User talk:Jehochman/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

As to your Using IP to evade scrutiny

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Standshown and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Standshown I am warning you that logging out to game the three revert rule or to avoid scrutiny of your actions is not allowed. If there are further incidents of this nature, you may be blocked from editing without further warnings. Regards, Jehochman Talk 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, provide evidence for this accusation! If no evidence provided - I am going to escalate this problem before ArbCom as an orchestrated harassment!--Stagalj (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Standshown and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Standshown, and you are welcome to escalate or to request an independent review of the warning I have given you. Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Same link both times isn't it? ^Avruchtalk 22:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Jehochman ^Talk 22:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I went to the wrong School..:(

NYU, does not give me Link Love..:)

You must login to violetnet to find me! All that money and I cannot even get notability! Igor Berger (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My personal edification...

Why did you indef block the sock of Spookee? Don't get me wrong, but I am a bit puzzled and would like to understand why. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It was used disruptively for revert warring, and to evade the three revert rule. Rlevse suggested that this was the correct result. The editor is free to continue using their main account which is now unblocked, after the 24 hour block for 3RR violation. I hope the editor will behave better in the future and that no further actions will be necessary. It is standard practice to indefinitely block all the extra accounts when they are found to have been used incorrectly. Jehochman ^Talk 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User talk:68.109.68.240

This user is making the same reverts that User:Atari400 made to Template: Countries of the Indosphere. He is making the same omissions and is not justifying anything in the talk pages after having been asked multiple time to join the debate, but has done nothing and in fact claims that i have not joined the discussion [1], though I am all over the talk page. He has been told by a user with rollback powers (Alexfusco5) that he has been making unconstructive edits that need to be justified. After Alexfusco5 made the comment and reverted his edit, he has been silent on the template and the template talk. He did has not edited the template again at this time in order to not break the 3RR. Based of his talk page, it appears that he has violated the WP:CIV, but I am unsure; if he has can you please give him a warning or some form of disciplinary action. Also, I would like to know, where or to whom should I report his behaviour? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A request is filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check. Jehochman ^Talk 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with IP socks of banned User:Editorhwaller

Hi, back on January 7 you indefinitely banned User:Editorhwaller for sockpuppetry. He keeps resurfacing as anon IPs to vandalize my Talk page with his "warnings." [2] [3] [4] [5] and he's back today [6] What's a simple way to stop this? Can I semi-protect my Talk page? You're the one admin who took quick and decisive action after the last go-round with him, so I thought I'd turn to you. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I see that he's blanked the admin's block on another of his sockpuppet Talk pages at: [7]. I suppose that's his right, right? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your edit to my Talk page vandalism, [8] but based on your advice the thing to do is just leave it for week, right? This time, he's using an anon IP which has been warned and blocked before and should be blocked again, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not what I intended. Fixed now. Hopefully they will quit soon, or else I will semi-protect the page. Jehochman ^Talk 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The nonsense with this anon IP (I'm pretty sure it's all the same person) continues unabated on Snowfire51's Talk page.See Is there a way to block this anon IP? cheers, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspicions about new users

Hi. I'm feeling a little paranoid, I guess, and would like some outside administration opinion on something, but I don't think its something that can be filed at ANI or the like. Yesterday, the account User:MoviesOnDemand was created. For his first action, he tagged Grizzly Rage, an article I created, for plot issues (which I left, as I agreed with it). After that, however, other than leaving a note on Talk:Black Beauty (1994 film), the bulk of his edits have been against Meerkat Manor, an article I've done a lot of work on and that is currently a featured article candidate. He has attacked the article in the talk page, first claiming it wasn't notable or worth spending time on, then slandering the show and research by false claims of cruelty, before finally complaining about the formatting. He made some comments another found completely inappropriate and removed[9]. He ignored my attempts at rational discussion about the article's content and format, and repeating multiple times that the article had been reviewed by multiple folks, including being copy edited by an expert, going through a peer review, and of course its current FAC. He ignored it all and changed the article format anyway. After a round of my undoing and redoing and finally leaving him a warning, he stopped. He's still complaining on the talk page, though another editor has also told him to leave it be.

My concern stems from another new user account User:ModelCitizenAward08, which was created during a time when MoviesOnDemand was inactive. That new user's account only edit appears to be an attempt to prevent Meerkat Manor from reaching FA status as its only edit was to oppose the FAC. I suspect both accounts belong to the same person, as both harp on being "engaging" and complain that the article is hard on their eyes. I also suspect both belong to someone else who I've aggravated by what appears to be a targeted attack on my first FA and the first article mentioned in my list of accomplishments and major contributions. So long explanation done, am I being paranoid, and if there is cause for suspicion, what if anything can be done about it? Collectonian (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that out. Glad to know I wasn't just being paranoid :) Collectonian (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work

Nice pickup. Somehow, I doubt this one is going to get written up in The Register, but all the same, good job. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Minor annoyances are easily controlled. When a small problem is ignored, it tends to grow. Jehochman ^Talk 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry for the harsh words earlier today.[10] I guess I was completely wrong. I like JOG in spite of (or perhaps because of) his eccentricities and was reluctant to believe he would do something so silly. I wonder why JOG felt the need to be deceptive in order to make a legitimate point--that Rodhullandemu really was nasty to him last October. The complaint would have had a bigger impact coming from a respected admin than from an unknown sock. But there's a great deal about life that I don't understand. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a simple mistake, a failure to consider how his action would impact and be perceived by others. My original intention was to ask him which account he wanted to keep, and get rid of the other, and be done with nothing more than a warning. However, I did not know all the past history. Let's see what happens. No hard feelings whatsoever, I assure you. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cordelia's Dad AfD

I recommend you withdraw it. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. Jehochman ^Talk 21:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Manhore

A new user User:Manhore is now making precisely the same edits to McGill University using the exact same examples as banned troll User:Editorhwaller. More to the point, I believe his name is in violation of Wikipedia's User name policy. May I suggest a block on that basis, to stop all this from gettin out of hand? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please file at WP:SSP. It only takes a minute. Provide a few diffs showing the same behavior, and provide a one or two sentence explanation. We need to document this, and perhaps we will run a checkuser to identify any other accounts he may be hiding. Jehochman ^Talk 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Upon consideration, this edit to the lead doesn't appear to be of the same ilk as the others. Maybe I was hasty. Frankly, I started appealing to you on these matters because I found WP:SSP quite incomprehensible. But I guess the only way to master this stuff is muddle though it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Do try, and somebody will help you along. Perhaps it will be me. I watch that page when I have time. Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're the best. God knows where you find the time or patience for all this. Have a great weekend. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BN

Thanks. I thought they would be, being there... but. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to ANI thread

Follow up to this ANI thread

If you want specific examples, the (failed) discussion (several months ago now) to ban User:Gene Nygaard is a good one. I supported Gene in that, and Gene has done, and is continuing to do, excellent work. Some people got exasperated with what were (in my opinon) minor civility issues, and (even where it was obvious they were involved and biased) started calling for a ban. That really shocked me. I think talk of exhausting the "community's patience" often translates as "exhausting the patience of those who have the least patience and who call for a ban over the wishes of those who have more patience". I can dig up links to that discussion if you want. In essence, I think that one of the options in these "community ban" discussions, where there is a small minority opinion dissenting from the ban, should be to go to ArbCom and let them decide. Community ban discussions can be a bit hit-and-miss. To raise another example, there is a user who I feel could still be a productive editor (but could equally go back to his old ways - no real way of telling until he is unblocked), but who is indefinitely blocked at the moment. It has become clear to me that part of the reason he is still blocked is inexperience with the system. People often say, oh, people can e-mail unblock-l (the unblocking mailing list), but I recently looked at the message people get when they are blocked, and there are references to some form people have to fill in to send to that list and apply to be unblocked. I really hope that is not as bureaucratic as it sounds. In this case, the talk page was protected. I would like to see the talk page unprotected, so a normal unblock request can be made, and I would like to avoid the "you haven't fully explained why you won't do this again" response that sometimes happens to unblock requests (asking people to write essays on what they did wrong is not always helpful, and neither is failing the unblock request on a technicality - much better to engage in discussion and find out answers to the unanswered questions). ie. cursory, pedantic and dismissive unblock request responses are very bad and breed a sense of injustice and a sense of "I don't want to see you unblocked, but instead of explaining why, I will fail the unblock request on a technicality". The other point is that when the blocking admin declines to unblock when another admin objects, what should be done then? I would like a way to have an independent review without the drama of ANI threads. Could I e-mail another admin and ask them to review the situation? Carcharoth (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples of my concern over community ban discussions are here, and at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Cuerden 2 (see here - careful, that is an undelete link). I was disgusted to see the community ban threat being used during an RfC like that (however unwarranted the RfC may have been). In the end, it all got deleted anyway. The third case, the one I want advice on, I would prefer to discuss over e-mail. Could I e-mail you for advice? Carcharoth (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"...has endorsed the idea"

I am wondering about this:[11].

You say Grandmasterka endorsed the idea of Elonka resigning. But looking through GMK's contributions[12] I don't see any such endorsement. Perhaps you misread? _{(1 == 2)}^Until 15:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing, I'm not sure Grandmasterka has actually supported the idea, so maybe refractoring that until it is confirmed may be best. — Save_Us † 15:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, and thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears my clue as been absorbed[13]. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 15:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

In your Franco-Mongol alliance ArbCom statement, you are using "resigned" in a way that sounds misleading. PHG is requesting that Elonka resign (i.e. give up) her adminship, while you note that I "resigned as mediator because the process was failing". The juxtaposition of the two pieces sounds, in my opinion, unclear about the fact that I just closed the case and didn't resign much. -- tariqabjotu 15:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, and thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User Stagalj

Some editing which I explained at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Ante_Paveli%C4%87 have been reverted by Stagalj with the explanation that he was "fixing damaged text." He seems to be driven by an obsession to define IMRO as terrorists, which I have argued several times to be POV. As he fully understands the talk-page process I wonder whether his wholesale reverting, without reasonable explanation, amounts to vandalism. Perhaps you could take a look if you get time. Kirker (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Piperdown

Now that the discussion is over, how does one go about re-deleting User:Piperdown/1, which had been previously deleted and was restored during the pendency of discussion?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted it and left a note for User:Krimpet to confirm. Jehochman ^Talk 20:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi MM, I think you have one more request to make (diff) R. Baley (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm one step ahead of you. Blanked it a few minutes ago. You, if you have the tools, or Jehochman should feel free to delete it if you feel it is warranted.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

All set. Jehochman ^Talk 21:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is it OK for me to add some comments to the archived discussion page? I see from here[14] that it seems to be allowed.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That was the fastest response I have ever received!--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Meant with the greatest of respect, really.

