Misplaced Pages

User talk:SB Johnny

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) at 13:13, 28 April 2009 (→fyi re A Nobody: +reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:13, 28 April 2009 by Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) (→fyi re A Nobody: +reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)

Please take a look at this

I've messaged all four wikiversity crats this time and am sending them messages on the wikis they each seem most active on. Please see if you can do anything about this: v:User_talk:SB_Johnny#Usurpation_follow-up. Thanks.--Doug. 03:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you around?

? If so, you may wish to watch the Sarah Palin article a little more closely - there was an edit war a couple of days ago, since moved to the talk page where mediation seems to be proceeding well. You haven't made an appearance so I'm pinging you here in case you're around, but missed it. KillerChihuahua 19:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And now I've banned Ferrylodge for one week, as he seems determined to derail the discussion in order to discuss some edits he wants to make, and has chosen not to wait. Emailing you also. KillerChihuahua 10:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Judging by his contribution history, SBJohnny is not around. You stated at the article talk page: "GreekParadise wishes to include mention of the Knik Arm Bridge, as that explains an otherwise unexplained 200 mil, almost half the sum in question. GP feels it is unbalanced, misleading, and poor writing to explain half the money and one bridge, and leave out the other half and the other bridge." You also opined:

It appears the primary argument for is that the bill included both bridges and half the money was for the KAB. Can everyone concede that this is a valid point? We're talking about what, around 424 mil, and then we start talking about 240 mil with nary a mention of what happened to the other 200 mil - that could indeed be confusing.

My suggested edits were on precisely this topic. They clarified that the Gravina earmark was separate from the Knik earmark according to reliable sources. Your block is an abuse of admin tools. I suggest that you seek assistance from another admin.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I haven't been around: it's kidding and planting season, and a bit busy at work as well :-). Looks like I might have some time today though... what happened? --SB_Johnny | 08:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I would have emailed you, but KC already had done that, so it seemed unnecessary. I'll pop you an email now, though.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear me, is the barn on high ground I hope? KillerChihuahua 15:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck in your mediation, you three. Hopefully some fruitful discussion takes place, parties can come to terms and find common ground, and we can all come out on the other end better as a result. Thank you for your efforts, SB. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

May I join in these nice wishes, and hope for a fruitful outcome where all come out happier and better. One point, though. Undoing Ferrylodge's ban will give Ferrylodge a license to disrupt any mediation in future, wasting the time and effort of experienced mediators. Which, from past episodes, I'm sure s/he will exploit to the tedious utmost. All in good faith, of course. . . dave souza, talk 18:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :-). I'm an experienced mediator too. --SB_Johnny | 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Good. And I sincerely hope that you'll ensure that Ferrylodge doesn't arrange any more diruptive changes of topic on talk pages of articles under mediation. Best wishes, dave souza, talk 19:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, he didn't sign up to be my meatpuppet or anything. Aspiring to the ideal is good, as long as you don't expect to actually reach it. It's all a matter of assuming good faith :-). --SB_Johnny | 19:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Now, now, I fully accept that you're competent and will reinstate the ban or block Ferrylodge at the first sign of renewal of the problems that started this. And I certainly do appreciate your good faith in all this. All the best, dave souza, talk 19:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice (etc.) for Ferrylodge, regarding the Sarah Palin article

This is the place to put it! --SB_Johnny | 20:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Johnny. I can't advise myself, so will say no more here for now.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Crickets chirping. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
More like spring peepers this time of year :-). How would you like to move forward? --SB_Johnny | 15:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi John. I'm not chomping at the bit to make any article edits at the article in question, but it would be nice to be able to do so. I don't see how I was disruptive at the article, since I did revert everthing that I was asked to revert. Honestly, if there was a freeze in effect at the time of those edits of mine, it was not well-publicized, and I'm still unclear about where that freeze was announced at the talk page. The edits themselves (that I reverted) were pretty straightforward. As KC has said, the first paragraph of the section is not fully supported by the cited source (which only discusses one bridge and not two, and discusses a 200 mil. earmark and not a 400 mil. earmark), but I'm totally willing to let that section remain in deep-freeze without trying to edit it before the editor's note is removed from the source-code.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything on the page at all declaring a freeze, tbh. That's why I had asked before if I was missing something. If the section needs revising, please discuss it on the talk page first to avoid undue hooplahs. Since nobody seems overly interested in discussing your ban, we'll just go by what we discussed earlier and lift it soon. Just try to be very conservative about making changes, and for Pete's sake don't make edits to sections under active discussion on the talk page! --SB_Johnny | 16:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, generally speaking.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
However, per WP:BLP, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."Ferrylodge (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the essence of the wiki is that many hands make light work. For the time being, it's probably better to just stay active on the talk where you'll have both hands available. Typing is difficult when one hand is busy keeping alligators at bay, eh? --SB_Johnny | 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'm not planning any article edits, and don't intend to monopolize the article. As you know, I only edited the article on three days in March, one in February, and three in January, and some of that was reverting vandals. The less I edit that article, the happier I'll be.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
One note, FL. Just try and keep the repetition to a minimum. Stating the same thing with the same sources in lots of different places seems to be part of people's issues regarding your discussion habits. If you just refrain from feeling the need to respond to every comment on the talk page, things will work out better for you. Sometimes, discussion evolves very slowly, so it's okay to let a question or two go unanswered for a little while. And obviously, remember to remain civil. Outbursts like the one you had on your talk page won't be tolerated for long. Thanks FL, SB. --Ali'i 18:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks Ali'i.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re. Ferrylodge and reëducation camp

