User talk:Jehochman/Archive 10

Ariobarza

seems right to me. Thanks; I settled on a week partly because I'm skittish about long blocks (being a rare user of the block button), but I didn't have much hope that he'd reform. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Channel operators

[1] List is here. Risker (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

and what lovely familiar names most of them are too. One reason why the Arbs will never act to remedy the behaviour in their own private channel. Dear old Flo and her mates. Giano (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I does seem like a very bad idea to appoint the same few people to all the assorted positions of trust and supervision. When a limited number of people are responsible for so many different things it is not surprising that they fail to pay close enough attention to their responsibilities. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I rather think you will find that IRC appoints them to, and keeps them in, their Wikipedia possitions. Giano (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked, shocked to discover that there are cabals at Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 17:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Water ionizer

Hi Jehochman, I didn't want to take this to any board for reasons of my own but would you mind checking this out, [2]. First the name suggests a COI and the user changed a great deal of the article and then an anon IP did a little clean up so I don't know if this is the same person or not. I don't know anything about this area and don't want to at this late time for me. I was just doing vandal patrol to try to help out a bit. If you wouldn't mind and have time to see if there is a problem here that would be nice. I just want to add that I don't know if it is a problem or not but reading it sounds like an advertisement to me, but I could definitely be wrong. If you don't that's ok too, I would understand. I have just seen you good at this kind of thing in the past. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

They have been blocked indefinitely. [3] Thank you for reporting this. Jehochman ^Talk 11:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to take care of this, much appreciated. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Coral Sea

Further information: Battle of the Coral Sea

Hey. I've added some pre-GA review tips on the article's talkpage that I'd suggest you look at. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated this very important article for good article listing. It should be much better quality. If you have time, please have a look. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 17:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That article is on my "to do" list to try to bring it up to FA standards. I'll probably get to it in another couple of months. Cla68 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Phobia spamming

I commented on this issue, which at root appears to be people creating articles due to something called phobia spamming. There seems to be a need to distinguish between spam lists and genuine lists of phobias. Since I know you have some knowledge of SEO (if that's unrelated to this, I apologise), would you be able to look at -phobia#Phobia_lists and read this and see what I wrote here. My question is whether that source is reliable enough to support the existence of the phenomenon of "phobia spamming"? Carcharoth (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Restart of wholesale reverts in Hemshin peoples entry

Hi Jehochman,

I am again approaching you on this entry, given that you seemed to be interested in keeping an eye on the entry.

As you might recall, I had earlier put an appeal on the WP:AE ( here) regarding the user Eupator's wholesale reverts, mentioning also that there were 3 other users who engage in wholesale reverts. One of these other users is user VartanM, who has just implemented another such wholesale revert. The reason he/she gives for this revert is that "there is no consensus". Just like the other 3, VartanM had blocked a mediation request I had filed upon page protection, and has not articulated a single comment relating to the content of the article to this day.

Please also have a look at the " About the Protect " section in the talk page for a brief summary of the development history of this entry, in case you are interested. As demonstrated by the talk page, these wholesale reverts basically take the entry to a version of more than a year ago, taking out a large amount of referenced material as well as undermining several months of discussions. Again, this user has not put forward any argument against the lead, history and groups sections which seem to be problematic for him/her. Such reverts also disrupt the ongoing discussions, such as the currently held relating to the "present situation" section.

The only thing I can do in such a case is to yet initialize another revert. Past experience shows that the mentioned users will take turns in wholesale reverting, avoiding discussions. I want to draw your attention to this situation and also ask for your guidence in this matter. Thank you.Omer182 (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a content dispute. Please file for mediation. That process will help reveal if there are any parties stonewalling. Those parties can be dealt with at arbitration enforcement. Jehochman ^Talk 16:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman, I just posted a comprehensive section on my talk page where the diffs you had asked for are provided. Please see section "Presentation of evidence as recommended by Jehochman" on my talk page. I will be travelling and might not have the possibility to check for your response for the next few days. Thanks.Omer182 (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see you presenting any evidence about anything other than everyone disagreeing with your POV-pushing (reinsertion of wholesale changes). You have totally ignored my documentation restricted on the intro, exactly the way you have ignored and changed subjects when relevant criticism were levelled against your edits, shows that you are not even interested in changing your disruptive behaviour.

Besides, if checkusers shows fruitless (won't be the first time it fails to find the obvious), here’s some intriguing information. Your first edit on Wikipedia was on November 6, 2006, you create your user page by adding several templates. We'd believe you know how to edit and even adding few templates. You then left this account alone until February 3, 2006 where you test how to post in discussion boards. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. After making those edits, two hours later Cihsai appears for the first time on English Wikipedia. Does this, then thought it was not enough, he erases all of your testing here, then continue testing, what you have started two hour before. Again [10], [11], [12].

I am not continuing but there’s cases like when you proposed your major changes just after Chihsai started criticising the article. The timing and the fact that both of you have that book appears to be more than a coincidence. Before stoning other users with such 'evidence' page you should ask yourself why that suspicion against you, and also why does every other user revert you to begin with. I'll stop here, since we are not on your talkpage. - Fedayee (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think this talk of checkusers and so on is useful. So what if Chihsai and Omer perhaps know each other in real life and share the same general goals for the article? The article's content and the way that sources are being misinterpreted or obscured and its text manipulated for POV reasons - that is the problem. I also don't see how mediation is going to help when the problem is far more than just a few specific points that are a source of conflict. Would it be useful to put together an alternative version of the article,and get arbritration to decide which would be the best? Meowy 03:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous. I think Omer must have beaten some sort of a record for a number of reverts on one article by the same user. He's also blatantly lying about others not discussing their reverts. He simply ignored all of it.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

But just repeatedly reverting Omer's repeated reverts isn't getting anywhere - it's just postponing dealing with the article's content, it looks bad from outside observers' pov, and it invites people with no previous connection to that article (and no knowledge of the subject to do real editing of the article) to do their own reverting. Meowy 12:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman,

• I just wondered if you had a chance to go through my presentation on my talk page ("Presentation of evidence as recommended by Jehochman" ) where I had presented diffs relating to the development of the entry (as well as a wholesale reverts table)? Do you require any additional explanation or evidence there?
• There have been three reverts in the last few days (two by an anon user takin back to ancient version and one by an uninvolved user who is apparently trying to fight vandism in WP, restoring to current version). In this situation I have no choice but to keep restoring. I believe this is an awkward situation.
• Sorry to take so much of your time with all this drama. However I don’t really know how this situation can be improved as long as users who have had no involvement in the entry keep wholesale reverting. I see this approach as an act of bullying and therefore find it unacceptable. I hope your continued interest in the entry will create a favorable editing environment. Omer182 (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

re AMIB

Mediation is impossible with someone that -will not negotiate-. If talking to the man helped, I would be talking, but he ignores everyone and does what he wants anyways. Jtrainor (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Then you should try to talk anyways. If it fails, this will show your good faith. The most important time to assume good faith is when you feel that it is not deserved. Jehochman ^Talk 22:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

AMIB has now blocked User:MalikCarr for the same reason he blocked me. This is patently ridiculous. Jtrainor (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on this further at ANI and AMIB's talk page. I'm also trying to find a suitable place to get second opinions on the extent and nature of any copyright violation, as the Gundam discussions seem to be going nowhere, and no-one is really commenting on that at ANI. Carcharoth (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I provided examples of several similar articles with material similar to that AMIB is trying to remove, that has been up for some time with no problems. Jtrainor (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. Since apparently no one cares about AMIB continuing to edit war and abuse his administrative powers, I have resumed reverting him. The only reason this isn't getting attention is because myself and User:MalikCarr are nobodies. AMIB has provided no proof whatsoever for his claims of copyvio, and his argument that the material in question is indeed copyvio has been shot full of holes by myself-- I showed that similar material is commonly included in fictional articles of that nature. Jtrainor (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the Jegan article is probably useless, but it is one point of a wider content dispute between AMIB and members of WP:Gundam. We have tried mediation, we have tried negotiating, we have tried compromising, and we have been trying for literally more than a year now (two years in three months). It does not work. More importantly, I think equivocating Jtrainor's less-than-ideal position on the Jegan article (which, upon review, is garbage and should probably be AfD'd and remade like I did with the Psyco Gundam) with legitimizing AMIB's one-(occasionally two-)man consensus that he is right and WP:Gundam is not is a terrifically bad precedent to set. MalikCarr (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Please do not interpret the above into being a claim that I am some sort of spokesman for WP:Gundam. I am not. However, it is relatively consistent that AMIB has frequently clashed with editors in said project - I believe reviewing the edit histories and talk pages of the articles in question, along with WP:Gundam's relevant pages, will display that well enough. MalikCarr (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Which boils down to the crux of the disagreement. Because I disagree with them about style, they cannot brook any edit I make to an article, cannot concede that copying text directly from copyrighted works is not okay, cannot give any ground. MalikCarr has reverted copyvio into MSN-03 Jagd Doga a third time, once again attempting to force a confrontation over copyright. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Except for all the other edits you made to those articles that I figured weren't worth fighting over in the name of civility and cooperation. But nevermind that, we should not question the sysop's judgment. Far be it for me, a humble editor, to have a contrary position and be bold in prosecuting it for the benefit of the encyclopedia. MalikCarr (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I. Have. Not. Copied. Verbatim. Text. From. ANYTHING. I'm not sure how else I can make this point, though now I can't make any points as you've seen fit to protect the article in question from my vandalism. I'm such a villain. MalikCarr (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum part the second: As long as copyvio is being accused relevant to the Jagd Doga article, (e.g. "lifted verbatim" from websites/books) I'm going to plaster the Google test into the relevant discussions. If, as AMIB claims, these figures are "lifted verbatim" from a given source, wouldn't they show up when pasted verbatim (and cleared of Wikipedia formatting, obviously) into Google? MalikCarr (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You've been mention on Talk:Battle of Opis

Scroll down to the section 'misconduct issues' (why no menu?), you'll be the admin he's talking about. And - that whole section has no business on a talk page. But I'm not sure what the proper course of action is now. (On another issue, I see Ariobarza sadly writing about 'suppressed evidence'). Thanks. dougweller (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd give it a week before he's indef-blocked again... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How did my opinion at the FS page sound?

