User talk:Jehochman/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Obvious sock is obvious

User talk:Jehochmen states that they are a friend of User:ScienceApologist and just made a highly POV edit to Plasma cosmology that the latter would almost assuredly have reverted. You seem not to have edited that page, but I vaguely recall seeing you around the right areas enough that you might be familiar with that particular history. Should this account just be blocked, or should I take it to UAA or AN/I or somewhere? Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have blocked them. Jehochman ^Talk 02:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Archiving a discussion when people are still actively discussing the matter does not really help the underlying issue. I imagine that your goal is to prevent drama, but when has a template at the top and bottom of a discussion ever prevented drama? What I mean is, has this ever actually worked? I am not trying to be a hard ass, but each time such a heated discussion gets prematurely archived it either gets re-opened, a new thread starts on the same page, or a new page is chosen for the discussion. The debate continues but fragmented and robbed of its original context. If people don't think something is resolved then no archive box is going to stifle discussion. Sometimes the only way to get rid of drama is to try to ignore it, but sometimes the only way is to resolve the underlying issues. Just my 2 cents. Chillum 03:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If somebody want's to unarchive, they can, but this drama is already fragmented into multiple threads; all of them pointless. See Prodego's comment below. Jehochman ^Talk 03:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone already has. I really do have respect for you as an admin, you have done a great job. I surely disagree with you, but that is no big deal as people all have their own point of view. I am of the opinion that even when things look terribly pointless that some progress is being made, if only to learn from our mistakes. In that spirit I don't think that threads should be stifled until it is clear that discussion has been exhausted, and that does not happen in a few hours. All of my philosophical pontificating aside, Malleus deserves a proper hearing for his block and I think it should be given at least a full rotation of the Earth in case those on the other side of this ball of mud think differently. Keep up the good work. Chillum 03:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem with a minor difference of opinions. I archived three or four threads this evening, and the majority stuck.  :-) ANI was truly a mess today. I think we need to discourage people from turning ANI into an unofficial RFC. There's a reason we require certification of RFC's. People are using ANI as an end run around that procedure. They're also bringing civility matters to ANI that would be better handled at WQA. Jehochman ^Talk 03:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree more that people need to seek the correct venue for such discussions and that ANI has become incapable of dealing with all but the most of routine of issues. I suspect we both see the same set of problems but have come up with completely different approaches to dealing with them. It is good that we as a community are exploring multiple directions of response to the problems that plague Wikipedia. Chillum 06:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

MF AN/I

I unresolved the "Block of Malleus Fatuorum" thread on ANI because it can't really be marked as resolved with this as the last comment. Otherwise I agree with archiving the whole thing, unblocking everyone, and telling them all to stay away from each other. That would of course be too simple, though... Prodego ^talk 03:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

just curious

Jehochman .. I'm just curious here. Perhaps I dont' know the pecking order, but who the hell are you to tell me what to do? I know that sounds harsh, and I apologize for that - but who died and left you boss? You seem to have a very self-imposed sense of import lately, and I'm not sure why. If you could clue me in to why you are running the show, I'd be more than happy to adhere to the unwritten rules. — Ched :  ?  03:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I don't speak your language. You posted a note saying you were going to do a unilateral unblock. There was no consensus for an unblock, and I told you so plainly. I'd hate to see you get into a wheel war over such a silly matter as a 24 hour block where the user has not even posted an unblock requests. Jehochman ^Talk 03:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ummm .. well since the "block" was unilateral ... then I guess the "unblock" being "unilateral would be fine as well. You don't speak my language?... I speak English, if .... no ... better that I don't continue that line of thought. I have absolutely no intention of getting into a "wheel war" .. see, I've actually read all those policies and guidelines - so me doing an unblock isn't a wheel war. But I'm sure you're aware of that. I've seen you do good work in the past, but I'm concerned that many of your recent actions have not been in the best interests of our project. I think it best if I don't elaborate on any specifics at the moment, but I am willing to help you regain a more positive approach in the future. You seem to be a nice young man, and I do apologize if I have offended you. I hope that we can find a way to reach a mutual understanding here; and in the future. Best — Ched :  ?  03:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ched, the administrative policy written by the community is clear. Administrators may use their discretion when blocking, they need to get the consent of the blocking admin or the consensus of the community to unblock. If you think that is not correct then propose a change to the policy. Chillum 03:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To quote policy more exactly, "An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block, their prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted. Common reasons include: the circumstances have changed, a commitment to change is given, or there was a clear mistake....Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on it. — Ched :  ?  04:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I wrote some of what you're quoting. Jehochman ^Talk 04:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi

Because of this, I would like you to publicly state at ArbCom the nature of the information I have sent you and the many times the four people I listed have appeared in various disputes and for what length of time they have appeared in such disputes. If it would be easier, you can simply put up my history so other people can verify the various diffs and instances of such actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

I have done an RfC on the Talk page of 350.org. I am doing this in order to reach consensus rather than have edit wars done. This is my first RfC. Would you kindly check, at your convenience, that I have entered it correctly?

Thank You, --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach. I will look later on when I have time. Some of my talk page lurkers (thare are several hundred) might help in the meanwhile. Jehochman ^Talk 22:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I'm not going to get too involved. The reason I put up the RfC is to get the opinion of others. In the end, it doesn't matter too much to the big scheme of things. Take care, --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Jehochman, blocked user Moonbatssuck has returned as Idetestlunarbats (talk · contribs) and now MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs) and once again has broken 3rr on the article. ► RATEL ◄

And yet another reversion diff. No action to be taken? ► RATEL ◄ 01:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how things work here in terms of line of command, but some other users are trying to get me banned over on the 3RR board because of my past usernames. I already admitted that I acted imprudently at first, but I feel like I am finally getting the hang of things on here. I am in a bind because I understand that you don't want to unblock inappropriate usernames, but now I am labeled a sockpuppet because I admitted those past names. I will keep getting the "blocked user" thing thrown at me. I'm not going to lie and just cheat the system with a new "unconnected" one, so any help would be nice. Thanks,---MoonHoaxBat (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a good word for you. Hang in there. It's just a website. Jehochman ^Talk 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• You protected the wrong version, rewarding the #RR3er Rubin. There are more voices on Talk asking for the smear to be removed than to retain. ► RATEL ◄ 23:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Protect the wrong version I must per our customs. Resolved the content dispute must be, then fix it you can. Jehochman ^Talk 01:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, clearly more voices want the smear removed than retained, and although I tried to compromise and find middle ground with Rubin, he rejected compromise and 3rred. So I have the numbers in the RfC and I have made compromises ... what more can I do against relentless POV editing? So now the article effectively links 350.org to ecoterrorism and an FBI investigation, none of which is appropriate on notability and weight grounds. As I said, given your alacrity in protecting the reputation of Copperfield, I'm intrigued to see if you can be even handed in this dispute. ► RATEL ◄ 02:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Probably pointless telling you this, but new name-hopping editor MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is contravening wp:POINT by trying to insert something on the 350.org page because something was allowed on another, unrelated page that he did not like. On the other Talk page he said "It was suggested by User:Ratel in reference to 350.org that articles should not mention unofficial signs that put the organizers in a negative light. I tend to agree with him/her/it at this point." which clearly shows he understands what's right and wrong, but when thwarted he went to the 350.org page, openly cited the other article as reason for putting the negative and barely related comment on the 350.org page DIFF, and things went south from there. You can see where he was thwarted here. This is an open and close case of POINT and he should have been stopped. Will you do the right thing now? ► RATEL ◄ 06:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• • I don't like blocking people on questionable grounds. Can we try the usual dispute resolution measures instead? Jehochman ^Talk 07:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm too busy, Jonathan. It shouldn't be this hard. ► RATEL ◄ 14:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Jon, I've bent over backwards to accommodate the two dissenters, even though consensus is with me and I could sit it out. There seems to be an Asperger's element to the refusal to play nice and find a compromise. I don't think consensus is going to be possible and ask that you 6m full protect the article after removing the "posters" incident per existing consensus. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 06:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, I would appreciate it if you would remove the uncivil comment you have just made. I do not want to report anyone to the Civility Noticeboard. That's not how I do things. But on several occasions you have made personal attacks on people who have legitimate disagreement about the 350.org page. You've brought up User:Arthur Rubin's past electoral failures, called me a Jihadist and Mujaheddin (and not in the positive pro-Islam way), etc. Those are not relevant to the discussion. By the way, I *am* more than willing to compromise. I have proposed several and am still willing to work with you on more. Thank you,--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you strongly, Hoax. I consider you to be a typical SPA with a single-minded, POV-drive agenda (as your initial offensive and now banned choices of username indicated), and I also think you are not nearly as unfamiliar with wikipedia as you make out. ► RATEL ◄ 23:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My first usernames were offensive only to moon-bats of the Great Moon Hoax. Are you one of them? Stop playing ad hominem and admit your own POV. We all have them. Let's try to find a compromise on the 350 page.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer I suggest both of you take a step back. Ratel, you need to remember that even if MHB is a SPA POV pushing sock, you still need to be civil. - Drew Smith What I've done 23:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI as a place for sanction

