User talk:Bishonen

Happy Birthday

	Organ of the Year Award!
	Happy Birthday to 'Shonen's new organ! Can't believe it's already been a year! Tex (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Scarlet letter"?

I see that you removed a sockpuppet notice that I placed on User:Penyulap, saying in your edit summary "No scarlet letter tagging". I have two questions:

1. What is "scarlet letter tagging"?
2. What is your objection to tagging the account as a sockpuppeteer? Doing so is normal practice, and I can't see anything that makes this case exceptional. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I assume Bishonen is referring to the Puritan practice of requiring adulterers to wear a "Scarlet Letter" (a red A) for the remainder of their lives. There's a quite a famous romance based around the practise, The Scarlet Letter, I do suggest you read it, if you enjoy that sort of thing. So, "Scarlet letter tagging" will be branding a user with a negative assertion against their will. As to your second question, I agree with Bishonen, for a number of reasons. Penyulap was not blocked for sockpuppetry - he had a number of accounts, all of which he declared "for humour". I've yet to see evidence that he "abused" these alternate accounts, and without abuse, you do not have sockpupptry. Finally, I generally disapprove of tagging any indef blocked editor months after their block - it only serves to upset the blocked user. There are two positive outcomes of an indef block, the user changes their ways and comes back or forgets all about wikipedia and moves on - tagging discourages both of those outcomes. Worm^TT(talk) 11:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to. The scarlet "A" stood for "Adultery" in the story. Sorry my edit summary wasn't self-explanatory; I should have linked to the book title. But I've heard the expression used several times in similar contexts.

The user in question is not a vandal or enemy to the project, but a good-faith contributor with some issues. And, as Worm says, not a sockpuppeteer. The SPI which your template refers to, James, was declined and closed with no action taken; presumably because it shows no abuse via his alternative accounts. Deleting his page and putting a sockpuppeteer template on it is indeed likely to be upsetting under these circumstances. And how is it supposed to help Wikipedia? Bishonen | talk 12:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC).

Well, I see that consensus is against me, and I will accept that. However, I am, frankly astonished. I do not see an editor who "is not a vandal". I see a highly disruptive and combative editor, I see unmistakable vandalism, and I see clear and unmistakable abuse of more than one account. As for how it is supposed to help Wikipedia, if anyone has any reason to investigate the activities of the account again, as for example because the user asks to return, it will be helpful to whoever is investigating to have readily available links to other accounts that the user has used, without having to search through the history of numerous pages to find them. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why you (JamesBWatson) feel this way, but there are some aspects of Penyulap's particular situation that I think would make it especially preferable to leave the page alone. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Pissing match

Hey Bish, remember when Sam Spade said on the En mailing list that you had ArbCom in your pocket? I am their "pet admin".[1] Which tops which? I'm going with "pet" since that surely involves treats and petting. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The doggie-treats are fine. Just keep the rest outside the fur for the first few dates if you want them to respect you. --Famously Sharp (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Bishzilla used to have. Long time ago. "Little arbitration committee shoot craps in 'Zilla pocket one time. Sadly : Entire cute little committee climb out pocket and scamper." :-( But, anyway, they used to be her pets ("kawaii!") so I think it's pretty clear who trumps who here. Bishonen | talk 18:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC).

We went with Pissing contest as the primary title. And that article was a major source of dispute amongst the people who interpret NOTDIC differently! Oh, the pain.
Unrelatedly, I need a new pet; life without a cat is melancholy ;_; —Quiddity (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

'Zilla sympathize, although personally more of a dog person. Several friendly dogs in pocket. After initial hesitation, now sure they're pets, not snacks. [Generously :] To cheer up little user, 'Zilla prepared to stop eating cats also! bishzilla _ROARR!! 13:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC).

Pet, schmet. Toxic personality wins! Jester of the court (NE) 02:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't arbcom, so not same ballgame. But, strange to relate, that user also spent some time in 'Zilla pocket. Jumped into pocket during impromptu netsplit tête-a-tête on IRC. Cosy! Took nap! :-) Sadly had to be de-pocketed later. :-( bishzilla _ROARR!! 09:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC).

Resysopping

Blind Justice
Ethel (not knowing what ArbCom is) — "And they wish to admonish you too?" Cook (who has had experience with them before) — ""Lawks miss, they've already desysopped her!"

