User talk:Jehochman/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Starting 02:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 69.106.230.196

Hey Jehochman, congrats on getting the mop, sorry I wasn't around to support your RFA (was on a wikibreak).
Could you have a look at IP User 69.106.230.196's contribs to my talk page and to Talk:feminism. They claim to have held an account previously and already know WP's rules and code of conduct but they're adding screed to my talk page about abortion. 69.106.230.196 has a problem with the phraseology of "feminists campaign for the right to abortion" - this terminology (right to abortion) is not my pov - it is taken verbatim from a number of books about feminism's campaign for women's rights. 69.106.230.196 takes issue with the definition of the word "right" in relation to abortion but (as yet) has no sources for their stance.--Cailil talk 21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman, sorry to bug you about this user again but User:69.106.230.196 is back on their soapbox but now using a different IP (User:69.106.250.135 [1]). 69.106.230.196 had already been issued with a level 4 warning, so these new contributions are after a final warning--Cailil talk 18:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence
I, Folic Acid, award you, Jehochman, this Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence (Potato Salad of Congeniality cluster, 1st class) for your outstanding conduct to date as an admin (and a new one, at that).

 Folic_Acid | talk  13:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! - Jehochman Talk 13:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Noticeboard

El C, when you deleted that noticeboard (how often do you get to delete one of those?), you left the talk page. Was that your intention, or unintention? - Jehochman Talk 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not often enough, let me tell ya! No, not intentionally. But I see no harm in leaving it undeleted. El_C 14:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's fine to leave it there in case people want to ask what happened. How about leaving a link to the MfD? Yes, I'll do that. - Jehochman Talk 14:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Jonathan - It's Li :)

Hey Jonathan, dropping you a line so you know it's me (Li) with this id. Going work on my profile page this weekend after catching up on the stuff I missed out on at the beginning of the week.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storyspinner (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Redirect of WP:DE/N

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on WP:DE/N, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because WP:DE/N is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting WP:DE/N, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 15:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, CSDWarnBot. I've deleted it myself. You're welcome. - Jehochman Talk 18:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Seeing that you've recently joined the Admin club, I hope you because a successful one. I really appreciate the compliment you left on my talk page. VoL†ro/\/Force 21:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm not in a rush, but it feels good that my contributions are not going unnoticed. VoL†ro/\/Force 23:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We block dead people?

Since when is it inline with the blocking policy to block someone for being dead? -- John Reaves 23:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what's always been done before. The deceased person obviously can't edit, and nobody is allowed to use a Wikipedia account besides the owner. What possible harm can a block cause? Leaving the account free to edit can only lead to mischief.
Somebody else was in fact editing, and we have no idea who. That's a solid reason to block an account. Another possibility to consider is that when an account announces the death of its owner, there's a possibility that the account has been hacked and it's a hoax. That wasn't the case here, but we didn't know that at the time.
Perhaps this all should be written into policy, but maybe this level of detail is instruction creep. - Jehochman Talk 00:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of this being done before. But if someone else was editing, I suppose that reasoning makes sense. -- John Reaves 20:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't hear about editors passing away too often. There's a list Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. You can see these accounts have been blocked to prevent abuse. - Jehochman Talk 20:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hal Lindsey (from ANI)

Hey Dude, to be honest, I didn't know it was a dispute or there was a problem (or would be). I went to the store and come back and I have created a major "thing" on ANI. Something I didn't intend to do. I have no stake in the Hal Lindsey article, none. I haven't actually watched the guy's show, only seen TBN for a split second when flipping through the channels, I really have no stake there. I was only attempted to remove edits that could be in violation of the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" rule (not sure what the exact rule is). If I messed up, then I do greatly apologize. I know radio stations and User:Bee Cliff River Slob came over into the radio station relm with the same cruft and I reverted there and thought doing some cleanup for the other pages he hit would be nice too, hence my edits. Again, if I stepped on some toes in my cleanup, I do apologize. I have been here a year, but I am still learning all the rules and whatnot. Again, I am sorry. Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely don't worry about it. You didn't do anything worth discussing there. It's no big deal. - Jehochman Talk 18:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad, I was worried I made a whole bunch of people mad.  :) Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 18:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your block of User:Sadi Carnot

For the reasons given here, I've taken the unusual step of reversing your indefinite block of Sadi Carnot. Please remember that indefinite blocks of established users by single admins are virtually never justified. Blocks are meant to be preventive, and the length of your block is obviously excessive in relation to the problem that needs to be solved. If you want a ban, take the matter to ArbCom, but I doubt very much that they will issue a ban in such a case. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite block is an undefined length, not an infinite length. I wanted to get assurances from the user before unblocking him. Are you willing to mentor this fellow and monitor his contributions to make sure he doesn't relapse? You should be aware that we announced this block far and wide just in case somebody would be willing to unblock him. That strategy has been effective, because here you are. - Jehochman Talk 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Hkhenson, who is no saint himself (always on the point of a WP:POINT violation, among other sins), most certainly has an axe to grind with Sadi Carnot: see Talk:Capture-bonding. Yes, I'm willing to discuss the matter further with Sadi Carnot to explain to him the error of his ways. Physchim62 (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Keith Henson has definite issues. I actually didn't give any weight to his comments. Keith and Sadi were involved in a case where I was the mediator, so I am familiar with both. Coren, Kww and MER-C provided evidence against Sadi. Those three are all solid contributors with no apparent motivations other than protecting the encyclopedia. I trust you to counsel Sadi and monitor him. I'm running out the door, but when I come back, I will post something to explain that at ANI. Meanwhile, could you please rearrange your "witch hunt" comment to be a bit more diplomatic? If you look at how the thread started, I was trying hard to WP:AGF with respect to Sadi because I had always found him to be a polite editor. - Jehochman Talk 16:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
JH, I've been reviewing this Sadi Carnot issue and I fully support your actions in this case and I endorse the reapplication of the indefinite block. I think Physchim62 is profoundly and disturbingly out-of-touch with community standards and I would have reblocked the account myself if it hadn't already been done. Sarah
Oh, I hadn't noticed that it was reblocked. - Jehochman Talk 02:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't; I misread what someone wrote. I've reblocked it myself. I think it is quite obvious that there is overwhelming support on ANI for the block at this time. Sadi can post his response on his talk page if he wishes and the case can be reviewed in light of whatever he has to say but I cannot see any legitimate reason for arbitrarily overturning the block. Sarah 02:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The ban will make it easier when the socks turn up. - Jehochman Talk 03:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed considering either an RFC or an ArbCom against your original block, as I believe that your approach to blocking is detrimental to the project. In the meantime, may I request that you remove the maintenance tags that you have added to articles to which Sadi Carnot has contributed. Your actions in doing so have greatly increased the amount of work for other editors in cheching these articles. If you are worried about the veracity of their content, please feel free to compile a list and to post it at WikiProject Chemistry, where it will get expert attention. Do not forget that there are over 28,000 articles related to chemistry on Wikipedia, so you tags will be gloriously ignored unless we actually know where they are. Given your other comments on this case, you may consider this a warning against disruption of Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do take it to Arbcom, and please stop reverting my good faith actions without discussion. I just reported you at WP:ANI for reverting my actions without discussion. You've done it three times now. The warning you left above, and your accusations of "witch hunt" don't help either. Please stop before this gets out of hand. - Jehochman Talk 14:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, firs of all my apologies for bringing it up here since I know nothing about Sadi Carnot or chemistry. But I'm an old friend of Physchim62 and I would like you to take a look at RfA:Catalonia.
There Physchim62 played a major role: He began that Request for Arbitration due to the vicious debates that were being hold on Catalonia and Valencian Community articles, Physchim62 was abusing of his administrative powers by blocking indefenitely anons and new users, threatening whoever disagreed him and letting a very disruptive user act without any punishment.
Ironically, the RfA he opened to punish those who disagreed him was closed with a blocking for the user Physchim62 was being lenient to.
Sorry if it's not related, but the situation with Sadi Carnot and his protection by Physchim62 reminded me on a previous actuation by him.
--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 07:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen that case. I'm not a mission to discredit Physchim62. I just want Arbcom to clarify the ground rules for community banning disruptive users. They are aware of that case, and if they see a pattern, they can do something about it on their own initiative. - Jehochman Talk 11:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capture Bonding

Could you take a look at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Capture-bonding? Thanks very much. Keith Henson 22:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a message at WP:COIN requesting a volunteer help with your request. Thank you for doing the Right Thing™.- Jehochman Talk 11:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SC

My reasoning here is less for the sake of SC than it is for the sake of PC62. PC62 was very upset about this, not because he agrees with SC's crackpottery (quite the opposite), but because a) SC has been useful on historical articles, b) SC wasn't warned first (which is true), and in general c) he (PC62) felt it was such a witch-hunt atmosphere he was going to resign his op bit over this, and possibly even take it to arbcom on a point of principle.

I think that would be a terrible waste of everyone's time and effort, and that my solution is an improvement. DS 22:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason the reaction was so strong is that a whole bunch of people found out they had been snookered. And the more they looked, the worse it got. PC62 makes good points above, and Jehochman got what he wanted which was someone willing to take responsibility for SC if and when he comes back. So I see no reason things should not work out OK.
That still leaves a considerable mystery as to what SC was doing and why. I am tempted to ask U of Michigan (Ann Arbor) graduates from 1998 if those who knew him can illuminate the mystery.

Keith Henson 23:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, folks. It's not within my power to overturn a community ban. The only way is to appeal to Arbcom, or to start a new discussion at ANI requesting an unban. That would be premature because Sadi hasn't even commented yet, and he hasn't taken responsibility for past problems. The resolution of this case will be handled at Arbcom. Hopefully we can all come to an agreement there, shake hands, and avoid wasting time. I have no bad feelings towards any of you. - Jehochman Talk 00:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have you ever heard of...

The organization mentioned in this new page: Link Building Association .? --Versageek 12:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

/me deletes. No. It's Spam™. - Jehochman Talk 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Jehochman

I wonder if you can help? I understand that administrators can view deleted information. If you find time, could you please tell me:

Feel free to edit my comment to add answers. I quite understand you may be busy or otherwise unable to answer my questions so please feel no obligation at all. Thanks ~ TreeKittens 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your answers:

Cheers - Jehochman Talk 17:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for helping me, but I think I didn't ask my question properly. User:Wavesmikey's earliest recorded edit was this one, which was indeed made on 21 June 2005. Is there no way of finding out when his actual first edit was (ie to the article he wrote which was then deleted), or when the account was first created? I understood that administrators can see the edits users make to articles which have since been deleted. Perhaps I am mistaken? Sorry to bother you again, and thanks for your help. :) --TreeKittens 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Both accounts have deleted contributions, but they are later than the ones I cited above. - Jehochman Talk 17:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that - sorry to pester you! Peace --TreeKittens 19:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard J. Taylor

Your comments about this profile simply being advertising is very disingenuous, inaccurate and alarming. You could use that comment about just about every profile on every writer and composer. Happily, more experienced editors apparently do not agree with you. Siebahn

[edit] Would you like to tweak this?

I've started a rough draft at User:Durova/Wikisleuthing to explain what this is about. Contributions welcome.

[edit] Regarding reverting back the Toto page

I've gone back and changed all the bias and fan writing that Steve McVey made. Some of what he wrote was an improvement so I kept it. I just took out the bias stuff, everything is good now. Thank you for all your help. Writer1400

[edit] IRC cloak request

I am Jehochman on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/Jehochman. Thanks. --- Jehochman Talk 02:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physchim62 as a mentor?

I strongly object to the idea of Physchim62 as a mentor to Sadi Carnot. I don't believe he has the will or desire to carefully cross-check every obscure reference that Sadi comes up with, because I believe that Physchim62 has not come to grips with Sadi Carnot as a fraud.Kww 03:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

At the first sign of trouble this will be reported at WP:ANI and Sadi will be blocked instantly. There is no chance he will get away with even the slightest misconduct. Furthermore, there is no evidence that he will return. His websites have been blacklisted, so there is no longer any incentive for him to spam Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus which means that at all times we try to compromise and come to an agreement, even on the eve of arbitration. - Jehochman Talk 03:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bengrove (ship)

I didn't want to mess with your userpage, (to fix the red link) but wanted to let you know I took the stub we have and expanded on it a bit and sourced it a bit(and will be working on it a bit more if I can find some media on it), I was wondering if you'd take a look at it and make sure all looks well, (sadly I am fairly insecure in my writing abilities, most of my work has been CE/spelling corrections.) Thanks for your time. Dureo 05:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the article name to better reflect name - SS Bengrove. Dureo 06:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I'm impressed by your suprising acts of civilry and good faith toward Matt57, dispite the conflicts, so I award you this barnstar. Yahel Guhan 18:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I appreciate that, but I can hardly expect Matt to let go of past disputes unless I do too. If you need any further help from me, just let me know. - Jehochman Talk 19:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks 2

Thanks for the funny note and the barnstar; probably only you and I "get it". I was tempted to say something funny on your RfA, but was afraid it might backfire since, well, my writing sucks and it probably wouldn't come out funny.

The problems with SC are deep and long-standing; being name "worst" by him could be considered an honor (I suppose you'll put that forward as evidence in the ArbCom case as an example of his behavior?). I support your efforts wrt the ban, but this brings to me to another issue. To me, the most important issue. My prose isn't particularly eloquent or succinct, so I ask you to bear with me and understand what I'm trying to convey.

I have typed and deleted and re-typed and re-deleted a response to the change you made to the banning policy, and decided instead to discuss it first with you. It's never wise to base policy on one case, no matter how strong it is, and not every case is like Sadi Carnot. His is not the only case before ArbCom right now involving the need to clarify the ban policy, and I'm afraid your change will introduce a worse kind of abuse than the abuse you seek to correct. Did you follow the MfD of the Community Sanction Noticeboard and the types of problems that led to its deletion? There are worse evils than "reduc(ing) Wikipedia's security to the level of the least competent, most gullible sysop" and that is elevating bans to the level of the strongest abusers and votes by popularity contests. Recent abuse at the Community Sanction Noticeboard led to its deletion and confusion about the ban policy. Editors were site banned based on "votes", not discussion, and in spite of several editors willing to unblock. That kind of abuse, IMO, does far more damage to the longterm health of Wikipedia because it causes productive editors to leave in disgust. After viewing multiple instances of abusive bans or attempted bans, I almost quit editing Wiki. The community can deal with the SCs, but more harm is done when productive, hard-working, well meaning editors tire of witnessing abuse and leave. Discussion, not votes, is the way to go, and when that fails, ArbCom is the next step.

IMO, ban discussions should proceed as this one did: [2]. I hope you'll read it carefully as it frames my basis for how I view sitebans and the discussion of them; the discussion proceeded over at least four days, and I was able to check in daily, even while on vacation, before decisions were made. Although I was (and remain, both on- and off-Wiki) the victim of an extreme attack and harassment that undermines Wiki and my editing, in the face of overwhelming consensus that the editor should "not only be off Wikipedia forever, but probably in jail or a mental institution as well", one admin argued that mentoring would be a better approach. He was not gullible; he was right. Had this editor been banned, the harassment I deal with would only be worse. It is up to me now, if I'm tired of the harassment, to bring it before ArbCom; Wiki treated every editor as fairly as possible. And even though I remain under attack, I would much rather live with the harassment than to accede to a system that allows for any group to force any editor off of Wiki permanently, because THAT is more dangerous in the longrun because it alienates and embitters good editors.

I fear that the changes you made to the banning policy will solve one problem (the SCs and Zs) at the expense of opening the door to a much larger problem of systemic abuse by groups of editors promoting agendas. I guess I prefer gullible to the more insidious harm that comes from the other kinds of abuse I've witnessed on Wiki. I really oppose that change in wording to the ban policy, and I strongly encourage you to consider that there are other sides of that issue and to investigate the issues I mention. I hope I've got some credibility with you, so that you'll work to understand the broader issues, beyond one bad editor here and there, that concern me. As you can see, your change to the banning policy would have made my life simpler; my harasser would have been banned by overwhelming consensus against only one admin advocating for mentoring. A ban wouldn't have been the best outcome at that time; admin abuse chases off more good editors and does more long-term harm to the Project than the SCs and Zs, who can be dealt with by other means. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My approach is (1) stop them, and then (2) offer a legitimate way back. Indefinite blocks aren't infinite. Perhaps the banning policy should say that any administrator can unblock a user on condition of mentoring them and taking responsibility for their edits. I said this to Physchim62, that I would agree to an unblock if Physchim62 would take responsibility for Sadi. P62 waffled and then unblocked before arranging mentorship. That's ass backwards, which is how we ended up where we are today. Turning loose a problem editor before arrangements are made is reckless. Nonetheless, if an admin wants to unblock a banned user and mentor them, that's something that the community should always support. Would it help to write that into policy? - Jehochman Talk 12:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
My concern is the whole introduction of two classes (de facto banned and consensus banned).[3] I don't think there should be any such thing as a consensus banned as you've defined it, as it opens the door to the same kind of abuse that was occurring at the Community Sanction Noticeboard. I support the long-standing policy which was if any admin was willing to unblock, there is no ban; discussion ensues at WP:AN, and it goes to ArbCom if admins can't work it out. Again, I'm far more worried about the type of abuse we saw at CSN than I am about the CSs and Zs, who can be dealt with. Your concern is to "stop them"; you can stop them by putting in place a one-month block (see the Z case above) while the community has time to discuss and resolve without wheel warring. By doing that, we can develop more consensus, better long term solutions wihtout pressure, and avoid potential for abuse. The kind of abuse of bans I saw at CSN and other places makes me want to leave Wiki forever and simply not lend my hard work and good will to a Project that tolerates railroading, while the harassment I live with as a result of an imperfect ban process is not something I can't deal with or which will cause me to leave Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you propose a new process?

If a user might need to be banned, the blocking admin can place a one month block. At the same time, they initiate a ban discussion at WP:AN. While that discussion is ongoing, the block must remain in place, unless overturned by Arbcom. Once the discussion at WP:AN reaches a consensus to ban, topic ban, or unblock with or without conditions, the original block is refactored accordingly. If the discussion leads to no consensus, the case is referred to Arbcom.