I was chatting with SandyGeorgia (at User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Thoughts_about_AN.2FI) about the "more heat than light" issue of sanctions imposed at ANI. My thoughts kept coming back to structuring the debate - for some reason, I vaguely recall you proposing something along those lines some time ago. Have I gone mad, or is this indeed the case? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we tried, but it doesn't work because there are too many different request types. We need to separate them. Maybe we could have different sections of the page. That might help. We also need to take a firm hand to prevent ANI threads from turning into RFC's. Ideally, if a user complains about the editing pattern of another user, rather than a specific blockable incident, we should send the matter to RFC. Another thing we could do is require an RFC before the placement of any community sanction. I think those steps would greatly curtail drama threads, and provide for slower, more thoughtful analysis of persistent user behavior issues. Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if, as a first step, we could simply generate a template for a "community sanction" discussion and drop it onto the page when these requests inevitably arise. If people don't use it, we can replace their requests with the template structure - that way we can still separate involved from uninvolved, have an actual result at closure, etc. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! It merely requires that a clueful admin be ready to refactor the conversation to fit the template. I'd still favor a requirement in policy that we get an RFC before discussing sanctions. This would avoid the rush to judgment, angry mob thing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but baby steps are required for fundamental change in these parts. I might get to work on a template later - alas, my break is at an end. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing this flash by on my watchlist, I think putting threads about patterns of blockable or sanctionable behaviour (like edgy, ever ongoing incivility or civil disruption/PoV flogging) into a user RfC would be helpful. However, that policy still says An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information. So, lacking a single, blockable thing through which the only admin willing to unblock might pull an agreement with the blocked user on some kind of sanction as the only way of getting unblocked by that admin, this would have to be tweaked in some way. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy needs to be discussed. If there is an RFC that establishes that a user is persistently disruptive, then an uninvolved admin should be able to come along and establish an editing restriction if need be. Even before I made edits to WP:BAN this morning, that policy referred to RFC as a possible precursor to a ban. I think RFC's should be enforceable; otherwise, what's the point? Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I suppose the kludgy solution to the RfC-results-are-not-enforceable is to refer a disputed RfC outcome to another body to make a formal final call. Since ArbCom has been willing to handle many 'simple' cases by motion of late, this might be something that they could cope with. Consider — an RfC attracts broad participation, there is a detailed presentation of evidence, there is ample opportunity for discussion. Towards the end, one or more participants proposes a binding resolution. If all parties agree, then we're done. If not, then participants are left to discuss and endorse (or not) sanctions. After some reasonable period of time, those sanctions are processed into an Arb request, to be handled by motion. The ArbCom endorses the motion (or not, if there wasn't a clear RfC outcome, or if there were shenanigans, or what have you) and presto, there are binding sanctions based on a community decision. It's a bit heavier-weight than I'd like, but it's also reasonably resistant to mobs — and it's going to cut down on the problems of editors who have largeish groups of supporters who will overlook or suppress any legitimate criticism. (My personal bugaboo right now is the editors who behave as though civility is a form of dishonesty, that obnoxious rudeness is simply frankness, and that substantial article editing should grant immunity from behavioural standards.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"the kludgy solution to the RfC-results-are-not-enforceable is to refer a disputed RfC outcome to another body to make a formal final call." - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2#Subject nods in that direction. Rd232 ^talk 14:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Please have a look at my recent edits to WP:BAN and WP:RFC. I think RFC is a good tool for establishing community consensus. If there is a consensus to sanction an editor, no matter where that consensus is generated, the editor may be sanctioned. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and if they have teeth, we may be able to encourage wider participation in the process by advertising them neutrally at venues such as ANI, AN, etc. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

They do have teeth. We just haven't previously recognized it in written policy. If there is a consensus to enact a community sanction, any uninvolved administrator can do so. There is no requirement to discuss matters in any specific place. RFC/U is logically just as good, and perhaps a superior, venue to ANI. If a consensus develops to place a sanction, any uninvolved administrator may do so. In theory, if an administrator behaves badly and there is an RFC/U consensus to restrict that administrator from taking administrative actions, such a restriction can be placed, though it would require a motion by ArbCom to formally remove the bit. Please read the current versions of WP:BAN and WP:RFC. Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I think this is all helpful, moreover the notion of arbcom settling a disputed or edgy RfC outcome (among uninvolved editors) through a straightforward motion. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not bad, but I don't think you're going to get away with it. :D I suspect there will be quibbles over "the closing administrator will assess...". Regardless of which way a proposed sanction gets closed, there will be objections on the basis of The closing admin is biased/didn't properly weigh the arguments/didn't count the !votes correctly/eats kittens. I suppose that kicking it upstairs to a higher authority (on an as-needed basis) would resolve the issue — but I wonder if there shouldn't be a slightly more formal closing process to avoid or reduce the conflict of a decision-imposing closure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We need to make incremental improvements. Let's see where this leads us and for sure we'll have some challenges, but we can address them in turn. Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

True enough. I ought to know better anyway — I'm always telling policy wonks not to be so CREEPy.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's possible a community sanction could be agreed in two stages:

1. An RfC is held to collect evidence and frame proposals for sanctions
2. A final vote is held at WP:AN, in a restricted style where only one-line votes are allowed. Voters may be asked to choose between alternate sanction proposals. A comment section is provided below the voting area. AN voters, by participating, are confirming they have read the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason RfCs don't involve sanctions is because the process was meant to be a collegial and civil first step in giving feedback. If you involve sancitons you're going to make it even more contentious and acrimonious. I think the idea of collegial feedback as a first step is a good one.

Perhaps there needs to be an intermediate process between RfC and Arbcom (but not ANI) where community sanctions can be discussed. It's a bit haphazard at ANI, clutters that board, isn't organized, and can be rushed. (On the other hand, I think the the limiting the process and policy pages is also a good thing.) The main issue seems to be how to keep ANI reports focused on particular issues and to avoid them being abused for the furthering of vendettas and past grudges, while also having a place to address patterns of behavior.

What should the process be for resolving community sanctions? An organized approach that requires diffs of actual violations and that doesn't encourage the torch and pitchfork crowd or allow content disputants to go after those they disagree with would be good. So I support maintaining a revised feedback page for editors (like an RfC) and an organized process to address patterns of behavior that are problematic. The structure should encourage a considered and constructive response to solve problems. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Header

Moved your changes on ANI to the header which is less liable to get edited - [1] Hipocrite (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! Also, less likely to get archived! I need to fix AN the same way. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced your recent changes to the header are an improvement - and certainly making it that much bigger, and affecting the ToC, is more likely to get opposition to having it there at all. Perhaps this should be discussed a bit more: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList or perhaps at AN talk. Rd232 ^talk 14:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to rework. We need to list all the cases. I'd like to avoid having two lists; we should make one good one and transclude it. The only reason for the headings is to provide edit links. Perhaps those could be removed. Jehochman ^Talk 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

note

Jehochman, as I mentioned previously, I think you do some good things here. A couple days ago however, I posted to your page in a manner that I am ashamed of. While I still hold a belief that the context of what I was thinking is valid, the method in which I expressed myself was abysmal. I apologize for that. My post was unprofessional, and very unbecoming of an admin. Regardless of my thoughts or your own actions, you are owed an apology for my actions. I am sorry. I will make a stronger effort to communicate in a more productive fashion in the future. Regards, — Ched :  ?  18:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I really didn't read it as anything more than a momentary disagreement. You need not feel bad about it. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 19:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Lactating goat

Two others have already commented on this, but thanks anyway (wonder when the next will appear?). Here's the latest post I made regarding the issue. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hee, hee. Sorry about that! On the bright side, you now know where to find me if you run into any editing difficulties. I am always happy to help. Jehochman ^Talk 19:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of a reply. I forgot to watch your page. Anyway, it's no problem. I'll probably lay all my inane queries onto Xeno though. He's used to it. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

MoonHoaxBat block and review request

The user MoonHoaxBat has requested on their talk page that you participate in the review of their recent block. I'm just passing this on in case you were unaware; no need to reply. I know nothing about the dispute apparently going on; I just saw the block mentioned at WP:WQA, and it looked a bit odd. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

MoonHoaxBat

Hello, Jehochman. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MoonHoaxBat. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Query regarding AN/I comment

Hello. Your comment at AN/I has me puzzled. You stated that the block review I requested as not "an incident requiring administrator attention," however I am not sure how else other administrators could have reviewed the block. I am all for reducing the volume at AN/I, so please let me know if there is a more appropriate venue where I should have requested a review. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was imprecise. Originally the thread was fine, but then it went off on a technical tanget that is better suited to the village pump. Jehochman ^Talk 02:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews not in violation

Hi Jehochman: I find your rebuff startling, and fail to see its grounds. I am merely presenting a view of the discussion on my talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not helpful for you to continue the battles which you have been prohibited from doing. Please stop or you will get a total siteban. Jehochman ^Talk 16:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman: I don't see that I am continuing the "battles" for which I "have been prohibited". The topic ban against me concerns discussion of "physics related topics - broadly conceived". My mere reference to a discussion on my Talk page of editing experiences on WP is far from that. If you see it differently, perhaps you can indulge me by explaining in detail just what you see as the connection to my topic ban? Brews ohare (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that you do not have the authority to SITE BAN anyone. That must be made by a consensus. What ever happened to wp:ignore? His talkpage is his talk page. Who cares what's on there so long as it is civil and doesn't attack. Damn you people need to lay off Brews and David Tombe. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

They are under arbitration sanctions, and they are also trying to change policy to reflect their views. Please keep the discussion together where it starts. Don't come running to my talk page when there's already a discussion open at WP:AE. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Unprotecting 350.org

Hi J, looks like Arthur Rubin and I have some sort of agreement, so could you unprotect the article now please? Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 08:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLOCK#Temporary_circumstances_unblocks.

Don't know if you saw my remark at ANI re Vintagekits: "Then unblock him temporarily, per Wikipedia:BLOCK#Temporary_circumstances_unblocks.". Better than farting around with talk page transclusion etc, as long as the editor can be trusted not to abuse the temp unblock. Rd232 ^talk 16:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that Vintagekits can post a statement and then we'll copy it over for him. I'm not keen to do any unblocking. You can talk to Rlevse if you feel strongly about it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal

If you are going to imply I've done something wrong [2] [3] then you might as well ban me because then I won't have to deal with the harassment from these three editors anymore anyway.
I've done nothing wrong yet what you are proposing what amounts to punishing the victim and I don't think it is right. The past AN/I discussion, which is linked in the current one, links to enough of the continued on-wiki stalking and harassment where it should be obvious that they've made me their "target".
I've been a very productive editor, [4] yet these particular editors only seem to be here to harass other editors and play Wikipedia as a big MMORPG (their contribs [5] [6] [7] make it crystal clear). One in particular (the one who has not yet shown up on AN/I) initiated more AfDs this week in an attempt to harass me (the first of which was speedily kept, the other two should be keeps, although one may not be since I'm not really motivated at the moment to present refs at that AfD). I'd like you to explain exactly how it is I've done something seriously "wrong" and worthy of what you are proposing on AN/I when all I've ever done here is try to improve articles?
--Tothwolf (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I just realized your proposal won't work anyway. They are going to keep right on AfDing articles I edit or have previously edited just for harassment purposes and there will be absolutely nothing I can do about it. The only thing that might put a stop to it are specific topic bans of the type I mentioned earlier covering all 3 editors in that group. I'm currently wrapping some of my long term projects here right now as it looks like there is little point in me sticking around due to the ongoing harassment. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

How much time is allowed for preparing the material for the RFAR? My main concern was not with filing, but rather with preparation of the evidence as I have 100s upon 100s of links going back to earlier this year for some of the involved parties. For that fact, at least one of the involved parties has done similar things to other editors in the past as well. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You will have plenty of time to present evidence. It is best to select sample diffs that show the most egregious situations.

At the moment you do not need evidence. Your statement should explain whether you think a case would be helpful, why or why not, and what result you'd like to see. Avoid bickering with other editors at this stage.