Hi, Jehochman. After I got a weird warning from a user, and then visited his talk page to hear his/her rationale, I notice your comments there and the FS page along with the most weird comment by Shoe maker's. Do you think my response to Shoe...'s looks like to upset people? I just had a joke to the serious question (minor key) --Caspian blue 18:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

why

Your activity was picked up by a anti-vandal tool And it is an article not your talk page so it is vandalism. Blueking12 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking to me, or Jehochman? This page is not mine, and your rationale for your absurd warning is very illogical. I want your sincere apology.--Caspian blue 18:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-vandal tools are not a substitute for your own judgment. Whatever edits you make are your responsibility, not the tool's. Jehochman ^Talk 19:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I do not know how to thank you more, but thank you (I wish I can throw you a party). I will abide by the guidelines we have discussed, and deeply appreciate what you have done for me. Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I know Abd is not my full mentor, so who is, really? I just want to know, and could you please tell the ChrisO persian problems page, so they wont be compelled to ban me this time?--Ariobarza (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

You can go to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area and join the program. Somebody will adopt you and provide help. Jehochman ^Talk 15:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Stevvvv4444

Hi Jonathan, this guy, although he may not be a sock, has a history of creating unsourced and POV ethnic categories, and his latest Category:Asian British expatriates in the United States is a definition contested, according to British Asian. If you take a look at his deleted contribs, it's clear he's been doing this for a while, and I think an indef block for continued disruption is in order. What do you think? --Rodhullandemu 15:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for you to place a clear warning on his talk page with diffs and explain that if the disruptive activity continues, the account might be blocked until we get assurances. Offer to help the user do things the right way. I generally won't indef an account unless they have had a recent block or a fresh warning. The idea is to get them to improve, not to banninate people. Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've CfD'd the category and will leave an appropriate warning. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 15:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi Jonathan. Your latest advice to Ariobarza is exactly spot on: it needs somebody patient and experienced in writing history articles from scratch to go through with Ariobarza the way of creating articles, having first located good secondary sources. I didn't really know what to make of Ariobarza's remarks on my talk page, but have not taken them seriously, which seems to be what he intended according to his second message. I'm not sure why you mentioned banning or blocking, as there is no question of that here. It would be an extremely positive sign if Ariobarza recognized some of the problems with the unsourced articles currently up for deletion. That would clear the air for future useful contributions by him on Persian ancient history or whatever he chooses to edit. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm extremely happy to see that User:AniMate has stepped in as the unofficial mentor of Ariobarza. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, from Ariobarza's latest posts on various AfDs, it's obvious that he simply doesn't get it about OR. It's the same old story - stringing together snippets from Google Books to create a narrative that's reflected in no reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Doriskos for a case in point. I can only conclude that Ariobarza simply has no understanding of source-based research - maybe he's never been educated in that skill. As such he appears to be incapable of contributing productively to Wikipedia. I think you need to consider whether we are deriving any benefit from his continuing to edit. I would have to say right now I don't think so, and judging by the continued ranting and incivility on various pages it doesn't seem that he's learned anything at all from his recent block, your advice or anything that anyone else has said to him. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship, Probation and Editing restrictions

I've just posted this section to WT:MENTOR, and I pointed out there that Wikipedia:Probation got redirected to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Would you be able to clear up the history behind that and do you know what the current practice is with listing probations? Carcharoth (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC draft

I'm just putting finishing touches at User:Charles Matthews/Drafting to a draft for the business with User:Slrubenstein, intending to proceed shortly. (Various hold-ups - one that is relevant is that I wanted to get an uninvolved opinion on the precedent value of the 2007 unblock.) If you have substantial disagreements with the main parts (aim of the RfC, description of attempts to resolve the matter), perhaps you could drop me an email. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks good, but I sent email anyways. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Posted now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII. NB Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein never got past being a candidate. Please sign up! Charles Matthews (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I signed the certification already. I will think a bit before signing your opinion or writing my own. Jehochman ^Talk 17:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Nice collapse boxes. I always like novel formatting on the question pages! One point: FT2's questions—I think, but I may be incorrect here—are general questions, and belong in the other section. Likewise for MBisanz's and rootology's.

Good luck with your candidacy. I may pop along to your questions page and pick your brain at some point. ;)

AGK 18:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, check the edit history of {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}. Feel free to reorganize those questions. They were posed to me individually before they showed up on the general page. Jehochman ^Talk 18:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Small world. :)
Yes, it seems FT2 and rootology delicately ignored the questions instructions and duplicated their questions with a few individual candidates... Grr. (And I'll leave your question page as it is for now.)
AGK 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ITN

On 10 November, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa, which you created and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

comment on stalking

Hi. I wouldn't normally bother to comment on this, but since you're standing in the Arbitration Committee Elections I felt the need to clear it up in case I might want to vote. A little time ago you made this edit to ScienceApologist's page, on the subject of stalkers. There seemed to be no context, except perhaps this edit summary, in which SA accused me of stalking. I had in fact just reverted two (yes, just 2) edits he had recently made, on closely related subjects, and in both cases my reversions found support from other editors. I'd just like to know whether I have understood this correctly, and if so if it means that you are buying in to SA's insulting remark? With all good wishes and WP:AGF on my part ... SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I was not even aware of your presence so I can assure you that the remark was not meant to reflect on you in any way. There was a completely separate chain of communication that led up to my sardonic (but accurate) remark. Out of respect for SA's privacy I will say nothing further. Jehochman ^Talk 00:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your reply. Maybe I should be less paranoid. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Recorded debates and discussions

Candidates and the community,

Wikivoices (formally NotTheWikipediaWeekly) would be interested in making several podcasts with candidates running in the 2008 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election. Given the high number of candidates likely to be signing up during the nomination stage (likely to be around 45) it will be a very busy 2 weeks. These shows typically last about one and a half hours to record, taking into account setup time, and are recorded using the free, downloadable programme, Skype. The programme can be used on Windows, Mac OS and Linux operating systems and is also available on some mobile platforms. If any candidates have problems with installing or running the program please contact either myself at my talk page or by email

There will be 2 formats being run over the next 2 weeks. The first will be general discussion with a small number candidates at a time with several experienced hosts from Wikivoices. Each candidate will be given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves then the main body of the cast will begin. The topics discussed will vary in each recording to ensure fairness however the atmosphere will be generally free flowing. These will be running throughout the two weeks starting tomorrow. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

The second format will be based on a similar style to election debates. Questions will be suggested here by the community. A selection of these will then be put to a panel of larger panel candidates with short and concise 1-2 minute responses. Other than an introduction and hello from each candidate, there will be no opportunity for a lengthier introductions. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

It is recommended that candidates attend both formats of casts and we will try to be as flexible as possible. We are looking for the greatest participation but also for shows with enough members to keep it interesting but not too many that it causes bandwidth and general running issues. I look forward to working with all candidates in the coming weeks.

01:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiVoices

Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review}

• Could you indicate which scheduled show youd be able to attend from the list here. There are a wide range of times available so hopefully one will suit you. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 20:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of topic ban

Since you contributed to the ANI discussion that led to this, you may wish to contribute to the topic ban discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban:_User:Pcarbonn_from_Cold_fusion_and_related_articles. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider

Moooo! (Not a cow, this is a bull)

Since the age of five I have lived only very short periods without a dog, and was deeply offended by your removal of the pic of cute dalmatian pups. Please reconsider. I don't want to have to edit war, but I'll do it for something as important of this! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't have a cow, man! Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Tinkering

Hope you don't mind my tinkering with your guideline. I think it's an interesting area, and one which frequently causes problems. Might be worth cross-referencing with Wikipedia:Agenda account - I'd like to move away from WP:SPA (since many of our best articles are written by "single-purpose accounts"), and more toward a term like "agenda accounts" that focuses on the combination of a single focus and advocacy for a specific agenda. Anyhow, feel free to revert me if I'm taking the proposal off the rails. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I am lazy and appreciate any help. My hero is Tom Sawyer. Jehochman ^Talk 21:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast on controversial articles

MastCell suggested that you might be a good person to include in a podcast that Scartol and I are planning about controversial articles. We have started a series of podcasts on improving article content (our first one was on copyediting). If you are interested, please sign up here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Candidate Template

Hello, fellow candidate! Just so you know, in an effort to announce our candidacies and raise further awareness of the election, I have created the template {{ACE2008Candidate}}, which I would invite you to place on your user and user talk pages. The template is designed to direct users to your Questions and Discussion pages, as well as to further information about the election. Best of luck in the election! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

SS Edmund Fitzgerald

Jehochman, I don't believe we have interacted previously, and I see you have a number of edits to this article. Could you take a look at this discussion and express your view, if so feel so inclined? It is a discussion, not yet a dispute. I want to make sure that sourcing standards are applied, that similar matters are treated in a similar fashion, and that a new (but involved) editor is both welcomed and assisted. Thank you for any help you can give. Kablammo (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Point of order

I've noticed that once an admin closes an AN/I discussion, the following text appears: "The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion." I take that to mean that leave the closed bit alone, whether or not someone feels aggrieved (they will have to pursue their grievance by some other means). Is my interpretation incorrect? What is the guideline here? Thanks. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a documented guideline. Editors may revert the installation of an archiving notice, though doing so to rehash the same arguments an nth time is probably not a good idea, and could be viewed as disruptive. Judgment is required. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to answer.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion

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/Cold fusion/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/Cold fusion/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You'll have to be on your toes for this one, I suspect. Jehochman ^Talk 17:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be maintaining the Iantresman ArbCom sockpuppet clock on my userpage... starting... now. MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Message to talk page watchers

If you are an admin, could you watchlist User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations and help process reports as they come in? This page is generated by a bot that patrols for edit warring and 3RR violations. You need to check if the reverting is justified or not and then take appropriate action. Be sure to leave a message about what you have done under each report. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 22:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

hello

I see your name quite often. I also see that you are running for ArbCom. I am busy now so don't interpret that I'm only asking you a question to mean that I am picking on you.

How can the problem of ArbCom ignoring people be solved? I wrote to ArbCom about a year ago and no response. I wrote again and no response. It was a genuine issue that I don't want to drag out again but in my own experience, ArbCom has not been helpful at all. Chergles (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They often don't respond when I write to them too. My impression is that they are deluged with email. I think open source help desk software might be useful. Then you'd get a ticket number back with your inquiry, and it would remain in the system until somebody closed the request. Their closing note would come back to you as a second email. Even if they say "We can't help you", it is nice to get a response instead of dead air. Jehochman ^Talk 21:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not all issues can be resolved at the current help desk. Issues relating to banning certainly can't. Issues involving privacy also can't. A different help desk that you are referring to is an interesting idea. Adequate customer service seems to be lacking in Wikipedia, even courtesy among administrators. Chergles (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I think people need to not take on more responsibilities than they can handle. Failure to respond promptly is a sign of overloading, failure to delegate effectively or need for better technology. Jehochman ^Talk 21:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

More problems with vandal ip User:86.158.234.2 et al.

