User talk:JzG

Discretionary sanctions

RSN

Background: Comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Please read them before commenting here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstood what I said; regardless, RSN is not the place to discuss politics. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It's actually the very best place to discuss your dependence on, and promotion of, unreliable sources and counterfactual narratives based on them.

The convergence of your lack of ability to vet RS (leading to advocacy of fringe POV and questionable competence regarding sourcing) and the AmPol2 sanctions on your case makes this a pressing matter which must be solved, and RS/N is the best place to deal with it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Uh oh - my comments must be effective. Well, sorry, but no, RSN is not the best place to discuss politics, and neither is JzG's TP. Your POV is not going to change anything in the political arena. The investigations are ongoing whether we like it or not - and with the conclusion of each investigation, positions are changing - and that's why we have WP:RECENTISM. It is not my fault. I am here to build an encyclopedia and get the article right, even though I have not even attempted to edit any of the articles. I am terrified to do so because I fear retaliation by editors like you, and what you just did to me. I am not here to push a political agenda but you apparently are, and have gotten all emotional about it. Hey - I'm happy living on Bonaire most of the year, which is a long way from US politics. If you want to discuss politics in person, it won't be with me, so stop bullying. I have always been compliant with NPOV, though a few of my detractors may disagree - but oh well, facts are facts. I'm simply repeating what RS say - academia even admits there's a bias problem with msm -Reuters & Oxford - read it. I cited other academic sources at RS/N that say pretty much the same thing. We should be more concerned that your bias is bleeding into our articles because you actually edit them. You called the reporting in the the NYTimes "sloppy" and refused to accept the material at the Trump article. Why can you make such a determination, and no one else can be critical or cautious of RS without you attacking them? You want to deprecate RS that consensus accepted many times over as generally reliable. So who is really attacking RS? I will not respond any further to this nonsense. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No, they are not "effective", they are merely profoundly worrying. You have a trusted right (OTRS), I think? And yet you are demonstrating that you live in a reality-disconnected source bubble. That means when you help people who email the Foundation, I can't be certain your reply will be informed by reality, but instead it might be informed by Fox News. And no you absolutely have not always adhered to NPOV. I took me many months to stop you pushing fringe bullshit at G. Edward Griffin, for example. Guy (help!) 21:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Drop the stick, Guy. I will not tolerate your bullying and unkindness toward me. I'm done here. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Bullying? Hardly. You are very civilly being confronted with evidence of your incompetence to vet sources, especially in the AP2 area, and instead of showing some evidence that you believe what RS say, you double down by engaging in forbidden advocacy of fringe POV. That's a blockable offense. I don't see any other resolution to your personally systemic problem than the unpleasant enforcement of a topic ban from the AP2 area. Any admin can do it without further process. I think we've seen enough evidence.

You must not be allowed to edit or discuss these topics, especially the latter, since that is where your presence is a time sink that creates the most disruption and confusion (mostly to inexperienced and uninformed editors and readers). We can't have editors running around who defy our RS and fringe advocacy policies. It would also prevent participation in AfDs and other procedures when the topics are related to AP2. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, You're on dangerous ground. WP:CRYBULLYING isn't anything like an excuse. All I have done is point out that you are seriously out of line with both reality and Wikipedia policy. Guy (help!) 22:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

OTRS rights? Really?? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, support for the Republican party view of things is not fringe. My own opinion, is that those who care greatly about it should not edit in this field, and that applies to those on both sides. But I'm not about to enforce my own opinion with blocks. What I personally think about the RW issue is & should be irrelevant but it does not seem to be the case for those discussing it here. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not fringe. But a Republican talking point that is objectively false is still objectively false. Even when it has the full force of the Presidency and the Department of Justice behind it. I have no idea how the US is going to heal itself from this situation - the courts have been the bulwark to date, but they are being packed with hard right activists resulting in insanity like the Rao dissent. Read Atsme's statements on RSN: they are the Wikipedia equivalent of outcome-based judicial activism. In context her argument is that reality-based sources do not report X as fact, conservative sources do, therefore we have to allow conservative sources as RS for the truth of X, even though X is not actually true. The closest we've come previously is attempts to get intelligent design or homeopathy reflected as fact. Guy (help!) 07:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

With regard to "fringe", I beg to differ. In the traditional sense, "fringe" refers to a minority position, and that is still the case with Trump and his supporters.

In the context of Wikipedia, we need to define "fringe" in relation to an editor's attitude toward our RS guideline, not numbers and polls, as I describe here:

In these post-truth Trumpian political times, "fringe editors" (read the ref) often have a strong Trump bias and point of view because they adopt Trump's open animosity toward RS, and believe his untruths and the fake news stories circulated in his support and attacking those he does not like, especially Obama and Clinton.