Your archiving was ill-advised. David hadn't even weighed in yet.

More to the point, you completely ignored the fact that your pseudo-policy - the "three ways" that you numbered as your last word - were already addressed by several people on the thread and pointed out as a novel innovation. Plainly put, you were and are wrong about that. Consensus is not required to undo an action if a good faith attempt has been made to discuss it on a public forum or with the original admin. You know that, and your attempting to heave it over to arbcom is unhelpful, and, frankly, a damn dangerous thing to do. We can't go running to arbcom every single time, and your preferred approach creates too great a first-mover advantage, which is a particularly poor institutional structure.

I suggest you try and avoid actions like this in the future. Clamping down on discussion only makes the next outbreak of drama worse. I would have thought you'd noticed that by now. Relata refero (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You may contact David Gerard (talk · contribs) and ask him to explain the block.
My "pseudo policy" was a statement of the position in that particular moment. It was not policy.
Consensus is most certainly required to undo an admin action, except in cases of obvious errors, or occasionally per ignore all rules when there is a pressing need, which is not the case here. ArbCom has made this clear on several occasions.
"Heaving over to arbcom" is not at all dangerous. The user, should they wish to be unblocked, can email ArbCom and request a review. Reviews are conducted by individual members of the Committee. This is much simpler than bringing a case.
I do not see how a first mover advantage is worse than the utter chaos that results from wheel warring, or from a second mover advantage.
The length of that discussion was exceptional. The user requested unblocking not because they wanted to edit, but because they wanted to blank their user pages and mark their account retired. This was done for them by an administrator. There was no need to unblock, and no consensus to do so. The thread was deteriorating rapidly. People were repeating the same arguments over and over again, and beginning to insult and provoke each other. Since no further administrative action was possible, and the user received the result that they requested, and the conversation was creating bad blood, it was clearly time to end the discussion.

Thank you for your comments. I hope this response is helpful in some way, although I recognize you may not agree with me. Jehochman ^Talk 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You can always recognise the fresh-faced ones - they actually reply in points. Thank you.

You're right, I don't agree, but I think perhaps I wasn't clear either.

Consensus is most certainly reqired to undo an admin action, according to ArbCom: which ruling is this? Seriously, point me to the statement of principle. (Plus, ArbCom does not make policy.)

Second, I meant 'dangerous' in the sense that it empowers the first mover when ArbCom is busy, as it always is and will be. Why is a strong first-mover advantage bad? It's chaotic. (Which is why most real-world institutions do not preserve a strong first-mover advantage. Think about it, or read Dennis Mueller's Public Choice.) On WP, you'd have people being bold all over the place without a hope of undoing it if three other admins supported it. Which is precisely what we don't want, and never have. HAve you even read WP:BRD? What's the second part of that cycle, pray? (For that matter, what's the third?)

The discussion was long. So make a subpage. Over time discussions here will get longer, not shorter, and you can't keep turning them all off. People were insulting each other from line one, so it wasn't getting worse.

Finally, it seems to me that the user wanted to be unblocked, not just a deletion, judging by the quotes I saw; and further, I expected to see an analysis of the original block as well. So your statement that no further action was possible is obviously untrue.

Cheers.

Relata refero (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Old post up above

Hi there. Was wondering if you missed this? Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I did miss it! My page has been busy. Please email me the case you'd like to discuss. I agree that the community banning process needs to be overhauled. I am wondering if we should move the ban discussions from ANI to an RfC-like page? An RfC can stay open much longer than an ANI thread, while there can be a link on AN and ANI advertising the discussion. Within the RfC, views can be presented, and if no administrator opposes, a ban or other remedy, such as a topic ban can be implemented. There should be a certification requirement to make sure bans are not proposed willy nilly. In the event that there is administrator opposition to a proposed remedy, then the matter can be referred to Arbcom, and the RfC would be a good starting point to understand the dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 02:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Other issues are the community unbanning, and un-indef-blocking processes. We could clarify these processes to assist those who may want to use them. We should also look at the message blocked users see, and do any copy editing that would improve the usability of that page and minimize bureaucracy. Jehochman ^Talk 02:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. Mission creep! :-) Reform all of Wikipedia in a day! Well, maybe tomorrow. I'll check back here then, and deal with the e-mail tomorrow as well. Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Miscellany for Deletion

Hello Jehochman:

I am putting a note here because I see your name, along with others, here:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Cuerden 2.

My question, may I see the deleted document or is it gone, fini, caput, etc?

I will explain why I'm asking if this will help.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I withdrew that nomination. Afterwards, the page may have been deleted by somebody else. Let me look... User:Ryan Postlethwaite deleted it with the reason, "insufficiently certified RfC and strong consensus that there is no disruptive behaviour". For further inquiries about this, you may contact him. Jehochman ^Talk 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiPedia has a Problem

I tried adding a video link to a story that Prescott Bush was pro Hitler and anti FDR, to the Talk:Prescott Bush user User:Veritas started an edito war with me clayming that WP:NOT#FORUM and violated WP:3RR. I wanted to file a 3RR violation complaint but my browser froze and I lost the edit. I was to tired and went to sleep. When I walk up User:VirtualSteve blocked me from editing for 31 hours claiming disruptive style of editing while not even examining the other editor's actions. It is not the first time VirtualSteve has admonished me in vaine. Last time when I asked him help with a deletion of a mistaken user page creation he called me a Troll. Later I reported the bug to bugzilla. VirtualSteve refering to me as an Aligator on his Talk page.

This is the Veritas WP:OWNERSHIP issue. User_talk:Igorberger#WP:NOT

This is VirtualSteve abusive admin action User_talk:Igorberger#January_2008

Right at the same time I was blocked a WikiPedia Propoganda article was published. http://naturalhealthperspective.net/2008/01/26/gohdes-apprentice/

Doe VirtualSteve own http://naturalhealthperspective.net

Please investigate! Igor Berger (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a fringe video to me. If you were edit warring, getting blocked is the usual result. Jehochman ^Talk 06:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a fringe video because later I realized the reporters story, "How Bush's gradfther helped Hitler raise to power http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,1312542,00.html already incorporated in the article Prescott Bush#Nazi collaboration controversy Prescott_Bush#_note-Guardian. Also the editor waring with me had no reason to thow templates at my talk page and call me a vandal. I am an editor as well. And he did not respect the 3RR.

Please ask VirtualSteve, politely, to explain what the problem was. Jehochman ^Talk 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Last time I politely asked for his help he called me a Troll. Request to User_talk:Peachyms/ delete the erronies page was called Trolling by VirtualSteve Igor Berger (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. The issue between VirtualSteve and me has been resolved. Igor Berger (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to the root of the problem, I hope VirtualSteve can help me clarify it. But User:Veritas thinks I am trolling his page because I came to extend my hand to him. Let's see if VS can help out and clear the air out so we can nip this in the bud..:) But I am really supprised to see veteren user Veritas template nublets and regulars, he should know better. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Igor

Hi Jehochman - you have probably followed the thread of edits already but I note on my return to wiki this afternoon the nonsense above. Although he has not taken your advice - and given his manipulation of the system on your page - I am unlikely to even answer him but at this stage in good faith I have pre-empted his coming to my page or continuing with his current line above by posting notices regarding this abundant untruthfulness here, and here--VS ^talk 08:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

VirtualSteve, why do I want to come to your page after you asumed bad faith on my part and called my a Troll and a crocodile and a destructive editor. You are violating WP:NPA Igor Berger (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please come to my talk page Igor - politely - leave Jehochman alone - stop telling stories and point me to exact diffs of these complaints. Then I can show you why you are a troll, why you were warned by other editors for trolling, why I never called YOU a crocodile (you were not even a part of the conversation) and why you are a destructive editor. I will also post this edit on your talk page and will not respond further anywhere else. So please come to my talk page when you are ready.--VS ^talk 09:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, Igor Berger (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So I thought but instead of deescalating the matter VirtualSteve is thowing more gasoline on the fire This is what he said to me when I asked him for help, "VirtualSteve can you telll User:Veritas I am not Trolling you or him - Not a chance - Veritas was and is correct" Igor Berger (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed re-direct!

Cows In Action is very notable now, incase you didn't know. Before re-directing the page again, please please search on google. THANK YOU. (Donmardon (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Answer

Your not allowed to say your age, are you? just tell me.

We do not want minors to publish their ages because (1) they could be targeted by bad people, and (2) sometimes bad people pose as minors in order to lure other minors into trouble. Jehochman ^Talk 16:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Troll

User:Jehochman I know you stated your opinion on this already, but I would like you to take a look at this Talk:Troll_(Internet)#Wikipedia_Troll. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Spanpo

I added User Spanpo because he has the same or similar userpage to some of the other socks and he was mentioned here as a confirmed sock but was not blocked so I assumed that Spebi accidentally missed him when blocking. Thanks Harland1 (^t/_c) 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC).

