User talk:Jehochman/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

well done on WP:AN#Unjustly banned from editing homeopathy related articles for 7 days

Well handled, I thought, a very reasonable way of handling it. And I liked what you said in the response. :-) delldot on a public computer talk 08:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz talk 09:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
  • "not accepted"... not even filed correctly, I'd say. Honestly, what was that guy thinking? I just received that notification (first I heard of that request). Just noticed that he's blocked, too, and several people are rapidy losing patience with NG. My only question is: why only now? That account has acted uncivil and disruptive at Talk:Waterboarding for weeks. At any rate, not a big deal. Just felt like bothering someone because I'm a bit baffled that he didn't even notify those users he named as "involved parties". Dorftrottel (canvass) 18:50, February 24, 2008
  • I am waiting for the block to expire. Given enough opportunities, they will convince any skeptics of the need for a ban, or they will change for the better. Jehochman Talk 18:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, they? Not following... Dorftrottel (canvass) 18:55, February 24, 2008
They == Neutral Good. Jehochman Talk 18:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah-oh, ok, it was what I thought it meant. Nevermind, I'm a bit slow on the uptake today :) Dorftrottel (ask) 19:00, February 24, 2008

Lewd comment

Is this ok to leave posted?[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding 2 excluding many people. Lawrence § t/e 04:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Contact Akhilleus. NG just did a major POV push on waterboarding. The vexatious use of process and continued edit warring may be sufficient to justify action at WP:AE. Jehochman Talk 04:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you deal quickly?

[2] SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

What's going on here? Is this another sock puppet? Jehochman Talk 04:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, fixing the previous incarnations images. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Quack quack. I will block it. Please add a note to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Untileverycageisempty. Jehochman Talk 04:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What the HELL?

I logged in yesterday morning and found to my shock and distress my entire profile had been eradicated and replaced with a notice saying that I'm a sockpuppet of a blocked user. I then learned that I my gracious self had been blocked. I know this to be a scandalous falsehood and seeing as you are apparetly the one responsible for tarnishing my name I decided to take it with you. I am in no way affiliated with this OurLord chap or whatever the bloody fella's called and I demand that I be unblocked within the week or by God I am leaving Wikipedia for good. This would be a great detriment to Wikipedia as I have created six articles and four categories all of which are doing very well.

Regards

Illustrious One

Block evasion is not allowed. I suggest you post an unblock request on your talk page, and it will be reviewed by another administrator. Jehochman Talk 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock User:ReplyToSM

Please unblock this Absidy sock. That account was obviously created to be used to edit the Absidy Talk page, possibly only once from the account name. There is no block evasion intention shown, since Absidy is permitted to edit his Talk page. Please notify the new account through Talk of an editing restriction, only to Absidy Talk, to allow him to respond there if it comes up again as a need. Block on sight if this account edits elsewhere. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This user has engaged in sock puppetry, disruptive editing, and abuse of fellow editors. They are only allowed to edit their talk page through their main account. If they have ruined access they can email the unblock list for help. I am tired of your relentless campaigning on behalf of this disruptive user. I have pointed to a clear path. Please follow it. Jehochman Talk 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Absidy

This may or may not be of interest to you, Absidy using an IP. Just letting you know since you blocked him. FYI. Regards. --Old Hoss (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. A very annoying user. Jehochman Talk 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

closing SSP

I saw you close Opp2's case. However among the listed people, three are the same indefinitely blocked editor and the rest of them are abandoned accounts. My file is not well organized but that is my style and I can't help it. RFCU result is inconclusive, and stale accounts are not helpful for checkusers to look into it so I just have to prove their likeliness withe their writing styles or same misspells. I was very exhausted of their sock gaming and have to make a RFCU on someone, so I could not care much about the case, but I think I need to make a new SSp file on Opp2 very soon. He is the major editor related to Japanese meatpuppetry. He has even a discussion page for plotting on Liancourt Rocks at Japanese Wikipedia. However, I'm afraid of your opinion on me. Your comment at From2008 Kawaseki sounded very frustrating.--Appletrees (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Administrator resources are finite. Do not expect us to sift through a large pile of disorganized evidence. I suggest you work on this problem one bit at a time. Jehochman Talk 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

SixString1965

When the RfCU says the results are inconclusive, what does that mean, exactly? Are inconclusive results weighed differently when the user is a new person than when the suspect is a sock-farmer? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It means that the technical evidence could not prove, nor disprove. Perhaps they use a dynamic IP or changes ISP. Can you do a behavioral comparison and file a report at WP:SSP? Jehochman Talk 00:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

reply

Hi Jehochman. I had expected a reply to my message, can you let me know why you have not done so. Thanks, cygnis insignis 01:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed it. What is your message? Jehochman Talk 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I found it. Sorry about that, busy week. If any of the templates or categories have incorrect wording, feel free to edit for accuracy. For instance, "placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee" could have "or the Wikipedia community" appended. It is uncommon for the community to unanimously agree on a general sanction so a lot of the ancilliary references may not consider that possibility. Jehochman Talk 01:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought that was probably what happened. I have removed the category that suggests the matter had been to arbcom. Can you clarify the sentence: "It is uncommon for the community..." cygnis insignis 01:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Community implemented article probation is rare. It is much more common for article probation to be enacted by ArbCom. Jehochman Talk 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have previously interpreted the sanction as one applied to users, not articles. I have become very interested in this form of sanction, sorry if I have been a bit gonzo about it. I would be interested in contributing to a discussion on this, but I still need to further familiarise myself with the background. I will send you an email sometime, if that is ok, and stop cluttering up your talk page. Cheers, cygnis insignis 02:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:124.176.187.151

Seems familar to User talk:124.181.26.71, no? — Save_Us † 11:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching match

Hi there, I've been matched up with you to help with some admin coaching. Really, all I want to be able to do is perform the job of an admin well - even if ultimately I'm not given the tools for whatever reason, at least I'd be able to contribute constructively with deletions, vandal-blocking, etc. even if that meant referring it to a sysop to perform. I've been trying recently to move more into recent edit patrols and CSD/XfD work - went through an over-zealous phase early on, but have gotten the hang of it a bit now with the help of some other editors. I was hoping, in short, that you could help coach me up in performing useful tasks for the community in admin areas. I hope this will be ok. Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help you. My specialties are sock puppet cases, conflict of interest cases, and disruptive users. The best way to become a good administrator is to develop judgment by working on real cases. Your areas of interest may differ from mine, so let's discuss what areas you'd like to work on. Additionally, I would like you to do one Did you know, one good article and one piece of featured content. At Requests for adminship, you want to sail through with 95% or better. Jehochman Talk 20:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks! I'm definitely interested in COI and distruptive users, but also in AfD. Would you like me to do the articles from scratch,or make a significant contribution to them? Best wishes, - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You can work on existing articles. If you are interested gamma ray burst could be upgraded to featured article. To gain experience on COI cases, please visit WP:COIN and help resolve some of the cases. Sysop tools are not required. In any case, your brain is a much more powerful tool that delete, protect, or block. Jehochman Talk 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've spent the past few days working on Nonlocality, more or less rewriting the article and currently seeking some consensus with other editors. Eventually might be GA, but we'll see! I will take a look at the other items you suggest in due course. - Fritzpoll (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

SSP case

Curious as to why you closed this case without discussion or comment. What conclusion did you reach that led you to close the case? Dlabtot (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is not a crystal ball We can't swim down the wire and see who made that small number of IP edits. It could have been SA, but as Raul654 said, there is no technical evidence. I will add a clarification that the behavioral evidence is too little in quantity to support a block. Jehochman Talk 16:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Dlabtot (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are a torture master

Just put all the waterbording socks in a Tower of London..:) Igor Berger (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:19andy91

Thanks for the heads-up: I've left a proposal at WP:AN. Best, Gwernol 22:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My first article

Hello, I'm posting in regards to my first "article" about gravastars. It wasn't really a new article, but the bulk of it now is my work. First, I'd like to say thanks for adding the reference and fixing it up a bit. It makes me feel like I've really contributed something when a person of your calibur reads my article and doesn't feel the need to change the content much. Secondly, I would like to get some feedback about it, because until now I had only made semi-minor edits when I came across false information or vandalism and stuff like that. What do you like? What could be better? Did I explain the concept well?

Any and all input is appreciated, and hopefully I can contribute to more articles in the future!--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you should add more references, especially to published works. I will look at it again later. It's now on my watchlist. Jehochman Talk 00:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again for adding more references to my page, I really appreciate it!

I do object, however, to the deletion of "new form of matter", because really BEC is a new form of matter that we don't usually encounter (you can read the article on it, they even say it's a "new form of matter") No other forms of matter exhibit this merging of wavefunctions that is characteristic of BEC.--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is timeless. There is no "new" or "old" unless it is relative to something. A better idea would be to specify the date when the form of matter was first proposed, "BEC, first proposed by Bugs Bunny in 2003, is a form of matter..." This should have a reference. Jehochman Talk 22:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. I'll be more careful next time. --MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Any comment here?