These editors consider the RS we use to be fake news. Their bias and point of view are directly opposed to our RS guideline. Because these editors are so at odds with RS, which are the basis of all editing here, they should be monitored carefully. They cannot be trusted. They often create problems and disruption because they imbibe these unreliable sources. Note that not all Trump voters are like this, but the hardcore supporters are, and some of them edit here. Sustained disagreement with RS is a fringe position here.

For our purposes here, "fringe" has nothing to do with numbers and polls (99% of the populace and sources can be wrong), but to what RS say, even if the RS are only 1% of all sources out there.

Some could be under the mistaken impression that the above is just some form of political commentary, but they miss the point. Before Trump this was not a serious problem, but Trump calls all RS "fake news". This has changed everything. Now, political positions strongly affect how editors view RS, and that affects their editing and commentary, so this intersection of an editor's political POV and Wikipedia must not be ignored when it affects their editing and discussions. They must not be allowed to engage in forbidden advocacy of fringe positions here. This is where topic bans are necessary.

At Wikipedia, one cannot support RS and Trump at the same time because, in the immortal words of MPants, "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC) -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

What DGG said. And it would probably be a good idea to dial down the rhetoric a bit on "both sides" as well. Referring to an investigation as an "inquisition" and Mitch McConnell as "Moscow Mitch" isn't helpful in what's supposed to be a collaborative project. ~Awilley (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, has Mitch agreed to hear the three election security bills now, then? Guy (help!) 07:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just a note that FAC needs seasoned reviewers to vet articles for promotion to featured level. Peer Review also needs help from long time contributors, or even short timers that want to truly make a difference.--MONGO (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Ramesh Nagaraj Rao

Did you perhaps mean to fully protect this article? The semi-protection you applied won't have any effect on any of the editors who have made changes to the article over the month of October... Just figured I'd message you and give you a heads up. :-) Let me know what your thoughts are (ping me in your response here so that I'm notified); I think you might want to consider modifying the protection level you applied here. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, D'oh. I are idiot. Thanks. Guy (help!) 07:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

HA! No problem. I got your back! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

check my edit please

I may have altered some of your contributions. Could you check if the refs and intent are still correct? X1\ (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your work

You deserve this. Example. X1\ (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi. I noticed at the "Counter narrative" AfD, it seems you have responded to almost every delete vote or maybe every delete vote. I just want to let you know this might be overdoing it. There is a word for this behavior, but I can't think of it. Respectfully, it is something akin to dropping the stick. And I know it is easy to get caught up and advocate against those pesky delete votes. I've done it myself in the distant past. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON is the word you're looking for, I think. ~Awilley (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was curious and took a look, but it doesn't really look like true bludgeoning to me since various points are being addressed or asked about that are part of legitimate AfD discussion (i.e., conversation, not just a single reply to each !vote). It's definitely generating more discussion than a normal AfD obviously, but sometimes it's easier to weight consensus when those mini-discussions break out. I stay out of editing politics topics generally, but as an uninvolved, I see plenty of other conversation where JzG isn't commenting too, so I don't see any bludgeoning problems at least as of this comment. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. When someone makes a claim that appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the article's subject, or repudiates the existence of a large and growing number of sources specifically about the subject, that merits a reply. Guy (help!) 09:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll admit there is a fine line for what is bludgeoning sometimes, but when I do see it, I'd be pretty prone to discounting such comments if I was closing a discussion. I don't see anything that stands out as bludgeoning there by anyone, in part because your comments seem to be addressing slightly different points each time. Not knowing the depth and nuance of what's going on there and still picking up those differences hopefully means something. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, Thank you. I caused at least some of the problem myself, the original title was bad, I could not think of a better one, but as I read more sources the term "counter-narrative" did begin to stand out. Some of the delete !votes read as thinly-veiled WP:IDONTLIKEIT, something I hope is not actually the case. There has also been some thoughtful input from people on both sides, some of which is already reflected in the article by now.

Inevitably when you have a topic like this, where reality-based and hyper-partisan sources have a totally different view of the world, and where the hyper-partisan sources are contradicted in part or in whole by documentary evidence (e.g. the released redacted FISA applications, which are entirely open about the origins of Steele's report) then you have to conclude that the hyper-partisan sources are engaged in deliberate propaganda. And that is what the reality-based sources say is going on here.

