User talk:Jehochman/Archive 9

Odd Edit (Oddit?)

Hi. Thank you. I noticed that, it's weird indeed... 'twas caused by some Internet telephony (JAJAH) plug-in I am not using. I switched it off and now it seems to work. :) — N-true (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility

Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

CyberLink

See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#CyberLink Corp. (permanent link) for the original discussion. Jehochman ^Arrr! 13:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

CyberLink Corp.

Hi Jehochman

Dude! I noticed you deleted CyberLink's corporate profile off Wikipedia. Surely that doesn't actually count as advertising? For that to be a possibility one would have to delete Adobe or Microsoft too? How can we resolve this?

Thanks

Matthew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjon (talk • contribs) 11:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• CyberLink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The problem wasn't notability. The problem was that the entire article was written like an advertisement. Wikipedia is not for advertising. It is not the role of our volunteers to rewrite advertising material submitted by corporate agents.[1] If you would like to work on the article, feel free to recreate it, but do not do so if you are affiliated with the company in any way, and do not write like an advertisement. To avoid further deletion, be sure to use reliable sources to reference everything. Don't just link to the corporate website.

If it would help, I can provide a copy of the deleted article to your userspace to help with drafting. Jehochman ^Talk 11:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

PowerDVD

Hello, I saw the talk page of PowerDVD tagged as CSD G8 as you deleted the article per G11. The article has been around since 2003 and if you review it you shoudl find versions that aren't pure spam. So you may want to reconsider this and rather bring it to AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. It seems that all of the prior versions are the same, a product sell sheet. None of them contain any independently verified information or references. It seems that you might like this sent to AfD, so I will do that. Jehochman ^Arrr! 12:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it started as a one line stub. I now see above thread. Sometimes regular editors with a penchant for detailed facts and completeness produce something similar to what a COI editor would do. And the latter mimic our existing poor artciles with the usual "But my listing is modeled on the similar..." argument. Actually I had this player installed on my previous PC, which prompted me to look into this in the first place and it is rather well known. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that could be true. However, at least one corporate employee worked on the articles [2], and I suspect that other accounts may be linked. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nick Saunders. We'll get to the bottom of this. Feel free to fix the article. If there are three solid references available, and the product feature list is removed, this might become a reasonable start class article. Jehochman ^Arrr! 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

September 20th 2008

Please follow your own guidelines and leave responses on this page instead of spamming up mine. My policy is to always respond on your user page. I have no interest in debating this with you further, although feel free to add fact tags to anything you disagree with and I'll provide references, even though they are not normally needed on talk pages. Please also don't cite WP guidelines, I already read them and citing them is a grave personal insult to my photographic memory. Oh the irony. Mojo-chan (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Your last post was removed. This one is much more useful, so I am happy to respond here. I don't have any editorial disagreement with you about the article PowerDVD. If you can add details, references and generally make improvements, I will stand aside and clap. My concerns for that article, and a bunch of others about CyberLink products, was that an official of the company had apparently been spamming Wikipedia to promote their products. It is not acceptable for companies to dump commercial content into Wikipedia and then expect volunteers to clean up their messes. When they do that, the correct response is speedy deletion under criteria G11 "blatant advertising". Jehochman ^Talk 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Kmweber

Thanks for the note, seems like it's a done deal anyway. And I'm not going to get in front of the bus for an editor I'm not 100% behind anyway. I'm more disgusted with the way it was done than the actual result if that makes any sense. The ugly side of Wikipedia popped out of a few peoples foreheads last night and I'm hoping that a few reasonable editors take note going forward. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say, I'm just very discouraged...oh well. RxS (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Jehochman ^Talk 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Essay thoughts

I am thinking about starting an essay, Wikipedia:No personal umbrage (to go with Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The idea is that people should not take personal offense at criticisms that are meant for the good of the project. We have too many editors who get upset about a perceived insult long ago and nurse disagreements until they become feuds. Then they try to find friends to support them, and eventually we have battling factions causing mayhem hither and thither. What do my talk page lurkers think about this idea? Jehochman ^Talk 00:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. Though you might need a definition of umbrage for those who have not encountered that word before. Carcharoth (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't umbridge in the last Harry Potter film? BMW(drive) 17:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ban discussion locations

See here (October 2007). I've been updating a few things based on that. See the discussion here. Would you be able to remember where that October 2007 consensus was formed, and say what you think current practice is now? Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSN was Mfd'ed. Your edits have been accurate. I can comment at greater length later. Jehochman ^Talk 17:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but...

I don't think our paths have crossed before. You went way off base on this one, and I'm really sorry that I'm going to recommend he take it to an admin complaint, and unfortunately I will have to support him if required. The diff's you posted really showed YOUR actions, and the ones you failed to post were even more telling. BMW(drive) 19:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. I welcome any sort of review of my conduct. You might tell the other editor to stop posting curses and personal attacks. That might go a long way to calming this disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 19:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping cool about it. (PS: of course my umbridge question was rhetorical/attempted comical :) ) BMW(drive) 19:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are a good faith contributor. You could help me a lot here. I would like to back away from the situation. Could you ask the other editor to remove their incivil remarks, and I will remove my responses? This will help reduce the conflict and be good for Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about my warning to Lakinekaki

I think there have been misunderstandings about this situation, and I will be glad to answer any questions that anyone may wish to ask. Jehochman ^Talk 04:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you give a short summary with some diffs? That would be helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I will, but it is late here, and this should be done when I am wide awake and well fed. Jehochman ^Talk 04:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, maybe the thing to do is to read through the Wikiquette alert and see if anything remains unclear or unsettled. Are we still trying to decide if sanctions are needed, now that everything seems to have calmed down, or is there another reason to continue the discussion? NJGW (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am hoping that Lakinekaki will understand that they should stick with a single account (either that one, another named one, or an IP) when editing in a particular area of Wikipedia, such as science and pseudoscience. They should not intentionally hop to different IPs to avoid scrutiny and divide their contribution history, warning history, and block history. If they would agree to that, I think problems would be greatly reduced. In addition, it would be helpful if they refrained from excessively strident rhetoric when interacting with other editors. Jehochman ^Talk 04:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The question of Lakinekaki's rhetoric is the most important to me because that's what started all this (both in terms of my involvement and the foul-up of the wikiquette page). Their last edit is more of the same, in that it is one sided and mischaracterizes the actions of others (for instance I am faulted for insisting that they use quotation marks around direct quotes). I agree fully with the statement above by Jehochman about Lakinekaki picking an ID/IP and sticking to it (which was what Jehochman's post which initiated all this actually said). NJGW (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Where can I file official complaint against Jehochman for threatening me with blocks for editing anonymously. I think that his persistence in insisting that I am a sock puppet doesn't leave me other choice, but to take this further. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what I said. You are free to edit via IPs. As I have stated many times, I am requesting that you not intentionally hop from account to account (named or IP accounts) in order to avoid scrutiny, as you suggested you might do here. I further stated that if you engaged in such behavior, your accounts could be blocked. A warning is meant to discourage the disruption of Wikipedia, and hopefully will help you avoid being blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 05:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I (or along with jossi) will be happy to review this case though nothing is clear yet. Could someone please make a brief summary of events (a chronology would be better) at my talk page? Jehochman and 216.80.119.92, could you please help with that and stop focusing on mutual accusations? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am well past bedtime here. Please read User talk:216.80.119.92. The conversation that occurred is still visible there. It is not long. Additionally, look at this prior warning I issued. That was the reason why the user's talk page was on my watchlist. I noticed that problems had continued after my prior warning. Jehochman ^Talk 05:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Socks

Thanks. I think it may take some time to do it, because I'm very tired of dealing with them and filing such things... I appreciate your caring. You might find obvious socks from South Korean cultural claims and its first/ second AFD‎.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of admin trainees. Would you mind helping them learn how to investigate sock puppetry? I'd like to use this situation as an exercise. They would do the initial gathering of evidence, and I would help. Jehochman ^Talk 02:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it at all. I just thank you for the interest. If they look into newbies, it would be better to look their contributions altogether.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jehochman. I filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Pabopa (2nd time) due to a funny situation regarding "sock accusations between editors. If you think that the report is lengthy and untidy, please let me know. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A note

Hi Jehochman,

Please have a look at my opinion here. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me again. Thanks. fayssal - Wiki me up^® 02:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have taken the necessary actions to clean up my involvement in this matter. Jehochman ^Talk 02:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

you forgot one. some other editor who sees that may re-start everything again if he doesn't read relevant pages... 216.80.119.92 (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted that page, as there is no reason for it to exist as a blank page. Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Re

Let's take our hands off the block button for a moment. There was an accusation that the user violatedconflict of interest for the purpose of self-promotion to write about themselves or link to their own stuff for the purpose of promotion. This underlying matter has yet to be investigated. An area of policy that needs attention is the relationship between WP:OUTING and WP:COI. They are presently in conflict with each other. Editors should not be punished for following written policies that are confusing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just answered the second part at the thread below. As for the rest, please verify if NPOV is respected. That would be the real 'investigation'. -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 16:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I will recuse myself from further involvement with this editor, unless invited by them. I am confident that others can check NPOV. Jehochman ^Talk 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI vs. WP:OUTING

...An area of policy that needs attention is the relationship between WP:OUTING and WP:COI. They are presently in conflict with each other. Editors should not be punished for following written policies that are confusing.Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They are clearly in conflict with each other unless we see it from a different angle:

• WP:OUTING is part of WP:HARASS which is a policy. It is also very tied to the Wikimedia Privacy policy. This is something much more serious than a conflict of interest because one may be exposing someone else to a risk of harm in "the real world" or other media.
• WP:COI is just a guideline and we can still defer to the NPOV policy instead (like a notable person can still create or edit their own bio as long as they abide by the neutral point of view policy). And, the main point behind the creation of the COI guideline is to maintain a high standard of NPOV after all.

What do you think? -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 16:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be best to explain in both places how the two policies interact. Make this crystal clear rather than relying on people to figure out which takes precidence and how to reconcile the differences. Remember, policy reflects actual practice, and I have seen very many cases of people discussing user identity at WP:COIN. Generally, if a user leaves clues about who they are, their identity is considreed fair game. I am not saying that is correct, but that is the practice as it stands now. Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added a note to WP:COI.[3] This may help prevent future problems. Keep in mind that a new editor may read WP:COI before they find WP:HARASS. Jehochman ^Talk 17:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I could not have expressed better than that. Thanks for being bold. A notice at both the village pump and the COI noticeboard would be great. -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 18:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have given broad notice of this clarification.[4][5] Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

		Have a Pie!
		You are hereby awarded ONE PIE for a simple yet common-sense tweak to the COI policy, an area that sometimes gets ugly.