Aye. It looks like that one was accidentally skipped. I have blocked it now. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 04:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize

JH, I apologize to you personally for reneging on my "works for me". I promise that I am done now. I appreciate your fairness, Jonathan. I know I pushed it a bit far this time. --JustaHulk (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad. Know thyself. Each of us has hot button issues that we are best to avoid. Just recuse yourself from all Smee-related activities and you will be fine. Cheers, Jehochman ^Talk 04:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your closing note at WP:ANI

Your closing note at WP:ANI is inaccurate. I have been "ignoring" JustaHulk (talk · contribs)/Justanother (talk · contribs). I just pointed that out in the WP:ANI thread. In fact, I was heeding your warning from the last thread he started at WP:AN. It was he that brought this up, again, not me. So how can you feel you have to caution both of us, and not just him, when I have been following your advice??? Cirt (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not my purpose to single people out. If you are not going to do what somebody warns you not to do, then you have nothing to worry about. You do get my point that JustWhoever is not allowed to bother you, and likewise, you will not choose to interact with them. Peace, Jehochman ^Talk 04:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Noted. However if only one person obviously breaks your warning to them, and the other one does not, I hope that in the future you will not warn caution both parties again, but rather just call out obviously disruptive activity on the part of whichever singular user is not paying attention to your warning. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't show up at the thread, I would have only needed to warn the party who was present. Next time, I recommend you remain silent if you do not wish to draw attention. Jehochman ^Talk 04:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your words are wise. It is difficult to remain silent in the presence of (still) unfounded WP:NPA accusations of "propagandist" and the like. It's hard because when I see an attempt being made to sully my name on very public boards, it is hard to keep silent. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been through that myself. It's the hardest thing to walk away, but it really is the best. Jehochman ^Talk 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in certain cases I have been silent, and then later people misinterpret things or get the wrong idea because I never explained myself, commented, or presented my case/side of the story. But I do tend to agree with you that in the aggregate, your suggestion is the best approach with regards to this situation and others. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD

I've just added headings to hopefully separate some of the issues on the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination) page - would you like to comment again? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman

Hi Jehochman. I am quite surprised about several of your very aggressive statements regarding the Franco-Mongol alliance and myself. Please be aware that I have always been willing to compromise (and a cursory glance at the article will show you all the instances of allies/vassals, and disclaimers by Elonka that have long been included in the article), and I trust I have been the most supple and responsive party at Mediation (you can ask Tariqabjotu). I am very serene about my own editing, as everything I contribute is taken from proper published sources. I know the subject is quite arcane, and most people are surprised by it, but I think I have been very thourough and quite objective in covering it. I would appreciate if you could have a slightly more balanced opinion on the subject. Best regards. PHG (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I am surprised to have waited three days with no reply from you to a thread you started at my user talk about this RFAR. You wrote "The most serious assertion at this RFAR is misrepresentation of sources. I have seen no actual evidence to substanitate this. " I have now provided one example to demonstrate an issue worth investigating. Please see my statement, at the bottom. Of course I was unable to do so because the one example you provided was a link to a deleted page. Why go out of your way to invite me to look at something I can't see, then leave me hanging when I reply that I can't see it? Durova^Charge! 19:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If the case is accepted, evidence will be presented and deleted articles will be undeleted if necessary. PHG, I did contact El C and asked him to look into this because he knows something about the history of Jerusalem. He says that he found a few references about Mongols in Jerusalem, so it may be worth your while to follow up with him. Durova, if you look at these articles, and then pull up a few of the books listed as references by using Google Scholar, I think you will find a startling disconnect between what the sources say and what the articles say. Jehochman ^Talk 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, and reads like a reply to some other question I didn't ask. Please be more considerate of my time. It's not very polite to draw another Wikipedian's attention to evidence you know they can't read, then direct the person elsewhere when they ask why. Durova^Charge! 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked an uninvolved arbitration clerk to provide you with a copy of the relevant article. Sorry for the delay. I am not going to undelete this article myself because I am potentially an involved party. If my request is approved, you should receive a copy very soon. Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think

User:Igorberger/Social engineering (Internet)

This is a user essay that I would like to move to main space as an essay once I finished with it. I am almost done, just syntax and structure. Igor Berger (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good WP:SEI you can show it to Harvard..:) Igor Berger (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation notification

You are well-aware that this article is covered under the Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Please do not edit war, or you may be placed under an editing restriction, such as revert limitation or topic ban. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have notified User:Thatcher. He, or somebody else, will be along shortly to rectify this situation. Jehochman ^Talk 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we get pass this

Is there any way to get past this? High quality RS are simply being rejected. [15] How is disruptive editing defined? Anthon01 (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate

Why was my ack that I was notified via posting a duplicate? Honestly confused. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If your name is on the page, you can hardly claim unawareness! Let us keep the list as short as possible by not listing people more than once. Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me! PouponOnToast (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:)

Nice touch. Rudget . 19:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeo

Look, I'm generally on your side, but the "(→Throwing in the towel - remove incivil remark)" was not uncivil. It was a statement of fact: if the barnstar were merited, there'd be no dispute: as it is, that stupid thing has cost us one good editor. Nice.Jim62sch 23:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please repost your comment, but leave out the "BS". You can make the same point, even stronger, with less strident language. We have to set a good example for the others. Jehochman ^Talk 23:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can buy that ... but how can I be less strident? :) I'll manage. Thanks. Jim62sch 23:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

I was recently blocked for 8 minutes for posting a message on AN/I regarding SA. The admin who did that reverted the block after a closer look. I know you have your job cut out for you. Do I have the right to bring this to the AN/I page without fear of getting blocked again? [16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, can do that. However, I think it would be better to give ScienceApologist a little space and see if they calm down by themselves. They are receiving advice from friendly editors, and hopefully that will serve. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded on the AN/I page. Anthon01 (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am relatively new here (3 months) and am still learning the ropes. I hope you can help me with these questions. I explained the edit history on the AN/I page that lead me to post the incident involving SA.[17] If I would have seen you notice prior to posting I would not have posted it. The response I got from East have left me unsure what the rules are. Had that comment been posted on the AN page as a question, instead of a question/request, would it have been perceived and handled differently? Was that a more appropriate place and way to post it? I made a comment here. [18] If I make a similar comment on the AN will that be considered shopping in some way. I'm not sure how much attention is being paid to the probation template page. Thanks for your input. Anthon01 (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Right venue?

Where is the right venue for this comment? ScienceApologist (talk)

Strongly object

to one particular admin listed at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation as uninvolved

I strongly object to Jossi (talk · contribs) adding himself as an "uninvolved admin" when he has made controversial edits on Thuja, Strychnine tree and Dana Ullman all within the last month. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; he's very much involved. Jim62sch^dissera! 14:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: 114 (22.8%) of his last 500 edits are on "homeopathy" articles - at least as I define them, no one else seems willing to define them. Jim62sch^dissera! 14:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Take it up with him directly, I think. That is the first step. The list serves a good purpose if it helps identify and resolve these issues before they turn into larger disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the reason to remove myself from the list. See my comment here: Wikipedia:RFARB#Statement_by_recently-involved_User:Jossi. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The "strong objection" from SA, is simply because I have been one administrator that has attempted to curtail the obnoxious edit-warring by him and his opponents. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that Jossi has NEVER attempted to curtain obnoxious edit-warring on the part of "my opponents", going so far as to revert my removal of their controversial edits. He clearly has positioned himself firmly on one side of this dispute despite his protestations otherwise. Every last one of his edits in the last months to homeopathy-related pages have been to accommodate POV-pushers of homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe editors who are opposed to mentions of homeopathy in various articles believe that you are insufficiently neutral. I believe they hold this belief because you did not see any reason to take action when this edit was pointed out to you, that you saw no reason to take action when this edit summary was pointed out to you. In fact, you have not, to my knowledge, criticized or reacted negatively to a single action taken by a general proponent of mentions of homeopathy. If I am incorrect, please provide a diff. Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I think you should recuse yourself from enforcing the probation; a number of experienced users clearly feel that you're involved, and any enforcement measure that you take will probably cause more drama than it solves. Please note that I'm an administrator, but will not enforce the probation because I've made some comments at Talk:Homeopathy and Talk:Deadly nightshade. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense, Jossi, but I support you stepping back as well. Other more neutral people can take care of this, and consensus appears to support removing you from the list anyway. Lawrence § t/e 17:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my comment above, and will remain on that list. I do not take sides, as I have no dog in this dispute. See for example this warning. See also my last 500 edits here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to stay on it, but since everything on Wikipedia is subject to community decisions, I think everyone could just take you off. Lawrence § t/e 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I will be happy to stand the scrutinity of the community on my actions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a thousand administrators. Why try to stay on a mediation board when one side refuses to accept your neutrality? Relata refero (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So how can we deal with this, Jehochman? I see this as a real problem. If involved administrators refuse to recuse themselves, what are we to do? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not "involved" in this dispute. Period. Stop the forum shopping. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And as an editor that is as involved as you are, you should not touch the probation page at all. You are exhibiting the behavior that this probation is all about! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? Why? I see no indication that anyone should be banned from editing that Wikipedia page. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Probation? SPA!