When you asked any editor seeing a problem to present 3-5 diffs of examples on Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents, I brought up one here. I haven't heard any feedback on this though. Even if this doesn't qualify as disruption, I'd at least appreciate some statement to that effect. Even Dana's mentor has been silent when I brought this issue up with her. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

I consider this edit disruptive and condescending.[3] This editor has be at this over the past 24 hours. I need help, please. Anthon01 (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been tryingto get outside input on NPOV on minority articles. But my attempts are being frustrated by Filll insistence that I accept his interpretation and his argumentative input. [4] Anthon01 (talk) 04:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a statement at the end of a long contentious series of edits, in which I was not involved; in my statement I tried to put the topic back on track.[5]

Shotinfo on another page mimicks my comment "Can we complete the arguments on user talk pages and stay on topic here?" after I make a single edit expressing my displeasure at Filll condescending remark. I believe I am being baited.[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, in regards to an AE discussion you took part in

FYI, in regards to an AE discussion you took part in. Lawrence § t/e 00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

lol

Tosses you a spangenhelm.[7] DurovaCharge! 00:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dons the helm and rides off. Jehochman Talk 01:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You forgot your lance. DurovaCharge! 02:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What lance? He needs a ray gun..:) The socks are like mushrooms after the rain. Igor Berger (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks at the ray gun in disgust. How uncivilized. Chooses lightsaber instead. Jehochman Talk 14:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Youonlylivetwice#Reasons for unblock

I hate to come by and ruin any good mood you have, but YOLT has requested an unblock. I have already declined the unblock, although with it he had seven points (in the section linked to above) where he's protesting his innocence. While I have rebutted most of them, I cannot answer his fifth concern (with regards to your third conclusion on the SPP case) as I am unfamiliar with the original dispute and Mudaliar; I was wondering if you could explain? -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 09:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman Talk 14:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/22holberg

Hi, I'm coming to you because you closed the last one I opened - it has been confirmed at the related checkuser request that these are indeed sockpuppets - what happens now? -- Roleplayer (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser clerks will block them. Jehochman Talk 19:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Search engine optimization

Jehochman an anon IP tried Spamming Search engine optimization with their promotional links, but the text was good and relevent to the article. I removed the Spam links and created a new section SEO techniques. Search_engine_optimization#SEO_techniques Still citation needed. I do not know if you like it but it does look good. Please take a look. If you like it we can keep it or if you do not agree with it just remove the section and the text. Igor Berger (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay but we may want to work that section in later on with reference to PageRank. It does look appropriate for the article topic. Igor Berger (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Disregard! PageRank already in the article. Igor Berger (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot action on Rue

A bot has removed your protection template here. You may wish to reinstate a new one unless the protection is no longer warranted. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I fail to understand. When Ronnotel can follow a single point agenda on Wikipedia to get me banned - why can't I respond? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You can respond, but you can't do unto him exactly as he does unto you, because Wikipedia isn't the Old Testament. If his accusations are false, explain why. Don't turn around and make you own false accusations against him. Jehochman Talk 18:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

talk:quantum cryptography

Hello Jehochman, I appreciate you helping me in the past, and I come to you requesting a little bit more. I recently reverted an edit by a user (page: quantum cryptography) because I consider it to be dubious and away from the mainstream. He claims there are valid 'man-in-the-middle' attacks for a quantum cryptographic system, and deleted a large section of article devoted to explaining why they are not possible. You can read the talk page, as I explained to him why his edit doesn't belong, and then he reverted my edit. So rather than get into an "undo" war, I would like to divert this to an administrator for arbitration. Thank you. --MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 12:18, 29 February 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
What you need is mediation, not arbitration, or perhaps third opinion. Can you show some "diffs" where the editor is deleting material? Whatever you do, don't battle with them. Let them have their way, temporarily, and we'll get it sorted out. Jehochman Talk 14:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I was unclear about the terms. [8]Here is a diff of his deletions, and [9]here is a link to the diff of 2 changes that I made: first reverting his deletion, then I deleted the last paragraph of the section because it is an unreasonable method to break a quantum encryption protocol, for reasons I specified in the talk section.

Also, I'm not very good at making links, as you can probably tell. How would i make an internal link to that diff page?--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you contact User:Elonka and ask her to read the article. She is Elonka Dunin. Jehochman Talk 14:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got to be honest, I'm not real impressed with Wikipedia's mediation policy. It's been a week since i raised this issue and since then the article has been edited a bunch of times despite the erroneous change that I dispute. I am better off, it seems, to just get into an edit war with someone rather than come to an admin for a thid opinion. Is this what all mediation is like?--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Have you tried WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM? I am not a mediation specialist. Jehochman Talk 11:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Help! Vietnam War article

Hi Jehochman, I'm concerned about the user CompScientist's recent edits to the Vietnam War page - please have a look. Thank you! twinqletwinqle (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Jehochman, can you please take a look at a short essay that I have written about this topic User:Igorberger/Conflict of interest. I know we talked about this at lengh at AN when the issue was brought up by one editor about 3 months ago, but it keeps creeping back to us. Should we not have some sort of official policy or guidelines to avoid any problems or false accusations that may develop because of the misperseption of what constitutes WP:COI. There are many consultants, lawyers and other professional editors on Wikipedia. Do we just go on a witch hunt and start hanging all of them? This could be a serious problem unless we define some guiddelines as to what is permisable by the community and what is not. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We have WP:COI and Wikipedia:Business' FAQ and User:Durova/The dark side and Wikipedia:Search engine optimization. Jehochman Talk 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the article links. I am glad we have precedence in this matter, and we do not chase professional people away. Spending countless hours on Wikipedia editing just to sell a Wikipedia articles is not even a financially viable opportunity. One would make much more money doing other work! One must really love Wikipedia to keep staying around, dealing with all this wikidrama, and keep building it for everyone to learn from and enjoy. Thank you, 00:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs)

MC

Thanks, I got distracted by the WP:RTV issue, the block is now in place. Dreadstar † 02:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiCommonSense

I invite you to add [[Category:WikiCommonSense]] on your user page because you are one of the WikiCommonSense editors. If many editors edit in such matter we will be more productive and worry less about vandalism and other disruptive issues at Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

You have put a completely incorrect interpretation of the RfCU on the article probation page. Unprovoked/RDOlivaw/DrEightyEight are one user, that's old old news. There was no connection made between this user and MC or The Tutor, nor was a connection proven between MC and The Tutor. MC is being vanished, per his own request. The Tutor is not blocked. You should correct this ASAP. —Whig (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. MC was not proven to be TT. The connection has been denied. AGF, and please strike this nonsense. —Whig (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You're getting warmer, but you're still in the wrong. Repeating accusations like that is not helpful. —Whig (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I really think you are doing the wrong thing here. I wish you would remove your statement until you can ascertain the facts. You are not making a false statement now, but you are imputing bad faith to a real person and to a new editor when no accusations of abusing sock puppet accounts has been proven. I ask you again to strike it or we should seek some kind of dispute resolution. —Whig (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I have posted to WP:AN. —Whig (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that helps. —Whig (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Although you do not seem to respect the ArbCom's handling of the prior matter in which you were careless and caused problems, I am hopeful that it will not be necessary for us to return to that forum. I believe this is a serious matter which should be escalated as quickly as necessary to prevent the loss of a valuable new contributor. —Whig (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Search Engine Strategies was just nominated for AfD

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Search_Engine_Strategies You may want to comment on it. Igor Berger (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So vote! Jehochman Talk 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope the main page does not get nominated next..:) Igor Berger (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Protecting Randy B

You are either a truly lovely man or are choosing to protect an editor that shouldn't be protected. You chose to delete my comment to him in which I expressed concern that he mis-quoted me; in other words, he put into quotes a statement in which he said that I made (but didn't). I personally do not think that such editors should be protected. Other people should see that he seemingly showing bad faith on wikipedia. Then, another editor chose to defend Randy B by saying that I was "baiting" him. "Baiting" does not mean expressing concern about making quotes up out of thin air. My concern was real, and yet, for unknown reasons, you and other editors are protecting/defending an editor that perhaps should not be protected or defended...or worse, perhaps you are choosing to be complicate in these shenanigans. I want to AGF. Please tell me why I should. DanaUllmanTalk 23:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should not look at Wikipedia as a battleground where ideas clash and various editors struggle for the primacy of their beliefs. That is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Jehochman Talk 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, unfortunately Wikipedia is becoming a battle ground. As you can see in this thread Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#WIKIFASCISM: new word; definition page deleted by wikifascist editor as contentless. If it is a WP:DUCK it is a duck and we should not WP:HORSE it but try to deal with the problem before it escalates itself beyond control. And this is not just a few editors' POV but the whole Internet community sees us in such light. Igor Berger (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman...first, I have not told you yet, but you're one of the few people here who is transparent...and I have a great respect for those fellow editors who are transparent. I feel much more comfortable disagreeing (or agreeing) with a real person than an anonymous person. To clarify my intentions, I am not interested in the "primacy of beliefs." I am academically-oriented, and I'm interested in helping to create NPOV info on specific subjects that shows various viewpoints and that is notable and reliable. I do not want just "positive" info, but of the "negative" or skeptical info, it should be accurate and notable. What doesn't work is when editors are not honest and when other editors defend or protect them. Please give me a reason that I should not undo your deleting of the real and serious concerns that I expressed to Randy B. If you need to tell me something privately, please email me. DanaUllmanTalk 03:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you nominate Homeopathy as a featured article candidate and use the feedback from that process to improve the article. Once an article reaches FA status, it is much harder for drive-by POV pushers to damage the article. Jehochman Talk 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo

Your posts to my user talk were a little confusing at first. Then I realized you might have thought it was a surprise. If you like, tell Danny I can bring in Virgil Griffith too. DurovaCharge! 04:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you hadn't mentioned it before. Could you ask Virgil if he would license the Wikiscanner code? I could arrange hosting and constant maintenance. The database hasn't been updated since August. Keeping the thing running and paying for hosting is a non-trivial challenge, but I think I see a way to do it. Jehochman Talk 12:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hm...e-mail me. The decision is up to him and it's hosted independently. DurovaCharge! 00:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeh akuse

I just looked at Jsmith_51389's contribs and compared them to those of Jeh akuse ... you're not the only one who hears quacking. Dunno if a checkuser would do any good ... last time Jsmith edited was in December '07. I have to admit, though, I was thisclose to deleting the unblock template and locking down his userspace ... the "request" was clearly abusive. Blueboy96 14:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jsmith 51389. It helps to nail down the sock puppetry and scan for sleeper accounts. December 07 may be recent enough. Checkuser will help us deal with future socks more quickly. This piqued my interest because the username is similar to mine. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed ... time for a community ban, I think. Blueboy96 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for a 30 day block from editng Wikipedia


See — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet concern

I've been posting under numerous 130.101 IPs. You can see my other IPs at Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon. I gave my reason for using IPs at a sock accusation I was found innocent in, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davkal (3rd). Sorry for the confusion; I'm using public terminals and the IP changes when I use different computers. Cheers 130.101.152.155 (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See my comments at WP:AE. There is an easy way to protect your privacy while avoiding the appearance or realization of sock puppetry. Jehochman Talk 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions at my talk page

I would appreciate you returning to my talk page to provide your response to the question of brokerage that I have left there.--VS talk 04:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Webblogs and notability

Sorry to bother you, as I'm pretty sure you're a busy man (and yeah I'm kinda reposting this from when I mentioned it on Jimbo Wales's page, but I need a response in the more immediate future x.x_. So I'll cut to the chase too. I've been working extensively on Final Fantasy VII (Famicom), an article which I'm trying to make a good one out of. The problem is it's only really seen large scale coverage starting on the 22nd of February, and much of the information from there has appeared in online blogs. The problem is coming up that regardless of which blog in question, they're being treated on the whole as 'non-notable'. However if I may to argue the notability of the ones I'm using as cornerstones for the article until a later time when better references become available:

  • Kotaku not too long ago had an incident with Sony, which shows Kotaku and Sony have a professional relationship with each other, including Kotaku representatives being at Sony press releases.
  • Joystiq itself has interviewed many key figures in the gaming industry, including Ryan Payton, Shigeru Miyamoto, and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. If the site wasn't corporately notably to any of these companies why would they have bothered?
  • InsertCredit.com additionally was present at the GDC event, and interviewed Hudson Soft as well amongst others.

All three of these are cited also often in wikipedia. I'm hoping all of this can make a case for these three to be considered valid sources to confirm the notability of the game enough as well as their own notability for other articles.

Anyway thank you for your time. You came to mind as the person to talk to after reading your statements here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to point out that certain industries, such as gaming, release most news via blogs, and only later does traditional "dead tree" media pick up on the stories and regurgitate them, often muddling the details. As such, for certain topics, online sources are more reliable. A "blog" can be a reliable source if it has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, especially if it employs professional editorial staff to review stories. Something that is called a "blog" may in fact be an "e-zine" which is logically equivalent to a trade journal and just as reliable. That's the argument in a nutshell. I hope this helps you make your case. Jehochman Talk 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Many weblogs are WP:RS under WP:SPS. Some blogs are even under editorial control just like a newspaper or magazine. Some are even peer-reviewed.--Filll (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Template removals possible promotional edits

Hi Jehochman, hope your keeping well. If you are too busy just say so. Could you have a look at thiese IPs' 117.200.224.55 and 117.200.224.164) edits to Feminism, Simone de Beauvoir and Sarojini Sahoo in particular. I {{fact}} tagged something they added to Feminism and {{unsourced section}}ed a piece they seem to have written at the Sarojini Sahoo article. They blanked these templates[10][11][12][13]. I warned them. They then reverted an edit I made removing inappropriate external links (blogs and forums) from Feminism[14]. I've reverted them myself once already so I'm doing no more reverting tonight. They seem to be promoting Sarojini Sahoo, who's work is great - it's just that the IPs are calling her "the Indian Simone de Beauvoir" and adding links to each article without any references to who said this. They are also doing all of this without edit summaries or discussion.

If you get a chance maybe you'd have a look--Cailil talk 19:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given them 48 hours, both accounts, because they are clearly the same editor. If problems resume, or if other accounts are used, please let me know. Jehochman Talk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into that Jehochman--Cailil talk 19:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies about earlier

Wasn't meaning to hop IPs to avoid a block; please realize that with a new IP I didn't get the talk page messages; I didn't realize the other IP was blocked or I would have gone ahead and {{unblock}}ed it first. I'm not going to edit after this message until the unblock is decided on the other talk. 130.101.152.24 (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Supportive

I am supportive of your comments here and would normally respond underneath but for today I will leave my comments here only, in appreciation of your actions.--VS talk 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

came across a sock

Hi Jehochman, I came across this user Novjunulo yesterday and they matched the behaviour of the blocked user Junulo (not to mention having a really similar name). I opened a checkuser and it just cam back as confirmed (see here). Nonody's done anything to the two accounts in question. Do I need to report to WP:SSP or is it time for a little sysop intervention?--Cailil talk 12:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wait. A clerk will nail it. Jehochman Talk 12:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Absidy et al.

Hey, has Obuibo Mbstpo disclosed all of his sockpuppets to you? The "others before that" and "used only a time or two" comments on his user page are a tad disquieting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Either the editor will behave or they will give us definitive proof that they need to be banned. Jehochman Talk 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Hey, I just saw all of this at MastCell's talk page. I haven't dipped in to those pages (and won't), but I've worked on four featured articles and multiple other articles with Eubulides, and he is one of our finest, fairest, most knowledgeable and most civil, FWIW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted. We could use more editors like that. Jehochman Talk 19:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding that thread: EBDCM pre-emptively stated he was "leery" of having me review it, because I apparently share a professional degree with Eubulides ([15]) and I'm "skeptical" of complementary and alternative medicine. I would have hoped that my history is sufficient to make clear that I don't dismiss chiropractic or subscribe to any sort of MD-vs-DC dynamic, and that my view of alt-med is much more nuanced than "skepticism". But such is life. Anyhow, it's probably better someone else handle it - I have a very high impression of Eubulides from work he's done cleaning up a series of challenging and controversial (but important) articles on vaccination and autism, and I've not seen him get flustered very easily. I also think EBDCM has gone overboard based on the diffs cited on my talk page as well as others evident at Talk:Chiropractic. However, that is my opinion - I'm going to formally ask that you review Eubulides' complaint from my talk page, since I have too many real and/or perceived biases, apparently, to do so effectively myself. Would you be willing to look at it? If not, I'll probably put it up to the other admins on the homeopathy probation list. MastCell Talk 04:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I can look at it tomorrow. Jehochman Talk 04:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. Sorry for dragging you in. MastCell Talk 05:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.101.89.150#Blocked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.101.89.150#Warning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive367#civility_problems_and_copyright_violations_and_exposed_a_person.27s_real_name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:EBDCM_reported_by_User:QuackGuru_.28Result:_protected.29
Here is some background information. Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_investigation_of_chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=196360552
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=196572637
The two main chiropractic articles were on probation but each tag was removed by involved editors. QuackGuru (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked EBDCM for one week. If problems resume, please file a user conduct requests for comment. Thank you for your patience. The evidence presentation was well organized and convincing. Jehochman Talk 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
If I make a user conduct requests for comment I could be attacked for doing that. For example, I gave a proper notification to I'clast and I was ganged up on.[16][17][18][19][20][21]
The Quackwatch article is under probation[22] and I'clast has edited the article when it is still under probation.[23][24][25] QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you handled that, Jehochman. You might recall two things: 1) I spoke up on the original homeopathy thread, saying that we needed to apply sanctions equally to some of our rudest regular editors and the newer editors, and 2) you might remember some of the evidence from the Z ArbCom, showing the very civil and patient conduct and adherence to AGF of the regulars on the talk pages of those articles. Eubulides was one of those patient and civil editors; he is not one of our "regular" problematic editors, who sometimes contribute to inflammation on the controversial articles by failing to adhere to AGF or civility. In our attempts to be fair on those articles, we shouldn't ensnare and entangle our hard working, productive, civil editors in time-consuming dispute resolution. We need the good ones. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. I always consider the reliability of the source when evaluating any sort of accusations. Jehochman Talk 20:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation&curid=15504179&diff=197230975&oldid=196970059 I gave a proper notification and now it was removed without any justification. It smacks point which is a violation of the probation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. I just wandered into a mess, supposedly related to chiropractic. [26] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Expiry date