Arakunem^Talk 18:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yummy! Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 19:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with this approach. All an editor with a COI has to do, then, is not reveal the COI. Stop editing with an old account and create a new one after a decent pause. If it becomes verboten to reveal it, to "out" the editor, which generally requires asserting some real-world identification of the editor, then WP:COI has largely been gutted. Which does point to a solution. Gut WP:COI! The argument used here to avoid WP:OUTING really is an argument that COI policy isn't necessary, that WP:NPOV covers it. I've used the COI argument many times with a few particular editors, and it's been useful as a tool for restraining them. However, I've also seen it abused, and it can prevent editors who are knowledgeable about a subject (people with a COI are often experts) from seriously participating in forming our consensus. When I think back to the situations where I asserted COI, it would have been more inconvenient to use more complex dispute resolution techniques to deal with tendentious editing by those editors, but it could have been done. So simply dumping WP:COI may be the simplest approach; the existence of a COI wouldn't be used against any editor, but contentious editing, itself, which is often the real problem, would, and this applies to any editor, not just one who happens to be affiliated or connected with the topic.

The main target of my COI assertions has often complained that the situation is unfair; as a critic of his work, I can do whatever I want (he thinks), but he's restricted. I'd have to agree. I haven't abused it, in spite of his fears, but I could have.

Reinforcing WP:OUTING and leaving WP:COI in place, as anything other than advice to editors with a COI (and not as a stick to beat them with), is encouraging editors with a conflict of interest to conceal it. I'd rather reward those who reveal their real-world identities, or at least not punish them by restricting them! --Abd (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with the fact that this approach would encourage users with a COI to reveal it. However, all an editor has to do is to choose between revealing the COI or not BUT make sure their edits abide by NPOV.

Whatever is the case, do you have any alternative or suggestion on how to deal with outing people with COI? -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 04:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it should be clear that I noted the problem because the strengthening of WP:OUTING brings the issue with WP:COI into sharper relief, not because I disagreed with the shift in emphasis. I think it was correct to strengthen WP:OUTING. We should not act, as editors, to break the anonymity of editors who wish to remain anonymous, with some possible exceptions (such as are sometimes involved with abusive socking). Enforcing WP:OUTING, however, should be done gingerly, because of the history; but the problem is, of course, that once an editor has been exposed, it's hard to put the cat back into the bag. This is a bigger question than I'd care to answer in the abstract.

However, COI, as defined in WP:COI, should become irrelevant to administrators. We might disagree on that; the fundamental issue is whether or not administrators should be in the business of judging NPOV. I've come down pretty firmly on the side of, no, that's not for admins, nor is it even for ArbComm, that is for community consensus. I actually disagree that editors are obligated to "make sure their edits abide by NPOV." Contentious editing, edit warring, incivility, and all that, are associated with POV pushing, but it is the consequent offenses that admins should be addressing, not "POV pushing" itself. Thus the debate over "civil POV pushing" is over an oxymoron. NPOV is discovered when all notable POVs are "pushed," and then negotiated, and then resolved with agreement on specific text, and this process requires a civil environment, and it is the job of administrators to keep it that way. As soon as an administrator starts enforcing "NPOV," they risk having taken a POV (or, at least, this is quite common, as I see it).... which creates a different kind of COI.

(Please don't take this to mean that there is no such thing as offensive POV pushing. That occurs when an editor knows that text being inserted is unfair, biased, warped, distorted, but inserts it anyway to promote the POV.) --Abd (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Users are not blocked for simply being wrong. They can be blocked for persistently arguing after there is a clear consensus that they are wrong. We block for disruption, not editorial error. COI is useful quite often in simple cases, where an editor reveals an association with the article topic. The guideline is also useful to proactively encourage good practice. I think we should emphasize that editors who reveal a COI should be given extra assumption of good faith. There should be a benefit for honesty. By declaring their interest, they show that they support transparency and NPOV by inviting scrutiny of their edits. Users who seek to hide COI can still be controlled by the community, which has the ability to judge NPOV. It is also possible sometimes to associate an editor to an organization without revealing their personal identity. For instance, if there is also socking, a checkuser may determine the IP address of the user relates to a corporate network while the user is editing an article about that same corporation or its products. This could be an aggrevating factor. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh?

Extremely confusing! Exactly who was that aimed at? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Everybody. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So confused... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. It will wear off soon. Jehochman ^Talk 15:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's a daily occurrence! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:WOLF

I was archiving my talk page and saw your post for this essay. I don't remember if I responded to you on it or not. My apologies if I didn't. I think what you wrote is clear, concise, and addresses the issue well. Cla68 (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GovSchweitzer

Hey, not sure if you spaced it or meant to leave blank, but you left out a code letter on the case above. Tiptoety ^talk 15:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I just added it. I don't remember all the codes, so I was making a circle from the case, to the main page, and then back to the case with the code. Jehochman ^Talk 15:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I assumed it was something like that seeing as you file so many cases. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 15:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So many? Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you really believe this?

[6] you made this comment at the administrators board, but to be honest lately I and I am not alone on this, have been feeling like there are different rules for different people. I just started to feel this way recently and I have to say I don't like feeling like a second class citizen but I do, so I have been trying to be bolder and speak my mind a bit more. I have tried to be noncontoversial and just do my little bit whenever I can which isn't that much but I enjoy what I do. Lately though calling a consensus when there actually is one is said not to be one because other editors say so, just look at the chiropractic page for an example. I see you around a lot and have respect for you with what I have seen from you so I am serious when I ask you, do you really believe that editors are all equal including regular editors, ARBS and administrators alike? Thank you, I really would love a sincere answer to this even if you have to take it to my email which is activated. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. All editors are equal when it comes to content and consensus. That's the way it should be. Some editors have developed a degree of trust that they get access to more tools, but they should not "pull rank" in a discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to continue to keep this in mind. I guess I'm just a bit frustrated lately. Thank you again for your prompt reply, I needed it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP/McCain incident

Hi! I started the discussion about a certain famous politician's alleged use of a certain extremely naughty word (on the talk page for the word, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I see you removed the discussions, presumably on the grounds that because of the BLP issues involved, we shouldn't describe the incident even on the talk pages, even to explain why we aren't covering it in the article.

My one concern is--isn't there a danger that someone (like the person who first added this incident, or perhaps someone else) will come to the page, say "Huh, how come that incident is missing", then add it back in? My thought is if the talk page has a record of the controversy, people will at least see that it's been considered and rejected.

Should we perhaps restore the discussion, but somewhat expurgated? (e.g. instead of repeating the allegation, just say something like "John McCain's alleged use of the word in 1992") OTOH, I'm not very experienced dealing with BLP issues. If the best thing is to delete all discussion of the incident, I'm okay with that.

Thanks much! -- Narsil (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to restore a general summary of the discussion and the consensus reached. I thought about doing that, but decided to wait and see if somebody made a remark. I have to run to dinner, or I would help you more now. Maybe refer to the source, but not repeat the actual story. Jehochman ^Talk 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Okay, I'll be happy to do it myself (probably tomorrow). I just wanted to make sure that wouldn't be some kind of BLP violation. I'll make it a general description, along the lines of what's in the Talk:John McCain/Archive 7 discussion. Thanks again! -- Narsil (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh

That was funny.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for WTC collapse article

Hi Jonathan, reading the progressive collapse section just now I noticed a sentence that is likely to be misunderstood as something that is false. "The NIST report analyzes the failure mechanism in detail," it says. But the reader is likely to think that the mechanism in question is total progressive collapse, which is the section heading but which NIST did not look into in any detail at all. The sentence used to read "While the NIST report analyzes the initial failure mechanism in detail, it does not address the subsequent total collapse of the WTC towers." I'm still banned from the page (and remain retired) so I thought I'd just bring it to your attention. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you like your ban to be removed? I think it has been a length of time. If you can use the talk page and tread lightly, I think you might be successful. All you need to do is leave personal beliefs at the door, and try to create a neutral article. Obviously, don't do any of that just yet, get the ban lifted first by applying to WP:AE. Jehochman ^Talk 22:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. I was shown the door pretty squarely and I'd be coming in with the same "agenda". I'd only come back if the original decision to ban me was overturned (i.e., I'd want to be exonerated). Not because of time served. And even then: I don't miss WP much. I just once had a soft spot for the idea of it. That's what kept my heels dug in as long as they were (not my alleged POV). The reality turned out to be something very different. That happens.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope that in time you might change your mind. There is no real concept of guilt or exoneration here, well, at least not in my mind. Jehochman ^Talk 23:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I know. What I mean is that my work here has been interpreted in a particular way. As you put it, for example, "User:Thomas Basboll's long contribution history shows three main types of contributions to Wikipedia: 1/ pushing a Truther POV, 2/ attacking MONGO, and 3/ engaging in various processes to support those agendas. We simply do not need single purpose policy violation accounts, no matter how polite they may be." If you have changed your mind about that, then that's interesting. But I'm pretty sure you spoke for a broad constituency. My work would soon be given the same spin again, with or without your help. But I do check back every now and then (like now) to see what's going on. So far the mood doesn't seem to have changed much and nobody is really bringing the articles forward. Not like back in my day! Don't get me started ... ;-) --Thomas Basboll (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Enough about me. Are you going to do change the article?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I will post your suggestion verbatim to the article talk page and ask the editors there to give it consideration. Jehochman ^Talk 22:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Done.[7] Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

PS Out of curiosity I went looking for the edit that implemented the change. Here it is [8].--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. Happy editing! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jehochman

Given your relationship with ChrisO [9], I don`t think would be appropriate for you to act as an uninvolved administrator on matters involving ChrisO. The dispute between me and ChrisO, is purely content-based, and several other administrators have confirmed this. I have already explained my position in details here. I am seeking a resolution through WP:DISPUTE, and should the issues not be resolved through dialogue and mediation, I am willing to take the matter before the Arbitration. --CreazySuit (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO is not my boyfriend. I have no relationship with him. You will probably get your wish for arbitration, though the result may not be what you prefer. It would be best for you to look at your own behavior and see if you can do better. Let ChrisO worry about himself. Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you`re now clearly taking sides , and you have a history with this user. ChrisO`s editing has been criticized by numerous other editors, including several administrators [10], so things are not as black and white, as he would have you believe. --CreazySuit (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not encouraging that you seek to attack an uninvolved administrator. I have never touched any of these articles, and have never met you before. You might want to reconsider your strategy here. Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Given your history with ChrisO, you are not an uninvolved administrator. --CreazySuit (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're convincing me that you are a very tendentious editor. I have no history with ChrisO. Our paths have crossed once or twice, but that is the case with almost every administrator and vested contributor here. I've been around for 3-1/2 years. Additionally, have you noticed that I am just an ordinary editor as far as this matter is concerned? I am free to express my opinions. Have I taken any administrative actions? Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, others also seem to believe that you are involved with ChrisO. [11] --CreazySuit (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy has had sharp disagreements with me in the recent past. Just because they say such things does not make them true. Thanks for your comments. Bye now. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I see that you have indefinitely blocked CreazySuit (talk · contribs) per ANI,[12] but I have reviewed that thread, and I see no consensus for an indefinite block. In fact, the term never even came up once in the entire thread. Please consider reversing your block, until/unless there is a consensus of uninvolved voices that an indefinite block is appropriate, thanks. --Elonka 18:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As do I. See my comment and proposal on the AN/I thread. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please keep the discussion together at AN/I. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, your block of CreazySuit was out of line. You are not viewed as an uninvolved administrator, and most importantly there was no consensus for a block in the first place. Therefore, the initial block and subsequent unblock with the "terms and conditions" was entirely inappropriate. Please refrain from using administrative tools on the disputed page or related topics in the future -- if there is a future arbitration case my guess is that you probably wouldn't want to be mentioned as a party. Khoikhoi 03:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi! Nice to meet you. I have been expecting you to appear on this page. During my research into the background of this matter, I have learned about 17 incidents where you intervened in edit wars involving those pushing Iranian or Armenian nationalist agenda. Incredibly, at vanishingly small probability, you seem to have protected the article in the version that favored the Iranian-Armenian point of view in virtually every case. You are one lucky administrator to get such favorable results, unless of course, you are picking and choosing which version to protect.

