Commons talk:Checkusers/Requests/SB Johnny

Cross project votes/comments

Please don't question the weight of those voting from another project asI have crossed projects to comment here. Remember that the privacy policy is something that is foundation wide. And the privacy policy is something I hold in high esteem. Everyone who can be possibly effected by a candidate such as this one has suffrage here. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is correct. We held a similar discussion relating to RfA voting a while back and it was generally agreed, if I recall, that those in good standing on other projects with some experience here would have their voices heard in RfA. —Giggy 05:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not completely correct. Input is important, and reasoned input will be considered when determining consensus, but the CU selection/confirmation process is a straight up/down vote. The header states:

Please note any registered user may vote here although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted. It is preferable if you give reasons both for  Support votes or  Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. ... that seems pretty clear to me. ++Lar: t/c 13:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser ops at Wikiversity

Earlier today Cary Bass revoked the Checkuser ops of the entire Wikinews arbitration committee and gave the explanation I want to point out that anyone with checkuser access must be appointed with support of 25 members of any community.[1] I have been unable to locate any vote for SB Johnny's checkuser ops at Wikiversity--only a note stating that Cary Bass had toggled the op for him in September 2007.[2] Much has been made at this nomination of the fact that he has checkuser ops on two projects already. Is this boast claim legitimate? Please provide a link to the Wikiversity vote, if one ever took place. Durova (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Here & en wb here. I will refrain from any comment I think. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts I find the word "boast" offensive at best and certainly lacking an good faith. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Interpretations of good faith seem to be uneven at this candidacy. Do you find it objectionable that a user whose privacy has been violated and whose livelihood was implicitly threatened has been accused of fomenting drama and a smear campaign, even though his actions are fully explained by the evidence he cites? I find it odd that use of the word boast comes under the microscope, while unfounded accusations against that participant's character are tolerated. I will be consistent and replace the objectionable word. What will you do? Durova (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not been involved with the issues that disturb you and so I am in no position to comment. My work these days is almost solely Commons based with a small amount on Meta. However as you will see from the links that I placed above I have known Johnny for rather a long time and my interaction with him has been consistently good natured. I am sorry that you have not found the same thing. That Johnny is a validly elected CU on two other projects is evidenced above & I hope will allay your suspicions or fears. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

How are you in no position to comment? The accusations of drama-mongering and a smear campaign occurred in this very candidacy, alleged without evidence. Surely there ought to be evidence to support such bad faith accusations, or else they should be withdrawn. I apologize if my word was ill chosen; I had looked three times for the relevant link and had been unable to determine where it was. Durova (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As someone who voted in both RfCUs I imagine it might have been easier for me to find than you. It is possible that I am rather more active on some of the smaller wikis too. The rest of your posting I confess I find rather hard to understand.

However I am afraid I do not get the satisfaction from arguing that some Wikipedians seem to do. I tend to consider how much constructive work I might be able to achieve in the same amount of time. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Livelihood implicitly threatened"? I don't quite follow that, it's been bandied about quite a few times now. Please elaborate, how is this the case? I think an outside observer would find that "boast" fits the term "drama-mongering" quite well, actually. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

By way of explanation

Before saying anything else, let me make clear that I do believe that editors have the right to anonymity and privacy: no ifs, ands or buts.

As far as the concerns Durova and FeloniusMonk have, I am indeed sorry to hear about what happened to you, but please don't ever think that I would do anything to encourage that sort of rotten behavior -- quite the contrary.

So here's why I did (and am doing) what I did (and am doing) on Wikiversity:

The situations that were brought up were two instances of someone nearly, but not quite violating the foundation's privacy policy. They were/are definitely right "up to the line", but they are apparently quite experienced with how that policy works and where the line is, so there was no way for me to act, or even say that I would be obliged to act if they didn't. The other Custodians at Wikiversity would also have objected strongly had I used admin tools for this purpose, even if I had decided to do so. The only option open to me was and is discussion.

To understand the rest it might be worth pointing out that I'm a Quaker, so my approach to conflict resolution generally involves a lot of discussion and (sometimes) a bit longer than some would like. Keep in mind that Quakers have been using "consensus" for many centuries as well, so the slow way that works on wikis probably isn't as frustrating to me as it is to many others. As a quaker, I don't believe in using admin tools as weapons, but rather for cleanup and for standing someone down when all hope of consensus or concession have failed.