If the committee decides to accept the case you have at least one week to present evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 18:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If the RFAR proceeds, will there be anyone to help prepare evidence? I have 100s upon 100s of links for diffs saved away. It may also be possible to take the table from that massive AN/I and update/expand it (perhaps even there, since that AN/I is on its own subpage vs being archived), but I'm not sure if that would help present the information in a more accessible format or not. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you ask an arbitration clerk for advice. That is one of their responsibilities. In general, you want to distill your evidence. You don't necessarily need to present every diff. You may want to present a sampling. The case will be accepted. Jehochman ^Talk 05:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It won't be possible to distill much of it as it shows overlaps and patterns between these 3 editors and myself. It simply involves a lot of diffs and there really isn't a way to avoid it. In many respects this is similar to the Eastern European mailing list case, but with a much smaller number of people directly involved. Again, I'm really over my limit with this, and I really need a direct referral. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

My Dear Mr Hochman,

I have recently had the most splendid idea, it occurred to me that you may care to be my running-mate in the forthcoming elections (I am quite elated by the very thought) Your duties would not be onerous, merely holding my handbag and parasol while I am kissing babies, shaking hands with common people and generally acknowledging the cheers of the multitude. I would of course ask my beloved husband, Henri, but he's still in a sulk at being re-christened Champ during my run for the Presidency of the USA. The result of which was very disappointing; I see poor Mrs. Pallin is still having problems with that family, but that's to be expected if one is so ill-advised as to call one's children Pingpong and suchlike. I shall of course be coming up with a ploy to appeal to the great American electorate (my beloved nephew has already announced he's a young dashing TV-like doctor and is waving a scalpel at anyone he thinks might vote for him) so it will have to be something pretty cunning, so I may take Holy Orders and join the Wasilla Assembly of God or some other form of obscure religion. I don't normally care for God in the provinces, the local people make far to much of him all that Halleluja-ing, handclapping and jigging about, but needs must. So the Lord be with you dear Mr Hochman. Praise the Lord. Hallelujah indeed! Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How can I refuse a noblespirit such as yourself? I shall run. Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As fast as possible away from scary lady, I presume. Vote for Bishzilla! bishzilla _ROARR!! 01:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC).

You meant...

Res ipsa loquitur in that last edit summary I think. MBisanz ^talk 21:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but I dropped out of law school. I'd get cited for using Latin without a license... Jehochman ^Talk 21:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

MonaVie Edit

Thank you for your input. I have already asked for an independent review of the MonaVie page. I originally reviewed the page as part of a proposed university project (post grad) which will look at government regulation of the MLM industry. I respectfully ask that you review the page for Amway (which has also been subject to much controversy) as a bench mark when writing about MonaVie. The MonaVie page does have a criticism sub-section (much the same as Amway) which is where criticism of the organization needs to be made. Ott jeff (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

I do not support you becoming an Arbcom member. That being said I wish you luck and good fortune in your endeavor. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your good wishes. Because of the nature of my activities, I do not anticipate being a very popular candidate. Nevertheless, there are benefits in me running.

1. Users who have grievances with me have a chance to ask questions and I get to answer them. There is a cathartic effect when people can ask tough questions in a public forum with high visibility.
2. I get a bunch of feedback I can use to improve.
3. I get to share ideas for making Wikipedia better.
4. Hopefully a number of users who are on the fence about running will decide to run. If Hochman can stand, so can I. Or they might think, Holy cow, Hochman might get elected, I should run against him. Either way Wikipedia benefits because more candidates make for a better campaign and election.
5. There is a small chance I might be elected. I enjoy doing different things, and serving on ArbCom would be a unique and memorable experience.

Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 01:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom cross-examination

Honestly, only one aspect of the situation leads me to question your judgment: you asked FT2 for advice? :P MastCell ^Talk 03:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am hopelessly optimistic about people. It may not come through in my wiki persona. In real life I am very friendly and optimistic and helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 04:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about your comments re RFC

Your comments User_talk:Dbachmann#RFC.2FUSER_discussion_concerning_you_.28Dbachmann.29 here were interesting to me; I haven't been involved in many RfCs before and this is the first I've initiated. After the RfC is certified does the subject get a say in whether it goes "active" and is there a particular role for an uninvolved admin in that determination? I thought once it was certified, I could just move it to the active list myself.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked him only as a courtesy, not as a necessity. If he happens to agree, then there is no dispute. If he disagrees and states a reason, we can discuss it on his talk page, rather than having "drama". Additionally, it would be nice for him to have a chance to post a response before others start posting their opinions. I was thinking of moving it to active myself as this might be less disputable than if an involved party did so. Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, just wondering, sounds reasonable. I won't do anything with it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Mainly I seek avoid creating rancor if I were to move this to active. If he agrees, that's a plus for everybody. There is no rush. The RfC will remain open for something like 30 days. Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom update

[8] I have requested an amendment to the case to reflect that I feel there is no longer a concern about any previous interaction between yourself and I. If I have presumed or overstepped in any statements, please notify me so I can make the appropriate changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

G'day J Hoch.

WikiVoicesArb09

A conversation with Jehochman

noicon

I noticed that you're brave / foolish enough to stick your hand up for the Arbcom this year - I'm planning on doing some short audio interviews with as many candidates as I can manage as part of the WikiVoices project, so am hoping that you might be interested in having a 15 / 20 minute chat at a moment of your convenience? - I'll be using Skype to make and record the conversation, and my ID is 'Privatemusings' - I can happily call you on a landline or cell / mobile, but perhaps you are also on Skype, and don't mind sharing your ID with me? - the slowish start to nominations might give me a bit of a head start this year, so if you're up for it, lets find a suitable time, and give it a go! - maybe the best next step is for you to indicate some times you might be able to be available, or ask any questions you might have? Hope you're good, and good luck! Privatemusings (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Brave and foolish. That's me. I sent you a Skype friend request. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

fantastic :-) - If you're still on in a couple of hours, I look forward to a quick chat - now must have swim, coffee, breakfast. Or maybe coffee, swim, coffee, breakfast, coffee - dunno what sort of day it is yet.... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've got you on skype - which claims you're all green - so look for me there if you're not in bed.... Privatemusings (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pinging you on skype at the mo :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit later tonight I should have time. A good interview needs 20 minutes without any interruptions. Jehochman ^Talk 22:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

< I'll get organised one of these days to actually propose a time before just hopping onto skype, but for what it's worth, I'm there now too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

and it's all online :-) - thanks heaps for your time, and I've popped it onto the candidate page too, and asked a monitor for their thoughts - I sound fuzzy 'n orrible, I'm afraid, but you're very clear (in sound quality at least ;-) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's 11pm here, and I've got a newborn. I picked a bad year to give up caffeine. Jehochman ^Talk 05:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Question at candidate page

Hey J, at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/Jehochman/Questions_for_the_candidate#Challenges_of_being_an_arbitrator I noticed that you mentioned WP:EEML in your answer, and I have asked a follow-up question (I hope its in the right place). It would be great if you could give us your opinion on that. For the record, I have every intention of supporting your quest to be thrown into the firing line of all irate editors. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 00:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry I missed this note and the question. It's now been answered. I made a copy and put it in its own section for better visibility. Jehochman ^Talk 21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

uContribs - request for scrutiny

Hi Jehochman, I'm running my uContribs program for AC candidates again this year. Last year you spotted a bug where it missed one of your Good Articles (congratulations btw for spotting that deliberate error I left in ;). I've made a few changes this year, mostly format-wise. Before I unleash any results, could I ask you to cast your baleful eye over User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Jehochman? Any errors you can spot, especially in data collation, please let me know. (Also you asked for a copy at one time, this go-round I'll actually give you a copy, soon as I think it's stable!)

Thanks! Franamax (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And don't bother spotting where I summarize the "% of total edits to this space" using the wrong recent/career denominator. I left that deliberate error in there for myself to spot! :) Franamax (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Troubles

Thank you or the link to that page the problem is this is about one Admin deciding that after over a year of the troubles sanctions being in force they suddenly apply to British National Party, but that party has nothing to do with the troubles its just a far right political party. Theres been a debate on the admins talk page User_talk:Elonka#Placing_British_National_Party_under_1RR where others have said they do not think it should have been treated in such a way and one editor posted the difs from the BNP talk page where the person was claiming about it being troubles related just because some of the same editors were there thats the only reason given.

That seems to me like a total incorrect classification of an article, especially when it results in warnings being placed suggesting edit warring. There are tons of outstanding requests for enforcement or clarification by the looks of it, that would take days to resolve via that method. This is one admin clearly applying Arbcoms rulings in an unreasonable way.

If the BNP must be listed as Troubles related just because it mentions their policy on Ireland then every single political party in the UK and Ireland probably needs adding as well.. there is just no logic to it. I had hoped that a debate would take place on the admins noticeboard and that an agreement would be reached, but my post was shut down and it placed in a archive box before the admin in question even had a chance to respond there. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no feelings on the substantive question of whether that article is covered or not. If you have a concern, you should get it answered! Simply place a brief statement of your concerns at WP:AE, and wait for some administrators to respond. If you don't get a decisive answer, you can appeal further to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests in the clarifications section. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 03:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fribbulus Xax's RfA

Thanks, Jehochman, for supporting me in my RFA. It passed unanimously. I am very grateful of your input – if you have any further comments, let me know! Fribbulus Xax (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK 13:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have begun to compile evidence here. I welcome you to respond or to help me craft how to present any of it. It is incomplete, but I am slowly pulling together sections. I would prefer if a group of people can help me put together evidence that is clear, shows an argument, and is presented neutrally. I believe that you can provide help toward this purpose. It is not for any debate or discussion perse, but for people to make very clear statements and they will be accepted. If others wish to take any of the evidence and present it themselves, then they can feel free. I wish only to put forth my situation as it is, and no one is able to accurately judge their own involvement in any matter so I am seeking opinions toward this end. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, that sounds very positive. I am in the midst of reviewing a big pile of materials related to a real life project. It may take some time for me to get to your page. Jehochman ^Talk 00:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a proposal "Jehochman and Ottava Rima" which (obviously..) mentions you. Could you please comment on it when you have time; a simple acknowledgment should suffice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Hang in there

