User talk:Jehochman/Archive 19

Not baiting

I'm actually pretty offended you say that I'm baiting him. I stumbled onto that page I added to MFD entirely by accident, and I was shocked to see what I still maintain is an attack page.

You can think that I'm baiting him if you want, I guess there's not much I can do about that. I maintain that he's a nasty piece of work, and a corrosive influence on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if that's considered a personal attack, but it's just true. Yes, his work on architecture is amazing, but the amount of heartache and drama he's caused is incredible. I'm amazed he hasn't been permanently banned.

Anyhow, I'm off to a corner of Wikipedia where he won't show up. I was trying to stay right away from him from day one, but unfortunately another admin made personal comments and set him off on the incivility policy proposal that was put forward. He then proceeded to take over the whole discussion, even though there were 4 or 5 other editors who were getting annoyed as they couldn't follow what was going on. As he's seen fit to camp there, and nothing can be done about it and noone is willing to try, I'm not going to try to mediate on a bloke who could hates civility and gets away with calling other editors "priggish hypocrites". It's just not worth it! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would not worry too much about it. In my view, the best way to deal with Giano is to be courteous, never lose your cool, and hope he will skitter off the edge and you can go to an enforcement area with clean hands. Takes time to learn this though.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wehalt, in your dreams! You just cannot bear not to discuss me, or resist an urge to comment. Never mind, what you can't cure, I suppose you must endure.  Giano  15:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But... I don't want to do that! I just want to edit in peace, I totally understood why Giano was upset about being talked about the way he was :( In fact, I've maintained that from the very beginning when Giano lost his cool. I quite possibly would have reacted the same, I would like to think not but I know myself too well and I've had to apologise to far too many people in the past. The very last thing I want to do is to make anyone go over the edge, whether it be their own fault or my own. I mean, that's why I put that proposal up about incivility blocks!

It was partially my fault I suppose for asking for clarification on what was being talked about, because I really had no idea what was about to come from it all... what got me upset about Giano was the "priggish hypocrisy" comment and I was a bit appalled at the sexual innuendo, but even more annoying was that nobody could keep track of any of the threads because he was so upset. And of course I certainly didn't help by saying that he should leave the discussion, that just made things worse, even though I struck the comment later. It was later suggested I blank the section, which I did, but by then the damage had been done. So really, I only made things worse for myself, certainly I wasn't baiting him though. I really believe that had Giano not gone off half-cocked then we could have had a good discussion, but things didn't turn out that way. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: "no surgery needed"

Good to hear. Hope you get back to 100% soon. Take it slow. I tried to get back to normal after bronchitis and pneumonia (yeah, I caught both at once) and got sick again and wound up in the hospital for two days. Take it slow and you will be back to 100% in no time :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoa - hope you get better soon! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The physical exam suggested a full thickness rotator cuff tear, which would have required surgery. Fortunately, the MRI resulted in a different diagnosis: inflammation of the Acromioclavicular joint and a possible partial thickness tear of the rotator cuff, neither of which require surgery. I've got 153 MRI and X-rays images to share. If one of you talk page lurkers understands anatomy please speak up because I need help figuring out which images to place on which articles. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the words of "The Flesh" from Action League Now! best sum up that medical summary....Ouchies! But seriously, due hope that heals properly and you are back to 100% soon. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on not needing surgery! (Although perhaps you had your heart set on watching the confusion and chaos surrounding the America's Cup while recuperating?) I'm not particularly impressed with boats that need a pristine, undisturbed surface in order to race regardless of how fast they go. However, the politics have been entertaining. In any event, it seems like you'll be back to sailing in no time.:-) Oberonfitch (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is purely ridiculous to cancel a sailboat race for waves or wind less than hurricane force. Jehochman ^Brrr 19:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL You are my kind of sailor; a race in 10 kns is dull unless some interesting dueling occurs at the start, preferably with damage to standing rigging. ;-) Oberonfitch (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I dunno Jeh, given the level of skill required to create the 2D image of a 3D work of art, you may not be able to contribute those images (especially if they made you wear a gown where your butt shows, that's creative input). Your mom and dad created the 3D work after all, all you did was bitch and moan about how much your arm hurt. ;) Franamax (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...

... I can't believe I'm saying this... but this diff was from over 2 years ago and has no bearing on the ban discussion. Just so you know - I don't really want you to get any flack for closing the ban discussion early. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, then I misunderstood. I've reverted my close. Carry on. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I feel like I just scored a classic own goal. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

in the mood for ANI?

Hi Jehochman, I wouldn't bother you with this but I know you've dealt with this before. Take a look at this. Long story short there's a long running edit war about the british isle naming dispute between user:HighKing and User:Mister Flash. Flash is basically a single purpose account who's take it upon themselves to counter act those at the British Isles Special Examples Task force. That task force has its own issues but Flash is a clear pov-warrior. I've set down a suggestion for community sanctions on a number of editors. All "sides" seem to hate it - so I must be doing something right. But just to be sure would you mind running an eye over it. I know you've looked at these issues in the past so I'll understand if you want nothing to do with it--Cailil ^talk 21:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not going to have time to wade into anything Troubles related. I'm very busy at work. Jehochman ^Brrr 03:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Drew R. Smith

Hi. I think User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier is Drew. There are two ANI thread about this. The beginning is at User talk:Tbsdy lives#My Userpage and you should also see my talk page and Red Hood's talk; the ANIs are at: wp:ani#Disruptive signature && wp:ani#user talk:Jack Merridew. The other aspect is that Grawp and the /b/tard crowd dipped into the drama for lulz by attacking both user talk pages. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

What is this about? The only two users who had posted there were administrators questioning his use of the tools. That hardly seems like harassment to me, but rather a necessary step. I mean, if I had posted some kind of gloating message or something at his talk, I could better understand, but I didn't, and no one else did either. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You were in conflict with the user, no? Did you play a part in driving them away? If so, I'd like to hear your explanation of how that helped Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Leave it, seriously. He was blocked out of turn for 24 hours for a poor decision. I reversed the decision after this was discussed on ANI. Then Spartaz got upset and deleted his user and user talk page, and protected the user talk page. Unitanode had nothing to do with any of this. Next time, do some research before you threaten to block like you did on two admins talk pages. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

YOU violated WP:BLOCK by undoing another administrator's actions without discussion. Things have changed since a few years ago. Unilateral block reversals are frowned upon. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And I've already said that I'm going to be more careful in future. Coming in a bit late are we? Threatening two admins with a block and using phrases such as "crystal clear" was something you should be reviewing, not me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Have you even looked at the underlying situation, Jehochman? Spartaz blocked me for a 10-hour-old edit that wasn't even against policy at the exact moment I made it! And then, when that block was overturned, he quit in a fit of pique, deleted his user pages, and fully protected them. I did nothing to cause him to quit. That's all on his own frame of mind and behavior patterns (check the deletion history of his talkpage). Scottaka UnitAnode 15:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  Yes. If he screwed up, then all that was needed was to post an unblock request, leave a message for the blocking admin, and either get his agreement, or get a quick agreement at WP:AN to get the block lifted. A little patience and kindness was all that was needed to deal with his mistake. Instead, there was wheel warring and a user was cornered on his own talk page. Not good. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  And has already been covered on ANI, there was no wheel warring. I think you might want to step away from this one, you evidently don't know what was going on. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  Link, so I can be sure you and I are talking about the same thing? Jehochman ^Brrr 15:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  WP:AN/I#Unitanode block. I've noted your block threat, as this is a serious concern for me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  For the second time, I've already noted that I should have spoken to the blocking admin. Go read the thread. I'm not giving you a diff, the thread is still current for goodness sake. Seriously, go read it before you make any further comments. You are making this situation much, much worse than what it should be. This situation has been dealt with, and you are basically blundering in and reopening it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  You still don't seem to understand the situation. He was never "cornered" at his own talkpage. And he wasn't responding to repeated messages I left below his block template. He deleted his talkpage, not because people were hounding him there (they weren't), but because he was pissed off. And he wheel-warred the deletion, after it was reversed, and protected the page as well. As for "patience and kindness" where was it when he misused his block button on me to sully a clean block log? No, no one hounded him off the project. He left of his own anger, and I assume (given his history) that he'll be back before very long at all, though if he is, it should be sans the tools. We have enough admins with a hair-trigger already. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  After he retired and deleted his own talk page, somebody undeleted the page, then Tbsdy added a warning about not deleting it. This is purely unhelpful. Your involvement is completely tangential. I view you as potentially the subject of a questionable block. What happened afterwards is what I am taking issue with. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  Uh, no dude. Read again - I had just speedily closed the DRV where Sandstein wanted the page to be undeleted. I warned him when he fully protected his talk page. He is not allowed to misuse the tools like this. You are unhappy that I didn't speak to him about the unblock, but yet you are OK with him misusing the delete and protect tools? Something's not quite right here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  As you were the one primarily in conflict with Spartaz, you were exactly the wrong person to take those actions. You should have left the matter to somebody uninvolved. I just want everybody to back away from Spartaz. Give him a little space please. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You make it sound as if a lot of people were hounding him at his talkpage, which isn't true. He deleted it before anyone had posted there, except Cla with a general, "Hey I've brought this up at ANI" post. Just as a request for deletion of the usertalk page would be declined if a user was quitting in anger, so an admin is not allowed to simply delete his OWN userpage in anger. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The best practice is not to pressure a user who is clearly upset. Spartaz deleting his talk page was a very minor issue that could have been dealt with at DRV if there was a compelling need. Tbsdy was the main source of Spartaz's upset. Tbsdy's continued involvement in the matter was most unhelpful; a clever form or trolling at worst, or insensitive at best. Sandstein, for all his merits, isn't the most diplomatic either. Summarily undeleting the page out of process was just as bad as summarily deleting it out of process. WP:DRV is the way to restore a deleted page. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, Unitanode was blocked by that particular admin and was extremely upset. You don't seem to be taking into account the full picture here. Calling me a troll is extremely hurtful and unhelpful, and in fact that's a personal attack. If anyone is being insensitive here, it is you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with Jehocman here, the deletion was untowards, but such things are a breeze to undo once the kerfluffle winds down. Rather than stirring things up even more, y'all could have waited. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

For the fifth time - I speedy closed the DRV. This stopped the undeletion from occuring. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

thank you

For standing up for me... Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jehochman ^Brrr 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Chunk Champion

His response to your note was to revert the undo of his blanking of another list from another article, Ciao Bella Gelato Company][1]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

*Sigh* 24 hour break. Jehochman ^Brrr 22:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugh...this guy is determined to act like a two year old. He restore his modification of my warning,[2] and stole the text from my own user talk page (sans the bit about me being a she)[3] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as he's not damaging articles, we may try to ignore any tantrums. Jehochman ^Brrr 12:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Posts by Rms125a@hotmail.com and Bishonen have been moved to User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com, right here. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

An interesting comment.