• Unruled Paper (film) - [13] CreazySuit
• Hemshin peoples - [14] Namsos (pro-Armenian) vs. Omer182 (pro-Turkish)
• Racism in the Middle East - [15] Larno Man and CreazySuit (pro-Iranian) vs. MiS-Saath (Iran-critical)
• Khūzestān Province - [16] Larno Man and BehnamFaris vs. MiS Saath
• Arabistan - [17] ditto
• Erzurum - [18] (pro-Armenian edits by Darwinek, vs. pro-Turkish anon)
• Mazandarani language - [19] 68.5.250.146, internal issue between Iranians
• Van Resistance - [20] pro-Armenian version
• Massoud Rajavi - [21] CreazySuit
• Amir Taheri - [22] CreazySuit
• Kish Island - [23] version previously preferred by User:Axamir
• Persian Gulf - [24] Sia34, pro-Iranian version
• Timurid dynasty - [25] 07fan (possibly another CreazySuit id)
• Hotaki dynasty - [26] 07fan (same context as above)
• Barlas - [27] 07fan (same context as above)
• Bactria - [28] Beh-nam (Tajik/Iranian vs. Pashtoon POV issue)
• Demography of Afghanistan - [29] Anoshirawan (same context as above)

ArbCom scrutinizes the behavior of all parties when a case is brought before them. I am very happy to have them scrutinize my administrative actions. I have been a party to several cases and am careful to comport myself in such a way that I can withstand their scrutiny. You are mistaken when you say that I was "involved". I have not edited any Iranian-related articles, to the best of my recollection, and I have no particular agenda with regard to them. You on the other hand, appear to have a very strong editorial agenda, and appear to have been using your admin tools to further that agenda, contrary to Wikipedia policy. I see that your involvement in other areas has been useful, so I am willing to forgive past transgressions if you will agree not to continue the pattern of mistakes. Would you voluntarily desist from taking administrative actions related to Iranian-Armenian nationalist topics? That would be good for Wikipedia. There are plenty of other areas that could use your help. Please consider it. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd seen the flap on AN/I and then this on your Talk page. Was this a fair criticism of Khoikhoi? I decided to look. I compiled all edits since early 2007 and separated out all page protection actions for review. I'm still working on it, but I'll agree that there are grounds for concern, given the high percentage of protection of articles within a relatively narrow interest area, the same area that Khoikhoi regularly edits in. Articles may end up protected in a preferred version, preferentially, for reasons other than admin bias. For example, if I see edit warring on an article, I may revert to support apparent general consensus and ask for page protection; the article ends up, more often than not, protected into my version. If that happened in some organized or semi-organized way, there could be administrative bias, but not necessarily. Still, the specialization is worrisome; on the one hand, it could be good for an administrator to be familiar with the topic; but, on the other hand, such familiarity is often accompanied by a preferential POV. Still, I think it's an error to focus on the COI issues at first, I'm a little worried that there is some "You're biased!" "You say I'm biased? What about you!" going on. Jehochman, I've seen you act in ways that were possibly imprudent, but I never saw you nail yourself to one of these, and that ability to back off when it's appropriate is an essential quality in an administrator. I agree fully with you below about the importance of how disputes are resolved. Admin tools being used to protect the community from incivility and obstruction, not to enforce NPOV or "the correct version," as such. NPOV is a policy goal, how we get there is governed by process guidelines prohibiting incivility and edit warring.--Abd (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Abd, you are welcome to follow up, but I am withdrawing from this controversy. I have already explained my actions, at least twice, and there will not be much benefit in my continuing to pursue these matters. Concerns have been raised, and others will follow up, if following up is needed. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 19:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You are doing quite what I'd recommend. I'm following up, being utterly uninvolved at the start, except for our history, which might make me a tad credible in essentially exonerating you of any improper action, which, so far, is what it looks like to me. You were really a bit player in the underlying problem, and I'd consider you done at this point. Just to be clear, since others will read this, this doesn't mean that I consider the block of CreazySuit to be "correct," but that it was within your proper exercise of discretion. Good work. --Abd (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to see Khoikhoi as uninvolved. I may be wrong, but I think he asked Dragonfly for the original protection. I've been away, and I've come back to find him/her on Battle of Opis saying "The bullying and intimidating of the opposing editors here by framing this content dispute as a policy issue has to stop." -- hardly showing good faith, and falsely accusing others. The dispute was not a content dispute, it was about the claim by certain editors that they could be the arbiters of whether a particular translation was correct or false, and that is a policy issue. Khoikhoi in fact deleted the sourced text saying it was " a version based on a false translation". Admins should know better. He continues this over at Kaveh Farrokh, replacing text that had been removed after discussion at the RSN [30] or in one case, although called a review, is actually from the forward of the book. In many ways he is acting exactly like CreazySuit (although CreazySuit didn't, I think, go as far in attacking other editors, and CreazySuit is not an Admin. Doug Weller (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of drama mitigation, I'd like to leave the matter for others to handle. Feel free to use whatever dispute resolution steps may be needed, up to arbitration. I really don't care who prevails in the content dispute, as long as it is resolved in a way that observes Wikipedia quality standards. Those who behave obstructively need to be stopped, or else the content dispute cannot be resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 17:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page

... is what I did. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikport ANI

I am trying to address the statement made regarding my current ANI entry. I did add a comment, but it seems in the process I reverted it to an older version, which was not my intention. As a result, I'll try to address it here. I do thank you for the statement regarding my "knowledge" here at Wiki, although I believe it quite limited. I have yet to learn some of the "tricks" that editors can insert into their edits or comments to make it clean and link to pertinent sections. I assure you this is my first wiki account, as I have only recently crossed the line into trying to actually edit articles rather than just read them. I thank you for your comments, and hopefully have answered your question. Wikiport (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. Please tread lightly for a short while until you get your wiki "legs". You may also find it useful to start with articles that are not involved in disputes. There are many articles here where any sort of editing attention is appreciated. Jehochman ^Talk 21:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the warning

But I do not plan to revert until the discussion has ended. --Nepaheshgar 14:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Good! I have also warned ChrisO, and am looking for a mediator to help resolve this content dispute. The disruption needs to stop. It is not good for anyone. Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay that should have been tried out before this whole mess. But I still believe abusing the administration power is not correct. But since ChrisO is a knowledgeable person, I will remove my complaint. --Nepaheshgar 14:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be very upset. It will be humane for all concerned to forgive mistakes and try to move forward via mediation. Jehochman ^Talk 14:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good. I also believe that who ANI mess(which I do not want to be involved in and hence I will not even edit the article) should also be forgotten/removed also (there are good people from both sides) and the issue should be mediated. It is content dispute and all admins/users should be forgiven. --Nepaheshgar 14:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your comment. If this would have been the first time Mathschi made similar comments about me, I would not have reacted but it has become a habit of his. As for bad faith, it was Mathschi who started the whole escalation by claiming that I was a troll in our very first exchange and then going on to claim I was unintelligent; this was before I had many any comment about him or directed at him. Your comment about providing diffs is of course very valid and I will do so. JdeJ (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now added the diffs in which Mathschi accuses me of being a troll, accuses me of falsifying pages, acces me of making unintelligent comments, accuses me of having bad English skills and accuses me of being unable to think. I'm aware that these may be serious charges, and I believe that Mathschi's behaviour is a serios offense given his position as a moderator here. I welcome scrutiny into my own contributions, it will make it clear that I have never sunk to the personal attacks Mathschi regularly employs and that I've only responded to all his accusations about my intentions, my intelligence and my language skills. While I understand that moderators tend to stand up for other moderators, I am sure you agree that a moderator is just as obliged as any other editor to follow the same rules of conduct and to behave in a civil way. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, last time I checked, Mathsci was not an administrator ("moderator"). It is very good to provide specifics, because it allows others to check the facts themselves. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I may have been wrong about Mathsci being an administrator. Thanks for the reminder to add diffs, cheers JdeJ (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist notices

I have no intention to wheel-war on this question, but you removed the watchlist notice for the RfA Review, which had been discussed recently at WT:RFA, and had previously been discussed in June (with consensus to post the notice at that time, as well). Could you clarify where we need to discuss such notices before posting them? Given that the process involves RfA, I had assumed that discussion at the RfA talk page was sufficient. Thanks in advance, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Somebody else had added a very pointy third notice. When I looked at the talk page of the mediawiki interface page, I noticed that there really had not been sufficient consensus to establish the two existing notices either. A while back (July?) we had a lengthy discussion and it was decided not to use the watchlist for anything short of major events, such as ArbCom or WikiMedia Foundation elections. For ordinary RfC's, and similar community discussions, I would recommend announcing at WP:PUMP and WP:CENT. The problem is that for each discussion, there are some people who feel passionately that their discussion is unusually important and deserves to be on the watchlist. Unfortunately, as soon as one posts to the watchlist, many others follow suit, and then people get annoyed at the cruft. Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments

I hadn't seen your recent edits to the WP:COI policy regarding WP:OUTING until you had brought them to my attention. For what it's worth, I suspect 138 is another of Buspar's socks, this one a "straw puppet" to discount editors if they point out his use of multiple accounts. For example, we see here 138 exhorting us to check Buspar's sock's IP addresses.[31] That's just a red herring if he already knows he's editing from different IP addresses. And then you see the same thing from Buspar when he exhorts us to check the IPs of his alternate accounts and consider the accusations to be harassment considering they come from 138.[32] It's bizarre stuff; thanks again for your help in dealing with this editor, his conflict of interest, and his multiple accounts. He's been up to this for years, at one point attributing his COI edit warring under multiple accounts to his "roommates." I guess after that didn't fly he decided it would be smarter to try to hide under multiple IP addresses. Thanks again and I look forward to your help at the COI notice board if necessary. --Dragonfiend (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