This process would prevent wheel warring, protect the encyclopedia, and allow administrators to resolve their own disputes most of the time.- Jehochman Talk 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, my understanding is that *is* (or was, before the change) the process currently in place, and a change proposal isn't needed. Did I miss something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Hey, did I start this? :-) I found that "users" subpage by Sadi Carnot and pointed it out at WP:RFARB. Another note I left led to Jehochman leaving me a note, and I came here and saw that Sandy was here, and went to Sandy's talk page and saw that the Users page had been pointed out. I should have thought of the barnstar myself... Anyway, Jehochman responded to my concern that AN and ANI are not really suited for the type of discussion that took place about Sadi Carnot (AfD tends to be more forthright about BS in articles), but I like the suggestion give above. I never really followed CSN, though I caught the tail-end of the MfD. I have noticed longer and more disruptive discussions on ANI since CSN was shut down. I always thought ANI was for quick stuff, and AN for the longer stuff, so maybe AN is a suitable place for discussions. I wonder if the shorter discussions there will suffer though. Whenever noticeboards are shut down, there is a period of adjustment as different communities clustering around various noticeboards adjust to accommodate 'refugees' from the closed down noticeboard. What might help is better management of the noticeboards, with off-topic stuff directed to the right noticeboard. Anyway, hopefully things will work out. Carcharoth 20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you didn't start it <grin> ... I was very worried about the banning policy even before the SC situation came to light. If you take the time to read through the link to a banning discussion I gave above, you may see why I stridently disagree with this newfound notion that WP:AN isn't the right place for these discussions. I strongly believe it *is* the right place, and the current *perception* of problems surfaced as a result of the abuse that was occurring at CSN and its subsequent shutdown, and that some editors and admins honestly came to believe that we can "pass out bans like candy" based on "votes". It's a dangerous precedent: more dangerous than the random SC situation. I strongly hope we just go back to the way it was before all that CSN nonsense, and that folks will settle in to realizing that it was the aberration, and that the long-standing way of handling things on WP:AN (as in the link I gave above) worked. I'm very concerned about the abuse, and if anything will eventually cause me to give up on Wiki, it will be watching editors be railroaded based on selective application of policies by groups. Please keep in mind that SC is not the only banning situation before ArbCom right now, and not all situations are as clear as his. SC was clearly a long-standing problem, but we can handle that via the usual processes. I don't believe in any separate noticeboard where users can be banned; the abuse was occurring because groups could ban users without broad community awareness or input. It belongs on WP:AN, in plain sight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with plain sight. Can we get the banning policy clarified to document the consensus about how the process works so we have something to point to when an admin starts acting impulsively? - Jehochman Talk 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, the banning policy was, no ban if any admin was willing to overturn. Can we get that back in? I know it works against the SC situation, but I'm confident we can deal with that. I hesitate to get involved in policy talk pages, though; nasty past experiences there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't agree to 1400 admins each having individual power to veto a ban. That means there are no bans, because one fool will always oppose just to show off. If a discussion leads to a consensus that the editor should be banned, then that should do it. If somebody doesn't like the result, they can appeal to Arbcom. This site isn't as small as it used to be, and the financial motivations behind abuse are much stronger now that we are a top 10 website. Times change and so must we. - Jehochman Talk 21:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see your points; still very worried about the downside of absue potential. One thing that would help is that we not shuffle ban discussions off to some obscure noticeboard and keep them centralized at WP:AN, where they get broader input. But a question; are there actually 1400 *active* admins, and how often do we see the kind of wheel warring that occurred with Sadi Carnot? If we separate the issues (that the ban shouldn't have been overturned, it should have been discussed in depth), why not go back to the old way? The ban was put in place when no admin was willing to overturn; maybe we should do as you said above, and formalize it to a one-month block discussion period? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The only problem with that is it may do some people an injustice if they are blocked for a month and then the block is eventually overturned. The blocked user could discuss on their talk page, or be unblocked to participate in the AN discussion, and that kind of unblocking shouldn't be seen as wheel-warring. The unblocking admin would make clear that the person being unblocked should only edit at AN, and that others should feel free to reblock if the user becomes disruptive. Oh dear, it gets complicated. Carcharoth 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The more I think about this, we need to separate blocking and banning. This concept of indef block mutating to become a ban needs to be deleted because it encourages wheel warring and unnecessary indef blocking. We block per WP:BLOCK. Separately we can propose a ban, or other community sanctions at WP:AN. The two are independent. I think that solution removes the most problems. We still have evil voting, but that's a problem for another day.- Jehochman Talk 22:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, all. Please check this version. The concept of an indef block morphing into a ban is marked historical. Bans are serious. When needed they should be discussed at a central noticeboard. The idea of indefing and then another admin overturning is a big problem, as we have seen. That sort of block-pong should not be encouraged. - Jehochman Talk 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Now there's no mention at all of the long-standing policy, "If no administrator is willing to unblock a user, and the user has been blocked after due consideration by the community, the user can be considered banned." Whole thing makes me uncomfortable, too much abuse potential, I disagree with the direction it's heading, but since I hate policy discussions, I'm going to bow out now. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There must be more to all of this than meets the eye, and I must not be privy to something, because it's disconcertingly confusing to watch all that is unraveling with the various blocking and banning situations while the policy page remains strangely quiet (seems it's only you and I and a few others talking there, so I have to guess the real conversation is happening elsewhere). Since I'm not even an admin, I 'spose I have no business opining, but I don't want to be part of a Project that is governed by mob rule, even in the cases where we may ultimately be right (such as I believe is the case for SC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the policy and it's basically correct at this point. Read it once more. If you figure out where the real conversation is happening, let me know, so I can join. We are talking at bit at requests for arbitration. - Jehochman Talk 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
ah, thanks for pointing me at that conversation; no wonder I felt in the dark :-) At least it's being seriously considered. I hope that my concern that it discussion not be based only on the SC case be taken into account, and that they are considering the other banning cases before them in the same vein. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we all should have a pow wow and get everybody on the same page. I don't really how the banning process is set up, as long as it works and we understand the process. - Jehochman Talk 20:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to WP:BAN

Erm, where is your consensus for your changes to WP:BAN? After my comments about your handling of the Sadi Carnot case (you have still to provide the list of pages which you tagged), I must formally warning you against disrupting Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The changes were gentle, and were discussed. Nobody else has reverted them. I need to remind you that you cannot use sysop tools against me while we are involved in a dispute. It is extremely unwise for you to threaten to do so. - Jehochman Talk 12:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

Might I remind you that this was not a sysop action. Physchim62 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The threat is obvious. You are going to leave me "warnings" and then go to ANI to request somebody to block me. Don't try that game. We are at Arbitration, and the dispute can be settled there through civil discourse. - Jehochman Talk 13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
And WP:BAN can be fixed by a community discussion which will probably last more than four days and will involve more users than have commented at present. I have not asked you to be banned at ANI, that's your game. I have asked for review of a potentially controversial action. Physchim62 (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. This is a very emotional issue. It is worthwhile to engage more people in the discussion at ANI. Our case isn't the only one like this. It may be time for Wikipedia to rethink the community banning process and clarify it to prevent good faith administrators for getting into disputes with one another. - Jehochman Talk 14:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sadi Carnot case

With this edit, you are returning to your habits of attacking users for their beliefs rather than their actions. You have obviously learnt nothing from this fiasco, and I can only hope that ArbCom gives you the cluestick beatingvery firm explanation as to why you have consistently ignored good faith and any arguments which run counter to your own, made personal attacks on users and have disrupted Wikipedia by your hysteria that you deserve. You are well aware of what my real response to the feeling of having to implement such obviously ill-discussed and ill-argumented bans was—I asked to resign as an administrator and only agreed not to so that I could participate in a soluton to this problem. You are crying for rights which you have systematically refused other participants in this case, myself included. I will stop myself from putting into words my other opinions of your behavior. Physchim62 (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refactor the above remark for civility. Wikipedia does not issue "beatings". It is unseemly for an administrator to make such a threat. - Jehochman Talk 12:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
A "cluestick beating" is a common admin phrase for telling someone (often another admin) exactly why they are completely wrong. I have no lessons on civility to receive from you, I am afraid: you are aware as to why from more private conversations. Physchim62 (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I deserve as much respect as any other user. You may use phrases like cluestick beating with your friends, but not with me. I don't care if rudeness is standard behavior around here. I don't approve of it. - Jehochman Talk 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that you deserve as much respect as any other user who makes actions such as yours. I try not to descend to the level which you use with others. Physchim62 (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This conversation isn't going any place good. Please refrain from further discussion here. Let's agree to disagree, and take it to arbitration instead. - Jehochman Talk 13:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

agree. Physchim62 (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This conflict between you and me is very minor in the scheme of things. The bigger issue is how can Wikipedia most effectively deal with disruptive users. I suggest focus on clarification of the policy rather than attacking each other. - Jehochman Talk 14:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calm down

I'm certainly on your side, but I can tell you that your reaction to Physchim62's asininity is not helping your cause. An onlooker is going to think of you as a whiner. Kww 14:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

 :-) OK, I'll wait until something actually happens before I whine. - Jehochman Talk 14:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COIN Comment Blanking

Thanks for the heads-up. I have no issues with the courtesy blanking, now that the issue is apparently resolved, and since he only deleted comments that I had struck-through anyway. There's always the historical record if ever needed. Thanks again! ArakunemTalk 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capture bonding

Would you please try to figure out what Keith is talking about on Talk:Capture bonding#I agree? I am utterly unable to see the difference between the term used in abnormal and evolutionary psychology. Publicola 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This topic makes my head spin. Maybe we need to contact the relevant WikiProjects or open an RfC to get more comments. This article has been to Mediation Cabal and now AfD with no clear resolution. - Jehochman Talk 20:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive users

Nope, no one has bothered me usually, thanks for asking. I would however, without naming them, have faced a few editors who've come to me and tried to tell me to stay away from certain articles. Maybe you know who they are but that doesnt matter; I'll try to keep it impartial. If there's no administrative official consensus on me working on a certain article, then they have no right to tell me to stay away from those articles. They should be warned in fact, not to own an article like this. An article is an article, its public. Obviously that was a violation of WP:OWN. If I violate any policies on articles e.g. consistently removing sourced material, then I can be warned for that. Thats perfectly ok. I think that was the only case where I got bothered a lot. I will say that one characteristic of disruptive users is that they are unable to see things other than from a personal-issue point of view i.e. - well you know what I mean. "You're editing this article because you want to attack me" - well thats not true. People should not read more into what is just there. I'm editing it because I want to make sure it complies with the site's standards. In any case though, disruptive users dont win in the end, without doubt. Thats it, I havent faced any other disruptive editors to complain about. I've also in my opinion been blocked too strongly and if there's anything such as disruptive adminship, maybe thats it. I got a month's long block for what. That was too long, for nothing. Thats it. Thats all the disruptive activity that I've faced and yes I'll call it disruptive because it was unfair. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We are trying to improve the quality of adminship around here. Thank you for expressing your concerns. - Jehochman Talk 14:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok great. Also wanted to add, that I wasnt looking for answers or debate on what I went through, but just wanted to give feedback since you asked. If you want to improve adminship quality and make admins think twice before they do something wrong, then a system to de-sysop them will keep them in line, really. That is the need of the day. Some people say trolls will misuse that system, well, no system is perfect but it can be very good. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Knights Templar

User:Elonka correctly tagged the article for cleanup and placed a prominent reminder on the talk page as talk page discipline has been poor there. There has been no improvement in 2 weeks, so I added a reminder to the talk page, particularly to the main contributor Paul McGowan some of whose comments are a little inappropriate e.g. "...debasing the cr*p" and and who I think caused you to tag the article for WP:COI? There has been no response. What would you suggest now? I have left a similar note on Elonka's talk page --Sannhet 16:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lanka resolution

Pls see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sri_Lanka_articles_dispute_resolution_in_effect. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • —Preceding comment was added at 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Per my RfA

Thanks for the note on my request, I see your suggestion and appreciate the idea. Would you be willing to be my "admin coach"? Rudget Contributions 12:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to coach or mentor you. Please contact me when the RFA closes. - Jehochman Talk 15:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for wanting to assist me if I get the mop, I'm going offline now though. I'll definitely help with the DYK suggestion tomorrow. Regards, Rudget Contributions 16:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey thanks for all the help you gave me in the RfA, which closed with 39 supports, 15 opposed and 1 neutral. However, I'd like to decline your offer of helping me after the request, because I feel I need to gain my own experience through channels, that I choose, because that is when I feel I will get recognised as a responsible and mature editor. I'm sorry for this message being a bit late, I only remembered you when I looked at ANI before, and thought "damn....". Anyway, thanks once again, maybe you could vote in my next one? that will hopefully succeed :)

Regards, Rudget Contributions 16:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already contacted you about admin coaching. Rudget Contributions 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About that couple of pints...

Posting here to avoid sidetracking Physchim's talk page. I agree that you have been reasonable and I don't see any "witch hunting" in your actions (I do see it in some other people's, though). I also acknowledge that you considered the situation for months, and not only for two hours. I don't have the slightest doubt of your good faith. In fact, I only have two complaints: 1) that you only gave two hours for people to post objections before blocking. Had you been more patient, consensus would have been clearer, Physchim62 might have been more reluctant to revert, and a lot of trouble might have been avoided. 2) That Sadi Carnot had no clear and unambiguous warning. I think that all reduces to a philosophical difference of opinion; I think you preferred to take a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach (you said something like "I'll unblock him if he asks"), while I would have preferred a "warn first, shoot later" approach. --Itub 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's completely fair. My preference would be to create a common statement Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Resolution signed by the parties where we explain that this was an unfortunate misunderstanding and ask for the case to be closed. I think everyone has learned valuable lessons and that things will proceed more smoothly in the future.
For my own actions, the rapid block was related to our unclear banning policy. It was my understanding at the time that I needed to place an indefinite block in order to see if any administrator would propose unblocking. I think the policy should be clarified to say that an indef block does not need to be placed in order to begin a discussion, and that an objecting administrator does not need to unblock in order to prevent a ban from taking effect. That simple change would be a great help. - Jehochman Talk 15:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, know that I am doing what I can to reduce the temperature of this conflict: [4] - Jehochman Talk 15:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Seeing this (and other discussions), I'm going to refrain from working on the SC evidence until further notice; I like the direction this is headed. It's the policy that needs fixin'. (I'm not sure my old SC evidence is that much a part of the big picture anyway; it's the point that the policy needs clarification that concerns me and I'm not convinced from the Jimbo RfC that there is clear understanding of how big the problem is on Wiki.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I think we are going to proceed cooperatively with the case because it's all set up, and everybody would like Arbcom to clarify different points. Please do add you evidence because this may reduce the amount of disagreement. - Jehochman Talk 15:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kattankudy Mosque Massacre

Hi Jehochman, I would also be interested in getting your opinion regarding including some of the gory mosque massacre photos [5] as well. I have moved the images in question to the talk page for discussion. Thanks, Sinhala freedom 00:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually have one major personal weakness. I can't stand the sight of blood. Could you get somebody else to look at this? - Jehochman Talk 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete comment

Hi can you either complete or remove the half comment at the bottom of this? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for pointing that out. - Jehochman Talk 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] help me

hi sir. I need your help for this discussion in my talk page. I realy don`t know we must have difinition word in the first word of articles or no?! then you have time if I`ll need any help ask from you? regards,--Gordafarid 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not so good with the manual of style. Usually I look at another article and copy the style already used. - Jehochman Talk 16:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block Island Chronology Dispute

Hey, I feel like constantly reverting this person is almost futile, but at the same time I know their edits are ridiculous. I am reverting their edits one more time, but I don't plan on touching it again. I am fairly new to editing articles on wikipedia, so what exactly should we do about this? HebrewHammerTime 15:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't revert. Talk to them and see if we can explain why prose is better than a list. Also, ask what facts are missing or incorrect, and then request references. Offer to repair the prose to make it better. If you cannot reach an agreement, we have other options, such as WP:3O. - Jehochman Talk 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops- just saw this message not to revert after I already did. Well, that'll just be the last one then. I wish the person would get an account, it's difficult to talk to them except through the discussion page since they clearly have a dynamic IP (at least over time- last time this stuff came up it was slightly different) HebrewHammerTime 13:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I sense that this user can be reasonable. I think you should be especially polite and encourage them to request specific changes to your version instead of them reverting you. Keep trying to compromise. If that fails, I can resolve the situation by other means. - Jehochman Talk 14:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI Nightmare..FYI

Hi Jonathan, I just left the same message for User:Durova. Just FYI.

I thought that this might be of interest for you. I am honestly getting tired of this sh**. WP:COI is a mess and used for everything against anybody. WP:COIN gets then slammed with all this and the end result are many upset editors and in too many cases ex-editors who just leave instead of coping with this BS. Cheers and happy reading.

--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Caesarjbsquitti soapboxing at talk feminism

Hi Jehochman, I hope things are going well for you. I'm dropping you a note because of repeated soapboxing by User:Caesarjbsquitti at talk feminism. I made an ANI post last night with diffs here. This behaviour from Caesarjbsquitti is disruptive and is a recurrence of the same from almost a year ago. I'd much obligied if you'd have a quick look. This user has not been template warned (as they are an experienced user) but cite policy has been pointed out to them 5 times (by 3 editors) in less than a week--Cailil talk 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Handled. - Jehochman Talk 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for looking in to this--Cailil talk 15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on stated facts, by verifiability

Hi stranger. A belated congratulations on the adminship! I had a question, and you've always been a good judge of this sort of thing for me previously. I was looking at this content dispute here, and an interesting question came up. If x number of sources say that something is true, but no reliable sources exist to counter that statement, is it safe to state that the something is true? It's an interesting question. We can't (as I understand it) put up counter-views without sourcing, and even when WP:FRINGE comes into play, even wacky theories, ideas, and purported facts need sourcing.

So, in short: if 10 reliable sources state a fact, but no reliable sources exist to counter that fact, can Example article state that "This is this."[1][2][etc.] until a valid counter-source arises? This is also assuming it is not a BLP of course. My question is specific to the Waterboarding article, after someone there raised this very question. I'm also very curious in general for understanding NPOV and verifiability's finer points, given that a handful of the articles I'm helping on now are borderline possible contentious territory. • Lawrence Cohen 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at our definition of undue weight. All prevalent views should be represented in proportion to their prevalence. Fringe views are not included at all. Does that illuminate the situation? - Jehochman Talk 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat, yes. What if you get into a questionable gray area? If someone in a position of expertise, for example, stating that x is y, but others in equally valid and strong positions of expertise say x is not y, just quietly note the contention (sourcing both viewpoints, and the different point of views) and move on without taking a stand in tone pro or con either? • Lawrence Cohen 15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. You don't have to be quite either. You can say plainly that there are opposing views. Explain the different views, citing reliable sources. - Jehochman Talk 15:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll see if I can help sort out that mess there with this. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Also, a sockpuppet

You might want to check out Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Earthenboat also. I did it with Twinkle, not sure if that's the best way to do it. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I have answered your question on my talk page. User_talk:Nick_Y.#Optional_question.--Nick Y. 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again Jehochman

I hope you are well. Please note the activities and claimed identity of User:Linshukun. He seems to have resumed serious editing as of 24 October. I have discussed his apparent relationship with Thims at the Gladyshev afd as well as the forum posts allegedly written by him and answered by Jimbo. There is more. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to explain it all satisfactorily. This is complicated. As I have said before - we were given these clues deliberately so we should be cautious when interpreting them. I will try to post a more comprehensive comment when I can. Best regards --TreeKittens 07:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick review of his edits certainly raises my suspicions. Perhaps a check user is in order?Kww 09:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to request a checkuser, if you have sufficient evidence to do so, but I think you might also ask User:Carcharoth to investigate this matter and make a determination. Checkuser is not required for obvious cases of sockpuppetry. Carcharoth is familiar with the case, yet not an involved party. - Jehochman Talk 13:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I read quite a lot of your discussions and learned some, now. I had a mixed feeling but finally I would say that your guys are doing quite well in keeping Wikipedia in a good shape and good science. By the way, about my contribution to "Gibbs paradox", I deleted the parts wrote by me. Sorry for creating so many versions for "Gibbs paradox" by adding and correcting every time I can log in. I am still new here. However, I did not delete the parts prepared by other people. --Linshukun 21:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good job maintaining GRB related pages

I'm impressed with the solidity of the GRB article and its children. The material covers the observational facts well and includes the broad consensus on the modelling. Well sourced indeed. I will keep an eye out for this article. Let's hope it will achieve featured status :) Regards, 82.72.87.196 10:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lanka

Need 2nd eye here, you said you'd help. I am convinced the new account is a sock of netmonger and should be blocked, including netmonger, what do you think? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sockpuppet. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were online, so I made my call. Thanks anyway. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I just stepped out for lunch, but will have a look now. I'll be in and out today.- Jehochman Talk 16:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, see the page. Our first of the peace effort. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposed interim ban

My patience with you has run out. This edit is entirely inappropriate, as are many of your comments on the arbitration page. As such, I have requested to the Committee that you be banned for an interim period from editing Wikipedia, except for this page and for the pages of the arbitration. This does not affect my belief that you acted in good faith in blocking Sadi Carnot, however wrong I feel that that decision was. I simply believe that your judgement is such that you should not have the power to use administrative tools. It is your own actions which have lead me to this, dispite the fact the we have been able to co-operate on other dispute resolution. The matter is now in the hands of the Arbitration Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked Nick Y. a question because I wanted to recommend that he look at our admin coaching program, but I had a concern he apparently used a previous identity. I wanted clarification before making that suggestion. P62, you need to assume good faith and ask me to explain things when you don't understand what's going on, instead of assuming the worst. You're obviously under a lot of stress, but if you just relax, you'll see that everything will turn out alright. - Jehochman Talk 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] We need your help BADLY

Hi, it's me from the Toto page from a month ago. On the page for the "Barenaked Ladies", there's one poster who won't stop using sources that are not reliable. He's using only 2 sources for the entire page and they are from 2 alleged tv specials even though there's no evidence that these tv specials actually aired. Please help, can you look over the page and talk to the poster TheHYPO. I've told him he needs more sources and better sources. He's just ignoring me, he has a bad attitude. You were such a great help last time with the Toto page, I trust you 100% with these situations.

Writer1400 Writer1400 12:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm heading out the door. Please take this to editor assistance for quick action. - Jehochman Talk 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goodness, Gracious!

I certainly hope that your faith in Lin Shukun does not turn out to be misplaced.Kww 21:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is, there is no harm done in being nice. You see how I was nice to Sadi Carnot twice before. Watch how the case resolves. - Jehochman Talk 22:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lanka related

See here and here. Is this acceptable ? Thanks Taprobanus 18:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've issued a warning. Hopefully the editor will adjust. - Jehochman Talk 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks we are progressing towards total peace and quiet for a change in these articles. Thanks againTaprobanus —Preceding comment was added at 15:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Establishing Notability/COI issues for article

Hello; I'm trying to clean up COI issues and establish notability for Road_&_Travel_Magazine. I left a note on the discussion page citing a source about 10 days ago, but I'm not sure how to proceed next, as there's been no response. Thanks very much for any tips. Erikd7 19:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You could post a notice at the conflict of interest noticeboard and ask for help. That should work. - Jehochman Talk 19:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you; I will do that. Erikd7 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright violation?