Good to see you've got the tools back! Get tired of not being able to read deleted pages? I'm not sure if, with the tools back to you, we're in more or less danger of being devoured by Bishzilla. I guess time will tell. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

[Ungraciously. ] Good, is it? I dunno. In several ways, I prefer the role of plebeian supplicant for admin action. It's educational as hell, especially the frustrations of an ignored plebeian supplicant, as in this context. But I guess I don't have the willpower to leave that page fullprotected any longer. Having performed the action I resumed the mantle for, I now have some thoughts of immediately requesting desysopping again. Hmmm… not sure… I'll sleep on it. Being a nosey person, I do miss reading deleted pages. How many back-and-forth goes do you suppose it would take to get the kindly 'crats really irritated? :-) Bishonen | talk 07:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC).

Or how many requests to move the bit to meeeee? darwinbish ^BITE 07:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC).

You could just do like I do, and keep the tools but not use them most of the time. (I'm in an unusually active time right now, as I've been blocking for edit warring and arbitration enforcement lately. We'll see how long that lasts; I'm sure you'll understand that using them can get pretty bothersome.) It doesn't annoy the 'crats as much. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep them. They give you +1 shields against ArbCom if you are naughty. Yomangani^talk 13:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

MONGO says KEEP TOOLS!!!! Divide and conquer! Do unto others then run! Whenever at a quandary, think, what would MONGO do...then do opposite of that!MONGO 11:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Transparency

As you were not blocked from editing, there was no reason to not attempt to talk with me on my talk page.

I prefer to not partake in the "backroom dealings" of email or other off-wiki discussion.

Regardless, I respectfully request that you undo the reversal of the page protection. - jc37 11:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind if I ask why? I found the protection odd to begin with. Penyulap cannot edit his own talk page, I can understand the reasoning behind that, he wasn't using it to be unblocked. But I do not understand why no one else can edit it. Perhaps the protection will reduce the "drama" around his blocking, but it also stops any notifications on his talk page of deletions, discussions regarding him, or other general messages. Worm^TT(talk) 11:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It was a bogus protection, totally unsupported by policy. Since jc37 previously declined a talk page request for unprotection, complaining that Bish didn't raise the issue there is pointless. Nobody Ent 11:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you used the outer shell of the word "respect" without much of the substance there, Jc37. Do feel free to quote my e-mail, in part or in whole, anywhere you like, to improve transparency. Heck, I'll just quote it myself:

I've been getting some e-mails from Penyulap. I won't share anything he's said, as he speaks to me in confidence, but I truly believe it's absurd to have his talkpage locked to the community (adminprotected). Even if people think they have some good reason for gagging the user (for his own protection, or whatever; I don't agree, but that's not the point here), that can hardly apply to locking the page against expressions of community opinion. It can only be harmful and hurtful, nothing else.

Please unprotect it. Semiprotection against trolling by logged-out anonymous cowards might possibly be appropriate.

I suppose, if the page is unprotected, somebody would have to watch it to revert possible trolling or attacks (fairly remote possibility, I think, but still). I could do that.

P.S. Ottava Rima doesn't get to edit his own talk, *but* people have nevertheless had open access to posting stupid awards and appalling "poetry" on it ever since he was indeffed, and they still do occasionally. Doesn't really do any harm, does it?

The reason I used e-mail was that it seemed tactless to discuss, and invite discussion of, Penyulap's page in public, since he wouldn't be able to take part in anything like that. That may sound paradoxical, since unprotection might conceivably also lead to discussion he wouldn't be able to take part in; but a central place for possible commentary on his block would be a lot better than your page, if you don't mind my saying so. (Especially seeing that you removed Nobody Ent's request from it.)[2]

I hope it was clear in my message that, although I couldn't explicitly share anything Penyulap had told me privately, my main reason for wanting the protection removed was his strong reaction to it. If it wasn't, I suppose I need to hone my implication skills. No, I'm afraid I won't undo my reversal of the page protection. Bishonen | talk 14:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC).

I don't believe I have said anything untoward towards you in my comments above, my apologies if you are reading anything different. My comment about email is a general policy I have. I tend to only communicate through email concerning Wikipedia for things which are private, or in cases where I may have blocked someone and in so doing, blocked their use of their talk page.

I realise this tends to leave me out "backroom dealings" of whatever supposed cabals I've heard of, but I prefer to just call that all rubbish, and WP:AGF.

