There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your PR and FAC comments and edits to Chetro Ketl, which is now a featured article. It was a long and interesting process, but thanks to a wealth of insights and suggestions the article is now among our best. Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to help me. RO(talk) 16:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- It was a great pleasure to be of help. Please don't hesitate to ask me in the future. --John (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, John. I'll definitely take you up on that; your suggestions and edits were a huge benefit to the article! RO(talk) 20:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's very kind of you. Don't forget you did all the hard work. I find I have more of a knack for improving the work of others than actually writing brilliant articles myself, and I find the subjects you write about very interesting, so it is always a pleasure to look at one of your works. --John (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 August 2015
I have to raise issue with your close regarding Doc9871. He clearly did not get the point, or concede anything whatsoever, only realize that he was temporarily cornered when it came to posts on one specific page, Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 August#WP:Don't feed the divas, and vented self-righteously even about that. The ANI was filed because of threats of harassment, personal attacks, and continual, habitual incivility (not only against me, but multiple editors, on multiple pages,for several months running), plus vows (twice) to battleground and editwar. This I-can-be-as-incivil-as-I-want-and-you're-powerless-to-stop-me pattern clearly has not changed. This is important: He actually engaged again, twice, in the behaviors the ANI was about, while the ANI was running, after being warned, and after two different kinds of sanctions were raised by multiple editors! Yet you've closed the ANI as if it were about bludgeoning at the MR, which is nothing but a side-issue someone else injected, an additional issue. A close with not even so much as a wrist slap will be seen (not just by him) as confirmation that he's a WP:VESTED editor immune to any repercussions, no matter how many behavioral policies he breaks or how often. Maybe this is a WP:ROPE plan, but I submit that when the flouting is this blatant and severe, there's no need to pay it out. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you were not happy with that. Technically I should perhaps have left the close to a second admin but I was concerned that leaving the thread open was creating heat when the logical matter under discussion had been settled, and this was why I took the short-cut of closing the discussion.
- I know you saw my warning at the user's talk page, and per this comment, I am in agreement with you that any further misbehaviour would be eligible for a block. I tend to be more lenient than many admins, and to let people have one further chance if I think it will be less disruptive to do it that way. I do believe that as human volunteers, we all make mistakes occasionally and we can learn from them without immediate punitive measures being needed. I tend not to be so lenient if the same editor is brought before me in a few weeks on a related matter. We shall see.
- I would request that you let this situation lie as it is on this occasion, as I have a strong gut feeling that this would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. If, even after reading my explanation, you are still unhappy with my actions, I will voluntarily undo my close and let discussion continue. Whatever you think best. --John (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, and I wasn't asking for a re-open, but a clarified close that more directly addressed the concerns I'd brought to ANI, which were about user behavior, not about effects on the MR discussion in particular. If you think that would be counterproductive at this stage, no big deal. My concern with regard to the "case" is that he already got that second chance and blew it immediately right in the middle of the ANI, and has a months' long history of this abusive behavior, plus emotive attention seeking, ultimatums, self-importance, entourage reliance, and many other behaviors covered in detail at the very essay he feels so proprietary about; there's a pretty obvious projection factor at work. Ironically when I pointed this out, he exploded with a "how dare you call me a diva!" reaction, demonstrating the very offensiveness effect the essay has while simultaneously denying it. His approach is clearly habitual, and (in this one case) is motivated by WP-unrelated "anti-p.c." WP:ACTIVISM. As I said at the ANI, I'm almost afraid to look at his editing in other areas, because I suspect it will show similar patterns of unreasonable hostility and battlegrounding, shielded from correction by his "tenure" and by his not-really-veiled threats to use others' histories against them.
My general approach to these things is to do something like the "substitute 'politically correct' with 'treating people with respect'" thought experiment. In this case, if it were any other matter and any other essay, would this have been tolerated? Swap "p.c. nonsense" out for, e.g. "Republican", "Protestant", "Azerbaijani", whatever "nonsense", but retain the same threats to battleground and harass, and apply the analysis to some other page, like a topical wikiproject advice page, MOS page, or naming convention. The answer is surely "no".
Anyway, I don't at all fault you for being more lenient than other admins (though I don't think a short topic ban would have been harsh); we need more who are tolerant, and I've generally only been critical of "Judge Dredd" admins (to my occasional wikiperil). Thanks for reading and responding.