RE: [4] - "Rather than going after educated, good-faith editors, we should be clearing out the POV warriors." - I've been thinking about this issue for some time, more specifically with respect to the use of the term "Civil POV Pusher" but this seems largely the same. Are you somehow of the opinion that WMC is NOT a "POV Warrior"? I would find that position questionable, actually, and I don't mean any offense to WMC by it. The point is that he has a well recognized POV and he "pushes" it, and some would argue aggressively so. So I would like to better understand why people such as yourself draw some sort of distinction between WMC "pushing his POV" and others doing the same.

Who do you consider to be the "POV Warriors" to which you refer? Perhaps a comparison between them and WMC would help to tease out this intangible distinction. Am I one of them in your eyes? It is OK if you think so. I won't take offense. Others? I think that understanding the nature of this distinction may be important to trying to find effective ways to improve the prevailing atmosphere on these pages. Any thoughts on this that you care to share? --GoRight (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody made a case that WMC is a POV warrior, and I take have position on that question. They said he was impolite, boo hoo, so he must be banned. That argument was feeble, so I rejected it. Jehochman ^Brrr 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that the significance of the civility discussion in the case of WMC is that he has editing restrictions related to that, right? I'm not jumping on the incivility bandwagon but his editing restrictions do make the issue more significant in his particular case than they otherwise would be. Just sayin'.

I really am interested in your opinion on the whole issue of Civil POV pushing and POV Warriors. The statement I have quoted seems to indicate that you don't believe that WMC is in the class of people who could be properly termed a "POV Warrior", but perhaps that wasn't your intent. It could easily have been a simple statement related to the "boo hoo" factor you allude to.

So, let's take WMC out of the discussion. Let's consider editor X who believes strongly in AGW, has a strong scientific bent, and tends (i.e. generally but not universally) to edit content in such a way that the scientific AGW POV is emphasized and all other views are downplayed as insignificant. Editor X has some other project contributions outside of GW but not significantly so, let's say on the order of 10% of their edits. Would you consider editor X to be a "POV Warrior"?

Conversely, let's consider editor Y who accepts the raw scientific data behind the current claims of AGW but who simply questions the methods and conclusions of the more mainstream scientific population in that area. Editor Y also has a strong interest in the other social and political aspects of the whole AGW debate and feels that these other areas have been inappropriately scrubbed from the encyclopedia. Editor Y has traditionally admitted to being an SPA who wants to focus on the biases just described. Would you consider editor Y to be a "POV Warrior"?

If your answer between the two differs, what is it that makes you tend to feel that way? --GoRight (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The assumption is faulty. Good editors don't have a pro- or anti- view. They simply want to document everything, the pro and the anti included. Take a look at U-853, which I mostly wrote. Do I like or dislike the Germans or the Americans? Jehochman ^Brrr 20:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor X is editing the articles and talk pages based on what the scientific papers in the area say. Editor Y, by your description, is attempting OR because he is attempting to re-interpret the raw data. Editor Y is welcome to his own opinions but they have no place in wikipedia. This is obvious on the article pages; less obviously, but no less certainly, editor Y should not be contributing to talk pages based on his own OR interpretations. also, editor X has a history of toning down over-enthusiastic contribution to article space by those who over-push GW as well as under. Editor Y has edits that are exclusively on the skeptical side William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this sneak in here.

"Editor Y, by your description, is attempting OR because he is attempting to re-interpret the raw data." - Thank you for playing along in the role of hypothetical editor X. You have done an excellent job of illustrating another aspect of the problem. Editor X and many like him appear to have a form of tunnel vision. They are only able to see the world and the myriad of issues related to GW through a single myopic lens: the Scientific POV. Your point is only valid so long as Editor Y is trying to alter the fundamental conclusions drawn by the scientific community and represent those alterations as being scientific fact. I don't believe anything I said above implies or even suggests that this is what Editor Y is attempting to do. So for the sake of this discussion let's stipulate that for the most part Editor Y actually stays away for the scientific aspects of the articles since he acknowledges that they, generally speaking, reflect the actual state of climate science ... although he may occasionally interject a tweak here or there but only using peer-reviewed sources for those edits related purely to scientific fact.

Note that the tunnel vision of Editor X will have caused him to be completely oblivious to this part of my description of Editor Y: "Editor Y also has a strong interest in the other social and political aspects of the whole AGW debate and feels that these other areas have been inappropriately scrubbed from the encyclopedia." It will have been almost as though that aspect of Editor Y had not even been stated. Worse still, whenever Editor Y attempts to expand the content to include topics from these social and political realms Editor X's myopic view of the topic causes every statement to be analyzed and interpreted with the same single lens: the Scientific POV. This will happen even when Editor Y isn't saying anything about scientific fact (reinterpreted or otherwise). For example, introducing a quote of some sort from a notable climate skeptic on a particular topic to illustrate the arguments being made by the skeptics isn't saying that what the skeptic stated is scientific fact, but it is illustrating the nature of the political debate. That the individual is a notable skeptic and that they actually made the statement in question is easily WP:V from WP:RS that are all applicable to political debate (as opposed to the more stringent peer-reviewed requirement for scientific fact). Regardless, Editor X and those who view the world similar to him all attempt characterize such utterances as being ONLY about the science and hence try to demand ONLY peer-reviewed sources even though such a requirement doesn't even apply in the example given.

So, this is not a case of Editor Y pushing a faulty Scientific POV based on OR but rather a failure of Editor X to be able to see things from outside the Scientific box that he lives in. Science is great stuff, but it isn't the only stuff that exists. --GoRight (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, I believe you closed that thread a little too early, other admins may want to comment. Any objections to me reopening it for another 24 hours? Cla68 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd object. People have been hunting WMC's head for a long time. He was not especially incivil in the incident you cited. Our goal is to help the editor along, not pour grease under his feet. Can we be more tolerant and less contrary? I've stood up for you quiet strongly when I thought you were being treated unfairly. My position on the matter is not personal, nor should it reflect badly on you. Jehochman ^Brrr 20:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In that diff, WMC basically said, "Your editing is useless and without redeeming quality, you're not wanted, get lost." It doesn't matter if it's true or not, a comment like that doesn't belong in a talk page discussion. Perhaps on the user's userpage, but not on an article talk page. What if a member of the general public happens to peruse the article's talk page and sees editors talking to each other like that? What are they going to think? I believe that personalizing disputes like that is unacceptable. I think you know of another editor I was in a protracted dispute with who used to always do that to try to win content disputes, why do you think that it's ok in this instance? Cla68 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Truth is important. Alas, you seem to have forgotten that. I posed a challenge on the sanctions page which you have pointedly evaded, for the obvious reasons William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Truth is a slippery concept. Evidence would be a better way to describe things. The editor was in fact, per the evidence, making substantially more disruptive, noisy edits, than useful contributions. You shouldn't be punished for plain talk. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, there are limits to what we can do with community article probation. If you feel editing needs to be looked at more closely, please feel free to request arbitration. I will support that request. The community probation was a valiant effort, but I do not see that it is getting the disruption under control. It seems like these matters are inevitably heading to arbitration. Jehochman ^Brrr 23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am glad we see eye to eye. I am not saying WMC's editing has been perfect. However, a noticeboard thread is not a sufficient or fair way to evaluate the totality of an editor's contributions when that editor has made many thousands of article edits. A more detailed investigation is required, one that may take several weeks, and scrutiny of multiple, clueful, uninvolved editors, such as our elected arbitrators. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So your answer is that they are both POV warriors, or neither are, or that neither are "good editors"? Regardless, my question was about these editors specifically and not about some idealized "good editor". After all, we must write the encyclopedia with the editors we have, not the editors we wish we had. (Apologies to Donald Rumsfeld) You're being a little evasive here, me thinks, which is OK, but let me persist a bit further then and you can simply tell me to go away when you tire of the discussion.

Let's also stipulate that both editors actively make what they consider to be reasonable efforts at accommodating all points of view, but perhaps X tends to be more deletionist whereas Y tends to be more inclusionist. So there are frequently clashes between themselves (and others who share their respective points of view) over WP:WEIGHT. So to an outside observer X might appear to be trying to tightly control the content and to only allow things that agree with their personal POV whereas Y is always trying to add in new angles and additional information so the outside observer might view Y as trying to push an agenda (it would certainly look like that to X).

Does any of this change your answers? --GoRight (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why *both* have to be POV warriors. As far as I'm concerned, using scientific sources for science articles is not POV-pushing. But trying to use fringe sources and OR is. This conveniently distinguishes X and Y. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said editor Y who accepts the raw scientific data behind the current claims of AGW but who simply questions the methods and conclusions of the more mainstream scientific population in that area. This is your key insight, and it is correct (modulo accepting the raw data - but we could assume that for the hypothetical Y, if you like). You now need to think through the conclusions of that - namely, that Y is pushing OR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just in case it is not clear, my comment was directed at Jehochman and not at WMC. Looking at the timestamps it appears that we were editing simultaneously and so there may have been some confusion on that point.

"As far as I'm concerned, using scientific sources for science articles is not POV-pushing." - Well, who says that the GW articles are solely and exclusively science articles? If they were then your point might have some merit, unfortunately they aren't any such thing. Trying to make then BE THAT is a form of POV pushing because it seeks to exclude the other aspects of the issue. I think that this nuance is often missed by the uninvolved.