Thanks, although I am confused: you hope that I'll stick around, but you are not sure if I shouldn't be banned? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You resigned, thereby acknowledging concerns and taking an affirmative step to reduce problems in the area. Why should you be banned? What is to be gained? I have made that point in my initial post, and even more clearly in my most recent post on that thread. Jehochman ^Talk 14:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'd appreciate your thoughts (particularly, in light of you running for a job that is all about making those decisions) about the appropriateness and scope of a topic ban (the current proposal would prevent me from working in an area where I created 20+ FAs, similar number of GAs and ~300 DYKs - all of which which were peer reviewed by the community and recognized as stable and neutral (a requirement for their mentioned status). I would also be prevented doing the wikignome work at WP:POLAND as described here. Instead, several members of the community proposed and support alternative, more surgical remedies such as voting (canvassing) ban that would not interfere with my uncontroversial content creation (i.e. 99.9% of my edits :D). What do you think would be the appropriate solution? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban proposal is wrong. I've been saying for as long as I can remember that we need to consider the quality of contributions when figuring out sanctions. You have a very high signal to noise ratio. You got into a mailing list that turned bad. This was a mistake you recognized. Jehochman ^Talk 17:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that. Could you mention this on the PD page? Perhaps some arbitrators would listen to you. PS. Here's an example of a gnomish edits I do for WP:POLAND that I may likely not be able to do during next year: [9]. The article popped up on two lists that AFAIK I am the only user monitoring... (Portal:Poland/New_article_announcements and User:Piotrus/List of Poles/Grodecki-Hoscki). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My comments are on the record. I just emailed diffs to a few members of the Committee to draw their attention. Jehochman ^Talk 17:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got confused now - what diffS? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom

Was very pleased to see your name in the signpost as one of the people running for ArbCom. I have come to see your calm demeanor and your excellent overall work here as an inspiration and something that I aspire to! You most definitely have my vote and I will gladly cast it when the time is right! Frmatt (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! Jehochman ^Talk 05:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Your actions are informed by a strong concept of the powers and limits of what administrators can accomplish to improve the editing environment, you understand that it is about purposes and process rather than black-and-white rules, you give editors an opportunity to improve their behavior, but act decisively when necessary, and you chart a thoughtful course through Wikipedia's more treacherous waters. Good qualities in an administrator or an arbitrator. —Finell 07:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. There are some people who have forgotten that the encyclopedia is for reading and writing articles. We need to remind them. Jehochman ^Talk 12:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

IP. 166.205.xxx.xxx

FWIW, I've drawn a 'line in the sand' with that anon. I'll continue to challenge him, until his IP range is blocked. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have found that it is often most productive to be excessively kind and polite to somebody who appears to be acting in bad faith. This may convince them that is it boring to pester you, and they might go do something else. Some people feed on negative reactions. I'll keep an eye out and try to help you as best I can. Jehochman ^Talk 01:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I shall try to control my frustrations. I'm gonna keep trucking forward, if only to spite the anon. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes! That's the spirit. Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Howdy Jehochman. The anon 166.205.xxx.xxx has returned. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Practical advice:

I hoped that the proceedings (and related stress) would be over by now. As it stands, I wonder if the new ArbCom won't have to finish the case :( In either case, enough people on Proposed Talk have expressed support for alternate remedies that I thought such opinions should be gathered in one thread, so that it would be easy for arbitrators (present and future) who do not follow Proposed Talk closely to see that there is a significant community support for such ideas. I will be also looking forward to your thoughts on which of those remedies are a good idea, and which are not (after all, you may need to make such a decision officially in a few months... :>). Whether community support for something actually influences the ArbCom, I don't know. Regarding constructive editing, I certainly intend to do so - I have had enough practice in this over the past 6 years or so :) Thanks for your kind advice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As you may now, all of your comments were removed from here. I am looking forward to seeing your comments on the issue I raised in the opening comment there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Objections were raised. It's now time to let the arbitrators finish up, and make the best of a tough situation. Jehochman ^Talk 16:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The reason I am asking about your opinion in particular is because you are running for ArbCom yourself - and you already had the time to become somewhat familiar with this case. So, I am curious: if you were a running arbitrator, which of the current official and proposed on talk alternate remedies would you support? Think of it as a practical test add-on to my "questions to arbcom candidates" :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not speculate on a live case. Jehochman ^Talk 19:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf's user subpages

User pages do not belong in mainspace categories. Since you are friendly to him, you can make the edit. He's reverted everyone else. Wikipedia:BADCATS#User_pages. Miami33139 (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of dispute de-escalation, I suggest you point out any such problems to a third party editor, and let them deal with it. You could post at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks to get help. As a party to the case, I'd rather not do it myself. Jehochman ^Talk 22:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cf. User talk:Blaxthos#mainspace categories on a user's page and User talk:Blaxthos#Leave me alone. I want all 4 of these editors (Theserialcomma, Miami33139, JBsupreme, and Blaxthos) to leave me alone. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Broken Signature

Hello! Thanks for the heads-up, but I actually fixed it awhile ago. But for future times, don't hesitate to leave me a message. Thanks! --Addihockey10^{(review me!)} 04:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[Jehochman reaches for the Brussels sprouts] Thank you very much. I hope you had a pleasant holiday. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

An answer

More like... a hamster that is a sandwich. In panis, veritas! Best regards, and good luck in the upcoming election. (Even though you're a "Yalie," I'll probably lend you my support anyway!) Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I just noticed the Strunk and White quote above, I'm compelled to omit "Probably" from the preceeding post. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What a friendly hamster! Thankfully yours, Jehochman ^Talk 15:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edit at your case request

Was this supposed to do something other than add a header? Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe my intent, and the committee's, is clear: there's not going to be a case. I'd very much like to drop the matter, as I've stated several times, and am hopeful that the other parties will drop it as well. Thank you for asking what I meant. I am not exactly sure of the best way to deal with the residual content. I sought to minimize the risk of further disruption to the community by collapsing the discussion and placing a header on it. It was my request, and I hope nobody is offended by my taking small liberties with it. Perhaps you could speedy archive or remove the request. I'll leave the final disposition up to you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Black Hole

I wanted to wish you the best in your efforts to bring that article to FA status. I'm sadly unqualified to assist; mostly I just monitor for vandalism and the occasional chuckle about things that turn up on the talkpage  : ) Doc Tropics 20:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Some articles attract more than their fair share of unconventional views. Hopefully none of them will try to disrupt the work. Thank you for keeping an eye out. In a while I'm going to do some pretty brutal reorganizing and pruning. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That messy thing

Excuse my commenting on this, but this re-opening of the resolved mess by erasing the "resolved"s is not a good idea. It is not my place to undo that, but someone ought to (or do something more fitting) ... Someone whose voice will not be questioned. (No reply necessary.) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It will be simpler to just not post anything else to that thread. It can end naturally. I am not going to block anybody over an unretracted personal attack of the form "you did X wrong", where clearly X is false and everybody sensible knows it. If the accusations appear on other fora and continue to be repeated, then maybe, but not yet. The person making the accusations is damaging their own reputation, but causing no harm to Cirt. Jehochman ^Talk 03:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciate your response/insight. The "wave dynamics" seemed not to be trending toward "damping," but will trust your experienced eyes/gut. Oh and, happy holidays. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. I've sprayed some flame-retardant foam on the thread. Hopefully that will be the end of it. Jehochman ^Talk 04:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jehochman, I appreciate your input and sound judgment in this matter. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Jehochman ^Talk 04:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I agree with the summary you made in your closing of the thread as resolved and archiving it. But Redheylin (talk · contribs) has yet to retract anything or state that he will refrain from his inappropriate behavior of attacks in the forms of unsupported claims against other editors in the future. How can this be remedied? Also, will you monitor the thread to make sure it stays archived as is this time? :P Thanks again, Cirt (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I will watch. I assume Redheylin will take the good advice that's been given, or else we'll deal with any failures when they happen. Jehochman ^Talk 04:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give Redheylin (talk · contribs) a warning at his talk page similar to the one left in the "resolved" close of the thread? Or is that redundant and not necessary? Cirt (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Redundant, and possibly unhelpful. He's already been warned by GWH, two or three times. Piling on may only make him feel cornered and he might behave worse rather than better. Jehochman ^Talk 04:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, agreed, that sounds reasonable. A side note, Redheylin (talk · contribs) has placed tags at the top of articles I subsequently improved, North Carolina v. Alford and Alford plea. A third-party editor stated the tags should be removed [10]. And then we have the comment about the quality of my research and sourcing by Brumski [11]. Can those tags be removed? Cirt (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not for me to decide content matters. Go to the appropriate noticeboard and ask uninvolved editors to help form a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 04:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good idea. Cirt (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, please see [12]. Recent comments by Redheylin (talk · contribs), after your close of the ANI thread, seem to go against the warning you had left at the top of the "resolved" portion of the ANI thread. User continues to make unsupported attacks. What to do about this? Cirt (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

New, but related issue: At article Rajneesh movement, Redheylin (talk · contribs) introduced WP:WEASEL wording [13] and then completely unsourced material [14]. So apparently, Redheylin (talk · contribs) feels he can make unsupported claims about editors, and also add unsourced material to controversial articles? Cirt (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreso concerned however with that former issue. Cirt (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You could start an RfC on them. I don't see much chance of a long term block or ban until we develop a consensus that they are more trouble than their contributions are work. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: Jehochman, he is still making unsupported attacks, eg, [15]. Can you take some sort of action here? The user has already received numerous "final warnings" about this from other admins. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, can you start a discussion at WP:ANI, leaving diffs and especially diffs of the warnings. I'll check on it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Can you have a look? Cirt (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of another very hot dispute (that appeared to have been resolved, but just exploded). I will definitely look, but I might not act until the other dispute is resolved, or until we get some input from uninvolved parties. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As you wish... :( Cirt (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Even I can only handle so much drama at a time. Jehochman ^Talk 15:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If only you had worked in "inconceivable" into your response. Shame on you, Jehochman. xD --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that word means what you think it means. Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You've made my day. xeno's a Star Trek fan, you like The Princess Bride... I like this site's admins. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A Note

You will already be aware of my views about Die4Dixie's comments towards you today. I just wanted to reiterate my abhorence of his appalling calumny against you (and Slrubenstein) and share with you my view that no editor should ever be the target of such hatefulness. I might add that I am greatly saddened by those who would attempt to rationalise what he has done. My best regards, Crafty (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The sheer number of apologists is appalling. Maybe things will get better when people wake up in a few hours. Jehochman ^Talk 08:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I earnestly hope so. Crafty (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

When a disruptive editor is confronted, their friends are often the first to respond. In time, the thread achieves a sensible balance. Jehochman ^Talk 08:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that and I'm certain commonsense will prevail as more reasonable editors read the thread and share their views. That said you have conducted yourself with commendable restraint under these trying circumstances. A most creditable performance in the finest traditions of WP administrators. :) Crafty (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this page is reserved for criticism only. ;D Jehochman ^Talk 08:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I just chimed in; I'm on that damn page today, anyway. Really, there's nothing but trouble with this 'anyone editing'. This is what 50kg banhammers are for. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Some people get an unfair deal, but this guy seems to have been given more than enough chances to shape up, and he has no apparent intention of doing so. Jehochman ^Talk 08:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I considered your original 1 week block appropriate but lenient given the history. After reviewing the editor's contrib history I would fully support a community ban. When I sat down at the computer with my first cup of coffee and logged in to WP, I was hoping to find something that would make me smile; y'know, one of those amusing comments left at Evolution or Black hole. Needless to say, I'm not amused. Doc Tropics 16:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry this spoiled your morning. I think we need to draw a line in the sand that attacking other editors based on race, religion or ethnicity is out of bounds; the same as making a legal threat. Block until the remark is retracted. Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that idea in general, and would even expand it to include nationality, gender, and sexual orientation. However, any policy that touches on "motive" would require very careful wording. Once the current issues have been resolved I think it would be a very useful to initiate a community discussion. Good luck, Doc Tropics 17:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Werwalt´s talk.