This user continues to make the same edits and has not sought any consensus. User:Shovon76, User:William M. Connolley, User:Yachtsman1, User:Unpopular Opinion and others continue to support my edits, no one is supporting theirs. They make no communication they just continue to make the same edits regardless that they have had no support

They have also recently initiated two personal attacks, one being against me [13] [14]

Some but not necessarily all articles they are still reverting http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan-administered_Kashmir&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wakhan_Corridor&action=history (until User:Kingturtle semi-protected it) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saser_Kangri&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wars_and_conflicts_between_India_and_Pakistan&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baramulla&action=history

Furthermore, they are also a sock puppet Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nangparbat. They are known for wikistalking, as you may know, so expect them to end up on this talk page again. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 00:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

They are still editing now as User:86.158.236.65. A larger range block may be needed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have restored one of the original range blocks. If they turn up on other ranges, we can block them too. Jehochman ^Talk 21:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:99.229.204.255 initiated another personal attack against me

[15]

the same user who wrote this [16]

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked.Jehochman ^Talk 03:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your evidence related to Elonka in the Cold fusion RFAR

I found that evidence off-topic. Elonka and SA clearly aren't on friendly terms, and take pot shots at each other whenever they can, but this case isn't about those spats. SA would have to defend himself by detailing why he edited Elonka's article, and there were objective reasons to edit it, just the timing was suspect. This case is complext enough as it is, without dragging Elonka into it. Pcap ping 06:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday appeal

Responding here because I don't want to clutter up the request for clarification because I think I've said clearly what would be acceptable to me and what would not. I think it is reasonable to blank all the case pages and if that has consensus I would happily do it, but I do not think the case should be 'vacated'. What happened with Orangemarlin was quite different and 'vacating' meant something quite different there to what is being asked for here. As far as I understand what is requested, it is to annul the case and remove it from the records. The findings of fact in an arbitration case do not constitute a brand permanently applied to a user, but instead are the impressions made on the committee after examining the evidence.

It is inevitable that some of these impressions will be harsh, unfair, even incorrect. Indeed sometimes the committee's procedure may have been less than perfect. However, the way of demonstrating that they are wrong is not to go back and rewrite history but for the editors involved to show that they were wrong. The only part of an arbitration case which is open to subsequent alteration are the remedies; overturning a remedy is an indication that the problems which it was designed to solve are no longer present on Wikipedia. In this immediate case there were two remedies only: the first was to annotate the block log of Matthew Hoffman, and took place instantaneously; the second was the desysop of Vanished User, which also took place instantaneously. There is nothing left to annul in this case. Accepting the notion that the case should now be 'vacated' would be to accept that the findings of fact had a longer validity, which would be an unacceptable power grab on behalf of the committee.

The concession of blanking the case pages seems a reasonable move to me to acknowledge that Shoemaker's Holiday wishes to move on. I understand Shoemaker's Holiday is not currently applying for administrator status. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Shanahan Issue

"I have made a motion that you be added to an existing arbitration case as a named party. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop#Request to add Kirk shanahan as a party. Please comment there. Jehochman Talk 20:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kirk_shanahan"

So what does that mean?

Note that I have placed a statement on the CF evidence page regarding your insinuation. This was done prior to noting your post to my talk page, and my responding to that here. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding you as a party means that you are aware of the arbitration and have the opportunity to comment. If you have opinions about how the conflicts surrounding the article can be resolved, your input may be valuable. For what it is worth, adding references to one's own paper is not strictly forbidden, but strongly discouraged. Your comments may help clarify matters. Jehochman ^Talk 17:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

More problems with vandal ip User:86.162.68.36 et al.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.162.68.36

They are back Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 23:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

admin coaching

Hi Jehochman! I recently re-added myself for admin coaching, and saw that you were active and didn't currently have any coachees. Would you be willing to take me on as your student? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:86.151.123.172

Vandal evades again Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty Incident

I was wondering if I might ask for your advice, I asked another admin for advice and he suggested that I contact you. USS Liberty Incident is on my watch list, recently this seemed to be the target of a group of editors wishing to include a particular fringe theory. The article has been problematic for a while as it tends to attract SPA and those with anti-semitic motives. A series of editors have been pushing for inclusion of fringe theories in the article, in particular to use the Moorer report to support an edit that the attack on the Liberty was deliberate. There is a thread on AN/I here [17]. The edit failed wiki policies on a number of points but some details have been included now that secondary sources have been found. Now it would appear the editors are working together to expunge the noted author A. Jay Cristol, who is generally considered to have produced a definitive work that debunks many conspiracy theories, I have taken this up on the reliable sources noticeboard [18]here. Other, more experienced editors have suggested meat puppets may be at play see [19] here. I must admit to feeling out of my depth here and would sincerely welcome advice how to proceed. Justin talk 23:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:86.151.123.172

Several other IPs they are abusing

User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Tracking Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have time, would you take a look please...

First, I thought this editor was an administrator by his name [20] but after reading through his talk page I realize s/he is not. But I do see a problem that might need looking into, esp for WP:BLP possible issues. Please take a look at the comments also Here. The way this editor is so focused on sexuality being put into articles like this is very concerning plus the lack of WP:NPA & WP:Assume good faith with some of the comments being made. This editor seems to have been warned multiple times by multiple editors about this but it seems they are not listening. I just thought attentions were needed to make sure nothing is breaching the core policies with this attitude going on. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response, I noticed your comments [21], much appreciated. I really don't like to go to the board, it really seems to attract too much attention and drama at times, thanks again. Oh good luck with the election, I will definitely be voting this time, it's the first time I am able to. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, thank you for notifying me of the ANI discussion regarding me. I have given a long explanation on the ANI page, in reply to the to the allegations there, about the matters concerned. It is unfortunate that you unjustifiably suspect me of being a sockpuppet and think my username is a problem. The range block was imposed because of someone else within the range, not because of anything to do with me; I merely happened to be within said range. My account itself has never been blocked. Many usernames are similar, I never intended to cause any confusion. I don't know what prompted your strong dislike of me/my work, I'm a good editor. Please read my explanation on ANI. Thank you. Werdnawerdna (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I just want to thank you for following up and researching this. I didn't know the depth of things when I asked you to take a look but with what has been shown it looks like you did really well following up for me. Thank you again for your kind and quick response to my concerns over this. I appreciate it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sonal Shah

Article can't avoid discussing the VHP nonsense. (I haven't really looked at it before, or participated at the talkpage, so I was rather startled to discover nothing mentioned.) I presume you know that I'm more than capable of adding it without violating BLP. I just thought I'd check in before I started, though, given your rather excessively heavy-handed sounding post on the talkpage. That tone best avoided in future, I'd suggest. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You had best fully familiarize yourself with the facts of the matter before passing judgments. You can add whatever you like, so long as the material is properly sourced and does not violate WP:UNDUE or other relevant policies. This situation is inches from being sent to arbitration. Take great care. Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Qwerty612 at Keith Henson article

Qwerty612 (talk · contribs) - check recent contribs. You had previously been involved in monitoring WP:BLP issues on the article Keith Henson, thought you would be a good person to look into this. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI - [22]. Cirt (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Heads up - [23], [24]. Without WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources, this info should be removed from the talk page and also not be in the article, IMO. Would appreciate your attention, thank you. Cirt (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit war (List of Virtual Console games (North America))

Ah... I forgot about the three edit (revert) rule, sorry. There have been times when I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while, and I've been just coming back recently.

About the edits, some of the users (like RobJ1981) were saying that ESRB is not a reliable source, and that all titles should be removed that had this source from the future releases section. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#Remove_all_titles_referred_to_as_future_releases_by_their_ESRB_rating ) Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP's keep bringing that table back and a few other users had to revert it. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you get the IP's to engage in dispute resolution, or else start an article content requests for comment and get a pile of outside opinions. Another thing you could do is go to reliable sources noticeboard and have a discussion about the suitability of that source. Be sure to link from the article talk page. Don't use reverting to correct disagreements. Take the time to get a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And there has been discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#ESRB Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

friendly future request

I appreciate your undoing a spamlink insertion and your swift action in blocking an IP user for a few hours to prevent further spamlinks, but there were still spamlinks unreverted to two other pages. I reverted them, but in the future if you would see if there's additional unreverted vandalism after blocking (or notify an assistance page if too busy), that'd be even better. Just a request. Thanks. Gotyear (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yah, normally I stalk those spammers. He may have gotten in another spam after I started processing the block. Jehochman ^Talk 18:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was several minutes before the spamlink you reverted. Interestingly, only 3 minutes before the first spam were good edits, links to an updated version of a song's charting performance. Gotyear (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Cooper River (New Jersey)

Hey, thanks for your help earlier with this article! I don't understand why they're not getting it. This is the 3rd request in a week and a half related to the same issue, but from the other two articles: Camden, New Jersey and Delaware River. This group of frat boys aren't going to stop from some "warning", so thanks for stepping up and taking some action to get it blocked. I don't think 3 days is long enough, but it's a start and I really appreciate your help with that! EaglesFanInTampa 18:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer

Hi Jehochman I have only came across you once before on wiki and found you to be very fair, what I am here for is could you explain your unblocking of The Thunderer. He has made accusations against me that I am part of a tag team, a cry he has made on numerous other occasions all with out a single diff to back it up. On AE you said … I think it would send absolutely the wrong signal to unblock this editor so he can chat at WP:AE. And also that There need to be consequences or behaviors will not be changed. I feel your unblock gives weight to his pathetic cry of tag teaming and stalking I know you said that he was unblocked because he promised not to edit war again I can recall he made the same promise to Fozz when he unblocked him too. I feel your course of action was wrong and the block should have stood. Thanks for your time. BigDunc^Talk 19:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You see, The Thunderer is using up his second chances. Next time it happens, the block will be for a week, and it won't be lifted. He can make whatever accusations he likes. Be smart and don't react to any sort of provocation. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift reply and I will take on board what you have said. BigDunc^Talk 21:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me

But have you looked at what you call my edit-war edits? I was preventing an IP from removing a dispute tag from a disputed page. HD86 (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

