something as a dog whistle implies intent at all. Example: "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" are both racist dog-whistle phrases. Not everyone who utters them, is a racist, but racists know what they mean and (importantly) so do Black people. Saying "Blue Lives matter" in support of, say, a police officer killed in the line of duty, remains a racist dog whistle, because there is an exceptionally strong societal presumption that killing cops is bad, and cops will investigate such things zealously, whereas "Black Lives Matter" refers to the fact that cops who kill Black people typically suffer minimal consequences.

There is no parity between the way society treats the death of a police officer, versus the death of a Black person at the hands of a police officer. The missing word in "Black Lives Matter" is not "only", it is "too". Guy (help!) 15:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

See, that is the problem with a dog whistle, by its very nature it must be based on a legitimate question or concern. If Mr Smith is legitimately concerned about X why should we accuse Mr Smith of being a racist for the use of a dog whistle when in fact they are reasonably and legitimately concerned about the issue and would be even if it were race neutral problem? As for the death of a police officer vs a suspect in custody, it's clearly complex and I don't always understand why some cases cause a larger reaction than others. Example, I was reviewing x-rays, CT-scans and pictures of injuries attended by an ENT resident. It was interesting how the only one that got to me was that of an ear that had been partially torn away. Many of the injuries were auto crashes and required reconstructive surgeries to reconstruct the skull. These are possibly life altering injuries. The torn ear? It would heal quickly and the scar would be almost impossible to see. Yet somehow that was the one that had an emotional hook in me. Springee (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Move Reverted

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of Archduke Markus of Austria has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". Such consensus is particularly required before moving a title with incoming links in order to create a disambiguation page at that title. If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion to form the appropriate consensus. Again, please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. - dwc lr (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, you are POV-pushing. It would be good if you'd stop, but I doubt if you will. Guy (help!) 08:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve just seen your edit on the above article on Archduke Markus. What are you playing at this is a BLP! A Editor (User:JoelleJay) in good faith and added citation requests I respond in good faith and added reliable sources and *I* even removed unsourced material and you revert it to re include unsourced material in a BLP! This is a BLP are you for real? What are you playing at, your an admin lead by example don’t let your POV cloud your judgement! - dwc lr (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, it's a biography of a living non-archduke. How many times do you have to lose an argument before you give up? Guy (help!) 09:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Why do reliable sources say he’s and Archduke (which I’ve highlighted in your RM, which FYI is ridiculous for the reasons I noted there not least because in Austria it’s illegal to have ‘von’ in your surname yet you say he’s not an Archduke but it’s ok to use the illegal ‘von’. Do you even have any idea about these topics? Are all these authors I could cite from my book collection or even doing a simple Google Books search ignorant and you the expert? - dwc lr (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, because the sources are royalty fandom. You can't be an archduke of a place that abolished the archduchy. It really is that simple. You can claim to be archduke, but there is no archduke. Guy (help!) 10:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

And the Austrian legal position is set out. So we treat it in a NPOV. What are you going to do for the Greeks and all the other deposed royals who are widely attributed titles? - dwc lr (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, the exact same thing. Who is the King of Greece? There isn't one. Who is the Prince of Bavaria? There isn't one. Who is the Archduke of Austria? There isn't one. Deposed nobility don't get to choose whether they are deposed or not. Guy (help!) 11:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There is something on Wikipedia called Common Name though. What exactly would you move Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark too? What’s her name, what’s your solution here? - dwc lr (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, Denmark still has a royal family. Austria does not. Using edge cases to defend egregious bollocks is not a good look. Guy (help!) 12:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So to be clear you want the article at Princess Maria Olympia of Denmark? - dwc lr (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, I have no opinion on that specific article at this time. Guy (help!) 13:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So User:DWC LR moved Manuel Prinz von Bayern back to the ridiculous page title Prince Manuel of Bavaria. The editor keeps doing this sort of thing despite warnings, I think it is very disruptive.Smeat75 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you not familiar with Bold Revert Discuss etc? Take it to a Request Move present the evidence to support a move, what’s hard about that? I reverted an undisclosed - dwc lr (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, I moved it to correct a trivial error: translating the family name Prinz von Bayern (a fudge from the time the royal titles were abolished) yields the misleading English "Prince of Bavaria". Which is stupid because Bavaria is part of the Federal Republic of Germany and has no princes. But hey, let's keep lies in the article titles because royal fanwankers like them, yes? Guy (help!) 20:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Let’s be guided by Reliable Sources. Anyway I’m sure there is plenty of Request Moves to come so I look forward to seeing what made up nonsense you come up with on these BLP. - dwc lr (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, Oh good, a "princess" of a country that doesn't exist any more. You really are going all out for alternative reality here, aren't you? Guy (help!) 09:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