Johnny, first a note of appreciation: your intelligent and congenial negotiating style is generally very helpful, and most welcome, not least for its honesty, fairness and marked absense of any abrasive authoritarian posturing or rabid egotism.

B-b-but. I must admit I’m a little mystified by the invitation to participate in some sort of Ferrylodge reëducation program.

We all, ahem, mess up from time to time in Wikiland. We know the errors of our ways. Doesn't it rather insult FL’s considerable (and often exasperating) intelligence to pretend he needs to stand in the corner and have his shortcomings pointed out, Red Guards-style, by his fellow contributors?

Also I’m not quite clear on the purpose of blocking him from the article. Was it just punitive? Or for the good of the article? Or of the WP community? Or for the good of FL?

If punitive, it has an appearance of pettiness, as a careful reading of the dispute (including FL’s alleged disobedience) that led to the block gives a strong impression that he was on a hiding to nothing from the moment he started – politely and reasonably, under the circumstances, IMHO – to defend himself and request explanations and diffs.

If for the good of the article, what good comes of depriving it of one its most vigilent, productive, intelligent, lucid and analytically-minded contributors?

If for the good of the WP community, how can dumbing-down the community be good for it?

If for the good of FL, I refer back to para 2 above: if his behaviour is at fault there's nothing you – we – can say about it that a fellow with his smarts doesn’t already know.

Just curious, because I'd have thought it would be enough to chuck a pail of water over both parties and move on. After all, you appear to have the bad boy on a tight leash and in fact (jeez, this will infuriate him!) he’s really pretty harmless. OK, maybe not that pretty :~).

Anyway, thanks for your generally excellent work around here. I'm sure most if not all of the SP squad are glad of it. Writegeist (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the SP squad? The goal here (for my part) is to figure out how the ban came about, and more importantly how to prevent a recurrence... taking into account the odd wikilaws, wikipolitics, and underlying wikidramas that may be at play. Nothing punitive involved, just a lot of emailing :-). Things shouldn't have gotten to the point where they did, but I've had quite a few knots to untangle. As one of those crazy people who climbs around trees with a chainsaw and long ropes, I'm definitely against leaving tangles untangled before climbing in. --SB_Johnny | 23:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Writegeist, I much appreciate your comment. For the non-anglophiles out there, the phrase "on a hiding to nothing" is defined here. Cheers (or cheerio).  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
And SP probably stands for "Sarah Palin".Ferrylodge (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, duh :-). Thanks for the dopeslap. --SB_Johnny | 23:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thx SBJ. Dang that job must be fun. There's a TV reality series about you lunatics. Shot in Oregon, I think, if that's where all males over the age of 16 are required by law to wear thick beards and thick plaid shirts and carry fully fuelled chainsaws at all times. No wonder you're so mellow. To you, SP is just a quiet, soothing place to rest up after a day of high-altitude mayhem. FL, thx for providing the translation :~). Writegeist (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Lol. Arborist, not lumberjack :-). Only do it a couple days a week anymore, as I'm a bit over the hill for a climber. Can't really say it's stressful, but it gives the body a good beating. --SB_Johnny | 00:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Other Editors that helped create the Election version of Sara Palin