"But trying to use fringe sources and OR is." - This is merely another reflection of Editor X's myopic view of the world. Again, it inherently assumes that (a) everything boils down to the science, and (b) therefore everyone is making edits related to the science. This is obviously fallacious thinking.

But even within the narrow confines of the Scientific POV even THIS statement provides an opportunity to illustrate another aspect of the problem: moving goalposts. For statements related purely about the science the standard that has been stated is peer-reviewed journals. But this isn't really the standard enforced on these pages, the standard is peer-reviewed journals that Editor X and those like him choose to accept, or not, seemingly at their whim. For example, and this is only one example, try to cite a paper for a journal like Energy & Environment. It's peer-reviewed. But Editor X doesn't like who the reviewers are and so seeks to keep material from there out. This too is a form of POV pushing.

"This conveniently distinguishes X and Y." - Conveniently (for Editor X), perhaps, but certainly not accurately or completely as I have just shown.

"modulo accepting the raw data - but we could assume that for the hypothetical Y, if you like" - I assume that this is directed at me because Editor Y is purely hypothetical. For a scientific sort of chap, you seem to believe you can read my mind which seems a bit off, actually, scientifically speaking.

"You now need to think through the conclusions of that - namely, that Y is pushing OR" - And now you need to think through the conclusions - namely that not everything is about the science nor is quoting material from WP:RS for non-scientific points WP:OR. --GoRight (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What an entertaining thread! As a sceptic, my view is that both scientific and self-described AGW sceptics are clear that the majority scientific view is that AGW occurs, and is significant. If editors X and Y both accept that and accept the implications of policy that minority views are shown properly but get less weight, both can contribute well to covering the whole issue. That includes non-scientific areas such as politics, where any references to the science have to give the scientific consensus due weight. A splendid utopian vision, and no pov pushing involved. Regrettably, we seem to attract pov pushers who insist that fringe anti-science sources are to be treated as reliable and insist that the science has been shown to be an international conspiracy to hoax those unaware of The Truth. I'm always optimistic that they can learn to act like Y, but need sound guidance. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

U-853

You obviously dislike sport divers. I commented on the talk page, but in the event that I get out to the site this summer, what pictures would you like taken? Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

re closing comments at Climate Change Probation "Rate a Rant" page re WMC

Glad to see a new name cropping up on that page - are you intending to stay around? Either way, I have to say that there was just one word (really, simply one only) that I wished you had not used in your summary. It was "educated"; it is a word with too much resonance on those pages, in my view - which I wish to expand upon here.
The science involved in Climate Change is, as far as I am able to tell, substantially agreed in a determination that it is both happening, and that human related activitiy is a major contributor. However, as you may be inclined to believe as I do, science is not the answer - it is merely a way at determining the answer (actually, it is usually a way of testing the questions that leads to a conclusion, to determine the validity of the answer). Thus, as I believe most scientists will admit, science is not "the truth" but the search for the truth, and not all conclusions are necessarily absolutely true. This internal retesting of data is sometimes used as evidence that science is "wrong", especially if further conclusions are then drawn which deprecate previous conclusions.
This openess to admission of lack of absolute certainty is abused, in my view, both in RL and in WP in the question of Climate Change. This is not good, and needs to be countered. Regretably, again in my view, it has been done incorrectly by those on WP who recognise the general conclusions that science has drawn from the testing of data. It is my opinion that there is a concerted effort to remove, except for the most grudging instances, of every comment, opinion, viewpoint, that detracts from the majority viewpoint, because it might appear to undermine that conclusion. My view, as an encyclopediast is that suppression of sourced "dissent" is wrong, because the encyclopedic treatment of Climate Change is not the scientific one, but the dissemination of knowledge one. My consideration of "the real truth" is that there is a RL debate upon the accuracy of some of the data, some of the specific conclusions, the methods of extracting the data, the access to the methods of data extraction and testing, etc., and the fact that none of this debate deflects the majority scientific viewpoint relating to climate change. This is not reflected properly within WP's coverage because the "educated", those with qualifications working within that field, editors are unprepared to leaven the scientific ratio of acceptance/skepticism/denial with that from the wider range of intelligent(ish) commentary. It is as much that attitude of one side "knowing better" than the other that is at a lot of the conflict within the article subject and talk place - allowing one groups subjective viewpoint of what is appropriate and what isn't is a recipe for increasing and not decreasing poor behaviour models; if someone's good faith questioning of the orthodoxy is going to be met with dismissal, then their own behaviour will deteriorate - and that is the fault of those who happen to be "correct" in their subject pov, and the admins who should be placing the ethos of WP above that of the existing (neutral) pov.
After all that, I may well have scared you off from participating further on those pages. I hope not. I hope that you will add your skills in a highly sensitive and emotionally charged area. I hope that you will recognise your bias' and if not put them aside, let them not influence your determination whether WP's ethos of open collaborative editing is being adhered to, and to recognise the good faith from all sides of the debate that is attempting to create the best articles possible (and to see when there is bad faith from any party, and disregard that partys allegiance).
If you have been scared off; sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just popping in to say thanks, LessHeard vanU, it's good to see you elaborate your views. I'm all for representing the science correctly--so that if substantial numbers of papers appear contradicting the status quo then it will have shifted. Thing is, we'd need actual evidence that that had happened. Appeal to "educated-ish" dissent and appeal to non-existent (or at least, rather rare) contradictory science isn't good enough. As encyclopedists we cannot just wave our hands and say "of course, joe the blogger may be right after all." That would be silly. Either we write about science with reference to scientific debate, or we do not. We don't juxtapose the opinions of the ignorant (and as an educated-ish person at least I know how ignorant I am on this subject) with the considered opinions of experts. No matter how many creationists fervently believe that God made the first man, we don't write that in human origins. That's the way it is. --TS 23:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I believe you just basically said that climate change skepticism is on about the same level as religious dogma. If so, I think you just proved LHVU's point. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Cla, some of it is. LHvU, there's a difficulty in getting nuance into articles when any admission of genuine openness and uncertainty is mercilessly misrepresented. I'd hope that with adherence to content policy including due weight these nuances will be better covered. There are interesting developments which could change the science, and these are welcomed as soon as we have good enough reliable sources to establish their significance. Here's hoping! . . dave souza, talk 00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, no, there are qualified scientists whose evaluation of the data differs from the mainstream. Those aren't dogmatists any more than the others, they're scientists. The above paragraph simply argues for due weight, and with special attention to the expertise of the source. I don't normally encounter any problems with that view. --TS 00:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't seen you edit war to remove reliably-sourced opinions from climate change skeptics. Perhaps you have, but I don't recall having seen it. I have seen some others do that, however. I think that is part of what LVHU is saying, that he doesn't believe that all sides are being represented fairly. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

All sides of the debate, that is the political and worldwide discussion over the scientific orthodoxy regarding climate change. The WP articles perhaps reflect too much the scientific balance of views rather than the wider one which will likely draw the reader. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't place "Joe the Blogger" 's ruminations against that of a scientific source as "balance of good sources", we acknowledge that GWA sources tend to be reliable science and that skepticism and denial sources tend to be opinion - which acknowledges there is the continuing debate. In "origins of man" articles, there should be (and likely is) acknowlegement that some - centred around religious belief - deny the orthodoxy that science has provided. This does not deprecate the science, but acknowledges where those who deny it derive their viewpoint. Can the same reference to skepticism be permitted within the body of CC articles, and if not - why? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two aspects which could be clearly separated and labeled to avoid confusion to the reader. First, there is the science. Second, there is the social phenomena. How are people and governments reacting. Do they believe the science, or not? How to present these matters in a neutral way should be the subject of mediation between the interested parties. Why isn't there a formal mediation ongoing? Jehochman ^Brrr 13:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember, there are some notable scientists who disagree with the IPCC's stance on AGW, such as Freeman Dyson, among others. Disagreement with the AGW theory doesn't only come from the political and social arena. Cla68 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That may be. I don't know. The dissenters, if more than a fringe group, should be identified and their views explained. Can this be taken to mediation? Cla68, your article editing credentials are impeccable. Perhaps you could lead the way. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. It's a fairly short list. --TS 14:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Has mediation really never been attempted in this subject area? Perhaps one of the AGW "regulars" could answer that? Cla68 (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it has been tried, trying now seems like a good idea. If mediation fails, the mediation committee may very well refer the matter to arbitration. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cla68 on this point and would go further--Dyson hasn't published in atmospheric physics so his views are a bit irrelevant, but there are some scientists who have published important work in the field who have dissenting views. As far as I'm aware we cover all of those scientists with due prominence--which is not saying much. The paucity of scientific opposition based in research drives the one-sided nature of the science articles, That's by design, it's how the neutral point of view works in articles on science. We don't have references to the controversial phenomenon known as cold fusion in the nuclear fusion article because there is so little scientifically credible support for the notion that cold fusion has ever been achieved and little indication of a scientifically credible mechanism as to how it could be achieved. The terms "locally cold" and "generally cold, locally hot" are used in the article to describe actual known and workable, well documented processes quite distinct from those described by the cold fusion advocates. Now the cold fusion people are going to be upset at this, and a lot of the public who believe in cold fusion may be surprised too. But that's the way we cover science. Fringe material doesn't make the final cut. --TS 14:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Freeman Dyson appears to be a physicist. He proved that the Pauli exclusion principle is responsible for the normal force (the fact that matter takes up space and that your chair doesn't slip through the floor). That normal force article needs work. As a mediator, my reaction would be that Freeman Dyson's opinions on global warming are no more reliable than Al Gore's. Both are amateurs. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Where, exactly, did this notion that the GW articles are "science articles" come from? What does that actually mean? Are these articles restricted to nothing more than the underlying science? I would decidedly disagree with that. So perhaps we should tackle this rather fundamental misconception of what these articles actually are? Sure, science is one aspect of the topic but it is hardly the only topic, and it shouldn't be the one that drives ALL content decisions on ALL articles. TS and some of the AGW regulars almost uniformly make this claim and argue fundamentally from it but I certainly haven't seen anything "official" that makes this Wikipedia policy. Am I wrong? Is there a policy that says the Scientific POV is the controlling POV for all content decisions on these pages? --GoRight (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Funniest question ever: Where, exactly, did this notion that the GW articles are "science articles" come from?. As for what used to be known as Scientific point of view (SPOV), it is essentially the Neutral point of view as interpreted through the lens of arbitration findings such as Principle 14 of the Pseudoscience arbitration. --TS 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll play along. And how is that relevant to the GW pages which are, or should be by the general weight of the publications on the entire topic, primarily a social and political topic not a scientific one. The science itself should certainly be covered in accordance with the principle you reference but due weight would actually say the science should only be a small proportion of the over-all coverage based on the relative proportions we observe in WP:RS coverage. There is much more general media coverage of the whole social and political sphere than there is in the peer-reviewed literature on the science. Do you seek to ignore WP:WEIGHT?