Dana4 (talk · contribs) PouponOnToast (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Less reaction causes less trolling. I suggest you smile at them. If smiles are undeserved, this will be proven soon enough. Jehochman ^Talk 17:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why, I did! Look at my welcome message. So templated and nice, and I even gave them a way to explain how they were already able to do single-[ linking and ' bolding! PouponOnToast (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds perfect! It may be somebody else with a similar name. Jehochman ^Talk 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI report

Please be aware that you have been mentioned in a complaint about ScienceApologist on ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ScienceApologist. Vassyana (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi is reverting my notation that the above complainant has been notified about article probation from the probation page. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding people to the probation page that have never edited any of the articles in probation. You are being disruptive. Consider this as a last warning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I contest your statement that adding editors complaining about Homeopathy as a proxy for other editors to the list of editors notified of probation is disruptive. I will continue to do so, and the only way you will be able to stop me is with an indefinite block, or admin-only protection on the notification page. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. Thanks for sharing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, PouponOnToast. I suggest you retract the ultimatum. That sort of thing is patently unhelpful. Article probation is designed precisely to help remove those who are inflexible. Please do not continue to demonstrate the need to apply this remedy to yourself. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are asking me to state that I will stop notifing editors who are complaining about Homeopathy via proxy? I will not do so, and I will not stop adding to the list in the absence of block or protection. I will, however, pledge to L1rr (lifetime 1rr) with repsect to individual notifications - I will not knowingly revert any intentional removal of my notifications or listing of said users, with the caveat that the user-talk-page-archive of the notification will serve as good and sufficient notification for purposes of sanction. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks:

I take the statement that I need to "develop better collaboration skills," as a personal attack. Please comment on the edits, not the editor. Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. You need to develop better collaboration skills. See WP:SPADE. People who troll can be called trolls. People who edit war can be called edit warriors. People who push POV can be called POV pushers. You're behaving like a troublemaker, and very soon you will be treated like one if things don't change. Jehochman ^Talk 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please lesson to J, he is an excelent mentor and knows his stuff very well. Just tone it down a bit and go about your business. Igor Berger (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting essay I find the first version of it to be enlightening, and your quote is a lot like the kind of thing I might write. Of course, we're not allowed to call pov-pushers pov-pushers - I've taught SA that by now, I hope. I'm behaving like a user who is being constantly told by others that they are treated unfairly by the system, who alledged that they needed to work the system, and that by being unflappingly civil they could get whatever they wanted. All else aside, I have been unfailingly civil - which was the consistant concern about the editors who are being hustled out the door. It appears, however, that I was wrong about the wor the system thing.

To my colaboration skills? Mine are excellent. You appear to have confused my "willingness to be run over by a bus" skills with my colaboration skills. Review the "stickiness" of my edits to the random disputed pages that you see me working on - they stick, whilst the others edit war around me. It's OK that you've confused "collaboration" with "getting run over by others" - because that's how "collaboration" has worked in the past for pro-science editors. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC) As a note to Igorberger - I'm not looking for a "mentor." If I wanted to be an admin I'd just go edit DYK and revert some vandalism, then go unblock users that I agree with like some other admins do. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:TEA. Take a break. When you come back, be less combative, and everything will be fine. Please, please, please take this advice. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your advise under advisement. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no deadline. Any mayhem that is done can be reverted later. If you give your opponents free reign, they may swiftly prove the need for themselves to be banned. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you believe your above statement, I will not have to link this anywhere but here. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped reverting on Jan 30. That's a positive. If that ugly editing pattern resumes, let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PouponOnToast: What is your point? Anthon01 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PoT, do you think with my record I will ever be an admin..:) But I have 99% admins respect my calls, so which is better? Igor Berger (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The advice about being less combative is sound. I notice that it was hinted that Fill was synthesising an interpretation,[19] but the article being summarised indicates that no significant differences were found, presumably between homeopathic medication and placebo. Filll's statement seems to be a good faith summary of that point, and if you agree, it would be helpful if you could let him know that no accusation of wrongdoing was intended. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I was beaten to it: I was going to mention the goose and gander proverb/aphorism/saw/saying. No need to now. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My next essay WP:FLAME

Lots of notability..:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 22:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy and Wikiproject neutrality

From what I gather, it looks like that Wikiproject doesn't like to get involved when there are conflicts raging (which kind of makes me wonder when they do get involved, but whatever). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Standshown/Stagalj

I am having 3rd similar SPA account and possible solution of this problem. This last SPA account is User:Smerdyakoff .I am 99 % sure that User:Smerdyakoff is somebody puppet. His first wiki edit has been Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view [20] ?? There are 2 connection between this accounts. All 3 are created in late october 2007 or latter and all 3 has edited article Neo-Nazism (parts about Croatia and Serbia). This is important because that article has been very popular for user:Velebit and his puppets (last puppet edits has been from user:GiorgioOrsini and user:NovaNova). After puppets has been blocked we are having IP edits from suspected user:Velebit puppets IP 4.249.x.xxx. It is possible to see that this IP edits are connected because user:4.249.9.200 is deleting suspected puppet of Velebit tag from talk page of user:4.249.0.135 [21] . We are having this IP edits in article Neo-Nazism between 28 July and 26 October 2007. With creation of accounts User:Smerdyakoff and user:Standshown in late October and early November all edits from user:4.249.x.xxx have stoped. --Rjecina (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have forget 1 thing. User:Standshown has writen yesterday:"The difference between regime and state is fully elaborated by me and by Smerdyakoff" and then he has given link for place on talk page where only user:Standshown has made edits [22] ??? --Rjecina (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many editors. Sometimes they agree with each other. That by itself does not indicate sock puppetry. If you wish to pursue this, the correct process is to open a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. However, you will need stronger evidence than this, and there should be recent evidence of wrongdoing. We cannot act on old edits. Jehochman ^Talk 14:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Users Smerdyakoff and Stagalj have supported one another in RFC so this possible new wrongdoing, but I am more interested if there is way to check new accounts to see if this "new" editor is new puppet of user which has been blocked indefinitely (in this case user:Velebit aka user:Purger aka... ). This blocked user has edited articles:Neo-nazism, Ante Starčević, Ustaše, Neo-Nazism in Croatia, Independent State of Croatia, Nedić Serbia. I am sure that you will not be suprised if I tell you that this trinity Standshown/Stagalj/Smerdyakoff is editing only that articles (or articles connected with that). Because last edits of now blocked puppet (User:Guivon) of user:Purger has been in September 2007 can you please tell if wikipedia is still having his data--Rjecina (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please keep an eye

I am throwing the towel on Homeopathy. See my comment. I came to the Homepathy article with no POV to push, and with good intentions to help with the content disputes. If all it takes to be called "involved" is that, so be it. All I got back was pure vitriol, from editors of both side of the dispute. The probation page has becoming a joke, with disruptive editors adding and removing names at will. I had more than enough. You better keep an eye. Good luck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to let editors get away with this type of behavior. Back on my watchlist. Bullying and baiting will not prevail in my watch. I will continue monitoring these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Y'know what, Jossi, I'm beginning to have some doubts along the same lines as those raised by numerous editors above: I'm not so sure you have the appropriate skills to police a page such as homeopathy. You see, my good man, I was defending you -- I'd never seen you leave a page because it became too contentious, and the fact that you did so shows just how f'd up the page is. In other words, my post was dripping with sarcasm, and with my own displeasure for the page. I should have thought that the "THWACK" would have given the sarcasm away. I guess not. In any case, how you leapt then to "bullying and baiting" is beyond me.

BTW: I don't know if anyone was challenging your motives, but the fact that you've been editing the articles for a couple of weeks (i.e., before the article probation) does seem to make you involved.

Alas, WP is certainly becoming a surreal little world. Jim62sch^dissera! 10:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm, does not work, my friend. And that comment was totally unnecessary, it was inflammatory and helped no one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever re sarcasam.

BTW, re the comments of yours that were removed from the page as disruptive: do you think those comments helped any one? You violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, insulted a slew of editors, and damaged your own credibility (not to mention the image of admins), but I suppose that's OK, right? Surreal. Jim62sch^dissera! 11:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not violate anything. You, on the other hand, did. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Are these not your words, "This is exactly the kind of stuff that disruptive editors with the help of clueless others manage to do: Any admin that comes to assist in a content dispute, becomes the target of one or the other side, gets added to probation warnings and other stupidities" and "Have fun with your endless and mindless dispute"? Perhaps your account was hacked? Well, probably not, given your defense of them.

Perhaps it's a language issue: my sarcasm was obvious to any native speaker of English, and your comments were clearly seen by native English speakers as disruptive at best [23], [24]. Maybe in Spanish your words are not uncivil, although I doubt that as I read Spanish fluently (La Casa de los Espiritus being one of my favorites and an excellent example of how sarcasm works very well in Spanish). Whatever the case, there is clearly a failure to communicate here. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[Fix indent, note redlink presumably The House of the Spirits rather than The House of the Spirits (film).. dave souza, talk 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)]

Indeed! Jim62sch^dissera! 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

A question was asked and a consensus is building, allow wikipedia to work the way it was meant to work a group effort, not one Administrator deciding for everyone, wikipedia is not a dictatorship. Chessy999 (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You cannot change policy with a small group at WP:RSN. Wikipedia and Wiktionary are not considered to be reliable sources. You're being disruptive. I recommend you take a break, relax and think about this. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am so relaxed I might fall asleep -:) Chessy999 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

When you wake up, happy editing! Jehochman ^Talk 17:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement

Why is this remark considered an appropriate and constructive contribution?[25] I must say, I'm concerned about lack of even-handedness in enforcement of the article probation. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Patience. All the abusers will be banned soon enough. By moving slowly we can ensure that the bans stick. Jehochman ^Talk 21:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, though I wish you would show the same "patience" toward science-oriented editors. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? [26] Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I would be thrilled to be proven wrong regarding my expectations for the outcome of this matter. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Socks for User:CompScientist

Looks like CompScientist is evading the one month block that you issued with a sock account: User:Wikipeadian. This user has been making identical edits to Nissan GT-R and Vietnam War. If there is another way I should address this please let me know. Thanks. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CompScientist. Patience, they, their sock puppets, and their IP address will be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 21:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

rollback rights

What are rollback rights? KaylaLanders (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Rollback. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Note on AN

Please check this. Its a cautionary note regarding your actions. [27] Anthon01 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive Tag

Why did you add an archive tag to an ongoing discussion at RSN? There are comments from today. Thanks! Wjhonson (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

what im doing wrong

please justify. --Area69 (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am notifying you that article probation is in effect. Please read the terms carefully and be sure to follow them. Jehochman ^Talk 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reason? I mean I request that you advice me - am i doing something which is not according to the rules according to "article probation" ? Thanks. --Area69 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please since you follow the discussion notify me if any of my actions have been disruptive- If you want. Thanks again.Best.--Area69 (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Probation

You think that is the way to go? I am not so sure, but maybe.--Filll (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's try. If it doesn't work, we can undo it. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the problem is not so much incivility. There is a group, represented by User:Orangemarlin and User: Peter morrell for example, are not always civil, but who cares? They are productive and are willing and able to follow the rules and they have demonstrated this, and as far as I am concerned, that is the main thing.