You have a message there.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've replied there. Jehochman ^Talk 04:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn´t watching his page. See you there.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain?

Would you care to explain why you collapsed the subthread at ANI calling it a "tangent"? I'm interested in your reasoning.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a disruptive, retaliatory tangent that did not have a proper basis. That thread has been horribly disrupted, and I predict that the matter will end up at ArbCom, and several parties may be sanctioned as a result. Jehochman ^Talk 04:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cut down on unwanted drama.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If there are issues with an administrator, those should first be discussed with the admin directly. Then find a neutral party to provide a third opinion. If that fails, consider starting an admin conduct RfC. Jehochman ^Talk 04:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

High ethics and integrity

A propos of [16]. Jehochman, FT2 possesses high ethics and integrity, but you have to realise he needs a clear desk and a more appropriate venue before adding more explanation of the difference between October and August. Bishzilla has asked me to remind you that any explanation by FT2 of the timing of your action needs to fit round his work and others' work, real life, and other historic matters, and to coincide with a family season, a new arbcom season and the start of the working year. He could also need to check various large archives, with review item by item where a search cannot be specified, to ensure accuracy, and to ensure the balancing of that with a few overriding issues, if applicable, such as privacy of users, WMF requirements, ability to cite emails and getting permission if needed, and so on. Since he doesn't have the necessary detailed information about the difference between October and August, he can't change it with any precision, so he's overall going to let it stand. Don't fuss, now. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC).

Wikivoice interview

I removed several Wikivoice interviews from candidate statement pages because they do not appear to be neutral and they were not added by the candidates themselves. However your interview seems more neutral and you have added it to your own user page so I assume you approve of it.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy to leave it. Jehochman ^Talk 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman - me again. While I admit to having some issues with some of your edits on WP, I did listen to your interview. I strongly suspect that we could be great friends IRL. I thank you for taking the time to do the interview, it did allow me to feel that I got to "know you a little better". I wish you the very best in the real world, and offer enjoyable holiday wishes for you and your family. Hugs and kisses to that new little addition to the family. All my best, Ched. — Ched :  ?  21:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ched, thank you for your kind remarks. Disagreeing is not a fault. I've never thought of you as a bad guy ([17]), and I hope you enjoy your holidays too. We've got a lot of wrapping and decorating to do. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking the bull by the horns

Other than citing the diff as rationale for changing from support to strong support, what do you suggest I do with this post? /me resists urge to call you "Cowboy" or employ compound noun formations of "bull" Durova³⁷¹ 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged, ma'am. [Tips his 10 gallon hat] You may keep it forever and ever. Yee ha! Now I gotta go find me a bull to ride. Jehochman ^Talk 00:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(sotto voce) With bad guys and 10 gallon hats ... sounds like a Western. :-) Perhaps a Wikipedia musical. (Gallops away humming.) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy trails to you 'til we meet again. Durova³⁷¹ 00:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy ?

which wiki policy states that citations are not required in lead section ? WillMall (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

When the lede summarizes material in the body that is cited, there is no need to place redundant citations in the lede. Jehochman ^Talk 14:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

... and for the fine print see WP:LEADCITE. Hans Adler 16:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock of Tancarville/Mobile Historian

Just FYI, it looks like our friend is back at it with User:Nemesis029, a new account whose edits to date involve vandalism and edit warring on the Maltese nobility article [18][19][20][21] and tinkering with my user page [22].  RGTraynor  20:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Account sharing

This is regarding Kils (talk · contribs · count) (who was mentioned in a recent ANI thread you commented on). Thought I'd let someone else review this and weight in, but isn't this and this evidence of account sharing and as such forbidden? Or is it allowed under some circumstances? Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the account. Sharing an account is strictly disallowed. Jehochman ^Talk 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, can I have person X banned for a while? K, thx.

No, really, what was going through your head for those three minutes you took to consider indefinitely blocking a six-year contributor to wikipedia because of an unproven allegation? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so hasty to assume bad faith. You should look into an issue before jumping to conclusions.

1. The user was discussed at WP:ANI yesterday (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive583#Evidence of bribery for favorable user statements & related AfD). I already reviewed the matter and commented in defense of the user: I don't see the bribery at all. Could you lay it out plainly, or else strike that portion of the report? I was up to speed before Ohnoitsjamie posted here.
2. The diffs above show the account being used by multiple persons. This is strictly forbidden by WP:NOSHARE: Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Jehochman ^Talk 14:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not assume bad faith, I investigated your actions and found them negligent. As mentioned in the log, I took time to review the relevant afds, talk pages, and an/i threads. Please do not lecture me on policy, I never claimed that account sharing is allowed or that role accounts should be tolerated. Your actions were far too hasty and you did not take the time to properly investigate the accusations before blocking this user - it's as simple as that. It is ridiculous to claim that a six-year-old account with a featured article to its name is a role account, it is equally ridiculous to claim that the alleged account sharing over the past few years is a time-critical emergency that has to be settled with a block. The fact that you were already involved in the issue, by advocating in a prior AN/I thread, means that you were part of the dispute and should not have been the blocking admin.

It is disappointing to see that an admin can be played into blocking an account by a user involved in an ongoing grudge against the accused. You did not take the time to ask Kils about the accusations, you did not consult another admin or arbcom member when presented with serious charges against a user in good standing. This is negligent.

And I should be "ashamed"? For what exactly, disagreeing with you? By the way, thanks for the notification of the an/i thread that you "closed" before I even had a chance to comment. I also love the passive-aggressiveness of "all in all, a lot more grief for the user than if people had told them firmly that they needed to follow policy, and then fully unblocked them when they agreed to do so." Am I the "people" you speak of? Did I do anything to encourage this user to break policy? Why, what bad faith of me!

We're both admins, we've both been wrong before and we've both taken criticism in interpretation and enforcement of policy. I may have been overly harsh, but it was reason that led to my unblock, not emotion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you post a sarcastic comment here instead of calmly explaining your concerns? Why did you repeat the "three minute" remark at WP:ANI when I already told you that was not true? If you want me to assume good faith of you, please go strike your pleasure. I'm nearly a five year tenured editor with two featured article credits. You're treating me like a worthless person to be insulted at your pleasure. User:OhNoitsJamie is an administrator who has proven quite reliable in my experience. You're stating bad things about them, without any sort of evidence. Take a look at what you're doing and try to do better. Jehochman ^Talk 01:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The three minute remark is true, it took you three minutes from being informed of the offense to deciding on a block. That implies a near-instantaneous judgment. My comment was sarcastic because I was shocked by your actions and I tend to be a sarcastic bastard. It's ironic that you bring up your record, which I'm pretty sure I did not comment upon, as a defense after you blocked an editor with equal tenure. Do you think perhaps that being blocked in such a matter would make him feel like a worthless person?

Feel free to criticize my actions, I don't mind, but don't use that criticism to dismiss your own mistake. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• (Aside/humming along) Perhaps a song about the bar fight for the Wikipedia Western holiday musical review. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • • [Jehochman (aka Bullrider) accidentally smashes a chair over Proofreader77's head why taking an excessively long wind up to swing at Anetode.]
  • With that cue, I'd like to propose cutting my arbcom election commentary to "I am not sure that Jehochman would be able to recognize when he is being baited or when an accusation of breach of policy is made in a bad faith attempt to gain advantage over another editor. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)" I hope that this redacted version will satisfy your concerns. If not, please revert. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you extremely much. If you don't mind, can we remove our follow up comments to the talk page, or get rid of them altogether? Jehochman ^Talk 02:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Yup, that's enough stress for one weekend. Cheers ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
        • You're a good person, I can see. Only a good person would call themselves a sarcastic bastard! Yes, I see your point that the issue could have been discussed with the user rather than blocking. In the past we've always blocked role accounts on the spot because they are a violation of Wikipedia's free content license. We're required to attribute each contribution to somebody, not to a group of somebodies (as I understand it). Perhaps it would be a good idea to clarify policy so that we're all consistent (more or less) in our actions. To warn or to block, that is the question. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Signpost?

Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I was right

Hi, this came up on my watchlist. I reverted it as it was unnecessary and a personal attack. Was it right of me to remove this? I have not commented to the editor who I reverted. Thanks for any advice you have. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Even banned users should be treated with civility. Failure to do so may energize them to be more disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Why didn't you notify me about your unfounded accusations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Die4Dixie? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Because your input was not needed. Per the instructions at WP:SPI, Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection. Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very civil way to handle the matter, considering that I'm an editor in good standing, and that you had no evidence for your assertion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For better or for worse, you were caught socking previously as User:Uga Man. This tends to bring suspicion on you when you defend disruptive editors who also look like they might be socks because of username similarities (i.e. User:Die4Dixie and User:Confederate till Death). I struck your name off the SPI report once we discovered that those two were most likely not related. It is my perogative to file an SPI report, to name whomever I think might be relevant, and to notify or not notify as I see fit. As for civility, Die4Dixie was making anti-semitic slurs and you were repeatedly minimized or excusing them.[23][24][25] You're in no position to deliver lectures on civility. I am not interested to spend further time arguing with you. We are not going to come to any agreement, and no further action is required by either of us. Jehochman ^Talk 19:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you did a little research you would find that I have never socked. I am not "Uga Man" as has been explained numerous times. You have bigger fish to fry then continuing a personal grudge with editors who disagreed with you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a personal grudge. When an editor places an anti-semitic, racist, of similar sort of out-of-bounds attack against me or any other editor, I will make sure they are banned until they retract the attack and undertake never to repeat. As for your block log, if that sock puppetry block reason is not accurate, you should ask User:Tiptoety to set the record straight. As for you and me, I have no conflict with you, other than that you appear to be pursuing a vendetta on behalf of Die4Dixie. That's not a smart thing to do. Jehochman ^Talk 20:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic, I defended the user one time in order to prevent the drama that you caused. Why don't you look at the first comment after Jayron closed the post the first time. And I am upset, not because of Die4Dixie but because of your baseless claims. There was no reason to include me on the report and to top it off by not notifying me. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the logic that defense of a user should necessarily validate suspicions of their being in cahoots really needs to stop. It smacks of real old-time witch-hunts, and could be seen as a tactic (whether intentional or not) to discourage defense of unpopular users. "Ah, you defend him, maybe we should be investigating you too, eh?" This is not a good thing. If there's no evidence other than having defended the user, then there is no evidence. Equazcion (talk) 21:16, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense as a general statement. However, there aren't so many users here who operate openly outside the boundaries of civilised society. If one outs themselves and another comes to their help then that's enough for an initial suspicion. Hans Adler 22:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. We don't mark everyone who ever did something wrong as likely suspects. That's not how it works here, or in any free society. People who have made mistakes are allowed to speak their minds even with unpopular opinions, without fear of being suspected of something just because. Equazcion (talk) 22:51, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Correction, you weren't even talking about past mistakes. You were suggesting the mere defense of an unpopular individual warrants suspicion. That's plain nonsense. If that view were upheld then everyone would be paralyzed from speaking their minds for fear of being suspected of something, should their opinion turn out to be a minority one. The minority is allowed to speak without being suspected of wrongdoing. What you're suggesting is something characteristic of totalitarianism. That's not Wikipedia. Equazcion (talk) 22:57, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is WP:DUCK. Hans Adler 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