My point is that there is no particular reason to assume that the Scientific point of view (an old and rejected historical reference, I note) is the governing point of view on these articles. By whose authority has WP:NPOV on these articles been abandoned? --GoRight (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any conflict here. The vast preponderance of all public discussion of global warming is about the science, or the question of how to deal with it. If we have articles that present the debate unduly as a controversy over whether global warming is happening, for instance, we have to remove the imbalance. We probably have about enough on the various controversies, and even on those we have to present them in the context of the science. --TS 22:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"even on those we have to present them in the context of the science" - I actually think you have that backwards. The vast majority of the media coverage is over the public debate of the issues of Global Warming and Climate Change, not the science. The science cannot, by definition, be debated in the mainstream media but only in the peer-reviewed journals.

So WP:WEIGHT would argue that the primary focus is social and political based on the relative weights of WP:RS coverage of the topic, and that the science should be presented within the context of the public debate not the other way around. The mainstream media sources are covering a fundamentally public debate about the science and it's perceived credibility within the general population, which should NOT be confused with debating the science itself. I think that you would be one of the first to agree that the science itself is only legitimately debated within the peered reviewed literature on the subject and only by a small minority of the population, namely the climate scientists. Am I wrong on these points? --GoRight (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I find the notion you introduce here, that the public debate is predominantly about the credibility of the science, to be flatly false. That argument ended long ago and things moved on. Don't mistake the large quantity of noise from the fringes for public debate. --TS 22:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Joe_Szwaja

An article that you have been involved in editing, Joe_Szwaja, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe_Szwaja. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bevinbell 18:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Screed

If this thing is gonna work you guys need something close to a zero-tolerance policy. And yes, this goes for both "sides" involved. People are only going to clean up their act when they see that anyone who tries to push the envelope gets stomped on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate blocking established users. But, yes, I agree. I left a message for Lar. Let's try to get together on a strategy and inform the participants that 0-BS is in effect on those pages. Are you an admin yet? Jehochman ^Brrr 04:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, do what you can though I doubt Lar will buy into a strict policy. I'm also not convinced it would be a good thing if he did, given that he's referred to the scientifically-oriented editors as a "socially inept cabal." (And what's this "are you an admin yet" stuff? I finally regained a dollop of sanity and plan to hold onto it.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What a big mess on your talk page!

I see that you have given hospitality to the entire Global Warming Cabal on your talk page  :) . However, you recently complained about Brews Ohare and some editors who have suggested that the topic ban could be relaxed now, calling these efforts very disruptive to Wikipedia. I can assure you that no one wants to see Brews dominating talk pages and pushing his views against consensus.

Brews can be allowed back to editing physics articles again, as he won't behave in the pre-Arbcom way anymore. As a retired engineering prof. he can contribute a lot to engineering articles, and has done so in the past (he went wrong mainly on physics topics he is not an expert on). In contrast, the global warming sceptics have little to contribute to climate change articles. Their signal to noise ratio will always be extremely small, regardless of how well they behave judged merely according to the Wiki-rules and policies. Count Iblis (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I also replied to Jehochman on AN/I along the same lines. I can provide the diff if necessary. I was mildly shocked by the strong statements of Jehochman because I hold him in the highest regard and I consider him thoughtful and fair. I think that I don't have to state that I am not here to put my reputation at stake in order to attempt to provide Brews with a free hand at disrupting Wikipedia. My record, I think, speaks for itself. I am here to state however that when I observe something that I consider to be persecution, then it is unconscionable for me not to state so in good faith. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I was addressing David Tombe and Count Iblis, not you. Whenever Brews gets in trouble anywhere, those two appear and muddle the discussion. Jehochman ^Brrr 19:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have to confess that whenever a large case erupts involving Brews, I shy away because I don't have the time to follow all the walls of text that subsequently get generated so I have no opinion due to limited data. The latest case however was considerably smaller in scale and thus easier to follow. Nice seeing you again. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Walls of text, exactly. They need to avoid doing that. Jehochman ^Brrr 21:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No walls of text from me at all. Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Whenever Brews gets in trouble anywhere, those two appear and muddle the discussion." An examination at the discussion surrounding Sandstein's recent block would certainly confirm Jonathan's observation as accurate. AGK 16:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? I see no sign of myself dominating the discussions there at all!. Count Iblis (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

B.t.w., from a strict procedural POV, Brews was in the wrong and the block was justified. I was one of the few who argued that an Admin should question the Arbcom process, ignore the topic ban and simply unblock Brews on those grounds. Now, the Admin who unblocked Brews did more or less what I asked. So, in the end my comments were the most relevant comments. Count Iblis (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman and AGK, Your argument about 'walls of text' can be thoroughly debunked just by checking the arbitration enforcement action against Brews. I didn't even comment on it. It was all done and dusted without the slightest involvement of myself. We need to end this old chestnut about the fact that the people who speak out in favour of Brews are the ones who are doing him harm. The ones that are doing Brews harm are the ones who are blocking him and banning him and bearing false witness against him. David Tombe (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Recuse on WMC

Jehocherman .. I suggest you consider recusing yourself on WMC. This comment [5] shows you have been taken by WMC's original research and may now be defending original research to wikipedia's detriment and a fair outcome in the project. Experts must civilly follow the sources and avoid disruptions. Assume faith, there are other experts that can civilly act in these articles. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ZuluPapa, what's the best article you've written on Wikipedia? Please [point me to it. If you have concerns about WMC, please start an RFC or request arbitration. Campaigning isn't the way to solve problems. Why are you here on this page? I know you disagree with me, and you know that I'm not happy with the style of your editing. Fortunately, an editor who's behaving disruptively does not get to choose which admin intervenes to stop the disruption. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"The account filing this request does not appear to have engaged in any worthwhile article building in the area. Their contributions appear to be more properly characterized as disruptive." Even if you could produce a shred of evidence supporting this, what exactly does this have to do with WMC calling another editor "clueless"? ATren (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the best article you've written in climate change? For that matter, what's the best article you've written on Wikipedia? Which one makes you proud? I'd like to read it, and that may change my opinion. This is a serious request, not sarcasm. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What are the editors to Wikipedia? For that matter, what wrong is being committed if one fails to edit as another does? Does that make it ok for you to talk down to them? This is a not so serious request. Answers: Volunteers : None : No Arkon (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that those who don't edit and only argue are generally not welcome. Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a chat room. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is, and to get off topic of my dislike of your comments on the enforcement thread, I think you fail to realize the value of the talk page. The value of the discussion that occurs there, and the many editors who edit through proxy by convincing others that they are correct, there, on the talk page. Because many, like me, know they are terrible editors. My grammar, phrasing, general attentiveness, are weak. I know this. I contribute by suggesting content, and convincing others. You don't believe this is what is occurring on these pages. In some cases you are right, but no more than on any other page. You can still win civilly. Arkon (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was a horrible writer, but have gotten better through five years of practice on Wikipedia. You can do it. Don't be discouraged! Jehochman ^Brrr 04:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, it's ok, hardly discouraged. I have embraced my weaknesses and do what I can. I was an anon for a year or so before I registered in 2005, been around/in some ridiculous wikibusiness. I really really just wish you would go by the probation page. I understand if you don't agree with it by word, I can't say I agreed completely with its very necessary predecessor at the Obama pages (which I was sadly also around). But if that's the case, there are ways we can work to correct it, I don't think bypassing it is helpful. Arkon (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I nurture this article now User:ZuluPapa5/CAUC your feedback welcome ... It is relevant considering a possible "overconfidence bias" in WMC ... Folks believe the IPCC doesn't conduce science ... well then here are their methods which are being investigated for corruption. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I am not a friend of WMC. I will look at your article and give you my thoughts. Can you calmly point me to any situations where WMC violated WP:OWN? I feel that his conduct, if problematic, will need to be addressed at WP:RFC. My advice to you is to think about articles not in terms of POV, but in terms of quality standards. What must be done to raise the article to WP:GAC. What next to achieve WP:FAC. If you set those goals and work with outside reviewers who will criticize and suggest improvements, you will find editing here much more rewarding and less stressful. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Jechochman, I share their concerns about WMC. Look here at what WMC says to me (see his comment at the bottom of the diff). I was so new to Wikipedia at the time that I didn't know how to sign my posts. He then proceeds to bite the newbie, me, hard. If I hadn't already encountered some kind, considerate, patient, and helpful editors over at MILHIST, I probably would have left Wikipedia at that time and those 30 FAs that I helped write wouldn't have been written. He has not changed his behavior much in the four years hence. When it comes to behavioral issues like this, it doesn't matter what the vested editor's contributions are. His behavior, no matter what the context, is unacceptable. Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's a fair concern. I think you need to make a case at WP:RFC. It's the best way to address issues with an established editor. We need to have a discussion based on evidence, and it is going to take some time. Noticeboard threads are just nipping at the edges of things. We need to get a look at the entire situation. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Cla68's diff is interesting. Is that really the source of all his malice? I can't find diffs from that long ago, clearly Cla has been nurturing it all these years. How sad. It shows someone turning up, getting the science and the politics hopelessly wrong, and being corrected. Naturally, Cla is not grateful for being told the truth, who after all wishes to hear the truth instead of their own POV? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Do you ever wonder how many potentially prolific editors like Cla have been driven off by such biting? ATren (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, I don't think I have anything to defend. I got involved in this AGW debate more than a year ago, and I've tried to make positive contributions. At every turn I have been met with hostility and accusations. I have since focused on shining the light on what I perceive to be unproductive behaviors by certain editors on that page. I have done so civilly and patiently, providing diffs and evidence when asked. I have not pushed a POV because I have none here: I truly don't give a rats ass about this debate (a fuller discussion is on my user page if you are interested).