How do I inform the following editors that there is an important discussion relating to Sar Palin at her talk. The editors are; Steven_J_Anderson, Sitedown, Appraiser, Atom, BenBurch, jossi, SWAT Jester, Ron John, sheffield steel, Aruhnka, Aunt Entropy, Phlegm Rooster, JamesMLane. TVoz, Factcheckeratyourservice, Spiff1959, Bobblehead, Parsecboy, Neutralis, Aprock, LamaLoLeshaLa, Eric the Red, Rktect, Wikidemon, Writegeist, Evbwiki,jcdenton, and probably another dozen that Ive forgotten. I don't want to be accused of canvassing but this is important.--Buster7 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Buster. I hope SB Johnny will get a chance to reply to your question soon. In the mean time, please don't do it. Hundreds of editors were involved, and so picking only a few of them would be a big problem as far as canvassing is concerned. See WP:Canvas.Ferrylodge (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Ayup, probably not a good idea, and will almost certainly end up on a noticeboard. I did a bit of research on the history of the article, and among other things, found that there's always been heated discussions going on on the talk page, at least for the past couple years.
Aside from that, the top 20 article contributors and talk page contributors don't seem to match your list. If I were you, I'd just let people learn via their watchlists. --SB_Johnny | 12:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed..I'll let sleeping dogs lie. Thanks for a look at the two lists. Very interesting information.--Buster7 (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

GP

GP et al seem to delight in making a substantially inaccurate claim and challenge on multiple pages. Ought I ignore all of them? Especially when I furnish in several places cites for my "lies"? Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, do you think it likely that engaging with him in that manner will be constructive and lead to a resolution? If not, then yes, just imagine it's raining and act like a duck. --SB_Johnny | 15:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

One last step in the Smiley face murders talkpage dispute.

In order to not end up biased I think we need to address User:BoyintheMachine. Here's some history but there's more. The talk page is strewn with it.

Outing by IP http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Smiley_face_murders&diff=next&oldid=283673752

Outing by Boyinthemachine http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Smiley_face_murders&diff=next&oldid=283679581

Outing in edit summary - (removed previous IP outing suggesting it may be valid) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Smiley_face_murders&diff=next&oldid=283730215

IP outing including address http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Smiley_face_murders&diff=prev&oldid=283756130

Gwen originally asked for this but I think she went to bed (I don't know, just that now you are answering and she's not). I don't know if this is actionable (I'm pretty sure it is) but it's there, just to keep things in balance. Padillah (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like SPA if nothing else. Not blocking yet in case he wants to bring the issue to a noticeboard and do it the right way. You warned him, so if he continues, he'll get the block. --SB_Johnny | 13:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Bed? I wish! It's the middle of the afternoon here! :O Gwen Gale (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mutual_topicban_proposal on ANI

Since all parties do not agree on the proposal between A Nobody and Jack, I am putting it to a community !vote:

Please take the time to make your voice be heard. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Next step?

There seems to be overwhelming community support for: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mutual_topicban_proposal_community_.21vote, except for #4, what is the next step? Ikip (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved to: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody Ikip (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Saw it. I get the impression JM doesn't support it though (he's open to mediation of some sort, but perhaps not to the 4 3 rules? --SB_Johnny | 12:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnny. See my comment at;
I'd be glad to talk this through with someone. You said something about two limited editing periods a day and this likely means email, as I'm 11,000 miles from where you commons page says you are. I live in Bali, which is 12 hours ahead of you. Please note that Ikip, above, is rather partisan here. This is part of a huge sprawling mess called E&C; surely you've seen it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bridge to Nowhere Has Gone Nowhere

Johnny and KC, I need your help...badly. On my talk page, I have posted something I wish to post on the Sarah Palin talk page. I know it's critical of individual editors, but I've given up any hope of compromise.

My goal is not to rile people up. My goal is to use wikipedia policies to allow some notable, verified material that is admittedly critical of some choices Palin has made as Governor, on the site, along with all the material that praises her choices (even though some of it, like her being on the track team in high school is, I think, far from notable).

And this hold-up is stymying the entire bio. Those who oppose me admit that they don't want things in the bio that are "just political rhetoric" (as Paul put it), even if true, verified, notable, and well-sourced. I was even willing to put the material in a footnote, but I don't think it's fair to hide it from the bio entirely.

So: 1) Is it OK if I post what I wrote on my Talk Page on the Sarah Palin Talk Page? 2) Can I at least add a POV tag to the article until the controversy is resolved? That may encourage compromise where there presently isn't any now. And it's fair, because the current version is not NPOV. (In fact it weirdly mentions both bridges and doesn't say what the second bridge is.) I can't even get into the entire bridge campaign paragraph that Collect deleted months ago without talk page discussion, because, after six weeks, we can't get past the first paragraph of the bridge section! Much less the other stuff in the bio... 3) Is there any process of formal arbiration I can utilize? Or could either of you be more active mediators?

KC, you tried to mediate this, but I haven't seen you in awhile. I've given up any hope of doing this without some formal procedure. What's next?

Should I just go away? I frankly have better things to do and we're going nowhere.GreekParadise (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We've all quit. We all agree compromise is impossible. Those of us working on the Bridge Project have officially given up and admit defeat. There is no point in us repeating the same arguments again and again ad infinitim. I believe that dozens of accurate, verified sources should trump original research even if others believe the sources to be unfairly critical of Palin or the Knik Arm Bridge. Others, disagreeing with the conclusions of the verified research, believe these facts should not be included in the bio, no matter how qualified with facts demonstrating the opposing view. All those who agreed to compromise have backed off. We have tried for six weeks and no one thinks compromise is possible. I would like formal arbitration. How precisely does that happen? And is it OK with you if I place a non-neutral POV tag on the section pending that arbitration? I have sent a note to KC as well.GreekParadise (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

soil flora

The article you created, Soil flora has been redirected to soil life. Thought you should know. --Paleorthid (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect and Lean....

In my experience, Collect is selective about when he's into keeping an article lean. In the Joe the Plumber, and Helen Jones Kelley article, he was keen on keeping as much detail as possible, even to the point of adding a special section in the the latter article with selected (negative) editorials.

Recently there was a good faith effort to create page dedicated to a controversy around searches into a driver's license DB. Two separate articles were repeating the same info, and User Ism Schism tried to solicit condensing the content and having a main article wikilink. Collect fought it.

There are many times when collect works to improve articles, but there are other times when he has an agenda.Mattnad (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not serving as a mediator for him, so please just keep this all on the RfC. Thanks. --SB_Johnny | 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC Collect

Would you care to lead the discussion? It seems those involved respect you and your decision making and it would allow for the ugly stuff to be kept to a minimal. I'm just asking if you're interested (and if this is really usual procedure) and if the answer is yes I'll put something up on the RfC. Soxwon (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Uy. I rarely participate in those things, so no, I don't think I'd want to "lead" it. They're really supposed to be self-organizing community discussions anyway, and they're not a place where sanctions will be decided in any case. Cool heads generally prevail in the end, but I'm worried at this point that Collect is feeling a bit ganged up upon, which regardless of the right or wrong of it really isn't going to help the community to reach a satisfactory solution. I sent him a note asking him not to comment in a heated moment, and hopefully the others will calm down a bit once they've blown off their steam a bit. --SB_Johnny | 18:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I admit I lost my head there for a bit too but having honestly looked through everything (and I mean EVERYTHING lol), I think that his sin was being the common denominator in 1 or 2 edit wars that involved many parties and the people on the opposite side of one or two went after him, then combed his history for other incidents to build up their case (I know Phoenix and Co. was never near DR and Fascism as I was involved in them). Does he need to work on it? Probably. Is he what they make him out to be? I highly doubt it. Soxwon (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey tree-man! Thanks for calming the troubled waters with your superhuman Troubled Water Calming Power Ray. But let's get one thing clear: I can out-grump you any time ;~). Herrumph etc. Writegeist (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about RfC

Really this is just a general question, but it seems that the Phoenix and others got the RfC started, added Drudge and Fascism, then contacted others involved. This doesn't seem right to me, especially this and this . Note the times. He only contacted users in the dispute after filing and included items he was not invloved in. Should this be brought and where? I'm not trying to make trouble, it just seems that in that case and especially in the DR, the story has been warped b/c no one involved was contacted before the report was filed. Soxwon (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Ikip/guests lays out one person's specific plan. I have pretty good statistical evidence that this "plan" was quite deliberately intended, and followed. (having a couple of decades experience in this sort of stuff may have helped) Unfortunately, it took a willingness for me to let the moles all appear to show it for what it is. (the person thought it was impossible to find them -- and so it is, until they show themselves!) I regret the innocent folks who believed what the claims were -- but that is also carefully laid out. One premise is that he needed a lot of folks piling on early, and that later folks (not really reading the material) would simply say "ah well -- looks like enough evidence for me" ro unwittingly pile on. Mike Doughney was, apparently, the only one who figured out just how badly he was being used here. Collect (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

fyi re A Nobody

He's blown up again; see:

I dropped him a clue at:

Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack. I was AFK yesterday, so didn't get wind of it until after the discussion was closed. Unless there's another one open somewhere?
Anyway, pretty busy this week, so not much in the way of keyboard time. --SB_Johnny | 12:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There's not another that I know of ;) but I've not looked in at least an hour. I'm looking at this at the moment:
I've stated there that I'm open to talk; mediated by you as first choice; formal route if necessary. There's no hurry — only thing open is A Nobody's willingness to participate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)