User talk:SB Johnny

Archive 1 (up to December, 2006) archive #2 archive #3 archive #4 (March '08-Feb '09) archive #5 (March '09-May '09)

You're invited...

In the afternoon, we will hold a session at Drexel dedicated to discussing Wikimedia Pennsylvania activity and cooperation with the regional Wikimedia New York City chapter.

Are events like a Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia in our future?

In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

Johnny, as the other "involved" admin in the hurlyburly surrounding Collect, I hope you will take a look at this discussion I've been conducting at Gwen's talk. Feel free to comment on my own behavior if you feel it's warranted, but please especially make a point of parsing the original policy debate which I had with Collect, and making a definitive pronouncement based on your own understanding of policy. Not to be pushy about it, but I think the relevant policy language is quite unambiguous and that there is a single, correct interpretation of it – if you disagree, I would be very interested to hear a cogent explanation why, which has so far been lacking. Also, feel free to post the comment here or on my talk page, if you don't want to appear that you are "stepping into the fray". Thanks very much. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm *really* busy in real life, and most of my wiki-time is already spoken for on commons and wikibooks. As far as the BLP policy being unambiguous, you might be right or you might be wrong (sorry, but a lack of time definitely puts that in my tl;dr category right now). Only advice I can give you is to make an honest effort at understanding why he (and she?) see it differently. I know that's not always easy when something seems just plain obvious to you, but it's the only way to effectively learn, teach, or compromise. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell, Collect was arguing that BLP policy prohibits conjectural statements in BLPs. However, it doesn't appear that this is true. The text he referenced to support his claim reads as follows:

• Remove any contentious material about living persons ... that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)

However, this means just what it says: don't interpret sources conjecturally. It doesn't say: don't use any conjecture from any source – but this is what Collect was arguing. Gwen refuses to explicitly say that this is objectively incorrect – yet it is. It's not that he/she disagrees with me, just that he/she seems unwilling to directly contradict Collect, for whatever reason, and it's my feeling that Collect is going to go on feeling infallible and omniscient (with all the attendant behavioral problems) until someone with Admin stature definitively tells him he is wrong on some specific policy issue. Such a definitive statement on some specific policy issue is all I seek. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I'm really busy so I'm not going to wade in. It's not Gwen's (or any admin's) job to settle content disputes. Try bringing it up on WP:BLP/N if you need more input. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FC should note 'WP is not a crystal bal" was raised. And also that each time I was more than ready to see what outside editors felt (actually it is that aspect which seemed most ignored when folks complained -- that I asked for other outside opinions each time). Meanwhile -- don't you think it is time to stop beating dead horses? Picking at your sores does not make anything heal. Collect (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop goading people, Collect. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't let that go without a response. Collect made reference to WP:Crystal only after his argument based on WP:BLP had been defeated; he did not acknowledge that his argument per WP:BLP had been defeated, but kept on rudely arguing; and WP:Crystal was equally inapplicable to the matter at hand. Multiple inapplicable policies are no substitute for a single applicable one. Collect, if you really wish to resume this policy debate, if you think we will touch new ground, we should do so on my talk page rather than here. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That you "can't let that go without a response" is telling. At least to me. Unless there's a brand spanking new situation involving Collect and possibly requiring administrative attention, I'd suggest you leave him be. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What it should be telling you is that Collect is highly skilled at pushing people's buttons for the sake of provoking a negative response – as dozens have complained. If you're unwilling to read the original exchange and render a substantive opinion, that's fine, but I won't allow Collect to pretend to you, unchallenged, that his position was well-reasoned or grounded in policy; it was not. Going forward, it's very important for Collect to understand that he can be wrong and has been wrong on substantive policy issues, not just etiquette and the like. I suppose you are right that BLP/N is where I need to go for a definitive pronouncement on this subject. I think it was worth a try, however, to ask you and Gwen to have a say. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor:Fact_checker is not a lone wolf crying in the night. In a way he has become a spokeperson for many editors that have had uncomfortable dealings with Collect. He is right on target with his call for some administrator to make it clear to Collect that he is not infallible...that his interpretation of WP:BLP is skewed. I have every intention of moving past any dealings with Collect. (I suggest that Editor:Fact_checker do the same). I have every respect for Admin:Gale and her gentle ways of relating to Collect. But I don't think I am out of line if I question their relationship and whether or not she should be the final arbiter. Just recently, Collect commented, for the first time ever, on a AfD of an article written by my mentor, Editor:Alastair Haines. He has every right to be there but his appearance moments after my edit is dubious to say the least. I could have claimed stalking but I chose to let it pass. Whats the point? But it is one more example of Collects demeanor and his way of being. He is a provacature...and he is very good at it. Thank you for at least providing a sounding board for the remnants for my/our "negative-Collectivism". It is starting to fade. Soon he will be a fading image in my rearview mirror.--Buster7 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fellas, I told you: I'm busy. Read my userpage maybe and imagine why a farmer/horticulturist might be busy in June, eh? If there's a problem developing now and you want me to have a look, I'll try to do so. I am not interested in reviewing 1,000 diffs spanning months and months.