However, there is a second group, consisting of a good half dozen or more "regulars" on the homeopathy pages, and a few socks, anons, meats, etc that appear and disappear, that are (1) unproductive (2) reject ideas to try to make things productive or cooperative or bury the page in text spew repeating the same nonsense over and over so we are flooded with garbage and cannot function and (3) are unable and / or unwilling to follow the rules and procedures of Wikipedia.

I do not know if the administrative structions can handle or are even aware of the second group, since they are civil. The administrative procedures go after the first group, because they are easy to spot, particularly when one says something like "You are a flaming $#^%*!!". The system "works" and targets people from group 1, but over and over and over, ignores people from group 2.

It is just too hard and too much effort to sanction people from group two, compared to people from group one. So that is what the system does; it follows the easy path.

And we get what we get. Now by being even more aggressive, will the attention be focused on group one or group two? Cracking down on group one harder will do NOTHING that is needed. It is group two that is our root problem. --Filll (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on how uninvolved administrators interpret "disruptive edits". That should mean more than incivility--it should apply to misrepresenting sources, obstructing efforts to reach consensus, and so on. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding warning tag that was removed on homeopathy talk page: Is this the discussion you are talking about? Anthon01 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)\

Yes and if it goes into effect, a lot of the people on the talk page and on the article will not do what they have been doing for the last few weeks and months without penalty.--Filll (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Anthon01 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant articles

No doubt you're aware of many of the articles that should be included in this probation, but I thought I'd offer a little help...Here's a short list of articles that definitely need to be included as homeopathy-based arguments have spilled over:

And maybe these, too:

Perhaps more soon...(?) — Scientizzle 22:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, when WP:AN gets archived, you'll probably want to update the link within Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation so it points to the archived community discussion. (Otherwise, someone will complain.) (Someone will probably complain anyway, but at least we'll have a pointer to the discussion.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! That is why I have been linking to the subpage from everywhere else. That way the link to the discussion only needs to be updated in just one place. Jehochman ^Talk 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There are homeopathy probation tags being placed on non-homeopathy pages and on pages with no history of edit wars. What gives? Who decides what pages are related to homeopathy? Anthon01 (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant talk here. The template talk should be the place to contest a specific article being on probation as a central place. Lawrence § t/e 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Any subject connected to homeopathy, broadly construed can be tagged. If there are tagging problems, go to WP:AN so more people can see the discussion. The template talk page should be reserved specifically for questions about the template itself. If an editor with a history of editing homeopathy articles removes a tag, that's probably a bad sign. If a previously uninvolved editor, non-[[WP:SPA|SPA}}, removes a tag, that's probably less worrisome. Jehochman ^Talk 23:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The following is strictly my personal opinion, but it may contain some elements that can be informative:

In the beginning I didn't understand why the template should be placed on articles that obviously were not homeopathic articles, but later I read a comment that made more sense. It appears that the template and article probation are designed to make it easier to reign in homeopathic POV advocates (advocacy is forbidden here), and anyone who is disruptive in any manner related to homeopathy edits and discussions, IOW anywhere it happens at Wikipedia. In short it makes it easier for admins to stop fires and keep them from spreading. Here is a list of where the template is currently being used.

Therefore the template follows the numerous attempts by these POV pushers and advocates to insert homeopathy into all kinds of (often unrelated) articles, especially when those attempts are often used as an excuse by the author (an editor) to suggest (on talk pages) that the author's own book about homeopathy and his website be used as a source. Such attempts have resulted in many edit wars and fires getting started on articles that aren't normally associated with homeopathy. Although homeopathic drugs have no calories or active ingredients, the subject certainly provides plenty of fuel for these fires! Therefore the template follows the slightest mention of the subject of homeopathy, no matter where it comes up. It is a sort of "whack a mole" thing that is designed to curb edit wars wherever these attempted inclusions occur. It applies to editors of all persuasions. -- Fyslee / talk 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Supercomplixcated code

What's the supercomplixcated code for 80% font size? El_C 17:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Code such as <span style="font-size:0.8em">smaller text</span> should produce smaller text. "Em"s are relative to the size of the parent element, so 0.8em is 80% the size of the parent element. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Demonstration of relative sizing: smaller text

This also a good way to make text bigger. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

→Thanks! Noted for future reference. El_C 10:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Blackamoor

I was responding to an event that occurred before the banned was put in place. He posted an AN/RfA against me and I had just notice that it had been dismissed. Most of that section existed before the ban. I will refrain from commenting more on his talk page. He has been commenting freely on my talk page on a related manner. Anthon01 (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My advice is somewhat universal. Parties involved in a conflict should try to avoid giving each other warnings, because those often result in accusations of vexatious litigation or abuse of process. Jehochman ^Talk 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the sound advice. Do you consider this inappropriate? [28] I would like to point you to this diff.[[29]] I will willingly comply with whatever recommendations you make. Anthon01 (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative medical systems infobox

We used to have that on the page, months ago, if I am not mistaken.--Filll (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Any reason it was taken off? It seems like an obvious, non-controversial improvement, and it might end the pseudoscience box warring. Jehochman ^Talk 16:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I do not rememeber. It might have been merely an aesthetics issue.--Filll (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are aesthetic concerns, my HTML skills are not bad. Feel free to ask for help. It seems like adding a proper menu would help to stabilize the article. Jehochman ^Talk 17:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no complaints with it. I think Wikidudeman removed it, but he is no longer involved.--Filll (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

your comment

I noticed an editor deleted matertial from the article.[30] I went to the talk page and gave a chance to others to provide the appropriate references.[31] Please explain your comment. Quack Guru 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Please explain yourself, with regards to this statement. Are you implying that I purposefully came to the COI board simply to cause trouble? Since you currently one of the admins overseeing the Homeopathy case, you need to explain why you resorted to such a stunning lack of good faith in making the comment, yet still see yourself as capable of being impartial on the case. Baegis (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, my comment was not directed towards you. Sorry for the confusion. I will endeavor to be clearer in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 21:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for rectifying the problem. I appreciate your promptness. I struck out my comments. Cheers! Baegis (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the notice. Anthon01 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate ban

Hi Jehochman -- I don't want to get all dramatic, and I like your efforts to keep things cool at the volcano that Talk:Homeopathy has become, but I think it was a very bad call for you to topic-ban User:Art Carlson.[32] His conduct -- calmly expressing a defensible opinion, and making a single edit -- is not grounds for banning. Basically, it sounds like you banned him because you disagree with his assessment of the quality of sources. Reasonable people can disagree on that, especially when they're physics PhD's, like Art is.

Art was not arguing whether or not homeopathy is pseudoscience, but rather whether or not the sources given reached the threshold of scientific consensus. That's based on WP:NOTTRUTH and well-established. His argument, which I have echoed and believe is sound, is based firmly on policy: WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience and WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus. He explained it fine in the diffs you cited, which if anything should be cited as a model of balance and calmness, not ban-sticked, fer cryin' out loud. The issue of source-quality for the article issue is ongoing, and it's appropriate and inevitable that it will be discussed. For example, you weighed in repeatedly on Quackwatch, yet nobody topic-banned you; and of course, no one should have.

The issue of category:pseudoscience is now pretty much laid to rest, IMO, thanks to the sci-consensus source that another editor recently posted. But it's not cool to topic-ban an editor for conduct as unremarkable as Art's was, all the more given that he's an expert editor with a distinguished edit history.

Art's a big boy and I doubt this is going to be a giant buzzkill for him, but still, I hope you do the right thing and reverse the ban. Things get overheated and we all make mistakes; not a big deal. all the best, Jim Butler (t) 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Please reconsider. From what I read here.COuld you also tell me your opinion whether or not according to wiki policy controversial articles should be tagged with labels like pseudoscience? I have posted a question in the talk page. Thank again.Best.--Area69 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[33]

Best.--Area69 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for using category:pseudoscience are given at WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. Jehochman, do you see that "generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community" requires a source, and a particular type of source? regards, Jim Butler (t) 07:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well this the same argument I have been having on that page when I was summarily banned. Anthon01 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, don't delude yourself -- there is a large difference in the way you presented your evidence and the way Art presented his. You were rightfully banned, Art was not.