Anyway, if you had asked me on my talk page, I would likely have responded similar to how I did at User talk:Nobody Ent: [3].

As for a central place for commentary on the block, the appropriate place for that was and is elen's talk page. And people have indeed availed themselves of it.

Anyway, all that aside, I will give this one more attempt: I respectfully ask that you undo your use of the admin's tools to revert my protection. - jc37 15:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully ask that you reconsider the provisions of WP:PROTECT and the specific impact of protection in this case, given the information posted by Bishonen above. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You not only open negotiations with the unpleasant phrase "backroom dealings", Jc37, but you repeat it? I will AGF that you don't have much sense for how it sounds, or the "cabal" remarks, either. I have nothing more to say to you in this matter. As for your classic "if"-apology, I can recommend an essay for that, too. Gosh, I'm tired of being an admin already. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC).

A couple things. First, As I said, I don't believe I said anything untoward towards you. Though of course, you're welcome to continue to not WP:AAGF if you so choose, I suppose. In any case, I suggest you re-read my comments, and note I said that they are my general policy, and why I have them as a general policy. There was nothing in your email to suggest that privacy was needed (you even made the point to say you did not wish to share such info, which was of course perfectly fine). And I didn't block the user. So there was no reason for me to respond to the email.

Anyway, this isn't a "negotiation".

This is and has been a request to undo your use of admin tools to revert my protection. I am merely following policy on the steps I am to take. - jc37 16:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

So wait, Bishonen asked admins to do something she wanted, they declined, and she asked for her bits back and proceeded to undo their actions with no further discussion? Bish, I know you think Penyulap was railroaded by evil admins, for whatever reason, but this is a very, very poor use of your tools, especially considering that you apparently knew it was a poor use of your tools, since you're considering immediately resigning them again now that you've had your way. I would second jc37's request that you undo your action - if you want the page unprotected, take it to RFPP or AN to get a consensus of people who aren't already involved in this dispute, as you are. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

And as you are. I don't know where your assertion that "they declined" comes from. They didn't decline my request, they ignored it. As if it had never been. Didn't you see my edit summary? As for your claim to know what I think, and the train of deduction whereby you arrive at the conclusion that I knew it was a poor use of my tools, based on my joke about "irritating the kindly 'crats", I'm stunned, I don't know what to say. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC).

• You are stunned and don’t know what to say? Well neither does my employer - a very rare occurance. Although Her Ladyship has never met Mr Flukernutter, she has certainly met lots of people of that ilk and advises you to rise above. Her Ladyship also strongly doubts that there is a sandwich of that name – it has certainly never been on the menu of any restaurant that has enjoyed Her Ladyship’s gracious patronage. Her Ladyship’s point (which I am commanded to convey) is that you, Mrs Bishonen, are an admin amongst admins and it is preposterous that such as Mr Flukanut and his friends should have the very audacity to question your actions. Her Ladyship’s advice is to ignore them and soldier on. Her Ladyship implores you to remember the ancient, heraldic motto of her illustrious family: “Illegitimi non carborundum.” Vera Corpus (Miss) (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your timely attention, Miss Corpus. I've taken the liberty of creating a so-called wikipedia "link" for your employer's (and apparently also 1964 US presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's) motto. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC).

Some editors seem to have forgotten that Bishonen is closely aligned with the universe dominating Reptilians as well as the meanest editor on this website!MONGO 20:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion (Floq put's on Junior Diplomat Hat and "Visualize Whirled Peas" Lapel Pin) :
  1. Leave things as they are now
  2. Wait for Universe to explode due to unprotected talk page
  3. As soon as Universe explodes, Jc37 gets to re-protect, and Jc37 and Fluffernutter both get to say I told you so to Bishonen in bold, italic letters.
  4. If Universe fails to explode, continue to leave things as they are now

You're welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Noted:

and good to see. — ChedZILLA 17:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

And thank you too, little 'zilla. Apparently not everybody was as happy as you to see that exchange.[4] But I don't suppose there was any ill will in it. Bishonen | talk 20:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC).

I've personally never been a huge fan of trying to "shut people up" - although I have been known to ignore a few folks from time to time. Fortunately TRM was familiar with who you are. A bit concerning IMHO that a person at the higher levels of WP would seem to be totally unacquainted with the Bish family. But that's not for this little 'zilla to judge I suppose. — ChedZILLA 21:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)