Hi JEH. This edit at WP:RESTRICT seems to have put the expiry date 8 months in the future, rather than the expected 6 months. The expiry date should be 2008-09-10. Since I'm not sure, I didn't change it myself. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. Looks like just a typo. Lawrence § t/e 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

hi

This checkuser related to an article I've been editing discovered the sock puppets of two abusive users. Despite four socks of Stone put to sky (talk · contribs) being found neither his "extra" accounts or Stone himself were blocked. All of his socks were used to game reverts and consensus on the talk page. Is nothing going to be done or should I file a report at WP:SSP. Keep in mind this isn't the first offense. Thanks, Dance With The Devil (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User Jupiter Optimus Maximus

Just on a hunch, I wonder if you might check out User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk). He appeared in late February, 2008, about the time Illustrious One was blocked, and shares many characteristics, including a fascination with categories. I'm not entirely convinced they're the same, but the stars are starting to align. Elphion (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

They are obviously a sock. I think you need to gather a few diffs and file a request at WP:RFCU. Jehochman Talk 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to proceed. (I am not an admin, and have never been through something like this before.) I read the instructions at WP:RFCU but nothing seemed to fit precisely. I have assembled some diffs here: User:Elphion/Auxiliary. I'm not sure whether these constitute the evidence they're looking for. Elphion (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not concrete evidence. Sit tight. They will undo themselves soon enough if they are in fact engaging in sock puppetry. Jehochman Talk 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Jonathan, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ip's and homeopathy

I think it is possible or even likely that the IP you recently topic-banned, 70.107.246.88 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), belongs to Davkal (talk · contribs). MastCell Talk 20:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you file a WP:RFCU on the basis of your information? Jehochman Talk 20:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
At some point today I will. I also mentioned it on WP:AN; sometimes the checkusers there will take a look. MastCell Talk 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana and Homeopathy

I got your message, though please know that it is not my intent to engage in an edit war. I didn't delete anything, but simply provided some good NPOV references. As long as other editors dialogue with me and present their cases in a reasonable fashion, I prefer avoid edit warring. Please AGF. I put a lot of time and thought into that contribution, and I'd love to work with you and others on figuring out how to include the body of research on homeopathy that the article at present does not reference. DanaUllmanTalk 23:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

1/ Use the talk page. 2/ Don't remove or change any content that is referenced and was placed there by somebody else without a clear consensus of parties on all sides of the issue. Jehochman Talk 23:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, in the edit about which you expressed concern, please note that I didn't remove anything...I only added good solid RS and N content. I also suggest that you consider warning editors when they are repeatedly doing the above. The vast majority of the time I do Talk pages quite thoroughly (as you know), though sometimes, it does make sense to be bold, as good editors need to be. I hope that you will now comment upon the content that I sought to add. DanaUllmanTalk 01:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Having watched this page now for many months, I believe that we need to create some sort of fork (still NPOV) to house all the research information, both positive and negative, about homeopathy. Possibly theories about homeopathy might or might not work could be included. There is just too much for the main article, and it is too involved and too specialized. I will try to organize a spin-off page for this.--Filll (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In the table of contents you will see two or three sections that have many subsections. Just create daughter articles, without changing the content. Be sure to leave a summary of the removed content in the main article and explain on the talk page that you are not trying to pull a fast one. See gamma ray burst for a good example. The new daughter articles will qualify for WP:DYK too. Jehochman Talk 01
34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Views

I saw you mention at FAC that a certain page had had a specific number of 'views'. How do you find that statistic out and can anyone do it? Fainites barley 23:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see...http://stats.grok.se/ Jehochman Talk 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I keep getting a message from another user stating that I am vandalizing a page which clearly am not. Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nissan_GT-R under "overwhelmingly published articles state the nissan gtr is a supercar" What have I done wrong and why are they not following the rules set forth by wikipeadia??? Please help. Thank you. CompScientist (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You know by now that edit warring is very harmful to Wikipedia. Due to many past incidents of this nature, and abuse of sock puppet accounts to circumvent past blocks, I have disabled editing from your account indefinitely, at least until you show that you are willing to work with other editors. Jehochman Talk 20:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Rocketboom / Andrew Baron

This one has warmed up again. Both Andrew Baron and Rocketboom still have POV issues. Andrew Baron deleted his page and it was restored by others. Based on prior discussion on the talk page, I attempted to merge the two articles and that seems to have been reverted by different folks. I then attempted to remove the duplicated material from the Andrew Baron article and that was reverted as well. Seems like the next step is to put Andrew Baron on AfD where it would likely reach merge consensus, but frankly I'm hesitant to get involved. Can you take a peek and make some suggestions on how to proceed? For the record, I'm not affiliated with any of the parties and I walked away from this for several months. Cleanr (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you check this autoblock

[27] Normally, I would handle autoblocks myself, since it is usually innocent collateral damage, but since this one deals with sockpuppetry problems, I thought I would bump it to you since you are more familiar with the sockpuppet in question. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just seeing if you looked into this. Hadn't heard a response in a while... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Prior_account

I responded to your post at User_talk:Wakedream#Prior_account there. Thanks for listening! Wakedream (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and Waterboarding

As you began a discussion on my userpage, I thought I'd return the favor. Actually, I could use some advice. As you've pointed out, I've been involved in the discussion over whether Waterboarding should be identified by Wikipedia as torture, or, as I believe, identified as an interrogation method or something similar. The article could then name people, governments, authorites, etc. who call it torture, and name those who say (or, as is the case with George W. Bush, imply) that it is not. I keep running into editors, as I think have you, who say Bush isn't a valid source because he's not an expert, or that the people who say it's not torture are just a fringe and should be ignored, or that 6 to 10 people vs. 230 people aren't worth mentioning. None of this seems to me to be NPOV. I believe editors are letting their personal feelings get in the way of their editing. My question is, what can I do without letting myself get caught in a repetitive debate? (Note that my opinion on whether or not waterboarding is torture has nothing to do with my wanting the article to be NPOV. I believe very strongly in Thomas Jefferson's "Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it," and in "let the facts speak for themselves," which you and I have both quoted). Thanks for your patience with a frustrated editor who's still learning! Wakedream (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You can walk away and edit something else. You are repeating the same arguments, incorrect ones, that were used by a banned user. If you keep going, people will think you are them, and your account may get blocked. Jehochman Talk 11:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia namespace community ban

Being that I have been community banned for 30 days from editing in Wikipedia name space, I would like you to put a template on my user talk page stating as such, so other editors will understand why I cannot go to Wikipedia: space to comment! I also would like you or another admin who was envolved in the ban decission to file WP:RFAR because I still contest this matter. I do not want to file the ArbCom hearing request because I fear that will be used as excuse that I violated the imposed ban. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please desregard my request, I am learning how to relax. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please answer "yes" or "no"