Good morning Jehochman - I hope I can ask a favor of you. I came across this image today, and it seems to me to be a violation of copyright, or at least, a misrepresentation of who the owner of the copyright actually is. It's virtually the same as this well-established image, just with a bit of color and the Chinese characters edited out. I have to confess that I'm not very familiar with the procedures for questioning the copyright of an image, and my brief search for answers didn't yield much fruit. Would you mind having a look, and take whatever action you think necessary? And, if you'd be so kind, could you point me in the right direction of the proper procedures for this sort of thing, so I don't have to bug you in the future? Many thanks  Folic_Acid | talk  14:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is what I did, and you can do the same: [6] 
{{copyvio|http://www.nndb.com/people/974/000086716/cks-sm.jpg}}
Best regards, - Jehochman Talk 14:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Outstanding - I'll tuck that under my hat. Cheers  Folic_Acid | talk  14:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical point

We need to renumber the Proposed findings of Fact, because there are two number 14s. Could you protect the workshop page for a couple of minutes and do this before the problem gets any greater? Thanks in advance. Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to run to a meeting. The clerks will take care of this, or you can do it yourself if you like. In spite of the robust debate, I would still like to be your friend, and am happy to settle this case by a mutual statement of principles if you like, and I am willing to strike any negative comments I've made if you would do the same. - Jehochman Talk 14:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Re this edit: LOL! thanks for taking care of this. Physchim62 (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. - Jehochman Talk 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another violation in SL realted articles

Violation of 1RR 1st,2nd, 3rd and violation of WP:NPA calls in the edit summary [(rv sock edits) in revert three. Thanks Taprobanus 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing discussions

You may not be aware of further discussions here and here. As one of the administrators involved in the case and/or in its discussions, I think it would be useful if you could comment. Thank you in advance, Mondegreen 17:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only involved a little bit, and there seems to be a crowd already. - Jehochman Talk 16:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your last edits

You wiped mine and Durova's comments under "Phsychim62 refused to abide by the consensus". You wiped yours, too. I restored mine and Durova's, but if yours was an accident, you might want to put it back as well.Kww 23:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.- Jehochman Talk 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Hello Jehochman, how are you? I leave this message because of your "faith in the system", and because I have recently opened a policy RFC. I share your faith in the wikiprocess and value your opinions. Peace and good days! Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 03:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hey Jehochman. First, I would like to thank you for your help with the Sri Lankan issues. Your work is much appreciated. Can you also comment on the following issue here please. Thanks Watchdogb 07:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nipping SixString in the bud

Thanks for catching MindGuerilla. As you can probably tell, I don't have a lot of experience with sock-puppets, and what instilled my zero-tolerance attitude was good ol' SixString there. You didn't happen to catch the IP there, did you? Again, I appreciate you acting quickly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Talk: Wheel war

Hi, an RFC request you added to Talk: Wheel war was incorrectly formatted, and wasn't processed by the RFC bot. Please see RFC Instructions for information on selecting and filling out RFCxxx templates. The example and notes below may also be of use.

Example use of RFCxxx template

This example shows how a partially completed RFCxxx template might appear in an edit box before the section and reason parameters have been completed (xxx = any of bio, econ, hist, lang, sci, art, pol, reli, soc, style, policy).

{{ RFCxxx | section = !! reason = !! time = ~~~~~ }}

This example shows how a completed RFCxxx template and associated section heading might appear in a discussion page edit box before saving.

== RFC: Is photo in "history" section relevant to article? ==

{{ RFCxxx | section = RFC: Is photo in "history" section relevant to article? !! reason = Is the photograph in the "History" section relevant to the article? !! time = ~~~~~ }}

Is the photograph in the "History" section relevant to the article?

Things to note:

  • RFCxxx templates go on discussion pages, not in articles.
  • Only one section containing RFCxxx templates should exist in a discussion page, and it may only contain one of each type of RFCxxx template, otherwise RFC bot will get confused.
  • All parameters in the template must be completed (section, reason, and time).
  • section is the section header of the discussion document section that the RFCxxx template is inserted in, RFC bot uses this information to insert a link in the RFCxxx list that points to the discussion.
  • reason is a neutral statement of the reason than an RfC is requested for. RFC bot copies it to the RFCxxx list. It should be repeated after the template.
  • time is a standard timestamp as provided by using 5 tilde characters ~~~~~.
  • Do Not use any exclamation mark ( ! ) characters in your reason or section, they will confuse RFC bot.

I hope this helps. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

extra note - look at the signature, did you use 4 tildes or 5? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

[edit] TyrusThomas4lyf

Any chance you could reinstate the block regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TyrusThomas4lyf? The sock-puppet activity has resumed unabated. Thanks. Myasuda 23:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Hi. Regretfully, I'm no longer confident in your judgment as a sysop. Both myself and Dmcdevit have repeatedly requested for your to provide us with a concrete grounds for the block (diffs of recent misconduct). Will you be willing to, as a last resort, do so? Or is a formal investigation by the arbitration committee the only recourse to compel you? Please let me know. Thanks in advance. El_C 07:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to talk with you about this. You can IM me right now. Send email for an invite. - Jehochman Talk 07:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I would prefer a public conversation. Is that possible? El_C 07:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. What do you need to know? Let me ask one first. I agreed to the unblock which was what you wanted. Don't you feel like I should get some credit for being agreeable? - Jehochman Talk 07:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think you should get credit for that. Nonetheless, do you really not see a problem with punitive blocks? Throughout the day, I have asked you to submit anything concrete, immediate, recent, abusive, etc. as grounds for the block, but I felt that instead, you have been markedly evasive. You continued to link to subpages, which may or may not contianed said evidence rather than straightforwardly produce the evidence itself. It was not, in fact, until Dmcdevit "sanity" exasperation that you ceased from this subpage linking and move to bring something more direct, which nonetheless was not up to par. Now with your desired measures against Dreamguy rejected in the clarification request, you still challenge that my account is factually incorrect? I am already shaken by how offensive your conduct has been thus far (unlike Dmcdevit, who only found it "a bit offensive," I found it rather outrageous)). I would think that you would wish to enjoy from the benefit of out experience, which I do not wish to flaunt, but we each have blocked thousands of users throughout the course of years without much incidence. El_C 07:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
In answer to your earlier question, no, 24.19.33.82 is not me. If the signature at the end dosen't read "El C", then it is not me. El_C 07:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it was possibly Greg Kohs. He and I play cat and mouse sometimes. - Jehochman Talk 07:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
"As a consultant with what looks to be money riding on your participation in this endeavor" — I would never say anything like that, I would never bring your personal or professional life into this. Give me some credit, please (!). El_C 07:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to enjoy the benefit of your experience, thank you. The presentation by Arcayne was quite a mess, you are right. As you can see, I didn't believe him at first, but eventually I saw that there was a case, which I corroborated through independent means, before making any claims. Your point that the incident was stale was a tenable objection, which is why I backed down rather than putting together a cleaner presentation. I am not challenging anything at this stage. I will strike the comment you find offensive if you like. After I agreed with you, I felt very upset that you were admonishing me. Would you be willing to strike that? I am sorry we had this misunderstanding, but I feel that we can sort it out. If you have any other questions, please ask. - Jehochman Talk 07:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am glad my admonishment impacted you, and I don't say that because I enjoy admonishing, certainly not upsetting people, but because I feel such an admonishment was sound in this case, and it was not only directed toward yourself, as the only fair outcome that doesn't leave deeper scars. I am willing to look into the possibility of there being something/s factually incorrect in my own review, but you need to be clear about what these are. Simply viewing your backing down as a gesture of goodwill, is not good enough, because what indication is there that you and the other individuals I admonished would not repeat the same mistakes later on in the not too distant future. And, an admonishment from myself is certainly a much lighter burden to carry than one from the Arbitration Committee. El_C 07:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. I think the evidence is there, although it takes some digging and sorting to see it. The objection that the behavior was too old to be actionable is something I have now learned. The idea that the evidence needs to be presented as clearly as possible is something I also agree with. - Jehochman Talk 08:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. Regards, El_C 08:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A clean talk page!

(edit conflict) While it might not be my place to contribute to the discussion here, I apologize if my handling as a first-timer made matters difficult for either of you. I don't hate anyone, and this wasn't a wtichhunt, at least, not for me. it was just my first time preparing trying to create a reply, and I wasn't anywhere near succinct (I was also concerned that too much brevity might be perceived as glibness). i have endeavored to be more so as I learn more about how this works. My apologies if any ineptitude on my part complicated the relationship between you two. That would indeed upset me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry over it. Lessons have been learned all around. - Jehochman Talk 08:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography of living persons policy

Hi, received your note on my talk page, but not sure to which article you're referring. The only recent edits I've made for living persons are here, here, and here - all of which were simple typo corrections or removal of vandalism. In the future please include a reference to the article in question - otherwise it's difficult to learn from my mistakes. Thank you - Chewyrunt 15:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Okee dokey, I removed the message because it looked like I may have left that on the wrong page. Sorry. - Jehochman Talk 15:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks for the quick response Chewyrunt 16:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Callmebc

Someone else got it, which is ok under these circumstances, but thank you for asking me first! -- But|seriously|folks  18:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always a good idea to keep people in the loop. - Jehochman Talk 18:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TyrusThomas4lyf

Hi -- I've responded to your question at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TyrusThomas4lyf. Thanks for asking! Myasuda 20:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

...For your help. Can you on my userpage explain my history please? KingPuppy 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] approval for photo posted

dear Jenochman, as an Admin,would be kind to have a look at the photo i posted of Alfred Rosenberg at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosenberg.jpg??i actually spent good time on this with the help of a friend of mine who's a lawyer.thank you much sir :)Grandia01 06:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I am not sure about the copyright status on that. - Jehochman Talk 06:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
can you please tell me why??please let me know if there is anything to correct.i just highly doubt that anyone can claim credit to it and thus make it illegal to be hereGrandia01 07:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANI and complaints

I noticed the Dbachmann thread you closed. You said "ANI is for complaints, not investigations", but at the top of the page it says "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department"... :-) I also noticed that you said "Participants are counseled to prepare a detailed report to support their complaints." That's Arbcom arbitrator/clerk language! :-) Carcharoth 11:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. :-D - Jehochman Talk 12:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lanka Reconciliation barnstar

The Sri Lanka Reconciliation Award
For your merits in bringing about the Sri Lanka dispute resolution, the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation herewith presents you this Sri Lanka specific award, which is the blossom of one of the world's most loved drinks. — Sebastian 05:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Please let me know whenever you need help. - Jehochman Talk 05:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

I hope you don't mind me bringing our conversation that was happening on AN/I here - I think it's probably a more suited venue for now (feel free to cross post, or move back, or move to my talk at your discretion).

I think your idea of a central repository of community resolutions could be very powerful and useful - and perhaps not just in the area of editor's restrictions (which is indeed a sensible application). What would you think about somehow structuring content or policy discussions into it in some way? - You may have become aware that WP:NPA has returned to being a somewhat combative atmosphere, after a period of calm for a few weeks. Could this idea be applied there somehow? Just a thought at this stage.

Regardless, it's nice to meet you, best - Privatemusings 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice to meet you. I am very interested in community restrictions that are less than blocks or bans. For instance, if an editor has a problem with civility, instead of blocking, we may be able to agree to civility patrol as a lesser alternative. That should be recorded on a list so that if future problems occur, the prior agreement can be found. Searching the ANI archives for stuff isn't practical.
Can I give you a bit of unsolicited advice? You would probably catch less criticism if you spend a but more time in article space. Have you ever created a Did You Know?, Good or Featured article? Your interest in policy areas is fine, but to be most effective you should try to balance your participation with mainspace contributions. I hope this helps. - Jehochman Talk 05:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Although I'm prone to being one of nature's cynics when it comes to badges like 'GA' and 'FA', I would indeed like to get an article up to meet that standard. Do you know anything about Socrates? It's a very important article, which I've been working a little on both off and on line (when not indef. blocked.) - I'll look for your proposal on the Village Pump, because i think it has merit. best, Privatemusings 06:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a point

I was edit-conflicted with the archiving of the AN/I thread, so I just thought I'd post what I'd written here, since it responded mainly to you: That's a very good point; I've spent a lot of time recently looking for exactly why, where and what non-ArbCom restrictions have been placed on various editors. I urge you to propose something at the Village Pump.

Of course, I should point out that I having read the above discussion in its entirety and at one go, I can't see it being "supported by the consensus", but that is rendered moot by PM's suggestion.)"

Cheers! Relata refero 06:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random compliment

Your skill with chipmunks is unparalleled (yes, I know that isn't you, but for the sake of this compliment we will pretend it is). :) Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Review of Latitude Group

I have taken Latitude group to deletion review here, if successful I would like to have the content from Latitude White (which you speedy deleted) restored so that it could be merged into the main article. [[Guest9999 12:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]]

[edit] RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 12:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Jehochman, in regards to 24.19.33.82 (talk · contribs), could you offer some input on what BLP violations you were alleging against that IP with this warning? This is in regards to the current ArbCom case. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I now consider this matter to be closed because there was a mediated settlement. - Jehochman Talk 00:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
So there was no BLP vio? I'm only asking because I plan to raise the issue of this IP's block (and all the problems that followed) at arbitration. Bishonen says her block (and protection of the user's talk page, and all the drama and problems that ensued) were at your request. I'm honestly hoping for a simple explanantion to clear this up so it doesn't have to be raised at arbitration. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No, there was a mediated settlement. You can ask User:WJBscribe to explain if you like. I am sorry, that's all I have to say about this. - Jehochman Talk 02:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I won't bug you any more about it. But I'm afraid it's going to be rehashed at arbitration. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An idea for consideration

I see you've been blocked. This discussion is moot. - Jehochman Talk 08:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hospital VIA

Hi Jehochman; with regards to the speedy deletion of this article, I'm not sure how a job title classifies as a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content (or blatant advertising, as was previously tagged). I removed any references to specific hospitals. There seems to be enough material on the subject, even if it eventually turns out to be unnotable, but that's a different matter. Marasmusine (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The way it was written, and the totally irrelevant Google results I saw for the term seemed to support the tagging rationale, but if you would like to restore it, be my guest. Perhaps a better title would help. Happy editing. - Jehochman Talk 08:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birendra Shah

Howdy, I noticed you had just deleted the Birendra Shah from CSD. It seems reasonable, since the article said virtually nothing. However, I think the subject is fairly notable, and was just about to remove the speedy and add a sentence or two describing the subject. Would you mind terribly if I recreated it and added some notes about the notability (briefly, Shah was killed by Maoists in Nepal a week or two ago, seemingly related to his journalism [7]). Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

When creating a new page, be sure to assert notability before you save it. That will avoid problems like this. I have recreated it for you and added the hangon tag. Please leave a note on the talk page soon, or it may be re-deleted again by somebody else. - Jehochman Talk 08:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I would have recreated it myself but I didn't want to step on your toes (I was running through C:CSD when I saw it). I replied to your note on the article talk page. Certainly, given what was on the page, your deletion was well justified. It just happened I googled the name as well and found "the rest of the story" as they say. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Sadi Carnot is banned for one year, and the remaining parties are encouraged to "move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness". For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 12:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive blocks

I am concerned that you seem to have taken on a course of actions outside of consensus and and the processes of Wikipedia. You appear to have arbitrarily decided that certain contributors are problematic and are executing blocks without prior discussion or warning the "offender". I shall be reviewing the case of User:Academy Leader to see if any Wikipedia rules, policies or guidelines have been violated [refactored]. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)(edited by LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

Less, I suggest you review the case first, before you jump to conclusions and leave ill considered "warnings". I suggest you take your concerns to the thread I started at WP:ANI for the purpose of discussion this matter. - Jehochman Talk 15:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the block has received strong support from uninvolved administrators. Not only is the "warning" premature, it is also factually incorrect. [8] [refactored] Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 16:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC) (modified 06:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
I am responding in regard to your message on my talkpage; I regret that I feel I am unable to refactor my warning at this stage for the reasons requested. I would comment that you are requesting the sort of prior discussion that is absent from your actions which gave rise to my issuing a warning. Either process is followed or it isn't.
Please note that my concerns are not with the use of the alternative accounts but with your actions. I did indeed check whether Academy Leader was issued with a warning, or if there were any prior discussions noted that would have indicated that your actions had consensus. The support from other admins for the reasons (and I would query that they are uninvolved as far as interpretation of what constitutes disruptive editing and the use of alternative accounts) is therefore irrelevant.
Notwithstanding the above I am going to refactor my warning, as I am unable to argue the case of the requirement of correct process if I am not going to follow it myself. I am perturbed by your insinuation that my good faith actions were meant to intimidate, and your request that I not cause further "disruption" on your talkpage by presumably responding as I now have. I shall be conducting all further discourse at the other forums, unless you initiate further discussion here or at my talkpage (which of course you are welcome to do). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dainsyng.gif Less, I've always liked you. You are welcome to post here. I've adjusted my remarks, and no, I don't think you were acting on bad faith at all. - Jehochman Talk 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big5Hunter

Hello, I guess by you not replying to my question you did not investigate this in the first place when I asked? DTM142 has harrassed and deleted disscions just because he is anti hunting (View history of hunting etc). He does not understand the topic especially CITES and its effect on transportation. Then because I discussed the topic CITES started by poligamy4 he started harassing deleting the subject repeatedly. It there one set of rules for users and admins like him can do what they want and other admins wont pull them up when they have gone offline? Will you just delete this and not bother replying like you said you would?--203.192.91.4 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Oh I have never shot anything illegally and from what poligamy4 said he never did. This was claimed by DTM142. Which is defaming on his part. Are admins allowed to use wikipedia to defame people? I would think this is against the rule or if not atleast somthing he should be talked too about?--203.192.91.4 (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem?

If I read correctly, you are now indicating that my voluntary withdrawal from that dispute is now enforceable as a defacto topic ban, and that DS just needs to link to this unresolved AN/I entry to report a "problem" with me? I never had a COI on Ted Frank's articles, my edit history on those pages is absolutely clean, and the editor on the other side of the dispute has been warned by 4 admins and an arbitrator to stay away. Yet I am the one who is to be watched? How does that happen? I tried to resolve the dispute civilly on that article's talk page, and he turned it into a war, then escalated to AN/I - and even as I am the one voluntarily backing off to avoid a monster drama, you tell David that my concession is enforceable?

Please tell me what I should have done differently, because honestly, I'm at a loss. It seems the only alternative I had was to ignore it, and let an editor add negative material to multiple articles related to the person with whom he had just had a very heated conflict. And doing it even though 5 respected users asked him not to.