Jonathan, I agree with Jim, you need to reconider your ban, and in my opinion should reverse it. Over-reactions, which is a word that I think best sums up your ban of Art, are not helpful. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about undoing it early because he hasn't been the least bit disruptive since then, which gives me hope that things will be well in the future. Okay, let's try. Jehochman ^Talk 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool... really glad you did that. all best, Jim Butler (t) 05:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If I'm wrong you can always wiki-slap me and say "see, I was right" -- or something like that. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 23:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rot

Your first claim was "he hasn't been invited to participate, thus I'm closing the thread." Now it is "that was a request for information, not an appeal, so I'm closing the thread", when the diff clearly indicates that he was notified some time ago, and the request had been made on AN. To say that "since he asked for reasons, it wasn't an appeal" is pretty blatant wikilawyering. Bad form. If you want to minimise drama, that sort of niggling isnt the way to do it. Relata refero (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to editors being complaints to AN/ANI without first attempting to work out disagreements. This is an essential requirement, not mere wikilawyering. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not in this case, where a mandated article restriction is in effect. The purpose of doing it in a centralized manner is precisely so that everybody can keep an eye on what's going on. Relata refero (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI is for incidents that require administrator intervention. There is no reason to use ANI for asking East718 to explain their actions, unless the poster wishes to stir up drama and apply pressure. Those are not appropriate reasons for posting to ANI, hence my criticism. Jehochman ^Talk 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But, dash it, he posted originally to AN! You moved it to AN/I! And AN is specifically mentioned in the probation requirements! Relata refero (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved it because there was another ANI thread already, and I thought it was an appeal, not a request for info. This user has been promulgating a vast number of threads, which is regrettable. Jehochman ^Talk 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you may have had good reasons, but it is absurd for you to then blame him for opening a thread at AN/I to create drama, when he opened a thread at AN as he was supposed to. Relata refero (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But because he has been civil about it all, it paralyses the system, doesn't it? How about you just warn him for DE and TE? O, but then you end up in East's shoes, and the civil POV-pusher gets rewarded. O well, all rods of your own creations unfortunately... Shot info (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been asking for an explantion since Saturday morning. Its more than 48 hours and no respoonse yet. What do I do now? Anthon01 (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, i take offense to your characterization of me as a POV-pusher. Anthon01 (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, it's expected, you take offence at all sorts of things. Feel free to forum shop and add to your already large and unweildy number of threads however. Shot info (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you put the encyclopedia first, and your personal preferences second, nobody will accuse you of POV pushing. If you are here to write an encyclopedia, go pick a random article and work on it. Develop your skills and learn how Wikipedia works. If I were banned from any one, ten or one hundred articles, it would not bother me at all. I would go work on something else. We have more than a million articles. Jehochman ^Talk 01:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we please talk frankly about the uncivil use of "POV Pusher"? It is to my understanding per WP:POVPUSH that describing another editor as such is never civil. Everyone please refrain. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My goal is to help develop alt-med articles of the encyclopedia. These areas are prone to be contentious. I was summarily banned. It would have been helpful if an admin, like you, would have warned me with clear admonishions (as you are doing now on the H talk page) before being banning. Without the benefit of an clearer explanation or review of my ban, moving to other alt-med articles puts me in the same position of being summarily banned again, perhaps for a longer period of time. This is the major reason I am asking for clarification. Anthon01 (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The other alt med articles are not subject to article probation, so you need not worry so much over them. Just be polite, and do not push too hard, and you will be fine. When you return to homeopathy, recognize that it is a minefield, and use extra care to read the relevant policies before editing, and attempt to gain consensus without resorting to legal-style arguments. I hope this helps. Jehochman ^Talk 15:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC), note User:Thatcher is the clerk, not me, I'm just opening for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

References section on the Talk:Homeopathy page

I have been unsuccessful in getting a references section on the Talk:Homeopathy page to work. Any suggestions? A references section works fine on the Talk:Chiropractic page, but not on the Talk:Homeopathy page. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is one already, in the middle of the page. Two will not work. Look for {{reflist}} or <references/> in the code. Jehochman ^Talk 01:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking toward the future

It might be a good idea if, using the lessons learned on Homeopathy, we could develop a better guideline on exactly what is and isn't kosher on pages under probation. We all seem to be floundering a bit, unsure of what's cool and what isn't. Just a thought. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is quite easy, really:

Do not editwar;
Be nice to others;
Avoid making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article;
Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article;
No much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian;
We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people;
So don't get worked up when you get dinged. Take a break and come back refreshed.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but let's codify it. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This probation business is giving too many editors itchy trigger fingers with no objective foundation. (I agree with Adam Cuerden's comments here). --Jim Butler (t) 05:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's get started then. I set up User:Jim62sch/article_probation_guidelines for it. My typing skills are abyssmal now as my right wrist is broken, so it might be good if you did the set-up. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Better not to move it

Because I've filed several RFCU and SSP files on them in one month, some of them are infinitely blocked. However, I can't prevent the determined socks from altering information without proof. And the checkuser who've looked at the files said my filing become an abuse of RFCU. I actually didn't expect at ANI at all because everyone thinks that it is just a matter of contents dispute, but it is not. I'm getting to lose my belief on English Wikipedia. --Appletrees (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I will try to help you. Is an article being attacked by multiple IPs? If so, give me the names of the articles and I will semi-protect them. Jehochman ^Talk 16:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for caring this. The article the anons recently have attacked is Koreans in Japan. But unless their ips are blocked, they(he) can create as many account as he seems to need. One of his purposes for doing this is just to make me violate 3RR. He seems to have a deep grudge against me because I made them blocked--Appletrees (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion in Homeopathy

Hello Jehochman:

I'm far from being an important editor in homeopathy, but I do try to help.

Lately, the discussion page has been overflowing with multiple, mostly unrelated conversations about the wording of the lead section. I was involved in one where there seemed to be progress being made. Then I found there were other conversations in other sections, going in different directions. Is there any way, under the article probation, bring in a more structured way of organizing the discussion? (On a trial basis.)

The other concern I have now is that editor Addhoc took one of the numerous versions of the lead that are in the talk, and put it into the article, replacing what was there. Strikes me as a disruption of the process.

I bet you are really sick of homeopathy by now.

Thanks for listening. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

PS Did you know there are homeopathy jokes?

Patient on telephone, "Doctor, Doctor, I've got this terrible pain!" Doctor says, "Take two aspirin in a million gallons of water, and see me in the morning."

Did you hear about the new cure for dehydration? You just take one of these pills with three glasses of water. Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

editing restrictions

What's the deal with wp:probation being superseded by wp:editing restrictions? There's nothing on either talk page regarding why this came about. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

...do ips get ignored? From the talk pages it seemed like you would know about it. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

As an outsider knowing the obvious problems going on there I wanted to bring to your attention that after reading this article I came away with not knowing what the heck is considered Homeopathy. I don't understand all the squabbling going on but to me the article is supposed to tell someone like me what it is and what it isn't and it doesn't do either in my opinion. Maybe while you are getting editors to focus you can get them to focus on writing the article to show people what homeopathy is (and isn't.) I thought this was the reason for articles in the first place but I don't see this article standing up to even the worse articles I've been to. This is just a suggestion since I know you are one of the editors watching the pages there to try to get things under control. I am totally flabbergasted by some of the behavior and arguments going on there. Anyways, thanks for listening and I hope my coming here and posting this is alright with you. I will study on my own to see what homeopathy is. Just for the record, I think I posted once on the talk page when things were out of control and suggested that everyone give their keyboards a rest and reread the talk page and the article again. Of course I was told basically no. But I was just trying to calm the waters there. Again thanks for listening to me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep watching, and please feel free to chime in when people start bickering, and ask them to stop. Jehochman ^Talk 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have it on my wathpage mainly out of curiousity. I will try to help out. I know it's a big job and think Jossi got a bad deal out of it. :( --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?

are these appropriate?. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I know you weren't talking to me but I am going to give an opinion. I think the whole conversation is totally rude and since I know the beginning of the feud and tried to calm the waters unsuccessfully, something should be done to stop the attacks against Ronz ASAP. He just tries to follow policy and really knows it well. I want to admit that Ronz helped me understand policy when I first arrived around Jan. 2007. I also have had contact with the other two. I try to stay polite at all times and at all costs. I just want to be up front with this information which can obviously be checked out at my contributions. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Diffs

I have responded to your request for diffs on the homeopathy/I page. Anthon01 (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I am not an administrator so....

Would you please check out the back and forth between these two? http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&curid=197022&diff=190008123&oldid=190002379 Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about Twinkle use

Is Twinkle allowed to be used for reverting and/or edit wars? I don't have Twinkle but it's being used for this. The latest place was at [34] and this was at least the second time TW was used for this revert. I don't have Twinkle so I don't know if this is right or wrong do I am bringing it to the attention of an administrator, you! :) I thought it was supposed to be used for policy things not things like this. I appreciate your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The tool isn't the problem so much as the behavior. Reverting isn't the way to make progress. Jehochman ^Talk 18:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is to inform you that I took this question to the ANI Board here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Question_about_Twinkle_use

I would appreciate any responses you have. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

More stuff for you to (not) deal with.

[35] . It's just an administrator with a user account under their real name under duress being cursed by an adminstrator at while they try to leave wikipedia and get their name off of it, so it's worth ignoring - it's not like some random user with no edit history were being treated incivilly - that would be a DISASTER! Even worse is if sockpuppets of banned users were being treated wrongly. That might call for a fullscale RIOT! PouponOnToast (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2008

You are so right, the behavior at ANI, ARB etc is totally rude. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend deleting uncivil remarks. That's what I've done. Jehochman ^Talk 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken wikibreak

Thanks for the advice, but I'm going to break my wikibreak and post anyway. A post to Guy's talk page first, and then more later if needed. The declined block review has got me so annoyed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that went better than I thought it would. Maybe the way to avoid drama is to post such large amounts that no-one bothers to reply at a similar length? :-) Thanks for the point about checkuser. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL! That is classic. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice essay

Good job of writing up Geogre's comment at Wikipedia:Ping pong! I just tweaked it a bit. Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Free Republic ArbCom Finding

Unfortunately, the ArbCom passed a rather toothless version of the sanction. From the General Sanctions page, here's the exact finding that leads me to my viewpoint on this issue.

It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources.The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

I've bolded the relevant section. Hindsight, of course is 20/20 :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Make a motion for them to upgrade the sanction to the latest, standard article probation wording. They may do so. There's no reason to tolerate abuse. Jehochman ^Talk 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Done on the main RfArb page, if you want to support me :D SirFozzie (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet conspiracy

~~Something arbcom needs to know about..... Albion moonlight (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)~~

My apologies. I am semi computer illiterate when it comes to computer jargon, I thought on user was directing another user to a site where Ip addresses can be disguised. I am now assuming that I was incorrect. I apologize for my ignorance in this matter. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Purger ?

