User talk:SB Johnny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 (up to December, 2006) archive #2 archive #3 archive #4 (March '08-Feb '09) archive #5 (March '09-May '09) #7 (to March 2012)


Perhaps this[edit]

I had seen a question asked about a tool. Perhaps this would help.

Wizardman also may know of additional tools, I know he has helped me with some CCI stuff in the past. — Ched :  ?  20:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that will help for the next one (Hex got a positive ID on that article and removed the section). BTW, let me know if you run across any more like that (articles sent to AfD for using the old "sources" section rather than the cite templates)... I'm still following that hunch. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 11:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions[edit]

A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you link to the discussion please? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 14:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs, in the first collapsed box. Prioryman (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there a current discussion somewhere? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 13:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
No. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi, Am I a qualifying contributor, I mean to get paid, if I am one of the winners? Thanks. (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean if you're not logged in? I don't know, but I'll pass the question along. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 08:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is what I meant, but surely, if Wikipedia considers me a qualifying contributor, Wikipediocracy should too. By the by have you ever considered nominating the article for DYK? (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Nothing firm yet, but if you're in this for the money, I think you should create an account. Wikipedia doesn't charge anything for making accounts, last I checked ;-). --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course I am in for the money mostly because it is fun to get payed for criticizing Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Yes, creating an account is free, but it is a hassle. I would not like to be attached to a user name, I prize my freedom. Besides I've already made most additions to the article as IP. (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, it says right there on the board: "Candidates for this prize will be registered Wikipedia user accounts" (italicized on the board). I get the impression that they're not interested in changing that rule, so not much more I can do for you. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 10:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

AE nit-picking[edit]

Yeah, you probably shouldn't be commenting in the uninvolved administrator section on that case. Someone is bound to blow a gasket. ;) --The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why... I have absolutely no interest in Scientology, though I'm aware that it's been a contentious topic on WP. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 13:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I meant because of the specific article that was under discussion, but I guess it no longer matters.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not really all that involved in the article either. I'm interested as a reader, of course, but I don't have any particular stake in it as an "editor", much less as an "admin". --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 19:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Added to the wikipedia controversies article[edit]

Just letting you know so I can get the reward Face-smile.svg. Cheers, nerdfighter 00:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


Please note: User talk pages User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users. Users whose talk pages are semi-protected should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users.[2]

"Give it a rest" isn't a valid reason for protecting a user's talk page. Please undo your action or be prepared to explain why you took it upon yourself to make up new rules at WP:ANI. Rklawton (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a perfectly valid reason per IAR (and in is case perhaps BLP as well). Leaving the poor guy be for a couple of days is the right thing to do, and hopefully can helm lower the drama level. I'm sure the wiser heads at AN/I will agree. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rklawton (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Philadelphia Wiki-Picnic: Saturday, June 22[edit]

Wiknic logo.svg Philadelphia's Great American Wiknic at Penn Park Wiknic Boston group of six people June 23 2012.jpg
You are invited to the Philadelphia edition of the Great American Wiknic taking place in Penn Park, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there!--User:Ocaasi (talk)|}}


You know, I had no idea that you were an admin here? Neato. — Scott talk 10:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute[edit]

Dear SB Johnny.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

GLAM Cafe invitation[edit]

GLAM coffee cup transparent.png Wikipedians are invited to the GLAM Café at the Chemical Heritage Foundation to meet, talk, and edit. We provide the space, the coffee, and the snacks: you provide ideas and enthusiasm! On the second Tuesday of each month, starting November 12, 2013.
CHF small logo

Re Eric's talk page[edit]

I appreciate your judgement. It needed to be blocked for a short time to allow cooling off, 24 hours was too long but your timing was perfect. WormTT(talk) 08:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

De nada. That's why you keep us old timers around hovering well over the fray, right? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 12:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


your post was reverted by user:demiurge1000, but I have no idea why. (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment[edit]