G'day Jehoch :-)

I noticed you took the thread off of AN/I, both before and after my additional comment, I won't return it (though I think it would be better returned) - but wanted to swing by and mention to you that I feel this is actually quite an important conversation - that the issues within it have returned several (many?) times recently to the various noticeboards, that this is happening with what seems to me to be increased frequency, and that the central issues haven't yet really been resolved satisfactorily... which is why I think talking about it is a good thing! - Your removal categorised the thread as 'troll food', which would seem to indicate that you don't share my perception that there's something useful to talk about here.... that's a shame, because I think there's a baby as well as some bathwater :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

heh - our talk page posts crossed (and I think describing my action as 'edit waring' is a bit harsh! - it just doesn't seem to be a good idea to me to describe someone that has undone an action of yours as a 'warrior'! - bit self-certifying... :-) ) - I take your point about the locations for discussion, but would add that personally, I don't think the type of control you are exercising here in regard to suitability for AN/I etc. is a net positive - I think it tends to cause more problems generally than it solves... but mileage varies of course :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The more we talk about it the more often it will happen. We have a Catch-22 situation. Please, let's take the discussion to a quiet corner and invite those who are interested to participate. ANI is WP:DRAMA. It's just about the worst possible venue for such a discussion. ANI is for incidents that require administrator intervention. We have plenty of policy talk pages, and WP:PUMP and #wikipedia-en which is open to all. Jehochman ^Talk 03:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

you know, I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet :-) - my final comment (after the thread was marked 'resolved') was an invitation to try and persuade folk interested over to WP:TOV, and WT:TOV. I guess my comments above reflect the fact that I believe it's a good idea to try and channel some of the circular AN type chat to places where resolution can actually be achieved - it's a totally valid perspective mind that this is like herding cats, and is fundamentally not helpful (maybe you feel this way?). In regard to the matter at hand, it seems likely to me that wires got a bit crossed, and it's always times of heat when communication lines suffer.... but yeah, we do need to clear this up long term, I'd say.... and my tuppence is that WP:TOV so clearly reflects current practice, that it should be tagged as policy, and further, that checkusers can apply the spirit of the policy to forward IP information urgently in cases where they feel there is any credible danger, whether to self, or others... whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have Mike Godwin take any of the current essays on the subject and churn out an official policy that we can cling to when people start to get excited. There should be a defined procedure. Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with harassment

Thanks for the help in banning Onethirtyeightdot for harassment and trolling! Seems this was a case of off-Wiki e-drama coming here. I checked the IP address and tied it several screen names via "Stop Forum Spam" [33] that were banned from a forum Xuanwu manages. Based on the timeline, the IP started editing Wikipedia with the harassing accusations just 2 days after the forum ban. So it everything he did here was his attempt at retaliation against Xuanwu. Kudos for making the right call and purging his nonsense. Hopefully if he shows up again the troll won't be fed so well by other Wiki editors as happened here (I tried to use the bare minimum response needed to get the wheels moving). Too few people read WP:DENY, I guess. Buspar (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

As a user who contributed to the discussion concerning Koavf (talk · contribs), you're invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals also. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:DAPtech.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:DAPtech.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to self

Copy edit That_International_Rag. If a TPL wants to jump on this, I will give you cookies. Jehochman ^Talk 22:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I edited for grammar and style, and I removed a redlink on Victor Military Band. How does it look? SunDragon34 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I wikified the first instance of a few terms since the article seemed light on links. Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SHIPS

Hello! I presume this edit is an indication that you are signing up as a WP:SHIPS project member. If so, you might want to add yourself to the full participant list. Welcome! Maralia (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page watchers: Landmark Education

Landmark Education has been messed up pretty badly with corporate PR and removal of critical content. If anybody would like to do a good deed for Wikipedia, check that article and see if you can bring it into better compliance with WP:NPOV. Jehochman ^Talk 15:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Nomination for WTC Collapse Article?

Hi again Jonathan. It doesn't look like anyone is really working on the WTC collapse article any longer. That would suggest that the issues that kept it from retaining its GA status have been resolved. I was about to nominate it myself, but then I noticed that part of the procedure would require me to violate my ban (posting to the talk page). GA with the hope of FA might be away to re-energize work on the article.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Xinunus

Thanks for help on sorting the sock puppet case. I don't think we have seen the last of the user. Unfortunately. I think they might already be back with 199.209.144.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The ip is reverting stuff on Xinunus and adding the same warning to my talkpage. Mind taking a look? Thanks. --Patrick (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You are mentioned

At WP:ANI#Harassment. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please respond at the CU case to give the supporting diffs requested by me, if you would be so kind. Just saying "I wash my hands" of an incomplete case is probably not a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am short on time at the moment, but I have done my best under the circumstances to present the evidence. I find it remarkable that SA is tag teaming on two occasions a month apart with closely connected IPs. The simplest and most probably explanation that it's the same editor. Jehochman ^Talk 22:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rosetta@home

Je, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosetta@home may be within your area of interest, particularly with your experience with non-conventional sourcing in a computer-related FAC. I'm hoping you might have time to review this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC) ScienceApologist (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl behaviour

Hi, in light of the recent activities of Blue Bugle and LemonMonday, can you also please take a look at the activities of User:TharkunColl. It is obvious that he regularly looks at my contributions and reverts my edits. We have had a number of edit wars in the past, I admit, but that was borne out of frustration. He constantly wholesale reverts whatever recent edits I make without discussion, and usually with comments designed to incite a reaction. He rarely if ever discusses the edits, and always leaves comments such as "Reverting wholesale vandalism" or "Removing politically driven POV", etc. I've asked him to stop several times, and left warnings on his Talk page. While I don't believe he sock-puppets, his actions are remarkably similar to LemonMonday and Blue Bugle. Here are a number of recent reverts from the last 30 minutes:

• European Green Party
• Cup and ring mark
• Old-time music
• Drovers' Road

There's numerous other examples going back such as

• Derry and Derry
• Saint David

but if you go back over his edit history, they're pretty obvious. As an administrator that is uninvolved but has experience examining similar cases, please take a look. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you copy the above content to WP:WQA for wider discussion? Jehochman ^Talk 16:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is the right place, but OK, I'll start there. --HighKing (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion started here. --HighKing (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nosferamus

OMG. Thanks very much, 89.96.108.150 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention it.  :-) Jehochman ^Talk 16:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RFAR exercise

Hi. I have a question about the RFAR excercise, which I posted to the Coaching page. How should I analyze the case? What should I look for, and what sort of understanding do I need to develop? Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Just read the case main page, then the evidence page, and then go to the workshop and make helpful comments. The committee likes to get feedback from the community on various workshop proposals. You are also welcome to investigate the conflict and present evidence if you think important factors are missing. Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User:LemonMonday

Hi Jehochman. This is just a courtesy note. Two other checkusers have reviewed the Blue Bugle case and have determined the above account to be  Unlikely. Per the technical evidence, I'm going to unblock with a warning re. their apparent pursuit of User:HighKing. Sorry about all the trouble - Alison ^❤ 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okee dokee. Jehochman ^Talk 22:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough on the technical evidence showing that they're not sock-puppets - thanks to all involved for the efforts. But I'm very concerned that LemonMonday has stated You won't give me the benefit of the doubt so I've no alternative but to become a sockpuppet! A sockpuppet of the now defunct LemonMonday. I and others will continue in due course to challenge the edits of the disruptive HighKing until such time as he's prevented from damaging this project further. on his Talk page. In the words of Cole Porter - "There will be trouble ahead"... --HighKing (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"I have a bad feeling about this." Jehochman ^Talk 12:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Oh boy!" Cirt (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another editor just popped up on the radar - User:MidnightBlueMan, account created Sept 30th, and is just starting on a reversionfest. --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What is this? A reversionfest, how funny! but it's a good word. No, I have not "popped up" as you put it. I was editing as an IP and signed up on 30th September at the request of User:Snowded on the British Isles Talk page. Can you please stop removing British Isles for illegitimate reasons. I note your long history in this activity. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Apologies. Has already been reported here too. I notified you here also since you have knowledge of the situation and interceded previously. I won't post here again on this topic, and feel free o remove this comment also. --HighKing (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Hemshin peoples entry

• Hemshin peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have noticed that you are aware of the Hemshin peoples entry through your exhange with admin Khoikkoi on your talk page on 28 September 2008. This entry is again under wholesale revert attacks taking it back to a version of app. a year ago. I have placed a notice about one of the whole reverters (user Eupator) on WP:AE (User: Eupator with regards to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2's decisions). I just wanted to inform you about this situation. Thanks.Omer182 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI case of HK & Tharky

Hello Jehochman. I did the duty of informing HK, of the ANI report being cancelled. I hope I didn't overstep boundries. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. The matter is at WP:AE. We should try to resolve this with a minimum amount of fuss and drama. Posting the same issue to multiple forums at the same time is not helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sore with Tharky, honest. But, I won't push him any further for clarity, as these are tense times for him (and HK). GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. We are all on the same side and need to try to help each other, even when we disagree. Jehochman ^Talk 19:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Abusive edits previously reported on WP:AN/I

I'm not in a position to E-mail the oversight list. Please can you do so? I've now looked at the history of the page, and can see that the same attack has been made from multiple IP addresses; these are probably also open relays or compromised hosts, since they are all on different ISPs. -- The Anome (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I will be glad to look. Jehochman ^Talk 04:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Thomas Basboll

Thomas Basboll has asked me what he needs to do to return to editing here. I thought I would approach you in the first instance. As six months have passed, and he hasn't (as far as I am aware) been disruptive, would you support his return? Obviously it isn't up to either one of us but I thought I would sound you out anyway, as you were involved in the matter back in April. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree to a second chance. I'd have to look back at the details to see what sort of advice we could provide to help make sure there is no further difficulty. Jehochman ^Talk 05:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed after I sent that message, that you discussed this with him a few weeks ago as well, apologies for missing that. I suppose we'll have to go back to AE to endorse the unbanning? And yes, the advice we give him is important too. My impression is that things have been a little quieter on the 9/11 front recently, though I confess I may be out of touch. --John (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