When are you gonna start oin the "Bourbon Two Sicilies" crew? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes that will be a good one. Do you think we’d go for the French, Spanish, Italian version of a last name? I’d rather see JzG get stuck into the Greeks first who say they don’t have a surname “It is a proven fact, that the Danish Dynasty, -and thus the Greek Dynasty-, have never had a surname.” That should be a real interesting one of the many discussions to come. - dwc lr (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, a source from the Greek royal family, saying something. Dont we have rules about unreliablity of self citing things. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes absolutely, we also have rules about Verfifiabilty and No Original Research and are very strict on BLP :-) But I’m just sure the Greeks will be delighted with you or JzG creating a surname for them on behalf of Wikipedia. - dwc lr (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Proposal "Constantine Smith" -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Good shout, no worse than what I’ve seen proposed at Archduke Markus of Austria. I wouldn’t even be surprised if that actually passed judging by certain editors here who support stuff without any sources to go on. - dwc lr (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

What would we call my favourite Real Royal then, Phillip Smith, or has he taken the mrs' name? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No I think that it’s just his grandson Harry Markle who took the Mrs’ name. - dwc lr (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• DWC LR, Austria doesn't have an archduke, regardless of what Hello magazine thinks. Guy (help!) 19:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The Republic of Austria maybe doesn’t but the House of Habsburg-Lorraine seems to have hundreds. - dwc lr (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, seems, according to royalty fans, but reliable geopolitical sources say it has exactly none. Guy (help!) 21:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see .....

User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Help needed

If you can spare a little time to help with a CIR issue, discussion here, that would be great. There's also an AfD of the same article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Mel Honey; your intervention there would be welcome but supererogatory. Thanks in advance for whatever you can do. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Re:LTA

Its here, since you asked. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Language for Facebook edit filter

While the RfC is archived, it still hasn't formally been closed, despite my request for closure several days ago. Regardless, there seems to be a firm concensus to at least add an edit filter. As Facebook technically isn't a depreciated source, I'm not sure 869 is the correct filter to use, would it be worth coming up with a custom filter, or is there a more appropriate pre-existing one? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, Facebook is sufficiently big to justify a separate filter I think. Guy (help!) 09:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The RfC has now closed with a decision to add the edit filter, but no Xlinkbot due to no concensus. An edit filter has been requested at EF/R, but no action seems to have been taken. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

archduke RfC

Given the confusion and resistance citing COMMONNAME, it might be helpful to split the RfC into two proposals: one for article title and one for inclusion of people in templates/categories and how we reference them in wikivoice. What do you think? JoelleJay (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay, please do, I suspect you may understand the underlying bollocks better than I do. What matters to me is that article titles should not reflect ranks and nobility that reliable geopolitical sources say no longer exist, and that we should treat those who claim to formally dissolved titles as private individuals, not as nobility (so no {{infobox nobility}}). The RS which use the titles are often in-universe or nobility fandom, whereas the RS that say the titles do not exist are robust history and geopolitical sources. We don't assert that X is archduke of Y based on society pages when we have a mountain of books on the end of hereditary authority in that country, because it's bizarre to the reader. Guy (help!) 16:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added a second proposal section with your original proposal split into two questions. I also added a proviso for COMMONNAME considerations since it would be difficult to argue against using a titled name when that's the only name a person is referred to by; I think if we still reflect reality in the article body (by not treating them as if they hold the title in wikivoice) and templates/categories (by not including them) their status should be sufficiently clear to readers. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for trying to rectify this problem. I find it bit too frustrating to be deeply involved. Smeat75 (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay, good work, thanks Guy (help!) 19:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)