Now, I concede that I could probably build up my experience points doing stuff like vandalism and BLP/N patrol, and indeed, I have done some of that. In fact, I believe I originally came upon the AGW debate as the result of a BLP/N request. If more of that is what's needed for me to be considered "productive" here, then let me know and I'll do it. But I feel strongly that such a requirement would be based on the faulty premise that my only value here is in article work. Where exactly does it say that? I'd be curious to know where it says "if you don't produce tons of articles, you're not welcome". In my case, my initial focus was a narrow range of articles (related to personal transportation). I then got involved briefly in software programming languages, which I am very knowledgeable, but those articles are pretty well developed.

My current focus (when I have the time) is in leveling what I believe to be a badly skewed playing field. I've been on the AGW pages (mostly bios) for over a year now, and I've been dismayed at the state of those articles, as well as the refusal of some editors to allow them to be cleaned up. In the case of the bios, I don't know these guys from Adam, so I have no preconceived notions, and it's quite clear to me that much of the text of the bios is severely swayed toward accentuating the negative and removing anything positive. In many cases the sourcing was atrocious, even by non-BLP standards. When I tried to clean them up, I was reverted, accused of whitewashing, and told I was a POV pusher. I saw the same happen to many others, frequently newbies who didn't know better. I saw a problem, and I got involved. In truth, my article edits are few because every change on anything AGW related involves endless debate on talk. I have been involved in multiple-page-long debates over a single line of text in a bio. I've had cases where removing a blog source from a BLP (normally non-controversial) was so contentious on talk that I had to take it all the way to BLP/N.

So, Jehochman, I believe my contributions have been worthwhile, despite your baseless insinuations otherwise. I challenge you to find evidence of bad faith or POV pushing in any of my edits. I challenge you to find examples where I've pursued WMC without cause. And ultimately, I challenge you to show definitively that my contributions here have not been worthwhile. Until you can provide evidence of any of this, I politely ask you to cease making such claims about be. ATren (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

May I give you some advice? Why don't you pick an article, any article, and push it up to Good Article or Featured article quality standards. I think that will give you a stronger understanding of Wikipedia's content policies. If you come to an article and start out by reviewing it (or getting it reviewed by an outside party via Wikipedia:Peer review), and then merrily begin making improvements, I do not see how any good faith editor can oppose what you're doing. If you show up with the attitude that you're going to neutralize a pro-science cabal who has been dominating the article, good luck, you're going to need it. Do you see the difference between these two approaches? Jehochman ^Brrr 14:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, I've tried at times to get into article work, but it's not something I'm really good at, and honestly, unless it's a topic I'm really comfortable about, I don't feel comfortable editing. That's who I am. But I do feel like I'm pretty good at evaluating existing articles and identifying problems, so that's what I've focused on; and when the topic area is contentious (as this is), I get deeply involved in the inevitable disputes.

But my point is, I haven't done anything wrong. I've pointed out problems as I've seen them, and in a respectably large percentage of those cases, my concerns were deemed valid by other long term users. In the specific case of this probation, I've not been the most vocal on the pages, not the least vocal. I raised one single RfE, which pointed out specific instances of violations, and which is being acted on now. If you examine my history I think you will find that I have not pursued anyone in this topic area unless there is cause. There is nothing wrong with any of that, and I don't think I should be forced to do something that I'm not very good at, in order to counter-balance activity which appears be detrimental to those who don't really know my history in this debate.

So, yes, I may pursue article work, or some other content task, at some point. But I do not in any way feel that it is necessary to make me a "good editor". So if I don't think I can genuinely improve things with article work, I won't do it just for the sake of appearances. ATren (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Until you establish your credentials as a writer, I think you ought to avoid criticizing the work of others. You need to try to write an article to understand how difficult it can be, and how demoralizing it is when spectators throw tomatoes. Who are you to tell another editor that their writing is bad when you haven't even tried writing yourself? Jehochman ^Brrr 15:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh stop. It's not about "bad writing" and you know it. It's about poor sourcing and over-inflated claims. It's about biting newbies and chasing them off the project. Those are ongoing problems and my efforts to address them have nothing to do with "throwing tomatoes" at someone's "writing". In any case, this conversation seems to be degrading into more unfounded accusations, so I'm detaching. Feel free to bring my entire editing history to arbcom if you think my activities have no value. ATren (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

When is someone going to ask me that question?

Mick Ronson and, er, Steven Severin. Perhaps Penzance... Not many, and all when I was very new. So, should I be responsible for supervising those who can count FA and flagship articles among their achievements...? Put is this way, I don't even know if Barnes Wallis (R100, Vickers Wellington, the bouncing bomb and others) even had a pilots license. I know it didn't matter. Same as my article writing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

More like Gandhi than Che

Sure, I will go that far. Do I acknowledge that things could have been done a little differently? Of course, highsight is always 20/20. Do I apologize for the way I did do things? The exact course of action, maybe. The end result? Not a bit. I'm probably not admin material and never have been, I place my own ethics over any written rule, I am nearly incapable of keeping my mouth shut when I see something unjust. It's not just an internet quirk, it's the chief reason I ended my military career at a comparatively low rank. You seem like a reasonable person and I am sorry about the bottom-dweller thing :).

The biggest problem in arbitration enforcement is the selective way it is approached. I'm not singling Sandstein out in this one, I have an issue with him, but the problem is more systemic. Over and over we see editors being sanctioned heavily because they are not part of the "in" crowd. While the exact same violation from one of the sanctioning admin's buddies will be overlooked by a warning at the most. I'm not judging Brews previous actions, his current actions, or anything surrounding him. The only thing I judged was the actions that led to his block, and the idea that arbcom sanctions are used to hide behind as a way to avoid showing good faith, or fairness, or common sense, combined with the idea that so many other admins just kind of looked the other way makes me mildly sick to my stomach. Arbcom has its issues, and they are many, but this isn't one of them. This is an issue that lies entirely with those that invoke arbcom as a method of getting the upper hand in disputes. What is the solution to this, I don't have the slightest clue, but it starts with recognizing them and addressing them as we see them, something the community and the blocking admin failed at this time.

The only thing said that made me actually laugh was someone somewhere saying that I did this politically. That's humorous when I constantly badmouth Wikipolitics and the detrimental effects it has on the project in general. There was no political intent here, which is why I have no interest in defending myself on the ARBCOM report, I said what I did and why I did it, I have no intention of making a political statement out of it. Others may choose to do it, that is their prerogative, but Wikipedia is a very, very secondary part of my life... I don't have time or patience for that kind of thing. Someone attacked me for not getting the input of other admins on this too. I'm sorry, an admin is an editor with a few extra tools, nothing more. I roundly reject that admins have any influence or elevated position on the project that the community at large does not. I don't care about my bit, I never have. I certainly don't see it as a status symbol.

I just wanted to make a few things clear to you, because you do seem like a decent person. Trusilver 04:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You could single out Sandstein. He tends to be harsher than anybody else. A solution is to become more involved at WP:AE. That said, if somebody is too harsh, you need to approach the problem systematically; talk to them and convince them. This helps the current situation, and any future situations. Reversing them might help the current situation, but it will not help the future. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia time for me right now is almost nonexistent and will be for a few days. What you said pretty much outlines the problem - you note that Sandstein is harsher than anyone else, everyone that is involved in WP:AE knows it too, why has nothing ever been done about it? Because it's easier to follow the path of least resistance and let him do what he's doing, knowing that most of the people it affects can't really fight back anyway. As for being involved in WP:AE... I see your point, but it's a tough one on me. I became an administrator to do what I do most of the time... deal with vandalism blocks and occasionally an unblock or two. This was the first Arbcom case I've ever even commented on because I just don't have a lot of respect for Wikipedia politics. It's not an insult leveled at anyone, but I just find the practice and those that engage in it kind of silly. I find that the effort to benefit ratio of blocking a problematic vandal is about a hundred times greater than using that same amount of time to comment on something on WP:PITCHFORKS or an arbcom case. Some people like that kind of thing, and more power to them, but it's something I have a hard time tolerating easily. Trusilver 07:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

AE block template

Thoughts ? Abecedare (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration and AN/I

I recently opened an arbitration case on user:Steaphen I wasn't aware of the ANI process. I wonder if the proposal is to stop the arbitration request and try ANI instead, or try ANI in parallel, and if it succeeds, stop the arbitration? I apologise, but it doesn't happen every day that I am involved in this. Ansgarf (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

After some thinking I did open an ANI case. Thanks. Ansgarf (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bing Bang

Since you asked, the Bing Bang is a strange and extreme condition of the universe, which began in June 2009 and is held up from collapse by the corporate and financial pressure of Microsoft. Whether the Bing Bang continues to expand or reverses itself depends on the critical density. If Bing developers and management are significantly more dense than their Google counterparts, runaway collapse will occur and produce a future singularity known as the Bing Crunch. Tim Shuba (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been theorized that the Bing Bang was caused by inflation that started in 2003 in the US

Americans are not just getting fatter, they are ballooning to extremely obese proportions at an alarming rate.

Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unprotecting The Only Exception

This page has now met the WP:NSONG guideline as it has been ranked on a national or significant music chart. I would like to request that creation protection be removed. Thanks! --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 21:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please try WP:RFPP. I don't recall the specifics, and am not all that familiar with song notability guidelines. Jehochman ^Brrr 17:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I understand that it must feel a lot like you are trying to put out the fires I started only to have me follow behind you pouring napalm all over everything. I truly respect and appreciate what you are doing, but I did this of my own free will. An admin who thinks the only thing he has to do to make himself untouchable is start yelling "ARBCOM!" made an entirely incorrect block and I called him on it. To say that I wouldn't do it all over again would be a lie, and unlike that admin, I won't sacrifice my integrity in order to kiss a little arbcom ass. But still, thank you. Trusilver 21:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Adminship is no big deal. I respect you for standing by your principles, even if they aren't my favorite. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 21:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

GS/CC close

Dang! I had my notes all lined up for the ChrisO complaint and it turned light-green. They were long enough to put in a collapse box, every bit of that looked frivolous to me. You may be right that there was no clear result, but I think that kind of gamesmanship should be strongly discouraged, and with more than just a further-complaints ban. If that's the way someone treats the enforcement process, what does it tell you about the way they might treat working on article pages? Franamax (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to unclose it and post your thoughts. I agree to overturn my own close. Jehochman ^Talk 23:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area Last: 11/15/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

LHC

Hi,

I reverted your edit on the first sentence of the "Safety of the LHC" article because the entire article is in fact devoted to explaining "who" has complained about the Safety of the LHC and "where" they did it. It is not necessary to give all the references in the first sentence. Concerning the modifications of Oldnoah, I am also in favor of reverting them, not because the paper is unreliable but because mentioning it does not add relevant information to the article. I have started a thread in the discussion page, perhaps you want to express your point of view there. However, now it's late for me and I won't see new edits until tomorrow. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone's Used Tissue

Thanks :) I reported him to AIV, but there was a backlog. Much appreciated. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't mention it. Jehochman ^Talk 08:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

For users concerned about my deletion of the Tom Reedy RFC

Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. A typical attempt at dispute resolution would include filing a noticeboard thread, such as one at WP:WQA or WP:ANI. In the alternative, discussions may proceed at the subject's talk page. Typically they start in polite fashion, "Dear User, I am concerned about your activities {specify} and want to know if we can resolve this misunderstanding." Such an introduction should be followed by attempts at polite dialog. If there is no dialog, there is no dispute resolution. If a subject refuses to participate, going to the noticeboards can generate responses from uninvolved parties. I must note specifically that castigating a user is not an attempt at dispute resolution. People usually don't discuss and compromise when the dialog starts with "You are in the wrong."

The RFC on Tom Reedy that I deleted has been filed six days ago, yet it had not been moved to the certified section of the user conduct RFC list by an administrator. Upon reviewing the evidence of prior dispute resolution, I found broken links or links to conflict, not dispute resolution. Again, yelling at a user is not dispute resolution. I even chased down the broken links and found more content of the same battle nature, not bona fide dispute resolution.

Where do we go from here? If there are still concerns about Tom Reedy, please start a noticeboard thread with the relevant evidence. You may also wish to request mediation of the underlying content dispute. Please be polite, no matter what you choose to do.

If you feel the need to post here, please keep your remarks concise, and use diffs or permanent links rather than copying in large chunks of text. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 08:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to bring undue attention to what I agree is an unfortunate "paper trail" that has been created, but the vague rules for how to deal with poorly-done User-RfCs (read, "deleted") don't allow the enterprising editors who want to see the right thing happen on Wikipedia any way to encourage the process along. In courts of law, amicus briefs are filed as a matter of course. At Wikipedia, there ought to be a system where an outside editor can point out when things are frivolous, out-of-process, or just plain false. We are fortunate that you came by, and I would be happy to have you delete the MfD page too (can I CfD it?) but maybe it's time to think about whether it is necessary to have an administrator sign-off on User-RfCs before they go live and drag conflicts into unnecessary mud.

Just a thought, and thanks for your help.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Help on Bethel Lutheran in Manassas page

I was wondering if you would be able or point me to an editor that would be willing to help me with a page. I have been working with Tbsdy but in all honesty he hasn't engaged and hasn't respected a hangon request, and hasn't answered any requests for help to get the page in shape. You can look at his talk page and talk archive if you want details but in the end I just want somebody to help me out as I got dogpiled when I put the page up. It got marked for quick deletion 8 minutes after creation and deleted less than 24 hours later after a hangon request. At this point I just want the page back in my user area so I can try once more. Any help appreciated. K1goalie (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no, maybe, talk to someone else? K1goalie (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The article did not assert notability. Merely existing does not make a church notable. Can you find some news references, recognitions or awards from independent sources? Jehochman ^Talk 23:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I seen this one prior to your response (figured you were away or busy on another page) and I asked another admin to bring the article back and move it to userspace. I am actively working with K1goalie to get the article up to snuff in the notability department. If you would like to help out on the additions to the page, please see here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Bingo

Bingo. Both editors were citing BLP violations as their reason for reverting each other. ← George ^talk 20:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply

The checkuser (under the username "Tasbian") is taking a long time for some reason - I listed it about 33 hours ago. As there was some uncertainty as to whether they are in fact a sock of Tasbian (hence the wait for checkuser), I wasn't able to block. (I did, however, just block the latest account for 3RR at Etiquette in Japan.) Every one of the accounts has edited the article in question heavily in the last 60 hours. Orderinchaos 12:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, email the functionaries mailing list and ask them to get moving. This should be a simple investigation. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - did so after your suggestion, but it hit "bounces" and appears to still be awaiting moderator approval. Orderinchaos 18:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Just an update - it was concluded successfully with all socks blocked and tagged. You wonder why they bother. Orderinchaos 11:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Heyo

Heyo Jehochman,
Apologies for misplacing that comment. I didn't want to take a chance to have my note about "[not] tak[ing] part in any further reverts" being missed.
Best regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Heyo again,
I struck through the above mentioned comment (along with almost everything else I've written) since I felt it was becoming a distraction from the main issue. i.e. libel being reinserted. I still stand behind my reply to you nonetheless.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:166.205.138.217

Apparently caught in a rangeblock placed by you, claiming to be an innocent bystander in this. The confrontational attitude suggests to me that the block may be working as intended, but as I'm not familiar with what led to the block I leave it to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

ha

Happy April Fool's Day. But why am I talking to myself? ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Hi. You protected the talk page of user:0XQ while he was blocked. He's back now but still making dodgy edits - one editor has already commented on his user page, and I have something to say to him too - so can you unprotect the page? Cheers andy (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, and I indef blocked the account for making stuff up. Jehochman ^Talk 14:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) andy (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

user:0XQ is back as an anon IP

Hi. User:0XQ is using an anon IP (71.76.34.247) to circumvent your block. User:71.76.34.247 has only ever edited the same articles as user:0XQ and always just a few minutes beforehand. The nature of the edits is identical. user:71.76.34.247 has recently made an edit to Ājīvika which was one of the last articles edited by user:0XQ before your block. andy (talk)

• Whoops - sorry, forget that. His most recent edit was after 0XQ's but before the block. andy (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thought for the day

We ask the kids to practice guitar every day. They like to rebel and procrastinate by playing piano instead.  :) Jehochman ^Talk 00:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary entry for the day

enhance, v.: To tamper with an image, usually to its detriment. Bishonen | talk 23:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC).

Bish! Nice to hear from you. Kids screaming for assistance...must run. Hope you feel better already, or soon. Jehochman ^Talk 00:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Jehochman. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons

I am in absolute agreement with your comment here. Unfortunately, once you get to Commons, you meet very vocal resistance to the idea. Every image is deemed to have potential educational use. See the deletion requests here, for example, or comments here. :) I am not sure there is an easy solution. --JN466 16:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Link love and others

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Link love, Search engine optimization methods. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Link love for Link love, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search engine optimization methods for Search engine optimization methods. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan Last: 03/21/2010

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Infrogmation

Good day, Jehochman. As you have wisely suggested, "After having a disagreement with another editor, do not leave the dispute open ended." I'm contacting you in that spirit. I'm not even sure what if anything we have a disagreement about, but we seem to have gotten into some type of friction.

I'm presuming you are the same Jehochman as on Wikimedia Commons. I was surprised to see you have declared a permanent ban on me communicating with you via your talk page on Commons [6]. I hope you don't think I'm interpreting your statement inappropriately narrowly by contacting you here instead. The only other option I could think of was to start a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, but I wish to try first seeing if we can resolve the issue without need to bring in other users.

Again, I'm not really sure of what this is about. If my contact with you on your talk page was in some way wildly inappropriate, I certainly did not intend it to be so. If you could please explain what I did that you found so objectionable, perhaps I can learn lessons from it and do things in a better fashion in the future. On the other hand, perhaps I just caught you in a bad mood? (I fear I've been guilty of making an edit under the influence of a bad mood on occasion myself.)

From what I see, you're not often active on Commons, but have been a long term valuable contributor here on Wikipedia. I'm currently at most moderately active on Wikipedia, but am very active on Commons. (If you have any questions about Commons practices or procedures, feel free to ask me on my user talk page there and I'll be happy to help if I can.)