IPs are not second class citizens. Often they are visitors from other wikis, or newcomers. Even if you are completely right, it is better to post to one of the noticeboards for help than to edit war over a maintenance tag. Regards, Jehochman ^Talk 00:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bwilkins#WP:CIVIL

Thanks for your constructive input there, as usual. Wouldn't you too bristle at being told you were on a jihad? Do you think I'm out of step on the substantive issue? I'd be interested in your opinion or even a comment there if you can be bothered. Best wishes, --John (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Many of the highway overpasses between where I live and New York City have been decorated with flags for the last seven years. I would not use the word jihad around here, Many view it is a fighting word.Jehochman ^Talk 12:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sonal Shah

Thanks for your message. I basically agree with you regarding WP:BLP in that section of the article. However, I'm not sure how well removing the entire section will be received by the anti-Shah editors there. Given that this flap has generated a tempest in a teapot, I was trying to provide a WP:BLP-consistent writeup there that would give interested readers an accurate picture of the controversy. I mean, better to mention the controversy and show how many notable people have refuted it than let the allegations proliferate, right?Zuppeandsalad (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care how they receive it. The rules are clear and that content was a mess or rumor sourced to blogs, forums or unreliable sources. Whoever posts that content on any page of Wikipedia will be blocked to prevent further violations. Jehochman ^Talk 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jehochman

I am assuming good faith. The only explanation of your allegation ("not well referenced") is that you are not familiar with the Print Media in India. The references I put are reliable sources of news, and are referred to many times from other Wiki articles. Please check the relevant wiki pages about those sources of news before coming to a conclusion. And please restore the information that I put in. Thanks. M an as at yahoo.com (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_television_stations#News_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English-language_newspapers_published_in_India M an as at yahoo.com (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained how to obtain a consensus as to whether a source is reliable via the WP:RSN. You have very little experience with Wikipedia. I suggest you listen to the advice given rather than engage in argumentum ad nauseum. Jehochman ^Talk 15:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

manners? M an as at yahoo.com (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Indian_Media That settles the case. I shall revert the article now. Thank you for being watchful.

Digital Realty Trust: Company Article

Jehochman, I'm looking for an Administrator or editor that can lend a hand on my article.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am an employee of the company mentioned in this article.

I posted my initial request for help on the WikiProject Business page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business#Digital_Realty_Trust_-_Company_Article

My draft of the article is on one of my user sub pages here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dlrwebmaster/Digital_Realty_Trust

The article is not published anywhere, as I'm still trying to get an editor/administrator to help me write the article and follow all of the stringent "neutrality" guidelines.

As you can see on the WikiProject Business talk page above, I list several references that I think would prove credibility. However, I am still uncertain how to incorporate those references into the article AND remain "neutral point of view". I thought if I (as the author) put the references in the article that it would come across as "self-promoting".

Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Dlrwebmaster (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business. That's the right idea. To get more traction you might try to participate more actively in that project and help others with their needs. Give to get. Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

unwarranted warning

I have replied to you both at Sonal Shah talk page and my talk page. Thanks. Docku: What up? 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I need your help to monitor this article for BLP violations. The Times of India source may be reliable. All I ask is that the source be confirmed at WP:RSN before that content is added (out of an abundancy of caution, due to the very real problems we have exprerienced), and that WP:UNDUE be observed. Editors using sources that are not even arguably reliable may be blocked. I have no intention of blocking you. Jehochman ^Talk 17:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please have a word?

Hi Jehochman, I believe I may have made a mistake yesterday, when I suggested that Thunderer be unblocked. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. However today, despite your unblock and their undertaking, they have gone and reverted five times today on the USC Article, [25], [26], [27], [28] and [29]. Now I gave a very detailed rational on the talk page here so there is no reason to be consistently reverting me. Could you please ask them to stop now, because its getting ridiculous. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 21:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. My block was a simple matter of edit warring. This looks more complex and I would need to check what has happened since I last looked. I am short on time at the moment. Could you post these concerns somewhere, such as User talk:Tznkai, or failing that WP:AE? Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 21:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 21:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Googlean

Talk to YellowMonkey about it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Left them a note already. This is one of those situations where I think there is good evidence to support the actions taken. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Yes please. I am now being threatened. Thunderer (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?

2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?

5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?

6. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Krzyzowiec

Thank you for your comments in this AN/I thread, I really appreciate them. Personally, I think that dedicated POV warriors, especially with ethno-centric and nationalistic agendas, like this guy, are the worst bane of Wikipedia. I do wish the community took a firmer stance against this sort of thing. Thanks again, Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

New IP Vandal

• 86.156.214.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This user has such a huge range that it is scary.

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of their attacking grounds have been semiprotected, so the page he is attacking are getting narrow Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you gather up a list of these IPs from my talk page and file a new WP:SSP report. I'd like to have a checkuser look at it and see if we can get a better range block in place. I need a checkuser to help design the blocks to minimize impacts on innocent users. Let's try to do a thorough job. Leave me a link when you are done, and also ping User:Rlevse. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 03:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have begun the workings of the report. It took a long time to create the list of IPs. Considering that I have lot of homework due the week after Thanksgiving, I probably won't submit it until around December 5th. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom election

You know I call 'em like I see 'em. And independent of the merits of Giano's opinion, it was very ill judged of you to draw out a troll sockpuppet until the sock was indeffed, then repost the sock's unsubstantiated assertions at AE. The sock was saying far more than Giano had claimed at that point and providing no new evidence. The complaint was a year old and non-urgent.

The situation could have waited long enough for the sun to rise in Europe. Sunlight may be the best disinfectant, but when something smells rotten at nighttime it's a bad idea to hand a flamethrower to a troll.

I miss the Jehochman I thought I used to know: the one who used his expertise in SEO to root out spammers and conflict of interest problems. You could have been a great administrator, but you've either had a remarkable series of lapses in judgment or you've let politics get in the way. The latter, I fear, is more likely.

Nonetheless, my vote is nothing personal. I have and will continue to support you in site discussions whenever good conscience indicates you're in the right. Nobody wins my trust by cultivating me; they earn it by being for real. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Over time I have come to realize that many of the problems with this site are internally generated. Trust in ArbCom is at an all time low, and the sock puppet you mention happens to be somebody who was a productive contributor to this site for five years until they were beaten up over a disagreement and ended up banned. I know all their prior identities. You can check my logs to see how active I've been, escorting the most disruptive editors off site. You won't see me around the noticeboards as much because people bring me tough cases, often by email, and I handle them almost silently or with minimal fuss. You don't even know about the worst cases. I am spending the other half of my administrative time trying to stop those who enable disruption through unwise handling or responses (e.g. rapid unblocks without discussion, feeding the underbridge dwellers, goading vulnerable editors, and the like). As I have gained experience the world looks much more gray than it used to.

I hope the FT2 matter will resolve shortly, one way or the other. I have not determined who's right, but I think the odds are about even it could go either way. There is much more to my involvement there than meets the eye. I have significantly more information than the average observer. I feel you have judged the situation hastily without having all the facts. Jehochman ^Talk 23:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you trust the person then you should have started a motion to end the ban. Such a dialog as that could only decrease the chances that the community would trust his return. Giano was fully capable of presenting his own evidence and had legitimate standing to do so. By no means did the situation carry such urgency as to merit an exception to the banning and socking policies. I hope the people who want less backchannel dealing do read this thread; in rebuttal to a history of poor judgment in plain view, you suggest invisible virtues. Thank you but no; I'll take what I can see. Durova^Charge! 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher is already working on that angle. I am a WikiSloth by nature, so I try to avoid duplication of effort. To know what's going on with this mess, keep an eye on Thatcher. Jehochman ^Talk 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oversite

WP:OVERSITE is clear on this: This feature is approved for use in three cases:

  1. Removal of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
  2. Removal of potentially libelous information, either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel; or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
  3. Removal of copyright infringement, on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.

Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made.

Oversight removal is not used on usual vandalism—even egregious and offensive vandalism—unless it is one of the above. Oversight is for material that should not be available even to an admin.

If the Arbitration Committee feels that an editor has abused oversight by hiding revisions which do not qualify under one of the above criteria, they will immediately request a Steward to remove the permission from the editor.

I have seen edits claimed to be the oversigtted text - they are pretty tame.

But why oversighted after a user was asked to provide diffs of them? That is strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.182.158.153 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

G'day j, again

and I hope you're well. I saw that you were interested in shedding some light on some of the ugliness around the wiki at the moment - I'm a bit sick of some of the secrecy, and general nastiness, and maybe you are too by now, and if so, feel free to remove this message or whatever, and I'll shuffle along. I've chatted privately with FT about this previously, and personally don't consider if big huge deal, rather it's just a small and possibly relevant question; Would it matter if this edit made some weeks previous to last years arbcom election, were in fact made by FT? - I've come to believe that it was, and that it represents a 'CoI' edit demonstrating poor judgment. I'd rather talk things through with you than contribute to any of the disastrous noticeboard and talk page threads around the place, if you're so inclined, then get in touch, otherwise I'll let it lie. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it is not a Joe job? It's too late for checkuser. Best not to bring it up at all if it can't be proven. Jehochman ^Talk 01:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno about the proof - but I feel fairly sure that it is the case - I don't think FT would deny it really, to be honest, and I'd always assumed that the arbcom, or some other admin.s were well aware of some sensible reasons for FT to use an alternate account for that edit, however I do think it's not really on. It's just one part of a bigger picture no doubt, mind. Privatemusings (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)available in IRC if you fancy...