DUCK is subjective. You're offering your views on the threshold of DUCK, and I'm telling you that those views are not accepted as general practice on Wikipedia. The defense of an unpopular individual doesn't even look suspicious. Only to you (and possibly a few select others who have it backwards as well). Equazcion (talk) 23:10, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Defending the user in that situation was way beyond the pale for someone who (I am relying here on what others said without contradiction) has outed themselves as a racist in the past. That's enough reason for an initial suspicion. Jehochman didn't block anyone per DUCK, so obviously this was only a reference to the general principle, which clearly has the support of the community. Hans Adler 23:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Saturn contradicted it in this thread, and "outed" would not be an entirely appropriate way of referring to the actions of a sock puppet anyway. Hans Adler 07:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Defending the user in question was beyond the pale in your mind because you so staunchly believed that the evidence against him was incontrovertible. The contrary opinion was just as valid, despite the lack of any doubt in your mind. For the purposes of my exchange with you now I'm not talking about Jehochman's reasons, since as you say he was acting on more than DUCK. You on the other hand have said that the defense of the individual was alone enough to warrant suspicion, which is what I'm saying is nonsense. No matter how sure you are that an individual is guilty, and no matter how many people agree with you, that's not enough to suspect the people on the other side of wrongdoing. As far as Jehochman's rationale, he was acting on the user's past infractions as well, which is slightly more reasonable, but only slightly; people who have done things wrong in the past aren't marked for eternity as likely suspects. Equazcion (talk) 23:31, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)

It seems you have missed "for someone who [...] has outed themselves as a racist in the past". That was of course part of the duck test. Hans Adler 23:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

...and again, you believe the evidence that the individual has outed himself as a racist in the past is incontrovertible. Others are allowed to disagree with you, despite how sure you are, and without being suspected of anything. Your call is not the end-all decision by which all other opinions are judged. Equazcion (talk) 23:49, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about Saturn, who I am not personally familiar with (which motivated the disclaimer). Die4Dixie is almost certainly either a racist troll or a kid under bad influence. (I went through much of that user's edit history and saw some things that I didn't mention in the ANI.) For the purposes of an initial suspicion it was OK to assume the first. Hans Adler 23:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I now see that Saturn denies the Uga Man connection. This was not at all clear from the ANI thread, where the accusation (which was based on Saturn's block log) stayed uncontradicted. Saturn rightly complained on my talk page, and I have apologised for my mistake. My main argument remains basically unaffected unless Jehochman knew at the time of opening the SPI that there is reason to doubt the Uga Man connection. Hans Adler 07:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils

I would welcome your input in this SPI. Checkuser has come back with a positive match for all of these accounts, and I believe the behavioral evidence is strong enough to mark them as sockpuppets. The sockpuppets have been blocked accordingly, but I wondered what you think should be done about the sockmaster. NW (Talk) 22:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Insinuation

I think I just realized what you thought I was doing: that my example phrase was meant to be directed at you. I just wanted to let you know that although we disagree on many things, I would never be so petty over mere disagreement. It takes a lot for me to hold a grudge against someone enough that I'd allow it to influence my dealings with them across separate discussions, let alone take cheap shots. We're far from that point, at least from my perspective. There are some users with whom I have struggled to maintain my composure, but they are people who take delight in provocation. You and I just disagree, and in my mind there's no reason two people who disagree can't argue civilly. Equazcion (talk) 07:34, 7 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Big smile. You spotted my deadpan humor. No worries. Jehochman ^Talk 11:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Kils restrictions

See this and feel free to reply there, here or anywhere (or archive the ANI thread again). I'm not too concerned really, just wondered if it'd be appropriate to document it. NJA (t/c) 14:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have strong feelings either way, so I'll watch from the sidelines. Jehochman ^Talk 14:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[26] = He is still denying these were sockpuppets. What to do? Cirt (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: And now, canvassing, with [27], [28], [29], [30]. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an unsophisticated (wikiwise) user who needs help to comply, rather than confrontation. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm, the account has been around since 2003, not counting the other sock accounts... What is to be done about the canvassing? Cirt (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Gave the user the standard canvassing notice, and placed a notice at the AFD page. This seems like an attempt at an end-run around your restrictions. Cirt (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Bah, I'm sorry. This header was hidden up here already? Err, well for booking purposes I linked a bunch of things and even more concerns about the user and colleagues than before down below, and Cirt entirely showed me up on speed since I went into more detail. Also, if you want to get really technical, the new string of user talk canvassing was started after I suggested another read of the restrictions placed and a reply given to that posting, so that would mean he's consciously ignoring them (at best). This is so frustrating since all he had to do to end this was probably just let the AfD re-complete itself. Good luck, and for what it's worth I do completely agree that confrontation would feel incredibly empty and sad after going through all of this to have him unblocked and his autobiography article evaluated fairly. Good luck. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

I'll help out with a copyedit, but I don't have the sources, such as the definitive "At Dawn we Slept", required to fix that article the way it needs, and deserves, to be fixed. Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting that reference. Let me see if I can get hold of a copy. I just finished reading Thunder Below by Eugene B. Fluckey. Jehochman ^Talk 02:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I need to read Thunder Below sometime, as I've been told that it's arguably the best of the first-hand submarine accounts from the war. Cla68 (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'll help you with copy-editing too, if you like. Anything to keep my mind off the election will be a good thing. AGK 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What election? Jehochman ^Talk 14:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not. AGK 02:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
      • When there is any doubt about my remarks, assume sarcasm. Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Führer der Wikipedia!

You'll love this; User:7107delicious's new sig:

• User talk:7107delicious#I am getting bored of my old signature!^oldid

Cheers, Jack Merridew — Sockenpuppe der Wikipedia! — 08:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

From the past

Prompted by Mathsci's question, I've just re-found Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Statement by Jehochman. Do you care to add, or subtract, anything from that, based on subsequent events? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to suggest something? If you are, I am not sure what it is. Please speak plainly on this page. Jehochman ^Talk 23:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You should interpret the question literally. I will interpret your answer, or lack thereof, in the same way William M. Connolley (talk)

ZOMG. There's another vote that I need to change. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If I could interject, William, I think Jehochman can sense, as everyone else can, that you're attempting to make a point. He's asking that you spell it out, rather than make vague angry challenges, before he addresses you. You can't expect anyone to feel the need to respond to a question when they don't necessarily know what your actual concern is. Equazcion (talk) 23:47, 8 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I can convince you that I'm not trying to make a point, but I'll try: were I trying to make a point, I'd be putting this on the candidates arbcomm pages (as several pointy people have in my case). Given that I don't have a point, I can't spell it out. I don't see an angry challenge here, and if you're reading it that way, please don't. As I said, please read the question literally. I doin't understand your You can't expect anyone to feel the need to respond to a question when they don't necessarily know what your actual concern is - you appear to be suggesting the JEH needs some kind of prompting towards what a "correct" answer might be. OTOH, if you (or he) find the question at all unclear or ambiguous, I will be happy to try to clarify William M. Connolley (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If I misjudged your tone I apologize. Still though, your question is vague, and frankly not worthy of a thoughtful reply. Just because someone is a candidate doesn't mean you can present them with any past comment and expect them to tell you how they might change it. If you have a specific concern I'm sure Jehochman would address it, but a general "any comments on this", unless the concern is overtly self-evident, isn't reasonable. Equazcion (talk) 00:08, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know if this is what Equazcion meant, but to me your question to Jehochman sounded very similar to: "Please read my mind and do what I want you to do. If you don't guess correctly I will be angry." You know, the game that some people (reputedly mostly women) play with their partners. Apologies if I am totally of, but that's the association I immediately got in my mind. Hans Adler 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically yes, that is what it sounds like. Even without making that assumption, though, expecting someone to take the time to consider something when they don't know why they're doing it isn't fair. If you want someone's thoughts, tell them what specific concern prompted your question. It's common courtesy. Equazcion (talk) 00:20, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

It is a question. It is to be taken literally (do I really need to say that again?). I don't know why you're projecting weird games onto the question, nor is it especially clear why you feel the need to defend JEH from my ferocious attack. Would it be acceptable to you two to step back and permit JEH to answer? William M. Connolley (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The speculations have arisen because you have started a free association game that seems to puzzle everybody but yourself. Don't complain if others play that game and do freely associate on the scarce material that you have given them. Jehochman has already made it clear that he doesn't understand what you are driving at, and I think he is big enough to clean up his talk page and respond, if that's what he wants to do. Here is another speculation: Perhaps Jehochman's not understanding you is related to the fact that he doesn't have a binary world view. Hans Adler 08:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman is permitted to answer whenever he wants. I'm not preventing that. I can still ask you a question in the meantime, though. What specific concern prompted your question? You must have some concern, otherwise why ask? Equazcion (talk) 00:37, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Here's a clue ATren (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really help. Again the presence of a concern is evident, but what that concern is, is not. Equazcion (talk) 01:02, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

No, that dress does not make you look fat. You look wonderful. Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That is hilarious! It took me a minute to get it, but then I laughed out loud. :-D ATren (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes that was a clever line by Jehochman (inverting the traditional gender stereotype on this matter would have been better, but perhaps too clever), even though it may have partially contributed to losing William's vote. "Didn't answer my vague and rather odd question (which I refused to clarify) in the right way, therefore voting against" (I might be paraphrasing there, possibly) is an amusingly petty rationale though, so I wouldn't worry about it much.