Sorry to get a bit snappy on you, but I've tried to tell you that I really can't take this on right now. Please just try to ignore you history with the guy. If he's doing something currently and you think Gwen isn't taking it seriously, then ask me to look. (Though tbh, Gwen uses her block button a lot more than I do!) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Best of Luck with your crops. One day, in the future, let us have a discussion about "Weeds and how to control them"....:-)...--Buster7 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

My notes (well, some of them) are here: b:Organic Horticulture in the Mid-Atlantic :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

All right Johnny, but it's a little frustrating that you've already expended more time and energy, explaining why you refuse to make a quick statement on policy, than you would have expended simply by making the statement. I will leave you alone, though.

Here's to your days ending around 2pm, and your farmer tan being extremely noticeable. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Another car in the train wreck

Wow; that was useful. :P But just another small coach added to a massive, miles-long trainwreck, in the long view. MastCell ^Talk 01:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a list of the names of the "traincars" in this trainwreck, IOW, what types of policies are being violated, and which types of disruptive behaviors are being exhibited? I'm sure the two of you can come up with a few good ones ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Which two? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You and MastCell. You guys are smart and have a lot more experience than I do. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

By arguing the case on the noticeboard pages, outside input has been discouraged. That's unfortunate. Some people have a way of getting under one's skin, but I really think that a little restraint would go a long way here. I think that the dynamics of the situation will be manifestly clear to any independent person reviewing the situation, so there's no need to belabor them. MastCell ^Talk 08:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I discouraged discussion? Still a bit at sea here. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 08:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No, no - I think it was reasonable on your part to post it to the noticeboard. I didn't mean to criticize your action. The problem is that the people directly involved in the dispute simply transferred their argument to WP:BLP/N. Seeing a lengthy thread of back-and-forth bickering tends to discourage outside input - that's what I was getting at. In an ideal world, the involved parties would have restrained themselves, and some genuine outside input would have been solicited. It hasn't worked out that way, though I guess it could still perk up.

Well, it defused the back-and-forth about taking it to BLPN, and probably got a few more (sane, quiet) folks watchlisting. That's all I wanted to do. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As a separate matter, I'm a bit concerned about the assertion that Avathaar is no longer bound by anything other than "voluntary" restrictions. I don't think it pays to get too caught up in the formalities: there was obvious consensus supporting only limited participation on User talk:Avathaar with strict (and theoretically impartial) supervision. Anything more was explicitly not supported by consensus at the time, and any proposal to broaden the range of Avathaar's participation should, at a minimum, involve some means of gauging current consensus before going forward. MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the "voluntary" thing is about... apparently they had some email discussions that resulted in Avathaar's posting of the "conditions" on his user and user talk pages. There wasn't any strong consensus one way or another on AN, so as far as I'm concerned he's only bound to whatever agreement he made with JWS, so JWS shouldn't be telling other people to "let him edit" somewhere... he went against an informal consensus in order to mentor, and he's not bound by any formal consensus until a formal consensus is reached. It's a rather complicated situation because you and others have concerns about the boundaries between mentor and advocate, and honestly I don't know what I would do in his situation (other than not getting into it). Formalities are important sometimes, especially when both sides are convinced that they're right and the other is wrong. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Avathaar shouldn't be allowed to edit outside his talk page without an RfC/U. Keep in mind that Dr.J. isn't even unblocked! He's a multiple indef banned user who very deceptively evaded his blocks many times using socks and lied about it. That JWS would stick out his neck to allow him to create an account without community approval is pretty telling. Therefore both of their necks are on the block and if Avathaar screws up and gets banned, then it should (at the very least, if not more) cost JWS his adminship (it will be brought up for review) for exercising such poor judgment in allowing the creation of the account without community approval. The fact that he's been engaging in some dubious actions toward other editors during this "mentorship" is an extenuating circumstance that would make losing his adminship a cheap way out.

If he wants to save face, he needs to start behaving in a radically different manner toward other editors (no more IDIDNTHEARTHAT tactics) and develop his mentoring skills into a bit more of a "tough love" approach. He needs to start dealing with any questionable comments by Avathaar immediately, with firm cautionary advice, and not with sympathy or what amounts to a form of meatpuppetry for an indef banned editor who is actually here and skating on thin ice. Unfortunately for him, I AGF and state that I don't believe he can do otherwise than he's doing. He just doesn't understand the issues well enough. He really thinks he's doing the right thing, when instead his actions in allowing Dr.J. back have only created a lot of disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your quick attentions to this conversation. I've found in the past that using the edit summary for administrative actions needed usually works without having to ping an administrator at pages like this. Usually an active user's talk page has an administrator or two watching. In the past when I pinged an administrator I either had a long delay because the administrator was busy or no response for the same reasons. I really hate going to ANI for this kind of thing too for the obvious reasons. Anyways, I want to thank you for your quick response and action to the sock. I didn't realize you were an administrator, so I will keep you in mind the next time. :) Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

the "agreement" says that the community lifts the editing restriction

"it's really up to you whether or not Avathaar can edit outside his user page" <-- I think this is what is relevant: "I will only edit my own user pages until the Wikipedia community lifts this editing restriction". I guess there would have to be some kind of request for comment which would serve as a way for the Wikipedia community to lift the editing restriction. Avathaar has been making some reasonable suggestions for improving Wikipedia. That's all I care about. --JWSchmidt (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite correct. The statement which you formulated and which he agreed to use does bind him to a community decision. Avathaar made a promise and an RfC/U would be necessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You made a promise about what? Anyway, if that's what needs to be done, then do it. Regardless, it's still in JWS's court to start the RFCU, rather than demanding actions by other editors. Or just stop making the demands. Personally I'm starting to think it would be better for all involved if Avathaar could edit the talk page. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied here.--SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