The two pages I'm being criticized for "not being agressive on" both involve "outings" that have been done in the past. Durova's case was easy to resolve quickly, because she herself didn't appear on the wiki page and start an edit war (though if she had, and he was unwise enough to call her by her real name in response, the policy would have been violated and I would have acted). In that case he didn't have any enemies around, so it was relatively easy to convince him to lay down his "arms". I could, perhaps, have gone out on a limb and blocked him, but I can't imagine that would have achieved anything but a new wave of blog and forum postings the next day. Instead, he took the names down himself, and neither he nor I made enemies of each other.

The second page is a links page on the Wikiversity learning resource. That one has been a bit trickier because someone used a non-SUL account to engage in an edit war. It is rather hard to ask someone to lay down his arms when he feels someone is shooting at him. I asked Centaur of Attention to please just hang back for a few weeks to let them work in peace... and that was actually a few weeks ago. I haven't decided yet whether I can reasonably take up the topic in this weekend's review (previous reviews here and here), but probably not because I know for a fact that the person who added the links is aware of what's going on here today.

Now I'll go out on a limb here and make a conjecture: I suspect that the people giving me harsh treatment here probably treated these guys just as harshly, if not more so. I also think that my "sin" was not to make use of the admin tools in a punitive mode, and my unwillingness to exact punishment is being mistaken for an endorsement of the bad behavior. I understand that: victims need justice. But understand me: these guys feel they are victims too, and the "outing" was probably rooted in vigilanteism. If I had taken measures that they would have percieved as draconian, they would feel victimized once again, and perhaps take up the torches and pitchforks for another round.

I am doing my best to respect the dignity of both sides here. I'm trying to ensure that both sides can work in peace at Wikiversity. I hope someday they might even be able to work together, but I know that's not realistic. I acknowledge and understand that my patient (i.e., maddeningly slow) way of doing things can be frustrating, but slow solutions are the only way to get long-term (dare I hope for "permanent") solutions. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

SB Johnny has not asked, nor has he received, any permission from me to intrude further upon my privacy by posting yet more of the details of a matter I came to him about in strict confidentiality, with emphatic requests for restraint. When this candidacy opened I faced a terrible dilemma: remain silent and permit similar misfortunes to befall other Wikimedians at Commons, or voluntarily shoulder more risk to myself by disclosing enough to convey why and how I was so deeply concerned. I did so in as limited a way as possible. Any attempt to correct Johnny's factual and conjectural errors would require further compromise to my privacy. This is a terrible position to put a fellow Wikimedian in; how can you invoke the name of religion as you insinuate this slur upon my reputation and exploit my trust yet again? Johnny, delete your post! Durova (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely at a loss here. What exactly is it that you find intruding into your privacy in that post? It's almost as if you want everyone to accept that Johnny did something wrong, and any attempt he makes to defend himself is also unacceptable to you. I see nothing at all in the two posts he links to that mentions you either. Color me confused. That post of Johnny's should do a great deal to answer matters for those that actually have open minds. It's in no way privacy intruding even by some very liberal definitions of the term. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Lar, you can't seriously be demanding that I connect even more of these dots in public. I have to suppose you are attempting humor. The joke isn't funny. I have offered to discuss the matter offsite with trusted users. And I formally request that you either substantiate or withdraw your insinuation at the main discussion that an administrator in good standing on English Wikipedia operates a known troll as a sockpuppet. Durova (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying "Centaur of Attention" is a known troll? Please clarify what you're asking me to corroborate here. But make sure you want to know the answer... ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So you do believe that you have the sole right to allude obscurely to whatever issue this may happen to concern in order to attack SB Johnny, but he has no right to similarly allude to the same issue to defend himself against your attacks? Of course, the whole debate is silly to conduct in public given that nobody not actually in on whatever the privacy issue was in the first place has a clue what anybody is talking about, but you started it. (And now I sound like some brat yelling "MOM!!!!! She started it!!!!!"... and that's a joke, but the preceding post didn't seem to be one.) (And the whole issue sure seems to have brought out the whole BADSITES clique out from under whatever rock they came from, still brandishing arguments that were stale a year ago when they were using them on en:wp.) Dtobias (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dan, the word attack is one that must be used carefully. Johnny chose to accept this nomination at a project where I am an administrator very shortly after an interaction where it would be impossible to imagine I was satisfied. Johnny had taken it upon himself to push the matter far past normal and respectful disagreement over policy interpretations; I would not have opposed him if he had kept the matter at that level. His candidacy here is an invitation to scrutiny. I have not brought any clique out from any rock. When I first voted I was aware of no problem other than my own, but does not surprise me to learn that he has a recent history of similar problematic behavior. It would have been very simple for him to have avoided these objections in advance; he chose not to. Durova (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

