Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Horologium (talk | contribs) at 19:29, 8 October 2009 (→Sarah Palin: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please note: I generally don't watch talk pages, so if I've left a note on yours, please reply here (I'll do likewise).

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...

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Misplaced Pages Meetup
June 14, 2009
Time: 3pm
Location: Drexel University

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 Misplaced Pages 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 | 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 Misplaced Pages: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 | 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 | 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 |  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 |  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 |  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  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 |  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  08:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I discouraged discussion? Still a bit at sea here. --SB_Johnny |  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 |  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  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 |  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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages community to lift the editing restriction. Avathaar has been making some reasonable suggestions for improving Misplaced Pages. 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 |  12:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied here.--SB_Johnny |  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 Misplaced Pages Dramaout

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

Your thoughts

I know this is old news, so consider this request minor. Per , I'm just wondering about this , 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!

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Misplaced Pages Meetup
September 12, 2009
Time: 3 pm
Location: University City, Philadelphia

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 |  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 10:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Participation in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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?

and . 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 |  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 |  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 |  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 |  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 |  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)