User talk:JzG/Archive 193

AE closure
Guy, with all due respect, what the heck ? , myself, and possibly others spent hours reading through diffs and had more or less agree on sanctions or warnings for people besides I-82-I. Closing the discussion just because that user was blocked was not appropriate; please reverse the closure, or alternatively implement the other sanctions that were being discussed. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I refer the hon. gentleman to my reply above. I-82-I is an unambiguous idiot and can GTFO. The rest are sincere and good people who need to find something more important to do. If you want to raise a separate AE against any specific editor you are free to do so. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? A half dozen administrators were discussing sanctions against multiple users; nuking that discussion is not just a supervote, it's bloody disrespectful of your colleagues. I ask you again to allow that conversation to continue; else my options are either implementing those sanctions myself under DS, or asking for review of your actions at AN, and I'm less keen on either of those. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're free to request review of the logged sanction an/or the close. WP:AN is second on the left down the hall. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you implying I am not free to implement the sanctions I discussed with the other administrators? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * x2 Thanks for posting this Vanamonde because I was sitting here thinking largely the same thing. Guy I agree that I-82 needed sanctions. The fact that they edited under multiple accounts while logged out suggests that DS was definitely called for (which was not where I started). However, I agree with Vanamonde that this AE was broader than that and your close is not an accurate reflection of the discussion of a bunch of administrators. If Guy won't reconsider (and I hope he will), I think, Vanamonde, that the correct thing is to simply add a close beneath that which reflects the broader discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) You would probably be wise not to without a discussion with other administrators first Vanamonde. I cant recall the situation, but arbcom made it clear that if an AE report has been closed as no action (against a specific editor). It counts as an enforcement action - so not subject to unilateral overturning without explicit consensus to do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If what OID is saying is true - and I wonder because at best it's a pocket no action as opposed to an explicit finding of no action - then I think ARCA is, as I have throughout, the best venue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here we go. I would suggest reading the outcomes there first before taking action that may be regretted. Relevant section is "6.1) Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened." Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the facts here are materially different - there was discussion and it is the closer acting without consensus. But that's probably best for ARCA to decide. Assuming JzG really is saying he won't reconsider the close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's kind of my point, though. Guy's closure ignores all other editors. It isn't even clear whether he's overruling us (in which case he's obliged to explain himself, per the expectations outlined here, and would be subject to review at ARCA) or not (in which case the other editors are subject to DS like always). Vanamonde (Talk) 22:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Its really irrelevant at this point. Its been closed by an uninvolved admin who has indicated they are not going to reverse it. You cant re-open it. You need to take it to ARCA. The FoF in the relevant AE Arbcom case makes that clear. Its to prevent wheel-warring and admins arguing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. The disagreement isn't about the editor mentioned in Guy's closure, but all the other editors he ignored. At the very least he is obligated to say whether his closure assessed the discussion of their conduct or not, because that is currently ambiguous, and determines whether they are subject to DS from other admins for their recent conduct. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "At this point". Open a request at ARCA and make the argument there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I had thought ARCA the right venue as soon as I got involved. But I agreed to give AE an earnest effort. And so I don't think going there now is our only option. We do have the option of asking Guy to clarify his close and if he is closing as no sanction to reconsider. He's a reasonable guy and reasonable people can act reasonably without escalating this into something even bigger than it already is (OVER INFOBOXES! INFOBOXES I TELL YOU). Sorry, not sorry for the caps there. . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But let me make this clear: I think that specific FoF in that arbcom case is one of the stupidest ideas ever thought up by arbcom. It rewards first mover's and enables those admins (of which I dont consider Guy one btw) who like to don the jackboots to stomp around with relative impunity, as very people can be bothered to appeal at ARCA. But it is what they have decreed and take my above posts as a *warning* to yourself. You are free to ignore it if you wish. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did not ignore them. I just don't consider them to be the same class of problem (see below). I would be up for a sitewide RfC or another RFAR or whatever. But seriously, can people not find something better to do? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , honestly, I have no opinion on that. I have no patience with infobox warriors, and every sympathy with anyone who wants to tackle them, but I don't think a thread about an obvious bad actor should morph into sanctions against good faith editors, and I really do think de-escalation would be more profitable here. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your closure perpetuates an unhealthy environment in which myself and others are needlessly subjected to unwarranted and unsubstantiated attacks and accusations. Please reconsider. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to get into another extended discusison of behavior, so let me just say that "editing in good faith" and "engaging in sanctionable conduct" are very much not mutually exclusive, and it's very obviously the case here because Talk:Frank Sinatra was a disaster before I-82-I even showed up. I disagree that walking away would be the most helpful thing, and at least two of my colleagues agree with me. So, I would ask you again to explicitly clarify your closing statement ; were you assessing the entire discussion, or just the parts that pertain to I-82-I? If it's the former, I think we have no option but to go to ARCA, because as others have pointed out the wording if not the spirit of a previous ARBCOM ruling may prevent me from enacting the sanctions Guerillero, Barkeep, and I agreed on. If it's the latter, then I fully intend to enact those sanctions, but we do can save the trip to ARCA. You may have implied this clarification above already, but we've had so many replies here that it's best to be explicit. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand, but I would hope that de-escalation could be tried before we wield the cudgels. I may be being naive here of course. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect, yes, I think you're being naive; de-escalation has been attempted with some of this crowd (both "sides" of this crowd) before, and hasn't come to anything. Had this situation come to my attention before I-82-I showed up, I would have proposed the same action. I hold you in great esteem as an administrator, but your continued refusal to answer my request for clarification does not reflect well on you. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I feel like I got a pretty clear answer below., I don't think AN is the right place to review this close. I have, as I said, thought ARCA to be the correct place. Filing out the appeal there brings me no joy and in fact I'm a bit sad doing so. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I still don't see an explicit response regarding the others, but if you're reading it as a closure that covers the actions of all editors, AN isn't very useful because Guy isn't required by policy to respect consensus. ARCA would be the only way to go. If he doesn't clarify to the contrary, and nobody else goes there in the meantime, I can file a request when I next have the time. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that this reply is more ambiguous than I would have preferred. But I do indeed read it as Guy saying that there was closed with no sanction against other editors. I am in the process of filing the ARCA paperwork now, so you'll probably have a notification diff waiting you soonish. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, I did not address the other editors. Deliberately. In case it was not obvious, I do not care if anyone wants to spin out the discussion of the others, I have a rapidly worsening C7 radiculopathy and I am now in too much pain to think about this in more detail. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry to hear about your pain. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that too. I see Barkeep has filed an ARCA request, and I will be commenting there, but I will note for the record here that the outcome I'm looking for is being able to implement the consensus of admins at AE, and nothing more. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with my colleagues above. I don't see your closure reflecting the consensus of admins -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Since I'm the fellow who recommended at the AE case, that the AE case be closed, after the I-28-I discovery. I say your closing of the case, was the correct move :) GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Cassianto doesn't attack you. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 00:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have the authority to either keep close or reopen the said-AE report. I can only give my opinion on JzG's closure. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * At some point, if you defend someone enough times, you become just as culpable as they are. Lev!vich 00:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is either a comment which needs to be stricken as a PA because it's directed at GoodDay but really about someone else or so meaningless because it's directed at JzG (I too am culpable of doing a close which needs to be rethought every now and again) that I don't know why you'd write it. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That comment was directed at GD and was about GD, not someone else, although it was a general statement that's equally applicable to all of us (and certainly critical, but not an attack?). Approving of this close is approving of the unaddressed behaviors remaining unaddressed. To use a hyperbolic analogy, if a police officer lets a criminal go enough times, at some point, the officer starts to share responsibility for the criminal's crimes. If the mayor repeatedly gives the officer a medal for letting the criminal go, then at some point, the mayor shares in that responsibility, too. What we're talking about here aren't "crimes" and admins aren't police officers, but in the wiki world, if admins (plural) decline to take action enough times over the same behavior, their inaction eventually becomes if not endorsement of that behavior, at least some responsibility for it. Other editors who repeatedly approve of the admins' (plural) inaction are also endorsing the underlying behavior. GD knows how much I respect him, a topic I've waxed eloquent about on multiple prior occasions, but that doesn't mean I always agree with him and on this occasion, I agree with Lep, that GD's opinions would change if he were the target of the complained-of behavior, and GD responded saying he doesn't have the authority to do anything about Lep's complaint. My reply is that GD's repeated approval of inaction over the same behavior is fairly seen as endorsing that behavior or sharing responsibility for it. I hope this long worded explanation clarified what I meant? Lev!vich 18:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It does. But you still have GoodDay down as supporting behavior, from unknown editors, which you analogized to crimes and behavior which GoodDay needs to, in your opinion, take responsibility for. Maybe not quite aspersions but awfully close. As seen below with Cassianto and you this guilt by association piece is not really productive. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The "unknown editors" are SchroCat and Cassianto and it's not "guilt by association", it's "guilt by repeated support". Lev!vich 20:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, if you get reported for anything to do with infoboxes usage? I would oppose your being blocked. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , true. So in the interests of balance, that makes you as culpable as those who you supported, like the sock who was described as "a productive editor".   Cassianto Talk  19:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're referring to I-82, they're not a "sock", they were blocked for disruptive logged out editing. Also I did not describe them as "a productive editor" and I'm not sure who you're quoting there, as I don't see anyone at else describing them that way, either. I think you're referring to, who called them a "constructive editor", and of course that was before I-82 was blocked for logged out editing. Also, my whole analogy/point is about criminals who are let go, whereas I-82 was caught and blocked. Also also, you don't see me complaining about I-82's block. You don't even see me complaining that SchroCat, who also edited while logged out to further the dispute after scrambling their password while their conduct was under review just like I-82, was not blocked. And that's because SchroCat's logged-out edits weren't as disruptive as I-82's. So no, in the interests of balance, I am not as culpable as I-82 for their disruptive logged-out editing, because I do not support it. However, in the interests of balance, I suppose I am culpable for SchroCat's logged-out editing, as I do support admin inaction in that case. Lev!vich 20:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , oh how bullying of me to call them a sock. I shall go and wash my mouth out with soap and water. Let me rephrase that: They "retired", then (deliberately) edited, knowing they were logged out, in order to behave as disruptively as possible in order to avoid scrutiny. There, I said it. Now, shall I report me for "incivility" or will you?  Cassianto Talk  20:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You go ahead. :-) Lev!vich 20:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , while I strongly disagree with you here, I respect you a great deal on the basis of our prior interactions and I have no desire to argue with you, at least not while I am in my present frame of mind. But I do hope you'll consider that your opinion might be different if you had been on the receiving end of the attacks that have been directed against myself and HAL. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 01:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I wish that nobody (around the infobox debates) be blocked. I have been through a 1-year ban from the project (2013-14) concerning other areas & so do know what can happen to any editor or editors, when emotions get too high on either side. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , diff please.  Cassianto Talk  19:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Whilst I'm indeed flattered that you find it difficult to talk about nothing else than me, you do seem to be a little obsessed about me, LEPRICAVARK. Might I suggest you find something else to do?  Go for a walk, take up chess, bake some cakes, paint some water colours of nearby beauty spots - anything!  There's more to life than me, you know. The birds are singing, the Sunday roast is cooking, and another bottle of red is airing in the study.   Must dash.   Cassianto Talk  19:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to say I was rather surprised by the abrupt close against consensus. While I suppose technically permissible there was an interesting passage in OIDs link above. Specifically the part about consensus. Are you sure you do not want to reconsider? Also it would not be a violation of WP:WHEEL. From what I can tell wheel would be the third admin action. Something like admin A blocks user X, admin B unblocks user X, and then if admin Bs action was reverted that would be wheel warring. Finally if you want to get technical the close only pertained to I-82-I, since nothing in the close either let off or sanctioned other users and the original AE report was only for I-82-I. So from what I can tell it was not dismissing an enforcement request against the others and this does not appear to apply. PackMecEng (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think JzG has been ambiguous in whether their close only pertained to I-82 or applied to everyone but ultimately I read as meaning it was closed with no sanction against anyone else. As such, as someone who is conservative in tool use and respectful of the decisions of colleagues, I would not add to the closing with any consensus against others (which, if it applied only to I-82 would not be against DS wording or scope). Ironically this means that JzG's attempt to de-escalate will ultimately lead to a new escalation as I would then feel no choice but to go to ARCA. I therefore remain hopeful that JzG will either reverse their close or make clear that other sysops are free to close non-I-82 elements of that AE thread. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I can see where you are coming from, I was just going by the official close at AE. Specifically I-82-I has been blocked for sockpuppetry due to logged-out editing while under scrutiny. Based on this and the discussion below, I-82-I is further subject to an indefinite topic ban from the subject of infoboxes. This applies to the person using the I-82-I account, and precludes WP:CLEANSTART. I do believe that point 4 from the case I linked would be a good guideline in that. Ultimately I think you are right though. PackMecEng (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is exactly the sense of my close. As always, anyone is free to request review at AN, or revert, but my rationale above goes to the heart of my views about this. We can and should get rid of obvious bad faith actors. We can and should help obvious good-faith actors to de-escalate their conflicts. We should try that first, and then, if that fails, we should look at sanctions - at least for things like infoboxes, where reasonable people can and do differ. Pushing conspiracy theories or fringe bullshit would be a different matter of course. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I approve of Guy's closure. We have already lost two editors. Can't we just move on and not lose any more? We are beating a dead horse at this point. ~ HAL  333  20:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed :) GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Bodo-Kachari peoples
is it possible to move Bodo-Kachari people (current) to Bodo-Kachari peoples as originally requested. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The Angel Dressed Demon
In Greek, it is called "Αγγελοφορεμενος Δαιμονας", search it on Google and you will see that it exists and it is not something I made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerolandteam385 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did. I am not saying you made it up, only that it does not appear to pass our standards of notability. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Close challenge
Please don't unilaterally reopen closed RfCs. As an admin, you should know to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. - MrX 🖋 11:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * MrX: Per WP:BADNAC, "inappropriate early closures may either be reopened by an uninvolved administrator." -- M h hossein   talk 12:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That pertains to deletion discussions, requires an eplanation, and requires that the NAC actually be bad. Please read the linked material. - MrX 🖋 12:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , the close was challenged at the admin board, and is clearly a WP:BADNAC. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is clearly not and the close challenge is in process. You can't short circuit consensus like that. I have to be honest, I'm concerned about your suitability to continue holding adminship. This is not the first time that you have went way out of bounds concerning discussion close. - MrX 🖋 12:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , As an uninvolved administrator, and taking note of the uninvolved administrator, I reverted your non-admin close of a contentious RfC, which gave the appearance of being a supervote. We're done here. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that you would edit war over this and use such poor judgement to circumvent consensus. This is a pattern and I believe it's become intolerable. I will see you at Arbcom.- MrX 🖋 12:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , as an uninvolved admin, I reverted your contentious non-admin close. That's not "circumventing consensus", that's completely normal. As the non-admin who performed that close, you reverted me. That was edit warring. If you want to take it further, WP:AN is third on the left down the hall, or you can wait for an uninvolved admin to close it. Who knows, they might even agree with you. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,- MrX 🖋 15:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Canopy Express
If the canopy express article doesn't have enough notability, I think it should be merged with the panel truck article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerolandteam385 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , redirected, unless there is substantial coverage. There's nothing there to merge which is sourced to anything that meets our WP:RS guidelines right now. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Putting oneself in another's shoes
If I imagine myself having closed around 100 previous discussions, and took the time to make a good faith effort to close a difficult one that had languished for 2.5 months, and after only two people complained about it (with another agreeing with the close), it got reopened with a simple "clearly a BADNAC" - which literally means "reverted because you are not an admin" - I'd be pissed off too. I'm not talking policy, or guideline, or standard practice (which you now agree is unclear), just simple common courtesy. You say on his talk page you like and respect MrX, but I imagine it didn't feel like it. Now I wouldn't take you to ArbCom about it, and I wouldn't have reverted you, and (for me) it isn't a reason to quit, but I can see how the disrespect that they felt (to that person, and to non-admins in general) could be a straw that broke the camel's back for someone. And some of the comments at the RFAR (which I don't hold you responsible for) can briefly be summarized as "non-admins can fuck right off". I value both of you highly, for different reasons. This is sad and painful to me. But you appear to be genuinely puzzled, and I think it's because you don't feel you were disrespectful, and it might be useful to know that someone who is not a knee-jerk "admins are scum" person thinks that in their position, I'd feel pretty seriously disrespected too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, I think you are right. I did not dig deep enough into the history, and I really did not expect MrX to climb the Reichstag because i have never thought of him as that type. I owe him an apology. I hope email is still enabled. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a thought, you might want to reinstate the close of the RFC or at least reopen the AN close challenge you also closed with just citing to BADNAC. 194.40.145.17 (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)