@Durova: I'm not demanding anything. I am just saying I find no further violation of your privacy in the post that SB Johnny made. Feel free to contact me privately and make the case if you wish. You know it won't go any further. But no, there's nothing here I can see. I'm not joking. There is nothing funny about this in the slightest. ++Lar: t/c 23:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever that other account is, Lar, your position as Steward carries the implication of privileged information and discretion. Do you or do you not have substantial confirmation that Felonious Monk operates another identity? Do you or do you not have any actual evidence of a "smear campaign"; do you even have a motive? These are weighty accusations. I assure you, I have had no back channel contact with either Felonious Monk or Orangemarlin regarding SB Johnny's candidacy--not even tangentially, and I haven't communicated with either of them in a long time. I have no motivation for participating here other than sincere worries about SB Johnny's discretion. It is a strange interpretation of good faith that construes unsubstantiated accusations of conspiracy, drama-mongering, smear campaigns, harassment, and sockpuppetry against Wikimedians who present evidence of why they worry about their own privacy. If it were your intention to create a chilling effect and intimidate others away from stepping forward, you could hardly pursue it better than this. Please, Lar and Johnny: reconsider the tone you set. If the community's opinion on the whole differs from mine then there is nothing to fear with this candidacy, and even if it doesn't succeed right now there may be reason to believe that in time the doubters may be won over. But introducing these side issues is exactly the kind of wikidrama that most of us who participate in multiple projects seek to avoid. Commons doesn't absolutely need another checkuser right now; why raise the stakes in this way? Why personalize it? Please step back and consider the effect that your choices are having: those of us who have concerns already are getting more worried as you progress down this path. Durova (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Durova, your reputation was destroyed when your paranoid wiki-investigations caused the retirement of valued contributor User:!! based on totally unsubstantiated evidence you refused to share with community at the time you placed the unwarranted block on him. When said evidence did come to light, it was roundly denounced as absurd and you were forced to resign your bit under a cloud. Please do not assume that you have regained the greater Wikimedia community's trust in these and related affairs. Your claims, especially those which involve secret evidence only for the eyes of trusted wikimedians, will not be taken credibly in light of your history. There is also a serious concern that you may have fired off a canvassing message to cyberstalking-l, since the known members of said list and their associates showed up to oppose, despite not being very active at all on Commons, shortly after your opposition. I should request that you disengage from further causing trouble, the community has judged your concerns and found them wanting. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There certainly is some funny business going on here, but it would be improper to lay the blame at anyones feet, or accuse a specific list, without evidence. I hope someone on cyberstalking-l can comment on this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There's been no canvassing or talk of any sort about this CU request on the cyberstalking mailing list. And Durova left the cyberstalking list a long time ago anyway. (And before anyone thinks the cyberstalking list sent *me* here, I didn't know anything about this until John pointed it out to me). Sarah Ewart (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a cyberstalking list? I thought people were being metaphorical! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It must feel wonderful to be so out of touch with EnWP drama sometimes... :-) —Giggy 12:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The more I learn, the more nostalgic I become for the day before when I knew less ;-). I suppose it's educational though. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