You really think that will happen? Carcharoth (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the community needs to draft standards for the AC. Not like we can't enforce it. Lawrence § t/e 13:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I am a hopeless optimist. Jehochman Talk 13:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a fallacy of begging the question, in any case. The question falsely assumes that consensus exists and asks whether it can be acted upon, when the real issue is that a block was enacted without any such consensus. Dmcdevit·t 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And let's cut the fallacy language play and silly begging semantic games, because that childlike pseudo-intellectualism and naivety that pervaded this entire debate is one of the problems with it. The consensus against blocking Mantanmoreland is largely composed of the anti-Wordbomb/pro-Mantanmoreland crowd. Those for blocking are largely a huge random pool of editors. [OWCH!] Wordbomb--it doesn't matter if we give him any satisfaction, what matters is doing what is right in this entire mess. The only way to deal with cancer is to get rid of it, and that includes all traces. Lawrence § t/e 14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry for using your talk page when I'm not talking to you, Jehochman!) Fine, take out the fallacy language, my point is simply that the dispute is over whether the consensus existed, not whether ArbCom allowed a block or not. If you are painting me as part of some pro-Mantanmoreland partisan, then, frankly, I find it insulted to be referred to so dismissively. It would be interesting to know what I've done than makes me "pro-Mantanmoreland" besides the comments I've made regarding this proposal. I've hardly ever been involved in any of this drama before now, even. Dmcdevit·t 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to treat you dismissively, if that's what you got--not at all. I'm just tired of seeing the AC punt two overwhelming sock decisions in two cases now I've been involved with, both of which later turned to be borne out by community consensus on the socking allegations. For the partisan comments, not all of them are, no--thats what I meant by largely. There are a ton of people working in good faith on all sides here, and all of them for various reasons at their wit's end. I don't think it's any secret though that there is a contingent that do anything they can (even to the point of deriding entire news publications) that give any voice to Wordbomb in a way contrary to the high end "party line". On the flip side, you have people fighting tooth and nail on the other end, to make sure that everything is done on the absolute up and up. It's a mess. Lawrence § t/e 15:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, thank you for pointing out the fallacy. I have corrected it by identifying that position as my own opinion and stating that somebody else will eventually make a conclusive decision as to whether there is a consensus or not. Jehochman Talk 14:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman. I notice that you concede "a ton of people working in good faith on all sides here". Sounds close to saying "there is no consensus as yet." Consensus may develop, but let's not jump the gun. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I wrote that. Good faith is different from consensus, since good faith can be misguided or lead to incorrect aims. For example, the people who endlessly defended the notion that Mantanmoreland was not sockpuppetting I believe did so in good faith per WP:AGF. However, they were wrong. Doesn't take away from their good faith, but consensus certainly can and will trump a good faith argument any day of the week. Lawrence § t/e 16:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is based on the opinions of those in the community. But the question here isn't whether Mantanmoreland has used sock puppets in a way proscribed by our policies--we all agree that he has done so. The question is whether the is consensus to ban him from the community. There is substantial disagreement with that proposal, but consensus may change. Let's give it time and see if it does. Consensus for a ban may yet form. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Two points: there is no consensus to ban. I have said this several times, but won't bore you with diffs. There may be consensus to block for some length of time. The standards for consensus to block are lower than consensus to ban. Jehochman Talk 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Banning v blocking

So let me get this straight. A ban is a block that's harder to undo. So if Mantanmoreland makes a reasonable case for unblocking, would I be justified in doing so? Or do I need the same consensus to unblock? Is there really any practical difference between an indefinite block and an indefinite ban? If there is, please actually tell me what it is. I am truly curious. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A block can be undone if there is a block review. Undoing a ban requires a community discussion. The problem with this block review was that it clearly went against the consensus and the available evidence. A community discussion may lead to a consensus that a block review came to the wrong conclusion and the block will be re-implemented. It would have been better to first attempt to establish a consensus to unblock.
Please don't blame me for our muddled WP:BAN policy. Jehochman Talk 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If we have a stupid policy, it should be ignored. The only difference is the level of support, basically? And a block without consensus needs consensus to unblock? This is outrageously backwards. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That bit, that any random one-person initiated block (Georgewilliamherbert's random bad block of Mackan79 as a Wordbomb sock last night comes to mind) needs "approval" to undo or the unblocking admin is the bad guy is silly. Lawrence § t/e 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's a good question, what is consensus to block and how does it differ from a consensus to ban? Consensus can be difficult to judge when there are no clear standards. For banning, the consensus is "no administrator opposing". For blocking, there is no definition of consensus. Perhaps we should clarify that. Jehochman Talk 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
A block is just pushing a button. Jehochman, you festering sack of vomit!! See, that's an NPA violation. If you were to block me for it, that's just a block, is how I've always seen it. Any admin can justifiably say, No, and undo that. If another admin replaces it, then OK--I'm "blocked" again. If any other admin then does another unblock without support or discussion, we have a wheel war. Admin action > revert > restore admin action to last admin action status quo. That's all fine. A ban to me is everyone basically saying, enough is enough, and a consensus exists to permanently block the person operating the account. Lawrence § t/e 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Lawrence is correct. A ban is a social construct -- the community says "we don't want this person around." An administrator then puts the ban into effect by imposing a block. It took me ages to figure out the difference, but I finally have it clear in my own mind, so please don't upset this delicate mental equilibrium by asking me to explain further... Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream

Thatcher requested I file Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream, wanted to give you a heads up. Lawrence § t/e 15:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind banning Wakedream per Thatcher's RFCU comment? I tagged the account already. Lawrence § t/e 16:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please ask another admin to handle this. I might be considered involved, even though the situation is quite clear. Jehochman Talk 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft

Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What's with the ANI report?

Stop it, Jehochman! [28] Do you really want this whole affair to come to a confrontation, wasting even more time? Is there some reason you did not just discuss it with Mbstpo first? (If you did, I missed it, certainly it's possible. If he's been intransigent in any illegitimate way, I'd like to know.) I'd thought the troubles were over. Apparently not. By the way, watch out for the patronizing attitude. Mbstpo, you must understand, has an easily traceable account history back to 2005, and tells me he actually started in 2004. He knows Wikipedia quite well. Well enough to know where policy isn't clear and needs to be clarified.--Abd (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

This Arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole. PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.

PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
I award you this barnstar for your diligence in sockpuppet investigations. To quote what you said: Through one of these simple cases I exposed a sock of Archtransit and set in motion a chain of events that would ultimately resolve one of the worst cases of sock puppetry ever discovered on Wikipedia." Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ;-) Jehochman Talk 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Appeal of topic ban for User:Whig

I have filed a request for arbitration in this matter: Appeal of topic ban for User:Whig, in which I have named you as a party. You may wish to provide a statement. —Whig (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have done so. Hopefully you will find at least some parts of my statement agreeable. Jehochman Talk 19:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I do, and I have also edited my statement. I only brought up my initiation of this as the fact that I feel I was banned because I was making a complaint, and that the complaint was handled should not result in me being punished for making it. —Whig (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RaderZer0

I've never posted a suspect sockpuppet. RaderZer0 is the suspected sockpuppet. I suspect either User:Skele or User:Sillygostly as the puppeteers. JAF1970 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add them to the report, with diffs as evidence. Jehochman Talk 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How bad does this sound?

In regards to this, I had an idea for a solution, and had thought about it a few weeks ago. Might be dumb, but I can think of at least 4 editors off the top of my head that would blow their gaskets to derail it, screaming the word PROCESS!!! at the top of their lungs.

Basically, a function like the AC, for when things get sticky. Submit a report for sanctions. Evidence. The whole nine--sort of like an RFC, or even the same format. You've got say one week to see if a decent number of UNINVOLVED people sign off on your evidence and "complaint". No Support/Oppose nonsense. I have no idea what a decent number would be. If that happens, your complaint is certified, and then a group of users (a mix of admins and non-admins by design) who were chosen ahead of time by the community just draws up a couple of remedies. Nothing in any of this is as formal of the AC. A remedy committee, I suppose, to suggest solutions (topic bans of various flavors, sanctions, article/user probations, blocks, whatever) to the certified problem. Once that's done, the "RC" just pops their suggested solutions back into the RFC type thing, and voila--all suggestions that have clear support after a week are "in effect". It's not a votes for banning. It requires THREE layers of consensus--consensus from uninvolved people *only* being allowed to weigh in if the initial complaint has merit, a week to certify--slow consensus layer 1. Then the "RC" suggests and posts solution suggestions--slow consensus layer 2. Then the community gets to endorse whichever suggestions they feel are best over a week, and those stick--slow consensus layer 3. No one on Earth could argue then that they were quickly railroaded, or that consensus was dubious for their sanctions. Anyone dicking around in violation of THESE sanctions would be on a fast track to nastiness like very easy Arbitration.

What do you think? Lawrence § t/e 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What the heck: Wikipedia:Requests for remedies. Lawrence § t/e 21:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Must be my week for sorting out the sock drawer

Hi Jehochman, sorry to bug you with this, but if you get a chance could you have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harrassment_from_probable_RichSatan_sockpuppets. I've been a target of some on-wiki harassment by User:RichSatan and a number of IPs (one or two of them could be dynamic) all resolving to the same ISP on the same street in Exter in Devon (UK). If you get a chance please have a look. AN RFCU confirmed that RichSatan is a sock-puppeteer but made no comment on the IPs (see it here). personally they look like ducks to me--Cailil talk 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate some input on this. Even if only advice on how to pursue this issue further. I can't open an RFC/U, I've gone to ANi and this stuff continues[29][30]. Strangest of all the User:RichSatan account who has been confirmed as a sock-puppeteer hasn't been blocked or warned--Cailil talk 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked the puppetmaster. They seem to use a variety of changing IPs. If the problem continues, ask a Checkuser to implement a range block. Jehochman Talk 14:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that Jehochman. I'll ask but only if this keeps happening--Cailil talk 15:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Last question on this, I promise. Should I bring this to WP:SSP since the RFCU made no comment on the IPs? Also if you've got a second maybe you'd look at the last contribution of that IP[31] at ANI--Cailil talk 19:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI first attempt

Hi - I had a go at resolving what looked like a fairly straightforward issue about User:ArborBooks. Hopefully I was not excessively bold in resolving it. Will pick up some pace on this soon enough, but have been busy proposing a new policy to handle some contentious problems at AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable, from a quick glance. If they have further editing problems and ignore the warning, let me know. Jehochman Talk 01:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the confusing sock puppet notices form Mbstpo's old accounts