I have started action against Standshown/Stagalj/Smerdyakoff in this case: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Purger . Maybe I have choosen wrong name (User:Purger) but this is my first time so it has been little weird for me to start action with name Velebit2. It is possible to see that ulmost everyday when I am on wiki I write new evidence so this will become book in near future :) --Rjecina (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem over at [Chiropratic]]

Would you please check out the many conversations going on there? I've posted twice to be WP:Civil but I have been ignored. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:EBDCM#Chiropractic_article seems to have a big COI and doesn't seem to be able to work for NPOV. He keeps asking Levine to step in, which to me is no surprise. I am trying to help editors talk about edits and not editors but no one seems to listen to me. Can you help out please? Things there are very nasty and rude and again it's seems one side insist on attacking anyone on the other side. Granted most of the time they are polite' but attacking is attacking and needs to be stopped before lots of editors decide it's not worth it.

I myself is working to bring Crohn's disease up to a level with more information, esp. for the newly diagnosed and also to make it more people friendly. So far I seem to have help one woman who is pregnant, though I don't know what I did, but it's a start. I plan on continuing on working this article and articles like it but I still watch my watch page. I hope you can help with this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take this matter to Wikiquette alerts or Editor assistance reports for prompt handling. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Trollwork?

I wasnt showcasing trollwork when I posted User talk:76.171.233.89 on the noticeboard... I was making sure you guys knew what was going on with that. About a minute after I posted it, of course, someone took care of it. I was going back to make a notification that it had been handled, when I couldnt find it. I thought you admin types were supposed to assume good faith? Gimme the benefit of the doubt next time, deal? Queerbubbles (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Deal. The edit summary referred to the result, rather than your intentions. For the future, Administrator intervention against vandalism is a good place to report things like this. That page is not archived, and as soon as the vandal is blocked, the report is erased, unlike Administrators' noticeboard incidents. This tends to prevent trolls from gaining visibility, which is exactly the right strategy. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 15:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Will you review this?

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#National_Policing_Improvement_Agency. Your thoughts on the recent edits would be appreciated. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good case for checkuser and a rangeblock. We should avoid protection if it is just one or two users. Jehochman ^Talk 18:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that the blocks on User:MatthewHoffman were unjustified. It also states that Vanished user's adminship will be waived at this time. Vanished user may regain his sysop access by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards. If regained, he will then be placed on parole with regard to both conduct and admin tool use for a further period of six months. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 13:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/68.109.68.240 a.k.a. Atari400/KirbyTime

S/He is done with his/her two week ban. Just felt like reminding you. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pvsamrat (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)pvsamrat hi jehochman,i am not using any multiple accounts,i just had only one account in wikipedia

Take a look

Can you take a look at this, this proxy stuff is more up your alley. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked carefully, then added my thoughts to that thread on your talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Outlaw Halo Award
		This award is given to Jehochman for civility during a past block. When unwritten Wikipedia customs weren't followed, he continued to maintain a spirit of collegiality and understanding. Archtransit (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC) (about the award)

w00t! Jehochman ^Talk 00:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it.

I respect your concern but I don't understand you. Content dispute happens all the times within Wikipedia, but if someone tries to avoid seemingly 3RR violation and to looks like getting supports by others with sock puppetry, that is a huge deceit. You may wonder why I file a series of RFCU files on people who have content dispute with me is I feel real puppeter is not caught up yet. They started targeting on me to violate 3RR or something disruptive to wish I lose my patience or temper. I don't get fooled from my previous experience. I repeatedly suggested them to engage in a discussion but got no ansswer. Some editor(s) even impersonates me as copying my comment and behavioral pattern or a new user with very similar name to mine edits the same article in which I participate. The best way for them or admins who want to end this tedious process might be my silence or condoning their behaviors. I found that some of them took advantage of sockpupptry when they voted. Preparing RFCU or SSP files are consuming a lot of time. I can't edit anything in the circumstance at all. I feel offended by your "comment" that I might do fishing. Why would I? I hope all disruption to be stopped. --Appletrees (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be casting too wide a net. Please try to identify the most likely sources of disruption and focus on them. Jehochman ^Talk 16:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't want to make several more RFCU files and they are all linked to each other. I'm getting threats from the banned user to stop me investigating them. As I dig old file cases, I acknowledge that they use some bulletin board like 2channel. --Appletrees (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have so many good reasons to be upset over their activities, because I've put up with their disruption since September. However, I'm very calm and patient to prepare the files. I'm aware of the fact that dispute procedures and reporting at ANI never gave me any relief to resolve disputes. With RFCU, some of abusive editors are banned, but they are too many out there. What is your suggestion that I deal with those people except filing to RFCU and SSP? I can't do fishing because I take my risk. Even after seeing this poll procedure on Sea of Japan, your concern would be not changed, I guess I have to seek help from other place. I need a neutral point of view and justice but you seem to want just "peace" in Wikipedia.

Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21 --Appletrees (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Scalps

You consider the statement that I'll be coming for scalps to be incivil, but you find nothing inapropriate about this? PouponOnToast (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you objecting to him calling you "Poop". I must admit that I've thought of indefing your account as an inappropriate username. It unavoidably looks and sounds like "PoopOnToast". The appearance is that you chose this username as a form of trolling, but you're being subtle and just skirting the edge of username policy. Would you like to comment on that? Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am commenting on the entirety of the comment, from the Poop, which is a blatent violation, to the constant sarcasm. My name is taken from a comment made on this encyclopedia that I found amusing. If you would like to insist that I change it, please do not block the account - I will file a CHU on official adminstrative request which I would treat as a block in abeyance. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not insisting that you change it, because secretly, at heart, I am a bit of a troll myself and wouldn't mind having a troublesome username. However, without needing to feel yourself blocked, I think you would get a better reception if you chose a different username. It's easy enough to request a change. Given your current name, the "Poop" comment isn't really so offensive because it's just stating the obvious, that everyone sees "PoopOnToast" when they look at your username. I have small children who really go for this sort of humor. Anyhow, think about changing it, then if somebody calls you a bad name, we can earnestly criticize them. Jehochman ^Talk 14:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read through the entirety of the discussion - Poupon Poop. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually thought for a long time that it was PoopOnToast. I was getting a kick out of it until I realized that there was a u somewhere in there. Poop. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Given My inclination to shorten people's names, I've always thought of him/her as POT. :-) R. Baley (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI I appreciate your refocus on Cold Fusion as opposed playing sockdrawer with the participants, Seicer. PouponOnToast (talk · contribs)

"Sock drawer"? BTW, can you provide a valid e-mail address to e-mail, or e-mail me directly? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly prefer not to interact via email. I will certainly not reply to emails except onwiki. I am unreachable except my talk page currently, such that no one can accuse me of soliciting or being solicited to assist offwiki. If it needs to be said, someone else can read it also. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact, Waterboarding and all closely-related pages are subject to article probation (full remedy); editors working on Waterboarding, or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (full remedy).

Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (full enforcement). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Now that our little sunshine of an RFAR is over, I'm taking that break I mentioned. Back soon to work on articles, at last. Keep an eye on the farm, and see you soon. Lawrence § t/e 14:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, keep on an eye on this? I won't be checking much on the wiki for hopefully a few weeks. Email me if it gets resolved either way? I owe apologies to a few users if I am wrong, and intend to keep my word on that. Lawrence § t/e 14:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Snocrates

For lack of a better place, I've commented at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Snocrates. I see that not only is the page tagged "archived", but has actually already been archived from the main WP:SSP page, so I doubt many will see it, but I thought I'd at least let you know it was there. Pretty much what I said at East's talk page last night: I'm a little surprised, and I guess somewhat disappointed, at the apparent eagerness of everyone to take the roommate excuse at face value, but whatever.

Just curious, no need to respond if it's none of my business, but I'm curious if your own gut feeling is that this explanation is true, or if you just think this particular case isn't worth the trouble of finding out whether it's true or not, or if you think it's false but don't think this case is worth the time proving it. Or, I suppose, option #4, that you think it is worth pursuing, and I'm misreading people's attitudes and should be more patient.

A final favor to ask: if you open a discussion about how to handle the more general problem of people using the "my roommate did it" excuse, or you see that someone else has started it somewhere, please let me know by pinging my talk page. I'd like to participate, but my time is somewhat limited, so I can't constantly monitor AN, ANI, WT:SOCK, to discover where, when, or if that conversation happens. I'd appreciate it. --barneca (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you can start a discussion at WP:AN. My personal feeling is that we should encourage roommates to make an advance disclosure, and to give notice at any page where they participate together. If they fail to do so, they should be warned first, and then blocked if they continue to edit without disclosure. Either they can disclose or they can avoid each other.

Whether these are roommates or sock puppets doesn't really matter. Two people living or working together who edit the same way will be considered meat puppets for Wikipedia purposes and treated like socks. Jehochman ^Talk 15:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just added a clarification to WP:SOCK. Feel free to join the discussion there. Jehochman ^Talk 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with your addition to WP:SOCK. My concern comes with giving everyone caught in a Checkuser one free pass, no matter how implausible it is. I've started a discussion at WP:AN#The dog ate my homework. --barneca (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Standshown (talk · contribs)

Per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Standshown you asked to be notified if edit warring resumed. It seems to be all this user does. While Stagalj has been blocked as a sock, this editor shows no willingness to accept the agreements of other editors and will edit war over long periods of time even by removing cited information until he gets his way. See the edit histories here [36] and here [37] and here [38].--Veritas (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for edit warring on Puppet state and placed on editing restriction per Digwuren. Jehochman ^Talk 14:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is confirmed by checkuser Standshown=Smerdyakoff and Stagalj has not been declared innocent[39] . They have supported one another in RFC about Puppet state [40] and in article Serbia (1941-44) [41] --Rjecina (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Homeopathy/Warning

Hi Jehochman. Sorry I am posting here with a few concerns, but there is a warren of discussion pages regarding the issue. It is also quite a novel approach to reducing disruption, so the channels and forums for this 'probation' on articles are not evident.