I would say however that there has been too much of Arb candidates mixing it up with one another during this election, and that kind of thing (even when it seems to occur by happenstance) does not tend to do anyone involved credit. I've noticed several candidates in tiffs with other candidates, and now that I think about it I did not vote for any of them. It might be good advice for future ArbCom candidates to avoid their "opponents" (for lack of a better word) like the plague while the nomination and election processes are running. Spats with fellow candidates just don't look good, even if one is trying to address legitimate issues. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

On to happier, more manly topics. Yesterday I found a barbershop in downtown Hartford that keeps a chilled keg of beer in the waiting area, providing free brews while you wait! That will definitely improve my tonsorial standards, if not my figure. Jehochman ^Talk 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I used to get my hair cut at a place that had beer on tap and a pool table for customers' use while they were waiting. Of course, the haircut itself was obscenely expensive, like almost John Edwards territory - but the beer and pool were free. MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking to get a little bit toasted and are not in dire need of a haircut, the smart move at these sort of establishments would be to say to those who arrived after you, "No, really, you go ahead" and then quietly sneak out once you've had your fill of hoppy goodness. Of course that rather goes against the spirit of the thing, and probably they won't let you back in again...unless you come back in disguise! If you actually get to that point though you likely would need to consider whether you should be drinking at all.

Also this makes me wonder—why doesn't anyone, at least to my knowledge, ever set up licensed barber shops in the backrooms of bars and pubs? Some kind of zoning problem, or rules set up by OSHA and its counterparts outside the U.S.? Because combining those two businesses makes a great deal of sense to me, though it could admittedly lead to some bad decisions ("A mohawk? I should not have gotten my haircut after that seventh beer..."). No doubt the names of these establishments would be rather too obvious ("BARbers", "Bar-bers-shoppe," "Get Drunk and Then Get Your Hair Cut, Or Vice Versa," etc.) but still as far as idears go I think this is a winner. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Update. Apparently there's something kinda like this, but it's quite upscale. I'd be interested in a place with a more working class vibe, and where the haircut frankly isn't even that good. Would attract a better crowd. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kils -- Sad to report a possible violation of restrictions. Already.

I was hoping this would have just ended, finally, but based on User:Kils/Restriction that went through the normal process of arranging and agreement to unblock under condition of, I seem to see the restriction on he, his student or colleges having absolutely anything to do with articles, discussions or XfDs (short of BLP content violations).

Per #4, I have to give the following-- [31] [32] [33] [34] [35], done entirely in the open and in order on his contributions page. Even worse are [36] [37] [38], which would seem to be solicitations to retired or essentially retired users. I was really hoping they would never fit into this, because there was a lot of dubious edits in the past from User:Tannin in particular regarding outing of users with CU data that was never restricted, but it's only a few user talk page history clicks away to get up to the current student/secretary/whatevers user list. Instead of just realizing that the re-renomination of his autobiographical article was going to end with a 'Keep' or no consensus at worst with some calls to close it, it seems we WP:BEANS'd the user him into diving even deeper in to a web of... whatever he has. I had been researching the SPAs as possible socks while the actual SPI was posted, but I'd been working from past to present and found those new contacts farther down. ... Sorry to trouble you on this, but I hadn't seen it posted elsewhere by anyone and NW was directing persons to contact you. Thanks... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems I tried to sign this too early. It's just turned into endless canvassing/blanketing or whatever form of covering large areas you want to call it from after a look at Special:Contributions/Kils -- [39] [40] [41] [42] ...Well okay, I won't list the others (many).

...Cheers(?)~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, okay that bit of canvassing most recently appears to be after I warned him against canvassing on his talk page. Cirt (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We should wait until the user is no longer hopping mad before sanctioning them again. The point is to see if they can calm down and be productive. Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Brews

Thanks for you comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Brews ohare restriction review. I'm not sure if you noticed what actually started the issue: It was Brews himself who added the Computational physics category to the Multigrid method article in the course of editing it. Before that, it was only assigned to math categories. I believe that the category assignment is the only reason that Tznkai saw Brews's editing that article as a topic ban violation. It is a head-scratcher.—Finell 07:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for closing it.—Finell 19:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions

Hi Jehochman. Per this discussion, it doesn't seem appropriate to have Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Administrators. I can appreciate why you may have imposed the sanction, so I'd probably suggest you start a discussion at WP:AN to get a community consensus for the sanction. But if you don't want to proceed with that, then it's likely that the entire entry will be removed from the page. Please think about it and see what you want to do. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

1. You should contact an editor directly before reporting them to ANI.
2. When you start an ANI thread about somebody, you should notify them immediately.
3. The discussion has not reached a consensus yet. The discussion begins after I present my side of the story.

Your actions are creating needless strife, and causing volunteers to waste time. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello JEH. I've commented on the matter at User talk:Ncmvocalist#Sanctions that are imposed by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, please assume good faith, and improve your reading and comprehension. Firstly, if I was reporting you, your name would be in big writing at the top of the thread and I would have no reluctance in presenting the pattern in which you conduct yourself - I neither need your permission nor invitation to do so, and I'm pretty sure it is common knowledge that I will not be intimidated to that effect by anyone either. Secondly, this thread was at AN and was not about somebody - it was about procedure and the best way to clarify policy, guidelines, and practice. It was at the point that the discussion seemed to suggest that it was your actions that were in question that I left you this message which also acted as a notification. Finally, the discussion that needs to reach a consensus is at Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions - not a mere discussion at WP:AN. If anything, it is your actions and responses that are creating needless strife. I'm sorry you cannot appreciate the idea that Wikipedia can and should, where possible, maintain its policies and guidelines so that they remain in step with practice so newer users do not become overwhelmed and confused. However, your unwillingness or inability to acknowledge this idea does not summarily mean it is a waste of time. If it can lead to fewer less-than-ideal situations arising in the future such as those that end up as arbitration cases (you know, the ones you are a candidate to help decide), then all the better. If anything, your comments so far suggest that you don't want me to give you the benefit of the doubt in the future, in which case, I've gotten your message very clearly - thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are an experienced enough editor to know that you should (1) contact me before posting to ANI so that I can give you details you might not know, and (2) notify me when posting to ANI. I stopped reading your remarks after the first sentence. Don't chide me about AGF when you are not even showing me basic courtesy. Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And you think you're fit to be an arbitrator with such an approach, huh? I've lost any confidence I had in you until now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please start from the beginning. Why didn't you notify me when starting that thread? Why didn't you contact me first. I've put these concerns on the table. Address them, and then we can talk about your concerns, in order. Jehochman ^Talk 17:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself because you are unwilling to read the second, third and forth sentences of my response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist: I think Jehochman is reacting like this because while you say you came here to notify him about a discussion once it started to involve him, he rightly is viewing the discussion as having involved him to begin with. You were calling into question a section of the page that he created and that only contained an entry from him. Even if the section contained listings from 3 administrators, it still would've been wise to contact them all so they could participate in a discussion that basically comes down to questioning their actions. Also, your original post here is basically telling him to do something and offering a warning as a result of that discussion, rather than simply letting him know about the discussion or asking for him to participate in it. Sorry to interject again. I'll try not to make it a habit. Equazcion (talk) 18:45, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better on all sides if people were more proactive about bringing fellow community members into discussions and decision-making. That seems to be the problem on all sides, and it's a shame to see good contributors getting upset with each other over something that's so easy to avoid. Durova³⁷⁹ 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

When three or four administrators and a checkuser get together at WP:SPI to work out a sockpuppetry problem that is a healthy amount of input. We are instructed to go about our work with a minimum amount of fuss. If there is a concern about something I posted at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, step one is to ask me about it. Step two is to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. The people interested in that page are watching; they may miss a discussion at [{WP:AN]]. Step three would be to solicit opinions at WP:AN if the prior two steps were insufficient. To avoid needless disagreements premature recourse to WP:ANI and WP:AN should be avoided. Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist seems to have seen your post as an example of a larger issue, so I can understand going straight to a public discussion. In that case though he still should've notified you of it right away; perhaps beforehand would've been even less likely to cause conflict. Equazcion (talk) 20:09, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I'm being open by expressing a bit of annoyance, but I'm quite happy to clarify the policy issue. This is not a discretionary sanction. The Kils restriction is a serious warning with conditions to help the user avoid a block. Discretionary sanctions can be used to prohibit normal editing (e.g. banning a user from editing articles about The Troubles). The sanctions I've placed only prohibit editing that would violate policy or guidelines. There's a big difference. If that needs to be codified in policy to help everyone have a common understanding, let's do so! Jehochman ^Talk 20:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Harassment of Hkhenson

• SoloAuditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SPA, sock of prior IPs and users at the Keith Henson article, could use a block. Possibly also could use further sock investigation? Cirt (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi Jonathon, I know you are a very experienced Admin and I am seeking your advice please on how to handle a situation which has been dragging on for many months now, see User talk:Nopetro#Inappropriate additions relating to renewable energy and [43] regards Johnfos (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been exploring the Nopetro situation some more, and it now seems likely that he is a sockpuppet of User:Mac, a known sockpuppeteer (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mac (2nd nomination)) and indefinitely blocked user. As someone who has edited and watched many energy-related articles for a long time, I have had my suspicions for a while, as Nopetro became more active after Mac was blocked in November 2008. Now I've compared these editing tool results with these and their are a lot of common editing patterns and pages which both have edited, across similar subject areas. For example, plug-in hybrid is the top edited article for Nopetro and the second top for Mac and both have been active at Portal:Electric vehicle. Both have also been very active on pages related to solar cells. And (at the other end of the spectrum) there are some quite obscure pages which both have edited, eg., Template talk:Infobox Automobile and those related to Category:conversion templates. Both have also been active in creating many dubious category pages, some of which have later been deleted. Johnfos (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you like, it would help to gather the above information to a report at WP:SPI so that the complaint is visible to other editors. Somebody may know something that will help shed light on these matters. Please leave me a link and I will help out as time allows. Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Would be grateful for your further help, as time allows. Initially I have posted my above note on Nopetro's Talk page, but as you say it may well be that it will have to go to SPI. Johnfos (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Embarassed to say that I have tried to follow the instructions at WP:SPI but wasn't successful in getting the Nopetro complaint on the page, so here it sits... Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive7#Request for assistance Johnfos (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: CU request declined at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mac. Johnfos (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kils/Restriction

Thanks for being willing to work this out. I'm glad we could come to an agreement. One more thing though, could you change the wording at the top of User:Kils/Restriction to something other than "sanction", in order to reflect the understood new meaning of the page? Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 18:51, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

"Sanction" is a generic term that can mean a block, an admonishment, an editing restriction. I think we should not pick nits. Perfect is the enemy of good, and all that. Kils is satisfied with the result, as are the editors who filed the complaint and reviewed the sock puppetry case. The dispute at WP:AN was premature and overdone. Let's leave things as they are, and instead retire to the policy pages and see if we can clarify matters to help avoid future misunderstandings. Jehochman ^Talk 20:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't do X or you will be blocked