I have removed the sock puppet notices for User:Sarsaparilla, user:Ron Duvall, and User:Absidy, which were causing continual confusion. As you know, he was not blocked for sock puppetry, and it's a little odd to have, for example, notices of sock puppetry per checkuser linking two accounts that were explictly immediately with account creation (as with the creation of Absidy). I put in references to the continuing accounts, for the benefit of future generations, and restored the original very busy Sarasaparilla user page. Frankly, I wish I could connect him with his older account, he had nothing to be ashamed of, but he has the right to disappear that account. Hope you are well. Too bad about Whig, horse to water, you know. I tried.--Abd (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Target

Hi Jonathan,

It seems as though there is an anonymous user who is trying to implicate me in a stir; I think I am being targeted by this user who seemingly wants to see me booted off the project for good. I have taken your and MastCell's words to heart and feel free to visit our nuclear bomb of an article (chiropractic) and my Talk page for the edit, summaries and discussion in question. Guidance would be appreciated. EBDCM (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It does look like mischief. I recommend you ignore them and let the rest of us deal with them. Not responding is a good way to make yourself appear above it all, which is good. Jehochman Talk 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - the more obvious a provocation, the more worthwhile it is to ignore it. MastCell Talk 04:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If I may advertise my latest brainstorm, see WP:Bait. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

EBDCM

This user has reverted my edits to the chiropractic summary twice. Even though I told him the article says Straights say subluxation is primary underlying risk factor for almost any disease and mixers treat non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions. Can you please help. He has destroyed all my work with his multiple edits and comments and is accusing me. 125.168.45.230 (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop admin shopping, a disruptive activity. If you have a content dispute, please use dispute resolution. Jehochman Talk 13:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Pure Reason Revolution

With respect to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justpassinby, there have been ongoing edit disputes involving Justpassinby around the Pure Reason Revolution article and a new article on the band's main member Jon Courtney. While I feel there is a huge amount of axe-grinding still going on, largely these edits stop short of vandalism and respect process. However, in the AfD for Jon Courtney that s/he launched, Justpassinby claimed that a Pure Reason Revolution song by Jon Courtney entailed plagiarism. 78.105.130.169 (a previous sockpuppet of Justpassinby) then added the same claim to the PRR article. I removed the latter under WP:BLP, but was uncertain what to do about the AfD discussion. (The song in question quotes another song's lyrics but certainly no-one else has described this as plagiarism.) Would you be so kind as to look at the situation? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This has blown up further: see summary at WP:AN/I. Basically, Justpassinby has vandalised Jon Courtney and suspected sockpuppet User:Joncourtney has then also vandalised the same article. Help please! Bondegezou (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just to say following further dubious editing, I've also a second possible sockpuppetry case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justpassinby (2nd). Bondegezou (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks continue to be allowed

Why - if the homeopathy related pages are under probation - are personal attacks against me allowed to continue? [32] Calls for sanctions against me, when I have done nothing wrong, and insults that I am on a side that is opposed to the "experts in reality" are two examples of posts that are not what the talk page is for. If you will note, I have been very careful to try to direct the discussion to specific proposals and suggestions to improve the content of the article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am very dismayed that my post is viewed as an attack or uncivil. I am not removing Arion 3x3's posts. I am not arguing with him. I am not edit warring with him. I am not making ad hominem attacks against him. By this standard, should I just leave the page completely and not engage in dialogue there ? I guess so. Very disappointing. It is clearly viewed as uncivil to disagree. Oh my... I apologize to any and all that took offense at my post. I do not want to upset anyone. I only want us to abide by the principles of Wikipedia, but clearly this is viewed as uncivil now.--Filll (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Should I just leave the page completely and not engage in dialogue there? I've done that for the sake of my own sanity. You might consider doing the same so that your time can be spent more productively. It just isn't worth the agony. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the post deemed offensive and apologized. I will stay away from that page because it is too unpleasant. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Dmits

Thanks for your action on the report at WP:SSP. I have now filed an RFCU, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dmits but Thatcher doesn't sem convinced there's much to go on there. Could youcomment there please? David Underdown (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits on protected pages

It doesn't seem like the {{editprotected}} macro is used much, so I decided to flag my use of it here to make sure that someone notices that we finally came to an agreement to a minor reword on What the Bleep Do We Know. It may not seem like much from the outside, but it was actually one hell of an accomplishment. You can see the request here. Thanks.Kww (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, such a fragile dream. I'll get back to you if I can get our current problem settled. I knew that getting that group to agree on a paragraph seemed too easy.Kww (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Thanks for your decision, I was worried that it wouldn't be resolved. Since we are on the same network, we have the same IP, so I'll just have to always log in. But thanks again, I'm glad that you recognized that even if I was guilty, though I still say I'm not, no real disruption has been caused. Thanks again, Merechriolus (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


There is no way

I've had a bit of a dig and you are way off. He's been an admin since 07:27, 23 December 2004 well that was when the logs go back until anyway. Plus I checked the AC mailing list and a thorough checkuser was performed at the time. It would have been noticed then. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. We have a very terrible situation with User:Archtransit, that finally resulted in a desysopping and community banning after a month of chaos and drama. When an admin makes a very horrible decision to block another admin while engaged in a content dispute, it raises my suspicions, given what happened to me. [33] Thanks for your help. Jehochman Talk 20:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Sadly normal admins do sometimes block each other. Shouldn't happen but it does. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW I hope you understand the reason I removed your comment. Just trying to avoid drama. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes sure. No need to leave potentially incendiary remarks lying around when people are already overheated. Jehochman Talk 20:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I did a little digging too. . .from this page [34], it looks like s/he got the bit in April 2004 (see here). R. Baley (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner, but I took Theresa's advice to not talk to El C, and I enhanced it to "turn off" Wikipedia for the afternoon. Yes, I've been an admin for quite a long time now. So long now that the 36/0/0 vote was considered something of an exceptional turn out. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:EBDCM

Hi Jonathan, since you handled his previous block and unblock I'd appreciate a review of my actions. See here and here. Thanks- Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

I think you are interested in this Igor Berger (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Diegogrez

I identified a new sockpuppet of Diegogrez, can you help me, he wrote me MisterWIki fucks --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 21:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My SSP "case"

Hello Jehochman. As the admin who closed Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Cheeser1, I was wondering if I could ask you to take one further action in closing this issue. Due to the frivolous and dispute-motivated nature of the complaint, I asked Seicer, an administrator in whom I have confidence, to post there verifying without a doubt that I could not possibly be the IP user in question, based on my IP address. Unfortunately, I had not intended on him actually sharing the IP address with the world. He initially went so far as to post the domain to which my IP resolves, and while removing that information helps slightly in protecting my privacy, it doesn't really go far enough (anyone can just lookup the IP and see). Is there any way for you to remove the IP address from the SSP report (and its history)? Thank you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just deleted the whole thing to protect your privacy. It was a frivolous report and served no useful purpose. If something thinks it does, and they are an administrator, they can restore the useful portions, but I am not going to bother with it further. Jehochman Talk 20:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'm glad to have put that, and the (unintentional) breach of privacy, behind me. Best, Cheeser1 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

user: McTools/user:NisarKand

Hello.

Just to let you know this user has tried to ridicule you on his 'check user' page after you confirmed his sock-puppetry (see here). He has attacked admins before with his old account (for which he was banned).

I am just wondering why he hasn't been tagged and blocked yet?

Pah, they are welcome to ridicule me, up until some other administrator becomes offended and blocks them for violating decorum. Jehochman Talk 23:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Asafedi

Could you please check into Asafedi rules (talk · contribs) as well? I forgot to add that one to the list, and didn't realize it until the case was closed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Diegogrez (2nd)

No decision was taken with regard to MisterWiki. It may sound absurd, but I think he vandalized his userpage under sockpuppet accounts. I thought to have given enough evidence. Jespinos (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother

Re: your comment there, wasn't sure if you were aware of the thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not too much traffic on the AN thread: pretty much all support for your proposal, but not particularly many responses. Justanother/Alfadog's responses are wearing my patience thin even though I've proposed a lesser remedy (not too wise to alienate the moderates). Do you feel like being bold or taking this to WP:AE? DurovaCharge! 03:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. If the situation does not resolve at WP:AN we will not have to wait long before the next incident. The community ban needs to be proposed at the start of the thread while more people are still interested in looking at it. Jehochman Talk 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
They've been banned. At some point in the future they could make a case to be reinstated. Jehochman Talk 14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Have they? JustaHulk isn't blocked. DurovaCharge! 18:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
'Tis now. [35] Jehochman Talk 19:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I wish it could've ended better. Time to get back to positive stuff. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 21:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Me too. I rather liked Justanother, but they somehow got on the wrong track and just kept going. Oh, well, we tried to help. Jehochman Talk 04:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Justanother et al

I am removing myself from this situation, including my restrictions, as they were not the core issue. If you wish to seek my input on this in the future, as with what I attempted recently, do not bother.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. This is just a run of the mill waster of time. They need to be shown to the exit because they are not helping, and are generating far too many noticeboard threads with their antics. Jehochman Talk 14:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Link Spam

This page seems to have links to a few products from small companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_assets_management

I think they should be deleted since other small companies are not allowed to do this.