I'm done with it, you can be sure of that, but please tell me what I should have done so I can avoid these "problems" in the future. ATren (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, just read your response on AN/I. Your original wording seemed to be making a judgement, which was a concern to me because I honestly don't know what I did wrong. Thank you for clarifying. :-) ATren (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please tell me why you suspect I am a troll? You did not make that statement on the previous thread, yet you seem to have made a judgement, which is unfair since I have no idea why. Please tell me why, so that I may defend myself. And, FWIW, I did not report Calton. ATren (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I refactored my comment before you posted here. I don't know if you are a troll or not, but there certainly was a case made by somebody who thinks so. In any case, I used softer language. What do you think about Calton? I don't like blocks placed without evidence. - Jehochman Talk 20:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
He misunderstood me. I think he saw the AN/I thread and reverted me - but he reverted to a version that had the quote misattributed to the wrong person. When I corrected him (it was purely a factual error), he thought I was being argumentative. My attempts to resolve it did not sway him. I thought it was uncivil, but I just deleted the thread and moved on. Is it block-worthy? I don't know, that's not for me to decide - this is my first interaction with this editor; others know him better.
BTW, your comment still says "consider the source", but I didn't report this, so I'm not the source. Also, if you do have concerns about my behavior, I'd appreciate a dialog so I can defend myself. It's clear you have doubts about my intentions. ATren (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Understood. - Jehochman Talk 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Jehochman. :-) ATren (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Company may be trying to conceal negative media reports

Hello, Jehochman. Just noticed that the article VFS India may need to be checked for NPOV. Looks like an anonymous user is trying to delete recent media reports, and at the same time making this entry look more like an advert. I've undone some of the changes, and I see the item has been tagged. Links to blog posts unless by prominent sources shouldn't be in there. Question is, how to you inform or warn an anonymous user with a changing IP address? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindavin (talk • contribs) 07:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:85.5.180.48

Hey, Jehochman - are you going to fix this? Thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 16:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
He seems to have blanked some other posts, and I thought it was impersonation because a comment from Durova appeared at the top, and I missed the matching comment lower down in the left column. - Jehochman Talk 16:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw that - thanks for the reply. An apology for the bad block would probably be a nice thing to do, though. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. - Jehochman Talk 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to policy pages

Please do not edit policy pages of disputes that you might be seen to be involved in. I do not want to block you, but I shall have to if such actions continue. This is your final warning. Physchim62 (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I note your warning. I'm not clear what this is about. I wouldn't have thought this was a problem since everybody on the discussion was in agreement. Can we discuss this or ask somebody to help us sort it out? - Jehochman Talk 18:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deus Ex Machina's Heartfelt Support Barnparagraph

Jehochman, I've noticed you on AN/I and other boards and articles which I frequent, and I just want to compliment you on your stellar work as an admin, no matter what other people might say. You've got a heart of gold and the best of intentions (not the "road to hell paved" kind, either), and I just want to thank you for making Wikipedia a better place, despite all the nationalists, POV-pushers, trolls, vandals and griefers. Well done. :) DEVS EX MACINA pray 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That means a lot to me. - Jehochman Talk 03:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on WT:AN

Hey, you posted something in response to the subpages section on WT:AN that caught my eye. Would it be possible to make a template of the form {{friv|waaaaaahmbulance}} that would automatically place that "frivolous, try DR instead" box around the text of "waaaahmbulance"? I suck at templates, so I was wondering if you knew how. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 08:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You can make copies of these: {{coit}} (top) and {{coib}} (bottom). One goes at the top of the post, and the other goes at the bottom. - Jehochman Talk 20:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
If the requester is looking for a general method of boxing up comments, then {{hat}} and {{hab}} are simpler to use and make no reference to COI issues. Hat stands for 'hidden archive top'. Though this template is used at WP:DRV there is nothing about DRV in the message; you write your own message. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but I don't want to have to do two templates. I want it to be a piped template, so I can simply put the text of whatever I'm going to say after the pip. {{frivolous | like this}} or {{frivolous | 1= like this}}. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The two template solution works best because it won't choke if there's a link or a diff in the text that you want to collapse. - Jehochman Talk 10:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI

Just a thanks for refactoring this page- it was getting a pain to locate items. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 13:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. There were mixed reviews, and the debate is still going strong. - Jehochman Talk 10:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For your interest and my peace

I was one of the Durova victims, first a sock of one, then a sock of another. No proof, no anything, just her own selfish motivation, more than likley stemming from some off balance sheet need to prove her own worth to the world. In need of help, she is. Songgarden in Deutschland, nicht vahr? 84.133.230.102 (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So prove her wrong. Don't be disruptive or act badly. If you are not banned, you can start a new account and do good work. If you are banned, go to another Wikiproject (e.g. WikiNews) and do good work for a while, and then apply for reinstatement here. Best of luck. - Jehochman Talk 03:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't she also open to recall? If people are having problems with her, then she has made herself open to be reviewed by the community (something which more admins should do), and they should do it that way instead of posting accusations along talk pages. I don't have an opinion either way, I don't know Durova, but she is certainly prolific around here. DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that a lot of people have been ignoring the !! debate because it is about a mistaken block that was reversed about an hour later. Folks would have been better served by sending a quiet email to Durova saying, "This was a mistake because... and please fix it." I imagine that a recall would fail because Durova has helped so many people over the years, and they will all come out to support her. - Jehochman Talk 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Jehochman, you and others have stated that perhaps a statement from the Arbitration Committee on this matter would help provide some resolution to this. Perhaps someone should open a request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration ? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
    • (I do not wish to be a party to the Arbitration because it really does not concern me, but perhaps someone should open the request?) Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Indeed. Either Durova can file herself, or !!, or one of the people who requested recall can do so. People need to go to dispute resolution, or stop complaining. This issue has been discussed ad nauseum. - Jehochman Talk 12:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. But I don't want to comment on that active page, which at this point seems to be a pointless exercise in verbal abuse. I am actually surprised Godwin's law has not had an effect yet. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Please strikethrough

Jehochman, please strikethrough your comment at Giano's talk page. I appreciate your loyalty, but I think it'd be better if you withdrew it. DurovaCharge! 23:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you wish. This dispute hardly needs more flames. - Jehochman Talk 00:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article about Wikipedia at SearchEngineJournal.com

Hi Jonathan, I believe that you will find my (long) article at SEJ from today interesting. It is titled: Wikipedia Article Quality Assessment and Ranking Tips for Users and Search Engine Engineers. Check it out and add a comment if you see something missing or if you have additional recommendations that would be helpful for either users of Wikipedia and/or search engine engineers from Google and other search engines. :). Thanks and Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Jehochman

I am a new user on Wikipedia with extensive experience in SEO, in addition to other fields.

I was looking over the Search engine optimization consultants and while it is good I belive it needs to be updated with new faces out there.

Some of the people I like others I hate, but they are the new breed of SEOs that SEO community respects and follows.

I recommend to nominate

Rand Fishkin www.seomoz.org

Vannesa Fox www.vanesafoxnude.com

David Naylor www.davidnaylor.co.uk

Andy Beard Andybeard.eu

Sebastian sebastians-pamphlets.com

Michael Gray www.wolf-howl.com

These are the most prominent and active SEOs in the industry. I believe each one of them deserves a page in WikiPedia. Igor Berger (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts:
Rand Fishkin - Had a page, but he requested deletion.
www.seomoz.org
Vanessa Fox - Has a page, I created it.
www.vanesafoxnude.com
David Naylor (technologist) - Most likely notable. Please start a page.
www.davidnaylor.co.uk
Andy Beard - Most likely notable. Please start a page
Andybeard.eu
Sebastian - Who? Show me references. Maybe I am dense.
sebastians-pamphlets.com
Michael Gray (technologist) - Possibly notable. Make sure it is referenced.
www.wolf-howl.com
I recommend working one at a time, and including at least three references from reliable, independent sources (See WP:V). If you create five stubs at once, they all may get deleted. It is better to create a start class article if you can. Provide more details and reliable sources to show that the topic is notable. See Jill Whalen as an example.
You may want to create pages in your userspace, and then move them into mainspace. User:Igorberger/David Naylor. You can click that link to get started.
Here's a useful tool. http://www.jehochman.com/wpcite/ This is a Firefox add-on that will automatically create inline reference code for whatever web page that you are looking at. When you find a news story about one of these subjects, use that tool to create reference code. At the bottom of the article, create a references section, and use {{reflist}} to automatically generate the list of references.
Good luck, and ask me for help any time you need it. - Jehochman Talk 15:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise, and it will be very interesting to do it objectivly. But it will require a lot of work, so I hope I can adopt a user to help me with this.

As far as Sebastian is, who is he? He is very popular and has a very strong voice in the SEO community. He has many many followers who respect him and listen to him. But who is he? He knows his stuff inside out and rely very good. He has connections to Google, and Googlers listen to him. But who is he? Igor Berger (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman TalkI have added some new changes on Vanessa page, and also nominated Google Webmaster Central for a page, because it is very important for Google in alerting Webmasters of changes at Google. Before you cut and slash, talk with me here, or in email. If my grammar, structure, or syntax, is wrong please correct it. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I started building a page for Adam Lasnik but it was speedy deleted, I should have consulted you first, I am sory.

Can we build a page for Adam Lasnik or is there a request to WikiPedia, by him not to have pege?

I was just instructed to have a finished version built in a sandbox before bringing it public. How do I bring it public, do I just move it?

Also before building any pages, I like to have a senior editor nomination for the page, as to not waste time, playing in the sandbox. Igor Berger (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay so what will be your opnion on making Adam Lasnik page? Or shuold I post the question to the community? articles for creation Igor Berger (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sabastian being congratulated by Google at [Google Webmaster Central Blog] for his help at Google Webmaster Help Group —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sebastian claims to be an IT consultant in his Google Webmaster Help Group profile for smart-it-consulting.com Sebastian GWHG profile About Smart IT Consulting Services is a brand of Virtual Brains Inc., no imformation on VB Inc. ?

Looks like we dealing with primary SEOs that are on consultant page already, secondary professional SEO's that are notable that we have nominated, and tertiary New Age SEOs that are supported and aknowledge by Google, but may not be notable.

The tertiary SEOs use Gorila WarFare as their SEO practices techniques.

Now that the SEO has being diasected and brought out in the open, I will procede slowly with the pages that we nominated first.

Thank you,fyi, Igor Berger (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I set up the pages and gathering relative information.

If you can give me some feedback about the process, I would greatly appreciate it. Igor Berger (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need help with a page, from cd50.

Hello Jehochman, this is actually Writer1400 from the Toto page, I've had to use a different account to contact you so the person I want to report can't track me down because he has a real problem with me. I believe the user TheHYPO is violating the rule Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for the Barenaked Ladies page. He has basically taken complete ownership of the page. He almost never allows anyone to touch the page other than himself. Any edit that is done by another user has to be gone over by him and if he doesn't like it, it automatically comes out even though some of the edits are improvements. I was able to get in a few small edits but I had to agrue with him for a long time to do so and I've actually improved the page alot with my edits. The page as he had it had very few sources and lots of unsourced sentences.

Could you look at the page and see what you think? I know last time I had a problem with him(a different problem) you refered me to someone else but I really think it would be best if you handled this. You did an excellent job and I know everything will turn out good if you handle it. Thanks alot. Cd50 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple bits of advice. First, I recommend that you use one account. Multiple accounts are sometimes allowed, and in this case it seems valid, but if you have a confidential issue, you can also use email to contact an admin. I recommend you bring this report to Editor assistance reports. Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 12:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Jehochman, you have been named in an arbitration case. Please add a statement when you can. Dmcdevit·t 11:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied. Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 14:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what extent it is pertinent to have you named as a party; still reading through. Regards, El_C 16:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As a new admin, I am looking for teachers. Physchim62 has offered, and I accepted. He's quite good at certain issues. If you would be willing to coach me also on some of the areas where he is less experienced, I would enjoy that. - Jehochman Talk 16:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't really do 'coaching' per se., but am always available for advise, so by all means, feel free. El_C 16:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
My 'coaching' is pretty hands off as well, but I don't believe in sterile criticism (I have had plenty of criticism for Jonothan since he became an admin). I hope that other experienced users will also reply to any questions that he has. Physchim62 (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] introduction

Hi,

I just wanted to introduce myself as a newbee to Wikipedia. I recently added some things to the Mythology page, but user DreamGuy keeps removing then without explaining why. He must have done a lot of work on that page and maybe sometimes thinks he owns it? I also noticed that he has been "blocked" before for certain violations. I hope that you can help me find my way around here if necessary. I also hope that you had a good Thanksgiving!

Regards,

- Fkapnist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkapnist (talk • contribs) 01:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you address this problem to Editor assistance reports. Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 12:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Herman Tumurcuoglu Notable SEO?

Herman Tumurcuoglu Somebody just droped this link http://www.searchengines-optimization.com

I checked the site, and it does not look like a Notable SEO site, also Googled Herman Tumurcuoglu, but found no SEO relevency, accept some SE Spam pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Search_engine_optimization&curid=187946&diff=173597417&oldid=173593666

Plese advise. Igor Berger (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It was cleaned up by Sfacets, if you want delete this comment! Igor Berger (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not in my opinion. - Jehochman Talk 12:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Noted. There seems to be a lot of activity, so I'll probably just observe unless somebody asks for my help. - Jehochman Talk 21:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi, Lawrence, I've seen you around the Durova controversy and am wondering how you are doing? We haven't spoken lately. I hope you are doing well. I've been working on gamma ray burst and notice that you also have an interest in astronomy. - Jehochman Talk 00:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, on this end. I saw that situation from ANI and your talk page. Its a bit of a mess and I hope you make it out alright, from that. No offense, but from reading that backlog of history it looks like you may have been a little too quick on the draw on a couple of things, but thats it. Doing well enough, otherwise, on my end. I think I need to remove a bunch of the Wikipedia space pages from my watchlist so that I can get back to writing more instead of following all these threads that seem to move in every direction. How goes it with you, the current mess aside? Just saw your updated edit. If you need help on it with digging up sources let me know? I've been wanting to get more into this articles--following that side of science is an old hobby. • Lawrence Cohen 00:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing all right, all things considered. Yes, I am trying to slow down a bit. If you would like to team up on some astronomy articles, I'd like that. - Jehochman Talk 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, on working together on some. Let me know which you needed help on. • Lawrence Cohen 06:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By the way...

If you ever get a chance or time, would you mind giving a few once-over copy-editing or reference formatting passes to Blackwater Worldwide? I'm thinking I want to focus on that or the Joe Szwaja article next, but in particular the Blackwater one. Its just a beast of an article to organize and I've been putting it off. I'd owe you an editing gnome/drudge work favor if you did. :) • Lawrence Cohen 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'll try to take a look at it tomorrow. - Jehochman Talk 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I think theres easily enough material there for a Featured Article, and probably at least one more fork off from the current volume of information. Something like Blackwater Worldwide Operations, maybe. Once the current Congressional investigation goes off, probably more yet. It's a bit of a mess, subject matter wise, but there hasn't been much political drama on the editing at all. Very collegial, and civil. Except for one user, but he's long gone (unfortunately, he made very good points on content, but in the worst possible way, and got community banned). • Lawrence Cohen 06:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Check-user application regarding status of this account

Thread initially from User talk:CygnetSaIad

I've mentioned you here. Feel free to comment, or not, as you see fit. - Jehochman Talk 15:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(Some discourse occurs on on User_talk:Bishonen.)
Hi, no checkuser was actually performed. I spoke with two of them about your account because there was a little confusion between CygnetSaIad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and CygnetSalad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). For some reason the block log on one of those, CygnetSalad, comes up as indefinitely blocked. For a moment I thought you might be evading a block, but further investigation revealed that not to be the case. For the future, you might want to get whichever of those is still blocked to be unblocked so that nobody else suffers the confusion that I did. If you like, I could even take care of that for you. Is there any reason the 'L' version is still blocked? Should it stay blocked? - Jehochman Talk 23:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing that discussion to my attention. I'm not sure how there was any confusion when:
  • The header at the top of my talk page spells out the link between these accounts explicitly,
  • That checking the block log of this account would have made it clear that that indef was lifted,
  • Checking my talk archives (or Google) for some facts would not have gone astray either.
Really, there should have been no ambiguity, no reason to say "for some reason..." Nicely nicely, I'm saying that going to check-user before having done the most basic base-line research demonstrates the same underlying assumption of bad faith that has led to the recent kerfuffle. The "further investigation" needs to be done first not last anytime you're thinking of bringing power to bear. Can I please have the names of the check-users that you spoke to?
CygnetSaIad (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow your line of questioning, but let me add that no checkuser was performed. I occasionally consult with more senior editors for advice. Your privacy has not been affected in any way, and I am no longer involving myself in this matter. - Jehochman Talk 04:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Oy vey... Maybe I'll start over, with less kvetching and more just talking?
I'm just concerned that "we" are collectivly getting a bit paranoid. Everything above makes it look like I was, at least for a while, tarred with the same brush as some other less-fortunate editors as a "bad hand" or something like that. (Really, if I were concerned about my privacy I'd have made more effort to seperate this account from my "real" one.) So, while consulting with senior editors is all well and good, in this case it could be read as indicative of sloppy thinking. I would like to know who the check-users you contacted were, so that I may discuss with them their current understanding of the check-user policy. I can't imagine any reason not to tell me who you asked. Is there one?
CygnetSaIad (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's chat. I've been thinking about these issues quite a lot lately and have come to hold a different view than before. Let me assure you that the checkusers are extremely careful and they operate under close supervision. Since my contacts were done through off-wiki channels, I will keep that private. I agree with you that we are getting paranoid. I've just made a policy proposal that may interest you. Have a look here and please add your thoughts. - Jehochman Talk 04:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We May Have an Akismet problem with WikiPedia links

Jehochman, we may have a problem that Akismet flagging WikiPedia links in blog posts as Spam.

I had it happen to me 2 times already. Once with SEJ Loren and once with VFN Vanessa. I documented both cases with SnapShoot. Actually after running a test on SEJ, Loren took down Akismet and installed captcha.

I think the root of the problem maybe this.

Spam ocurences picked up by Projecthoneypot.org 15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest 1,392 times 16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape 1,392 times

http://www.projecthoneypot.org/comment_spammer_urls.php

This is a big problem for WikiPedia if Internet usrs cannot quote us, because of Akismet Spam filter. I am sure you know, Akismet filter has been causing problems for a long time with false positives.

If you need to see evidence that I have accumulated please let me know. So, please investigate this matter. Thnak you, Igor Berger (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging empty categories

Thanks for your msg. See my reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Tagging_empty_categories, and sorry for not replying more quickly.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The best SEO post I have ever read.

Jehochman, this post is so funny it will make you fall out of your seat...

Do we have a cetogory to nominate a best SEO post? Actually, I would say it is the best blog post in all categories. I hope we have some place to put this, this lady is very smart. Chimps are Smarter tan SEO's Igor Berger (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Oh, these guys are all notable, even Rebecca from SeoMoz is with them. Seo-Chicks

I nominate to do an article seo-chicks.com Igor Berger (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Alot of energy in the SEO community. Andy Beard take on eclussion and PR the best analysis on the matter that I have seen to date. Igor Berger (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for input

Hi, Jehochman. The message I have just posted on the proposed decision talkpage has a reference, and an implied question, to you in it. I would very much appreciate it if you'd respond in the same thread. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

I have. - Jehochman Talk 20:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I actually only meant to ask you if Durova's Sock School was still active, not anything intrusive about your own possible awareness of the infamous report—I would assume that if you wanted to say something about that, you already would have. But you told me all I needed to know and more. More to the point, your post completed my argument about what Mackensen had asked Giano about, with, I thought, considerable urgency.[9] [10] [11] [12] Mackensen had apparently lost interest by the time I replied to him, though, so it was all a bit of a waste of time. Sorry about that. Bishonen | talk 11:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Spiffier triple crown, new awards available

The standard triple crown.
The standard triple crown.

Hi, I've been sprucing up the triple crown awards. Here's the new version of the standard triple crown you've already earned. Feel free to replace your old one with this if you like the new version better. I've also introduced two new triple crown awards for editors who've done a lot of triple crown work: the Napoleonic and Alexander the Great edition awards. If you're active in a WikiProject, check out the new offer for custom WikiProject triple crowns. I'll make those upon request if five or more editors qualify. See User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle for more information. Thanks for your hard work, and cheers! DurovaCharge! 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That's beautiful. - Jehochman Talk 22:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Private correspondence

Would that be a good name for it? I don't know if I'm up to a first draft, myself. Your flexible ideas like Mackensen said could be just what is needed so no one can come down heavy handed on fair reposting of correspondance. And to clear up offsite linking, etc. • Lawrence Cohen 18:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes.