Hi SB Johnny. I saw your comment on the Ramtha's discussion page and have added a summary of the key points from the longer message. You can see that on the discussion page. I hope you're still willing to be a helpful interloper. Calstarry (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

What's in a name?[edit]

Ya know, I'd been meaning to ask you what the significance of your user name is. — Scott talk 14:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hortibox[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Hortibox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

cultivating trust
Thank you, "Oldtimer" interested in "horticulture, landscape architecture, philosophy, and history", for cultivating plant stubs, real life ("spend time doing something more satisfying") and trust, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Aw, shucks :-). Thanks! --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding "move like this, like this move" and the link to "awesomely weird", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

On the 28th: a blue duck attacks the German Main page, right now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 708th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Three years ago, you were recipient no. 708 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


  • (Protection log); 23:09 . . SB Johnny (talk | contribs) changed protection level of User talk:Jimbo Wales‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC))‎[move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎(throttle down, Jimmy has made it pretty clear that he wants IPs to be free to talk on his talk)

Your protection makes it impossible for IPs to edit the page. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

For 12 hours, I know. It had been set to indefinite a little earlier, so I shortened it. Changed the move permissions too, because Hagger???? ;-) --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Move permission seems sensible. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking an interest in this problem. The banned editor is Mbz1. She's very persistent about hopping to new IPs and is seeking a forum for grandstanding. If she returns, please lengthen the protection. I had shortened it previously, but she came right back so I had to re-protect, and used a longer duration. More eyes on the problem is good. Jehochman Talk 01:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that if you set it to "indefinite", you never know when it's "worked", and like I mentioned in the log, Jimmy is a big believer in "IP editing and speech". It's easy enough for you to throw the rope up for another 12 hours if she's causing a major problem, though it's often even easier to skip over the R&B and go right to I. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 02:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, Jehochman, she says the IP in question isn't her (and is from Germany, etc.), though I agree the style and content certainly resembles hers. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 14:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
There're three possibilities: (1) It is her. (2) It is some other editor taking advantage of the situation to act just like her. (3) It's somebody completely unrelated who's acting just like her, but doesn't realize it. Given the lack of trust we have in her, created by her inability to get along with other editors resulting in a ban, and then by her continued violation of editing through her ban, I think her statement has no information value whatsoever. Thank you for keeping an eye on the situation and if there are further similar edits, please respond as you see fit or let me know if you think my response needs to be adjusted so that it would be more effective. I didn't mean to set the protection to indefinite! I had meant to select something like one or two weeks, which is the approximate length of time she's been editing of late. Jehochman Talk 17:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm nearly certain that it isn't her (lying isn't one of her faults). She feels rather insulted by you accusing her of being this other person (who she doesn't think resembles her at all), so if you can spare a "sorry about that" for her, she'd appreciate it.
(And yes, Jehochman, I originally thought you had gotten the edit and move protection settings backwards, went to fix that, then realized the problem with having that length of protection on that particular page. We all have our senior moments, despite our youthful appearance and vigor.) ;-) --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I think she feels insulted that I continue to suck air, and nothing I say will have any benefit. My plan is to ignore her. If she stays away for 6 mos she can then try to come back under the standard offer. I won't object. She needs to let go of the past. Jehochman Talk 01:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Mbz1 was here. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 01:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


I was wondering if you would like to come back to Wikiversity ;) --Goldenburg111 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for that, I've signed. May I suggest that you remove the "Support" from your signature? I worry that people will start adding "Oppose" comments, as if it's an RfC, not a petition. Let them lynch-mob elsewhere. — Scott talk 23:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Already did, good thinking :-). --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, we tried. "Dignity", what a joke. — Scott talk 18:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
"I am unaware of any nondisclosure agreements and do not intend to intervene in a staff matter. Given that he was unaware that she was an employee, I'm not sure how much weight to put in that (though something in the signpost seems to suggest that there isn't an NDA, or at least that she's permitted to discuss the issue). --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Question About Kww and Phillippe[edit]