MISRA C++

I see that you have just deleted the MISRA C++ article. I don't understand the rationale for such preemptive action. Please reinstate the article and add a warning that it might be deleted unless appropriate corrections are made to it. Derek farn (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The article failed to assert notability. I was originally thinking of merging MISRA C++ into MISRA, but the MISRA article has already been deleted by another administrator as blatant advertising. If you'd like me to restore the article and nominate it for AfD, I will. Jehochman ^Talk 15:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate merge, if one did occur, would be with MISRA C. I did warn the MISRA people that the article read like an advert. If you are willing to restore the MISRA article I will cut out the advertising. Derek farn (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All of these pages look non-notable and appear to be promotional. Are you associated with the organization in some way? Jehochman ^Talk 16:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am surprise you say they are non-notable, how do you measure notability? I work in the field of static analysis and customers are interested in MISRA C/C++, hence my interest. I have been to MISRA C workshops in the past (about 7 years ago), I have been to MISRA C++ meetings (last about 2 years ago). Derek farn (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability depends upon independent coverage by reliable sources. The existence of a programming language with a working group and conferences does not establish notability. There would have to be media coverage, or books written about the subject that we could use as references. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Unless something is covered by others first, we cannot cover it. This subject seems not to have enough coverage to write anything more than a stub article. If something is just mentioned a few times, it might be included in another article. Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Books written about it? How many of the 2.5 million Wikipedia articles have books written about them (ok, perhaps you do think that 90% of the articles in Wikipedia are not notable and should be deleted)? MISRA C/C++ gets lots of mentions/articles in the embedded systems market. Derek farn (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather than trying to convince me that Wikipedia's notability policy needs changing, I suggest you explain what reliable sources have covered this topic. Please do so at the deletion discussion to share the information with everyone. Jehochman ^Talk 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am past caring. You continue to chant that the article is non-notable and have not responded to any of the points I have made. Derek farn (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

SSP closure

I've got an SSP case that might need to be closed. No action needed. The sock-puppeteer, User:Genetix1234, hasn't abused his/her alternate accounts, and by the nature of the test edits on their userpage, this user looks clean. The last thing a new Wikipedian needs is a big, scary {{socksuspectnotice}} template as first contact! :( I've welcomed the user, given him a friendly spiel on proper use of alternate accounts, and labeled the userpages appropriately. No further action needed, right? (I'll keep an eye on it.) SunDragon34 (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to the case: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Genetix1234. SunDragon34 (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over AN/I Incident

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that due to my complaint I filed here, I have stirred up a lot of unnecessary controversy. I did not intend to do this, I just wanted to point out that it looks like an article could be controlled by a certain group of people and I wanted any neutral administrator to look into it. I have no intention of editing the Oxford Round Table and I have not had any contact with the editors I am accused of being a sock of. I have merely joined wikipedia, read the tutorials, and learned the formatting and rules, which I think every editor needs to know before starting to post. I only want to contribute in a positive way and help ensure articles get published without any bias. Because of my recent thread, I have been suspected of being a sock puppet of users which I have not collaborated with in any way Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Astutescholar. If I posted to the AN/I too early about incidents I am noticing, my sincere apologies, I was only trying to help out the community, but I do not understand how I can come into suspicion for only trying to help out. Like I said earlier, I was only trying to become a productive editor, please let me know where I was mistaken in my contributions. Thanks. Treasuryrain (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It is best to avoid WP:ANI due to the risk of igniting drama. You might try WP:EAR in the future instead. Jehochman ^Talk 12:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I have read about WP:EAR and it seems like that would have been a better area to post my concerns. My apologies for posting in the wrong area and causing these problems. Could you advise me on how to what should be done about this sock puppet discussion? Thanks Treasuryrain (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. There is evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Astutescholar that you are operating a sock puppet account, and I see that you have been indefinitely blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 08:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dab's comment

• please see my comment at User_talk:Puttyschool#Block_length. I don't disagree with blocking these accounts, but I have difficulty accepting the "instant indef" block. It does not look as if this account had been properly warned, or gone through a series of escalating block lengths. A block of three or four days paired with a stern warning that the next block would more likely extend to a few months or a year would have been more appropriate. It would not have cost us anything to click on the block button a second time if editor had come back from their first block without improving their behavior. You could also issue topic bans. The point is that this user has constructively contributed to other topics, and I don't see a reason to keep them from doing that as long as we can keep them from causing trouble by other means. --dab (𒁳) 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion at WP:ANI, and a consensus was achieved. If you want to start a new discussion, feel free, and be sure to notify User:FayssalF who is the one who suggested the indef block in the first place. There is no obligation to do revolving door blocks, especially in an area covered by ArbCom sanctions. When an editor posts egregiously inflammatory material and carries on a lengthy battle, the cost of their disruption may exceed the value of their contributions. If Puttyschool wants to change their approach, I am willing to entertain an unblock request or discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rabbit Hunter....

I was advised by User:Franamax to seek out your advice inre a SPA account that was created, nominated an article for deletion and then disappeared. With it being a hit-and-run, would there be any point in filing a SSP report? And even were I to do so, I have a distinct problem with COI that hurts any effort I might make to investigate. What is the policy on SPA or Socketpuppet/meatpuppet nominations? Are they allowed to continue though the AfD process as if the were actually Good Faith nominations? I feel that such was done contrary to the consensus of the first AfD and in violation of WP:NTEMP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Having your bio deleted from Wikipedia is probably a blessing in disguise. I am a semi-notable person and am happy not to have a bio here. The votes at AfD seem to be established editors. I hope you won't stress too much in case you become an un-person via deletion. :-/ Jehochman ^Talk 23:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Puttyschool's checkuser case

Hi Jehochman! I'm just letting you know that User:Puttyschool's checkuser case is underway—I'll get back to that once it's ready. As for User:Great Sphinx, he/she was not blocked because I suggested that he/she should be blocked. Rather, Great Sphinx was blocked because I suggested an unusual connection a few days earlier which lead to that. Of course, I have decided not to post this on Puttyschool's page to prevent further issues, but you could certainly let him/her know if you wish. Simply, I feel that your part in the matter was reasonable enough to make you aware so that there's no confusion involved. I hope you can understand. Cheers and best wishes, ~ Troy (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

My forthcoming elevation

Regarding your edit here [34] As a matter of fact, not that it is any concern of yours I may now not choose to run, as I have a more worthy and pressing election in mind. I have been asked by poor beleaguered Mr McCain to replace that dreadful woman, (naturally I have joint American citizenship attained during my painful years as the wife of Hiram G Rockerfeller Jnr). In order to make myself more appealing and in union with the good folk of America (to whom I say "howdy to you all"), like the wretched Mrs Palin, I shall be giving my children new and totally ridiculous names. Henceforth my darling children Usrsula, Arabella, Henrietta and Hubert will be known as Peewit, Beanbag, Sofa Table and Gary. My present husband Henri, Duc de Longchamp-sous-Châtenois, who will be assisting my image as a typicall All American Mother cooking Turkey with blueberry pie, will henceforth, and in recognition of the American people's inability to pronounce the Queen's English, will be known as Champ - a typical American male Christian name.

Regarding poor Mrs palin's plight, while I don't feel it unreasonable to use one's office to dispose of troublesome family members, or even, if necessary, to have them disposed of through holes in the ice or whatever the chosen method of execution is in those parts, it is completely unacceptable to have tattooed lips, even if one is American and descended from Red Indians or wherever it is the good people of America have their origins. Neither should one have the vowels of an electric can-opener. So! Rememeber Vote de Burgh - and God Bless America! Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion

Sincere apologies, I wasn't aware of this rule. Ludraman (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries! I noticed that you have not been very active lately so you might have missed it. Jehochman ^Talk 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

See User talk:Up the cross. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Honesty

Jehochman, I wonder if there isn't some way to get more eyes on this proposed guideline discussion. I'm disappointed, though sadly unsurprised, to see that anyone objects to such a policy even in principle. If Wikipedia contributors cannot agree upon such fundamental real-world ethical standards, this project may well be doomed, and perhaps should even be shut down.

Thank you for having taken the lead on this. I cannot say for whom I'll vote in the upcoming elections, but this weighs strongly in your favor. We need leadership that does not merely assume good faith, but expects and demands it.Proabivouac (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could post at the Village Pump in the policy section, or start an RFC on policy. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Adminship

Sure. Just make sure you tell me when you nominate me. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Halloween would be a lot of fun. Jehochman ^Talk 15:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)\

Sounds good. What do you think my chances are? Undead Warrior (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How many people dislike you? After you disagree with somebody do you pat them on the back and pour them a pint, or do you hold grudges? Ecoleetage left you a barnstar, a good sign. Jehochman ^Talk

I don't think anyone truly dislikes me to be honest. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, is there anything bad you might see in my recent edits that may have a negative effect on my RfA?Undead Warrior (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I was checking on one thing. Email me when you get a chance. Jehochman ^Talk 22:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've sent the email. Respond when you can. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments

I apologize for the inconvenience, and I won't inconvenience you again in that way. Thank you for your comments on Wikidemon's talk page. -- Noroton (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't even remember what the problem was, and don't think you have inconvenienced me at all. Happy editing. Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

since when is JIDF a departed user??????????????????????.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You said "dumb ESD's take over" in this edit summary. ESD refers to User:Einsteindonut, who I blocked for a year. When I block somebody, I also am concerned that they should keep their dignity and be able to return if the situation improves. Please don't say bad things about them on Wikipedia. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And your reaction to the JIDF web site and ESD?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC) PS there was only one wiki editor who always got my gender incorrect....ESD...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

People can be blocked for disrupting the project with an attack site or page. I suggest to you that conflict is not the way to resolve this. Instead, we need to talk to the editor and get them to see the benefits in working cooperatively. We have no way to force them to take down an attack site. Please don't call them bad names. It only intensifies the conflict. Thank you for pointing out that page, again. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, generally Jehochman is right, though I should think the few remarks AK and I have exchanged on this interlude, are tolerable, since the JIDF does think it can threaten us. I should bring it to your attention,Jehochman, that their other vacuous threats did effectively drive off one superbly well-read pro-Israeli wikipedian from the project. I refer to Ceedjee. Indifference is the proper approach, but it should be noted from the record of ESD that he and his allies have consistently documented on their talk pages their profound contempt for wikipedia, and have no intention whatsoever of conforming to its procedures. They will not drop us, we can certainly drop them. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have dropped him, and will drop anybody else who fits a similar pattern of behavior. I will also support anybody who wants to return, so long as they agree to follow our standards. We cannot totally prevent somebody from causing trouble. It is best not to goad people. Jehochman ^Talk 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I again concur. One turns the other cheek, personally. Not however when a companion of studies, and a fine wikipedian felt sufficiently intimidated to wipe his page and disappear under the threat by the JIDF to out his real identity. It is one thing to bear up in silence if one is targeted, indeed that is a civil virtue. It is not a virtue to hold one's tongue if a fellow editor, esp. from the 'other side' is assailed by viciously untrue accusations. I don't mind turning the other cheek, but if the project suffers a loss through public threats, I don't refrain from calling a spade a spade, briefly, and in defence of the project, and the wikipedian who was grossly insulted. It's not a goad, nor abuse of wikispace, but a certain succinct firmness in defending the integrity of wiki, with a little harmless irony. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your support at my RfA

Thank you, by the way. This isn't RfA spam, but a little truth in advertising. ;-) I'm not actually named for a sub-atomic particle but a russian rocket. Figured you should know. Protonk (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci's block

Regarding Charles' block of Mathsci (talk · contribs): I'm not going to make a fuss out of it, nor step into the conversation over there—I fear that may simply serve to inflame the matter—but I think your position regarding transparency, etc., is incorrect, in the case of harassment blocks, at least.