PS: I don't have it out for Doc; I intentionally did not go through his other-topic edits, have no prior history with him that I can recall, and don't want a further one. I actually sympathize with his viewpoint more than he will accept that I do (to date). As a professional free expression activist starting in 1993, I learned a healthy suspicion about political correction arguments used to censor and thought-police other people. I frequently oppose "p.c." excesses on WP, like the ongoing moves at VPPOL to force WP to falsify history to make transgendered people happier about what personal names are used to refer to their past notable work (while also supporting compromises to do what we can within WP:CORE and WP:5P limits). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your understanding. I'd suggest letting this matter lie as well. Honestly, these things can be better dealt with when all participants walk away for a while. And I promise, if after everybody has disengaged from this, I see any more poor behaviour I will take action. The best thing now is if everybody could move on for a while. --John (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was just moving that side discussion from the MR page to Alakzi's, since it was his question but not central to the MR (though of course I realize Doc would disagree with my analysis of his arguments, and that it could cause more argument). I've since reverted that post. Alakzi's been blocked, in part for things related to RM discussions, so it seems unwise to bring them up on this talk page (and useless too, at this point, since he's now been locked out of editing it). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- John,  is not moving on. Are you going to be more forceful, like you were with me, in saying that a block will happen if this is not dropped? Enough already! Doc talk 03:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Bell Bottom Blues
Hi John. Would you care to intervene at Bell Bottom Blues – the issue's regarding persistent additions to state that an uncredited Bobby Whitlock co-wrote the song with Eric Clapton. As at the album article, Layla], I've suggested that editor(s) start a discussion, my point being that the credit hasn't changed even if Whitlock claims he wrote part of the lyrics and Clapton acknowledges it. Not only that, but I think the issue was covered sufficiently before – it wasn't as if there was no mention of Whitlock's input. Users – although I can't be sure there's necessarily more than one – seem to be averse to taking it up on the talk page. I'm a big fan of Mr Whitlock (I've done plenty of work on his article) but I don't see how we can rewrite credits based on claims and Clapton's reciprocating in interviews.
Sorry to send it your way – I have a feeling I've already over-R'ed at the song article. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm a bit busy but I will try to look this evening. --John (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, perhaps it's okay after all, John. @Nicknack009: has weighed in at the song article, album article, and project page. All good – hopefully. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Could use the eyes of an admin
We have had an ANI opened since the 7th, nothing new has been added for 3 or 4 days now. We could use an Admin to take a look at it and determine what is the appropriate course of action. If requesting this oversight is in violation of any wikipedia policy, please ignore it, this is not an attempt at vote stacking or canvassing. But it seems discussion is finished there and we all would like some closure.
Long term pattern of POV edits and edit warring by User:Jimjilin -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm a bit busy but I will try to look this evening. --John (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- An admin had settled it, no assistance is required. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I've promised to disengage from Lugnuts, but he keeps pinging me, "thanking" me (?), and posting on my talk page, and now is threatening to editwar again. I'm ignoring him and deleting his posts to my talk page unread, but he's not letting up. How should I respond to this harassment? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- John, to clarify: I'm responding to Curly's post on my talkpage where he asked me to discuss the matter. I'm inviting him to partake in a civil discussion on the talkpage of the article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- User:Lugnuts, could you please leave User:Curly Turkey alone as he is asking you to do? Curly, this obviously means you should leave Lugnuts alone too. Let's say for a week or so. None of these things you are arguing about are urgent, so please back off and let everyone get a bit of perspective. It will all look a lot simpler in a week or so. --John (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you still watch Maggie's article?
It seems to me to be stretching the "anyone can edit" idiocy to its extremes. Sure, most people can type letters on a keyboard, but ought there not to be some kind of sentience behind those edits? Eric Corbett 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- I missed those edits. I have trimmed out some additions which I did not think were improvements. Thank you for letting me know. --John (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 August 2015
Blimey, that was quick!
I didn't even see it, although I'm not sure I really wanted to based on the user name. I reported at ANI. CassiantoTalk 21:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I saw it before I read your report and blocked. That's what they pay us the big bucks for! --John (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Worth every penny (also in the singular I bet) Cheers :) CassiantoTalk 21:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads up that the vandal who makes null edits to pages with youtube links as the edit summary should always have their talk page access removed. They are a reoccurring character who will abuse their talk page without fail otherwise. Chillum 21:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will remember that. --John (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 21 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, I've fixed that up. --John (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Invitation to WikiProject TAFI
The Signpost: 26 August 2015
Orphaned non-free image File:SavetheRedwoodsLogo.png
Thanks for uploading File:SavetheRedwoodsLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Your DYK nomination of Trinity Chain Pier
Hi, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters, but the one you supplied is 222, excluding "(pictured)" which doesn't count. The hook will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter one. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, I've trimmed it. --John (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)