With hopes that we can resolve this with civility, best wishes, Infrogmation (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at the deletion discussion was insightful and helpful. There is no problem between us as far as I am concerned and you can comment on my talk pages any time you like. I am sorry for getting upset, but it's only because I care. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Page views

I was looking at a comment yo0u made at Talk:Dreamweaver and I saw that you can retrieve page views for WIkipedia articles! How d'ya do that? Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

http://stats.grok.se Jehochman ^Talk 15:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite4Wiki

Template:Cite4Wiki has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Icons

I am in the process of closing this TFD, which will break the icons on this statement. If you don't mind, I would be happy to fix them for you, which would restore the original appearance, but not make any changes to the content. Otherwise, I will just leave them. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you delete something, please fix whatever breaks as a result. Jehochman ^Talk 06:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Expiration of topic ban

Hello there and thank you for having taken over user:Moreschi's role in the administration of my Kosovo topic ban (see User_talk:Sulmues#Request_for_clarification! Yesterday the ban expired Wikipedia:ARBMAC#September_2009_-_December_2009 and I started to make edits on Kosovo topics today. I just wanted to notify you on that. Feel free to drop by my talk page any time and let me know what you think of my contributions. I really appreciated your advise and I will cherish your saying "Habits are formed by practice". Thank you for your time and attention! --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 15:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cite4Wiki

Hey, I'm closing the TFD for Template:Cite4Wiki as userfy. It seems like no one objects to the template itself but there is some reluctance to have it in the template space. I can't think of any reason why it'd be a problem to have it in userspace. Would you want it in your userspace? Or can you recommend someone else who would want it in theirs? Peace, delldot ∇. 18:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What benefit is created by moving the template? Is memory in userspace cheaper? Wikipedia has real problems. It is a great shame that capable editors and administrations invest time in such trivialities. The purpose of having the template in templatespace is that it's a template which anybody can edit. If you move it to userspace, people will feel like they need to ask me for permission before touching it. So, please do whatever you want, but don't touch my userspace. Frankly, I don't think the discussion had anywhere near enough input to form an actual consensus, and I will not view a delete decision as valid. Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Yeah, I don't think an all-out delete decision would be valid either. Peace, delldot ∇. 22:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You could check with the recent contributors to Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki. Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, will do. Peace, delldot ∇. 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Help writing article

Hi, I could use some help writing my first article! I have a draft of the article ready, with citations, whenever you can help me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hchampion (talk • contribs) 18:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Something funny

This has probably been posted on ANI already, but I just noticed it. [7] Jehochman ^Talk 18:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for check user

Hey, it's me again. I pop in occasionally now. (In the navy now, don't have too much time to spend on here at the moment.) I would like you to run a check user on an IP that has been popping up a few times in AfD. The IP is 70.80.234.196. Might want to see this too. Basically, the IP has been following around in AfD debates and has almost been mimicking other key people in the debate. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but if you can, check it with this user: Justin (koavf). I'm not sure if they are the same, but I have had suspicions, especially after seeing both of the two's contributions.Undead Warrior (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Good to hear from you. I'm temporarily offline. Maybe one of my talk page watchers can help. Jehochman ^Talk 14:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, try HJ Mitchell. He is an administrator and so he should be able to help you. I hope this helps. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Victor9876

I've asked here and I generally give some leeway for complaints after being blocked, but he may be going a bit far. Following Jimbo's remarks, I'd block email as well if I were you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Drsjpdc seeks to return to editing. Since you announced his community ban on his talk page, I thought I'd notify you that he's written a letter asking to be unbanned and I've endorsed it. Rather than simply unbanning/unblocking him myself (which is within my power to do), I thought it best to simply indicate that I've had a conversation with him and believe him to be sincere, and let you (or whoever would like!) take it from there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If you say why you endorse the unban, wouldn't that avoid a lot of "Jimbo is God"/"Jimbo is SATAN" arguments, since if you ask us to take it on trust, then it becomes a matter of whether editors trust you. A great majority do, and I have no doubt this will go through (and I have no involvement in the affair), but aren't you setting everyone up for drama?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually quite pleased to see Jimbo get involved. Sometimes a executive decision needs to be made that is unpopular but fair and this does appear to be a fair request. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I will post this to WP:ANI to request an unban. Respect for community input is important. Jehochman ^Talk 12:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved.[8] Jehochman ^Talk 12:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Which template?

Can you tell me the name of the template that prevents spiders from picking up a sandbox page? Thanks for the unblock. I will try to stay clear of the issues (and people) with whom I had problems ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 22:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Try {{NOINDEX}}. Jehochman ^Talk 14:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pedophilia

Good call indeed, sir - I can certainly support that! :) - Alison ^❤ 00:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 00:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just sent you two emails

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I can read

This article was deleted before [9]. Maybe you can incorporate some of the usable text. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Septapuncher sockpuppet

Hi, just noticed you got rid of Septapuncher. Can you do the same for Scissorsaw? SPI case here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Septapuncher. Thanks! Moocha (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else got that account :). Thanks anyhow. Moocha (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Still have derogatory remarks elsewhere

After the repeal of the ban, there is still in the "mirrors and forks" list remarks regarding the ban in the present tense. Calling me a "proven sockmaster" and etc. I would prefer not to be the one to make the corrections there, and since you were kind enough to handle the release of the ban, I would appreciate it if the records could reflect current reality. Thanks in advance for your assistance in this matter. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesr

Jehochman, we do not see eye to eye in your admin actions. You have previously blocked me for what I consider bullshit, all that aside I have a request. Please review my "uncivilness" to a user and comment on their "evidence" I attacked them. I am confident this is no where near disruptive, harassmment or offensive. Please block away if you consider these edits over the line. [[10]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The page you linked to should be deleted tomorrow. Evidence for ANI should be posted quickly, or assembled offline if more time is needed. Jehochman ^Talk 05:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

SEO definition

The SEO definition seem to be incorrect. Please correct it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Search_engine_optimization&action=historysubmit&diff=372730503&oldid=372730185

I was not finiding a appropriate reference so I used my personal one. There is one here as well http://www.foundagency.com/understanding-sem/glossary.htm Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Search Engine Optimization as its name says is only about Optimizing ones website. Claiming it gets traffic to a website is irrelevant. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I got your input on my talk page, the problem is, I am not finding an appropriate reference which the appropriate definition. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

SEO methodically only alows search engine bots to extract relevant information for further analysis. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Not finding an appropriate reference" is a big issue when you make a disputed edit to a featured article. The wordsmithing that went into that article represents many hundreds of hours of time. We were quite precise with every word chosen, and the definitions closely follow what the reliable sources say. Feel free to propose new wording, but link drops to non-notable blogs and company websites are not appropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 11:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand the issues involving here, I have initiated an discussion on the talk page of the article. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have found an appropriate reference and have changed the wordings again.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

3O Request

You requested a 3rd opinion, but I am unable to find where any discussion of the issue between the disagreeing editors has occurred. IMO, edit comments do not really count. BigK HeX (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Clinton Cimring

Hi , can you tell me what is wrong with is article , I but many references in it to support what is writin , I write it because I found a request in Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/People in business Mohamed Ouda (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to attempt to write the article. I am sorry you were caught in the middle of what has been a longstanding problem. With the search engine optimization articles there is a tendency for people to try to use Wikipedia for self promotion, which of course was not your intention. I will take a look and see who filed that request. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 02:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous mootch

To: User talk:AliceJMarkham, User talk:Bearcat, User talk:Fuhghettaboutit, User:Jehochman, User talk:Jokestress, and User talk:Pmanderson

Hi folks,

While I know that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a social networking site, I've read edits from each of you and figure that you might have something to contribute to my RD question Being private verses public?. If you can help, I'd greatly appreciate it, though even your attention here is appreciated as well. Thanks.205.189.194.208 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion tangentially involving you

Please see this discussion at ANI about User:Neutralhomer violating unblock conditions that you set for him. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Per this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_amendment, and the subthreads above it. You are being notified as you were one of the users who proposed or discussed the original sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

he

dont know if i can respond at the arbitration page. maybe the possibility, that my "disruption" is nothing else than the problems which evolve when biased editors are accused of beeing editing, is enough to investigate first and block after? Blablaaa (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Jehochman, could you disable his talk page ability until we can straighten some of his mess out? This Blablaa guy seem to be the sock of another user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Wikinger). And so... the plot thickens. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I took your request at face value and while there was some evidence, we now have a checkuser saying they are not a sock. Therefore, I have decided to allow Blablaa access to normal communications. Jehochman ^Talk 13:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Jehochman. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Though I might not be awake to respond. Going to bed now after battling insomnia for the past couple hours. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Forum shopping

I noted that you closed ChrisO's ANI against Cla68 for forum shopping, and thought that you might want to be aware that he has also posted a notice (linking to the ANI) on the CC enforcement page and has initiated a WQA on the same issue. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I got the WQA. I had unwatchlisted that other page, and will look now. Jehochman ^Talk 04:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 has been trying to stir things up while the Arbs are negotiating the case. I've been trying to tell ChrisO that the more he lets it get to him the harder Cla68 will bore in, but unfortunately haven't had an effect. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. ChrisO seems intent upon getting himself sanctioned. Jehochman ^Talk 04:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Jehochman - Cla68 posts a blatant lie and personal attack about me and I'm the one you tell should back off? He gets away scott-free while I'm the one who's warned for complaining? Where are the words of advice for Cla68? Who is the victim here? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@Jehochman - I assume you are aware that the evidence section of the Climate Change Arbcom case has been closed for a while? Where do you suggest that personal attacks, and other incidents, related to Climate change be reported? (I'm asking more about possible future incidents than about the present one). Cardamon (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Report them to dev/null for the moment, or to WP:GS/CC if you must, and then to WP:AE once a decision is rendered. Jehochman ^Talk 19:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WMC

My acceptance of a CC topic ban was on the belief that WMC would be topic banned from the area, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I think it is the right thing to do, but I will withdraw my name if he is allowed to continue editing in that area. I don't mind staying away, but if he is laughing at the Wikipedia policies and doing whatever he wishes it doesn't make sense to leave and cede control to his faction.