(You recently wrote that in an AN thread) You may also be interested in WP:TALK guidelines, which seem to have a rather to broad prohibition on threats. I've recently added a caveat, but probably more tweaking is needed as there's no obvious distinction between a threat and a warning of that kind (not if using the dictionary meaning of the words). Pcap ping 05:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A certain amount of context and common sense is required to interpret The Rules of Wikipedia. We ought to avoid getting too detailed in the explanations because no matter how much we specify, those who lack social skills can try to lawyer The Rules to their advantage. Indeed, the more complex The Rules, the more opportunities for remonstration. Such gauche behavior typically results in shunning, a befitting outcome. Thus, it is simpler to keep The Rules concise, and let social pressure do the rest. Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Riding by on my white horse (ponderin' that musical :-) thought I'd wish you the best of luck in the countin' ... and mention something I think you may have said something about yourself recently ... for instance a (time-wasting) barfight at ANI ... caused by one of those critters who hang around saloons stirring up crap and drawin' it out. You might recognize one of the names in that blue-locked result ... begins with a P. Not, me, the other one. LoL Cheers, pardner. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

PS, Here's the sonnetized excutive summary. (Pretty cool timing, added it just before the lock. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77, you WP:WIN. Sorry, Jehochman, that this troll followed my contribs to your talk page on a completely unrelated matter. Pcap ping 09:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(Humming another song for the Wikipedia Western holiday musical review) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Pohta, don't be so hard on the Proofreader. They aren't bothering me. Jehochman ^Talk 13:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist

What do you think about this? Ncmvocalist reverted it without responding.[44] —Finell 23:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

An editor can remove anything from their talk page, except perhaps a block notice in place while they are appealing the block. His removal of the warning solidly confirms that he saw it and can be held accountable for subsequent actions that violate the warning. Jehochman ^Talk 02:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The question I intended to ask was, What do you think about Ncmvocalist editing the administrator-only Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist section, by adding the word "not" and thereby reversing the meaning of what John Vandenberg decided, as I described here? I only mentioned Ncmvocalist's failure to respond or explain as an added touch of rudeness, or hubris. But my question is about what he did at Arb Enf.—Finell 04:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Short block if caught promptly. Otherwise, admonish and move on. In an related, but similar type of incident, Ncmvocalist was been warned not to act as if he were an ArbCom clerk. This is hardly the first time he's overstepped boundaries. Jehochman ^Talk 04:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Applause (for your new talk page designation) ...

Perfect. And hear hear. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Icon: Excellent. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Fun: ROFL (Brilliant!) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That last one is cruel. XD --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• (La La La) (hmmm hmmm hmmm) I'll never tell what I'm trying not to laugh out loud at — butsomebody knows. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

When I read Wikipedia talk:Mentorship, I noticed your comments; and for this reason, I am reaching out to you.

Please consider reviewing my edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences. In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I plan to cite this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind. --Tenmei (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Identical post was delivered to several dozen editors. Noted, but I will not reply further. Jehochman ^Talk 03:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, Jehochman. I don't think we've ever encountered each other before, but I'd just like to thank you for your words of reason on my behalf HERE. It seems typical of the process that it has been closed before the punished has a word to say in his defense. And you are right-- If I had any faith left in this sort of Wiki-government, I'd certainly be ready to up the ante incivility-wise, as, actually, seems to have been part of the intent of the block, given the combative "shoot first, ask questions later", nature of the blocking Admin and his "jury". But so be it... Best regards, and take care. Dekkappai (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help. A few ANI regulars jumped on the blocking bandwagon early, but then more sensible editors noticed what was happening and weighed in. Hopefully this sorry incident won't used to brand you a "problem" editor. Jehochman ^Talk 21:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz

I'm minded to consider his unblock request and reduce to 24 or 48 hours. If he doesn't learn from this, well, it will take very little volunteer resources to block him again. I should add that I'm not wild about either V. or ChrisO's role in all of this, and I'd be less sympathetic if I felt that Drolz was going off the reservation without any reason. Not in a hurry to act, am going out and won't be back for several hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, exit polling indicates we both finished around 28th, behind a yellow dog, three banned users, and Josef Stalin. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL! After User:Die4Dixie, I think you understand the benefit of negotiating an agreement for unblocking. It would be very helpful if you encouraged Drolz09 to respond to my proposed unblock conditions. An offer is on the table. He should remain blocked at least 24 hours in any event. Let him respond to the offer. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at what I posted on his talk page and let me know what you think. I can't believe User: Richard Nixon is going to be an Arb ... rumor has it he's running for Jimbo.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, considering new user name:--Died4Die4Dixie (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, would you object to shortening the block, to avoid the impression we are getting too harsh too fast--I'd suggest perhaps a week or so? I agree with you he should not be unblocked completely. I'm prepared to do so myself, but I thought I'd ask you first. See my comment at AN/I [45]. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree to a week or even less if Drolz09 agrees to the proposed unblock conditions. If he does not agree with those conditions, then we need to enforce an interaction ban, and possibly a topic ban. For now, let's say a week, because that should be enough time to come to a final conclusion of the discussion. Thank you for asking before acting. I really appreciate your professionalism. Jehochman ^Talk 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I just became aware of Drolz's block, and feel compelled to wave a bit of a flag. I hope I'm not inflamming things or doing something improper. Ah well, here goes.
I got involved in an edit war on the CRU hacking page. At the time, I got the impression that Viriditas, ChrisO, and Guettarda were striving to get me to lose my cool, to commit a 3RR violation, or otherwise clearly step across a line so that they could shut me out of the conversation. I certainly found myself getting irrational, and (later than I should have) stepped back to get some cool and perspective. After some time, I decided to refocus on trying to work with Tony Sidaway on building consensus and finding a good structure that would be productive. I also decided to write off my earlier impression of being "ganged up on." It didn't seem a productive venue, and who can tell how much of it was of my own imagination?
But now I see Viriditas and ChrisO involved in a block against Drolz. Do I think Drolz was more part of the problem than part of the solution? Yes. Do I harbor a suspicion that he was baited into that position by editors and admins who know the rules and procedures better than he? I think so. But, again, I am hardly an uninvolved party. I don't know what else to do with this information, but it seems pertinent, so I'm leaving it here. MarkNau (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point people over to User_talk:Marknau#Please_clear_this_up. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Upon examining actual evidence, I see that my accusation against Viriditas was false, and baseless. I apologize for my egregious error. MarkNau (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We may need to have an arbitration case to sort out all the behavioral issues surrounding this article. There's only so much we can do at WP:ANI. Your concerns are noted and I'll try to help you get them resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 19:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my only concern is that Drolz be treated fairly. It has been a very long time since I was last involved with WP, and I don't have any desire other than to pass on what I thought was pertinent information about Drolz's case. MarkNau (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I could be a bit biased in this, but having known Chris Owen for many years I don't think it's conceivable that he'd gang up on anybody. Chris himself has been subject to his own fair share of attacks, and of course he does notice those attacks and this will tend to form his opinion of a user such as Drolz09.

Early this morning Viriditas and Drolz09 came to my user talk page (Drolz09 first) and each gave a complaint against the other about (if I understand it correctly) some squabble they were having on other people's user talk pages. I urged them to both knock it off and concentrate on content but meanwhile I think Viriditas had gone to WP:ANI and the rest you know. I'm slightly more sympathetic to Viriditas who does seem to have a clue about the problem posed on the talk page by the incessant drip-drip of accusations of bad faith. I still see that as the main problem and I think the way Marknau has worked to build confidence is exemplary--I salute his patience.

Marknau isn't the only person who lost his cool prior to the latest bout of protection. I've been told (and have no reason to doubt) that prior to asking for the page to be protected I reverted four times in three hours. That won't happen again, I'm opposed to edit warring and will live up to my principles. This set a bad example to some of the less experienced editors. Mea maxima culpa. --TS 20:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised this article has remained relatively calm thus far. GW hasn't been to arbitration since 2005, has it? Jehochman ^Talk 20:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

2005? I'm searching the arbitration archives as we speak, and it seems you're right. Given the contentiousness of the dispute in America, which hosts Wikipedia and where many English speakers live, that is extraordinary. --TS 20:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that is easily explicable, in that the articles have been kept under a tighter rein than most controversial subjects. Historically, off-topic posts or argumentation about the reality of anthropogenic climate change have been speedily excised from talk pages, agenda accounts have been rapidly blocked, and there was even a more-or-less-dedicated patrolling checkuser in Raul654 who was very proactive in looking for sockpuppetry. Now, whether you consider this an "exemplary model of community-based oversight on a controversial topic" or an "unaccoutable pro-AGW police state where all dissent is stifled a la 1984" depends on where you're sitting, I guess. In either case, the model was increasingly seen as out of step with evolving community norms, and the lid has been taken off the box, for better or worse. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear!

Descriptions of the greenhouse effect, especially those intended for the general public or for children, often use metaphor. In addition to the basic greenhouse metaphor, the atmosphere may be described as a "blanket", or it may be stated that infrared radiation is "trapped" or "reflected" or "re-emited" by the atmosphere, see the top-ranked google hit for for "global warming". Taken literally, these metaphors can be misleading as the underlying physical mechanisms differ from those involved in the greenhouse effect, see Bad Greenhouse.

[name redacted by TS] has persistently and aggressively advanced views which confuse metaphorical explanations of the greenhouse effect and greenhouses with the technical scientific phenomena underlying them. Despite determined efforts by other editors to inform him and point him to information on the subject he seems to have difficulty understanding both the use of metaphor and the scientific literature in the field, see Talk:Greenhouse effect. This is a persistent condition which seems likely to continue.

Dammit, those are two of the funniest findings of fact I've ever seen on any Wikipedia arbcom decision. I have to stop now, I might be giving the notorious scibaby ideas! --TS 21:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see a case evaluate the situation, either narrowly relating to Drolz or more broadly relating to the article. The problem is that I don't think even Viriditas expected this user to be blocked, let alone indefinitely blocked. Having done that may raise the question of what else is going on at these pages, which potentially ArbCom could evaluate. Personally I see more importance in the narrower issue of whether an administrator can indefinitely block a new user who has not engaged in any sort of gross disruption, and has never been blocked, with no consensus to do so, based on the idea that the editor has generally been too combative over the last few days. I am entirely perplexed about what motivates this idea. Mackan79 (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Without addressing the issue of Jehochman's judgement in this case, there is very little possibility of Wikipedia further constratining the expectation that a responsible and respected administrator should use his powers, subject to review, while maintaining full communication with the community and responding with civility to criticism. An admin who blocks and then runs off on holiday would be another matter, it doesn't apply here. --TS 22:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)