How did Kww use technical means to force the WMF on the Visual Editor mess? I know that the Visual Editor was not ready for prime time and that WMF, as the employer of the developers, was trying to ram it into production. What did Kww do? Was he heroic? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

He modified the javascript, iirc, which effectively allowed VE to be disabled (as default?), which is what the WMF (including Philippe in particular) were refusing to do. Whether it's heroic depends on your perspective, I suppose, but the point is that (a) Phillipe and Kww have a history of personal animosity, and (b) this is actually a wider dispute between Phillipe's wing of the WMF and parts of the community that are not at all happy with the WMF. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 14:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Feb 11?[edit]

You said "See WP:DEADLINE to start. I think it's wonderful that there's a POTD and some DYKs available, but contorting everything else because Jimmy thinks it's a good idea is frankly a bad idea".

That comment really helped me. I've been getting a bit worked up over things, and I really needed to hear the words "WP:DEADLINE". Sometimes when you need to chill, a stranger shows up to say the magic words-- WP:NODEADLINE. So, I wanted to thank you for the advice-- it helped me. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I agree we shouldn't push FA at all or "contort" stuff; just on the the stuff we already have that meets our criteria, do you think it's appropriate to schedule them all on a theme day like Feb 11, or should we stagger them across multiple days? your opinion valued. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the kind words :) this isn't the first time I've been mobbed over something where I believed I was primarily in the right, and I'm usually fairly good at dealing with it, the magnitude of this was just a bit more than I expected. The reason I posted a statement of the length that I did was because I had received multiple emails telling me to do so or they'd take it to ANI, and I figured my talk page would be less painful than ANI. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Triumph International[edit]

Hi SB Johnny. I contribute to Wikipedia regularly with a conflict of interest, while following best practices and bringing most articles that qualify up to "Good Article" status to ensure I am meeting a high standard of compliance with Wikipedia's content policies.

I'm trying to spread myself around a little more, to avoid the allegation that I have a small posse of favorable editors, which will inevitably occur if I rely too heavily on just 2 or 3 editors, so I thought I would introduce myself and see if you have an interest in chipping in on an article where I am affiliated.

The article is Triumph International. The draft I've prepared is located at User:CorporateM/Triumph. It's been shared on the Talk page and at COIN, but I find even COIN posts often get archived without anything getting done, so I try to ping people individually and find someone willing to chip in.

Let me know if you have the time/interest to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 15:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione opened[edit]

You recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence. Please submit your evidence before 16 January 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages.

From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present.

However, all participants are reminded that breaches of the Outing and harassment policy and the Personal attacks policy are prohibited. Further, be aware that the outing policy takes precedence over the Conflict of interest guideline.

No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using "Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion.

Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


You have mail. Go Phightins! 15:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


I'm just wondering why this was undone?

The reason I protected it was because an editor made socks simply to target Jimbo. When they made one of their socks, they said that they were simply going to keep creating accounts to target his page. As indeed they did.--5 albert square (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

See here. 12 days was way too long. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 08:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid to say that I have learned otherwise in dealing with his talk page. In any case I would have preferred that you'd have at least pinged me in the message that you left on Jimbo's talk page, if not left a message on my own talk page about it. All the best.--5 albert square (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I figured you'd see it, didn't see the point in "calling you out" about it. I just re-protected for another 12 hours, BTW. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 13:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Somehow I think they will be back. I hope I am proved wrong..............--5 albert square (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course they will. There's a long view that I'm seeing............ can you see it? I bet you can ;-). --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 02:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts?[edit]

Timeline of Philadelphia has a discussion about selection and inclusion criteria. Two editors are discussing it, but we have divergent views. More opinions would be helpful. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened[edit]

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
  1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case[edit]

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction[edit]

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.