Could you edit? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.82.91 (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Megalithic geometry

Hi. I am the main contributor of 'Megalithic geometry', which has been subjected to three AfD. The second one was 'keep,' a decision made by Jerry. Today there has been a decision for a third AfD during which ScienceApologist has repeatedly deleted the full article, while Jerry maintained his keep. In the end, Jerry gave up under duress, which I think is sad for Jerry has always considered the topic valid and sourced as it should. I see that ScienceApologist has already been blocked before. Why isn't he blocked again? Is it possible to restore 'Megalithic geometry' again and let people edit it properly as was Jerry's wish?--Little sawyer (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC) He has deleted 'Megalithic Yard' as well! A very notable concept. I think he should be blocked forever for he creates a big mess here!

Deletion review is the place to contest deletions. ScienceApologist wasn't an administrator last time I checked, so they can't delete anything. Shopping around for a friendly admin is not a good idea. Jehochman Talk 18:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to insist. I am not fishing around. You can check, the person in charge of keeping or deleting the article decided to keep it (2nd AfD), and this same person (Jerry) today decided to keep it until he was insulted. And you can check in the 'Megalithic geometry' article history, ScienceApologist deleted the article many times today. Check Megalithic Yard as well, he has just deleted it. I swear, but I don't have to, you can easily check everything I say. So please block this vandalist if you can. Many thanks. --Little sawyer (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Right. I apologize on this one. But you see, I was not lying, he has been deleting full pages all day, against the AfD decision, I don't think it is good either. Sorry for losing my temper, but how can this ScienceApologist be still running around with such an anti-Wiki behaviour?--Little sawyer (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Jerry deleted it after a deletion review. Everything is in order. Please move along to some other topic. By the way, is this your first account, or have you edited previously under a different account? Jehochman Talk 18:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please check the times. He deleted it several times BEFORE, I swear to God. And what about Megalithic Yard? There was no Deletion review, was there? And yes, I used to be Snicoulaud but I forgot my former password, I have already explained before by the way. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't see why you keep doubting my word. I am telling the truth.--Little sawyer (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If you are unhappy about a deletion, speak to the admin who deleted the article. In this case, User:Jerry. For independent review, go to WP:DRV. Jehochman Talk 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

{{blpinfo}}

I notice that you added {{blpinfo}} to Bill Gates. I don't know what this is for? The article is already in Category:Living people. Gary King (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AN, a long thread at the bottom, by User:FT2. Jehochman Talk 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice on Levi Strauss & Co article

Hi, the Levi Strauss & Co article has a number of sections dealing with pending litigation. The language appears to be very pointed, and not NPOV. Can you check it out to see if it should be immediately removed. Thank you Bardcom (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm - this request might have come across as a whine or plea of some sort. I've no personal interest in the article - I was monitoring Recent Changes and it came up. The sections just might be seen as only stating one side of the case, and maybe wikipedia might get sued. But I though I'd ask an admin or someone with no experience, so I pulled your id from the Recent Changes too. If not you, who could take a look? Bardcom (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
There is WP:NPOVN - the neutral point of view noticeboard. That way you can get more than one point of view. Jehochman Talk 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoponpop69

I have a strong gut feeling that this user User:Theonlysun81 is a sock of Hoponpop69. This account has only made two or three edits and are to a page he frequents, and the edits consist of his MO. I realize a gut feeling isn't enough, but could you check it out please? Landon1980 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please file a WP:SSP or WP:RFCU with evidence, please. Jehochman Talk 18:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can, but do you think there is sufficient evidence to warrant a checkuser? I pretty much know it is him, but proving it is a different story. Landon1980 (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Multilingual SEO

This is a new article that an editor linked to from Search engine optimization. I think the article's topic is good, but the article requires some work, because at this point it reads as original research not an encyclopidic article. It lacks internal references. I would like to AfD it, but you know I cannot because of my ban..:) I think if we AfD it, the article will get improved by other editors. I am not really interested in working on the article. I will leave it in your hands as to what to do. Igor Berger (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Water memory

I understand that you are overseeing the probation for homeopathy related pages. SA has removed a substantial chunk of the Water Memory page [here] that has been part of this page for some time and has definitely appeared to have consensus. I do not wish to edit war over this but I do not believe that this is the way WP is supposed to work. The Tutor (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is judged by the strength of arguments, not the number of votes by agenda driven single purpose accounts. If you have a content dispute, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for your options. I looked at what was removed, and it seems like SA may have valid grounds for making that edit. The sources cited do not appear to satisfy WP:RS.Jehochman Talk 14:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice on Anglo-America article wanted

I've been thinking about who to ask about this, and since you are a fellow American and Yale graduate, thought of you. This article is incredibly misleading - I'm not sure if it's a joke or what. A big part of the problem is the definition in the Columbia Encyclopedia, "The term “Anglo-America” is frequently used in reference to Canada and the United States combined, while the term “Middle America” is used to describe the region including Mexico, the republics of Central America, and the Caribbean." The Britannica gives something similar. Now, is this a new usage of the word that has indeed become popular (although not according to Google) and somehow escaped my dictionaries (I have several good ones, they don't even have the word) or what? As it is, I think the article is bad. But I'm not sure what to do -- ruthlessly edit it, RfD it, or? Is there an appropriate bulletin board to discuss it on? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx and a request for help

Thanx for the heads-up to me for those sockpuppets who follow me around. In addition to various socks following me around, there are some legit editors doing so. I am presently being wrongfully attacked here [36]. I just responded to some of the accusations, but I think that someone else needs to comment here other than me. You are welcome to be critical of me if you feel I deserve it. DanaUllmanTalk 18:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The best way to stop attacks made in bad faith is to not respond. You might take a holiday from homeopathy and work on something completely unrelated, such as SS Edmund Fitzgerald. Jehochman Talk 18:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have kept and continue to keep a level head here. Because those people who are attacking me are also engaging in various content disputes, this biased interpretation of things is more than a tad skewed. Any reasonable review of the dialogue with which I have been engaged shows that I provide references to research and do my best to provide RS, NPOV, and notable work...this really pisses off some people who don't believe or don't want to believe in homeopathy. Have you considered asking some of the accusers to take a holiday? DanaUllmanTalk 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am taking a holiday from that mess myself.  :-) I gave one of them a block warning. Jehochman Talk 21:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That was me, I answered below --Enric Naval (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

my comments on other editor


I preserve above comment because it contains diffs that back my statements. To sum it up:

  1. I am not a sock, Shoemaker's_Holiday is not a sock.
  2. I didn't back my harsh comment on Dana because I thought that it was backed by evidence. It wasn't. I have apologized and striked out statements that I can't back.
  3. I think that Dana's behaviour is not correct at all, good faith is exhausted, many editors think the same and comment about it on the incident list page.
  4. I already gave Dana a good faith advice to stop posting about the studies, Dana ignored it, Dana brought this upon him for not taking a break. I have a history of making this sort of good faith advices and having patience with editors.
  5. new: Dana has also ignored your good faith advice to take a break from homeopathy and is now pushing Linden's study that has also already been shot down repeatedly.

--Enric Naval (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My intuition is that Dana is a good person. We need to respect different points of view. Dana is probably watching this page, and will perhaps accept my idea that it may be better to work on a less contentious aspect of the article if this one faces too many objections. Everyone working on homeopathy should try to find common ground. Jehochman Talk 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I hope he sees the wisdom on your idea, since I would say that the studies aspect has faced already too many objections --Enric Naval (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanx, I do strive for mentsch-ness even when alligators and socks are biting at my feet. I hope that Enric and others understand that you and I have different POVs on homeopathy, but you strive for NPOV in editing and in mediating between editors. I am always open to hearing your feedback when you feel that I step over the line, though please know that sometimes the line moves around even though I may hard to respect it. And thanx for giving me heads-up about situations in which you think that I need to tread carefully. DanaUllmanTalk 22:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Dana, please, you have not taken the advice at all, today you have edited Talk:Homeopathy again to talk about the same studies you got reported for. Please take a holiday for your own good while things cool down --Enric Naval (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


I have changed my statement based on Dana's behaviour during last day. I have presented diffs, like you asked, to back my presentation of objective verifiable facts (which I have made every effort to prevent them from being accussations). I still have good faith, but my patience with this editor is exhausted. [40] --Enric Naval (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Enric has asserted, "my patience with this editor is exhausted." Hmmm. This editor has only participated in the homeopathy articles for a bit over a month. He has also expressed his strong belief that homeopathic medicines are placeboes, while I provide reference to research that suggests otherwise. Clearly, this is a content dispute, and Enric may be gaming the system by over-exaggerating his experience with me. He still doesn't seem to get it, despite your warning. I have had to deal with many socks and many anti-homeopathy editors who are ganging up on me. I'm proud that I've kept my cool and continue to provide RS information with an effort to achieve consensus. DanaUllmanTalk 16:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU

For this.[41] You are my hero. I'll leave it to you to decide whether that's a good thing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Any surprise?