You have to weigh up both arguments: have who drew the matter to Charles' attention, revealed—for the sake of internal politics. Or, don't disclose, accept that there is no back-alley scheming involved, and move on—minimising drama.

Am I making sense? Anthøny (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw here a non transparent block or at least selective enforcement. Charles cited a diff that was not clear harassment. That immediately brings up the question, why pick on this user? Who requested this block? These are fair questions?

All blocks should be transparent. If the evidence is private, say so and ask other admins to contact you for info. Additionally, don't block and run. Jehochman ^Talk 11:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Movie quote

Okay, I've gotta ask; it's killing me. What movie is that from (up on top)? I can see the scene..."Bring it on--I just got a new pacemaker put in..." (lol)

On a more serious note, what's the wikicode to write a proper dash? SunDragon34 (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove — mdash and – ndash. View source to see the sequences. You can also use ® and ™ and all the other HTML character entity references. Jehochman ^Talk 04:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That dash thing has been bugging me for a while. SunDragon34 (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for asking for an uninvolved administrator's opinion on the matter. That shows real integrity on your part. Too often, the tendency of administrators at Wikipedia is to assume that they are uninvolved until brow-beaten otherwise. You appear to be one of the "good apples". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Talcott Mountain

HI there--something is wrong with your image on Talcott Mountain--Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes! I am heading out to dinner, but if you can figure it out, that would be much appreciated. The image will display from the image page if you click on the thumbnail. It seems that the server can't resize the thing. I am not sure why. Feel free to fix or revert. Jehochman ^Talk 22:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Beats me. Gave it a shot in preview using the piped photo size option for the mountainbox, but no dice, so I reverted. Hope you have a nice dinner :) --Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Your post on AN sumed up perfecaly what I was rudely trying to get at. Thank you. Ceoil ^sláinte 04:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Astutescholar

All the suspects in this case are blocked because they were confirmed by checkuser. Should we close this case now? Only admins can do that, right? If so, would you kindly look into it, please? Thanks! SunDragon34 (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Charles Matthews

I just left a reply at Charles Matthews' talk page. In it i acknowledge the importance of the evidence he did not refer to in his block. He is welcome to take this as a conciliatory gesture and i hope he does but I expressed myself honestly, which is the most he can do. I am sorry to hear that even one editor has left over this matter. All i can say is, you do not have to worry about me, I do not plan on leaving, at least not yet. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, your honesty about your priorities would be laudable in some contexts. But as a conciliatory gesture, sorry, fails on several levels. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee

I don't like what they did to the pro-Israel editor ceedjee, I've just been letting them know that...I'm not the type to keep quite when I find racism and attack sites....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Some people like to upset others. It is best to be indifferent. That reduces the incentive for provocation. The more you repond, the more they do the things you dislike. Jehochman ^Talk 18:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you, I really appreciate your message. Sometimes there are anons who spend some time watching and learning about how things are done on Wikipedia, before they plunge into doing things themselves... not all of them are vandals, by no means!!! -- 131.111.223.43 (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Review

Would you mind reviewing my recent edits and saying what I've done good and bad? I've been editing when I get the time. I try to edit every day, but it doesn't always happen. Undead Warrior (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are doing fine. You have not been blocked, nor warned, and you picked up a barnstar. What sort of tasks would you like to do if you became an administrator? Jehochman ^Talk 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh where to start. I'd like to work in AfD, IfD, and CfD. (mainly afd) I also am big on image related stuff. (Copyvio images, no source, no FUR etc...) I'd get involved at the noticeboard. If you see my edits, I warn a lot of IPs and users for vandalism so I'm fairly knowledgeable about that already. Undead Warrior (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you done any non-admin closes of AfD's? You can do that when there is a clear consensus to keep. If you've done that, did your decisions stick? Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done that and they have stuck. I've done multiple closes when the consensus was delete and the admin forgot to close the AfD too. (the article was already deleted, I just closed it) I only would do a keep close if there were multiple keep !votes very quick with valid points, or if it was a bad faith nom of an article that really should never have been nominated. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion, if I were to do an RfA now, would it turn favorable for me? Undead Warrior (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Let me do some more checking. Jehochman ^Talk 11:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:COI

I have responded to the COI issue and left a !vote on the AfD. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits to NPA

Jehochman, I am not convinced that wikification of some of those terms is a good idea.[35] The articles may not reflect what is intended, and they are certainly not written with behavioural management on Wikipedia as a purpose. Would you reconsider? Risker (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. You can revert me any time you like. Jehochman ^Talk 13:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for self-reverting. I've had more than my fill of edit wars and convoluted discussions about that policy, it's a pleasant change to work with someone open-minded. Risker (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I made the edits one by one. Our software now allows undoing prior edits, not just the most recent one. It is fantastic! Jehochman ^Talk 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your current additions/changes to the policy are fine, and unfortunately, needed. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Need your advice

Hi, Jehochman. Can I send you an email later tonight regarding "me" per WBJScribe's suggestion? You've watched me for a long time, so know me. Although we have a lot of difference on several issues, I think you have an objectivity in dealing with people. I won't write a lengthy note, but I need honest opinion from you. But I just don't want others to read it (my every activities are recorded to my dear "stalking site"), so email would be a good place. Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I am doing something in real life for the next 48 hours so my attention may be limited. In general, I think you should assume good faith, even when it is not deserved. That way you can maintain the moral high ground. More later, maybe. Jehochman ^Talk 02:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You're a friggin ding-dong

That's right. I called you a ding-dong. I don't appreciate what you did to the Extraterrestrial Real Estate article. You were going good, then you decided to take the liberty to delete the "History of extraterrestrial claims" section ENTIRELY. This is why people read that article. The Outer Space Treaty article also covers just the argument and not the claims. As someone who has actually thouroughly, physically documented my own claim, I think your edit was entirely over the top.

Don't believe me? You can look me up on copyright.gov, damnit. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=faires%2C+wes&Search_Code=NALL&PID=z_WOI5yGJueHbD3S8olsvvkzo&SEQ=20081021155246&CNT=25&HIST=1

Now, I understand that some of these claims are unverifiable. But mine, and certainly Dennis Hope's (and I'm sure a few others with proper references) deserve at least a mention. Otherwise, you should find a table, turn it over, sit on one of the table legs and spin.

wes.faires (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally, I don't care that much about this article. If you want to revert something I did, I won't be offended. Please observe Wikipedia content policies. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 02:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

blocks

Jehochman, you have worked very hard to be fair and honest, to maintain peace and integrity to Wikipedia, and I appreciate that a great deal. As for Charles Matthew's proposal - well, I reject 5 and 7 out of hand, they are simply there to provoke me and I will not engage further. 1 is a policy change and should be proposed on the policy talk page, should be proposed impersonally i.e. not in reference to any one case, and has to be discussed there. I find 2 non-controversial. 3 needs to be worded more strongly. 24 hours may be unreasonably restrictive, but there has to be a proportionate and reasonable amount of time for an appeal to be heard - for example if someone has been banned for life, they may have to wait a while for an appeal; someone blocked for 24 hours should have a right to appeal and have the appeal heard before the time-limit runs out. But in general, blocking administrators must be responsive to information requests. You cannot have power with no responsibility. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are my proposals. He thinks they are too weak. You think they are too strong. This situation will probably go to dispute resolution, and hopefully the resolution will be fair to all. Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the need or any dispute resolution - yet. If you want to revise the block policy, follow normal procedure; make proposals on th pagel, let people discuss them. Only if there is a deadlock in discussion do we need dispute resolution. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply

replied at my talk pg. --Googlean ^Results 10:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Unbanning prospects

Hi Jehochman, it looks like the collapse of the WTC article is once again moving forward. So maybe I'm not needed after all. In fact, it looks like the editors who are working on it are taking it (rather quickly) in a direction that is, at least on some points, the opposite that I would take it in. I discussed this a bit with Aude to see if my presence would be constructive. The result was inconclusive. There also seem to be no takers for the suggestion you posted for me.

I'm grateful that you and John have taken an interest in my case again, but I want to emphasize that I'm not really interested in a "second chance". Advice would be much appreciated, but I'd come back only if I could convince the relevant authorities (even, say, you and Raul) that the ban itself was wrong. Otherwise I think we're just heading down a familiar road. Best, --Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You may appeal the ban at WP:AE, but I don't see myself or Raul taking the position that the ban was improper. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

On what conditions would you support my return to editing? What do you expect me to do differently?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A great essay: WP:DGAF. When you don't care about which side of a controversy "wins" you are the ideal editor for that topic. Try to remain detached. You might try raising a completely unrelated article to WP:GA or WP:FA quality. Jehochman ^Talk 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A great essay indeed. Please also see my proposal at Thomas's talk. --John (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

But where did you get the idea that I cared who won (and what struggle do you mean)? I was just interested in details. The other idea is interesting: I'm assuming you mean I should find an article about which I DGAF. But I thought the great thing about WP was that the articles would be written by wonks.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, our articles are better written by people who are knowledgeable but not passionate on the subject matter, as I said here. It is a difficult thing to achieve. --John (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm just too damned persnickety for Wikipedia. I'm willing to grant that it's a loss for both of us. Thanks for considering it. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving it a shot. [36]--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with vandalous IPs all making similar/identical edits

86.158.177.195 86.158.177.97 86.158.180.7 86.158.177.237 et al.

are making vandalism edits to several Pakistan- and Kashmir-related articles, implementing non-NPOV biases into the articles.