I'm open to suggestions. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 22:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Stay. He is still restricted, and I think that the restriction will not be overturned. Jehochman ^Talk 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just concerned. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 22:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jehochman ^Talk 22:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but with WMC editing GW/CC articles here, I have to remove my name from the list. Should sanctions be applied to him, I will re-add my name, but I'm not willing to let him edit whatever he wants without consequences. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that a CC article? It looks like a plain old meteorology article to my untrained eye. There is no evidence of conflict on the article talk page either. Rest assured that if WMC does anything provocative, it would be dealt with appropriately. Jehochman ^Talk 00:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is CC now - he just added info that said it was related to global warming. I'll be looking to see if there is a counter-point argument for balance. GregJackP Boomer! 00:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa's talk page access

Hi Jehochman. I am wondering why you decided to revoke Blablaaa's talk page access. The reason you gave was "Resumed disruption after unblock, See evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blablaaa". Firstly, he doesn't seem to have been unblocked recently, unless you're referring to the unblock in April? Secondly, I skimmed the RFC quickly (it is quite long!) but I couldn't see the evidence you were pointing at. Please could you point me to the relevant section? I looked in his talk page history and couldn't see any talk page abuse, so I'm left a bit puzzled. Thanks! --Deskana (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You merely need to read the content two sections up. A user asserted that Blablaa was a sock of a banned editor. Upon your assertion that Blablaa was not a sock, I decided to reverse that decision. Could you please explain what you think is going on with Blablaa? I notice that you stood up for them and helped arrange the unblock, which turned out to have a pretty bad result for the articles that got degraded, and the users who were upset. I'd hope we could avoid repeating that mistake, but if there is a way to rehabilitate Blablaa, I am open to that. Jehochman ^Talk 13:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding his conduct, I unfortunately fear that Blablaaa has outstayed his welcome on enwiki now, especially now that I've read this thread two sections up. I've changed my statement at RFAR to reflect this fact. It doesn't help that someone is now creating impersonation accounts. I'm trying to deal with that matter as we speak. Still, my primary concern right now is that his talk page access has been revoked when they've not really done anything to warrant that action, especially since you've told him he can post an unblock request when he actually can't post one due to not having talk page access. Could you elabourate on that? Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not revoke Blablaaa's access until somebody asserted and showed evidence that Blablaaa was a sock of a banned editor. Banned editors are not allowed to contribute anywhere, not even on their own talk pages. When you showed up and said this sock connection was an error, I took your statement at face value because you're a CU, so presumably you know what you're talking about. If you don't mind, please remove your hot poker from my person. It is uncollegial the way you are attempting to grill me over a completely routine matter. Jehochman ^Talk 13:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologise if I've been overly terse. It was not my intention to grill you. For what it's worth, I originally assumed that those accounts were his sockpuppets, much as you did. Once I checked the accounts, things became clearer. Your actions were perfectly reasonable and correct based on the evidence you had. I'm looking into it in detail and will try to straighten all the loose ends together. I'll change Blablaaa's block so that he can edit his talk page. Thanks for your help! --Deskana (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't harsh my mallow!

• Marshmallow anyone? =P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 14:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already changed the block to allow editing and mailing. I did that as soon as I saw your comment about them not being socks. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --Deskana (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You may want to re-evaluate giving him talk page access. Instead of posting an unblock request as instructed, he is now soapboxing on the talk page. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, since you are the one who started the volunteer list to stop editing CC articles I have some questions that might be helpful here. Just so you know I am not involved in any of these article, none of them are on my watchlist. I do lurk at the sanction page, the PD page now that all the evidence is in and there is to be an announcement from the arbitrators. I just want to bring my comments/questions to your attention because I really think that the two questions I ask would be really helpful to the uninvolved and even the involved to know. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain i understand...

...This comment. As far as i know all articles that touch upon climate change are covered under the probation, not just those tagged. So which climate articles do you think aren't under CC probation? Note that i'm writing this here instead of on GC/CC/RE, since i understood the pledge to be for all pages (talk, probation, etc.). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Anything that hasn't been contentious and isn't focusing on climate change should be fine. I would go by the spirit of the pledge, to avoid conflict. We have lots of articles on climate and weather which can be edited without referencing climate change. Jehochman ^Talk 00:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Prior experience has shown that the only way for this to work is if the restriction is applied to all articles relevant to the gas commonly known as air, including its chemical constituents, the physical processes governing its motions and phenomena, and any resulting geophysical, biological, economic, social or legal consequence of its existence or actions, broadly construed. Any restriction requiring "common sense" or "reasonableness" is a non-starter. Trust me on this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also all astronomical bodies in the solar system that are of at least hydrostatic equilibrium size. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I lol'd, even though it is at least half-true. NW (Talk) 19:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For proposing the voluntary ban, which I think is an excellent idea that should help to calm this fevered case down somewhat William M. Connolley (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry about the confusion in the steps that got us there. Jehochman ^Talk 12:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, yes thanks! (Also while i am here, I owe you an apology for the mix-up on this [11]) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

ZP5, please notice that Jehochman has explicitly stated that the voluntary ban includes article talk pages. You are of course under no obligation, but self-reverts here[12][13] would set a great example for others to follow. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; however, I explicitly committed to ZERO reverts. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Help requested on ANI

Hello Jehochman, with you as an uninvolved third party, could I interest you to take a look here? Although I must confess that I was a tad heavy-handed but that's explained in there as well, thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• J, how come the silence? Appreciate if you could give me your frank neutral third party opinion, thanks~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 21:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• I patrol pages and get involved in whatever catches my eye; I generally don't take requests, though I'm happy to be notified of any issue where I've participated previously. This doesn't look like a matter where I've participated previously. Jehochman ^Talk 08:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of AN/I discussion

see here. Count Iblis (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

CSD Declined - Metapedia

Hi! I have declined the speedy deletion for Metapedia as it has been the subject of 2 AFDs. Articles that have been taken to AFD are not legible for speedy deletion. If you think the article should still be deleted, I would suggest a new AFD nomination. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

How the hell did this survive AfD? It has no reliable sourcing. Jehochman ^Talk 12:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Disengage suggested

I recommend disengaging from Ncmvocalist; it is unlikely that any conversation you raise with him in the immediate future will generate more light than heat. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Unfortunately the chap is going around badmouthing me. If you could encourage him to stop doing that, it would no longer be imperative for me to respond. Jehochman ^Talk 12:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is normally where I would put on my best Cork accent and say "would ye all ever cop yeerselves on" )-: Stifle (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Speed of light clarification

Hi there I just wanted to let you know that the Speed of Light clarification has been merged with Wikipedia:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Speed of light. NW (Talk) 23:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest accusations

In regards to Bla’s latest accusation, I would prefer to stay out of the back and forth, but I can knock this on the head this week and show nothing has been taken out of context nor is there a position raised by Reynolds that disputes the quote used.

I am aware you have told him that scans are a bad way to proceed so I would like to direct you to Google books however they do not let you rummage through Reynolds’ work; so it would have to be scans – hit me up if this will help. Regards--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want scans of books. If there are content disputes, use dispute resolution. The issue is that when an editor refuses to use proper processes, or continues a dispute beyond all reasonable usefulness, that becomes a behavior issue. Jehochman ^Talk 11:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the input; at the moment its only a debate on the Charnwood talkpage to estalbish concensus. I shall stay out of any further debate on matter, outside of the Charnwood talkpage, for the moment then so not to further esculate events.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not do anything precipitously..

I do not want to see a repeat of the case I had to bring a couple years ago over a similar situation (the irony of it was that WMC was one of the parties, back when he was an admin). Discuss, not act unilaterally and precipitously. I've kept an eye on things, and I do NOT want to see a similar issue rise up. SirFozzie (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I just left a message for Sandstein. You don't think I've managed to keep my bit this long by being foolish? Jehochman ^Talk 22:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you were/are on the verge of something foolish. SirFozzie (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I posted my comment saying "I will", and then went to re-read WP:WHEEL and meet its requirements in the strictest possible way. Jehochman ^Talk 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read: Wikipedia:General_sanctions under the CC probation, namely: Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log.? SirFozzie (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has been reversed (yet). The AN/I thread is complete mess with partisans overwhelming the uninvolved. If you look at what the most clueful editors are saying, you will see that there is serious disagreement. How about this, you Arbitrators take a little responsibility about this conflict that you've been ruminating for some time. How about that? The talk page disablement is clearly, clearly wrong, and you all ought to fix that pronto. It is not suitable to treat WMC like absolute shit like this. Even if he is to be sanctioned for his bad behavior, he should be treated with kindness and dignity. Jehochman ^Talk 22:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm recused on Climate Change (again, ironically, because of the WMC case I filed for a misuse of his tools, inappropriately extending a block he had made due to incivility towards him, and then wheel-warring the block back in). If he promises to quit it with the interjecting of comments into other editor's statements, I'd be willing to support lifting the block, but to do so repeatedly (especially after the initial block, during the unblock discussion) smacks of a WP:POINT violation. SirFozzie (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I think WMC needs to cut the crap, or get an indefinite block, to last until ArbCom decides what to do. However, the way this block has been applied is very poor, and interferes with proper administration. I'll let the discussion fester a while longer and then we'll see where we stand. Please add thoughts where everybody can see them. This page only had 19.3 centijimbos, last time I checked. Jehochman ^Talk 22:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, please refrain from taking unilateral admin actions against consensus or without consensus, especially within the CC probation area. It radically increases the drama and hysteria, and you should know that actions in this area outside consensus are not likely to be taken seriously by the editors or community. I mention this because it was only a very short time ago that you again engaged in a unilateral admin enforcement against WMC when you did not have consensus, and you were left with the only option of reversing yourself. See here: [14] and here: [15]. Please respect the other admins who have reviewed the block and chose to enforce it. Minor4th 22:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to stand up and do something when somebody unpopular is getting beaten up. WMC is being treated very badly. Even blocked or banned editors are supposed to be treated with kindness, and dignity. Jehochman ^Talk 22:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that anyone treat him with anything other than kindness and dignity, although those are niceties he does not extend to others. What I am suggesting is that you pause and think about the effect of acting unilaterally and against consensus. WMC has gotten away with many many violations of restrictions without any consequence whatsoever. You are being extremely disrespectful of several other admin's judgments, and you are being disrespectful of the community engaged in the discussion by discounting what has shaped up into a clear consensus. Please think. Wiki is really not the place to be a hero when the community has spoken against you. Please. Show some respect. If you want to stand up for someone getting beaten up, go champion The Wordsmith who was being taunted and insulted by WMC. Go stand up for Sandstein who WMC said had gone mad. Minor4th 23:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made a request of Sandstein, and depending on how he responds, I will post at the ANI thread. SirFozzie (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And.. done and done and done. I hope everything is all set now. Thanks for your willingness to discuss this. SirFozzie (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WMC has rejected the terms. I've suggested on the ANI thread that if he continues, the next step should be indefinite until such time as he does agree to the terms. SirFozzie (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)