In regards to a recent statement you said somewhere else about a certain issue with a British gallery - I take offense that they would dare such a move. Many people like myself put up images that we have pulled from books that either had access to the portrait before they ever owned it or had rights to it way before the gallery even though of owning it. For them to then claim retroactive copyright is absolutely disgusting. Very few of what they have wasn't already copied and documented before they get it. This is the equivalent of marrying a whore and being upset that she isn't a virgin. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout sounds like a great idea for getting back to the basics of why we are all here. Please help spread the word! --mikeu ^talk 11:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your thoughts

I know this is old news, so consider this request minor. Per [1], I'm just wondering about this [2], since it's at least the third time I've been on the receiving end of an elliptical accusation of sockpuppetry. (Exactly what is "unusual?") As usual, the offending party has stopped short of a full-blown accusation. SluggoOne (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

NOTE: The date and time of this meetup has been changed to accommodate other regional activities.

The purpose of this meeting is to finalize our plans for the Wiki Takes Philadelphia event. We'll discuss logistics, establish jobs, and coordinate with participating groups.

The floor will also be open to discussing other projects relating to the Wiki and Free Culture movement.

Afterward at around 5pm, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice on the H-word

Hi Johnny, I wanted to pick your brains for some talk page advice (you sent me some welcome info a few weeks back — thanks for that). I feel that I'm butting up against a brick wall on the homeopathy pages. It's odd because I'm not a homeopath nor am I affiliated with homeopathy in any way, but I came across the article doing some research for my partner, and was utterly shocked (and quite annoyed) at the level of anti-homeopathy bias in that article. Really, if it had been more sincere and NPOV, I would have just walked on by having acquired the information I was seeking. But the level of bias was (and still is) so blatantly obvious that I couldn't refrain from getting involved in some way.

Certain editors have made any genuine, thoughtful, and constructive discussion of improvement nigh impossible. The responses I receive to what I genuinely consider good reasons and sound arguments is utterly baffling, and often quite insulting. It has the quality of angry children using language (poorly) in an attempt to justify some ill-conceived desire that will be satisfied at all cost. The logic and reasons are secondary (and even tertiary) and only serve in the defense of getting what one wants. I enjoin you to have a read of some recent activity on these pages, it's actually quite comical in an absurd sort of way. Is there anything that can be done about this? Or are we inexorably fated to the winds of blatantly bitter bias among the anti-homeopathy quorum? Dbrisinda (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't all that uncommon for articles that deal with subjects many consider to be pseudoscience. Really the only thing to be done is to maintain a cool head and keep trying. If you want to try to "redo" the article to show a version of it that you consider more NPOV, you might try just copying it to your userspace (like User:Dbrisinda/Homeopathy rewrite), work on cleaning it up for a while, and then when you're ready bring it up on the homeopathy talk page for review and comparison. If nothing else, it gives you some space to work and make major changes without worrying about the probation restrictions and/or being reverted. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 08:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Johnny. I very much like your suggestion of creating a duplicate article in user space that cleans up some of the bias. Then, perhaps, at some point in the (distant?) future, with a less biased core of editors for this topic, I may be able to offer it as a suggestion for improvement. Thanks again. Dbrisinda (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: en.wv

Great. Thanks much for the notice! ← George ^[talk] 10:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Participation in Wikipedia Research

SB Johnny,

Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case.

In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

CMUResearcher (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Really?

[3] and [4]. Notice a similarity? Compare those with the Persian Empire page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's 2 ways to look at that:

1. It could be that this is an evil cabal following an agenda to censor certain types of information. In that case, you're disrupting that agenda and they're ganging up on you.
2. It could be that they see you as a disruptive editor in general, and so when it comes to you their agenda is to simply prevent a disruptive user from causing problems.

The first possibility entails a rather well-organized cabal-like structure. The second self organizes as people become concerned and want to do something about it (for example, you sometimes see KC and/or me being part of that cabal, while other times you don't).

The second possibility seems more likely to me. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

SB Johnny, those are two links. I can provide others where you can see them doing the same to others. I can also show you where they had no involvement in an issue yet decided to do that anyway. This came up during Itsmejudith's RfA. Notice the time dates. These aren't back to back incidents. The rest of my section on that page has far more information on it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