Yes, refusing to justify actions transparently IS the issue. That is PRECISELY the issue (at least, insofar as privacy and/or copyright is used as a smokescreen) that I was trying to address in that paragraph - why not reword it instead of deleting?—Random832 05:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Aye. Just left a message to that effect on the talk page. Give it another go. This is WP:BRD in action. - Jehochman Talk 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPCITE extension

Hi Jehochman,

I've just been collating citation tools links together (see [13] and [14]), and I notice that the link on your user page and the link given here (Diff) are different. Furthermore, md5sum says the XPIs on each page are actually different. Would you mind clarifying which one is the latest version/official version so I choose the correct/best link? Thanks! 124.148.105.71 (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

the one on my userpage. I need to update the other one - Jehochman Talk 12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Link fixed. 124.148.105.71 13:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NSF image permissions

Hi, I saw that an image that you uploaded from the NSF was recently nominated at FPC. I read their Copyright and Reuse of Graphics and Text policy and they grant permission for use on a case by case basis. Did you contact them for permission or have any other information regarding use of NSF graphics on Wikipedia? Please add this info to the image discription page if you do. If not, then let me know and I'll contact them and request permission. Thanks, Cacophony 00:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've responded over there. Thanks for notifying me. I don't usually watch those pages. - Jehochman Talk 04:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova (talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! (talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration: notification

I'e placed a request Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#Matthew Hoffman for an Arbitration case, in the matter of User:MatthewHoffman, in which you would be a party. Charles Matthews 08:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Further to the discussion there, concerning indefinite blocks, I was reminded of this block log. An indefinite block ended up at arbitration and ended up as a ban for one year. This reinforces my feeling that certain parts of the community of admins are moving too quickly to apply indefinite blocks in cases where ArbCom would only apply a long ban. Before applying an indefinite block, the question should be asked: "What sanctions would ArbCom apply in this case?" The problem really is that many admins pull "indefinite block" out of the hat because they are used to blocking vandals indefinitely and then walking away and forgetting about it. In complex cases, involving non-vandal editors, a long community ban might be more appropriate than an indefinite block. I agree with you that this all needs to be discussed further at WT:BLOCK. I think the first step might be reviewing what you added (the quote at WP:RFARB). Shall I start the discussion there, or do you want to? I'll probably end up cutting and pasting what I wrote at the request for arbitration. Carcharoth 22:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest letting somebody else make the first move to overhaul that policy. - Jehochman Talk 03:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
OK. I suspect the arbitration case will result in a need for such an overhaul by the community anyway. Waiting another month or so won't break the bank. I'm also sympathetic to your point that you were only commenting from the sidelines as a non-admin at the time, I hope the arbitrators will take that into account. About the policy, I wouldn't overhaul the policy itself - I was merely suggesting starting discussion on the talk page. I'm well aware that some people take a far stricter view on how quickly one should escalate to indefinite blocking. Carcharoth 11:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANI discussion

I just wanted you to know that, as I say in ANI, I already told Physchim62 here about the ANI. I wouldn't open a debate about his supposed misuse without informing him first! However, it seems until now he has made some contributions but no answer... let's wait...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I have adjusted my comment to PS62 accordingly.[15] - Jehochman Talk 16:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Just for information I notified Physchim immediately after posting to ANI and before notifing Hesperian Gnangarra 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big5Hunter

Hello, I guess by you not replying to my question you did not investigate this in the first place when I asked? DTM142 has harrassed and deleted disscions just because he is anti hunting (View history of hunting etc). He does not understand the topic especially CITES and its effect on transportation. Then because I discussed the topic CITES started by poligamy4 he started harassing deleting the subject repeatedly. It there one set of rules for users and admins like him can do what they want and other admins wont pull them up when they have gone offline? Will you just delete this and not bother replying like you said you would?--203.192.91.4 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Oh I have never shot anything illegally and from what poligamy4 said he never did. This was claimed by DTM142. Which is defaming on his part. Are admins allowed to use wikipedia to defame people? I would think this is against the rule or if not atleast somthing he should be talked too about?--203.192.91.4 (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I found your post in my archive. A number of other posts followed yours in rapid succession, and I failed to respond to you before the thread was archived, due to other events taking up my attention. I am going to investigate this, and will let you have an answer shortly. - Jehochman Talk 19:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have now confirmed via checkuser that this IP and the Big5Hunter account are both sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked user Polygamist4x. No further action is required. - Jehochman Talk 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Indian

Jon, if I may, can you tell me if the deleted article on John Indian only contains the line shown in the deletion log, 'John Indian was the husband of Tituba' or if it contains more, and if it contains more do you mind userifying it for me? Dureo 09:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

forgive me I clicked a wrong link somewhere and coulda sworn the admint hat deleted it was retired, but he appears to not be so I will ask him, thanks. ;P Dureo 09:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Admin discretion - a response to part of your evidence in that case. Carcharoth 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A note, since you seem most visibly concerned by Charles' edits. A couple days ago, Carcharoth asked him to take a break and I asked him to tone it down. (See User talk:Charles Matthews#Take a break from that case?.) Either he took Carcharoth's advice or real life intervened, but he has no contributions or logged tool use since late his time on the 3rd. This probably should be considered in evaluating that he hasn't refactored yet. He may be on a cool down break. GRBerry 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that. There's a note on the Arbcom clerks board that Charles is taking a break. If you think I should withdraw any of my remarks, please let me know. I don't plan to say anything else about the matter for now. - Jehochman Talk 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Its Pytch.. Hon

Hey Jehochman, thanks for your comments. Only problem is most socks seem to be operating, I'd need to warn them all. I've asked User:Alison to have a look, she's a Checkuser, so I'll see what she has to say. The list is becoming quite substantial!! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SEO panel

I spoke on a panel about Social Media yesterday hosted by the SIIA. They're hosting a panel in Feburary about search engine optimization. They're interested in having someone from Wikipedia, and you were the first person I thought of. If you want to do it, contact Jeffrey Cutler: jeffcutler at yahoo.com. Raul654 (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've sent him an email. - Jehochman Talk 15:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting page

Although I agree that the editwarring was uncalled for, I don't think you should protect usertalk of a user who has been inactive for 3 days. Suva Чего? 13:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am hopeful that the user will become active again. Should he request unprotection of the page, I will immediately do so. In fact, I am sending him an email at this very moment to ask for his input. - Jehochman Talk 15:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock block thingy

Jehochman, thanks for alerting me to this. I have no problem with reblocking Kelpin for 1 second to note that the initial block was a mistake, but I won't be able to get to it until later today. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to Akhilleus's attention (though just for the record I'm male not female!). Kelpin (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ECW500

Well it turns out there are a few sleeper accounts that turned up in the checkuser:

Can you block those? The request for ECW500 was stale, so it is unclear as to whether JB196 or ECW500 is behind this. But I'm willing to assume that the sockpuppeteer is User:ECW500 based on the (not so creative) usernames of his sockpuppets. This fellow's IP address' have been blocked as well:

And as I suspected all along, but added in as a clear party involved, User:SilentRage is not connected to these accounts whatsoever. — Save_Us_229 09:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am glad. He seemed like a good user who got mixed up. - Jehochman Talk 11:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I just found this just now. I'd like to point out that no way are these latest socks related to JB196. I'm more than familiar with the latter's sockery, having reverted and blocked hundreds of them (literally) in the past so no, not JB196. Just FYI - Alison ❤ 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question.

Hello. I believe your latest protection of Ghirlas user page may be influenced by a bias. Could you please(I'm being polite here, see!)explain yourself. Otherwise I am inclined to suspect that your are abusing your admin privileges to help a friend make a point, ie making it clear that I have no right to wish happy days to Ghirla where ever he is... --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There was an edit war involving multiple parties. The target was a user talk page belonging to an inactive user. Therefore, protection was the least harmful and most appropriate way to stop the edit war. In the future, discuss your differences rather than edit warring. Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 13:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Good answer:) I like it. I had no intention do do any more reverts btw. The whole thing had become very silly. But, could you please explain to me, HOW does one convince another person to allow you to post a well wishing message to another users user page? Or can one just go and remove messages from inactive users and its fine?--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
So, because an opponent of this inactive user responds to a positive message of encouragement with something negative, you are going to prevent other positive comments on the inactive user's talk page? Because this negative comment is being reverted by folks who clearly do not view said user in a positive light (to use an understatement)? You are giving their side equal legitimacy as the positive comments when you protect. But how does that (the negativity) help the project? El_C 20:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If you talk to Bishonen (talk · contribs) and Irpen (talk · contribs) you may be able to resolve your differences. I hope so. - Jehochman Talk 14:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I would agree, and add that perhaps you should talk to them by email rather than on-wiki. I know nothing of the situation, but I find it hard to see how the dispute between yourself an the other two editors could be better resolved on-wiki than off. This seems to be a private matter, in every sense of the term. Physchim62 (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
AAh, but when I try to take it off wiki, ie IRC I may be accused of trying to hide something or wikilawyering or worse... Been there, done that. Besides, Its done. I tried to be nice and truthful. And all that resulted was a tempest in a teacup. Really. Removing others comments should not be OK. But alas, thus is life. May sun shine on to the lives of you all.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind and generous comment :) Physchim62 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If a user is inactive, Alexia Death, you do not get to write something demoralizing in the wiki-sense yet somehow excuse that with real-life well-wishes and a couple of emoticons. I have removed the protection. Do not continue to add that "I cant say I will join in on the I wait you back thing. It has been quiet [sic.] past few months," or you will be blocked from editing without further warning. El_C 18:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me make clear the rules. If you are a content opponent of an inactive users whom others are attempting to persuade to return, you are not permitted to write, or revert, negative comments. In fact, you should limit interactions with said users to concrete content issues only. El_C 18:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
And a link to these rules is...? Or is it yet another Durova-style-ruleset? -- Sander Säde 18:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A link to these rules? Are you kidding me? Do not wikilawyer around common sense. El_C 18:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is little left to add to what El_C have said, just a note on protection. Only worst trolls get their talk pages protected. This happens when they use it for hate speech after being blocked and for no other reason. This harassment has to be dealt with by dealing directly with the problematic users while protecting the page is the wrong solution. Also, if you bothered to check, Ghirla is not exactly inactive. He shows up once in a while making a small edit or two. So, a two-week protection was very much uncalled for. --Irpen 18:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comment that may seem overly harsh to Jehochman. I am not to say that Jehochman did anything improper. He tried to stop harassment too, just in a different way. Obviously taking a stand against talk page harassment is a right thing to do. --Irpen 19:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I wrote an email to Ghirlandajo and told him about the incident, and offered to remove protection immediately if he requested. - Jehochman Talk 19:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, El C, for helping me resolve this matter. I was not aware of the prior history of these users. - Jehochman Talk 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
For sure. And thank you, I appreciate you backing me up on this. El_C 04:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit re Favicon page

The page on Favicons does not point out that IE is particularly poor at showing favicons. I added a link that comments on this. The link was removed by SEWilco as being spam. He seems to have a somewhat checkered history. I don't have the time or the motivation to get into some kind of debate on this. Is there a way of editing the page to reflect IE's weakness on this without getting into a fling-flang session?

Thanks for anything you can do on this. (Bwelford (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

Bwelford, as an expert in on the subject, this must be frustrating for you. Can you possibly publish that information on a site that has more editorial oversight, such as Search Engine Watch or Search Engine Land, and then drop me a link. I will be happy to consider it for the article. Citing to blogs and fora is dicey at best. If you have a look at the verifiability policy you'll see what I mean. Happy editing, - Jehochman Talk 21:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, thanks. I can see where Wikipedia is coming from. The topic was covered by me over a year ago. The post itself receives good traffic and is highly visible in Google for this subject. I'll leave it there. (Bwelford (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Continued problems on Private Banking and Business plan

A few days ago you left welcome spam on the contributions page of User:Businessplan. Now the same article spam is reappearing, this time via IP 216.93.194.239. Four of the edits are timestamped after the welcome spam. These edits re-add the removed spam.

In addition to re-adding the spam to Private Banking and Business plan. This IP has also added a vanity line to the article Matt Sheridan - the name of the person being advertised in the spam on the other two articles.

I'm not sure of the proper way to handle this. Many thanks, Egfrank (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please revert the spam and warn th IP on its talk page. If it happens again, we can file a request for checkuser to determine if this is purposeful evasion. - Jehochman Talk 01:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Egfrank (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:El_C

You're correct. We can sort this out. Trivially. El_C strikes out the highly offensive accusations, and I'll be on my merry way. An apology would normally also be indicated, but I neither demand that nor expect it.

I appreciate your trying to help out here, Jehochman, but El_C has stepped far out of line. Especially in the current climate, making accusations of collusion (implicitely off-wiki collusion, since it can be trivially observed I have basically never had any on-wiki interaction whatsoever with David) is something that just shouldn't be done. It's an attack on my integrity (and David's for that matter, although I can obviously not speak for his motivations). — Coren (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying that [in the last hour of 24]] that [I, Coren] "lifted the protection at the request of the editor so that they could request an unblock, as it was a reasonable request," is highly insulting and is close to wheel-warring, in my mind. It effectively says, 'I am trumping your judgment that this user cannot exercise restraint on their talk page even while blocked, without discussing it with you first.' With one hour left, it was not a reasonable request, it was a request to undermine me, which both of you were quick to oblige, and both of you informed me of this after the fact. Next time, run it by me first; you still do not seem to have drawn this lesson. El_C 10:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
When a user fails to exhibit restraint while blocked, it is conventional to protect their talk page for all or part of the duration and limit their active input to unblock-l. Nothing remrkable or groundbreaking there. So, why Coren felt that unprotecting (i.e. undoing my descision), with one hour remaining and without prior discussion, was "the only reasonable thing to do" (emphasis added) is beyond me. No, no apology. He has quite the audacity in demanding one, in fact, in light of his utter disregard toward myself. El_C 12:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Coren, El C should be consulted before his actions are reversed. In this case there was more than met the eye. El C, I'd don't think there was actual collusion. I think Coren is a new admin, and he didn't understand a few things. How about you both forgive each other, and we move on from this unfortunate miunderstanding? - Jehochman Talk 14:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppet

Hi. I believe You recently blocked the account Lindi James for being a sock puppet This user claims that he/she is not a sock puppet to the account Pebblesmaster as you allege.

I understand by looking up the contributions of ECW500 which seems to be the original account i can see some similarities but i can't access the history for Lindi James and can't figiure out how he is involved with this

I don't know the specifics of the case but i guess that an IP search showed that this user has the same IP address as a person that was using an account for negative purposes.

It would be appreciated if you would discuss this with(User Talk:Lindi James) and work it out so that everybody is happy.

He is unable to contact you as he is blocked hence i am only a messenger. So please do not shoot the messenger.

Let me know if i can help and how it turns out as im interested in this case. Thank you Printer222 (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The blocked user can email the unblock mailing list or place {{unblock}} on their talk page. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ECW500 for the evidence. - Jehochman Talk 14:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this account was identified as a sock puppet as they share the same IP address, this has already been identified in his talk page, it is an interent cafe. As this is an internet cafe there are going to be users that are identified as sock puppets but are not accounts that are used for good purposes. I canot see any trace of contributions made by this account that can be deemed to be not in the best intrest of wikipedia.

Why ban an account due to the fact that they share an ip address with a person who has been blocked. That's why this user created an account in the first place. Unless they can be directly linked to the sockpuppet they should have never been baned in the first place!!! Printer222 (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a checkuser report that says all these are the same account, the same as "many already blocked account[s}" and "IP blocked - all of them, for quite some time". If you have a problem with the checkuser's conclusions, I suggest you discuss your concerns with her, Alison (talk · contribs). I will also note that the user hasn't done anything to help their chances of being unblocked by posting incivil comments.[16] - Jehochman Talk 15:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so I re-ran the CU just to be certain, and the recent edits from User:Lindi James and their identical use of multiple IP addresses has only confirmed the matter. Same with a certain IP address involved in this matter. Consider it Confirmed - Alison ❤ 19:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Me wonders what you think

About User:PatLarsen. His account was just created today and he seems to have found User:Prester John pretty quickly. [17] — Save_Us_229 17:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiley Protocol being discussed at WP:BLP/N

Hello Jehochman. Since I noticed you giving a COI warning to one of the contributors to Wiley Protocol back in May 2007, you might be interested in participating in the current discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edit

Hi, I noticed that you while updating the tally for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3 you removed a significant portion of the votes. I assume this was an accident so I undid it but please revert me if it served some purpose. -Icewedge (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That must have been a browser snafu. I sure didn't mean to do that. - Jehochman Talk 03:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Jonathan, thanks so much for your support. I look forward to working with you going into the future.
--A. B. (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


PS I was so impressed with your handling of that SEO COI case earlier this fall -- have you thought of doing OTRS work?

[edit] RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful with a vote of 33/7/4.

Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help.

I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oops on User talk:Jimbo Wales

Sorry about removing your post -- I didn't even realize it till you replaced it. I was removing the duplicate and you managed to stick your edit in at just the wrong time. Sorry about that! Gscshoyru (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it happens. Don't worry. Happy editing! - Jehochman Talk 04:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

In the spirit of chipetting... El_C
In the spirit of chipetting... El_C

Hi Jehochman, thanks for the explanation. Does the bureaucrat explain anywhere how he reached his decision then? At least I suppose he must have a rationale if the vote is in the 70-80 range. I looked around, but couldn't find anything. Best regards. PHG (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The bureaucrat is Rdsmith4, I believe. You can ask him to explain. All sysops are required to explain actions when requested politely by a community member. For a long established editor, 74% is typically a passing grade. The theory, as I understand, is that editors with higher edit counts tend to accumulate more opposes. A less well-known editor tends to sail through. - Jehochman Talk 20:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock

Hi Jonathan - in light of your comment here, could you take a look at this please, which I just posted? It seems clear to me that Mister ricochet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) is another sock of Sixstring1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), as was MindGuerilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and several others, and I think he too should be indef blocked. I'm interested in your view. Tvoz |talk 07:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have blocked Mister ricochet (talk · contribs) for 48 hours and requested checkuser. - Jehochman Talk 14:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Safest not to block suspected socks until checkuser results are in. You don't want to become one of Charles Matthews' "test cases," believe me. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It's moot now - CU confirms what behavior amply demonstrated. Thanks Tvoz |talk 19:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Raymond arritt was being cheeky. Given the admission diff and the same exact sequence of userboxes on the userpages (bless them, those userboxes are useful for something), this was a obvious sock. The CU was done to uncover additional socks and IPs, which will help prevent future disruption. - Jehochman Talk 19:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually I wasn't being cheeky. Had I been aware of the self-admission I'd not have made the comment. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the evidence is spread over a few pages. I was afraid the request for checkuser might be turned down for being too obvious. - Jehochman Talk 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Good call on that one. Of the socks, Sixstring1965 and Aisumasen also were active (a little) at the Commons. Note that there's also User:Hotcop2. I'm unsure whether he's another sock. On the one hand, he shares the John Lennon special interest, but that alone can hardly be taken as evidence—lots of people do. But his upload of Image:JohnMay1974.jpg is interesting, especially given that Sixstring1965 had uploaded it three days before at the Commons: [18]. (I can confirm that the two are indeed the same image.) And Special:Undelete/Image:Admrlwillis.jpg is also rather interesting. (The image is now at Image:Admrl willis.jpg...) On the other hand, the edit history of his user page makes his being a sock a little less likely, unless he was so smart to use the other accounts to obscure the connection. Hotcop2 has claimed in e-mail to me (following this edit) to be the person given as the copyright owner at Image:DWHOF2001.jpg... Lupo 08:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow... I just cross-checked contribs for Hotcop2 and Sixstring1965. There's lots of overlap across a range of subjects (not just Beatles), and common stylistic quirks in their edit summaries. I'm not quite ready to make an outright accusation of sockpuppetry but I think there may be enough to merit a RFCU. Over to you, Jonathan... Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
If I may impose, i would very, very much like to be kept in the loop about this. I've dealt with at least two different instances of SixString1965's sockpuppets, and the creep himself. I think I know his editing style pretty well. Maybe am just really gullible, but I don't think that Hotcop2 is a sock fro SixString.
The first thing that makes me doubt the socking is that when I was pissing the two of them off in the Lennon article by asking for lots of citations and the like, the got angry and uncivil in completely different ways. Hotcop was somehow more restrained - I am not sure how to describe it better than that.
The second thing is that SixString is usually caught because - and there is no other way to say it - too fucking stupid to avoid getting caught. Setting up Hotcop as a secret identity seems far too far-sighted for Sixstring. After all, if he had a second account in Hotcop, why set up all those other accounts and use them, stupidly.
One of those accounts was a play on my name, and probably intended to mess with me. And yet, Hotcop has - since our initial clash, been really civil and polite to me. Six never demonstrated that sort of restraint. A look at Realsanpaku or Mister ricochet shows that this person chose to attack me (and others) against his own personal interest. There's a real need to feel that he's the cleverest guy in the room; unfortunately for him, he's only a legend in his own mind. Hotcop's demonstrated psychology is someone who digs Lennon, and wants to feel like he's doing something for one of his personal heroes.
Lastly, the image thing did give me pause when it first came up, but he seemed to go about it in the right way, whereas Six, Realsanpaku and Mister ricochet all tried to do things quickly and aimed for immediate effect, and not to be durable - which is what I truly feel Hotcop was aiming for.
However, these are just feelings and impressions, and sometimes they are wrong. I've just had a lot of contact with Sixstring, and almost all of his socks, and i just don't think that they are the same person. If any similar image stuff was popping up, I would ask Hotcop2 if he had been given the stuff by Sixstring to put up. Otherwise, i don;t really see connection. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I tend to agree with you now that I've received an email about this. I have unblocked the user and will try to help him with the editing problems. It seems possible that he may have unknowingly become caught up in this. - Jehochman Talk 01:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Was it the image stuff? two guys claiming to know two different people connected to Lennon initially sent up a warning flag for me, too, but HotCop seemed genuinely interested in proving that his contact was the real thing, and did the actual work. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The image stuff was similar to the banned editor, and there were edits to the User page by Sixstring1965 and Mister ricochet. Fortunately, after the block I took a second look and decided that the situation was not as clear as I originally thought, so I decided to unblock the user. - Jehochman Talk 01:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please check . . .

Hi Jehochman, I've sent you an email, please check. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have done as you asked. - Jehochman Talk 00:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

If you're game, would you mind checking out the last few sections of Talk:Waterboarding? There is a ton there, but the last 5-6 are the primarily current ones. All the rest are basically done in building a consensus over the past 30~ days. Given it's ultra-high profile nature, the chat has been decidedly civil, but given it's nature and that you edit under your real name I'll obviously understand if you don't want to wade in.

In that case, any recommendations for an admin or two that very good on RS and NPOV balancing issues who are neutral? :) My main concern is that I'm fine with adding language that favors a less "is torture" tone, if such sources could be found, but they've yet to be and people keep insisting otherwise. I'm basically looking for a few folks to watchlist it and chime in when anyone on any side of any fence starts to deviate from firm NPOV. Lawrence Cohen 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SixString is back, sporting a new id and not really trying to hide.