Why don't you just ask him, via email? Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh we've talked about it privately at some length - FT's always been very willing to chat, which is great. FT has stated clearly to me that he feels he has never abused the wiki in any way - I'm just not sure that I can totally agree, in the context. Personally, I think this sort of thing makes a bit of a difference, and wondered what you thought..... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If that were him, the edit probably would not be against policy. COI editing is discouraged, not forbidden. Disruption is forbidden, and persistent violations of WP:NPOV are forbidden. If he's not being disruptive, and not violating neutrality, the edit is acceptable, though it might not be the highest standard of conduct. We need to tolerate that our fellows will make an occasional mistake. Jehochman ^Talk 01:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me, J'hoch.... I'll leave that one, and the election 07 stuff, there.... thanks for letting me steal some of your time - can I offer some wiki-gnoming as a thank you? Name an article if you like.... :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

< sorry about the extra orange bar, J - just popped in, and just had to tweak the wording above! sorry! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Help and advice

Jehochman could you please have a look at this here. Dunc and myself along with the mediatior are discussing this very issue of reverting at mediation here, and is starting to cause major frustration with editors. Since leaving, Thunderer has made 17 reverts, including the edit war with the Mediator. On the North Irish Horse article with 4 reverts now, it’s the very same issue which resulted in your 7 3RR reports and the trip to AE. AE did offer advice, all of which is ignored. This recent revert spree is disrupting the current mediation, and unless addressed will force it to close. If you don't feel you can help, could you at least offer me some suggetions on how I can address this, and restore confidence in the mediation, thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 13:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning.[30] Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it should help. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears it has not made a blind bit of difference at all judging by this here. Would I bit not better of just filing a 3RR report? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore it. I believe that allowing the m:Wrong version will be beneficial. Any problems can be fixed a bit later. Jehochman ^Talk 16:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I’m sorry Jehochman but burying my head in the sand while the mediation goes to pot is not an option. While I’ve asked Sunray the mediator to clarify their comments, it appears that we need all participants to the mediation or its back to AE. Now to me, that is bang out of order, I put a lot of effort into it, and it seems now it is all time wasted. Very annoyed and disappointed. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

diff

Hi Jehochman, thanks for the note on my page. The page was sort of a not-ready-for-primetime draft, so the thoughts aren't all fully fleshed out. I'm aware that there was at one point (I don't know if there still is) a bit of bad blood between you and Elonka. I don't know the background at all, so my observation that it may make the candidacy a non-starter should not be read as me saying I think you've done anything wrong. I don't know the circumstances. I was making the observation that bitter controversies in the past can make it tough for candidates--as I'm sure you've thought through.

The comment on BLP refers to a comment I only vaguely remember, that, as you edit with your real name, some comments about you are potentially BLP violations. I had intended to find this diff, and the circumstances, and the exact language, but had not done so before my page was discovered. This is a tough line for me to draw: which of these are BLP violations? "Jay Henry is wrong here", "Jay Henry is almost always wrong", "Jay Henry is a bad editor", "He basically plagiarized that article", "Jay Henry uploaded a copyvio", "Jay Henry is the worst editor on the project", "Jay Henry is not smart", "I feel like Jay Henry is harassing me", "Jay Henry is harassing me", "he seems to be pushing a pro-nazi POV with his edits", "Jay Henry is a pro-nazi POV pusher", "I think he is basically a nazi", "Jay Henry is a nazi", "he is apparently a pro-pedophile activist, or at least sympathetic to their cause", "Jay Henry owns a large collection of nazi pedophilia."

This is the basic gist of my concern. --JayHenry (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I had a long chat about the BLP matter with some other admins on IRC, and came to the conclusion that I was wrong completely. Biography of living persons is relevant primarily for article subjects. Anything to do with Wikipedia editors is better handled with reference to no personal attacks.

The conflict I had with Elonka was regrettable. For some time I have avoided on wiki involvements with her in order to prevent any sort of disruption, therefore, I will avoid commenting further. Should I be elected I would obviously recuse from all matters related to her. Jehochman ^Talk 01:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I had intended to look into this more before voting, but I'm glad you found the page and saved me the work digging through contrib logs. I agree NPA is a better policy for this issue. It's also reasonable, I do think, that there's a somewhat different onus when you're talking about editors who edit under their real names/are easily identifiable. I've not read your questions yet (I will) and don't intend personally to give whatever history you have with Elonka much weight. --JayHenry (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked candidates discussion

WT:ACE2008#Blocked candidates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=254270021.

Please note that I have have offered a belated response to you in the discussion we held a few days ago on delisting candidates because they were blocked. Apologies for the delay in responding: I had not noticed your last reply to me until only a moment ago. (It was not a snubbing of you, I promise!)

Best regards, Jonathan. —AGK 18:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:96.232.4.4

Can you block this above? This IP has continued to provide unconstructive edits and I sent him several warnings. Thanks! Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

They stopped two minutes after your last warning and have not done anything else. It might take an editors a few minutes to read their talk page after a last warning. Jehochman ^Talk 01:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

--Qwerty612 (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Libelous claims

Hi !

That's why I asked on the talk-page if the mentioned sources (court-documents and atleast two primary accounts) are sufficient that the allegations should be mentioned. It is tricky to ask such a question without saying what the allegations -are-. I absolutely agree that just because someone claimed something in a court-filing, that's not evidence that something is true. But it -IS- evidence that you have been accused of it.

On the balance I think I agree with you. One can be accused of anything, by anyone, afterall.

My question was asked in good faith. The accusations (which I won't repeat here) do show up high in controversies about the man, second only, I think, to the conflicts with scientology.

--Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a conundrum that to even talk about scandalous accusations can damage an individual's repution. Wikipedia is not for poisoning the well, therefore, we do not allow discussions about irrelevant controversies. Had this been reported on by a reputable news source, that might be a different situation. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandy - uContribs

Re-running now. I was wondering why no-one had spotted my bug 'til now. (see near the bottom). You spotted my 3-5% error rate. Sighh - there goes Friday night, I have to do every single one now. I blame Casliber, who asked for this in the first place (I think?) and never specified it should be done right. But I do have a note in there saying it's experimental! Franamax (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Comments welcome! Best regards PHG (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi Jehochman, I followed this ANI you posted and welcome your comments in a current RfC with which I am involved. It is located here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EmilEikS. Best regards, momoricks ^{make my day} 02:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Wizardman to have a look at it to make sure the processing and listing are all done correctly. He handles a lot of RFC's. I'll have a look at the contents when I have enough time to concentrate on it properly. Jehochman ^Talk 03:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! momoricks ^{make my day} 03:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The election questions...

I just started going through reading the questions and answers to the election and want to say that there has to be an easier way to ask questions. Do you realize how long your page is? I was reading for thirty minutes, granted I don't read fast, but I didn't even get to the end of the second section of questions from FT2. This is the first time for me to take the time to learn so I can vote for whom I want to represent the community. I have to say so far it's quite overwhelming what is being asked. Anyways, good luck, you have my vote, keep up the good work. I wish you the best, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sock whatever

The computer you traced belongs to the Southerly Clubs of Stockholm, located in an office at Östgötagatan in Stockholm, Sweden, is used independently by various associates at various times of day and night. You must tell me whether or not you now have our exact address or not and according to law (Swedish, British and U.S.) you must provide very strong motivation (evidence of criminal activity on my part) for such an invasion of our privacy if so. We are frankly quite afraid of you and your cohorts that initiated your probe out of spite (see below). I have now found out that the computer in question had been used at times unknown to me by an acquaintance Fiandonca (now scared to do any more editing) and me (just about there too). It has never been used for what you are accusing me of. In other words two different people have not used it simultaneously to create false discussion or anything else false. Please read section "Contentiousness" on my user talk! I ask you kindly never to post anything there that goes against that policy again. Please respect my wishes in this regard! Anything like that will be removed instantly. If you must, just post "See my talk page" there and sign it. I have read up on Wikipedia policy re: Sock whatever (am I at liberty to find the terminology overly banal?) and have found that "Legitimate use of alternative account" applies in this case and that no rules have been broken. It has been very interesting for a certain person, whose name will not be revealed to you, to learn how new users are treated at English Wikipedia and to compare this to other projects such as Commons and Swedish Wikipedia. I will not discuss the matter more than telling you that much. Feel free to block me if you feel you have proof that that is warranted and that you can get away with doing something so destructive to me without getting into trouble yourself with the Wikimedia Foundation. Please, I repeat, do not post anything contentious on my user page or its discussion. There is ample concrete evidence on file at Southerly Clubs that I have been the victim of Wikihounding and I can only recommend that you do not join the hounds. Your input with today's date has started that hounding all over again, after a problem-free period of constructive work, and all of what you are complaining about today is too old now to hold up as anyting other than continued hounding. EmilEikS (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I am the one who created the term "wikihounding" so I know what it means. Checkuser was run by Rlevse (talk · contribs). If you have concerns, you can ask him for further information. I personally know nothing more than what was posted. Your combative style is not at all helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 16:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sincerely for creating the term! What you call combative is felt very strongly to be neccessarily defensive on this end. EmilEikS (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you may be feeling stress. That's normal. If you remain calm and look to see whether criticisms of your behavior might have any merit, and then suggest ways you can do better going forward, I think you'll get good results. If the account I have blocked is controlled by an independent person and they want to edit again, I am willing to unblock them if you two agree not to involve yourselves in the same conflicts. Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have admitted in several places that I have made mistakes and that Fiandonca was tough on people in some of her wording (no reason to unblock her, she felt way too much "stress" and refused to find the scary treatment "normal" - she's gone for good, from English Wikipedia in any case). I have thanked everyone sincerely who has been constructive and helpful, even people who were not very nice at first after having been worked on (evidence on file) by a certain editor. I have apologized to everyone several times for example on my user talk. I have assured everyone in my little presentation on my user page that I am trying to do my best. There I have also given my real name and city of residence, confident at first that this could never lead to my feeling as uncomfortable as I felt before your last message. (Anyone can get my home address and date of birth from the Swedish tax authority since they have my name which isn't too common here - these are people who post many things like "stinking pile of poo" courtesy of pages provided for them to do so by the Wikimedia Foundation! And today it looks like the Wikimedia Foundation can hack into the computer I use which doesn't even belong to me?) I have consulted some real Wikipedia pros in my acquaintance, about the basics of contributing and later about details, by email, telephone and in a couple of coffee klatsches at our local hangout. One of them, who said he would "never touch English Wikipedia again with a ten foot pole or for all the money in the world" warned me very emphatically not to contribute anything there and now says he told me so. What I have done wrong as far as you and I are concerned is that I categorically refuse to communicate with or about certain editors (two to be precise). And I do not want any contentiousness of any kind (mine or others') on my user talk (can I remove it all?). Those two factors, where I absolutely draw the line, are what has all of us involved like this day after day after day. Such stress is not normal, if you will pardon my opinion and that of the organization that has authorized my work this month and last for Wikipedia (as per a minuted board meeting where I requested to use the file material I have quoted all over). Best regards and thanx. EmilEikS (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You've been at Wikipedia for a month, and somebody started a requests for comment against you. That's unusual. Do you think you are being persecuted, and if so, can you explain very concisely the nature of the dispute. In one sentence, what do you want, and in a second sentence, what does the other side want? Jehochman ^Talk 21:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you see that it is unusual. The nature of the dispute is vindictive because I objected early on with increasing vehemence to repeated condescension and ridicule. I want the incessant hounding to stop. The other side wants me punished and will not stop persecuting me and contacting more and more editors until that is accomplished. EmilEikS (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you walk away from the conflict for a bit, and then look at it again. Perhaps you could post a comment to the RFC page that you are taking a short break but will respond in due time. Jehochman ^Talk 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already tried to "walk away from the conflict" for several days, directly involved in no disputes whatsoever, but much has gone on behind my back in the meantime to keep it hot and heavy. With all due respect, sir, I will not post anything anywhere which goes against the two factors I have stated above (now changed to bold font). And that is final. There is absolutely nothing in the world that could induce or entice me to go against those two factors and drag me back into the nightmare of trying completely in vain to communicate with or about these people, only to be pounced on by more and more of their biased cohorts. ("Wikipedia equals wolf pack", one friend says.) If such pages are designed and enforced to compel people to communicate with or about people they do not want to have any dealings about or with, then so be it. I refuse even to look at such pages. Punish me in whatever way you deem appropriate! EmilEikS (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Note