These articles include, but are not limited to, Wakhan Corridor Line of Control Jammu and Kashmir Talk:Pakistan-administered Kashmir Azad Kashmir Pakistan-administered Kashmir Ladakh States and territories of India Geography of India

Their reverts are continuous and un-ending but never close enough to be considered 3RR. What line of action should be followed. They made similar edits to Gandhara and were warned. All in all, pretty much none of these IPs edits are constructive. I hope something can be done to discipline this user. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please gather the list of IPs with diffs and an explanation at WP:SSP. You can leave me a link to the report and I will look. Jehochman ^Talk 02:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

as long as Thegrey editor keeps pushing his indian POV in on Pak or azad kashmir i will not stop he continues to edit with biased POV terms such as POK used by many biased indian editors he also backs vandals such as kashmircloud so as long thegrey editor doesnt realize his Propaganda drive i will not stop reverting his POV edits 86.151.125.184 (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Further more the greyeditor also removes the indian occupied label from jammu and kashmir article and then forces it upon azad kashmir without any conensus this is clearly POV him being biased himself he has no right to cry about POV just take a look at his edits and him removing the long standing IOK sentence in jammu and kashmir and then placing it on azad kashmir clearly POV 86.151.125.184 (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring what the IP wrote above this entry, I am not quite sure if this IP vandal is a sock, I just know their actions are non-NPOV. Is there anyway this user qualifies for an IP block for anything other than sockpuppetry. I am maintaining Wikipedia articles as they were, while the IP is making biased, uncited edits. I can continue to play this game that the IP has started as long as my reverts don't approach 3RR violations, but it is getting annoying. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the grey editor im not quite sure if he realizes hes disrupting long time edits on jammu and kashmir and azad kashmir he seems to be fooling himself with the notion that hes the one keeping the articles maintained in there original form by adding POK and removing long standing edits on jammu and kashmir lol him and his sock kashmircloud are suspects i believe 86.151.125.184 (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

IP violated 3RR on numerous occasions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_Control&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan-administered_Kashmir&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan-administered_Kashmir&action=history and then some

Tomorrow, I will report this IP for multiple 3RRs Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

hey hold on where you going grey 86.151.125.184 (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You folks must use dispute resolution, not edit warring to resolve disagreements. Try WP:3O or WP:M. You may also try WP:NPOVN. Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You must realise that the grey editor is backing POV edits made by his sock kashmircloud he adds the propaganda term POK to azad kashmir and other articles whilst removing this very term on jammu and kashmir article anyways cheers86.153.131.239 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about getting you in this mess. In the past, you have helped me with IP socks, so I figured you would have been the guy to go to, but this IP vandal was just a jerk. The IP has been given a 24 hour for all the vandalism s/he committed, so I guess one can say they got away lightly. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. If they return, then they will get blocked longer. The request for dispute resolution was meant for both parties. The IP obviously did not take my advice. I note that they made a frivolous accusation against you on this very page. Bear in mind we cannot block IPs indefinitely, and they seem to be using a range of them. The best case scenario is that they accept mediation of their disagreements, rather than pursuing disruptions. Blocks are definitely not a cure all. Jehochman ^Talk 23:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the user did violate their block http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.162.66.35 They were reblocked

That is unfortunate, but perhaps not unexpected. Jehochman ^Talk 23:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch#Nangparbat. They are already a suspected sock it seems. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Afd page needs updating

Hi. I noticed that, under "Old discussions" on the AfD main page, the item for October 18 shows that there are two open discussions for that day. These are both closed, and the note for October 18 needs to come off the AfD page now. How do I go about taking that off, or does a bot do it? SunDragon34 (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a complete bungler when it comes to AfD. If the discussions are properly closed, I don't see anything wrong with cleaning them up if somebody didn't finish all the clerical details. Can you look at the page history to see what others have been doing, and follow the example? Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks! SunDragon34 (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

SSP case--Protected talkpage

Hi. Would you please warn this user that he has been accused of sock puppetry? His talk page is protected and I can't get to it. Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. As an indefinitely blocked user with a protected talk page, they are not going to respond on wiki. Feel free to email them a notice if their email is enabled and ask them to email any administrator if they wish to comment on their sock puppetry case. Jehochman ^Talk 00:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That anon IP I/we was/were dealing with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.151.100.255

They are making the exact same edits in other places now. ! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what consensus they are violating. Can you try leaving a talk message for the IP pointing them to the relevant discussion and ask them to follow it. Perhaps that will convince them to stop being disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 19:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

They are making POV edits reverted by several users over and over again. This user is not being rehab'd by their two blocks, they just keep edit warring. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

POV edits what do you mean im only adding the facts just like they are on pakistani mountains get over it grey editor your pov you cant bare to see the indian pages treated with the same sort of neutrality as they are in pakistani mountains you can do whatever you want 81.151.100.255 (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Also if the edits like "claimed by Pakistan" is so POV then i shall remove all the indian claims from pakistani mountains and thats final

Could you folks put together a request for comment at the relevant page and get an agreement about how to describe the region. Fighting with each other does no good at all. It will be much better to have a community discussion and form a consensus about naming conventions. Jehochman ^Talk 20:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just look at my edits no vandalism by me and no POV the sentence is all the same thing the grey editor as usual making a big fuss over nothing at all p.s im not fighting anyone he is cheers 81.151.100.255 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And please provide facts grey editor when you rant about edit waring where have i edit warred seems to me you need antihypertensives to cool yourself down freind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.100.255 (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ehum. This is my talk page. At the top it says "no fighting". Jehochman ^Talk 20:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman if you get the time you can look at my edits and determine is there vandalism im only rephrasing the disputed claims to make them indentical on both pakistani and indian mountains 81.151.100.255 (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not vandalizing. You might be edit warring if you repeat the edit after others object, and you might be disruptive if you run around making the same edit everywhere when other editors object. When somebody objects, you should stop and discuss your different opinions. Jehochman ^Talk 20:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Same edits? im just rephrasing the same sentences and adding them to other pages to make them equal on both sides i.e same amount of disputed tags on indian and Pakistani mountains the grey editor doesnt like this because it means that mountains in indian administered kashmir also will have a equal amount of the footnote of "disputed" right now there overwhemingly on Pakistani mountains and absent from indian mountains and this is what irks him so much 81.151.100.255 (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Bluegoblin7

I was wondering if you would be kind enough to block the account, since I can't. Also, I've responded to your question on my talk. Synergy 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Synergy 00:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Something is very odd here. BG7 is unlikely to be a sockpuppet of anyone, and is more likely to have had his account hacked. Sock puppets don't tend to create wikiprojects or produce meaningful edits. While the evidence may point to it this requires detailed investigation. Same guy is an admin on Train Spotting World and a valued member there. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This matter has been thoroughly investigated by a Steward. BG has been doing good hand bad hand socking in an effort to gain administrative access. The've done this on multiple WikiMedia projects. The unusual step of blocking them on all projects has been taken (a global lock). Jehochman ^Talk 11:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. What is a Steward? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

m:Stewards. Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There do seem to be rather more levels of grownups than any reasonable project needs. Quite a bureaucracy, really. Still, I expect you all know what you are doing and hawve all the access logs to prove it. Odd thing is he's a teenager who loves trams, but was silly enough to want to be an admin at WP. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Bg7 did one heck of a sockpuppeting job. So they're all the same person then? (Chris19910, Chemistrygeek, Bluegoblin7)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 17:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Again I reafirm that they are not the same person, I should know as I know enough about each of them and on one occasion talked to them both (via skype) simultaniously. Whos the steward again?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have looked for you Promethean and it is Spacebirdy on Meta. DoctorWhoandtheTardis (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't evidence, of course it isn't. But look here. Seems he was silly once. So obviously it makes sense to hang draw and quarter him. Seems to me that no schoolboy, studying hard for public exams, has any hope of being all those sock puppets. This is a teenage lad who loves trams, set up a wikiproject for it, has set up his own wiki to further his love of them, and now seems (not that I have any evidence) to be the victiom of an unspecified user's vendetta.

Frankly this stuff is the reason why I choose never to be an admin here. Too much odd stuff. I'll stick to editing. It seems to me that the lad has been blocked slightly bizarrely. You guys have all the evidence, somewhere. Time to look at it again, with no assumptions, as though it were new to all concerned. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes BG7 has had his mistakes (per the linky above) and he already had his ego badly slapped for that, noting he was open about it to his credit (Chris19910 woudnt have been). He is not a malicious editor, he loves wikipedia which is why he is very upset about this and quite frankly I would be too. Everyone can see he is a kid who goes to a school in the UK. Chris is in fact a university student in the UK, too very different people. As you can see there is severe doubt about him being Chris19910 or having GHBH. He has been aquited by an arbitrator before. When it is found that a mistake has been made I would expect nothing less of an apology of BG7's talkpage or via email from the insitgator of this farce for the emotional stress all this has caused, he has already felt the pinch by non-WMF projects because of this, which is out right un-fair to him. Lets put ourselves in the shoes of Chris19910, has he ever contested a sock block to the level Bluegoblin7 is? If the answer is no alarm bells should be going off.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC) (Note very little of this paragraph is directed at Jehochman)   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Promethean. I recommend you not press any other users for apologies. Forcing an apology damages the value. This was a confusing situation where we had a Steward claiming something. I and others had no choice really but to take relied on their opinion at face value. Fortunately I followed up with a checkuser request and after a bit of a cock up myself in formatting the templates incorrectly, Sam Korn was able to lift the fog and reveal the truth of the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 00:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jehochman, Im not demanding anything of anyone as Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word, However the jesture woudnt go un-noticed.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Template Substitution

Hi there. When you add a welcome template to a users talk page please remember to substitute it. If you need more details, help or wish to reply to this message please contact me on my talk page. Thanks ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 14:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Noted. It is blasted easy to forget which templates to substitute and which not. It would be nice for there to be a switch in the template definition that would trigger auto-substitution. This is the sort of detail that should not be taking up space my brain's cache. Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my talk page and blocking that douche. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bluegoblin7 unblock