For even more info to be nostalgic for the days you didn't know it, check out this tabloidish article, this essay by Guy Chapman (JzG) blasting that article and its related controversies, and this essay by myself rebutting Guy's essay. Dtobias (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think any discussion about Durova's decision or choice are completely inappropriate at this point. She hasn't been engaging in spamming for votes and her reasoning for opposition were entirely separate from those others. I happen to respect her choice to vote against SB Johnny and while I don't agree with it, that's her decision based on her personal interaction with him. Durova is an established administrator on Commons and has earned the right to say no here. Bastique ^demandez 08:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the only canvassing discussion I've seen regarding this !vote has been on Wikipedia Review, of which Dragon695/Prospero is quite aware, since he showed up to !vote here soon after the thread went up on Wikipedia Review, and commented in the thread itself. And, of course, a number of other Wikipedia Review regulars soon showed up to !vote here too, including (rather unsurprisingly) Dtobias, whose last Commons !vote (and apparently only other one, aside from a couple of deletion requests) was for Rootology's adminship, another !vote canvassed discussed on Wikipedia Review. At least Viridae had the grace to admit what led him here. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  In fact, it was Cla68's evidence-section mention of this that first drew my attention, just as it was for you. And you're right about me not participating much in the politics of Commons; up until now, I had regarded Commons as a quiet, peaceful, drama-free place that was a refreshing change from en-WP, and I went here solely to contribute productively with pictures I've taken. Unfortunately, some of the drama has now been exported here. Dtobias (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  I see, was it a comment by Cla68 that drew you to the Rootology adminship too, then? And when people start climbing on their pet, beaten beyond death en-wiki hobbyhorses, and inserting unfounded nonsense allegedly as a " respon[se] to unfounded nonsense", then they are actively taking part in "exporting" the drama here. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  BADSITES is unfortunately not an ordinary dead horse; it's the Undead Zombie Horse from Hell, which no matter how many times it's killed, buried, or ground into horsemeat and eaten, it somehow rises to raise its ugly head once again. Dtobias (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  If it's a zombie, that's only because you're the zombie-master who keeps bringing it back to life, and carefully nurturing it. It's so useful to you in all your arguments, isn't it Dan? Want to get the emotions running high and get people on your side? Just shout a witch, a witch! BADSITES! Clique! Cabal! The perfect way shut down rational thought is with a mindless slogan. BADSITES/clique/cabal is your Emmanuel Goldstein, Dan: you'll never let it die. P.S. Your failure to respond to the question about the Rootology adminship did not pass unnoticed. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  You really like to practice psychological projection, don't you? This sort of scapegoating, witch-hunting, and bogeyman-seeking is the constant tactic of your side. As for the injection of BADSITES into this discussion, see the whole thread starting with Felonious Monk's oppose to see some vicious smears on the grounds of the person up for checkuser failing to go along with a trolling SPA over on Wikiversity who was trying to purge links on classic BADSITES grounds, which were added to this discussion well before I arrived here. Dtobias (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  Wow, was it time for the Two Minutes Hate again so soon? I would have thought your most recent BADSITESgasm would have gotten it out of your system for a while. Jayjg (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not a diplomat and, as such, I am not fully conversant with the elegant and rarefied language of the diplomatic trade. I have a reputation for saying what I mean and meaning what I say. So I trust that you'll forgive me if I come across as a bit blunt when I state that I'm truly tired of nit-picky ogres. To get immediately to the point, Lysenkoism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge. Mr. Dan Tobias and Jayjg claim to have read somewhere that human life is expendable. I don't doubt that they have indeed read such a thing; one can find all sorts of crazy stuff on the Internet. More reliable sources, however, tend to agree that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Dan Tobias and Jayjg's morbid effusions and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to show some backbone.) Sorry for babbling so much, but I challenge Mr. Dan Tobias and Jayjg to admit they were wrong and thereby begin the healing process. Privatemusings (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)with thanks to Mr. Pakin, and attention to the below please! ding ding!

While not backing down from my substantive opinions on the issue, I apologize for contributing to the acrimonious atmosphere here by injecting them into Commons. Saying "But those other guys started it!" would be childish; I accept responsibility for my part of the situation, and I fully intend to bite my tongue and refrain from further comments here so I can go back to productive contribution of freely-licensed images. Dtobias (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their say. The regular contributors of Commons, who will be making the decision here in this matter, are smart enough to see through all sorts of things. So let people have their say, everyone, please. To a certain extent, some of the people saying some things very much undermine the very points they think they're trying to make. Commons is a mellow place and it will remain so even if we have to block some people to ensure it remains so. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lar, you've so far

• Accused FeloniusMonk of being Centaur of Attention on Wikiversity, then ignored requests that you either substantiate your position or strike it.
• When called out for the above, engaged in outright attacks on FeloniousMonk. You claimed that evidence with linked diffs substantiating it was a "unfounded smear of a truly awesome Wikimedian", and said "He is, by far, the better man here than you."
• You repeat your completely unsubstantiated claims over and over, in order to dismiss the opposing view. "But now I see something that has the hallmarks of a smear campaign developing here", etc.

Lar, you are a STEWARD. This behaviour is completely inappropriate for someone in your position. Please stop. If anyone here is violating good faith and mellowness, it is clearly you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In Lar's defense, he did ask me to help substantiate the claims that CoA = FM. A decision was made by the WV checkusers a few weeks ago that we did not think a check was appropriate, and after his request a couple days ago, we still felt it wasn't appropriate, for the following reasons:

1. The user ("Centaur of Attention") was involved in a content dispute, and as there were no "other accounts" making the same edits, it wasn't sockpuppetry (except in the SUL sense, but that's not an issue for us).
2. Even if it were considered a sockpuppet, we decided it was a valid use of an atlernate account due to the privacy issues involved in the content dispute.
3. The interwiki dispute (and the request was related to an interwiki issue) doesn't quite come up to the level of needing harsh measures, since the user account "Centaur of Attention" has not, as far as I know, been used to edit on commons.

Lar could of course make the check himself as a steward, but that's generally frowned upon. If you really want a check, you can ask for it on en.WV, but unless there are reasons for doing so that we're not yet aware of, we are unlikely to do it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

@Adam. I understand you have concerns. And I may have erred. But, let's unpack this.

• Centaur of Attention came to WikiVersity and acted in ways that showed prior knowledge of wiki ways, but were disruptive. Review the contribs... edit warring, casting aspersions, making unreasonable demands, edit summaries that show a distinct lack of concern for consensus, editing collegially, what others thought, and so forth. Not exactly positive contributions, all in all, regardless of what you may think of the justification for the actions. Agreed?
• This behaviour would not be considered appropriate, and if done by an established user, would rather make that user look less reasonable. (edit warring usually does not make users look "good", does it?) Agreed?
• That's the canonical definition of a "bad hand" account... an account being used in ways that the primary account does not wish associated with them. Agreed?
• Bad handedness can be across wiki boundaries. (We stewards see this all the time, users asking for adminship on one wiki when CU checks reveal that they are vandalising on other wikis. This situation is more subtle, but is still "bad handedness") Bad handedness is not confined to single wikis. Agreed?
• I became aware of considerable information that strongly suggested that C of A was indeed a bad hand account, and further, that it was likely (although not certain) that Felonious Monk was also C of A. I suspect you're aware of it too, as are others. Agreed?
• There is therefore justification of a cross-wiki check, if someone wanted to run one. Agreed?
• It's rather odd that FM seemed to dwell on the situation that C of A was involved in, it seemed to be the focal point of much of his grievance with SB Johnny, in my estimation. Coincidence, perhaps. Or perhaps, in light of the info that's out there, perhaps not. Agreed?
• Instead of seeking a check, or of contacting FM privately, I chose to ask FM if he knew anything about C of A, or had any comment. You may fault me for the manner in which I asked. I did so rather heatedly and uncollegially because, as I said, his statements in this RfCU are in my opinion, unfounded. SB Johnny did not do exactly what Centaur of Attention wanted... but he did not act incorrectly, within the norms and customs of WikiVersity. But that does not excuse my lack of collegiality.
• FM has chosen not to answer the questions directly, as is his right. But it leaves any number of inferences drawable. If he does answer them, if he says "No, I am not C of A", I'm prepared to take him at his word. He can continue to remain silent on the point if he likes, his perogative.
• Prior to your re-raising this, I had let the matter drop. That was in part based on an offline conversation I had about the matter with one of the other opposers, who pointed out my error in how I went about raising this matter, and in part based on my asking the WV CUs to run a check. They declined. I chose not to pursue the matter via Stewards, although the justification, in my judgement, does exist to do so. But in the interests of harmony, I did not.

Commons prides itself on being mellow. I wasn't acting very mellow, because I'd let some of this get to me, I hate to see someone as good as SB Johnny get smeared. Yes, smeared, because in my estimation, this matter has become a huge interwiki tussle with lots of carpetbaggers coming in on both sides to take sides, push their own private agendas and so forth. I don't think anyone actually set out in some nefarious plot specifically to smear SB, but that's how it is coming out now... he's a pawn of forces larger than this wiki. As I've said, Commons regulars are a sane and sober bunch and are perfectly capable of evaluating this request on its own merits... even among all this sturm and drang.

I've learned something important through this all. (Remember, the WV CUs declined to run a CU, characterising C of A's disruption as not so bad that they had to act... a hugely tolerant act, if you ask me) It is this... that while Commons may pride itself on being mellow, it is in no way NEARLY as mellow as Wikiversity is. So I'm going to try to do better, and I'm sorry for the upset I may have caused folk. People really should feel free to support or oppose based on their own views of the matter, and not because of political or power struggles. Adam, I hope that explains matters better. ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A plea for courtesy and calm

Many wikimedians are used to wearing different 'hats', a skill I'm trying to get better at myself.... I thought it might be worth mentioning that this conversation is taking a very 'en' direction in my view, and regardless of the whys and wherefores of that, it just seems a bit rude to traipse into another community's front room and omit to remove our 'en' hats.... I'm only really a file uploader here, but would like to apologise to more active community members who may be nonplussed at witnessing such a bunfight - what can I say? - We like to throw food over at en! I'm sorry.

I thought it might also be relevant to mention that for whatever reason this has become a rather high profile area in certain circles, and I think it's sensible to assume that it's been discussed across a number of channels, as is entirely normal and proper. Wiki contacts, 'real life' contacts, friends, lovers, husbands and wives have probably passed comment about this via emails, carrier pidgeons, instant message, and (who knows?) maybe even pillow talk! (I can think of worse cures for insomnia!) I don't really know the ins and outs of the enfranchisement issues - but would hope that this discussion could somehow aim a bit higher in terms of general conduct..... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)I can also think of a few better things to do when you can't sleep... but that's off-topic :-)

An observation ...

I see a strange discussion here. What is funny that each new opposer brings in a three new supporters. I guess that we are heading for an all time support record. --Foroa (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Time for COM:100? :-) —Giggy 03:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked to find that there are no third-level headers for support, neutral, and oppose sections, forcing me to have to use the scrollbar instead of being able to down-button my way to the "bottom" of one of the three votes. *receives headers* Everybody out (until this is fixed)! hbdragon88 (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually we don't even separate out the votes or number them. Commons is big, but not so big that it doesn't want to make the 'crats work hard to earn their keep. ++Lar: t/c 10:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that on Durova's request to become a bureaucrat. Simple is a relatively small wiki, but we've just celebrated moving RFA to subpages and we now have distinct separated sections for votes. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please help

It is sad that Johnny's helpfulness in an ethics project has been used to attack him. I invite everybody who has either knowledge or interest in Ethical Management of WikiMedia projects to help create learning resources at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia. We are inclusive. Add stuff. Don't delete stuff that does not violate WikiVersity site rules. Sometime this year we hope to have enough learning resources that we can be recommended as a place to go to learn. Right now we are a place to go to help create. Ethics awareness may be a solution to some problems. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on that: there are 2 "feedback pages" for that project now for anyone who wants to just have a look and register an opinion without getting into a "talkpage debate". en:v:Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Feedback 1 has general questions about the appropriateness of the project as a whole, and en:v:Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Feedback 2 has questions about whether editors to Wikimedia projects should be required to verify their identities and/or academic credentials. Apologies in advance for the somewhat awkward use of templates, but that's the only way we've figured out how to make standardized feedback using mediawiki. Like the original survey project (en:v:Wikimedian Demographics), it's perfectly acceptable to respond using an alternate username if privacy is an issue. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add my own invitation and endorsement for Wikimedians to come and register your comments, be they bouquets, questions, concerns, criticisms, or scathing indictments. —Moulton (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)