Any whatosever? Antelantalk 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

American Apparel

Hi JEH. Thanks for your recent look at this article, which led to your placement of a COI tag. If memory serves, somone complained about this article at ANI and the submitter was advised that WP:COIN would be a good place to also raise the issue. I didn't find a COIN report, so perhaps this was never done. I notice the WP:SSP report that you mention languishing at the bottom of the queue. Can you give me an opinion as to whether the problems with the article are fixed, and if you see ongoing bad editing? The reason I ask is that soon it will be too late to ask for a checkuser on all the socks, and I'm trying to figure out how far we are from having solved the problem. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should request checkuser because if it comes back positive, that will go a long way to solving the problem. If not, then we have to deal with it through WP:COIN. The WP:SSP evidence is not conclusive. Jehochman Talk 14:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The COIN report is at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 23#American Apparel. Three different American Apparel executives edited the article, and two admitted to it (and mentioned the third). It's absolutely clear that these people also edited the article as anonymous IPs, but not that this was intentional sockpuppeting as opposed to forgetting to log in. The COIN is indisputable, as is the meatpuppeting. The extent of sockpuppetry is unclear. I'm hoping they all just stay away so the issue becomes moot. However, Iris Alonso (Dov Chaney's cohort and right-hand person at the company) vowed at one point to continue as long as the article was unfair to them. She had a point as far as some of the material in the article, and perhaps she was being emotional. Anyway, after I edited the article to be a little better and more balanced she said that's all she was after, and other editors have since tried to remove the taint of COI. One editor, Regicider, has worked hard to improve the article since all these incidents. I'm not sure at what point we can put this all behind us and say we've scrubbed the taint of COI out of the article. It would be nice to do that so we can be satisfied with the article rather than leave the tag on forever. Wikidemo (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If you believe that the multiple accounts have not been trying to commit any deception, then perhaps we can do without the checkuser. My own quick overview of the article suggested it was neutral. If you don't perceive any ongoing bad edits, perhaps you could add that opinion as a comment on Wikipedia:SSP#American_Apparel. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Web 2.0 Criticism origional research

FayssalF claims that the entry in criticism was synthesis. You claim it is original research. Yet neither of you provide specific detail as to how your claims are valid. Simply stating a thing does not make it true, it makes it a matter of opinion unless it support by verifiable fact (or at least some supporting reasoning) In the case of both you I would think it a matter of uniformed opinion and perhaps to a certain extent me not being clear enough on my point.

And now to the point.

The criticism is specific to the language use to describe Web 2.0 by using grandiose terms that lead to hyper-inflated expectations of the object being described. THAT is not original research. One need to simply read wikinomics to get a good does of tech-utopianism rhetoric. It is NOT personal opinion that Web 2.0 is hyper-inflated. Simply read the Gartner report that details Web 2.0 heading into the trough of disillusionment. To paraphrase the report, Web 2.0 whatever it is, will not be useful for another two years.

The rhetoric of the technological sublime is neither original or new but is grounded in mass communication theory based on works of Adorno and James Carey; to name a few.

I don't know who the "us" are you refer to but it seems to me absurd you proffer to represent an authority and claim to be the speaker of the ambiguous "us".

However I'm willing to oblige ignorance on a subject matter and provide the specific reference I mentioned. A simple google search would turn up the result. Then again I'm not guilty; you are the accuser and at least according to western practice the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. Perhaps you should do your own research to validate your claims of original research, synthesis or whatever wikipedia jargon clap trap the 'us' you represent wishes to throw at the public. Richard D. Chennault (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchennau (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing you added to the article is not at all supported by the source cited. No amount of argumentation can change that. FassalF is not a rogue editor, nor am I. We are both highly experienced and highly trusted members of this community. You might consider that if both of us make the same objection, your position may not be entirely correct. Jehochman Talk 17:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The source cited is an example techno-utopian rhetoric. The 'thing' I added to the article was attempt demonstrate that some critics believe that language to describe Web 2.0 is techno-utopian rhetoric. Refer to Gartner hype-cycle on web 2.0. Refer to *"Critical Perspectives on Web 2.0", Special issue of First Monday, 13(3), 2008.

Specific to 'both of us' each of you proffered a different objection. That is far from consensus. While I can imagine a situation that could be original research based on synthesis what I was TRYING to say was not that. Perhaps my point is to subtle and the flow of the sentence intimates that I wish to equate the failures of the Telegraph to bring on world piece and information democratization to the probable outcome of Web 2.0.

Finally you continue to claim some sort of moral authority based on some scale of experience and trust that is neither apparent, measurable or even legitimately yours to claim. I need not remind you that all of us are edits of equality. Or perhaps I do? Nonetheless perhaps your first volley at editing should have been less threatning and more helpful through explanation and illustration.

This is what I am going to do. I'll clarify my entry, reference more published works and hope my point is still not to subtle. Then we can have another go around... You could have made this a much more pleasurable experience for a first time editor... sigh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchennau (talk • contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Jumping the gun

Hi, could we unarchive this report and discuss the problem more completely? I am not very concerned about the AfD. My concern is that PHG has seemingly fabricated honors for a living person in order to support his views on the AfD. Fabricating honors is a very serious matter, which seriously harm Wikipedia's reputation. I now realize that after posting this I forgot to notify PHG. Please, let's let him have a chance to respond before taking ANY decision. Jehochman Talk 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'd rather not. Let the AfD take its course. We don't know that there was fabrication for a fact yet. What was the problem letting the AfD conclude first before opening the floodgates with this report? Also, perhaps you could press on Coren to not jump-the-gun with the block button? If one is a fairly new admin, it's reasonable to take time to learn, as I tried to hint to him in his last problematic indefinite block. El_C 23:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll briefly add that, had you folks waited for the AfD to close and for it to conclusively show that, indeed, there was fabrication and gaming, I'd have no problem with an indefinite block pending mentroship or any such arrangement. But if the AfD process is opened, it needs to be fair. El_C 23:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

False asserting?

Why do you urge me to strike my previous comment and say the untruth? I have not asserted the claim by myself. I pasted it as it was from the article before changed. I can change it to the confirmed fact though. --Appletrees (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you have pasted a claim from the article that was subsequently shown to be false, I thought you might want to make a correction. A statement that relies upon a false claim will most likely be ignored by the closing administrator. Jehochman Talk 01:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I let it stay because your subsequent responses and others are all related to the title, so I can't simply change it. However, I inserted a "disclaimer" and rationale below the sentence. You can check it. --01:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I see. If you like you can strike through a statement, showing that it is no longer applicable, yet the statement remains visible so that subsequent comments appear in context. Jehochman Talk 01:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message Jehochman. You must realize that you are the one who threw me to Arbcom in the first place, even though even Elonka was against it. Then you keep attacking me, nominating my articles for deletion, claiming (without ground) that I am just creating "novel theories" (again I would love to know what kind of "novel theories" you could find in France-Japan relations (19th century). I am very proud of the work I am doing, and know I can contribute a lot to Wikipedia, and I enjoy it. I would love if you could assume good faith (as recommended by Arbcom), so that we can work better together. I like to work in areas related to cultural interaction, which is often difficult, little known, and sometimes challenged for ideological or ethnic reasons, and can be quite vulnerable to criticism, but I believe this is what I can contribute to this encyclopedia. Best regards. PHG (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoponpop69

I saw you handeled the block on this user for personal attacks, disruption, harassment, and sock puppetry and I wanted to let you know he was already back to making personal attacks. He has attacked myself by following my edits and grossly analyzing them, and typing in all Caps the word explicit. That is related to the Flyleaf genre dispute, we have told him he needs an explicit source before adding his material. Ok then here he attacks this user by calling him a jerk for no apparent reason. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User Shoemaker's Holiday

Shoemaker is making a lot of edits without consensus, with any edit summaries, and with mis-information [42] [43]. One would think that articles on homeopathy should get some consensus before making such significant changes. He will not listen to me; perhaps you can try. As an additinal note, his tendency to not provide any edit summaries is somewhat reminescent of previous socks. DanaUllmanTalk 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no sock puppetry with this particular account. I have investigated it myself. Routine editorial problems should be dealt with as usual. Jehochman Talk 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Another sockpuppet of user:Mudaliar

Hi,

The user user:Mudaliar a blocked editor is back with another sock puppet user:Equinox_equations. He has made a single contribution which is exactly the same as the banned users. [44]in the article Sengunthar. He got blocked by you just recently [45]. This user is very malicious. As I requested is it possible to give only edit rights to specific users such as myself?

Saedirof (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)