Hi. Just to let you know [37]. Thanks for your help on this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have been of service in this very confusing situation. I am especially glad that I asked for Checkuser help. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 23:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

request advice/user meowy's conduct/ hemshin peoples

Hello Jehochman, I know you are watching the article and will act as you deem necessary. I hope my request for advice now does not jeopardise your neutral watching position.
It is just about a statement used by Meowy in his last comment, namely "And several sentences written by Neil Ascherson have more credibility than the combined writings of 1000 Turkish "professor doctors"". I feel this goes way beyond any type of normal discussion and is a very ugly hatred message. I wish to do something against it. There must be a wikipedia rule against such statements and users. Can you please advice me which venues ı can take? Cihsai (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I will try to help you. First step: would it be correct and possible for you to politely tell the other editor that you felt insulted by that edit summary and ask if they could avoid provocative edit summaries? Jehochman ^Talk 23:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...OK...have just now inserted something on the talk page of the article....BTW the "insult" mentioned is not on the edit summary but on the talkpage; section "present situation...Hemshin in Turkey".Cihsai (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

just an update..i copy here parts of my insertion mentioned hereabove and part of the reply i have received.(the full texts contain also elements of the discussion i am trying to further; therefore i wished to highlight the parts related to my present approach to you....i have made the renewed insult by meowy bold characters)
=my statement:=
“Meowy, your statement [And several sentences written by Neil Ascherson have more credibility than the combined writings of 1000 Turkish "professor doctors”] is insulting and seems to reflect deplorable hatred against a nation. Your statement [You are attempting to do some whitewashing] is unpolite besides being wrong . You should refrain from using such agressive language....″
=the response:=
“...So I commented on how, in the real world, the public perception of his writings would compare to the perception of writings produced by academics in Turkey, who seem to regularly prostitute themselves and their profession.....″
I do hope there is a remedy for such user conduct.Cihsai (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please post a diff of the problematic remark. See links to the right for help on finding and gathering diffs. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 22:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I post herebelow 2 diffs for each of the problematic remarks in the talkpage. Please note that Meowy has at each instance made his edits in two steps ; so the diffs i provide are the comparison between my related entry and his last step.
[38] ; [39]
Thanks for the interest Cihsai (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have left a comment that should help prevent recurrences. Let me know if you experience further difficult communications, or feel free to request help at WikiQuette Alerts. Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks,i hope your comment will suffice to prevent further events of that sort. Cihsai (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A little postscript, if I may. I'm not sure how much knowedge of Turkey you have - so I should explain my "professor doctor" comment. In Turkey, most university teaching staff are called "professor doctors", i.e. most "professor doctors" are government employees at the beck and call of their employer. In a typical propaganda work (of which there are many) produced by or sponsored by the Turkish state there is usually a long list of authors having "Prof. Dr." in front of their names, (i.e. to call oneself a "professor doctor" is to use a title that has become discredited). My comment that several sentences written by Neil Ascherson (a writer and academic with considerable stature) would have more credibility than the combined writings of 1000 Turkish "professor doctors" is actually factually correct. Meowy 02:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have some knowledge of Turkey since I have visited Istanbul twice, as well as Adana and Iskenderun. I used to be a metals trader. If you explain things as politely as you have just now you will be more convincing and generate fewer complaints. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I greatly appreciate your suggestion, but I just do not understand ChrisO, ever since he has come on the scene disputes are popping out of places, I used to enjoy editing Wikipedia, now I feel like I always have to defend myself from Xerxes hordes. I just hope you can understand and tell him, because he is ignoring me. And please tell me if him and others [requesting a speedy deletion] for a potentially amazing and under construction article (which I update everyday) was a appropriate thing to do at this time. And whats the rush? There is dispute on Opis, and other articles worse than my article have not been edited for a year, so why come after my article so fast. And if you could tell me your stance on the existence of the Feb battle. Remember, they want me to go off the deep end, so I could get blocked, and they could proceed in the deletion of the article. I thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Jehochman, it's an ordinary AfD, not a speedy, and even if Ariobarza were blocked (and he could have been), that shouldn't affect the AfD. I've asked Ariobarza for information about articles worse than his, and if there really are some as he claims with no text will happily speedy them. I've also been trying to explain to Ariobarza about his problematic OR, etc. for months and failing. Doug Weller (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks to educate the world. We accomplish this in several ways. Teaching is a wonderful profession because anything less than complete failure is a success. Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think we've reached the end of the road with Ariobarza - not only does he apparently ignores the rules on OR, he doesn't seem to accept that the rules are needed in the first place. He also has a dreadful attitude towards other editors; the personal attack for which you rebuked him is only one of many he's made against me and other editors. I'll raise this shortly in the appropriate forum. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll see to it.--Ariobarza (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

User talk:Ariobarza

See his latest edit - the section on sources. He doesn't seem to be paying attention. Doug Weller (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Which I guess was a response to this: [40]. Doug Weller (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The time when it is most important to assume good faith is when you think it is least deserved. See my note there. Jehochman ^Talk 19:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A good point. But hard. Doug Weller (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way. If you assume good faith and the other editor betrays you, that reflects very badly on them. If they respond nicely, you will be pleasantly surprised. Jehochman ^Talk 19:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza and Tundrabuggy

You commented on Ariobarza's talk page about his recent behaviour. Having reviewed his edits, I believe there are significant concerns that need to be addressed. I have raised this issue at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza.

You also commented a while back on Tundrabuggy's wikistalking of myself. I have raised this as well, at WP:AN/I#User:Tundrabuggy.

Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I may be a magnet for conflict with those editors. Please understand that it may be best for all concerned if I hang back and just watch. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

*pong*

I'm around via various means. Email me or whatever. SirFozzie (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied to you via email, and don't see any reason to do that at this time. Also, please note User:Sam Korn's endorsement on WP:AE. SirFozzie (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Okay, then. I recommend you do a thorough job of documenting what happened here, on wiki, or to arbcom-l, for the avoidance of any doubts in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

They are generally aware. I've sent an email with further info :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I just denied the unblock request. Jehochman ^Talk 21:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Outing?

I have no idea what you mean by this:

Those of us here who have a clue, including our gracious host, know or can easily learn Cirt's history. You need not risk outing them further. Jehochman ^Talk 18:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? DaveApter (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant, don't talk about user's prior identities when they have been targeted for harassment (by others). People change identities for a reason. Just because you might have figured out, does not mean everyone has. Jehochman ^Talk 19:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I'm still unclear how this qualifies as "outing", which refers to revealing a user's Real Life identity, not a former wiki username. Feel free to let me know if there's anything that would help me understand. 10:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to be malicious in any way. I can see no good reason for a user to hide an editing history such as that, but plenty of suspect ones - especially where the user still has a strong interest in influencing the articles where they carried out such extensive disruption. DaveApter (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't force you to be clueful. Please drop the matter. They were subjected to real life harassment and are trying to avoid repeats. Don't enable the harassment. Any further posts by you regarding prior identities of that particular editor may result in an instant block. Jehochman ^Talk 12:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:

I don't see a question there. I don't recall ever saying Omer is a sock, that was a different user. I did mention earlier that it's extremely odd that two SPA's appear to be pushing the same POV on the same obscure article (Omer and Cihsai) to which Meowy replied that he doesn't think they're the same user but that they might be connected off-Wiki.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That is plausible. Somebody seems to have logged out to revert Hemshin peoples again. Don't take this the wrong way, but I have made a list of all users who made the same revert and requested a checkuser. You are on that list for the sake of completeness and fairness, but I fully expect that this IP was not you. At the moment, I am not at all sure who is responsible for disruption. My mind is open and I am gathering whatever evidence I can. If you can develop any evidence to support a checkuser or suspected sock puppet report, I would be happy to consider what's going on with editors on the other side of this dispute. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 19:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

On that off-wiki connection comment, I said it just because I found it curious that both Omer and Cihsai have access to Simonian's book "The Hemshin". It's a new and still hard to find book - few libraries will have it, and it's very expensive to buy. The only reason I have a copy is that the author kindly gifted it to me. Meowy 03:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I just requested Checkuser on those two accounts. Wait and see what happens. Jehochman ^Talk 03:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Feedback with regard to the book "The Hemshin"... good for Meowy that he/she got it from its editor for free. I was not that lucky and had to sacrifice $150 for it to Amazon.Omer182 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So, thanks to Wikipedia, at least one extra copy of the book has being sold! :) Meowy 03:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Mentors

Hi Jehochman - thank you for your handling of the Brewhaha brouhaha. One thing you said got my attention - that mentors are in short supply. This is a silly question to which I should already know the answer, but how does one put one's self forward as a mentor for problematic situations? Is there some sort of central list, or is it more a question of who's hanging around ANI at the right time? I'd be quite willing to help out there if there are more needed, and I think I'm qualified. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You step forward and offer to do it. Keep an eye on the noticeboards. Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There should be two lists: mentors making a general offer to mentor would be one. But there should also be a list for those needing mentors, where a user -- or someone on behalf of a user, if the user is blocked -- makes a mentorship request. I would not place my name on a general-offer list, but would consider cases brought up on a mentor-needed list. I noticed the brewhaha block and thought it a bit abrupt, given the history. I have not reviewed the history in as much detail, I'm sure, as you did, Jehochman, but from what I saw, there was indeed some kind of problem with the user. The user's reasoning seems incomprehensible, even to some very bright Wikipedians; combined with some strong activity, that's definitely a problem. Jehochman, I've been criticized for writing too much, but often what I have to say can't be said in a few words and still be comprehensible. I.e., my experience is that if I don't write enough, others seem to consider it incomprehensible. And if I write enough, it's TL;DR. I err on the side of too much, until and unless I have a clear POV, i.e., conclusion. Another like me might err on the side of too little, a problem especially if combined with a little contempt (If they can't understand it from a few words -- word to the wise, you know -- then why bother with more explanation?) or with any action that does require that other editors understand. I don't know what's behind the problem with this user; but I'm willing to at least communicate with him to try to find out, and, depending on that, might consider mentorship. I notice he has not appealed the block or attempted to discuss it. --Abd (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I you wish to email them and see whether a mentorship is possible, I will support you. There is WP:ADOPT, a page of lists. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 19:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Could you please remove the personal attack directed against me and Domer here and here thanks. BigDunc^Talk 12:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are not personal attacks. They are accusations, possibly false. Your best response is to ignore them. The user is apparently trying to stir up drama. Be a smart fish. Jehochman ^Talk 12:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your behaviour today on this matter IMO was disgraceful you protected a page with a defamatory comment on it about myself against wikipedia policy and you warn the mediator that is dealing with this policy breach about edit warring. This is not the the behaviour of an admin standing for arb election. BigDunc^Talk 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a mediator does not exempt one from the prohibition against edit warring, and if you check the pages again, you can see that the comments were removed a few minutes after the protection--by me. Jehochman ^Talk 20:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No I won't chill you only removed derogatory statement because the editor agreed to the removal if he had said no you would have left it and protected the page. The mediator was trying to do his job and mediate, you just ignored my concern when I brought it too you. You reverted my edits and warn me on my page when I asked other admin aware of the situation to remove them. The edit war between the mediator and Thunderer was caused by your inaction. BigDunc^Talk 20:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason The Thunderer agreed to my removal is that I dealt with him nicely, by asking rather than by forcing. That problem is now solved. The best way to solve any problem is through calm discussion and agreement, not by force. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And what did I do I asked admins I didn't attempt to remove it. And when did you ask him after I asked you or when the mediator removed it? BigDunc^Talk 20:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've recently been looking through my talk page history (elections and all) and noticed that BigDunc had posted a similar notice on my talk which you then removed. While you're welcome to comment on my talk at any time, please don't remove comments made by others unless they are clear vandalism. Even if a particular incident is over, I may wish to comment or follow-up. Thanks! Shell ^babelfish 14:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Shell, per WP:BEANS you can email me for details, if you wish. Jehochman ^Talk 14:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

re View by Macwhiz

As there is now an ongoing RFAR, it seems more appropriate to respond there. I've gone ahead and done so, diff. — Cirt (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)