In Wikipedia terms we have a huge problem if people are starting to equate mainstream with partisan left, and using that as a basis on which to assert false balance. I see some evidence of that in this debate. Reality based sources look partisan left because any reality-based commentary on the Russia investigation and its findings runs directly counter to the narrative put out by the partisan right. Neutrality does not lie halfway between the two. That's like the idiots who claim that Jenny McCarthy is not categorically because she only claims that *some* vaccines cause autism whereas the evidence fails to establish a link between any vaccine and autism, which leaves room for the possibility that vaccines might reduce autism in 99% of the population and cause it in 1%.

William of Ockham had words to say on that kind of reasoning. Guy (help!) 18:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI report

Here, Guy. Just FYI; I imagine it will be closed soonish. ——SerialNumber54129 12:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, thanks. This is becoming distinctly tedious. Guy (help!) 15:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For the giggles you gave me via your "fantasies of a thug". Keep them coming. DBigXrayᗙ 09:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Acknowledged

OK, that was quite expected outcome of it. --J. Sketter (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

J. Sketter, Yes, I guess so. I hope you find some other area where there will be less drama. Guy (help!) 15:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Conduct

It worries me tremendously when you excoriate so many with the press of a publish button. You paint a broad brush with your venom. We go way back JzG...you were tremendous in your defense of me when I was dealing with those 9/11 truthers. I concur that Trump is, well, atypical...and he is certainly not my idea of ideal president, but the truth is many voted against Hillary and no one I know was in love with either candidate last election. You're better than this man...you can get the same point across with a lot less venom! I mean, I didn't really like Obama or Hillary but I actually supported after my review of the Hillary article to FA.--MONGO (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

MONGO, Thank you for coming here. I acknowledged that I had engaged in hasty generalisation, and that this was lazy. I don't think we have yet reached mutual understanding on why I find Trump to be so terrifying, from my chair over here on the other side of the Atlantic. I don't know if you're interested in discussing that here or privately. And yes it is very disturbing that people who have, until now, had nothing but respect for each other, are now suspicious of each other's motives. We live in a sad world.

I personally think that 2016 was quite possibly the worst year for the world since the end of World War II. A small group of extremely well-funded extremists discovered a way to use a newly pervasive form of communication to turn entire populations on themselves. The beneficiaries of this were people like Vladimir Putin, a man who is quite prepared to murder his critics. What we need is strong and principled leaders. What we got is pretty much the exact opposite.

But I would very much like to understand the 40%. I know there are lots of factors in play, and yes, I have more than once fallen prey to excessively simplistic views of this complex issue. Guy (help!) 16:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL...43-44 percent...maybe lower now...it fluctuates depending on how many NRA members are called by the pollsters? Nevertheless, its higher for the time frame than Obama was at the similar point in his Presidency...[1]. The sky is NOT falling JzG, nor do I agree with your assessments. For every argument I can put up that is based on sound reasoning and well referenced, I am confident that you can find an equally sound argument to contradict that. Trump definitely might appear like an out of control loose cannon, his fingers an arms reach away from those pesky red buttons, but I consider him no more a threat to world stability than Obama, and much less so than the latest Bush...who invaded Iraq under the flimsiest of reasoning...something Trump has never done. Nor has Trump given billions back to a country as unpredictable as Iran, as Obama did. Honestly, my take is everyone thought Hillary Clinton was going to win...all the polls said so and I think this upset victory bewildered so many that they all look for some explanation, and no, I don't think some Russian Twitter or Facebook trolls managed to sway the electorate. I truly think the US was tired of business as usual and deliberately voted against Clinton not because they liked Trump, but because they disliked her more...or distrusted her more. I believe here from ground zero, the explanation is very simple...Trump happened to win by the narrowest of margins in those states he needed to secure the electoral college votes needed to win. What the Democrats need to present should they want to win again are moderate, sensible candidates that will sway the middle a bit left again. I do not see any Kennedy's or even Bill Clintons in the latest batch of democratic hopefuls. Finally...you do realize that Trump is an attention whore, right? I mean, he craves it...and he relishes pissing people off. That may be as un-Presidential as any of his predecessors, but its just his style. His braggadocio and sometimes preposterous claims and boasts (best economy ever, the ISIL leader was crying and whimpering, etc.) can be called lies if those that loathe him want to call it that, but I see it as what it is, figurative speech.--MONGO (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No, you’re right, he didn’t attempt to bring Iran back into the community of nations. Instead, he impulsively blew up an international agreement, pointlessly shattered a global consensus about Iran’s nuclear program, and drove Iran into the arms of China, which is now buying billions of dollars worth of Iranian oil. I fail to see how creating a new Chinese sphere of influence in Iran is an “improvement.” NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Obama trusting the Iranians to uphold their end of the agreement was just as stupid as Neville Chamberlain trusting Hitler. [2][3].--MONGO (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

MONGO, except that, according to all the international observers, they actually did. Nor was it just Obama. But yes, theocrats are inherently untrustworthy. There are no atheist suicide bombers. Guy (help!) 22:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

MONGO, 40.6% today. [4]. Two out of every five Americans, pretty much steadily from the point at which he arrived in the White House, approve of him. The needle doesn't move when he announces massive deregulation, trillion dollar tax cuts for the rich, tries to take away healthcare from millions of Americans, tries to shake down a major ally, trades insults with an insane dictator with nuclear warheads, even when he seriously proposes hosting the G7 at his bedbug-infested failing resort.