I've sent you one. — Ched :  ?  20:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Got it Ched. Replied. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 02:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear SB Johnny,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards,  — Scott talk 10:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Time for a 15 year society eh? Happy New Year to you all. Peter Damian (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Guess who%27s back!!!![edit]

[[File:Jimmy_Wales_September_2015.jpg|thumb|2000px|MASSIVE Jimbo Wales]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Santa? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 01:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy and COI[edit]

I thought I'd try to start a discussion here on my talk, Figureofnine, in the hopes that we can keep it on-topic and not-so-silly. Coretheapple, you are not welcome on my talk page.

Alison is a "co-founder" of WO in the same sense I am: we participated in an email discussion about whether to set it up, how to avoid some problems that made Wikipedia Review fail, etc. We were also among the first people to get accounts there, and we both have "advanced permissions" on the website.

Neither Alison or I have anything at stake in Wikipediocracy's success or failure, and therefore neither of us has a "conflict of interest" in the normal (i.e. non-wiki-lawyer) sense of the expression.

I put my name of the template because I'm interested in Wikipediocracy as a participant and fan (as is User:Alison, of course), but arguably no more interested than Mr. Coretheapple, which is why I added his name as well. The point is that none of us should be listed in the template, or all of us.

If you didn't mean to kick the hornet's nest here, I'm sorry if it's been a source of stress or annoyance. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw some of this discussion elsewhere - and I just don't understand the fuss. The two sites serve different purposes; and even if they have a thread in common, they aren't competitors. It all seems like a tempest in a teapot to me. — Ched :  ?  01:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
WP is policed by a bunch of power-obsessed anal retentives. Nothing more needs to be said. Eric Corbett 02:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this discussion may already be off-topic, into silly name calling, etc. So, I will only leave one comment and ask you to think on it: We should disclose to the readers about that article, those who declare founder with advance permissions status - that is information about the subject, and about the article. If you want to discuss this comment further, you are invited to my talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Just saw the ping. I agree with Alanscottwalker and have nothing to add. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 14:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
  2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
  3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
  4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
  5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
  6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

Join us this Saturday (July 30) at the Philadelphia Wiknic[edit]

Join us this Saturday (July 30) at the Philadelphia Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit". This is an opportunity to meet other local Wikipedians, have fun, and discuss potential projects.

The event is this Saturday, between 1pm-5pm at the Picnic Grove in Penn Park.

(To unsubscribe from future messages, remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list.)

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

As requested:[edit]

In this edit[3] you say

"I'm not seeing any abuse of privileges here, but I'll happily list them if someone can bring them to my attention: [...] If someone brings abuse to my attention, I'll note them above. I can even add more slots if there are more than 5. If not, please consider the lack of evidence to be evidence, since as we all know it's very hard to prove a negative."

Here are three examples:

Wheel warring is a very serious offense. See WP:WHEEL.

I look forward to seeing you keep your "If someone brings abuse to my attention, I'll note them above" promise.

While your claim of no abuse of tools is demonstrably false, a claim of no recent abuse of tools would be fair an accurate. I don't think there has been any abuse of tools in the last five years. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put those in when I have time to look over them. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 11:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nspp[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Nspp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, SB Johnny. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]


Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi SB Johnny.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, SB Johnny. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PrSpam[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:PrSpam has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AmortiasDeckillerBU Rob13
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg RonnotelIslanderChamal NIsomorphicKeeper76Lord VoldemortSherethBdeshamPjacobi

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed XnualaCJOldelpasoBerean HunterJimbo WalesAndrew cKaranacsModemacScott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).


Administrator changes

added KaranacsBerean HunterGoldenRingDlohcierekim
removed GdrTyreniusJYolkowskiLonghairMaster Thief GarrettAaron BrennemanLaser brainJzGDragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017[edit]


News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug BellDennis BrownClpo13ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusBYandmanBjarki SOldakQuillShyamJondelWorm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Plantsclean[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Plantsclean has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Copied howto[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Copied howto has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)