Just for the record, the above user was notified about the AN/I and removed it here and then was notified the request for comment on user conduct, removed it and posted his talk page policy, which evidently supercedes Wikipedia policy, here. If you will look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EmilEikS#Evidence of disputed behavior, both User:EmilEikS and User:Fiandonca were posting in tandem during the incidents outlined in #1, #2, and #3. If they are two different people and it is the same computer in the same office, it still falls under sock policy as meat puppetry. This individual has no intention of participating in the RfC dispute, as evidenced by his talk page statement of "I will not under any circumstances correspond with or comment about anyone I have found or will find condescending. Nor will I read anything that has do to with any such person." I see no reason to suspend any sockpuppet outcome pending RfC because of that. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How does the interaction with this user compare to the ideals of Don't bite the newbies? Good, bad or ugly? Jehochman ^Talk 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll tell you what. I had occasion before all of this escalated to interact briefly with the user on the Mae West page and there was no problem, the conversation was fine. Then I removed the flag icon from the page and was assaulted full-on by both the socks, tag team. And yet, I tried my absolute best to remain calm, civil and try to explain MOS:FLAG, and after being repeatedly assaulted, still did. Over the course of the incidents, multiple editors supported this. At one point, another adminstrator, User:Garion96, who had been trying to deal with this user said to him Basically get over it. You really see attacks where there are none. Although by now I can understand if Wilkhartlivie is, to say it mildly, quite upset with your behaviour. Don't go Tilting at windmills. I would say it was par for the course, from everyone concerned, in trying to deal with contentiousness. And problems haven't stopped. I noted problems, though admittedly not as bad as his behavior before, at Talk:Hippie#Jay Stevens quote, Talk:Hippie#Fashion and astrology, Talk:Hippie#Drug use, and User talk:EmilEikS#Hippie. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I only want to add that the quoted "steaming pile of poo" comment which the user continues to insist is so upsetting has been explained wherever he cross-posted only my side of a conversation with User:Momoricks. She referred to the film Texas Chainsaw Massacre "I've never seen the film, but it sounds like a steaming pile of poo." I replied Well, steaming pile of poo is one description. Another might be a seminal horror/slasher film that opened the door to a plethora of even worse slasher films. It was fairly scary, but unfortunately, deteriorated into contrived storylines in sequels. I'd liken it in impact to Psycho, Night of the Living Dead and perhaps the original Halloween. That explanation exists all over the place, the user has read it but chooses to assert it is about him. How do you propose one react when someone takes one's words out of context and self-ascribes it to be a threat, as it has been? I was tired of it the first day and continue to be. Everyone thinks the behavior is wrong, but no one so far has taken steps about it. It's completely frustrating. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes a 'personal conflict'?

If an editor objects to an administrative action, is that really a 'personal conflict'? I don't really think so. I may not agree that I deserve a speeding ticket, and I may wish that the ticketing officer not have the authority to issue me further tickets, and I might even voice my objections strenuously and loudly, but that doesn't really mean that I am engaged in a 'personal conflict' with the officer. Dlabtot (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you've been vandalizing the officer's house, that officer is probably not going to be very objective towards you and should leave enforcement to somebody else when there is an opportunity to do so. Jehochman ^Talk 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'd been vandalizing the officer's house, I'd say (a) I'm the one with the personal problem, not the officer, his is a professional problem that came about as a result of doing his job, (b) my actions in vandalizing the officers house would not preclude the officer from doing his job, and (c) I'd probably be in jail long ago. In real life, it's not the victim of vandalism, but the vandals who are punished for their actions. If only WP worked that way, we'd have a lot more energy left over to work on articles. Dlabtot (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

PS, just trying to provide some food for thought, not trying to start an argument. Dlabtot (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I am tired and cannot wrap my mind around things fully at the moment. I am going to take a break for a while. Have a good evening (if you are anywhere close to my timezone). Jehochman ^Talk 01:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Peace. Shalom. etc. Dlabtot (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Could use your input in a suspected sock case

Hey, I would value your expertise in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Highfructosecornsyrup, would much appreciate it if you could take a look. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I am up to my ass in alligators at the moment, but I will try to look later. Jehochman ^Talk 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay no worries, thank you. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My Vote

I have added more to my vote on your election hope it clears it up, I did not intend to deceive by ommision and I wish you the best in your election regards. BigDunc^Talk 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that no matter how you vote, my talk page is available to you whenever you need help. I may be blunt at times, but I try my best to be fair. Jehochman ^Talk 22:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		You happened on a situation that was more than met the eye, gathered necessary information and quickly intervened to resolve it. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I still did not have the full picture and this caused inconvenience for others, which I regret. Jehochman ^Talk 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was a tough mediation that escaped the bounds of the case talk page. Once that happened, several people were suddenly drawn in to some complicated dynamics. Things can happen fast in this virtual reality. I don't take much personally. I learned something about reacting too fast and sense that you may have learned a thing or two as well. That is all good. Sunray (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, one barnstar hanging by its lonesome self doesn't quite look right. It needs a mate...

		The Special Barnstar
		In appreciation of your wonderful contributions to improving the content and character of Wikipedia, and for in celebration of your off-Wiki work in calling positive attention to the project's merits and benefits. Yes, you are special. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ecoleetage. Jehochman ^Talk 16:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG

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/PHG/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/PHG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah (Bronx cheer). Jehochman ^Talk 23:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw your note at Brad's talk but figured I still better give you this anyways. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Jonathan. I think you are one of the few administrators to speak their minds and have solid principles. However, you have also made several unpredictable about-turns, as Durova described, which have been impossible to fathom. On a few occasions you seem to have gone out of your way to encourage other wikipedians to follow a certain course of action, which you have later unilaterally abandoned yourself. Why? Mathsci (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you post or email me specific cases, I will give you direct answers. Each situation is different. Often there is extra information or more than one issue tangled together and the knot needs to be untied one string at a time. Jehochman ^Talk 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

One very recent example is in the ArbCom case on cold fusion here. In your to-ing and fro-ing, you seem to have lost track of the one important issue involved, that of slow-but-steady civil POV-pushing (advocacy) by Pcarbonn. You have diverted matters to the overreaction of ScienceApologist to baiting; your proposed remedies now make no mention of Pcarbonn. Was that an oversight? Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn will be topic banned from Cold fusion. If I have not proposed this yet, I will do so, because that has always been my intention. Sometimes it is better to show rather than tell. His ban has substantial community support and I think the AC will do it without much fuss. If I need to prod them, I will. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at this version of the workshop, you can see what Guy and I were working at the same time, and he proposed the topic ban first, and I seconded it. I see no reason to make a duplicate proposal in my section. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for now including statement n + 1 about Pcarbonn. Mathsci (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

yup

... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Jehochman ^Talk 00:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I know you are very busy and all but...

I have never experienced an attack of vandalism on my talk page before, or user page for that matter at least until today. [31] I rolled back the vandalism and left a note on the users page. I am assuming that this about a reversion of vandalism I did this morning which got me targeted. I don't know what the policies are for this so I would appreciate it if you would tend to this for me. The anon IP has multiple warnings on their talk page as can be seen so hopefully this is easy to address for you. I would appreciate any help and advice as to how to stop this sort of vandalism to my user and/or talk page too. Thanks Jehochman, as always I appreciate how quickly and attentive you are to my concerns. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC with you! :) I tried to let you know I saw!) Wow, thank you for your very quick response, I appreciate it. Thanks Jehochman, you are wonderful, at least to me. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Colbert - not

Hi, thought you might be interested in my follow-on comment at User_talk:Obsessiveatbest#Stephen_Colbert. Cgingold (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

just in case the thought had entered your head

I should like to see you go the distance, even if the chances of gaining a place becomes too remote to contemplate; consistency is not a virtue, except when it is a matter of being true to yourself (that is not to say that you haven't been consistent, but the patterns may not be discernible without access to your inner thoughts) - an area where I might flatter myself to think we are similar. That each case may be measured upon its merits, and only upon its merits, is an ideal position for an Arbiter - and something which might be missed or be unappreciated by a number of people. I said, when supporting Risker, that I would only be supporting one candidate... that may change if I believe that my support in one (or more) candidatures may prove important; perhaps it isn't consistent, but it would be true to myself to do so. Therefore I ask, please do not contemplate withdrawing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above, hold your head high and run it out. It's not over till it's over and there are many who haven't voted yet. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should anyone withdraw? Staying in requires no effort! I am hopeful that people will read my statement and thereby make Wikipedia a better place. Thank you for your support! Jehochman ^Talk 22:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, well... It means that I am now less likely to renegade on my promise that the Risker vote would be my only support, but until she placed her name on the list you were a serious contender for it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I had planned to stay, but my candidacy triggered a fight between me and a friend. That isn't worth it. Thank you for the kind words. Jehochman ^Talk 21:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing should come before (or between) friendship. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to see you withdrew. I think you would have been a good arbitrator. But it sounds like you were putting things in the right priority ordering. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Lar. Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Undead warrior

Hello Johochman. Sorry about the late reply, it's been my birthday weekend so I've been AFK. Basically, Undead warrior used rollback in a content dispute. You can read my explanation to him in the removal notice[32]. There's also a thread here that might be of interest. To be fair, it was a long time ago now, but I'd certainly take a good hard look at his contribs to make sure he hasn't done it again before nominating him or adminship. He was rather contrite when he asked for it back if I recall correctly. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Undead warrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Thank you, Ryan. I will check carefully. Jehochman ^Talk 18:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I am trying to to spam

Hey I am really trying not to spam up the wiki. Please see the talk here here. If you have any advice it would be very helpful.--Lotsofinterviews (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Help with Harassment

I'm turning to you for help since handled the User:Onethirtyeightdot incident so well. Both User:Dragonfiend and User:Folken de Fanel are continuing to level charges of sock puppetry against myself and others despite that issue being resolved. I made a summary of Dragonfiend's actions here for easy reference.