I find it really hard to conclude anything other than that the majority of those supporters either don't know what he's doing (plausible: Fox isn't big on the reality of the Trump presidency) or simply don't care, and will vote for anyone who wears a red tie. I'd be fascinated to see what proportion of those people would choose, if offered a choice, Trump over, say, Graham or Paul or Romney or even a non-politician like Tillerson.

In respect of Hillary being expected to win, I think we know why that happened. The American people like to change parties in power, which was a headwind from the outset; Hillary came with a lot of baggage; she lacks the obvious empathy of a Joe Biden or the fire of a Bernie Sanders. Trump was a political unknown, he plays a successful businessman on TV, and he's a belligerent white male with a platform stuffed with bigotry, which plays well with a certain demographic. Hillary was, in short, pretty much the only candidate Trump could beat, and Trump blew enough dog whistles that he stood at least a chance of beating her.

And then there was Comey's ridiculously clumsy handling of the email inquiry PR, a sprinkling of misogyny, and the Russian influence campaign (itself benefiting from private data provided by Manafort and Facebook data sets stolen by Cambridge Analytica). We know that particular combination works because they test-ran it on Brexit. Guy (help!) 23:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Well...what can I say. Hillary was the other choice and she lost. She was heavily favored to win and she lost. She lost to a guy that had never served in the Military, had demonstrable evidence that he was at best a womanizer and at worst a rapist, had highly questionable business dealings and was seen by many as a racist...and she still lost. Guess that 60 million voters as you so sneeringly insult must be insane or bigots or have other shared questionable traits that they share with Trump...or else of course it's all the sinister doings of Fox News?--MONGO (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

MONGO, you keep writing that Hillary "lost". Yes, she lost the election because of a technicality called the Electoral College, but she won the actual human votes by a large margin. The pollsters predicted she'd win that vote, and she did. The people of America wanted Hillary, not Trump, and Trump has had to live in an environment where he is a minority president who is not wanted. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

A Technicality? I guess you're also a bad statistician too? Electors are not humans? Since when? Folks...welcome to the twilight zone!--MONGO (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

MONGO, Electors are supposed to be human. The system now demands they behave like robots. Guy (help!) 09:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

MONGO, You know what the electoral college was designed to do, yes? I mean, yes, it was designed to protect slavery, but if you read the Federalist papers and the writings of the founders one of tis purposes was to stop a popular demagogue from being President. The idea of all the electors in a state voting for the candidate that won a majority in the state, winner take all, did not evolve until later.

Trump is pretty much what the EC was designed to prevent.

And the EC went to Trump because of social media campaigns targeted with surgical precision and run by both Russia and the Trump campaign using stolen data. Guy (help!) 09:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Long ago I met Trump. I was sitting alone at a table in the Oak Bar of his Plaza Hotel with no drink. He sneered at me (who is this guy hogging my table and not ordering a drink). I sneered back. Trump ducked out into the next room where he was conspicuously dining with ten models. Jehochman ^Talk 03:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  Next time get a date! I met Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton. Reagan was surprisingly slight.--MONGO (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been to a Buckingham Palace garden party. Does that count? Guy (help!) 08:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I once saw a full Chinese Ambassador floor a journalist. At the British Ambassadors Garden Party. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

About your closing of my discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Why_not_a_criterion_for_articles_with_zero_verified_content?

You closed my discussion (right as I was in the process of responding to User:Kusma and User:DESiegel, neither of whom seem to consider me to behave in any kind of trollish manner, given how they politely and civilly responded to me [and you are not to "feed" trolls], rather than take/suggest any action against me), based on the fact that I was blocked as a troll.
What possible evidence is there, of my being a troll?
Where is this evidence? What have I said or done, to indicate this? I asked the admin who blocked me (who, in accordance with WP:ADMINACCT must reply), but he did not respond, but instead blocked me from even editing my own talk page. Your actions is nothing more than a perpetuation, and support of, his/her abuse of power.--85.228.52.168 (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)