Perhaps banning this sad little moppet by machine ID seems a better course. Current ID: User:Youcantcatchme - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, he's been blocked and his underlying IP has too. Bummer! - Alison ❤ 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK Nom

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 19 December 2007, a fact from the article knol, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for the nom. --Royalbroil 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He hasn't responded

He hasn't come close to "responding", and he's blanked every comment (including the entire threaded discussion regarding his block) that has questioned any of his actions. That you would post a "trolling" link at my page after the messages I left (did you read them) is a bit over-the-top, don't you think? Mr Which??? 16:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave you useful advice. Read my statement quite literally. Make sure your posting does not fit any trolling patterns or memes and then go post your question on the appropriate noticeboard. That will get you to the place you want to go. Try it, and let me know how it works for you. - Jehochman Talk 16:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The "advice" was not useful. You tacitly called me a troll for posting to a user talkpage. As far as posting to the "appropriate noticeboard", what noticeboard would that be? As for JzG's behavior, do you agree with how he's acting? Mr Which??? 16:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You are starting to prove a point that I did not seek to make. Look at the header of WP:AN and that will tell you where to post. You could also just relax and do something else. If a user or an admin needs to be corrected, there is no need to jump at the first opportunity; they will prove the need over and over again and somebody will eventually do what's necessary. - Jehochman Talk 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm proving no point. I'm a bit frustrated, which is understandable, given that I'd made it clear that my last post to his talk page was my last post to it, unless he chose to make more bad blocks on newbies that I notice. What purpose did your post to my page accomplish other than upping the drama a bit? Mr Which??? 17:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to resolve your frustration. Given Guy's reaction, it seems like there might be history between you. Perhaps it would be best to let somebody else take the lead. Perhaps you can report the incident to a neutral administrator and ask them to investigate it for you. - Jehochman Talk 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy has a "history" with anyone who takes issue with his admin actions. Check his responses to Alansohn, Joe, and others throughout the thread we discussed his block of Timjowers in. Oh, wait, he blanked that whole thread. Perhaps you could check out Irpen's advice to him? Oh, no, that one's blanked too. As I said in my last post there, I won't be dealing with him again, unless he makes another bad block that I happen to notice. I have no desire to further escalate the drama by attempting to get him sanctioned. And AN/I made it clear last evening that even those who disagree with how he conducted himself during the incident aren't willing to truly call him on the carpet about it. If the community of admins don't have the stomach to deal with it, then I am not going to further pursue the issue at this time. Mr Which??? 17:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jehochman

Please put them - SEO Spam domains on my talk page and I will investigate and put the owner domains on PHSDL Spam domains list...

If they want to be Famous SEO I aill oblige. http://seolinkmaster.blogspot.com/ I went down to blogspot and found out it's Indian Spam SEO trading links. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threats

Re current situation on WP:AN, I have recently had email correspondence with Jimbo about a previous situation, which was covered by WP:SUICIDE. It's clear there at least needs to be a guideline for incidents like this. Whether it will be taken seriously remains to be seen. If you are soliciting contributions for a guideline, I'll willingly contribute. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We have WP:SUICIDE. I think we should generalize this to cover all types of violent threats. If somebody makes a specific threat of violence, then we report it and let the authorities decide. We are not reporting "suicidal ideation". We report threats of suicide. Once we define that, what are the procedures? What is the email address for the foundation? Where do we go to get a quick Checkuser? Maybe you could copy WP:SUICIDE and start a new essay Wikipedia:Responding to threats of violence. Once that is in an agreed form, it can be upgraded to policy. - Jehochman Talk 16:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
League of Copyeditors roll call
Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there.
The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

[edit] Gracias

Thanks for the advice, you're right, I know. It's just Wiki-Road Rage sometimes, I guess. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Konrad Dannenberg

I was looking in the living persons noticeboard and saw there is a bit of a controversy regarding my recent edits. First, there seems to be a bit of a confusion on your part. It was I who first complained Mr Dannenberg had been potentially libeled and it was I who fixed his biography after a couple of vandals made him out to be a Nazi. I think someone may have edited my original complaint, but if you look what I first wrote you can plainly see I am the one who complained about the libelous remarks in the first place. If you could, I would appreciate not being cast the way I was and take out the line where you say I repeated those remarks. Thanks.

(NASA399 (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] User Wordbywordbyword

I doubt Wordbywordbyword (talk · contribs) is a sock of Kirbytime because I'm certain that Kirbytime couldn't come up with this quality of an article, which has references and looks like a very good contribution for a starter article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would you mind overseeing?

I hate to ask again, and you posted an offer before, but could I draw your attention to this? That page is falling apart fast with outside of policy POV pushing, and I think my attempts to try to broker anything there are completely fallen apart. Lawrence Cohen 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I EC'd you while adding the sections for discussions. Your comment to Randy is here. Lawrence Cohen 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration

Moo.
Moo.

I have filed a request for arbitration where you are an involved party. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and add a statement if you wish. Jehochman Talk 17:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional parties for your browsing pleasure are:

and FayssalF needs to recuse because of previous involvement. You can find additional evidence on Psychonaut's talkpage. Wise admins counseled a year ago this would be a circus. hmmmmm . They're all gone, smart fellows they were. Have a ball; Z has interrupted my editing for a year and a half. This is not going to take the rest of my holidays. This is a problem furthered by SV's untimely unblock where she should have let uninvolved admins handle the matter; the community needs to solve it. Oh, and how do you plan to handle Jimbo's involvement, since apparently it is his support (perceived or real) of her that has allowed Z to feel enabled to continue the behavior? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel no ownership nor need to manage this case. The Committee will handle it. You will get justice; that is my promise to you. Jehochman Talk 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
No I won't. I know a bit more about this issue than you do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re ArbCom

Thank you for your comment at my talkpage. I know that it is a rather unfashionable mindset, but I think ArbCom works very well in circumstances such as these. It allows all participants access to each others viewpoints and interpretations of events - without drama and interruption - which can be a very salutary experience. It is also the only authority august enough (outside possibly of Jimbo) to have its decisions properly considered by all participants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy on ignoring fellow editors.

Hi Jehochman, is there a policy that states your allowed to ignore other editors completely even if it affects the overall good of a certain article. I got into an agrument with TheHYPO and he refuses to talk to me, I apologize to him and try to make amends and he still refuses. I need to be able to talk with him regarding the article on the band Barenaked Ladies as I would like to get the article nominated for good article status. Writer1400 (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You can try editor assistance reports to see if somebody would be willing to informally mediate the situation. Jehochman Talk 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you please do me a favor if you're not too busy? Could you possibly attempt to explain to this user the following facts, because I have attempted to do so for most of them and nothing sinks in.
  1. Except for certain isolated exceptions, no wikipedia user is under any general positive obligation to contribute to wikipedia - particularly, no obligation, legal, moral, or wikipedia policy-based, exists implying that a user should, let alone MUST, give up his or her personal works (eg images) for public use by uploading it to wikipedia
  2. Calling a user amoral for choosing not to do so is not acceptable behavior for a wikipedia editor, and verges on a personal attack.
  3. Editors are generally under no obligation to respond to comments on their own talk pages. Many users do not visit wikipedia for extended periods and are not breaking any rules by not replying to any messages that have built up. Bots regularly delete images on the rightful non-replys (non-action) of users who are warned of mis-licensing or non-rationale for fair use or whatnot. If a user chooses not to dignify a users bugging them with response, that is their choice; while it is encouraged to reply, there is absolutely no policy forcing users to do so. In fact, wikipedia policy suggests take a break and sleep on it. It does not specify how long such a break may last.
  4. It is not appropriate to constantly explain every edit you make on the talk page of an article, ending each with a variation on "I hope [user] doesn't revert it all just to spite me", implying to all readers that that user had ever done so, when in fact, they had not. This breaks wikipedia policy on not misrepresenting others.
  5. Not every disagreement is appropriate to end with "fine, I'm going to take this to an administrator". This is literally the third or fourth disagreement with me that this user has ended with virtually that phrase, to only to be told that he is the one that is wrong. It is ultimately just going to result in your own annoyance; but that's your right.
These are my suggestions to make your life easier by not having this user end all of his disputes by asking you to fix it for him, as he has so far done three times just to you with regards to his disagreements with me over one article. Naturally, it's up to you to do what you think is best. Thank you for your time in reading this; I would like to be clear that this is directed at you, and not at Writer1400. I have previously directed most of these points (other than the latest point of non-reply) to him without success. I promise not to engage in any form of argument with other users on your personaltalk page. Have a pleasant day. TheHYPO (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Jehochman Talk 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
All that stuff that TheHYPO just posted, I don't understand why he can't just tell me himself. Sorry Jehochman if I bothered you. The reason why I usually come to you with most issues is because I know your right so I trust what you said. If I ever bothered you like TheHYPO is accusing me of, then I'm sorry. This whole situation is a shame, it can easily be solved if TheHYPO would just be willing to talk so we can settle these differences. Writer1400 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to talk to him if he doesn't want to talk. Just edit as best you can. Jehochman Talk 21:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jehochman. Writer1400 (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've decided I'm not going to edit anymore on wikipedia. I'm done as an editor. I don't think I'm good enough. I didn't think I was that bad as an editor but I guess I am. Take care Jehochman, thank you for everything. Writer1400 (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments about RFCU

You said, "The section I deleted did not belong on this talk page. Article talk pages are not the proper venue to leave warnings. If you have an issue about improper use of requests for checkuser, please file a report at the administrators noticeboard/incidents. Thank you." If it happens again, that's what I will do and I hope you will support me. The editor is using RFCU and WP:ANI in a campaign to own the article. Neutral Good (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If RFCU is used improperly, or if there are attempts to own an article, you are welcome to alert me or post to WP:ANI as you like. Most likely the user is just unfamiliar when to request checkuser, and friendly advice is all he needs. Jehochman Talk 01:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
What you've probably got at Talk:Waterboarding is a university professor who assigned this article as some sort of class project. That would explain the shared IP address, the user ID of "PennState21" and Shibumi2's unexplained departure from his usual focus on Japanese Navy articles. Thanks for your obedience to WP:AGF and WP:BITE, by the way. Neutral Good (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Of course I am happy to answer your questions, no problem:

  1. Do you consider yourself to be an activist on behalf of people with Aspergers?

Yes and no, I certainly wasn't until this year, and I will not be again ASAP, simply because I abhor the "activism experience" in general. My involvement relates to one specific issue that I am happy to explain to you by email but not "on-wiki".

  2. Have you ever recruited other people who share your point of view to edit Wikipedia, specifically Asperger syndrome and any related articles?

Again, that is quite a tricky question, for me but in the answer you may come to understand AS a little better, at any rate as it applies to me. I have asked other people to contribute to the Asperger Syndrome article during this year, and I am sure that is no secret, simply because the deterioration in the neutrality of the article absolutely terrifies me on account of it's position on Google and the influence it has on people's thinking, and the way people with AS are perceived and treated as a result.

I asked them to contribute without even checking whether they shared "my point of view" (I don't think I have a very fully formed one) or not, because I feel that the deterioration in the neutrality of the article is subjective in origin, and, as a result, ANY objective opinion (including, for example, your own, if you wished to look into it) would serve to balance that. I would even have been happy with a reversion to the more balanced and objective 2006 FA. For me, in many ways, concepts like partiality and prejudice (even in my favor) are bad jokes that I don't really get. I am only interested in understanding and communicating objective reality, not in who's point of view trumps who's, if you can understand that? "Which team wins" is meaningless to me as long as the facts are valid.

However, while I did ask people to contribute, I don't think I actually succeeded in "recruiting" any, unless you know differently? :o)

Incidentally I never really DID edit the Asperger syndrome articles except to weigh in with consensus occasionally...believe it or not I feel too subjectively about AS to define it effectively in any capacity, and actually used a cut down version of the 2006 article to define AS for a national level submission here. I feel safer with the accuracy of an article into which many different people have put their perceptions, the are less likely to be errors and bias.

I have also been known to "buttonhole" any low flying shrink with an account here for comments on psych articles. Does that count?

  3. Do you operate a website about Asperger syndrome?

Only since the summer and only as a formality related to a specific issue here. I have a degree of technical control over a couple of others too, but that's mostly because nobody else can be bothered, you, know the way. I think you will find that I have not made any secret of this and stated on the AS talk pages in August or September (I'll see if I can find the diff, I was looking at it yesterday) that with great regret the neutrality of the article had deteriorated to the point where bI had to de-link it as a definition on those sites. I think you will find that I have never dropped a link to any website I owned or had control of on-Wiki, if you know differently please show me because I will be far more disgusted with me for doing that than anyone else ever will be.

Always feel free to ask any questions, as long as I am free to answer them.

Incidentally, I hope you won't mind terribly if I get justice too? But whether you believe it or not I really do deserve it.

--Zeraeph (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Justice for all! Jehochman Talk 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll never quarrel with that sentiment, it's one of my personal favorites.--Zeraeph (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom has accepted, it opens tomorrow, shall we shake hands and wish one another a Happy New Year? --Zeraeph (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I hope that my comments at User talk:Zeraeph did not imply that I considered the questions a "trap", and I unreservedly apologise if that was the impression given. My reasons for writing what I did was i) not knowing how Z's Aspergers manifests itself I felt that I should clarify that your requests were not binding (options not always being a concept that those on the Autistic Spectrum can internalise), and ii) um... not having the sense to check whether she had answered elsewhere. Since Z has chosen to answer, and I am confident in your ability to consider the information with due nuetrality, I consider my comments moot. Regards. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No apology needed! You are welcome to question my actions at any time, and I appreciate your feedback. Jehochman Talk 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goosecreek RFCU, IP based ban evasion?

You might want to look at my new comments on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek which are due to User talk:Lawrence Cohen#A question for you. Is this ban evasion and a range block situation? Lawrence Cohen 16:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

More of these "very dynamic" Sprint IPs that "leave no trail" and all have the same stance and position here. And more six forward slash IP supports. The whole situation is becoming a sockpuppet party on those pages even worse if this guy can change IPs at will. Lawrence Cohen 16:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that there are limits to what can be done in fairness. But articles that these folks like to edit should be protected from anon ip edits. I think we also need a protection level that says you need -- say 150 edits or more in article space -- before you can edit some articles with that level of protection. This would go a long way to stopping socks and we could stop witch hunting. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no reasonable evidence to believe these people are different. Most of the RFCU confirmed socks for the same IP all have history of working on the Free Republic article. That includes the IP of one of the worst trolls this site has apparently known, this Palatine character, who had that as his major problem. That IP, plus a host of others with the same language, tone and curious identical ```support``` language all arrive at once on the waterboarding talk page, at the same time, and all with the exact same stance? If not entirely sockpuppetry it's flagrant meatpuppetry. Either is a rules violation. Do you really think it's a coincidence that all' these unique human beings, all using the same ISP, all with matching political viewpoints, all with matching oddball habits of forming their ```support``` !votes, and all with basically the same language all arrived independent of each other, as soon as the "consensus" fight began to turn, and there were basically two people on the non-torture side of the debate? I've got a swell bridge for you too, that's only moderately used. Lawrence Cohen 19:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not think it is coincidence. I do not think it is not coincidence. I do not consider it worthwhile to be concerned about. To me, consensus is not the count of the votes, but rather the weight of the votes. The reasoning. So I do not stress over such things. Some people find this very distracting. I do not. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it it is sockpuppetry and stacking the discussion, it's a major problem. No one editor is entitled to more weight in discussion than any other. It is a bannable offense. Lawrence Cohen 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure. No problem with that. But its not a problem or a concern for me as an editor. I find it to be something that causes more stress than is needed. But perhaps it is because some people are so vigilant that I have never really been knowingly affected. On the other hand though, maybe some folks just stress over that stuff too much. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure if the abusive sockpuppetry was in opposition to what you see as a stance supported by policy (as it is in this case) you would feel different. Lawrence Cohen 20:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it escaped your attention, but if you look you will see that I took very little to zero notice of them even though some people might suppose that they supported my position. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration?

Do you really think it has to go there FIRST? To me that is a bit extreme. What are the disruptive editing practices you see? The sockpuppets seem to be handled. If they really were sockpuppets, which I think is debatable but probable. Wouldn't stand up in a court of law, but does not past the smell test. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rape & NPOV

I am confused. You left a very ambiguous message saying that a contribution of mine appears to have been non-neutral and may have been removed. It has been removed, but you were not the one who removed it. Two questions:

1) How did this come to your attention?

and

2) How does the statement "the debate over whether or not biological factors influence the male decision to rape still causes great controversy, espescially between feminists and sociobiologists" convery a non-neutral POV? As far as I can tell, it acknowledges both sides of the argument but favors neither; which, to my knowledge, is the very definition of neutrality. The only other reason I can think of for removing the statement is if it is false, but that cannot be the case as the history of the rape page itself testifies to its veracity.

Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MannaOfTheMessiah (talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a third party who happened to notice your comment, I can say on the face of it that the sentence you quoted seems to assert that all Femanists and Sociobiologists hold the opinions you've attributed to them, or that they are more strongly opinionated than anyone else on the subject. I don't think that's a proper assertment. TheHYPO (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Middletown Connecticut

Hi there, I just received a harassing comment on my user talk page from the same user who keeps reverting edits in Middletown, Connecticut. What should I do? (besides delete it?) --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for two weeks. By then they will hopefully lose interest in bothering you. Jehochman Talk 03:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much :) You may also want to take a look at 159.247.3.210, as it has also been a source of attacks from this user. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just received another harassing post to my talk page by same user under 129.133.124.203. Sorry this has turned into such a nighmare. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected your talk page for one week. This should prevent further disruption. Jehochman Talk 03:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again; disruptive comments appearing on talk page of article Middletown, Connecticut , by 129.133.124.203 --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LaruaWA11

Hey. I just noticed your comment. By all means, feel free to take over. Regards, El_C 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You have the situation well in hand. Jehochman Talk 06:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasion?

Hello. Since you were the blocking admin for 129.133.124.199 (talk · contribs) due to his conduct at Middletown, Connecticut, I thought you might be interested in this post which would appear to be the same person evading the block. It is to be noted that rather than revert warring, he's discussing matters on the talk page. Of course the judgement call on what to do with him is all yours, oh mop laden one! :-) Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I invited the user to open an account and behave themselves. If they cause trouble they can be blocked again. Jehochman Talk 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Again getting deletes in the Middletown article from the same user via 66.19.34.88. Again, sorry for the nightmare this has turned into. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Take that back; looks like it was an actual contribution to the talk page. Sorry, it's getting later here; I should probably bow out for now. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Queluz National Palace

This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008.[19] Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

I apologize if my disputes with Writer1400 have lead to any drama being forced upon you; Every minor disagreement with him have resulted in a major blowup of drama, and I'm sorry if you got caught in the middle of it. TheHYPO (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Let the user go in peace. Jehochman Talk 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year to you too!

Thanks for the kind thoughts. Its ok if we do not always agree, but we do not have to be disagreeable! I hope I am not. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] have a look

Hi Jehochman, could you have a look at this[20]. I'm being accused of personally attacking User:Blackworm. I am disengaging awaiting a review of my actions - would you mind taking a look--Cailil talk 16:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought to ANI. I have mentioned your overview of my actions there--Cailil talk 14:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the section immediately below this one? Jehochman Talk 14:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the above is here at WP:AN. I'm having a look at the below now--Cailil talk 14:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this is the original issue being rehashed by Blackworm, could you have a look at his post to my user-space here - if you would prefer I could ask a different sysop to overview (again), in case you are over worked or wish to recuse yourself--Cailil talk 18:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I will be out, so you may with to ask another if you need fast response. Jehochman Talk 19:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Guy about it. He's busy so he may not be able to deal with it either, but it's not that urgent, it can wait till tomorrow or later--Cailil talk 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Explanation for human behavior is the primary distinction between feminism and sociobiology. Feminists subscribe to social constructionism, the belief that culture is the only influence upon human action. There is no feminist, that I know of, who objects to this belief. Sociobiologists, meanwhile, believe that biology influences behavior. These are foundational tenets of their belief systems, their adherents are the most strongly opinionated, and this diametric conflict is responsible for most of the edit wars on the Rape page. MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Without reliable sources, these edits look like you are pushing your personal opinions onto Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 12:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The pages Rape and Sociobiological theories of rape are proof that the statement is objective, germane, and neutral. I am not adding anything to Wikipedia that is not already there. If you still believe otherwise, please elaborate. MannaOfTheMessiah (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that many feminists do subscribe to social constructivist ideas, you are making a huge generalization MannaOfTheMessiah. There are a number of strands of feminism that deny this some ecofeminist and mother earth/earth goddess types believe in an essentialist idea of femininity. Even the postcolonial-feminist theorist, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak coined the term Strategic essentialism and has some beliefs in it. So in short MannaOfTheMessiah be more specific. If a feminist or socilologist holds a position name them - attribute the claim and reference it. Also as Jehochman points out you will need sources to add this material to WP and citing the wikipdia articles Rape and Sociobiological theories of rape wont be good enough unfortunately--Cailil talk 14:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copying comments to RfC talk page

May I have your permission to copy the commments on my talk page to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Vanished user#Community input on the findings of fact]]? I would make clear where they came from, and invite further discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted there because I did not want to extend any criticisms of your actions to other venues. I did post an explanation. Let me know if that is sufficient, but in principle anything I say on the record can be copied anywhere without limitation. Thank you for asking. Also, do you think we should ask somebody like Lar to clerk this RfC to help keep things in order? Jehochman Talk 16:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's leave it a bit longer. Maybe drop him a note now if you are worried. By the way, have you seen this? I was very pleased to see the contributions resume, but now I'm worried you might want to revisit some of the issues and resolve them (which is entirely up to you, of course). I vaguely remember an "enough already" comment you made in an edit summary, so maybe not? Carcharoth (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
We exchanged emails and enough already is the right way to look at this. That he has returned cheers me up. Jehochman Talk 17:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Varroa Destructor

Eeeek!
Eeeek!

This article is one I watch.

I would reverse this but given our recent interchange, I would expect you to consider it a sort of aggressive attack. So instead I will bring it to your attention.

I do not consider this removal to be a good thing. It did not look like advertising to me and it might be helpful to beekeepers doing research on how to affect this parasite. --Blue Tie (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I did look for references to this, and did not find any online. If you can find a reference, feel free to re-add the material but without the external link. Otherwise, this material appears to violate WP:EL and possibly WP:COI. It sticks out and looks like it was placed there to promote. Usefulness is not a criteria for inclusion; verifiability is. I've spent considerable time working at WP:COIN where I've seen a lot of cases like this one. Regards, Jehochman Talk 12:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I also do not like advertising on wikipedia in any form. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mattisse's "evidence" at ArbCom Zeraeph et al

Hi. I would just like to say that the strong language (no, not swearing this time - passionate but still civil) that I used in my response to your comment is not directed at you but "the gallery". I want to be able to defend my reputation, and striking through will allow the accusations to be still seen. I'm late to bed as it is, so my considered reply to Mattisse will have to wait a little while. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harvard project, Waterboarding, and a meatpuppetry

[[Image:Harvard poster.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Harvard fans holding up Yale's "We Suck" placards, 2004. ]]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou

This entire mess just went from annoying and dumb to surreal. Read: [21]

I really would like to see a very ride review of this via AN or ANI. Lawrence Cohen 22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to post this to AN or ANI please do so, otherwise I will, and I would prefer not to, as I'm a touch steamed right now. From that page:

* "# Should we weigh in on whether Wikipedia should keep the statement "waterboarding is a form of torture"? If so, what is our position? Khoffman 19:53, 7 January 2008 (EST)"

Given that they 'orally' decided to take up the waterboarding page, I smell major meatpuppetry and an answer in part to why this page has been a disruptive fiasco. Lawrence Cohen 22:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it to ANI, please. This is an incident. Jehochman Talk 22:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will, then I'm taking a break. Lawrence Cohen 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[snark removed] Jehochman Talk 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Haha, nice one. I was always partial to the MIT hacks. Lawrence Cohen 01:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yale sucks..:)

Some mutual friends Wonder if you know? Igor Berger (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I miss your home sweet home sign, "If you must troll this page, please be original." Does that mean you do not like Trolls anymore..:) Igor Berger (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
J, now you talking..:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 05:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Waterboarding

Anyway, so that was unexpected. El_C 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wacky wiki wonderland! It's all good. I've resumed contact with an old college friend. Unfortunately, he's gone over to the dark side (Harvard). Jehochman Talk 03:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Must have been abducted by Darth Vader Igor Berger (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen this? Jehochman Talk 04:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom exam cliff notes?Igor Berger (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How is it going

Have a look why? thx Igor Berger (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Your comments

Thanks for taking the time to give me some advice. I'll definitely follow it, if there is no objection to it. I'd also like to say sorry for declining the coaching so early after the last RFA, I ultimately ended being coached by Rlevse, but I appreciated your thought nevertheless. Best regards, Rudget. 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You made a good choice with Rlevse. I've been quite busy, and I may not be the best coach because I tend to walk into minefield-type situations. Jehochman Talk 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waterboarding

Blue Tie asked, "Do you really think you are helping matters with that approach? Think about it."

You relied, "Yes."

I reply, "No, you're not. You're taking sides, and backing it up with threats to use your administrative powers against the 'other side' while ignoring the same conduct by 'your side.' That's what Blue Tie is complaining about and he has a very valid point."

Please think about how oppressive this conduct is and, just as important, how it is perceived by people who disagree with your interpretations. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained that I am acting as an ordinary editor. My observation that editors who turn an article into a battleground will be blocked is perfectly accurate. I am hopeful that editors will maintain decorum, and that no blocks will be necessary. Multiple administrators are lurking at the page, and blocks will be issued, but not by me, to any editor who disrupts the project. Jehochman Talk 16:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editorhwaller

I appreciate your help in the McGill University matter, and with trying to keep Editorhwaller from further disrupting wikipedia. Thanks for your attention in the matter. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sending, he's not receiving, yet. Hopefully he will reconsider and decide to take a more collegial approach. Jehochman Talk 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I posted this on Snowfire talk page. I wanted to make sure you saw it:
  • "Let me just chime in here, as a third party, to say that Snowfire has been more than patient throughout this long drawn out affair. I should also call your attention to some rather bizarre comments made by Editorhwaller on my talk page a while ago, which would appear to put him in violation of some mixture of WP:POINT and WP:TROLL, to name but two. He claims to be part of a group of social pyschologists conducting experiments on Wikpedians, comments that call into question his sincerity and/or sanity." See. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing out that diff. I very much do not believe this story about an experiment. This looks very much like trolling, but even if he is really conducting an experiment, stressing people on purpose to gather data is a completely unacceptable use of an account. Either way the account should be blocked, so I have done that. Jehochman Talk 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you again for your patience and help in this matter. I hope now we can all go back to working together for the good of wikipedia, and the grand experiment is over. I appreciate you checking out the evidence, and having my back. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh, he's back, with a new sock puppet and still harping about Oxford, for some strange reason. See: User:Casta321. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And now there seems to be a second sock or meat. I think you may have to semi-protect the Talk pages for McGill, Snowfire and me. Thanks. I see you seem to be on top of this. Many thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Neutral Good on ANI

FYI. Lawrence Cohen 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Waterboarding

Unresolved. It's not settled!

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik•talk 11:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I appreciate your comments. As you can no doubt understand, I have been attempting to communicate in a rational, civil manner with the editor in question for more than 2 months, but he seems completely oblivious to the non-negotiable need for compliance with even such simple policies as WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:SOURCE - which is extremely aggravating. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be a very accurate statement. If you step back, I will take a turn. Some users socialize quickly; others need more time. Should you run into further difficulties, just let me know and I will do my best to help. Jehochman Talk 01:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm very happy for you to have a go at gently socialising him. I believe he will make an excellent contributor to the project if we can wean him off his obsession with promoting Sealand and perceiving my frustrations with his non-compliance with policy as a personal attack. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind having a chat with our friend again? He's trying to remove the same content from Principality of Sealand yet again, because he apparently believes that the cited (first party) source says something that it "shouldn't". He doesn't yet seem to have grasped the fact that we're here to report what sources say, not to delete them when they don't happen to agree with our POV.
His changes to Empire of Atlantium also appear to be progressively introducing a level of subtle pro-Atlantium bias into that article - and I say that as the chief executive of Atlantium. --Gene_poole (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I will, later tonight. Let the wrong version, if that is the case, stand for a while. Slow reverting is sometimes a good strategy. Jehochman Talk 17:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's unusual that Gene Poole said this at 17:53 when I changed the article back at 18:00. This would mean that he would have predicted the change from the discussion page, but it makes sense to write why you think the change should happen rather than just changing the page without a comment. I never actually said that I would change the edit back, so obviously he wants the dispute to happen. I didn't delete the sources, and since Gene Poole is so concerned about reporting what sources say, I used his website as a source for Atlantium. I think Gene Poole just wants to continue the dispute, he questions whether the convention will actually become official and he is being completely unreasonable. If he does not want to stop the dispute then he is an uncooperative editor. He spends more time arguing and continuing the dispute than editing. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For some reason John Carter is highly involved. It's now clear that Gene Poole is more interested in the dispute than Wikipedia. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's not make accusations here. I said I would look at it tonight, and that I've reserved judgment. Jehochman Talk 18:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If anyone is paying attention, I request that User:Gene Poole not make any edits concerning Empire of Atlantium in order the he may comply with conflict of interest best practices, if he is in fact an officer of that micronation. Limited edits to revert vandalism and spam are acceptable. User:Onecanadasquarebishopsgate is asked not to add or edit any micronation content without providing a reference to a reliable source. These two conditions should greatly reduce the possibility of disputes over these articles. With micronations, we must be especially careful not to engage in speculation or original research. Comments? Jehochman Talk 08:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you suggest using restrictions - but at the moment I don't think they are needed, if the dispute resolution fails then yes, but so far it seems to be working. I will add sources even without a restriction. Gene Poole isn't just an officer, he is the emperor - so he probably knows the most about the Empire of Atlantium. Thanks for the request, I think it is useful - but it will be more effective if the dispute resolution fails. Let's see how this dispute resolution ends first. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New convention

I have written on Gene Poole's discussion page about the convention, I think this can end the dispute entirely, and stop a lot of future disputes. If you need any further information, see the Wikiproject's discussion page. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to unblock former TOR exit nodes

Jehochman, I checked the last 5000 blocks via Special:Ipblocklist (mostly out of curiosity), and found that

which you blocked as Tor exit nodes, are no longer exit nodes. Barring circumstances unbeknownst to me, would you please consider unblocking these IP address? Thanks, Iamunknown 01:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Three non-Tor IPs unblocked. Jehochman Talk 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --Iamunknown 05:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

A. You mention free speech on your user page. B. On ANI, Profg says "you will be slammed". If true, this should be an eyeopener that WP slams people. He said " Go to one of these pages and see if you can improve it". He didn't say to vandalize it. C. According to WP:CANVASS, "to block the user(s) only if they continue". I see no warning notice on his user page.

Therefore, you have improperly blocked this man. You should unblock him and follow the proper procedure. If he is a jerk, he will violate the procedure and then you can block him. Do not be a jerk just because he is a jerk.

By doing what you did, you slammed him just like he predicted. You became the bad guy and he became the victim. Do the right thing and unblock him for now. Onequestion (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has been warned before, and been blocked for disruptive behavior. He was unblocked on strict probation. The unblocking administrator, B., stated that a new block was warranted. Feel free to comment at the discussion where the entire community can see your remarks. Jehochman Talk 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This account has one edit and it's to your talk page defending another blocked editor. A newbie who knows what ANI is? I'm indef blocking as a sockpuppet. --kingboyk (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
As your reason, make sure to cite the trollish edit summary. Jehochman Talk 19:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Too late... but I think my summary is OK anyway. Feel free to unblock/reblock if you're not happy with it. --kingboyk (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's never to late. You can always post a reasoning and diffs on the user's talk page below the block notice. That helps if the block is ever challenged. And, thanks! Jehochman Talk 19:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the copyediting help

Your help is highly appreciated. Igor Berger (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquette question mentioning, but not about you

In the interest of full disclosure, your post to the arbcom enforcement board made me wonder about backing assertions of bad behavior. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Diffs for assertions about behavior? Anynobody 08:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can you do copyedit on Andy Beard

Thank you J. Igor Berger (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, do you know why the article got deleted? Igor Berger (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Lack of notability. Keep in mind that Matt Cutts was nominated for deletion, and Matt is much more notable than Andy Beard. These things happen. I suggest waiting a while. If new references appear, perhaps the article can be restarted at a later time. Jehochman Talk 01:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I have an idea. Ask AzaToth (talk · contribs) to restore the article and say that you want a chance to work on it some more. A contested speedy deletion should be sent to WP:AFD instead, at worst, I think. That will provide at least 5 days opportunity. You could also request that the page be restored to your userspace so you can fix it up at a leisurely pace and then move it into mainspace. Jehochman Talk 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
J, I asked User:AzaToth ti restore the article. User_talk:AzaToth#Can_you_please_restore_Andy_Beard Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The article has been restored but nominated AfD, I can use some help with notability Talk:Andy_Beard Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protect Request

If you've got a second, I'd like to request semi-protection for the Phil Luckett article. He's a ref who made a questionable call in the NFL playoff game today, and he's drawing heavy random IP vandalism for stuff that can't be properly sourced until after the game. I made an oficial request, but I thought I'd see if you were around to maybe cut this off early. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've given it 48 hours of semi-protection. Hopefully that will be enough for everyone to cool down, and for the reliable sources to appear.Jehochman Talk 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much, that should help tremendously. I appreciate it! Snowfire51 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AE

Hi. If you do not want to apply the remedy to AN yourself due to previous involvement (although I do not think that should be a concern in your case) but if you do not want to then you may want to post something on AN/I (if you have not already - I did not check) as WP:AE gets scant attention. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay in one venue, and somebody will deal with it. If the other editor persists, they will prove our point. Jehochman Talk 23:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] div class="usermessage"

[Excitedly] I've got new messages?(!) [[Dissapointedpointed-pointed<ly] Ughh! :( El_C 03:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fair enough

Hi Jehochman. I don't want to fight you. We are on the same side, the Wikipedia side.

You show honour by not reverting comments like some admins do. For this, a star for you. (*). Let's just let the checkuser request take its course, whether it's run or not.

If I were you, I would have reworded the request much differently. I would have said all these 3 users are not improperly acting like socks of each other so no checkuser is requested between these. However, a checkuser of Profg to each of them is requested to show they are not Profg.

If you are worried about meat, none of them are voting together. Maybe they are admin who don't want to publically support Profg but are against full community ban. Or maybe someone wants to make a suggestion on the talk page but given the hostility of the subject doesn't want to be stalked or attacked.

Just some thoughts. Republic of One (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed my other RFCU comment. That's a 50% reduction. I'll leave my other one there or it will look like admin intimidation of an editor. Let's not start a fight, ok? Objection noted, you responded. I withdrew 1 of 2 comments. Republic of One (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I wasn't particularly offended, and I am glad you have understood my point. Regards, Jehochman Talk 07:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The case was renamed upon closing from "Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia" to "Zeraeph". User:Zeraeph, including and socks and future accounts, is banned from Wikipedia for one year. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance with the case. Jehochman Talk 14:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You may have damaged Wikipedia, consider this.

As one admin to another, I try to give great deference to another admin's judgement and actions. Your RFCU could have been handled much better without potential damage to WP.

The results are in. Your accusation was wrong. There was a comment that the RFCU was not a category F. I tend to agree. Furthermore, all 3 listed people were different. However, one person who makes good contributions (Congalese fufu), including current work on 2 articles to bring them to featured article status, has been outed. It is very possible that this editor will cease editing because of this. If this happens, Wikipedia would have been harmed because of actions that you started. All of our actions have consequences. We admins are always pointing out vandalism but our actions can have the same long term effect as the vandals if we are not careful.

I told the checkuser that I am willing to discuss privately with productive edits who have an alternate account if this can improve their behavior. You could have done this and not chase away an editor. Walton One once made a similar comment. You see, my main goal is WP improvement. Archtransit (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice of violation of official Wikipedia policy
By your own admission ("a one minute block to note this case in their log" as noted here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFCU#Onequestion), you have violated official Wikipedia policy stated in this passage[22] . It gives me no pleasure to block another admin. However, this will be evidence that can be cited to the skeptical that WP has a cabal that protects its own. This block is done to prevent further damage to WP by preventing your edits. I encourage you to reflect on this situation and how your good intentions resulted in violation of official Wikipedia policy as well as probable damage to WP in terms of other's improving the encyclopedia.

Your term of blockage w ill be 12 hours, calculated as less than half of the 31 hours normally given for vandalism. Please accept this as a learning experience and not plan retaliation. Archtransit (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Request handled by: —Animum (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Original block clearly stated that blocking as to prevent damage to WP by preventing further violations of official WP policy. Despite being unblocked, Jehochman is encouraged to carefully follow WP policy in the future. Archtransit (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am taking this matter to dispute resolution. The first step, informal conversation has been initiated. We are in dispute. Jehochman Talk 18:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No offense AT, but your block of Jehochman was crap. J was clearly trying to be lenient in a case that, but for mitigating factors (that not everyone would consider), would normally require a lengthy block. J may not have worded the block notice in the best way, but your block (without discussion of the policy you cited) was over the top. R. Baley (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. How exactly was Congolese fufu "outed"? Lawrence Cohen 18:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

They weren't. Jehochman Talk 18:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was getting from reading this all, and that bit especially made no sense. If the user quits Wikipedia after being caught abusing multiple accounts for whatever reason, thats hardly the fault of the CU or the person who requested it. Lawrence Cohen 18:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am as confused as you. I do not see how a 1 minute block is worse for them than a 2 week block, which would have been justified under the circumstances. Jehochman Talk 18:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess AGF can get you blocked now. :( Lawrence Cohen 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on block of Congolese fufu

I think the problem is that you reduced the block of Congolese fufu so much that it no longer was really a block. You weren't intending to stop them editing for 1 minute, you were intending to put an entry in their block log. I can see that your intention was generosity, but I think the option you chose was one not really open to you. That said it wasn't a very serious breach of the blocking policy and some might well invoke WP:IAR to defend it. Certainly a block was not the right response if someone disagreed with your action. That said, could everyone please bear in mins that the admin who blocked Jehochman is very new to the job - and that ideally this should be treated as a learning experience rather than an opportunity to lynch someone. WjBscribe 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. One thing new admins should realize is that they can go to somebody experienced (points to the guy above) when something like this happens, rather than taking it on themselves to do a controversial block. Secretly, I've always wanted to be blocked to see what it feels like, so now I've had that experience.  :-) Jehochman Talk 18:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It's awesome, especially when you accidentally label yourself a sockpuppet while trying to block an IP ([23]). :) MastCell Talk 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
That was pretty funny. R. Baley (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing severe damage to wikiprokect seton hall,you really hurt wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankun (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] barnstar in progress, probably tomorrow

A barnstar is being made. It will commend Jehochman from turning anger (threats to prolong the matter into dispute resolution) into presumed calm. These turning points are what make barnstars meaningful, not just patting friends on the back. Archtransit (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lulu Margarida

You might recall User:Lulu Margarida was blocked for a week in November for their disruptive behavior, incivility, and intimidation attempts at the Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira article. The block expired, but they did no more editing after that. However, today apparently Lulu has decided to return. For their first edit, they left a note on my talk page with the heading of "Hello Freak."[24]. So far that is all they have done, but I'm mildly concerned that this is the first action they take up on deciding to return to Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to be a good sign that they intend to not repeat their past incivilities. I don't know if any action is warranted now, but I thought it would be good for an admin to be alerted so hopefully someone keeps an eye on him. Collectonian (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is today my day for all the LuLu and FuFu users? I'll have a look. Jehochman Talk 19:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

..for being gracious and reasonable, even when blocked. If everyone was like that, the drama quotient around here would go way down. Friday (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw, thanks, it was nothing. Best regards, Jehochman Talk 21:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree with Friday. I hope that if someday I find myself in the crosshairs of an exuberant new admin, I will be as calm and forgiving as you have been. Cheers. — Satori Son 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, even though I disagreed with you on whether it was resolved until Archtransit actually acknowledged an error :-P Avruchtalk 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye. There's no problem with that. Jehochman Talk 22:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, way to set a good example. There's not enough of that going around. It's too bad, though - this had the makings of another constructive "test case"... :) MastCell Talk 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if everyone was like this, arbcom being obsolete isn't a wild proposition. ;-) Maxim(talk) 23:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI Avruchtalk 16:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mateohoffman

Hey! Well done on finding that account. Still trying to assimilate what it all means. Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Comments on Mateohoffman for my thoughts so far. Will you be taking this to the proposed decision talk page? I suggest you do at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't deserve any credit at all.[25] What does this mean? I am not sure. It may mean nothing, or it might be a clue that leads to other information. Jehochman Talk 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I will credit B instead. Thanks for pointing that out. You still get the credit for introducing it to the evidence though. Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Igorberger/Andy_Beard

Igorberger tells me he started this article on your say-so and it got CSD'd. You're the resident expert on SEO. Follow up with the fellow, please. DurovaCharge! 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is probably a case of borderline notability, so it depends how the article was constructed and whether suitable references were provided. He's watching my talk page so hopefully he will join this discussion. Jehochman Talk 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I'm still new at constructing articles from scrach. So to one person it may look like lacking notability even when there is notability everywhere. Igor Berger (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
See above for advice how to handle this. Jehochman Talk 04:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who's clueless?

User:Phoenix-wiki, I believe is not an admin, made the change. I am shocked that a non-admin would think they he or she has the right to change the title of any arbitration request. But User:Phoenix-wiki did proof right here! Do you supposed that this is the kind of behavior I've been dealing with on the Asian fetish article? Now, I ask you why the hell are personal attacks on me using external links going unpunished on wikipedia? Just look at the Asian fetish article the involved parties are having a field day with the article and I don't have a clue? Since it looks like you are an admin, I challenge you to do the right thing and punish those who obviously personally attacked me. Tkguy (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The 3-tier diff and link series

Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide
Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide
Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide
See that you are upset. Can you provide diffs that show personal attacks? See the help files if you need directions for how to gather the necessary evidence. Jehochman Talk 02:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if I came across too emotional. What can I say people post links to Asian forum posts on the talk page of Asian fetish and are obviously trying to make me out to be something I am not. Anyway, all the links are in my arbitration request here. I am afraid you will have to look at a lot of our edits to see the true story. Yes, sometimes I fight for things that may seem POV pushing but when somebody makes a valid point then I give up. That's not what I see from the people who personally attacked me. Once I get them to a point where they loose the debate, they just delete or attack another way. Thanks for taking the time to look into this. Tkguy (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's the section of the talk:Asian fetish page that contains the personal attacks on me diff. Tkguy (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the request for arbitration will not be accepted, and the matter will be left for the community to handle. If you need advice or assistance, let me know. Sometimes patience is a great strategy. Try to create a short explanation using a few diffs that show your point. This can be more convincing than a long story with many diffs. Jehochman Talk 03:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
So are these personal attacks? Tkguy (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think they were, but they seem to have been removed already. In this situation I think the best remedy is to have an uninvolved party delete the attacks and warn the attacker. Blocking will only make them angry and could provoke an escalation of the dispute. If it happens again, let me know. Jehochman Talk 11:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J you know WikiPedia by heart

You seem to know every caveat of WikiPedia. I am proud to learn from you. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

J, this is the second article I tried to make and failed. Some people are good at making articles others are good a keeping NPOV. Look at our friend John H. Gohde, he made a whole project. Ha, Ha, Ha...I wonder how he managed that. Will have to wait a year to ask him! Igor Berger (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I should Wikipedia:LAME and create Andy beard, andy Beard, andy beard, andybeard, Andybeard, andyBeard,,,you get the point...etc., with five days apart will have Andy Beard live forever. But I have better things to do with my time..:) Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You deserve this!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your hard work towards the Cause! Igor Berger (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Jehochman Talk 13:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a problem. The editor you coached for this is getting accused of COI now and his article may get deleted.[26] DurovaCharge! 18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
He occasionally asks me a question, as do many other users, and I answer as best I can, but I am not monitoring him. I have commented at the AfD and provided him advice on how to improve the article in his own userspace. Do you see any evidence of COI? All I see is a bunch of editors biting a newbie who appears to be a non-native English speaker. Jehochman Talk 18:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evident facts need consensus?

That page is missleading. Administrator can never block users if those users have enough resources...--Damifb (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rudget! (with a little extra)

Dear Jehochman, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 16:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Also...

[edit] Andy Beard AfD

Sorry if I seems a bit bitey towards Igor, but his comments just really struck me as having a bit of a conflict of interest, if not some ownership issues with regards to his article. Also, some of his threats have been a bit out of line, threating to go to RFC and getting other admins involved, along with his original threat to canvas other users for the AfD. I understand English isn't Igor's main language, but all of it together just comes off a bit harshly. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he needs socialization so that he can work within our community. Please ask the others to recognize that there probably isn't any COI, and that he's just an eager newbie. He doesn't understand how to create an article. We should encourage him to take advantage of the help facilities that are available. Jehochman Talk 18:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
J, that is exactly what I was saying. I do not know how to make an article. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, Andy Beard came by and told us a lot about himself to make it a WP:BLP please take a look and you are welcome to write the article. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
J, I do not understand. You said we will have 5 days before the article gets deleted, but it got deleted in 2 days. Igor Berger (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A modest proposal

Since your current proposal is limited to instances of confirmed sockpuppetry, I suggest instead you seek a change at Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging to make unauthorized removal of checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet templates a blockable policy violation. That would have two advantages:

  • Provides more information by linking to the category of confirmed sockpuppets.
  • Not stigmatize the editor in case the checkuser is wrong (it's not magic pixie dust). Templates can be removed, but block notations are permanent.

Think of what happened to Orderinchaos.[27] We want to minimize instances of that, not increase them. If he hadn't already been a known administrator that could have been a scarlet letter. DurovaCharge! 20:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll consider that for sure. For what it's worth, if a block is posted incorrectly, there can be an unblock. I've got a bad block on my record, as do many other folks who've been here a long time.
My concern is that sock puppetry is one thing, and blocks received by the socks are something else. Consider:
  • User A: Has a few blocks
  • User B: A requests a new username, and gets changed to B. The 'crat notes the former blocks in the log. (current practice)
Contrast:
  • User A: clean block log, FA contributor
  • User A2: sockpuppet used for several 3RR violations that were blocked 24 hours
  • User A3: sockpuppet used for outing another editor, blocked for one month.
If the sock puppetry is discovered months after A2 and A3 become idle, I do not think we should prevent A from editing. I also don't think we should put the "scarlet S" on A's user page (sockpeteer template). However, I think the block histories of A2 and A3 should be visible in case A gets into future trouble. Those past blocks should be considered. The notes could be mild, "A's alternate account received a one month block".
The A to B situation is not really different from the A, A2, A3 situation. The computer scientist in me wants them to be handled the same way. This is really just a matter of practical common sense, not any sort of desire to change community standards.
I agree wholeheartedly that routine warnings should NOT be added to the block log, which is what Bishonen, Geogre, Deskana and the others were arguing against in the old threads. Jehochman Talk 20:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Problem is, positive checkusers sometimes get reversed. Editors who become the subject of checkuser requests often have other problems. So the kind of editor (and sadly, administrator) who fails to read the talk page history edit notes is the same kind of person who'll skim the block log and do nothing but count the entries. A nice bright sockpuppet template is a good antidote to that, and it actually looks like a loophole in policy that sockpuppeteers who aren't banned are able to remove confirmed sockpuppet templates.
As a side note, it's perfectly possible to edit categories and record the blocks accrued on sock accounts for easy reference. That would provide more detailed information than a block log note would supply. DurovaCharge! 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Just thinking out loud... What if we edit the block log display page to add a link to the user's sockpuppet category? For most of us, that link will be red. For the puppetmasters, it will be blue. This is less obtrusive than having an ugly template on their user page, yet the information is still visible when needed, and full details are available if desired. If a user is falsely branded a puppetmaster, no problem, we just delete the category page.
Take a look at Amerique (talk · contribs). This is the puppetmaster of Academy Leader. He's made great improvements. I don't want to needlessly embarrass people, but at the same time, we need to have accountability. Jehochman Talk 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And the category could be deleted and returned to redlink? Sounds good. I'd support you if you approached a developer about that. DurovaCharge! 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, a developer is not needed. Those pages are editable by a clever admin. I know one who can handle it. High Five! Shall we change the RFC proposal? Jehochman Talk 21:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Any more need for an RFC after this? DurovaCharge! 00:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. The solution we've agreed upon is more elegant and better for usability. I am contacting somebody who might be able to help. Jehochman Talk 00:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

Thank you for the advice before I put my foot in my mouth again. There is no score to settle or blocking quota that I want to fill. I think I'll go back to my previously undone tasks with the testing of the tools in a slower, controlled manner. The Fairchild Dornier 728 was an article that I was working on until recently. Archtransit (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. There is no deadline. It's a lot of fun to pass RfA, but then you need to take time to learn what's expected. A lot of what you need to know isn't written down. You might try volunteer clerking or working with another admin for a while. There are always plenty of folks willing to teach. Jehochman Talk 23:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Seowiki

I am getting tired reverting his corretions and links. Igor Berger (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just hoping you can clear something up --

The entry on me at the AN/I has disappeared.

Does that forebode something worse? If not, what does it indicate?

Stone put to sky (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's usually a good thing. It was probably archived and you are apparently still able to edit. Now would be a good time to read my essay WP:XOX and then leave a few friendly words for the people who you may have disagreed with. Jehochman Talk 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your kind sentiments, but i have been the repeated object of this particular person's ire as well as several of his friends', typically in the context of their crusade against one particular page. This was not a role i requested but, instead, was clearly assigned -- whether by their own unreflected prejudices or by my own inadequate capitulation, i do not know. For my part, I shall endeavor to avoid them; i can only hope that they will reciprocate. In the meantime, i would appreciate it if you would -- over the next month or two -- occasionally drop in on the State Terrorism by the United States page. I worry that it will soon be the object of much concerted editorial attention.

Sincerely -- Stone put to sky (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coincidence?

Funny that you answered for Ryulong. Are you following him or me? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Codyfinke is such an odd user. Why would someone do that? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why Alison blocked the user, but she is highly trusted. You may ask her. Ryulong's talk page is on my watchlist and your username is quite memorable, Mrs.Easterbunny.  ;-). Jehochman Talk 23:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want Ryulong to know that you are watching his page, you may revert this entire message. Still there but less visable. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's no problem. I automatically watchlist every page I edit. This is pretty standard and doesn't offend anybody. This is a good reason to maintain civility and follow WP:WOTTA at all times, because third parties are viewing every conversation, and should feel welcome to join in. Jehochman Talk 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers

Hi, I see your name is listed here. I've taken a look here and left comments, as well as on WP:AN. The whole process of coaching seems to be stalled. I know we've had our differences in the past, but you strike me as being an extremely capable mentor, even though I'm aware you're busy elsewhere. Now, I'm fairly new (<6 months), but I am committed to WP and have an edit record of which I'm, well, perhaps proud is not the right word, but hopefully confident: User:Rodhullandemu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). I am fully aware that I've made mistakes, and am prepared to admit them; in fact in an RfAa, I'd do it up front and admit to inexperience and frustration. If you don't feel you can spare the time to help me, I will understand that fully; it would be useful, however, if you could give me at least an informal indication of where I could improve. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall any differences and that wouldn't matter to me anyways. I'd be happy to help you. Jehochman Talk 00:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That's generous of you, and I appreciate it. It is important to me that I have the confidence, not only of the community at large but also of those whom I regard as gurus here; particularly that I am not especially well-known in WP, because I tend to stick to areas where conflict is not the norm; however, I do feel that in my own way, I can work to prevent the major excesses of vandalism that occur here on a daily basis. Non-admin rollback is useful to me in that regard, and it saves me the edit summary that is required by Twinkle. I use that wisely, of course, and will use the normal TW revert where appropriate. The difference is that if I were an admin, I would not have to wait for a response in WP:AIV. Ho Hum. Thanks for your support anyway, and regards, --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: RfA: Thanks for your message. I am having great difficulty dealing with this at present, because it would be an awesome responsibility to take on, even if I pass the community test. I would be forever looking at my back, which I suppose is no bad thing for an admin, in that being given a mop & bucket is really no great accolade. However, if I have a mission, it's to protect and improve the encyclopedia. Knowledge is important to me, and if I can make a difference, the additional responsibility, although daunting, would be worth the effort I would be prepared to take. Thanks for your confidence. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Franco alliances

You said here that there's no evidence to suggest an alliance. The real situation is that evidence exists to both support and oppose the existence of the alliance, which is why I'm undecided about the affair. What is your opinion of the supporting evidence? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In trying to assess the validity of references cited to obscure publications in foreign languages, I have done three things: (1) Checked for online sources. (2) Asked history scholars I know for their opinions. (3) Ran Google book searches. The book searches that did turn up the references cited showed that PHG was, at best, stretching the sources to support his thesis. The scholars said the thesis was bollocks. There were no online articles to support the thesis, except for things that were repeating the Wikipedia article (circular referencing doesn't help!). If the existence of a Franco-Mongol alliance were verifiable at this time, it would be documented somewhere online, and history scholars would have heard of it. This is not some sort of minor fact. PHG has been writing multiple long articles about it. There may be clues that such an alliance might have been considered or attempted, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research and novel theories, even though these might somehow be true. My feeling is that we must be especially vigilant, or as others have said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Subtle misrepresentation and wishful thinking can lead to false information. This is much worse than overt vandalism, because it can fool the unsuspecting reader. Jehochman Talk 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats some good research you've done. Can you tell some more detail about the exchange you had with the scholars, i.e. what they said specifically about how this could not be true? Or did they just say it wasnt true? I didnt see your name on the talk pages there or maybe I missed it? You could take part there and express your opinion too, its as valid as the others who have said the title should be kept. As we saw in Mulay, PHG made an article which was not about Mulay so maybe, he's done the same thing here. However I dont know what to say about other editors who are saying the title is fine. I'll try to check the sources on both sides again. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
My contact with the historians was essentially a quick check to see if they had heard of this or not. They hadn't. Now, it might have existed in some minor form, but this is a very obscure fact if so, probably original research at best, and here we have all these big articles as if it's some major event that's fully verified, which it isn't. Wikipedia is currently giving this supposed alliance vastly more weight and attention than it deserves. Perhaps there could be one article suggesting an attempt at an alliance, and we have an article about Mongol raids into Palestine which appear to have happened. Jehochman Talk 01:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what these scholars have to say about historians who have said the alliance happened. Do you have names of these people who you contacted? We could contact real professors in real universities. Additionally as usual, I'm being bullied off away from Elonka by her friends Shell Kinney. I'm trying to solve a dispute here. I've been nuetral here in this situation. I've been doubtful of PHG as I've been of Elonka. Whats your advise? Why do her friends have to rush up to Elonka's defense like this? Do you think its ok for Elonka to reduce the article from 190K to her own version of 80K, honestly? This means a lot of sourced material was removed. Will you side with her or would you be on the right side? Surely removing sourced material like this is wrong. Now I'm not stalking or anything, I dont gain anything by doing that. I felt this dispute was going on and on, and PHG was being pushed into a corner, false claims of "consensus" was being made to the contrary so I felt I had to step in.
So in short, a very simple question: is removing sourced material correct? How can I now give a fair evaluation to what Elonka is doing when she does something like this? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
J, surely, you must have an opinion on whether its ok to reduce an article from 200K to 80K while sourced material is being removed? Are you going to refrain from talking against this injustice? I hope you have the courage to speak out against that which is wrong. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I may take this to arbitration. The dispute has been festering for a long time. The behavior of all parties, Elonka and PHG included, should be scrutinized. Jehochman Talk 16:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, do take this to mediation. These people are not backing off from their positions, especially Elonka. Reducing a 200K article down to 80K without explaining any of her changes is simply wrong. I'm not part of this affair anymore. I was trying to see if it could be resolved but after seeing she was forcing her own version into the article and seeing other admins come to her side (WJB, Shell Kinney) was the last straw. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Dont name me in the mediation. I want to have nothing to do with this. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no intention of involving you. You are free to involve yourself in whatever you like. My comments about this matter have only the simple purpose of informing you about the situation so that you can make an informed decision. Best regards, Jehochman Talk 17:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for your assistance on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Mujahideen. It is most appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

With pleasure. Any time. Jehochman Talk 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have rebuilt Andy Beard

I followed your advice when building Andy Beard and did it as WP:BLP. Please take a look at it. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Give it a bit of time. The deletion discussion closed early because consensus to delete was near unanimous. I will look at it when I have a chance, as I want to spend time digging for sources. Jehochman Talk 04:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I also alerted User:VirtualSteve being that he did the first deletion and he may decide to delete it again. Igor Berger (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure you should have recreated the article in mainspace so quickly. It might have been better to construct this in your userspace and then get opinions if it was ready for article space. Jehochman Talk 04:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I was not sure how busy you are going to be and how much you will be able to help me. So, just took a chance knowing that it may get speedy deletion, but I backed up in my user space, just in case. Igor Berger (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This new version still relied too heavily on primary sources. It would need references to at least three independent publications writing articles that focus on the subject, not just mentioning him in passing. I moved this out of article space to User:Igorberger/Drafts/Andy Beard. Now you have two copies. If you want one deleted, let me know. Jehochman Talk 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete the draft User:Igorberger/Drafts/Andy Beard. , let's use User:Igorberger/Andy Beard. Will keep looking for secondary sources. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfD nomination of Talk:Andy Beard

I have nominated Talk:Andy Beard (edit|article|history|links|watch|logs) for discussion. I figure Talk: shouldn't redirect to User talk:... It just doesn't seem appropriate. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 11:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing Andy Beard has been deleted! I have my copy User:Igorberger/Andy Beard the other copy Jehochman made for me at User:Igorberger/Drafts/Andy Beard but I did not need it so he must have deleted it or redirected not sure! I only need my sandbox copy, I do not need any redirects. Igor Berger (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No need for redirect this Talk:Andy_Beard just delete it being that the article is deleted, and if I am not mistaken a talk page cannot exist without an article. Igor Berger (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete this as well User_talk:Igorberger/Drafts/Andy_Beard Igor Berger (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is it only me?

What I see is a huge rush to ban the guy. Why? Why not some deliberation? I never said "this guy should not be banned".

Look what other's wrote:

I want to stress that I do not agree or disagree with the block - I just think it needs to be discussed to ensure that there is community support for an action: B

…and may be a tad too controversial about how edits are made, but he/she isn't totally wrong.: Anynobody (referring to the blocked user)

Has CltFn been a party to any form of DR at all?: Anynobody (I think there’s been no DR)

I think an indef. block is a bit harsh, considering what he did. CltFn has, after all, been good for over a year since the last block…I am very confused as to why this disserves an indef. block.: Yahel Guhan

All I am proposing is that we give him one last chance to change before an indef. block after a month. Heck, we give repeat vandals that opportunity all the time, with 1 month, 3 month, 1 year blocks, but almost never indef. Besides, at least he remained on the talk page for the most part this time, rather than in the article, where he is less disruptive, which may mean he might be trying to improve himself: Yahel Guhan

Not that I am trying to sanction what he did, but I do think an indef. time period is excessive, at least at this point: Yahel Guhan

A suggestion for formal WP:DR has been made onthe user's page. Perhaps, given his long-term contributor status, it may be to our advantage to let him try that process?: ThuranX

I am however also happy to endorse Thuran's proposed course of action and comments above also.: Orderinchaos struck by Orderinchaos 17:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC) - very selective quote which omits context

based on looking through his contributions, if an admin is willing to keep a close eye on a problem user, that's a low risk proposition: B

I don't have a problem with Archtransit's action providing tha the follows through on it. I do have a problem with the same admin who originally made the block reimplementing it.: B

Of course, it's easy to do nothing and look the other way. Given the above quotes, I thought that immediate ban was not indicated. I thought that a compromise was in order. The details of a compromise is not the question but if there should be a compromise.
This is not wikilawyering. Wikilawyering would be a hard line stance for unblocking to counter the hard line, no bargaining stance of the pro-immediate banning side.
I know that you are in favor of quick banning so seeking advice from you may not be the best idea. However, you do show some interest in discussion (which is good on your part). Archtransit (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Roper-Industries.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Roper-Industries.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waterboarding

Jehochman, I don't really understand why you've shifted your position on this article, but I think that your actions, while well-intentioned, are aiding a bunch of POV-pushers. I have formed a negative opinion of Neutral Good simply from his tendentiousness at Talk:Waterboarding, as well as my suspicion that he's a sockpuppet of User:Bryan from Palatine, but I've participated in discussions with Blue Tie before at Talk:Global warming where he's used the same type of tactics he's using at waterboarding. Please read the sections about Naomi Oreskes' article at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_21#There_is_something_wrong_with_the_Oreskies_cite and see if you think this is an editor who's consistent about the OR policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed banning User:Neutral Good, so I am not soft on him. My position in neutrality is based on a discussion with somebody well-placed who certainly isn't a partisan. Show don't tell will be more convincing, and is more in compliance with policy. Saying "waterboarding is torture" is like saying "the sky is blue". Why state the obvious? Jehochman Talk 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I disagree with you here: I think that saying "Waterboarding is a form of torture that involves..." is like saying "The tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is a plant in the Solanaceae or nightshade family..." or "Benjamin Jonson (c. 11 June 1572 – 6 August 1637) was an English Renaissance dramatist, poet and actor." In other words, the first sentence of the lead should give as straightforward a defintion of the article's topic as possible, and that includes noting the topic's membership in a larger class, be it poet, plant, mammal, or torture. (By the way, sky does say that the sky is blue.)
Another reason to "state the obvious" is because we have some people working very hard to argue that it's not obvious.
Can you say who you've had this discussion with? I suppose it doesn't matter, but if they would actually come to the article and participate in the dicussion, it might help... --Akhilleus (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I should not reveal the content of private correspondence without first getting the other person's approval, but yes, they are actively working on the resolution. Did you notice that David Gerard blocked a Bryan sock today? See User:The Friendly Ghost. Let's not let the banned users force us to modify our normal behavior. We should literally ignore them and write as we would if they did not exist. Jehochman Talk 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand about private correspondence, and I agree with the idea that banned users shouldn't alter our editing. To make it clear, though, I think the first sentence of the lead is fine, and I think it's the activities of sock puppets and tendentious editors that are causing it to come under question.
I probably would modify the latter part of the lead to make it clear that some members of the Bush administration and others have suggested that waterboarding may not be torture, etc., but I'm happy with the first sentence. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


I can live with the first sentence also. However, if the various opposers turn out not to be banned editors, then we should think about ways to arrive at a consensus version. There is no need to state "is torture" when we provide a more specific statement that exactly fits the definition of wikt:torture. Also, the word "torture" is less than precise. A definition that explains all the details may be less subject to wikilawyering. We could also say "Waterboarding, an illegal form of torture that could get various people indited for war crimes, is an interrogation method that involves...", but that would be excessive window dressing. Perhaps the best way to generate consensus is to remove all framing an stick to the cold, wet facts. Jehochman Talk 17:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archtransit

I have left a suggestion for a compromise / learning too on Archtransit's talk page. As you have been personally affected by this situation, your input would be more than welcome. If you'd rather not comment / get involved, that's fine too.

Peace. - Revolving Bugbear 17:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)