Folken de Fanel has recently started attacking one of the IP addresses that was dragged into Onethirtyeightdot's "crusade." It started when Folken accused an IP of being me in an edit summary [33]. The IP removed Folken's SP accusations from an article talk page [34] and cited your comments on the Okashina Okashi talk page as justification; Folken restored it despite this [35]. The IP then asked Folken to stop, again pointing out what you'd said on the matter before [36]. Folken reverted the request [37] (which is fine), but then repeated his accusations on the IP's talk page and indicated his intention to continue making such statements [38].

Folken's had a hostile and uncivil attitude toward me for a while (for example, [39] where he used an expletive) and has insisted on accusing me of sock puppetry without trying to acquire proof to back it up (I've reminded him he should do so [40] but he's ignored WP:SSP). He also has a history of general disruptive editing [41]. It seems his personal dislike of me is spilling over into hostility to other users who disagree with him. I hope you can find a way to resolve this matter so they let others contribute in peace. Thank you! Buspar (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And how conveniently, after it was the IP that threatened me of admin actions jjust a few hours ago, it's actually Buspar that is coming to complain to an admin, and we're not hearing from the IP...As if the 2 persons were one and the same !

I find it strange that Buspar is so familiar with what the IP did only a few hours ago, and rushed to complain here, while he has not been contacted by the IP and while he apparently wasn't there for 2 days.

As if, by magic, he read every article that the IP has edited. Please Jehochman, explain me how could all this be possible without Buspar being the IP ?

Anyway, it's Buspar that is harassing me. He's systematically tracking down every single one of my edits in articles about illegal fan translations and distributions of copyrighted material, so that he could rush to revert them and provoke me at the same time, then threatening to complain to admins.

Then, saying edit warring under his username wouldn't work, he's started using anonymous IPs so that his reverts would go unnoticed among the other edits. Then he has used his IPs to try to game a consensus discussion, pretending there was various people against me while it was only him against me.

Let me be clear, there has already been a Sockpuppet check on Buspar. The admin that was in charge of the case never denied that Buspar could be the IPs. Instead, the admin stated, and I quote, "Looking at contribs, User:Buspar and User:Xuanwu are very probably the same user [...] User:Buspar's userpage clearly states "I've been editing Wiki off and on with various user names since 2003. I don't like sticking with a user name too long, because I've found that people start reacting to the user name more than the quality of the edits after a bit." "[42]

As I've said, "the admin never denied or confirmed that "Buspar" wasn't using the IPs listed as aliases. However, anyone that had to deal with him concerning articles will spot you right away. Strangely, 130.49.157.75 and Buspar both appear to be very active on the very same articles: Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy, Signum (Nanoha). Also, both of them seem to have a tendency of being involved in heated debates with me concerning illegal fan translations and distributions of copyrighted material. Strangely, both users' interventions in these cases tended to add pov statements in favor of illegal downloading while I tried to prevent this, as it was an obvious violations of policies."

And I'm again stating that if he's Buspar, then calling him by one of his username is not an offence. It would be if he wasn't Buspar, but this remain to be proved.

The only thing is that I don't like him using an anonymous IP when he's reverting my contributions, because I like honesty, and hiding under anonymity when attacking me is never a sign of good faith. I'm only reestablishing his identity, which, if he's Buspar, cannot be an attack in any way.

You'll note that I'm not going after every edit of the IP in order to call it Buspar (however he's always there as soon as I edit an article like "fansub", "fandub", "scanlation"...), I'm merely reacting when he's targetting my edits. So there's no harassment from me, but it's Buspar who is harassing me and making false accusations.

I realize, however, that I might not have chosen the best way to deal with the matter. So to calm things down, I offer to stop calling him Buspar if that's what he'd like, under the condition that either him or an admin acknowledge that Buspar and the IP are indeed linked.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edit history (and the IP's) are publicly viewable. A quick glance at it showed me what you were up to, so I compiled this post together. To quote this admin from here: "Let me add that the SSP case against Buspar was reviewed and there was no sock puppetry." So the admin has confirmed the conclusion asserted by the IP (the IP probably missed this comment since it was on a user's talk page and not in the article talk space). Buspar (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What you were up to, you mean. From the beginning you're personally attacking me and harassing me, and this is the only way you found to try to claim ownership of articles.

And yes, it's highly suspicious that you seem to monitor everything that happens between the IP and me. At worst, it shows that you're actually tracking down my edits, ie harassing me, at best, it proves you are the IP because without any communication with me or the IP, there is no way you can be aware of anything in so much details(unless you're harassing me). And no, that you happen to hear about this matter right after it occured, while nothing suggested you were active here for 2 days, cannot be coincidence.

And finally, please, Buspar, stop playing on words. This is what the admin that took in charge your SSP case stated, and nothing else: "Looking at contribs, User:Buspar and User:Xuanwu are very probably the same user. Technically, they cannot be socks, as one username was created after the other stopped editing".

This statement is based on the technical definition of sockpuppetry, meaning that a person is using different identities at the same time. The admin only noted that the 2 accounts were not used simultaneously, but nonetheless acknowledged that Buspar and Xuanwu were the same person ("Looking at contribs, User:Buspar and User:Xuanwu are very probably the same user.")

The admin, however, never confirmed that you were not the IPs Onethirtyeightdot suspected you to be. If you've seen the line "No, Buspar is not 130.49.157.75", then please source it correctly.

So, what do we have ? An admin confirming you're likely to use several identities, an anonymous IP acting in exactly the same way as you do, having the same personal issues with me, editing the very same articles as you do, reverting back into articles the very same contribs that you made, and it also seems both you and the IP seem to have a telepathic link allowing to know every issue occuring with the IP without you being contacted by it beforehand.

As I've said, I'm offering to peacefully resolve this problem.

I am sincerely convinced that Buspar is the IP, because I've noticed the very same edit pattern, because both users contribute to the same articles, and both users seem to have a personal issue against me and both seem to systematically revert my contributions as soon as they concern article about illegal downloading.

Thus, this is not random bad faithed accusation. This is only what I sincerely believe.

However, if it is absolutely proved that Buspar and the Ip are not the same and that Buspar and the IP don't behave in similar ways, then I'm ready to make excuses to both users and to stop identifying the Ip as Buspar.

But if someone has any doubts about the IP identity, or if someone clearly acknowledge that Buspar and the Ip have the very same behavior and edit pattern, then that's all I need. I won't continue to call the IP Buspar, on the condition that an admin clearly acknowledges the IP¨as being Buspar, and that Buspar in his future edits, only revert edits of mine (and talk to me) under his Buspar username. Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts

• Folken de Fanel (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Buspar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dragonfiend (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Please consider this advice:

1. Folken de Fanel, allegations of sock puppetry are serious. Please do not make such accusations in edit summaries or at talk pages. Instead, file a report at suspected sock puppet reports, or requests for checkuser. To do otherwise may be disruptive and may even constitute harassment.
2. Buspar, you admit to having used multiple accounts. This is not best practice and may cause people to trust you less rather than more. I urge you to stick with one account and be careful not to edit while logged out.
3. Dragonfiend has not done anything that could constitute harassment within the last several several weeks. Unless something happens, no action is required with respect to that account.

Hopefully both parties can avoid further friction with each other. Jehochman ^Talk 15:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with your conclusions (and also that, even though you don't say anything clearly, I can see what might be your opinion about this IP) and I will no longer make sockpuppetry accusations in edit summaries. I just hope that Buspar will listen to your recommandations and will also stop harassing me through edit wars.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether the IP is Buspar or whether it is somebody with close sympathies acting in tandem does not make a huge difference. Editors are not allowed to form teams in order to get their way. We each act as individuals and try to convince each other through civil discussion when there may be disagreements. If there are disagreements that cannot be resolved through discussion, You can use WP:3O, WP:RFC or WP:M to get outside help. If you feel that somebody is gaming the system through use of multiple accounts or tag team editing, use WP:SSP or WP:RFCU to get help. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 15:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

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/Scientology/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/Scientology/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Seek your advice about constant harassment

Hello, Jehochman. I come here to seek your advice from your long experience dealing with user's behaviors, especially incivility and personal attacks. I've had very hard time for some user's constant trolling and personal attacks in my wiki experience (worst than any other sockpuppeter's harassment campaigns ever). He is named Tenmei (talk · contribs) and we first began conflicting for his nom of AFDs on a Japan-Korea related article in the middle of merger discussion with me. Moreover, he turned the page to a personal attack site on me, so I filed ANI on his conducts. He was not blocked due to his toooooooo lengthy and unintelligible notes even though he also was reported for the similar behaviors to users including admins. After that he has been hounding around me, and seems like he does not get over the report. We also have been disputing over a primary topic over Yonsei and a validity of Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei) being here. He has left lengthy and trollish comments against me on relevant talk pages or several noticeboards or went forum shopping to editors as "demonizing me" with inappropriate languages over and over. He has falsely accused me of making hoaxes (he stroke his own comments on that but still keeps making such) I have tried to ignore his constant provocations and personal attacks, or gave him warning or said nice in hope for him to behave better, but things get worse. I found this comment very upsetting although that is a rather mild level compared to his usual attacks along with his trolling[43][44][45][46]. What do you think I can resolve this constant attacks from the user? Thanks.--Caspian blue

• a few examples

This user's limited grasp of English usage renders this conclusory argument suspect.. There disambiguation page was nothing but a contrived gambit,

The oblique purpose of this thread is to distract attention from yet another variant wiki-hoax contrived by Caspian blue at Yonsei.