SB Johnny, pardon me for butting in on your talk page. But what you said right here is very, very well put. Ottava, Occam's Razor is a useful implement, and should suggest to you that you give "No. 2" a closer look. I find it astonishing that you simply cannot see how your own behavior is what is bringing the bright lights on you, and those lights are not those of an award show. Antandrus (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Antandrus, it is rather clear both in the admin policy, the blocking policy, and many ArbCom rulings that Conflict of Interest applies to admin and that a non-objective admin and involved admin are not to use their powers. And my own behavior? Was my own behavior Folantin edit warring against Wizardman? Oh was my own behavior when you pulled these stunts against other people? The fact that you keep stalking every edit and responding whereever you can shows that you are a bully. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Or he could be a token of "possibility 2", looking to see where you might be opening new fronts. I don't stalk your contribs, so don't know all the background on how you managed to get so many people angry at you, but it's pretty clear that there are a number of people who think you're a problem. I'm just not sure there's much evidence for a concerted effort underway. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So many people angry at me? SB Johnny, even two people that hate me stood up and said that the block Antandrus convinced Gwen Gale to make was horribly wrong and Antandrus still tried to encourage more. People who are looking at this objectively can see the abuse Antandrus is pushing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not supportive of that block either. But I don't think the block was the result of a conspiracy... just incredibly bad judgement. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So, Gwen Gale's long time close friendship with Antandrus, Gwen Gale admitting at ArbCom at receiving emails about me, and Antandrus being the only person who supported the block doesn't show just a little problem about it all? I never said anything about a "conspiracy". They are very open about being friends and defending their friends. The point of the matter is that friendship does not trump consensus, and friendship is not an excuse to edit war, harass on multiple talk pages, etc., especially when these people are admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I just can't see this going the way you hope it will, and I suspect you will not like what comes out of it. I know backing down isn't necessarily your forté, but that's kinda the problem. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, all we are trying to do is get you to behave civilly, collegially, and respectfully to your fellow editors. That's really all it is. You could stop this, and end hundreds of hours of wasteful and pointless drama, right now, by changing your approach, stating you intend to do so, and re-committing yourself to your own "philosophy" page that was part of the mentoring arrangement that saved you from a community ban last year. Stop threatening other editors when they disagree with you. Honestly, just stop it. That would solve the problem. I've tried talking to you reasonably and civilly, because that's how I prefer to interact with people; since it's not working, I'll probably just stop trying, and let the arbitration case run its course. Please stop seeing malice in everyone who doesn't agree with you about something; we actually have a policy about that. It just may be that those people would enjoy working with you if you changed your tone. Try it. Antandrus (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava: Suppose for the sake of argument that Antandrus is part of a massive conspiracy with the single focus of making your life miserable in every way possible. Guess what? He's still right about your approach being not the best. If you change your approach, things will go a lot more smoothly for you. You're an amazing contributor, with an astounding ability to get things done. But that's in spite of your working style, not because of it. Think how much more productive you'd be if people clamored to spend time with you instead of cringed when you appeared, but put up with it for the sake of getting work done. Take that for what you like. ++Lar: t/c 14:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Larry is right on on that point, Ottava. That's something that will definitely apply to your "real life" academic career as well: you're clearly brilliant, but I've known more than a few brilliant academics in my day that derailed their tenure track for rather similar behavior. JWS and Moulton are probably where they are today for their own lack of judgement, and I'd hate to see that happen to you! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• "JWS and Moulton are probably where they are today for their own lack of judgement" <-- We can't all be "special" Wikimedians who can freely call others "troll", impose bad blocks and bad bans or tell a fellow wiki participant to fuck off. It is so comforting to have the "special" Wikimedians around as examples of good judgment. --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

(I'd address this to User:Killerchihuahua as well, but she's out sick.)

Would you *please* come to Talk:Sarah Palin and do the uninvolved admin thing; we have an editor who is acting in an extraordinarily disruptive fashion, and since you and KC are the go-to admins on this topic, I'd appreciate you stepping in and doing something. My next step is going to be requesting a topic ban at WP:AN; let's see if you can talk him off the ledge. Horologium (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Question re appropriate use of Wikibooks

I see you are an admin there as well. Is this usage of Wikibooks appropriate? [5]. Its history shows it was used solely for the purpose of compiling grievances between April and August and that most or all of the edits were marked 'patrolled' by the editor. [6] BTW could you explain why the diffs show content but the revision pages are empty - that's unusual here. I don't have a Wikibooks account, and realize that the various Wikimedia foundation projects are managed separately. If you feel this issue belongs at Wikibooks only, pls let me know. I will leave a message at the editor's talk page next. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Diff of notice: [7] Novickas (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The revision pages look empty because all of that stuff is commented out (with <  ! -- , minus the spaces). Not exactly a proper thing on wikibooks, but looks like he's building a "case" about wikistalking, and apparently doesn't want to do it on wikipedia because it would be, well, stalked. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There's some history there - Arbcom issued a ruling last year that it had no jurisdiction over P.'s use of PL Wikipedia for the same purposes "Piotrus's activity on the Polish Wikipedia lies outside the Committee's remit." [8]. They took the complaints about this at the evidence page [9] seriously enough to make a disavowal. The Wikibook entries look less than a wikistalking defense than a compilation of grievances, but if you look it over the entire contents and don't come to the same conclusion, and/or think this use of Wikibooks was not particularly offensive, so be it. Novickas (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I only read the first few lines (otherwise tl;dr). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 04:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Johnny's analysis is right on spot, I'll just add that the page was made private to avoid offending anyone and/or mudding their names via a google search. ArbCom Novickas cites made it clear that editors have the right to gather evidence and keep it in such format on wiki projects. In either case, I have not used that page to collect evidence in 2+ months, and I have no plans to do so anymore. Johnny, you a wikibooks admin, right? I think most of the page history can be safely deleted now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Redlink or just keep the current diff? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 04:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean keep the current page, yes - you can delete all the past revisions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD) I mentioned this at the current Eastern European mailing list arbitration. [10]. Novickas (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Um, do you really think that precise wording raises the tone of a discussion that's already tense? Durova³⁵⁵ 22:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the tone could get much worse. Personally, I'd rather see them start a long and tortuous RfC, get it all out there and done with, and stop dragging each other to the boards every few days. It's really gotten rather silly, dontcha think? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that some type of more stable solution is appropriate. As for it not mattering, how about an analogy? An elderly woman lived in a large property on a hill. The road saw frequent traffic and passing motorists tossed cigarettes from their cars. She took ill for a while, and the cigarette butts progressed to snack wrappers and cans. When she was well enough to go out she picked up every bit of trash. But the motorists (who were commuting to work) got into the habit, so into her eighties she made that trip down the hill every day to keep her property clean. Many of those motorists probably thought one more snack wrapper made no difference. She didn't agree. Durova³⁵⁵ 15:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, hoping the visual wasn't too oblique? Whiskey...tango...foxtrot. Durova³⁵⁵ 15:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup, understood the images :-). No f--king idea what the old lady analogy is about :-(. I think I know what you're aiming at, but that analogy pretty much fails to meet the mark... Ottava isn't the type to keep his roadside clean. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup

[11] As I stated before, I did not change any of my habits for article writing for the cup. I had created many DYK before then as well as an FA, and I even created over 20 pages for hooks shown John Milton's birthday. Also, I did not "play" the WikiCup. Most of my contributions there also involved many people I was directly in competition with. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You kinda missed the point. The pattern seems to be that you get involved somehow or another in a conflict, then bring it to other people's attention (ANI, individual pings, etc.), and proceed to make outrageous accusations. When the attention turns back to your own behavior, you try to leverage your (bad) behavior by pointing out your (good) contributions. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If that was your point, why did you mention the WikiCup and points? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As in, score points in the Wikicup, then try to apply them to the other silliness you keep involving yourself in. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff of a discussion, please, where Ottava Rima raised that subject? Toward the very end I brought it up twice, mainly because both Ottava Rima and I were finalists and I didn't want to win on the basis of him not being able to participate. Durova³⁶² 15:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not interested in researching diffs. He did, I recall, rattle off a list of FAs or whatever that he was involved in while some other silliness was going on. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I only mention FAs and the rest when people claim all I do is make drama. If people accuse you of spending all of your time in one aspect, what do you consider as the appropriate response to show that they are wrong? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see too many people saying that all you do is create drama, but you sure do create a lot of it ;-)! The appropriate response would be to simply not respond to someone who says that. Or better yet, just stop creating drama and it won't be an issue anymore.

The conversations tend to revolve around the issue New York Brad asked you on the Arb page: people do respect your actual content contributions, but you've otherwise exhausted the patience of the community. Your good works are irrelevant to your continued bad behavior.

BTW: I called you an idiot on IRC because you were trying to convince me that I was in some sort of cabal with Killerchihuahua. I told you I wasn't, and it was just getting ridiculous with the 10,000 IMs trying to prove to me that I was/am/must be. I've also told you repeatedly over the past year or so that I just wasn't interested in following your antics here, but you continued to pester me every time I got onto IRC, to the point where I just stopped logging on because it had become rather a drag of a hobby. Worse, on the occasions where I gave in and read one of those tl;dr threads you insisted I read, you would invariably accuse me of being part of some cabal when I didn't agree with you. And then (so I hear), you tried to convince Mike and DL that I am "stalking" you.

Anyway, good luck in your case. I still think it was a bad idea on your part to push for it, but maybe the sanctions they impose will end up providing something of a comfort zone for you: again, I know it's hard for you to back down. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think you were in a cabal. I thought you were too busy protecting her instead of trying to warn her how other people were starting to talk about her. I was concerned about her and any possible backlash against her. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(←)Well, water under the bridge I suppose. Honestly though, I'm not her keeper or anything... she's a big girl and can either take care of her own silliness or face the consequences if she doesn't. It's really just none of my business. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, should just add that I really don't want it to be my business. I've had more than my recommended lifetime dose of wiki dramas already, and really don't want to get involved with them. (Which is why I'm on WR so much these days... at least there you can laugh about them!) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your evidence

[12] Do I have to get Mike to publicly post about it? Because it was rather open and blatant, and I copied and pasted your exact words in which had you attacking me even more in response. I find it odd how you claim I have a "with me or against me" approach yet you have said some down right nasty things about me. Your actions were extremely unpleasant and everyone at the Wikiversity room knows exactly how unpleasant they were and the response I gave them. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, sure. Whatever you want to do, do. I'm really unconcerned, outside of my concern for you and the people you feel the need to hurt. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding: just for the record, I don't think posting here is any more appropriate than posting on Elen of the Roads's talk. And I pretty much have no idea what you're trying to prove here, but I doubt you'll find much sympathy from the "people in the room" you're referring to. Please leave me alone, Ottava. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

About Jack Merridew

I came across the page of his extensive discussion, and would think that Ikip's behaviour is reminiscent of what he did with the RFC/U with User:Collect (drudging up evidence without knowing the situation fully). Is this at all relevant? (I'm not involved with the case and thought it best to just inquire of an involved admin). Soxwon (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know anything about what he did on the RFC/U, or much about Ikip for that matter. I get the impression he and Jack have been at each other for quite some time though, which may or may not say anything about the relevance, YMMV ;-). He does seem to be going a bit overboard, but I really haven't run across him enough to say much more than that.

TBH, I don't really know Jack very well either, outside of our correspondence this past April. Moreschi or Lar would probably be the better folks to ask. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well he tried to accuse Collect and me of being meat puppets after we both nearly got blocked for edit-warring (he made the accusation based on one comment, taken out of context) and then used other evidence from User:BaseballBugs that had nothing to do with Collect. He also endorsed evidence and added to it from pages that he never visited and discussions he was never involved in. Considering concerns about this same type of evidence gathering are being raised at the page, I thought it may be relevant. Soxwon (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

He and his canvassed friends account for more than 50 blocks between them <g> and several blocks since for socking, and accounted for more than 580 edits on the RFC/U to make the weight appear greater than warranted. Alone, he furnished 114 edits, surpassed only now by his edits on Merridew. Tenacious is the proper term here. Collect (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

← Whoa fellas. The mentorship review is about Jack and his mentors. I'm not sure who (if anybody) is supposed to be making a decision based on the review, but he or she will see the same things everyone else sees. IOW, I don't think Ikip's opinions will be weighted in proportion to the length and quantity of his postings. If you're asking me if I think you should jump in and be equally long-winded and frequent, the answer is "no, that would not be helpful".

(And nice to hear from you, Collect! How've you been?) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gotten a bunch of harrassing emails etc. and harassing posts on my talk page, otherwise ok. Collect (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I demand the right to pontificate! I can angrily bang on a keyboard as well as anyone! :) Seriously though, I was just wondering mostly, if I'll just be unhelpful than I'll forget the whole thing. Soxwon (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question posed - that editor's routine is unvarying. Get friends to flood any place with posts, and some people will believe them. Just as he had written in his userspace so long ago. Collect (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Johnny. Seen ANI? WP:ANI#Proposal: Ikip community banned from discussing Jack Merridew. A few other threads, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You are invited to join the discussion at [AFD] for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have participated in the last AFD.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

'tis the Season

Happy Holidays to you and yours.......--Buster7 (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

SP Talk

A belated happy new year. In light of your diplomatic negotiating skills, the latest developments at Sarah Palin talk might benefit from your input. It appears that one editor (at least) wishes to suppress verifiable sourced material and a couple of others are pushing back hard. You may see it differently. And you may not want to revisit the cesspool. . . Writegeist (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

New page patrol

I see you do new page patrol. I'm working on a new article. What happens to a new article when it first goes up? I've never done this before.Malke2010 20:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh geez... honestly I haven't done that in years! Best way to learn about it is to hit Special:NewPages and see what the other patrollers are doing. The MediaWiki has changed a bit over the years, so I'm probably out of date. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.Malke2010 19:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.

Scheduled for Sunday, April 11, 2010, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Misspellings

Occasionally show that two personas are related. Vide "breeching" v. "breaching." Whilst I know that you oppose making any such connections, it might be a worthwhile thing for you to consider, especially when new names appear out of the woodwork using such an unusual misspelling <g> (speaking from decades online where noting such things was part of my contractual duty) Collect (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the giggle (needed it), but I really haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about!

Certainly nice to see you around and about though. I've been missing my long-lost idealistic spirit, and it's nice to see others still feeling inspired. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The comment was concerning "alternate personas" appearing on WP and WV, specifically related to the brouhaha which has nearly been extinguished there <g>. Misspellings in common to different accounts may, in fact, mean they are not different. Jimmy resysopping you, by the way, was as close to an admission of error as you are likely to ever get from him, as he fears that anything more clear would reduce his ability to intervene in other projects where he sees fit. Collect (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh right, but it makes no sense. Plato might have had it like this:

• [Jimbowalesicus]: I shall give you your butcher's knife back if you promise not to butcher this chicken.
• [SB_Johnnyicus]: But my job is to butcher this chicken, since the goat was brought to my butcher shop. You're welcome to do it yourself if you don't want to give me knife back.
• [Jimbowalesicus]: Okay, here's your knife back. Now promise me you won't butcher the chicken.
• [SB_Johnnyicus]: Huh?

I kinda like to know what I'm supposed to be doing, ya know? (And apologies to Plato, who is probably rolling in his grave). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

While I admire your Platonic relationships, the case is a tad different. Strictly hypothetically, person "A" (who may have additional names, as "alternate personas") goes with a complaint to "X" and "X", reacting swiftly without actually reading all the background, undertakes actions as a matter of divine right. Sysop "W" says "wait", which is not actually going to gain points with "X" who has a mien of unquestioned authority. "X" reacts swiftly and draconically, and has "Y" (never seen before nor since) assert his wisdom in so doing. "F" and "G" (evil interlopers) point out that swift action is not always wise action (and, on a different site are suggested to be future ire candidates). "X" actually realizes that the acts were hasty, but feels he must protect his rights, hence makes rather difficult to comprehend comments in order to retain authority. BTW, this is not an unusual state of affairs. Collect (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

new essay

Please look at WP:Tiptibism and add anything appropriate (this goes for lurkers here as well) Collect (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I actually have a goat named Dilbert. I micromanage his breeding opportunities. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

They're back.

You helped User:Ferrylodge exercise his "right to vanish". Well, he's back at User:Anythingyouwant. Now that he has freely chosen to return, don't you think we ought to be able to see his edit history under his prior account? NotAmyFuller (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite agree. How can this be achieved? Or can any user, in order to bury his/her edit history and block log, simply exercise the "right to vanish" and then---more smoke and mirrors---rematerialize under another name? Writegeist (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm no longer an admin (or really participating in general), so you'll need to ask elsewhere. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Micromanaging Dilberts connubial opportunities must be time consuming. Your thoughtful guardianship of Wikipedia has been commendable. --Buster7 (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Johnny, just thought I'd stop by and say hi. Hope you're well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)(formerly Ferrylodge)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad

Glad to see you take up the tools again. bibliomaniac15 18:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shade garden

The article Shade garden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's somewhere between a personal essay and a how-to-guide. It sites no references (the one link is to a non-reliable source). Better to scrap the article and let someone start over anew.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref added, how-to-ism edited down. Collect (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Saw it, thanks, Collect. And, Hi! Always good to hear from you :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You're invited to the Philadelphia Wiknic!

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area this Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 5 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together in the Azalea Garden, just behind the Philadelphia Museum of Art 39°58′05″N 75°10′59″W / 39.96801°N 75.183156°W / 39.96801; -75.183156

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

Smallbones (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

UrbanTerrorist

Um...did you just unblock User:UrbanTerrorist despite the fact that I (as the blocking admin) and another admin aren't actually sure that xe understands at all why xe was blocked? I get that xe is contrite an apologetic, but I don't see any evidence that xe knows why what xe did deserves apologies. Furthermore, xyr unblock request starts by blaming other people. I think your unblock here was both wrong and not following blocking policy, which says "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." If consensus says I'm wrong, and UT gets it and should be unblocked, fine. In fact, if UT had answered lifebaka's questions clearly and unambiguously, I would have even accepted an unblock myself at that point. I am seriously concerned that this user does not understand the basic principles required to contribute here, and that unblocking them without evidence of that understanding will lead to further disruption. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The guy has been contributing since 2005, with a clean block log. He's not banned, and he's said he wouldn't do it again. I suspect the chances that he will use the second chance to blow up the wiki are considerably low ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 08:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello SB Johnny! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear SB Johnny,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

So, are you bothering to watch the talkpages you leave messages on, or are you just spamming? Certain people will go ahead and answer spam, other people will not. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

MSK

Hang on just a second here. Supposing MSK has a legitimate, valid grievance against another user? You need to provide an alternative path for filing such a complaint. Should MSK take an issue like that directly to you, in lieu of ANI or wherever? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 02:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but sometimes she (like you sometimes, tbh) sees an issue when there really isn't one, or at least not a serious one. She's got enough people watching her that I'm sure somebody would pursue remedies if remedies seemed in order :-).

In any case, I'm just trying to break the drama-log-jam. She probably should have more rope, but I'm not the one who should give it to her, for myriad reasons. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, so you'll cross that bridge if or when you come to it, I reckon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 02:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Or somebody else can... it's a wiki, after all :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you unblocked MSK, so you've assumed some extra share of the burden for issues. I see MSK just reverted some presumed vandalism on an article.[13] Let's suppose MSK and the vandal get into a revert war, and suppose MSK's reversions are valid but could go on ad infinitum. What then? Can't go to ANI, can't go to AIV (?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 02:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

She can go, she'll just be blocked for doing so. The block button is just a button... it's just as easy to re-un-block. I don't think she cares all that much about what her log looks like, because I don't think she's aspiring to RFA. People make way too much out of things, as I'm sure you've found, Bugs ;-).

(adding after e/c): Bugs, I don't need diffs for little things... I can just take your word for it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that I'm not sure MSK's reversion was correct, nor am I sure the IP's version was correct. I'll look into that. Meanwhile, you should exclude AIV from the "taboo" list. That is very seldom a "drama board". You simply post issues, and admins decide what to do, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 02:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you say it's not a dramaboard, I'll take your word for it, but seriously Bugs: you know as well as anybody that any board is a dramaboard if you have the right (or wrong) people following you around. Besides, I have reason to believe that a solid line is a lot more comfortable for her to deal with than a fuzzy one. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it never is, but in general it's not. If I were in MSK's shoes, I would seek out a trusted admin, if a problem should arise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 03:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can suggest a few to her (drama-free and very patient types would be best). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I had best not post on MSK's page again, unless invited. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 03:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that MSK's reversion was correct, but that the editor missed one. I undid the other one. And before you jump to any conclusions, that page was already on my watch list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 02:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not big on jumping to conclusions. Nice to meet you by the way ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

So, tell me, Stolen Base, where do I know you from, anyhow? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 03:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is the first time we've "talked" actually, but I'm familiar with you because you seem to have quite a "fan club" on WR ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's not start on that subject again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 03:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• @SB .. have seen you both here and there (WR) - best of luck with this. I honestly hope it works out well for all concerned. — Ched :  ?  03:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it will work out for the best. AGF + 5P + IAR are really the only policies that should be needed, ideally. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Shame it didn't work that well for Pumpkinsky .. but that's another story I guess. — Ched :  ?  03:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't really follow that one, but I'll take your word on it :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

@Bugs, well, if MSK has a mentor, she could always let them know, right? Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 03:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if she remembers.VolunteerMarek 17:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please contact the Arbitration Committee ASAP

Hi: Please email the committee as soon as you can. Thank you. SirFozzie (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied to your email, SirFozzie. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wuh woh Waggy! VolunteerMarek 17:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Involved?

Hi SB, I see you just unblocked one of your colleagues from WR. Just in case it hadn't occurred to you, that could be construed as an action by an involved admin. May I suggest that in future you leave similar actions to non WR regulars? Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 13:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It could be construed that way, but I don't feel conflicted in this case. I "moderate" her sometimes on WR as well, actually. OTOH, I'm not going to be making a habit of it: this was a case where pressing the button was pretty clearly the correct action, and whomever ended up with the job was going to get a certain amount of flak. As you can imagine, they hand out very good flak jackets to the mods on WR.

I owe, I owe, so off to work I go. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and the reassurance that you won't make a habit of it. You may be right that consensus was for an unblock, but if so it was far from unanimous. It would have been better in my view for you to have left it for a non WR admin. ϢereSpielChequers 22:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, not that I think my talk page is the best forum for a philosophical debate, but I've been involved in a number of dustups (not on WP... I've served as an admin on several other WMF wikis as well), and it's always tricky deciding when "consensus to block" or "consensus to unblock" is the correct standard. I think NewyorkBrad posted something about that at one time or another here. It's always a difficult balancing act, and it's often a very "case-by-case" thing. I'm fully aware that part of your job as a member of arbcom is to try to reduce "case-by-case things" into general principles that can set a floor (or ceiling), of course. I'm also aware that most of the sentences in this paragraph should probably be one-sentence paragraphs, but I'm feeling lazy. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not an Arb myself and if you hadn't been a WR mod I wouldn't have queried that call. ϢereSpielChequers 21:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A subpage

Hi SB Johnny, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to have a user subpage created outlining exactly what Selina's restrictions are. I think it would be good to have a quick, easy, and clear reference point for her restrictions, both for her and people who are helping her fit into the community. I am concerned about deliberate attempts to reblock/reban her, and am worried about the restrictions you placed on her and she agreed to abused to re-implement blocks and bans on her. A user subpage clearly stating what her restrictions are seems like a good thing to me; even I'm not totally sure what all her limits are. Best. Acalamari 21:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that might be a good idea, but her restrictions are horribly strict as things stand at the moment: she can work on articles, and talk about articles, but that's it. She also can't talk about articles (or anything else) in the "Wikipedia" namespace. There's not a lot of play there for her, but also not a lot of play for the people who are trying to get her head onto a plate. I think she'll do just fine. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please review/edit User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/unblock conditions as appropriate. Nobody Ent 11:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I left a couple of comments there. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just that I noticed ...

Hi again SB. Since so many folks are making a point that you are also registered at WR, I did want to mention one thing I noticed. While I'm not a member, I have read a few of the threads there. I did notice that you are consistent in your posts both here and there. Meaning that it seems to me that you often defend Wikipedia in general, as well as individual editors who are getting a raw deal at either place. I've never seen a post by you that bad-mouthed our project here, or one of the editors here. I'd have to think it often puts you at odds with at least several folks there - but I appreciate that you both use the same name, and that you stick by your beliefs. I'd guess by now you're seeing a lot of concern over the block, unblock, re-block, re-un-block stuff that seems to be very much at the forefront of many editor's thoughts. I just wanted to wish you best again at a time that you may be getting a lot of flack from some folks. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  23:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Good lord, they're going to start calling me a Wikipediot now :-). I think they're not so much worried that I'm registered at WR, as they are that I'm part of WR's management team. That's completely understandable given their opinion of WR.

Thanks, Ched. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening Collaborations are: Hobby farm Raised bed gardening Sustainable gardening Urban horticulture Vermicompost The next collaborations will be posted on April 1, 2012. (Contribute here)

email

sent one ... nothing bad. cheers. — Ched :  ?  16:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle

As User:Mistress Selina Kyle has been rather dramatically been violating the unblock condition that you and i set, I have blocked her for 6 months. Considering the long-standing nature of this, even though I believe you have said you are no longer involved in this, I would really appreciate your comment---but I want to at least make you aware of the current situation. I'm available by email if you prefer. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have hit the button a while ago, tbh, but since she apparently believes I'm part of some sort of conspiracy, I should probably avoid further engagement. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are: Cash crop Energy crop Plant ecology Seedling Tropical horticulture The next collaborations will be posted on May 1, 2012. (Contribute here!)

Science lovers wanted!

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)