The template has been included at Thuja occidentalis, where the talk page became a forum for this issue, but to include it here greatly increases the scope of the 'sanction'.
I also note that someone included the Category:Articles on probation in the template. The category page states, These articles have been placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee., which is not accurate AFAIK.
The solution to this issue would seem to have consensus, but I believe the community may have acted rashly in doing this. Some points relating to the implications, management, and establishment of precedence were not adequately discussed - IMO. I hope the discussion is reinvigorated.

Thanks for putting your efforts into finding solutions to disruption, I hope my comments are useful. cygnis insignis 03:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC) and added links 03:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of user:CompScientist

I have proposed a community ban of CompScientist, based upon a new sock puppet that cropped up today at Vietnam War. While blocking the user may work in the short term, a community ban may be more preferred and was actually suggested at a prior CU. My account is listed at WP:ANI#Community ban of user:CompScientist. Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

user:UkraineToday sockpuppets

Jehochman,

is there a faster way to block new socks? As soon as one is blocked, new ones sprout up, restoring the same edits. I see a new IP, 68.38.31.220, just a few minutes really after you blocked based on the 5th report.

Ironically, I was thinking about asking if there was any way to revisit the initial ban (Ukraine is politically divided down the middle. On the issues he tries to contribute on, here on WP, he is more or less alone, and clearly feels that one POV is getting pushed.) He might have helped balance articles - but his naming of RL ids and his ban-evading sock-use are too much. Jd2718 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just block them. ;-) You can leave notes for me or any other administrator who is familiar if there are very obvious socks. Jehochman ^Talk 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Were it so easy. :) I am not an admin (nor should I become one). But in this case these are dirt obvious, and he creates them in flurries. I assume there will be 2, 3, 4 more, and then nothing until next weekend, or the weekend after. Here's another, newer: 80.97.94.178 . (didn't you range block in the 80.97s? ) Jd2718 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. I am stepping out. Please take this to ANI for follow up. Jehochman ^Talk 17:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll file at AN/I with the arrival of the next sock. Jd2718 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppets

I have blocked both confirmed accounts from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Smerdyakoff. I have raised the situation for further review at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive246#Sockpuppet situation needing more research. If you have further insight and/or evidence into the situation, it would be sincerely appreciated. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

Given that you have been instrumental in setting probation for several articles, could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Article_probation_-_proposal? Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of CeraSport and CeraLyte

Hello Jehochman

I have been out of the loop for a while. I would like to get clarity on this topic if possible. I left this message on the talk page of the person who did delete the said pages.

"I am not an employee of this company. I have been away since I added these articles. My first article about this company was approved as should its other aspects. See Talk:Cera_Products.Coke, Pepsi, Gatorade Powerade all have a presence. All their research is in-house reseach. What Cera Products offers has been academically proven in peer review journals and is used in the medical field. Gatorade and powerade have not and are not recomended by physicians. These articles are worthy of being published in Wikipedia because, the product has been scientifically proven and it is an evolution of high quality natural health products for rehydration."

Is there anything else I can do?

User_talk:jabaker75

Yes. Level with me. Your goal is to promote these products, isn't that right? This is apparent from the tone of your post. Jehochman ^Talk 21:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with the understanding that every thing on wiki is a promotion of information. Please see Risperidone. As such, cera products has been verified by FDA, and numerous academic, peer reviewed journals. Again please see Talk:Cera_Products. My current understanding is that as long as there is enough WP:RS then the material is substanciated. True?

With apprieciation for your work.

Jabaker75 (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. These products should not have their own pages. They have not received sufficient independent coverage to warrant separate articles from the company. Debating this with me is not productive. I recommend you discuss this at Talk:Cera Products. I strongly urge you to disclose the apparent connection between yourself and the company. Perhaps you are a dealer, affiliate, PR agency employee, or other connected party. Jehochman ^Talk 02:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Talk:Homeopathy

Would you take a look at [42][43] please? —Whig (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Josepha Marschke

Hi, did you actually place this request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser? It doesn't look as if you did, and I was wondering if that was required? -- Roleplayer (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A clerk will list it eventually. Jehochman ^Talk 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK :-) -- Roleplayer (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Deadly nightshade

More of the endless homeopathy stuff. Perhaps you could suggest to some of the editors that undiscussed reverts are a bad thing? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Come to my page. . . I have a response. Thank you.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note my comments on my talk page that I believed that I was following the guidelines of the conditions stated at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am respectfully requesting that you lift my 7 day ban on homeopathy related articles. I sincerely believed that I was following the letter and the spirit of the guideline at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation: "Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article" [[44]]. There did not appear to be any reasonable reason for me to repeat what had been discussed so extensively and repeatedly. [[45]] I also did not revert, but made changes in accord with what appeared to be the consensus (after very long and extensive discusssion) at the article discussion page: I removed the inappropriate therapeutic claims for homeopathy, and simply returned 1 sentence (with reference) stating that the plant was used in the manufacture of homeopathic products. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic amended

In light of continued disputes, remedy 4 adopted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic is amended by adding:

"Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable editing restriction (for example, 1RR) or page ban upon any editor who repeatedly engages in disruptive or uncivil editing of Free Republic or any closely related page. Prior to imposing such a ban or restriction, a warning should be given on the affected user's talkpage. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans."

All editors, particularly including single purpose accounts and editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest, are strongly urged to edit Free Republic and related articles only in conformity with all Wikipedia policies and with this committee's prior decision. If the enhanced administrator authority provided in this ruling does not improve the situation on this article after 30 days, a request for a more formal Arbitration Committee review may be submitted.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Frustration on Talk:Quackwatch

I was wondering if you could help mediate a dispute at Talk:Quackwatch#consensus or no consensus (also see related discussion at Talk:Quackwatch#These conclusions could apply to the pseudotemplate itself). Ronz appears to be deliberately stonewalling when I ask him to present his arguments for inclusion of the pseudotemplate. It's impossible to carry on an actual discussion about the content this way. I'm hoping that an outside, authoritative voice might help to break us out of this cycle. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Update) Well, things have gotten a bit better with some effort, so mediation might not be necessary at this point. Ronz's behavior still does leave a bit to desire here (almost as if he was trying to make us waste time), but hopefully we're at least past that. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

re User:Arion 3x3

Just a heads up, following the discussion at their talkpage the editor has posted a request to lift the article block at WP:AN. You may wish to put your side. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for lifting the ban and changing it to 1RR per day per article. I had already made a commitment to do that one month ago on the Homeopathy talk page at the request of Jossi (he asked all to make that commitment, and only a few did). Secondly, you wrote to me: "Anybody who reverts you twice without discussion should receive the same remedy, so just let me know if it happens. Additionally, if you know who the problem editors are, please do tell and provide diffs of three to five egregious examples for each editor." Where do I submit this information to you? Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving. . .

Hi Jehochman, thanks for closing this SSP case diff. I see that C1 looks to be on a wikibreak, hopefully s/he can recharge, I fear that WQA may have caused him/her too much stress over the long term. Anyways, thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LakeOswego

Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LakeOswego. I didn't go straight to RFCU because I though that code D didn't apply if the outcome of the AfD wasn't affected. I guess I will, and they can accept or reject as necessary. — Scientizzle 03:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The outcome was challenged at ANI, wasn't it? This could be brought to DRV. If there was real abuse and an appearance of sock puppetry, I think the checkusers will accept it. Jehochman ^Talk 03:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a solid rationale. Thanks! — Scientizzle 03:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A question

First, an answer: EVP is the idea that ghosts talk to the living by interfering with their televisions and radios. The answer of "interference" doesn't seem to occur to its adherents.

Second, a question: If I look over the arbitration decision on pseudoscience, I see a few different categories of pseudoscience. If the science in my favorite weeping sore, What the Bleep Do We Know, is described as pseudoscience in only a couple of sources, but "tosh", "balderdash", "quantum nonsense", "a tortured theory of quantum mechanics", "quantum mysticism", "a hoax", and "actively distorting science" in the remainder, do I get to treat it as Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more? Or Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience? Or is there someplace on Wikipedia that this issue would get discussed that isn't a battleground?Kww (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Article talk page, and if that fails, WP:RFC. Jehochman ^Talk 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll beat myself over the head with a hammer instead. At least I'll eventually stop, and I'll feel better when I do.Kww (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As to your Using IP to evade scrutiny

I went to the wrong School..:(

My personal edification...

Regarding User talk:68.109.68.240

Help with IP socks of banned User:Editorhwaller

Suspicions about new users

Good work

Apology

Cordelia's Dad AfD

User:Manhore

WP:BN

Follow up to ANI thread

"...has endorsed the idea"

Clarification

User Stagalj

Piperdown

Meant with the greatest of respect, really.

Old post up above

My Rfa

Miscellany for Deletion

WikiPedia has a Problem

Removed re-direct!

Answer

Categories

Wikipedia Troll

Re:Spanpo

I apologize

Your closing note at WP:ANI

MfD

Hi Jehochman

What do you think

Article probation notification

How do we get pass this

Duplicate

:)

Rfa thanks

Homeo

Note

Right venue?

Strongly object

Probation? SPA!

ANI report

Personal attacks:

My next essay WP:FLAME

Homeopathy and Wikiproject neutrality

Standshown/Stagalj

Please keep an eye

Consensus

Enforcement

Socks for User:CompScientist

rollback rights

Note on AN

Archive Tag

what im doing wrong

Probation

Relevant articles

Supercomplixcated code

Demonstration of relative sizing: smaller text

RE: Blackamoor

Alternative medical systems infobox

your comment

Apology

Thanks

Inappropriate ban

Rot

References section on the Talk:Homeopathy page

Looking toward the future

FYI

Better not to move it

Discussion in Homeopathy

editing restrictions

Homeopathy

Is this appropriate?

Diffs

Obviously I am not an administrator so....

Question about Twinkle use

More stuff for you to (not) deal with.

Broken wikibreak

Nice essay

Re: Free Republic ArbCom Finding