RFA

Please take a look at my recent edits and give some feedback. It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the archive bots, but to be honest, I enjoy doing it myself. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have asked User:Ryan Postlethwaite about something that will inevitably come up. Meanwhile, can you identify any articles you may have elevated above start class? Also, can you identify any situations where you filed reports that required administrator intervention. I'd like to demonstrate that not only can you be trusted with sysop tools, but you also have need for them. Best regards, Jehochman2 (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I routinely report users to the administrator noticeboard. I patrol recent changes and if I see a trend of vandal edits, I warn the user, and if it continues, I report the user. I report both IPs and registered users. I also report a lot of images that have been possible copyvios. Is that some of the stuff you needed? Undead Warrior (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's good stuff. I am checking your use of rollback to make sure there are no significant, recent issues. Jehochman ^Talk 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I've been very careful in rollback. Undead Warrior (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Undead warrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Any news yet? Undead Warrior (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The only news is that I am swamped at the moment. If you have another editor willing to nominate, and you'd like to proceed more rapidly, I can add my endorsement and thoughts to their nomination. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Would that be a wise decision in your opinion? I don't want to look like I'm trying to rush into it or anything. Undead Warrior (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

WTC Progessive Collapse

Hi Jehochman, what happened to the idea of changing "The NIST report analyzes the failure mechanism in detail"? Can I take it that the current consensus is that this sentence is accurate? At this point I'm asking essentially as a puzzled outside observer, i.e., a reader of the encyclopedia, not a Wikipedian.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Edmund Fitzgerald

Hello Jehochman, I noticed the copious editing you have done on the Edmund Fitzgerald article. You will probably find these You Tube videos interesting: 1) Operation Taconite on the Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald and 2) Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald: Historical Documents. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look when I am done with holiday shopping. Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My two cents

Over time I have learned to reject all ideas of alliances, loyalties, animosities, or voting blocks. Instead, I base decisions on what will be best for the articles. One day I may support somebody in one matter, and the next day I might oppose them in a different one. If this upsets some people, so be it.

In other words, you are rejecting human nature, which in and of itself could cause very serious problems instead of actually helping resolve disputes in a harmonious manner. Alliances exist. Loyalties exist. Animosities exist. Voting blocks exist. We don't have to agree with them, nor should we cater to their demands, but they need to be recognized and understood. Obviously, Wikipedians are an alliance of like-minded editors, and within that group, the alliances break down into subgroups along disparate preferences. More importantly, articles are written by people, not machines. I honestly don't mean any disrespect, but it might be a good idea to review the idea of emotional intelligence. You are basically saying that the things that make us human aren't important, which could be a serious problem in your judgment. We aren't machines, and the machines have not yet taken over. If instead of rejecting what makes us human outright, for good or for bad, you made an effort to learn to understand and work with these concepts, I think you might find a groundswell of support. You are clearly intelligent enough to understand that human civilization itself is merely the ultimate expression of these alliances. To disregard this fact is, dare I say it, anti-human. Historically, you can see how these associations developed by reviewing something as simple as the history of agriculture. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure J is rejecting those notions per se; just personally - nothing wrong with being a noncomformist. Just because there are institutionalised ways of doing things (often because it is proven to be the most encompassing method for society) does not mean that someone cannot legitimately operate outside or beyond the norm for the benefit of that society. Flexibility in thought and a rejection of process or established practice for its own sake is an excellent attribute in a candidate who is looking to advance the office of Arbiter while serving it, IMO. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I will judge each situation on the merits, rather than going along with whatever cabal is seeking my support through positive or negative reinforcement. If an individual wants to talk to me, or course I will listen to their concerns and try to help them. If somebody has shown good faith to me, I will naturally tend to assume more good faith towards them, but that does not mean I will follow them blindly. Cabalism is a threat to wikipedia. It should be discouraged whenever it appears. If I see editors who always support each other or always oppose each other, that is a bad sign. Part of being human is that we think for ourselves and no two people think exactly alike. Disagreements are natural. If somebody never disagrees with me, then something is wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Cabalism" is emergent behavior and it can be no more eliminated than one can eliminate the desire to sneeze. Your call to eliminate it is ironic, when in fact, every single authority structure on Wikipedia acts to encourage it. After all, it is the ultimate control mechanism. You are either with the in group or you are not. We must be editing two different websites. Viriditas (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If I see editors who always support each other or always oppose each other, that is a bad sign.

No, that's called paranoia. There are things called friendships. Look into it. Viriditas (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, always agreeing is nor friendship, it's enabling or pandering. If your friend is wrong, you should tell them, politely. If you must always disagree with somebody, that's feuding. Don't come here and insinuate that I am paranoid. That's rude. Go edit an article. My talk page, so I get the last word. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I prefer simpler explanations, rather than grandiose conspiracies. I still think you are missing out on the human element, which is the backbone of this site. When you say that you don't care that your actions upset people, you're sending out a poor message. Viriditas (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My own perception lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, it's human nature, but these friendships can harm the encyclopedia. There are vocal administrators who are extremely fair in their perception unless it concerns one of their "friends", in which case they come across as very biased. When our friends are the topic of contention, it would be preferable to abstain from commenting, let alone from letting the tools speak. Just like abstaining would be preferable when our antagonists are the topic.

I think it goes both ways: Supporting or defending a "friend" against better judgment doesn't add objectivity and makes it look like cabalism to outsiders. Harshly criticizing or calling for action against a "friend" (or someone with whom one has just spent the past few days or weeks working together) can look like betrayal or erratic behavior. If there is a repeated pattern of "turning on" one's fellow-travelers, that might make people shy away from collaboration, because of that annoying human nature Viriditas mentions. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Sometimes I think the best course would be for editors to tell their friends privately and off-wiki when they need to reconsider their behavior. A lot of face is saved and the message is more likely to be read in the intended spirit. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is helpful to allow friends, or foes, to save face whenever possible. Off wiki communication or polite feedback online are both possibilities. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Hochman: Thank you for your very important input on these subjects! To me, having worked with people for some 45 years now, it seems obvious that any group of people who support each other at any cost will end up costing an organization like the Wikimedia Foundation dearly. I know mine would fall apart directly if we had such cabalism in it. And we would never get a dime from any donors. Cabalism by a cabal ends up like cannibalism victimizing those poor souls excluded and/or persecuted. They end up getting virtually eaten alive. I have watched this happen recently. Let's hope more and younger people will see what is constructive about how real friends help each other do better. They do not inspire and guarantee for each other to do worse and worse together. Sincerely, /Anonymous at IP 217.209.96.57

Yes, this is very important; I had good experience with that in mediation. As to Viriditas' argument; it's known since time immemorial that there are friends and "friends". The former stay when you honestly try your best to be fair in a situation when they're wrong. I also agree with you that it's best to give both friends and foes this treatment. If I may add a plug: There's a related principle that I hope more people will pledge: PINOT. — Sebastian 06:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that's an outstanding statement, in a good way. Good luck living up to it. I hope you're not too peeved at the results of your ArbCom run. Keep up the hard work. II | (t - c)

retirement from arbcom elections

Dang! Now that I was finally going to finish reading your answers page and vote to support you :( Oh, well, I would have liked to see you on the Arbcom.... --Enric Naval (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this, too. I was going to vote for you, because I remember you as a calm voice with good ideas at ANI, as e.g. here. — Sebastian 06:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation?

Why are you folks trying to drive Giano away or provoke him further? - it would appear you have made up your mind on this issue. But is it possible, do you think, that they might have had other motives? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I deal with quite a few trolls and disruptive users. Their handling of this matter is daffy. The best practice would be to ignore Giano's provocative comments and at the same time to stop provoking him. In the alternative, if he really is such a corrosive influence on Wikipedia, they need to have the courage to make the decision to ban him completely. These petty blocks are unhelpful completely. Do you think Giano will come back in 72 hours and be more polite? Anyone who believes that needs a reality check. Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Your original words assert that these admins are trying to drive Giano away or provoke him further. If you meant that their actions are such as to likely have those consequences, you should have said so. Making unjustified assertions about their motives is not good. Unless you really think that is their intention, but I hope you don't believe that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Who provoked him? The autoblocker? Come off it, no block was ever more richly deserved. Actions have consequences, even if you're Giano. Mackensen (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Theresa Knott provoked Giano by placing an improper civility block. The ArbCom exacerbated matters by placing a second block. The net effect of these blocks is to harm Wikipedia. By Wikipedia I mean the set of articles that comprise Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia social and power structures that some fancy themselves to command. Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You will have to clarify improper--going strictly by the civility standards there can be no question about is appropriateness, so you must mean the Arbcom civility ruling. All this misses the point. If, by Wikipedia, we mean the million+ articles of content, then I submit the project is neither harmed nor helped by the presence of a single editor. I would argue, however, that Giano's manner toward other editors is harmful to those editors--to their willingness to edit, to their willingness to partake in the administrative tasks which keep this project functioning. This is a collaborative project. The way we interact with other users is important. It is one thing to ignore someone. I ignore Giano, and he ignores me. With this I am well satisfied. However, as today demonstrates, it is possible to ignore him and still run afoul his temper and his tongue. All this business about power structures and so forth is nonsense. The incredible cautiousness that Arbcom has shown toward Giano over the past 2-3 years is proof positive that the committee has something other than its own standing in mind.

But we're wasting our time here. I submit the matter is straightforward. This is an encyclopedia. There is no place for invective-laced temper tantrums. I think it's reasonable to expect that these not occur here. If Giano cannot interact with administrators who are not his friends without blowing a gasket then I think it's not unreasonable to ask that he refrain from doing so in the first place. Of course I'll be assured that anyone who can't get along with him simply isn't doing it right. No doubt. But interpersonal interaction is a two-way street. Maybe blocking Giano isn't helping Wikipedia, but you can't seriously argue with a straight face that his tantrums are helping it either. The fact of the matter is that Giano started it--editors get caught in autoblocks every day. Only Giano would turn it into a federal case. Mackensen (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In what sense was the block improper? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL. We don't block people for minor incivility. Venting on his own page was not incivility of a level sufficient to warrant a block per our community norms. The ArbCom should be very careful not to attempt to rule over the community. They are not our bosses. Jehochman ^Talk 23:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to imagine what your idea of "major incivility" would be--leaving aside all question of Arbcom-imposted restrictions. Mackensen (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Check my logs to see the people I've blocked for harassment, and then check their contributions. You can find many examples. Jehochman ^Talk 23:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be bending words to suit your purposes. The block might be wrong, but thats only your opinion. It would only be improper if an invalid or specious justification had been given. But a block for incivility is perfectly proper William M. Connolley (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the twins are just unmanageable

Sorry, Jonathan.. Bishapod's socks need a strict old-fashioned nanny, nobody else can cope.. If you're really tired of them, I'll hire Nikkizilla, but she is rather expensive. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC).

Darwin? Which Darwin? . . dave souza, talk 23:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You remember your stupid little progeny Bishapod,(click link, be impressed!) o great Dave? His Darwinsocks. Your grandsocks, you know! Bishonen | talk 03:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC).